The International Journal of Organizational Analysis

WORKPLACE CONFLICT, BULLYING, AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Oluremi B. Ayoko Victor J. Callan Charmine E.J. Härtel
Article information:
To cite this document:
Oluremi B. Ayoko Victor J. Callan Charmine E.J. Härtel, (2003),"WORKPLACE CONFLICT, BULLYING,
AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS", The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 11 Iss 4 pp. 283 - 301
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028976
Downloaded on: 15 August 2015, At: 04:56 (PT)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1819 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Frances P. Brew, David, R. Cairns, (2004),"STYLES OF MANAGING INTERPERSONAL
WORKPLACE CONFLICT IN RELATION TO STATUS AND FACE CONCERN: A STUDY WITH
ANGLOS AND CHINESE", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 27-56 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022906
Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Dirk van Dierendonck, Maria T.M. Dijkstra, (2004),"CONFLICT AT WORK AND
INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 6-26 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022905
Ståle Einarsen, (1999),"The nature and causes of bullying at work", International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 20 Iss 1/2 pp. 16-27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729910268588

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:463575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)
 WORKPLACE CONFLICT, BULLYING, AND
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Oluremi B. Ayoko, Victor J. Callan

University of Queensland

Charmine E. J. Härtel
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Monash University

Using a multi-method approach, this paper presents both a qualitative and quantitative
examination of workplace conflict, the emotional reactions to bullying and counterpro-
ductive behaviors. Three studies were undertaken for the present research. Data for
Study 1 emerged from semi-structured interviews conducted with 50 group leaders and
members from six workgroups in two large organizations. Interviews were transcribed
and analyzed using systematic interpretative techniques. Findings from Study 1 showed
that conflict induced a variety of emotional and behavioral responses. Data from Study
2 were collected from 660 employees from 7 public sector organizations using a struc-
tured open-ended survey. Results from Study 2 revealed that the majority of respondents
perceived their managers as bullies. Study 3 surveyed 510 staff in 122 workgroups from
five organizations. Regression analysis revealed that differing conflict events were
associated with bullying, emotional reactions and counterproductive behaviors. In par-
ticular, prolonged conflict increased incidents of bullying. Higher levels of bullying
were predictive of workplace counterproductive behaviors such as purposely wasting
company material and supplies, purposely doing one's work incorrectly and purposely
damaging a valuable piece of property belonging to the employer.

Workgroups are a popular tool to complete tasks more efficiently and quickly in organizations.
Effective workgroups offer the potential benefits of increased levels of innovation, improved quality
of outputs and speed (Jackson, 1996). On the other hand, members of workgroups experience higher
levels of conflict, bullying and stress (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996; Rayner, 1998; Thomas, 1992). The
current research reports upon a series of studies that investigate the relationship between workplace
conflict, bullying, emotions and counterproductive behaviors. The overall aim of this program of
research was to examine the effects of different conflict events and reactions to conflict on the fre-

• Direct all correspondence to: Oluremi B. Ayoko, University of Queens Business School, University of Queensland, St
Lucia, QLD 4072. E-mail: rayoko@business.uq.edu.au

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003. pp. 283-301 ISSN 1055-3185
Copyright © 2003 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 284 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

quency of bullying and counterproductive behaviors. Study 1 examined the triggers of intragroup
conflict and emotional reactions to conflict. Study 2 further investigated conflict and bullying inci-
dents and the emotional reactions aroused by bullying. Study 3 explored the link between workplace
conflict, bullying, emotions and counterproductive behaviors.

WORKPLACE BULLYING AND CONFLICT

At least 1 in every 10 employees reports being bullied (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Rayner, 1998).
Over a quarter of the people who were bullied or who witnessed bullying leave their jobs as a result
of these experiences (Rayner, 1998). Bullying involves situations where one or more persons feel
subjected to negative behavior from others over a long period of time. In this environment, the vic-
tims find it difficult to defend themselves against the actions of others (Lewis, 1999). Bullying
behaviors include aggressive eye contact, intimidating physical gestures, angry outbursts, hostile
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

behavior and the spreading of false rumors about the victim (Keashly, 1998). Significantly, deliber-
ate or unconsciously repeated acts of bullying directed to one or more workers result in feelings of
humiliation, distress and reduced performance on the job among the victims (Einarsen, 1999).
According to Einarsen (2000), conflict-related bullying occurs as a result of highly escalated
levels of conflict (see also Zapf, 1999). Conflict is linked to the perceived incompatibilities between
parties in their views, wishes and desires that impacts group outcomes (see Jehn, 1992). Research
into negotiator's cognitions provides examples of the effects of perceived conflict on outcomes.
Carroll and Payne (1989), for instance, found that how one perceives the values, goals and negoti-
ating style of one's opponent affects the negotiated outcome. In addition, there are two major types
of conflict events: relationship and task conflict (Jehn, 1995). Relationship or emotional conflict is
associated with disagreements due to high levels of frustration and personal clashes (Ross, 1989).
These destructive clashes limit group cohesion and efficiency (Pclled, 1996). In contrast, task con-
flict is the awareness that there are disagreements about the actual tasks being performed in the
group (Jehn, 1997).
Both relationship and task conflict affect group outcomes. For example, Deustch (1969)
argues that relationship conflict reduces levels of mutual understanding and goodwill to the extent
that the completion of group tasks is affected. Group members become irritable, suspicious, and
resentful which, in turn, has negative consequences upon group processes and outcomes (see also
Jehn, 1997). Task conflict can have a positive effect on group outcomes as it allows members to ask
questions, to challenge assumptions and to promote innovative thinking and creativity (Amason &
Schweiger, 1994; Deutsch, 1969; Tjsovold, 1991). Jehn (1994) found that task conflict was associ-
ated with high levels of group performance as measured by instructors' ratings, while Amason
(1996) reported that task conflict has a positive impact on decisions made by the top management
team.
In the current research, besides relationship and task conflict, two additional conflict events
are examined, namely conflict duration and conflict intensity. Some conflicts are of short duration
and are easily resolved. Others escalate to destructive levels (Jehn, 1995). A protracted conflict is
costly in time and effort and hinders members' capacities to gather, integrate and adequately assess
valuable information (Jehn, 1995). Groups with extreme amounts of continuing disagreement can-
not progress to the next stages of productive work (Gersick, 1989). Consequently, much conflict
research has focused on strategies to eliminate conflict before it occurs or during its early phases
(Thomas, 1992). The other issue, conflict intensity, refers to the importance of the conflict to those

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 285

involved (Thomas, 1992). Conflict is more serious when it involves larger numbers of people, more
events, and greater impact upon future interactions (Jehn, 1995). Previous studies have looked at the
effects of conflict characteristics, without differentiating between the various features of conflict
such as conflict duration and intensity (see Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). The
current research contributes to conflict theory by decoupling the effects of various conflict charac-
teristics in order to determine the full impact of conflict on group outcomes. In particular, based on
past research, it is proposed that conflicts of longer duration and higher intensity will elicit bullying
behaviors and a greater variety of emotional responses, which are expected to induce counterpro-
ductive behaviors in the group (see Figure 1). It is expected that conflict events (task and relation-
ship conflict, conflict intensity and duration) will be positively related to bullying behaviors and
emotional reactions to bullying especially in the short term.

CONFLICT, BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

A number of counterproductive behaviors exist in the workplace. These outcomes include frustra-
tion, aggression and humiliation. Frustration is one antecedent to organizational aggression, and
occurs when an instigated goal-response is interrupted (Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector, 1975). Such
events are situational constraints in the immediate work situation that block individuals from
achieving valued work goals (Peters & O'Connor, 1980). Employees have various ways of respond-
ing to frustration, and these efforts may include counterproductive behaviors that range from mere
compliance to hostility, organizational aggression or sabotage (Fox & Spector, 1999; Storms &
Spector, 1987). Other behavioral reactions to organizational frustration include reduced levels ofjob
performance, absenteeism and organizational and interpersonal aggression. If these behaviors inter-
fere with the organization's task performance, they may tangibly damage the organization (Spector,
1978).
On the other hand, employees' reactions to organizational aggression include aversion,
arousal, stress, anxiety and anger (Chen & Spector, 1992; Spector, 1978). According to Spector
(1978), employees' responses to frustration include attempts to find alternatives that still allow for
goals to be achieved. Employees can withdraw or respond with acts of aggression directed towards
the organization. These responses reduce levels of group and organizational productivity. Based on
evidence that bullying results in humiliation, distress, or frustration (Einarsen, 2000) a victim of bul-
lying may choose to engage in counterproductive behaviors as one set of responses. In the frame-
work being tested (see Figure 1), it is proposed that intragroup conflict aggravates bullying events
and their related emotions, which arouse counterproductive behaviors in the workplace.
However, the effective management of conflict facilitates problem solving, improves group
effectiveness and the relationships between group members (De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997).
According to Tjsovold, (1998), conflict can be responded to competitively or cooperatively.
Destructive reactions to conflict are a response to conflict where avoidance is more likely and peo-
ple try to win their fight (Baker, Tjosvold, & Andrews, 1988). Conversely, productive conflict is a
constructive approach to conflict that occurs as people cope with their incompatible activities and
try to solve their conflict (Tjosvold, 1985). Research indicates that it is through open mindedness
and cooperation that people combine and integrate their ideas to resolve conflict and strengthen their
relationships (Tjosvold, 1985). For example, groups that react to conflict in a cooperative way dis-
cuss their opposing views more openly and skillfully (Apler & Tjosvold, 1993).

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 286 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

As Tjsovold and Wong (1994) found, group members who engage in cooperative interactions
make more progress in solving problems and getting tasks done. They work more efficiently, form
stronger relationships and successfully collaborate in future. In contrast, a competitive style of inter-
action produced suspicion less openness, negative feelings, and doubts about any future collabora-
tion (Tjosvold & Wong, 1994). Given that different reactions to conflict events elicit different
outcomes, it is proposed that a group associated with high levels of productive reactions to conflict
is able to elicit a productive response to bullying behaviors (see Figure 1). Similarly, it is expected
that reactions to conflict would be positively related to emotional reactions to bullying while bully-
ing behaviors are positively related to counterproductive behaviors in the workgroup. Finally, we
anticipate that emotional responses to bullying will be positively related to counterproductive
behaviors in the workgroup.
The philosophical bases for the present research are both scientific positivism and realism.
According to Outhwaite ( 1983), the realist seeks to discover by a combination of theoretical reason-
ing and experimentation. The main objective is to describe the generative mechanisms that operate.
Studies 1 and 2 concentrated mainly on the description of conflict, bullying and related emotional
reactions in workgroups. Study 3 is based upon a positivist paradigm and focuses upon prediction of
the phenomenon. According to Hesse (1980), knowledge for the positivist consists of verifying
hypotheses that can be accepted as facts or laws. In particular, Study 3 investigates evidence for the
predictive links hypothesized in the model.
Using a multi-method approach, the current research investigates the relationship between
workplace conflict, bullying, and emotional reactions to bullying and counterproductive behaviors.
Studies 1 and 2 are qualitative and exploratory investigations of workgroups. Study 3 is a quantita-
tive examination of the relationship between hypothesized variables as proposed in the model for
this research (see Figure 1). In summary, the model being tested proposes that:

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 287

1. Conflict events (task and relationship conflict, conflict intensity and duration) are posi-
tively related to bullying behaviors.
2. Conflict events (task and relationship conflict, conflict intensity and duration) are posi-
tively related to emotional reactions to bullying behaviors.
3. Reactions to conflict are positively related to groups' incidents of bullying behavior.
4. Reactions to conflict are positively related to emotional reactions to bullying.
5. Bullying behaviors are positively related to counterproductive behaviors in the work-
group.
6. Emotional responses to bullying are positively related to counterproductive behaviors in
the workgroup.

STUDY 1
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Study 1 was qualitative and exploratory. Using semi-structured interviews, Study 1 aimed to pro-
vide an in-depth examination of the characteristics (types, amount, frequency, intensity and triggers)
of conflict in workgroup. It examined the emotional and behavioral reactions to intragroup conflict.
The sample for Study 1 comprised of 50 group leaders and members from six groups in two large
public sector organizations in a cosmopolitan city. The groups selected for the research agreed to
participate. Work tasks were interdependent but carried out individually, and members were recog-
nized as a group. Finally, informed consent was gained from each member to be observed, inter-
viewed and surveyed.

Nomological Network

Study 1 examined the characteristics (amount, frequency, intensity, triggers and types) of con-
flict in workgroup using semi-structured interviews. It employed a collection of interpretative tech-
niques, which seek to describe, decode, translate and come to terms with the meaning (not the
frequency) of naturally occurring phenomena in the social world (Taylor, 2000; Van Maanen,
1979). Qualitative research aims at interpreting the precise meanings to people's interactions in nor-
mal social contexts. It is focused on the complexity, authenticity, and shared subjectivity of
researcher and the subject (Fryer, 1991). Given the above, theory from the qualitative approach is
generated from and "grounded" in the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In generating grounded theory,
researchers do not seek to prove their theories, but merely demonstrate the plausible support for
these theories (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998).
Interpretivists, in particular, perceive social reality as constructed and interpreted by people
rather than something that exists objectively "out there" (Denscombe, 2002). According to the inter-
pretivists, the social world does not have the tangible, material qualities that allow it to be measured,
touched or observed in some literal way. It is a social creation, constructed in the minds of people
and reinforced through their interactions with each other (Denscombe, 2002). This form of reality
exists only through the way people make sense of the world and how they create their social world
through their actions and interpretations of the world (Denscombe, 2002).
Given the underlying epistemology for qualitative research, it is less driven by very specific
hypotheses and categorical frameworks. Rather, it is more pre-occupied with emergent themes and
idiographic descriptions. Overall, qualitative research is characterized by a focus on interpretation
rather than quantification; an emphasis on subjectivity rather than objectivity; flexibility in the pro-

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 288 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

cess of conducting research; an orientation towards process rather than outcome; a concern with
context (especially behavior and situation) as related with the development of experience and finally
an acknowledgment of the impact of the research process on research situation (Cassell & Symon,
1994). The above epistemological foundation formed the basis for data collection and analysis for
Study 1.

Methods

Data from the semi-structured interviews for Study 1 were transcribed and analyzed using sys-
tematic interpretative techniques, such as content analysis and linguistic text analysis (Jehn, 1997).
The analyses of data for Study 1 were driven inductively and were further deepened by the richness
of the available data (Lepper, 2000). In particular, the data were subjected to intense scrutiny using
a "bottom up" (Lepper, 2000) approach where the focus was not so much on "operational defini-
tions" of social phenomena (Lepper, 2000), but on our research questions:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

1. What are the types or triggers of intragroup conflict generated in the workplace?
2. What is the frequency of conflict events generated in workgroups,
3. What is the duration of conflict emerging in these groups?
4. How intensive are the conflict events generated in groups and
5. What are the emotional responses to conflict in these groups?

Three raters, who were blind to the aims of the research, were asked to go through the tran-
scripts. The raters read the data repeatedly to understand the complexity of the interviewees' tran-
scribed responses through attention to the details in the text. They identified the themes related to
conflict characteristics such as task and relationship conflict, as well as conflict duration and inten-
sity in the workgroups. Raters were asked to describe the characteristics (types, frequency, and
intensity) of emerging conflict behaviors. Inter-rater reliability was 90 percent.

Results

Conflict Types. Analysis of the data revealed that the conflict types in workgroups could be
characterized as task and relationship-related problems. For example, one informant reporting upon
the kinds of problems encountered daily at work said,

we have had a steady range of people here that have created a lot of difficulty... there are things that I expe-
rience here in the organization that are not always understood and also, I think at times you react in different
ways under different circumstances that people think, gee, that's odd, but had they been in my shoes, would
have probably thought, oh gee, I would have been even more curious than that. If I was to categorize the prob-
lems, my frustration here would be more personal, the lack of understanding of issues and people not
understanding that people come from different backgrounds and people just talking out of their narrow expe-
riences, they just don't realize that they are insulting you...

One of the group leaders also talking about problems in the workgroup reported,

We have had our fair share of interpersonal issues . . . we had people leave because, you know, there has been
too much dominance and they probably thought that I as the team leader have not given enough direction . . .
so there have been real, yeah, quite a lot of interpersonal issues going on... so there was a reasonable amount
of conflict and I certainly felt quite urn. what is the word, um, out in the open as being criticized.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 289

Interaction between Task and Interpersonal Conflict Data revealed a relationship

between task and relationship conflict at work. An informant reported, "There are some things
related to tasks. While they are personal, they do spill over into the task and especially into group
dynamics." When further asked whether or not the reverse may happen, she responded in this way,
"It's a good question. I think" we all do work with tasks. Complementing the above, another infor-
mant said, "difficulties here are interpersonal and task, and they do go together."
Conflict Intensity. All of the informants reported that conflict could be very intense. One
interviewee reported "very intense." Another informant from the same group referring to the same
conflict said, "it became extremely intense... we were upset and it became extremely intense after
t h a t . . . there were just two camps and no one was talking to each other."
Conflict Frequencies. The majority of the respondents described conflict as an everyday
and on-going event. Describing conflict frequency in a workgroup, a participant responded, "quite
often . . . . I would say everyday." Yet another was of the opinion that conflict was "initially less
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

common, it may happen once every couple of weeks. As time went by, it became very regular,
sometimes to the point of almost every day." Other informants confirmed that conflict was "on a
daily basis, there would be things that are said that you really have to walk away from sometimes or
otherwise you'd be making a big deal of i t . . . Oh, we get three or four things a week at least that
really upset."
Conflict Duration. The majority of informants stated that the conflict lasted from four to
nine months. Analysis of the data showed that people could not resolve group conflict. According
to the interviewees, almost all of the conflict events (described by the interviewees) involved the
removal of one of the parties in the conflict. On the whole, the majority of the interviewees
reported that disagreement or difficulty took about "six months," "a good 6-9 months at least" to
settle down.
Behavioral and Emotional Reactions to Conflict. The majority of the respondents cited
"not talking to each other," "not saying hello to each other," "an argument," and "gossip" as com-
mon behavioral reactions to conflict. An informant described reactions to conflict in her work-
group " . . . no, you don't say hello to each other . . . we argue about who used the resources last.
. . where is it, we could not sec each other eye to eye . . . " In addition, emotional reactions and ver-
bal aggression (such as loud voices), and crying were reported by the majority of the respondents.
Specifically, an informant reporting about a disagreement among the group members said, "The
staff member and her husband came around to my house . . . the husband of the staff tried to tell
me how to run the unit and abused me on the phone." Other examples of verbal aggression given
by informants were yelling, screaming, and swearing. Although informants commonly mentioned
verbal aggression, tears were reported as being the most frequently mentioned emotion that accom-
panied conflict.
Outcomes of Conflict. Data analysis revealed that the outcomes from conflict included
emotional and social outcomes. Respondents cited as the emotional outcomes to conflict in their
group's incidents of "resentment," "anger," "bitterness," and "frustration". According to one infor-
mant, conflict can be "all consuming it can result in stress, but it can also result in absenteeism,
misunderstanding in work task, and work competence." Another respondent talking about the social
outcomes of conflict reported, "I am personally affected, I have members of my community who
have committed suicide . . . in this workplace, this causes disagreement because there is a lack of
understanding of why you try to put through things and so quickly."

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Discussion

The aim of Study 1 was to investigate the characteristics of intragroup conflict. Specifically,
we explored the triggers, types, frequency, duration and intensity of conflict in relation to group out-
comes. In addition, group members' responses to conflict were examined.
Results from Study 1 indicate that conflict is triggered by interpersonal and task related prob-
lems, which in turn, trigger poor group outcomes such as absenteeism and emotions of anger and
frustration. Previous studies on intragroup conflict also reveal that conflict increases personal
attacks, bickering and poor group morale (Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Polled,
1996).
Conflict was intensive, prolonged and stressful. According to Jehn (1995), a protracted con-
flict is inefficient with regards to group member's time and efforts. Also, a prolonged conflict can
escalate and result in bullying (Einsaer, 2000). This outcome hampers groups' productivity and pro-
duces negative reactions to conflict by the workgroup. In the same vein, intensive conflict is more
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

serious and involves a larger number of people (Thomas, 1992). Consistent with Jehn (1995), our
data revealed that intensive conflict has negative repercussions on future interactions in the group.

STUDY 2

Study 2 explored the prevalence and characteristics of bullying and its emotions in the workgroups.
A structured survey with some open-ended questions was mailed to 1000 employees in seven public
sector enterprises in a large local government organization. The open-ended questions asked respon-
dents to comment on

1. who the bullies were (e.g. group leader /supervisor/manager, co-worker or other),
2. the nature of bullying events in their workgroups, and
3. their emotional reactions to bullying.

For example, questions were, "please describe the bullying events that have occurred in your work-
groups in the last six months;" "please specify your emotional reactions to the above incidence" and
"please identify the positions of staff that has been bullying you in the current incident in the last six
months" were included on the structured survey. In total, 660 employees completed and returned the
survey, indicating a response rate of 66 percent.
Study 2 addressed the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of bullying in organizational workgroups?

2. What are the employees' emotional reactions to bullying in the workplace?
3. What is the position of staff engaged in bullying in the workgroups?

Method

Responses to the open-ended questions in Study 2 were transcribed and analyzed using sys-
tematic interpretative techniques, such as content coding, content analysis and linguistic text analy-
sis (Jehn, 1997). Again, three raters, who were blind to the aims of the research, were asked to go
through the transcripts. They identified the characteristics of the bullying behaviors and emotional

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN. & C. J. HÄRTEL

reactions to these behaviors. Raters were asked to describe the characteristics of emerging behav-
iors. Inter-rater reliability was 92 percent.

Results: Frequency Statistics for Bullying Behaviors

Bullying Characteristics. Table 1 presents the bullying behaviors reported by the respon-
dents. As can be seen, the most frequently reported behaviors were being ignored, information being
withheld from them, being set unrealistic targets and belittling remarks. Linked to our previous dis-
cussion of humiliation at work, some twenty one percent reported being humiliated. Finally, in
terms of highly aggressive behaviors, sixteen percent experienced verbal threats and five percent
physical threats.
Employees' Emotional Reactions to Bullying. In response to the question, "Please specify
your emotional reactions to bullying incidence experienced at in work in the last six months". The
most frequently reported emotional reactions were stress, anger, confusion and powerlessness. A
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

total of 61 percent of the respondents reported anger as an emotional reaction to bullying behaviors
(see Table 2). Forty percent were angry one or more times weekly.
Fifty-eight percent of the respondents reported confusion as a reaction to the bullying behav-
iors above. Thirty-five percent of respondents said that they regularly got confused at work. In addi-
tion, 24 percent were fearful as a result of the bullying incidences reported above. In particular, 11
percent reported a high frequency of fear after experiencing bullying behavior at work. Also, 35 per-
cent reported being humiliation. About 16 percent of this category of people were frequently humil-
iated.
Powerlessness was reported by 49 percent as a reaction to being bullied. A third experienced
powerlessness regularly and in particular, over 17 percent reported a high level of powerlessness at
work. Feeling of being undermined was reported by 46 percent of the total respondents. Twenty
seven percent reported feeling undermined regularly. Furthermore, the feeling of isolation was

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for bullying behaviors
Bullying behaviors Percentages
Being ignored 42
Withholding information 41
Unrealistic targets 41
Belittling remarks 41
Intimidation 36
Criticisms 32
Excess work monitoring 30
Feeling being cut off 29
Being shouted at 24
Humiliation 21
Afraid to take sick leave 19
Malicious rumor 18
Verbal threats 16
Physical threats 5

The International Journal of OrganizationalAnalysis,Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for bullying emotions
Bullying emotions Percentages
Stress 62
Anger 61
Confusion 58
Powerlessness 49
Depression 47
Feeling undermined 46
Sadness 39
Feeling isolated 36
Humiliation 35
Fearful 24
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

reported by about 36 percent of the total participating respondents. On average, about 25 percent
experienced isolation on a weekly basis.
Sixty-two percent reported stress as a reaction to workplace bullying. In particular, a fifth of
these respondents reported being stressed quite a lot. Similarly, depression was reported as a reac-
tion to bullying at work. In particular, 47 percent of the total respondents reported feeling depressed.
A content analysis of the responses to the open ended questions about respondents' emotional
reactions to bullying revealed that frustration was the most frequently named emotion felt as a reac-
tion to bullying. Twenty percent of the respondents reported frustration and disappointment. A par-
ticular respondent reported, "I feel frustrated towards myself when unable to clearly state an issue
for others (superiors) to understand." Respondents perceived that frustration was disgusting and
wanted to resign as they "could not do anything about the fact that bullies do and could get away
with their behaviors." Other respondents expressed "extreme frustration at how conflict is resolved"
or "frustrated when conflicts are swept under the carpet rather than dealt with" and also "frustrated
and disappointed at how people can be allowed to act and carry on like school children in the work-
place."
Another 17 percent of the respondents to the comments on emotional reaction to bullying
behaviors cited the feeling of being undervalued, unappreciated and useless as their emotional reac-
tions to workplace bullying. Respondents revealed that they "sometimes feel that experience is not
valued," they felt "undervalued," "degraded" "useless," "worthless," and "unappreciated." Twelve
percent of respondents reported stress, anxiety and their related illnesses as emotional reactions to
bullying occurrences in the workplace. A particular respondent reported, "six months before, the
workgroup leader of this unit displayed all the behaviors and characteristics mentioned in your ques-
tions about bullying behaviors and during this time, several workgroup members were diagnosed
with depression."
In response to the question, "Please indicate the positions of the individual who has been bul-
lying you in the current bullying incident", a total of 41 percent of the respondents reported being
bullied by their group leader. Twelve percent reported being bullied by the co-workers. Only two
percent reported being bullied by their subordinates. This report corroborates the Findings from the
content analysis that revealed that a majority of the participants (53%) reported their managers and
supervisors as the perceived bully in their workgroups.

The International Journal of OrganizationalAnalysis,Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL

Discussion

The aims of Study 2 were to investigate the characteristics of intragroup bullying behaviors,
emotional reactions to bullying and the position of bullies in the organization. The most frequently
reported bullying behaviors included belittling remarks, setting unrealistic targets, withholding
information, being ignored and intimidation. These findings reiterate previous findings in this area
(see Keashly, 1998).
More than half of respondents perceived their supervisors or group leaders as bullies. This
may be related to predatory bullying, which occurs where the victim has personally done nothing
provocative to justify the bullying behavior. In this case, the victim is an accident of a bully's dem-
onstration of power. Alternatively, the victim might be attacked because he/she belongs to an out-
group and thus may be a scapegoat (Einarsen, 2000). This finding is interesting as the presence of
predatory bullying suggests that the social identity of group members may be salient. The link
between social identity and bullying therefore needs to be further explored.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Finally, findings from Study 2 showed that the frequently cited emotional reactions to bully-
ing are anger, frustration, confusion, stress and depression. These findings support previous findings
in this area (McCarthy, Sheehan, & Kearns, 1995; Rayner, 1999).

STUDY 3

Study 3 built on the findings of Studies 1 and 2. In particular, Study 3 investigated the relationship
between conflict, bullying, emotional reactions and employees' counterproductive behaviors. It
explored the evidence for the predictive links hypothesized in the proposed model.

Hypotheses
We hypothesized:

Hla Conflict events (task and relationship conflict, conflict intensity and duration) are pos-
itively related to bullying behaviors.

H1 b Conflict events (task and relationship conflict, conflict intensity and duration) are pos-
itively related to emotional reactions to bullying behaviors.

H2a Reactions to conflict are positively related to groups' incidents of bullying behavior.

H2b Reactions to conflict are positively related to emotional reactions to bullying.

H3a Bullying behaviors are positively related to counterproductive behaviors in the work-
group.

H3b Emotional response to bullying is positively related to counterproductive behaviors in

the workgroup.

Methods

The sample for Study 3 consisted of 510 respondents in 122 workgroups, employed in five
major public organizations from two large local governments. Employees were from organizations

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 294 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

involved in construction, health care delivery and local government administration. Samples were
selected to provide a range of public sector organizations, all of which used workgroups to perform
their functions. Each organization was selected due to its use of workgroups or work teams to per-
form organizational functions. Organizational groups had more than two members who recognized
themselves as a group and interact frequently and had a common goal. In this study, the groups were
comprised of at least four individuals. They were long-term workgroups that met regularly to
achieve progress or decisions related to the core business of their organizations. In each of the five
organizations, respondents were issued with a 10 page self-administered questionnaire consisting of
the conflict, bullying, bullying emotions and counterproductive behavior scales. Sixty-six percent of
respondents returned the completed questionnaire.

Measurements
Employees' experience of bullying behaviors was measured with Rayner's (1999) 15-item
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

scale. It uses a 5-point Likert scale to measure the intensity of a variety of bullying behaviors expe-
rienced by participants in the previous six months. Intensity was rated every day (4), every week (3),
every month (2), less than once a month (1) and never (0). Principal component analysis with vari-
max rotation revealed a single factor; the Cronbach alpha was 0.92. In addition, respondents' emo-
tional reaction to the experience of bullying behaviors was measured with Rayner's (1999) 11-item
emotional reactions to bullying scale. The scale is a 5-point Likert scale and measures the types and
intensity of emotional reactions to bullying experienced by subjects ranging from a great deal (4) to
not at all (0). Using a principal component analysis with varimax rotation, the scale loaded as a sin-
gle factor, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.95.
Fox and Spector's (1999) 27-item counterproductive scale measured the extent to which
employees believed people in their workgroups were involved in a variety of counterproductive
behaviors in the previous six months. The scale is a 5-point Likert scale with never (1) to very often
(5). The scale loaded as one factor and had a Cronbach alpha of 0.95. Task and social conflict
events, and conflict intensity, were measured with an adapted form of Jehn's (1995) conflict scales.
Task conflict was measured with a three-item scale with a Cronbach alpha of 0.86; social conflict
was measured with a two- item scale with a Cronbach alpha of 0.87; conflict intensity was measured
with a five-item scale, with Cronbach alpha of 0.82. Conflict duration was measured by a two- item
scale, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.92.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were performed to describe levels of bullying, emotional reactions to bul-
lying and counterproductive behaviors as reported by group members. In addition, we aggregated
group scores on each of the variables understudy. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), moderation
implies that the causal relations between two variables changes as a function of the moderator vari-
able and to test this, the statistical analysis must measure and test the differential effect of the inde-
pendent variable on the dependent variable. In order to measure and test the differential effects where
both dependent and the moderating variables are continuous, Baron and Kenny (1986) suggested that,
since the moderation is assumed to be linear, it could be captured by an XY product term.
In addition, a variable may be referred to as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the
relationship between the predictor and the criterion (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To test for mediation,
Baron and Kenny (1986) suggested: firstly, regress the mediator on the independent variable, sec-
ondly, regress the dependent variable on the independent variable and thirdly, regress the dependent

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 295

variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator. To establish mediation, the following
conditions must hold: the independent variable must affect the mediator in the first equation; the
independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable; and the mediator must affect
the dependent variable in the third equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). If these conditions hold in the
predicted direction, then the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be
less in the third equation while perfect mediation holds if the independent variable has no effect
when the mediator is controlled. The above steps were followed to analyze the moderating and
mediating variables tested in the model in Study 3. Then multiple regressions were conducted to
test the hypothesized relationships between conflict events, bullying and emotional reactions to bul-
lying and counterproductive behaviors.

Results

A series of multiple regression analyses were used to determine the linear combinations of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

variables that provide the best point estimates of the dependent variable (Mason & Perreault, 1991).
To determine the links between conflict events, conflict duration, intensity and bullying, a series of
multiple regressions were performed. Conflict events (task and relationship conflict, conflict inten-
sity and duration) were used to predict bullying. The variables successfully predicted bullying
(F(4,122) = 15.29, ρ < .001) and explained 34% of the variance. However, only task conflict (Beta
= .42, ρ < .001) was a significant independent predictor (see Table 3). Higher levels of task conflict
were related to increased level of reported bullying.
In the second analysis, conflict events (task, social conflict, conflict intensity and duration)
and were examined as predictors of emotional reaction to bullying. Linear regression was conducted
with the conflict events entered as predictors of bullying emotions. Again, the analysis was signifi­
cant (F(4,122) = 12.29, ρ < .001), explaining 29.3 percent of the variance. Only conflict duration
(Beta = -.33, ρ < .001 ) was the single significant predictor of bullying emotions; that is, shorter peri­
ods of conflict duration were associated with increased bullying emotions. The relationship between
the types of reactions to conflict events (productive and destructive) and bullying was also exam­
ined. Both of these reactions to conflict events predicted bullying (F(2,122) = 19.00, ρ < .001),
accounting for 24.0 percent of the variance. Productive reactions to conflict had a strong but nega­
tive relationship with bullying (Beta = -.46, ρ < .001). Lower productive reactions to conflict events
were associated with increased workplace bullying. In the same vein, relationship between reactions
conflict events variables and bullying emotions variable was tested. The analysis was significant
(F(2,122) = 23.15, ρ < .001 ), explaining 28 percent of the variance. Only destructive reaction to con­
flict (Beta = .49, ρ < .001) was the single significant predictor of bullying emotions; that is, higher
destructive reactions to conflict events were associated with increased emotional reactions to bully­
ing.
We also performed regressions to test the predictive links between bullying and counterpro­
ductive behaviors in groups. Again, the analysis was significant (F(l,122) = 24.87, ρ < .001) (Beta
= .41, ρ < .001) explaining 17.0 percent of the variance. High levels of bullying were linked with
increased counterproductive behaviors. Similarly, we tested the predictive link between emotional
reactions to bullying and counterproductive behaviors. Emotional reactions to bullying emotions
predicted counterproductive behaviors (F( 1,122 = 21.64, ρ < .001) (Beta = .39, ρ < .001), explaining
15.0 percent of the variance. That is, increased levels of emotional reactions to bullying were asso­
ciated higher levels of counterproductive behaviors. Finally, both bullying and emotional reactions
to bullying were regressed on counterproductive behaviors. Results of the regression analysis was

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Table 3
Results of Regression Analyses for Conflict Events, Bullying,
Emotions of Bullying and Counterproductive Behaviors
DV Ivs S. Beta
Bullying Social Conflict
Task Conflict 42***
Conflict duration
Conflict Intensity
r = .58a. r2 = .34, Adjusted r2 = .32, DF = 4,122, F = 15.29***

Emotions of Bullying Social Conflict

Task Conflict
Conflict duration _ 33***
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Conflict Intensity
r = .54a, r2 = .29, Adjusted r2 = .27, DF = 4,122, F = 12.23***

Bullying PRC -.46***

DRC
r = .49a, r2 = .24, Adjusted r2 = .23. DF = 2,122 F = 19.11***

Emotions of Bullying PRC

DRC 49***
r = .53a, r2 = .28, Adjusted r2 = .27, DF = 2.122 F = 23.15***

Counterproductive Behaviors Bullying 41***

r = .41a. r2 = .17, Adjusted r2 = .16, DF= 1,1*22 F = 24.87***

Counterproductive Behaviors Bullying

Emotions of bullying
Step 1
r=.41a

Adjusted R2 = . 16
DF= 1,122
F = 24.87***
Step 2 Bullying
r = .44a Emotions of bullying
r = .19
Adjusted R2 = . 18
DF = 2,122
F = 14.26***
F change = 3.19*
DV = Dependent variable
IV = Independent variable
S. Beta = Standardized beta weights
PRC = Productive reactions to conflict
DRC = Destructive reactions to conflict
*p < .05, ** ρ < .01, ***p < .001

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 297

significant (F(2,122) = 14.23, ρ < .001) and explained jointly, 19.0 percent of the variance. Bullying
was a stronger predictor (Beta = . 28, ρ < .01) of counterproductive behaviors. Increased levels of
bullying were more associated with increase levels of counterproductive behaviors (see Table 3).

Discussion

Data from Study 3 revealed that as predicted intra-group conflict events were related to bully­
ing behaviors. Specifically, high levels of task conflict were linked with increased bullying. Previ­
ous findings in this area showed that the social climate at work creates conflicts which may escalate
into harsh personified conflicts and aggressive behaviors (Van de Vliert, 1998). Findings from the
present research are consistent with previous studies in this area (see also Keashly, 1998).
Also as predicted, conflict events were positively related to emotional reactions to bullying.
Shorter conflict duration was related to bullying emotions in particular. In addition, there was strong
evidence of a predictive link between reactions to conflict events and group bullying behavior.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Employees who reported a destructive reaction to conflict perceived higher levels of bullying
behaviors. Employees who reported destructive reactions to conflict events also reported increased
levels of emotional reaction to bullying. Previous studies have looked at the general impact of con­
flict characteristics on group outcomes (see Jehn 1995, 1997; Pelled, 1996). The present research
adds to this research by investigating the effect of a specific conflict characteristic (i.e. reaction to
conflict) on group emotional outcomes.
Bullying was linked with counterproductive behaviors while emotional reactions to bullying
were predictive of counterproductive behaviors. Bullying literature is still growing and has been pri­
marily qualitative. We are not aware of studies that have looked at the link between bullying,
employees' emotional response to bullying and workplace counterproductive behaviors. The cur­
rent research extends bullying literature by empirically investigating the link between bullying,
emotions and counterproductive behaviors.
Finally, results of Study 3 showed that conflict events emerged as antecedents and predictors
of bullying and emotional reactions to bullying, which in turn provoked counterproductive behav­
iors in the workplace. In addition, our results suggest that it may not be the conflict events per see
that trigger workplace bullying, but rather the duration and intensity of the conflict, as well as reac­
tions to conflict events.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Few studies have examined the relationship between conflict, reactions to conflict, bullying, emo­
tional reactions to bullying and their impact on the incidence of counterproductive behaviors in the
workplace. The purpose of the present research was to explore the relationship between intragroup
conflict, bullying, and emotional reactions to bullying and workplace counterproductive behaviors.
In particular, Study 1 revealed that intragroup conflict characteristics are task or relationship related.
This supports findings from previous research in this area (see Jehn, 1995, 1997). In addition, Study
1 showed evidence that conflict was accompanied by emotions of frustration, anger, and behaviors
of yelling, screaming and swearing. According to Basch & Fisher (2000), few studies have explored
the specific events that might arouse affect at work. Results from Study 1 revealed that conflict is
one of those specific events that arouse various emotional reactions at work. Findings from Study 2
revealed the prevalence, types and characteristics of intragroup bullying and emotions in the work-

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 298 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

place. These findings support previous findings in this area (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994;
McCarthy, 1996; McCarthy, Sheehan, & Hearns, 1995).
Bullying behaviors also have consequences for employee stress and levels of anxiety (e.g.
Einarsen, et al, 1994; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996). Study 2 revealed that bullying behaviors reported
by respondents include intimidation, public humiliation, verbal abuse/threat, persistent criticism,
belittling remarks being shouted at, ignored by others, cut off from others, set unrealistic targets,
given meaningless tasks, excessive work monitoring and withholding information. These findings
again support past research (see McCarthy, 1996; McCarthy, Sheehan, & Kearns, 1995). In addi-
tion, the majority of the employees perceived that they were being bullied by their supervisors and
by their colleagues, to a lesser extent. Some supervisors demonstrate their power base by bullying
their subordinates. Most literature on emotions ignores power (Rafaeli & Kluger, 2000) and the role
of power in affective events at work (such as conflict and bullying) and its consequences needs to
be further examined.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

The current study developed and tested a causal model of how conflict leads to bullying, bul-
lying and conflict influence negative emotions, and emotions lead to counterproductive behaviors.
As predicted, conflict events, duration and intensity were significantly related to bullying. In partic-
ular, task conflict was strongly predictive of workplace bullying. High levels of task conflict were
associated with increased bullying. Also as predicted, conflict events were positively related to emo-
tional reactions to bullying. Conflict events, their duration and intensity were linked to the groups'
emotional reactions to bullying in the workplace. However, contrary to expectations, shorter con-
flict duration was related to bullying emotions. One possible explanation for this finding may that
shorter conflict duration does not allow the parties in conflict the time to resolve their conflict, as
opposed to situations involving longer conflict duration. Shorter conflict duration may also deny
opponents the opportunity to apply coping strategies that may reduce emotional reaction to conflict-
related bullying (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
As predicted, there was strong evidence for a link between reactions to conflict events and
group bullying behavior. Employees who reported a destructive reaction to conflict perceived
higher levels of bullying behaviors. The role of reactions to conflict events in relation to bullying in
the workplace is still unclear and more research is needed to further examine this relationship. As
also predicted, employees who perceived their reactions to conflict events as destructive, reported
increased levels of emotional reaction to bullying. Berscheid (1983) suggests that conflict (espe-
cially interpersonal/emotional conflict) arises from negative affect and dislike and is manifested as
friction, frustration and personality clashes in groups. Jones and Rittman (2002) suggest that such
negative emotions indicate that desirable outcomes are becoming elusive, while individuals with
aversive arousal (e.g. anger, fear and disgust) are approaching undesirable outcomes. Thus, as sug-
gested by Ayoko & Härtel (2002), it is important that managers and group leaders manage negative
emotional reactions to specific events (such as conflict and bullying) in the workplace.
Employees who perceived higher levels of bullying were more likely to be involved in coun-
terproductive behaviors. In addition, emotional reactions to bullying were predictive of counterpro-
ductive behaviors. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argue that aspects of work initiate emotions in
organizational settings. These include hassles and uplifts that act systematically to determine affec-
tive states (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). These states, in turn, lead to attitudinal and behavioral out-
comes. The findings from the current research support the ideas in Weiss and Cropanzano's (1996)
Affective Event Theory (AET). In addition, these findings support the view that emotions are
directly linked to behavioral outcomes such as antisocial behaviors (Organ, 1990). Overall, conflict

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 299

events were predictors of bullying and emotional reactions to bullying, which in turn provoked
counterproductive behaviors in the workplace.
Our results suggest that it may not be the conflict events per see that trigger workplace bully-
ing. Rather the duration and intensity of the conflict, as well as reactions to conflict events, are crit-
ical. Managers therefore need to be sensitized to the link between conflict, bullying, negative
emotions and counterproductive behaviors. In addition, managers need training in interventions
skills such emotional intelligence skills so as to monitor and reduce employees' bullying, negative
emotions and counterproductive behaviors at work. Furthermore, the bullying literature has failed to
recognize the significance of the conflict-bullying relationship to identifying workplace interven-
tions to prevent and or reduce bullying behaviors. Findings from the current research show the
importance of this link. In particular, training for leaders and employees is needed not only in con-
flict and bullying management, but also in the specific areas related to the management of the inten-
sity, duration as well as the reactions to conflict events.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Finally, although our results reveal links between reactions to conflict and emotional reactions
to bullying, we have not differentiated between positive and negative emotions. Future research is
needed to examine the effect of reactions to conflict events and positive and negative emotions of
bullying in the workplace. Also, the research is cross sectional and does not represent all industry or
occupational types. Nevertheless, the triangulation approach to data collection for the present
research is expected to have compensated for some of these limitations.

REFERENCES

Amason, A. C. ( 1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision-
making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-
148.
Amason, A. C , & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision-making, and
organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239-253.
Apler, S., & Tjosvold, D. (1993). Cooperative theory and self-managing teams on the manufacturing floor.
Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management. Eugene, Oregon.
Ayoko, O. B., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2002). The role of emotion and emotion management in destructive and pro-
ductive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J.
Zerbe, (Eds.). Managing Emotions in the Workplace (pp. 77-97). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Baker, J., Tjosvold. D., & Andrews, I.R. (1988). Conflict approaches of effective and ineffective project man-
agers: A filed study in matrix organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 167-178.
Baron. R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social psychol-
ogy, 51, 1173-1182.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. (2000).Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associ-
ated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy. W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace
(pp. 36-48). London: Quorum Books
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Leveinger,
E. McClintock, A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close Relationship (pp. 110-168). San Francisco:
Freeman.
Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1989). An information processing approach to two-party negotiations. Paper pre-
sented at the 3 r d Conference on Negotiation Research. Northwestern University, IL Evanston.
Cassell, C , & Symon. G. (1994). Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London.
Sage Publications.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 300 BULLYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS

Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and
substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65,117-
184.
De Dreu, C , & van de Vliert, E. (Eds.). (1997). Using Conflict in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground rules for good research: A ten point guide for social research. Buckingham.
Open University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 7-41.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(12), 16.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Bullying and harassment at work: Unveiling an organizational taboo. In M. Sheehan. S.
Ramsay, & J. Patrick (Eds.), Proceedings of Transcending Boundaries Conference. Brisbane: Griffith
University Press.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. M. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relation­
ships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and organisational Psychol­
ogist, 4(48), 116-137.
Einarsen. S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organi­
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

zations, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185-202.

Fryer, D. (1991). Qualitative methods in occupational psychology: Reflections upon why they are so useful but
so little used. The Occupational Psychologist, 14, 3-6.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20,915-931.
Glaser, Α., & Strauss, Β. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Gersick, C. J. G. (I989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Jour­
nal, 32,274-309.
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington: Indiana Univer­
sity Press.
Jackson. S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In M. West, (Ed.) Hand­
book of Workbook Psychology. Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons.
Jehn, K. A. (1992). The impact of intragroup conflict on group effectiveness: A multimethod examination of
the benefits and detriments of conflict. Doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston. IL.
Jehn. K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based
intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 4, 223-238.
Jehn, K. A. (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adminis­
trative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-284.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administra­
tive Science Quarterly, 42(3), 538-566.
Jehn, Κ. Α.. & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on
team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 56-73.
Jehn, Κ. Α., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup con­
flict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal. 44(2), 238-251.
Jehn, Κ. Α., Northcraft. G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A study of diversity,
conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-764.
Jones, R. G., & Rittman, A. L. (2002). A model of emotional and motivational components of interpersonal
interactions in organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.). Managing Emo-
tions in the Workplace (pp. 77-97). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.
Lepper, G. (2000). Categories in Text and Talk. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lewis, D. (1999), Workplace bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2)
Mason, C. H., & Perreault. W. D. (1991). Collincarity, power and interpretation of multiple regression analy-
sis. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(3), 268-280.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 Ο. Β. ΑΥΟΚΟ, V. J. CALLAN, & C. J. HÄRTEL 301

McCarthy, J. (1996). When the mask slips: inappropriate coercion in organizations undergoing restructuring.
In J. McCarthy, M. Sheehan, & W. Wilkie, (Eds.), Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom. Alexandria:
Millenium Books.
McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., & Kearns, D. (1995). Managerial Styles and their effects on employees health and
well-being in organizations undergoing restructuring (Report for Work Safe Australia), Griffith Univer-
sity, Brisbane.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 2, 43-72.
Outhwaite, W. (1983). Concept formation in social science. London: Routhledge & Kegan Paul.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process the-
ory. Organization Science, 6, 615-631.
Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a fre-
quently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391-397.
Rafaeli, Α., & Kluger, Α. Ν. (2000). Affective reactions to physical appearance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J.
Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace, (pp. 36-48). London: Quorum Books.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

Rayner, C. (1998). Workplace bullying: do something! The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Austra-
lia and New Zealand, 74(6), 581 -586.
Rayner. M. (1999). Workplace bullying: Do something! Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia
and New Zealand, 14(6), 581-585.
Ross, R. S. (1989). Conflict. In R. Ross & J. Ross (Eds.), Small Groups in Organizational Setting, (pp. 139-
178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employ-
ees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635-637.
Spector, P. E. (1978).Organizational frustration: A model and review of literature. Personnel Psychology, 31,
815-829.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral
reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(3), 227.
Taylor, G. R. (2000). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in research. New York: University Press
of America.
Taylor, S., & Bodgan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods. Canada: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M.Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.).
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (pp. 651 -718). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press.
Tjosvold. D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management, 11,21-37.
Tjsovold, D., & Wong, C. L. (1994). Working with customers: cooperation and competition in relational mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 297-310.
Tsovold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(3), 285-342.
Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Conflict and Conflict Management. In P. D. Drenth. H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wollf
(Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Personnel Psychology. East Sussex: Psychol-
ogy Press Ltd.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 520-526.
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.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational workgroup related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. Interna-
tional Journal of Manpower, 20, 70-85.

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2003

 This article has been cited by:

1. Lisa Perrone, Margaret H. Vickers, Debra Jackson. 2015. Financial Independence as an Alternative
to Work. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal . [CrossRef]
2. Alicia Arenas, José-María León-Pérez, Lourdes Munduate, Francisco J. Medina. 2015. Workplace
bullying and interpersonal conflicts: the moderation effect of supervisor’s power / Acoso laboral
y conflictos interpersonales: el papel moderador de las bases de poder del supervisor. Revista de
Psicología Social 30, 295-322. [CrossRef]
3. Jose M. Leon-Perez, Francisco J. Medina, Alicia Arenas, Lourdes Munduate. 2015. The relationship
between interpersonal conflict and workplace bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology 30:3,
250-263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Marie Hutchinson, Debra Jackson. 2015. The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying
in the public sector: insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care.
Nursing Inquiry 22:10.1111/nin.2015.22.issue-1, 13-26. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

5. Elfi Baillien, Jeroen Camps, Anja Van den Broeck, Jeroen Stouten, Lode Godderis, Maarten Sercu,
Hans De Witte. 2015. An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind: Conflict Escalation
into Workplace Bullying and the Role of Distributive Conflict Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics
. [CrossRef]
6. Angela M. Dionisi, Julian Barling. 2015. Spillover and crossover of sex-based harassment from work
to home: Supervisor gender harassment affects romantic relationship functioning via targets' anger.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 36:10.1002/job.v36.2, 196-215. [CrossRef]
7. Elfi Baillien, Katalien Bollen, Martin Euwema, Hans De Witte. 2014. Conflicts and conflict
management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23, 511-524. [CrossRef]
8. Annabelle M. Neall, Michelle R. Tuckey. 2014. A methodological review of research on the
antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 87:10.1111/joop.2014.87.issue-2, 225-257. [CrossRef]
9. Lynn V Monrouxe, Charlotte E Rees, Ruth Endacott, Edwina Ternan. 2014. ‘Even now it makes
me angry’: health care students’ professionalism dilemma narratives. Medical Education 48:10.1111/
medu.2014.48.issue-5, 502-517. [CrossRef]
10. Nilupama Wijewardena, Ramanie Samaratunge, Charmine Härtel. 2014. Creating Better Employees
through Positive Leadership Behavior in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public
Administration 37, 288-298. [CrossRef]
11. Fatima Ashraf, Muhammad Asif Khan. 2014. Does emotional intelligence moderate the relationship
between workplace bullying and job performance?. Asian Business & Management 13, 171-190.
[CrossRef]
12. Marvin Claybourn, Barry Spinner, Kathryn Malcom. 2014. Workplace harassment: A test of
definitional criteria derived from an analysis of research definitions and Canadian social definitions.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry . [CrossRef]
13. Jon-Chao Hong, Lin Chien-Hou, Ming-Yueh Hwang, Ru-Ping Hu, Yi-Ling Chen. 2014. Positive
affect predicting worker psychological response to cyber-bullying in the high-tech industry in
Northern Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior 30, 307-314. [CrossRef]
14. Dwayne Devonish. 2013. Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors. Employee
Relations 35:6, 630-647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 15. Sara Branch, Sheryl Ramsay, Michelle Barker. 2013. Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and
General Harassment: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews 15:10.1111/
ijmr.2013.15.issue-3, 280-299. [CrossRef]
16. Jordi Escartín, Johannes Ullrich, Dieter Zapf, Elmar Schlüter, Rolf van Dick. 2013. Individual‐
and group‐level effects of social identification on workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 22, 182-193. [CrossRef]
17. Lisa M. S. Barrow, Sandy Kolberg, Jim Mirabella, Annette Roter. 2013. Are Rational Self-Interested
Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon in Canada and the
United States?. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 03, 33-38. [CrossRef]
18. Charlotte E Rees, Lynn V Monrouxe, Laura A McDonald. 2013. Narrative, emotion and action:
analysing ‘most memorable’ professionalism dilemmas. Medical Education 47, 80-96. [CrossRef]
19. Lynn V. Monrouxe, Charlotte E. Rees. 2012. “It’s just a clash of cultures”: emotional talk within
medical students’ narratives of professionalism dilemmas. Advances in Health Sciences Education 17,
671-701. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

20. Sajid Bashir, Misbah Nasir, Saira Qayyum, Ambreen Bashir. 2012. Dimensionality of
Counterproductive Work Behaviors in Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. Public Organization
Review 12, 357-366. [CrossRef]
21. Oluremi B. Ayoko, Alison M. Konrad, Maree V. Boyle. 2012. Online work: Managing conflict and
emotions for performance in virtual teams. European Management Journal 30, 156-174. [CrossRef]
22. Misbah Nasir, Ambreen Bashir. 2012. Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations
of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics 39:4, 240-253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Mingkai J. Chen, Oluremi B. Ayoko. 2012. Conflict and trust: the mediating effects of emotional
arousal and self‐conscious emotions. International Journal of Conflict Management 23:1, 19-56.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Sheryl Ramsay, Ashlea Troth, Sara Branch. 2011. Work-place bullying: A group processes
framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84, 799-816. [CrossRef]
25. James O. Prochaska, Kerry E. Evers, Janet L. Johnson, Patricia H. Castle, Janice M. Prochaska,
Lindsay E. Sears, Elizabeth Y. Rula, James E Pope. 2011. The Well-Being Assessment for
Productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 53, 735-742. [CrossRef]
26. Margaret H. Vickers. 2011. Bullying Targets as Social Performers in the Public Administration
Workplace. Administrative Theory & Praxis 33, 213-234. [CrossRef]
27. Judith MacIntosh, Sue O'Donnell, Judith Wuest, Marilyn Merritt‐Gray. 2011. How workplace
bullying changes how women promote their health. International Journal of Workplace Health
Management 4:1, 48-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Michael Sheehan, John Griffiths. 2011. Understanding the context of workplace health management
as it relates to workplace bullying. International Journal of Workplace Health Management 4:1, 5-12.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Dan Riley, Deirdre J. Duncan, John Edwards. 2011. Staff bullying in Australian schools. Journal of
Educational Administration 49:1, 7-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Laura BarkerChapter 13 A Positive Approach to Workplace Bullying: Lessons from the Victorian
Public Sector 341-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
31. Lars Glasø, Tina Løkke Vie, Gry Rotnes Holmdal, Ståle Einarsen. 2011. An Application of Affective
Events Theory to Workplace Bullying. European Psychologist 16, 198-208. [CrossRef]
32. Morten Nielsen, Guy Notelaers, Ståle EinarsenMeasuring Exposure to Workplace Bullying 133-174.
[CrossRef]
 33. J. R. Graham, M. L. Shier. 2010. The Social Work Profession and Subjective Well-Being: The
Impact of a Profession on Overall Subjective Well-Being. British Journal of Social Work 40,
1553-1572. [CrossRef]
34. Oluremi B. Ayoko, Victor J. Callan. 2010. Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and social
outcomes: The moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership. European Management
Journal 28, 220-235. [CrossRef]
35. Margaret H. Vickers. 2010. Introduction—Bullying, Mobbing, and Violence in Public Service
Workplaces. Administrative Theory & Praxis 32, 7-24. [CrossRef]
36. Brian A. Altman. 2010. Workplace Bullying: Application of Novak’s (1998) Learning Theory and
Implications for Training. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 22, 21-32. [CrossRef]
37. Judy Pate, Phillip Beaumont. 2010. Bullying and harassment: a case of success?. Employee Relations
32:2, 171-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Helen LaVan, Wm. Marty Martin. 2008. Bullying in the U.S. Workplace: Normative and Process-
Oriented Ethical Approaches. Journal of Business Ethics 83, 147-165. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 04:56 15 August 2015 (PT)

39. Oluremi B. Ayoko, Andre A. Pekerti. 2008. The mediating and moderating effects of conflict and
communication openness on workplace trust. International Journal of Conflict Management 19:4,
297-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Paula Saunders, Amy Huynh, Jane Goodman-Delahunty. 2007. Defining workplace bullying
behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry 30, 340-354. [CrossRef]
41. Katherine M. Fodchuk. 2007. Work environments that negate counterproductive behaviors and
foster organizational citizenship: Research-based recommendations for managers. The Psychologist-
Manager Journal 10, 27-46. [CrossRef]
42. Howard M. Weiss, Daniel J. BealReflections on Affective Events Theory 1-21. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
43. MORTEN BIRKELAND NIELSEN, STIG BERGE MATTHIESEN, STÅLE EINARSEN.
2005. Ledelse og personkonflikter. Nordisk Psykologi 57, 391-415. [CrossRef]