Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the perspectives of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives (ERs) on the role of HRPs in managing workplace bullying.Design/methodology/approachIndividual interviews were conducted with 12 HRPs and five ERs from a wide range of industries. Interview questions were open-ended and sought to gain insight on the views of the individual interviewees.FindingsThe findings address the role of HRPs in bullying scenarios and in the prevention of bullying. Regarding the role of HRPs in bullying, the responses of the participants suggest confusion and ambiguity, with a variety of roles being described ranging from a support-based role through to a protector of management. The participants also noted the importance of the HRP task of policy development, while a distrust of HRPs in bullying scenarios was mentioned. Regarding the effective management and prevention of bullying, the findings demonstrate that HRPs are viewed as having a central role through their particular responsibilities of creating and nurturing a positive organisational culture, as well as through engaging employees in the development of anti-bullying policies.Practical implicationsHRPs believe that they can contribute significantly to reducing workplace bullying through organisational culture (including educating staff and as role models of behaviour) and by engaging staff in the design of anti-bullying policies.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature on workplace bullying by examining within the Australian context the perspectives of HRPs and ERs on how HRPs can prevent and manage workplace bullying.

Scholarship on homophobia has been critiqued for being individualistic and psychological, failing to account for structural inequalities, experiences of homophobia and discursive manifestations of homophobia. This Economic and Social Research Council funded study attempts to address some of these concerns by focusing on the experiences of lesbians, gay men and biséxuals (LGBs) in relation to bullying, harassment and discrimination in the British workplace. We examine what homophobia is understood to be and how psychological and organisational discourses make it difficult to make sense of negative experiences and how anti-homosexual attitudes and work environments are sustained and left unchallenged through the claim 'it's not personal'. Drawing on theories of selective incivility and modern discrimination, we illustrate how ambiguous anti-homosexual sentiments are, and argue that the term ' homophobia' not only prevents people from challenging negative experiences, but it further masks inequalities based on sexuality at work.

Previous research strongly indicates that the perpetrators of workplace bullying in Britain are mainly managers. Contrary to the predominant view in workplace bullying literature and despite cost implications for employers, this article proposes an agenda for future empirical research focused on whether employers may also benefit significantly from bullying. It outlines a definition of workplace bullying, key debates and prescriptions suggested in previously published literature for management to contest and prevent it. When bullying is perceived in terms of managerial control of labour and the core concepts of the labour process — an approach not previously embraced in the established psychological and social psychological analyses of the issue — bullying is better understood as an endemic feature of the capitalist employment relationship. Existing secondary material and future research possibilities are then explored and discussed, with some conclusions that are aimed to take the research in this field in new directions.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender-neutral, phenomenon.Design methodology approach - The paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.Findings - The paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.Research limitations implications - The theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross-disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.Practical implications - The finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender-neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy-makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.Originality value - The paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender-neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.

The disclosure of lesbian, gay or bisexual identity is generally presented as a conscious act of leaving heterosexuality. Such interpretation fails to take into account the dynamic processes involved in constructing non-heterosexual identities and to what degree such identities are embodied or disembodied. Supported by interview data among lesbian and gay employees in six British workplaces, this article explores how non-heterosexual identities become known in organizational settings by arguing that lesbians and gay men continue to collide with social expectations and stereotypical ideas of how sexual identities should be ‘worn’ and performed. These expectations and ideas both shape colleagues’ assumptions about their non-heterosexual identities and can expose lesbians and gay men to negative behaviour at work in highly gendered ways.

Purpose - The purpose of this literature review is to provide an intervention model, which can be used by organisations to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment has been somewhat ignored over recent years, with much of the academic literature focusing on harassment specifically on workplace bullying, or psychological harassment of a generic nature. For the purpose of this review, the authors have specifically reviewed individual and organisational antecedents, particularly focusing on the organisation's culture and training programmes.Design methodology approach - A review of the sexual harassment literature has been conducted to examine primary, secondary and tertiary interventions to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.Findings - There are a variety of antecedents of sexual harassment which can be examined; these cover three main categories: groups and individuals; organisational and situational; and societal. Sexual harassment should be seen as an issue which needs to be addressed by the organisation, rather than simply increasing and improving an individual's skills in order to deal with harassment (Fitzgerald and Shullman).Originality value - This paper provides an up-to-date review of the sexual harassment literature and from this provides a model, which organisations can utilise when attempting to tackle the problem of sexual harassment.

We examine whether reported roles in school bullying, and victimization in the workplace, are connected; the influence of victim coping strategies at school; and sex differences. A questionnaire was completed by 5,288 adults from various workplace venues in Great Britain. We analysed two questions on school experiences (participant role; coping strategies if bullied) and questions on workplace bullying (experiences of being bullied). We found a significant relationship between reported roles in school bullying, and experience of workplace victimization. The highest risk of workplace victimization was for those who were both bullies and victims at school (bully/victims), followed by those who were only victims. An analysis of relative risk of workplace bullying, given being a victim at school plus using various coping strategies, revealed an increased risk for the strategies ‘tried to make fun of it’, and ‘did not really cope’. Women were at slightly higher risk of getting bullied at work, but there were no interactions with roles at school, and only one interaction with coping strategies. This is the first study to report an association between school and workplace bullying. Victims at school are more at risk of workplace victimization, but the especial risk for ‘bully/victims’ supports other indications that this particular category of school pupils should be a focus of concern. The findings also suggest that school pupils who consistently cannot cope with bullying, or try to make fun of the bullying, are more at risk for later problems in the workplace. However, associations are modest; many victims of school bullying are not being victimized in later life, and the results also suggest important contextual or environmental effects on risks of victimization.

The issue of workplace bullying has received considerable attention in the UK in recent years. Despite a handful of surveys undertaken on the issue, no attempt has been made systematically to investigate its prevalence and nature, antecedents and outcomes, across occupations and sectors. This thesis attempts to fill this gap and presents an epidemiological investigation of workplace bullying in Great Britain. Following identification of a large-scale, random sample across a variety of sectors and occupations, objectives that emerged from a review of the literature are examined by means of a quantitative survey. Prevalence-rates of self-reported bullying are established, the nature of the behaviours revealed, and particular risk-groups identified. By means of a factor analysis of an inventory of negative behaviour identified with bullying in Britain, four underlying constructs are revealed: work-related bullying; personal bullying; managerial bullying; and intimidation. An investigation of possible predictors of bullying and negative behaviours reveals that bullying was particularly associated with a particular style of leadership utilising punishment in a non-contingent manner, i.e. unrelated to target behaviour, and where social relationships, particularly with supervisors, were strained. Following analysis, bullying and negative behaviour are found to be associated with negative effects on health and well-being as well as negative organisational outcomes, e.g. absenteeism, reduced productivity and, in particular, increased intention to leave. On average, targets of recent bullying report worst outcomes, followed by previous targets, witnesses of bullying and those who had neither been bullied nor had witnessed bullying. In discussing the results, a distinction is made between bullying processes and negative behaviour. It is argued that, when the local context and demographic factors, e.g. gender, age, race and organisational level, are taken into consideration, overall findings often masked important underlying differences. This highlights the varying meaning of the bullying experience. The complexity and multi-causality of the phenomenon is highlighted, with implications for stress-theory, suggesting that several factors may need to be considered simultaneously, as risk-factors may be the result of an interaction between two or more factors.

Helge Hoel is Senior Lecturer in Organisational Psychology at Manchester Business School at the University of Manchester. He carried out the first nationwide survey of workplace bullying in Great Britain in 2000 and subsequently the first evaluation study examining the effectiveness of organisational anti-bullying interventions. He has written and contributed to a number of books, articles and reports in the area of bullying, violence and harassment. Recently, he has embarked on an inter-disciplinary path, contributing to a broadening of the bullying research agenda into the areas of sociology, law and industrial relations. He is currently Principal Investigator of a ground-breaking study of Lesbians, Gay and Bisexuals' (LBGs) experience of discrimination, bullying and harassment (with Duncan Lewis), sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

This chapter summarizes the current knowledge about the consequences of workplace aggression, reviewing existing research literature. First, it defines workplace aggression and briefly discusses similarities and differences between different forms of aggression. The chapter then presents research findings on the direct, indirect, and conditional impact of aggression on health and well‐being, showing what is known, and what is not known, about the consequences of exposure to aggression at work. Next, it discusses some methodological characteristics of existing research with regard to measurement, sampling, and research design and explain how these characteristics may limit our understanding of how aggression is related to health and well‐being. Finally, building on the reviewed literature, the chapter provides some suggestions for future research on the consequences of workplace aggression. The chapter also presents an overview of different individual and organizational factors which have been examined as potential moderators of effects of workplace aggression.