1

A Qualitative Examination of Workplace Bullying

Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor’s Name
Date
 2

ABSTRACT

A Qualitative Examination of Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is a rampant issue that affects a significant number of employees in different

working environments. Bullying has adverse impacts on the performance health of employees.

Numerous work-related factors have been identified as potential causes of workplace bullying.

There is a growing trend of bullying among temporary employees. Temporary workers are

becoming subject to bullying due to the nature of their job. However, there is scarce research on

the bullying of temporary workers who have become victims of bullying. Therefore, the purpose

of this study is to examine how bullying affects the performance of temporary workers, how to

prevent, and how to eliminate it at the institutional level. The research questions are 1. What are

your quality of life issues and job productivity concerning being bullied? This study will utilize a

qualitative case study method to examine the issue of workplace bullying among temporary

workers. A qualitative study will be used to approach this new field due to inadequate materials

and conceptual frameworks. The participants will exclude human resource managers and

supervisors in Sport-Ware Corporation because they have close contact with employees. The

sample size will consist of 15 employees from the organization. These participants will be

selected based on years worked in the organization. Out of this sample, 8 will be female and 7

males. The research instrument that will be used in the study is an explorative approach due to

inadequate materials on the discipline. The data collected will be analyzed using qualitative

analysis. Through this analysis, the data collected through qualitative research will be analyzed

based on article reviews. In other words, the data will be analyzed based on the previous work on

the bullying of employees. Include sentence about how the data will be used and what

implications your findings will have on Sport-Ware.

 3

A Qualitative Examination of Workplace Bullying

INTRODUCTION
Background
Sport-Ware Corporation Background
Sport-Ware Corporation is herein used as a pseudonym in lieu to protect the identity of

the research participants. The company was founded in 1964 as Blue-Ribbon Sports by Bill

Bowerman. Bowerman was serving as a track-field-coach for Oregon University. The first retail

store opened in 1966 and afterward assumed the Sport-Ware brand identity in 1972 that is now

the company's first brand. It was renamed in 1978 and became public in 1980. The company has

expanded itself through acquisitions, taking at least four companies over the years. Currently, the

company is headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon and is investing in sportswear, technologies

such as portable heart rate monitors, shoes, clothing, and other apparel. This research focuses on

bullying at the Sport-ware Corporation, having been accused of perpetuating the vice in the 21st

century.

Workplace bullying is a significant work phenomenon studies since the 20th century.

Bullying refers to persistent actions and behaviors directed at an individual with the intent to

harm them. It thrives where the power difference is noticeable. The vice affects employees'

health and performance. Cases of bullying have been on the rise with the United Kingdom

registering an increase in rates high level in 2011, where 60% of people could testify witnessing

or being victims of bullying. The United States and Asian countries also have cases of bullied

employees (Salazar, 2017). Temporary workers represent a special task force in the changing

world economy and job requirements and demands. However, they are inadequately represented

and are victims of bullying. This paper performs a literature review after identifying the vice as a

problem requiring attention. There is scarce research on temporary workers' bullying. Nursing
 4

has a substantial amount of information on this phenomenon. Seminal literature lacks meaningful

references or studies on it. The paper structure has five key sections, which are research problem,

literature review, research gap, research questions, continuum and methodology, and summary.

Problem Statement

Bullying in the workplace is a major problem for companies big and small today. While

the statistics are difficult to trust in light of the underreporting of this kind of bullying, it is clear

that the problems are actually quite pervasive. There are different levels of bullying, but some

statistics show that as many as three in every four workers suffer from bullying. This is a big

problem for businesses that want to ensure that their workers are happy and that they are safe.

Specifically, it is a problem for companies because it drains productivity and causes workers to

be more likely to leave their positions. Businesses are looking to create the best possible working

environment for all of their employees, and when bullying takes place, it causes conflict, a lack

of productivity, and damage to the company’s reputation, as well.

Anecdotal information reveal that Sport-Ware is subject to workplace bullying. The

concept of workplace bullying has evolved. Heinz Leymann first introduced it in the 1980s while

working on the nature of the work environment and its effects on employee’s performance

(McDonald, Brown & Smith, 2015). Other contributors, such as Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie

extended the study and coined the definition of workplace bullying. Their definition identifies

workplace bullying as repeated acts of mistreatment directed against an individual by one or a

group of employees (McDonald, Brown & Smith, 2015). The definition includes the aspect of

power distance or difference whereby the bully always perceives themselves as superior to the

one bullied. Drs. Gary and Namie engaged in extensive research on the aspect and developed an

institution to respond to employee bullying. The institution operated under the title Workplace
 5

Bullying Institute. The bully behaviors may involve violent actions that manifest aggressive

exercise of force such as beating or behaviors intended to create psychological trauma for the

inferior person.

Some of the behaviors identified as bullying include sabotage, covert criticism, shouting,

yelling, insults, put-downs, and heavy work demands (McDonald, Brown & Smith, 2015). The

three main components of workplace bullying that appear in nearly all situations involve

frequency, intent, and power difference (Rai & Agarwal, 2016). The rate refers to the number of

times one repeats an action. A consistent act directed at an individual qualifies as an act of

bullying. The intent relates to the motive for acting. If an action is accidental, it does not meet

the threshold for bullying behavior. Lastly, the power difference relates to the differences in

rank, physical superiority, gender perception of male dominance, and other criteria (McDonald,

Brown & Smith, 2015). The expansion of knowledge in the bullying subject has not received a

proportionate response from the government and the institutions. There is a misunderstanding

among researchers and policymakers on what constitutes workplace bullying, especially in

distinguishing bullying from other related adverse events at the workplace (Rai & Agarwal,

2016). There is lethargically slackness to design and implement policies, structural and legal

frameworks to respond to the body of knowledge on bullying. There is an urgency to create

approaches to resolve the bullying incidences affecting the employee’s performance.

Bullying is premeditated by various factors that are organizational or personal.

Organizational factors include leadership style, policies, role definition, and policies, among

others (Feijó, Gräf, Pearce & Fassa, 2019). Laissez-faire and authoritarian leadership styles

promote a toxic environment for bullying. Poorly defined roles characterized by undefined

expectations, role conflict, work pressure, and long working hours are more likely to encourage
 6

bullying. Individual factors include gender, whereby women are more likely to face bullying as

compared to male workers (Feijó, Gräf, Pearce & Fassa, 2019). Bullying also depends on age.

Rajalakshmi and Gomathi (2015) observe that bullying is more prevalent among employees aged

25 years and below. The trend suggests high rates of employee dissatisfaction in employees

within this age bracket facing bullying. Bullies tend to cooperate when their interest is involved

but lack honesty and fairness when it is in the interest of others they are required to work (Lamia,

2017). Therefore, bullying occurs in an environment that encourages it to thrive, employees that

perceive themselves to be weak or are weak, and colleges with bullying behavior.

Management

Employee performance is significant in resource management. Bullied employees are less

motivated to work. Bullying destroys an individual’s reputation and lowers self-esteem (Ndegwa

& Moronge, 2016). The consequence is a demoralized employee that is unproductive and

wastage of resources such as time, and wages. Workplaces have a direct impact on employee

performance. Employees working in toxic environments with constant cases of bullying have a

high turnover rate, which creates a significant amount of pressure on the company to recruit,

train, retain, and develop new employees. A repeated process of employees quitting their

position results in drainage of the organization's skills. Bullied employees suffer from anxiety,

depression, and physical ailments (Ndegwa & Moronge, 2016). The health of the employee is

significant in determining their performance. Unhealthy employees have low work morale and

are likely to be absent from work on numerous occasions. They may be discouraged from turning

up to work out phobia.

Management is responsible for some bullying cases. Lawyer Josh Bornstein handled a

situation in which a woman, 42 years old, had been bullied to the extent she developed post-
 7

traumatic stress disorder and depression; the woman was affected that she could not resume her

work (Smith, 2016). The management losing control and failing to implement anti-bullying

policies is one of the causes of employee bullying.

Workplace bullying is predominant in work bureaucratic work environments. Such

environments have rigid schedules, inadequate attention to employee needs, and cumbersome

procedures and policies (Ndegwa & Moronge, 2016). Combining the pressure of work

environments and other predisposing factors such as power, employees burst out of distress

poured on their colleagues. Workplace bullying is a global phenomenon and is frequent in Asia

as compared to other countries such as North America, Scandinavia, and other European

countries (Ciby & Raya, 2015). Developing and developed countries have experiences of

workplace bullying, harassment, and discrimination, but in different degrees. Workplace bullying

in developing countries may take an aggressive approach like those on the developed economies

continue in subtle forms. The underlying cause for difference is the institutions and policy

implementation that are superior and dedicated in developed economies as compared to those of

developing economies.

Nonetheless, workplace bullying is a critical aspect affecting the organization and the

employee. The company risks losing organizational knowledge, high turnover rates, delayed

processes, high costs of human resource management, and indirect costs in terms of losses.

Bullying jeopardizes the employee's work morale and health. In cases such as nursing, its effect

is almost double as the patients are likely to receive poor care resulting in complications of

conditions and possible deaths from medical accidents (Karatza, Zyga, Tziaferi, & Prezerakos,

2016; Al-Ghabeesh & Qattom, 2019). Such accidental or intentional cases in the medical field
 8

predispose the nurses to possibilities of losing their career and suffering mental illnesses that

could cost them their health.

Temporary Workers

Companies are taking advantage of the temporary workers, also referred to as temps to

fill job vacancies. The workers are often recruited by an agency that looks for a hiring company

(UNISON, 2020). The hiring company and the agency enter into an agreement in which the

agency pays the temps. The nature of relationships results in the development of contracts that

may not represent the workers' interest. Most temporary workers use the window as an

opportunity to enter the market freely, work flexibly, and the ability to move from one job to

another without making a big show from it (UNISON, 2020). Depending on the country of

origin, the temporary workers have different rights from those of the employees directly in

connection with the company. They risk losing their salary or being fired at any moment as soon.

Organizations use temporary workers for various reasons. For instance, a company may

resort to temporary workers to fill a gap left by an absent employee, respond to increasing

demands, test employees before offering permanent contractual terms, or accomplish work over

the weekends (International Labor Organization, 2016). Some organizations use temporary

workers on an intensive level whereby the temps are engaged on consistent contract owing to the

changes in labor laws encouraging accommodation of temps. The decision to use temporary

workers depends on the firm's size, the skill level of its employees, its competitors, proprietary

knowledge, and the type of industry it has invested in (International Labor Organization, 2016).

The level of technology also has contributed to determining the use of temporary workers,

mainly where a company has introduced new technology, and its employees are inexperienced.
 9

The use of temporary workers affects the long-term productivity of an organization. A

study by Lisi and Malo (2017) found that the use of temporary workers lowered organizational

performance, especially in the skill-intensive sectors. The trend occurs due to the exit of

temporary workers living gaps in their employment stations. Workers filling the gap are seldom

equipped with the prerequisite skills and knowledge to work in those areas at the same level as

those that preceded them. The compounded effect of employees joining and leaving creates an

intermittent skill absorption and release, thereby having an overall negative impact on

productivity.

The government's response to the plight of temporary workers influences the confidence

of temporary workers. In the European Union, legislations exist recognizing and protecting

temporary worker's welfare (Countouris, Freedland, Deakin, Koukiadaki & Prassl, 2016). The

legislative framework promotes the workers working conditions as employees are constrained to

offer specific requirements. The USA government has established considerable measures to

protect the plight of temporary workers. The passage of legislation and hefty fines acts as

deterrents against organizations that provide poor working conditions of temporary employees

(Stewart & Syal, 2018).

The prevalence of workplace bullying necessitates its research and development of the

existing body of knowledge. The changing work dynamics requiring the hiring of temporary

workers expose this class of workers to bullying cases. They are often underrepresented or not

covered by company policies and labor laws, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation and

bullying. The existence of global bullying events, both in developed and developing economies,

reveals a trend that is yet to leave the system. Increased awareness will help to show how

temporary workers are affected by bullying given their integral role in the growth of an
 10

economy. Their benefit in filling up employee shortage or working at lower wages and shorter

periods for a company undergoing an economic crisis makes the theme a vital group for

economic growth. The health and working morale of this group need advocacy and well

representation in legal, institutions, and policy frameworks. The study seeks to identify a gap in

bullying of temporary workers and develop recommendations for the improvement of their

condition. The review is essential to business management. The turnover and effectiveness of the

workers have a direct impact on the organization's productivity. Following this, there is a need

for extensive research to determine how bullying affects their performance and how to avoid,

respond to, or eradicated at the institutional level.

Research Question

What is your quality of life and productivity on the job?

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Bullying in the Workplace

Workplace bullying describes the systematic and repeated personal mistreatment of

employees by the superior or subordinate colleagues. The victim of workplace bulling may face

deliberate derogatory acts repeatedly and eventually develop a perception that the work

environment is oppressive. Workplace bullying is normally associated with negative outcomes

like reduced productivity, high absenteeism, increased rates of employee turnover, poor job

performance, and reduced self-confidence among victim employees,

Theoretical Framework

Social dominance theory postulates the occurrence of intergroup conflicts in which one

party feels the other is not deserving of any favor or good. Social distance orientation studies

have been performed on several subjects, including forgiveness. Mifune et al. (2019) note that
 11

discrimination or hate of one towards another is often characterized by an unwillingness to ask

for forgiveness. The party that deems themselves as dominant does not acknowledge their

wrongs towards the others, thereby establishing a relationship where one is often oppressed, as

they are undeserving. The phenomenon explains the reason for the occurrence of hatred by

Caucasians towards African Americans, Japanese against Koreans in Japan, and other countries

as well (Mifune et al., 2019). The global occurrence of the phenomenon indicates that the

unwillingness to ask for forgiveness and the emphasis on one's power, are an inherent human

social behavior. The examples illustrate why intergroup relations in workplaces have bullying

cases.

Reijntjes et al. (2016) establish a link between social dominance, narcissism, and

bullying. The research indicates a positive correlation between social dominance and narcissism.

It found that boys (youths) depicting narcissistic tendencies engaged in direct-high-level bullying

and were on the high end of the social dominance continuum. Bullying is presented as a strategy

used by individuals in a social group to achieve dominance. People that bully others, do so to

feel powerful and cool, thereby exerting their dominance on their peers. Craving such feelings

indicates narcissistic tendencies. The self-regulatory model postulates that narcissistic

personalities seek ways to gratify their inflated self-esteem. Some of the approaches include

aggressive response to criticism, lack of empathy, and exploitative nature. The article also

observes that social dominance is directly connected to competition for resource control, a

condition that exists in the professional setting.

Social dominance theory provides an illustration of bullying behaviors experienced in

childhood and adulthood. Childhood bullying occurs in school setups while adulthood bullying is

manifested in professional settings. Bullying, for the two groups, may occur at other places, but
 12

is primarily manifested in these settings. Childhood forms the starting point for the development

of subordination tendencies (Halpern et al., 2015). Children learn to subordinate others, while

those lower in the hierarchy learn to accept their low position. Therefore, the bully develops

convictions that they must always be in power while the bullied grows to accept harmful

treatments. The nature of the relationship is continued into adulthood so that the bullying trends

in professional environments have their beginning in childhood.

The practice of bullying begins as early as in childhood. Children aged five years have

been found to bully their peers (Halpern et al., 2015). In their relationships, children depict

hierarchical associations where some are subordinated and later subjected to mental and physical

torture. The childhood stage forms the foundation of the development of disproportional

behaviors that characterize early adulthood relationships and behavior. Subordination and

bullying have an indirect impact on the victim's psychological and biological development and

does not have to be aggressive (Halpern et al., 2015). Therefore, the social dominance theory

will form the theoretical framework for analyzing bullying at Sport-Ware Corporation. The

theory highlights the perpetrators, victims, and mechanisms in a bullying situation.

Seminal Literature

A search on Google Scholar platform limiting the search dates from 1900 to 1999

suggests that the earliest publications for topics on bullying were around 1997. Rayner and

Cooper (1997) conducted an analysis of workplace bullying in the UK and proposed cost-

effective management strategies to resolve the problem. According to their findings, workplace

bullying had not received attention as a reality facing employees. The article's title insinuates the

mythical parade the phenomenon had received in this period and how organizations had chosen
 13

to remain ignorant of its presence. Overall, workplace bullying remained the least issue

companies had to deal with, and that it had negative impacts on employee performance.

Keskin, Akgün, Ayar, and Kayman (2016) undertook a study to further the investigation

of workplace bullying on the employees and the best approaches to control its prevalence. With a

focus on cyberbullying, the study's main emphasis was on the court cases and the legal fees the

companies and organizations would face if they failed to consider and manage employee

workplace bullying. Emotional intelligence skill is an ideal initiative towards ending workplace

bullying. It denounces the use of punitive strategies. Moreover, the authors recommend the

changes in the legislative framework to protect the rights of the employees. With the growing

usage of the internet in the early 2000s, researchers began to incorporate legal considerations as

part of the strategies to end workplace bullying — the use of mild approaches such as emotional

intelligence skills. Legal frameworks have improved as governments and businesses establish

laws and policies to stop workplace bullying.

Early literature strove to understand individual and group bullying. A study by Rayner

(1997) considered bullying at Staffordshire University. The research established the existence of

a small difference between bullying directed by men and women. Notably, half of the

participants had experienced bullying. The study had 1137 respondents. Most of the participants

indicated being bullied in groups, which was a strange phenomenon in early studies. The status

quo indicated that bullying was an action or behavior targeted at a person.

Misinformation and disinformation are powerful tools allowing bullying to thrive in

organizations. Field (2009) compiled various instances of workplace bullying. However, the

most interesting caption is in the first chapter. The author juxtaposes two statements from the

same company regarding the bullying of an employee. A victim of bullying, incapable of eating
 14

and going to work, reports the bullying experience from a leader in the organization. A leader,

form the same organization, denies the existence of bullying in the company. In this case, it is

evident that the leadership is slack to respond to bullying practices or is active in its perpetration.

The majority of the initial studies on workplace bullying appear to come from Europe.

Perhaps it is an indication of a high prevalence of bullying in workplaces. Salminen (1997)

research on bullying among employees in Finland compared bullying during occupational hours

and leisure time. It also compared bullying between male and female genders. The study found

no significant difference between bullying among male and female participants. The study used

interviews to collect data. The research discovered that occupational violence rated closely

between males and females. Risky occupations where one could encounter bullying included

mental health nurses, police officers, and correctional officers.

No literature came up from the period (1900-1998). The pattern could be an indication of

the slow realization of the phenomenon. The slow response is attributable to the absence of

temporary workers in the history of organizational and community culture that did not recognize

temp workers as worth protecting from exploitative employees.

Recent Literature

Bullying in the occupational domain affects managers as well. There is the danger of

assuming that the leaders have power and thus enjoy prerogatives giving them the power to bully

their juniors. A study by Ariza-Montes, Muniz, Noel, Leal-Rodríguez, & Leal-Millán, 2014)

observed that women managers were more likely to acknowledge and go public on their bullying

experience. Besides, the study revealed that employees working under stress, operating night

shifts, and no promotion are more likely to be bullied. Ariza-Montes et al. observe that

organizational culture and structure are responsible for some of the bullying incidences. They
 15

note that, as employees compete within a free system and combat a busy day to meet targets,

they are likely to become aggressive and manifest bullying tendencies. A study by Doe (2016)

observed that bullied employees underwent significant psychological distress. They developed a

low sense of worth, disempowerment, disrespect, and depression. A culture if bullying impacts

the employee and the organization. Demoralized employees cannot work efficiently. Besides,

they do not have a good quality of life.

Hodgins, MacCurtain, and Mannix-McNamara (2014) observe that workplace bullying

and other forms of mistreatment affect 20% of employees. The focus of the study is to identify

the most effective strategies for combating workplace bullying. The study relies on literature

reviews to develop their positions. Half of the reviewed materials proposed the change in

employee behavior and increasing awareness on how to identify and respond to bullying

incidences. Verkuil, Atasayi, and Molendijk (2015) highlight the interrelatedness between

bullying and health, mental health in particular. Strategies responding to bullying should include

psychoanalytic or psychotherapy programs for the employees. Finally, the literature search for

current research on bullying of temporary workers yielded no result. A high number of obtained

materials tackled temporary workers within the nursing context. Norton et al. (2017) signify that

the majority of the nurses experiencing bullying were women, below 30 years old, worked in

shifts, and contracted for either permanent or temporary employment. Moreover, the review

discovered most of the references on bullying occurred within the European scholars. Perhaps

the field is under-exploited. Further research on this area could improve the plea of temporary

workers who are becoming a larger portion of employees.

Causes of Workplace Bullying

 16

Several antecedent factors may cause the problem of employee bullying in the workplace.

These factors may occur at the institutional level or at a personal level. Institutional factors that

may contribute to workplace bullying include competition among employees, group pressure, an

unhealthy organizational culture, weak management structures, unique characteristics of a

particular job, and an inappropriate style of leadership within the organization. Equally, personal

character dispositions may be responsible for workplace bullying. Quite often, the employees

who perpetrate bullying in the workplace have some problematic personal characteristics such as

inability to cope with people of another gender, inability to work with people with

disproportionately lower levels of education, anger, bad temper, and general emotional disorder.

According to Savaşan and Özgür (2018), the victims of workplace bullying also have

certain personal characteristics that make them vulnerable targets for intimidation. First, the

victims of workplace bullying are often successful in their field of work, placing them at an

enviable competitive position against other rival employees in the organization. Second, most of

them tend to be open-minded in their interactions with other employees. Their willingness

accommodate divergent views and perceptions in the organization makes them vulnerable to

destructive communication.

Consequences of Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying has far-reaching consequences on the organization, individual

employees, and the general society. Hershcovis, Reich, and Niven (2015) point out that

workplace bullying creates undesired organizational costs, human costs, and spill over costs. The

human costs for workplace bullying refer to the psychological distress suffered by employees

when they face repeated aggressive acts from other employees. Employees who are victims of
 17

workplace bullying may face anxiety, stress, sleeping disorders, emotional instability, and

persistent anger.

The organizational costs describe those undesired outcomes associated with workplace

bullying that undermine the health of the organization. Repeated incidents of employee bullying

in the workplace are often associated with increased absenteeism, reduced job satisfaction,

deficient performance, and reduced productivity in the long term.

Spill over costs refers to the undesired consequences of workplace bullying that happen when

employees are bullied in the workplace. Employees who face bullying may sometimes transfer

the anger and aggression that they face to other people that they interact with – such as their

immediate family members and junior employees. When such aggression created by hostile work

relations is transferred to other personal relationships outside work, the problem spills over to the

society.

Workplace bullying describes a wide range of negative workplace behavior that is done

persistently due to the power disparities that exist between the perpetrators and victims. It is

different from other negative workplace behavior such as workplace aggression, workplace

deviance, workplace harassment or workplace incivility, which lack the distinguishing elements

of persistence and power disparities between employees. Notably, the negative workplace

behaviors mentioned above have common conceptual similarities such as the intention to harm,

and the pursuit of negative actions directed towards some targeted individuals.

The extant literature on workplace bullying reveals that the construct of workplace

bullying is conceptualized in numerous ways across countries due to inherent cultural differences

that shape industrial relations. These differences in conceptualization of workplace bullying have

led to the emergence of various definitions for workplace bullying. In effect, the proliferation of
 18

many definitions for workplace bullying has undermined the quest to develop a generalized

understanding of workplace bullying. According to Fevre, Robinson, Jones, and Lewis (2010),

the diverse cultural contexts undermine the possibility of creating an unvarying definition of

bullying and destroy the essence of academic work. In European countries, the common

definition of workplace bullying is “the persistent harassment, offense and social exclusion of

some employees with the intention of causing a negative impact on the employees’ work.” To

qualify as bullying, the negative work environment must occur repeatedly for some considerable

period. Isolated incidents of conflict that involve employees with the same job rank cannot be

labelled as bullying because they lack persistence and power disparity. Workplace bullying

happens as an escalating process where the targeted victim is confined to subjected to negative

social acts to place him or her in an inferior social position. Workplace bullying can be

perpetuated through acts such as verbal abuse, hostile work interactions, and inappropriate

meddling in someone’s capacity to meet their job responsibilities.

Tepper (2000) conducted a study to determine the factors that cause high turnover rates in

organization. The study results showed that aggressive behavior among peers and subordinates

was one of the reasons that shaped employees’ intention to quit their jobs. In the study conducted

by Quine (2010), the NHS employees who faced bullying at work also reported elevated levels

of anxiety and depression and indicated that they experienced low job satisfaction. Systemic

bullying in the workplace is directly associated with adverse effects on the physical and mental

health of employees. Quine (2001) determined that aggressive bullying pursued in the workplace

creates an adverse effect on the behaviors and attitudes of employees.

There are certain predispositions that are associated with perpetrators of workplace

bullying. The motive that drives many bully employees is the desire to control other people by
 19

suppressing their attitudes. They gain pleasure by exhibiting dominance over weak employees.

Notably, most employees that fall victim to bullying in the workplace also have certain character

predispositions. Many bullies in the workplace hold a sense of insecurity and inferiority, and

they express it through aggressive behavior directed against fellow employees. Levine, Breitkopf

Sierles and Camp (2003) provide a rationale that explains how instances of employee bullying

end up affecting other employees in the organization. They state that when employees face

humiliation from the top management, they also pass the emotional stress to their subordinates

by bullying them to suppress their attitudes. They gain some satisfaction by directing the

aggression that they face towards their subordinates. The study findings also showed that

workplace bullying posed increased danger on the physical health, career, and mental health of

the victims. It also held the potential to destroy the job abilities and skills of affected employees.

Levine, Breitkopf Sierles and Camp (2003) reiterate the need for employers to pay increased

attention towards workplace bullying by developing appropriate tactics to discourage aggressive

behaviors in the workplace.

Djurkovic, McCormack and Casmir (2004) conducted a study to determine the levels of

workplace bullying endured by employees of different gender in their workplaces. The findings

indicated that employees of both genders were likely to endure incidences of bullying in the

workplace. In recent years, studies by Einarsen and Nielsen (2014) have defined workplace

bullying as the persistent negative behaviors that are meant to make subordinate employees feel

inferior. Eventually, the victim employees face depression and fear.

In a study conducted by Frenking (2016), the findings indicated that many employees

quit their jobs when they face unrelenting incidences of bullying in the workplace. Workplace

bullying is considered unacceptable in many countries – regardless of whether it emanated from

 20

job supervisors and peer employees. However, the negative behavior still occurs in many

organizations in both developed countries and developing countries. Davenport, Schwartz, and

Elliott, (2005) indicated that no organization could rightfully claim to be have a workplace that is

completely free from bullying. The organizations can only try to control and reduce the

incidences of bullying among their employees as a strategy to improve their working

environment and increase productivity. Since harmful bullies exist in every organization, the top

management must control their actions and reign on them to reduce cases of unhealthy gossip,

physical aggression, and hostile communication.

The three main characteristics of bullying include unwarranted negative behavior and

aggression, repeated harassment, and an enduring power imbalance between different parties.

The common reasons for workplace bullying include low job morale among employees, lack of

proper work design, inadequate leadership in the organization, and inferior social positions that

leave certain employees exposed to bullying. Lee and Brotheridge (2006) indicate that a culture

of bullying in work environments is sustained when one or more perpetrators pursue deliberate

negative actions against certain target individuals.

Many studies on workplace bullying recommend the need to examine and study bullying

behavior within organizations to reduce its long-term costs. Bullying behavior in the workplace

is associated with productivity issues, health problems, and some undesired legal consequences.

For this reason, employers must emphasize their commitment to fight aggressive behavior and

bullying in the work environment (Sprigg et al., 2018). They must define certain behavioral

expectations, specific roles and responsibilities, and safety standards to be met by all employees

in the work environment. These expectations must also be enforced constantly by the

organization to prevent the occurrence of bullying behavior. The incidences of bullying occur
 21

more often than sexual harassment in many workplaces. As bullying persists in the workplace,

many employees cope up with the negative behavior by seeking more sick leaves when

compared to other unaffected employees (Goodboy, Martin, M& Bolkan, 2017). In some cases,

organizations that provide their employees with their own health programs are forced to incur

more costs due to the myriad sick leaves they seek.

Workplace bullying happens in many organizations that operate in both the developing

economies and developed economies. However, many organizations still lack appropriate

strategies for controlling bullying among their employees. At least one in every five employees

face bullying in their organizations. A study by Tehrani (2004) determined that many employers

lack the initiative to take proactive steps against workplace bullying. When bullying persists

within an organization, it forms a part of the organization’s culture and consequently undermines

the health of the organization. Quite often, many employees show reluctance to join or continue

working in organizations that have a prevalent bullying culture.

Rayner and Cooper (2006) reiterated the point that many organizations that lack policies

to discourage bullying and toxic work relationships often pay the ultimate cost by achieving poor

financial performance. Their failure to reign on bully employees is often instigated by lack of

sufficient organizational tools to punish workplace bullying. When the human resource managers

lack sufficient training to handle incidents of bullying in the workplace, they end up dealing with

direct consequential problems such as high rates of employee turnover (Bohle et al., 2017).

Unfortunately, many employees still fail to estimate the real costs incurred by their organizations

when they lose competent and talented employees due to unwarranted aggressive actions by

rogue employees.
 22

Schachter (2004) points out that the opportunity for business success is shaped to a

significant extent by the prevailing circumstances in the internal working environment of an

organization. Quite often, many employers fail to consider this reality by choosing to ignore the

bullying behavior of rogue employees and the deteriorating performance of victim employees.

The employers end up dissociating with employees who face persistent bullying. As they focus

on achieving financial performance and pay little attention to human resource problems like

persistent bullying, they end up creating persistent mistrust with the employees. According to

Hoel and Salin (2003), physical stress, persistent job dissatisfaction, and reduced cognition have

a direct effect on the level of productivity attained by employees. Many employees who face

bullying in the workplace develop a victim mentality that reduces their job morale and overall

self-esteem.

Character Predispositions for Perpetrators of Workplace Bullying

Bully employees can be identified through certain character predispositions. Kimberly

(2014) indicates that workplace bullies are normally self-centered people who seek to satiate

their personal ego by harassing other people to make them feel inferior. They also have certain

insecurities that threaten their status or position in the workplace. On many occasions, managers

may fail to identify cases of bullying in the workplace when employees conduct subtle forms of

aggression against their colleagues.

According to Hoel and Salin (2003), individual employees with a bully character

normally show other trivial characteristics such as manipulation, selfishness, and a generally

seductive demeanor. They feel inclined to dominate others through abusive tactics such as

assertive communication. Their explicit commanding action is usually meant to satisfy their own

personal desire for control. They feel powerless and helpless if they lack an opportunity to bully
 23

and control others (Ansoleaga, Ahumada & Cruz, 2019). Many bully employees also have a

pessimist attitude that inclines to perceive other employees with hostility. Their act of aggression

against others is informed by the need to attain forceful respect from other people.

Babiak and Hare (2006) determined that bully employees face difficulty whenever they

try hiding their personal inefficiencies. Whenever they try to act as competent and ethical

employees, their bully behavior is normally manifested through their interaction with fellow

employees. Most of them also possess inadequate emotional intelligence and proper coping

skills- leading them to pursue endless blame games and an inclination to deny responsibilities for

all wrongdoings (Malik, Sattar, Younas, & Nawaz, 2019). The tendency by most workplace

bullies to deny responsibility normally influences them to control others through negative

aggression.

Oghojafor, Muo and Olufayo (2012) recognized the role of gender differences in

promoting the culture of bullying within organizations. They determined that female employees

with bully behavior normally act out as the victims in bullying incidences when they are the

actual perpetrators of bullying. In comparison, male bullies in the workplace tend to be more

explicit in their negative acts of aggression. MacIntosh and Doherty (2010) point out that work

environments that are characterized by bully attitudes and aggressive behaviors are likely to

experience reduced productivity among employees, increased apprehension, unhealthy work

relations and destructive employment practices.

According to Harvey et al. (2006), bully individuals may perpetuate subtle aggression

against their target employees in the workplace by destabilizing them and constantly reminding

them of their weaknesses and failures. In the long term, the victims develop a low sense of self-

esteem. In some cases, bully employees may withhold critical data from the targeted victim or
 24

deny them access to important resources that are needed to perform certain job tasks optimally

(Feijó, Gräf & Fassa, 2019). The perpetrating bully may do this with an intent to create a

dilemma for the victim and evoke unstable emotion in him or her. This way, the bully achieves

an advantage by creating emotional instability on the victim.

Other common behaviors for workplace bullies include giving expanded workload to the

target employees with the intention of exhausting them emotionally. Bully employees higher job

positions may give extreme workload to lower level employees to make them feel superior. In

some cases, the powerful employee may tease the target victim to humiliate them openly. When

such cases go to the extreme, bully employees may show open disrespect to others by

condemning them in public for failing to meet unrealistic job targets. Employees hired on part-

time contracts often find themselves enduring acts of bullying from permanent employees. The

permanent employees may give the part-time employees high workload due to the perception

that they are inferior employees. Under such circumstances of bullying, the permanent simply

dump their work to support staff, leading to an overwhelming workload and a persistent feeling

of powerlessness.

Character Predispositions for Victims of Workplace Bullying

The studies conducted by Brunner and Costello (2003) and Braun (2004) reiterate the

point that victims of workplace bullying have certain characteristics that make them vulnerable

to bullying by rogue employees. Bully employees normally use their work inadequacies as a

basis to choose the target victims for their acts of aggression. For this reason, employees with

better work performance are most likely to become targets for bullying instigated by their peers.

Individual employees who have a non-confrontational personality and those who have a

cooperative character are normally singled out as easy targets for bullying. Einarsen (2000)
 25

describes how bullying may affect the social life of the victims and lead them into self-isolation,

especially when they start believing that they are under-estimated. Harvey et al. (2006) also

agree that bullying behavior may eventually force victims to develop low self-confidence and

low self-esteem. For this reason, proactive organizations that are keen to control bullying

behavior within their ranks normally organize training sessions for victims of bullying in the

work setting.

Such sessions are meant to restore the confidence levels of the victims. In fact, many

employees that fall victim to bullying in the workplace normally possess desired human resource

characteristics such as competence, intelligence, accomplishment and dedication to their work

(Lola & Reyes, 2017). These qualities give them a good personal profile for achievement and set

them as easy targets for bullying behavior from rogue employees.

Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction

Stress in the workplace is associated with reduced levels of job satisfaction among

employees. According to Hauge et al. (2010), bullying in the workplace is a common

occupational stressor for employees in many organizations. Just like personal stress, workplace

bullying is linked with adverse job satisfaction outcomes. Bowling and Beehr (2006) also

determined that employees who face persistent harassment in their work environments are more

likely to report low job satisfaction. In a study done by Rodríguez-Muñoz, Baillien, De Witte,

Moreno-Jiménez, and Pastor (2009), the findings show that employees who are repeatedly

targeted with aggressive actions in the workplace report low levels of job satisfaction than those

who work in positive work environments without bullying. Rodríguez-Muñoz, Baillien, De

Witte, Moreno-Jiménez, and Pastor (2009) also determined that workplace bullying is a cause of

negative wellbeing among employees rather than a consequence.

 26

Workplace bullying among temporary employees/casual workers

The number of temporary workers is rising at an alarming rate. The population is

representing anew workforce that needs a legal framework to cover its interests. In Canada, the

number increased by 50% between 1998 and 2014 (Ghelani, 2019). The actual count was 2.1

million, which was an improvement from the 1.4 million in 1998. Whereas the number of

temporary workers rose to 50%, that of permanent workers increased to 33%. The majority seek

employment in the social, education, and health sectors (Ghelani, 2019). Temps earn less than

permanent employees do; StatsCan results show that temporary workers received an hourly rate

of $21.8, while the permanent workers made $27.71 (Ghelani, 2019). This is an avenue of

discrimination and harassment because permanent employees consider as unworthy.

The growing number of temporary workers is also common in the United States. The

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ report indicates that 16.5 million Americans relied on gigs to manage

their financial needs (Gayle, 2019). The number comprised of people falling under on-call

workers, freelancers, independent contractors, or those working for agencies. Companies such as

Uber, Airing, and Lyft are some of the significant companies now shaping the gig market (Gayle,

2019). Many people are striving to come into grip with the changing work demands and

environments. Today, traditional employment strategies account for 34% signifying the

transformation to modern forms of work arrangements (Gayle, 2019). The research by the BLS

collected data using a self-reporting questionnaire, which is prone to biases. That

notwithstanding, the outcomes of the study provide a close representation of the contribution of

the industry to the country's economy.

Permanent employees are gathering sympathy with temporary workers. Permanent and

temporary employees, contractors, and vendors at Google united to stage a demonstration against
 27

the treatment of temps by the company (Wong, 2019). Approximately 900 Google workers

accented to the letter objecting to how the company treated its tempo workers. They reacted to

the company's sudden termination of the contract for 34 temps contracted to work on its Google

Assistant technology. The company exploited the temps, vendors, and contractors (TVC) while

developing its products. The developments in labor movements within the company finally led to

the demonstration. TVC constitutes more than 54% of the workforce at Google, taking into

account its global workforce (Wong, 2019). Google undertook a universal dismissal of its TVC

team and required its permanent employees not to offer support or thank the temporary workers

claiming that it would make Google liable. The permanent staff received statements to keep

silent, as the TVC remained uncertain about the future of their finances.

The increased interest in studying the prevalence of workplace bullying against

temporary workers is inspired by the fact that many employers in industrialized countries like

Netherlands and Canada are increasingly embracing temporary employment relationships, just

like the organizations in developing countries (International Labour Organization, 2015).

Temporary employment is normally characterized by job insecurity and low job hierarchy in

most organizations. These characteristics have a significant influence in determining the

likelihood of workplace bullying against victims. Since temporary employment violates the

International Labour Organization’s definition of decent work as productive job engagements

pursued under conditions of human dignity, security, equity and freedom, it does not qualify as

decent work. It fails to guarantee to provide security and social protection for employees. It also

lacks any prospects for employees to pursue personal development. Temporary workers also lack

the freedom to organize and participate in critical decisions in the workplace that have a direct

effect on their lives.

 28

The common characteristic of temporary employment lies in its lack of labor security and

regulatory protection of workers. Temporary employment relationships normally deny the

employees the opportunity to retain their jobs, get a representative voice in the workplace, earn a

stable income, get developmental opportunities, work in safe workplaces, and gain protection

against arbitrary dismissal. Whenever the temporary workers are paid, they receive low wages

for work done in unsafe environments. They also miss out on any statutory entitlements and

social benefits payable to permanent employees. Traditionally, many employees engaged in

temporary work are normally characterized as less skilled and less educated.

The dynamic changes in the global competition have forced many organizations to

increasingly adopt temporary employment arrangements around the world. International Labour

Organization (2016) indicates that most people who take up temporary are typically young

workers, women and migrants. Despite the common perception that temporary employment

creates unstable jobs and many precarious work conditions for individuals, some temporary

employees enjoy many positive benefits in temporary employment that they might not find in

standard/permanent employment. For instance, freelance employees and self-employed people

prefer to work on intermittent jobs to give them an opportunity to earn an income while

acquiring skills and knowledge that would raise their future job chances.

According to Biggs, Burchell, and Millmore (2006), employers may choose to implement

temporary employment relationships as a strategic effort to reduce organizational costs such as

salaries, training fees, and recruitment costs. Temporary employment relationships also give

employers some flexibility when managing their staff headcounts. By engaging employees in

short-term positions, the organizations can easily adjust their staff numbers to reflect demand.
 29

In some cases, organizations rely on temporary work relationships to outsource for critical talents

who would fill up their management and administrative positions. They may use performance

contracting or engage a temporary worker agency to recruit and pay casual workers on behalf of

the main organization. Since the temporary workers have reduced entitlements, the organizations

perceive an opportunity to save costs by hiring temporary workers.

Effects of Temporary Employment on Workers

A study done by Quinlan, Mayhew, & Bohle (2001) determined that many workers

engaged under temporary employment relationships suffer poor physical health and poor

psychological wellbeing. In similar findings, McGann, White, and Moss (2016) determined that

temporary work arrangements also undermine the level of self-esteem and self-efficacy among

workers. Many casual workers suffer poor work-life balance and uncertain incomes which

increases their levels of anxiety.

These problems are compounded for temporary workers who juggle their time to work

for several organizations concurrently. Since many organizations pay less attention to the safety

and health of casual workers, they are increasingly susceptible to injuries, accidents and other

occupational health risks. In a study done by Quinlan, Mayhew and Bohle (2001) in Australia,

the findings showed that workplace violence was more likely to be directed at casual workers

than permanent workers.

Workplace bullying often happens as an escalating process. It must be repeated regularly

for some time for the incidences to be categorized as bullying. The confronted person is forced to

accept an inferior social position through incessant negative social acts. On this basis, any

isolated incidences of conflict in the workplace cannot qualify as bullying. Workplace bullying

can further be categorized by their unique characteristics. For instance, they can be categorized
 30

as work-related bullying, personal bullying, physical intimidation, isolation, the threat to

personal status, threat to professional status and overwork.

There are several risk factors in temporary employment that are associated with

workplace bullying. Yamada (2000) points out that organizations that rely on contingent

workforce create undesirable conditions for bullying to thrive. Such organizations handle casual

employees as some goods that can be dismissed at any time. This is an intuitive affirmation that

casual workers have a higher risk of bullying than permanent workers. Many temporary

employees also lack the opportunity to bond meaningfully with permanent employees in the

workplace because they have short-term work. During their short stay within the workplaces,

they become easy targets for bullying by rogue permanent employees who know that the casual

workers would soon leave the organization.

Ariza-Montes, Muniz, Montero-Simo, and Araque-Padilla (2013) determined that

temporary employment creates an insecure work atmosphere that exposes casual workers to

bullying. Since many employees who take casual employees have low status and low education,

their characteristics make them easy targets for workplace bullying. They hold low power as

compared to their managers and permanent employees. Norton et al. (2017) indicate that casual

workers are also increasingly worried that they could be dismissed from work or their contracts

may not be renewed if they defend themselves during interpersonal conflicts. There is a

significant association between organizational change and the increased adoption of temporary

work relationships in organizations. Organizations that choose to recruit casual workers are

normally under a state of organizational change. Further, Quinlan, Mayhew, and Bohle (2001)

determined that an organization’s culture is directly related to bullying in the workplace.

 31

Power dynamics tend to play out more strongly in temporary work relationships than in

permanent employment relationships. Managers and casual workers have an imbalance of power

that endures over time due to the precarious nature of temporary employment. The managers also

hold positional power in the workplace which emanates from legitimate power, coercive power,

and reward power. These power sources give managers absolute control over casual workers. For

this reason, many casual workers strive to gain the favor of managers so that they can receive

more work hours and income, and renewed contracts in the organization (Aquino, 2000).

Organizations that employ many casual workers tend to experience more cases of

aggression in the workplace – especially for employees who share certain job roles. As

organizations change their hiring practice and favor more temporary employees to save costs,

they also increase the opportunity for workplace bullying. As organizations undergo

restructuring, the incompetence of some managers and their inability to work under pressure may

eventually manifest through bullying behavior. The managers may become intimidating and

abusive to their subjects by adopting aggressive tactics such as yelling and coercing their targets

to resign from work. Rampant cases of workplace bullying are likely to be witnessed if the

organizational change creates job insecurity, role conflict, increased workload, and a generally

poor work environment.

Job insecurity provides the greatest vulnerability among casual workers. It makes them

susceptible to intimidation and bullying by other employees who enjoy job security. Many casual

workers feel powerless in making any progressive contribution to their organizations because

they lack the longevity of engagement. Since casual workers are constantly worried about their

job security, they cannot resist any pressures or aggressive actions instigated by their line

managers.
 32

Salin (2003) states that even the managers and supervisors who fear to lose their jobs due

to incompetence might be inclined to adopt bullying behaviors to protect their own managerial

jobs. Bullying easily thrives in temporary employment relationships because both managers and

casual workers know they lack any sufficient opportunity to pursue pleasant and fair interactions

in the long term. Baillien and De Witte (2009) suggest that a modest correlation exists between

workplace bullying and job security. Spagnoli and Balducci (2017) also determined that

workplace bullying is an antecedent factor for job insecurity. In a longitudinal study done by

Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland and Einarsen (2014) on Norwegian offshore workers, the findings

indicated that experiences of bullying led workers to develop a greater intention to quit their jobs

and increased perceptions of job insecurity. These trends were inspired by a growing feeling of

powerlessness among the temporary workers over job insecurity and unfair treatment at work.

Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland and Einarsen (2014) also determined that many managerial

workers easily invoked threats of dismissal against casual workers to get things done. Their

actions further perpetuated the culture of bullying against temporary workers. In a US study done

by Alterman, Luckhaupt, Dahlhamer, Ward and Calvert (2013), the findings showed that the

public sector enjoyed high job security which influenced their dysfunctional behaviors.

Increased Risk of Bullying for Temporary Workers

The findings from several studies reveal a trend where permanent employees bully casual

workers in their workplaces. Such bullying is mostly perpetuated by permanent employees who

feel that their job status and job roles are threatened by casual workers. Managers also tend to

bully those temporary workers who pose a threat to their managerial job performance. Permanent

employees may block casual workers from learning too much information such as how to operate

the machinery if they feel threatened by the casual workers. They believe that if casual
 33

employees learn how to operate the machines, their permanent job positions could be converted

to casual work for temporary workers.

Tsuno et al. (2015) conducted a study to determine the influence of job insecurity and

power dynamics on bullying incidences in the workplace. They determined that casual workers

were more likely to witness and experience workplace bullying than permanent workers. One

possible factor for high susceptibility among temporary workers is that they often occupy low-

level positions in the workplaces, and inevitably hold unfavorable power positions. Tsuno et al.

(2015) determined that such conditions create a risk factor for temporary works in countries with

work cultures high power distance like Japan. Since the labor laws in Japan do not protect

temporary employment, many temporary workers are more likely to face social exclusion. Many

temporary workers also face increased bullying in the workplace because they are highly

inexperienced. Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper (2002) indicate that when casual workers are included

in work teams with other permanent employees, their inexperience makes them less competent in

the team. They are more likely to be accused of slowing down the performance of the team and

reducing their bonus pay. These characteristics make casual workers more vulnerable to bullying

from permanent employees.

Notably, some studies report contrary findings on the vulnerability of temporary workers

as compared to permanent workers. The findings of a study done by Cooper (2000) revealed that

part-time employees faced low rates of bullying in the workplace as compared to full-time

employees. One explanation for these findings is that part-time employees are cushioned against

workplace bullying because they work for shorter periods and hold a flexible work relationship

with the organization.

 34

Riley, Duncan, and Edwards (2011) also conducted similar studies in Australia which

determined that bullying was more prevalent among permanent employees than fixed-term

employees and casual employees. Another Belgium study by Notelaers, Vermunt, Baillien,

Einarsen and De Witte (2011) also determined that employees in permanent employment had a

greater risk of being bullied in the workplace as compared to temporary employees. In some

cases, employees who are engaged on fixed-term contracts or temporary contracts are protected

from rampant harassment and bullying in their workplaces. As an example, the findings by

Biggs, Burchell, and Millmore (2006) determined that temporary employees who perpetrated

bullying faced varied sanctions such as non-renewal of their job contracts and immediate

suspension from work. These sanctions are meant to end the bullying behavior of the

perpetrators. In some cases, even the temporary employees who are victims of bullying are

normally dismissed through non-renewal of contracts.

Norton et al. (2017) indicate that some job sectors have high structural power imbalances

that make them more likely to implement temporary employment relationships than others. They

include the hospitality industry and some healthcare jobs. The popularity of temporary

employment relationships in different economic sectors varies with individual countries.

Cranford and Vosko (2006) indicate that Canada has the highest number of temporary employees

in art, sport, recreation, and culture occupations.

Characteristics of temporary workers and their susceptibility to bullying

Hall (2006) suggests that temporary employees are peripheral and marginal people. They

are marginalized through unfair practices such as low pay and limited opportunities for skill

development. Since many temporary employees miss out on training opportunities, they get

limited opportunities to advance their careers. For this reason, D’Cruz and Noronha (2016)
 35

determined that many temporary workers remain content with their job duties and precarious

employment status.

Keashly and Jagatic (2011) recognize power dynamics as one of the factors that shape

organizational hierarchies. It also plays out too often in cases involving workplace abuse and

workplace aggression. International Labor Organization (2016) suggests that temporary

employment could be one of the contextual factors influencing individual susceptibility to

bullying in the workplace. This point provides an explanation on why temporary employment

relationships are dominated by young workers, women workers, and migrant workers.

Women in Temporary Employment

Many women populations find themselves engaged as casual workers due to the

influence of various political, historical and social factors. Vosko (2006) indicate that for many

decades, women have endured the negative effects of traditional gender roles, where the females

are presumed to be caregivers as the males take up breadwinner roles. For this reason, most

permanent job roles defined under standard employment are held by male employees as women

take up casual employment in large numbers. Similarly, Hoel and Cooper (2003) also determined

that women are overly represented in casual work arrangements as compared to men.

Salin and Hoel (2013) indicate that women who face bullying in the workplace could be victims

of social gender norms and general power play within organizations. Olafsson and Johannsdottir

(2004) indicate that there are some gender differences in the forms of bullying directed at

employees, and the coping strategies used by bullied employees. Escartin, Salin, and Rodriguez-

Carballeira (2011) determined that women employees who are engaged in temporary

employment rate professional discrediting, relational aggression and emotional abuse as the most
 36

severe acts of bullying in the workplace. In comparison, men's conceptualization of bullying

considered these negative acts in the workplace to be less severe and relatively normal.

Youth in Temporary Employment

Just like many women populations around the world, the youth popular is also overly

represented in casual employment than older people. Several factors drive young people to take

up temporary employment, even when they face workplace bullying and other forms of

unwarranted aggression. First, as young people transition from school learning into employment,

they normally have less work experience and little job competence to meet the professional

demands in permanent employment.

The International Labor Organization (2016) points out that the engagement of young

people in casual employment further denies them an opportunity to acquire critical work

experience that would increase their absorption into permanent employment. Young people who

work in weak labor markets are also more likely to face great difficulty in moving from casual

employment to stable permanent employment. Keashly (2012) suggests that the young cohort

experienced workers normally have a high susceptibility to bullying. Young inexperienced

employees have increased risk of exposure to bullying in the workplace and general harassment

as compared to older employees. Many young employees also contend with issues of job

security. According to Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic and Nsubuga-Kyobe (2012), many

young trainees and apprentices normally face increased pressure to avoid job loss and overall job

insecurity. Many apprentices strive to retain their jobs in order to protect their continued

participation in the training program and secure proper trade qualification.

A close analysis of the work profiles for individual casual workers and the categories of

workplace bullying that they face reveals that most casual workers face certain categories of
 37

bullying behaviors. Vosko (2006) used Canadian employment statistics to study the profile of

male workers. The findings indicated that a majority of young in the 24 - 54 age bracket took up

standard employment while those in the 15-24 age bracket were mostly engaged in temporary

employment. The study by Vosko (2006) still also found that women in all age brackets were

overly represented in casual work, just like the young men in the 15-24 age bracket. The

prevalence of bullying in many workplaces is sustained by a complex interplay of risk factors

associated with specific organizational factors and individual characteristics. The organizational

risk factors may include the dominant trends in job markets, organization hierarchies, and the

specific characteristics for certain industry sectors. The individual characteristics may include

age, gender, and individual power at work.

Any interventions that seek to protect casual workers from bullying ought to be designed

after considering all the relevant contextual factors that make casual workers highly susceptible

to bullying. First, it is important to establish relevant legal frameworks, institutional policies and

work regulations that discourage permanent employees and managers from bullying temporary

employees. Different nations have established varying legal frameworks for handling reported

cases of bullying in workplaces. However, only a few countries have created legal systems to

offer specific bullying protection to casual workers.

Assumptions and Biases

The literature review indicated inadequate research on workplace bullying of temporary

workers. The first assumption and bias is that workplace bullying among temporary workers is a

new phenomenon. The lack of literature material on the subject is not proof of its absence. The

second assumption is that there is inadequate literature on the subject. The lack of documentation

on the subject in online platforms does not necessarily make them scarce on other platforms such
 38

as archived materials. Thirdly, managers are responsible for the bullying of temporary workers.

This assumption emanates from previous pieces of literature suggesting bullying directed by

managers. There are other people involved at work that could channel bullying towards

temporary workers. Besides, temporary workers could bully their employers. My bias makes it

appear as though it is always the temp worker experiencing some form of bullying. The fourth

assumption is that the bullying of temporary workers has not ended. There is a gap between the

publication of the literature materials and the compilation of this study. Over that period, the

companies, government, and other organizations might have taken actions to eradicate bullying

of temporary workers. However, this study overlooks this possibility and focuses on a situation

where the outcome will confirm the existence of the problem. Finally, the result of the study is

already assumed. The literature review indicated bullying of workers, which has led to the biased

conclusion that temporary workers are all bullied. There is a level of trust in the credibility of the

materials, but they might have based their research analysis or procedures on confounded

methods or data.

Summary

Workplace bullying is a growing phenomenon. The nature and extent of workplace

bullying today are complex and widespread as compared to the late 1990s; it continues to receive

extensive coverage and research. The changing nature of the working environment in terms of

labor costs, skills demand, and job pressure have resulted in the rise of temporary workers. The

field is growing and catching up with traditional or permanent employment, with the main

challenge for workers in this category being underrepresentation in the legal framework and

workplace. There is scarce research conducted in the discipline in other employment sectors.

Nursing has done input considerably to the subject. However, more research is required. The
 39

inadequacy of literature materials necessitates the use of explorative research design and a

qualitative research design approach. The study falls under the intermediate continuum, which is

fit for the research method. A question to consider is the health and work performance impact of

bullying on temporary workers working for sales agencies in the sales industry in the United

States.

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

The methodology to be employed in this particular study is specific to this problem. It

will take a case study approach, using qualitative studies to come to a conclusion. The design of

the study will be based on a review of the relevant literature, as well as primary research from

people who are involved in workplaces with these sorts of issues taking place. The specific

population that will be used in putting together this study are those who are working workplaces

of various sizes and with various goals. It will take a broad approach in terms of geographic

location. This is important because bullying in the workplace is not the sort of problem that is

specific to one part of the world or even one part of the country. It is pervasive to the extent it

affects all industries and all regions. The study has a chance to offer social change. It can provide

for better workplaces where people feel more comfortable doing business. It can improve mental

health outcomes while also making businesses more efficient because their people feel protected

in the workplace. It has the power to improve the industrial design.

Research Methods and Design(s)

Mixed research methodology refers to the use of two or more data collection strategies to

investigate a phenomenon. According to Schoonenboom and Johnson, (2017), mixed-method

research refers to the use of qualitative approach to collect, analyze, and interpret data on a
 40

phenomenon in one study or a series of studies on the phenomenon. The method holds by the

assumption that the use of one approach cannot yield sufficient and reliable data; that adopting

two or more strategies offers the opportunity to balance the study and develop reliable

conclusions. Qualitative approach helps to create a picture of the whole phenomenon from this

perspective. Therefore, case study method research is a safer way of combining previous studies

with the outcomes of qualitative methods (Brannen, 2017). Further, it helps to build on the

existing knowledge, affirming, or introducing new ways of viewing the phenomenon.

The case study research method rose as the product of evolutionary endeavor to establish a

secure research approach. The technique is a birth child of the third revolutionary movement,

which branched from the second revolutionary movement. The second revolutionary movement

came up with the use of qualitative approaches for studies to back up the quantitative approach

developed by the first movement. The third movement combined the two resulting in a hybrid

approach to research called the mixed research method (Mertens, Bazeley, & Bowleg, 2016).

The qualitative approach is inconclusive in its outcomes. It does not take into account the

quantitative aspects of the study, which is why the quantitative approach is inevitable. The effect

of bullying on employees is a qualitative phenomenon dealing with psychological and biological

impacts. The impact on productivity is a measurable quantitative phenomenon achieved through

quantitative designs (Mertens, Bazeley, & Bowleg, 2016). The ability of the mixed approach to

collect and analyze both qualitative and quantitative data makes it the most appropriate method

for responding to the research question.

Study Population

The general population for this study involves the entire sales industry or employees

working in a promotion company, including the leadership. The targeted population narrows
 41

down to the population that will form the sample size (Etikan & Bala, 2017). The salesperson

working directly with the consumers will form the target population. They often fall under a

temporary work agreement. Besides, their performance is directly affected by the relationship

they have with their colleagues, leaders, and work environment, in general. The impact of the

relationship on their psychological and health (biological) performance will contribute data on

qualitative research (Brannen, 2017). Their performance in terms of the total sales and quality of

work relating to consumers will generate quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. The

study will target thirty to fifty employees from at-least two sales organizations. The salespersons

provide the perfect population to use a qualitative method and to test the hypotheses. The

statements of the research problem and purpose identified the need for researching several

organizations and employees of diverse career paths. However, after careful consideration and

consultation of articles, it has become imperative to focus on a single line of population.

Traditional research approaches sought to access broad and, in some cases, an entire population

that was tiresome and time-consuming (Etikan & Bala, 2017). Later, researchers developed

approaches to targeting specific populations in a general population, which is more effective and

efficient when the design is coherent. Alternatively, the research could target the general

population within a specific line of employment. A general population is a group of potential

research participants having one feature or interaction with the phenomenon of interest. In this

study, sales personnel working for an agent or several agents will be the target population

(Etikan & Bala, 2017). The salespersons are temporary workers who work under pressure to

deliver on targets set by the agents. Working under such conditions creates pressure and poor

working conditions. Employees face underrepresentation in decision-making; they are

 42

defenseless against bullying activities, which provide a viable condition for employee bullying,

harassment, and discrimination.

Survey, Interview, and Focus Group Methods

Surveys

Include a sentence about who you will be surveying in the study. Surveying is a research

approach involving the use of pre-set questions. The questions are administered through the

internet, in person, or by telephone (Phillips, 2017). The technique has received wide use in the

health profession as it is praised for its ease of administration, cost-effectiveness, and time-

conservation. The method encompasses other procedures such as formulation of the sampling

frame, optimization of participants' response rate, and accounting for cases where participants

have been based. A research method selection is as important as the determination of the

research question and depends on the type of question to be answered.

Surveying is invaluable in research involving the study of human phenomena, including

opinion and emotions. The technique is adapted to such studies as the required data are not

available in documents and cannot be observed directly (Phillips, 2017). A well-designed survey

tool is comparable to a psychometric instrument that has been used traditionally to investigate

emotional behaviors in clinics and other settings. For instance, the Maslach Burnout Inventory

(MBI) investigates burnout, an effect of bullying, which is a human phenomenon that cannot be

observed directly. The use of opinions can be enhanced with the use of survey tools when

collecting information. The technique is contraindicated, where direct data is available. Despite

of its benefits, the approach has inherent limitations in the human agent, including interpretation

and recall biases (Phillips, 2017). The survey technique does not have to be conducted on the

research participants in person, as it is possible to use records to complete a survey. The

 43

approach is adopted when a researcher approaches an institution with primary data on the

phenomenon being studied. The researcher can request the organization to complete the survey

and eliminate instances of recall bias.

The survey approach has a multidimensional reach. The technique can be used on a huge

population sample using explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive approaches (Safdar et al.,

2016). A survey tool can be adopted from a pre-existing one if it allows the investigator to

respond to the research questions. However, the tool can as well be developed based on the

researcher's study needs. The study focus can be coupled with other research approaches, such as

interviews (Safdar et al., 2016). The technique has significant limitations such as low response

rates, poor outcomes in the illiterate audience, and ban of probing of respondents where mails are

used. Some limitations for using this online method include low population sample, challenges in

coordinating response and time management, and inability to probe the respondent (Safdar et al.,

2016).

The study will adopt survey tools in the collection of participant information related to

emotions and bullying. In this survey, a sample of the staff will be taken to represent the whole

employees. Only 15 employees will be participating in the whole survey of which all of them

will be supervisors. All participants will be invited to participate, according to the National

Health Service guidance. A questionnaire method will be used and will be dictated by the heads

in the organization. Five staffs will be sent an anonymous questionnaire paper containing a

prepaid return envelope. They will receive reminders after exactly two weeks’ time. An email

having a link to the anonymous questionnaire will be sent to the remaining staff out of the fifteen

participants, and a reminder after 2 weeks and 4weeks. All the 15 participants, who were all

supervisors, who volunteered will be sent a screening questionnaire to ensure the study included
 44

a range of responses from staff who had been bullied, had witnessed bullying or been accused of

bullying.

Interviews

Interviews are used in data collection to back descriptive data sources by highlighting

different opinions on the subject matter. Different opinions are elicited due to diverse

experiences from one person to another. Therefore, interviews provide a broader understanding

based on the ideas from varied experiences. Interviews have played a critical role in research as a

technique for eliciting opinion from another person. The interviewer seeks to make the

respondents agree or give their perspective on opinions, beliefs, and facts (Young et al., 2018).

The technique was first used in a proper research approach in 1886 when Charles Booth used it

to conduct social investigation. In the 20th century, the technique gained traction and was fast

entering fields such as psychology, medicine, education, and polling. The technique is now done

in multiple fields with the use of face-to-face interviews, telephone, and internet. The process is a

mutual interrelationship between the interviewer and the interviewee. Both sides learn in the

process (Young et al., 2018). The technique can be influenced in the event an interviewee brings

a new perspective to the research that the researcher did not consider. Under such circumstances,

the interviewer can probe the response to obtain more detail. The design is recommended for

cases where complex behaviors are under study, making it crucial to the understanding of

bullying within the context of social dominance theory.

There are several key stages of conducting interviews, including the formulation of

interview questions, ethical review and approval, and evaluation of interview techniques. The

researcher first develops the questions and then analyze whether the approach is the most

suitable method to collect data on the questions (Young et al., 2018). In making this decision, the
 45

researcher has to consider the various research procedures, which include semi-structured,

structured, and unstructured methods. Structured interviews involve the use of fixed questions.

The same questions are applied to all participants, thus allowing for a comparison of the scripts.

The interviewees have to align themselves with the interview questions. Unstructured interviews

are random. They do not rely on a script but involve asking spontaneous questions based on the

respondent's last answer. The technique is advantageous in performing in-depth data collection

and eliminates the potential interview bias caused by premeditated questions. However, the

technique is less assuring that all significant elements will be covered. In addition, the outcomes

cannot be compared, thus making it a weak method, as there are internal issues concerning

reliability and consistency.

Researchers prefer a semi-structured interview approach. Questions are maintained

throughout the study. Besides, the interviewer can ask additional questions if they feel there are

important details and hints mentioned by the respondent while answering to the questions. The

strategy allows flexibility and ensures the presence of comparable data (Young et al., 2018). The

strategy is helpful in the study of complex factors, making it adaptable in the analysis of bullying

at Sport-Ware Corporation. The study will, therefore, adopt a semi-structured interview approach

involving asking participants specific questions and requesting them to elaborate on important

areas or new trajectories. Developing a good rapport with the respondent is the first step towards

having quality research. The interviewer builds rapport through formal acquaintances. The

collection of demographic questions facilitates the development of good rapport. A Semi-

structured telephone interviews will be conducted to investigate experiences of bullying in

deeper depth.10 Questionnaire respondents will be invited to participate in a semi-structured

interview and interviewees were volunteers drawn from the 15 sample. The questionnaires will
 46

be developed to measure the prevalence and impact of bullying. Some respondent will be asked

to rate how often they had experienced each negative behavior from other staff in the last 6

months using a five-point frequency scale.

Focused-Groups

Include a sentence about who specifically will participate in the focus groups and what

justification you have for the decision. The focus group has become the main approach to the

research. The technique involves the use of a guided group discussion that aims to reap on the

group's experience, attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs (Nyumba et al., 2018). The technology is

popular as compared to techniques like Q methodology, and nominal group technique. The

technique emerged in the 1980s to facilitate qualitative methods. It is cheap and acts as an

alternative in participatory research. The approach has been used in sociology, psychology,

media studies, and education. Focused-groups have a close relationship with interviews due to

their focus on group interviews and targeting of individuals for interviews. Nevertheless, the key

similarities are in the purpose of the approaches, which are to uncover the participant's value and

perceptions. There are significant differences between the two approaches. Interviews targets

individuals and subjects them to questions requiring in-depth responses. In this case, the

researcher participates as an investigator. On the contrary, focused-groups involve more than one

individual, and the researcher acts as a moderator or a facilitator. Therefore, in adopting this

strategy, the researcher will take a peripheral role in facilitating group discussions.

The technique will take four main stages being research design, data collection, analysis,

results, and reporting. Research design entails identifying the main aim and objectives of the

study. In this case, bullying at Sport-Ware Corporation and its impact on employees is the main

objective. A list of questions will be developed based on the main objective of the study. The
 47

next step, under design, would be the selection of the participants. The participants will influence

the quality of data collected from the process since the group's effectiveness is determined by the

synergetic relationships and group dynamics existing among the group members (Nyumba et al.,

2018). Self-disclosure in groups requires a sense of security, which will limit the outcomes of the

focus group. The possibility of stigmatization and victimization will necessitate the use of

general questions that do not require the identification of individuals. Selecting participants in

the same peer, gender, and social-cultural background may enhance the freedom of expression,

diverse groups have been found to have more advantages in providing environments for free

conversation.

The small number of participants in focused-groups makes it hard to exhaust topics.

Therefore, several focused-groups will be used to maximize the range and quality of data

collected through the focused-groups. The method yields observational and qualitative data that

is challenging to analyze. However, there are several approaches, including grounded theory,

content analysis, and discourse analysis. The analysis will entail coding strategies to help the

clustering of the views around common themes and thereby developing generalizations.

Recurring themes and ideas, form the basis of the analysis of qualitative data. Data coding

enhances the ability to grasp information that is otherwise impossible to decipher by listening to

a tape. The imitation of the approach and analysis relies on the researcher's skills in identifying

relevant themes. Therefore, it is subjective as what one may perceive as a theme another may

not. The focused-groups and coding data analysis techniques will be used in collecting

information to help build a contextualized understanding of the bullying phenomenon. During

this research, I will use only the supervisors as my focus groups with only those who have been
 48

bullied so that I will be able to examine this research problem through different perspectives. By

so doing this, I will be able to measure the prevalence and impact of bullying.

Materials/Instruments

This section should include discussion on survey, interviews, and focus group questions

that you are using. Therefore, hypothetically, bullied employees will have poor work-life

experience translating in low sales, whether tested today or in the future. Internal reliability

refers to the ability to find the same results or responses when researching people with similar

behavior or experience (Moran, 2016). For instance, bullied employees should have a similar

response to a question asking about their self-esteem or the impact of bullying on their

performance. The design assumes that the employees’ responses are interrelated such that the

alternative hypothesis is accepted. Finally, inter-rater reliability relies on the similarity of ratings

provided by observers (Pressbooks, n.d). For instance, a study asking employees to rate their

quality of experience between 1 and 10, whereby 5 and below signifies poor quality, should have

bullied employees select scores below 5. The study assumes that bullied employees have a

related rating of their work experience to accept the alternative hypothesis.

The achievement of research validity occurs using face validity, content validity, and

criterion validity mechanisms. Face validity refers to a surface accuracy of the outcomes, which

is challengeable upon careful reconsideration (Pressbooks, n.d). Content validity depends on

tests conducted on all variables in the study, while criterion validity involves studies determining

the correlation between one variable and another. Content and criterion validity are considered

worthy of this study, where participants are subjected to all the correlated test variables. For

example, the low quality of work-life experience is to have negative impacts on employee sales
 49

track. In this case, there is a correlation between one variable and the other, and both meet the

test fulfilling the requirements of content and criterion validity measures.

A face-to-face or online interview is the preferred method of qualitative data collection.

The approach entails interviewing each participant (Trigueros, Juan & Sandoval, 2017; Neuman,

2012). The benefits of the approach are its chances of collecting in-depth responses from the

participants. Further, the researcher has the opportunity to ask clarifications from the

participants. The approach is advantageous for a small sample size, such as employed by this

study. However, its major limitation is time consumption. It takes a shorter time to provide

research questionnaires than to interview each individual. Nonetheless, the face-to-face interview

involves some aspects of questionnaires, such as the use of structured questions subjected to all

participants. Shorter time duration and objectivity in the process enhance data reliability and

validity.

Published materials on the research topic will form the basis for developing interview

questions. The questions are selected based on the studies’ consistency with the validity and

reliability measures. Moreover, the face-to-face interview incorporates dichotomous, multiple

choices, rank order scaling, rating scales, and open-ended questions, providing a broad approach

for data collection.

The study seeks to obtain qualitative data. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale provides a

simple and accurate tool for collecting qualitative data on self-esteem. The interview will also

generate additional information on qualitative data specific to the profession and work

experiences

Other than the qualitative data, the participants will provide a report of their sales trend in

one month, leading to the month of the study to serve as the quantitative data. Interviewees will
 50

fill a sheet of their daily performance for one month. The participants will then provide

hypothetical figures of how they could have performed for each of the days, were they in a

healthy environment. Although the second data is flawed because it does not represent reality, it

supports the study’s purposes of comparing how working in a healthy environment would be like

for the interviewees. Adoption of quantitative analysis, both descriptive and inferential data

analysis, through excel, provides a simple tool for analyzing and making meaning of the data

(Lacort, 2014). Determination of standard deviation, statistical significance, correlations, and

graphical presentation through excel are some of the detailed analysis to be conducted.

Assumptions

Assumptions are an integral part of every study and influence the conduction of research

and its outcomes after accounting for each assumption. First, the study assumes that the

participants have high performance in a healthy work relationship accurately represented in the

tentative outcome of their imaginative results (Verma & Abdel-Salam, 2019). Secondly, the

study assumes that market factors are consistent. Ideally, the market demand for the participants’

products is consistent throughout the period for which they report their sales. Secondly, the study

assumes that the participant's “bully” work environment is the only changing variable affecting

their work morale and productivity. Besides, it assumes that the personal and social home

environment has no impact on the participants such that the participants leave their office to

work without having any interaction that could impact their performance. The final assumption is

that the variables and interview questions capture all the requisite spheres and that the employees

are honest in their responses to the interview. Collecting data from a diverse sample lowers the

error of dishonesty.
 51

Limitations

The study has fundamental limitations disclosed to inform user judgment on its validity.

First, the study lacks a control sample. The selection of bullied employees, in particular, limits

the possibility of comparing the data with those of employees working in free and respectful

environments. Moreover, making such a comparison would skew the results of the data since it is

not consistent to compare the outcomes of two separate people and assume them as similar

participants (Greener, 2018). Some personal issues are confounding in such a study. Therefore,

participants may have taken part to know how the new environment affects them. The sales are

also affected by market trends, which are not controlled by the employee’s mood or work

environment. The results of the employee's sales could be due to a fall in market consumption

rather than the effect of workplace bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

Delimitations

The study focuses on 15 participants. The sample size is small and manageable. The

sample size is specifically from bullied employees to increases the confidentiality level. Face-to-

face interviews offer greater chances of obtaining in-depth data and assessing participants'

consistency. Participants will respond to similar sets of questions for consistency. Data records

will enhance the retention of originality.

Ethical Assurances

First, IRB approval will be sought before data collection to establish legitimacy, validity,

and accuracy of the research design in achieving the greater good. Secondly, the research will

administer active consent forms for soliciting the participant’s willingness and full knowledge to

participate in the research (Johnson & Christensen, 2016). Handling of participants' data is

crucial to the study; the participant’s data will be stored in a hard-drive and locked away in a safe
 52

(Saunders, Kitzinger & Kitzinger, 2015). The researcher will delete the data after the approval of

the research project. Other ethical considerations include accurate reporting of the research

outcomes through consistency, citing of reference materials, and adoption of Excel analysis tools

(Klawohn et al., 2020). Finally, the assignment of serial numbers and avoidance will ensure

participants’ confidentiality and anonymity.

Summary

Bullying in the workplace is a major problem for companies big and small today. While

the statistics are difficult to trust in light of the underreporting of this kind of bullying, it is clear

that the problem is quite pervasive. The study’s research question is: Is there a correlation

between bullied employees’ quality of life and their job productivity? The hypotheses for the

study are H1- bullied employees have poor life quality and low job productivity, and H0- bullied

employees have good life quality and high job productivity. The research will adopt a case study,

which is the use of qualitative approach to collect, analyze, and interpret data on a phenomenon

in one study or a series of studies on the phenomenon. It is a safer way of combining similar

previous studies with the outcomes of the quantitative and qualitative approaches. Further, it

helps to build on the existing knowledge, affirming, or introducing new ways of viewing the

phenomenon. Qualitative results complement this approach. The study will focus on the specific

targeted population of 15 participants. It is unlike traditional research approaches that seek to

access a broad population resulting in a tiresome and time-consuming process. The salesperson

working directly with the consumers will form the target population. They often fall under a

temporary work agreement. Besides, their performance is directly affected by the relationship

they have with their colleagues, leaders, and work environment.

 53

References

Agotnes, K. W., Einarsen, S. V., Hetland, J., & Skogstad, A. (2018). The moderating effect of

laissez‐faire leadership on the relationship between co‐worker conflicts and new

cases of workplace bullying: A true prospective design. Human Resource Management

Journal, 28(4), 555-568.

Al-Ghabeesh, S. H., & Qattom, H. (2019). Workplace bullying and its preventive measures and

productivity among emergency department nurses. Israel Journal of Health

Policy Research, 8(1); 44. doi: 10.1186/s13584-019-0314-8

Alterman, T., Luckhaupt, S. E., Dahlhamer, J. M., Ward, B. W., & Calvert, G. M. (2013). Job

insecurity, work-family imbalance, and hostile work environment: Prevalence

data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. American Journal of

Industrial Medicine, 56, 660–669.

Ansoleaga, E., Ahumada, M., & Cruz, G. S. (2019). Association of workplace bullying and

workplace vulnerability in the psychological distress of Chilean workers.

International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(20), 4039.

Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The

effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of

Management, 26(2), 171–193.

Ariza-Montes, J. A., Muniz, R., Noel, M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Leal-Millán, A. G. (2014).

Workplace bullying among managers: A multifactorial perspective and

understanding. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public

Health, 11(3); 2657-2682. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110302657

 54

Ariza-Montes, A., Muniz, N. M., Montero-Simo, M. J., & Araque-Padilla, R. A. (2013).

Workplace bullying among healthcare workers. International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(8), 3121–3139.

Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. (2003). Workplace conflict, bullying, and coun

terproductive behaviors. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,

11(4), 283-301.

Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying?

Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(3),

348–371. Berry, P. A., Gillespie, G. L., Gates, D., & Schafer, J. (2012). Novice nurse

productivity follow ing workplace bullying. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,

44(1), 80-87.

Biggs, D., Burchell, B., & Millmore, M. (2006). The changing world of the temporary worker:

The potential HR impact of legislation. Personnel Review, 35(2), 191–206.

Bilgel, N., Aytaç, S., & Bayram, N. (2006). Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers.

Occupational Medicine, 56(4), 226-231.

Bohle, P., Knox, A., Noone, J., Mc Namara, M., Rafalski, J., & Quinlan, M. (2017). Work

organization, bullying and intention to leave in the hospitality industry. Employee

Relations, 39(4), 446-458.

Casimir, G., McCormack, D., Djurkovic, N., & Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. (2012). Psychosomatic

model of workplace bullying: Australian and Ugandan schoolteachers. Employee

Relations, 34(4), 411–428.

 55

Ciby, M., & Raya, R. P. (2015). Workplace bullying: A review of the defining features,

measurement methods, and prevalence across continents. IIM Kozhikode Society

& Management Review, 4(1); 38-47. doi: 10.1177/2277975215587814

Clausen, T., Conway, P. M., Burr, H., Kristensen, T. S., Hansen, Å. M., Garde, A. H., & Hogh,

A. (2019). Does leadership support buffer the effect of workplace bullying on the risk of

disability pensioning? An analysis of register-based outcomes using pooled survey data

from 24,538 employees. International archives of occupational and environmental health,

1-8.

Countouris, N., Freedland, M., Deakin, S., Koukiadaki, A., & Prassl, J. (2016). Report on

temporary employment agencies and temporary agency work-A comparative analysis of

the law on temporary work agencies and the social and economic implications of

temporary work in 13 European countries. ILO. Retrieved

from[Link]

documents/publication/wcms_541655.pdf

Cranford, C. J., & Vosko, L. F. (2006). Conceptualizing precarious employment: Mapping wage

work across social location and occupational context. In L. Vosko (Ed.), Precarious

employment: Understanding labour market insecurity in Canada (pp. 43–66).

Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press.

D ’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2016). Positives outweighing negatives: The experiences of Indian

crowdsourced workers. Work Organization, Labour and Globalizations, 10(1), 44–63.

De Cieri, H., Sheehan, C., Donohue, R., Shea, T., & Cooper, B. (2019). Workplace bullying: An

examination of power and perpetrators. Personnel Review, 48(2), 324-341.

 56

De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2009). Transitioning between temporary and

permanent employment: A two-wave study on the entrapment, the stepping stone and the

selection hypothesis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 67–88.

De Pedro, M. M., Sánchez, M. I. S., Navarro, M. C. S., & Izquierdo, M. G. (2008). Workplace

mobbing and effects on workers' health. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,

11(1), 219- 227.

Etienne, E. (2014). Exploring workplace bullying in nursing. Workplace Health & Safety, 62(1),

6-11.

Feijó, F. R., Gräf, D. D., Pearce, N., & Fassa, A. G. (2019). Risk factors for workplace bullying:

a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public

Health, 16(11), E1945. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16111945.

Feijó, F., Gräf, D., & Fassa, A. (2019). O2B. 2 Risk factors for workplace bullying: a systematic

review.

Field, T. (2009). Bully insight: How to predict, resist, challenge, and combat workplace

bullying:Overcoming the silence and denial by which abuse thrives. Success Unlimited.

Gayle, C. (2019). US gig economy: data shows 16m people in 'contingent or alternative' work.

Retrieved from [Link]

economy-work-bureau-labor-statistics.

Ghelani, R. J. (2019). The number of temp workers jumped by 50% in the last 20 years, Stats

Can says. Retrieved from [Link]

workers- employment-1.5135310
 57

Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S. B., Hetland, J., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying as an

antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study.

Human Resource Management Journal, 24(3), 255–268.

Gonzalez, A. A. (2012). A qualitative examination of workplace bullying experiences among

temporary-laborers. Semantic Scholar. Retrieved from

[Link]

gonz%c3%a1lez/acbc622d80468f229dd03783fffd1ccac25d3ae6

Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., & Bolkan, S. (2017). Workplace bullying and work

engagement: a self-determination model. Journal of interpersonal violence,

0886260517717492.

Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., Knight, J. M., & Long, Z. (2017). Creating the boiler room

environment: The job demand-control-support model as an explanation for

workplace bullying. Communication Research, 44(2), 244-262.

Hall, R. (2006). Temporary agency work and HRM in Australia: ‘Cooperation, specialization an

satisfaction for the good of all’? Personnel Review, 35(2), 158–174. 

Halpern, J., Jutte, D., Colby, J., & Boyce, W. T. (2015). Social dominance, school bullying, and

child health: what are our ethical obligations to the very young? Pediatrics,

135(Supplement 2), S24-S30. [Link]

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!” A call to reconcile

constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

32(3), 499-519.

Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C., & Niven, K. (2015). Workplace bullying: causes, consequences,

and intervention strategies. 

 58

Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014). Workplace bullying and

incivility: a systematic review of interventions. International Journal of

Workplace Health Management, 7(1); 54-72. doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-08-2013-0030

Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: developments

in theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 469–484). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Workplace Bullying in Precarious Employment 27

International Labor Organization (ILO). (2016). Non‐standard employment around the world:

Understanding challenges, shaping prospects. ILO. Retrieved from

[Link]

International Labor Organization. (2015). Non-standard forms of employment: Report for

discussion at the meeting of experts on non-standard forms of employment.

Conditions of Work and Equality. Department, International Labour Organization. Geneva:

International Labour Office.

International Labor Organization. (2016). Non-standard employment around the world:

Understanding challenges, shaping prospects. International Labour Organization.

Geneva: International Labour Office. 

Karatza, C., Zyga, S., Tziaferi, S., & Prezerakos, P. (2016). Workplace bullying and general

health status among the nursing staff of Greek public hospitals. Annals of

General Psychiatry, 15(1); seven. Retrieved from

[Link]

Keskin, H., Akgün, A. E., Ayar, H., & Kayman, S. S. (2016). Cyberbullying victimization,

counterproductive work behaviors, and emotional intelligence at the workplace.

 59

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235(24); 281-287. doi:

10.1016/[Link].2016.11.031

Keashly, L. (2012). Workplace bullying: The case of teen workers. International Journal of

Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 47–56. 

Keashly, L. (2012a). Workplace bullying and gender: it’s complicated. In S. Fox & T. R. Lituchy

(Eds.), Gender and the dysfunctional workplace (pp. 78–95). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Publishing. 

Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviours and

bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),

Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and

practice (2nd ed., pp. 41–71). Boca Raton:  CRC Press. 

Kizuki, M., Fujiwara, T., & Shinozaki, T. (2020). Adverse childhood experiences and bullying

behaviors at work among workers in Japan. Occupational and environmental

medicine, 77(1), 9-14.

Krzyznaowska, K. (2016). Workplace bullying: Aggressive behavior and the impact on job

satisfaction and productivity of employees in Ireland. Doctoral dissertation,

Dublin, National College of Ireland. Retrieved from

[Link]

Kwon, J. & Hollingsworth, J. (2019). South Korean bosses can now be jailed for firing bullied

employees as the country cracks down on toxic work culture. Retrieved from

[Link]

[Link]

Lamia, M. (2017). The psychology of a workplace bully. Retrieved from

 60

[Link]

Lincoln, J. R., & Nakata, Y. (1997). The transformation of the Japanese employment system:

Nature, depth, and origins. Work and Occupations, 24(1); 33-55. doi:

10.4135/9781452229423.n10

Lisi, D., & Malo, M. A. (2017). The impact of temporary employment on productivity. Journal

for Labor Market Research, 50(1); 91-112. doi: 10.1007/s12651-017-0222-8

Lloyd, A. (2019). Harm at Work: Bullying and Special Liberty in the Retail Sector. Critical

Criminology, 1-15.

Lola, E., & Reyes, C. (2017). Low-wage workers and bullying in the workplace: How current

workplace harassment law makes the most vulnerable invisible. Hastings Int'l &

Comp. L. Rev., 40, 231.

Malik, M. S., Sattar, S., Younas, S., & Nawaz, M. K. (2019). The Workplace Deviance

Perspective of Employee Responses to Workplace Bullying: The Moderating Effect of

Toxic Leadership and Mediating Effect of Emotional Exhaustion. Review of

Integrative Business and Economics Research, 8(1), 33-50.

McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Yang, L. (2006). The concurrent effects of

workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction with co-workers

on affective commitment among schoolteachers in China. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 17(4), 316-331.

McDonald, D. N., Brown, E. D., & Smith, K. F. (2015). Workplace bullying: A review of its

impact on businesses, employees, and the law. International Journal of Business

and Social Science, 6(2); 26-31. Retrieved from

[Link]
 61

McGann, M., White, K., & Moss, J. (2016). Labour casualization and the psychosocial health of

workers in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 30(5), 766–782. 

Mifune, N., Inamasu, K., Kohama, S., Ohtsubo, Y., & Tago, A. (2019). Social dominance

orientation as an obstacle to an intergroup apology. PloS One, 14(1): e0211379.

[Link]

Miller, P., Brook, L., Stomski, N. J., Ditchburn, G., & Morrison, P. (2019). Depression, suicide

risk, and workplace bullying: a comparative study of fly-in, fly-out and residential

re source workers in Australia. Australian Health Review.

Ndegwa, I. N., & Moronge, M. (2016). Effects of workplace bullying on employee performance

in the civil service in Kenya: A case of the ministry of education, science, and

technology. The Strategic Journal of Business and Change

Management, 3(2); 1-31. Retrieved from

[Link]

Ngale, I. F. (2018). Impacts of Workplace Bullying on Staff Psychological Wellness in

Institutions of Higher Learning. Journal of Educational System, 2(2), 1-9. 

Norton, P., Costa, V., Teixeira, J., Azevedo, A., Roma-Torres, A., Amaro, J., & Cunha, L.

(2017). Prevalence and determinants of bullying among health care workers in

Portugal. Workplace Health & Safety, 65(5):188-196. doi: 10.1177/2165079916666545.

Notelaers, G., Vermunt, J. K., Baillien, E., Einarsen, S., & De Witte, H. (2011). Exploring risk

groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Industrial Health, 49, 73–88. 

Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group

discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation.

 62

Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1): 20–32. [Link]

210X.12860

Okechukwu, C. A., Souza, K., Davis, K. D., & de Castro, A. B. (2014). Discrimination,

harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: contribution of workplace injustice to

occupational health disparities. American journal of industrial medicine, 7(5),73-586.

Paul, G. D., & Kee, D. M. H. (2020). HR, Workplace Bullying, and Turnover Intention: The role

of Work Engagement. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 8(1), 23-27.

Powers, H. (2017). Bullies Among Us: Dealing with Workplace Violence in Health Care.

Canadian Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 79(4), 21-24.

Phillips, A. W. (2017). Proper applications for surveys as a study methodology. Western Journal

of Emergency Medicine, 18(1), 8-11. [Link]

Quinlan, M. (2012). The ‘pre-invention’ of precarious employment: The changing world of work

in context. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 23(4), 3–24. 

Quinlan, M., Mayhew, C., & Bohle, P. (2001). The global expansion of precarious employment,

work disorganization, and consequences for occupational health: A review of recent

research. Globalization and Occupational Health, 31(2), 335–414. 

Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2016). Workplace bullying: A review and future research

directions. South Asian Journal of Management,  23(3); 27-56. Retrieved from

[Link]

a66e-b1d7a6dbc4f6%40pdc-v-sessmgr01

Raja Lakshmi, M., & Gomathi, S. (2015). A study on the factors influencing workplace bullying

and its impact on employee stress. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences, 6(1), 292.
 63

Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community &

Applied Social Psychology, 7(3); 199-208. doi: 10.1002/

(sici)1099-1298(199706)7:3<199::aid-casp418>[Link];2-h

Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. (1997). Workplace bullying: myth or reality‐can we afford to ignore

it? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(4); 211-214. doi:

10.1108/01437739710182313

Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to

blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis. 

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Thomaes, S., Goossens, F., Olthof, T., Aleva, L., & Van der

Meulen, M. (2016). Narcissism, bullying, and social dominance in youth: A longitudinal

analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,  44(1), 63-74.

[Link]

Riley, D., Duncan, D. J., & Edwards, J. (2011). Staff bullying in Australian schools. Journal of

Educational Administration, 49(1), 7–30. 

Ritzman, M. E. (2014). Human resource professionals and workplace bullying: a systems

approach to performance improvement intervention in criminal justice

agencies  (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo).

Safdar, N., Abbo, L. M., Knobloch, M. J., & Seo, S. K. (2016). Research methods in healthcare

epidemiology: Survey and qualitative research. Infection Control & Hospital

Epidemiology, 37(11), 1272-1277. [Link]

Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and

precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10),

1213–1232.
 64

Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235–251. 

Savaşan, A., & Özgür, G. (2018). The relationship between personality characteristics and

workplace bullying of nurses. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 9(1), 29-35. 

Salazar L. R. (2017). Chapter 7 : Workplace bullying in digital environments: antecedents,

consequences, prevention, and future directions. In Christiansen, B. & Chandan,

H. C. (2017). Handbook of research on organizational culture and diversity in the

modern workforce. IGI Global. 

Smith, F. L., & Coel, C. R. (2018). Workplace bullying policies, higher education, and the First

Amendment: Building bridges, not walls. First Amendment Studies, 1-16. 

Spagnoli, P., & Balducci, C. (2017). Do high workload and job insecurity predict workplace

bullying after organizational change? International Journal of Workplace Health

Management, 10(1), 2–12. 

Sprigg, C. A., Niven, K., Dawson, J., Farley, S., & Armitage, C. J. (2018). Witnessing workplace

bullying and employee well-being: A two-wave field study. Journal of occupational

health psychology.

Tsuno, K., Kawakami, N., Tsutsumi, A., Shimazu, A., Inoue, A., Odagiri, Y., Yoshikawa, T.,

Haratani, T., Shimomitsu, T., & Kawachi, I. (2015). Socioeconomic determinants of

bullying in the workplace: A National Representative Sample in Japan. PLoS

One, 10, e0119435. https:// [Link]/10.1371/[Link].0119435. 

Unison. (2020). Agency and temporary workers. Retrieved from [Link]

help/knowledge/vulnerable-workers/agency-and-temporary-workers/
 65

Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S., & Molendijk, M. L. (2015). Workplace bullying and mental health: a

meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PloS One, 10(8):

e0135225. doi: 10.1371/[Link].0135225.

Vosko, L. (2006). Precarious employment: Towards an improved understanding of labour market

insecurity. In L. Vosko (Ed.), Precarious employment: Understanding labour market

insecurity in Canada (pp. 3–39). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Węziak-Białowolska, D., Białowolski, P., & McNeely, E. (2020). The impact of workplace

harassment and domestic violence on work outcomes in the developing world.

World

Development, 126, 104732.

Williams, M. (2017). The bullying and fear at the heart of zero-hour contracts. Retrieved from

[Link]

zero-hour-contracts

Wong J.C. (2019). Google staff condemn the treatment of temp workers in the ‘historic’ show of

solidarity. Retrieved from [Link]

-workers-sign-letter-temp-contractors-protest

Yamada, D. C. (2000). The phenomenon of workplace bullying and the need for status-blind

hostile work environment protection. Georgetown Law Journal, 88, 475–536

 66

Young, J. C., Rose, D. C., Mumby, H. S., Benitez‐Capistros, F., Derrick, C. J., Finch, T., &

Parkinson, S. (2018). A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in

conservation science research. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 10-19.

[Link]