http://isb.sagepub.com/International Small Business Journal

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/29/6/610The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0266242610375774

2011 29: 610 originally published online 13 November 2011International Small Business JournalElfi Baillien, Inge Neyens and Hans De Witte

enterprisesOrganizational correlates of workplace bullying in small- and medium-sized

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Small Business JournalAdditional services and information for    

  http://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/29/6/610.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Nov 13, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record  

- Dec 7, 2011Version of Record >>

by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013isb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

International Small Business Journal29(6) 610 –625

© The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0266242610375774

isb.sagepub.com

Article

Small Firmsisbj

375774 ISBXXX10.1177/0266242610375774Baillien et al.International Small Business Journal

Corresponding author:Elfi Baillien, Organizational and Personnel Psychology (WOPP), University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.Email: Elfi.Baillien@psy.kuleuven.be

Organizational correlates of workplace bullying in small- and medium-sized enterprises

Elfi BaillienHUBrussel, Belgium and University of Leuven, Belgium

Inge Neyens and Hans De WitteUniversity of Leuven, Belgium

AbstractOver recent decades, a broad range of studies have investigated organizational antecedents of workplace bullying, predominantly in large organizations. Exploring this topic within small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is however important: SMEs differ from large organizations in cultural, structural and strategic ways. Accordingly, the current study aims to investigate organizational correlates of bullying in SMEs based on the Three Way Model as a theoretical framework. Data were gathered from 358 employees in 39 Flemish (Belgian) SMEs with maximum 100 employees. The organizational characteristics explained 29 per cent of the variance of bullying. Regression analyses revealed statistically significant associations between bullying, on the one hand, and organizational change, a people-oriented culture, an (known) anti-bullying policy, working in a family business, on the other hand. In sum, our results suggest that SMEs experiencing organizational change need to be extra vigilant against workplace bullying. Based on our results, bullying also seems more prevalent in SMEs without a people-oriented culture and in family businesses. Finally, the results suggest that the presence of an anti-bullying policy buffers bullying in SMEs.

Keywordsmobbing, organizational characteristics, SMEs, Three Way Model, workplace bullying

Introduction

Workplace bullying has been labelled ‘mobbing’ (Matthiesen et al., 1989), ‘emotional abuse’ (Keashly, 1998) and ‘harassment’ (Brodsky, 1976); terms that all refer to a situation in which one or more employees are subjected to negative acts at work (Einarsen, 1999; Leymann, 1996).

Baillien et al. 611

The current study aligns with the Scandinavian perspective (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen and Raknes, 1997) in which bullying typically includes a long-term process (that is, minimum six months) in which ‘minor negative acts’ accumulate to a pattern of systematic maltreatment (Salin, 2008) and also where the negative acts may concern personal issues (for example, insulting and humiliating acts) as well as work-related issues (for example, withholding docu-mentation) and social isolation (see Cowie et al., 2002). The acts stigmatize the target into an inferior position (Einarsen and Skogstad, 2006; Zapf and Gross, 2001): He or she often experi-ences difficulties in defending him- or herself against the negative acts (Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen et al., 1994; Leymann, 1996).

Antecedents of workplace bullying may relate to personality, job or team characteristics of the parties involved as well as broader organizational features (Einarsen et al., 2009). Based on an intensive case study, Leymann (1996) attributed bullying to a stressful and discordant work environment, a viewpoint that later has been defined as the ‘work environment hypothesis’ (Einarsen, 2000). Inspired by this hypothesis, a growing body of studies examined potential orga-nizational correlates of bullying (Agervold, 2007; Hauge et al., 2007; Neyens et al., 2007a). Based on 87 bullying incidents, scholars recently developed the Three Way Model, a framework describing the main processes through which organizational characteristics may lead to work-place bullying (Baillien et al., 2009). Specifically, organizational antecedents may cause bullying by encouraging (1) (inefficient coping with) strain and frustration, (2) (escalative reactions to) personal conflicts and (3) destructive (social) habits. Yet, studies in the realm of organizational antecedents to date primarily took place in large organizations, whereas little attention has been paid to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Exploring whether or not the organizational correlates of bullying in large organizations may be generalized to SMEs may however be valu-able, as SMEs are distinguished from larger organizations in various ways. First, SMEs differ from large organizations in terms of culture and climate, which is typically reflected in a more informal, to some extent even familial, culture (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2002). Consequently, managers of SMEs are rather careful about implementing formal rules and procedures, which, in turn, may increase ambiguity for their employees and fuel stress, conflicts or bullying. Second, as compared to large organizations, SMEs are characterized by a rather flat structure, which facilitates the manager’s accessibility, encourages direct communication and stimulates immediate problem solving when facing, for example, conflicts or bullying (Delmotte et al., 2002). Third, SMEs have access to rather limited economic resources as compared to large organizations (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2002), which fosters short-term strategies instead of long-term policies (Donckels et al., 1988). Consequently, particularly managers of small enterprises might be less focused upon preventing social and relational problems at work, but will however react swiftly when difficulties emerge.

In sum, scholars have indicated that SMEs are distinguished from large organizations on vari-ous aspects. Accordingly, SMEs could yield distinct and rather specific organizational correlates of bullying as compared to large organizations. The aim of this study is therefore, to investigate orga-nizational correlates of bullying in SMEs following the Three Way Model (Baillien et al., 2009) as a theoretical framework. Specifically, the Three Way Model will serve as our guideline to investi-gate the organizational correlates under study, as the model reflects the underlying process that links organizational characteristics to bullying. In view of each of the processes of the this model, the correlates of bullying in SMEs are then selected based on empirical studies, most of which focused on large organizations. We could only detect one (qualitative) study in SMEs, which was of particular interest when defining our hypotheses with respect to the specific and distinct organi-zational correlates of bullying in SMEs (Neyens et al., 2007b).

612 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

Three Way Model

Using key informant in-depth reflection upon incidents of workplace bullying, researchers have developed a process-oriented model for the genesis of bullying (Baillien et al., 2009). This model contained three processes; in the first, bullying may be initiated by inefficient coping with frustration (strain). Specifically, when the employee copes in an active-inefficient way and con-verts frustration in negative acts towards a co-worker, they become a perpetrator of bullying. When the employee copes in a passive-inefficient way, they withdraw from the perceived cause of the frustration (for example, the work context) and may violate existing norms. This may cause co-workers to adopt a negative attitude towards this employee, which, in turn, may lead to victim-ization. In the second process, unsolved conflicts may escalate into bullying through escalative conflict management. In this case, the powerful employee becomes the perpetrator; the powerless employee becomes victim. In the model, the frustration and conflicts process are closely related: frustration can contribute to the development of conflicts at work, whereas most conflicts evoke frustration and strain. Third, bullying may originate directly from team or organizational character-istics that encourage employees to apply destructive habits and to engage in bullying acts (for example, a culture of gossip). Organizational characteristics may affect these tracks in two ways: (1) they trigger frustration, conflict and destructive team and organizational characteristics; and (2) they influence how employees deal with frustration and conflict.

Organizational correlates

Following the Three Way Model, organizational characteristics may thus relate to bullying via three processes: (1) frustration and strain, (2) conflicts and (3) destructive habits. Empirical studies detected organizational correlates of bullying that very well fit these processes, which will be out-lined in the next section. The frustration and conflict processes are however closely related and share a broad range of organizational antecedents (Baillien et al., 2009). Therefore, organizational characteristics that may affect bullying through these processes will be discussed under one heading.

Frustration, strain and conflicts

Studies revealed two organizational characteristics that may affect bullying in SMEs through frustration, strain and conflicts: organizational change and top-down communication. First, empir-ical studies in large organizations detected a positive association between organizational change programs such as restructuring, cost-cutting and mergers, and workplace bullying (Baillien and De Witte, 2009; Skogstad et al., 2007): findings that may be attributed to increased levels of frustra-tion, stress and conflicts. In this context, numerous scholars suggested that organizational change increases bullying through a relapse in managerial positions (Baron and Neuman, 1996; Hoel and Cooper, 2000; McCarthy, 1996; Salin, 2003; Sheehan, 1996), which, in turn, may force managers to enhance productivity and to adopt aggressive management styles and bullying towards their subordinates ‘to get the job done’ (for a discussion; see Hoel et al., 2002). Furthermore, organiza-tional change produces a list of stressors, such as job insecurity, that disorientate employees and make them easy targets for bullying (Baillien and De Witte, 2009; Hoel and Salin, 2003). Similarly, organizational change may encourage bullying through its link with personal conflicts (Greenglass and Burke, 2001; Jick, 1985). These findings in large organizations were confirmed in a qualitative

Baillien et al. 613

study in SMEs, where organizational change was suggested to increase bullying (Neyens et al., 2007b).

Hypothesis 1: Organizational change is positively related to workplace bullying.

Second, studies found an association between top-down communication and bullying. After all, low levels of top-down communication may increase ambiguity, which, in turn, may foster stress or conflict, hinder effective strategies to deal with stress or conflict, and lead to bullying (Baillien et al., 2009). Specifically, victims of bullying reported a poorer flow of information, fewer mutual discussions about tasks and goals and less clarity of goals in one’s work as compared to observers of bullying (Vartia, 1996). Observers, for their part, reported a worse communication climate than non-victims. Similarly, Belgian victims of bullying reported to know less about the organization as compared to non-victims (Notelaers and De Witte, 2003). These findings were supported by a qualitative SMEs study, in which interviewees claimed that clear top-down communication pre-vented bullying as this allowed employees to solve work-related problems in an early stage (that is, before they can escalate into bullying) (Neyens et al., 2007b).

Hypothesis 2: Top-down communication is negatively related to workplace bullying.

Destructive habits

Research in large organizations revealed three organizational characteristics that may encourage workplace bullying through promoting destructive habits: Organizational culture, the presence of an anti-bullying policy and gender ratio. A qualitative study in SMEs added two extra aspects which are of specific resonance in SMEs (Neyens et al., 2007b): Whether or not the organization is a family business, and whether or not the organization elected union representatives. First, with respect to organizational culture, research indicated more bullying in organizations with a low concern for the employee needs as often reflected in a low people-oriented culture or a strong performance-oriented culture (Baillien et al., 2008; Lane, 1990; Neyens et al., 2007a). In this con-text, for example, Irish victims referred to a lack of a friendly and supporting atmosphere as a cause of bullying in large organizations (Seigne, 1998). Moreover, Baillien and colleagues (2008) argued that cultural values reflecting dignity and respect towards employees and co-workers typically discourage destructive habits and bullying, whereas values reflecting competition ‘by all means’ typically encourage destructive habits and bullying. These findings within large organizations were reflected in the small firm context where interviewees indicated that core organizational values such as closed-mindedness, rigidity and ‘an exclusive focus on performance’ increased bullying. Values such as open-mindedness, dignity and solidarity, in contrast, prevented bullying (Neyens et al., 2007b).

Hypothesis 3: A people-oriented culture is negatively related to workplace bullying.

Hypothesis 4: A task-oriented culture is positively related to workplace bullying.

Second, organizations may indirectly promote the perception that bullying is allowed or some-times even rewarded by not implementing an anti-bullying policy or by not punishing perpetrators (Ashforth, 1994; Cox, 1987; Rosenberg and Silver, 1984). Consequently, various researchers have found a higher prevalence where there is an absence of an anti-bullying policy (Brodsky, 1976;

614 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

Einarsen, 1999; Neyens et al., 2007b; Rayner et al., 2002; Salin, 2003; van Amstel and Volkers, 1993). Therefore, we assume:

Hypothesis 5: Having a well-known anti-bullying policy is negatively related to workplace bullying.

Third, studies to date yielded different findings with respect to the impact of gender ratio, or the predominance of male versus female employees in the organization. Contrary to most empirical studies reporting a higher bullying prevalence in male-dominated organizations (Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Hubert and Van Veldhoven, 2001; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001), O’Moore et al (2003) found more bullying in female-dominated organizations. These conflicting findings may partially be attributed to measurement differences; whereas the latter study defined bullying as ‘occasional’ negative behaviour at work, other work has followed the Scandinavian conceptua-lization referring to bullying as ‘frequent’ negative behaviour. In our study, we follow the Scandinavian perspective.

Hypothesis 6: Gender ratio in terms of more male than female employees is positively related to workplace bullying.

Fourth, a higher levels of bullying have been found in small family owned firms; an aspect that researchers linked to bullying via correlates such as favouritism and an (too) informal climate. Moreover, strong life–work interference in family businesses hampers clarity in terms of social norms, which might facilitate or even protect would-be perpetrators (Neyens et al., 2007b).

Hypothesis 7: Being a family business is related to the incidence of bullying.

Fifth, the absence of trade unions in enhances the risk of bullying behaviour given that unions intervene to demand policies to deal with such and act as a key figures to represent employee rights. They principally promote employee-oriented values, which, in turn, may discourage work-place bullying as elaborated in hypothesis 4. We follow this argumentation and assume:

Hypothesis 8: The presence of a union is related to less bullying.

Methodology

Sample

Data were gathered in 2005 in Belgian (Flemish) organizations with a maximum 100 employees. The rationale for this decision being that differences between the Belgian and European law raise discussion regarding the definition of a Belgian SME. According to the Belgian definition, SMEs consist of a maximum 50 employees, while the European definition includes those with upto 250 employees. Additionally, the study aimed to be complementary to an earlier study in ‘large’ orga-nizations with minimum 100 employees (Baillien et al., 2008; Neyens et al., 2007a). Note, how-ever, that from the European perspective our study included particularly small enterprises.

To achieve a representative and heterogeneous sample of these organizations, the following criteria were considered: (1) the size of the organization; (2) the sector or branch; and (3) the region in which the organization is located. We aimed to represent the size of the SMEs both in terms of the number of SMEs in Flanders as well as the number of employees. Specifically, we first made

Baillien et al. 615

two cross-tabulations; one reflected the number of SMEs operative in each specific size group (columns) combined with each sector (rows; NACEBel-codes1) and one reflected the number of workers employed in each size group (columns) and in each sector (rows). Then, we combined these cross-tabulations in one table indicating how many organizations should be included in the study belonging to a certain size group – sector combination, restricting the total number of included SMEs to 40.2 Next, several address lists of SMEs according to sector, size and region were downloaded from a website (http://www.gom.be). These lists were used to randomly select the required number of made certain firms which were equally distributed over the five Flemish provinces. Based on our final list, we contacted the organization’s manager and asked for their cooperation; to foster willingness to cooperate, those with at least 10 respondents received a feed-back report outlining the most important risk factors. If managers were not willing to participate, we contacted other SMEs from the same lists (with the same size, sector and region) until we reached our aim of 40 organizations. This approach was parallel to the earlier study in ‘large’ orga-nizations (Baillien et al., 2008; Neyens et al., 2007a).

Eventually, 960 questionnaires were distributed to the organizations’ employees of which 358 completed questionnaires (from 39 SMEs)’s were returned (response rate: 38 per cent). The firms were distributed equally over the five Flemish provinces. More information about the respondents can be derived from Table 1.

Measurements

The concepts under study were measured using internationally validated scales.The organizational characteristics were measured with four scales. All items of these scales

were simultaneously included in an exploratory factor analysis (PCA; varimax rotation), which demonstrated single factor structures for all organizational characteristics under study (Harman, 1976). Specifically, the analysis yielded four factors referring to the concepts under study with eigenvalues of 15.58 (task-oriented culture), 3.14 (people-oriented culture), 2.59 (top-down com-munication) and 1.53 (anti-bullying policy). The four factors showed 53.12 per cent explained vari-ance. The scales ‘top-down communication’ (four items; a = 0.88) (Van Veldhoven and Meijman, 1994), ‘people-oriented culture’ (16 items; a = 0.94) (Patterson et al., 2005), ‘task-oriented culture’ (16 items; a = 0.86) (Patterson et al., 2005), and ‘an anti-bullying policy’ (seven items; a = 0.89) (self-constructed) were reliable. One item from Baillien and De Witte (2009) measured ‘organiza-tional change’, that is, ‘Looking back at the last couple of years, have you experienced organiza-tional changes?’ (1 = yes, 2 = no). The organization’s managers or owners were contacted to collect information about gender ratio, presence versus absence of a union representative and whether or not the organization was a family business (that is, owned and ran by one family).

Workplace bullying was measured using the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ; Einarsen and Raknes, 1997; Notelaers et al., 2006). The NAQ consists of 17 items describing various negative acts that may be experienced as bullying when occurring on a regular basis. These items referred to personal (for example, gossiping) as well as work-related issues (for example, withholding information) and they examine how often the respondent was exposed to a specific act (from co-workers as well as managers) during the last six months. In the bullying literature, this has traditionally been called the ‘objective’ or ‘operational’ measurement of bullying (Notelaers et al., 2006). This approach has been distinguished from ‘subjective’ measurements, in which respon-dents are asked to indicate whether or not they perceive themselves as a victim (Notelaers et al., 2006; Zapf and Einarsen, 2003). Response categories varied from ‘never’ (= 1), to ‘now and then’

616 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

(= 2), ‘monthly’ (= 3), ‘weekly’ (= 4) and ‘daily’ (= 5). In line with the bullying literature, all items were included in one scale (a = 0.90) (for a discussion, see Agervold, 2007; Einarsen et al., 2009; Nielsen et al., 2009).

Analyses

Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0. First, bivariate analyses tested whether the relationship between the organizational correlates and bullying was significant. Then, the significant variables were included in a regression analysis together with three control variables (occupational position, gender and tenure). ‘Occupational position’ (1 = blue-collar worker, 0 = white-collar worker) and ‘gender’ (1 = female, 0 = male) were both dummy coded whereas ‘tenure’ was a variable encom-passing five categories (ranging from below 2 years till above 25 years). Based on an ANOVA, which revealed two categories that were significant (and positive) related to bullying, we recoded tenure in two dummies (1 = ‘2 till 5 years’, 0 = the other categories; 1 = ‘above 25 years’, 0 = the other categories). ‘Organizational change’ was dummy coded as 1 (‘yes’) and 0 (‘no’). The regres-sion analyses allowed us to detect organizational characteristics that are directly associated with

Table 1. Respondents

Respondents

Gender Male 52.4 Female 47.6

Age < 25 years 8.6 25–34 years 27.9 35–44 years 31.0 45–54 years 23.6 >55 years 8.9

Position: Blue-collar worker 43.6 White-collar worker 56.4

Tenure: ≤ one year 16.0 2–5 years 31.5 6–15 years 26.7 16–25 years 14.3 > 25 years 11.5

Size of the organization 1–4 employees (n = 9) 4.75 5–9 employees (n = 4) 3.63 10–19 employees (n = 9) 11.45 20–49 employees (n = 12) 47.21 50–99 employees (n = 5) 32.96

Baillien et al. 617

bullying, as they control for relationships with other organizational and demographic characteris-tics. In other words, such analyses enabled us to distinguish between the organizational character-istics that are directly related to bullying and those that are not or are indirectly related to bullying.

Results

Bivariate analyses

Table 2 displays the bivariate relationships between the organizational characteristics and bullying. Except for trade union, all variables were significantly associated with workplace bullying. Particularly people-oriented culture (r = −0.42***), procedural justice (r = −0.41***) and anti-bullying policy (r = −0.43***) showed a rather strong and negative association with bullying, whereas family business (r = 0.16**) and organizational change (r = 0.12*) were positively associ-ated with bullying.

Regression analyses

Table 3 reports the results of the regression analysis. The first step included three control variables (occupational position, gender and tenure). The second step includes both the controls and the organizational characteristics that significantly associated with bullying in the bivariate analyses.

Our results showed that bullying is associated rather weakly with the three demographics (R2 = 0.05**). Interestingly, tenure was to some extent positively related to bullying. Respondents with a tenure between 2 and 5 years (β = 0.17**) and higher than 25 years (β = 0.16**) reported more workplace bullying. The variance in bullying was however rather well explained by the organiza-tional characteristics (R2

change = 0.29***).With respect to the characteristics that may influence bullying through frustration, strain and

conflict, our results revealed a positive association between organizational change and bullying

Table 2. Relationships between the Organizational Characteristics and Workplace Bullying (Pearson r)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Workplace bullying

0.99 1.07

2. Communication 5.36 2.55 −0.39*** 3. People-oriented

culture5.67 2.14 −0.42*** 0.71***

4. Task-oriented culture

6.65 1.60 −0.30*** 0.54*** 0.61***

5. Anti-bullying policy

5.81 3.80 −0.43*** 0.49*** 0.55*** 0.47***

6. Gender ratio 58.26 26.64 0.15** ns ns ns −.15** 7. Organizational

change0.72 0.44 0.12* ns ns ns 0.12* ns

8. Family business 0.39 0.49 0.16** ns 0.17** ns −.12* 0.41** −0.25** 9. Trade union 0.49 0.50 ns ns 0.11** ns −0.15** ns ns 0.40**

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p <0.001; ns: not significant.

618 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

(β = 0.18***). Hypothesis 1 was thus confirmed: Experiencing organizational change is positively related to bullying. No association was however found between top-down communication (hypoth-esis 2) and workplace bullying.

With respect to the characteristics that may influence bullying through encouraging destructive habits, our results showed a negative association between a people-oriented culture (β = −0.23**), an anti-bullying policy (β = −0.23***) and bullying; in line with hypothesis 3 and 5. In other words, more people-oriented cultures and the presence of an anti-bullying policy associated with lower scores on bullying. Furthermore, there was a positive association between working in a fam-ily business and bullying (β = 0.19**), revealing more bullying in family businesses and confirm-ing hypothesis 7. There was no relationship between a task-oriented culture and bullying (hypothesis 4) or between gender-ratio and bullying (hypothesis 6).

Table 4 provides an overview of the hypotheses and the corresponding results of the regression analysis. Based on our findings we may overall conclude that particularly a highly people-oriented culture (hypothesis 3) and the presence of a well-known anti-bullying policy (hypothesis 5) associ-ated with bullying in SMEs: when the employees are cared about and when the employees know that their employer tries to prevent and to intervene in bullying incidences, the prevalence of bul-lying decreases. Next, bullying in SMEs is related to organizational change (hypothesis 1) and working in a family business (hypothesis 7).

Table 3. Regression Analyses Predicting Workplace Bullying – β (Enter Method)

Model 1 Model 2

Demographics Blue-collar worker 0.13* 0.10* Tenure of 2–5 years 0.17** 0.12* Tenure >25 years 0.16** 0.12* Female ns ns

Frustration, strain, conflict Organizational change / 0.18*** Top-down communication / ns

Destructive habits People-oriented culture / −.23*** Task-oriented culture / ns Anti-bullying Policy / −.23*** Gender ratio (% male employees)

/ ns

Family business / .19**R2 .05** .34***F 4.74** 14.54***Df 4 11Df (res.) 323 316∆R2 / .29***

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns: not significant.

Baillien et al. 619

Discussion

In this study we investigated the relationship between a range of organizational characteristics and workplace bullying in SMEs. Following the Three Way Model and findings reported in the bully-ing literature, we formulated eight hypotheses (see Table 4). Bivariate analysis revealed that the presence of union representatives did not relate to bullying in SMEs. Therefore, this characteristic was omitted from further analyses. The regression analyses revealed four organizational character-istics accounting for almost 30 per cent of the variance in bullying in SMEs. In sum, our study pointed at a lower bullying prevalence in SMEs with a people-oriented culture and a formal anti-bullying policy; whereas the prevalence was likely to increase in SMEs experiencing changes and in family businesses. In the following paragraphs, we reflect upon these results following the Three Way Model’s classification in view of underlying mechanisms.

Frustration, strain and conflict

In the workplace bullying literature, we detected two organizational characteristics that may influence bullying through their impact on frustration, strain or conflicts at work: organizational change and top-down communication. First, we expected a positive relationship between orga-nizational change and bullying (hypothesis 1), which was confirmed in the bivariate and regres-sion analyses. These findings align with earlier findings in large organizations (Baillien and De Witte, 2009; McCarthy, 1996; Skogstad et al., 2007), and lead us to conclude that organizational change can indeed be regarded as an organizational correlate of bullying in both large organiza-tions and SMEs.

Second, we assumed a negative relationship between top-down communication and bullying (hypotheses 2). Our expectations were confirmed in the bivariate analyses, while no significant association appeared in the regression analyses. Consequently, hypothesis 2 was rejected and find-ings in large organizations could not be generalized to SMEs. One possible reason could be that SMEs differ from larger organizations in the quality of top-down communication, which might not trigger or sustain frustration or conflicts. Therefore, top-down communication in SMEs may be less problematic for bullying as compared to top-down communication strategies in

Table 4. Overview of Relationships between Organizational Characteristics and Workplace Bullying: Hypothesis and Results from the Regression Analyses

Hypothesis Status (β)

H1: Organizational change is positively related to workplace bullying. Confirmed (0.18***)H2: Top-down communication is negatively related to workplace bullying. nsH3: A people-oriented culture is negatively related to workplace bullying. Confirmed (−0.23**)H4: A task-oriented culture is positively related to workplace bullying. nsH5: Having a well-known anti-bullying policy is negatively related to workplace bullying.

Confirmed (−0.23***)

H6: Gender ratio (more male than female employees) is positively related to workplace bullying.

ns

H7: Being a family business is related to more bullying. Confirmed (.19**)H8: The presence of a union is related to less bullying. /

Note: ns: not significant; /: not included in the regression analyses.

620 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

larger organizations. Alternatively, the bivariate association between top-down communication and bullying may have disappeared because it is mediated by other characteristics such as, for example, people-oriented culture (r = 0.71***). Future studies may therefore, further disentangle this relationship in SMEs by looking for potential mediators.

Destructive habits

Six hypotheses were formulated as regards the organizational characteristics that may stimulate bullying via allowing or encouraging destructive social habits at work. These hypotheses included people-oriented culture, task-oriented culture, the presence of an anti-bullying policy, gender ratio, whether or not the firm is a family business and the presence of union representatives. First, we expected lower incidents of bullying in cultures where the well-being of people is considered to be important (hypothesis 3). This hypothesis was confirmed in the bivariate and regression analyses, and findings in large organizations can be generalized to SMEs.

Second, following earlier findings in the realm of bullying, we expected a positive association between a task-oriented culture and bullying. By contrast, however, the bivariate analyses showed a negative correlation between a task-oriented culture and bullying, indicating a higher prevalence of bullying in cultures with little attention for tasks and performances (hypothesis 4). This relation-ship disappeared in the regression analyses. In other words, bullying was not associated with a strong (or weak) focus on tasks and performances, and hypothesis 4 is rejected. Again, the relation-ship between the organizational characteristic (that is, task-oriented culture) and bullying may be mediated by other correlates. One possibility could be that small task-oriented organizations are sensitive to stressors such as role ambiguity and role conflict, which have been detected as impor-tant job-related antecedents of bullying (Agervold, 2007; Agervold and Mikkelsen, 2004; Einarsen et al., 1994; Hauge et al., 2007). In summary, however, in view of organizational culture, bullying seemed more prone to thrive in organizations with a lack of interest for social and human values. This reflects previous findings in larger organizations, highlighting the importance of a social and people-oriented organizational culture (Lane, 1990; Seigne, 1998).

Third, we assumed a negative association between the presence of an established anti-bullying policy and bullying (hypothesis 5), which was confirmed in the bivariate as well as regression analyses. This finding aligns with results in large organizations, where more bullying was found in organizations that do not apply policies or punishments in case of bullying (Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen, 1999; Rayner et al., 2002; van Amstel and Volkers, 1993).

Fourth, based on the bullying literature, we assumed more bullying in male-dominated organi-zations (hypothesis 6), which was supported in the bivariate analyses. Again, the original correla-tion between gender ratio and bullying disappeared after controlling for other characteristics: hypothesis 6 was rejected in the regression analysis. Given the results of the regression analyses, we tend to conclude that there is no direct relationship between the gender ratio and bullying in SMEs. This conclusion matches the mixed findings of research in larger organizations (Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Hubert and Van Veldhoven, 2001; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; O’Moore et al., 2003).

Fifth, we investigated the family business as a potential organizational correlate of bullying (hypothesis 7), which was exclusively inspired by the work of Neyens et al., (2007b). This hypothesis was confirmed in both the bivariate as well as the regression analyses. Specifically, our results revealed a higher prevalence of bullying in a family business. Sixth, we examined the role

Baillien et al. 621

of union representatives in SMEs however, in our study, no association was found with the pres-ence of union representatives.

Limitations and future research

Providing a first test of organizational correlates of workplace bullying in SMEs by drawing on the Three Way Model (Baillien et al., 2009) as a theoretical framework is the current study’s main contribution. There are however, some drawbacks; our study tested organizational correlates of bullying and revealed that such characteristics, selected based on the Three Way Model and the existing bullying literature, explained about 30 per cent of the variance in bullying. Although these results are fairly satisfactory in view of the exclusive focus on organizational correlates, they indi-cate that other characteristics may be of importance too. Specifically, following the work environ-ment hypothesis (Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1996; Hauge et al., 2007; Neyens et al., 2007), bullying may also be triggered by job- and team-related characteristics that pave the way for a stressful and discordant work environment. Alternatively, bullying has also been linked to a range of personality characteristics (Coyne et al., 2000; Vartia, 1996). Investigating to what extent job (that is, workload, role ambiguity) and team (that is, social support, leadership styles) characteris-tics or the personality of the parties involved may contribute to bullying in SMEs may therefore serve as a valuable route for future research.

Additionally, we relied on the sub processes of the Three Way Model as a guideline to select and motivate the organizational characteristics; these characteristics may be linked to bullying via frus-tration, strain, conflicts or destructive social habits. However, the sub processes as such were not measured in the current study and our results do not allow conclusions with respect to the possibil-ity to generalize this model to SMEs. Therefore, future studies may further explore the underlying mechanisms that relate the significant organizational correlates to bullying. A related issue con-cerns that our results suggested a number of indirect organizational correlates as well: top-down communication, a task-oriented culture and gender ratio were only related to bullying in the bivari-ate analyses. our study focused on main or direct effects of organizational correlates on bully-ing. However, some of these organizational features may interplay in triggering workplace bullying. In this context, Salin (2003) distinguished between enabling (that is, factors necessary for bullying to develop, such as perceived power imbalance or low perceived costs), motivating (that is, circumstances under which it might feel rational for an employee to bully, such as expected benefits from eliminating competition) and triggering (that is, changes in the work environment, such as downsizing and team-related reorganizations) structures and processes. Specifically, she underlines the multi-causal nature of bullying (Zapf, 1999) and describes bul-lying as the result of an interaction between at least two of these groups of explanators. Following this reasoning, future research could enhance insight in organizational correlates of bullying by testing interactions between characteristics belonging to these three levels of explanators.

Organizational change was measured with a one item measure, which corresponds with a recent study in the realm of organizational change and bullying in large organizations (Baillien and De Witte, 2009). However, future studies could enhance this measurement by applying a broader mea-surement of this aspect, or even by distinguishing various types of organizational change as poten-tial correlates of bullying in SMEs. This study also preferred to align with the Scandinavian conceptualization of bullying and did not differentiate between different sources of the bullying acts, such as, for example, vertical (that is, being bullied by a supervisor) as compared to horizontal

622 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

bullying (that is, being bullied by co-workers). As this is among the first studies to explore whether the organizational correlates of bullying, predominantly detected in large organizations, can be generalized to SMEs, testing different forms of bullying was beyond the scope of the current arti-cle. Yet, different forms of bullying may relate to various explanations, making this topic a fruitful avenue for future research. For example, one diverging aspect may be their association with work-place power, which may be one of the most important factors contributing to the specific context of supervisory bullying (for elaboration, see Hodson et al., 2006).

The cross-sectional nature of our study does not allow conclusions in terms of causes and con-sequences of bullying. For example, the existence of an anti-bullying policy may be an antecedent of bullying, or may be regarded as a consequence in terms of the SME’s reaction to a bullying incident. Future studies may thus, benefit from using a longitudinal design to gain a better insight in causes and consequences of workplace bullying in SMEs. And finally, our study specifically focused on a Flemish sample of SMEs; yielding limitations in terms of generalizing our findings more widely.

Policy recommendations

Bullying gives rise to high organizational (absence, employees who leave the organization) and personal (depression, post-traumatic stress disorders) costs. Such costs can partially be decreased and prevented by the managers and owners of SMEs (Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Rayner, 1997; Vartia, 2001). Given the fact that employees in family businesses are more prone to become a vic-tim of bullying, owners and managers of family enterprises have to be aware of the higher risk of bullying incidences. Besides, as bullying is more prevalent in organizations without an anti-bully-ing policy, the introduction of such a policy is recommended. An organizational culture, in which much attention is devoted to the needs and concerns of employees, prevents bullying too. Finally, small enterprises ought to take into account the potential for bullying during periods of organiza-tional change.

Notes

1. The NACEBel-codes provide a European classification of sectors and branches within Flanders (Belgium) as well as the number of citizens employed within these specific sectors and branches.

2. This number was postulated by our research proposal.

References

Agervold M (2007) Bullying at work: A discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 48: 161–172.

Agervold M and Mikkelsen EG (2004) Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work and Stress 18: 336–351.

Ashforth B (1994) Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations 47: 755–778.Baillien E and De Witte H (2009) Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying? Role conflict

and job insecurity as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy 30: 348–371.Baillien E, Neyens I and De Witte H (2008) Organizational, team related and job related risk factors for

workplace bullying, violence and sexual harassment in the workplace: A qualitative study. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 13: 122–146.

Baillien E, Neyens I, De Witte H and De Cuyper N (2009) Towards a three way model of workplace bullying: A qualitative study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 19: 1–16.

Baillien et al. 623

Baron RA and Neuman JH (1996) Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior 22: 161–173.

Brodsky CM (1976) The Harassed Worker. Toronto: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co.Cowie H, Naylor P, Smith PK, Rivers I and Pereira B (2002) Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and

Violent Behaviour 7: 35–51.Cox HC (1987) Verbal abuse in nursing: Report of a study. Nursing Management 18: 47–50.Coyne I, Seigne S and Randall P (2000) Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 9: 335–349.Delmotte J, Lamberts M, Sels L and Van Hootegem G (2002) Personeelsbeleid in KMO’s: een onderzoek naar

de kenmerken van een effectief KMO-personeelsbeleid [Human Resource Policies in SMEs: A Study on the Characteristics of an Efficient SME-HR policy]. Leuven: KUL HIVA/Departement TEW, Onderzoeks-groep Personeel en Organisatie/ Departement Sociologie, Vakgroep Arbeids- en Organisatiesociologie.

Donckels R, Degadt J and Dupont B (1988) KMO’s in België [SMEs in Belgium]. Leuven: Acco.Einarsen S (1999) The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower 20: 16–27.Einarsen S (2000) Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Agression and

Violent Behavior 5: 379–401.Einarsen S, Hoel H and Notelaers G (2009) Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity,

factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised. Work and Stress 23: 24–44.

Einarsen S, Matthiesen SB and Hauge LJ (2009) Bullying and harassment at work. In: Cartwright S and Cooper CL (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Psychology. London: SAGE, 464–495.

Einarsen S and Raknes BI (1997) Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims 12: 247–263.

Einarsen S, Raknes BI and Matthiesen SB (1994) Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and Organizational Psychologist 4: 381–401.

Einarsen S and Skogstad A (1996) Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organiza-tions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5: 185–201.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2002) Employment Relations in Micro and Small Enterprises in the EU – Literature Review. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Greenglass ER and Burke RJ (2001) Downsizing and restructuring: Implications for stress and anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping 14: 1–13.

Hauge LJ, Skogstad A and Einarsen S (2007) Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress 21: 220–242.

Harman HH (1976) Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Hodson R, Roscigno V and Lopez S (2006) Chaos and the abuse of power: Workplace bullying in organiza-

tional and interactional context. Work and Occupations 33: 382–416.Hoel H and Cooper CL (2000) Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work. Manchester: Manchester School

of Management, UMIST.Hoel H and Salin D (2003) Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf

D and Cooper CL (eds) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor and Francis, 145–162.

Hoel H, Zapf D and Cooper CL (2002) Workplace bullying and stress. In: Perrewé PL and Ganster DC (eds) Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress and Health. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 293–333.

624 International Small Business Journal 29(6)

Hubert AB and van Veldhoven M (2001) Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10: 415–424.

Jick TD (1985) As the axe falls: Budget cuts and the experience of stress in organizations. In: Beehr TA and Bhagat RS (eds) Human Stress and Cognitions in Organizations. New York: John Wiley.

Keashly L (1998) Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse 1: 85–117.

Lane DA (1990) Counseling psychology in organisations. Psychologist 12: 540–544.Leymann H (1996) The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology 5: 165–184.Matthiesen SB, Raknes BI and Rokkum O (1989) Mobbing pa arbeidsplassen. [Mobbing at work]. Journal of

the Norwegian Psychological Association 26: 85–104.McCarthy P (1996) When the mask slips: Inappropriate coercion in organizations undergoing restructuring.

In: McCarthy P, Sheehan M and Wilkie D (eds) Bullying: from Backyard to Boardroom. Alexandria: Millennium Books, 47–56.

Mikkelsen EG and Einarsen S (2001) Bullying in Danish work–life: Prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10: 393–413.

Neyens I, Baillien E, De Witte H and Notelaers G (2007a) Pesten op het werk: riscicofactoren in werk en organisatie [Bullying at work: Work and organizational risk factors]. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstuk-ken 23: 306–320.

Neyens I, Baillien E, Vanoirbeek K and De Witte H (2007b) Pesterijen in kleine en middelgrote bedrijven: verschillend van grote ondernemingen? [Bullying in SMEs: Different from larger organizations?]. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken 23: 20–35.

Nielsen MB, Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB, Glaso L, Aasland MS, Notelaers G and Einarsen S (2009) Preva-lence of workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 18: 81–101.

Notelaers G and De Witte H (2003) Over de relatie tussen pesten op het werk en werkstress. In: Herremans W (ed.) De arbeidsmarkt in Vlaanderen. Verslagboek Arbeidsmarktonderzoekersdag 2003. Leuven: Steunpunt Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Vorming, 139–163.

Notelaers G, Einarsen S, De Witte H and Vermunt J (2006) Measuring exposure to bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the Latent Class Cluster approach. Work and Stress 20: 289–302.

O’Moore M, Lynch J and Daéid N (2003) The rates and relative risks of workplace bullying in Ireland, a country of high economic growth. International Journal of Management and Decision Making 4: 82–95.

Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, Dawnson JF, Lawthom R, Maitlis S, Robinson DL and Wallace AM (2005) Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 379–408.

Rayner C (1997) Incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 7: 199–208.

Rayner C, Hoel H and Cooper CL (2002) Workplace Bullying: What We Know, Who Is to Blame, and What Can We Do? London: Taylor and Francis.

Rosenberg DA and Silver HK (1984) Medical student abuse: An unnecessary and preventable cause of stress. The Journal of the American Medical Association 251: 739–742.

Salin D (2003) Bullying and organisational politics in competitive and rapidly changing work environments. International Journal of Management and Decision Making 4: 35–46.

Salin D (2008) The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: Measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scandinavian Journal of Management 24: 221–231.

Baillien et al. 625

Seigne E (1998) Bullying at work in Ireland. In: Rayner C, Sheehan M and Barker M (eds) Bullying at Work, 1998 Research Update Conference: Proceedings. Stafford: Staffordshire University.

Sheehan M (1996) Case studies in organizational restructuring. In McCarthy P, Sheehan M and Wilkie D (eds) Bullying: From Backyard to Boardroom. Alexandria: Millenium Books, 153–166.

Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB and Einarsen S. (2007) Organizational changes: A precursor of bullying at work? International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behaviour 10: 58–94.

Van Amstel R and Volkers HJ (1993) Sexual Intimidation: Prevalence and Policy Making: Experiences in 50 Organizations. Ministerie van sociale zaken en werkgelegenheid. Directoraat-generaal van de arbeid. Den Haag: Sdu.

Van Veldhoven M and Meijman TF (1994) Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA) [Measuring Psychosocial Demands with a Questionnaire: the VBBA]. Amsterdam: NIA.

Vartia M (1996) The sources of bullying: Psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5: 203–214.

Vartia M (2001) Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 27: 63–69.

Zapf D (1999) Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. Interna-tional Journal of Man Power 20: 70–85.

Zapf D and Einarsen S (2003) Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D and Cooper CL (eds) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor and Francis, 165–184.

Zapf D and Gross C (2001) Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10: 497–522.

Elfi Baillien is researcher at KULeuven, Belgium, and Professor Organizational Behavior at HUBrussel, Belgium. Her research interests include workplace bullying, negative acts at work, interpersonal and inter-group conflict, organizational change, work-related stress and employee well-being.

Inge Neyens is a PhD student at the KULeuven, Belgium. Her research interests include alliance portfolio configurations, alliance portfolio management, innovation (within start-ups as well as larger companies) and workplace bullying.

Hans De Witte, PhD, is full professor at the Department of Psychology of the KULeuven, Belgium. His research interests include psychological consequences of job insecurity, unemployment, temporary employ-ment and downsizing, as well as mobbing and stress versus engagement at work.