Levels of workplace bullying and escalation – a new conceptual model based on cut-off scores, frequency and self-labelled victimization

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to identity levels of workplace bullying based on cut-off scores, frequency and self-labelled victimization, and to use these levels to identify the escalation of workplace bullying in terms of onset of different negative acts. Data were collected from a representative sample of the Swedish workforce (n = 1856). Bullying was measured using the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised together with self-labelled victimization based on a definition. Other variables included aspects of work experience, perception of the organization, and health and well-being. The results showed differences between the suggested levels of workplace bullying (Risk for bullying and Incipient bullying; Ongoing bullying; and Severe and Extreme bullying) for these variables, and also that different areas were pronounced at different levels of workplace bullying. Further, the onset of different negative acts depended on the level of workplace bullying, at early stages only work-related negative acts, but at higher levels more person-related negative acts. The study contributes to the understanding of workplace bullying and the escalation process. The suggested new levels of bullying also have practical and pedagogical value making it easier to grasp and to convey to, e.g. HR personnel, and organizational psychologists.

KEYWORDS:

• Workplace bullying
• escalation
• organizational conditions
• negative exposure
• work experience

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data-availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MR, upon reasonable request.

The research project was approved by the Regional Research and Ethics Committee at Linköping University, Sweden (#2017/336–32).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. Leymann (1990) wrote: “These actions take place often (almost every day)” (p. 120) and 1996 “These actions occur on a very frequent basis (statistical definition: at least once a week)” (p. 168), that is, a reference to the frequency needed to call it bullying, but actually nothing about how many negative acts are required. The Leymann criterion is understood as at least one negative act per week. It is often referred to using one or both of these references.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the AFA Försäkring under Grant number 160285.