Workplace bullying, the development of job insecurity and the role of laissez-faire leadership: A two-wave moderated mediation study

ABSTRACT

Workplace bullying is increasingly recognised as a risk factor for job loss and exclusion from working life. Consequently, bullying may represent an antecedent of job insecurity, but this notion has not been sufficiently tested using prospective, representative data. In the present study, the association between workplace bullying and job insecurity was therefore investigated using a two-year time lag and a representative sample of Norwegian employees (N = 1775). Employing regression analysis, support for a cross-lagged effect of bullying on stability adjusted job insecurity was found. With respect to explanatory mechanisms, a moderated mediation analysis also revealed that this relationship is mediated by continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2, and, that the relationship between baseline bullying and continued victimisation at T2 is moderated by laissez-faire leadership (i.e. the enactment of passive-avoidant and non-responsive leadership behaviour). Thus, laissez-faire leadership appears to represent a condition under which the bullying process can endure and progress, and the bullying behaviours associated with such sustained and escalated scenarios seem to be particularly relevant antecedents of job insecurity. These results represent novel contributions to our understanding of workplace bullying and job insecurity, holding important implications for prevention of workplace bullying and alleviation of its negative consequences.

KEYWORDS:

• Workplace bullying
• harassment
• aggression
• job insecurity
• laissez-faire leadership
• longitudinal

Introduction

Workplace bullying is commonly defined as ongoing exposure to negative acts that the target has difficulty defending him/herself against due to a real or perceived power imbalance between the parties (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Olweus, 1993). A range of detrimental outcomes has been shown to arise in the aftermath of bullying, for the individual target as well as at the organisational and societal level (Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2011; Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011). These consequences include impaired mental health (Brousse et al., 2008; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2010), impaired somatic health (Kivimäki et al., 2003; Saastamoinen, Laaksonen, Leino-Arjas, & Lahelma, 2009), decreased job dedication and job satisfaction (Rodríguez-Muñoz, Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jiménez, & Pastor, 2009), and increased absenteeism (Kivimäki, Elovainio, & Vahtera, 2000) and intention to leave (Quine, 1999). In addition, workplace bullying has been demonstrated as a threat to the continuity of the targets’ employment (Leymann, 1992), with targets quitting the job, being wrongfully discharged or forced out of working life via severe health impairment. Such an expulsion process may, however, take several years (Berthelsen, Skogstad, Lau, & Einarsen, 2011; Glambek, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2015; Leymann, 1990). In certain cases, it may also be resolved before actual job loss occurs, but the threat of job loss may nevertheless be present during parts, or even the entirety of that time, regardless of the final outcome in terms of survival in working life. Therefore, in spite of the fact that research on any interpersonal antecedents of job insecurity is remarkably limited at the present time (see Shoss, 2017), continued exposure to workplace bullying may in fact be regarded as an important interpersonal-level source of job insecurity (Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland, & Einarsen, 2014; Park & Ono, 2016).

As an outcome of workplace bullying, job insecurity is under-researched, but potentially highly significant for those who experience it. Job insecurity represents a substantial source of individual strain in its own right (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002), and to the degree that it rises in parallel with workplace bullying, it is also likely to be an important part of the target’s experience of being bullied. In addition, job insecurity may represent a proxy for exclusion and expulsion in working life further down the line (Glambek et al., 2014). Yet, few studies have investigated bullying as a precursor of job insecurity using longitudinal, representative data. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no studies have addressed potential explanatory mechanisms in the relationship. In this study, we will therefore address the association between workplace bullying and job insecurity employing a nationally representative sample and a prospective design with a two-year time lag. In addition, in accordance with the widely held assumption that destructive interpersonal processes at work such as workplace bullying flourish in the presence of weak, indistinct and passive-avoidant leadership (see, e.g. Leymann, 1996; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), we will introduce and test laissez-faire leadership as a possible condition allowing the negative treatment of bullying targets to continue over time, thereby acting as a catalyst for the development of job insecurity among the targets.

Workplace bullying as an antecedent of job insecurity

Job insecurity, defined as “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation” (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, p. 468), is theorised to emerge as a function of perceived threats to job continuity in interaction with one’s feeling of powerlessness to resist that threat (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Thus, while objective job threats most often play a significant part in the initiation of job insecurity, it is also defined by its subjective nature. The job insecurity literature is comprehensive (see, e.g. De Witte, 1999; Sverke et al., 2002), but with the majority of empirical work focusing on its consequences (see, e.g. Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002). The antecedents, on the other hand, have received far less attention, implying a need for further research (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010).

According to De Witte (2005), relevant antecedents of job insecurity are commonly divided into macro-level factors (e.g. organisational downsizing), individual background factors (e.g. short length of service) and personality traits (e.g. external locus of control) that all contribute to heighten the perceived probability of job loss and lower the perceived ability to tackle the threat. Recently, however, it has also been suggested that that sources of job insecurity may be found at the interpersonal level (Glambek et al., 2014; Shoss, 2017). Specifically, with perceived job threat and perceived powerlessness to tackle the threat denoting the premises for the initiation and development of job insecurity, workplace bullying should be regarded among its sources. Workplace bullying has for instance repeatedly been shown to represent a hazard to survival in the job and in working life as such (Berthelsen et al., 2011; Glambek et al., 2014, 2015; Leymann, 1992; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003). In fact, one of the first models to be postulated regarding the workplace bullying process had bullying construed as an expulsion mechanism, where the target would eventually be forced out of the organisation if due interventions are not implemented (Leymann, 1990, 1992, 1996). This claim has since been reiterated by other scholars (e.g. Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007), and researchers have repeatedly reported outcomes of bullying related to expulsion, including sickness absence (Niedhammer, Chastang, Sultan-Taïeb, Vermeylen, & Parent-Thirion, 2013; Nielsen, Indregard, & Øverland, 2016), increased turnover rates (Hogh, Hoel, & Carneiro, 2011; Quine, 2001) and unemployment (Glambek et al., 2015). Furthermore, research has demonstrated severe health effects of workplace bullying (Hogh et al., 2011). Health outcomes are likely to affect both the actual working ability of the targets (Berthelsen et al., 2011; Dellve, Lagerström, & Hagberg, 2003), as well as their perceived and anticipated future working ability (Løvvik, 2015), thereby further reinforcing any perceived threats to desired job continuity among targets. In addition, insofar as workplace bullying is indeed perceived as a job threat, the second job insecurity premise – the employee’s powerlessness to resist the job threat – is relevant by definition (Glambek et al., 2014), as a defining element of workplace bullying is the perceived inability to defend oneself and tackle the situation (cf. Einarsen et al., 2011).

In line with these assumptions, we propose that exposure to workplace bullying leads to increased levels of job insecurity over time. Moreover, since bullying scenarios can go on for several years (e.g. Zapf & Gross, 2001) we believe that high levels of bullying-related job insecurity will be evident over a relatively long time lag. For the purpose of an empirical investigation of this relationship, the employed time lag must be sufficiently long to allow job insecurity to develop over and above that measured at baseline, but also short enough to ensure that actual expulsion has not occurred in the majority of the cases. Knowing that many targets of workplace bullying in the present research context are still employed two years after self-reported exposure to bullying (see Berthelsen et al., 2011) we thus employ a two-year time lag in our design, and propose the following as our first hypothesis:

H1. Workplace bullying is associated with increased levels of job insecurity two years on.

The role of laissez-faire leadership

We have argued that the job threat embedded in many workplace bullying scenarios combined with the target’s relative powerlessness to resist that threat, can lead to job insecurity over time. It should be pointed out, however, that this dependency on time is only a premise for the development of job insecurity insofar as the bullying scenario continues to be a problem. The relationship between workplace bullying and job insecurity two years on is therefore likely to be mediated by continued exposure to bullying behaviours, further implying that any conditions under which bullying is likely to thrive and escalate might also denote conditions for the time-bound association between bullying and job insecurity. In the literature, a well-established premise as such is that of laissez-faire leadership, i.e. leadership characterised by the avoidance of leader tasks as well as non-responsiveness to subordinates’ needs (Bass, 1999; Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014). Studies have, for example, shown that laissez-faire leadership can increase the probability that bullying will be initiated in the first place, particularly in combination with given stressors in the work environment (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010; Skogstad et al., 2007), and the enactment of laissez-faire leadership behaviour may itself yield a signal effect in which bullying is perceived to be acceptable behaviour (Nielsen, 2013; Skogstad et al., 2007). High levels of laissez-faire leadership may also be associated with a lower intervention rate in actual cases of bullying. Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik (2010), for example, found that managerial intervention tended either not to take place or to make things worse in the majority of bullying incidents.

This would imply that managerial negligence and non-responsiveness can strengthen the association between bullying and job insecurity simply by allowing a given bullying scenario to unfold, and theoretically, such a tendency may hold true for a number of reasons. The closest leader may, for instance, postpone his or her response to the bullying situation, or even ignore it completely, be it due to a lack of oversight in the situation, or a lack of knowledge about how to approach. In other cases, the immediate supervisor may even actively choose not to get involved. In support of this, Lutgen-Sandvik and McDermott (2011) showed that workers affected by bullying tended to explain the organisation’s failure to intervene as an “HR practice” aimed at getting rid of troublemakers, and as a measure to increase productivity. These notions are also in line with the early model postulated by Leymann (1992), which held that the bullying process – and the risk of subsequent expulsion – cannot develop unless those with the power to intervene fail to do so. Thus, if the supervisor instead passively allows a bullying scenario to endure, the process may progress unhindered, further reinforcing any association between victimisation from bullying and worries about ones’ continued employment. Based on this reasoning, we propose that the relationship between workplace bullying and job insecurity over time is mediated via continued exposure to bullying behaviours two years on, with laissez-faire leadership acting as a moderator between workplace bullying at baseline and continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2.

This moderated mediation relationship is depicted in Figure 1, and is summarised in the following two hypotheses:

Figure 1. Proposed model of the time-bound relationship between workplace bullying and job insecurity, with continued exposure to bullying behaviours as the mediator and laissez-faire leadership as the moderator on the mediation mechanism.

H2a. The association between baseline workplace bullying and subsequent job insecurity is mediated by continued exposure to bullying behaviours.

H2b. In this mediation chain, the relationship between baseline workplace bullying and continued exposure to bullying behaviours is dependent on the degree of laissez-faire leadership.

The primary aim of this study is to further the understanding of job insecurity as it develops and unfolds in response to workplace bullying. However, although comprising a different story altogether, there is also a possibility for a reverse relationship, with higher levels of job insecurity being associated with subsequent reports of workplace bullying. In fact, the association between bullying and job insecurity has first and foremost been investigated with job insecurity as the independent and bullying as the dependent variable (Baillien, Neyens, & De Witte, 2008; De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009; Notelaers, De Witte, & Einarsen, 2010), building on the notion that the stress and frustration associated with job insecurity might lower the threshold for antisocial behaviour such as bullying (De Cuyper et al., 2009), especially as the climate becomes characterised by a combat over scarce resources and attempts to drive out potential competitors or unwanted employees. Thus, as an appendix to the main hypotheses of this study, we would also expect to replicate previous findings concerning a prediction of workplace bullying based on baseline levels of job insecurity. As a last hypothesis, we therefore propose the following:

H3. Job insecurity is associated with an increased risk of exposure to workplace bullying two years on.

Method

Sample

A total of 4500 employees were randomly drawn from the Norwegian Central Employee Register by Statistics Norway (SSB) and asked to participate in a survey about their psychosocial working conditions (Høstmark & Lagerstrøm, 2006). All potential respondents worked a minimum of 15 hours per week in a company with at least five employees. The baseline data collection in 2005 (T1) yielded a response rate of 56.4% (N = 2539) and consisted of 52% women and 48% men. Age ranged from 19 to 66 years, the mean age was 43.8 years (SD = 11.52), and 90.1% were either full- or part-time employed, thus being eligible for inclusion in the analyses of the present study. A follow-up measure (T2) was conducted two years after the baseline data collection, and yielded a response rate of 70% (N = 1775). The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in Western Norway (Berthelsen et al., 2011; Hauge et al., 2007).

Attrition analyses performed using Chi-square tests for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) revealed that targets of bullying at T1 had a higher probability of drop-out at T2 as compared with non-targets, χ² (1, N = 2249) = 5.43, p = .02, phi = −.05. An independent samples t-test also revealed that participants who only responded at T1 had significantly higher levels of job insecurity at T1 (M = 5.17, SD = 2.98) compared to those who also responded at T2 (M = 4.81, SD = 2.8; t (1236.738) = 2.68, p = .007, two-tailed), indicating that job insecurity is associated with higher probability of dropping out from the study during the two-year time lag. No such tendency was found for laissez-faire leadership.

Instruments

Workplace bullying was measured using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009), a standardised measure comprising 22 common bullying behaviours such as “been excluded from the social fellowship” and “exposed to exaggerated teasing and joking.” Items were rated by the respondents on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) never, through (2) sometimes, (3) monthly, (4) weekly, to (5) daily. In order to establish target status, a previously defined cut-off (i.e. a score of at least 33) for the NAQ-R was used (Notelaers & Einarsen, 2013). In the moderated mediation analysis, however, the NAQ-R was used as a continuous mediator, as the purpose was to establish whether the targets were still being subjected to bullying behaviours at T2. The internal stability of this scale was acceptable at both T1 (α = .90) and T2 (α = .88).

Job insecurity was measured using a three-item subscale assessing concerns about the continuity of one’s job, taken from the two-dimensional job insecurity inventory of Hellgren, Sverke, and Isaksson (1999). The items were: “I am worried about having to leave my job before I would like to,” “there is a risk that I will have to leave my job in the year to come,” and “I feel uneasy about losing my job in the near future,” and were evaluated by the respondents on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “not at all true” to “entirely true.” Reliability analyses showed acceptable internal stability for this measure at T1 (α = .78) and T2 (α = .73).

Laissez-faire leadership was measured using five items on laissez-faire leadership behaviour taken from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Respondents were asked to consider the leader style of their closest superior using items such as; “has not been present when it was needed,” and all items were evaluated by the respondents using a four-point Likert-type scale as follows: (1) never, (2) sometimes, (3) quite often, and (4) very often/nearly always. Reliability analyses showed acceptable internal stability for this measure at T1 (α = .73).

Control variables in the prospective analyses concerning job insecurity were age, change of employer, change of department and change of nearest leader between measurement waves (the latter three variables coded as 0 (no change) and 1). In the prospective analysis using workplace bullying at T2 as the outcome, workplace bullying at T1 and age were used as controls, and in the cross-sectional analysis concerning job insecurity at H1, only age was used as a control measure (a preliminary analysis revealed that age was significantly associated with both the main predictor and the outcome of this study. Gender, however, was not, and was therefore excluded as a control measure).

Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 23. Firstly, a table with descriptive statistics was produced, as displayed in Table 1. Hypothesis 1 was then tested using hierarchical multiple regression analysis (pairwise deletion), entering control variables in the first step, and the main predictor in the second. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were tested simultaneously using Hayes (2013) PROCESS SPSS macro supplement (model 7), with mean-centred variables, heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors and 5000 bootstrap resamples with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effect at different levels of the moderator. Specifically, controlling for age and change of employer, change of department and change of nearest leader between measurement waves, workplace bullying at T1 was tested as a predictor of job insecurity at T2 using continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2 as a mediator, with laissez-faire leadership at T1 as a moderator of the relationship between workplace bullying at T1 and continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2. Hypothesis 3 was tested using a logistic regression analysis.

Table 1. Baseline descriptive statistics for participants responding at T1, and T2 descriptive statistics for participants responding at both time-points.

	T1			T1 and T2
	N	%	M (SD)	N	%	M (SD)
Sex
Male	1217	47.9		794	44.8
Female	1322	52.1		978	55.2
Age	2539		43.79 (11.52)	1772		46.49 (11.37)
New employer since T1				234	14.9
New department since T1				277	19
New leader since T1				648	43.9
Exposure to bullying behaviours^a	2249		1.22 (0.30)	1461		1.19 (0.25)
Workplace bullying
Yes	286	12.7		142	9.7
No	1963	87.3		1319	90.3
Job insecurity^b	2352		1.64 (0.95)	1539		1.45 (0.8)
Laissez-Faire leadership^c	2337		0.53 (0.49)	1531		0.51 (0.49)

^aMean of 22 items rated from 1 to 5.

^bMean of 3 items rated from 1 to 5

^cMean of 5 items rated from 0 to 3.

Results

At baseline, 12.7% of the respondents reported a NAQ-R score of at least 33 (N = 286), and at T2, this figure was 9.7% (N = 142). Mean NAQ-R was 1.22 on a 1–5 scale (SD = 0.30) at baseline, and 1.19 (SD = 0.25) at T2. The measure of job insecurity revealed a mean of 1.64 on a 1–5 range scale (SD = 0.95) at baseline, and a mean of 1.45 (SD = 0.8) at T2, while mean laissez-faire leadership was 0.53 on a 0–3 range scale (SD = 0.49) at baseline, and 0.52 (SD = 0.49) at T2. These results are displayed in Table 1.

H1 was tested using linear regression analysis. In a cross-sectional analysis employed to determine the strength of the association between the baseline levels of the study variables, workplace bullying at T1 was shown to be significantly associated with job insecurity at T1, ΔR² = 0.5, β = .23, p < .001 (see also Hauge et al., 2007). In the prospective, stability adjusted model, workplace bullying at T1 was also shown to contribute significantly to job insecurity at T2, ΔR²= 0.1, β = .1, p < .001, thus supporting H1. These results are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. ΔR² and standardised regression coefficients concerning the association between workplace bullying at T1 and job insecurity at T1 and T2.

	Job insecurity T1		Job insecurity T2
Predictor	ΔR^2	β	ΔR^2	β
Model 1	.01***		.18***
Age		−.1***		.01
Job insecurity T1				.4***
New employer since T1				−.07**
New department since T1				−.01
New leader since T1				−.03
Model 2	.05***		.01***
Workplace bullying at T1		.23***		.1***
Total R^2	.06***		.19***
n	2219		1355

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

H2a and H2b were tested simultaneously using Hayes (2013) PROCESS SPSS macro supplement (model 7). Together, the T1 measures explained about 26% of the variance in the sum of exposure to bullying behaviours at T2, and the full model explained about 26% of the variance in job insecurity at T2. As predicted, we found continued victimisation at T2 to be associated with job insecurity over and above the job insecurity reported at T1, B = .96, SE = .12, 95% CI = .73–1.19. Furthermore, in line with our moderation hypothesis, the relationship between workplace bullying at T1 and continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2 was dependent on the level of laissez-faire leadership at T1, B = .20, SE = .09, 95% CI = .04–.37, indicating that the enactment of laissez-faire leadership on behalf of one’s nearest leader significantly increases the rate by which targets of bullying are still being victimised two years later (see Figure 2 for a depiction of this interaction). With a statistically significant overall index of moderated mediation, Index = .20, SE (Boot) = .08, 95% Boot CI = .05–.37, hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. See Table 3 for an overview of these results.

Figure 2. The relationship between workplace bullying at T1 and continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2 as moderated by laissez-faire leadership. Note: High laissez-faire leadership = 1 SD above the mean. Low laissez-faire leadership = 1 SD below the mean.

Table 3. Results of moderated mediation analysis.

	Exposure to bullying behaviours T2				Mean job insecurity T2
Predictor	B	SE	LLCI	ULCI	B	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Age	−.00	.00	−.00	.00	.00	.00	−.00	.00
New employer since T1	−.01	.03	−.07	.05	.17*	.09	.00	.34
New department since T1	.01	.02	−.03	.05	.05	.06	−.16	.06
New leader since T1	−.02	.01	−.04	.01	.00	.04	−.08	.09
Job insecurity T1	.02*	.01	.00	.04	.31***	.03	.24	.37
Exposure to bullying behaviours T2					.96***	.12	.73	1.19
Workplace bullying T1	.22***	.04	.13	.30	−.05	.08	−.21	.11
Laissez-faire leadership T1	.1***	.02	.07	.13
Bullying X Laissez-faire	.20*	.09	.04	.37
R^2	.26***				.26***
Conditional indirect effects of bullying on job insecurity
Laissez-faire leadership	Effect		Boot SE		Boot LLCI		Boot ULCI
−1 SD	.12		.07		−.02		.28
M	.21		.05		.12		.32
+1 SD	.30		.05		.21		.40
Index of moderated mediation
Mediator	Index		Boot SE		Boot LLCI		Boot ULCI
Exposure to bullying behaviours T2	.2		.08		.05		.37
n = 1209

Note: Bootstrap samples = 5,000. LLCI = lower level of the 95% confidence interval, ULCI = upper level of the 95% confidence interval. Products are mean centred.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

H3 was tested using a logistic regression analysis, revealing a cross-lagged, stability adjusted relationship between job insecurity at T1 and workplace bullying at T2 (OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 1.03–1.18), thus supporting our additional reverse causation hypothesis.

Discussion

The present study establishes workplace bullying as a precursor of job insecurity. It also supports the notion that leadership may play a significant role when targets of bullying develop concerns about the security of their job, demonstrating that enactment of passive-avoidant and non-responsive leadership increases the rate by which bullying targets continue to be victimised over time. The finding of a direct effect of bullying on job insecurity is in line with a previous study among North Sea workers, where levels of job insecurity were found to increase over a six-month time lag following exposure to bullying behaviours (Glambek et al., 2014). The two-year prospective association demonstrated in the present study, where baseline levels of job insecurity are controlled for, indicates, however, that the impact of bullying on job insecurity continues to increase over longer time intervals. This not only suggests that workplace bullying acts as an interpersonal-level antecedent of job insecurity, but also that it should be understood and considered as an ongoing and escalating antecedent. In further support of this notion, continued exposure to bullying behaviours at T2 was shown to mediate the direct effect of bullying on job insecurity over time. Thus, the enduring nature of workplace bullying must be considered as an important element in this chain. Such a notion also underscores the potency of workplace bullying as a particularly harmful workplace event, and it strengthens the case for including interpersonal-level antecedents such as bullying in the study of job insecurity.

In line with our assumption, the relationship between workplace bullying at T1 and continued exposure to negative behaviours at T2 was moderated by laissez-faire leadership. Specifically, the mediating role of exposure to negative behaviours at T2 was shown to be dependent on a condition of high laissez-faire leadership, lending support to the hypothesis that passive-avoidant and non-responsive leadership behaviour fuels the bullying process to such a degree that it significantly affects the impact of workplace bullying on job insecurity over time. Laissez-faire leadership thus appear to fill a key role in the proposed mediation chain, and may denote a considerable problem for targets of bullying, possibly involving a feeling of being unprotected as the nearest leader neglects his or her duty of care. The actual laissez-faire leadership behaviour itself may be instigated for different reasons. In some cases, passivity and inaction on account of the nearest leader may, for instance, indicate that he or she is taking the side of the perpetrator. According to the model of the bullying and expulsion process proposed by Leymann (e.g. 1992), continued victimisation will ultimately render the targets unable to sufficiently stand up for themselves and to appear difficult, unreasonable and “hysteric.” Trying to explain the situation to supervisors, they may end up being perceived as the root of the problem, hence losing support and protection. In other cases, the bullying of a low-performing employee may even be indirectly supported via the nearest leader’s inaction. But such passivity may also reflect other, more normal and expected processes. Workplace bullying places complex demands on the leader, and juridical and interpersonal interests may suddenly demand attention (Hoel & Einarsen, 2011; Lippel, 2010; Vartia & Leka, 2011). Thus, the need for information and oversight in the situation may in itself be a reason for delayed action. With the bullying scenario at the same time continuing to progress and escalate, it may also become more difficult to adequately intervene in later stages. However, bullying not only changes the premises for leadership, it also alters the subordinates’ need for leadership. Hence, laissez-faire leadership as seen from the perspective of a bullying target is not a mirror reflection of the leaders’ behaviour, but a result of a perception process where the actual behaviour of the leader interacts with the interpretations and the altered needs of the subordinate. In a situation characterised by bullying behaviours, an increasing threat to job continuity and an inability to defend oneself (see Einarsen et al., 2011), the need for assertive leadership will be decisive, implying that the present finding concerning laissez-faire leadership also aligns with the tenet that job insecurity is fuelled by a powerlessness to resist the perceived job threat (cf. Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).

As stated in the reverse causation hypothesis, a tendency in the opposite direction was also demonstrated in the present study, with job insecurity shown to be a significant antecedent of reports of exposure to workplace bullying two years later. This replicates previous findings (Baillien et al., 2008; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Notelaers et al., 2010), and is in line with what is known as the work-environment hypothesis for workplace bullying, which states that bullying is more likely to occur in the presence of significant work stressors (Baillien & De Witte, 2009; Skogstad, Torsheim, Einarsen, & Hauge, 2011; Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). This may imply that individuals high on job insecurity are vulnerable and may be perceived as “easy targets” in a work environment characterised by insecurity and competition over scarce resources. Moreover, it could suggest that, in some cases, the interrelationship between bullying and insecurity takes the form of a vicious circle of events. However, more research is needed in order to establish such a mechanism, preferably in a study employing several measurement time-points.

This is possibly the first study to address interpersonal antecedents of job insecurity in a nationally representative sample, and also the first to investigate explanatory conditions in the bullying-job insecurity relationship. In sum, our findings demonstrate that workplace bullying can be a significant precursor of job insecurity, and that perceived passive-avoidant and non-responsive leadership behaviour by ones’ immediate supervisor strengthens the association between bullying and job insecurity over time via continued exposure to bullying behaviours. The paper hence adds both to the workplace bullying- and the job insecurity literature, and will, hopefully, represent a starting point for future research and a point of reference for practitioners, as further pointed out below. First, however, some methodological considerations should be addressed.

Methodological considerations

The present study’s use of a large and nationally representative sample ensures the relevance of the findings to the Norwegian labour market as well as high generalisability, at least to contexts resembling Norwegian workplaces, such as the other Nordic countries and large parts of Europe and possibly North America. Moreover, the prospective design, with a relatively long time lag, strengthens the assumption of causality, a much called-for feature of organisational studies (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010; Taris & Kompier, 2014). However, the study’s exclusive use of self-report measures entails a risk of common-method biases (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). These are tendencies for respondents to answer questionnaires in a manner that is affected by issues unrelated to the items at hand, such as a need to appear socially desirable, or a tendency to respond with exaggerated rigidity. On the other hand, the use of an extended time lag between the measurement of the independent and dependent variables is generally viewed as a significant protective factor with respect to such biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, since the present data were collected as part of a larger study on psychosocial work environment factors (see Hauge et al., 2007) there is little reason to suspect that the respondents would be affected by presumptions about the study hypotheses. Another point worth noticing is that national levels of job insecurity appear to be fairly low in Norway, as indicated by the mean score of 1.64 (T1) and 1.45 (T2). This reflects many responses at the lower end of the job insecurity scale, possibly implying that many respondents were not facing imminent threats to their continued employment at the two measurement time-points. On the other hand, to the degree that job insecurity is not easily instigated in the present national context, this could also mean that the increase in job insecurity actually reported by these targets is of profound significance to them. Moreover, if job insecurity is more easily generated elsewhere, the tendencies documented here should be even stronger in cultures and national settings where higher levels of job insecurity prevail.

Finally, although we regard the two-year time lag of the present study as appropriate for the investigation job insecurity among targets of bullying, there is a chance that important information is lost during the two-year lapse. In the attrition analyses, T1-targets of bullying were shown to have a higher drop-out rate than non-targets, with any job insecurity experienced by these targets not reflected in the results. Thus, more studies using different time lags or different designs, such as diary studies or qualitative studies, might help to further nuance the picture regarding the interrelationship between bullying, laissez-faire leadership and job insecurity.

Implications and conclusion

There are several potential implications of the present research. In terms of implications for theory and research, the results of this study are in line with the recently established notion that bullying can act as an interpersonal antecedent of job insecurity (Glambek et al., 2014; Park & Ono, 2016; Shoss, 2017), and may imply that other interpersonal antecedents of job insecurity exist as well. For example, adverse workplace stressors such as abusive supervision, interpersonal conflicts and escalated conflicts over work tasks may theoretically be viewed as possible sources of job insecurity for those involved, particularly if some degree of competition over resources is simultaneously taking place. In addition, in showing that laissez-faire leadership can act as a moderator on bullying with respect to job insecurity, it may also be timely to ask whether passive-avoidant and non-responsive leadership behaviour may act as a catalyst on other sources of job insecurity as well. In research efforts to come, these possibilities may hopefully be explored. Finally, this study demonstrates empirically that in the presence of laissez-faire leadership, workplace bullying thrives and continues to be a problem for the targets some two years after self-reported exposure. This underscores that bullying is a social and dynamic phenomenon that does not take place in a vacuum involving only targets and perpetrators, or one that can be fully explained by intra-psychological constructs such as the personality or the attributional processes of those directly involved. Rather, workplace bullying takes place in a larger context where also those indirectly related to the scenario play important, or even decisive, roles.

The present results also have important practical relevance, for managers, work and organisational psychologists, as well as for HR personnel and lawyers. Firstly, the fact that targets experience heightened levels of job insecurity may signal a genuine risk of expulsion from the workplace, which should be actively prevented by relevant third parties, particularly supervisors and top management as well as HR professionals. The present study also reveals that in any effort to prevent actual job loss from taking place, awareness of the importance of supervisory involvement may be crucial, particularly with respect to the lack of such involvement in the form of laissez-faire leadership. In such cases, bullying situations and expulsion processes may escalate freely, and supervisors may need to be instructed about how to tackle bullying cases early on, perhaps by the help of policies and training programmes established at the organisational level. In this regard, it might also be necessary to underscore that workplace bullying constitutes an extreme situation placing complex demands on the nearest leader. Possibly, for all its destructive qualities in such an event, laissez-faire behaviour may in some cases even reflect a “normal” withdrawal reaction, at least in the short run. This further strengthens the case for proactive organisational initiatives regarding formal and interpersonal procedures in the case of bullying and escalated conflicts.

Secondly, it should be kept in mind that the psychological toll of job insecurity can be significant in itself, over and above the impact of exposure to bullying (see, e.g. Cheng & Chan, 2008; Shoss, 2017; Sverke et al., 2002). Hence, practitioners dealing with bullying at work should address the target’s fear of losing the job and of losing foothold in working life altogether, taking steps to re-establish job security as quickly as possible. Additionally, as part of any intervention, practitioners should remember to examine whether the actual job situation of the target has already been affected by the bullying process, for instance in terms of unwanted relocations or missed promotion opportunities.

Taken together, the present findings provide support for the claim that workplace bullying may act as an interpersonal-level antecedent of job insecurity, and particularly so under conditions of laissez-faire leadership. It also demonstrates the role of laissez-faire leadership as a facilitator and maintenance mechanism in the bullying process under which targets may be subjected to continuing victimisation over long periods of time. Hence, we underscore the importance of encouraging and maintaining an active, considerate and problem-solving leadership style when interpersonal relationships in the workplace become toxic, and scenarios of escalating conflicts, harassment and bullying commence.

Acknowledgements

The present study is a result of a collaborative project between the University of Bergen and Statistics Norway, the latter having been in charge of the data collection. Thanks to Bengt Oscar Lagerstrøm, Aina Holmøy and Maria Høstmark of Statistics Norway, to Stig Berge Matthiesen at the Norwegian Business School (BI) and the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, for contributing with the data collection, and to Morten Birkeland Nielsen at the National Institute of Occupational Health (STAMI) and the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen for helpful comments on the manuscript and for his contribution with the data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This paper is supported by the Norwegian Research Council – NFR [grant number 250127].