Workplace Bullying in the Portuguese Banking Sector: Incidence Levels and Risk Groups

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the incidence rate of workplace bullying in the Portuguese banking sector and to shed light on the most frequent bullying behaviors encountered in this understudied setting. In line with the idea of “powerlessness,” these aspects are contrasted in terms of gender and organizational position. A questionnaire-based survey using two different but complementary strategies was conducted, to measure both the subjective perception of workplace bullying and the objective dimension of the concept. Results (N = 561) showed an incidence rate of 5.9% targets of bullying, according to the self-labeling method. Following the two-act criterion, 23.4% of the targets were found through the behavioral experience method. The respondents who indicated to be a target of bullying based on the self-labeling method reported mainly work-related negative acts (e.g., being exposed to an unmanageable workload, their opinions and views are ignored and their work is excessively monitored) in the behavioral experience method. In contrast to our expectations, not the bottom staff but the middle and top managers were mostly exposed to bullying acts. Regarding gender, men were more at risk of being a target of bullying behaviors at work than women, contrary to our hypothesis and to the general idea in the literature. In addition, there was an interaction effect of position and gender in the prevalence of bullying. Although this study has limitations due to its focus exclusively in the banking sector, the findings seem to have important implications in terms of designing intervention policies. In addition, it provides new insights about workplace bullying in a sector and a country that has been largely absent from research carried out so far in Europe. Finally, the results challenge and contextualize the dominant idea in the literature that the weaker and defenseless worker is the most likely target of bullying.

Keywords

NAQ-R workplace bullying negative acts banking sector

Introduction

The quality of social relationships at work is seen as an important factor in people’s well-being and job satisfaction. Fueled by mass media stories and statistics from governmental and labor institutional sources (Adams, 1992; Schat et al., 2006), research on violence at work and workplace bullying in particular flourished during the last decade through assessments of occupational health institutions (Hoel et al., 2005) as well as efforts from scholars in the fields of (work) psychology and organizational behavior (Hauge et al., 2007). This study follows these evolutions and focuses on workplace bullying, a situation of negative social behavior in which an employee is excluded from his or her right to be treated respectfully.

Research to date has shown that workplace bullying is a widespread phenomenon in many countries and within different occupational settings (e.g., Mikkelsen & Einärsen, 2001; Niedhammer et al., 2006). Although the topic has been studied in a range of countries such as the United Kingdom (e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000), the United States (e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), Australia (e.g., Ayoko et al., 2003; Timo et al., 2004), Norway (e.g., Nielsen et al., 2009), and Belgium (e.g., Notelaers et al., 2006), research on bullying among Portuguese employees is scarce. In Portugal, the issue of workplace bullying has become notorious with its inclusion in the recent Labor Legislation (Leite & Almeida, 2004); also, unions have underscored the need to bring more dignity into work relationships, due to the negative consequences of anti-social behaviors at work (Almeida et al., 2007). So far, two studies have looked at the incidence of bullying in Portuguese organizations (Araújo, 2010; Serra et al., 2005) and two publications elaborated on the issue from a legal perspective (Garcia Pereira, 2009; Pacheco, 2007). Despite their first steps to include insights gathered from Portuguese employees in knowledge on the workplace bullying phenomenon, these studies show some important voids: (a) they did not use an internationally validated method to measure bullying and (b) they did not study potential risk groups for the occurrence of bullying. In reply, this study wants to investigate workplace bullying in Portugal by assessing its prevalence using both the self-labeling and behavioral experience method as validated measures for workplace bullying. In addition, we aim to gain insight in which employees would be more easily targeted with bullying following the powerlessness hypothesis.

Besides focusing on an understudied group in terms of nationality, we additionally want to investigate a particular setting that has not received much attention in workplace bullying research either. That is, a high number of studies have been conducted in the health care sector (Einarsen et al., 1998) and the public sector (Salin, 2006; Vartia, 2003). Research that aimed to develop insights in private organizations and in professions with a specific business background has been rather limited (e.g., Salin, 2001; Woodman & Cook, 2005). Notably, the banking industry is virtually absent in organizational research (for an exception, see Maciel et al., 2007; Yilmaz & Soydas, 2006). Studying the banking industry is valuable, as the sector has been confronted with many changes following the financial crisis of the 1990s (e.g., mergers and acquisitions, increasing demands in terms of flexibility at work, increased job insecurity; Hoel et al., 2002): these changes have led to a precarious work environment bringing together the factors for bullying to occur (e.g., Baillien & Witte, 2009; Salin, 2003b; Walter, 2004a). Given these evolutions in the banking industry combined with the lack of research investigating this sector, this study particularly adds important information by investigating workplace bullying in the Portuguese Banking sector.

In sum, the aims of this study are threefold. First, we want to establish knowledge on workplace bullying in the Portuguese banking sector, a focus in which two understudied groups of employees in international research to date are combined. Second, we use established and validated methods to assess workplace bullying in this particular group and address its complementarity. This approach allows us to determine the prevalence rates as well as explore which behaviors are reported most frequently among targets of bullying in this particular setting. Third, we analyze whether there are specific risk groups of workplace bullying among employees in this sector building on the idea of “powerlessness” as a crucial factor in being targeted with these behaviors.

Literature Review

Workplace Bullying: Definition and Prevalence

Workplace bullying—also labeled “mobbing” (Leymann, 1996)—refers to systematic and persistent exposure to negative acts at work, including work-related negative acts (e.g., withholding information, receiving tasks with unreasonable deadlines, or having key areas of responsibility removed) or person-related negative acts (e.g., spreading rumors, being ridiculed or being socially excluded from the work group). These negative bullying acts occur systematically (i.e., at least once a week) and for a long period (i.e., minimum 6 months) (Einarsen, 2000); they often cause humiliation, anxiety, and distress, interfere with job performance, and cause an unpleasant work environment (Einarsen et al., 1994; Hoel et al., 2002). Consequently, many studies have identified workplace bullying as an occupational problem of significant magnitude (Zapf et al., 2011): persistent exposure is likely to manifest itself in health problems, increased sickness absenteeism, lower productivity, and reduced commitment and motivation at work (Hoel et al., 2004; Hogh et al., 2011; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004). Workplace bullying signals intolerance and excludes an employee from the social group (Escartín et al., 2013).

Scientific survey studies assessing its prevalence have reported extensive variation in incidence rates between countries, ranging from 2%–5% in Scandinavian countries (Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001), 9.4%–28% in the United States (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007) to 55% in Turkey (Bilgel et al., 2006). These differences could signal national differences between the prevalence of workplace bullying but they could also depend on the methodological approach adopted. In all, two main approaches can be identified: the self-labeling and the behavioral experience method (Nielsen et al., 2009, 2011). First, the self-labeling method refers to the participant’s self-judgment or subjective perception of workplace bullying. Participants are generally labeled as a target when indicating they fit the definition at least once a week (Leymann, 1996). Second, other studies have applied the behavioral experience method in which the participant indicates how often he or she has been exposed to a list of workplace bullying behaviors. Frequently used instruments include the “Negative Acts Questionnaire” (NAQ; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997), the “Bullying at Work Questionnaire” (Quine, 1999), and the “Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization” (LIPT; Leymann, 1989). In this approach, respondents are generally labeled as a target based on the one-act criterion (Leymann, 1996) or the more strict two-act criterion (Mikkelsen & Einärsen, 2001): when an employee indicated that he or she is confronted with at least one versus two of the behaviors from the list at least once a week, he or she is regarded as a target of bullying. Prominent scholars have therefore called to apply complementary strategies for measuring workplace bullying, by not only identifying the subjective perception of being bullied (i.e., self-labeling method) but also simultaneously tapping the occurrence of bullying behaviors by means of a list of predefined negative acts (i.e., behavioral experience method; Einarsen et al., 2011). As such, to get a more comprehensive understanding of the forms and perceptions of bullying, this study adopts both strategies for measuring bullying. More specifically, we first apply the behavioral experience method; then, respondents are asked if they have been targets of bullying according to the definition presented; those who indicated being a target of bullying received follow-up questions (Nielsen et al., 2011). Through this method, we (a) aim to establish insights about the prevalence of workplace bullying in the specific context of the Portuguese banking sector. We additionally want to (b) investigate the complementarity of the two strategies of measuring workplace bullying; finally (c) we want to discover which exact bullying behaviors are most prevalent among targets.

The Aspect of Powerlessness: Organizational Position and Gender

Power and powerlessness are not static attributes of individuals or groups of individuals. In fact, power and powerlessness are fundamentally relational in nature (Blau, 1964): the study of how power relations unfold in interactions is a significant area of research in social psychology holding important implications for organizational analysis (Moen & Yu, 2000). Scholars have repeatedly related “powerless individuals” to the most likely targets of workplace bullying, both on an empirical and theoretical level, thereby linking this powerlessness to the employee’s social status in organizations, in particular, organizational position and gender (Hoel et al., 2004; Salin & Hoel, 2013). Powerlessness is here understood in relative terms and the power imbalance between the parties may reflect formal power relationships or may refer to perceptions of powerlessness resulting from the bullying process itself due to the underneath conflict escalation (Hoel & Salin, 2003). At first glance, and given that bullying is closely associated with power differences and ability to defend oneself during the process, one would expect that bullying would be most prevalent among groups with relatively less (formal and/or informal) power and that employees with greater social power would tend to have a greater sense of control over their situation (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). However, in the past research addressing this question, Einarsen and Raknes (1997) found no difference between the experience of negative behaviors for workers and supervisors/managers. Similar results were found by Hoel et al. (2001), who have observed no significant differences for the experience of self-reported workplace bullying among workers, supervisors, middle or senior managers. Other studies have reported middle managers and senior managers as the most likely targets of bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2000); therefore, questioning the common assumption in workplace bullying literature that the weaker and defenseless in terms of organizational status become the primary victim of bullying. Hence, given these ambiguous findings, we want to study which employees are most at risk of being a target of workplace bullying in this particular setting of the Portuguese banking sector.

According to the Social Dominance Theory (Georgesen & Harris, 1998; Sidanius & Prato, 1999), all societies consist of power hierarchies where one or more groups dominate other groups: when certain groups are in a state of power inequality or imbalance, the dominant group will pursue measures to maintain their hierarchical position of power and dominance to maintain the status quo that benefits them. Aquino and Bommer (2003) stated that people with high status are frequently judged as being more competent and intelligent than those with low status and consequently are usually treated differently, and often better, than people occupying a low-status position. Also, employees who occupy high-status positions are treated differently because they hold positions of legitimate power and authority. They are well positioned to use formal mechanisms of social control, as organization’s systems of rewards and punishments to retaliate against coworkers who treat them poorly (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000). Applying this reasoning to organizational position, high-ranked employees would be treated better more frequently than low-ranked employees. Regarding bullying, this implies that, in general, low-ranked employees (i.e., staff at the bottom of the organization) would experience higher exposure to bullying than high-ranked employees. The importance of power in bullying scenarios suggests that there would be an inverse relationship between organizational position and bullying, in which workers are most likely to be bullied followed by supervisors, middle managers, and top managers. However, increasing competition between managers at all managerial levels, fueled by recent downsizing and delayering processes may increase the vulnerability of managers to bullying. It would therefore be interesting to analyze what happens in the Portuguese banking sector, commonly characterized by formal hierarchical structure and fierce competition among professionals, but where recent trends in human resources management have led to flatter organizational structures and increased job insecurity (Almeida et al., 2007; Walter, 2004). Hence, we want to test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The organizational position of the employee is negatively related to the reported rates of being target of workplace bullying. The lower the organizational position of the employee, the higher the reported rate of workplace bullying.

Next, gender may act as another social status indicator important in the context of this study. Research has shown that gender is an important aspect of social power (Carli, 1999) and that a lack of power or a power deficit sensitizes a person to a perceived threat in a way that low-power individuals tend to feel more exposed to threats (Salin & Hoel, 2013). In support of this reasoning, studies have reported higher victimization rates for women than for men (Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2008; Salin, 2001). In contrast, other studies have reported no differences between men and women (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Nielsen et al., 2009) and some even found higher prevalence rates of workplace bullying for men (Eriksen & Einarsen, 2004; Lindroth & Leymann, 1993). Because of the ambiguous evidence we want to test if the traditional view of women, who have traditionally held less “powerful” functions than men in organizations, has implications in terms of workplace bullying. Such a test could indicate whether social stereotypes of women’s jobs and positions (still) reinforce exposure to bullying and, particularly, so in the banking industry. Based on the aforementioned arguments, we argue that gender may influence inferences people make about underlying traits, increasing women’s vulnerability to workplace bullying.

According to the Status Characteristics Theory (Berger et al., 1977; Ely, 1995), people make inferences about others based on diffuse status characteristics, such as gender, that are correlated with status and perceived competence in the overall society (Hopcroft, 2002; Pugh & Wahrman, 1983; Wagner et al., 1996). Given that bullying is often a downward process and given that more men than women have traditionally occupied managerial and supervisory positions is not surprising that men are most often reported as bullies (Zapf et al., 2011). However, women have progressively improved their position in the workplace and in the society relative to men (Berger et al., 1977) and according to the Social Dominance Theory it has been argued that women’s progress at work constitutes a threat to the status quo of male dominance and female subordination (Kanter, 1977; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 1988). Consequently, we may argue that bullying women may then be seen as a form of social control to challenge this threat (Cortina et al., 2002). For the Portuguese banking sector, we therefore assume:

Hypothesis 2: The gender of the employee is negatively related to the reported rates of being targets of workplace bullying. Women report higher rates of being a target of workplace bullying as compared with men.

Finally, organizational position and gender may also interact in defining risk groups of workplace bullying, yet in an opposite way as compared with the straightforward idea related to low (i.e., vulnerable) versus high (i.e., protective) organizational position. That is, the social control and bullying enacted toward women to prevent a dominance shift may become stronger as women progress through the managerial echelons previously reserved preferentially to men (Zapf et al., 2011). A study by Hoel et al. (2001) indeed revealed that exposure to negative behaviors was more prevalent among male workers and supervisors and among female middle managers and senior managers. Women may become more vulnerable to negative behaviors the higher they progress through the organizational hierarchy, implying a connection with a phenomena known as the “glass ceiling,” being the invisible hierarchical barrier that many women find difficult to penetrate particularly when they find the level of middle management (Davidson & Cooper, 1992; Veale & Gold, 1998). Men who feel threatened by women in an environment previously in their domain may resort to bullying behaviors to exclude women from such positions (Hoel et al., 2004). Since a perceived power deficit can be part of the organizational conditions for a person to be bullied and since women are typically perceived as having less power than men, it could be assumed that more women than men would feel victimized and bullied at work. It can thus be argued that the salient and visible position of women in the male-dominated world makes them more vulnerable (Halford & Leonard, 2002). In accordance with the social power theory, studies have shown that individuals with less social power may feel more intimidated and stressed by uncivil behaviors (Cortina et al., 2002). Based on the aforementioned arguments we draw the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The prevalence of workplace bullying victims depends on the combination of occupational position and gender. More specifically, we assume that there is an interaction effect between gender and organizational position on workplace bullying.

Data and Methods

Sample

Data were collected using a snowball technique (Meter, 1990) starting mainly with personal contacts of the first author of this study within the banking sector. In this snowball setting, it was explicitly underlined that only employees working in the banking sector were to participate in the study. Additional participants were approached through contacts with the Union Representatives from the main existing unions in this sector Sindicato Bancários Sul e Ilhas [the Trade Union of Southern and Islander Bank Workers] (SBSI) and Sindicato Nacional de Quados e Técnicos Bancários [the National Trade Union of Bank Workers] (SNQTB) - participants were randomly selected from the registered union members at the time of the study—and Worker Representatives. Following these procedures, a total of 561 completed responses were gathered. While using the personal contacts of the author of this study all the questionnaires were successfully completed and suitable for use, representing roughly half of the overall sample, the response rate for the second procedure was 26.8%, corresponding to the remaining queries. The global response rate was 63.8%.

The final sample included 54.2% male and 45.8% female participants. Mean age was 39.42 years (SD = 9.19). Of the respondents, 92.2% were employed in the private banking sector and 7.8% in the public banking sector. Regarding education, 57.6% of the respondents completed their undergraduate and 42.4% their postgraduate studies. The organizational position of respondents was identified as clerks (i.e., blue collars; 39.9 %), technical (i.e., white collars; 26%), supervisors (26.4%), middle managers (6.6%), and top management (1.1%) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Main Characteristics of Respondents.

Demographic characteristics		N	%
Gender	Male	304	54.2
	Female	257	45.8
	Total	561	100.0
Sector	Private	517	92.2
	Public	44	7.8
	Total	561	100.0
Academic background	<Degree	323	57.6
	>Degree	238	42.4
	Total	561	100.0
Organizational status	Clerks	224	39.9
	Experts/technical	146	26
	Supervisors	148	26.4
	Middle managers	37	6.6
	Top managers	6	1.1
	Total	561	100

Measurements

Workplace bullying was measured by using two complementary strategies following established scholars (Salin, 2001). First, on a scale from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“daily”) respondents were asked how often they had experienced a set of 38 negative and potentially harassing acts within the past 12 months. The scale was constructed primarily drawing on the NAQ-R (Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised; Hoel et al., 2001) with some additional items to anchor the instrument within this particular cultural and organizational setting. Specifically, we included three items from the LIPT (Leymann, 1989): “Someone causes you economic or material damage,” “You are physically isolated,” and “You are left idle.” Six more items were included based on the existing bullying literature or banking sector characteristics: “Insulting comments or behavior with reference to your social status,” “Your e-mails or other forms of establishing contact are ignored,” “You receive ‘NIM’ as a response to a request” (“NIM”—means receiving no answer at all or receiving an answer after a specific deadline), “You are excluded from social events,” and “Your rights with reference to your gender are ignored.” Respondents addressed these negative acts on a 5-point scale: “Daily” (= 1), “Weekly” (= 2), “monthly” (= 3), “Occasionally” (= 4), and “Never” (= 5) 1.47 (SD = 0.79). The mean scores and standard deviations of the specific items are reported in Appendix.

Second, they were presented with the definition of bullying as used in the NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2009, 2011). Respondents addressed this definition also in a 5-point scale: “Daily” (= 1), “Weekly” (= 2), “monthly” (= 3), “Occasionally” (= 4), and “Never” (= 5). This approach reached a mean score of 1.53 (SD = 0.97).

Gender was measured through a dummy coded variable with two categories (male = 0; female = 1), and organizational position was measured also through a dummy coded variable with five categories (clerks = 1, technical = 2, supervisors = 3, middle managers = 4, and top management = 5).

Analyses

The analyses were conducted using SPSS 24. Frequencies, means, and cross tabulation were used to describe, compare, and test the prevalence of workplace bullying and the complementarity of the measurement strategies. Hypotheses were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results

The scale measuring the prevalence of workplace bullying and containing 38 items showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.97). When selecting only the 22 items belonging to the NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2009), Cronbach’s alpha reached 0.95. In all, the behavioral experience method provides a reliable measurement of workplace bullying in our specific setting.

Regarding the prevalence of workplace bullying in the Portuguese banking sector, the behavioral experience method, including the list of 38 negative social acts, showed that 23.4% of the respondents reported that they had been the target of “frequent” bullying following the established criteria of “at least two negative acts” and “at least once a week” (Mikkelsen & Einärsen, 2001). The results revealed 68.4% of “occasional” bullying (i.e., experienced at least two negative acts “once a month” and “occasionally;” Hoel et al., 2001) and 8.2% had “never” been bullied (i.e., experienced at least two negative acts “never;” Hoel et al., 2001). The workplace bullying measurement based on the definition of workplace bullying was again recoded following the procedure used by Hoel and Cooper (2000): respondents addressing this question with “never” (a) were labeled as “not bullied,” those tapping “yes, very rarely” (b) and “at least once a month” (c) were labeled as “occasional bullying” (i.e., making up the occasional group), and those who indicated “at least weekly” (d) and “at least daily” (e) were defined as “frequently bullied.” The results revealed that 5.9% of the respondents reported that they have been “frequently” bullied, 24.8% were “occasionally bullied,” and 69.3% were not bullied at all. Notably, these figures account for bullying during the last 12 months. We additionally, based on our interests, extended the period of the bullying to the entire career in the banking sector so far: a total of 24.4% had been frequently bullied. Overall, our findings revealed that the list of negative acts resulted in a higher prevalence of bullying.

However, although the discrepancy of figures obtained, a comparison between the two measurement strategies yield 90.9% overlap of those classifying themselves as frequently bullied based on the list of acts and on the definition (see Table 2, for details). Of those classified as occasionally bullied based on the behaviors, only 58.3% identified themselves as this type of target based on the definition. Notably, the majority of respondents identifying themselves as frequently bullied (81.8%) reported at least four negative acts, whereas only a minority of respondents experiencing one or two negative acts classify themselves as frequently bullied (3.03% and 6.06%, respectively). This relationship between the number of negative acts experienced and the subjective perception of being bullied is illustrated in Table 3. Hence, according to these results, we may conclude that there is a complementarity between the strategies used in this study: the group of victims identified as frequently bullied using the subjective perception of workplace bullying, reported the higher occurrence of negative behaviors. The most frequent bullying behaviors identified by the frequently bullied targets in the Portuguese banking sector were “Having your opinions or views ignored” (69.7%), “Being exposed to an unmanageable workload” (57.6%), and “Excessive monitoring of your work” (54.5%).

Table 2.

A Comparison of Two Measures of Bullying (n = 561).

Behavioral Experience			Bullied According to Definition
Behavioral Experience			Frequently Bullied	Occasionally Bullied	Never Bullied
Bullied according to objective criteria	Frequently bullied	N	30	58	43
		% Frequently bullied	90.9	41.7	11.1
		% Total	5.3	10.3	7.7
	Occasionally bullied	N	3	81	300
		% Frequently bullied	9.1	58.3	77.1
		% Total	0.5	14.4	53.5
	Never bullied	N	0	0	51
		% Frequently bullied	0.0	0.0	11.8
		% Total	0.0	0.0	8.2
Total		N	33	139	389
Total		% Total	5.9	24.8	69.3

Table 3.

A Comparison Between the Number of Negative Acts Experienced and the Perception of Being Bullied (n = 561).

Bullying severity	Number of Negative Acts Experienced
	0		1		2		3		4
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Non-bullied	272	69.9	74	19.02	23	5.91	7	1.80	13	3.3
Occasionally bullied	64	46.04	17	12.23	13	9.35	9	6.47	36	25.9
Frequently bullied	2	6.06	1	3.03	2	6.06	1	3.03	27	81.8

We will turn now to a more detailed analysis of the data to explore if there are particular risk groups with reference to organizational position and gender, and thus test the hypotheses assumed earlier (Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3) both regarding the subjective criterion and the behavioral experience method.

Hypothesis 1 was tested using a one-way between groups ANOVA. The results showed no statistically significant differences regarding the organizational position of the target using the behavioral method; F(4, 547) = 0.767, p = .547. A more detailed view of the bullying experience was sought by analyzing the occurrence of each negative behavior, in terms of mean value or frequency of occurrence, and if there were differences between groups of organizational position regarding each behavior. The greatest difference between groups emerge for item “Being ignored, excluded or being sent to Coventry;” F(4, 556) = 2.857, p < .05 and “Being moved or transferred against your will;” F(4, 556) = 2.399, p < .05, with respondents from managerial ranks (top managers and middle managers) reporting being exposed to such behaviors far more frequently than workers and technical staff.

Using the subjective method, we did reach statistical differences regarding organizational position. Again, the group most at risk were the managers and most specifically middle management; F(4, 556) = 2.491, p = .042. Namely, in terms of percentages, 16.7% of the top managers and 16.2% of the middle managers were targets of frequently bullying, compared with 5.9% for the whole sample. These findings contradict Hypothesis 1 (Table 4).

Table 4.

ANOVA Analysis Using Hierarchical Position as a Criterion.

Bullying Experience (Subjective/ Objective)		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
According to the definition presented, have you been target of workplace bullying the last 12 months?	Between groups	9.186	4	2.297	2.491	.042
	Within groups	512.518	556	0.922
	Total	521.704	560
Mean of negative acts(NAQ)	Between groups	0.893	4	0.223	0.767	.547
	Within groups	161.831	556	0.291
	Total	162.724	560

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; NAQ = Negative Acts Questionnaire.

However, we additionally examined a potential relationship between status of victim and status of the perpetrator, as one of the main assumptions of the research underlying this article is that targets of workplace bullying are victimized by bullies of a higher status; this is also in line with the power element of the bullying concept. Regarding this point, we observed that 68.5% of the middle status class victims reported being harassed by perpetrators from an upper social status class. The same applies to the upper middle and lower middle status class with, respectively, 66.70% and 73.50% reporting being the target of bullies of a higher status standing. These findings further nuance the idea of powerlessness, while it was not the most “powerless” group reporting the highest level of workplace bullying, the top and middle management groups did report to be mainly bullied by perpetrators in a higher organizational position.

As for Hypothesis 2, and according to the subjective perception of the targets, our analyses revealed that although a greater proportion of men (6.9%) reported being bullied compared with women (4.7%), these differences are not statistically significant; F(1, 559) = 2.946, p = .087. However, from the behavioral experience perspective, the differences regarding gender did become statistically significant; F(1, 559) = 4.616, p = .032 (Table 5).

Table 5.

ANOVA Analysis Using Gender as a Criterion.

Bullying Experience (Subjective/ Objective)		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
According to the definition presented, have you been target of workplace bullying the last 12 months?	Between groups	9.186		2.735	2.496	0.087
	Within groups	518.969	559	0.928
	Total	521.704	560
Mean of negative acts(NAQ)	Between groups	1.333	1	1.333	4.616	0.032
	Within groups	161.391	559	0.289
	Total	162.724	560

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; NAQ = Negative Acts Questionnaire.

According to this method, men (M = 1.51) in the Portuguese banking sector were more at risk of being bullied than women (M = 1.42). In addition, 25.3% of men were frequently bullied, according to the objective criteria, compared with 23.4% for the whole sample.

For a more detailed analysis according to the frequency of occurrence of negative acts, we performed an analysis similar to the above presented but in this case with respect to gender. With respect to men, the biggest difference between groups emerged for “Repeated reminders of your errors and mistakes;” F(1, 559) = 8.416, p = .004, “Being exposed to an unmanageable workload;” F(1, 559) = 4.593, p = .033, and “Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (habits, attitudes or private life);” F(1, 559) = 4.321, p = .038. For these items, the mean for men is higher as compared with women and are, respectively, 1.37, 1.79, and 1.98. These findings contradict Hypothesis 2.

Regarding Hypothesis 3, a one-way between groups ANOVA revealed that, using the behavioral experience method, the interaction between gender and organizational position is not statistical significant; F(4, 551) = 1.223, p = .278. However, taking the subjective perception of the target as the dependent variable, the interaction between gender and organizational position did become statistically significant; F(4, 551) = 2.636, p = .005. The groups most at risk are male top managers and female middle managers (the mean of negative acts is, respectively, 2 and 2.46, which are both above the mean of negative acts for the whole sample; M = 1.53; Table 6).

Table 6.

ANOVA Analysis Using Hierarchical Position × Gender as a Criterion.

Bullying Experience (Subjective/ Objective)		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
According to the definition presented, have you been target of workplace bullying the last 12 months?	Between groups	21.538	9	2.393	2.636	.005
	Within groups	500.166	551	0.908
	Total	521.704	560
Mean of negative acts(NAQ)	Between groups	3.188	9	0.354	1.223	.278
	Within groups	159.536	551	0.290
	Total	162.724	560

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; NAQ = Negative Acts Questionnaire.

If we take a look in more detail to the data, and with respect to the subjective criteria, we note that whereas 9.1% of the women middle managers are frequently bullied targets they represent 2.3% of the total sample and 3% of the top managers are frequently bullied but they represent 0.7% of the total sample. With respect to the behavioral criteria, we note that whereas 3.8% of the women middle managers are frequently bullied targets they represent 2.3% of the total sample and 1.5% of the male top managers are frequently bullied but they represent 0.7% of the total sample. Regarding the experience of negative acts female middle managers mostly reported “Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work;” F(4, 252) = 3.359, p = .011, “Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger;” F(4, 252) = 2.424, p = .049, “Excessive monitoring of your work;” F(4, 252) = 2.679, p = .032. For male top managers, the most frequent behaviors were as follows: “You are physically isolated;” F(4, 299) = 3.163, p = .014, and “Being ignored, excluded or being sent to Coventry;” F(4, 299) = 2.383, p = .052. These findings support Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

Our major aim was to calculate the incidence rate of workplace bullying in the Portuguese banking sector, a setting that has been largely absent from prior research. The results showed that, according to the definition presented, 5.9% of the employees in this organizational setting feel frequently bullied at work and, in most cases only occasionally (24.8%), during the previous 12 months. Regarding the objective criteria, the prevalence of bullying raised to 23.4%, during the same period. When comparing our results with other international studies including a sample of the Banking industry, Maciel and colleagues (2007) found that of 33.89% Brazilian banking employees had been the target of bullying as measured through a list of bullying items and 7.9% of the respondents reported being frequently bullied according to the definition presented. The most frequent bullying behaviors reported were “You are exposed to an unmanageable workload,” “Your work damages your mental and/or physical health,” and “You are given confusing or unclear guidelines.” Yilmaz and Soydas (2006), in a sample of 200 Turkish banking employees, found that 15.9% had been a victim of bullying according to the definition presented. The most frequent bullying behaviors reported were as follows: “You are ordered to do work clearly below your level of competence” and “Someone withholding information which affects your performance,” that is behaviors directly related to the work performed. Regarding other studies so far in Portugal, results from a study in the services and manufacturing industry showed that 7.8% felt bullied according to the definition presented and were the target of negative behaviors at least weekly, during the previous 6 months (Araújo, 2010). In addition, Serra et al. (2005), in a sample gathered in the postal service and at the University of Coimbra hospital, found an incidence rate of 5.9% victims during the previous 12 months. Thus, we can say that our results are consistent with the findings from other studies in Portugal and also roughly with other research studies carried out in Europe, namely in Norway (5.6%, Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996) and Great Britain (10.6%, Hoel & Cooper, 2000). As far as the complementarity of strategies for measuring the incidence level of workplace bullying is concerned, our findings are in line with Salin’s (2001) study conducted among business professionals (which may be considered to have common characteristics with the main features of the banking sector, in terms of job description and competitive work environment). In that Finnish study, she also found a higher level of prevalence in the objective criterion, that is a level of prevalence of 24.1% against a percentage of 8.8%, in the subjective criterion or proposed bullying definition.

When comparing our percentage of witnesses of bullying (23.4%) with other European studies so far, our prevalence seems lower. More specifically, Salin (2001) and Hoel & Cooper (2000) reported a percentage of 30% and 46.5%, respectively. This could be explained by several reasons. For instance, the fact that public awareness of this organizational problem is much lower in Portugal than in other European countries, despite recent media coverage of the subject, may prevent people from recognizing bullying behaviors. Moreover, our results could be diverse from the findings in other nationalities due to cultural differences: people may interpret the behaviors as part of their working life instead of bullying. For example, the high value found by Hofstede (2011) for Portugal in the Power Distance Index supports this idea of tolerance for unevenly distributed power. Hence, applying the angle of (non)diversity, it could be so that in our Portuguese sample observers perceiving negative behaviors enacted by higher positioned employees toward subordinates may less easily regard these as bullying and that they could be more tolerant in accepting negative, excluding behaviors from these higher status groups.

Comparing the prevalence rate and the percentage of observers, the higher number of witnesses might suggest that the real prevalence rate is higher than shown by the data. Unfortunately, however, our data did not allow exploring whether the observers were referring to the same bullying situation. Therefore, future research in this specific context could build on our results and apply complementary techniques such as a qualitative research design, for example, see Baillien et al. (2019) to develop further insight in the mean number of observers per case. This could give us a more detailed idea about whether or not the prevalence could be underestimated.

As for the prevalence of bullying across the different organizational status groups, Hypothesis 1 was not verified. That is, our analyses concerning the behavioral method did not reveal significant differences. Moreover, using the subjective experience method, the significant differences went in the opposite direction as expected, with middle and top managers most at risk. It showed that 16.7% top managers were frequently bullied and 16.2% middle were frequently bullied as compared with 5.9% of the total sample. Inspecting the exact behaviors in more detail, we found that mostly indirect behaviors were reported, with top managers and middle managers reporting these behaviors far more frequently than workers and technical staff. A potential explanation for this finding is that managers could show a higher willingness to label their experience as bullying owing to a greater degree of knowledge in the issue. Also, middle managers may be particularly vulnerable within the new leaner and meaner organizations in which their role becomes more redundant. The compression of the carrier structure resulting from the delayering process, frequently associated with restructuring and downsizing (Sheehan, 1999), is also likely to increase the pressure and competition for promotion between the managerial ranks owing to a job insecure position and perceptions of psychological contract breach (Baillien et al., 2019). Moreover, recently, a number of functions previously practiced in Human Resources Management (HRM) have been devolved down the line, further increasing the pressure on middle managers. This aligns with the findings in the United Kingdom, where middle managers were also the most likely victims of bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Another study among managers in the United Kingdom showed that the bullying prevalence for middle managers (49%) exceeded the prevalence for managers at other levels (39%) (Woodman & Cook, 2005). Finally, the reward and pay system, often defined according to achievement of goals, may put additional pressure on their performance and makes them more vulnerable to bullying (Salin, 2001, 2003a).

Regarding gender differences, Hypothesis 2 was rejected based on the subjective method. However, using the behavioral method, we did detect that men in the Portuguese banking sector are more at risk for being bullied than women. Higher prevalence rates for men are in line with the findings from Jóhannsdóttir & Ólafsson (2004); in a sample of Iceland bank employees, men reported higher levels of exposure to negative acts than their female counterparts (i.e., behavioral experience method). Also in this study, men did not report higher levels of bullying using the subjective method. In this study, men reported mainly work-related behaviors (e.g., “Repeated reminders of your errors and mistakes” or “Being exposed to an unmanageable workload”). This corresponds with the findings from Meschkutat et al. (2002) that men reported more negative work-related acts than women. Similarly, Notelaers et al. (2011) found that men were more likely victims of work-related bullying.

Concerning Hypothesis 3, while we could not detect differences using the behavioral experience method, we did find significant differences for the subjective method: the groups most at risk for bullying were male top managers and female middle managers. Notably, whereas 9.1% of the women middle managers were frequently bullied while this group represented 2.3% of the total sample. Of the male top managers, representing 0.7% of the total sample, 3% were frequently bullied. These findings align with the recent developments in the sector in which an increasing part of managerial positions is being occupied by women. Nevertheless, potentially related to the phenomenon of shattering glass ceiling, women face a higher risk of bullying in male-dominated fields. This may be explained by using bullying as a form of social control to protect the earlier formed norms, values, and ideas about the job. In line with this, Salin and Hoel (2013) argued that women’s progress at work may constitute a threat to the status quo of male dominance and female subordination. This, in turn, could manifest itself in being more vulnerable for bullying.

Regarding the status of the bully, the majority of frequently bullied victims (75.8%) reported being bullied by someone in a higher hierarchical position which, as previously mentioned, is in line with most of the English literature in this field (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; UNISON, 1997). It is also in line with previously European research, where on average 65.4% of the victims were bullied by a supervisor. In addition, our findings that 46.7% of the frequently bullied employees in the Portuguese banking sector share their experience with workmates match the results of the Hoel & Cooper (2000) and UNISON (1997) British studies. By contrast, sharing bullying experiences is only occasionally reported in Austria (Niedl, 1996) or German (Zapf, 1999), suggesting that this feature may be sector specific.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study includes several limitations that could inspire future research in this respect. First, as we examined bullying in the Portuguese banking sector, the possibilities to generalize our findings to other sectors in Portugal and beyond are limited. Also, our findings could be culturally determined. Nevertheless, our findings shed light on workplace bullying in an understudied context and sector and add to the identification of particular risk groups. Insight in such groups is particularly important when designing and targeting intervention programs for workplace bullying, which can include increasing bullying awareness, training in conflict management strategies and resolution procedures. Future research could tie in with our approach by exploring bullying in the banking sector of other countries, which may add to knowledge regarding similarities and differences with our results.

The prevalence of workplace bullying was calculated using an extended version of the NAQ-R. This scale originally has 22 items, yet to tailor the scale to our sector of interest (banking sector) we included additional items leading to a 38-item scale. Although this scale did tap more specific context-related behaviors, we might be cautious as this might have boosted the prevalence rate in the objective experience method. Regarding this particular study, we also included the subjective method applied in other studies which might have counterbalanced some of these concerns. Regarding future studies, it could be valuable to see whether this 38-item scale could be validated as an extension of the NAQ-R for the banking sector specifically—for those studies interested in this particular sector—and in several other countries and languages. Relatedly, this study only used self-reports. Although a meta-analysis on counterproductive work behavior has revealed that self-reports provide the most reliable and valid approach in measuring counterproductive work behaviors (Berry et al., 2012), future studies may see to replicate our findings using other measurement approaches such as a methodological triangulation technique (see Cowie et al., 2002).

Despite its limitations, this study provides new insights about workplace bullying in a sector that has been absent from research so far. Most specifically, the results question the prevailing notion that the weaker and defenseless worker is the most likely target of bullying.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the existing research on workplace bullying by providing insights about workplace bullying in the Portuguese banking sector, which has been a fairly neglected group in bullying research. Two complementary strategies have been used for measuring incidence rates of workplace bullying. Despite the discrepancy obtained using the two approaches for measuring bullying, the results are in line with other studies carried out in Portugal so far. Moreover, they are not so different from other research studies in Europe to date. In contrast to our expectations, not the bottom staff but the middle and top managers and men were mostly exposed to bullying acts. Overall, the groups most at risk for bullying were male top managers and female middle managers. The information provided about prevalence rates and risk groups helps to map the domain of workplace bullying in the Portuguese banking sector and allows defining priorities in terms of prevention and intervention policies. Such prevention and intervention are important to enhance tolerance and diversity toward organizational members in a culture of respect instead of mistreatment through targeting risk groups.

Footnotes

Appendix

Workplace Bullying Negative Acts (Behavioral Experience)—Descriptive Statistics.

Negative Behaviors	N	M	SD
1. Someone withholding information that affects your performance	561	1.74	0.98
2. Unwanted sexual attention	561	1.16	0.52
3. Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work	561	1.42	0.80
4. Being ordered to do work below your level of competency	561	1.96	1.11
5. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks	561	1.70	1.02
6. Spreading of gossip and rumors about you	561	1.54	0.87
7. Being ignored, excluded, or being sent to “Coventry”	561	1.32	0.74
8. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (i.e., habits and background), your attitudes, or your private life	561	1.31	0.68
9. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage)	561	1.41	0.82
10. Intimidating behavior such as finger pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way	561	1.26	0.71
11. Hints or signals from others that you should quit	561	1.25	0.69
12. Threats of violence or physical abuse	561	1.07	0.30
13. Repeated reminders of your errors and mistakes	561	1.69	0.90
14. Persistent criticism of your work and efforts	561	1.63	0.95
15. Having your opinions and views ignored	561	1.98	1.07
16. Receiving insulting written messages or phone calls	561	1.13	0.51
17. Receiving insulting or offensive e-mails	561	1.15	0.50
18. Systematically being required to carry out tasks which clearly fall outside your job description, e.g., private errands	561	1.66	0.99
19. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines	561	1.89	1.01
20. Having false allegations made against you	561	1.42	0.87
21. Excessive monitoring of your work	561	2.13	1.17
22. Being left idle	561	1.26	0.72
23. Pressure not to claim something which by right you are entitled (e.g., sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses)	561	1.48	0.84
24. Being the target of excessive criticism and sarcasm	561	1.36	0.80
25. Threats of making your life difficult, e.g., overtime, night work, unpopular tasks	561	1.40	0.86
26. Somebody tries to sabotage your performance	561	1.41	0.83
27. Being exposed to unmanageable workload	561	2.56	1.30
28. Being moved or transferred against your will	561	1.34	0.78
29. You are physically isolated	561	1.18	0.62
30. You are excluded from social events	561	1.27	0.72
31. Somebody causes you economic or material damages	561	1.46	0.93
32. Insulting behaviors or comments with regard to your social status	561	1.21	0.61
33. Insulting remarks or behaviors with reference to your native language, your race, and ethnicity	561	1.06	0.32
34. Insulting comments or behaviors with reference to your religion or political convictions	561	1.09	0.37
35. Devaluation of your rights and opinions with reference to your gender	561	1.24	0.61
36. Devaluation of your rights and opinions with reference to your age	561	1.30	0.72
37. Your e-mails or other ways of communication are ignored	561	1.46	0.81
38. You receive “NIM” as an answer to your request	561	1.74	0.86
Total	561	1.47	0.79

NIM means receiving no answer at all or receiving an answer after a specific deadline.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support from FCT, I.P., the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology, under the Project UID/SOC/04521/2019.

ORCID iD

Ana Verdasca

Author Biographies

Ana Verdasca is a consultant and researcher at SOCIUS (Research Centre in Economics and Organizational Sociology), a research unit belonging to the School of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon. In 1994, she obtained the Master Business Administration at The Catholic University of Lisbon. She completed her PhD in 2010 at the Institute of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon. Her research works focus mainly on negative social behavior at work, organizational changes and interventions, and bullying and harassment in the workplace.

Elfi Baillien is an associate professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business of KU Leuven, where she is a member of the Research Centre of Work and Organization Studies. She is also an associate professor at the Department of Psychosocial Well-being at the University of Bergen in Norway. In 2003, she obtained the degree of Master in Work and Organizational Psychology at the KU Leuven. In 2011, she completed her PhD at the same institution with a specific focus on workplace bullying. Her expertise lies in the areas of negative social behavior at work, psychosocial well-being and psychosocial risk management, work stress, interpersonal conflict, and organizational changes and interventions.

References

Adams

(1992). Bullying at work: How to confront and overcome it. Virago Press.

Almeida

P. P.

Santos

P. B.

Brandão

Rebelo

Santos

L. F.

(2007). Assédio moral no trabalho: Um estudo aplicado [Bullying in the workplace: An applied study]. Association for the development of Competencies.

Aquino

Bommer

W. H.

(2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organization Science, 14(4), 374–385.

Aquino

Bradfield

(2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11(5), 525–537.

Araújo

M. S.

(2010). Individual and organizational predictors of Bullying in the Workplace (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Department of psychology, University of Minho. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55611748.pdf

Ayoko

O. B.

Callan

V. J.

Hartel

C. E. J.

(2003). Workplace conflict, bullying and counterproductive behaviors. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 283–301.

Baillien

Griep

Vander Elst

De Witte

(2019). The relationship between organisational change and being a perpetrator of workplace bullying: A three-wave longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 33(3), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1496161

Baillien

Witte

(2009). Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying: Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(3), 348–371.

Berger

Fiske

M. H.

Norman

R. Z.

Zelditch

Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation Status Approach. Elsevier.

10.

Berry

C. M.

Carpenter

N. C.

Barrat

C. L.

(2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.

11.

Bilgel

Ayatc

Bayram

(2006). Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers. Occupational Medicine, 56, 226–231.

12.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley.

13.

Carli

L. L.

(1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 81–99.

14.

Cortina

Magley

Lim

(2002). Individual differences in responses to incivility in the workplace [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Symposium on Workplace Abuse, Aggression, Bullying and Incivility: Conceptual Integration and Empirical Insights, August, Denver, CO, United States.

15.

Cowie

Naylor

Rivers

Smith

P. K.

Pereira

(2002). Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 33–51.

16.

Davidson

M. J.

Cooper

C. L.

(1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: The woman manager. Chapman Publishing.

17.

Einarsen

(2000). Bullying and harassment at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401.

18.

Einarsen

Hoel

Notelaers

(2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44.

19.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European Tradition. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–30). Taylor & Francis.

20.

Einarsen

Matthiesen

Skogstad

(1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being among assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety: Australia and New Zealand, 14, 6563–6568.

21.

Einarsen

Raknes

Matthiesen

(1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationship to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4(4), 381–401.

22.

Einarsen

Raknes

B. I.

(1997). Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 247–263.

23.

Einarsen

Skogstad

(1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201.

24.

Ely

(1995). The power in demography: Women’s social construction of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589–634.

25.

Eriksen

Einarsen

(2004). Gender minority as a risk factor of exposure to bullying at work: The case of male assistant nurses. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(4), 473–492.

26.

Escartín

Ullrich

Zapf

Schlüter

van Dick

(2013). Individual- and group-level effects of social identification on workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 182–193.

27.

Garcia Pereira

. (2009). Mobbing ou Assédio moral no trabalho: Contributo para a sua conceptualização. [Mobbing or Bullying at Work: a contribution to his conceptualization]. Coimbra. Editora.

28.

Georgesen

J. C.

Harris

M. J.

(1998). Why is my boss always holding me down? A meta analyses of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Revision, 2, 184–195.

29.

Halford

Leonard

(2002). Gender, power and organizations. Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Hauge

L. J.

Skogstad

Einarsen

(2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21(3), 220–242.

31.

Hoel

Cooper

C. L.

(2000). Destructive Conflict and Bullying at work (Report produced by the Manchester School of Management). University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

32.

Hoel

Cooper

C. L.

Faragher

(2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The impact organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 443–465.

33.

Hoel

Faragher

Cooper

G. L.

(2004). Bullying is detrimental to your health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 367–387.

34.

Hoel

Giga

Faragher

(2005, September 14–15). Intervening against workplace bullying: Does it work? [Paper presentation]. 5th Conference on Workplace Bullying, Working together to tackle workplace bullying: Concepts, research and solutions, Portsmouth, Great Britain.

35.

Hoel

Salin

(2003). Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 203–218). Taylor & Francis.

36.

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

G. L.

(2002). Workplace bullying and stress. In Perrewé

P. L.

Ganster

D. C.

(Eds.), Historical and current perspectives on stress and health (pp. 293–333). Elsevier.

37.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–23.

38.

Hogh

Dofradottir

(2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 485–495.

39.

Hogh

Mikkelsen

E. G.

Hansen

A. M.

(2011). Individual consequences of workplace bullying/mobbing. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 107–128). Taylor & Francis.

40.

Hopcroft

(2002). Is gender still a status characteristic? Current Research in Social Psychology, 7, 339–346.

41.

Kanter

R. M.

(1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.

42.

Leite

Almeida

J. F. C.

(2004). Código do trabalho (2nd ed.). Coimbra Editora.

43.

Leymann

(1989). Presentation av LIPT-formularet: Konstruktion, validering, utfall [Presentation of the LIPT-questionnaire: Construction, validation and outcomes]. Praktikerjänst AB, Stockholm.

44.

Leymann

(1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.

45.

Lindroth

Leymann

(1993). Vuxenmobbning mot en minoritetsgrupp män inom barnomsorgen: Om mäns jämställdhet i ett kvinnodominerat yrke [Bullying of a male minority group within child care: On men’s equality on a female-dominated occupation]. Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health.

46.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

S. J.

Alberts

J. K.

(2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837–862.

47.

Maciel

R. H.

Gonçalves

R. C.

Matos

T. G. R.

Rodrigues

(2007). Auto Relato de situações constrangedoras no trabalho e assédio moral nos bancários: Uma fotografia. Revista Psicologia & Sociedade, 19(3), 117–128.

48.

Matthiesen

Einarsen

(2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 335–356.

49.

Meschkutat

В.

Stackelbeck

Lagenhoff

. (2002). DerAfobbing—report. Repräsentativstudie für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Schriftenheire der Bundesansstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin—Forscung, Fb 951 (2. Auflage). Wirtschaftsverlag NM.

50.

Meter

M. V.

(1990). Sampling and cross-classification analysis in international social research. Sage.

51.

Mikkelsen

E. G.

Einärsen

(2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health Correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 393–413.

52.

Moen

(2000). Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work conditions, gender and life quality. Social Problems, 47, 291–326.

53.

Moreno-Jiménez

Rodríguez

Salin

Morante Benadero

(2008). Workplace bullying in southern Europe: Prevalence, forms and risk groups in a Spanish sample. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 95–109.

54.

Niedhammer

David

Degioanni

(2006). Economic activities and occupations at high risk for workplace bullying: Results from a large-scale cross sectional survey in the general working population in France. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 8(4), 346–353.

55.

Niedl

(1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 239–249.

56.

Nielsen

M. B.

Notelaers

Einarsen

(2011). Measuring exposure to workplace bullying. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 149–175). CRC Press.

57.

Nielsen

M. B.

Skogstad

Matthiesen

Glaso

Ausland

M. S.

Notelaers

Einarsen

(2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 81–101.

58.

Notelaers

Einarsen

De Witte

Vermunt

J. K.

(2006). Measuring exposure to bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach. Work & Stress, 20(4), 288–301.

59.

Notelaers

Vermunt

J. K.

Baillien

Einarsen

De Witte

(2011). Exploring risk groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Industrial Health, 49, 73–88.

60.

Olafsson

Johannsdottir

(2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 319–333.

61.

Pacheco

(2007). O assédio no trabalho - o elo mais fraco [Bullying at work- the weakest link]. Coimbra Editora.

62.

Pugh

M. D.

Wahrman

(1998). Neutralizing sexism in mixed sex groups: Do women to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88(4), 746–762.

63.

Quine

(1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: Staff questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, 3, 228–232.

64.

Salin

(2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425–441.

65.

Salin

(2003a). Bullying and organizational politics in competitive and rapidly changing work environments. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4(1), 35–46.

66.

Salin

(2003b). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232.

67.

Salin

(2006). Organizational measures taken against workplace bullying: The case of Finnish municipalities (Meddlanden Working Papers, 521). Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.

68.

Salin

Hoel

(2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235–251.

69.

Schat

A. C.

Frone

M. R.

Kelloway

E. K.

(2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the US workforce: Findings from national study. In Kelloway

E. K.

Barling

Hurrel

J. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–89). Sage.

70.

Serra

A. V.

Ramalheira

Moura-Ramos

Carvalho Homem

(2005). A escala Portuguesa de Mobbing [The Portuguese Mobbing Scale]. Psiquiatria Clínica, 26(3), 189–211.

71.

Sheehan

(1999). Workplace bullying: Responding with some emotional intelligence. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 57-69.

72.

Sidanius

Prato

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

73.

Timo

Fulop

Ruthjersen

(2004). Crisis? What crisis? Management practices and internal violence and workplace bullying in aged care in Australia. Research and Practice in Human Resources Management, 12(2), 57–89.

74.

UNISON. (1997). UNISON members’ experience of bullying at work.

75.

Vartia

(2003). Workplace bullying—A study on the work environment, well-being and health [Doctoral dissertation, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki]. People and Work Research Reports No. 56.

76.

Veale

Gold

(1998). Smashing into the glass ceiling for women managers. Journal of Management Development, 17(1), 17–26.

77.

Wagner

D. G.

Ford

R. S.

Ford

T. W.

(1996). Can gender inequalities be reduced? American Sociological Review, 51, 47–61.

78.

Walter

(2004). Mergers and acquisitions in banking and finance. Oxford University Press.

79.

Woodman

Cook

(2005). Bullying at work: The experience of managers. Report produced by the Chartered Management Institute, London.

80.

Yilmaz

Soydas

A. U.

(2006). Bullying among Turkish bank employees and its relations with sick leave [Paper Presentation]. 7th Asia Pacific management Conference, Bangkok.

81.

Zapf

(1999). Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 70–85.

82.

Zapf

Escartin

Einarsen

Hoel

Vartia

(2011). Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 75–106). Taylor & Francis.

83.

Zweigenhaft

R. L.

Domhoff

G. W.

(1988). Diversity in the power elite: Have women and minorities reached the top? Yale University Press.