Workplace Bullying: The Problem That (Still) Has No Name

Abstract

The article examines how workplace bullying of women employees tends to be unacknowledged and ignored because of the gap between statutory provisions and the selective policies and practices of individual organisations. The study on which this article is based found that there are disjunctures between state laws and organisational policies and that there is poor implementation of statutes that provide protection to women against bullying and harassment. It should therefore be mandatory for organisations to follow state laws. Further, to fully protect women employees at their workplaces it is necessary to explicitly follow rules for the prevention and redressal of bullying and harassment even of a non-sexual nature.

Keywords

Workplace bullying sexual harassment state legislation institutional ethnography

Introduction

Bullying and sexual harassment at the workplace is a near-universal phenomenon in contemporary organisations (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Salin et al., 2018), with a detrimental impact not only on women employees but also on organisational productivity, work attendance, employee turnover (Hoel et al., 2011), work engagement (Einarsen et al., 2018), job satisfaction (Trépanier et al., 2015) and employee health and well-being (Dehue et al., 2012). It is therefore an important issue in research on behaviour in organisations. Yet, the review of literature shows that there is lack of a common definition of workplace bullying, which plagues the field of research on this issue (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Chirilă & Constantin, 2013; Cowan, 2012; Crawshaw, 2009; Hutchinson, 2012; Salin, 2003; Saunders et al., 2007). Researchers tend to focus either on individual or structural factors in explaining the antecedents, processes and consequences of workplace bullying, employing a variety of theoretical perspectives and research methods (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Branch et al., 2013; Samnani, 2013). Going beyond this, Salin (2003, p. 1215) underscores the need to view workplace bullying in the larger context of interactions between ‘enabling structures and processes’ (e.g., power differentials, lack of deterrents), ‘motivating structures and processes’ (such as workplace competition), and ‘precipitating processes or triggering circumstances’ (for instance, organisational crises such as downsizing). Further, Heames and Harvey (2006) and Samnani and Singh (2016) recommend examining workplace bullying in the interaction between the individual and contextual factors, at the individual, group and organisational levels. In order to prevent bullying and sexual harassment at workplaces, governments in various countries have enacted laws.

Definitions of bullying and harassment differ from country to country, affecting their approaches to the issue. Such variations at the level of countries can be attributed to cultural differences (Jacobson et al., 2014; Power et al., 2013). Variations can also exist within each country since organisations interpret the laws differently and implement organisational policies for the prevention and redressal of bullying and sexual harassment each in their own way, in different cultural, socio-economic, and political milieux. The Indian state too has enacted laws to prevent and redress workplace bullying. In addition to the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which also includes and covers the offence of non-sexual harassment, there are various labour laws and penal codes that elaborate on workplace harassment of a non-sexual nature and prescribe remedial measures. Research on workplace bullying in India highlights the factors, processes and consequences of such bullying in various industrial sectors. However, there is a dearth of research on whether organisational policies derived from statutory regulatory texts and their practices genuinely attempt to eliminate the bullying of women at the workplace.

There is a limited (Gupta et al., 2017) but rich literature on workplace bullying in Indian organisations (Ciby & Raya, 2014; D’Cruz, 2013; D’Cruz et al., 2016; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2018; Maurya & Agarwal, 2014; Rai & Agarwal, 2017, 2018). D’Cruz and Rayner (2013) in their landmark study of workplace bullying in the Indian Information Technology Enabled Services (Business Process Outsourcing organisations) conclude that in the socio-cultural and organisational work context, hierarchy is the principal source of multiple types of harassment. A six-continent survey of workplace bullying (Power et al., 2013) establishes that the cultural context determines whether and to what extent workplace bullying is acceptable: it was found that in India acceptance of work-related bullying was associated with high-performance orientation, coupled with paternalistic styles of organisational leadership (Mishra et al., 2018). However, Jacobson et al. (2014) recommend that cross- cultural studies are needed for grasping the phenomenon of workplace bullying in its entirety. The other aspects that need attention in workplace bullying research include processes and theoretical frameworks (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Rai & Agarwal, 2016) and common definitions, measurement criteria and qualitative methods (Ciby & Raya, 2015). Further, Ciby and Raya (2014) and Nielsen and Einarsen (2018) urge that future research needs to focus on the experiences and perspectives of the victims to apprehend the causes, processes and consequences of workplace bullying; this is necessary to prevent detrimental effects on the physical and emotional health of victims (Panday & Kaur, 2015). On occasion, victims have been known to commit violence against managers in retaliation (Sarkar, 2015). While an analysis of cultural and organisational work contexts is essential to understand the nature and extent of workplace bullying, it seems clear that a broader and universal cause pertains to the exploitative neo-liberal capitalist labour process in which bullying can be utilised as a means of managerial control (Akella, 2016; Georgakopoulos et al., 2011). Workplace bullying, in this sense, therefore, forms an aspect of the ideological context of the labour process (Burawoy, 2015). Further, Hutchinson (2012) argues that there is a need to go beyond socio-psychological perspectives to locate workplace bullying within the regulatory regimes that constitute relations between employees and the organisation.

This study seeks to examine the organisational policy framework as derived from the governing statutory and regulatory texts as well as the experiences of women employees bullied in their workplace. It seeks to demonstrate inconsistencies in the interpretation and implementation of the laws in an information technology services organisation in India, using an institutional ethnography research framework. The study finds that the disjunctures between state laws and the organisation’s policies and practices allow for organisational and managerial discretion, resulting in the negative experiences of women employees. The study has the limitation of not covering the workplace bullying of men employees when they fail to meet the ideal worker norm.

Methods

Institutional ethnography was the research tool (Smith, 2005) employed in the study since the objective was to identify through an analysis of the organisational and extra-organisational texts of the institutional order that defined what could be construed as workplace bullying. Organisational texts, in the form of policies and procedures, govern the power relations between the institution and the employees (Smith, 2005; Turner, 2006). Discovering and analysing organisational texts enables identification of extra-local texts that control local social relations at the organisational level (ibid). In the present study, the statutory and regulatory texts form part of the extra-local texts that rank higher than the organisational texts pertaining to policies and procedures.. In practice, within the organisation, managers and employees activate only the organisational texts in their daily work; these have workplace experiences (ibid). In the institutional ethnography research framework, data are not abstracted to formulate theory; rather, it is utilised to describe and link people’s experiences to the local and extra-local interests of the ‘ruling relations’ (Smith, 2005, p. 10) that shape those experiences (Rankin, 2017a). The institutional ethnography research framework takes the workplace experiences of people as the ‘point of entry’ (Smith, 2005, p. 10; see also DeVault, 2006), affirming the standpoint commitment of the method to reveal the institutional order ‘on behalf of people’ (Rankin, 2017a, p. 4). Interviews elicited the workplace experiences of employees. The interview data were not analysed to abstract concepts and categories but to link the everyday workplace experiences of people to the organisational and extra-organisational texts that constitute the ‘ruling relations’ and to highlight the disjunctures between what the organisations claim is happening should be happening and what employees actually experience in ways that suit ‘different purposes’ of the organisation (Smith, 2005, p. 67).

The study was conducted in Delhi in a globally distributed IT organisation with about 10,000 employees, of whom about 3,900 were located at the site of the study. The organisation allowed the interviews of women employees in return for insights to improve their gender diversity programme. However, as per the confidentiality agreement signed with the organisation, the names of the employees and the interview data were not shared with the organisation, and only findings pertaining to policy and disciplinary actions were shared at the end of the study. Written consent for interviews was obtained from the research participants, including a confidentiality agreement that their identity would be kept confidential and would not be mentioned either to the organisation or in the research report. There were 760 women employees of whom 600 belonged to the non-managerial class. Through purposeful sampling, 40 women employees were identified for interview. The criteria for selection included a minimum of three years’ service and at least six years of overall work experience, 19 women articulated their experiences of workplace bullying, while 11 did not experience any form of harassment and 10 refused to share their workplace experiences. The interview guide consisted of open-ended questions on their experiences as women employees and on the efficacy of the organisation’s gender diversity programme. The interviews were transcribed as recording was prohibited. These were shared with the participants for them to check the accuracy of their articulations (Birt et al., 2016).

The interview transcripts were analysed to identify the incidence of bullying, employee reactions, consequences of reporting such experiences and the ideologies and organisational texts that possibly shaped women’s workplace experiences (Rankin, 2017b; Talbot, 2017). The bullying experiences were indexed to organise the interview data into ‘linked practices and happenings’ in order to view the institutional order shaping those experiences (Rankin, 2017b). Indexing helps in staying closer to the actual workplace bullying experiences of research participants instead of reducing them to codes and categories as is done in thematic analysis (Rankin, 2017b). Workplace experiences which highlighted aspects of work organisation, and managerial discretion that shaped such experiences, as well as the organisational policy framework (as derived from the governing statutory and regulatory texts) were studied in conjunction. This approach is consistent with the methodological focus of the institutional ethnography research framework that aims to unravel the institutional order at the local and extra-local levels, beyond the local experiences of the research participants (Smith, 2005).

Locating Workplace Bullying in the Institutional Order

Workplace bullying experiences included the following: denial of flexible work options and leave (two employees), forced long hours and excess workload (four employees), lower performance ratings (five employees), denial of deserved recognition (five employees), denial of their presence in workplace interactions (six employees), public humiliation (seven employees) and denial of suitable work role and career opportunities (nine employees). Of the 19 research participants, 14 had chosen to report their harassment to either the Human Resources Department or senior managers. In all the interviews lack of awareness of the mechanisms to report their grievances was evident. In addition, the five research participants who chose not to report their harassment did so out of fear of reprisal or potential adverse impact on their employment continuity. Even in cases of bullying that followed a refusal to yield to demands for sexual favours (one employee), and refusal to socialise with the manager, no action was taken when reported to Human Resources. Two women with similar complaints did not report to either senior managers or Human Resources for fear of reprisal or loss of employment. Two research participants had already resigned from their jobs and were serving for the notice period, while four research participants were contemplating quitting their jobs because no action had been taken after they registered their complaints or they believed that no action would be taken even if they complained.

While some countries have explicit laws to prevent and remedy workplace bullying, in the Indian context, there is no single legal framework that victims of workplace bullying can take recourse to (Stephen & Sasi, 2017). The Sexual Harassment Act (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013, explicitly mentions aspects related to workplace bullying, cognizable only if they are an integral part of sexual harassment. Harassment of a non-sexual nature is covered by a wide variety of other statutes and legal provisions, notably, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (protection of life and liberty of individuals), Article 42 (just and humane employment conditions), Article 43 (decent standard of living for wage labour), the Factories Act 1948 (health, safety and welfare of workers), Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (resolution of workers’ grievances) and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act) 1946 (transparent employment conditions). These could be invoked to provide redressal for workplace bullying but only in an indirect manner (Stephen & Sasi, 2017). In addition, the Equal Remuneration Act 1976, the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 and the Maternity Benefit Act (Amendment) 2017 provide protection to women employees at the workplace. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India enables enactment of special laws for women to provide additional safeguards. The lack of a specific and direct mandate to prevent and remedy workplace bullying in any of the statutory acts and laws allows organisations to exercise discretion in framing policies and implementing work practices to address workplace bullying. The consequence is that the operational definition of what constitutes workplace bullying is left to the organisations and managers, who are thus free to determine whether or not a particular case falls within that definition.

Discussion

The organisation selected for this study had updated its policies on prevention and redressal of sexual harassment to reflect changes in the statutory and regulatory Acts pertaining to this issue. The organisation had framed two policies: Policy Against Sexual Harassment at the Workplace and Disciplinary Action Policy. The first mirrored the Sexual Harassment Act (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013, in terms of its scope of applicability, definitions of sexual harassment, prevention and remedial mechanisms. However, it omitted two significant mandates of the Act:

Section 2 (o) (iv) of the Act includes ‘house’ or ‘dwelling place’ as a part of the definition of the workplace. However, the organisation’s Policy statement did not include the employee’s house as part of the definition of the workplace.

The Act lists examples of behaviours that can be construed as sexual harassment if they occur in conjunction with acts of sexual harassment, such as implicit or explicit promises to accord favourable employment conditions, implicit or explicit threats of creating detrimental present or future employment conditions, interference with the work of the woman employee, creation of a hostile working environment and humiliation of the woman employee.

However, the Policy statement of the organisation included only one of these aspects: namely, that of creating a hostile working environment, and does not mention any of the others. By stating that all behaviour that could be commonly understood as retaliatory as part of sexual harassment, the organisation’s policy statement was rather vague. The Policy statement reads as below:

Creating a Hostile Working Environment means:

Creating a workplace where Sexual Harassment may go unheeded, where despite complaints no action is taken, and where complainant is placed under fear, disadvantage, or threat of victimization.

It will also mean retaliation which includes:

Socially ostracizing

Spreading rumour

Any other behaviour commonly construed as retaliatory

The Act mandates in sections 19 (b) and 19 (c), the creation of awareness about this law and the organisation’s policies pertaining to the internal committee composition, consequences of sexual harassment and procedures for reporting and redressal of the offence of sexual harassment.

However, the organisation’s Policy statement did not include these aspects of the Act.

The organisation’s Disciplinary Action Policy lays down the actions which should follow the violation of the organisation’s overall code of conduct and specifically notifies the consequences of sexual harassment at the workplace. As noted already, since the Sexual Harassment Act did not explicitly address workplace bullying, the organisation’s disciplinary action policy too does not delineate workplace bullying as an aspect of unacceptable workplace behaviour that warrants commensurate disciplinary action. Instead, for the offence of creating a hostile work environment the prescription is only a written warning for misconduct such as acts of physical violence, bullying, threatening, intimidating, coercing, and interfering with work, use of abusive language, shouting and inappropriate jokes. The inability of women employees to share their workplace experiences with anyone within the organisation was a recurring theme in most of the interviews. The organisational policy framework and disciplinary action practices did not give women’s experiences or their point of view any importance. The quotes below bear this out,

We don’t discuss issues of bullying or harassment among ourselves or with anyone. We fear that our reputation will be tarnished. We suffer in silence. The managers can discuss with their female colleagues. But we don’t know who is friend or foe. The person who is harassing me may be a good friend of the woman with whom I share my experiences of bullying or harassment. (Debabandya)

The second manager was not good … somewhat different from others. He wanted to get favours from me in return for [work] opportunities. I complained to the senior management about his behaviour and his persistent direct and indirect demands for favours. They supported me but did not take any action against him. I felt bad because. I still worked and reported to that same manager for one whole year. (Geeta)

My manager started diluting my responsibilities when I complained to the senior management about his behaviour and demands for [sexual]favours. He stopped my interaction with clients and re-allocated my duties to others less deserving. Seniors were more bothered about the project than me. As he was the only person interacting with the client, no action was taken against him. They should have found other ways of handling the project without that manager. (Poornima)

He used to be very rude. One day I was sitting in a stand-up meeting. My manager shouted at me. ‘Why the hell are you sitting?’ I said ‘I am seven months pregnant. I am not feeling well sir’. Since I talked back to him, he sent me to bench (pool of employees who are not allocated to any billable project), the same evening, saying he had performance and behavioural issues with me. (Payal)

My super boss does not connect with me. He ignores me completely. Even when I greet him in the corridor he does not reciprocate. He never picks up my calls. I am just a resource for him. He takes all his favourites, male team members, to meet the client but not me. I have had enough. (Radhika)

The disjunctures between the statutory and regulatory texts and organisational policy statements allowed for the misinterpretation, dilution and ignoring of acts of workplace bullying by managers. Consequently, deterrent disciplinary action was rarely taken when complaints were made by the victims. At most, a written warning was issued. Since bullying was not construed as unacceptable and no guidelines were available, Human Resources functionaries referred the complaints back to the very same management structure against whose members the women had complained. Such complaints were treated on par with other problems pertaining to work allocation, dissatisfaction with performance ratings and work roles.

Conclusion

The study found that the disjuncture between state enactments and policies and organisational policies pertaining to prevention and redressal of workplace harassment including bullying allowed various offences to occur unchecked and undeterred. Managers were allowed discretion unfettered by the existence of state laws. Human Resources functionaries in the organisation had little power to acknowledge the workplace bullying experiences of women employees in the absence of organisational guidelines and good management practices. Allowing managerial discretion leads to arbitrariness in the way employees are managed, with detrimental effects on employee productivity, work engagement, job satisfaction and overall employee relations in the context of the organisation.

While the findings of the study could be generalised to apply to similar organisations in the Indian IT industry, they could also be of interest to transnational corporations that have either fully owned subsidiaries in the Indian IT industry or subcontract IT services to Indian organisations. Ensuring that such organisations in India are free from workplace bullying becomes a business case for corporate governance (Sunder, 2013). As hierarchical power is greater in the absence of policy deterrents business leaders should revisit their policy frameworks on workplace harassment, including bullying. Such behaviour should be clearly declared as non-negotiable and unacceptable in every organisational policy statement and set of house rules. Simultaneously, prescriptions of stern deterrents and consequences to be administered by an in-house authority need to be clearly stated to prevent bullying and harassment and to redress the complaints of victims of such offences. Otherwise, to use a phrase made famous by Betty Friedan (1963), the problem of workplace bullying of women would continue to have no name.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Akella

(2016). Workplace bullying: Not a manager’s right? Sage Open, 6(1), 1–10. 10.1177%2F2158244016629394

Bartlett

J. E.

, & Bartlett

M. E.

(2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69–84. 10.1177%2F1523422311410651

Birt

, Scott

, Cavers

, Campbell

, & Walter

(2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. 10.1177%2F1049732316654870

Branch

, Ramsay

, & Barker

(2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 280–299. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x

Burawoy

(2015). Forty years of labor. Michigan Sociological Review, 29, 1–21.

Chirilă

, & Constantin

(2013). Understanding workplace bullying phenomenon through its concepts: A literature review. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1175–1179.

Ciby

, & Raya

R. P.

(2014). Exploring victims’ experiences of workplace bullying: A grounded theory approach. Vikalpa, 39(2), 69–82. 10.1177%2F0256090920140208

Ciby

, & Raya

R. P.

(2015). Workplace bullying: A review of the defining features, measurement methods and prevalence across continents. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 4(1), 38–47.

Cowan

R. L.

(2012). It’s complicated: Defining workplace bullying from the human resource professional’s perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 377–403. 10.1177%2F0893318912439474

10.

Crawshaw

(2009). Workplace bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distraction by a thousand definitions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 263. 10.1037/a0016590

11.

D’Cruz

(2013). Breathers, releases, outlets and pauses: Employee resistance in the context of depersonalized bullying. The Qualitative Report, 18(36), 1–24. 10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1471

12.

D’Cruz

, & Noronha

(2009). Experiencing depersonalised bullying: A study of Indian call-centre agents. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 3(1), 26–46.

13.

D’Cruz

, & Noronha

(2010). Protecting my Interests: HRM and Target’s coping with workplace bullying. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 507–534. 10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1163

14.

D’Cruz

, & Noronha

(2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33(3), 269–288. 10.1108/01425451111121777

15.

D’Cruz

, & Noronha

(2012). Clarifying my world: Identity work in the context of workplace bullying. The Qualitative Report, 17(8), 1–29. 10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1805

16.

D’Cruz

, & Noronha

(2015). Ambivalence: Employee responses to depersonalized bullying at work. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36(1), 123–145. 10.1177%2F0143831X13501001

17.

D’Cruz

, & Noronha

(2018). Target experiences of workplace bullying on online labour markets: Uncovering the nuances of resilience. Employee Relations, 40(1), 139–154. 10.1108/ER-09-2016-0171

18.

D’Cruz

, & Rayner

(2013). Bullying in the Indian workplace: A study of the ITES-BPO sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(4), 597–619. 10.1177%2F0143831X12452672

19.

D’Cruz

, Paull

, Omari

, & Guneri-Cangarli

(2016). Target experiences of workplace bullying: Insights from Australia, India and Turkey. Employee Relations, 38(5), 805–823. 10.1108/ER-06-2015-0116

20.

Dehue

, Bolman

, Völlink

, & Pouwelse

(2012). Coping with bullying at work and health related problems. International Journal of Stress Management, 19(3), 175. 10.1037/a0028969

21.

DeVault

M. L.

(2006). Introduction: What is institutional ethnography? Social Problems, 53(3), 294–298. 10.1525/sp.2006.53.3.294

22.

Einarsen

, Skogstad

, Rørvik

, Lande

Å. B.

, & Nielsen

M. B.

(2018). Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: A moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(3), 549–570. 10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

23.

Friedan

(1963). The feminine mystique. Dell Publishing.

24.

Georgakopoulos

, Wilkin

, & Kent

(2011). Workplace bullying: A complex problem in contemporary organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(3), 1–20.

25.

Gupta

, Bakhshi

, & Einarsen

(2017). Investigating workplace bullying in India: Psychometric properties, validity, and cutoff scores of negative acts questionnaire—Revised. Sage Open, 7(2), 1–12. 10.1177%2F2158244017715674

26.

Heames

, & Harvey

(2006). Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment. Management Decision, 44(9), 1214–1230. 10.1108/00251740610707695

27.

Hoel

, Sheehan

M. J.

, Cooper

C. L.

, & Einarsen

(2011). Organisational effects of workplace bullying. In Hoel

, Sheehan

M. J.

, Cooper

C. L.

& Einarsen

(Eds), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 129–148). CRC Press.

28.

Hutchinson

(2012). Rethinking workplace bullying as an employment relations problem. Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(5), 637–652.

29.

Jacobson

K. J.

, Hood

J. N.

, & Van Buren III

H. J.

(2014). Workplace bullying across cultures: A research agenda. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(1), 47–65. 10.1177%2F1470595813494192

30.

Maurya

M. K.

, & Agarwal

(2014). Relationship between perceived workplace harassment, mental health status and job satisfaction of male and female civil police constables. Indian Journal of Community Psychology, 10(1), 162–177.

31.

Mishra

, Chaudhuri

, & Dey

A. K.

(2018). Leaders’ approach and the bullies it nurture: A qualitative study. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 20(4), 42–46.

32.

Nielsen

M. B.

, & Einarsen

(2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 71–83. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007

33.

Panday

, & Kaur

(2015). Workforce bullying: prevalence and its impact on wellbeing of employees. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 15(13), 7–12.

34.

Power

J. L.

, Brotheridge

C. M.

, Blenkinsopp

, Bowes-Sperry

, Bozionelos

, Buzády

, Chuang

, Drnevich

, Garzon-Vico

, Leighton

, & Madero

S. M.

(2013). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 374–380. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.018

35.

Rai

, & Agarwal

U. A.

(2016). Workplace bullying: A review and future research directions. South Asian Journal of Management, 23(3), 27–56.

36.

Rai

, & Agarwal

U. A.

(2017). Workplace bullying among Indian managers: Prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 15(1), 58–81.

37.

Rai

, & Agarwal

U. A.

(2018). Examining workplace bullying-outcomes relationships among Indian managers: Psychological contract violation as mediator and workplace friendship as moderator. Employee Relations, 40(6), 1015–1035.

38.

Rankin

(2017a). Conducting analysis in institutional ethnography: Analytical work prior to commencing data collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–9. 10.1177%2F1609406917734484

39.

Rankin

(2017b). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Guidance and Cautions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–11. 10.1177%2F1609406917734472

40.

Salin

(2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232. 10.1177%2F00187267035610003

41.

Salin

, Cowan

, Adewumi

, Apospori

, Bochantin

, D’Cruz

, Djurkovic

, Durniat

, Escartín

, Guo

, & Išik

(2018). Workplace bullying across the globe: A cross-cultural comparison. Personnel Review, 48(1), 204–219. 10.1108/PR-03-2017-0092

42.

Samnani

A. K.

(2013). Embracing new directions in workplace bullying research: A paradigmatic approach. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 26–36.

43.

Samnani

A. K.

, & Singh

(2016). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 537–549.

44.

Sarkar

(2015). Murderous Violence at Work: Conflict and aggression in Indian auto factories. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 9(1), 38–62.

45.

Saunders

, Huynh

, & Goodman-Delahunty

(2007). Defining workplace bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 340–354. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.007

46.

Smith

D. E.

(2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

47.

Stephen

T. K.

, & Sasi

(2017). Analysis of potential legal strategies for mitigation of workplace bullying in India. Management and Labour Studies, 42(1), 20–38. 10.1177%2F0258042X17690841

48.

Sunder

D. L.

(2013). Putting ‘dignity at workplace’ on the ‘corporate governance’ agenda. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(1), 32–48.

49.

Talbot

(2017). The dialogic production of informant specific maps. Perspectives on and from institutional ethnography (pp. 1–28). Emerald Publishing Limited.

50.

Trépanier

S. G.

, Fernet

, & Austin

(2015). A longitudinal investigation of workplace bullying, basic need satisfaction, and employee functioning. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 105–116.

51.

Turner

S. M.

(2006). Mapping institutions as work and texts. In Smith

D. E.

(Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 139–162). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.