Examining the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Exposure to Workplace Bullying

Abstract

Workplace bullying is a common and constantly occurring phenomenon in organizations. Various factors render a workplace conducive to the occurrence of bullying-like features of the work environment and personality traits of the employees. While work environment features are well-established antecedents of workplace bullying, much of the research on personality traits as antecedents of bullying remains inconclusive. Drawing on the victim precipitation theory and the Big Five personality taxonomy, the present study aims to examine the relationship between four personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience) and exposure to workplace bullying. We have excluded neuroticism, as it is a well-established antecedent of workplace bullying, whereas literature suggests mixed findings on the relationships between the remaining four personality traits and workplace bullying. A total of 835 full-time Indian managers working across different Indian organizations served as the sample for our study. The results suggest that conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience negatively correlate with workplace bullying. Implications for theory and practice are also discussed in this article.

Keywords

Agreeableness conscientiousness extraversion openness to experience workplace bullying

Introduction

A major issue facing organizations worldwide today is the occurrence of bullying among employees (Saunders, Huynh, & Goodman-Delahunty, 2007). Workplace bullying is a form of interpersonal misconduct/mistreatment (Namie, 2007) that involves repeated demeaning or destructive behaviours towards one or more employees (Shields & Wilkins, 2009) that are fairly subtle (e.g., excessive workloads, persistent monitoring of work, personal jokes, gossip) to those that are explicit and identifiable (e.g., insults, threats, etc.) (Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Tepper & Henle, 2011). Bullying is a serious psychosocial occupational hazard (Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2002) and is reported to occur on a regular basis in workplaces, with a prevalence estimated at 11–18 per cent (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). More alarmingly, reports and surveys indicate that the frequency of workplace bullying has increased in recent years (27%, Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014).

From the onset of workplace bullying research dated back to Leymann’s (1990) work, researchers and practitioners have made considerable efforts in examining its causes (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Rai & Agarwal, 2016; Samnani & Singh, 2012). The reasons that bullying develops are likely to be complex (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Zapf, 1999). Studies have examined the occurrence of bullying from two perspectives: (a) the work environment hypothesis (Leymann, 1996; Salin et al., 2011) and (b) the individual dispositions hypothesis (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). The work environment hypothesis which is a dominating framework suggests that the prevailing organizational conditions to a large extent may account for the overall incidence of workplace bullying (Leymann, 1996; Skogstad, Torsheim, Einarsen, & Hauge, 2011). On the other hand, individual disposition hypothesis suggests that ‘individual characteristics, such as personality traits, are potential precursors of bullying and claims that specific characteristics scores, or combinations of characteristics, increase the risk of being a target of bullying’ (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015, p. 129). Drawing on work environment hypothesis, a burgeoning amount of literature is available on job characteristics, psychosocial working conditions, leadership styles, organizational culture and climate as potential antecedents of workplace bullying (Samnani & Singh, 2012). However, relatively few studies have explored personality traits as antecedents of workplace bullying. Moreover, the extant research on personality traits as antecedents of bullying remains inconclusive, and researchers have reported mixed findings (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Several researchers have called for a more structured investigation into the role of personality traits as antecedents of workplace bullying (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015; Vartia, 1996). Addressing the call of researchers, the present study aims to examine personality traits as antecedents of workplace bullying.

This study is organized as follows. The next section covers literature review followed by objective and rationale of the study. The methodology and analysis sections present details about the data source, sample frame, the measures, the data analyses performed and the main findings. This is followed by the conclusion section, managerial implications of the study and limitations of the research and future research directions.

Literature Review

Workplace Bullying

Research into workplace bullying has emerged from Scandinavian investigations into schoolyard bullying in the late 1980s, which subsequently expanded to include bullying at work. Heinz Leymann (1990), a German-born physician and psychiatrist, is considered the pioneer in this field. Currently, although scholars from Scandinavia and the UK continue to lead in this area, bullying research now includes, among others, scholars and professionals from different nations.

The following definition has been widely used in the literature on workplace bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011, p. 15):

Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process, it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal ‘strength’ are in conflict.

As per this definition, there are three distinguishing features of workplace bullying: persistency, power disparities and intent to harm. First, persistency of inappropriate behaviours in terms of repetition (at least once or twice a week), duration (at least for six months) and patterning (of a variety of behaviours involved) is one of the most salient features of bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003), which distinguishes bullying from a ‘one-off clash’ (Hoel & Cooper, 2001; Saunders, Huynh, & Goodman-Delahunty, 2007). Second, a power imbalance must exist between the perpetrator and the target, whereby the target finds it increasingly difficult to defend himself or herself. The power imbalance has been conceptualized as being derived from the perpetrator’s organizational position, informal power, the target’s dependency on the perpetrator and or target and perpetrator personality traits (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Samnani, 2013; Zabrodska, Ellwood, Zaeemdar, & Mudrak, 2014). Third, negative acts must be systematic and planned and the presence of negative intent of the perpetrator is a feature of workplace bullying.

Personality and Workplace Bullying

Personality refers to individuals’ relatively stable and enduring predispositions to think, believe, feel and behave in certain ways (Ones, 2005). Personality traits result in predictable patterns of thoughts, attitudes, emotions and behaviours over time and across contexts (S. P. Chauhan & D. Chauhan, 2001; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Pervin, 1993) and can be used to differentiate between individuals (Gulati & Bhal, 2004; Kandalla & Krishnan, 2004).

Personality traits have been examined as antecedents, outcomes and moderators in bullying research. The individual disposition hypothesis suggests that specific characteristics of individuals may predispose them to bullying and highlights the role of target personality as a predictor of workplace bullying (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015). This view is supported by the trait theory, which suggests that in order for a situation to have an effect on an individual, he/she must have a disposition that is responsive to that effect (Johnson, 2009) and that the personality of targets can explain their exposure to bullying (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011).

Leymann (1996), the pioneer in the field strongly criticized the notion of being able to predict a target from personality, suggesting that personality characteristics may develop more as a result of being bullied rather than a precursor to bullying (reverse causality mechanism, Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007). In line with his view, there is strong evidence that bullying may cause dramatic effects in the victim, such as fear, anxiety, helplessness, depression and shock (Mayhew et al., 2004). This view is supported by the contextualist perspective, which suggests that personality traits besides their relatively stable nature are influenced by environmental factors (Helson, Jones, & Kwan, 2002; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003), especially traumatic events (Janoff-Bulman, 1989).

Other researchers have also agreed on the fact that personality traits do play an important role in the bullying process, without taking a stand whether it is the personality traits that cause the bullying or vice versa (Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007); others have examined personality traits as being a moderator in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships (e.g., Balducci, Fraccaroli, & Schaufeli, 2011; Moreno-Jiménez, Rodríguez-Muñoz, Pastor, Sanz-Vergel, & Garrosa, 2009; Naseer, Raja, & Donia, 2016; Pilch & Turska, 2015). As per Einarsen (2000), the personality traits of a victim may at least be relevant in explaining perceptions of and reaction to workplace bullying. Zapf and Einarsen (2003) suggested that no comprehensive model of workplace bullying would be satisfactory without including personality traits and individual factors along with their contributing effects to the onset, escalation and the consequences of the bullying process. The notion that the personality of an individual can predispose them to become victims of bullying can even be thought of like a vicious circle, where bullying leads to personality changes, which, in turn, makes the victim more vulnerable to further attacks (Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007).

The Five-factor Model and Its Relationships to Workplace Bullying

The five-factor model (FFM) also known as the Big Five personality traits is the most common model of personality, and it provides a meaningful and generalized taxonomy for studying individual differences (Shi, Lin, Wang, & Wang, 2009). The Big Five consists of five main personality traits forming the acronym OCEAN (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 2001), which represents: (a) openness to experience (originality or open-mindedness); (b) conscientiousness (control or constraint); (c) extraversion (energy or enthusiasm); (d) agreeableness (altruism or affection) and (e) neuroticism (negative affectivity or nervousness) (Goldberg, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). These five personality traits are relatively stable across age groups and cultures (Hendriks et al., 2003; McCrae, Costa, Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998) and are found to have sufficient accuracy and reliability in researching human behaviour (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).

The Big Five personality types are one of the most studied individual-level antecedents of workplace bullying (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015). Neuroticism is a well-established antecedent of workplace bullying (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007). Literature suggests mixed findings on the relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and workplace bullying, as studies point to positive, negative and no relationships between these personality traits and bullying (Brodsky, 1976; Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015; Persson et al., 2009). No relationship has been observed between openness to experience and workplace bullying, as research has shown that openness to experience is unrelated to affective reactions over time (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015).

Given that there is a substantial amount of variance in the relationship between extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and bullying, which still has to be explored, it opens up the possibility of contributing to the literature on bullying by examining these three personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion) as antecedents of workplace bullying. Openness to experience is less studied as compared to other four personality traits as antecedents of workplace bullying. Moreover, there is a lack of concrete explanation on how personality traits are related to bullying (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015).

All the studies in personality–bullying relationship are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Research Findings on Personality Traits and Workplace Bullying Relationships

Researchers	Findings
Vartia (1996) Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002)	Victims are more neurotic than non-victims.
Brodsky (1976)	Victims are conscientious, literal-minded, paranoid, rigid and compulsive.
Coyne, Seigne, and Randall (2000)	Victims are conscientious and literal-minded (consciousness); shy and lacking social skills (extroversion); anxious and neurotic (emotional stability/neuroticism) and more agreeable.
Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, and Einarsen (2007)	Victims are more anxious and neurotic and less agreeable, less conscientious and less extrovert than non-victims. No relationship was found between openness to experience and bullying.
Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen (2009)	Victims are high on conscientiousness and low on agreeableness. No relationship was found between openness to experience and bullying.
Persson et al. (2009)	Victims are high on neuroticism and extraversion (particularly impulsiveness) than non-bullied.
Nielsen and Knardahl (2015)	Victims are low on agreeableness and extraversion; high on conscientiousness and neuroticism and openness to experience has no relationship with workplace bullying.

Source: The authors.

Victim Precipitation Theory

Researchers have long asserted that individual personality traits or characteristics are a crucial part of explaining why mistreatment/ abuse occurs at work (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Henle & Gross, 2014). This can be justified on the basis of victim precipitation theory (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Curtis, 1974; Henle & Gross, 2014; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003), which suggests that some employees are more susceptible to mistreatment at work than others because of the personality characteristics they exhibit (provocative victims vs. submissive victims). Provocative victims refer to those who contribute to their own victimization by displaying certain emotional or behavioural tendencies (e.g., anger, create tension and conflict, violations of social norms, accommodating or yielding behaviour) that elicit aggression from others, whereas passive or submissive victims refer to those who become so because they present themselves as an easy or vulnerable target owing to their traits like weaknesses in their personality such as low self-esteem or are passive, nonaggressive, nervous, insecure, socially withdrawn, unassertive and anxious (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Olweus, 1994; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). Victims may be selected due to their personality (Vartia, 1996) as the bully spots weaknesses within the victim’s personality, such as a lack of social skills, tendency to avoid conflict (Zapf, 1999) and an inability to cope (Einarsen, 1999), otherwise the victim may provoke aggressive behaviour within a bully (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994). For the present study, we will expand the victim precipitation theory by drawing on Big Five taxonomy to identify personality traits that are indicative of provocative and submissive victims. We also follow the lead of recent research in other negative workplace phenomena like workplace harassment and abusive supervision that has examined personality of targets as an antecedent to workplace mistreatment (e.g., Henle & Gross, 2014; Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017).

Conscientiousness and Workplace Bullying

Conscientiousness is described as ‘a socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks’ (John & Srivastava, 1999). High scores on conscientiousness indicate traits as hardworking, organized, self-disciplined, conventional, moralistic and rule-bound, whereas low scores indicate distraction, disorganization, having flexibility and being casual (Pervin, Cervone, & Oliver, 2005). Literature suggests a mixed finding on the relationship between conscientiousness and bullying as existing studies point to both positive and negative relationships between conscientiousness and bullying (Brodsky, 1976; Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). For instance, Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen (2009) found victims to be high on conscientiousness as their perfectionist style and behavioural patterns relate to overachievement, which may ignite jealousy in others, thereby exposing them to victimization. Research has shown that conscientiousness, as reflected through high level of job performance, is a potential precursor of aggression from colleagues, wherein envy can function as a behavioural mechanism for this relationship (Jensen, Patel, & Raver, 2014; Kim & Glomb, 2014). As opposed to this, Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, and Einarsen (2007) found victims to be less conscientious than non-victims; for instance, when employees are more disorganized and casual in their approach to deal with workplace matters, they may be a target of aggression directed from someone in authority.

A recent meta-analysis by Nielsen, Glasø, and Einarsen (2017) covering 32 papers on the relationships between one or more of the factors in the FFM and workplace harassment (including workplace bullying) revealed a negative relationship between conscientiousness and workplace bullying. Some recent studies have also shown a negative relationship between conscientiousness and workplace bullying/abusive supervision (Henle & Gross, 2014; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015). Following these findings and drawing on the victim precipitation theory, we also concur that there is indeed a negative relationship between conscientiousness and bullying. As per victim precipitation theory, individuals low in conscientiousness will exhibit the characteristic of provocative victims owing to their carelessness, a disorganized attitude towards work which can elicit aggression in others. This relationship can also be justified on the basis of target behaviour mechanism (Einarsen, 1999), which suggests that employees with specific dispositions elicit aggressive behaviours in others by violating work-related expectations (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015).

Agreeableness and Workplace Bullying

Agreeableness is described as ‘a prosocial and communal orientation towards others with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 30). High scores on agreeableness indicate traits as selflessness, adaptability, cooperativeness, helpfulness, tolerance, flexibility, generosity, sympathy, courtesy, altruism, nurturance, caring and emotional support (Digman, 1990), whereas low scores indicate traits as scepticism, challenging others’ ideas, reluctant to get involved, self-centeredness, spitefulness, jealousy, cynicism, rudeness, suspicious, uncooperative, ruthless, irritable and manipulative (Digman, 1990; Pervin, Cervone, & Oliver, 2005). Literature suggests mixed findings on the relationship between agreeableness and bullying as existing studies point to both positive and negative relationships between agreeableness and bullying (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen, 2009). For instance, literature suggests that individuals low on agreeableness will more often be the targets of workplace bullying, as these individuals may irritate a supervisor or co-worker and will typically be provocative and may also be involved in conflicts (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen, 2009). As opposed to this, Coyne, Seigne, and Randall (2000) found that targets of bullying score higher on agreeableness than non-targets, as victims have been identified as submissive and avoiding conflict. Samnani and Singh (2012) have suggested that employees with low agreeableness may often fall within the provocative type, while employees with high agreeableness may tend to fall within the vulnerable type.

However, Nielsen, Glasø, and Einarsen’s (2017) meta-analysis and recent studies on personality and workplace bullying relationship suggested a negative relationship between agreeableness and workplace bullying (Henle & Gross, 2014; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015). Following these findings, we draw on the victim precipitation theory to explain the relationship between agreeableness and bullying. As per victim precipitation theory, individuals low in agreeableness will exhibit the characteristic of provocative victims owing to their uncooperative, stubborn and rude nature towards others at work (McCrae & Costa, 1987), which, in turn, may elicit aggression in others. The same can also be justified by the target behaviour mechanism (Einarsen, 1999).

Extraversion and Workplace Bullying

Extraversion refers to ‘an energetic approach toward the social and material world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 30). A high score on extraversion includes traits like assertiveness and action orientation and typifies individuals who enjoy opportunities for excitement, are attention-seekers and are thereby talkative, whereas low scores indicate introversion, that is, a person who likes to be in the background, is less talkative and is less action oriented. Literature suggests mixed findings on the relationship between extraversion and bullying as existing studies point to both positive and negative relationships between extraversion and bullying (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Persson et al., 2009). For instance, literature suggests that individuals low in extraversion or introverted would be at greater risk of being a target of workplace bullying, as they lack social competence and self-esteem, which actually makes them vulnerable and thereby an easy target of frustration (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007). As opposed to this, Persson et al. (2009) found victims to be extroverts. Samnani and Singh (2012) have suggested that the extroverts may more often fall under the provocative type, while introverts may fall within the vulnerable type. In addition, to both positive and negative relationships, Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen (2009) did not find any support for extraversion and workplace bullying relationship.

Taking the lead of Nielsen Glasø, and Einarsen’s (2017) meta-analysis and other recent studies (Henle & Gross, 2014; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015), we also propose a negative relationship between extraversion and workplace bullying. Going by the victim precipitation theory, individuals low in extraversion (introvert) will be at higher chances of being bullied at workplaces, as they exhibit the characteristic of submissive victims owing to their lack of social competence, reserved nature and less action orientation. Moreover, such individuals have an innate tendency to interpret neutral or negative events in a more negative way (negative perceptions mechanism, Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015) and are more likely to interpret social interactions as bullying and could have a high risk of perceiving negative acts from others as bullying (Meyer & Shack, 1989).

Openness to Experience and Workplace Bullying

Openness to experience describes ‘the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 30). This trait displays whether a person is imaginative or independent and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine (Pervin, 1993). People who score low on openness tend to be conventional, traditional in their outlook and behaviour, and prefer familiar routines to new experiences, and generally have a narrower range of interests. Openness reflects a flexible, imaginative and intellectually curious approach in dealing with stressful situations (Watson & Hubbard, 1996), and it has been argued that persons with high scores on this trait appraise situations as less threatening as compared to persons with low scores (Smith & Williams, 1992). Open individuals accept divergent attitudes and opinions and are less likely to experience disagreements and conflict with their supervisors (McCrae, 1996), whereas closed individuals are more likely to experience a greater degree of frustration and conflict with others/supervisors due to differences in attitudes towards various topics (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). There is a considerable agreement in literature upon no relationship between the openness trait and bullying (Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen, 2009; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015).

However, in line with recent literature (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017) and drawing on the victim perception theory, we argue that individuals low in openness will be at higher risk of being bullied at workplaces, as they exhibit the characteristic of provocative victims owing to their tendencies to involve in conflict or disagreement with the supervisor. Moreover, such individuals have a lower threshold for experiencing interactions in a negative manner (negative perceptions mechanism, Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015), and thus, are more likely to interpret negative interactions with supervisor as bullying.

Objective of the Study

Anchored on victim precipitation theory (Curtis, 1974), the present study aims to examine personality traits of employees (conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience) as potential antecedents of workplace bullying.

Figure 1 represents the conceptual model.

Rationale of the Study

The present study develops possible linkages between personality traits and workplace bullying on the basis of victim precipitation theory (Curtis, 1974) and analyses the same with a sample of Indian managerial employees. The focus on India is crucial given its unique socio-cultural milieu (Hofstede, 1980) and increased globalization, which may significantly impact the bullying dynamics.

Methodology

Data Source and Sample Frame

The present study is based on data collected from managers working in different Indian organizations across different sectors. The study focussed on managers as they make significant economic contributions to their organizations (Nelson & Cooper, 2007). Around 50 organizations located in and around Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore were selected out of convenience and invited to participate. An email containing the study objectives, data collection procedure and implications of the study was sent to human resources (HR) department of the selected organizations. A few of the organizations invited the researchers to meet them for a brief discussion about the objectives, scope and implications of the study. A total of 11 organizations agreed to allow for data collection and date for data collection was fixed with them. These organizations were: two automobile manufacturing companies; two electricity utility companies; one gear manufacturing company; one tyre manufacturing company; one aviation company; one online fashion retail company; one mobile network operator company; one retail and fashion company and one information technology company.

The HR departments of the organizations assisted the researchers for data collection. Stratified random sampling was used to select managers across different organizational departments and job positions within the organization. A total of 1,300 managers were sent an invitation by the HR teams of their respective organizations to volunteer for the study; 950 volunteered to participate. Groups were categorized according to the convenience of the employees to optimize organizational time and facilitate data collection. Following the recommendation of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) to lessen the effects of common method variance (CMV) in single-source data and one-time data collection, the data were collected in two phases with a gap of 14 days with independent variables (personality traits) separated from outcome variable (workplace bullying) in the survey. In Stage one, a hardcopy version of the survey containing demographics and independent variables (personality traits) was administered to the employees directly by the researchers. Attached to each questionnaire was a cover letter explaining the objectives of the study and assuring respondents that the study was voluntary and their responses would be kept confidential. Data on the dependent variable (workplace bullying) were collected through the second survey instrument (Stage two) after 14 days. Every questionnaire was marked with a unique code, which was recorded in a master file such that the responses received from the two phases can be matched.

The final sample comprised 835 completed and usable questionnaires (after data cleaning). The mean age of the sample was 32 years (SD = 8). Of the respondents, 81 per cent were male and 19 per cent were female. The average organizational tenure was 8.7 years (SD = 7.7). Of the total number of respondents, 30.8 per cent were from junior-level management, 60.2 per cent were from middle-level management and 9 per cent were senior management employees. In terms of the academic qualification, 58.8 per cent were graduates, 32.4 per cent were post-graduates and the rest had a PhD degree.

Measures

All measures used in this survey were adopted from the established scales written in English. The specific measures used in the study are described later.

Personality Traits

Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John & Srivastava, 1999) was used to measure personality traits of conscientiousness (nine items), agreeableness (nine items), extraversion (eight items) and openness to experience (10 items). Respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). Sample items for scales are: conscientiousness: ‘I see myself as someone perseveres until the task is finished’; agreeableness: ‘I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselfish with others’; extraversion: ‘I see myself as someone who is talkative’ and openness to experience: ‘I see myself as someone who is original, comes up with new ideas’. There were four negatively worded items in both the conscientiousness and agreeableness scales, three negatively worded items in the extraversion scale and two negatively worded items in the openness to experience scale. The negative items were reverse scored to yield overall score with higher scores indicating a high level of conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience. The alpha reliability values of these scales were: conscientiousness (0.76), agreeableness (0.70), extraversion (0.73) and openness to experience (0.73).

Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying was measured with the Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised (NAQ-R) developed by Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009). The NAQ-R consists of 22 items that describe various behaviours, which may be perceived as bullying if they occur on a regular basis. All items are formulated in behavioural terms, with no reference to the term bullying. The NAQ-R consists of three subscales, namely, person-related (e.g., being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work), work-related (e.g., being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines) and physically intimidating (e.g., being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger) bullying behaviours. The respondents were asked how often they had been exposed to the negative workplace behaviour at their present place of work during the last six months. Response categories were coded from one to five with the alternatives ‘never’, ‘now and then’, ‘monthly’, ‘weekly’ and ‘daily’. The three dimensions of workplace bullying were combined additively to create an overall workplace bullying scale. The alpha reliability for the scale was 0.97. The psychometric properties of NAQ-R have already been examined with a sample of Indian managers (Rai & Agarwal, 2017c).

Control Variables

Research suggests that age, gender and tenure are related to the perception of workplace bullying (Francioli et al., 2016; Lee & Brotheridge, 2013; Salin & Hoel, 2013; Notelaers, Vermunt, Baillien, Einarsen, & De Witte, 2011). As the primary focus of our study was to examine the personality traits–bullying relationships, therefore, to rule out alternative explanations for the findings because of the impact of these three variables, they were controlled. Age was measured as a continuous variable. Gender was modelled as a categorical variable. Employee job tenure was measured as years of service and was modelled as a continuous variable.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

	Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Age	32	8	1
2	Gender	0.80	0.39	0.239**	1
3	Tenure	8.7	7.7	0.446**	0.224**	1
4	Conscientiousness	4.0	0.62	0.204**	0.06	0.173**	(0.76)
5	Agreeableness	3.7	0.62	0.087*	0.06	0.064	0.438**	(0.70)
6	Extraversion	3.5	0.59	0.054	0.08	0.038	0.323**	0.298**	(0.75)
7	Openness to experience	3.7	0.45	0.046	0.084*	0.034	0.338**	0.237**	0.301**	(0.73)
8	Workplace bullying	1.8	0.87	−0.193**	−0.024	−0.166**	−0.382**	−0.345**	−0.194**	−0.259**	(0.97)

Source: The authors.

Notes: n = 835, alpha reliabilities are given in the parentheses. *p < 0.05;**p < 0.01;***p < 0.001.

Common Method Variance

Harman’s single-factor test was utilized to investigate potential CMV among the study variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The underlying assumption of Harman’s single-factor test is that if a substantial amount of CMV is present, one general factor will account for the majority (>50%) of the covariance among the variables. The results of this test showed that multiple factors were extracted and the first factor accounted for only 30 per cent of the total variance. As no dominant general factor was found in factor analysis, the concern for CMV could be partially mitigated.

Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and correlations) for the study variables. The zero-order correlations were all in the expected direction, indicating preliminary support for the relationships depicted in Figure 1. Conscientiousness (r = –0.38, p < 0.01), agreeableness (r = –0.34, p < 0.01), extraversion (r = –0.19, p < 0.01) and openness to experience (r = –0.25, p < 0.01) were found to be negatively correlated with workplace bullying.

Fit Indices

The chi-square test (x²), x² and the number of degrees of freedom (x²/df), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were considered to assess the model fit. The x² is the first and most basic test for evaluating the model’s fit. The smaller the value of the x² test and the significance, the closer the model is to be a perfect fit. The second indicator (x²/df) tests the ratio between x² and the number of degrees of freedom in the model and if this ratio is 3.0 or less, the model is considered to be a good fit. The GFI value above 0.95, AGFI value above 0.80, NFI value above 0.80 and CFI value above 0.95 indicate good fit (Hair, 2010). For RMSEA, values less than 0.05 generally indicate good fit, while values between 0.05 and 0.08 suggest acceptable fit (Kline, 2005). Our hypothesized model showed a good model fit with data as indicated by the acceptable limits of fit indices: CMIN = 3,720; df = 1,514; chi-square = 2.45; GFI = 0.95; AGFI = 0.84; NFI = 0.85; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.03.

Direct Effects

We found support for conscientiousness and bullying relationship (β = −0.29, p < 0.001); agreeableness and bullying relationship (β =−0.29, p < 0.001); extraversion and bullying relationship (β = −0.18, p < 0.05) and openness to experience and bullying relationship (β = −0.11, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between personality traits and exposure to workplace bullying. The present study contributes to the extant workplace literature by adding to the limited number of studies investigating the individual level antecedents of workplace bullying. The first significant contribution of this study lies in providing support for personality traits as potential antecedents of workplace bullying. By using the ‘Big Five’ as a structured framework, the notion of ‘individual disposition hypothesis’ has been supported. The results revealed that conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience were negatively correlated with workplace bullying. The second significant contribution of the present study lies in exploring the personality–bullying relationship on the basis of victim precipitation theory and thus brings a strong theoretical explanation for the personality–bullying relationship that was missing from the extant literature on bullying. The present study identified traits that exemplify provocative victims as well as submissive victims as described by this theory. Referring to the victim precipitation theory, two potential arguments were applied to explain provocative and submissive victims—victim’s personality may provoke aggression in others, or the victim may present himself/herself as an easy or vulnerable target. The present study predicted and found support that employees low in conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience fall under the category of provocative victims, whereas employees low in extraversion fall under the category of submissive victims. These findings also give an insight into the types of bullying behaviours. Einarsen (1999) has suggested that bullying can be divided into two different kinds, namely predatory and dispute-related bullying. In the predatory type, the victims may be bullied because they are assessed as easily defeated and, therefore, are easy targets to the predator’s aggression. Dispute-related bullying, on the other hand, is provoked by work-related conflicts which escalate into a bullying situation. Employees low in conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience may involve in dispute-related bullying, whereas employees low in extraversion may be victims of predatory bullying.

The study also contributes in terms of its context. Though workplace bullying is an extensively studied phenomenon in the Western context, the field is still not fully explored in the Indian context. The hierarchical nature of Indian society and collectivistic culture promoting casteism, relational orientation, deference, acquiescence and cronyism constitute critical features of workplace bullying (Béteille, 2006; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; S. Kakar & K. Kakar, 2007). Further, the changing corporate culture in Indian firms marked by increased workplace pressure and highly competitive work environments also directly or indirectly relates to onset as well as the promotion of bullying acts (Rai & Agarwal, 2017c). D’Cruz (2015), Ciby and Raya (2015), and Rai and Agarwal (2016, 2017a) are few of the Indian researchers involved in studying workplace bullying. Recent studies (D’Cruz & Rayner, 2013; Rai & Agarwal, 2017b) and popular surveys (e.g., ASSOCHAM, 2012; Job Portal Career Builder, 2014) have ascertained a high prevalence of bullying in Indian organizations (42–55%). However, to date, no antecedents of workplace bullying has been examined in the Indian context (Agarwal & Rai, in press). This is the first study examining antecedents of workplace bullying in the Indian context. Examining personality traits as antecedents of workplace bullying is especially relevant as the personality of the victims may be important in explaining perceptions and reactions to negative behaviours (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008), which, in turn, can help to understand the dynamics of workplace bullying.

Managerial Implications

Dealing effectively with bullying is a concern for both individuals and organizations (Djurkovic, McCormack, & Casimir, 2005). Better organizational rules, regulations and policies that protect employees from bullying and safeguard their interest are required (Akella, 2016). Like most anti-bullying policies across the globe, policies such as ‘zero-tolerance bullying policy at work’ and ‘managing with respect’ should be framed and strengthened in Indian organizations. These policies should include an explicit commitment to bullying-free environments and a clear description of the nature and forms of bullying behaviours (Richards & Daley, 2003; Salin, 2008) as well as the standard of the consequences of violating the organizational standards (Salin, 2008). HR professionals should also be provided guidelines and training to timely identify and manage bullying (Richards & Daley, 2003; Salin, 2008). Proper channels to report incidences of workplace bullying and grievance mechanisms to handle the cases of bullying within Indian organizations should be formed. Considering that employees may be reluctant to openly report bullying incidences in high power-distance cultures (as in India), anonymous reporting solutions like hotlines should be established. HR professionals should also focus on promoting professional etiquette, respectful attitude and congeniality among employees (Akella, 2016).

With specific reference to personality–bullying relationship, research investigating the types of employees that are most likely to become targets of bullying can help organizations identify at-risk individuals and empower them with the tools and resources they need to prevent mistreatment. The results show that employees low in conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and openness to experience are more likely to be targets of workplace bullying. It is critical for managers to understand the personality traits of their subordinates and tackle them accordingly. For instance, employees low in conscientiousness tend to be disorganized and careless; therefore, their managers should provide clear directions and guidance and set priorities for them. Proper and timely training and workshops for employees on personal growth might be particularly helpful as it may help them identify their weaknesses and ways to effectively overcome them. Such sessions may also provide employees with skills that result in more effective and appropriate social interactions. This, in turn, would help in identifying a potential target rather than having to wait until the individual becomes a victim and suffers the effects of persistent bullying (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although the results of this research supported the hypothesized relationships, there are some limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, we have used a cross-sectional design, which does not allow inferences to be drawn about the causal relationships between personality traits and workplace bullying. Future research could aim to conduct studies with a longitudinal research design. Based on the findings, we assert that certain personality traits of individuals predispose them to mistreatment by others. However, at the same time, we also acknowledge that not only the personality traits, but individual’s perceptions (negative perceptions mechanism) also play a vital role in deciding whether an individual will perceive himself a victim of bullying. Bullying is a perceptual variable (Lewis, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2005; Salin, 2003); therefore, individual perceptions should be taken into account while examining the antecedents or outcomes of bullying. Future research should cover both the personality traits of individuals and their perception of victimization.

The present study also offers some promising future research directions. The relationships between certain personality traits and workplace bullying may not be linear and this assumption needs to be challenged conceptually and empirically. Future research could explore the curvilinear relationship between personality traits and workplace bullying (Samnani & Singh, 2012). For example, employees may be more likely to experience workplace bullying at lower and higher levels of agreeableness, but not at moderate levels. Moderators and mediators should also be examined in the personality–bullying relationship as research suggests that moderators and mediators help us to better understand the inconclusive nature of the relationship between variables (S. K. Horwitz & I. B. Horwitz, 2007). Drawing on ‘Interactionist theory of behavior’ (Chatman, 1989), we suggest that to fully understand the dynamics of workplace bullying, researchers need to adopt a person-environment perspective and thoroughly examine the interaction of individual and work environment factors (organizational culture, climate, leadership style, job characteristics, etc.) as antecedents of workplace bullying. Using person–situation interactionism paradigm, employee personality could also serve as a boundary condition to influence employee perceptions and reactions towards workplace bullying (Samnani & Singh, 2015).

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Agarwal

U. A.

Rai

(in press). Exploring bullying among Indian managers: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Asia Business Studies .

Akella

(2016). Workplace bullying: Not a manager’s right? SAGE Open , 6(1). doi:10.1177/2158244016629394

Aquino

Lamertz

(2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89(6), 1023.

Aquino

Thau

(2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology , 60, 717–741.

ASSOCHAM. (2012). Majority of employees quit bosses and not jobs . Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/majority-of-employees-quit-bosses-and-not-jobs-assocham-112101200173_1.html

Baillien

Neyens

De Witte

De Cuyper

(2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology , 19(1), 1–16.

Balducci

Fraccaroli

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2011). Workplace bullying and its relation with work characteristics, personality, and post-traumatic stress symptoms: An integrated model. Anxiety, Stress & Coping , 24(5), 499–513.

Béteille

(2006). Ideology and social science . New Delhi: Penguin Books.

Bowling

N. A.

Beehr

T. A.

(2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91(5), 998.

10.

Brodsky

C. M.

(1976). The harassed worker . DC Heath & Co. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-28511-000

11.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Guido

(2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology , 22(3), 377–395.

12.

Chatman

J. A.

(1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review , 14(3), 333–349.

13.

Chauhan

S. P.

Chauhan

(2001). Are you aware how your personality type affects your behaviour? Global Business Review , 2(2), 289–304.

14.

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.

15.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Flachsbart

(2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93(6), 1080.

16.

Coyne

Seigne

Randall

(2000). Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 9(3), 335–349.

17.

Curtis

L. A.

(1974). Victim precipitation and violent crime. Social Problems , 21(4), 594–605.

18.

D’Cruz

(2015). Theorizing about depersonalized bullying at work. In Depersonalized bullying at work (pp. 59–75). Berlin: Springer.

19.

D’Cruz

Rayner

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

20.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology , 41(1), 417–440.

21.

Djurkovic

McCormack

Casimir

(2005). The behavioral reactions of victims to different types of workplace bullying. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior , 8(4), 439.

22.

Einarsen

(1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower , 20(1/2), 16–27.

23.

Einarsen

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

24.

Einarsen

Hoel

Cooper

(2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

25.

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.

26.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(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. 3–39). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

27.

Einarsen

Raknes

B. I.

Matthiesen

S. B.

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

28.

Francioli

Høgh

Conway

P. M.

Costa

Karasek

Hansen

Å. M.

(2016). Do personal dispositions affect the relationship between psychosocial working conditions and workplace bullying? Ethics & Behavior , 26(6), 451–469.

29.

Glasø

Matthiesen

S. B.

Nielsen

M. B.

Einarsen

(2007). Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 48(4), 313–319.

30.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59(6), 1216.

31.

Gulati

Bhal

K. T.

(2004). Personality and justice—Perceptions of the software professionals of India. Global Business Review , 5(2), 207–215.

32.

Hair

J. F.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis . Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/joe_hair/2/

33.

Helson

Jones

Kwan

V. S.

(2002). Personality change over 40 years of adulthood: Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of two longitudinal samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83(3), 752.

34.

Hendriks

A. A.

Perugini

Angleitner

Ostendorf

Johnson

J. A.

De Fruyt

Ruisel

(2003). The five-factor personality inventory: Cross-cultural generalizability across 13 countries. European Journal of Personality , 17(5), 347–373.

35.

Henle

C. A.

Gross

M. A.

(2014). What have I done to deserve this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics , 122(3), 461–474.

36.

Hoel

Cooper

C. L.

(2001). Origins of bullying: Theoretical frameworks for explaining workplace bullying. In Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (Vol. 3, p. 19).

37.

Hoel

Cooper

C. L.

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

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(eds.), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 129–148) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

38.

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(2002). Workplace bullying and stress. In Historical and current perspectives on stress and health (pp. 293–333). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

39.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization , 10(4), 15–41.

40.

Horwitz

S. K.

Horwitz

I. B.

(2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management , 33(6), 987–1015.

41.

Janoff-Bulman

(1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition , 7(2), 113–136.

42.

Jensen

J. M.

Patel

P. C.

Raver

J. L.

(2014). Is it better to be average? High and low performance as predictors of employee victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology , 99(2), 296.

43.

Job Portal Career Builder. (2014). 55% employees face bullying at workplace, fins new survey . Retrieved from http://www.firstpost.com/india/55-employees-face-bullying-workplace-fins-new-survey-1819055.html

44.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford.

45.

John

O. P.

Naumann

L. P.

Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford.

46.

Johnson

S. L.

(2009). International perspectives on workplace bullying among nurses: A review. International Nursing Review , 56(1), 34–40.

47.

Kakar

(2007). The Indians . New Delhi: Penguin Books.

48.

Kandalla

H. V.

Krishnan

V. R.

(2004). Impact of follower personality and organizational structure on transformational leadership. Global Business Review , 5(1), 15–25.

49.

Kim

Glomb

T. M.

(2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology , 99(4), 619.

50.

Kline

T. J.

(2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

51.

Lee

R. T.

Brotheridge

C. M.

(2013). Workplace aggression/bullying at the cross-roads: Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 28(3). doi: 10.1108/jmp.2013.05028caa.001

52.

Lewis

(2003). Voices in the social construction of bullying at work: Exploring multiple realities in further and higher education. International Journal of Management and Decision Making , 4(1), 65–81.

53.

Leymann

(1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims , 5(2), 119–126.

54.

Leymann

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

55.

Lind

Glasø

Pallesen

Einarsen

(2009). Personality profiles among targets and nontargets of workplace bullying. European Psychologist , 14(3), 231–237.

56.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

S. J.

Alberts

J. K.

(2005). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: A first time study of US prevalence and delineation of bullying ‘degree’ . Annual Conference, Western States Communication Association, San Francisco.

57.

Mayhew

McCarthy

Chappell

Quinlan

Barker

Sheehan

(2004). Measuring the extent of impact from occupational violence and bullying on traumatised workers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal , 16(3), 117–134.

58.

McCrae

R. R.

(1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin , 120(3), 323.

59.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 52(1), 81.

60.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa Jr

P. T.

Del Pilar

G. H.

Rolland

J. P.

Parker

W. D.

(1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: The revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 29(1), 171–188.

61.

Meyer

G. J.

Shack

J. R.

(1989). Structural convergence of mood and personality: Evidence for old and new directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57(4), 691.

62.

Mikkelsen

E. G. E.

Einarsen

(2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology , 11(1), 87–111.

63.

Moreno-Jiménez

Rodríguez-Muñoz

Pastor

J. C.

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

Garrosa

(2009). The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Personality and Individual Differences , 46(3), 359–364.

64.

Namie

(2007). The challenge of workplace bullying. Employment Relations Today , 34(2), 43–51.

65.

Naseer

Raja

Donia

M. B. L.

(2016). Effect of perceived politics and perceived support on bullying and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of type A personality. The Journal of Psychology , 150(5), 606–624.

66.

Nelson

Cooper

C. L.

(2007). Positive organizational behavior . London: SAGE Publications.

67.

Nielsen

M. B.

Glasø

Einarsen

(2017). Exposure to workplace harassment and the five factor model of personality: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences , 104, 195–206.

68.

Nielsen

M. B.

Knardahl

(2015). Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study. Work & Stress , 29(2), 128–149.

69.

Nielsen

M. B.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

(2008). Sense of coherence as a protective mechanism among targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 13(2), 128.

70.

Nielsen

M. B.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 83(4), 955–979.

71.

Notelaers

Vermunt

J. K.

Baillien

Einarsen

De Witte

(2011). Exploring risk groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Industrial Health , 49(1), 73–88.

72.

Olweus

(1994). Bullying at school. In Aggressive behavior (pp. 97–130). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_5

73.

Ones

D. S.

(2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance , 18(4), 389–404.

74.

Ones

D. S.

Viswesvaran

(2001). Integrity tests and other criterion-focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 9(1–2), 31–39.

75.

Parzefall

M. R.

Salin

D. M.

(2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations , 63(6), 761–780.

76.

Persson

Hogh

Hansen

Nordander

Ohlsson

Balogh

Ørbæk

(2009). Personality trait scores among occupationally active bullied persons and witnesses to bullying. Motivation and Emotion , 33(4), 387.

77.

Pervin

L. A.

(1993). Affect and personality . Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-98937-015

78.

Pervin

Cervone

Oliver

(2005). Theories of personality . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

79.

Pilch

Turska

(2015). Relationships between Machiavellianism, organizational culture, and workplace bullying: Emotional abuse from the target’s and the perpetrator’s perspective. Journal of Business Ethics , 128(1), 83–93.

80.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5), 879.

81.

Rai

Agarwal

U. A.

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

82.

Rai

Agarwal

U. A.

. (2017a). Linking workplace bullying and work engagement: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management , 4(1), 1–30.

83.

Rai

Agarwal

U. A.

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

84.

Rai

Agarwal

U. A.

. (2017c). Exploring nature of workplace bullying and psychometric properties of negative acts questionnaire: Revised (NAQ-R) in Indian organizations. Journal of Indian Business Research , 9(3), 229–247.

85.

Richards

Daley

(2003). Bullying policy: Development, implementation and monitoring. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 247–258). London: Taylor & Francis.

86.

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.

87.

Salin

. (2008). The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: Measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scandinavian Journal of Management , 24(3), 221–231.

88.

Salin

Hoel

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(2011). Organisational causes of workplace bullying. In Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 227–243).

89.

Samnani

A. K.

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

90.

Samnani

A. K.

Singh

(2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 17(6), 581–589.

91.

Samnani

A. K.

Singh

. (2015). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics , 139(3), 537–549.

92.

Saunders

Huynh

Goodman-Delahunty

(2007). Defining workplace bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 30(4), 340–354.

93.

Shi

Lin

Wang

(2009). Linking the big five personality constructs to organizational justice. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 37(2), 209–222.

94.

Shields

Wilkins

(2009). Factors related to on-the-job abuse of nurses by patients. Health Reports , 20(2), 7.

95.

Skogstad

Torsheim

Einarsen

Hauge

L. J.

(2011). Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Applied Psychology , 60(3), 475–495.

96.

Smith

T. W.

Williams

P. G.

(1992). Personality and health: Advantages and limitations of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality , 60(2), 395–425.

97.

Srivastava

John

O. P.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84(5), 1041.

98.

Tepper

B. J.

Henle

C. A.

(2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 32(3), 487–498.

99.

Vartia

(1996). The sources of bullying–psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 5(2), 203–214.

100.

Watson

Hubbard

(1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality , 64(4), 737–774.

101.

Williams

K. Y.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1998). A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior , 20, 77–140.

102.

Workplace Bullying Institute. (2014). Workplace Bullying Survey . Retrieved from http://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/WBI-2014-US-Survey.pdf

103.

Zabrodska

Ellwood

Zaeemdar

Mudrak

(2014). Workplace bullying as sensemaking: An analysis of target and actor perspectives on initial hostile interactions. Culture and Organization , 22(2), 136–157.

104.

Zapf

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

105.

Zapf

Einarsen

(2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 165–184.). London: Taylor & Francis.