Embracing New Directions in Workplace Bullying Research

Abstract

This article examines the workplace bullying literature through different paradigmatic lenses. To date, the workplace bullying literature has been dominated by the functionalist perspective, which currently represents the pervading paradigmatic approach in organizational research. The author destabilizes the functionalist approach by examining the workplace bullying literature through three alternative paradigms, namely, interpretivism, critical management theory, and postmodernism. This provides an illustration of the different ways in which workplace bullying can be perceived, understood, and researched. Moreover, because alternative paradigmatic lenses draw upon varying theoretical and methodological approaches, paradigmatic analysis can offer a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. The author uses these lenses to ground workplace bullying in paradigmatically driven theoretical frameworks, while using these theoretical frameworks to propose research questions that can direct us toward gaining a more composite body of scholarship.

Keywords

workplace bullying workplace aggression paradigms power relations

Introduction

Interest and scholarly attention on workplace bullying has grown significantly over the past two decades (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). Although this area of research is still developing and emerging, it has been characterized by a predominantly functionalist paradigmatic approach. Burrell and Morgan (1979) described the functionalist perspective as one that is “firmly rooted in the sociology of regulation and approaches its subject matter from an objectivist point of view” (p. 25). Although functionalism currently represents the dominant paradigm in organizational research, other paradigmatic approaches can also enrich the literature with alternative viewpoints and ways of understanding organizational phenomena (Clegg, 2010; Suddaby, 2010). The importance of paradigms in organizational research was emphasized by Guba and Lincoln (1994) when they stated, “Paradigm issues are crucial; no inquirer, we maintain, ought to go about the business of inquiry without being clear about just what paradigm informs and guides his or her approach” (p. 116).

The paradigmatic view of researchers who have examined workplace bullying has been characteristic of a functionalist approach. In contrast, very few researchers have attempted to understand workplace bullying from a nonfunctionalist paradigm (e.g., Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2006; Liefooghe & Davey, 2001; McCarthy, 2003; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). Consequently, investigations of workplace bullying have remained limited in deep description and detail (Tracy et al., 2006), which has led to a largely disproportionate emphasis on understanding workplace bullying as an interpersonal problem. As the study of workplace bullying has been emerging in management literature (Fox & Stallworth, 2010), I believe that it is time to encourage a broadening of ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches to the study and analysis of workplace bullying. To accomplish this, I use Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework which, despite being written over 30 years ago, has been referred to in recent years as the “dominant paradigm model in organizational analysis” (Brand, 2009, p. 434).

There is considerable merit derived from studying organizational phenomena, such as workplace bullying, from alternative paradigms and lenses. To illustrate, different paradigms involve different worldviews and assumptions about human nature (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Because each paradigm consists of its own set of assumptions and views, any single paradigm will result in only partial knowledge about the phenomenon investigated (Romani, Primecz, & Topcu, 2011). Moreover, a field of inquiry can benefit from a clearer understanding of the philosophical assumptions that underlie the paradigmatic approach used to produce its findings. What is more, although Bailey, Ford, and Raelin (2009) acknowledged the positive contributions made by functionalist approaches, they interestingly argue that “interpretivist methods are better suited for eliciting and managing change” (p. 35). Hence, understanding interpretivist and other nonfunctionalist approaches can be particularly useful for a phenomenon such as workplace bullying in which little progress has been made to suggest changes that would deter bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). When researchers use multiple paradigms to inform their understanding of an organizational phenomenon, the knowledge derived as a whole will be richer and more complete. Therefore, this article contributes to the bullying literature through applying a multiparadigm approach that offers several insights for the field, while also illustrating for management scholars how a single phenomenon can be understood in very different ways, each leading to valuable theoretical and pragmatic avenues.

The workplace bullying literature has primarily focused on bullying as an interpersonal issue between two or more employees (see Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Einarsen et al., 2011). Moreover, workplace bullying research has largely focused on quantitative analysis of individual differences in an attempt to predict which characteristics lead to bullying (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Glaso, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007). This can be attributed to the dominance of a paradigm that views subject matter objectively. Thus, investigations rooted in alternative paradigms can make important contributions to our understanding of the phenomenon (see Brand, 2009). Three alternative paradigms will be used in this article to understand workplace bullying. In terms of theory, each paradigm challenges some of the key assumptions in the other paradigms (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). For example, the interpretivist paradigm places great importance on understanding and exploring the meanings that individuals (in this case, targets and perpetrators) attach to their experiences in the workplace. Conversely, the critical management theory paradigm carves out the role of power and alienation in institutions. This can direct attention toward the deeper rooted issues that may be stimulating the interpersonal forms of bullying focused on in the literature. Finally, the postmodernist paradigm challenges the assumption of a single truth, thus directing our attention toward the many realities that exist to explain bullying. In sum, there is much that can be learned from each paradigm, while different paradigms can also learn from each other (Suddaby, 2010). I will shortly discuss each of these paradigms in greater length within each of their respective sections.

In this article, I first provide an overview of the workplace bullying literature. Thereafter, I divide the analysis into four major sections, each reflecting an alternative paradigm by which workplace bullying research may draw upon. These four paradigms are functionalism, interpretivism, critical management theory, and postmodernism. For each paradigm, I introduce its worldview and perspective, and extend each to the context of workplace bullying. Finally, I conclude with a discussion highlighting our path toward a more composite body of scholarship.

A Paradigmatic Approach to Workplace Bullying

Workplace Bullying: An Overview

Workplace bullying began to receive scholarly attention only two decades ago. In 1990, Heinz Leymann reported that similar bullying behaviors were present among adults in the workplace as those that he found in his research on childhood bullying. Although definitions of workplace bullying have varied (Nielsen et al., 2010), a few key features have been more commonly agreed upon and used to define and measure bullying. To constitute workplace bullying, the positivist literature suggests that behaviors must be frequent (i.e., at least once a week), persistent (i.e., over a minimum duration of 6 months), hostile (i.e., negative intent), and a power imbalance must exist between the perpetrator and target (not necessarily hierarchical power; Bulutlar & Unler Oz, 2009).

The notion of developing and using a definition of bullying would be met with friction across alternative paradigms. More specifically, nonfunctionalist paradigms steer away from the application of definitions for concepts/phenomena. Instead, bullying is in the eye of the beholder according to such paradigms. To illustrate, when finding that participants labeled the organization as the bully rather than any individual perpetrator, Liefooghe and Davey (2001) suggested that the organization itself may be labeled as a bully. Moreover, the authors suggested that the organization’s disciplinary practices such as threats of dismissal represented forms of bullying. Thus, nonfunctionalist approaches tend to avoid placing boundaries around what constitutes bullying. Functionalist approaches, in contrast, typically develop a definition of bullying that is used to set boundaries around the behaviors being referred to and measured.

To date, studies in the workplace bullying literature have largely focused on three major areas. First, researchers have investigated the prevalence rates of workplace bullying (e.g., Einarsen, Raknes, & Mathiesen, 1994; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2010). These studies suggest that the extent to which workplace bullying is prevalent in a country, organization, or industry can be measured quantitatively. Second, a number of researchers have focused on identifying antecedents of workplace bullying (e.g., Aquino & Thau, 2009; Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Glaso et al., 2007; Heames, Harvey, & Treadway, 2006). For example, these researchers have found that antecedents such as negative affect (e.g., Glaso et al., 2007), personality factors (e.g., Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000), and ethnicity (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005) are associated with workplace bullying. Third, several researchers have examined the negative physical, psychological, and work-related consequences of workplace bullying for the target (e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004). For parsimony, I focus specifically on the second theme—antecedents of bullying—as this stream of research within the bullying literature has received comparatively greater attention. In addition, exploring the causes of bullying lends itself well to alternative paradigm illustrations because of the broad differences that each paradigm attributes as the root causes of bullying.

Paradigms in Organizational Research

Table 1 sets the foundation for the comparative analysis to be conducted and will guide the remaining sections of this article. For each paradigm, I discuss the constructs/notions, theoretical explanations/frameworks, methods, and pragmatic implications. I conclude each section with key research questions that should be considered in future studies. The research questions proposed within the nonfunctionalist paradigm sections are formulated through problematization, rather than gap-spotting (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). The diversity in theoretical and methodological approaches rooted in alternative lenses can make a significant contribution toward advancing a field (Hazlett, McAdam, & Gallagher, 2005). Therefore, this table serves as an illustration of this potential diversity of scholarship, while also encouraging future research to adopt and broaden their paradigmatic lenses.

Table 1.

A Comparison of Paradigmatic Approaches to Workplace Bullying

	Functionalism	Interpretivism	Critical management theory	Postmodernism
Constructs/notions	-Personality -Demographics -Leadership	-Interpretations -Experiences -Sense making	-Power -Domination	-Power -Control
Theoretical explanations/frameworks	Victim precipitation theory	Symbolic interactionism	Radical Weberian theory of bureaucracy and authority	Foucauldian theory of power
Methods	Quantitative and qualitative	Qualitative	Qualitative	Qualitative
Pragmatic implications	-Hiring -Socialization -Training	Rich description of bullying issues and problems	Ethical issues around power within management	-Understanding of various “truths” -Ethical issues

The focus will now turn to the paradigm typology posited by Burrell and Morgan (1979), which I extend to include postmodernism. Postmodernism is included because of its growing application in organizational research, along with its current use in the bullying literature (e.g., Hutchinson et al., 2006; McCarthy, 2003). Although other paradigm models do exist (e.g., Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994), I use Burrell and Morgan’s typology because of its comparatively wide acceptance in, and applicability to, organizational analysis (Brand, 2009). Furthermore, although I acknowledge the considerable diversity that exists even within each paradigm (see Burrell & Morgan, 1979), I use these broader paradigms as overarching frameworks to allow for a reasonable starting point and clearer differentiation between each paradigm.

Functionalism

Functionalism reflects an approach to research that is grounded in understanding and explaining the order and regularities of social affairs while approaching subject matter from an objectivist perspective (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). More specifically, researchers from a functionalist paradigm use a positivist epistemology, which suggests that knowledge can be acquired and discovered. Hence, positivist research seeks to explain affairs through the discovery of regularities and causal relationships that exist between variables of interest. Much of the extant workplace bullying research reflects a functionalist approach. The following discussion will highlight the key constructs, theoretical explanations, methods, and pragmatic implications that functionalist research has drawn upon in the workplace bullying literature. Moreover, the theoretical framework selected will be used to frame the methods, pragmatic implications, and research questions. A similar structure will follow in each paradigm section. In doing so, I offer contributions to the workplace bullying literature by extending theory within each paradigm. Furthermore, the aspects highlighted in this section will later be used to juxtapose the alternative paradigms within their respective sections. Finally, because I believe that each paradigm contributes toward, and can further develop, our understanding of workplace bullying, I conclude by proposing research questions that extend extant functionalist bullying research.

Workplace bullying research using a functionalist lens has investigated a number of key constructs in relation to the antecedents of bullying. To illustrate, researchers have examined whether certain personality characteristics of the target can predict whether bullying occurs. Specifically, researchers have reported that neuroticism is positively associated with workplace bullying (e.g., Coyne et al., 2000; Glaso et al., 2007). This suggests that employees who have high levels of anxiety and sadness are more likely to experience bullying. Similarly, researchers have reported that employee demographics such as race/ethnicity is related to bullying (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Finally, researchers have reported that laissez-faire leadership can predict workplace bullying (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). Aquino and Thau (2009) provided a more extensive discussion of the large number of antecedents that have been reported.

Although theoretical development in the workplace bullying literature has been referred to as weak (Baillien et al., 2009; Parzefall & Salin, 2010), a few theories have been drawn upon to broaden our understanding of this phenomenon. These include victim precipitation theory (Aquino & Thau, 2009), social exchange theory (Parzefall & Salin, 2010), social learning theory (Parzefall & Salin, 2010), and social identity theory (Ramsay, Troth, & Branch, 2011). Of these theories, victim precipitation theory represents the most pertinent theory related to understanding the antecedents of workplace bullying; thus, I focus specifically on this theory. Victim precipitation theory suggests that certain characteristics of an employee will provoke victimizing (bullying) behaviors from a perpetrator (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). Hence, victim precipitation theory focuses on identifying characteristics that may make an individual more likely to experience bullying. This theory is particularly suitable to, and demonstrative of, a functionalist lens because of its focus on identifying factors that researchers can measure to determine whether they are causally related to the outcome, workplace bullying.

Although functionalism does use a diverse range of methods to investigate its research questions—quantitative and qualitative—the majority is quantitative. Drawing upon victim precipitation theory, a functionalist lens suggests that we can understand why workplace bullying occurs by measuring targets’ personality or race/ethnicity, as examples, and explain social affairs through causal relationships and regularities. Such an approach is fairly deterministic through its implication that one variable (e.g., personality) causes another variable (e.g., workplace bullying) to occur and that bullying and personality can be objectively measured. When researchers seek to test victim precipitation theory, they will typically measure whether there is a relationship between certain employee characteristics and bullying. The functionalist lens is also fairly deterministic in its measurement of bullying. In most cases, researchers request respondents to indicate whether they have experienced a number of behaviors that prior research has predetermined to constitute bullying (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Qualitative studies using a functionalist approach also use a similar pattern of investigation whereby the researchers attempt to determine whether certain types of employees or processes are more likely to result in bullying (e.g., Baillien et al., 2009; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007). However, these functionalist-based qualitative approaches will seek to identify these relationships through the use of interviews or ethnography, for example. The nature of predictions and causal relationships in such approaches distinguish them as functionalist. Although qualitative approaches typically have limitations in researchers’ ability to generalize their findings, functionalist approaches that use quantitative methods often report findings that are deemed to be generalizable.

Finally, a central focus of functionalist research is to provide practical solutions for problems in the workplace (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Consequently, this typically leads to an emphasis on prescription that is managerialist in nature. To illustrate using victim precipitation theory, contending that an employee’s demographic (e.g., gender, age, race) can stimulate bullying situations tends to place blame on the target. Moreover, Baillien et al. (2009) asserted that employees who exit the organization because of bullying are suggested to act in an “active and destructive manner,” whereas employees who withstand the bullying and continue to focus on performing well in their job are considered to be demonstrating “loyalty.” This further illustrates how functionalist approaches can lead researchers to blame the target. Such examples also shed light on the psychological components involved, which often lead targets to question whether they are in fact to blame for being subjected to bullying (Einarsen et al., 2011). Researchers often cite hiring, socialization, and/or training practices as pragmatic implications of their research (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Moreover, functionalist researchers may recommend practitioners to prevent bullying behaviors because of the potential costs incurred through lawsuits (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010), thus drawing on legal concerns.

Although a significant amount of research on the individual and interpersonal antecedents of workplace bullying exists, there has been a paucity of research on group and organizational stimulants. Drawing on victim precipitation theory, functionalist approaches can contribute further to the literature by investigating whether certain employee characteristics are more likely to provoke bullying behaviors within group settings. Similarly, researchers can also examine whether certain characteristics make an individual more likely to experience bullying in certain organizational cultures, climates, structures, and rewards systems. Moreover, future research should also investigate whether these characteristics differ based on whether the perpetrator is a supervisor, peer, or nonemployee (e.g., customer). Researchers may also test victim precipitation theory by examining whether employee characteristics can be used to predict bullying after considering and potentially controlling for psychosocial risks at the organizational level (Leka, Cox, & Zwetsloot, 2008). Investigating these research questions using victim precipitation theory would contribute to a more well-rounded understanding of the antecedents of bullying within the functionalist paradigm. Although research focusing on the causal relationships and regularities can be important to the literature, interpretivist approaches focused on strong description of the issues and phenomena can also further enrich and make key contributions to the literature.

Interpretivism

The interpretivist paradigm can be distinguished from the functionalist paradigm based on its subjectivist approach to organizational phenomena (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Although there is considerable diversity within the interpretivist paradigm (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; McKenna, Singh, & Richardson, 2008), I focus on its shared common elements (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997). The emphasis within interpretivism is to understand the social world at the level of individual meaning and experience (McKenna et al., 2008; Romani et al., 2011). In interpretivism, it is important to investigate and understand phenomena from the frame of reference of the participants directly involved in the event (Brand, 2009). Moreover, such approaches seek to understand the subjective experiences of those being studied and the meanings that they attach to events or phenomena. Researchers using an interpretivist approach seek to understand bullying experiences from the frame of reference of the target and/or the perpetrator. I will use the interpretivist paradigm to juxtapose functionalism and will discuss key notions, theoretical frameworks, methods, and pragmatic implications, and offer research questions. Moreover, I formulate these research questions based on problematization, which is directed toward challenging underlying assumptions in the dominant paradigm (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011).

Interpretivist researchers seek to understand participants’ interpretations, experiences, and sense-making processes, rather than measuring specific constructs. Hence, the focus is firmly centered on the participant and delving deep into events through the participant’s specific experiences. Researchers from the interpretivist paradigm would view the positivist, and often univocal, approach to workplace bullying reflected in functionalism to be problematic. As mentioned, workplace bullying researchers from a functionalist paradigm typically develop and/or apply a definition of workplace bullying, while using a scale to subsequently measure whether an individual has been “bullied” (Einarsen et al., 2011). In contrast, researchers using an interpretivist lens approach bullying more subjectively and allow participants to provide rich descriptions of their experiences (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Romani et al., 2011). Furthermore, interpretivist researchers use this data to derive an understanding of the particular context in which the bullying occurred. In addition to understanding the rich context surrounding the bullying events, interpretivist researchers also seek to understand the meanings that targets attach to their bullying experiences. This can include an understanding of the ways in which targets rationalize their experiences. Therefore, this approach clearly contrasts extant research in the workplace bullying literature that attempts to identify causal relationships through the measurement of specific constructs (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Hoel et al., 2010).

Although there are several theoretical frameworks that an interpretivist researcher may draw upon, symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) can be particularly useful for exploring employees’ understanding of their bullying experiences. To illustrate, symbolic interactionism focuses on the meanings that individuals attach to social interactions (Blumer, 1969). In particular, individuals tend to make interpretations about, and define, others’ actions. Hence, symbolic interactionism can help inform our understanding of workplace bullying by exploring the ways in which targets interpret and define the actions of the perpetrator (see Romani et al., 2011). Moreover, this will lend insight into the meanings that the target attaches to the perpetrator’s behaviors, which may evolve over the duration of the bullying experience. Similarly, symbolic interactionism can help explain the meanings that perpetrators attach to targets’ actions, to rationalize or justify their behaviors. This can allow researchers to theoretically understand the “symbols” involved.

To understand the meanings targets attach to their experiences, interpretivist researchers use methods that enable them to capture such information (McKenna et al., 2008). Therefore, interpretivist researchers will tend to draw from a variety of qualitative methods. For instance, interviews and/or narratives can enable the researcher to provide voice to participants so that these participants can sufficiently describe their experiences. Ethnographic approaches that involve close interaction with participants may also be used by interpretivist researchers. In using these methodological approaches, researchers can focus on understanding the experiences of targets and the meanings they attach to these experiences within the symbolic interactionist framework. This illustrates an emphasis of interpretivist research on description rather than prescription. In sum, the focus of interpretivist research is on describing the experiences and meanings attached to phenomena such as workplace bullying.

A study by Tracy et al. (2006) can help illustrate the contribution that an interpretivist approach can offer to the extant literature. Tracy et al.’s study on workplace bullying resembled an interpretivist approach through its emphasis on understanding the emotional pain that employees suffered after experiencing workplace bullying. In particular, they carried out in-depth interviews and focus groups to allow participants to articulate their emotional pain and describe how they viewed themselves and the bullies. For example, participants used pictorial signs and metaphors such as slaves, prisoners, and animals to describe themselves when they were targeted by the bully and two-faced actors and devil figures as metaphors to describe the bully (Tracy et al., 2006). This approach allowed the researchers to understand how participants felt during the bullying by using metaphors to understand the meanings they attached to their experiences. The use of metaphors can be a powerful tool in research (Cornelissen, Oswick, Christensen, & Phillips, 2008), which in this case enabled the researchers to meaningfully understand how targets interpreted their experiences. Therefore, such explorations shed light on some of the psychological components involved; however, it did so in a way that clearly differs from functionalist approaches.

There can be significant value in examining workplace bullying from an interpretivist perspective not only from a theoretical perspective but also from a practical perspective. An interpretivist approach can provide significant insight into the context surrounding the bullying events. This can inform practitioners about some of the natural interactions that may subsequently evolve and emerge into workplace bullying. Furthermore, rich description of the experiences and interpretations of targets, and how these events have affected their everyday experiences, may also boost practitioners’ and policy makers’ willingness to rectify the potential issues leading to bullying in organizations. An interpretivist approach can be extended to offer theoretical and practical values through rich description of participants’ experiences.

Although interpretivist approaches in the workplace bullying literature have been sparse, this nonetheless presents an opportunity to undertake such research. The above discussion on theoretical frameworks and methods provide the foundation for some interesting research questions. Based on symbolic interactionism, researchers should investigate how the nature of the interactions between employees emerge and evolve into bullying. Building on Tracy et al.’s (2006) study, researchers should draw from a symbolic interactionist framework to understand the meanings that targets and perpetrators attach to their bullying experiences. Although Tracy et al. (2006) used metaphors, researchers may additionally ask participants to provide rich narratives to carve out their interpretations of the events. Metaphors in workplace bullying research can help targets explain their painful experiences, and I encourage researchers to draw upon both deductively (i.e., imposed) and inductively (i.e., in situ natural) derived metaphors (Cornelissen et al., 2008). Finally, researchers may also use seminal work by Weick (1995) to investigate the sense-making processes of targets and perpetrators. This would provide insight into the ways in which targets and perpetrators make sense of, and rationalize, their bullying experiences (Weick, 2012).

Critical Management Theory

In this section, I collapse radical humanism and radical structuralism into a single section called “critical management theory” and focus on the shared aspects of these two paradigms that emphasize critical analysis and radical change (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Critical management theory differs from the previous two paradigms based on its focus on questioning and challenging the status quo (Brand, 2009). To illustrate, this approach may examine how employees are dominated into a certain way of thinking and interacting. Consequently, a critical approach seeks to enable individuals to overcome this domination through identifying their authentic or true self (see Vannini & Franzese, 2008). In this discussion of critical management theory, I will discuss notions of power, radical Weberian theory of bureaucracy and authority, methods, pragmatic implications, and conclude with research questions.

A critical management theory perspective is based largely on notions of power. Although the workplace bullying literature gives considerable importance to power imbalance between the perpetrator and target, critical management theory focuses on broader issues of power within institutions. Hence, the focus of critical management theory is largely systemic and structural (Hocking & Guy, 2008). To illustrate, Antonio Gramsci’s notions of power would suggest that workplace bullying stems from “ideological hegemony.” Specifically, this concept suggests that individuals adopt a belief system that has been formulated by the “ruling class” and which suggests that order, authority, and discipline are necessary (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This belief system then significantly reduces the likelihood that targets resist acts of bullying and instead accepts the position of power of the bully. In such contexts, abusive management practices may be viewed simply as implementing the needed levels of order, authority, and discipline, which normalizes the situation in the eyes of society and the target (Hazen, 1994).

Researchers may draw upon several theoretical frameworks to support a critical management theory perspective. In the context of workplace bullying, a radical Weberian theory of bureaucracy (Eldridge & Crombie, 1974) can be particularly insightful. To illustrate, the radical Weberian theory of bureaucracy sheds light on management’s inclination toward dehumanized and impersonal relations in the organization. This represents an insightful explanation of workplace bullying, whereby when such forms of workplace relations (i.e., dehumanizing and impersonal relations) are prevalent, this will tend to make employees less considerate of the feelings of peers or subordinates. In addition to relations in the workplace, the radical Weberian approach (see Burrell & Morgan, 1979) may also view workplace bullying as a reflection of the structural and power relationships in wider society. In other words, researchers would be interested in understanding how the wider structural elements of society influence bullying within organizations. In particular, when structural and power relationships in wider society do not reflect those in the workplace, peers from less advantaged groups may be subjected to bullying behaviors within organizations.

Critical management theory researchers, similar to interpretivist researchers, seek to understand organizational phenomena through the frame of reference of the actors directly involved (i.e., targets; perpetrators; Brand, 2009). Hence, they draw upon a range of qualitative methodologies such as interviews, narratives, and ethnography to delve into the experiences of these actors. Therefore, researchers drawing upon radical Weberian theory will tend to use methods such as interviews and narratives to understand the way in which targets come to feel dominated in organizations. Moreover, methods of analysis such as discourse analysis can be used to uncover the various discourses used to normalize bullying in the workplace. Discourse analysis represents an important analytical tool that multiple paradigms may draw upon (Phillips, Sewell, & Jaynes, 2008) but particularly critical management theory and postmodernism (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). A study by Liefooghe and Davey (2001) draws upon critical management theory to understand workplace bullying, while employing a qualitative approach to understanding power issues and management discourse. This study is used below to illustrate a critical management approach to workplace bullying.

Liefooghe and Davey (2001) found that employees in their study often attributed bullying behaviors to the organization, which portrays the organization as the bully, rather than individual perpetrators. Furthermore, Liefooghe and Davey (2001) argued that through the measurement and reward structures implemented by organizations, managers are often left as “scapegoats” in the process because they too are subjected to reward structures that punish them for not meeting established performance targets. Participants identified terms such as “discipline,” which is used to threaten employees to meet their performance metrics, as a form of constant bullying that they are subjected to. Furthermore, Liefooghe and Davey (2001) contended that organizations exercise power and control over employees, albeit in a discrete manner, entailing organizational processes as a form of bullying on employees.

Although critical management theory is not focused on offering pragmatic implications to employers from a performance perspective (McKenna et al., 2008), contributions toward becoming a more ethical and fair organization can certainly be offered (Phillips, 2006). I will draw upon Liefooghe and Davey’s (2001) study for illustration. Liefooghe and Davey (2001) shed light on a number of employee concerns, which very likely affected their well-being and satisfaction. Their study’s findings can be used to sensitize employers to management practices that can negatively, rather than positively, affect employees. These can include the strict monitoring of performance metrics, constant threats of punishment, and fostering of conditions that result in interpersonal bullying incidents. Finally, although functionalist researchers may advocate the reduction of bullying behaviors due to performance considerations, it is important to also recognize the ethical considerations involved (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; LaVan & Martin, 2008). Critical approaches to workplace bullying can reveal the ethically questionable nature of management practices. In particular, critical approaches can help practitioners and policy makers recognize the harmful effects that notions of power and control can have on employees in the form of stimulating bullying among employees.

There has been a paucity of research that investigates workplace bullying from a critical management theory lens. Therefore, there are a number of potentially important research questions that can serve to stimulate this research. Extending radical Weberian theory, researchers should investigate how power and bureaucratic structures within the organization stimulate bullying behaviors within the organization. In addition, researchers should also explore how power and bureaucratic structures stimulate (or constrain) coping mechanisms on the part of the target. Moreover, researchers can also investigate the role of class relations outside the workplace to understand how bullying may sometimes reflect class conflict. Finally, researchers should also extend Liefooghe and Davey’s (2001) study to understand how reward and punishment structures in organizations, which reflect notions of power and domination, can facilitate bullying behaviors.

Postmodernism

The postmodernist perspective is particularly critical of functionalist approaches to research. In this context, postmodernism refers to the presence of multiple “truths” rather than a single and objective truth (Cooper & Burrell, 1988). In other words, postmodernist research argues that human reason is limited, thus implying that a single and final truth cannot exist (Bauman, 1992). Furthermore, postmodernism seeks to understand and serve the interests of the individual (e.g., target) rather than the institutional and professional interests that tend to stimulate bullying (McCarthy, 2003). Postmodernists view the term “workplace bullying” as a signifier that provides expression and meaning for a variety of behaviors that inflict some form of abuse (e.g., emotional, physical), which cannot be classified under the current legal definitions of violence, assault, sexual harassment, or so on (McCarthy, 2003). Moreover, the label of “bullying” as a signifier of these behaviors is intended to help mobilize the interests of targets by providing recognition of such negative behaviors and can ultimately result in useful remedies (McCarthy, 2003). Although postmodernism shares similarities with critical management theory, particularly its critical views of management and its focus on notions of power, this lens also differs in many ways as will be illustrated (see Alvesson & Deetz, 1996). I will discuss key notions of power and control, the Foucauldian theoretical framework, methods, pragmatic implications, and conclude with key research questions.

Postmodernism is particularly interested in notions of control. Furthermore, postmodernist research explores a number of avenues through which control can be exerted in organizations. To illustrate, researchers have investigated the use of language (Dent, 1995) and how discourse can represent a form of control (Derrida, 1981). For instance, the discourse of high-performance work systems, which has been largely presented as rational and beneficial for employees and managers through functionalist approaches, has nevertheless been associated with work intensification (Burke & Cooper, 2008). A postmodernist approach deconstructing language would suggest that the discourse of high-performance work systems hides the contradictions associated with the term (Cooper & Burrell, 1988), whereby such systems are designed to control employee efforts in a way that places work performance above their own well-being and work–life balance. Indeed, such systems may result in bullying situations through increased stress and peer monitoring (Salin, 2003). Interestingly, this form of control is exercised through what management portrays as legitimate processes. Therefore, targets tend to perceive bullying acts as normal or natural (Hutchinson et al., 2006). Finally, management practices also produce organizational obedience through the simple exertion of this power (Clegg, 1993). Therefore, postmodernist researchers perceive management techniques such as accounting practices, performance management, and procedure manuals as methods of reinforcing power relations within an organization (Hutchinson et al., 2006).

Within postmodernism, Foucauldian theories of power (Foucault, 1977), henceforth referred to as Foucauldian theory, has provided a potent framework for understanding organizational phenomena. Foucault has been particularly interested in notions of power and control, which provides an alternative way of understanding workplace bullying (Hutchinson et al., 2006). For instance, Foucauldian theory would suggest that individuals are constantly supervised through power (Alvesson, Wilmot, & Briarcliff, 1992). Moreover, Foucauldian theory may highlight the constant surveillance by management of employees’ behaviors and tasks (Foucault, 1988; Hutchinson et al., 2006; Panayiotou & Kafiris, 2011), which researchers have identified as a form of workplace bullying (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).

Similar to the interpretivist and critical management theory approaches, postmodernism uses qualitative methods to investigate organizational phenomena. As mentioned, postmodernist researchers are particularly opposed to the notion of an objective, single truth (Dent, 1995). This perspective would lead them to view positivist studies, which suggest that certain organizational structures or individual personality traits represent antecedents of workplace bullying, to be problematic. Instead, postmodernists would be more likely to use interviews or textual material to engage in discourse analysis (Brand, 2009), providing yet another way in which the phenomenon of workplace bullying can be understood and described.

In terms of pragmatic implications, postmodernism offers similar contributions as critical management theory. Because the focus of critical management theory and postmodernism is on the emancipation of employees, the pragmatic implications are less intended for the enhancement of performance. Instead, the pragmatic implications are often centered on ethical issues. Moreover, practitioners and policy makers can benefit from understanding the ways in which control in organizations can adversely affect and alienate employees, which concerns ethical considerations. To illustrate, research has found that bullying is particularly prevalent for nurses (Farrell, 2001). Although practitioners are often puzzled at the high levels of bullying prevalence in hospitals, a study using a postmodernist approach helped offer an explanation for this (see Hutchinson et al., 2006). Specifically, the authors suggested that the public sector hospital system, which has been subjected to changing institutional structures resulting in increased bureaucratization, has led to greater managerial control. Through such increases in control, close monitoring, and disciplinary techniques, bullying behaviors by senior and more experienced nurses come to reflect the reinforcing of rules and power (Hutchinson et al., 2006). Postmodernist research can be used to understand the role of power and control in stimulating bullying situations, which can enable organizations to gain a better understanding of some of the practices and policies that can stimulate unintended negative behaviors from employees.

Although there have been a couple of studies investigating workplace bullying from a postmodernist perspective (Hutchinson et al., 2006; McCarthy, 2003), I offer research questions to stimulate further postmodernist efforts. Building on Hutchinson et al.’s (2006) study and Foucauldian theory, researchers should focus more specifically on how various control mechanisms can stimulate bullying situations. In-depth interviews with targets and perpetrators can shed important light on such processes. Moreover, this can shift some of the focus away from viewing bullying as a cause of interpersonal conflicts, while elucidating the role of control and disciplinary mechanisms. Furthermore, researchers should investigate how language and discourse is used to facilitate bullying. This may also add insight into how power relations in organizations are reinforced in the context of workplace bullying.

Toward a More Composite Body of Scholarship

In this article, I offered a multiparadigmatic approach to workplace bullying using Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework, while extending this framework to include postmodernism. Through identifying alternative approaches to functionalism, which represents the dominant paradigm in the workplace bullying literature, this article offers different ways of understanding this phenomenon. For instance, an interpretivist approach would provide rich description focused on understanding the meanings targets and perpetrators attach to bullying behaviors. Furthermore, this would provide the participant with voice, which allows for a more balanced approach to research by integrating the perspectives of employees (McKenna et al., 2008). Conversely, a critical management theory perspective may identify how dehumanized and impersonal workplace relations stimulate bullying behaviors in an organization. Alternatively, this perspective may view workplace bullying as a reflection of power relations (e.g., gender, race) in the wider society. Finally, the postmodernist perspective may focus on power, control, and surveillance, while analyzing workplace bullying as a form of exercising this control. The interpretivist, critical management theory, and postmodernist perspectives utilize a variety of methodological and analytical approaches, which can enrich the extant literature with new research questions and means of conducting research. Therefore, enriching the workplace bullying literature with alternative views will help broaden our understanding of the phenomenon. The table presented earlier (see Table 1) provides a summary of the conclusions for each paradigm.

Conclusion

The analysis in this article represents the first to introduce and apply alternative paradigms to the workplace bullying literature in a comparative manner. By introducing and applying these paradigms, this article illustrates how workplace bullying can be researched and understood in different ways and in the process exemplifies how this paradigmatic comparison can be applied to many phenomena of interest. For instance, nonfunctionalist approaches to workplace bullying would resist imposing researcher definitions of workplace bullying. Instead, these approaches would allow participants to share their experiences while seeking to understand the broader forces at play. Although a number of advancements in the workplace bullying literature can be attributed to the functionalist paradigm, I believe that nonfunctionalist paradigms can further complement these advancements by shedding light on important issues such as interpretations, power, and control.

Bullying problems in an organization not only adversely affect employee and group performance but also compromises employee well-being. All paradigms, I believe, will tend to agree that employees should not be subjected to bullying behaviors given the suffering such behaviors tend to induce. Each paradigm will, however, seek to understand the causes of bullying differently, which can range from the examination of interpersonal conflicts to exploring deeper rooted issues stemming from power and control. Each paradigm also holds its own philosophical assumptions, which will influence the findings reported. By exploring the causes of bullying through multiple paradigms, this article illustrates the importance of understanding these philosophical assumptions. In doing so, this article makes a key contribution to the literature. It provides a more complete understanding of workplace bullying through the application of different paradigms. More specifically, this article explored how workplace bullying can be understood through the meanings that individuals attach to the bullying behaviors, the notions of power and domination through bureaucracy and wider structural elements of society, and notions of control through discourse and the reinforcing of power relations. Hence, the knowledge that can be gained from an understanding of bullying rooted in different paradigmatic approaches can enrich the literature with a more complete and powerful understanding of the phenomenon. To achieve this more complete understanding, future research should explore the research questions proposed in each paradigm section while grounding these studies in their appropriate theoretical frameworks.

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.

Bio

Al-Karim Samnani is a PhD candidate in the School of Human Resource Management at York University. He has research interests in several emerging areas, including workplace victimization and bullying, strategic human resource management, and cross-cultural diversity. His research has been published or is forthcoming in leading management journals, including Human Resource Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of World Business, Human Resource Management Review, and Journal of Managerial Psychology, among others.

References

Alvesson

Deetz

(1996). Critical theory and postmodern approaches to organizational studies. In Clegg

Hardy

Nord

(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 191-217). London, England: Sage.

Alvesson

Sandberg

(2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247-271.

Alvesson

Wilmot

Briarcliff

(1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 17, 432-443.

Ambrose

M. L.

Schminke

(2009). Assessing roadblocks to justice: A model of fair behavior in organizations. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 28, 219-263.

Aquino

Thau

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

Bailey

J. R.

Ford

C. M.

Raelin

J. D.

(2009). Philosophical ties that bind practice: The case of creativity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18, 27-38.

Baillien

Neyens

De Witte

De Cuyper

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

Bartlett

J. E.

Bartlett

M. E.

(2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 69-84.

Bauman

(1992). Intimations of postmodernity. London, England: Routledge.

10.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

11.

Brand

(2009). Empirical business ethics research and paradigm analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 429-449.

12.

Bulutlar

Unler Oz

(2009). The effects of ethical climates on bullying behaviour in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 273-295.

13.

Burke

R. J.

Cooper

C. L.

(2008). The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences and choices. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

14.

Burrell

Morgan

(1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London, England: Heinemen Education Books.

15.

Clegg

(1993). Narrative, power and social theory. In Mumby

D. K.

(Ed.), Narrative and social control: Critical perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

16.

Clegg

(2010). The state, power, and agency: Missing in action in institutional theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, 19, 4-13.

17.

Cooper

Burrell

(1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9, 91-112.

18.

Cornelissen

J. P.

Oswick

Christensen

L. T.

Phillips

(2008). Metaphor in organizational research: Context, modalities and implications for research—Introduction. Organization Studies, 29, 7-22.

19.

Coyne

Seigne

Randall

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

20.

Crotty

(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

21.

De Cuyper

Baillien

De Witte

(2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23, 206-224.

22.

Dent

(1995). The new National Health Service: A case of postmodernism. Organization Studies, 16, 875-899.

23.

Derrida

(1981). Positions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

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. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

25.

Einarsen

Raknes

B. I.

Mathiesen

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, 381-401.

26.

Eldridge

J. E. T.

Crombie

A. D.

(1974). A sociology of organizations. London, England: George Allen and Unwin.

27.

Farrell

(2001). From tall poppies to squashed seeds. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35, 26-33.

28.

Foucault

(1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

29.

Foucault

(1988). Michael Foucault. In Kritzman

L. D.

(Ed.), Politics, philosophy and culture: Interviews and other writings 1977-1984. New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Fox

Stallworth

L. E.

(2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438-456.

31.

Fox

Stallworth

L. E.

(2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-emotion-control/support theory to teachers’ experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63, 927-954.

32.

Glaso

Matthiesen

S. B.

Nielsen

M. B.

Einarsen

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

33.

Guba

Lincoln

(1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Gubrium

J. F.

Holstein

J. A.

(1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

35.

Hazen

(1994). A radical humanist perspective of interorganizational relationships. Human Relations, 47, 393-415.

36.

Hazlett

S.-A.

McAdam

Gallagher

(2005). Theory building in knowledge management: In search of paradigms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 31-42.

37.

Heames

J. T.

Harvey

Treadway

(2006). Status inconsistency: An antecedent to bullying behaviours in groups. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 348-361.

38.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Barling

(2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 874-888.

39.

Hocking

B. A.

Guy

(2008). Dead man working? Critical criminology, human rights and the workplace. In Anthony

Cunneen

(Eds.), The critical criminology companion. Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.

40.

Hoel

Glaso

Hetland

Cooper

C. L.

Einarsen

(2010). Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management, 21, 453-468.

41.

Hutchinson

Vickers

M. H.

Jackson

Wilkes

(2006). Workplace bullying in nursing: Towards a more critical organizational perspective. Nursing Inquiry, 13, 118-126.

42.

LaVan

Martin

W. M.

(2008). Bullying in the US workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 147-165.

43.

Leka

Cox

Zwetsloot

(2008). The European framework for psychosocial risk management (PRIMA-EF). In Leka

Cox

(Eds.), The European framework for psychosocial risk management. Nottingham, UK: I-WHO Publications.

44.

Leymann

(1990). Mobbing and psychological terrorism at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.

45.

Liefooghe

A. P. D.

Davey

K. M.

(2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375-392.

46.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

S. J.

Alberts

J. K.

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

47.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

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

48.

McCarthy

(2003). Bullying at work: A postmodern experience. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

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

49.

McKenna

Singh

Richardson

(2008). The drunkard’s search: Looking for HRM in all the wrong places. Management International Review, 48, 115-135.

50.

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, 955-979.

51.

Panayiotou

Kafiris

(2011). Viewing the language of space: Organizational spaces, power, and resistance in popular films. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 264-284.

52.

Parzefall

M.-R.

Salin

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

53.

Phillips

(2006). The adolescence of critical management studies? A postscript to Clegg, Kornberger, Carter and Rhodes. Management Learning, 37, 29-31.

54.

Phillips

Lawrence

T. B.

Hardy

(2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29, 635-652.

55.

Phillips

Sewell

Jaynes

(2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 770-789.

56.

Ramsay

Troth

Branch

(2011). Workplace bullying: A group processes framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 799-816.

57.

Romani

Primecz

Topcu

(2011). Paradigm interplay for theory development: A methodological example with the Kulturstandard method. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 432-455.

58.

Salin

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

59.

Skogstad

Einarsen

Torsheim

Aasland

M. S.

Hetland

(2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 80-92.

60.

Strandmark

M. K.

Hallberg

L. R. M.

(2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 1-10.

61.

Suddaby

(2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19, 14-20.

62.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Henle

C. A.

Lambert

L. S.

(2006). Procedural justice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.

63.

Tracy

S. J.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Alberts

J. K.

(2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 148-185.

64.

Vannini

Franzese

(2008). The authenticity of self: Conceptualization, personal experience, and practice. Sociology Compass, 2, 1621-1637.

65.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

66.

Weick

K. E.

(2012). Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65, 141-153.