Development of a Taxonomy of Workplace Bullying Intervention Types: Informing Research Directions and Supporting Organizational Decision Making

Abstract

Recently much has been done to increase our understanding of workplace bullying including its causes, consequences, and prevalence. Although identification of possible interventions has advanced the field, systematic evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of specific interventions is lacking. At the same time, organizations are under increasing pressure to prevent and manage workplace bullying more effectively. The aim of this study is to develop and refine a taxonomy of workplace bullying intervention types. Although it does not assess the evidence base of interventions per se, the taxonomy is designed to support the development of research into the future and guide organizations in their decision making when implementing interventions. Using a two-round Delphi process, the expertise of international academics and practitioners (n = 51 and n = 39) was sought to refine the taxonomy, which classified interventions in terms of mode, focus, agent, specificity, and timecourse. Eleven core intervention types were endorsed as appropriate inclusions in the taxonomy of workplace bullying intervention types. A further six, including mediation, failed to reach consensus among the expert panel. The resulting taxonomy forms a framework to guide workplace bullying intervention efficacy and effectiveness research from a common understanding of the definition, scope, and properties of interventions. Once this occurs, the taxonomy can be used by organizations to audit their existing programs, prioritize new interventions, and consider alternate options. Intervention types that did not reach consensus highlight areas of particular research need, which, when undertaken will add to an evidence base and will be included in future versions of the taxonomy.

Keywords

harassment bullying safety qualitative methods and analysis risk management interventions

Introduction

Although a range of definitions exist, workplace bullying is commonly described as reflecting “a situation in which negative acts at work—concerning work related (e.g., withholding information) and personal issues (e.g., gossiping)—accumulate to a pattern of systemic mistreatment” (Baillien et al., 2016, p. 1). Significant work has been done to understand the prevalence of workplace bullying, contributing factors (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Samnani & Singh, 2012), and outcomes for individuals and organizations (Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2011; Høgh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011; Miller & Rayner, 2012). Each of these related research streams have their own limitations, including, for example, being based on self-reported data, informed almost exclusively from the perspective of targets of workplace bullying, as well as measurement, conceptual, and definitional issues (see Branch & Murray, 2015; Hershcovis, 2011).

Despite these problems, workplace bullying research has continued to grow to the point where it is agreed that bullying is a significant and widespread workplace problem, causing negative effects to health and well-being. These effects include anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleeplessness, and nausea, and may extend to thoughts of suicide (Høgh et al., 2011; Reknes et al., 2014). Organizations can also incur significant costs from workplace bullying, for example, in the form of legal costs and reputational damage (Freckelton, 2008), absenteeism (Magee, Gordon, Robinson, Caputi, & Oades, 2017), productivity, and replacing and retraining staff (see Caponecchia & Wyatt, 2011).

Bullying behaviors can take many forms, including unreasonable assignment of duties, impossible deadlines, withholding important information; and more personal behaviors, such as verbal abuse, undue/unreasonable criticism, and spreading rumors (Chan-Mok, Caponecchia, & Winder, 2014; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Hodgins, MacCurtain, & Mannix-McNamara, 2014). It is the occurrence of a pattern of behaviors such as these that differentiates workplace bullying from one-off inappropriate behaviors (Berry, Gillespie, Fisher, & Gormley, 2016; Branch, 2008). Bullying can also be enacted by a group of people against one or more people, which is often referred to as “mobbing” (Leymann, 1996), though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably (see also Shallcross, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013). A range of other related behaviors can co-occur with bullying (such as harassment, violence, and discrimination), though the legal and behavioral distinctions between them vary by jurisdiction (for reviews, see Caponecchia & Wyatt, 2009).

Generally, workplace bullying is viewed as being caused by a complex interaction of work environment factors (e.g., role stressors, support, quality of supervision, relationships) in addition to personal characteristics and coping strategies (Balducci, Cecchin, & Fraccaroli, 2012; Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013; Hauge et al., 2007; Hodgins et al., 2014). Furthermore, there is recognition of how the wider sociopolitical structure, both within organizations and external to them can contribute to negative outcomes (Mills, 2011). For instance, Power et al. (2013) found there are global consistencies along with cultural differences in the acceptability of some forms of workplace bullying (see Omari & Paull, 2016, for a discussion regarding cultural differences). Consequently, there is increasing focus on what can be done systemically by organizations to mitigate the potential negative effects on workers (D’Cruz, Noronha, & Beale, 2014).

Consistent with the increasing tendency to view workplace bullying as an organizational rather than individual problem (Branch & Murray, 2015), various jurisdictions are increasing demands on organizations to prevent and manage it. This has occurred, for example, with changes in workplace health and safety regulation and guidance materials (e.g., Safe Work Australia, 2016), the development of standards on psychological health and safety at work (e.g., Canadian Standards Authority, 2013), and risk management frameworks that address psychosocial hazards (e.g., PRIMA-EF; http://www.prima-ef.org/). External reporting mechanisms, which provide recourse for those experiencing workplace bullying have also increased pressure on organizations to implement meaningful actions (e.g., The Fair Work Commission, Australia; CNESST, Quebec).

In an environment where increased emphasis is being placed on organizations to be proactive in dealing with workplace bullying, organizations are seeking guidance from experts in the field on available interventions, how and when they should be implemented, the circumstances under which they are effective, and their limitations. Accordingly, research on such interventions has been identified as a major research stream that requires attention to help inform organizations and practitioners (Branch et al., 2013; Escartin, 2016; Illing et al., 2013; Saam, 2010).

However, the literature on workplace bullying interventions is quite diverse and, in general, lacking in evidence in relation to the nature and implementation of interventions. For example, after a systematic review that critically appraised 12 workplace bullying or incivility interventions (from a search of more than 5,000 records), Hodgins et al. (2014) concluded that “only three studies were classified as moderate in terms of quality” (p. 54). Saam (2010) documented interventions often used by consultants for workplace bullying including mediation, coaching, and organizational development. Conversely, others have considered interventions more broadly and have grouped related interventions together, such as system/work design interventions, leadership and management interventions, policy and legislative interventions, and investigative and complaints-based interventions (Illing et al., 2013).

Although the purpose and intended outcomes of intervention-related articles can vary, they fall into several categories. Specifically, workplace bullying intervention research has

implemented and evaluated specific interventions (e.g., Chipps & McRury, 2012; León-Pérez, Arenas, & Griggs, 2012; Pate & Beaumont, 2010; Stagg & Sheridan, 2010);

highlighted factors related to bullying that could be targeted by interventions, without implementation or evaluation of the interventions (such as culture, work design, leadership; e.g., Dussault & Frenette, 2015; Hodgins & Mannix-McNamara, 2017; Holten et al., 2017; Law, Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann, 2011);

documented issues in the nature and implementation of specific programs or intervention types, which may or may not be specific to workplace bullying, without implementation or evaluation per se (e.g., Catley, Blackwood, Forsyth, Tappin, & Bentley, 2017; Salin, 2008);

made general recommendations regarding the range of interventions that could be implemented, possibly with reference to case studies (e.g., Branch, Murray, & Ramsay, 2012; Ritzman, 2016); or

focused on perceptions, attitudes, or uptake of interventions, rather than evaluating the nature/content of the intervention or its efficacy or effectiveness (e.g., Georgakopoulos & Kelly, 2017; McCarthy & Barker, 2000).

These different types of intervention research are important, and have added to our understanding of what organizations can do about workplace bullying in general. However, a significant gap in the literature relates to our knowledge of how effective particular interventions are, and the features of implementation that make them succeed (see Escartin, 2016, regarding the need for improved research in this area). Paired with this lack of systematic evidence in relation to efficacy and effectiveness of interventions, there is also a lack of overall strategy and consistency for how intervention research could be conducted. Indeed, Stagg and Sheridan (2010), in their systematic review of bullying and violence prevention programs, concluded that “several limitations were also found in the evidence, including the lack of standards for development, implementation and evaluation of bullying and violence prevention programs” (p. 422). Recent research supports this assessment, pointing to a lack of documented evidence that would support the efficacy of many (Escartin, 2016; Hodgins et al., 2014). Furthermore, it has also been suggested that there is a lack of implementation information related to how, how long, when, and with whom interventions should be used. Thus, although we know “what should work in practice . . . we seem to lack sound evidence from intervention studies in real-life setting to support this” (Karanika-Murray, Biron, & Øystein Saksvik, 2016, p. 255). This parallels the situation identified in the early development of workplace bullying field—work on conceptual matters, definition and measurement was overshowed by the need for answers to the problem, ultimately to the detriment of the field (Keashly & Harvey, 2005). This does not have to be the case for intervention research.

In line with the work of Giga, Cooper, and Faragher (2003) in the stress management field, collection of systematic evidence on intervention efficacy and effectiveness will be enabled by, for example, an understanding of the various workplace bullying interventions available, the manner in which they can be compared, and agreement on which interventions require particular kinds of research. This study aims to develop and refine a taxonomy (or classification) of workplace bullying interventions that can provide researchers with a common framework of intervention types and guide research programs to further establish their efficacy and effectiveness as workplace bullying interventions.

The taxonomy introduced here responds to appeals from researchers such as Stagg and Sheridan (2010) who call for “a standardized method for development, implementation, and evaluation of bullying programs” (p. 423). That is, the taxonomy developed in this article will provide researchers and practitioners with a structure from which to build the evidence base for intervention efficacy and effectiveness (Stagg & Sheridan, 2010). This article does not directly address the evidence base of interventions, but rather introduces a taxonomy that can guide the systematic gathering of evidence, using common language and understandings, and with the scope of relevant interventions already defined. In doing so, it has the potential to make a significant theoretical contribution to the field by structuring and guiding future research.

In addition, a practical contribution of the taxonomy is to create a useable tool for organizations and practitioners to help identify workplace bullying interventions in relation to their focus, scope, and application and limitations. As the taxonomy is updated, organizations will have a decision-making tool that is informed by the latest research. The structure of the taxonomy provides organizations with a range of elements to consider when deciding on an approach to addressing workplace bullying. It will also ensure they are informed of the considerations relevant to implementation, and any concerns that may exist within the field regarding an intervention. As a result, the developed taxonomy will be a dynamic resource for both researchers and practitioners in the field.

Method

Development of the Taxonomy

The proposed taxonomy was initially developed by a team of researchers with experience in the workplace bullying field. Available literature on workplace bullying interventions was located through a range of research databases (including ABI-Inform, Pro-Quest, Web of Knowledge) using various combinations of the terms workplace bullying, mobbing, harassment, interventions, intervention types, training, and resolution.

The scope of the taxonomy was limited to organizational-level interventions (i.e., those implemented by or within an organization), rather than societal or legal interventions (e.g., new laws or independent reporting avenues). “Intervention types” were referred to throughout the proposed taxonomy, referring to a “family” of related interventions from which particular examples of interventions may originate, rather than focusing on particular instances of interventions.

“Elements” on which intervention types would be classified within the taxonomy were next developed guided by the extant literature in the field (e.g., “Mode,” suggested by Rayner & Lewis, 2011). The five identified elements of each intervention type, along with their subcategories, can be seen in Table 1. Such elements can assist organizations when considering potential interventions and also assist researchers in identifying boundary conditions when testing for intervention efficacy and effectiveness. For instance, it has been suggested that informal interventions (e.g., modeling positive behavior) may be required in addition to more formal interventions such as investigations (Rayner & Lewis, 2011). Thus, the element of mode was developed with the subcategories of “formal” and “informal.”

Table 1.

Elements and Subcategories of the Workplace Bullying Taxonomy.

Element	Description	Subcategories
Specificity	Whether the intervention type is specific to workplace bullying or addresses other issues as well	Yes, no
Mode	Whether the intervention type is formal or informal in nature	Formal, informal
Agent	The person or body who is implementing the intervention	Individual, management, organization
Focus	The person or group on whom the intervention is acting	Individual, target, perpetrator, bystander, work team, management, whole organization
Timecourse	Timing of the intervention relative to workplace bullying events	Primary interventions, secondary interventions, tertiary interventions

Note. For further information, please see Supplemental Material 2—“Description of the Proposed Elements and Categories of Taxonomy Intervention Types.”

The element of specificity was developed due to the wide range of interventions proposed for use, some of which are specifically designed to address workplace bullying and others that address inappropriate behavior or a culture that promotes them. This is similar to the notion from prevention science (the study of risk and protective factors to prevent harm and enhance the well-being of people, organizations, and society; Sloboda & Petras, 2014) of universal and targeted interventions (Sanson, Havighurst, & Zubrick, 2011; Stormont, Reinke, & Herman, 2010). Universal interventions are designed to influence as much of the population as possible, whereas targeted interventions focus more on at-risk groups or individuals (Sanson et al., 2011; Stormont et al., 2010). Similarly, specificity relates to whether the intervention is designed to be more universal in nature, addressing inappropriate behavior in general, or targeted to workplace bullying explicitly. The elements of agent and focus relate more to the individuals involved in the intervention—those who are primarily responsible for implementing the intervention and those on whom the intervention is focused, respectively. Agent takes into account that although management and the organization as a whole are often responsible for enacting and driving an intervention, individuals, be they from management or not also have a part to play in influencing change, such as bystanders (see Coyne et al., 2017; Paull, Omari, & Standen, 2012). Focus also recognizes the importance of the wide range of individuals often drawn into workplace bullying, including a focus on perpetrators, and the support that can be provided to each of them (Branch et al., 2013).

Finally timecourse highlights whether the timing of the intervention type is preventive or responsive to an episode of bullying. Primary interventions occur before the onset of the episode and are focused on preventing the problem before it occurs. Secondary interventions seek to delay the occurrence of the problem and/or minimize its harm, whereas tertiary interventions attempt to reduce the effect of the problem and support recovery (Caplan, 1964; Hage et al., 2007). Each one of these elements can be used by researchers to help design and test interventions for efficacy and effectiveness, with additional elements possible as the evidence grows.

For each intervention type, a description was developed, which provided a definition of the intervention type. The research team then developed subcategories for each of the five elements. The appropriate subcategory of each element was assigned by the research team to each intervention type. For example, investigations was classified as a formal intervention (mode) that is not specific to workplace bullying (specificity). With regard to who is responsible for implementing the investigations (agent), it was considered that the organization is responsible although they may be conducted internally, or by an external party. The focus of investigations was considered to potentially include the subcategories of individual(s), work teams, and whole organization. Finally, investigations were considered to be a secondary intervention (timecourse). Further details of all subcategories assigned to intervention types are provided in the supplemental material that accompany this article. Subsequently, a subject matter expert (SMX) panel was convened to refine the taxonomy and the proposed classifications using the Delphi approach.

The Delphi Approach

The Delphi approach is a flexible research technique that is often used to gain expert insight into an issue for which there may be little evidence or where consensus on the best approach to adopt is desired (Hsu & Sandford, 2007; Rodriguez-Carballeira, Escartin, Visauta, Porrua, & Martin-Pena, 2010). The Delphi technique is often used to gather anonymous, subjective judgments (Erffmeyer, Erffmeyer, & Lane, 1986) to evaluate or refine a document, methodology, or taxonomy, where it may be difficult to bring participants together in face-to-face exchanges (Hsu & Sandford, 2007).

The approach usually consists of SMXs being asked to respond via questionnaires in a series of “survey rounds” (Custer, Scarcella, & Stewart, 1999; Keeney, McKenna, & Hasson, 2011). After each round, results are collated and presented back to the experts, such that they can evaluate and respond to one another’s ideas. A level of agreement (or consensus) is calculated, and any comments or suggested changes can be revised and/or ranked by the experts (see Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004; Powell, 2002). Prior to data collection, a criterion of 70% agreement for SMX feedback was set, consistent with past research (Ulschak, 1983; von der Gracht, 2012). This meant that if 70% of SMXs agreed or strongly agreed with a proposition in the survey, this would be interpreted as agreement in the SMX group.

SMXs

Careful selection of participants is paramount to the success of the Delphi technique (Hasson & Keeney, 2011; Hsu & Sandford, 2007). As it was important to ensure practitioners and academics who are experienced and knowledgeable about workplace bullying contributed to this study, we began our search for potential SMXs via the International Association of Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH). In addition to the IAWBH online members’ list, experts were identified via extensive web searches of articles related to workplace bullying.

One hundred three SMXs (59 academics, 39 practitioners, and five academic–practitioners) were initially identified as potential SMXs. These experts were from the United Kingdom (27), the United States (18), Australia/New Zealand (29), Europe and Scandinavia (16), Canada (nine), Japan, India, and Puerto Rico (four). A further 57 SMXs were nominated by their peers using a snowball approach (Jones & Twiss, 1978). Seventeen peer-nominated SMXs were duplicated, giving a final number of 143 unique participation invitations. Consistent with Witkin and Altschuld (1995), a target of around 50 acceptances was deemed as sufficient for the study.

Of the 143 SMXs who were invited, 78 (54.54%) agreed to participate. We asked for a commitment to participate in two rounds of online questionnaires over a 2-month period, and following Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson’s (1975) advice, set a 2-week response period. Fifty-one (35.66%) SMXs completed the first round of the study (practitioners = 24, academics = 22, not specified = 5). Thirty-nine (27.27%) SMXs completed the second round of the study with a similar proportion of academics to practitioners. Thirty-one SMXs (60.78%) reported they had 10 years or more experience in the field. Demographic characteristics of the SMX group are presented in Table 2. Those who agreed to participate in the study but did not complete the survey came from a similar range of countries as listed in Table 2, and four potential SMXs withdrew from the study citing that they did not feel they had adequate expertise for the study’s aims.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of SMXs Completing Round 1 (n = 51).

Variable	Proportion of sample
Age	5 (9.8%) 65 + years; 15 (29.41%) 55-64 years; 12 (23.53%) 45-54 years; 13 (25.49%) 35-44 years; 1 (1.96%) 26-34 years; 5 (9.8%) undisclosed
Sex	32 (62.75%) female; 13 (25.49%) male; 6 (11.54%) undisclosed
Location	12 (23.53%) United States; 10 (19.61%) Australia; 8 (15.69%) United Kingdom; 5 (9.80%) New Zealand; 3 (5.88%) Canada; 2 (3.92%) India; 1 (1.92%) each from Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Niger; 5 (9.80%) undisclosed
Years of experience in the field	15 (29.41%) < 9 years; 10 (19.61%) 10-14 years; 9 (17.65%) 15-9 years; 5 (9.80%) 20-25 years; 7 (13.73%) > 25 years; 5 (9.80%) undisclosed
Education	28 (54.9%) PhD, 10 (19.61%) master’s; 6 (11.76%) bachelor’s or professional degree; 1 (1.96%) technical qualification; 6 (11.76%) undisclosed
Role	24 (47.06%) practitioners (including clinician, manager, business consultant, workplace coach, investigator, advocate); 22 (43.14%) academics; 5 (9.80%) undisclosed
Base discipline	27 (52.94%) psychology; 12 (23.53%) human resources; 10 (19.61%) business and management; 9 (17.65%) education; 9 (17.65%) social work; 4 (7.84%) industrial relations; 3 (5.88%) law, 2 (3.92%) risk management and safety; 1 (1.96%) criminology

Note. SMX = subject matter expert.

Background Document

In line with Keeney et al. (2011), a comprehensive document describing the taxonomy’s aims and scope was developed to guide SMXs’ understanding of the proposed taxonomy before commencement of the Delphi study. The document provided information related to the focus on organizational intervention types, the primary intended users of the taxonomy, its structure, and the requirements of participation. Importantly, the term “intervention” was defined in this document as

an action or actions which aim to maintain, change and/or transform conditions that are relevant to workplace bullying within an organization. (developed from Adelman & Taylor, 1994; Ovretveit, 1998; Waltz et al., 2014)

Survey Instruments

The Round 1 survey consisted of sections that asked SMXs about the appropriateness of including the proposed intervention types in the taxonomy (e.g., “The following intervention types are appropriate to include in this proposed taxonomy of workplace bullying interventions”), the appropriateness of the taxonomy structure (e.g., “The elements of the taxonomy are appropriate for the proposed taxonomy of workplace bullying interventions”), and how the interventions were classified using each element of the taxonomy (e.g., having been provided with the classifications for a particular intervention type, “To what extent do you agree that the classifications are appropriate for each element?”). Participants were also asked about the description of the intervention type (“To what extent do you agree that the description of the intervention type is appropriate?). A 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) was used for each question. In addition, SMXs were asked to provide detailed comments on the proposed classification of three intervention types with which they were most familiar. These intervention-specific questions sought SMX views on the description of the intervention type, its classifications (supplied by the research team), and invited amendments from SMXs. SMXs were also asked about evidence of efficacy and effectiveness for their preferred intervention types along with critical success factors for implementation, which are discussed in a forthcoming paper. To ensure intervention types had a critical mass of expert commentary, decisions were only made for those intervention types that had five or more SMXs comments in Round 1. It was also decided that should this number not be reached, SMXs who had not provided comments on an intervention type in Round 1, would be given the opportunity to make comments in Round 2.

Procedure

SMXs were contacted by email and asked to participate approximately 3 weeks before the commencement of Round 1. A survey link was then sent to all participating SMXs with a 2-week deadline imposed for completion. Reminder emails were sent after 1 week and 3 days before the deadline in each round. Questionnaires were administered through the Qualtrics survey interface (www.qualtrics.com), and took about 30 min to complete.

The background document was provided in the invitation email and survey, with SMXs reminded to use this document as a reference tool as they completed the questionnaire. Key definitions were also included throughout the questionnaire, alongside question stems. Following the closure of Round 1, results were analyzed over a 2-week period. A range of issues were then re-presented to SMXs in the Round 2 survey.

Results

Results are presented thematically rather than serially by rounds, because consistent with Delphi practice, issues that achieve consensus in Round 1 were generally not dealt with in Round 2 (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). Where consensus was not reached in Round 1, results and SMX comments informed any proposed changes. A description of how these issues were re-presented to SMXs in Round 2, and the ways in which the taxonomy was finally amended are also presented here. Results are discussed in relation to

experience with intervention types,

taxonomy structure,

detailed feedback on intervention types,

removal of intervention types,

additional intervention types, and

intervention types with fewer than five SMX comments.

Table 3 provides a summary of results from Round 1.

Table 3.

Summary of Findings at Round 1.

	Support for inclusion (> 70%)	Suggested removal	<5 SMX comments	Suggested new intervention
Investigation	Yes	—	—	—
Monitoring procedures	—	—	Yes	—
Codes of conduct	—	—	Yes	—
Mediation	—	Yes	—	—
Conferencing	—	Yes	Yes	—
Policy	Yes	—	—	—
Employee assistance program	Yes	—	—	—
Support officer	—	—	Yes	—
Bullying awareness training	Yes	—	—	—
Resilience training	—	—	Yes	—
Values statement	—	—	Yes	—
Emotional intelligence training	—	Yes	—	—
Coaching	Yes	—	—	—
System-wide intervention	Yes	—	—	—
Skills training and development	Yes	—	—	—
Local resolution	—	—	Yes	—
Organizational redesign	—	—	—	Yes
Bystander training	—	—	—	Yes

Note. SMX = subject matter expert.

Experience or Observation of the Use of Intervention Types

There were no significant differences between the degree to which academics and practitioners had seen intervention types used in the last 5 years.¹ Three intervention types, however, were more frequently used by practitioners than academics: investigations (t₄₄ = −3.473, p < .001), bullying awareness training (t₄₄ = −3.617, p < .001), and local resolution (t₄₄ = −3.411, p < .001). The similarity between academics and practitioners suggests a similar familiarity with most of the intervention types. Differences in implementing some intervention types were expected, given the common differences in roles and activities of these groups. Accordingly, academic and practitioner responses were considered together throughout the analysis.

Taxonomy Structure

This section deals with comments on the structure of the taxonomy, rather than the intervention types themselves. More than 81% of respondents agreed that each of the elements of the taxonomy (i.e., mode, specificity, agent, focus, timecourse) was appropriate for the taxonomy (i.e., appropriate as issues on which to classify the interventions). With regard to the subcategories of the elements, SMXs provided significant commentary regarding the definition of “formal” and “informal” in the mode element, suggesting that it might be necessary to include examples of what constitutes “formal” and “informal.” Based on this feedback, examples were developed and provided to participants in Round 2, where 87% and 82%, respectively, agreed the additions were appropriate for the formal and informal definitions (original descriptions and amendments are presented in the supplemental material). As a result, the overall structure of the elements and their subcategories received sufficient agreement among SMXs, essentially providing researchers and practitioners with a common language to classify and discuss interventions relative to one another.

Detailed Feedback on Intervention Types

SMXs selected at least three intervention types on which to give detailed feedback. Using our criteria of 70% or higher agreement, SMXs agreed that nine of the 16 proposed intervention types should be included in a taxonomy of workplace bullying interventions. The remaining seven intervention types had fewer than five SMXs assess them in detail in Round 1. These intervention types (monitoring, conferencing, support officer programs, resilience training, values statements, emotional intelligence training, and local resolution) will be dealt with separately. Agreement on the definitions of the intervention types, which received comments from more than five SMXs, is shown in Table 4, along with levels of agreement on the proposed classifications of the interventions using the elements of the taxonomy.

Table 4.

Mean Agreement on the Proposed Classification of Intervention Types With More Than Five SMX Responses.

	Intervention description	Subcategorization on taxonomy elements
	Intervention description	Agent	Focus	Mode	Specificity	Timecourse
Bullying awareness training (n = 25)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.32 (0.95)	3.48 (0.96)	3.84 (0.47)	3.12 (1.20)	3.56 (0.96)	2.84 (1.52)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	21 (84)	21 (84)	24 (96)	18 (72)	22 (88)	16 (64)
Coaching (n = 9)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.00 (0.71)	2.89 (1.05)	2.67 (1.32)	3.00 (1.00)	3.33 (0.71)	3.11 (0.93)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	7 (78)	6 (67)	6 (67)	7 (78)	8 (89)	8 (89)
Codes of conduct (n = 13)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.69 (0.48)	3.54 (0.88)	3.54 (0.88)	3.62 (0.51)	3.62 (0.51)	3.46 (0.66)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	13 (100)	12 (92)	12 (92)	13 (100)	13 (100)	12 (92)
EAP and counseling (n = 13)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.31 (0.63)	3.85 (0.37)	3.77 (0.44)	2.69 (1.32)	3.31 (1.18)	3.38 (0.96)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	12 (92)	13 (100)	13 (100)	6 (46)	11 (85)	11 (85)
Investigation (n = 17)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.06 (0.75)	3.47 (0.62)	3.24 (0.90)	2.35 (1.37)	2.65 (1.22)	3.29 (0.85)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	15 (88)	16 (94)	14 (82)	10 (59)	12 (71)	15 (88)
Mediation (n = 11)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.00 (1.18)	2.82 (1.3)	2.82 (1.3)	2.45 (1.4)	2.82 (1.5)	2.00 (1.4)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	8 (73)	8 (73)	8 (73)	6 (55)	8 (73)	4 (36)
Policy (n = 12)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.50 (0.52)	3.75 (0.62)	3.92 (0.29)	3.50 (1.0)	2.75 (1.71)	3.42 (1.24)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	12 (100)	11 (92)	12 (100)	10 (83)	8 (67)	10 (83)
Skills training and development (n = 7)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.57 (0.54)	3.43 (0.98)	3.57 (0.79)	3.57 (0.98)	3.57 (0.79)	3.14 (1.35)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	6 (86)	6 (86)	7 (100)	6 (86)	6 (86)	5 (72)
System-wide intervention (n = 10)
Mean agreement (SD)	3.50 (0.71)	3.60 (0.70)	3.60 (0.70)	3.30 (1.06)	2.60 (1.35)	3.30 (1.06)
Strongly agree/agree n(%)	9 (90)	9 (90)	9 (90)	8 (80)	6 (60)	8 (80)

Note. Shading indicates agreement was reached. Higher mean scores relate to higher agreement. SMX = subject matter expert; EAP = employee assistance program.

The description of each intervention was supported by more than 70% of SMXs. Levels of agreement on the proposed classifications of the supported nine intervention types were high at Round 1, though there were some disagreements. Agreement was reached on the classifications of three out of five elements of the taxonomy for coaching and mediation and for classifications of four out of five elements of the taxonomy for investigation, policy, employee assistance programs (EAPs), and bullying awareness training. Agreement was reached for all five elements of the taxonomy for the remaining intervention types (codes of conduct and skills training and development).

Classifications that did not achieve SMX agreement were re-presented to SMXs in Round 2 with changes based on the comments received (see Table 5), where SMX agreement was reached for all changes in classifications with the exception of three. Two of these concerned changes to the classification under the specificity element of investigations and system-wide intervention types, which had a binary classification (i.e., specific to bullying, yes or no). As a result, in Round 1, fewer than 70% of SMXs supported the originally proposed classification (no), and at Round 2, fewer than 70% of SMXs supported switching to the other subcategorization (yes). This situation may, in part, be caused by fewer SMXs responding to the Round 2 questionnaire. In the absence of agreement, the research team resolved to retain the original classification of “no,” meaning that investigations and system-wide intervention types are classified as being nonspecific to workplace bullying in the current version of the taxonomy (see supplementary material).

Table 5.

Proposed Changes to the Subcategorization of Intervention Types, Which Had Greater Than Five SMX Comments in Round 1.

Intervention type	Round 1 result	Proposed change based on Round 1 comments	Feedback from Round 2 and outcome
Bullying awareness training	n = 25		n = 27
Bullying awareness training	45% of total SMXs (<70%) agreed on the appropriateness of the timecourse classification	Retain the timecourse classification as “primary”	93% agreement—change adopted
Coaching	n = 9		n = 8
	19% of total SMXs (<70%) agreed on the appropriateness of the agent and focus classifications	1. Retain agent as organization.	1. 88% agreement—change adopted
		2. Change focus from management to individual worker, perpetrator	2. 63% agreement—all three classifications adopted
EAPs and counseling	n = 13		n = 14
EAPs and counseling	27% of total SMXs (<70%) agreed on the appropriateness of the mode classification	Retain the mode classification as “formal” (see Supplemental Material 3)	71% agreement—change adopted
Investigations	n = 17		n = 15
	34% of total SMXs (<70%) agreed on the appropriateness of the mode and specificity classifications	1. Mode from “informal” to “formal”	1. 93% agreement—change adopted
		2. Specificity from “no” to “yes”	2. 60% agreement—change rejected
Policy interventions	n = 12		n = 16
Policy interventions	26% of total SMXs (<70%) agreed on the appropriateness of the specificity classification	Retain the classification of specificity (“yes”)	94% agreement—change adopted
System-wide interventions	n = 11		n = 9
System-wide interventions	21% of total SMXs (<70%) agreed on the appropriateness of the specificity classification	Change specificity from “no” to “yes”	67% agreement—change rejected

Note. SMX = subject matter expert; EAP = employee assistance program.

For coaching, agreement was not reached in Round 1 regarding classification on the focus element (i.e., who is the intervention acting upon?). In Round 2, the proposed change of classification from “management” to “individual workers and perpetrators” was not supported. Given the wide potential application of coaching, the research team decided to amend the focus classification for coaching to include all these classifications in the taxonomy.

Removal of Intervention Types

In Round 1, a number of SMXs suggested that three intervention types, conferencing, mediation, and emotional intelligence training, should not be included in a taxonomy of workplace bullying interventions (discussed below). As fewer than five SMXs assessed conferencing in Round 1, it was re-presented to SMXs in Round 2 and is dealt with in further detail in the “Intervention Types With Fewer Than Five SMX Comments” section.

Mediation

Thirty-six percent of SMXs at Round 1 suggested mediation should not be included in the taxonomy. Comments from SMXs regarding the reasons for not including mediation revealed strong concerns including

that one of the parties may not enter mediation in good faith,

that mediation is only appropriate for specific types of conflict,

that the power differential between parties makes mediation inappropriate for workplace bullying,

that mediation can further traumatize parties, and

that mediation is not effective in resolving workplace bullying, despite being widely used.

Balancing the concerns raised by SMXs, with the knowledge that mediation is widely used to address workplace bullying (see Saam, 2010; Salin, 2008), the research team proposed in the Round 2 survey to retain mediation within the taxonomy with an annotation highlighting SMX concerns (see the supplemental material). In Round 2, only 59% SMXs agreed with the retention of mediation with the proposed annotation. Given the 70% criterion of agreement was not reached, the research team resolved to place mediation, with annotation, in a section of the taxonomy for intervention types that did not achieve consensus.

Emotional intelligence training

In Round 1, less than 70% of SMXs commenting on emotional intelligence training supported its inclusion in the taxonomy and 12% of SMXs suggested its removal. In Round 2, the research team proposed accommodating emotional intelligence training under skills training and development. This proposal was supported by 59% of SMXs, whereas 28% supported removing it from the taxonomy, and 13% supported retaining it without change. As the 70% criterion was not reached, the research team resolved to place it in the section of the taxonomy for interventions for which consensus was not reached.

Additional Intervention Types

To ensure the taxonomy was complete, SMXs in Round 1 were asked to propose any additional intervention types that, in their opinion, had been overlooked by the research team. Several intervention types were proposed, some of which went beyond the stated scope of interventions that can be implemented within an organization (such as public education programs). Others were already addressed by intervention types within the taxonomy (e.g., management skills training was viewed as being covered by skills training and development).

However, two intervention types suggested by SMXs in Round 1 were deemed to fit within the stated scope of the taxonomy and were, therefore, presented to SMXs for consideration in Round 2. These were organizational redesign and bystander/witness training. Nineteen SMXs provided commentary on organizational redesign and 19 SMXs made comments regarding bystander/witness training. All organizational redesign element classifications reached the 70% agreement criterion, except for timecourse, which the research team amended from “secondary” to both “primary and secondary” based on SMX comments. Organizational redesign was retained within the taxonomy. Due to the similarity of bystander/witness training to the preexisting skills training and development intervention type, two options were proposed by the research team for evaluation by SMXs. Option 1 was to include bystander/witness training as a standalone intervention type, and Option 2 was to accommodate it within skills training and development. Eighty-four percent of SMXs supported bystander/witness training being accommodated under skills training and development, and it was, therefore, not included in the taxonomy as a standalone intervention type.

Intervention Types With Fewer Than Five SMX Comments

Seven intervention types failed to reach the research team’s criteria of gaining commentary from more than five SMXs in Round 1. These were monitoring, conferencing, resilience training, values statements, emotional intelligence training, local resolution, and support officer programs. SMXs who felt they had expert knowledge of these intervention types (and had not provided this expertise in Round 1) were asked to provide a comment in Round 2. Any duplicate assessments by SMXs were removed by the research team.

In Round 2, 24 additional unique SMXs comments on the intervention types were provided. Conferencing received one additional comment (totaling two assessments). As a result, and based on feedback from Round 1, which suggested removing conferencing from the taxonomy, the research team decided to place conferencing in the taxonomy subsection for intervention types, which did not reach consensus. The six remaining intervention types all achieved the research team’s criteria of more than five SMX assessments at Round 2.

As can be seen in Table 6, more than 70% agreement was reached for classifications under each element of values statements and local resolution, so these interventions were retained. Seventy percent agreement was reached for all elements of resilience training except for focus (64%) and timecourse (55%). Support officer programs only reached agreement for focus (79%) and agent (86%). Agreement was reached on only one element (focus, 86%) for monitoring. After considering comments by SMXs, the research team resolved to place resilience training, support officer programs, and monitoring in the subsection of the taxonomy for intervention types that failed to reach consensus. Commentary outlining how these intervention types failed to reach consensus is provided alongside information about the intervention type, in much the same way as mediation and emotional intelligence training.

Table 6.

Mean Agreement Ratings on Intervention Types With Greater Than Five SMX Responses at Round 2.

	Taxonomy elements
	Description	Agent	Focus	Mode	Specificity	Timecourse
Local resolution (n = 11)
Mean agreement rating	2.00 (1.10)	1.45 (0.93)	1.18 (0.41)	1.73 (1.27)	1.55 (0.93)	1.73 (1.01)
SA/A n (%)	9 (82)	10 (91)	11 (100)	9 (82)	10 (91)	9 (82)
Monitoring (n = 7)
Mean agreement rating	3.29 (1.38)	2.29 (1.50)	1.57 (0.79)	2.71 (1.60)	2.71 (1.11)	3.00 (1.30)
SA/A n (%)	2 (29)	4 (57)	6 (86)	4 (57)	4 (57)	2 (29)
Resilience training (n = 11)
Mean agreement rating	1.82 (0.60)	1.64 (0.81)	2.45 (1.37)	2.00 (1.00)	1.91 (0.94)	2.18 (1.08)
SA/A n (%)	10 (91)	9 (82)	7 (64)	8 (73)	9 (82)	6 (55)
Support officer (n = 14)
Mean agreement rating	2.36 (1.22)	1.79 (0.89)	2.07 (1.33)	3.00 (1.47)	2.43 (1.51)	2.43 (1.22)
SA/A n (%)	9 (64)	12 (86)	11 (79)	5 (36)	9 (64)	9 (64)
Values statements (n = 12)
Mean agreement rating	1.42 (0.52)	1.92 (1.31)	1.42 (0.52)	1.33 (0.49)	1.42 (0.52)	1.92 (1.17)
SA/A n (%)	12 (100)	10 (83)	12 (100)	12 (100)	12 (100)	10 (83)

Note. Shading indicates agreement was reached. SMX = subject matter expert; SA = strongly agree; A = agree.

Discussion

Two rounds of Delphi-style commentary from workplace bullying SMXs assisted in refining and validating the taxonomy. Overall, high levels of agreement relating to the inclusion of the intervention types, and how they were classified in the taxonomy, were observed. Following a change to the descriptions of “formal” and “informal” under the mode element (see Supplemental Material 2), the five elements of the taxonomy were largely supported, indicating the structure of the taxonomy developed by the research team was sound.

After considering suggestions to exclude or include intervention types, a core set of 11 intervention types (investigation, codes of conduct, policy; EAP and counseling, bullying awareness training, coaching, system-wide intervention, skills training and development, values statements, local resolution, organizational redesign) were endorsed by SMXs for inclusion in the taxonomy. Six intervention types (mediation, conferencing, monitoring, support officer programs, emotional intelligence training, and resilience training) failed to reach SMX agreement and were placed in a subsection of the taxonomy for intervention types that failed to reach consensus.

Endorsement of the complement of intervention types, their descriptions, and their classifications within the taxonomy by SMXs has implications for prevention in organizations and for research planning into the future. First, this helps to set an agenda for what types of interventions should be considered in practice and research programs. These findings also show consensus on the features that define these intervention types, such that a common understanding can be used when communicating about these interventions, planning to use them, or conducting research evaluations with them (Stagg & Sheridan, 2010). Similarly, consensus among SMXs on the appropriateness of the elements on which interventions can be classified establishes a language and structure through which interventions can continue to be evaluated into the future (even if some disagreement on classification under these elements still exists). This is important especially given the wide range of professions engaged in addressing workplace bullying. The taxonomy, thus, establishes a consensus-based framework that identifies a pool of organizational intervention types, defines them, and establishes the ways in which they can be compared. This is similar to the “standardized method for development, implementation, and evaluation of bullying programs” for which Stagg and Sheridan (2010, p. 423) called for. From such a foundation, more consistent action on workplace bullying interventions can proceed with a maximal likelihood of shared meaning and research progression. This is a significant theoretical contribution: Without a shared understanding of intervention characteristics, research may proceed in less coordinated fashion, where collating and comparing evidence to establish critical mass is more difficult. Research in workplace bullying has already suffered from a lack of coordination on definition (Hershcovis, 2011), and a race to examine antecedents and outcomes without more basic conceptual or methodological work (Keashly & Harvey, 2005). This taxonomy provides a research framework against which multidisciplinary research projects can be consistent in their terms and objectives, be easily compared and prioritized, and have maximal potential benefit in establishing the effectiveness of workplace bullying interventions.

In addition, the taxonomy is a useful resource for organizations and practitioners while more systematic research is developed. It provides organizations with examples of intervention types, information on what elements need to be considered in implementation (e.g., primary vs. secondary interventions), as well as an indication of where any controversies may lie (e.g., such as those identified with mediation in this study). The taxonomy can be used now, for organizations planning and reviewing their responses to workplace bullying, as well as in guiding consistent research efforts.

Interventions Not Reaching Consensus

The research team decided that providing information on those intervention types that did not achieve consensus was sensible, given these intervention types are being used in practice. This is an important issue for practice as well as research. In particular, it highlights that more information and evidence, drawn from consistent implementation and research, is needed to establish the efficacy, effectiveness, and implementation guidelines for those intervention types for which consensus was not reached. In particular, it is important to establish the circumstances under which these intervention types may be appropriate for workplace bullying. Only further research, through collaboration between practitioners and researchers can establish this.

A range of views were expressed in qualitative responses from SMXs, including a number who indicated mediation should not be used as a workplace bullying intervention (and did not belong in a taxonomy of workplace bullying interventions). Concern focused around the complexity of workplace bullying, that it is an escalating conflict, influenced by multiple antecedents, which mediation may fail to address.

Despite these comments, research suggests that mediation is a commonly used intervention type for addressing workplace bullying (Saam, 2010; Salin, 2008). This was also noted by our SMXs. Lack of understanding of the complexity of bullying (Jenkins, 2011), lack of an agreed definition (Branch et al., 2013; Hershcovis, 2011), and the broad use of the term bullying (Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2010) may all contribute to divergent views on the appropriateness of this intervention type. It is also possible that despite the focus of the study on the taxonomy and its classifications, that SMXs considered their perceptions on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of mediation when commenting on its inclusion or removal.

Intervention Types With Insufficient SMX Comments

Seven intervention types failed the research team’s criteria of receiving commentary from more than five SMXs. During Round 1, the research team asked SMXs to comment on up to three intervention types with which they were most familiar. Restricting the number of intervention types commented on was done for time and quality reasons (Altschuld & Thomas, 1991) as it was unlikely that each SMX would be able to respond with expert, in-depth comments on each of the proposed 16 intervention types. Other factors that may account for the low number of responses to some intervention types include lower overall familiarity with these intervention types in the SMX population, or alternatively, lower relative familiarity with these intervention types compared with others that were selected. Not choosing particular intervention types based on unfamiliarity highlights that if these interventions are being used, then further information regarding their implementation is required to enhance their evaluation and potential usefulness into the future.

The wide geographic spread of SMXs, representing the main locations in which workplace bullying is known to be an issue, helps ensure the representativeness of our SMX sample. In addition, the comprehensive sampling of base disciplines, and inclusion of a balanced number of academics and practitioners, argues against an interpretation that the sample was biased (and, thus, resulted in some intervention types not receiving adequate commentary). Furthermore, when presenting these intervention types to SMXs in Round 2, three intervention types (monitoring, support officer programs, and resilience training) did not achieve consensus on a majority of items, which suggests that even when additional comments were sought, some intervention types are less well known, applied inconsistently, or applied infrequently. Therefore, we assert again that retaining the intervention types that failed to reach consensus in a designated subsection of the taxonomy is an appropriate outcome. Future use and assessment of the taxonomy may eventually lead to these intervention types being included in full, rejected, or otherwise amended.

It should also be noted that the complexity of some of the elements used to classify intervention types may have hindered consensus. Specifically, the mode element was problematic across three intervention types. The inclusion of examples to clarify what was meant by “formal” and “informal” modes in the final taxonomy should help with future interpretation across all intervention types. Timecourse was also an element that was not always easy to operationalize. One potential complication here is whether SMXs interpreted this as the time at which an intervention is best used, or the time at which it is most commonly used relative to a bullying episode. Similarly, the notion that tertiary strategies can be “preventive” for future events is a further complication, and likely accounts for some intervention types being classified as belonging to all three levels. As a taxonomy intended to guide organizational actions, we, therefore, suggest that the identification of which intervention types to use begins via the focus element. This may need to be highlighted in future research regarding the practical use of the taxonomy.

Limitations

Fundamental to any assessment of a taxonomy using a Delphi technique is the possibility that various SMXs bring to the exercise their own biases and understandings of particular terms. Despite these limitations, the Delphi technique was deemed appropriate because it allowed the canvassing of a range of expert opinions, followed by the retention of views and suggested changes. The intention of this is to control for any extreme outliers while still allowing a broad depth of experiences and perspectives. In addition, the provision of detailed information that outlined the purpose and scope of the study, and operationalized particular terms within this study (e.g., defining “intervention”; operationalizing the intervention types and elements and their subcategories) helped to reduce the variability of SMX interpretations.

It cannot be denied, however, that the intervention types in question are implemented by a range of people with various skills and backgrounds, for different purposes, and working within different cultural and legal frameworks. A lack of consensus on some issues is, therefore, expected; however, attempting to forge some agreement on terms, scope, definitions, and features on which interventions can be compared, is even more important in this context.

In terms of retention of the sample, 35% of those who agreed to take part completed Round 1, and 27% completed Round 2. It was always expected that fewer SMXs would respond to the Round 2 survey (from 51 participants to 39). Importantly, our analysis was limited to those who responded to both surveys, which reduced the sample size further in Round 2, but meant SMXs at both rounds had similar exposure to the proposed taxonomy and the process of completing the surveys. Although these numbers are relatively small (but within guidelines on the Delphi approach, and relatively common in such studies; Witkin & Altschuld, 1995), the participants were experts in the field, many with more than 10 years’ experience. As the field of SMXs grows and develops, and expertise and evidence of particular intervention types deepens, we expect that the taxonomy will evolve in line with these developments.

Reduced numbers at Round 2 meant that, in some cases, there were smaller numbers responding to particular proposed changes from Round 1. However, in other cases, there were slightly increased numbers of responses (e.g., changes to classification of investigations; see Table 3). The major concern here is not so much the small samples, as the changing composition of the sample. For example, a different complement of SMXs may comment on changes proposed in Round 2 compared with those who responded at Round 1. These differences in sample composition may also account for some of the inconsistent responses received when comparing Rounds 1 and 2 responses, as outlined above. Restricting SMXs to only comment on issues on which they had previously commented on may have remedied this potential effect, though would have required creating individual SMX surveys. In accounting for these effects, conservative strategies were adopted to not remove intervention types outright from the taxonomy, and to make amendments to the taxonomy that are consistent with initial classifications, and the most supported and logical positions. The conservative criterion for agreement of 70% means that a high number of the sample needed to agree for changes to be accepted, which lessens the impact of changes to subsample composition.

A final issue that should not be ignored is that SMXs who are working with implementing the intervention types in question, or researching them, may have a vested interest in having them rated in particular ways on the taxonomy. It may also be difficult for SMXs to make comments about intervention types in general, divorced from their own particular approach or style of implementation. These issues can only be dealt with by ongoing testing and refinement of the taxonomy, via a broad base of SMXs and by using different research techniques. It may also be possible to extend the taxonomy beyond organizational interventions, to consider broader societal interventions (such as new laws, reporting schemes, or expectations for organizational transparency). This again supports the research team’s decision not to remove any intervention types out right, but highlights further investigation and refinement is required.

Future Directions

The taxonomy was developed to facilitate the systematic development of intervention research and to be a practical resource for organizations. As a result, a range of research and practice opportunities exist. First, the identification of intervention types and their controversies will help guide future research into the efficacy and effectiveness of intervention types and specific approaches within them, as well as the conditions that may affect their efficacy when implemented (such as organizational size or culture). The use of experimental and quasi-experimental research designs has been called for to address the lack of understanding regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of many workplace bullying training and development interventions (Branch et al., 2013). Naturally, as research grows in relation to the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions, future research exploring the taxonomy, its elements, and classifications can also be conducted. For instance, the potential for a further element to be included in the taxonomy that acknowledges cultural differences could be considered (see Omari & Paull, 2016; Power et al., 2013). Furthermore, the practical use of the taxonomy, how it is being applied within organizations and/or used by researchers, and who is using it and whether it has helped are rich avenues for future research.

Conclusion

This article details the validation of a taxonomy of intervention types to address workplace bullying. SMXs provided their opinion via a two-round Delphi study. The validated taxonomy provides direction for organizations wishing to review and select a suite of interventions for implementation in their operations. In particular, it informs them as to key considerations when deciding on an intervention type, such as, when to use intervention, to whom it might apply, and controversial issues surrounding particular interventions. Accordingly, this can assist organizations to audit and amend their current practices and intervention strategies and adopt a holistic approach that includes both preventive and responsive interventions for everyone within an organization (Branch et al., 2013; Escartin, 2016; Hodgins et al., 2014). The consensus on description of intervention types, the intervention types rated as appropriate for inclusion, and defining the features on which intervention types can be compared within the taxonomy, highlights a further important contribution of this work. Designed to be reviewed regularly, the taxonomy can be used by researchers to identify and conduct further investigation of all the intervention types presented especially those where SMX consensus was not achieved. The implication is that there now exists a tool that provides a clear framework for the advancement of our understanding of workplace bullying intervention evidence.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Materials_full_JULY2017_ – Supplemental material for Development of a Taxonomy of Workplace Bullying Intervention Types: Informing Research Directions and Supporting Organizational Decision Making

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Materials_full_JULY2017_ for Development of a Taxonomy of Workplace Bullying Intervention Types: Informing Research Directions and Supporting Organizational Decision Making by Carlo Caponecchia, Sara Branch and Jane Murray in Group & Organization Management

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Associate Editor: Judith Clair

Notes

Author Biographies

Carlo Caponecchia is a senior lecturer at the School of Aviation, at the University of New South Wales. His research is principally concerned with Safety and Human Factors across a range of domains, with a particular interest in psychosocial safety at work.

Sara Branch is a research fellow within the Griffith Criminology Institute at Griffith University. She has a background in Organisational Psychology and an interest in Workplace Conflict, focusing specifically on Workplace Bullying. Her current work focuses on applying organisational theory to enhance processes for collective action.

Jane P. Murray is a semester teaching fellow at Bond University, Australia where she teaches Negotiation. Her research interests include the examination of workplace bullying interventions and emotions in the workplace.

References

Adelman

H. S.

Taylor

(1994). On understanding intervention in psychology and education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Altschuld

J. W.

Thomas

P. M.

(1991). Considerations in the application of a modified scree test for Delphi survey data. Evaluation Review, 15, 179-188.

Baillien

Camps

Van den Broek

Stouten

Godderis

Sercu

De Witte

(2016). An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: Conflict escalation into workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 415-429.

Balducci

Cecchin

Fraccaroli

(2012). The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal analysis. Work & Stress, 26, 195-212.

Berry

P. A.

Gillespie

G. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Gormley

D. K.

(2016). Recognizing, confronting, and eliminating workplace bullying. Workplace Health & Safety, 64, 337-341.

Branch

(2008). You say Tomatoe and I say Tomato: Can we differentiate between workplace bullying and other counterproductive behaviours? International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13(2), 4-17.

Branch

Murray

(2015). Workplace bullying: Is the lack of understanding the reason for inaction? Organizational Dynamics, 44, 287-295.

Branch

Murray

Ramsay

(2012). Workplace bullying: What can be done to prevent and manage it? In Benscoter

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of human resource management, volume III: Critical and emerging issues in human resource management (pp. 181-196). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/Jossey-Bass.

Branch

Ramsay

Barker

(2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 280-299.

10.

Canadian Standards Authority. (2013). Psychological health and safety in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/issues/workplace/national-standard

11.

Caplan

(1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic Books.

12.

Caponecchia

Wyatt

(2009). Distinguishing between workplace bullying, harassment and violence: A risk management approach. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand, 25, 439-449.

13.

Caponecchia

Wyatt

(2011). Preventing workplace bullying: An evidence based guide for managers and employees. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

14.

Catley

Blackwood

Forsyth

Tappin

Bentley

(2017). Workplace bullying complaints: Lessons for “good HR practice.” Personnel Review, 46, 100-114.

15.

Chan-Mok

J. O.

Caponecchia

Winder

(2014). The concept of workplace bullying: Implications from Australian workplace health and safety law. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21, 442-456.

16.

Chipps

E. M.

McRury

(2012). The development of an educational intervention to address workplace bullying: A pilot study. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 28(3), 94-98.

17.

Coyne

Gopaul

Campbell

Pankász

Garland

Cousans

(2017). Bystander responses to bullying at work: The role of mode, type and relationship to target. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 813-827. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3692-2

18.

Custer

R. L.

Scarcella

J. A.

Stewart

B. R.

(1999). The modified Delphi technique: A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15(2), 1-10.

19.

D’Cruz

Noronha

Beale

(2014). The workplace bullying-organizational change interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1434-1459.

20.

Delbecq

A. L.

Van de Ven

A. H

Gustafson

D. H.

(1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

21.

Dussault

Frenette

. (2015). Supervisors’ transformational leadership and bullying in the workplace. Psychological Reports, 117, 724-733.

22.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

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

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3-40). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

23.

Erffmeyer

R. C.

Erffmeyer

E. S.

Lane

I. M.

(1986). The Delphi technique: An empirical evaluation of the optimal number of rounds. Group & Organization Management, 11, 120-128.

24.

Escartin

(2016). Insights into workplace bullying: Psychosocial drivers and effective interventions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 157-169.

25.

Freckelton

(2008). Employers’ liabilities for bullying-induced psychiatric injuries. Journal of Law and Medicine, 16(1), 9-16.

26.

Georgakopoulos

Kelly

M. P.

(2017). Tackling workplace bullying: A scholarship of engagement study of workplace wellness as a system. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10, 450-474.

27.

Giga

Cooper

Faragher

(2003). The development of a framework for a comprehensive approach to stress management interventions at work. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 280-296.

28.

Hage

Romano

Conyne

Kenny

Matthews

Schwartz

Waldo

(2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 493-566.

29.

Hasson

Keeney

(2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 1695-1704.

30.

Hauge

L. J.

Skogstad

Einarsen

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

31.

Hershcovis

M. S.

(2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my!” A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.

32.

Hodgins

MacCurtain

Mannix-McNamara

(2014). Workplace bullying and incivility: A systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 7, 54-72.

33.

Hodgins

Mannix-McNamara

(2017). Bullying and incivility in higher education workplaces: Micropolitics and the abuse of power. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 12, 190-206.

34.

Høgh

Mikkelsen

Hansen

Å. M.

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

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 107-128). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

35.

Hoel

Sheehan

Cooper

Einarsen

(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). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

36.

Holten

Hancock

G. R.

Mikkelsen

Persson

Hansen

Høgh

(2017). The longitudinal effects of organizational change on experienced and enacted bullying behaviour. Journal of Change Management, 17, 67-89.

37.

Hsu

C. C.

Sandford

B. A.

(2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.

38.

Illing

J. C.

Carter

Thompson

N. J.

Crampton

P. E. S.

Morrow

G. M.

Howse

J. H.

. . . Burford

B. C.

(2013). Evidence synthesis on the occurrence, causes, consequences, prevention and management of bullying and harassing behaviours to inform decision making in the NHS (Final report, NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme). Durham, NC: National Institute for Health Research.

39.

Jenkins

(2011). Practice note: Is mediation suitable for complaints of workplace bullying? Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29, 25-38.

40.

Jones

Twiss

B. C.

(1978). Forecasting technology for planning decision. London, England: Macmillan Press.

41.

Karanika-Murray

Biron

Øystein Saksvik

(2016). Organizational health interventions: Advances in evaluation methodology. Stress & Health, 32, 255-257.

42.

Keashly

Harvey

(2005). Emotional abuse in the workplace. In Fox

Spector

(Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 201-235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

43.

Keeney

McKenna

Hasson

(2011). The Delphi technique in nursing & health research. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

44.

Law

Dollard

M. F.

Tuckey

M. R.

Dormann

(2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1782-1793.

45.

León-Pérez

J. M.

Arenas

Griggs

T. B.

(2012). Effectiveness of conflict management training to prevent workplace bullying. In Tehrani

(Ed.), Workplace bullying: Symptoms and solutions (pp. 230-243). New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Leymann

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

47.

Liefooghe

Mackenzie Davey

(2010). The language and organization of bullying at work. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32, 71-95.

48.

Magee

Gordon

Robinson

Caputi

Oades

(2017). Workplace bullying and absenteeism: The mediating roles of poor health and work engagement. Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 319-334.

49.

McCarthy

Barker

(2000). Workplace bullying risk audit. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand, 16, 409-417.

50.

Miller

Rayner

(2012). The form and function of “bullying” behaviors in a strong occupational culture: Bullying in a U.K. police service. Group & Organization Management, 37, 347-375.

51.

Mills

(2011). Grappling with the dark side of organisations. Australian Journal of Communication, 38(1), 1-19.

52.

Okoli

Pawlowski

S. D.

(2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15-29.

53.

Omari

Paull

(Eds.). (2016). Workplace abuse, incivility and bullying: Methodological and cultural perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Ovretveit

(1998). Evaluating health interventions: An introduction to evaluation of health treatments, services, policies and organizational interventions. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

55.

Pate

Beaumont

(2010). Bullying and harassment: A case of success? Employee Relations, 32, 171-183.

56.

Paull

Omari

Standen

(2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 351-366.

57.

Powell

(2002). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 376-382.

58.

Power

Brotheridge

Blenkinsopp

Bowes-Sperry

Bozionelos

Buzády

. . . Nnedum

O. A. U.

(2013). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of Business Research, 66, 374-380.

59.

Rayner

Lewis

(2011). Managing workplace bullying: The role of policies. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 327-340). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

60.

Reknes

Pallesen

Magerøy

Moen

B. E.

Bjorvatn

Einarsen

(2014). Exposure to bullying behaviors as a predictor of mental health problems among Norwegian nurses: Results from the prospective SUSSH-survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51, 479-487.

61.

Ritzman

M. E.

(2016). A phenomenon we can’t ignore: Performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying. Performance Improvement, 55, 14-22.

62.

Rodriguez-Carballeira

Escartin

Visauta

Porrua

Martin-Pena

(2010). Categorization and hierarchy of workplace bullying strategies: A Delphi survey. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 297-308.

63.

Saam

(2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 19, 51-75.

64.

Safe Work Australia. (2016). Guide for preventing and responding to workplace bullying. Canberra: Author.

65.

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, 221-231.

66.

Samnani

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, 581-589.

67.

Sanson

Havighurst

Zubrick

(2011). The science of prevention for children and youth. Australian Review of Public Affairs, 10, 79-93.

68.

Shallcross

Ramsay

Barker

(2013). Severe workplace conflict: The experience of mobbing. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6, 191-213.

69.

Sloboda

Petras

(Eds.). (2014). Defining prevention science. New York, NY: Springer.

70.

Stagg

S. J.

Sheridan

(2010). Effectiveness of bullying and violence prevention programs: A systematic review. American Association of Industrial Nurses Journal, 58, 419-424.

71.

Stormont

Reinke

Herman

(2010). Introduction to the special issue: Using prevention science to address mental health issues in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 47(1), 1-3.

72.

Ulschak

F. L.

(1983). Human resource development: The theory and practice of need assessment. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.

73.

von der Gracht

. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Re-opinion and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1525-1536.

74.

Waltz

T. J.

Powell

B. J.

Chinman

M. J.

Smith

J. L.

Matthieu

M. M.

Proctor

E. K.

. . . Kirchner

J. E.

(2014). Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): Protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Science, 9, Article 39.

75.

Witkin

B. R.

Altschuld

J. W.

(1995). Planning and conducting needs assessment: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB