Coping With Workplace Bullying Through NAVER: Effects of LMX Relational Concerns and Cultural Differences

Abstract

Workplace bullying inevitably has grave individual and organizational consequences, including lowered morale and productivity. Given such negative consequences, this study explored five coping strategies: neglect, acquiescence, voice, exit, and retribution (NAVER). This research examined the extent to which relational concerns such as leader-member exchanges (LMXs) and cultural variations (the United States and Singapore) affect use of the five coping strategies after controlling for actual exposure to workplace bullying, gender, and age. Findings indicated that the quality of LMX significantly influence the strategic use of acquiescence, exit, and retribution. No significant cultural variation in coping strategies was detected. LMX quality and actual experience of workplace bullying were the strongest determinants for the use of all coping strategies but exit.

Keywords

workplace bullying coping strategies leader-member exchange culture Singapore

Workplace bullying is malicious intentional verbal and nonverbal behaviors through which the perpetrator does the victim serious harm over an extended period of time (Tye-Williams & Krone, 2015). It leads to grave individual and organizational consequences. For example, victims tend to suffer from one or more negative physical and psychological health problems, including stress, burnout, anxiety, irritability, depression, resentment, fear of violence, reduced self-confidence, and even suicidal thoughts as well as an increase in job dissatisfaction, voluntary turnover or turnover intention, early retirement, absenteeism, unemployment and a decrease in productivity, organizational identification, and commitment (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009; Tehrani, 2012).

Keashly, Trott, and MacLean (1994) reported that when subjected to bullying at work, 13.6% of the victims chose to leave their job as a way to cope with bullying. Once the initial attempts of voice or active and constructive problem-solving approach failed (i.e., bullying remains unresolved), victims typically shifted to coping behaviors of avoidance or organizational exit (e.g., Djurkovic, McCormack, & Casimir, 2005; Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001; Kwan, Tuckey, & Dollard, 2016; Niedl, 1996; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Such coping behaviors are the victim’s strategic communication responses to the distress of bullying and represent a form of feedback that helps the management/leadership and others recognize and deal with the situation (McClean, Burris, & Detert, 2013; Withey & Cooper, 1989).

Research suggested that little is known about why victims enact one coping behavior or another. That is, “we already know something about the kinds of defensive or coping strategies victims choose in the bullying process. However, we do not know why victims choose a particular strategy” (Porhola, Karhunen, & Rainivaara, 2006, p. 271). A significant gap exists in understanding how work contexts such as perpetrator-victim relationships affect victims’ experiences of bullying and their choice of coping behaviors (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Kwan et al., 2016). To pursue additional insight into the problem of bullying, this research focuses on a relational work context, the superior-subordinate relationship, to seek an explanation for employees’ coping behaviors. This relationship is the primary venue through which employees engage in and experience most of their daily events, negotiate roles, share information, offer feedback, shape perceptions and attitudes, impart dissents, and resolve conflicts (e.g., Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Jablin, 2001; Turnage & Goodboy, 2016).

In addition, this study examines cultural differences on bullying and coping. Based on a 20-year literature review, Samnani and Singh (2012) noted that cultural variance received little attention in the workplace bullying literature. Some studies suggested that culture appears to influence how employees experience bullying behaviors (Loh, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2010; Power et al., 2013). As workforce issues become increasingly global, cross-cultural comparisons may enhance our understanding of how workplace bullying is managed. That insight may help businesses find universal or cross-culturally appealing standards or codes of conduct, intervention policies or practices toward bullying (e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Power et al., 2013).

As a whole, this study investigated the potential roles that relational work context and cultural difference play in affecting employees’ coping behaviors toward bullying in the workplace. After reviewing the literature regarding coping behaviors in response to workplace bullying, the article asks research questions, explains the methodology, reports results, and discusses findings.

Review of Literature

Workplace bullying is intentionally aggressive and harmful communicative behaviors carried out repeatedly, over time in a work relationship characterized by power imbalance (Porhola et al., 2006). Some characteristics distinguish workplace bullying from other forms of aggressive behavior at work (e.g., social undermining, incivility, abusive supervision, and interpersonal conflicts). They are persistent, frequent, and negative communicative behaviors enacted between or among people with differential power (Hershcovis, 2011).

Workplace bullying behaviors are specifically manifested in “physical, verbal, and nonverbal attacks directed toward the victim or victims, as well as the direct and indirect forms of hurting, abusing, or socially excluding a peer or peers, a supervisor, or subordinates” (Porhola et al., 2006, p. 250). Bullying communication behaviors take on “a loud, aggressive, or critical tone” (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2017) and are coercive, destructive, and unethical, revolving around the abuse of power or authority to intimidate or threat the victim to get one’s own way at work (Valde & Henningsen, 2015). They take place “repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., about six months)” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011, p. 22), building a hostile work environment (Salin, 2003, p. 1215).

Workplace bullying occurs worldwide (Power et al., 2013). It takes place across different types of organizations and nations. For example, it occurred in educational, social, financial, public, health and industrial sectors, including universities, shipyards, steel mills, hospitals, hotels and restaurants, banks, and so on (Lewis, 2006; Zapf, Escartin, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2011). Although workplace bullying was initially explored in European organizations (Einarsen, 2000), the recognition and study of the problem is spreading worldwide (Agervold, 2007; Power et al., 2013). To cope with bullying, which seems prevalent and global, victims engage in strategic cognitive endeavors and communicative actions.

Coping Strategies: Types

Coping with bullying refers to the victim’s strategic communication behaviors and cognitive efforts to manage or overcome repetitive, persistent socially stressful or negative acts (Dehue, Bolman, Vollink, & Pouwelse, 2012). Despite the prevalence of workplace bullying, Kwan and her colleagues (2016) noted that “Surprisingly, few studies have examined the coping strategies that employees use to confront bullying” (p. 133), but few such studies have been conducted (e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2010; Keashly et al., 1994; Kwan et al., 2016; Rayner, 1997; Van den Brande, Baillien, De Witte, Elst, & Godderis, 2016; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Collectively these studies identified response and reaction patterns among bullying victims.

Keashly et al. (1994), for example, compiled 16 different coping behaviors and found that indirect coping strategies were most popular (e.g., ignoring/avoiding the person, talking with others to learn how to deal with the person, telling the supervisor/boss, or joking about the behavior). Indirect behaviors may contribute to the persistence of abusive situations. The least popular coping behaviors included: threatening to tell others, threatening to harm the person(s), taking sick days or time off, submitting a grievance, and requesting temporary assignment elsewhere.

Similarly, Rayner (1997) reported that, among nine listed behaviors, victims of bullying relatively frequently confront the perpetrator, do nothing, consult personnel (human resources), seek help from colleagues, or leave their jobs. Of the nine behaviors, the least popular coping responses included requesting counseling, seeking outside help, confiding in a general practitioner/medical doctor, or seeing union.

Using focus group interviews, Jóhannsdóttir and Ólafsson (2004) delineated 16 coping behaviors and identified 4 underlying dimensions: seek help (e.g., union, human resources, colleagues, and boss), avoidance (e.g., sick leave, transfer, turnover, helplessness), assertiveness (e.g., answer back, fight back with bullying, ask the bully to stop), and do nothing (e.g., ignore, wait and hope it stops, seek counsel).

Kwan and her colleagues (2016), following Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect (EVLN) strategies enacted to deal with dissatisfying moments in organizations, organized coping behaviors into exit, voice, acquiescence, and neglect (EVAN) strategies. Exit strategy included quitting job and thinking about leaving the organization. Voice involved talking to an organizational member and discussing the bullying situation with management. Acquiescence includes yielding to the offender’s instructions and accepting the bullying in the short term (due to being afraid of losing job, having privileges taken away, affecting annual appraisal, being categorized as having discipline problems, or thought that bullying is common in the organization). Neglect includes keeping silent and doing nothing, staying away, ignoring the offender, and keeping the bullying to themselves.

In sum, specific coping strategies and individual tactics have been delineated and judged to be more or less popular. Such behaviors have been categorized into two broad strategy types: problem-focused coping (reappraisal, confrontive, practical, direct, active, and social support) and emotion-focused coping (wishful thinking, emotional, avoidance, self-care, recreation, and social support and suppression) (Van den Brande et al., 2016). To continue to determine strategy type and use, such as Kwan and her colleagues’ (2016) EVAN, the following research question was asked:

Research Question 1: What are underlying strategies of coping behaviors?

Coping Strategies: Selection/Use Factors

Several factors seem to affect the strategic selection and use of coping behaviors/tactics, including bullying stage or time, effectiveness of the strategy, control over the bullying situation, type of bullying, exposure to bullying, safety climate, resilience, gender, and age. In general, in the initial stage of bullying, victims first try active and/or constructive strategies such as confronting the bully. But if the bullying gets serious and escalates (i.e., active strategies are not successful or effective), victims tend to enact more passive strategies such as avoidance and do nothing (Jóhannsdóttir & Ólafsson, 2004; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Also, if the victim lacks power or control over the bullying situation, he/she is likely to resort to passive rather than active strategies (Maidaniuc-Chirila, 2015).

Furthermore, actual exposure to workplace bullying is an important determinant of the choice of coping strategies. For example, victims preferred to use exit strategy in order to cope with the bullying more than nonvictims (witnesses and bystanders) did (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003; Keashly et al., 1994; Rayner, 1997; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Bullied employees used compensation strategy (e.g., drinking) more than employees who were not bullied (Dehue et al., 2012). Employees subjected to workplace bullying used the problem-solving strategy significantly less, but avoidance and resignation strategies more often than did their peers who were not subjected to workplace bullying (Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001). According to Rayner (1999), only a small number of victims actually confronted the perpetrator or raised the problem with their supervisor or manager. This finding is in contrast to what nonvictims mentioned that they would do if they were bullied.

Lee and Brotheridge (2006) reported that the type of bullying relates to coping strategies. Verbal abuse type was tied to problem solving strategy, and belittlement was related to strategies of self-doubt, indirect/passive coping, and ignoring the bully. Jóhannsdóttir and Ólafsson (2004) found that general bullying rather than work-related bullying was related to avoidance and do-nothing strategies.

Workplace bullying victims with a more resilient personality (i.e., personal ability to respond positively when faced with challenging environments) engaged less in the strategy of focus on and venting of emotions (Maidaniuc-Chirila, 2015). Jóhannsdóttir and Ólafsson (2004) discovered that gender of the victim was stereotypically related to use of coping strategies; compared to female victims, male victims used less seek help, less avoidance, but more assertive strategy. Furthermore, older victims were more likely to engage in do-nothing strategy than younger victims.

Organizational climate seems to be an important factor in coping strategies as well. In organizations with high psychosocial safety climate (i.e., feeling secure and protected), employees encountered less bullying (Law, Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann, 2011) and, when actually exposed, used voice and quickly resolved the bullying (Kwan et al., 2016). On the other hand, in organizations with low psychosocial safety climate, employees experienced more bullying and practiced neglect or acquiescence strategies and, when the bullying remains unresolved, exited the organization. In sum, victims appear to prefer nonconfrontational and exit strategies to other types when coping with bullying at the workplace. Furthermore, only a few personal and contextual determinants on the choice of coping strategies were explored thus far. The literature suggests that relational considerations and cultural settings may affect the selection and use of coping strategies (see Figure 1 for the conceptual model of the study).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model for the effect of leader-member exchange on use of coping strategies moderated by culture with covariates.

Relational Considerations

Workplace bullying is primarily interpersonal transgression from superiors, subordinates, coworkers, and/or other relational partners (Einarsen et al., 2009; Ortega, Hogh, Pejtersen, Feveile, & Olsen, 2009). Empirical findings suggest that peer or co-worker bullying was most typical, constituting up to 71.5% of all bullying in Danish organizations (Ortega et al., 2009). However, the majority of the bullies were usually leaders, managers or supervisors (Einarsen, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2011). For example, 75% or more of the offenders were organizational leaders in the United Kingdom (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001). Namie (2000) also found that 81% of the bullies in the United States were victims’ bosses. Based on their examination of 40 earlier studies from different countries, Zapf and his colleagues (2011) indicated that, weighted by sample size, 65.4%, 39.4%, and 9.7% of the bullies were supervisors, colleagues/coworkers, and subordinates, respectively. Power imbalance in the supervisory relationship fits the profile of the superiors as the prime perpetrators (Porhola et al., 2006).

Nonetheless, supervisory relationships have received surprisingly little attention in workplace bullying inquiries (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010). Extant studies have focused primarily on the link between leadership style and workplace bullying. For instance, autocratic, tyrannical, non-contingent or arbitrary punishment, laissez-faire leadership styles were positively related to workplace bullying, whereas participative, fair and supportive, constructive, and empowering leaderships were negatively associated with workplace bullying (e.g., Hauge et al., 2011; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Hoel et al., 2010; Nielsen, Tvedt, & Matthiesen, 2013; Skogstad, Torsheim, Einarsen, & Hauge, 2011).

A highly informative framework for understanding the supervisory relationship is the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. Its essential premise is that leaders (supervisors, managers) have limited resources (e.g., time, energy, information, attractive tasks, support, and influence in valued decisions) and deliberately negotiate and distribute their resources strategically among their members (subordinates, employees) (e.g., Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Furthermore, empirical findings suggest that employee characteristics (e.g., competence, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, locus of control, and positive and negative affects), leader characteristics (e.g., contingent rewards, transformational leadership, expectation of follower success, extraversion and agreeableness), and interpersonal perceptions (e.g., perceived similarity, liking, emotional entrainment/synchronization, ingratiation, and self-promotion, leader trust in the employee) are at play in the process of resource negotiations (Cropanzano, Dashborough, & Weiss, 2017; Dulebohn et al., 2012).

Differences in the negotiated distribution of resources then lead to the formation of differential qualities of LMX relationships over time. At one extreme, high-quality social relationship (in-group LMX) exhibits a high degree of mutual positive affect, loyalty, relationship obligation, professional respect, emotional support, trust and commitment. It is also characterized by open, informal, and frequent communication. The opposite is observed in the other extreme of low-quality economic relationship (out-group LMX) and typically resembles a contract-based hired hand (Graen, 2004; Lee, 2005).

The quality of LMX is likely to influence subordinates’ coping behaviors because employees in differential LMXs communicate differently. Overall, LMX qaulity is strongly correlated to communication exchanges in professional development, professional trust, verbal communication, nonverbal communication, and other areas (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017). More specifically, for example, employees in higher quality LMXs tend to talk more frequently, seek more voice and feedback opportunities, participate and get involved in decision making more often, and engage in greater cooperative and receptive information sharing, rational argument, integrative conflict resolution, and person-oriented message exchanges with higher conversation quality (e.g., Bakar, Mohamad, & Mustafa, 2007; Fairhurst, 1993; Geertshuis, Morrison, & Cooper-Thomas, 2015; Jian, Shi, & Dalisay, 2014; Lee & Jablin, 1995). In an unusual focus on poor LMXs, Townsend, Phillips, and Elkins (2000) discovered that employees in lower quality LMXs tend to engage in greater disruptive retaliatory communication behaviors, including speaking poorly about the firm, gossiping about boss, giving a coworker silent treatment, not giving a coworker required information, and spreading rumors. Thus, the quality of LMX is powerfully tied to employee communication behaviors and, by implication, those behaviors selected and used to cope with workplace bullying.

As noted earlier, Kwan and her colleagues (2016) organized coping behaviors into the EVAN coping strategies. They found that, when subjected to workplace bullying, employees working for an organization with positive safety climate use voice, whereas those working for an organization with negative safety climate engage in acquiescence, neglect, and exit. In clinical settings, when interacting with in-group members, supervisors engaged in more total and open communication, offered more feedback and communication about errors, and responded to errors less punitively than with out-group members (Thompson et al., 2011). Furthermore, when employees perceived their supervisors are actively or attentively listening, they feel safe to speak up or talk openly (Lloyd, Boer, Keller, & Voelpel, 2015). Such findings are suggestive that in-group members feel safer than out-group peers. Similarly, when supervisors are perceived to be fair, receptive and supportive, they engaged in greater upward voice behaviors (e.g., Detert & Trevino, 2010; Kassing, 2002; Morrison, 2014). Accordingly, in-group members are likely to cope with workplace bullying by enacting voice more often and less acquiescence, neglect and/or exit than out-group counterparts. In a field experiment, Lee and Varon (2016) found that, when faced with a dissatisfying situation of interactional injustice, subordinates with high-quality LMXs used exit and neglect strategies significantly less, but more loyalty strategy than their peers with low-quality LMXs. There was no difference in use of voice strategy. Thus, LMX quality is more likely to predict use of exit, neglect, and other strategies. Nonetheless, with little empirical data in the extant literature, we put forward a research question:

Research Question 2: To what extent does the quality of LMX relate to use of coping strategies?

Cultural Considerations

Cultural values and belief systems affect how individuals perceive and respond to conflicts, including dissatisfying, aggressive, frustrating, and/or abusive situations in organizational contexts (Escartin, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodríguez-Carballeira, 2011; Harvey, Treadway, Heames, & Duke, 2009; Lee & Jablin, 1992; Loh et al., 2010; Power et al., 2013; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007; Triandis, 1995). Different cultures are likely to handle conflicts such as workplace bullying differently.

Empirical cross-cultural comparisons of workplace bullying and coping behaviors are rare (Loh et al., 2010). Thus, little is understood about what really underlies cross-cultural or national differences in bullying-related behaviors (e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Salin & Hoel, 2011). A cross-cultural comparison in coping behaviors will help raise awareness of cultural variations in the workplace, devise culturally adaptive or effective intervention programs, and/or create campaigns to manage or cope with workplace bullying ethically in global contexts (Escartin et al., 2011; Harvey et al., 2009).

Hofstede’s (2001) work demonstrated that different cultures or nations stick to different values. At least two variations in managerial values (power distance and individualism) are closely associated with workplace bullying (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Samnani & Singh, 2012). One key definitional feature of workplace bullying is power imbalance between offender and victim (e.g., Einarsen et al., 2011). As such, the power distance dimension becomes especially relevant to workplace bullying. Power distance is “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 9). High power distance cultures include China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, whereas low power distance countries include Austria, Israel, Norway, and the United States.

Loh and her colleagues (2010) suggested that workplace bullying is generally more accepted in high vs. low power distance countries. Employees in high power distance countries tend to perceive bullying as a result of mistakes that they made in the workplace and therefore are more likely to accept bullying as part of the working environment. Thus, they are less likely to enact voice, but more likely to practice acquiescence and/or neglect to cope with workplace bullying than employees in low power distance countries. Furthermore, employees in lower power distance cultures tend to discuss mistreatments more openly and respond more negatively than employees in higher power distance cultures (Samnani & Singh, 2012). Employees in low power distance cultures are more likely to report using voice to cope with workplace bullying than their counterparts in high power distance cultures.

Another cultural dimension that has important implications for coping with workplace bullying is individualism-collectivism (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Samnani & Singh, 2012). This cultural dimension is about “the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 11). High individualism countries include Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and low individualism (high collectivism) cultures include China, Indonesia, Korea, and Singapore. In highly individualistic society like the United States, social emphasis is on individual assertiveness (Samnani & Singh, 2012). Furthermore, individualistic and low power-distanced Americans approached dissatisfying work situations with voice than collectivistic, high power–distanced Koreans (Lee & Jablin, 1992). Triandis (1995) also indicated that individualistic cultures tend to manage conflicts with a problem-solution approach, whereas collectivistic cultures address conflicts with a face-maintenance approach. Thus, the likelihood of using an active strategy like voice to cope with workplace bullying is higher in individualistic rather than collectivistic culture. However, on the whole, the extant literature has not directly and adequately examined cultural variations in use of coping strategies. Thus, a research question is advanced:

Research Question 3: To what extent does the use of coping strategies relate to culture?

In addition, the current study also examined a potential, yet unexplored, interaction effect of LMX quality and culture on use of coping strategies to manage workplace bullying. This question delves into the moderating role of culture in the relationship between LMX quality and use of coping strategies.

Research Question 4: To what extent does the relationship between LMX quality and use of coping strategies differ by culture?

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample was composed of respondents from two nations: Singapore and the United States. After excluding respondents with no work experience, patterned answers (e.g., selecting only 3s on a 5-point scale), partial completions (50% or less), duplicates, or unspecified nationality, the final sample was 648 respondents. About 58% were Americans and about 42% were Singaporeans. Among American respondents (N = 376), about 43% were European Americans, 16% African Americans, 20% Latin Americans, 13% Asian Americans, and 8% mixed or other Americans, respectively. About 26% were males and 74% females, aged in the category of 25 years or less (65%), 26 to 30 years (17%), 31 years and older (18%), with full-time employment (34%), part-time employment (48%), and previous work experiences (18%), respectively. They worked in retail sales and customer service (22%), hospitality sectors (16%), education services (14%), communications (9%), health care (8%), financial services (7%), oil & gas (6%), and other industries (18%). About 20% completed high school, 50% some college or 2-year college, 18% 4-year college with bachelor’s degrees, and 12% graduate or professional programs with master’s or doctoral degrees.

For Singaporean participants (N = 272), about 89% were Singaporean Chinese, 4% Singaporean Indians, 1% Singaporean Malays, and 6% mixed or other Singaporeans. About 41% were males and 59% females, aged in the category of 25 years or less (61%), 26 to 30 years (19%), and 31 years and older (20%), with full-time employment (50%), part-time employment (16%), and previous work experiences (34%). They worked in education (14%), financial services (14%), retail sales and customer services (11%), government & military (11%), shipping and transportation (8%), hospitality sectors (8%), communications (6%), and other industries (28%). About 1% completed high school, 58% some college or 2-year college, 36% 4-year college with bachelor’s degrees, and 5% graduate or professional programs with master’s or doctoral degrees.

A survey questionnaire was first developed and subjected to a pilot test with 29 full-time employees (15 Americans and 14 Singaporeans) for issues of clarity, ways of presenting questions, length, and the like. Then a pencil-and-paper and a web version of the questionnaire were finalized. The questionnaire was written in English for both nations. English is the first language in Singapore and used at work as well as nonwork settings (Chew, 2007).

With institutional review board approval from the university, an email with a link to a survey website (SurveyMonkey.com) was sent to instructors of several universities and informal contacts in Singapore. Similarly, the survey link was emailed to instructors in a large southwestern commuter university in the United States to forward to prospective participants (i.e., people who are currently or previously and preferably employed full-time). In addition, the survey was also placed on social networking sites, and flyers/posters about the survey were distributed or posted on bulletin boards. Participants had a chance of winning a gift card for a token appreciation.

Participants simply clicked on the link in the email to be taken to the survey website. After reading the consent form, participants were asked to provide their consent by selecting Next. Furthermore, using the network sampling technique (Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000), participants were asked to send the survey link to two additional prospective participants at their current or previous workplaces.

Measurement of Variables

Coping Strategies

Lee and Brotheridge (2006) compiled 22 specific communicative behaviors and activities that people enact to cope with bullying at work. Our literature review suggested two additional behaviors (“Sought help from a counselor or professional,” Jóhannsdóttir & Ólafssonr, 2004 and “Fought back with similar means or behavior,” Zapf & Gross, 2001). Thus, 24 specific coping behaviors were used to measure and identify coping strategies. Participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they used or would use (if not actually exposed to workplace bullying) the 24 various coping behaviors on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1= never to 5 = very often.

LMX Quality

The quality of LMX was measured by seven items recommended in earlier studies (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Respondents indicated their level of agreement to the 7 statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = to a very little extent to 5 = to a very great extent. The typical respondents perceived having a moderate quality of LMXs with their superiors (M = 3.47, SD = 1.01 for Americans; M = 3.49, SD = 0.77 for Singaporeans). The reliability of the LMX measure was high for both American and Singaporean samples, Cronbach’s α = .92. In addition, the quality of LMX was median-split, creating high- and low-quality LMXs.

Culture

Culture in this study was equated with nationality (Hofstede, 2011). Citizens of USA represented American culture, whereas citizens of Singapore represented Singaporean culture.

Control Variables

Three variables found to affect use of coping strategies (i.e., age, gender, exposure to bullying) were controlled in order to exclude alternative accounts for the findings. Women may have higher risk of getting bullied especially in the public sector and be less able to defend themselves than men when subjected to bullying (Zapf et al., 2011). Demographic factors such as age, gender and ethnicity are likely to affect bullying experiences at work (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Loh et al., 2010). Exposure to workplace bullying significantly mattered to perceptions of prevalence, harmfulness, intervention, and solutions (Branch & Murray, 2015; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Rayner, 1997). Information on age and gender was collected as part of demographic background. Respondents were also asked about whether they were actually subjected to workplace bullying. About 38% Americans (N = 140) and 27% Singaporeans (N = 72) answered in the affirmative. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of major variables (e.g., means, standard deviations, and correlations).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Major Variables by Culture: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
USA
1. Bullying	0.38	0.48
2. Gender	1.74	0.44	.12*
3. Age	3.78	1.75	.19**	.01
4. LMX	3.47	1.01	−.34**	−.09	−.17**
5. Neglect	2.76	0.98	.25**	.15**	.06	−.11
6. Acquiescence	2.22	1.00	.48**	.16**	.20**	−.35**	.49**
7. Voice	2.26	0.93	.24**	.10	−.03	−.06	.29**	.34**
8. Exit	1.54	0.77	.17**	.03	.14*	−.23**	.52**	.51**	.20**
9. Retribution	1.82	1.00	.29**	−.05	−.02	−.21**	.45**	.39**	.24**	.36**
Singapore
1. Bullying	0.27	0.44
2. Gender	1.59	0.49	−.01
3. Age	3.82	2.02	−.05	−.15*
4. LMX	3.49	0.77	−.21**	−.09	.09
5. Neglect	2.68	0.90	.32**	−.13*	−.12	−.06
6. Acquiescence	2.18	0.89	.40**	.03	−.07	−.27**	.48**
7. Voice	2.07	0.77	.15*	−.08	.05	.08	.33**	.35**
8. Exit	1.46	0.56	.02	.08	.06	−.01	.42**	.55**	.17*
9. Retribution	1.83	0.99	.19**	−.16*	.01	−.17*	.42**	.48**	.21**	.43**

Note. Bullying = exposure to workplace bullying (no = 0, yes = 1). Gender (1 = male, 2 = female). Age, years (1 = <18, 2 = 18-20, 3 = 21-25, 4 = 26-30, 5 = 31-35, 6 = 36-40, 7 = 41-45, 8 = 46-50, 9 = 51-55, 10 = 56-60, 11 = 60+). The number of Americans ranged from 308 to 374 and Singaporeans from 222 to 272. LMX = leader-member exchange.

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed tests were conducted for all correlations).

Data Analysis

First, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 24 coping behaviors to identify underlying factors or strategies. One multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was then conducted to determine main effects of the quality of LMX and culture and an interaction effect of the quality of LMX × culture on use of coping strategies, while controlling for age, gender, and bullying exposure. Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices was significant at the .001 level. Thus, instead of Wilks’s lambda, the most robust or conservative test of Pillai’s trace was used in the analysis.

Results

Coping Strategies

Exploratory factor analysis (i.e., principal component analysis with varimax rotation) was conducted to identify underlying structures of 24 coping behaviors (Research Question 1). Results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure (index score of .88) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (approximate χ² = 5662.85, df = 276, p < .001) indicated that the factor analysis is appropriate with no sampling adequacy issue. Based on the criteria of eigenvalue greater than 1.0, scree test, variance and residuals, the analysis produced a five-component solution, accounting for 61.48% of the total variance in the 24 original items.

The first component (eigenvalue of 4.40) accounted for 18.34% of the total variance and consisted of seven items that addressed a psychological and behavioral defeat or acquiescence to the demands from the bullying situation (e.g., feeling bad, helpless, worthless, less productive, and avoiding). This component is thus labeled as acquiescence. The second component (eigenvalue of 3.06) explained 12.73% of the total variance and consisted of five items that focused on actively seeking solutions via direct and indirect talks (e.g., telling supervisor and others, asking the offender to stop, threaten the offender to tell others, asking someone to speak to the offender). This component was labeled as voice. The third component (eigenvalue of 2.99) accounted for 12.44% of the total variance and had five items that described neglect characterized by behaviors of passive endurance (e.g., not caring about it, not being serious about it, be calm, ignoring, doing nothing). The fourth component (eigenvalue of 2.49) explained 10.37% of the total variance and had five items that suggested strategic disengagement from the scene or exit (e.g., seek temporary new assignment, turnover, call in sick/time off, request third party investigation, seek professional help). The fifth component (eigenvalue of 1.83) accounted for 7.61% of the total variance and consisted of 2 items that focused on counterattack or retribution (e.g., fighting back with similar behaviors, getting revenge). These components or coping strategies were almost identical in nature and types to those identified in the study by Kwan and her colleagues (2016). This study extracted one additional strategy of retribution. All strategies were acceptably reliable for both American and Singaporean samples with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .64 to .87. Table 2 presents factor items, components, loadings, and reliabilities.

Table 2.

Coping With Workplace Bullying, Items, Principal Components, and Loadings.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	AM	SN
16. Felt helpless to do anything	.867	.029	.097	.157	−.003	.87^a	.86^a
14. Felt bad about myself	.854	.018	.107	.205	−.016
15. Felt worthless	.823	−.025	.048	.279	−.008
17. Lowered my productivity	.639	.130	.145	.175	.338
18. Thought about quitting	.626	.155	.118	.128	.353
2. Avoided the person	.526	.235	.427	−.043	.148
9. Went along with the behavior	.417	−.066	.324	.148	.314
5. Told my supervisor/boss	−.012	.803	.105	.175	−.045	.79	.75
3. Asked or told the person to stop	−.007	.720	.111	.056	.209
10. Got someone to speak to the person about the behavior	.110	.692	.075	.270	.055
4. Threatened to tell others	.030	.632	−.056	.377	.217
11. Talked with others about the behavior	.416	.567	.288	−.108	.131
21. Acted as if you didn’t care	.118	.013	.818	.032	.195	.78	.79
20. Didn’t take the behavior seriously	−.101	.076	.793	.080	.171
22. Stayed calm	.169	.227	.757	−.061	−.145
1. Ignored the behavior or did nothing	.468	−.043	.640	−.033	.065
12. Behaved extra nice to the person	.315	.113	.465	.226	−.221
7. Requested a temporary assignment elsewhere	.037	.344	.037	.672	.139	.77	.71
8. Left/quit the organization	.239	.034	.028	.660	.151
6. Requested an investigation by a person senior to my supervisor	.048	.508	−.063	.596	.113
13. Took sick days or time off	.417	.083	.057	.577	.190
23. Sought help from a counselor/professional	.268	.206	.078	.568	−.136
24. Fought back with similar means or behavior	.035	.218	.067	.223	.772	.64	.74
19. Thought about getting revenge	.353	.211	.096	.040	.711	.64	.74

Note. C1 = Acquiescence; C2 = Voice; C3 = Neglect; C4 = Exit; C5 = Retribution; Bold-faced loadings within each column constitute the component or strategy; AM = American sample; SN = Singaporean sample.

Cronbach’s alpha.

Research Questions 2 to 4 explored the extent to which LMX quality, culture, and LMX quality × culture affect use of coping strategies, respectively. A two-way MANCOVA was conducted. Two independent variables were LMX quality (low vs. high) and culture (the United States vs. Singapore). The dependent variables were five coping strategies. The covariates were: experience of bullying, gender, and age. Results of the MANCOVA procedure indicated that the main effect of LMX quality adjusted for covariates was significant for the combined measure of coping strategies, Pillai’s trace = .06, multivariate F(5, 436) = 5.30, p < .001, partial η² = .05. On the other hand, the main effect of culture adjusted for covariates was not significant on use of coping strategies as a whole, Pillai’s trace = .01, multivariate F(5, 436) = .84, p > .05, partial η² = .01. The interaction effect of LMX quality and culture on use of coping strategies adjusted for covariates was not significant, Pillai’s trace = .02, multivariate F(5, 436) = 1.44, p > .05, partial η² = .02, indicating that culture does not affect the effect of LMX quality on use of coping strategies.

Univariate ANCOVA results showed that LMX quality significantly affected three coping strategies: acquiescence, F(1, 440) = 15.73, p < .001, partial η² = .04; exit, F(1, 440) = 4.10, p < .05, partial η² = .01; and retribution, F(1, 440) = 6.15, p < .01, partial η² = .01. Relative to their out-group counterparts, employees in in-group LMXs are significantly less likely to use acquiescence (M = 2.02 vs. 2.35), exit (M = 1.41 vs. 1.54), and retribution strategies (M = 1.70 vs. 1.93) to cope with workplace bullying. Culture had one marginally significant effect on the strategy of voice, F(1, 440) = 2.82, p = .094, partial η² = .01. An examination of adjusted mean scores across cultures indicated that American employees (M = 2.25) are more likely to engage in voice than their Singaporean counterparts (M = 2.10). Furthermore, there was only one marginally significant interaction effect of LMX quality × culture on use of exit, F(1, 440) = 3.71, p = .055, partial η² = .01. In low-quality LMXs, American employees were more likely to use exit than their Singaporean counterparts (M = 1.64 vs. 1.45). In high-quality LMXs, American employees were less likely to use exit than Singaporean employees (M = 1.38 vs. 1.44) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Interaction effect of leader-member exchange (LMX) quality and culture on exit adjusted for covariates.

The covariates of exposure to workplace bullying, Pillai’s trace = .19, multivariate F(5, 436) = 20.30, p < .001, partial η² = .19 and gender, Pillai’s trace = .04, multivariate F(5, 436) = 3.75, p < .01, partial η² = .04 significantly influenced use of coping strategies as a whole, while age did not, Pillai’s trace = .02, multivariate F(5, 436) = 1.99, p > .05, partial η² = .02. The covariate of exposure to workplace bullying had significant univariate effect on use of acquiescence F(1, 440) = 81.01, p < .001, partial η² = .16, voice F(1, 440) = 17.70, p < .001, partial η² = .04, neglect F(1, 440) = 30.47, p < .001, partial η² = .07, and retribution F(1, 440) = 18.26, p < .001, partial η² = .04, and marginally significant effect on exit F(1, 440) = 2.95, p = .086, partial η² = .01. Individuals who were bullied tended to use all strategies of NAVER (neglect, acquiescence, voice, exit, and retribution) more than those who were not bullied. Gender had one significant effect on retribution, F(1, 440) = 9.34, p < .01, partial η² = .02. Males engaged in retribution more than females. Age had one marginally significant effect on exit, F(1, 440) = 3.24, p = .072, partial η² = .01. Older individuals practiced exit more than younger ones.

Discussion

Coping Strategies

When subjected to workplace bullying, employees are challenged to expend cognitive and behavioral resources to cope with situational demands (Dehue et al., 2012). Based on the 24 coping behavior types selected for this current study, an exploratory factor analysis identified 5 categories of cognitive and behavioral efforts or coping strategies: neglect (N), acquiescence (A), voice (V), exit (E) and retribution (R). Neglect is largely passive and includes such behaviors as not caring about bullying, not being serious about it, ignoring it, trying to stay calm, and doing nothing. Acquiescence manifests a cognitive and behavioral defeat or yielding to the demands from the bullying situation by feeling bad, helpless, or worthless, behaving less productively, and avoiding the bully. Voice strategy focuses on actively seeking solutions by engaging in direct and indirect talks with supervisor and others, asking the offender to stop, threatening the offender to tell others, and asking someone to speak to the offender. Exit is the direct and indirect disengagement from the conflict scene by seeking a temporary assignment at a new location, turning over, calling in sick or taking time off, requesting third party investigation, and pursuing professional help. Retribution highlights employees’ fighting back with similar behaviors or becoming revengeful.

NAVER coping strategies are quite comparable to Kwan and her colleagues’ (2016) EVAN strategies, which were modeled after Hirschman’s (1970) EVLN framework used to manage dissatisfying periods in organizations. This study identifies one additional strategy of retribution in the employee’s repertoire of coping efforts. These five strategies are relatively comprehensive and parsimonious of various coping behaviors. As noted, we assembled and subjected to the factor analysis all the available or reported coping behaviors (i.e., 24 individual behaviors). The number of coping strategies is bound to fluctuate, depending on the number of behaviors in the analysis, the sample, etc. As different or newer coping behaviors are identified and included in the analysis, a different set of strategies are likely to emerge. Nonetheless, the current finding expands Kwan and her colleagues’ (2016) EVAN framework of coping behaviors.

Victims of workplace bullying in both Singapore and the United States were likely to use neglect most frequently (M = 2.74 on a 5-point scale), followed by acquiescence (M = 2.19), voice (M = 2.17), retribution (M = 1.82), and then exit (M = 1.48). This finding is generally consistent with those from Jóhannsdóttir and Ólafsson (2004) and Rayner (1999) that show the reluctance of victims to confront their bullies about the problem or even to seek support from their coworkers. Zapf and Gross (2001) claimed that if the victims were to confront their perpetrators, they might in turn be subjected to even more bullying. Confronting the bully actually escalated or worsened problems for the victims—the perpetrator may choose to take a revenge on the victims (e.g., Aquino, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Rayner, 1999). The reluctance to enact more active solution such as voice on the part of the victim is quite understandable and justifiable. Furthermore, Folkman and Lazarus (1991) suggested that individuals tend to use passive avoidance behaviors (e.g., neglect and acquiescence) as a form of coping strategy as it is relatively easier way for them to handle the stress in the conflict. This also coincides with the findings from several researchers who noted that when powerful others (e.g., employee’s supervisors) exhibit abusive behavior, people would rather use neglect and acquiescence sorts of avoidance behaviors as a coping strategy. Such behaviors allow them to feel a sense of relief, even if it is only for a short period of time (e.g., Tepper et al., 2007).

However, for the desirable resolution of handling the bullying, it is generally more recommended for victims to enact problem solving, active behaviors (e.g., voice and confrontation) as their coping strategies rather than avoidance or emotion-focused passive behaviors (e.g., neglect and acquiescence) as they alert the perpetrator about his or her behavior and therefore, alleviate the problem (e.g., Keashly et al., 1994; Van den Brande et al., 2016).

In the current study, bullied individuals reported enacting all coping strategies of NAVER more than nonbullied counterparts. Lutgen-Sandvik (2006) discovered that victims directly confronted bullies and filed formal grievances, EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) suits, and unfair labor practices more than witnesses. However, in other resistance tactics (e.g., individual and collective resistance, distancing, withholding information), there was little difference. Thus, the current finding is not an exceptional case. Victims may have a stronger and immediate need to employ all available means to fend off direct attacks than non-victims. Victims may have also wanted to exhaust all strategies to preserve their self-esteem (i.e., I have done all that I could have done) or self-identity as a survivor (I fight “a good fight” with all the available means) (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006, 2008).

LMX, Culture, and LMX × Culture

LMX quality is tied to differential use of three coping strategies: acquiescence, exit, and retribution. Compared to their out-group counterparts, employees in in-group LMXs are significantly less likely to practice acquiescence (M = 2.35 vs. 2.02), exit (M = 1.54 vs. 1.41), and retribution strategies (M = 1.93 vs. 1.70) to cope with workplace bullying. This finding suggests that out-group members are more likely to resort to passive and destructive measures to manage workplace bullying. In particular, use of acquiescence and exit is indicative that out-group members, relative to in-group peers, are less successfully coping with workplace bullying. When employees are not able to handle workplace bullying successfully in the initial stage, they typically enact passive strategies (Jóhannsdóttir & Ólafsson, 2004; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Furthermore, Maidaniuc-Chirila (2015) suggested that when lacking power or control over the bullying situation, individuals tend to engage in passive rather than active behaviors. Out-group members are less empowered than in-group members (e.g., Dulebohn et al., 2012; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Thus, when subjected to workplace bullying, employees in low-quality (vs. high-quality) LMXs may more passively and helplessly conduct themselves, yielding to the demands of the bully and even perhaps exiting the organization.

In-group members reported feeling safer or more protected than out-group members did (Thompson et al., 2011). When in-group members made errors in clinical settings, they were treated less harshly than out-group peers. The sense of safety and protection may have served as a behavioral buffer and afforded for in-group members practicing less of passive and destructive strategies of acquiescence, exit and retribution. All in all, it is clear that the quality of LMXs between superiors and subordinates is an important determinant to use of coping strategies to deal with workplace bullying.

This study found that culture has marginally significant effect on the only strategy of voice (p < .10). When exposed to workplace bullying, American employees are more likely to engage in voice than their Singaporean counterparts. This finding is in line with cultural expectation. Low power-distanced individualistic culture like the United States is more voice- and engagement-oriented than high power–distanced collectivistic culture like Singapore (Hofstede, 2011; Triandis, 1995).

However, what is striking is the lack of difference in use of coping strategies across cultures. One tentative conclusion is that indeed there is little or no cultural difference when it comes to enacting actual coping behaviors, although there exist significant cultural variations in bullying prevalence (Loh et al., 2010; Power et al., 2013; Samnani & Singh, 2012). Certain behaviors are situationally driven rather than culturally enacted (e.g., Matsumoto, 2007).

The covariate, exposure to workplace bullying, was highly influential to use of coping strategies. As indicated in the effect size of overall multivariate partial η² = .19, p < .001 for the exposure to bullying (vs. multivariate partial η² = .06, p < .001 for LMX quality vs. multivariate partial η² = .01, p > .05 for culture), the employee’s actual experience of workplace bullying explains the largest variance in use of coping strategies. Thus, culture appears to have a lot more to do with the prevalence of bullying, but little to do with coping strategies. The situational variation of bullying experience, not culture, is overwhelmingly associated with coping strategies. However, it is noteworthy that enacting the same strategies may not mean the same degree of effectiveness when coping with workplace bullying. Future research should explore the difference between use and effectiveness of coping strategies. Effectiveness as perceptions may be much more strongly tied to cultural values and belief systems (Hofstede, 2011).

One additional meaningful finding is the interactional effect of LMX quality x culture on use of the coping strategy of exit (p < .06). In low-quality LMXs, American employees were more likely to use exit than their Singaporean counterparts (M = 1.64 vs. 1.45), whereas in high-quality LMXs, American employees were less likely to use exit than Singaporean employees (M = 1.38 vs. 1.44). This interaction effect is largely a matter of Americans relying on their LMXs for a behavioral guidance and Singaporean steadiness in using the strategy of exit. Singaporeans used exit to the same degree (1.45 vs. 1.44) regardless of their LMX qualities. On the other hand, Americans used exit depending on their LMX qualities; American employees in out-group LMXs are more likely to exit than their counterparts in in-group LMXs. American employees with high-quality LMXs are typically less likely to exit (turnover) than those with low-quality LMXs (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Singaporeans, with cultural emphasis on harmonious relationships between superiors and subordinates (Saini & Budhwar, 2008), may not see behavioral variations being tied to the relationship quality per se. Everybody is expected to develop and maintain more or less the same harmonious LMX relationship with his or her boss.

Implications

In this study, LMX quality is identified for the very first time as a significant determinant for use of coping strategies when faced with workplace bullying. This finding adds to the literature on workplace bullying in general and coping behaviors in particular. This knowledge helps develop a theoretical explanation of the coping process of workplace bullying. Furthermore, this study extends the informative and explanatory power of LMX theory to bullying contexts specifically in coping behaviors. Both American and Singaporean cultures preferred to use the same types of behavioral strategies to cope with workplace bullying. This implies that cultural orientations are a useful theoretical framework to understand workplace bullying to some extent (Loh et al., 2010; Power et al., 2013), but are not capable of fully explaining the phenomenon. Additional theorizing is needed to better understand the workplace bullying process.

Findings from this study also suggest that we have another useful intervention leverage point. To the extent that the supervisory relationship matters to workplace bullying and coping behaviors as reported in this study, future (preventive) intervention efforts must involve relational partners and perhaps a larger network of relationships, possibly including workgroups (e.g., Skogstad et al., 2011). Intervention efforts need to look into the quality of relationship and interaction patterns between and among relational partners, which will offer greater insights on behavioral coaching of coping behaviors. In particular, the supervisor/leader should engage in preventive communication measures against bullying. For example, by listening attentively with positive facial expressions to subordinates, he or she can signal greater openness and foster an environment of safety to speak up (Beukeboom, 2009; Lloyd et al., 2015). This will help the supervisor spot early symptoms of bullying behaviors and do something about it. Employees in out-group LMXs tend to utilize email rather than face-to-face meeting to communicate opinions or perceptions upward (Turnage & Goodboy, 2016). Thus, the superior should be willing to consider alternative media for listening, depending on the quality of LMXs with subordinates.

Sutton (2007) suggested that organizations should implement a zero-tolerance policy, whereby they should fire those perpetrators who refused to follow the policy. However, as Lian, Ferris, and Brown (2012) proposed, due to the severity of implementing the zero-tolerance policies in organizations, it is generally more effective for organizations to penalize the perpetrators, for instance, by forcing them to go on unpaid leave or accept public reprimands rather than firing them. However, this does not obviate the need for effective, constructive coping behaviors. Organizations should implement training programs that increase awareness of workplace bullying as well as effective means for coping with workplace bullying (Salin, 2008). Interventions should be individually tailored according to the needs of victims (Notelaers, Vermunt, Baillien, Einarsen, & De Witte, 2011). For example, a victim who is exposed to job-related bullying may use different coping strategies from one who is physically threatened by his or her perpetrator (Djurkovic et al., 2005). Bullies should also be required to participate in preventive training programs in which they learn acceptable “behavioral boundaries centered on professionalism, communication, and cooperation” (Ritzman, 2016, p. 17).

Limitations and Future Research

There are limitations in this study. First, the notion of workplace bullying may have not been perceived consistently from the one stated in the survey questionnaire. We clearly noted 6 months or longer as a critical feature of workplace bullying. Nonetheless, Singaporeans reported that workplace bullying typically lasted about 2.33 months, whereas Americans said that it lasted 6.69 months. People in different cultures experience workplace bullying differently with different notions of bullying than researchers do (e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Niedl, 1996). Thus, future studies should reflect local employees’ accounts of bullying into the measure of workplace bullying (Liefooghe & Davey, 2003). Another limitation is, for both Americans and Singaporeans, that the sample varied in their employment status from full-time, part-time, to previous work experience. It may be a potential cofounding variable. A series of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures detected no appreciable difference in major variables (e.g., LMX, coping strategies, bullying exposure) across the employment status. Thus, the employment status is likely to be extraneous to the current findings and have little impact on their generalizability. Next, we are not able to rule out social desirability. Some respondents may have offered socially desirable responses perhaps due to their own and workplace image or identity. A measure of social desirability (e.g., Fraboni & Cooper, 1989) would be useful to probe and deal with this issue perhaps statistically in the future study. Another limitation is low statistical power in the analyses. Observed power for all univaritate nonsignificant effects of LMX quality, culture, and LMX quality × culture on use of coping strategies was .485 or lower (i.e., 48.5% or lower chance of detecting a meaningful relationship if one is there). The power level of .800 or greater is typically recommended (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, the inadequate statistical power level indicates that current findings may remain tentative. Additional research perhaps with a larger sample size is needed to ascertain the presence or absence of such effects relating to use of coping strategies.

The next logical step in the direction of research is to develop the comprehensive inventory of coping behaviors and a subsequent delineation of coping strategies. Further, future studies should examine effectiveness of such coping strategies. James and Wooten (2005) indicated that bullying is not a sudden crisis. It is a rather a smoldering type that grows out of small internal problems, become public to stakeholders, and, over time, may escalate to crisis status. Therefore, research needs to take both short- and long-term perspective on effective coping strategies to manage workplace bullying. Intervention, training programs, and other coping resources (e.g., locus of control, self-efficacy, optimism, co-worker support, participation in decision making, autonomy, and continuance commitment; Van den Brande et al., 2016) would grow out of such future research agendas. Future research also needs to identify other potential determinants for use of coping strategies. For example, Big 5 personality types and other relational characteristics could be useful to make theoretical observations of the coping process.

Conclusions

Workplace bullying can have grave individual and organizational consequences. This study identified five coping strategies that are relatively comprehensive and parsimonious: neglect, acquiescence, voice, exit, and retribution (NAVER). The quality of LMXs significantly affected employees’ use of such coping strategies of acquiescence, exit, and retribution when subjected to workplace bullying. Cultural variations across the United States and Singapore were not meaningfully tied to use of the strategies. Actual experience of workplace bullying was the strongest determinant for the use of all coping strategies but exit. Along with exploring additional determinants for use of coping strategies, future research is expected to address both short- and long-term effectiveness of coping strategies.

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.

Author Biographies

Jaesub Lee teaches at the Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston, Texas. His research interests include managerial leadership communication, risk and crisis communication, and health literacy.

Jingpei J. C. Lim is now a communication specialist working for an international firm in Houston, Texas.

Robert L. Heath is Professor-Emeritus at the University of Houston, Texas. His research interests include risk, crisis, safety, and strategic management communication.

References

Agervold

(2007). Bullying at work: A discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 161-172. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00585.x

Aquino

(2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization. The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171-193.

Bakar

H. A.

Mohamad

Mustafa

C. S.

(2007). Superior-subordinate communication dimensions and working relationship: Gender preferences in a Malaysian organization. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 51-69. doi:10.1080/17475750701265282

Beukeboom

C. J.

(2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners change a speaker’s language use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 747-756. doi:10.1002/ejsp.572

Branch

Murray

(2015). Workplace bullying: Is lack of understanding the reason for inaction? Organizational Dynamics, 44, 287-295. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.006

Brotheridge

C. M.

Lee

R. T.

(2010). Restless and confused: Emotional responses to workplace bullying in men and women. Career Development International, 15, 687-707.

Chew

P. G. L.

(2007). Remarking Singapore: Language, culture and identity in a globalized world. In Tsui

A. B. M.

Tollefson

J. W.

(Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 73-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropanzano

Dashborough

M. T.

Weiss

H. M.

(2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42, 233-258. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0384

10.

Dansereau

Graen

G. B.

Haga

W. J.

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

11.

Dehue

Bolman

Vollink

Pouwelse

(2012). Coping with bullying at work and health related problems. International Journal of Stress Management, 19, 175-197. doi:10.1037/a0028969

12.

Detert

J. R.

Trevino

L. K.

(2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 249-270. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0405

13.

Djurkovic

McCormack

Casimir

(2005). The behavioral reactions of victims to different types of workplace bullying. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 8, 439-460.

14.

Dulebohn

J. H.

Bommer

W. H.

Liden

R. C.

Brouer

R. L.

Ferris

G. R.

(2012). A meta-analysis of antecedent and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715-1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280

15.

Einarsen

(2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 371-401.

16.

Einarsen

Hoel

Notelaers

(2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised. Work & Stress, 23, 24-44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673

17.

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 (2nd ed., pp. 3-39). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

18.

Einarsen

Mikkelsen

E. G.

(2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 127-143). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

19.

Escartin

Zapf

Arrieta

Rodríguez-Carbelleira

(2011). Worker’s perception of workplace bullying: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2, 178-250. doi:10.1080/13594320903395652

20.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.

21.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Coping and emotion. In Monat

Lazarus

R. S.

(Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed., pp. 207-227). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

22.

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. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.01.002

23.

Fraboni

Cooper

(1989). Further validation of three short forms of the Marlowe Crowne Scale of Social Desirability. Psychological Reports, 65, 595-600.

24.

Frey

L. R.

Botan

C. H.

Kreps

G. L.

(2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Ally & Bacon.

25.

Geertshuis

S. A.

Morrison

R. L.

Cooper-Thomas

H. D.

(2015). It’s not what you say, It’s the way that you say it: The mediating effect of upward influencing communications on the relationship between leader-member exchange and performance ratings. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 228-245. doi:10.1177/2329488415572784

26.

Graen

G. B.

(Ed.). (2004). New frontiers of leadership, LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

27.

Graen

G. B.

Scandura

(1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

28.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

29.

Harvey

Treadway

Heames

J. T.

Duke

(2009). Bullying in the 21st century global organization: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 27-40. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9746-8

30.

Hauge

L. J.

Einarsen

Knardahl

Lau

Notelaers

Skogstad

(2011). Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 305-323. doi:10.1037/a0025396

31.

Hauge

L. J.

Skogstad

Einarsen

(2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21, 220-242. doi:10.1080/02678370701705810

32.

Henningsen

D. D.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

(2017). Nuanced aggression in group decision making. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329488417704951

33.

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. doi:10.1002/job.689

34.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Barling

(2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24-44. doi:10.1002/job.621

35.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Hoel

Cooper

C. L.

Faragher

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

37.

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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00664.x

38.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014

40.

Hogh

Dofradottir

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

41.

Jablin

F. M.

(2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 819-864). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

James

E. H.

Wooten

L. P.

(2005). Leadership as (Un)usual: How to display competence in times of crisis. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 141-152. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03.005

43.

Jian

Shi

Dalisay

(2014). Leader-member conversational quality: Scale development and validation through three studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 375-403. doi:10.1037/t36257-000

44.

Jóhannsdóttir

H. L.

Ólafsson

R. F.

(2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 319-333. doi:10.1080/03069880410001723549

45.

Kassing

J. W.

(2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187-209.

46.

Keashly

Trott

MacLean

L. M.

(1994). Abusive behavior in the work-place: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341-357.

47.

Kwan

S. S. M.

Tuckey

M. R.

Dollard

M. F.

(2016). The role of the psychosocial safety climate in coping with workplace bullying: A grounded theory and sequential tree analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 133-148. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.982102

48.

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 and Prevention, 43, 1782-1793. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.010

49.

Lee

(2005). Communication as antecedents and consequences of LMX development globally. In Graen

G.B.

Graen

J.A.

(Eds.), Global organizing designs (pp. 1-41). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

50.

Lee

Jablin

F. M.

(1992). A cross-cultural investigation of exit, voice, loyalty and neglect as responses to dissatisfying job conditions. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 203-228.

51.

Lee

Jablin

F. M.

(1995). Maintenance communication in superior-subordinate work relationships. Human Communication Research, 22, 220-257.

52.

Lee

Varon

A. L.

(2016, Online First). Employee exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect in response to dissatisfying organizational situations: It depends on supervisory relationship quality. International Journal of Business Communication. doi: 10.1177/2329488416675839

53.

Lee

R. T.

Brotheridge

C. M.

(2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predicator of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 352-377. doi:10.1037/t07344-000

54.

Lewis

(2006). Nurse bullying: Organizational considerations in the maintenance and perpetration of health care bullying cultures. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 52-58.

55.

Lian

Ferris

D. L.

Brown

D. J.

(2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107-123. doi:10.1037/a00241610

56.

Liefooghe

A. P. D.

Davey

K. M.

(2003). Explaining bullying at work: Why should we listen to employee accounts? In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 219-230). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

57.

Lloyd

K. J.

Boer

Keller

J. W.

Voelpel

(2015). Is my boss really listening to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 509-534. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2242-4

58.

Loh

Restubog

S. L. D.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

(2010). Consequences of workplace bullying on employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 236-252. doi:10.1177/0022022109354641

59.

Lutgen-Sandvik

(2006). Take this job and . . .: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73, 406-433. doi:10.1080/03637750601024156

60.

Lutgen-Sandvik

(2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace bullying trauma and stigma. Organization, 15, 97-119. doi:10.1177/1350508407084487

61.

Lutgen-Sandvik

McDermott

(2011). Making sense of supervisory bullying: Perceived powerlessness, empowered possibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 76, 342-368.

62.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

Alberts

(2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 837-862. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00715.x

63.

Maidaniuc-Chirila

(2015). A multi-mediation model of the relationship among workplace bullying, coping strategies, resilience and employees’ strain: Insights for a training programme. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 13, 63-82.

64.

Matsumoto

(2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 1285-1319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00476.x

65.

McClean

E. J.

Burris

E. R.

Detert

J. R.

(2013). When does voice lead to exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 525-548. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0041

66.

Mikkelsen

E. G.

Einarsen

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

67.

Morrison

E. W.

(2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173-197. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328

68.

Namie

(2000). U.S. hostile workplace survey 2000. Workplace Bullying Institute. Retrieved from http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/N-N-2000.pdf.

69.

Niedl

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

70.

Nielsen

Tvedt

Matthiesen

(2013). Prevalence and occupational predictors of psychological distress in the offshore petroleum industry: A prospective study. International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health, 86, 875-885. doi:10.1007/s00420-012-0825-x

71.

Notelaers

Vermunt

J. K.

Baillien

Einarsen

De Witte

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

72.

Omilion-Hodges

L. M.

Baker

C. R.

(2017). Communicating leader-member relationship quality: The development of leader communication exchange scales to measure relationship building and maintenance through the exchange of communication-based goods. International Journal of Business Communication, 54, 115-145. doi:10.1177/2329488416687052

73.

Ortega

Hogh

Pejtersen

J. H.

Feveile

Olsen

(2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: A representative population study. International Achieves of Occupational Environmental Health, 82, 417-426. doi:10.1007/s00420-008-0339-8

74.

Porhola

Karhunen

Rainivaara

(2006). Bullying at school and in the workplace: A challenge for communication research. Communication Yearbook, 30, 249-301.

75.

Power

J. L.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Blenkinsopp

Bowers-Sperry

Bozionelos

Buzády

. . . Nnedumm

A. U. O.

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

76.

Rayner

(1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199-208.

77.

Rayner

(1999). From research to implementation: Finding leverage for prevention. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 28-38.

78.

Ritzman

M. E.

(2016). A phenomenon we can’t ignore: Performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying. Performance Improvement, 55, 14-22. doi:10.1002/pfi.21545

79.

Saini

Budhwar

(2008). Managing the human resource in Indian SMEs: The role of indigenous realities. Journal of World Business, 43, 417-434. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.004

80.

Salin

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

81.

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. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2008.04.004

82.

Salin

Hoel

(2011). Organizational causes of workplace bullying. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 227-243). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

83.

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. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.08.004

84.

Skogstad

Torsheim

Einarsen

Hauge

L. J.

(2011). Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 475-495. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00444.x

85.

Sutton

R. I.

(2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York, NY: Warner Business Books.

86.

Tehrani

(Ed.). (2012). Workplace bullying: Symptoms and solutions. London, England: Routelege.

87.

Tepper

B. J.

Moss

S. E.

Lockhart

D. E.

Carr

J. C.

(2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169-1180. doi:10.2307/20159918

88.

Thompson

D. N.

Hoffman

L. A.

Sereika

S. M.

Lorenz

H. L.

Wolf

G. A.

Burns

H. K.

. . . Ramanujam

(2011). A relational leadership perspective on unit-level safety climate. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41, 479-487. doi:10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182346e31

89.

Townsend

Phillips

J. S.

Elkins

T. J.

(2000). Employee retaliation: The neglected consequence of poor leader-member exchange relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457-463.

90.

Triandis

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

91.

Turnage

A. K.

Goodboy

A. K.

(2016). E-Mail and face-to-face organizational dissent as a function of leader- member exchange status. International Journal of Business Communication, 53, 271-285. doi:10.1177/2329488414525456

92.

Tye-Williams

Krone

K. J.

(2015). Chaos, reports, and quests: Narrative agency and co-workers in stories of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 3-27. doi:10.1177/0893318914552029

93.

Valde

K. S.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

(2015). Facework in responding to unethical communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 369-403. doi:10.1080/01463378209369434

94.

Van den Brande

Baillien

De Witte

Elst

T. V.

Godderis

. (2016). The role of work stressors, coping strategies and coping resources in the process of workplace bullying: A systematic review and development of a comprehensive model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 61-71. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.004

95.

Withey

M. J.

Cooper

W. H.

(1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521-539.

96.

Zapf

Escartin

Einarsen

Hoel

Vartia

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

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 75-105). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

97.

Zapf

Gross

(2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497-522. doi:10.1080/13594320143000834