Richard Gammons MBA Thesis - Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying in The "Toxic" Workplace.

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006
Portsmouth Business School

MBA (International)
Zero-Tolerance:
An Investigation of Bullying
In the “Toxic” Workplace
Richard Alexander Gammons
Supervisor: Professor Charlotte Rayner

“Courage is fire and bullying is smoke”
Benjamin Disraeli, Politician (1804-1881)
“…The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak,
be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid;
be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly."
Jim Rhon, Motivational Speaker and Author.
“…in human organisations and societies the past projects the present towards the
future in a particular way making some outcomes more likely than others”
Andrew Pettigrew, Author, (2003, p.302)
“…we live life forward but understand it backwards”
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, Philosopher, (1813-1855)
ii
CONTENTS
Declaration of Authenticity i
Abstract ii
Tables and Figures iii
Appendices iv
Acknowledgments v
CHAPTER 1 Setting the Scene 2

1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Motivation for thesis and Aims 3
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Problems Associated with Bullying Research 8
2.3. Conceptualisation and Study of Bullying 11
2.4 Contextualising Bullying 19
2.5 Management Bullying 21
2.6 The Toxic Workplace 28
2.7 Toxic Stress? 31
2.7.1 Stress Effects 34
2.8 Toxic – A definition 36
ii
CHAPTER 3 Methodology 38
3.1 Important Note To The Reader 38
3.2 Proposed Methodology Approach 39
3.3 Methodology Options 40
3.3.1 Proposed Case study Research Approach 41
3.4 Proposed Interviews 45
3.5 Proposed Participant Selection 49
CHAPTER 4 Discussion, Findings and Conclusions 52
4.1 Introduction 52
4.2 Bullying As A Toxic Process 56
4.3 Workplace Bullying – A Toxic Concept 66
CHAPTER 5 Recommendations 74
5.1 Toxic Bullying – How Can Organisations Prevent It 74
5.2 Final Note 79
REFERENCES 81
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 101
Appendix 2 104
Appendix 3 107
iii

MBA (International)
Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying

In the “Toxic” Workplace
Author: Richard Alexander Gammons
Tutor: Professor Charlotte Rayner
Year : April 2006
“This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree for MBA. I, the undersigned,
declare that this project report is my own original work. Where I have taken ideas
and / or wording from another source, this is explicitly referenced in the text.”
Signed…………………………………………………………………………………………
“I give permission that this report may be photocopied and made available for inter-library loan for the purpose
of research.”
Signed…………………………………………………………………………………….
i
ABSTRACT
Workplace bullying is an extremely diverse subject, and a very complex phenomenon.
From a research perspective, it can be considered as being a very sensitive subject for both
affected individuals and organisations alike. This thesis discusses the phenomenon of
workplace bullying within ‘toxic’ work places, that is, environments that may condone or
exacerbate this behaviour (i.e. from an organisational culture/climate and performance
management perspective). It discusses problems associated with research, and then
discusses bullying in both terms of concept and context
It explores the notion of workplace bullying, which occurs in a ‘top down’ manner (i.e.
manager to subordinate) 80% of the time, as being a ‘toxic process’, with far reaching
consequences, for both the individual and the organisation. Previous research has not
explored this notion.
Supporting evidence and concepts are put forward by acting as dynamic aids, which may
also be used by management in understanding, and therefore, minimising or stopping this
toxic process. The ideas and concepts put forward, propose that workplace bullying
should be ‘perceived’ and therefore treated (by management) as analogous to a potential
toxin with no threshold of toxicity; i.e. like that of a carcinogen, and that it should
be treated as such; with Zero-Tolerance.
ii
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
Figure 1. A Framework for workplace bullying based upon 25
and reproduced from research by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003).
Figure 2. A revised framework of bullying reproduced from Salin (2003), 26

based upon an original framework by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003).
Figure 3. Enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in 27

the work environment reproduced from Salin (2003).
Figure 4. Basic differences between deductive and inductive case study 43

research approaches.
Figure 5. Mechanisms involved in prenatal stress effects 62

(reproduced from Huizink 2000).
Figure 6. Conceptual diagram illustrating hypothetical dose response 68

to a stressor such as workplace bullying.
Figure 7. Conceptual model identifying possible factors driving and 80

containing ‘toxic’ behaviour (bullying ), and its potentially
toxic effects (adapted and modified from Lubit, 2004a).
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Interview types 48
(adapted from Saunders, 2003)
iii
APPENDICES
Appendices
Appendix 1. Common symptoms of PTSD and Complex PTSD 101
that sufferers report experiencing.
Appendix 2. Interview Consent form. 104
Appendix 3. Proposed interview questions for workplace bullying study. 107
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude, in the first instance to staff at the
University of Portsmouth for their support in my studies, particularly during a time of
personal illness, upheaval and uncertainty. My special thanks go to Professor Charlotte
Rayner, who has been a guiding force, always willing to listen and offer encouragement;
her support has been truly appreciated. I would also like to thank Richard Noble and Dr
David Smith; their support and encouragement of which, have had a positive impact on
my studies; as too did the help of Dr Alan Gilbert and Dr Gary Rees. Their assistance and
understanding whilst on the course, was greatly appreciated. In addition I would like to
thank both Karen Buddle and Carol Shepherd for their administrative support.
Also, thanks are due to those individuals who have offered their friendship, support and
advice, both on and off the MBA course. To this end, I would like to extend my thanks (in
alphabetical order!) to Peter, Rhys and Vishal.
Finally I would like to extend my warmest thanks and appreciation to those closest to me.
Firstly, to my parents; for their constant encouragement and support. Lastly I would like
to thank my truly incredible wife, Rachael; who has been my ‘rock’; giving me support and
tireless encouragement, especially this last year. I truly am a lucky man!
v
CHAPTER 1
1
CHAPTER 1 SETTING THE SCENE
1.1 Introduction
The UK economy has been thriving since the late 1990s and is currently enjoying a period
of sustained low inflation as well as near record low unemployment rates (HM Treasury,
2006, 2005; Hamilton, 2005, citing Brown, 2005; BBC Business News, 2004, citing Jones
& Brinkley, 2004); leading to further tightening in the labour markets, thereby in the
process enabling potential employees an uncharacteristic prospect of being able to
differentiate between potential employers for whom to or to not offer their labours
(Reenan, 2001). It is therefore, important that organisations demonstrate to prospective
employees the added value(s) of employment apart from that of a days wage
In addition to this, employers have to tackle not only the problem of attracting new
employees, they also have to consider and indeed be concerned with, in retaining existing
employees. Remuneration is not the only factor that should be considered by existing or
potential employees but other intangibles e.g. organisational culture and work-life balance
(known as quality of life factors), indeed a recent report by the TUC shows that senior
managers, are working longer hours and are at the top of the league for un-paid overtime1.
One of the main factors that affect workers’ happiness is the quality of their immediate
supervisor (Glendinning, 2001); indeed, a recent survey (Personnel Today, 2005) suggests
that nearly one in four of the UK's bosses are bad or dreadful2
1 A report on Sky News (2006) highlights a TUC study that senior managers have overtaken teachers to leap to the
top of the league for unpaid overtime – working an extra 12 hours unpaid each week.
2
Report also indicates that 58% of 1100 participants surveyed have looked for alternative jobs because of “their bad
manager”, citing poor leadership and poor management skills.
2
1.2 Motivation for the thesis and Objectives
This MBA thesis is a study that focuses on workplace bullying. At a personal level I
became interested in the workplace-bullying phenomenon after having the unfortunate
displeasure of a lengthy management bullying experience whilst working as a project
manager in a well-known industrial setting.
At the time I needed to know what was happening to me and how best to respond, as the
more I tried to prevent it from happening, the more determined the bullies became and
complacent their respective managers became. When I sought assistance, from health
professionals, counsellors, workplace occupational health advisors; legal professionals and
indeed close friends (as well as management colleagues), I noticed that there was
confusion and a general lack of understanding about exactly what workplace bullying was.
From a management perspective, I hoped that by conducting qualitative research, as well
as looking in depth at a small number of participants who had been bullied - I could get
closer to what were the important aspects of the experience, and its impact(s) on the target
(victim) in addition to the organisation and the role that management behaviour had in the
process, i.e. its context.
In the process of conducting this research, I might also be able to work through and
understand further, my own experiences and as Sheehan 2005 describes, understand the
experience as an epiphany or turning point in my life; an understanding that serves as a
platform underpinning the experience, especially because the bullying seemed to suggest
that my self-esteem had been overly dependent on my professional role and
workplace standing. Thus by researching the essential aspects of the bullying
3
experience; and implications/effect(s) both on the organisation and the individual, I
hoped to become more skilled so that I may be able to undertake a career in helping
and advising individuals and management about its potential impact(s) and how to
minimise or stop it; thereby, helping others who had or could be subject to the bullying
phenomenon; as well as possibly gaining an opportunity for personal growth.
Upon examination, the research literature reveals the phenomenon of workplace bullying
to be a myriad of complex human processes and interactions. Researchers from various
fields such as business management and economics; occupational health; sociology,
medicine (encompassing psychology; psychiatry; counselling), philosophy law as well as
education have all contributed to the abundant discourse of bullying.
This rich discourse is further complicated as well as enriched by issues of power, violence,
abuse, victimisation, trauma, evil, as well as human rights. It is therefore sensible and
prudent to break up into manageable areas this diverse phenomenon for research
purposes. For those individuals targeted (victims) by bullies and often their peers and
significant others) it is important to note that it is not possible to narrow the focus in this
way. They are hit with a multitude of issues, and as a result have the problem of
interpreting and making meaning of a myriad of information, ideas, and more often than
not, lies and distortions arising from their respective experience(s) (Tehrani, 2003; Field,
2002).
This research aims to explore the experience of management bullying, to provide an
understanding of it as ‘toxic management’, when in the form of bullying, and its
potential impact(s) on both the individual and the organisation; with an aim of
4
proposing concepts and ideas to assist management in understanding that workplace
bullying is indeed a ‘toxic phenomenon’, that has serious repercussions, leading to a
destruction of the competitive advantage of a company, as well as harming its employees
and families alike. This is a phenomenon that should be treated and dealt with extremely
seriously by organisations and their associated management.
To this end, the aims and objectives of this thesis can therefore be presented as follows:
1. To extensively review the literature on workplace bullying (WPB) and discuss
problems of research, as well as its impact(s) on the individual.
2. To explore the notion of the toxic workplace and toxic manager phenomenon.
3. To discuss and put forward additional concepts and ideas, that at a management
level, will assist in elaborating that WPB is a directly toxic phenomenon and to:
4. Put forward recommendations so that organisations can stop or minimise its
prevalence and devastating effects.
5
CHAPTER 2
6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The literature available on workplace bullying reveals an extensive amount of information,
much of which has appeared in a little over the last decade and is representative of
research from numerous fields (Cooper & Robertson, 2001; Einarsen, et al., 2003a). It
articulates bullying as a complex phenomenon that encompasses a range of behaviours
and contexts (Vartia, 2003).
In addition to this, there is also a sizeable quantity of non-academic literature (books and
websites), which has evolved as a result of research in addition to the personal experiences
of individuals who have been subject to bullying. For example, the Andrea Adams trust,
established in 1997 as the worlds first non-political; non-profit charity dealing solely with
the issue of workplace bullying.
Other examples include Jo Anne Browns’ Just Fight On (JFO) website founded in 2004,
with the express intention of being a resource for victims by bringing together
information, ideas, people and groups; Tim Field’s (who sadly died of cancer early this
year) Bully in sight and his website Bully on Line, as well as The workplace bullying and trauma
institute, which was set up by Gary and Ruth Namie. These sites are dedicated to helping
and advising victims of bullying (Adams, A, 1997; Brown, J, 2004; Field, T, 1996; Namie
& Namie, 2003).
7
The popular literature assists the general public by providing an informative role,
however from a business management and leadership perspective we are interested
primarily in focussing on the academic research and evidence of how the impact of
management/leadership styles affect both the victim and the organisation.
The current research is now at the stage where information has been gathered from a
variety of research perspectives, analysing both the causes and impacts of bullying
(Einarsen et al., 2003a). This has resulted in a shift from focusing on bullying as an
interpersonal conflict between the bully and the victim to including an emphasis on ways
in which organisations inhibit; create; or indeed contribute to the bullying process
(Einarsen, et al., 2003b); in addition to looking at the concepts of conflict and violence,
and perhaps, most importantly, the role of power in relationships in the workplace
(Liefooghe, & MacKenzie-Davey, 2001).
2.2 Problems Associated with Bullying Research
Over the past 15 years or so academic researchers and practitioners alike have been
struggling to get to the root cause(s) of the bullying process. Indeed, it is an extremely
diverse subject. This has been difficult for a variety of reasons, points of which will be
discussed in this thesis.
Firstly, bullying has long been considered a taboo topic in many cultures (Adams, &
Crawford, 1992; Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen, et al, 2003a, 2003b; Field, T, 1996) and
this essentially deterred initial research (Niedl, 1996.), and continues to permit
organisations to over look or indeed cover up the problem. There is evidence, even
8
recently, of the continuing fear and reluctance of individuals to discuss and speak out
openly concerning the problems of bullying. This is illustrated for example, by the
publication of an anonymous paper by a radiological consultant in the British Medical
Journal, (Anonymous, 2002)3. Bullying has been treated, like other forms of abuse and
maltreatment, as a private issue, which does not concern either society or organisations.
Indeed, as was the case until the 1970s, issues of both domestic violence and child abuse
were also considered as taboo subjects, because they also involved ideas about women and
children being the property of husbands and fathers (Herman, 1992). An important
vehicle in altering public opinion was the women’s movement, through which justification
was given, for authorities to enter the privacy of the home. Victims of all forms of abuse
can therefore be classified to a certain extent as victims of public perceptions, which allow
and tolerate such abuse. This previous tolerance had restricted researchers from
preventing bullying, as well as leaving victims to experience the impacts, feelings of shame
and guilt, in addition to being unable to shed the negative self-image that they may have
developed during the bullying process (Herman, 1992).
Secondly, bullying has traditionally been considered a trivial issue (Hearn; & Parkin, 2001),
merely a conflict between difficult people, whereby, one is overly aggressive and the other
being seen as overly passive (Olweus, 2003). In the schoolyard tradition, bullying was seen
as a way of ‘toughening up’ weak kids (Field, T, 1996). In other institutions, bullying
represented rights of passage (i.e. legitimising the use of the behaviour) and eventual
acceptance into cultures where conformity, violence and punishment were often systemic,
for example, the uniformed and armed forces (Archer, 1999). In bullying cultures,
bullying was likely to be seen as scapegoating (Tehrani, 2003), a habit of blaming
3 “The cycle of abuse goes on”. Note to reader: The author might well have claimed anonymity, not for his own
preservation, but rather to protect the identity of the radiologist who abused him.
9
someone else. In the globalised world, bullying has been described as a tool of
management (Ironside & Seifert, 2003), a way of ‘eliminating’ unwanted employees
(Hoel & Salin, 2003; Ironside, & Seifert, 2003; Westhues, 2002; citing Westhues 1998). In
all of these situations bullying goes hand in hand with the failure of the culture to tolerate
difference between individuals. It is perhaps fair to say, that the cruelty and unnecessary
suffering to individuals and the costs to both organisation(s) and society has been hidden
by the enduring propensity to trivialise bullying (Boulnois, 1996; Ironside & Seifert, 2003).
A third rationale as to why research into bullying has been a difficult process is due to the
fact that when analysing the impact(s) of bullying incidents on an individual, observers
often conclude that there is something wrong or weak about the victim and that it is
therefore, disproportionate to the cause (Einarsen, et al., 2003b). However, when the
impact(s) on the victim are examined from the perspective of bullying as a process, it is
clearly seen why its impact(s) can be so devastating. Bullying may be depicted as
consisting of unpredictable, offensive or harmful behaviours, which may or may not be
intentionally targeted at a particular person. Generally these behaviours occur over many
months, even years, often escalating in intensity and frequency, sanctioned by either
conscious or unconscious acceptance of bullying within the organisation. It is possible
then, to identify and appreciate how the cumulative impact of months of stress caused by
workplace bullying can be more devastating than either physical violence or accidents in
the workplace (Einarsen, et al., 2003b; Goleman, 1995; Leymann, 1996; Mayhew, &
Chappell, 2001a, 2002), it is literally ‘toxic’ to the individual (this will be discussed in
further depth and is the main focus of this thesis). Goleman states that to have
been selected as a target for malicious harm shatters an individuals assumptions;
about the trustworthiness and the safety of the interpersonal world and that the
10
social world becomes a dangerous place; one in which people are potential threats to
your safety (Goleman, 1995).
Finally, another reason as to why research into workplace bullying has been frustrating is
that researchers have been unable to go into organisations and observe directly the ways in
which staff members interact with one another (Cowie, H.et al, 2002; Keashley & Jagatic;
2003; Richards & Daley, 2003). Researchers contend, that by listening only to employees’
narratives a biased view is given (Liefooghe & MacKenzie-Davey, 2001); but that
examination from the point of view of all parties is difficult because organisations’ clearly
don’t want to be scrutinised - they have reputations to protect and naturally wish to avoid
litigation and, at a more fundamental level, feel they have a right to decide how they treat
their staff (Cowie et al, 2002; Ironside & Seifert, 2003). Organisations are regarded in
popular perceptions to have ownership over employees and the right to manage them as
they see fit (Ironside & Seifert, 2003).
Without understanding the context and the role of organisations and/or their respective
cultural values and morality that sanction bullying, it is impossible to understand its
significance.
2.3 Conceptualisation and Study of Bullying
The focus of much of the bullying research as alluded to, has concentrated on trying to
understand the nature and the severity of impact upon the victim(s), their peers,
and their organisation, and ultimately on society, together with its incidence in
particular workplaces and how to prevent the problem as well as mitigate the pain
11
for victims (Einarsen, et al., 2003b). By broadening the focus to include all possible
factors contributing to bullying and inhibiting attempts to prevent it, either at the
workplace, or the national level, means that researchers are piecing together more parts of
this intricate puzzle. Interest in bullying research is evident in a variety of academic
disciplines, with much overlap in approach and findings.
Interest was stimulated in the subject of bullying as a direct result of the process of
globalisation; firstly, because of the introduction of new laws regulating workers at the
global level, and secondly, by the observation of clinicians that aggression was becoming
more commonplace in certain workplaces, and that this was also having an impact on
family relationships (Leymann, 1989).
Firstly, it is perhaps, important to ask the question: What exactly is workplace bullying?
As Rayner posits (2002), there is a lack of coalescence of terminology (alluded to in this
thesis) especially in the United States. This has been a topic of curiosity to many
Europeans and Australasian academics; and as she further points out:
“… the role of ‘naming’ phenomena is well understood - unless something is named there is a danger that
it does not exist and thus can be ignored. From a pragmatic perspective, it is essential for nomenclatures to
become established, if any work is to be effective in tackling this issue.”(Rayner, 2002, p.2).
The term bullying, is as alluded to, by Vartia (2003), used synonymously with other terms
such as harassment (Brodsky, 1976), scapegoating, (Thylefors, 1987), mobbing or
psychological terror (Leymann, 1990), workplace trauma (Wilson, 1991), work
harassment (Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, (1994) and abusive behaviour or
12
emotional abuse (Keashly, Trott & MacLean 1994; all authors are cited in Vartia,
2003); generalised workplace abuse and workplace aggression (Neuman & Baron,
1994; cited by Keashley & Jagatic, 2003).
Originally, interest in bullying was from a socio-medical perspective by the psychiatrist Dr
Carroll Brodsky in the early 1970s. He defined Harassment in the work place (Brodsky,
1976), and his work is important to consider within the review of the literature on the
workplace-bullying phenomenon because it is an important early text (Rayner & Hoel,
1997).
"Harassment is behavior that involves repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear
down, frustrate, or get a reaction from another. It is behavior that persistently provokes, pressures,
frightens, intimidates, or otherwise discomforts another person." (Brodsky, 1976, p.2).
Academic researchers continue to refer to Brodsky’s findings and much of their research
is concerned in finding explanations and exploring relationships between these findings
(Rayner & Hoel, 1997; Einarsen, et al, 2003; Vartia, 2003). Brodsky subdivides the
“experience” into “subjective” and “objective” forms of harassment, which represents
awareness by the victim (target) of the harassment and where external evidence of the
harassment is found, respectively.
This book shares in the psychoanalytic and philosophical approaches of more recent
research, which attempts to understand concepts which influence thinking and
shape how people, organisations and economies behave (Boulnois, 1996; Crawford,
1997; McCarthy, 2003). The importance of Brodsky’s book lies in his early
13
appreciation and recognition of the aggressive nature of workplace bullying, which he
termed ‘harassment’, in addition to the potential severity of impact(s) upon an
individuals’ well being. This included the colleagues of the bullied person, as well as the
effects on the workplace (Brodsky, 1976).
Brodsky, (1976), was of the opinion that bullying existed only in organisations that allowed
it to exist. He regarded bullying as representing the ‘evil underbelly’ of organisations and
believed that some organisations either consciously or unconsciously accepted or
therefore, allowed, bullying. In addition he also regarded it as detrimental to both the
moral fibre of society and the economy. Such opinions at that time were barely likely to
be popular in the United States with its dominant laissez-faire attitudes to business.
The foundation for this book involved the use of his individual case studies of over a
thousand people who he had interviewed when determining compensation for
psychological injury at work (i.e. victims of bullying). As a piece of research, it constituted
a qualitative study rather than that of a quantitative area of scientific research. This is
possibly another reason, despite the general taboos about bullying at that time and popular
perceptions that bullying wasn’t a serious issue, in explaining why it attracted little
attention from academics at that time (Einarsen, et al., preface, 2003a).
During the 1970s, the general public were more likely to be interested in the workplace
due to industrial disputes between workers and owners of industry, which threatened to
undermine the security of workers (Hoel, Einarsen, Keashly, Zapf & Cooper, 2003;
Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper, 2002; Cooper, 2002). The outcome of these disputes,
which was victory for the owner(s), was one that would significantly affect the
14
workplace, whereby, the conflict that was intrinsic to these disputes appeared to have
transformed into other forms of aggression and violence, including that of bullying
(Ashforth, 1994; Baron, & Neuman, 1996; Gill, Fisher, & Bowie, 2002; Einarsen, et al.,
preface, 2003a), rather than dissipating.
These disputes also heralded in the forces of globalisation, the restructuring of the
workplace and marked the beginning of the technological revolution of the 1980s; as well
as bringing about the decline of trade unions together with a shift away from personnel
departments to that of human resource management (HRM) (Lewis, D, 1999; Lewis &
Rayner, 2003). These changes often created conditions that were more favourable for
management, and were presented as being beneficial for society as a whole. A decline in
both paternalism as well as concern for the welfare of workers flowed on to public
opinion which became less sympathetic towards both trade unions and workers. As a
result of these processes, the bullied victim was now potentially more isolated, not only
from the bully; but also their peers, organisation and society (Lewis & Rayner, 2003).
Since the early 1990s, European research has focused on developing systematic
methodologies and theoretical models for studying bullying in addition to devising
explanatory frameworks to enable the subject to be studied more rigorously (see also next
section), as well as being more informative and thus leading to greater perceptual
clarification (Cooper & Robertson, 2001; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003; Sheehan,
2005). An important objective of the research has been to support management,
academics and professionals to identify and understand the problems faced by
employers and organisations, and in 1996 the European Journal of Occupational
Psychology emerged on the scene and frequent attention was given to bullying,
15
revealing it to be a significant research subject. Early work such as that of Heinz
Leymann (1989), described bullying in the Swedish population as a workplace related
psychological problem.
Much of the later research that appeared came from an occupational health and safety
perspective rather than that of the traditional socio-medical approach, thus enabling
researchers to explore the significance of context (Hoel & Salin, 2003).
In both the UK and Europe, the research focuses on both perpetrator and prevention,
and the abuse is identified as either bullying or mobbing, whereas the United States pays
particular attention to the victim and treatment. Terms referred to commonly here are
workplace harassment, emotional abuse (Keashley & Jagatic, 2003) or incivility (Pearson &
Porath, 2005). The different research perspectives seen in these two continents are
evidence of the different cultural attitudes, and in this environment reflect the differences
in socio-political perception(s) regarding the workplace and the right of public authorities
to intervene in the internal functioning of organisations (Einarsen et al., 2003b).
The act of bullying can embody a variety of organisational experiences, and can be
horizontal (between peers) or vertical (between manager and employee) (Bryant and Cox,
2003); this is discussed in the next section.
By 2003, the academic research in the United States (as had occurred previously in the
UK) had soon developed another aim; which was to change the opinions of the
general public and policy makers about the existence and prevalence of bullying in
order to prevent it (Keashley & Jagatic, 2003). Research into bullying is therefore
16
perceived to be driving public opinion rather than the other way round, as is more
usual (Keashley & Jagatic, 2003). Recognition that the problem was one that could
be inherent in organisations and society meant that the initial focus on the impact of
bullying and mitigating the effects on the individual, had now shifted to identifying ways in
which to eliminate the problem from the workplace. (Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey,
2003; Zapf & Einarsen, 2001).
An important step in bringing together recent research from the UK, Europe, US,
Australia and South Africa is the book Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspective in research and practice, in 2003, (Einarsen, et al., 2003). The book
discusses and describes various research approaches taken in relation to different aspects
of the bullying process, thus enabling one to observe how each field of research enhances
our knowledge, in addition to increasing our appreciation of this complex phenomenon.
The definition of bullying presented in this book as well as many other academic papers
has evolved from initial research since 1989 (Leymann, 1989) and is described as:
“Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s
work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction
or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six
months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an
inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called
bullying if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal “strength” are in
conflict” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, C, 2003, p. 15).
17
This particular definition, it is pointed out by the authors, will not satisfy everyone
because of the culturally and contextually different workplaces that exist (Einarsen,
Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, C, 2003). However, the important features of bullying are
patterned (frequency) negative acts, intended (intention) to harm or cause offence,
committed over a period of time (duration) and there is a power imbalance (power)
between perpetrator and target (existing either apriori, or developing as a result of the
conflict (Keashley & Nowell, 2003). These features, by definition, make it gradually more
difficult for the victim to defend themselves (Cusack; 2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf &
Cooper, 2003b; Vartia, 2003).
There has been a general lack of understanding among the public in general that bullying
represents behavioural/cultural norms that are modelled from the top down in
organisations (Houghton, 2003), especially in those that persist in operating punitive
models of discipline and control. Academic research for example by Rayner (2001),
suggests that the prevalence of top down bullying to be as high as 80% in the UK.
In schools, just like the armed forces, prisons/correctional centres, churches, hospitals and
industry regimentation; individuals are expected to conform, in both an ideological as well
as a cultural sense (Ashforth, 1994; Boulnois, 1996; Hubert & van Veldhoven, 2001;
Mikkelson & Einarsen, 2002). Victims of bullying commonly question as to how and why
the bullies actually behave in such a way (see for example, Brown, 2004). As Brodsky
(1976), discussed, they behave that way because their behaviour and conduct is tolerated
and as Houghton (2003) similarly posits, aggressive cultures both exist and survive due to
ignorance and permission (Brodsky, 1976; Houghton, 2003). However, Baron and
Neuman enquire as to why societal norms against aggression fail to apply, or indeed
only apply weakly, where the problem of workplace bullying is concerned (Baron,
18
& Neuman, 2003). In order to answer these questions it is important to understand
bullying in its broadest context including that of how it has changed as a result of the
globalisation process.
2.4 Contextualising Bullying
“The global dynamics of change has thrown us into a new era. Around the world, organisational
management practices are being challenged and have led to new solutions in managing people to realise
greater value. The insecurity that has been heightened by the opening up of new markets has driven
organisations to adopt newer and better ways of working. It has provided the spur for organisations to
take tough decisions…. (ER consultants, 2005).
This process of globalisation now meant that workplaces could exist within a
supranational context. What this means is that workplaces could or had become separated
from local cultural norms, values; laws and beliefs, which had previously regulated both
workers and management. The traditional obligations, loyalties and reverence between
“master and servant” were eroded and thus left workers without a clear sense of being
valued or indeed belonging (Hoel & Salin, 2003; McCarthy, 2003; 1996). Workers could
increasingly no longer identify with an organisation and a “job for life” in a particular
place. They were expected to be upwardly mobile, be prepared to change jobs more
often, perhaps even have to change their careers during the course of their working
lifetimes (Cooper, 2002). Identity was therefore more probable to come from a
professional role or from greater emphasis on consumerism, and shaped by the
logic of market rules and profit making (McCarthy, 2003; Sennett, 1998). Within a
particular profession, workers also had to expect increased regimentation and
19
control(s) over their work (Ironside & Seifert, 2003).
In addition to this, workers were also encouraged to embrace the philosophy of change,
applaud entrepreneurial activity and value individualism (Cooper & Robertson, 2001). The
reality however, for many workers who, for whatever cause, were less than able to adapt to
these ‘winds of economic change’, was that only of increased vulnerability (Gill, et al.,
2000; Ironside & Seifert, 2003). Organisational change; restructuring and downsizing
meant that there were fewer jobs, increased working hours, and quite often decreased
hourly rates of pay (Hoel, et al., 2002); leading to questions of work-life balance.
This process of change also led to the introduction of new layers within management with
increased control(s) over workers; allowing potentially, for more mismanagement by
unskilled and in-competent managers (Adams, & Crawford, 1992). It also led to inherent
contradictions between individualism and teamwork, mission statements, company ethics
and the dawning realisation that workplaces had become more ruthless and masculine
(Ironside & Seifert, 2003; Tehrani, 2003).
Employees today are potentially faced with constant change within their workplace.
Organisations often fail to equip their staff with the necessary skills to deal with the
changes that are taking place. As the market is becoming more competitive, restructuring,
re-engineering, downsizing and right sizing are leading to retrenchment.
In addition to this, technological progression is also bringing about a decline in staff
within certain organisational settings. Economic, technological and business
factors such as downsizing, low unemployment and the associated skills shortage,
have forced those workers who are left to give 150%, or more, just to stay on top
20
of their workloads, (Johnson & Indvik, 2001); factors that may lead to and exacerbate
the bullying phenomenon, by unsympathetic management, who want results at all
costs (Brotheridge, 2005; Glendinning, 2001).
2.5 Management Bullying
“.. It is managers and management that make institutions perform. Performing responsible
management [emphasis added] is the alternative to tyranny and our only protection against it….”
(Marciarello, 2005; Citing Drucker, P.)
As is discussed by Northouse, (2004) citing Yukl, (1989), there are undeniably clear
differences between management and leadership, or managers and leaders.
There is, however, also a considerable amount of overlap between them. For example,
when managers are involved in influencing a group to meet its goals, they are involved in
leadership and when leaders are involved in planning, organising, staffing and controlling,
they are involved in the practice of management. Both of these processes involve the
influence of individuals within a group to attain certain goals; and therefore, this thesis and
review of the literature, will treat the terms of manager(s) and leader(s) synonymously,
when discussing “toxic” leadership and “toxic” management in the bullying process in the
next section.
A typical characteristic of workplaces where bullying prevails is low satisfaction among
employees regarding the leadership style of their managers and supervisors; it is either too
aggressive or too laissez-faire (Einarsen, 2005). Indeed, as many as 80% of bullying
victims claim to be bullied by a superior (Rayner, 2001), again linking bullying
closely to leadership and associated power imbalance.
21
This is also discussed and summarised by Leymann’s (1993) theoretical claim that
four factors are prominent in eliciting bullying at work: (1) deficiencies in work
design, (2) deficiencies in leadership behaviour, (3) a socially exposed position of the
victim, and (4) a low moral standard in the department (Salin, 2003a; citing Einarsen
2003).
It is important to also discuss that bullying is not only limited to vertical aggression (the
main area of investigation in this thesis) from managers towards subordinates as for
example in “abusive supervision” (Tepper 2000, Zellers and Tepper, 2002) or “petty
tyranny” (Ashforth, 1994, 1997); whereby, formal power differences are possible
source(s) of such imbalances in power.
As Salin (2003a; 2003b) posits, power imbalances can also be an outcome of other
individual, situational or contextual characteristics, and as such, required power differences
may also arise among peers. In certain instances subordinates, especially if acting in the
context of a group may muster enough power to bully a superior by “ganging up” on
them. It should be noted also, that power imbalances may, in addition, evolve over time
and that the bullying process may in itself give rise to further increasing power imbalances;
e.g. it has been hypothesised that spreading gossip can under some circumstances enhance
a gossiper’s perceived coercive, expert or referent power within an organisation (Salin,
2003a; citing Kurland & Pelled, 2000).
As alluded to above, bullying in the workplace has been seen as involving a power
imbalance whereby the target of bullying is subjected to negative behaviour(s) to
such an extent that they feel inferior and are unable to defend themselves in the
actual situation, referred to in the literature as the “victim-perpetrator” dimension
22
(Salin, 2003b; citing Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Keashly, 1998; Vartia, 2003)).
Therefore, as such, conflicts between parties of perceived equal strength are not
considered bullying (Einarsen, Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998).
It is also important to consider in the review that that there is acknowledgement by
researchers that workplace bullying and related phenomena are often a result of
interaction between individual and institutional factors as discussed by Salin (2003b); she
describes these as ‘interaction effects’. She identifies that bullying is a multi-causal
phenomenon, and that it is seldom explained by one factor only; together with the idea
that bullying may be described as a self-reinforcing or spiralling process (Salin, 2003b;
citing Aquino et al., 1999, Ashforth, 1997; Einarson 1999; Neman and Baron, 1998 and
Zapf, 1999a).
Einarsen and his research colleagues have presented a framework for the study of the
bullying process in the workplace (see Figure 1, below); which gives an overview of the
factors at different levels and how they may interact during the stages of this complex
phenomenon.
This framework draws attention to both the individual factors (in victims and
perpetrators) as well as contextual, organisational and societal factors, and Salin (2003b)
has further built on this framework from further research (see Figure 2), which builds and
competently discusses a proposed modification of the framework by building on
organisational factors of bullying and its tolerance/intolerance through what she
terms as ‘enabling/disabling’ factors (see Figure 3).
23
These factors are important to consider in the overall review of the bullying process,
as it is these processes that she calls the “factors that provide the fertile soil for bullying”.
These conditions include a perceived power imbalance, between victim and perpetrator(s),
low costs for the perpetrator and dissatisfaction and frustration of the work environment,
or what can be considered, in the opinion of the author and described in the US literature
as part of the ‘toxic’ workplace/organisation or ‘toxic’ management which will be
discussed in the next section, below.
This thesis will go on to and discuss why bullying is toxic and therefore hope to add
understanding to the right hand side of the framework, i.e. effects on the individual and
the organisation (i.e. context).
24
Cultural + Socio- economic Factors
Organisational Action
• Tolerance/intolerance; Social support

• Retaliation/retribution; Policy enforcement
Organisational
factors inhibiting
aggressive behaviour Effects on the
Organisation
Bullying Bullying Immediate

- behaviour as
Exhibited by
behaviour as
perceived by
behavioural
reactions by the
the the victim Victim
perpetrator(s) • Emotional
+ • Behavioural
Effects on the
Individual
Individual, social and
contextual Individual characteristics of the victim
antecedents of
aggressive behaviour • Demographic factors and social circumstances
• Personality and personal history
Figure 1. A Framework for workplace bullying based upon and reproduced from research by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003).
Cultural + Socio- economic Factors
Power Structures in Society
Organisational Action
• Tolerance/intolerance; Social support

Organisational
, • Retaliation/retribution; Policy enforcement
factors enabling/
disabling, motivating
and triggering Effects on the
aggression Organisation
Bullying Bullying Immediate

behaviour as behaviour as behavioural
Exhibited by perceived by reactions by the
the the victim Victim
perpetrator(s) • Emotional
• Behavioural
Effects on the
Individual
Individual, social and
contextual Individual characteristics of the victim
antecedents of
aggressive behaviour • Demographic factors and social circumstances
• Personality and personal history
Figure 2. A revised framework of bullying reproduced from Salin (2003), based upon an original framework by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003).
vating structures and processes Precipitating processes
• Internal competition • Restructuring and crises

• Reward system and expected • Other organisational
benefits change(s)
• Bureaucracy &difficulties to • Changes in management/
lay off employees Composition of workgroup
Enabling structures and processes
• Perceived power imbalance

• Low perceived costs
• Dissatisfaction and
frustration
BULLYING POSSIBLE AND MORE LIKELY
Figure 3. Enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment reproduced from Salin (2003).
2.6 The Toxic Workplace
The terminology of the toxic workplace, has, as discussed by Brown (2004b), entered the
lexicon of management in the 21st century. She articulates, that like many management
concepts, it is loosely defined, but however it is labelled, can be even more difficult to fix
(that is when a workplace has become poisoned or toxic). She describes the toxic
workplace skilfully as:
“It lies just beneath the surface. You can't see it but you know it's there-brewing. An atmosphere of higher
stress, conflict and indifference.”(Brown, 2004b, p.2)
She also puts forward the idea that any workplace can become toxic if it includes (or even
promotes) those behaviours that negatively affect others individually and/or collectively
and that symptoms of a toxic workplace will become evident in ‘short order’, leading to
increases in absenteeism, health problems and use of Employee Assistance Programs. She
further discusses that, as the problem worsens, the signs of toxicity will become more
overt and may include significant lowering of productivity, an increase in health problems
and accidents, more resignations and the loss of talented employees (i.e. working capital).
and, ultimately, a discernable effect on the organisations profitability(Brown, 2004b).
The terminology of “toxic” in reference to toxic manager (Flynn, 1999; Lubit, 2004);
toxic leaders (Reed, 2004, Lipman-Blumen, 2005a, 2005b), toxic culture (Flynn,
1999); the sub units leading to the creation and nurturing of a toxic organisation or
toxic workplace are discussed by various academics and practitioners alike; appearing as
28
discussed by Reed (2004); with increasing frequency.
Lipman-Blumen (2005a, 2005b), for example, describes toxic leaders as those who engage
in destructive practices and exhibit personality dysfunctions, which often cause serious
harm to their organizations and their followers:
“…Toxic leaders those individuals who, by virtue of their destructive behaviours and their dysfunctional
personal qualities or characteristics, inflict serious and enduring harm on the individuals, groups,
organizations, communities and even the nations that they lead…”(Lipman-Blumen, 2005b, p. 2).
Wilson-Starkes, (2003, p.2) makes the statement that “Toxic leadership often causes a high
turnover rate, a decline in productivity, less innovation, and interdepartmental conflict. She then goes
on to submit a skillful analogy to the effects of a toxic leader within an organization.
“…People like this have the same effect on an organisation that termites have on a wooden house. On the
outside, things look normal; but there is serious trouble just under the surface. When such a company faces
unusual stresses—a depressed economy, for instance—more demands will be put on the workforce. Like a
termite-infested house, the organisation crumbles from within...” (Wilson-Starkes, 2003, p.3)
Another detailed definition as given by the analyst Flynn (1999), who describes the toxic
manager as:
“The manager who bullies, threatens, yells. The manager whose mood swings determine the climate of the
office on any given workday. Who forces employees to whisper in sympathy in cubicles and
hallways. The backbiting, belittling boss from hell. Call it what you want - poor interpersonal
skills, unfortunate office practices -- but some people, by sheer, shameful force of their personalities, make
29
working for them rotten. We call them toxic managers. Their results may look fine on paper, but the
fact is, all is not well if you have one loose in your workforce: It's unhealthy, unproductive and will
eventually undo HR's efforts to create a healthy, happy and progressive workplace” (Flynn, 1999, p.44).
As Reed (2004), further posits, a loud and demanding manager is not necessarily toxic;
indeed a manager, who hides behind a façade of sincerity with a soft voice can be toxic.
Ultimately it is the effect of de-motivational behaviour and climate over time. Even
though a manager may be highly competent and effective from an organisational
perspective, the contribution to an unhealthy work climate (i.e. toxic workplace) and its
ramifications prevail over their continued employ; toxic leaders represent a daily challenge
that can result in unnecessary organisational stress, negative values and hopelessness.
What is evident from the literature on toxic management etc, is that it is essentially part of
and akin to the bullying process as discussed; and raises the question of whether bullying is
and indeed, should therefore, be considered as toxic. That is to say, does the process of
bullying by managers (described as ‘toxic’) potentially have and should therefore, be
described as ‘toxic’ consequences within the individual(s) who may / are the victims of
bullying within the workplace? Having a previous background in toxicology stimulated
the author to attempt to address this question, which is as discussed one of the main
objective of the thesis
It is important, therefore, to briefly discuss the concepts of workplace stress and that of a
toxic substance/toxicity to understand its concept when applying it to bullying and
its impact(s) both within and outside the workplace.
30
2.7 Toxic Stress?
Upon examination of the literature there is a considerable amount of information on
workplace stress and its effects. The term stress is a very ‘broad’ term and encompasses a
wide and varied response(s) to stressors in the workplace. It is important to consider in
the overall context of the impacts of the bullying process.
The literature highlights the important effects of stress and its associated implications for
the economy. A report by Robertson and Cooper (cited in Mind 2005), discusses some of
the main impacts of workplace stress on the economy. These include:
• It has been estimated that nearly 10 per cent of the UK's gross national product
(GNP) is lost each year due to job-generated stress.
• Stress is the highest cause of absence among non-manual employees, with an
estimated 12.8 million working days lost in Britain in 2003/04 due to stress, and
depression or anxiety ascribed to work related stress5. (Note however note that a
recent study puts the figure on days lost to bullying alone at 18 million6).
5 Health and Safety Executive (2004) Health and Safety Statistics Highlights 2003/04.
Available at www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overpic.htm
6Skynews. (Nov 07th 2005); Citing TUC study on survey carried out on “Ban Bullying at Work Day”; claiming 2
million bullied, in the last 6 months – bosses being blamed.
Available at http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13459538,00.html
31
• Mental health problems account for the loss of over 91 million working days
each year and that half of all days are lost through mental ill health are due to
anxiety and stress conditions7.
• In a CBI survey of over 800 companies, 98 per cent of respondents said mental
health should be a company concern, with 81 per cent of those saying that the
mental health of employees should be a company priority. However, fewer than one
in ten [emphasis added] of the companies surveyed had an official policy on mental
health8.
Another interesting point that Robertson and Cooper identify and elaborate on within
their report, is the fact that fewer than four in ten employers say that they would consider
hiring someone with a history of mental health problems, compared to more than six in
ten for someone with a physical disability. And yet, as will be discussed, it is the possible
effects of bullying and/or its associated long-term stress that potentially cause or bring
about the mental ill health problems in the first place, by the impacts of sustained stress
and its physiological/biochemical action(s) within the individuals concerned! These
potentially ‘toxic’ impacts will be elaborated on in the discussion section.
One area that is not discussed or reviewed by Robertson and Cooper in their report, or
indeed only minimally throughout the literature, is the impact(s) of stress and /or stress
7 Gray, P. (2000) Mental Health in the Workplace: Tackling the Effects of Stress, London, Mental Health Foundation.
8 CBI, cited by Gray, P., in Mental Health in the Workplace: Tackling the effects of stress, The Mental Health Foundation (2000).
32
related to bullying and associated suicide incidences. This is surprising, considering
that there appears to be an increased reporting of it within the news. 9,10
There is also questions raised here on discrimination law based on mental health; whereby
disability is defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) as a “physical or
mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse affect on a person's ability to carry out
normal day to day activities”.
Employers have a duty not to discriminate [emphasis added] directly against disabled
applicants and staff, or treat them less favourably, because of their disability, and also have
a duty to make reasonable adjustments, and yet there appears to be a clear lack of
understanding on the law and or lack of policy to deal with this as discussed by Robertson
and Cooper (2005).
Stress in its broadest term is discussed and perhaps overused by many people in everyday
life and that is why, it appears to be generalized. For example, individuals openly discuss
about being stressed out at work or in every day life, how this or that situation is stressful
etc. Indeed stress affects us at home, work, and even on our holidays.
Positive stress, also described as eustress, by Maslow (1943), may arise as a result of good
management and excellent leadership where all individuals work hard, are kept involved by
management and perhaps; importantly, are valued and supported i.e. People feel they are
in control (Cole, 2000; Cooper, 2001). On the other hand, “negative stress”, or distress, as
9 TUC (2006). “suicide verdict on bullied worker” Discusses how a father of four committed suicide after “soul destroying
and demeaning bullying campaign” by management.

10 ‘KFC KILLERS’ (Received extensive press coverage – see for example; Daily Mirror; 08/12/2005): A magistrates
court returned a verdict that Hannah Kikham; working to pay her law school fees "intended to take her own life after a
sustained period of clinically diagnosed severe depressive illness which was significantly influenced by bullying and harassment in the
workplace".
33
termed by Maslow, (1943); is the potential outcome of a bullying climate where
threats, fear and coercion substitute for poor and/or non-existent (toxic)
management skills. When individuals use the word "stress" on its own, they usually mean
"negative stress".
At its extreme it can manifest itself via severe emotional stress/trauma as Complex Post
traumatic Stress Order (PTSD), which the author believes has potentially far reaching and
potentially devastating outcomes via complex biochemical (at both physiological and
psychological level) processes (see Appendix 1 for common symptoms reported and
experienced by sufferers of complex PTSD).
These processes may be toxic directly to the individual and those around them, arguments
for which will be put forward in the discussion.
2.7.1 Stress Effects
From a personal perspective it is increasingly more evident that individuals think or are
indeed, told that they should learn to ‘deal’ or ‘cope’ with stress at work; ‘it’s just part of
everyday life’ or ‘comes with the job’. These statements tend to imply that there is perhaps
an implicit belief that workplace stress is normal and that we need to ‘manage’ or ‘handle’
stress and just get on with the job.
This view of stress, in the author’s opinion, is wrong. Workplace stress, and more
importantly, for the purpose of this thesis, the stress effects caused by bullying, its
long-term effects and implications as experienced by victims of bullying is a severe health
34
and safety hazard that can have devastating (psychological and physiological) effects;
leading to illness disease or death (supported from a risk perspective by academics,
such as Spurgeon, 2003); with consequences for the organisation (stress makes workers
more susceptible to hazards, injury and disease), which will be further elaborated on in the
discussion.
Stress is a combination of physical and psychological reactions to events that challenge or
threaten us, affecting everyone; both young and old, but as is Mediciens Sans Frontieres,
(2005) discuss, and therefore confirm, attention must be paid to stress and distress since
prolonged states of either can cause physical and mental damage; they further discuss
stress as:
“Stress is a neurobiological reaction that facilitates the adaptation of the person to external demands.
Stress reactions can be caused by pleasant and unpleasant events. In the latter case, stress increases
attention and reactivity to perceived or potentially dangerous situations. Three stages of stress can be
distinguished: the alarm phase, the reaction phase, and the exhaustion phase. Stress can initially improve
performance; but after a certain level and amount of time functioning and health become negatively affected.
It is at this point that stress becomes distress” (Medicens Sans Frontieres, 2005, p.24)
In summing up this section, it is clearly evident from the immense literature available, that
traumatically stressful events, such as war, emotional abuse etc. for example in the form of
workplace bullying, may trigger behavioural and or other biological/biochemical processes
in the form of ‘stress’ that may contribute to the onset of illness and/or disease in
the victim, as well as having further far reaching impacts. It is intended to identify
and elaborate on some of these issues in putting forward the concept that workplace
35
bullying should be regarded as a toxic process with far reaching consequences.
2.8 Toxic – A definition
There are various definitions of ‘toxic’ depending on the context that it is discussed. By
definition ‘toxic’ is defined as “capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical
means;” something that is poisonous or pertaining to poison.” And what is poison? It’s
“any substance which, introduced into an organism in relatively small amounts, acts
chemically upon the tissues to produce serious injury or death.” The Center for Disease
control (US) defines a Toxic substance as:
“ Any substance which can cause acute or chronic injury to the human body, or which is suspected of being
able to cause diseases or injury under some conditions”; and a ‘Toxicant’ as ” Any substance producing
a toxic effect” (.i.e. Toxicity).
A Dose-response Curve can be used to illustrate the relationship between the amount of a
drug or other chemical (and its toxic effects) that an individual is exposed to and the
degree of response it produces. When attempting to answer the question as to whether
bullying can be thought of as being toxic (i.e. acting like a toxin), the curve can (in the
opinion of the author) be applied as a theoretical concept (see any recognised toxicology
texts e.g. Ballantyne et al., 1993; Klaassen, C., & Watkins, J., 2003) to help answer this
question. It may therefore, also serve as a potential tool in aiding management to
understand the severity and consequences of the toxic bullying process. These
concepts will be elaborated on further within the discussion section.
36
CHAPTER 3
37
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Important Note to the Reader
It should be noted by the reader that this section includes methodological approaches that
were originally to be used in generating additional, primary data towards the project
findings. This was to be performed by generating questions and performing interviews (as
will be discussed), which it was believed (initially) would add additional insight of the
bullying phenomenon by managers.
An extensive amount of time was devoted in proposing and refining questions as well as
identifying potential interviewees (see also appendix 5); however, there were potential
ethical considerations that were highlighted that may be expressed by the university ethics
committee, that initially were not believed were going to be an issue. This occurred quite
late on in the project after extensive research had been performed. One of the main
concerns was that by performing the interviews, there might be a small risk that the
interviewees could be subject to re –traumatisation of their experience. Due to time
constraints, and the fact that the researcher was not a qualified counsellor (although it was
put forward that this ran counter to both student and academic rights), in submitting
further support for the primary data gathering, it was decided therefore, in consultation
with the project supervisor to abandon the interviews; even though it may have given
additional insight into the phenomenon.
However, as the project had progressed and evolved, substantial secondary data
had already been gathered from many sources allowing the author to fulfil the objectives
38
originally highlighted (and as will be discussed in section 4). As bullying is an
international phenomenon and covers many different fields of research; this is
supported by Saunders (2003), who highlights that secondary data will probably be the
main source to answer the research questions and address the research objectives.
As it was pointed out by the supervisor that primary data was not mandatory in the thesis;
and whilst it would have been of interest to include, it was agreed and decided that it
would not be pursued; due to time limitations (in putting forward further support to the
ethics committee) which may lead to the project being compromised. However, it was
agreed that the ‘proposed’ methodology (for primary data collection) would still be
included in the final thesis as it shows to the reader the research that was undertaken in
establishing and supporting the collection of the primary data by the author; if indeed it
had been possible to do this.
3.2 Proposed Methodology Approach
This thesis follows that of a constructivist approach. In a complex area such as bullying in
terms of organisational behaviour it is not appropriate to develop law-like generalisations.
Indeed, as Remenyi et al, (1998) discusses it is preferred to look for the reality behind
them when dealing with soft skills such as management competencies. In this field of
work a lot of research is concerned with subjective perceptions and therefore it is
important to take a position where one can interpret the socially constructed
understandings and meaning. In order to satisfy this project investigations have
been carried out in different academic fields. Different methods of data collection
have been utilised in order to satisfy the objectives of this project.
39
In addition, secondary data has been researched and utilised as the main support to
the thesis and is used throughout, as this provided the information to support the main
objectives of the project. This was obtained from the utilisation of academic books, peer
reviewed journal articles, Library databases and also the internet (news articles etc).
3.3 Methodology Options
The literature review can be described as being the “backbone” of any research project.
The preliminary search of reviewing the literature helps one to generate and also to refine
the research ideas. There is a need to establish what research has been published in the
chosen project area and then to identify any other research that may currently be in
progress, which may also be of benefit to the researcher.
The utilisation of library services available at the University of Portsmouth as well as
Portsmouth City Council library were used for this purpose and associated online
databases for example, Athens, were very useful, together with the library texts that were
available. However, the use of inter- library loans was utilised on occasion due to the fact
that some recent references were difficult to obtain because some of the original texts
were dated.
One of the advantages of this particular topic on workplace bullying and its associated
impacts, is that it is currently a very popular area of research with academics and
therefore, there was an immense amount secondary data available. It is hoped that
this project when completed, will at least in part be published as a unique piece of
40
research that assists the topic by identifying that bullying is a toxic phenomenon; and
it is hoped that the concepts put forward will be of value in aiding the understanding
of this topic by management.
3.3.1 Proposed Case study Research Approach.
From the possible approaches of researching for the thesis (other alternatives included a
‘grounded theory’ approach), the case study approach (inductive method) was originally to
be adopted to generate additional primary data to be of added interest; as it was hoped to
focus on a group of individuals who had been bullied by management in the same
company, within closely linked departments. According to the review of the literature
above it seemed the most appropriate for the MBA dissertation the author was
undertaking; being strongly associated with qualitative data as opposed to quantitative
data.
Furthermore, this particular approach was supported by the need that the research process
be flexible as well as responsive to change, i.e. during the research process new patterns of
thought may evolve about observations and it is therefore, more suitable than building a
theory and then ‘evaluating’ the data which would confirm the theory. There appeared to
be a void in the literature on in-depth multiple cases of employee accounts of management
bullying within a same work setting; relating to highly intelligent and capable, professional
employees, together with little inference of it being a ‘toxic phenomenon’; which would
have favoured this particular approach. According to Yin (2003), the case study
research method is used when phenomena and context do not have precise
boundaries. He defines case study approach as:
41
“…An empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomena within its real life context
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.” (Dobson,
2001; citing Yin, 1994).
Therefore multiple sources such as literature review, case evidence and intuition is often
applied in case research and is known as iterative triangulation (Yin 2003; Eisenhardt,
1989).
The research question often changes during the research work, partly because of this
iterative nature. Description of completed work usually combines both quantitative and
qualitative information, using comparisons within and between the case(s) under scrutiny.
Case studies tend to use either an inductive or deductive (see also Figure 4) research
approach (Saunders et al, 2003). In deductive research, the work proceeds from current
theory to data, trying to use logical deduction to create proper constructions. However,
Eisenhardt, (1989); citing Kuhn, 1996 argues that more than one theoretical construction
could be fitted on any given data, which decreases the applicability of this approach in a
case study context.
Therefore, the following criteria are seen as measures of a successful construction:
1. Relevance to practice.
2. Theoretical connections.
3. Usability in practice.
4. Theoretical novelty value.
42
THEORY
INDUCTIVE DEDUCTIVE
DATA
Figure 4. Basic differences between deductive and inductive case study research approaches.
The Inductive approach is used frequently in case studies, where the data is used to
generate new findings from current theories (Saunders et, al, 2003). This was the objective
of the author in putting forward primary data to support the idea that WPB is a toxic
phenomenon. It is agreed by academics that science could not develop without an
inductive element (Kekäli, 2001; citing Kasanen, Lukka and Sitonen, 1993; Kuhn, 1996).
However, its generalisations have uncertain features always and therefore the whole of the
scientific society could not entirely agree with them.
It is worth discussing that as Kekäli, (2001) posits, researchers are often not able to state
which of the two approaches is to be used (whether inductive or deductive). The reason
for it is the complex nature of the research work; no ‘pure’ inductive or deductive case
study research exists, because every research work is a combination of the two
approaches, indeed, this would appear to be the case within this thesis as ideas were
built upon and refined throughout the research process.
43
However, the inductive research approach does contain more detailed analyses from
the underlying empirical phenomena, and emphasises the use of qualitative rather
than quantitative information whereas oppositely, the deductive research approach will be
inclined to use only use empirical data to confirm used theory, and therefore has more
emphasis to use quantitative data.
An important point to note however when considering and reviewing research methods, is
to acknowledge the fact that, in the past, the case study approach has been stereotyped
and been discussed as the "weak sibling" of research methods within the social sciences,
Yin (2003).
It has also been degraded by some as having insufficient precision i.e. quantification,
subject objectivity, and rigour etc. However despite these "stereotypical weaknesses", Yin
(2003), famous for developing the case study method; points out that it still continues to
be extensively used for research in the social sciences in addition to practice orientated
fields, for example, management sciences, public administration, urban-planning,
education, as well as public policy (Yin, 2003).
Further evidence and support for the use of the case study approach within this study is
given by Dobson, (2001); citing Cavaye, (1996)); who argues that case study research can
be completed in a multitude of ways:
“Case research can be carried out taking a positivist or an interpretive stance, can take a deductive or an
Inductive approach, can use qualitative and quantitative methods, can investigate one or multiple
cases. Case research can be highly structured, positivist, deductive investigation of multiple cases; it
can also be an unstructured, interpretive, inductive investigation of one case; lastly, it can be anything in
44
between these two extremes in almost any combination.”(Dobson, 2001).
When considering sample numbers for the study, it must be emphasised that whilst only a
small number of WPB cases were originally to be studied (4-5), it is in a unique area of
research and would have therefore been acceptable to generate additional ideas and
theory; indeed many academics such as Yin (2003; 1994); Dyer and Wilkins (1991) and
Dobson (2001; citing Miles & Huberman (1994)) emphasise that the sample size could be
even one. However, some academics, such as Eisenhardt (1989), suggests that four to ten
cases are needed for generating theory as her opinion is that fewer than four cases does
not give potential to create complex theory and with more than ten cases it is difficult to
manage the voluminous data.
Dyer and Wilkins (1991), however, argue that the key issue is not the number of cases,
the time spent in the field or page length. The most important thing is that the researcher
understands; describes the context clearly for readers and that she/he is able to generate
theories from it.
3.4 Proposed Interviews
It is possible to define an interview as "a purposeful discussion between two or more
people", (Saunders et al., (2003); citing Kahn and Cannell, 1957).
It is possible to gather valid and reliable data, which is relevant to one's research
questions and objectives via the use of interviewing. Interviews may allow for the
collection of detailed verbal and observation data, possibly on tape recorder /
45
Dictaphone, permitting careful exploration of how people make sense of issues as
they occur during the course of a conversation.
When conducted competently, they enable the researcher to engage with the respondents,
to develop trust, and thus offer the possibility that the interviewee will share perceptions
and stories that may add insights, which are new to the interviewer. While differences in
the meanings associated with language can threaten the reliability of the data, the interview
method allows the researcher to test differences in meaning with the interviewee.
In-depth, non-standardised interviews (semi-structured) were originally to be to be used in
this exploratory study. It is not only important to question ‘what’ and ‘how, but also to
explore ‘why’. This may be intensified by the use of both probing and open-ended
questions; and according to Robson (2002), may be very useful in gaining new insights and
perspectives. The development of questions that were to be used within the thesis were
identified and developed as the researcher went though the literature, and allowed for
elaboration by the proposed interviewees (see Appendix 3 for proposed questions)
The advantage of the interview process is that allows for possible identification and
elaboration of other areas of the experience, which may prove useful in the research. A
potential disadvantage of an interview method however, is the issue of researcher bias; for
example, the way a researcher asks a question can influence a participant’s response
thereby creating a situation where the participants may provide answers that they believe
an interviewer will be pleased with. Researchers need to be capable, skilled and
aware of their own as well as the participants’ dynamics in the interview process.
46
Often the sophisticated levels of skill required to interview with sensitivity and to
ensure the respondent is ‘ok’ after the interview is underestimated. Different types of
interviewing techniques can be employed in order to gather this data; they are, ‘structured
interviews’; ‘semi-structured interviews’; and ‘unstructured interviews’ (Saunders et al
2003).
The particular type of interviewing technique that was to be used for this project was that
of in-depth non-standardised format (semi-structured). This can essentially be described as
the type whereby the researcher has a list of questions (see also appendix 3) to be covered
(Saunders et al; 2003). However, the questions asked may change during each interview
depending on time and experience shared by the interviewee; the benefit of this type of
interviewing technique is that it is possible to ask additional questions as the conversation
progresses; to explore particular nuances and issues which may arise, thereby assisting in
obtaining further information.
The three interview types described all have their own unique advantages as well as
disadvantages, and these can be seen in Table 1 overleaf.
47
Interview Method Strengths Weaknesses
Structured • Allows same questions • Do not allow further

to be asked to all questioning.
interviewees.
• Inflexible.
• Interviews are
generally less time
consuming.
Unstructured • General discussion is • No formal agenda,
often useful in the therefore difficult to
early stages of a control.
project.
• May deviate from the
subject area and produce
little information.
• Potentially Time-
consuming.
Semi-structured • Allows for more in- • Relatively time

depth questioning. consuming.
• Interview has a broad

agenda therefore,
should produce
relevant information
Table 1.
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Interview types (Saunders et al, 2003 p. 246-249)
48
3.5 Proposed Participant Selection
From a mutual business contact, the details of my proposed research were circulated to
various individuals who were working or had worked for the organisation to determine
whether they would be prepared to share their experience(s). The business contact was
aware that there were issues of bullying present within the department and knew the
individuals personally. The contact approached them initially on the researchers behalf.
Of six individuals identified, four were prepared to assist in the research project that had
experienced bullying by their manager, realising that this phenomenon was destructive,
they felt that by sharing their experience(s), they may in some way add to the research and
thereby assist in future prevention of bullying within the workplace. Two individuals had
left the company, and two still remained in its employ.
Participants were assured that there would be no reference to them individually or the
manager(s) concerned; or indeed the company concerned; thus ensuring absolute
confidentiality.
A brief outline of the project was e-mailed to them, with my contact details asking them to
contact if they were interested in assisting with the authors’ research. After receiving
telephone calls from the participants it was agreed to perform personal interviews (in a
mutually agreeable setting).
Originally, questions to be asked during the interview process together with
consent forms were to be e-mailed to the applicants (see also appendix II and appendix
49
III), so that they would be prepared in advance for potential questions; this was
thought to be ethically correct considering the sensitivity of the nature of the topic;
enabling all participants to be fully aware of the subject matter in relation to their possible
experience(s).
At all times a professional approach would have been followed during the interview
process. The interview would have been recorded digitally on a digital dictaphone. This
method would have been used in order to maintain that the information obtained was
accurate at all times. The interview would then have later been transcribed and written
down. The responses to the questions would have then been used as additional
information in support of the thesis.
However, whilst this information may have been interesting; adding additional
information to the project, the last minute decision not to perform these interviews
(because of ethical issues and potential associated time constraints; as highlighted to in the
introduction of his chapter, which may have compromised the project), it was felt by both
supervisor and researcher alike, would not detract from meeting the project objectives, by
which point there was substantial supporting information that was to be used for this
purpose.
50
CHAPTER 4
51
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION, FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Introduction
In discussion, it is worth noting as an association that at this time the world appears to be
going through a violent period, whereby bullying against nations and individuals appears to
be rife. Only recently, pictures and documentary evidence of torture and abuse have
exposed the corruption within the United States military, which leads one to the question
‘how can individuals feel so little for their fellow human beings, and act in a manor which
is cruel; as well as apparently giving enjoyment to some?’
The old saying “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Originally stated by Lord
Acton, 1834-1902), appears to be correct, in that when many normal individuals gain a
measure of power over others they often cannot resist the urge to abuse it and treat those
below them with contempt, indignity and often cruelty.
This kind of corruption as discussed above, can and does occur in the workplace in the
form of bullying; mainly occurring as alluded to in the thesis, vertically or ‘top-down’ 80%
of the time (Rayner, 2001), with common estimates of 1 in 4 being affected; often higher
in some occupations.
Whilst however, this may not include physical torture of individuals, workplace bullying
inflicts psychological abuse and systematic victimisation that is immensely
destructive, that may bring about physiological (biochemical) processes that can be
literally ‘toxic’ at the cellular level leading to illness, disease and in certain cases death.
52
Recently, the issue(s) of workplace bullying have gained increasing exposure, as
evidenced in the literature and also the press. Some individuals have been so
systematically abused that they have committed suicide11; many have developed
depression, anxiety and stress disorders, all of which are the result of complex biological
processes. Recent research involving 1885 respondents by MORI (cited by the Samaritans)
in 2003, indicates that:
“one in five people in Great Britain experiences stress on a daily basis and that the emotional
consequences are severe, with a quarter of people who are stressed feeling isolated by it,
nearly half feeling depressed or down, and one in eight believing they have nowhere to turn”.
The study goes on to highlight that 45% of those who have been stressed have been
depressed as a consequence.
Another study reported in HRM Guide (2003; carried out by Cubiks a specialist HR
consultancy), discusses the ‘taboo nature’ of stress and stress caused by bullying, as well as
the climate of fear of individuals to actually report or highlight problems for fear of
reprisals. Their findings included:
• “Complaining of stress will damage your career prospects - 76% of survey respondents thought that
their career prospects would be damaged if they complained of stress, and managers confirmed that
they are right to think this. 79% of managers said they would be less likely to employ a candidate
if they suspected that they were prone to stress and 87% would be less likely to promote an
existing employee if they had doubts over their ability to handle stress”.
11 See footnote 9 and 10; page 30

53
• Although 49% of respondents did think that their line-manager would be concerned or
sympathetic if they complained of stress, a quarter (24%) believed that their line managers would
become irritated or annoyed if they raised stress as an issue. Almost half said that their
relationship with their superiors was a considerable or major cause of concern for them and one in
four (23%) complained that they were suffering from harassment or bullying.”
• “Few organisations provide facilities for stressed employees - Only one third (34%) of respondents
said that stress was recognised as an issue in their workplace and just 31% of respondents said
that personal counselling services were available to them. Fewer still (27%) said that their
organisation has any formal process for handling grievances or concerns relating to stress”.
Clearly there exists a culture of fear in individuals to express their concerns and a culture
of acceptance by the organisations to accept that stress is part of the job. There
undoubtedly does need to be a fundamental change within organisational and individual
‘psychies’ to bring about a reduction in ill health caused from bullying and other forms of
stress, which has a major impact on the individual, the organisation and the economy as a
whole.
As discussed previously, workplace bullying is not a form of ‘tough management’ nor is it
a leadership style; it is an abuse of power that needs to be and should be exposed as a
severe health and safety hazard, something that in the opinion of the author should not be
tolerated in any form, vis-à-vis Zero-tolerance! (Indeed this is one of the rationales
behind the thesis, so that it can add to the discourse, and enlighten management if
published; or indeed may be the ‘spring board’ to further research by the author).
54
Unfortunately, from the authors’ personal experience, as well as from understanding
the literature, it appears that a majority of workplace bullying is hidden and
conducted in secret. A common feature as a result of bullying, evidenced throughout
studies in the literature, is that individuals lose self-confidence; which in turn leads to their
self-esteem, health and performance being affected12, and some never work again. This is
truly a waste of human capital.
The manager bully may be revered by many senior managers; appearing to be a high
achiever, indeed, may be economically important to the organisation, as was the case in
the authors’ personal experience (often leading to the reason why the bully stays and the
victim disappears!).
To those below the bully, however, there is often fear and loathing of this ‘Jekyll and
Hyde’ character. There is therefore, perhaps the temptation by senior management, when
a complaint arises to protect the bully and therefore further victimise the complainant.
This inevitably leads to the ‘exit’ of the complainant (victim) leading to the apparent
‘resolution of the problem’. However, It only serves to reinforce that bullying is tolerated
within the organisation, and is therefore not ‘resolving the issue’, at least not in the
medium term. This behaviour, it appears, just gives the impression of ‘Put up and shut
up, or leave’; a fact that is highlighted and supported by other authors, for example Reed,
(2004), whereby:
12 Recent report by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents), The most commonly cited effects are worry
about going to work, and bullying are a lowering of self-esteem and self-confidence. It also has an impact on
performance. 60% of respondents say that it has affected the quality of their work, and 51% say that it has caused
them to take time off sick.
55
“Subordinates might not report toxic managers because nobody likes a whiner” (Reed,
2004).
This can leave fear in other individuals who may have witnessed or indeed are
experiencing similar action(s) by other members of staff, creating anxieties and stress etc, a
term the author calls the ‘toxic trickle’ effects of bullying. This can, therefore, also be
considered as being ‘toxic’ in the form of inappropriate behaviour and that it may well
start to have an impact and therefore, affect other individuals’ well being, i.e. quite literally
- spreading like a virus within the organisation.
It should be noted here, that this appeared to be the case with several of the individuals
who were highlighted for interview (in initial informal discussions; two individuals ‘exited’
the company, without exit interviews - they were ‘paid’ to resign; whilst the bully stayed!),
and this may have supported this notion; however, due to the ethical concerns highlighted
(as discussed in the methodology), together, with time constraints it could not be
corroborated, but however, is an interesting avenue for further research, should the
opportunity arise for the author.
4.2 Bullying as a Toxic Process
“Although everyone comes in contact with germs, not everyone becomes ill. Some people come into contact
with billions of germs and never become ill. Its as if they are totally immune to contracting any type of
illness. Other people seem to become ill just at the thought of germs” (Despues, 1999).
In discussion, it is the opinion of the author that it is possible to describe the
process of bullying as being analogous to a process that is potentially toxic. It can be
56
described, therefore, as being indirectly (through ‘toxic trickle’- spreading like a virus)
and directly toxic for a variety of reasons. Directly toxic as it comes from a source,
i.e. from the bully, potentially acting by causing changes within an individual’s
psychological/behavioural and physiological biochemistry (just as a drug could be toxic
and an have impact). This may then bring about a possible ‘cascading’ of effects, which
over time may have a detrimental impact on the body. These effects may subsequently
lead to possible illness and /or disease, such as mental and physical disease(s), resulting as
a consequence, for example, from changes in the brains biochemistry and function and its
associated impacts on the functioning of the body as a whole; for example changes in
immunity.
This has recently been highlighted by the work, of for example, the Garvan Institute in
Australia (2005), who have discovered how the hormone, known as neuropeptide Y,
(NPY), can affect immune function. NPY is also known in the medical arena as a ‘stress
molecule’, which acts both as a neurotransmitter and neurohormone and is intimately
involved in stress responses of the body (see for example Zukowska-Grojec, 1995). It can
prevent our immune system functioning properly as well as having other major impacts.
It may, for example, have profound effects on the cardiovascular system when an
individual is undergoing chronic stress, which may occur as a result of the bullying
process. This researchers contend, is more pronounced in men, within the process of
atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. (See also for example, Zukowska, 2005; her
current research is focusing on cellular and molecular mechanisms of neuropeptide actions
in vascular diseases).
57
Severe stress caused as a result or in addition to the bullying process, may also cause
the individual to be prone and/or more susceptible to agents within their own
working environment (e.g. sick building syndrome?) and general environment. This is a
condition known to in the United States as “Environmentally Triggered Illness (ETI), which
results from a disruption of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the term that is used to describe
the constant state of the internal biological/biochemical environment of an individual or
internal ‘balance’, to assist the reader. The processes and activities that help to maintain
homeostasis are referred to as ‘homeostatic mechanisms’ and a basic definition given by
the (AAEM, 1992) is:
“..metabolic equilibrium actively maintained by several complex biological mechanisms that operate via the
autonomic nervous system to offset disrupting changes by environmental stressors..” (e.g. emotional
distress from acts of bullying).
ETI, is described by the Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM, 1992) as illnesses
that result from disruption, which may result from a wide range of possible exposures.
These exposures, they contend, may range from a severe acute exposure to a single
stressor, which may result in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as may be the case,
if an individual experiences severe bullying (a term the author terms the ‘sledgehammer
effect’); to that of cumulative, relatively low grade exposures to many stressors (e.g.
emotional stress as a result of bullying) over time, (many months or years), which can be
termed ‘drip-drip’ or trickle effects. This disruption can affect any part of the body via
dysfunctioning of any number of the body’s many biological mechanisms and
systems.
58
“. The ongoing manifestations of ETI are shaped by the nature of the stressors and the timing of the
exposures to them, by the biochemical individuality of the patient, and by the dynamic interactions
over time, resulting from various governing principles such as total load the level of adaptation, and
individual susceptibility (biochemical individuality)”(AAEM, 1992).
Another example, which may, the author believes, be of use in illustrating to management
the potentially toxic effects of bullying, is by asking the question; ‘what are the potential
impacts on a female employee who is being bullied who is, or may, become pregnant?’ As
an explanatory description to management this may perhaps do more in enabling them to
understand its seriousness and far reaching effects. Indeed, are organisations that are
ethically led, that have issues with bullying, going to be more likely to respond and take
action if the true understanding of its impacts may even affect the future of unborn
children?
This is an important consideration that should, in the opinion of the author, be discussed
as a potentially toxic phenomenon, and a clear reason why organisations should not
tolerate the bullying process in any form. Here, as will be alluded to, is a clear example of
where the potential of the mothers own biological chemistry could have an impact i.e.
toxicity, on the development of the baby (known as neonatal effects), i.e. whereby the
mother’s own physiological biochemistry is potentially acting as a ‘toxin’ on the foetus’s
development as a result of severe emotional and or physical stress from workplace
bullying.
This idea is supported by many other medical studies. They have shown, for
example, that women experiencing high levels of stress have increased risk of
59
smaller babies, which can also have potentially profound implications for the babies
in later life:
"...the psychological state of the mother may affect foetal development ". (see BBC news and Carrol, et
al., 2006), and that in addition:
“...The fetal origins of disease hypothesis contends that an unfavourable intrauterine environment, as
evidenced by low birth weight, increases vulnerability to chronic illness in adulthood..” (Carrol, et al.,
2006).
Another study by the African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF) focused on the
impact of PTSD on subsequent infant development in expectant mothers who were
exposed to extreme stress. Women were tested who had experienced PTSD, in addition
to being pregnant at the same time. Results showed that whilst the stress levels of the
mothers declined slowly with time; their children however, had very high levels of
hyperactivity and depression and corresponding challenges in creativity, attention span and
social behaviour compared to those in the control group. The researchers tests implied
that in-utero stress, as a result of maternal stress, could adversely affect the foetus by
impairing psychological development; and therefore can be seen as having an impact on
future working capital.
"A traumatic experience triggers adrenalin that throws you into a survival state of fight or flight. The
physical effect is to cut short the blood supply to the womb, our findings reinforce a theory that a
pregnant mother's emotional experiences can be passed on to the child she is carrying."(AMREF,
2005).
60
This is emphasised further within the medical arena and should therefore be of
interest and concern to organisations when minimising stress in the workplace,
especially from a bullying perspective and occupational health point of view. Indeed, it
should be noted that the ‘toxic’ effects might also directly act upon the foetus (via
pathophysiological mechanisms) in the development of psychopathology (e.g. depression;
schizophrenia).
This is supported by numerous medical findings, such as those discussed by Huizink,
(2000), below (See also Fig. 5, below of the mechanisms involved (modified for stressful
inducer(s) – e.g. bullying). Who suggests that:
1. Prenatal stressors of human life were associated with a significantly smaller head circumference,
when corrected for birth weight.
2. Variations in the pre-natal environment can influence the physiological responses of the offspring
for life. For example, under-nutrition in-utero changes the body's structure, physiology and
metabolism, and predicts the susceptibility to hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke in
adult life (Barker, 1995).
3. The principle that the endocrinologic and metabolic environment afforded by the mother has lasting
or lifelong significance has been called foetal programming (Lucas,1998).
4. Prenatal stress also significantly worsened the scores on the neonatal neurological
examination. This indicates that prenatal stress is able to directly affect foetal brain
development in humans. (Note: this last point is identified widely throughout the
medical literature; see, for example Oates, 2002; O’Connor et al; 2002).
61
Stressor: e.g.
Bullying.
Fig 5. Mechanisms involved in prenatal stress effects (reproduced from Huizink 2000).
Huizink, (2000), elaborates further by discussing that the effects of prenatal stress may be
much more profound, especially if accumulating prenatal and postnatal risk factors, such
as maternal smoking or alcohol-intake (themselves potentially toxic to the individual i.e.
both male and females; over time) and adverse lifestyles, exist. These risk factors
themselves can be induced or exacerbated as a consequence of severe emotional/physical
stress (positive feedback loop). They may arise as ‘coping mechanisms’ as a consequence
of severe emotional stress, such as bullying (see for example, Traweger et.al., 2004;
Hammer & Vaglum, 1989) , or what could be considered as ‘toxic amplification’, and can
therefore, be considered as part of the overall picture of the potential toxic impact(s) of
bullying.
Much research has been performed looking at cortisol (stress hormone) and its effects on
the developing brain, for example by Gunnar (1992, 1998) who found that exposure to
high levels of cortisol causes atrophy of hippocampal dendrites, which is reversible when
exposure is brief. However, prolonged high levels of cortisol may lead to hippocampal
cell death, probably due to increased neuronal vulnerability to glutamate toxicity. Long-
term elevated, but not toxic, cortisol levels render hippocampal neurons susceptible to the
effects of commonly encountered threats to the brain, namely hypoxia, epileptic seizures,
hypoglycaemia, physical trauma, and toxic stress. Indeed, the response of the brain to
toxic levels of cortisol from chronic stress is considered to be linked to both dementia and
Alzheimer’s disease (e.g. Murialdo, 2000).
Excess stress, it is believed, releases inordinate amounts of cortisol, produced by the
adrenal glands in response to stress. In moderate amounts, it is not harmful, however,
chronic exposure to toxic levels of cortisol injures and even kills brain cells “by the billions”
63
says Khalsa (1997; cited by Russell, 2004) who believes that cortisol toxicity is one of the
primary causes of Alzheimer’s disease. This, in the authors’ opinion, goes ‘hand in hand’
with the previous statements.
Further discussion of the consequences of severe emotional/physical stress that may
occur as a result of bullying, and its potentially ‘toxic’ effects, are alluded to by many other
authors; including, for example, South (2005). He further elaborates on the implications of
cortisol and it’s toxic effects; and that stressors leading to its overproduction and hence
potential toxicity are infinitely variable. Whereby:
“almost any type of physical or mental stress can lead within minutes to greatly enhanced secretion of
ACTH and consequently cortisol as well, often increasing cortisol secretion as much as 20-fold” (South,
2005; citing Guyton & Hall, 2000).
Again, this is dependent on the type of individual, and their respective environment.
South (2005) further posits that whilst essential for life, excessive or toxic levels of cortisol
can also cause illness/disease states, including abdominal obesity, high blood sugar
(“adrenal diabetes”), muscle wasting, bone loss, immune shutdown, brain (hippocampus)
atrophy, poor wound healing, thin wrinkled skin, fluid retention and hypertension. When
it is chronically excessive, and hence chronically toxic, this may lead to disease states such
as cancer, ulcers, heart attacks, diabetes, infections, alcoholism, strokes, skin diseases,
psychosis, and possibly Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, it may also lead
to multiple sclerosis and myasthenia gravis (for the benefit of the reader – a primary
disorder of neuromuscular transmission; occurring usually as a result of autoimmune
disease).
64
There is an immense plethora of information on these physiological/biological effects;
especially cortisol toxicity that brings about a cascade of biochemical effects, leading to
disease, however, it is impossible for the author to illustrate them all. Indeed, information
has been gathered and researched and used to put forward within the thesis to support the
concept(s) that there are potentially a myriad of toxic processes that occur in severe stress
such as that which may occur during the bullying process. The aim has been to ‘bridge’ the
literature, and define as well as put forward the concept of bullying as a process that is
potentially toxic. In addition, using the concept as an aid as a management tool, thereby,
highlighting to managers and employees, the implications of, and removing bullying from
the workplace.
It is fair to say that we all experience stress to one degree or another every day. As
individuals we should therefore not be subject to further stress in the form of bullying
which can have far reaching consequences on our health and well being.
The aim of discussing these particular phenomenon’s within the thesis is that this is
potentially another avenue for bringing to the attention of organisations and management
that bullying has far reaching implications. This is not only at the level of the organisation
and the individual(s) concerned, but also potentially on their children (from secondary
effects) caused by potential poor home life as a result of stressed and emotionally abused
employees taking there emotional pain out on their families.
In addition it may affect that well-being of future generations (by having an effect on an
unborn child – as discussed), and that is one of the reasons why it should be treated with
zero-tolerance, in addition to the fact that they are, in effect, future working capital.
65
The author would like to point out to the reader that there are other very interesting yet
intellectually challenging articles that look at the impact of chronic and continued stress
responses, which may occur, for example, as a result of workplace bullying. These discuss
different disease states (for example as elicited in chronic fatigue syndrome) that can be
caused by dysregulated stress responses and their potential health impact(s). However,
due to constraints in the wording limit as well as the fact that the author is not a medical
doctor, are not discussed further. These should be considered by readers / individuals,
who may wish to pursue this line of enquiry in further research; in bringing the attention
of severe stressors, such as bullying, their impact(s) and disease. An excellent article, for
example, is that of Sternberg (2003); who examines the health consequences of a
dysregulated stress-response.
4.3 Workplace Bullying – A ‘Toxic’ Concept.
In carrying out this thesis the main objective of the author has been to analyse the
academic literature and findings from research and media to put forward the concept that
workplace bullying is indeed a toxic and potentially devastating phenomenon. This
approach does not appear to exist in the literature on bullying; although metaphorically the
term ‘toxic’ is used in the US literature as a term for poor management leading to ‘sick’
organisations’ and work place environments’ arguments supporting this idea have been
discussed above.
The question that has to be asked from performing this research is how can organisations
prevent or stop this toxic behaviour? It cannot just be used as a metaphor. There are far
reaching consequences that potentially work at a physiological (biochemical) level within
66
an individual. However, we are all different, in terms of genetic make up, life
experience(s); nutritional and immunological status etc. That is after all, what makes us so
unique.
Bullying in the workplace should be considered from a conceptual point of view (in terms
of dose and individual response) like that of a carcinogen (note the author is not stating it
is a carcinogen!) What this means is that it is not known from a threshold point of view, at
which point it becomes toxic. It depends on an individuals’ genetic make up and past life
experiences. Again, this importantly highlights the fact that as individuals, we are all
different.
It is seen from the discussion that severe stress like that caused from workplace bullying
and its impacts, may be different to each individual. For example, when looking at
treatment for PTSD, Bowman (1999) discusses that individual differences may lead to
greater distress than that of the event characteristics (trauma) in accounting for differences
within individuals. She further discusses that the treatment approach could be improved
after a “toxic event exposure,” if individual differences were considered (three individuals
were part of, and experienced the same traumatic event; only one suffered PTSD - i.e.
each individual exhibited a different dose-response).
Further ‘enlightenment’ of management is, in the opinion of the author, possible by
putting forward a ‘dose response concept’. This may assist, the author believes, in
reinforcing the idea to management that bullying behaviour is a potentially toxic and even
fatal phenomenon, as is demonstrated in Figure 6, below.
67
Death possible and more likely?

100 %
Severe emotional trauma; depression; PTSD etc.?

(Involving complex biochemical processes)
(C)
Hypothetical Response(s)
Immunological dysfunction / disease?
Individual Characteristics
Threshold
(B)
“Control”
(A)
Interactive effects?
Drug/alcohol misuse from stress?
(Toxic Amplification)
Stress symptoms from increase in BP,

cortisol production, neuropeptide Y etc?
Hypothetical Dose of stressors/trauma (e.g. Bullying)
Fig 6. Conceptual diagram illustrating hypothetical dose-response to a stressor such as

workplace bullying
68
Note that this diagram is put forward only as a concept in an attempt to aid management
understanding of the complex processes that may occur as a result of the bullying process.
It is a ‘theoretical response curve’, which is based on a hormetic model; used not only in
toxicology, but also in the broader domain of the biomedical sciences including
immunology, cancer cell biology, neuroscience, and all other fields that rely upon dose-
response relationships (see for example, Calabrese, 2005).
The response(s), or toxic effects (from complex biochemical process) e.g. PTSD or
immunological dysfunction (see (c), Figure 6). may, it must be considered, be able to occur
at any point, depending on the ‘characteristics of the individual’ (‘the control’).
What is important to consider is that the dotted line can be considered as the control, or a
‘normal’ individual. It should be seen (the dotted line) as being able to move vertically up
or down (the y-axis); when taking into account or highlighting the potential type of
individual concerned, i.e. ‘individual characteristics’. As discussed, this involves taking
into account a plethora of individual characteristics. This is to say that we can consider an
individuals’ genetic, emotional, physiological, immunological, and nutritional status; in
addition to their respective life experiences (possibly even that of stressors caused in the
womb as discussed already?), when applying this concept.
This should also be considered as being a function of both that of the individual and the
organisation. If the individual is in a ‘toxic’ work environment (see also Figure 7), as
discussed; that condones or exacerbates the behaviour (i.e. from an organisational
culture/climate and performance management perspective) then this may potentially
amplify or speed up toxic processes and hence disease / ill-health within the individual. It
69
may also be considered, that it may therefore, bring about disease/illness in that same
individual, that may otherwise not have occurred should they have been employed in a
working environment where there is no bullying. That is, if they had been in a workplace
where bullying is not tolerated in any form, together with an environment where there is
dignity and respect between individuals.
As individuals within any population species are different, there will be a variability in
susceptibility to a toxic agent; and a percentage will be hyper-susceptible or hyper-reactive
(i.e. affected by low dosages), and a number will not respond until higher dosages are
given, which is known as hypo-susceptible or hypo-reactive individuals (again, see for
example, Ballantyne 2003). This can therefore also be conceptually applied when
considering the emotional impacts (and potential changes in brain biochemistry) and
potentially toxic effects of severe stress, which may, or may not arise as a consequence of
bullying.
Early on in the process, the stress response (see (A); Figure 6) caused by trauma may even
be beneficial to the individual, enabling one to adapt and grow i.e. stress in the early stages
can ‘rev up’ the body and enhance performance in the workplace. The individuals’
biological homeostatic mechanisms as discussed, under normal conditions will maintain
and prevent damage to the individual. However, if this condition is allowed to go
unchecked and continues past a hypothetical ‘threshold’ (see (B); Figure 6), then toxic
processes may result, and performance will ultimately decline and the individuals’ health
may degenerate, leading to disease and/or illness (e.g. (C); Figure 6) as discussed.
70
This process, it must be considered, may also be exacerbated (‘toxic amplification’), by the
individual abusing other ‘toxicants’ such as alcohol, tobacco or recreational drugs, which
may be used as coping mechanisms as a result of the emotional trauma and stress from the
bullying, which can be considered as ‘interactive effects’.
One of the objectives of the thesis is to convey the idea within this concept, that we as
individuals are all [emphasis added] different. It is therefore difficult to define a
threshold. Indeed, we are dealing with a plethora of systems in the body that may become
toxic and cause illness or disease in any given individual, under extreme and maintained
distress; or may make the individual more susceptible to toxic agents within their
environment.
These effects then have the potential to feed back into the organisation, potentially
affecting others in and through the organisational culture and climate. They may have an
impact on the organisation in the form of increased absenteeism, poor performance of the
individual, loss of intellectual capabilities (through sickness, ‘exiting of employees’ etc.)
and eventually, a potential for a loss of competitive advantage (see also figure 7, Chapter
5). In addition, the effects may be more widespread affecting other individuals (‘ toxic
trickle’), leading to a spiralling process through a climate of fear, exacerbating the impact
upon the organisation. It may also lead, more importantly, to an impact on profits, from
extensive litigation.
It is therefore, in conclusion, the opinion of the author that workplace bullying should be
‘perceived’ and therefore treated (by management) as analogous to a potential toxin with
no threshold of toxicity, i.e. like that of a carcinogen.
71
Essentially what this means is that management should treat bullying in the workplace
with Zero-Tolerance[emphasis added]!
72
CHAPTER 5
73
CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Toxic Bullying - How Can Organisations Prevent It?
Eradicating toxic practices, such as bullying within the workplace, requires a holistic
approach embracing a culture of fair dealing in managing employment equity, diversity
and employee recruitment, performance, development and promotion, which are research
topics in their own rights and therefore outside the scope of this thesis.
Discrimination in the workplace, such as bullying, is manifested in human resources
management policies and practices. To prevent illegal discrimination from occurring in
the workplace, all employees must be treated and rewarded equally and this must be in an
unbiased manner. Leadership should set an example of appropriate behaviour (leadership
role model(s)), and its management must firmly express the organisation's intolerance of
any toxic, discriminatory conduct such as bullying which, as highlighted within the thesis,
can have far reaching implications.
Performing every aspect of the job in a fair and impartial manner, which in itself may
have an impact on organisational culture and climate, continuously reinforces these
sentiments. A non-discrimination policy and associated code of conduct must be drawn
up, strictly and transparently adhered to and effectively communicated to employees.
Management should regularly confer with employees on discrimination concerns, such as
bullying in the form of inappropriate comments, or behaviour and ensure that it must
74
never be ignored. Its toxic effects, both upon the individual and its potential impact on
the organisation, should be openly communicated. Management and employees could be
trained either individually or in groups (for example workshops dealing with conflict
resolution, stress management etc.), with the concepts and ideas put forward within this
thesis (see also Figure 6 & Figure 7), acting both as a dynamic tool and diagnostic aid,
which may potentially:
a) Enable a greater understanding by management and employees of toxic
behaviour, in the form of bullying (which can be considered as acting like a
toxin), together with its far-reaching consequences for both the individual and
the organisation.
b) Aid in describing and identifying when toxic behaviour may be occurring, by
highlighting symptoms which may result and or lead to illness and/or disease, as
a result of the bullying process. For example, as an aid in identifying increased
absenteeism, through severe stress and/or potential ‘interactive effects’, or ‘toxic
amplification,’ as illustrated within the concepts. This could assist in an
absenteeism management programme, for example, whereby it may support in
identifying employees who are, or may become ill, at an earlier stage.
Employees should also be involved in, and share the responsibility of maintaining a
discrimination-free workplace, for example by implementing 360o evaluation programmes
that considers input from peers, subordinates as well as superiors. It is worth considering
here, however, that whilst not all subordinates may be competent enough to evaluate their
superior, they can give feedback.. Therefore, they can relate whether they are being
75
subject to toxic abuse i.e. being bullied by their manager, who may be inflexible,
disrespectful, act unethically, or rely on fear and intimidation (power). This may aid as a
powerful cultural statement, if supported from the top of the organisation in preventing a
toxic climate that can lead to bullying (see also Figure 7).
According to Hannabuss (1998), it has been said that the purpose of bullying is to hide
inadequacies. Not only are bullies inadequate managers but so too are the
organisations that conceal the bullies and/or ignore the effects they have on productivity
as well as staff morale. 12, 13 This is, as discussed, a toxic workplace, allowing ‘toxic
behaviour’, which can lead to severe and toxic impacts (as discussed) within the
individuals who are on the receiving end of the bully.
Bullies may be socially dysfunctional, compulsive, self-centred, and insouciant. They may
also possess various toxic personality traits (Lubit, 2004a) that can be exacerbated further
by ‘mediators’, such as anxiety and depression (see also concept, Figure 7) that can lead to
toxic behaviour and bullying (if the organisational climate and culture permits it).
Innocent victims may fall into their path and some of them may unintentionally appear to
throw themselves in their path.
It is important therefore, for victims to admit that bullying goes on. Indeed, as discussed
earlier in the thesis, there is often reluctance for victims to actually self label themselves as
victims of bullying, for fear of reprisals (Dick & Rayner, 2004). Bullies need to (or be
12
Report into workplace bullying by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents surveyed). When asked to identify the
factors, which impair their organisation’s ability to deal effectively with bullying, the most commonly cited factors were
management’s unwillingness to acknowledge a problem and prevailing management style.
13
Report by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents), The most commonly cited effects are worry about going to
work, and bullying are a lowering of self-esteem and self-confidence. It also has an impact on performance. 60% of
respondents say that it has affected the quality of their work, and 51% say that it has caused them to take time off sick.
76
made to) examine their own toxic behaviour and organisations should take a long hard
look as to what is taking place in their own potentially toxic environment. However, it
must realistically also be considered that individuals generally are uncomfortable in talking
about their true feelings in the workplace, and therefore, a victim may be reluctant (for
fear of further reprisals?) to confront the perpetrator, which is clearly a problem. Another
consideration is that there is a lack of willingness of perpetrators of toxic behaviour (i.e.
bullying) to actually label themselves as bullies (see for example, Salin, 2003b). These are
obvious issues that need to be addressed in order for progress to be made.
Ineffective organisational policies only serve to further reinforce, excuse or conspire those
patterns of bullying that have already had enough reinforcement from the victims’
reactions. Organisations and their employees have a common interest in the eradication
of workplace bullying, right at its source. It is, therefore, vital that a consistent,
professional, and perhaps more importantly, honest approach is adopted when dealing
with discrimination and bullying practices, thus avoiding the potential pitfall of the process
itself becoming discriminatory when it is not applied in a fair and equitable manner.
Again, this highlights whether an organisation is toxic.
Toxic discriminatory and bullying practices can become a severe problem that limits the
growth and development of an organisation, as well as its workforce, if issues are not dealt
with effectively. As discussed previously, this may lead to what the author terms as ‘toxic
trickle’, i.e. having a negative effect on other employees’ health and wellbeing14. It may
also lead to the workplace taking on a ‘free for all’ type of situation where employees
14 Recent report by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents), Over 37% of respondents said that they have
witnessed colleagues in their own department being bullied, and nearly 70% said that they are aware that bullying occurs
elsewhere in their organisation. Their feedback indicates that immediate managers are most commonly responsible, and that
the bullying takes a variety of forms. Humiliation and/or ridicule, unfair criticism and intimidating behaviour are the most
commonly cited examples, along with verbal abuse. Nearly 5% said that it involved physical abuse.
77
blatantly embarrass and humiliate each other without having any consideration for other
individuals’ feelings, dignity, values and morale; i.e. it becomes, or perpetuates a ‘toxic
workplace’.
Communication, counseling and the development of soft-skills; for example through
developing Emotional Intelligence (EI) skills (see, for example, Lubit, 2004a, 2004b; for
further information on EI skills), may also be potentially important tools for dealing with
bullying as well as eradicating it altogether. If open two-way communication lines are in
place, issues can be dealt with swiftly and sensitively, without serious repercussions for all
the parties concerned, particularly health related issues, that may occur with time and or
associated litigation. ‘Anti – toxic’ or preventative strategies developed and adopted by an
organisation must be communicated openly and effectively to all its employees to give
them all equal and fair access to the resolution process. These strategies, may as discussed,
be improved by using the concepts and ideas described above as well as the previous
chapter.
The recommended points put forward here, together with those raised in the discussion
section are identified further in Figure. 7, which show, from a conceptual perspective, the
possible risk factors that may drive and contain toxic behaviour, leading to bullying and its
associated potential effects. As a concept it clearly and powerfully shows that the
processes and impacts are extremely complex and takes into consideration how
organisational culture, role models and performance measurement systems are important
in determining the managerial behaviour(s), and associated bullying and its toxic impact(s).
78
5.2 Final Note
As a final point of note to this extremely complex phenomenon, it is fundamentally clear
that organisations must understand the difference between true leadership and bullying.
True leadership creates followers, whereas bullies just create victims. Management bullies
may, as discussed, get results, but potentially destroy the lives of individuals on the way.
The commitment to both a dignified and respectful working environment is the
responsibility of all employees, yet the onus is predominantly upon leaders and managers
to set the example and maintain the values of both dignity and respect.
79
Organisational
culture/climate
Leadership Role
Models
‘Toxic’ Personality
Traits Employee and
• Arrogance organisational effects
Decision to Bully???
• Lack of empathy
• Stress/illness (Toxic?)
‘Toxic’ • Bullying
• Lack of Conscience
Tendency to ‘Toxic’ behaviour
• Poor performance
• Absenteeism
• Chaotic, threatening
models of the world
Behaviour e.g. • Presenteeism
bullying • Low morale
• Limited Control of Loss of Intellectual
expression and feelings capabilities?
• Loss of competitive
• Lack of respect advantage?
• TOXIC EFFECTS
(Chemically mediated)
Stress • Indirect/Direct
• Physiological effects
• Immunological
Anxiety • Psychological
• Neurological
Depression • Suicide?
Reward &
Impulsivity • Pre-natal effects?
Performance
(Mediators) • Etc. etc….
measurement system
Figure 7: Conceptual model identifying possible factors driving and containing ‘toxic’ behaviour (bullying), and its potentially 79
associated toxic effects (adapted and modified from Lubit, 2004a).
REFERENCES
Adams, A., & Crawford, N. (1992). Bullying at work: how to confront and overcome it, London:
Virago.
Adams, A. (1997). Andrea Adams Trust. www.andreaadamstrust.org.
Adams, A. (2006). National Workplace Bullying Survey: The Feedback. Retrieved on 12th
March 2006 from : http://www.digitalopinion.co.uk/?SERVICES-BULLYING-
NATSURVEYRESULTS
AMREF (African Medical and Research Foundation). (2005). Case Study – Can babies in the
womb fell emotion? Retrieved on the 2nd February 2006 from:
www.amref.org/index.asp?PageID=63&PiaID=3&CountryID=1&ProjectID=89
Anonymous. (2002). The cycle of abuse goes on. British medical journal, 325 (7368), 831.
Archer, D. (1999), “Exploring ‘bullying’ culture in the para-military organisation”,
International Journal of Manpower, 20 (1/2), 94-105.
Ashforth B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organisations. Human relations, 47(7), 755-778.
Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organisations: a preliminary examination of
antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (2), 116-140.
81
BBC News. (2004). Head to head - Gordon Brown. Discussion between the Trades Union
Congress (TUC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in a debate over what
Gordon Brown has achieved in his post so far. Retrieved 20th March 2006 from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3806703.stm
Ballantyne, B., Marrs, T., & Turner, P. (1993). General & Applied Toxicology, Basingstoke,
England: Macmillan Press.
Baron, R., & Neuman, J. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence
on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive behaviour, 22, 161-173.
BBC News. Retrieved 25th January 2006 from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/255243.stm
Boulnois, J. (1996). Where have all the bullies gone? In McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., &
Wilkie, W., (Eds.). (1996). Bullying: From backyard to boardroom. (1st ed.). Alexandria:
Millenium Books.
Bowman, L. (1999). Individual Differences in Posttraumatic Distress: Problems With the
DSM-IV Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 21-33. Retrieved on 19th January 2006
from: www.cpa-apc.org/publications/archives/CJP/1999/Feb/bowman.htm
Brodsky, C. (1976). The Harassed Worker, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
82
Brotheridge, C. (2005). Barnyard Democracy in the Workplace. Team Performance
Management, 11, (3,4), 125-132. Retrieved 24th March 2006 from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=/published/eme
raldfulltextarticle/pdf/1350110304.pdf
Brown; J. (2004). Just fight on website. http://www.jfo.org.uk.
Brown, L. (2004). Are you a target for a toxic workplace? Retrieved on 12th Jan 2006 from:
http://tloma.on.ca/publications/0401.pdf
Bryant, M., & Cox, W. (2003). The telling of violence: Organizational change and atrocity
tales. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (5), 567-583.
Calabrese, E., & Baldwin, L. (2001). Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their
centrality in toxicology. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(6), 285-291
Carrol, D., Davey-Smith, G., Phillips, A., Ring, C., & West, P. (2006). Birth weight, adult
blood pressure, and blood pressure reactions to acute psychological stress. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 144-145.
Cooper, C. L. (2002). The Changing psychological contract at work. Occupational and
environmental medicine, 59 (6), 355.
Cooper, C., & Robertson, I., (Eds.), (2001). Well-being in organisations: A reader for students and
practitioners. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
83
Cowie, H., Bradshaw, L., Kaipiainen, S., Smith, P., Leifooghe, A., Naylor, P., Olafsson, R.,
Rayner, C., Rivers, I., & Schafer, M. (1999). Adult bullying, report of a working party
chaired by H Cowie of University of Surrey, Roehampton, TMR Network Project, United
Kingdom.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace
bullying. Aggression and violent behaviour, 7, 33-51.
Crawford, N. (1997). Bullying at work: a psychoanalytic Perspective. Journal of community &
applied psychology, 7, 219-225.
Cusack, S. (2000). Workplace bullying: Icebergs in sight, soundings needed. The Lancet, 356
(9248), 2118.
Davis C., & McKearney J. (2001). Post-traumatic growth from the perspective of terror management
theory. Retieved on 12th Jan 2006 from:
http://www.meaning.ca/pdf/2000proceedings/christopher_davis.pdf
Dick, G., & Rayner, C. (2004). The hidden bullied: An empirical comparison of the harassed that
refuse to self label themselves as bullied and the self-labelled bullied. Working paper 75. Retrieved
January 6th 2006 from: www.kent.ac.uk/kbs/research-information/ working-papers/Dick-
and-Rayner-No-75.pdf
84
Einarsen, S. (2005). The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work: The
Norwegian experience. PISTES, 7 (3), 1-14. Retrieved 7th January 2006 from:
http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v7n3/pdf/v7n3a1en.pdf
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 127-144), London:
Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public
and private organisations, European journal of work and organisational psychology, 5 (2), 185-201.
Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S. B. & Skogstad, A. (1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being
among assistant nurses. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New
Zealand, 14, 563-568.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.). (2003a). Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003b). The concept of bullying at work:
the European tradition. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying
and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 3-30),
London: Taylor & Francis.
85
Field, T. (1996). Bully in sight: how to predict, resist, challenge and combat workplace bullying,
Wantage: Success Unlimited.
Field, T. (2002). The hidden cost of a bully on the balance sheet. Retrieved 5th February 2006
from: http://www.accanet.com/publications/accountingandbusiness/315685
Field, T. Bully onLine. http://w.w.w.bullyonline.org/
Flynn, G. (1999.) Stop Toxic Managers Before They Stop You! Workforce, August 1999,
78, (8), 44-46. Retrieved 1st December 2005 from:
www.workforce.com/archive/feature/22/22/12/223888.php
Garvan Institute. (2005). SYDNEY RESEARCHERS EXPLAIN HOW STRESS CAN
MAKE YOU SICK. Retrieved 13th February 2006 from:
http://www.garvan.org.au/files/Institute-Science/PR2dStressandImmunity3.pdf
Gill, M., Fisher, B., & Bowie, V. (2002). Violence at work: Causes, patterns and prevention.
Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
Glendinning, P. (2001). Workplace Bullying: curing the cancer of the American workplace.
Public personnel Management, 30 (3), 269-286
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
86
Gregory, A. (2005). “Bad bosses run riot in one in four UK workplaces” Retrived on 11th Jan
2006 from:http://www.personneltoday.com
Gunnar, M. (1992). Reactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adreno-cortical system to
stressors in normal infants and children. Pediatrics, 90, 491-497.
Gunnar, M. (1998). Quality of early care and buffering of neuro-endocrine stress reactions:
Potential effects on the developing human brain. Preventative Medicine, 27,208-211.
Guyton, A. and Hall, J. (2000). Textbook of Medical Physiology. Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders
HM Treasury. (2005) Budget Report 2005. Retrieved 20th March 2006 from:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_05/bud_bud05_index.cfm
HM Treasury. (2006) Budget Report 2006. Retrieved 20th March 2006 from:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_06/bud_bud06_index.cfm
Hamilton, D. (2005). Economic Brief. Retrieved 20th March 2006 from:
http://www.davidhamiltonmp.co.uk/page5-3.html#top
Hammer, T., & Vaglum. P. (1989). The Increase in Alcohol Consumption among Women:
a phenomenon related to accessibility or stress? A General Population Study. British Journal
of Addiction, 84, 767-775. Retrieved 11th March 2006 from:
www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03056.x
87
Hannabuss, S. (1998). Bullying At Work.. Library Management, 19 (5), 304-310. Retrieved
2nd February 2006 from:
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/mcb/01435124/v19n5/s2.pdf?ex
pires=1143723101&id=27795194&titleid=1149&accname=University+of+Portsmouth&
checksum=F6A124648B10A1B2F1D81D39D467D12B
Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and Recovery, New York: Basic Books.
Herriot, P., & Scott-Jackson, W. (2002) Globalization, Social Identities and Employment.
British Journal of Management, 13, 249-257
Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., Keashly, L., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying at work: the
way forward. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 412-416),
Hoel, H, Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. (2002). The cost of violence/stress at work and the benefits of a
violence/stress-free working environment, Report Commissioned by the International Labour
Organiszation, (ILO), Geneva, University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology.
Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 203-218), London: Taylor &
Francis.
88
Houghton, A. (2003). Bullying in medicine, BMJ. 326 (7393), 125.
HRM Guide. (2003). Stress is a taboo subject. Retrieved 10th March 2006 from:
http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/worklife/stress_levels.htm
Hubert, A. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: a systematic
approach model. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and
Hubert, A., & van Veldhoven M. (2001). Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and
mobbing, European journal of work and organizational psychology, 2001,10 (4), 415-424.
Incomes Data website. Retrieved February 5th, 2006 from:
http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/statistics/statempl.htm
Ironside, M., & Seifert, R. (2003). Tackling bullying in the workplace: the collective
dimension. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 383-398), London:
Taylor & Francis.
Johnson, P., & Indvik, J. (2001) Slings and arrows of rudeness: incivility in the workplace.
Journal of management development, 20 (8) 705-713.
89
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspective on workplace
bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 31-61), London:
Taylor & Francis.
Keashly, L., & Nowell, B. (2003). Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying. In Einarsen,
S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 339-358), London: Taylor & Francis.
Keashley, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the Workplace: conceptual and empirical issues.
Journal of emotional abuse, 1, 85-117.
Kellner, M., Yassouridis A., Hubner R., Baker D., & Wiedemann, K. (2003). Endocrine
and cardiovascular responses to corticotropin-releasing hormone in patients with
posttraumatic stress disorder: A role for atrial natriuretic peptide? Neuropsychobiology, Basel:
47 (2), 102.
Khalsa, D. (1999). Brain Longevity. New York. WarnerBooks
Khan, R., & Cannell, C. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing. New York, John Wiley .
Kivimaki M., Virtanen M., Vartia M., Elovainio M., Vahtera J., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen L.
(2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression.
Occupational and environmental medicine, 60 (10), 779-83.
90
Klaassen, C., & Watkins, J. (2003). Casarett & Doull's Essentials of Toxicology. England. Mc-
Graw-Hill Professional.
Kurland, N., & Pelled, L. (2000). Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power
in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25 (2), 428-438
Lewis, D., & Rayner, C. (2003). Bullying and human resource management: a wolf in
sheep’s clothing? In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and
Lewis, D. (1999). UK workplace bullying: HRM friend or foe? Paper presented at the
Ninth European Congress on work and organizational psychology. Helsinki, Finland.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European journal
of work and organizational psychology, 5 (2), 165-184.
Leymann, H. (1989). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces, Violence and Victims,
5 (2), 119-126.
Liefooghe, A., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2003). Explaining bullying at work: Why should
we listen to employee accounts? In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.),
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp.
219-230), London: Taylor & Francis.
91
Liefooghe, A., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role
of the organization. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 10 (4), 375-392.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005a). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and
Corrupt Politicians – and How We Can Survive Them, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005b). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why Followers Rarely Escape Their
Clutches. Ivey Business Journal, Jan/Feb, 1-8. Retrieved on 24th November 2005 from:
www.hrpao.org/NR/rdonlyres/5D26C7B9-9ED7-4962-B255-51682CB329E1/0/allure.pdf
Lubit, R. (2004a). Coping with Toxic Managers, Subordinates. …and Other Difficult
People. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Prentice Hall.
Lubit, R. (2004b). The tyranny of toxic managers: Applying emotional intelligence to deal
with difficult personalities. Ivey Business Journal Mar/Apr, 1-7
Maciariello, J. (2005). Peter F. Drucker on a Functioning Society . Leader to leader, 37.
Retrieved 16th Jan 2006 from:
www.leadertoleader.org/leaderbooks/L2L/summer2005/maciariello.html
McCarthy, P. (2003). Bullying at Work: a postmodern experience. In Einarsen, S., Hoel,
H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International
Perspectives in Research and Practice, (pp. 231-244), London; Taylor & Francis.
92
McCarthy, P. (1996). When the mask slips: inappropriate coercion in organisations
undergoing restructuring. In McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., & Wilkie, W., (Eds.). Bullying:
From backyard to boardroom. First Edition. Alexandria: Millenium Books.
Madsen, S., (2003). Wellness in the workplace: Preparing employees for change,
Organization development Journal, Spring, 21 (1), 46.
Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-396.
Retrieved 11th January 2006 from: http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/abraham-
maslow-theory-human-motivation.shtml
Medicins Sans Frontieres. (2005). Psychosocial and Mental Health Interventions in Areas
of Mass Violence. Retrieved January 25th 2006 from:
www.msf.org/source/mentalhealth/guidelines/MSF_mentalhealthguidelines.pdf
Mikkelsen, E., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic
stress among victims of bullying at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology,
11 (1), 87-111.
Murialdo, G., Nobili, F., Rollero, A., Gianelli, M., Copello, F., Rodriguez, G., & Polleri, A.
(2000). Hippocampal Perfusion and Pituitary-Adrenal Axis in Alzheimer's Disease.
Neuropsychobiology ,42, 51-57
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim
your dignity on the job. Sourcebooks. (No place of publication found)
93
Namie, G., & Namie, R. The workplace bullying and trauma institute.
http://bullyinginstitute.org/
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development
implications. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5 (2), 239-249.
National Statistics website. Retrieved February 5, 2006 from:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/glance/#labour.htm
Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24
(3), 391-419.
Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying: a social interactionist
perspective? In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, (pp. 185-202),
London; Taylor & Francis.
Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications.
Oates, M. (2002). Adverse effects of maternal antenatal anxiety on children: causal effect
or developmental continuum? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 478-479. Retrieved 10th
February 2006 from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/180/6/478
94
O'Connor, T. G., Heron, J., Golding, J. (2002). Maternal antenatal anxiety and children's
behavioural/emotional problems at 4 years. Report from the Avon Longitudinal Study of
Parents and Children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 502-508.
Retrieved 10th February 2006 from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/180/6/502
Olweus, D. (2003). Bully/victim problems in school:basic facts and an effective
intervention programme. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying
and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 67-78),
Pearson, C., M., & Porath, C., L. (2005). On the Nature, Consequences and Remedies of
Incivility: No Time for "Nice?" Think Again. Academy of Management Executive,19, 7-18.
PersonnelToday.com. (2005). Retrieved 13th February 2006 from:

http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/09/12/31520/Bad+bosses+run+riot+in
+one+in+four+UK+workplaces.htm
Pettigrew, A. (2003), Strategy as Process, Power and Change. In Cummings, S and Wilson, D;
(Eds), (2003), Images of Strategy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rayner, C. (2001), Workplace Bullying. In Taking stress out of work- Conference Synopsis. Stress
News 2001. 13(4). Retreieved 23rd December 2005 from
http://www.isma.org.uk/isma7sum.htm
95
Rayner, C. (2002). Round two! Redefining bullying at work. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO, August 2002. Retrieved 12th December
2005 from: http://www3.uakron.edu/psychology/faculty/moberg/Rayner.pdf
Rayner, C. & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace
bullying. Journal of community and applied social psychology. 7, 181-191
Reed, G. (2004). Toxic Leadership. Military review. July/August 67-71 Retrieved 10th Nov
2005 from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_4_84/ai_n7068990
Reenan, J. (2001). No more skivvy schemes? Active labour market policies and the British
new deal for the young unemployed in context. Institute of Fiscal Studies. Retrieved 14th
Jan 2006 from: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0109.pdf.
Russel, J. (2004). Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia. Retrieved 18th February 2006 from:
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/alzheimers.html.
Salin, D. (2003a). Bullying and organisational politics in competitive and rapidly changing
work environments. International journal of management and Decision Making. 4, (1).
Salin, D. (2003b). Workplace bullying among business professionals: Prevalence, organisational
antecedents and gender differences. Helsinki: Library Swedish school of economics and business
administration
96
Salter, A. (1995). Transforming Trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of child
sexual abuse. London: Sage Publication, Inc.
Samaritans. (2003). Retrieved 1st March 2006 from:
http://www.samaritans.org/know/news_150503_popup.shtm
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. Essex:
Pearson Education.
Sennett, R. (1999). The corrosion of character. New York: Norton books
Sheehan, M. (2005). A Model for Understanding Workplace Bullying. Paper presented at
‘Working together to tackle workplace bullying: concepts, research and solutions’, conference, The
British Psychological Society, Wessex and Wight Branch, University of Portsmouth
Business School, 14th – 16th September, 2005
Sky News, (2006). Retrieved on 25th February 2006 from:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-13510640,00.html
South, J. (2005). Stress and Cortisol: The Plague of The 21st Century. Retrieved 10th
February 2006 from: http://www.vrp.com/art/1224.asp
Spurgeon, A. (2003). Bullying from a risk management perspective. In Einarsen, S., Hoel,
H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
perspectives in research and practice. (pp. 327-338), London: Taylor & Francis.
97
Sternberg, E. (2003). Health Consequences of a Dysregulated Stress Response. In
Neuroimmune Mechanisms and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Will Understanding Central Mechanisms
Enhance the Search for the Causes, Consequences, and Treatment of CFS? A Report of the Scientific
Workshop Co-Sponsored by the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health and the
Trans-NIH Working Group for Research on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Retrieved March
1st 2006 from: http://orwh.od.nih.gov/cfs_june03report.pdf
Tehrani, N. (2003). Counselling and rehabilitating employees involved with bullying. In
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 270-284), London: Taylor &
Francis.
Tepper, B. (2000): Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43
(2), 178-190.
Traweger, C., Kinzl, J., Traweger-Ravanelli, B., & Fiala, M. (2004). Psychosocial factors at
the workplace - do they affect substance use? Evidence from the Tyrolean workplace
study. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13 (6), 399-403. Retrieved 11th March
2006 from: www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/107631070/ABSTRACT
Vartia, M. (2003). Workplace bullying: A study on the work environment, well-being and health.
Academic dissertation, University of Helsinki. Department of Psychology. Retrieved on
28th Nov 2005 from:
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/psyko/vk/vartia-vaananen/workplac.pdf
98
Vartia, M., (1996). The sources of bullying – psychological work environment and
organizational climate. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5 (2), 203-214.
Westhues, K., (2002). A summary of research on workplace mobbing. OHS Canada, 18(8),
30-36
Westhues, K., (1998). Eliminating Professors: A guide to the dismissal process. New York: Edwin
Mellen Press.
Wilkie, W. (1998). Treating post traumatic stress disorders caused by bullying' in
McCarthy, P., Wilkie, S., & Wilkie W., (Eds.), Bullying: causes, costs and cures, Beyond Bullying
Association, Nathan, Queensland, pp. 15-21.
Wilson-Starks, K., (2003). Toxic Leadership. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from:
http://www.transleadership.com/ToxicLeadership.pdf
Yin, R, K; (2003) Case study research:design and methods (3rd edition). London: Sage Publications
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organisations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and
practice – an introduction. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 10 (4), 369-
373.
99
Zellars, K., & Tepper, B. (2002): Abusive Supervision and subordinates’ Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.
Zukowska, Z. (2005). Atherosclerosis and angiogenesis: what do nerves have to do with it?
Pharmacological Reports, 57 suppli., 229-234. Retrieved 17th February 2006 from:
http://www.if-pan.krakow.pl/pjp/pdf/2005/s_229.pdf
Zukowska-Grojec, Z. (1995). Neuropeptide Y. A novel sympathetic stress hormone and
more. Ann N Y Acad Sci. Dec 29; 77, 219-33.
100
APPENDIX I
101
APPENDIX I.
Common symptoms of PTSD and Complex PTSD that sufferers report
experiencing
• Hyper-vigilance (feels like but is not paranoia)
• Exaggerated startle response
• Irritability
• Sudden angry or violent outbursts
• Flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive recollections, replays, violent visualisations
• Triggers
• Sleep disturbance
• Exhaustion and chronic fatigue
• Reactive depression
• Guilt
• Feelings of detachment
• Avoidance behaviours
• Nervousness, anxiety
• Phobias about specific daily routines, events or objects
• Irrational or impulsive behaviour
• Loss of interest
• Loss of ambition
• Anhedonia (inability to feel joy and pleasure)
102
• Poor concentration
• Impaired memory
• Joint pains, muscle pains
• Emotional numbness
• Physical numbness
• low self-esteem
• an overwhelming sense of injustice and a strong desire to do something about it
103
APPENDIX II
104
APPENDIX II.
Dept of Business and Management
University of Portsmouth
Richmond Building
Portland Street
Portsmouth
United Kingdom
PO1 3DE
Consent Form
POST GRADUATE MBA RESEARCH PROJECT INTO WORKPLACE

BULLYING (JANUARY 2006).
Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying in the “Toxic” Workplace
This qualitative study is being conducted as part of an MBA (international) qualification at

the University of Portsmouth, School of Business Studies.
Researcher/Interviewer: Richard Gammons, Portsmouth Business School, University of

Portsmouth, Hampshire. richgammons@tiscali.co.uk
105
Statement of consent
By signing this document below, you are indicating that you:
• Have read and understood the information sheet about this project;
• Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction;
• Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the researcher
at any time;
• Understand that you are under no obligation whatsoever and free to withdraw from
the interview at any time and can refuse to answer any of the questions., without
comment, reason explanation or penalty;
• Understand that you can contact the researcher if you have any questions about the
project, or Professor Charlotte Rayner or the head of the Ethics Committee on
02392 844193 if you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project;
and
• Agree to participate in the project.
Name: …………………………………………………………………
Signature: ………………………………………………………………….
Date: ………………………………………………………………….
106
APPENDIX III
107
APPENDIX III.
Dept of Business and Management
University of Portsmouth
Richmond Building
Portland Street
Portsmouth
United Kingdom
PO1 3DE
PROPOSED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR WORKPLACE BULLYING (WPB)

STUDY
Because this is a qualitative research project I will be inclined not to generalise by asking
either yes/no type questions, and will therefore, be asking you to describe and explore
your experience(s) of WPB as well as your feelings (should you so wish to discuss) during
the bullying process. I will ask a lot of questions, and may sometimes repeat the same
question, in order to ascertain how you reacted or indeed felt at the different stages.
Having been on the receiving end of WPB myself I am only too aware that revisiting past
events can be associated with difficult and sometimes uncomfortable emotions which may
cause us to relive some of the feelings which we thought we had left behind. It is therefore
possible that you may recall some of the upset from your experience of workplace bullying
as you describe what happened to you in this interview.
As discussed with you previously, if at any time during this process you wish to slow down
the interview, or talk more about a particular aspect of your experience, or move to
another question, please let me know. Should there be at any time any question(s) that
you find difficult these can be discussed later at a time convenient to you when you are
feeling more comfortable.
108
Context: The work organisation

• Describe the part of the organisation that you work for, number of employees, level of
education and skills of employees and the type of service your organisation offers.
(This data will not be associated with your story in the final report)
• What was your position in the organisation/department? Professional status and
acceptance status?
• How long were/have you been employed by the organisation?
• Substantive position
• What was the general stress level experienced by staff (stemming from poor
management, deadlines, work loads, organisational changes, e.g. re-structuring (i.e.
mergers/redundancy exercises) and morale?
• Did/Does the organisation have a specific policy related to bullying?
• Was/is it widely publicised?
• Was/is it actively and effectively supported by management?
• Was/is there an anonymous method of making a complaint?
The workplace bullying experience
• Describe what happened.

• Where were you when the incident/s occurred?
• How many people were involved or witnessed the incident/s?
• Was your immediate manager the main perpetrator?
• Was other management aware of the WPB incident/s
• Did management help at the time, or did they contribute to the WPB incident?
• What was the worst aspect of the experience?
• What was the most painful aspect of the experience?
• Over what period did the WPB occur?
• How did the bully(s) achieve their ends?
109
Background to the WPB incidents
• Can you describe the period(s) prior to and/or leading up to the bullying?
• Were you aware of any problems/issues in the lead up to WPB?
• Do you know anything about the background to WPB in your organisation? For
example, other incidents, attitudes towards WPB, tolerance of bullying behaviours,
conditions which may have made the organisation more susceptible to WPB
Description of the bully
• Describe the bully’s behaviour

• Describe the bully’s general demeanour and temperament
• What if any do you think was the objective(s) of the bully?
• Did they achieve it?
• What was the bully’s position in the workplace in relation to the victim/target?
• What was the bully’s gender, age, and had there been other victims?
• What was the general relationship between the bully and the victim/target at other
times?
Summary of the bully
Can you describe/identify the characteristics that were most commonly identified with
WPB? (e.g. shouting, uncontrolled rage, humiliation, ostracisation, unfair role or work
criticism, personal criticisms, physical violence, emails, excessive work loads, taking away
work, withholding information, nastiness, put downs / belittling , sarcasm, undermining,
physical attacks, coercion(if evidenced) leaving staff ignorant of their rights)
110
Impact(s) of WPB
A) Behavioural Responses
Behaviour Comments/describe Y/N

Avoidance behaviour.
Intrusive thoughts or preoccupied
with what happened.
Angry behaviour.
Blaming yourself for what
happened.
Dreaming/nightmares.
B) Emotional Response to the WPB
Feelings/emotions Comments/Describe Y/N
Depression.
Stress.
Embarrassment.
Loss.
Other:
111
C) Physical Response(s) to the WPB
Physical Symptoms (Stress) Comments/describe Y/N

Anxiety.
Headache.
Neck ache.
Other aches and pains.
Insomnia.
Loss of appetite.
Moodiness, irritability.
Lack of concentration.
Lack of energy.
Loss of interest in activities that you
normally enjoy.
Any other symptoms:
________________
In my project I might present a brief picture of each case study of what each
participant experienced. I will assign each with a name, and you are free to choose a
pseudonym so that only you can recognise your story. Your workplace and the bully
will be de-identified.
What name would you like--------------------------------------------------------------------------?
112

Richard Gammons MBA Thesis - Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying in The "Toxic" Workplace.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richard Gammons MBA Thesis - Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying in The "Toxic" Workplace.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Portsmouth Business School

Richard Alexander Gammons

Supervisor: Professor Charlotte Rayner

“Courage is fire and bullying is smoke”

Benjamin Disraeli, Politician (1804-1881)

Jim Rhon, Motivational Speaker and Author.

Andrew Pettigrew, Author, (2003, p.302)

“…we live life forward but understand it backwards”

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, Philosopher, (1813-1855)

Tables and Figures iii

CHAPTER 1 Setting the Scene 2

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 7

2.2 Problems Associated with Bullying Research 8

2.3. Conceptualisation and Study of Bullying 11

2.4 Contextualising Bullying 19

2.5 Management Bullying 21

2.6 The Toxic Workplace 28

2.7 Toxic Stress? 31

2.7.1 Stress Effects 34

2.8 Toxic – A definition 36

3.1 Important Note To The Reader 38

3.2 Proposed Methodology Approach 39

3.3 Methodology Options 40

3.3.1 Proposed Case study Research Approach 41

3.4 Proposed Interviews 45

3.5 Proposed Participant Selection 49

CHAPTER 4 Discussion, Findings and Conclusions 52

4.2 Bullying As A Toxic Process 56

4.3 Workplace Bullying – A Toxic Concept 66

5.1 Toxic Bullying – How Can Organisations Prevent It 74

5.2 Final Note 79

Portsmouth Business School

Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying

Author: Richard Alexander Gammons

Tutor: Professor Charlotte Rayner

Year : April 2006

Workplace bullying is an extremely diverse subject, and a very complex phenomenon.

exacerbate this behaviour (i.e. from an organisational culture/climate and performance

management perspective). It discusses problems associated with research, and then

discusses bullying in both terms of concept and context

explored this notion.

also be used by management in understanding, and therefore, minimising or stopping this

should be ‘perceived’ and therefore treated (by management) as analogous to a potential

be treated as such; with Zero-Tolerance.

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 2. A revised framework of bullying reproduced from Salin (2003), 26

Figure 3. Enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in 27

Figure 4. Basic differences between deductive and inductive case study 43

Figure 5. Mechanisms involved in prenatal stress effects 62

Figure 6. Conceptual diagram illustrating hypothetical dose response 68

Figure 7. Conceptual model identifying possible factors driving and 80

Appendix 2. Interview Consent form. 104

Appendix 3. Proposed interview questions for workplace bullying study. 107

University of Portsmouth for their support in my studies, particularly during a time of

personal illness, upheaval and uncertainty. My special thanks go to Professor Charlotte

alphabetical order!) to Peter, Rhys and Vishal.

tireless encouragement, especially this last year. I truly am a lucky man!

process enabling potential employees an uncharacteristic prospect of being able to

(Reenan, 2001). It is therefore, important that organisations demonstrate to prospective

1.2 Motivation for the thesis and Objectives

became interested in the workplace-bullying phenomenon after having the unfortunate

displeasure of a lengthy management bullying experience whilst working as a project