Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study focuses on the degree, nature and consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel (n = 303) in a Finnish university. A total of 114 (38%) faculty members answered the email questionnaire. According to the results, 15% of the respondents had experienced bullying; in addition, 45% had experienced inappropriate behaviour. The person behind the bullying or inappropriate behaviour was a member of the teaching personnel (f = 26), a member of the administration staff (f = 23), a student (f = 13) or a member of the research personnel (f = 8). Bullying or inappropriate behaviour occurred during research work (f = 21), personnel meetings (f = 19), interaction situations (10), teaching (f = 7), counselling (f = 7) or during leisure time (f = 1). Factor analysis revealed three dimensions of bullying: exclusion and discrimination, person-related belittlement and professional undermining. These dimensions were consistent with the categories of the consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour based on open-ended answers. The consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour primarily have an influence at the individual level as affective disorders and as a decrease in professional self-confidence and work performance. These consequences are also temporally and communally linked to a declining working environment and further to a reduction in the profitability of the faculty.

Keywords

Bullying inappropriate behaviour higher education university faculty workplace bullying

Introduction

Over the years, the phenomenon of workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviour has borne many names: workplace harassment, bullying, mobbing, mistreatment, scapegoating, petty tyranny, abusive behaviour, incivility, etc. Terminology depends on the focus of the studies and even on the researchers' nationality (Einarsen, 2000; Keashley and Neuman, 2013; Namie and Namie, 2009a; Salin, 2003; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Vartia, 2003; Zabrodska et al., 2014). Among the studies undertaken in different workplaces, few are related to academia (Björkqvist et al., 1994; Keashly and Neuman, 2010; Lewis, 1999; McKay et al., 2008; Simpson and Cohen, 2004; Twale and De Luca, 2008).

Bullying is seen as frequent and escalating, direct or indirect negative acts that happen over a relatively long period of time, and are not welcomed by the target. It may be conducted by one or more individuals, and due to a power imbalance, the victim often feels unable to defend him or herself in the situation (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011: 72–75; Dedousis-Wallace and Shute, 2009: 3; Einarsen, 2000: 383–384; Einarsen et al., 2009: 25–26; Namie and Namie, 2011: 13; Samnami and Singh, 2012: 582; Tehrani, 2012; Vartia-Väänänen, 2013: 1–2; Zabrodska et al., 2014: 1, 3). One recently studied new manifestation of this phenomenon is cyberbullying with its potentially worldwide magnitude (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011; Beran and Li, 2007; Huhtala, 2013; McKay et al., 2008; O'Moore, 2012).

As a general guideline, we use the theoretical framework for the study and management of bullying at work offered by Einarsen et al. (2009: 29), which acknowledges the individual, organizational, cultural and socio-economic factors influencing workplace bullying. Because the mere concept of bullying can cause strong reactions (Crawshaw, 2012; Vartia and Tehrani, 2012), we have also included the term ‘inappropriate behaviour’ in our study. Inappropriate behaviour is behaviour that is not right or suited to the purpose or situation at hand (Merriam-Webster, 2014), but the circumstances are often interpreted very differently by different people (Jenkins et al., 2012: 495–496). In this study we focus on the degree, nature and possible consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel in one faculty of a Finnish university.

The context of the study

Bullying and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is widely recognized in Finland (Leka et al., 2011). Compared to other European countries, workplace bullying is rather common in Finland and approximately 6% of all workers are currently exposed to it (Vartia, 2013; Vartia-Väänänen, 2013). According to the National Working Conditions Barometer, over 50% of Finnish employees have witnessed bullying. Increasing levels of customer violence in general are also being reported (Lyly-Yrjänäinen, 2013). Workplace bullying was first included in Finnish occupational health legislation in 2003. The law obligates the employer to intervene immediately when notified of harassment or other uncivil acts towards a worker. In other words, an employer's inactivity in the matter is considered a crime (Finlex, 2014; Vartia-Väänänen, 2013). In a recent nationwide study undertaken by the national Trade Union of Education in Finland (2014), 36% of respondents had been victims of bullying or uncivil treatment during the last 12 months. University respondents in the study reported less victimization (21%) than other teachers and were mainly bullied by their colleagues (OAJ, 2014).

Apart from individuals’ contributions to incidents of bullying and inappropriate behaviour (Neuman and Baron, 2005), the work environment (i.e. the organizational and social cultures and dynamics of the workplace) is also an important antecedent to bullying (Carter et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2012; Namie and Namie, 2011; Salin, 2008; Samnami and Singh, 2012; Sperry, 2009; Vartia and Tehrani, 2012). McKay et al. (2008: 92) link systematic bullying to weak or ‘toxic’ organizational cultures. Poor management and work design, tight or laissez-faire leadership and management styles, policies defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, ethical climate and organizational differences in human resource systems are mentioned as factors that enable workplace bullying (Arthur, 2011; Cortina, 2008; Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al., 2009: 27–28; Hoel et al., 2010; Samnami and Singh, 2012; Vartia and Tehrani, 2012).

According to Vartia (2003: 12–13, 48), experiences of role conflicts, work control, a heavy work load, increasing haste, organizational restructuring, high stress levels, poor social climate in the organization and the like are related to manifestations of bullying (see also Tuckey et al., 2009). Carter et al. (2013: 10) state that bullying rates are higher during organizational change, restructuring and budget cuts. These findings also align with Salin (2003), who highlighted motivating and enabling structures and processes, and precipitating processes that, when operating together, make bullying more likely in an organization.

Victims report issues such as envy, a weak superior, competition for tasks, status or advancement, competition for the supervisor's favour and approval, etc., as explanations for the occurrence of bullying (Björkqvist et al., 1994; Einarsen, 2000; Vartia, 1996, 2003; Vaughan, 2012). Large, male-dominated, hierarchical private enterprises and industrial organizations seem to be potential places for bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Lyly-Yrjänäinen, 2013; Taylor, 2013). Bullying and inappropriate behaviour also appear to be common in health and social work, in the educational field and in the public sector – at least in the Finnish context (Illing, 2011; Lyly-Yrjänäinen, 2013; Samnami and Singh, 2012; Vartia, 2003: 19; Vartia-Väänänen, 2013).

In this study, we are particularly interested in the university as a work environment. It seems that due to its history and special characteristics, academia is an arena that is highly vulnerable to bullying and inappropriate behaviour (McKay et al., 2008; Taylor, 2013; Twale and De Luca, 2008). Elements such as evaluation processes and criteria, institutional codes of conduct, peer-review, numerous committees, control issues and competition for funding, publicity and tenure are mentioned among possible sources of academic frustration and inappropriate behaviour (Keashly and Neuman, 2010; Namie and Namie, 2009b; Taylor, 2013; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Zabrodska et al., 2014). It is difficult to separate bullying from the context of organizational structure. Bullying may also be regarded as normal, effective or rewarding if the bully gets results for the organization through the use of aggressive behaviours (Twale and De Luca, 2008).

The faculty studied here represents the field of social studies in a medium-sized Finnish university. At the time of this study, it had five departments, a little less than 5000 students and approximately 300 personnel, including faculty and other employees. Roughly two-thirds of the respondents had open-ended working contracts while one-third had fixed-term contracts.

The roles of bullying and inappropriate behaviour

The victims

Long lists of possible victim-related reasons and personality traits have been presented as the causes of bullying (Balducci et al., 2011; Einarsen, 2000; Simpson and Cohen, 2004; Vartia, 2003: 13–15). These lists may, however, stigmatize the victims for no reason. Especially in the case of victims of long-term bullying, it may be difficult to determine whether, for example, low self-esteem or anxiety is the cause or the result of workplace bullying.

Gender and differences such as handicap or ethnicity are still issues in bullying and inappropriate behaviour (Cortina, 2008; Illing, 2011; Lampman et al., 2009; Salin, 2013; Simpson and Cohen, 2004). Notwithstanding, both men and women, young and old workers, members of minorities and majorities, subordinates and supervisors are being bullied (Carter et al., 2013; Einarsen, 2000; Jenkins et al., 2012; Salin, 2003: 1216; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Vartia, 2003: 49). We conclude that even though some personal, social and cultural tendencies do exist amongst potential victims, almost anybody can become a victim of workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviour at some phase of their lives.

Vartia (2001: 66–68) confirms that in most cases, the victims of bullying are simultaneously subjected to many forms of bullying and the bullying starts unexpectedly (also see Zabrodska et al., 2014). Shame and fear are strongly attached to the victim's role (Lewis, 2010; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Zabrodska et al., 2014). In academic settings, new, untenured and older employees get bullied more often than others (Einarsen, 2000: 386; McKay et al., 2008; Taylor, 2013; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Zabrodska et al., 2014). A bullied colleague may end up in debt to the bully (Twale and De Luca, 2008: 57), and not all work place victims dare to admit they are being bullied (Lewis, 2010; Vaughan, 2012). In the first study of a Finnish university as the context of workplace harassment, administration, financial and service-related tasks were found to be more prone to bullying, and competition about status was identified as the main cause of bullying according to the respondents (Björkqvist et al., 1994).

The bullies

The people responsible for hostile acts have also found themselves subject to long personality traits lists (Crawshaw, 2012; Namie and Namie, 2011). It seems that men and supervisors of dominant groups bully more often than women and subordinates of the minorities do, but exceptions to these ‘ground rules’ are also well documented (Einarsen, 2000; Namie and Namie, 2009b; Salin, 2003; Tuckey et al., 2009; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Vartia, 2003).

According to Neuman and Baron (2005), the intentionality of harm defines a bully. Yet not all inappropriate behaviour is intentionally harmful. Bullies often fail to identify their own actions as bullying and do not recognize the injury they cause – they are just doing their jobs. Bullies are somewhat blind to feelings, including their own. They can also morally condemn the victims to justify their actions – and to do this, they need other people (Crawshaw, 2012; Hutchinson et al., 2006; Jenkins et al., 2012; Tehrani, 2012; Zabrodska et al., 2014). According to Twale and De Luca (2008: 22), bullies often seek allies among leaders or get into a leadership position themselves.

The roles of ‘victim’ and ‘bully’ may also be blurred. O’Moore (2015) applies the term ‘bully-victim’ to indicate that the victim can also be a bully. This possible double role is also acknowledged by Salin (2003), Beran and Li (2007) and Jenkins et al. (2012) among others. Evidentally, every employee and supervisor can behave inappropriately (Vartia and Tehrani, 2012: 223).

Bullying is not just a ‘top-down’ phenomenon (Jenkins et al., 2012) – McKay et al. (2008) have also found peer-to-peer and bottom-up bullying in academia. The largest group initiating inappropriate behaviours was peers. Lampman et al. (2009) use the term contrapower to address student incivility, bullying and sexual attention aimed at faculty. If faculty staff are bullied by students or a manager by subordinates, it may be difficult to make the bullies accountable or for the organization to acknowledge the problem (Lewis, 2010; McKay et al., 2008: 88–90, 94; Vaughan, 2012). In Finland, the workplace bully is mostly a peer or a superior (Vartia-Väänänen, 2013) and bottom-up bullying is worst at the primary school level (OAJ, 2014).

The bystanders

The most numerous group related to bullying and inappropriate behaviour in a workplace are the bystanders (Bloch, 2012). To Keashly and Neuman (2010), the presence of witnesses of bullying incidents is an important indicator of the organizational climate. Colleagues are important witnesses when recognizing the phenomenon (Lewis, 1999) or trying to objectively prove the occurrence of bullying ( Simpson and Cohen, 2004; Zabrodska et al., 2014). Some organizations already use trained staff (from within the business or outside) as confidential supporters, informing and helping the victims (Hubert, 2012). Unfortunately, many claims of bullying remain without the support of observers (Hoel et al., 2010).

Vartia (2001: 67; 2003: 51) writes on general stress levels and mental stress reactions of bystanders in a workplace where bullying takes place – and finds that bystanders also reported more mental distress and job dissatisfaction than those working in a non-bullying workplace. Emdad et al. (2013) consider bystanders with depressive symptoms as secondary targets of bullying and divide them into three groups: those that intervene, those that do not dare to intervene and those who tolerate bullying and blame the victim. According to Bloch (2012), bystanders who understand the victim have often faced bullying themselves and try to socially include the victim, while those who accuse the victim even take part in negative actions.

A study dealing with university students' bullying experiences revealed that only a third of the witnesses had tried to intervene in bullying on campus (Sinkkonen et al., 2012). Namie and Namie (2011) highlight the negative bystanding effect: the larger the witnessing group, the lower the probability that someone will actually intervene. Intervening also comes with a price: although some forms of action seem to help, often bystanders find that talking to the bully or to the superiors about bullying only makes the situation worse (Bloch, 2012; Keashly and Neuman, 2013).

After studying the involvement of all three parties, it can be concluded that bullying and inappropriate behaviour affect the whole work unit. As it is clear that “personality is not a sufficient factor for an understanding of bullying” (Balducci et al., 2011: 509), in this study we focus on workplace features and on the organization that enables – and in many cases, supports and reinforces –bullying and inappropriate practices (Salin, 2003; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Vartia & Tehrani, 2012). With this framework, we join other researchers of the so-called environmental view on the antecedents of bullying (Vartia, 2003: 12).

Consequences of bullying and inappropriate behaviour

Apart from the serious individual consequences of workplace bullying, scant attention has been given to the effects and outcomes of bullying (Samnami and Singh, 2012: 586). However, Samnami and Singh (2012) believe that bullying can affect organizational culture if inappropriate behaviour spreads through multiple departments and divisions of a firm. This spillover effect is also recognized in academia by McKay et al. (2008). Hubert (2012: 193) bluntly states: the more people involved in a bullying case, the more likely it will escalate.

Lowered job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, mental and physical health symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder and sick leave among others are listed as consequences of workplace bullying (Vartia, 2003: 25–27, 50–51). Bartlett and Bartlett (2011) echo this by classifying the negative impacts of workplace bullying on finance, productivity, reputation, legal issues and organizational culture, on top of the damage done to the individual worker. An increasing number of legal cases against employers who have ignored workplace bullying among employees have also been reported in Canada (McKay et al., 2008: 79).

More attention should be paid to the societal-level impact of workplace bullying, such as growing medical costs and premature retirement (Samnami and Singh, 2012). In short, the organizational cost of bullying may be high both money- and personnel-wise. For example, the price tag attached to bullying-based teachers' sick leave by the Finnish Trade Union of Education is nearly €15 million ] per year (OAJ, 2014; also see Illing, 2011).

According to Björkqvist et al. (1994), in an academic setting the main consequences of bullying were depression, anxiety and aggression (pp. 179–181). In addition, Simpson and Cohen (2004: 170) name loss of confidence, anxiety and low self-esteem as the most common effects of bullying. According to Zabrodska et al. (2014), victims of hostility in academia experience destabilization of identity; they undermine and position their bullies as arbiters of their adequacy. Bullying impacts job satisfaction, performance and employee engagement, learning environment and interactions with students; it also causes absenteeism, resignations and staff turnover in academia, and can, in the worst case, lead to suicide (Keashly and Neuman, 2010; McKay et al., 2008; Samnami and Singh, 2012; Soares, 2012; Vaughan, 2012).

In this article, we focus on the issue of bullying and inappropriate behaviour among personnel of one university faculty. The research questions in this study are as follows:

To what degree does bullying or inappropriate behaviour exist at this university faculty?

What is the nature of bullying among university personnel?

What are the consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour?

Method

Participants

An internet link to our questionnaire on bullying or inappropriate behaviour was emailed to all faculty personnel (n = 303) in the spring of 2014. After two follow-up reminders, a total of 114 faculty members answered the questionnaire. The response rate of 38% is tolerable and the total number of 114 responses made the intended analyses possible (Cook et al., 2000).

There were 77 female (67.5%) and 36 male (31.6%) respondents. One respondent did not want to specify his/her gender. The male to female ratio found amongst respondents is similar to that found in faculty personnel, which consists of 182 women (60%) and 121 men (40%). The respondents' age varied between 25 and 66 years (M = 47.7; SD = 10.0) and their working experience was between 0 and 40 years (M = 13.65; SD = 9.5). A typical respondent was a 55-year-old man who had been working at the university for an average of 18.8 years (n = 7), and a 52-year-old woman who had been working at the university for an average of 14.25 years (n = 6). Two-thirds of respondents had open-ended working contracts and one-third had fixed-term contracts. Respondents were divided among all subgroups: teaching personnel (62%), research (19%), administration (14%), and project workers (5%).

Data collection

Besides background information, the questionnaire included items concerning bullying experiences and possible consequences as well as respondents' perceptions of their working environment, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, job self-efficacy, work engagement, wellbeing and general satisfaction with life. In total, the questionnaire comprised 158 items; both Likert-type and open-ended questions were presented.

Measures

Experiences concerning bullying and/or inappropriate behaviour were measured using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R). The NAQ-R comprises 22 items that are “indicators of inappropriate behaviours that one may experience, but should not normally let alone regularly experience at work” (Einarsen et al., 2009: 39). The question on the frequency of bullying included five alternatives: ‘Never’, ‘Occasionally’, ‘Monthly’, ‘Weekly’, ‘Daily’. The possible consequences of bullying and/or inappropriate behaviour were measured using the open-ended question: ‘How has bullying or inappropriate behaviour affected your work?’

Data analysis

After preliminary analysis, the data (n = 114) were analysed in three steps. First, the items concerning bullying (NAQ-R, Einarsen) were compacted with the help of exploratory factor analysis (Brown, 2006; Hurley et al., 1997). Extraction was done using general least squares (GLS) factor analysis because it is particularly useful if the data is not normally distributed. Because of the theoretical phenomenon, the correlation between factors was predictable (r = .48–.51). The direct Oblimin-rotated model extracted a more explicit model compared to orthogonal (Varimax-) ones. In the analysis, the 22 items were condensed into three factors (see Table 1). As Cronbach's α varied between .87 and .70, the internal consistency of the factors was satisfactory (Einarsen et al., 2009; Tsuno et al., 2010). At the same time, the factor sum scores of each individual respondent were calculated for the purposes of forthcoming analyses.

Table 1.

Factors of Bullying (n = 107 ).

Pattern Matrix^a	F1	F2	F3
Exclusion and discrimination (Cr. α = .70; % of variance = 32.20; cumulative % = 32.20)
Having your opinions ignored	.93	.03	.11
Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach	.60	.04	.12
Being shouted at or being a target of spontaneous anger	.25	.08	.17
Person related belittlement (Cr. α = .75; % of variance = 15.70; cumulative % = 47.91)
Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm	.10	.92	−.00
Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work	.03	.77	.02
Excessive monitoring of your work	−.11	.45	.43
Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes or your private life	.30	.45	.16
Being ordered to do work below your level of competence	.24	.38	−.12
Professional undermining(Cr. α = .87; % of variance = 10.24; cumulative % = 58.14)
Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks	.08	−.19	.90
Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes	.08	−.10	.80
Having allegations made against you	.10	.04	.75
Spreading of gossip and rumours about you	.06	.18	.67
Someone withholding information which affects your performance	.27	.12	.53
Persistent criticism of your errors or mistakes	−.12	.34	.45
Being ignored or excluded	.26	.25	.41

(GLS) K-M-O Measure of Sampling Adequacy .857; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (105) = 950.432, p < .000 Goodness-of-fit test χ² (63) = 107.183, p = .000 (n = 107). Extraction Method: Generalized Least Squares. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 11 iterations. Seven (7) Items were deleted: Intimidating behaviours such as finger pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking your way. Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job. Practical jokes carried out by people you don't get along with. Being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines. Pressure not to claim something to which you are entitled by right (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses). Being exposed to an unmanageable workload. Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse.

In the second phase, bullying factors were examined commensurate with the frequency of experiencing bullying with the help of one-way ANOVA. For this purpose, the respondents were divided into three subgroups according to the frequency of experiencing bullying at work: ‘Never’ (n = 91), ‘Occasionally’ (n = 10), ‘Monthly’/'Weekly' (n = 5) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Group comparison between the frequencies of experiencing bullying and the factors of bullying (n = 106 ).

Bullying factors	I have been bullied…			Group comparison
	Never (n = 91)	Occasionally (n = 10)	Monthly/Weekly (n = 5)
	Mean (SD) of factor scores
Exclusion and discrimination	−.13 (.80)	.03 (.93)	2.50 (1,31)		F_2,103 = 23.459, p<.001
person-related belittlement	−.19 (.32)	.13 (.83)	3.33 (2.57)	F_2,103 = 73.055, p<.001^A
Professional undermining	−.15 (.51)	−.17 (.38)	3.14 (2.40)	F_2,103 = 55.974, p<.001^A

^ALevene test of Homogeneity of Variances < .05 (Dunnett T3).

In the third phase, respondents’ open-ended answers concerning bullying or inappropriate behaviour were coded into five categories. This content-based analysis was based on answers to the question ‘How has bullying or inappropriate behaviour affected your work?’ (Table 3).

Table 3.

What bullying and inappropriate behaviour looks like at university level (f = 52).

Exclusion and discrimination
Person-focused belittlement (f = 20)	DIRECT VERBAL INSULT OR ACCUSATION (f = 9) ‘Name-calling, using inappropriate language, shouting insults have been directed to me.’
	PERSON RELATED NEGATIVE REMARKS (f = 6) ‘During coffee break a colleague has intentionally made fun of an occupational group to which I and some of my family members belong.’ ‘Inappropriate emails from a student–which led to a court restraining order.’
	UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATIONS, THREATING OR PRESSURIZING (f = 5) ‘I received an email from a student suggesting he could shoot me. The situation was dealt with the head of school and the police.’ ‘A student years senior to me wanted that Íll hug him when he was getting his diploma. I felt awkward about it but I did it because I did not want him to complain about my behavior.’
Professional undermining(f = 10)	ORGANIZATION CULTURE RELATED (f = 7) ‘For example giving me orders to join a team with totally unrealistic schedule (curriculum work).’ ‘During work orientation period. It has been inappropriate and insufficient. These jobs are done this way and the other you can find in the folders.’
Professional undermining(f = 10)	VOCATIONAL, QUALIFICATION RELATED (f = 3) ‘My achievements and knowing has been belittled during meetings in front of colleagues. I have been told that my expertise is so low that I cannot write a book (I told them about a book project where I was invited).’ ‘During a counselling discussion the student suddenly began criticizing me hinting that my qualification was poor. I said Íll not listen that and went away but the student made a report of an offence. There was a police investigation.’
Unspecific Comments (f = 22)	DESCRIPTIONS OF BULLYING CONTEXT (f = 4) ‘In a personnel meeting when I have expressed my view considering my areas of responsibility.’
	ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EXPERIENCE of BULLYING BEHAVIOR (f = 14) ‘Probably it is a modus operandi – you can be indiscreet when it is considered to be humour that is accepted within the unit.’
	IT IS NOT REALLY BULLYING, BUT … (f = 3) ‘Bullying situations have been mild and temporary and I have been able to sort out them as much as I have wanted.’
	VICTIM WHO DON'T WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED (f = 1) ‘I don't want to tell about it because I’m afraid that the bully can be identified’’

Results

The degree of bullying and inappropriate behaviour at faculty level

Most of the respondents (n = 114) stated that they had never been bullied at work (n = 93 ), but 17 (15%) had experienced bullying: 12 occasionally, one monthly and four weekly . Moreover, 52 (45%) of the respondents had met with inappropriate behaviour. Bullying or inappropriate behaviour usually occurred during research work (f = 21), teaching (f = 7), counselling (f = 7), personnel meetings (f = 19), interaction situations (10) or during leisure time (f = 1). In total, 67 (60%) of respondents said that they had been bullied or faced inappropriate behaviour during the last six months . Typically, the person who had bullied or behaved inappropriately was a member of the teaching personnel (f = 26), a member of the administration staff (f = 23), a student (f = 13) or a member of research personnel (f = 8).

Almost half of the respondents (48%) had been bullied or met with inappropriate behaviour sometime earlier, for example, at school, whereas over one-third (36%) admitted that they had been a bully sometime earlier, for example, also at school. Almost one-third (f = 5) of those bullied in the workplace had also been bullied sometime earlier, for example, at school.

The nature of bullying among university personnel

Three dimensions of bullying among university personnel were revealed: exclusion and discrimination, person-related belittlement and professional undermining (Table 1). Compared to the theoretical framework of the NAQ-R measurement, this factor model does not include an explicit dimension of physically (Einarsen et al., 2009) or psychologically (Tsuno et al., 2010) intimidating bullying.

The relationship between the frequency of bullying and the factors of bullying was linear: the more often bullying had been experienced, the higher the mean of factor scores in each bullying dimension. Group comparison revealed statistically significant differences between subgroups (Table 2).

What does bullying and inappropriate behaviour look like within university?

Open-ended answers related to the experience of bulling were coded into three main categories: person-focused belittlement, professional undermining and unspecific comments with several sub-dimensions. An overarching feature of all these categories was Exclusion and discrimination which is presented as a collective upper category in Table 3.

The open-ended answers illustrate the multifaceted nature of university bullying as a phenomenon. In universities – as in any other organization – interpersonal relationships are essential for the working atmosphere. There are various professions and duties among university personnel, and there are also different kinds of student groups. Teaching and research work are being constantly evaluated. This increases the pressure from administration, colleagues and students. The answers also reflect continuing uncertainty about the future among personnel. This can further increase the culture of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ among personnel and students. The category of ‘Unspecific Comments’ indicates that inappropriate behaviour really exists in the faculty studied. It also hints that the problem may be more general than we have realized. A tendency to ‘play down’ the importance of bullying and inappropriate behaviour can be noted. It seems that (due to the hierarchical interdependency between faculty members?) nobody wants to rock the boat. In addition, it is important to remember that we are talking about an educational institution. We should also be worried about the possible transfer of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ to students and thus to their future working places.

The consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour

Respondents were asked: ‘How has bullying or inappropriate behaviour affected your work?’ The answers (f = 38) were coded into five categories: exclusion and discrimination; feelings of anxiety, uncertainty or helplessness; decreasing professional self-confidence, motivation and work-related wellbeing; decreasing work performance; worsening of working environment” (Table 4). These categories are entirely consistent with bullying factors (see Table 1). It seems that Exclusion and discrimination lead to further exclusion and discrimination at the work community level because those who are bullied try to protect themselves from possible bullying by avoiding high-risk situations. Person-related belittlement seems to especially bring on feelings of anxiety, uncertainty or helplessness and a further decreasing of professional self-confidence, motivation and work-related wellbeing. Professional undermining decreases work performance and has a further negative influence on working environment.

Table 4.

How has bullying or inappropriate behaviour affected your work? (f = 38).

Exclusion and discrimination (f = 4)

‘…as problems with styles of co-operation, as “choices” of networks (if you are in somebody's camp, you cannot co-operate with somebody else), problems with fluency in shared situations at the workplace, problems and ambiguities in the distribution of work … It shows in those tasks which should be done collaboratively or with several people – then it begins to show.’

Feelings of anxiety, uncertainty or helplessness (f = 15)

‘When inappropriate behaviour took place it shocked me and made me cry… it influenced my life outside work, as well.’ ‘I had to watch out and be careful about how I act working with students so that there would be no complaints. I had to think whether I could demand students to perform requisite work or not to avoid being made a scapegoat because of it.’ ‘For a long time my mood was low.’ ‘It disturbs my concentration on work and causes a sense of powerlessness because there is nothing you can do for what has happened.’

Decreasing of professional self-confidence, motivation and work-related wellbeing (f = 10)

‘It has consequences on professional self-esteem and working time is wasted on thinking about it.’ ‘Decrease of motivation and managing at work, questioning one's own competence. Uncertainty about own capability as a worker increases, and thinking about changing workplace.’ ‘I don't want new responsibilities. I avoid certain persons in the working community.’

Decreasing of work performance (f = 3)

‘It has not been possible to proceed with my own research and participating in meetings and project work has been, from time to time, impossible.’ ‘It has affected me as total indifference to the task in question. Because of lack of time, the tasks have tended to build up and some of them have been uncompleted.’ ‘Managing with duties has been declining because concentrating is difficult for me. I am afraid that I'll do something which starts the inappropriate behaviour again. Because I am shocked and I weep, I cannot do any work. I am afraid to come to my workplace. Answering emails takes a long time because I must think carefully how I put my words so that I'll not be misunderstood. To manage my work, I must sometimes take sedatives and sleeping pills for sleeping. Sleeplessness causes tiredness and it decreases work efficiency.’

Worsening of working environment (f = 6)

‘Evidently, the confidence of the student community in appropriate treatment is a little bit shaken. This action tests the patience of personnel and dents confidence.’ ‘It has ruined my whole career.’ ‘It makes me understand that the most important things for me are somewhere else than at my workplace.’ ‘It had less consequence on my work compared with those lecturers who were more dependent on the bully with their work than I was.’

The consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour are primarily seen at the individual level (see Table 4), but it is obvious that the consequences are also seen at the level of the working environment (see Samnami and Singh, 2012: 586). Besides this ‘spillover’ effect (McKay et al., 2008), the consequences seem to follow each other. For example, discrimination may cause uncertainty and a further decrease of work-related wellbeing, which further impacts on decreasing of work performance and worsening of working environment at the societal level. Based on these results, the consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour are temporally and communally linked to the profitability of the faculty, besides individual suffering as seen in anxiety or affective disorders (see Björkqvist et al., 1994).

Universities are high-grade civil educational institutions with a specific academic organisational culture and hierarchic structure. Students get there their qualifications and skills and in tandem they internalise the working styles and organizational climate as a model for their future careers. The management and co-operation styles and working climates witnessed during studies are remarkable examples for students to follow later in their lives. Behaviour that negatively influences the health, wellbeing, professional performance and confidence of the people and groups involved should prompt intervention and exclusion. Finnish occupational health and safety legislation forbids this kind of inappropriate behaviour, yet in our data there was no mention of this. Experiences at university may have a wide-ranging social influence on the careers of the people involved and weaken trust in equal treatment both inside as well as outside academia.

How to intervene in and prevent bullying?

If nothing is done the consequences of bullying seem to worsen in the long run. This emphasizes the need for immediate intervention. The sooner the bullying is recognized and dealt with, the better the chances of preventing its escalation and ending it. Victims need witnesses and bullies need other arbiters in order to be able to put an end to the problematic situation. The colleagues and managers whose actions are required in an intervention also suffer the impact of bullying and need support. This can be given in the form of clear institutional ‘zero tolerance for bullying’ – policies and instructions on how and when to act (Bloch, 2012; Cortina, 2008; Einarsen, 2000; Illing, 2011; Keashly and Neuman, 2010; McKay et al., 2008; Namie and Namie, 2011; Salin, 2008; Twale and De Luca, 2008; Vartia and Tehrani, 2012; Vartia-Väänänen, 2013; Zabrodska et al., 2014).

The best place to identify, investigate and solve bullying issues is within the organization in question (Vartia and Tehrani, 2012). Co-operation between different units of the organization, such as human resources, occupational health professionals, management and the rest is crucial in the problem solving process (Salin, 2008; Namie and Namie, 2011, Vartia and Tehrani, 2012). Salin (2003, 2008) emphasizes the importance of having a policy with explicit punishments for the bullies, as without this the costs of bullying may seem low to the perpetrator (also see Namie and Namie, 2011: 73–74). Vartia-Väänänen (2013: 13) stresses the importance of writing such policies in a co-operative manner and Salin (2008) urges the avoidance of a ‘copy-and-paste’ adaptation of best practice. This is a particularly valid notion at the international policy level (Leka et al., 2011). Briefing and orientation of personnel and civility awareness campaigning is needed (McKay et al., 2008; Taylor, 2013; Mikkelsen et al., 2011), and the use of confidential supporters may bear fruit (Hubert, 2012). According to the National Working Conditions Barometer of Trade Union of Education in Finland (2014), approximately half of Finnish universities already have written policies on how to act in the case of bullying or inappropriate behaviour; one-fifth has already advised their workers on the prevention of workplace bullying. In the faculty studied here, the university's web pages contained brief guidelines to promote appropriate workplace behaviour and instructions on how to solve and prevent problematic situations related to sexual harassment or (over-)exercising of power, and name those people who should be contacted in the event of such behaviour. Regular surveys of work wellbeing were underway.

Key factors in preventing bullying and inappropriate behaviour are participative leadership and dialogue (Hoel et al., 2010; Mikkelsen et al., 2011). As victims who experience high social support are less vulnerable and suffer fewer adverse health effects as a result of long-term harassment, it is also important to facilitate social support both at work and at home (Einarsen, 2000: 387–388; Twale and De Luca, 2008). Faculty personnel may need to be trained in order to enable collaborative work in academic settings, as skills such as active listening or conflict resolution cannot be taken for granted, and informal support can be easier to accept than third-party mediation (Keashly and Neuman, 2010: 61–62; McKay et al., 2008; Mikkelsen et al., 2011). Especially in cases where bullying and inappropriate behaviour have already spread to the whole organization or the supervisor is the bully, a third-party intervention may be needed (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011; Namie and Namie, 2009b; Vartia and Tehrani, 2012). However, external consultants can also fail, especially if the organizational culture is not taken into account (Vartia and Tehrani, 2012). Emdad et al. (2013: 714–715) stress, that since bystanders and the whole organization are involved in bullying, the intervention should also focus on the whole workplace system. “In an escalating conflict, neither person is passive”, affirms Tehrani (2012: 8). If the situation leads to the point where one or more workers are leaving, either voluntarily or as a result of dismissal, special attention should be paid to exit interviews – without them valuable information can go unnoticed (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011; Twale and De Luca, 2008).

Conclusions

The aim of this research was to reveal the degree, nature and possible consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour among personnel at one university faculty. According to our results, 15% of respondents had experienced bullying and 45% had experienced inappropriate behaviour. Whilst bullying is defined as frequent and escalating, direct or indirect negative acts that take place over a relatively long period of time (Einarsen, 2000), inappropriate behaviour can be understood as behaviour that is not right or suited to the purpose or situation at hand (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Three dimensions illustrating the nature of bullying among university personnel were revealed: exclusion and discrimination, person-related belittlement and professional undermining. Open-ended answers were coded into three main categories: person-focused belittlement, professional undermining and unspecific comments with several sub-dimensions. An overarching feature for all these categories was exclusion and discrimination. The dimension of physically or psychologically intimidating bullying (Einarsen et al., 2009; Tsuno et al., 2010) was not revealed in the factor analysis. However, psychologically intimidating bullying emerged when the open-ended answers concerning the consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour were analysed. The respondents' answers showed signs of exclusion and discrimination, feelings of anxiety, uncertainty or helplessness, decreasing of professional self-confidence, motivation and work-related wellbeing, decreasing of work performance and worsening of working environment. Based on the synthesis of quantitative and qualitative analyses, the nature of bullying among university personnel could be outlined as 'sophisticated, psychologically emphasized, inappropriate behaviour which is difficult to label as bullying”.

Due to the specific nature of academic bullying, and to the fact that in organizations such as universities task-oriented expertise, autonomy and individualism are emphasized, successful interventions are hard to realize. The precipitating processes (e.g. downsizing, continuous organizational changes, restructuring and changes in work group composition) play an important role in triggering bullying (Salin 2003). We must also consider the impact of the recent and still ongoing organizational changes at Finnish universities in general and at the faculty in question, when seeking the reasons for bullying. Budget cuts, competition for decreasing job vacancies and the increasing demands of profitability bring constant pressure to publish, to find research funding, etc., and unavoidably lead to tensions between faculty members. In such an operational environment much of what happens is so covert that it's difficult to document, prove, respond to or eliminate it. To provide better understanding of these aspects, a follow-up study concerning the causes behind bullying and inappropriate behaviour and their consequences is needed.

The revealed ‘culture of inappropriate behaviour’ among university personnel makes us ponder, how we behave towards each other in our daily work and how our colleagues experience our behaviour. Bearing in mind that these findings represent an educational institution, the results are even more alarming. In education respecting other human beings is a basic ethical value. Even though our ideas concerning bullying or inappropriate behaviour may vary a lot, we should always behave as well as we expect others to behave towards us. These findings should also spark discussion about institutional dysfunction with specific attention to educational consequences. The influence of the ‘culture of inappropriate behaviour’ among faculty personnel is reflected in faculty–student relations and further in studentś peer relations. This is not the kind of culture we want to transfer to the future workplaces of our students. Instead we should gift our students with abilities and attitudes to prevent and intervene in bullying, when needed. One respondent clearly explained, that it was not possible to tell anyone about the bullying incident without revealing the identity of the bully. This hints that there is either fear of making things worst by opening one's mouth or lack of trust in the idea that the situation, once identified, could be solved. It also proves that we need more open discussion about the matter among university personnel and thorough research of the phenomenon.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

Matti Meriläinen University Lecturer (Pedagogy of Higher Education). Current themes of Research: Bullying among University Students and Teaching Personnel, Students' Pedagogical Well-Being in Higher Education, University Students' Achievement Motivation and Work-Related Orientation, Finnish Reservists' Achievement Motivation and Perceptions related to Military Training Environment.

Hanna-Maija Sinkkonen Ph.D, University Lecturer (Special Education). Current themes of Research: Socio-emotional difficulties and Behavioural Problems, Bullying, Multicultural Education, Students' Pedagogical Well-Being in Higher Education, Vocational Career Decision Making among Upper Secondary School Students.

Helena Puhakka PhD, Emerita University Lecturer (Student Counselling). Current themes of Research: Bullying, Students' Pedagogical Well-Being in Higher Education, Vocational Career Decision Making among Upper Secondary School Students, Student Counselling.

Katinka Käyhkö M.Ed Current themes of Research: Peerness and Social Support of Diverse Adult Learners in Liberal Adult Education, Vocational Adult Education and Higher Education, Intercultural issues and Student Well-Being in Higher Education.

References

Arthur

(2011) Do HR system characteristics affect the frequency of interpersonal deviance in organizations? The role of team autonomy and internal labor market practices. Industrial Relations 50(1): 30–56.

Balducci

Fraccaroli

Schaufeli

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

Bartlett

(2011) Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(1): 69–84.

Beran

(2007) The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing 1(2): 15–33.

Björkqvist

Österman

Hjelt-Beck

(1994) Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior 20: 173–184.

Bloch

(2012) How witnesses contribute to bullying in the workplace. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and Solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 81–96.

Brown

(2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, New York: The Guilford Press.

Carter

Thompson

Crampton

(2013) Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: A questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting. BMJ Open 2013. .

Cook C, Heath F and Thompson RL (2000) A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60(6): 821–836.

10.

Cortina

(2008) Unseen justice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review 33: 55–75.

11.

Crawshaw

(2012) Coaching abrasive leaders. Contradictory tales of the Big Bad Wolf. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 132–148.

12.

Dedousis-Wallace

Shute

(2009) Indirect bullying: Predictors of teacher intervention, and outcome of a pilot educational presentation about impact on adolescent mental health. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology 9: 2–17.

13.

Einarsen

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

14.

Einarsen

Hoel

Notelaers

(2009) Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress 23(1): 24–44.

15.

Emdad

Alipour

Hagberg

(2013) The impact of bystanding to workplace bullying on symptoms of depression among women and men in industry in Sweden: An empirical and theoretical longitudinal study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 86: 709–716.

16.

Finlex.[Legislative and other judicial information of Finland.] (2014) Työturvallisuuslaki 23.8.2002/738, 18§ and 28§. Available at www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2002/20020738 (accessed 30 April 2014).

17.

Hoel

Glasø

Hetland

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

18.

Hubert

(2012) Support, informing and aftercare by co-workers in the Netherlands. The role of the confidential supporter. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and Solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 181–195.

19.

Huhtala

(2013) [Cyberbullying as a challenge in childreńs and adolescentś internet environment] Verkkokiusaaminen lasten ja nuorten nettimaailman haasteena. In: Kupiainen

Kotilainen

Nikunen

(eds) Lapset netissä – Puheenvuoroja lasten ja nuorten netin käytöstä ja riskeistä. 81–96. Mediakasvatusseuran julkaisuja 1/2013. [Finnish Society on Media Education].

20.

Hurley

Scandura

Schriesheim

(1997) Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18: 667–683.

21.

Hutchinson M, Vickers MH, Jackson D et al. (2006) The development and validation of a multidimensional workplace bullying instrument. In: AEPP Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference 2006 (eds MA Parris and MH Vickers), New York, USA, 5–7 October 2006, pp.70–73. Manhattan College, New York City, New York, USA: Association on Employment Practices and Principles (AEPP).

22.

Illing J (2011) Evidence synthesis on the occurrence, causes, consequences, prevention and management of bullying and harassing behaviours to informal decision-making in the NHS. National Institute for Health Research. SDo Protocol –project ref: 10/1012/01, Protocol Number V6.1. 29 June 2011.

23.

Jenkins

Zapf

Winefield

(2012) Bullying allegations from the accused bully's perspective. British Journal of Management 23: 489–501.

24.

Keashly

Neuman

(2010) Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education. Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory & Praxis 32(1): 58–70.

25.

Keashly

Neuman

(2013) Bullying in higher education. What current research, theorizing, and practice tell us. In: Lester

(ed.) Workplace Bullying in Higher Education, Florence, KY: Routledge, pp. 1–22.

26.

Lampman

Phelps

Bancroft

(2009) Contrapower harassment in academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual attention. Sex Roles 60: 331–346.

27.

Leka

Jain

Iavicoli

(2011) The role of policy for the management of psychosocial risks at the workplace in the European Union. Safety Science 49: 558–564.

28.

Lewis

(1999) Workplace bullying – interim findings of a study in further and higher education in Wales. International Journal of Manpower 20(1/2): 106–118.

29.

Lewis

(2010) Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college lecturers. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32(3): 281–299.

30.

Lyly-Yrjänäinen M (2013) Työolobarometri – syksy 2012. [Barometer of working conditions – autumn 2012] Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriön julkaisuja. Työ ja yrittäjyys 24/2013: pp. 77–79.

31.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inappropriate (accessed 12 April 2014).

32.

McKay

Huberman

Fratzl

(2008) Workplace bullying in academia: A Canadian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 20: 77–100.

33.

Mikkelsen

Hogh

Puggaard

(2011) Prevention of bullying and conflicts at work: Process factors influencing the implementation and effects of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management 4(1): 84–100.

34.

Namie

(2009a) US workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consultation interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61(3): 202–219.

35.

Namie

(2009b) The Bully at Work. What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job, 2nd. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

36.

Namie

(2011) The Bully-free Workplace. Stop jerks, weasels, and snakes from killing your organization, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

37.

Neuman

Baron

(2005) Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological perspective. In: Fox

Spector

(eds) Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of actors and targets, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 13–40.

38.

OAJ: n Työolobarometri (2014) [The National Working Conditions Barometer of Trade Union of Education in Finland]. Available at www.oaj.fi/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=OAJ%2FPage%2Fsisalto&cid=1363787850943&pagename=OAJWrapper (accessed 25 April 2014).

39.

O'Moore

(2012) Cyber-bullying: The situation in Ireland. Pastoral Care in Education 30(3): 209–223. .

40.

Salin

(2003) Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations 56(10): 1213–1232.

41.

Salin

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

42.

Salin

(2013) Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology 28(3): 235–251.

43.

Samnami

A-K

Singh

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

44.

Simpson

Cohen

(2004) Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education. Gender, Work and Organization 11(2): 163–186.

45.

Sinkkonen

H-M

Puhakka

Meriläinen

(2012) Bullying at a university: Students' experiences of bullying. Studies in Higher Education 39(1): 153–165. .

46.

Soares

(2012) When darkness comes. Workplace bullying and suicidal ideation. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and Solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 67–80.

47.

Sperry

(2009) Mobbing and bullying: The influence of individual, work group, and organizational dynamics on abusive workplace behaviour. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61(3): 190–201.

48.

Taylor

(2013) Workplace bullying: Does tenure change anything? The example of a Midwestern research university. In: Lester

(ed.) Workplace Bullying in Higher Education, Florence, KY: Routledge, pp. 23–40.

49.

Tehrani

(2012) Introduction to workplace bullying. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and Solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 1–17.

50.

Tsuno

Kawakami

Inoue

(2010) Measuring workplace bullying: Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health 52: 216–226.

51.

Tuckey

Dollard

Hosking

(2009) Workplace bullying: The role of psychosocial work environment factors. International Journal of Stress Management 16(3): 215–232.

52.

Twale

De Luca

(2008) Faculty Incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it, 1st. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

53.

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

54.

Vartia

(2001) Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 27(1): 63–69.

55.

Vartia

(2003) Workplace bullying – a study on the work environment, well-being and health. People and Work Research Reports 56, Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

56.

Vartia

(2013) Työyhteisön ilmapiiri, työtoverisuhteet ja kiusatuksi tulemisen kokemus. [The atmosphere of working society, relations with fellow workers and getting bullied]. In: Kauppinen

Mattila-Holappa

Perkiö-Mäkelä

(eds) Työ ja terveys Suomessa 2012. Seurantatietoa työoloista ja työhyvinvoinnista, Helsinki: Työterveyslaitos, pp. 79–82.

57.

Vartia

Tehrani

(2012) Addressing bullying in the workplace. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and Solutions, London: Routledge.

58.

Vartia-Väänänen M (2013) Workplace bullying and harassment in the EU and Finland. In: Workplace Bullying and Harassment – 2013 JILPT Seminar on Workplace Bullying and Harassment. The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Report No. 12, pp.1-22.

59.

Vaughan

(2012) Ya'makasi or the art of displacement in the corporate world. A target's perspective on the impact of workplace bullying. In: Tehrani

(ed.) Workplace Bullying. Symptoms and Solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 52–66.

60.

Zabrodska

Ellwood

Zaeemdar

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

Bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The context of the study

The roles of bullying and inappropriate behaviour

The victims

The bullies

The bystanders

Consequences of bullying and inappropriate behaviour

Method

Participants

Data collection

Measures

Data analysis

Results

The degree of bullying and inappropriate behaviour at faculty level

The nature of bullying among university personnel

What does bullying and inappropriate behaviour look like within university?

The consequences of bullying or inappropriate behaviour

How to intervene in and prevent bullying?

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References