NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

The Impact of Bullying on Observers and Targets

Helena Cooper-Thomas, School of Psychology, The University of Auckland

h.cooper-thomas@auckland.ac.nz The Impact of
Bullying on
Tim Bentley, New Zealand Work Research Institute, AUT University
Observers and
Bevan Catley, School of Management, Massey University, Albany Targets
Dianne Gardner, School of Psychology, Massey University, Albany
Page | 82
Michael O’Driscoll, School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton

Linda Trenberth, Business School, Griffith University, Australia

Abstract: Workplace bullying is known to be a psychosocial stressor for targets. Meanwhile, the effects
of bullying on observers have received scant attention. This study investigated whether greater exposure
to bullying, through observation as well as direct experience, was associated with a poorer work
environment, and poorer individual wellbeing and work attitudes. Data were collected from 1733
employees, with 586 of these identified as suitable for further analyses. From the total, 13% (225) had
neither experienced nor ever observed bullying, 3% (53) were categorized as observers, 13% (228) were
identified as targets, and 5% (80) as both observers and targets. Planned statistical data contrasts across
the four groups showed that non-bullied employees had the most positive perceptions of the work
environment followed by observers, then targets, and finally those who had been both observers and
targets. Broadly similar results were found for individual wellbeing and work attitudes. These results
support the negative impact of observing bullying, with greatest impact for those who are both observers
and targets.

Keywords: workplace bullying, witness, observer, stress, wellbeing.

INTRODUCTION
Workplace bullying is the experience of aggressive and negative behaviours towards one or more
employees that results in a hostile work environment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011;
O'Moore, Seigne, McGuire, & Smith, 1998). Negative behaviours may involve open verbal or
physical attacks, or may be covert and discreet, such as failing to pass on information or spreading
rumours (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994). It is the negative, unwanted and enduring nature
of the behaviour that forms the essence of bullying, alongside power disparities (including formal
and non-formal sources of power) between perpetrator and target (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al.,
2011).

A common operationalisation of workplace bullying used in prevalence studies is reported

exposure to negative behaviour that occurs regularly (at least weekly) and persistently (continuing
for at least 6 months) (Einarsen et al., 2011). Studies of bullying at work have reported prevalence
levels ranging from 5% (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001), to 18% (O’Driscoll et al., 2011), to levels
as high as 28% (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007). Hence, across international studies
there is considerable variation in levels of reported exposure to bullying behaviours at work.

Prevalence rates for observing bullying at work also vary widely. In research involving Norwegian
employees, 13% of respondents self-identified as observers of bullying, nearly 3% were classified
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

as targets, and 7% were classified as both observers and targets (Einarsen et al., 1994). Vartia
(2001) reported that 9% of Finnish respondents had observed bullying, and Hoel, Cooper, and
Faragher (2001) found 46.5% of British respondents had been observers. Even acknowledging that
these proportions may be high due to self-selection, the figures suggest that a significant portion of
the workforce has observed workplace bullying.

In spite of this, there has been little research on the impact and role of observers in the workplace
The Impact of
bullying literature. Instead, the workplace bullying literature largely focuses on targets, bullies, Bullying on
and organisations: investigating the work environment and work-relevant outcomes to understand Observers and
what is distinctive about bullying, as well as its broader nomological network. This is in stark Targets
contrast to the school bullying literature where bystanders are acknowledged to be an important
part of bullying events and outcomes (Rayner & Bowes-Sperry, 2008). Indeed observers can play Page | 83
an important role in preventing or halting bullying in school settings (Rayner & Bowes-Sperry,
2008). This suggests that observing bullying is an important, yet heretofore relatively neglected,
aspect of workplace bullying. While there is some useful recent workplace research on observers
of bullying, it largely aims to understand and theorise possible impacts (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011;
Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Samnani, 2013). As Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, and Einarsen, (2011) noted,
“although it is assumed that witnessing or observing bullying would have a negative effect on
third parties, evidence that such is the case is relatively scarce” (p. 136). Given that workplace
bullying is a dynamic process, it has the potential for “ripple effects” that reach out beyond the
immediate protagonists to negatively impact other employees (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).
Following Einarsen et al.’s (1994) approach, we compared data from observers, targets, and those
who have been both observers and targets with data from employees who have not reported
experiencing or observing bullying at work. Our study therefore provides important potential
evidence of such a ripple effect, investigating the impact of observing workplace bullying.

Observing Workplace Bullying

A number of terms have been used to describe the observation of bullying and other negative acts,
including observers, witnesses, bystanders, onlookers, co-victims and indirect victims (Janson &
Hazler, 2004; Porath & Erez, 2009). Witnessing negative behavioural actions at work between
organisational members can lead to increased negative emotions, which may be due to concern for
oneself, for the well-being of others, and due to empathy (Porath & Erez, 2009). In terms of
actions, bystanders may avoid the situation, offer support, try to stop the bullying, or even support
the bully, depending on their perceptions of power, exchange relationships, their own safety, and
future outcomes (Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Rayner & Bowes-Sperry, 2008; Samnani, 2013;
Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2004). There is also evidence that bullying is sometimes not
identified as such until later, either by observers or targets (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011).

In studies examining the role of the psychosocial work environment, targets and observers of
bullying assessed their work environment more negatively than their non-involved colleagues
(e.g., Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen, 2007). Einarsen et al. (1994) investigated four factors: Work
control, social climate, role conflict and leadership and compared those who were neither targets
nor observers (“non-bullied”), to observers, targets, and those who had been both targets and
observers. The authors reported that employees with more exposure to bullying – in the order of
the four groups outlined above – reported the worst work environment. Similarly, Skogstad,
Torsheim, Einsarsen, and Hauge (2011) found that work groups with higher levels of bullying also
had a poorer psychosocial work group environment, comprised of unfair leader behaviour, high
role conflict, high role ambiguity, and a conflictual and unco-operative social climate.

Perceptions of leader behaviour and a cohesive work climate are key elements of the work
environment, yet there has been little research into how perceptions of these work factors differ in
relation to experiences of bullying. Laissez-faire leadership, in which leaders are absent or avoid
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

showing leadership, is a risk factor for bullying (Bass, 1990). Laissez-faire leaders may
overlook or ignore issues that should be dealt with, their lack of interest may be
experienced by others as a negative act, and interpersonal tensions can be left unresolved which
may escalate into bullying (Einarsen, 1999; Leymann, 1996). Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim,
Aasland, and Hetland (2007) found that those who reported laissez-faire leadership were more
likely to report experiencing bullying. Likewise, we anticipated that more bullying would be The Impact of
experienced and observed in relation to higher levels of laissez-faire leadership. Bullying on
Unlike laissez-faire leadership, constructive leadership focuses on achieving necessary change Observers and
with a focus on tasks and employees (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Skogstad et al., 2007). Targets
Constructive leadership is associated with lower levels of workplace stressors such as role
ambiguity and role conflict (Zaccaro & Dobbins, 1989). Previous research has either included Page | 84
constructive leadership as a control variable (Skogstad et al., 2007) with a moderate negative
relationships with bullying; or has investigated related constructs such as transformational
leadership, authentic leadership and participative leadership which are also moderately negatively
related to bullying (Nielsen, 2013; Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010).

The third element we examined is cohesive social climate, which is the extent to which employees
perceive that they have a good atmosphere, co-operation and sense of community at work
(Kristensen & Borg, 2003). Bullying is often associated with social environments characterised by
chaos, interpersonal conflict and competition between employees (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004;
Hauge et al., 2007; Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009). While leaders influence local cultural
norms, such norms are reinforced via interactions and reproduced in the socialisation of new
members (Hoel, Giga, & Davidson, 2007). There is ample evidence that stressed workers are more
aggressive to others (Einarsen, 2000) and that a negative social climate is associated with more
bullying.

It is worth emphasising that other research has shown that these psychosocial elements differ
between bullied and non-bullied employees (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Bentley et al., 2012;
Vartia, 1996). This paper examines how increased exposure to bullying, including observers, is
related to these psychosocial aspects of work (Einarsen et al., 1994), akin to the dose-response
relationship found in medicine, biology, and associated fields where higher exposure to an agent
(chemical or behavioural) is associated with a more potent effect, in this case greater harm
(Altshuler, 1981; Chen et al., 2010). Based on this prior research and using Einarsen et al.’s (1994)
classification, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Successively greater exposure to bullying (none < observer < target <
observer and target) will be associated with poorer perceptions of the work environment in
terms of a) laissez-faire leadership, b) constructive leadership, and c) cohesive social
climate.

Consequences of bullying for individuals and organisations

The consequences of bullying are severe for individuals and organisations. Targets experience
lower self-esteem, more negative emotion, anxiety, stress, fatigue, burnout, depression, post-
traumatic stress disorder, and changes in daily cortisol levels compared with non-targets (see for
example, Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Djurkovic, McCormack & Casimir, 2006; Einarsen,
Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998; Kudielka & Kern, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Vartia,
2001). Moreover, bullying has been associated with suicidal ideation, absenteeism and
presenteeism, and early retirement (Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011; Moayed, Daraiseh, Shell,
& Salem, 2006). Bullying can have enduring impact, with those who have past experiences of
bullying within the previous 5 years having worse self-reported health than those who have never
been bullied (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
Although there is less research on the consequences of observing bullying, similar trends are
evident for observers as for targets, with observers reporting health and work satisfaction at a level
between that of targets and non-bullied employees. More specifically, observers have poorer
physical and mental health (Hoel et al., 2004; Niedhammer et al., 2009), report more stress
(Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Vartia, 2001), as well as lower satisfaction with work and a more
negative experience of work (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007) than those who have not been exposed The Impact of
to bullying. These findings challenge narrow conceptualisations of bullying as a purely
interpersonal problem affecting only those directly involved, instead indicating a “ripple effect” Bullying on
that reaches out to potentially poison the broader workplace (Fevre, Lewis, Robinson, & Jones, Observers and
2012). Targets
Past research has included a range of outcomes. We confirm and extend these to focus on
outcomes that reveal whether bullying has a negative impact on individual wellbeing, including
Page | 85
psychological wellbeing and strain, and also on outcomes that affect both the individual employee
and the organization, namely affective commitment, performance, and turnover intention. Based
on past findings, we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 2: Greater exposure to bullying will be associated with successively poorer

experiences of work (none < observer < target < observer and target) in terms of a) wellbeing, b)
strain, c) affective commitment, d) performance, and e) turnover intention.

In summary, prior research suggests that the ripple effect does exist, and is associated with a
poorer work environment for observers and worse outcomes. However, no study has followed up
on Einarsen et al.’s (1994) four categories of successively greater exposure (non-involved,
observer only, target only, observer and target) to confirm whether the effect of both witnessing
and experiencing bullying is associated with a worse work environment. Moreover, only one study
(Niedhammer et al., 2009) has investigated whether being both a target and an observer has more
severe consequences than bullying alone, with that study confirming an effect for sleep
disturbance.

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 1733 employees from 36 organisations across four service-based industries:
Health, education, hospitality, and travel. Previous research has indicated that these sectors are
likely to have employees who have either observed or experienced bullying (see Zapf et al., 2011,
for an overview).

Of the total sample of 1733, we identified 586 employees comprising the four groups of non-
bullied (225, 13%,), observer (53, 3%), target (228, 13%), observer and target (80, 5%); see below
for more detail on how the groups were derived). Of these 586 employees, 76% percent (447)
indicated their gender as female and the mean age was 43 years. Respondents had an average of 7
years in their current job.

Procedure
Participants completed a computer-based survey, either online or on a laptop. Laptops were set up
in a central location at each organisation, with each laptop screened for privacy.

Measures
Frequency or Likert-type scales were used for all items, and included a “no opinion” or equivalent
option which was coded as missing data where applicable.

Bullying and observing bullying. Bullying was measured with the 22-item revised version of the
Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R) constructed by Einarsen and his associates (Einarsen, Hoel,

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
& Notelaers, 2009; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007). This measure lists 22 negative
behaviours that may be displayed toward a person by another individual in their work
environment, with the respondent asked to indicate how often they had experienced each of these
behaviours over the previous 6 months. Responses can range from 0 (never) to 4 (daily).
Following previous researchers (Hauge et al., 2007; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), the criterion for
defining bullying was experiencing at least two of the negative behaviours at least weekly over the The Impact of
past six months. To assess observing bullying, we presented a definition of bullying and asked a
single question on the frequency with which employees had observed other people being bullied at Bullying on
their workplace over the past six months. The scale ranged from 0 (no bullying observed) through Observers and
to 4 (yes, almost daily; α = 94). Targets
Leadership. Laissez-faire leadership was measured with eight items from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990; e.g., “fails to interfere until problems become
Page | 86
serious”). Constructive leadership was measured with six items from Ekvall and Arvonen’s (1991)
measure of change-oriented leadership (e.g., “is flexible and ready to rethink his/ her point of
view”). For both scales, respondents rated their immediate manager on a 6-point scale from 1 (not
at all) to 6 (always) (laissez faire leadership α = .96; constructive leadership α = .93).

Cohesive social climate. We used three items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire
(Kristensen & Borg , 2003; Kristensen, Hannerz, Hogh, & Borg, 2005) to measure social climate
(e.g., is there a good atmosphere between you and your work colleagues?) Ratings were on a five
point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always) (α = .88).

Wellbeing. Participants rated their wellbeing on Warr’s (1990) adjective checklist. This comprises
15 adjectives, such as “tense”, “uneasy”, “enthusiastic”, and “optimistic”. Ratings were for
experiences in the job over the previous six months, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (all the time).
Negatively-worded adjectives were re-coded so that a high score indicated greater well-being (α =
.97).

Psychological strain. We used the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
to measure strain (Goldberg, 1972). Respondents indicated how often they had experienced each
of twelve psychosocial symptoms in the previous 6 months (e.g., “lost much sleep over worry?”),
on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (much more than usual). We recoded positively worded
items such that a higher score indicated more strain (α = .91).

Affective commitment. This was measured with six items from Meyer and Allen’s (1997) scale.
Example items are “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own”, and “This
organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me”. Ratings were on a 7-point Likert scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (α = .84).

Performance. We used three items to assess individuals’ perceptions of their own job performance
compared to others (Kessler et al., 2003). An example item is “How would you rate your own
usual job performance over the past 6 months?” Ratings were on a 10-point scale, from 1 (the
worst performance anyone could have at your job) to 10 (the performance of a top worker) (α =
.74).

Turnover intention. We measured turnover intention with three items from O’Driscoll and Beehr’s
scale (1994). An example item is “Thoughts about quitting this job cross my mind”. Ratings were
on a 6-point scale from 1 (never) to 6 (all the time) (α = .92).

Data analysis
For all items, “no opinion,” “not applicable,” and “do not know” responses were re-coded as
missing data. Following this, a mean average score was computed for each scale. To produce our

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
four groups for analysis, we used the bullying criterion as applying to respondents who had
experienced at least two negative acts (NAQ-R) towards them each week for the last six months.
Similarly, the criterion for observing bullying was that the participant had observed bullying
either several times per week or almost daily over the last six months. The largest proportion of
our sample were those who had neither observed nor been targets of bullying at a high rate. In
order to obtain a smaller sample of this last category for analysis that would be more comparable The Impact of
in size to the other groups, we selected only those who had not experienced or observed any
bullying (i.e.,omitting from further analysis those who had experienced low levels of negative Bullying on
acts). Observers and
Targets
RESULTS
Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and correlations. Note that the four groups are not
evenly represented in this data. Observing and experiencing bullying are strongly correlated (r =
Page | 87
.49); these two bullying variables show similar relationships with the other variables investigated,
although experiencing bullying shows consistently stronger relationships. This suggests a stronger
impact of bullying relative to observing bullying. However in both cases the correlations show
that bullying has negative associations with the work environment and individual wellbeing and
attitudes.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Laissez-faire 1.65 1.54

leadership
2 Constructive 2.65 1.53 -.67**
leadership
3 Cohesive 4.00 .94 -.51** .50**
work climate
4 Wellbeing 3.76 1.19 -.65** .61** .62**

5 Strain 1.41 .67 .60** -.55** -.55** -.83**

6 Affective 4.29 1.62 -.44** .45** .51** .57** -.48**

commitment
7 Turnover 7.66 1.38 -.25** .25** .32** .40** -.37** .22**
intention
8 Performance 3.22 1.79 .54** -.53** -.49** -.72** .62** -.60** -.32**

9 Experiencing 1.73 .82 .59** -.53** -.52** -.72** .68** -.44** .60** -.35**
bullying
10 Observing 2.28 1.39 .41** -.37** -.36** -.45** .38** -.32** .40** -.16** .49**
bullying
11 Age 42.92 12.44 .11** -.02 .03 .04 .05 .05 -.14** .11** -.03 .03

12 Gender 1.24 .43 .00 -.05 -.03 -.02 .00 .01 .03 -.06 -.01 -.10* -.02

Note. n = 586; gender is coded 1 = female, 2 = male; * p < .05, ** p < .01.
The Levene’s statistic was significant for every ANOVA, indicating heterogeneity of variances for
each variable across the four groups. Hence we used robust Welch and Brown-Forsythe F statistics,
which showed each ANOVA to be significant. We investigated the differences between groups
using three planned contrasts for each variable. The first comparison was for those neither
observing nor experiencing bullying against the other three groups. The second comparison was
those observing but not experiencing bullying against the two groups of those experiencing
bullying, and those both experiencing and observing bullying. The third comparison was those
experiencing bullying and those both experiencing and observing bullying. The results are shown
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and comparisons of study variables across the four employee groups.

Observer & Welch F Brown- Significant

Non-bullied
________________________________
M SD
Observer
________________________________
Target
_________________________________
Target
_________________________________
Total
_____________________________________
(df) Forsythe F differences
M SD M SD M SD M SD (df)

Laissez-faire 0.53 0.78 1.73 1.50 2.26 1.43 2.95 1.48 1.65 1.54 100.66(3,
132.26 79.648
89.23(3, N < O < T < O&T
leadership (3,165.51)
156.44) (3,285.28)
231.35)
Constructive 3.75 1.22 2.49 1.38 1.97 1.25 1.63 1.27 2.65 1.53 98.47 91.25 N > O > T > O&T
leadership (3, 171.07) (3, 278.17)
Cohesive work 4.65 0.57 3.81 0.74 3.58 0.91 3.48 0.96 4.00 0.94 100.66 79.648 N > O > T, O&T
climate (3, 165.51) (3, 285.28)
Wellbeing 4.83 0.59 3.82 1.05 3.08 0.84 2.65 0.88 3.76 1.19 295.97 197.98 N > O > T > O&T
(3, 160.97) (3, 206.47)
Strain 0.86 0.39 1.34 0.51 1.78 0.55 1.95 0.58 1.41 0.67 181.14 151.25 N < O < T < O&T
(3, 166.53) (3, 278.18)
Affective 5.30 1.27 4.15 1.74 3.62 1.42 3.45 1.48 4.29 1.62 71.59 56.76 N > O > T, O&T
commitment (3, 166.63) (3, 233.70)
Performance 8.26 1.13 7.75 1.22 7.19 1.41 7.29 1.41 7.66 1.38 29.04 27.39 N > O > T, O&T
(3, 168.16) (3, 306.05)
Turnover 1.81 1.11 3.39 1.64 4.12 1.50 4.47 1.56 3.22 1.79 148.55 112.45 N < O < T, O&T
intention (3, 164.41) (3, 245.77)
Note. All F statistics are significant at p < .001. M = Mean, SD = standard deviation, N is not-bullied, O is observer, T is target, O&T is observer and target.
In the significant comparisons column, “>” and “<” indicate a significant difference at p < .05.

The Impact of Bullying on

Observers and Targets
Page | 88

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

in Table 2 (the planned contrasts are available from the first author).

Hypothesis 1 (a-c) proposed that greater exposure to bullying (none, observer, target, observer
and target) would be associated with successively poorer perceptions of the work environment
in terms of laissez-faire leadership, constructive leadership and cohesive social climate
respectively. The results are generally supportive, with the significant comparisons showing that The Impact of
with increased exposure to bullying, individuals reported higher levels of laissez-faire Bullying on
leadership, lower levels of constructive leadership, and poorer social cohesion. Significant Observers and
differences were found between
Targets
the four groups for all variables, with the exception of cohesive work climate, for which there
were no differences in the perceptions of those who were targets and those who were both targets. Page | 89
Hypothesis 2 (a-e) proposed that increased exposure to bullying (none, observer, target, observer
and target) would be associated with successively poorer outcomes in terms of wellbeing, strain,
affective commitment, performance and turnover intention. The planned contrasts generally
support this, with higher exposure to bullying associated with lower wellbeing, higher strain,
lower affective commitment, lower self-rated performance, and higher intentions of leaving.
However, while being both a target and observer was associated with worse wellbeing and higher
strain relative to being a target alone, there were no significant differences between these groups
for the remaining three outcomes of affective commitment, performance, and turnover intention.
These results support Hypotheses 2a and 2b and provide partial support for Hypotheses 2c, 2d, and
2e.

DISCUSSION
This research makes several contributions to the workplace bullying literature. Firstly, it confirms
Einarsen et al.’s (1994) finding that observers of workplace bullying experience a poorer work
environment than non-bullied employees, although not as poor as that experienced by targets.
Further, it extends the work environment variables associated with bullying to include two types
of leadership – laissez-faire and constructive – as well as the general cohesiveness of the work
climate. While the act of observing negative behaviours towards one’s work colleagues is
associated with a poorer work environment, causality is not proven and it may be that bullying
creates a worse work environment, or that bullying is enabled in chaotic work environments or
both (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2013). Bullying was associated positively with laissez-faire
leadership and negatively with constructive leadership, suggesting that leadership may be key to
reducing bullying (see Practical Implications).

Secondly, our research shows that successively greater exposure to bullying is associated with
poorer outcomes across a range of measures. These results confirm the compounding effects of
being an observer and target of bullying for well-being and strain, as well as experiencing poorer
leadership overall, specifically greater laissez-faire leadership and less constructive leadership.
Moreover, for those who were solely observers of bullying, this was associated with negative
outcomes at a level between not experiencing any bullying and being a target. These results for
observers confirm that the ripple effect does occur, and that bullying has impacts at work beyond
those experienced directly by targets (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).

It is also interesting to consider prevalence rates compared to past studies. Eight percent of our
sample either observed or were both observers and targets of bullying. While still confirming that
a significant minority of the workforce was exposed to bullying, this figure is actually lower than
in reported research, which ranges from 9% (Vartia, 2001), to 20% (Einarsen et al., 1994), and up
to 46.5% (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001) for either observing or both observing and
experiencing bullying. Even though there is only a small amount of research on observing
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
bullying, the findings indicate that this should be a cause for concern additional to the direct
experience of being bullied.

Limitations
While we propose that a poor psychosocial work environment supports the occurrence of bullying,
the reverse might equally be true in that those who experience bullying provide a more negative
assessment of their work environment (Vartia, 1996). In addition, those exposed to bullying may The Impact of
find it harder to interact with colleagues in general. That is, bullying may have indirect effects on Bullying on
perceptions of the work environment, in that bullied employees may not wish to engage with Observers and
others and this in turn may lead to perceptions of a poor psychosocial work environment
(Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004). Longitudinal research may help to address these questions of
Targets
causality, although causal relations can only truly be confirmed with experimental designs
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002) which are ethically fraught when investigating bullying. In
Page | 90
the meantime, while imperfect, cross-sectional research can contribute to our knowledge of
bullying.

With regard to our classification of the four groups, we used the checklist of negative acts to
identify bullied employees, and self-reported observation of bullying alongside a definition of
bullying to identify observers. These methods are not equivalent. However self-reporting of being
bullied is problematic in that targets may be unwilling to self-identify as bullied if they do not
wish to be labelled as victims (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010), and this may be true for
observing bullying also. To make these methods more comparable we could have asked about
witnessing negative acts, although the 22 items on the Negative Acts Questionnaire would have
added to the length of the survey and potentially reduced the response rate (Rogelberg & Stanton,
2007). These issues should be considered in future research.

All of our data are self-report which can alter relationships between variables; although research
has shown that such relationships may be largely unaffected, as the inflationary effects from
common method bias are largely offset by the deflationary effect of measurement error (Lance,
Dawson, Birkelbach, & Hoffman, 2010). Moreover, in our analysis we were looking at differences
across groups; the gradations we found cannot be explained as method effects.

Practical Implications
The pernicious effects of bullying on observers, combined with the evidence on prevalence,
indicate the potential benefit of interventions that improve the work environment to impact a high
proportion of employees, rather than just focusing on interpersonal relations between bullies and
targets. Given research showing that observers can themselves either promote or prevent bullying,
clarifying observers’ responsibilities may be crucial (Salin, 2009; Samnani, 2013). Beyond this,
leadership is revealed as a key factor in our research as elsewhere (Hoel et al., 2010). Laissez-faire
leadership is associated with higher exposure to bullying, while the reverse is true for constructive
leadership. This suggests that leader training to deal with workplace misbehaviour as it occurs will
be effective in the long run and conducive to a positive work environment (Wu, Hu, & Yang,
2012). Finally, Beirne and Hunter (2013) emphasise the importance of engaging with employees
and managers to implement and sustain anti-bullying initiatives to suit each specific context.

CONCLUSION
Our research set out to investigate whether observing bullying was associated with a worse work
environment, and whether there was an additional impact of observing bullying in addition to
being a target. Eight percent of our sample reported either observing bullying only, or being an
observer and a target; a further 13% reported levels of negative acts that classified them as targets.
For the work environment, laissez-faire leadership, lack of constructive leadership and low
workplace social cohesion were associated with higher levels of bullying, consistent with the
importance of relationship-oriented aspects of the work context (Skogstad et al., 2011). Moreover,
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
those who experienced higher levels of exposure to bullying reported poorer workplace outcomes
in terms of wellbeing, strain, affective commitment, self-reported performance and turnover. The
results largely confirmed that greater exposure to bullying across the four groups of non-bullied,
observer, target, observer and target, was associated with a poorer interpersonal work climate and
worse outcomes. Negative experiences have more durable impacts than positive ones (Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Hence the injurious effects of bullying at work, The Impact of
including those people directly involved and indirectly as observers, are likely to endure.
Bullying on
Acknowledgement Observers and
Funding and support for this research was provided by the New Zealand Health Research Council Targets
and the New Zealand Department of Labour (now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment). We gratefully acknowledge their support of this project. Page | 91

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
REFERENCES
Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work
environment and individual stress reactions”. Work and Stress, 18(4), 336-351.
Altshuler, B. (1981). Modeling of dose-response relationships. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 42, 23-27.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the The Impact of
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Bullying on
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Observers and
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than Targets
good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
Beirne, M., & Hunter, P. (2013). Workplace bullying and the challenge of pre-emptive Page | 92
management. Personnel Review, 42(5), 595-612.
Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H. Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M. P., Dale, A., & Trenberth,
L. (2012). Perceptions of workplace bullying in the New Zealand travel industry: Prevalence
and management strategies. Tourism Management, 33, 351-360.
Chen, C., Chiu, W. A., Crump, K. S., Louis, T. A., Portier, C. J., & Subramaniam, R. P. (2010).
What role for biologically based dose-response models in estimating low-dose risk?.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5), 585-589.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M. P., Bentley, T., Catley, B., & Trenberth, L.
(2013). Neutralizing workplace bullying: The buffering effects of contextual factors. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 384-407.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits of workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and
bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33, 269-288.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2006). Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model
of workplace bullying”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(1), 73-88.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of
Manpower, 20 (1/20), 16-27.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (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.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment
at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. H. Zapf. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying
and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.)
(pp. 3-40). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being among
assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand,
14(6), 563-569.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work &
Organizational Psychologist, 4(4) 381-401.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centred leadership: An extension of the two-
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 17-26.
Fevre, R., Lewis, D., Robinson, A., & Jones, T. (2012). Trouble at work. London: Bloomsbury.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hauge, L .J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21, 220-
242.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(4),
443-465.
Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying
behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 32(3), 367-387.
Hoel, H., Giga, S. I., & Davidson, M. J. (2007). Expectations and realities of student nurses’ The Impact of
experiences of negative behaviour and bullying in clinical placement and the influences of
socialization processes. Health Services Management Research, 20(4), 270-278. Bullying on
Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as Observers and
predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management, Targets
21, 453-468.
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organisational effects of Page | 93
workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. H. Zapf. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp.
129-148). London: Taylor & Francis.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E.G., & Hansen, A M. (2011). Individual consequences of workplace
bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. H. Zapf. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp.
107-128). London: Taylor & Francis.
Janson, G. R., & Hazler, R. J. (2004). Trauma reactions of bystanders and victims to repetitive
abuse experiences. Violence and Victims, 19, 239-256.
Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Beck, A. L., Berglund, P. A., Cleary, P. D., McKenas, D., . . . Wang, P.
S. (2003). The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire
(HPQ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(2), 156-174.
Kristensen, T., & Borg, V. (2003). Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ) 2003
edition. Copenhagen: National Institute of Occupational Health.
Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire - a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work
environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31(6), 438-449.
Kudielka, B. M., & Kern, S. (2004). Cortisol day profiles in victims of mobbing (bullying at the
work place): Preliminary results of a first psychobiological field study. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 56(1), 149-150.
Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement
error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 435-455.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-185.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American
workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies,
44(6), 837-862.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health
correlates. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 393-413.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress
among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,
11(1), 87-111.
Moayed, F. A., Daraiseh, N., Shell, R. L., & Salem, S. (2006). Workplace bullying: A systematic
review of risk factors and outcomes. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(3), 311-
327.
Niedhammer, I., David, S., Degioanni, S., Drummond, A., Philip, P., Aquarone, D., …Vital, N.
(2009). Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: Findings from a large scale cross-sectional
survey in the French working population. Sleep, 32(9), 1211-1219.
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 54, 127-136.

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological .oderators on
prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 955-979.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Bentley, T. A., Catley, B. E., Gardner, D. H., & The Impact of
Trenberth, L. (2011). Workplace bullying in New Zealand: Work attitudes and performance, Bullying on
coping and organisational responses. Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 390- Observers and
408.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviours, role stressors and uncertainty as
Targets
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,
141-155.
Page | 94
O’Moore, M., Seigne, E., McGuire, L., & Smith, M. (1998). Victims of bullying at work in
Ireland. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand, 14(6), 569-
574.
Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D.M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A
social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63, 761-780.
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces
onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 109, 29-44.
Rayner, C., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2008). Mobilizing bystanders to intervene in workplace bullying.
Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment,
Montreal, 4-6 June. Abstract downloaded from http://eprints.port.ac.uk/10353/.
Rogelberg, S.G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with
organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195-209
Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and
organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561-1589.
Salin, D. (2009), Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study.
Personnel Review, 38(1), 26-44.
Samnani, A.-K. (2013). Is this bullying? Understanding target and witness reactions. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 290-305.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
12(1), 80-92.
Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., Einarsen, S., & Hauge, L. L. (2011). Testing the work environment
hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychological factors as precursors of
observed workplace bullying. Applied Psychology, 60, 475-495.
Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social
architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. In J. Devine, J. Gilligan, K.
A. Miczek, R. Shaikh & D. Pfaff (Eds.), Youth violence: Scientific approaches to prevention
(pp. 215-232). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying - psychological work environment and organisational
climate. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 203-214.
Vartia, M. (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.
Wu, T.-Y., Hu, C., & Yang, C.-C. (2012). Abusive supervision and workload demands from
supervisors: Exploring two types of supervisor-related stressors and their association with
strain. Stress and Health, 29, 190-198.
NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95
 NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue
Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group organizational commitment: Evidence
for differences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(3), 267-
273.

The Impact of
Bullying on
Observers and
Targets
Page | 95

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95