Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 ( 2013 ) 1175 1179

1877-0428 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu & Dr. Mukaddes Demirok, Near East University, Cyprus
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.722
Understanding workplace bullying phenomenon through its
concepts: A literature review
*, Ticu Constantin*
, Toma Cozma Street, no 3, , 700554, Romania
Abstract
The past twenty years showed a high interest in studying bullying in the area of work and organizational psychology. This
phenomenon was defined through a variety of definitions and concepts in Europe, America and Asia. This article aims to review
bullying literature in order to highlight, on one hand, the variety of concepts used to describe bullying and on the other hand, the
common aspects of the bullying definitions. For this aim, a literature review was conducted in order to emphasize the common
aspects of bullying definitions and large amount of concepts used to define it. Over the years, the bullying phenomenon was
described by many concepts from which English-speaking countries preferred the use of the term bullying while, German-
speaking countries preferred the use of the term mobbing. Regarding the definitions, these highlighted some common aspects
such as a perceived power imbalanced between the aggressor and the victim, negative and systematic acts, a situation in which
the victims is finding herself in an inferior position and starts to experience the helplessness situation
Keywords: literature review, bullying, mobbing, harassment at work, emotional abuse;
1. Introduction
Despite the fact that bullying phenomenon represents a research subject discussed since 1980, no general
agreement exists on defining the concept of workplace bullying. To talk about this subject, there are used
interchangeably several concepts, concepts defined by several definitions. This article aims to review all these
definitions and all these concepts in order to highlight the common aspects and give a comprehensive view of what
bullying is.
Leymann (1990) was the first author who defined mobbing as hostile actions, which separately taken, can appear
inoffensive but if they are systematic and repeated over a period of time, their damaging effects start to manifest
(Leymann, 1990; Timucin, Yildirim, & Yildirim, 2007).
Einarsen and Skogstad (1996), in their definitions, highlighted the importance of the subjective experience of the
victims. Also, the authors consider important for mobbing, the perceived imbalanced power. For Chappell and Di
Martino (1998), mobbing is tied to escalating problems generated by unsolved tensions in the workplace, the micro-

* Teodora Tel.: +40-743-377-684
E-mail address: chirila.teodora@yahoo.com.ro
3rd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance (WCPCG-2012)
2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Dr. Melehat Halat
Corresponding author name:
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu & Dr. Mukaddes Demirok, Near East University, Cyprus
1176 Teodora Chiril and Ticu Constantin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 ( 2013 ) 1175 1179
aggressions, ignoring behaviours or arrogances which in a particular way would appear to be insufferable. In time,
these problems may transform into acts of manifested violence and in insecurity feelings.
definitions, that is, in Norwegian, Finnish,
German, Austrian, British and Danish research whereas American literature includes several other concepts such as
workplace aggression, workplace incivility, emotional abuse among others (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003).
2. Concepts used to describe workplace bullying phenomenon
Leymann (1990) speaks about two forms of mobbing: hard and soft ones. The former refers to psychological
terror in the workplace while the later implies a form of persecution in workplace. Moreover, the author explained
that in English-speaking countries such as
Australia (McCarthy, 1996), in North European countries (Einarsen 1996; Vartia 1996; Salin 2001) and in Turkey
(Yildirim, Yildirim, & Timucin, 2007) the term bullying is often used while in German-speaking countries and
Netherlands, the term mobbing is preferred (Zapf, 1999).
North American literature describes bullying phenomenon through a wide range of concepts such as: employee
abuse (Keashly, 1998); workplace aggression ( -Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996);
victimization (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen, 1999); interpersonal deviance (Bennet & Robinson, 2003);
workplace mobbing (Duffy & Sperry, 2007); workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Other terms used to
describe the bullying phenomenon are: harassment (Brodsky 1976); scapegoating (Thylefors 1987); workplace
trauma (Wilson 1991); work harassment (Bjorkvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back, 1994); abusive behaviour/emotional
abuse (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994); non-sexual harassment (Zapf & Einarsen 2001), psychological
harassment (Vartia 1996) and victimization (Einarsen & Raknes 1997).
All these terms were used to describe different forms of interpersonal aggression and of different forms of hostile
behaviors in the workplace and they are thought to border on bullying.
3. Conceptualizations of workplace bullying
The Belgian law defines bullying through its number of negative and recurrent acts, but also highlights the
-
recurrent behaviour within or outside an enterprise or institution, which can manifest itself in the form of behaviour,
verbal aggression, threats, gestures and unilateral writings. It is aimed at, or has as a consequence, that the
personality, the dignity or the physical or psychological integrity of an employee (or any other person to whom the
law can be applied) is harmed during work hours, that his position is jeopardized or that an atmosphere is created
that can be labelled as threatening. With time, bullying definitions become increasingly clear by adding new
characteristics of the actions: the persistence (i.e. during for at least 6 months), the repetitiveness of the acts (i.e. at
least once a week) and a perceived imbalanced power Bullying occur, if
somebody is harassed, offended, socially excluded, or has to carry out humiliating tasks and if the person concerned
is in an inferior position. To call something bullying, it must occur repeatedly (e.g., at least once a week) and for a
long time (e.g., at least 6 months). It is not bullying if it is a single event. It is also not bullying if two equally strong
Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1993; Zapf, 1999).
All these definitions presented not only, some common aspects but also, some different aspects. With time, these
definitions highlighted more and more the common aspects. A table below is given in order to better understand the
evolution of the concepts and their definitions:








Table 1. Definitions and concepts provided by bullying researchers
1177 Teodora Chiril and Ticu Constantin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 ( 2013 ) 1175 1179

Author Terms Definitions
Brodsky (1976) Harassment Repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, frustrate. It is treatment that
persistently provokes, pressures, frightens, intimidates, or otherwise discomforts another person.
Thylefors (1987) Scapegoating One or more persons during a period of time are exposed to negative and repeated actions from one
or more other persons.
Leymann (1990) Mobbing Involves hostile and unethical communication, which is directed in a systematic way by one or few
individuals mainly towards one individual who, due to mobbing, is pushed in a helpless and
defenceless position, being held there by means of continuing mobbing activities. These actions
occur on a very frequent basis (i.e. at least once a week) and over a long period of time (i.e. at least
six months).

Wilson (1991) Workplace trauma ndamental self, resulting from
perceived or real continual and deliberate malicious treatment.

Bjorvist, Osterman, Workplace Repeated activities, with the aim of bringing mental (but sometimes also physical) pain and directed
Hjelt-Back (1994) harassment towards one or more individuals who, for one reason or another, are not able to defend themselves.

Einarsen and Skogstad Bullying To label something bullying it has to occur repeatedly over a period of time, and the person confronted
(1996) has to have difficulties defending himself/herself. It is not bullying if two parties of approximately
equal n conflict or the incident is an isolated event.

Keashly, Ttrott, & Abusive behavior/ Hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours that are not tied to sexual or racial content, directed by one
MacLean, 1994; emotional abuse or more persons towards another that are aimed at abuse undermining the other to ensure
Keashly, 1998 compliance from others.

O Bullying Bullying is destructive behaviour. It is repeated verbal, psychological and physical acts conducted
Seigne, McGuire by an individual or group against others. Isolated incidents of aggressive behaviour, while not to be
and Smith (1998) tolerated, should not be described as bullying. Only inappropriate aggressive behaviour that is
systematic and enjoyed is regarded as bullying.

Hoel and Cooper (2000) Bullying A situation where one or several individuals persistently, over a period of time, perceive to be on the
the receiving end of negative actions from on or several persons, in a situation where a target of
bullying has difficulty in defending him/ herself against these actions. We will not refer to one
set-off incidents as bullying.

Zapf (1999) Mobbing Mobbing at work means harassing, bullying, offending, socially excluding someone or assigning
offending work tasks to someone in the course of which the person confronted ends up helpless.

Salin (2001) Bullying Repeated and persistent negative acts that are directed towards one or several individuals, and which
create a hostile work environment. In bullying the targeted person has difficulties in defending
herself; it is therefore not a conflict between parties of equal strength.

Einarsen, Zapf, Hoel, Mobbing Harassment, offending, socially excluding or negative affecting tasks. Is is
& Cooper (2003) escalating process in which the target person is feeling helpless.
1178 Teodora Chiril and Ticu Constantin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 ( 2013 ) 1175 1179

The table above puts together a series of concepts used over time to define the same phenomenon. These
concepts are presented in the present article using a chronologically order, concepts also linked to a series of
definitions given by bullying researchers.
Overall, these definitions are characterized by a similarity in their content: the concepts are defined through a
number of negative behaviors; these behaviors are performed by a person towards one or more persons with the aim
of producing physical, mental or moral harm.
Another common feature of all these definitions is that the targeted person reaches in a position in which she
herself anymore, thus becoming a victim.
The concepts of emotional abuse and abusive behaviors have brought more information in that it delimits the
bullying concept from any other type of discrimination (e.g. racial, ethnic, or religious) and from sexual harassment.
Behaviors with sexual content are not considered to be bullying behaviors. This aspect brings new information to
bullying phenomenon but it also presents some weaknesses: even though bull ual behaviors,
if these behaviors are repeated over time, they could be considered as bullying behaviors because they meet the
persistence and high frequency criteria. These two aspects were neglected in emotional abuse and abusive behaviors
definitions.
Moreover, bullying was defined as a conflict which never ended so that bullying is an escalated conflict. Isolated
incidents or unique cases of conflict should not be considered as bullying cases but if they are repeated, in time,
these incidents become bullying situations. Putting these two concepts on a temporal continuum enabled bullying
researchers to give a first feature of bullying situations: the repetitiveness of bullying behaviors.
Furthermore, bullying research developments highlighted new characteristics of bullying definitions so that to
label an act as a bullying one, it has no more to be just negative and repetitive but also to be practiced with a high
frequency (i.e. at least once a week).
Einarsen, Zapf, H ed that bullying could be studied no longer as an
unidimensional concept. If the previous definitions referred to bullying as a situation in which some negative acts
are targeted with repetitiveness and high frequency to one or more persons, the latest definitions suggested that these
acts could be also targeted to pers .
4. Conclusions
This article emphasized the common aspects between different concepts used to describe bullying phenomenon.
The most frequently used terms, were: bullying and mobbing. Concepts such as: abusive behavior or emotional
abuse, generalized nonsexual workplace harassment, workplace trauma and workplace aggression have been used
in the USA to describe hostile behaviors relevant to workplace bullying; German-speaking countries preferred the
mobbing term and English-speaking country preferred the bullying term to describe the same phenomenon.
The review of types of definitions, generally, highlighted that these have five common features for the bullying
phenomenon: A first feature refers to the fact that bullying phenomenon is comprised of a number of negative acts.
These acts are practiced with a high frequency over a long period of time (i.e. at least six months). Thus, an isolated
a bullying act. Regarding the nature of these acts, they are usually encountered in
everyday life but if they are repeated in a systematic way and over o longer period, they became bullying acts; the
second feature is that the targeted person finds herself in a difficult situation
herself anymore. This situation implies an imbalanced power between the actors; a third feature is tied to the number
of the aggressors and of the number of the victims. Researchers have seen bullying as an interpersonal phenomenon
which appears between two individuals or a phenomenon produced between one or more individuals and a group as
a whole. A fourth feature is comprised of the intentionality of negative acts. These acts have been considered as
being
communication with her co-work and (e) threats of physical violence
To sum up, the common definition accepted by all bullying researchers is: A situation in which one or more
individuals encountered in a repetitive manner a number of negative acts from the part of one or more of their co-
workers, supervisors or subordinates, situation which makes the person defenceless.


1179 Teodora Chiril and Ticu Constantin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 ( 2013 ) 1175 1179
Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited from financial support from the strategic grant POSDRU/88/1.5/S/47646, co-financed by the European Social Fund,
within the Sectorial Operational Program - Human Resources Development 2007-2013. Grant awarded

References

Andersson, L.M. & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review. 24,
452 71.
Aquino, K., Grover, S.L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D.G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status. Academy of Management,
42(3), 260-272.
Bennett, R.J. & Robinson, S.L. (2003) The past, present and future of workplace devianceresearch. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational
behavior: The state of the science (2ndedn). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman K., Hjelt-Back M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behav. 20,173-184.
Chappell, D., Di Martino, V. (1998). Violence at work. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Duffy, M. & Sperry, L.(2007). Workplace mobbing: Individual and Family Health Consequences. The Family Journal. 15:398.
Einarsen, S. (1996). Bullying and harassment at work: Epidemiological and psychosocial aspects. Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen.
Einarsen, S. & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and
private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 5(2), 185 201.
Einarsen, S. & Raknes, B.I. (1997). Harassment at work and the victimization of men.Violence and Victims,12, 247 263.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3-30). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work; A review of the Scandinavianapproach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379 401.
Hoel, H. & Cooper, C.L.(2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester School of Management,University of Manchester Institute
of Science and Technology.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C. & Cooper, C. (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 195 230.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 1(1), 85 117.
Keashly, L., Trott, V. & MacLean, L.M. (1994). Abusive Behavior in the Workplace: A preliminary Investigation. Violence and Victims, 9(4),
341 357.
Keashly, L. & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in
the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, pp. 31 61. London: Taylor and Francis.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violences and Victims, 12, 247-263.
Leymann, H. (1993). Mobbing-psychoterror am arbetisplatz und wie man sich dagegen wehrenkann (Mobbing -psyehoterror in the workplace
and how one can defend oneself)-Reibeck: Rowohlt.
M. Sheehan
and D. Wilkie (eds) Bullying: From Backyard to Boardroom. Alexandria, NSW: Millennium Books.
Neuman, J.H. & Baron, R.A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and
preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3), 391 419.
-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W. & Glew, D.J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management
Review. 21(1), 225 253.

in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 99-111.
, M. (1998) Victims of bullying at work in Ireland. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety:
Australia and New Zealand, 1998, 14(6),568 574.
Timucin, A., Yildirim, A., Yildirim, D (2007). Mobbing behaviors Encountered by Nurse Teaching Staff. Nurse Ethics, Sage Publications,
London.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 199 208.
Salin, D. (2001) Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring
bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (4), 425 41.
Thylefors, I. (1987). Syndabockar. (Scapegoats.Exlusion and bullying in worklife). Stockholm: Natur
och Kultur.
European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 5(2):203 14.
Wilson, C.B. (1991). U.S. Businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Personnel Journal, 47 50.
Zapf, D. (1999) Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower.
20(1/2), 70 85.
Zapf, D. & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trend in research and practice an introduction. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology,10(4), 369 373.
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=ba0780cb-ec6d-4d00-a54d-ebc50dcdf587