Meiji University

　

TitleWorkplace bullying in the nursing profession-A

call for secondary intervention research-

Author(s) Kate,BLACKWOOD, Bevan,CATLEY

Citation 経営論集, 60(4): 91-106

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10291/16188

Rights

Issue Date 2013-03-31

Text version publisher

Type Departmental Bulletin Paper

DOI

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　https://m-repo.lib.meiji.ac.jp/

91

BUSINESS　REVIEWVo1．60，　No．4

March，　2013

Workplace　bullying　in　the　nursing　profession：

　　Acall　fbr　secondary　intervention　research

Kate　BLACKWOOD　and　Bevan　CATLEY　　　　　　　　　　　　　Mass《ソUniversiリノ

lntroduction

　　　　　　Workplace　bullying　is　devastating　to　organisations　internationally　and　has　been

foulld　to　be　especially　prevalent　in　the　nursing　profession（Bentley　et　al．，2009；Mikkelsen

＆Einarsen，2001）．　Not　only　can　bullying　result　in　severe　psychological　and　psychosomatic

harm　to　the　target　but，　in　tum，　costs　organisa廿ons　signi丘canUy　in　terms　of　lost　productivity，

absenteeism　and　turnover（Agervold＆Mikkelsen，2004；Caponecchia，　Sun，＆Wyatt　2012；

Leyma㎜，1996；Lutgen－Sandvik，　Tracy，＆Alberts，2007）．　The　risk　factors　associated　with

workplace　bullying　and　subsequent　recommendations　fbr　bullying　prevention　commalld　the

extant　literature．　The　recommendations　resulting　from　such　research　commonly　illclude

the　need　to　develop　understanding　and　awareness　of　bullying，　provide　traming　to　managers

for　addressing　bullying，　develop　and　implement　zero－tolerances　policies，　and　improve

communication　and　coping　mechanisms（Duffy，2009；Fox＆Stallworth，2009；Gardner＆

Johnson，2001；Yamada，2008）．　Yet，　as　these　recommendations　are　rarely　the　central　focus

of　related　empirical　research　and　are　largely　directed　towards　primary　intervention，　much

remains　unknown　about　how　best　to　identify　and　address　an　existing　bullying　episode．

The　lack　of　understand血g　in　this　regard　is　not　only　evidenced血the　enduring　prevalence

and　severity　of　bullying　in　the　nursing　Profession　and　highHghted　in　cases　that　reach　the

legal　system，　but　is　indirectly　recognised　in　much　of　the　related　literature．　This　paper　pulls

together　factors　poten廿ally　affecting　the　efHcacy　of　secondary　interventions　to　put　forward

an　argument　fbr　the　urgent　need　for　research　into　how　best　to　identify　and　address　cases　of

92 BUSINESS　REVIEW

bullying　in　the　nursing　Profession．

Acase　example　from　New　Zealand’s　legal　system

　　　　　　　The　responsibility　for　preventing　and　hltervening　k享workplace　bullyi　lg　lies　with

the　organisation．　In　New　Zealand，　targets　of　buUyhlg　who　beheve　that　their　complaint　was

addressed　unfairly　or　insu伍ciently　by　their　employer　have　the　option　to　lodge　a　personal

grievance　claim　under　the　Employment　Relations　Act（2000）．　The　case　highlighted　belowl

is　one　such　case，　whereby　a　lack　of　management　understanding　about　best　to　address

abullying　episode　resulted　in　the．situation　escalating　in　complexity　to　a　point　where，

regardless　of　the　outcome，　all　of　the　parties　involved　could　not　be　satisfied．　As　a　result，

the　target　suffered　severe　psychological　harm，　strained　and　stressful　dynamics　developed

at　the　team　leve1，　and　the　organisation　spent　signi丘cant　time　and　effort　over　a　number　of

years　attempting　to　reach　a　resolution　to　the　case．　Although　the　New　Zealand　employment

legislation　outhnes　the　obhgations　of　employers　in　regards　to　general　employment　disputes，

alld　many　cases　that　are　heard　under　this　legislation　feature　evidence　of　good　practice　on　the

part　of　the　employer　2，　cases　such　as　this　demonstrate　the　dif且culties　in　e丘ectively　addresshlg

complex　bullying　experiences　and　provide　support　for　the　need　for　further　knowledge　of

secondary　interventions．

　　　　　　　The　applicant　was　employed　as　a　registered　nurse　in　a　New　Zealand　pubhc　hospital

and　had　been　under　the　leadership　of　the　current　cl㎞cal　team　leader　s血ce　1987．　Initially，

the　working　relationship　between　the　two　women　had　been　healthy　and　productive　but，

over　a　period　of　time，　the　work　relationship　severely　deteriorated　and　became　increasingly

stressful　and　unhealthy．　The　apphcant　claimed　that　she　was　subjected　by　her　team　leader

to　numerous　behaviours　over　an　extended　period　of　time　that　she　believed　to　be　workplace

bullying．　Such　behaviours　included　the　team　leader’s㎜ecessary　supervision　of　her　work

and　becoming　increasingly　controlling　over　her．　It　was　not㎜廿12000　that　the　applicant且rst

complained　to　the　area　manager　and　a　subsequent　investigation　resulted　in　the　team　leader

lClear　v　Waikato　District　Health　Board（Auck1and）［2∞7］NZERA　33（13　February　2007）

2Cooper　v　Secretary　for　Education（Wellington）［2011］NZERA　388；【2011］NZERA　Wenington　102（14　June

2011）；Dunn　v　Buckley　Systems　Ltd（Auckland）［2008］NZERA　285（12　December　2008）；Samu　v　CathoHc

Bishops　Conference　Securities　Limited　WA150．10（Wellington）［2010］NZERA　765（23　September　2010）

WorkPlace　bullying　in　the　nursing　professiorr　A　ca皿for　secondary　intervention　re…marCh 93

being　adVised　of　the　need　for　a　more　nurtUring　team　enVironrnent，　however止e　inves廿gadon

failed　to　confirm　the　complaint　of　bullying．　The　negative　behaviour　from　the　team　leader

towards　the　applicant　intensi丘ed　as　a　result　of　being　informed　of　the　complaint　to　the　point

where　the　applicant　believed　a　further　complaint　was　warranted．　Although　witnesses

had　preViously　acknowledged　the　vendetta　the　team　leader　appeared　to　have　against　the

applicant，　they　were　not　willing　to　ofFer　their　support　to　the　complaint　and　no　conclusion　was

able　to　be　reached．

　　　　　　　In　2001，　the　appointment　of　a　new　area　manager　saw　the　introduction　of　a　ne曽

system　of　filing　incident　reports　regarding　further　incidents　betweerl　the　two　women

intended　to　address　any　concerns　at　the　time　they　occurred。　Although且ve　incident　reports

were且led　by　the　applicant　over　a　period　of　six　months，　in　May　2002　she　submitted　a　further

complaint．　Lookmg－to　enforce　the　new　reporting　system　and　belieVing　that　the　majority　of

the．　applicants　concerns　were　relatively　minor　and　trivial，　the　area　manager　investigated

only　the　current　issue　and　communicated　the　outcome　to　the　parties　involved。　When　the

current　area　manager　resigned　in　2003　she　noted　that　there　had　been　no　further　complaints

and　the　issues　appeared　to　be　resolved．　Yet，　it　was　the　applicant’s　evidence廿1at　the　bullying

continued　and　had　begun　to　cause　damage　to　her　health．

　　　　　　　At　the　appointment　of　the　third　area　manager　since　the　situation　developed，　the

applicant　raised　a　third　complaint　and　was　offered　temporary　separation　from　the　team

leader　and　EAP　counselling　as　a　result，　however　by　this　time　the　applicant　was　maintaining

that　the　dismissal　of　the　team　leader　would　be　the　only　resolution　satisfactory　to　her．　Soon

after，　the　apPlicant　took　sick　leave　as　a　result　of　the　alleged　bullying　and　sought　legal

representation，　By　this　time，　the　DHB’s　Board　and　the　CEO　had　become　involved　and　called

on　the　expertise　of　an　employee　relations　consUltant．　A　fUl1　investigation　found　the　aUegations

to　be　unjustified　and　the　refusal　by　the　apPlicant　to　provide　a　psychiatrist’s　report　reSulted　in

no　further　action　being　taken　and　extended　sick　leave　payments　refused．　Despite　the　refusa1，

the　applicant　continued　to　take　unpaid　sick　leave　and　in　December　2004　the　applicant　was

advised　of　the　termination　of　her　employment　on　the　grounds　of　continued　absence　from

work．

94 BUSINESS　REVIEW

　　　　　　　At　the　initial　hearing　before　the　Employment　Relations　Authority　in　2007，　the

appHcant　was　awarded　NZ＄15，000　fbr　stress　and　humiHation，　a　cost　the　employer　was　obhged

to　pay．　However，　numerous　appeals　and　subsequent　claims　over　the　following　four　years

saw　a　further＄40，000　paid　by　the　employer　to　the　applicanちnot　to　men廿on　the　costs　they

accrued　in　paying　for　the　expertise　of　lawyers，　employment　relations　speciahsts　and　court

proceed血gs．　Indeed，　failing　to　effecdvely　address　this　case　of　buny血g　resulted血lengthy　and

COStly　COnSeqUenCeS．

Conceptualising　workplace　bullying

　　　　　　　Although　there　is　no　one　definition，　it　is　generally　agreed　that　workplace　bully血g

consists　of　systematic　behaviours　ir血cted　over　a　period　of　time　that　fbrces　a　target　into　a

position　where　they　feehmable　to　defend　themselves　and　can　cause　the　target　psychological

and　psychosomatic　illness（Einarsen，　Hoe1，　Zapf，＆Cooper，2011）．　Many　of　the　behaviours

said　to　constitute　workplace　bullying，　such　as　being　given　unmanageable　workloads

or　unreasonable　deadlines，　excessive　monitoring　or　criticism　of　work，　or　withholding

information，　could　be　interpreted　as　normal　if　experienced　in　isolation（Einarsen，　et　al．，2011；

Leymann，1996）．　However，　it　is　the　systematic　and　persistent　exposure　and　the　context　in

which　they　are　experienced　that　shapes　the血terpretation　of　the　behaviours；thus，　bUllying

is　a　subjectively－constructed　phenomenon（Rayner＆Cooper，2006）．　Bullyillg　behaviours　may

not　be　solely　work－related　and　can　also　include　for　example　gossip，　humiliation　and　ridicule，

social　exclus三〇n，　or　threats　of　physical　abuse，　and　they　can　be　either　overt　or　covert（E血arsen，

et　al，，2011）．　Regardless，　the　harmiul　consequences　for　targets，　witnesses　and　the　organisation

can　be　devastating．

　　　　　　　Numerous　reports　of　harm　caused　to　targets　of　workplace　bunying　can　be　found　in

the　academic　literature（Einarsen，1996；Mikkelsen＆Einarsen，2002），　legislated　cases，　and

in　media　coverage（Butcher，2010：Chrisafis，2012），　rallging　from　stress　and　upset　through

to　psychological　breakdown　and　even　suicide．　Anxiety，　depression　and　post－traumatic

stress　disorder　are　common　illnesses　exhibited　by　targets（Agervold＆Mikkelsen，2004；

Einarsen，1996；Hauge，　Skogstad，＆Einarsen，2007），　whilst　resu1血g　musculoskeletal　health

complaints　have　also　been　reported（Edelmann＆Woodall，1997）．　However，　the　harm　caused

WQrkp】ace　bullying　in　the　nursing　prof6ssiorr　A　call　for　s㏄condary　intervention　researCh 95

by　bullying　is　not　restriCted　to　the　direct　target．　Witnesses　have　been　found　to　exhibit

lower　job　satisfaction，　increased　negativity，　and　heightened　levels　of　role　conflict（Jennifer，

Cowie，＆Ananiadou，2003；Lutgen－Sandvik，　et　al．，2007）．　This，　in　turn，　increases　absenteeism

and　turnover　and　reduces　productivity，　resulting　in　significant　costs　to　the　organisation

（Caponecchia，　et　al．，2012；Rayner＆Keashly，2005）．　Although　the　costs　to　New　Zealand

organisations　have　yet　to　be　determined，　one　study　estimated　that　workplace　bullying　costs

Australian　organisations　up　to　AUD＄13　billion　per　amum（Sheehan，　McCarthy，　Barker，＆

Henderson，2002）．

　　　　　　　Internat三〇nally　the　prevalence　of　workplace　bullying　typically　varies　between　l　l

and　18　per　cent（Nielsen，　Matthiesen，＆Einarsen，2010）and　the且ndings　of　a　recent　New

Zealand　study　suggests　that　bullying　in　New　Zealand　organisations　lies　at　the　higher　end　of

this　spectrum，　with　17．8　per　cent　of　respondents　being　bullied　in　the　last　six　months（Bentley，

et　aL，2009）．　The　study　included　727　respondents　from　the　health　illdustry，　of　whom　18．4　per

cent　were　found　to　have　been　the　target　of　bullying．　Further，　intemational　research　suggests

that　up　to　85　per　cent　of　nurses　have　been　exposed　to　bullying　at　some　point　in　the　duration

of　their　career（Lewis，2005）．　The　nursing　profession　has　received　a　substantial　proportion

of　academic　bulying　research　attention　internationany　and　has　been　identified　as　a　context

highly　susceptible　to　workplace　bullying（Hutchinson，　Wilkes，　Jackson，＆Vickers，2010；

Randle，2003；Vessey，　Demarco，　Ga血ey，＆Bud瓦2009）．

Understanding　bullying　in　the　nursing　industry

　　　　　　　The　nursing　industry　in　New　Zealand　has　undergolle　several　reforms　in　past

years，　creating　new　structures，　processes　and　pohcy　under　which　healthcare　employees　are

required　to　work．　Further，　increasing　public　expectations，　increasing　patient　numbers，　and

limited　resources　has　contributed　to　further　internal　changes　and　stressors　for　employees

（Huntington　et　aL，2011）．　The　role　of　the　New　Zealand　nurse　is　strongly　governed　by

legislation　and　indust】ゴy　policy，　including　for　example　the　Health　Practitioners　Competence

Assurance　Act　2003（formerly，　the　Nurses　Act　1977）and　an　industry－wide　Code　of　Conduct

which　incorporates　compliance　with　legislation，　acting　ethically　and　maintaining　standards

of　practice，　respect血g　patient　rights，　and　justぜying　the　trust　and　confidence　of　the　public．

96 BUSINESS　REVIEW

In　May　2010，　the　enrolled　nurse　scope　of　practice　was　amended，　resUlting　in　changes　to　the

daHy　workload　of　the　enrolled　nurses　and　those　registered　nurses　who　previously　covered

those　components　of　the　amended　workloads．　Previous　research　suggests　that　organisations

that　are　high　in　instability　and　change（Salin，2003）and　high　in　internal　issues　and　time

pressures（Soares＆Jablonska，2004）are　likely　to　exhibit　role　conflict　and　ambiguity．

Role　conflict　and　ambiguity　are　commollly　recognised　risk　factors　for　bullying，　providing

opporU皿ities　to　feign　ignorance，　increasing　the　risk　of　interpersonal　confiicts，　and　allowing

managers　and　employees　to　take　advantage　of　vague　or　unfamihar　structures　and　processes

（Hutchinson，　Vickers，　Jackson，＆Wikes，2005；Notelaers，　De　Witte，＆Einarsen，2010；Salin，

2003）．This　appears　to　be　the　case　for　the　New　Zealand　nursing　profession　according　to

recent　research　conducted　by　Huntington　et　al（2011）．　Huntington　and　colleagues　found　a

number　of　contextual　and　organisational　concerns　that　act　as　precursors　for　bulying　New

Zealand　nurses　are　often　under　significant　physical　and　emotional　stress　in　their　work，　with

high　workloads，　limited　resources　and　community　expectations　resulting　in　an　inability

to　reach　a　satisfying　level　of　patient　care．　Further，　a　dominating　politicised　climate　exists，

where　power　and　ego　rather　than　patient　care　and　staff　wellbeing　is　nurtured，　leading　to　a

chmate　of　nurses　eating　their　own　and　a　lack　of　collegiality（Huntington，　et　al．，2011）．

　　　　　　　Bullying　in　the　nursilg　industry　is　often　attributed　to　oppressed　group　behaviours

（Hutchinson，　Jackson，　Wilkes，＆Vickers，2008；Johnson＆Rea，2009：Strandmark＆Halberg，

2007）．Oppressed　group　behaviours　are　said　to　occur　in　groups　that　are　powerless　to　confront

authority　and　subsequent　low　self－esteem　and　attempting　liberation　results　in　aggression

towards　others　in　the　group（Freire，1971）．　For　healthcare　in　particular，　bullying　is　strongly

embedded　in　industry　culture．　Bullying　is　often　passed　down丘om　experienced　nurses，　with

nurses　commonly　reporting　being　exposed　to　bullying　during　their　training　and　induction

years（Foster，　Mackie，＆Bamett，2004；Jennifer，　et　al．，2003；Randle，2003）．　Such　exposure　to

．bullying　throughout　socialisation　processes　normalises　bullying　behaviours　from　the　point

of　entry　into　the　industryσosephson，　Lagerstr6m，且agberg，＆Wigaeus　Hjelm，1997）．　The

ability　to　bully　is　also　strengthened　by　informal　organisational　alliancesσosephson，　et　al．，

1997）．Hutchnson　and　colleagues　found　eVidence　to　suggest　that　such　alliances　support　the

misuse　of　legitimate　authority　and　fortify　organisational　tolerance　for　bullying（1997）．

WorkPlace　bullying　in　the　nursing　professiorr　A　ca皿for　secondary　intervention　researCh 97

Factors　affecting　secondary　interventions　in　workplace　bullying

　　　　　　　Strategies　for　the　intervention　and　management　of　workplace　bullying　are　typically

categorised　as　primary，　secondary，　or　tertiary　measures．　Primary　interventions　are

directed　towards　bullying　prevention，　secondary　interventions　generally　refer　to　processes

and　systems　that　an　organisation　has　in　place　to　address　workplace　bullyirlg　once　it　has

been　identified，　and　tertiary　interventions　aim　to　reduce　the　negative　impacts　of　bullying

and　restore　individual　and　organisational　health　and　well－being（Vartia＆Leka，2011）．　As

previously　discussed，　the　clear　majority　of　research　attelltion　has　been　focused　on　primary

prevention，　specifically　to　intervene　in　a　culture　of　bullying　and　thus　prevent　its　future

occurrence．　The　development　and　implementation　of　a　zero－tolerance　policy　is　a　component

of　many　these　prevention　recommendations．　Generally，　a　zero－tolerance　policy　outlines

the　organisation’s　expectations　of　behaviour，　provides　information　to　clarify　reporting

channels，　arld　details　the　formal　process　of　complaint　investigation　including　the　disciplinary

repercussions　for　employees　found　guilty　of　bullying（Richards＆Daley，2003）．　Yet，　as　a

preventative　tool，　a　zero－tolerance　policy　must　be　seen　as　legitimate　and　authoritative　in　the

eyes　of　employees　in　order　to　be　effective．　Hence，　to　establish　policy　legitimacy　and　send

astrong　message　that　bullying　is　no　longer　tolerated，　cases　of　bullying　must　be　able　to　be

identified　and　then　addressed　efficiently．　However，　academic　advocates　for　zero－tolerance

policies　are　many　whilst　empirical　research　into　their　ef且cacy　as　a　secondary　intervention

tool　is　lacking．　Further，　dynamics　at　play　in　bullying　episodes　are　likely　to　make　addressing

and　resolving　such　cases　more　complex　than　ensuring　that　the　processes　advocated　in　the

policy　are　adhered　to．

　　　　　　　According　to　Leymann（1996），　a　bullying　episode　is　often　triggered　by　a　critical

incident，　commonly　a　con血ct，　from　which　bullying　and　stigmatisation　develops．　Leymann’s

identi丘ed　stereotypical　course　of　bullying　resorlates　with　recent　definitions　in　that　this　phase

of　bullying　development　can　be　endured　for　quite　solne　time　and　the　behaviours，　regardless

of．　their　meaning　to　the　external　observer，　are　based　on　the　intent　to　punish　the　target．

Leymann　then　goes　on　to　suggest　that　once　the　organisation　intervenes，　the　episode　formally

becomes　a‘case’where　he　recognises　the　tendency　for　management　to　side　with　the

98 BUSINESS　REVIEW

perpetrator，　especially　when　they　are　in　a　position　of　power．　Finally，　failures血intervention

are　said　to　lead　to　the　target’s　expulsion　from　working　Ufe，　Academic　research　has　since

found　evidence　to　suggest　that　the　development　of　a　bullying　episode　is　not　as　linear　as

hypothesised　by　Leymann，　yet　the　stereotypical　course　supported　by　recent　cases　such・as

that　highlighted　at　the　beginning　of　this　paper，　clearly　acknowledges　the　complexities　of

bullying　episodes　should　they　be　allowed　to　develop　over　time．　This　cans　fbr　consideration

of　three　largely　unexplored　topic　areas　for　establishing　effective　secondary　interventions：

awareness　of　the　bu11ying　episode，　when　the　organisation　should　intervene，　and　how　the

organisation　should　intervene．　These　Ulree　topic　areas　provide　the　focus　of　the　remainder　of

this　discussion．

　　　　　　　When　and　how　the　target　interprets　the　behaviours　they　are　being　subjected　to

is　an　aspect　of　the　bullying　experience　that　has　received　Httle　research　attention　from　an

intervention　perspective，　yet　is　Iikely　to　be　of　importance　in　the　shaping　of　subsequent

events血abullying　episode．　As　previously　discussed，　bUllying　is　a　subjectively－constructed

phenomenon　in　which　the　target’s　perceptions　of　the　behaviours　they　are　subject　to　change

with　the　frequency　and　duration　of　exposure（Einarsen，　et　al．，2011；Leymann，1996）．　Ofte鳥it

is　not　unti1　the　target　has　been　systematically　subjected　to　behaviours，　par廿cularly　those　that

are　covert　or　work－related，　that　they　are　likely　to　interpret　the　situation　as　bullying（Aq血o，

2000）．It　has　previously　been　suggested　that　organisa廿onal　factors　play　a　pivotal　role　on　the

likelihood　of　an　employee　identifying　themselves　as　a　target　of　bullying（Aquino＆Thau，

2009）．

　　　　　　　The　NAQ－R，　a　popular　tool　for　measu血g　bUllying　prevalence，　req面res　an　employee

to　have　been　subjected　to　at　least　one　behaviour　a　week　for　a　period　of　six　months　in　order

to　const三tute　being　a　target　of　workplace　bullying（Einarsen＆Raknes，1997）．　However，

quantifying　buUying　in　such　a　way　is　questionable，　evidenced　i　l　the　significant　differences

revealed　in　self－reported　prevalence　findings．　Using　a　self－reporting　measure，　Mikkelsen

and　Einarsen（2001）found　that　approximately　2　per　cent　of　hospital　employees　felt　they　had

been　bullied，　yet　accordhlg　to　the　NAQ－R’s　operational　de丘nition，16　per　cent　of　the　same

population　had　been　targeted　in　the　past　six　months．　One　explanation　fbr　this　result　may　be

that　the　bu皿y血g　cUltUre血the　nursing　Profession　contributes　to　a　failure　on　the　part　of　the

Workpla㏄bu皿ying　in　the　nurdnng　professiorr　A　call　for　secondary　intervention　research 99

target　to　interpret　the　behaviours　as　bUllying　and　instead　attribute　behaviours　to　the　nature

of　the　work　required　of　employees　within　the　industry’s‘toughen－up’culture．　Obviously，　it

is　not　until　a　target　identi丘es　themselves　as　a　victim　of　bullying　that　they　are　able　to　take

action　to　avoid　the　situation　from　developing　further．

　　　　　　　Once　an　employee　identi且es　themselves　as　a　target　of　bullying，　a　signi丘cant　concern

for　e丘ective　secondary　intervention　becomes　the　organisation’s　awareness　of　the　situation．

Recent　research　conducted　in　New　Zealand’s　healthcare血dustry　found　evidence　to　suggest

that，　despite　having　policies　in　place，　managers　are　often　unaware　of　the　prevalence　and

severity　of　bullying　in　their　organisations（Bentley，　et　a1．，2009）．　Although　the　reasons　for

this　were　undetermined，　related　research　suggests　that・under－reporting　and　acceptance　of

bullying三n　organisational　culture　may　be　contributing　factors（Deans，2004；Green，2004）．

In』 Q009，　a　study　of　registered　nurses　in　the　United　States（Vessey，　et　a1．，2009）revealed

that　65　per　cent　of　targets　do　not　use　fbrmal　channels　to　report　their　experience，　despite

being　aware　of　the　employee　assistance　programmes　and　harassment　policies　available

to　them，　This　was　attributed　to　fear　of　retaliation　from　the　buny　and　having虹tde　faith血

the　reporting　system．　An　Australian　study（Hutchinson，　Vickers，　Jackson＆Wilkes，2007）

also　revealed　that　64　per　cent　of　targets　did　not　report　their　experience　for　fear　of　be血9

blamed　or　being　perceived　as　incompetent．　Other　studies　which　focus　on　the　response　of　the

organisation　to　complaints　from　the　perspective　of　the　target　reveal　that　many　complainants

are　blamed　or　seen　as　trouble－makers（Hutchinson　et　aL，2007）and　have　their　problems

defiected　back　with　little　or　no　support　from　administrative　personnel（Gaffney，　DeMarco，

Hofmeyer，　Vessey，＆Budin，2012）．

　　　　　　　Bullies　in　the　nursing　profession　are　commonly　found　in　supervisory　positions

and　alleged　inaction　and　tolerance　of　the　behaviours　from　management　contributes　to

the　silencing　of　bullying　complaints（Stevens，2002）．　Further　to　this，　nursing　cliques　also

provide　opportunity　for　nurse　bullies　to　be　nurtured，　encouraged，　and　protected　from　the

repercussions　of　their　harmiul　behaviour（Lewis，2005）．　Studies　have　found，　despite　having

harassment　policies，　these　informal　alliances　encourage　behaviours　that　are　counterproductive

to　that　encouraged　by　the　policies　by　ensuring　that　complaints　are　discouraged　or　ignored

σosephson，　et　aL，1997）．　Of　course，　the　often　covert　nature　of　bUllyi　lg　behaviours　contributes

100 BUSI　NESS　REVIEW

to　the　abihty　to　hide　much　of　the　bullying　that　exists　in　the　nursing　profession（Aquino，2000）．

It　would　seem　that　the　ab皿ty　to　idellt晦・bullying　early　is　advantageous　in　terms　of　enforcing

the　legitimacy　of　a　pohcy，　preventing　further　harm，　and　avoiding　the　complexities　associated

with　a　developed　bullyhlg　episode．　However，　the　current　research　focus　on　creating　safe　and

clear　reporthlg　channels　places　the　responsibihty　of　organisa廿onal　identification　on　the　target

in　an　environrnent　where　numerous　variables　discourage止em丘om　speaking　out．

　　　　　　　Whilst　encouraging　reporting　remains　a　complex　concern　that　warrants　further

inves廿ga廿on，　the　witness　to　bullyhlg　has　been　ac㎞owledged　as　playing　Im囮uen廿al　role　in

shaping　the　bully血g　experience　and　its　resolu廿on．　Paull，　Omari　and　Standen（2005）identゴfied

13roles　a　witness　to　bullying　could　potentially　assume．　Based　on　the　previous　discussions　of

the　nature　of　buUy血g　in　the　nursing　profession，　it　is　hkely　that　witnesses　often　take　action　in

one　of　two　ways：witnesses　to　bullying　that　associate　themselves　with　a　nurse　clique　may　be

more　inclined　to　assume　an　instigating，　manipulating，　collaborating　or　facilitating　role．　In　this

sellse，　the　witness　encourages　the　buUy　or　creates　situations　for　the　perpetrator　to　victimise

the　target，　often　for　their　own　personal　benefit．　Alternatively，　the　witness　may　be　inclined

to　choose　an　abdicating　or　avoiding　role　whereby　they　allow　the　perpetrator　to　continue

bullying　or　simply　walk　away　from　the　situation－such　a　role　is　likely　to　be　considered　by

those　nurses　in　cliques　or　who　fear　victimisation　as　a　result　of　becoming　involved．　Other

roles　of　the　witness　include　illtervening，　defusing，　empathising，　or　defending，　whereby　the

witness　takes　an　active　role　in　support　of　the　victim．　Assuming　such　roles，　it　would　seem，

infiuences　target　understan（hng　and　shapes　their血terPretations　of　the　behaviours　they　are

being　subjected　to，　and　in　some　situations，　may　encourage　them　to　speak　up．　Indeed，　the

witness　role　can　strongly血auence　the　outcome　of　a　buUying　episode（Ostergren，　et　a1．，2005）

and　warrants　further　investigation　as　a　factor　kl　the　identification　and　resolution　of　bullying

experlences．

　　　　　　　As　previously　mentioned，　superior－subordinate　bunying　is　especially　prevalent　in　the

nursing　profession．　Not　only　does　this　create　concerns　in　term　of　encouraging　reporting　and

identifying　bullying　at　an　organisational　level，　but　also　in　terms　of　ways　in　which　bullying

episodes　should　be　investigated　and　resolved．　The　employment　legislation　in　New　Zealand

requires　the　employer　to　carry　out　a　thorough　investigation　of　complaints　of　bullying，　yet

WorkPlace　bullying　in　the　nursing　professiorr　A　call　for　secondary　intervention　researCh 101

the　formal　position　of　power　often　held　by　the　perpetrator　causes　complexities　in　doing　so

and　can　potentially　result　in　a　biased　investigation　outcome．　Previous　cases　of　bullying　heard

under　the　Employment　Relations　Act（2000）in　New　Zealand　have　seen　organisations　held

accotmtable　for　relying　on　the　word　of　the　superior　perpetrator　and　failing　to　conduct　an

血ves廿gation　because　of　their　position　in　the　organisation3．　Others　have　seen　the　hlvestigator

bias　towards　the　senior　perpetrator　in　terms　of　the　evidence　the　parties　put　forward，　thus

failing　to　attribute　blame　to廿1e　buly4．　In　such　cases，　a　generalised　investigation　process　may

be血e丘ective，　with　witness　evidence　skewed　in　the　favour　of　the　perpetrator，　or　lack　of　for

fear　of　retaliation，　and　perpetrator　evidence　being　favoured　over　that　of　a　powerless　target．

The　orgallisation’s　ability　to　obta血objective　evidence　of　a　bullying　episode　and　take　ac廿on

that　minimises　costs　to　all　parties　involved　remains　a　complex　concern　for　which　empirical

research－based　recommendations　are　scarce．

　　　　　　　Such　concerns　with　the　power　imbalance　ill　the　investigation　of　bullying　episodes

can　also　be　found　in　the　current　debate　over　the　ef且cacy　of　mediation　as　a　means　of　finding　a

resolution　to　bullying　situa廿ons．　As　acknowledged　by　the　Department　of　Labour，“mediation

is　designed　to　be　an　empowering　process　that　gives　the　parties　a　direct　input　into　the

outcome　of　their　dispute，　in　contrast　to　litiga廿on，　where　the　outcome　is　decided　by　a　third

party” iMcLay，2010，　p。19）．　However，　where　the　perpetrator　is　in　a　position　of　power，　despite

whether　that　power　is　formal　or　informal，　mediation　is　likely　to　enforce　the　existing　power

imbalance　and　thus　favour　the　perpetrator．　As　suggested　by　Needham（2003），　the　nature　of

bullying　is　such　that，　through　the　eyes　of　the　perpetrator，　it　is　often“a　game　to　be　won－not

issues　to　be　discussed，　compromised　and　action　jointly　agreed”（p．36）．　Hence，　if　bullying　is

instigated　by　an　mitial　con伍ct，　it　may　only　be　at　this　early　stage　of　development　when　target

has　not　yet　been　forced　into　a　defenceless　position　that　mediatioll　is　likely　to　be　successful．

The　debate　surrounding　the　ethcacy　of　mediation　further　supports　the　need　for　consideration

of　the　type　of　intervention　depen（㎞g　of　the　stage　of　development　of　the　bully血g　episode．

As　highlighted　in　the　case　example，　bullying　episodes　that　are　allowed　to　develop　and

escalate　over　an　extended　period　of　time　are　likely　to　require　organisational　intervention

different　from　those　of　an　episode　in　its　adolescence．　However，　understanding　of　the　type

3McCullough　v　Otago　Sheetmetal　and　Engineering　Ltd［2008］NZERA　413

4　Suh　v　Topsco　Intemational　Ltd［2008］NZERA　593

102 BUSINESS　REVIEW

of　intervention　most　effective　at　the　different　stages　of　bullying　episode　development　is

currently　lacking．

Conclusion

　　　　　　　As　highlighted　by　the　bullying　case　detailed　in　this　paper，　ineffective　intervention

strategies　can　result　in　devastating　consequences　for　the　target，　the　organisation，　and

for　others　exposed　to　the　situation．　The　case，　alongside　supporting　empirical　research，

suggests　that　the　nature　and　characteristics　of　bullying　are　such　that　the　identification

and　investigation　of　bullying　episodes　may　not　always　be　straightforward．　The　argument

draws　attention　to　these　collcerns，　highlighting　a　number　of　in伽ential　factors　in　bullying

identi丘cation　and血ves廿gation　that　require．further　attention　in　order　to　develop　a　thorough

understaロ（血1g　of　effective　intervention　strategies．　Specifically，　the　paper　advocates　fUrther

empirical　research　into　the　iden面cation　of　bullying　for　both　the　target　and　organisation，　the

point　at　which　action　at　a　secondary　level　should　be　taken　to　address　buUying　and　the　type

of　action　that　should　be　taken　at　differi19　stages　of　bullying　episode　escalation．　Should　such

ammderstanding　be　obtained，　the　collsequences　of　bullying　are　better　able　to　be　minimised

and　the　legitimacy　and　authority　of　advocated　preventative　measures，　such　as　zer（Ftolerance

policies，　is　hkely　to　be　ehhanced．

References

Agervold，　M．，＆Mikkelsen，　E．（2004）．　Relationships　between　Bullying，　Psychosocial　Work

Environment　and　individual　Stress　Reactions．鰍＆8舵∬，18（4），336－351．

Aqu血o，　K．（2000）．　Structural　and　Individual　Detem血1ants　of　Workplace　Vic廿mization：The

　　Effects　of　Hierarchical　StatUs　and　Confiict　Management　Style．」∂umal　ofManage〃2θ砿26（2），

　　171－193．

Aquino，　K，＆Thau，　S．（2009）．　Workplace　victimization：Aggression　from　the　target’s

　perspective．∠tnnual　1～eview　qブPs：ソchology，60，717－741．

Bentley，　T．，　Catley，　B．，　Gardner，　D．，　O’Driscon，　M．，　Trenberth，　L．，＆Cooper－Thomas，　H．（2009）．

　　Understanding　Stress　and　Bullying　in　New　Zealand　Workplaces．　Final　Report　to　OH＆S

Stee血g　Co㎜ittee．

Workp】ace　bullying　in　the　nursing　professiorr　A（；all　for　seoondary　intervention　researCh 103

Butcher，　S．（2010，　February　8）．　Workers丘ned＄115，0000ver　bullying　of　caf　waitress．　The　Age．

　　Retrieved　from　http：／／www．theage．com．au／national／workers－filled－115000－over－bully㎞g－of－

　　cafe－waitress－20100208－nlrj．html

Caponecchia，　C，，　Sun，　A．　Y．　Z．，＆Wyatt，　A，（2012）．‘Psychopaths’at　Work？Implications　of　Lay

　　Persons’Use　of　Labels　and　Behavioural　Criteria　fbr　Psychopathy．ノburna’（）fBusiness　Ethics，

　　107（4），399－408．

Chrisafis，　A．（2012，　July　5）．　France　Telecom　boss　faces　judicial　inquiry　into　workplace

　bullying．　The　Guardian．　Retrieved　from　http：／／www．guardian．co．uk／world／2012／lul／05／

　france－telecom－judicial－inquiry－workplace－bullying

Deans，　C．（2004）．　Who　cares　for　nurses？The　lived　experience　of　workplace　aggression．

　　Co〃egian：Joumal（）fthe　1～o：ソal　Co〃ege（ゾハ「urs’〃9・4ustralia，11（2》，32－36．

DuffY，　M．（2009）．　Preventing　Workplace　Mobbing　and　Bullying　with　E丘ective　Organizational

　Consultation，　Policies　and　Legislation．　Consulting　pSycholo9ソJournal．’1）アactice　and　Research，

　　61（3），242－262．

Edelmann，　R．，＆Woodall，　L（1997）．　Bullying　at　work．　Occupatio〃α1勘oぬ010gま5’，32，28－31．

Einarsen，　S．（1996）．　Bullying　and　hara∬〃lent　at　work：Epide〃iiological　and　pSychosocial　aspects’

　Univ．，　Department　of　Psychosocial　Science，　Faculty　of　Psychology．

Einarsen，　S．，　Hoel，　H．，　Zapf，　D．，＆Cooper，　C．（2011》．　The　Concept　of　Bullying　and　Harassement

　at　Work：The　European　Tradition．　In　S．　Einarsen，　H．　Hoe1，　D．　Zapf＆C．　Cooper（Eds．），

　Bullying　and　Harassment　in　the　Workplace：Developments　in　Theory，　Research，　and

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

Einarsen，　S．，＆Raknes，　B．1．（1997）．　Harassment　in　the　Workplace　and　the　Victimization　of

　Men．　Vaolence　and　Vactims，12（3），247－263．

Foster，　B．，　Mackie，　B．，＆Bamett，　N．（2004）．　Bullying　in　the　Health　Sector：AStudy　of　Bullying

　of　Nurs血g　Students．　New　ZealandJouma1　of、Emploγment　Relations，29（2），67－83．

Fox，　S．，＆Stallworth，　L．　E．（2009）．　Building　a　Framework　for　Two　Internal　Organizational

　Approaches　to　Resolving　and　Preventing　Workplace　Bullying：Alternative　Dispute

　Resolution　and　Traming．　Consulting　PSychologソ」∂〃〃ial．’　Practice　and　Reseai℃h，61（3），220－241．

Freire，　P．（1971）．　Pedagogソofthe　Oppre∬ed．　New　York：Herder＆Herder。

Ga丘hey，　D．　A，　DeMarco，　R．　F．，　Hofmeyer，　A．，　Vessey，　J．　A．，＆Budin，　W．　C。（2012）．　Making

　Things　Right：Nurses’Experiences　with　Workplace　Bullying－A　Grounded　Theory．ハrursing

　1～esearch　and　Practice，2012，

104 BUSINESS　REVIEW

Gardner，　W．，＆Johnson，　P．　R．（2001）．　The　Leaner，　Meaner　Workplace：Strategies　for　Handling

　　BuUies　at　Work．　E〃㌍1（ッ〃昭nt　Relations　Today，28（2），23・36．

Green，　L．（2004）．　Breaking　the　code　of　silence　to　ensure　quality　care．、ノburnal　qズハrursing

　　A［dmintStration，34，6－7．

Hauge，　L．，　Skogstad，　A．，＆Einarsen，　S．（2007）．　Relationships　Between　Stressful　Work

　　Environments　and　BuUying　Results　of　a　Large　Representative　Study．〃「ork　＆　Stre∬，21（3），

　　220－242．

Huntington，　A．，　G且mour，　J．，　Tuckett，　A，　Nev皿e，　S．，　Wilson，　D．，＆Tumer，　C．（2011）．　Is　anybody

　　listen血g？Aqualitative　study　of　nurses’reflec廿ons　on　practice．　Journal　of　Clinicalハlursing，

　　20（9－lo），1413－1422．　doi：10．1111／j．1365－2702．2010．03602．x

Hutchinson，　M．，　Jackson，　D．，　W丑kes，　L．，＆Vickers，　M．　H．（2008）．　A　New　Model　of　Bullying血

　　the　Nursing　Workplace：Organizational　Characteristics　as　Critical　Antecedents．　Ach・ances　in

　　ハrursing　Science，31（2），　E60－E7110．1097／1001．ANS．0000319572．0000337373．0000319570c．

Hutchinson，　M，　Vickers，　M，　H，　Jackson，　D．，＆Wilkes，　L．（2005）．“1’m　Gonna　Do　What　1　Wanna

　　Do．”Organizational　Change　as　a　Legitimized　Vehicle　for　Bullies．、Health　Care　Manage〃lent

　　Review．30（4），331－336。

Hutchinson，　M．，　Wilkes，　L，　Jackson，　D，，＆Vickers，　M．　H．（2010）。　Integrating　individual，

　　work　group　and　organizational　factors：testing　a　multidimensional　model　of　bullying　in

　　the　nursing　workplace．ノburnal　of　1＞tirsingルlanage〃2ent，18（2），173－181．　doi：10ユ111／j．1365－

　　2834．2009．01035．x

Jenllifer，　D．，　Cowie，　H．，＆Ananiadou，　K．（2003）．　Perceptions　and　experience　of　workplace

bully㎞g㎞且ve雌erent　wor㎞g　popωa廿ons．　Aggressive　Behavior，　29（6），489496．

Johnson，　S．　L．，＆Rea，　R　E．（2009）．　Workplace　Bullying　Concems　for　Nurse　Leaders．　Joumal　of

　1＞Ursing／4dministration，39（2），84－90．

Josephson，　M．，　Lagerstr6m，　M．，　Hagberg，　M．，＆Wigaeus　Hjelm，　E．（1997）．　Musculoskeletal

　　symptoms　and　job　strain　among　nursing　personne1：astudy　over　a　three　year　period．

　　Occupational　and　Environ〃iental　Medicine，54（9），681．

Lewis，　M．　A．（2005）．　Nurse　bullying：Organizational　considerations　in　the　maintenance　and

　　perpetra廿on　of　health　care　bullying　cultures．　Journa1　ofハ「ursing　Management，14（1），52－58．

Leymann，　H．（1996）．　The　Content　and　Development　of　Mobbing　at　Work，　European　Journa1　of

　　〃brk＆Organizational　pSアchology，5（2），165。185，

Lutgen－Sandvik，　P．，　Tracy，　S．，＆Alberts，　J，（2007）．　Burned　by　Bullying　in　the　Americal1

Workplace　bullying　in　the　nursing　professiorr　A　call　for　secondary　intervention　researdh 105

　Workplace：Prevalence，　Perception，　Degree　and　Impact．　loun7al（ゾManagement　Studies，　44（6），

　837－862．

McLay，　L。（2010）．　Workplace　bullying　To　mediate　or　not？ADR　Bulletin，11。

Mikkelsen，　E，＆Einarsen，　S．（2001），　Bullying　in　Danish　Work－Life：Prevalence　and　Health

　Correlates．　European　Journal　qプ〃brん（ft　Organiza’ional・Psychol∂gy，10（4），393－413．

Mikkelsen，　E．，＆Einarsen，　S．（2002）．　Basic　Assumptions　and　Symptoms　of　Post－Traumatic

　Stress　Among　Victims　of　Bullying　at　Work．　E〃即ρθαη」伽ηα1（ゾ〃「ork　＆Organizational

　Psychology，11（1），87－111．

Needham，　A．　W．（2003）．％ゆlace　Bullying’　The　Cosめ2　Business　Secret，　Auckland：Penguin　Books．

Nielsen，　M．　B．，　Matthiesen，　S，，＆Einarsen，　S．（2010）．　The　Impact　of　Methodological　Moderators

　on　Prevalence　Rates　of　Workplace　Bullying．　A　Meta－analysis．．ノ’ournal　of　OccUpational　and

　　Oiganizational　Psアchology，83（4），955－979．

Notelaers，　G。，　De　Witte，　H．，＆Einarsen，　S．（2010）．　A　job　characteristics　approach　to　explain

　workplace　bullyhlg．　European　Journal（ゾ〃br々＆Organizational、Psychology，19（4），487－504．

Ostergren，　P．0．，　Hanson，　B．　S．，　Balogh，1．，　Ektor－Andersen，　J．，　Isacsson，　A．，　Orbaek，　P．，．．．

　Isacsson，　S．0．（2005）．　Incidence　of　shoulder　and　neck　pain　in　a　working　population：efFect

　modification　between　mechanical　and　psychosocial　exposures　at　work？Results　from　a　one

　year　fbllow　up　of　the　Malm6　shoulder　and　rleck　study　cohort，ノburnal　of　epi∂bmiology　and

　　oo〃3〃luniリノhea〃h，59（9＞，721。

Randle，　J．（2003）．　Bullying　in　the　nursing　profession．　Journal　ofAdvancedハrursing，43（4），395－401．

　　doi：10．1046∠」．1365－2648．2003．02728．x

Rayner，　C．，＆Cooper，　C．　L．（2006）．　Workplace　Bullying．　In　K．　E．　Kelloway，　J，　Barling＆J．　J．

　　Hurrell　Jr（Eds．），　Handbook（ゾ〃bゆlace　vaolence（pp．121－145）．　Thousand　Oaks：Sage．

Rayner，　C．，＆Keashly，　L。（2005）．　Bullying　at　Work：Perspectives　from　Britain　and　North

　　America．　In　S，　Fox＆P．　E．　Spector（Eds．），　Counterpr（）ductive〃「ork、Behaviors：、rnvestigations　of

　Actors　and　Targets（pp．271－296）．　Washington，　DC：American　Psychological　Associa廿on．

Richards，　J．，＆Daley，　H，（2003）．　Bullying　Policy：Development，　Implementation　and

　　Monitoring．　In　S．　Einarsen，　H．　Hoel，　D．　Zapf＆C．　Cooper（Eds．），　Bullying　and　E〃iotional

　Abuse加the〃bゆlace’International　Perspectives加Research　and　Pra（コtice（pp．247－258），　London：

　　Taylor＆Francis．

Salin，　D．　M．（2003）．　Ways　of　Explaining　Workplace　Bullying：AReview　of　Enabling，　Motivating

　　and　Precipitating　Structures　and　Processes　in　the　Work　Environment．　Human　Perfonnance，

106 BUSINESS　REVIEW

　　56（10），1213－1232．

Sheehan，　M．　J．，　McCarthy，　P．，　Barker，　M．　C．，＆Henderson，　M．（2002），　A〃iodel／br　a∬ε∬i〃9

　　the　i〃rpacts　and　costs　qブwor勺ワ1aceわ〃か加g．　Paper　presented　at　the　Occupational　Stress

　　Conference．

Soares，　J．　J．　F．，＆Jablonska　B．（2004），　Psychosocial　experiences　among　primary　care　paUents

　　with　and　without　muscUloskeletal　pain．　European　Journal　of、Pain，8（1），79名9．

Stevens，　S．（2002）．　Nursing　Workforce　Retention：ChaHenging　A　Bullying　Culture．【Article］．

　Health　14ffairs，21（5），189．

Strandmark，　M．，＆Hanberg，　L．　R．－M．（2007）．　The　Origin　of　Workplace　Bullying　Experiences

　　from　the　Perspective　of　Bully　Victims　in　the　Public　Service　Sector．　Journal　ofNursing

　　ルlanage〃ient，　15，　332－341．

Va】面a　M，＆Leka　S．（2011）．　Interventions　for　the　Prevention　alld　Management　of　Bullying　at

　　Work．　In　S．　Einarsen，　H．　Hoel，　D．　Zapf＆C．　Cooper（Eds．），　Bu且ying　and　Harassment　in　the

　　Workplace：Developments　in　Theory，　Research，　and　Practice（2nd　ed，，　ppi　359－379）．　Boca

　　Raton，　FL：CRC　Press．

Vessey，　J．　A．，　Demarco，　R．　F．，　Ga丘hey，　D．　A．，＆Budin，　W．　C．（2009）．　Bullying　of　sta丘registered

　nurses血the　workplace：Aprelim血ary　study　for　developing　personal　and　organizationaI

strategies　for　the　transformation　of　hostile　to　healthy　workplace　environments．　Journal　of

　・Profe∬ional　Nursing」25（5），299－306．　doi：10．1016／j．pro丘1urs．2009，01．022

Yamada，　D．　C．（2008）．　Workplace　Bullying　and　Ethical　Leadership　Legal　Studies　Research

　Paper　Series（Vol．　Research　Paper　O8－37）．　Boston，　Massachusetts：Suffolk　University　Law

　School．