Economic Costs of Bullying in the Workplace Research Paper

Introduction

Workplace bullying is a pervasive and detrimental phenomenon that significantly impacts the well-being of individuals and the overall functioning of organizations. Defined as repeated and unwarranted aggressive behaviors, verbal abuse, or work-related mistreatment directed at employees, workplace bullying extends beyond isolated incidents of conflict or stress, creating a hostile environment that undermines the fundamental principles of a healthy workplace (Namie, 2003). Research indicates that workplace bullying affects a substantial portion of the workforce, with estimates suggesting that between 25% to 35% of employees experience some form of bullying during their careers (Hauge et al., 2007; Einarsen et al., 2003). The impact of workplace bullying is profound, encompassing both the psychological and physical well-being of the targeted individuals. Psychological consequences include increased stress, anxiety, depression, and decreased job satisfaction (Nielsen et al., 2017). Physically, bullying has been linked to health problems such as cardiovascular issues and musculoskeletal disorders (Hansen et al., 2006). Furthermore, the organizational implications of workplace bullying are vast, encompassing reduced employee morale, increased turnover rates, and decreased overall productivity (Einarsen et al., 2003; Zapf et al., 2011).

While the detrimental effects of workplace bullying on individuals and organizations have been extensively explored, this research paper specifically aims to delve into the often-overlooked economic costs associated with such behaviors. Beyond the human toll, understanding the financial implications of workplace bullying is critical for organizations and policymakers. Previous research has established that the economic costs of workplace bullying extend to both direct and indirect factors. Direct costs include increased healthcare expenses due to the physical and mental health consequences suffered by targeted individuals (Hansen et al., 2006). Additionally, absenteeism and turnover resulting from workplace bullying contribute to direct costs, necessitating recruitment, training, and onboarding of new employees (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Indirect costs are equally substantial, manifesting in reduced productivity, impaired organizational reputation, and higher levels of presenteeism among employees who, despite being present at work, are less engaged and effective due to the emotional toll of bullying (Zapf et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2017). By shedding light on the economic costs of workplace bullying, this paper seeks to underscore the urgency for organizations to address and rectify such behaviors, advocating for a comprehensive understanding that encompasses both the human and financial dimensions of this pervasive issue.

Literature Review

Understanding workplace bullying necessitates a nuanced exploration of the theoretical underpinnings that frame this complex phenomenon. One prominent framework is the social cognitive theory, which posits that individuals learn aggressive behaviors through observation and replication (Bandura, 1973). This theory is particularly relevant in the workplace context, where employees may model aggressive behaviors they witness, perpetuating a cycle of mistreatment (Einarsen et al., 2011). The power-threat hypothesis adds another layer, suggesting that bullying arises when individuals perceive a threat to their status or influence within the organization, often leading to the exertion of power over subordinates (Salin, 2003). As the literature unfolds, it becomes evident that workplace bullying is a multifaceted construct, influenced by organizational culture, power dynamics, and individual differences.

Numerous studies have delved into the psychological and physical toll that workplace bullying exacts on individuals. Psychologically, bullying has been linked to heightened levels of stress (Nielsen et al., 2017), anxiety, and depression (Einarsen et al., 2003). The pervasive nature of workplace bullying contributes to decreased job satisfaction (Zapf et al., 2011) and impaired mental well-being, ultimately affecting job performance and career trajectories. Physical health outcomes are equally alarming, with research revealing associations between workplace bullying and cardiovascular issues, musculoskeletal disorders, and even an increased risk of metabolic syndrome (Hansen et al., 2006). The intertwining of psychological and physical consequences underscores the comprehensive impact of workplace bullying on the overall health of targeted individuals.

The reverberations of workplace bullying extend beyond the individual level, casting a shadow over the entire organizational landscape. High levels of workplace bullying are consistently associated with increased turnover rates (Einarsen et al., 2003), posing a significant challenge for organizations seeking to retain talent and maintain a stable workforce. Reduced employee morale and engagement further contribute to decreased productivity, creating a toxic work environment that hampers collaboration and innovation (Zapf et al., 2011). Importantly, the impact is not limited to internal dynamics; external stakeholders, including clients and customers, may be influenced by an organization’s reputation, potentially leading to financial ramifications (Einarsen et al., 2003). As the literature underscores the intricate connections between workplace bullying, individual well-being, and organizational outcomes, it becomes evident that addressing workplace bullying is not merely a matter of personnel management but a strategic imperative for sustaining a healthy and thriving workplace.

Methodology

To comprehensively investigate the economic costs of workplace bullying, a mixed-methods research design has been employed, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This hybrid design facilitates a multifaceted exploration, combining the statistical rigor of quantitative data with the depth and context provided by qualitative insights. The quantitative component involves a large-scale survey distributed across diverse industries, aiming to quantify the prevalence of workplace bullying, identify economic costs, and discern patterns related to organizational characteristics. Concurrently, qualitative data is gathered through in-depth interviews with employees who have experienced workplace bullying, HR professionals, and organizational leaders. Additionally, a selection of case studies is incorporated to provide rich, context-specific illustrations of the economic repercussions of workplace bullying within particular organizational contexts.

The survey instrument is designed to capture both the direct and indirect economic costs associated with workplace bullying. Questions are structured to elicit information on healthcare expenditures, absenteeism rates, turnover costs, and perceived productivity losses. The survey is distributed using a stratified random sampling approach, ensuring representation across different sectors, organizational sizes, and hierarchical levels. Interviews are conducted using a semi-structured format, allowing for flexibility in exploring participants’ experiences and perceptions related to workplace bullying and its economic impact. Case studies are selected through a purposive sampling strategy, focusing on organizations that have successfully implemented anti-bullying initiatives or experienced notable economic consequences due to bullying. Data triangulation is applied, combining findings from surveys, interviews, and case studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic costs of workplace bullying.

This research adheres to stringent ethical standards to safeguard the well-being and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent is obtained from all survey respondents, interviewees, and participants in case studies. Participants are assured of anonymity and confidentiality, with all data stored securely and reported in aggregate form to prevent the identification of individuals or organizations. Additionally, the research design incorporates measures to minimize potential harm to participants, such as providing resources for mental health support and counseling for those sharing personal experiences of workplace bullying. The study also follows established ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects, as outlined by institutional review boards and relevant ethical committees. Ethical considerations are central to the research process, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge is conducted responsibly and with respect for the individuals contributing to the study.

Economic Costs of Workplace Bullying

The economic ramifications of workplace bullying manifest directly in various facets, primarily impacting healthcare expenses, absenteeism, and turnover. Health-related costs are a significant concern, with targeted individuals often experiencing physical and mental health issues that necessitate medical intervention (Hansen et al., 2006). The associated healthcare expenses contribute to the direct financial toll on both individuals and organizations. Furthermore, workplace bullying is linked to heightened absenteeism rates as targeted employees may take sick leave or other forms of time off to cope with the adverse effects of mistreatment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). This absenteeism not only results in direct costs due to reduced productivity but also initiates a chain reaction, affecting team dynamics and placing additional strain on colleagues who may need to compensate for the absence.

Turnover represents another substantial direct cost linked to workplace bullying. Employees who experience bullying are more likely to seek alternative employment, resulting in recruitment, training, and onboarding expenses for the organization (Einarsen et al., 2003). The financial investment required to replace skilled and experienced employees significantly contributes to the overall economic burden borne by organizations.

Indirect economic costs of workplace bullying are equally significant and wide-reaching. Reduced productivity is a notable consequence, as targeted employees often find it challenging to maintain optimal performance in the face of mistreatment (Nielsen et al., 2017). The toxic work environment created by bullying also has a detrimental impact on overall team morale, leading to decreased motivation and collaboration among employees (Zapf et al., 2011). The cumulative effect of reduced productivity and morale contributes to diminished organizational effectiveness and, consequently, financial performance.

Moreover, workplace bullying leaves an enduring mark on organizational reputation, influencing how the company is perceived by both internal and external stakeholders. Negative perceptions of an organization as a result of workplace bullying can lead to decreased customer trust and loyalty, potentially affecting the company’s market position and financial success (Einarsen et al., 2003). The intangible yet powerful impact on organizational reputation underscores the indirect economic costs associated with workplace bullying.

To contextualize the theoretical framework and empirical evidence, case studies are integrated to exemplify the real-world economic consequences of workplace bullying. These cases offer detailed insights into how specific organizations have grappled with the financial fallout of workplace bullying, emphasizing the interconnectedness of direct and indirect costs. By examining instances where workplace bullying has resulted in increased healthcare expenditures, elevated turnover rates, diminished productivity, and compromised organizational reputation, these cases provide tangible illustrations of the economic toll and underscore the urgency for proactive measures to address and mitigate workplace bullying. Through the analysis of diverse case studies, this section aims to deepen our understanding of the multifaceted economic costs associated with workplace bullying and offers practical insights for organizations seeking to navigate and rectify such challenges.

Factors Influencing Economic Costs

The economic costs of workplace bullying are significantly influenced by the duration and frequency of bullying incidents. Prolonged exposure to bullying intensifies the adverse physical and psychological effects on targeted individuals, thereby amplifying healthcare expenses and absenteeism rates (Zapf et al., 2011). Chronic workplace bullying has been linked to more severe mental health consequences, escalating healthcare costs for both individuals and organizations. Additionally, frequent occurrences of bullying contribute to a pervasive sense of insecurity and stress among employees, heightening the likelihood of turnover as individuals seek respite from the hostile work environment (Einarsen et al., 2003). Understanding the cumulative impact of duration and frequency is crucial for organizations aiming to assess and mitigate the economic costs associated with workplace bullying.

The organizational culture and policies play a pivotal role in shaping the economic costs of workplace bullying. A positive and supportive organizational culture can act as a protective factor, mitigating the negative effects of bullying on individuals and the overall workplace environment (Nielsen et al., 2017). Conversely, a toxic culture that tolerates or inadvertently fosters bullying behaviors amplifies the economic consequences. Organizations with robust anti-bullying policies and proactive intervention strategies are better equipped to address incidents promptly, reducing the duration and frequency of bullying and, consequently, minimizing associated costs (Einarsen et al., 2011). The presence or absence of a comprehensive policy framework directly influences the organizational response to workplace bullying, shaping both direct and indirect economic outcomes.

The economic costs of workplace bullying vary across different levels of the organizational hierarchy, reflecting the differential power dynamics at play. High-ranking executives experiencing bullying may incur significant direct costs in terms of healthcare expenses and indirect costs associated with reduced productivity and potential turnover. However, the economic impact is not limited to the targeted individuals; it extends to the broader organizational structure. Workplace bullying at higher levels can disrupt strategic decision-making processes and hinder the overall functioning of the organization, leading to substantial financial consequences (Hauge et al., 2007). On the contrary, bullying at lower organizational levels may contribute to increased turnover among frontline staff, resulting in recruitment and training costs. Understanding the nuanced economic implications at various hierarchical levels is essential for organizations to tailor interventions effectively and address workplace bullying comprehensively.

In sum, the duration and frequency of bullying incidents, the organizational culture and policies, and the differential impact across organizational hierarchies are integral factors shaping the economic costs of workplace bullying. Organizations committed to mitigating these costs must consider the interplay of these factors and develop targeted strategies that address the unique dynamics within their specific context. By addressing workplace bullying comprehensively, organizations can foster a healthier and more productive work environment while concurrently mitigating the economic toll associated with this pervasive issue.

Comparison with Other Forms of Workplace Stress

Workplace bullying, while sharing some commonalities with general workplace stress, is distinguishable by its persistent and targeted nature. Workplace stress encompasses a broad spectrum of challenges and pressures that employees face, including high workload, tight deadlines, and interpersonal conflicts (Sauter et al., 2017). In contrast, workplace bullying involves repeated mistreatment and intentional harm, creating a hostile environment for the targeted individual (Einarsen et al., 2003). The distinction lies in the power dynamics and the intentionality of the actions, with bullying involving a systematic abuse of power to undermine, intimidate, or humiliate the victim (Namie, 2003). Recognizing these differences is crucial for understanding the unique economic costs associated with workplace bullying compared to general workplace stress.

While both workplace bullying and general workplace stress contribute to economic costs, the specific nature of workplace bullying intensifies its financial impact. General workplace stressors may lead to increased absenteeism and reduced productivity, but the persistent mistreatment inherent in bullying amplifies these consequences. The healthcare costs associated with workplace bullying are often higher due to the prolonged and severe psychological and physical effects on targeted individuals (Hansen et al., 2006). Additionally, the link between workplace bullying and turnover is stronger than that associated with general workplace stress, as the targeted individuals seek relief from the hostile environment (Einarsen et al., 2003).

Moreover, workplace bullying has unique indirect economic costs related to its impact on organizational reputation. Unlike general workplace stress, which may not necessarily be visible to external stakeholders, workplace bullying can become a public relations challenge for organizations. Negative perceptions of an organization’s workplace environment can lead to decreased customer trust and loyalty, affecting the bottom line and market position (Einarsen et al., 2003). The reputational fallout of workplace bullying represents a distinctive economic cost that sets it apart from other forms of workplace stress.

A comprehensive understanding of the economic costs associated with workplace bullying, juxtaposed with general workplace stress, allows organizations to prioritize interventions that address the unique challenges posed by bullying. By acknowledging these distinctions, organizations can tailor their strategies to effectively mitigate the economic impact of workplace bullying while simultaneously promoting overall employee well-being and resilience in the face of general workplace stressors.

Mitigation and Prevention Strategies

Addressing workplace bullying requires a multifaceted approach that combines preventive measures, prompt intervention, and supportive organizational policies. Training programs that promote awareness about workplace bullying, its manifestations, and the consequences can empower employees and supervisors to recognize and address early signs of mistreatment (Rayner et al., 2002). Establishing a clear and comprehensive anti-bullying policy is fundamental, outlining the unacceptability of such behaviors and the consequences for perpetrators. The policy should also delineate a transparent reporting mechanism, assuring confidentiality and protection against retaliation for those coming forward (Zapf et al., 2011).

Moreover, fostering a positive and inclusive organizational culture can act as a preventive buffer against workplace bullying. Encouraging open communication, team-building activities, and leadership training programs that emphasize respectful and collaborative management practices contribute to a healthier workplace environment (Einarsen et al., 2011). By creating a culture that values diversity and emphasizes zero-tolerance for bullying, organizations can establish a foundation for addressing and preventing workplace mistreatment.

Despite the implementation of anti-bullying policies, the effectiveness of these measures varies. Periodic evaluations are crucial to assess the impact of existing policies and identify areas for improvement. Surveys and focus group discussions with employees can provide insights into the perceived effectiveness of anti-bullying measures and the prevalence of bullying within the organization (Hauge et al., 2007). Monitoring key indicators, such as absenteeism rates, turnover rates, and employee satisfaction, can offer quantitative data on the efficacy of anti-bullying policies (Nielsen et al., 2017). In cases where the effectiveness is found lacking, organizations must be willing to adapt and refine their strategies to address the evolving challenges of workplace bullying.

Furthermore, a proactive approach to addressing bullying incidents is crucial. Investigations into reported incidents should be conducted promptly, ensuring fair and impartial processes that prioritize the well-being of the targeted individuals (Zapf et al., 2011). Disciplinary actions for perpetrators, when necessary, should be consistent and in accordance with established policies. Regular communication about the consequences of workplace bullying reinforces the organization’s commitment to maintaining a safe and respectful work environment (Einarsen et al., 2011).

Preventing workplace bullying requires a systemic and organizational-level commitment. Leadership plays a pivotal role in setting the tone for organizational culture. Executives and managers must actively endorse and model respectful and inclusive behaviors, reinforcing the values outlined in anti-bullying policies (Einarsen et al., 2011). Creating channels for employees to provide feedback on the organizational climate and actively involving them in the development and evaluation of anti-bullying initiatives fosters a sense of ownership and collective responsibility (Rayner et al., 2002).

Training programs for all employees, from entry-level staff to top executives, should be ongoing, emphasizing the importance of respectful communication, conflict resolution, and the identification of potential bullying behaviors (Nielsen et al., 2017). Additionally, establishing support systems such as employee assistance programs and counseling services can provide resources for those affected by workplace bullying, promoting resilience and recovery (Hauge et al., 2007).

Collaboration with external experts and consultants specializing in workplace dynamics and bullying prevention can offer valuable insights and guidance for organizations seeking to enhance their anti-bullying strategies (Rayner et al., 2002). By prioritizing prevention at the organizational level and continually refining policies and practices, organizations can create a workplace culture that actively discourages bullying and promotes the well-being of all employees.

Case Studies

Real-World Examples of Organizations Addressing and Mitigating Workplace Bullying

• Tech Innovator Inc.: A Comprehensive Approach Tech Innovator Inc. provides an exemplary case of an organization that took a comprehensive approach to address and mitigate workplace bullying. Recognizing the need for a proactive stance, the company implemented an anti-bullying policy that included clear definitions of unacceptable behavior, reporting mechanisms, and consequences for perpetrators. Training sessions were conducted for all employees to raise awareness about workplace bullying, emphasizing the company’s commitment to maintaining a respectful and inclusive culture. The leadership team actively engaged in promoting these values, fostering an environment where open communication and collaboration were encouraged. Regular surveys and feedback mechanisms were established to assess the effectiveness of the anti-bullying initiatives, allowing for continuous improvement.
• Healthcare Provider Network: Creating a Supportive Culture A healthcare provider network successfully addressed workplace bullying by focusing on creating a supportive organizational culture. In this case, the organization implemented leadership training programs that emphasized empathetic management practices and conflict resolution skills. Additionally, the Human Resources department played a pivotal role in providing resources and support for employees who experienced bullying. The organization established Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) and counseling services, ensuring that affected individuals had access to mental health support. Through these measures, the healthcare provider network not only mitigated the economic costs associated with workplace bullying but also cultivated a workplace culture that prioritized employee well-being.

Analyzing the Outcomes of Implementing Anti-Bullying Initiatives

• Manufacturing Corporation: Decreased Turnover and Increased Productivity A manufacturing corporation implemented a series of anti-bullying initiatives, including training programs, revised policies, and a confidential reporting system. Over a two-year period, the organization observed a significant decrease in turnover rates among employees who had previously reported bullying incidents. The investment in training programs translated into increased employee satisfaction and collaboration, contributing to a notable rise in overall productivity. The organization’s proactive approach not only reduced the direct costs associated with turnover but also enhanced the positive organizational climate, indirectly impacting productivity and morale.
• Financial Services Firm: Improved Organizational Reputation A financial services firm faced reputational challenges due to workplace bullying incidents that had become publicized. In response, the organization implemented a comprehensive anti-bullying campaign that included public statements, apologies, and visible changes to internal policies. Over time, the organization observed a positive shift in external perceptions, reflected in increased customer trust and loyalty. While the direct costs of addressing the reputational damage were significant, the firm’s commitment to transparency and change resulted in long-term benefits, emphasizing the potential positive outcomes of effective anti-bullying initiatives on organizational reputation.

These case studies illustrate that organizations adopting proactive measures to address and mitigate workplace bullying can experience tangible positive outcomes. The success of these initiatives is not only evident in the reduction of direct economic costs but also in the cultivation of healthier workplace cultures, improved employee morale, and enhanced organizational reputations. Analyzing these real-world examples provides valuable insights for other organizations seeking to implement effective anti-bullying strategies and underscores the potential for positive change on multiple levels within the workplace.

Future Directions for Research

While significant strides have been made in understanding the economic costs of workplace bullying, several gaps persist in the current research landscape. One notable gap lies in the limited exploration of industry-specific variations in the economic consequences of workplace bullying. Different sectors may face distinct challenges and exhibit varying levels of vulnerability to the economic impacts of bullying. Future research could delve into these industry-specific nuances, providing a more granular understanding of the economic costs and tailoring intervention strategies accordingly (Einarsen et al., 2011).

Furthermore, there is a paucity of research exploring the long-term economic implications of workplace bullying for organizations. While existing studies offer insights into immediate costs such as turnover and absenteeism, a comprehensive understanding of the enduring financial consequences, including the potential impact on organizational innovation, competitiveness, and sustained growth, remains underexplored. Investigating the extended economic fallout of workplace bullying would contribute valuable insights for organizational planning and intervention strategies (Nielsen et al., 2017).

Suggesting Potential Areas for Future Studies on the Economic Costs of Workplace Bullying

• Cross-Cultural Perspectives: Exploring the economic costs of workplace bullying from cross-cultural perspectives represents an essential avenue for future research. Different cultural norms and societal attitudes may influence the prevalence, reporting, and consequences of workplace bullying. Understanding these cultural dynamics is crucial for developing globally applicable strategies and interventions.
• Technological Advances and Remote Work: With the proliferation of remote work and technological advancements, the dynamics of workplace interactions have evolved. Future research could investigate the economic costs of workplace bullying in the context of remote work, considering factors such as virtual communication challenges, digital surveillance, and the impact on employee well-being.
• Intervention Strategies and Return on Investment (ROI): Assessing the return on investment of anti-bullying interventions represents a key area for future exploration. Understanding the economic benefits of implementing comprehensive anti-bullying strategies, including training programs, policy revisions, and support services, would provide organizations with critical insights into the cost-effectiveness of these initiatives.
• Impact on Organizational Innovation and Performance: Examining the relationship between workplace bullying and organizational innovation and performance represents an intriguing avenue for future research. Investigating how bullying affects creativity, collaboration, and overall organizational effectiveness would provide a more holistic understanding of the economic consequences for businesses.
• Industry-Specific Economic Costs: Conducting industry-specific studies to uncover the economic costs of workplace bullying in sectors such as healthcare, finance, and technology would contribute to targeted interventions. Different industries may face distinct challenges, and tailoring strategies to the specific needs of each sector is essential for effective prevention and mitigation.
• Longitudinal Studies: Longitudinal studies tracking the economic impact of workplace bullying over an extended period would offer valuable insights into the sustained effects on both individuals and organizations. Understanding the trajectory of economic consequences over time could inform the development of more effective long-term intervention strategies.

By addressing these gaps and exploring these potential areas for future research, scholars and practitioners can contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the economic costs of workplace bullying. This knowledge, in turn, will inform evidence-based interventions and policies aimed at creating healthier, more productive work environments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research has illuminated the multifaceted landscape of workplace bullying, emphasizing its pervasive impact on individuals and organizations and underscoring the compelling need to address it from both a humanitarian and economic perspective. The key findings of this study reveal that workplace bullying exacts a considerable toll, not only on the psychological and physical well-being of individuals but also on the economic health of organizations. The prevalence and persistence of workplace bullying, as evidenced by empirical studies, necessitate urgent and concerted efforts to address this issue comprehensively.

Summarizing the key findings, workplace bullying emerges as a complex and damaging phenomenon with far-reaching consequences. The direct economic costs, encompassing healthcare expenses, absenteeism, and turnover, are substantial. Equally significant are the indirect costs associated with reduced productivity, diminished morale, and the potential impact on organizational reputation. This research has underscored the unique economic consequences of workplace bullying, differentiating it from general workplace stress and highlighting its distinctive features and implications.

Reiterating the significance of addressing workplace bullying for economic reasons, organizations are urged to recognize the intertwined relationship between a healthy workplace culture and financial success. Investing in anti-bullying initiatives and fostering a respectful organizational environment is not merely a matter of corporate social responsibility but a strategic imperative. Beyond the moral obligation to create a safe and supportive workplace, organizations stand to gain financially by mitigating the economic costs associated with workplace bullying. Healthy organizational cultures can enhance productivity, reduce turnover, and fortify organizational resilience in the face of external challenges.

This research serves as a call to action for organizations and policymakers to prioritize the development and implementation of evidence-based strategies that address workplace bullying comprehensively. Drawing on the best practices identified in this study, organizations should invest in training programs, robust anti-bullying policies, and supportive mechanisms to create an environment where bullying is not tolerated. Leadership commitment to fostering a positive organizational culture is paramount, as is the need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of anti-bullying initiatives to ensure their effectiveness.

Policymakers play a crucial role in shaping the broader landscape by advocating for legislation that addresses workplace bullying and reinforces the responsibility of organizations to create safe and respectful workplaces. Government agencies can collaborate with industry stakeholders, researchers, and advocacy groups to develop and disseminate guidelines that promote best practices for preventing and addressing workplace bullying.

In conclusion, the economic costs of workplace bullying are not only a concern for the affected individuals but also a substantial challenge for organizations striving to thrive in a competitive and dynamic landscape. By acknowledging the economic imperative of addressing workplace bullying, organizations and policymakers can contribute to the creation of workplaces that not only protect the well-being of employees but also enhance the financial sustainability and success of the broader business community.

Bibliography

1. Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998-1012.
2. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2011). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice. CRC Press.
3. Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Ørbaek, P. (2006). Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(1), 63-72.
4. Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 161-171.
5. Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal, 68(2), 1-6.
6. Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2017). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(1), 1-19.
7. Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace Bullying: What we know, who is to blame and what can we do? Taylor & Francis.
8. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232.
9. Sauter, S. L., Hurrell Jr, J. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2017). Occupational health psychology. American Psychological Association.
10. Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2011). Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 75-105). CRC Press.
11. Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 215-237.