No abstract

The connection between leadership or management style, on the one hand, and perceptions of bullying, on the other, has received little attention within bullying research. Hence, the aim of this study is to examine the relationship between subordinates' ratings of their immediate superiors' behaviours, and both perceived exposure and claims of observations of bullying at work. Based on a sampling process which emphasized randomness and representativeness, the responses from 5288 respondents in Great Britain taking part in a nationwide study on psychosocial issues at work were included in the analysis. Bullying correlated with all four leadership styles measured. Yet, ‘non‐contingent punishment’ emerged as the strongest predictor of self‐perceived exposure to bullying, while autocratic leadership was the strongest predictor of observed bullying. Hence, while observers particularly associate bullying with autocratic or tyrannical leader behaviour, targets relate bullying more to non‐contingent punishment, i.e. an unpredictable style of leadership, where punishment is meted out or delivered on leaders' own terms, independent of the behaviour of subordinates. In addition, laissez‐faire leadership emerged as a predictor of self‐reported as well as observed bullying. Thus, leadership styles seem to play an important but complex role in the bullying process.

Glasø, L., Matthiesen, S. B., Nielsen, M. B. & Einarsen, S. (2007). Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 48 , 313-319. The aim of this study is to examine differences in personality between a group of bullied victims and a non-bullied group. The 144 participants, comprising of 72 victims and a matched contrast group of 72 respondents, completed Goldberg's (1999) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Significant differences emerged between victims and non-victims on four out of five personality dimensions. Victims tended to be more neurotic and less agreeable, conscientious and extravert than non-victims. However, a cluster analysis revealed that the victim sample can be divided into two personality groups. One cluster, which comprised 64% of the victim sample, do not differ from non-victims as far as personality is concerned. Hence, the results indicate that there is no such thing as a general victim personality profile. However, a small cluster of victims tended to be less extrovert, less agreeable, less conscientious, and less open to experience but more emotional unstable than victims in the major cluster and the control group. Further, both clusters of victims scored higher than non-victims on emotional instability, indicating that personality should not be neglected as being a factor in understanding the bullying phenomenon.

No abstract

No abstract