Prevalence of Workplace Bullying and Risk Groups in Chinese Employees in Hong Kong

Abstract

Most studies on workplace bullying have been conducted in high-income countries and on Caucasian samples. Little is known about workplace bullying in Asian countries despite its recognition as a serious public health issue in the workplace. We examined the annual and lifetime prevalence of workplace bullying and its risk factors among Chinese employees in Hong Kong. The study was part of a larger project consisting of two waves. Respondents were recruited from a convenience sampling technique and completed a self-reported survey. Respondents reported whether they had been bullied at work for the past 12 months and during their lifetime. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore the sociodemographic risk factors for workplace bullying. There were a total of 2657 respondents (54.6% male), with a mean age of 41.53 years. The annual and lifetime prevalence of workplace bullying were 39.1% and 58.9%, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that workplace bullying in the past 12 months was associated with a high monthly income, and the combination of a high monthly income and higher educational attainment was associated with bullying at some point in the participants’ career. Suitable policies and interventions to reduce the extent of workplace bullying in Hong Kong are warranted.

Prevalence and Role Stressors as Antecedents to Workplace Bullying in Multinational Corporations Human Resource Shared Service Centers in Malaysia

“…The findings support a wide range of prevalence percentages reports from previous studies affirming that workplace bullying is widespread worldwide (Leon-Perez et al, 2021;Ng & Chan, 2021;Reknes et al, 2019;Jacobson et al, 2014;Giorgi, 2012), reported 14% of the world workforce since a decade ago (Nielsen et al, 2010). In addition, a recent study among 2657 workers in Hong Kong revealed that the phenomenon's annual and lifetime prevalence rate was 39.1% and 58.9%, respectively (Ng & Chan, 2021). Another recent study among 47 Malaysian companies comprising 5,235 participants reported that 39.1% were victims of workplace bullying (Chan et al, 2019).…”

“…Therefore, most of the employees experience work-related bullying in the pursuit of contributing to the organizational goal while influencing the prevalence rate of the phenomenon in MNC HRSSC. The findings support a wide range of prevalence percentages reports from previous studies affirming that workplace bullying is widespread worldwide (Leon-Perez et al, 2021;Ng & Chan, 2021;Reknes et al, 2019;Jacobson et al, 2014;Giorgi, 2012), reported 14% of the world workforce since a decade ago (Nielsen et al, 2010). In addition, a recent study among 2657 workers in Hong Kong revealed that the phenomenon's annual and lifetime prevalence rate was 39.1% and 58.9%, respectively (Ng & Chan, 2021).…”

Toward a Unified Framework for Positive Psychology Interventions: Evidence-Based Processes of Change in Coaching, Prevention, and Training

“…Substantial numbers of people who are failing to flourish and may be classified as “languishing” (Keyes, 2006 ; Keyes and Westerhof, 2012 ; Nelson and Padilla-Walker, 2013 ). About 20–25 percent of people struggle with mental health problems (Baumeister and Härter, 2007 ), 25 percent of youth experience a traumatic event (Perkonigg et al, 2000 ), and 50 percent of people experience some form of workplace bullying (Chatziioannidis et al, 2018 ; Ng and Chan, 2021 ). Many people who are languishing fail to receive help (Ciarrochi et al, 2002 ; Cusack et al, 2006 ; Sheppard et al, 2018 ).…”

Association between workplace bullying and nurses' professional quality of life: The mediating role of resilience

“…Nurses are easily bullied owing to the nature of their tiring and highly intensive work (Karatuna et al, 2020). Epidemiological studies from different countries have shown that up to 39.1%–65.8% of nurses have suffered from workplace bullying (Ng & Chan, 2021; Serafin & Czarkowska‐Pączek, 2019). Workplace bullying has been related to a reduction in job satisfaction (Trépanier et al, 2015) and engagement (Rasool et al, 2021), as well as increased levels of sickness, absenteeism (Kivimäki et al, 2000) and turnover (Park & Choi, 2019).…”