Economic activities and occupations at high risk for workplace bullying: results from a large-scale cross-sectional survey in the general working population in France

  • Isabelle Niedhammer
  • Simone David
  • Stéphanie Degioanni
  • 143 Occupational Physicians
Short Communication

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the prevalence of workplace bullying in the general working population in France, and explore this prevalence across economic activities and occupations.

Methods

The studied population consisted of a sample of 3,132 men and 4,562 women of the general working population in the southeast of France. A self-administered anonymous questionnaire included the 45-item inventory of workplace bullying elaborated by Leymann, frequency and duration of bullying, and self-report of being exposed to bullying. Cases of bullying were defined using both Leymann’s definition (exposure to at least one form of bullying within the previous 12 months, weekly or more, and for at least 6 months) and self-report of bullying.

Results

The 12 month prevalence of workplace bullying was 9% for men and 11% for women. The point prevalence was 7.5% on the day of the survey for men and women, and varied from 3 to 18% according to economic activities and occupations among men. High-risk groups for bullying included activities of services for men, and various categories of associate professionals, and of low levels of white and blue collar workers for men, and government associate professionals for women.

Conclusions

This first study on workplace bullying in France showed that around 10% of the population studied, and more women than men, had been exposed to bullying within the last 12 months. This study also found that some economic activities and occupations would be at elevated risk for bullying, pointing out the need to better understand and prevent bullying in these high-risk groups.

Keywords

Workplace bullying France Prevalence Economic activities Occupations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Drs JL Battu, C Beyssier, N Blanchet, C Breton, M Buono-Michel, JF Canonne, G Dalivoust, A Faivre, F Fournier, G Gazazian, G Gibelin-Dol, E Griffaton, T Ibagnes, B Jaubert, J Leroy, M Lozé, G Magallon, P Presseq, G Roux, and C Vitrac, as well as Drs J Chiaroni, C Kaltwasser, and M Signouret, for helping to build the network of voluntary occupational physicians, and last but not least S Mocaer and P Sotty for the support and interest they showed in this research program. A pre-test of this survey was performed in 2003 thanks to the contribution of Drs AM Boustière, C Breton, C Cervoni, A Faivre, C Gravier, E Halimi, M Isnard, MC Jacquin, M Lafon-Borelli, J Laudicina, D Londi, M Lozé, G Magallon, V Marcelot, M Méric, C Milliet, F Occhipinti, P Occhipinti, H Raulot-Lapointe, and MO Vincensini. The authors also thank T Theorell for helping to provide the German version of the LIPT questionnaire, to I Revue and R Revue for helping to translate and back-translate this questionnaire, and to M Auxenfants-Prigent for her linguistic help. Finally, the authors thank all the employees who participated to the survey and made this study possible. This study was supported by the DRTEFP PACA of the French Minister of Labour.

References

  1. Appelberg K, Romanov K, Honkasalo ML, Koskenvuo M (1991) Interpersonal conflicts at work and psychosocial characteristics of employees. Soc Sci Med 32:1051–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron R-A, Neuman J-H (1996) Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggress Behav 22:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Hjelt-Back M (1994) Aggression among university employees. Aggress Behav 20:173–184Google Scholar
  4. Cole LL, Grubb PL, Sauter SL, Swanson NG, Lawless P (1997) Psychosocial correlates of harassment, threats and fear of violence in the workplace. Scand J Work Environ Health 23:450–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowie H, Naylor P, Rivers I, Smith P-K, Pereira B (2002) Measuring workplace bullying. Aggress Violent Beh 7:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cusack S (2000) Workplace bullying: icebergs in sight, soundings needed. Lancet 356:2118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Einarsen S (2000) Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress Violent Beh 5:379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Einarsen S, Skogstad A (1996) Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 5:185–201Google Scholar
  9. Einarsen S, Raknes BI, Matthiesen SB (1994) Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory study. Eur Work Organ Psychol 4:381–401Google Scholar
  10. Hoel H, Cooper CL, Faragher B (2001) The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10:443–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubert AB, van Veldhoven M (2001) Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10:415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kivimaki M, Vahtera J, Pentti J, Ferrie JE (2000) Factors underlying the effect of organisational downsizing on health of employees: longitudinal cohort study. Br Med J 320:971–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kivimaki M, Virtanen M, Vartia M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Keltikangas-Jarvinen L (2003) Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occup Environ Med 60:779–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leymann, H. Handanleitung für den LIPT-Fragebogen (Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror). Materialie Nr. 33. 1996a. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie e.V., TübingenGoogle Scholar
  15. Leymann H (1996b) The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2:165–184Google Scholar
  16. Mikkelsen EG, Einarsen S (2001) Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health correlates. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10:393–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niedhammer I (2002) Psychometric properties of the French version of the Karasek Job Content Questionnaire: a study of the scales of decision latitude, psychological demands, social support, and physical demands in the GAZEL cohort. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 75:129–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Niedhammer I, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Piciotti M, Bonenfant S (2000) How is sex considered in recent epidemiological publications on occupational risks? Occup Environ Med 57:521–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Niedhammer I, David S, Degioanni S (2006a) Association between workplace bullying and depressive symptoms in the French working population. J Psychosom Res 61:251–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niedhammer I, David S, Degioanni S (2006b) La version française du questionnaire de Leymann sur la violence psychologique au travail : le “Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror” (LIPT) [The French version of the Leymann’s questionnaire on workplace bullying: the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT)]. Rev Epidemiol Santé Publique 54:245–262Google Scholar
  21. Salin D (2001) Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10:425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute (1988) SAS/STAT user’s guide, release 6.03 edition, SAS Institute Inc edn, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  23. Schrijvers CT, van de Mheen HD, Stronks K, Mackenbach JP (1998) Socioeconomic inequalities in health in the working population: the contribution of working conditions. Int J Epidemiol 27:1011–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vartia M (1996) The sources of bullying: psychological work environment and organizational climate. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 5:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vartia ML (2001) Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scand J Work Environ Health 27:63–69PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Niedhammer
    • 1
  • Simone David
    • 1
  • Stéphanie Degioanni
    • 1
  • 143 Occupational Physicians
  1. 1.INSERM, U687-IFR 69, Hôpital National de Saint MauriceSaint MauriceFrance

Personalised recommendations