Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: a representative population study

  • Adriana Ortega
  • Annie Høgh
  • Jan Hyld Pejtersen
  • Ole Olsen
Short Communication

Abstract

Objectives

To estimate the prevalence of bullying and to identify risk groups in a representative population sample.

Methods

The data for this study was taken from the second Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Study (DPWES). The sample consisted of 3,429 employees between 20 and 59-years. The response rate for the study was 60.4%.

Results

The study showed that 8.3% of the respondents had been bullied within the past year, 1.6% of the sample reported daily to weekly bullying. Co-workers (71.5%) and managers/supervisors (32.4%) were most often reported as perpetrators of bullying, but bullying from subordinates (6%) was also reported. We found significant differences in the prevalence of bullying for both occupational status and work process, a variable characterizing the employees main task in their job. Unskilled workers reported the highest prevalence of bullying, while managers/supervisors the lowest prevalence. People working with things (male-dominated occupations) and people working with clients/patients (female-dominated occupations) reported higher prevalence of bullying than people working with symbols or customers. No significant gender or age differences were found.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that types of work and gender ratio are risk factors in the onset of workplace bullying. Future studies should take into account the type of work and the gender ratio of the organization.

Keywords

Workplace bullying Population study Gender ratio Work characteristics Occupations 

References

  1. Agervold M, Mikkelsen EG (2004) Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work Stress 8:336–351. doi:10.1080/02678370412331319794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björkqvist K, Österman K, Hjelt-Bäck M (1994) Aggression among university employees. Aggress Behav 20:173–184. doi :10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:3 ≤ 173::AID-AB2480200304 ≥ 3.0.CO;2-DCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowie H, Jennifer D, Neto C, Angulo JC, Pereira B, Del Barrio C, et al. Sheehan, M.; Ramsey, S.; Patrick, J. (2000) Comparing the nature of workplace bullying in two European countries: Portugal and UK. Transcending boundaries: integrating people, processes and systems, Brisbane, 6-9-2000Google Scholar
  4. Dansk fagkode (The Danish job classification) (1986) The Directorate of Labour, Copenhagen. på NFAGoogle Scholar
  5. Dansk Branchekode (2003) DB03 Danish Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities 2003 (in danish). Danmarks Statistik (Statistics Denmark), Copenhagen 2002. på NFAGoogle Scholar
  6. Einarsen S (1996) Bullying and harassment at work: epidemiological and psychosocial aspects. University of Bergen, Afhandlingen haves.Google Scholar
  7. Einarsen S (2000) Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress Violent Behav 5:379–401. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Einarsen S, Raknes BI (1997) Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict 12:247–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Einarsen S, Skogstad A (1996) Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. Eur Work Organ Psychol 5:185–201. doi:10.1080/13594329608414854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Einarsen S, Zapf D (2003) Individual antecedents of bullying: victims and perpetrators. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. international perspectives in research and practice.. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 165–184Google Scholar
  11. Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (2003) The concept of bullying at work: the European tradition. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. international perspectives in research and practice. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 3–30.Google Scholar
  12. Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A (2007) A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:27. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-27 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoel H, Cooper CL (2000) Destructive conflict and bullying at work. University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoel H, Cooper CL, Faragher B (2001) The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. Eur Work Organ Psychol 10:443–465. doi:10.1080/13594320143000780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoel H, Einarsen S, Keashley L, Zapf D, Cooper CL (2003) Bullying at work. The way forward. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in research and practice. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 412–416Google Scholar
  16. Hofstede G (1980) Cultures consequences: international differences in work related values. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede G (1991) Cultures and organzations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogh A, Dofradottir A (2001) Coping with bullying in the workplace. Eur Work Organ Psycho 10:485–495. doi:10.1080/13594320143000825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hubert AB, van Veldhoven M (2001) Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing. Eur Work Organ Psychol 10:415–424. doi:10.1080/13594320143000799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leymann H (1992) Vuxenmobbning på svenska arbetsplatser. Stockholm: Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen; Report No.: 1. kopiGoogle Scholar
  21. Leymann H (1996) The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur Work Organ Psychol 5:165–184. doi:10.1080/13594329608414853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mikkelsen EG, Einarsen S (2001) Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health correlates. Eur Work Organ Psychol 10:393–413. doi:10.1080/13594320143000816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moayed FA, Daraiseh N, Shell R, Salem S (2006) Workplace bullying: a systematic review of risk factors and outcomes. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 7:311–327. doi:10.1080/14639220500090604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niedhammer I, David S, Degioanni S (2007) 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. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 80:346–353. doi:10.1007/s00420-006-0139-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niedl K (1996) Mobbing and well-being: economic and personnel development implications. Eur Work Organ Psychol 5:239–249. doi:10.1080/13594329608414857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quine L (1999) Workplace bullying in NHS trust: staff questionnaire survey. BMJ 318:228–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner C, Hoel H (1997) A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 7(3):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rayner C, Keashly L (2005) Bullying at work: a perspective from Britain and North America. In: Fox S, Spector PE Counterproductive work behavior. Investigations of actors and targets. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp 271–296Google Scholar
  29. Rayner C, Hoel H, Cooper CL (2002) Workplace bullying. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Salin D (2001) Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. Eur Work Organ Psychol 10:425–441. doi:10.1080/13594320143000771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Siemiatycki J, Campbell S, Richardson L, Aubert D (1984) Quality of response in different population groups in mail and telephone surveys. Am J Epidemiol 120:302–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Thorsted BL (2007) Forskerbeskyttelse i CPR. Det 29. symposium i anvendt statistikÅrhus Universitet: Danmarks Statistik van der Zouwen, J. and de Leeuw, E. D. (1991) The relationship between mode of administration and quality of data in survey research. Bull Methodol Sociol 31:49–60Google Scholar
  33. van der Zouwen J, de Leeuw ED (1991) The relationship between mode of administration and quality of data in survey research. Bull Methodol Sociol 31:49–60Google Scholar
  34. Vartia M (1996) The sources of bullying—psychological work environment and organizational climate. Eur Work Organ Psychol 5:203–214. doi:10.1080/13594329608414855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vartia M (2003) Workplace bullying—a study on the work environment, well-being and health. Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthGoogle Scholar
  36. Vartia M, Hyyti J (2002) Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers. Eur Work Organ Psychol 11(1):113–126. doi:10.1080/13594320143000870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zapf D, Einarsen S (2005) Mobbing at work: escalated conflicts in organizations. In: Fox S, Spector PE Counterproductive work behavior. investigations of actors and targets. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp 237–270Google Scholar
  38. Zapf D, Einarsen S, Hoel H, Vartia M (2003) Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL (eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace international perspectives in research and practice, 1st edn edn. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 103–126Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana Ortega
    • 1
  • Annie Høgh
    • 1
  • Jan Hyld Pejtersen
    • 1
  • Ole Olsen
    • 1
  1. 1.National Research Centre for the Working EnvironmentCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations