Korkmaz M. ve Cemaloğlu, N, “Relationship Between Organizational Learning and Workplace Bullying in Learning Organizations“ Educational Research Quarterly, 33 (3), 3-38 (2010)

Relationship Between Organizational Learning and WorkplaceBullying in Learning Organizations*

Mehmet Korkmaz** NecatiCemaloglu***

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to define the relationship between features of alearning organization in formal educational institutions in Turkey, specificallyprimary schools, and workplace bullying of teachers in these institutions. The scopeand sampling group of the research are teachers in primary schools. Two differentscales are used in the research. The first one is the questionnaire that measures“Organizational Learning,” as developed by Silins, Mulford and Zarins (1999). Theother scale is the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) developed by Einarsen andRaknes (1997). The research detects that the lowest score among the organizationallearning sub-scales is for a “trusting and collaborative climate,” and the highestscore is for “taking initiatives and risks. There is a negative and significantrelationship between sub-scales of “trusting and collaborative climate” and teachersthat are exposed to workplace bullying related to “duty,” and that there is a negativeand significant relationship between total scores of organizational learning andbullying total scores.Keywords: workplace bullying, workplace mobbing teacher, school,organizational learning,

Introduction

Structural features alone are not enough for educational

organizations to achieve the requirements of laws and other

* This article was presented 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying, 4th – 6th June 2008, Montreal, Canada.** Gazi University, Faculty of Gazi Education, , Teknikokullar/Ankara/TurkeyE:mail: korkmaz@gazi.edu.tr*** Gazi University, Faculty of Gazi Education, Teknikokullar Ankara/Turkey E:mail: necem@gazi.edu.tr

regulations and the expectations of society. What is more

important than structural features is the quality of human

input within the system. Because the capacity of an

organization to adapt to changing environmental conditions and

to develop by gathering and using data depends on human

factors, the importance of human input cannot be

overemphasized. Therefore, all the pitfalls that prevent

workers from giving their energy to their jobs should be

detected and appropriate solutions sought. Negative situations

that decrease or even eliminate the capabilities of workers

include lack of motivation, physical deficiencies, discord in

the environment, inefficiency of managerial leadership, unsound

organization, low job satisfaction, inadequate communication,

and, most importantly, workplace bullying (Açıkalın, 1995;

Allen, Freeman, Reizenstein & Rentz, 1995; Balcı, 2001; .Davis,

2002; Celep, 2000; Hoy & Tartar, 1997).

Workplace bullying does not only affect the working

capability of the person exposed to bullying; it also reduces

the value of investments in organizational development.

Research conducted on 9000 state workers in the United States

revealed that 42% of the female workers and 15% of the male

2

workers were exposed to bullying, or “mobbing,” in a two year

period, costing 180 million dollars in terms of non-productive

time and productivity losses (Arpacıoğlu, 2003). The cost in

personnel turnover resulting from this kind of behavior is also

very high. According to Namie (1999), 82% of the workers

exposed to mobbing by bullying co-workers leave the

organization. Thirty-four percent of them leave because of

health issues resulting from mobbing and 44% leave the

organization because they are quickly judged as “incapable” by

the performance assessment system or managerial evaluation.

Resch and Schubinski (1996) found that the cost of workplace

bullying is much higher than the cost of the programs that are

developed to prevent workplace bullying. Research conducted on

this subject (Cemaloglu, 2007; Çobanoğlu, 2005; Kırel, 2007;

Tınaz, 2006; Zapf, 1999) emphasizes its importance by

presenting the financial cost of reduced effectiveness. The

research concludes that because of the harm to individuals and

the increases in costs to the organization, workplace bullying

should be managed and prevented.

Field researchers have already been interested in

workplace bullying and its negative impacts on the social

3

structure of organizations. Since bullying affects

organizational life negatively by affecting the performance of

workers (Brodsky, 1976; Cemaoğlu, 2007; Einarsen & Raknes,

1997; Einarsen, Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998), it is especially

problematic when it occurs in places where social relations are

dense, such as in educational institutions. One result of

current research about workplace bullying (Çalışkan, 2005;

Cemaloglu, 2007; Ertürk, 2005; Toker, 2006) is that young

workers are exposed to workplace bullying more than older

workers and that their performance is affected more negatively.

Thus in Turkey, where 3/5 of the labor force is composed of

people aged 40 or less, research into the causes and effects of

workplace bullying has taken on a certain momentum. In

organizations such as the Ministry of National Education where

the labor force comprises a young population, primarily aged

25-45, workplace bullying gains in importance. In the 2007-2008

school year in Turkey, 650,000 teachers provided educational

service to 17,000,000 students in 60,000 schools. Considering

the size and social impact of such institutions, it is clear

that research devoted to detecting workplace bullying in

educational organizations is important.

4

Research into levels of job satisfaction and the

effectiveness of teachers working in the Turkish educational

system shows that a great majority of teachers experience job

dissatisfaction and a resultant loss of effectiveness

(Avşaroğlu, Deniz & Kahraman, 2005; Aydın, 2004; Baysal, 1995;

Cemaloglu & Şahin, 2007; Çokluk, 1999; Dolunay, 2002; Dönmez &

Güneş, 2000; Gençay, 2007; Kırılmaz, Çelen & Sarp, 2003; Peker,

2002; Sarı, 2004; Sucuoğlu, Kuloğlu & Aksaz, 1996; Tuğrul &

Çelik, 2002; Tümkaya, 1996). Parallel research emphasizes that

a great majority of teachers also experience high levels of

stress and anxiety (Ataklı, 1999; Balcı, 2000; Pehlivan, 2000;

Özdayı, 1998; Öztürk, 2001; Uçman, 1990). Research about work

stress and its resultant exhaustion demonstrates that these

factors cause low performance in organizations and an increase

in the turnover of workers, absenteeism and alienation (Kiev &

Kohn, 1979; Ubrin, 1978).

Common variables in the organizational environment that

contribute to teachers’ stress and job dissatisfaction include

organizational health, organizational culture, leadership style

of the manager, workload, and workplace bullying (Bakker,

Killmer, Siegriest & Schaufeli, 2000; Beehr, 1994; Carmeli,

5

Meiter & Weisberg, 2006a; Carmeli & Tishler, 2006b;

Cemaloglu, 2007; Duxbury, Armstrong, Drew & Henly, 1984;

Fliegner, 1984; Korkmaz, 2005; Podgurski 1990; O’Driscoll &

Korkmaz, 2004;). Uppal (2005) found that bullying has a

significant effect among the other factors that decrease the

job satisfaction levels of workers. Halbur (2005) indicates

that serious problems such as absenteeism, increased turnover,

decreased performance and depression in workers can be traced

to bullying. Brodsky (1976), Einarsen, Matthiesen and Skogstad

(1998), and Zapf, Knorz and Kulla, (1996) document a significant

relation between stress and bullying in organizations, with

resultant psychological and psychosomatic disorders in victims

of bullying.

Several factors affect the construction of organizational

learning in the workplace. Senge (2002) especially emphasizes

the roles of particular events and the management team myth when

explaining these factors. The researcher points to workers’

tendency to focus on short term events and managerial culture as

two factors that prevent organizational learning. These two

important obstacles to organizational learning are related to

workplace bullying as both affecting and affected variables.

6

Victims of bullying or mobbing indicate that problems in the

organizational climate and organizational mechanisms are among

the most important causes of mobbing (Kök, 2006). Other factors

that create workplace bullying can be the personal

characteristics of victims of bullying, personal characteristics

of the perpetrators, the organizational environment and the

leadership styles of the manager (Davenport, Schwart & Eliot,

2003).

This research seeks (aimed) to show that workplace bullying

can directly or indirectly affect organizational learning. The

literature does not include any specific empirical research

explaining the relationship between workplace bullying and

organizational learning. This research was conducted on teachers

working in state primary schools in Turkey. The most important

purpose for conducting this research at the primary school level

is that technological, systemic, and operational changes

mandated by the Turkish Ministry of National Education have

begun earlier at this level than at other levels. The results of

this research are expected to contribute to the data needed to

solve problems in primary schools and to prevent other potential

problems. The relationship between workplace bullying of

7

teachers in primary schools and organizational learning will be

detected in this research. This relationship can influence the

effectiveness of management during a period of change, ensure

organizational effectiveness, and define obstacles to the job

satisfaction and motivation of teachers.

Objectives

The objective of this research is (was) to define

(determine) the relationship between features of organizational

learning in primary schools and the workplace bullying of

teachers. To achieve this goal the answers of following

questions were sought:

1. What is the likelihood of organizational learning and

workplace bullying to occur?

2. Is there a significant relationship between sub-scales

reflecting parallel structures of a learning organization

and sub-scales of workplace bullying?

3. Are sub-scales reflecting aspects of the learning

organization parallel structures of sub-scales of

workplace bullying?

8

Theoretical Framework

Mobbing

The term “mobbing” was first used in the literature in the

1960s to describe animal behavior, the phenomenon of several

weak creatures gathering together and displaying aggressive

behavior toward potential predators. Later it was applied to

behaviors largely observed in children. In the 1980s, Leymann

posited that the concept of mobbing is also seen among adults

(Davenport et al., 2003). Maguire (1999) defined mobbing as

“bloodless war” (as cited in Westhues, 2004). Jennifer, Cowie

and Ananiadou (2003) defined mobbing as a recurring and stress-

making situation among workers. To regard a situation as

mobbing, negative behaviors should continue for at least six

months. The characteristic definition of mobbing is exposure to

negative behaviors that are repeated for a long time. In

contrast to conflicts between workers in an organization,

mobbing means that one or more persons become the target of

other persons and are attacked systematically (Hoel, Rayner &

Cooper, 1999).

The international literature indicates that research about

mobbing has gained momentum in the last twenty years (Einarsen

9

et. al, 2003). While some of the empirical research carried out in

different countries is about detecting at which level mobbing

occurs (Einarsen & Skogtad, 1996; Hoel, Cooper & Faragher,

2001; Leymann, 1996; Salin, 2001), some of it is about negative

effects of mobbing (Björkqvist, Österman & Hjelt-Back, 1994;

Leymann and Gustaffson, 1996; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002;

Niedl, 1996), organizational factors (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen,

Raknes, Matthiesen & Hellesǿy, 1994; Seigne, 1998; Vartia,

1996; Vartia & Hyyti, 2002) and cruel behaviors in the

organization (Coyne, Seigne & Randall, 2000, 2003; Coyne,

Craıg, & Smith-Lee Chong, 2004; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001;

Zapf, 1999).

Empirical research on this issue is very limited in

Turkey. Ertürk (2005), Gökçe (2006) and Cemaloglu (2007) have

researched the frequency of mobbing in educational

organizations. The researchers detected that mobbing on

teachers in educational organizations is high and that one of

every two primary school teachers is exposed to mobbing.

Research on mobbing in educational organizations was also

conducted by Hubert and Veldhoven (2001), Dick and Wagner

(2001), Hoel, Faragher and Cooper (2004), and O’Conner (2004).

10

In the majority of this research, it is understood that mobbing

occurs more in educational organizations than in other

organizations: teachers exclude one another by gossiping about

one another, victims of mobbing are not invited to meetings or

parties, and these negative behaviors are often repeated by

parents, students, teachers, and inspectors.

Some research shows that there are important relations

between mobbing and the health and serenity of victims (Brodsky,

1976; Einarsen et al., 1998). Einarsen and Raknes (1997) found

that 23% of industrial male laborers suffer from psychological

disorders and discomfort. Psychological and psychosomatic

disorders are observed among most of the victims of mobbing.

For example, they have thoughts of self-disapproval, anxiety,

depression, lack of concentration, chronic fatigue, insomnia,

stomach problems, headache, backache, irritability, self-

hatred, and suicide (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994; Brodsky, 1976;

Einarsen et al., 1996; Leymann, 1990). In another research, all 17

victims suffered from insomnia, irritability, melancholia,

stolidity, lack of concentration and social phobia. In clinical

observations, the following features have been detected in

victims exposed to mobbing in the workplace: isolation, social

11

discordance, psychosomatic disorders, depression, indigence,

aggression, pressure, anxiety, and desperation (Leymann, 1990).

The literature indicates that mobbing has a destructive

effect not only on the victims but also on the organization.

The victims of mobbing pose one of the major obstacles to

creating teams and teamwork in the organizational structure.

When workers who contribute a lot to the organization are lost

because of mobbing, the organization not only loses personnel

but may also lose valuable information about the organization.

When an employee resigns, he or she takes away a body of

knowledge about the organization. This, in turn, may result in

an unforeseen increase in the turnover of other workers, as

well as contributing to low performance and economic and social

losses. Mobbing in an organizational environment may cause

workers to focus more on individual aims and the objectives of

the conflict group instead of on the objectives of the

organization. Other workers that witness the conflict, as well

as the victims of mobbing, may develop insecurity and ambiguous

feelings about the organization (Tınaz, 2006). The indirect

costs of mobbing to the organization are low creativity,

product deterioration, a discrediting of the organization and

12

an increase in customer loss (Chappel & Di Martino, 1999, as

cited in Tınaz, 2006). Çobanoğlu (2005) states that mobbing in

an organizational environment causes damage to the

organization’s culture and that factors such as stress,

depression, and limited productivity deeply affect the

organization. Cemaloglu (2007) has ascertained in his research

that there is a strong negative relationship between mobbing

and organizational health.

The classification that Tınaz (2006) makes of the

psychological and economic costs of mobbing is as follows:

Psychological costs

disagreements and conflicts between individuals

negative organizational climate

decline in values of organizational culture

limitation of creativity because of an insecure

environment; decrease in general respect and reluctance of

workers.

Economic costs

increase in sick leaves

resignation of specialists

13

cost of new training activities due to increase in

resignations

general low performance

decrease in work quality

compensation paid to workers

unemployment costs

costs of trials

early retirement payments.

Features of a Learning Organization

Paradigmatic changes beginning in the mid-twentieth century

and concentrating especially in the last quarter, have forced

education systems, school structures, and the mechanisms of

these systems to change. Significant changes concerning the

objectives of education, the nature of learning, and the

structure and mechanisms of schools should be carefully

processed by educational administrators, researchers, and

specialists before being implemented in the schools (Özden,

2005). Because modern educational organizations are outward-

oriented systems, their success is dependent on a dynamic

environment. The process of change also forces schools to renew

knowledge and to innovate continuously. It is evident that in

an environment where change and innovation are important,

organizational styles that are flexible, dynamic and harmonious

14

are more effective than those that are mechanical, bureaucratic

and centrally administered. From this point of view, the long-

term health of a school depends on its acting as a living

organism.

Field researchers and theorists Senge (2002) and Collins

and Porras (1999), working on improving organizational

structures, stated that all long-lasting organizations do not

have the same features. These researchers detected that

organizations display significant differences in their

foundations and their cultural values. However, long-lasting

organizations see change and innovation as opportunities. For

this reason, it has become increasingly important to discover

how organizations can best learn. Learning organizations, when

faced with new conditions, adapt themselves to this change.

They also change and develop constantly by using data they

gather from experience (Senge, 2002). Educational institutions

should be learning organizations in order to fulfill their role

in society successfully. A learning organization is talented in

creating, gathering, interpreting, transferring and protecting

knowledge (David & Garvin, 2000).

Among the objectives of the technological, operational,

and systemic changes that have been initiated in primary

schools in Turkey is the expectation that these institutions

become long-lasting, able to change, and renew themselves.

Organizational learning and the vision necessary for

restructuring schools is challenging, but the specific features

of learning organizations are known and have great importance

in restructuring. As Deming (1996) indicated, nothing happens

15

without personal transformation and the only reliable place

that allows this transformation is a learning organization.

Learning organizations are healthier, more livable, and more

productive than traditional organizations. In a learning

organization, workers respect one another.

Silins and Mulford (2004) identified four dimensions

organizational learning in their research on schools as

learning organizations:

1. A trusting collaborative climate, referring to the degree

to which the climate and culture of school supports

collaborative studying, sharing knowledge, and open

communication.

2. An observed and shared vision, referring to the degree to

which teachers participate in all aspects of school

functions.

3. Taking initiatives and risks, referring to the degree to

which school leaders and the school structure supports

teachers’ experiences by valuing and rewarding teachers

when they take initiatives.

4. Professional development, referring to the degree to which

there are opportunities for personnel to achieve the

knowledge and capabilities necessary to improve their

performance continuously.

These four dimensions of learning organizations reflect

the organizational climate of schools. School climate affects

the school environment and behaviors of participants in school,

and depends on the perception of behaviors in schools as a

whole (Hoy & Miskel, 1996). These four dimensions also reflect

16

the social interaction inside the school. A school is a social

system that includes administrators, teachers, students and

other workers. Learning organizations, which are also social

systems, divert their energy towards tasks and objects of the

organization and manage external and internal disturbing forces

successfully. These dimensions of learning organizations can be

strong and significant concepts in creating an effective school

atmosphere and decreasing the occurrence of workplace bullying,

which otherwise would result in high levels of stress,

depression, and limited productivity. (Chappel & Di Martino,

1999; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Leyman, 1990; Tınaz, 2006;

Uppal, 2005).

Method

Sample

Subjects of this research comprise a sampling group of 2%

of randomized 11,684 teachers working in state primary and high

schools in districts of Çankaya, Yenimahalle, and Keçiören

within the borders of The Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara.

The research questionnaire was first administered to a group of

30 persons and the standard deviation of the gathered data was

calculated. Figures were inserted into the formula for the

sampling group and 210 teachers were included in the sampling

group. Three-fifths (59.5%) of the teachers in the sampling

group are women; four-fifths (79%) were between the ages of 21

and 42; approximately three-quarters (72.5%) were married; more

than four-fifths (84.9%) had been working in the same school

for 5 years; approximately three-quarters (69%) have seniority

17

for 1-11 years, nine-tenths (89%) are teachers; three-quarters

(72%) work in primary schools and half of them (50%) are in the

field of social sciences.

Model of the Research

This research is a relational scanning model, which aims

to detect the entity or degree of covariance between two or

more variables (Karasar, 1999, p. 81).

Instruments

Two different scales were used in the research. The first

one is the scale measuring the “Organizational Learning” level.

The scale used to gather data in this research was adapted from

the research scale developed by Silins, Mulford and Zarins

(1999), between 1997 and 2001, which they employed in a project

called “Learning Organization and Leadership for Student Output

(LOLSO)”. The original scale is composed of two parts prepared

to gather data from teachers and students that comprised the

sampling group of their research. The first part, which also

serves the purpose of this research study, is the Learning

Organization Questionnaire. This questionnaire concerns the

four dimensions of learning organizations: 1. a trusting

collaborative climate, 2. an observed and shared vision, 3.

taking initiatives and risks, and 4. professional development.

The Learning Organization Questionnaire was translated into

Turkish by one linguist, and then, as a check on accuracy, re-

translated into English by a second linguist. Then the Turkish

text was reviewed for meaning and expression and all problems

resolved.

18

The first application was administered to 14 teachers and

again the instrument was reviewed by specialists for language,

cultural considerations, and conformity to the purpose. The

Turkish version of the Learning Organization Questionnaire was

then administered to 78 teachers for pre-practice. The

credibility of the Learning Organization Questionnaire was

estimated using the “Two Semi-Test credibility” technique. This

test was implemented by separating items into two equal halves

and using the Spearman Brown formula. The Two Split half

technique, also known as the half test technique, shows

consistency between gathered test scores (Büyüköztürk, 2005).

The alpha value of the first 15 items out of 26 items is α

= .90, and the alpha value of the second 13 item part is α

= .90. Values concerning each two halves of the questionnaire

were significantly high. The Cronbach alpha value related to

the total score of the Learning Organization Questionnaire was

found to be α = .94.

Factor analysis and content validity were applied to test

for validity. The Learning Organization Questionnaire was

administered to teachers. The basic components analysis and

varimax rotation technique was applied to the gathered data.

The varimax rotation ensures that items whose factor load is

over .40 are separated into factors. For an item to be

accepted as a factor after factor analysis, its load on that

factor should be at minimum .40, and it should have a factor

load over .20. The factor load values of the questionnaire

items range between .54 and .73. The questionnaire items

gather together under 4 factors. The 3rd, 11th and 12th

19

questions in the questionnaire were removed from the scale

because they have similar values in each four factors.

All factors explain 65.98% of the total variant. It is an

acceptable value if the total variant explanation of factor

loads in factor analysis is over 40% (Kline, 1994, as cited in

Türküm, 2003: 45). The first factor explains 23% of the total

variants and is composed of 8 items related to the “taking

initiatives and risks” dimension. The second factor explains

18% of the total variants and is composed of 7 items related

to the “continuing related professional development”

dimension. The third factor explains 12% of the total variants

and is composed of 5 items related to the “observed and shared

vision” dimension. The fourth factor explains 11% of the total

variants and is composed of 3 items related to the “trusting

collaborative climate” dimension. In reference to the study of

content validity, field specialists stated after reviewing the

whole Organizational Learning Questionnaire that the

questionnaire “has the quality to measure organizational

learning level

The second scale, which was used to gather data about

exposure to bullying behaviors, measures responses to the

Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997).

The NAQ was translated into Turkish by the researcher. The

translation was checked and corrected by three linguists.

After it was re-translated into English, discrepancies were

analyzed for meaning and expression. It was administered to 78

teachers chosen randomly. The research group used the “Two

Semi-Test Credibility” technique to evaluate the reliability

20

of the NAQ. The alpha value of first 11 items of 22 items was

α = .86 and α = .87 for the second 11 items. The values of

both halves are significantly high. The Cronbach alpha

coefficiency related to the total score of the NAQ given to 78

teachers is α = .93.

Factor analysis and content validity were used to

evaluate the validity of the NAQ. The NAQ was administered to

teachers and the basic components analysis and the varimax

rotation technique were applied to the gathered data. The

factor load value of the questionnaire items range between .53

and .82. The questionnaire items cluster under 3 factors.

Since the 17th, 1st, 20th, 10th and 12th questions have

similar values, they were taken from the scale. All factors

explain 68.41% of the total variants. The first factor

explains 26% of the total variants and is composed of 8 items

related to the “task” dimension. The second factor explains

21% of the total variants and is composed of 8 items related

to the “initiative-risk taking” dimension. The third factor

explains 18% of the total variants and is composed of 7 items

related to “communication in organization” dimension. The

fourth factor explains 20% of the total variants and is

composed of 4 items related to “social relations” dimension.

Field specialists stated after reviewing the whole that the

questionnaire has the quality to measure bullying behaviors.

Statistical Procedures

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for all

variables. Pearsons were computed for the relationship between

the mean scores for workplace bullying and the mean scores for

21

organizational learning. Later, by using the 4 sub-scales of the

Organizational Learning Questionnaire as independent variables

and workplace bullying as the dependent variable, a multiple

regression analysis was conducted.

Table 1.Research Sub-scales and Items Related to Sub-scales

Organizational learningTrusting and collaborative climate

Discussions between colleagues are honest and sincere. Colleagues are used as sources. We are tolerant of one another’s opinions.Observed and shared vision

We examine contemporary practices critically. There is a consistent and shared way of feeling. The efficacy of educational practices is regularly

observed.Taking initiatives and risks

School leaders protect risk areas. Administrators are open to change. School structures support teachers taking initiatives

and risks.Professional development

Adequate time is maintained for professional

development. Personnel are trained in groups about how to work and

learn as a team. Membership of teachers in vocational associations is

beneficial.Negative Behaviors

22

Negative communication

Gossip and rumors about oneself. One’s exclusion by being ignored. Not taking into consideration one’s views, opinions and

suggestions.Task

Hiding information that can affect one’s performance. Humiliation about one’s studies. Obligation to do tasks that are not appropriate for one’

abilities.Workload

Wanting one to do work that is not logical. Being shouted at or being a victim of temporary anger. Facing extreme workload that cannot be handled.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics about the research are given in Table

2.

Table 2

Distribution of Organizational Learning and Workplace Bullying Dimensions n S Min Max

Taking initiatives and risks 192 3.03 .88 8 40Continuing related professional

development

200 2.98 .76 7 35

Observed and shared vision 198 2.95 .74 5 24Trusting and collaborative climate 207 3.06 .84 4 15Organizational learning 176 2.99 .66 25 108Task 193 1.44 .60 8 31Communication in organization 198 2.98 .75 5 24

Social relations 209 1.52 .64 4 16Bullying 180 1.97 .39 18 59

23

Examination of descriptive statistics related to

organizational learning and bullying shows that a schools’

“trusting and collaborative climate” sub-dimension ( =3.06)

is higher and “observed and shared vision” sub-dimension is (

=2.95) lower. In the bullying sub-dimensions, most bullying

is experienced in the “communication in organization” sub-

dimension ( =2.98), and least is experienced in the “task”

sub-dimension ( =1.44).

Table 3 Correlation Values Related to Organizational Learning and Workplace Bullying SubDimensions

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.1. Initiative-

risk

.686

*

.621* .406* -.288

*

-.267

*

-.305

*

.897* -.309

*2. Professional

dev.

- .615* .420* -.295

*

-.245

*

-.277

*

.867* -.305

*3. Obs.-shared

vis.

- .601* -.306

*

-.294

*

-.291

*

.831* -.326

*4. Trust.-

collab. clim.

- -.438

*

-.428

*

-.418

*

.633* -.457

*5. Task - .817* .846* -.395

*

.964*

6. Comm. in org. - .772* -.368

*

.922*

7. Social

relations

- -.388

*

.916*

8. Org. learning - -.420

*9. Bullying -

24

The correlation distribution between “”organizational

learning sub-dimensions and “bullying” sub-dimensions is given

in Table 3. Examination of the correlation values between

organizational learning sub-dimensions and the “task” sub

dimension of workplace bullying shows that there is a negative

and significant relationship between the “trusting and

collaborative climate” and “task” sub-dimensions (r= -.44,

p<.01). According to this, the more a trusting and

collaborative climate occurs during organizational learning,

the fewer bullying behaviors related to the “task” sub

dimension are seen. Considering the determination coefficient

(r2= 0.19), it can be said that 19% of the total variant in

“task” results from the “trusting and collaborative climate.”

In addition, there is a negative and significant relation

between the “task” sub-dimension and the sub-dimensions of

“taking initiatives-risks,” “ professional development,” and

“observed-shared vision.”

Examination of the correlation values between the

“organizational learning” sub-dimensions and the

“communication in organization” sub-dimension of workplace

bullying indicates that there is a negative and significant

relationship between the “trusting and collaborative climate”

and “communication in organization” sub-dimensions (r = -.42,

p<.01). According to this, the more a trusting and

collaborative climate occurs during organizational learning,

the fewer bullying behaviors related to the “communication in

organization” sub-dimension are seen. Considering the

determination coefficient (r2= 0.18), it can be said that 18%

25

of the total variant in the “communication in organization”

sub-dimension results from the presences of a trusting and

collaborative climate. In addition, there is a negative and

significant relationship between the “communication in

organization” sub-dimension and “taking initiatives-risks,”

“professional development” and “observed-shared vision.”

Examination of the correlation values between the

“organizational learning” sub-dimensions and “social

relations” sub-dimension of workplace bullying indicates that

there is a negative and significant relationship between the

“trusting-collaborative climate” and “social relations” sub

dimensions (r= -.43, p<.01). According to this, the more a

trusting and collaborative climate occurs during organizational

learning, the less bullying behaviors related to the “social

relations” sub-dimension are seen. Considering the

determination coefficient (r2= 0.18), it can be said that 18%

of the total variant in the “social relations” sub-dimension

results from the “trusting and collaborative climate.” In

addition, there is a negative and significant relationship

between the “social relations” sub-dimension and “taking

initiatives-risks,” “professional development,” and “observed-

shared vision.”

The correlation values between the total scores of

“organizational learning” and the total scores of “bullying”

show that there is a negative and significant relation between

the “confiding and collaborative climate” and “social

relations” sub-dimensions (r= -.42, p<.01). According to this,

the more an organizational learning period occurs in schools,

26

the less bullying behaviors are seen. Considering the

determination coefficient (r2= 0.18), it can be said that 18%

of the total variant in bullying results from the “trusting and

collaborative climate.” In other words, there is a relationship

between organizational learning and bullying. In an

organization, the more an organizational learning period

occurs, the less bullying is seen.Results of multi-regression analysis related to the “task” sub-

dimension of “bullying” and “organizational learning” are given in

Table 4. When the mutual and partial correlation between procedural

variables (“taking initiatives-risks,” “professional development,”

“observed-shared vision,” “trusting and collaborative climate”) and

the dependent variable (“communication in organization”) are

examined, it is seen that there is a negative and low level

relationship (r= -.31) between “task” and “taking initiatives-

risks,” but when other variables are controlled, the correlation

between the two variables is calculated at r= -.10. There is also a

negative and low level relationship (r= -.28) between “professional

development” and “task,” but when other variables are controlled,

the correlation between the two variables is calculated at r= -.014.

There is a negative and medium level relationship (r= -.33) between

“task” and “observed-shared vision” but when other variables are

controlled, the correlation between the two variables is calculated

at r= -.005. There is a negative and medium level relation (r= -.47)

between “task” and “trusting and collaborative climate” but when

other variables are controlled, the correlation between the two

variables is calculated at r= -.35.

Table 4

Results of Multi Regression Analysis related to “Task” Sub Dimension of Bullying

27

Variables B β t pmutual

r

parti

al

rConstant 21.55

2

- 13.286 .000 - -

Taking initiatives-risks -

8.909

-.127 -1.247 .214 -.315 -.100

Professional development -

1.719

-.018 -.179 .858 -.289 -.014

Observed-shared vision 9.080 .007 .066 .948 -.330 .005

Trusting-collaborative

climate

-.812 -.416 -4.728 .000 -.475 -.357

R=.491 R2= .241 F (4-153)=12.137 p=.000

There is a significant relation between the “task”

dimension and “taking initiatives-risks,” “professional

development,” “observed-shared vision,” and “confiding and

collaborative climate” variables (R=.491, R2= .241, p<.01). These

four variables explain approximately 24% of the total variant in the

“task” sub-dimension. According to standardized regression

coefficient (β), the relative significance levels of the procedural

variables on the “task” sub-dimension are: “trusting and

collaborative climate,” “taking initiatives-risks,” professional

development” and “observed-shared vision.” The results of the t-test

concerning the significance of regression coefficients show that the

sub-dimension of “trusting and collaborative climate” has an

important impact on “task.” The other variables do not have an

important effect.

According to this, the most powerful procedure affecting the

“task” sub-dimension of bullying behaviors concerning teachers in

schools is the “trusting and collaborative climate” sub-dimension of

organizational learning. In other words, when a trusting and

28

collaborative climate is supposed to occur during organizational

learning in educational organizations, an increase in bullying

behaviors on teachers, especially related to “task” activities is

observed.

Table 5

Results of Multi Regression Analysis related to Directing “Communication in Organization”

Sub-Dimension of Bullying

Variables B Β t p

mutua

l

r

partial

r

Constant 14.41

2

- 12.496 .000 - -

Taking initiatives-risks -

8.547

-.170 -1.707 .090 -.302 -.133

Professional development 3.862 .057 .568 .571 -.242 .045Obs.-shared vision -

4.697

-.005 -.048 .962 -.313 -.004

Trusting-collaborative

climate

-.575 -.412 -4.845 .000 -.458 -.356

R=.477 R2= .228 F (4-162)=11.956 p=.000

Results of multi regression analysis related to the

“communication in organization” sub-dimension of bullying and

29

organizational learning are shown in Table 5. Examination of the

mutual and partial correlations between procedural variables

(“taking initiatives-risks,” “professional development,” “observed-

shared vision,” “trusting and collaborative climate”) and the

dependent variable (“communication in organization”) shows that

there is a negative and low level relationship (r= -.30) between

“task” and “taking initiatives-risks,” but when other variables are

controlled, the correlation between the two variables is calculated

at r= -.13. There is a negative and low-level relationship (r= -.24)

between “professional development” and “task,” but when other

variables are controlled, the correlation between the two variables

is calculated at r= -.04. There is a negative and low-level

relationship (r= -.31) between “task” and “observed-shared vision”

but when other variables are controlled, the correlation between the

two variables is calculated at r= -.004. There is a negative and

medium-level relationship (r= -.45) between “task” and “confiding

and collaborative climate,” but when other variables are controlled,

the correlation between the two variables is calculated as r= -.35.

There is a significant relationship between the “communication

in the organization” dimension and “taking initiatives-risks,”

“professional development,” “observed-shared vision,” and the

“trusting and collaborative climate” variables” (R=.477, R2=.228,

p<.01). These four variables explain approximately 22% of the total

variant in the “task” sub-dimension. According to the standardized

regression coefficient (β), the relative significance level of

procedural variables on the “communication in organization” sub-

dimension is: “confiding and collaborative climate,” “taking

initiatives-risks,” “professional development” and “observed-shared

vision.” The t-test concerning significance of regression

coefficients, shows that the sub-dimension “confidence-collaborative

30

climate” has the most important impact on “communication in

organization.” Other variables do not have an important effect.

According to this, the most powerful procedure affecting the

“communication in organization” sub-dimension of bullying behaviors

experienced by teachers in schools is the “trusting and

collaborative climate” sub-dimension of organizational learning. In

other words, when a “trusting and collaborative climate” is supposed

to be created during organizational learning periods in education

organizations, an increase in bullying behaviors toward teachers,

especially related to communication in organization, is observed.

Table 6.Results of Multi Regression Analysis Related to the “Social Relations” Sub-dimensionof Bullying

Variables B Β t pmutual

r

partial

rConstant 11.23

0

13.55

6

.000

Taking initiatives-risks -

7.860

-.213 -

2.183

.030 -.332 -.167

Professional development 1.995 .040 .407 .685 -.263 .032Observed-shared vision 2.532 .037 .366 .715 -.304 .028Confidence-collaborative

climate

-.429 -.417 -

5.079

.000 -.465 -.367

R=.493 R2= .243 F (4-170)=13.323 p=.000

Results of multi regression analysis of the “social relations”

sub-dimension of bullying and organizational learning are given in

Table 6. Examination of the mutual and partial correlations between

procedural variables (“taking initiatives-risks,” “professional

development,” “observed-shared vision,” “trusting and collaborative

climate”) and the dependent variable (“communication in

31

organization”) shows that there is a negative and medium level

relationship (r= -.33) between “task” and “taking initiatives-

risks,” but when other variables are controlled, the correlation

between the two variables is calculated at r= -.16. There is a

negative and low-level relationship (r= -.26) between “professional

development” and “task,” but when other variables are controlled,

the correlation between the two variables is calculated at r= -.03.

There is a negative and low level relationship (r= -.30) between

“task” and “shared-observed vision,” but when other variables are

controlled, the correlation between two variables is calculated at

r=-.02. There is a negative and medium level relationship (r= -.46)

between “social relations” and “trusting and collaborative climate”

but when other variables are controlled, the correlation between two

variables is calculated at r= -.36.

There is a significant relationship between the “communication

in organization” dimension and the “taking initiatives-risks,”

“professional development,” “observed-shared vision,” “trusting-

collaborative climate” variables (R=.493, R2= .243, p<.01). These

four variables explain approximately 24% of the total variant in the

“social relations” sub-dimension. According to the standardized

regression coefficient (β), the relative significance level of the

procedural variables on the “social relations” sub-dimension is:

“trusting and collaborative climate,” “taking initiatives-risks,”

“professional development” and “observed-shared vision.” The results

of the t-test concerning the significance of regression coefficients

show that the sub-dimension of “trusting-collaborative climate” is

an important impact on “social relations.” Other variables do not

have an important effect.

According to this, the most powerful procedure affecting the

“social relations” sub-dimension of bullying behaviors towards

teachers in schools is the “trusting and collaborative climate” sub-

32

dimension of organizational learning. In other words, when a

“confiding and collaborative climate” is not created during

organizational learning in education organizations, an increase in

bullying behaviors towards teachers, especially related to social

relations, is observed.

Table 7

Results of Multi Regression Analysis Related to Direct Bullying

Variable B β t pmutual

r

parti

al

rConstant 47.242 - 14.10

5

.000 - -

Taking initiatives-risks -.242 -.16

6

-

1.650

.101 -.345 -.133

Professional development 1.334 .007 .068 .946 -.296 .005Shared-observed vision 2.095 .001 .007 .994 -.351 .001Confiding and collaborative

climate

-1.758 -.43

1

-

4.985

.000 -.498 -.376

R=.519 R2= .270 F (4-151)=13.931 p=.000

Results of the multi regression analysis related to the sub-

dimension of bullying and organizational learning are given in Table

7. Examination of the mutual and partial correlations between the

variables (“taking initiatives-risks,” “professional development,”

“observed-shared vision,” “trusting and collaborative climate”) and

the dependent variable (“communication in organization”) shows that

there is a negative and medium level relationship (r= -.34) between

“bullying” and “taking initiatives-risks,” but when other variables

are controlled, the correlation between the two variables is

calculated at r= -.13. There is a negative and low-level

relationship (r= -.29) between “professional development” and

33

“task,” but when other variables are controlled, the correlation

between the two variables is calculated at r= -.005. There is a

negative and medium-level relationship (r= -.35) between “task” and

“shared-observed vision,” but when other variables are controlled,

the correlation between the two variables is calculated at r= -.001.

There is a negative and high- level relationship (r= -.49) between

“task” and “trusting and collaborative climate,” but when other

variables are controlled, the correlation between two variables is

calculated at r= -.37.

There is a significant relationship between “bullying” and the

“taking initiatives-risks,” “professional development,” “observed-

shared vision,” “trusting and collaborative climate” variables

(R=.519, R2= .270, p<.01). These four variables explain approximately

27% of the total variant in bullying. According to standardized

regression coefficient (β), the relative significance level of the

procedural variables on the “social relations” sub-dimension is:

“trusting-collaborative climate,” “taking initiatives-risks,”

“professional development” and “observed-shared vision.” The results

of the t-test concerning the significance of regression coefficients

show that the sub-dimension of “trusting and collaborative climate”

has an important impact on “social relations.” Other variables do

not have an important effect.

According to this, the most powerful procedure affecting

bullying behaviors concerning teachers in schools is the “trusting

and collaborative climate” sub-dimension of organizational learning.

In other words, when a confiding and collaborative climate doesn’t

come to happen during organizational learning in educational

organizations, an increase in bullying behaviors is observed.

Discussion

34

The objective of this study of data gathered from a sample

group of teachers working in primary schools is to test whether

there is a relationship between bullying in the workplace and

organizational learning in these schools and to discover reasons for

this relationship, if it exists. Statistical analysis of the data

gathered in the research demonstrates that there is a negative and

significant relationship between characteristics of organizational

learning and aspects of workplace bullying. These data gathered

completely from teacher perceptions support the contention that

bullying occurs in the schools included the research. Specifically,

there is high level of workplace bullying when school climate and

culture do not support collaborative learning, when there is not

much knowledge-sharing, and when open communication among personnel

is lacking. In turn, bullying weakens the trusting and collaborative

climate in educational organizations where social relations are

dense. According to the research data, establishing an opposite and

significant relationship between aspects of the learning

organization and bullying can contribute to the development of

better school structures. The frequency of workplace bullying in an

environment of successful organizational learning decreases;

conversely, organizational structures that suffer from workplace

bullying are less likely to exhibit the positive features of a

successful learning environment. Moreover, bullying, which has a

negative effect on the organizational health of a school, also

decreases the participation level of teachers in all school

functions, and all but eliminates such social psychological

characteristics of the organization as the support from school

leaders and structures to recognize and value teachers when they

take initiatives. People working in such an environment cannot

acquire the necessary information and ability to improve their

performance continuously. Results of research concerning the degree

35

to which mobbing occurs (Einarsen & Skogtad, 1996; Hoel et al.,

2001; Leymann, 1996; Salin, 2001) and the negative results of

mobbing (Leymann & Gustaffson, 1996; Mikkelsen & Einarsen,

2002) support the findings gathered from research conducted in

Turkey (Cemaloglu, 2007; Ertürk, 2005; Gökçe, 2006; Tınaz,

2006). All these results help to answer the first and second

questions of the research.

Another important finding of the research is that the

“trusting and collaborative climate” and the “taking

initiatives and risks” dimensions characterizing organizational

learning are powerful procedures affecting “communication in

organization,” “social relations” and “ task” sub-dimensions of

bullying behaviors. Teachers desire to work in an environment

in which they are respected, one in which their views,

opinions, and suggestions about their work are taken into

consideration. People working in such an environment feel that

they are in a trusting environment. It is hard for bullying to

arise and increase in an environment which discourages gossip,

hostility, and destructive criticism. The causes of workplace

bullying may vary according to organizational structures;

however, the presence of a trusting and collaborative climate

and support for taking initiatives and risks are significant

and common palliatives in any organization. In his research

Zapt (1999) stated that organizational problems have an impact

on mobbing, and that poor communication within the organization

can exacerbate the problems. In addition, mobbing may appear

where there is a lack of cooperation and where conflicts

inhibit the flow of information (Zapt & Osterwalder, 1998).

36

If a collaborative culture is not developed in an

organizational environment, the bonds between workers are

weakened. This sometimes causes workers to isolate themselves

from others. This loneliness endangers the continuity of

organizational life. It is easier to mob someone who is out of

the group, since this person has difficulties integrating with

the group. Mobbing makes the individual seem like the cause of

everything negative. However, mobbing behaviors do not appear

so readily in organizations where the administrators are fair

and just and have leadership skills. Many researchers have

shown that the contribution of leaders and the quality of their

leadership are crucial if a positive organizational culture is

to rise and develop. The culture of the organization can

determine which behaviors are beneficial and which are

detrimental. If a periodic increase in the frequency mobbing is

recognized, it might be construed that the culture of the

organization supports mobbing (Einarsen et al., 1996).

Result and Suggestions

Reasonable explanations of the gathered data and resulting

correlations suggest the following conclusions and

implications. First, the features of a learning organization, a

trusting and collaborative climate, an observed and shared

vision, support for the taking of initiatives and risks, and

professional development, are accepted by teachers. In

addition, teachers perceive that behaviors encompassed by

“communication in the organization,” “social relations,” and

“task” sub-dimensions are negatively affected by workplace

bullying. Another finding of the research is that aspects of

37

efficient schools and learning organization are efficacious in

situations that exhibit workplace bullying. However, this

efficacy is not one-way, but reciprocal. In other words, the

positive features of a learning organization are weakened in

environments where workplace bullying takes place; and

conversely, the instances of workplace bullying weaken in

environments where the positive features of a learning

organization are experienced fully, where a collaborative

climate and culture are dominant. This result is preferred by

teachers. When talking about workplace bullying, which is a

common characteristic of organizational life, it also means

that organizational health is talked about. Trying to identify

the factors in this research that affect the frequency of

workplace bullying in educational environments, we do not

present a prescription for the treatment of workplace bullying.

However, another point to take into consideration is that

the presence or absence of the features of organizational

learning is not the only explanation for the presence or

absence of workplace bullying or for the attainment of

organizational objectives. The perception of workers concerning

the capacity of the organization to learn and their feelings

related to their own abilities is another important factor. In

addition, the nature of individual workers’ wishes and desires

and the level of support they receive from administrators can

be said to be effective in reducing workplace bullying.

Results inferred from the data of this research should be

carefully considered and assimilated by all kinds of

educational administrators, especially by high-ranking decision

38

makers in the Ministry of National Education, because healthy

institutions such as healthy schools make up healthy systemic

structures. The Ministry of National Education needs leaders

who have effective leadership styles, who create a trusting and

collaborative climate and culture within their own institution

so that they can weaken the factors that prevent the

organizations that they govern from reaching very important

organizational objectives.

Future researchers in this field may include

organizational climate and culture and the personal

characteristics of workers among the variables of their

research. In addition, more valid and reliable results may be

achieved by conducting similar research on a larger quantity

and greater variety of sampling groups.

References

Açıkalın, A. (1995). Toplumsal, kurumsal ve teknik yönleriyle okul

yöneticiliği. (School

management with its social, organizational and technical

aspects). Ankara: Pegem A Yayinlari.

Allen, T.D; Freeman, D.M.; Reinzenstein, R.C.; Rentz, J.O.

(1995). Just another transition?

Examining Survivors’ attitudes over time. Proceedings of

Academy of Management. Best Paper, 78-92.

Arpacioğlu, G. (2003). İşyerinde stresin gizli kaynakları:

Zorbalık ve duygusal taciz. (The

39

secret source of stress in the workplace: Bullying and

emotional harassment).

Retrived September 23, 2004 from http://www.hrdergi.com .

Ataklı, A. (1999). . Stres kaynakları, stresin öğretmenlik

mesleğindeki yeri, okul yönetici ve

velilerin anlayışlılık düzeyine öğretmenlerin görüşleri.

(Sources of stress, the place of stress in teaching

profession, teachers’ thoughts about the understanding

level of school managers’ and guardians). Amme İdaresi

Dergisi, 32 ( 2), 59-67.

Avşaroğlu, S., Deniz, E. M., & Kahraman, A. (2005). Teknik

öğretmenlerde yaşam doyumuiş

doyumu ve mesleki tükenmişlik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. (The survey of

the level of life and job content and professional burn-

out of technical teachers). Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler

Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14, 115-129.

Aydın, K. (2004). Beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin tükenmişlik düzeyleri ve

tükenmişliği

etkileyen bazı faktörlerin incelenmesi. (The burn-out level of

physical education teachers and the research for some

factors affecting burn-out). Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Gazi University, Institute of Educational

Sciences, Ankara.

Bakker, A.B, Killmer C.H, Siegriest J., & Schaufeli W.B. (2000).

Effort-reward imbalance and

burnout among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 884-891.

Balcı, A. (2000). İş stresi. (Job stres). Ankara:Nobel Yayın

Dağıtım.

40

Balcı, A. (2001). Etkili okul ve okul geliştirme. Kuram, uygulama ve

araştırma. (Effective

school and developing school. Theory, practice and

research). Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.

Baysal, A. (1995). Lise ve dengi okul öğretmenlerinde meslekte tükenmişliğe

etki eden

faktörler. (The factors affecting the professional burn-out

level of teachers of high schools). Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Institute of Social Sciences, İzmir.

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt- Back, M. (1994).

Aggression among university

employees. Aggressive Behavior. 20, 173 – 184.

Bozkurt, A. (2000). “Öğrenen örgütler” , Yönetimde çağdaş yaklaşımlar

uygulamalar

ve sorunlar. (Learning organizations. Modern approaches,

practices and problems in management). (In C. Elma & K.

Demir). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto: Lexington Books,

DC Heath and

Company.

Brooks, L., & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual

harassment: Exploring a predictive

model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31-47.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (Data

analysis hand book

for social sciences). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.

Carmeli, A., Meiter, R. & Weisberg, J. (2006a) Self-

leadership skills and innovative

41

behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27, (1). 75-

90.

Carmeli, A. & Tishler, A. (2006b). The relative importance

of the top management

team’s managerial skills. International Journal of Manpower, 27,

(1). 9-36.

Celep, C. (2000). Eğitimde örgütsel adanma ve öğretmenler.

(Organizational dedication

and teachers in education). Ankara: Anı yayınları

Cemaloglu, N. (2007). “The exposure of primary school teachers

to bullying: an analysis of

various variables”, Social Behavior and Personality, 35 (6),

789–802.

Cemaloglu, N. (2007). The relationship between organizational

health and bullying that

teachers experience in primary schools in Turkey.

Educational Research Quarterly, 31 (2), 3-29 (2007).

Cemaloglu, N., & Şahin, D. E. (2007). Öğretmenlerin mesleki

tükenmişlik düzeylerinin farklı

değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. (The research for

Professional burn-out levels of teachers in aspects of

different variables). Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15 (2), 465-484.

Chappel, D. & Di Martino, V., (1999). Violence at work. Asian-

Pacific Newsletter on

Occupational Health and Saffety, 6 (1),

Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (1999). Kalıcı olmak: Geleceğin güçlü

kuramlarını yaratmak.

İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.

42

Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting

workplace victim status from

personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9,

335 – 349.

Coyne, I., Smith-Lee Chong, P., Seigne, E. & Randall, P.

(2003). Self and peer nominations

of bullying: an analysis of incident rates, individual

differences, and perceptions of the working environment.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 209 – 228.

Coyne, I., Craig, J., & Smith-Lee Chong, P. (2004). Workplace

bullying in a group context.

British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32 (3), 301 – 317.

Çalışkan, O. (2005). Turizm sektöründe yıldırma. (Mobbing tourism

sector). Unpublished

Master Thesis., Mersin Üniversitesi, Mersin, Eğitim

Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Türkiye.

Çobanoğlu, (2005). Mobbing: İşyerinde duygusal saldırı ve başa çıkma

yöntemleri.(Mobbing:

emotional attack in workplace and handling methods).

İstanbul: Timaş yayınları.

Çokluk, Ö. (1999). Zihinsel ve işitme engelliler okulunda görev yapan yönetici

ve

öğretmenlerde tükenmişliğin kestirilmesi. (The estimation of the

level of burn-out for the teachers and managers of

schools for mentally and auditorily disabled children)

Unpublished Master Dissertation. Ankara University,

Institute of the Social Sciences, Ankara.

43

Davenport, N., Schwart, R.D & Eliot, G.P. (2003). Mobbing:

Emotional abuse in the

American work place. (Çev. Osman Cem ÖNERTOY). İstanbul:

Sistem Yayıncılık.

David, A. and Garvin, L. (2000). Building a learning

organization. Harward Business

Review, 71,78-91.

Davis, J. (2002). Effective schools, organizational culture and local policy

initiatives.

New York, NY: Teacher College Pres.

Deming, W. (1996). Krizden çıkış (Çev: Cem AKAŞ). Arçelik A.Ş.

Dick, R. V. & Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and strain in

teaching: A structural equation

approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 243-259.

Dolunay, A. B. (2002). Keçiören İlçesi “Genel Liseler ve

Teknik-Ticaret-Meslek Liselerinde

Görevli Öğretmenlerde Tükenmişlik Durumu” Araştırması.

[The research for the level of burn-out for the teachers working in state high

schools and technical high schools in Keçiören district]. Ankara Üniversitesi

Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, 55 (1), 51-62.

Dönmez, B. & Güneş, H. (2000). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinde

tükenmişlik. (Burn-out in the primary school managers).

Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi. Retrived November 20, 2004 from

http:// hww.Ani yayıncılık.com.tr

Duxbury, M.L , Armstrong, G.D, Drew, D.J., & Henly, S.J (1984).

Head nurse leadership style with staff nurse burnout and

job satisfaction in neonatal intensive care units. Nursing

Research, 33, 97-101.

44

Einarsen, S. & Raknes, B.I., Matthiesen, S. B., & Hellesǿy, O.

H. (1994). Bullying and

ınterpersonnal conflicts: Unhealthy interaction at work. Bergen, Norway:

Sigma Forlag.

Einarsen, S. & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work:

Epidemiolo-gical findings in public

and private organizations. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 5, 185-201.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I., Matthiesen, S.B., & Hellesøy, O.H.

(1996). Helsemessige aspekter

ved mobbing i arbeidslivet. Modererende effekter av

social støtte og personlighet. (Bullying at work and its

relationships with health complaints – moderating effects

of social support and personality). Nordisk Psykologi, 48, (2),

116-137

Einarsen, S. & Raknes, B.I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace

and the victimization of

men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247-263

Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S. B., & Skogstad, A. (1998).

Bullying, burnout and well-being

among assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safely -

Australia and New Zealand, 14, 563-568.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review

of the Scandinavian

approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior a Review Journal, 4, 371-401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H, Zapf, D & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The

Concept of bullying at work: the

45

European tradition. In: Einarsen, S. Hoel, H, Zapf, D &

Cooper, C. L., (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace.

International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp. 3 – 30). London:

Taylor & Francis.

Ertürk, A. (2005). Öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin okul ortamında maruz

kaldıkları yıldırma

eylemleri. (Mobbing behaviours that teachers and school

managers experience in the school environment).

Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, The Institute

of Educational Sciences, Ankara.

Fliegner, H. R. (1984). School leadership and organizational

health: A simulated teaching

unit. Dissertation Abstract International, 45 (6), (UMI No.2889-A)

Gençay, Ö. A. (2007). Beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin iş doyumu

ve mesleki tükenmişlikleri-

nin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. (The research

for the level of job content and professional burn-out of

physical education teachers in aspects of some variables).

Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15 (2), 765-780.

Gökçe, A. T. (2006). İşyerinde yıldırma: Özel ve resmi ilköğretim okullarında

yapılan bir

araştırma. (Workplace bullying: the research of the publich

and private schools). Unpublished PhD. Dissertation,

Ankara University, The Institute of Educational Sciences:

Ankara:

Halbur, K. V. (2005), Bullying in the academic workplace.

Academic Leader, 21 (11) 3-7.

46

Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace

bullying. International Review of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 195-230.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C.L. & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of

bullying at work in Great

Britain: The impact of organisational status. European

Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, (4), 414-425.

Behaviors are not necessarily equally damaging. Biritish

Journal of Guidance & Councelling. Vol. 32, No.3 367-387. Retrived

October 28, 2005, from Web:http.www.sciencedirect.com

Hoel, H. , Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. (2004). Bullying is

detrimental to health, but all bullying

behaviors are not necessarily equally damaging. Biritish

Journal of Guidance & Councelling. Vol. 32, No.3 367-387. Retrived

October 28, 2005, Web:http.www.sciencedirect.com

Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C. W. (1996). Educational administration. NY:

McGraaw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy

schools: A handbook for change: Middle and secondary school edition.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Pres.

Hubert, A. & Veldhoven, M. (2001). Risk sector for undesirable

behavior and mobbing.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (4), 415-

424.

Jennifer, D., Cowie, H., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Perception and

experience of workplace

bullying in five different working populations. Aggressive

Behavior, 2, 489-496.

47

Karasar, N. (1999). Bilimsel araştırma teknikleri. (Scientific research technics).

(9. Basım).

Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.

Kırel, Ç. (2007). Örgütlerde mobbing yönetiminde destekleyici

ve risk azaltıcı öneriler. (The

supportive and risk-detractive suggestions in mobbing

management. (Online) (Erişim

tarihi 24 Nisan 2008). (Anadolu Unıversıty Journal of Socıal Scıences, 7

(2), 317-334

Kırılmaz, A.Y; Çelen, Ü; Sarp, N. (2003). İlköğretimde calışan

bir oğretmen grubunda

tükenmişlik durumu araştırması. (A survey of mobbing in a

group working in primary schools). İlköğretim Online, 2 (1) 2-

9.

Kiev, A. & Kohn, V. (1979). Executive stress. AMA, Survey Report,

NewYork

Korkmaz, M.(2004). The relationship between organizational

health and robust school vision in

elementary school. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration.

XVIII (4), 473-488.

Korkmaz, M. (2005) The relationship between organizational

health and student achievement in

primary school. Kuram ve Uygulamada eğitim Yönetimi, 44, 529-548.

Kök, S. B. (2006, Mayis). İş yaşamında psiko-siddet sarmalı

olarak yıldırma olgusu ve nedenleri. (Mobbing phenomenon as

a factor of psychological violence in work -life and its

causes). Paper presented at 14. Ulusal Yönetim ve

Organizasyon Kongresi, Erzurum, Turkiye

48

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at

workplaces. Violence and

Victims, 5, 119-126.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at

work.European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165 -184.

Leymann, H. & Gustaffson, A. (1996) Mobbing at work and the

development of post –

traumatic stres disorders. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 10, 375-392.

Lunenburg, F. & Ornstain, D. (1992). Educational administration.

California: Wadswort

Publish Hing Company.

Matthiesen, S. B. & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations

among victims of bullying at

work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 467 –

484.

Mikkelsen. E.G. & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-

life: Prevalence and health

correlates. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology,

10, 4, 393-413.

Mikkelsen. E.G. & Einarsen, S. (2002a). Basic assumptions and

symptoms of post-traumatic

stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of

work and Organisational Psychology, 11(1), 87-111.

Mikkelsen, E.G. & Einarsen, S. (2002b, in press.).

Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and

psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role

49

of state negative affectivity and generalised self-

efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,

Namie, G. (1999). The workplace mobbing. İnternet’ten

25.05.2004 tarihinde elde edilmiştir.

http://www.bullyonline.org

Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and

personnel development

implications. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 5, 239-

249.

O’Conner, H. (2004). Bullying staff in schools. 1 – 6.

Retrieved September 8, 2005 from web: http: //www.

Caitrin.mtx.net

O’Driscoll M.P & Beehr, T.A (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role

stressors and uncertainty as

predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of

Organizational Behavior 15, 141-155.

Özdayı, N. (1998). Liselerde görev yapan öğretmenlerin eğitim

ortamlarının iş tatmini ve

verimlilik açısından değerlendirilmesi. (The evaluation of

education environment of teachers working in high schools

in the aspects of job content and efficiency). M.Ü. Atatürk

Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5, 10-18.

Özden, Y. (2005). Building learning organizations. Journal for

Quality and Participation, 15

(2), 30-38.

Öztürk, N. (2001). Liselerde bürokratikleşme ve öğretmenlerin stres düzeyler.

50

(Bureaucratization in high schools and the level of

teacher stres). Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, The

Institute of Educational

Sciences, İzmir.

Peker, R. (2002). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan

oğretmenlerin mesleki tükenmişliklerine

etki eden bazı faktörler. (Some factors affceting the

Professional burn-out of teachers of primary schools).

Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (1), 305-318.

Pehlivan, İ. (2000). İş yaşamında stres. (Stress in work-life).

Ankara. Pegem Yayıncılık.

Podgurski, T. P. (1990). School effectiveness as it relates to

group consensus and organizational

health of elementary schools. Dissertation Abstract International, 51

(11), (UMI No.3587-A)

Resch, M., Schubinski, M. (1996). Mobbing-prevention and

management in organizations.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2):295-302.

Salin, D. (2001). Prevalance and forms of bullying among

business professinals: a comparison

of two different strategies for measuring bullying.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 425 – 441.

Sarı, H. (2004). An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction

among Turkish special schoolhead

teachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their

burnout and job satisfaction.

Educational Studies, 30, 291-306.

51

Senge, P. (2002). Beşinci Disiplin. (The fifth dicipline). (Çev.

Ayşegül İldeniz ve Ahmet

Doğukan). İstanbul. Yapı ve Kredi Bankası Yayınları.

Seigne, E. (1998). Bullying at work in Ireland. In: Rayner, C.,

Sheehan, M. & Borler, M.

(Eds), Bullying at Work, Research Update Conference: Proceedings.

Staford: Staffordshire University.

Silins, H. & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning

organizations-effects of teacher

leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 15, (3-4), 443-466.

Silins, H, Zarins, S., & Mulford, W. (1999). Leadership for

organizational learning and

student outcomes: The LOLSO Project. Paper presented at

theAnnual Meeting of the AERA, Montreal, Canada.

Sucuoğlu, B. & Kuloğlu-Aksaz, N. (1996). Özürlü çocuklarla

çalışan öğretmenlerde

tükenmişliğin değerlendirilmesi. (The evaluation of the

level of burn-out of teachers working with disabled

children). Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10 (36), 44-60.

Tınaz, P. (2006). İşyerinde psikolojik taciz. (Workplace bullying)

İstanbul: Beta yayıncılık

Toker, A. G. (2006). İşyerinde yerinde yıldırma: Özel ve resmi ilköğretim

okullarında yapılan

bir arastırma. (Workplace bullying: The research of public and private

schools).

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ankara University, The

Institute of Educational

52

Sciences, Ankara.

Tuğrul, B. & Çelik, E. (2002). Normal çocuklarla çalışan

anaokulu öğretmenlerinde

tükenmişlik. (Burn-out of kindergarden school teachers

working with normal children). Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim

Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 (12), 1-11.

Tümkaya, S. (1996). Öğretmenlerdeki tükenmişlik görülen psikolojik belirtiler

ve başa çıkma

davranışları. (The psychological symptoms of burn-out of

teachers and overcoming behaviours). Unpublished master

thesis, Çukurova University, The Institute of Social

Sciences, Adana.

Türküm, S. (2003). Akılcı olmayan inanç ölçeğinin

geliştirilmesi ve kısaltma çalışması. (The

development of illogical belief scale and shortening

study. Türk Psikolojik Danışma

ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2, (19), 41-47

Ubrin, A. .J. (1978). Fundamental of organizational behavior an applied

perspective.

NewYork: Pergamon Press Inc.

Uçman, P. (1990). Ülkemizde Çalışan Kadınlarda Stresle Başa

çıkma ve Psikolojik

Rahatsızlıklar, (Overcoming stress in working women in our

country and psychological ilnesses). Psikoloji Dergisi, 7 (24),

58-75.

Uppal, S. (2005). Disability, workplace characteristics and job

satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 26 (4), 336-351.

53

Vartia, M. (1996). "The sources of bullying-psychological work

environment and organisational climate', The European Journal

of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 203-14.

Vartia, M. & Hyyti, J. (2002). Gender differences in workplace

bullying among prison officer.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 113 – 126.

Westhues, K. (2004). Administrative mobbing at the university

of Toronto. Ontario;The

Edwin Melen Press.

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,

215-237

Zapf, D. & Osterwalder, P. (1998). Organizational causes of workplace

harassment,

Department of Psychology, J. W. Goethe-University,

Frankfurt.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and

personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International

Journal of Manpower, I, 70-85.

54