Workplace harassment: Deterring role of transformational leadership and core job characteristics

+ Models

SCAMAN-893; No. of Pages 15

Workplace harassment: Deterring role oftransformational leadership and core jobcharacteristics

Milda Astrauskaite a,*, Guy Notelaers b, Asta Medisauskaite c,Roy M. Kern c

aKaunas University of Technology, Department of Philosophy and Psychology, K. Donelaicio str. 20-313, LT-44239 Kaunas, LithuaniabUniversity of Bergen, Faculty of Psychology, P.O. Box 7807, 5020 Bergen, NorwaycVytautas Magnus University, Department of Theoretic Psychology, K. Donelaicio str. 52-315, LT-44244 Kaunas,Lithuania

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2014) xxx, xxx—xxx

KEYWORDSWork harassment;Transformationalleadership;Core job characteristics

Summary Theoretical arguments suggest that transformational leaders deter work harassmentby facilitating a moral and ethical environment, by effectively managing stress and employeeconflicts, by addressing self-worth of the followers, and by facilitating the core job character-istics of autonomy, feedback, and task identity. In the present study we investigated the potentialeffect of transformational leadership and the core job characteristics as deterrents of workplaceharassment. The findings in a sample of 320 employees demonstrated that the probability toreport elevated levels of work harassment was negatively related to transformational leadership.In addition, the relationship between transformational leadership and workplace harassmentdecreased when three job characteristics were included in the analysis. The mediation analysis inprocess (Hayes, 2012) indicated that only autonomy partially explained the indirect relationshipbetween transformational leadership and harassment. The present study demonstrated that atransformational leader facilitates autonomy and provides employees with the resources ofindependence and power. This deters work harassment, because the target does not appear in aninferior position in comparison with the instigator.# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

j ou rn al home pag e: http: / /w ww. e l se v ier. com/ loc ate /sc ama n

Introduction

Workplace harassment has received attention since the 1980s,when Leymann published his ideas on negative workplace

Please cite this article in press as: Astrauskaite, M., et al. Workplace harcharacteristics. Scandinavian Journal of Management (2014), http://d

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +370 60512814.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Astrauskaite),

[email protected] (A. Medisauskaite),[email protected] (R.M. Kern).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.06.0010956-5221/# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

behavior (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010; Zapf & Einarsen,2005). Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Hjelt-Back (1994) claimedthat work harassment can be described as ‘‘repeated activ-ities, with the aim of bringing mental (but sometimes alsophysical) pain, and directed toward one or more individualswho, for one reason or another, are not able to defendthemselves’’ (pp. 173—174). Though other researchers sinceLeymann have used different labels such as bullying, mobbing,or work harassment, most researchers agree that they describe

assment: Deterring role of transformational leadership and core jobx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.06.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09565221

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543

+ Models


2 M. Astrauskaite et al.

similar or equivalent phenomenon (Matthiesen & Einarsen,2010).

Research related to work harassment seems to be of highvalue in Lithuania. For example, a representative study intwo metropolitan cities in Lithuania indicated a prevalencerate of 25.4% (Pajarskiene, Vebraite, Andruskiene, & Jurgu-tis, 2012). Malinauskiene, Obelenis, Sopagiene, and Macio-nyte (2007) presented a 6.4% of frequent exposure toworkplace harassment and 19.1% of occasional harassmentamong teachers. European Working Conditions Survey (2005)demonstrated that work harassment in Lithuanian organiza-tions is higher than the average rate in European organiza-tions. Although statistical and methodological moderatorsmay explain such high prevalence rates (Nielsen, Matthiesen,& Einarsen, 2010), the situation in Lithuania requires closerattention; specifically, it requires research on potentialcauses of workplace bullying to prevent the dysfunctionalphenomenon.

A considerable body of research has been conducted withregard to the antecedents of work harassment. In line withthe work environment hypothesis (Leymann, 1993), suggest-ing that a poor work environment may increase the preva-lence of work harassment, previous studies demonstratedthat Karasek’s (1979) Demand Control Model, Warr’s (1990)work environmental features, the Michigan Model (Kahn,Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) and the DemandResources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) are all usefultheoretical frameworks to understand potential antecedentsof bullying (Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011; Balducci,Cecchin, & Fraccaroli, 2012; Hauge et al., 2011; Notelaers,De Witte, & Einarsen, 2010a, 2010b; Van den Broeck, Baillien,& De Witte, 2011). In contrast to the work-environmentstudies that began in early 1990s (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthie-sen, 1994; Matthiesen, Raknes, & Røkkum, 1989), the firstempirical studies linking leadership to bullying started approxi-mately a decade later. Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland,and Hetland (2007) and Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen (2007)pointed to the importance of passive and destructive forms ofleadership to explain bullying. Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper,and Einarsen (2010) reported the detrimental effects of auto-cratic leadership. Other researchers highlighted the impor-tance of ethical leadership (Stouten et al., 2011) and themoderating role of leader’s social support (Hauge et al.,2011; Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009). However,few studies have addressed the deterring role of constructiveleadership styles on workplace harassment (Cemaloglu, 2011;Lee, 2011). This seems surprising considering the commonagreement that leadership plays a key role in the developmentof harassment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Leymann,1993; Zapf, Escartin, & Einarsen, 2011).

Analysis of constructive leadership, and transformationalleadership in particular (Bass & Riggio, 2006), may shed morelight by its potential deterring effect on workplace harass-ment. Thus, in the present study we analyzed the relation-ship between transformational leadership and workharassment. In addition, we integrated the second dominantfactor of the work-environment approach, i.e. job design(Baillien, De Cuyper, et al., 2011; Baillien & De Witte, 2009;Einarsen, 1996; Hauge, 2010; Leymann, 1996; Notelaers,2011). We assumed that the relationship between transfor-mational leadership and workplace harassment would have adirect as well as indirect effect (e.g. via three core job


characteristics of autonomy, feedback, and task identity).The latter assumption is based on Bass and Riggio’s (2006)proposition that transformational leaders create and rein-force norms and unwritten rules within organization, andPiccolo and Colquitt’s (2006) findings that indicated thatHackman and Oldham’s (1976) core job characteristicsexplained the relationship between transformational leader-ship and job behaviors.

Work harassment and transformationalleadership

First introduced by Burns (1978), transformational leadershipbecame a part of the full range of leadership (FRL) modeltogether with transactional leadership and laissez-fairebehavior (Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to Bass and Riggio(2006) the most constructive leaders are those who displaytransformational leadership behaviors in addition to transac-tional ones. Various researchers (i.e. Bass & Riggio, 2006;Carless, Wearing, & Mann, 2000; Popper & Mayseless, 2003)argued that transformational leadership is able to buildcertain positive conditions in the organizational setting;we argue it may deter harassment in the workplace.

The forgoing assumption is based on research that thetransformational leader contributes to preventing harass-ment by addressing the moral and ethical environment(Burns, 1978) and promoting pro-social values (Popper &Mayseless, 2003). For example, Bass and Riggio (2006)explained that a transformational leader facilitates moralityand equality by performing under the principles of mutualrespect. By valuing all followers’ opinions and opposingdiscrimination or any type of racism, transformational lea-ders promote morality and pro-social values. One study inparticular found that a transformational leader deters workharassment via employees’ perceptions of a climate ofrespect (Lee, 2011).

Second, a strenuous work environment seems to be acause of work harassment (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, &De Cuyper, 2009; Balducci et al., 2012; Notelaers et al.,2013). A transformational leader, with a focus on being asocial supporter, can help followers to manage stress moreeffectively (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and therefore diminish thelikelihood of exposure to harassment. Popper and Mayseless(2003) proposed that followers turn to a leader when theyface threats or hostile behaviors. Hence, in early stage ofworkplace harassment, where workplace harassment is dif-ficult to detect (Bjorkqvist, 1992), but has a strenuous effecton the target (Notelaers, Einarsen, De Witte, & Vermunt,2006), the target can address the issue with the leader.

Third, according to scholars, conflicts (Zapf, 1999) andpoor conflict management skills (Baillien, Notelaers, DeWitte, & Matthiesen, 2011; Zapf & Gross, 2001) increaseharassment in the workplace (Baillien et al., 2009). In caseof a conflict, the transformational leader pictures the con-flict as a challenge or learning opportunity that requires acollaborative effort (Carless et al., 2000); a transformationalleader shows that neither party can get along without theassistance of the other (Bass & Riggio, 2006). By increasingthe likelihood of effective conflict management (Bass &Riggio, 2006), a transformational leader can deter workharassment (Baillien et al., 2009).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.06.001

+ Models


Workplace harassment, transformational leadership and core job characteristics 3

In addition, a transformational leader is capable toexpand team spirit and encourage a shared vision by settingsuperordinate goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This influencesfollowers’ social identification with the group (Carless et al.,2000) and in turn increases sense of belonging that createscircumstances for contribution toward mutual well-being(Ferguson, 1984). In the environment where a follower feelslike a part of the group, the stress is reduced (Bass & Riggio,2006), conflicts are managed cooperatively (Bass & Riggio,2006), and the risk of workplace harassment is minimized(Baillien et al., 2009; Baillien, Neyens, & De Witte, 2008).

Finally, a transformational leader addresses the self-worthof the followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006), which contributes to theself-esteem and deters exposure to work harassment (Mat-thiesen & Einarsen, 2007; Vartia, 2001). The ability to increasefollowers’ self-esteem stems from accepting individual differ-ences, demonstrating confidence in followers equally andrespectfully, and providing support and encouragement (Car-less et al., 2000). Work harassment is related to a lack or loss ofself-confidence (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008). Inwork harassment situations the victim appears to be in aninferior position compared to the instigator (Bjorkqvistet al., 1994). In such cases, a leader’s ability to contributeto the followers’ self-esteem may be an important factorthat protects potential victims from the advances of theperpetrator. In line with the above presented arguments wepresent Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 1. A supervisor’s transformational leadershipstyle is negatively related to perceived work harassment.

Transformational leadership, core jobcharacteristics and workplace harassment

In line with the transformational leadership literature andprevious empirical evidence, we posit that transformationalleadership can deter work harassment. In addition, previousresearch has pointed to other factors that may explain work-place harassment; the work environment received scholarlyattention in recent years (Baillien et al., 2009; Balducciet al., 2012; Notelaers et al., 2013).

The literature on transformational leadership suggeststhat transformational leadership relates to the quality ofthe work environment and may facilitate certain job char-acteristics. For example, Bass and Riggio (2006) argued that atransformational leader creates and reinforces norms andunwritten rules within the organization (Bass & Riggio, 2006).He or she becomes an influential source when evaluating jobcharacteristics (Griffin, 1981; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Pur-vanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006). In an empirical studyPiccolo and Colquitt (2006) demonstrated that transforma-tional leadership had a strong effect on a wide range ofoutcomes taking into account job characteristics as media-tors. In a similar vein, Stouten et al. (2011) reported that therelationship between exposure to negative behaviors andethical leadership was partially mediated by workload andworking conditions.

In the present study we analyzed core job characteristicsdescribed in the Job Characteristics Model and presented byHackman and Oldham in 1976 as potential mediators in the


relationship between transformational leadership and workharassment. Thereby we also respond to a research call ofOldham and Hackman (2010) to analyze social dimensions(e.g., transformational leadership) together with the jobcharacteristics.

The Job Characteristics Model describes five job dimen-sions that are related to positive personal and work relatedoutcomes: autonomy, feedback, task identity, task signifi-cance, and variety. Absence of these job dimensions relate tolower motivation, lower job satisfaction, lower quality ofwork and higher absenteeism and turnover (Hackman, Old-ham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975). We analyze three out of fivecore job characteristics: task identity, autonomy, and feed-back. The reason for choosing these three core job charac-teristics is that Hackman and Oldham (1976) proposed thatskill variety, task significance, and task identity reflect mean-ingfulness of job and the sum of these dimensions (divided by3) portrays the motivating potential of a job. The threeelements of skill variety, task significance, and task identityseem to be highly correlated and hence all do not need to beincluded in the analysis. Indeed, researchers proposed thathaving at least one of the three dimensions that measuremeaningfulness of work may be enough (Hackman et al.,1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In the present study wefocused on task identity because it combines two implement-ing concepts, i.e. forming natural work units and combiningtasks, which are related to job enrichment (Hackman et al.,1975), whereas skill variety and task significance relate toonly one implementing concept (Hackman et al., 1975) andseem to be of lower explanatory power for job enrichment.

A transformational leader seems to facilitate the threecore job characteristics that in turn deter work harassment.For example, the transformational leaders promote respon-sible and independent behavior in their followers (Bass &Riggio, 2006; Carless et al., 2000), which thereby fostersautonomy, described as the degree of independence andfreedom at work (Hackman et al., 1975; Hackman & Oldham,1976). According to the transformational leadership theory, atransformational leader delegates tasks and allows followersto experience personal responsibility and make decisions inrelation to their work (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The relationshipbetween transformational leadership and autonomy has beenestablished in empirical studies (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006;Hetland, Hetland, Andreassen, Pallesen, & Notelaers, 2011).

In addition, according to Hackman and Oldham (1976)autonomy provides the opportunity for employees to feelin control and take full responsibility of their jobs. Previousempirical research revealed that limited opportunities forcontrol causes more strain and instigates harassment (Hoel,Zapf, & Cooper, 2002). Recently, Baillien, Notelaers, et al.(2011) found longitudinal support for the relationshipbetween autonomy and work harassment. Following this link,we predict that a transformational leader encourages auton-omy and in turn deters workplace harassment.

In addition to facilitating autonomy, a transformationalleader is concerned about followers’ personal growth anddevelopment (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Carless et al., 2000).Hence, teaching, coaching, and feedback become importantcomponents of a transformational leader’s behavior (Bass &Riggio, 2006; Carless et al., 2000). Feedback was described asthe degree to which individuals receive information on howwell they are doing their jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).



+ Models



Notelaers et al. (2010b) explained that the lack of feedbackprevents individuals from adjusting their behavior and cre-ates a lack of clarity, which may lead to conflicts and strain–—and consequently to harassment at work. Zapf and Oster-walder (1998) argued that negative feedback induces strain,which leads to poor performance, negative attitudes towardthe employee, and punishment; these conditions can put theemployee into the position of a target (Baillien et al., 2009).Notelaers et al. (2010b) found empirical evidence for thenegative feedback and workplace bullying relationship.Hence, it seems that a transformational leader may deterwork harassment via positive and accurate feedback.

Task identity was described as the degree to which aperson can do the job from the beginning to the end (Hack-man & Oldham, 1976). Researchers argued that a transfor-mational leader allows followers to finish entire tasks withoutchecking on them (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In addition, idealizedinfluence, which is one of the components of transforma-tional leadership, ensures that the leader acts upon princi-ples of respect, ethics, fairness and morality (Bass & Riggio,2006) and, therefore, is concerned with ensuring task iden-tity, which creates a feeling of respectful treatment (Hack-man & Lawler, 1971). A transformational leader is concernedwith followers’ self-worth (Bass & Riggio, 2006), which maybe promoted by allowing followers to finish the tasks by theirown efforts (i.e., supporting task identity) (Bass & Riggio,2006). Although task identity did not receive attention inharassment research, it seems that encouraged by transfor-mational leadership it may prevent work harassment. Forexample, task identity allows a person to finish a task by one’sown efforts, and thereby increases self-worth (Bass & Riggio,2006), which in turn deters work harassment (Einarsen et al.,1994; Vartia, 2001). In addition, researchers claimed thatgiving meaningless tasks is a form of work harassment (Einar-sen et al., 2011). This form seems to be prevented by taskidentity, which creates a feeling of worthwhile and mean-ingful job (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). Finally, absence of taskidentity may relate to burnout (Adebayo & Ezeanya, 2010)and cynical behavior (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001),


Table 1 Distribution of the demographic characteristics among

Demographic characteristic OrganizationX (N = 197)

GenderMale 140 (71.1%)

Female 54 (27.4%)

The average age 37 (SD = 10.5)

EducationPrimary 9 (4.6%)

Secondary 82 (41.6%)

College 50 (25.4%)

University 56 (28.4%)

SupervisionYes 16 (8.1%)

No 171 (86.8%)

Workload (hours per week) 45 (SD = 8)

The average number ofyears of work experience

3.6 (SD = 4)

which can distance individuals from others. Others may reactwith a retaliatory response, which may be perceived asharassment (Felson, 1992; Neuman & Baron, 2003). In con-clusion, a transformational leader seems to be able to pre-vent work harassment by facilitating autonomy, task identity,and feedback. Hence, we offer Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2. The three core job characteristics of autono-my, task identity, and feedback mediate the relationshipbetween transformational leadership and work harassment.

Methods

Participants and procedure

The data was obtained using anonymous self-report ques-tionnaires, completed by employees in three Lithuaniancompanies (in April—May, 2010). The data was collected bya group of graduate students, who have taken the masterlevel course ‘‘Practice: Research Project,’’ which was super-vised by the two authors of the present manuscript. Ques-tionnaires were given out directly to the employees, whoreturned the questionnaires to the secretary. The companieswere from the service sector, selected via conveniencesampling procedures. The questionnaires were distributedand collected over a 2-day period. Of the 415 questionnairesdistributed, 320 were returned, yielding a 77.1% responserate. Two hundred (or 62%) of participants identified as maleand 116 (or 36.3%) as female; 1.3% did not specify. Theaverage age of employees was 38.9 years (SD = 11.7). Theaverage number of years of work experience in a currentposition was 4.7 years (SD = 5.7). Most employees were sub-ordinates, i.e. 82.2% (263) and 17.2% (55) were supervisors(0.6% non specified). The average workload (in hours perweek) was 43.7 (SD = 7.1). The distribution of the demo-graphic variables among the three organizations is presentedin Table 1.


researched organizations.

OrganizationY (N = 65)

OrganizationZ (N = 58)

27 (41.5%) 33 (56.9%)37 (56.9%) 25 (43.1%)47 (SD = 11.2) 37 (SD = 12.6)

— —3 (3.1%) 1 (1.7%)8 (12.3%) 3 (5.2%)

55 (84.6%) 54 (93.1%)

20 (30.8%) 19 (32.8%)44 (67.7%) 39 (67.2%)41 (SD = 4.6) 42.5 (SD = 4.7)8.1 (SD = 8.5) 4.9 (SD = 5)


+ Models



MeasuresA seven-item Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL;Carless et al., 2000) validated for Lithuanian sample (Stel-mokiene & Endriulaitiene, 2009) was used to measure trans-formational leadership (Cronbach a = .92). Response ratingsare measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(never or very rarely) to 5 (very often or always). In thevalidation study by Carless et al. (2000), the GTL scale washighly correlated with the Multifactor Leadership Question-naire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995), which proved to havestrong convergent validity.

The autonomy, feedback, and task identity scales wereselected from the Job Characteristic Inventory (JCI), devel-oped by Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller (1976). Respondents wereasked to rate items on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from1 (very little or minimum amount) to 5 (very much ormaximum amount). Scale of autonomy includes six items(Cronbach a = .63), task identity is constructed of four items(Cronbach a = .70), and feedback was estimated evaluatingfive items (Cronbach a = .78). Due to the lower reliability ofthe autonomy scale, we used single item deletion to poten-tially increase the psychometric properties. After deletion ofthe items, the reliability did not increase. Hence, the deci-sion was made to use a six-item scale of autonomy.

The Work Harassment scale (WHS), developed by Bjorkq-vist and Osterman (1992), was used to measure work harass-ment (Cronbach a = .94). The scale consists of 24 itemsdesigned to measure employees’ exposure to negative formsof behavior during the last six months. Respondents ratedeach item on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never)to 5 (very often). All scales and instruments were translatedinto Lithuanian language using a back-forward translationprocedure.

Plan of analysisBefore addressing the study hypotheses, exposure to work-place harassment had to be assessed. Traditionally, workharassment studies, which use an inventory-based evaluationof the negative behaviors, calculate a sum or the mean of thenegative behaviors. Such empirical research reported meansand standard deviations, which demonstrated that the largemajority of participants hardly report any repeated negativebehaviors (Nielsen, 2009; Notelaers et al., 2013; Zapf et al.,2011). In fact, in a regression analysis where workplacebullying is considered as an outcome variable, the victimsmay even appear as statistical ‘‘outliers’’; this obscures theuse of traditional statistical tools.

On a conceptual level, reporting infrequent negativebehavior or reporting harassment as a central mode (cf.average) of a continuum does not really qualify as an oper-ationalization of the concept of workplace harassment,which essentially involves repeated negative behavior (Note-laers et al., 2013). Workplace bullying is characterized by apattern of repeated hostile behaviors over an extendedperiod of time (Keashly & Jagatic, 2011). According to Glomb(2002) and Keashly and Jagatic (2011) the nature of thephenomenon may only become clear when whole patternof behaviors are examined. As a response, recent studies inworkplace bullying (Nielsen, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2011;Notelaers, 2011; Notelaers, Baillien, Vermunt, De Witte, &Einarsen, 2011; Notelaers et al., 2006) advocated for LC


(latent class) modeling techniques as a valid statisticalapproach to uncover the core of the phenomenon (Nielsenet al., 2011).

LC starting point is the analysis of response categories andof items response patterns, which the statistical programreduces to a limited number of homogeneous latent classes(Notelaers et al., 2013; Notelaers & Einarsen, 2013). LCmodels examine the patterns of observed responses in func-tion of the conditional probability to endorse the items andwork harassment (Devine, Bunting, McCann, & Murphy,2008). LC has also an advantage because it is a distribu-tion-free, non-parametric technique. This fits the theoreticalconstruct of workplace bullying and its skewed distribution(Notelaers et al., 2006). Next, LC takes item properties, suchas item difficulty and discriminatory power, into account; thisis important because of the divergent popularity of items andthe divergent discriminatory power of negative behaviors(Notelaers et al., 2011), which was demonstrated in previousresearch (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004).

LC assumes that respondents belong to mutually exclusivegroups, which are the categories of a not directly observable(latent) variable (e.g., being a target of harassment). Thesegroups (the latent classes) differ in their responses to a set ofobserved variables (called indicators or items). Typically, LCanalysis starts with the estimation of a one-class model(assuming that the population is homogeneous), subse-quently increasing the number of classes to two (e.g., notharassed/harassed), three, four, etc., until a model is foundthat statistically fits the data. An important difference fromtraditional cluster methods (such as K-means clustering) isthat LC analysis is based on a statistical model that can betested (Vermunt, 2006). As a consequence, determining thenumber of latent classes is less arbitrary than when usingtraditional cluster methods. In an LC approach, every subjectis assigned to only one cluster based on the modal assignmentrule that classifies a subject to the class with the highestclassification probability. These membership probabilitiesare calculated based on the estimated parameters of themeasurement model.

As Notelaers, Einarsen, Vermunt, and De Witte (2004)explained:

The iterative process of LC modeling can be inspected bythe drop in L2 (a badness of fit index). L2 is a translation ofhow much association between the indicators is left to beexplained. An L2 of 1 is considered to be a perfect fit.When going from one cluster model to the second clustermodel, a drop in L2 reveals if there is an improvement offit. The proportional reduction in L2 expresses how muchL2 has been reduced, compared to the one cluster model(p. 137).

To determine how many clusters or classes are needed toexplain the associations in the multiway table, the BayesianCriterion Information (BIC) is used. Vermunt and Magidson(2000) suggested accepting the model with the lowest BIC.Next to BIC, and equally important, is whether the model issignificant. When the multiway table is sparse, a bootstraptechnique may be used to assess the significance (Langeheineet al., 1996). In addition, the bivariate residuals (BVRs), givenin Latent Gold, should be lower than or equal to 3.84, whichcorresponds to a significant chi-square with one degree offreedom. This means that all bivariate associations are



+ Models



explained by the latent variable. In practice, with manypolytomous indicators as in our case, the reduction in BVRshould be a least 85% (Notelaers et al., 2011). This prevents usfrom adding an additional cluster for each pair or few pairs ofBVR’s that is higher than 3.84. Thus, if there is a considerableBVR left, it may be a good option to let behaviors correlatewithout adding an additional latent trait (Hagenaars, 1998).This approach is especially useful when an external factorunrelated to the harassment construct creates an irrelevantassociation between two variables or when items have similarwording. Finally, the classification error has to be taken intoaccount. Latent Gold calculates the overall classification error,which is based on the sum of classification error in the neigh-boring or adjacent classes.

In sum, to capture workplace harassment and estimate itsprevalence we first estimated a latent class model. There-after, we used the results of the latent class model to test ourresearch hypotheses. Recent developments in mediationanalysis focus on bootstrapping the indirect effects. In linewith Hayes’ (2012) recommendations with respect to media-tion analysis, we used Process to disentangle parallel media-tion. However, Process macro is only written for SAS andSPPS, so after the LC analysis, we took the factor score ofworkplace harassment obtained from LC analysis and used itto discern mediation in SPSS. The factor score of workplaceharassment obtained from LC analyses expresses the prob-ability to be highly exposed to workplace harassment beha-viors.

Results

The prevalence of workplace bullying

The BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) demonstrated thatthe most adequate models were latent class factor modelsinstead of latent class cluster models. This means that groupsof exposure are ordered groups, as portrayed in Table 2. TheBIC decreased until eight different latent classes were dis-tinguished. After identifying the ninth cluster, however, BICincreased; this implied a deterioration of fit. Yet, the inspec-tion of the overall adjacent classification errors showed thata seven-class model had 11.9% classification errors, while aneight-class model yielded 19.5%. Together with the addi-tional reduction in error of less than 1% corresponding to


Table 2 Conditional mean probabilities regarding the seven late

Indicators Latent classes of work harassment

Notexposed

Very rarenegativebehaviors

Rarenegativebehaviors

Never .964 .930 .860

Seldom .032 .061 .120

Occasionally .003 .007 .017

Often .000 .000 .001

Very often .000 .000 .000

Proportion ofthe sample

.245 .008 .176

adding an eighth class, we conclude that a latent class modelwith seven classes is the most appropriate. It is noteworthythat the bootstrapping of the L2 was not significant.

The conditional probabilities for each cluster portrayingthe relationship between the 24-item responses and classmembership are listed in the Appendix A. Table 2 gives asummary of these results; that is, for each bullying cluster itcontains the average conditional probability (CP) of respond-ing never, seldom, occasionally, often, or very often acrossthe items. These mean conditional probabilities reflect theaverage probability for respondents in a given class or groupto choose one of the five response alternatives when respond-ing to the given items. The cluster labels given by us appear inthe headings of Table 2.

In the first latent class, respondents may be labeled as notharassed or not exposed, because the CP of never experi-enced negative behaviors was over.95. Approximately 24% ofthe sample was not harassed at all. The second latent classwas very small (less than 1%). This class yielded a CP of neverexperienced negative behaviors of .93. We propose to labelthis class as very rare negative behaviors. The third classdemonstrated a CP of never experienced negative behaviorsthat was .86 (approximately 18% of the respondents). Hence,on average they also reported rare negative behaviors. Yet,the conditional latent class probabilities indicated anincrease in responding to be seldom subjected to a varietyof negative behaviors. The CP to respond seldom was approxi-mately.20 for the items of ‘‘Being unduly criticized,’’ ‘‘Accu-sations,’’ ‘‘Belittling of your opinions,’’ and ‘‘Refusal to hearyou’’. Negative behaviors like ‘‘Being given meaninglesstasks,’’ ‘‘Having your sense of judgment questioned,’’‘‘Unduly reduced opportunities to express yourself,’’ and‘‘Lies about you’’ were more frequently reported. Still, 15negative behaviors were hardly reported at all.

In the fourth latent class, negative behaviors were morefrequently reported. Only negative behaviors like ‘‘Beingisolated,’’ ‘‘Sensitive details on private life revealed,’’‘‘Direct threats,’’ ‘‘Being sneered at,’’ and ‘‘Insulting tasks’’were hardly reported (CP never > .90). Given the instructionto the respondents (‘‘how often have you been exposed todegrading or oppressing activities by your colleagues at workduring the last six months? The activities must have beenexperienced as means of harassment, not as normal commu-nication, or as exceptional occasions’’), the various nature ofthe reported behaviors and the CP, we labeled this latent


nt classes of work harassment.

Rarelyharassed

Occasionallyharassed

Sometimesharassed

Target ofharassment

.723 .501 .241 .059

.225 .350 .373 .217

.047 .132 .318 .498

.003 .013 .055 .173

.000 .002 .011 .050

.227 .217 .095 .032


+ Models



class as the rarely harassed (almost 23% of the sample). Thefifth latent class was identified as the occasionally harassedgroup because the average conditional probabilities relatedto answering seldom or more frequently was around .50 (22%of the respondents). In the sixth class, all negative behaviorswere at least seldom or occasionally reported, includingthose that were hardly reported in the previous latent classes(10% of the sample). Given that the average CP was .76 to notrespond never to the items, we labeled this latent class as thesometimes harassed. Lastly, the targets of harassment hadon average almost zero probability to never face harassment.They portrayed the highest average CP to respond often ormore frequently (approximately 3% of the respondents).

Prior to mediation analysis, we merged the classificationoutput of Latent Gold with the dataset that included all theother variables in this study. Due to limited sample size weconceived workplace harassment as the factor mean and notas the probability to be classified as a target of workplacebullying (Notelaers et al., 2013). This factor score can becomputed by using the corresponding posterior probabilitiesas weights (Vermunt & Magidson, 2009) and expresses theprobability to be highly exposed to harassment behaviors. Incontrast to a sum score or an average score of workplaceharassment, this probability or factor score demonstrated afit to the assumptions of a regression analysis like intervalmeasure (a probability varies between 0 and 1) and normal-ity. Where a probability of .750 or higher denotes targets ofworkplace harassment, the average probability was .357(SD = .271). The latter clearly excludes the first two latentclasses, i.e. the latent classes of not bullied and the very rarenegative behaviors. In addition, more than a half of therespondents were of the rare negative behaviors’ latentclass, because they had a lower factor score.

Mediation analysis

To inspect whether the three job characteristics mediatedthe relationship between transformational leadership andworkplace harassment we further conducted our analysisin SPSS 21 where we performed the Process macro for con-ditional process analysis (Hayes, 2012).

The correlation matrix presented in Table 3 yielded nosignificant relationships between control variables (gender,


Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations becharacteristics, gender, and age.

Measure M SD 1

1. Gender — —2. Age 38.9 11.7 .083. Work harassment — — .06

4. Transformationalleadership

23.6 6.07 .01

5. Autonomy 19.8 3.4 �.05

6. Feedback 16.6 3.2 .003

7. Task identity 14.8 2.8 .05

Note. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Work harassment = probability to

* p < .05.** p < .01.

age), workplace harassment and the potential mediators.Not shown here, but the exposure to work harassment did notdiffer among the three organizations ( p = .29) nor did itdepend on supervisor/subordinate position ( p = .09). Hence,control variables were not taken into account in furtheranalysis. In order to test for mediation effects we followedHayes (2012) recommendations and conducted the analysis inProcess using the latent class factor score as an outcomevariable.

Results revealed that only autonomy partially mediatedthe relationship between transformational leadership andwork harassment because the confidence interval aroundthe estimates of the indirect effect did not contain a zero.Hence, both task identity and feedback did not mediate therelationship between transformational leadership and theprobability to be highly exposed to workplace harassment.

Discussion and recommendations

Drawing upon the integration of transformational leadershiptheory (Bass & Riggio, 2006), Job Characteristics Model(Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and previous studies related tojob characteristics explaining the indirect relationshipbetween leadership and workplace behavior (Stoutenet al., 2011), our principal goal was to investigate whethertransformational leadership deters exposure to work harass-ment and whether this relationship is mediated by the threecore job characteristics. The results demonstrated thattransformational leadership was directly and indirectlyrelated to work harassment, i.e., via partial mediation ofautonomy, but not via feedback and task identity. Hence,Hypothesis 1 was fully supported and Hypothesis 2 waspartially supported.

Previous studies related to work harassment and leader-ship were limited to the analysis of leadership in regards to itspassive and destructive forms (Hauge et al., 2007; Hoel et al.,2010; Skogstad et al., 2007). Transformational leadershipreceived minimal attention with the notable exception offew recent studies (Cemaloglu, 2011; Lee, 2011). However,an investigation of the constructive leadership stylesoffers an opportunity to focus on the strengths and mayencourage organizations to take a proactive role in preven-tion (Ferguson, 2006).


tween work harassment, transformational leadership, core job

2 3 4 5 6

�.08.11 * �.29 **

.06 �.31 ** .30 **

.03 �.27 ** .57 ** .46 **

.10 * �.32 ** .40 ** .62 ** .57 **

score high on exposure to work harassment.


+ Models



In line with the first hypothesis, we found a negativerelationship between transformational leadership and workharassment. The finding may be explained by a transforma-tional leader viewing followers as trustworthy and equalindividuals, creating circumstances where they feel valuedand respected (Bass & Riggio, 2006), which communicatesthat they do not have to struggle for superiority at theexpense of others (Ferguson, 2003). In addition, the trans-formational leaders seem to promote: a moral and ethicalworking environment (Burns, 1978), more effective stressmanagement (Bass & Riggio, 2006), constructive conflictsolving (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Carless et al., 2000), andincreased self-worth of followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006), whichdeters workplace harassment.

Since Leymann (1986, 1992) introduced the workplaceharassment phenomenon to Europe, there have been fewstudies that investigate the relationship between work har-assment, leadership and job characteristics (Skogstad et al.,2007; Stouten et al., 2011). Leymann (1993, 1996) wasconvinced that (poor) working conditions and (deficient)leadership are responsible for the occurrence of workplaceharassment. In our study, we responded to this relative lackof research and analyzed both leadership and job character-istics together with work harassment.

Evidence from the present study supported autonomy asbeing a partial mediator, and partially confirmed the ideathat a transformational leader has influence over norms andunwritten rules in the organization (Carless et al., 2000; Bass& Riggio, 2006), which in turn can encourage or discourage


Table 4 Multiple mediation analysis with mediators opera

Predictors Outcomes

Autonomy Feedback

Constant 15.81 ** 9.06 **

Transformationalleadership (TL)

.17 ** .31 **

Autonomy — —

Feedback — —

Task identity — —

F 21.33 ** 84.86 **

R2 .086 .325

Total and

B

Total effect of TL on WH �.014 **

Direct effect of TL on WH �.009 *

Bootstrap results for

Point estimate

Total indirect effect �.0049

Autonomy �.0023

Feedback �.0005

Task identity �.0022

Note. Work harassment = probability to score high on exposure toSE = standard error; n = 270. Number of bootstrap samples = 100* p < .05.** p < .001.

work harassment. It seems that autonomy facilitated bytransformational leaders provides a sense of accomplishingsomething by one’s own efforts (Hackman & Lawler, 1971),which increases self-esteem and decreases the likelihood ofworkplace harassment (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007).

In addition, autonomy allows one to control a situation(Hackman & Oldham, 1976), which can provide resources tocope with difficult and strenuous situations (Mullins, 2005)and prevent harassment at work (Hoel et al., 2002). Einarsenet al. (2011) argued that imbalance of power and inferiorposition of a target is a central feature of bullying. Thisimbalance of power appears when the victim is lacking offormal or informal power or is dependent on the instigator(Einarsen et al., 2011). The present study findings suggestedthat transformational leaders facilitate autonomy and pro-vide resources, independence and power. Hence, an instiga-tor cannot take advantage of a target (Einarsen et al., 2011),and the target does not end up in an inferior position versusthe instigator (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994).

Literature and previous empirical studies demonstratedthat transformational leaders provide feedback, which helpsto attain two of the components of transformational leader-ship: individual consideration and intellectual stimulation(Bass & Riggio, 2006). Although correlations in the presentstudy underwrite the relationship between transformationalleadership and feedback, transformational leadershipexplained more than 32% of the variance of feedback (seeTable 4); feedback did not mediate the relationship betweentransformational leadership and harassment. On one hand


ting in parallel.

Task identity Work harassment (WH)

10.34 ** 1.02 **

.18 ** �.009 *

— �.013 *

— �.001— �.011

59.74 ** 16.92 **

.161 .155

direct effects

SE t

.003 �5.38

.004 �2.35

indirect effect

SE 95% CI

.002 [�.0098, �.0012]

.001 [�.0051, �.0004]

.002 [�.0053, .0031]

.001 [�.005, .0005]

work harassment; B = unstandardized regression coefficient;0. CI = confidence interval.


+ Models



this finding demonstrates that employees may have otherpotential sources of feedback that are significant for workharassment (e.g., feedback from peers or clients; Mullins,2005). On the other hand, feedback seems to consist ofknowledge related to work results (Hackman & Oldham,1976), which are more objective and less personalized,and seem to be less critical in workplace relationships (Kil-duff & Brass, 2010).

Further, task identity did not mediate the relationshipbetween transformational leadership and workplace harass-ment. The explanation may be that task identity, whichallows implementing certain tasks from the beginning tothe end (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), provide a sense ofmeaning and self-worth (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Different fromautonomy, however, which relates to employee indepen-dence in a wider area of work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976),task identity seems only to be about the ability to implementtasks by oneself. The present study demonstrated that havingthe opportunity to carry out a certain task is not a sufficientcondition for the prevention of work harassment; rather,independence is what matters in resisting the exposure ofwork harassment and balancing power.

In addition to the main findings of the study, it is importantto note that this is the first study where a latent classmethodology was applied to the Work Harassment Scale(Bjorkqvist & Osterman, 1992). Similarly to previous studies,the current findings portrayed different latent classes thatdiffer with respect to the nature and the frequency ofreported negative behaviors (Leon-Perez, Notelaers, Arenas,Munduate, & Medina, 2013; Notelaers et al., 2006, 2011).Although only a longitudinal design can disentangle a pro-cess, this snapshot of the process seems to underwritequalitative differences that has been ascribed to the harass-ment process (Bjorkqvist, 1992; Einarsen et al., 2011; Ley-mann, 1990; Notelaers, 2011). Our results indicated that thetwo first classes of the latent class factor model of workharassment can be considered as the zero point. This is thestage where no or hardly any behaviors are reported. Next,the LC results distinguished the three latent classes thatmatched the description of Bjorkqvist (1992) of the firststage of the harassment phenomenon, e.g., behavior isdifficult to pin down, because of its indirect, discrete andsubtle nature. Yet, the classes were slightly different withrespect to nature and the frequency of the reported beha-viors. The sixth class did match the description of open,direct, and frequent negative behavior that corresponded toa subsequent phase in the process (Bjorkqvist, 1992; Ley-mann, 1990, 1996). The last latent class of ‘‘targets’’ corre-sponds with the victimization stage, because this latent classwas characterized by the highest probability to report fre-quent harassment behaviors.

In the present study the prevalence rate of work harass-ment was rather low. Although 74.7% of the respondentsexperienced at least infrequent negative behaviors, thetarget group included only 3.2% of the respondents (see Table2). Previous studies in Lithuania demonstrated higher pre-valence rates: 25.4% prevalence rate among employees fromtwo metropolitan cities in Lithuania (Pajarskiene et al., 2012)and a 6.4% prevalence of frequent exposure to workplaceharassment among teachers in Lithuania (Malinauskieneet al., 2007). However, these studies used different criteriafor evaluating the prevalence rates that have been widely


criticized. Compared to the studies that used LC approach,our findings are similar. For example, Notelaers (2011) pre-sented that only 3% of the Flemish speaking employees’sample may be considered as severe targets of bullying.Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009) demonstrated a 5%prevalence rate of severe target group in Great Britain. Ina representative study Nielsen et al. (2009) found that only1% of the Norwegian population may be considered as severetargets. Finally, in a Spanish sample Leon-Perez et al. (2013)reported that 5% of the respondents were severe targets ofbullying.

The present study contributes to the research field ofworkplace harassment in several ways. In the present manu-script we used latent class analysis for the first time toidentify specific groups of exposure to negative behaviorsas measured by the Work Harassment Scale (Bjorkqvist &Osterman, 1992). This allowed for taking into account theskewed data and obtaining more accurate results. The pre-sent study was the first study in work harassment researchthat integrated two dominant factors of the work-environ-ment approach, i.e., job design and leadership (Leymann,1993). It was the first study on work harassment and bullyingto analyze the core job characteristics presented by Hack-man and Oldham (1976). The findings of the present studydemonstrated that only one core job characteristic, auton-omy, partially explained the indirect relationship betweentransformational leadership and work harassment. The pre-sent study findings are an extension not only of the workharassment theory, but also of transformational leadershiptheory and the Hackman and Oldham’s Job CharacteristicsModel (1976). The present study was one of the few rareexamples that addressed the role of deterring factors ofworkplace harassment that may encourage a proactiveapproach by organizations to prevent the dysfunctional phe-nomenon.

Limitations and directions for futureresearch

In addition to the contributions of the present study there areseveral limitations that must be pointed out. First, thereliability of the mediators was rather low (less than .90,which is recommended for the mediating variables), whichmay have caused underestimation of the relationshipbetween mediators and outcome and overestimationbetween predictor and the outcome (Hoyle & Robinson,2003). Second, this study was cross-sectional, and so thecausal links between transformational leadership and workharassment could not be examined (Roe, 2012). Longitudinalor experimental studies should be conducted to confirm thepresent study’s results.

Another limitation of the present study is the researchprocedure. The research questionnaires were distributed tothe participants in person; however, the respondentsreturned the filled questionnaires to the secretary. This couldhave influenced the participants to answer the questions in amore socially desirable way. The limitations of the researchprocedure could explain the low prevalence of the targetgroup in our study. Therefore, in future studies it is vital toimplement research ensuring the anonymity and confidenti-ality of respondents as much as possible.



+ Models



Although the present study contributed by estimating theprevalence of harassment among Lithuanian employees, thestudy findings are hampered by its limited sample size. First,with a larger sample size more precise estimates could havebeen reported and the Type I error could have beendecreased. In addition, with a larger sample a multinomialregression model could have been estimated, which wouldhave allowed for a stage-wise comparison where each latentclass could have been compared to the not harassed or noexposure classes. Thus, a larger sample would have had thepotential to test the mediation model that is more alignedwith the theoretical conception of workplace harassment as aprocess.

Although the use of the latent class methodology (i.e., theprobability to score high on exposure to work harassment)may limit the probability of common method variance, thepresent study used single-source self-reported data (Podsak-off, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Relying solely onself-report methodology may be problematic, especially withsensitive psychosocial hazards such as workplace bullying(Notelaers, 2011). Therefore, triangulation with other mea-surement methods is advisable. Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith,and Pereira (2002) suggested considering observationalmethods, peer nomination methods, and multimodalapproaches to measuring workplace bullying. However, itshould be noted that some of these data collection proce-dures may entail ethical challenges (Cowie et al., 2002). Withrespect to the measurement of the job characteristics,company records are valuable to achieve triangulation(Voorde, van de Paauwe, & van Veldhoven, 2010). However,some of these methods may be difficult to employ because anorganization’s willingness to grant access is likely to be low.Some of the methods mentioned may also require intensiveand high quality fieldwork. Nevertheless, such alternativesources are necessary to strengthen the internal validity ofbullying research.

Future research may be expanded in various directions;one such way is to include other work environment factors toexplain work harassment. In the present study transforma-tional leadership, feedback, autonomy, and task identitytaken together explained only 15.5% of the total varianceof work harassment. This indicates the potential for otherwork environment elements to explain work harassment.Another way to extend this research is by identifying otherpotential mediating variables for the indirect relationships


Appendix A. Conditional latent class probabilities

Latent classes of work harassment

Indicators Notexposed



WHS 1 Unduly reduced opportunities to express yoursNever .787 .658 .487

Seldom .171 .241 .297

Occasionally .041 .097 .200

Often .001 .004 .015

Very often .000 .000 .002

between transformational leadership and workplace harass-ment. For example, stress management, conflict solving(Bass & Riggio, 2006), moral and ethical working environment(Burns, 1978), team spirit, shared vision (Bass & Riggio,2006), and self-worth of employees (Bass & Riggio, 2006)seem to be related to transformational leadership and workharassment, and thus may be considered as potential med-iators in future research. Multilevel studies to capture higherlevels of leadership should also be considered.

Practical implications

Present study findings demonstrated the potential deterringeffect of transformational leadership on work harassmentdirectly and via core job characteristic of autonomy, suggest-ing that transformational leaders facilitate favorable work-ing conditions that may lead to resourceful employees whoexperience independence.

In the early nineties Bass (1990) was convinced that trans-formational leadership could be trained and developed, whichwas later demonstrated by various researchers (Abrell,Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011; Barling, Weber, &Kelloway, 1996). Kets De Vries et al. (2009) showed thattransformational leadership programs had positive effectson improving such skills as rewarding, giving feedback, vision-ing, and teambuilding. Based on the present study results, wepropose that organizational personnel take a proactive role intraining, coaching, and screening for the transformationalattributes of a leader. Transformational leadership trainingshould be considered one of the major preventive tools relatedto work harassment, along with autonomy, which seems to beencouraged by transformational leaders.

For practical purposes it is important to further investi-gate how much transformational leadership is needed (cf.dose—response) and how consistent this leadership should beto attain a harassment-free environment. Indeed, a supple-mental latent class factor analysis in our study demonstratedthat the likelihood to be a target of harassment is twofold forhigh transformational leadership versus very high transfor-mational leadership. This indicates that leaders should dis-play very high level of transformational leadership style,because it has a stronger deterring effect. Thus, for devel-oping leadership training, dose—response analysis may be ofimportant practical use.


Rarelyharassed


Sometimesharassed

Target ofharassment

elf.306 .167 .093 .053.305 .258 .196 .147.338 .450 .486 .475.043 .091 .144 .184.010 .034 .082 .140


+ Models


Please cite this article in press as: Astrauskaite, M., et al. Workplace harassment: Deterring role of transformational leadership and core jobcharacteristics. Scandinavian Journal of Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.06.001

Appendix A (Continued )





Rarelyharassed


Sometimesharassed

Target ofharassment

WHS 2 Lies about youNever .907 .811 .644 .411 .187 .055 .010Seldom .090 .175 .301 .417 .412 .265 .103Occasionally .003 .014 .054 .162 .347 .485 .408Often 0 0 .002 .010 .045 .137 .251Very often 0 0 0 0 .009 .057 .228

WHS 3 Being unduly disruptedNever .987 .966 .910 .771 .497 .183 .031Seldom .013 .033 .086 .198 .350 .351 .163Occasionally 0 0 .005 .030 .144 .395 .503Often 0 0 0 0 .008 .062 .217Very often 0 0 0 0 0 .009 .086

WHS 4 Being shouted at loudlyNever .978 .940 .844 .637 .333 .095 .012Seldom .022 .059 .149 .320 .474 .382 .142Occasionally 0 .001 .007 .042 .175 .399 .421Often 0 0 0 .002 .018 .114 .341Very often 0 0 0 0 5E�04 .010 .083

WHS 5 Being unduly criticizedNever .970 .909 .751 .457 .160 .028 .002Seldom .030 .089 .236 .460 .519 .288 .079Occasionally 0 .002 .013 .081 .292 .521 .458Often 0 0 1E�04 .003 .029 .164 .461

WHS 6 Insulting comments on private lifeNever .996 .986 .955 .861 .630 .286 .066Seldom .004 .014 .044 .134 .328 .500 .385Occasionally 0 0 0 .005 .042 .213 .550

WHS 7 Being isolatedNever .995 .987 .97 .925 .810 .548 .205Seldom .005 .012 .028 .063 .130 .205 .180Occasionally 0 0 .002 .012 .056 .206 .422Often 0 0 0 0 .005 .040 .193

WHS 8 Sensitive details on private life revealedNever .997 .992 .975 .925 .782 .466 .124Seldom .003 .008 .024 .072 .187 .345 .284Occasionally 0 0 0 .004 .030 .169 .429Often 0 0 0 0 .001 .021 .163

WHS 9 Direct threatsNever .999 .997 .990 .963 .859 .523 .110Seldom 7E�04 .003 .010 .035 .116 .262 .205Occasionally 0 0 2E�04 .002 .025 .206 .596Very often 0 0 0 0 0 .008 .089

WHS 10 Insinuative glances/negatibe gesturesNever .997 .981 .908 .676 .385 .175 .042Seldom .004 .019 .091 .310 .522 .559 .399Occasionally 0 0 0 .014 .090 .238 .436Often 0 0 0 0 .004 .029 .123

WHS 11 AccusationsNever .985 .952 .854 .622 .292 .072 .009Seldom .015 .047 .142 .347 .544 .447 .186Occasionally 0 0 .004 .031 .160 .440 .613Often 0 0 0 0 .005 .041 .193

WHS 12 Being sneered atNever .999 .995 .975 .882 .579 .167 .015Seldom .001 .005 .025 .116 .388 .573 .253



+ Models


Please cite this article in press as: Astrauskaite, M., et al. Workplace harassment: Deterring role of transformational leadership and core jobcharacteristics. Scandinavian Journal of Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.06.001






Rarelyharassed


Sometimesharassed

Target ofharassment

Occasionally 0 0 1E�04 .002 .032 .244 .550Often 0 0 0 0 0 .016 .182

WHS 13 Refusal to speak with youNever .994 .982 .947 .854 .637 .304 .077Seldom .006 .018 .051 .134 .290 .402 .296Occasionally 0 0 .002 .012 .073 .294 .627

WHS 14 Belittling of your oppinionsNever .959 .904 .786 .575 .307 .106 .023Seldom .040 .093 .199 .359 .472 .399 .213Occasionally 0 .003 .015 .065 .209 .435 .570Often 0 0 0 .002 .012 .060 .194

WHS 15 Refusal to hear youNever .966 .917 .810 .612 .348 .132 .032Seldom .034 .081 .181 .346 .497 .476 .292Occasionally 0 .002 .009 .042 .151 .364 .565Often 0 0 0 0 .005 .029 .112

WHS 16 Being treated as non existentNever .992 .977 .936 .828 .587 .245 .042Seldom .008 .023 .062 .156 .317 .379 .188Occasionally 0 0 .002 .016 .090 .308 .437Often 0 0 0 0 .006 .060 .242Very often 0 0 0 0 0 .008 .091

WHS 17 Words aimed at hurting youNever .989 .967 .903 .741 .444 .152 .026Seldom .011 .033 .095 .241 .451 .480 .260Occasionally 0 0 .002 .018 .103 .342 .577Often 0 0 0 0 .003 .026 .137

WHS 18 Being given meaningles tasksNever .835 .760 .658 .529 .381 .236 .120Seldom .148 .205 .269 .328 .358 .336 .261Occasionally .015 .032 .064 .119 .197 .280 .330Often 0 .003 .008 .022 .056 .120 .215Very often 0 0 0 .002 .008 .028 .075

WHS 19 Insulting tasksNever 1 .999 .995 .972 .860 .466 .061Seldom 0 .001 .005 .028 .129 .364 .249Occasionally 0 0 0 0 .011 .165 .590Often 0 0 0 0 0 .005 .100

WHS 20 Malicious rumors spread behind your backNever .985 .962 .906 .777 .525 .199 .027Seldom .015 .038 .089 .192 .326 .310 .104Occasionally 0 0 .005 .029 .124 .296 .248Often 0 0 0 .002 .021 .128 .270Very often 0 0 0 0 .004 .066 .352

WHS 21 Being ridiculed in front of othersNever .993 .980 .946 .862 .680 .377 .107Seldom .007 .020 .053 .128 .261 .372 .269Occasionally 0 0 .002 .010 .054 .197 .364Often 0 0 0 0 .006 .055 .260

WHS 22 Your work judged in an incorrect mannerNever .999 .993 .954 .773 .408 .117 .020Seldom .001 .007 .046 .219 .490 .484 .254Occasionally 0 0 3E�04 .009 .101 .386 .652Often 0 0 0 0 0 .012 .075

WHS 23 Having your sense of judgment questionedNever .878 .779 .630 .441 .255 .117 .042



+ Models







Rarelyharassed


Sometimesharassed

Target ofharassment

Seldom .120 .211 .340 .473 .543 .495 .351Occasionally .003 .010 .030 .084 .191 .346 .488Often 0 0 0 .003 .012 .043 .120

WHS 24 Accusations of being mentally disturbedNever 1 1 .999 .993 .965 .802 .263Seldom 0 0 .002 .007 .031 .121 .185Occasionally 0 0 0 0 .004 .077 .553


References

Abrell, C., Rowold, J., Weibler, J., & Moenninghoff, M. (2011).Evaluation of a long-term transformational leadership develop-ment program. Zeitschrift fur Personalforschung, 25(3), 205—224.

Adebayo, S. O., & Ezeanya, I. D. (2010). Effect of job autonomy, taskidentity and profession on burnout among health care workers inJos, Nigeria. European Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 116—124.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Construct validationand norms for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X). New York: Center for Leadership Studies, BinghamtonUniversity, State University of New York.

Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011a). Job autonomy andworkload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave testof Karasek’s Job Demand Dontrol model for targets and perpetra-tor. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84,191—208.

Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational changerelated to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity asmediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30, 348—371.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., & De Witte, H. (2008). Organizational, teamrelated and job related risk factors for bullying, violence andsexual harassment in the workplace: A qualitative study. Inter-national Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13(2), 132—146.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Aqualitative study on the development of workplace bullying:Towards a three way model. Journal of Community & AppliedSocial Psychology, 19, 1—16.

Baillien, E., Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2011b).The relationship between the work unit’s conflict managementstyles and bullying at work: Moderation by conflict frequency.Economic and Industrial Democracy .

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands—resourcesmodel: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3),309—328.

Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). The impact of rolestressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators,controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal anal-ysis. Work & Stress, 26(3), 195—212http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transfor-mational leadership training on attitudinal and financial out-comes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,81(6), 827—832.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leader-ship: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics,19(1), 19—31.


Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nded.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bjorkqvist, K. (1992). Trakassering forekommer bland anstallda vidAA [Harassment among employees at Abo Akademi]. Meddelandafran Abo Akademi, 9, 14—17.

Bjorkqvist, K., & Osterman, K. (1992). Work Harassment Scale.Vaasa, Finland: Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi Univer-sity.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggressionamong university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173—184.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of

transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology,14(3), 389—405.

Cemaloglu, N. (2011). Primary principals’ leadership styles, schoolorganizational health and workplace bullying. Journal of Educa-tional Administration, 49(5), 495—512.

Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P. K., & Pereira, B. (2002).Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior,7, 33—51.

Devine, S., Bunting, B., McCann, S., & Murphy, S. (2008). Mixturemodelling of DSM-IV-TR paranoid personality disorder criteria in ageneral population sample. Metodoloski Zvezki, 5(1), 33—43.

Einarsen, S. (1996). Bullying and harassment at work: Epidemiologi-cal and psychosocial aspects. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation)Bergen: University of Bergen.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure tobullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure andpsychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Re-vised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24—44.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The conceptof bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H.Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment inthe workplace. Developments in theory, research and practice(pp. 3—39). London: Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying andharassment at work and their relationship to work environmentquality: An exploratory study. European Work and OrganizationalPsychologist, 4(4), 381—401.

European Working Conditions Survey: Violence, harassment anddiscrimination in the workplace. (2005). Dublin: European Foun-dation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Available from: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/4EWCS/ef0698/chapter4.pdf..

Felson, R. B. (1992). Kick ‘em when they’re down: Explanations ofthe relationships between stress and interpersonal aggression andviolence. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 1—16.

Ferguson, E. D. (2003). Work relationships, lifestyle, and mutualrespect. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(4), 501—506.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-5221(14)00068-2/sbref0010

































http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543














































http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/4EWCS/ef0698/chapter4.pdf

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/4EWCS/ef0698/chapter4.pdf







+ Models



Ferguson, E. D. (2006). Work relationships that enhance the well-being of organizations and individuals. Journal of IndividualPsychology, 62(1), 80—84.

Ferguson, E. F. (1984). Adlerian theory: An introduction. Vancouver,BC: Adlerian Psychology Association of British Columbia.

Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informingconceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journalof occupational health psychology, 7(1), 20.

Griffin, R. W. (1981). Supervisory behaviour as a source of perceivedtask scope. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54, 175—182.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to jobcharacteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259—286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through thedesign of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance., 16, 250—279.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A newstrategy for job enrichment. California Management Review,17(4), 57—71.

Hagenaars, J. A. (1998). Latent structure models with direct effectsbetween indicators: Local dependence models. SociologicalMethods & Research, 16, 379—405.

Hauge, L. J. (2010). Environmental antecedents of workplace bully-ing: A multi-design approach. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation)Bergen: University of Bergen.

Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., &Skogstad, A. (2011). Leadership and role stressors as departmen-tal level predictors of workplace bullying. International Journalof Stress Management, 18(4), 305—323.

Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationshipsbetween stressful work environments and bullying: Results of alarge representative study. Work and Stress, 21(3), 220—242.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool forobserved variable mediation, moderation, and conditional pro-cess modeling. (white paper) Retrieved from: http://www.af-hayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

Hetland, H., Hetland, J., Andreassen, C., Pallesen, S., & Notelaers, G.(2011). Leadership and fulfillment of the three basic psychologicalneeds at work. Career Development International, 16(5), 507—523.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimentalto health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equallydamaging. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3),368—387.

Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010).Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observedworkplace bullying. British Journal of Management, 21(2),453—468.

Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying andstress. In Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. Eds. Historical andcurrent perspectives on stress and health. vol. 2 (pp.293—333). Amsterdam: Jai.

Hoyle, R. H., & Robinson, J. I. (2003). Mediated and moderatedeffects in social sychological research: Measurement, design andanalysis issues. In C. Sansone, C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.),Handbook of methods in social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, D. J., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict andambiguity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, andmental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 24(2), 285—308.

Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives onhostile behaviours and bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D.Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in theworkplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice(pp. 41—71). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kets De Vries, M., Hellwig, Th. , Vrignaud, P., Ramo, L. G., Florent-Treacy, E., & Korotov, K. (2009). Sustainable effectiveness of a


transformational leadership development program: An explor-atory study. INSEAD working papers collection. vol. 34 (pp.2—32)..

Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2010). Job design: A social networkperspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 309—318.

Langeheine, R., Pannekoek, J., & Van de Pol, F. (1996). Bootstrappinggoodness-of-fit measures in categorical data analysis. Sociologi-cal Methods & Research, 24, 492—516.

Lee, J. (2011). The effects of leadership behavior on workplaceharassment, employee outcomes, and organziational effective-ness in small businesses. (Ph.D. dissertation) Retrieved from:http://gradworks.umi.com/3489453.pdf.

Leon-Perez, J. M., Notelaers, G., Arenas, A., Munduate, L., & Medi-na, F. J. (2013). Identifying victims of workplace bullying byintegrating traditional estimation approaches into a latent classcluster model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506280.

Leymann, H. (1986). Vuxenmobbning — Om psykiskt vald i arbetsli-vet. Mobbing-psychological violence at work places]. Stockholm:Studentlitteratur.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces.Violence and Victims, 5(2), 119—126.

Leymann, H. (1992). Vuxenmobbning pa svenska arbetsplatser. Enrikstackande undersokning med 2.438 intervjuer. Bullying amongadults at Swedish workplaces. A nationwide survey with 2.438inteviews]. Stockholm: Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen.

Leymann, H. (1993). Mobbing–—Psychoterror am Arbeitsplatz undwie man sich dagegen wehren kann. Hamburg: Rowohlt Reinbeck.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing atwork. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,5(2), 165—184.

Malinauskiene, V., Obelenis, V., Sopagiene, D., & Macionyte, V. (2007).The associations between workplace harassment and self-ratedhealth among teachers. Sveikatos mokslai, 3, 908—911.

Maslach, C. H., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout.Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397—422.

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets ofbullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violenceand Victims, 22(6), 735—753.

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace:Definition,prevalence,antecedentsandconsequences. Internation-al Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 13(2), 202—248.

Matthiesen, S. B., Raknes, B. I., & Røkkum, O. (1989). Mobbing paarbeidsplassen [Bullying at work]. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykolog-forening, 26, 761—774.

Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and organizational behavior (7thed.). London: Financial Times Pitman Publishing.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying.In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullyingand emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 185—202). London:Taylor & Francis.

Nielsen, M. B. (2009). Methodological issues in research on workplacebullying. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) Bergen: University ofBergen.

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense ofcoherence as a protective mechanism among targets of workplacebullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 128—136.

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact ofmethodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplacebullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 83(4), 955—979.

Nielsen, M. B., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Measuringexposure to workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf,& C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace.Developments in theory, research and practice (pp. 149—175).London: Taylor & Francis.

Nielsen, M. B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S. B., Glasø, L., Aasland, M.S., Notelaers, G., et al. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying
































http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf






































http://gradworks.umi.com/3489453.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506280

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506280





















































+ Models



in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(1),81—101.

Notelaers, G. (2011). Workplace bullying: A risk control perspective.(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) Bergen: University of Bergen.

Notelaers, G., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Einarsen, S., & Vermunt, J.K. (2013). Testing the strain hypothesis of the Demand ControlModel to explain severe bullying at work. Economic and IndustrialDemocracy, 34(1), 69—87.

Notelaers, G., Baillien, E., Vermunt, J. K., De Witte, H., & Einarsen,S. (2011). Exposure to workplace bullying: Exploring risk groupswith categorical data. Industrial Health, 49(1), 73—88.

Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010a). Between thedevil and the deep blue sea: Parallel hierarchy, role stress andworkplace bullying amongst nurses. In K. Osterman (Ed.), Indirectand direct aggression (pp. 215—238). Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang GmbH.

Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010b). Workplacebullying: A job characteristics approach. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 19(4), 487—504.

Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2013). The world turns at 33 and 45:Defining simple cutoff scores for the Negative Acts Question-naire—Revised in a representative sample. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 670—682 ISO 690.

Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., De Witte, H., & Vermunt, J. K. (2006).Measuring exposure to bullying at work: The validity and advan-tages of the latent class cluster approach. Work and Stress, 20(4),288—301.

Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., Vermunt, J. K., & De Witte, H. (2004).Clinical definitions determining the size of bullied workers versusa data driven estimation with latent cluster analysis. 6th annualconference of the European academy of occupational healthpsychology proceedings (pp. 325—334).

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and notwhat it will be: The future of job design research. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 31, 463—479.

Pajarskiene, B., Vebraite, I., Andruskiene, J., & Jurgutis, A. (2012).Prevalence of bullying/harassment at workplaces of Vilnius andKlaipeda according to economic activities and occupations.Visuomenes Sveikata, 5(57), 57—67.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leader andjob behavious: The mediating role of core job characeristics.Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327—340.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A criticalreview of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88(5), 879—903.

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying aparenting perspective to transformational leadership. LeadershipQuarterly, 14, 41—65.

Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transfor-mational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citi-zenship performance. Human performance, 19(1), 1—22.

Roe, R. (2012). What is wrong with mediators and moderators? TheEuropean Health Psychologist, 14(1), 4—10.


Sims, H. P., Jr., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measure-ment of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,19, 195—212.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H.(2007). The destructiveness of Laissez-Faire leadership behavior.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80—92.

Stelmokiene, A., & Endriulaitiene, A. (2009). Psychometric proper-ties of global transformational leadership scale: Lithuanian ver-sion. Psichologija, 40, 88—102.

Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H.,& Eeuwema, M. (2011). Discouraging bullying: The role of eticalleadership and its effects on the work environment. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 95, 17—27.

Tuckey, M. R., Dollard, M. F., Hosking, P. J., & Winefield, A. H. (2009).Workplace bullying: The role of psychological work environmentfactors. International Journal of Stress Management, 16(3), 215—232.

Van den Broeck, A., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2011). Workplacebullying: A perspective from the job demands—resources model.SA Journal of Industrial Pscychology, 37(2), 1—12.

Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respectto the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying.Scandinavian Journal of Environmental Health, 27(1), 63—69.

Vermunt, J. K. (2006). Growth models for categorical responsevariables: Standard, latent-class and hybrid approaches. In K.van Montfort, H. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Longitudinal models inthe behavioral and related sciences. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2000). Latent gold: User’s manual.Boston: Statistical Innovations Inc.

Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2009). Latent gold (version 4.5).Belmont: Statistical Innovations.

Voorde, K., van de Paauwe, J., & van Veldhoven, M. (2010). Pre-dicting business unit performance using employee surveys: Moni-toring HRM-related changes. Human Resource ManagementJournal, 20(1), 44—63.

Warr, P. B. (1990). Decision latitude, job demands, and employeewell-being. Work and Stress, 4(4), 285—294.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personalcauses of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal ofManpower, 20(1/2), 70—85.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflictsin organizations. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproduc-tive work behavior. Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 237—270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zapf, D., Escartin, J., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Empirical findings onprevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S.Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying andharassment in the workplace. Developments in theory, researchand practice (pp. 75—106). London: Taylor & Francis.

Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping withworkplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Jour-nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497—522.

Zapf, D., & Osterwalder, P. (1998). Organisational causes of work-place harassment. Department of Psychology J W Goethe-Univer-sity Frankfurt.








































































































Workplace harassment: Deterring role of transformational leadership and core job characteristics

Documents

Transcript of Workplace harassment: Deterring role of transformational leadership and core job characteristics