Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Psychol., 27 October 2021
Sec. Organizational Psychology

A Systematic Review of Negative Work Behavior: Toward an Integrated Definition

  • 1Department of Management and Organization, School of Business and Economics, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • 2Department of Human Resource Management, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • 3Department of Psychology, Universidade da Coruna, A Coruña, Spain
  • 4Faculty of Psychology, Open University Heerlen, Heerlen, Netherlands
  • 5Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
  • 6Faculty of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

The objective of this systematic review was to identify the overlapping and unique aspects of the operationalizations of negative work behaviors (NWBs) to specify a new integrative definition of NWB. More specifically, we examined (1) how many operationalizations and conceptualizations of NWB can be identified, (2) whether these operationalizations can be categorized into facets, i. e., the nature of NWB, harm, actor types, and roles, with subcategories, (3) what the meaningful overlap in these operationalizations was, (4) whether the operationalizations tapped unique and meaningful elements, i.e., positive labels and dynamic processes, and (5) how the overlapping and unique elements of the operationalizations could be integrated into a new theory-based research model for NWB for future research. In the literature search based on the Prisma framework, Pubmed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, we identified k = 489 studies that met the inclusion criteria of our review. The results of these studies revealed 16 frequently studied NWB labels, e.g., bullying and aggression. Many of these could be categorized in the same way, namely, in terms of the type of behavior, type of harm, and type of actor involved in the NWB. In our new definition of NWB, we integrated the content of the overlapping and meaningful unique elements of the 16 labels.

Introduction

Negative work behavior is a serious problem in contemporary workplaces that causes harm for involved targets (Verkuil et al., 2015; Van Steijn et al., 2019) and incurs costs for companies (Porath and Pearson, 2012) and society (Carlson et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2017). Negative work behavior (NWB) was defined as an “exposure to ongoing negative and unwanted behavior by superiors or colleagues” (Glambek et al., 2020 p. 509), which is harmful to employees and the organization (Cooper et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2005; Spector and Fox, 2005; Hogh et al., 2012). Since no unitary definition of NWB exists, labor organizations such as Eurofound generally word the phenomenon as an “adverse social behavior (ASB) including all acts of physical and verbal violence and intimidation at work” (Eurofound and EU-OSHA (2014), 2014, p. 27).

Negative behavior was originally described in the schoolyard as deviance (Heineman, 1972), mobbing (Pikas, 1975), aggression, harassment, violence, and bullying (Olweus, 1978; Olweus et al., 1999). From the start, these studies regarded these behaviors not as mutually excluding each other but as complementary to each other. This means that actors are likely to use various negative behaviors interchangeably (Barboza et al., 2009; Ferrer et al., 2011). For example, a study by Pikas (1975) described that schoolchildren were “reinforcing each other in their interaction,” (Pikas, 1975, p. 3) “with humiliation, from ostracism to overt physical violence, with forms existing between these extremes, from rather benevolent ridicule to harassment of the target, verbally and physically” [1973, according to Pikas (1975), p 13–14, translated by Kirsti Lagerspetz and Kaj Berts] (Lagerspetz et al., 1982). In other words, actors use a range of behavioral possibilities in their dynamic reciprocal interaction in this schoolyard approach (Barboza et al., 2009; Ferrer et al., 2011). To sum it up, these findings suggest that a focus on the differences between the behaviors was regarded as less important than a focus on the dynamic interaction by which they occur in a complementary manner.

In the workplace, numerous labels of NWB were presented as mutually exclusive types. This number continued to grow despite signals that this diversity of conceptualizations and operationalizations was hindering progress in the field of NWB (Schat and Kelloway, 2005; Crawshaw, 2009). Meanwhile, solutions to reduce this diversity were sought in operational definitions or nested labels. For example, an operational definition of a wide range of NWBs has been used to investigate sleep problems, with the definition of NWBs including bullying, unwanted sexual attention, mobbing, physical and verbal assaults, sexual violence, verbal discrimination, verbal and sexual harassment, stalking, and assaults by internal and external actor types (Magnavita et al., 2019). As a result, the impact of different NWBs on the outcome of interest cannot be linked to one single label. Another solution is defining narrow constructs as nested within broader ones (Cropanzano et al., 2017). For example, bullying as a form of aggression (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018) or abuse and victimization as a form of harassment (Neall and Tuckey, 2014). However, in a nested NWB structure, the data of these labels still overlap or differ at the different levels in such a hierarchy. Therefore, the problems remain as in the operational solution.

In line with the discussed concerns, researchers called for a well-developed integrated model of NWBs (Schat et al., 2006; Raver and Barling, 2007; Aquino and Thau, 2009; Hershcovis, 2011; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018). Nevertheless, this resulted in an ongoing discussion on the possible overlap between different labels and operationalizations of NWB types (Hershcovis and Reich, 2013; Cropanzano et al., 2017), their interchangeability (Schat et al., 2006; Barling et al., 2009), and their reciprocity (Fox and Spector, 2005; Ireland, 2013). Regarding the possible overlap among NWB labels, scholars have found that this is considerable (Griffin and Lopez, 2005; Schat et al., 2006). More specifically, the overlap is found in the behavior and its repetitive patterns (Leymann, 1996; Keashly and Harvey, 2005; Lee and Brotheridge, 2006; Einarsen et al., 2011; Bayramoglu and Toksoy, 2017; Serenko, 2019), the harm that it inflicts on targets (Hershcovis, 2011), and the actors of NWBs (O'Leary-Kelly et al., 2000). To illustrate this point, scholars in earlier research found little to no difference between the various types of NWB and their relationship with psychological, e.g., mental health problems, and physical harm, e.g., physical health problems (Hershcovis, 2011). More recently, research has indicated material, e.g., loss of income, and social harm, e.g., damage of the friendship network, as other outcomes of NWB (Beus et al., 2016).

Next to the type of behavior, previous research has also paid attention to the different types of actors involved in the NWBs and defined actors mainly in three roles, namely, target, perpetrator, and witness/bystander (Neall and Tuckey, 2014). In addition to these roles, actors were characterized as four types of actors, namely, stranger, co-worker, customer, and relative (Merchant and Lundell, 2001). The relation of actors to the organization was not described in every type of NWB (Spector and Fox, 2005; De Cuyper et al., 2009), although the influence of external roles has been demonstrated through social support, flattery, or the securing of alternative resources (Fiset et al., 2017). Furthermore, definitions have referred to actors in organizational groups and population groups. Actor characteristics from these groups were regarded as important and meaningful (Kern and Grandey, 2009; Raver and Nishii, 2010; Ferrer et al., 2011; Agrawal et al., 2019).

Various studies have shown that it is not only the overlap that leads to an agreed definition, but that the meaningful unique elements also exist; thus, both should be included in the new integrative definition (Griffin and Lopez, 2005; Lim and Cortina, 2005; Schat et al., 2006; Tepper and Henle, 2011; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018; Serenko, 2019). These overlapping and unique elements are based on important theoretical differences of constructs (Tepper and Henle, 2011). For example, the theoretical explanation in the schoolyard of complementary behavior stems from an explanation that actors show co-occurrent dynamic behavior with a wide variety of NWBs, e.g., Barboza et al. (2009). Another example of an underlying theoretical idea on behavior is to label an NWB as positive when it serves an organizational purpose such as leader bullying (Ferris et al., 2007). Furthermore, the inclusion of external actors in NWB for their influence on internal actors is another underlying theoretical idea (Fiset et al., 2017). Moreover, according to some theoretical insights, these actors are not just perpetrators and targets but consist of actor groups with various more actor roles of bystanders in a network (Salmivalli et al., 1998; Twemlow et al., 2010; Paull et al., 2012). Therefore, unique elements must be integrated considering their meaningful theoretical contribution, including elements such as external actors, several actor roles besides perpetrator and target in a group network, complementary behavior, and positive behavior.

In summary, a wide variety of NWB labels has been conceptualized in previous research to explain and measure NWBs, and scientists have been calling for a new integrative definition with a sound theoretical basis (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018) to better operationalize NWB for future research. The present study aimed to contribute to this research field by conducting a systematic literature review of this field and developing an integrated definition of NWB. For this purpose, we successively categorized types of behavior, types of harm, types of actors, and actor roles to collect data on overlapping and unique elements of NWBs. With these data, we formed our new integrated definition on NWB.

The present study proceeded as follows. First, we present our review method, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model (Moher et al., 2009) for screening and found studies with NWB operationalizations. Second, the current systematic review addresses the following research questions: (1) how many operationalizations and conceptualizations of NWB can be identified; (2) whether these operationalizations can be categorized into specific facets such as the nature of NWB with subcategories such as psychological and sociocultural NWB; (3) what the meaningful overlap was in these operationalizations; (4) whether the operationalizations tapped unique and meaningful elements, i.e., positive labels, dynamic process, and actor roles; (5) how the overlapping and unique elements of the operationalizations could be integrated into a new theory-based research model for NWB for future research. Finally, we discuss and present our new integrated model for NWB and address its limitations, implications, and pathways for future research.

Method

Identification of Studies

We used the PRISMA model (Moher et al., 2009) for this review (Figure 1). In total, 3,526 articles were identified after removing the doubles. To identify relevant studies, the PsycINFO (American Psychological Association (APA), 1929) and PubMed (United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), 1996) databases were searched for peer-reviewed journals, books, reports, guidelines, dissertations, and conference papers published between 2000 and December 2020. We focused on this time frame because the field of NWB has seen large growth since 2000 due to the regulatory initiatives, policies, and research agendas in several European countries (Di Martino et al., 2003; Sloan et al., 2011). The reference lists of the full-text articles, including articles before 2000, were also searched so as to not exclude leading articles from the previous period. Since the review addressed NWB, we decided to search on seven search terms, which were “aggression and work,” “workplace bullying,” “mobbing and work,” “harassment and work,” “deviance and work,” “counterproductive work behavior,” and “social safety and work.” Social safety is an established label for NWB in sectors working with the public, clients, and pupils (Abraham et al., 2011; Ufkes and Giebels, 2013; Cheung and Yip, 2017).

FIGURE 1
www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1. Systematic review of negative work behavior (NWB) in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

Using these search terms, we identified 23 NWB labels (see Table 1). Since we obtained a large number of various labels under all search terms, we decided that further searching under more terms would be unnecessary. For example, under the search term “aggression and work” we found a total of 384 papers with 113 referring to aggression, 88 to violence, 84 to bullying, and the remaining 296 articles equally yielding other labels.

TABLE 1
www.frontiersin.org

Table 1. Frequency of NWB labels in study titles.

However, this was not the case for the term social safety, for which only 12 papers were found. Therefore, we used Google Scholar (Verstak and Acharya, 2004) to identify more studies on “safety theory” and “social safety” (English and Dutch). To limit the number of Google articles, we selected the first 30 pages of each Google search. These pages were copied to a Word file to search for the combination of the terms “safety and theory” and “social safety and work.”

Screening

Among the identified Pubmed and PsycINFO records, we included studies on youth to provide new insights from this historically closely related NWB research field. For the Google Scholar records copied into Word, an additional step was required to screen full-text NWB articles. We screened these abstracts to include occupation-related studies only: health and safety; psychosocial safety climate; corporate social responsibility; history of safety; occupational groups, e.g., health care, social work, and education; identity and sense making related to safe work. This screening resulted in 2,813 full-text articles from Pubmed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar.

Our next step was to screen these full-text articles for data on operationalization and conceptualization. This screening resulted in 1,599 relevant full-text articles. Among these studies, we excluded 14 studies because they examined NWBs that were found in the titles of studies less than five times. However, one of these labels, which is scapegoating, including its literature, could be categorized under victimization because of the central role of the victim in this label. The label NWB appeared to be formulated in such a general way that it could be used for the title of this study. The remaining full-text articles were screened for data on the nature of NWB, the nature of the harm inflicted, actor types, and roles. This qualitative synthesis resulted in 489 studies.

Since one author (CV) assessed the Google Scholar records on NWB and the full-text articles on the operationalizations and conceptualizations of NWB, we examined the inter-rater agreement of all authors in this screening process. Both authors screened a random sample of four safety and six social safety records (three were in English and three were in Dutch) to examine whether they could be included in the NWB literature. The same approach was taken for a sample of 10 full-text articles to examine whether they contain data on NWB operationalizations and conceptualizations. The inter-rater reliability for both samples was 96%.

Coding Samples

In the meta-analysis, the conceptual and operational definitions of the 489 studies were selected on the following facets: A. nature of NWB; B. type of harm inflicted; C. type of actors. This qualitative information was listed and coded into four tables for further analysis. In Supplementary Table 1, we coded the natures of behaviors and occurrence patterns that were identified in concepts of NWB. The natures of NWB were A1. physical behaviors, e.g., hitting (Bernaldo-De-Quirós et al., 2015), A2. material behaviors, e.g., theft (Berry et al., 2007), A3. psychological behaviors, e.g., undermining (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018), A4. sociocultural behaviors, e.g., NWB based on race (Johnson and Otto, 2019), and A5. digital behaviors, e.g., cyberaggression (Weatherbee, 2007). The occurrence patterns were A6. systematic behaviors, e.g., repetitive (Sexton and Brodsky, 1977; Einarsen, 2000), A7. duration (Martin and Hine, 2005; Hershcovis and Reich, 2013), A8. escalating behaviors, from mild into more severe forms (Leymann, 1996; Zapf and Gross, 2001), and A9.visibility, such as overt (Jensen et al., 2014) and covert NWB (Porath and Pearson, 2012). In Table 2, we coded positive labels of NWB. In Supplementary Table 2, we coded the natures of harm, which were B1. physical harm, e.g., headache (Tynes et al., 2013), B2. psychological harm, e.g., stress (Sarfraz et al., 2019), B3. material harm, e.g., loss of income (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006), and B4. social harm, e.g., to the children of a victim (Ng, 2019). In Supplementary Table 3, we coded four actor types based on the model of Merchant and Lundell (2001) into C1. criminal/stranger, C2. customer/client/pupil, C3. co-worker/manager, and C4. personal relative. We combined manager and co-worker because definitions and prevalence figures name these actors separately (Health safety department US, 2016). We added to this list type C5. group of actors. In this table, we coded described actor roles in italics.

TABLE 2
www.frontiersin.org

Table 2. Comparison of behavior in PWB and NWB labels.

Results

Table 1 shows an overview of 23 labels in titles, of which 18 were included in this study. We decided to combine two types of these 18 labels due to their limited distinctions. First, harassment and discrimination were combined given that they only differ in the perceived reason for the harassment or discrimination (see also Rospenda and Richman, 2004, 2005). Second, we combined abuse and abusive supervision since the difference is mainly in terms of hierarchy, which was not coded separately in this study. This resulted in 16 constructs of NWB. Next, we presented our results with an overview of the natures of NWB and examples in each construct. We exhibited the identified categories as facets to use these sub-categories in our integrated definition.

A. Natures of NWB

In this section, we present our results on the nature and occurrence patterns of the NWB. Nature is categorized in an occurence pattern with systematic, duration, escalation, and visibility characteristics (see Supplementary Table 1). This categorization was extracted from the way NWB has been categorized in previous studies. To mention some examples of these studies, they included physical or psychological (Santos et al., 2009) material such as organizational and personal property (Steinberg et al., 2011; Conway et al., 2016). The categories of the sociocultural and digital nature of NWB were added because of their increasing prevalence over the past 20 years. The increase in the sociocultural nature of NWB was identified in workforce diversity as a social determinant (Baron and Neuman, 1996). The increase and development of the digital NWB nature were identified as a human-machine fusion that proceeds the behavior of users at such a high rate that it exceeds the time frame for conceptualization, theory development, and investigation (Weatherbee and Kelloway, 2006). Separate from these natures of NWB, the occurrence patterns of these behaviors have been studied. These patterns reflect the intensity, persistence, or visibility of the NWB. We elaborated our results below in the facets such as A. nature and occurrence pattern of NWB, B. harm of NWB, and C. actors and actor roles in NWB.

A1. Physical Nature of NWB

The behavior in this category is physical and bodily in nature. This behavior is commonly defined as physical assault such as hitting, kicking, biting, scratching, pushing, spitting, or grabbing (Spector and Jex, 1998; Macdonald and Sirotich, 2005; Abraham et al., 2011; Every-Palmer et al., 2015). More severe natures of physical NWB have different names according to the label in which it is described. In harassment, it is rape (Champion, 2006), in terror, it is stalking (Every-Palmer et al., 2015), and in social safety, it is possession of weapons (Nelen et al., 2018). Besides these severe manifestations, milder forms were found such as inappropriate physical attention (Gruys et al., 2010), body language (Rominiecka, 2008), and the exclusion of rites and rituals (Anderson, 2009).

Some of the described physical natures were focused on work performance such as work violations and organizational rule-breaking. Examples of work violations are intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly, and withdrawal. Organizational rule-breaking involves acts against organizational rules, including production rules, service rules, and rules about sharing confidential company information. Another found physical nature related to work performance is drug and alcohol use during working hours.

A2. Material Nature of NWB

The common factor in the material category is behavior directed at material issues such as property, goods of persons, or the organization (Van Dam et al., 2009). This negative work behavior reflects, for example, burglary, theft, and vandalism in victimization (Engel et al., 2015), the withholding of information in incivility (Andersson and Pearson, 1999), corruption in bullying (Vickers, 2014), media portrayal in victimization (Reichert and Carpenter, 2004), and property interference in terror (Every-Palmer et al., 2015). The material nature of NWB is more frequently described in counterproductive work behavior (CWB) than in the other labels. This is probably because the primary interest of this label was behaviors thwarting work production. In this, the label distinguishes NWB toward the organization (CWBO; Ambrose et al., 2002), individuals (CWBI), or persons (CWBP; Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Neuman and Baron, 2005). Examples of CWBO are property theft and production deviance such as intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly, or neglecting to follow procedures (Spector et al., 2006). Examples of CWBI are knowledge withholding (Peng, 2012) or knowledge hiding (Serenko, 2019).

A3. Psychological Nature of NWB

Psychological behavior can be either verbal or non-verbal. Examples of verbal behavior are yelling, cursing, swearing, and shouting (Bernaldo-De-Quirós et al., 2015) or storytelling in CWBI. On the other hand, non-verbal are cues in speech (Rominiecka, 2008) or manner (Blau and Andersson, 2005). Subsequently, non-verbal acts are subdivided into acts of omission (such as ignoring something) and commission (such as a disapproving glance) (Bennett, 1983). As a result of this subclassification, the following examples fall into the subcategory psychological non-verbal acts of omission: not inviting migrants for job interviews due to discrimination (Weichselbaumer, 2017); isolation in terror (Leymann and Niedl, 1994); silent treatment in victimization (Kaukiainen et al., 2001); resistant or passive obedient behavior and loophole-seeking behavior in CWBI (Peng, 2012).

A4. Sociocultural Nature of NWB

The sociocultural nature of NWB is an integration of social and cultural factors (Harris, 1979). Social factors refer to society as a structure with behaviors in corporations, political organizations, hierarchies, population groups, and castes. Cultural factors refer to the learned behaviors shared by the members of society such as beliefs, values, norms, and the material products of such behaviors such as laws and religion. The way society and culture integrate with each other to function in unity is the third component, named the system (Little, 2011).

The sociocultural forms of NWB are all directed at organizational and population groups or social identity. Examples of committing NWBs that are sociocultural in nature are rude behavior on age in incivility (Kern and Grandey, 2009), discrimination on race in injustice (Raver and Nishii, 2010), aggression toward Muslims in violence (Agrawal et al., 2019), making fun of the personal life of someone in CWBP (Robinson and Bennett, 1995), or the exclusion of sociocultural workers in production groups in CWBI (Hitlan et al., 2006). The latter example shows an overlap between population and organizational groups. This overlap indicates that the integration of demographic and social identity groups into the community has an indirect relationship with NWBs in organizations (Ferrer et al., 2011).

A5. Digital Nature of NWB

Digital NWB is characterized by the use of emails, the internet, smartphones, and/or widespread participation on social networks, e.g., Weatherbee and Kelloway (2006) and Patchin and Hinduja (2006).

This digital medium adds new elements to NWB (McLuhan, 1994). It can be anonymous (Pettalia et al., 2013), can take place 24/7, in the very homes of individuals (Park et al., 2018), and involves a larger audience in a short time (Vandebosch et al., 2012). Although this NWB concerns the use of a technological medium, such remarkable effects have emerged in the behavior of actors in NWB that scholars have named and measured them as a separate nature, e.g., Li (2007) and Olweus (2012). Because of the anonymity, victims of digital NWB may not know who their perpetrator is or why they are targeting them. Therefore, compared with traditional forms of NWB, these victims are less likely to report and seek help (Pettalia et al., 2013). On the other hand, anonymity allows perpetrators to engage in more harmful behavior because they do not see the consequences of their behavior as they would in face-to-face encounters. Moreover, an anonymous environment does not challenge their values and emotions, which are limited by norms of morality or empathy (Pornari and Wood, 2010). In general, this less personalized information technology (IT) makes users lose connection with others (Baruch, 2005) and enables them to behave in a way that is disconnected from reality (Black et al., 2012), resulting in interpersonal conflicts (Kavitha and Bhuvaneswari, 2016) and an escalation in serious NWB with less moral limitations, reporting, and help-seeking on the part of its users (Pornari and Wood, 2010; Pettalia et al., 2013).

The acceleration of the medium requires another behavior change in all actors, which includes being alert 24/7 and missing nothing so as to react quickly even during eating and sleeping hours (Suris et al., 2014). These quick reactions are enabled by the less effort involved in spreading a message quickly and widely by cutting, pasting, and sending with the new technology. The content used in such actions, such as photos or videos, has far-reaching consequences for all actors as it can be easily spread and shared among many bystanders and often remains accessible after the initial NWB. Because of these differences in the behavior of users through the use of this medium, scholars consider the nature of digital NWB different from traditional NWB with specific conceptual and definitional aspects (Berne et al., 2013). From the point of view of users, NWB causes a different nature of behavior.

From the point of view of technology, two distinctions between the real and cyber world can be made, namely, cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent NWB (Furnell, 2002). The cyber-enabled behavior reflects actual NWBs that occur in cyberspace, such as online cyber harassment (Towns and Johnson, 2003), cyberbullying (Weatherbee, 2007), technology-facilitated violence and pornography (Henry and Powell, 2016), and fraud (Trembly, 2004). These behaviors are enabled by IT systems and could still be committed without them. Therefore, they have much overlap with traditional NWB. Cyber-dependent NWB is a direct result of IT (Furnell, 2002). These behaviors cannot be committed without IT, such as hacking (Stafford and Urbaczewski, 2004) and identity theft (Neese et al., 2005).

A. Occurrence Patterns of NWB

A6. Systematic Nature of NWB

All 16 types describe NWB not as a one-time event but as a systematic, repeated, or persistent process (Loraleigh Keashly and Harvey, 2005; Bayramoglu and Toksoy, 2017; Baran Tatar and Yuksel, 2018). Since systematic NWB may lead to severe psychiatric and psychosomatic outcomes, the 6-month timeframe was originally chosen in a study by Leymann et al. to observe the occurrence pattern for its relation to the assessment of various psychiatric disorders in NWB victims (Leymann and Tallgren, 1989; Leymann and Zapf, 1990; Leymann, 1996). This observed occurrence pattern in the 16 labels varies in a range from monthly to daily (Kern and Grandey, 2009; Van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Leiter et al., 2011; Sakurai and Jex, 2012; Sliter et al., 2012), or from never to always (Marcus et al., 2002; Ferris et al., 2008; Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2016).

A7. Duration

By describing NWB as a repeated process, the duration of the occurrence of incidents experienced by a victim became a part of the criterion of NWB (Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996). For the described duration in the various labels, we looked at the operationalization in the measurement instruments of NWB. In these operationalizations, we found differences in the defined duration. Among the 16 labels, a duration is defined in 1 label with 6 months (bullying; Einarsen and Raknes, 1997), 1 label with the past few months (abuse; Tepper, 2000), 1 label with past and present (victimization; Hamburger et al., 2011), 2 labels with various time frames (injustice; Colquitt, 2001, and interpersonal conflict; Spector and Jex, 1998), and 9 labels with 1 year (deviance; Bennett and Robinson, 2000; CWB; Marcus et al., 2002). The remaining 2 labels, which are micropolitics and ostracism, do not define a specific duration with the frequency of incidents but the duration of the current incident itself. By indicating the duration of an incident, the reaction patterns of actors during this incident can be observed (Hershcovis and Reich, 2013).

A8. Escalation Nature of NWB

Escalation is an indication that the process of NWB persistently worsens into more serious forms of NWB. Terms used for this process are spiral (Leymann, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Nielsen et al., 2015), cycle (Robinson, 2008; Fisk, 2010), circle (Williams and Zadro, 2005; Chan, 2006; Martinez et al., 2008; Khoo, 2010), increased levels (Cortina and Magley, 2003; Hauge et al., 2011; Namie and Namie, 2011; Leon-Perez et al., 2015; Bashir et al., 2019), or chain of reactions (Kane et al., 2008; Webb, 2008).

A9. Visibility

Negative work behavior may change into more serious forms, as in escalation, and it may also change from overtly visible to covert and less visible forms (Neuman and Baron, 1998). All 16 labels include these overt and covert forms of NWB. Examples of overt forms of NWB are publicly criticizing and physical behaviors (Crawford, 1999; Kaukiainen et al., 2001). Examples of covert forms of NWB are spreading rumors, giving silent treatments, using menacing body language, and hiding knowledge, e.g., Thomas and Burk (2009) and Lewis (2006). Other terms used for overt NWB are explicit or detectible NWB, e.g., Mayhew et al. (2004) and Crawford (1999), while for covert NWB, the terms used are subtle, mild, private, or lower-level NWB, e.g., Khan et al. (2014) and Martin and Hine (2005). Examples of subtle forms of NWB are racism and discrimination because of their legalization in current society (Kern and Grandey, 2009). Scholars explained the use of these covert tactics in maximizing harm while minimizing danger to perpetrators, indicated with the “effect-danger ratio” (Björkqvist et al., 1994a,b), disguising identity (Baron and Neuman, 1996; Kaukiainen et al., 2001), or keeping an option for restoration, e.g., Skarlicki and Folger (1997). Studies on youth show that during adolescence, the overt NWB gives way to covert forms (Kern and Grandey, 2009). Apparently, covert NWB depends on the development of verbal skills and social insights (Lagerspetz et al., 1988).

In sum, all 16 constructs can be defined along with the proposed categories (A1–A5) of the different natures of NWB, although examples of some natures were listed more often in one construct than in another. For instance, the physical and psychological natures of NWB were richly defined in all constructs with many examples, while the sociocultural nature of NWB was richly filled with examples of harassment. Furthermore, we made choices for some aspects that can be classified in more than one specific nature of NWB. Examples of these are non-verbal and bodily NWB, IT-enabled or real-world NWB, and NWB in organizational and demographic groups. Another choice we made is to distinguish the occurrence patterns in these natures of NWB (A6–A9). All labels defined systematic, escalation, and visibility as meaningful occurrence patterns in NWB. The definition of duration differs, wherein 12 labels were defined duration as a timeframe for the repeated incidents experienced by the victim and 4 labels defined the duration of an incident in a general work situation with reaction patterns between actors.

Positive Labels

Interestingly, while searching for NWBs, we also found 11 positive labels, namely, professional aggression (Kelloway et al., 2005), leader bullying (Ferris et al., 2007), positive discrimination (Noon, 2010), positive (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004), and constructive (Vadera et al., 2013) deviance, task-related interpersonal conflict (Raver and Barling, 2007), ostracism as an influence tool (Hales et al., 2016), productive micropolitics (Neuberger, 2006), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Settoon and Mossholder, 2002), organizational justice (Liljegren and Ekberg, 2009), civility (Osatuke et al., 2009), and social safety (Edwards et al., 2013; Brewer et al., 2018) (see Table 2). Authors have remained unclear about whether these positive labels are distinct from NWB, e.g., Vadera et al. (2013), which decreases our understanding of them.

Cropanzano et al. (2017) demonstrated in their review and line of reasoning that positive and negative behaviors are psychologically distinct. With this, they build on the research of Shapiro et al. (2008) who showed, with the collected data of various constructs, that positive constructs tended to load together and were empirically separate from the NWB constructs. This suggests that positive work behavior (PWB) such as being fair and trustful is psychologically distinct from negative social behavior such as behaving unfairly or distrustful (Nicklin et al., 2011). The studies by Govier (1994) and Lewicki et al. (1998) pointed out that trust and distrust are different constructs, which means that the one is not the absence of the other, just as is the case with justice and injustice (Colquitt et al., 2010).

This implies that each of these behaviors is not bipolar but has a single continuum with a positive and negative pole for high or low scores at its opposite end (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Consequently, a low score on NWB as injustice or distrust does not automatically imply a high score on positive behavior as justice or trust (Govier, 1994; Colquitt et al., 2010). The knowledge that PWB and NWB are distinct behaviors from separate constructs with their own continuum has enabled us to compare the above-mentioned positive labels and analyze these distinct behaviors in policy and in individuals.

The comparison of behaviors in positive labels is listed in Table 2. Seven positive labels, such as positive discrimination or professional aggression, contained the same negative behavior as the primary construct. This behavior is validated as positive by a goal such as speeding up opportunities for underrepresented groups in workplaces by positive discrimination (Noon, 2010) or peacekeeping by the army (Kelly et al., 2006). Important to note here is that these goals or beneficial consequences are not equal for all workers. Some workers may experience harm or damage regardless of the positive goal (Bies and Tripp, 2005; Miao et al., 2013).

In comparing the 11 positively labeled constructs of NWB, we found 4 labels that included PWB, which are organizational justice, OCB, civility, and social safety. This behavior differs from the primary types of NWB, which are injustice, CWB, incivility, and social safety. This last type is another exception since it is labeled positive by its goal and composed of two sub-constructs, which are positive/safe and negative/unsafe behaviors. Safety has an explicit focus on the desired situation, including safety for workers, patients, clients, and the public (Young, 2012), while unsafety has to be repressed (DeJoy et al., 2010; Sijbers et al., 2014).

The distinction between NWB and PWB and the influence of goals provided meaningful knowledge for NWB policy, as research demonstrated that policies that aim to suppress negative behavior may not automatically lead to more positive behavior, just as promoting positive behavior will not automatically lead to less negative behavior. Therefore, organizations that strive to be socially safe need a focus on both, i.e., a focus on decreasing NWB and increasing PWB (DeJoy et al., 2010; Sijbers et al., 2014). To monitor the progress of this policy, PWB and NWB can be scored on their own continuums.

Another insight is how the difference between NWB and PWB can be observed in the reactions of individuals to each other. When one or more individuals exhibit NWB, they likely provoke aggressive or retaliatory responses in the other person (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2007; Milam et al., 2009). According to social exchange theory, in this way, a process of interpersonal reactions occurs (Mitchell et al., 2012). In this process, there is also a possibility that some individuals react with support to create an alliance with the perpetrator or target of the NWB (Heider, 1958; Priesemuth et al., 2013). Consequently, as more than two individuals are involved, their choice to respond with various constructive (PWB) or destructive (NWB) behaviors makes a substantial difference in the NWB or PWB balance in the group (Salmivalli, 1999; Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). In paragraph 3.5, we review various constructive and destructive behaviors of third parties or bystanders in this process.

B. Natures of Harm

The harm potentially caused by NWB is part of every label definition. This may be the harm to the target, bystanders, organization, or society, such as the health of the children of the victims (Ng, 2019), the undermining of families as displaced aggression (Hoobler and Brass, 2006), and economic and moral harms (Fredericksen and McCorkle, 2013). Previous research indicated four categories of NWB harm, namely, physical, material, psychological, and social harms (Hershcovis, 2011; Beus et al., 2016). These categories with examples are listed in Supplementary Table 2. Another existing finding is that this harm may either occur immediately or be delayed (Beus et al., 2016). Although these categories were mentioned separately in this overview, they occur more often in combination, e.g., Campo and Klijn (2018) and Fredericksen and McCorkle (2013).

B1. Physical Nature of Harm

All types of NWB include physical harm with various somatic problems (Fredericksen and McCorkle, 2013; Hansen et al., 2014; Giorgi et al., 2015; Choi et al., 2018). More specific types of physical harm are sleep problems (Hansen et al., 2014), cardiovascular diseases (Hansen et al., 2011), and fatigue (Reknes et al., 2014b). Severe types of physical harm are injury and death (Reknes et al., 2014a; Health safety department US, 2016; Campo and Klijn, 2018).

B2. Material Nature of Harm

Material harm, also indicated as damage, are costs for employees, organizations, and society at large. It was also part of all NWB labels. Individual costs include loss of income (Sabbath et al., 2018), loss of employment (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006), and damage to property (Chen and Spector, 1992). Organizational costs are sick leave (Lusinyan and Bonato, 2007), lower quality of work (Esmaeilpour et al., 2011), lower productivity (Giga et al., 2008), claims and legal fees (Bultena and Whatcott, 2008), reputational damage (Citron and Franks, 2014), turnover costs (Bambi et al., 2018), and several employer monetary costs (Chen, 2017; Sabbath et al., 2018). Societal costs are higher health care utilization (Sabbath et al., 2018), unemployment (Glambek et al., 2016), and socioeconomic impact (Reknes et al., 2019).

B3. Psychological Nature of Harm

All types of NWB include psychological harm. To give some examples of these outcomes, these are psychological damage, deprivation (Campo and Klijn, 2018), mental health problems, including depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms (Baran Tatar and Yuksel, 2018), and other stress-related psychological complaints (Verkuil et al., 2015) such as burnout, withdrawal (Sliter et al., 2012), paranoia from digital injustice (Citron and Franks, 2014), alienation and helplessness (Riva et al., 2017), and lower self-esteem (Ferris et al., 2015).

B4. Social Nature of Harm

Although NWB is widely labeled as an occupational stressor, it appears to have several effects on the private life of an employee. This harm that carries over to the private sphere is also described as a spillover or crossover harm (Hoobler and Brass, 2006; Carlson et al., 2011) or generally as a social harm (Fredericksen and McCorkle, 2013). Examples of this harm are reduced marital satisfaction or work-to-family conflicts (Liu et al., 2015), depressive symptoms in family members (Crouter et al., 2006), health consequences for the children of the victims (Ng, 2019), and effects on the friendship networks (Björkqvist et al., 1994b) and intimate relationships of workers (Sperry and Duffy, 2009). In sum, all the 16 NWB labels describe elements of the four types of inflicted harm, which are physical, material, psychological, and social in nature.

C. Actor Types

In this section, we present the results on actor types and roles. The actor type is the type of actor in relation to the organization (Merchant and Lundell, 2001), while the actor role refers to the role of an actor, such as supporter or perpetrator (Huitsing and Veenstra, 2012). The 16 constructs with four categories of actor types are listed in Supplementary Table 3. The roles are shown in italics. Added to this list is a fifth category “group,” a unit of actors, that also appeared to be important during the systematic analysis of the literature.

C1. Stranger

Strangers were included as actors in 12 of the 16 NWB definitions. We found no definition of strangers in the NWB types mobbing, CWB, interpersonal conflict, and ostracism. The descriptions of strangers varied from third parties to indirect actors such as an audience or the public. Their common feature is a position outside the organization, but they differ in roles such as criminal, visitor, or co-user in traffic. Two unique aspects were found here. First, actors in bullying are originally described within the organizational boundaries, but these boundaries are shifted outward by the digital medium in cyberbullying (Kavitha and Bhuvaneswari, 2016). Second, in procedural harassment, the judicial system is described as an outside actor (Clemente et al., 2019).

C2. Co-worker/Manager

All 16 types of NWB define actors as organizational members, such as workers or staff. They have been defined hierarchically as divisions between managers and subordinates, whose relationship is vertical, and between co-workers, whose relationship is horizontal (Parzefall and Salin, 2010). They may be current or former workers (Baron and Neuman, 1996). Over the past 20 years, these employees have been defined in the roles of perpetrators, targets, and bystanders as witnesses (Neall and Tuckey, 2014). Some NWB labels are less specific about actors and just mention the workplace such as in deviance (Bashir et al., 2019), working life in mobbing and terror (Leymann and Zapf, 1990), or insiders in abuse (Grandey et al., 2007).

C3. Customers

In 15 of the 16 types of NWB, actors are defined as parties in the business. They are customers or more specifically defined as clients, patients, pupils, students, the public, passengers, or prisoners. These may be perpetrators, such as in aggression (Dormann and Zapf, 2004), sexual harassment (Yagil, 2008), and incivility (Sliter et al., 2010; Wilson and Holmvall, 2013; Schilpzand et al., 2016), targets, such as in service sabotage (Harris and Ogbonna, 2006), or supporters, such as in ostracism (Fiset et al., 2017). Moreover, these roles may alternate in a reciprocal process (Ireland, 2013). We found no definition of customer parties in mobbing.

C4. Relatives

Relatives come from the network of workers or customers, such as family or friends. We found no definition of relatives in 6 of the 16 types of NWB, including deviance, CWB, injustice, interpersonal conflict, micropolitics, and ostracism. With that, these labels limit themselves to organization members only. However, in many professions, this boundary between internal and external actors is not so sharply drawn. In this study, external actors appeared to play a key role in the interactions of employees with each other, customers, and their relations (Van Dierendonck and Mevissen, 2002). In this interaction, relatives may take escalating or conciliatory roles in NWB (Levine et al., 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that NWB labels with considerable attention to this actor type, such as aggression, violence, and social safety, were found in our reviewed studies. Some examples of these occupations are the healthcare sector, where relatives intervene in the provided care of their family member/friend (Muzembo et al., 2015; Maran et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2017; Cheung et al., 2018; Cannavò et al., 2019), and the public sector, where relatives are clients too (Waddington, 2004; Ufkes and Giebels, 2013).

C5. Group

Every type of NWB defines the group as a unit of actors. This group may be restricted to the organization (Hoel et al., 2001; De Cuyper et al., 2009) or to a part of the community (Campo and Klijn, 2018). A combination of both is when actors are participants interacting within (intra) and between (inter) groups (O'Boyle et al., 2011). These dynamics evolve in the shared characteristics of employee or customer groups (Brees et al., 2013; McLindon et al., 2018). The importance of knowledge about group dynamics is demonstrated by the research of Glomb and Liao (2003), which showed that 46% of the NWB is determined by group and 10% is individually determined.

C. Actor Roles

Since all labels include actors in a group, their various roles may influence NWB in different ways (Merton, 1957; Callero, 1994). The most studied roles in these groups are target and perpetrator (dyad) or extended with a bystander (triad) (Neall and Tuckey, 2014; Pinto, 2014; Maran et al., 2018). This extension in the triad changes the process by alliances of persons (Heider, 1958). For instance, an alliance between perpetrator and bystander increases the negativity, whereas an alliance between target and bystander decreases the negativity (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). In addition to the role of perpetrator and victim, 13 bystander roles with constructive and destructive behaviors in such alliances were found, such as assistants, reinforces, endorsers, outsiders, defenders, supporters (Salmivalli, 1999), bully bystanders, puppet-masters (instigator), victim bystanders, avoidant bystanders, abdicating bystanders, sham-bystanders, and helpful bystanders (Twemlow et al., 2010). To illustrate this, the assistants of the perpetrator offer positive feedback as the audience or incite by laughing or making encouraging gestures (reinforces and/or endorsers). Outsiders or abdicating and avoidant bystanders take no sides but have important influence (Twemlow et al., 2010). The avoiding, neglecting, or laisser-faire role of NWB silently approves of the NWB (Salin and Hoel, 2010; Ågotnes et al., 2018). In addition, some bystanders disapprove of the NWB by supporting the target and trying to make the others stop, i.e., defenders, supporters, and helpful bystanders (Salmivalli, 1999; Twemlow et al., 2010). According to these findings, bystanders play an important role in the balance of NWB and PWB in groups.

C6. Constructive and C7. Destructive Actor Roles

Based on the works of Twemlow et al. (2010) and Salmivalli (1999), the 13 potential bystander roles were categorized into four clusters, which are active or passive and constructive or destructive (Paull et al., 2012). The four active constructive roles were defending, sympathizing, defusing, and intervening, while the one passive constructive role was empathizing. The four active destructive roles were facilitating, collaborating, manipulating, and instigating. The four passive destructive roles were submitting, succumbing, avoiding, and abdicating. Although the study of Paull et al. (2012) chose to use the label bullying, their operational definition is often broader, including the full range of behaviors described in facet A1–5 in this study.

Another point is that, from the dynamic perspective, actors are not fixed in their roles but may switch between roles; for instance, a change from a perpetrator into a target, taking both roles as “bully/victim” (Ireland, 2013). Another example is a switch from a bystander into a target because of emotional responses (succumbing bystander) or by offering oneself as an alternative target (submitting bystander) (Omari, 2010). In this way, actors can take different roles, move between them, or simultaneously take more roles, thus changing the group dynamics of NWB (Oh and Hazler, 2009).

These studies show a more comprehensive picture of NWB than just the alliance between perpetrator and target. This alliance is extended by a wide variety of relationships between actors influencing the balance of NWB with constructive or destructive behaviors (Heider, 1958; Twemlow et al., 2010; Paull et al., 2012; Fiset et al., 2017). That is why these studies rather speak of social networks of actors instead of dyads or triads (Volk et al., 2017; Herkama and Salmivalli, 2018), as evidenced by researchers using network theory to analyze roles in NWB (Veenstra et al., 2013).

In sum, all 16 constructs overlapped in the definition of actor roles since they contained similar elements of actor types as co-workers/managers and a group of actors. A full overlap was found in the definition of three actor roles: each label defined the target, perpetrator, and bystander as a witness. A large overlap was found in the other three actor definitions in the 16 constructs: criminal/stranger (identified in 14 labels); customers (identified in 15 labels); relatives (identified in 10 labels). Unique and meaningful actor roles were the 13 active or passive roles of bystanders with constructive and destructive influences on the balance of NWB. These bystander roles are more complex to study than roles in a dyad. Consequently, the network theory is an emerging method to research more actor roles in a group (see Table 3).

TABLE 3
www.frontiersin.org

Table 3. Facets, categories, overlap and unique elements in NWB operationalizations and conceptualizations.

Discussion

This study aimed to provide a systematic review of earlier research examining NWB and to determine whether an integrated operationalization of NWB would be possible after examining the contents of the studies found. We arrived at the following results as an answer to our preconceived five questions for this study. To answer the first research question that stated, “How many operationalizations of NWB can be identified?” we identified 16 different operationalizations of NWB in the literature. We further investigated whether the negative work behaviors within these 16 constructs could be categorized into specific facet areas, namely, type of harm, type of actor, and actor roles (assessing research question 2: “Can the operationalizations found in the reviewed studies be categorized into specific facet areas?”). Interestingly, we found that all operationalizations of NWB show overlap in these three categories, namely, the behavioral category, the type of harm category, and actor roles (addressing research question 3: “What is the meaningful overlap in the operationalizations?”). This means that all NWB constructs share similar characteristics that define the behaviors and the type of harm, and each construct defines actor roles as perpetrator, target, and a bystander as a witness. We also found a full overlap on the actor types of co-workers/managers and groups, but less so for the actor types of strangers, customers, and relatives. Taken together, this means that none of the labels, for example, only focuses on physical behaviors, material harm, or the perpetrator.

Finally, next to the overlapping elements of NWB, we also encountered unique elements in the operationalizations of NWB (addressing research question 4: “Do the operationalizations used in the reviewed studies tap unique and meaningful elements?”). Specifically, in the category of actor types, we noticed that several additional actors were included in some operationalizations but not in others. For example, within the category of actor types, strangers, customers, and relatives were included in addition to the actor type of the co-worker (Merchant and Lundell, 2001) and a group of actors. Our choice to include all actor types is in line with the choice of many recent studies (Cheung et al., 2017; Baran Tatar and Yuksel, 2018; Gilardi et al., 2019; Maran et al., 2019). This is not surprising, since these actor types are considered important in sectors such as the health service (Öztunç, 2006; Muzembo et al., 2015; Cheung and Yip, 2017; Yenealem et al., 2019), education (Ferrer et al., 2011), and other public sectors such as hospitality and travel (Bentley et al., 2009).

Considering NWB as a group phenomenon implied perspectives to broaden our focus from a purely interpersonal approach to a network approach. The perpetrator and target do not determine the balance of NWB, but the shared hierarchy, norms, and behaviors of the entire actor group (Forsberg and Thornberg, 2016). Mapping this dynamic process with 13 destructive and constructive actor roles provides the NWB research field with new opportunities for analysis and intervention (Twemlow et al., 2010; Paull et al., 2012; Herkama and Salmivalli, 2018). In these dynamics, repetition and escalation offer a new perspective compared with the previous labels because they provide information about the ties and intensities between actors (Veenstra et al., 2013). These different observations about actors, their ties, and roles in NWB are increasingly supported by analyses from network theory (Volk et al., 2017).

A specific point that was noted in this study was that PWB is psychologically different from NWB (Shapiro et al., 2008; Cropanzano et al., 2017), and yet it is essential to include this behavior in an integrated NWB operationalization. The reason for this is that PWB gives substance to constructive bystander roles as defenders, sympathizers, defusing actors, interveners, and empathizers in a group (Paull et al., 2012). More specifically, this concerns involuntary groups in which the actors are obliged to each other, such as work teams and classrooms (Juvonen and Galván, 2008). Evaluations in the schoolyard show how promising interventions aimed at increasing constructive roles in these groups are for reducing NWB (Escartin, 2016; Raveel and Schoenmakers, 2019). Also in work situations, interventions that not only suppress negative behavior but encourage positive behavior at the same time are positively evaluated (Gamble Blakey et al., 2019). Since constructive bystander roles create a PWB balance in a group, we cannot exclude this meaningful element from an integrated operationalization (Juvonen and Galván, 2008; Brechwald and Prinstein, 2011).

An advantage of this study is that we have been able to organize our NWB data within categories. However, in real life, this distinction is not so sharp, and the co-occurrence of these behaviors is more norm than exception (Richman et al., 1999; O'Connor et al., 2004; Rospenda et al., 2009). In fact, we could rather speak of co-occurrent and sequential behavior from a broad collection of NWBs. In a co-occurrence perspective, multiple natures of NWB occur simultaneously, such as yelling and hitting (psychological and physical) or exclusion based on gender (psychological and social). In a temporal sequence, actors are likely to exhibit one type of NWB that triggers another (Gruys and Sackett, 2003), such as alcohol use evolving into physical abuse (McFarlin et al., 2001). As we discussed above, these behaviors are not limited to one person or one action. Therefore, we should rather speak of co-current and sequential NWBs between joint actors (Lim and Cortina, 2005). Consequently, we should regard the various NWBs as complementary in the communication style of actors (Barboza et al., 2009; Ferrer et al., 2011). In sum, the following integrated definition can be derived from the overlapping and the unique elements of earlier NWB operationalizations examined in this review, namely:

Negative work behaviors consist of physical, material, psychological, sociocultural, and/or digital behaviors that may inflict physical, psychological, material, and social harm for individuals, organizations, and society in a direct or delayed way. Negative work behavior is conducted by actors operating in dyads, triads, or within a networking group. These actors may be a criminal/stranger, customer/client/pupil, co-worker/manager, or personal relative during the performance of work. Depending on the process over time, these actors may take different constructive and destructive roles in a group network with targets and perpetrators. These roles influence the balance of NWB in this group. The repetition of the behavior escalating into more severe acts at one person over a period of 4–6 months makes this target no longer able to defend himself.

Theoretical Implications

The vast majority of NWB research concentrates on harms, perpetrators, targets, and bystanders as witnesses, leaving other meaningful elements from labels barely touched (Branch et al., 2013; Neall and Tuckey, 2014). Since these NWB elements overlap completely, this implies that we are investigating the same phenomenon under different labels. This problem, also known as construct proliferation, indicates that successive labels are too similar to previous ones and therefore lack discriminant validity (Shaffer et al., 2016). This problem can be solved by an integrated operationalization of NWB. Consequently, inadequate solutions as a temporary operational definition or nested construction become redundant.

An important implication of our work is related to the measurement of NWBs. Such a measure should integrate complementary behaviors by various actors in a dynamic group network, which requires new measurement techniques. In recent years, these new techniques have been applied in research on youth in environmental systems (Veenstra et al., 2013). Although, so far, this research has focused on the graphical presentations of bullying networks of (reciprocal) in/outgroups and roles in classrooms, this may be a promising pathway for research in workplaces (Huitsing and Veenstra, 2012). In the network approach, the duration of observation makes it possible to register different natures of harm in time. For example, at time one, we may observe that the perpetrator exhibits NWB toward the target, resulting in physical or psychological harm to this target (Verkuil et al., 2015; Van Steijn et al., 2019) and bystanders (Mayhew et al., 2004; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). At time two, this experience of the target spills over to irritated negative behavior toward his partner, causing social harm (Ng, 2019). At time three, two team bystanders take a destructive role toward the perpetrator, resulting in a loss of status and social damage for this person (Kircher et al., 2011). At time four, the NWB causes the loss of team-sprit, production, and absenteeism among team members, subsequently causing financial harm for the team (Harris and Ogbonna, 2006; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018). At time five, HRM solves the problem through an intervention, e.g., a mediator, lawyer, organizational advice, or exit, causing financial harm to the organization (Porath and Pearson, 2012). This means that NWB from various actors in a network causes different harm at different times, whether direct or delayed in time (Beus et al., 2016).

Practical Implications

An integrated NWB definition connects to the social debate on actual themes. These themes, such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, or Doxing, include no mutually excluding behaviors but a wide range of complementary and co-current physical, psychological, material, sociocultural, and digital NWBs (Snyder et al., 2017; Holroyd-Leduc and Straus, 2018; Chen et al., 2019; West et al., 2019). If the debate about mutually exclusive labels among researchers continues, the scientific community may miss the connection with the social debate.

Another practical implication is that bystanders are easier to influence by HRM than the dyad of perpetrator and target (Herkama and Salmivalli, 2018). Indeed, HRM hardly succeeds in protecting the victim and correcting the perpetrator in the escalated and visible phase of NWB. In this phase, the perpetrator may already have organized support from management or colleagues, resulting in little support from HRM for the victim (Namie, 2003; Namie and Namie, 2009). Therefore, this escalated phase often leaves arbitration as the only option left (Keashly and Nowell, 2003). In the option with bystanders, HRM can achieve more, as they are easier to influence than the dyad (Herkama and Salmivalli, 2018). These bystanders of NWB are caught in a social dilemma. On the one hand, they understand that this behavior is wrong and would like to stop it. On the other hand, they strive to secure their own status and safety in the group (Salmivalli, 2010; Forsberg et al., 2014). Therefore, it is easier for HRM to support bystanders with skills to play a constructive role in this process (Salmivalli, 1999). Moreover, over time, this bystander intervention creates a safe group atmosphere, including the dyad (Salmivalli et al., 1998).

In describing the digital nature of NWB, we realized that this NWB may be more specific to actors in the younger generation, especially the youth born between 1980 and 1995 in the world of technology entering the labor market (Schäffer, 2012). These young workers are more comfortable with digital communication (Bencsik et al., 2016). However, simultaneously, the use of ICT is changing labor markets in such a way that the production, trade, sales, and service facilitated by online platforms dominate over traditional markets (Rabenu, 2021). This development has far-reaching consequences for workers with, on the one hand, a large group of low-skilled workers such as cab drivers and production and warehouse workers, and, on the other hand, a small group of high-skilled workers with ICT and social skills (European Commission, 2019). For instance, labor services mediated by platforms is the main work activity for only 1.4% of the working-age population, and the average age of platform workers is just below 34 years (European Commission, 2019). Further research is needed to analyze whether actors of different generations in these labor markets produce a different nature of NWB by using a different medium, e.g., physical and digital.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the current review study we would like to pay attention to. Firstly, although our focus was primarily on NWB, we devoted an entire paragraph to PWB. This is because the paradox of NWB policy is its interventions focus on achieving PWB. This study provided important insights into this policy, wherein PWB differs from NWB and a majority of constructive bystander roles in a group are necessary for the PWB balance. Because this study did not focus on the nature of PWB, future research is needed to see if and how PWB can be included in an integrated operationalization of NWB.

Another limitation of this study is our choice to focus on three elements in each NWB definition. As a result, other elements regarded as important by some authors in NWB labels such as intent, e.g., Namie and Namie (2011), and power, e.g., Einarsen and Skogstad (1996), were not reviewed. For instance, intent has been variously conceptualized either as a necessary feature (Neuman and Baron, 2005; Spector and Fox, 2005; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Jex and Bayne, 2017), or not conceptualized explicitly as a defining element (Notelaers et al., 2018). Despite these various conceptualizations, these elements could be potentially important in an integrated conceptualization of NWB and deserve further investigation.

The next limitation is the underrepresentation of research from non-Western countries on NWB (Giorgi, 2010), which is reflected in our study. Therefore, cultural differences should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. This is because culture can play a crucial role in the operationalization of NWB. For example, in South Korea, NWB terms imply a group action that is deeply rooted in the collectivist national culture with value for conformity. Strong social ties among in-group members simultaneously imply strong discrimination against the out-group. This makes it easy for anyone who is different from the group, or a threat to the advantage of the group, to be targeted by NWB from within the group. These targeted individuals are discouraged from contradicting the group and conforming according to the core social value in Korean society (Seo et al., 2012). Future research is needed to study operationalizations from more cultures allowing other valuable insights to allowing valuable new insights from future research to broaden the knowledge about the phenomenon NWB.

A fourth limitation is that this study collected data that are not necessarily a reflection of the predominant theories from which they originate. For example, studies from individual, dyadic, group, industry, or community perspectives are tied to one or more organizational levels of NWB (Klein et al., 1994). Actors are part of a dyad, group, industry, and society (Saam, 2010). In fact, no element in this integration is level-free. These multi-level elements are not explicitly discussed in this study, although these levels, can be recognized as for instance in actor types outside the organization (Merchant and Lundell, 2001). More specifically, the influence of demographic, population and organization groups in the sociocultural nature of NWB (Lewis and Gunn, 2007; Kern and Grandey, 2009; Žukauskas and Vveinhardt, 2013; Agrawal et al., 2019), and the dyad as part of the group with bystanders (Fiset et al., 2017). A multi-level approach is necessary because it renders more validity and reliability in NWB research (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Branch et al., 2013). Therefore, future research is needed to extend this integrated conceptualization with a multi-level approach.

Finally, with a combination of all labels into one single integrated operationalization of NWB, we build on the accumulated science of NWB. This means that the original valuable elements such as the powerless role that targets eventually end up in are extended with valuable elements such as the influence of various positive and negative bystander behaviors in the balance of NWB.

Conclusion

This study aimed to review the existing literature on NWB and develop an integrated definition of NWB. The literature review revealed that the 16 frequently studied NWB labels overlap to such an extent that they can be reduced by a comprehensive integrated model. This provided a definition that should help researchers to overcome construct proliferation and related methodological and practical‘ problems. By integrating the unique meaningful elements into this NWB definition, valuable new pathways for research and intervention were provided. The focus of this study on the key characteristics of behavior, harm, actor types, and roles brought limitations to elements such as PWB, moderators, and the multi-level approach of NWB. These elements need further investigation for integration.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

CV: study conceptualization, data collection, and drafting of the manuscript. MT: continuous feedback, critical revisions during drafting, supervision, and substantial revision suggestions. AL: final editing and substantial revisions suggestions. MT and AL: independent rating of a sample of 10 abstracts and a sample of 10 articles for inclusion criteria and approval of the final completion of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.726973/full#supplementary-material

References

Ågotnes, K. W., Einarsen, S. V., Hetland, J., and Skogstad, A. (2018). The moderating effect of laissez-faire leadership on the relationship between co-worker conflicts and new cases of workplace bullying: A true prospective design. Hum. Res. Manage. J. 51, 426–433. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12200

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abraham, M., Flight, S., and Roorda, W. (2011). Agressie en Geweld Tegen Werknemers Met Een Publieke Taak (Aggression and Violence Against Employees in Public Service Jobs). Amsterdam.

Agrawal, P., Yusuf, Y., Pasha, O., Ali, S. H., Ziad, H., and Hyder, A. A. (2019). Interpersonal stranger violence and American Muslims: an exploratory study of lived experiences and coping strategies. Global Bioethics 30, 28–42. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2019.1683934

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., and Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89, 947–965. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00037-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (APA) (1929). APA PsycINFO Journal Coverage List (Washington, DC). Available online at: https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/coverage (accessed September 10, 2021).

Anderson, J. W. (2009). Organizational Shunning: The disciplinary functions of “Non-Sense.” Atlantic J. Commun. 17, 36–50. doi: 10.1080/15456870802506140

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andersson, L. M., and Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24, 452–471. doi: 10.2307/259136

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aquino, K., and Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 1023–1034. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aquino, K., and Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 717–741. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bambi, S., Foà, C., De Felippis, C., Lucchini, A., Guazzini, A., and Rasero, L. (2018). Workplace incivility, lateral violence and bullying among nurses. A review about their prevalence and related factors. Acta Biomed. 89, 51–79. doi: 10.23750/abm.v89i6-S.7461

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baran Tatar, Z., and Yuksel, S. (2018). Mobbing at workplace - Psychological trauma and documentation of psychiatric symptoms. Arch. Neuropsychiatry 56, 57–62. doi: 10.29399/npa.22924

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., and Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. J. Youth Adolesc. 38, 101–121. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., and Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 671–692. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163629

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baron, R. A., and Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggress. Behav. 22, 161–173. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:3<161::AID-AB1>3.0.CO

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baruch, Y. (2005). Bullying on the net: Adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact. Inform. Manage. 42, 361–371. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2004.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bashir, M., Abrar, M., Yousaf, M., Saqib, S., and Shabbir, R. (2019). Organizational politics and workplace deviance in unionized settings: Mediating role of job stress and moderating role of resilience. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manage. 12, 943–959. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S213672

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bayramoglu, M. M., and Toksoy, D. (2017). Leadership and bullying in the forestry organization of Turkey. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017, 1–11. doi: 10.1155/2017/9454682

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bencsik, A., Juhász, T., and Horváth-Csikós, G. (2016). Y and Z generations at workplaces. J. Competitive. 6, 90–106. doi: 10.7441/joc.2016.03.06

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennett, J. (1983). Positive and negative. Am. Philoso. Q. 20, 185–194. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)97680-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 349–360. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bentley, T. A., Catley, B., Gardner, D., O'Driscoll, M. P., Renberth, L., and Cooper, T. (2009). Perspectives on bullying in the New Zealand health and hospitality Sectors. J. Occup. Health Saf. 25, 363–373. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1894627 (accessed September 10, 2021).

Bernaldo-De-Quirós, M., Piccini, A. T., Gómez, M. M., and Cerdeira, J. C. (2015). Psychological consequences of aggression in pre-hospital emergency care: Cross sectional survey. Int. J. Nursing Stud. 52, 260–270. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.05.011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., et al. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 18, 320–334. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.022

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., and Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 410–424. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beus, J. M., McCord, M. A., and Zohar, D. (2016). Workplace safety. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 6, 352–381. doi: 10.1177/2041386615626243

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bies, R. J., and Tripp, T. M. (2005). “The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues,” in Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, eds F. Suzy and P. E. Spector (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association). doi: 10.1037/10893-003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., and Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994a). Aggression among university employees. Aggress. Behav. 20, 173–184. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:3<173::AID-AB2480200304>3.0.CO

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., and Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994b). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggress. Behav. 20, 27–33. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:1<27::AID-AB2480200105>3.0.CO

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Black, S. M., Creese, S., Guest, R. M., Pike, B., Saxby, S. J., Fraser, D. S., et al. (2012). “Superidentity: fusion of identity across real and cyber domains,” in Global Forum on Identity (Austin, TX), 1–10. Available online at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/336645/1/ID360_-_finalpaper.pdf (accessed September 10, 2021).

Blau, G., and Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 78, 595–614. doi: 10.1348/096317905X26822

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance,” in Personnel Selection in Organizations, eds N. Schmitt and W. C. Borman (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Branch, S., Ramsay, S., and Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 15, 280–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brechwald, W. A., and Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. J. Res. Adolesc. 21, 166–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brees, J. R., Mackey, J., and Martinko, M. J. (2013). An attributional perspective of aggression in organizations. J. Manag. Psychol. 28, 252–272. doi: 10.1108/02683941311321150

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brewer, G., Holt, B., and Malik, S. (2018). Workplace bullying in risk and safety professionals. J. Safety Res. 64, 129–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2017.12.015

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brief, A. P., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11:710. doi: 10.2307/258391

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., and Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 35–56. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.74

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bultena, C. D., and Whatcott, R. B. (2008). Bush whacked at work: a comparative analysis of mobbing & bullying at work. Proc. Am. Soc. Bus. Behav. Sci. 15, 652–666. Retrieved from: http://asbbs.org/files/2008/PDF/B/Bultena.pdf (accessed September 10, 2021).

Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Soc. Psychol. Q. 57:228. doi: 10.2307/2786878

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Campo, V. R., and Klijn, T. P. (2018). Verbal abuse and mobbing in pre-hospital care services in Chile. Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem 25:e2956. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.2073.2956

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cannavò, M., La Torre, F., Sestili, C., La Torre, G., and Fioravanti, M. (2019). Work related violence as a predictor of stress and correlated disorders in emergency department healthcare professionals. Clin. Terap. 170, E110–E123. doi: 10.7417/CT.2019.2120

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P. L., and Whitten, D. (2011). The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Pers. Psychol. 64, 937–961. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01232.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Champion, D. R. (2006). Sexual harassment: Criminal justice and academia. Crim. Justice Stud. 19, 101–109. doi: 10.1080/14786010600764443

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chan, J. H. F. (2006). Systemic patterns in bullying and victimization. Sch. Psychol. Int. 27, 352–369. doi: 10.1177/0143034306067289

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, M., Cheung, A., and Chan, K. (2019). Doxing: What adolescents look for and their intentions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:218. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16020218

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, P. Y., and Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 65, 177–184. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00495.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, S. (2017). An evolutionary game model of knowledge workers' Counterproductive Work Behaviors based on preferences. Complexity 2017, 1–11. doi: 10.1155/2017/3295436

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, T., Lee, P., and Yip, P. (2017). Workplace violence toward physicians and nurses: Prevalence and correlates in Macau. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14:879. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080879

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, T., Lee, P. H., and Yip, P. S. F. (2018). The association between workplace violence and physicians' and nurses' job satisfaction in Macau. PLoS ONE 13:e0207577. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207577

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, T., and Yip, P. S. F. (2017). Workplace violence towards nurses in Hong Kong: prevalence and correlates. BMC Public Health 17:196. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4112-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Choi, S., Yi, Y., and Kim, J. (2018). Exposure to adverse social behavior in the workplace and sickness presenteeism among Korean workers: The mediating effects of musculoskeletal disorders. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:219. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102198

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Citron, D. K., and Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake For. Law Rev. 345. Retrieved from: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/643 (accessed September 10, 2021).

Clemente, M., Padilla-Racero, D., Espinosa, P., Reig-Botella, A., and Gandoy-Crego, M. (2019). Institutional violence against users of the family law courts and the Legal Harassment Scale. Front. Psychol. 10:1. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Colquitt, J., Long, D., Rodell, J., and Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. (2010). “Are justice and injustice qualitatively distinct concepts?” in Symposium Conducted at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, eds J. A. Colquitt and J. Greenberg (Quebec, Atlanta).

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 386–400. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Conway, P. M., Clausen, T., Hansen, Å. M., and Hogh, A. (2016). Workplace bullying and sickness presenteeism: cross-sectional and prospective associations in a 2-year follow-up study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 89, 103–114. doi: 10.1007/s00420-015-1055-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cooper, C. L., Hoel, H., and Faragher, B. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. Br. J. Guid. Counc. 32, 367–387. doi: 10.1080/03069880410001723594

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cortina, L. M., and Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8, 247–265. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cosier, R. A., and Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor decisions. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 4, 69–74. doi: 10.5465/ame.1990.4274710

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Crawford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organisations: the etymology of the word “bully.” Int. J. Manpower 20:86. doi: 10.1108/01437729910268678

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Crawshaw, L. (2009). Workplace bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distraction by a thousand definitions. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 61, 263–267. doi: 10.1037/a0016590

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., and Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad. Manage. Ann. 11, 479–516. doi: 10.5465/annals.2015.0099

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Crouter, A. C., Davis, K. D., Updegraff, K., Delgado, M., and Fortner, M. (2006). Mexican American fathers' occupational conditions: Links to family members' psychological adjustment. J. Marriage Family 68, 843–858. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00299.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., and De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets' and perpetrators' experiences of workplace bullying. Work Stress 23, 206–224. doi: 10.1080/02678370903257578

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

DeJoy, D. M., Della, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., and Wilson, M. G. (2010). Making work safer: Testing a model of social exchange and safety management. J. Safety Res. 41, 163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2010.02.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Di Martino, V., Hoel, H., and Cooper, C. L. (2003). Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Dormann, C., and Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9, 61–82. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.61

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Edwards, J. R. D., Davey, J., and Armstrong, K. (2013). Returning to the roots of culture: A review and re-conceptualisation of safety culture. Saf. Sci. 55, 70–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work. Aggress. Violent Behav. 5, 379–401. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., and Cooper, C. L. (2011). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (Second). Boca Raton, MA: CRC Press.

Einarsen, S., and Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 12, 247–263.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Einarsen, S., and Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 5, 185–201. doi: 10.1080/13594329608414854

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Engel, R. S., Isaza, G., Yildirim, M., and Ozer, M. (2015). Enhancing Public Safety: University of Cincinnati Student, Faculty, and Ataff Survey Report. Cincinnati.

Escartin, J. (2016). Insights into workplace bullying: psychosocial drivers and effective interventions. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 9:157. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S91211

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Esmaeilpour, M., Salsali, M., and Ahmadi, F. (2011). Workplace violence against Iranian nurses working in emergency departments. Int. Nurs. Rev. 58, 130–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00834.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eurofound and EU-OSHA (2014). Psychosocial Risks in Europe - Prevalence and Strategies for Prevention. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2806/70971

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2019). The Changing Nature of Work and Skills in the Digital Age. Brussels: Publications office of the EU. doi: 10.2760/679150

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Every-Palmer, S., Barry-Walsh, J., and Pathé, M. (2015). Harassment, stalking, threats and attacks targeting New Zealand politicians: A mental health issue. Austr. New Zealand J. Psychiatry 49, 634–641. doi: 10.1177/0004867415583700

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferrer, B. M., Ruiz, D. M., Amador, L. V., and Orford, J. (2011). School victimization among adolescents. An analysis from an ecological perspective. Psychosoc. Intervent. 20, 149–160. doi: 10.5093/in2011v20n2a3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., and Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1348–1366. doi: 10.1037/a0012743

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., and Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance? Acad. Manage. J. 58, 279–297. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0347

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., and Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. Leadersh. Q. 18, 195–206. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fiset, J., Al Hajj, R., and Vongas, J. G. (2017). Workplace ostracism seen through the lens of power. Front. Psychol. 8:1528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01528

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisk, G. M. (2010). “I want it all and I want it now!” An examination of the etiology, expression, and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Hum. Resource Manage. Rev. 20, 102–114. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.11.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Forsberg, C., and Thornberg, R. (2016). The social ordering of belonging: Children's perspectives on bullying. Int. J. Educ. Res. 78, 13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Forsberg, C., Thornberg, R., and Samuelsson, M. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: fourth- to seventh-grade students' perspectives on their reactions. Res. Papers Educ. 29, 557–576. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2013.878375

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fox, S., and Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fredericksen, E. D., and McCorkle, S. (2013). Explaining organizational responses to workplace aggression. Public Pers. Manage. 42, 223–238. doi: 10.1177/0091026013487050

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Furnell, S. (2002). Cybercrime: Vandalizing the Information Society. London: Addison-Wesley.

Gamble Blakey, A., Smith-Han, K., Anderson, L., Collins, E., Berryman, E. K., and Wilkinson, T. (2019). It's ‘probably the teacher!' A strategic framework for clinical staff engagement in clinical student bullying intervention. BMC Med. Educ. 19:116. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1552-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghosh, R., Dierkes, S., and Falletta, S. (2011). Incivility spiral in mentoring relationships: Reconceptualizing negative mentoring as deviant workplace behavior. Adv. Dev. Human Res. 13, 22–39. doi: 10.1177/1523422311410639

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Giga, S. I., Hoel, H., and Lewis, D. (2008). The Costs of Workplace Bullying. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260246863_The_Costs_of_Workplace_Bullying (accessed September 10, 2021).

Gilardi, S., Guglielmetti, C., Converso, D., Fida, R., and Viotti, S. (2019). Third-party aggression and emotion work among nurses: Testing a moderated mediation model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 27, 146–159. doi: 10.1037/str0000136

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Giorgi, G. (2010). Workplace bullying partially mediates the climate-health relationship. J. Manag. Psychol. 25, 727–740. doi: 10.1108/02683941011075274

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Giorgi, G., Mancuso, S., Fiz Perez, F. J., Montani, F., Courcy, F., and Arcangeli, G. (2015). Does leaders' health (and work-related experiences) affect their evaluation of followers' stress? Saf. Health Work 6, 249–255. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2015.07.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., and Einarsen, S. (2016). Do the bullies survive? A five-year, three-wave prospective study of indicators of expulsion in working life among perpetrators of workplace bullying. Ind. Health 54, 68–73. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2015-0075

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., and Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Does the number of perpetrators matter? An extension and re-analysis of workplace bullying as a risk factor for exclusion from working life. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1, casp.2456. doi: 10.1002/casp.2456

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Glomb, T. M., and Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Acad. Manage. J. 46, 486–496. doi: 10.2307/30040640

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and the construction of social reality. Dialogue Can. Philos. Assoc. 33, 237–252. doi: 10.1017/S0012217300010519

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., and Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12, 63–79. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.63

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Griffin, R. W., and Lopez, Y. P. (2005). Bad behavior in organizations: A review and typology for future research. J. Manage. 31, 988–1005. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279942

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gruys, M. L., and Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. Int. J. Select. Assessment 11, 30–42. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00224

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gruys, M. L., Stewart, S. M., and Bowling, N. A. (2010). Choosing to report: Characteristics of employees who report the counterproductive work behavior of others. Int. J. Select. Assess. 18, 439–446. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00526.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hales, A. H., Ren, D., and Williams, K. D. (2016). “Protect, correct, and eject,” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence, eds S. G. Harkins, K. D. Williams, and J. Burger (Oxford: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199859870.013.26

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamburger, M., Basile, K. C., and Vivolo, A. (2011). Measuring Bullying and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., Garde, A. H., and Persson, R. (2014). Workplace bullying and sleep difficulties: a 2-year follow-up study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 87, 285–294. doi: 10.1007/s00420-013-0860-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., and Persson, R. (2011). Frequency of bullying at work, physiological response, and mental health. J. Psychosom. Res. 70, 19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.05.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harris, L. C., and Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and consequences. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 34, 543–558. doi: 10.1177/0092070306287324

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harris, M. (1979). Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. California: AltaMira Press. Available online at: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780759116962/Cultural-Materialism-The-Struggle-for-a-Science-of-Culture-Updated-Edition

Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., and Einarsen, S. (2011). Role stressors and exposure to workplace bullying: Causes or consequences of what and why? Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20, 610–630. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.482264

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Health safety department US (2016). Department of Labor: OSHA 3148-06R 2016. OSHA report. Available online at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2016-12-07 (accessed September 10, 2021).

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1st ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heineman, B. (1972). The Politics of the Powerless: A Study of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination. Published for the Institute of Race Relations. London: Oxford University Press.

Henry, N., and Powell, A. (2016). Sexual violence in the digital age. Soc. Leg. Stud. 25, 397–418. doi: 10.1177/0964663915624273

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Herkama, S., and Salmivalli, C. (2018). “KiVa antibullying program,” in Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools: International Evidence-Based Best Practicesm, 1st Edn, eds M. Campbell and S. Bauman (London; San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 125–134. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811423-0.00009-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 499–519. doi: 10.1002/job.689

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hershcovis, M. S., and Reich, T. C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method considerations. J. Organ. Behav. 34, S26–S42. doi: 10.1002/job.1886

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 228–238. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hitlan, R. T., Cliffton, R. J., and DeSoto, C. M. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The moderating effects of gender on workrelated attitudes and psychological health. N. Am. J. Psychol. 8, 217–236.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., and Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The impact of organizational status. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 10, 443–465. doi: 10.1080/13594320143000780

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hogh, A., Hansen, Å. M., Mikkelsen, E. G., and Persson, R. (2012). Exposure to negative acts at work, psychological stress reactions and physiological stress response. J. Psychosom. Res. 73, 47–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.04.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., and Straus, S. E. (2018). #MeToo and the medical profession. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 190, E972–E973. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.181037

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoobler, J. M., and Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1125–1133. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Huitsing, G., and Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggress. Behav. 38, 494–509. doi: 10.1002/ab.21438

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ireland, J. (2013). “Bullying among prisoners: Innovations in theory and research,” in Bullying Among Prisoners: The Need for Innovation, ed J. L. Ireland (Cullompton: Willan). doi: 10.4324/9781843925750

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink : A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Atlanta: Houghton Miffli.

Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., and Raver, J. L. (2014). Is it better to be average? High and low performance as predictors of employee victimization. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 296–309. doi: 10.1037/a0034822

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jex, S. M., and Bayne, A. M. (2017). “Measurement of workplace aggression,” in Research and Theory on Workplace Aggression, eds N. A. Bowling and M. S. Hershcovis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/9781316160930.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Johnson, C., and Otto, K. (2019). Better together: A model for women and LGBTQ equality in the workplace. Front. Psychol. 10:272. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00272

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Juvonen, J., and Galván, A. (2008). “Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from research on bullying,” in Duke Series in Child Development and Public Policy. Understanding Peer Influence in Children and Adolescents, eds M. J. Prinstein and K. A. Dodge (New York, NY: The Guilford Press). Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-08239-011?source=post_page- (accessed September 10, 2021).

Kane, J., Lloyd, G., McCluskey, G., Riddell, S., Stead, J., and Weedon, E. (2008). Collaborative evaluation: balancing rigour and relevance in a research study of restorative approaches in schools in Scotland. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 31, 99–111. doi: 10.1080/17437270802124343

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 9, 131–146. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830090206

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., et al. (2001). Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees. Aggress. Behav. 27, 360–371. doi: 10.1002/ab.1021.abs

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kavitha, S., and Bhuvaneswari, R. (2016). Impact of social media on millenials- a conceptual study. J. Manage. Sci. Technol. 4, 80–86. Retrieved from: https://www.apeejay.edu/aitsm/journal/docs/issue-oct-2016/ajmst040108.pdf (accessed September 10, 2021).

Keashly, L., and Harvey, S. (2005). “Emotional abuse in the workplace,” in Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, eds S. Fox and P. E. Spector (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 201–235. doi: 10.1037/10893-009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keashly, L., and Nowell, B. L. (2003). “Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, eds S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, and C. L. Cooper (New York, NY: Taylor & Francis).

Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., and Hurell, J. J. J. (2005). Handbook of Work Stress Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, CS: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412975995

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kelly, L. C., Farley, M., and Catano, V. M. (2006). “The battlefield as workplace,” in Handbook of Workplace Violence, eds K. E. Kelloway, J. Barling, and J. J. J. Hurrell (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.).

Kern, J. H., and Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of race and racial identity for service employees. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14, 46–57. doi: 10.1037/a0012684

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S. M., and Bell, C. (2014). Episodic envy and counterproductive work behaviors: Is more justice always good? J. Organ. Behav. 35, 128–144. doi: 10.1002/job.1864

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khoo, S. B. (2010). Academic mobbing: Hidden health hazard at workplace. Malay. Fam. Phys. 5, 61–67. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170397/ (accessed September 10, 2021).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Kircher, J. C., Stilwell, C., Talbot, E. P., and Chesborough, S. (2011). “Academic bullying in social work departments: the silent epidemic,” in North American Association of Christians in Social Work Convention (Pittsburgh, PA: NACSW), 1–29. Available online at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd00/02a688207f29d65f8e2ac68c2916c9571b30.pdf

Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., and Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Acad. Manage. Rev. 19:195. doi: 10.2307/258703

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Björkqvist, K., and Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggress. Behav. 14, 403–414. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:6<403::AID-AB2480140602>3.0.CO

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaj, B., Berts, M., and King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scand. J. Psychol. 23, 45–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1982.tb00412.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, R. T., and Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 15, 352–377. doi: 10.1080/13594320600636531

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., and Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 1258–1274. doi: 10.1037/a0024442

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leon-Perez, J. M., Medina, F. J., Arenas, A., and Munduate, L. (2015). The relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace bullying. J. Manag. Psychol. 30, 250–263. doi: 10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0034

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Levine, M., Taylor, P. J., and Best, R. (2011). Third parties, violence, and conflict resolution. Psychol. Sci. 22, 406–412. doi: 10.1177/0956797611398495

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lewicki, R. L., McAllister, D. J., and Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, 438–458.

Lewis, D., and Gunn, R. (2007). Workplace bullying in the public sector: understanding the racial dimension. Public Adm. 85, 641–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00665.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lewis, S. E. (2006). Recognition of workplace bullying: a qualitative study of women targets in the public sector. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 119–135. doi: 10.1002/casp.850

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 5, 165–184. doi: 10.1080/13594329608414853

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leymann, H., and Niedl, K. (1994). Mobbing. Psychoterror am Arbeitsplatz. Ein Ratgeber für Betroffene (Mobbing. Psychoterror at Work. A Guide for Targets). Wien: Verl. des Österr. Gewerkschaftsbundes.

Leymann, H., and Tallgren, U. (1989). Undersökning av frekvensen of vuxenmobbning inom SSAB med ett nytt frågeformulär [Investigation of the frequency of adult mobbing at work within SSAB with a new survey questionnaire]. Arbete Människa Miljö 1, 3–12.

Leymann, H., and Zapf, D. (1990). Mobbing and psyhological terror at workplaces' violence and victims. Eur. J. 5:22.

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Comput. Human Behav. 23, 1777–1791. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liljegren, M., and Ekberg, K. (2009). The associations between perceived distributive, procedural, and interactional organizational justice, self-rated health and burnout. Work 33, 43–51. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2009-0842

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lim, S., and Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 483–496. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Little, D. (2011). “Causal mechanisms in the social realm,” in Causality in the Sciences, eds P. McKay Illari, F. Russo, and J. Williamson (Oxford University Press), 273–295. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.003.0013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C.-H., Shi, J., Zhou, L., and Shao, R. (2015). Work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: The moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 793–808. doi: 10.1037/a0038387

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lusinyan, L., and Bonato, L. (2007). Work absence in Europe. IMF Staff Papers 54, 475–538. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.imfsp.9450016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse. Manage. Commun. Q. 16, 471–501. doi: 10.1177/0893318903251627

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Commun. Monogr. 73, 406–433. doi: 10.1080/03637750601024156

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Macdonald, G., and Sirotich, F. (2005). Violence in the social work workplace. Int. Soc. Work 48, 772–781. doi: 10.1177/0020872805057087

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Magnavita, N., Di Stasio, E., Capitanelli, I., Lops, E. A., Chirico, F., and Garbarino, S. (2019). Sleep problems and workplace violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Neurosci. 13:997. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00997

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maran, D. A., Bernardelli, S., and Varetto, A. (2018). Mobbing (bullying at work) in Italy: characteristics of successful court cases. J. Injury Violence Res. 10, 17–24. doi: 10.5249/jivr.v10i1.945

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maran, D. A., Cortese, C. G., Pavanelli, P., Fornero, G., and Gianino, M. M. (2019). Gender differences in reporting workplace violence: a qualitative analysis of administrative records of violent episodes experienced by healthcare workers in a large public Italian hospital. BMJ Open 9:e031546. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031546

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maran, D. A., Varetto, A., Zedda, M., and Franscini, M. (2017). Health care professionals as victims of stalking: Characteristics of the stalking campaign, consequences, and motivation in Italy. J. Interpers. Violence 32, 2605–2625. doi: 10.1177/0886260515593542

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., and Humpfner, G. (2002). Measuring counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a german self-report questionnaire. Int. J. Select. Assess. 10, 18–35. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00191

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martin, R. J., and Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10, 477–490. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.477

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martinez, M. A., Zeichner, A., Reidy, D. E., and Miller, J. D. (2008). Narcissism and displaced aggression: Effects of positive, negative, and delayed feedback. Pers. Individ. Dif. 44, 140–149. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Matthiesen, S. B., and Einarsen, S. (2007). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 22, 85–105. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.12.3.247

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mayhew, C., McCarthy, P., Chappell, D., Quinlan, M., Barker, M., and Sheehan, M. (2004). Measuring the extent of impact from occupational violence and bullying on traumatised workers. Employee Responsibil. Rights J. 16, 117–134. doi: 10.1023/B:ERRJ.0000038648.08568.46

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McFarlin, S. K., Fals-Stewart, W., Major, D. A., and Justice, E. M. (2001). Alcohol use and workplace aggression: An examination of perpetration and victimization. J. Subst. Abuse 13, 303–321. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3289(01)00080-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McLindon, E., Humphreys, C., and Hegarty, K. (2018). “It happens to clinicians too”: an Australian prevalence study of intimate partner and family violence against health professionals. BMC Women's Health 18:113. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0588-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (Reprint). Cambridge: MIT Press Ltd.

Merchant, J. A., and Lundell, J. A. (2001). Workplace violence intervention research workshop, April 5-7, Washington, DC. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20, 135–140. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00289-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure (revised and enlarged ed.). S. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J., and Xu, L. (2013). The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or curvilinear effects? J. Business Ethics 116, 641–653. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1504-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., and Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences among targets of workplace incivility. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14, 58–69. doi: 10.1037/a0012683

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mitchell, M. S., Cropanzano, R. S., and Quisenberry, D. M. (2012). “Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties,” in Handbook of Social Resource Theory, eds K. Törnblom and K. A. Kazemi (New York, NY: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., and PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Phys. Ther. 89, 873–880. doi: 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Muzembo, B. A., Mbutshu, L. H., Ngatu, N. R., Malonga, K. F., Eitoku, M., Hirota, R., et al. (2015). Workplace violence towards Congolese health care workers: A survey of 436 healthcare facilities in Katanga province, Democratic Republic of Congo. J. Occup. Health 57, 69–80. doi: 10.1539/joh.14-0111-OA

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: escalated incivility. Ivey Bus. J. 68, 1–6. Retrieved from: https://www.stoppestennu.nl/sites/default/files/uploads/workplace_bullying-_escalated_incivility.pdf (accessed September 10, 2021).

Namie, G., and Namie, R. (2009). U.S. Workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consultation interventions. Consul. Psychol. J. 61, 202–219. doi: 10.1037/a0016670

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Namie, G., and Namie, R. F. (2011). Bully Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels, and Snakes From Killing Your Organization. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Available online at: https://www.amazon.com/Bully-Free-Workplace-Weasels-Killing-Organization/dp/0470942207 (accessed September 10, 2021).

Neall, A. M., and Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87, 225–257. doi: 10.1111/joop.12059

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Neese, W. T., Ferrell, L., and Ferrell, O. C. (2005). An analysis of federal mail and wire fraud cases related to marketing. J. Bus. Res. 58, 910–918. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nelen, W., De Wit, W., Golbach, M., Van Druten, L., Deen, C., and Scholte, R. (2018). Sociale Veiligheid in en Rond Scholen. Primair (Speciaal) Onderwijs 2010-2018. Voortgezet (Speciaal) Onderwijs 2006-2018 (Social safety in and around schools. Primary (Special) Education 2010-2018. Secondary (Special) Education 2006-2018). Nijmegen: Praktikon BV.

Neuberger, O. (2006). Mikropolitik: Stand der Forschung und Reflexion (Research in micropolitics: State of the art and critical reflections). Zeitschrift Für Arbeits- Und Organisationspsychologie A&O 50, 189–202. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089.50.4.189

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Neuman, J. H., and Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. J. Manage. 24, 391–419. doi: 10.1177/014920639802400305

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Neuman, J. H., and Baron, R. A. (2005). “Aggression in the workplace a social- psychological perspective,” in Counterproductive Work Behavior; Investigations of Actors and Targets, eds F. Suzy and P. E. Spector (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association).

Ng, C. S. M. (2019). Effects of workplace bullying on Chinese children's health, behaviours and school adjustment via parenting: study protocol for a longitudinal study. BMC Public Health 19:129. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6458-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nicklin, J. M., Greenbaum, R., McNall, L. A., Folger, R., and Williams, K. J. (2011). The importance of contextual variables when judging fairness: An examination of counterfactual thoughts and fairness theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114, 127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nielsen, M., and Einarsen, S. V. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggress. Violent Behav. 42, 71–83. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nielsen, M., Emberland, J. S., and Knardahl, S. (2017). Workplace bullying as a predictor of disability retirement. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 59, 609–614. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001026

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nielsen, M., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S. B., and Magerøy, N. (2015). Post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review and meta-analysis. Aggress. Violent Behav. 21, 17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Noon, M. (2010). The shackled runner: time to rethink positive discrimination? Work Employ. Soc. 24, 728–739. doi: 10.1177/0950017010380648

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Notelaers, G., Van der Heijden, B., Guenter, H., Nielsen, M., and Einarsen, S. V. (2018). Do interpersonal conflict, aggression and bullying at the workplace overlap? A latent class modeling approach. Front. Psychol. 9:1743. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01743

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., and O'Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive work behavior. Group Organ Manage. 36, 39–69. doi: 10.1177/1059601110390998

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., and Melançon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law Hum. Behav. 28, 69–95. doi: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015004.39462.6e

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oh, I., and Hazler, R. J. (2009). Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders' reactions to school bullying. Sch. Psychol. Int. 30, 291–310. doi: 10.1177/0143034309106499

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., and Griffin, R. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25, 372–388. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.3312924

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 9, 520–538. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.682358

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olweus, D., Limber, S., and Mihalic, S. (1999). Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Bullying Prevention Program (Elliott, D). Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Omari, M. (2010). Towards Dignity & Respect at Work : An Exploration of Work Behaviours in a Professional Environment. Perth.

Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., and Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect, engagement in the workforce (CREW). J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 45, 384–410. doi: 10.1177/0021886309335067

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Öztunç, G. (2006). Examination of incidents of workplace verbal abuse against nurses. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 21, 360–365. doi: 10.1097/00001786-200610000-00014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Park, Y., Fritz, C., and Jex, S. (2018). Daily cyber incivility and distress: The moderating roles of resources at work and home. J. Manage. 44, 2535–2557. doi: 10.1177/0149206315576796

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Parzefall, M.-R., and Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Hum. Relat. 63, 761–780. doi: 10.1177/0018726709345043

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Patchin, J. W., and Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 4, 148–169. doi: 10.1177/1541204006286288

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Paull, M., Omari, M., and Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific J. Human Resourc. 50, 351–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00027.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pearson, C., Andersson, L., and Porath, C. (2005). “Workplace incivility,” in Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, eds S. Fox and P. E. Spector (Washington, DC: Adlerian Psychology Associates).

Peng, H. (2012). Counterproductive work behavior among Chinese knowledge workers. Int. J. Select. Assess. 20, 119–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00586.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pettalia, J. L., Levin, E., and Dickinson, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without consequence. Comput. Human Behav. 29, 2758–2765. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pikas, A. (1975). Treatment of mobbing in school: Principles for and the results of the work of an anti-mobbing group. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 19, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/0031383750190101

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinto, J. (2014). Expanding the content domain of workplace aggression: A three-level aggressor-target taxonomy. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 16, 290–313. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Porath, C. L., and Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, E326–E357. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pornari, C. D., and Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggress. Behav. 36, 81–94. doi: 10.1002/ab.20336

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Priesemuth, M., Arnaud, A., and Schminke, M. (2013). Bad behavior in groups. Group Organ. Manage. 38, 230–257. doi: 10.1177/1059601113479399

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rabenu, E. (2021). Twenty-First Century Workplace Challenges Perspectives and Implications for Relationships in New Era Organizations (1st ed.). Lanham: Lexington Books.

Raveel, A., and Schoenmakers, B. (2019). Interventions to prevent aggression against doctors: a systematic review. BMJ Open 9:e028465. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028465

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raver, J. L., and Barling, J. (2007). “Workplace aggression and conflict: Constructs, commonalities, and challenges for future inquiry,” in The organizational Frontiers Series. The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations, 1st Edn,, eds C. K. W. De Dreu and M. J. Gelfand (New York, NY: Psychology Press). doi: 10.4324/9780203810125

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raver, J. L., and Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 236–254. doi: 10.1037/a0018377

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reichert, T., and Carpenter, C. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. J. Mass Commun. Q. 81, 823–837. doi: 10.1177/107769900408100407

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reknes, I., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., and Lau, B. (2014a). The prospective relationship between role stressors and new cases of self-reported workplace bullying. Scand. J. Psychol. 55, 45–52. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12092

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reknes, I., Einarsen, S. V., Gjerstad, J., and Nielsen, M. B. (2019). Dispositional affect as a moderator in the relationship between role conflict and exposure to bullying behaviors. Front. Psychol. 10:44. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00044

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reknes, I., Pallesen, S., Magerøy, N., Moen, B. E., Bjorvatn, B., and Einarsen, S. (2014b). Exposure to bullying behaviors as a predictor of mental health problems among Norwegian nurses: Results from the prospective SUSSH-survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 51, 479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.06.017

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, J. A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M. L., et al. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: prevalence and mental health correlates. Am. J. Public Health 89, 358–363. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.3.358

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Riva, P., Montali, L., Wirth, J. H., Curioni, S., and Williams, K. D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion and evidence for the resignation stage. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 34, 541–564. doi: 10.1177/0265407516644348

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, R. N. S. (2008). Revisiting hospitality's marginal worker thesis: A mono-occupational perspective. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 27, 403–413. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.09.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, S. L., and Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 555–572. doi: 10.5465/256693

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rominiecka, M. (2008). Non-verbal cues in politics: An analysis of gestural signals sent by American and European politicians. Poznań Stud. Contemp. Linguist. 44:2. doi: 10.2478/v10010-008-0012-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rospenda, K. M., and Richman, J. A. (2004). The factor structure of generalized workplace harassment. Violence Vict. 19, 221–238. doi: 10.1891/088667004780927963

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rospenda, K. M., and Richman, J. A. (2005). “Harassment and discrimination,” in Handbook of Workstress, eds J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, and M. R. Frone (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.). doi: 10.4135/978141297595

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., and Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. J. Interpers. Violence 24, 819–843. doi: 10.1177/0886260508317182

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., López-García, C., Llor-Esteban, B., Galián-Muñoz, I., and Benavente-Reche, A. P. (2016). Evaluation of the users violence in primary health care: Adaptation of an instrument. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 16, 295–305. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.06.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Saam, N. J. (2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 19, 51–75. doi: 10.1080/13594320802651403

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sabbath, E. L., Williams, J. A. R., Boden, L. I., Tempesti, T., Wagner, G. R., Hopcia, K., et al. (2018). Mental health expenditures: Association with workplace incivility and bullying among hospital patient care workers. J. Occupat. Environ. Med. 60, 737–742. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001322

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sakurai, K., and Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets' work effort and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17, 150–161. doi: 10.1037/a0027350

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salin, D. M., and Hoel, H. (2010). “Organizational risk factors of workplace bullying,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Rorkplace: Theory, Research and Practice, eds S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, and C. L. Cooper (New York, NY: CRC Press Taylor & Francis).

Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: implications for interventions. J. Adolesc. 22, 453–459. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0239

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 15, 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., and Kaukiainen, A. (1998). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress. Behav. 22, 1–15. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Santos, A., Leather, P., Dunn, J., and Zarola, A. (2009). Gender differences in exposure to co-worker and public-initiated violence: Assessing the impact of work-related violence and aggression in police work. Work Stress 23, 137–154. doi: 10.1515/cppm-2017-0015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarfraz, M., Qun, W., Sarwar, A., Abdullah, M. I., Imran, M. K., and Shafique, I. (2019). Mitigating effect of perceived organizational support on stress in the presence of workplace ostracism in the Pakistani nursing sector. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 12, 839–849. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S210794

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schäffer, B. (2012). Ifjú titánok(Young titans). Budapest: Könyvmuhely Kiadó.

Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., and Kelloway, E. K. (2006). “Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study,” in Handbook of Workplace Violence, eds K. E. Kelloway, J. Barling, and J. J. J. Hurell (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.). doi: 10.4135/9781412976947.n4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schat, A. C. H., and Kelloway, K. (2005). “Workplace agression,” in Handbook of Workstress, eds J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, and M. R. Frone (London: Sage Publications, Inc.).

Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., and Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 37, S57–S88. doi: 10.1002/job.1976

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Seo, Y. N., Leather, P., and Coyne, I. (2012). South Korean culture and history: the implications for workplace bullying. Aggress. Violent Behav. 17, 419–422. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Serenko, A. (2019). Knowledge sabotage as an extreme form of counterproductive knowledge behavior: conceptualization, typology, and empirical demonstration. J. Knowl. Manage. 23, 1260–1288. doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2018-0007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Settoon, R. P., and Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 255–267. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.255

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sexton, P. C., and Brodsky, C. M. (1977). The harassed worker. Indust. Labor Relat. Rev. 31:123. doi: 10.2307/2522527

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., and Li, A. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation. Organ. Res. Methods 19, 80–110. doi: 10.1177/1094428115598239

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shapiro, D. L., Duffy, M. K., Kim, T. Y., Lean, E. R., and O'Leary-Kelly, A. (2008). “Rude”, “uncivil,” or “disrespectful” treatment in the workplace: What's in a name,” in Justice, Morality, and Social Responsibility, eds S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, and D. P. Skarlicki (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing).

Sijbers, R., De Wit, W., Fettelaar, D., and Mooij, T. (2014). Sociale Veiligheid in en Rond Scholen. Primair (speciaal) onderwijs 2010-2014; Voortgezet (speciaal) onderwijs 2006-2014. (Social safety in and around schools. Primary (special) education 2010-2014; Secundairy (special) education 2006-2014). Nijmegen.

Skarlicki, D. P., and Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 434–443. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sliter, K. A., Sliter, M. T., Withrow, S. A., and Jex, S. M. (2012). Employee adiposity and incivility: Establishing a link and identifying demographic moderators and negative consequences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17, 409–424. doi: 10.1037/a0029862

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., and McInnerney, J. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 15, 468–481. doi: 10.1037/a0020723

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sloan, L., Matyók, T., Schmitz, C., and Short, G. (2011). A story to tell: Bullying and mobbing in the workplace. Int. J. Business Soc. Sci. 1, 87–98. Retrieved from: https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._3_December_2010/9.pdf (accessed September 10, 2021).

Snyder, P., Doerfler, P., Kanich, C., and McCoy, D. (2017). “Fifteen minutes of unwanted fame,” in Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference (New York, NY: ACM). doi: 10.1145/3131365.3131385

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spector, P. E., and Fox, S. (2005). “The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior,” in Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, eds F. Suzy and P. E. Spector (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association). doi: 10.1037/10893-007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., and Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? J. Vocat. Behav. 68, 446–460. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spector, P. E., and Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 3, 356–387.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Sperry, L., and Duffy, M. (2009). Workplace mobbing: Family dynamics and therapeutic considerations. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 37, 433–442. doi: 10.1080/01926180902945756

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spreitzer, G. M., and Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. Am. Behav. Sci. 47, 828–847. doi: 10.1177/0002764203260212

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stafford, T. F., and Urbaczewski, A. (2004). Spyware: the ghost in the machine. Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 14, 291–306. Retrieved from: http://130.18.86.27/faculty/warkentin/SecurityPapers/Merrill/StaffordUrbaczewski2004_CAIS14_Spyware.pdf (accessed September 10, 2021).

Steinberg, M. P., Allensworth, E., and Johnson, D. W. (2011). Student and Teacher Safety in Chicago Public Schools: The Roles of Community Context and School Social Organization. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Sun, T., Gao, L., Li, F., Shi, Y., Xie, F., Wang, J., et al. (2017). Workplace violence, psychological stress, sleep quality and subjective health in Chinese doctors: a large cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 7:e017182. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017182

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Suris, J., Akre, C., Piguet, C., Ambresin, A., Zimmermann, G., and Berchtold, A. (2014). Is Internet use unhealthy? A cross-sectional study of adolescent Internet overuse. Swiss Med. Wkly. 144, 1–7. doi: 10.4414/smw.2014.14061

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. Acad. Manage. J. 43, 178–190. doi: 10.5465/1556375

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tepper, B. J., and Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 487–498. doi: 10.1002/job.688

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, S. P., and Burk, R. (2009). Junior nursing students' experiences of vertical violence during clinical rotations. Nurs. Outlook 57, 226–231. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.08.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Towns, D. M., and Johnson, M. S. (2003). Sexual harassment in the 21st century - E-harassment in the workplace. Employee Relat. Law J. 29, 7–24. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298232804_Sexual_harassment_in_the_21st_century_-_E-harassment_in_the_workplace (accessed September 10, 2021).

Trembly, A. (2004). E-Mails Nail Wrongdoers. The Free Library. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., and Sacco, F. C. (2010). “The etiological cast to the role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities,” in Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective, eds S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, and D. L. Espelage (New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group).

Tynes, T., Johannessen, H. A., and Sterud, T. (2013). Work-related psychosocial and organizational risk factors for headache. J. Occupat. Environ. Med. 55, 1436–1442. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182a7e678

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ufkes, E. G., and Giebels, E. (2013). Literatuurverkenning Agressie en Geweld Tegen Werknemers Met een Publieke Taak. (Literature review on agression and violence against public workers). Enschede: Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) (1996). PubMed Databank (Bethesda, MD). Available online at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed September 10, 2021).

Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., and Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations. J. Manage. 39, 1221–1276. doi: 10.1177/0149206313475816

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Dam, A., Van Tilburg, C. A., Steenkist, P., and Buisman, M. (2009). Agressie: definities en omvang (Aggression: definitions and prevalence). In Niet Meer door het lint (No more freaking out) (Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum). doi: 10.1007/978-90-313-7301-7_1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Dierendonck, D., and Mevissen, N. (2002). Aggressive behavior of passengers, conflict management behavior, and burnout among trolley car drivers. Int. J. Stress Manag. 9, 345–355. doi: 10.1023/A:1019938501306

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., and Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee Incivility. J. Manage. 36, 1486–1504. doi: 10.1177/0149206310368998

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Steijn, M. E., Scheepstra, K. W. F., Yasar, G., Olff, M., de Vries, M. C., and van Pampus, M. G. (2019). Occupational well-being in pediatricians—a survey about work-related posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Eur. J. Pediatr. 178, 681–693. doi: 10.1007/s00431-019-03334-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Cleemput, K., Van Deboutte, G., Bastiaensens, S., Debourdeaudhuij, I., et al. (2012). Zes jaar onderzoek naar cyberpesten in Vlaanderen, België en daarbuiten: een overzicht van de bevindingen (Six years of research into cyberbullying in Flanders, Belgium and beyond: an overview of the findings). Antwerpen.

Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., and Van Zalk, M. H. W. (2013). Network-behavior dynamics. J. Res. Adolesc. 23, 399–412. doi: 10.1111/jora.12070

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S., and Molendijk, M. L. (2015). Workplace bullying and mental health : A meta- analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data workplace bullying and mental health : A meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PLoS ONE 10:e135225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone0135225

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Verstak, A., and Acharya, A. (2004). Google Scholar Web Search Engine. Mountain View, CA: Google Inc. Available online at: https://scholar.google.com (accessed September 10, 2021).

Vickers, M. H. (2014). Workplace bullying as workplace corruption. Adm. Soc. 46, 960–985. doi: 10.1177/0095399713498750

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., and Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggress. Violent Behav. 36, 34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Waddington, P. A. J. (2004). Appraising the inclusive definition of workplace “violence.” Br. J. Criminol. 45, 141–164. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azh052

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weatherbee, T., and Kelloway, E. (2006). “A case of cyberdeviancy: Cyberaggression in the workplace,” in Handbook of Workplace Violence, eds K. E. Kelloway, J. Barling, and J. Hurrell (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.). doi: 10.4135/9781412976947.n19

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weatherbee, T. G. (2007). Cyberaggression in the Workplace: Construct Development, Operationalization, and Measurement (Dissertation at Saint Mary's University, Halifax). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Webb, J. (1997). The politics of equal opportunity. Gender Work Organization 4, 159–169. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Webb, P. T. (2008). Re-mapping power in educational micropolitics. Crit. Stud. Educ. 49, 127–142. doi: 10.1080/17508480802040183

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weichselbaumer, D. (2017). Discrimination against migrant job applicants in Austria: An experimental study. German Econ. Rev. 18, 237–265. doi: 10.1111/geer.12104

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

West, S. M., Crawford, K., and Whittaker, M. (2019). Discriminationg Systems: Gender, Race, and Power in AI. New York, NY.

Williams, K. D., and Zadro, L. (2005). “Ostracism: the indiscriminate early detection system,” in The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying, eds K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, and W. Von Hippel (New York, NY: Psychology Press).

Wilson, N. L., and Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the Incivility from Customers Scale. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18, 310–326. doi: 10.1037/a0032753

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yagil, D. (2008). When the customer is wrong: A review of research on aggression and sexual harassment in service encounters. Aggress. Violent Behav. 13, 141–152. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yenealem, D. G., Woldegebriel, M. K., Olana, A. T., and Mekonnen, T. H. (2019). Violence at work: determinants & prevalence among health care workers, northwest Ethiopia: an institutional based cross sectional study. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 31:8. doi: 10.1186/s40557-019-0288-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Young, S. (2012). Van Pesten Naar Samenwerken. (From bullying to collaboration). Houten: Uitgeverij Pica.

Zapf, D., and Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 10, 497–522. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1996.tb01264.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Žukauskas, P., and Vveinhardt, J. (2013). Mobbing and bullying within the organization: Socio-demographic portrait of the victim. Krytyka Prawa 5, 693–716. doi: 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.35

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: systematic review, negative work behavior, harm, actor types, actor roles, agreed definition

Citation: Verschuren CM, Tims M and de Lange AH (2021) A Systematic Review of Negative Work Behavior: Toward an Integrated Definition. Front. Psychol. 12:726973. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.726973

Received: 17 June 2021; Accepted: 25 August 2021;
Published: 27 October 2021.

Edited by:

Erich Christian Fein, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Reviewed by:

Maria Gianni, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Edna Rabenu, Tel-Hai College, Israel

Copyright © 2021 Verschuren, Tims and de Lange. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Cokkie M. Verschuren, c.verschuren@me.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.