Ballien, E. Bollen, K. Euwema., M. & De Witte, H. (2013). Conflicts and conflict management styles as
precursors of workplace bullying: a two-wave longitudinal study.
Aim of the article
Examining the relationships between conflicts in the work unit, conflict management styles and
bullying (Both targets and perpetrators).
Theory
Workplace bullying = A long term process (Minimum of 6 months) in which minor negative acts
accumulate to a pattern of systematic maltratement, related to work of personal issues, that may
harm the targets health and wellbeing and may affect the tarteget attitude in work behaviour (Job
satisfaction, commitment, intention to leave, absenteeism).
Occurrence of conflicts in work can trigger bullying.
Unresolved and interpersonal conflicts belong to the top five most indicated causes of bullying from
target perspective (Zapf, 1999). The article is focussed on conflicts in the own working unit, because
there is the interdependency the highest.
T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2
Hypothesis 1a: The occurrence of conflicts in the work unit at T1 relates positively to being a target of
bullying behaviour at T2.
Hypothesis 1b: The occurrence of conflicts in the work unit at T1 relates positively to being a
perpetrator(NL: dader) of bullying behaviours at T2.
Some findings already showed that bullying is also triggered by the way conflicts are managed by the
employees involved. Also some studies found that productive reactions to conflicts related to a
decrease in bullying, while destructive reactions to conflicts encouraged bullying.
Solving = Reflecting an attention for one’s own well as well as for the opposite party, open
negotiating in order to create a win-win situation. Using a more integrative style, like problem solving
resulted in lower tasks conflict, reduced relationship conflict and reduced conflict stress.
Hypothesis 2a: Problem solving at T1 relates negatively to being a target of bullying behaviours at T2.
Hypothesis 2b: Problem solving at T1 relates negatively to being a perpetrator of bullying
behaviours at T2.
Forcing contributes to tensed relations and encourages conflict escalation in the long term. This style
is rather used by “Powerful” employees. Because the other party feels vulnerable.
Hypothesis 3a: Forcing at T1 relates negatively to being a target of workplace bullying behaviours at
T2.
Hypothesis 3b: Forcing at T1 relates positively to being a perpetrator of workplace bullying
behaviours at T2.
Also low-assertive conflict management styles (Yielding, Avoiding) could perhaps relate to being a
target of bullying. Some studies says that this will escalate on the long term, some not. Because the
opinions are divers, we will not do anything with the low-assertive conflict management styles.
Results
Conflicts are definitely related to bullying. Problem solving is negatively related to being a target and
perpetrator of bullying behaviour. Forcing was associated positive with being a perpetrator of
bullying behaviour, BUT NOT to being a target of bullying. Avoiding and yielding are not related.
precursors of workplace bullying: a two-wave longitudinal study.
Aim of the article
Examining the relationships between conflicts in the work unit, conflict management styles and
bullying (Both targets and perpetrators).
Theory
Workplace bullying = A long term process (Minimum of 6 months) in which minor negative acts
accumulate to a pattern of systematic maltratement, related to work of personal issues, that may
harm the targets health and wellbeing and may affect the tarteget attitude in work behaviour (Job
satisfaction, commitment, intention to leave, absenteeism).
Occurrence of conflicts in work can trigger bullying.
Unresolved and interpersonal conflicts belong to the top five most indicated causes of bullying from
target perspective (Zapf, 1999). The article is focussed on conflicts in the own working unit, because
there is the interdependency the highest.
T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2
Hypothesis 1a: The occurrence of conflicts in the work unit at T1 relates positively to being a target of
bullying behaviour at T2.
Hypothesis 1b: The occurrence of conflicts in the work unit at T1 relates positively to being a
perpetrator(NL: dader) of bullying behaviours at T2.
Some findings already showed that bullying is also triggered by the way conflicts are managed by the
employees involved. Also some studies found that productive reactions to conflicts related to a
decrease in bullying, while destructive reactions to conflicts encouraged bullying.
Solving = Reflecting an attention for one’s own well as well as for the opposite party, open
negotiating in order to create a win-win situation. Using a more integrative style, like problem solving
resulted in lower tasks conflict, reduced relationship conflict and reduced conflict stress.
Hypothesis 2a: Problem solving at T1 relates negatively to being a target of bullying behaviours at T2.
Hypothesis 2b: Problem solving at T1 relates negatively to being a perpetrator of bullying
behaviours at T2.
Forcing contributes to tensed relations and encourages conflict escalation in the long term. This style
is rather used by “Powerful” employees. Because the other party feels vulnerable.
Hypothesis 3a: Forcing at T1 relates negatively to being a target of workplace bullying behaviours at
T2.
Hypothesis 3b: Forcing at T1 relates positively to being a perpetrator of workplace bullying
behaviours at T2.
Also low-assertive conflict management styles (Yielding, Avoiding) could perhaps relate to being a
target of bullying. Some studies says that this will escalate on the long term, some not. Because the
opinions are divers, we will not do anything with the low-assertive conflict management styles.
Results
Conflicts are definitely related to bullying. Problem solving is negatively related to being a target and
perpetrator of bullying behaviour. Forcing was associated positive with being a perpetrator of
bullying behaviour, BUT NOT to being a target of bullying. Avoiding and yielding are not related.
