Male and female witnesses of mobbing: Gender difference in
experiencing consequences. A cross-sectional study in an Italian
sample
Introduction
Workplace violence is a well-known phenomenon that negatively affects the emotional, psychological and physical well-being of workers. Additionally, an organization suffers from the consequences of worker victimization (BBL). Violence and interpersonal conflict in the workplace have a negative influence on worker-management
relationships, decrease productivity, increase employee turnover, and frustrate the sense of identity between employee and employer (BBL). The repetition of violence over time has a deep impact on the victim’s health, increasing the risk of chronic diseases (BBL). This phenomenon is called mobbing, defined by Leymann (1990) as behaviours
repeated for a long period of time, performed by one or more perpetrators (the mobber) to harm someone (the victim), almost always in a systematic way and with a precise purpose (Gilioli et al., 2001). The victim is literally surrounded and attacked
intentionally by the mobber who implements behavioural strategies aimed at psychological, social and professional destruction (Giorgi & Majer, 2009). Social relations turn to conflict and become increasingly dispersed, relegating the victim to isolation and marginalization (Heinarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003). In the European context, findings from investigations have shown that the proportion of labour force exposure is approximately 10% on average, ranging from 15% (for example, in Finland) to 4% (for example, in Portugal) (ISPELS, 2006). In North America, the percentage of victims is comparable to that in Europe (Branch et al., 2013). Regarding Italy, among the 29 million workers who have had superiors, colleagues or subordinates during their
working life, 9% said they have been subject to harassment, reassignment or deprivation of their duties (Istat, 2010); moreover, 23.5% of the 1,500 workers interviewed during the survey said they had suffered at least one form of violence or persecution (Istat, 2013).
For other forms of violence (BBL), the witness is regarded by several authors as the basic figure of the mobbing phenomenon (Duffy & Sperry, 2011). Through the witness’ intervention or lack of intervention, she or he can intervene to stop or to accelerate this process by trying to limit the damage and counter the mobbing by denouncing the situation or by supporting the aggressions (that is, by becoming a side-mobber or co-side-mobber) (Bartalucci, 2010). Witnesses include all those people who are part of the organization in various ways; they can be colleagues of the victim, superiors, human resources managers, clients and so on. Consequences for witnesses include the development of distress and related symptomology (Sprigg, Niven, Dawson, Farley & Armitage, 2019),such as the increase in mental fatigue (Vartia, 2001), distress and lower satisfaction (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy & Alberts, 2007), emotional exhaustion (Totterdell, Hershcovis, Niven, Reich & Stride, 2012), depression (Emdad et al., 2013a) and the feeling of violation regarding the psychological contract (Salin & Notelaers, 2018). Moreover, in an investigation by Emdad, Alipour, Hagberg & Jensen (2013), the findings showed that witnesses of mobbing were largely male. However, female
witnesses were more prone than men to develop depressive symptoms.
This study aims to analyse, from a descriptive point of view, the impact of the mobbing phenomenon in male and female self-declared witnesses and the consequences that affect it. To better understand the impact of the phenomenon, a comparison was made among witnesses and non-witnesses. Based on the literature analysis presented above, the hypotheses are as follows: i. witnesses are predominantly male; ii. witnesses
perceived a higher risk of mobbing than non-witnesses and, as a consequence, iii. witnesses experienced more health problems and work-related stress than non-witnesses.
The inclusion criteria in this study were that the participants were workers for more than six months in the same organization, were aged 18-65 years and did not experience the mobbing phenomenon as victims or perpetrators. Thus, the exclusion criteria were age (less than 18, over 65), duration of employment (less than six months) and being a victim or a perpetrator. These criteria permit the identification of both stable working relations and prolonged witness experience. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a gender comparison has been made to better understand the impact and consequences of the mobbing phenomenon in the Italian context.
Methodology
A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 1200 Italian workers living in a large city in the northwest of the country. The questionnaires were completed by 728 (60.7%) individuals. A total of 154 of them were excluded because they did not adhere to the criteria of inclusion in the study: 148 were self-declared victims of mobbing or mobbers (32 were at the same time witnesses and victims or mobbers), four were retired and two were aged < 18 years. Of the remaining 574 individuals, 254 (44.3%) were male and 320 (55.7%) were female. On average, they were aged 41.26 years (range = 18-65; ds = 12.64), and they had worked 17.46 years (range = 6 months - 43 years; ds = 11.35). The majority of the participants worked in the private sector (279, 48.6%), 216 (37.6%) in public administration and 78 (13.6%) in the third sector. One participant did not give an answer. The majority were married (277, 48.3%), while 251 (43.7%) were single, 16 (2.8%) were divorced, 9 (1.6%) had civil partners and 5 were (0.9%) widowers. Sixteen participants did not give an answer. The self-declared witnesses of
mobbing were 249 (43.4%), including 115 males and 134 females. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic details about the participants.
Measures
Participants were asked to anonymously complete a self-administered questionnaire. The first section described the purpose of the questionnaire and contained the
instructions for replying (comprising the contact details of the authors of this paper for any doubts or problems), as well the consent letter and the anonymity and privacy statements. The second part of the questionnaire contained four scales to investigate the risk of mobbing in organizations and perceived mental health and work-related stress. The third part of the questionnaire collected socio-personal data. In the last part of the questionnaire, mobbing was described using the Ege (2000) definition: “action (or series of actions) repeated over a long period of time, made by one or more mobbers to hurt someone […] systematically and with a purpose” (Cornoiu & Gyorgy, 2013, p. 711). Then, there was the request to indicate if the participants had ever been a witness (yes/no answer) of the mobbing phenomenon and if the participants believed they were a victim or a mobber (yes/no answer).
The risk of mobbing in an organization. The Val.Mob. scale (Aiello, Deitinger, Nardella & Bonafede, 2008) was used to assess the risk of mobbing in an organization. The scale was created for the Italian audience, and it consists of 48 items that are evaluated on a Likert scale (the possible answers ranged from 1 = completely disagree to 5 =
completely agree). The scale contains four sub-scales that indicate the risk of mobbing: - Relationship: it permits us to determine the presence of verbal violence and the
relationship with one’s supervisor and colleagues (example item: “too often one or more colleagues are excluded when there are informal gatherings”);
- Intrusiveness: it permits us to determine the presence of interference in private life, excessive control, physical and/or psychological violence (“Sometimes one or more colleagues get made fun of for their looks”);
- Disqualification: it concerns the cases of isolation (including exclusion and/or marginalization), remittance, deskilling (“one or more colleagues are often asked to perform tasks that he/she/they does/do not have skills for”);
- Attachment: it concerns the commitment, the work involvement and the emotional climate (including recognition of results, professional growth, affectivity,
motivation) (e.g., “I would not trade this job for anything else”).
The original version of the scale was made to investigate the mobbing phenomenon among victims. Thus, for the purpose of this investigation, items from the subscales Relationship, Intrusiveness and Disqualification were reformulated in third-person language: for example, the item “sometimes I have to endure minor physical violence” was reformulated as “sometimes one or more colleagues of mine have to endure minor physical violence”. Moreover, the mobbing symptoms in the original scale that referred to victims were not included. The Val.Mob. permits the identification of different degrees of perceived distress (low, mild, moderate, and high) in relation to the different subscales. For example, for the relational scale, the scoring was as follows: low ≤ 27, mild 28-71, moderate 72-120, and high ≥ 121. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was . 92.
General Health.To measure the effects of witnessing mobbing, the General Health Questionaire-12 items (GHQ-12) was used. The questionnaire was developed to
identify two main categories of problems: the inability to perform one’s normal healthy functions and the manifestation of new stressful phenomena (Goldberg, 1979).
specifically allowing us to investigate the presence of symptoms of distress: anxiety, depression, social disorders and somatic symptoms (Catello, 2010). The instrument evaluates the presence and frequency of some non-synchronizing symptoms suffered by witnesses in the last two weeks. It includes 12 items consisting of positive affirmations that represent positive psychological states or daily activities (e.g., "I have been able to face up to my problems”) and negative connotations that outline symptoms of
psychological discomfort (e.g., "I lost much sleep over worry"). The possible answers range from 1 = “Better than usual” to 4 = “Much less than usual”, indicating a
continuum whose extremes are represented by a condition of psychological well-being (absence of psychological symptoms) and by a psychological disorder that varies according to the degree of severity: 0 to 14 = none; 15 to 19 = mild; 20 to 36 = high. A low score is, therefore, an indicator of a better state of health. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .71.
Work-related stress. To assess perceived work-related stress, the H.S.E. indicator tools (original version by MacKey et al, 2004; Cousins et al. 2004) were used. The
questionnaire consists of 35 items, which measure seven domains associated with work-related stress: ‘demands’ (workload level, work organization and working
environment), ‘control’ (autonomy of workers with regard to the way in which they carry out their work), ‘managers’ support’ (support and encouragement provided by superiors), ‘peer support’ (support and encouragement provided by colleagues), ‘relationships’ (relations with colleagues and managers), ‘role’ (clarity of the information about the workers’ role and how it fits into the functioning of the
organization as a whole) and ‘change’ (how organizational changes are communicated and managed within the company) (Guidi, Bagnara & Fichera, 2012). In this
D'Errico, Di Blas & Ferrante, 2011). The possible answers ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .71.
Procedure
A letter with the aim of the investigation and all details about privacy and anonymity statements was sent to several public administration offices, private companies and third-sector organizations. For those who agreed to participate, a meeting was held to better explain the investigation aim and the procedure. After formal communications within the organizations, a copy of the questionnaire was distributed to all the workers, with additional copies for those who were absent due to illness or holidays. A box was left near the beverage machines or in the locker room with the request to return the questionnaire within 15 working days. This research conformed to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki in 1995 (revision made in the Edinburgh meeting of 2000; World Medical Association, 2001). All the relevant ethical guidelines were followed, including compliance with the requirements of Italian legislation, under the
recommendations of the Bioethics Committee of the University of Turin and Article 10 of the National Board of Italian Psychologists Code of Ethics for the Psychologist (2018), which regulates research activities for Italian psychologists. Any data personally identifying participants were omitted. Since there was no medical treatment or other procedures that could cause biological, psychological, or social harm to the participants involved, additional ethical approval was not required. Respondents took part on a voluntary basis and did not receive any compensation for their participation. Data analysis
Descriptive measures were calculated (means±SD) for all test variables. The χ2 test was used to examine differences in the experience of witnesses with their organizational context in terms of the risk of mobbing and level of gravity in perceived health
problems. To this end, we followed effect-size calculations (Cramer’s V) to estimate the statistical significance of the differences. To determine which cell differences
contributed to the χ2 test results, the cell standardized Pearson residuals (SPRs) were calculated for each cell. According to Agresti (2000), SPRs whose absolute values were greater than 1.96 indicated that the number of cases in that cell was significantly larger than the number that was used to examine the differences than would be expected if the null hypothesis was true, with a significance level of .05. Finally, perceived work-related differences between victims and non-victims were evaluated by ANOVA, and work-related stress scores were introduced as dependent variables. Bonferroni post hoc tests were performed. Di erences were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. ff Data were processed using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
The analysis of socio-demographic characteristics of the participants (Table 1) showed that they declared themselves to be non-witnesses in slightly higher cases (56.6% vs 43.4% of witnesses). Additionally, gender was balanced among witnesses and non-witnesses: males were 46.18% and 42.77%, respectively. Regarding marital status, the witness was significantly more frequently a divorced female (SPR = |2.7|, Cramer’s V = 0.13). Considering the years of working, the findings showed that witnesses were significantly more frequently males with 31-40 years of working and females with 21-30 years of working (SPR = |1.8| and SPR = |3.1|, respectively, with Cramer’s V = 0.17). Among the sector of occupation, non-witnesses were significantly more
frequently males working in the private sector (SPR = |1.9|) and females working in the third sector (SPR = |2.5|, Cramer’s V = 0.22).
Table 2 shows the replies of participants to the Val. Mob. Scale, in percentages.
Regarding the Relationship subscale, the data shows significantly more frequent female non-witnesses with low scores (SPR = |3.2|) and males and females with medium-high scores (SPR = |2.8| and SPR = |3.0|, respectively, with Cramer’s V = 0.22). In the Intrusiveness subscale, the data showed significantly more frequent female
non-witnesses with low scores (SPR = |3.2|), male non-witnesses with medium-high scores (SPR = |3.0|) and female witnesses with high scores (SPR = |2.7|, Cramer’s V = 0.18). In the Disqualification sub-scale, the data showed significantly more frequent female non-witnesses with low scores (SPR = |3.5|), while male non-witnesses had medium-low scores (SPR = |2.8|) and female witnesses had high scores (SPR = |2.3|, Cramer’s V = 0.23). Regarding Attachment, data showed significantly more frequent male non-witnesses that indicated medium-high scores (SPR = |2.5|, Cramer’s V = 0.10).
The perceived health
Table 3 shows the percentage of replies of participants to the GHQ-12 scale. On average, the findings indicate that scores were higher in male and female witnesses (M = 18.99, SD = 1.95; M = 19.25, SD = 2.36, respectively) than in male and female non-witnesses (M = 17.55, SD = 3.03; M = 17.46, SD = 2.63, respectively, F = 20.61, p = . 000). The data show significantly more frequent witnesses among females who indicated a high level of severity (SPR = |2.9|), male non-witnesses who indicated severity at the level classified as none (SPR = |4.2|) and female non-witnesses who indicated severity at the level classified as middle (SPR = |2.8|, Cramer’s V = 0.24). The perceived work-related stress
In Table 4, one-way ANOVA was performed to calculate differences between groups (male and female witnesses and non-witnesses), where work-related stress scores were introduced as dependent variables. The Bonferroni post hoc test showed a main effect of
perceived work-related stress in respondents who declared themselves to be witnesses of mobbing. In the demand, control, peer support, relationship and change domains, male and female witnesses and non-witnesses perceived work-related stress differently, such that there was a main effect of exposure to mobbing in the perception about the organizational environment. Regarding the role domain, the different perceptions of work-related stress were only found for male witnesses.
Discussion
The aim of this work was to analyse the impact of the mobbing phenomenon on male and female self-declared witnesses and non-witnesses and the consequences that affect this impact. Overall, the data indicated that respondents were somewhat balanced both in exposure to mobbing as witnesses/non-witnesses and in gender. These data did not support findings from Emdad, Alipour, Hagberg & Jensen (2013) because in our investigation, witnesses of mobbing were largely female. Thus, the first hypothesis of our investigation was not confirmed. Moreover, respondents who self-declared to be witnesses of mobbing were more frequently workers with more than 20 years of
working experience, suggesting that the phenomenon could occur during an individual’s working life. According to Piirainen et al. (2000) and Vartia (2003), since victims of mobbing are, in large part, older employees and victims are often harassed by superiors and peers (Hoel & Cooper, 2000), a possible explanation is that witnesses with long work experience are more sensitive to the phenomenon. Another explanation was linked with the possibility that a long work experience corresponds to a different role and/or different organization. Thus, the probability of being a witness of mobbing could be higher in these individuals than in workers with fewer years of working. Regarding the occupational sector, the findings from this investigation confirmed that male non-witnesses worked in the public sector, while females worked in third-sector
organizations. There could be the opportunity for everybody to change the work in this occupational sector if, for example, the organizational climate is discouraging (Richard et al., 2020). In the public sector, the change could be difficult, especially for workers with long experience in the same sector. Moreover, in the last decade, the public sector has changed the way in which services have been offered: new technologies and procedures, for example, could put stress on workers and increase feelings of
frustration, leading to conflict and aggressiveness (Ironside & Seifert, 2000; Alohali, Carton & O’Connor, 2020). Future investigations could better explore the
sociodemographic characteristics of witnesses in relation to their role in the same organization or in different organizations.
Regarding the risk of mobbing in an organization, the findings showed that male and female witnesses indicated the presence of verbal, physical and psychological violence that characterized the relationship within the organization, the presence of interference in individuals’ private life and/or the presence of excessive control, isolation, remittance, and deskilling that affected their colleagues more often than female non-witnesses did. Thus, hypothesis 2 was confirmed. As expected, witnesses described an organizational context characterized by those behaviours that define the mobbing phenomenon (Budnik, 2020). These data confirmed both a self-perception of the respondent as a witness and a perceived negative environment in the workplace that affected the emotional climate, job involvement and work commitment that were lower than those in non-witnesses, particularly males. The organisational climate could favour abuses that witnesses think their working experience allows them to identify more easily (Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008).At the same time, the work fatigue that affects witnesses could lower the alert threshold, permitting the phenomenon to become a standard and not worthy of complaint (Tonini et al., 2008; Vie, Glasø & Einarsen,
2011). There is a risk of feeling impotent; thus, witnesses could search for a solution outside rather than inside the organization (Zapf & Gross, 2001). Confirming this, the investigation made by Yuksel and Tunçsiper (2011) showed that workers involved in the mobbing phenomenon reported lower job satisfaction, lower affective commitment and higher turnover intention. In light of these findings, in our opinion, it is important to emphasize that efforts spent in organisations to prevent and to intervene are important both for organisational performance (i.e., mobbing could cause damage to the
company's image; Cornoiu & Gyorgy, 2013) and the well-being of workers (see Duffy & Sperry, 2007).
Findings about perceived health and work-related stress showed that male and female witnesses perceived a higher severity level of mental health problems than non-witnesses, confirming hypothesis 3. The perceived work-related stress was higher in witnesses than in non-witnesses in almost all domains investigated: witnesses perceived that organizational context was characterized by high workload level and reduced autonomy, support provided by superiors and colleagues and communication about change. These feelings of lack of autonomy and fewer positive social interactions could result in a greater risk of experiencing episodes of violence, as described by Finstad et al. (2019). Prevention training could focus on the development of positive emotions that generate outcomes (i.e., creativity, work engagement, health, teamwork and
collaboration; Diener, Thapa & Tay, 2020) that are meaningful to the workers involved in the phenomenon. For example, Nadler, Carswell & Minda (2020) proposed
mindfulness-based training programmes that, in an online version, enhance well-being, emotional intelligence, and performance in the workplace (see also Kersemaekers et al., 2018).For witnesses who suffer from the consequences of the mobbing phenomenon, intervention could be used to reduce the distress caused by the traumatic experience. For
example, the psycho-educational approach, eye movement desensitization and
reprocessing (EMDR) and cognitive-behavioural therapy for victims of violence were useful to reduce the feeling of guilt resulting from non-intervention (Abrams & Robinson, 1998; Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2005) and the trauma associated with the experience (Zaccagnino et al., 2017; Civilotti et al., 2019). Future research could investigate the impact of prevention and intervention in witnesses and their consequences in the workplace, for example, in terms of reduced distress.
The present work obviously had some limitations. The first invovled the nature of the research project, which was a cross-sectional study. The sample was not
randomly selected, and participants chose whether or not to take part in the study. For this reason, the sample may not have been entirely representative of the population of reference; thus, the results should be considered with caution and should not be generalized. Moreover, there could be bias in responses due to the desire to give a favourable image of oneself: future research could use, for example, the social
desirability scale (Van der Mortel, 2008) to investigate the social desirability issue that characterized participants. Another limitation concerned the types of witnesses of mobbing; we have not investigated the witnesses’ intervention or non-intervention in the mobbing phenomenon. The role of witnesses, in fact, in this as in other disruptive behaviours, is very important: they could intervene to stop the perpetrator or help him/her with a non-intervention strategy that, de facto, legitimizes the harassment. The decision to intervene or to not intervene in witnesses of violent behaviour was explained by Latané and Darley (1968). The authors determined the three processes that seem to be the basis of this "bystander effect": public inhibition, the fear of possible social embarrassment when the situation was not perceived by others in an equally serious way; social influence, that is, the influence that the group exerts on the individual so
that it also complies with the general rules of conduct; and finally, the dissemination of responsibility, a process that drives individuals to perceive themselves as less
responsible when they feel part of a group. Because they feel this responsibility is fairly distributed and therefore less pressing to them, they may choose not to intervene
without feeling any guilt, as they are strong in the conviction that others will do it. The investigation by Hellemans, Dal Cason and Casini (2017) showed that in witnesses, non-intervention was associated with perceived low self-efficacy, while the perceived level of severity and the causal attribution determined whether to intervene to help a colleague. Future research could investigate the intervention and non-intervention in witnesses in association with the work-related stress caused by the phenomenon and its consequences in terms of perceived health.
Despite this limitation, findings from this research could be useful in improving prevention and intervention programmes that permit possible witnesses of mobbing to understand that consequences affect not only victims but also their perceived health, increasing perceived work-related stress. Moreover, since the intervention of witnesses could stop an act of mobbing, a prevention programme could explain how to cope with aggressive and disruptive behaviours and to give support to colleagues through, for example, the use of mutual respect strategies (Geue, 2018). Regarding the organization, findings from this investigation underlined, once again, the importance of clear
communication about norms and values that characterized the environmental context. A prevention programme could benefit from the promulgation of a “zero tolerance” policy (Holloway & Kusy, 2010): beginning with the design of the value that aggressive behaviours are not sanctioned, the process includes the identification of civil
engagement values that will lead the behavioural norms. Thus, programmes could be preceded by an analysis of the environmental contest, the risk of mobbing, perceived
health and perceived work-related stress. Such analysis allows for tailor-made prevention and intervention programmes, which reflect the characteristics of that organization and its workers, comprising the organizational and individuals’ norms and ethics.
