A Number of Definitions Take In Bullying as a Practice of Harassment

Bullying and harassment are equally terms that are used interchangeably by most individuals, and a number of definitions take in bullying as a practice of harassment. Bullying could reflect as spiteful or insulting behaviour, offensive, an exploitation or mistreatment of authority over means that demoralise, degrade or harm the individual getting bullied.

Einarsen, Hoel and Nielsen (2005) defined workplace bullying as a type of aggression, where indirect and direct acts lead to an employee being thoroughly exposed to disrespectful and demeaning treatment. Workplace bullying is a social connection in which bullies use verbal or non-verbal correspondence that is portrayed by negative and forceful components towards the targeted person. According to Nielsen and Einersen (2012) the typical workplace bullying actions involve the individual to being personally or professionally attacked, exposed to verbal aggression, physically intimidated, socially isolated from the rest of the work group and being made to be the ‘laughing stock’ by being exposed to physical or verbal acts of embarrassment and belittling. Brodsky, 1976 defined workplace bullying as “a gradually evolving process-individual ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative acts”.

In the workplace setting bullying has now become recognised as a serious issue. Over the last decade in many professional organisations, countries, human resource departments and trade unions they have come to be more mindful that actions such as name-calling, public humiliation, social marginalisation and intimidation all would demoralise the honesty and assurance of employees and decrease productivity. Those individuals who have been bullied say that it impacts them mentally and physically, with hopelessness, stress, and the most common complaint was that it brought down the individuals confidence. In extraordinary cases, those employees that have been bullied at work may require psychiatric treatment and counselling (Niedl, 1996).

Workplace bullying can appear as direct acts, for example, finger pointing, public humiliation and verbal mistreatment; however it can likewise be of a more unpretentious and indirect nature which is things such as spreading rumours, social isolation and gossiping (Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers, 2009). Nonetheless, when persistently and repeatedly heading for the same person, even such refined and indirect actions can be experiences as an extreme cause of social stress at work (Zapf, 1999). Introduction to workplace bullying has over and again been revealed to have harmful consequences for those people that are affected and to have widespread negative consequences for organizations on a bigger scale (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006).

As cited in Einarsen, 2005 according to Einarsen’s conceptual framework model of the nature and cause of workplace bullying there are three foundations that can define the causes of workplace bullying, these are social, individual and organizational. Hoel and Stalin put forward that there are four previous circumstances to organizational causes of workplace bullying that is, how work is organized, the organizational principles, management and the fluctuating nature of work. McCarthy, 2003 stated that “the fluctuating nature of work can be accredited to unions, globalization and the current economic recession, amongst other.” 

According to Einarsen, Raknes and Matthiesen, 1994 the leadership style of the organization and how work is organized at the workplace can create poor work control and role conflict. Therefore, it is up to the principles of the organization to set an example for zero tolerance, higher production and clear-cut work flow for bullying in the workplace. Evidence has developed of an association amongst bullying and numerous negative organizational effects, for example productivity, absenteeism and turnover. Workplace bullying links with disappointment with role conflict, repetitive and unchallenging work, management, low amount of control over own work circumstances and with an organization environment that has little reassurance for personal growth.

Some researchers say that a person’s antecedents, for example, the personality of the perpetrator and those who are being bullied for sure may be the causes of experience to bullying. Research in the Nordic countries have demonstrated that personality traits of an individual, for example, neuroticism, are likewise identified with introduction to bullying also that victims act more vigorously in conflict circumstances than others do . Coyne et al, 2000 establish that those who are bullied are less extroverted and independent along with being more unsteady and thorough than an example of non-exploited individuals, stating that these conclusions propose that personality traits may give a sign of who in an association is well on the way to turn into an objective of bullying, and in this way demonstrate some hazard factors for exposure to bullying.