DCU Anti-Bullying Centre header
DCU Anti-Bullying Centre

Report on the National Survey of Staff Experiences of Bullying in Irish Higher Education Institutions

 

 

Authors: 
Dr. Angela Mazzone, 
Mr. Éamon Jones, 
Prof. Yseult Freeney & 
Prof. James O’Higgins Norman

This report is published by DCU Anti-Bullying Centre (ABC), Dublin City University

ISBN 978-1-911669-37-1

 

Download "Report on the National Survey of Staff Experiences of Bullying in Irish Higher Education Institutions" PDF

 

Trigger Warning

This survey study investigated employees’ experiences of bullying in 20 publicly funded Irish Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Please avail of the below support services in case the content of this report is distressing to you or makes you feel uncomfortable.

Service

Phone

Webpage
Text 50808 Free 24/7 Support in a Crisis – Text “HELLO” to 50808 https://text50808.ie/
Samaritans National Helpline – 116 123 https://www.samaritans.org/ireland/samaritans-ireland/HSA
HSA   https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Workplace_Health/Bullying_at_Work/Are_you_being_…
HSE   https://www2.hse.ie/wellbeing/mental-health/dealing-with-bullying-at-wo…
Employee Assistance Programme (EAP)   If you need professional advice, please refer to your institution’s Employment Assistance Programme (EAP) for further support and counselling. If you are not registered with your institution’s EAP, or you are not sure if your institution has an EAP, please contact your Human Resources department for further information
LGBT Ireland National LGBT Helpline 1800 929 539 1800 929 539 https://lgbt.ie/

Preface

The following report has been prepared by Dublin City University (DCU) Anti-Bullying Centre (ABC), a national centre for education and research on bullying and online safety, for the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The main aim of this report is to investigate the prevalence of workplace bullying among staff members in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Ireland. ABC is a University designated research centre located in DCU Institute of Education, dedicated but not limited to researching bullying in different contexts, including the workplace, school and the cyberspace. The Centre was the first of its kind in Ireland to conduct research on different forms of bullying, including school bullying, workplace bullying, homophobic bullying and cyberbullying. The Centre works to solve the real-world issue of bullying and promote online safety through the extensive collaboration of academic, community and industry partnerships. ABC is an internationally renowned research centre and hosts the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Chair on Tackling Bullying in Schools and Cyberspace.

 

Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of an anonymous online survey examining the prevalence and impact of workplace bullying among staff in 20 publicly funded Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Ireland. This survey study was commissioned by the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The survey included five sections covering: 1) Demographics and work arrangements; 2) Negative acts at work, bullying and cyberbullying; 3) Bystander behaviour; 4) Anti-bullying culture and awareness of anti-bullying policies; 5) Team psychological safety and work demands. A total of 3,835 HEI staff (11.5% of employees working in the HEIs that were invited to participate in this study) aged between 18 and 65+ (65.1% female, 31.7% male, 0.5% non-binary, 2.7% did not disclose their gender identity) engaged with the online survey. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-point-five-percent (30.5%) of staff engaging with the survey was working remotely at the time of the data collection.

Findings showed that 28% of the sample occasionally (“now and then”) endured work-orientated negative acts (targeting someone’s professional standing) and 26% were subjected to person-orientated negative acts (targeting someone’s personal standing). An average of 32.9% respondents in the whole sample endured cyberbullying at work. After being prompted to read the bullying definition, about one third of respondents (33.5%) reported having been bullied at work in the past three years, with 70.6% of them having been bullied for several months. In the majority of cases, the perpetrator of bullying was a senior colleague (55%) or a peer (24.6%). Minority groups, such as LGBTQ+ respondents, ethnic minorities and respondents with a disability were more likely to endure negative acts at work, bullying and cyberbullying compared to majority groups (i.e., heterosexuals, ethnic majority groups and respondents with no disabilities). Managers were more likely to endure negative acts and cyberbullying at work compared to respondents who did not cover a managerial role. The rates of negative acts at work were comparable across respondents working in different work areas. However, academics in the field of Social Sciences and Business and Law and those who did not disclose their work area endured higher levels of negative acts and cyberbullying compared to respondents working in other areas. Interestingly, those who did not disclose their demographic information (gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, work area) were more likely to endure negative acts at work, bullying and cyberbullying compared to those who disclosed their demographic information. These findings suggest that employees who endure bullying at work might be afraid of reporting their negative experiences even when data are collected anonymously.

Overall, enduring negative acts at work and cyberbullying had a negative impact on respondents’ mental health and wellbeing, with a slightly higher rate of female respondents and respondents belonging to minority groups reporting negative mood end emotions. Incidents of negative acts at work were witnessed occasionally (“now and then”) by 34.5% of respondents. Over one third of respondents (35.3%) indicated that they had witnessed bullying at work in the past three years, with 50.5% reporting that they had taken action when witnessing bullying. Witnessing bullying was detrimental for the mental health of respondents, with 36.6% of bystanders reporting that witnessing bullying had a negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

On a positive note, the majority of survey respondents (64.5%) were aware that their institution had an anti-bullying policy. However, only 20.8% of respondents agreed that the anti-bullying policy and procedures at their HEI contributed to effectively protecting all staff members. Finally, this survey assessed some organisational factors that might contribute to bullying, including pressure to produce, work-life balance and team psychological safety. Heavy workloads constituted an issue for a consistent proportion of the sample, with 35.8% of respondents agreeing that their workloads were very demanding and 34% reporting that their personal life suffered because of work. On a positive note, over a third of respondents (36.2%) reported that they felt valued in their work team and 47.6% agreed that members of their team can bring up problems and difficult issues.

Overall, findings of this survey study provide an overview of the bullying experiences endured by staff within HEIs in Ireland. Providing HEI staff with awareness raising initiatives and training opportunities, along with a sustained effort towards a more inclusive organisational culture are among the recommended strategies to tackle workplace bullying in HEIs.

 

1.1 Workplace Bullying in Higher Education

There are numerous definitions available for workplace bullying; however, for the purposes of this report we will adopt the workplace bullying definition set out by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA, 2021): “Workplace bullying can be defined as repeated inappropriate behaviour either direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but a once-off incident is not considered to be bullying”. 

Workplace bullying constitutes a serious impairment to creating a positive climate within higher education institutions (HEIs). A survey study conducted in Ireland towards the end of the 2000s showed that 14% of staff in Irish HEIs were bullied in the workplace (O’Connell et al., 2007). These figures are comparable to research conducted in other business sectors (Arenas et al., 2015).

The scientific literature highlights different instances of bullying behaviours within higher education settings, including overt negative acts such as verbal bullying, false accusations of mistakes and work misconduct, as well as covert behaviours, including manipulation, obstructive behaviour, excessive workload, ostracism and withholding important information that will affect employees’ performance (Pheko, 2018; Samnani, 2013; Yamada, 2008). Cyberbullying presents a new and challenging issue for the higher education sector. Cyberbullying can be defined as repeated and enduring negative behaviour in the workplace that occurs via technology (via email; on social media; Coyne et al., 2017). This phenomenon is characterised by some specific features, among which high accessibility to the target (employees can be targeted outside the workplace and after working hours), large potential audience, and anonymity of the perpetrator. For example, by sending an email or publicly posting a negative review of a lecturer teaching style on message boards and forums, the perpetrator can act anonymously, while having access to the target at all times, even outside of working hours (Cassidy, et al., 2014; 2017).

Complicated power dynamics might also increase the risk of being exposed to workplace bullying. Top-down bullying involves a supervisor bullying a subordinate; for example, a department chair bullying a member of the support staff. Horizontal bullying involves an employee bullying a peer; for instance, a lecturer bullying another lecturer. Bottom-up bullying involves a subordinate bullying a supervisor; for instance, a student perpetrating bullying acts against a lecturer. Although instances of top-down bullying are more frequently reported compared to bottom-up bullying incidents (De Cieri et al., 2019), previous research has identified a shifted power dynamic whereby employees with less formal power (i.e., associated with the hierarchy within HEIs) may attempt to exert control over a person with greater authority or status, e.g., student over lecturer (May & Tenzek, 2018). Finally, it should be noted that bullying does not merely represent a negative interaction between the target and the perpetrator. Bystander behaviour (the behaviour of those who witness bullying) is an integral part of the bullying experience and it has been shown to affect the dynamics and the potential (de)‐escalation of bullying at work (Paull et al., 2012).

Published research studies conducted in Irish HEIs are mainly based on interview data (Fahie, 2020; Hodgins & Mannix-McNamara, 2017; 2019; Rockett, 2015). These studies show that bullying in HEIs causes negative outcomes for the mental health and wellbeing of the bullied employees, while undermining their dignity and compromising their psychological safety (Fahie, 2020; Hodgins & Mannix-McNamara, 2019, 2021). Despite the knowledge generated by these studies, updated data regarding the prevalence of workplace bullying in Irish HEIs are missing. To fill this gap in our knowledge, a large-scale study was carried out between November and December 2021. This survey study has been commissioned by the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The study aims to:

  1. Establish the prevalence and impact of workplace bullying among survey respondents with different backgrounds in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, professional status and work areas. The survey study adopted two methods to assess bullying: The behavioural method and the self-labelling method (Nielsen et al., 2009). The behavioural method involves providing survey respondents with some examples of negative behaviours, which may occur in the workplace and asking them if they endured any of the negative behaviours within a specific timeframe (Einarsen et al., 2009). The self-labelled method involves providing survey respondents with a definition of bullying and asking them if they have experienced bullying at work within a specific timeframe (see Appendix).
  2. Establish the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying among survey respondents with different backgrounds in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, professional status and work areas.
  3. Investigate the professional status of the perpetrators of bullying and cyberbullying.
  4. Examine respondents’ experiences of witnessing bullying by adopting the two aforementioned methods (behavioural and self-labelling method).
  5. Examine bystanders’ response to bullying (employee voice versus silence).
  6. Investigate respondents’ perception of the anti-bullying culture at their institution and their awareness of the anti-bullying policies.
  7. Examine respondents’ work-life balance, pressure to produce and team psychological safety (individual perception to be working in a supportive team).

Section 1: Demographics and Work Arrangements

4. Results

A sample of 3,835 employees (11.5% of employees working in the HEIs participating in this survey study) aged between 18 and 65+ (65.1% female2, 31.7% male; 0.5% non-binary; 2.7% did not disclose their gender identity) filled out the online survey. Most respondents (82.8%) identified themselves as Irish; 12.2% belonged to another White ethnic group; 3% belonged to an ethnic minority3; 2% preferred not to disclose their ethnic group. Nine-point-two percent (9.2%) of survey respondents identified themselves as LGBTQ+4 (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other sexual orientations not listed in the survey). Four-point-seven percent (4.7%) of respondents reported a disability (see Table 1 for more details on the sample demographics).

Table 1. Participant Demographics

Demographics

n (%)

Demographics

n (%)
Completion rate   Sex assigned at birth  
Incomplete surveys
Complete surveys		 621 (16.2%)
3214 (83.8%)		 Female
Male
Prefer not to say		 2517 (65.6%)
1232 (32.1%)
86 (2.2%)
Gender Identity   Is your gender the same as assigned at birth?  
Female
Male
Non-binary
Prefer not to say		 2495 (65.1%)
1217 (31.7%)
21 (0.5%)
102 (2.7%)		 Yes
No
Prefer not to say		 3717 (96.9%)
19 (0.5%)
99 (2.6%)
Age range   Ethnicity  
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Prefer not to say		 36 (0.9%)
368 (9.6%)
1004 (26.2%)
1456 (38%)
832 (21.7%)
57 (1.5%)
82 (2.1%)		 Chinese
Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi
Any other Asian background
African
Any other Black background
Arabic
Mixed background
Other
Irish
Irish Traveller
Roma
Any other White background
Prefer not to say		 13 (0.3%)
29 (0.8%)
16 (0.4%)
9 (0.2%)
1 (0.0%)
3 (0.1%)
22 (0.6%)
16 (0.4%)
3164 (82.8%)
2 (0.1%)
4 (0.1%)
465 (12.2%)
78 (2%)
Sexual orientation   Do you have a disability?  
Asexual
Bisexual
Gay
Heterosexual
Lesbian
Queer
A sexual orientation not listed
Prefer not to say		 76 (2%)
111 (2.9%)
97 (2.6%)
3165 (83.9%)
30 (0.8%)
24 (0.6%)
10 (0.3%)
261 (6.9%)		 Yes
No
Prefer not to say		 179 (4.7%)
3181 (84.3%)
414 (11%)
Table 2. Respondent Job Title

Demographics

n (%)

Demographics

n (%)
What is your main area of work/disciplinary area   On what contractual basis are you currently employed  
Academic: Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences
Academic: Business and Law
Academic: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
Academic: Medicine and Health
Research Centre/Institution
Research Fellow
Professional, Managerial and Support Services
Technical Support
Other
Prefer not to say		 779 (21.1%)
272 (7.4%)
623 (16.9%)
197 (5.3%)
123 (3.3%)
40 (1.1%)
1234 (33.4%)
186 (5%)
177 (4.8%)
63 (1.7%)

Full-time permanent contract
Full-time fixed term contract
Part-time permanent contract
Part-time fixed term contract
Hourly paid
Other
Prefer not to say

Are you managing other staff members?

Yes

2724 (72.9%)
552 (14.8%)
176 (4.7%)
113 (3%)
88 (2.3%)
48 (1.3%)
38 (1%)

 

1223 (33.1%)

 
What is your current role/grade pay?   How long have you been in your current role?  
Over €130,000
€115,000-€129,999
€100,000-€114,999
€75,000-€99,999
€60,000-€74,999
€45,000-€59,999
€30,000-€44,999
€15,000-€29,999
Less than €14,999
Prefer not to say		 94 (2.5%)
65 (1.8%)
178 (4.8%)
972 (26.3%)
537 (14.5%)
859 (23.3%)
571 (15.5%)
177 (4.8%)
79 (2.1%)
162 (4.4%)		 < 1 year
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16 years or more
Prefer not to say		 496 (14%)
1292 (36.3%)
547 (15.4%)
394 (11.1%)
776 (21.8%)
50 (1.4%)
  • In terms of work arrangements, during the Covid-19 lockdowns, over one third of respondents engaged with their colleagues online (35.8%); this rate was nearly unchanged at the time of the survey study (30.5%). Only a small proportion of respondents engaged with other colleagues offline during the lockdowns (7%) and at the time of data collection (6.2%). Blended work arrangements were a common option both during the lockdowns (23%) and at the time of the survey study (48.5%). See figure 1 for a detailed breakdown.

Figure 1. Respondent Engagement with Colleagues During the Lockdown and at the Time of Data Collection

Figure 1. Respondent Engagement with Colleagues During the Lockdown and at the Time of Data Collection

  • In terms of staff engagement with students, blended lectures were a common option during the lockdowns (21.8%) and at the time of the survey study (38.3%). Only 5.6% of lecturers engaged with students offline during the lockdowns. This percentage was higher at the time of the data collection (18.2%). See Figure 2 for a detailed breakdown.

Figure 2. Respondent Engagement with Students During the Lockdown and at the Time of the Survey

Figure 2. Respondent Engagement with Students During the Lockdown and at the Time of the Survey

SECTION 2: Negative Acts at Work, Bullying and Cyberbullying

 

SECTION 3: Bystander Behaviour 

SECTION 4: Anti-bullying Culture and Awareness of Anti-Bullying Policies

SECTION 5: Team Psychological Safety and Work Demands

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The present survey study investigated HEIs employees’ experiences of enduring and witnessing bullying at work, along with their awareness of anti-bullying policies and their perception of the anti-bullying culture within their institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this survey study are important for policymakers at the national and organisational level as they assist in focussing towards potential strategies to prevent workplace bullying among HEIs employees. Some of the key recommendations following from this survey study include:

  • Awareness, Education and Training.
  • Implementing evidence-based programmes.
  • Supporting targets of bullying and bystanders.
  • Developing anti-bullying policies in consultation with employees.
  • Ongoing research to further investigate and monitor the prevalence of workplace bullying in HEIs.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Findings of this study are based on a large sample, yet only 11.5% of employees working in the HEIs invited to participate in this study completed the survey. With a few exceptions, the effect size estimates were in the small to moderate range (see Appendix). Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalising the findings of this survey study. Finally, this report is limited by the cross-sectional design of the study, which calls for longitudinal studies to further explore the issues investigated in this survey study.

1 The sections followed a different order in the online survey. However, for ease of readability, this report combines the sections assessing similar constructs. 

2 The labels “female”, “male” and “non-binary” throughout the text and in the Results section pertain to respondents’ gender identity. 

3 Given the low number of survey respondents with a non-Irish background, respondents belonging to ethnic minority groups were combined into a single group (Ethnic minority) including: Chinese, Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi, any other Asian background, African, any other Black background, Arabic, Mixed background, Irish Traveller, Roma, Other. 

4 Given the low number of LGBTQ+ survey respondents, those who identified themselves as: Asexual, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Queer and “Other” were combined into a single group (LGBTQ+).

5 The findings presented in the text were obtained by averaging the rates of respondents selecting respectively “now and then”, “monthly”, “weekly” and “daily” across the items assessing respectively work-orientated and person-orientated negative acts.

6 Significant differences were tested on the nine negative acts (a composite score was obtained by averaging the nine items assessing both work-orientated and person-orientated negative acts at work). See Appendix for more details.

7 The findings presented in the text were obtained by averaging the rates of respondents selecting respectively, “seldom”, “sometimes”, “often” and “always” across the items assessing the impact of the negative acts on respondents’ mental health.

8 Pearson Chi-Square Test analyses were performed to assess the associations between bullying victimisation experiences and respectively: Gender, sexual orientation, ethnic identity, age, disability, managerial role and work area. More detailed findings can be found in the Appendix.

9 The findings presented in the text were obtained by averaging the rates of respondents selecting respectively “now and then”, “monthly”, “weekly” and “daily” across the cyberbullying items.

10 The percentages reported in the text refer to respondents with different backgrounds in terms of gender, sexual orientation, ethnic identity and disability.

Appendix

Methods

Survey Instruments

 

Data Analysis

Survey

References

Arenas, A., Leon-Perez, J., Medina, F. J., & Munduate, L. (2015). The Relationship Between Interpersonal Conflict and Workplace Bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0034&nbsp;

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H. & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three-way model. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.977&nbsp;

Baillien, E., Escartín, J., Gross, C., & Zapf, D. (2017). Towards a conceptual and empirical differentiation between workplace bullying and interpersonal conflict. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(6), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1385601&nbsp;

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014). The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbullying of University Faculty and Teaching Personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(2), 279–299. 

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2017). Adversity in university: Cyberbullying and its impacts on students, faculty and administrators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080888&nbsp;

Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27745097&nbsp;

Coyne, I., Farley, S., Axtell, C., Sprigg, C., Best, L., & Kwok, O. (2017) Understanding the relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain and job satisfaction: a dysempowerment approach, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(7), 945-972. 

Cronin, T. J., Pepping, C. A., Halford, W. K. & Lyons, A. (2021) Minority Stress and Psychological Outcomes in Sexual Minorities: The Role of Barriers to Accessing Services, Journal of Homosexuality, 68(14), 2417-2429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2020.1804264&nbsp;

Duffy, M. & Brown, J. E. (2018). Best practices in psychotherapy for targets of workplace bullying and mobbing. In Duffy, M. & Yamada, D. C. (Eds.) Workplace bullying and mobbing in the United States, Volume 2 (pp. 291-314). ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, USA.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2666999&nbsp;

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. & Notelaers, G. (2009) Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02678370902815673 

Einarsen, S. V, Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. (2010). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In Bullying and Harassment in the workplace (2nd ed., pp. 3–53). Florida: CRC Press. 

Fahie, D. (2020). The lived experience of toxic leadership in Irish higher education. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 13(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2019-0096&nbsp;

Farley, S., Coyne, I., Axtell, C. & Sprigg, C. (2016) Design, development and validation of a workplace cyberbullying measure, the WCM. Work & Stress, 30(4), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1255998&nbsp;

GLEN - Gay and Lesbian Equality Network. (2015). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Inclusion in Business. Submission to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade National Plan on Business and Human Rights. https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/int…;

Hayman, (2005). Psychometric Assessment of an Instrument Designed to Measure Work Life Balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(1), 85-91. 

Hodgins, M., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2017). Bullying and incivility in higher education workplaces: Micropolitics and the abuse of power. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-03-2017-1508&nbsp;

Hodgins, M., & Mannix-McNamara, P. M. (2019). An Enlightened Environment? Workplace Bullying and Incivility in Irish Higher Education. SAGE Open, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019894278&nbsp;

Hodgins, M., & Mannix-Mcnamara, P. (2021). The neoliberal university in Ireland: Institutional bullying by another name? Societies, 11(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020052

Health and Safety Authority, HSA. (2021). Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work. https://www.hsa.ie/eng/publications_and_forms/publications/codes_of_pra… _of_practice_for_employers_and_employees_on_the_prevention_and_resolution_of_bullying_at_work.pdf 

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.2753/atp1084-1806320103&nbsp;

Knoll, M., Götz, M., Adriasola, E., Al-Atwi, A. A., Arenas, A., Atitsogbe, K. A., … & LePine, J. (2014). Employee voice and engagement: Connections and consequences. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(1), 2780–2798. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2512&nbsp;

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1-12. https://doi.org/doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 

LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147– 165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9608-9&nbsp;

Lin, M., Lucas, H. C., & Shmueli, G. (2013). Too big to fail: Large samples and the p-value problem. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 906–917. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0480&nbsp;

McGinnity, F., Russell, H., Provalko, I., & Enright, S. (2021). Monitoring decent work in Ireland. The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). https://doi.org/10.26504/bkmnext414&nbsp;

Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee Voice and Silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328&nbsp;

O’Connell, P. J., Calvert, E., & Watson, D. (2007). Bullying in the Workplace: Survey Reports. (Issue Report to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment). https://www.esri.ie/system/files/media/file-uploads/2015-07/BKMNEXT094.pdf

Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R. & Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect, engagement in the workforce (CREW). Nationwide organization development intervention at Veterans Health Administration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 384-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886309335067&nbsp;

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S….& Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 370-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.312&nbsp;

Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00027.x&nbsp;

Paull, M., Omari, M., D'Cruz, P., Cangarli, B. G. (2020). Bystanders in workplace bullying: working university students on action versus inaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58, 313-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12216&nbsp;

Pheko, M. M. (2018). Rumors and gossip as tools of social undermining and social dominance in workplace bullying and mobbing practices: A closer look at perceived perpetrator motives. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1421111&nbsp;

Rockett, P. (2015). The Cost of Workplace Bullying in Irish Universities. Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, 136. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations%0Ahttp://ezproxy.lib.uca… dc8qa4cy3n.search.serialssolutions.com?ctx_ver=Z39.88- 2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=i 

Samnani, A. K. (2013). “Is this bullying?” Understanding target and witness reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321196&nbsp;

Thomas, M. (2005). Bullying among support staff in a higher education institution. Health Education, 105(4), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280510602499&nbsp;

Yamada, D. (2008). Workplace Bullying and Ethical Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46168-3_8