bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12049

Revision of the workplace bullying checklist: the

importance of human resource managements role
in defining and addressing workplace bullying
Suzy Fox, Quinlan School of Business, Loyola University Chicago
Renee L. Cowan, Department of Communication, University of Texas at San
Antonio
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 25, no 1, 2015, pages 116130

Human resource professionals (HRPs) in the US are important actors in workplace bullying (WB)
situations. Most WB research currently focuses on the target but fails to include the individual most often
left to interpret and respond to complaints of bullying the HRP. We argue that because HRPs must work
to identify, understand and deal with victims and bullies; HR should have a voice in assessing WB. The
difficulties HRPs report in effectively responding to employee complaints of WB have been attributed to a
number of factors, including conflicts among multiple HR roles in the organisation, a paucity of specific
organisational policies and guidelines for dealing with bullying, and ambiguous definitions and criteria for
behaviour to be considered bullying. The impetus for the study reported here was the need to clarify the
definition of bullying incorporating the HR perspective, determine what behaviours and criteria are seen
as bullying by HRPs. Scale use and limitations are discussed as well as theoretical and practical
implications.
Contact: Prof. Suzy Fox, Institute of Human Resources and Employment Relations, Quinlan
School of Business, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611,
USA. Email: Sfox1@luc.edu
Keywords: human resource roles; workplace bullying; measurement
INTRODUCTION

orkplace bullying (WB) is generally defined as extreme, negative, and pervasive or

persistent workplace abuse, experienced by targets as an imbalance of power, and
which can cause distress, humiliation and other adverse consequences for the target
and the organisation (Rayner and Keashly, 2005; Einarsen et al., 2009). WB covers a wide range
of behaviours, from subtle incivilities to blatant threats, and has the potential to spiral into serious
conflict, a hostile work environment and even physical violence (Fox and Freeman, 2011).
When present in the workplace, bullying can have serious effects on individuals and the
organisation. Consequences to individuals include health problems, such as post-traumatic
stress disorder and depression; identity crisis; emotional damage, such as humiliation, doubt
and stress; and vicious cycles of counterproductive work behaviour (Hoel et al., 2004; Fox and
Stallworth, 2010). Effects on the organisation can be very costly and counterproductive. Costs
can include those associated with high turnover rates, absenteeism, intention to leave, high job
insecurity, reduced productivity and legal costs (Hoel et al., 2004, 2011; Glambek et al., 2014).
Other consequences include damage to company reputation, decreased loyalty and
commitment to company and culture, and decreased performance (Fox and Stallworth, 2010).
The issue of WB continues to garner much attention in the scholarly, practitioner and public
media, yet there is little consensus among professionals and academics of best practices for
assessing the prevalence and consequences of WB.
116

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Fox, S. and Cowan, R.L. (2015) Revision of the workplace bullying checklist: the importance of human resource
managements role in defining and addressing workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Journal 25: 1, 116130.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

Measurement of WB
There are two main approaches used to measure the prevalence of bullying (Fox and
Stallworth, 2009): self-identification by targets, in which respondents are given a definition of
WB and asked to identify if or how frequently they have experienced it (e.g. Einarsen and
Skogstad, 1996; Rayner, 1997); and checklists of specific bullying behaviours and definitional
criteria such as persistence/frequency of behaviours [e.g. Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised
(NAQ-R): Einarsen et al., 2009; Workplace Aggression Research Questionnaire (WAR-Q):
Neuman and Keashly, 2004; Workplace Bullying Checklist (WB-C): Fox and Stallworth, 2010].
The current study primarily looks at the use of checklist surveys. While there are many
variations of checklists currently used in academic research, this article aims to explain why the
current methods are incomplete and seeks to close this gap. Most WB research currently focuses
on the target but fails to include the individual most often left to interpret and respond to
complaints of bullying the human resource professional (HRP). It is the job of HR to act as
a liaison between employees, a moderator of disputes, and even an enforcer of policies and
procedures (Bohlander and Snell, 2007). Although research has determined targets first
approach colleagues when being bullied for support and help (Hoel and Cooper, 2000), HRPs
are also called on in these cases (Salin, 2008; Cowan, 2012). The negative effects of bullying
typically become the responsibility of the HRP when a target seeks assistance from the
organisation (Lewis and Rayner, 2003; Cowan, 2012; Harrington et al., 2012). We argue that
because HRPs must work to identify, understand and deal with targets and bullies, HR should
have a voice in assessing WB.
The three commonly used checklists (NAQ-R, WAR-Q and WB-C) ask respondents to
identify whether or not they have experienced a series of behaviours and definitional
characteristics deemed by the developers to represent WB. The current study aims to redefine
the term workplace bullying to be meaningful for academics, targets and HRPs. In the current
study, we revisit the behavioural items of the WB-C developed by Fox and Stallworth (2010).
The original WB-C items were accumulated through the typical checklist construction method
of a review of academic literature, interviews and workshops, and are based on the target and
academic perspective. The WB-C can be used as both a research tool (see Fox, 2010; Fox and
Stallworth, 2010) or as a diagnostic tool by practitioners to determine what kind of bullying is
being alleged (occasional or pervasive; supervisor or peer), what behaviours were involved in
the incident(s) and if it meets definitional criteria (i.e. occur repeatedly or persistently, etc.).
In the revised version of the WB-C used in the present study, we test the original 24 items (in
addition to items suggested by HRPs in pilot discussions, plus several behaviours we have
encountered in targets accounts of bullying but which we believe not to be instances of
bullying) to determine the extent to which the respondents deem them to be bullying
behaviours. We also include the original definitional criteria as well as new items suggested by
HRPs in pilot discussion and recent literature on the HR perspective (see Cowan, 2009, 2012).
We believe this gives our measure better face validity because incorporating HR in the process
of defining and assessing WB enhances a comprehensive understanding of the problems
encountered in real work situations. Additionally, it is important to determine how HR
understands what constitutes bullying as this may shed light on why HR deals with bullying
the way they do.
The work environment and the role of HR
An important theory that speaks to the causes and antecedents of bullying is the work
environment hypothesis (Salin, 2003; Salin and Hoel, 2011). This theory posits that the
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

117

HRs role in workplace bullying

work environment (including access to anti-bullying policy, work culture, job design and work
organisation, and leadership and reward systems) can all be influential in how bullying is made
sense of and if it is addressed (Salin and Hoel, 2011). HRPs can be influential actors in the work
environment and are at the same time affected by it. The work environment hypothesis points
to key challenges and inconsistencies in the HR function. For example regarding anti-bullying
policy, a study by Cowan (2011), revealed that anti-bullying measures are not a priority in US
organisations overall and that existing conduct policies do not clearly define bullying
behaviours. Because of the lack of anti-bullying policies in place, many HRPs believed that their
hands were tied when it came to bullying situations. Cowans HR respondents expressed a
strong need to define, measure and develop anti-bullying policies. While these HRPs did not
have official guidelines to resolve bullying disputes, they do interpret bullying behaviours as
a daily function of their role and should be used as a source to determine bullying behaviours
occurring in organisations (Cowan, 2011, 2012). Countries with developed anti-bullying policies
have also reported on the HR function in bullying situations with mixed results. In the UK,
Harrington et al. (2012) found evidence that even with policies, HR may not adequately deal
with bullying situations in an effort to preserve their relationship with managers. Salin (2008)
found in Finnish municipalities that although HR had a role in anti-bullying policy
development, execution of policy and complaints were delegated to the targets immediate
supervisor.
Even with these mixed results, it is clear HR that has a significant role to play in bullying
situations. One problem with target-focused surveys is that they provide a one-sided
interpretation of the situation. Targets have suffered from persistent workplace abuse and often
feel intentionally attacked and helpless to defend themselves (Cowan, 2011). As a result, they
provide a one-sided interpretation of bullying that can sometimes be a misinterpretation of
another coworkers behaviour (Cowan, 2012). On the other hand, HRPs are trained as a part
of their role to remain neutral when dealing with such situations (Ulrich, 1997; Bohlander and
Snell, 2007; Kulik et al., 2009). The main difference between the HRP and the target in
identifying bullying behaviours is the perspective. According to a study done by Cowan (2012),
HRPs also assess intentionality of the behaviours and seek outside confirmation. In their
sensemaking endeavours, they go beyond just the initial cues associated with bullying
behaviors and look to more specific cues like those associated with intention (p. 14). Using this
interpretation of the HR function, we can conclude that the HRP could potentially provide a
more comprehensive and valid assessment of bullying behaviours. While the target lodges the
complaint and can be a good source of information on bullying behaviours, HR begins to
validate the complaint and provides expertise on defining and assessing WB (Cowan, 2012).
Yet there is considerable disagreement whether HR representatives actually play a
constructive or helpful role from the perspective of employees who consider themselves targets
of bullying. Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) (2012) clearly views HR as
part of the problem, not part of the solution. Citing both clinical experience and a national
survey conducted by the WBI and Zogby International, he argues:
Consider some evidence. The stories WBI has culled from 6,000+ hour-long
sessions with targets of workplace bullying since beginning this work 13 years ago
have produced only TWO (2) stories of HR bravery, courage and morality of
doing the right thing for the target and not for the bully or her or his management
allies. Empirical evidence from WBI year 2000 survey of 1,300 targets suggest that
HR did nothing in 51% of cases and worsened the situation for targets in 32% of
cases.
118

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

Similarly, Harrington et al. (2012) found UK HRPs voiced distrust for target accounts due to
negative spillover from previous bullying cases, and this resulted in a reluctance to label
situations as bullying and deliver needed remedies. These are also examples of how the larger
work environment effects bullying cases.
Ulrichs (1997) multiple roles model poses four main roles of HR: strategic partner, which
executes strategy and aligns HR with the business objectives, administrative expert,
which builds an efficient infrastructure by implementing HR practices, employee champion,
which manages and provides resources to the employees, and change agent, which works
towards implementing change and transformation in the organisation.
To the extent to which these roles are contradictory, the HRP may have to confront a
fundamental paradox: how can HR reconcile its fiduciary responsibility of representing
management interests while serving as the champion of employees? How does that paradox
inform the stance of HR in bullying situations? The HRPs Cowan (2009) reported on were
clearly conflicted, with one respondent ironically stating, My role is to be the objective third
party that represents the company (p. 142). That is, they know they need to be objective in
bullying situations, yet they always represent the company. Harrington et al. (2014) in the UK
similarly found in manger to target bullying cases, HR continually took a strategic partner
role. In a similar vein, in organisations with highly competitive cultures, HR may reflect top
managements view of aggressively high performers not as bullies, but rather as highproducing individuals delivering results for the organisation, thus acting as a motivating
factor in the situation (Salin, 2003; Salin and Hoel, 2011). If HRPs embrace their role as
strategic partner to the exclusion of their role as employee champion, they may be more
focused on adverse effects of bullying on the organisation rather than on the individual, and
in fact may be motivated to make it all go away. In that case, the strategic alignment
with the interests of the corporation is likely to conflict with the employee champion role in
the way HR interprets and responds to employee bullying complaints. Indeed, there is
evidence of this role prioritisation as Harrington et al. (2012) found HR did indeed privilege
their strategic partner role in bullying situations to preserve their relationship with
management.
On the upside, understanding these different roles highlights the benefits of using HRPs
to help define WB. To fulfil the employee champion role of HR, they must champion for
all employees. Cowan (2009) found evidence HRPs embrace this role, Our role is a fact
finder. To find out what is really going on. There are at least two sides to every story. In
between the two sides is probably the truth because everybody biases it a little bit their
way (p. 141). This perspective not only engages the target, but the accused bully and
observers as well. By involving the bully, HR is legally looking out for all parties, as well
creating open dialogue in search of understanding the situation. As the administrative
expert, the HR representative implements a plan of action to resolve the bullying (Ulrich,
1997). In fact, HRPs have voiced the roles of mediator, coach and trainer as active ways they
address bullying (Cowan, 2009). Finally, as the strategic partner and change agent, the
HRP can take an active role in developing anti-bullying practices to prevent future bullying
behaviours and to create an anti-bullying company culture. However, one of the key results
of Cowans study was the feeling expressed by some HRPs that they were powerless to
address bullying by top performers and management. For example, one HRP commented,
Depending on if the bully is a top producer, they [top management] excuse it, turn their
head and look the other way. Depending on what the situation is, theyll typically do the
military style, you know command and control or something and theyll railroad HR (p.
114). Harrington et al. (2014) recently found similar results in the UK. This finding
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

119

HRs role in workplace bullying

emphasises the importance of the work environment in validating and sustaining bullying
activity (Salin and Hoel, 2011). Addressing specific work environment issues could work
against prevalence of bullying. For example, in Cowans (2011) study, several HRPs
mentioned that if they had a clear anti-bullying policy in these situations, this could give
them more power to concretely address bullying; one HRP specified that only a policy
violation could get the ear of top management. However, only one HRP reported having
access to a clear anti-bullying policy. Understanding what HR deems bullying is coupled
with what we already know about target experiences of bullying could positively contribute
to policy development in countries like the US as well as assist with updating research and
diagnostic instruments like the WB-C.
The first necessary step, according to comments made by participants in workshops given
by the first author for several regional and local professional HR associations, is to define
bullying and delimit the domain of specific behaviours and defining characteristics. The
overriding fear expressed by these HRPs is that they would become deluged by a broad
spectrum of often spurious complaints well beyond their resources to investigate and respond.
The HRPs in Cowans (2012) study suggested that concretely defining bullying would help in
delimiting clear roles for HRPs in bullying situations and ultimately would inform
anti-bullying policy formation and execution in the US. It is clear from recent studies that even
when policies exist that purport to define and address bullying, there are still differences among
HRPs and targets on if a situation should be labelled as bullying and remedies offered.
Engaging the HR perspective on what constitutes bullying will shed light on where HR and
targets converge and diverge on bullying behaviours and definitional characteristics, as it is
clear they are integral in assessing and dealing with bullying situations (Cowan, 2011, 2012;
Harrington et al., 2012, 2014).
Because of HRs role in addressing bullying behaviours in the organisational context, HRPs
can arguably provide a vital source of information in defining bullying from a practitioners
standpoint. Aligning academic research with business implications will create a comprehensive
and applicable approach to understanding WB. The voice of HR needs to be added to the voices
of scholars, anti-bullying activists, management, employee representatives, public policy
makers and the public media in developing definitions, delimiters and measurement tools to
understand and policies to respond to the phenomenon of WB. The current endeavour
should be seen as a starting point in understanding the HR perspective on bullying and could
shed light on the important areas where targets and HR practitioners converge and diverge on
what constitutes bullying in the workplace.

METHOD
Objectives
This study was designed to enhance the face validity of the definition and measurement of the
WB construct, uncover what behaviours HRPs deem to be bullying as well as the definitional
criteria needed to label a situation bullying. In particular this study seeks to:
1. Differentiate behaviours considered by HR to be legitimate exercise of managerial
prerogatives and duties from bullying behaviours.
2. Specify behaviours that comprise blatant and subtle bullying.
3. Redefine bullying based on HRPs broad criteria of characteristics that must be present for
a situation to be considered bullying.
120

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

Method
Participants A total of 204 online surveys were completed. Of these, 63 were missing the
self-identification variable, as this was added to the survey after data collection had already
begun; the rest of the items are complete. Participants were solicited from HRPs in Texas and
Illinois by email, and at workshops presented by the first author at several professional
association meetings. Table 1 summarises key professional information about the participants
and indicates that the sample leaned towards experienced and senior HRPs. All research
procedures were approved by the respective Institutional Review Boards of the co-authors.
Measures Measures included an enlarged checklist of WB items and a set of criteria to be
included in a broad definition of WB.
WB-C Respondents were presented with a total of 34 behaviours. For each behaviour, they
were asked to indicate whether they felt it was clearly NOT bullying, subtle bullying, blatant
bullying or they were not sure. The core of these behaviours (24 items) was taken from the
WB-C, which has been used in prior studies of bullying among corporate employees, public
school teachers and university professors (Fox, 2010; Fox and Stallworth, 2010). The choice to
use the WB-C was made because it is designed to not only be used as an academic research
instrument, but also as a diagnostic tool for HR practitioners who are most likely concerned
with small samples. The NAQ was not used because it is designed to measure prevalence in
large samples and is not a diagnostic tool (Einarsen et al., 2009; Bergen Bullying Research
Group, 2014). Examples of WB-C behaviour items include Made aggressive or intimidating eye
contact or physical gestures (e.g. finger pointing, slamming objects, obscene gestures) and
Blamed you for errors for which you were not responsible. An additional three items were
behaviours that have been cited as examples of bullying in seminars and workshops given by
TABLE 1 Professional description of participants
%
Respondents industries
Academic
Corporate
Healthcare
Not for profit
Public sector
Other
HR positions
HR senior manager
HR manager
HR specialist
HR representative
Other
Years in HR profession
<2 years
25 years
610 years
1115 years
>15 years

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

19.3
25.7
7.3
12.8
20.2
14.7
29.4
29.4
10.1
7.3
23.8
2.7
8.2
17.3
23.6
48.18

121

HRs role in workplace bullying

TABLE 2 Percentages of HR respondents rating behavioural items as subtle or blatant bullying

Behaviour

Subtle
(%)

Blatant
(%)

Made aggressive or intimidating eye contact or physical gestures (e.g. finger

pointing, slamming objects, obscene gestures)
Situated your workspace in a physically isolated location
Gave you the silent treatment
Limited your ability to express an opinion
Threatened you with physical violence
Demeaned you in front of coworkers or clients
Verbal abuse (e.g. yelling, cursing, angry outbursts)
Gave excessively harsh criticism of your performance
Spread false rumors about your personal life and character
Spread false rumors about your work performance
Intentionally withheld necessary information from you
Blamed you for errors for which you were not responsible
Threatened you with job loss or demotion
Insulted you or put you down
Flaunted his/her status over you in a condescending manner
Left you out of meetings or failed to show up for your meetings for no legitimate
reason
Intentionally destroyed, stolen, or sabotaged your work materials
Used email or other online media to harass, threaten, or intimidate youa
Used email or other online media to attack your reputation or degrade you to
othersa
Made unwanted physical contact such as hitting, pushing, poking, spittinga
Told jokes or encouraged others to tell jokes about youa
Communicated to you rudely, such as name-calling or tone of voicea

17

81

56
70
61
1
17
1
26
42
48
63
39
9
31
52
54

9
9
16
99
81
98
35
52
49
16
30
69
60
24
10

6
2
10

91
97
89

1
53
22

99
44
72

Indicates new items added to previous Workplace Bullying Checklist.

the first author, but which the researchers considered to be legitimate managerial duties or
prerogatives rather than bullying. Examples of these are Set challenging work goals and
Exercised authority to control work and performance. Finally, four items were added that had
been suggested by respondents in a pilot study, but which had not been part of the original
checklist. These included Used email or other online media to harass, threaten, or intimidate
you, Made unwanted physical contact such as hitting, pushing, poking, spitting and Told
jokes or encouraged others to tell jokes about you (see Table 2 for complete list of behaviours).
Definitional criteria Respondents were asked to indicate whether, to be considered or
handled as bullying, behaviour would necessarily have to have certain characteristics. Prior
research suggests a number of defining features or dimensions (Keashly and Harvey, 2005,
p. 204) that differentiate bullying from other forms of uncivil, hostile, disruptive or abusive
behaviour. The eight characteristics or criteria rated in the present study included Occur
persistently or repeatedly, Involve perceived intention to harm the target and Be behavior
a reasonable person would consider abusive (see Table 3 for complete list of definitional
characteristics).
122

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

TABLE 3 Percentages of HR respondents agreeing with definitional criteria

To be considered or handled as workplace bullying, would the
behaviour necessarily have to . . . ?

Yes

Occur persistently or repeatedly

Involve a formal power difference (e.g. a supervisor targeting a
subordinate)
Involve an informal power difference (e.g. bully is better friends with
the supervisor, bully has power over resources the target may need)
Involve perceived intention to harm the target
Involve confirmed intention to harm the target (e.g. confirmed by other
employees)
Involve other co-workers or managers supporting or joining in with
the bully
Be behaviour a reasonable person would consider abusive
Result in economic, psychological or physical harm to the target

35.9 32.0 32.0

10.2 75.8 14.1
11.8

No

62.2

Depends on the
circumstances

26.0

43.8 25.0 31.3

51.2 37.0 11.8
15.0

71.7

13.4

78.1 9.4 12.5

55.1 26.8 18.1

RESULTS
Revision of WB-C
Only those behavioural items were retained in the WB-C for which at least 60 per cent of the
respondents indicated they represented were either subtle or blatant bullying. All three items
deemed by the researchers as non-bullying, managerial prerogatives were rejected by large
percentages of the respondents (100, 94 and 50 per cent, respectively). An additional nine items
were endorsed by fewer than 60 per cent of the respondents, perhaps reflecting the ambiguity
of the behaviours or circumstantial factors that might determine whether or not they constitute
bullying. Examples of these items were Took credit for your work, Attacked or failed to
defend your plans to others and Interrupted you while you were speaking. These items were
thus deleted from the revised WB-C. All four new items (added following endorsement in the
pilot study) were rated as bullying by over 60 per cent of the respondents and were included
in the revised WB-C. These results reveal many more similarities with the existing literature on
bullying behaviours than differences in the perception of behaviours deemed to be bullying by
HRPs.
Seven items representing threats, demeaning or insulting behaviour, and verbal or physical
aggression were rated as blatant bullying by over 60 per cent of the respondents. The
remainder of the behaviours were rated as subtle or divided between subtle and blatant.
Table 2 presents the items retained in the revised WB-C, indicating the percentages of
respondents rating them as blatant or subtle bullying.
Clarifying the definition of WB
In the second part of the survey, respondents were presented with eight criteria needing to be
present for behaviour to be deemed workplace bullying. Criteria that over 60 per cent of the
respondents rated as yes or depends on the circumstances were retained. For example,
68 per cent agreed that behaviour must Occur persistently or repeatedly, so the criterion was
retained. However, only 24 per cent required a behaviour to involve a formal power difference
(e.g. a supervisor targeting a subordinate), and 38 per cent required it to involve an informal
power difference, so both requirements were deleted from the definition.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

123

HRs role in workplace bullying

Table 3 presents the responses to these eight criteria.

The following definition was crafted, based on these results:
Actions and practices that a reasonable person would find abusive, occur
repeatedly or persistently, and result in adverse economic, psychological, or
physical outcomes to the target and/or a hostile work environment.

Note that although the criterion intention to harm was endorsed in the survey, sufficient HRPs
in workshops and classes have rejected it as unmeasureable and unenforceable in policy, that
it has been excluded from the new definition. However, implications of this view are important
and will be discussed subsequent sections.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This study attempted to locate and bridge gaps in the ways in which academics, targets and
HRPs conceptualise WB by adding the HR perspective to the WB-C. The research team began
with the WB-C (Fox and Stallworth, 2010), a measure used in three prior empirical studies of
bullying experienced by corporate employees/managers, public school teachers and university
professors. These items were originally accumulated through the typical checklist construction
method of review of the academic literature, interviews and workshops. They contain much
overlap with measures used by other research groups, notably the 22-item NAQ-R (Einarsen
et al., 2009) and the 60-item WAR-Q (Neuman and Keashly, 2004).
The difficulties HRPs report in effectively responding to employee complaints of WB have
been attributed to a number of factors, including fuzzy boundaries and conflicts among
multiple HR roles in the organisation, a paucity of specific organisational policies and
guidelines for dealing with bullying, and ambiguous definitions and criteria for behaviour to
be considered bullying. The impetus for the study reported here was the need to clarify the
definition of bullying incorporating the HR perspective with the target perspective, determine
what behaviours are seen as bullying by HRPs and what definitional criteria turn these
behaviours into a bullying situation from the HRP perspective and revise the WB-C
accordingly.
This study found the behaviours and practices seen as bullying by HRPs were very similar
to existing checklists (e.g. NAQ-R, WAR-Q abd WB-C) with a few exceptions (nine seemingly
ambiguous items removed from the original WB-C and four items initially recommended in
pilot studies added). The most notable differences were seen in the results regarding the
definitional criteria. HRPs did not report that formal or informal power differences had to be
present in order to label a situation bullying, a reasonable person person standard had to be
met (consistent with Cowan, 2012), and perceived or actual intention was important. These
results will be discussed in more detail.
Implications of the HRP perspective
The results regarding the definitional criteria or characteristics that turn behaviours into a
situation labelled as bullying are revealing of how bullying is understood by HRPs and should
inform theory and practice in this area. The results demonstrate that the HR perspective on
bullying situations is more limiting in some aspects and less limiting in others regarding what
constitutes bullying than previously articulated perspectives. For example, the HR perspective
seems to reflect a less strict view regarding persistence and power as criteria for a situation to
be labelled as bullying. These HRPs indicated that an informal or formal power difference
would not have to be present to be handled as a bullying situation. Of course, this does not
124

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

negate the fact that power is likely always a factor in bullying situations (Keashly and Nowell,
2003; Salin, 2008), but reveals HRs perspective that power is not a limiting criteria when
identifying and labelling cases of bullying. In regards to persistence and repetition of
behaviours, although this criteria was retained and we found 68 per cent reported yes or
depends on the circumstances to be considered and handled as bullying, this seems low
compared with the importance placed on this criteria in other definitions (Rayner et al., 2002;
Namie and Namie, 2003; Salin, 2003). This finding suggests that over a third of HRPs surveyed
did not believe that bullying behaviours had to occur persistently or repeatedly for the situation
to be labelled bullying and handled as such and likely speaks to HRs sensitivity to the severity
of the behaviour enacted. This result could also be explained by the varying views of US HRPs
on defining bullying due to lack of widespread formal policy or a wider interpretation of the
phenomenon. Because of the lack of widespread organisational policy on bullying in the US,
the proverbial stakes arent as high in labelling a situation bullying as it may be in other
countries. This could be another reason for the less strict view of these two definitional criteria.
In other notable areas, the HRP perspective regarding the definitional criteria seemed to be
more limiting and strict compared with previous perspectives particularly in regards to
confirmed intention and the reasonable person standard. These HRPs reported that both
perceived and confirmed intention was needed for the situation to be considered bullying and
handled as such. Although perceived intention to harm is present in most definitions of
bullying (Cowan, 2009), confirmed intention to harm (e.g. confirmed by other employees) is not
and can be seen as a stricter standard for labelling a situation bullying. This is particularly true
in situations of mobbing (a group of employees ganging up and bullying an individual)
(Davenport et al., 2002). As stated previously, confirmed intention to harm was not included in
the revised definition because sufficient HRPs in workshops and classes have rejected it as
unmeasureable and unenforceable in policy. However, it does point to HRPs valuing of outside
evidence of bullying over single target perceptions. It is no surprise then that these HRPs
overwhelmingly supported (78 per cent) the criteria that the behaviour be something a
reasonable person would consider abusive.
US HRPs are no stranger to the reasonable person standard as it is crucial to sexual
harassment policy and law. The reasonable person standard is frequently used in criminal and
tort law in the US to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill
and judgment in conduct, and is used as a comparative standard (Willborn et al., 2007). The
present research points to HRPs using this standard as an objective measure from which to
judge bullying situations. If a reasonable person considers the behaviour abusive, these HRPs
would label the situation bullying and proceed accordingly. This is certainly a stricter standard
than has been applied in other definitions of bullying (particularly target-based definitions) and
points to HRPs want/need to use more neutral evaluations of behaviours that move beyond
the target perception. The Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) describes the use
of the reasonable person standard in hostile work environment cases, The reasonable person
standard aims to avoid the potential for parties to claim they suffered harassment when most
people would not find such instances offensive if they themselves were the subject of such acts
(SHRM, 2012). However, SHRM also cautions that this standard cannot be applied in isolation
and context in which the harassment took place (referencing sexual harassment) should be
considered. Here is where we can see possibly negative consequences of using this standard to
label a bullying situation. As the work environment hypothesis (Salin and Hoel, 2011) suggests,
if it is common and accepted to demean, insult, spread false rumours, etc., in a particular work
environment, the reasonable person standard for bullying would likely never be met. HRPs
applying this standard in these types of work environments could explain why there seems to
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

125

HRs role in workplace bullying

be a disconnect between HRs perspective on bullying and the handling of it and targets
perspectives recorded in the literature (Cowan, 2012; Harrington et al., 2014). This could also
explain why targets continually report that HR does nothing in bullying situations or makes the
situation worse (Lewis and Rayner, 2003; WBI, 2012). On the flip side, having access to an
organisational policy that lists specific behaviours and definitional criteria such as the
reasonable person standard could give HR more power to directly and concretely address
bullying situations and begin to create a norm of more civil behaviour.
From a theoretical perspective, this research extends Ulrichs (1997) multiple roles model by
demonstrating how HRPs could engage in all four roles simultaneously in addressing bullying
situations and at the same time sidestep the fundamental paradox of conflicting loyalties. It is
clear the HRPs in this study see bullying behaviours very similarly to targets and academics
as the behaviours included in the revised WB-C did not change dramatically. Using the results
of this research, we see HR on the front lines as employee champions and administrative
experts crafting and refining anti-bullying policy as well as striving to be the neutral third party
when labelling and handling bullying situations. By doing this, HR is simultaneously acting as
an important change agent in the organisation by setting parameters on accepted behaviour
and encouraging positive changes in organisational culture (this becomes especially important
in work environments with a history or bullying and uncivil behaviour). HR is also acting as
a strategic partner by positioning and explaining anti-bullying policy to management,
highlighting the protective legal and organisational benefits of policy and the proactive benefits
of branding as a healthy workplace. Effective implementation of policies should also be
addressed. Woodrow and Guest (2014) found that while an organisation can have very good
policies in line with best practices, they may not be implementing these policies consistently or
through quality applications. It would be HRs obligation to ensure high-quality
implementation of such policies. In being the force behind anti-bullying policy creation,
adoption and implementation, HR would be fulfilling its roles as change agent, employee
champion, administrative expert and strategic partner at the same time, as well as championing
an organisational culture of respect and dignity. Of course adopting the stance described here
would be a significant challenge and counterpoint to the perceived importance and emphasis
currently placed on the strategic partner role above other roles (Ulrich, 1997; Lewis and Rayner,
2003; Graham and Tarbell, 2006). Adopting this stance would also require a stronger valuing
of the other roles by HR, management and leading HRM organisations like SHRM.
WB-C practitioner use
US HRPs have previously voiced fears of a deluge of spurious allegations of bullying if
anti-bullying policies are implemented in organisations and even more so if anti-bullying
legislation is enacted. This research effort provides HRPs with a clear, concrete definition and
a scale to measure bullying, both created with HR input. With this information, HRPs can begin
to develop anti-bullying policies in their organisations and begin to change uncivil and bullying
organisational cultures. Armed with anti-bullying policies, HRPs should be able to more
concretely address situations that, up until now, they felt powerless to resolve because of their
lack of resources and power (Cowan, 2009). On a related note, HRPs can also use this
information to develop organisational training regarding what constitutes bullying and
repercussions for engaging in this behaviour. Lutgen-Sandvik and Tracy (2012) and Fox and
Stallworth (2009) elaborate on the need for anti-bullying training. We see the revised WB-C
being used in HR departments as a diagnostic tool when allegations of bullying arise, and there
is a need to determine exactly what kind of bullying is being alleged (occasional or pervasive;
supervisor or peer), what behaviours were involved in the incident and if it meets the HR
126

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

accepted definition and parameters (i.e. the reasonable person standard, occur repeatedly or
persistently, and result in adverse economic, psychological or physical outcomes to the target
and/or create a hostile work environment). This tool would aid HRPs in determining if
disciplinary action is needed and if policies have been violated. We could also see the revised
WB-C being used to help HR identify occupational health hazards in their workplace and
improve the work climate. Unfortunately, WB is present or prevalent in many organisations.
This revision of the WB-C scale should prove to be a useful tool for both academics and
practitioners in identifying and addressing bullying.
It is important to address the common challenge of offering definitions and means of
assessment that appear valid and are acceptable to the practitioners whose charge is
recognising and responding to WB. A common complaint offered by HRPs in workshops and
seminars conducted by the first author is that the fuzzy boundaries of interpersonal behaviour
make it almost impossible for employees, management and HR to agree upon which
complaints can be called bullying, much less to design and implement policies and programs
for their organisations. The most consistent fear expressed by HRPs and employment lawyers
at these events is the prospect of having to deal with an avalanche of trivial or spurious
accusations should anti-bullying policy or legislation be implemented.
This highlights the need to develop a definition and a set of necessary characteristics of WB,
as well as assessment tools that correspond with the experiences and perceptions of HRPs. The
current study contributes to this effort by providing a precise definition and behavioural
examples based on HR input and adds this to target experiences already reflected in the WB-C.
We believe that this will contribute to efforts of employment practitioners (HR managers,
employment lawyers, organisational development consultants, trainers, etc.) to collaborate with
scholars and anti-bullying activists in developing solutions.
WB-C academic use, future research and limitations
There are several ways this scale could be useful to those investigating bullying. First, for
academics conducting WB research, the scale can be used as a concrete behavioural measure of
bullying that reflects the perspective of both academics and practitioners in the front line of
organisational response to bullying. In the final analysis, HRPs will be responsible for
determining what kind of bullying is being alleged (occasional or pervasive bullying), what
types of behaviours are present and who is doing the bullying (peers, supervisors, clients or
others). Second, the revised WB-C can be used as an independent variable to examine how
bullying influences important organisational outcomes (such as productivity, quality of
customer service, firm reputation and costs associated with turnover, absenteeism, health care
and potential litigation) and individual outcomes (such as health issues, stress, burnout,
satisfaction, turnover intention and commitment). The revised WB-C could also be used as a
dependent variable when examining antecedents to bullying. Third, in addition to total
bullying scores, the separate scores for peer, supervisory and client bullying provide critical
information related to assessment and policy making, in light of the current Supreme Court
discourse on the role of hierarchical relationships in workplace abuse. Finally, future research
should also determine if the changes in the revised WB-C proposed here resonate with targets
and academics adding further validity to the revised measure.
It goes without saying that the use of the WB-C is subject to all the limitations of linear
methodologies and behavioural checklists. In order to tap the richness and experiential
complexity of bullying, checklist surveys must be supplemented by multidimensional and/or
qualitative methodologies such as narrative accounts, ethnographies, policy capturing, event
capturing, etc. Future research should be conducted to validate this revised scale and further
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

127

HRs role in workplace bullying

solidify the changes proposed herein. In addition, the HR perspective reported here
predominately reflects a managerial perspective as close to 60 per cent of our respondents
reported being HR senior managers or managers. Future research should determine if this
perspective is also reflected in lower level HR personnel.
Conclusions
WB as a severe form of workplace abuse must be dealt with on a wider scale in the 21st century.
We are encouraged by the depth and breadth of academic research emerging on the topic in
the last 20 years and the dramatic increase in anti-bullying laws and policies (particularly across
Europe). However, there is much work to do, and bringing HR into the conversation is
imperative because of its role in bullying situations. It is the job of HR to act as a liaison
between employees, a moderator of disputes, and even an enforcer of policies and procedures
(Bohlander and Snell, 2007). We argue that because HRPs must work to identify, understand
and deal with targets and bullies, HR should have a voice in assessing WB. We see the present
research as a first step in bringing HR into the conversation by adding their perspective to the
WB-C (which already reflects the target and academic perspectives) as well as determining how
HRPs understand the bullying phenomenon. We argue that the revised WB-C can be used by
both academics and practitioners because it provides HRPs with a clear, concrete definition and
a scale to measure bullying, both created with HR input. With this information, we see HRPs
across the globe beginning to develop anti-bullying policies in their organisations and ideally
directly challenging uncivil and bullying organisational cultures.

REFERENCES
Bergen Bullying Research Group (2014). NAQ. http://www.uib.no/en/rg/bbrg/44045/naq, accessed
5 May 2014.
Bohlander, G. and Snell, S. (2007). Managing Human Resources, 14th edn, Mason, OH: Thomson.
Cowan, R.L. (2009). Walking the tightrope: workplace bullying and the human resource professional.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT).
Cowan, R.L. (2011). Yes, we have an anti-bullying policy, but . . . HRPs understandings and
experiences with workplace bullying policy. Communication Studies, 62: 3, 307327.
Cowan, R.L. (2012). Its complicated: defining workplace bullying from the human resource
professionals perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26: 3, 377403.
Davenport, N., Schwartz, R.D. and Elliott, G.P. (2002). Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American
Workplace, 2nd edn, Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. (1996). Prevalence and risk groups of bullying and harassment at
work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5: 2, 185202.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at
work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts
questionnaire-revised. Work and Stress, 23: 1, 2444.
Fox, S. (2010). Workplace bullying of university professors: a view from the perspectives of
stressor-emotion-control/support theory, gender, and power. Society of Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta, April.
Fox, S. and Freeman, A.M. (2011). Narcissism and the deviant citizen: a common thread in CWB and
OCB, in P. Perrewe and D. Ganster (eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing.
Fox, S. and Stallworth, L.E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational approaches
to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: alternative dispute resolution and training.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61: 3, 220241.
128

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Suzy Fox and Renee L. Cowan

Fox, S. and Stallworth, L.E. (2010). The battered apple: an application of stressor-emotioncontrol/support theory to teachers experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63: 7,
927954.
Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S.B., Hetland, J. and Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying as an
antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: a 6-month prospective study. Human Resource
Management Journal, 24: 3, 255268.
Graham, M.E. and Tarbell, L.M. (2006). The importance of employee perspective in the competency
development of human resource professionals. Human Resource Management, 45: 3, 337
355.
Harrington, S., Rayner, C. and Warren, S. (2012). Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource
practitioners implementation of anti-bullying policy. Human Resource Management Journal, 22: 4,
392408.
Harrington, S., Warren, S. and Rayner, C. (2014). Human Resource management practitioners
responses to workplace bullying: cycles of symbolic violence. Organization, doi:
10.1177/1350508413516175.
Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2000). Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work, Manchester: Manchester
School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Hoel+and+Cooper+2000&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&
as_sdtp=, accessed 14 February 2014.
Hoel, H., Faragher, B. and Cooper, C. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying
behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 32: 3,
367387.
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S. (2011). Organizational effects of workplace
bullying, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Harassment in the
Workplace, 2nd edn, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Keashly, L. and Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional abuse in the workplace, in S. Fox and P.E. Spector
(eds), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, Washington, DC: APA
Press.
Keashly, L. and Nowell, B.L. (2003). Conflict, conflict resolution, and bullying, in S. Einarsen, H.
Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International
Perspectives in Research and Practice, London: Taylor and Francis.
Kulik, C.T., Cregan, C., Metz, I. and Brown, M. (2009). HR managers as toxin handlers: the buffering
effect of formalizing toxin handling responsibilities. Human Resource Management, 48: 5, 695
716.
Lewis, D. and Rayner, C. (2003). Bullying and human resource management: a wolf in sheeps
clothing?, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse
in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Taylor & Francis.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. and Tracy, S.J. (2012). Answering five key questions about workplace bullying:
how communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work.
Management Communication Quarterly, 26: 1, 347.
Namie, G. and Namie, R. (2003). The Bully At Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your
Dignity On the Job, Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Neuman, J.H. and Keashly, L. (2004). Development of the Workplace Aggression Research
Questionnaire (WAR-Q): preliminary data from the workplace stress and aggression project, in
R.J. Bennett and C.D. Crossley (eds; Chairs), Theoretical Advancements in the Study of Anti-Social
Behavior at Work, Symposium Conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 7: 3, 199208.
Rayner, C. and Keashly, L.L. (2005). Bullying at work: a perspective from Britain and North
America, in S. Fox and P.E. Spector (eds), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors
and Targets, Washington, DC: APA Press.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

129

HRs role in workplace bullying

Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2002). Bullying at Work: What We Know, Who Is to Blame, and
What Can We Do?, London: Taylor & Francis.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating, and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56: 10,
12131232.
Salin, D. (2008). The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource
management: measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 24: 3, 221231.
Salin, D. and Hoel, H. (2011). Organizational causes of workplace bullying, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf and C. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, 2nd edn, Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2012). Harassment: what is meant by the term
reasonable person. http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/hrqa/Pages/reasonableperson.aspx,
accessed 30 January 2014.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Willborn, S., Schwab, S., Burton, J. and Lester, G. (2007). Employment Law: Cases and Materials,
Danvers, MA: Lexis-Nexis.
Woodrow, C. and Guest, D.E. (2014). When good HR gets bad results: exploring the challenge of HR
implementation in the case of workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Journal, 24: 1,
3856.
Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) (2012). HR: friend or foe of workplace bullying targets?
http://www.workplacebullying.org/2010/08/05/hr-and-workplace-bullying/,
accessed
19
October 2012.

130

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 25 NO 1, 2015

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.