Violence and Victims, Vol. 12, No.

3, 1997
© 1997 Springer Publishing Company

Harassment in the Workplace and

the Victimization of Men

Stale Einarsen
Bj0rn Inge Raknes
University of Bergen, Norway

Harassment and victimization among male workers were studied in a sample of 460
industrial workers, supervisors and managers within a Norwegian marine engineering
industry. The results indicated that aggression and harassment are significant problems
in this organizational setting. On a weekly basis, 7% of the men reported being sub-
jected to at least one of the following behaviors from coworkers or supervisors:
ridicule and insulting teasing, verbal abuse, rumors and gossips spread about them-
selves, offending remarks, recurring reminders on blunders, hostility or silence when
entering a conversation, or the devaluing of one's effort and work. As many as 22%
reported being subjected to one or more of these acts at least monthly. Although such
acts and conducts are common and experienced by most organization members now
and then, they may significantly impair psychological health and well-being as well as
overall job satisfaction when occurring consistently and systematically. Significant cor-
relations were found between exposure to harassment and both job satisfaction and psy-
chological health and well-being. Strong correlations were found between exposure to
harassment and dissatisfaction with co-worker interaction.

Aggression and violence are serious problems in human interaction and have thus been
extensively studied (see Felson & Tedeschi, 1993). However, within organizations and
working-life these problems have not until lately received much attention. Therefore, it
has been strongly advocated that violence and aggression in the workplace are areas in need
of more research (Leather, Cox & Farnsworth, 1990; Painter, 1991; Flannery, 1996). The
focus of these requests has mainly been on aggression and violence targeted toward employ-
ees by the public (e.g., customers, clients, prisoners and students). Aggression, violence
and threats among organization members have received little attention with some recent
exeptions (e.g., Baron & Neuman, 1996; Borkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, 1994; Einarsen,
Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994).
It has been argued that aggression, threats and serious interpersonal problems at work
may have more negative consequences on the individual than aggression and interactional

247
248 S. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

problems in other settings (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989). Aggression at
work is first of all embedded in a situation with potential formal and informal power and
status inequalities between the parties, and with formal superior-subordinate relationships.
This formal setting makes it possible to justify power abuses, threats and coercion as nec-
essary actions, in the sense of duties and privileges of firm management. Second, atten-
dance at work is for most people required on a daily basis. It is therefore an unavoidable
setting. Third, work-experiences affect the quality of people's private lives and their over-
all life satisfaction (Burke & Greenglass, 1987). Fourth, to be able to provide for oneself
and one's family is a necessary and basic adult obligation. Thus, work is highly important
in shaping people's self-respect, self-images and identities (Kile, 1990). Taken together
these arguments suggest that the workplace is a setting where people are particularly vul-
nerable when faced with aggression, interpersonal problems, coercion, threats and harass-
ment. Some recent studies have shown that exposure to workplace abuse and harassment
may seriously impair a worker's health and well-being (Niedl, 1995; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla,
1996). A study among employees at a Finnish University showed that workers harassed by
superiors or colleagues experienced higher levels of depression, anxiety and aggression
than others (Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, 1994).
A large body of studies on real-life aggression, threats and other offending and humili-
ating interaction among organization members has enamated during the last 15 years around
the topic of sexual or gender-based harassment. In these studies the focus has been on harass-
ment targeted toward women by male perpetrators. Estimates of the percentage of women
who have been subjected to sexual harassment vary between 35% and 90% (Gutek, 1985;
Terpstra & Baker, 1987). Many studies have shown the adverse effects of sexual harass-
ment on the victims' health and well-being as well as on their job-performances and job
opportunities (Crull, 1982; Einarsen, Raknes & Matthiesen, 1993; Farley, 1983; Gutek,
1985; Jensen & Gutek, 1982;).
Hadjifotiou (1983) defined sexual harassment as all those repeated actions and practices
that are directed to one or more workers, which are unwanted by the victim, which may be
deliberate or done unconsciously, but do cause humiliation, offense or distress and that
may interfere with job performance and/or cause an unpleasant working environment.
However, the negative behavior and interactions described by Hadjifotiou may not only be
of a sexual nature, nor may they solely be directed toward women. Originally, some regarded
sexual harassment as only one out of five forms for harassment in the workplace (Brodsky,
1976). The others were name calling, scapegoating, physical abuse and work pressure. Thus,
harassment in organizations can be seen as all those acts that repeatedly and persistently
are aimed at tormenting, wearing down or frustrating a coworker, supervisor or a subordi-
nate, and/or as all repeated behaviors that provoke, frighten, intimidate or cause discom-
fort to the recipient (Brodsky, 1976).
There are good reasons to believe that such negative and discomforting acts and inter-
actions also exist among males. A survey conducted in Sweden concluded that some 3.5%
of the Swedish working population were victims of serious harassment at work, men and
women in roughly equal proportions (Leymann, 1996). Yet, harassment, aggression and
negative interaction among men has not received much attention in research, despite the
fact that boys are more often victims of bullying in the schoolyard than girls. These differ-
ences in victimizations are even found to grow stronger with time (Olweus, 1990). In a
Norwegian study it was found that 7.4% of the boys in junior high school were victims of
bullying, compared to only 3.3% of the girls (Olweus, 1990). Interaction among boys are
generally tougher and more aggressive than relationships among girls (cf. Olweus, 1990).
Harassment and Victimization of Men 249

In research on management of interpersonal conflicts it has been found that men show
stronger preferences for competitive, unyielding and aggressive strategies than do women
(Miller, 1991). When men resolve conflicts, they are more likely to use verbal aggression,
physical aggression and revenge (Roloff & Greenberg, 1979).
A strong focus on male masculinity and a continuous testing of people's ability to tol-
erate teasing, ridicule, horseplay and rather aggressive hazing rituals, characterizes the cul-
ture of many male industrial organizations (Brodsky, 1976, Collinson, 1988). In a study
among male workers in a lorry-making factory in England, Collison (1988) discovered
through participative oberservation that horseplay, joking and humor was an important
medium through which boredom and feelings of inferiority were relieved. However, he also
discovered that most men found the continuous teasing and ridicule hard to handle and thus
a source of distress.
Humor and laughter may lighten the burden of high-demand work situations and thus
inhibit both stress and aggression. It may even make work more pleasurable and fun. On
the other hand, humor may also become aggressive and thus be experienced as teasing and
even tormenting and pestering (Sperling, 1953). As such it may be perceived as harassment
by the victims, particularly if the work group climate is characterized by "humor going
sour" (Brodsky, 1976) or if the individual resents the use of horseplay and joking at work.
A person who does not appreciate others using humor and instead interprets it as a personal
insult may lead others to become aggressive and hostile. A person's inability to cope with
the behaviors and rules of the shop-floor culture described above may lead to a disadvan-
taged position and becoming a target of systematic aggressive behavior.

Aims of the study

The present study is an exploratory and descriptive investigation of the prevalence and
severity of harassment among men. A typical male-dominated industrial organization will
be the setting of the study. The first aim is to investigate the occurrence and frequency of
harassment among men along with potential differences in victimization between young
and older men. In a study using a cross-sectional American adult sample, Felson (1992)
found that younger respondents were more likely to be both aggressors and targets of aggres-
sion. Further, younger women have an increased likelihood of being sexually harassed at
work.
Harassment and negative interactions will be defined on a lax criterion (Painter, 1990).
According to Leymann (1990), behaviors that can be considered as harassment, occur fairly
often in everyday life. A wide range of behaviors will therefore be considered, ranging
from physical violence and verbal abuse to repeated insulting remarks and ridicule. Both
work-related behavior such as the withholding of job-related information and behaviors
not related to work like social exclusion from co-workers and offensive remarks on ones
private life, will be included. In addition, behavior of a sexual nature will be considered.
Since sexual harassment is thought of as a minor problem among men (Gutek, 1985), it is
expected that such behavior will not be endorsed by many men.
The second aim is to examine underlying patterns and structures in such behaviors and
interactions. Leymann (1990) proposes, for instance, that the actions involved in bullying
and psychological terror at work can be divided into five different forms. This includes the
manipulation of the victim's reputation; his or her possibilities of performing the work tasks;
the victim's possibilities of communicating with coworkers; and his or her socialcircum-
stances. The fifth type of harassment involves violence or threats of violence.
250 S. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

Clear negative consequences associated with victimization at work, such as low job sat-
ifaction (Budd, Arvey, & Lawless, 1996; Dougherty, Bolger, Preston, Jones, & Payne, 1992)
and lowered psychological well-being (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996), have been found in
prior research. Harassment at work has also been claimed to be a more crippling and dev-
astating problem for employees than all other work-related stress put togther (Wilson, 1991).
In a theoretical overview regarding victimization by tyrant leaders, Ashforth (1994) sug-
gests the following effects on subordinates: (1) frustration, stress and reactance, (2) help-
lessness and work alienation, (3) lowered self- esteem and productivity, and (4) lowered
work unit cohesiveness. The third aim is therefore to investigate potential harms and neg-
ative effects of experienced harassment on the victims'job satisfaction and psychological
health and well-being. The leading hypothesis is that being subject to frequent harassment
and negative behaviors at work has profound negative effects on both psychological well-
being and job satisfaction. Significant negative correlations are therefore expected
between exposure to harassment and the former.

METHOD

Subjects
Data were collected from 464 male employees in a Norwegian marine engineering indus-
try. The sample consisted of 90% of the organization's total workforce, representing all
organizational levels. Ninety-five percent of the employees in this organization were men.
The age range was from 17 to 66, with a mean age of 43 (SD =12.7 years). While 76%
were skilled or specialized workers, 20% had only completed junior high school, and 3.3%
had graduated from college or university. Mean job tenure was 15.7 years (SD = 10.15
years), ranging from 1 year to 47 years. Seventy-one respondents (15.5%) were in a super-
visory or management position.

Questionnaire
The participants completed a survey including scales measuring a wide range of variables
concerning organizational climate and work environment. Mesurements of harassment,
job satisfaction and psychological health are included in the present study. Harassment was
measured by a 22-item scale called the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ). This scale
measures how often the respondents during the last six months have been subjected to a
range of negative acts and potentially harassing behaviors. The NAQ was developed by the
authors on the basis of two distinct sources of information, literature studies and informa-
tion given by victims of long lasting harassment. First, behaviors described in popular books,
interview studies and clinical accounts of work harassment (Brodsky, 1976; Kile, 1990;
Leymann, 1986) were included. Second, we conducted an interview study with victims of
work harassment. Ten victims, recruited from a group of victims' applications for coun-
seling after newspaper articles and popular articles on harassment, were interviewed for
this purpose (Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, & Helles0y, 1994). A pilot study showed sig-
nificant differences between self-reported victims of harassment and nonvictims on most
items of the NAQ (Ibid.). The scale was revised on the basis of this pilot study.
All items in the NAQ are written in behavioral terms with no reference to the term harass-
ment. This has the advantage of letting the participants respond to each item without hav-
ing to label and identify it as harassment before answering (Brooks & Perot, 1991). The
Harassment and Victimization of Men 251

respondents therefore do not have to base their responses on a judgment of whether they
have been harassed or not. For each item of the NAQ, respondents were asked to indicate
how often they had encountered the behavior during the last six months: never, now and
then, about monthly, about weekly or about daily. The items relate to both incidents of direct
and indirect harassment. Direct harassment refers to open attacks on the victim, while indi-
rect harassment refers to behavior such as social isolation and peer group exclusion (Olweus,
1990). Both kinds of behavior are included, as are some items related to incidents of sex-
ual harassment.
Two indicators of job satisfaction were included, a single item addressing overall job
satisfaction and a 36-item indicator. This indicator was an extended version of a scale orig-
inally developed by Marek, Tangenes, and Helles0y (1984) and O'Brien, Dowling, and
Kobanoff (1977). All items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from "Very satisfied"
to "Very dissatisfied."
Overall job satisfaction was measured by one item concerning the degree to which the
men were satisfied with their job. Multiple item measures may increase the reliability and
validity of work satisfaction measurements. However, it has been found that a one-item
measure also yields acceptable criterion validity (Larsen, Diener, & Edmond, 1985). A prin-
cipal component analysis with varimax rotation was computed on the indicator, yielding
six interpretable factors with eigenvalues above 1. The first factor were labeled "Satisfaction
with superiors and leadership" (11 items), the second "Challenge and variation" (8 items).
The label "Satisfaction with coworker interaction" covered the essence of factor 3 (6 items),
including items like "How satisfied are you with the people you talk and work with?" and
"How satisfied are you with your contact and cooperation with your colleagues?." Factor
4 was labeled "work pressure" (4 items) and factor 5 "Physical work environment" (4 items).
Three items loaded on the last factor, all addressing satisfaction with "salary and promo-
tion."
Psychological health and well-being was measured by a six-item indicator focusing on
frequencies of experienced sleeping problems, anxiety, depression, tension, restlessness and
headaches during the last 12 months (Hide, Thyholdt, & Hamre, 1982). Participants rated
each of these items on the following scale: "Almost never," "Seldom," "Monthly," "Weekly"
and "Daily." In the present study it was found that this scale had a satisfactory internal sta-
bility (Cronbach's alpha =.81), with all corrected item-total correlations above .50. All scales
are based on sum scores.

Procedure
The study was part of a broader research and organizational development program focus-
ing on work environment, leadership, and climate within a Norwegian marine engineering
industry. The survey was distributed and completed during work hours. Each of the orga-
nization's 28 workgroups and departments scheduled a 1 ^-hour session for the participa-
tion in the study. Since the study was a part of an organization-wide work environment pro-
gram, in part required and regulated by the Norwegian work environment laws and regu-
lations, all employees were requested to participate in the study.
All groups met independently or with another group in the canteen. The session opened
with some general information about the study, given by one of the researchers. Anonymity
and confidentiality of the survey responses were assured and questions pertaining to these
procedures were answered. Then an organizational representative gave further information
on the feedback and follow-up procedures. Each participant had 1 hour and 15 minutes to
252 5. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

complete the survey. The canteen setting provided the participant the space to work
through the survey privately and in one session. After completing the survey, each partic-
ipant handed his questionnaire in a sealed and anonymous envelope directly to the researchers.

RESULTS

Most respondents (88.5%) answered that they had experienced at least one of the behav-
iors measured by the NAQ during the previous six months. Table 1 presents the frequen-
cies of each item in the NAQ. Items relating specifically to sexual harassment are pre-
sented separately in Table 2. The most frequently endorsed items were "Someone with-
holding information so that your work gets complicated" (item 1) and "Neglect of your
opinion or views" (item 16). Physical violence, hint or signals that one should quit the job
and devaluation of "rights" and opinions with reference to age were the least endorsed items,
apart from the sexual harassments items. Endorsement levels for the remaining items were
relatively high (between 18% and 48%), although few men had experienced each conduct
as often as weekly or daily.
As is shown in Table 2, the sexual harassment items had a low endorsement frequency.
Since most studies show that sexual harassment does not affect men in any noticeable degree
(Einarsen et al., 1993; Gutek, 1985), the questions on sexual harassment were used as a
check of the reliability on the other responses. The results showed clearly that the sexual
harassment items included in the NAQ are infrequently selected. This lends some support
for the reliability of the responses to the other items.
After completing the NAQ, the respondents were also asked whether they had experi-
enced other negative acts during the last six months. Only 10% affirmed this, suggesting
that most of the relevant behaviors within this setting are included in the NAQ.
A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was then computed for the 18
items not related to sexual harassment. Gutek (1985) has shown that the validity of male
responses verifying sexual harassment items is very low. Five factors had eigenvalues > 1,
explaining a total of 57% of the variance in the scale. One factor alone explained 31.7% of
the variance. Table 3 show item loadings on each of these five factors. Only loadings above
.40 are given in the table.
Factor 1 consisted of items relating to behaviors like insulting teasing, verbal abuse,
gossip or rumors, devaluing and personal criticism, neglect of opinions, and silence and
hostility when one enters a conversation. Except for item 15, none of these items is directly
work related. The label "personal derogation" seems to best capture the essence of these
items. Factor 2, on the other hand, consisted of items more directly related to work and work
responsibilities. We labeled this factor "work-related harassment." Factor 3 seemed to con-
stitute a "social exclusion" factor. Factor 4 consisted of only two items and was harder to
interpret. The item "Reactions from others because you work too hard" may suggest that
this refers to some kind of "social control" of work effort. Factor 5 consisted of one item
on physical abuse. Although too unstable to be considered a factor on their own, factor 4
and 5 do indicate the excistence of two such factors.
Cronbach's alpha were computed for the three first factors. Internal consistency was high
in factor 1 (alpha = .85), moderate in factor 2 (alpha = .57) and low in factor 3 (alpha =
.33), indicating that even the latter factor may be somewhat unstable. A principal compo-
Harassment and Victimization of Men 253

TABLE 1. Percentage of Men Endorsing Each Item on the NAQ

During the last six months, how often Never Now Monthly Weekly/
have you been subjected to the and then Daily
following negative acts inthe workplace?
1 . Someone withholding necessary information 39,3% 43,9% 6,8% 1,0%
so that your work gets complicated

3. Ridicule or insulting teasing 58,1% 35,1% 2,4% 4,3%

4. Ordered to do work below your 53,6% 38,1% 4,6% 3,7%

level of competence

5. Being deprived of responsibility or work tasks 69,1% 27,3% 2,4% 1,1%

6. Gossip or rumors about you 62,1% 31,7% 3,9% 2,2%

7. Social exclusion from co-workers or 87,6% 10,5% 0,9% 1,1%

work group activities

8. Repeated offensive remarks about 82,5% 15,3% 1,1% 1,1%

you or your private life

9. Verbal abuse 74,7% 24,0% 0,9% 0,4%

1 1 . Hint or signals from others 95,2% 4,3% 0,4% —

that you should quit your job

1 2. Physical abuse or threats 97,6% 2,2% 0,2% —

of physical abuse

13. Repeated reminders about your blunders 73,6% 24,9% 0,4% 1,1%

14. Silence or hostility as a response to 72,3% 24,5% 1,3% 2,0%

your questions or attempts at conversations

15. Devaluing of your work and efforts 67,6% 27,6% 3,5% 1,3%

16. Neglect of your opinions or views 46,4% 46,6% 3,9% 3,1%

18. "Funny" surprises 51,7% 41,9% 1,3% 5,0%

20. Devaluing of your "rights" and

opinions with reference to your age 90,9% 8,0% 0,7% 0,2%

21. Exploitation at work, such as private errands 85,4% 12,4% 1,3% 0,8%

22. Reactions from others because 66,1% 28,4% 2,4% 3,1%

you work too hard
Sexual harassment items are excluded from this table and presented in Table 2.
254 S. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

TABLE 2. Percentage of the Men Endorsing Items on

the Sexual Harassment Part of the NAQ
During the last six months, how often Never Now Monthly Weekly/
have you been subjected to the following and then Daily
negative acts in the workplace
2. Unwanted sexual advances 99,6% 0,2% — 0,2%

10. Unwanted sexual attention 97,2% 2,5% 0,2% 0,2%

17. Offending telephone calls 95,7% 3,9% 0,2% 0,2%

or written messages

19. Devaluing of your "rights" and 98,0% 1,8% — 0,2%

opinions with reference to your gender

nent analysis with a two-factor and a three-factor solution was also computed. However,
these solutions were less interpretable than the original 5-factor solution. For further analy-
sis, scales of each of the five harassment factors were construed by the use of raw scores.
Altogether 72.8% (n=335) of the men had experienced at least one behavior of personal
derogation (factor 1) now and then during the last six months. On a weekly or daily basis,
6.7% (n=31) of the men had been subjected to one or more of the behaviors in this factor
(factor 1), while as many as 21.6% (n=71) had encountered one or more of these behaviors
at least monthly. While 75.5% (n=347) reported experiencing one or more of the work-
related harassment behaviors (factor 2), 13.1% (n=61) had experienced one or more of these
at least on a weekly basis. During the last six months, 23.6% (n=l 10) had experienced one
or more of the work related harassment behaviors monthly or more often. In contrast, 30%
reported being subjected to the behaviors in the social exclusion factor, now and then or
more often.
Pearsons product-moment correlations were computed between age and each harass-
ment factor. Significant correlations was found between age and three factors (Table 4).
The strongest correlation was found between age and work-related harassment (r = -.22,
jp<.001). The direction of the correlations suggests that younger men experience more vic-
timization than older men.
Pearsons product-moment correlations were also computed between the harassment fac-
tors and measures of job satisfaction and psychological health and well-being (see Table
4). The analyses showed that the three first harassment factors were significantly correlated
with all six factors of the job satisfaction indicator. Especially strong associations were
found between personal derogation and satisfaction with coworker interaction (r= -.50,
/X.OOl). Work-related harassment correlated most strongly with satisfaction with superi-
ors and leadership (r= -.44, /?<.001) and satisfaction with work pressure (r = -.44, /?<.001).
Social exclusion was also most strongly associated with satisfaction with coworkers inter-
action (r= -.34, /?<.001). The directions of the correlations suggested that a high level of
reported victimization is associated with low job satisfaction. Men who experience harass-
ment at work are less satisfied with their jobs, their coworkers and their superiors than men
who report few such encounters.
The three first factors also correlated significantly with both overall job satisfaction and
self-reported psychological health and well-being (Table 4). Directions of the correlations
Harassment and Victimization of Men 255

TABLE 3. Varimax Rotated Principal Components of the Nonsexual NAQ Items

ITEM Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
6. Gossip or rumors about you .73
3. Ridicule or insulting teasing .72
8. Repeated offensive remarks .71
towards you or your private life.
9. Verbal abuse .71
1 3 . Repeated reminders . 66
about your blunders
15. Devaluing of your work and efforts .62
1 6. Neglect of your opinions or views .59
14. Silence or hostillity as a response to .53
your questions or attemps at conversations
22. Devaluing of your "rights" and .42
opinions with reference to your age

4. Ordered to do work below .77

your level of competence
5. Being deprived of .68
responsibility or work tasks
1. Someone withholding necessary .67
information so that your work gets
complicated

1 1 . Hint or signals from others .77

that you should quit your job
17. Exploitation at work, .59
such as private errands
7. Social exclusion from co-workers .41 .52
or work-group activities

18. "Funny" surprises .81

22. Reactions from others .57
because you work too hard
12. Physical abuse or threats -.74
of physical abuse
Loadings belowe .40 are excluded.
256 5. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

TABLE 4. Correlations Between the NAQ Factors, Age and Measurements

of Job Satisfaction and Psychological Health and Well-Being
Personal Work related Social Social Physical
derogation harassment exclusion Control abuse
Satisfaction with superiors -.34 -.44 -.18 .03ns. -.01 ns.
and leadership
Satisfaction with -.30 -.38 -.25 -.01 ns. -.07 ns.
challenge and variation
Satisfaction with -.50 -.34 -.34 -.05 ns. -.06 ns.
co-worker interaction
Satisfaction with work pressure -.38 -.44 -.23 -.10** -.03 ns.
Satisfaction with physical -.27 -.33 -.17 -.01 ns. -.03 ns.
work environment
Satisfaction with -.15* -.30 -.10** -.03ns. -.04 ns.
salary and promotion
Overall job satisfaction -.30 -.36 -.22 -.06 ns. -.01 ns.
Psychological health -.44 -.31 -.32 .06 ns. -.03 ns.
and well-being
Age -.14* -.22 -.04*** -.16 -.04 ns.
All correlations are significant (p< .001) , except *p<.01,**/7<.05, ***p>.05
and ns. (non-significant).

showed that a high level of harassment was associated with low overall job satisfaction and
reduced psychological health and well-being. The relationships were particularly strong
between personal derogation and self-reported psychological health and well-being (r=-
.44, p<.001), and between work related harassment and overall job satisfaction (r=-.36,
/?<.001). A multiple regression analysis with forced entry showed that the three first harass-
ment factors explained 21% of the variance in psychological health and well-being (R2=.2l,
F= 39.87 (3,447), /x.OOl). However, only personal derogation had a significant partial
correlation with psychological health (beta= -.35, p<.001). The three factors also explained
16% of the variance in overall job satisfaction (R2=. 16, F=26.67 (3,434),/K.001). Significant
partial correlations with overall job satisfaction were obtained for both work-related harass-
ment (beta = -.28, /x.OOl) and personal derogation (beta= -.14, /?<.01). The relationships
between harassment and these measures cannot be an artifact of age, since no correlations
were found between age and psychological health and between age and job satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

Interpersonal violence, aggression, and negative interactions are rarely studied within an
organizational context (Appelberg, Romanov, Honlasalo, & Koskenvuo, 1991). This may
be a result of the rational and often unemotional perspective prevailing in organizational
Harassment and Victimization of Men 257

research, a perspective that has, however, been seriously criticized lately (Fineman, 1993).
The results of the present study challenge the standard picture that emanates from organi-
zational studies. Although a vast literature exists on sexual harassment in organizations;
other kinds of harassment and aggression in organizations have rarely been addressed.
Most studies find that sexual harassment does not affect men in any noticeable degree
(Einarsen et al.; 1993, Gutek, 1985). This fact does not imply that men are not harassed and
mistreated at work. The results of the present study indicate that men also can be subjected
to a wide range of negative acts and interactions in the workplace. Many male workers and
supervisors alike experienced being humiliated, offended and mistreated by coworkers and
supervisors during the last six months. Some were teased, ridiculed, exposed to rumors or
gossip, or socially excluded from their work group. Some were repeatedly criticized, and
their work and efforts were devaluated. Others were repeatedly restrained from informa-
tion they needed to get their job done, ordered to work below their level of competence, or
repeatedly deprived of work tasks and work responsibilities. A few were even subjected to
physical abuse or threats of such abuse, be it from coworkers or supervisors.
About 7% of the men in this study were, on a weekly basis, subjected to behaviors that
may be labeled as personal derogation: ridicule and insulting teasing verbal abuse, rumors
and gossips spread about oneself, offending remarks, recurring reminders on blunders,
hostility or silence when entering a conversation, or the devaluing of one's effort and work.
As many as 22% were subjected to one or more o these acts at least on a monthly basis. A
similar number of respondents were subjected to work-related harassment at a similar fre-
quency.
The present study therefore supports Collinson's (1988) conclusion that working-class
shop-floor culture should not be romanticized. In a study among 250 male skilled workers
in a lorry-making factory in England, Collinson found that although horseplay, joking and
humor were an important medium through which boredom and feelings of inferiority could
be revealed, the strong focus on male masculinity and continuous testing of one's ability
to tolerate teasing and ridicule, was hard to handle even for men who subscribed to the cul-
ture.
In the present study, the principal component analysis revealed five separate dimensions
among the nonsexual harassment behavior measured through the NAQ. Two factors included
only one and two items, respectively, and hence only indicate the existence of these fac-
tors. However, the results accord well with the theoretical concepts developed by Leymann
(1990). As mentioned earlier, Leymann divided the behavior involved in such interactions
into five groups: (1) Manipulation of the victims reputation through rumors, ridicule and
so forth, (2) distortion of the communication toward the victim by not allowing him to speak
or express himself or by continually loud-voiced criticism, (3) social exclusion and isola-
tion of the victim, (4) manipulating the nature of or the possibility of performing one's work,
through meaningless tasks or no work given, (5) violence and/or threats of violence. The
results reported in the present study differ from those in Leymann's model in that the two
first categories of behaviors are clustered in one. Factor 1 in the analysis constructed a per-
sonal derogation factor that resembles the behavior in Leymann's two first categories. The
behaviors loading on this factor included gossip or rumors, insulting teasing, offensive
remarks about oneself or one's private life and silence and hostility when entering a con-
versation. Like Leymann, we also found a pure work-related factor as well as a social exclu-
sion factor were the behavior involved included exclusion from one's peer group and hints
and signals that one should quit one's job. Consistent with Leymann, we also found that
violence and threats of violence constitutes a harassment factor in itself.
255 S. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

Factor 4 was more difficult to interpret. Only two items, "Funny surprises" and "Reactions
from others because you work to hard" loaded on this factor, making it a rather unstable
factor. A crucial aspect of the shop-floor culture is to control those perceived to be work-
ing too hard or those perceived not to be "pulling their weight" (Collinson, 1988; Lysgaard,
1961). In future studies the NAQ must be expanded with items in this area and it must be
investigated whether factor 4 in fact constitutes such a social control factor.
More research on a wider range of organizational settings is also needed before final
conclusions can be drawn on the different types of work harassment. Different organiza-
tional settings and organizational cultures may use different behaviors and acts to punish
or harass one or more of its members. In research on interpersonal conflicts, organizational
setting is held to be one of the most central variables (Knapp et al., 1988).
The results also showed that, whereas the behavior and interactions measured by the
NAQ was common and experienced by most organization members now and then, they did
have significant negative relationships with psychological health and well-being, particu-
larly when they occurred consistently and systematically. The fact that the behavior involved
occurs fairly often in everyday life is consistent with the work of Leymann (1990) on bul-
lying and psychological terror in the workplace. Leymann, who defines psychological ter-
ror as "unethical communication directed in a systematic way by one or several persons
mainly towards one individual." (p. 120), also reported this to cause serious psychiatric and
psychosomatic problems when occurring on a regular basis.
In the present study the three first harassment factors explained 21% of the variance in
psychological health and well-being variables. Especially strong correlations existed between
psychological health and the experience of being personally derogated. In a comprehen-
sive Finnish cohort study, Appelberg et al. (1991) also found a strong relationship between
the experience of interpersonal problems at work and life dissatisfaction, as well as expe-
rienced stress in daily living. Our findings are also very much in line with those of Niedl
(1995) and Zapf, Knorz, and Kulla (1996). In the latter studies, mental health variables
showed highly significant differences between harassed and nonharassed respondents. Zapf
and associates (1996) also found that victimization in the form of personal attacks had
especially strong correlations with mental health variables. Since harassment in the present
study was measured within a time frame of six months and psychological well-being
within a time frame of 12 months, the relationships found between harassment and psy-
chological health may even be underestimated.
Exposure to nonviolent harassment and bullying was also correlated with low job sat-
isfaction. Men experiencing harassment at work reported lowered overall job satisfaction
as well as a lowered satisfaction with a wide range of specific aspects of their job. Even
more indirect forms of aggression, such as social exclusion, rumors and silence when try-
ing to enter a conversation, were negatively correlated with job satisfaction. In a study
among health care workers, exposure to aggressive behavior was also found to be nega-
tively correlated with job satisfaction (Dougherty et al., 1992). Although physical aggres-
sion was reported more frequently in that particular study, exposure to verbal aggression
correlated more strongly with job dissatisfaction than did the former. In fact, Bjorkqvist,
Osterman, and Lagerspetz (1994) advocated that work harassment may be as harmful as
physical violence in the traditional sense.
The fact that work-related harassment was most strongly connected with dissatisfaction
with supervisors and leaders, while personal derogation and social exclusion correlated
most strongly with dissatisfaction with coworker interaction, may indicate that superiors
and colleagues use different means of harassment. The behaviors loading on the work-
Harassment and Victimization of Men 259

related factor such as the giving and withholding of information, work tasks and responsi-
bilities, are behaviors that superiors may use from time to time for perfectly legitimate rea-
sons. Yet such behaviors by superiors may be experienced as harassment if they are used
often and appear to be meant in a hostile manner. Power abuse and harassment by a leader
may even be justified as necessary behaviors of firm management (Kile, 1990). Further,
workers may have to use other aggressive strategies when asserting their social control (see
also Collinson, 1988).
The strong correlation between personal derogation and social exclusion on one hand
and dissatisfaction with co-worker interaction on the other, may also be a reflection of the
close relationship between shop-floor culture (see Collinson, 1988) and these types of harass-
ment in this organizational setting. Whether this holds true in other settings is questionable.
In a study conducted among university employees in Finland it was found that most of the
harassment was conducted by superiors (Bjorkqvist, Ostermann, & Hjelt-Back, 1994). In
her book on bullying at work, Adams (1992) also tends to describe the bully as a supervi-
sor or manager. Yet many victims portrayed in that study were from office environments.
As already mentioned, organizational setting must be a key variable in this kind of
research.
Information given by respondents indicating who was in fact engaging in the behavior
must be collected before conclusions can be made on this issue. In future studies the NAQ
may be improved by having the respondents indicate who committed the experienced behav-
ior.
Work-related harassment (factor 2) was the most important factor in predicting variance
in overall job satisfaction. This may reflect the importance of these actions to the possibil-
ity of doing meaningful and stimulating work tasks. On the other hand, this result may also
be an expression of the close relationship between the work unrelated harassment and the
shop-floor culture. As an organizational constant setting variable, unrelated to the actual
work tasks, such negative acts may be perceived as less relevant when judging the quality
of one's job. Situationally unspecific variables, such as cultural and structural variables,
are often underestimated as causes of behavior and experiences in organizations by both
employers and employees (Gutek, 1985).
Research on sexual harassment shows that younger women have a higher risk than older
women of becoming victims of sexual harassment (Gutek, 1985). The results on harass-
ment among men in this study showed a similar pattern. Older men reported significantly
less harassment than did younger men. Younger workers, irrespective of gender, may both
formally and informally hold positions with low power and authority, making them easy
targets of aggression and power abuse. The results do, however, also coincide with empir-
ical findings on aggression in general. In a study using a cross-sectional American adult
sample, Felson (1992) found that younger respondents were more likely to be both aggres-
sors and targets of aggression. Two characteristics of the shop-floor culture may also account
for the fact that young workers experience more victimization than older ones: the wide-
spread horseplay and joking behaviors among younger men as well as the use of hazing rit-
uals to test newcomers (Brodsky, 1976; Collinson, 1988). The former probably functions
as an expression and a test of male identity.
Some methodological issues must be mentioned. The cross-sectional design of our
study limits causal conclusions on the relationships between harassment, job satisfaction
and psychological health. Harassment may both be a cause and a consequence of a low-
ered job satisfaction and reduced psychological well-being. Men with psychological prob-
lems may be vulnerable and thus easy targets of aggression. Distressed persons may also
260 S. Einarsen and B.I. Raknes

violate social norms, annoy others, perform less competently, and hence elicit aggressive
behaviors in others (Felson, 1992). Investigations with longitudinal designs or cross-sec-
tional designs with length of exposure to harassment as an included variable must be con-
ducted before causal conclusions can be drawn on the relationships between harassment,
health and job satisfaction.
The term harassment is not applied to the items in the NAQ. This has the advantage of
measuring exposure to actual behaviors without forcing the respondents to label the con-
duct as harassment or not. Having the respondents first label themselves as victims of harass-
ment may in fact lead to a serious underestimation of the problem. In a study among female
university employees it was found that although 88% of the women had encountered behav-
iors legally defined as sexual harassment, only 5.6% confirmed that they were being sex-
ually harassed (Brooks & Perot, 1991). The other side of the coin is that this way of look-
ing at harassment does not differentiate between negative behaviors which are tolerated
and behavior that is not tolerated. Neither does it differentiate between situations that can
be handled and situations were the victims have difficulties defending themselves
(Olweus, 1990). Perceptions of harassment and victimization may relate more directly to
negative outcomes and consequences than do the actual behaviors involved (Terpstra &
Baker, 1987). In future research both measurements of harassment behaviors and the sub-
jective perception of victimization should therefore be included.
Scales including both behavioral indicators and subjective indicators of vulnerability
and feelings of victimization will also cast some light on how harassment and victimiza-
tion is perceived and labeled by the individual. Within the field of sexual harassment much
research is currently conducted with this aim (see Baker, Terpstra, & Cutler, 1990; Gill,
1993; Tata, 1993). Building on the work of Kelly (1955) that stresses the need to discover
how people represent their circumstances to themselves as the basis for understanding behav-
ior, Wood (1993) argues that the most fundamental issue in research on sexual harassment
is an increasing understanding of how various behaviors are construed by different indi-
viduals.
Except from research on the often emotion-free and harmonious concept of conflict-
management style (see also Knapp, Putman, & Davis, 1988; Volkema & Bergmann, 1989),
most studies on serious interpersonal problems among organization members have been
laboratory experiments or studies with hypothetical scenarios, often conducted with stu-
dent subjects (see Baron, 1990; Fine, 1985). Whether such results can be generalized to
real-life situations inside organizations is questionable (Knapp et al., 1988). On the other
hand, whether other workplaces have higher or lower standards of social behavior than this
industrial male-dominated organization, is not known. The present study nevertheless sug-
gests that harassment among men may have a high frequency and may have devastating
effects on the victims. As such, sexual harassment of women may only be one type of work
harassment. More studies documenting the prevalence and severity of such harassment and
bullying among men and women alike are therefore needed as a necessary and logical next
step in future investigations. A range of different organizational settings should be included,
particularly organizations with an equal distribution of men and women. Although hard to
find, pure female organizations should also be investigated. Nonsexual harassment may as
well be a widespread part of female interaction as it seems to be a significant part of both
male interaction and male-female interaction. In research among children it is found that
girls do bully other girls, although they may use more indirect behaviors than boys (Olweus,
1990).
Harassment and Victimization of Men 261

Research on harassment and bullying at work must also go beyond problem documen-
tation (Terpstra & Baker, 1987). Both empirical and theoretical frameworks need to be
developed. Both causes as well as potential psychological, demographic and organiza-
tional correlates of harassment and bullying in organizations should be studied. The results
presented here point to the need for more focus in intra-staff aggression and destructive
interaction within organizations. So far, research on social networks has been limited to the
positive aspects of social interaction (Appelberg et al., 1991; Rook, 1984). The results of
the present study suggest a need for more nuanced and multifarious approaches to the study
of social interaction within organizations.

REFERENCES

Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work. How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago
Press.
Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Honlasalo, M., & Koskenvuo, M. (1991). Interpersonal con-
flicts at work and psychosocial characteristics of employees. Social Science Medicine,
32; 1051-1056.
Baker, D.D., Terpstra, D.E., & Cutler, B.D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: Are-
examination of gender differences. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 409-416.
Baron, R.A. (1990). Attributions and organizational conflicts. In S. Graham & V.S. Folkes
(Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interper-
sonal conflict (pp. 185-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baron, R.A., & Neuman, J.H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evi-
dence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Harassment among university
employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20; 173-184.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.MJ. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggres-
sion among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27-33.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R.C., & Schilling, E.A. (1989). Effects of daily stress
on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.
Brodsky, C.M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto: Lexington Books, DC Heath and
Company.
Brooks, L., & Perot, A.R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment. Exploring a predictive
model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31-47.
Burke, R.J., & Greenglass, E.R. (1987). Work and family. In C.L.Cooper & J. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1987 (pp.
273-319). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Collinson, D.L. (1988). "Engineering humor:" Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-
floor relations. Organization Studies, 9, 181-199.
Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual harassment on the job: Implications for counsel-
ing. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 539-544.
Dougherty, L.M., Bolger, J.P., Preston, D.G., Jones, S.S., & Payne, H.C. (1992). Effects of
exposure to aggressive behavior on job satisfaction of health care staff. Journal of
Applied Gerontology, 11, 160-172.
Eide, R., Thyholdt, R., & Hamre, E. (1982). Relationship of psychosocial factors to bod-
ily and psychological complaints in a population in Western Norway. Psychotherapy
and Psychosomatics, 37, 218-234
262 S. Einarsen and B.L Raknes

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.L, & Matthiesen, S.B. (1993). Seksuell trakassering (Sexual
Harassment). Bergen, Norway: Sigma Forlag.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.L, & Matthiesen, S.B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work
and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European
Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4, 381-401.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.L, Matthiesen, S.B., & Helles0y (1994). Mobbing og harde per-
sonkonflikter (Harassment and serious interpersonal conflicts at work). Bergen, Norway:
Sigma Forlag.
Farley, L. (1983).77ie woman in management: Career and family issues. Ithaca, NY: ILR
Press.
Felson, R.B. (1992). "Kick'em when they're down": Explanations of the relationships
between stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. The Sociological Quarterly,
33, 1-16.
Felson, R.B & Tedeschi, J.T. (1993). Aggression and violence. Social interactionst per-
spectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fine, M. (1985). The social construct of "what's fair" at work. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 15 (2), 166-177.
Fineman, S. (1993). Emotions in organizations. London; Sage Publications.
Flannery, R.B. Jr. (1996). Violence in the workplace 1970-1995: A re view of the literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 57-68.
Gill, M.M. (1993). Academic sexual harassment: perceptions of behaviors. In Kreps, G.L.
(Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 149-169). Cresskill, N J:
Hampton Press Inc.
Gutek, B.A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hadjifotiou, H. (1983). Women and harassment at work. London: Pluto Press.
Jensen, L, & Gutek, B.A. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual
harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 121-136.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kile, S.M. (1990). Helsefarlige ledere og medarbeidere (Health injurious leaders and co-
workers). Oslo: Hjemmets Bokforlag.
Knapp, M.L., Putnam, L.L., & Davis, L.J. (1988). Measuring interpersonal conflicts in orga-
nizations. Where do we go from here. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 414-
429.
Larsen, R.J., Diener, E., & Edmond, R.A. (1985). An evaluation of subjective well-being
measures. Social Indicators Research, 17, 1-17.
Leather, P., Cox, T. & Farnsworth, B. (1990) Violence at work: An issue for the 1990s.
Work and Stress, 4, 3-5.
Leymann, H. (1986). Vuxenmobbning - om psykiskt void i arbetslivet. (Adult bullying: psy-
chological terror at work). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,
5, 119-126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165-184.
Lysgaard, S. (1961). Arbeiderkollektivet(The workercollective). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Marek, J., Tangenes, B., & Helles y, O.H. (1984). Organizational and social aspects of jobs.
In O.H. Helle0s y. (Ed.), Work environment Statfjord field. Work environment, health
and safety on a North Sea oil platform (pp. 198-229). Oslo, Norway, Universitetsforlaget
AS.
Harassment and Victimization of Men 263

Miller, J.B. (1991). Women's and men's scripts for interpersonal conflict. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 15, 15-29.
Niedl, K. (1995). Mobbing/bullying am Arbeitsplatz. MAnchen: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
O'Brien, G.E., Dowling, P., & Kobanoff, B. (1977). Work, Health and Leisure (Report no.
1). Department of Social Security, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Olweus, D. (1990). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects
of a school based intervention program. In K. Rubin, & D. Pepler, (Eds.), The devel-
opment and treatment of children aggression (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Painter, K. (1991). Violence and vulnerability in the workplace: Psychosocial and illegal
implications. In MJ. Davidson, & J. Earnshaw, (Eds.), Vulnerable workers; Psychosocial
and legal issues (pp. 159-178). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Roloff, M.E., & Greenberg, B.S. (1979). Sex differences in choice of modes of conflict
resulution in real-life and television. Communication Quaterly, 4, 3-12.
Rook, K. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1079-1108.
Sperling, SJ. (1953). On the psychodynamics of teasing. American Psychoanalytic Association
Journal, 1, 458-483.
Tata, J. (1993). The structure and phenomenon of sexual harassment: Impact of category
of sexual harassing behaviors; Gender and hierarchical level. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 199-211.
Terpstra, D.E., & Baker, D.D. (1987). Psychological and demographioc correlates of per-
ception of sexual harassment. Genetic, Social and General Psychological Monographs,
112, 459-478.
Volkema, R.J., & Bergmann, T.J. (1989). Interpersonal Conflict at Work: An analysis of
behavioral responses. Human Relations, 42, 757-770.
Wilson, C.B. (July 1991). U.S. businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Personell Journal:
47-50.
Wood, J.T. (1993). Naming and interpreting sexual harassment. A conceptual framework
for schoolarship. In G.L. Kreps, (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication Implications
(pp. 9-26). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C. ,& Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationships between mobbing factors,
job content and social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.

Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank Dr. Jan Forslin, Dr. Gerard Puccio, Dr. Geir Kaufmann,
Dr. Dieter Zapf and two anonymous referees for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. This
article was written during a stay at the Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State College, and
was thus supported by the schoolarly exchange agreement between the University of Bergen, Norway,
and the State University of New York (SUNY), U.S.A.

Offprints. Request for offprints should be directed to: Dr. Stale Einarsen, Department of Psychosocial
Science, Christiesgt. 12, N-5015 Bergen, Norway.