Content uploaded by Katarzyna Durniat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katarzyna Durniat on Sep 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Katarzyna Durniat
Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences
University of Wrocław, Poland
katarzyna.durniat@uwr.edu.pl
Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
University of Almeria, Spain
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and
Negative Workplace Behaviours in Poland and Spain –
Comparative Study Results
Abstract: This paper presents results ofaquantitative study conducted on two matching
samples of administrative employees in Poland (N=149) and Spain (N=148) in the year 2014.
The research aimed to compare the prevalence of mobbing, dierent mobbing styles and
particular negative workplace behaviours’ experience and acceptance. The original psycho-
metric instrument for diagnosing mobbing, the SDM Questionnaire (andaSpanish version
of the tool) was used in the study. The instrument had been standardized, validated and
provided consistent and reliable results. It consists of 2 main scales:ascale of mobbing be-
haviours (43 items; α Cronbach: 0.96) andascale of emotional reactions (21 items; α Cron-
bach: 0.97). The mobbing behaviour scale is built of three subscales (the result of factor ana-
lysis), each of high reliability (α Cronbach: 0.927; 0.932; 0.803). Moreover,a43-item scale of
negative workplace behaviours’ acceptance (constructed on the bases of the SDM-IDM sca-
le items) was implemented in the study. The obtained results are indicative of prevailing si-
milarities between the researched samples in reference to the experienced mobbing ty-
pes and prevalence. Nevertheless, some interesting dierences between the countries were
also found in reference to experiencing and accepting particular negative workplace behaviours.
Key words: mobbing/bullying, organizational behaviours, negative workplace behaviours,
SDM Questionnaire, cultural dierences
PRZEDSIĘBIORCZOŚĆ IZARZĄDZANIE 2017
Wydawnictwo SAN | ISSN 2543-8190
Tom XVIII | Zeszyt 7 | Część III| ss. 5–23
6
Introduction
Managing international organizations and sta of various cultural backgrounds as well
as co-operating with employees from dierent national settings implies dealing wi-
tharange of challenges. One of them is related to cultural or national dierences in em-
ployees’ values and perceptions of organizational behaviours [Gelfand et al. 2007, Ho-
fstede 2001, House et al. 2004]. This issue becomes even more challenging and far more
delicate when negative and unwanted behaviours are considered. Nowadays, both in le-
gal, social and scientic terms, the regular and repetitive exposure of employees toaran-
ge of negative, unwanted behaviours is called workplace harassment, mobbing or bul-
lying1 [Brodsky 1976; Leymann 1990, 1996; Field 1996]. Although mobbing has probably
been present in organizations since the beginning of their existence, it had scarcely ap-
peared asasubject of scientic research and literature before the end of the 1980s. Since
that time more and more eorts have been taken worldwide to protect employees aga-
inst workplace harassment and mobbing. On the 20th of September 2001, the Europe-
an Parliament passedaresolution on workplace harassment (2001/2339) calling on the
EU countries to counteract mobbing and sexual harassment in the workplace. This re-
solution has prompted EU member states to revise and supplement their national legi-
slation on the laws protecting employees against mobbing and other forms of psycho-
logical and physical violence in the workplace. Poland was the fourth country in Europe
(after Sweden, France and Belgium) that introduced legislation on the protection of em-
ployees against mobbing [Journal of Laws of 2003, No. 213, item. 2081]. Unfortunately,
Spain has not got any legal mobbing regulations yet, though this issue has raisedalot of
interest among Spanish researhers [e.g.: Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2008, Escartin et al. 2009;
2011]. At present, especially in the last decade, worldwide scientic literature and rese-
arch on mobbing is extensive [e.g.: Einarsen et al. 2003; Hoel et al. 2001, Matthiesen &
Einarsen 2004, Nielsen & Einarsen 2012, Nielsen, Notelaers, Einarsen 2013, Parzefall & Sa-
lin 2010]. Nevertheless, most mobbing studies are conducted with the assumption that
the researched phenomenon is cross-cultural and universal, despite the fact that some
scientists have argued that mobbing should not be researched and analysed without ta-
king into account specic organizational, cultural or national contexts [Durniat & Kul-
czycka 2006; Durniat 2012, 2015b; Chappell and Di Martino 2006; Giorgi 2010; Giorgi et
al. 2015]. Some researchers claim [Escartin et al. 2011; Power et al. 2013] that national cul-
ture may play an important role in shaping employees’ perceptions of mobbing behavio-
urs. However, cross-cultural mobbing studies are scarce [e.g.: Escartin et al. 2011; Salin et
al. 2015; Arenas et al. 2015] and we still need more explorations and more ndings in this
area. Besides, substantial amounts of mobbing studies, even international surveys spon-
1 Nowadays, all these terms are used interchangeably (depending on cultural, national or research tradition).
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
7
sored by EU [cf. EUROFAUND 2007, 2010, 2012] were conducted with the use of subjec-
tive, methodologically weak, estimation methods only. That leads to obtaining questio-
nable results, e.g. indicating that mobbing prevalence is higher in North-Western Euro-
pean countries in comparison to South-East Europe. These kinds of ndings and conclu-
sions are not consistent with the mobbing prevalence results coming from research con-
ducted with validated tools [Arenas 2015; Durniat 2010; Nielsen et al. 2010, Nielsen et al.
2012]. Still, the most popular and widely used mobbing research instruments are rooted
in Northwestern European countries (predominantly LIPT Questionnaire [Leymann 1990,
1996] or NAQ [Einarsen et al. 2009; Nielsen et al. 2011; Notelaers, Einarsen 2013] and are
considered universal and cross-cultural, which is not necessarily true [Durniat, Kulczyc-
ka 2006; Arenas et al. 2015]. The study presented in this paper was conducted withaPo-
lish psychometric instrument, rooted in Central European (or even ‘Eastern Europe’, ac-
cording Globe study categorisation [House et al. 2004]) culture. The aim of the study was
to check whether the mobbing phenomenon was similarly experienced, perceived and
(un)accepted by Polish and Spanish employees. The choice of the countries was dictated
by the fact that Poland is representative of the Eastern Europe cultural cluster while Spa-
in is representative of the Latin Europe cultural cluster [House et al. 2004]. Thus, it will be
interesting to examine whether these dierent culture aliations are reected in die-
rent perceptions and acceptance of mobbing behaviours.
Mobbing denitions and criteria
The term ‘mobbing’ came to socio-organizational and psychological literature from bio-
logical studies [Lorenz 1963]. It was used for the rst time in reference to human beha-
viours byaSwedish psychologist, H. Leymann, whose mobbing denition is one of the
most recognized [Leymann 1996, p. 168]: „Psychological terror or mobbing in working
life involves hostile and unethical communication, which is directed inasystematic way
by one orafew individuals mainly towards one individual who, due to mobbing, is pu-
shed intoahelpless and defenseless position, being held there by means of continuing
mobbing activities”. Björkqvist [Björkqvist, Osterman, Hjelt-Back 1994] considered mob-
bing asaset of recurring activities that aim to hurt and inict mental or physical pain
onavictim. These actions are directed at individuals or groups who are unable to de-
fend themselves against such form of aggression. S. Einarsen [2003] dened mobbing
(or bullying2) asaform of indirect aggression, which appears repeatedly and systemati-
cally against an employee who is unable to defend himself against suchacourse of ne-
gative acts. Hoel, Cooper and Faragher [2001] listed dening mobbing criteria which in-
cluded: frequency of mobbing acts (repeatability or continuity), subjective perception
2 S. Einarsen most often uses the term „bullying”, though sometimes he also refers to the term “mobbing”.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
8
of these acts and their eects as negative, length of persecution (long-term or perma-
nent) and imbalance of power betweenaperson exposed to mobbing andaperpetrator.
Matthisen and Einarsen [2007] recognized, as the main mobbing criteria, the following
ones: regularity of experiencing negative behaviours, length of time of their occurrence
(at least halfayear)3 and the inability of victims to defend themselves. It is necessary to
highlight that mobbing can be implemented by people occupying any (not only mana-
gerial) position in the organizational hierarchy [Leymann 1996; Hoel, Cooper & Faragher
2001; Durniat 2010; Zapf et al. 2011]. According toaPolish mobbing researcher, K. Dur-
niat [Durniat & Kulczycka 2006, p. 463]: „Mobbing is psychological abuse taking place be-
tween at least two partners in social interaction, systematically and intentionally applied
by an oppressor (less often oppressors) againstavictim (less often victims) in repetitive
verbal and behavioural attacks. Mobbing hasamainly subjective character, but its eects
are manifested by mental destabilisation of the victim, byasense of injustice and bewil-
derment as well as by experiencing strong psychological stress”. The denition cited abo-
ve is in agreement with the Polish legal mobbing denition [Labour Code, amendment
of 2004, Art. 94, § 2, as cited in: Journal of Legal Acts 2003, No. 213, item 2081] which sta-
tes that: „Mobbing is an action or behaviour on the part of an employee or targeted at
an employee, consisting in repetitive and prolonged molestation and intimidation of an
employee, which lowers the victim’s professional self-esteem and intends to humiliate or
ridicule the victim as well as to isolate or ultimately eliminate the victim from the team”.
Much research has shown that mobbing not only inuences the health and well-being
of the employees inanegative way [Nield 1996; Zapf, Knorz and Kulla 1996; Vartia 2001,
Matthiesen, Einarsen 2004; Nielsen, Einarsen 2012; Durniat 2015a] but it also lowers em-
ployees’ job satisfaction and organizational engagement and, at the same time, dimini-
shes ecacy and task fullment [Hoel & Cooper 2000; Hoel et al. 2003; Keashly & Jagatic
2003; Parzefall and Salin 2010; Durniat 2015a; 2015b].
Research questions
It wasacomparative study of an exploratory character. It aimed to answeranumber of qu-
estions connected with possible similarities and dierences in experiencing and accepting
negative workplace behaviours inaPolish and Spanish organisational context. Among the
most important questions asked and discussed in this paper4 are the following:
3 This criterion was taken after Leymann [1990; 1996], though it has raised discussion between some scientists,
who claim that even shorter time is enough to victimizeaperson.
4 There were more research questions and more analysis done for this study, but they are beyond the scope of
this paper. The readers interested in more research details and other ndings are asked to contact the authors
of the paper or to look for their other publications.
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
9
1. What is the scale and type of mobbing experienced by Polish and Spanish employees?
2. What kind of specic negative workplace behaviours are most often experienced
by Polish and Spanish employees? Is it similar or dierent?
3. What is the level of acceptance of negative workplace behaviours and what spe-
cic negative workplace behaviours are most un(accepted) by the participants of
both samples? Is it similar or dierent?
Samples description
The data for this research were collected from two deliberately chosen samples of admi-
nistrative employees in Poland (Wrocław) and in Spain (Almeria) in the year 2014. It was
assumed that individuals employed in an administrative sector, regardless of the coun-
try, faced similar types of organizational tasks and duties and faced similar kinds of pro-
fessional relations with other co-workers. Thus, the researchers had deliberately chosen
participants only from that sector in order to be able to conduct some comparative ana-
lyses between them. The Spanish sample consisted of 148 participants: 86 (58%) wo-
men and 62 (42%) men, all of them were employed inapublic higher education institu-
te. The largest group of that sample (60%) was formed by people over the age of 45, 33%
of them were between 36–45 years old and the remaining 7% were under 36 years old.
The Polish sample consisted of 149 participants: 103 (69%) women and 46 (31%) men,
of whom 60% were employees of public administration (sector of higher education and
health care) and 40% were employed in private sectors of administration (higher educa-
tion, commerce and services). Ideally, the Polish sample would consist only of the public
higher education institute employees, but due to the shortfall in participants the sam-
ple was widened to include private administration sectors, beyond the eld of education.
The Polish sample included employees of whom 27% were over the age of 45, 20% were
between 36–45 years old and 51% of participants were under 36 years old. The participa-
tion in the study was voluntary and anonymous. The researchers directly approached po-
tential participants in appropriate sectors and positions and after they agreed to partici-
pate in the study, the data was collected. The respondents were tested mostly individual-
ly, sometimes in small groups, always accompanied byapsychologist who reduced par-
ticipants’ possible feelings of discomfort, providing them withacomprehensive explana-
tion of the aims of the study.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
10
Methodology and choice of research tools
This research hadaquantitative character was conducted in an ex post facto design. The
original Polish psychometric tool, the SDM Questionnaire, was employed in the study.
The questionnaire consists of 64 items arranged in two basic scales: the SDM-IDM scale
(which is an inventory of typical mobbing behaviours; 43 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.96) and
the SDM-ODC scale (an inventory of typical emotional and cognitive interpretations; 21
items, Cronbach’s α = 0.97). The SDM-IDM scale consists of three subscales:ascale of iso-
lating and intimidating behaviours (19 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.927) ,ascale of humilia-
ting and ridiculing behaviours (17 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.932) andascale of behaviours
hindering professional performance (7 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.803). The SDM-ODC sca-
le consists of 21 items (Cronbach’s α = 0.962) and reects the most typical emotions and
cognitive interpretations occurring on the side of the victims5. The Polish tool usesave-
point, ordinal answer scale, reecting the frequency of exposition to particular behavio-
urs (from never to very often). Mobbing experience is assessed on the bases of cumulati-
ve result of the SDM-IDM scale. The correlating SDM-ODC scale completes the psycholo-
gical picture of the mental suering of the victims. In order to measure the level of accep-
tance of negative workplace behaviours, all the 43 items constituting the SDM-IDM sca-
le were grammatically transformed and reused, constitutingaseparate scale in which the
respondents were asked to assess the level of acceptance of each behaviour onathre-
e-point ordinary scale (from completely unacceptable, through sometimes acceptable to
acceptable). All the items of the scales were translated (and back translated) from Polish
into Spanish by the authors of the paper and independently checked by two linguists.
Based on the results obtained in this study, the reliability of the Spanish version of the
IDM-SDM scale was checked and the following data were obtained: the overall IDM-SDM:
Cronbach’s α = 0.812; the subscale of isolating and intimidating actions: Cronbach’s α =
0.854; the subscale of humiliating, ridiculing and compromising actions: Cronbach’s α =
0.832; and the subscale of actions hinderingacompletion of professional tasks: Cronba-
ch’s α = 0.754. Due to the right-skew distribution of the measured variable (domination
of low scores in mobbing test),aselection of non-parametric tests was used in the stu-
dy. The statistical analyses were done withasignicance alpha level of at least 0.05 with
the use of “Statistics Program” with which both universities’ computers were equipped.
5 Neither the ODC-IDM scale details nor results will be presented here as they are beyond the scope of this pa-
per. The readers interested in more research details and ndings are asked to contact the authors of this paper.
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
11
Presentation of main comparative research results
The scale and type of mobbing in the Polish
and Spanish sample
The overall results of the SDM-IDM scale and the distribution of data known from pre-
vious mobbing research conducted in Poland with the use of the SDM Questionnaire on
much bigger and more representative samples [cf. Durniat 2010, 2014b ] allowed the re-
searchers to assign the respondents into one of the three groups6: with low mobbing
test scores, average mobbing test scores and high mobbing test scores. The results obta-
ined in this study proved that over 14% of the researched Polish employees and 11.5% of
Spanish participants reached high scores in the SDM-IDM scale, which means that these
employees are exposed to workplace mobbing. The scores reached by the participants
in the three SDM-IDM subscales indicated that both Polish and Spanish employees were
often exposed to mobbing connected with hindering the completion of professional ta-
sks (15.4% of Polish participants and 13.5% of Spanish ones reached high scores in that
sub-scale). About 14.8% of the Polish employees and 11.5% of the Spanish employees re-
ached high scores in the subscale of humiliating and ridiculing actions, and 13.4% of the
Polish participants and 11.5% of the Spanish had high marks in the subscale of isolating
and intimidating actions. The results of the conducted χ 2 tests indicate that they were
not signicantly dierent for the two groups of participants. Only in the case of the sub-
scale of mobbing directed at hindering task completion, were some dierences in the
distribution of scores between the Polish and Spanish participants found. Signicantly
more Spanish employees experienced an average level of exposure to this mobbing sty-
le, while in Poland there were more employees reaching low scores in that subscale (χ 2
(2, N=297) = 0.667; p<0022).
Experience of specic negative behaviours in both samples
The detailed analysis of the scores reached by both samples in reference to each item
of the SDM-IDM scale and the comparisons of means allowed assessing what behavio-
urs were most often experienced by the study participants. Interestingly, similar items
reached the highest scores in both samples. In the case of the Polish sample they were
as follows: “I am burdened with more tasks and duties than other employees” (M = 2.30;
SD = 1.15), “Unrealistic time limits for doing tasks are set for me” (M = 2.01; SD = 0.98), “I
am silenced while talking” (M = 1.99; SD = 1.93). In the Spanish sample the order of top
6 The SDM-IDM scale and its subscales “cutting points” were established inayear 2008, basing on the data
collected on bigger samples of working population in Poland and the Questionnaire descriptive statistics: the
distribution of data and the quartiles.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
12
behaviours and scores were as follows: “I am burdened with more tasks and duties than
other employees” (M = 2.96; SD = 1.06), “I am excluded from matters important for the
organization” (M= 2.01, SD = 1.12) and “My promotion is impeded or blocked comple-
tely” (M = 1.99; SD = 1.38) as well as “I am ignored while other employees are selected
for courses or trainings” (M = 1.98; SD = 1.04). Comparative analysis based on the Man-
n-Whitney test revealed that out of the all 43 behaviours constituting the SDM-IDM scale
10 were signicantly more often experienced by Polish employees then by the Spanish
ones, which is illustrated in table 1. Five of these behaviours came from the subscale of
isolating and intimidating actions, 3 from the subscale of humiliating and ridiculing ac-
tions and 2 from the subscale of acts hindering professional task completion.
Table 1. Behaviours signicantly more often experienced by Polish than by Spanish
employees
Variable
Sample (Country)
Poland Spain U Mann-Whitney’s test
XŚR N SD XŚR N SD Z P
I am silenced while talking. 1.99 149 0.93 1.75 147 0.88 -2.426 0.015
I am made to accept re-
sponsibility for the faults of
others. 1.79 149 1.20 1.44 146 0.69 -2.450 0.014
My commitment to work is
underestimated. 1.66 148 0.99 1.39 148 0.70 -2.259 0.031
I have not been paid extra
money owed to me (like bo-
nuses, etc.). 1.58 149 1.07 1.30 148 0.79 -2.692 0.007
Some allusions are directed
at me, without things being
said openly . 1.58 149 0.86 1.40 148 0.75 -2.267 0.030
My every mistake is seized
upon and blown out of pro-
portion. 1.55 149 0.78 1.39 148 0.73 -2.026 0.043
I am avoided and ostracized
by others at work. 1.53 149 0.90 1.26 148 0.63 -2.822 0.005
I am forbidden exercise my
rights at work (like right for
leave, bonus, proper wor-
king hours etc.)
1.42 148 0.82 1.22 148 0.57 -2.280 0.029
I am talked to inarude and
humiliating manner. 1.33 149 0.65 1.24 148 0.51 -3.237 0.001
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
13
Variable
Sample (Country)
Poland Spain U Mann-Whitney’s test
XŚR N SD XŚR N SD Z P
I was threatened with di-
smissal with no rational ju-
stication. 1.28 149 0.71 1.21 148 0.54 -2.751 0.006
Source: own elaboration, Katarzyna Durniat and Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez.
Nevertheless, the dierences test results show that the Spanish employees experien-
ced signicantly more often than the Polish ones six other behaviours, which is illustra-
ted in table 2. Half of the high scored items belong to the subscale of isolating and in-
timidating acts, two come from the subscale of the acts hindering professional tasks’
completion and one from the subscale of humiliating and ridiculing actions.
Table 2. Behaviours signicantly more often experienced by Spanish then Polish
employees
The item (behaviour)
Sample (Country)
Poland Spain Statistics:
U Mann-Whitney’s test
XŚR N SD XŚR N SD Z P
I am burdened with more ta-
sks and duties than other
employees. 2.30 149 1.25 2.96 148 1.06 -5.038 <0.01
I am ignored while other
employees are selected for
courses or trainings 1.74 148 1.01 1.98 148 1.04 -2.471 0.013
I am excluded from matters
of importance for the orga-
nisation. 1.49 148 0.91 2.01 148 1.22 -4.880 <0.01
My promotion is impeded or
blocked completely. 1.41 149 0.78 1.99 148 1.38 -3.647 <0.01
My opinions and suggestions
are put down. 1.35 149 0.73 1.52 148 0.80 -2.561 0.010
The directives and instruc-
tions thatIam given are im-
possible to follow. 1.24 149 0.62 1.71 148 0.78 -6.664 <0.01
Source: own elaboration, Katarzyna Durniat and Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
14
Acceptance of negative workplace behaviours
Basing on the distribution of results reached by the study participants in the scale measu-
ring mobbing acceptance it can be concluded that were wasa clear domination of low
scores for both samples. It means that most of the mobbing behaviours were consistently
and mutually “not accepted” (or only “sometimes accepted”) by the researched employees
from both countries. Only 4 (out of the whole list of 43 behaviours) were assessed in more
ambiguous and sometimes more “tolerant” way. Interestingly, on the top of them is placed
abehaviour which was most often experienced by both countries’ participants: “I am bur-
dened with more tasks and duties than other employees”. The level of acceptance of that
particular behaviour proved to be signicantly dierent between the researched countries
(χ 2 (2, N = 297) = 23.218; p<0.01). The Polish employees were relatively more tolerant to-
wards being burdened with more tasks and duties that their Spanish colleagues (65% of
them gave the answer “sometimes acceptable” while the biggest group of Spanish parti-
cipants (52%) answered that it was “unacceptable”, though as many as 17% of Spaniards
marked the answer “acceptable”). Among other behaviours reaching relatively high and
ambiguous scores of acceptance we can refer to the following statement: “Some employ-
ees are silenced while talking” (χ 2 (2, N = 297) = 51.559; p<0.01). As many as 30.4% of Spa-
nish study participants (versus 6% of Polish ones) perceived that behaviour just as “accep-
table”, though it was marked as “sometimes accepted” by 56.8% of Spanish employees and
by 49% of Polish ones. Interestingly, that behaviour was signicantly more often experien-
ced by the Polish employees than their Spanish colleagues (Z = -2.426; p = 0.015). Ano-
ther item receiving unequivocal answers was: “I am ignored while other employees are se-
lected for courses or training”. This behaviour was signicantly more often experienced by
Spanish study participants (Z = -2.471; p = 0.013) as well as mostly “not accepted” by Spa-
niards (Spain: 79.7% vs. Poland 40.3% ). Interestingly, the majority of the Polish employees
(52.3%) as well as some of the Spanish ones (18.2%) perceived that behaviour as “someti-
mes accepted”. The fourth of the negative workplace behaviour that reached surprisingly
high levels of acceptance was: “Some employees are accused of havingadicult and qu-
arrelsome personality”. It was assessed as “sometimes acceptable” by 47.7% of the Polish
and 48% the Spanish study participants (while it was “unaccepted” by 46.3% of Polish and
51.4% of Spanish employees). Nevertheless, all other researched behaviours were gene-
rally unaccepted by the participants of both samples, though the Chi square test revealed
the existence of some statistically important dierences between the two countries’ sco-
res. The conducted dierences tests results revealed that the Spanish employees (in com-
parison to the Polish ones) accepted in lesser degree eight behaviours which are listed in
table 3. Six of these behaviours belong to the subscale of isolating and intimidating acts
and two from the subscale of the actions hindering professional tasks completion.
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
15
Table 3. Behaviours signicantly less accepted by Spanish than Polish employees
The Item (behaviour) and acceptance ca-
tegory
Sample (Country)
chi-square test
resutls
Poland Spain
N % N %
Some employees are
burdened with more
tasks and duties than
other employees.
not accepted 44 29.5% 77 52.0% chi223.218
sometimes accep-
ted 96 64.4% 54 36.5% df 2
accepted 9 6.0% 17 11.5% p <0.01
Some employees are
ignored while other
employees are selec-
ted for courses or
trainings.
not accepted 60 40.3% 118 79.7% chi248.239
sometimes accep-
ted 78 52.3% 27 18.2% df 2
accepted 11 7.4% 3 2.0% p <0.01
Some employees are
avoided and ostraci-
zed by others at work.
not accepted 95 63.8% 129 87.2% chi221.958
sometimes accep-
ted 49 32.9% 17 11.5% df 2
accepted 5 3.4% 2 1.4% p <0.01
Some employees
have not been paid
money owed to them.
not accepted 130 87.8% 144 97.3% chi210.515
sometimes accep-
ted 17 11.5% 3 2.0% df 2
accepted 1 .7% 1 .7% p 0.005
Some employees are
assigned to do sil-
ly and pointless tasks
at work.
not accepted 94 63.5% 136 91.9% chi236.242
sometimes accep-
ted 43 29.2% 12 8.2% df 2
accepted 11 7.4% 0 0.0% p <0.01
Some employees’ ca-
reer is impeded and
delayed.
not accepted 112 75.2% 128 86.5% chi26.269
sometimes accep-
ted 32 21.5% 18 12.2% df 2
accepted 5 3.4% 2 1.4% p 0.044
Any contact with
some employees, inc-
luding eye-contact, is
avoided.
not accepted 113 75.8% 134 90.5% chi211.812
sometimes accep-
ted 31 20.8% 13 8.8% df 2
accepted 5 3.4% 1 .7% P 0.003
Some employees are
excluded from mat-
ters importance for
the organization.
not accepted 80 53.7% 99 66.9% chi27.392
sometimes accep-
ted 59 39.6% 46 31.2% df 2
accepted 10 6.7% 3 2.0% P 0.025
Source: own elaboration, Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez.
In contrast, seven other behaviours (6 from the subscale of isolating and intimidating
acts and 2 from the subscale of humiliating and ridiculing actions) were less accepted
by the Polish employees then the Spanish ones. These behaviours are listed in table 4.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
16
Table 4. Behaviours signicantly less accepted by Polish than Spanish employees
Item (behaviour) and acceptance category
Sample (Country)
Chi-square test
results
Poland Spain
N % N %
Some employees are
silenced while talking.
not accepted 67 45.0% 19 12.8% chi251.559
sometimes accep-
ted 73 49.0% 84 56.8% df 2
accepted 9 6.0% 45 30.4% p <0.01
Some employees’ cred-
ibility and authority at
work is challenged.
not accepted 134 89.9% 102 68.9% chi221.208
sometimes accep-
ted 14 9.4% 37 25.0% df 2
accepted 1 .7% 9 6.2% p <0.01
Some employees are
warned against makin-
gacomplaint and threat-
ened that it would even
worsen their position at
work.
not accepted 141 94.6% 131 89.7% chi26.295
sometimes accep-
ted 6 4.0% 15 10.3% df 2
accepted 2 1.3% 0 0.0% p 0.045
A lot of gossip about
some employees are is
being spread.
not accepted 143 96.0% 127 85.8% chi29.293
sometimes accep-
ted 5 3.4% 18 12.2% df 2
accepted 1 .7% 3 2.0% p 0.010
Some employees’ good
relations with others are
being spoilt.
not accepted 142 95.3% 118 80.3% chi218.336
sometimes accep-
ted 4 2.7% 26 17.7% df 2
accepted 3 2.0% 3 2.0% p <0.01
Bad things are said about
some employees.
not accepted 135 90.6% 119 80.4% chi26.238
sometimes accep-
ted 13 8.7% 27 18.2% df 2
accepted 1 .7% 2 1.4% p 0.044
A lot of lies are spread
about some employees.
not accepted 144 96.6% 135 91.2% chi26.020
sometimes accep-
ted 3 2.0% 12 8.2% df 2
accepted 2 1.3% 1 .7% p 0.049
Source: own elaboration, Katarzyna Durniat and Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to examine if the mobbing phenomenon (asapsychologi-
cal andasocial concept) and particular negative workplace behaviours are similarly expe-
rienced and accepted by Polish and Spanish employees working in similar organisational
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
17
settings. The overall SDM-IDM test results indicate that the prevalence of mobbing in the
Polish and Spanish samples was very similar: more than 14% of Polish study participants
and 11.5% of the Spanish ones were exposed to workplace mobbing. These results are in
line with other epidemiological mobbing ndings conducted with other validated me-
thods [cf. Arenas 2015; Durniat 2014b; Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2008; Nielsen, Matthiesen,
Einarsen 2010; Zapf et al. 2011].
Most prevalent in Polish and Spanish sample proved to be mobbing connected with
hindering professional task completion. Referring to the Polish employees, the most pre-
valent was mobbing connected with humiliating and ridiculing acts, followed by mob-
bing based on employees’ isolation and intimidation, while in the case of the Spanish em-
ployees it was the other way round. It is worth noting that the Polish employees reache-
daslightly higher score on all of the IDM-SDM subscales, though the dierences were
small and statistically not important. Still, it might suggest that Polish employees are
more often exposed to workplace mobbing than the Spanish, which should be checked
in further research conducted on larger and more representative samples. The results
obtained showed that the sequence of most prevalent negative workplace behaviours
was mostly similar for both countries, which supports the overall scales’ results. Topping
both list there were either behaviours from the subscale of isolating and intimidating ac-
tions or behaviours from the subscale of the acts hindering professional task comple-
tion. Interestingly, both Polish and Spanish study participants reached the highest me-
ans in reference to the same item, coming from the subscale of hindering professional
task completion, i.e.: “I am burdened with more tasks and duties than other employees”,
though the Spanish employees seem to be even more exposed to that experience than
their Polish colleagues (Z = -5.038; p<0.01) and, at the same time, less prone to accept it
(χ 2 (2, N = 297) = 23.218; p<0.01). That juxtaposition of scores is slightly intriguing and
worth some consideration. Apossible explanation of the high scores reached by most
of the study participants in this item could refer toastrictly psychological mechanism:
adistorted perception of ourselves and the exaggerated assessment of our own eorts
and achievements correlated with the underestimation of the eorts and achievements
of other people. Asimilar pattern of scores was found in reference to two more items:
“I am ignored while other employees are selected for courses or trainings” and “I am exc-
luded from matters of importance for the organization”. Overall, the dierences found
between the researched samples suggests that the Spanish employees were less pro-
ne to accept various kinds of negative behaviours strictly connected to professional life
and career development (although they experience quitealot of them), while the Polish
employees were more indulgent towards such practices. This kind of dierence may be
connected toahigher standard of living and to the prevalence of better working condi-
tions in Spain in comparison to Poland [cf. EUROFOUND 2007, 2012]. Probably, the better
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
18
socio-economic conditions made Spanish employees more demanding and gave them
higher expectations towards keeping such organizational standards that enable e-
cient tasks realisation and career development. All these conditions make employees
more sensitive towards unfair organizational behaviours and practices. On the other
hand, the results obtained indicate that the Polish employees were more critical and
more sensitive towards personal attacks taking place in the workplace. Apossible expla-
nation of those results may be connected with cultural dierences existing between the
researched countries, especially in respect to power distance, which is higher in Poland
than in Spain [Hofstede 2001], which leads to slightly dierent patterns of behaviours.
It seems that in social interactions (also those prevailing in the workplace) Spaniards are
more open, direct, vivid and straightforward than Poles and not so prone to be oended
by personal remarks or attacks.
Conclusions and nal remarks
The results obtained in the study, similarly to other cross-national mobbing research n-
dings [Arenas et al. 2015; Escartin et al. 2011; Power et al. 2013] draw attention to some
national and cultural dierences in perceiving, accepting and experiencing negative
workplace behaviours. Despite the fact that the general picture of the scale and type of
mobbing experienced by the Polish and Spanish employees seemed to be very similar,
the detailed analysis revealed some important and meaningful dierences, discussed in
this paper. Thus, one of the most important conclusions coming out of the study is tha-
taparticular workplace behaviour which is mostly accepted in one country (or organiza-
tion) may be barely accepted (or simply unaccepted) in another. This nding is very signi-
cant for mobbing research as well as having direct implications in practice. First of all,
mobbing researchers should be very cautious while implementing tools which seem to
be ‘cross-cultural’ and universal, while, in fact, they are always rooted inaspecic national,
socio-organizational and cultural background, what leads to culturally biased results. Se-
condly, the practitioners, especially those who are managing (or simply working) in mul-
ti-cultural organizational settings, should be very cautious when implementing specic
kinds of organizational behaviours and practices. For them it is necessary to remember
that apparently neutral and fair behaviour may be experienced by some employees as
an assault or evenamobbing indicator. Thus, careful management, open communication
and regular cross-national and cross-cultural trainings focused on justifying and asses-
sing specic organizational behaviours and practises are strongly recommended. The-
se kinds of actions should help to avoid unwanted mobbing accusations, the threat of
spoiled reputation, as well as high individual [Matthiesen, Einarsen 2004; Nielsen, Einar-
sen 2012; Durniat 2015a] and organizational costs [Hoel & Cooper 2000; Hoel et al. 2003;
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
19
Keashly & Jagatic 2003; Parzefall and Salin 2010]. The study presented here has some li-
mitations: it was conducted only on selected, matching samples of administrative em-
ployees and only in reference to two European counties. Thus, the results cannot be ge-
neralized to the whole working population. It would be recommended to conduct simi-
lar studies on larger (if possible – representative) samples coming from more countries
and representingavariety of cultural clusters.
References
Arenas A., Giorgi G., Montani F., Mancuso S., Perez J.F., Mucci N. & Giulio A. (2015), Work-
place bullying inasample of Italian and Spanish Employees and its relationship with job satisfaction
and psychological well-being, “Frontiers in Psychology”, No. 6.
Brodsky C. (1976), The Harassed Worker, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington.
Björkqvist K., Österman K. , Hjelt-Bäck M. (1994), Aggression among university employees, “Ag-
gressive Behavior”, No. 20.
Chappell D. , Di Martino V. (2006), Violence at work, 3rd edition, International Labor Organiza-
tion, Geneva.
Durniat K. , Kulczycka A. (2006), Operacjonalizacja mobbinguwkontekście badań międzykultu-
rowych, Prace Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej, nr 1132.
Durniat K. (2010), Mobbing as psychopathology and pathology of organization, “Polish Journal of
Applied Psychology”, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Durniat K. (2012), Możliwości iograniczenia diagnozowania mobbingu wmiejscu pracy, na przy-
kładzie badania mobbingu wmiejscu pracy, „Czasopismo Psychologiczne”, Vol. 18, No. 2.
Durniat K. (2014a), Socio-organizational mechanisms of institutional exclusion – achallenge for
multicultural organizations, “Journal of Intercultural Management”, Vol. 6, No. 4.
Durniat K. (2014b), Measuring and diagnosing mobbing phenomenon – beyond behavioural in-
dicators”, oral presentation, 16th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology,
20–23 of May, Oslo, Norway.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
20
Durniat K. (2015a), Organizational and socio-organizational mobbing antecedents,
„PrzedsiębiorczośćiZarządzanie”, t. XVI, z. 3, cz. 1.
Durniat K. (2015b), Mobbing dynamics and consequences, „Przedsiębiorczośći Zarządzanie”,
t. XVI, z. 3, cz. 3.
Einarsen S. (1999), The nature and causes of bullying at work, “International Journal of Manpower”, No. 20.
Einarsen S., Raknes B.I. (1997), Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men,
“Violence and Victims”, No. 12.
Einarsen S., Hoel H., Notelaers G. (2009), Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at
work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Re-
vised, “Work and Stress”, No. 23.
Einarsen S., Skogstad A. (1996), Bullying at work: Epidemiological ndings in public and private
organizations, “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Einarsen S., Hoel H., Zapf D., Cooper C.L. (2003), The concept of bullying and harassment at
work: The European tradition [in:] S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, Boca Raton, London,
New York: Taylor & Francis Press.
EUROFOUND (2007), First European Quality of Life Survey: Time Use and Work-Life Options Over the
Life Course, Publications Oce of the EU, Luxemburg.
EUROFOUND (2010), Fifth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), Publications Oce of the
EU, Luxemburg.
EUROFOUND (2012), Third European Quality of Life Survey – Quality of Life in Europe. Impacts of the
crisis, Publications Oce of the EU, Luxemburg.
Escartín J., Rodríguez-Carballeira A., Zapf D., Porrúa C., Martín-Peña J. (2009), Perceived se-
verity of various bullying behaviours and the relevance of exposure to bullying, “Work & Stress”, Vol.
23, No. 3.
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
21
Escartín J., Zapf D., Arrieta C., Rodríguez-Carballeira A. (2011), Workers’ perception of work-
place bullying:Across-cultural study, “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”,
Vol. 20, No. 2.
Field T. (1996), Bully in Sight: How To Predict, Resist, Challenge and Combat Workplace Bullying:
Overcoming the Silence and Denial By Which Abuse Thrives, Success Unlimited, Wantage, England.
Glasø L., Matthiesen S.B., Nielsen M.B., Einarsen S. (2007), Do targets of workplace bullying
portrayageneral victim personality prole?, “Scandinavian Journal of Psychology”, Vol. 48, No. 4.
Giorgi G. (2010), Workplace bullying partially mediates the climate-health relationship, “Journal of
Management Psychology”, No. 25.
Giorgi G., Leon-Perez J.M., Arenas A. (2015), Are bullying behaviors tolerated in some cultures?
Evidence ofacurvilinear relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction among Italian
workers, “Journal of Business Ethics”, No. 131.
Gelfand M, Erez M., Aycan Z. (2007), Cross-cultural organizational behavior, “Annual Review of
Psychology”, No. 58
Hauge L.J., Skogstad A., Einarsen S. (2007), Relationships between stressful work environment
and bullying. Results ofalarge representative study, “Work & Stress”, Vol. 21, No. 3.
Hoel H., Cooper C.L., Faragher B. (2001), The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The impact of
organizational status, “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”, No. 10.
Hofstede G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organi-
zations Across Nations, Sage 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA.
House R.J., Hanges P.W., Javidan M., Dorfman P., Gupta V. (eds.) (2004), Culture, Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA.
Journal of Laws of 2003, No. 213, item. 2081 (Ustawa zdnia 14 listopada 2003 r.ozmianie usta-
wy – Kodeks pracy oraz ozmianie niektórych innych ustaw, Art. 943, Dz. U. z2003 r. Nr 213, poz.
2081 ze zm.).
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
22
Kulczycka A., Durniat K. (2004), Metodologiczne problemy badania mobbingu, Prace Naukowe
Akademii Ekonomicznej, nr 1032.
Keashly L. & Jagatic K. (2003), By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying
[w:] S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, C. Cooper (eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice, Taylor & Francis Press, London.
Leymann H. (1990), Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplace, “Violence and Victims”, No. 5.
Leymann H. (1996), The content and development of mobbing at work, “European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology”, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Lorenz K. (1963), Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression, Wien.
Matthiesen S.B., Einarsen S. (2004), Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of
bullying at work, “British Journal of Guidance and Counseling”, Vol. 32, No. 2.
Moreno-Jiménez B., Rodríguez-Muñoz A., Salin D., Morante M.E. (2008), Workplace bullying
in Southern Europe: Prevalence, forms and risk groups inaSpanish sample, “International Journal of
Organizational Behaviour”, Vol. 13, No. 2.
Moayed F., Daraiseh N., Shell R., Salem S. (2006), Workplace bullying: Asystematic review of risk
factors and outcomes, “Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science”, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Nield K. (1996), Mobbing and Well-being: Economic and Personnel Development Implications, “Eu-
ropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Nielsen M., Matthiesen S.B., Einarsen S. (2010), The impact of methodological moderators on
prevalence rates of workplace bullying.Ameta-analysis, “Journal of Occupational and Organizatio-
nal Psychology”, Vol. 83, No. 4.
Nielsen M.B., Notelaers G., Einarsen S. (2011), Measuring exposure to workplace bullying [w:] S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, C.L. Cooper (eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Develop-
ments in theory, research, and practice, Taylor & Francis, London.
Nielsen M.B., Einarsen S. (2012), Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying:Ameta-analytic re-
view, “Work and Stress”, Vol. 26, No. 4.
Katarzyna Durniat, Miguel Ángel Mañas Rodríguez
23
Notelaers G., Einarsen S. (2013), The world turns at 33 and 45: Dening simple cuto scores for the
Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised inarepresentative sample, “European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology”, Vol. 22, No. 6.
Parzefall M., Salin D. (2010), Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: Asocial exchange
perspective, “Human Relations”, Vol. 63, No. 6.
Power J.L., Brotheridge C.M., Blenkinsopp J. et al. (2013), Acceptability of workplace bullying:
acomparative study on six continents, “Journal of Business Research”, No. 66.
Salin D. (2001), Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of
two dierent strategies measuring bullying, “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology”, Vol. 10, No. 4.
Salin D. (2003), Bullying and organizational politics in competitive and rapidly changing work envi-
ronments, “International Journal of Management and Decision Making”, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 35–46.
Vartia M. (1996), The sources of bullying – psychological work environment and organizational cli-
mate, “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Vartia M. (2001), Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets
and the observers of bullying, “Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health”, Vol. 27, No. 1.
Zapf D., Knorz C., Kulla M. (1996), On the relationship between mobbing factors and job content,
social work environment and health outcomes, “European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology”, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Zapf D., Escartin J., Einarsen S., Hoel H., Vartia M. (2011), Empirical ndings on prevalence and
risk groups of bullying in the workplace [in:] S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, C.L. Cooper (eds.), Bully-
ing and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice, Taylor & Fran-
cis, London.
The Experience and Aceptance of Mobbing and Negative Workplace Behaviours in
Poland and Spain – Comparative Study Results
