Role ambiguity as an antecedent to workplace bullying: Hostile work climate and supportive leadership as intermediate factors

Abstract

Previous studies have shown role stress to be an important antecedent of workplace bullying. The present study investigated when and how a long-term effect of role ambiguity on exposure to bullying may be present. Based on the work environment hypothesis, we hypothesized that (a) there is a long-term effect of role ambiguity on exposure of bullying, (b) that this relationship is mediated by hostile work climate, and (c) moderated by supportive leadership. Using a three-wave design, with a time lag of 41-45 months, we showed support for all three hypotheses. The study underscores the importance of clear work-related roles as well as the importance of supportive leadership to prevent the onset of bullying following role stress and hostile climates.

Full text

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
Available online 2 March 2024
0956-5221/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Role ambiguity as an antecedent to workplace bullying: Hostile work
climate and supportive leadership as intermediate factors
Stefan Blomberg
a
,
b
,
*
,
1
, Michael Rosander
a
,
2
, Ståle Valvatne Einarsen
c
,
3
a
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Link¨
oping University, Sweden
b
Occupational and Environmental Medicine Centre, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Link¨
oping University, Sweden
c
Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Norway
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Hostile work climate
Mediated moderation
Role ambiguity
Supportive leadership
Workplace bullying
ABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown role stress to be an important antecedent of workplace bullying. The present study
investigated when and how a long-term effect of role ambiguity on exposure to bullying may be present. Based on
the work environment hypothesis, we hypothesized that (a) there is a long-term effect of role ambiguity on
exposure of bullying, (b) that this relationship is mediated by hostile work climate, and (c) moderated by sup-
portive leadership. Using a three-wave design, with a time lag of 41–45 months, we showed support for all three
hypotheses. The study underscores the importance of clear work-related roles as well as the importance of
supportive leadership to prevent the onset of bullying following role stress and hostile climates.
1. Introduction
Studies have identied a range of organizational antecedents and
work environment risk factors for exposure to workplace bullying, such
as role stress, laissez-faire leadership, and excessive workloads (for re-
views, see e.g., Salin & Hoel, 2020; Van den Brande et al., 2016). The
mechanisms and interplay of how and when these antecedents are
associated with exposure to workplace bullying have, however, not
received as much attention (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). Yet, workplace
bullying is generally seen as a gradually escalating process where
exposure tend to develop and intensify over time, most likely as a result
of a range of prevailing psychosocial conditions at work (Einarsen et al.,
2020). In line with this notion, workplace bullying is dened as a sys-
tematic exposure (e.g., weekly) to mistreatment at work over an
extended period of time (e.g., six months) in situations where the victims
have increasing difculties defending themselves, and with co-workers
and superiors as the main perpetrators (Einarsen et al., 2020). One of
the most consistently reported antecedents of such escalating exposure
to workplace bullying is role stress (Van den Brande et al., 2016),
including role ambiguity and/or role conict (Reknes et al., 2014;
Ågotnes et al., 2023). Role stress is considered a hindrance stressor that
may evoke negative emotions among and between employees
(Podsakoff et al., 2007), which again may escalate into interpersonal
conicts and interpersonal hostility, a mechanism for bullying set out in
the so-called “work environment hypothesis” (Einarsen et al., 2020;
Einarsen et al., 1994).
The rst aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent a
perceived hostile work climate may be a mechanism of how role stress in
the form of role ambiguity increases the risk of employees´subsequent
exposure to workplace bullying. A hostile work climate is here dened
as consistent acrimonious, antagonistic, and suspicious feelings within a
work group (Mawritz et al., 2014; Mawritz et al., 2012).
Our second aim was to investigate if this mechanism is dependent on
perceived supportive leadership from one’s immediate supervisor,
possibly acting as a buffer in this potential chain of events. The pro-
tective effects of supportive leadership have been reported previously in
association with workplace bullying (e.g., Blomberg & Rosander, 2022;
Clausen et al., 2019; Nielsen, Christensen, et al., 2020), yet mainly
seeing it as a buffer regarding the outcomes of exposure to bullying or a
leadership style related to lower prevalence rates in the rst place. To
test these proposed relationships and mechanisms in relation to reports
of exposure to workplace bullying, the study used a longitudinal
three-wave sample with a total time lag of almost 4 years allowing us to
investigate long-term effects and the proposed mediation.
* Corresponding author at: Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Link¨
oping University, Sweden.
E-mail address: stefan.blomberg@liu.se (S. Blomberg).
1
(Orcid: 0000–0002-3904–1948)
2
(Orcid: 0000–0002-0202–4650)
3
(Orcid: 0000–0002-0399–9847)
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Scandinavian Journal of Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scajman
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2024.101328
Received 25 January 2022; Received in revised form 1 November 2023; Accepted 20 February 2024

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
2
The contribution of the present study is to propose and investigate if
deciencies in work design may pose a risk for being exposed to bullying
via the creation of a perceived hostile working climate with supportive
leadership as a potential preventive factor in this mechanism. The rather
long time lag is an important contribution and strength of the present
study. Theoretically the study contributes to the understanding of how
and when workplace bullying is an outcome of role stress; an issue that
needs more research (see also Ågotnes et al., 2023).
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Workplace bullying and role stress
Workplace bullying is an escalating social process in the workplace
mainly arising from existing stressors in the immediate psychosocial
working environment (Baillien et al., 2009; Einarsen et al., 2003;
Einarsen et al., 2020; Hauge et al., 2007). Exposure to bullying behav-
iours may come in different forms and intensities from occasional
exposure to sever victimization from long-term, frequent, and ongoing
mistreatment (Reknes et al., 2021; Rosander & Blomberg, 2019). Yet,
workplace bullying is a complex and multi-causal phenomenon that
likely depends on an interplay of many factors; societal, organizational
as well as individual (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Van den Brande et al.,
2016). The main explanation as to why workplace bullying may emerge
is however the work environment hypothesis (Einarsen et al., 1994;
Leymann, 1996). It states that bullying is mainly a result of deciencies
in the organization in terms of work design, leadership practices, a
hostile social climate in the work groups, and a culture permitting or
even rewarding such bullying behaviours (Einarsen et al., 2003). The
empirical support for this overarching hypothesis is strong (Van den
Brande et al., 2016) but not fully conclusive when it comes to its
mechanisms and the interplay between these factors (Nielsen &
Einarsen, 2018). Hence, the internal relationships and chain of events
between these risk factors have hardly been addressed in empirical
studies (see Zahlquist et al., 2019; Ågotnes et al., 2018; Ågotnes et al.,
2023, as notable exceptions).
An organizational psychosocial deciency that has received much
attention in regard to workplace bullying is role stress (Einarsen et al.,
1994; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018) in the form of role ambiguity or role
conict (Kahn et al., 1964). In the present study we investigated role
ambiguity, which may be considered the most fundamental role stressor,
or probably preceding role conict (Ågotnes et al., 2023). Role ambi-
guity may be dened as a lack of, or unclear, information about re-
sponsibilities and demands connected to one’s work role which may lead
to unclear or conicting expectations (Beehr, 1995). In this respect it can
be seen as a social stressor (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), which may further
create a negative effect in a work group as ambiguity makes it unclear
what to expect from each other as well as how to behave and act in a
proper way as seen by other organisation members (Boalt Bo¨
ethius,
2019; Kahn et al., 1964).
In a meta-analysis Van den Brande et al. (2016) found 21 studies in
which role stress was associated with workplace bullying. However,
most studies were cross-sectional, yet with some emerging evidence of a
causal link (Salin & Hoel, 2020). For example, in a two-year study with
two waves and 2835 employees, Reknes et al. (2014) found an associ-
ation between role stress and subsequent workplace bullying employing
a true prospective design looking at new cases of bullying only at follow
up. The study provided important support of the notion of a causal link
between role stress and subsequent exposure to bullying behaviours in
that bullying seems to thrive when employees have experienced con-
tradictory and unclear expectations and demands (Salin & Hoel, 2020).
There have, however, been few longitudinal studies of role stress. In
the overview by Van den Brande et al. (2016) only three longitudinal
studies were mentioned. Together with the studies referred to above by
Reknes et al. (2014) and Ågotnes et al. (2023), of the ve longitudinal
studies known to us, three had a one-year time lag and two had a
two-year time lag. In the present study, we tested an almost four-year
time lag (41 to 45 months) to investigate the long-term effects of role
ambiguity. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.Role ambiguity is a long-term predictor of subsequent
exposure to bullying behaviours in the workplace.
We now turn to the question of how role ambiguity may be related to
exposure to bullying behaviours, that is, the mechanisms involved
within the work environment hypothesis. There is, to our knowledge,
only one study that has investigated possible mediators for the associ-
ation between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours—the
recently published study by Ågotnes et al. (2023). They presented results
that indicate that role ambiguity give rise to subsequent role conicts
which then is associated with exposure to workplace bullying making it
more clear how different kinds of role stress are related to each other.
There may, however, also be reasons to look into other possible mech-
anisms, outside the concepts of role stress, also as there may be circular
relationships between the two. For example, in a qualitative study
Baillien et al. (2009) proposed that such work stressors may lead to
frustration and loss of energy increasing the general risk of irritation,
aggressiveness, and increased vulnerability, that is, a risk of a devel-
oping toxic, hostile working climate. Hence, we propose that the
work-related stressors described in the work-environment hypothesis
may have its impact by creating a hostile work climate, at least as
perceived by the focal targeted person.
2.2. Hostile work climate
Affective work climates, also called affective organizational climates
or in short work climates, have been studied for more than 50 years as
important inuences in organizations (Jones and Lawrence, 1979;
Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). Work climates can be studied either as an
organizational overall climate or as facet-specic climates associated
with particular aspects of the work environment, such as safety climate
(Zohar, 2000), climate for innovation and creativity (Pirola-Merlo &
Mann, 2004), and psychosocial safety climate (Dollard & Bakker, 2010;
Hu et al., 2022). A range of studies have established these and other
work climates as predictors, mediators, or moderators that, for example,
inuence performance, turnover, safety, and health among employees
(for a review, see Dollard & Bakker, 2010; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). A
work climate is dened as a set of shared perceptions, for example,
regarding the policies, practices, and procedures that an organization
rewards, supports, and expects (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009; Schneider &
Reichers, 1983), or as perception of behaviours, values, and emotions
typical for a given working group (De Rivera, 1992), establishing
climate as a perceptual phenomenon, rather than an objective charac-
teristic of an organization (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). A work climate
can be clearly sensed and is related to underlying structures (De Rivera,
1992), which, for example, may include role characteristics such as
variety, challenge, job pressures, and role ambiguity (Jones and Law-
rence, 1979). Work climates account for a substantial variance in work
attitudes and behaviours (De Rivera, 1992; Tse et al., 2008). When work
climates are investigated, measures are often aggregated into group or
organizational constructs but may also be treated as individual
perceptual constructs, as is the case in the present study investigating
mediating mechanisms on the individual level. The latter may be
denoted psychological climate and reects individual perceptions of the
organization of the immediate social working environment (James &
James, 1989; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009; Parker et al., 2003). Regardless
of whether the climate is investigated on an individual or group level,
the aim is to examine individuals’ subjective perceptions of their own
work environment and how these perceptions inuence their behaviours
and reactions (Schneider, 2000).
The work environment hypothesis species a particular kind of work
climate important for the development of workplace bullying, denoting
it a hostile working climate. This specic work climate has received
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
3
more recent attention also in relation to abusive supervision, a concept
close related to the concept of workplace bullying (Mawritz et al., 2014;
Mawritz et al., 2012). In work groups with a hostile climate, group
members tend to be aggressive and untrusting which creates a social
context that encourage deviant behaviours (Mawritz et al., 2012).
Zahlquist et al. (2023) investigated the cross-sectional association be-
tween role conict and exposure to bullying behaviours and found a
stronger association at departments with high levels of a hostile work
climate. Rosander and Salin (2023) showed a longitudinal association
between a hostile work climate and exposure to bullying. They also
showed that the association was reciprocal, that is, that there also is a
reversed effect where occurrence of bullying over time contributes to a
more hostile work climate. Antecedents of a hostile work climate can be
decisions, structures, or procedures creating conditions where it is
difcult or even impossible to know how one is expected to behave and
perform work duties, laying the ground for disappointments and inter-
personal tensions (De Rivera, 1992). However, to understand how a
hostile work climate may inuence employees, we turn to social
learning theory (Bandura, 1977), and the theory of social information
processing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
According to both social learning theory and the theory of social
information processing, human behaviour is shaped through modelling
which produce learning through an informative function which serves as
a guide of appropriate actions (Bandura, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer,
1978). In this learning process, people attend to and perceive how
others, who they regularly are associated with in their social context,
consistently behave (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). According to the theory
of social information processing, an individual’s behaviour is shaped
through this attentional process where cues and events in the social
environment are interpreted as expectations of individual behaviours
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). As pointed out by social learning theory, by
repeating and performing modelled response patterns the behaviours
are remembered as guides of performance, especially if the conse-
quences do not have punishing or unrewarding effects (Bandura, 1977).
Based on these theories, we argue that role ambiguity in the organiza-
tion may lead to a perceived hostile work climate through social
learning processes. Unclear situations at work may create tensions (De
Rivera, 1992) and heighten the risks of irritation, frustration, and
aggressive outlets for all involved (Baillien et al., 2009). As a result,
behavioural cues of deviant and aggressive behaviours may become
more salient (Bandura, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Following this, a
perceived hostile work climate may increase the risk of workplace
bullying through frustration and escalating aggression as well as by
increasing the vulnerability and the insecurity of the target to be
(Baillien et al., 2009). According to the work environment hypothesis,
perceived hostile working climate will also reduce the chances of social
support and empathy for the targeted employee. Hence, bystanders may
not recognize and intervene, nor may they sympathize with those tar-
geted by bullying behaviours. Thus, based on social learning theory and
the theory of social information processing and the theorizing of the
work environment hypothesis, we propose that role ambiguity may be
an antecedent to a hostile work climate, which, in turn, may increase the
risk of reports of being exposed to acts of workplace bullying.
Hypothesis 2.A perceived hostile work climate is a mediator for the long-
term association between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours.
2.3. Supportive leadership
Finally, we turn to the question of when this hypothesised long-term
risk of role ambiguity leading to exposure to bullying behaviours,
mediated by a perceived hostile work climate, may occur, or rather be
prevented. According to the work environment hypothesis, it is the
combination of psychosocial work-related problems (e.g., role stressors
and a hostile work climate) combined with deciencies in management
practices that trigger episodes of workplace bullying. Yet, few studies
have investigated moderators that may buffer the association between
antecedents and workplace bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Rai &
Agarwal, 2018). The moderators related to management and leadership
practices that have been studied in these respects are, for example,
psychosocial safety climate (Hamre et al., 2023), conict management
climate (Zahlquist et al., 2019) and laissez-fair and/or transformational
leadership (e.g., Ågotnes et al., 2023). In the present study, we investi-
gated to what extent perceived supportive leadership moderates and
buffers the hypothesised mediated association between role ambiguity
and exposure to bullying behaviours, hence searching for important
factors that may hinder bullying. As already noted, the moderating ef-
fect of a supportive leadership has been studied before (e.g., Blomberg &
Rosander, 2020, 2022) but not in relation to such work-related ante-
cedents of workplace bullying.
In general, social support may have a protective effect in many sit-
uations in working life and elsewhere. The job-demand-control-support
model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) has been tested in studies for 30 years
establishing social support as an important protective factor when facing
stressful situations. Social support may take various forms (see e.g.,
Cohen, 2004; Schat & Kelloway, 2003; Thoits, 1982), such as (a)
emotional support through trusting and empathic behaviours, (b)
instrumental support through hands-on and practical help, (c) informal
support through advice and guidance, and (d) valuing and appreciative
support through feedback and evaluative information. Social support
may also be provided through different sources, such as co-workers,
supervisors, the work organization, and friends and family (Foster,
2012).
Studies have shown that social support from such different sources
have protective effects on health outcomes associated with workplace
bullying (e.g., Blomberg & Rosander, 2020; Nielsen, Christensen, et al.,
2020). Leadership support has in particular been shown to protect
against health risks (Gardner et al., 2013) and early retirement (Clausen
et al., 2019) from bullying exposure as well as to strengthen employees’
control and inuence which in turn may reduce the risk of exposure to
bullying behaviours (Goodboy et al., 2017). It has also been shown that
the risk associated with poor health and the subsequent exposure to
bullying behaviours may be completely buffered by the perception of a
supportive leadership style in one´s immediate supervisor (Blomberg &
Rosander, 2022).
Theoretically, supportive leadership is a specic facet included in the
broader leadership model transformational leadership (Bass, 1985;
Carless et al., 2000), with an overlap with what is called compassionate
leadership (Gilbert & Basran, 2019). It is also a part of the broad
meta-category of relation-oriented leadership (Cao et al., 2023). In
practical terms, a supportive leadership style reects a supervisor who
provides both emotional, instrumental, informal, as well as valued and
appreciative support, but with most weight on the emotional dimension
(House, 1981), providing care, listening, and understanding. In the
present study, we use the term supportive leadership to reect
emotional support from a leader with a focus on listening, caring, and
creating trust and condence.
A supportive leader may be effective in these respects in many ways
as described above, also acting as a constructive role model in the
working environment as proposed by both social learning theory (Ban-
dura, 1977) and the theory of social information processing (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978). As a role model, the behaviours and actions of a leader
inform and model appropriate actions that group members may attend
to and learn from (Bandura, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Thus,
supportive leadership may include actions and interventions that pro-
vide salient cues and events in the social environment that can be
interpreted as expectations and inspirations of civil and ethical behav-
iours (Hattke & Hattke, 2019). Such actions could be interventions that
provide understanding of personal needs (Avolio & Bass, 1999), trust
and acceptance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), a conict management
climate (Einarsen et al., 2016) which may lower the risk of escalating
interpersonal tension, frustration, and conicts on an individual or
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
4
dyadic level (Tse et al., 2008). Altogether, a supportive supervisor may
through such actions and interventions provide a safe environment
where employees may voice their concerns and frustrations. Such ac-
tions and interventions may itself mitigate the risk of bullying in a
perceived hostile work climate growing out of an organizational struc-
ture of ambiguous roles, and also serve as salient cues of expected ethical
behaviours, that is, acting as a constructive role model preventing the
development of a perceived hostile climate.
Hypothesis 3.A perceived supportive leadership moderates the indirect
effect of role ambiguity through a hostile work climate on exposure to bullying
behaviours (a moderated mediation).
3. Methods
3.1. Study design and sample
In this three-wave study starting in 2015 and ending 2020, the par-
ticipants belong to three cohorts: a governmental institution (n =754), a
municipality (n =205), and a private company (n =75). The waves
started at different times for the three cohorts, between March 2015 and
April 2017. The time span between wave 1 and 2 was 18–22 months, and
between wave 2 and 3 it was 22–25 months. Between wave 1 and wave 3
the time span was 41–45 months (see Table 1). A web-based work
environment survey was used. At the rst wave 2911 employees were
invited to participate and 1978 responded (68%). The response rate for
wave 2 was 71%, and 72% for wave 3. In total, 1034 employees
participated at all three waves.
There were 59% women and 41% men participating as respondents.
The mean age was 45.7 (SD =9.6). They had worked on average 9.4
years at their current workplace (SD =8.2), and 9% had a managerial
position.
The project was approved by The Regional Ethical Review Board at
Link¨
oping, Sweden, protocol number: 2014-282-31, and have been
performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the
1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable
ethical standards. All participants gave their informed consent before
participating in the study.
3.2. Measures
Exposure to bullying behaviours was measured using the Negative
Acts Questionnaire–Revised (NAQ–R; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers,
2009). The NAQ–R is a behavioural experience method covering expo-
sure to bullying behaviours from sporadic incidents to full-edged,
systematic exposure to workplace bullying (e.g., Nielsen, Notelaers,
et al., 2020; Rosander & Blomberg, 2019). It consists of 22 items
describing different passive or active behaviours that can be part of a
bullying process when occurring regularly. We used the Swedish
translation of the NAQ–R (Rosander & Blomberg, 2018). For each of the
22 items respondents indicate the frequency of the exposure during the
last six months on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). In the study we used
the sum of the 22 items as the score. High scores on the NAQ–R indicate
systematic exposure to workplace bullying. The internal consistency of
the NAQ–R, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .83 at wave 1 and .88 at
wave 3.
We also used two established scales, Roles in the Organization (RIM)
and Perceived Supportive Leadership (PSL) taken from the Psychosocial
Work Environmental Questionnaire (PSYWEQ; e.g., Blomberg &
Rosander, 2020; Nielsen et al., 2021; Rosander, 2021; Rosander &
Blomberg, 2018, 2019), which is a questionnaire validated in a Swedish
context. Finally, the measure of a Hostile Work Climate (HWC) is a new
measure validated by Rosander and Salin (2023). All three scales use a
seven-point Likert scale.
The RIM is a measure of role ambiguity. It contains six items covering
the level of clarity regarding division of tasks, roles, routines, re-
sponsibilities, and role expectations as well as an overall assessment of
the orderliness in the organization. An example item is “It is well-known
and clear who is responsible for different issues and tasks (i.e., we have
clear roles at our workplace)”. High scores in this study mean high levels
of role ambiguity. The Cronbach’s alpha for the RIM was .91 (wave 1).
The PSL is a measure of a perceived supportive leadership style in
one’s immediate supervisor. It contains ten items covering different
aspects of trust and condence in one’s immediate supervisor, mainly
focusing on areas such as trust, getting help or support, and feeling safe.
An example item is “I trust the supervisor”. High scores on the PSL in-
dicates a perceived supportive leadership. The Cronbach’s alpha for the
PSL was .96 (wave 1) and .97 (wave 2).
The HWC is a measure of the perceived affective climate at the
workplace. It contains ve items: (a) “There are ongoing conicts that
negatively affect our business”, (b) “There are co-workers who are
treated badly at our workplace”, (c) “My workplace is characterized by
suspicion, conicts, misunderstandings, and rudeness”, (d) “At our
workplace, the atmosphere is good”, and (e) “I feel safe at my work-
place”. Item d and e were reversed, so high scores on the HWC indicate a
hostile work climate. The Cronbach’s alpha for the HWC was .82 (wave
2). Rosander and Salin (2023) showed that the HWC is a distinct mea-
sure in relation to measures of bullying.
In the analysis, we used sex and age as covariates as both may have
an effect on bullying (Zapf et al., 2020). We also tested managerial po-
sition as a covariate, but as it had no effect on the results it was not used
in the further analyses. We adjusted for NAQ–R at wave 1, hence pre-
dicting increased exposure over time. All measures and their Cronbach’s
alphas are presented in Table 2.
3.3. Statistical Analysis
We used IBM SPSS 27 for Mac for the analyses. For the rst hy-
pothesis, we used linear regression with standardized effects (β). To
investigate the second and third hypotheses, we used the PROCESS
macro 3.5 (Hayes, 2018) based on ordinary least squares regression
analysis. A bootstrap method with 5 000 samples was used to create
condence intervals for all the included measures. Bootstrapping is a
statistical procedure that allows estimates even when the underlying
distribution is unknown (Hayes, 2018). Hence, bootstrapping is useful as
an alternative to parametric estimates when the assumptions of those
methods are violated.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
We also conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the
results. For the rst analysis we excluded 17 participants that indicted
that they were bullied by a supervisor at wave 2. We had no follow-up
question of who the perpetrators were in connection to the NAQ–R as
the scale is a measure of the overall exposure from many sources that
may face the given respondent. However, in the work environment
survey we also measured self-labelled bullying which had a follow-up
question where the participants could indicate if they were bullied by
a supervisor. Self-labelled bullying was measured using a denition of
Table 1
Participants in the study.
Organization Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 n
Governmental
institution
March 2015 Nov. 2016 Sep. – Oct.
2018
754
Municipality June – Sep.
2016
March – April
2018
March – April
2020
205
Private company April – May
2017
Oct. 2018 Nov. 2020 75
All three cohorts Baseline +18 to 22
months
+22 to 25
months
1034
Note. From baseline to Wave 3: 41 to 45 months.
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
5
workplace bullying and followed by a single-item question about
exposure: “Have you been exposed to bullying during the past six
months?”, with the same 5-point response scale as the NAQ–R. The
denition was:
Bullying occurs when a person, repeatedly and over time, is sub-
jected to negative treatment from one or more people, in situations
where the victim has difculty defending oneself. It is not bullying if
two equally strong people are in a conict with each other.
The reason for this exclusion was that perceived bullying from a
supervisor may inuence the hypothesised buffering effect of supportive
leadership on bullying, that is, employees bullied by their supervisors
would most likely rate the supportive leadership very low possibly
inating the effects found. By excluding such potential cases, the
robustness of the ndings could be analysed.
In a second sensitivity analysis, we controlled for active leadership at
wave 2 using an inverted measure of laissez-faire leadership called
Active Leadership (AL). The reason for using the AL as a control was that
a passive, avoidant, and absent leadership has been described as a pre-
dictor of workplace bullying (Skogstad et al., 2007) and has been shown
to act as a moderator in prospective studies of the relationship between
interpersonal conicts and later victimization from workplace bullying
(Ågotnes et al., 2018). Being active and present is not the same as being
supportive as there are also forms of leadership that are active
destructive (e.g., Aasland et al., 2009; Lundmark et al., 2021). To
pinpoint the supportive leadership dimension, we therefore adjusted for
the active–passive leadership dimension. The AL is based on four items
covering leadership activity. The questions concern to what extent a
supervisor is good at making decisions, responds quickly, grasps what is
important, and if the supervisor is available (the rst four items in the
scale Active and Constructive Leadership; ACL; Rosander & Blomberg,
2018). Cronbach’s alpha for the AL was .93.
In a third sensitivity analysis we combined the rst two analyses. We
excluded the 17 participants that had indicated that they were bullied by
a supervisor at wave 2 and also adjusted for active leadership at wave 2.
4. Results
In Table 2 descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s
alphas for all measures used in the study are presented. Sex (59%
women) is a categorical variable.
Role ambiguity at wave 1 was associated with bullying behaviours at
wave 3 (r =.29, p <.001) as well as with a hostile work climate at wave
2 (r =.38, p <.001). A hostile work climate at wave 2 was associated
with exposure to bullying behaviours at wave 3 (r =.34, p <.001) and
supportive leadership was negatively associated with exposure to
bullying behaviours at wave 3 (wave 1: r = − .27, p <.001; wave 2: r =
−.31, p <.001) as well as with a hostile work climate at wave 2 (wave 1:
r = − .34, p <.001; wave 2: r = − .50, p <.001).
To test the rst hypothesis, that role ambiguity is a predictor of
exposure to bullying behaviours 41–45 months later, a linear regression
analysis was conducted. Adjusting for sex, age, and exposure to bullying
behaviours at wave 1 the results showed that role ambiguity at wave 1
was a signicant predictor of exposure to bullying behaviours at wave 3,
β =0.09, p =.002 (see Table 3). Hypothesis 1 was supported.
To test Hypothesis 2, that the effect of role ambiguity on bullying is
mediated by a perceived hostile work climate, we used a mediation
model (model 4 in the PROCESS macro, Hayes, 2018). The result
showed that the association between role ambiguity at wave 1 and
exposure to bullying behaviours at wave 3 was mediated by a hostile
work climate, β =0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.08], while the direct effect was
non-signicant, β =0.04, p =.145 (see Fig. 1). The explained variance of
bullying behaviours at wave 3 was 28%. Hypothesis 2 was supported.
To investigate Hypothesis 3, that perceived supportive leadership
moderates the indirect effect of role ambiguity through a hostile work
climate on exposure to bullying behaviours, we tested two models. First,
a model in which supportive leadership at wave 1 was added as a
moderator for the association between role ambiguity and a hostile work
climate, and at wave 2 as moderator for the association between a
hostile work climate and subsequent exposure to bullying behaviours
(model 21 in the PROCESS macro, Hayes, 2018), that is, a moderated
mediation analysis with two moderators. Controlling for sex, age, and
exposure to bullying behaviours at wave 1, the result showed that the
interaction between a hostile work climate and supportive leadership at
wave 2 was signicant, b =0.34, p<.001, but not the interaction be-
tween role ambiguity and supportive leadership at wave 1, b =0.01,
p=.499. Thus, in a second analysis testing Hypothesis 3, supportive
leadership as a moderator for the association between role ambiguity
and a hostile work climate was omitted. We used model 14 in the
PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018) testing a moderated mediation with
supportive leadership as a moderator only of the association between a
hostile work climate and subsequent exposure to bullying behaviours.
The result showed a full mediation of the effect between role ambiguity
and bullying, and that the association between a hostile work climate
and bullying was dependent on the level of supportive leadership (see
Table 4 and Fig. 2). The index of moderated mediation for the whole
model was signicant, b = − 0.09, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.02], that is, there
was a conditional indirect effect of role ambiguity at wave 1 through a
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s alpha for measures in the study.
α
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Sex – –
2 Age 45.70 9.58 .00
3 NAQ–R (W1) .83 25.36 4.66 -.05 -.05
4 RIM (W1) .91 2.93 1.33 -.04 -.06 .41 * *
5 HWC (W2) .82 2.26 1.20 -.03 -.02 .35 * * .38 * *
6 PSL (W1) .96 5.67 1.31 .01 -.06 * -.44 * * -.56 * * -.34 * *
7 PSL (W2) .97 5.70 1.37 -.01 -.06 * -.30 * * -.36 * * -.50 * * .52 * *
8 AL (W2) .93 5.41 1.48 .01 -.02 -.29 * * -.39 * * -.48 * * .46 * * .86 * *
9 NAQ–R (W3) .88 25.42 5.44 -.07 * -.07 .52 * * .29 * * .34 * * -.27 * * -.31 * * -.29 * *
Note. NAQ–R =Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised; RIM =Roles in the Organization; HWC =Hostile Work Climate; PSL =Perceived Supportive Leadership; AL =
Active Leadership; W =Wave.
* p <.05. * * p <.001.
Table 3
Linear regression with ambiguous roles at wave 1 predicting exposure to
bullying behaviours at wave 3, adjusting for sex, age, and workplace bullying at
wave 1.
B 95% CI SE B β p
RIM (Wave 1) 0.37 0.14; 0.60 0.12 0.09 p =.002
Sex -0.44 -1.02; 0.14 0.29 -0.04 p =.137
Age -0.02 -0.05; 0.00 0.02 -0.04 p =.104
NAQ–R (Wave 1) 0.55 0.49; 0.62 0.03 0.47 p <.001
Note. RIM =Roles in the Organization; NAQ–R =Negative Acts
Questionnaire–Revised.
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
6
hostile work climate at wave 2 on exposure to bullying behaviours at
wave 3. The indirect effect was dependent on the level of perceived
supportive leadership at wave 2. At the 16th percentile of perceived
supportive leadership, the indirect effect was signicant, b =0.20, CI
[0.08, 0.35]. A Johnson-Neyman test of signicant regions (Hayes,
2018) showed that for a hostile work climate, the association with
exposure to bullying behaviours was signicant below the 42nd
percentile. For values above that, the association was not signicant
meaning that supportive leadership buffered the effect. The interaction
between hostile work climate and supportive leadership, b = − 0.34,
p<.001, is shown in Fig. 3. The explained variance of exposure to
bullying behaviours at wave 3 was 33% and the interaction increased
the explained variance with 2%, F (1, 1022) =26.26, p<.001. Hy-
pothesis 3 was supported.
4.1. Sensitivity Analyses
We conducted three sensitivity analyses. First, we investigated if
removing cases where the supervisor may have been the bully would
change the outcome. Second, we controlled for the active–passive
dimension of leadership to see if the results remained the same. Finally,
we tested both together. In the rst analysis we used the same moder-
ated mediation model that was used for Hypothesis 3 (model 14 in the
PROCESS macro, Hayes, 2018). The results were replicated but were a
little weaker which was expected as we had excluded 17 bullied em-
ployees in this analysis. In the second analysis we used Active Leader-
ship (AL) as a control at wave 2 still using the same model as above.
There was a very strong correlation between supportive leadership and
active leadership (r =.86). A strong correlation was expected as a highly
supportive leadership may be perceived as active, and vice versa. But the
correlation was somewhat stronger than expected leaving only about
26% variance when using active leadership as control. To test for po-
tential error variance ination a multicollinearity test showed that VIF
was 4.07 for a the PSL and 3.97 for the AL indicating that multi-
collinearity was not a specic problem in the sensitivity analysis (James
et al., 2021). The results were replicated. Neither active leadership nor
supportive leadership had any direct effect on bullying behaviours.
Finally, we combined the two sensitivity analyses. The analysis turned
out the same. All signicant ndings were replicated.
For details of the results of the sensitivity analyses, contact the rst
author.
5. Discussion
The present study focused on the long-term risk of role ambiguity as
an antecedent for later exposure to bullying behaviours at work and a
mechanism of when and how this risk may be present, that is, a mediation
via a hostile work climate and a moderation by perceived supportive
leadership. We tested three hypotheses, all receiving support. First, role
Fig. 1. A mediation model of perceived hostile work climate mediating the association between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours.
Table 4
A moderated mediation model of the moderating effect by perceived supportive
leadership at wave 2 on the effect of ambiguous roles at wave 1, mediated by a
hostile work climate at wave 2, on exposure to bullying behaviours at wave 3,
adjusted for sex, age, and exposure to bullying behaviours at wave 1.
B b [95% CI] SE B p
RIM (Wave 1) 0.12 -0.12; 0.36 0.12 p =.343, ns
HWC (Wave 2) 0.36 0.07; 0.65 0.15 p =.014
PSL (Wave 2) -0.25 -0.50; 0.01 0.13 p =.057, ns
HWC*PSL -0.34 -0.47; −0.21 0.07 p <.001
Sex -0.47 -1.03; 0.08 0.28 p =.096, ns
Age -0.03 -0.06; −0.00 0.01 p =.030
NAQ–R (Wave 1) 0.49 0.43; 0.56 0.03 p <.001
Note. RIM =Roles in the Organization; HWC =Hostile Work Climate, PSL
=Perceived Supportive Leadership, NAQ–R =Negative Acts Ques-
tionnaire–Revised. The HWC and the PSL were mean centred prior to analysis. ns
=not signicant.
Fig. 2. A moderated mediation model of supportive leadership moderating the indirect association between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours,
through hostile work climate.
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
7
ambiguity predicted exposure to bullying behaviours 41–45 months
later (Hypothesis 1). The effect of role ambiguity on exposure to bullying
was mediated by a perceived hostile work climate (Hypothesis 2). The
observed mediation effect was however moderated by supportive lead-
ership showing that supportive leadership could buffer the effect of role
ambiguity on bullying, through a hostile work climate (Hypothesis 3), in
which the relationship between hostile climate and later exposure to
bullying was dependent on the level of supportive leadership. These are
novel ndings with important applied as well as theoretical implica-
tions. Neither the long-term effect of role ambiguity, the mechanism of a
hostile work climate, nor the conditional effect of a supportive leader-
ship have, to our knowledge, been documented before.
Previous research has, however, indicated a causal link between
work stressors, such as role ambiguity, and exposure to workplace
bullying (e.g., Reknes et al., 2014; Salin & Hoel, 2020; Van den Brande
et al., 2016). However, few studies have been longitudinal, and no study
has had a longer time lag than two years. The present study had a time
lag of 41 to 45 months, indicating that the negative effect of role am-
biguity lingers for several years, that is, role ambiguity seems to have a
long-term negative effect on the working environment. So, even if the
negative effect in our study is not particularly strong, it is still signicant
after almost four years. A possible explanation of why the negative effect
of role ambiguity is signicant after such a long time may be that role
ambiguity could be an ongoing organizational condition that tends to
become stable unless it is actively resolved (Lewin, 1947). In that way,
role ambiguity would be a continuous structural risk factor in the
organisation with, for example, negative inuences on the social life in
the organization. Furthermore, our study also shows that the long term
relationship is due to a mediation process via hostile work climate
which, according to Rosander and Salin (2023), also may lead to a vi-
cious circle between hostile work climate and workplace bullying.
Regardless of why there is such a long-term association between role
ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours, the result underscores
the importance of clear information and expectations in regard of work-
related roles in the organization (Beehr, 1995; Boalt Bo¨
ethius, 2019;
Kahn et al., 1964). The result also give further support for the work
environment hypothesis (Einarsen et al., 1994; Leymann, 1996) that
states that bullying is associated with different kinds of deciencies in
the organization, and earlier work focusing on role stressors in this
respect (Einarsen et al., 1994; Hauge et al., 2007; Nielsen & Einarsen,
2018). The result is also in line with the recent ndings of Ågotnes et al.
(2023) that role ambiguity is a fundamental and distal part of the
different kinds of role stress.
To understand the mechanism of how role ambiguity may lead to
subsequent exposure to bullying via a perceived hostile work climate,
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and the theory of social infor-
mation processing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) provided important input
which led to Hypothesis 2. A work environment where employees do not
know what is expected of them, where there is a lack of, or contradic-
tory, information about responsibilities, obligations, and mandates, may
give rise to a social environment full of events and behavioural cues
characterized by disappointments, irritations, frustrations, tensions, and
aggressive outlets (Baillien et al., 2009; Bandura, 1977; De Rivera, 1992;
Jones and Lawrence, 1979). Such a social environment may shape in-
dividual behaviours and perceptions through an attentional process
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) where the negative behavioural cues are
interpreted as expected individual behaviours (Bandura, 1977). This
may result in increased role stress in form of role conicts (Ågotnes
et al., 2023) but also in a real or perceived general hostile work climate
characterized by consistent acrimonious, antagonistic, and suspicious
feelings within the work group (Mawritz et al., 2014; Mawritz et al.,
2012), especially if deviant and aggressive behaviours are repeated with
no punishing or unrewarding effects (Bandura, 1977). In such a social
work environment there may be a lack of inhibiting norms (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978) in association with frustration and aggressiveness making
exposure to bullying behaviours more likely (Baillien et al., 2009). It has
also been shown that antisocial behaviours at work may be shaped by
co-workers (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998) in line with social
learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and underscoring the potential of a
hostile work climate turning into bullying. Finally, in such a climate
there may be a lack of awareness of when actions are “over the line” as
bystanders and perpetrators already are customized and desensitised to
negative interpersonal behaviours in the immediate working
environment.
Finally, our results showed that perceived supportive leadership
acted as a buffer for the negative effect of role ambiguity through a
hostile work climate on exposure of bullying behaviours. The negative
effect was only present when the supportive leadership was low. When
the level of supportive leadership was moderate or high, the risk of
bullying disappeared altogether. Firstly, this may theoretically be
Fig. 3. The interaction between a hostile work environment and supportive leadership.
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
8
understood using the concept of role models from the social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977). A leader is important in dening what values
and behaviours that are legitimate (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
How a leader acts and behaves serves as salient cues to which employees
attend (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) which means that the way leadership is
performed inform and model appropriate actions that group members
may learn from (Bandura, 1977). A supportive leadership style of one’s
immediate supervisor may in this way be interpreted as expectations
and inspirations of civil and ethical behaviours (Hattke & Hattke, 2019)
which also would make it a part of the meta-category of ethical or
moral-oriented leadership and not only of relationship-oriented lead-
ership (Cao et al., 2023). If the level of supportive leadership instead is
low and characterized by no listening, emotional distance, and mistrust,
that may itself model and inform the employees that aggressive, deviant,
and unethical behaviours are legitimate (Bandura, 1977; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978).
However, in terms of exposure to bullying behaviours, the moder-
ating effect of supportive leadership was interacting with a hostile work
climate as a predictor of exposure to bullying behaviours, and not with
role ambiguity as a predictor of a hostile work climate. Thus, it seems
that the moderating effect mainly is of a social and not of a structural
character. That is, the way supportive leadership moderates the medi-
ated association between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying be-
haviours is not in compensating for aws in the organizational structure
(role ambiguity) but rather by inuencing the risk of a hostile climate of
working groups escalating into more severe cases of bullying. This im-
plicates that the effect of supportive leadership may be of more than just
a role model by leader actions and interventions that hinder a hostile
work climate to escalate. Such interventions could be providing a safe
environment of trust (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), understanding (Avo-
lio & Bass, 1999), and constructive conict management (Einarsen et al.,
2016) that makes it possible for employees to voice their frustrations and
concerns and thus lower the interpersonal tensions (Tse et al., 2008).
This may also increase the employees’ coping resources when facing
frustrating work conditions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Such leader
interventions may also serve as behavioural learning cues and enhance
the function of the supportive leader as a role model (Bandura, 1977).
The interventions may also make clear that unethical behaviours at
work are not legitimate (Bandura, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Last
but not least, having a supportive leader in an otherwise hostile work
climate may create a basic sense of safety and security in which the
behaviour of others may be perceived as less hostile and threatening.
Yet, it is noteworthy that it is not necessarily highly supportive leaders
that may have this effect, as the relationship between a hostile climate
and exposure to bullying only existed for low levels of supportive
leadership. Hence, a given superior do need not to be highly supportive.
Being reasonably supportive and an average leader in this respect seems
to sufce.
The argument that there is need of interventions and actions by a
supportive leader to counteract the negative effect by a hostile work
climate may lead to the question if a supportive leadership style is the
opposite of a passive laissez-faire leadership style. However, in the
sensitivity analyses we adjusted for the active–passive dimension of
leadership and the results were still signicant. This means that the
perceived supportive leadership was a distinct leadership dimension and
not just the opposite of having a passive and laissez-faire leader (Skog-
stad et al., 2007; Ågotnes et al., 2018).
The present study adds to an increasing knowledge of the importance
of supportive leadership in mitigating workplace bullying. For example,
Nielsen, Christensen, et al. (2020) examined supportive leadership,
together with co-worker and non-work-related social support, and found
moderating effects on workplace bullying, mental distress, and sickness
absence. In a study by Gardner et al. (2013), leadership support pre-
dicted reduced workplace bullying and reduced mental strain, while
Clausen et al. (2019) reported that leadership support buffered the as-
sociation between workplace bullying and disability pensioning.
Supportive leadership has also been reported to buffer the risk of ill
health leading to subsequent bullying behaviours (Blomberg &
Rosander, 2022).
The ndings as well as the discussion are illustrated in Fig. 4.
6. Strengths and limitations
The longitudinal design with a time lag of 41–45 months with three
waves, is a notable strength of the present study, casting some light on
possible causal links, which is important when studying interrelating
constructs such as role stress, leadership, bullying, and work climate,
and especially so when focusing on mediating effects. Having a rather
large and heterogeneous sample including different sectors of working
life is also a strength. However, it is not a representative sample, and it is
only performed in a Swedish context. Another strength is the performed
sensitivity analysis where 17 participants that indicated that they were
bullied by their supervisor were excluded. In that analysis all ndings
were still signicant which indicate robust nds.
There are however also some further limitations that must be
addressed. First, we did not assess a hostile work climate on an aggre-
gated group level. Conceptually, work climates are usually described as
group phenomena as they are about shared perceptions of the actual
work climate (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). In the present study, however,
we could not aggregate the individual answers to a group level as the
administrative codes we had access to did not provide information on
actual work groups in all cases. On the other hand, treating climate as a
mediator between individual level role ambiguity and individual reports
of exposure to bullying, implies of course an individual level mediator,
in our case the perceived hostile climate. Therefore, all data were ana-
lysed on an individual level. This is not, however, unusual when
investigating work climates (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009) but means that,
in the present study, the investigated hostile work climate is of an in-
dividual psychological character rather than an aggregated group
phenomenon.
Common method bias (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002) is a risk in
studies employing data from self-report questionnaires. This has, how-
ever, been argued being less of a problem than has often been assumed
(Spector, 2006). In the present study, the respondents answered the
questionnaires in a familiar context of recurring work environment as-
sessments in their workplace. The situational pressure to submit socially
desirable answers were therefore low (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone,
2002). Furthermore, we used a longitudinal design with three data
collection points over an almost four-year period which may alleviate
somewhat the risk of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Finally, the correlation between a hostile work climate and sup-
portive leadership was −.50. It has been argued (e.g., Iacobucci et al.,
2016) that the moderator and the predictor should be uncorrelated as
high correlations may cause problems with multicollinearity and high
variance ination factor. However, this view has been strongly refuted
with arguments that multicollinearity is completely irrelevant for tests
of moderator variables (McClelland et al., 2017).
7. Conclusions and practical implications
In the present longitudinal three-wave study, we showed that role
ambiguity is an indirect long-term risk factor for subsequent exposure to
bullying behaviours, working through a perceived hostile work climate.
As such our nding provides support for the work environment hy-
pothesis. The negative effect is, however, only present when the
perceived level of supportive leadership is low, again a nding in sup-
port of the important role of leadership put forward by the work envi-
ronment hypothesis. These ndings clarify both the mechanism of when
and how role ambiguity may be a risk factor of exposure to bullying
behaviours. Hence, the results underscore the importance of clear ex-
pectations and demands as role ambiguity may create social stress with
tensions and frustrations as outcome. Such social stress can theoretically
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
9
give rise to aggressive and untrusting behavioural cues in the work
group that legitimise a hostile work climate which in turn may escalate
into bullying. However, the study also showed the importance of sup-
portive leadership as a buffer against the risk of a hostile work climate in
relation to any subsequent exposure to workplace bullying. Thus, the
importance of supportive leadership is underscored as it may both serve
as a role model for ethical behaviours at work and providing in-
terventions and support in ways that hinder a hostile work climate to
escalate into bullying. The effect of supportive leadership seems pri-
marily to be social, not to compensate for organizational aws, that is,
role ambiguity. Yet, an average level of supportive leadership seems to
make the trick. In practical terms, this means that to really counter the
risks of role ambiguity evolving into a hostile work climate and subse-
quent exposure to bullying behaviours, an organization needs both to
clarify its work-related roles, manage the risks of a hostile work climate,
and foster a supportive leadership style in the organization.
Funding
This work was supported by the AFA Insurrance under Grant number
160285, and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and
Welfare under Grant number 2019-01232.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Stefan Blomberg: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Michael Rosander: Concep-
tualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration, Funding acquisition. Ståle Valvatne Einarsen:
Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing interest
The authors do not have any nancial or other interest in the direct
application of the research.
Data Availability
The data that has been used is condential.
References
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2009). The
prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21(2),
438–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/
096317999166789
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the
development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/
casp.977
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Beehr, T.A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. Routledge.
Blomberg, S., & Rosander, M. (2020). Exposure to bullying behaviours and support from
co-workers and supervisors: A three-way interaction and the effect on health and
well-being. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 93(4),
479–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01503-7
Blomberg, S., & Rosander, M. (2022). When do poor health increase the risk of
subsequent workplace bullying? The dangers of low or absent leadership support.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 485–495. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1359432x.2021.2003781
Boalt Bo¨
ethius, S. (2019). Dynamik och struktur [Dynamic and structure]. In S. Jern, &
J. N¨
aslund (Eds.), Organisationspsykologi: teori - kritik - praktik [Organizational
psychology: theory - chriticism - practice] (2 ed. (pp. 171–213). Studentlitteratur.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s
perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91
(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Cao, W., Li, P., C. van der Wal, R., & W. Taris, T. (2023). Leadership and workplace
aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 186(2), 347–367. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-022-05184-0
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational
leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1022991115523
Clausen, T., Conway, P. M., Burr, H., Kristensen, T. S., Hansen, A. M., Garde, A. H., &
Hogh, A. (2019). Does leadership support buffer the effect of workplace bullying on
the risk of disability pensioning? An analysis of register-based outcomes using
pooled survey data from 24,538 employees. International Archives of Occupational and
Fig. 4. An illustration of the ndings and the discussion.
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
10
Environmental Health, 92(7), 941–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01428-
1
Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676
De Rivera, J. (1992). Emotional climate: Social structure and emotional dynamics. In
K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (2 ed..,, pp. 197–218).
Wiley.
Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to
conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 579–599.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x470690
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019637632584
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and
harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the
Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02678370902815673
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work:
The European tradition. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and
practice (pp. 3–30). Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S. V., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). The concept of bullying and
harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Theory, research, and
practice (3 ed..,, pp. 3–54). CRC Press.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & 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(4), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13594329408410497
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, A. B., & Nielsen, M. B. (2016). Climate for
conict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: A
moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 29(3), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216
Foster, P.J. (2012). Leader-member-exchange and the workplace bully [Doctoral thesis,
Kansas State University]. Manhattan, Kansas. 〈http://hdl.handle.net/2097/15072〉.
Gardner, D., Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., O’Driscoll, M., & Trenberth, L.
(2013). Ethnicity, workplace bullying, social support and psychological strain in
Aotearoa/New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 84–91.
Gilbert, P., & Basran, J. (2019). The evolution of prosocial and antisocial competitive
behavior and the emergence of prosocial and antisocial leadership styles. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 610. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00610
Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., Knight, J. M., & Long, Z. (2017). Creating the boiler room
environment. Communication Research, 44(2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093650215614365
Hamre, K. V., Einarsen, S. V., & Notelaers, G. (2023). Psychosocial safety climate as a
moderator in role stressor-bullying relationships: A multilevel approach. Safety
Science, 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106165
Hattke, F., & Hattke, J. (2019). Lead by example? The dissemination of ethical values
through authentic leader inspiration. International Journal of Public Leadership, 15(4),
224–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpl-06-2019-0034
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21
(3), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701705810
Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach (2 ed.). Guilford Press.
House, J.S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Hu, Q., Dollard, M. F., & Taris, T. W. (2022). Organizational context matters:
Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to team and individual motivational
functioning. Safety Science, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105524
Iacobucci, D., Schneider, M. J., Popovich, D. L., & Bakamitsos, G. A. (2016). Mean
centering helps alleviate "micro" but not "macro" multicollinearity. Behavior Research
Methods, 48(4), 1308–1317. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0624-x
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2021). An introduction to statistical
learning: With applications in R (2 ed.). Springer.
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions:
Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5),
739–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.739
Jones, A. P., & Lawrence, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and
relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(2), 201–250. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0030-5073(79)90056-4
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., & Snoek, J.D. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies
in role conict and ambiguity. Wiley.
Karasek, R.A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction of working life. Basic Books.
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique,
and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal
of Management, 35(3), 634–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330559
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing
Company.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social
science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13594329608414853
Lundmark, R., Stenling, A., von Thiele Schwarz, U., & Tafvelin, S. (2021). Appetite for
destruction: A psychometric examination and prevalence estimation of destructive
leadership in Sweden. Frontier Psychology, 12, Article 668838. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668838
Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision,
and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(4), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035863
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012).
A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12059
McClelland, G. H., Irwin, J. R., Disatnik, D., & Sivan, L. (2017). Multicollinearity is a red
herring in the search for moderator variables: A guide to interpreting moderated
multiple regression models and a critique of Iacobucci, Schneider, Popovich, and
Bakamitsos (2016). Behavior Research Methods, 49(1), 394–402. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13428-016-0785-2
Nielsen, M. B., Christensen, J. O., Finne, L. B., & Knardahl, S. (2020). Workplace
bullying, mental distress, and sickness absence: The protective role of social support.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 93(1), 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01463-y
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. V. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what
we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the
literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 71–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007
Nielsen, M. B., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Methodological issues in the
measurement of workplace bullying. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Theory, research and
practice (3 ed..,, pp. 235–265). CRC Press.
Nielsen, M. B., Rosander, M., Blomberg, S., & Einarsen, S. V. (2021). Killing two birds
with one stone: How intervening when witnessing bullying at the workplace may
help both target and the acting observer. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 94(2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-020-01575-
w
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., LaCost, H. A., &
Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and
work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4),
389–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.198
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and
team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.240
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-
hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover,
and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2),
438–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879
Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2018). A review of literature on mediators and moderators of
workplace bullying. Management Research Review, 41(7), 822–859. https://doi.org/
10.1108/mrr-05-2016-0111
Reknes, I., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., & Lau, B. (2014). The prospective relationship
between role stressors and new cases of self-reported workplace bullying.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/
sjop.12092
Reknes, I., Notelaers, G., Iliescu, D., & Einarsen, S. V. (2021). The inuence of target
personality in the development of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 26(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000272
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The inuence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. The Academy of Management
Journal, 41(6), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.2307/256963
Rosander, M. (2021). Mental health problems as a risk factor for workplace bullying: The
protective effect of a well-functioning organization. Annals of Work Exposure and
Health, 65(9), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxab040
Rosander, M., & Blomberg, S. (2018). The WHOLE picture. Measurement of psychosocial
work environment. Link¨
oping University Electronic Press.
Rosander, M., & Blomberg, S. (2019). Levels of workplace bullying and escalation – a
new conceptual model based on cut-off scores, frequency and self-labelled
victimization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6),
769–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1642874
Rosander, M., & Salin, D. (2023). A hostile work climate and workplace bullying:
Reciprocal effects and gender differences. Employee Relations: The International
Journal, 45(7), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/er-03-2022-0127
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and tas design. Administrative Science Quaterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2392563
Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2020). Organisational risk factors of workplace bullying. In
S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassement in the
workplace: Theory, research, and practice (3 ed..,, pp. 305–330). CRC Press.
Schat, A. C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace
aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 8(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.8.2.110
S. Blomberg et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Management 40 (2024) 101328
11
Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations (pp. xvii-xxii)). In
N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
culture and climate. Sage.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. In Personnel
Psychology, 36 pp. 19–39). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb00500.x
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. https://
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban
legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094428105284955
Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying
social support as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23
(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136511
Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level analysis of
team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.005
Van den Brande, W., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Vander Elst, T., & Godderis, L. (2016). The
role of work stressors, coping strategies and coping resources in the process of
workplace bullying: A systematic review and development of a comprehensive
model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2016.06.004
Zahlquist, L., Hetland, J., Notelaers, G., Rosander, M., & Einarsen, S. V. (2023). When the
going gets tough and the environment is rough: The role of departmental level
hostile work climate in the relationships between job stressors and workplace
bullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20, 4464.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054464
Zahlquist, L., Hetland, J., Skogstad, A., Bakker, A. B., & Einarsen, S. V. (2019). Job
demands as risk factors of exposure to bullying at work: The moderating role of
team-level conict management climate. Frontier Psychology, 10, 2017. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02017
Zapf, D., Escartin, J., Scheppalahyani, M., Einarsen, S. V., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2020).
Empirical ndings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In
S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Theory, research and practice (3 ed..,, pp. 105–162). CRC Press.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group
climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85
(4), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.587
Ågotnes, K. W., Einarsen, S. V., Hetland, J., & Skogstad, A. (2018). The moderating effect
of laissez-faire leadership on the relationship between co-worker conicts and new
cases of workplace bullying: A true prospective design. Human Resource Management
Journal, 28(4), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12200
Ågotnes, K. W., Nielsen, M. B., Skogstad, A., Gjerstad, J., & Einarsen, S. V. (2023). The
role of leadership practices in the relationship between role stressors and exposure to
bullying behaviours – a longitudinal moderated mediation design. Work & Stress, 29
(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2023.2226635
S. Blomberg et al.