+ Models

ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

Organizational Dynamics (2021) xxx, xxx—xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn

Workplace bullying investigations:

A complex endeavor for a complex problem
Anneli Matsson, Thomas Jordan

INTRODUCTION place bullying in Sweden among practitioners as well as

researchers. However, the definition is vague and not deeply
Bullying and emotional abuse are serious problems that elaborated. The lack of clear definition of the concept of
affect many employees in the workplace. A recent study bullying, has been identified as a quest for further research.
in Sweden estimates that 20% of the workforce are at A recent study points out several knowledge gaps in the
significant risk of being bullied or are currently subject research field: A lack of construct clarification, theoretical
to bullying.1 Bullying in the workplace has been a global frameworks, causality, processes, mediators and modera-
area of concern over the last decades. It is claimed to be tors, interventions and rehabilitation. There are also no
one of the most stressful social experiences of the working generally agreed criteria for assessing the incidence of work-
environment. The research on workplace bullying has place bullying, and the theoretical frameworks need devel-
mainly been focusing on consequences and the impact of opment for analysis of bullying. This makes it difficult to
individual factors. The probably most widespread definition compare cases. Organizational and social factors are not
of bullying is this: well explored. The focus on individual factors in earlier
research has been criticized for overlooking important
“Bullying at work means harassing, offending, or socially aspects of the work environment context. Current policy
excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s frameworks have been found to be insufficient to adequately
work. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to adapt to the complexity of workplace bullying. In a recent
be applied to a particular activity, interaction, or pro- study it is suggested that bullying is better understood as
cess, the bullying behavior has to occur repeatedly and occurring on different levels of severity. All this uncertainty
regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., leads to problems for organizations faced with the phenom-
about six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the enon. Still, in many countries, it is by law mandatory to put a
course of which the person confronted ends up in an stop to bullying. This creates confusion and stress for
inferior position and becomes the target of systematic employers and organizational professionals who are left to
negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying second guess what to consider as bullying and not. Despite
if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of these knowledge gaps in research and the lack of appropriate
approximately equal strength are in conflict.” 2 policy frameworks, workplace investigations of bullying are
conducted in a number of countries, including Sweden. The
This definition is based on three premises: duration,
investigation outcomes and processes have not before been
frequency and inferiority. It is seen as a process of conflict
systematically studied, to our knowledge. This article pre-
escalation and has been leading the understanding of work-
sents findings regarding the outcomes in 81 investigation
cases conducted in Sweden between 2010 and 2015. The aim
of the study was to explore whether the widespread view-
1
Rosander, M. and Blomberg, S. (2019) Levels of workplace bully- point of bullying, generally referred to as the victim-perpe-
ing and escalation — a new conceptual model based on cut off trator perspective, accurately reflects the actual situations
scores, frequency and self-label victimization. European Journal that emerged in the investigations. The nature of the
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28:6, 769-783. analysis was inspired by the authors’ own experiences of
2
Einarsen et al. 2011, p.22.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100840
0090-2616/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

2 A. Matsson, T. Jordan

investigating bullying in combination with conversations

From Leymann’s point of view there is a need to see work-
with the individuals concerned, suggesting that the situa-
life bullying as a separate issue from peer abuse among
tions surrounding alleged bullying may appear very different
children. One big concern of mobbing at the workplace is
from case to case.
the effect on socio-economic consequences for those
affected, which differs from peer-to-peer violence at
THE VICTIM-PERPETRATOR PERSPECTIVE school. Leymann also points out the imbalance in power
between employers and employees. He has shown that those
The dominant research tradition in the field is commonly in power have a significant influence on the process.
referred to as the victim-perpetrator perspective. Researchers in the field, however, has widely retained the
This perspective views the phenomena from an individual concept of bullying. The concept of mobbing has come to be
level where one actor is a victim of abuse and another the term of choice for some researchers interested in view-
actor is perpetrating the abuse. From this research per- ing the process, while bullying is the term of choice more
spective we have learned a lot about the effects and common in the dominant research-tradition that focus on
manifestations of bullying, but it fails to recognize the the individuals involved.
role of work environment factors contributing to the
emergence of bullying. From this perspective, bullying Unethical Communication
is seen as a consequence of highly escalated conflicts
between two parties where an inferior position for the A central difference between the definitions between
one being bullied has developed over time. The starting bullying and mobbing is that Leymann views bullying as
point for this perspective was research on peer bullying in a kind of unethical communication in the workplace. He
schools. Here it is said that the difference between con- states that this communication develops when interac-
flicts and bullying cannot be determined by considering tions get out of control due to difficulties in the working
the actions alone, but instead by considering the duration environment. He compares it to a racing horse where the
and frequency and what opportunity someone had to rider has lost control. He rejects explanations of bullying
defend themselves. This perspective has had a major that have to do with personality and stresses the need for
influence on the development of workplace bullying inves- looking into the context of a specific situation. Leymann
tigations and policy development in Sweden. The victim- argues that acts of bullying should not be considered as
perpetrator perspective has been criticized for ignoring isolated events; rather, they become hostile acts in a
social and organizational aspects of bullying and to create specific situation, and a single act in itself can take
scapegoating or blaming the victim. In response to this place every day without becoming an act of bullying.
perspective, Heinz Leymann proposed the so-called work Hence, he stresses the importance of investigating the
environment hypothesis, which argues for seeking the situations and processes of bullying to gain knowledge of
causes of bullying in the work environment instead of how psychological violence develops. The focus from a
explaining bullying by individual factors. Leymann perspective is on unethical communication in
the workplace that can lead to harm to the individual.
THE LEYMANN PERSPECTIVE Two different border zones in the work environment have
been identified; 1. Communicative actions that can be
Bullying research in Sweden has a tradition going back to the shown to have a high risk for psychological ill-health or
pioneer Heinz Leymann, who introduced the research field of lead to exclusion. 2. Communicative actions that are
workplace bullying in his early studies in the 1970s. He found deeply offensive to the victim. The core feature in
that being exposed to bullying could lead to PTSD and unethical communication is what he calls monopolizing
suicide. Leymann coined the term mobbing in order to communication channels. What is said, how it is said,
distinguish it from the term 'bullying,' which was initially how feedback takes place and who gets to be heard
synonymous with peer abuse at school. Mobbing is defined as will thus be possible to control. This reduces the possi-
follows: bility of resolving conflicts and is a central part of
the mobbing processes as it has limiting effects on the
“Psychical terror or mobbing in the working life means individual’s ability to communicate. According to Ley-
hostile and unethical communication which is directed mann, there are six types of unethical communication
in a systematic way by one or a number of persons that has this effect:
mainly toward one in- dividual. [ . . . ]. These actions
take place often (almost every day) and over a long 1. Forced communication, means constantly criticizing
period (at least for six months) and, because of this someone for their poor achievements or personality. It
frequency and duration, result in considerable psy- can be expressed verbally in forms of harassment or in
chic, psychosomatic and social misery. This definition only communicating in writing and is a sign that the
eliminates temporary conflicts and focuses on the victim is not worthy of being addressed.
transition zone where the psychosocial situation starts 2. Non-verbal communication, which is a subtle way of
to result in psychiatric and/or psychosomatic patho- expressing psychological violence. It includes body lan-
logical states. “3 guage, facial expressions, gaze, and gestures.
3. False communication, which means to ignore or to
pretend not to see someone or to hear what someone
3
Leymann, 1990, p.120 said. Leymann sees this as a form of betrayal. He reveals

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

Workplace bullying investigations 3

that this is common in Scandinavia and leads to confusion Some examples of actions that are considered in the
in the workplace. guidelines are: blackmailing a co-worker or his family, delib-
4. Bureaucratic communication, which means a constant erately withholding work-related information from someone
reference to paragraphs or someone else's responsibility. or providing incorrect information, sabotaging or complicat-
5. Refused metacommunication, which is when a ing the execution of work, insulting, excluding or neglecting
member is not willing to discuss how communication is someone, sexual harassment, overcritical or negative treat-
done. ment, and/or offensive treatment or administrative sanc-
6. Isolation or silent treatment, which is a form of social tions, directed towards an individual.
sanction where a group stops talking to a member or The guidelines are not explicit on how to evaluate this
ostracizes them from the group. work life problem. Since there is so much unclarity about
the phenomenon, many organizations turn to organiza-
Further, Leymann identified five different effects on the tional consultants and other experts in the field, but they
victim of bullying as a result of unethical communication. too lack knowledge since the science around bullying still
has considerable knowledge gaps and different perspec-
1. Effects on the victim’s possibility to communicate. tives on how to view the phenomena have not yet been
2. Effects on the victim’s possibility to maintain clearly outlined. This makes investigators and other
relationships. organizational professionals, actors of great influence
3. Effects on the victim’s possibility to maintain personal in advising organizations on how to develop routines
integrity and reputation. for handling bullying, without a solid theoretical basis
4. Effects on the victim’s working conditions or life of the processes involved.
situation. In Sweden, the practitioners conducting bullying investi-
5. Effects on the victim’s physical health. gations have different backgrounds. During 2010—2015,
when the empirical data for this analysis were collected,
Leymann argues that it is these strong negative effects the rather limited number of professionals who carried out
that lead to the risk of serious psychological health problems these kinds of investigations were clinical psychologists or
because they inhibit stress coping strategies. He points out counselors, HR specialists within the organization, lawyers,
that the effects should be seen not as an individual problem or organizational consultants.
but as a situational problem and that it is of the utmost The guidelines from National Board of Occupational
importance to investigate the risks of mobbing in the work- Safety and Health changed in 2016 towards being more in
place. line with Leymann’s work environment hypothesis, stating
Leymann states that a single act cannot, in itself, be that causes for bullying and offensive mistreatment should
considered a form of bullying and thus proposed an analysis be investigated in the organizational and social work envir-
of the situation in which the acts should be contextualized. onment rather than on individual level.
The underlying question is to explore potential complexities
in the evaluation of bullying investigations. For the analysis CONTRIBUTIONS
of the findings in this study, we will apply Leymann’s concept
of unethical communication to interpret the cases of inves- In this article, we will present findings from 81 cases of
tigations. We will also use both the terms mobbing and bullying investigations and investigator interviews. The con-
bullying interchangeably. tributions of this article are threefold: (1) We will suggest
that in 63 of the 81 cases, there is a complexity in the
interactions between the parties that cannot easily be
WORKPLACE BULLYING INVESTIGATIONS IN labelled as classic bullying. (2) Using our findings, we also
SWEDEN show that bullying is a too complex and variable phenom-
enon to tackle simply by looking at the individual level. (3)
In Sweden, during the time between 2010 and 2015, when Finally, we suggest an approach for conducting bullying
the investigations included in this study were carried out, investigations.
the definition of bullying was stated as follows by The
Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and METHOD
Health:
“By victimization is meant recurrent reprehensible or Interviews with 20 investigators were conducted in 2015 and
distinctly negative actions which are directed against 2016. Ten of them were consultants in occupational health
individual employees in an offensive manner and can organizations, seven were independent organizational con-
result in those employees being placed outside the work- sultants, and three came from HR departments in the public
place community.”4 sector. Of the 20 investigators, 12 had only carried out 1—5
investigations. Only five investigators had carried out more
The guideline stresses a range of actions that is viewed than 20 investigations. The study was based on 81 cases. The
under an umbrella of the term offensive unfavorable mis- guidelines from the National Board of Occupational Safety
treatment. and Health were used by the investigators regarding what to
consider as bullying. The investigations in the cases were in
most cases initiated by a formal complaint from an employee
4
AFS: 1993:17, p.3. against another individual, either manager or coworker.

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

4 A. Matsson, T. Jordan

Types of Scenarios in 81 Cases C. The accused’s behavior was assessed as bullying.

The design of the study developed from two heuristically The other dimension, represented by the rows, concerned
developed hypotheses, based on unstructured conversa- the role of the presumed victim, the person who reported
tions with organizational consultants and personal experi- having been bullied. The respondents were presented with
ences with bullying investigations. The first hypothesis was three alternatives and were asked to use their knowledge of
that there were indications that cases where someone the respective case to assess the role of the behavior of the
claimed to have been bullied could fall into very different presumed victim in the events investigated:
categories: A/clear-cut cases of bullying, B/clear-cut cases
where no offensive behavior had taken place, and C/cases 1. The presumed victim has not him- or herself acted in a
where the accused had behaved inappropriately in some problematic way.
way, but not to the extent that it fulfilled the criteria for 2. The presumed victim has him- or herself acted in prob-
bullying (recurrent negative actions leading to victimiza- lematic ways but not so seriously that there are legiti-
tion). The second loose hypothesis was that there are cases mate reasons for dismissal.
that do not fit well into the victim-perpetrator narrative but 3. The presumed victim has him- or herself behaved in ways
involve more complex relational processes where proble- that could be considered neglect with legal cause of
matic behaviors on the part of the alleged victim play a being dismissed.
significant role.
In order to gather data that might elucidate the relevance The purpose of including these three alternatives in the
of these hypotheses, the interviewed investigators were study was to explore to what extent the investigated cases
invited to place their cases, one by one, in a matrix with fitted into the classical description of bullying in terms of a
three columns and three rows, forming nine cells (see Fig. 1 victim-perpetrator scenario (which would be cell A3 in Fig. 1)
below). and to what extent there was a more complex background to
The three columns offered the following alternatives: allegations of bullying. In each case the respondents were
invited to elaborate in more detail on the role of the
A. The outcome showed that the accused did not do any- presumed victim. Rows 2 and 3 represent cases where the
thing wrong. presumed victim's own behavior was an active contributing
B. The accused’s behavior was problematic, but it was not factor in the course of events leading to the bullying inves-
assessed as bullying. tigation. Row 3 was included in order to probe for the

Figure 1 Categorization of 81 cases of bullying investigations

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

Workplace bullying investigations 5

existence of cases where the presumed victim had behaved Instead, some alleged victims use what Leymann calls
in clearly unacceptable ways. It might be important here to refused meta-communication. In other words, the employee
point out that the purpose of including this dimension is not reacts to disputes about work duties with bullying allega-
to assign blame, but to explore the potential variability in tions, thus blocking possibilities to talk about the disputes.
the interpersonal dynamics behind allegations of bullying, in Leymann also describes unfair accusations as a hazard, and
order to better understand how to prevent and handle this is exemplified in the case with the stalking of the
experiences of bullying. accused.
We conclude that these scenarios are better explained as
FINDINGS interpersonal conflicts than as workplace bullying, but with a
risk of developing to bullying of the accused, when the
presumed victim refuses to meta-communicate. A victim-
In this section the findings are presented, with particular
perpetrator perspective in the investigation may overlook
emphasis on describing different types of scenarios that lead
such a risk.
bullying investigations.

Column B: Improper Behavior of the Accused

Column A: No Improper Behavior of the Accused
The investigators placed 40 of the 81 cases in column B. In
In 19 of the 81 cases, the investigators assessed that the
these cases, the investigator assessed that the accused had
accused person had not acted in a problematic way. In fact,
acted improperly, but not to an extent that could be classi-
in 14 of these 19 cases, the assessment was that the pre-
fied as bullying. The majority of these cases involved man-
sumed victim had him- or herself behaved in problematic
agers who had acted unskillfully towards staff members.
ways that significantly contributed to the development of
Others occurred between coworkers. In this type of scenario,
the case. We identified different conflict dynamics behind
three types of interactions were identified.
this scenario.

Conflict dynamics Incivility

The investigators described that in some of these cases the This category involves managers who generally had a harsh,
presumed victim had interpreted justifiable supervision and over-critical, or sarcastic way of interacting, but not to an
critical feedback on work performance as acts of bullying. In extent that could be labelled bullying and without targeting
some cases, the manager had used a harsh tone in the specific individuals. This refers to managers with a way of
communication, but the reprimand was based on reasonable communicating that is offensive, clumsy, or rigid. The cul-
grounds and was a single event. In several cases, the inves- ture in the workplace may be characterized by harsh jargon
tigator described the scenario as a misapprehension of the or criticism and sarcasm but not directed towards any one
work protocol, routines or the role of the presumed victim. individual.
This could be interpreted as a dispute between employee It reflects unethical communication in form of what
and manager. Leymann calls forced communication, that is affecting the
One example of this type of conflict is a case in which the work environment, but since it is a generalized behavior, it is
reported victim had special work tasks during rehabilitation problematic to view it as bullying and it is suggested that it is
after a period of illness. After the rehabilitation phase, the better understood as incivility.
employee had to go back to their regular work tasks. The
change led to a conflict and was then filed as a mistreatment Omission
accusation against the manager. In another case, leadership This refers to managers who neglected, ignored, or even
coaching was provided to a manager when leadership was avoided employees or conflicts or who did not address
perceived to have not met expectations, and the manager problems in daily work. This is interpreted as another form
felt intimidated by the superior management. Other cases of of unethical communication that could be labeled as bureau-
conflict scenarios involve disputes between employees that cratic communication, where managers simply refuse
had escalated, causing tension and stress in the interactions. addressing a significant problem. This avoiding behavior
In one situation, the conflict started because the coworkers could be a substantial work environment risk and points to
were disappointed with the presumed victim because he/she a need for addressing organizational factors such as climate,
did not contribute to the required work. In one situation, the culture and leadership development rather than using the
alleged victim was found to have sexually harassed and frame of victim-perpetrator perspective on bullying. This
stalked the accused, apparently without being aware that scenario is suggested as better explained in terms of incom-
this behavior constituted harassment. petent leadership than bullying.
It seems reasonable to interpret a large share of these
cases as at least partially caused by ambiguities around the Rejection
day-to-day work tasks and interactions between employees This refers to employees who have avoided contact with a
that trigger group conflicts. The narratives of the investiga- coworker but not to the extent of social exclusion or isola-
tors suggest that some participants have problematic beha- tion. The investigators described the presumed victim as
vioral patterns that they are not aware of, which escalates being perceived by coworkers to be difficult to interact with,
the situation. for example, due to being “overemotional,” critical, or
In these cases, what Leymann refers to as effects of officious. The results show that the bullying investigators
bullying for the alleged victim, do not appear to exist. place the reason why employees are avoided in the

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

6 A. Matsson, T. Jordan

personalities of those who are avoided. In this way, there is a out of reach. This is interpreted as unethical communication
risk that rejection will not be problematized as something in form of false communication, where someone is treated as
that can develop into social exclusion. We interpret rejec- invisible.
tion as non-verbal unethical communication. A risk for the The cases evaluated as bullying show that a victim-per-
dynamic to develop to social exclusion or isolation might petrator is not sufficient to explain the process. In all 22 cases
here be overlooked in the investigation. We conclude that there are several actors involved. All cases that were eval-
there was a risk in these scenarios for developing into work- uating as bullying are in line with Leymann’s concept of
place bullying but that the scenarios are better explained as unethical communication in various forms.
different kinds of counter-productive work behavior.
Row 1: Various Degrees of Mistreatment
Column C: Bullying Has Occurred
In five cases, the investigators reported that neither the
In 22 of the 81 cases, the investigators reported that bullying presumed victim nor the accused had done anything wrong.
had taken place. Namely, mistreatment or social exclusion This indicates that the investigations were initiated by
has occurred over time and has met the criteria for bullying. problems not connected to either the alleged victim or
We identified three categories of such cases. the accused. Importantly, in 34 of the cases, our findings
show that the alleged victims were mistreated to various
Unprovoked confrontations degrees. This stresses the importance of conducting bullying
Some of the cases involved incidents where a manager or investigations since about one third of the cases indeed
employee acted with hostility towards someone in the work- revealed that unprovoked bullying has been occurring in
place. The investigator described them as unaware of their the workplace. It also supports research that identified
aggressive behavior and interpreted this as a lack of social various degrees of bullying in the workplace.5 We suggest
competence. This places the explanation for bullying on different forms of unethical communication such as non-
individual level in line with the victim-perpetrator perspec- verbal or false communication, bureaucratic communica-
tive. Leymann instead argues that the causes for bullying tion, silent treatment or refusal of meta-communication.
should be viewed in the work environment and this could be
interpreted as forced communication.
Row 2: Improper Behavior on the Part of the
Presumed Victim
Escalated conflicts
This category refers to conflicts that have escalated to The investigators determined in 32 cases out of the 81 that
personal attacks towards someone in a position where the the alleged victim’s own problematic behavior had contrib-
discretion was impaired and conflict resolution possibilities uted to an experience of being bullied. Among the investi-
were refused. Rumors, aggressive impulses, personal gators’ narratives, we identified three categories.
attacks, and counterattacks had occurred in such a way that
the exposed had become bullied. This indicates that more Dominant behavior
than a single “bully” is involved. For rumors to develop, In 12 cases, the alleged victims were themselves character-
there need to be multiple actors to take part of unethical ized as aggressive and dominant, which lead coworkers to
communication in order to affect someone’s reputation in a react with avoidance. This category also involves the alleged
way that will reduce someone’s influence on work. It seems victims focusing on doing things their own way and being
that the organization treated this as an interpersonal con- inflexible. This could be interpreted as refusal to meta-
flict and lost control over the process. We interpret this as a communicate. But with a victim-perpetrator perspective
result of insufficient conflict resolution skills in the organi- the behavior from the alleged victim goes unnoticed.
zation and a victim-perpetrator perspective on bullying,
viewing the problem from an individual level. In this cate- Unrealistic expectations
gory all forms of unethical communication seem to flourish. The investigators stated in three cases that the alleged
victim had unrealistic expectations and distorted beliefs
Social exclusion and that there was no basis for the bullying claims. This
The third category was described as social exclusion of the shows that the victim-perpetrator perspective is focused on
alleged victims because their coworkers perceived them as whether or not the accusations are valid or not, missing the
being difficult to interact with. The group rejected them or problem of why communication is not working.
avoided them in a way that they become socially exposed.
Social exclusion is hard to investigate from an individual Reactions to dysfunctional work environment
perspective. To grasp the effects in cases in this category, Certain cases involved a dysfunctional work atmosphere
the social dynamic has to be explored more thoroughly on a where anger and tension contributed to inappropriate beha-
group level. This has not been done in these particular vior and wrongdoing, involving far more actors than the
investigations. We interpret this in the light of deniable alleged victim and accused. In this category it is clear that
social sanctions against individuals that break the social the victim-perpetrator perspective is not enough to grasp
norms in the group. The deniability enhances the effects
that Leymann suggest of the exposed person’s possibilities of
maintaining relationships, being able to communicate and
5
also affects the work situation and health, since a solution is Rosander and Blomberg, 2019.

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

Workplace bullying investigations 7

the problems in the work environment that constitute a risk visible, since the focus from the investigator has been to
for developing exclusion processes and escalated conflicts evaluate if a victim had been bullied as claimed. Leymann
that could lead to bullying. The concept of unethical com- says that mobbing will affect the ones exposed in regard to
munication is applicable to these reactions. impairing their possibility to communicate, as well as effects
To understand these categories, the exclusive use of a victim- on reputation, relationships and work conditions, and
perpetrator interpretation has to be abandoned. Instead, the health. Looking at the cases from that perspective, it is
categories reflect that unethical communication is still dis- clear that several actors may be affected in that way.
played but from another angle, that is from the presumed victim. Dominant behavior, social exclusion, incivility, omission
Since the evaluation from the investigators in these cases were and dysfunctional work-environment have been identified
that there was no ground for complaints against the accused, the in these cases to various degrees. This stresses the impor-
core problem is not dealt with. This stresses the need for a tance to view mobbing as a complex phenomenon, rather
deeper clarity about the situations investigated. than a clear-cut yes or no problem.
Other factors of a more systemic nature, such as inequal-
Row 3: Severe wrongdoings and neglect from the ities, exercise of power, social status, social injustice, orga-
presumed victim nizational culture and climate, have been shown to be
In 7 of the 10 cases in this category, the investigators important in contributing to bullying, but we have not been
concluded that the presumed victim had behaved in a reck- able to identify aspects on organizational level from these
less way and had neglected complying with instructions to data. Further research will be suggested in the next section.
such an extent that there were grounds for dismissal. In the
remaining 3 cases, the presumed victim had him- or herself CONCLUSION AND FURTHER IMPLICATIONS
seriously harassed colleagues. Examples of wrongdoings
include refusing to follow work procedures, refusing to Complexity Awareness in Bullying Investigations
comply with decisions, or refusing to cooperate. This is
interpreted as a combination of forced communication
We conclude that all the studied cases had a severe problem
and bureaucratic communication, pointing the problem in
at hand, in regard to unethical communication, regardless of
another direction and at the same time accusing someone
who the victim was. This points to significant flaws in the
with false accusations.
work environment that need to be analyzed from an orga-
The cases have been divided in two categories, one where
nizational perspective. In many cases, there seemed to be a
mangers have dealt with the problem and one were managers
problem around routines, discretion, supervision, neglect,
ignored the problem. Two sub-categories were identified.
and roles. All of these problems could be analyzed and
resolved on an organizational level. This supports Leymann’s
Management had handled the problem theory of looking into the situational context of bullying
In these cases, investigators reported that the management when conducting bullying investigations.
had handled the wrongdoings according to policy and reg- The most apparent aspect of the findings is that in 63 of
ulations. They also described the presumed victims in these the 81 cases (cells A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, and C2 in Fig. 1),
cases as unable to understand the consequences of their there was evidence of a complex dynamic in the interac-
behavior. In one case, the problem was that an employee tions. For each of the cases in A1, an investigation took place
refused to follow safety regulations; consequently, the cow- and found no wrongdoing from either one of the parties
orkers refused to work with this employee, who then filed a involved. This strongly suggests that the problem needs to be
report of bullying. addressed in a different way. The evaluations of 40 cases
found some sort of problematic behavior, and in 24 of them,
Managers had not handled the problem the problematic behavior was on both sides. This strongly
As pointed out above, some managers were described as avoi- indicates that there was some type of conflict at the work-
dant. In some cases, the managers had not been addressing the place. Further, in 14 cases, the presumed victim was eval-
problems, so the wrongdoings were not being dealt with. uated as the aggressor and the presumed perpetrator had not
Both categories point out the importance of developing done anything wrong.
more suitable routines and policies around handling bullying, Accordingly, investigations into bullying should factor in
but also highlight the need for leadership development and the complexities of the phenomenon. Most of the studied
awareness about the phenomenon. The investigators eval- cases involved neither classic bullying nor lack of a problem.
uated that the behavior from these employers shows severe The findings reveal that antecedents for workplace bullying
shortcomings. The wrongdoings from the actors in this cate- are not best explained on the individual level. Rather, the
gory can be signs of cases where managers are, themselves, identified categories reflect a complex dynamic between
exposed to bullying. That could explain the failure to man- several actors in a work environment that could be described
age the problem. as hostile and organized towards normative control, that can
be related to the effects that Leymann points out. We
Summary of Findings conclude that the victim-perpetrator perspective is not
adequate for evaluating all risk of bullying in the workplace
Placing the cases in the matrix shows a range of different or various degrees of severity. The categories identified in
scenarios that, in different respects, could be explained as this study are, without exception, more explainable from a
counterproductive work behavior, even if only 22 of 81 cases social or organizational level. The concept of unethical
was evaluated as bullying. The victim-perspective is clearly communication fits all categories in various ways. We there-

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

8 A. Matsson, T. Jordan

fore suggest further research to develop theory of bullying communication and organizational behavior is recom-
with this concept as lens. mended when conducting bullying investigations. A sugges-
An additional suggestion for further research is to develop tion is to encourage a more open investigation without
a model for categorizing the various forms of social inter- pointing out individuals as alleged victims or perpetrators
actions that can occur in relation with the investigation of and instead focus on the occurrence of unethical commu-
workplace bullying, regardless of who is making claims of nication on different levels in the organization.
being exposed. That would make it easier to help understand Since studies of bullying investigations are lacking in the
the differences in dysfunctional behavior between the dif- international research field, there is a strong need for
ferent actors that may influence the procedure. exploring:
Further, we suggest that the different cases could be
viewed as stages of a destructive process. This is in line  The practice of investigations in different countries
with recent research.6 The results clearly show that bullying  The education for investigators
cannot easily be explained in terms of who is victimized and  The link between international practice and research
who is victimizing. The consequence of such dichotomous  Ethical dilemmas relating to investigations
thinking is that the assessments often have the character of;  Theoretical grounds for assessments of bullying
yes, bullying has occurred or no, bullying has not occurred,
 Intervention studies during the process and outcome of
which makes the investigations one-dimensional with little
investigations
opportunity to remedy the problem. It is particularly risky
given the lack of a clear research definition of the concept of
bullying. By shifting the focus to a more complex view of the The Need for Early Interventions
phenomenon that instead takes into account the context in
which the behavior occurs, a scapegoat syndrome can be Many of the studied cases show signs of inadequate leader-
prevented. This then presupposes integrating an interdisci- ship. We argue that many of the problems could have been
plinary view of the phenomenon that weighs in the relations de-escalated with a more resolute action from management
between different actors and the relationship between to deal with the social structure in the workplace and also
employers and employees as well as social justice, status with organizing the daily work activities to reduce misun-
and organizational factors. derstandings and unclarity about who-does-what-with-
whom-and-why. Instead of focusing on asking who-did-
Investigation Development and Training what-to-whom-and-why, the management should focus on
what needs to be improved to create a safe climate with
visible and transparent expectations of what is necessary for
With regard to investigators’ preparation, it is important to
getting the work done. Thus, analysis on an organizational
establish interdisciplinary education. Specific learning
level is needed. We also recommend that managers get
objectives of bullying as a complex phenomenon is neces-
training in conflict resolution skills to prevent bullying and
sary. This needs to include not only psychological aspects at
unethical communication.
the individual level, but also take into account social and
organizational psychology. Further, investigation of bullying
requires awareness of workplace environment, communica-
Routine Suggestion for Initiating Bullying
tion, conflicts, leadership, power, social justice, ethics and
how organizations function. Beyond a theoretical scope,
Investigations
preparation for investigators needs to include training of
interviewing skills based on an open and empathic stand- We suggest that bullying investigations need to be initiated,
point without presupposed interpretations of the problem if there is a concern about unethical communication in the
being investigated. A further suggestion is that investigators work environment and it has effect on any employee. An
should have several years of experience in working as orga- evaluation of risk for harm to anybody needs to be articu-
nizational professionals. Because investigators encounter lated. This evaluation should be documented. If the evalua-
potentially traumatized people, it is also critical for inves- tion is that no harm is done, the unethical communication
tigators to have awareness of stress, crisis, and traumatiza- has to be dealt with, either by conflict resolution, if it is clear
tion in order to be able to determine whether medical that the problem is better understood as an interpersonal
evaluation is appropriate. conflict between two individuals, or, if there are more actors
As mentioned in the findings, the (rather few) cases involved, to make a work-environment assessment. If the
where there was evidence of severe misconduct on the part evaluation demonstrates that someone is likely to be at risk
of the person making the complaint, indicate that bullying of harm, HR should initiate a bullying inquiry that focuses on
allegations and requests for investigation may be employed unresolved disputes, unethical communication and the
as a tactical means in a power play. It seems that a complaint impact of work-related environmental variables. The inves-
can be made as a form of political maneuver in a situation tigation should lead to interventions in the work environ-
where someone does not accept supervision or boundaries, ment with an emphasis on setting boundaries and fostering
which then focuses pressure on other stakeholders such as inclusive communication at both the social and organiza-
“bad guys” instead. The need for knowledge about unethical tional levels. The initial concern needs to be re-evaluated
after the implementation of the interventions. It is impor-
tant to clarify the evaluation to the parties concerned. If
someone is still at risk at this point, we recommend using
6
Rosander and Blomberg, 2019. judicial procedures for handling the situation (Fig. 2)

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

Workplace bullying investigations 9

Figure 2 Routine for handling bullying investigations

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

10 A. Matsson, T. Jordan

Limitations Visualization of matrix: Thomas Jordan

Visualization of model: Anneli Matsson
It is possible that the investigators’ loyalty to their clients Report of initial descriptive findings published in Swedish
clouded their judgment. Consequently, the results should be on Department of sociology and work science, University of
viewed with caution. Further, the empirical data involved Gothenburg 2016: Thomas Jordan.
many inexperienced investigators, which needs to be taken Theoretical development and conceptualization: Anneli
into account. The proportions of the different categories Matsson
should not be generalized. Importantly, this is not a quanti- Interpretation and conclusion: Anneli Matsson
tative study but should be viewed as a heuristic exploration Writing: Anneli Matsson(Building on Jordans report)
of the practitioners’ evaluation of the cases. Model for routine and practical implications: Jordan and
Matsson
No funding has been associated with this project.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION ON BULLYING
Conceptualization and theory:
INVESTIGATIONS: A COMPLEX OPERATION

Design of the study and methodology: Thomas Jordan

Collection of data: Thomas Jordan
Formal descriptive analysis: Thomas Jordan

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840
+ Models
ORGDYN-100840; No. of Pages 11

Workplace bullying investigations 11

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Birkland Nielsen, M. and Einarsen, S. (2018) What we know, Emotional Abuse in the Workplace; International perspec-
what we do not know, and what we should and could have tives in research and practice. pp. 127—144. London,
known about workplace bullying: An overview of the litera- Taylor & Francis.
ture and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Pruitt, D.G. and Hee Kim, S. Ruben, J.Z. (2004) Social
Behavior, vol. 42, 71—83. conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement, Pennsylva-
Hutchinson, J. (2012) Rethinking Workplace Bullying as an nia: McGraw-Hill
Employment Relations Problem, Journal of Industrial Rela- Rosander, M. and Blomberg, M. (2019) Levels of workplace
tions, vol. 54, issue 5. p. 637—652 bullying and escalation — a new conceptual model on cut-off
Leymann, H. (1990) Mobbing and Psychological Terror scores, frequency and self-labelled victimization, European
at Workplaces, Violence and Victims, vol. 5, issue 2. p. journal of work and organizational Psychology, vol. 28 issue
119—126. 6, p. 769—783.e
Leymann, H. (1996) The Content and Development of Shallcross, Ramsey and Barker (2013) Severe Work-
Mobbing at Work, European Journal of Work and Organiza- place Conflict: The Experience of Mobbing, Negotiation
tional Psychology, vol 5, issue 2. p. 165—184. and Conflict Management Research, vol.6 issue 3, p.
Mikkelsen, e.g. & Einarsen, S. (2003) in Einarsen, S, 191—213.
Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C.L. (red) Bullying and

Anneli Matsson (Department of Social Work, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. Tel.: +46 70 688 16 85;
email: [email protected] (Corresponding author)).

Thomas Jordan (Department of Sociology and Worklife Research at Gothenburg University, Sweden.
email: [email protected]).

Please cite this article in press as: A. Matsson, T. Jordan, Workplace bullying investigations, Organ Dyn (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2021.100840