European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel

approach

Nicole J. Saam

To cite this article: Nicole J. Saam (2010) Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel
approach, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19:1, 51-75, DOI:
10.1080/13594320802651403

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320802651403

Published online: 24 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7122

View related articles

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2010, 19 (1), 51–75

Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel

approach
Nicole J. Saam
Universität Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

This article investigates intervention strategies in workplace bullying which

have so far received little attention from researchers. Until now the focus has
been on approaches to classifying intervention strategies, the appropriateness
of mediation as an intervention strategy and ways different organizations
respond to workplace bullying. This study prefers a qualitative design and
employs a new empirical approach. Consultants who have specialized in
bullying consultation were interviewed and asked which intervention strategies
they apply and for what reason and to what purpose the strategies are
adopted. It is found that consultants apply conflict moderation or mediation,
coaching, and/or organization development. This is interesting as the
dominating contingency approach to conflict intervention (Fisher & Keasly,
1990; Glasl, 1982; Prein, 1984) recommends neither coaching nor organization
development. Based on Heames and Harvey’s (2006) multilevel model of
bullying, this article therefore suggests a new approach, a multilevel approach
of interventions in workplace bullying that considers interventions at the
dyadic, group and organizational level.

Keywords: Workplace bullying; Intervention strategies; Mediation; Coaching;

Organization.

Bullying at work has been defined as ‘‘harassing, offending, socially

excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. . . . it has
to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time
(e.g., about six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of
which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the
target of systematic negative social acts’’ (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper,
2003b, p. 15). A conflict cannot be defined as bullying if two parties of
approximately equal ‘‘strength’’ are in conflict. Workplace bullying is a

Correspondence should be addressed to Nicole J. Saam, Universität Erfurt,

Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Nordhäuser Str. 63, D-99089 Erfurt, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]

Ó 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320802651403
52 SAAM

noteworthy and prevalent issue in organizations around the world

(Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003a). However, American perspectives
apply different concepts than is the case in the European tradition as, for
instance, employee abuse and workplace harassment in research on hostile
workplace behaviours (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). The concept of bullying
has been developed over a period of approximately 20 years (Crowford,
1999; Einarsen, 1999, 2000; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Heames & Harvey,
2006; Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001;
Leymann, 1996; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996 [Leymann conducted several
studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s]; Liefooghe & Davey, 2001; Salin,
2003b; Zapf, 1999), as well as methods of measuring workplace bullying (for
an overview see Cowie, Naylor, Smith, Rivers, & Pereira, 2002; Salin, 2001).
Numerous empirical studies have revealed the frequency and duration of
bullying, the number, gender, and status of bullies and victims, and the
distribution of bullying across various sectors and for different countries (for
an overview on the findings in the European context see Zapf, Einarsen,
Hoel, & Vartia, 2003).
The topic of interventions in workplace bullying is important in popular
books (e.g., Peyton, 2003; Schild & Heeren, 2002), but research on
interventions in workplace bullying is still rare. However, interventions
have become an important topic for investigation, since research has
revealed that none of the interpersonal management strategies available to
the targets are effective in preventing a situation in which bullying is
tolerated (Zapf & Gross, 2001).
The aim of this article is to increase our knowledge about intervention in
workplace bullying. Our empirical study explores which intervention
strategies are actually applied by consultants who specialize in bullying
consultation and, if so, to what purpose they are adopted. It is found that
consultants apply conflict moderation or mediation, coaching, and/or
organization development. This is interesting as the dominating contingency
approach to conflict intervention recommends neither coaching nor
organization development. This article therefore suggests a new approach,
a multilevel approach of interventions into workplace bullying.
In the following section, the contingency approach to conflict interven-
tion and the state of the art in research on intervention in bullying is
described. Then the design of the qualitative study with 18 semistructured
interviews with consultants who intervene in organizations seeking support
in resolving cases of workplace bullying is explained. Next, quotes from the
interviews are presented. The consultants describe and explain when and
why they apply which intervention strategy. Then, the consultants’
statements are interpreted and the use and failure of specific interventions
analysed. As a consequence, this article then suggests complementing the
contingency approach to conflict intervention with a multilevel approach of
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 53

interventions in workplace bullying. In the Conclusions the results and

outline questions for further intervention studies are discussed.

WORKPLACE BULLYING AND INTERVENTION

Interventions are the efforts of agents acting independently of the disputants
(bully or target) who influence the development of the interaction. Bullying
intervention has received little attention from researchers. They have instead
focused on approaches to classifying intervention strategies, the appropri-
ateness of mediation as an intervention strategy, and ways different
organizations respond to workplace bullying.

Approaches to classify intervention strategies

Two groups of researchers refer to general, theory-based approaches to
conflict intervention to describe and explain the appropriateness and
effectiveness of bullying intervention strategies. Bullying is conceived of as a
particularly escalated form of conflict, as ‘‘long-lasting and badly managed
conflicts’’ (Zapf & Gross, 2001, p. 499). The conflict perspective on bullying
relies on models of conflict escalation, which define discrete, yet related
stages in the escalation process (e.g., Fisher & Keasly, 1990; Glasl, 1982;
Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994). These models form the basis of the
contingency approach to conflict intervention (Fisher & Keasly, 1990;
Glasl, 1982; Prein, 1984), which assumes that different intervention
strategies are appropriate and effective at different stages of conflict
escalation. Interventions are recommended either to prevent the interaction
from reaching the stage of bullying or to stop the bullying, or at least to
reduce its impact (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999; Rayner, 1999; Zapf,
1999).
Following Glasl’s (1982) model of conflict escalation, Zapf and Gross
(2001) suggest that severe bullying should be classified as a conflict at the
boundary between the phase in which the relationship between the parties is
severely disrupted and dominated by threats, and the phase in which
destruction of the other individual becomes paramount. In this stage, Glasl
recommends mediation1 as an intervention strategy (see also Hoel et al.,
1999). Although Glasl states that the latter stages of his model may not be
reached in organizations, Zapf and Gross argue that they are in fact reached
1
Defined as an intervention strategy in which the mediator tries to negotiate between the
parties and to help them build up trust with regard to the third party. S/he selects information,
observes the tactical moves of the parties, and tries to fulfil those communicative functions the
parties can no longer fulfil themselves in direct confrontations. All methods and means of
pressure are available to the mediator to the same extent that they are available to the parties
(Glasl, 1982, p. 134).
54 SAAM

in the more extreme cases of bullying. In these stages, Glasl’s model

recommends arbitration and power intervention. Intervention strategies for
the early phases of conflict escalation—moderation,2 process consultation,
and sociotherapeutic process consultation—are not suitable in the case of
workplace bullying because in these stages the conflict has not yet turned
into bullying.
Fisher and Keashley (1990) developed their four-stage model in the
context of international disputes and transferred it to workplace bullying
(Keashly & Nowell, 2003). The overall strategy is to de-escalate conflict
back down through the identified stages of destruction, segregation,
polarization, and discussion. The recommended de-escalatory sequence of
interventions is peacekeeping (at the destructive stage of the conflict),
arbitration or power mediation, consultation, mediation, conciliation, and
negotiation (discussion stage).
A third group of researchers follows a pragmatic approach. Hubert
(2003) reports on a five-stage model to prevent and overcome undesirable
interaction at the workplace developed in four group discussions with
personnel representatives and representatives of institutions involved with
preventing and overcoming undesirable behaviour. The focus of this model
was on the policies/strategies and the specific responsibilities of various
professional disciplines involved. The stages include prevention, uncovering,
support, intervention, and after-care.

The appropriateness of mediation as an intervention strategy

Mediation is the major intervention strategy that is recommended by the
three approaches presented later. The contingency approaches argue that
mediation is suited because the intensity of the conflict has escalated to a
stage at which mediation is recommended. Mediation by an occupational
welfare worker, an external mediator, or the supervisor is also recommended
as an intervention strategy in the five-stage model by Hubert (2003,
p. 308ff.). If the target does not have the courage to talk to the bully, an
occupational welfare worker or an external person should be chosen as a
mediator, and if the bully is not open to mediation by them then the
supervisor should mediate.
Although mediation is the major intervention strategy that is recom-
mended, the appropriateness of mediation is questioned. According to the
contingency approach, the reason for the failure of specific interventions in
particular conflicts may be inappropriate application with respect to the
stage of escalation, or the lack of coordinated follow-up interventions to

2
Defined as interventions that clarify misunderstandings and misperceptions and that deal
with other kinds of cognitive and semantic differences (Glasl, 1982, p. 132).
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 55

deal with elements not addressed by the initial intervention (Fisher &
Keashly, 1990, p. 238; Keashly & Nowell, 2003, p. 349). As applied to
mediation, the first argument states that mediation can fail if the conflict has
reached an even higher level of escalation at which only arbitration or power
intervention are appropriate. The second argument is that mediation can be
unsuccessful if there is no follow-up intervention. In the de-escalating
sequence of interventions the conciliation and the negotiation phase may
have been forgotten.
Additionally, mediation has been criticized for a number of other failings:
In contrast to the basic assumption of mediation, parties involved in
workplace bullying are not equally capable of negotiating with each other.
Mediation does not address or punish past behaviour because it has a focus
on present and future relationships. The concerns for justice and recognition
of the harm done to the victim are ignored. Mediation keeps wrongdoings
beyond public scrutiny. Confidentiality works against the identification of
systematic patterns of conflict associated with a particular party, a
particular unit within an organization, or across the organization (Keashly
& Nowell, 2003; Rayner, 1999). These failings reflect a crucial difference
between the concepts of conflict and bullying. In conflicts parties are equally
able to defend themselves, whereas this is not so in the case of bullying.
There is an imbalance of power among the parties involved in the dispute.
Therefore, Keashly and Nowell (2003, p. 353) argue that mediation may not
only be an inappropriate intervention strategy in workplace bullying, but
that it may even be harmful. They conclude that bullying should not be
described as a conflict. Instead, researchers should rather consider what a
conflict-oriented perspective might offer in terms of understanding work-
place bullying (p. 356).
The imbalance of power argument is also supported by Ferris (2004) and
Hubert (2003). Based on her clinical practice with severe experiences of
bullying, Ferris reports that mediation was frequently unsuccessful due to
power differentials between the target and the bully, inexperience on the part
of the person conducting the mediation, and lack of understanding of the
differences between bullying and interpersonal conflict. Extensive counsel-
ling was often required to help the target cope with the lack of help or the
failed mediation (p. 392).
Hubert’s (2003) concern with mediation of the superior is based on
personal experience. She reports that this increases the risk of escalation.
The situation may easily turn into a win–lose fight, arousing feelings of
rancour as well as wishes for revenge on the side of the offender if the target
‘‘wins’’ (p. 309).
Similarly, Aquino (2000, p. 189) questions the use of mediation for cases
of workplace victimization (which is defined very similarly to bullying).
Based on a quantitative empirical study, he argues that effective conflict
56 SAAM

management requires the use of both dominating and integrative styles.

Focusing too much on a reconciliatory strategy may even be risky, as the
victim may be perceived as an easy target of exploitation or mistreatment.

Organizational responses
Some authors concentrate on the ways different organizations respond to
workplace bullying. Salin (2009) explores what kind of measures personnel
managers have taken to intervene in workplace harassment. She refers to
characteristics of the organization and of the personnel manager to explain
the applied intervention strategy. The organizations relied heavily on
reconciliatory measures for responding to workplace harassment (operatio-
nalized as discussion with parties involved, potentially with a neutral
mediator involved; consulting healthcare services; counselling or other help
for target and/or perpetrator). She finds that the likelihood of transferring
either target or perpetrator and the probability of avoiding dealing with
harassment increases with the size of the organization. Whereas female
personnel managers prefer reconciliatory measures and the transfer of either
target or perpetrator, male personnel managers prefer avoidance.
Based on her clinical practice with severe experiences of bullying, Ferris
(2004) has presented a typology on how different organizations respond to
workplace bullying. She argues that the most helpful organizations do not
merely see bullying as a personality issue to be solved by the parties in
conflict or through mediation. Instead, bullying is seen as an organizational
problem that needs to be addressed through coaching for the bully,
counselling, performance management, and representative training
(p. 393ff.).
Keashley and Neuman (2004) present the case study of an action research
approach in which the researchers recruited employees, leadership, and
union officials from the large organization involved. Although situation-
specific interventions were designed to address particular problematic
behaviours (p. 360), the major intervention was the action research
approach because it launched an organizational development process: The
action research process changed the nature and the character of conversa-
tions within the organization, created an atmosphere of trust, security, and
high quality interpersonal interaction, and engaged the participants in a
continuous cycle of action and reflection (p. 362).
On the whole there is only fragmentary information on intervention in
bullying. In particular, one would like to know reasons other than the
characteristics of the organization or the personnel manager that explain
why a certain intervention method is applied. As Salin (2009) states, there
are many more characteristics that might affect the choice of the
intervention strategy, e.g., perpetrator characteristics and harassment
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 57

severity. Because of the fragmented state of the issue, this study prefers a
qualitative design and employs a new empirical approach. Consultants who
have specialized in bullying consultation are interviewed and asked which
intervention strategies they apply and for what reason and to what purpose
the strategies are adopted. The findings will not only complement those of
Salin; they will also shed new light on the approaches that classify
intervention strategies and on the appropriateness of mediation as an
intervention strategy.

The Empirical Intervention Study

Based on a qualitative study with 18 semistructured interviews with
consultants who intervene in organizations seeking support to resolve cases
of workplace bullying, the focus was on investigating which intervention
strategies are applied by these consultants. The first subsample (Munich
sample; in the following signified by capital letters OE and SB) was collected
between October and December 2005 and consisted of 12 consultants in
southern and western Germany. The second subsample (Erfurt sample;
capital letter E) was collected between May and July 2007 and consisted of
six consultants in eastern and northern Germany. The age group was
between 36 and 60 years, the mean age was 49 years (Munich sample) and 47
years (Erfurt sample); 42% (Munich sample) and 83% (Erfurt sample) were
women. Both samples were recruited by means of Internet searches on
homepages of consultants who advertised for consultancy work in the case
of workplace bullying. Additional consultants were contacted by a snowball
system starting with consultants who were known on the basis of the
Internet search. All interviews were tape recorded and then literally
transcribed.

The interview manual

The interview manual was based on the organizational consultation manual
developed by Elbe and Saam (2008) and was applied to workplace bullying
consultation. This manual served for structuring interviews, although the
questions were formulated freely. The manual actually consisted of 14
questions which focused on the phases of the consultation process following
Kubr’s (1996, p. 22) phase model of consultation processes: entry (first
contacts with clients, preliminary problem diagnosis, consultant’s definition
of bullying), diagnosis (problem analysis, fact finding, fact analysis and
synthesis, causes of bullying as perceived by the consultant, feedback to
client), action planning (developing solutions, proposals to client),
implementation (assisting with implementation, training), and termination
(criterion of termination). Three further questions focused on the criteria of
58 SAAM

a successful workplace bullying consultation project, the main features of

the consultant’s consultation concept, and the theoretical background of the
consultant. The manual concluded with five sociodemographic questions
(age, length of work experience as a consultant, general education, training
in bullying consultation, sex).

Method of analysis
The evaluation consisted of a type formation (Kelle & Kluge, 1999). In
this step the relevant comparative dimensions were determined, based on
the statements of the bullying consultants interviewed. The cases were then
grouped according to their comparative dimensions as well as their
characteristics and analysed as to their empirical regularities. The real
types were then reconstructed following the principles of internal
homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Typical combinations of char-
acteristics were then analysed as to possible contexts of meaning. Finally,
the constructed types were described by a precise description of the
combinations of characteristics and the meaning contexts forming the basis
of each type.

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
The following categories proved to be the relevant comparative dimensions
for the formation of real types of bullying consultants: The opinion of the
consultant as to the causes of bullying and the stage of conflict escalation in
the actual case; the consultant’s person-oriented or organization-oriented
intervention strategy; the willingness of the client to accept the procedure
proposed by the consultant; the mandate that the person seeking bullying
consultation has received according to his/her formal position from the
organization affected by bullying.

The causes of workplace bullying

The causes of bullying are important to consultants. Not that they are
interested in the details of the course of the conflict, since ‘‘it’s no use at all
to try to reconstruct the entire case in all its details and to determine who has
how much of the blame, or similar issues’’ (SB5: 106–108), ‘‘rather, the goal
is to look and decide what general conditions have to be changed so that
things work better in the future’’ (SB5, 125–127). These general conditions
are differently analysed and classified. ‘‘When I say that we are dealing with
conflicts in organizations then it is clear that in each individual case you
have to look very carefully and see if the conflict is structurally caused or has
more to do with the individual persons’’ (SB4, 4–7). For consultants, the
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 59

causes of bullying are important, as they adjust their intervention strategy to

the diagnosed causes. Depending on the diagnosis, the consultant offers
mediation, coaching, or organization development.

The stage in the escalation process

Which intervention strategy is offered additionally depends among some
consultants ‘‘on which stage the conflict has reached’’ (SB6, 172ff.). One
bullying consultant expressed his opinion that mediation is only effective in
certain stages of conflict escalation: ‘‘Because I believe that naturally conflict
resolution is at some point principally the responsibility of the superior. I
have a model of stages where I think that a mediator can achieve something
in certain conflict and bullying phases, but from a certain level of escalation
in the conflict it’s up to the superior’’ (SB4, 28–32).

The individual versus the organization

Consultants differ in their analysis between person-oriented and
organization-oriented intervention strategies:

In individual cases [a consulting process] is then terminated for the

involved person when the case is resolved to the satisfaction of the
person, which often or very often means that this person resigns or has
him/herself fired, as well as accepts the amount of compensation. The
consulting process is also terminated for the person logically when there
is a suicide. But then for the person, not for the organization, for the
organization consultation begins. (SB2, 195–200)

During a person-oriented intervention strategy ‘‘the conflict case is

discussed only with both parties’’ (SB3, 23ff.). In contrast, the organization-
oriented intervention strategy works on ‘‘problem areas at all levels of the
organization’’ (SB1, 47).

The client and his mandate

The consultants state that in the end the client decides on the intervention
strategy applied. The client may be sceptical about conflict mediation and/or
organization development. Consultants for example refrain from conflict
intervention and immediately offer organization development if the client
dislikes dealing with the conflict.

. . . we have even also already offered not making the conflict itself the
focus and instead kept everything on a general level and then offer
60 SAAM

workshops. For instance, how can we improve the working atmosphere

in our department or what do we actually need so that we can work
together again without any pressure. (SB6, 167–172)

On the other hand, the client may not yet be willing to support an
organization development process. Several consultants suppose that several
cases are needed as well as the confidence of a long-term consultant–client
relationship to receive the support of the client.

. . . to change a mission statement or corporate culture takes many years

and in that situation a single case usually is not sufficient to create a
corresponding shift of attitude with those responsible. And the problem
is really that the management executives who are there at the time are
part of the currently prevailing corporate culture. And that then takes
lots of courage due to. . . . On the part of these management executives
that that caused them to change. It takes more than a single case. So it
then works if you are active in an organization over the longer term,
then there is a possibility of changing a corporate culture. Otherwise
not. (OE4, 80–88)

In other cases the client has no authority to negotiate and agree to

mediation or an organization development process because s/he is not a
management executive. Consultants who offer coaching as an intervention
strategy report that they are often contacted by the works council.

Usually it is the works council that has a problem and cannot get
anywhere with it and then looks for experts who work in consultancy.
Works councils basically want a type of coaching in order to take the
initiative themselves. So it isn’t always the case that I then directly take on
the consultancy job, but sometimes that I also give advice to people about
how they can do this for themselves. (OE5, 8–13)

In the following, the intervention strategies applied are described in more

detail.

From conflict moderation to mediation

Consultants who apply mediation to resolving cases of workplace bullying
restrict their intervention to conflict resolution.

. . . yes, that generally begins with one-to-one consultations when

the parties involved in the conflict are prepared to speak to each
other directly. This is a similar to a straightforward process of
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 61

mediation. . . . Of course, the aim is that parties in the conflict talk to

each other, that I then moderate these consultations, group discussions or
individual conversations, when each party exchanges views, clarifies their
positions and you try to reach an agreement. (SB3, 33–41)

Several consultants indicate that their concept of mediation is very broad.

In fact, they take the role of a mediator or a conflict moderator.

So if it is really about conflict, about mediation, which I find a good term

to use because it also describes how I act a little bit as a mediator, as a
neutral consultant or neutral moderator in a conflict . . . (SB4, 19–21)

It seems that these consultants act in the grey area between workplace
conflict and workplace bullying which is reflected in a grey area of the
applied intervention strategies. A statement by consultant E1 illustrates this
situation:

So I have the feeling that many people are quick to mention bullying
because it is a popular idea. It’s in the media and is repeatedly used and
also or let’s say that very different things are understood when bullying is
mentioned. And I think that most times it’s a case of normal conflict
situations. I don’t mean to devalue the idea of ‘‘normal’’, but conflict
situations occur all the time in everyday contact with people and you
don’t always immediately need to call it bullying. Yes and that’s the
important thing that you really get to the bottom of the situation by
asking: is it really a case of bullying? How far has the whole thing already
escalated? (E1, 65–73)

Consultant E2 reports that 20% of her cases prove not to be a bullying

case (E2: 111ff.). One consultant (E6) reports to use a modified version of
the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) to identify
‘‘true’’ bullying cases.3
In the mediation process, the parties involved in the conflict work out
options as to how to solve their conflict.

All participants are involved in working on suggestions for solutions

which may occur in different stages, but at some stage, all parties are

3
The LIPT (and the Negative Acts Questionnaire which today is the most widely used
instrument in the global context) was not developed as a diagnostical tool, but as a research
instrument to study prevalence rates in large samples. Leymann himself stressed this very much
in his LIPT manual and considered the use of the LIPT for diagnostic purposes as highly
unethical.
62 SAAM

together. This may partly involve me working in an individual session

with the department’s manager and to press the point home I get him to
join in and help. But at some stage, everyone is in the same room and at
that stage, these preliminary discussions are introduced and it’s a matter
of finding solutions, about communication and finding workable steps
and when all that is approved, then an agreement is made about when
everything will be reviewed to see if arrangements were kept, whether the
model worked. This all depends on the commission and whether they
purchased this option. Then it is also part of the job to involve the deputy
manager in everything. It’s obvious that you need him on board. Then
the department manager who was included can also gain inside support.
(OE6, 62–73)

Mediation is terminated after the immediate problem has been resolved.

So some colleagues do things like coaching, workshops or seminars with

those involved in the organization. But in my view these are very abstract
solutions. These sorts of things can be a consequence, but it is more
unlikely. Instead, it is more about the practical matter of the actual
conflict that the parties began. So if it’s about space and they are arguing
about who gets which building, then the focus is on the solution of which
department is accommodated in which building, whether a partition is
necessary or not or who has what revenue where, who gets how many
square metres of space—all of that must be clear and then the problem
they had is solved. And that sets the standard—the last consultation has
to involve producing a solution. (OE6, 75–84)

Consultants report that mediation may fail in solving the conflict.

It sometimes happen that the problem can not be solved. I am hardly

allowed in the organization or there are other motives behind the
problem not easily distinguished. (SB3, 73–75)

However, during the—unsuccessful—mediation process the consultant

may identify the actual causes of the conflict.

So, for instance, once at [international automotive manufacturer]. There

was dissatisfaction with the management in a department. A conflict
broke out between top-level management employees. I then did a conflict-
solving workshop. Of course, beforehand I made precise enquiries about
the cause of the conflict and what the viewpoints were. During the
workshop, however, it then came out that the actual cause of the conflict
was unclear and uninteresting work targets. (SB1, 66–72)
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 63

Coaching superiors, the works council, or the victim

Coaching supports the management executive or the works council official
who is responsible for resolving the conflict in the organization.

This needs to be discussed with a management executive on a case-by-

case basis, whether to analyse the situation together with them and so be
active more in a coaching capacity or whether you support them, for
instance, in conducting conflict discussions with the involved parties, or
whether you advise them by role playing to practise different positions
and help to think through the consequences of individual potential
actions in each case. So that varies depending on what the case looks like.
(OE4, 53–58).

Consultants who coach superiors or the works council refer to other

causes of workplace bullying than consultants who apply mediation or
moderation.

Very, very often—not always and not necessarily—but very often, deficits
in the management behaviour of superiors crystallize. When for example
employees have ill-defined job tasks, when it isn’t very clear who is
actually responsible for what, often the management behaviour of
executives as relates to management . . . well, that they are not clear
enough themselves, not precise enough themselves, that they often declare
conflicts as a private matter between those affected and simply intervene
too late, because they don’t realize there is a conflict or don’t know
themselves how to resolve this conflict at all, and then just let it drag on.
(SB6, 125–133)

Consultants may also coach the victim. As far as the choice of

intervention strategy is concerned, the causes of workplace bullying are
irrelevant for these consultants.

Well, usually there is a first meeting. It’s first of all for analysis,
determining the general situation up to clarifying what the person wants
and what is my opinion, what the problem is. In the second meeting we
either start with a training, so that the person will feel more secure. This
will mean role play training or the person has to look where s/he can find
allies, this means planning more in the direction of dealing with the staff
council, works council or going to the union. It depends more or less on
what the person wants. Support is clear, but my goal is always that the
persons are strengthened as much as possible, that they can solve their
problems, where they are their problems. (E2, 62–71)
64 SAAM

Organization development
Bullying consulting as organization development is the intervention strategy
that results in a change in the organization. One consultant describes the
explanations used by bullying consultants, when she suggests organization
development:

The cause of bullying in this case was a bad organization, bad procedures,
non-transparent distribution of tasks. That is why the young woman who
resigned could be treated as scum, even including the manipulation of her
computer, so that she could not work there any more. And the executives
were so bad that they didn’t even notice, didn’t intervene; that was a mistake
by the management. But the cause, the reason that bullying could occur was
a bad organization, that’s how it all started. (OE1, 77–84)

Employees from the client’s organization work out solutions in workshops

that change the general conditions in such a way that future cases of bullying
become improbable (e.g., formulating a vision, bullying conventions,
company agreements, designating someone responsible for conflicts).

Generally, I offer a series of two- to three-day workshops at a time. And

then you see the most varied cases when the people have gained a bit of
trust then they reveal all sorts of things. The workshops are advertised
and anyone who is interested in them can come. In the first row there are
people directly affected by bullying who want to change something and
therefore join in every time. In the context of the workshop, among other
things, interpersonal communication is improved and motivational
training is conducted. (SB1, 105–112)

After the workshops I look to see if follow-up is happening, whether the

people in the actual situation really want to change anything. Bullying is
a sign of deficits within an organization. So the second part of my
training works in the direction of what can be done to counteract these
deficits. Then I offer workshops to improve the quality within the
organization, organization structure etc. (SB1, 127–132)

The organization development measures applied during a case of bullying

can have far-reaching consequences:

Once it happened that in a large company with 2000 employees after a

period of two years 400 people were to leave their jobs. I met the head of
the works council at a seminar about bullying: he was in one of my
seminars and said I should go and see them as they had a problem. And
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 65

the company management, general head of the works council, head of

personnel and I were actually all sitting together in a foursome around a
table and looked for possibilities, not of preventing the redundancies, as
the works council said—OK, if the other workers then survive, we have to
try—as we have to make the people redundant—to make sure that they
are equipped in the best possible way to find another job again. And that
was the subject of our conversation. A side effect was that within the first
year, such a good level of communication was established with the
employees that this subject of redundancy was made transparent and the
cases of bullying reduced. Then the people also sometimes started talking
to each other for the first time, because they knew—I don’t want to push
the other person out, we can only go ahead together. That new customers
were then obtained so that after two years not a single one of them had to
be made redundant because the people worked so well and the customers
were satisfied. That was really an absolute highlight of my consultancy
work. I followed up this process for two years and then they said to me
that the latest is we don’t have to make anyone redundant. And that was
a side effect or really also a primary effect of a communication process
that made the topic of bullying transparent. (SB2, 171–192)

Table 1 gives an overview of the types of intervention strategies which

each interviewed consultant applies. There are methodologically specialized
as well as methodologically diversified bullying consultants. Four con-
sultants exclusively apply moderation/mediation. Four other consultants
engage in coaching and three in organization development. Four consultants
are diversified and apply at least two intervention strategies.

INTERPRETATION
Among the consultants, two views on bullying can be differentiated: a
conflict view and a multilevel view.

TABLE 1
The types of intervention strategies applied by the consultantsa

Consultant is

Intervention strategy methodologically specialized methodologically diversified

Moderation/mediation SB3, SB4, OE3, OE6 SB5, SB6, OE2, E6

Coaching OE4, OE5, E2, E3 SB5, SB6, OE2, E1, E6
Organization development SB1, SB2, OE1 SB5, SB6, OE2, E1
a
E4 works as a legal consultant in workplace bullying. The answers of E5 could not be
assigned.
66 SAAM

The conflict view: ‘‘How far has the whole thing already
escalated?’’ (E1, 73)
The consultants who favour conflict moderation or mediation conceive of
bullying as a particularly escalated form of conflict. It depends on their
judgement of how far the conflict has already escalated whether they apply
conflict moderation or mediation. Up to this point they are in agreement
with the contingency approach.
However, the consultants report that sometimes they fail because the
actual cause of the conflict was unclear. Uninteresting work targets,
management executive behaviour, or other causes they were not able to
identify were the source of the problem. This supports the theoretical debate
on the appropriateness of mediation (discussed earlier).

The multilevel view: ‘‘Problem areas at all levels of the

organization’’ (SB1, 47)
The consultants who favour coaching or organization development
conceive of bullying as a multilevel phenomenon. There is a conflict on
a dyadic level between the bully and the target. The conflict, however, is
embedded in the group, and the group is embedded in the organization.
The intervention strategy has to consider the dyadic, as well as group and
organization levels.

And then intervening in the organization works so that first the case is
solved and then using this case as an example you consider what might be
changed in the organization to prevent another new case happening.
(OE4, 72–75)

Mediation may be an appropriate way of addressing bullying as a person-

to-person phenomenon; however, the conflict can reverberate to reach the
group and organizational level that cannot be addressed by mediation. At
first sight, coaching resolves leadership problems on the part of superiors or
the works council. However, as these individuals gain in self-confidence,
social competence, and exercise an adequate degree of authority, the
incentive within the group to acquiesce to the bully will decrease. Group
cohesiveness and support for group members will start to increase again.
Group performance will increase given the reduction in personal and
interpersonal stress experienced in the group due to responsible action by
superiors or the works council. Organization development is appropriate to
address bullying at the organizational level.
This view is not supported by the contingency approach to conflict
resolution. This article therefore suggests complementing the conflict
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 67

perspective with a multilevel perspective on bullying and intervention in

workplace bullying.

TOWARDS A MULTILEVEL APPROACH TO

INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING
The main research question of a multilevel approach to interventions in
workplace bullying is the question which intervention strategy is appropriate
and effective at which level. A general theory is not yet available that relates
intervention strategies to levels. However, this research question fits into the
conceptual framework for intervention research in occupational safety and
health that Goldenhar, LaMontagne, Katz, Heaney, and Landsbergis (2001)
have proposed.
The multilevel approach to interventions in workplace bullying relies on
the multilevel approach to workplace bullying (Heames & Harvey, 2006)
that considers interventions on the dyadic, group and organizational level.

The multilevel model of bullying

Heames and Harvey (2006, specifically pp. 1219–1224) have proposed a
multilevel model of bullying relative to three different levels of the
potentially negative consequences of bullying activities. A single bullying
act may have an impact on the individual, the group, and the organization.
These three levels may also affect each other. Heames and Harvey suggest
six propositions that relate to the negative potential impact of bullying for
the dyadic level of the bully and the victim (P1), the mesolevel of the bully
and the group (P2–P4), and for the macrolevel of the bully and the
organization (P5–P6).
Although bullying is felt across other levels of the organization, the
victim is the immediate target. Negative consequences of bullying activities
on the victim are well-documented (first order externalities; for a recent
overview see Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003). The multilevel perspective also
emphasizes the feedback on other dyads, particularly interactions between
the victim and co-workers. The proposition of Heames and Harvey (2006)
is that ‘‘the negative interaction between the bully and the bullied will
spill over into the victim’s personal mental and physical health and
thus, negatively impact other interpersonal relationships with coworkers’’
(P1; p. 1221).
Second order externalities may arise at group or organization level after
first order externalities are felt. For the purpose of bullying, the group is
defined as the co-workers, managers, or fellow team members who are
potential witnesses (bystanders) to the acts of bullying (Heames & Harvey,
2006, p. 1221). Being exposed to and witnessing bullying may drive peers,
68 SAAM

subordinates, and immediate managers into a mode of silence and

acquiescence or a mode of imitation. The bully may turn on these parties
and make them the next target group. Members of the group are reported to
be frightened and sometimes afraid of retribution from the bully if they try
to intervene. Then, they are hesitant to voice any objection to the bully’s
behaviour (Bowes-Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Delbecq, 2001). Other
group members will be desensitized. They learn to accept the negative
behaviour and begin to mimic and respond with deviant behaviour of their
own (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Heames and Harvey’s propositions
are that ‘‘there will be an incentive within the group to acquiesce to the bully
to reduce the witness’s probability of being a target of the bully in the
future’’ (P2), ‘‘there will be a reduction in group cohesiveness and support
for group members because of the negative climate in the group due to the
bullying activities’’ (P3), and that ‘‘group performance will be reduced given
the increase in personal and interpersonal stress experienced in the group
due to bullying activities’’ (P4; p. 1222).
Negative consequences of bullying activities at the organizational
level, such as productivity loss, costs regarding interventions by third
parties, increased sick-leave, turnover, compensation claims and liability,
are well documented (for a recent overview see Hoel, Einarsen, &
Cooper, 2003). The multilevel perspective pays attention to the
unfavourable impact on the culture and ultimately the reputation of an
organization that becomes known as a workplace with high degree of
tolerance for bullying. The responsibility lies with the top management as
it shapes the culture of the organization (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). The
propositions of Heames and Harvey are that ‘‘organizations with higher
tolerance for bullying will have increased difficulties in attracting and/or
retaining human capital (P5), and ‘‘the corporate reputation will be
harmed by the occurrence of bullying activities in the organization’’ (P6;
2006, p. 1224).

A multilevel approach to interventions in workplace bullying

It should be noted that Heames and Harvey (2006) based their multilevel
model of bullying on the potential negative dyadic, group, or organizational
consequences of bullying activities and not on the individual, group, or
organizational antecedents of bullying (like severe perceived power imbal-
ances, fierce internal competition, certain forms of reward systems,
dissatisfaction and frustration with the working situation, a politicized
climate, or restructuring, cost-cutting, and reengineering; see Hoel & Salin,
2003; Neuman & Baron, 2003; Salin, 2003a, 2003b; Zapf, 1999; Zapf &
Einarsen, 2003). Taking up this distinction, this article defines intervention
strategies as efforts made by agents independent of the disputants (or bully
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 69

and target) to remove negative consequences of bullying activities and,

additionally, prevention strategies as efforts to influence antecedents of
bullying.
The multilevel approach of interventions in workplace bullying states
that different intervention strategies are appropriate and effective at different
levels of an organization in relation to bullying activities. The reason for the
failure of particular interventions in bullying may be a lack of coordinated
follow-up interventions dealing with elements that are not addressed by the
initial intervention, especially elements at a group and organizational level.
First of all, an intervention is needed that addresses the dyadic level of the
bully and the target. Depending on the causes of the conflict further
interventions are necessary. If there are antecedents and consequences
outside the bully and the target, further interventions are needed to remove
negative consequences of bullying activities at group or organization level. If
there are antecedents or consequences on the group level, the multilevel
approach to interventions in workplace bullying recommends interventions
on the group level. Interventions on the organizational level are
recommended if there are antecedents or consequences on the level of the
organization.
The intervention practices of the consultants and the literature on the
appropriateness of mediation as an intervention strategy (discussed earlier)
shall be used to generate three proposals on the appropriateness of
intervention strategies to be investigated in an intervention research design.

P1: Mediation is an inappropriate intervention strategy in workplace

bullying. Mediation (as defined by Glasl, 1982; see Footnote 1) focuses on
the dyadic level of the bully and the target. It concentrates on reaching a
settlement among the parties involved. However, parties involved in
workplace bullying are not equally capable of negotiating with each other.
Mediation fails on the dyadic level due to power differentials between the
target and the bully. The intervention is terminated after a settlement has
been reached. Confidentiality prevents spillover to the group or
organizational level. Mediation fails to address the group and
organizational level.

P2: Coaching is a suitable intervention strategy at the group

level. Executive coaching (Kilburg, 1996) and coaching of the works
council addresses the co-workers, managers, or fellow team members who
are potential witnesses (bystanders) to the acts of bullying.4 Coaching helps
a bystander to remove the antecedents and consequences of bullying on the
group level. The intervention is terminated after group cohesiveness and

4
Coaching the victim or the bully (see Conclusions) is not considered here.
70 SAAM

support for group members have increased again due to responsible action
by superiors or the works council. In this indirect way, coaching rebalances
the power relation between the bully and the target.

P3: Organization development is a suitable intervention strategy at the

organizational level. Organization development (French & Bell, 1995)
addresses negative antecedents and consequences of bullying activities at the
organizational level. Organization development also compensates for some
of mediation’s failings: Mediation keeps wrongdoings beyond public
scrutiny. The confidentiality of mediation is complemented by the
publicity of organizational development. Organizational development sets
new standards for doing things correctly (Grunwald, 2002), which
rebalances the power relation between the bully and the target. Other
failings of mediation remain beyond the reach of coaching and
organizational development, particularly the concerns for justice and
recognition of the harm and question of punishment.

CONCLUSIONS
This article has investigated intervention strategies in workplace bullying
that have received little attention from researchers. A short review of the
literature has revealed that till now the primary issues have been approaches
to classifying intervention strategies, the appropriateness of mediation as an
intervention strategy, and ways different organizations respond to work-
place bullying.
As a result of the fragmented state of the issue, this study has favoured a
qualitative design and has used a new empirical approach. Consultants who
have specialized in bullying consultation were interviewed and asked which
intervention strategies they apply and for what reason and what purpose the
strategies are adopted.

Approaches to classify intervention strategies

It was found that consultants apply conflict moderation or mediation,
coaching, and/or organization development. This is interesting as the
dominating contingency approach to conflict intervention recommends
neither coaching nor organization development. This article therefore
suggested a new approach, a multilevel approach of interventions in
workplace bullying. This article argues that research into interventions in
workplace bullying should complement the conflict perspective with a
multilevel approach that considers interventions at the dyadic, group and
organizational level. The conflict between the bully and the target can
reverberate to the group and organizational level.
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 71

The appropriateness of intervention strategies

The multilevel approach to interventions in workplace bullying generated
proposals on the appropriateness of mediation, coaching and organization
development as intervention strategies: Mediation is an inappropriate
intervention strategy in workplace bullying. Coaching and organization
development are follow-up interventions at the group and organizational
level that compensate for the failings of interventions that address the
dyadic level only. This article suggests testing these proposals in an
intervention research design. Additionally, it is suggested to research into
alternative intervention strategies on the dyadic level of the bully and the
target.

Organizational responses to workplace bullying

The findings complement our knowledge about the determinants of the
intervention strategy applied. These are the characteristics of the organiza-
tion (e.g., size) and of its personnel manager (Salin, 2009), or—if an external
consultant is included—the causes of workplace bullying as conceived by the
consultant, the stage in the escalation process, the focus of the consultant on
either individual and/or organization, the client’s support for the strategy
proposed by the consultant, and the client’s mandate vis-à-vis the
organization.

Discussion
This article has not yet addressed the question of the relation between the
contingency approach and the multilevel approach in interventions in
workplace bullying. Do these perspectives complement each other or do
they compete with each other? Heames and Harvey (2006) describe
bullying as repeated actions and practices of a perpetrator that are directed
at one or more workers, which are unwanted by the victim, cause
humiliation, offence, and distress, and generate negative consequences
relative to three different levels. This is a static conception that considers
the context in which workplace bullying takes place. As opposed to this,
Zapf and Gross (2001) conceive of bullying as a particularly escalated
form of conflict, as long-term and badly managed conflicts. Here, this
article adds that the conflict has not only escalated but is also escalating
further. Their conception is inherently dynamic, like Glasl’s (1982) model
of the escalation of social conflicts. As a consequence a thorough
examination of the relationship between both approaches will have to
discuss the relevance of static and dynamic conceptions, of agency and
structure.
72 SAAM

The results of the empirical study should turn our attention to a closer
inspection of conflict moderation, mediation, and coaching strategies: How
are conflict moderation and mediation used by bullying consultants?
What are the differences that can be observed empirically? In the view
of Glasl (1982, p. 132) moderation is appropriate for low intensity conflicts;
moderation is not suitable for bullying. Might the application of conflict
moderation as opposed to mediation explain the failure of ‘‘mediation’’?
What are the causes of the reported lack in methodological skills on the part
of the mediators (Ferris, 2004)? Before considering a response to this
question, it is also advisable to be aware of how often mediation fails.
Coaching emerges as one of the most fascinating intervention strategies
in organizations (Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; Kilburg, 1996;
Sperry, 2008; Taffertshofer, 2007). Until this study was carried out,
coaching superiors had been previously suggested as a prevention strategy
in the context of bullying (Schild & Heeren, 2002, p. 138). It was found that
in the context of workplace bullying coaching is used as an intervention
strategy that supports superiors and the works council (OE4, OE5, E3, SB5,
SB6, OE2, E1), or the target (E2, E6). Recently, Crawshaw (2006) has
described the coaching of abrasive executives, i.e., of individuals charged
with managerial authority whose interpersonal behaviour causes emotional
distress in co-workers and is capable of disrupting organizational
functioning. An abrasive executive may be a bully. This demonstrates the
flexibility of coaching as an intervention strategy. Important research
questions relate to the long-term effects of coaching of either the bully, the
target, the superior, or the works council. Who should be the preferred
candidate for coaching with regard to intervention in or prevention of
workplace bullying?
Finally, this article wants to encourage empirical research into follow-up
interventions. The contingency approach and the multilevel approach each
consider follow-up interventions. The contingency approach focuses on the
coordinated follow-up of a de-escalatory sequence of interventions—
peacekeeping, consultation, mediation, and conciliation (Fisher & Keashly,
1990, p. 238; Keashly & Nowell, 2003), whereas the multilevel approach
directs our attention to the coordinated follow-up of interventions at the
dyadic, group, and organizational level—mediation, coaching, and organi-
zation development. What is the empirical evidence in support of these
follow-up interventions?

REFERENCES
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The
effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26,
171–193.
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 73
Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by
sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288–306.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Smith, P. K., Rivers, I., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace
bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 35–51.
Crawshaw, L. A. (2006). Coaching abrasive executives: Exploring the use of empathy in
constructing less destructive interpersonal management strategies. Dissertation, Fielding
Graduate University, USA. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing, ProQuest
Information and Learning.
Crowford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organisations: The ethymology of the word
‘‘bully’’. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 86–93.
Delbecq, A. L. (2001). ‘‘Evil’’ manifested in destructive individual behavior. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 10, 221–236.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of
Manpower, 10, 16–27.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 371–401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003a). Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003b). The concept of bullying at work: The
European tradition. In S. 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). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 127–144). New York:
Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and
private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–202.
Elbe, M., & Saam, N. J. (2008). ‘‘Mönche aus Wien, bitte lüftets eure Geheimnisse’’: Über die
Abweichungen der Beratungspraxis von den Idealtypen der Organisationsberatung.
Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 39, 1–25.
Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organisational response to allegations of workplace
bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,
32, 389–395.
Fisher, R. J., & Keasly, L. (1990). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup and
international conflict resolution. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup
and international conflict resolution (pp. 211–238). New York: Springer.
French, W., & Bell, C. (1995). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for
organization improvement (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and the roles of third parties. In G. B. J.
Bomers & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119–
140). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing.
Goldenhar, L. M., LaMontagne, A. D., Katz, T., Heaney, C., & Landsbergis, P. (2001). The
intervention research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the
National Occupational Research Agenda Intervention Effectiveness Research Team. Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 616–622.
Grunwald, W. (2002). Eindämmung von Mobbing durch Organisationsentwicklung: Theore-
tische, empirische und praxeologische Aspekte. In M. von Saldern (Ed.), Mobbing: Theorie,
Empirie, Praxis. Betriebspädagogik aktuell (Vol. 4, pp. 187–209). Hohengehren, Germany:
Schneider-Verlag.
74 SAAM

Heames, J., & Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment. Management
Decision, 44, 1214–1230.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The
impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10, 443–465.
Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Organisational effects of bullying. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in
the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 145–161). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of
Industrial Organizational Psychology, 14, 195–229.
Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 203–218). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 485–495.
Hubert, A. B. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic approach
model. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 299–311). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review
of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 205–228.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace
bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 31–61). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Keashley, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and management.
Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8, 335–371.
Keashly, L., & Nowell, B. L. (2003). Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 339–358). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (1999). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in
der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 134–144.
Kubr, M. (1996). Management consulting: A guide to the profession (3rd rev. ed.). Genf,
Switzerland: International Labour Office.
Leymann, H. (1990). Manual of the LIPT questionnaire for assessing the risk of psychological
violence at work. Stockholm: Violen.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at working and the development of post-traumatic
stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 251–275.
Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Davey, K. M. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the
organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375–392.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying: A social interactionist
perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 185–202). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
 INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 75
Peyton, P. R. (2003). Dignity at work: Eliminate bullying and create a positive working
environment. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Prein, H. (1984). The contingency approach for conflict intervention. Group and Organization
Studies, 9, 81–102.
Rayner, C. (1999). From research to implementation: Finding leverage for prevention.
International Journal of Manpower, 20, 28–38.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 6,
658–672.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and
settlement (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison
of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10, 425–441.
Salin, D. (2003a). Bullying and organizational politics in competitive and rapidly changing
work environments. Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 35–46.
Salin, D. (2003b). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213–
1232.
Salin, D. (2009). Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study.
Personnel Review, 38(1), 26–44.
Schild, I., & Heeren, A. (2002). Mobbing—Konflikteskalation am Arbeitsplatz: Möglichkeiten der
Prävention und Intervention (3rd. rev. ed.). München, Germany: Hampp.
Sperry, L. (2008). Executive coaching: An intervention, role function, or profession? Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 33–37.
Taffertshofer, A. (2007). Das Coaching der Organisation: Wozu Organisationen Coaching nutzen.
Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying
at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 70–85.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
perspectives in research and practice (pp. 165–184). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the
workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 103–126). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,
497–522.

Original manuscript received December 2007

Revised manuscript received November 2008
First published online January 2009