Türanniseerimine töökohal kuulub latentse loomu tõttu paljude arvates samasse kategooriasse, kui lähisuhtevägivald. Sageli töökohal türanniseerimist vaadeldud juhi-alluva tähenduses, kuid siin võib värve olla märksa rohkem. Ka kaaslastepoolne türanniseerimine või kollektiivne juhi türanniseerimine ei ole vist samuti midagi väga enneolematut. Tegemist on valdkonnaga, mida on keeruline uurida ning kus oleks hea silm peal hoida (vt ka siit), sest tagajärjed ulatuvad üle organisatsiooni piiride ja mõjutavad üksikindiviid-kannataja kaudu kogu ühiskonda. Lisaks oleks kasulik mõelda ka türanniseerijatele, kes võivad tagasisideta käitumisest “õppida” ning sedalaadi käitumine võib kanduda teistesse elusfääridesse.

Siinviidatud artikli kontekstist:

The manner in which perpetrators may act toward victims include using uncivil communication as a weapon (isolating victims and/or withholding information from them), belittling, and humiliating coworkers (name calling/excessive criticism), and blaming others for failure (Harvey et al., 2009; LaVan & Martin, 2008; Samnani & Singh, 2016; Vega & Comer, 2005b; Weisel, 2016). Bullying also involves actions such as undermining employee performance, unreasonably pressuring colleagues to complete work, harassing individuals (in a sexual and/or more general manner), and demoralizing employees to promote powerlessness and separation from the organization

Uuringud on kajastanud türanniseerimist väga mitmetes valdkondades:

Bullying and similar acts also occur in varied occupational settings such as sales (Darrat et al., 2010; Jelinek & Ahearne, 2006; Valentine et al., 2015; Yoo & Frankwick, 2013), academia (Giorgi, 2012; Gloor, 2014; McKay et al., 2008; Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013), nursing (Hutchison et al., 2009), restaurants (Mathisen et al., 2008), and other professional work characterized by significant responsibility (Salin, 2001).


Despite current understanding, new research should investigate how bullying may advance negative attitudinal and/or dispositional traits that motivate employees to interact with coworkers and group members in mistrustful and counterproductive ways. For instance, in a study of group psychopathy, aggression, and effectiveness Baysinger et al. (2014) suggested that new research isolate the socially aversive traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism) that influence group functioning in companies.

Artikli ambitsioon:

this study employs the Samnani and Singh (2016) multi-level, interactionist approach to workplace bullying, combined with social identity theory, to assess the capacity of workplace bullying to prompt a unique set of negative work outcomes (Figure 1). In particular, we assess the degree that perceived bullying is related to employees’ socially aversive attitudes (i.e., distrust for others and a view that job success is political), which provides new insight into how the work context can influence individual perceptions and tendencies

Mõned järeldused:

The findings provided support for all hypotheses, indicating that workplace bullying has the capacity to harm important work outcomes. The study’s time-lagged design also highlights the immediate resilience of bullying, showing its ability to be impactful in the near-term. Since bullying harms employees’ well-being and experiences and impacts the system within which the HRD practitioner must operate (Watkins & Marsick, 2016), steps should be taken to prevent it.


Given our findings that perceptions of workplace bullying are positively related to social-aversive attitudes, such that victims increasingly distrust others and view their job advancement as subject to the whims of politics rather than due to work effort and productivity, we suggest that HRD practitioners take a holistic systems approach

Valentine, S. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Fleischman, G. (2021) Workplace bullying, socially aversive attitudes, reduced work group effectiveness, and organizational frustration. Human Resource Development Quarterly.