Search

Role conflicts and role ambiguity have been identified as important risk factors for exposure to workplace bullying, particularly when combined with inadequate leadership practices. Even though role ambiguity theoretically can be considered a causal precursor to role conflicts, previous research has mainly examined these role stressors as concurrent predictors of workplace bullying. The present study provides a more nuanced analysis by investigating role conflicts as a mediator in the relationship between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours. Adding to the understanding of the bullying process we also considered the possible moderating roles of laissez-faire and transformational leadership in the role stressor–bullying relationship. Employing a national probability sample of 1,164 Norwegian workers, with three measurements across a 12-month period, the results showed an indirect effect of employees' role ambiguity on subsequent exposure to bullying behaviours through employees' experience of role conflicts. Moreover, laissez-faire leadership exacerbated, while transformational leadership attenuated, the indirect relationship between role ambiguity and exposure to bullying behaviours through role conflicts. In summary, the present data shows that when the management of organisations neglects its inherent responsibility to adequately address employees' experiences of role ambiguity and role conflicts, the risk of exposure to workplace bullying is likely to increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main aims of this two-wave prospective study were to (1) present different theoretical mechanisms for relationships between bullying and personality characteristics, (2) determine forward and reverse long-term associations between victimization from bullying and personality traits included in the five-factor model and (3) establish whether these personality traits contribute to the variance in bullying, beyond work environment factors in the form of role conflict and role ambiguity. The prospective sample comprised 3066 Norwegian employees. The time lag between the two measurement points was two years. Neuroticism significantly predicted subsequent bullying in analyses of direct associations between personality traits and victimization. When adjusting for role conflict and role ambiguity, conscientiousness emerged as the only significant predictor of later victimization from bullying. In tests of reverse associations, victimization from bullying at baseline was significantly related to agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness at follow-up. Taken together, the study findings indicate that personality traits may function as both predictors and outcomes of workplace bullying. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Within a stressor-strain framework, the aim of this study is to examine the influence of perceived laissez-faire leadership – a type of leadership characterized by the superiors' avoidance and inaction when subordinates are experiencing a situational need for leadership – on stress in the form of experiences of role ambiguity. This was tested within a prospective 3-wave research design with time lags of 2 and 3 years respectively. A combination of 2 constructive types of leadership, initiating structure and showing consideration, was included as a control. In a sample of 1771 employees drawn from the Norwegian working population, structural equation modelling supported the hypothesis that perceived laissez-faire leadership would be positively related to experiencing role ambiguity at 3 consecutive measurement points. The findings did not support a potential reciprocal relationship between the two across time. Initiation of structure and Consideration were not related to role ambiguity, providing strong evidence of the importance of laissez-faire leadership within a stressor-strain framework. Demonstrating that laissez-faire leadership is a root source of subordinate role ambiguity underlines the importance of superiors perceiving situations and circumstances where subordinates experience a need for leadership and, accordingly, approaching this need instead of avoiding it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]