This article summarizes the literature explaining workplace bullying and focuses on organizational antecedents of bullying. In order to understand better the logic behind bullying, a model discussing different explanations is put forward. Thus, explanations for and factors associated with bullying are classified into three groups, enabling structures or necessary antecedents (e.g. perceived power imbalances, low perceived costs, and dissatisfaction and frustration), motivating structures or incentives (e.g. internal competition, reward systems and expected benefits), and precipitating processes or triggering circumstances (e.g. downsizing and restructuring, organizational changes, changes in the composition of the work group). The article concludes that bullying is often an interaction between structures and processes from all three groupings.

The aim of this study was to analyse the prevalence and forms of workplace bullying among business professionals holding predominantly managerial or expert positions. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted among Finnish professionals with a university degree in business studies. In the study two different strategies for measuring bullying were used and compared. When provided a definition of bullying, 8.8% of the respondents reported that they had at least occasionally been bullied during the past 12 months. However, when using a slightly modified version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001), containing a list of 32 predefined negative and potentially harassing acts, as many as 24.1% of the respondents reported that they had been subjected to at least one of the negative acts on a weekly basis. The respondents had experienced predominantly work-related negative acts, e.g., that their opinions and views were ignored, that they were given unreasonable deadlines, or that information was withheld. Although the prevalence rates reported with the two strategies varied considerably, there was still consistency between the two strategies in the sense that those who had classified themselves as bullied also reported higher exposure rates to almost all of the negative acts included.

The aim of this article is to introduce a social exchange perspective to the study of workplace bullying. Much of the existing research on bullying has had a strong empirical focus, leaving the concept relatively under-theoretized. By applying the social exchange theory based concepts of justice, psychological contract breach, and perceived organizational support, we aim to shed light on a number of aspects of bullying that to date have remained poorly understood. First, drawing on the concepts of justice and contract breach, we highlight the perceptual and subjective element in workplace bullying. Second, the concepts of justice and contract breach allow us to provide insights into how bullying is experienced and the mechanisms through which bullying leads to negative outcomes for both targets and bystanders. Third, the concept of perceived organizational support highlights the importance of appropriate and timely responses to workplace bullying. Finally, we discuss implications for both research and practice.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender‐neutral, phenomenon.Design/methodology/approach: The paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.Findings: The paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.Research limitations/implications: The theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross‐disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.Practical implications: The finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender‐neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy‐makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.Originality/value: The paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender‐neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.

This paper argues that workplace bullying can in some cases be a form of organisational politics, that is, a deliberate, competitive strategy from the perspective of the individual perpetrator. A cross-sectional study conducted among business professionals revealed that there was a correlation between a politicised and competitive climate and bullying. This finding implies that globalisation, increased pressures for efficiency, and restructuring, which limits the number of management positions and thereby contributes to increased internal competition, may lead to more bullying. The findings have important implications for management, since the possible political aspects of bullying must be taken into account in order to be able to undertake successful prevention and intervention measures.