workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment in schools · principal-on-teacher bullying was...

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse andHarassment in Schools

Corene de Wet and Lynette Jacobs

Contents1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Overview of Research on Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Research Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Research Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 A Multitude of Victims and Perpetrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Bullying Behaviour in Schools: Different Work Relations, Different Behaviours? . . . . . . . 12

4.1 Workplace Bullying Among Adults in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124.2 Abusive Teacher–Learner Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 The Antecedents of Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1 The Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.2 The School as an Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6 The Effects of Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.1 Effects on the Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.2 Organizational Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7 How to Address Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

10 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2811 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

C. de Wet (*) · L. JacobsOpen-Distance Learning, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africae-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

# Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special topics and particular occupations, professions andsectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_11-1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_11-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_11-1

AbstractWorkplace bullying within the school context includes a multitude of role playersbecause teachers may be targeted by their colleagues, principals, the membersof the management and administrative staff of their school, parents and learners.They may, however, also be guilty of bullying learners placed under their care.This chapter reviews research on workplace bullying in schools, highlightingthe preferred research methods, research focus and the under-theorizing of theresearch. The chapter exposes the influence of different relations, for example,teacher–principal and teacher–learner, on what may be perceived to be workplacebullying in schools. The antecedents of workplace bullying in schools, as well asthe negative effects of bullying on the victims and schools as an organization, areunderscored. Suggestions on how to address the negative workplace behavioursin schools are offered. Recommendations for future research are made.

1 Introduction

Initial studies on workplace bullying began in the Nordic countries in the late 1980sand spread to other European countries in the mid-1990s (Zapf & Einarsen, 2010).Since then, workplace bullying has generated increased public interest, debate andresearch. A consistency throughout studies that focus on workplace bullying is thatteaching is among the high-risk occupations for abuse (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008;Fahie & Devine, 2014). Research highlighting the bullying of teachers began at theturn of the century in the United Kingdom (UK) (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998)and the United States (USA) (Blase &Blase, 2002) and thereafter spread to the rest ofthe world, inter alia India (Sinha & Yadav, 2017), China (McCormack, Casimir,Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009), Ireland (Fahie & Devine, 2014), Turkey (Cemaloğlu,2007; Kilic, 2009; Kormaz & Cemaloğlu, 2010), Lithuania (Bernotaite &Malinauskiene, 2017; Malinauskienë, Obelenis, & Dopagienë, 2005), Estonia(Kŏiv, 2015), Croatia (Russo, Milić, Knežević, Mulić, & Mustajbegović, 2008),Australia (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; Riley,Duncan, & Edwards, 2011), Uganda (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, &Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012), South Africa (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; De Wet & Jacobs,2006) and Lesotho (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014).

Workplace bullying can be defined as “repeated actions and practices that aredirected against one or more workers”. These negative actions are unwanted by thevictim and may be carried out “deliberately or unconsciously” causing “humiliation,offence and distress”. This may interfere with job performance and/or result ina negative working environment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003, p. 6).Kilic (2009, p. 870), who prefers the term “psychological violence”, defines psy-chological violence as “the systematic aggression committed by adult individualswith the intention to damage others in the organization”. According to him, there is acontinuum in the psychological aggression: initially victims are ignored by othersand denied the opportunity to prove themselves to leadership, but this may well turn

2 C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

into verbal abuse and, if no action is taken, can lead to physical abuse. Despite adifferent emphasis, workplace bullying tends to include four characteristics, namely,intensity (perpetrators’ actions are perceived as harmful by the victim), repetition(occurring at least twice weekly or more often), duration (usually for a minimum of6 months) and power disparity (the victim feels that it is difficult or impossible todefend himself/herself) (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012).

Workplace bullying within the school context includes a multitude of role playersbecause teachers may be targeted by their colleagues, principals and other membersof the school management team, administrative and support staff of their school,parents and learners. They may, however, also be guilty of bullying learners placedin their care (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Kŏiv, 2015). Teachers can therefore be bulliedon one or more levels, which may include horizontal bullying, such as colleague-on-colleague bullying, and vertical bullying, such as learner-on-teacher, teacher-on-learner, principal-on-teacher and/or member-of-the-school-management-team-on-teacher bullying.

A core feature of bullying, namely, the imbalance of power between the bully andthe victim, comes under scrutiny when arguing that the bullying of teachers by theirlearners can be seen as a subset of workplace bullying, since it is construed thatteachers have more power than learners. Researchers on workplace bullying inacademe (cf. DeSouza, 2011; Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2008) coinedthe term “contrapower harassment” to denote a situation where “a person with lesserpower within an institution harasses an individual with greater power”. Building onTerry’s (1998) argument that teachers relinquish their power to bullying learners ifthese learners believe that the teachers have not “earned” their respect, Kauppi andPӧrhӧlä (2012, p. 1061) write that learners who have a strong position among fellowlearners may use group cohesion to entice their classmates to follow them in bullyingtheir teacher(s). This group force can be disempowering to such an extent that theteachers may believe that they “cannot defend themselves from bullying, despite theirformal position as authorities at school”. Pervin and Turner (1998) argue that thebullying of teachers by their learners and learner misbehaviour may be seen as thesame thing.Whereas some teachers may perceive negative acts such as insults, name-calling, offensive remarks, shouting and disobedience as learner misbehaviour(Hempel-Jorgensen, 2009; Houghton, Wheldall, & Merrett, 1988), others may per-ceive these acts to constitute learner-on-educator bullying (Kŏiv, 2015). To clarifythis misconception, Pervin and Turner (1998) emphasize the repetitive nature of thenegative acts in their characterization of learner-on-teacher bullying. Learner-on-teacher bullying can be seen as a subset of workplace bullying in schools. Severalschool violence researchers (e.g. Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011) and others whofocus on learner misbehaviour (e.g. Arbuckle & Little, 2004) briefly refer to bullyingdirected at teachers as either a subset of school violence or an example of learnermisbehaviour. This chapter will not refer to findings from these studies, because thesestudies ignore three of the aforementioned characteristics of bullying, namely, rep-etition, duration and power disparity.

This chapter will give an overview of research on workplace bullying in schools,bullying behaviours in schools, the antecedents of workplace bullying and the

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools 3

negative effects of bullying. A review of the literature on suggestions on how toaddress workplace bullying in schools will also be given. A distinction will be made,where possible, between the different subsets of workplace bullying in schools, thatis, teacher-on-teacher bullying, the bullying of teachers by their principals, learner-on-teacher bullying and the bullying of learners by their teachers.

2 Overview of Research on Workplace Bullying in Schools

2.1 Research Methods

2.1.1 Bullying Among Adults in SchoolsResearchers of bullying among adults in schools usually use interviews with one or asmall number of teachers (e.g. De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; De Wet, 2010a, 2011; Fahie& Devine, 2014; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011; Sinha& Yadav, 2017) or surveys (e.g. Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; Cemaloğlu, 2007; De Wet & Jacobs, 2013; Fox & Stallworth, 2010;Kilic, 2009; Russo, Milić, Knežević, Mulić, & Mustajbegović, 2008) to gather data.Researchers who follow a quantitative research method while studying adult vic-timization often utilize either the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) (Cemaloğlu,2007; Kormaz & Cemaloğlu, 2010) or the revised Negative Acts Questionnaire(NAQ-R) (Bernotaite & Malinauskiene, 2017; Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, &Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009; Monsvold,Bendixen, Hagen, & Helvik, 2011). Both scales describe items measuring exposureto various negative acts without specifically referring to bullying (cf. Charilaos et al.,2015).

Several researchers who studied workplace bullying in the teaching professiondeveloped questionnaires that include 15–44 items of what they perceive to be actsof workplace bullying directed at teachers (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012; De Wet &Jacobs, 2013; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Kŏiv, 2015; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards,2011). These negative acts are usually clustered into different categories (cf. De Wet& Jacobs, 2013; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). Thefollowing will illustrate the case in point: Kŏiv (2015) clusters 15 negative acts intofour categories, namely, threat to professional status (accusation regarding lack ofeffort, belittling opinion and public humiliation), threat to personal standing (deval-uation, insults, intimidation, name-calling, offensive remarks, shouting and slander-ing), isolation (physical isolation and withholding of information) and physicallyaggressive behaviour (physical attack, threatening with position and threatening withviolence).

Even though the researchers by and large state that their instruments weredeveloped by themselves and the acts categorized with the school context in mind,the similarities between acts listed in standardized, leading instruments, such as theabove-mentioned NAQ-R and NAQ, as well as Rayner and Hoel’s (1997) categori-zation of different negative acts, are understandable. Since initial studies on work-place bullying began in the late 1980s and spread worldwide, it has become an


established field of study which acknowledges directives of influential, ground-breaking researchers such as Leymann (1996), Rayner and Hoel (1997), Einarsen,Hoel, Zapf and Cooper (2003) and Zapf and Einarsen (2010). Research on bullyingamong colleagues in schools are thus not always acts or categories exclusive toschool settings, but rather indicative of workplace bullying per se (Cemaloğlu, 2007;Kŏiv, 2015; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). This has resulted in a somewhatgeneric view of bullying that ignores the specific characteristics of bullying withinthe school context.

There are, however, also researchers who have developed their own schoolcontext-specific questionnaires (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fox & Stallworth,2010; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). The following are examples of statementsfrom Fox and Stallworth’s (2010, p. 938) questionnaire: “Teachers at my school havesufficient input regarding school decisions” and “I have sufficient authority over mystudents”.

Whereas surveys on workplace bullying in schools are usually completed bybullies, victims and bystanders alike, the survey by Blase, Blase and Du (2008) onprincipal-on-teacher bullying was completed by victims of this type of abuse. Theresearch method of choice when studying bullying among colleagues seems to bequantitative, while researchers who focus mainly on principal-on-teacher bullyingseem to prefer a qualitative research method. In the interviews, the interviewees areteachers who were abused by their principals (e.g. Blase & Blase, 2002, 2004;Matsela & Kirsten, 2014; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015).

2.1.2 Bullying Between Adults and Learners in SchoolsEven though researchers on the bullying of teachers by their learners use bothquantitative and qualitative research methods, there seems to be a preference forquantitative research. While Terry (1998), Pervin and Turner (1998), Kauppi andPӧrhӧlä (2012) as well as Kŏiv (2015) utilized questionnaires they developedthemselves, De Wet and Jacobs (2006) adapted Pervin and Turner’s (1998) ques-tionnaire to make provision for the South African socio-economic and educationrealities. De Wet and Jacobs (2006) argue in this regard that community violence,crime and poverty among large sections of the South African population may have adirect and severe influence on schools as workplaces: the majority of South Africanschools are situated in townships and squatter camps. James et al. (2008) adaptedOlweus’s (1992) questionnaire to investigate the bullying of teachers by theirlearners, as well as learners by their teachers (cf. Limber, 2011). In another SouthAfrican study, De Wet (2012a, b) interviewed seven teachers who were harassed bytheir learners.

Research on the bullying of learners by their teachers is also dominated by thequantitative method. Data from a large-scale Israeli survey among learners(n = 17,465) from Grade 4–11, which used an adapted version of the CaliforniaSchool Climate Survey (developed by Furlong and used in California), were, forexample, disseminated in numerous publications on, among other things, the vic-timization of learners by education staff (e.g. Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a;Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b; Khoury-Kassabri, 2006).


Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012) used a questionnaire based on a question-naire developed by fellow Greek academics. The aforementioned research instru-ment used in the Israeli studies on teacher-on-learner abuse lists several negativeacts perpetrated by teachers, such as mocking, cursing, insulting, pinching andslapping of learners (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a). The questionnaire usedby Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012, p. 66) includes items such as “My teacheris sarcastic towards me when I make mistakes”, “My teacher embarrasses me in frontof my classmates” and “My teacher deliberately pushes me when I am noisy inclass”. The questionnaire used in an Australian study by Delfabbro et al. (2006, p.80), however, contains only one item pertaining to teacher-on-learner bullying,namely, “picked on by teachers”. Shumba (2002), on the other hand, used bothqualitative (document analyses) and quantitative (questionnaire) research methods toinvestigate teachers’ abuse of learners in Zimbabwe. Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco andBrethour (2006) also studied teacher-on-learner bullying from the perspective of theadults (i.e. the teachers). Respondents were not only asked whether or not they wereperpetrators of teacher-on-learner bullying but also asked to name the number ofteachers who bully at their respective schools. With the exception of the research byShumba (2002) and Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco and Brethour (2006) who investigatedteacher-on-learner bullying from the perspective of adult perpetrators and onlookers,as well as official documents, researchers explore this type of bullying from theperspective of learner victims. Once again, as was the case regarding other studies onworkplace bullying in schools, surveys were the preferred method of doing research,giving a rather one-dimensional perspective on learners’ experiences of abuse at thehand of their teachers.

2.2 Research Focus

2.2.1 The Bullying of Teachers by Their ColleaguesThe following are a few examples of the focus of studies on the bullying of teachersby their peers. Two Turkish studies, by Cemaloğlu (2007) and Kilic (2009), inves-tigated the possible influence of the demographic variables on Turkish teachers’subjection to bullying. Cemaloğlu (2011), in addition, explored the influence ofleadership styles on the occurrence of workplace bullying in schools. AnotherTurkish study by Kormaz and Cemaloğlu (2010) shed light on the influence ofworkplace bullying on teaching and learning. Fahie and Devine (2014) examinedthe influence of workplace bullying on Irish teachers and school principals’ psycho-logical, economic, physical and social well-being. From a health perspective,Malinauskienë, Obelenis and Dopagienë (2005) focused on the possible influenceof workplace bullying on cardiovascular diseases among Lithuanian teachers. A fewyears later, Bernotaite and Malinauskiene (2017) investigated the associationbetween psychological distress and teachers’ exposure to workplace bullying inLithuania. Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä (2012) studied the attribution made by Finnish schoolteachers for their bullying, what they perceive to be the causes of the bullying andhow they cope with their experiences.


While most of these studies focus on workplace bullying in a specific, predom-inantly Western context, Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic and Nsubuga-Kyobe(2012) compare workplace bullying in Australia and Uganda. The latter studyshows the important role culture plays on the effects of bullying on teachers fromtwo countries that are widely divergent culturally. Authoritarianism and autocraticleadership are often associated with workplace bullying. While Ugandans mayperceive authoritarianism and autocratic behaviour by their principals as legitimateleadership behaviour, Australians will shun it as workplace bullying. The studyreveals that Ugandan teachers are more often exposed to workplace bullying thantheir Australian colleagues, yet the effect of the bullying is less negative on themthan on the Australians due to the aforementioned differences in attitude towardsformal authority in workplaces. The study by Malinauskienë, Obelenis andDopagienë (2005) mentions that the relatively low prevalence rate of bullying inthis former Soviet Union state (2.6% of the interviewed teachers perceived them-selves as victims of workplace bullying regularly), if compared to Western nations(studies conducted among Norwegian and Swedish teachers reported prevalencerates of 10.3% and 6%, respectively), may be attributed to under-reporting due to thepsyche of the Lithuanian people: “In a strictly ‘authoritarian regime’ it was a shameto be assumed as an unwanted, unloved, unacceptable person” (p. 23). Respondentswould rather downplay the extent of their victimization than acknowledge—even inan anonymous online survey—that they were bullied.

Whereas some of the above-reviewed papers focus, in a rather simplisticmanner, on the influence of demographic variables on bullying among colleaguesin schools, others focus on the intricate interplay between workplace bullying andpsychosocial, cultural, health and organizational imperatives.

2.2.2 The Bullying of Teachers by Their PrincipalsLarge-scale quantitative studies by Blase and Blase (2002, 2004) highlight an arrayof principal-on-teacher abusive behaviours. Four qualitative studies from the Africancontinent likewise focus on what victims of principal-on-teacher workplace bullyingperceive this subset of bullying amounts to (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; DeWet, 2010a,2014; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). A survey by Blase, Blase and Du (2008) alsofocuses on teachers’ exposure to this subset of workplace bullying. All empiricaldata for these studies were obtained from the teacher victims.

2.2.3 Learner-on-Teacher BullyingKŏiv (2015) identifies learners as the main culprits of the bullying of teachers(compared to colleagues, administrative staff, parents and maintenance staff). It istherefore understandable that some of the pioneering research of workplace bullyingin schools focused on the sometime troubled relationship between teachers and theirlearners (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998). While Terry (1998) investigated theprevalence of learner-on-teacher bullying among teachers (n = 101) in the NorthMidlands, UK, Pervin and Turner (1998) surveyed the prevalence of this type ofbullying in an inner London school (n = 84). More than half (56.4%) of the teacherswho took part in Terry’s (1998) study reported being bullied by learners at least once


during the preceding term. The majority (91%) of teachers surveyed by Pervin andTurner (1998, p. 5) indicated that they were victims of learner-on-teacher bullying“at some time in their teaching career”. Ten years later, James et al. (2008) used datagathered at two different points in time (2003 and 2005 in the north-eastern area ofIreland and Dublin, respectively) to study the bullying of Irish teachers by theirlearners. During the first survey, 28.2% of the learners indicated that they havebullied their teachers; during the second survey, fewer learners (16.3%) admitted tobullying their teachers. De Wet and Jacobs’s (2006) study among South Africanteachers (n = 544) surveyed the nature and extent of learner-on-teacher bullying, aswell as the influence of demographic variables on the victims’ exposure to bullying.De Wet and Jacobs (2006, p. 62) found that 76.7% of the teachers who took part intheir study were exposed to some form of learner-on-educator bullying “at least onceor twice a year”. While the purpose of De Wet’s (2012a) publication on learner-on-teacher bullying is to expose the risk factors for this kind of bullying, an earlier study(De Wet, 2010b) focuses on the influence of this type of bullying on the victims’private and professional (teaching and learning) lives. Despite the fact that work onlearner-on-teacher bullying started at the end of the previous century, research on thissubsection of workplace bullying in schools has hardly moved beyond the creationof an awareness that learners bully their teachers.

2.2.4 The Bullying of Learners by Their TeachersAwareness that teachers bully learners began to grow during the 1990s (cf.Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen, & Helvik, 2011). At the turn of the century, twopublications by Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a) and Benbenishty, Zeira,Astor and Khoury-Kassabri (2002b) identified Israeli Grade 7–11 (n = 10,410) andGrade 4–6 (n = 5,472) children who were at high risk for emotional, physical andsexual mistreatment by their teachers. A few years later, Khoury-Kassabri (2006)used data from all the respondents who also completed the aforementioned survey(n = 17,465) to examine the relationships between the aforesaid forms of teacherabuse with a number of variables describing the learners and the school. A decadelater, Geiger (2017) used data emanating from interviews with 60 Grade 6 learners inIsrael to investigate children’s experiences of verbal abuse by their teachers in theclassroom. A study by Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012) focuses on theprevalence of teacher-on-learner abuse in the Republic of Cyprus and the effects ofgender and the school grade of learners, as well as the gender of teachers on thedifferent forms of abuse. A study (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012) on teachers’emotional abuse of secondary school learners in Nigeria (n = 1,559) focuses on theprevalence of different forms of emotional abuse. Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen andHelvik (2011) investigated the possible correlation between 49 psychiatric patientsfrom a Norwegian outpatient clinic who suffered from personality disorders throughthe exposure to bullying by their teachers during their schooling and their subsequentdevelopment of personality disorders. Another retrospective study, this time byBrendgen, Wanner, Vitaro, Bukowski and Tremblay (2007), endeavours to gaininsight into the behavioural and emotional adjustment of Canadian youths whowere verbally abused by their teachers during early childhood. With the exception


of the latter two studies, it seems as if the main focus of the reviewed papers onteacher-on-learner abuse was to determine the prevalence of and/or the effect ofdemographic variables on different negative acts.

2.3 Research Theory

The argument posed by Fahie and Devine (2014, p. 239), namely, that research onworkplace bullying has been “relatively under-theorized”, is supported by theliterature on workplace bullying in schools. There are, however, a few researcherswhose studies are underpinned by social theories. Fahie and Devine (2014) utilizekey concepts from Foucault that focus on the multi-directionality of power relationsand on the resistance dyad when studying the dynamics of principal-on-teacherbullying. Using Foucault’s argument that “power can become embodied into theindividual’s sense of self”, Fahie and Devine (2014, p. 247) write that once victimsof workplace bullying see themselves as victims, they become totally disempoweredand abdicate all control to the bully. De Wet (2014) uses Hodson, Roscigno andLopez’s (2006) two-dimensional model of bullying in her study on teachers’ under-standing of workplace bullying. This model enables her to illustrate how relationalpowerlessness and organizational discord enable workplace bullying in schools. Thesocial-ecological theory framed several of De Wet’s (e.g. 2010a, b) studies. She usesthe aforementioned theory to illustrate the complexity of workplace bullying inschools and to support her argument that the study of the phenomenon shouldmove beyond the work-related and personally related antecedents of bullying.Blase and Blase’s (2007) study on the mistreatment of teachers by their principalsutilizes symbolic interactionism. This theory enables Blase and Blase (2007) to gaininsight into the subjective lived experiences of victims of principal-on-teacherbullying. Fox and Stallworth (2010) applied the stressor-emotion-control/support(SEC/S) theory in their study that investigated factors that moderate responses tobullying among school teachers in the USA. The researchers used the theory toaddress specific problems in defining, determining, understanding and resolvingteachers’ experiences of bullying. They found, for example, consistent with themoderating role of control and support in stress theory, that teachers perceiveeffective handling of violence as a form of support by their administration, as wellas a form of control over their environment. Engel’s (1977) biopsychosocial theoryserves as framework for De Vos and Kirsten’s (2015) study. This theory was used togain insight into the health experiences of teachers that may stem from victimizationat work. The authors argue that workplace bullying may initially cause psycholog-ical stress, which may trigger certain physical health issues and in due course affectsthe victim’s relationships with colleagues and family. This may ultimately result inthe collapse of teaching in learning. The attribution theory, that is, a theory that triesto explain why people behave in the way they do due to internal and externalattributes, underpins Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä’s (2012) study on the bullying of teachersby their learners. The theory’s suggestion that “we are inclined to attribute negativebehaviour directed at us as being caused by other people or by the characteristics of


the situation” was indeed validated by findings from the study. The few respondents,who acknowledged that their bullying was caused by their own characteristics,identified characteristics “beyond the individual’s own control”, such as age, genderand physical appearance as antecedents of workplace bullying in schools (Kauppi &Pӧrhӧlä, 2012, p. 1066).

There is consequent evidence that some researchers’ works on workplace bully-ing in school are soundly fused in social theory. It is, however, an imperative thatmore workplace bullying researchers acknowledge the importance of theoryundergirding their research.

3 A Multitude of Victims and Perpetrators

Studies (Blase & Blase, 2004; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015;De Wet, 2010a, 2014; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley,Duncan, & Edwards, 2011) suggest that teachers all over the world may have toface a wide array of bullies during their professional lives. Table 1 gives a summaryof findings from four quantitative studies on the percentages of teachers whoreported being bullied by different individuals at their respective schools. Three ofthe studies found that teachers were mostly bullied by their principals.

Caution should be taken when comparing the findings from the four studiessummarized in Table 1. Different surveys use different terms/scales to denote thefrequency of workplace bullying (cf. Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley, Duncan, &Edwards, 2011). Terms commonly used in one education system, for example,“executives” or “school management team”, may not be in everyday use in anothersystem. The fact that none of the respondents who took part in DeWet’s (2014) studyindicated that they were victims of learner-on-teacher bullying does not mean thatthis type of bullying is infrequent in South Africa. On the contrary, a study by DeWet and Jacobs (2006) found that learner-on-teacher bullying is rife in this Africancountry.

Studies that focus specifically on the relationship between teachers and learnersreveal two sides of the coin: teachers may be bullied by their learners, but they canalso bully their learners. Studies in the UK (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998),Europe (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012) and Africa (De Wet & Jacobs, 2006) found thatthe bullying of teachers by their learners is a pervasive problem. In a Finnish study—in which respondents were given a definition of learner-on-teacher bullying—therespondents were asked to indicate how frequently they had been subjected tobullying by their learners. A quarter (25.6%) reported that they had been bullied“occasionally”, 3.3% reported a bullying frequency of “almost every week” and3.7% reported having been bullied by learners “almost daily” (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä,2012). While more than half of the teachers who took part in Terry’s (1998) UKstudy indicated that they were subjected to bullying at least once during the preced-ing term, 91% of the participants in another UK study (Pervin & Turner, 1998)indicated that they were victims of learner-on-teacher bullying at some stage duringtheir working lives. Although the frequency of incidents varies, 76.7% of the


Table

1Perpetratorsof

workp

lace

bully

ingdirected

atteachers

Study

Cou

ntry

Participants

Perpetrators

Executiv

esPrincipals

Colleagues

Schoo

lmanagem

ent

team

Learners

Parents

Sup

port

staff

Other

n%

%%

%%

%%

%

Fox

andStallw

orth

(201

0)a

USA

779

45.6

19.6

29.6

Riley,Dun

canand

Edw

ards

(2011)

bAustralia

800

39.3

38.3

30.3

19.7

18.8

10.3

6.1

Bradshaw

andFigiel

(201

2)b

USA

838

4525

3032

29

DeWet(201

4)Sou

thAfrica

5966

.111.9

18.7

3.4

a 94.7%

ofthe77

9respon

dentsindicatedthatthey

werevictim

sof

workp

lace

bully

ing(Fox

&Stallw

orth,2

010)

bThe

percentagesdo

notalwaysaddup

to10

0%.R

espo

ndentscouldidentifymorethan

oneperpetrator


teachers who took part in a survey by DeWet and Jacobs (2006) noted that they werebullied by their learners. The prevalence rate of teachers being bullied by learnersthus varies between 32.6% in Finland (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012) and 91% in the UK(Pervin & Turner, 1998). These huge differences may, among other things, beascribed to the development of more refined questionnaires with precise rating scalesand an unambiguous understanding of what learner-on-teacher bullying entails (cf.the repetitive nature of bullying).

Studies in several countries, such as Israel (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a;Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b), Zimbabwe (Shumba, 2002),Norway (Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen, & Helvik, 2011), Nigeria (Aluede, Ojugo, &Okoza, 2012) and Australia (Delfabbro et al., 2006), reveal the commonness ofteacher-on-learner bullying. The prevalence of teacher-on-learner bullying can be aslow as 7.3% in Australia (Delfabbro et al., 2006) or as high as 86.2% in Nigeria(Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012). Emotional abuse seems to be the most commonform of maltreatment of learners: 24.9% of the learners who took part in a studyconducted by Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a) and 33.1% of those whocompleted Theoklitou et al.’s (2012) survey were emotionally abused by theirteachers.

Teachers can therefore be the perpetrators and victims of horizontal and verticalbullying that threatens their professional status and personal standing, isolates themor may cause them or threatens to cause them physical harm.

4 Bullying Behaviour in Schools: Different Work Relations,Different Behaviours?

While acknowledging that certain bullying acts are universal and can be ascertainedthrough using standardized workplace bullying questionnaires such as NAQ-R, it isimportant to take cognisance of bullying behaviour that may be typical of, forexample, principal-on-teacher or learner-on-teacher bullying.

4.1 Workplace Bullying Among Adults in Schools

The research instrument of choice for workplace bullying research in schools seemsto be questionnaires. There are, however, a few qualitative studies that give insightinto what the participants (usually the victims or bystanders) perceive to be work-place bullying in schools. Teachers who took part in a phenomenological study toldDe Wet (2011) that their bullying colleagues wilfully harmed their relationship withtheir co-workers, the parents of learners and learners through the spreading ofrumours and unfair criticism of their work. The victims also mentioned that theirbullies were setting them up to fail and publicly and privately questioned theirprofessional competencies. Victims were also belittled and/or ignored in front oflearners and/or colleagues (De Wet, 2011). In another qualitative study, Matsela andKirsten’s (2014, p. 485) analysis of data reveals the following negative acts in


schools: personal derogation and disrespect, being isolated, attacking the victims’professionalism and not being accepted (“feel like an outsider”). Twenty teacherswho took part in a study in India were asked: “What is your understanding ofworkplace bullying?” According to some of them (18.33%), workplace bullying ishumiliating and includes negative acts, such as teasing, gossiping and ignoring.Participants (15%) also identified bullying among teachers as the excessive moni-toring of job performance (Sinha & Yadav, 2017, p. 202).

Negative acts highlighted in the above-mentioned qualitative studies are, to alarge extent, those reported on as the most prevalent in the surveys conducted byCemaloğlu (2007), Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011) and Kŏiv (2015). The mostfrequent or persistently negative acts experienced by teachers who took part in astudy by Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011) are, for example, tasks set withunreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines; recognition, acknowledgementand praise being withheld; frozen out/ignored/excluded from decision-making; thelack of opportunity for face-to-face discussions to take place; the undermining ofpersonal integrity; areas of responsibility being removed or added without consul-tation; being ignored or excluded; and exposed to an unmanageable workload. Noneof the negative acts identified by Cemaloğlu (2007), Riley, Duncan and Edwards(2011) and Kŏiv (2015) as the most frequent and persistently negative experiences inschools differ from acts listed in standardized, generic workplace bullying question-naires. There is also accord between findings from the qualitative and quantitativestudies. The quantitative studies did not reveal any “new” or “groundbreaking”insights about the bullying of teachers by their colleagues. They, however, highlightthe seriousness of this subset of bullying in schools.

Leading researchers on the bullying school principal, Blase, Blase and Du (2008,p. 265), give the following inclusive definition for the mistreatment of teachers bytheir leaders: “any behaviour – verbal, nonverbal, and physical (excluding physicalviolence) – that, in the teacher’s perception, causes psychological-emotional, phys-ical-physiological, personal, and/or professional harm to oneself”. According tothese authors, the bullying of teachers in their workplace may also include racialand sexual harassment by principals.

Four qualitative studies from the African continent give insight into what victimsof principal-on-teacher workplace bullying perceive this type of unbalanced workrelations constitutes. Respondents’ answers to an open-ended question in a ques-tionnaire reveal that the teacher respondents perceive principal-on-teacher bullyingto include the following negative acts: verbal abuse, such as shouting, threats andpublic humiliation (in front of colleagues and learners); setting victims up to fail byregularly interrupting their classes, regularly changing the grades and/or subjectsthey teach, forcing them to teach subjects of which the victims have little or noknowledge and withholding important official letters regarding workshops andsubject-specific departmental guidelines; work overload and harsh demands; andthe blocking of promotion (De Wet, 2014; cf. De Wet, 2010a, for similar findingsemanating from interviews conducted with 10 victims of principal-on-teacher bul-lying). An analysis of the data originating from interviews with 21 Lesotho teachersidentified 12 different types of negative acts perpetrated by school management:


structural violence (abusing official structures to abuse a teacher), work overload,verbal and physical aggression, lack of support, coercion to engage in certainactions, the spreading of gossip and lies, cynical behaviour and attitude, a lack oftransparency, victimization, favouritism towards other staff members, isolation andthe silent treatment (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Teachers who took part in De Vos andKirsten’s (2015, p. 4) study recalled that their principals verbally attacked andhumiliated them in front of their colleagues. The victims’ professional competencieswere often questioned. They also found that bullying principals often misuse theirmanagerial authority to victimize teachers by means of organizational measures.Teachers were “micro-managed”, including the over-control of their work. Victimswere often “overly critiqued” and were expected to repeat their work with no help tocorrect so-called mistakes. Principals also made unfair changes to victims’ work-load, giving either too much or too little work to the teacher. De Vos and Kirsten(2015, p. 4) furthermore found that bullying principals use group dynamics to bullycertain teachers: colleagues are, for example, used to act as “watchdog” over thevictims, and certain teachers are “favoured” by the principal, while others areisolated and excluded from the work group. Victims of principal-on-teacher bullyingwere also harassed through different forms of cyberbullying, such as telephone calls,emails, the editing of photos in an insulting manner and even stalking (De Vos &Kirsten, 2015). It should be noted that while most researchers found that physicalabuse is not part and parcel of the bullying behaviour of school management (cf.definition by Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008), Matsela and Kirsten (2014, p. 482) cite thefollowing utterance from one of their participants: “I was once physically draggedbefore the class that I had refused to teach . . . and [he] told them: . . . if she does notteach you, tell me; I will deal with her”. Superficially findings from the precedingfour studies differ. Yet, all four studies found that bullying principals threatened theprofessional status and personal standing of the victims and tried to isolate them (cf.Kŏiv’s (2015) categorization).

It is interesting to note that while research on bullying among colleagues inschools is dominated by the use of surveys, only one example of the use of aquestionnaire was identified in publications that focus exclusively on principal-on-teacher bullying. A US study (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008, p. 279) of 172 teachersreveals the following as the most frequently occurring principal mistreatments:“failed to recognise or praise me for work-related achievements” (69.7%), “favoured‘select’ teachers” (62.7%), “tried to intimidate me” (58.8%), “failed to support me indifficult interactions with students and/or parents” (57%) and “ignored or snubbedme” (55.2%).

Findings from both qualitative and quantitative studies on workplace bullyingamong colleagues (teachers) suggest that negative acts directed at teachers do notdiffer fundamentally from other jobs. No mention is made of, for example, negativeacts playing out in front of learners and/or parents. However, studies on the bullyingof teachers by their principals make reference to job-specific happenings, such as thephysical abuse of a teacher in front of learners, the interruption of classes andquestioning the victim’s subject knowledge.


Even though teachers who took part in Australian (Riley, Duncan, & Edwards,2011), US (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012) and Estonian (Kŏiv, 2015) studies noted thatparents-as-bullies is a rather common occurrence in their countries, only one of thesepapers moves beyond the identification of parent-on-teacher bullying as a subset ofbullying in schools. Teachers who took part in the Estonian survey identified thefollowing pre-identified negative acts as the most common types of bullying ofteachers by parents: offensive remarks (28.4%), slandering (14.2%), insults (13.6%),intimidation (13.6%) and public humiliation (12.3%) (Kŏiv, 2015). Despite the factthat Kŏiv’s (2015) study gives some insight into what parent-on-teacher bullyingentails, it fails to move beyond these statistics.

4.2 Abusive Teacher–Learner Interaction

Workplace bullying in schools is not only bullying among adults but also aboutabusive teacher–learner interactions in which the learner can be either the victim orthe perpetrator. Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä (2012, p. 1061) define learner-on-teacherbullying as “a communication process in which a teacher is repeatedly subjected,by one or more students, to interaction that he or she perceives as insulting,upsetting, or intimidating. Bullying can be verbal, non-verbal, or physical in nature”.Qualitative and quantitative studies give insight into what learner-on-teacher bully-ing entails. Teachers who took part in an Estonian survey (Kŏiv, 2015) regard thefollowing pre-identified acts of verbal abuse as the most common types of learner-on-teacher bullying: shouting (37%), offensive remarks (36.4%), insults (33.3%),belittling opinion (26.5%) and slander (21.6%). De Wet and Jacobs’s (2006, p. 62)study reveals that not verbal abuse but vandalism and the shunning of teachers arethe most common types of bullying being reported: participating teachers noted thattheir classrooms were damaged (13.8%) or they were ignored (12.1%) by theirlearners either “once or twice a week” or “every day”. They were, however, alsothe victims of verbal (9.0%) and physical abuse (5.5%). The subsequent findingsfrom qualitative studies, in which the nature of teacher-targeted bullying wasdeduced from data emanating from interviews, support the findings from quantita-tive studies. During interviews with De Wet (2010b, pp. 194–195, 199), the victimsof teacher-targeted bullying described what may be seen as incidence of verbal andemotional abuse. Participants also mentioned that their school and private propertywere vandalized. They moreover recalled how they were publicly threatened andhumiliated by some of their learners during school and after school hours. Victimsalluded to the fact that some learners bully by proxy: one of the participantsmentioned that learners “use” parents and the principal to “reprimand” them whenthey lashed out at the bullying learner after being relentlessly victimized by them.Teachers who took part in Matsela and Kirsten’s (2014) qualitative study addition-ally identified a lack of respect towards them and misbehaviour as ways that learnersbully them. Whereas the above studies reported on the nature and prevalence oflearner-on-teacher bullying from the perspective of the teachers (victims), a surveyby James et al. (2008) was completed by learners. The learner participants admitted


that they knowingly bullied their teachers through name-calling, ignoring them,disruptive behaviours and insubordination.

Twemlow and Fonagy’s (2005, p. 2387) definition of a bullying teacher gives aclear picture of what they perceive teacher-on-learner bullying to be: “A bullyingteacher [is] one who uses his or her power to punish, manipulate, or disparage astudent beyond what could be a reasonable disciplinary procedure”. Researchersidentify three types of maltreatment of learners by their teachers: emotional, physicaland sexual. According to Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a), Shumba (2002) andBrendgen, Wanner, Vitaro, Bukowski and Temblay (2007), learners can be subjectedto numerous forms of emotional abuse, such as public humiliation, name-calling,cursing of learners and their families, making fun of the learners’ appearance andabilities. Physical maltreatments may include, but are not limited to, pushing,shoving, slapping, pinching, punching or kicking. Sexual harassment may includesexual advances, inappropriate comments and inappropriate touching. Sylvester(2011) additionally distinguishes between intentional and unintentional bullying.Her study highlights what she perceives to be common unintentional types ofteacher-on-learner bullying: sarcasm, name-calling, refusing late or unidentifiedwork and humiliating future learners who they perceive as having “potential”behaviour problems in the classroom.

Quantitative studies give insight into the prevalence of the different types ofteacher-on-learner bullying. Researchers identified verbal abuse as the most commonform of teacher-on-learner bullying (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012; Benbenishty,Zeira, & Astor, 2002a; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b;Theoklitou, Nabitsis, & Kabitsi, 2012). A review of the literature reveals that theprevalence of verbal teacher-on-learner bullying varies between 22% (Benbenishty,Zeira, & Astor, 2002a) and 74.1% (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012). Learners weremocked, insulted or humiliated by their teachers (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012;Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b; James et al., 2008). Studiesby Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a), as well as Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi(2012), highlighted the commonness of emotional abuse by teachers. A Nigerianstudy (Aluede, Ojugo, &Okoza, 2012) found that secondary school learners are oftensubjected to the following forms of emotional abuse by their teachers: terrorizing(86.2%), domination (83.3%), discrimination (82.8%), rejection (74.7%) and verbalmalice (74.1%). The prevalence of physical teacher-on-learner bullying divergesbetween 13% (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a) and 9.6% (Theoklitou, Nabitsis,& Kabitsi, 2012). Teachers pinched, slapped, grabbed or shoved learners(Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a).

Abusive, negative teacher–learner relations seem to be widespread in schoolsall over the world. Whether or not all these acts can be seen as bullying isdebatable; not all research instruments reviewed in this chapter probe the repetitivenature of the negative acts. There is also a fine line between ill-disciplineand learner-on-teacher bullying, as well as between bullying teachers and teacherswho are strict disciplinarians. Teachers may therefore be unwilling to acknowl-edge that they are the victims or perpetrators in what is supposed to be a


compassionate, in loco parentis relationship between them and the children placedin their care.

5 The Antecedents of Workplace Bullying in Schools

A number of authors suggest several precursors of workplace bullying in schools,but it should also be understood in the wider societal context. While at times, victimsare merely at the receiving end of consistent rudeness and aggression (De Wet,2014), the lack of values in the community and the organization may escalate theproblem (De Wet, 2012a). Furthermore, the cultural contexts of the different coun-tries also seem to contribute to particular kinds of bullying teachers’ experience(Kilic, 2009). In the school context, there are individual as well as organizationalantecedents of workplace bullying.

5.1 The Individuals

Although stereotypes about typical victims and bullies exist in society, research onworkplace bullying in schools does not necessarily support these. Still, certaintrends, or the lack thereof, should be mentioned.

5.1.1 Victim CharacteristicsThere seems to be no clear indication that the gender of a teacher is a risk factor ofbullying. Whereas Jacobs and De Wet (2015a) found male teachers in a study inSouth Africa to be more at risk of being bullied by their peers, Phooko, Meyer,Fourie and Kirsten (2017) found in the same country the risk to be similar betweenmales and females. Kilic (2009) found in south-eastern Turkey that male teacherswere less at risk of experiencing psychological bullying than females and alsounmarried teachers compared to their married colleagues. One should, however,keep in mind that this study was done in a patriarchal conservative society. The ageof teachers emerges as a stronger determining factor. Most studies found thatyounger and older teachers are more prone to be bullied, while mid-career teachersexperience less of a risk (De Wet, 2012a; Kilic, 2009; Phooko, Meyer, Fourie, &Kirsten, 2017; Terry, 1998). Jacobs and De Wet (2015a), however, found thatthe differences in exposure to workplace between the different age groups are notstatistically significant. The qualifications of teachers also do not seem to be a clearpredictor of their vulnerability. Phooko, Meyer, Fourie and Kirsten (2017), forinstance, found teachers with higher qualifications to be more at risk of being bullied,while De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found teachers with lower qualifications to be so.De Wet (2012b) found that some teachers who obtain higher qualifications than theirprincipals are more likely to be bullied by the latter. In line with this, teachers whoSorrell (2015) interviewed had the perception that teachers with high salaries arebullied to force them to resign.


Teachers are often victimized by their colleagues due to otherness, such asspeaking a different language or belonging to a different group. These include,among other things, race, ethnicity and religious affiliation, but also simply notbeing part of the dominant clique (De Wet, 2012b, 2014). Some teachers suggest thatthey are bullied due to their physical appearance (Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012), whileother victim teachers are bullied because they are nonconformist and are innovativein their approach to teaching (De Wet, 2011). While many victim teachers perceivethemselves to be hard working and committed (De Wet, 2011), learners in a study byChen and Astor (2009) indicated that they target teachers because they perceive theteachers to be unfair and unreasonable. Senior teachers bully newcomers or juniorsto show their dominance (Sinha & Yadav, 2017). Trainee teachers are bullied byestablished teachers. Established teachers are harsh in their assessment of traineesand often withhold important information (Maguire, 2001).

5.1.2 Perpetrator CharacteristicsConsidering the learners who bully teachers, although teachers believe certainlearners simply have bully personalities (Sinha & Yadav, 2017) and are oftenarrogant (De Wet, 2012a), home circumstances do seem to play a role. In a studyin London by Pervin and Turner (1998), teachers suggested that it was mostlychildren from families where education is not a priority, who bully teachers (seealso De Wet, 2012a), while Kondrasuk, Greene, Waggoner, Edwards and Nayak-Rhodes (2005, p. 643) pointed out that “poor home life” was the fundamental causeof learners targeting teachers. Furthermore, the abuse of drugs and alcohol amongschool learners as well as gangsterism and a tough neighbourhood purport theproblem (Kondrasuk, Greene, Waggoner, Edwards, & Nayak-Rhodes, 2005).Teachers seem to be of the opinion that, on the one hand, parents are afraid orunwilling to discipline their children and, on the other, quick to take action againstteachers who discipline them (De Wet, 2012a). Within the school system, variousstudies suggest that both boys and girls equally bully teachers (De Wet, 2012a;Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998) and learner-on-teacher bullying peaks duringthe 9th and 10th years in school (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Chen & Astor, 2009). Thisis in line with trends regarding learner-on-learner bullying in schools: bullying tendsto peak in Grade 9, and both boys and girls are equally likely to be perpetrators ofbullying, even though boys are more likely to be guilty of physical and girls ofrelational aggression (Espelage, Meban, & Swearer, 2004). In spite of the abovetrends, some victim teachers shared that they are bullied by learners due to the natureof a teacher’s work, such as guiding, instructing and reprimanding learners. Some ofthem additionally noted that they work with learners who needed “special attention”(Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012, p. 1065).

Some teachers who bully are haughty, mean and overconfident and have noloyalty to their colleagues (De Wet, 2011, 2012b). Bully teachers often have apowerful support base inside and outside the context of the school and have a highstanding in society (De Wet, 2011). De Wet (2011) found that teachers who bullytheir colleagues often have power through their close relationship with the principaland will feed misinformation to the principal. They every so often lack integrity in


terms of their work and do not hesitate to exploit other people (De Wet, 2011).Bullying among teachers seems to take place at times because the bully is envious ofthe victim and also because the perpetrator is insecure (De Wet, 2012b; Sinha &Yadav, 2017).

School principals are often bullies, particularly those who are authoritarian andjudgemental and resist change. Consequently, they do not like teachers who speaktheir minds or who are progressive and innovative in their approach to teaching(Blase & Blase, 2006; Sorrell, 2015). Principals are able to bully teachers becausethey have power over them, for instance, in terms of development opportunities,leave applications, workload and other human resource matters (De Wet, 2014), andthey misuse this power. De Wet (2012b) found that official structures are misusedto bully teachers, for instance, by refusing leave and blocking promotions. Oftenprincipals who bully subordinates are unprofessional and ineffective (De Wet, 2014)and resort to favouritism and nepotism (Blase & Blase, 2006). Moreover, someprincipals who bully are corrupt and unprincipled, and thus they oppress those whotry to stand up against them (De Wet, 2014). De Wet (2011, p. 462) aptly concludesthat in principals and teachers who bully, there is “a sense of evil”.

5.2 The School as an Organization

The school as an organization can be a risk factor. Powell, Powell and Petrosko(2015) found school climate to be a significant predictor of workplace bullying. Inparticular, in schools where there is an autocratic leadership culture, where there isclique forming and also where the managers are incompetent, workplace bullyingthrives (De Wet, 2012b; Fahie & Devine, 2014). De Wet (2012a) furthermore foundthat the lack of an effective discipline strategy and the lack of clear guidelines to dealwith learner misbehaviour contribute to learner-on-teacher bullying. Disorderlinessin other classes contributes to learners targeting those teachers who make thelearners work hard. Cemaloğlu (2011), however, points out that bullying will onlytake place if the principals enable it; De Wet (2014, p. 13) concurs by stating that“[b]ullying is likely to occur in schools where organisational chaos reigns”. A studyby Cemaloğlu (2011) indeed showed that the prevalence of teacher-targeted bullyingis lower in schools where the principal adopts a transformational leadership style.When the organizational health (positive communication, motivation, job satisfac-tion, etc.) improves, the bullying of teachers drops (Cemaloğlu, 2011).

It furthermore seems that the category of school, to some extent, can be seen as apredicting factor: teachers at combined schools were found to be more at risk ofteacher-on-teacher bullying than those in primary or secondary schools (Jacobs &DeWet, 2015a). In terms of learner-on-teacher bullying, Chen and Astor (2009) foundthat those at vocational high schools are more at risk than teachers in elementaryschools, while De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found that teachers in primary, secondaryand combined schools are, however, all prone to similar levels of learner-on-teacherbullying. Teachers at public schools are more at risk than those in non-public schools(De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Phooko, Meyer, Fourie, & Kirsten, 2017), and teachers


who teach in schools located in shanty towns and other deprived areas are morevulnerable to being bullied than those teachers at schools in established areas (Jacobs& De Wet, 2015a). However, it appears as if school size is not a factor affecting thephenomenon (DeWet & Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs &DeWet, 2015a). Not much is knownabout where the school teachers are targeted, but it seems to be in the spaces in whichthey work and move. Pervin and Turner (1998) found that teachers are mainlytargeted by learners while teaching or in the corridors, while Terry (1998) foundthat teachers are being targeted by learners in their home class, but also in otherclasses.

Otherness, powerlessness, superiority regarding work ethics and qualifications,and not gender or age, typify the teacher victims of workplace bullying in schools.The literature gives an unsympathetic description of learner perpetrators of work-place bullying as mostly troubled, delinquent youths coming from dysfunctionalhomes. Bullying colleagues and principals are often described as overconfident,often incompetent individuals who lust for power. When the powerless and theunprincipled powerful work together in schools serving deprived communities,workplace bullying thrives. The plight of the powerless is exacerbated in schoolswith a toxic climate and where organizational chaos reigns.

6 The Effects of Workplace Bullying in Schools

While an array of reasons for bullying in the workplace of teachers exists, there is nodoubt about the negative effect of this phenomenon on the lives of teachers, learnersand the school as a whole.

6.1 Effects on the Teacher

Workplace bullying affects the psyche of teachers and, in particular, causes nervous-ness and stress in teachers’ lives (Bernotaite &Malinauskiene, 2017; Blase, Blase, &Du, 2008; De Wet & Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Pervin & Turner,1998). Victims become demoralized and embarrassed, while they tend to overthinkand replay episodes of bullying in their minds (De Wet, 2010c; Fahie & Devine,2014; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b). Victims feel unworthy and lonely; they becomefearful and paranoid; and many suffer from depression (De Wet, 2010c; Jacobs & DeWet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Victims also often feel anger and bitterness,while some start to doubt their religion (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Vos & Kirsten,2015). Owing to their frustrations, some teachers can become aggressive and areunable to control their emotions (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Some victims evenundergo personality changes (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Fahie & Devine, 2014), andthey become moody and withdrawn (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Workplace bullyingnegatively affects the sleeping patterns of those teachers who are victimized, as theyeither cannot sleep at night, have nightmares or simply escape through sleeping(Blase & Blase, 2006; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Jacobs &


De Wet, 2015b). In spite of these effects, teachers seem to be reluctant to seek helpfrom a therapist, and females less so than males (Jacobs & DeWet, 2015b; Kauppi &Pörhölä, 2012; Terry, 1998).

Being the victim of workplace bullying has an effect on the physical health of theteachers. It influences their eating habits. Some stop eating, while others overeat, andthis destabilizes their weight (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fahie & Devine, 2014;Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b). Bullying is destructive in itself (Fahie & Devine, 2014),and teachers who are targeted by bullies sometimes resort to self-destructive andaddictive behaviour: 16.7% of the victims in a study admitted that they resort tosubstance abuse (alcohol, smoking or medication), and male teachers, in particular,are more prone to this response (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b). Teachers seem to sufferfrom constant and severe headaches but also body aches (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008;Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Some develop respiratoryproblems (e.g. difficulty in breathing), digestive problems (e.g. stomach cramps,getting nauseous, ulcers), sexual problems and cardiovascular problems (e.g. highblood pressure) (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Malinauskienë,Obelenis, & Dopagienë, 2005; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Their resistance to infec-tions decreases and some reported that their hair started falling out (Blase, Blase, &Du, 2008; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014).

Spouses and families often suffer as well. Teachers who are victims acknowledgethat workplace bullying negatively affects their relationships and their marital life(De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). Some shared how they would take their frustrations out ontheir loved ones (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008). While some teachers shared theirexperiences with their partners, others refrained from sharing them at all, becausethey did not want to cause too much distress for their partners (Fahie & Devine,2014). Some teachers report that their spiritual life suffers as a result of workplacebullying, and they become disillusioned with their faith (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014).

Workplace bullying has an economic effect on teachers who are victimized.Clearly, their health problems, as a result of bullying, have a financial impact dueto medical expenses. In addition, De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found that 7.3% of theteachers experience, on a monthly basis or more often, that bully-learners damagetheir private property, such as their vehicles. Some teachers also resign from teaching(Pervin & Turner, 1998). One teacher in a study by Fahie and Devine (2014) sharedhow she quit her job, lost her home and left her pets behind just to get away, resultingin enormous debt. Some victims shared how they took early retirement, with thesubsequent loss in security and income (Fahie & Devine, 2014).

Workplace bullying furthermore affects the professional lives of teachers. Theystart doubting their own abilities (Sinha & Yadav, 2017) and feel as if they are losingcontrol and cannot escape (Terry, 1998). Victims are afraid to enter the school, arestressed out at school, dread going to class and simply do not want to be at work(Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Pervin & Turner, 1998; Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011).Workplace bullying furthermore negatively affects their general relationship withcolleagues (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014); they seem to loseperspective and develop a victim mentality (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Being bulliedresults in the reduction of job satisfaction, teachers dropping their career


expectations and aspirations which result in some seeking other career paths (DeWet& Jacobs, 2006; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009; Pervin & Turner,1998; Sinha & Yadav, 2017).

Teachers respond to being bullied differently. Some teachers do report it to theircolleagues or line managers (Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012; Pervin & Turner, 1998), butmany feel that they still do not get support. Teachers feel that they are not takenseriously and are expected to handle the situation (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry,1998). Some are told that they simply overreact (De Wet, 2012a). In a study in a poorarea of London, Pervin and Turner (1998, p. 5) found that the “situation was notresolved despite seeking help from school management”. Others keep quiet about itdue to the power differential between themselves and the victim (Blase, Blase, & Du,2008). A teacher in a study by Sorrell (2015) indicated that she did not report thebullying because she did not want to show the perpetrator that she was affecting her.Some indicated that they felt that they could not escape from the situation, whilesome simply want to run away (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008). However, some teachersfound that with time, things got better in terms of learner-on-teacher bullying, as theyand the learners got to understand one another (Pervin & Turner, 1998). Otherteachers merely accept learner-on-teacher bullying as part of normality (Pervin &Turner, 1998).

Workplace bullying in schools has a profound negative effect on the victim’spsyche and physical health, as well as his/her economic well-being. Spouses andfamilies often suffer as well. Victims’ professional lives suffer seriously: once social,popular and inspiring teachers may become lacklustre recluses. This may have direconsequences for schools as teaching and learning organizations.

6.2 Organizational Effects

The school as an organization and those within are also negatively affected byworkplace bullying. Teachers who are bullied place their focus and energy onsurviving the onslaughts, do not enjoy teaching any more, become demotivatedand battle to be productive while at school; thus, their work suffers (Blase & Blase,2004, 2006; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Ozkilic & Kartal,2012). In particular, when bullied by the principal or peers, the victim’s loyalty to theschool dwindles (De Wet, 2011), and they withdraw from non-compulsory schoolactivities and extra work (Blase & Blase, 2006). Teachers also tend to be absent moreoften when bullied (Wilson et al., 2011).

The quality of teaching that the learners receive subsequently dwindles, teachersfeel undermined, the relationship between teachers and learners suffers and theatmosphere in the class deteriorates (Blase & Blase, 2006; Ozkilic & Kartal,2012). Teachers become less innovative, prepare less and require less of the learnersand change to a more teacher-centred style with less practical and other activities(Blase & Blase, 2006; De Wet & Jacobs, 2006; Pervin & Turner, 1998). Teacherssometimes take their frustrations out on the learners, respond aggressively towards


the learners, become less understanding and simply dislike learners (Blase & Blase,2004, 2006; Ozkilic & Kartal, 2012).

Relationships and colleagueship between teachers go downhill, particularlybecause of principal-on-teacher bullying (Blase & Blase, 2006; De Wet, 2010c).Spontaneity in communication dwindles, as teachers opt either to remain silent or tobe cautious during discussions (Blase & Blase, 2004), and thus the participation ofteachers in decision-making is hindered (Blase & Blase, 2006). The victims oftenwithdraw from socializing with other colleagues during non-teaching time (Terry,1998), discussions focus on the negative and a “culture of fear and caution” developsat school (Blase & Blase, 2006, p. 131). When principals bully some teachers, otherteachers are too scared to support the victims, for fear of becoming targets them-selves (Blase & Blase, 2006), although some remain indifferent (De Wet, 2010c).In the long run, when principals bully teachers, the atmosphere in the schoolbecomes negative (Blase & Blase, 2006).

Learner-on-teacher bullying sometimes leads to the damaging of school property,resulting in financial expenditures for the school. De Wet and Jacobs (2006) foundthat 26.9% of the teachers who took part in a survey reported that classrooms aredamaged on a monthly basis or even more frequently.

Teachers, who resign and take early retirement, result in staff turnovers that alsohave implication for the organization in terms of relocation and other expenditures(Fahie & Devine, 2014; Sorrell, 2015).

Workplace bullying has serious negative effects on schools as organizations forteaching and learning. Teacher victims may become boring and apathetic teacherswho have lost empathy towards their learners. Positive working and social relation-ships and colleagueship between teachers may disintegrate. Gifted teachers mayeven decide to leave the profession. It is therefore important to turn to the literature tolook for ways to address workplace bullying in schools.

7 How to Address Workplace Bullying in Schools

There is no simple solution to workplace bullying in schools. The multifaceted natureof workplace bullying in schools asks for an approach that moves beyond addressingabuse among adult workers; it must also address the bullying of minors by adults andvice versa. The literature emphasizes, among other things, the need for an acknowl-edgement that workplace bullying is a reality in schools, an encompassing anti-bullying policy and anti-workplace bullying legislation. The involvement of tradeunions to look after the interest of their victimized members and the need for teachereducators to become involved in empowering teachers and teach them how tocounteract principal-on-teacher and prevent teacher-on-learner bullying are advo-cated by workplace bullying researchers.

An acknowledgement that bullying in the school yard encompasses more thanlearners bullying one another is pivotal to dealing with workplace bullying inschools. Researchers who found that there is a lack of knowledge of workplacebullying among members of school staff emphasize the need to create awareness of


this type of bullying (Fahie, 2014; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009;Sinha & Yadav, 2017). There is thus a need to train principals, teachers, members ofthe school governing body and learners in anti-workplace bullying strategies (Fahie,2014). Researchers propose workshops, seminars, conferences (Aluede, Ojugo, &Okoza, 2012; Blase & Blase, 2006), inductions and educational programmes(Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012) to teach everybodyinvolved in schooling that bullying is not acceptable behaviour and to teach themeffective communication skills. Blase and Blase (2006), in their recommendationson how to address principal-on-teacher bullying, highlight the role teacher educatorscan play by helping prospective and practising teachers to recognize and understandthe possible effects of principal abuse on themselves, their colleagues and the schoolas a teaching and learning organization. They also recommend that prospective andpractising teachers be taught skills for assertively protecting themselves from bul-lying principals: teacher educators should encourage teachers who are witnessesto principals’ abusive behaviour, to confront the abuser on behalf of the victim.They lastly recommend that teacher educators give teachers guidance on how towork with teachers’ associations or trade unions to lobby for the adoption of anti-bullying policies. Researchers (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012; Benbenishty, Zeira,Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b; Theoklitou, Nabitsis, & Kabitsi, 2012) whoreported on the abuse of learners by their teachers advocate training for teachers topromote alternative solutions to coercive discipline.

Several researchers (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012;De Wet, 2011; Fahie, 2014; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009)recommend that schools should develop anti-bullying policies that clearly stipulatewhat workplace bullying entails and that such negative behaviour will not betolerated. A school’s anti-bullying policy should also acknowledge the reality oflearners bullying their teachers and teachers bullying their learners. The importanceof an all-encompassing anti-bullying policy is emphasized by De Wet and Jacobs(2006). Key features of such a policy are as follows: the definition of bullying shouldinclude the bullying of learners by learners, the bullying of learners by teachers, thebullying of teachers by learners and bullying among adults at work. Learners andteachers should be encouraged to report incidents of bullying and support theircolleagues who are victims of bullying. Peer mentoring and support strategies shouldbe put in place and victims should keep a clear log of bullying incidents which areaccessible to staff and senior management. In addition, class and staffroom discus-sions should explore the issue of bullying (De Wet & Jacobs, 2006). McCormack,Casimir, Djurkovic and Lang (2009) suggest that such a policy should lead to thedevelopment of a formal mediation system comprising several staff members andproperly trained mediators, external to the school, so that conflict may be resolved ina proper manner.

Government should play a leading role in laying down policies and ethical codesof conduct in the workplace (Sinha & Yadav, 2017). Riley, Duncan and Edwards(2011) found that existing legislation in Australia has been effective in reducingcertain behaviours that can be seen as bullying. The view that anti-bullying legisla-tion will reduce workplace bullying in schools is supported by Casimir, McCormack,


Djurkovic and Nsubuga-Kyobe (2012). These authors argue that an important reasonwhy workplace bullying is more prevalent in Uganda than in Australia is the fact thatthe latter has legislation in place to deal with bullying in the workplace. While otherfactors might also influence the situation in these two countries, and notwithstandingthe acknowledgement of labour laws prohibiting bullying in the prevention ofworkplace bullying, such laws are the exception rather than the rule worldwide.Barnes (2017) has compiled what she acknowledges to be an “incomplete” list ofcountries that have enacted workplace bullying “provisions”: Australia, Belgium,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Luxembourg, Norway, theNetherlands, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the UK. “Provisions”does not necessarily mean that these countries have formally adopted legislationprohibiting workplace bullying and harassment. No legislation, for instance, exists inthe UK specifically to combat workplace bullying, but according to Barnes (2017,p. 2), “British courts have interpreted an existing anti-stalking law, the Protectionfrom Harassment Act (Protection from Harassment Act, 1997, c 40, §1 (Eng)) asproviding redress for victims of workplace bullying”. Also, even though there are nospecific Korean regulations or laws to prevent or deal with workplace bullying,processes to prevent workplace bullying were announced in 1999 by the thenMinister of Employment and Labour (Barnes, 2017). In the case of Canada, theQuebec province was the first jurisdiction in North America to make workplacebullying illegal in 2004, while the Saskatchewan province followed suit in 2007.Ontario implemented Section 32 of the Ontario Occupational and Safety Act pro-hibiting workplace bullying in 2010, while in November 2013 British Columbiaapproved three Occupational Health and Safety Workplace Bullying and HarassmentPolicies to combat workplace bullying (Solon, 2013). According to Namie andYamada (2017), campaigners for the Healthy Workplace Bill, “the U.S. is the lastof the western democracies to introduce a law forbidding bully-like conduct in theworkplace”. Comprehensive workplace bullying legislation has not been passed bythe federal government or by any US state even though many state legislatures haveconsidered such bills since 2003. As of April 2017, 32 legislatures (30 states and 2territories) have introduced, but not passed, the Healthy Workplace Bill. This Billwas crafted by David Yamada for the Healthy Workplace Campaign (Namie &Yamada, 2017).

Researchers, such as Bradshaw and Figiel (2012) and De Wet and Jacobs (2006),recommend that trade unions become involved in dealing with workplace bullying.Unions should ensure that “enforceable protections” against bullying should beincluded in the current and future negotiation contracts of employees. Grievanceprocedures should also be put in place (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012, p. 16). De Wet andJacobs (2006) posit that trade unions should actively lobby the passing of legislationprotecting teachers from abuse at the hands of their learners. They suggest that tradeunions follow a “victim-centred” approach. This approach should be characterizedby compassion and respect; the availability of information on grievance proceedingsand the legal rights of the victim; a willingness to listen to the victims; availing legalaid; a willingness to attend to cases of bullying as soon as possible; the protection of


the victim’s privacy and identity if need be; and the protection of the victim fromretaliation and intimidation.

The need for a positive organizational culture, in which learners, teachers, schoolleaders, administrative staff and parents respect and care for one another, ishighlighted in the workplace bullying literature and the creation thereof is suggestedas a way to counteract bullying (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012; Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012;Fahie, 2014; Sinha & Yadav, 2017). A positive school culture can be created orstrengthened by learners, teachers, school leaders, administrative staff and parentsbeing respectful towards one another and given the opportunity to communicate withone another about their fears and frustrations. Strong leadership by the principal canestablish high standards for accountability and treating others with respect. Teacherscan strengthen the safety of the school by promoting clear communication about,among other things, workload, as well as the unacceptability of aggressive andhumiliating behaviour (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012).

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for workplace bullying in schools. Thesuggestions by researchers on how to address bullying are closely linked to thefocus of their specific studies, for example, principal-on-learner and learner-on-teacher bullying. The nucleus of their suggestions, namely, the involvement of allrole players, including trade unions and government in addressing workplace bul-lying in schools, and advocacy for the development of anti-bullying policies and thepassing of anti-workplace bullying legislation that acknowledge the complexity ofworkplace bullying in schools, should be urgently implemented in the fight againstworkplace bullying in schools.

8 Recommendations for Further Research

Studies on the bullying of teachers by adults give statistics supporting the assumptionthat they are victimized by colleagues, principals and other members of the schoolmanagement team, administrative and/or support staff, members of school governingbodies or parent–teacher organizations, as well as parents. The majority of theresearch on the bullying of teachers by adults focuses on colleagues or principal-on-teacher bullying. With the exception of one study that gives statistics on thedifferent negative acts to which teachers are exposed when bullied by parents,researchers have failed to investigate teachers’ vulnerability when abused by par-ents—in whatever capacity—as well as administrative and support staff. Eventhough a study by De Wet (2011) alluded to the possible influence of workplacebullying on the relationship between the victims and their colleagues, there is a dearthof literature on the role of bystanders in workplace bullying in schools. There is thus aneed to expand workplace bullying in school research to include bystanders, parentsas well as administrative and support staff. Various studies have described thepossible influence of childhood victimization on victims becoming bullies them-selves (Sekol & Farrington, 2010; Whelan, Kretschmer, & Barker, 2014). Studiesreviewed in this chapter are lacking on the extent to which victims of workplace


bullying turn into bullies (cf. Terry, 1998). This hiatus should be addressed in futureresearch on workplace bullying in schools. In addition, while the voices of thevictims are clearly heard in many studies, studies from the point of view of thosewho are perceived to bully are necessary (cf. De Wet, 2012b). Most studies onworkplace bullying focus on the Western context. It is important to compare currentfindings on workplace bullying in schools in Western cultures with studies under-taken in non-Western countries (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012). Such a comparison is important because little is known about theinfluence of different cultural contexts on the extent and experience of workplacebullying in schools. Even though this chapter identified a few studies that shed lighton the connection between culture and aspects of workplace bullying (Casimir,McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; Kilic, 2009; Malinauskienë,Obelenis, & Dopagienë, 2005), there is a dire need for more in-depth studies on theeffects of culture on workplace bullying in schools. Such studies may expandresearchers’ understanding of why people who accepted or still accept patriarchy,conservatism and authoritarianism as “normal” perceive workplace bullying as lessnegative than those working and residing in liberal, democratic countries or societies.Although researchers have posed numerous suggestions on how to counteract work-place bullying in schools, none of these suggestions is research based. There is thus adire need for action researchers to develop all-encompassing, research- and evidence-based anti-workplace bullying programmes. Schools should learn from the strengthsand weaknesses of previous studies that single, stand-alone prevention programmesare not effective or sustainable (cf. Escartin, 2017). The claim of successes for ananti-workplace bullying programme should be made only after the necessary longi-tudinal studies. Even if existing anti-bullying programmes, such as Olweus’s well-known research-based programme for the prevention of bullying among children (cf.Limber, 2011), are used as a foundation for the development of an anti-workplacebullying programme, developers of such programmes should acknowledge the multi-dimensionality of workplace bullying in schools. Workplace bullying in schools ismore than the bullying of workers by their colleagues and bosses; it is also thebullying relations between teachers and learners. Lastly, as far as could beestablished, no specific policies to protect teachers in the workplace exist. Educationauthorities should not only take heed of the devastating effect of the workplacebullying of teachers and work towards such policies; once implemented, the effectof such policies should be analysed (cf. Wilson et al., 2011).

9 Conclusion

Workplace bullying within a school context includes a multitude of victims, perpe-trators and bystanders: teachers may be targeted by their colleagues, principals, themembers of the management and administrative staff of their school, parents andlearners. They may, however, also be guilty of bullying colleagues and learnersplaced in their care. In researching these multitudes of abusive relations in schools,


researchers acknowledge the groundwork laid by leading researchers regarding theconceptualization of workplace bullying and the development of standardized ques-tionnaires. The influence of these leading researchers is especially obvious in thesomewhat generic character of questionnaires used to probe bullying among col-leagues. Quantitative studies interrogating principal-on-teacher, learner-on-teacherand teacher-on-learner abuse are more unambiguously focused on specific abusiverelationships. With the exception of a few studies on principals’ mistreatment ofteachers, the main focus of most of the reviewed papers on workplace bullying inschools was to determine the nature and prevalence of the different subsets ofbullying. The one-dimensionality of the research is exacerbated by the under-theorized character of most workplace bullying in school research. A theoreticalframework provides a grounding base for the literature review, the research methodand the analysis. Without it a study lacks structure. This review has illustrated howthe utilization of theory enabled researchers to explore the impact of power, culture,psychosocial, mental health, subjectivity and relational issues on workplace bully-ing. Without a sound theoretical framework, research tends to be descriptive.Notwithstanding the aforementioned critique, research on workplace bullying cre-ates an understanding of the seriousness of the problem. Schools are complexinstitutions as learners, teachers and other staff members spend many hours together.While certain trends do exist in terms of antecedents of workplace bullying ofteachers, the most significant role players are the principals. While a transformativeleader can contribute to a drop in the prevalence of workplace bullying by teachersand learners, corrupt, insecure authoritarian and incapable principals and the con-comitant unhealthy school culture certainly create an enabling environment forbullying to thrive. Workplace bullying has devastating effects on the school. Victimsand the school as an organization suffer, and the quality of teaching and learning iscompromised. The chapter highlights the need for government, teacher traininginstitutions, trade unions and education leaders to acknowledge the seriousness ofthe problem and the importance of creating awareness that all forms of bullying inschool are unacceptable. The chapter advocates the development of anti-bullyingpolicies and the passing of legislation prohibiting workplace bullying.

10 Cross-References

▶Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Academe

11 Cross-References to Other Volumes

▶Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1▶Dignity, Vol. 1▶Ethical Challenges and Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical

Awareness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1


http://link.springer.com/Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Academe

http://link.springer.com/Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology

http://link.springer.com/Dignity

http://link.springer.com/Ethical Challenges and Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Awareness and Sensitivity

http://link.springer.com/Ethical Challenges and Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Awareness and Sensitivity

▶The Hallmarks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 1▶The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide, Vol. 1▶Theoretical Frameworks That Explain Workplace Bullying, Vol. 1▶Workplace Bullying and the Polemic of Subjectivity and Intent, Vol. 1▶Health Consequences of Workplace Bullying: Physiological Response and Sleep,

Vol. 2▶Long-Term Consequences (Costs) of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and

Harassment for the Workplace, Organization and Society, Vol. 2▶ “Me? A Bully?”: The Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying,

Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2▶New Directions in Reciprocal Influences: The Cases of Role Stressor–Workplace

Bullying and Interpersonal Conflict–Workplace Bullying Linkages, Vol. 2▶ Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2▶Targets of Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment: Helpless Victims or Active

Provocateurs?, Vol. 2▶The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and

Harassment, Vol. 2▶The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional

Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2▶The Moderating Effects of Coping Mechanisms and Resources in the Context of

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2▶The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and

Harassment, Vol. 2▶The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2▶The Role of Personality in Workplace Bullying Research, Vol. 2▶The Significant Others of Victims of Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

at Work, Vol. 2▶Upwards Bullying: What We Can Learn About Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2▶Workplace Bullying and Mental Health, Vol. 2▶Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Education and Develop-

ment, Vol. 3▶Alternate Dispute Resolution in Workplace Bullying and Harassment Complaints,

Vol. 3▶Complaint Investigation in Cases of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and

Harassment, Vol. 3▶Diagnosis and Treatment: Repairing Injuries Caused by Workplace Bullying,

Vol. 3▶Managing Workplace Bullying Complaints: Conceptual Influences and Effects of

Conceptual Factors, Vol. 3▶Regulation as Intervention: How Regulatory Design Can Affect Behaviours in the

Workplace, Vol. 3▶Risk Management and Bullying as a Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) Hazard,

Vol. 3▶ Strengthening the Evidence-Case of Workplace Bullying Interventions Through

Implementation Research: Taking Interventions to Scale, Vol. 3


http://link.springer.com/The Hallmarks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide

http://link.springer.com/Theoretical Frameworks That Explain Workplace Bullying

http://link.springer.com/Workplace Bullying and the Polemic of Subjectivity and Intent

http://link.springer.com/Health Consequences of Workplace Bullying: Physiological Response and Sleep

http://link.springer.com/Long-Term Consequences (Costs) of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment for the Workplace, Organization and Society

http://link.springer.com/Long-Term Consequences (Costs) of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment for the Workplace, Organization and Society

http://link.springer.com/“Me? A Bully?”: The Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/“Me? A Bully?”: The Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/New Directions in Reciprocal Influences: The Cases of Role Stressor–Workplace Bullying and Interpersonal Conflict–Workplace Bullying Linkages

http://link.springer.com/New Directions in Reciprocal Influences: The Cases of Role Stressor–Workplace Bullying and Interpersonal Conflict–Workplace Bullying Linkages

http://link.springer.com/Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/Targets of Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment: Helpless Victims or Active Provocateurs?

http://link.springer.com/Targets of Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment: Helpless Victims or Active Provocateurs?

http://link.springer.com/The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Moderating Effects of Coping Mechanisms and Resources in the Context of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Moderating Effects of Coping Mechanisms and Resources in the Context of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying

http://link.springer.com/The Role of Personality in Workplace Bullying Research

http://link.springer.com/The Significant Others of Victims of Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment at Work

http://link.springer.com/The Significant Others of Victims of Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment at Work

http://link.springer.com/Upwards Bullying: What We Can Learn About Workplace Bullying

http://link.springer.com/Workplace Bullying and Mental Health

http://link.springer.com/Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Education and Development

http://link.springer.com/Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Education and Development

http://link.springer.com/Alternate Dispute Resolution in Workplace Bullying and Harassment Complaints

http://link.springer.com/Complaint Investigation in Cases of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/Complaint Investigation in Cases of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/Diagnosis and Treatment: Repairing Injuries Caused by Workplace Bullying

http://link.springer.com/Managing Workplace Bullying Complaints: Conceptual Influences and Effects of Conceptual Factors

http://link.springer.com/Managing Workplace Bullying Complaints: Conceptual Influences and Effects of Conceptual Factors

http://link.springer.com/Regulation as Intervention: How Regulatory Design Can Affect Behaviours in the Workplace

http://link.springer.com/Regulation as Intervention: How Regulatory Design Can Affect Behaviours in the Workplace

http://link.springer.com/Risk Management and Bullying as a Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) Hazard

http://link.springer.com/Strengthening the Evidence-Case of Workplace Bullying Interventions Through Implementation Research: Taking Interventions to Scale

http://link.springer.com/Strengthening the Evidence-Case of Workplace Bullying Interventions Through Implementation Research: Taking Interventions to Scale

▶Work and Organizational Design: Influence on Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3▶Worker Representation and Advocacy in the Context of Workplace Bullying,

Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 3▶Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on

Effectiveness, Vol. 3

References

Aluede, O., Ojugo, A. I., & Okoza, J. (2012). Emotional abuse of secondary school students byteachers in Edo State, Nigeria. Research in Education, 88, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE8813.

Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroombehaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational &Developmental Psychology, 4, 59–70.

Barnes, P. (2017). When the abuser goes to work . . . International Laws. Available at http://abusergoestowork.com/legislation/international-laws/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-3. Accessed 14 Oct 2017.

Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Astor, R. A. (2002a). Children’s reports of emotional, physical andsexual mistreatment by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 763–782.

Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2002b). Maltreatment of primaryschool students by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1291–1309.

Bernotaite, L., & Malinauskiene, V. (2017). Workplace bullying and mental health among teachersin relation to psychosocial job characteristics and burnout. International Journal ofOccupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30(4), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00943.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principalmistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 671–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239643.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: Implications for administratorpreparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503733.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2006). Teachers’ perspectives on principal mistreatment. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 33, 123–142.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2007). School principal mistreatment of teachers: Teachers’ perspectives onemotional abuse. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 4(3/4), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v04n03_10.

Blase, J., Blase, J., & Du, F. (2008). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal ofEducational Administration, 46(3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810869257.

Bradshaw, C. P., & Figiel, K. (2012). Prevention and intervention of workplace bullying in schools.Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Verbal abuse bythe teacher during childhood and academic, behavioural, emotional adjustment in youngadulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 26–38.

Casimir, G., McCormack, D., Djurkovic, N., & Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. (2012). Psychosomatic modelof workplace bullying: Australian and Ugandan schoolteachers. Employee Relations, 34(4),411–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451211236841.

Cemaloğlu, N. (2007). The exposure of primary school teachers to bullying: An analysis of variousvariables. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 789–802.

Cemaloğlu, N. (2011). Primary principals’ leadership styles, school organizational health andworkplace bullying. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159511.


http://link.springer.com/Work and Organizational Design: Influence on Workplace Bullying

http://link.springer.com/Worker Representation and Advocacy in the Context of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/Worker Representation and Advocacy in the Context of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

http://link.springer.com/Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on Effectiveness

http://link.springer.com/Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on Effectiveness

https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE8813

https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE8813

http://abusergoestowork.com/legislation/international-laws/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-3



https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00943

https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00943

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239643

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239643

https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503733

https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503733

https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v04n03_10

https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v04n03_10

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810869257

https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451211236841

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159511

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159511

Charilaos, K., Galanakis, M., Chryssa, B., Panagiota, D., Chrousos, C. P., & Darviri, C. (2015).Validation of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) in a sample of Greek teachers.Psychology, 6, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.61007.

Chen, J.-K., & Astor, R. A. (2009). Students’ reports of violence against teachers in Taiwaneseschools. Journal of School Violence, 8, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1538820802067680.

De Vos, J., & Kirsten, G. J. C. (2015). The nature of workplace bullying experienced by teachersand the biopsychological health effects. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), 1138.https://doi.org/10.15700/SAJE.V35N3A1138. 9p

De Wet, C. (2010a). School principals’ bullying behaviour. Acta Criminologica, 23(1), 96–117.De Wet, C. (2010b). Victims of educator-targeted bullying: A qualitative study. South African

Journal of Education, 30, 189–201.De Wet, C. (2010c). The reasons for and the impact of principal-on-educator bullying on the

victims’ private and professional lives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1450–1459.De Wet, C. (2011). Educator-on-educator workplace bullying: A phenomenological study. Africa

Education Review, 8(3), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2011.618654.De Wet, C. (2012a). Risk factors for educator-targeted-bullying: A social-ecological perspective.

Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(2), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2012.10820523.

DeWet, C. (2012b). Risk factors for workplace bullying in schools: A two dimensional perspective.Acta Criminologica, 27(1), 13–29.

De Wet, C. (2014). Educators’ understanding of workplace bullying. South African Journal ofEducation, 34(1), 1–16. Available at www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/download/767/405. Accessed 07 Aug 2017.

De Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2006). Educator-targeted bullying: Fact or fallacy? Acta Criminologica,19(2), 53–73.

De Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2013). South African teachers’ exposure to workplace bullying. TheJournal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(3), 446–464.

Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J., & Hammarstrom, A.(2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students:Prevalence and psychosocial profile. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 71–90.https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24645.

DeSouza, E. R. (2011). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in highereducation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 158–188. https://doi.org/10.11770886260510362878.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: TheEuropean tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying andemotional abuse in the workplace. International perspective in research and practice (pp.3–30). London: Taylor and Francis.

Engel, G.L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129–136.

Escartin, J. (2017). Adopting an evidence-based approach to prevent and intervene against work-place bullying situations. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7(4), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0487.1000320.

Espelage, D. L., Meban, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Movingbeyond mean level differences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in Americanschools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–35). Mahwah:Erlbaum.

Fahie, D. (2014). Blackboard bullies: Workplace bullying in primary schools. Irish EducationalStudies, 33(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.983679.

Fahie, D., & Devine, D. (2014). The impact of workplace bullying on primary school teachers andprincipals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.725099.


https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.61007

https://doi.org/10.1080/1538820802067680

https://doi.org/10.15700/SAJE.V35N3A1138

https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2011.618654

https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2012.10820523

https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2012.10820523

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/download/767/405

http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/download/767/405

https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24645

https://doi.org/10.11770886260510362878

https://doi.org/10.11770886260510362878

https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0487.1000320

https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0487.1000320

https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.983679

https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.725099

https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.725099

Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-emotion-control/support theory to teachers’ experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations,63(7), 927–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349518.

Geiger, B. (2017). Sixth graders in Israel recount their experience of verbal abuse by teachers in theclassroom. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjiabu.2016.11.019.

Hempel-Jorgensen, A. (2009). The construction of the ‘ideal pupil’ and pupils’ perceptions of‘misbehaviour’ and discipline: Contrasting experiences from a low-socio-economic and a high-socio-economic primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 435–448.https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690902954612.

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V.J., & Lopez, S.H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: workplacebullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 882–416.

Houghton, S., Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. (1988). Classroom behaviour problems which secondaryschool teachers say they find most troublesome. British Educational Research Journal, 14(3),297–312.

Jacobs, L., & De Wet, C. (2015a). Workplace bullying in schools: Who are being victimised? ActaCriminologica, 28(1), 50–66.

Jacobs, L., & DeWet, C. (2015b). A quantitative exploration of the effects of workplace bullying onSouth African educators. African Safety Promotion Journal, 13(2), 31–57.

James, D. J., Lawlor, M., Courtney, P., Flynn, A., Henry, B., & Murphy, N. (2008). Bullyingbehaviour in secondary schools: What role do teachers play? Child Abuse Review, 17, 160–173.

Kauppi, T., & Pӧrhӧlä, M. (2012). School teachers bullied by their students: Teachers’ attributionsand how they share their experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1059–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.009.

Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2006). Student victimization by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse &Neglect, 30, 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.12003.

Kilic, E. D. (2009). Psychological violence in learning organizations: A case study in Sanliurfa,Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(7), 869–880.

Kŏiv, K. (2015). Changes over a ten-year interval in the prevalence of teacher targeted bullying.Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 171, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.098.

Kondrasuk, J. N., Greene, T., Waggoner, J., Edwards, K., & Nayak-Rhodes, A. (2005). Violenceaffecting school employees. Education, 125(4), 638–647.

Kormaz, M., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2010). Relationship between organizational learning and workplacebullying in learning organizations. Educational Research Quarterly, 33(3), 3–38.

Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2008). Contrapower harassment in acade-mia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying and sexual attention. SexRoles, 60, 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-956-x.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.

Limber, S. P. (2011). Development, evaluation and future directions of the Olweus BullyingPrevention Program. Journal of School Violence, 10(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.519375.

Maguire, M. (2001). Bullying and the postgraduate secondary school trainee/teacher: An Englishcase study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470120042564.

Malinauskienë, V., Obelenis, V., & Dopagienë, D. (2005). Psychological terror at work andcardiovascular diseases among teachers. Acta Medica Lituanica, 12(2), 20–25.

Matsela, M. A., & Kirsten, G. J. C. (2014). Teachers’ experiences and impact of workplace bullyingon their health in Lesotho. Psychological Research, 4(6), 479–491.

McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Lang, L. (2009). Workplace bullying and intentionto leave among schoolteachers in China: The mediating effect of affective commitment. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2106–2127.


https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349518

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjiabu.2016.11.019

https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690902954612

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.009

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.009

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.12003

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.098

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.098

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-956-x

https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.519375

https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.519375

https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470120042564

https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470120042564

Monsvold, T., Bendixen, M., Hagen, R., & Helvik, A. S. (2011). Exposure to teacher bullying inschools: A study of patients with personality disorders. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 65(5),323–329. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2010.546881.

Namie, G., & Yamada, D. C. (2017). The Healthy Workplace Campaign. Available at healthyworkplacebill.org/. Accessed 14 Oct 2017.

Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In Peters, R.D.,McMahon, R.J., & Quincy, V.L. (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan.Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 100–125.

Ozkilic, R., & Kartal, H. (2012). Teachers bullied by their students: How their classes influencesafter being bullied? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3435–3439.

Pervin, K., & Turner, A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils in an inner Londonschool. Pastoral Care, 16(4): 4–10.

Phooko, N., Meyer, H., Fourie, E., & Kirsten, T. (2017). Hoërskool-onderwysers in die Vrystaat seervaring van psigologiese geweld [High school teachers’ experience of psychological violencein the Free State]. LitNet Akademies, 14(2). Available at http://www.litnet.co.za/hoerskool-onderwysers-die-vrystaat-se-ervaring-van-psigologiese-geweld/. Accessed 05 Aug 2017.

Powell, J., Powell, A. L., & Petrosko, J. M. (2015). School climate as a predictor of incivility andbullying among public school employees: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Violence,14(2), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906917.

Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 181–191.

Riley, D., Duncan, D. J., & Edwards, J. (2011). Staff bullying in Australian schools. Journal ofEducational Administration, 49(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102036.

Russo, A., Milić, R., Knežević, B., Mulić, R., & Mustajbegović, J. (2008). Harassment in work-place among school teachers: Development of a survey. Croatian Medical Journal,49, 545–552. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2008.4.545.

Sekol, I., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). The overlap between bullying and victimization in adolescentresidential care: Are bully/victims a special category? Children and Youth Services Review,32, 1758–1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.020.

Shumba, A. (2002). The nature, extent and effects of emotional abuse on primary school pupils byteachers in Zimbabwe. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 783–791.

Sinha, S., & Yadav, R. S. (2017). Workplace bullying in school teachers: An Indian enquiry. IndianJournal of Health and Wellbeing, 8(3), 200–205. Available at http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhw/article/view/146993. Accessed 02 Aug 2017.

Solon, R. (2013). Canada and workplace bullying. Available at https://www.crisisprevention.com/Blog/July-2013/Canada-and-Workplace-Bullying. Accessed 14 Oct 2017.

Sorrell, D. A. (2015). Workplace bullying: The lived experiences of educators. Journal of Bullying& Social Aggression, 1(2). Available at http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/workplace-bullying-education/. Accessed 01 Sept 2017.

Sylvester, R. (2011). Teacher as bully: Knowingly or unintentionally harming students. The DeltaKappa Gamma Bulletin, 42–45. Available at www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/dkgbulletinwinter2011.PDF. Accessed 06 Aug 2017.

Terry, A. A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: A study to investigate incidence.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255–268.

Theoklitou, D., Nabitsis, N., & Kabitsi, A. (2012). Physical and emotional abuse of primary schoolchildren by teachers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.007.

Twemlow, S. W., & Fonagy, P. (2005). The prevalence of teachers who bully students in schoolswith differing levels of behavioural problems. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2),2387–2389.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. S., & Brethour, J. R. (2006). Teachers who bully students:A hidden trauma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52(3), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764006067234.


https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2010.546881

http://healthyworkplacebill.org/

http://healthyworkplacebill.org/

http://www.litnet.co.za/hoerskool-onderwysers-die-vrystaat-se-ervaring-van-psigologiese-geweld/

http://www.litnet.co.za/hoerskool-onderwysers-die-vrystaat-se-ervaring-van-psigologiese-geweld/

https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906917

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102036

https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2008.4.545

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.020

http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhw/article/view/146993

http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhw/article/view/146993

https://www.crisisprevention.com/Blog/July-2013/Canada-and-Workplace-Bullying

https://www.crisisprevention.com/Blog/July-2013/Canada-and-Workplace-Bullying

http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/workplace-bullying-education/

http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/workplace-bullying-education/

http://www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/dkgbulletinwinter2011.PDF

http://www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/dkgbulletinwinter2011.PDF

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.007

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.007

https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764006067234

https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764006067234

Whelan, Y. M., Kretschmer, T., & Barker, E. D. (2014). MAOA, early experiences of harshparenting, irritable opposition, and bully-victimization: A moderated indirect-effects analysis.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60(2), 217–237.

Wilson, C. M., Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (2011). Violence against teachers: Prevalence andconsequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2353–2371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383027.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and practice:An introduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 369–373.


https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383027

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383027

workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment in schools · principal-on-teacher bullying was...

Documents