An Individual Psychology Approach To Underlying Factors Of Workplace Bullying

An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying
Factors of Workplace Bullying
Milda Astrauskaite, Roy M. Kern, and Guy Notelaers
Abstract
The phenomenon of workplace bullying is complex, as the various theoretical in
terpretations of its underlying factors reflect. The field, however, is lacking a holistic
view of the antecedents of the phenomenon. Individual Psychology is a useful theory
for explaining the underlying factors of workplace bullying because it provides in
sights related to dysfunctional behavior, principles for successful implementation of
the work task, the impact of the social context, and viewing of the individual from a
holistic perspective. This article explains the underlying factors of workplace bully
ing based on the Individual Psychology principles of family of origin, belonging,
inferiority and superiority dynamics, social interest, lifestyle, and social context of
an organization.
Keywords: Individual Psychology, workplace bullying, lifestyle, conflict or problem
solving, transformational leader, organizational culture'
Workplace bullying gained attention in the 1980s after The Harassed
Worker by Brodsky (1976) set the stage for exploring the phenomenon in
the United States. In 1990, Leymann (1990) began to study workplace bully
ing in Europe, and Einarsen and colleagues (Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen,
& Hellesoy, 1990; Matthiesen, Raknes, & Rokkum, 1989) expanded the
understanding of workplace bullying. Workplace bullying was defined as
situations in which "one or more individuals persistently over a period of
time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions
from one or several persons, in a situation where the target (employee)
of bullying has difficulty defending him or herself against these actions"
(Einarsen, 2005, p. 1). The latter definition reveals the most important ele
ments of workplace bullying—that is, negativity, persistency, duration, and
power imbalance (inferior position of a targeted person).
Since the introduction of this phenomenon, extensive research has
been conducted related to the prevalence of workplace bullying (Agervold,
2007; Nielsen et al., 2009), negative consequences (Astrauskaite, Perminas,
& Kern, 2010; Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011), and potential anteced
ents (Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011; Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, &
De Cuyper, 2009; Einarsen, 1996; Hauge et al., 2011; Hoel & Salin, 2003;
Zapf, 1999). There were a number of studies explaining antecedents from
The Journal of Individual Psychology, VoI. 70, No. 3, Fall 2014
©2014 by the University of Texas Press
Editorial office located in the College of Education at Georgia State University.
Published for the North American Society of Adlerian Psychology.

An Individual Psychology Approach to Workplace Bullying 221
various theoretical approaches, such as the stressor-strain model (Baillien
et al., 2011; Balducci, Cecchin, & Fraccaroli, 2012; Hauge et al., 2011;
Notelaers, Baillien, De Witte, Einarsen, & Vermunt, 2013), reference point
theory (Harvey, Treadway, & Heames, 2006), social identity theory (Parzefall
& Salin, 2010), social interactionist theory (Neuman & Baron, 2003, 2005),
and attribution theory (Baron, 1988, 1990). Yet there is a need to view dys
functional behavior from a more holistic perspective (integrating individual
and situational factors) (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). For example,
Zapf (1999) demonstrated that multiple causes must be considered when
analyzing bullying. Baillien et al. (2009) claimed that "focusing on only one
aspect of the process does not give an accurate explanation of why bullying
occurs" (p. 11). Strandmark and Hallberg (2007) in a qualitative study found
that organizational conditions and personalities of the parties involved in
bullying are highly intertwined.
Relevance of the Individual Psychology Theory
More than 100 years ago Alfred Adler claimed that the task of work
is one of the three main tasks in an individual's life that must be achieved
for well-being and happiness (Adler, 1964). Successful implementation of
the work task is related to interpersonal relationships (Stone, 2007) and is
achieved through support of one another, mutual respect, and coopera
tion (Del Corso, Rehfuss, & Calvin, 2011). Workplace bullying, according
to Zapf (1999), is related to egoistic tendencies (e.g., jealousy, envy; Zapf,
1999), predatory behavior (Einarsen, 2005), and competition (Brodsky,
1976)—these egoistic tendencies are all contrary to cooperation and sup
port. Thus, understanding Individual Psychology principles that address
equality, cooperation, and respect may provide organizational personnel
with preventive strategies related to workplace bullying.
In addition, Individual Psychology theory presents a psychologically
based model that describes the etiology of destructive and dysfunctional
behavior in the workplace. The theory proposes that the individual's dys
functional behavior, such as bullying, is anchored in a lack of belonging
that could lead to inappropriate private logic, which then may lead to the
individual developing lifestyle and personality dynamics that occur in the
organization with needs to feel superior over others (Dreikurs, 1971). An
individual's (employee's) need to feel superior toward others may relate to
hostile and hypervigilant reactions that erode healthy relationships at work
(Stone & Drescher, 2004). Although researchers in the field of workplace
bullying have identified the importance of certain personality traits—or
what Adler referred to as lifestyle—of the potential victims and perpetra
tors (Balducci, Alfano, & Fraccaroli, 2009; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen,

222 Milda Astrauskaite, Roy M. Kern, and Guy Notelaers
1994), the field could benefit from a stronger theoretical base to help
both practitioners and researchers with conceptualizing the psychological
dynamics related to the process. Individual Psychology is an organized per
sonality theory that aims to explain an individual's present behavior and
reactions via early childhood experiences (Del Corso et al., 2011; Dreikurs,
1971). Such an approach may provide an additive information to conceptu
alization of the psychological dynamics of potential victims and instigators.
The Individual Psychology theory stresses the importance of analyzing
behavior within the social context and from a holistic perspective (Shifron,
2010). Individual Psychologists claim that people are social beings and that
all problems are of social nature; thus, the individual cannot be understood
outside the social context (Griffith & Powers, 2007). Social context is impor
tant, because through creating or eliminating stress, it enhances or reduces
the likelihood of individuals to express hostile and nonproductive charac
teristics that relate to conflicts and bullying behaviors (Sonstegard, Bitter,
& Pelonis, 2004). Past research on antecedents of workplace bullying sup
ported the importance of the social context elements in the workplace (Zapf,
1999), including leadership (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007), social
support (Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009), job characteristics
(Baillien et al., 2011; Notelaers, De Witte, & Einarsen, 2009), and inter
personal conflicts at work (Zapf & Gross, 2001). Little research, however,
has addressed these factors in line with individual characteristics. Adler and
Dreikurs argued that the individual must be analyzed as a whole and within
the social context; otherwise, the quality of the information is lost (Udchic,
1984)—yet most studies still focus on the single aspect related to bullying
with little attention paid to both individual and situational variables.
Individual Psychology theory emphasizes the importance of a person's
social interest and the potential to develop lifestyle patterns and attributes
of behavior that are functional in the organizational setting. According to
Milliren and Clemmer (2006), "The fact that we can create these patterns
also means that we can change them when they don't work for us" (p. 18).
Thus, the theory of Individual Psychology provides insights into changing
dysfunctional individual behavior and reactions through realizing faulty as
sumptions of the private logic.
The goal of this article is to provide a conceptual framework to explain
the underlying factors of workplace bullying based on the principles of Indi
vidual Psychology. The goal is achieved through the analysis of the need to
belong and social interest that is developed in the first social system, which
is the family. We address the impact of one's family on the development of
the lifestyle, describing how certain lifestyle attributes based on faulty as
sumptions and inferiority feelings relate to negative behaviors in adulthood
or hypervigilant reactions that trigger problematic interpersonal relation
ships. We continue with an analysis of the social context factors related

Figure 7. Individual and situational factors predicting exposure to workplace
bullying.
to organizational and working environments. More specifically, we discuss
how leadership and corporate culture may contribute to deterring workplace
bullying regardless of individuals' lifestyles. We conclude with implications
for future research and practice. Figure 1 is used as a conceptual model to
organize the interrelatedness of the theory and workplace bullying and the
development of research propositions.
Family of Origin, Belonging, and Social Interest
"The threat of being rejected by others is perhaps the greatest fear any
person can experience" (Dreikurs & Grey, 1970, p. 9). Dreikurs proposed
that the need to belong is of primary importance for human beings (Ferguson,
1984). Every individual seeks to have a place in the family or another group
of people (Dreikurs, 1971; Shifron, 2010). The feeling of belonging provides
humans with a sense of security and acceptance (Curlette & Kern, 2010). The
assumption of the human need to belong has been validated by a number
of studies from various theoretical perspectives (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Carter-Sowell et al., 2010; Maslow, 1954). Gere and MacDonald (2010)
even argued that lack of belonging might signal danger for human survival.
For example, Leymann (1990) found that between 10% and 15% of suicides
committed in Sweden were due to isolation and victimization at work.
The foundation of the need to belong is acquired in the family of origin.
The encouragement by the family members validates that the child is val
ued. This contributes to the child's sense of belonging and the development
of social interest, which then may lead to the child's ability to cooperate

and contribute to the well-being of others (Dreikurs, 1971; Ferguson, 2010).
In line with the assumptions of Individual Psychology theory, Liu, Chen,
Zheng, Chen, and Wang (2008) found that maternal encouragement of con
nectedness (encouragement of cooperative behaviors that lead to healthy
relationships) significantly predicted children's sociability.
Social interest (or Gemeinschaftsgefuhl in German), a concept presented
by Adler (1964), can be defined "as the degree to which an individual fulfills
his or her need to belong in a positive way for the common good" (Peluso
& Kern, 2002, p. 89). Social interest appears in the individual's behavior,
emotions, and thinking and is directed toward benefits for all individuals
(Miranda, Goodman, & Kern, 1996). Miranda et al. (1996) proposed that
social interest was reflected in attitudes and behaviors of helping, sharing,
cooperating, and encouraging others. It integrates feelings of belonging,
faith in others, courage to be imperfect, living in harmony, and demonstrat
ing responsible behavior toward others. Social interest is crucial for success
in social relationships, because an individual with high social interest views
others in a positive way, is less cautious, and has higher self-confidence and
confidence in others (Adler, 1964; Dreikurs, 1971). Indeed, the significance
of belonging and viewing the world from a positive perspective was sup
ported by several studies. Nielsen, Matthiesen, and Einarsen (2008) showed
that a sense of coherence, described as a "global orientation to view the
world and the individual environment as comprehensible, manageable, and
meaningful" (p. 128), was related to protective benefits for potential victims.
Baillien et al. (2009) argued that being optimistic reduces the likelihood of
becoming an instigator or a target of workplace bullying. Thus, the devel
opment of belonging and social interest in the family of origin leads to the
ability to establish healthy social relationships in the future and successful
implementation of the social, intimate, and work tasks (Stone & Drescher,
2004). On the opposite side, lack of belonging threatens an individual's
self-esteem and communicates that one is worthless or not good enough
(Carter-Sowell et al., 2010). Hence, in such stressful circumstances a person
feels inferior, which could lead to making faulty assumptions related to the
environment (Ferguson, 1984). In turn, those faulty assumptions may guide
the individual to pursue socially dysfunctional behavior or to convey cau
tious and sensitive reactions (Ferguson, 2010; Griffith & Powers, 2007). The
authors propose that these hypervigilant reactions or behaviors could either
put an individual in a targeted position or encourage an individual to take a
role of an instigator (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 presents the principles discussed in the present section and the
way they relate to bullying behavior or cautious reactions that lead to per
ceived bullying. First, the need to belong is common for all individuals. The
satisfied need to belong develops into social interest and contribution to mu
tual goals. However, if the need to belong is not satisfied, then an individual

SOCIAL INTEREST/
CONTRIBUTION
sFfi
FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS/
OVERCOMING
INFERIORITY/
STRIVING FOR
SUPERIORITY
NOT
BELONGING
NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR
TOWARD OTHERS/
CAUTIOUS REACTIONS
NEED TO BELONG
Figure 2. The importance of belonging for the development of social
interest and contribution for mutual well-being.
is more likely to make faulty assumptions, getting into superiority-inferiority
dynamics that lead to negative behavior or cautious reactions and bullying.
Inferiority, Superiority, and Workplace Bullying
Adler claimed that all people feel inferior and that the major motivat
ing force for an individual's behavior is to overcome those imperfections to
achieve perfection (Adler, cited in Stein, 2006). He believed that a sense of
belonging in the family was instrumental to overcome inferiority construc
tively, such as via contributing to mutual well-being (Adler, 1964). According
to Stone and Drescher (2004), "The feeling of inferiority can also be worth
while if it stimulates the individual toward a socially useful goal" (p. 26).
However, when inferiority feelings block further growth because of the lack
of belonging and social interest, then the inferior feelings evolve into an in
feriority complex (Stone & Drescher, 2004). To overcome these feelings, an
individual creates certain goals for gaining security, power, and significance
that could result in dysfunctional adaptations to the organization in the form
of bullying (Del Corso et al., 2011). Empirical research appears to support
this assumption by identifying that lack of social connectedness leads to
dysfunctional behavior (Lee, Draper, & Lee, 2001) or that lack of connected
ness triggers aggression and victimization at school (Wilson, 2004).

Research in the field of workplace bullying also appears to support
the importance of the inferiority and superiority dynamics. For example,
Einarsen (2005) introduced the term predatory behavior, which represents
the perpetrator as seeking out an easy target over which to exert power (su
periority) through discouraging tactics. In addition, Namie (2003) suggested
that potential perpetrators are characterized by narcissistic personality and
egocentrism, which—from an Individual Psychology perspective—are
ways to show one's superiority over others. Finally, we propose that the
overall phenomenon of workplace bullying can be reframed as an inferi
ority-superiority relationship issue between and among individuals in the
organizational setting. This assumption is based on studies that indicate that
victimized people feel inferior, helpless, and unable to defend themselves
(Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen, 2005; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Zapf & Gross,
2001). Einarsen (2005), though not using the terms inferiority or superiority,
appears to support this assumption with the following statement: "Bullying
is not a mutual and reciprocal process where both parties have the same
opportunity to aggress and where the effects of the different parties on the
opponent actions must be seen to be equal. Bullying is about having un
equal power and about being exposed to negative acts over and over again
without being able to defend oneself in the actual situation" (p. 3).
The Role of Lifestyle in the Phenomenon of Bullying
Belonging, social interest, feelings of inferiority, and striving for superi
ority, which are developed in the family of origin, become core domains in
the formation of an individual's lifestyle (Sonstegard et al., 2004). Lifestyle is
a system integrating thoughts, feelings, behavior, and influencing decisions
(Del Corso et al., 2011). Other theorists may equate lifestyle with personal
ity. However, for Adler (1964), lifestyle was a more efficient concept to use
when analyzing an individual, because it is related to the ways an individual
operates within the social system (Griffith & Powers, 2007). According to
Adler, an individual cannot be separated from the social system, because
personality and lifestyle are products of the social context and the creative
power of the individual (Adler, 1964; Rule & Bishop, 2006). In line with
Adlerian theorists (Adler, 1964; Carlson, Watts, & Maniacci, 2006), we con
ceptualize lifestyle as an organized set of biased perceptions, beliefs, and
values that the individual creates before reaching the age of 10 years within
the confines of the family and then employs throughout life to solve the is
sues of the three major life tasks: social relationships, work, and intimacy.
Subjective beliefs and perceptions formed early in childhood become a
part of the lifestyle and may be faulty or correct (Ferguson, 1984). The faulty

beliefs or assumptions (see Figure 2) are related to the unsatisfied feelings
of belonging in the family and inferiority feelings, which may be compen
sated through striving for superiority in a dysfunctional way (Adler, 1964;
Sonstegard et al., 2004). For example, research findings indicated that po
tential perpetrators of workplace bullying are characterized by higher levels
of aggression, lower self-esteem, and lack of social competence (Matthiesen
& Einarsen, 2007). This may suggest that lifestyle attributes related to inferi
ority feelings come into play as instigating negative behavior with the aim to
compensate for a feeling of inferiority. Adler called this phenomenon "safe
guarding through aggression" (Peluso & Kern, 2002).
We propose that there are two additional events related to the family of
origin that may contribute to potential bullying in the workplace. These two
conditions are related to parents neglecting or pampering the child (Adler,
1964). Neglect may be related to the development of lifestyle dynamics of
individuals who believe that they do not deserve to be treated as equals
(Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964). This could be a part of the psychological
mind-set of the individual who becomes the target in the workplace setting.
Equally problematic, parental pampering encourages individuals to believe
that others in the workplace need to adhere to their demands. With this
faulty assumption individuals may believe it is OK to do what is needed
in the workplace to get others to adhere to their demands (Carlson et al.,
2006). In this scenario, an individual may take on the role of the instigator
or perpetrator. With these faulty assumptions such individuals may demon
strate dysfunctional behavior or view the world in a discouraged, cautious,
and hostile way, where they feel like victims of the environment (Adler, cited
in Stein, 2006; Stone & Drescher, 2004).
On the basis of existing research, we propose that not only perpetrators
but also certain groups of potential targets express lack of belonging, caution,
and tendency to indulge in superiority-inferiority relationships with others
in the workplace. For example, Matthiesen and Einarsen (2001) identified
a cluster of victims who were described as suspicious toward the outside
world. Brodsky (1976) claimed that egocentric, self-absorbed people may
see hostility in others and may expect to be attacked. In addition, research
shows that some potential victims of workplace bullying are more neu
rotic, more sensitive, express higher levels of anger (Balducci et al., 2009;
Candolfo, 1995; Vartia, 1996), lack self-confidence, and are more anxious
in social situations (Einarsen et al., 1994). In the study on lifestyle and bully
ing, Astrauskaite and Kern (2011) found higher exposure to negative acts as
related to a higher level of sensitivity and cautiousness, a lower ability to
confront, and a greater need for approval and recognition. Matthiesen and
Einarsen (2007) identified a provocative victims group, which was charac
terized by higher aggression and lower self-esteem. Finally, Matthiesen and

Einarsen (2001) found that a group of victims, although they experienced
relatively rare bullying behaviors, had severe psychological problems, as
measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2).
The empirical evidence demonstrates that some potential victims and
perpetrators may be overly sensitive to social cues in the environment, view
the social context as hostile, exhibit lower self-esteem, and lack social skills.
These all point toward potential negative experiences in childhood that im
peded belonging. In addition, psychological health problems reported in the
research may be a sign of underdeveloped social interest (Miranda et al.,
1996). Social interest, according to Adler (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964),
is the innate capacity for community feeling and is considered to be the
cornerstone of mental health. Therefore, if an individual had not cultivated
this sense of connection to a community, one's mental health may suffer
(Miranda et al., 1996). Also, research identifying a group of provocative vic
tims suggests that some employees who appear to portray themselves as
victims may in fact purposefully, though unconsciously, be employing behav
iors to attain a superior position as a compensation for feelings of inferiority
(Dreikurs, 1971; John, 2000; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). On the basis of
theoretical and empirical evidence, we formulated the first proposition.
Proposition i: Lifestyle (personality) attributes related to belonging and social
interest (of instigators and targets) decrease the likelihood of bullying in orga
nizations. Employees who display high levels of belonging and social interest
are less likely to engage in negative and dysfunctional behaviors and become
instigators. Employees who display high levels of belonging and social interest
view their environments more positively, are less perceptive of environmen
tal signals and, thus, are less likely to become targets. In contrast, lifestyle
attributes or dynamics related to inferiority feelings and lack of belonging in
crease the likelihood of bullying in organizations. High inferiority and lack
of belonging combined with higher sensitivity and the propensity to view the
environment as hostile put people in the position of being targets. In addi
tion, individuals with high levels of inferiority feelings and lack of belonging
are more inclined to demonstrate superiority in dysfunctional ways and, thus,
have a higher likelihood of becoming instigators.
The Role of a Transformational Leader in Workplace Bullying
Leymann (1990) did not agree that the personality dynamics of the
potential victims were a cause of bullying. He claimed that neuroticism,
sensitivity, and other characteristics similar to those Adler described as infe
riority feelings are due to negative experiences in the workplace. Matthiesen
and Einarsen (2001) found a common group of individuals who displayed
common personality attributes and demonstrated that only some potential

victims display certain personality attributes that make them more vulner
able to bullying (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).
Ferguson (2003, 2006) proposed another dynamic that needs to be con
sidered, claiming that work relationships may be significantly influenced
by one's status in the organization and that in particular leaders can make
significant changes in the organizational culture and social climate. Ac
cording to Brodsky (1976), bullying will take place only if supported by the
organization and superiors. Leymann (1990) advocated this view by claim
ing that deficient leadership is a decisive factor in the last stage of bullying
(i.e., the expulsion stage).
Empirical evidence supported the belief that a leader might initiate bully
ing (Fox & Stallworth, 2010) or might neglect the existence of the negative
acts and avoid managing the stressful situation (Hauge et al., 2007). How
ever, a leader may also take a proactive role and prevent bullying at work
(Lee, 2011). Individual Psychology theory stresses the importance of positive
factors and strengths (Yang, Milliren, & Blagen, 2010). Hence, it seems criti
cal to understand the positive attributes of leaders in organizations. Besides,
in the research on workplace bullying there have been only a few recent
studies related to constructive styles of leadership (Cemaloglu, 2011; Lee,
2011; Stouten et al., 2011); most studies have focused on the destructive
and dysfunctional forms of leadership as risk factors for workplace bullying.
Transformational leadership is currently accepted as one of the most
effective styles for individuals to use in the organizational setting (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). Managers who follow this approach seem to be able to de
ter workplace bullying through creating an ethical and moral climate (Lee,
2011), establishing shared vision and teamwork (Carless, Wearing, & Mann,
2000), empowering followers to cope with stress (Popper & Mayseless,
2003), creating circumstances for positive conflict management (Bass &
Riggio, 2006), and contributing to followers' self-esteem (Carless et al.,
2000). The transformational leader is considered a socialized leader (Bass
& Riggio, 2006), which has many similarities to Adler's idea of social inter
est and contributing to the well-being of others. The transformational leader
creates and supports team spirit and shared vision among employees in the
organization (Carless et al., 2000), and builds the conditions for commit
ment and social identification with the group by providing recognition for
team achievement (Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to Individual Psychol
ogy theory, identification with a group is related to feelings of belonging,
which then creates the right circumstances for developing social interest
and striving for mutual well-being (Ferguson, 1984). In such circumstances
in which a follower feels like a part of the group and cooperation is in
creased, the risk of becoming a target or an instigator of bullying should
decrease. This leads us to the second proposition:

Proposition 2a: The transformational leader's behavior decreases the likeli
hood of workplace bullying.
Although Adler did not directly address the leadership factor in orga
nizations, some present-day followers highlight the importance of leaders'
roles in forming a corporate culture. For example, Kern and Peluso (1999)
proposed that just as parents affect the family atmosphere, organizational
leaders shape the corporate culture. In a healthy family atmosphere or
healthy corporate culture, the members of the system exhibit functional
behaviors. In contrast, in the presence of dysfunctional leaders or parents
the family atmosphere or corporate culture is influenced in a negative way,
which in turn could lead to dysfunctional relationships in the system.
Previous empirical evidence seems to acknowledge such assumptions
by demonstrating that ethical leadership is related to an improved work en
vironment and in turn to the decreased likelihood of workplace bullying
(Stouten et al., 2011). The job characteristic of autonomy partially explained
the relationship between transformational leadership and workplace bully
ing (Astrauskaite, Notelaers, Medisauskaite, & Kern, 2014). Role ambiguity,
role conflict, and conflicts among coworkers mediated the relationship be
tween laissez-faire leadership and workplace bullying (Skogstad, Einarsen,
Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). In line with theoretical arguments
and empirical research, we propose the following:
Proposition 2b: Transformational leaders form positive corporate culture and
in turn reduce the likelihood of bullying in an organization.
Cooperation Through Solving Problems and Conflicts at Work
Research on workplace bullying has shown that unresolved, poorly
managed conflict increases workplace bullying. According to Baillien et al.
(2009), one of the three main causes of workplace bullying is escalated
interpersonal conflicts.
Individual Psychology also stressed the role of mutual respect in suc
cessful problem and conflict solving. Dreikurs (1971) claimed that a key for
equality is to take in consideration the other's needs as well as standing up
for one's own needs. He argued that other conflict or problem solving styles
than the one based on mutual gains breed new conflicts, because "the loser
will not accept his defeat as permanent, and the winner is afraid of losing
what he has gained" (Dreikurs, 1971, p. 111). Cooperation through problem
solving behavior demonstrated positive consequences in various areas, such
as marital satisfaction (Leggett, Roberts-Pittman, Byczek, & Morse, 2012)
and conflict resolution in schools (Clark, 1994). However, some research
revealed contradictory findings, showing that problem solving may not be

appropriate in addressing workplace bullying. In fact, some researchers ar
gued that trying to solve problems and conflicts in a cooperative way with
superiors (Zapf & Gross, 2001) or being open with the potential instiga
tors (Rayner, 1999) may even make the situation worse. Thus, the results
on conflict management in workplace bullying seem to be ambiguous and
require further research. Relying on the arguments of Individual Psychology,
we propose the following:
Proposition 3a: Collaborative problem and conflict solving is the most
significant deterrent for workplace bullying compared to other conflict and
problem management styles.
The relationship between conflict and problem-solving styles and
workplace bullying may be more complicated, because conflict and problem
solving styles are closely entwined with one's lifestyle (Smith, Kern, Curlette, &
Mullis, 2001). Adler claimed that lifestyle contributes to the way people solve
problems. For example, individuals who feel inferior w ill employ a hesitant
attitude to avoid the problems of life (Adler, 1964), or they may use a forc
ing strategy to get their needs met in gaining superiority (Stone & Drescher,
2004). The person who feels inferior is also considered hypervigilant (Curlette
& Kern, 2010). One who feels inferior may tend to get into conflict situa
tions (Barclay & Wolff, 2011), strive for self-gains (Stone & Drescher, 2004),
or avoid confrontation (Adler, 1964). For example, Morris-Conley and Kern
(2003) found that elevated Being Cautious (BC) scores on the Basic Adlerian
Scales for Interpersonal Success-Adult Form Inventory (BASIS-A; Wheeler,
Kern, & Curlette, 1993) appeared as one of the two most significant negative
predictors for collaborative conflict-solving style. In other words, those who
had higher BC scores had a less collaborative conflict resolution style.
In contrast, an individual who has developed social feeling is concerned
with contributing to the well-being of others (Adler, 1964; Dreikurs, 1971)
and is also more inclined to approach problems and conflicts in a collabora
tive way. Barclay and W olff (2011) supported this notion, proposing that in
conflict situations individuals with higher scores on an objective instrument
that proclaims to measure belonging and social interest tend to reconcile
differences and cooperate. In line with theoretical assumptions and empiri
cal evidence, we propose the following:
Proposition 3b: Lifestyle attributes related to belonging and social interest are
related to a higher likelihood of using collaborative conflict- and problem
solving strategies and in turn decrease the likelihood of becoming an instigator
or a target. Lifestyle attributes related to inferiority feelings and lack of belong
ing (as is reflected by the BC scores on the BASIS-A Inventory) are related
to a lower likelihood of using collaborative problem and conflict solving
and in turn increase the likelihood of becoming an instigator or a target of
workplace bullying.

A leader may also influence collaborative conflict and problem solving
at work and in turn deter workplace bullying. Dreikurs (1972) proposed
that a democratic leader could encourage people to listen to one another
and share responsibility for conflict solving. Experts in the field of trans
formational leadership theory claimed that leaders may decrease conflicts
and potential bullying situations in the workplace by setting superordinate
goals, using collaborative problem solving, having open discussion within
teams, and transforming employees' self-interests into common vision (Bass
& Riggio, 2006; Carless et al., 2000). According to Bass and Riggio (2006),
"The leader moves the parties toward a solution that integrates the efforts of
the parties in conflict into a collaborative solution. The conflict is turned into
a mutual problem to be solved" (p. 69). Thus, we finally propose:
Proposition 3c: Transformational leaders emphasize collaborative problem
and conflict solving, which in turn decreases the likelihood of workplace
bullying.
Corporate Culture and Workplace Bullying
Although the family of origin has a great impact on individuals' need to
belong, formation of a lifestyle, and development of social interest, one can
not neglect the impact of other situational factors related to the organization,
such as corporate culture (Escartin, Ullrich, Zapf, Schluter, & van Dick, 2013).
According to Sperry (2009), even morally good individuals may engage in
dysfunctional behaviors as a result of certain organizational dynamics.
Adlerians claim that certain job characteristics or situations may en
courage employees' self-esteem or make them feel useless and unwanted
(Kern & Peluso, 1999; Teslak, 2010). Previous research supported the im
portance of work design in the escalation or deterring of workplace bullying
(Notelaers et al., 2010). Empirical evidence demonstrated that greater au
tonomy was related to lower bullying (Baillien et al., 2011). Notelaers et al.
(2010) found that role conflict, role ambiguity, lack of skill utilization, work
load, cognitive demands, changes in the job, job insecurity, and lack of
task-related feedback were related to a higher level of workplace bullying.
Researchers argued that job characteristics increase likelihood of workplace
bullying via the stress and strain they induce (Einarsen et al., 1994).
Reducing stress in the organization is important because stress encour
ages dysfunctional behaviors and reactions (e.g., pleasing others, blaming,
controlling) that are associated with the particular lifestyle dynamics of em
ployees (Sonstegard et al., 2004). According to Ansbacher and Ansbacher
(1964), individuals who are exposed to unfavorable circumstances are
much more susceptible to expressing various hostile characteristics related

to inferiority feelings. Dreikurs (1977) argued that in stressful circumstances,
individuals' fear of failure and losing status increases.
Individual reactions under stressful circumstances are discussed in the
workplace bullying literature. For example, Einarsen et al. (1994) suggested
that poor work environment might create stressful conditions in which
employees start to violate norms and habits, decrease work effort, and with
draw—all actions that put them in position of being targets. Thus, it seems
that stressful organizational conditions may trigger workplace bullying via
increasing the likelihood of dysfunctional and maladaptive behavior.
More specifically, it seems that stressful organizational environments
may lead individuals to exhibit inappropriate behavior that is also in
compatible with a collaborative style of acting toward others (Ansbacher
& Ansbacher, 1964; Dreikurs, 1971). Stressful circumstances at work may
be perceived as a threat and lead an individual to active or passive self
defensive behaviors (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964; Dreikurs, 1977). As
Dreikurs (1977, 1991) also proposed, in stressful circumstances inferior
ity feeling increases, and as a consequence, the individual becomes less
aware of various choices for solving conflict. This may lead to unsocial and
self-defeating behavior rather than cooperation (Dreikurs, 1977, 1991).
Balducci et al. (2009) partially supported this notion by demonstrating that
neurotic individuals, especially under stress, tend to use dysfunctional cop
ing mechanisms such as denial or repression, which may lead to bullying.
Thus, stressful working conditions may discourage employees' free choice
of using constructive and collaborative conflict-solving strategies and lead
to greater exposure to workplace bullying:
Proposition 4: Stressful corporate culture and poor job characteristics en
courage dysfunctional and hypervigilant reactions of employees that could
decrease the use of collaborative conflict- and problem-solving strategies,
which then could increase the probability of an employee becoming a target
or an instigator of bullying.
Summary
In this article we analyzed various individual and situational factors that
may explain underlying factors of workplace bullying from an Individual
Psychology perspective. More specifically we explored the interrelated
ness of principles of the family of origin, belonging, social interest, lifestyle,
and inferiority-superiority dynamics. We highlighted the importance of the
family system and organizational factors to understanding the underlying
dynamics of workplace bullying. We proposed that poor and stressful orga
nizational circumstances relate to individual reactions and behaviors that

Figure 3. Crucial domains in successful solving of the work task.
may increase the likelihood of bullying. We explored the impact of trans
formational leadership and suggested that leaders, similarly to parents, may
nurture social interest, mutual respect, and cooperation in the workplace.
Figure 3 represents the integration of the major ideas of this article.
Figure 3 represents two processes or paths that an individual may pur
sue in life. The first way starts with the family of origin. Here an individual
is exposed to the conditions that may nurture or impede the development
of a sense of belonging and social interest. Feeling of belonging and social
interest become part of lifestyle, together with certain assumptions (whether
faulty or correct). If the feeling of belonging is satisfied and social interest is
developed, the individual will create a lifestyle based on cooperative goals
and mutual gains that will increase the probability of successfully solving the
work task. The second path represents an individual entering an organization.
Although an individual enters this setting with certain experiences, private
logic, and lifestyle, we argue that, regardless of the employee's lifestyle and
private logic, it will be the organizational factors that may create circum
stances for belonging, cooperation, and mutual respect. More specifically, if
individuals feel encouragement and see personal benefits from cooperative
behavior, they may change dysfunctional behavior and reactions into more
functional ones that are in line with organizational standards.
Implications for Research
We addressed a number of Individual Psychology constructs related to
workplace bullying. Thus, an important next step is to establish empirical

evidence that would support some of the propositions presented in the hy
pothesized research model in Figure 1. For example, lifestyle attributes of a
target and an instigator are potentially related to workplace bullying (i.e.,
Proposition 1). Some evidence related to personality and workplace bully
ing is already provided in the literature (Astrauskaite & Kern, 2011; Balducci
et al., 2009; Gandolfo, 1995; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007; Vartia, 1996).
However, no previous research has analyzed whether lifestyle influences
the way people approach and solve problems and conflicts, and in turn de
ters or increases workplace bullying (i.e., Proposition 3b).
In previous studies of workplace bullying, dysfunctional leadership was
more frequently investigated. We argue that transformational leadership is
also important to analyze because it may deter workplace bullying directly
(i.e., Proposition 2a) or indirectly, such as by encouraging collaborative
problem and conflict solving (i.e., Proposition 3c) and building positive,
low-stress work environments (Proposition 2b).
Drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical framework, poor cor
porate culture and stressful work environments should play a moderating
role on individual lifestyle and collaborative problem- and conflict-solving
relationships. More specifically, in poor and stressful conditions, feelings
of inferiority increase, spur negative reactions and dysfunctional behaviors,
and hamper decisions to use collaborative conflict and problem resolution
styles. This in turn increases the likelihood of becoming a target or an insti
gator of bullying (i.e., Proposition 4).
Apart from encouraging empirical research to support the proposed
model, we aim to open new streams in the analysis of workplace bullying.
While only some particular individual and situational factors were related
to workplace bullying in the present article, we encourage extending the
proposed model by integrating additional elements (e.g., belonging, encour
agement, mutual respect).
Practical Implications for Organizations
"Regardless of the personality of an individual, regardless of one's fam
ily background and lifestyle, encouragement and mutual respect have been
found to be invaluable for improving work relationships" (Ferguson, 2003,
p. 505). Although experience in the family of origin affects one's behavioral
patterns in the workplace, individuals have the power to change these be
haviors if these patterns cause difficulties in the workplace (Shifron, 2010).
For example, potential perpetrators, as proposed by Crawshaw (2009), may
not be aware of their underlying intentions. With assistance and support
from the organization, however, they may change their behavior into more
positive and contributing actions (Adler, 1964; Peluso & Kern, 2002).

However, "telling someone that he is suffering from an inferior
ity complex, or that he is trying to be the boss or to be superior, is empty
name-calling" (Dreikurs, 1971, p. 118). Thus, individuals will only change
behaviors when they see a good reason to do so (Ferguson, 2012). In such
circumstances, the organization's role should be creating an atmosphere of
belonging combined with mutual respect, support, and collaboration. Such
an environment helps individuals to realize the uselessness of dysfunctional
behavior, and promote ethical behavior and cooperation as the only means
for achieving individual and mutual goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
It should be a common understanding in the organization that everyone
is equally important, has value, and can contribute (Ferguson, 2012). Ac
cording to Shifron (2010), an employee needs to feel like a part of a larger
system such as an organization or team; only then will he or she strive for
mutual gains. Feeling that one is an equal member relates to self-esteem
and decreased inferiority and shame feelings (Silver, 2009), which further
enhances the individual's motivation to contribute (Ferguson, 2010). Orga
nizations should also realize that a sense of belonging is not an objective
fact (Teslak, 2010), but more a subjective feeling of being valued; thus,
dealing with individuals requires special attention and care for employees'
emotions because emotions are action motivators.
Organizational personnel should also increase their awareness of the
important role the leader has in encouraging or deterring bullying in the
workplace. Positive leaders (e.g., transformational leaders) promote social
interest among subordinates by demonstrating cooperation and mutual
respect (Miranda et al., 1996). Fair and consistent behavior encourages fol
lowers to emulate it, act respectfully with one another, and solve problems
and conflicts collaboratively (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Effective conflict solving,
based on democratic principles and mutual respect, should be employed
in organizations, and leaders should demonstrate these practices (Dewey,
1985). As Popper and Mayseless (2003) proposed, "Even the insecure fol
lower, who expects insensitivity and unavailability, deserves caring and
accepting responsiveness from their leaders. This presents the followers with
an alternative worldview, which they may eventually come to adopt" (p. 50).
Finally, encouragement, empathy, and identification of strengths and
positive attributes instead of punishment should be used when leading
(Ferguson, 2006). A leader in the organization should realize that everyone
is valued the way he or she is and should have a certain place in the group,
team, and organization. The leader and organization personnel should show
faith in members of the organization, build confidence and trust, and recog
nize efforts (Dreikurs & Grey, 1970). Punishment is related to dysfunctional
behavior, because discouraged individuals satisfy their need to belong with
useless, destructive actions (Griffith & Powers, 2007). Encouragement, how
ever, creates a sense of belonging (Shifron, 2010), promotes and activates

social interest, and nurtures people's belief in themselves and their abilities
to contribute (Ferguson, 1984).
Authors' Note
This manuscript was prepared as a part of the project financed by the
Research Council of Lithuania (MlP-010/2012). Correspondence concern
ing this article should be addressed to Milda Astrauskaite, Department of
Philosophy and Psychology, Kaunas University ofTechnology, K. Donelaicio
Str. 20-313, LT-44239, Kaunas, Lithuania.
References
Adler, A. (1964). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. New York, NY:
Capricorn Books.
Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work: A discussion of definitions and prev
alence, based on empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
48, 161-172.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1964). The Individual Psychology of
Alfred Adler. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Astrauskaite, M., & Kern, R. M. (2011). A lifestyle perspective on poten
tial victims of workplace harassment. Journal of Individual Psychology,
67(4), 420-431.
Astrauskaite, M., Notelaers, G., Medisauskaite, A., & Kern, R. M. (2014).
Workplace harassment: Deterring role of transformational leadership
and core job characteristics. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Astrauskaite, M., Perminas, A., & Kern, R. M. (2010). Sickness, colleagues'
harassment in teachers' work and emotional exhaustion. Medicina
(Kaunas), 46(9), 628-634.
Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and work
load as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek's
Job Demand Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Oc
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 191-208.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative
study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way
model. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 79, 1-16.
Balducci, C., Alfano, V., & Fraccaroli, F
. (2009). Relationships between
mobbing at work and MMPI-2 personality profile, posttraumatic stress
symptoms, and suicidal ideation and behavior. Violence and Victims,
24(1), 52-66.

Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). The impact of role stress
ors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling
for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal analysis. Work and
Stress, 26(3), 195-212. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.714543
Barclay, S. R., & Wolff, L. A. (2011). When lifestyles collide: An Adlerian-
based approach to workplace conflict. Journal of Individual Psychology,
67(2), 122-135.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating
role of apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci
sion Processes, 47(1), 11 1-127.
Baron, R. A. (1990). Attributions and organizational conflict. In S. Graham &
V. S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental
health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 185-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho
logical Bulletin, 177(3), 497-529.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, ON: Lexington Books.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transfor
mational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389-405.
Carlson, J., Watts, R. E., & Maniacci, M. (2006). Adlerian therapy: Theory
and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carter-Sowell, A. R., Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Law, A. T., Chen, Z.,
Kosasih, M .,.. .Williams, K. D. (2010). Belonging trumps justice: Effects
of being ostracized for being better or worse than the others. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 66, 68-92.
Cemaloglu, N. (2011). Primary principals' leadership styles, school or
ganizational health and workplace bullying. Journal of Educational
Administration, 49(5), 495-512.
Clark, A. J. (1994). Conflict resolution and Individual Psychology in the
schools. Individual Psychology, 50(3), 329-340.
Crawshaw, L. (2009). Workplace bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distrac
tion by a thousand definitions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 67(3), 263-267.
Curlette, W. L., & Kern, R. M. (2010). The importance of meeting the need
to belong in lifestyle. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(1), 30-42.
Del Corso, J. J., Rehfuss, M. C., & Galvin, K. (2011). Striving to adapt: Ad
dressing Adler's work task in the 21st century. Journal of Individual
Psychology, 67(2), 88-106.
Dewey, E. A. (1985). Adlerian principles in conflict resolution. Individual
Psychology, 4 7(2), 237-242.

Dreikurs, R. (1971). Social equality: The challenge o f today. Chicago, IL:
Regnery.
Dreikurs, R. (1972). Technology of conflict resolution. Journal of Individual
Psychology, 28(2), 203-206.
Dreikurs, R. (1977). Holistic medicine and the function of neurosis. Journal
o f Individual Psychology, 33(2), 171-192.
Dreikurs, R. (1991). An introduction to Individual Psychology. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 47(1), 4-9.
Dreikurs, R., & Grey, L. (1970). A parents' guide to child discipline. New
York, NY: Hawthorn Books.
Einarsen, S. (1996). Bullying and harassment at work: Epidemiological and
psychosocial aspects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Bergen, Norway.
Einarsen, S. (2005). The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at
work: The Norwegian experience. Pistes, 7(3), 1-14.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bully
ing at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Devel
opments in theory, research and practice (pp. 3-39). London, UK: Taylor
& Francis.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., Matthiesen, S. B., & Hellesoy, O. H. (1990).
Mobbing i arbeidslivet: Utbredelse - ytringsformer - konsekvenser: En
prosjektbeskrivelse [Bullying at work: Prevalence, modes of expres
sions, consequences: Description of a project], Nordisk Psykologi,
42(2), 294-298.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., Matthiesen, S. B., & Hellesoy, O. (1994). Mobbing
og harde personkonflikter. Helsefarlig samspill pa arbeidsplassen [Ha
rassment and serious interpersonal conflicts at work], Bergen, Norway:
Sigma Forlag.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological
findings in public and private organizations. European Journal o f Work
and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185-202.
Escartin, J., Ullrich, J., Zapf, D., Schluter, E., & van Dick, R. (2013). Indi
vidual and group level effects of social identification on workplace
bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22,
182-183.
Ferguson, E. D. (1984). Adlerian theory: An introduction. Vancouver, BC,
Canada: Adlerian Psychology Association of British Columbia.
Ferguson, E. D. (2003). Work relationships, lifestyle, and mutual respect.
Journal o f Individual Psychology, 59(4), 501-506.
Ferguson, E. D. (2006). Work relationships that enhance the well-being of orga
nizations and individuals. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62(1), 80-84.

Ferguson, E. D. (2010). Adler's innovative contribution regarding the need to
belong. Journal o f Individual Psychology, 66(1), 1-7.
Ferguson, E. D. (2012). Developments in Adlerian theory. Keynote speech,
Rudolf Dreikurs Summer Institute (ICASSI), Kaunas, Lithuania.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of
stressor-emotion-control/support theory to teachers' experience of vio
lence and bullying. Human Relations, 63{7), 927-954.
Gandolfo, R. (1995). MMPI-2 profiles of worker's compensations claimants
who present with complaints of harassment. Journal of Clinical Psychol
ogy, 51, 711-715.
Gere, J., & MacDonald, G. (2010). An update of the empirical case for the
need to belong. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(1), 91-115.
Griffith, J., & Powers, R. L. (2007). The lexicon of Adlerian psychology:
106 terms associated with the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler.
Washington, DC: Adlerian Psychology Associates.
Harvey, M., Treadway, D., & Heames, J. T. (2006). Bullying in global organi
zations: A reference point perspective. Journal of World Business, 41(2),
190-202.
Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., & Skogstad, A.
(2011). Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of
workplace bullying. International Journal o f Stress Management, 18(4),
305-323.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between
stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representa
tive study. Work and Stress, 21(3), 220-242.
Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organisational antecedents of workplace
bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bully
ing and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives
in research and practice (pp. 203-218). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2011). Individual conse
quences of workplace bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the work
place: Developments in theory, research and practice (pp. 107-128).
London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
John, K. (2000). Basic needs, conflict, and dynamics in groups. Journal of
Kern, R. M., & Peluso, P
. R. (1999). Using Individual Psychology concepts
to compare family systems processes and organizational behavior. The
Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 7(3),
236-244.
Lee, J. (2011). The effects of leadership behavior on workplace harassment,
employee outcomes, and organizational effectiveness in small businesses

(Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC).
Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/3489453.pdf.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunc
tional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a
mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(3), 310-318.
Leggett, D. G., Roberts-Pittman, B., Byczek, S., & Morse, D. T. (2012). Coop
eration, conflict, and marital satisfaction: Bridging theory, research, and
practice. Journal o f Individual Psychology, 68(2), 182-199.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Vio
lence and Victims, 5(2), 119-126.
Liu, M., Chen, X., Zheng, Sh., Chen, H., & Wang, L. (2008). Maternal au
tonomy- and connectedness-oriented parenting behaviors as predictors
of children's social behaviors in China. Social Development, 18(3),
671-689.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations after per
sistent bullying at work. European Journal o f Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10(4), 467-484.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying
at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims,
22(6), 735-753.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace:
Definition, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. International
Journal o f Organizational Theory and Behavior, 13(2), 202-248.
Matthiesen, S. B., Raknes, B. L, & Rokkum, O. (1989). Mobbing pa
arbeidsplassen [Bullying at work], Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening,
26, 761-774.
Milliren, A., & Clemmer, F
. (2006). Introduction to Adlerian psychology:
Basic principles and methodology. In S. Slavik & J. Carlson (Eds.), Read
ings in the theory o f Individual Psychology (pp. 17-32). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Miranda, A. O., Goodman, E. D., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Similarities between
social interest and contemporary definitions of corporate leadership.
Journal o f Individual Psychology, 53(3), 261-269.
Morris-Conley, C. M., & Kern, R. M. (2003). The relationship between life
style and conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Individual Psychology,
59(4), 475-487.
Namie, G. (2003, November-December). Workplace bullying: Escalated inci
vility. Ivey Business Journal: Improving the Practice of Management, 1-6.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying: A
social interactionist perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:

International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 185-202). Lon
don, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. M. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A
social-psychological perspective. In S. Fox & P
. E. Spector (Eds.), Counter
productive behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 13-40).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of coherence
as a protective mechanism among targets of workplace bullying. Journal
o f Occupational Health Psychology, 73(2), 128-136.
Nielsen, M. B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S. B., Glaso, L., Aasland, M. S.,
Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying
in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods. European
Journal o f Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 81-101.
Notelaers, G., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Einarsen, S., &Vermunt, J. K. (2013).
Testing the strain hypothesis of the Demand Control Model to explain se
vere bullying at work. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(1), 69-87.
Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2009). A job characteristics ap
proach to explain workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 79(4), 487-504.
Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to work
place bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6),
761-780.
Peluso, P
. R., & Kern, R. M. (2002). An Adlerian model for assessing and
treating the perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Individual Psy
chology, 58(1), 87-103.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: applying a parenting per
spective to transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 74,41-65.
Rayner, C. (1999). From research to implementation: finding leverage for
prevention. International Journal o f Manpower, 20(1-2), 28-38.
Rule, W. R., & Bishop, M. (2006). Adlerian lifestyle counseling: Practice and
research. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Shifron, R. (2010). Adler's need to belong as the key for mental health:
Adler's innovative contribution regarding the need to belong. Journal of
Silver, H. (2009). Reflections on Alfred Adler: A social exclusion perspec
tive. Journal o f Individual Psychology, 65(4), 319-329.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007).
The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Oc
cupational Health Psychology, 12(V), 80-92.
Smith, S., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W. L., & Mullis, F
. (2001). Lifestyle profiles
and interventions for aggressive adolescents. Journal of Individual Psy
chology, 57(3), 224-245.

Sonstegard, M. A., Bitter, J. R., & Pelonis, P
. (2004). Adlerian group counsel
ing & therapy: Step-by-step. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Sperry, L. (2009). Mobbing and bullying: The influence of individual, work
group, and organizational dynamics on abusive workplace dynamics.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 67(3), 190-201.
Stein, H. T. (2006). The collected clinical works of Alfred Adler (12th ed.).
Bellingham, WA: Classical Adlerian Translation Project.
Stone, M. H. (2007). The task of work in Individual Psychology. Journal of
Stone, M. H., & Drescher, K. A. (2004). Adler speaks: The lectures ofAlfred
Adler. New York, NY: iUniverse.
Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van de Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H., &
Euwema, M. (2011). Discouraging bullying: The role of ethical leader
ship and its effects on the work environment. Journal of Business Ethics,
95, 17-27.
Strandmark, M., & Hallberg, L. R. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying:
Experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service
sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 75(3), 332-341.
Teslak, A. G. (2010). "Buying in" and "checking out": Motivation in the
workplace. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(1), 116-129.
Tuckey, M. R., Dollard, M. F., FHosking, P
. J., & Winefield, A. H. (2009).
Workplace bullying: The role of psychosocial work environment fac
tors. International Journal of Stress Management, 76(3), 215-232.
Udchic, H. V. (1984). Adlerian holism and holistic health. Journal ofAdlerian
Theory, 40(4), 364-371.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying-—Psychological work environment
and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organiza
tional Psychology, 5, 203-214.
Wheeler, M. S., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. M. (1993). BASIS-A inventory.
Highlands, NC: TRT.
Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connected
ness and relationships with aggression and victimization. Journal of
School Health, 74(7), 293-299.
Yang, J., Milliren, A., & Blagen, M. (2010). The psychology of courage:
An Adlerian handbook for healthy social living. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of
mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1-2),
70-85.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace
bullying: A replication and extension. Conflict Escalation and European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 70(4), 497-522.

Milda Astrauskaite (milda.astrauskaite@ktu.lt) is a doctor of social sciences,
presently working in the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at Kaunas
University of Technology, Lithuania; organizational researcher at studyorg
.eu; and a writer of popular psychology articles for the Lithuanian Psychol
ogy Today magazine. In 2012 she received an award as an outstanding PhD
student. During her PhD studies she refined research skills in internships at
California State University, University of Bergen, and a selective European
Association of Work and Organizational Psychology research doctoral
school in Switzerland. She received her Individual Psychology experiences
via cooperation with the coauthor Roy Kern, teaching classes on theoreti
cal models of Individual Psychology, writing on the subject, participating in
conferences, and conducting research for dissertation on the relationship
between Individual Psychology principles and workplace bullying.
Roy M. Kern is professor emeritus at Georgia State University, a scientific
professor, and director of the PhD program in the Department of Theoretical
Psychology at Vytautas Magnus University in Lithuania, an instructor for the
International School of Management, a column editor for Family Journal,
coeditor for the Journal o f Individual Psychology, coauthor for the English
and Lithuanian versions of the Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal
Success-Adult Form (BASIS-A), several other lifestyle instruments, as well as
80 professional publications in the United States, Lithuania, and the United
Kingdom. He currently teaches a course in Individual Psychology for health,
organizational and school psychology students and supervises doctoral stu
dents at his present university.
Guy Notelaers is an associate professor at the Department of Psychosocial
Science in University of Bergen, Norway, a member of Bergen Bullying Re
search Group, consultant for monitoring psychosocial hazards at work for
external prevention services, and reviewer of 16 international peer-reviewed
journals. In 2010 he was awarded as the most promising PhD researcher,
and in 2011 received an award for the best paper. Notelaers has published
more than 50 manuscripts in international peer-reviewed journals.

Copyright of Journal of Individual Psychology is the property of University of Texas Press
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

An Individual Psychology Approach To Underlying Factors Of Workplace Bullying

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Individual Psychology Approach To Underlying Factors Of Workplace Bullying

Similar to An Individual Psychology Approach To Underlying Factors Of Workplace Bullying (20)

More from Darian Pruitt

More from Darian Pruitt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Individual Psychology Approach To Underlying Factors Of Workplace Bullying