JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE February 2001Haynie et al. BU.docx

JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001Haynie
et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION
Bullies, Victims, and Bully/Victims:
Distinct Groups of At-Risk Youth
Denise L. Haynie
Tonja Nansel
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Patricia Eitel
Ogilvy and Mather
Aria Davis Crump
University of Maryland, College Park
Keith Saylor
Neurosciences, Inc.
Kai Yu
Bruce Simons-Morton
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Bullying and victimization are prevalent problems in the area of
adolescent peer rela-
tionships. Middle school students (N = 4,263) in one Maryland
school district completed
surveys covering a range of problem behaviors and psychosocial
variables. Overall,
30.9% of the students reported being victimized three or more
times in the past year and

7.4% reported bullying three or more times over the past year.
More than one half of the
bullies also reported being victimized. Those bully/victims were
found to score less
favorably than either bullies or victims on all the measured
psychosocial and behavioral
variables. Results of a discriminant function analysis
demonstrated that a group of
psychosocial and behavioral predictors—including problem
behaviors, attitudes toward
deviance, peer influences, depressive symptoms, school-related
functioning, and
parenting—formed a linear separation between the comparison
group (never bullied or
victimized), the victim group, the bully group, and the
bully/victim group.
Bullying and victimization among youth have received
increased attention in
recent years by researchers and educators internationally and in
the United
29
This research was supported by a contract from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment to Behavior and Health Research, Inc. (Contract No.1-HD-
4-3207).
Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 21 No. 1, February 2001 29-
49
© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.
at Apollo Group - UOP on July 19,
2015jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jea.sagepub.com/
States. Whereas adolescent violence usually is defined by
measurable events
such as assault, theft, and vandalism, a lesser form of violence,
bullying, is
vastly more prevalent (Batsche & Knoff, 1994). Bullying is a
form of peer
abuse that includes acts of aggression in which one or more
students physi-
cally and/or psychologically harass a weaker victim (Batsche &
Knoff et al.,
1994; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992; Olweus, 1994).
Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization
The majority of research on bullying and victimization has been
con-
ducted in European countries. Rates of bullying and
victimization have been
found to vary from country to country. For example, estimated
rates of bully/
victim problems are 15% in Norway (Olweus, 1997), 18% to
20% in England
(Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Lowenstein, 1998; Newson &
Newson, 1984),
and 25% in Australia (Slee, 1994). A World Health
Organization (WHO)
international survey of adolescent health-related behaviors
(King, Wold,
Tudor-Smith, & Harel, 1996) found wide variation in rates of
bullying and
victimization among adolescents in participating countries. The
percentage
of students who reported taking part in bullying at least once

during the cur-
rent school term ranged from a low of 13% of girls and 28% of
boys in Wales
to a high of 67% of girls and 78% of boys in Greenland. The
percentage of
students who reported having been victims of bullying ranged
from a low of
13% of girls and 15% of boys in Sweden to a high of 72% of
girls and 77% of
boys in Greenland.
Although data from the United States were not included in the
1996 WHO
report (King et al., 1996), preliminary analysis of data from the
1997/1998
WHO survey of students in the United States indicated that
19.5% of youth
reported bullying others three or more times over the past year,
and 8.8% of
youth reported bullying others once a week or more. The
percentage of those
who reported being bullied was similar, with 16.9% reporting
being bullied
three or more times over the past year and 8.4% reporting being
bullied once a
week or more (Nansel et al., 2000). Other studies that have
addressed only
victimization found that an estimated 15% to 20% of youth in
the United
States reported being victimized (Batsche & Knoff, 1994;
Kaufman et al.,
1998). Rates of victimization reported are dependent on the way
in which
victimization is defined and measured. For example, Perry,
Kusel, and Perry
(1988) reported that 10% of boys and girls in the United States,

9 to 12 years
of age, are victims of “extreme peer abuse.” Other survey
research has indi-
cated that 75% of adolescents have been victimized at least
once during their
school years (Hoover et al., 1992).
30 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / February 2001
Characteristics of Bullies
Adolescents identified as bullies are found to demonstrate
poorer psycho-
social functioning than do their peers who are not so identified.
Bullies have
been found to be aggressive, hostile, and domineering toward
peers, and to
exhibit little anxiety or insecurity (Byrne, 1994; Craig, 1998;
Olweus, 1995).
Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, and King (1982) found bullies to
be stronger
physically than their victims, have positive attitudes toward
aggression, neg-
ative attitudes toward peers, and to be unpopular, but not as
unpopular as their
victims. As compared with their nonbullying peers, bullies
scored lower on
measures of behavior conduct (Austin & Joseph, 1996) and
cooperation (Rigby,
Cox, & Black, 1997), and scored higher on measures of

externalizing behav-
ior and hyperactivity (Kumpulainen et al., 1998) and the
Eysenck psycho-
ticism factor (Slee & Rigby, 1993b). Bullies, according to their
self-reports,
perceive themselves as impulsive and lacking in self-control
(Bjorkqvist,
Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982). Considering their higher levels of
externalizing
behavior and poorer peer relationships, it would be expected
that bullies
might not function as well in the school environment. In fact,
bullies have
been found to like school less (Rigby & Slee, 1991) and be less
popular with
teachers than were nonbullies (Slee & Rigby, 1993a).
In addition to the concurrent poorer functioning, long-term
negative con-
sequences have been documented for bullies. Bullies are at
increased risk of
becoming involved in delinquency, crime, and alcohol abuse
(Loeber &
Dishion, 1983; Magnusson, Stattin, & Duner, 1983). Bullies
identified by 8
years of age are six times more likely to be convicted of crimes
as young
adults and are five times more likely to have serious criminal
records by the
age of 30 (Olweus, 1993). In the short term, bullying might
allow children to
achieve their immediate goals without learning socially
acceptable ways to
negotiate with others, resulting in persistent maladaptive social
patterns.

Characteristics of Victims
Victims also exhibit poorer social functioning. They tend to be
more
depressed, anxious, and insecure than other students; show
lower levels of
self-esteem; and usually are cautious, sensitive, and quiet
(Craig, 1998;
Olweus, 1995; Rigby & Slee, 1991). Compared with
nonvictimized peers,
victims have been found to be more withdrawn, depressed,
worried, and fear-
ful of new situations (Byrne, 1994) and to score higher on
internalizing
behavior and psychosomatic symptoms (Kumpulainen et al.,
1998) and the
Eysenck introversion factor (Slee & Rigby, 1993b). Victimized
students
report feeling more lonely and less happy at school and having
fewer good
Haynie et al. / BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 31
friends (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1993; Slee,
1995; Slee &
Rigby, 1993a) than other students have reported. Evidence has
indicated that
victims, particularly girls, are concerned about being avoided
socially or
evaluated negatively by their peers (Slee, 1995). Although

victims respond in
various ways to bullying (Perry et al., 1988), avoidance/escape
behaviors,
such as not going to school, refusing to go certain places, and
running away
from home are common; suicide attempts might occur in
extreme cases
(Batsche et al., 1994).
The consequences for victimization also appear to persist into
adulthood.
In a longitudinal study, Olweus (1993) found that as young
adults, former
victims of bullying had more symptoms of depression and lower
self-esteem
than did their nonvictimized peers.
Characteristics of Bully/Victims
Few studies have addressed the characteristics of adolescents
who both
bully and have been victimized. Like bullies, bully/victims
demonstrate higher
levels of verbal and physical aggression than do comparison
children (Craig,
1998). Compared with nonbullying youth and even to those who
bully only,
bully/victims were found to score higher on measures of
externalizing behav-
ior and hyperactivity (Kumpulainen et al., 1998) and depressive
symptoms,
and to score lower on measures of scholastic competence, social
acceptance,
behavior conduct, and global self-worth (Austin & Joseph,
1996).

Correlates of Bullying and Victimization
Given the prevalence of bullying and victimization and the
seriousness of
the consequences for those involved, a better understanding of
modifiable
factors associated with bullying and victimization is needed. In
some previ-
ous literature, bullying has been viewed as a subset of violent or
aggressive
behaviors (Batsche et al., 1994; Furlong & Morrison, 1994).
Because adoles-
cent problem behaviors, such as violence, substance use, and
delinquent
behavior are believed to co-occur (Donovan, Jessor, & Costa,
1988) and share
common mediators (Ellickson, Saner, & McGuigan, 1997;
Simons-Morton,
Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1998) variables associated with other
common
problem behaviors could be related to bullying as well. Those
might include
parent and school influences on behavior (Simons-Morton et al.,
1999).
Parenting practices. As noted previously, psychological and
psychosocial
correlates of bullying and victimization have been studied. Few
studies, how-
ever, have been used for examination of the associations among
perceived

parenting practices, bullying, and victimization. The findings
that have been
reported with regard to bullying have been consistent and can
be interpreted
within a framework of contrasting parenting styles and their
effects on ado-
lescent development. Olweus (1980) found bullying to be
related to three par-
ent characteristics: (a) a negative emotional attitude such as
lack of warmth
and involvement, (b) permissiveness toward aggressive
childhood behavior,
and (c) the use of power-assertive parenting methods like
physical punish-
ment. Similarly, Loeber and Dishion (1984) reported that
parents who used
inconsistent, highly aversive discipline techniques and physical
punishment
were more likely to have an aggressive child. Bowers, Smith,
and Binney
(1994) found that bullies reported more troubled relationships
with parents,
and perceived their parents to be low in monitoring and warmth
and high in
either over-protection or neglect. Overall, those studies have
indicated that
parenting practices might be associated with bullying. In the
literature on
parenting style, power assertive parenting practices and a lack
of warmth
such as those described in association with bullying (Olweus,
1993) are char-

acteristic of an authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind, 1991b)
and described
in association with less than optimal adolescent outcomes. In
contrast, an
authoritative parenting style, in which parents practice
consistent, democratic
discipline, vigilant monitoring, and high levels of warmth and
support, has
been associated with more optimal adolescent outcomes
(Baumrind, 1991a;
Smetana, 1995; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &
Dornbusch, 1994).
Less is known about the associations between parenting
practices and victim-
ization. Those associations merit further study.
School environment. The Olweus research on the prevention of
bullying in
school also has demonstrated the importance of the social
environment in the
reduction of bullying and victimization. Characteristics of the
school envi-
ronment thought to be important to reduce bullying include (a)
warmth, posi-
tive interest, and involvement from adults; (b) firm limits to
unacceptable
behavior; (c) monitoring and surveillance of students; and (d)
nonhostile,
nonphysical consequences for behavioral infractions (Olweus,
1992, 1994).
The current study extends the existing literature on bullying and
victim-
ization by addressing the co-occurrence of bullying and
victimization and
identifying a range of psychosocial variables associated with

bullying and
victimization. It was hypothesized that adolescents who report
both having
bullied and having been victimized would constitute a unique
group (bully/
victims), and differ significantly from those who bullied only or
were victim-
ized only. Furthermore, bully/victims’ scores on psychosocial,
parent, and
school measures were expected to be significantly less optimal
than for those
adolescents who bully only or are victimized only.
METHOD
Participants
A survey was administered in all seven middle schools (grades
6, 7, and 8)
in one suburban Maryland school district as the baseline
measurement for the
evaluation of a prevention program that targeted multiple
problem behaviors.
Due to their limited ability to read, 417 special education
students were con-
sidered ineligible to participate in the survey. Of the 4,668
students eligible to

participate in the survey, the parents of 302 students refused to
allow their
children to participate and 103 students were absent on both the
initial and
make-up dates for the survey. Thus, 4,263 (91.3%) of the
eligible students
completed the survey. The sample was composed of 49.1% boys
and 50.9%
girls; data on gender were missing on 39 (0.9%) students. The
ethnic compo-
sition of the sample was 68.6% White students, 24.0% Black
students, and
7.4% students of other race/ethnic categories (1.7% Hispanic
students, 2.4%
American Indian students, 2.0% Asian/Pacific Islander students,
0.5% multi-
racial students, 0.6% other); data on race were missing on 95
(2.2%) students.
Procedures
Students in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades were asked for
assent to
participate; passive consent procedures were used to obtain
parental consent
(Severson & Biglan, 1989). Letters were issued to parents that
described the
purpose of the survey as a way to learn more about the behavior
and attitudes
of students so as to develop more effective programs to help
them through
middle school. Parents were informed that some potentially
sensitive infor-
mation was collected on the survey. Students were given the
same informa-
tion as part of the written and oral instructions for the survey.

Students completed questionnaires during a 90-minute
administrative period
in their home-base classroom. A makeup assessment was
scheduled the fol-
lowing week for students who were absent on the day of
assessment. The sur-
vey was administered in each classroom by two trained proctors.
Study inves-
tigators and project staff served as trainers and team leaders,
each supervising
several pairs of proctors. Proctors were trained for 4 hours on
the data collec-
tion protocol developed for this study. Teachers remained in the
classroom to
supervise student discipline but otherwise were uninvolved in
the survey pro-
cedures. To ensure confidentiality, students first completed and
turned in a
cover page that included their name, survey identification
number, birth date,
and home-base classroom teacher’s name. Students’ names were
not on the
questionnaires. The study was reviewed by the National
Institute of Child
Health and Human Development Institutional Review Board and
authorized

by representatives of the school district.
Measures
The questionnaire was designed to assess behaviors and
attitudes targeted
by the intervention program. During the school year prior to
implementation
of this study, a small pilot study was conducted (N = 130, sixth-
grade stu-
dents) to ascertain the readability of items and internal
consistency of scales.
The survey used in the current study consisted of 116 items to
assess student
background; psychosocial, school, and parent variables; as well
as involve-
ment in problem behaviors, a subset of which included
questions about bully-
ing and victimization. Scale descriptions and the internal
consistency coeffi-
cients (alpha) are provided.
Bullying. Bullying was assessed by asking “How many times in
the last
year have you bullied or picked on someone younger, smaller,
or weaker (not
including your brothers and sisters)?” Response categories were
0 = 0, 1 = 1
or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.
Victimization (alpha = .84). Victimization during the past year
was assessed
by asking students how many times did someone . . . (a) “take
something from
you by using force or by threatening to hurt you?” (b) “make
you do some-

thing you really did not want to do?” (c) “threaten to hurt you
physically but
not actually hurt you?” and (d) “actually hurt you physically?”
Response cat-
egories were 0 = 0, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6
or more times.
Respondents were asked to report the occurrence of
victimization at school
and away from school separately, which produced an eight-item
scale.
Problem behaviors (alpha = .79). Participation in seven problem
behav-
iors in the past 12 months was assessed. Items included physical
fighting,
weapon carrying, theft, damage to property, cigarette use,
alcohol use, and
illicit drug use. An example item is “How many times have you
smoked a cig-
arette, even a puff, in the last 12 months?” Response categories
were 0 = 0, 1 =
1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.
Behavioral misconduct (alpha = .75). Four items assessed the
past 12-
month frequency of less severe problem behavior, including
lying to parents,
staying out late at night, going someplace dangerous, and

cutting school. An
example item is “How many times in the last year have you cut
or skipped a
day of school without permission?” Response categories were 0
= 0, 1 = 1 or
2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.
Self-control (alpha = .85). Self-control was assessed using a
subscale
from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger, 1991).
Seven items
assess the respondent’s tendency to maintain appropriate self-
control in areas
including losing his or her temper, “getting even,” getting
“carried away,”
and “losing control.” An example of an item included in this
scale is “I lose
my temper and ‘let people have it’ when I am angry.” Response
choices were
0 = never, 1 = some of the time, 2 = most of the time, and 3 =
always.
Deviant peer influences (alpha =.86). Respondents were asked
“How
many of your five closest friends do the following things?” and
were pre-
sented with a list of seven problem behaviors: fighting,
bullying, damaging
property, lying to parents, being disrespectful to teachers,
smoking ciga-
rettes, and drinking alcohol.
Deviance acceptance (alpha = .87). Respondents were asked if it
was
acceptable (0 = no, 1 = yes, and 2 = maybe) for youth to
participate in each of

eight problem behaviors, including smoking, drinking, using
illicit drugs,
bullying, cheating, lying to parents, disrupting class, and going
to dangerous
places. An example is “Do you think it is okay for kids your age
to smoke
cigarettes?”
Social competence (alpha = .78). Nine items were developed for
this
research to assess social competence. Those items measured
competencies to
be addressed in the planned prevention program including
communication,
conflict resolution, resisting peer pressure, and problem solving
in social sit-
uations. For example, one item asked “Compared with other
kids, resisting
dares from other kids is (much harder to much easier).”
Response choices
were 1 = much harder, 2 = a little harder , 3 = a little easier, or
4 = much easier.
School adjustment (alpha = .87). This 11-item scale assessed the
stu-
dent’s adjustment in the activities of school, such as doing well
on school-
work, getting along with classmates, following rules, doing
homework, and
so forth. Students rated how well the item described them on a
4-point scale: 1
= really true, 2 = sort of true, 3 = sort of false, and 4 = really
false.

School bonding (alpha = .79). These six items assessed aspects
of school
bonding including desire to do well at school, being happy at
school, and tak-
ing school seriously. For example, one item states “I want to do
well at this
school.” Items were rated 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 =
disagree, and 4 =
strongly disagree.
Depressive symptoms (alpha = .81). Depressive symptoms were
assessed
using a subscale from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory
(Weinberger,
1991). Those six items assess the respondent’s level of
depressive symptoms
through items such as “I feel so down and unhappy that nothing
makes me
feel much better,” and “I get into such a bad mood that I feel
like just sitting
around and doing nothing.” Response categories were 0 = never,
1 = some of
the time, 2 = most of the time, or 3 = always.
Parental involvement (alpha = .81). Six items, adapted from a
study by
Hetherington et al. (1992), were used to assess the extent to
which the respon-
dent’s parents were perceived to know (1 = know almost
nothing, 2 = know a

little, 3 = know a lot) about their friends, activities, health,
school life, and
academic performance. For example, one item states “My
parents/guardians
know about my activities (for example, sports, clubs, hobbies).”
Parental support (alpha = .86). A five-item measure of parental
support
was adapted from a study by Robin and Foster (1989). Students
agreed or dis-
agreed with items that stated they have a parent who gives them
attention,
gives them help, praises them for doing something well, is easy
to talk to, and
enjoys doing things with them. For example, one item states “I
have a parent
who gives me a lot of care and attention.” Items were rated on a
4-point scale,
1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly
disagree.
Analysis
Students were classified as comparisons, victims, bullies, or
bully/victims
based on their self-reports of bullying and victimization in the
past 12 months.
Those classified as comparisons (n = 1,879) reported never
having been vic-
timized or having bullied. Victims (n = 1,098) reported having
been victim-
ized three or more times and having never or rarely bullied.
Bullies (n = 142)
reported bullying three or more times and never or rarely having
been victim-
ized. Bully/victims (n = 159) reported both having bullied and

having been
victimized three or more times. Students who reported
infrequent incidents
of bullying and/or victimization (n = 788) and students who
were missing
either the bullying item or victimization scale (n = 197) were
not included in
the analyses. Although that classification of students eliminated
a large num-
ber of students, it was designed to focus the analysis on those
students who
had bullied or been victimized most frequently.
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted as preliminary
bivariate
analyses using the four-group classification—comparisons,
victims, bullies,
and bully/victims. Next, the degree to which membership in the
comparison,
victim, bully, or bully/victim group was predicted from the
psychosocial,
school, and parenting variables was determined using
discriminant function
analysis. Discriminant function analysis is used to predict group
member-
ship, the dependent variable, from a set of independent
variables. It can be

used for two or more nominal groups, in this way offering
greater flexibility
than logistic regression. A discriminant function is a linear
combination of
the independent variables that maximizes separation among the
groups. The
number of possible functions is one less than the number of
groups, as differ-
ent combinations of the predictor scores can be useful in
differentiating the
groups. The correlation between each independent variable and
the functions
indicates its relative importance to the prediction.
RESULTS
Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization
Overall, 978 (24.1%) students reported bullying someone at
least once
during the past year, with 677 (16.7%) bullying one or two
times and 301
(7.4%) bullying three or more times. A total of 1,815 (44.6%) of
students
reported being victimized at least once during the past year,
including 558
(13.7%) who reported being victimized once or twice and 1,257
(30.9%) who
reported being victimized three or more times. The prevalence
of bullying
and victimization in the past year, stratified by gender and
grade, is presented
in Table 1.
Ever bullying someone was associated with ever being
victimized (χ2 =

125.13, p = .001). Shown in Table 2 is the cross tabulation of
the prevalence of
bullying by victimization. Among the 301 students who reported
bullying
three or more times over the past year, 159 (53%) also reported
being victim-
ized three or more times. Among the 1,257 frequently
victimized students,
however, 805 (64%) reported never bullying.
Group Differences on Psychosocial
and Behavioral Variables
A series of ANOVAs for each psychosocial and behavioral
variable by
group (comparison, victim, bully, and bully/victim)
demonstrated a consis-
TABLE 1: Prevalence of Bullying and Being Victimized by
Gender and Grade
Never 1 to 2 Times 3 or More Times
n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage
Bullying

Overall 3,190 75.95 702 16.71 308 7.34
Gender
Male 1,521 73.58 387 18.72 159 7.69
Female 1,669 78.25 315 14.77 149 6.99
Grade
Sixth 1,135 83.33 151 11.09 76 5.58
Seventh 1,067 75.73 246 17.46 96 6.82
Eighth 988 69.14 305 21.34 136 9.52
Victimization
Overall 2,261 55.35 559 13.68 1,265 30.97
Gender
Male 1,021 50.73 261 13.08 722 36.19
Female 1,249 59.76 298 14.26 543 25.98
Grade
Sixth 822 62.18 160 12.10 340 25.72
Seventh 711 51.82 209 15.23 452 32.94
Eighth 728 52.34 190 13.66 473 34.00
NOTE: 63 were missing data on bullying; 178 were missing data
on victimization.
TABLE 2: Co-occurrence of Bullying and Victimization in the
Past Year
Bullying
Never 1 to 2 Times 3 or More Times
Victimization n Percentage n Percentage n Percentage
Never 1,879a 46.21 268 6.59 104b 2.56

1 to 2 times 404 9.90 116 2.85 38b 0.93
3 or more times 805c 19.80 293c 7.21 159d 3.91
NOTE: 197 were missing data on either bullying or
victimization.
a. Comparison group
b. Bully group
c. Victim group
d. Bully/victim group
tent pattern of group differences. For every variable except
depressive symp-
toms, the mean of the comparison group reflected a more
favorable score, fol-
lowed by the victim group, then the bully group, and then the
bully/victim
group. For depressive symptoms, the bully group had fewer
symptoms than
did the victim group. All ANOVAs had an F significant at the p
≤ .001 level
and Newman-Keuls tests revealed that the differences between
every group
were significant. The strength of the association was greatest
between group
membership and the measures of problem behavior. The
strength of associa-
tion was lowest between group membership and the parenting
measures. A
summary of those findings is presented in Table 3.

Predictors of Bullying and Victimization
A direct discriminant function analysis was performed using the
set of
psychosocial and behavioral variables, as well as gender and
grade, as predic-
tors of membership in the four groups—comparison, victim,
bully, and bully/
victim. Three discriminant functions were calculated. The first
function
accounted for 88.7% of variance and had a canonical correlation
of .534. The
second function accounted for 9.6% of variance and had a
canonical correla-
tion of .203. The third function accounted for only 1.7% of the
variance, with
TABLE 3: Analyses of Variance for the Psychosocial and
Parenting and School
Variables
Group Mean
Variable Comparison Victim Bully Bully/Victim η 2a Fb
Problem behaviors 1.05 2.89 4.16 5.89 .22 267.75
Behavioral misconduct 0.65 1.85 2.72 3.69 .21 261.42
Self-control 16.92 14.06 11.79 10.83 .17 209.77
Deviant peer influences 3.44 6.75 11.48 12.70 .14 167.70
Deviance acceptance 0.77 2.00 4.23 4.86 .15 176.32
Social competence 24.19 21.83 19.95 18.61 .10 112.52
School adjustment 36.59 33.29 32.20 29.84 .10 107.36
School bonding 17.47 16.21 15.19 14.50 .09 106.28
Depressive symptoms 3.40 5.61 5.52 6.77 .12 137.67

Parental involvement 16.47 15.62 14.76 14.58 .06 55.81
Parental support 17.85 16.55 15.77 15.38 .07 76.93
a. η 2 = proportion of the variance in the dependent measure
associated with the levels
of bully/victim (SSeffect/SStotal).
b. Overall Fs and group mean differences are significant at p ≤
.001.
a canonical correlation of .086; therefore, the results reported
will be limited
to the first two functions. By plotting the group centroids (the
distance on the
function the predicted mean for each group is from the overall
mean) it is pos-
sible to depict the extent to which each function separates the
groups. As seen
in Figure 1, the first function discriminates between all four
groups, that is,
the group centroids are similarly distant from each other on the
horizontal
axis. This indicates that all four groups are distinguishable
using the predic-
tor variables loading on the first function. The second function
increases the
separation between the two bullying groups from the two
nonbullying groups
beyond what is captured by the first function alone. The group
centroids for
the two bullying groups are more distant on the vertical axis

from the compar-
ison and victim groups. This indicates those variables that load
on the second
function—deviance acceptance, depressive symptoms, gender,
and deviant
peer influences—distinguish the bully and bully/victim
categories from the
comparison and victim categories.
The loading matrix of correlations between predictors and
discriminant
functions is given in Table 4. The magnitude of the correlation
can be inter-
preted as the degree to which each predictor contributes to the
accuracy with
which the function differentiates the groups. The single best
predictor of group
membership was involvement in problem behaviors (both major
and minor).
Figure 1: Plot of group centroids on the functions resulting from
the discriminant
function analysis depicting the distance between the group
means.
Self-control, deviance acceptance, and deviant peer influences
were strong
predictors, followed by depressive symptoms and school-related

variables.
Parenting variables also loaded significantly as predictors.
Gender and grade
contributed the least to the prediction.
The accuracy of the classification coefficients from the
discriminant func-
tion was assessed by comparing the classifications of students
using the coef-
ficients with the original classifications based on student self-
reports. The
classification function coefficients correctly classified 65.5% of
the cases,
compared with 44.8% that would have been classified correctly
based on
chance alone. The classification results most accurately
distinguished the
comparisons from the other three groups, and second most
accurately sepa-
rated the bully/victim group from the other groups (see Table
5).
To determine whether there were any notable differences in the
relations
between variables for girls and for boys in this study, separate
discriminant
analyses using the same set of predictor variables were run for
both genders.
Although the model was somewhat more predictive for girls
than for boys
(Wilks’s lambda of Function 1 = .740 for boys and .621 for
girls), the patterns
of relations of the predictor variables to groups’ membership
were highly
similar.

DISCUSSION
The prevalence of bullying reported by this sample of middle-
school stu-
dents (7.4% reported bullying three or more times over the past
year) is less
than would have been anticipated based on the estimate of
bullying preva-
lence in the United States from the 1997/1998 WHO data
(Nansel, 2000).
However, prevalence data regarding bullying in the United
States is minimal
at this time, so it is difficult to make an estimate based on the
research pub-
lished to date. In addition, the current study might
underestimate the preva-
lence of bullying, as it is based on self-report of a single item,
which asks stu-
dents to label their behavior as bullying. Therefore, it is likely
that those
persons who did report bullying three or more times over the
past year bullied
frequently. The prevalence of being victimized three or more
times over the
past year was 31% and is within the broad range documented in
previous
studies (Batsche & Knoff et al., 1994; Hoover et al., 1992). The
measure of
victimization used in the current study included victimization
from bullying
as well as other types of victimization and is not limited to
peer-to-peer inci-
dents. As such, it was expected that the prevalence of
victimization would be
greater than the prevalence of bullying. As expected, bullying
and victimiza-

tion both were more prevalent among boys than among girls,
and were found
to increase with grade. These findings are consistent with the
literature that
has shown an increase during early adolescence of a variety of
problem behav-
ior (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1996). The great
variability in physical
development, social skills, and self-control among young
adolescents
(Csikszentmihalyi & Larsen, 1984; Petersen, Leffert, &
Hurrelmann, 1993;
TABLE 4: Discriminant Function Analyses: Correlations
Between Predictor
Variables and Functions
Variable Function 1 Function 2
Problem behaviors .812 .135
Behavioral misconduct .803 .127
Self-control –.717 –.066
Deviant peer influences .630 .376
Deviance acceptance .633 .529
Social competence –.526 –.085

School adjustment –.514 .126
School bonding –.510 –.086
Depressive symptoms .564 –.451
Parental involvement –.367 –.095
Parental support –.433 .048
Gender –.160 .407
Grade .207 –.030
Percentage variance 88.7 9.6
Canonical correlation .534 .203
Wilks’s lambda .68 .952
Chi-square 1,167.9 150.59
df 39 24
NOTE: Overall Fs and group mean differences are significant at
p ≤ .001.
TABLE 5: Accuracy of Classification of Students Into Groups
by the Discriminant
Functions
Predicted Group
Original Group Comparison Victim Bully Bully/Victim Total a
Comparison 1,559 166 8 17 1,750
Victim 563 378 22 60 1,023
Bully 59 36 14 19 128
Bully/victim 31 65 4 40 140
a. Totals reflect participants missing data on one or more of the
scales included in the
analyses.

Steinberg, 1987) might account for the intensity of these
problems during this
developmental period.
The results of the current study provide evidence that bullying
and victim-
ization should not be thought of as opposing behaviors. More
than one half of
the bullies reported being victims as well. As hypothesized,
students who re-
ported both bullying and victimization were found to be a
distinct group from
those who either bullied only or were victimized only. Bullies
showed less
optimal psychosocial functioning than did victims, and the
bully/victim groups’
scores indicated poorer functioning than did bullies. In addition,
bullying and
victimization both were associated with involvement in other
problem behav-
iors such as drinking, smoking, theft, damage to property, and
violations of
parents’ rules. This covariation concurs with the literature on
problem behav-
iors in which the co-occurrence of differing problem behaviors
is reported
consistently (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Donovan &
Jessor, 1985;
Ellickson et al., 1997; Escobedo, Reddy, & Durant, 1997;
Farrell, Danish, &
Howard, 1992; Irwin, Igra, Eyre, & Millstein, 1997; Newcomb
& McGee, 1989;

Zhang, Wieczorek, & Wlete, 1997). More important, students
who bully and/
or are victimized appear to have characteristics similar to those
associated
with other problem behaviors, such as friendships with deviant
peers, lack of
self-control, and low social competence (Simons-Morton et al.,
1999). The
variables with the strongest associations in the analyses
reported here indi-
cate potential common mediators among problem behaviors to
examine in
future, longitudinal research.
The finding that students who reported both bullying and
victimization
showed the least optimal psychosocial functioning is of
particular interest.
Those youth apparently represent a particularly high-risk group,
character-
ized by higher rates of problem behavior and depressive
symptoms, lower
self-control and social competence, and poorer school
functioning. They are
involved in a more deviant peer group and might be less able to
form positive
friendships with peers; if so, they might be at greater risk for
antisocial behav-
ior into adulthood as well.
The results of the discriminant analysis indicated that
involvement in
problem behaviors had the strongest association with group
membership
(comparison, victim, bully, bully/victim). Likewise, deviant
peer influences

and deviance acceptance were associated. Self-control was
associated highly
with group membership, which is consistent with previous work
that has
indicated bullies are impulsive (Olweus, 1995) and report less
self-control
(Bjorkqvist et al., 1982). The relations between depressive
symptoms and
group membership plausibly could be a result of involvement in
negative
peer relationships, although causality cannot be ascertained
with these data.
Not surprisingly, victims and bullies also reported scores that
indicated less
social competence. The social competence measure included
items focused
on communication, problem solving, resistance to peer pressure,
and conflict
resolution. This finding is consistent with other reported
research findings
that indicate that students who reported they engaged in more
bullying
behavior also reported less confidence in, and fewer intentions
to use, nonvi-
olent solutions to conflicts (Bosworth et al., 1999).
The finding that school adjustment and bonding were predictive

of group
membership indicates that the problems bully/victims
experience extends to
other areas of functioning as well. Student adjustment and
bonding to school
are associated with school performance (Simons-Morton et al.,
1998) and
might have implications for future educational and career
opportunities.
Parenting variables also were predictive of group membership.
The asso-
ciations reported here between perceived parenting practices
and bullying
are supported by previous research (Bowers et al., 1994; Loeber
& Dishion,
1984; Olweus, 1980). Although the parenting variables were
associated more
moderately than the other variables discussed, it is possible that
parenting has
direct and indirect effects on bullying and victimization. That
is, parenting is
likely associated with variables such as social competence,
school func-
tioning, and peer choices, all of which are related also to
bullying and
victimization.
Deviant peer influences, deviance acceptance, and gender were
correlated
significantly and positively with the second function, which
distinguished
between bullies (bully and bully/victim groups) and nonbullies
(comparison
and victim groups). These associations possibly indicate that
among youth

that bully, aggression is an acceptable behavior common among
their friend-
ship group. Such norms might be amendable to intervention.
Depressive
symptoms were correlated negatively and significantly with the
second func-
tion, adding to the distinction between bullies and nonbullies.
This is consis-
tent with other research that also has shown bullies tend to
report externalizing
behaviors and victims tend to report internalizing behaviors
(Kumpulainen
et al., 1998).
Some of the literature on bullying and victimization has
revealed differ-
ences between girls and boys (Ekblad & Olweus, 1986;
Maccoby & Jacklin,
1974, 1980; Olweus, 1983, 1994). However, the findings from
the current
study indicate that, as measured in this research, the relations
between the
predictor variables and bullying and victimization were quite
similar for girls
and for boys. It still is likely that bullying might take differing
forms for boys
and for girls (i.e., some forms of bullying are more prevalent
for boys,
whereas other forms of bullying are more prevalent for girls). In
spite of those
differences, bullying and victimization are associated with
involvement in

other problem behaviors, lack of self-control, poorer social
competence, in-
creased depressive symptoms, poorer school functioning, and
parenting
practices perceived as less authoritative, for boys and girls
both.
Findings from this study might inform the development of
preventive
interventions that target bullying and victimization. Many of the
variables
found to be predictive of group membership, such as deviance
acceptance,
self-control, social competence, and perceptions of parenting,
potentially are
amenable to intervention. Predictors important to bullying and
victimization
also might be important in other problem behaviors. Therefore,
bullying and
victimization are prevalent and measurable outcome variables
potentially
useful for studies designed to examine the effects of social skill
or other inter-
vention programs that target multiple problem behaviors.
Although this study provides a valuable addition to the current
literature
on bullying and victimization, a number of limitations must be
recognized.
Due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, directions of the
relations be-

tween the variables measured cannot be determined. The study
of bully/victims
as a unique group would benefit from longitudinal research in
which the eti-
ology of becoming both a victim and a bully could be
ascertained. The cur-
rent study addressed variables associated with bullying and
victimization as
assessed through self-identification. Findings should be cross-
validated using
other measures of bullying and victimization. Furthermore, the
measure of
bullying in this study might have tapped a particular type of
bullying, specifi-
cally aggression, and not other behaviors, such as teasing or
exclusion, which
are not associated as commonly with the word bully. There are
potential dif-
ferences in prominent types of bullying done by girls or by boys
(e.g., physi-
cal aggression as compared with relational aggression) (Crick &
Bigbee,
1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Rys & Bear, 1997) that could
not be addressed
here and should be studied further.
Few studies of youth in the United States have examined factors
related to
bullying and victimization. This is one of the first studies in
which bully/
victim has been identified as a distinct and potentially
important classifica-
tion. The present findings serve to increase understanding of
problematic
behaviors among youth, to guide additional research on the
determinants of

bullying and victimization, and to identify factors potentially
amenable to
change that could inform the development of intervention
efforts.
REFERENCES
Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim
problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.
Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their
victims: Understanding a pervasive
problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-
174.
Baumrind, D. (1991a). The influence of parenting style on
adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.
Baumrind, D. (1991b). Parenting styles and adolescent
development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, &
A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp.
746-758). New York: Garland.
Bjorkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and
victims: Their ego picture, ideal
ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 23, 307-313.
Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors
associated with bullying behavior
in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,
341-362.
Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems
among middle school children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived
family relationships of bullies, victims
and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 11,
215-232.
Byrne, B. J. (1994). Bullies and victims in a school setting with
reference to some Dublin
schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 15, 574-586.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying,
victimization, depression, anxiety, and
aggression in elementary school children. Personality and
Individual Differences, 24,
123-130.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt
forms of peer victimization: A multi
informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression,
gender, and social-psychological
adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent:
Conflict and growth in the teen-
age years. New York: Basic Books.
Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem
behavior in adolescence and young
adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53,
890-904.
Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1988). Syndrome of
problem behavior in adolescence:
A replication. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
56, 726-765.
Ekblad, S., & Olweus, D. (1986). Applicability of Olweus’
aggression inventory in a sample of
Chinese primary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 315-
325.
Ellickson, P., Saner, H., & McGuigan, K. A. (1997). Profiles of
violent youth: Substance use and
other concurrent problems. American Journal of Public Health,
87, 985-991.
Escobedo, L. G., Reddy, M., & Durant, R. H. (1997).
Relationship between cigarette smoking
and health risk and problem behaviors among us adolescents.
Archives of Pediatric and Ado-
lescent Medicine, 151, 66-71.
Farrell, A. D., Danish, S. J., & Howard, C. W. (1992).
Relationship between drug use and other
problem behaviors in urban adolescents. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 60,
705-712.

Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, G. M. (1994). Introduction to
miniseries: School violence and safety
in perspective. School Psychology Review, 23, 139-150.
Hetherington, E. M., Clingempeel, W. G., Anderson, E. R.,
Deal, J. E., Stanley-Hagan, M.,
Hollier, E. A., & Linder, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital
transition. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2-3, Serial No.
227).
Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying:
Perceptions of adolescent victims in
the midwestern U.S.A. School Psychology International, 13, 5-
16.
Irwin, C. E., Igra, V., Eyre, S., & Millstein, S. (1997). Risk-
taking behavior in adolescents: The
paradigm. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 817, 1-35.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1996).
National survey results on drug use
from the monitoring and future study, 1975-1995. Vol. 1
Secondary School Students DHHS
Publication No. (NIH, NIDA) 96-4139. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Chandler, S. P., Chapman, K. A., Rand,

C. D., & Ringel, M. R. (1998).
Indicators of school crime and safety (NCES 98-251/NCJ-
172215). Washington, DC: Gov-
ernment Printing Office, U.S. Departments of Education of
Education and Justice.
King, A., Wold, B., Tudor-Smith, C., & Harel, Y. (1996). The
health of youth: A cross-national
survey (World Health Organization regional publications,
European Series No. 69). Canada:
World Health Organization.
Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F.,
Kresanov, K., Linna, S. L.,
Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Puura, K. (1998).
Bullying and psychiatric symp-
toms among elementary school-age children. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 22, 705-717.
Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjorkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982).
Group aggression among
school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male
delinquency: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight at home
and school: Family conditions influ-
encing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 52,
759-768.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1998). The intensive treatment of bullies and
victims of bullying in a thera-

peutic community and school. Education Today, 44, 62-68.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford, CA: Stan-
ford University Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, N. J. (1980). Sex differences in
aggression: A rejoinder and reprise.
Child Development, 51, 964-980.
Magnusson, D., Stattin, H., & Duner, A. (1983). Aggression and
criminality in a longitudinal
perspective. In S. A. Mednick (Ed.), Prospective studies of
crime and delinquency (pp.
277-301). The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Nijhoff.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Ruan, W. J., Scheidt, P., Simons-
Morton, B., & Pilla, R. (2000).
Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and
association with psychosocial adjust-
ment. Unpublished manuscript.
Newcomb, M. D., & McGee, L. (1989). Adolescent alcohol use
and other delinquent behaviors:
A one-year longitudinal analysis controlling for sensation
seeking. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 16, 345-369.
Newson, J., & Newson, E. (1984). Parents’ perspectives on
children’s behavior at school. In
N. Rude & H. Galt (Eds.), Disruptive behaviour in schools (pp.
99-116). New York: Wiley.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of
aggressive behavior in adoles-
cent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16,

644-660.
Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren:
Intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters,
R. J. McMahon, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and
violence throughout the life span
(pp. 100-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what
we can do. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects
of a school based intervention pro-
gram. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171-
1190.
Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and
interventions. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 4, 196-200.
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems at school: Knowledge
base and an effective interven-
tion program. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 170-190.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of
peer aggression. Developmental Psy-
chology, 24, 807-814.

Petersen, A. C., Leffert, N., & Hurrelmann, K. (1993).
Adolescence and schooling in Germany
and the United States: A comparison of peers socialization to
adulthood. Teachers College
Record, 94, 611-628.
Rigby, K., Cox, I., & Black, G. (1997). Cooperativeness and
bully/victim problems among Aus-
tralian school children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137,
357-368.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Dimensions of interpersonal
relation among Australian children
and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 133, 33-42.
Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1989). Questionnaire and
observational assessment. In Negotiating
parent-adolescent conflict: A behavioral-family systems
approach (pp. 77-89). New York:
Guilford.
Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and
peer relations: Gender and develop-
mental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 87-106.
Severson, H., & Biglan, A. (1989). Rationale for the use of
passive consent in smoking preven-
tion research: Politics, policy and pragmatics. Preventive
Medicine, 18, 267-279.
Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor,
K. E. (1998). Student-school
bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education
Research, 14, 99-107.

Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., Saylor, K.
E., Eitel, P., & Yu, K. (1999).
Psychosocial, school, and parent factors associated with recent
smoking among early ado-
lescent boys and girls. Preventive Medicine, 28, 138-148.
Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational and interpersonal correlates of
anxiety associated with peer victim-
ization. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97-107.
Slee, P. T. (1995). Bullying in the playground: The impact of
inter-personal violence on Austra-
lian children’s perceptions of their play environment.
Children’s Environments, 12,
320-327.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993a). Australian school children’s
self appraisal of interpersonal rela-
tions: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 23, 273-282.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993b). The relationship of Eysenck’s
personality factors and
self-esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys.
Personality and Individual
Differences, 14, 371-373.
Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of
parental authority during adoles-
cence. Child Development, 66, 299-316.
Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the
susceptibility of adolescents to antiso-
cial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269-275.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., &
Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-
time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authoritative, authori-
tarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development,
65, 754-770.
Weinberger, D. A. (1991). Social-emotional adjustment in older
children and adults: Psycho-
metric properties of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory.
Unpublished manuscript, Case
Western Reserve University.
Zhang, L., Wieczorek, W. F., & Wlete, J. W. (1997). The nexus
between alcohol and violent
crime. Alcohol Clinical Experimental Research, 21, 1264-1271.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Denise L. Haynie,
National Institutes of Health, NICHD, 6100
Executive Blvd., Room 4A01, Rockville, MD 20852; e-mail:
[email protected]
Company Background
International Gadgets (IG) is a multinational company of
1,300+ employees and over $4 billion in revenue.
Headquartered in Manchester, New Hampshire, the company
designs, manufactures, sells, and supports a variety of low- and
high-tech business productivity tools.
IG has manufacturing facilities in Detroit, Michigan, and
Shanghai, China, and source component parts from suppliers in

Vietnam, China, Brazil, and the United States. While IG
maintains sales offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Munich, Paris, Moscow, and Brussels, its products are
sold throughout the United States and all of Europe and in
China through a partner firm. IG employs both a direct sales
force targeting its top 1,000 customers as well as selling via its
website. Sales offices also include service and support
operations, managed separately from the sales teams. The
company is considering expanding more directly into China and
exploring the possibility of opening a sales office in Beijing.
IG’s current top-selling product is the OfficeDrone, designed
for workplace monitoring. The OfficeDrone is a small
unmanned aerial vehicle for indoor use that includes real-time
video monitoring and a targetable built-in water pistol and
reservoir. The OfficeDrone is marketed to management and
security teams to break up water cooler conversations and other
non-productive behaviors among groups of workers.
IG has introduced several new products and experienced rapid
growth during the past year with many new employees in all
departments. The management team has greatly expanded as
well, including several first-time managers, and is experiencing
difficulties in functioning as effectively as in the past.
Communications within and between all parts of the
organization, external partners, and suppliers and customers, are
at serious risk of completely breaking down.
In a recent example, Detroit Manufacturing was unable to meet
a product delivery deadline because of parts shortages from
supplies. (The component parts originated in Brazil and had
been seriously delayed due to a dockworker’s strike at U.S.
West Coast ports.) Manufacturing believed they had informed
Sales of the delay, but Sales indicated they had never received
that information and ended up losing the customer to a
competitor. In another example, European sales were impacted
when Switzerland unexpectedly devalued its currency,
impacting IG’s profitability. Revised profitability forecasts
were provided by several of the European sales offices, but

others did not understand the request from the corporate office
due to how it was worded, and the delay in response led to
unnecessary costs.
Your first task is to hire a small team to address these issues.
Write a report to management describing the makeup and roles
of your proposed team, what attributes you will be looking for
in team members, and what you hope to accomplish with your
new team. Be sure to offer solid reasoning in all areas of your
report.

JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE February 2001Haynie et al. BU.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE February 2001Haynie et al. BU.docx

Similar to JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE February 2001Haynie et al. BU.docx (20)

More from priestmanmable

More from priestmanmable (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE February 2001Haynie et al. BU.docx