Intake Assessment Form
Client Name _______________________________________ D.O.B. __________________
Unit # __________ Date of Assessment__________________________________________
1. PRESENTING PROBLEM (Functional impairment..(What is it impairing, symptoms, background) Example john is a 16 year old boy living with his single mom and currently addicted to alcohol. Next two sentences write 2-3 sentences to describe the client situation. Example He is currently not attending school and his mother indicates she cannot manage him at present. The boy father is not in the picture and mother works 2 jobs to support the daughter and self.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. CURRENT CLIENT INVOLVEMENT WITH OTHER AGENCIES (add in a local service)
AGENCY/PERSON PHONE SERVICE DATE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. ASSESSMENT OF LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS (How is the family, social functioning, support, legal, education, occupation, finances, etc in these areas?) What does that look like?
FAMILY
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SOCIAL
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Intake Assessment FormClient Name ___________________.docx
1. Intake Assessment Form
Client Name
_______________________________________ D.O.B.
__________________
Unit # __________ Date of
Assessment__________________________________________
1. PRESENTING PROBLEM (Functional impairment..(What is
it impairing, symptoms, background) Example john is a 16 year
old boy living with his single mom and currently addicted to
alcohol. Next two sentences write 2-3 sentences to describe the
client situation. Example He is currently not attending school
and his mother indicates she cannot manage him at present. The
boy father is not in the picture and mother works 2 jobs to
support the daughter and self.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
__________________________________
2. CURRENT CLIENT INVOLVEMENT WITH OTHER
AGENCIES (add in a local service)
AGENCY/PERSON PHONE SERVICE
DATE
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
3. ASSESSMENT OF LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CHANGES
IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS (How is the family, social
functioning, support, legal, education, occupation, finances, etc
in these areas?) What does that look like?
FAMILY
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
SOCIAL
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
SUPPORT
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
4. _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
4. CURRENT MEDICAL CONDITIONS (Does the client have
any other medical conditions such as depression, ADHD, etc?)
CONDITION PHYSICIAN
TREATMENT
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
5. PREGNANT ( ) YES ( ) NO
RECEIVING PRENATAL CARE? ( ) YES
( ) NO
6. PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN (Who is the physician and
location
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
7. CURRENT MEDICATIONS (List all clients current
5. medications)
NAME /DOSAGE PRESCRIBED BY
CONDITION
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
SIDE EFFECTS
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
MEDICATION ALLERGIES
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
7. RELATIONSHIP RISK FACTORS;
IS CLIENT SAFE AT HOME? ( ) YES ( ) NO
DOES CLIENT FEEL THREATENED IN ANYWAY? ( )
YES ( ) NO
IF YES DESCRIBE
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
HAS CLIENT BEEN ABUSED IN ANY WAY ( ) YES (
) NO
IF YES CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
6. ( ) PHYSICAL ( ) EMOTIONAL ( )
SEXUAL
RELATIONSHIP OF PERPETRATOR TO CLIENT
_____________________________________________________
______________________________
ANY LEGAL ACTION TAKEN?
_____________________________________________________
______________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
DOES CLIENT HAVE A SAFETY PLAN? ( ) YES ( )
NO
NEEDS SHELTER ( ) YES ( ) NO NEEDS
PROTECTION FROM ABUSE ORDER ( ) YES ( )
NO
8. SUICIDE/HOMICIDE EVALUATION
CLIENT'S SELF RATING OF SUICIDE RISK ____________
CLIENT'S SELF RATING OF BECOMING VIOLENT
__________
CLIENT'S SELF-RATING OF HOMICIDE RISK __________
(1-NONE 2 – SLIGHT 3 – MODERATE
4 – EXTREME/IMMEDIATE)
9. MENTAL STATUS EXAM (Just check client mental
condition. What does the client appearance look like etc…does
not need any additional information)
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______
APPEARANCE ( ) Age appropriate ( ) Well
groomed ( ) disheveled/unkempt ( ) bizarre ( ) other
8. APPETITE ( ) Good ( ) Fair ( ) Poor (
) Increased ( ) Decreased ( ) Weight gain
( ) Weight loss
THOUGHT PROCESS ( ) Logical and well organized
( ) Illogical ( ) Flight of ideas ( ) Circumstantial
( ) Loose Associations ( )
Rambling ( ) Obsessive ( ) Blocking ( ) Tangential
( ) Spontaneous ( )
Perseverative ( ) Distractible
THOUGHT CONTENT ( ) Delusions ( ) Paranoid
delusions ( ) Distortions ( ) Thought withdrawal
( ) Thought insertion ( )
Thought broadcast ( ) Magical thinking
( ) Somatic delusions ( )
Ideas of reference ( ) Delusional guilt
( ) Grandiose delusions ( )
Nihilistic delusions ( ) Ideas of inference
PERCEPTION/HALLUCINATIONS( ) Illusions ( )
Hallucinations ( ) Depersonalization ( ) Derealization
SUICIDE RISK ( ) None ( ) Slight ( )
Moderate ( ) Significant ( ) Extreme
( ) No Plan ( ) Plan
(describe
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________
VIOLENCE RISK ( ) None ( ) Slight ( )
Moderate ( ) Significant ( ) Extreme
( ) No Plan ( ) Plan
(describe
9. _____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
____
9. MENTAL STATUS EXAM cont.
_____________________________________________________
_______________________
JUDGEMENT ( ) Intact ( ) Age appropriate (
) Impulsive ( ) Immature ( )
( ) Impaired ( ) Mile ( )
Moderate ( ) Severe
INSIGHT ( ) Intact ( ) Limited ( ) very
limited ( ) Fair ( ) None
( ) Aware if current disorder
( ) Understands personal role in problems
SENSORIUM ( ) Alert ( ) Drowsy ( ) Stupor
( ) Obtundation ( ) Coma
MEMORY ( ) Intact ( ) Impaired ( )
Immediate recall ( ) Remote ( ) Amnesia
Type of amnesia
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
INTELLIGENCE ( ) Average ( ) Above
average ( ) Below average ( ) Unable to establish
_-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
INTERVIEWER SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ( add details
10. where appropriate
10. SUBSTANCE USE/ABUSE
TYPE AMOUNT HOW TAKEN
DURATION FREQUENCY DATE OF LAST
USED
USE
_____________________________________________________
________________________________________
TOBACCO
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
ALCOHOL___________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
ILLICIT DRUGS
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
12. CONTINUES USE WHEN OTHERS HAVE STOPPED (
) YES ( ) NO
HAS LIED ABOUT CONSUMPTION ( )
YES ( ) NO
HAS TRIED TO AVOID OTHERS WHILE USING
( ) YES ( ) NO
HAS BEEN DRUNK/HIGH FOR SEVERAL DAYS AT A
TIME ( ) YES ( ) NO
NEGLECTS OBLIGATIONS WHEN USING (
) YES ( ) NO
USUALLY USES MORE THAN INTENDED (
) YES ( ) NO
NEEDS TO INCREASE USE TO BECOME
INTOXICATED ( ) YES ( ) NO
HAS TRIED TO IDE CONSUMPTION ( )
YES ( ) NO
SOMETIMES USES BEFORE NOON ( )
YES ( ) NO
CANNOT LIMIT USE ONCE BEGUN ( )
YES ( ) NO
FAILED TO KEEP PROMISES TO REDUCE USE
( ) YES ( ) NO
DESCRIBE ATTEMPTS TO STOP
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
DESCRIBE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT USUALLY LEAD TO
14. _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
12. CLINICAL SUMMARY (PULL TOGETHER
INFORMATION YOU HAVE COLLECTED AND
SUMMARIZE, IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS,
CONDITIONS AND CAUSES THAT MAY HAVE LED TO
CURRENT SITUATION) Use your subjective language.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
17. Workplace bullying and intention to leave:
the moderating effect of perceived
organisational support
Nikola Djurkovic and Darcy McCormack, School of Business,
La Trobe
University
Gian Casimir, Newcastle Graduate School of Business,
University of
Newcastle
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 18, no 4, 2008,
pages 405–422
This study examined whether perceived organisational support
(POS) moderates the
relationship between workplace bullying and victims’ intention
to leave. Based on
data from 335 schoolteachers, a hierarchical regression analysis
using the product
term revealed that POS moderates the effects of bullying on
intention to leave.
Furthermore, a series of univariate regression analyses revealed
that the effects of
bullying on intention to leave were significant with lower levels
of POS but were
non-significant with higher levels of POS. Several implications
for future research
and policy are drawn from the findings.
Contact: Nikola Djurkovic, School of Business, La Trobe
University, Victoria,
Australia. Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
18. W
orkplace bullying is receiving increasing attention in the
academic
literature and has become a salient issue for organisations.
Bullying
reduces organisational effectiveness partly because it renders
the victims
more likely to both be absent and leave the organisation (Quine,
1999; Hoel et al.,
2003). Dealing effectively with bullying is therefore a major
concern for
organisations. Perceived organisational support (POS) refers to
the perception that
one is valued and treated well by the organisation (Eisenberger
et al., 1986). Despite
evidence (e.g. Quine, 2001) that various forms of workplace
support (e.g. support
from colleagues) moderate the relationship between bullying
and propensity to leave
the organisation, the moderating effects of POS are yet to be
examined. This study
therefore investigates the moderating effects of POS on the
relationship between
bullying and intention to leave by using a sample of
schoolteachers in Australia.
Workplace bullying
Several definitions of workplace bullying have been provided in
the literature.
Despite several definitions of bullying, there is a general
consensus regarding what
constitutes bullying (e.g. Einarsen et al., 2003). Specifically,
for a behaviour to qualify
as bullying, it must be perceived by the victim as oppressive,
20. Hoel, 1997) that
have considerable similarities. The Negative Acts Questionnaire
(NAQ; Einarsen
and Raknes, 1997), which is a commonly used measure of
workplace bullying
behaviours, has been revised by Hoel and Cooper (2000) to
comprise four categories:
(1) work-related harassment (e.g. persistently criticising the
victim’s work); (2)
personal harassment (e.g. spreading rumours about the victim);
(3) organisational
harassment (e.g. removing key areas of responsibility from the
victim); and (4)
intimidation (e.g. threatening the victim with violence).
Workplace bullying has several unfavourable psychological
effects on victims
(Fox and Stallworth, 2005), such as negative affect, depression,
low self-esteem and
suicidal thoughts (Einarsen and Matthiesen, 1999). There is
evidence supporting the
psychosomatic model of bullying, which posits that bullying
leads to negative affect,
which then leads to physiological problems (Mikkelsen and
Einarsen, 2002).
Consistent with the psychosomatic model of bullying, being
bullied has been shown
to be associated with physiological problems, such as
musculoskeletal pains, chronic
fatigue syndrome (Einarsen and Mikkelsen, 2003), headaches,
stomach disorders,
rashes (e.g. O’Moore et al., 1998; Vartia, 2001) and
cardiovascular disease (Kivimaki
et al., 2003).
Workplace bullying has widespread negative effects on
21. organisations because it
affects not only the victims but also those who witness the
bullying (Hoel et al., 1999).
Bullying adversely affects organisational performance in terms
of output, creativity
and innovation (Rayner et al., 2002). Being bullied at work also
reduces the
organisational satisfaction and commitment of victims (Hoel
and Cooper, 2000), and
increases both their absenteeism (Vartia, 2001) and the
likelihood that they will
contemplate leaving the organisation. Bullying, both directly
and indirectly, via
negative affect and physical symptoms, increases the intention
to leave of victims
(Djurkovic et al., 2004). Intention to leave has been found to be
a significant predictor
of turnover (Begley, 1998), which has substantial costs for
organisations (Cascio, 1987;
Waldman et al., 2004). It is noteworthy that some employees
leave their jobs because
they have been bullied. For example, in a UK-based study,
approximately a quarter of
victims left their jobs because they were being bullied (Rayner
and Cooper, 1997).
POS
Employees anthropomorphise their organisations according to
how their
organisations treat them (e.g. Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
After assigning
human-like characteristics (e.g. caring nature, considerate
nature) to their
organisations, employees develop a set of beliefs on the extent
to which their
23. be closely associated with senior management. Employees
generally rely heavily on
their supervisors’ orientation towards them as an indicator of
organisational support
(Eisenberger et al., 2002).
POS has been shown consistently to be associated with
outcomes that are
favourable to the organisation. For instance, there is evidence
that POS is correlated
positively to organisational commitment (e.g. Shore and Wayne,
1993), long-term
obligations, organisational identification among employees,
loyalty (e.g. Rhoades and
Eisenberger, 2002), in-role performance (e.g. Eisenberger et al.,
1986, 1990), trust in
organisations (e.g. Chen et al., 2005), organisational citizenship
behaviour (e.g.
Moorman et al., 1998), job satisfaction and intent to remain
(e.g. Stamper and Johlke,
2003). Furthermore, there is evidence that POS is correlated
negatively to
absenteeism (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 1986) and withdrawal (e.g.
Allen et al., 2003).
Workplace bullying and POS in the teaching profession
Occupations such as teaching have been suggested to be
particularly susceptible
to bullying (Randall, 2001). Indeed, it has been suggested that
the prevalence of
bullying among teachers in Great Britain is surpassed only by
the prevalence
among postal/telecommunications and prison staff (Hoel and
Cooper, 2000). There
is evidence that employees in the education sector of several
24. countries experience
relatively high rates of bullying (e.g. Australia: Vickers, 2001;
McCarthy et al., 2003;
Finland: Bjorkqvist et al., 1994; the Netherlands: Hubert and
van Veldhoven, 2001;
the UK: Lewis, 2003; the USA: Price Spratlen, 1995).
Furthermore, it has been
demonstrated that schoolteachers in China (McCormack et al.,
2006), Ireland
(O’Moore et al., 2003), the UK (NASUWT, 1996; Edelmann and
Woodall, 1997) and
the USA (Blase and Blase, 2003) have been targets of
workplace bullying.
A possible explanation for the relatively high rate of workplace
bullying among
schoolteachers lies in the nature of teacher output; specifically,
its quality and
quantity are difficult to measure, resulting in a high emphasis
being placed on
interpersonal relationships with both colleagues and superiors in
performance
appraisals (Hubert and van Veldhoven, 2001). The emphasis on
interpersonal
relationships in these types of work settings has also been
discussed by Zapf (2001).
The high emphasis that is placed on interpersonal relationships
in the teaching
profession may create an environment that is conducive to
bullying (Hubert and van
Veldhoven, 2001).
The teaching profession in Australia where this study was
conducted has
been characterised by increasing workloads and working hours
(e.g. Dorman,
26. For example, POS was found to have a significant impact on job
satisfaction and
career satisfaction among schoolteachers (Erdogan et al., 2004).
Specifically, POS was
found to buffer against or compensate for the negative effects of
low work–value
congruence. Schoolteachers with high levels of POS were found
to be satisfied with
their careers even in situations where there is low congruence
between their values
and those of the organisation (Erdogan et al., 2004).
Does POS moderate the relationship between bullying and
intention to leave?
There is qualitative evidence that the way in which an
organisation deals with
incidents of emotional abuse moderates the relationship between
emotional abuse
and its effects on victims (Keashly, 2001). Organisational
support strongly influences
systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work (Keashly, 2001).
For example, support
from co-workers and supervisors as well as the presence and
effective
implementation of relevant workplace policies helps victims to
cope with, and
respond to, abuse at work. Indeed, the effects of emotional
abuse on victims’
organisational commitment, productivity and turnover intentions
are attenuated by
organisational support (Keashly, 2001).
There is evidence also that instrumental support (i.e. support
from co-workers,
supervisors and management, such as assistance to complete
27. tasks) moderates the
effects of workplace violence on emotional well-being, somatic
health and job-
related affect, whereas informational support (i.e. training on
how to deal with
aggressive events at work) moderates the effects of workplace
violence on
emotional well-being (Schat and Kelloway, 2003). Specifically,
among victims who
reported low levels of violence, there was little difference in
emotional well-being,
somatic health and job-related affect between those who
reported low levels of
instrumental support and those who reported high levels of
instrumental support.
In contrast, among victims who reported high levels of violence,
the differences in
emotional well-being, somatic health and job-related affect
were greater among
victims who reported low levels of instrumental support than
among victims who
reported high levels of instrumental support. A similar
interaction effect was
found between violence and instrumental support with regard to
emotional
well-being.
Workplace resources (i.e. physical, intellectual, technical,
financial and social) have
been shown to moderate the effects of bullying on the
relationship between bullying
and three outcome variables (i.e. job satisfaction, depression
and propensity to leave)
Workplace bullying and intention to leave
29. Relationships that are
based primarily on economic exchanges tend to be instrumental
and short-term
oriented, whereas those that are based primarily on social
exchanges tend to lead to
deeper levels of trust as a result of a relational bond between
the parties. Social
exchange involves perceptions of mutual obligations (Shore and
Tetrick, 1991) that
are unspecified and that imply the reciprocity norm (Gouldner,
1960). Furthermore,
social exchanges tend to engender feelings of obligation and
gratitude, whereas
economic exchanges do not (Blau, 1964).
POS is an important type of social exchange that occurs
between an organisation
and its employees, because it indicates to employees that the
organisation is
committed to them and values them (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
POS should engender
feelings of obligation, gratitude and trust towards the
organisation, thereby resulting
in favourable outcomes for both the organisation and the
employees. High levels of
POS are therefore more likely than low levels of POS to make
employees feel
obligated to remain with and work hard for the organisation.
This rationale is
supported by, for example, the finding that reciprocation
wariness (i.e. a generalised
cautiousness in reciprocating assistance because of a fear of
exploitation in
interpersonal relationships; Eisenberger et al., 1987) was related
negatively to the
in-role job performance of retail employees when POS was low,
30. but was related
positively to their in-role job performance when POS was high.
The poor
performance of wary employees, stemming from their fear of
exploitation in social
exchange, was therefore mitigated by high POS (Lynch et al.,
1999).
It is posited in the current article that POS moderates the
relationship between
bullying and intention to leave the organisation for both
affective and cognitive
reasons. Specifically, it is suggested that POS cushions victims
psychologically from
the effects of bullying by conveying to them that the
organisation values them and
cares about their well-being. Additionally, POS involves
relational exchanges that
create an obligation for employees to remain with the
organisation based on the
reciprocity norm. The following hypothesis is therefore
proposed:
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between bullying and intention
to leave will be
moderated by POS. Specifically, the relationship between
bullying and intention
to leave will be stronger among victims who perceive low levels
of
organisational support than among victims who perceive high
levels of
organisational support.
Nikola Djurkovic, Darcy McCormack and Gian Casimir
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 18 NO
32. average teaching
experience was 18.2 years (SD = 10.0). A multivariate analysis
of variance revealed a
significant difference in age between teachers from the two
types of school and
non-significant differences in tenure and teaching experience.
For government
schools, the average age of the teachers was 45.3 years (SD =
9.0), the average tenure
was 9.8 years (SD = 7.4), and the average teaching experience
was 18.5 years
(SD = 9.9). For non-government schools, the average age of
teachers was 40.8 years
(SD = 9.5), the average tenure was 8.5 years (SD = 6.4), and the
average teaching
experience was 17.3 years (SD = 10.2).
Measures
Dependent variable The items used in the analyses are presented
in the appendix.
Krausz et al.’s (1995) scale was used to measure intention to
leave. The items in this
scale were modified slightly, however, to better fit the teaching
profession, as this
scale was designed originally for the nursing profession.
Specifically, ‘school’ was
substituted for ‘hospital’, ‘teaching’ for ‘nursing’ and
‘department’ for ‘ward’.
Independent and moderating variables Hoel and Cooper’s (2000)
revised 29-item
version of Einarsen and Raknes’ (1997) NAQ was used to
measure bullying. This
version of the NAQ has been used in other studies (e.g. Hoel et
al., 2004) and was
34. which they had been subjected to any of the listed behaviours at
their workplace in
the past 12 months.
Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) survey of POS was used to measure
POS according to
the procedure employed by Eisenberger et al. (1990), which
involved selecting the
nine highest loading items of the 36 items of the original scale
as determined in
Eisenberger et al. (1986). According to Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002), the use of
shorter versions of the POS scale is not problematic because the
original scale is
unidimensional and has high internal reliability.
Procedure
A package containing a copy of the questionnaire, an
information sheet with brief
details of the research and a prepaid return envelope was placed
in each teacher’s
school mailbox. This data collection procedure enabled
participants to complete the
questionnaire at a time and place of their choice, and it assured
them of anonymity
as they posted the completed questionnaire directly to the
researchers. All teachers
were informed that participation was voluntary and that no
individual or school
would be identified at any stage of the research.
RESULTS
35. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 12.0 (Chicago, IL). Of
the 335 respondents,
194 (58 per cent) reported that the main perpetrator of the
bullying behaviour was
of higher rank than the respondent, 87 (26 per cent) reported
that the perpetrator was
of the same rank, and 43 (13 per cent) reported that the
perpetrator was of lower
rank (11 missing data). In the majority of cases, the bullying
was vertical and
downward. This is consistent with most other studies of
workplace bullying that
have been conducted in Australia (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2003;
Mayhew et al., 2004) and
in various settings around the world, with the exception of
Scandinavia, where
research indicates that horizontal bullying (i.e. from colleagues)
is as common as
downward bullying (Zapf et al., 2003).
Table 1 contains the means, SD, correlations and internal
reliabilities for the
measured variables. As can be seen in Table 1, all of the scales
had acceptable
internal reliability, given that their coefficients were all greater
than 0.60 (Hair et al.,
1998). Bullying had a significant negative correlation with POS
and a significant
positive correlation with intention to leave, whereas POS had a
significant negative
correlation with intention to leave. Moreover, age and gender
both had significant
negative correlations with intention to leave, indicating thereby
that younger and
male teachers reported higher levels of bullying than did older
and female
37. harassment, personal
harassment, organisational harassment and intimidation), POS
and intention to
leave.
According to Hair et al. (1998), it is necessary to take sample
size into account
when determining the cut-off value for item loadings. They
suggested a cut-off value
of 0.30 for a sample size of 350. Additionally, Hair et al. (1998)
recommended
increasing the cut-off value as the number of items increases.
Based on these
recommendations, it was decided to use a cut-off value of 0.50
for the overall
principal components analysis loadings. The final overall
principal components
analysis yielded a five-component varimax solution comprising
organisational
harassment, work-related harassment, personal harassment, POS
and intention to
leave. The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 2,
and the final scales
are presented in the Appendix.
As shown in Table 2, the POS items loaded on the first
component, the work-
related harassment items loaded on the second component, the
organisational
harassment items loaded on the third component, the personal
harassment items
loaded on the fourth component and the intention to leave items
loaded on the fifth
component. Overall scores for each of these five constructs
were calculated by
averaging the scores of their respective items. The overall
38. scores were used in all of
the analyses.
Regression analyses
The effects of age, gender and tenure on intention to leave were
controlled by using
standardised residual scores obtained from regressing intention
to leave on age,
gender and tenure. The independent variable (i.e. bullying) and
the moderator
variable (i.e. POS) were standardised, and the product term was
calculated using the
standardised scores (Aiken and West, 1991). A hierarchical
regression analysis
TABLE 1 Means (SD), correlations* and internal reliabilities**
for the measured variables
Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1) Age 44.0 (9.4)
(2) Gender -0.22
(3) Tenure 9.5 (7.2) -0.02 0.05
(4) Experience 18.2 (10.0) -0.04 0.12 0.58
(5) Bullying 0.5 (0.4) -0.03 -0.16 -0.08 -0.01 (0.78)
(6) POS 2.0 (0.9) -0.02 0.12 0.07 0.11 -0.41 (0.93)
(7) Intention to leave 0.7 (0.8) -0.16 -0.10 -0.10 -0.01 0.40 -
0.36 (0.62)
* Significance: r > 0.09, p < 0.05; r > 0.13, p < 0.01; r > 0.18, p
< 0.001.
** Cronbach’s alpha for each scale is presented in parentheses
on the diagonal.
POS, perceived organisational support.
42. organisational harassment
and intention to leave (b = 0.02, p > 0.05) nor the relationship
between personal
harassment and intention to leave (b = 0.07, p > 0.05).
However, POS did moderate
the relationship between work-related harassment and intention
to leave: for the
product term, b = 0.09, p < 0.05, DR2 = 0.01. To more closely
examine the moderation
effect, the sample was divided into three groups according to
POS scores by using
the procedure described above.
A univariate linear regression analysis was conducted with
work-related
harassment on intention to leave for each of the three groups.
The findings from
these three analyses were as follows: (1) for the disagree group,
b = 0.28, t = 3.65,
p < 0.001; (2) for the neutral group, b = 0.32, t = 3.96, p <
0.001; and (3) for the agree
group, b = -0.02, t = -0.08, p > 0.05. These findings indicate
that the effects of work-
related harassment on intention to leave are significant for the
disagree and neutral
POS groups but are not significant for the agree POS group; that
is, the effects of
work-related harassment on intention to leave will be less
pronounced with high
levels of POS.
DISCUSSION
Workplace bullying was found to have a significant positive
correlation with
intention to leave, which corroborates the findings of previous
43. studies (e.g. Djurkovic
et al., 2004). A noteworthy aspect of this finding with regard to
the current study is
that the measure of bullying that was used did not include
extreme types of bullying,
such as physical abuse, being shouted at or threats of violence.
The positive
correlation between bullying and intention to leave reveals
therefore the substantial
impact that bullying can have on victims in that even less severe
types of bullying
are associated with victims thinking about leaving the
workplace (e.g. department),
the organisation, and/or the profession. This is of particular
significance to
occupational professions and groupings with shortages of
personnel. One example
is the teaching profession in several countries, including
Australia (Webster et al.,
2005), where the data for this study were collected. Education
systems and
establishments can ill afford to lose highly trained employees.
POS is a type of social exchange between employees and their
organisations,
whereby the employees believe, based on the way in which their
organisations treat
them, that the organisation values their contributions and cares
for their well-being.
Social exchanges lead to the development of loyalty, trust and
unspecified obligations
Workplace bullying and intention to leave
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 18 NO
4, 2008414
45. same individual. It
is possible, for example, that targets are assigned to different
roles against their will
by their direct supervisors while senior managers provide the
targets with the means
to perform the relevant tasks to the best of their abilities.
An exploratory examination of the relationship between the
three categories of
bullying included in this study and intention to leave revealed
that POS moderated
only the relationship between work-related harassment and
intention to leave. This
finding indicates that POS can lessen the impact of work-related
harassment on the
target’s intention to leave. It is plausible that POS is
particularly important in the
presence of work-related harassment because this type of
bullying behaviour relates
directly to the target’s work performance in terms of criticisms,
monitoring of work,
and reminders of errors and mistakes. In contrast, organisational
harassment may
relate more to systematic deficiencies in the organisation and
less to individual
performances while personal harassment relates more to the
target’s personal
characteristics, so leaving the organisation in such situations
may be the preferred
option of the target irrespective of POS.
Limitations and directions for future research
A limitation of this study is that it considered only one
dependent variable (i.e.
intention to leave). It would be useful for further work to be
47. behaviours in the teaching profession in Australia. Although not
all of the bullying
items were subsequently included in the final analyses, this is
not considered
problematic, as a target need be the recipient of only any one
(or more) type of
bullying behaviour provided that such behaviour occurs
frequently and over a
period of time (Leymann, 1990).
A distinction was not made between horizontal and vertical
bullying in terms of
the hypothesis development as this was beyond the scope of the
current study. It is
possible, however, that the role of POS as a moderating variable
could differ
depending on whether the main perpetrator is a colleague of, or
a superior to, the
target. It would therefore be useful for future studies to examine
this issue.
The cross-sectional design used in this study is a limitation in
that it does not
allow inferences to be drawn about the causal relationships
between bullying, POS
and intention to leave. Future research should consider using a
longitudinal
design that would better facilitate the drawing of causal
inferences. For example,
a future study might be designed such that bullying behaviours
are measured in
the first round of data collection, POS is measured in the second
round and
48. intention to leave in the third round. All of the data collected
for this study were
obtained from a single source (i.e. the victims) and via a
common method (i.e. a
questionnaire with Likert scales). Mono-source and common-
method biases
therefore may have increased both the measurement error and/or
the correlations
among the variables measured in this study. Although it is
difficult to prove that
such biases are not highly influential, the findings from the
single-component
principal components analysis, the other principal components
analyses and the
moderation analysis indicate that mono-source and common-
method biases were
not substantial in this study.
Practical implications of the findings
As noted in the Introduction, the teaching profession in
Australia has been
characterised by increasing pressures, for both teachers and
school leaders, that are
conducive to workplace bullying. That POS moderated the
effects of workplace
bullying on intention to leave provides insights as to how the
negative effects
of bullying can be countered. Although this study was
conducted among
schoolteachers, the results of this research can arguably be
generalised to other
occupational groups, as the variables that have been examined
are not unique to
schoolteachers. The findings indicate that one way in which
organisations can reduce
50. leaders act as role models for other members of the
organisation. Furthermore, when
informed of workplace bullying, leaders need to respond in
ways that demonstrate to
victims and other staff that the organisation supports them and
will not tolerate such
behaviour (Brodsky, 1976; O’Moore et al., 1998; Hoel and
Salin, 2003). Better still,
leaders need to proactively address workplace bullying and can
do so by developing
formal statements and policies that indicate clearly that bullying
is unacceptable
and that bullying holds serious consequences for the
perpetrators. Such primary
interventions play a critical role in preventing bullying
behaviours in the workplace.
In Australia, it is common for schools to have formal policies
on general staff conduct,
including workplace bullying and harassment. These policies
are developed on the
basis of the employer’s obligation to create and maintain a safe
and healthy work
environment. However, the actual application and enforcement
of such policies appear
to be largely at the discretion of the leadership team of each
individual school.
Specific ways in which an organisation can demonstrate that it
is supportive of its
employees include providing avenues for victims to lodge their
complaints and
ensuring that these complaints are acted on in ways that signal
to all employees that
the organisation will protect their basic human rights.
Furthermore, it is important
that organisations demonstrate that they are concerned about the
51. welfare of their
employees by encouraging them, from time to time, to come
forth should they have
any work-related or personal problems with which the
organisation can assist them.
An example of such an approach is the use of employee
assistance programmes.
Moreover, the organisation needs to address any such problems
in a sensitive and
supportive manner so that victims will realise that the
organisation is truly
concerned about their well-being. In addition to this, the
organisation needs to
follow up such instances with organisation-wide
communications informing all
employees that the organisation abhors the ill-treatment of its
employees. This type
of approach to dealing with workplace bullying would arguably
lead to the
perception among the vast majority of employees that the
organisation values them
and cares about their well-being.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
useful feedback and
suggestions, which led to improvements to the article.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. and West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, D., Shore, L. and Griffeth, R. (2003). ‘The role of
53. teacher stress at a Victorian primary school’. Australian Journal
of Education, 50: 312–327.
Cascio, W. (1987). Costing Human Resources: The Financial
Impact of Behavior in
Organizations, Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
Chen, Z., Aryee, S. and Lee, C. (2005). ‘Test of a mediation
model of perceived
organizational support’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66:
457–470.
Dinham, S., Cairney, T., Craigie, D. and Wilson, S. (1995).
‘School climate and leadership:
research into three secondary schools’. Journal of Educational
Administration, 33: 36–58.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2004). ‘The
physical and psychological
effects of workplace bullying on intention to leave: a test of the
psychosomatic and
disability hypotheses’. International Journal of Organization
Theory and Behavior, 7:
469–497.
Dorman, J. (2003). ‘Testing a model for teacher burnout’.
Australian Journal of Educational
and Developmental Psychology, 3: 35–47.
Edelmann, R.J. and Woodall, L. (1997). ‘Bullying at work’. The
Occupational Psychologist,
32: 28–31.
Einarsen, S. and Matthiesen, S. (1999). ‘Symptoms of post-
traumatic stress among victims
54. of bullying at work’. Abstracts for the XIVth European
Congress on Work and
Organizational Psychology.
Einarsen, S. and Mikkelsen, E. (2003). ‘Individual effects of
exposure to bullying at work’,
in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. Cooper (eds), Bullying
and Emotional Abuse in
the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and
Practice, London: Taylor &
Francis.
Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B. (1997). ‘Harassment at work and
the victimization of men’.
Violence and Victims, 12: 247–263.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (2003). ‘The
concept of bullying at work:
the European tradition’, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.
Cooper (eds), Bullying
and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International
Perspectives in Research and Practice,
London: Taylor & Francis.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D.
(1986). ‘Perceived
organizational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:
500–507.
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N. and Marvel, J. (1987).
‘Reciprocation ideology’. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 743–750.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990).
‘Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation’.
57. Howard, S. and Johnson, B. (2004). ‘Resilient teachers:
resisting stress and burnout’. Social
Psychology of Education, 7: 399–420.
Hubert, A.B. and van Veldhoven, M. (2001). ‘Risk sectors for
undesirable behaviour and
mobbing’. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10: 415–424.
Keashly, L. (2001). ‘Interpersonal and systemic aspects of
emotional abuse at work: the
target’s perspective’. Violence and Victims, 16: 233–268.
Kivimaki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera,
J. and Keltikangas-Jarvinen,
L. (2003). ‘Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular
disease and depression’.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60: 779–783.
Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., Shalom, N. and Elyakim, N.
(1995). ‘Predictors of intentions
to leave the ward, the hospital, and the nursing profession: a
longitudinal study’.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 277–288.
Lewis, D. (2003). ‘Voices in the social construction of bullying
at work: exploring multiple
realities in further and higher education’. International Journal
of Management and
Decision Making, 4: 65–81.
Leymann, H. (1990). ‘Mobbing and psychological terror at
workplaces’. Violence and
Victims, 5: 119–126.
58. Lynch, P., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (1999). ‘Perceived
organizational support: inferior
versus superior performance by wary employees’. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84:
467–483.
Main, K. (2007). ‘Conflict in middle school teaching teams:
friend or foe’. Australian Journal
of Middle Schooling, 7: 12–16.
Mayhew, C., McCarthy, P., Chappell, D., Quinlan, M., Barker,
M. and Sheehan, M. (2004).
‘Measuring the extent of impact from occupational violence and
bullying on
traumatised workers’. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 16: 117–134.
McCarthy, M., Mayhew, C., Barker, M. and Sheehan, M.
(2003). ‘Bullying and
occupational violence in tertiary education: risk factors,
perpetrators and prevention’.
Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New
Zealand, 19: 319–326.
McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N. and Yang, L.
(2006). ‘The concurrent effects of
workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and
satisfaction with co-workers on
affective commitment among schoolteachers in China’.
International Journal of Conflict
Management, 17: 316–331.
Mikkelsen, E. and Einarsen, S. (2002). ‘Relationships between
exposure to bullying at
work and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints:
the role of state
60. Management and Decision Making, 4: 82–95.
O’Moore, M., Seigne, E., McGuire, L. and Smith, M. (1998).
‘Victims of workplace bullying
in Ireland’. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 19: 345–357.
Price Spratlen, L. (1995). ‘Interpersonal conflict which includes
mistreatment in a
university workplace’. Violence and Victims, 10: 285–297.
Quine, L. (1999). ‘Workplace bullying in NHS community trust:
staff questionnaire
survey’. British Medical Journal, 318: 228–232.
Quine, L. (2001). ‘Workplace bullying in nurses’. Journal of
Health Psychology, 6: 73–84.
Randall, P. (2001). Bullying in Adulthood: Assessing the
Bullies and Their Victims, New York:
Brunner-Routledge.
Rayner, C. and Cooper, C. (1997). ‘Workplace bullying: myth
or reality – can we afford
to ignore it?’ Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 18: 211–214.
Rayner, C. and Hoel, H. (1997). ‘A summary review of
literature relating to workplace
bullying’. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 7: 181–191.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2002). Workplace
Bullying: What We Know, Who Is to
Blame, and What Can We Do?, London: Taylor & Francis.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). ‘Perceived
organizational support: a review of the
61. literature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698–714.
Roulston, K. (2004). ‘An investigation of music teachers’ work
in changing times’. Journal
of Educational Change, 5: 31–56.
Schat, A. and Kelloway, E. (2003). ‘Reducing the adverse
consequences of workplace
aggression and violence: the buffering effects of organizational
support’. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 8: 110–122.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shore, L. and Tetrick, L. (1991). ‘A construct validity study of
the survey of perceived
organizational support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:
637–643.
Shore, L. and Wayne, S. (1993). ‘Commitment and employee
behavior: comparison of
affective commitment and continuance commitment with
perceived organizational
support’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774–780.
Stamper, C. and Johlke, M. (2003). ‘The impact of perceived
organizational support on the
relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work
outcomes’. Journal of
Management, 29: 569–588.
Thomas, N., Clarke, V. and Lavery, J. (2003). ‘Self-reported
work and family stress of
female primary teachers’. Australian Journal of Education, 47:
63. leaders’. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42: 416–430.
Zapf, D. (2001). ‘European research on bullying at work’, in P.
McCarthy, J. Rylance, R.
Bennett and H. Zimmermann (eds), Bullying: From Backyard to
Boardroom, 2nd edn,
Sydney: The Federation Press.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C. and Kulla, M. (1996). ‘On the relationship
between mobbing factors
and job content, social work environment, and health
outcomes’. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5: 215–237.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Vartia, M. (2003).
‘Empirical findings on bullying in
the workplace’, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. Cooper
(eds), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives
in Research and Practice,
London: Taylor & Francis.
APPENDIX
Description of measures
Organisational harassment
OH1: Being given tasks with clearly unreasonable targets or
deadlines.
OH2: Being exposed to an unmanageable workload.
OH3: Systematically being required to carry out tasks which
clearly fall outside your
job description.
OH4: Being assigned a different role against your will.
