The present study investigated the protected grounds of discrimination and the risk of exposure to workplace bullying when being in a minority at work—feeling like a minority—or merely belonging to a protected group. Further we elucidated the boundary between bullying and discrimination. Based on a social identity perspective we tested hypotheses on the risks of bullying using a probability sample of the Swedish workforce. The results showed an increased risk of person-related bullying for employees who have a protected characteristic (OR = 1.87). When also feeling like a minority the risk increased substantially (OR = 5.13). Particular high risks were found for disabled and those from an ethnic minority. The risk is not merely a structural problem affecting all where bullying is construed from being treated unfairly as part of a wider collective; the results showed an increased risk of bullying of individual targets having a protected characteristic. To alleviate this requires a comprehensive approach involving policies treating it as an organizational issue, proactively as well as having safe procedures when problems surface. Creating more well-functioning workplaces will alleviate the problem for all, although to succeed those with protected characteristics would need particular consideration.

This study describes the development and validation of the Sexual Identity Disclosure Dynamics Scale (SIDDS), a new measure to assess the process of disclosure at work that includes the reaction of supervisors, coworkers, and clients to the disclosure preferences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees. The items were constructed based on the results of a previous study on sexual identity management at work drawing on boundary theory. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a sample of n = 285 LGB employees showed that the items of the SIDDS load into a four-factor solution: integration, segmentation, intrusion violation, and distance violation. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the preliminary model had an acceptable model fit to the data in an independent sample of n = 458 LGB employees. Data offered evidence of acceptable reliability in both samples (alpha = .75-.95), and measurement invariance was established between sexual and gender identities and between countries in which most of the participants were working. The developed scale correlated with measures that assess authenticity at work, climate of inclusion, segmentation preferences and supplies at work, and sexual identity management strategies, showing evidence of convergent and concurrent validity. Discriminant validity was established with the SIDDS being unrelated to task variety. The SIDDS can be used to understand how the reaction of the audience to sexual identity disclosure preferences impacts on the health, attitudes, and performance of LGB employees. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

This article focuses on the interactional dynamics which take place during disclosure of non-heteronormative sexual orientations at work. Since the disclosure might be considered a process through which lesbian and gay (LG) people share information about their personal life at work, Boundary Theory, which explores how people create boundaries between life domains, allows us to better understand disclosure dynamics. For this purpose, 39 Spanish lesbian and gay employees were interviewed. The results demonstrated that LG employees and their coworkers, affected by the socio-cultural context, are jointly responsible for the integration/segmentation of LG employees' personal and work domains, thus questioning the extent to which management of non-heteronormative sexual orientations is considered a strategic choice under the control of LG employees alone.

The place of humour in organisational interactions has been the subject of long-standing interest. Studies have considered the positive role of humour in increasing social contact and promoting group cohesion, while warning it can be a means for expressing hostility and excluding group members. However, more ambiguous uses of humour remain underexplored and under-theorised. Using a single case study of employee experiences at ‘Hillside’, a high-security prison in the UK, we address this gap. Adopting Julia Kristeva’s ‘theory of the abject’, we conceptualise ‘abject humour’ as a disruptive activity, which is composite, shady and sinister. We show that, despite Hillside’s adoption of Challenge It, Change It as a UK-wide safeguarding policy, the liminal spaces abject humour opens and occupies, are difficult to regulate. Those spaces trap both perpetrators and targets, and necessitate the use of avoidance, compliance, and retaliation strategies by the latter, as ways of coping.

Previous studies of workplace bullying have not investigated whether Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) employees experience bullying in similar or different ways to their heterosexual counterparts. This study reports on how and to what extent sexuality or sexual orientation influences the experience of workplace bullying and whether openness about sexual orientation elevates risks and shapes exposure to bullying. Using a large and rigorously compiled sample of the British working population comprising 500 non-heterosexuals and 722 heterosexuals (N = 1,222) and applying latent Class Cluster Analysis, a similar behavioural pattern of bullying for LGB employees emerged as for heterosexuals, although LGB employees were 1.34 times more likely to be bullied, and not being open about their sexual orientation elevated the risk of bullying. LGB employees were also more likely to be exposed to intrusive, sexualized behaviours and behaviours of an exclusionary nature. Altogether, this suggests that prejudices and stereotyping towards LGB people persist. Whilst being open about their sexual orientation did not make LGB people more likely to become a target of bullying as hypothesized, those who only reveal their sexual orientation when asked, were significantly more likely to be exposed to negative acts than those who were totally open. This indicates that non-disclosure does not prevent others at work making assumptions of sexual orientation, indicating that stereotyping of LGBs plays a greater part in disclosure than has previously been acknowledged.

This paper examines the views of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives on joking behaviours and the potential link to workplace bullying in Australia. Individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 10 HRPs and five employee (union) representatives. Contextual factors stemming from Australian culture and historic characteristics of work in this country are discussed. The findings indicate that the legal framework – specifically, the definition of bullying and related legislation such as health and safety laws and equal employment opportunity legislation – is key for HRPs in establishing whether joking behaviours transgress into bullying. Implications for HRPs including ‘boundary’ management of joking behaviours are discussed and some ideas for future research are presented.

The review explores key issues associated with discrimination and hostility faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people at work and organizational responses to it. Starting from a description of the main challenges facing LGBT workers' identity management, the review examines manifestations of negative attitudes towards gender and sexual minority groups, highlighting processes of subtle discrimination and exclusion. It presents and critiques dominant organizational responses to LGBT stigmatization, highlighting the need for holistic, intersectional approaches, and pointing out issues requiring further research.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the perspectives of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives (ERs) on the role of HRPs in managing workplace bullying. Design/methodology/approach Individual interviews were conducted with 12 HRPs and five ERs from a wide range of industries. Interview questions were open-ended and sought to gain insight on the views of the individual interviewees. Findings The findings address the role of HRPs in bullying scenarios and in the prevention of bullying. Regarding the role of HRPs in bullying, the responses of the participants suggest confusion and ambiguity, with a variety of roles being described ranging from a support-based role through to a protector of management. The participants also noted the importance of the HRP task of policy development, while a distrust of HRPs in bullying scenarios was mentioned. Regarding the effective management and prevention of bullying, the findings demonstrate that HRPs are viewed as having a central role through their particular responsibilities of creating and nurturing a positive organisational culture, as well as through engaging employees in the development of anti-bullying policies. Practical implications HRPs believe that they can contribute significantly to reducing workplace bullying through organisational culture (including educating staff and as role models of behaviour) and by engaging staff in the design of anti-bullying policies. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature on workplace bullying by examining within the Australian context the perspectives of HRPs and ERs on how HRPs can prevent and manage workplace bullying.

How do we explain the behaviour of employees who encounter workplace bullying but fail to intervene, or sometimes even join the perpetrator? We often assume that bystanders witnessing bullying will restore justice, but empirical research suggests that they may also behave in ways that continue, or worsen, its progression. Recent theories have attempted to explain the process of bystander behaviour in response to general mistreatment, but the range of acknowledged behaviours is limited, and their scope is restricted to isolated incidents rather than complex, dynamic phenomena like workplace bullying. We offer a new model of bystander behaviours in workplace bullying. We use sensemaking theory to explain how appraisals of severity, victim deservingness and efficacy influence bystanders to enact a range of possible behaviours, and how post-hoc sensemaking utilizing moral disengagement affects how bystanders appraise and respond to future bullying. We explain the influence of the social context on sensemaking and the reciprocal influence that individual bystanders have on the social context. Our model explains how bystander behaviours change over time in response to repeated incidents and how bystanders’ responses affect other bystanders’ appraisals and the bullying process, therefore providing a dynamic perspective on the role of bystanders in workplace bullying.

Workplace bullying is often seen as a two-party process occurring between perpetrators and victims. However, increasingly researchers are recognizing that other people are affected by, and involved in, the process of bullying. Organizations are social entities in which people typically interact with, and work in the presence of, others. As such, when workplace bullying occurs, other people may be party to some of the negative acts that perpetrators direct towards their victims. These other people, who we refer to here as 'bystanders', may play an important role in the development and continuation of workplace bullying, and may also be part of the eventual solution. In this chapter, we review research on the bystanders of workplace bullying and explain why good people do not always do 'the right thing'.

Perceptions of bullying and discrimination have been established to co-exist in many studies. Using arguments of instrumental, bureaucratic and economic rationality, we explain why many employees find it difficult to determine if their workplace experiences are purely due to discrimination or due to general mistreatment. Underpinned by individual, institutional and structural discrimination we explain how Social Identity Theory and Social Categorization Theory provide a base for understanding how bullying and mistreatment disproportionally affect members of different out-groups in organizations. To avoid inappropriate effects of social categorization, organizations need inclusive strategies that embrace tolerance. These should have a managerial as well as organizational cultural focus if organizations are to address the types of encounters that can end up being labelled as bullying and/or discrimination.

In this chapter, we summarize research findings on organizational risk factors of workplace bullying. In particular, we discuss risk factors associated with (1) job design and work organization, (2) organizational cultures and climate, (3) leadership and conflict management, (4) organizational change and (5) power and control. Overall, the studies reviewed provide strong evidence for the work environment hypothesis, that is, the notion that bullying largely stems from deficiencies in the work environment and in management practices. This also points to the importance of addressing underlying organizational factors if we want to reduce the risk of bullying.