Matrix Comparison: Workplace Bullying

1895 Words8 Pages
Running head: MATRIX COMPARISON: WORKPLACE BULLYING 1 Matrix Comparison: Workplace Bullying Fabian Solano Carrillo Grand Canyon University MATRIX COMPARISON: WORKPLACE BULLYING 2 Matrix Comparison: Workplace Bullying Bullying is defined as the evolving process in which an individual finds themselves in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts by one or more perpetrators (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2009). Bullying can take many forms, from gossiping and social exclusion, to more extreme forms such as physical violence. In time, this phenomenon leads to psychological damage in which an individual begins to feel a sense of worthlessness, leading to retaliation that is deemed justified by…show more content…
These individuals, arguably, may believe that the punishment may not fit the crime, therefore acting themselves and attaining justice as they see fit. In addition, besides taking personality into account, situational surroundings also play a key role in understanding bullying. Bullying itself is often easily identified by the victims, as researched in Articles 2 and 3. Article 13 takes a different approach by examining the phenomenon from a different perspective: from the perpetrator, the actual bully. While perpetrators of bullying may feel justified in their actions, Article 1 aims to focus more on the interpersonal conflicts that perpetrators face in relation to the situation they find themselves in. The study aims to focus on bridging the gap between individual and situational factors that may encourage an individual to act as a perpetrator, seeing how stressful work environments have long been assumed to create conditions that eventually lead to the bullying within the workforce (Hauge et al., 2009). There are not many studies from the perpetrator’s point of view, simply due to individuals underreporting their behavior, but analyzing a situational dilemma that results in deviant behavior (i.e. bullying) offers insights on what triggers a perpetrator to finally snap. Comparison of Population Each of the three articles depended on self-reported questionnaires in order to understand the phenomenon of workplace…show more content…
Selfperception affects an individual’s self-efficacy skills, therefore affecting how an individual will communicate their experiences. While self-perception is an important trait to take into consideration when dealing with self-reporting, it does however, as mentioned, affect the validity of the results due to individuals underreporting and over reporting their actions. Comparisons of Limitations All three articles discussed the limitation of self-reporting, more so in Article 1. While self-reporting is indeed a valuable asset, self-reporting at times is affected due to individuals underreporting their behavior, as well as over reporting it (Hauge et al., 2009). Underreporting occurs due to individuals being dishonest regarding their behavior, therefore causing an error in the research done. A possible solution to this limitation is focusing on observed behavior, and correlating the findings with the self-reporting behavior, therefore developing a conclusion that is more in-depth. Furthermore, Article 2 emphasized that other factors can influence self-labeling as a victim in relation to work-place bullying, not just anxiety and anger. In addition, discovering a moderation effect regarding negative acts of violence and self-labeling is hard to discover due to the psychological way an individual may experience an event. Lastly, Article 3 honed on the lack of variances of deviant behavior. This has the
Open Document