Association of Workplace Bullying and Workplace Vulnerability in the Psychological Distress of Chilean Workers.

Elisa Ansoleaga,Magdalena Ahumada,Andrés González-Santa Cruz

doi:10.3390/ijerph16204039

Abstract

Workplace bullying has been identified as a global problem because of its growing magnitude and the harmful effects in victims and organizations. Workplace vulnerability is a component of job precarious1ness that reflects insecurity, fear, and labor uncertainty. This paper aims to analyze the associations between the exposure to workplace vulnerability and psychological distress, and to explore the associations between exposure to workplace bullying and psychological distress, by sex. A cross-sectional and probabilistic survey was applied to a randomly-selected valid sample of 1995 salaried workers in three main metropolitan areas of Chile. Chi-square test and logistic regression models controlling for confounders were tested. Female workers were more exposed to workplace vulnerability and presented a higher prevalence of psychological distress. Among women who were vulnerable, one of three reported psychological distress (30.8%), which is higher than men (16.5%). Workers exposed to workplace vulnerability had a greater chance of workplace bullying, workers who perceived high workplace vulnerability had a greater chance of psychological distress, and workers exposed to workplace violence had a greater likelihood of psychological distress in comparison to those who were not exposed. Increasing employment security can reduce the perception of job vulnerability and help prevent the existence of workplace bullying. Additionally, occupational health protection policies should prevent, protect from, and intervene in workplace bullying as a precursor to mental health problems in Chile.

Highlights

Workplace bullying has been identified as a global problem because of its growing magnitude and the harmful effects it has in its victims.There are three main conceptual models of workplace bullying: an initial model, which emphasizes the individual characteristics of the aggressor and the victim, a second model, which examines the characteristics of the interactions between aggressor and victim, and the third model, which emphasizes social and organizational dimensions and culture [1]
The prevalence of workplace bullying following the criteria provided by Mikkelsen and Einarsen was of 9.8% among female workers, and 10.5% among male workers; 39.7% of female workers perceived workplace vulnerability, while 34% of male workers perceived workplace vulnerability; 18.2% of female workers reported psychological distress, while 9.6% of male workers reported psychological distress
Regarding the hypotheses presented in this study and despite the existence of differences among sexes, it can be stated that workers exposed to workplace vulnerability have a greater likelihood of being victims of workplace bullying when compared to those who were not exposed; workers who perceived high workplace vulnerability had a greater likelihood of presenting psychological distress when compared with those who were not exposed; workers exposed to workplace violence had a greater likelihood of presenting psychological distress, without considering confounding elements; and workers exposed to workplace bullying had a greater likelihood of presenting psychological distress, only controlling for workplace vulnerability

Summary

Introduction

There are three main conceptual models of workplace bullying: an initial model, which emphasizes the individual characteristics of the aggressor and the victim, a second model, which examines the characteristics of the interactions between aggressor and victim, and the third model, which emphasizes social and organizational dimensions and culture [1]. This last approach, proposed by Einarsen et al, has included psychosocial factors in the emergence of workplace bullying. Among others factors, it highlights: quantitative overload, emotional demands, work control and supervision systems, reward systems, and leadership styles [1,2,3]. Public Health 2019, 16, 4039; doi:10.3390/ijerph16204039 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion