Workplace bullying: measurements and

metrics to use in the NHS

Final Report for NHS Employers

March 2016

Prof Jan Illing

Mr Neill Thompson*
Dr Paul Crampton
Mrs Charlotte Rothwell
Ms Amelia Kehoe
Dr Madeline Carter

School of Medical Education,

Newcastle University 1

*Northumbria University
 Foreword

The aim of this report is to identify how workplace bullying can be tracked over time,
to indicate what measures and metrics can be used to identify change, and to
provide comparators for other sectors in the UK and internationally.
Bullying can encompass a range of different behaviours. Deciding on a definition of
workplace bullying can clarify what is regarded as bullying, but it may also narrow
the focus and exclude relevant issues of concern. For example, bullying definitions
typically state that negative behaviours should be experienced persistently over a
period of time. The threshold for behaviours to be defined as ‘bullying’ could be set
to include one or two negative acts per month over the previous six months; or more
stringently to include only behaviours that occur at least weekly over the previous
twelve months. Choosing an appropriate threshold for frequency and duration of
behaviours raises several questions: should occasional negative behaviours be
regarded as bullying? Would one or two serious episodes of negative behaviour be
regarded as bullying? Some researchers use the criteria of weekly negative
behaviours over six months to identify bullying, but others argue that occasional
exposure to negative acts can act as a significant stressor at work (Zapf et al., 2011).
We have identified a range of tools and metrics that can be used to track change
over time. However, there are a number of important issues to consider when
measuring bullying which may affect the interpretation of the results. In particular,
bullying prevalence rates vary considerably depending on the type of metric and
definition of bullying used. For example, one international review found prevalence
rates ranging from less than 1% for weekly bullying in the last six months up to 87%
for occasional bullying over a whole career (Zapf et al., 2011).
There are three main types of direct measures of bullying: self-labelling without a
definition, self-labelling with a definition, and the behavioural experience method.
Self-labelling metrics typically ask a respondent to identify themselves as a target of
bullying (e.g., “Have you been bullied at work?” with a yes/no response, or “How
often have you been bullied at work?” with a frequency scale such as
never/occasionally/monthly/weekly/daily). This approach is quick and easy to
administer, but is more subjective as responses will be based on the respondent’s
interpretation of bullying. This approach can be improved with the provision of a
definition of bullying, and a request to use the definition when responding. However,
following pilot work, Fevre et al. (2011) argued that respondents tended not to read
and digest bullying definitions as they had already decided what bullying meant to
them.
The behavioural experience method offers a more objective approach, but is typically
longer and more time consuming. This method involves respondents rating the
frequency with which they have experienced different negative behaviours (e.g.,
“How often has someone humiliated or belittled you in front of others?” with a
frequency scale such as never/now and then/monthly/weekly/daily). These
behavioural inventories may not mention bullying, but capture the prevalence of
2
specific negative acts, and a total score may be calculated. The threshold for the
frequency and number of negative acts, or a total score, required for an experience
to be regarded as bullying can be chosen by the researcher. Although this enhances
the objectivity of the measure, it may be that the respondent themselves may not
regard their experience as bullying.
In a meta-analysis of bullying studies conducted across 24 countries, Nielsen et al.
(2010) found an overall prevalence rate of 18.1% for self-labelling with no definition,
11.3% for self-labelling with a definition, and 14.8% using a behavioural experience
checklist. For best practice, it is recommended that both the self-labelling with a
definition and the behavioural experience method are used in bullying research (Zapf
et al., 2011).
It is also important to be specific about the type of bullying being measured. In
particular, if the measure is designed to capture bullying at work between co-workers
this should be explicitly stated, so that bullying from patients and their relatives is
excluded.
Interpretation of the results may also be somewhat complex. Although increases in
bullying prevalence should undoubtedly be addressed, we need to be mindful that an
increase in reported bullying may reflect a change in culture: changing expectations
of the behaviour of colleagues and managers, or a move towards greater openness
and willingness to address concerns that were previously ignored or condoned. A
measure of employees’ trust in the organisation to respond appropriately to such
allegations may act as a positive indicator.
The perceived and actual anonymity of responses is a critical factor. Employees are
understandably wary about providing sensitive information on bullying and have
voiced concerns regarding being identified and the potential repercussions of
reporting bullying (Carter et al., 2013). There is a considerable discrepancy between
the prevalence of bullying as captured in anonymous questionnaires and direct
reports of bullying made to the organisation (e.g., to managers or HR; Scott,
Blanshard & Child, 2008). Protecting the anonymity of respondents, and ensuring
that individuals cannot be identified, will be important factors in the administration of
a bullying measure.
Some metrics are already routinely collected by the NHS, and if examined closely
could provide useful indicators of change. Direct indicators include complaints about
bullying and responses to ongoing NHS staff surveys. Indirect metrics can be used
to capture factors that are associated with bullying, such as psychological wellbeing
(including stress, anxiety and depression), sickness rates, job satisfaction and
organisational commitment. However, factors other than bullying will affect these
measures. The prevalence of witnessed bullying could also be considered as an
important metric. A large proportion of NHS staff report that they have witnessed
bullying between staff, and this is associated with negative outcomes for individuals
and teams (Carter et al., 2013).
Comparing the NHS prevalence rates with other sectors in the UK and internationally
is complex. Ideally comparators would have used the same definition, measurement

3
method and reporting period, but the definitions and metrics often differ. Total
populations are the ideal, but are rarely provided. Single site studies are less
generalisable than multi-site studies, and total samples are preferred over open
invitations to unknown populations which may be more likely to attract responses
from those who have experienced bullying.
This report begins with several definitions of bullying, describes direct and indirect
measures of bullying, and compares the prevalence of bullying in the NHS to other
sectors in the UK, and to the healthcare sector internationally.

4
Contents
1. Definitions of workplace bullying ................................................................................................... 6
2. Direct Measures .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Formal complaints about bullying .......................................................................................... 7
2.2 The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) and Short Negative Acts Questionnaire
(S-NAQ) ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Bullying Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT; Hoel and Giga, 2006) ................................................ 11
2.4 Quine workplace bullying questionnaire .............................................................................. 12
2.5 Obstetrics and Gynaecology questionnaire (Adapted from Quine) ..................................... 13
2.6 NHS Staff Survey ................................................................................................................... 14
2.7 General Medical Council (GMC) National Training Survey (NTS).......................................... 16
2.8 Trade Unions, Professional Bodies and Charitable Organisations ........................................ 20
2.9 Witnessing bullying ............................................................................................................... 22
3. Indirect Measures ......................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) ................................................................................... 23
3.2 Sickness and absence levels .................................................................................................. 24
3.3 HSE Stress Management Standards Indicator Tool .............................................................. 26
3.4 Exit interviews ....................................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Other measures .................................................................................................................... 28
3. Workplace bullying in the UK: Comparison of Public, Private and Voluntary Sectors.................. 29
4. Workplace bullying internationally: comparators with UK health service ................................... 37
5. Summary and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 41
6. References .................................................................................................................................... 44
7. Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 49

5
1. Definitions of workplace bullying

There are many definitions of bullying and a lack of consensus regarding what is,
and what is not, bullying. The issue is further confounded by the subjectivity of the
target’s perception.
One definition that is widely used by organisations in the UK is the definition adopted
by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). ACAS defines
workplace bullying as: “Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an
abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or
injure the recipient” (ACAS, 2014).
Similarly, UNISON defines bullying as: “persistent offensive, intimidating, humiliating
behaviour, which attempts to undermine an individual or group of employees.”
A more detailed definition, incorporating the notions of persistence, duration and an
imbalance of power is offered by Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper (2011, p.22):
“Bullying at work means harassing, offending, or socially excluding someone or
negatively affecting their work. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be
applied to a particular activity, interaction, or process, the bullying behaviour has to
occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., about
six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person
confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic
negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated
event or if two parties of approximately equal strength are in conflict.”
A related definition of victimisation from bullying that has been adopted in recent
research (e.g. Glambek et al, 2015; Nielsen et al, 2010; 2011), based on Einarsen,
Raknes & Matthiesen (1994), stated that: “Bullying (for example harassment,
torment, freeze-out or hurtful teasing) is a problem in some workplaces and for some
employees. To be able to call something bullying, it has to occur repeatedly over a
certain period of time, and the bullied person has difficulty in defending him- or
herself. It is not bullying when two persons of approximately equal “strength” are in
conflict, or if it is a single situation”.

2. Direct Measures

Direct measures of bullying ask respondents explicitly about their exposure to

bullying and negative behaviours. As described in the Foreword, there are three
main types of direct measures of bullying: self-labelling without a definition, self-
labelling with a definition, and the behavioural experience method.
Each measure has strengths and weaknesses, particularly relating to relative
subjectivity and ease and speed of administration. However, it is important to note
6
that bullying rates are likely to vary depending on the method selected and the
perceived and actual anonymity of the responses. This section describes several
tools designed to measure bullying directly, including examples of all three
approaches.
We have focused on tools most suited to measuring bullying in the NHS, but it is
important to note that the examples provided here do not represent an exhaustive list
- other metrics and inventories are available. For example, the 60-item Workplace
Aggression Research Questionnaire (WAR-Q; Neuman & Keashly, 2004) has been
used as a bullying inventory. It asks respondents to report how frequently they have
experienced aggressive behaviours and the source of the behaviour (sample items:
glared at in a hostile manner; excluded from work-related social gatherings), but it
was regarded as too long for current purposes. The Leymann Inventory of
Psychological Terrorization (LIPT; Leymann, 1990, 1996) has also been used in
bullying research. Respondents rate how often they have been subjected to bullying
behaviours (sample items: you are silenced; others ridicule you), but similarly, with
45-items it is time consuming to complete, particularly when shorter inventories are
available.

2.1 Formal complaints about bullying

Formal reporting to organisations is typically much lower than prevalence rates from
anonymous questionnaires. Scott, Blanshard and Child (2008) reported that only
18% of their New Zealand sample had made formal complaints despite 50%
reporting some exposure to bullying. Cultural constraints are also likely to exist, for
example, Bairy et al. (2007) found 90% of bullying incidents were left unreported in
an Indian hospital setting.
Research has highlighted numerous barriers to reporting bullying, including the belief
that nothing will change or that the situation would deteriorate, not wanting to be
seen as a trouble-maker, the seniority of the bully, and concerns regarding career
repercussions (Carter et al., 2013). Although it is important to track formal bullying
complaints alongside other metrics, these complaints are unlikely to provide an
accurate representation of the scale of the bullying problem in an organisation.

7
2.2 The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) and Short Negative
Acts Questionnaire (S-NAQ)

Description
The Negative Acts Questionnaire - Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen et al., 2009)
measures the prevalence of 22 potentially bullying behaviours that can occur in the
workplace. Example items include: being ignored or excluded, persistent criticism of
your work and effort, and being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger.
The scale includes three main factors: personal bullying, work-related bullying and
physically intimidating bullying. Respondents rate the frequency that they have
experienced each of the negative acts in the last six months using a 5-point scale
(never, now and then, monthly, weekly, daily).
NAQ-R provides prevalence data for each of the 22 negative behaviours as well as
an overall score. The overall NAQ-R score can range from 22 (meaning that the
respondent ‘never’ experienced any of the 22 negative behaviours) to a maximum of
110 (meaning that the respondent experienced all of the 22 negative behaviours on
a daily basis). The tool uses behavioural language and avoids use the terms
‘bullying’ and ‘harassment’ in order to provide a more objective measurement.
Furthermore, the data may be used in multiple ways: 1) researchers can select a cut-
off criterion for bullying (e.g. at least two negative acts on a weekly basis over six
months, Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001) or derive a cut-off score using statistical
procedures, 2) use the total score for analysis (e.g. correlation, regression), and 3)
differentiate between respondents with different levels of exposure to bullying using
Latent Class Cluster analysis (LCC).
The NAQ-R was empirically developed and validated and has been widely used in
many countries (e.g. Hogh et al, 2012; Jiminez et al., 2007; Salin, 2001). It has well-
established validity and reliability and, unlike some other behavioural inventories
which may have been used in a small number of studies, the NAQ-R is the most
commonly used behavioural scale in the field of bullying research. However, with 22
items, the scale is somewhat time-consuming to complete.
A shorter, 9-item version has been developed (Short Negative Acts Questionnaire,
S-NAQ; Notelaers & Einarsen, 2008) and has been used to measure bullying in
numerous studies in several countries, including Belgium, Italy, Spain, Norway and
Jordan (e.g. Balducci et al., 2012; Hauge, Skogstad & Einarsen, 2010; Rodriguez-
Munoz et al., 2009). The authors of the Short Negative Acts Questionnaire (S-NAQ)
are currently working on a paper describing evidence of validity, but this has not yet
been published (Notelaers, 2016, personal communication; see appendix for items).
International studies have provided evidence of the validity and reliability of this
reduced scale in languages other than English, although the items have been
translated into English for publication purposes (see appendix for items).
Interestingly, the S-NAQ has also been adapted to measure perpetrator behaviour,
with respondents rating how often they have engaged in negative acts (e.g. How
often have you spread gossip or rumours about a colleague?) as well as rating how
often they have been the target of such behaviours (e.g., Baillien et al., 2015).

8
The NAQ-R and S-NAQ are often used alongside a self-labelling bullying question
(“How often have you been bullied at work in the past six months”) with the following
definition: “We define bullying as a situation where one or several individuals
persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of
negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of
bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We will not
refer to a one-off incident as bullying.” Responses are made using a frequency scale
(no; yes, but only rarely; yes, now and then; yes, several times per week; and yes,
almost daily) although some researchers have employed the response options from
the NAQ-R itself (never, now and then, monthly, weekly, daily). This provides an
overall measurement of subjectively perceived bullying.

Validation
In a study by Einarsen et al. (2009), the authors analysed NAQ-R data from a UK
sample of 5288 respondents, and concluded that the tool was a valid and reliable
measure of exposure to workplace bullying. The 22 items grouped into three factors:
work-related bullying, person-related bullying, and physically intimidating bullying;
but may also be used as a single-factor scale. The NAQ-R correlated with self-
labelled bullying and measures of mental health and psychosocial work environment,
demonstrating good construct validity. The test publishers report that the NAQ-R
reliability is typically between 0.87 and 0.93 (Bergen Bullying Research Group,
2010), and a study with a large NHS sample reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93
(Carter et al., 2013), indicating good internal consistency reliability.
One of the strengths of using this instrument for measuring bullying in the workplace
is that it can be used to distinguish between different groups and to assess the
severity and frequency of bullying; for example, from infrequent incivility to more
severe bullying. In addition, it measures the prevalence of bullying without
respondents labelling themselves as targets, although it is often used in conjunction
with a self-labelling question (Einarsen et al., 2009).

Examples of studies that used the NAQ-R

The NAQ-R has been used in numerous studies across different countries and
occupational settings. The Bergen Bullying Group has gathered data from over
40,000 respondents in 40 countries in a database and hopes to develop norm data
and conduct cross-cultural comparisons.
In the UK, Carter et al. (2013) used the NAQ-R to investigate the prevalence of
negative behaviours and workplace bullying in the NHS with a sample of 2950 NHS
staff across seven organisations. The study found that: 20% of staff self-identified as
a target of bullying; 43% reported that they had witnessed bullying, 18% had
experienced at least one negative behaviour on a daily or weekly basis, and 34%
had experienced five or more negative behaviours to some degree over the last 6
months. Directly experienced and witnessed bullying were associated with poorer
psychological wellbeing, lower job satisfaction, increased intentions to leave work,
and higher levels of self-reported sickness absence.
9
The NAQ-R was also used by O’Driscoll et al. (2011) in a survey of over 1700
employees across 36 organisations in New Zealand. They found that 18% of
respondents had been bullied, using the criterion of experiencing at least two
negative acts weekly or more often over the past six months. Exposure to bullying
was associated with higher levels of strain, reduced well-being, lower organisational
commitment, and lower self-rated performance.

Fevre, Lewis, Robinson and Jones (2011) adapted the NAQ-R in a large scale UK
study on ill-treatment at work (see appendix for items). Following extensive pilot work
and cognitive testing, they asked participants about their experience of 21 negative
behaviours in face to face interviews (n=3979). The negative behaviours grouped
into three factors: unreasonable treatment (e.g., someone continually checking up on
you or your work when it is not necessary), denigration and disrespect (e.g., teasing,
mocking sarcasm or jokes which go too far), and violence (e.g., actual violence at
work). The most commonly experienced behaviours were being given an
unmanageable workload or impossible deadlines (29.1%), having your opinions and
views ignored (27%), and being shouted at or someone losing their temper with you
(23.6%).

The short version (S-NAQ) has been used in a number of studies. For example, in
Belgium, De Cuyper, Baillien & De Witte (2009) used the S-NAQ to investigate the
relationships between bullying, job insecurity and perceived employability in a
sample of workers in the textile and financial services industries; and Stouten et al.
(2010) found that ethical leadership was associated with lower levels of bullying,
using a sample of electronics factory workers. An Italian version of the S-NAQ was
validated with public sector employees (Balducci et al., 2010) and has been used in
a study examining bullying and role stressors in the work environment with a sample
of healthcare workers (Balducci et al., 2012). In Norway, the S-NAQ has been used
to test the relative impact of bullying as a workplace stressor in a large
representative sample of the Norwegian workforce (Hauge, Skogstad & Einarsen,
2010).

Using the NAQ-R

The NAQ-R was developed by the Bergen Bullying Group
(http://www.uib.no/en/rg/bbrg). The website provides guidelines for free use of the
tool for non-profit research purposes. One condition of use is that anonymised data
are shared with the Bergen Bullying Group for the purposes of norm development.
However, the authors could be contacted to discuss use of the NAQ-R, or the short
NAQ, as a measure of bullying in the NHS.

10
2.3 Bullying Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT; Hoel and Giga, 2006)

Description
The Bullying Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT) was developed to assess the risk of
negative behaviour and bullying at the individual and group level. The BRAT is a 29-
item scale which measures experiences in the organisation over the previous six
months using a six point Likert scale (Strongly agree, Agree, Slightly agree, Slightly
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree). It consists of five factors: organisational
fairness, team conflict, role conflict, workload, and leadership. Example items
include: “New staff are made to feel welcome when starting employment in the
organisation” and “Conflict in my work unit is common,” see appendix for full scale).
The primary aim of the BRAT is as a risk assessment tool for identifying risk of
bullying at a group level, therefore informing decision -making and the prioritisation
of areas for management action.

Validation

Hoel and Giga (2006) developed the BRAT and concluded that it was a valid and
reliable measure of the risk of bullying. Each of the five factors independently
predicted negative behaviour (measured in comparison to the NAQ-R; Einarsen &
Hoel, 2001), whilst all factors with the exception of ‘workload’ predicted self-labelled
bullying measured with a global definition of bullying. The measure also predicted
negative impact on wellbeing (as measured by the GHQ-12; Goldberg, 1978).

The BRAT has not been widely adopted in the workplace bullying literature; to date
no research applications have been published, to our knowledge. The extensive
usage of the NAQ-R as a tool that can offer global and occupational comparisons
may be one reason for this lack of widespread usage, as well as the existence of
other generic measures of the work climate and environment. However, the BRAT’s
psychometric properties are of a similar standard to existing tools. The advantage
the BRAT could offer to organisations is that its purpose is to identify risk within the
organisation whereas the NAQ-R is largely a research tool designed to measure the
prevalence of bullying.

11
2.4 Quine workplace bullying questionnaire

Description
The scale includes 20 bullying behaviours taken from the literature and grouped into
five categories: threat to professional status (example item: persistent attempts to
belittle and undermine your work); threat to personal standing (example item:
undermining your personal integrity); isolation (example item: freezing out, ignoring,
or excluding); overwork (example item: undue pressure to produce work); and
destabilisation (example item: shifting of goal posts without telling you). An additional
item was included in Quine (2002) to measure racial or gender discrimination.
Respondents were asked whether they had been persistently subjected to any of
these behaviours in the past 12 months using a binary yes/no response.
This tool has satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81; Quine, 2001) and
enables the measurement of a wide range of bullying behaviours. The original tool
has not been as widely used in published research as the NAQ-R, but it has been
used as the basis of local surveys with trainee doctors (e.g. Obstetrics &
Gynaecology bullying questionnaire, see below).

Examples of studies that used the Quine workplace bullying questionnaire

This bullying scale has been used in three published studies by Quine with NHS
samples (Quine 1999, 2001, 2002).
Quine (1999) conducted a questionnaire study in an NHS community trust (n=1100,
70% response rate) to determine the prevalence of workplace bullying, examine the
association between bullying and occupational health outcomes, and test the
protective role of support at work. Results showed that 38% of employees reported
experiencing one or more types of bullying and 42% had witnessed the bullying of
others in the past twelve months. Those staff that had been bullied reported lower
levels of job satisfaction, and higher levels of job induced stress, depression and
anxiety along with a higher intention to leave their job. Support offered at work was
seen to help with some of the effects of bullying. Results of the study suggest that
the provision of a supportive positive work environment may help to protect people’s
health and wellbeing.
Quine (2001) investigated bullying prevalence, relationships between bullying and
health outcomes, and the moderating role of support at work in a sample of
community nurses in an NHS trust. Quine compared the experience of nurses
(n=396; subset of a sample of n=1100 across the trust) to other staff. The study
found that, within the 12 month reporting period, 44% of nurses had experienced one
or more types of bullying compared with 35% other staff. Fifty percent of nurses had
witnessed the bullying of others, compared to 36% of other staff. Nurses who had
experienced bullying reported lower job satisfaction and higher levels of anxiety and
depression with a greater inclination to leave their job. Nurses were somewhat
protected, up to a point, from the effects of bullying by support in place at work.

12
A third study by Quine (2002) surveyed junior doctors (house officers to senior
registrars, n=594, 62% response rate) who had been randomly selected from British
Medical Association (BMA) membership lists. The 21-item version of the Quine scale
(with the addition of an item on racial and gender discrimination) was used to
investigate the prevalence of bullying, alongside a self-labelling question with a
definition. Overall, 37% of respondents identified themselves as a target of bullying
on the self-labelling item, and 84% had experienced one or more of the bullying
behaviours from the Quine scale in the previous 12 months.
The study also identified that black and Asian doctors were more likely to experience
bullying than white doctors (45% compared to 39%), and that women were more
likely to experience bullying than men (43% compared to 32%).

2.5 Obstetrics and Gynaecology questionnaire (Adapted from Quine)

Doctors working in obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) have often raised concerns
about bullying and other undermining behaviour (Rimmer, 2014). The Royal College
of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) suggested that organisations should
consider proactive monitoring of data to identify patterns and outliers to help target
interventions, including the use of regional training committee surveys.

Description
In response to the national General Medical Council’s National Training Survey
results highlighting bullying as an issue in the specialty, the Northern Deanery’s
School of O&G initiated an annual trainee survey of inappropriate workplace
behaviour (Northern Deanery, 2012; Illing et al., 2013). Overall bullying rates failed to
indicate what behaviours were most problematic or reveal which units were
experiencing difficulties (Illing et al., 2013), therefore the O&G school adapted
Quine’s bullying questionnaire to measure specific bullying behaviours. Trainees
were asked to rate the frequency with which they had experienced each of 21
negative behaviours on a frequency scale (no, rarely, a few times, frequently). The
tool includes all items from Quine (2002; see appendix), with the addition of
“unwelcome sexual advances.”
The questionnaire also asks about the source of the bullying, whether trainees have
witnessed bullying, and where the bullying occurred. It includes free-text boxes for
additional feedback.

Application
The questionnaire was distributed to all O&G trainees in the Deanery and responses
were collated and anonymised by the school. The results for each unit were colour-
coded using a traffic-light system. Amber was coded to the unit if 1 or 2 trainees
13
reported issues (<15% of trainees in the unit), and red was coded if 3 or more
trainees reported issues. Units were then compared and particular issues were
identified in certain units. The results were triangulated with the GMC trainee survey,
the national specialty survey, and other local research. The results were then fed
back to each NHS Trust, before being made freely available to all of the participating
units. The school worked with each trust to address any issues. In the first year, the
response rate was approximately 50%, which has since grown to over 95%. The
data show trends indicating that units initially flagged as red have reduced bullying
behaviours over time, and are now flagged as amber or green.
The longitudinal nature of the data can enable schools to identify causes of
problems, not just identify that bullying is occurring. For example, negative
behaviours increased in one unit following a difficult period of short-staffing,
highlighting that pressure was being placed on trainees to cover additional shifts
(Illing et al., 2013). The cycle of monitoring and feedback has also raised the profile
of bullying issues and increased awareness of specific problematic behaviours in
particular units. This enables interventions to be targeted where they are most
needed.
Other specialty schools in the Deanery have adopted the survey and several have
reworked the behavioural items into a school charter (Illing et al., 2013).

2.6 NHS Staff Survey

Description
The NHS staff survey explores the experiences of healthcare staff in the UK. The
NHS staff survey is the largest survey of staff opinion in the UK. It is conducted every
year with a random sample of staff. The survey findings provide a valuable resource
for policy makers, managers, and researchers that can be used to gain insight into
the working conditions of NHS employees. The 2015 NHS staff survey involved 297
NHS organisations in England with responses from 299,000 NHS staff (41%
response rate). The contractors support NHS organisations in distributing and
gathering responses from staff which can be conducted online and/or on paper.
The survey results can be analysed and compared in many different ways; for
example by trust, region, demographic group and profession. Benchmarking groups
for the 2015 staff survey include: acute trusts, combined acute and community trusts
(new in 2015), acute specialist trusts, mental health / learning disability trusts,
combined mental health / learning disability and community trusts (new), community
trusts, ambulance trusts, clinical commissioning groups, commissioning support
units, social enterprises, and scientific and technical organisations (new).
The major strengths of the NHS Staff survey include the large sample size and its
availability as an existing tool that is publically accessible. However, it does not
target all NHS staff, as this would have huge cost implications. To address issues
14
related to differences in the profile of respondents, weighted data is available. This
helps to ensure that no organisation appears better or worse than others because of
occupational group differences or trust size. For example, staff in a certain category
level (e.g. band, profession) may respond more positively or negatively than other
groups to specific questions. However, when comparing results over time, it is
recommended that unweighted data are used, as the calculations for weighted data
vary year to year. All data reported in this section are unweighted.
The survey findings are broken down into 32 key areas, which include questions
about experiences of bullying, harassment or abuse from patients and from staff.
Questions related to bullying use a self-labelling format and no definition is provided.
The bullying questions have changed three times since 2009. In 2009, respondents
were asked two questions: “In the last 12 months have you personally experienced
harassment, bullying or abuse at work from…manager/team leader” and “In the last
12 months have you personally experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work
from…other colleagues,” both with a yes/no response option. Bullying from
manager/team leaders was reported in the survey by 8% of staff, and bullying from
other colleagues was reported by 12% of staff. In 2010 and 2011, a single question
combining staff groups was presented: “In the last 12 months have you personally
experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from…manager/team leader or
other colleagues” and 14% of staff reported that they had experienced bullying
(results were the same for 2010 and 2011). In 2012, respondents were asked: “In the
last 12 months how many times have you personally experienced harassment,
bullying or abuse at work from...managers/team leader or other colleagues” and the
response options changed from yes/no to a frequency scale (never / 1-2 / 3-5 / 6-10 /
more than 10). This format was retained for three years, and results indicated that
22% of staff had been bullied one or more times in 2012, 22% in 2013 and 21% in
2014. In 2015, the question was separated again and the survey found that 13% of
staff had been bullied by managers in the last 12 months, and 16% had been bullied
by other colleagues (item wording shown in the example below).
The NHS staff survey also asks about reporting of bullying, harassment or abuse,
but this includes bullying from patients and relatives as well as managers and
colleagues. Results have indicated that between one third and one half of the
workforce have reported bullying themselves (46% in 2009, 47% in 2010, 46% in
2011, 37% in 2012, 37% in 2013, 37% in 2014, 34% in 2015). Colleagues have
reported bullying, harassment or abuse for 7-8% of staff (7% in 2009, 8% in 2010,
7% in 2011, 7% in 2012, 7% in 2013, 8% in 2014, 7% in 2015).

Examples of workplace bullying questions from 2015 NHS Staff Survey:

In the last 12 months how many times have you personally experienced harassment,
bullying or abuse at work from...managers?

Response options: Never | 1 – 2 | 3 – 5 | 6 – 10 | More than10

15
In the last 12 months how many times have you personally experienced harassment,
bullying or abuse at work from...other colleagues?

Response options: Never | 1 – 2 | 3 – 5 | 6 – 10 | More than10

The last time you experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work, did you or a
colleague report it?

Response options: Yes, I reported it | Yes, a colleague reported it | No | Don't know |

Not applicable

2.7 General Medical Council (GMC) National Training Survey (NTS)

Description
The National Training Survey (NTS) is run annually by the GMC and explores the
experiences of trainee doctors working in healthcare. The results are used to monitor
the quality of medical education and training in the UK. All doctors in training are
asked for their views about their training (over 53,000). In 2016, the GMC plan to roll
out a new national survey of trainers alongside the existing doctors in training
survey.
The NTS findings can be broken down into: post specialty by trust/board, programme
group by trust/board, programme type by Local Education Training Board
(LETB)/deanery, GP scheme by GP group, foundation school by foundation scheme,
programme specialty by programme level, training group by country, country,
LETB/deanery, trust/board, site, and place of qualification. Benchmark groups may
include post specialty groups, programme groups, programme types, GP group, all
foundation trainees, all F1 trainees, all F2 trainees, and all UK trainees.
The GMC has recently changed how it approaches reports of bullying in the NTS. In
2015, medical trainees were asked three questions on bullying: two questions on
their exposure to bullying and harassment as a victim and a witness, and one
question on exposure to undermining behaviour from a senior doctor (see below for
item wording). The bullying questions did not specify that the source of bullying
should be another staff member, therefore they could also capture bullying by
patients and relatives. The undermining question did specify that the source should
be a consultant or GP. Due to issues with the interpretation of the results, the GMC
do not publish a breakdown of the bullying data in their online reporting tool. The
most recent published data (from 2014) indicated that 8.0% of trainees had been
bullied and 13.6% had witnessed bullying. Respondents were also invited to raise a
concern about bullying in a free text box which would be investigated by the GMC
and Deanery/LETB. In these cases, anonymity was not protected and the GMC
advised it could share information with other organisations (e.g. Royal Colleges),
particularly if there were concerns regarding patient safety.
16
In the 2016 NTS (currently open for data collection), the three questions on exposure
to bullying and undermining have been removed, although the option to raise a
bullying concern and initiate an investigation remains. A single question asks
whether the trainee has been a victim of, or witness to, bullying, and response
options include: Yes, and I wish to report it here / Yes, but I don’t want to report it
here / No. If trainees state that they do not wish to report bullying, they are invited to
provide a reason. The survey documentation explains the process for trainees who
wish to provide specific details of bullying experiences, and advises them that
anonymity is not protected. The new question format enables trainees to state that
they have been exposed to bullying without launching an investigation and
compromising anonymity. However, the single item conflates directly experienced
and witnessed bullying.
Following investigations into bullying and undermining, local organisations may seek
to implement interventions such as a workplace behaviour champion initiative or a
review of their policies. The GMC tracks deanery and LETB responses and their
progress in resolving issues. These mechanisms for escalation and ongoing
monitoring may lead to effective change in the working environment for trainee
doctor, although only 1% of respondents raise a concern in this way. An example of
how an organisation may use data from the GMC survey is provided by the School of
Paediatrics at the Northern Deanery (Northern Deanery, 2012). The GMC survey
indicated that trainees were sometimes experiencing behaviour from colleagues that
could be undermining, harassing or in some situations bullying in nature. This has
since been monitored by the School using a rolling feedback questionnaire linked
with Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) / Record of In-Training
Assessment.
In addition to the direct questions on bullying, the GMC has recently added questions
under the category of ‘supportive environment’. These items aim to capture positive
aspects of the working environment, as well as causes for concern (e.g., whether
staff are treated fairly and show each other respect; see below for item wording). It is
likely that these questions would act as an indirect measure of negative behaviours,
with low scores indicating a risk of bullying environments.

Examples of bullying related questions from the 2015 GMC NTS:

How often, if at all, have you been the victim of bullying and harassment in this post?

Response options: Every day | At least once per week | At least once per fortnight |
At least once per month | Less often than once per month | Never | Prefer not to
answer

17
How often, if at all, have you witnessed someone else being the victim of bullying
and harassment in this post?

Response options: Every day | At least once per week | At least once per fortnight |
At least once per month | Less often than once per month | Never | Prefer not to
answer

In this post, how often if at all, have you experienced behaviour from a consultant/GP
that undermined your professional confidence and/or self-esteem?

Reponses options: Every day | At least once per week | At least once per fortnight |
At least once per month | Less often than once per month | Never | Prefer not to
answer

Do you wish to raise a bullying or undermining concern here?

Response options: Yes | No

Your bullying or undermining concern:

Please use the text box below. Your comment will be taken seriously and
investigated. This means that it is your responsibility to:
- write factually and accurately about your own experience, not hearsay
- describe specific incidents
- describe specific behaviours
Once finished, please use the categorisation questions below.

Please specify who has been doing the undermining/bullying described in your
concern (please select all that apply)

Reponses options: Consultant/GP (within my post) | Consultant/GP (outside my

post) | Nurse/midwife | Other doctor | Other trainee | Management | Patient/relative |
Other (please specify)

Which behaviour types describe your concern?

Response options: (Please select all that apply) Belittling or humiliation | Threatening
or insulting behaviour | Deliberately preventing access to training | Bullying relating to
a protected characteristic | Other (please specify)

18
Examples of bullying related questions from the 2016 GMC NTS:
Have you been the victim of, or witnessed, any bullying or harassment in this post?

Response options: Yes, and I wish to report it here | Yes, but I don’t want to report it
here | No

Which of the following describes why you don’t want to report this? (Please select all
that apply)

Response options: The issue has already been resolved locally | I have raised it, or
intend to raise the issue locally instead | I don’t think the issue is serious enough to
report | I don’t think reporting will make a difference | Fear of adverse consequence |
Other

Supportive environment questions from the 2016 GMC NTS:

Please state whether you agree or disagree with the following statement about your
post:

In general, the working environment is a supportive one.

Staff, including doctors in training, are treated fairly.
Staff, including doctors in training, treat each other with respect.
The working environment is one which helps build the confidence of doctors in
training.
If I were to disagree with senior colleagues, they would be open to my opinion.

Response options: Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree |
Strongly disagree

19
2.8 Trade Unions, Professional Bodies and Charitable Organisations
There are many trade unions, professional bodies and charitable organisations
which carry out work to identify and measure levels of workplace bullying. For
example: the British Medical Association (BMA); the Advisory, Conciliation and
Arbitration Service (ACAS); UNISON; the Royal College of Nursing (RCN); Trades
Union Congress (TUC); and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
(CIPD). This work is sometimes conducted by the organisation themselves or may
be externally commissioned. The surveys tend to be anonymous and allow
organisations to gather insights into the work environment. The investigations often
involve surveys, interviews and a range of different question formats.
Although these types of initiatives are very important in gauging the prevalence of
workplace bullying, the size of the samples are often much lower than the NHS staff
survey. Also the purpose of the survey may be influenced by the current political
climate or organisational driver, and the sample may be limited to those who are
members of the organisation (e.g. UNISON) rather than a more representative
sample.

UNISON Members Survey

Description: UNISON, one of the largest public sector trade unions serving more
than 1.3 million members, has conducted or commissioned several staff/member
surveys to explore conditions at work. One survey has been repeated for the past
three years to explore experiences of nurses and midwives in the NHS. The survey
spot tests a typical 24 hour day among nurses and midwives (3,000 responses).
UNISON also states that local branches may conduct their own survey to gather
evidence on the scale and extent of bullying in the workplace and provides example
questions (see appendix).

Examples of bullying questions from the UNISON trade union survey:

Is bullying at work: (Tick relevant box)
A very serious problem? Yes / No
A serious problem? Yes / No
A minor problem? Yes / No
A non-existent problem? Yes / No

Have you ever been bullied at this place of work? Yes / No

20
What form does the bullying take? (tick relevant box)
Shouting / Threats / Abuse / Intimidation / Humiliation / Excessive criticism / Setting
unrealistic targets or deadlines / Altering targets, deadlines and so on / Excessive
work monitoring / Keeping you out of things / Victimising you / Malicious lies or
rumours / Refusing reasonable requests such as for leave / Other (please state)

Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Employment Survey

Description: The RCN employment survey has been conducted since the 1980s;
the 2015 version was the 25th in the series. The online survey was sent out to a
stratified random sample of the RCN membership and asked questions on a range of
work-related issues including pay, pensions, workload and staffing, training, and
views on nursing as a career, as well as questions on bullying and harassment.
The 2015 survey achieved a total of 4,137 usable responses, representing a
response rate of 6%. The 2015 survey report indicated that there is a significant
problem of bullying and harassment as 34% of respondents identified this as a
problem in their workplace.

Examples of bullying related questions from the RCN Employment Survey:

Agreement with the following statements:

Bullying and harassment are not a problem where I work:

I am confident I would be treated fairly if I reported harassment by a colleague*
I am confident my colleagues would be treated fairly if they reported harassment by
a member of staff*

Response options: strongly agree| agree| neither agree nor disagree| disagree |
strongly disagree
*Although these items refer to harassment, they could be adapted for bullying
specifically

21
2.9 Witnessing bullying
Measures of witnessed bullying may be useful indicators of the general prevalence
of bullying and the quality of the work environment. Exposure to bullying as a witness
is associated with poorer psychological wellbeing, lower job satisfaction and
increased intentions to leave, and research indicates that a large proportion of the
NHS workforce have witnessed bullying (e.g., 43% of NHS staff; Carter et al., 2013).
Many of the metrics available to measure bullying have been, or can be, adapted to
measure witnessed bullying. Several examples are provided below.

Examples of items measuring witnessed bullying

Single-item self-labelling metrics (Carter et al., 2013; Quine, 1999):
In the past six months, how often have you witnessed another staff member being
bullied by other staff at work?
Response options: Never | Now and then | Monthly | Weekly | Daily

Have you witnessed work colleagues being subjected to workplace bullying from
peers, senior staff, or managers during the last twelve months?
Response options: No | Rarely | A few times | Frequently

Example items from adapted NAQ-R:

In the past six months, how often have you witnessed other staff experience the
following negative acts from other staff at work?
Someone withholding information which affects their performance
Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with their work
Being ordered to do work below their level of competence

Response options: Never | Now and then | Monthly | Weekly | Daily

Example item from the 2015 GMC NTS:

How often, if at all, have you witnessed someone else being the victim of bullying
and harassment in this post?

Response options: Every day | At least once per week | At least once per fortnight |
At least once per month | Less often than once per month | Never | Prefer not to
answer

22
3. Indirect Measures
Bullying is associated with a range of other variables, some of which may act as
indicators of workplace issues. Examples include: poorer physical and mental health
such as anxiety, depression and helplessness (Leymann et al., 1990), suicide
ideation (Brousse et al., 2008), psychosomatic problems and musculo-skeletal
complaints (Einarsen et al., 1996), increased risk of cardiovascular disease (Kivimaki
et al., 2003), lower job satisfaction (Carter et al., 2013), and higher levels of
substance abuse (Traweger et al., 2004), sickness absence (Kivimaki et al., 2000),
medical errors (Paice & Smith, 2009), and intention to leave the job (Carter et al.,
2003).
These indirect metrics do not measure bullying specifically and scores may be
influenced by a number of factors not related to bullying. However, they may help to
identify problematic units and offer a broader insight into the risk factors for bullying
and impact of negative behaviour.

3.1 General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)

Description
The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1978) is one of the most widely
used measures of general mental health and well-being. The GHQ is a self-
administered screening questionnaire that assesses many of the health problems
linked to bullying, including depression, anxiety, social dysfunction and somatic
symptoms. The questionnaire focuses on breakdowns of normal function, rather than
assessing lifelong traits. It is therefore a suitable measure to use when exploring the
effects and occurrence of bullying. The GHQ is available in several versions (60, 30,
28 or 12-items) but the 12-item (GHQ-12) is the most extensively used version
(Lopez & Dresch, 2008). The GHQ-12 is very quick to administer (it takes around
two minutes to complete) and score, making it more suitable for research purposes
where time is limited, and it has comparable psychometric properties to the longer
versions. The GHQ-12 has been translated into many languages and extensively
validated in general and clinical populations across the world (e.g., Hardy et al.,
1999; Quek et al., 2011; Sterling, 2011; Werneke et al., 2000).
However, the GHQ-12 is not freely available and must be purchased from the
publisher. It is a proprietary scale and there are regulations related to publishing the
items.
The GHQ-12 focuses on the psychological components of ill health and refers to
recent mental states, rather than chronic illness. As discussed above, GHQ-12
scores may be the product of a number of different factors or other life events and
will not necessarily identify bullying or provide causal evidence that bullying has a
negative impact on staff. For example, Einarsen et al. (1996) showed that self-
esteem and social anxiety moderated the relationships between bullying and self-
report measures of psychological, psychosomatic and musculoskeletal health
complaints. Targets of bullying with high social anxiety reported more psychosomatic

23
symptoms than did targets with low social anxiety. Mikkelsen (2001) further
proposed that individual variables such as perceived locus of control, attributional
style and coping strategies are likely to influence the extent to which targets of
bullying develop severe health problems.
Finally, respondents need to be willing to disclose their experiences and mental state
in a survey (Hoel and Cooper, 2000).

Examples of use of the GHQ-12 in bullying studies

Hoel and Cooper (2000) conducted the first nation-wide survey of workplace bullying
across a number of occupations and industrial sectors in Britain (sample size: 5288),
including the NHS. They measured both physical and mental health, the latter being
measured by using the GHQ-12. They found significant relationships between
measures of bullying and health, including among those who were previously bullied,
with correlations between total score on the revised Negative Acts Questionnaire
(NAQ-R), self-labelled bullying, total GHQ score and intention to quit.
Carter et al. (2013) investigated the prevalence and impact of bullying in a sample of
2950 NHS staff across trusts and occupational groups. Bullying was measured with
the NAQ-R and a self-labelling item (with a definition of bullying), and psychological
wellbeing was measured using the GHQ-12. Carter et al. (2013) found that
individuals who were exposed to negative behaviours in the workplace (NAQ-R total
score) had higher levels of psychological distress. This included those who were
targets of bullying and those who had witnessed the bullying of colleagues.

3.2 Sickness and absence levels

Occupational health is becoming increasingly recognised in many NHS trusts, with

stress indicators such as sick leave being used to monitor the health of employees
and identify those who might benefit from appropriate interventions (Ritchie et al,
1999). The immediate financial consequences, relating to the costs that result from
an increase in absenteeism, are also recognised (Kivimaki, 2000). In terms of
indirectly measuring outcomes of bullying or bullying interventions, there is value in
routine monitoring of sickness absence data. Rayner and McIvor (2008) analysed
organisations that had high and very low levels of bullying. When addressing bullying
issues, they suggested that organisations should measure key factors in the initial
‘preparing the ground’ stage, including bullying, sickness, early leavers, formal
complaints, and staff attitude surveys. Illing et al. (2013) further highlighted the need
for proactive monitoring of organisational data, such as sickness, which can identify
patterns and outliers to help target interventions where they are needed. Kivimaki et
al. (2000; 2003) and Voss et al. (2001) also reported that workplace bullying was
related to a 25% to 90% increase in the risk of recorded sickness absence, and
around 2% of all absences within one hospital setting were due to bullying (Kimivaki
24
et al., 2000). Another study has reported that the risk of long-term sickness absence
(six weeks or more) was double for frequently bullied care workers, compared to
non-bullied staff (Ortega et al, 2011).
Sickness absence records are collected routinely by the personnel departments in
many workplaces, therefore the data should be readily available. Using this objective
data will minimise potential recall and response set biases that are associated with
self-reported indicators of health. Bullying has been found to be associated more
strongly with medically certified sickness absence (more than three days absence)
than with self-certified sickness absence (Farquharson, 2012) and self-reported
absenteeism (Kivimaki, 2000). Sickness absences can accurately reflect the health
of working populations, at least in terms of physical and social functioning.
However, there are a number of limitations to the use of sickness absence data.
Controversy exists about the status of sickness absence as a global measure of
health. Rates of bullying are not always directly measured alongside sickness rates
(Illing et al, 2013). Even when bullying rates are measured, causal relationships
cannot be assumed (Carter et al, 2013). It is possible that those with higher sickness
absence are more likely to be bullied or that they are more likely to perceive
behaviour to be bullying. Understanding whether bullying will lead to ill health and
sickness absence can only be addressed by longitudinal studies that are able to
investigate the causal relations between work factors and health outcomes and by
randomised controlled trials of interventions (Michie, 2003). Even when explored,
respondents may be reluctant to discuss causes of absence (Ritchie et al, 1999).
Although bullying is frequently associated with sickness absence (Ortega et al, 2011;
Voss et al, 2001), presenteeism (attending work when sick) may also occur in targets
of bullying. They may attend work to avoid being labelled as a malingerer, even
when it may be beneficial to be absent from work (Hoel & Einarsen, 2011).
Socioeconomic status can also impact on this (Ritchie et al, 1999). Underreporting of
absence among the medical profession is also reported (Ritchie, 1999). Sickness
rates may be due to other reasons, for example a physical illness, whilst certified
absences may also be a byproduct of the medical care process (Kivimaki, 2003).
Employees may also take sick leave without actual illness.

Examples of use of sickness absence rates in bullying studies

Sickness rates may be one of the more obtainable forms of ‘objective’ data. Hoel and
Giga (2006) sought to measure the potential efficacy of bullying interventions, and
asked organisations to provide some ‘objective’ pre/post intervention data. Of the
five participating organisations, complete data was available from four organisations
for sickness absenteeism, whilst turnover rates were more difficult to obtain, with
only two organisations providing complete records at both points of measurement.
Carter et al. (2011) also used sickness rates in their study to measure the impact of
bullying, however these were self-reported. The majority of respondents said none of
their sick leave was due to work-related stress or bullying, but 11% felt that at least
some sick leave was due to stress, and 5% felt that at least some sick leave was due
25
to bullying. Self-reported measures of sickness rates may be less reliable than
medically certified absence. However, exposure to bullying and negative behaviours
was associated with higher sickness absence, along with other factors (Carter et al,
2013).

3.3 HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool

In tackling the risk of workplace stress, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
developed a Management Standards approach (Mackey et al, 2004) based on a
taxonomy of six stressors – demands, control, support, relationships, role and
change. The Management Standards risk assessment process involves a two pass
process: firstly, broad areas of potential concern are identified, then specific issues
explored with a view to providing targeted and effective interventions. To undertake
this, an indicator tool was developed.
The indicator tool comprises 35 items and 7 subscales. Each subscale represents
one of the demands, with the exception of social support which is divided into
managerial support and peer support. Within the ‘Relationships’ subscale a number
of items relate to bullying, including: “I am subject to bullying at work,” “There is
friction or anger between colleagues,” and “I am subject to personal harassment in
the form of unkind words or behaviour.”
Across the UK, the HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool is widely used and
constitutes an accessible resource for proactively tackling stress. The limited focus
on 2-3 questions specific to bullying might diminish the scope it offers in providing
detailed insight into bullying. Therefore it may be more appropriate as a first pass
tool alongside use of a more robust, bullying-specific measure as a follow up in order
to understand workplace problems in more depth.

Validation
Edwards et al. (2008) conduced a large scale analysis of the Indicator Tool by
collecting data from 39 different organisations (n=26,382). A confirmatory factor
analysis found a fit between the data and the tool. Toderi et al. (2013) recently found
further supporting evidence in both UK and Italian versions of the tool that the data
fits into the proposed seven factor model. In contrast, Glozier and Wright (2005)
questioned some of the tool’s properties. In a moderate sample of employees
(n=235) it was concluded there was a lack of sensitivity in identifying stress risk,
therefore heightening the possibility of an underestimation of stress. Brookes et al.’s
(2013) recent systematic review of the utilisation of the HSE indicator concluded that
it is a psychometrically sound measure.

26
Examples of use of the HSE tool
Bevan, Houdmont, and Menear (2010) examined the utility of the tool in prison
workers (n=1038). The tool was employed as a means to identify areas requiring
improvement and to prioritise areas for action. Kerr, McHugh, and McCory (2009)
used the HSE Management Standards within a community-based Health and Social
Services Trust (n=707) alongside measures of key outcomes such as near misses
and errors, which demonstrated utility in a healthcare setting.

Houdmont, Kerr and Randall (2012) implemented the HSE Management Standards
in the UK police (n=1729) and developed reference values that could be used for
benchmarking and intervention-targeting purposes, and against which progress in
reducing exposure could be assessed.

3.4 Exit interviews

A number of studies have recognised the relationship between exposure to bullying

and intention to leave the organisation (e.g. Hogh et al., 2011). Simon (2008) found
that bullying was a significant determinant of intention to leave in newly qualified
nurses in the US, and Hogh et al (2011) found a similar relationship in a Danish
study. These findings indicate that targets of bullying may seek to leave the
organisation, and capturing the role of bullying as a reason for departure may have
some potential.
Exit interviews are discussions between a departing employee and employer,
designed to obtain information about their employment experience and motivations
for leaving (Evans, 2006). Such interviews may provide information to help
organisations reduce the cost of future turnover.
However, the evidence base for the efficacy of exit interviews is limited, particularly
for bullying issues. Knouse et al. (1996) found that attitudes towards supervisors
influenced employee willingness to discuss general issues during exit interviews.
Feinberg and Jeppeson (2000) found differences when they compared reasons for
leaving provided in an exit interview with a follow up survey and concluded that the
information given in exit interviews was not valid. The effectiveness is further
impaired as frequently organisations fail to use exit interview information for any real
purpose (Johns and Johnson, 2005). To date, research on exit interviews has not
investigated their use as a bullying metric.

27
3.5 Other measures

There are many measures which may be associated with workplace bullying and
could highlight areas of concern. Detailed discussion is beyond the scope of the
current report, but measures of the work environment, culture and climate may
identify problematic units and are likely to be negatively associated with bullying. For
example, Hall, Dollard & Coward (2010) developed a 12-item measure of
psychosocial safety climate (PSC-12) which measures domains such as
management commitment, management priority, organisational communication, and
organisational participation that are relevant to employee psychological safety and
health, and might act as a proxy indicator of the risk of bullying. PSC-12 was found
to be negatively related to bullying (Law et al., 2011).
At a team level, the Aston Team Performance Indicator (ATPI; West, Markiewicz and
Dawson, 2006) measures elements of team work such as team tasks, processes,
effectiveness, member satisfaction, and attachments. For example, conflict and
member participation are measured as facets of team processes. High conflict and
low participation of members could also be indicators of the presence of workplace
bullying. These areas have not received extensive empirical research, therefore the
utility for use in the NHS would be difficult to judge without further studies
As described in section 2.7, the GMC has recently added several items measuring
‘supportive environment’ to their annual trainee survey, which could act as useful
indirect bullying metrics. These items give trainees the opportunity to rate aspects of
the working environment, including whether staff are treated fairly and show each
other respect.
The NHS staff survey also captures additional relevant data, such as manager
behaviour (support, valuing work, feedback, etc) and whether staff have felt unwell
due to work-related stress.

28
3. Workplace bullying in the UK: Comparison of Public, Private and
Voluntary Sectors

This section focuses on levels of workplace bullying outside of the NHS, using
examples from other sectors in the UK. Workplace bullying prevalence in the NHS is
compared to public, private and voluntary sectors, to enable NHS system and local
organisations to benchmark themselves.

The prevalence of workplace bullying in the NHS

Workplace bullying is a significant problem in the NHS, evidenced from a range of
sources: the NHS staff survey (2015) found that 13% of staff had been bullied by
managers and 16% had been bullied by other colleagues in the last 12 months
(sample size: 299,000). In a study of seven NHS Trusts, Carter et al. (2013) reported
that 20% of NHS staff had been bullied to some degree (from rarely to daily) by other
staff, and 43% had witnessed bullying, in the last 6 months (sample size: 2950).
Lastly, in a recent survey of medical trainees the General Medical Council (2014)
found that 8% of trainees had been bullied (sample size: 49,994) and 14% had
witnessed bullying.

General Population
A large scale study on the experience of ill-treatment at work was conducted by
Fevre et al. (2011). The authors collected data from 4000 members of the public in
face-to-face interviews in their own homes. The respondents were asked about
exposure to ill-treatment at work using a modified form of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire (NAQ), but they were not directly asked if they had been bullied (see
appendix for items). Fevre et al. found that 40% of respondents reported
experiencing incivility at work within the last two years. However, 22.3% reported
being treated in a disrespectful or rude way, 29.1% had been given an
unmanageable work load, 14.7% had been insulted or had offensive remarks made
about them, and 4.9% had experienced physical violence at work.
Experiencing both unreasonable treatment and incivility and disrespect was found to
be more common in the public sector. Hotspots of risk were identified in public
administration and defence, and health and social work.
Perpetrators of unreasonable treatment and incivility were more likely to have
managerial duties, be full-timers, work in associate professional and technical jobs,
have very intense work, experience organisational change or not think their
organisation cared for individuals or their principles. Self-identified perpetrators of
incivility and disrespect were characterised as having managerial duties, permanent
jobs, at least 3-4 years tenure and be high earners.

An online survey of over 2000 workers commissioned by employment law specialists

Slater and Gordon (2015) found that 37% of employees reported they had been
bullied and a further 21% had witnessed bullying. The issues identified in the report
were tight deadlines, personality clashes and office politics. Ten percent of
respondents reported they had heard racist insults and approximately 17%
29
witnessed a co-worker being subjected to inappropriate sexual remarks. Childish
pranks were seen by 24% of those surveyed while one in 15 saw their colleague’s
work being sabotaged, and 5% percent had witnessed physical violence between
workmates.

Bullying was mainly disguised as ‘workplace banter’ in 56% of cases and 68% said
the behaviour was ‘subtle’ e.g. not inviting colleagues to join work drinks lunches
and meetings.

Public sector

Research commissioned by UNISON (2011) highlighted that 35% of staff employed

in the public sector reported bullying. The percentage reported varied slightly within
the sector. The main perpetrator was someone working at a more senior level (74%).
The common behaviours reported were: rude and disrespectful behaviour, setting
unrealistic targets, isolation/exclusion, excessive work monitoring and criticism,
withholding information and intimidation. Similar rates of 31-36% were reported
across a range of workplaces.

In 2015, UNISON conducted an online survey of the police. The survey was
completed by 1,015 police officers across England (84%), Scotland (10%) and
Wales (6%). The majority who completed the survey were female (60%). When
asked if they were currently being bullied, 16% said yes; and 59% had witnessed
colleagues being bullied. The main types of behaviour reported were humiliation
(63%), excessive criticism (56%), victimisation (42%), exclusion (41%), excessive
monitoring (40%), setting unrealistic targets (37%), and intimidation (37%). The main
causes identified were poor management (73%), workplace culture (47%), staff cuts
(36%), inadequate managerial training (36%) and stressed managers (30%). When
asked if they had ever been bullied in their current workplace, 53% said yes, an
increase since 2002 (28%). In the Hoel and Cooper (2000) study (discussed below)
the percentage who reported being a victim of bullying was lower. It is possible that
the variation in prevalence may reflect the rank of the police officer, which was not
reported by Hoel and Cooper.

Further education and higher educational institutions in Wales

Lewis (1999) reported on workplace bullying in further education and higher

educational institutions in Wales. The survey targeted members of the College and
University lecturers' trade union NATFHE in Wales. Members were sampled from
both further and higher education covering 32 different institutions. A list of 3,612
members were targeted and a 50% response rate was achieved. Eighteen percent of
respondents reported they had directly experienced bullying.

30
Table 1: A summary of studies conducted in the UK (prevalence, sector, type
of study and authors)

Prevalence of Type of study and numbers Authors

Sector bullying in
previous 6
months or
more
General 18% in last 6 Respondents were asked to Lewis (1999)
population months tick their workplace
experience of bullying based
37% ever on whether they had suffered
bullied from an event
Union members

British citizens 37% ever Online survey 2000 British Slater and Gordon
bullied workers (2015)

Response to online survey

on bullying no definition and
no measurement tool
Sectors
Combined

British workplace 33% in last 24 3979 Fevre et al. (2011)

behavior survey months face to face interviews at
home. Used Negative Acts
65% (2587) private Questionnaire
sector; 33% (1298)
public sector;
2.4% (94) third
sector

Public Sector 35% Online survey by UNISON The Centre for

Organisation
Local government 36% Response to online survey, Research and
no definition, no Development
Higher education 32% measurement tool (CORD) at
Portsmouth
Further education 33% Business School
during May 2011.
Police 31%

School 35%

31
 Prevalence of Type of study and numbers Authors
Sector bullying in
previous 6
months or
more
Police 71% (in last Online survey Unison (2015)
month or 1,015
more) 83% non-managerial
Response to online survey,
no definition, no
measurement tool

Voluntary sector 15% in 71% response rate (n= 178) Dawood, Shariffah,
previous year Questionnaire not identified Rahah Sheik (2013)
29 voluntary (assume researchers devised
organisations in it)
Leicester
Private Sector 15% Questionnaire Cowie et al (2000)
386/total not provided
Large international Workplace Relationships
company Questionnaire (WRQ) a 54-
item self-completion
questionnaire to measure
bullying.

Voluntary sector

A study of 29 voluntary organisations was conducted by Dawood et al. (2013). They

explored the nature and prevalence of workplace bullying in the voluntary sector.
The study was conducted across 29 voluntary organisations in one city, Leicester.
The findings were based on 178 questionnaires (response rate = 71%). Fifteen per
cent of the respondents reported being bullied over the previous year and 28% in the
previous five years.

Mixed sector survey

It is quite challenging to interpret different prevalence rates across sectors when they
have used different reporting periods and different measurements and methods.
However, a study by Hoel and Cooper (2000) investigated bullying across all
sectors. The large survey included 12,350 employees across Great Britain but
excluding Northern Ireland and received 5,300 returned surveys providing a usable
response rate of 43 per cent. The survey involved employees across the private,
public and voluntary sectors. They identified a broad sample of 200 organisations, 70
agreed to take part in the survey. Taken together these organisations employed just
under one million employees.

32
The study adopted a definition used by Einarsen and Skogstad (1996). “We define
bullying as a situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of
time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or
several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending
him or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as
bullying.”

The age range of the sample followed a normal distribution with a mean age of 43.
There was also an even gender split (52% men and 48% women). The respondents
posted their questionnaire directly back to the researchers.

The sample included populations from across the public, private and voluntary
sectors. In this survey the NHS trust staff were in the middle of the table for
workplace bullying at 11%. Some of the lowest reported prevalence was in the
private sector, with the public sector reporting some of the highest rates.

Table 2: Hoel and Cooper survey sample

Area of work Total sample Returned quests. Response rate %

NHS Trusts 1,069 535 50.5
Post/Telecom. 1,000 273 27.3

Civil Service 250 141 56.4

Higher Educ. 1,072 487 45.4
Teaching 1,000 426 42.6
Local Authority 924 388 42.0
Manufact./Eng. 177 82 46.3
Manufact. IT 475 189 39.8
Brewing 160 68 42.5
Pharmaceutic 350 197 56,3
(Total manufct.) (1,162) (536) (46.1)
Hotels 493 163 32.7
Retailing 855 354 41.4
Banking 820 262 32.0
Voluntary Org. 317 123 38.8
Dance 196 85 43.4
Police Service 10000 483 48.3
Fire Service 1,167 520 44,6
Prison 1,000 471 47,1
Total sample 12,350 5,288 42.8%
(Permission gained to reproduce this table)

33
 Table 3: Hoel and Cooper study, Prevalence of bullying - per sector

Not bullied Occasionally Bullied Regularly bullied Total bullied Sector

Sector
n %n % n % % n
Post/Telecom. 222 83.8 30 11.3 13 4.9 16.2 265
Prison 389 83.8 68 14.7 7 1.5 16.2 464
Teaching 356 84.4 63 14.9 3 0.7 15.6 422
Other 12 85.7 1 7.1 1 7.1 14.3 14
Dance 73 85.9 12 14.1 0 0.0 14.1 85
Police Service 423 87.9 47 9.8 11 2.3 12.1 481
Voluntary Org. 108 89.3 12 9.9 1 0.8 10.7 121
Banking 228 88.4 27 10.5 3 1.2 11.6 258
NHS Trusts 474 89.4 44 8.3 12 2.3 10.6 530
Local Authority 342 89.5 39 10.2 1 0.3 10.5 382
Civil Service 127 90.1 12 8.5 2 1.4 9.9 141
Fire Service 469 91.1 40 7.8 6 1.2 8.9 515
Hotel industry 149 92.5 11 6.8 1 0.6 7.5 161
Higher Educ. 448 92.8 29 6.0 6 1.2 7.2 483
Retailing 327 93.2 20 5.7 4 1.1 6.8 351
Manufacturing 513 95.9 21 3.9 1 0.2 4.1 535
(Permission gained to reproduce this table)

Table 4: Prevalence of bullying and witnessed bullying

Sector Bullied last 6 Bullied last 5 Witnessed
months (%) years (%) bullying last 5
years (%)
Post/Telecom. 16.2 27.9 50.4
Prison 16.2 32.1 64.0
Teaching 15.6 35.9 57.7
Other 14.3 20.0 40.0
Dance 14.1 29.6 50.0
Police Service 12.1 29.2 46.4
Banking 11.6 24.6 39.6
Voluntary Org. 10.7 26.7 55.6
NHS Trusts Local 10.6 25.2 47.2
Authority 10.5 21.4 42.7
Civil Service 9.9 25.7 47.1
Fire Service 8.9 20.0 43.2
Hotel industry 7.5 16.8 46.3
High. Educ. 7.2 21.3 42.8
Retailing 6.8 17.6 33.7
Manufacturing 4.1 19.2 39.0
Totals 10.6 24.7 46.5

34
Private: large international company

The Cowie et al. (2000) study used the Workplace Relationships Questionnaire
(WRQ), a 54-item self-completion questionnaire, to measure bullying. The
questionnaire was distributed amongst employees of large international
organisations in both the UK and in Portugal. However, only the UK data are
reported here. Questionnaires were collected from 386 participants in the UK. The
sample was made up of 52% male respondents, and 48% female. The age range
was 21 to over 50 years and 53% were aged between 30 and 50 years of age. Over
a quarter of employees were in their current job for less than one year (26.6%), for
one to two years 9.7%, for two to five years 27.4%, for five to ten years 8.2%, and for
ten years plus 28.2%. The majority were white (94.2 percent) and the remaining
5.8% were from ethnic minority groups (Black or Asian).

Participants were introduced to the following definition of bullying before answering

questions on the experience and perception of bullying in the workplace: “Bullying is
negative behaviour that occurs repeatedly over time and causes distress. It
includes: threat to professional status, threat to personal standing, isolation,
unrealistic workload, destabilization unwanted physical contact.”

Three measures of bullying were used: six items focused on whether the participant
had been subjected to the bullying behaviour outlined in the definition in the last six
months; the status of the perpetrator (e.g. manager or colleague); and thirdly, the
five item Bergen Bullying Index, measuring the degree to which bullying is perceived
to be a problem.

The results for the UK sample identified 15% reported being victims of bullying. Of
the remainder non-bullied sample, 47% reported some experience of bullying
behaviours in the workplace.

Discussion

There are relatively few UK studies measuring the prevalence of bullying compared
to the number of international studies. Studies have used different reporting periods;
making comparison more difficult (UNISON, 2015) and some online surveys have
invited respondents to complete a survey (UNISON, 2011; Slater and Gordon, 2015)
without knowing the population they were drawing from. It is possible that
respondents who are already concerned with workplace bullying completed the
survey, resulting in over inflation of the percent of the sample reporting that they had
experienced bullying.

Some surveys used single locations (Dawood et al., 2013) that may not generalize to
the rest of the country or to other organisations. However, some surveys did include
total populations (GMC, 2014) and others very large populations (NHS staff survey,
2015). However, both of these use subjective items to measure bullying without first
offering a definition of bullying.

35
Other studies (Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Carter et al., 2013) have targeted large
samples, but not total populations. In addition, they have offered a definition of
workplace bullying and used a tool (Negative Acts Questionnaire) that measured
behaviours more objectively. Using the same research method and measurement
enables more robust comparisons to be made between sectors.

Focusing on the study by Hoel and Cooper (2000), we can see that 10.6% of
workers in the health sector reported workplace bullying. This is lower than the rates
reported in the NHS staff survey and in a sample of NHS staff (Carter et al. 2013).
The healthcare respondents formed the largest sample (n=1069) in the Hoel and
Cooper study, but this group was significantly smaller than the Carter et al. study
(n=2950) which used the same scale, and the data were collected more recently.
Generally, the healthcare sample reported a higher prevalence rate than workers in
the private sector (hotel industry, retailing and manufacturing) but the same rate as
banking. The voluntary sector was similar at 10.7%. However, when the sample was
subdivided into sectors, the sample sizes become very small (e.g. dance n=85,
voluntary organisations n= 121).

36
4. Workplace bullying internationally: comparators with UK health
service
Workplace bullying has been studied internationally across a number of different
countries. A meta-analysis by Nielsen et al. (2010) included seventeen studies from
Scandinavian countries (i.e. Denmark, Norway, Sweden), 23 studies had other
European origins (e.g. Croatia, Finland, Italy, Spain, the UK). Eight (15%) studies
originated in North America (USA and Canada), and other studies from Australia,
Japan, and China. Outside the scope of the meta-analysis, other studies have been
conducted in India (D’Cruz, 2014), Greece (Galanaki and Papalexandris, 2013),
Turkey (Yildrim and Yildrim, 2007) and beyond.
Nielsen et al. (2010) concluded that the estimated global prevalence rate for
workplace bullying ranged from 11% to 18% depending on the measurement method
used. Global variations have been recognised by Power et al. (2013), particularly
cultural differences in acceptability. For example, high performance orientated
countries were often also more tolerant of bullying in contrast to high human
orientated countries where bullying is less accepted.
Globally healthcare settings and professionals have frequently been examined as to
the prevalence and impact of bullying through large scale national studies of multi-
sector prevalence (e.g. Driscoll et al., 2011) or taking a specific health-sector/
organisation focus (e.g. Cooper-Thomas et al, 2013). A review of seventeen studies
by Johnson (2009) described the implications for healthcare with respect to impact
on decreased productivity, increased sickness absence, employee attrition and at
the individual level, the damaging effect to physical and psychological health.
Trepanier et al. (2015) provided robust evidence of the longer term impact of
bullying, finding that in a group of Canadian nurses (n=699), those who had
experienced bullying had impaired satisfaction and increased burnout 12 months
later.
Within the nursing profession a large scale review of 136 studies by Spector, Zhou,
and Che (2014), which included data from 151,347 nurses, found that 39.7% had
experienced bullying. Individually both qualified nurses and those in training have
been studied (See table 5). The prevalence reported in these studies ranges from
9.2%-85%, such a difference might be explained by cultural context and the level of
experience by the nurse. In comparison, Carter et al. (2013) found 20% of registered
nurses in the UK responded that they had experienced bullying.

37
Table 5: A summary of international studies of bullying experienced by nurses.
Showing the country, prevalence, participant group, key measures and
authors

Country Prevalence Sample Design Study

United 31% Newly licensed NAQ-R Simon et al.
States registered nurses (2008)
(n=511)
Denmark 9.2% 2154 Nurses one year Single item, Hogh, Hoel
after graduation social support and Carneiro
and health (2011)
Turkey 86% 505 nurses - 325 Bespoke Yildrim and
(64%) public sector; survey Yildrim (2007)
180 (36%) private
sector
United 21.3% Newly qualified NAQ, Berry et al.
States nurses (n=194) Healthcare (2012)
Productivity
measure
Korea 17.2% Intensive Care Unit NAQ-R Yun, Kang,
Nurses (n=134) Nursing Work Lee and Yi
Environment (2014)
Scale
Canada 33% 415 newly graduated Conditions of Laschinger,
nurses (<3 years of Work Grau, Finegan,
experience) Effectiveness Wilk (2010)
Questionnaire,
NAQ-R,
Maslach
Burnout
Inventory
Canada 88.72% Undergraduate Survey Clarke, Kane,
Nursing Students developed by Rajacich,
(n=674) Stevenson et al Lafreniere
(2006) (2012)

The prevalence of bullying during training is evident in related professions.

McCormack, Djurkovic and Casimir (2014) reported that healthcare trainees were
subjected to a range of work-related and person-related forms of bullying
behaviours. Stubbs and Soundy (2013) found 25% of physiotherapy trainees in their
sample (n=52) experienced bullying. Furthermore, Whiteside, Stubbs and Soundy
(2014) described difficulties for physiotherapy trainees in dealing with the situations
and a range of factors that influenced the acuity of the experience.

Doctors
Within the medical profession, the experiences of junior doctors and seniors have
been examined (See table 6). The prevalence reported in these studies ranges from
18%-50%. In the UK, Carter et al. (2013) found 23% of doctors said that they had
experienced bullying, in comparison to 37% reported by Quine (2002), and 18% by
38
Paice et al. (2014). The differences reported might be explained by cultural context
(such as those reported by Power, 2013). Specialty variations may also be a
consideration – for example, Musselman et al. (2013) described how bullying might
be legitimised and rationalised by trainees during the specific cultural context of
surgical training. The level of experience of the doctor may also be an important
variable; a systematic review by Fnais et al. (2015) demonstrated a high prevalence
of bullying of doctors during medical training.

Table 6: A summary of international studies of bullying experienced by

doctors. Showing the country, prevalence, participant group, key measures
and authors

Country Prevalence Sample Design Study

New- 18% Nine healthcare NAQ-R Cooper-
Zealand organisations (n=727) Thomas et al
(2013)
New- 50% Junior doctors: 141 Anonymous Scott,
Zealand house officers and 232 Cross- Blanshard and
registrars sectional Child (2008)
questionnaire
Australia 25% 1666 individuals – 866 Electronic Askew,
medical students, 800 cross- Schluter, Dick,
registered doctors. sectional Rego, Turner
analysis of and Wilkinson
data collected (2012)
through the
DeC study.
Germany Workplace bullying 621 Junior hospital Depressive Loerbroks,
associated with physicians symptoms Wegl, Li,
increased measured by Glaser, Degen,
depressive the state Angerer (2015)
symptoms after scale of the
one year and three German
years. Spielberger’s
State-Trait
Depression
Scales.
Exposure to
bullying –
one question.
India 53% of men and 174 doctors (115 PGs Cross Bairy,
35% of women and 59 Junior doctors) sectional. Thirumalaikolu
were subjected to Anonymous ndusubramania
bullying. 90% of questionnaire n, Sivagnanam,
bullying incidents Saraswathi,
went unreported. Sachidanand,
and Shalini
(2007)

39
Discussion

These studies measured the prevalence of bullying in countries across the world.
The studies share similar limitations to those in the UK with respect to differing
measurements and reporting periods, making comparisons difficult. Nielsen et al.
(2010) provides a comparison across multiple countries, although acknowledging
variations in measurement, showing a range in prevalence between 11% and 18%.

Within the healthcare setting, similar study findings have been found internationally
as those in the UK (e.g. Carter et al., 2013; Hoel and Cooper, 2001) confirming that
bullying is a phenomenon experienced by healthcare professionals globally. Study
participants include doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and healthcare trainees
suggesting that not one particular group is at risk. Trainees in any of the professions
do have a heightened risk of bullying (Berry et al., 2012; Stubbs and Soundy, 2013;
Askew et al., 2012) suggesting this is an area where focused monitoring is required.
The consequences of these experiences of bullying are also established; the
negative implications of bullying for healthcare culminating in reduced organisational
performance and detrimental effects on individual staff wellbeing (Johnson, 2009;
Loerbroks et al, 2015).

40
5. Summary and Discussion

This report aimed to identify potential measures of workplace bullying which may be
used to track change over time, and to compare prevalence rates in the NHS to
other sectors in the UK and the healthcare sector internationally.
The measurement of bullying is a complex issue, compounded by the lack of
definitional consensus, differences in opinion regarding the threshold for classifying
behaviour as bullying, and the inherent subjectivity of the perceptions of targets,
perpetrators and witnesses. The prevalence of bullying will vary depending on the
type of measurement and criteria used. Meta-analytic findings suggest that lower
prevalence levels will typically be found using self-labelling with a definition, and
higher levels will be found for self-labelling without a definition (Nielsen et al., 2010).
Bullying prevalence using the behavioural experience approach varies considerably
depending on the criteria for bullying (e.g., including occasional exposure to negative
acts, or requiring at least two negative acts on a weekly basis for six months) and the
reference period (e.g., previous six months, twelve months or whole career).
This report has reviewed several potential measures of workplace bullying, including
direct and indirect metrics. Direct measures included formal complaints, several
versions of the widely used revised Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R), the
Bullying Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT), Quine’s workplace bullying inventory and
adaptations (e.g. in Obstetrics & Gynaecology), and examples from UNISON and the
Royal College of Nursing (RCN), as well as metrics from existing annual
questionnaires administered by the Picker Institute (NHS staff survey) and the
General Medical Council (National Training Survey, GMC NTS).
Different measurement approaches have different strengths and limitations which
are important to consider, including relative subjectivity versus objectivity, number of
items and related completion time. Key strengths and weaknesses of direct
measures are summarised in table 7. Some measures (e.g. NHS staff survey, GMC
NTS) involve one or two items asking respondents to self-identify as a target of
bullying and these have the advantage of being quick to complete and score.
Lengthier behavioural inventories (e.g. NAQ-R, Quine questionnaire) are more time-
consuming but provide more detailed information and offer greater objectivity. The
perceived and actual anonymity of responses is also likely to affect prevalence levels
and response rates.
Use of routinely administered questionnaires with existing arrangements for annual
data collection, analysis and reporting, such as the NHS staff survey and GMC NTS,
has obvious cost benefits. However, the NHS staff survey targets a sample of the
NHS workforce rather than all staff, and it does not provide a definition of bullying,
nor does it ask about witnessed bullying. The GMC NTS invites all trainee doctors to
take part, but it is focused solely on the medical workforce, and recent changes to
items mean that the prevalence of directly experienced bullying and witnessed
bullying are now combined.

41
Table 7: Key strengths and weaknesses of direct measures of bullying
Direct Measure Strengths Weaknesses
Formal complaints Routinely collected Under-estimate of bullying
prevalence due to underreporting
Not anonymous
NAQ-R Empirically developed Longer, more time consuming
Good evidence of validity and (although shorter S-NAQ version
reliability available)
More objective
Provides detail on prevalence of
specific negative behaviours
Widely used internationally across
occupational groups
Can be anonymous
Test administrator can select
threshold for bullying
BRAT Evidence of validity and reliability Identified risk of bullying, not
actual prevalence
Longer, more time consuming
No published applications
Quine / O&G More objective Longer, more time consuming
questionnaire Provides detail on prevalence of
specific negative behaviours
Used with samples of UK NHS
workforce
Can be anonymous
Test administrator can select
threshold for bullying
GMC NTS Whole population of trainee doctors Limited to medical workforce
invited to participate (trainees; but a survey for
Existing tool, administered annually trainers has recently been
Existing arrangements for data introduced)
collection, analysis and reporting Not anonymous
Can explore relationships with More subjective, no definition
other variables in the survey (e.g. Conflates directly experienced
supportive environment, handover, and witnessed bullying
feedback)
NHS staff survey Large NHS sample across Not total population
occupational groups More subjective, no definition
Existing tool, administered annually No question on witnessed
Existing arrangements for data bullying
collection, analysis and reporting Question format has been
Can explore relationships with changed several times
other variables in the survey (e.g.
health and wellbeing, manager
behaviours)
Trade Union tools Can be anonymous Sample may be limited to union
Unions may be more trusted with members
sensitive information Typically lower response rates
RCN tool includes questions on More subjective
confidence in the organisation’s
response to bullying

42
It is regarded as best practice to include both a self-labelling item (with a definition)
and a behavioural experience checklist (Zapf et al., 2011). One measurement option
would be to adopt a two-stage approach, with a single-item self-labelling measure as
a primary metric, with a more detailed behavioural experience approach for areas of
concern. Measuring witnessed bullying and using indirect metrics could also be
helpful in the identification of potentially problematic areas.
The indirect measures reviewed in this report may also provide useful information,
particularly when measuring the risk or impact of bullying in the workplace.
Triangulating multiple sources of information such as national and local surveys,
organisational data, local intelligence and qualitative feedback will offer a more
detailed assessment of any bullying issues, and enable interventions to be targeted
where there is greatest need. Proactive monitoring of such data is recommended as
part of a broad approach to preventing and managing bullying (Illing et al., 2013).
The report also compared prevalence rates in the NHS with other sectors in the UK
and in the healthcare sector internationally. However, such comparisons are
complex due to differences in bullying definitions, measurement methods and
reporting periods. The review of international studies indicated that bullying is a
significant problem in the healthcare sector in other countries, and that trainees may
be particularly at risk.

43
 6. References

Bergen Bullying Group. Available at: http://www.uib.no/en/rg/bbrg/44045/naq# . Accessed March

2016.
Balducci C, Cecchin M, Fraccaroli F. (2012). The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in
both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal
analysis. Work & Stress. 26 (3), 195-212. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2012.714543.
Balducci C, Cecchin M, Fraccaroli F, Schaufeli WB. (2012). Exploring the relationship between
workaholism and workplace aggressive behaviour: The role of job-related emotion.
Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 629-634.
Balducci C., Spagnoli P., Alfano V., Barattucci M., Notelaers G., & Fraccaroli F. (2010).
Valutare il rischio mobbing nelle organizzazioni: Contributo alla validazione italiana dello
Short Negative Acts Questionnaire (S-NAQ) [Assessing the mobbing risk in organizations:
Contribution to the Italian validation of the Short Negative Acts Questionnaire (S-NAQ)].
Psicologia Sociale, 1, 147-167.
Baillien E, Camps J, Van der Broek A, Stouten J, Godderis L, Sercu M, De Witte H. (2015). An Eye
for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind: Conflict Escalation into Workplace Bullying and
the Role of Distributive Conflict Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 08/2015. DOI
10.1007/s10551-015-2563-y
Bevan, A., Houdmont, J., & Menear, N. (2010). The Management Standards Indicator Tool and the
estimation of risk. Occupational Medicine, 60, 525-531.
Briefing note: issues highlighted by the 2015 NHS staff survey in England. Available at
www.nhsstaffsurveys.com accessed on 02/03/16
British Medical Association. Available at: http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/doctors-well-
being/bullying-and-harassment. Accessed on 08/03/16
Brousse G, Fontana L, Ouchchane L, et al. (2008). Psychopathological features of a patient
population of targets of workplace bullying. Occup Med;58:122–8.
Caplan, R. P. (1994). Stress, anxiety, and depression in hospital consultants, general practitioners,
and senior health service managers. Bmj, 309(6964), 1261-1263.
Carter M, Thompson N, Crampton P, et al (2012). Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: a
questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting. BMJ
Open 2013;3:e002628. Doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002628
Carter, M, Thompson, N, Crampton, P, Morrow, G, Burford, B, Gray, C & Illing, J (2013). Workplace
bullying in the UK NHS: a questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and
barriers to reporting. BMJ Open 3(6): e002628 (accessed 7 March 2016)
Carter, M., Thompson, N., Crampton, P., Burford, B. , Morrow, G., & Illing, J. (2011). Bullying and
negative behaviours at work : prevalence and impact in North East NHS Trusts. Project
Report. North East Strategic Health Authority.
Cowie, H., Jennifer, D., Neto, C., Angula, J.C. Pereira, B., del Barrio, C., & Ananiadou, K. (2000).
Comparing the nature of workplace bullying in two European countries: Portugal and the UK.
In M. Sheehan, S. Ramsey, & J. Patrick (Eds.), Transcending the boundaries: Integrating
people, processes and systems. Proceedings of the 2000 conference (pp. 128–133). Griffith
University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, September.
Dawood, Shariffah Rahah Sheik (2013) Voluntary Sector Review, Volume 4, Number 1, March
2013, pp. 55-76(22)
D'Cruz, P. (2014). Workplace bullying in India. Routledge.
De Cuyper, Baillien E, De Witte H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets’ and
perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23(3), 206-224.
Einarsen, S. (2005). The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work: The Norwegian
experience. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, (7-3).
Einarsen, S. Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at
work. In S. Einarsen et al (Eds) Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at
44
 work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress,23(1), 24-44.
Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001, May). The Negative Acts Questionnaire: Development, validation
and revision of a measure of bullying at work. 10th European congress on work and
organisational psychology, Prague.
Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S. B., Mikkelsen, E. G. (1999). Tiden leger alle sår ? Senvirkninger av
mobbing i arbeidslivet. Bergen : Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen.
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace. International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 127-144). London :
Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men.
Violence and Victims, 12, 247-263.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and
Organizational Psychologist, 4(4), 381-401.
Einarsen S, Raknes BI, Matthiesen SB, et al. (1996). Bullying at work and its relationships with
health complaints—moderating effects of social support and personality. Nordisk
Psykol;48:116–37. Cited in: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL eds. Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace: international perspectives in research and practice, 127–
144. London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at Work: Epidemiological Findings in Public and
Private Organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185-
201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414854
Farquharson, B., Allan, J., Johnston, D., Johnston, M., Choudhary, C., & Jones, M. (2012). Stress
amongst nurses working in a healthcare telephone‐advice service: Relationship with job
satisfaction, intention to leave, sickness absence, and performance. Journal of advanced
nursing, 68(7), 1624-1635.
Fevre R, Lewis D, Robinson A, and Jones T. Insight into ill-treatment in the workplace: patterns,
causes and solutions (2011) http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/insight11.pdf
(accessed 28 February 2016)
Fnais, N et al. (2014). Harassment and discrimination in medical training: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Academic Medicine 89(5), 817- 827.
Gao, F., Luo, N., Thumboo, J., Fones, C., Li, S., & Cheung, Y. (2004). Does the 12-item General
Health Questionnaire contain multiple factors and do we need them? Health and Quality of
Life Outcomes, 2, 63.
General Medical Council (2014) National training survey 2014 bullying and undermining. www.gmc-
uk.org/education/surveys.asp (accessed 7 March 2016)
Goldberg D. P. (1978). Manual of the general health questionnaire. NFER Publishing.
Goldberg, D.P., & Hillier, V.F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire.
Psychological Medicine, 9, 139-145.
Hall GB, Dollard MF, Coward J. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate: Development
of the PSC-12. International Journal of Stress Management. 17:353-383.
Hardy, G. E., Shapiro, D. A., Haynes, C. E., & Rick, J. E. (1999). Validation of the General Health
Questionnaire-12: Using a sample of employees from England's health care services.
Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 159.
Hauge, LJ., Skogstad A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bullying as a
social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,51(5), 426-433.
Hoel, H., Giga, S. I., & Faragher, B. (2006). Destructive interpersonal conflict in the workplace: The
effectiveness of management interventions.Manchester: University of Manchester.
Hoel H and Cooper G. Destructive conflict and bullying at work (2000)
http://www.bollettinoadapt.it/old/files/document/19764Destructiveconfl.pdf (accessed 28
February)
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Investigating complaints of bullying and harassment. In: Einarsen
S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, eds. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace:
45
 Developments in Theory, Research and Practice. 2nd ed. edn. Taylor and Francis, London,
New York; 341-357.
Hogh A, Hansen AM, Mikkelsen EG, et al. Exposure to negative acts at work, psychological stress
reactions and physiological stress response. J Psychosom Res 2012;73:47–52.
Houdmont, J., Kerr, R., & Randall, R. (2012). Organizational psychosocial hazard exposures in UK
policing: Management Standards Indicator Tool reference values. Policing: A International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 35, 182-197.
Illing JC, Carter M, Thompson NJ, et al. Evidence synthesis on the occurrence, causes,
consequences, prevention and management of bullying and harassing behaviours to inform
decision making in the NHS. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme; 2013,
Final report http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/85119/FR-10-1012-
01.pdf (accessed 7 March 2016)
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions. Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York
: The Free Press.
Jiminez BM, Munoz AR, Gamarra MM, et al. Assessing workplace bullying: Spanish validation of a
reduced version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire. Span J Psychol 2007;10:449–57.
Kerr, R., McHugh, M. and McCory, M. (2009), ÒHSE Management Standards and stressrelated
work outcomes, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 59, pp. 574-579.
Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J. (2000).Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital
staff. Occup Environ Med; 57:656–60.
Kivimaki, M., Head, J., Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Vahtera, J., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Sickness
absence as a global measure of health: evidence from mortality in the Whitehall II
prospective
Kivimaki M, Virtanen M, Vartia M, et al. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular
disease and depression. Occup Environ Med;60:779–83
Law R, Dollard MF, Tuckey MR, Dormann C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as
a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources,
psychological health and employee engagement. Accident Analysis and
Prevention. 43:1782-1793.
Lewis D (1999) Workplace bullying - interim findings of a study in further and higher education in
Wales. International Journal of Manpower 20,1/2 (accessed
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims;5:119–
126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-184.
Lopez, M. P. S., & Dresch, V. (2008). The 12-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12):
reliability, external validity and factor structure in the Spanish population. Psicothema, 20(4),
839-843.
Making sense of your staff survey data 2015. NHS staff survey co-ordination centre. Picker institute
Europe. Available at www.nhsstaffsurveys.com accessed on 02/03/16
Michie, S., & Williams, S. (2003). Reducing work related psychological ill health and sickness
absence: a systematic literature review. Occupational and environmental medicine, 60(1), 3-
9.
Mikkelsen, E, G. & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish worklife: Prevalence and health
correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 393-414.
Mikkelsen, E. G. (2001). Workplace bullying : Why and for whom is bullying such a strain ? Nordisk
Psykologi, 53, 109-131.
Musselman, L. J., MacRae, H. M., Reznick, R. K., & Lingard, L. A. (2005). ‘You learn better under
the gun’: intimidation and harassment in surgical education. Medical education, 39(9), 926-
934.
National Training Survey (GMC). Available at: http://www.gmc
uk.org/education/national_summary_reports.asp accessed on 07/03/16
National Training Survey comments management in 2015. A review of royal college participation in
the 2015 NTS comments process. GMC Surveys Team (October 2015). [email protected]

46
Neuman, JH. & Keashly, L. (2004, April). Development of the Workplace Aggression Research
Questionnaire (WAR-Q): Preliminary data from the workplace stress and aggression project.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago.
NHS Staff survey: results 2015. http://www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/Page/1006/Latest-Results/2015-
Results/ (accessed 7 March 2016)
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators
on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 955-979.
Northern Deanery (2012). Good Practice in Medical Education. Action Against Bullying: ‘Charter of
Behaviour’, pg 44.
Northern Deanery (2012). Good practice in medical education. Multi-step approach to tackling
bullying and inappropriate workplace behaviours school of obstetrics and gynaecology.
Retrieved from
http://www.northerndeanery.nhs.uk/NorthernDeanery/portal_skins/custom/good_practice_br
ochure [accessed on March 1 2016]
Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2008, June). The construction and validity of the Short-Negative Acts
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying,
Montreal.
O'Driscoll, M. P.,Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Bentley, T., Catley, B. E., Gardner, D. H., & Trenberth, L.
(2011). Workplace bullying in New Zealand: A survey of employee perceptions and attitudes.
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 390-408. doi:10.1177/1038411111422140
Ortega, A., Christensen, K. B., Hogh, A., Rugulies, R., Borg, V. (2011). One-year prospective study
in the effect of workplace bullying on long-term sickness absence. Journal of Nursing
Management; 19:752-759.
Paice E, Smith D. (2009). Bullying of trainee doctors is a patient safety issue. Clin Teach; 6:13–17.
Power, J.L., Brotheridge, C.M., Blenkinsopp, J., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bozionelos, N., Buzády, Z.,
Chuang, A., Drnevich, D., Garzon-Vico, A., Leighton, C. and Madero, S.M., (2013).
Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of
Business Research, 66(3), pp.374-380.
Quek, K.F., Low, W.Y., Razack, A.H., & Loh, C.S. (2001). Reliability and validity of the General
Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) among urological patients: A Malaysian study. Psychiatry
and Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 509-513.
Quine L Workplace Bullying in Nurses. Journal of Psychology. 2001; Vol 6(1); 73-84.
Quine L. Workplace bullying in junior doctors: questionnaire survey BMJ. 2002; Vol; 324:878-9.
Quine L. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1999; 318:
822-32.
Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS Community Trust: Staff questionnaire survey. British
Medical Journal, 318, 228–232.
Rayner, C., & McIvor, K. (2008). Research report on the dignity at work project. Report prepared for
Amicus and DTI.
Rimmer, A. (2014). How one specialty is tackling workplace bullying. BMJ Careers. Retrieved from
http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/How_one_specialty_is_tackling_workplace_bullying
[accessed on March 3 2016]
Ritchie, K. A., Macdonald, E. B., Gilmour, W. H., & Murray, K. J. (1999). Analysis of sickness
absence among employees of four NHS trusts. Occupational and environmental medicine,
56(10), 702-708.
Rodriguez-Munoz, Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jimenez & Pastor (2009). Cross-lagged relationships
between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: Two longitudinal studies.
Work & Stress, 23(3), 225-243.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2016). Routine data collection and data
monitoring. Retrieved from https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/careers-training/workplace-workforce-
issues/improving-workplace-behaviours-dealing-with-undermining/undermining-
toolkit/strategic-interventions/routine-data-collection-and-data-monitoring/ [accessed on
March 8 2016]
47
Salin D. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two
different strategies for measuring bullying. Eur J Work Organ Psy 2001;10:425–41.
Simon, M., Tackenberg, P., Nienhaus, A., Estryn-Behar, M., Conway, P. M., & Hasselhorn, H. M.
(2008). Back or neck-pain-related disability of nursing staff in hospitals, nursing homes and
home care in seven countries—results from the European NEXT-Study. International journal
of nursing studies,45(1), 24-34.
Slater and Gordon (2015). Most People Have Experienced Bullying at Work
http://netlawmedia.com/news/legal-law-firm/slater-and-gordon-most-people-have-
experienced-bullying-at-work/ (accessed 8 March 2016)
Sterling, M. (2011). General Health Questionnaire – 28 (GHQ-28). Journal of Physiotherapy; 57(4):
259.
Stouten J, Baillien E, Van den Broek A, Camps J, De Witte H & Euwema M. (2010). Discouraging
Bullying: The Role of Ethical Leadership and its Effects on the Work Environment. Journal of
Business Ethics 95:17–27. DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0797-x
Traweger C, Kinzl JF, Traweger-Ravanelli B, & Fiala M. (2004). Psychosocial factors at the
workplace – do they affect substance abuse? Evidence from the Tyrolean workplace study.
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13, 399-403.
Trépanier, S. G., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2015). A longitudinal investigation of workplace bullying,
basic need satisfaction, and employee functioning. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 20(1), 105.
UNISON. Tackling bullying at work: A guide for safety reps. Accessed on 30th March 2016.
https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2013/07/On-line-Catalogue216953.pdf
UNISON survey 2011. The Centre for Organisation Research and Development (CORD) at
Portsmouth Business School during May 2011
http://www.workstress.net/sites/default/files/Summer%202011%20Newsletter1.pdf
(accessed 28 February 2016)
UNISON: police staff bullying survey 2015
https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2016/02/Police-Bullying-Survey-Report-AW.pdf
(accessed 28 February 2016)
Voss, M., Floderus, B., Diderichsen, F. (2001). Physical, psychosocial and organisational factors
relative to sickness absence: a study based on Sweden Post. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine;58:178-184.
Werneke, U., Goldberg, D.P., Yalcin, I., & Üstün, B.T. (2000). The stability of the factor structure of
the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 30, 823-829.
West, M.A., Markiewicz, L. and Dawson, J.F. (2006), Aston team performance inventory:
Management Set, ASE, London.
Yun, S., Kang, J., Lee, Y-O, & Yi, Y. (2014) Work environment and workplace bullying among
Korean intensive care unit nurses. Asian Nursing Research, 8, 219-225
Zapf D, Escartin J, Einarsen S, Hoel H & Vartia M. (2011). Empirical findings on prevalence and risk
groups of bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen et al (Eds) Bullying and Harassment in
the Workplace. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

48
7. Appendices

Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised (NAQ-R)

The following behaviours are often seen as examples of negative behaviour in the
workplace. Over the last six months, how often have you been subjected to the following
negative acts at work?

Please circle the number that best corresponds with your experience over the last six
months:

1 2 3 4 5

Never Now and then Monthly Weekly Daily

1) Someone withholding information which affects your performance 1 2 3 4 5

2) Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work 1 2 3 4 5
3) Being ordered to do work below your level of competence 1 2 3 4 5
4) Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more 1 2 3 4 5
trivial or unpleasant tasks

5) Spreading of gossip and rumours about you 1 2 3 4 5

6) Being ignored, excluded or being ‘sent to Coventry’ 1 2 3 4 5
7) Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (i.e. 1 2 3 4 5
habits and background), your attitudes or your private life

8) Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or 1 2 3 4 5

rage)

9) Intimidating behaviour such as finger-pointing, invasion of 1 2 3 4 5

personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way

10) Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job 1 2 3 4 5
11) Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes 1 2 3 4 5
12) Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach 1 2 3 4 5
13) Persistent criticism of your work and effort 1 2 3 4 5
14) Having your opinions and views ignored 1 2 3 4 5
15) Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get on with 1 2 3 4 5

49
16) Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or 1 2 3 4 5
deadlines

17) Having allegations made against you 1 2 3 4 5

18) Excessive monitoring of your work 1 2 3 4 5
19) Pressure not to claim something which by right you are entitled to 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses)

20) Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm 1 2 3 4 5

21) Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 1 2 3 4 5

22) Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse 1 2 3 4 5

23. Have you been bullied at work? We define bullying as a situation where one or several individuals
persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions
from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him
or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying.

Using the above definition, please state whether you have been bullied at work over
the last six months?
No 

Yes, but only rarely 

Yes, now and then 

Yes several times per week 

Yes, almost daily 

© Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen og Hellesøy, 1994; Hoel, 1999

50
Short NAQ (S-NAQ, 9-items; variations shown in brackets)

1. Someone withholding information which affects your performance

2. Spreading of gossip and rumours about you

3. Being ignored by people at work [Being ignored, excluded, or being ‘sent to Coventry’]

4. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about you (i.e. habits, background, attitude
or private life)

5. Being shouted at [Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage)]

6. Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes

7. Facing a hostile reaction when you approach others [Being ignored or facing a hostile
reaction when you approach]

8. Persistent criticism of your work and performance [Persistent criticism of your work and
effort]

9. Being the subject of unwanted practical jokes [Practical jokes carried out by people you
don’t get on with]

51
Adapted NAQ (Fevre et al., 2011)

Unreasonable Treatment
Being treated unfairly compared to others in your workplace
Your employer not following proper procedure
Being given unmanageable workload or impossible deadlines
Pressure from someone else not to claim something which by right you are entitled to
Someone continually checking up on you or your work when it is not necessary
Having your opinions and views ignored
Pressure from someone else to do work below your level of competence
Someone withholding information which affects your performance A

Denigration and Disrespect

Feeling threatened in any way while at work
Intimidating behaviour from people at work
Being shouted at or someone losing their temper with you
Teasing, mocking sarcasm or jokes which go too far
Persistent criticism of your work or performance which is unfair
Hints or signal from others that you should quit your job
People excluding you from their group
Being treated in a disrespectful or rude way
Being insulted or having offensive remarks made about you
Gossip & rumours being spread about you or having allegations made against you
Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection to your work

Violence
Injury in some way as a result of violence or aggression at work
Actual violence at work

52
The Bullying Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT)
The following items relate to your experience within your organisation. Please rate each item
by circling the number that best corresponds to your experiences / thoughts over the last 6
months.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree

1. New staff are made to feel welcome when starting 1 2 3 4 5 6

employment in the organisation
2. Conflict in my work unit is common 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I am clear about what is expected from me 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. This organisation does not value equal opportunity for 1 2 3 4 5 6

everyone

5. I have confidence in my line managers abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. Staff shortages are common in my unit 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. I enjoy working in the teams that I am involved with 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. I am not clear about how to carry out my job 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Vacant positions are filled without delay within my unit 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. My line manager tries to control every single aspect of 1 2 3 4 5 6

what is going on at work

11. The grading / rank structure in this organisation is 1 2 3 4 5 6

transparent

12. I don’t get on with some of my colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. I have received sufficient training to carry out my job 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. My unit often makes use of temporary staff 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. My line manager values constructive criticism 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. People in this organisation are not rewarded properly 1 2 3 4 5 6

17. I find my colleagues to be co-operative 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. I face conflicting demands in my job 1 2 3 4 5 6

53
19. Cover for absent staff is provided immediately within my 1 2 3 4 5 6
unit
20. My line manager exploits his / her position of power 1 2 3 4 5 6

21. I feel my contribution to the organisation is recognised 1 2 3 4 5 6

22. Different professional groups don’t work well together 1 2 3 4 5 6

within my unit

23. My job description is clearly defined 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. I feel that there isn’t enough time in the day to complete 1 2 3 4 5 6
my work

25. My line manager consults me before decisions affecting 1 2 3 4 5 6

me are made

26. The organisation’s resources are not distributed fairly 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. My line manager is sensitive to how I feel 1 2 3 4 5 6

28. Existing work pressures make it difficult to take time off 1 2 3 4 5 6

work

29. Work is shared equally among the people I work with 1 2 3 4 5 6

54
Quine bullying questionnaire (1999, 2001, 2002)
Have you been persistently subjected to any of these behaviours in the past twelve
months? (yes/no; Quine, 1999, 2001):
In the last 12 months have you experienced from peers, senior staff or general
managers any of the following in the workplace (no, rarely, a few times, frequently;
Quine 2002):

Threat to professional status

Persistent attempts to belittle and undermine your work
Persistent and unjustified criticism and monitoring of your work
Persistent attempts to humiliate you in front of colleagues
Intimidatory use of discipline or competence procedures

Threat to personal standing

Undermining your personal integrity
Destructive innuendo and sarcasm
Verbal and non-verbal threats
Making inappropriate jokes about you
Persistent teasing
Physical violence
Violence to property

Isolation
Witholding necessary information from you
Freezing out, ignoring, or excluding
Unreasonable refusal of applications for leave, training, or promotion

Overwork
Undue pressure to produce work
Setting of impossible deadlines

Destabilisation
Shifting of goal posts without telling you
Constant undervaluing of your efforts
Persistent attempts to demoralise you
Removal of areas of responsibility without consultation

Additional item added in Quine (2002):

Discrimination on grounds of race or gender

Additional item added in Obstetrics & Gynaecology tool:

Unwelcome sexual advances

55
UNISON draft bullying survey
Source:UNISON (2013). Tackling bullying at work. A UNISON guide for safety reps.
Branches can use the following survey to gather evidence on the scale and extent of
bullying in the workplace.

Bullying at work is persistent offensive, intimidating, humiliating behaviour, which

attempts to undermine an individual or group of employees. It can take many forms,
including shouting at or humiliating an individual, especially in front of colleagues;
picking on an individual; undermining someone’s ability to do their job; abusive or
threatening behaviour which creates a stressful or intimidating atmosphere. Such
bullying behaviour is an abuse of power and a denial of our right to be treated with
dignity and respect. Bullying causes stress. It damages the health and safety of staff
and adversely affects the quality of service provided.
UNISON is concerned about the amount of bullying that goes on at work. In order to
convince management that bullying of staff is a serious problem and that changes
are needed to eliminate bullying, your UNISON branch is conducting this survey. We
need your views and experiences on any bullying you face at work. Please help us to
help you by answering the following questions. Your replies will be treated as
confidential (you will notice that you have not been asked to provide your name).

Where do you work?

What is your job?

(Give a description if your job title would identify you)

Are you: Male / Female

Is bullying at work: (Tick relevant box)

A very serious problem? Yes / No
A serious problem? Yes / No
A minor problem? Yes / No
A non-existent problem? Yes / No

Have you ever been bullied at this place of work? Yes / No

56
Are you currently being bullied? Yes / No
If yes, when did the bullying start?

What are the main sources of bullying?

From your line managers
From senior managers
From colleagues
From the public (clients, patients, customers and so on)
From visitors
From contractors’ staff
Other (please state)

What form does the bullying take? (tick relevant box)

Shouting / Threats / Abuse / Intimidation / Humiliation / Excessive criticism / Setting
unrealistic targets or deadlines / Altering targets, deadlines and so on / Excessive
work monitoring / Keeping you out of things / Victimising you / Malicious lies or
rumours / Refusing reasonable requests such as for leave / Other (please state)

How often does the bullying happen? (tick relevant box)

Daily / Weekly / Monthly / Less than monthly

Have you or other staff in your area ever had time off work because of bullying?
Yes / No

Have any staff left their job because of bullying at work in your area? Yes / No
If yes, how many?

What do you think causes bullying? (tick relevant box)

Stressed managers / Stressed colleagues / Excessive workloads / Pressure to meet
deadlines / Pressure to meet work targets / Staff shortages / Pressure not to take

57
sick leave / Inadequate training for managers / Inadequate training for staff / Poor
management / Performance approach / Other reasons (please state what they are)

What measures would you like to see to reduce bullying?

Do you have access to a counselling service? Yes / No
If yes, how effective is it? (tick relevant box)
Very effective / Sometimes effective / Useless

Any other comments?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return it to the person who gave
you this survey.

58