A preliminary typology of organisational response to allegations of workplace bullying: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

By P. Ferris. 2004

150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/23f3a44f7a9255374c50f8717a4f27ec1c6ef54e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and General Harassment: A Review (2013, unknown): “…feelings of profound shame, as found in a study of college and university lecturers who had experienced workplace bullying (Lewis 2004), and concern about the ability of the organisation to respond effectively (Ferris 2004; Hoel and Cooper 2000) may further prevent someone from seeking support.”
Workplace Mobbing: Individual and Family Health Consequences (2007, background): “Nevertheless, a typology that maps some of the cultural and managerial dynamics of bully-prone organizations offers some insight into these questions (Ferris, 2004).”
Neutralizing workplace bullying: the buffering effects of contextual factors (2013, background): “Several other authors argue that organisational initiatives should be multi-faceted for maximum effectiveness (Ferris, 2004; Keashly and Neuman, 2004; Saam, 2010).”
Organisational responses to workplace harassment (2008, background): “Based on her clinical experience, Ferris (2004) classified organisational responses into three categories: organisations that directly or indirectly accept negative behaviours, organisations that on the surface emphasise respect and employee dignity, but in practice treat negative behaviour as…”
A New Trilogy to Understand the Relationship among Organizational Climate, Workplace Bullying and Employee Health (2014, background): “…being predatory by nature (Einarsen, 1999) as many organizations bullying might be institutionalized as part of management and leadership practices (Ferris, 2004), or the target might be mistreated because he/she is unique in a certain group, like a sole woman working in a male dominated society.”
Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach (2010, background): “The imbalance of power argument is also supported by Ferris (2004) and Hubert (2003).”
Active and Passive Accomplices: The Communal Character of Workplace Bullying (2010, background): “Upper management may also be active accomplices in bullying situations by not only siding with bullies but also interacting with targets in a hostile, denigrating manner that blames targets for being abused, casts targets as mentally ill, or accuses targets of being problem employees (Ferris, 2004; ”