Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456
www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between
bullying and racism in the US workplace�
Suzy Foxa,¤ and Lamont E. Stallwortha,b
a Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Graduate School of Business,
Loyola University, 820 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, USA
b Center for Employment Dispute Resolution Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Received 23 June 2003
Available online 6 May 2004
Abstract
This study examined relations between the incidence of workplace bullying and the every-
day experiences of members of ethnic and racial minorities in the American workplace. Partic-
ular attention was paid to expressions of bullying that overtly or speciWcally refer to race or
ethnicity, in the form of more or less subtle acts of discrimination and hostile treatment, intro-
ducing the term ‘racial/ethnic bullying.' Participants belonging to four racial/ethnic groups
(Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and whites) responded to a written survey of
general and racial/ethnic bullying experiences, responses, and preferred modes and methods of
internal organizational redress and dispute resolution. Very diVerent proWles emerged between
bullying perpetrated by supervisors/superiors versus co-workers/peers in the organization.
2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bullying; Mobbing; Workplace incivility; Emotional abuse; Counterproductive work behavior;
Modern and symbolic racism; ConXict resolution; Alternative dispute resolution
0001-8791/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.01.002
�We thank the National Association of African-American Human Resources Professionals, Hispanic
MBA Association, Loyola University Chicago Alumni Association, and the National Black MBA Associ-
ation (Illinois), for their assistance with this study. The Center for Employment Dispute Resolution and
a Loyola University Chicago Research Support Grant assisted with funding for this study. We also
thank Dr. Mark L. Savickas for his extraordinary level of editorial involvement in helping us develop the
manuscript.
¤ Corresponding author. Fax: 1-312-915-6231.
E-mail address: sfox1@luc.edu (S. Fox).
S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456 439
1. Introduction
Workplace bullying is attracting increasing attention in the popular media and
business press (Adams & Crawford, 1992; Big Bad Bullies, 2002; Namie & Namie,
2000). It has been the focus of scholarly attention as well, spreading from early orga-
nizational research on “mobbing” in Scandanavia (Einarsen, 1999; Leymann, 1990),
Germany (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996), and Austria (Niedl, 1996), to “bullying” in
the United Kingdom (Rayner & Keashly, in press), and US research on bullying and
emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998), incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001),
workplace aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2003), and counterproductive work behav-
ior (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Research has explored bullying from a number of
perspectives, including forms of ill-treatment and hostile behavior (Einarsen, Hoel,
Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Keashly, 1998; Pearson et al., 2001), incidence rates (Rayner,
1997; Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003), characteristics of bullies and their tar-
gets (Zapf, 1999), organizational and social contexts that enable or foster such behav-
ior (Hoel & Salin, 2003; Vartia, 1996; Zapf, 1999), processes such as escalation of
conXict (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), ill eVects on the target of bullying and organi-
zation (Tehrani, 2003; Zapf et al., 1996), and resolutions of bullying incidents and
conXicts (Richards & Daley, 2003).
“Bullying,” the umbrella concept for these various conceptualizations of ill-treat-
ment and hostile behavior toward people at work, ranges from the most subtle, even
unconscious incivilities to the most blatant, intentional emotional abuse. It includes
single incidents and escalating patterns of behavior. In the current study, the
researchers expand the scope of inquiry by diVerentiating between “general bully-
ing,” or behaviors that can occur to anyone without reference to race or ethnicity,
and “racial/ethnic bullying,” which attacks the target explicitly based on race or
ethnicity.
There has been little empirical research connecting the incidence of bullying with
everyday experiences of members of ethnic and racial groups in the American work-
place. In light of dramatic changes in the legal and regulatory environment, societal
norms, and organizational strategies, there is evidence that the overt enactment and
expression of racism has been largely replaced by a symbolic or modern form of rac-
ism (McConahay, 1986; Rowe, 1990; Sears, 1988). Some scholars have argued that
while laws and norms no longer condone overtly racist behaviors, the “modern”
workplace provides ample opportunity for subtle, even unconscious manifestations
of racism, including neglect, incivility, humor, ostracism, inequitable treatment, and
other forms of “micro-aggression” and “micro-inequities” (Pierce, 1970; Rowe,
1990). Micro-aggressions consist of subtle, apparently relatively innocuous behaviors
by themselves, but when “delivered incessantlyƒthe cumulative eVect to the victim
and to the victimizer is of an unimaginable magnitude” (Pierce, 1970; p. 266).
Another aspect of bullying is the particular dynamic of abusive supervision, also
known as supervisory bullying, petty tyranny, or social undermining (Ashforth, 1997;
DuVy & Ferrier, 2003; DuVy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Tepper, 2000). Ill-treatment by
organizational superiors has been demonstrated to negatively impact employees and
their organizations in areas such as job and life satisfaction, justice perceptions,
440 S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456
organizational commitment, work alienation, psychological contract violation,
work–family conXict, turnover, and psychological distress. Tepper (2000) speciWcally
links ongoing and condoned supervisory abuse with employees' perceptions of pro-
cedural injustice, underscoring perceptions that the organization has done little to
develop or enforce procedures to protect employees from such abuse.
The current study was a preliminary exploration with three primary purposes.
First, this study provided a descriptive portrait of the bullying experiences of employ-
ees across a wide range of occupations, job levels, and work environments. Second,
potential diVerences were explored between African-American, Asian, Hispanic/Lat-
ino, and white employees, in frequency and types of bullying behaviors experienced
and emotional and behavioral responses. Third, the study examined preferred means
of conXict management and alternative dispute resolution, both internal and external
to the organization, from the perspectives of general and racial/ethnic bullying tar-
gets. As this was an exploratory study, it would be premature to propose a formal
model with attendant hypotheses. However, the review of the recent workplace bully-
ing and discrimination literature suggests six propositions to be explored.
Proposition 1. Employees who perceive themselves as targets of bullying behaviors
at work are likely to respond emotionally, attitudinally, and socially, in addition to
taking or considering taking concrete behavioral steps in response to the experience.
These two clusters of responses (emotional, attitudinal, social-support-seeking
responses, and active redress-seeking behaviors) will accompany an individual's
experience of both general and racial/ethnic bullying.
P1. High levels of bullying relate to high levels of responses to bullying.
Proposition 2. Workplace incivility has a tendency to spiral (Andersson & Pear-
son, 1999). The initial bullying behavior and the response of its target should not be
viewed as a single static or linear cause-and-eVect incident, but rather as pieces of a
complex interplay of behaviors by various organizational actors. It is diYcult to dis-
entangle a speciWc response of a target to a bullying incident from ongoing emotional
and behavioral work experiences. Therefore, employees who perceive themselves to
be targets of bullying at work will also experience high levels of stress, negative emo-
tions, and physical symptoms at work in general, and will engage in counterproduc-
tive work behavior (CWB).
P2. High levels of bullying relate to high levels of negative emotional, physical, and
behavioral responses to work in general.
Propositions 3 and 4. The patterns of relations with general versus racial/ethnic
bullying will be complex, depending upon the racial/ethnic group. Almost by deWni-
tion, Asian, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino employees are more likely than
white employees to experience racial/ethnic bullying. It is unlikely that such attacks
are limited to overtly racist actions; members of minority groups who experience
higher levels of racial/ethnic bullying are likely to experience higher levels of general
bullying as well.
S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456 441
P3. Asian, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino employees report higher levels of
both general and racial/ethnic bullying than white employees.
P4. Race/ethnicity moderate the relation between general and racial/ethnic bullying.
Asian, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino, but not white, employees who report
high levels of racial/ethnic bullying also report high levels of general bullying.
Propositions 5 and 6. The experience of bullying is likely to aVect employees' trust
in the dispute resolution and conXict management systems of their organizations.
Particularly, victims of bullying by supervisors or higher-level organization members
might have lower levels of trust in the internal modes of redress of the organizations.
P5. Employees who experience higher levels of general or racial/ethnic bullying are
less likely to trust internal organizational avenues of redress, and more likely to support
external solutions such as legislation.
P6. Employees reporting general or racial/ethnic bullying by supervisors report less
conWdence than targets of co-worker bullying in internal organizational forms of
redress, and higher support of external solutions such as legislation.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 262 full-time employees solicited by mail and e-mail from lists
provided by the National Association of African-American Human Resources
Professionals, Hispanic MBA Association, Loyola University Chicago Alumni
Association (MBA graduates), and the National Black MBA Association (Illinois). A
reasonably precise response rate cannot be calculated, because the e-mail lists were of
indeterminate length, and the postal lists resulted in a large number of ‘addressee
unknown' returns. The Hispanic MBA Association and Loyola University MBA
alumni participants responded to an e-mail solicitation. These participants chose to
respond by mail, e-mail, or by linking to an anonymous Web-based survey. The rest
were mailed solicitation letters and survey booklets, and anonymously mailed
back the survey booklets. Of the 262 respondents who completed the survey, 28
(8.8%) were Asian, 138 (52.5%) were African-American, 27 (10.3%) were Hispanic/
Latino, 71 (27%) were white, and 4 (1.5%) were other. Ninety (34.5%) were men and
172 (65.6%) were women. Managerial positions were held by 161 (61.9%) of the
participants.
2.2. Measures
The anonymous self-report survey included measures of general bullying, racial/
ethnic bullying, emotional/attitudinal reactions to bullying incidents, active/
442 S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456
behavioral responses to bullying incidents, emotional/physical strains (“CWB-
emotion”) experienced at work in general, counterproductive work behaviors
(“CWB-action”) committed at work in general, and eVectiveness of human resource,
conXict management, and dispute resolution systems and strategies. As this was an
exploratory study, and to compile a questionnaire of reasonable length, these mea-
sures were abbreviated checklists compiled from existing measures in the cases of
bullying and counterproductive work behavior, and checklists designed for the
purpose of this study derived from the bullying literature (Hoel, Einarsen, & Cooper,
2003; Keashly, 1998; Richards & Daley, 2003; Tehrani, 2003; Zapf et al., 1996)
and dispute resolution literature (Lipsky, Seeber, & Fincher, 2003; Stallworth,
McPherson, & Rute, 2001).
2.2.1. Bullying
General bullying behaviors were assessed with a behavioral checklist based on a
master list compiled from a number of existing measures (DuVy et al., 2002;
Keashly, 1998; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Pearson et al., 2001). The goal was to avoid
duplication and come up with a list of reasonable length that would cover the
domain (content validity) represented by existing measures. The resulting 25 items
were put in a checklist format in which the participant was asked “Over the past 5
years, how often have you experienced someone behaving toward yourself as fol-
lows in your place(s) of work?” An example is “ƒspread false rumors about your
work performance.” For each item, the participant was also asked: “For each item
that has occurred, please indicate who DID the behavior (a co-worker, a supervi-
sor, both or other).” An additional seven items, in parallel format, referred speciW-
cally to race or ethnicity. Examples are “Used racial or ethnic slurs to describe you”
and “Excluded you from social interactions during or after work because of your
race or ethnicity.” Response choices ranged from 1 D Never to 5 D Extremely Often.
The distinction between these two sets of items (general bullying and racial/ethnic
bullying) was supported by exploratory factor analysis. The items and factor load-
ings are presented in Table 1. One item did not clearly load on a factor and was
omitted.
2.2.2. Reaction to bullying incidents
A checklist followed of experiences or behavioral reactions: “In response to the
same or other similar unfair, discriminatory, or emotionally abusive incidents you
have experienced within the last Wve years.” These included four emotional and
attitudinal responses to bullying, such as “Became intensely emotionally upset
when reminded of the incident” and “Experienced a decrease in commitment to
your job or loyalty to your employer” and four behavioral responses to bullying,
such as “Told a supervisor” or “Filed a grievance or EEO lawsuit.” Response
choices ranged from 1 D Never to 5 D Extremely Often. The distinction between
these two sets of items was supported by exploratory factor analysis (see Table 2).
This checklist was created for the purpose of this exploratory study, based on
consequences of bullying described in the bullying literature, and remains to be
validated in future research.
S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456 443
Table 1
Frequency of respondents reporting experience of general and racial/ethnic bullying behaviors, and factor
loadings
% experiencing
it at all
% quite or
extremely often
Factor loading
General Racial
General bullying behavior
Made aggressive or intimidating eye
contact or physical gestures (e.g., Wnger
pointing, slamming objects, obscene gestures)
47.9 8.3 .64 .08
Gave you the silent treatment 66.0 16.6 .53 .26
Limited your ability to express an opinion 59.6 16.2 .63 .20
Situated your workspace in a physically
isolated location
17.7 5.7 .42 .36
Verbal abuse (e.g., yelling, cursing,
angry outbursts)
51.3 9.4 .62 .03
Demeaned you in front of co-workers or
clients
47.6 7.6 .74 .11
Gave excessively harsh criticism of your
performance
43.8 9.4 .71 .28
Spread false rumors about your personal life 18.9 1.9 .37 .22
Spread false rumors about your work
performance
39.6 7.2 .71 .26
Repeated things to others that you had
conWded
40.4 5.7 .47 .20
Made unreasonable work demands 46.4 14.0 .62 .05
Intentionally withheld necessary
information from you
58.1 20.4 .72 .35
Took credit for your work 58.1 18.1 .57 .26
Blamed you for errors for which you were
not responsible
53.2 14.7 .79 .23
Applied rules and punishments
inconsistently
49.8 17.7 .73 .18
Threatened you with job loss or demotion 24.2 5.3 .47 .25
Insulted you or put you down 40.4 9.1 .72 .17
Interrupted you while you were speaking 76.2 19.3 .61 .11
Flaunted his/her status over you in a
condescending manner
50.9 13.6 .76 .16
Intentionally left the area when you
entered
28.7 5.7 .48 .27
Failed to return your phone calls,
e-mails, etc.
42.6 6.0 .38 .16
Left you out of meetings or failed to show
up for your meetings for no legitimate
reason
44.9 7.2 .52 .39
Attacked or failed to defend your plans to
others
42.6 11.3 .71 .34
Intentionally destroyed, stolen, or
sabotaged your work materials
15.5 3.0 .50 .28
Intentionally gave you no work or
assignments below your job
description—omit
33.2 7.2 .41 .46
444 S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456
2.2.3. Job stress: Emotional/physical strain responses and counterproductive work
behavior
As opposed to the speciWc reactions to incidents measured above, survey partici-
pants were asked how often they had done the following over the past Wve years. Seven
items concerned negative feelings and physical symptoms experienced at work, in line
with the strain responses typically measured in job stress research, such as “Dreaded
(felt anxious) going in to work” and “Worried a great deal.” Thirteen items were
derived from Fox and Spector's Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist, CWB-
C (Fox et al., 2001). These included behaviors targeting organizational productivity
(“Worked slowly when things needed to be done.”) and other people in the organiza-
tion (“Started an argument with someone at work.”). Response choices ranged from
1D Never to 5 D Extremely Often. The distinction between emotional/physical strains
and counterproductive work behaviors was supported by exploratory factor analysis.
Four non-loading items were deleted, resulting in seven items measuring CWB-emo-
tion and nine items measuring CWB-action (presented in Table 2).
2.2.4. Human resource responses
Eight items asked the survey participants how eVectively they thought various HR
systems and strategies would address these kinds of unfair or discriminatory incidents.
Examples are “If the company culture encouraged employees to speak up when they
saw another employee being treated unfairly” and “If the company oVered mediation
as a form of conXict resolution.” Response choices ranged from 1DTotally ineVective
or counterproductive to 5D Extremely eVective. For each item, the respondent was also
Table 1 (continued)
% experiencing
it at all
% quite or
extremely often
Factor loading
General Racial
Racial/ethnic bullying: Based on race or ethnicity
Made derogatory comments about
your racial or ethnic group
15.5 1.1 .10 .71
Told jokes about your racial or ethnic
group
18.9 1.1 .03 .72
Used racial or ethnic slurs to describe
you
7.6 0.8 .22 .41
Excluded you from social interactions
during or after work because of your
race or ethnicity
18.9 4.9 .19 .64
Failed to give you information you needed
to do your job because of your race or
ethnicity
15.1 3.8 .28 .63
Made racist comments (for example,
says people of your ethnicity aren't very
smart or can't do the job)
15.9 1.1 .12 .69
Made you feel as if you have to give up
your racial or ethnic identity to get
along at work
20.8 6.8 .19 .66
asked to indicate whether his/her company has such a program or process in place.
S. Fox, L.E. Stallworth / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 438–456 445
Table 2
Frequency of respondents reporting their own social/emotional and behavioral responses, and factor