There are oppositions and arguments on the subject that whether there are common traits of the mobbing victim and mobber but dominant affects of organization and managerial factors’ on mobbing behaviors are commonly agreed. Leymann (1996) shows how an organization becomes the main source of such behaviors: poor conflict management and poor communication- e.g. after a conflict arise, consider a manager ignores the problem and allow the gossip turn around, and even chooses side; lack in procedural and cultural structure- e.g. administering no punish to the mobber and letting the victim alone fosters to further similar situations. Changing nature of work, work organization, culture and climate, and leadership has showed as the contributors to mobbing at work by Zapf and Einarsen (2003). Cooper (1999) mentioned that for many organizations the globalization, economic crisis, needs to reduce operating costs required restructuring and downsizing, and as a result pressure has increased and stress factor is getting higher (Zapf and Einarsen, 2003). It is likely that restructuring attempts and downsizing also result in role conflicts and role ambiguity. This gives rise to micropolitical behavior (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2007). In line with the view, Vartia’s study (1996) found that competitiveness with people pursuing their own interest, poor flow of information, lack of mutual conversations about tasks and goals cause the mobbing situations. Large and hierarchical structures, reduced human resources budgets, closed door policy, poor communication channels, complaints not taking seriously or even better to cover up the problems, little or no teamwork, poor leadership are seemed as signs of poor management (Zapf and Einarsen, 2003; Yuceturk, 2002). Mobbing is mostly practiced in public establishments, health services, schools (Zapf, Knorz and Kulla, 1996), educational settings, religious organizations (Leymann, 1996), and according to Leymann, this is a consequence of such organizations are controlling by more than one hierarchy, and workload in addition to labor shortage even worsened the situation. When it comes to culture, it could be either accepted directly- if humorous joking with new comers comes a part of socialization process, or indirectly- no policy or punishment system for such actions (Zapf and Einarsen, 2003). But also it should be kept in mind that there could always be someone who tends to violate the working environment and peers no matter which organizational culture was imposed and how strict policy or punishments are in use (Zapf, Knorz and Kulla). On the other side, mobbing can be used consciously as an organizational weapon or strategy to reduce employment, renew employee profile and get rid of an undesirable employee (Yuceturk, 2002).
In every organization there exist conflicts, stress and pressure, irritations or personal differences but that doesn’t mean that it turns out to a mobbing situation. It could be a mistake to consider only the mobber’s character, the mobbing victim’s, or the organizational character as a main reason why mobbing arises. Indeed, it seems that at some points, in some proportions or combinations of these characteristics are becoming effective. When looking at Einarsen’s (2000) theoretical framework figure, it’s clear that the three components are effective in the mobbing process. According to her, when organizational factors enable the aggressive individual and social behaviors, the mobbing takes place and, the impact of the violence and the victim’s perception are shaped by the victim’s characteristic and the organizational actions taken or not taken like tolerance/intolerance or policies against mobbing. Thus, mobbing has seen as a process. Four critical phases described in Leymann’s study are; (1) a triggering situation –mostly a conflict, (2) to manipulate the victim’s reputation, victim’s communication and social channels, nature of or possibility of performing the job and violence/threat of violence in a consistent and systematic way, (3) the case becomes an official case by the management’s step in, (4) expulsion (Leymann 1990).
In general the effects of mobbing have divided into three parts in the literature: effect on victim, effects on organization and the effects on the society. Being exposed to hostile behaviors for a quite a long period for at least once a week, results in psychological, psychosomatic and social suffering (Leymann and Gustafsson, 1996). According to Yuceturk (2002), at the first stage the victims are suffering from: crying for no reason, sleep disorders, sudden aggression, and concentration problems; at the second stage, in addition to first stage symptoms: high blood pressure, gastrointestinal diseases, depression, unwillingness to go to work and being late to work; at the third stage: depression level increases, panic attack and anxiety starts; at the last stage: accidents and tendency to suicidal attempts occur. A decrease in self-esteem and self-confidence also can be seen (Tinaz, 2006). Personal and professional reputation damages, being exposed to isolation, increased health expenses, income losses due to being unemployed are the effects in social and economical facets on the victim (Tinaz, 2006). Even worse, likely to encounter future losses due to not being able to find any jobs because of getting older (Leymann and Gustafsson, 1996), or because of economic crisis and/or higher unemployment rate. Vartia (2001) states that repeated exposure to mobbing aggravates the impacts especially on lowering self-esteem.
Organization as a whole also suffers deeply by the ignored mobbing events and not taking precautions before it becomes unable to solve. At first, more conflicts arise; organizational climate and culture negatively affected; erodes trust; lack of personal motivation and commitment and respect to each other start to dominate the working environment; then economic costs such as increase in sick leaves, personal turnovers, and additional costs for new recruits and their socialization process, general declines in performance and quality; increased production and operation costs; increased amends and court expenses; damages in organization’s reputation (Leymann 1996; Yuceturk, 2002; Tinaz, 2006; Bozbel and Palaz, 2007).
And finally, in the macro level, effects of mobbing on society are required to mention. Health problems and expenses increase as a whole; early retirement, unemployment rate and unemployment allowances increase; increase in number of psychologically collapsed people with lost self-esteem who supposed to be included in highly talented work force; increased separated families in the society and dominated unhappiness (Leymann, 1996; Tinaz, 2006).
Mobbing Studies in Turkey
There are several studies in Turkish literature, especially in health sector more specifically for nurses, researching for violence, abuse and/or harassment, however, these cannot be mentioned as mobbing studies. Although the perceived harassing behaviors shows strong similarities, because mostly the victims are not under a continuous violation by the same harasser and more importantly the harassers reported as patients or patients’ relative mostly. Yuceturk started narrative mobbing studies in 2002 and mobbing studies have continued increasingly. These narrative studies give a general understanding of definition of mobbing, its process, mostly seen mobbing behaviors, the victim’s, the mobber’s and the organization’s possible characteristics as a trigger to cause these behaviors, the effects on the victim, to the organization and to the society as a whole, and some studies conducted to discuss the issue from the viewpoint of law, its progress in developed countries and not having any law in Turkey (Yuceturk, 2002, 2003; Yuceturk and Oke, 2005; Tinaz, 2006; Ozen, 2007; Bozbel and Palaz, 2007). Empirical studies in Turkey started to conduct in 2006. In the period 2006-2007, studies conducted to understand if mobbing exists in the selected groups, whether there are any differences related to demographic characteristics of participants, sectors the organizations conducted, or cross-cultural (one study), and the effects of mobbing, victims’ responses. Two studies in 2008, and one in 2009 were conducted to develop a scale to evaluate psychologically violent behaviors at workplace by a more appropriate, culturally adopted instrument. By 2008, mobbing and climate, mobbing and commitment relations started to be searched. Empirical studies in Turkey have been conducted mostly in public institutions but private and both institutions are not too little to be undervalued. Another important point is almost all studies focused on service sectors.
METHODOLOGY
This study reviews survey-based research papers published in refereed journals and conference proceedings and focusing in on mobbing behaviors in Turkey. The study covers the period that survey studies have been conducted. At the beginning of the research, online research databases ,such as Business Source Complete-EBSCO, Science Direct- Elsevier, Ulakbim, and Google Scholar, were scanned by using ‘mobbing’, ‘bullying’, psychological abuse/harassment/terror/ abuse’ as key words, then to scan further and reach all possible sources, snowball method used through reference lists of the papers. At the end, as can be seen at Table.1, 31 survey-based papers studied in detail, in which 24 of them published in refereed journals and 7 of them published in conference proceedings. According to survey-based studies conducted in Turkey, general tendency about mobbing in all dimensions given in a descriptive way. Being first Turkish literature review in empirical mobbing studies makes this study important with a thought that reviewing mobbing studies in Turkey will provide a significant insight to both practitioners for their applications and researchers to decide necessary fields to focus in on.
Findings
Table 1 sets out the papers reviewed in this study: private/public distinction, interested groups, samples, and which relations to be searched are given in a nutshell.
As can be seen in the table, 17 out of 31 studies (%54.8) were conducted to analyze public sector, 8 of them (%25.8) to private sector, and the remaining 6 (%19.4)were held for both public and private sector institutions. When considering interested groups, it is prominently dominant that most studies held in service sectors (%83.9). In the remaining 3 studies out of 6 were not identified as regards to the respondent work groups, one was in production and the other one was mixed-service and production analyzed together. Another noteworthy point in the participant work groups is 10 of them (%32.3) directly related to health staff and the following 6 (%19.4) is directly related to primary and secondary school teachers. The last column of table 1 summaries the relations in request. Other than scale development studies, the studies focus on whether mobbing exists and displays any demographical differences, its effects, victim’s responses, and mobbing and culture, climate, and/or commitment relations. The paper of Ozturk et al. (2007) is the first study to construct a scale and the findings indicate that it is valid and reliable for academic nurses. Yildirim and Yildirim’s (2008) results show that the instrument is valid and reliable for testing mobbing for nurses. Yaman (2009) in his scale development concludes that the instrument is valid and reliable, and can be used in the field of education.
Some studies did not collect any demographic characteristics of participants, and in some studies the collected data were not shared but the relation was. Table 2 sums up the studies searched for the relation of demographic characteristics and mobbing. The sign “+” represents that a statistically significant difference is found, and the sign “-“ represent that there is no significant difference according to that specific demographic characteristics on mobbing. The headings for characteristics are as followed: age, sex, marital status, education level, years of experience, position at work, and public/private differentiation.
As shown in table 2, six studies find that there is no statistical difference according to variable ‘age’. However, there is four other studies’ findings show that younger employees- younger than 25 (Koc and Urasoglu Bulut, 2009) and age between 18-30 (Yilmaz et al., 2008) - are more likely to be exposed to mobbing than the elderly peers. One study only looks for whether a relation exists and found that it is but not specified the way of the relation (Acar and Dundar, 2008).
Seven studies find that there is no statistical difference according to variable ‘sex’. Some studies mentioned that the results show a significant difference: on the one hand, some studies find female employees are more likely to exposed mobbing (Bayrak Kok, 2006; Aydin and Ozkul, 2007; Dogan Kilic, 2009), on the other hand some find male employees are more likely to (Cemaloglu and Erturk, 2007; Koc and Urasoglu Bulut, 2009). Yilmaz et al. (2008) details the study and not looks for whether a relation exists between demographic characteristics and mobbing but for the relation in the subcategories of mobbing. According to this study, for the variable sex, in the subcategories of communication, occupational situation, and health, females are more likely to exposed mobbing where, for the other subcategories -social contacts and personal reputation- no significant relation is found.
Five studies find that there is no statistical difference according to variable ‘marital status’, where three of them find a significant relation. 2 out of these 3 studies mention that married employees are more exposed to mobbing (Bayrak Kok, 2006; Aydin and Ozkul, 2007) while Dogan Kilic (2009) claims that single employees are more likely to.
When it comes to education level, four studies find that there is no statistical difference according to variable ‘education level’. Three studies’ findings show that a relation exists. Acar and Dundar (2008) not specified but only mention that a relation exists. According to Ozaralli and Torun (2007) university graduates are more exposed to mobbing than high school graduates and Yilmaz et al.’s (2008) study shows that in all subcategories higher education level employees are at risk of being more exposed to mobbing.
Four studies find that there is no statistical difference according to variable ‘years of experience’, where Yilmaz et al. (2008) find no significant difference only in social contacts and occupational situation subcategories. However, there are also studies shows a significant relation. Yilmaz et al.’s (2008) study shows, in communication, personal reputation and health subcategories, less experienced employees are likely to be exposed to mobbing. Tanoglu et al. (2007) and Dogan Kilic (2009) support these findings and according to them less experienced (1-5 years) employees are more likely to be the victims of mobbing.
For position at work –also can be used for department- four studies find no statistical difference on mobbing. Acar and Dundar (2008) only mentioned a relation exists. Aydin and Ozkul’s (2007) study shows hotel employees in housekeeping and catering departments are more likely to be the mobbing victims. According to Cemaloglu (2007), classroom teachers are more likely to be exposed to mobbing than branch teachers.
It can be said that according to the sector and interested work groups given data of demographic characteristics vary. According to studies of Ozaralli and Torun (2007), and Ozdemir and Acikgoz (2007) employees in public institutions are more exposed to mobbing than private sector organizations, while as opposed Yildirim and Yildirim (2006) found that private hospital nurses, Kok (2006) found private banking employees, and Koc and Urasoglu Bulut (2009) found that private school teachers are more exposed to mobbing than public hospital nurses, public banking employees, and public school teachers respectively.
In addition to above common traits to be tested, Aydin and Ozkul (2007) also find a significant relation with being exposed to mobbing and salary. According to their study, employees with lower level salaries are more exposed to mobbing in hotels. Also when considering the hotel characteristics, 5 star hotel’s employees more than 4 stars, city center hotel’s employees more than sea side hotels, and seasonal hotel’s employees more than the employees working for the hotels running during the year are likely to be exposed to mobbing.
In their study, Demirel and Yoldas (2008) define Turkey and Kazakhstan by the management types. To the study, in Turkey there is a guiding management style whereas in Kazakhstan there is bureaucratic style. Thus, according to them this difference is the explanation of employees in Kazakhstan being more exposed to mobbing than employees in Turkey.
Table 3 shows which studies defined a general mobbing percentage among the sample, and at what percentage. As it shows, the mobbing percentages range from 2% to 91%. When considering the studies conducted in Sweden 3.5% (Leymann, 1996), in Norwey 8% (Mathiesen and Einarsen), in Finland around 10 % (Vartia, 1996; 2001, other than 4 of specified studies the ratio is extremely high in Turkey.
Table 1. Summary of Studies
Table 2. Summary of Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics
According to the surveys replied by the respondents who defined as the victims of mobbing, most perceived mobbing behaviors are as follows: (1) being ignored in decisions or in social gatherings (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010; Aydin and Ozkul, 2007; Yuksel, 2009; Cemaloglu, 2007; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008); (2) belittling in front of others (Yildirim et al., 2007; Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim, 2009; Aksu and Balci, 2009; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008; Unal and Karaahmet, 2008); (3) unfairly criticized/under evaluation on job performance (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010; Aksu and Balci, 2009; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008); (4) being blamed for something that not in responsible for (Yildirim et al., 2007; Elibol et al., 2008; Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim, 2009; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008); (5) exposing to unmanageable workload (Elibol et al., 2008; Yuksel, 2009; Bilgel et al., 2006; Unal and Karaahmet, 2008); (6) making up gossips/rumors (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Elibol et al., 2008; Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009); (7) given jobs being controlled directly or indirectly (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim, 2009; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008); (8) given meaningless tasks (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Elibol et al., 2008; Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009; Yuksel, 2009).
Table 3. Mobbing in %
* 41.6% in defense, 34.6% in banking and 80.6% in cleaning sector ** 83% of female and 54% of male
Although rarely asked or mentioned in findings, it is also noteworthy to imply that the lowest perceived mobbing behaviors are teasing about personal qualifications/ making fun of personal or religious or political preferences, physical violence, written threats (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Cemaloglu, 2007; Aksu and Balci, 2009; Aydin and Ozkul, 2007).
From the victims’ point of view, the most perceived reasons for mobbing behaviors are: (1) envy (Tanoglu et al., 2007; Ozturk et al., 2008; Bayrak Kok, 2006; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010; Bilgel et al., 2006; Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009); (2) poor management (Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009; Bayrak Kok, 2006; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010); (3) stressful work environment (Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur, 2009; Bayrak Kok, 2006; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010); (4) bad character of the mobber (Tanoglu et al., 2007; Bayrak Kok, 2006).
Mobbers are mostly reported as the victims’ superior/manager and following with peers (Ozaralli and Torun, 2007; Ozturk et al., 2008; Tigrel and Kokaln, 2009; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008; Bilgel et al., 2006; Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim et al., 2007; Yildirim, 2009). Moreover, in three studies - Yildirim and Yildirim (2006); Yildirim et al. (2007); Yildirim (2009) - they further detail the findings: the percentages of reported mobbers are changing in order to perceived mobbing behaviors. Tanoglu et al., 2007 order is a little bit differs: according to that study managers come first again but the second is a group of people containing both the manager and peers, then third peers come. Tengilimoglu et al., 2010 and Iyem, 2007 claim that mobbing behaviors are mostly come from peers. Another finding about the mobber is about the sex. Cemaloglu and Erturk (2007) claim that for both men and women the mobber is mostly men, whereas Yimaz and Uzuncarsili Soydas (2006) shows the mobbers are mostly female if they are dominant at work place as they sampled banking sector. On the other hand, there are other studies argue that the mobber and the victim are most likely to be in the same sex (Bilgel et al., 2006; Tanoglu et al., 2007). Another point is according to Bayrak Kok (2006), when the experiences of employees increase, their mobber perceptions are likely to be managers mostly.
Most victims according to surveys choose to talk face-to-face with the mobber in order to make the mobber give an end to such behaviors (Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008; Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim et al., 2007; Ozturk et al., 2008; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Aksu and Balci, 2009; Bilgel et al., 2006). Another response most victims try to stop the violence they have been exposed to is thinking seriously to resign or propose to a rotation (Yilmaz and Uzuncarsili Soydas, 2006; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008; Ozaralli and Torun, 2007; Yildirim et al., 2007; Ozturk et al., 2008; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010; Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009). However, giving up and choosing to do nothing is also another most frequently chosen answer (Ozturk et al., 2008; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Aksu and Balci, 2009; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010). Other than these, being more organized and careful to avoid criticism (Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Gunduz and Yilmaz, 2008; Yildirim et al., 2007), reporting situation to the management (Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010; Aydin and Ozkul, 2007), sharing the suffering with friends and family (Ozturk et al., 2008; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Bilgel et al., 2006), and ignoring or reacting in the same way against the mobber (Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010) are also seems as notable responses reported.
Being under such a psychological violence for a long period of time, affects the victims in many serious forms. Physiological reactions can be sorted as: feeling tired, angry and stressed, having headaches, feeling anxiety and depression, eating excessively or not having an appetite, sleeping anomaly (Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim et al., 2007; Tanoglu et al., 2007; Iyem, 2007; Tengilimoglu et al., 2010; Bilgel et al., 2006; Tigrel and Kokalan, 2009; Yildirim, 2009). Emotional reactions listed as: extreme sadness when remember the mobbing behaviors, negatively affected private life away from work, feel like want to cry, contemplated committed a suicide, negatively affected self-respect, increase aggressiveness and fear, feeling unhappiness and guilt (Yildirim and Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim et al., 2007; Ozaralli and Torun, 2007; Ozturk et al., Iyem, 2007). Tanoglu et al. (2007) also mentioned the increased consumption of alcohol and smoking habits to the participants’ replies. Tigrel and Kokalan (2009) claim that the victims first blame themselves, but then realized the situation is mobbing and also need to undergone therapy sessions in order to overcome psychological effects of mobbing.
According to Yildirim et al. (2007) and Yildirim (2009), such psychological violations also affect the victims in several ways that leads to effect organization as a whole negatively. For instance, people starts not to trust anyone in the organization and furthermore they want to take out the pain experienced by belittling someone else and this leads even more conflicts between employees, thus work motivation and attachment to organization getting lower.
Five studies especially focus in on the mobbing and commitment and climate relations. As to Tengilimoglu et al (2010) and Tengilimoglu and Akdemir Mansur (2009), there is no significant relation between being subjected to mobbing and organizational commitment but when pin the research down to commitment types it is found out that there is a negative relation between subjected to mobbing and affective commitment and normative commitment while no relation found between continuance commitment. In Bulutlar and Unler Oz (2008) study notes that there is only a partial relation between being bullying and commitment. According to findings, employees who are being bullied have lower affective commitment and lower normative commitment; however, employees who are being bullied have higher continuance commitment than those who are not bullied. Also another finding in the same study is that employees who are being bullied and take support from their supervisor will be more committed to the organization than the employees who do not receive support. Ergun Ozler et al. (2008) examine one by one the relation between subcategories of mobbing and commitment types. As to the study, increased attacks on communication, personal reputation, health and occupational situation negatively effects (decreases) affective commitment whereas no significant relation between social contacts and affective commitment; increased attacks on communication, social contacts and occupational situation negatively effects (decreases) continuance commitment whereas increased attacks on personal reputation positively effects continuance commitment, and there is no significant relation between health and continuance commitment; increased attacks on communication, social contacts, personal reputation, health and occupational situation negatively effects (decreases) normative commitment. The findings of all studies almost in line with each other and the reason for the positive relation between violence and continuance commitment is considered as the need for work (Ergun Ozler et al., 2008).
Yilmaz et al. (2008, conclude that (1) increased supercilious of management negatively affected the employees' communication, and it leads to mobbing, (2) job-oriented management positively affect the employees' communication and occupational situation, and leads to decreased risk of mobbing, (3) being tolerant positively affect employees' communication, occupational situation, social contacts and health, and it leads to decreased risk of mobbing. Bulutlar and Unler Oz’s (2008) analysis support that a positive relation between instrumental climate and bullying behavior exists, and partially supported that there is a negative relation between law and code and bullying, rules and bullying. It is also found that physical threats have no effect on normative commitment alone; its interaction with supervisory support produces a significant relationship: Employees who encounter physical threats but receive supervisory support have lower normative commitment levels, and employees who are underestimated by others and at the same time supported by their supervisor have higher normative commitment level than those who do not take support.
CONCLUSION
Although it is not possible to make generalizations from the papers because of the sample sizes not really utilized to estimate about the population, still provide significant insights about the subject. Most studies show that there is statistically no difference on variables age, sex, marital status, education level, position and level of experience. Thus, anyone can be a mobbing victim at work. Besides the limitation, when considering the reported mobbing events being reached to a point as 91% is thought-provoking.
According to victim’s perceptions, they mostly face with ignorance, belittling, and criticisms or under evaluation on job performance. So as far as to the answers it can be concluded that, in Turkey, mobbing behaviors are targeting on to first socials contacts, second personal reputation, and then professional life. It could confidently be declared that the mobbers are mostly the superiors/managers of the victims, and the victim and the mobber are most likely in same sex. Victims mostly choose to talk with the mobber face-to-face or nothing to do then they seriously thinks to leave the organization or want a rotation within the organization to move away from the mobber.
These highly destructive interactions make the victims suffer from several physiological and psychological illnesses and these most likely to affect negatively their private life away from work either. Organizations in which mobbing occurs, also affected by the decreased motivation and commitment. Studies show that mobbing effects affective and normative commitment mostly. But because of the high unemployment rate and the economic crises prevent employees to leave their organizations even they really want to. And it is also found that supervisory support absorbs the effect of mobbing and, laws and codes can decrease the mobbing intentions.
Thus, at first organizations need to take precautions to prevent mobbing even before it starts. To do that, construct a culture that not tolerated such acts are seemed vital, also necessary punishment methods need to be declared and applied objectively if necessary. Another point is to make all employees conscious of mobbing and let them know the way can be followed in such a situation occurred at workplace, so that if someone faces with mobbing can easily understand situation, consequences and consciously take actions to stop the disturbances. Hopeful news of an initiating legislation for mobbing is a pleasing progress broadcasted by NTV news on January 9th, 2009. Thus, at least taking the subject on a legal base can keep people who intend to initiate such actions or if happened, victims can also seek justice.
REFERENCES
Acar, A. B. and G. Dundar (2008), Isyerinde Psikolojik Yıldırmaya (Mobbing) Maruz Kalma Sıklıgı ile Demografik Ozellikler Arasindaki Iliskinin Incelenmesi, Istanbul Universitesi Isletme Fakultesi Dergisi, 37 (2), 111-120.
Aydin, S. and E. Ozkul (2007), Is Yerinde Yasanan Psikolojik Siddetin Yapisi ve Boyutlari: 4-5 Yildizli Otel Isletmeleri Örnegi, Anadolu Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7 (2), 169-186
Aksu A. and Y. Balci (2009),Ilkogretim Okullarinda Psikolojik Yildirma ve Psikolojik Yildirmayla Basetme, e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 4 (4)
Bayrak Kok, S. (2006), Is Yasaminda Psiko-Siddet Sarmali Olarak Yildirma Olgusu ve Nedenleri, 14. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi, 433-448.
Bilgel, N., S. Aytac and N. Bayram (2006), Bullying in Turkish White-collar Workers, Occupational Medicine, 56, 226-231.
Bozbel, S. and S. Palaz (2007), Isyerinde Psikolojik Taciz (Mobbing) ve Hukuki Sonuclari, TISK Akademi, 1, 66-81.
Bulutlar F. and E. Unler Oz (2009), The Effects of Ethical Climates on Bullying Behavior in the Workplace, Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 273–295.
Cemaloglu, N. (2007), The Exposure of Primary School Teachers to Bullying: An Analysis of Various Variables, Social Behavior and Personality, 35 (6), 789-802.
Cemaloglu, N. and A. Ertur (2007),Ogretmenlerin Maruz Kaldiklari Yildirma Eylemlerinin Cinsiyet Yonunden Incelenmesi, Türk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 345-362
Demirel Y. and M. A. Yoldas (2008), Saglık Kuruluslarinda Karsilasilan Psikolojik Yildirma Davranislarinin Turkiye ve Kazakistan Acisindan Karsilastirilmasi, Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 1-25.
Dogan Kilic, E. (2009), Psychological Violence in Learning Organizations: A Case Study in Sanliurfa, Turkey, Social Behavior and Personality, 37(7), 869-880.
Davenport, N., R. Schwartz and G. P. Elliott (2003), Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, Civil Society Publishing
Einarsen, S. (1999), The Nature And Causes Of Bullying At Work, International Journal of Manpower, 20 (1/2), 16-27.
Einarsen, S. (2000), Bullying and harassment at work: Unveiling an organizational taboo, Conference Proceedings of Transcending Boundaries: Integrating People, Processes and Systems, 7-13.
Einarsen S., H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper (2003), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspective in Research and Practice, Taylor and Francis.
Elibol, H., I. Gokdeniz and T. Gungor (2008), Treatment Incompatible with Human Dignity: An Application of Private Sector, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 18, 96-107.
Ergun Ozler, D., C. Giderler Atalay and M. Dil Sahin (2008), Mobbing’in Orgutsel Baglilik Uzerine Etkisini Belirlemeye Yonelik Bir Arastirma, Dumlupinar Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22, 37-60.
Gunduz, H. B. And O. Yilmaz 2008), Ortaogretim Kurumlarinda Mobbing (Yildirma) Davranislarina Iliskin Ogretmen ve Yonetici Gorusleri (Duzce Ornegi), Milli Egitim Dergisi, 179, 269-281.
Iyem, C. (2007), Futbolda Mobbing: Sakarya Spor A.S. Ornegi, 15. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi, 919-927.
Koc, M. and H. Urasoglu Bulut (2009), Ortaogretim Ogretmenlerinde Mobbing: Cinsiyet Yas ve Lise Turu Degiskenleri Acisindan Incelenmesi, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 1 (1), 64 - 80
Leymann, H. (1990), Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces, Violence and Victims, 5 (2), 119-126.
Leyman, H. (1996), The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 165-184.
Leymann, H. and A. Gustafsson (1996), Mobbing at Work and the Development of Post-traumatic Stress Disorders, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 251-275.
Matthiesen S. B. and S. Einarsen (2007), Perpetrators and Targets of Bullying at Work: Role Stress and Individual Differences, Violence and Victims, 22 (6), 735-753.
Ozaralli, N. and A. Torun (2007), Calisanlara Uygulanan Zorbaligin Magdurlarin Kisilik Ozellikleri, Negatif Duygular ve Isten Ayrilma Niyetleriyle Iliskisi Uzerine Bir Arastirma, 15. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi, 938-947.
Ozdemir, M. and B. Acikgoz (2007), Mobbing’e Maruz Kalanlarin Tepki Seviyelerinin Olcumu, 15. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi, 911-918.
Ozen, S. (2007), Isyerinde Psikolojik Siddet ve Nedenleri, “Is, Guc” Endustri Iliskileri ve Insan Kaynaklari Dergisi, 9 (3), 1-24.
Ozturk H., S. Sokmen, F. Yilmaz and D. Cilingir (2008), Measuring mobbing experiences of academic nurses: Development of a mobbing scale, Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 20, 435–442.
“Psikolojik Tacize Onlem” in ntvmsnbc video gallery, retrieved on 04.05.2010 <>
Rayner, C. and H. Hoel (1997), A Summary Review of Literature Relating to Workplace Bullying, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 181-191.
Tanoglu S. C., M. A. Aricioglu and M. Kocabas (2007), Research on Mobbing in Organizations: A Case Study on Academicians, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, 558-568.
Tengilimoglu D., F. Akdemir Mansur and S.F. Dziegielewski (2010), The Effect of the Mobbing on Organizational Commitment in the Hospital Setting: A Field Study, Journal of Social Service Research, 36 (2), 128-141.
Tengilimoglu D. and F. Akdemir Mansur (2009),Isletmelerde Uygulanan Mobbing’in (Psikolojik Siddet) Orgutsel Bagliliga Etkisi, Uluslararasi Iktisadi ve Idari Incelemeler Dergisi, 1 (3), pages 69-84.
Tinaz, P. (2006), Isyerinde Psikolojik Taciz (Mobbing), Calisma ve Toplum, 4, 13-28.
Tigrel E. Y. and O. Kokalan (2009), Academic Mobbing in Turkey, International Journal of Behavioral, Cognitive, Educational and Psychological Sciences, 1 (2), 91-99.
Unal A. and E. Karaahmet (2008), Mobbing Among Employees in Bursa, Turkey: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study, Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (2), 141-157.
Vartia, M. (1996), The Sources of Bullying- Psychological Work Environment and Organizational Climate, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 203-214.
Vartia, M. (2001), Consequences of Workplace Bullying with Respect to the Well-being of its Targets and the Observers of Bullying, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27 (1), 63-69.
Yaman, E. (2009), The Validity and Reliability of the Mobbing Scale (MS), Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9 (2), Pages 981-988.
Yildirim D. and A. Yildirim (2008), Development and psychometric evaluation of workplace psychologically violent behaviors instrument, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, 1361–1370.
Yildirim D., (2009), Bullying Among Nurses and its Effects, International Nursing Review, 56, 504–511.
Yildirim A. and D. Yildirim (2007), Mobbing in the Workplace by Peers and Managers: Mobbing Experienced by Nurses Working in Healthcare Facilities in Turkey and its Effect on Nurses, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 1444–1453.
Yildirim D., A. Yildirim and A. Timucin (2007), Mobbing Behaviors Encountered by Nurse Teaching Staff, Nursing Ethics, 14 (4), 447-463.
Yilmaz, A., D. Ergun Ozler and N. Mercan (2008), Mobbing ve Orgut Iklimi ile Iliskisine Yonelik Ampirik Bir Arastirma, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7 (26), 334-357.
Yilmaz, G. and A. Uzunçarşılı Soydaş (2006), Bullying Among Turkish Bank Employees and Its Relation with Sick Leave, Proceedings of Asia Pacific Management Conference, 1-4.
Yuceturk, E. E. (2003), Bilgi Caginda Orgutlerin Gorunmeyen Yuzu: Mobbing, 2. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yonetim Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi, 1-10.
Yuceturk E. E. and Oke M. K. (2005), Mobbing and Bullying: Legal Aspects Related to Workplace Bullying in Turkey, South-East Europe Review, 2, 61-70.
Yuksel M. (2010), Mobbing: Psychological Terrorism at Workplace, Proceedings of International Conference on Conflict, Terrorism, and Society, 138-147.
Zapf, D. (1999), Organizational Work Group Related and Personal Causes of Mobbing/Bullying at Work, International of Manpower, 20 (1/2), 70-85
Zapf, D. and S. Einarsen (2001), Bullying in the Workplace: Recent Trends in Research and Practice-an Introduction, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (4), 369-373.
Zapf, D., C. Knorz and M. Kulla (1996), On the Relationship between Mobbing Factors, and Job Content, Social Work Environment, and Health Outcomes, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 215-237.
