Workplace bullying is an evolving concept in organisational psychology (Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, & De Witte, 2014) and has attracted a growing level of interest from academics and practitioners alike. Increasing attention is being paid to the prevalence of workplace bullying (Hurley, Hutchinson, Bradbury, & Browne, 2016) and its consequences for individuals and organisations (Berlingieri, 2015; Hoel & Giga, 2006). Not only does workplace bullying adversely affect individuals’ physical and psychological health (Coyne et al., 2016) it also results in negative consequences for organisations (Hurley et al., 2016), including; absenteeism, turnover, reduced productivity and poor reputation (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
Workplace bullying is not limited to any particular sector or industry (Namie, 2003). Even though their image maybe one of an ideal workplace of free speech and intellectual debate (Keashly & Neuman, 2010), higher education institutions are no different to others in this regard (Antoniadou, Sandiford, Wright, & Alker, 2015; Lester, 2013; Skinner et al., 2015).
The management of public services, including publicly funded higher education institutions, has been subject to change since the late twentieth century across the globe (Bergh, Friberg, Persson, & Dahlborg-Lyckhage, 2015) with the pace and extent of changes intensifying to the present day. Along with revolutionary changes in the delivery for services and accounting for government expenditures (Elzinga, 2012; Pick, Teo, Tummers, & Newton, 2015), the global public administration reforms which commenced in the 1970s have also resulted in changes in the structures of governance (Ewalt, 2001). These reforms towards marketisation and application of business management theories to the domain of public administration (O'Neill, 2009) are known as New Public Management (NPM) (Hood, 1995).
NPM has transformed higher education governance in the 37 publicly funded institutions in Australia (Favaloro, 2015). Research by Bosman, Coiacetto, and Dredge (2011) indicates that swift and intense changes in the sector have redefined the management style, structures and mode of education delivery at institutions across the country. NPM practices, diminished government funding, and limited resources, risk transforming this sector into a full-fledged industry focused on corporate objectives to achieve operational profitability.
Indications are that bullying behaviours seen in the Australian higher education sector may be linked to its volatile economic environment and increased competition. As the sector’s changing employment patterns have moved towards a more contingent workforce, job insecurity amongst university employees has developed to a point where many may prefer to endure bullying rather than reporting it formally. Such scenarios are further fuelled by the NPM practices implemented in the sector which may result in staff feeling less secure and more vulnerable in a highly competitive environment. The uncertainty of employment in the sector also adds to employees’ reluctance to address bullying via formal channels, enabling the behaviour to continue unchecked. The workplace culture of silence, in combination with NPM practices, may have worked to normalise bullying behaviours in Australian academia.
Organisational change and the organisation of public sector work
