Mobbing diagnosis instrument: stages of construction, structure and connectedness of criteria/Mobingo diagnozavimo instrumentas: konstravimo etapai, struktura ir kriteriju susietumas.

Zukauskas, Pranas ; Vveinhardt, Jolita

1. Introduction

Recently, a lot of attention in scientific publications is given to the management of organisational change, organisational commitment, organisational strategy, competitive advantage, decision-making (Ben-Yair et al. 2005; Ginevicius, Korsakiene 2005; Zinkeviciute 2007; Singh 2007; Markovic 2008; Rees 2008; Jumpponen et al. 2008; Ogrean et al. 2008; Davidaviciene 2008; Ponikvar et al. 2009 etc.), human resource development, employee motivation (Sennikova, Kurovs 2006; Karnitis 2006; Kumpikaite 2008; Kumpikaite, Ciarniene 2008; Srivastava, Kakkar 2008 etc.), to the issues of organisational ethics, ethical decision-making, cultural differences, organisational culture (Ginevicius, Vaitkunaite 2006; Alas, Tuulik 2007; Ogrean et al. 2008; Kaklauskas et al. 2009; Zeng et al. 2009 etc). The impact of State aid on business (Ginevicius et al. 2008 etc), the criteria of effective leadership (Saee 2005 etc.) are also addressed, but although all these aspects are especially relevant to the analysis of the problems of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, there is a lack of publications intended to reveal the process of formation of mobbing diagnosis instruments.

Most scientists studying the phenomenon of mobbing use H. Leymann (1990) Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT questionnaire), where five criteria for measuring mobbing at workplace were identified: impact on self-expression and communication, attacks on social relationships, attacks on reputation, attacks in occupational and personal life situations, direct attacks on health. K. Niedl's instrument is popular among researchers. Based on the LIPT questionnaire, K. Niedl (1995) identified seven criteria for measuring mobbing: attacking a person's integrity, isolation, direct and indirect critique, and sanctions by certain tasks, threats, sexual encroachment and attacking a person's private sphere. C. Rayner and H. Hoel (1997) distinguished five criteria of mobbing behaviour: threat to professional status, threat to personal integrity, isolation, enforced overwork and destabilisation. To identify mobbing in the workplace L. Quine (1999) used the questionnaire, in which five criteria were identified: occupational stress (based on House, Rizzo 1972); job satisfaction (based on Quinn, Staines 1979); propensity to leave (based on Cammann et al. 1979); anxiety and depression (based on Zigmond, Snaith 1983); a scale measuring support at work (based on Payne 1979). The object of the article: mobbing diagnosis instrument. The goal of the article is to present how the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve organisational climate was developed. The objectives of the article aim at: distinguishing the stages of development of the research instrument; analysing expert assessments of the research instrument; examining the structure of the research instrument; carrying out the analysis of correlations. Research methods: analysis of literature, expert assessments, correlation analysis.

2. The stages of the instrument construction and results of expert assessments

The purpose of methodology is to show the limits and possibilities of science, and the choice of the methodology itself is determined by the scientific paradigm--the set of generally accepted world-view and scientific assumptions and prevailing practice, which not so much reveal the final criteria of the truth as provide an opportunity to understand each other. Methodology can be defined as a theory, which examines the process of scientific knowledge, its principles, research methods and techniques. The construction of the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations covers five stages.

Stage 1. Theoretical analysis of discrimination, mobbing, concepts of organisational climate was carried out; the researches of the scientists who analysed the phenomena were studied; preliminary characteristics of the future instrument were distinguished.

Stage 2. The model of diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations was constructed; preliminary criteria were distinguished, the questionnaire for the first expert assessment was prepared; questionnaires were distributed to experts who agreed to participate in the assessment; the results of expert assessments were brought together, the weighted averages of the criteria were derived.

Stage 3. Preliminary indicators were distinguished, the questionnaire for the second expert assessment was prepared in order to derive the more precise weighted average of the criteria, five response categories were introduced.

Stage 4. Before the exploratory research the expert survey was conducted by the method of interview in order to verify whether mobbing phenomenon exists and there is a need for such studies, if the phenomenon is widespread in Lithuanian organisations, how it manifests itself in employee relations; it was also aimed at finding whether mobbing victims can receive professional emergency assistance in Lithuania. At this stage, the characteristics and criteria were distinguished, the questionnaire for exploratory research was constructed; the exploratory research (interviewing 351 respondents) was carried out, high reliability of the instrument was found (Zukauskas, Vveinhardt 2009a).

Stage 5. The diagnostic instrument was improved (by eliminating defects and supplementing it), the main survey was carried out with 1379 respondents (Zukauskas, Vveinhardt 2009b, 2010).

The instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve the climate of Lithuanian organisations was developed on the basis of scientific theories of H. Leymann (1993), C. Knorz and D. Zapf (1995) and the conducted studies of mobbing in the workplace, structural components of the studied phenomenon were revealed.

During the design of the diagnostic instrument, the content of characteristics and criteria was determined by theoretical knowledge about employee relationship, mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and organisational climate, accumulated in the science of human resource management and organisational behaviour.

On the basis of theoretical analysis and insights of the authors, working hypotheses were formulated that the following characteristics are attributable to mobbing as discrimination in employee relations: discrimination in employee relations, discriminatory actions and organisational climate. Distinguished preliminary characteristics and the criteria they are formed of are presented in Figure 1.

Based on the distinguished characteristics and criteria the questionnaire for expert assessment was prepared. During the first expert assessment the aim was to determine the key criteria, corresponding to the object of the research, which can be used to diagnose the presence/absence of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations in an organisation. Ten experts participated in the expert assessment (professors and associate professors of Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipeda University, Siauliai University, Kaunas University of Technology and practitioners: lawyers, representatives of trade-unions, managers of organisations). For each response category (there were four: strongly disagree, partly disagree, partly agree, and strongly agree) the criteria evaluated by experts were summarised, weighted averages of the criteria were derived. The most appropriate criteria in the construction of the instrument were found. When presenting the criteria to the experts it was indicated what is intended to diagnose, what preliminary indicators will comprise the criteria presented for evaluation. The weighted average ranges from 3 to 4, which means that experts more or less agree with the distinguished criteria (Table 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

For the criteria, the average weight of which is 3 (i.e. control, informal groupings, conflicts in organisations) it was planned to measure challenging instantaneous situations that leave the print and eventually may become a factor of mobbing. Therefore it was decided to leave them and use in the construction of the instrument. The average of the block of demographic data assessed by the experts is 3.1. In the questionnaire presented to experts for assessment, the questions of the demographic block, which was planned in advance to relate to initial social stereotypes and define socio-demographic characteristics of a mobbing victim, were described insufficiently clearly and not in detail. Based on these criteria and expert assessment, the questionnaire for the second stage of the assessment was prepared. In the questionnaire 133 indicators were used to research twelve criteria of organisational climate, 77 indicators--to research two mobbing criteria (based on the 45 indicators distinguished by H. Leymann (1993) and 20 indicators by C. Knorz, D. Zapf (1995)), 8 indicators--for 1 demographic criterion (Table 2).

The second expert assessment was to determine the key indicators, corresponding to the object of the research, which can be used to determine the state of organisational climate and diagnose the presence/absence of mobbing in an organisation. In order to get more accurate results, five categories of responses were selected for the second stage of the assessment (as many categories as it was intended to use in the exploratory research instrument). The indicators attributed to each response category assessed by experts were summarised. Five response categories were chosen in order to include the control statement, which would polarize the assessment categories (the category "not applicable" included). During the second expert assessment it was found which of the named indicators is most appropriate to diagnose mobbing Lithuanian in order to improve the climate of Lithuanian organisations. Ten experts participated in the research (the same as in the first stage). In some places indicators duplicate each other or are opposite. Opposite statements, used in the survey, play the role of lie scales used in psychological studies, e.g. one feels safe while he or she lacks safety. Conclusion: the respondents filled it in irresponsibly, so this questionnaire is withdrawn. Positive indicators are placed in the questionnaire to verify the fairness of the filling by respondents. After the second expert assessment 155 out of 218 indicators remained (Table 3).

Expert assessment clarified variable elements of the research. Four characteristics, which are intended to measure mobbing as discrimination in employee relations in order to improve organisational climate are distinguished, i.e. practices of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, organisational climate.

3. The structure of the research instrument

The set of criteria is united to characteristics. The characteristic of the features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of 6 criteria. The characteristic of the actions of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of 5 criteria. The characteristic of additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of 4 criteria. The characteristic of organisational climate is comprised of 12 criteria.

The first characteristic covers only the criteria of the features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations: physical, cultural, social, work and psychological qualities, attitudes and demographic features. These criteria are intended to determine the features on the basis of which people are discriminated most.

The second characteristic includes the criteria of actions of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations: general actions by possibilities of attack (e.g., not listening to an opinion, interrupting, speaking in raised tones, threats, or simply non-communication) by acting through social relations, attacking the views, attacking in the spheres of professional activity and health.

The criteria of additional features of mobbing, i.e. the third characteristic, are closely related to the criteria of organisational climate and include the impact of the manager on employee relations, unrecognized discrimination in employee relations, the criteria of the employees who see discrimination and the criteria of intolerance towards the other. The characteristics and 27 criteria they make up are shown in Figure 2.

Distinguished 27 criteria are comprised of 156 indicators, 80 of which are attributed to the characteristic of organisational climate and 129 to characteristics of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations. The criterion of physical features includes 16 indicators for the diagnosis of discrimination based on sex, age, disability, etc. Cultural-social features are measured by 7 indicators. The criterion of psychological characteristics includes 4 indicators that reveal such characteristics of victims as eccentrics, slowness, etc. Work qualities are estimated by 6 indicators (e.g., careerism, diligence, industriousness, creativity). 3 indicators measure mobbing as discrimination in employee relations based on religious and political views. The criterion of demographic characteristics includes 16 indicators. The criterion of actions by possibilities of attack reveals general actions of managers or colleagues such as not listening to the colleague's opinion, interrupting his / her speech, shouting, threatening, criticising, etc. Action through social relations is measured by 5 indicators, which identify disregard for the victim, "not seeing" the victim, deliberate isolation. The attack on social attitudes is revealed through 14 indicators, e.g., laughing at the victim's lifestyle. Actions of attack in occupational sphere are measured by 5 indicators (e.g., giving too many or too little tasks), in the sphere of health attacks are identified by 3 indicators. The characteristic of additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations includes: the criterion of the influence of the manager on employee relations, which consists of 8 indicators, the criterion of unrecognized discrimination in employee relations (3 indicators), the criterion of the employees who see discrimination, but have not experienced it, which consists of 13 indicators, the criterion of intolerance towards the other (5 indicators). The criterion of characteristic of additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of many indicators of organisational climate. The characteristic of organisational climate is comprised of 12 criteria, covering 80 indicators. Table 4 presents the fragment of characteristics, criteria and indicators of the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve the climate of Lithuanian organisations.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The criterion of work qualities as the characteristic of the mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is measured by 4 indicators of organisational climate, which reveal work qualities; the criterion of psychological qualities is measured by 1 indicator of organisational climate. The criterion of the influence of the manager on employee relations of the characteristic of additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is measured by 16 indicators of organisational climate; the criterion of the employees who see discrimination, but have not experienced it is measured by 12 indicators of organisational climate; the criterion of intolerance towards the other is measured by 4 indicators of organisational climate. Indicators of organisational climate for diagnosis of mobbing in organisations highlight that not only one criterion of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations may be measured by the named indicators. It proves that organisational climate is closely related to the phenomenon of mobbing in the organisation.

The change in indicators of the instrument presented in Table 5 shows that after the second expert assessment the number of indicators of organisational climate has significantly decreased, i.e. by 53 items. The number of indicators of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations has changed inconsiderably--by 10. The total number of indicators has decreased by 62. After the exploratory research the instrument was supplemented by one demographic indicator (employees' experience in the current organisation), two levels, allowing the possibility to diagnose the analysed phenomenon in the department and the organisation, were introduced as well.

4. Intercorrelations

Hypothesis that mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and organisational climate in principle are statistically related was posed.

The matrix of intercorrelations presented in Tables 6, 7 and 8 reflects statistical relations between 15 criteria of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and 12 criteria of organisational climate, i.e. the features of organisational climate and mobbing; intercorrelations of organisational climate and actions of mobbing with additional features of mobbing.

Modal meaning of correlation coefficient indicates the strength of correlation. In the tables white colour shows very strong correlation, dark grey shows strong correlation and light grey shows average correlation. Shades indicate the strength of interconnectivity of criteria. In this case, negative correlation coefficient shows a reverse correlation, i.e. organisational climate is a positive phenomenon, and mobbing is negative in itself (all the indicators revealing mobbing have a negative meaning, positive statements were also transcoded to the negative meaning).

Table 6 presents the intercorrelations between criteria of organisational climate and features of mobbing the total index of which is -0.794, which shows a relatively high interconnection. In particular, the following criteria of the actions of mobbing and organisational climate correlate with each other (from -0.780 to -0.852): discrimination on the basis of work qualities and creativity/initiative; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and dissemination of information; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and relations with the managers; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and employee relationship; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and informal groupings; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and conflicts.

In Table 7 one can see intercorrelations between criteria of organisational climate and actions of mobbing (total index -0.683). Particularly strong links are identified between the following actions of mobbing and criteria of organisational climate (from -0.686 to -0.784): actions by possibilities of attack and dissemination of information; actions by possibilities of attack and relations with managers; actions by possibilities of attack and employee relationship; actions by possibilities of attack and informal groupings; actions by possibilities of attack and conflicts; attacking social attitudes of employees and conflicts.

Table 8 shows especially high joint index of intercorrelations between level of organisational climate and additional features of mobbing, i.e. -0.939, which shows strong interrelationship of the distinguished criteria: the criterion of the influence of the manager on employee relations is closely related (from -0.772 to -0.895) to 8 criteria of organisational climate (communication, dissemination of information, relations with managers, control, employee relationship, openness/tolerance, informal groupings, conflicts); especially high correlation rates (from -0.773 to -0.892) are between the criterion of employees who see discrimination but have not experienced it and 10 criteria of organisational climate (creativity/initiative, entering the organisation/leaving it, communication, dissemination of information, relations with managers, control, employee relationship, openness/tolerance, informal groupings, conflicts); as well as the criterion of intolerance towards the other strongly correlates with criteria of creativity/initiative, employee relationship of organisational climate; the analysis of intercorrelations has confirmed especially high level of criteria coherence reliability, i.e. 0.001.

5. Conclusions

The process of the development of the instrument of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve organisational climate involved five main stages. With the help of theoretical analysis key characteristics of the instrument were identified, the questionnaire for the first expert assessment in which the criteria matching the object of the research presented (the first expert assessment) was designed, on the basis of expert conclusions, suggestions and weighted average of the criteria, the questionnaire for the second assessment was designed, presenting indicators corresponding the criteria (the second expert assessment). After finding the weighted average of the criteria and notably reducing the number of indicators, the instrument was prepared for diagnostic exploratory research. After carrying out the research the drawbacks revealed during the exploratory research were corrected, which helped to prepare the instrument for the main research: four characteristics were identified (features of mobbing; actions of mobbing; additional features of mobbing; organisational climate), which consisted of 27 criteria that resolved into 156 indicators.

In summary, it can be maintained that the matrix of intercorrelations reflects very close interrelations between mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and organisational climate. With the help of the analysis of the intercorrelations it was found that there is a very strong correlation between mobbing on the basis of work qualities and the following criteria of organisational climate criteria: creativity/initiative; dissemination of information; relations with managers; employee relationship, informal groupings; conflicts. Very strong correlations were also found between actions of mobbing by possibilities of attack and criteria of organisational climate: dissemination of information; relations with managers, employee relationship; informal groupings; conflicts. Especi ally strong intercorrelations were found between the criteria of the influence of the manager on employee relations, employees who see discrimination but have not experienced it and intolerance towards the other that correlate very strongly with almost all the criteria of organisational climate, (the joint index -0.939).

doi: 10.3846/16111699.2011.575193

References

Alas, R.; Tuulik, K. 2007. Cultural Practices and Values at the Societal Level in Estonia in Comparison with Neighbouring Countries, Journal of Business Economics and Management 8(1): 39-44.

Ben-Yair, A.; Golenko-Ginzburg, D.; Laslo, Z. 2005. Harmonized Decision-Making in Managing Reliability and Safety, Journal of Business Economics and Management 6(1): 43-51.

Cammann, C.; Fichman, M.; Jenkins, D.; Klesh, J. 1979. The Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire. Manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Davidaviciene, V. 2008. Change Management Decisions in the Information Age, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(4): 299-307. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.299-307

Ginevicius, R.; Korsakiene, R. 2005. Exploration of Strategy: Objectives, Competencies and Competitive Advantage, Journal of Business Economics and Management 6(1): 13-22.

Ginevicius, R.; Vaitkunaite, V. 2006. Analysis of Organizational Culture Dimensions Impacting Performance, Journal of Business Economics and Management 7(4): 201-211.

Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Bruzge, S. 2008. Evaluating the Effect of State Aid to Business by Multicriteria Methods, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(3): 167-180. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.167-180

House, R. H.; Rizzo, J. R. 1972. Role Conflict and Ambiguity as Critical Variables in a Model of Organizational Behaviour, Organizational Behavior & Human Performance 7(3): 467-505. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(72)90030-X

Jumpponen, J.; Ikavalko, M.; Pihkala, T. 2008. Management and Change in Turbulent Times: How do Russian Small Business Managers Perceive the Development of their Business Environment? Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(2): 115-122. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.115-122

Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Budzeviciene, R. 2009. Web-Based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of Students, Journal of Business Economics and Management 10(1): 71-84. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.71-84

Karnitis, E. 2006. A Knowledge-Based Human-Centred Growth Model for Latvia, Journal of Business Economics and Management 7(3): 95-101.

Knorz, C.; Zapf, D. 1995. Mobbing: Eine extreme Form sozialer Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz, Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie 1: 12-22.

Kumpikaite, V. 2008. Human Resource Development in Learning Organization, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(1): 25-31. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.25-31

Kumpikaite, V.; Ciarniene, R. 2008. New Training Technologies and Their use in Training and Development Activities: Survey Evidence from Lithuania, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(2): 155-159. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.155-159

Leymann, H. 1990. Mobbing and Psychological Terror at workplaces, Violence and Victims 5(2): 119-126.

Leymann, H. 1993. Mobbing: Psychoterror am Arbeitsplatz und wie man sich dagegen wehren kann. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.

Markovic, M. R. 2008. Managing the Organizational Change and Culture in the Age of Globalization, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(1): 3-11. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.3-11

Niedl, K. 1995. Mobbing/Bullying am Arbeitsplatz. Eine empirische Analyse zum Phaenomen sowie zu personalwirtschaftlich relevanten Effekten von systematischen Feindseligkeiten. Personal-wirtschaftliche Schriften. Muenchen, Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.

Ogrean, C.; Herciu, M.; Belas,cu, L. 2008. Searching for New Paradigms in a Globalized World: Business Ethics as a Management Strategy, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(2): 161-165. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.161-165

Payne, R. 1979. Demands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological Health, in C. Mackay and T. Cox (Eds.). Response to Stress: Occupational Aspects, 85-105. London: IPC Business Press.

Ponikvar, N.; Tajnikar, M.; Pusnik, K. 2009. Performance Ratios for Managerial Decision-Making in a Growing Firm, Journal of Business Economics and Management 10(2): 109-120. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.109-120

Quine, L. 1999. Workplace Bullying in NHS Community Trust: Staff Questionnaire Survey, British Medical Journal 318(7178): 228-232.

Quinn, R. P.; Staines, G. L. 1979. The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Rayner, C.; Hoel, H. 1997. A Summary Review of Literature Relating to Workplace Bullying, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 7: 181-191. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199706)7:3<181::AID-CASP416>3.0.CO;2-Y

Rees, Ch. J. 2008. Organisational Change and Development: Perspectives on Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(2): 87-89. doi:10.3846/611-1699.2008.9.87-89

Saee, J. 2005. Effective Leadership for the Global Economy in the 21st Century, Journal of Business Economics and Management 6(1): 3-11.

Sennikova, I.; Kurovs, B. 2006. Phenomenon of Intellectual Entrepreneurship and Emerging Patterns of Intellectual Entrepreneurship in Latvia, Journal of Business Economics and Management 7(3): 131-138.

Singh, K. 2007. Predicting Organizational Commitment Through Organization Culture: a Study of Automobile Industry in India, Journal of Business Economics and Management 8(1): 29-37.

Srivastava, S. K.; Kakkar, D. N. 2008. Estimation of Motivation using Entropy, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(1): 53-56. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.53-56

Zeng, S. X.; Xie, X. M.; Tam, C. M.; Sun, P. M. 2009. Identifying Cultural Difference in R&D Project for Performance Improvement: a Field Study, Journal of Business Economics and Management 10(1): 61-70. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.61-70

Zigmond, A. S.; Snaith, R. P. 1983. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 67: 361-370. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x

Zinkeviciute, V. 2007. Evaluation of Business Strategic Decisions under Changing Environment Conditions, Journal of Business Economics and Management 8(4): 267-274.

Zukauskas, P.; Vveinhardt, J. 2009a. Diagnosis of Mobbing as Discrimination in Employee Relation, Inzinerine Ekonomika--Engineering Economics (4): 103-113.

Zukauskas, P.; Vveinhardt, J. 2009b. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Mobbing and Discrimination in Employee Relations, Transformations in Business & Economics 8(3) Supplement A: 128-147.

Zukauskas, P.; Vveinhardt, J. 2010. The Model of Managerial Intervention Decisions of Mobbing as Discrimination in Employees' Relations in Seeking to Improve Organization Climate, Inzinerine Ekonomika--Engineering Economics 21(3): 306-314.

Pranas Zukauskas (1), Jolita Vveinhardt (2)

Vytautas Magnus University, Daukanto g. 28, LT-44246 Kaunas, Lithuania

E-mails: (1) p.zukauskas@evf.vdu.lt; (2) j.vveinhardt@evf.vdu.lt2 (corresponding author)

Received 12 October 2010; accepted 10 February 2011

Pranas ZUKAUSKAS. Professor, Habil Dr, Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Management, Vytautas Magnus University.

Jolita VVEINHARDT. PhD of Social Sciences (Management and Administration), Associated Professor, Vytautas Magnus University.

Table 1. Weighted average of the criteria presented for assessment

Criteria                                     Weighted average
                                             of the criteria

K1. Feeling of safety/certainty              3.8
K2. Creativity/initiative                    3.3
K3. Values/Traditions                        3.5
K4. Entering/leaving the organisation        2.9
K5. Communication                            3.8
K6. Dissemination of information             4
K7. Relations with the leadership            3.8
K8. Control                                  3
K9. Employee relationship                    4
K10. Openness, tolerance                     3.3
K11. Informal groupings                      3
K12. Conflicts in the organisations          3
M13. Discrimination in employee relations    3.9
M14. Discriminatory actions                  4
D15. Demographic data                        3.1
Total average                                3.49

Note: * maximum weighted average of the criteria is 4.

Source: prepared by authors

Table 2. Weighted average of the criteria presented for assessment and
the number of indicators

Criteria                                 Weighted          Number of
                                         average of the    indicators
                                         criteria *

K1. Feeling of safety/certainty          3.8               8
K2. Creativity/initiative                3.3               11
K3. Values/Traditions                    3.5               12
K4. Entering/leaving the organisation    2.9               10
K5. Communication                        3.8               8
K6. Dissemination of information         4                 12
K7. Relations with the leadership        3.8               19
K8. Control                              3                 7
K9. Employee relationship                4                 20
K10. Openness, tolerance                 3.3               7
K11. Informal groupings                  3                 8
K12. Conflicts in the organisations      3                 11
M13. Discrimination in employee          3.9               31
relations
M14. Discriminatory actions              4                 46
D15. Demographic data                    3.1               8
Total average/sum                        3.49              218

Note: * maximum weighted average of the criteria is 5.

Source: prepared by authors

Table 3. Comparison of the weighted average of the criteria presented
for assessment and the number of indicators in both stages

Criteria                                I stage

                                        Weighted          Number
                                        average of        of
                                        the criteria *    indicators

K1. Feeling of safety/certainty         3.8               8
K2. Creativity/initiative               3.3               11
K3. Values/Traditions                   3.5               12
K4. Entering/leaving the organisation   2.9               10
K5. Communication                       3.8               8
K6. Dissemination of information        4                 12
K7. Relations with the leadership       3.8               19
K8. Control                             3                 7
K9. Employee relationship               4                 20
K10. Openness, tolerance                3.3               7
K11. Informal groupings                 3                 8
K12. Conflicts in the organisations     3                 11
M13. Discrimination in employee         3.9               31
relations
M14. Discriminatory practices           4                 46
D15. Demographic data                   3.1               8
Total average/sum                       3.49              218

Criteria                                II stage

                                        Weighted          Number
                                        average of        of
                                        the criteria **   indicators

K1. Feeling of safety/certainty         4.6               4
K2. Creativity/initiative               4.78              6
K3. Values/Traditions                   4.6               6
K4. Entering/leaving the organisation   4.58              5
K5. Communication                       4.72              6
K6. Dissemination of information        4.8               10
K7. Relations with the leadership       4.76              9
K8. Control                             4.77              5
K9. Employee relationship               4.64              11
K10. Openness, tolerance                4.85              5
K11. Informal groupings                 4.62              6
K12. Conflicts in the organisations     4.61              7
M13. Discrimination in employee         4.75              28
relations
M14. Discriminatory practices           4.58              39
D15. Demographic data                   4.58              8
Total average/sum                       4.68              155

Note: * maximum weighted average of the criteria is 4. "maximum
weighted average of the criteria is 5.

Source: prepared by authors

Table 4. Fragment of characteristics, criteria and indicators of the
instrument

Characteristics/             Indicators, items
Criteria, items

1. Features of mobbing as    Men in our collective feel better
discrimination               psychologically.
in employee relations        Diseased members of our collective feel
                             out/would feel out.
Physical features; Health    In our collective it is better not to
features; Attitudes; Work    declare your political views, since you
qualities; Demo-graphic      will acquire enemies for life.
features; Psychological      Our collective may not like an employee
qualities (6).               just because he/she is from the village
                             and vice versa.
                             Colleagues may laugh at a slower person
                             in our collective (56).

2. Actions of mobbing as     In our collective there is an employee,
discrimination               who experienced physical violence.
in employee relations        In our collective there is an employee,
                             with whom the other col-leagues do not
Actions by possibilities     talk, do not communicate at all.
of attack; Actions           In our collective there is an employee,
through social relations;    the response about whom is always
Attacking the employee's     negative.
social attitudes;            In our collective there is an employee,
Actions of attack in         to whom it is avoided to entrust work
everyday professional        tasks.
activities; Actions of       In our collective there is an employee,
attack in the sphere of      who is forced to do jobs destructive to
health (5).                  health (36).

3. Additional features of    Employees are forced to say such
mobbing as discrimination    information the manager wants to hear
in employee relations        otherwise they may get into trouble.
                             Women are inferior managers to men, as
Influence of the manager     they are too often guid-ed by emotions.
on em-ployee relations;      If someone "stumbles", makes a mistake
Unrecognized                 at work, the people around tend to
discrimination in            rejoice.
employee relations;          In our collective there is an employee,
Employees who see            whose lifestyle is always laughed at
discrimination, but have     (37).
not experienced it;
Intolerance towards the
other (4).

4. Organisational climate    In our collective stress is constantly
                             in the air; there is the lack of
Safety, certainty;           security and certainty.
Creativity, ini-tiative;     There are hardworking, creative and
Values, traditions;          really promising employees, but they are
Entering the                 ignored by others.
organisation, leaving the    Our collective lacks elementary respect
or-ganisation;               for the ordinary worker. Employees, who
Communication; Disse-        leave the workplace, leave it being
mination of information;     depressed or "shut the door".
Relations with managers;     Some people feel bad because of the used
Control; Employee            rude lexicon.
relationship; openness,      Those employees who say one thing and do
tolerance; Informal          different things prevail in our
groupings; Conflicts in      collective.
the organisation (12).       Managers misuse their authority,
                             completely "other rules" apply to them.
                             Employees communicate as if there were
                             "bugs" everywhere.
                             Colleagues tend to lie to each other.
                             Even if you have good argumentation
                             people avoid objecting to the authority.
                             Individual employee groupings are
                             created; they are simply at each other's
                             throat.
                             Work conflicts become personal hostility
                             and anger (80).

Total of indicators:         156 *   Of them: 80 of organisational
                                     climate; 129 of mobbing as
                                     discrimination in employee
                                     relations

* Note: the questionnaire is comprised of 156 indicators, but mobbing
as discrimination in employee relations is measured by some indicators
of organisational climate.

Source: prepared by authors

Table 5. The change in the number of indicators of the instrument

Indicators/       Indicators          Indicators after
Stages            provided for the    the second expert
                  second expert       assessment
                  assessment          N = 10

                  Items    Percent    Items    Percent

Indicators of     77       35         67       43.2
mobbing as
discrimination
in employee
relations

Indicators of     133      61         80       51.6
organisational
climate

Demographic       8        3.7        8        5.2
questions

Total number      218                 155
of indicators:

Indicators/       Exploratory         Main research
Stages            research            N = 1379
                  N = 351

                  Items    Percent    Items    Percent

Indicators of     67       43.2       67       43
mobbing as
discrimination
in employee
relations

Indicators of     80       51.6       80       51.3
organisational
climate

Demographic       8        5.2        9        5.8
questions

Total number      155                 156
of indicators:

Source: prepared by authors

Table 6. Intercorrelations between the criteria of organisational
climate and features of mobbing as discrimination in employee
relations

Criteria of mobbing           Safety,       Creativity,    Values,
asdiscrimination in           certainty     initiative     traditions
employee relations/
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Discrimination on the basis   -0.475        -0.528         -0.474
of physical features          *** (c)       *** (c)        *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.442        -0.474         -0.457
of health                     *** (c)       *** (c)        *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.463        -0.516         -0.436
of attitudes                  *** (c)       *** (c)        *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.673        -0.852         -0.691
of work qualities             *** (b)       *** (a)        *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.476        -0.511         -0.463
of demographic features       *** (c)       *** (c)        *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.504        -0.528         -0.490
of psychological qualities    *** (c)       *** (c)        *** (c)
Features of discrimination    -0.582        -0.654         -0.578
in the organisation (joint    *** (b)       *** (b)        *** (b)
index)

Criteria of mobbing           Entering the     Communication
asdiscrimination in           organisation,
employee relations/           leaving the
Criteria of                   organisation
organisational
climate

Discrimination on the basis   -0.553           -0.580
of physical features          *** (b)          *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.527           -0.559
of health                     *** (c)          *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.549           -0.513
of attitudes                  *** (c)          *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.714           -0.699
of work qualities             *** (b)          *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.536           -0.551
of demographic features       *** (c)          *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.550           -0.539
of psychological qualities    *** (b)          *** (c)
Features of discrimination    -0.659           -0.66
in the organisation (joint    *** (b)          *** (b)
index)

Criteria of mobbing           Dissemination    Relations    Control
asdiscrimination in           of               with
employee relations/           information      managers
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Discrimination on the basis   -0.628           -0.613       -0.575
of physical features          *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.564           -0.542       -0.501
of health                     *** (b)          *** (c)      *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.566           -0.547       -0.535
of attitudes                  *** (b)          *** (c)      *** (c)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.787           -0.78        -0.728
of work qualities             *** (a)          *** (a)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.595           -0.596       -0.564
of demographic features       *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.621           -0.608       -0.572
of psychological qualities    *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Features of discrimination    -0.721           -0.707       -0.667
in the organisation (joint    *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
index)

Criteria of mobbing           Employee        Openness,    Informal
asdiscrimination in           relationship    tolerance    groupings
employee relations/
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Discrimination on the basis   -0.681          -0.555       -0.670
of physical features          *** (b)         *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.589          -0.500       -0.567
of health                     *** (b)         *** (c)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.603          -0.509       -0.583
of attitudes                  *** (b)         *** (c)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.802          -0.734       -0.791
of work qualities             *** (a)         *** (b)      *** (a)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.633          -0.530       -0.607
of demographic features       *** (b)         *** (c)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.722          -0.607       -0.649
of psychological qualities    *** (b)         *** (b)      *** (b)
Features of discrimination    -0.772          -0.659       -0.740
in the organisation (joint    *** (a)         *** (b)      *** (b)
index)

Criteria of mobbing           Conflicts    Organisational
asdiscrimination in                        climate
employee relations/                        (joint index)
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Discrimination on the basis   -0.704       -0.683
of physical features          *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.623       -0.615
of health                     *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.622       -0.626
of attitudes                  *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.805       -0.877
of work qualities             *** (a)      *** (a)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.659       -0.651
of demographic features       *** (b)      *** (b)
Discrimination on the basis   -0.653       -0.685
of psychological qualities    *** (b)      *** (b)
Features of discrimination    -0.778       -0.794
in the organisation (joint    *** (a)      *** (a)
index)

(a) 0.8 < = x < = 0.9

(b) 0.6 < = x < 0.8

(c) 0.4 < = x < 0.6

[N.sub.min] = 1359; [N.sub.max] = 1379

Note: *** Reliability 0.001, ** Reliability 0.01, * Reliability 0.05.

Source: prepared by authors

Table 7. Intercorrelations between the criteria of organisational
climate and actions of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations

Criteria of mobbing             Safety,      Creativity,   Values,
asdiscrimination in             certainty    initiative    traditions
employee relations/
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Actions by possibilities        -0.591       -0.624        -0.569
of attack                       *** (b)      *** (b)       *** (b)
Acting through social           -0.374       -0.422        -0.367
relations                       *** (c)      *** (c)       *** (c)
Attacking employee's            -0.469       -0.512        -0.463
social attitudes                *** (b)      *** (b)       *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.453       -0.490        -0.437
professional activities         *** (b)      *** (b)       *** (c)
Attacking in everyday           -0.311       -0.352        -0.317
health sphere                   *** (c)      *** (c)       *** (c)
Discriminatory actions in the   -0.486       -0.531        -0.478
organisation (joint index)      *** (b)      *** (b)       *** (b)

Criteria of mobbing             Entering the    Communication
asdiscrimination in             organisation,
employee relations/             leaving the
Criteria of                     organisation
organisational
climate

Actions by possibilities        -0.639          -0.647
of attack                       *** (b)         *** (b)
Acting through social           -0.470          -0.474
relations                       *** (b)         *** (b)
Attacking employee's            -0.560          -0.586
social attitudes                *** (b)         *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.536          -0.549
professional activities         *** (b)         *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.440          -0.447
health sphere                   *** (c)         *** (c)
Discriminatory actions in the   -0.587          -0.601
organisation (joint index)      *** (b)         *** (b)

Criteria of mobbing             Dissemination    Relations    Control
asdiscrimination in             of               with
employee relations/             information      managers
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Actions by possibilities        -0.712           -0.686       -0.644
of attack                       *** (a)          *** (a)      *** (b)
Acting through social           -0.489           -0.462       -0.464
relations                       *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking employee's            -0.602           -0.574       -0.548
social attitudes                *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.589           -0.577       -0.547
professional activities         *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.429           -0.406       -0.391
health sphere                   *** (c)          *** (c)      *** (c)
Discriminatory actions in the   -0.624           -0.599       -0.574
organisation (joint index)      *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)

Criteria of mobbing             Employee        Openness,    Informal
asdiscrimination in             relationship    tolerance    groupings
employee relations/
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Actions by possibilities        -0.742          -0.628       -0.722
of attack                       *** (a)         *** (b)      *** (a)
Acting through social           -0.549          -0.388       -0.522
relations                       *** (b)         *** (c)      *** (b)
Attacking employee's            -0.648          -0.495       -0.616
social attitudes                *** (b)         *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.641          -0.503       -0.628
professional activities         *** (b)         *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.470          -0.346       -0.454
health sphere                   *** (b)         *** (c)      *** (b)
Discriminatory actions in the   -0.676          -0.522       -0.651
organisation (joint index)      *** (a)         *** (b)      *** (a)

Criteria of mobbing             Conflicts    Organisational
asdiscrimination in                          climate
employee relations/                          (joint index)
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Actions by possibilities        -0.784       -0.775
of attack                       *** (a)      *** (a)
Acting through social           -0.587       -0.540
relations                       *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking employee's            -0.682       -0.655
social attitudes                *** (a)      *** (a)
Attacking in everyday           -0.646       -0.641
professional activities         *** (b)      *** (b)
Attacking in everyday           -0.497       -0.472
health sphere                   *** (b)      *** (b)
Discriminatory actions in the   -0.708       -0.683
organisation (joint index)      *** (a)      *** (a)

(a) 0.7 < = x < = 0.8

(b) 0.5 < = x < 0.7

(c) 0.3 < = x < 0.5

[N.sub.min] = 1355; [N.sub.max] = 1377

Note: *** Reliability 0.001, ** Reliability 0.01, * Reliability 0.05.

Source: prepared by authors

Table 8. Intercorrelations between the criteria of organisational
climate and additional features of mobbing as discrimination in
employee relations

Criteria of mobbing            Safety,      Creativity,    Values,
asdiscrimination in            certainty    initiative     traditions
employee relations/
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Manager's influence on         -0.691       -0.716         -0.732
employee relations             *** (b)      *** (b)        *** (b)
Unrecognized discrimination    -0.433       -0.444         -0.432
in employee relations          *** (c)      *** (c)        *** (c)
Employees who see              -0.707       -0.771         -0.722
discrimination, but have       *** (b)      *** (a)        *** (b)
not experienced it
Intolerance towards the        -0.664       -0.823         -0.660
others                         *** (b)      *** (a)        *** (b)
Additional features of         -0.711       -0.784         -0.727
discrimination in the          *** (b)      *** (a)        *** (b)

Criteria of mobbing            Entering the     Communication
asdiscrimination in            organisation,
employee relations/            leaving the
Criteria of                    organisation
organisational
climate

Manager's influence on         -0.748           -0.781
employee relations             *** (b)          *** (a)
Unrecognized discrimination    -0.452           -0.499
in employee relations          *** (c)          *** (c)
Employees who see              -0.817           -0.865
discrimination, but have       *** (a)          *** (a)
not experienced it
Intolerance towards the        -0.695           -0.707
others                         *** (b)          *** (b)
Additional features of         -0.773           -0.813
discrimination in the          *** (a)          *** (a)

Criteria of mobbing            Dissemination    Relations    Control
asdiscrimination in            of               with
employee relations/            information      managers
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Manager's influence on         -0.895           -0.868       -0.836
employee relations             *** (a)          *** (a)      *** (a)
Unrecognized discrimination    -0.537           -0.543       -0.487
in employee relations          *** (c)          *** (c)      *** (c)
Employees who see              -0.892           -0.854       -0.773
discrimination, but have       *** (a)          *** (a)      *** (a)
not experienced it
Intolerance towards the        -0.743           -0.710       -0.656
others                         *** (b)          *** (b)      *** (b)
Additional features of         -0.876           -0.882       -0.787
discrimination in the          *** (a)          *** (a)      *** (a)

Criteria of mobbing            Employee        Openness,    Informal
asdiscrimination in            relationship    tolerance    groupings
employee relations/
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Manager's influence on         -0.800          -0.772       -0.786
employee relations             *** (a)         *** (a)      *** (a)
Unrecognized discrimination    -0.552          -0.502       -0.536
in employee relations          *** (b)         *** (c)      *** (c)
Employees who see              -0.879          -0.755       -0.829
discrimination, but have       *** (a)         *** (a)      *** (a)
not experienced it
Intolerance towards the        -0.807          -0.683       -0.735
others                         *** (a)         *** (b)      *** (b)
Additional features of         -0.866          -0.775       -0.823
discrimination in the          *** (a)         *** (a)      *** (a)

Criteria of mobbing            Conflicts    Organisational
asdiscrimination in                         climate
employee relations/                         (joint index)
Criteria of
organisational
climate

Manager's influence on         -0.862       -0.932
employee relations             *** (a)      *** (a)
Unrecognized discrimination    -0.584       -0.583
in employee relations          *** (b)      *** (b)
Employees who see              -0.824       -0.940
discrimination, but have       *** (a)      *** (a)
not experienced it
Intolerance towards the        -0.748       -0.836
others                         *** (b)      *** (a)
Additional features of         -0.862       -0.939
discrimination in the          *** (a)      *** (a)
organisation (joint index)

(a) 0.8 < = x < = 0.9

(b) 0.6 < = x < 0.8

(c) 0.4 < = x < 0.6

Nmin = 1355; Nmax = 1379

Note: *** Reliability 0.001, ** Reliability 0.01, * Reliability 0.05.

Source: prepared by authors