Workplace Conflict as a Predictor of Workplace Bullying: A Cross-Section Study on the Mental Health Implications

Thus, the results presented above show that there is convincing empirical evidence confirming the predictive role of workplace conflicts, namely relational ones, for workplace bullying. The findings are based on the collected data from 150 participants using welldesigned scales for measuring the research constructs of interest (NAQ-R and ICAWS). Thus, it can be stated that the conflict dimensions predicted an increase in 36.7% of additional variance in workplace bullying beyond sociodemographic variables, and 41.2% of total variance can be predicted using a comprehensive model. Concerning the type of conflict, it can be said that the predictive power of relationship conflict was the highest, followed by task and process ones. From a theoretical perspective, this study proves the idea that there is a mechanism underlying the development of workplace bullying through conflict. From a practical perspective, it can be recommended to introduce training on conflict management and prevention, as well as ensure psychological safety while communicating within organizations. Considering the serious psychological consequences of workplace bullying, experienced by the victims, bystanders, and even aggressors, as well as the extremely high costs associated with a conflict-driven organizational climate, it becomes evident that these steps must be taken.

1.               Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work & Stress, 18(4), 336–351. https://doi.org/ a.                10.1080/02678370412331319773 2.               Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of a.                Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/256633 3.               Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall. 4.               Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. a.                Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59 5.               Cooksey, R. W. (2020). Descriptive statistics for summarising data. Illustrating Statistical a.                Procedures: Finding Meaning in Quantitative Data, 61-139. https://doi.org/ b.               10.1007/978-981-15-2537-7_5 6.               Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches a.                (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 7.               Cronin, M. A., Bezrukova, K., Weingart, L. R., & Tinsley, C. H. (2004). Agree or not agree? The role of cognitive and affective processes in group disagreements. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.602001 8.               Cunha, E. S., Pinheiro, F. P. H. A., Grangeiro, A. S. M., Falcão, J. T. R., Santos, W. S., Vasconcelos, F. H. L., Silva, A. Q., & Mendes, L. A. (2024). Assessing workplace bullying: Psychometric analysis of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) among Brazilian teachers. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 42. https://doi.org/10.12804/ revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.14321 9.               De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741– a.                749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 10.            Dill, J. C., & Anderson, C. A. (1995). Effects of frustration justification on hostile aggression. a.                Aggressive Behavior, 21(5), 359–369. https://doi.org/ b.               10.1002/1098-2337(1995)21:559::aid-ab2480210505>3.0.co;2-6