Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20
International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics
ISSN: 1080-3548 (Print) 2376-9130 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20
Authentic leadership, social support and their
role in workplace bullying and its mental health
consequences
Magdalena Warszewska-Makuch, Sylwia Bedyńska & Dorota ŻołnierczykZreda
To cite this article: Magdalena Warszewska-Makuch, Sylwia Bedyńska & Dorota ŻołnierczykZreda (2015) Authentic leadership, social support and their role in workplace bullying and its mental
health consequences, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 21:2, 128-140,
DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2015.1028230
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2015.1028230
© 2015 Central Institute for Labour
Protection – National Research Institute
(CIOP-PIB). Published by Taylor & Francis.
Published online: 19 Aug 2015.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2536
View related articles View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 9 View citing articles
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE), 2015
Vol. 21, No. 2, 128–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2015.1028230
Authentic leadership, social support and their role in workplace bullying and its mental
health consequences
Magdalena Warszewska-Makucha∗, Sylwia Bedynska ´ b and Dorota Zołnierczyk-Zreda ˙ a
aCentral Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB), Poland; bWarsaw School of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Poland
The aim of this study was to show how authentic leadership is related to social support and exposure to workplace bullying
and how these variables are related to mental health. For our sample of 820 office workers employed in different Polish
organizations and sectors, social support from supervisors moderated the relationship between authentic leadership and
workplace bullying. Social support from co-workers moderated the relationship between workplace bullying and mental
health and authentic leadership moderated the relationship between workplace bullying and mental health.
Keywords: authentic leadership; workplace bullying; social support at work; worker’s mental health
1. Introduction
Workplace bullying is a form of chronic stress; it can be
defined as repeatable, systematic, negative behaviours of
employees directed at other employees, while the targets
of such behaviour have no means to defend themselves.
One of the main criteria allowing one to diagnose workplace bullying is the imbalance of power between the
perpetrator and the victim, when the latter does not have
sufficient resources to cope with the situation.[1] One of
the most common definitions of workplace bullying is that
of Einarsen et al.,[2] in which the authors state that
workplace bullying is harassing, offending, socially
excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s
work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or workplace
bullying) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly
(e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., about six
months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of
which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social
acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is
an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal
‘strength’ are in conflict (p. 15)
The above definition provides another important criterion – repeatability and frequency of harassment. This
makes it impossible for a one-time conflict between
employees to be treated as workplace bullying. The harassment may be directed at the personal (e.g., sarcastic comments about somebody’s looks, spreading gossip about
somebody’s private life) or the professional domain (e.g.,
continuous, excessive control, unjustified criticism, setting
impossible deadlines).[3]
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
1.1. Workplace bullying and mental health
Numerous studies into workplace bullying conducted during the past 20 years indicate that systematic, prolonged
experience of negative acts perpetrated by other employees
may have serious consequences for the health of the target.
Studies show significant correlations between workplace
bullying and problems with physical and mental health,
such as chronic fatigue, insomnia or problems with decision making (for reviews, see, e.g., [4–6]). Einarsen and
Raknes also suggest that if various types of harassment
are taken into account, the strongest positive correlations
can be found between workplace bullying aimed at the
private domain and the number and intensity of mental
health disorders.[7] In O’Moore’s research, 40% of the
victims admitted that workplace bullying influenced their
physical health and 43% claimed the same in reference
to their mental health. Of those research participants, 26
and 92%, respectively, sought specialist help and 20%
admitted taking medicines.[8] Bilgel et al. studied Turkish employees working in education, healthcare and the
security service.[9] The results showed that being the target of workplace bullying was significantly correlated with
mental dysfunctions such as anxiety and depression. Additionally, those who experienced workplace bullying and, at
the same time, got little social support, suffered the worst
in terms of mental health. Matthiesen and Einarsen identified significant, positive correlations between workplace
bullying and the number and intensity of psychosomatic
symptoms among workplace bullying victims.[10] This
was also confirmed by Meseguer et al., who showed that
being the target of workplace bullying explained 27% of
© 2015 Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB). Published by Taylor & Francis.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 129
the variance of such disorders.[11] There is proof that prolonged workplace bullying changes individual perceptions
not only of one’s own work environment, but also of one’s
whole life, which is then perceived as full of dangers,
uncertainty and hostility.[12] As a result, the victim suffers from numerous mental health disorders.[7,13] Those
reactions in turn lead to a decrease in effectiveness and
an increase in the number of mistakes and occupational
accidents. Mental health problems lead to an inability to
live a normal, healthy life and to an emergence of distress. According to Goldberg and Williams’ conception,
such distress is usually manifested in the form of depression, intense anxiety, somatic discomfort and changes in
social functioning.[14]
1.2. Workplace bullying and social support
Social climate in the workplace, as well as ways of communicating between employees are significantly connected
to workplace bullying.[15,16] The general work atmosphere in organizations where workplace bullying was an
issue was grim, tense, full of conflict and hard competition in comparison to bullying-free organizations.[16]
The importance of social climate in the organization was
also stressed in several recent studies, where the number
of interpersonal conflicts was particularly important. The
more conflicts there are, the greater the possibility that they
will lead to workplace bullying.[17,18] Zapf et al. studied
the support (as part of the social climate) that employees
can get from their colleagues and superiors in reference
to workplace bullying.[19] The study showed that workplace bullying victims received significantly less support
from co-workers and superiors. This effect was not surprising, but the authors also found that various types of
support correlated differently with different types of harassment. Harassment directed at the professional domain was
significantly and negatively connected to support from coworkers and support from the superior, although it may
seem that it is the superior who influences the workload
and methods of fulfilling occupational duties. The authors
stressed that this effect was surprising mostly because it
is the superiors who have the formal power that allows
them to employ forms of harassment aimed directly at
professional duties, while co-workers do not have such
power. Furthermore, support from co-workers was significantly and negatively correlated with workplace bullying
acts aimed at the workers’ personal domain and their social
isolation. This relationship was not present in the case
of support received from the superior. According to Zapf
et al., that isolation was a strategy that could only be
employed when co-workers were involved in harassment,
because superiors could not execute isolation on their own.
Even if a superior tried to force isolation, it would only
be effective if the victim had no support from colleagues.
The fact that the behaviours aimed at the personal domain
were connected only to support from co-workers can be
explained by the claim that to execute that type of harassment, the perpetrator needs information about the victim’s
private life. Such information is probably inaccessible to
superiors. The results also showed that the behaviours that
included verbal aggression appeared more often on the part
of the superior, which, according to Zapf et al., could stem
from the structure of power.
1.3. Workplace bullying and authentic leadership
Research in workplace bullying carried out during the last
20 years in European countries showed that 50–80% of victims of bullying indicated their superiors as perpetrators
of bullying.[20] We can, therefore, suppose that workplace
bullying is strongly connected with types of leadership and
interactions between subordinates and superiors. There are
some data on relationships between workplace bullying
and the type of leadership. Einarsen et al. [15] indicated
that the employees’ dissatisfaction with leadership style
practised in their organization was, in addition to role of
conflict, one of the organizational factors most strongly
connected to workplace bullying.
If different types of leadership are analysed, it
turns out that workplace bullying is connected to autocratic leadership, with an authoritarian style of conflict
resolution.[13,16] This type of leadership facilitates intimidation of employees, where there is no room for criticizing
the superiors and where complaints about their inappropriate behaviours are ineffective.[21] Hoel et al. confirmed
those suppositions: an autocratic management style was
also positively correlated with workplace bullying (experienced or observed by the research participants in their
workplace).[22] It is interesting that style turned out to
be a stronger predictor for workplace bullying observers
than for its victims. Hoel et al. [22] connected it more
to the leadership style which was characterized by noncontingent punishment. The authors explained that for the
targets of workplace bullying, working for an autocratic
leader, however difficult and unpleasant, was more predictable than working for a leader who was unpredictable
and inconsistent, e.g., in exercising punishment. In that
last case, the employees may have difficulties with making sense of and predicting the behaviours of the leader,
therefore, it is difficult to prevent behaviours perceived as
workplace bullying. One other leadership style has been
pointed out recently, namely the non-interfering style, the
so-called laissez-faire. In reality, this style leads to a lack
of leadership, because it assumes that the leader is indifferent and leaves all decisions to the employees. At the
same time, the leader ignores the employees’ needs, does
not react to conflicts between them and does not control the way that they fulfil their duties. As indicated
by some researchers,[15,23] this style may also pave the
way for workplace bullying, especially bullying between
130 M. Warszewska-Makuch et al.
organizational peers. Hauge et al.’s research indicates that
ignoring the employees and failure to perform effective
interventions connected to this style of leadership may also
facilitate workplace bullying.[24] The lack of action may
be interpreted as acceptance or failure to notice the harassment. The mechanisms explaining how laissez-faire leads
to workplace bullying were investigated in a Norwegian
study.[25] Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim et al. established
that direct laissez-faire was positively connected to role
conflict and role ambiguity experienced by the employees and to the number of conflicts in the organization.[25]
The analyses showed that the three organizational stressors were mediators of the relationship between laissezfaire leadership and workplace bullying, which suggests
that this leadership style may facilitate workplace bullying through creating a stressful work environment. Other
studies also confirmed the positive relationship between
laissez-faire leadership and workplace bullying (see [22]).
As indicated in this section, researchers focused on
destructive leadership behaviour such as laissez-faire leadership [25] but there is little research into the positive
role of leadership in reducing pathological phenomena
such as workplace bullying in organizations. One of the
few such studies is that of Hoel et al.,[22] in which the
authors established that workplace bullying was negatively correlated with participatory leadership style. This
is why the present study focuses on a recent conception
of leadership – authentic leadership.[26] This conception
has been developing intensely for the last few years; it
stems from the popular theory of transformational leadership. One of the main differences between those two
conceptions is a consequence of the criticism of transformational leadership. The main question asked was whether
a leader could be transformational and unethical at the
same time. In consequence, Bass and Steidlmeier [27]
introduced the authentic transformational leadership, to
differentiate between ‘true’ transformational leaders and
pseudo-transformational leaders. The latter, in their opinion, manifest transformational behaviours but they lack the
ethic development. In the beginning, the word ‘authentic’ was used in reference to leaders characterized as
courageous,[28] able to lead the organization and people
in times of chaos and various difficulties,[29] able to build
a lasting organization [30] and facilitate the development
of employees.[31] Currently, both conceptions of authentic
leadership are embedded in the area of positive psychology
and focus on those elements of leadership that facilitate
its development (see [32]). This development was defined
as a process taking place due to ‘positive psychological
competences of the leader and other members of the organization leading to a greater self-awareness and shaping
positive behaviours in the leaders and their subordinates’
[33,p.12] (see also [26,32]). According to Avolio, Gardner
and Walumbwa, authentic leaders ‘know who they are and
what they believe in’.[33,p.13]
The development of this conception allowed Avolio
et al. to isolate a number of key dimensions characterizing
an authentic leader.[33] The first characteristic is transparency and consistency in action congruent with accepted
values (see [32,34]). Coherent and integrated functioning
in all areas of life is the prerequisite for transparency and
stability of one’s behaviour. Avolio et al. stress that one
cannot be authentic if, depending on the situation (occupational duties, family life, etc.), one puts on a different
mask. Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al. stress that authentic
behaviours are a consequence of the leader’s true self mirrored in their convictions, feelings, independence of environmental influences and pressures applied by others.[35]
The leader’s transparency is connected to a high level of
openness, clarity and trust in close relationships.
The next element characterizing the authentic leader is
self-awareness which refers to the extent leaders understand their own strengths, weaknesses and motives, as well
as recognizing how others view their leadership. Thus,
self-awareness includes both internal and external referents. Internal referent refers to leaders’ self-knowledge of
their mental states, including their beliefs, desires and feelings, whereas external referent refers to leaders’ ‘reflected
self-image’ (how others perceive the leader). Leaders
with high self-awareness behavior are seen to use both
self-knowledge and reflected self-image to enhance their
effectiveness as a leader.[36]
Finally, balanced processing involves objectively analyzing all relevant information before coming up with
a ‘fair’ decision. Leaders who exhibit balanced processing solicit views from others indicating the willingness to
challenge their deeply held positions before coming to a
decision.[36]
Authentic leaders have a strong sense of the moral,
hence all their actions are congruent with their rules
and they serve as a good example to follow by other
employees.[37] The processes through which leaders can
influence the ethical behaviours of their subordinates are
based mainly on positive modelling.[35,38,39] Furthermore, a true leader knows that leadership is not about
personal success, but the success of people who one influences as a leader. Therefore, authentic leaders focus on
how to help others achieve their goals and how to give
subordinates greater responsibility and power.
Authentic leadership style results in an increase in
trust, but also engagement, satisfaction, enthusiasm and
well-being of subordinates.[39,40] The employees’ wellbeing is expressed through good adaptation, job satisfaction and good mental health.[40] Waterman stresses
that the so-called eudaemonic conception of well-being
makes people live according to their true self, which is
connected to authenticity.[41] There is empirical proof
that there are positive correlations between authenticity
and eudaemonic well-being,[40,42–44] hence employees’
well-being is a natural consequence of their leader’s and
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 131
their own authenticity.[39] All interactions between leaders
and their subordinates happen in a dynamic and changing
organization. Therefore, when analyzing the development
of leadership and its effectiveness, it is extremely important to consider the organizational context.[45,46] Avolio
stresses that a supporting organizational climate leads to
the development of authentic leadership style and also to
a rise in the employees’ authenticity.[45] Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al. add that the leader’s transparency is
a key to the effectiveness and productivity of the organization, because it is a key element of the organizational culture enabling learning and development of all its
employees.[35]
The four dimensions of authentic leadership, i.e., transparency, self-awareness, moral and the balanced processing, lead to the supposition that this type of leadership can
moderate between workplace bullying and the employees’
mental health. Firstly, as mentioned before, authentic leaders have a high level of morality and they observe ethical
rules in their work environment. Hence, it has been supposed that they are less eager to take unethical actions,
including workplace bullying. Such leaders, through the
mechanism of positive modelling can also transfer their
attitudes to employees, which would lead to a decrease in
workplace bullying.
There are reasons to believe that authentic leadership
and social support will buffer negative effects of workplace
bullying on the mental health of employees’, however such
relations have not yet been explored in Poland yet. Therefore, we have tried to do (address) it in our study. Moreover, it should be emphasized that authentic leadership
shouldn’t be equated with the social support from a supervisor. It seems feasible that authentic leadership reveals
itself in organizational justice rather than in a supportive
relationship between supervisor and employees and this
difference may be particularly the case in the Polish work
environment. Authentic leadership is mainly focused on
aspects related to ethics and supervisor’s morality, which
is not necessarily associated with the emotional support
they should provide subordinates with. Emotional support
however, might be important for employees’ well-being.
Hence, it has been assumed that even if the employee
will be exposed to negative behaviours from others (e.g.,
colleagues), a supervisor’s transparent and ethical attitude does not allow these behaviours to be accepted or
continued mitigating possible negative consequences of
workplace bullying for mental health of potential victims. It has been assumed that social support from the
supervisor and co-workers can play this role in mitigating
negative effects of workplace bullying on mental health.
A supervisor’s support, which is understood in the study
as his/her concern for employees’ well-being and good
relations in working groups, will possibly mitigate negative consequences of workplace bullying from other colleagues. Similarly, co-workers’ support, understood here
as an interest in colleagues’ problems, a friendly, empathic
attitude and willingness to cooperate and help, has been
supposed to mitigate the negative impact of harassment
from the supervisor.
1.4. The aim of study
The aim of this study was to show how authentic leadership
(according to Avolio and Gardner [26]) is related to social
support and exposure to bullying and how those variables
are related to mental health.
Considering the theoretical background discussed in
Sections 1.1, 1.2. and 1.3, we formulated four hypotheses:
H1 Experiencing authentic leadership is associated
with low levels of subordinates’ exposure to bullying
at work.
H2 Superiors’ authentic leadership moderates the
relationship between subordinates’ exposure to bullying at work and subordinates’ mental health.
H3 Experiencing social support from co-workers
and from superiors is associated with low levels of
subordinates’ exposure to bullying at work.
H4 Social support from co-workers and from superiors moderates the relationship between subordinates’
exposure to bullying at work and subordinates’ mental health.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
The research hypotheses were tested in one sample of
employees drawn from 53 different Polish organizations.
A total of 820 questionnaires were returned (response rate:
74.5%). Of the respondents, 41% were men and 59% were
women. The average age was 33.9 years (SD = 10.4).
Overall, 70.2% of the sample were married or co-habiting
and a slightly higher proportion (66%) had universitylevel higher education. The surveyed employees represented various sectors: professional, scientific and technical activities (130 respondents); financial and insurance
activities (127 respondents); mining and quarrying (125
respondents), public administration and defence, compulsory social security (123 respondents); human health and
social work activities (61 respondents); trade, repair of
motor vehicles (56 respondents); construction (56 respondents); industry (44 respondents); electricity, gas, steam
and air conditioning supply, water supply; sewerage, waste
management and remediation activities (29 respondents);
education (23 respondents); transportation and storage,
information and communication (23 respondents); arts,
entertainment and recreation (16 respondents); accommodation and catering (7 respondents). All respondents did
office work.
2.2. Measures
The survey consisted of a number of research tools.
132 M. Warszewska-Makuch et al.
2.2.1. Measurement of workplace bullying
Workplace bullying was measured with the Polish version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ),[47–49]
which consists of 22 items that measure exposure to specific negative acts typical of bullying. The items refer
to both direct and indirect behaviour but do not require
respondents to self-label as a target of bullying (Someone
withholding information which affects your performance).
Respondents indicate whether they have experienced the
designated negative acts in the context of their job on a
5-point scale (1 – not at all, 5 – every day). The Polish version of the NAQ was developed with the back translation
method (see [49]). The sum of the answers to 22 items was
confirmed to have acceptable levels of internal consistency
reliability and construct validity among the Polish group.
Higher scores indicate greater bullying. The α coefficient
for this scale was .93.
2.2.2. Measurement of mental health
Mental health was measured with 28 items from the Polish
version of the General Health Questionnaire.[14,50] The
items deal with the workers’ perceptions of their mental
health over the past 6 weeks. The original version of GHQ-
28 diagnoses four distress dimensions: somatic complaints,
anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction and depression.
Each subscale has seven items. Participants are asked to
respond to each item using a 4-point scale (1 – better than
usual, 4 – much worse than usual). To examine the factor structure of the Polish version of the GHQ-28 scale,
the principal components analysis was done with nonorthogonal Oblimin rotation. The scree plot criterion used
to estimate the number of factors revealed three factors,
instead of the four in the original scale. They explained
almost 50% of the data variability. To interpret the theoretical meaning of the components, factor loadings were
used. The three factors can be labelled (a) somatic complaints and anxiety (been feeling nervous and strung-up
all the time), (b) social dysfunction (been managing to
keep yourself busy and occupied) and (c) depression (felt
that life is entirely hopeless). Additionally, a general mental health index was computed. The index is a sum of all
points gained from all questionnaire items. These factors
were used in further analyses as dependent variables. The
α coefficient for the whole scale was .91 and for the three
subscales it ranged from .81 to .89.
2.2.3. Measurement of social support
Social support in the workplace (individual support from
the supervisor and from co-workers) was measured with
one of the scales from the Polish version of the Job Content Questionnaire (JQC).[51–53] Social support from the
supervisor was measured with five questions (My supervisor pays attention to what I am saying) and social support
from co-workers with six questions (People I work with
take a personal interest in me). Respondents indicated
whether they agreed or disagreed with statements describing their supervisor and co-workers on a 4-point scale
(1 – strongly disagree, 4 – strongly agree). The items
included socio-emotional support and instrumental support, as well as possible interpersonal hostility on the part
of the supervisor and co-workers. The indices for both
types of support were computed by adding points from
the relevant answers. The α coefficient for support from
supervisor was .87 and from co-workers was .85.
2.2.4. Measurement of authentic leadership
Authentic leadership was measured with the Polish version of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire.[37,54]
This questionnaire is a theory-driven leadership survey
instrument designed to measure the components that have
been conceptualized as comprising authentic leadership.
The four dimensions comprising the ALQ are (a) selfawareness, which measures the degree to which leaders are
aware of their strengths, limitations, how others see them
and how they impact others (seeks feedback to improve
interaction with others); (b) transparency, which examines the degree, to which the leader reinforces a level of
openness with others (says exactly what he or she means);
(c) moral, which measures the degree to which the leader
sets a high standard for moral and ethical conduct (demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions); and (d)
balanced processing, which examines the degree to which
the leader solicits sufficient opinions and viewpoints prior
to making important decisions (solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held position).[37] In general, the
scale comprises 16 items. Respondents indicate the level
to which the statements are congruent with the leadership
style demonstrated by their superiors on a 5-point scale (0
– not at all, 4 – frequently, if not always). The indices for
the dimensions were computed by averaging the relevant
items. The α coefficient for those four subscales ranged
from .75 to .88. Means from the subscales were considered
in the process of computing basic statistics. In verifying the
hypotheses, the general index of authentic leadership was
considered (computed as a sum of points gained in all four
dimensions). The α coefficient for the whole scale was .94.
2.3. Procedure
The study was conducted in the first half of 2009. The
questionnaires were distributed to the employees by pollsters who asked respondents to return them during the
next few days. The questionnaire set was accompanied
by a letter describing the aim of the study and assuring
anonymity. The respondents returned the questionnaires in
sealed envelopes directly to the pollsters.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 133
2.4. Statistical analyses
Data were analysed with SPSS version 11.5. Pearson
product-moment correlations, significant difference tests
and hierarchical regressions were used to analyse the data.
To examine the hypothesis that social support and authentic leadership function as a protective factor in the relationship between workplace bullying and symptoms of
psychological health disorders, we also tested for linear
and interaction effects with a hierarchical regression analysis. We used this method to examine the hypothesis that
social support from colleagues was a moderator between
authentic leadership and exposure to bullying.
3. Results
Preliminary descriptive statistics for the research variables,
i.e., mean, SD and correlations, as well as hierarchical
regression analyses results are discussed in Sections 3.1
and 3.2.
3.1. Preliminary analyses
Table 1 lists the means, SD and correlations for the variables. The correlation coefficients ranged from .02 to .95,
most of them were significant at the 99% level. A general index of authentic leadership correlates significantly
and positively with social support from the supervisor (r
= .53, p < .01) and, less strongly with support from
co-workers (r = .31, p < .01). A significant, negative
correlation between authentic leadership and workplace
bullying was discovered (r = –.40, p < .01). The correlations between authentic leadership and the general index of
mental health turned out to be significant, but weak (r =
–.17, p < .01), like for other mental health dimensions,
i.e., Somatisation and Anxiety (r = –.15, p < .001),
Social Dysfunction (r = –.16, p < .001) and Depression
(r = –.12, p < .01). Similar effects were identified for the
relationships between individual dimensions of leadership
and the remaining variables, i.e., social support, workplace
bullying and mental health (Table 1). Both social support
from co-workers and social support from superiors correlated significantly and negatively with workplace bullying
(r = –.35, p < .01 and r = –.29, p < .01, respectively). Both types of support correlated significantly and
negatively with the state of mental health and its individual dimensions, although the relationships were weak
(Table 1). Workplace bullying correlated significantly and
positively with mental health (r = .34, p < .01) and its
individual dimensions, i.e., with Somatisation and Anxiety
(r = .29, p < .001), Social Dysfunction (r = .32, p <
.001) and Depression (r = .24, p < .01).
Data from the NAQ made it possible to identify workplace bullying victims among the respondents. Ascribing
individual respondents to victims or non-victims was based
on an analysis of answers to the NAQ with the Leymann
Table 1. Means, SD and Pearson’s r correlations (N = 820)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Age 33.91 10.44 —
2. Authentic Leadership (total) 39.67 13.00 –.09* —

8. Supervisor Support 11.45 3.16 –.04 .53** .44** .47** .49** .50** .26** —
9. Bullying (total) 30.51 10.54 –.07* –.40** –.34** –.35** –.37** –.36** –.35** –.29** —
10. Mental Health (total) 3.92 4.81 .03 –.17** –.14** –.13** –.16** –.15** –.17** –.14** .34** —
11. Somatisation and Anxiety 2.97 3.47 .03 –.15*** –.12** –.11** –.09* –.10** –.15** –.13** .29*** .95*** —
12. Social Dysfunction .76 1.44 .02 –.16*** –.13*** –.12** –.15*** –.13*** –.12*** –.13*** .32*** .77*** .56*** —
13. Depression .24 .79 .02 –.12** –.10** –.11** –.11** –.09** –.11** –.08* .24*** .58*** .42*** .43***
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
134 M. Warszewska-Makuch et al.
Table 2. Comparison of victims with non-victims in terms of workplace bullying according to their age,
authentic leadership style (and its individual dimensions), social support from the supervisor and from
co-workers and mental health (and its individual dimensions).
Victims Non-victims K-S Test
(N = 205) (N = 615) (N = 820)
Variables M SD M SD
Age 32.19 10.10 34.42 10.50 1.46*
Authentic Leadership (total) 32.20 13.58 42.51 11.71 4.25***
Transparency 2.05 0.89 2.60 0.80 3.68***
Moral 2.19 0.97 2.86 0.79 3.85***
Processing 1.86 1.03 2.54 0.85 3.80***
Awareness 1.91 1.04 2.55 0.90 3.73***
Co-workers Support 11.07 1.88 11.92 1.53 3.65***
Supervisor Support 10.28 3.20 11.92 3.07 4.28***
Bullying (total) 42.04 12.97 26.56 5.52 8.42***
Mental Health (total) 6.07 5.50 3.01 4.10 3.85***
Somatisation and Anxiety 4.39 3.89 2.36 3.05 3.56***
Social Dysfunction 1.36 1.82 0.52 1.17 3.54***
Depression 0.48 1.07 0.13 0.61 1.88**
Note: K-S Test = Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
criterion.[55] According to that criterion, a person is a
workplace bullying victim when they are exposed to negative acts at least once a week for at least six months.[54]
Therefore, the group of victims comprised people who
admitted to being bullied repeatedly in the previous six
months. As a result, 205 workplace bullying victims were
identified, i.e., ∼25% of the respondents (Table 2). In the
preliminary analyses we also checked if there were statistically significant differences in individual variables between
victims and non-victims of workplace bullying. The differences were significant for authentic leadership, both types
of social support and for mental health. People identified as
workplace bullying victims received less support from coworkers (z = 3.65, p < .001) and supervisors (z = 4.28,
p < .001), their mental health was worse (z = 3.85, p <
.001) and they assessed their leader as less authentic (z =
4.25, p < .001) (Table 2).
3.2. Regressions
3.2.1. Interaction between authentic leadership and
workplace bullying with regard to mental health
Moderated hierarchical regression analyses showed that
individuals who perceived higher levels of authentic leadership and lower levels of exposure to bullying had worse
mental health (but only in the case of Somatisation and
Anxiety) than individuals who perceived their superiors as
less authentic and who experienced high levels of bullying (Figure 1). Scores were plotted at the mean, low (1
SD below the mean) and high (1 SD above the mean)
values on the authentic leadership variable. Bullying (predictor) was presented separately for victims (targets) and
non-victims (control group). The results indicate a stronger
relationship between bullying and mental health (Somatisation and Anxiety) for the high (ß = .40, p < .001) and
medium authentic leadership groups (ß = .27, p < .001)
than for the low authentic leadership group (ß = .14, p <
.01) (Figure 1).
The predictor variables were centred prior to the twoway interaction analysis (Table 3). For the linear effects,
the independent variables explained a total of 9% of
the variance in mental health (Somatisation and Anxiety) (R² = .09, p < .001). Authentic leadership (ß =
–.12, p < .01) and exposure to workplace bullying (ß =
–.23, p < .001) yielded significant contributions. Upon
adding the interaction term to the regression, the amount
of explained variance increased significantly by 11%
(R² = .11, p < .001). Furthermore, the interaction term
made a significant contribution to the explained variance
(ß = .36, p < .001) (Table 3). Thus, authentic leadership was found to interact with bullying and mental health
(Somatisation and Anxiety).
Tables 4–6 show that in the case of other mental health
dimensions, i.e., Total, Social Dysfunction and Depression,
authentic leadership wasn’t found to significantly interact
with workplace bullying.
3.2.2. Interaction between workplace bullying and
co-workers’ support with regard to mental health
Moderated hierarchical regression analysis showed that
individuals who perceived a high level of support from
co-workers and low level of exposure to bullying reported
worse mental health than individuals who reported their coworkers as less supporting and a high level of exposure to
bullying (Figure 2). Scores were plotted at the mean, low
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 135
Figure 1. Interaction between authentic leadership and workplace bullying with regard to mental health.
Note: Low = –1 SD below mean; medium = at mean; high = 1 SD above mean.
Table 3. Testing the moderator effect of workplace
bullying on the relationship between authentic leadership
and mental health (somatisation and anxiety).
Steps and variables B SE B ß R² R²
Step 1
Authentic Leadership –0.07 0.02 –.12** .09*** —
Bullying 3.73 0.61 .23*** — —
Step 2
Authentic Leadership –0.12 0.03 –.22*** .11*** .02**

Note: N = 820; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05;
B = regression coefficient; SE B = regression coefficient
error; ß = standardized regression coefficient.
(1 SD below the mean) and high (1 SD above the mean)
values on the support from co-workers variable. The workplace bullying predictor scores were plotted at the low (1
SD below the mean) and high (1 SD above the mean) levels. The results in Figure 2 indicate a stronger relationship
between bullying and mental health for the high (ß = .37,
p < .001) and medium (ß = .30, p < .001) co-workers
support groups than for the low co-workers support group
(ß = .23, p < .001).
Table 7 shows that for the linear effects, the independent variables explained a total of 9% of the variance in
workplace mental health (R² = .09, p < .001). Workplace bullying (ß = .27, p < .001) and support from
co-workers (ß = –.08, p < .05) yielded significant
contributions. After adding the interaction term to the
Table 4. Testing the moderator effect of workplace
bullying on the relationship between authentic leadership
and mental health (total).
Steps and variables B SE B ß R² R²
Step 1

× Bullying
Note: N = 820; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05;
B = regression coefficient; SE B = regression coefficient
error; ß = standardized regression coefficient.
regression, the amount of explained variance increased
significantly by 10% (R² = .10, p < .001). Furthermore, the interaction term made a significant contribution
to the explained variance (ß = .42, p < .05) (Table 7).
Thus, support from co-workers was found to interact with
workplace bullying and mental health.
3.2.3. Interaction between workplace bullying and
supervisors’ support with regard to mental health
Moderated hierarchical regression analysis showed that
support from a supervisor wasn’t found to interact with
workplace bullying and mental health.
Table 8 shows that for linear effects, the independent
variables explained a total of 9% of the variance in mental
health (R² =.09, p < .001). Workplace bullying (ß =.27,
p < .001) and support from supervisor (ß =.08 , p < .05)
136 M. Warszewska-Makuch et al.
Table 5. Testing the moderator effect of workplace bullying
on the relationship between authentic leadership and mental
health (social dysfunction).
Steps and variables B SE B ß R² R²
Step 1
Authentic Leadership –0.32 0.17 –0.07 .08*** —
Bullying 2.78 0.39 0.26*** — —
Step 2
Authentic Leadership –0.64 0.03 –0.13** .08*** .001

Note: N = 820; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05;
B = regression coefficient; SE B = regression coefficient
error; ß = standardized regression coefficient.
yielded significant contributions. After adding the interaction term to the regression, the amount of explained
variance didn’t increase significantly and the interaction
term didn’t make a significant contribution to the explained
variance (ß =.12, p > .05) (Table 8).
4. Discussion
This study was designed to examine the moderating effect
of social support and authentic leadership on the relationship between workplace bullying and symptoms of psychological health disorders. We also attempted to confirm
results from a previous study (see [19]), which indicated
that social support from supervisors and from co-workers
was negatively correlated with the level of workplace
bullying. Furthermore, we verified whether the authentic
Table 6. Testing the moderator effect of workplace bullying
on the relationship between authentic leadership and mental
health (depression).
Steps and variables B SE B ß R² R²
Step 1
Authentic Leadership –0.02 0.19 –0.04 .08*** —
Bullying 2.85 0.40 0.27*** — —
Step 2
Authentic Leadership –0.66 0.24 –0.13** .08*** .003

Note: N = 820; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05;
B = regression coefficient; SE B = regression coefficient
error; ß = standardized regression coefficient.
leadership style, which was not hitherto analysed in connection to violence at work, was significantly related to
workplace bullying.
Generally, the results confirmed H 1, that authentic
leadership was negatively correlated with exposure to
workplace bullying. We can, therefore, say that transparency, openness, morality and leaders’ internal motivation prevent and counteract negative acts on the part
of the leaders themselves and on the part of other people employed by the organization. It was also supposed
that the lower probability of workplace bullying when
the leader was authentic, stemmed from such traits as
transparency, optimal self-esteem, emotional stability and
self-confidence. Being aware of their own limitations, but
also of their strengths makes leaders more open and less
Figure 2. Interaction between workplace bullying and co-workers’ support with regard to mental health (total).
Note: Low = –1 SD below mean; medium = at mean; high = 1 SD above mean.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 137
Table 7. Testing the moderator effect of co-workers’
support on the relationship between workplace bullying and
mental health (total).
Steps and variables B SE B ß R² R²
Step 1
Co-workers’ Support –0.23 0.10 –.08* .09*** —
Bullying 1.45 0.19 .27*** — —
Step 2
Co-workers’ Support –0.58 0.19 –.21** .10*** .01*
Bullying –0.90 1.08 –.17 — —
Co-workers’ Support 0.22 0.10 .42* — —
× Bullying
Note: N = 820; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05;
B = regression coefficient; SE B = regression coefficient
error; ß = standardized regression coefficient.
Table 8. Testing the moderator effect supervisor support on
the relationship between workplace bullying and mental
health (total).
Steps and variables B SE B ß R² R²
Step 1
Supervisor Support –0.11 0.05 –.08* .09*** —
Bullying 2.91 0.38 .27*** — —
Step 2
Supervisor Support –0.14 0.06 –.10* .09*** .001

Note: N = 820; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05;
B = regression coefficient; SE B = regression coefficient error;
ß = standardized regression coefficient.
prone to manipulating others. Their sincerity and openness can prevent them from using psychological violence
to eliminate competition. Additionally, many authors claim
(for example [56]) that a weak communications system
between the employees, which results in a limited access
to important information, is a key element facilitating
workplace bullying. A work environment managed by
an authentic leader is characterized by openness and a
low sense of uncertainty among the employees.[35] This
characteristic also supports the supposition that authentic
leadership style suppresses workplace bullying and its negative effects on the employees’ mental health. Authentic
leadership is closely related to the organizational climate
based on trust, which is also connected to a smaller number
of conflicts, lower aggression levels among co-workers,
which may in turn limit workplace bullying incidents.
This study allowed us to confirm H 3, about the
significant relationship between social support and workplace bullying. The results are congruent with previous research.[15,16,19] Regression analysis indicated that
social support from the supervisor and from co-workers are
significant predictors of workplace bullying (ß = –.28,
p < .001; ß = –.27, p < .001, respectively).
Support from the direct supervisor and from co-workers
may result in positive experiences at work. The supervisor’s support is connected to such behaviours as caring
for subordinates, appreciating their contributions, helping them with their duties and supporting them in the
development of skills.[57,58] Support from co-workers
pertains to the level of support that colleagues give one
another.[59] Co-workers’ support comprises caring, material help and informational help.[60,61] Support provided
by the supervisor and co-workers can lead to an increase
in the employee’s comfort in the organization through
the fulfilment of such needs as self-worth, approval and
belonging.[62] This in turn leads to satisfying experiences
at work.
The results also showed that the effects of workplace
bullying on mental health were moderated through authentic leadership, which confirmed H 2. It must be stressed that
this relationship can only be related to such aspects of mental health as somatisation and anxiety. This hypothesis was
confirmed only for those employees who experienced negative acts on the part of other people in the organization to
a lesser extent.
H 2 was formulated assuming that authentic leadership
buffers negative effects of workplace bullying on mental
health. The results showed that it can improve employees’ well-being only in the absence or lower levels of
harassment. Hence, it can be assumed that authentic leadership is effective in preventing harassment rather than
dealing with difficult cases of bullying that have already
occurred.
Social support is often included in research on stress
and is treated as an intermediary variable between stressful life events and health. This approach makes it possible to treat support as a psychosocial factor for mental
health disorders.[63] Additionally, the results show that coworker support moderates the relationship between exposure to workplace bullying and mental health. This partly
confirmed H 4, which stated that social support from the
supervisor and from co-workers moderated the relationship between the threat of workplace bullying and mental
health.
Results suggest that if lower threat of workplace bullying and higher co-workers’ support coincide, the employees’ mental health is least threatened. Regression analyses
indicate that in the case of people experiencing high levels of workplace bullying, the role of co-workers’ support
138 M. Warszewska-Makuch et al.
is not very significant. This may lead to a conclusion that
co-workers’ support cannot reduce the level for health consequences of serious workplace bullying for its victims.
This is congruent with Skogstad et al.’s remarks that the
strength of negative social relationships (workplace bullying) can be greater than that of positive relationships
(social support).[25]
Furthermore, the results showed that in cases of not
serious workplace bullying more important for employees’
well-being is support from co-workers rather than from
the supervisor. It can be assumed that support from coworkers (e.g., within the working group) will be an effective buffer for the consequences of negative acts imposed
by the supervisor. In the situation in which an employee is
harassed by his/her co-workers the support from supervisor doesn’t play a significant role. This may indicate that
for the Polish work environment, the relations between
employees and subordinates are not democratic enough
and hence a dominant, autocratic management style is
not conducive to empathy and interest in the employees’
well-being.
These results suggest that authentic leadership only in
combination with the social support (particularly from coworkers) can constitute an effective prevention of bullying
in the workplace and, therefore, reduce the negative effects
connected with bullying and workers’ mental health.
This conclusion may be important for leaders in organizations who should know that the reduction in workplace bullying begins with them and their beliefs about,
and attitudes towards, their staff. It seems interesting that
the interaction between authentic leadership and workplace bullying was significant only for two mental health
symptoms, somatisation and anxiety. It turned out that
among people who do not suffer from workplace bullying, a low level of authentic leadership in their supervisor
is connected to those symptoms. For workplace bullying victims, on the other hand, low levels of this type of
leadership seem to have no significant influence on those
symptoms.
There are some limitations to this study, which may
influence the interpretation of the results. First, the crosssectional design does not allow any causal conclusions
to be drawn. However, earlier findings indicate that the
style of leadership [22,25] and social support [19] influence individual exposure to workplace bullying and mental
health, but not vice versa. Another limitation pertains to
the fact that all measures used in this study are selfreports collected with questionnaires. Yet another aspect
to be discussed here is sample restrictions. The sample
was not representative of the Polish working population:
it included only white-collar workers from a few towns in
Poland.
To confirm our findings, further analyses should consider the various relationships between authentic leadership dimensions and workplace bullying, as well as the role
of the interaction between workplace bullying and various
psychosocial aspects of the work environment and their
significance for various mental health problems.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This paper was based on the results of a research task carried
out within the scope of the first stage of the National Programme “Improvement of safety and working conditions” partly
supported in 2008–2010 – within the scope of research and
development – by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education/National Centre for Research and Development. The Central
Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute was
the Programme’s main co-ordinator.
References
[1] Bond SA, Tuckey MR, Dollard MF. Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying, and symptoms of posttraumatic
stress. Organ Dev J. 2010;28(1):37–54.
[2] Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of
bullying at work. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper
CL, editors. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
international perspectives in research and practice. London:
Taylor & Francis; 2003. p. 3–30.
[3] Zapf D, Einarsen S, Hoel H, Vartia M. Empirical findings
on bullying in the workplace. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf
D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and emotional abuse in
the workplace: international perspectives in research and
practice. London: Taylor & Francis; 2003. p. 103–126.
[4] Hogh A, Dofradottir A. Coping with bullying in the workplace. European J Work Organ Psychol. 2001;10(4):485–
495.
[5] Einarsen S, Mikkelsen KL. Individual effects of exposure
to bullying at work. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper
CL, editors. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
international perspectives in research and practice. London:
Taylor & Francis; 2003. p. 127–144.
[6] Moayed FA, Daraiseh N, Shell R, Salem S. Workplace bullying: a systematic review of risk factors and outcomes.
Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2006;7(3):311–327.
[7] Einarsen S, Raknes B. Harassment in the workplace and the
victimization of men. Violence Vict. 1997;12:247–263.
[8] O’Moore M. Bullying at work in Ireland: a national study.
Dublin: Anty-Bullying Centre; 2000.
[9] Bilgel N, Aytac S, Bayram N. Bullying in Turkish whitecollar workers. Occup Med. 2006;56:226–231.
[10] Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. MMPI-2 configurations among
victims of bullying at work. European J Work Organ Psychol. 2001;10(4):467–484.
[11] Meseguer de Pedro M, Soler Sánchez MI, Sáez Navarro
MC, Izquierdo MG. Workplace mobbing and effects on
workers’ health. Span J Psychol. 2008;11(1):219–227.
[12] Janoff-Bulman R. Shattered assumptions – towards a new
psychology of trauma. New York (NY): The Free Press;
1992.
[13] O’Moore M, Seigne E, McGuire L, Smith M. Victims
of bullying at work in Ireland. J Occup Health Saf.
1998;14:568–574.
[14] Goldberg DP, Williams P. A user/s guide to the General
Health Questionnaire. Berkshire: NFER-NELSON; 1991.
[15] Einarsen S, Raknes BI, Matthiesen SB. Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 139
quality: an exploratory study. Eur J Work Organ Psychol.
1994;4:381–401.
[16] Vartia M. The sources of bullying – Psychological work
environment and organizational climate. Eur J Work Organ
Psychol. 1996;5:203–214.
[17] Baillien E, Neyens I, De Witte H, De Cuyper N. Towards a
three way model of workplace bullying: a qualitative study.
J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2009;19:1–16.
[18] Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. Organizational
changes: a precursor of bullying at work? Int J Organ
Theory Behav. 2007;10(1):58–94.
[19] Zapf D, Knorz C, Kulla M. On the relationships between
mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment and health outcomes. Eur J Work Organ Psychol.
1996;5:215–238.
[20] Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. Leadership and
interpersonal conflicts: symptoms of posttraumatic stress
among targets of bullying from supervisors. Nord Psykol.
2005;57:391–415.
[21] Hoel H, Salin D. Organizational antecedents of workplace
bullying. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL,
editors. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
international perspectives in research and practice. London:
Taylor & Francis; 2003. p. 203–218.
[22] Hoel H, Glasø L, Hetland J, Cooper CL, Einarsen S. Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed
workplace bullying. Br J Manag. 2010;21:453–468.
[23] Hoel H, Cooper CL Working with victims of workplace bullying. In: Kemshall H, Pritchard J, editors. Good practice in
working with victims of violence. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers; 2000. p. 101–118.
[24] Hauge LJ, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Relationships between
stressful work environments and bullying: results of
a large representative study. Work Stress. 2007;21(3):
220–242.
[25] Skogstad A, Einarsen S, Torsheim T, Aasland MS, Hetland
H. The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior.
J Occup Health Psychol. 2007;12(1):80–92.
[26] Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. Authentic leadership development:
getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadersh
Q. 2005;16:315–338.
[27] Bass BM, Steidlmeier P. Ethics, character and authentic
transformational leadership. The leadership. Leadersh Q.
1999;10(2):181–217.
[28] Terry RW. Authentic leadership: courage in action. San
Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 1993.
[29] Abdullah SM. The power of one: authentic leadership in turbulent times. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers; 1995.
[30] George W. Authentic leadership: rediscovering the secrets
to creating lasting value. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass;
2003.
[31] Villani S. Are you sure you’re principal? On being an
authentic leader. Thousand Oaks (CA): Corwin Press; 1999.
[32] Luthans F, Avolio BJ. Authentic leadership: a positive
development approach. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn
RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco (CA): Barrett-Koehler; 2003. p. 241–261.
[33] Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Walumbwa FO. Preface. In:
Gardner W, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, editors. Authentic
leadership theory and practice: origins, effects and development. San Francisco (CA): Elsevier; 2005. p. 11–19.
[34] Seligman MEP. Authentic happiness: using the new positive
psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment.
New York (NY): Free Press; 2002.
[35] Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, Luthans F, May DR, Walumbwa
FO. Can you see the real me? A self-based model of
authentic leader and follower development. Leadersh Q.
2005;16:343–372.
[36] Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Zhu W. How transformational
leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: the role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Pers
Psychol. 2008;61:793–825.
[37] May DR, Chan AYL, Hodges TD, Avolio BJ. Developing
the moral component of authentic leadership. Organ Dyn.
2003;32:247–260.
[38] Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Walumbwa FO, Luthans F, May
DR. Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which
authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
Leadersh Q. 2004;15:801–823.
[39] Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business-until level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Appl
Psychol. 2002;87:268–279.
[40] Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potential: a
review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;52:141–166.
[41] Waterman AS. Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of
personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;64:678–691.
[42] Kahneman D, Die E, Schwartz N. Well-being: the foundation of hedonic psychology. New York (NY): Russell Sage
Foundation; 1999.
[43] Kernis MH. Toward a conceptualization of optimal selfesteem. Psychol Inq. 2003;14:1–26.
[44] Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Ryan RM, Chirkov V, Kim Y, Wu
C, et al. Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four
cultures. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2004;35(2):209–223.
[45] Avolio BJ. Leadership development in balance: made/born.
Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
[46] Day D. Leadership development: a review in context. Leadersh Q. 2000;11:581–613.
[47] Einarsen S, Raknes B. Harassment in the workplace and the
victimization of men. Violence Vict. 1997;12:247–263.
[48] Hoel H, Cooper CL, Fargher B. The experience of bullying
in Great Britain: the impact of organisational culture. Eur J
Work Organ Psychol. 2001;10:443–456.
[49] Warszewska-Makuch M. Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza
NAQ do pomiaru mobbingu [Polish adaptation of the Negative Acts Questionnaire for measuring mobbing at work].
Bezpieczenstwo Pr – Nauka Prakt. 2007;(12):16–19. In ´
Polish, with an abstract in English.
[50] Makowska Z, Merecz D. (2001) Polska adaptacja Kwestionariusza Ogólnego Stanu Zdrowia Davida Goldberga:
GHQ-12 i GHQ-28, cz˛ es´c II [Polish adaptation of David ´
Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire: GHQ-12 and
GHQ-28, part II]. In Makowska Z, Merecz D, editors.
Ocena zdrowia psychicznego na podstawie badan kwest- ´
ionariuszami Davida Goldberga. Podr˛ ecznik dla u˙zytkowników kwestionariuszy GHQ-12 i GHQ-28 [Assessment of
mental health on the basis of David Goldberg’s questionnaire studies. A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12 and GHQ-28)]. Łód´z: IMP. p. 193–264
[51] Karasek RA. Job content instrument: questionnaire and
user’s guide. Los Angeles (CA): University of Southern
California; 1985.
[52] Karasek RA, Theorell T. Healthy work: stress productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York (NY):
Basic Books; 1990.
[53] Zołnier ˙ czyk-Zreda D, Bedynska S. Psychometric properties ´
of the Polish version of Karasek’s Job Content Questionnaire. JOSE J Occup Health Saf. 2014; 20(4):583–593. DOI:
10.1080/10803548.2014.11077075
140 M. Warszewska-Makuch et al.
[54] Zołnierczyk-Zreda D, Warszewska-Makuch M. 1.R.01 ˙
Wymagania czasowe pracy oraz styl przywództwa
stosowany w organizacji a dobrostan psychiczny i mobbing
w miejscu pracy, etap 2 [The time requirements of work and
leadership style used in the organization, and mental wellbeing and bullying in the workplace, stage 2]. Warszawa:
CIOP-PIB; 2009 [unpublished report].
[55] Leymann H. The content and development of mobbing at
work. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 1998;5:165–184.
[56] Sidor-Rz ˛ adkowska M. Mobbing – zagro˙zenie dla firmy
i pracowników [Mobbing – threat for organisation and
workers]. ZZL. 2005;2:77–85.
[57] Oldham GR, Cummings A. Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad Manag J.
1996;39:607–634.
[58] Rafferty AE, Griffin MA. Dimensions of transformational
leadership: conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadership
Q. 2004;15:329–354.
[59] Liao H, Joshi A, Chuang A. Sticking out like a sore thumb:
employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Pers Psychol.
2004;57:969–1000.
[60] Ducharme LJ, Martin JK. Unrewarding work, coworker
support, and job satisfaction. Work Occup. 2000;27(2):
223–243.
[61] Parris MA. Work teams: perceptions of a ready-made
support system? Employ Respons Rights J. 2003;15:
71–83.
[62] Stinglhamber F, Vandenberghe C. Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study. J Organ Behav. 2003;24:251–
270.
[63] Rousseau V, Aube C. Social support at work and affective commitment to the organization: the moderating effect
of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. J Soc
Psychol. 2010;150(4):321–340.