Coping with stress caused by workplace bullying: umbrella review
More details
Hide details
Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy / Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland (Zakład Ergonomii, Pracownia Psychologii i Socjologii Pracy / Department of Ergonomics, Laboratory of Psychology and Sociology of Work)
Magdalena Warszewska-Makuch   

Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Zakład Ergonomii, Pracownia Psychologii i Socjologii Pracy, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa
Online publication date: 2019-04-16
Med Pr 2019;70(2):249–257
The knowledge about victims’ reactions to stressful events is important when it comes to the selection of the appropriate intervention strategies by people responsible for dealing with workplace bullying whenever it occurs in the organization. Early initiation of interventions is important, especially because workplace bullying is a situation not controlled by the victim who remains with a small selection of the possible forms of coping. For people experiencing workplace bullying, the knowledge about common reactions to this phenomenon may prove useful in itself, both reducing the discussed reactions and facilitating behaviors based on seeking help. The purpose of this review was to determine whether and which styles and strategies for coping with stress can play an important role in the process of experiencing bullying in the workplace. The review covered articles published in 1984−2018. The results of previous research may indicate that, in the face of workplace bullying, all forms of coping are indifferent, and sometimes may even worsen the situation of the victim. Undoubtedly, the reason for this is the fact that experiencing workplace bullying is a highly traumatic situation which continues over an extended period of time. Therefore, bullying can be included into those objective, universal stressors that will put most individuals, regardless of their perception, under strong stress. Med Pr. 2019;70(2):249–57