What are the steps to resolution taken by key stakeholders following a case of workplace bullying: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundWorkplace harassment has garnered increasing scholarly attention in recent years. Several aspects of this phenomenon have been explored in depth, such as prevalence, predisposing factors, antecedents, consequences and prevention methods. However, limited research has examined the resolution processes undertaken by key stakeholders following incidents of workplace bullying (WB).ObjectivesThis scoping review aims to map out the key steps and potential interventions following a report of workplace harassment, and thus provide recommendations. Specifically, the roles of the presumed victim, the organization's representative, and the practitioner will be defined and presented for each step of the process and each intervention, considering the needs of all stakeholders.MethodThis scoping review analyzed peer-reviewed articles published from January to December 2024 (25 years). The analysis focused on methods employed to resolve the situation, the outcomes (when available), the procedural stages, and the roles of the main stakeholders.ResultsThe results indicate that mediation and filing a complaint are the most used interventions, while seeking support from the organization and separating the victim and the perpetrator are the most used strategies. The review identifies five procedural stages: Reporting the bullying, Fact Finding, and Choosing, Implementing and Evaluating the method. Finally, both internal and external stakeholders should be involved from the beginning of the process.ConclusionsWe propose a five-stage framework that articulates the roles of key stakeholders. This process, while not necessarily linear, outlines the steps taken by internal and external stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".