Workplace bullying is an umbrella term encompassing a range of subtle or obvious negative behaviours, including aggression, hostility, intimidation and harm (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper 2011; Escartín, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodriquez-Carballeira, 2010; Spagnoli, Spagnoli, Balducci, & Balducci, 2017; Tehrani, 2012). Einarsen et al. (2011) define workplace bullying as follows:

This definition identifies five key elements associated with workplace bullying, which include: (1) negative or aggressive behaviour; (2) the frequency of the behaviour; (3) imbalance of power; (4) harmful effect; and (5) prolonged duration. The first key element, as defined by a number of authors (Baillien et al., 2009; Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Einarsen et al., 2011; Escartín et al., 2010; Spagnoli, Spagnoli, Balducci, & Balducci, 2017; Tehrani, 2012), can include overt or covert negative behaviours, including harassment, social exclusion, emotional abuse, spreading rumours or physical attacks. Thus, workplace bullying may be person-related (i.e. isolation, social exclusion, false accusations, undermining, harassment, humiliation, threats, intimidation, manipulation, and personal criticism) or work-related (i.e. work overload, removing of responsibility, overruling decisions, controlling resources, unfair criticism and blocking promotion and development opportunities). The second key element emphasises the frequent nature of bullying behaviours. According to Einarsen et al. (2011), Kalamdien (2013) and Leymann (1996), workplace bullying should occur at least once a week because isolated incidents are typically excluded from the defining elements of bullying behaviour (Di Martino, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper 2003; Einarsen et al., 2011). However, several authors indicate that single incidents of extreme hostile behaviour may be classified as bullying if the behaviour causes severe negative consequences for an individual’s well-being (Baldry, Farrington, & Sorrentino, 2017; Lee, 2002; Tehrani, 2012). The third key element describes a power imbalance between the parties, leaving the victim vulnerable (Baillien, Escartín, Gross, & Zapf, 2017). Remarkably, this imbalance of power between parties is not limited to position or authority (Branch et al., 2013; Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith, & Pereira, 2002) and can occur downwards, upwards (Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2007, 2008, 2013), horizontally (Einarsen et al., 2011) and across levels (D’Cruz, 2012). The fourth key element highlights the negative physical and psychological effects on victims’ health and well-being. On the one hand, psychological problems may include poor mental health, post-traumatic stress, burnout, depression and suicide (Brewer & Whiteside, 2012; Martin & Klein, 2013; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Nielsen et al., 2013; Soares, 2012). On the other hand, physical problems include chronic disease, headaches, higher body mass, increased substance abuse, sleep disruption and an increase in cardiovascular disease (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Kivimaki et al., 2003). The last key element of workplace bullying underscores the prolonged duration of negative or aggressive behaviour. As such, workplace bullying typically occurs over a long period of time and escalates and intensifies with time (Einarsen et al., 2011; Zapf, Escartín, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2011). To support this view, Einarsen et al. (2011) specify a timeframe of at least 6 months, while Salin (2001) stipulate a duration of at least 12 months within which bullying behaviour should occur.

Flourishing is commonly used to describe high levels of well-being (Diener, Wirtz, Tov, Kim-Prieto, Choi, Oishi, & Biswas-Diener, 2010; Hone, Jarden, Schofield, & Duncan, 2014; Seligman, 2011). The concept of flourishing was developed by Keyes (2002, 2005, 2007) and refers to a pattern of positive feelings and positive functioning in life, encompassing emotional, psychological and social aspects of well-being. Flourishing can be linked to several theoretical models that conceptualise flourishing aspects through research conducted by Keyes (2002), Diener et al. (2010), Seligman (2011) and Huppert and So (2013). Keyes (2002) developed the mental health continuum (MHC). The MHC focuses on the way individuals function, both personally and socially, and labels individuals as languishing (i.e. low levels of emotional, psychological and social well-being), moderately mentally healthy (i.e. neither flourishing nor languishing) and flourishing (i.e. high levels of emotional, psychological and social well-being). According to the MHC (Keyes, 2002), flourishing comprises three main components, namely, psychological well-being, social well-being and emotional well-being. Psychological well-being involves aspects of an individual’s psychological functioning, namely self-acceptance, autonomy, personal growth, positive relations, environmental mastery and purpose in life. Social well-being refers to how an individual functions in a social manner and includes social coherence, social actualisation, social integration, social acceptance and social contribution. Emotional well-being entails the presence of positive emotions, interest in life and satisfaction with life (Keyes, 2002, 2005, 2006). Diener et al. (2010) conceptualised flourishing as the presence of positive relationships, engagement, purpose and meaning, self-acceptance and self-esteem, competence, optimism and social contribution. This model is based on humanistic and positive psychology traditions and includes an individual’s psychological and social functioning (Diener et al., 2010). Seligman (2011) conceptualised flourishing in terms of five dimensions: positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishments (the PERMA model). According to Seligman (2011), the PERMA model may assist individuals to find happiness, fulfilment and meaning in their lives. Huppert and So (2013) conceptualised flourishing as the presence of feeling good and functioning effectively. This model highlights mental states rather than physical states and describes flourishing in terms of positive characteristics (i.e. emotional stability, vitality, optimism, resilience and self-esteem); positive functioning (i.e. engagement, competence, meaning and positive relationships); and positive appraisal (i.e. life satisfaction and positive emotion).

Emotional intelligence was originally developed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) as the appraisal and regulation of emotions and the utilisation thereof to facilitate one’s behaviour. Generally defined as an intelligence that involves problem-solving and social relationships (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008), emotional intelligence enables individuals to successfully cope and adapt to workplace stressors (Gunavathy & Ayswarya, 2012; Van Zyl & De Bruin, 2012). According to Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four-branch model, emotional intelligence consists of four areas of cognitive abilities: (1) emotional perception; (2) emotional understanding; (3) emotional facilitation; and (4) emotion management. Emotional perception refers to the ability to accurately perceive and express emotions. Emotional understanding involves the use of emotions to facilitate thinking and problem-solving. Emotional facilitation refers to the ability to recognise and analyse complex emotions, while emotion management involves the ability to manage emotions for goal accomplishment (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Providing a different perspective of emotional intelligence, the Bar-On (1997, 2000, 2006) model defines emotional intelligence as a range of non-cognitive abilities, social competencies and skills that affect an individual’s ability to flourish when faced with daily demands and pressures. The Bar-On (1997, 2000, 2006) model includes five key components of effective emotional and social functioning: intrapersonal skills; interpersonal skills; stress management; adaptability; and general mood. Intrapersonal skills refer to emotional self-awareness, self-regard, assertiveness and the ability to express one’s feelings and be self-directed. Interpersonal skills involve the ability to be aware of, understand and appreciate others’ feelings and to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships with other people. Stress management refers to the ability to actively and positively cope with stressful situations and the ability to act and control one’s emotions. Adaptability involves the ability to remain flexible in changing situations and conditions and to identify and solve personal and social problems. General mood is the ability to maintain a positive attitude towards life, to feel satisfied with one’s life and to express positive emotions (Bar-On, 2000). Combining cognitive and personality competencies, Goleman (2001) developed the mixed model of emotional intelligence competencies. According to Goleman (1996), emotional intelligence is not fixed and develops as individuals learn and grow over time. The model is based on the recognition and regulation of emotions in oneself and others, and outlines the following four categories of skills: (1) self-awareness; (2) self-management; (3) social awareness; and (4) relationship management. Self-awareness refers to the ability to recognise emotions in oneself, as well as their impact on decision-making. Self-management involves the ability to control one’s own emotions and to successfully adjust to changing situations. Social awareness involves the ability to be aware of, understand and react to others’ emotions. Relationship management includes the ability to effectively communicate, influence and develop others while building collaboration and managing conflict (Goleman, 2001).

Numerous studies (Coetzee & Oosthuizen, 2017; Hansen, Hogh, & Persson, 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie, & Namie, 2009; Nielsen, Magerøy, Gjerstad, & Einarsen, 2014; Nielsen et al., 2012; Notelaers, 2010) provide support for a relationship between workplace bullying and well-being. More specifically, workplace bullying has been recognised as a major source of workplace stress that is associated with negative well-being outcomes, including poor psychological health, post-traumatic stress, burnout, depression (Brewer & Whiteside, 2012; Martin & Klein, 2013; Nielsen et al., 2014; Nielsen, Glaso, Matthiesen, Eid, & Einarsen, 2013; Verkuil, Atasayi, & Molendijk, 2015) and even suicide (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Although a considerable amount of literature is available on the relationship between workplace bullying and various well-being outcomes, limited research efforts have been dedicated towards examining the concept of flourishing as a measure of well-being in relation to workplace bullying. According to the researcher’s knowledge, only a single study linking workplace bullying to flourishing has been conducted (Coetzee & Oosthuizen, 2017).

In terms of emotional intelligence, only a few studies have examined individual personality traits and dispositions as moderating variables in the relationship between workplace bullying and well-being. Previous research found that individuals’ personal resources such as coping, self-esteem, psychological capital, self-efficacy and resilience moderated the relationship between workplace bullying and various well-being outcomes (Ashraf & Khan, 2014; Bernstein & Trimm, 2016; Jackson, Firtko & Edenborough, 2007; Moreno-Jimenez, Rodriguez-Munoz, Moreno, & Garrosa, 2007; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Rai & Agarwal, 2018; Upton, 2010). With specific reference to emotional intelligence, only a small number of studies have suggested a link between workplace bullying and emotional intelligence. These studies suggest that employees high in emotional intelligence are more capable of coping with bullying (Ashraf & Khan, 2014; Bennett & Sawatzky, 2013; Cartwright & Pappas, 2008; Giorgi et al., 2016; Hutchinson & Hurley, 2013; Oluyinka, 2009). Studies also indicate that individuals high in emotional intelligence tend to experience fewer negative well-being effects resulting from workplace bullying than those with a lower emotional intelligence (EI) (Cartwright & Pappas, 2008; Slaski & Cartwright, 2003). This indicates that highly emotionally intelligent individuals appear to be more capable of effectively coping with bullying at work (Raman, Sambasivan, & Kumar, 2016).

Based on the foregoing discussion, it is evident that workplace bullying causes severe psychological distress (Reknes & Einarsen, 2018). Personal resources, specifically emotional intelligence, have been found to significantly improve individuals’ psychological well-being (Schutte & Loi, 2014) and their ability to cope with demanding work situations such as bullying (Hutchinson & Hurley, 2013). Unlike inherent personality traits, emotional intelligence is not fixed and can be enhanced with minimal training (Hutchinson, Hurley, Kozlowski, & Whitehair, 2018). As such, organisations should consider emotional intelligence training as part of their antibullying strategies.

The next section of the article will focus on the research design, which comprises the research approach and method, followed by the presentation of the results and a discussion of the findings. The article concludes with a brief summary of the key conclusions, implications for practice and recommendations for potential future research.

A cross-sectional quantitative research approach was followed in order to achieve the research objective.

The reliability coefficients reported in Table 2 show acceptable internal consistency reliability of the three scales and subscales. The overall reliability coefficient of the NAQ-R was very high (α = 0.95) as well as the reliability coefficient for the FS (α = 0.91) and AES (α = 0.95). These reliability coefficients showed strong overall internal consistency for the three scales.

Hypothesis 1 was analysed by using Pearson’s correlation analysis. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that all the NAQ-R variables were negatively and significantly associated with the FS (–0.20 ≤ r ≤ –0.11; p ≤ 0.001; small practical effect). Table 2 further shows that the overall NAQ-R scale significantly and negatively correlated with the overall AES (r = –0.07; p ≤ 0.001; small practical effect) and managing own emotions variable (r = –0.13; p ≤ 0.001; small practical effect).

The overall FS positively and significantly correlated with the overall AES variables (r = 0.52; p ≤ 0.001; large practical effect). Furthermore, positive and significant correlations were observed between the FS variable and all four AES variables (0.34 ≥ r ≤ 0.58; p ≤ 0.001; medium to large practical effect). Overall, the correlation range was below the threshold of r ≤ 0.85) for multicollinearity concerns.

The study proposed that emotional intelligence would moderate the relationship between workplace bullying and flourishing. A statistically significant interaction was found (Fp = 140.33; p = 0.001; R² = 0.28) for the model of emotional intelligence, workplace bullying and the interaction between workplace bullying and emotional intelligence. The model predicts 28% of the variance in flourishing. As illustrated in Tables 3–6, the results show that workplace bullying had a significant negative main effect on flourishing (b = –0.97; p < 0.001; lower level confidence interval [LLCI] = –1.34; upper level confidence interval [ULCI] = –0.60). Emotional intelligence also had a significant positive main effect on flourishing (b = 0.53; p < 0.001; LLCI = 0.35; ULCI = 0.71). In addition, workplace bullying was negatively related to flourishing at low (b = –0.23; p < 0.001) and moderate levels of emotional intelligence (b = –0.12; p < 0.001) but not at high levels of emotional intelligence (b = –0.01; p = 0.79). There was a significant interactive effect between workplace bullying and emotional intelligence in predicting flourishing (b = 0.21; p < 0.001; LLCI = 0.12; ULCI = 0.30; f² = 0.39 – large practical effect).

Tables 3–6 further reveal that two levels of the conditional indirect effects of workplace bullying were significantly negative, as supported by the bias-corrected bootstrap LLCI and ULCI, not including zero in the values range. Tables 3–6 show that when participants experience high levels of workplace bullying and low levels of emotional intelligence, perceptions of flourishing are significantly lower than for those participants with higher levels of emotional intelligence. In contrast, when participants experience low levels of workplace bullying in interaction with emotional intelligence, perceptions of flourishing are significantly higher for both participants with high and low levels of emotional intelligence. The pattern derived from the results diagrammed in Figure 2 confirms the existence of an interactive effect between workplace bullying and emotional intelligence in the prediction of flourishing.

The current higher education environment places extra demands on employees and involves various workplace stressors, especially workplace bullying. One practical implication of this research is that workplace bullying has a significant impact on employees’ well-being. As a result, organisations should develop and implement a workplace bullying policy and ensure a positive and bully-free culture. Organisations should also evaluate whether specific practices and workplace policies accommodate or contribute to workplace bullying, and if necessary, possible modifications to work design and leadership practices should be considered. For example, industrial psychologists could present diversity and awareness training related to workplace bullying, enhance individuals’ problem-solving and interpersonal skills in order to manage conflict more effectively, and provide counselling to both the victims and perpetrators of bullying. The second practical implication is the importance of personal resources such as emotional intelligence in reducing the negative effects of workplace bullying on employees’ levels of flourishing. In terms of enhancing emotional intelligence, organisations could implement strategies to improve individuals’ emotional intelligence through formal or informal training initiatives. More specifically, industrial psychologists could implement emotion-focused training interventions based on Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four-branch model of emotional intelligence. For example, a three-day seminar, based on various work-related emotional intelligence skills (e.g. emotional development, emotional regulation, emotional management and emotional resilience), could be presented. Training and education in emotional intelligence could help reduce the vulnerability of bullying targets and/or assist victims to recover and bounce back from bullying incidents.

Although the focus of the study was on the moderating role of emotional intelligence in the bullying–flourishing relationship, it had a number of limitations. Firstly, the sample was obtained from a single higher education institution and can therefore not be generalised to other industries. Prospective studies could collect data from participants employed in other industries to study the generalisability of these findings. Secondly, because of the cross-sectional nature of the research design, this study could make no statements about causality. Future studies could make use of longitudinal studies to overcome this limitation. Thirdly, the possibility of other explanations cannot be ruled out; thus, prospective studies could examine the moderating role of other personal resources, such as psychological capital or coping strategies in the relationship between workplace bullying and well-being. Lastly, future studies using a mixed-method approach could also be used to gain more in-depth data from interviews.