MOBBING PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND ACADEMICIANS IN TURKEY: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES

The aim of this study is about determining the mobbing perceptions of teachers and academicians in Turkey by a survey applied all around the country. The results were acquired from the questionnaire forms that sent teachers and academicians who have been working at public schools and universities in Turkey. The sample consisted of 1477 participants. Viewed from a wide perspective, it was aimed to provide information about exposing types of mobbing, pieces of evidence about differences between genders and occupations by determining mobbing perception of teachers and academicians. Therefore, public and organizational authorities in schools and universities can decide what they must do for preventing mobbing and, how they must generate or form policies and political decisions about preventing mobbing by this information. There was some information acquired through the results of this study. The first information acquired is perception differences of occupations and genders about mobbing in the whole research group. The second one is perception differences for genders about mobbing in same occupational group and finally perception differences of occupations about mobbing in a same-gender group.


INTRODUCTION
There is a harmony problem wherever people are. One of the important problems of people and work-life is mobbing today. Because work-life means competition in many times and competition associate with power balance. But if there is a power imbalance, mobbing may occur. The concept of mobbing which means psychological violence at the workplace has been discussed nearly for a half-century and it must be done until human beings can solve this humiliating and shameful situation. If there was an opportunity to research from the beginning of human history about mobbing as a workplace concept, lots of evidence could be found. But especially; while mobbing can't be solved yet, it can be focused on remedies or how to prevent it. Since mobbing is about work-life and people, it is hard to find all the solutions for damaging effects on employees. Because, happening, implementing, and exposing styles are changing continuously, even if all of the solutions and preventing methods can be found which were about up to now. One of the big problems about mobbing for today is that there is not a good way for preventing or resolving it exactly. But, solving ways can be found for some aspects which are investigated or, mobbing can be prevented through some procedural precautions in some circumstances.
As mentioned above, one of the main and maybe the most important issue about mobbing is, preventing it or resolving if it occurred. But, for resolving and preventing it in the right ways, the other emphasis must be acceptance of mobbing truly by authorities or whoever controlling power. Because, from many aspects, mobbing is a phenomenon that is difficult to overcome for the victim. Therefore, constructing a power balance or controlling power in the workplace may be a good solution for problems about mobbing.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Mobbing is about the perception of people about damaging actions of others on them for destroying their existence or damaging intention on their psychological status. Just like how a person gives affective response to an event, victims may give affective responses to mobbing attacks. Because, it is supposed for Affective Events Theory that (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), people give affective responses to events with their behaviors, attitudes, and welfare conditions which occurred around them. From the perspective of Affective Events Theory, as mentioned in some studies, mobbing may be considered as one of the affective events (Ghosh, Dierkes, & Falletta, 2011;Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007;Lee & Brotheridge, 2006;Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008;Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013). Because; for Brotheridge and Lee (2010), some specific mobbing actions have specific affective responses and there will be an affective response in every mobbing case.
Looking from this perspective, it is important to understand the responses of academicians and teachers about mobbing in terms of their occupations and their genders. Because there are different law regulations for academicians and teachers in their occupational places in Turkey in terms of their institutional law systems. It can be supposed that different places and different vocational work environments can change emotional conditions. So mobbing attacks, their emotional effects and results may differ for every occupation and every gender. If the conceptual framework is shaped by Affective Events Theory, this research must be considered by this framework too. Thus, both occupation and gender must be investigated by their own status and conditions.
Institutional status and conditions affected by law regulations may change the perception about behaviours, attitudes, and approaches. There may be more flexible conditions for universities than schools in Turkey. Bureaucratic decisions for universities may be easier than schools because of their law regulations. These regulations give universities more free area and flexibility about their working conditions and opportunity for deciding faster. Because, it can be said that, research studies need more autonomy for thinking and working freely on science. On the other hand, it can be seen either there is more opportunity for helpful and beneficial conditions or, more opportunity for harmful and counterproductive decisions. For national educational schools, there are not similar free areas and decision mechanisms as universities. Because law and policy systems are regulated for every detail in the working area and employee. These differences create two working environments, two different work conditions, and so different perceptions. It can be supposed that schools have more institutional structure than universities because of bureaucracy, different laws and policies, and lesser free areas. In this case, it can be supposed that more laws and policies force people to adapt to them and so more problems may occur.
On the other hand, lesser laws and policies can give people more opportunity for mobbing attacks on others easily. As mentioned by Bjørkelo (2010) from the perspective of Social Exchange Theory, circumstances can result from people's current situations and people can affect circumstances depends on their conditions. Looking from this aspect it can be suggested that, a bureaucratic or institutional structure may be important about exposing mobbing more or about exposing types. One of our former studies suggested that there is a negative relationship between organizational procedural justices and mobbing perceptions (Ergün & Ördek, 2016). Thus, it may be supposed that if there is more institutional and bureaucratic structure, in other words, if there is a more and strict procedural justice system, there will be lesser mobbing cases. From the justice perspective, it is considered that procedural justice means that there is a strict implemented law and policy system.
Viewpoints for universities and schools may differ because of their law and policy implementing forms. It depends on practitioners and the people who implemented them. If there are more flexible areas about working conditions and one or more perpetrators are in there, it is supposed that the law and policy system is dependent on initiatives more. Therefore, it can be thought that more mobbing cases may occur. On the other side, if there is the perpetrator who controls power, but the law and policy system is strict, the perpetrator can use laws and policies for the benefit of his/her own. In every circumstance, mobbing may occur in both workplaces depends on the intention of people. Because, it is suggested that, mobbing may be applied everywhere and every time if it is intended.
The other perspective about working conditions may be about the need for autonomy. It can be said that there are different working conditions about decision constructs for the autonomy of these two different occupational groups. If we look from the window of the school, we can say that there is lesser autonomy about teachers because of law and bureaucratic system than academicians. Because the law system of school is found on laws, policies, and principles more. Usually, teachers cannot decide what they can do about their jobs and work conditions. Nearly all steps are ready for their implementations on lesson applications and work conditions. If they are not ready, at that time directives, policies or protocols will be ready. Teachers must adapt to these rules and circumstances. They cannot decide about their working conditions or their job definitions in a circumstance like this.
On the other side, there is more autonomy for academicians for their work conditions and job definitions. Because nearly no one can step in about academicians' jobs for what they do at lessons and what they want to research. There isn't any definition of how an academician must lecture, and the true one may be so. Because academicians are, specialists about what they lecture and maybe an intervention may affect negatively that lesson or topic. Because the lessons or topics that academicians lectured are specific on themselves. In schools, it can be found a teacher easier for lecturing about a subject or lesson.
Because topics or subjects are general. However, this may not be possible for a specific lesson or subject which is specialized by an academician.
As mentioned before, academicians work on research more than teachers do. Thus, academicians can decide what they want to do about either their lessons or research studies. However, there is not the same opportunity for work conditions of teachers or what teachers want to do about their job. From the perspective of mobbing, it can be thought that more autonomy may reason for exposing mobbing more because of the autonomy of the perpetrator. Because there is autonomy for academicians, but the same autonomy is for perpetrators too. If the law system constructed for universities cannot be enough for preventing mobbing, at that time autonomy can be a reason of mobbing by itself.
After all these discussions, the research hypothesis suggested is below.
H1: There is a significant difference between the mobbing perception of teachers and academicians.
H1a: There is a significant difference between the mobbing perception of women teachers and women academicians.
H1b: There is a significant difference between the mobbing perception of men teachers and men academicians.
H2: There is a significant difference in mobbing perceptions in terms of the gender of teachers and academicians.
H2a: There is a significant difference between the mobbing perception of women teachers and men teachers.
H2b: There is a significant difference between the mobbing perception of women academicians and men academicians.

METHODOLOGY
An exploratory and descriptive research design was used in this study. For testing research hypotheses, the data was collected from academicians and teachers who have been working at public schools and public universities in Turkey. For collecting data, the scale "Psikolojik Şiddet Davranışları (Psychological Violence Behaviours)" was used which was developed by Yıldırım and Yıldırım (2010). The scale has 33 items and is used due to its language. Because the sample consisted of Turkish employees. Additionally, this scale is very popular, used in the literature commonly and well known in the literature as cited by Nielsen, Notelaers and Einarsen (2011).

5-Point Likert
Scale was used to collect data. There were five different statements for participants' responses. The statements included in the scale were never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and every time (5). For collecting data, an internet application was used. An internet link which is hosting questionnaire form was formed.

Sample
The questionnaire form was sent to 53000 e-mail addresses of all Turkish public schools. The same form was sent to the e-mail addresses of all academicians in Turkish universities. Addresses of academicians was acquired from personal the web page of academicians on their universities. A simple random sampling technique was used for collecting data. Participants' responses were gathered by internet platform which used for questionnaire form too. There were 1477 responses acquired from them and they were analyzed by the SPSS program.

Demographic Characteristics
Totally, the number of teacher participants was 1164. For academicians, it was 313. The number of total women who participated was 621 and the number of men who participated was 856. The number of women teachers who participated was 469 and men teachers was 695. The number of women academicians who participated was 152 and men was 161. For the professional position of the sample, 1009 of all participants were teachers or lecturers. 16 of the participants were chiefs or group managers. 408 participants were middle-level managers and 44 of them were top-level managers. The work experience of the participants was so that, 186 of them were working for 6 months -3 years in that workplace. The number of 4-7 years was 284 and 8-15 years was 394. For 15-25 years, 386 participants were working at their workplace. 227 of the participants were working at their workplace for more than 25 years. The age of the youngest group in the sample is between 18-24 years. The oldest groups' age interval is 45-65. Retiring age is the last 65 for Turkish public organizations and so there is not any 65 upper age-old participants in the sample. The number of bachelor's degree of participants is 943. The number of master's degrees is 301 and the doctorate is 233. This information was shown in Table 1.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Exploratory factor analysis was performed for validity and reliability analysis of the dataset. As mentioned by Hair et al. (2010), factor analysis is a method for verification of the validity of a scale. After passing the validity phase, a reliability test was performed. The reliability test evaluates the internal consistency of a measurement items in a scale (Kerlinger, 1986). It should be above at 0,70 Cronbach Alpha coefficient for being able to say that the reliability is enough (Nunnally & Benstein, 1994). Table 2 below shows the coefficients of validity and reliability analysis. As seen from the table, it can be supposed that the scale is confidential and valid. Factor weights, means, medians, modes, and standard deviations of every item were shown in Table 3. The scale items were separated into sub-dimensions of the variable on the table. As mentioned by Yıldırım and Yıldırım (2010), there must be four sub-dimensions originally for mobbing scale but there were three sub-dimensions shown up from factor analysis for our scale. Originally separated and different sub-dimensions named attacks to personality and attacks directly were gathered and named together attacks to personality and victims directly.   Table 4 shows frequencies of responses and percentages for all participants. As seen from the table the most referred "Never" response (1320 times) is about Mobbing 27 item which is "It is implied that my psychology is not normal". Thus, it can be supposed that the least mobbing attack is about implying for psychological health for this sample. The most referred response 5 is at Mobbing 19 item (74 times) which is "you or your work is controlled implicitly or explicitly." The second referred item was Mobbing-13 (57 times) which is "I am responsible for the works which are above my capacity."  Table 5 shows the responses of only teachers. The least attacks exposed which teachers referred for to "never" is Mobbing-27 item. The most referred "every time" responses are Mobbing 19 and Mobbing 13 for teachers.   Table 6 shows to responses of only academicians. The least exposed mobbing attacks and the most referred "never" item is Mobbing 27. These are the same with all participants and other responses. But for response 5 (Every time) academicians referred to Mobbing 22 (12 times) mostly. Mobbing 22 means "It is made unfounded discourses about me". So it can be said that the most referred mobbing attack for academicians is gossiping.  Table 7 shows the group statistics about occupations and mobbing attacks. The highest mean is about attacks to occupational status or prestige and the most exposed group is academicians. The lowest mean is about attacks to personality or victim directly and the least exposed group is teachers.  Table 8 shows the comparing means for occupations. As seen from the table, there are significant differences between means of teachers and means of academicians for attacks to personality or victims directly, social isolation, and generally mobbing attacks. But there isn't any significant difference for means of teachers and academicians about attacks to occupational status or prestige.  Table 9 shows the group statistics about genders and mobbing attacks. The highest mean is about attacks to occupational status or prestige and the most exposed group is women. The lowest mean is about attacks to personality or victim directly and the least exposed group is men.  Table 10 shows the comparing means for genders. Looking from the table, all means are significantly different for genders from one another.  Table 11 shows the group statistics about sub-dimensions of mobbing for the gender of teachers. The highest mean is about attacks to occupational status or prestige for women teachers. The lowest mean is about attacks to personality or victims directly and about men teachers.  Table 12 shows the comparing means for genders of teachers. As seen from the table, means are significantly different for the genders of teachers. Therefore, the kinds of attacks are different for genders of teachers.  Table 13 shows the group statistics about sub-dimensions of mobbing for the gender of academicians.
The highest mean is about attacks to occupational status or prestige and about women academicians.
The lowest mean is about attacks to personality or victim directly and about men academicians.  Table 14 shows the comparing means for genders of academicians. As seen from the table, any kinds of mobbing attacks did not differ from one another. There isn't any significant difference between means of genders of academicians.    Table 16 shows the comparing means for women about their occupations. As seen from the table that there aren't any significant differences between means of occupations of women.  Table 17 shows the group statistics about the sub-dimension of mobbing for occupations of men. The highest mean is about social isolation of men academicians. The lowest mean is about attacks to personality or victims directly for teachers. As seen from Table 18, only attacks to occupational status or prestige haven't got difference about occupations of men. The others mean for men about occupations are significantly different. Thus, attacks on personality or victims directly and social isolation is different from men academicians than men teachers. There is a significant difference about means of teachers and academicians about general mobbing attacks.  Table 19 shows the results of the testing hypothesis. Research Hypothesis Results of Analysis H1: There is a significant difference between mobbing perception of teachers and academicians. Supported H1a: There is a significant difference between mobbing perception of women teachers and women academicians.

Not Supported
H1b: There is a significant difference between mobbing perception of men teachers and men academicians.

Supported
H2: There is a significant difference on mobbing perceptions in terms of gender of teachers and academicians.

Supported
H2a: There is a significant difference between mobbing perception of women teachers and men teachers.

Supported
H2b: There is a significant difference between mobbing perception of women academicians and men academicians.

DISCUSSION
This paper was aimed to analyse the differences of mobbing perceptions of teachers and academicians and their mobbing perceptions in terms of their genders. As mentioned above, teachers and academicians may have differences in exposure to mobbing for some aspects. It can be said that there are some differences in their work conditions, bureaucratic structures, and about their perceptions. If we look from a mobbing perspective, it can be thought that there are differences too. Exposing types of mobbing may differ because of the positions of academicians and teachers or their self-perceptions. It can be supposed looking from the windows of all these tables that, there are some differences about exposing types and sorts of exposed mobbing attacks between teachers and academicians. Additionally, there are some differences in exposing types and levels of mobbing between men and women. If we look closer, it is supposed that there are some differences between mobbing attacks for women academicians from others, men academicians from others, and women teachers from others.
As seen from analyses and results, there is a difference between mobbing perceptions of teachers and academicians. Because their legal structures and regulations may differ. From the view of the procedural and autonomic structure, perceptions of victims and perpetrators may differ for teachers and academicians. It can be said that there is more autonomy for academicians than teachers in Turkey. Therefore, it can be supposed that academicians are exposing to mobbing more than teachers because of this more autonomy. It can be supposed that more autonomy means more opportunity for the perpetrator too. Looking at the results of this study, it can be suggested that these comments are supported by analyses.
One of the results is that there is a difference between the mobbing perception of teachers and academicians generally. Academicians are exposed to mobbing more than teachers about social isolation and attacks to personality or victim directly. It can be supposed due to, there is not any professional level for teachers in Turkey, but for academicians is, as an academic degree. These professional levels may get co-workers more comparable and they may be seen as an opponent or threat the others.
This difference mentioned above about the general sample is not valid for the genders of two occupational groups. Because there isn't any significant difference in mobbing perception of women. Accordingly, in point of results of statistical analyses, there isn't any significant difference between mobbing perception of women teachers and women academicians. It can be suggested from these results that, both women occupational groups think the same about mobbing or they are exposing to mobbing at the same level. One another and important point about exposing the type of women is that women academicians are exposing to attacks to occupational status or prestige mostly. The reason may be the envy from other women academicians.
Attacks for the whole group most exposed are about their occupational status or prestige. These results may emerge because of the occupational status and its structural specifications of these two occupational groups. It can be supposed that being an academician or a teacher is very important and respectable socially in Turkey. Therefore, if anyone wants to harm another by mobbing attacks and if both the victim and perpetrator are in the same occupations as an academician or a teacher, getting harmfulness for prestige and status may be thought the best way. In this way, the perpetrator can eliminate the risk of competition.
From the perspective of men, there is a significant difference in their general mobbing perceptions in terms of their occupational status. Except for the attacks on occupational status or prestige, the perception about other mobbing attacks is different for men. But the attack on occupational status or prestige is the most one the men exposed. From the perspective of difference, the most exposed attacks are social isolation for men academicians. It can be suggested from the results that, men academicians are getting more victim than men teachers. This result maybe because of the social relations of men and their point of view.
There is another result about mobbing perceptions of academicians. Tables show us and it can be supposed that there isn't any significant difference between mobbing perceptions of women and men academicians. This result may mean that either both these gender groups percept mobbing attacks the same, they think about mobbing closely or they are exposing mobbing at the same levels. The most exposed mobbing attacks are about their occupational status or prestige. Although there isn't any significant difference between their mobbing perceptions for the same sub-dimensions of and general mobbing, looking from the results of mean tables, women academicians are exposing to attacks on their occupational status or their prestige mostly. But men academicians are exposing to social isolation mostly.
According to results, teachers are exposing to mobbing differently in terms of their gender. Every sort of mobbing attack is different for both gender groups. However, women teachers are exposing to mobbing more than men teachers, the most one women teacher exposed is attacking to occupational status or prestige like women academicians. It can be suggested from the results that, occupational status or prestige is more important for women teachers than men. On the contrary, if the perpetrator is a man, it is supposed that that perpetrator is caring status or prestige and perpetrator sees the victim as an opponent, enemy or he envies the victim.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this study, it is suggested that women are exposing to mobbing more than men, and academicians are exposing to mobbing more than teachers. The most exposed sort of mobbing attack is about occupational status or prestige for the whole sample group. Therefore, for preventing mobbing, some precautions can be developed. For example, autonomy can be developed only for work conditions but not for decisions of managerial issues. For managerial issues, consensus can be highlighted in the workplace for academicians and teachers. Occupational status may be seen as an opportunity for promotion, but organizational climate and culture can be developed for the improvement of workers and promotion should not be seen as a threat. Prestige issues may not be evaluated as a racing tool but can be seen as a reward in the workplace and work conditions must be prepared for this mindset.

LIMITATIONS
This study has limitations about its population. Because it is conducted on only academicians and teachers. If it is conducted on other occupational groups, the results can be evaluated more generally and get generalizable. The other limitation is about scale. The scale has 33 items, but it can be developed for current mobbing issues and sort of current mobbing attacks. Additionally, other mobbing scales which are developed and used in researches commonly can use for analysing the perception of mobbing. The other probable limitation is that measuring mobbing with a reflective scale may not be a good solution for understanding the victim deeply in every mobbing case. Because mobbing is a concept that is continuous, developing and perpetrators can find different ways to bully-victims. In addition, statements of a questionnaire form should not limit mobbing cases because some mobbing attacks cannot describe by only expressions of framed forms.