MOBBING DIAGNOSIS INSTRUMENT: STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION, STRUCTURE AND CONNECTEDNESS OF CRITERIA

The article deals with mobbing diagnosis criteria in instruments designed by foreign scientists; it presents the process of development of the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, designed by the authors, which involves fi ve main stages. The results of expert assessment and their impact on further development of the instrument are discussed in more detail. The detailed structure of the instrument is presented, distinguishing characteristics and criteria and revealing some fragments of indicators in the article. The analysis of intercorrelations has confi rmed especially high reliability of interconnectedness of criteria, i.e. 0.001.

Most scientists studying the phenomenon of mobbing use H. Leymann (1990) Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT questionnaire), where fi ve criteria for measuring mobbing at workplace were identifi ed: impact on self-expression and communication, attacks on social relationships, attacks on reputation, attacks in occupational and personal life situations, direct attacks on health. K. Niedl's instrument is popular among researchers. Based on the LIPT questionnaire, K. Niedl (1995) identifi ed seven criteria for measuring mobbing: attacking a person's integrity, isolation, direct and indirect critique, and sanctions by certain tasks, threats, sexual encroachment and attacking a person's private sphere. C. Rayner and H. Hoel (1997) distinguished fi ve criteria of mobbing behaviour: threat to professional status, threat to personal integrity, isolation, enforced overwork and destabilisation. To identify mobbing in the workplace L. Quine (1999) used the questionnaire, in which fi ve criteria were identifi ed: occupational stress (based on House, Rizzo 1972); job satisfaction (based on Quinn, Staines 1979); propensity to leave (based on Cammann et al. 1979); anxiety and depression (based on Zigmond, Snaith 1983); a scale measuring support at work (based on Payne 1979). The object of the article: mobbing diagnosis instrument. The goal of the article is to present how the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve organisational climate was developed. The objectives of the article aim at: distinguishing the stages of development of the research instrument; analysing expert assessments of the research instrument; examining the structure of the research instrument; carrying out the analysis of correlations. Research methods: analysis of literature, expert assessments, correlation analysis.

The stages of the instrument construction and results of expert assessments
The purpose of methodology is to show the limits and possibilities of science, and the choice of the methodology itself is determined by the scientifi c paradigm -the set of generally accepted world-view and scientifi c assumptions and prevailing practice, which not so much reveal the fi nal criteria of the truth as provide an opportunity to understand each other. Methodology can be defi ned as a theory, which examines the process of scientifi c knowledge, its principles, research methods and techniques. The construction of the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations covers fi ve stages.
Stage 1. Theoretical analysis of discrimination, mobbing, concepts of organisational climate was carried out; the researches of the scientists who analysed the phenomena were studied; preliminary characteristics of the future instrument were distinguished.
Stage 2. The model of diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations was constructed; preliminary criteria were distinguished, the questionnaire for the fi rst expert assessment was prepared; questionnaires were distributed to experts who agreed to participate in the assessment; the results of expert assessments were brought together, the weighted averages of the criteria were derived.
Stage 3. Preliminary indicators were distinguished, the questionnaire for the second expert assessment was prepared in order to derive the more precise weighted average of the criteria, fi ve response categories were introduced.
Stage 4. Before the exploratory research the expert survey was conducted by the method of interview in order to verify whether mobbing phenomenon exists and there is a need for such studies, if the phenomenon is widespread in Lithuanian organisations, how it manifests itself in employee relations; it was also aimed at fi nding whether mobbing victims can receive professional emergency assistance in Lithuania. At this stage, the characteristics and criteria were distinguished, the questionnaire for exploratory research was constructed; the exploratory research (interviewing 351 respondents) was carried out, high reliability of the instrument was found (Zukauskas, Vveinhardt 2009a).
Stage 5. The diagnostic instrument was improved (by eliminating defects and supplementing it), the main survey was carried out with 1379 respondents (Zukauskas, Vveinhardt 2009b, 2010. The instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve the climate of Lithuanian organisations was developed on the basis of scientifi c theories of H. Leymann (1993), C. Knorz and D. Zapf (1995) and the conducted studies of mobbing in the workplace, structural components of the studied phenomenon were revealed.
During the design of the diagnostic instrument, the content of characteristics and criteria was determined by theoretical knowledge about employee relationship, mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and organisational climate, accumulated in the science of human resource management and organisational behaviour. On the basis of theoretical analysis and insights of the authors, working hypotheses were formulated that the following characteristics are attributable to mobbing as discrimination in employee relations: discrimination in employee relations, discriminatory actions and organisational climate. Distinguished preliminary characteristics and the criteria they are formed of are presented in Figure 1.
Based on the distinguished characteristics and criteria the questionnaire for expert assessment was prepared. During the fi rst expert assessment the aim was to determine the key criteria, corresponding to the object of the research, which can be used to diagnose the presence/absence of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations in an organisation. Ten experts participated in the expert assessment (professors and associate professors of Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipeda University, Siauliai University, Kaunas University of Technology and practitioners: lawyers, representatives of trade-unions, managers of organisations). For each response category (there were four: strongly disagree, partly disagree, partly agree, and strongly agree) the criteria evaluated by experts were summarised, weighted averages of the criteria were derived. The most appropriate criteria in the construction of the instrument were found. When presenting the criteria to the experts it was indicated what is intended to diagnose, what preliminary indicators will comprise the criteria presented for evaluation. The weighted average ranges from 3 to 4, which means that experts more or less agree with the distinguished criteria (Table 1).
For the criteria, the average weight of which is 3 (i.e. control, informal groupings, confl icts in organisations) it was planned to measure challenging instantaneous situations that leave the print and eventually may become a factor of mobbing. Therefore it was decided to leave them and use in the construction of the instrument. The average of the block of demographic data assessed by the experts is 3.1. In the questionnaire presented to experts for assessment, the questions of the demographic block, which was planned in advance to relate to initial social stereotypes and defi ne socio-demographic characteristics of a mobbing victim, were described insuffi ciently clearly and not in detail. Based on these criteria and expert assessment, the questionnaire for the second stage of the assessment was prepared. In the questionnaire 133 indicators were used to research twelve criteria of organisational climate, 77 indicators -to research two mobbing criteria (based on the 45 indicators distinguished by H. Leymann (1993) and 20 indicators by C. Knorz, D. Zapf (1995)), 8 indicators -for 1 demographic criterion (Table 2).  The second expert assessment was to determine the key indicators, corresponding to the object of the research, which can be used to determine the state of organisational climate and diagnose the presence/absence of mobbing in an organisation. In order to get more accurate results, fi ve categories of responses were selected for the second stage of the assessment (as many categories as it was intended to use in the exploratory research instrument). The indicators attributed to each response category assessed by experts were summarised. Five response categories were chosen in order to include the control statement, which would polarize the assessment categories (the category "not applicable" included). During the second expert assessment it was found which of the named indicators is most appropriate to diagnose mobbing Lithuanian in order to improve the climate of Lithuanian organisations. Ten experts participated in the research (the same as in the fi rst stage). In some places indicators duplicate each other or are opposite. Opposite statements, used in the survey, play the role of lie scales used in psychological studies, e.g. one feels safe while he or she lacks safety. Conclusion: the respondents fi lled it in irresponsibly, so this questionnaire is withdrawn. Positive indicators are placed in the questionnaire to verify the fairness of the fi lling by respondents. After the second expert assessment 155 out of 218 indicators remained (Table 3). Note: *maximum weighted average of the criteria is 4. **maximum weighted average of the criteria is 5. Source: prepared by authors Expert assessment clarifi ed variable elements of the research. Four characteristics, which are intended to measure mobbing as discrimination in employee relations in order to improve organisational climate are distinguished, i.e. practices of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations, organisational climate.

The structure of the research instrument
The set of criteria is united to characteristics. The characteristic of the features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of 6 criteria. The characteristic of the actions of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of 5 criteria. The characteristic of additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is comprised of 4 criteria. The characteristic of organisational climate is comprised of 12 criteria.
The fi rst characteristic covers only the criteria of the features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations: physical, cultural, social, work and psychological qualities, attitudes and demographic features. These criteria are intended to determine the features on the basis of which people are discriminated most.
The second characteristic includes the criteria of actions of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations: general actions by possibilities of attack (e.g., not listening to an opinion, interrupting, speaking in raised tones, threats, or simply non-communication) by acting through social relations, attacking the views, attacking in the spheres of professional activity and health.
The criteria of additional features of mobbing, i.e. the third characteristic, are closely related to the criteria of organisational climate and include the impact of the manager on employee relations, unrecognized discrimination in employee relations, the criteria of the employees who see discrimination and the criteria of intolerance towards the other. The characteristics and 27 criteria they make up are shown in Figure 2.  Table 4 presents the fragment of characteristics, criteria and indicators of the instrument for diagnosis of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve the climate of Lithuanian organisations.
The criterion of work qualities as the characteristic of the mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is measured by 4 indicators of organisational climate, which reveal work qualities; the criterion of psychological qualities is measured by 1 indicator of organisational climate. The criterion of the infl uence of the manager on employee  Actions by possibilities of attack; Actions through social relations; Attacking the employee's social attitudes; Actions of attack in everyday professional activities; Actions of attack in the sphere of health (5).

Additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations
Employees are forced to say such information the manager wants to hear otherwise they may get into trouble. Women are inferior managers to men, as they are too often guided by emotions. If someone "stumbles", makes a mistake at work, the people around tend to rejoice. In our collective there is an employee, whose lifestyle is always laughed at (37).
Infl uence of the manager on employee relations; Unrecognized discri mination in employee relations; Employees who see discrimination, but have not experienced it; Intolerance towards the other (4). relations of the characteristic of additional features of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations is measured by 16 indicators of organisational climate; the criterion of the employees who see discrimination, but have not experienced it is measured by 12 indicators of organisational climate; the criterion of intolerance towards the other is measured by 4 indicators of organisational climate. Indicators of organisational climate for diagnosis of mobbing in organisations highlight that not only one criterion of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations may be measured by the named indicators. It proves that organisational climate is closely related to the phenomenon of mobbing in the organisation.

Organisational climate
The change in indicators of the instrument presented in Table 5 shows that after the second expert assessment the number of indicators of organisational climate has signifi cantly decreased, i.e. by 53 items. The number of indicators of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations has changed inconsiderably -by 10. The total number of indicators has decreased by 62. After the exploratory research the instrument was supplemented by one demographic indicator (employees' experience in the current organisation), two levels, allowing the possibility to diagnose the analysed phenomenon in the department and the organisation, were introduced as well.

Intercorrelations
Hypothesis that mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and organisational climate in principle are statistically related was posed.
The matrix of intercorrelations presented in Tables 6, 7 and 8 refl ects statistical relations between 15 criteria of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and 12 criteria of organisational climate, i.e. the features of organisational climate and mobbing; intercorrelations of organisational climate and actions of mobbing with additional features of mobbing.
Modal meaning of correlation coeffi cient indicates the strength of correlation. In the tables white colour shows very strong correlation, dark grey shows strong correlation and light grey shows average correlation. Shades indicate the strength of interconnectivity of criteria. In this case, negative correlation coeffi cient shows a reverse correlation, i.e. organisational climate is a positive phenomenon, and mobbing is negative in itself (all the indicators revealing mobbing have a negative meaning, positive statements were also transcoded to the negative meaning). Table 6 presents the intercorrelations between criteria of organisational climate and features of mobbing the total index of which is -0.794, which shows a relatively high interconnection. In particular, the following criteria of the actions of mobbing and organisational climate correlate with each other (from -0.780 to -0.852): discrimination on the basis of work qualities and creativity/initiative; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and dissemination of information; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and relations with the managers; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and employee relationship; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and informal groupings; discrimination on the basis of work qualities and confl icts.
In Table 7 Table 8 shows especially high joint index of intercorrelations between level of organisational climate and additional features of mobbing, i.e. -0.939, which shows strong interrelationship of the distinguished criteria: the criterion of the infl uence of the manager on employee relations is closely related (from -0.772 to -0.895) to 8 criteria of organisational climate (communication, dissemination of information, relations with managers, control, employee relationship, openness/tolerance, informal groupings, confl icts); especially high correlation rates (from -0.773 to -0.892) are between the criterion of employees who see discrimination but have not experienced it and 10 criteria of organisational climate (creativity/initiative, entering the organisation/leaving it, communication, dissemination of information, relations with managers, control, employee relationship, openness/tolerance, informal groupings, confl icts); as well as the criterion of intolerance towards the other strongly correlates with criteria of creativity/initiative, employee relationship of organisational climate; the analysis of intercorrelations has confi rmed especially high level of criteria coherence reliability, i.e. 0.001.

Conclusions
The process of the development of the instrument of mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve organisational climate involved fi ve main stages. With the help of theoretical analysis key characteristics of the instrument were identifi ed, the questionnaire for the fi rst expert assessment in which the criteria matching the object of the research presented (the fi rst expert assessment) was designed, on the basis of expert conclusions, suggestions and weighted average of the criteria, the questionnaire for the second assessment was designed, presenting indicators corresponding the criteria (the second expert assessment). After fi nding the weighted average of the criteria and notably reducing the number of indicators, the instrument was prepared for diagnostic exploratory research. After carrying out the research the drawbacks revealed during the exploratory research were corrected, which helped to prepare the instrument for the main research: four characteristics were identifi ed (features of mobbing; actions of mobbing; additional features of mobbing; organisational climate), which consisted of 27 criteria that resolved into 156 indicators.
In summary, it can be maintained that the matrix of intercorrelations refl ects very close interrelations between mobbing as discrimination in employee relations and organisational climate. With the help of the analysis of the intercorrelations it was found that there is a very strong correlation between mobbing on the basis of work qualities and the following criteria of organisational climate criteria: creativity/initiative; dissemination of information; relations with managers; employee relationship, informal groupings; confl icts. Very strong correlations were also found between actions of mobbing by possibilities of attack and criteria of organisational climate: dissemination of information; relations with managers, employee relationship; informal groupings; confl icts. Espec ially strong intercorrelations were found between the criteria of the infl uence of the manager on employee relations, employees who see discrimination but have not experienced it and intolerance towards the other that correlate very strongly with almost all the criteria of organisational climate, (the joint index -0.939).