GÜLSÜM ANÇEL, Elif YUVA, Derya GÖKMEN ÖZTUNA

Eş-bağımlılık ve işyerinde mobing arasındaki ilişki

Amaç: Eş-bağımlılık, bir davranış biçimi, kişilik özelliği, psikiyatrik bozukluk veya patolojik kişilerarası ilişki biçimi olarak çeşitli şekillerde tanımlanmaktadır. Eş-bağımlı kişilerin özellikleri ile iş yerinde psikolojik şiddete uğrayanların davranış ve kişilik yapılarıyla iletişim biçimlerinde örtüşen özellikler vardır. Bu çalışmada eş-bağımlılık ve iş yerinde mobbing arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Bir üniversite hastanesinde çalışan 210 hemşireye Eş- Bağımlılık Belirleme Ölçeği (EşBBÖ), Beck Depresyon Ölçeği (BDÖ) ve İş Yerinde Psikolojik Şiddet Davranışları Ölçeği (İPŞDÖ) uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışmada, EşBBÖnün tüm alt ölçekleri ile İPŞDÖ arasında aynı yönde bir ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir. EşBBÖ alt ölçekleri benlik değeri ve tıbbi sorunlar ile İPŞDÖ arasındaki ilişki istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur. EşBBÖ alt ölçekleri benlik değeri ile İPŞDÖ alt ölçeklerinden kişiliğe saldırı arasında, tıbbi sorunlar ile mesleksel statü ve kişiliğe saldırı arasında, aileye ilişkin konular ile mesleksel statüye saldırı arasında ve kendini gizleme ile doğrudan olumsuz davranışlar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları, eş-bağımlılık ve mobbing arasındaki ilişkiyi desteklemektedir. Ancak, bu bulguların desteklen- mesi için daha fazla çalışma yapılmasına gereksinim vardır.

The relationship between co-dependency and mobbying/bullying

Objective: Co-dependency is defined as a behavioral pattern, personality, psychiatric disorder and pathology of inter- personal relations. There are similarities between the characteristics of personality, behavioral patterns and interper- sonal relations of codependents and the individuals who have been mobbed. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between co-dependency and mobbing. Methods: Two hundred and ten nurses participants who are employed in a university hospital, filled Codependency Assessment Tool (CODAT), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Workplace Psychologically Violent Behaviors Instrument (WPVBI). Results: Results showed that there is a positive relationship between all subscales of CODAT and WPVBI subscales and also statistically significant relations between the subscales of CODAT; medical problems, self-worth and WPVBI. There were statistically significant rela- tionships between the self-worth and attack on personality, the medical problems and attack on professional status, attack on personality, the family of origin issues and attack on professional status, hiding self and direct negative behaviors. Conclusion: This research results support the relationship between co-dependency and mobbing/bullying. However, further studies should be conducted to support the findings of this study.

___

1. Shaef A. When Society Becomes an Addict? San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1987.
2. Dear GE, Roberts CM. The relationship between codependency and femininity and masculinity. Sex Roles 2002; 46:159-165.
3. Martsolf DS, Hughes-Hammer C, Estok P, Zeller RA. Codepend- ency in male and female helping professionals. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 1999; 18:97-103.
4. Wegscheider-Cruse S, Cruse JR. Understanding Codependency. Deerfield Beach, FL, Health Communications, 1990.
5. Whitfield C. Co-dependence: Healing the Human Condition. Deer- field Beach, FL, Health Communications, 1991.
6. The CoDA World Fellowship. Patterns and Characteristics of Codependence. 2006 http://www.codependents.org/patterns.php
7. Cermak TL. Diagnosing and Treating Codependence. Minneapolis, Johnson Institute Books, 1987.
8. The CoDA World Fellowship. Patterns and Characteristics of Codependence. 2006 http://www.codependents.org/patterns.php
9. Herrick CA. Codependency: Characteristics, risks, progression and strategies for healing. Nurs Forum 1992; 27:12-19. 10. Hands M, Dear G. Co-dependency: A critical review. Drug Alcohol Rev 1994; 13:437-445.
11. Crothers M, Warren LW. Parental antecedents of codependency. J Clin Psychol 1996; 52:231-239.
12. Potter-Efron LA, Potter-Efron PS. Assessment of co-dependency with individuals from alcoholic and chemically dependent families. Alcohol Treat Q 1989; 6:37-57.
13. Martsolf DS, Sedlak CA, Doheny MO. Codependency and related health variables. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2000; 14:150-158.
14. Haaken J, From Al-Anon to ACOA: Codependence and the re- construction of care giving. Signs 1993; 18:321-345.
15. Priest LA, Protinsky H. Family systems theory: A unifying frame- work for codependence. Am J Fam Ther 1993; 2:352-360.
16. Fuller JA, Warner RM. Family stressors as predictors af code- pendency. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 2000; 126:5-22.
17. Beattie M. Codependent No More. Second ed., Minnesota, Hazel- den Foundation, 1992.
18. Subby R, Friel J. Codependency: A Paradoxical Dependency in Codependency, an Emerging Issue. Hollwood FL, Health Com- munications, 1984.
19. Meyer DF. Codependency as a mediator between stressful events and eating disorders. J Clin Psychol 1997; 53:107-116.
20. Hughes-Hammer C, Martsolf DS, Zeller RA. Development and testing of the Codependency Assessment Tool. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 1998; 17:326-334.
21. Hughes-Hammer C, Martsolf DS, Zeller RA. Depression codepend- ency in women. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 1998; 12:264-272.
22. Gayol GN. Codependence: a transgenerational script. http://www.imat.com.mx/pdf/codependence.pdf, 15.07.2011.
23. Leymann H. The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 1996; 5:165-184.
24. Glasø L, Matthiesen SB, Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scand J Psychol 2007; 48:313-319.
25. Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London, Taylor and Francis, 2003.
26. Ançel G, Kabakci E. Psychometric properties of Turkish Form of Codependency Assessment Tool. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2009; 23:441-453.
27. Yildirim D, Yildirim A. Development and psychometric evaluation of workplace psychologically violent behaviours instrument. J Clin Nurs 2008; 17:1361-1370.
28. Hisli N, Beck Depresyon Envanteri'nin geçerliliği üzerine bir çalış- ma. Psikoloji Dergisi 1988; 6:118-126.
29. Lillemor H, Strandmark MK. Health consequences of workplace bullying: Experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector. Int J Qual Stud Health & Well-Being 2006; 1:109-119.
30. Pedro M.M, Sánchez MIS, Navarro MCS, Izquierdo MG. Workplace mobbing and effects on workers health. Spanish Journal of Psychology 2008; 1:219-227.
31. Mikkelsen EG, Einarsen S. Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state negative affectivity and generalised self-efficacy. Scand J Psychol 2002; 43:397-405.
32. Duffy M, Sperry L. Workplace mobbing: individual and family health consequences. Fam J 2007; 15:398-404.
33. Einarsen S. The nature and causes of bullying at work. Inter- national Journal of Manpower 1999; 20:16-27.
34. Zapf D. Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower 1999; 20:70-85.
35. Zapf D, Einarsen S. Individual antecedents of bullying. S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf, CL Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Prac- tice, London, Taylor and Francis, 2003, p.165-185.
36. OMoore M, Kirkham C. Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior 2001; 27:269-283.
37. Agervold M, Mikkelsen EG. Relationship between bullying, psycho- logical work environment and individual stress reactions. WorkStres 2004; 18:336-361.
38. McMillan J, Northern N. Organizational codependency: The crea- tion and maintenance of closed systems. Management Communi- cation Quarterly 1995; 9:6-46.
39. Hauge LJ, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: results of a large representative study. Work & Stress 2007; 21:220-242.