Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 2150 Basic Education Teachers and Workplace Bullying in the Philippines: An Organizational Prism Arneil G Gabriel 1 & Jocelyn P Gabriel 2 Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology Cabanatuan City Philippines, Department of Public Administration Abstract: Work place bullying when left unchecked would cost high both in terms of human and material capital. Teachers who are bullied exhibit certain behavioral patterns. The study aimed at determining whether there is correlation between the respondents personal attributes and their perspectives on the existence of factors antecedent to workplace bullying. It also determined the existence of a formal organization structure to prevent bullying and determine if there is a need for training and seminar on workplace bullying. By using questionnaire survey as a tool to gather data, the study measured, through their ” lens” four factors antecedent to workplace bullying. The study area is in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. The study revealed that there is a weak correlation between the respondents’ personal attributes and descriptors of workplace bullying. Except on the presence of injustice in promotion where majority of elementary and secondary school teachers considered present in the workplace. The factor of injustice in promotion is culture laden . In general, factors leading to workplace bullying is not rampant in the respondents’ workplaces. But the organization is not completely free from behaviors antecedent to workplace bullying. Majority of the respondents considered that formal organizational structure to prevent workplace bullying is established likewise majority claimed that they have not experienced attending a school sponsored training and seminar on workplace bullying. 1. Introduction The formal study of bullying began in the middle of 1970 when Brodsky written her pioneering study on the phenomenon. She referred to bullying as “workplace harassment”. In the early 1980 up to 2000, in the Scadinavian countries considered bullying as “misused of power “by superior in the workplace. In the United States, the phenomenon is considered as a form of “workplace abuse”. In 2005 German scholars treated “group mobbing” as bullying. According to Mathiesen and Einarsen [1] “bullying at work means harassing, offending and socially excluding a worker which negatively affecting his/her work tasks. The act of bullying is characterized by continuity and repetition. It is directed against worker who perceived himself as incapable of depending himself by reason of power imbalance. It is also a process where the worker ends up in an inferior position, low self esteem and a target of systematic negative social acts [2]. Work place bullying is also defined as any negative behavior which may cause or likely to cause humiliation, intimidation, and a loss of self esteem on the part of a personnel bullied [3] . Many studies on the subject showed that the academe is one of the several institutions in the public sector having high risk of work place bullying.[4]. But despite rampant bullying in the academe, especially university, it received scant attention of scholars. In fact, according to Braxton & Bayer, it is” surprisingly, university based researchers have paid relatively little attention to bullying in their own backyards “.[5] Workplace bullying is a phenomenon caused by multi- causalities. Among which are: a) perception of injustice; b) social exclusion; c) leadership style d) prevailing cultural orientation; e) organizational environments; f) organizational dynamism. The study adheres to the theoretical framework of Salin [6] of Helsinki University, Finland, that workplace bullying may be analyzed by looking into work environment factors such as: a) motivating factors; b) precipitating processes; and c) enabling structures and processes. There are two reasons for adopting it as the theoretical framework. Firstly, it is preventive in nature. The framework analyzes bullying as it focuses on the antecedent factors rather than on the occurrence and results. Secondly, it is systemic in approach. The comprehensiveness of the factors subject to