Misplaced Pages

Workplace bullying

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.2.80.50 (talk) at 16:00, 8 October 2007 (taken off globalise as we have six countries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:00, 8 October 2007 by 81.2.80.50 (talk) (taken off globalise as we have six countries)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Workplace bullying, like childhood bullying, is the tendency of individuals or groups to use persistant aggressive or unreasonable behavior against a co-worker. Workplace bullying can include such tactics as verbal, nonverbal, and even physical abuse. This type of aggression is particularly difficult because unlike the typical forms of schoolyard bullying, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society. Bullying in the workplace therefore takes a wide variety of forms, from being rude or beligerant, to screaming or cursing, destruction of property or work product, social ostracism, and even physical asault. According to Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts (2006), researchers associated with the Project for Wellness and Work-Life workplace bullying is most often "a combination of tactics in which numerous types of hostile communication and behavior are used" (p. 152).

Gary and Ruth Namie define workplace bullying as "the repeated mistreatment of one employee targeted by one or more employees with a malicious mix of humiliation, intimidation and sabotage of performance.".. Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik (2006) expands this definition, stating that workplace bullying is "persistant verbal and nonverbal aggression at work, that includes personal attacks, social ostracism, and a multitude of other painful messages and hostile interactions."

Workplace bullying is also referred to as mobbing, although mobbing can also mean any bullying by more than one person. Other psynonyms include "emotional abuse" at work, "social undermining, and general workplace abuse. According to Pamela Lutgin-Sandvik (2003), the lack of unifying language to name the phenomenon of workplace bullying is a problem because without a unifying term or phrase, individuals have difficulty naming their experiences of abuse, and therefor have trouble pursuing justice against the bully. Unlike the term "sexual harrassment," which named a specific problem and is now recognized in U.S. law (and many international laws), workplace bullying is still being established as a relevant social problem and is in need of a specific vernacular.

Statistics

Statistics from the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention show that one in three employees personally experiences bullying at some point in their working lives. At any given time, 1 out of every 10 employees is a target of workplace bullying. Nearly half of all American workers (49%) have been affected by workplace bullying, either being a target themselves or having witnessed abusive behavior against a co-worker.

Although socio-economic factors may play a role in the abuse, researchers from the Project for Wellness and Work-Life (Tracy et al., 2006) suggest that "workplace bullying, by definition, is not explicitly connected to demographic markers such as sex and ethnicity" (p. 151). Because one out of ten employees experiences workplace bullying, the prevelance of this issue is cause for great concern, even as initial data about this issue are reviewed.

In terms of gender, the Workplace Bullying Institute (2007) states that women apear to be at greater risk of becoming a bullying target, as 57% of those who reported being targeting for abuse were women. Men are more likely to participate in aggressive bullying behavior (60%), however if the bully is a woman, her target is more likely to be a woman as well (71%).

Race also may play a role in the experience of workplace bullying. According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (2007), "the comparison of combined bullying (current + ever bullied) prevalence percentages reveals the pattern from most to least: Hispanics (52.1%), African-Americans (46%), Whites (33.5%) and Asian-Americans (30.6%). The reported rates of witnessing bullying were African-Americans (21.1%), Hispanics (14%), Whites (10.8%), and Asian-Americans (8.5%). The percentages of those claiming to have neither experienced nor witnessed mistreatment were among Asian-Americans (57.3%), Whites (49.7%), Hispanics (32.2%) and African-Americans (23.4%)."

Health Effects of Bullying

According to Gary and Ruth Namie, as well as Tracy, et al. , workplace bullying can harm the health of the targets of bullying Namie, Gary and Ruth The WBI 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces. Organizations are beginning to take note of workplace bullying because of the costs to the organization in terms of the health of their employees.

According to scholars at the Project for Wellness and Work-Life at Arizona State UniversityArizona State University, "workplace bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational, and social costs." Stress is the most predominant health affect associated with bullying in the workplace. Research indicates that workplace stress has significant negative effects that are correlated to poor mental health and poor physical health, resulting in an increase in the use of "sick days" or time off from work (Farrell & Geist-Martin, 2005).

In addition, co-workers who witness workplace bullying can also have negative effects, such as fear, stress, and emotional exhaustion (Lutgin-Sandvik, 2006). Those who witness repetitive workplace abuse often choose to leave the place of employment where the abuse took place. Workplace bullying can also hinder the organizational dynamics such as group cohesion, peer communication, and overall performance.

Psychopathy and Workplace Bullying

Robert Hare and Paul Babiak discuss psychopathy and workplace bullying thus:

“Bullies react aggressively in response to provocation or perceived insults or slights. It is unclear whether their acts of bullying give them pleasure or are just the most effective way they have learned to get what they want from others. Similar to manipulators, however, psychopathic bullies do not feel remorse, guilt or empathy. They lack insight into their own behaviour, and seem unwilling or unable to moderate it, even when it is to their own advantage. Not being able to understand the harm they do to themselves (let alone their victims), psychopathic bullies are particularly dangerous.”
“Of course, not all bullies are psychopathic, though this may be of little concern to their victims. Bullies come in many psychological and physical sizes and shapes. In many cases, “garden variety” bullies have deep seated psychological problems, including feelings of inferiority or inadequacy and difficulty in relating to others. Some may simply have learned at an early stage that their size, strength, or verbal talent was the only effective tool they had for social behaviour. Some of these individuals may be context-specific bullies, behaving badly at work but more or less normally in other contexts. But the psychopathic bully is what he is: a callous, vindictive, controlling individual with little or no empathy or concern for the rights and feelings of the victim, no matter what the context.”

Types of Workplace Bullying

Tim Field suggested that workplace bullying takes these forms:

  • Pressure bullying or unwitting bullying
  • Organizational bullying
  • Corporate bullying
  • Institutional bullying
  • Client bullying
  • Restroom bullying
  • Serial bullying
  • Secondary bullying
  • Pair bullying
  • Characterization bullying (e.g. Pokémon Characterization)
  • Gang/group bullying, also called mobbing
  • Vicarious bullying
  • Regulation bullying
  • Residual bullying
  • Cyber bullying

Top 25 Workplace Bullying Tactics

Research by the Workplace Bullying Institute, see here suggests that the following are the most common 25 tactics used by workplace bullies.

  1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71 percent).
  2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating and was clearly showing hostility (68 percent).
  3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly")in meetings (64 percent).
  4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others (64 percent).
  5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the group (61 percent).
  6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61 percent).
  7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence (58 percent).
  8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for the target (57 percent).
  9. Started, or failed to stop, destructive rumors or gossip about the person (56 percent).
  10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55 percent).
  11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either socially or physically (54 percent).
  12. Publicly displayed "gross," undignified, but not illegal, behavior (53 percent).
  13. Yelled, screamed, threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a person (53 percent).
  14. Stole credit for work done by others (47 percent).
  15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's performance (46 percent).
  16. Declared target "insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary commands (46 percent).
  17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate privately or publicly (45 percent).
  18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45 percent).
  19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, race, accent or language, disability (44 percent).
  20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44 percent).
  21. Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out (44 percent).
  22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person; effort not stopped by the employer (43 percent).
  23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more mistreatment (43 percent).
  24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41 percent).
  25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40 percent)

Workplace Bullying and Law

Law in Australia

Each state has its own legislation.

In Queensland there is no law against workplace bullying although anti-discrimination and stalking laws could be used to prosecute if appropriate.

In Victoria, legislation comes from Worksafe Victoria. if bullying endangers a worker's health causing stress or any other physical harm, a corporation can be found liable for not providing a safe place for their employees to work.

Law in Canada

The Canadian Province of Quebec introduced legislation addressing workplace bullying on 1 June 2004. In its Act representing Labour Standards "psychological harassment" is prohibited. The Commission des normes du travail is the organization responsible for the application of this act.

Under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act 1979, "all employers must take every precautions reasonable in the circumstances to protect the health and safety of their workers in the workplace. This includes protecting them against the risk of workplace violence ". The Act requires establishment of Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committees for larger employers.

Under the act, workplace violence is defined as "...the attempted or actual exercise of any intentional physical force that causes or may cause physical injury to a worker. It also includes any threats which give a worker reasonable grounds to believe he or she is at risk of physical injury".

The Canadian Province of Saskatchewan made workplace bullying illegal in 2007 by passing The Occupational Health and Safety (Harassment Prevention) Amendment Act, 2007. The act broadened the definition of harassment, as defined in the The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993, to include psychological harassment.

Law in Ireland

In Ireland, there is a Code of Practice for employers and employees on the prevention and resolution of bullying at work. The Code notes the provision in the Safety, Health and Welfare Act 2005 requiring employers to manage work activities to prevent improper conduct or behaviour at work. The Code of Practice provides both employer and employee with the means and the machinery to identify and to stamp out bullying in the workplace in a way which benefits all sides.

Law in Sweden

Workplace bullying in Sweden is covered by the Ordinance of the Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health containing Provisions on measures against Victimization at Work, which defines victimisation as "...recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and can result in those employees being placed outside the workplace community."

The act places the onus on employers to plan and organise work so as to prevent victimisation and to make it clear to employees that victimisation is not acceptable. The employer is also responsible for the early detection of signs of victimisation, prompt counter measures to deal with victimisation and making support available to employees who have been targeted.

Law in United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, although bullying is not specifically mentioned in workplace legislation, there are means to obtain legal redress for bullying. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a recent addition to the more traditional approaches using employment-only legislation. Notable cases include Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust wherein it was held that an employer is vicariously liable for one employee's harassment of another, and Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd, where a bullied worker was awarded over £800,000 in damages. In the latter case, at paragraph 99, the judge Mr Justice Owen said:

"...I am satisfied that the behaviour amounted to a deliberate and concerted campaign of bullying within the ordinary meaning of that term."

Bullying behaviour breaches other UK laws. An implied term of every employment contract in the UK is that parties to the contract have a (legal) duty of trust and confidence to each other. Bullying, or an employer tolerating bullying, typically breaches that contractual term. Such a breach creates circumstances entitling an employee to terminate his or her contract of employment without notice, which can lead to a finding by an Employment Tribunal of unfair dismissal, colloquially called constructive dismissal. An employee bullied in response to asserting a statutory right can be compensated for the detriment under Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and if dismissed, Part X of the same Act provides that the dismissal is automatically unfair. Where a person is bullied on grounds of sex, race or disability et al, it is outlawed under anti-discrimination laws.

It was argued, following the obiter comments of Lord Hoffman in Johnson v. Unisys in March 2001, that claims could be made before an Employment Tribunal for injury to feelings arising from unfair dismissal. It was re-established that this was not what the law provided, in Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council, July 2004 wherein the Lords confirmed that the position established in Norton Tool v Tewson in 1972, that compensation for unfair dismissal was limited to financial loss alone. Unfair dismissal compensation is subject to a statutory cap set at £60600 from Feb 2006. Discriminatory dismissal continues to attract compensation for injury to feelings and financial loss, and there is no statutory cap.

Law in United States

In the United States, court action based on workplace bullying is problematic at best. A plaintiff must prove a) that the bullying actually occurred, b) that the bully's actions fall into at least one of the four categories mentioned above and c) that the plaintiff's subsequent problems stemmed from the bully's actions. As of this writing, only five states have legislation against workplace bullying pending, and no state has ever passed laws against it. However, some states do have laws against creating or maintaining a "hostile work environment". Many states also have general laws against harassment, but charges of harassment are notoriously hard to prove.

Two laws that have proven useful in the United States are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans With Disabilities Act. However, the plaintiff must prove that the bully's actions violate the conditions of these statutes.

However, one issue that makes rectifying such a situation in the United States is the fact that most U.S. states operate under the doctrine of at-will employment. This means that an employee can be terminated for any or no reason, except where there are obvious civil rights violations, which can be difficult to prove (the burden of proof is on the fired employee). It is often easier for an employer to fire a bullied employee rather than deal with the root causes of the situation, especially if favouritism is involved. Since bullies are effective in getting what they want, and more importantly, in getting the work done, it is highly unlikely that the bully would be fired.

More times than not, the bully can also be the boss. Bullying in this case is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Often, the employer creates a no-bullying policy for the single purpose of escaping liability from a hostile work environment claim. Labor unions can be most effective in combating this management style.

What to do About Workplace Bullying

Telling stories about workplace bullying is often challenging. This is in part because the language available to describe the abuse is limited, and also because stories of workplace bullying often sound unbelievable. According to Tracy, Alberts, and Rivera (2007) of the Project for Wellness and Work-Life, those who try to tell their stories of abuse to co-workers or supervisors often face accusations of being a "problem employee," and are sometimes even blamed for the abuse they have experienced. And unfortunately, a story of workplace bullying that is not deemed credible is less likely to motivate those in power to make changes to end the abuse.

Therefore, they offer the following Eight Tactics for Explaining Workplace Abuse to Decision Makers:

1. Be Rational. For better or worse, the appearance of rationality is a central feature of credibility in organizational settings. People like to hear the reasons why events occur. A key part of being rational is telling the story in a linear fashion.

2. Express Emotions Appropriately. The most credible narratives are those in which targets capture and communicate the emotionality of the bullying experience without displaying the emotions described. Stories are more convincing when they detail precisely the targets’ emotional experience and reactions, and when they use vivid metaphors that are evocative as well as clear to the listener. At the same time, targets are thought most credible when their body and voice project an aura of calm and reason.

3. Provide Consistant Details. Credible narratives are detailed and consistent. Specifically, an abundance of detail typically is read as a sign of authenticity, and, over time, the consistency of the telling (and retelling) of those details is interpreted as further evidence of a truthful story. Targets who provide a number of specific, clearly articulated and memorable details regarding their experiences with the bully and their own perceptions and reactions are deemed most credible.

4. Offer a Plausible Story. Trauma narratives are believable to the extent they are “plausible.” This means that accounts of the activities associated with one’s trauma need to be believable and familiar to the audience. Behavior that falls outside of the audience’s experience or the range of what they generally perceive as “normal” is likely to be read as implausible and incredible (even if it is, in fact, true).

5. Be Relevant. Believable stories are relevant and to the point. Because bullying causes such personal harm, both physically and emotionally, many targets’ first instinct is to fill their stories with discussion of the injustice of the abuse. Credible stories of bullying focus primarily on the bully’s behavior and reactions.

6. Emphasize Your Own Competence. Targets also can increase their standing by describing the ways that they are competent and strong employees. Doing so helps establish the fact that the bullying is not a result of poor performance on the job and reinforces that target employees are not simply “problem employees.”

7. Show Consideration for Others' Perspectives. Targets should show consideration for others’ perspectives. Targets who are deemed most credible demonstrate recognition in their stories that outsiders are likely to perceive them as “whiners” or that others might think the situation sounds “crazy.” Believable targets also demonstrate that they have attempted to understand the bully’s behavior and even tried to have sympathy for their abuser.

8. Be Specific. Effective communicators use concrete, specific language that renders their explanations clear and easily understood. The least credible stories are vague and use indefinite pronouns such as “they” and “she,” to refer to multiple parties, and listeners have considerable difficulty following such stories. By being specific, the story provides a clear villain or bully to blame.


References

  1. Namie, Gary and Ruth Workplace Bullying Institute Brochure
  2. Bully Busters Workplace Bullying Defined
  4. Hare, Robert and Babiak, Paul, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work Harper Collins, 2006
  5. Field, Tim, Bullying: what is it?
  6. Worksafe, Victorian Workcover Authority
  7. Commission des normes du travail
  8. Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act 1979 Ministry of Labor, Ontario, Canada
  9. Workplace Violence Ministry of Labor, Ontario, Canada
  10. The Occupational Health and Safety (Harassment Prevention) Amendment Act, 2007 in Saskatchewan
  11. Republic of Ireland - 2007 Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work
  12. Ordinance of the Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health containing Provisions on measures against Victimization at Work AFS 1993:17 Official English translation
  13. Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  14. Judgments - Johnson (A.P.) v. Unisys Limited, Uk Parliament - Publications
  15. Johnson v Unisys Ltd , Case Summaries, Equal Opportunities Commission, UK
  16. Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council 2004

See also

External links

Categories: