Workplace bullying


 * See also Mobbing which has a similar meaning

Workplace bullying, like childhood bullying, is the tendency of individuals or groups to use persistent aggressive or unreasonable behaviour against a co-worker or subordinate. Workplace bullying can include such tactics as verbal, nonverbal, psychological, physical abuse and humiliation. This type of aggression is particularly difficult because unlike the typical forms of school bullying, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society. Bullying in the workplace is in the majority of cases reported as having been perpetrated by management and takes a wide variety of forms. Bullying can be covert or overt.

Definition
While there is no single formal definition of workplace bullying, several researchers have endeavoured to define it. Some categorize all harmful boss-behaviour and actions of malintent directed at employees as bullying. Bullying behaviours may be couched in humiliation and hazing rites and iterative programs or protocols framed as being in the best interests of employee development and coaching. Others separate behaviours into different patterns, labeling a subset of those behaviours as bullying, explaining that there are different ways to deal effectively with specific patterns of behaviour. Some workplace bullying is defined as involving an employee's immediate supervisor, manager or boss in conjunction with other employees as complicit, while other workplace bullying is defined as involving only an employee’s immediate supervisor, manager or boss.


 * According to Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts, 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 behaviour are used" (p. 152).
 * Gary and Ruth Namie define workplace bullying as "repeated, health-harming mistreatment, verbal abuse, or conduct which is threatening, humiliating, intimidating, or sabotage that interferes with work or some combination of the three."


 * Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik expands this definition, stating that workplace bullying is "persistent verbal and nonverbal aggression at work, that includes personal attacks, social ostracism, and a multitude of other painful messages and hostile interactions."


 * In an effort to provide a more all-encompassing definition, and catch the attention of employers, Catherine Mattice and Karen Garman define workplace bullying as "systematic aggressive communication, manipulation of work, and acts aimed at humiliating or degrading one or more individual that create an unhealthy and unprofessional power imbalance between bully and target(s), result in psychological consequences for targets and co-workers, and cost enormous monetary damage to an organization’s bottom line"

Because it can occur in a variety of contexts and forms, it is also useful to define workplace bullying by the key features that these behaviours possess. Bullying is characterized by (Einarsen, 1999; Keashly & Harvey 2004; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006):


 * Repetition (occurs regularly)
 * Duration (is enduring)
 * Escalation (increasing aggression)
 * Power disparity (the target lacks the power to successfully defend themself).
 * Attributed intent

This distinguishes bullying from isolated behaviours and other forms of job stress and allows the term workplace bullying to be applied in various contexts and to behaviours that meet these characteristics. Many observers agree that bullying is often a repeated behavior. However some experts who have dealt with a great many people who report abuse also categorize some once-only events as bullying, for example with cases where there appear to be severe sequelae. See: Thomas Sebok and Mary Chavez Rudolph, "Cases Involving Allegations of Workplace Bullying: Threats to Ombuds Neutrality and Other Challenges," JIOA, 2010, vol.3, no 2. Expanding the common understanding of bullying to include single, severe episodes also parallels the legal definitions of sexual harassment in the US.

According to Pamela Lutgin-Sandvik, 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 therefore have trouble pursuing justice against the bully. Unlike sexual harassment, which named a specific problem and is now recognized in law of many countries (including U.S.), workplace bullying is still being established as a relevant social problem and is in need of a specific vernacular.

Statistics
Statistics from the 2007 WBI-Zogby survey show that 13% of U.S. employees are currently bullied, 24% have been bullied in the past and 12% witness 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 suggest that "workplace bullying, by definition, is not explicitly connected to demographic markers such as sex and ethnicity" (p. 151). Because 1 in 10 employees experiences workplace bullying, the prevalence of this issue is cause for great concern, even as initial data about this issue are reviewed.

In 2008, Dr. Judy Fisher-Blando wrote a doctoral research dissertation on Aggressive Behavior: Workplace Bullying and Its Effect on Job Satisfaction and Productivity. The scientific study determined that almost 75% of employees surveyed had been affected by workplace bullying, whether as a target or a witness. Further research showed the types of bullying behaviour, and organizational support.

Gender
A European study from 2009 showed that the risk for bullying increased with a woman as boss. For women the risk of getting abused increased with 100 percent with a female boss. For men the risk increased with 80 percent. The study was made by the organisation Eurofond and included 21 000 participants.

In terms of gender, the Workplace Bullying Institute (2007) states that women appear to be at greater risk of becoming a bullying target, as 57% of those who reported being targeted 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
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%) Blacks (46%) Whites (33.5%) Asian (30.6%)  

The reported rates of witnessing bullying were:  Blacks (21.1%) Hispanics (14%) Whites (10.8%)</li> Asian (8.5%)</li>  </ol>

The percentages of those claiming to have neither experienced nor witnessed mistreatment were among  Asian (57.3%)</li> Whites (49.7%)</li> Hispanics (32.2%)</li> Blacks(23.4%)</li>  </ol>

Typology of bullying behaviours
With some variations, the following typology of workplace bullying behaviours has been adopted by a number of academic researchers. The typology uses five different categories.
 * 1) Threat to professional status - including belittling opinions, public professional humiliation, accusations regarding lack of effort, intimidating use of discipline or competence procedures
 * 2) Threat to personal standing - including   undermining personal integrity, destructive innuendo and sarcasm, making inappropriate jokes about target, persistent teasing, name calling, insults, intimidation
 * 3) Isolation - including preventing access to opportunities, physical or social isolation, withholding necessary information, keeping the target out of the loop, ignoring or excluding
 * 4) Overwork - including undue pressure, impossible deadlines, unnecessary disruptions.
 * 5) Destabilisation - including failure to acknowledge good work, allocation of meaningless tasks, removal of responsibility, repeated reminders of blunders, setting target up to fail, shifting goal posts without telling the target.

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

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

Abusive workplace behaviours
Common abusive workplace behaviours are:
 * 1) Disrespecting and devaluing the individual, often through disrespectful and devaluing language or verbal abuse
 * 2) Overwork and devaluation of personal life  (particularly salaried workers who are not compensated)
 * 3) Harassment through micromanagement of tasks and time
 * 4) Overevaluation and manipulating information (for example concentration on negative characteristics and failures, setting up subordinate for failure).
 * 5) Managing by threat and intimidation
 * 6) Stealing credit and taking unfair advantage
 * 7) Preventing access to opportunities
 * 8) Downgrading an employee's capabilities to justify downsizing
 * 9) Impulsive destructive behaviour

Bullying in nursing
Lewis identifies the following bullying acts in UK nursing: • 2

Such acts are frequently insidious, continuing over periods of time that may be years. Bullies are often serial bullies. The bully is invariably aware of the damage they are doing. They undertake such actions basically to gain control and power.

Forms of workplace bullying
Tim Field suggested that workplace bullying takes these forms:


 * Serial bullying — the source of all dysfunction can be traced to one individual, who picks on one employee after another and destroys them, then moves on. Probably the most common type of bullying.


 * Secondary bullying — the pressure of having to deal with a serial bully causes the general behaviour to decline and sink to the lowest level.
 * Pair bullying — this takes place with two people, one active and verbal, the other often watching and listening.
 * Gang bullying or group bullying — is a serial bully with colleagues. Gangs can occur anywhere, but flourish in corporate bullying climates. It is often called mobbing and usually involves scapegoating and victimisation.
 * Vicarious bullying — two parties are encouraged to fight. This is the typical "Triangulation" where the aggression gets passed around.
 * Regulation bullying — where a serial bully forces their target to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity.


 * Residual bullying — after the serial bully has left or been fired, the behavior continues. It can go on for years.


 *  Legal bullying  — the bringing of a vexatious legal action to control and punish a person. It is one of the nastiest forms of bullying.


 * Pressure bullying or unwitting bullying — having to work to unrealistic time scales and/or inadequate resources.


 * Corporate bullying — where an employer abuses an employee with impunity, knowing the law is weak and the job market is soft.


 * Organizational bullying — a combination of pressure bullying and corporate bullying. Occurs when an organization struggles to adapt to changing markets, reduced income, cuts in budgets, imposed expectations and other extreme pressures.


 * Institutional bullying — entrenched and is accepted as part of the culture.


 * Client bullying — an employee is bullied by those they serve, for instance subway attendants or public servants.
 * Cyber bullying — the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others.

Workplace bullying v workplace incivility
Workplace bullying overlaps to some degree with workplace incivility but tends to encompass more intense and typically repeated acts of disregard and rudeness. Negative spirals of increasing incivility between organizational members can result in bullying, but isolated acts of incivility are not conceptually bullying despite the apparent similarity in their form and content. In case of bullying, the intent of harm is less ambiguous, an unequal balance of power (both formal and informal) is more salient, and the target of bullying feels threatened, vulnerable and unable to defend himself or herself against negative recurring actions.

Personality disorders and executives
In 2005, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, interviewed and gave personality tests to high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminal psychiatric patients at Broadmoor Hospital in the UK. They found that three out of eleven personality disorders were actually more common in executives than in the disturbed criminals, they were:


 * Histrionic personality disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation
 * Narcissistic personality disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.
 * Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

They described the business people as successful psychopaths and the criminals as unsuccessful psychopaths.

Psychopathy and workplace bullying
A workplace bully or abuser will often have issues with social functioning. These types of people often have psychopathic traits that are difficult to identify in the hiring and promotion process. These individuals often lack anger management skills and have a distorted sense of reality. Consequently, when confronted with the accusation of abuse, the abuser is not aware that any harm was done.

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."

Narcissism
In 2007, researchers Catherine Mattice and Brian Spitzberg at San Diego State University, USA, also found that: "Narcissism revealed a small significant positive relationship with bullying and was found to be significantly related to indirect bullying tactics rather than direct tactics. Narcissism also revealed a strong relationship with overall bullying motivation and a moderate relationship with bullying satisfaction."

Health effects
According to Gary and Ruth Namie, as well as Tracy, et al., workplace bullying can harm the health of the targets of bullying. Organizations are beginning to take note of workplace bullying because of the costs the organization in terms of the health of their employees.

According to scholars at The Project for Wellness and Work-Life at Arizona State University, "workplace bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational, and social costs." Stress is the most predominant health effect 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).

The negative effects of bullying are so severe that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and even suicide are not uncommon. Tehrani found that 1 in 10 targets experience PTSD, and that 44% of her respondents experienced PTSD similar to that of battered women and victims of child abuse. Matthiesen and Einarsen found that up to 77% of targets experience PTSD.

In addition, co-workers who witness workplace bullying can also have negative effects, such as fear, stress, and emotional exhaustion. 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.

Financial costs to employers
Several studies have attempted to quantify the cost of bullying to an organization.


 * According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH) mental illness among the workforce leads to a loss in employment amounting to $19 billion and a drop in productivity of $3 billion (Sauter, et al., 1990).


 * In a report commissioned by the ILO, Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper did a comprehensive analysis of the costs involved in bullying. They estimated a cost 1.88 Billion Pounds plus the cost of lost productivity.


 * Based on replacement cost of those who leave as a result of being or witnessing bullying, Rayner and Keashly (2004) estimated that for an organization of 1,000 people, the cost would be $1.2 million US. This estimate did not include the cost of litigation should victims bring suit against the organization.


 * A recent Finnish study of more than 5,000 hospital staff found that those who had been bullied had 26% more certified sickness absence than those who were not bullied, when figures were adjusted for base-line measures one year prior to the survey (Kivimaki et al., 2000). According to the researchers these figures are probably an underestimation as many of the targets are likely to have been bullied already at the time the base-line measures were obtained.

Research by Dr Dan Dana has shown organizations suffer a large financial cost by not accurately managing conflict and bullying type behaviors. He has developed a tool to assist with calculating the cost of conflict. In addition, researcher Tamara Parris discusses how employers need to be more attentive in managing various discordant behaviors in the workplace, such as, bullying, as it not only creates a financial cost to the organization, but also erodes the company's human resources assets.

Australia
Each state has its own legislation.

In Queensland, legislation comes from Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. If bullying (referred to as 'Workplace Harassment' in the Queensland subordinate legislation) endangers a worker's health causing stress or any other physical harm, a obligation holders under the 'Workplace Health and Safety Act, 1995' can be found liable for not providing a safe place for their employees to work. Queensland is one of only two States in Australia with a Code of Practice specifically for workplace bullying - 'The Prevention of Workplace Harassment Code of Practice, 2004' 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.

Canada
Quebec 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.

Ontario Under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act 1979, all employers "take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker." 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". Currently, as the Act is written, the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act does not specifically cover the issue of psychological harassment.

On December 13, 2007, MPP Andrea Horwath introduced for first reading a new Bill, Bill-29, to make an amendment to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. This Bill-29 is proposing "to protect workers from harassment and violence in the workplace" and will include protection from psychological abuse and bullying behaviors in the workplace in Ontario.

The Ontario OHS Act has been amended to include Bill 168, which came into force June 15, 2010. The amendment includes the protection of employees from psychological harassment, workplace violence, including domestic violence in the workplace.

Saskatchewan

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 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993, to include psychological harassment.

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.

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.

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 Hoffmann 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.

Access to justice in the UK is via self-representation at a tribunal, via a no-win no-fee lawyer, or via insurance or trade union lawyers. Since the Access to Justice act, "collective conditional fees" have blurred the distinction causing controversy for example in the case of Unison v Jervis.

United States
In the United States, comprehensive workplace bullying legislation has yet to be passed by the federal government or by any U.S. state government, but since 2003, many state legislatures have considered bills. As of April 2009, 16 U.S. states have proposed legislation; these are: • 2 These workplace bullying bills have typically allowed employees to sue their employers for creating an "abusive work environment," and most have been supported by the notion that laws against workplace bullying are necessary to protect public health.

Although most U.S. states operate under the 19th century doctrine of at-will employment (which, in theory, allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason or no reason), American workers have gained significant legal leverage through discrimination and harassment laws, workplace safety laws, union-protection laws. etc., such that it would be illegal under federal and the laws of most states to fire employees for a whole host of reasons. These employment laws typically forbid retaliation for good faith complaints or exercising legal rights, such as organizing a union. Discrimination and harassment laws enable employees to sue for creating a "hostile work environment," which can include bullying, but the bullying/hostility usually is tied in some way to a characteristic protected under the discrimination/harassment law, such as race, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Visit http://www.healthyworkplacebill.org/ for more information.

Some organizations have long-established policies forbidding any kind of harassment. See for example the decades-old MIT policy on Harassment at http://web.mit.edu/policies/9/9.5.html.