Workplace Bullying
Workplace Bullying
Bullying is defined as a personal and physical threat that can occur even in the workplace. This behavior negatively impacts work performance, relationships (in and outside work) and an individual’s mental and physical wellbeing. It impacts an organization negatively in relation to productivity, company reputation, organizational structure and can be a costly legal battle.
Bullying was first described in the early 1970’s by Carroll M. Brodsky (1976) in her seminal book, “The harassed worker”. The first peer reviewed article on workplace bullying was in 1989 by Matthiesen, Raknes and Rokkun. It was later reviewed in an English article by Leymann, (1990).
Bullying at the time was described as something that only occurred between children and not adults. So it wasn’t discussed or addressed. It happened and was just accepted.
To address the issue a study was carried out by James E. Bartlett, II and Michelle E. Bartlett. The study brought to light the lack of federal legislation in the United States to address the problem.
The study provided companies specifically their human resources department with ways to combat the problem. Allowing it to happen was counterproductive (CWB; Fox and Spector, 2004).
Retaliation, aggressive behavior and revenge is part of a bully’s repertoire. According to Spector and Fox (2010) “counterproductive work behavior is considered an umbrella term that subsumes, in part or whole, similar constructs concerning harmful behaviors at work” (p. 133).
Advances in Developing Human Resources places bullying within the category of aggression (Neuman and Baron 2005).
Over a decade now workplace bullying has gone from being obscure to becoming a highly recognized stressor (Samnani & Singh, 2012). Over time it has garnered interest. The methods used to study it have improved. Now there are studies from all over the world to support findings and impacts to a person who is bullied and their relationships with others. This confirm that it’s a global issue.
As people we now have a better understanding of workplace bullying.
So, to get to the root of the matter we have to focus not just on the outcome of bullying but the predictors and antecedents of bullying. We will review the methods used along with the knowledge gaps in the existing studies.
In reference to workplace bullying normal occurrences like interpersonal conflicts and interactions must be excluded.
Looking at the issue from a scientific perspective,there are three main characteristics when it comes to workplace bullying. The first, the target that is subjected to unwanted social interaction. Next, the repetitive occurrence of this unwanted behavior. Lastly, how you know you are being bullied is the feeling of being trapped that distinguishes it from other forms of mistreatment in the workplace.
Why the bully chooses to behave as they do haveactually been considered from a legal and psychological point of view.
Antecedents and Predictors of bullying
It is believed that bullying occurs due to the Work Environment Hypothesis or through the Individual-Dispositions Hypothesis(Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). The Environment Hypothesis happens due to the nature of the job and the social structure within the organization. With the Individual Disposition Hypothesis,bullying is a personality trait. A review by Van den Brande et al., 2016) on the Work Environment Hypothesis blames the bullying on stress, heavy work load, job insecurity etc.
Studies conducted on the Individual Dispositions Hypothesis consider the bullies’ personality trait as the risk factor.
Research Methods and Designs
Since the 1990’s the initial approach to workplace bullying has been through the qualitative interview approach. Over time a large number of researchers have relied on the quantitative methods specifically the use of questionnaire survey designs e.g. Convenience sampling (Neall & Tuckey, 2014; Nielsen et al., 2010; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Convenience sampling as a means of research has way too many flaws. First, the inability to use the results compounded to the population as a whole. Secondly, the sample can either under represent or over represent the population. Lastly, this form of sampling can be biased due to the reasons why people chose to participate.
Some studies are conducted from the perspective of the bullied rather than from the perspective of the bully (Baillien, Rodriguez-Munoz, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2011; Balducci, Cecchin, & Fraccaroli, 2012).
In 2011, Hoel & Einarsen came up with a more objective method. They decided to investigate. Evidence is collected by both parties as well as from the witnesses.With this method the bullied, the bully and the witnesses are questioned. The study takes into account the feeling of the bullied and their perceptions on being bullied. This data is collected by either first explaining to the bullied what is defined as bullying or without the definition.
Challenges
We now have a better understanding of bullying why it occurs, the predictors,outcomes etc. there is still important knowledge gaps within the studies. These have to be addressed in order to create an effective means of intervention and treatment.
A major challenge methodologically and theoretically is understanding to what degree that these concepts overlap. The question still remains what have we learned (Hershcovis, 2011) ?We have come to understand that workplace bullying is a unique form of aggression outside the norm but we haven’t been able to differentiate it empirically. For example, we have seen slight differences when it came to normal work day tension in relation to workplace bullying. They are highly similar, so how can you tell if you are actually being bullied or just experiencing everyday work friction? Hershcovis study did provided relevant findings on how both forms of aggression overlap but did not explain if there were actual differences between both forms of aggression. The results of both aggressions are similar but the nature of both are different. Bullying is pro-longed specific torture with a specific target or targets.
Reknes 2016 states to get a better understanding between every day work friction and bullying there is a need to assess samples to compare multiple forms of aggression.In a 2017 study Baillien, Escartin, Gross, and Zapfshowed “empirically that workplace bullying was related to, yet conceptually and empirically different from interpersonal conflicts in the work environment”.
In 2017 the workplace bullying institute conducted a study. The study showed that 61% of US employees were aware of abusive behavior in the workplace. About 19% had experienced it while another 19% had witnessed it.
This type of behavior can be considered unlawful harassment. Under a protected category bullying is punishableunder federal law under a protected category. This protection is offered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). There are several protected classes. There is age, race, sex, religion etc. The title seven of the civil rights act passed in 1964 prohibitsharassment based on religion, color, race, nationality, disability or genetic information. A manager who is rude to everyone can be considered an equal opportunity harasser. It crosses into bullying when there is a target or targets.
Employers can include code of conduct in respect to workplace. The question remains if these rules can be enforced and what the consequences are for breaking them.
As there are no federal laws in place to prohibit generic workplace bullying states are creating legislations that provide the bullied with a means to sue for mental or physical harm. This is only efficient if the claim can be proven.
Over time 29 states introduced the workplace anti-bullying bill to promote a healthy workplace environment.An example in 2017 Massachusetts introduced into law S.B. 1013. This bill prohibits abusive conduct against employees even if it does not fall under a protected category.
Another state to do this is Tennessee. It introduced the Healthy Workplace Act. This prohibits workplace bullying and this protection is also not restricted to the protected category.
Starting Jan. 1, 2015, businesses in California were required to train their supervisors on how to spot abusive conduct as part of their sexual harassment training.
