Workplace bullying can wreak havoc on the job, sapping productivity, devastating morale and increasing absenteeism.

You should know it when you see it....

Verbal harassment at work, practical jokes, threats, intimidation, and even sabotage, are all the hallmarks of a workplace bully.

As opposed to tough management, "bullying is a level of misery that falls disproportionally on the few," said Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash.

A 2007 survey by the institute and Zogby International found that 37 percent of American workers have been bullied at work. Nearly three-quarters, 72 percent, of the bullies are bosses, the survey said.

And as companies struggle, experts say workplace bullying has grown as people fear job loss.

"It is just really out of fear. Where there is fear there is a need to control," said Terri Dawe, employee assistance coordinator at CPC Behavioral Healthcare, which has centers around Monmouth County. "It is escalating in these economic times and jobs being tenuous."

The tight job market has compounded the problem, Namie said. "It's a buyer's market. Now the attitude is, "I can treat you however I want and you can leave and I can find more like you.' "

Like the school yard, bullies cause problems at work.

"In terms of overall morale, it is horrible," said Alan Cavaiola, an associate professor at Monmouth University and co-author of "Toxic Co-Workers: How to Deal With Dysfunctional People on the Job." "Everyone kind of tiptoes around this person. It is very much like walking on egg shells."

In one case, Cavaiola said a female worker was harassed by two male supervisors, who made sexually demeaning remarks. Her boss didn't take her complaints seriously, she quit her job and sued.

"They are very narcissistic. They are very self-centered," Cavaiola said of workplace bullies. "They lack empathy. They lack compassion."

But unlike schoolyard bullies, bullies at work tend to target people who are a threat to them, said Namie. Their victims may be stronger performers or better liked.

"The bully is a political animal and knows how organizations run and knows that aggression pays off and is rewarded," Namie said. "You have a player against a person who is basically a do-gooder, someone with a social orientation who (keeps) their nose to the grindstone."

A bully is different from a hard-charging boss, said Red Bank workplace coach Donna Coulson, owner of Donna Coulson & Associates. A hard boss may not smile and give a lot of work to people, but they tend to challenge employees, she said.

"A bully will bully you whether things are good or bad or indifferent," she said.

So what's a worker to do?

If possible, talk to the person later in private, Coulson said. "If you stand up to the bully, they will eventually stop," she said.

Dawe said a worker has to recognize bullying which can be hard to define. But once they do, they should make a diary of what they experience, including dates and times, so they can bring it to human resources, she said.

Namie recommend that workers take a three-prong approach. "You have to recognize that it's happening to you," Namie said. "In a way, that takes a long time. They can't believe it is happening to them, so they are in denial themselves."

They should take time off from work to check their physical and mental health, and look for violations of company policy, he said. Consult a lawyer, he said.

"You need to start to build a business case, the unemotional case, that the bully is too expensive to keep," Namie said.

Take the case to the highest level position who is not pledged or not related to the bully, he added.

Namie said he supports a bill in the state Assembly, called the "Healthy Workplace Act." It would make abusive conduct in a workplace — repeated use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets that are intimidating and humiliating — illegal. Employers violating that standard could be fined up to $25,000. The bill is currently before the Assembly Labor Committee.

"Workplace bullying is an underappreciated problem," said Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Middlesex. "Studies have shown that workplace bullying occurs much more frequently than sexual harassment, yet has not received nearly as much attention."

Kathleen M. Connelly, a lawyer at Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper in Rumson, said employers have to recognize the need to address the problem.

"Employers have dropped the ball in not recognizing that an essential element of being a supervisor is managing people, and that means being able to do that in a respectful manner."

But legislation is not the answer, she said.

"This statute would basically give every employee in the workplace a vehicle to commence litigation," she said. "Do we want to be in a situation where our court systems become overwhelmed with burdens with every employee grievance?"

source

SURVEY - Employee attitudes and the recession; Employee well-being, bullying and harassment at work.

CIPD - Employee outlook

This is the first in our new series of quarterly surveys of employee attitudes, exploring the fast-changing world of work and emerging challenges for individuals, employers and policy-makers. It's based on a representative sample of more than 3,000 people in employment in the UK.

The report covers:

• job satisfaction
• employee loyalty
• employee views of their immediate line manager
• employee perceptions of their senior management
• employee well-being
• bullying and harassment at work
• work-life balance and flexible working
• the effect of the downturn on employee attitudes
• the organisational impact of the recession
• employee views on the future
• and challenges facing organisations in the next five years.

DOWNLOAD REPORT here

Dirty Jobs & Mike Rowe .. take on real jobs

... and now

DIRTY JOBS is a program on the Discovery Channel in which host Mike Rowe is shown performing difficult, strange, disgusting, and/or messy occupational duties alongside the typical employees.

Mike Rowe talks about the myth of ‘doing what you love’ and examines the way America has devalued work to the point where we have huge infrastructure needs and a shortage of skilled workers.

• passion, effeciency v's effectiveness
• team work & determination
• safety v's getting it done

'It's brilliant and I agree with him. We get so caught up in looking for that perfect job, that perfect career, the perfect boss or perfect career path, that we've forgotten the value of hard work. It's twenty minutes long, but well worth your time. Watch it.' Evil HR Lady

STUDY - Male bullies target men and women equally; 60 per cent of workplace bullying is done by men

When a bully is an equal opportunity jerk

THAT'S MEN: Male bullies tend to target men and women equally

WHO ARE the biggest workplace bullies, men or women? Some new research in the US, which has been creating a bit of a stir over there, suggests that the answer depends on whether the target of bullying is a man or a woman.

The American research suggests that about 60 per cent of workplace bullying is done by men. But when you look at who the genders bully, the findings become interesting. Male bullies seem to bully men and women equally. As one commentator said, the male bully is “an equal opportunity jerk”. But about 70 per cent of the targets of female bullies are other women.

Much of the comment that this has generated in America has been to do with the absence of sisterhood among women. The fact remains, though, that for whatever reason, women mainly tend to target other women.

It seems to me, from talking to many people about this, that the figures would be much the same for Ireland.

Workplace bullying is a curious issue in the degree of damage it can do to people who are targeted. Sometimes bullies latch on to some vulnerability in the person they target. For instance, people who are unsure of their own worth are very vulnerable to the bullying message that they are worthless.

At other times, it is the bullies who are insecure and who target very good workers. Such workers, too, can suffer serious distress at the hands of a bully.

Why do women target other women? Are other women more vulnerable as targets than men? Are men more likely to be in positions of authority in the workplace and less susceptible to bullying?

We simply don’t know the answers. Little research has been done with bullies – perhaps few bullies see themselves as such.

When bullying is under way, the person who is targeted then experiences a series of symptoms which destroy his or her peace of mind: loss of sleep, obsessing about the bullying, loss of appetite, not being able to work to a high standard because of their fears of the bully’s next move.

This effect isn’t just found in women. I have met as many men as women whose peace of mind was destroyed by bullies. Both genders display the symptoms I have mentioned above.

My experience is that companies all too often show a real reluctance to tackle the bully, especially if the bully is a manager and even if this person has been identified as a bully many times. Again, this reluctance to tackle the bully seems to be the same regardless of whether the bully is a man or a woman.

I recall one workplace in which a female bully was allowed to wreck the jobs and wellbeing of a series of female secretaries. Somehow the men who mostly ran the place saw her treatment of her secretaries as a sort of female domain into which they were not going to dare to intrude into.

In this way the men facilitated the female bully.

Some bullying is overt and some is sneaky. Publicly reprimanding or shouting at the target is a feature of both male and female bullies, according to a small-scale research study in the UK.

Consistently insulting the target is another. In other words, public humiliation is a favourite weapon of many bullies.

More sneaky and less noticeable methods include changing rosters frequently and unreasonably, spreading rumours, and excluding the target from meetings. Both men and women are well able to engage in both.

Last week’s report from the Commission on Child Abuse showed just how vicious both genders can be – and that viciousness can be translated to the workplace.

The common factor in all these forms of bullying is the undermining of the person’s dignity and stability as a human being.

Sadly, the bully – male or female – often gets away with it. Perhaps it’s hard for other managers on a personal level to challenge macho bullies. After all, they may come across as tough, no-nonsense managers. In some workplaces, aggression is encouraged.

A sad commentary on human behaviour – but what else is new?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0526/1224247400007.html

Workplace bullying can wreak havoc on the job - Workplace bullying can wreak havoc on the job, sapping productivity, devastating morale and increasing

You should know it when you see it.

Verbal harassment at work, practical jokes, threats, intimidation, and even sabotage, are all the hallmarks of a workplace bully.

As opposed to tough management, "bullying is a level of misery that falls disproportionally on the few," said Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash.

A 2007 survey by the institute and Zogby International found that 37 percent of American workers have been bullied at work. Nearly three-quarters, 72 percent, of the bullies are bosses, the survey said.

And as companies struggle, experts say workplace bullying has grown as people fear job loss.

"It is just really out of fear. Where there is fear there is a need to control," said Terri Dawe, employee assistance coordinator at CPC Behavioral Healthcare, which has centers around Monmouth County. "It is escalating in these economic times and jobs being tenuous."

The tight job market has compounded the problem, Namie said. "It's a buyer's market. Now the attitude is, "I can treat you however I want and you can leave and I can find more like you.' "

Like the school yard, bullies cause problems at work.

"In terms of overall morale, it is horrible," said Alan Cavaiola, an associate professor at Monmouth University and co-author of "Toxic Co-Workers: How to Deal With Dysfunctional People on the Job." "Everyone kind of tiptoes around this person. It is very much like walking on egg shells."

In one case, Cavaiola said a female worker was harassed by two male supervisors, who made sexually demeaning remarks. Her boss didn't take her complaints seriously, she quit her job and sued.

"They are very narcissistic. They are very self-centered," Cavaiola said of workplace bullies. "They lack empathy. They lack compassion."

But unlike schoolyard bullies, bullies at work tend to target people who are a threat to them, said Namie. Their victims may be stronger performers or better liked.

"The bully is a political animal and knows how organizations run and knows that aggression pays off and is rewarded," Namie said. "You have a player against a person who is basically a do-gooder, someone with a social orientation who (keeps) their nose to the grindstone."

A bully is different from a hard-charging boss, said Red Bank workplace coach Donna Coulson, owner of Donna Coulson & Associates. A hard boss may not smile and give a lot of work to people, but they tend to challenge employees, she said.

"A bully will bully you whether things are good or bad or indifferent," she said.

So what's a worker to do?

If possible, talk to the person later in private, Coulson said. "If you stand up to the bully, they will eventually stop," she said.

Dawe said a worker has to recognize bullying which can be hard to define. But once they do, they should make a diary of what they experience, including dates and times, so they can bring it to human resources, she said.

Namie recommend that workers take a three-prong approach. "You have to recognize that it's happening to you," Namie said. "In a way, that takes a long time. They can't believe it is happening to them, so they are in denial themselves."

They should take time off from work to check their physical and mental health, and look for violations of company policy, he said. Consult a lawyer, he said.

"You need to start to build a business case, the unemotional case, that the bully is too expensive to keep," Namie said.

Take the case to the highest level position who is not pledged or not related to the bully, he added.

Namie said he supports a bill in the state Assembly, called the "Healthy Workplace Act." It would make abusive conduct in a workplace — repeated use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets that are intimidating and humiliating — illegal. Employers violating that standard could be fined up to $25,000. The bill is currently before the Assembly Labor Committee.

"Workplace bullying is an underappreciated problem," said Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Middlesex. "Studies have shown that workplace bullying occurs much more frequently than sexual harassment, yet has not received nearly as much attention."

Kathleen M. Connelly, a lawyer at Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper in Rumson, said employers have to recognize the need to address the problem.

"Employers have dropped the ball in not recognizing that an essential element of being a supervisor is managing people, and that means being able to do that in a respectful manner."

But legislation is not the answer, she said.

"This statute would basically give every employee in the workplace a vehicle to commence litigation," she said. "Do we want to be in a situation where our court systems become overwhelmed with burdens with every employee grievance?"

http://www.app.com/article/20090526/BUSINESS/905260322/1003/Workplace+bullying+can+wreak+havoc+on+the+job

NEWS - Workplace Bullying and Sexual Harassment complaints at the United Nations

A number of female UN employees have filed sexual harassment charges against their managers, and to their dismay, many of these alleged victims have apparently been retaliated against and have lost their jobs after having filed complaints. In addition, they are not satisfied with the way in which the United Nations is investigating and handling their complaints.


INCREDIBLE

The United Nations, which aspires to protect human rights around the world, is struggling to deal with an embarrassing string of sexual-harassment complaints within its own ranks.

Many U.N. workers who have made or faced accusations of sexual harassment say the current system for handling complaints is arbitrary, unfair and mired in bureaucracy. One employee's complaint that she was sexually harassed for years by her supervisor in Gaza, for example, was investigated by one of her boss's colleagues, who cleared him.

Cases can take years to adjudicate. Accusers have no access to investigative reports. Several women who complained of harassment say their employment contracts weren't renewed, and the men they accused retired or resigned, putting them out of reach of the U.N. justice system.

Getty Images
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls sexual harassment a 'scourge.'
"No matter which way the cases go, they mishandle it," says George G. Irving, a former U.N. attorney who now represents clients on both sides of such cases.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has acknowledged that the system is troubled. "I fully share your concerns regarding sexual harassment and sex discrimination," he wrote in February to Equality Now, a women's rights group that had complained to him. "This scourge remains a high priority issue for me."

On July 1, the U.N. plans to make changes to its internal justice system for handling all employee disputes, including harassment complaints.

Yasmeen Hassan, an Equality Now attorney and former U.N. employee who met with Mr. Ban in December to discuss the issue, says she has "no faith" that the new system will be better, in part because complainants apparently still won't have access to investigative reports to help them with appeals.

The Wall Street Journal examined the U.N.'s handling of five sexual-harassment cases, reviewing hundreds of pages of confidential U.N. documents and interviewing U.N. employees who brought the complaints, supervisors they accused, the lawyers involved and U.N. officials.

It is impossible to know whether sexual harassment is a bigger problem at the U.N., whose global staff numbers about 60,000, than at other large multinational organizations. Officials in the secretary-general's office say they don't know how many sexual-harassment cases are filed at the world body because each U.N. entity tracks cases separately, and confidentially. The secretariat, the U.N.'s main administrative body, says it handles between five and eight cases a year. But those figures include only cases referred to its human-resources department for possible disciplinary action, not complaints that have been dismissed.

Changes to Internal Justice Coming

The planned overhaul of the United Nation's internal justice system is set to take effect July 1. Its goal is to create a more independent and professional system for resolving disputes, including sexual-harassment claims. ( Read more .)

A spokesman for the United Nations Children's Fund, or Unicef, said it has handled 15 complaints since 2004. Five alleged perpetrators in those cases have been dismissed, and two others were issued lifetime employment bans from Unicef because they resigned during investigations. Disciplinary proceedings are being initiated against another accused staffer.

In one important respect, the U.N. handles such problems differently than other large organizations, such as multinational corporations. Many U.N. managers have diplomatic immunity from criminal prosecution or civil litigation. Except when the U.N. lifts immunity, its internal justice system is the only one workers can turn to.

Bewildering System
The current system, which dates back to 1946, has a bewildering array of investigative channels and appeals processes. Many of the 10 U.N. agencies, programs and funds have their own investigative systems. A multilayered appellate process includes "joint appeals" boards that can review departmental decisions. The U.N. Administrative Tribunal is the final authority.

The system gives the secretary-general the authority to rule on appeals. Confidential U.N. records in two cases show that Mr. Ban rejected the recommendations of an appeals board and ruled against the women who brought those cases. A spokesman for Mr. Ban declined to discuss any specific cases. Under the new system, the secretary-general no longer will play a major role in the process.

Last year, Mr. Ban, a former South Korean foreign minister who became secretary-general in 2007, issued a bulletin stating that "any form of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority is prohibited." A spokeswoman for the secretary-general said in a statement that the U.N. has "zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace. And we take seriously every single case."

In 2002, Joumana Al-Mahayni, a Syrian, was working as a secretary to Yusuf Mansur, then chief of the Kuwait office of the United Nations Development Programme, or UNDP, the U.N.'s global development network.

The following year, U.N. records show, she filed a complaint alleging that Mr. Mansur had made sexual advances, including grabbing and kissing her hands while saying "my darling, my darling" -- then refused to renew her contract when she didn't respond to his advances.

Associated Press
Ex-U.N. official Ruud Lubbers was accused of sexual harassment.
In an interview, Mr. Mansur, who now lives in Jordan, denied the allegations, calling them "baloney."

'Unnecessary Touching'
U.N. documents state that the UNDP's investigative report found evidence that Mr. Mansur had subjected Ms. Al-Mahayni to "physical assault," "verbal abuse," "unnecessary touching," "patting," "constant brushing against a person's body" and "pressure for sexual activities." The coordinator of the UNDP's investigative panel asked its human-resources director, Brian Gleeson, to take "appropriate action" against Mr. Mansur. In April 2004, 10 days after the investigative report was filed, Mr. Mansur resigned, U.N. records show.

Mr. Gleeson later told Ms. Al-Mahayni, in an email reviewed by the Journal, that the internal probe "vindicated your allegations and directly contributed" to Mr. Mansur resigning. Mr. Gleeson wrote that he "possibly" could have refused the resignation and pursued disciplinary action, "but advice from legal sources and past practice strongly suggested that it is better to get the person out of the office and the system asap" and avoid litigation. He also stated that "no further action can be taken after a staff member resigns." Mr. Gleeson declined to comment.

Mr. Mansur says he resigned because he was "disgusted" with the U.N., including its handling of the case. "The way the system deals with it, you become accused right away, the person becomes a monster right away," he says. He says he provided evidence that he wasn't in Kuwait when some of the alleged incidents occurred. "I should have hired a lawyer and sued back," he says.

Ms. Al-Mahayni requested compensation for being harassed and losing her job. UNDP rejected the request, saying, in part, that her contract had simply expired. She appealed. In April 2006, the U.N. Joint Appeals Board found that she had "no legal expectancy" that her employment contract would be renewed. But it unanimously recommended that she be awarded $10,000. Kofi Annan, then U.N. secretary-general, accepted the recommendation.

More

Read UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Feb. 2008 prohibition on sexual harassment
Read Mr. Ban's response to a letter from Equality Now, a women's human-rights advocacy group, on the issue of sexual harassment at the U.N.
Ms. Al-Mahayni appealed the decision before the U.N. Administrative Tribunal. She argued the compensation was inadequate and she shouldn't have lost her UNDP job. She also requested reimbursement of $8,000 in legal expenses. On Jan. 30, 2009 -- more than five years after she first filed her complaint -- the tribunal rejected her appeal "in its entirety," arguing that the $10,000 award was "adequate in view of the harm caused to her."

Ms. Al-Mahayni, who in November 2006 got a job with the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan, didn't respond to a request for comment.

In a written statement, the UNDP said it regretted that Ms. Al-Mahayni's supervisor "was allowed to resign before disciplinary action could be initiated."

U.N. records detail other cases in which internal probes supported women's claims of sexual harassment, but the employees they accused went unpunished.

A French woman who worked as a legal officer in Gaza for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East shared records from a case she initiated.

According to the records, in November 2004 she complained that she was sexually harassed by Lionel Brisson, then director of operations for the Palestine Refugees unit. She alleged Mr. Brisson had used binoculars to spy on her while she was in her Gaza apartment, and repeatedly made sexually explicit comments and groped her buttocks, according to a subsequent report by the U.N.'s main investigative unit, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, or OIOS.

'Completely Ridiculous'
In a telephone interview, Mr. Brisson denied the allegations, calling them "completely ridiculous." He said he had tried to help the French woman advance her career, and "this is the kind of thanks you get."

At first, a probe by the Palestine Refugees agency cleared Mr. Brisson. An agency official says the man in charge of the investigation, the agency's health director, was a "colleague" of Mr. Brisson, and was assigned to investigate because he headed the agency's human-resources committee.

The French woman had also complained directly to the OIOS, which began its own investigation. Mr. Brisson reached his mandatory retirement age and left in December 2005, before that probe was complete. One month later, his accuser's employment contract ran out and wasn't renewed.

In February 2006, the OIOS reported that the evidence "tends to support a finding" that the complainant was sexually harassed. If Mr. Brisson "was still with the Organization," the report said, "we would recommend counseling."

Mr. Brisson, who is French, said the U.N. had rejected his requests for a copy of the OIOS report, and he hadn't seen it until one was provided to him by the Journal. He called its conclusions "very vague" and noted that it didn't recommend any disciplinary action. He said he had pressed the OIOS to investigate because "I wanted to clear my name."

In February 2008, Mr. Ban weighed in on the dispute. The French woman had appealed her case to the U.N. Joint Appeals Board, seeking an equivalent job and compensatory pay. It had urged Mr. Ban to allow her to pursue her case elsewhere in the U.N. system "to ensure both fairness and impartiality." Mr. Ban's office rejected that recommendation, saying that the secretary-general had no "competence" over the Palestine Refugee agency's internal justice system. Her appeal there is pending.

In another case, Fatima Moussa, a U.N. translator in Lebanon, had accused a U.N. security officer of raping her. A probe by the U.N. commission where she worked did not substantiate her allegations. She appealed, and calls the investigation a "travesty." The appellate board unanimously recommended that Mr. Ban extend her employment contract until her appeal was heard. On July 15, 2008, Mr. Ban rejected the board's recommendation and Ms. Moussa's contract expired. U.N. records show that Mr. Ban didn't accept the board's findings that Ms. Moussa would suffer "irreparable injury." The man she accused now works for the U.N. in Darfur.

Impetus for Change
Much of the impetus for the U.N.'s effort to change the way it handles sexual-harassment cases stems from a 2004 case. An OIOS investigation concluded that Ruud Lubbers, then head of the U.N.'s main refugee agency and the former prime minister of the Netherlands, had sexually harassed Cynthia Brzak, a longtime American staffer. The probe found that Mr. Lubbers engaged "in serious acts of misconduct" of a "sexual nature."

Justice in Limbo

Unicef employee Archana Pandey accused the organization's top officer in India, Cecilio Adorna, of sexual harassment. Mr. Adorna denied the allegations; Unicef investigated. On Jan. 16, 2007, Unicef's top personnel officer sent disapproving letters to each of them. See the letters.

Mr. Annan, then secretary-general, didn't accept an OIOS recommendation that Mr. Lubbers be disciplined. He said at the time that the findings could not be sustained. Mr. Lubbers, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing, resigned in 2005. He couldn't be reached for comment.

Ms. Brzak said she faced retaliation, including threats to abolish her position. She filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Manhattan seeking damages from the U.N., Mr. Lubbers and others. Last year, a federal judge ruled that U.N. officials had diplomatic immunity, and dismissed the case. Ms. Brzak has appealed.

Diplomatic immunity also factored in a more recent case at Unicef in India. In October 2006, Archana Pandey, an assistant communications officer in New Delhi, accused Cecilio Adorna, then Unicef's top officer in India, of sexual harassment. She alleged he threatened not to renew her contract, which was due to expire at year end, if she didn't grant him sexual favors, according to U.N. records and Ms. Pandey, in an interview. She said she suffered an emotional breakdown and had to take sick leave. Mr. Adorna denied all the allegations. That December, Ms. Pandey's Unicef contract wasn't renewed.

Unicef investigated. On Jan. 16, 2007, the agency's top personnel officer sent her a letter stating that its probe failed to find "clear and convincing evidence" to support her claims. The letter, which was reviewed by the Journal, accused her of misrepresentation, and said "if you were still a staff member, Unicef could consider taking disciplinary actions against you."

U.N. records also show that the same Unicef personnel officer sent Mr. Adorna a written reprimand that same day. That letter, which was also reviewed by the Journal, stated that while nearly all the allegations couldn't be supported, the inquiry found that he "at times touched female staff in a manner they considered inappropriate" and had a tendency to tell jokes or make comments with sexual connotations.

"The Investigation Committee itself witnessed one of such comments during your interview when you stated that you would not have invited anybody for romantic drinks in your hotel room, because you 'can't do sex without food first,' " the letter said. "Such a comment is highly inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that you were being interviewed on sexual harassment allegations." The letter threatened Mr. Adorna with disciplinary action for "any further misconduct."

In a written statement to the Journal, Mr. Adorna said Unicef later wrote to him stating that it couldn't find "clear and convincing evidence" to support Ms. Pandey's allegations. He said the Unicef letter also said: "Insufficient evidence does not necessarily mean that the allegations were found to be false." He accused Unicef of "negligence" for failing to defend him.

In 2007, Ms. Pandey, who is Indian, filed a criminal complaint with the New Delhi police that accused Mr. Adorna, a Filipino, of attempted rape, among other allegations, according to Indian court filings. The police declined to take action because U.N. employees have diplomatic immunity. She has continued to press her case in Indian courts. She also filed an appeal within the U.N. system.

In December 2008, the U.N. appeals board, while not addressing the sexual-harassment allegations, found that Unicef had "let go" Ms. Pandey "wrongfully" and "illegally" while she was on sick leave. It recommended that the secretary-general award her two years' pay, plus interest, or $76,800. In March, Secretary-General Ban accepted the recommendation.

Mr. Adorna retired from Unicef last month. He has filed an appeal with the U.N. seeking, among other things, a public statement of exoneration and monetary damages. He accuses Unicef of making him "its sacrificial lamb" and urging him to resign.

Unicef declined to comment on Mr. Adorna's appeal or his allegations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124233350385520879.html

Recession Stimulates Bullying and Negative Self-Talk at Work

During economic ice ages or recessions, when times get hard, hardness tends to run rampant. Most people are justifiably afraid they’ll lose their jobs and the lives they planned. Will they get laid off or downsized through no fault of their own? What will happen to their savings, insurance, college and retirement funds? Will they be able to keep their homes or even eat next month?

How do people react in the face of their recession-stimulated fears? What type of bullying, harassment and abuse will increase at work? How can we decrease negative self-talk that increases stress and destroys self-esteem and self-confidence?

Harassment by Leaders and Managers
Managers and leaders squeeze more from themselves and staff in order to reduce costs and stay afloat. But some managers and leaders will abuse employees and subordinates just because they know they can. Many people will tolerate bullying and abuse because they’re afraid they’ll lose their jobs if they don’t give in. But don’t give in to bullying, harassment or obnoxious treatment. You are still protected from those abuses. Don’t be pugnacious in return, but do insist on politeness and decent treatment. Know the law, get allies and advisors, and document on your home computer.

Bullying by Coworkers
Expect a huge increase in stealth bullying by coworkers and managerial peers. Many will think that their survival requires them to get rid of you. Some will become masters of backstabbing, criticism, sarcasm, snide put-downs, blaming, spreading rumors and gossip, smear tactics, taking credit from you, and forming cliques. They’ll smile when they do it. Keep your opinions to yourself and watch out for people who produce nothing, suck up and cover their backs. Form your own clique of productive people you trust. Also, ally with someone productive who has great people skills and a sense of what’s happening throughout the whole office.

Negative Self Talk
The worst problem will be a dramatic increase in this type of “self-bullying.” Your inner voices will make dire predictions of the future, tell you that you’re helpless in the grip of huge forces beyond your control and predict that, no matter how hard you try, you’ll inevitable fail. Your supercritical inner voices will try to stress, depress and discourage you, and make you give up. Your inner voices, full of self-questioning and self-doubt, can erode your self-esteem and self-confidence, destroy your hope and immobilize you.

Self-bullying is the most destructive form of bullying because it saps your will to overcome your circumstances. Self-bullying can rob you of your determination, courage, strength and skill. With those voices shouting or whispering in your ear, it’s impossible to gather yourself and make consistent, focused effort. If you let fear and self-bullying destroy your strength and will, you won’t have the right stuff, you won’t do the right thing and the economic tide will pull you under.

You know which people spoke to you in those voices. You know who really didn’t like or respect or appreciate you. And which people thought they’d motivate you better by beating you down. In either case, whether they ridicule your efforts or are simply certain of the bleak future they predict, their old style is no good for you now. You need encouraging self-coaching now, not self-bullying.

In addition to finding a great coach or therapist to guide you in the inner work necessary to convert those voices into effective coaches, there’s a lot you can do to help yourself.

Turn off the parts of the outer world that feed fear, despair and depression. Turn off the television and radio; don’t read newspapers or magazines; stop checking the snippets of fear on your smart phone. Don’t waste your life being discouraged by endless analysis of what’s wrong and the latest expert’s predictions of impending and long lasting doom. Walk away politely from people who wallow in fear and panic. You don’t need those moment-to-moment, panic-making obsessions to know what you need to do to stay strong and do your best.

Look around. Who doesn’t waste their time worrying about the economy, but instead, handles things in as little time and with as little wasted energy as possible? Who has an inner light that gives them joy even when they don’t have all the comfort and toys they want? Ask them how they look at the world.

Make new friends and acquaintances who stimulate your strength, courage and joy. Find other great people to stand with. In one swift and mighty sweep, end the self-doubt, the need to analyze and question, the self-bullying and brainwashing. You have great sources of inner strength and power, if you would but let yourself feel them. You have the guts and grit to thrive in this little ice age. Your ancestors did and you have their strong genes.

Don’t give in to self-bullying or harassment or abuse by other people. Overcome your fears. Be a courageous leader, wherever you are in your company.

Emerson was right when he said, “What lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us.”

Ben Leichtling, Ph.D. is author of the books and CDs “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks,” “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids” and “Eliminate the High cost of Low Attitudes.” He is available for coaching, consulting and speaking. To find practical, real-world tactics to stop bullies and bullying at home, school, work and in relationships, see his web site (http://www.BulliesBeGone.com ) and blog (http://www.BulliesBeGoneBlog.com ). Or Twitter him @BulliesBeGone.

source

Can You Sue For Harassment At Work?

Workplace Harassment and Bullying: Recognize Common MethodsWorkplace Harassment and Bullying: Recognise Common Methods

There are too many reports of workplace harassment and bullying to list. It seems that at least 30 percent of managers and employees are bullied and harassed. Many critics and experts focus only on bullying bosses, but I’ve seen just as many employees and coworkers use these bullying methods as I have managers and supervisors. Gangs of managers and staff also harass and bully each other.

How can you recognize the most common methods used for bullying and harassment? The top 7 techniques I’ve seen are:

1. Yelling and physical threats (overt or subtle).
2. Personal attacks, verbal abuse, emotional intimidation, insults, put-downs and humiliating, demeaning, rude, cruel, insulting, mocking and embarrassing comments. False accusations (especially outrageous) and character assassination. Demeaning behavior at meetings – interrupting, ignoring, laughing, non-verbal comments behind your back (rude noises, body language, facial gestures, answering phones, working on computers).
3. Harassment based on race, religion, gender and physical attributes. Sexual contact, lewd suggestions, name-calling, teasing and personal jokes (sometimes overtly nasty, or threatening or sometimes followed by laughter as in, “I was just kidding” in order to make it hard for you to fight back).
4. Backstabbing, spreading rumors and gossip, manipulating, lying, distorting, hypocrisy and exposing your problems and mistakes. Anonymous attacks and cyber bullying – flaming e-mails and porn. Invading your personal space and privacy – rummaging through your desk, listening to phone calls, asking extremely personal questions, eating your food.
5. Taking the credit; spreading the blame. Withholding information and then cutting you down for not knowing or for failing. Turf wars about budgets, hiring, copiers and coffee machines.
6. Hypersensitive, over-reactions, throwing tantrums (drama queens, sensitive princes) – so you walk on egg shells, back off in order to avoid a scene, or beg forgiveness as if you really did something wrong.
7. Dishonest evaluations – praising and promoting favorites, giving slackers good evaluations and destroying the careers of people bullies don’t like.

Most bullies use combinations of these methods.

Bullying at work creates a hostile and unproductive culture.

• There’s increased hostility, tension, selfishness, sick leave, stress-related disabilities, turn over and legal actions.
• People become isolated, do busy work with no important results and waste huge chunks of time talking about the latest episodes.
• Effort is diffused instead of aligned. Teamwork, productivity, responsibility, efficiency, creativity and taking reasonable risks decrease.
• Promotions are based on sucking up to the most difficult and nasty people, not on merit. The best people leave as soon as they can.

source

SURVEY - Workplace bullying in Australia Survey

Participate in the Workplace bullying im Australia Survey

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT STRATEGIES TO PREVENT AND MANAGE BULLYING

If you have experience with workplace bullying, you are invited to participate in a survey being conducted as part of research into workplace bullying in Australia.
S. Zeman, a Doctor of Business Administration candidate at the Southern Cross University, is conducting the research as part of her doctoral studies, under the supervision of Dr L. Gribble.
The research aims to examine bullying in the Australian workforce and the importance of the three known antecedents of workplace bullying in creating a workplace where bullying occurs.
It also looks at their interaction and aims to identify organisational strategies adressing the three antecedents of bullying, taking into account their relative importance.
It is expected that these strategies will range from policies on recruitment, training, proper work design and work environment, leadership behaviour, to explicitly promoting anti-bullying and support for targets of bullying.
The survey should take a maximum of 20 minutes to complete.
Important demographic information will be collected but at no time will your identity be asked.
Participation is purely voluntary and no financial remuneration or incentive will be offered for taking part in the research.
Completing the survey is considered informed consent to participate and you are free to discontinue your participation at any time.

To access and fill in the questionnaire, please click on this link

The questionnaire will be open until 23 June 2009. If you experience any technical problems with the questionnaire, please contact Slava on zeman@grapevine.com.au.
Research results will be made available at the Southern Cross University Library at a later stage.
Should you wish to obtain a summary version of the results, and information about the papers used in drafting this article, please complete the details at the end of the questionnaire and these will be forwarded to you.

How some workplaces deal with Bullying - Sounds Simple in Theory

Stories about workplace bullying are appearing more frequently in the media. It is no longer a concept confined to the schoolyard. But what is it? According to the Queensland Department of Occupational Health and Safety workplace bullying is defined as "the repeated less favourable treatment of a person by another or others in the workplace, which may be considered unreasonable and inappropriate workplace practice".

No workplace is immune. It is a hidden cost of the workplace that could run to as much as $12B per annum in Australia according to some reports. But does its increased media profile represent an increased incidence? This is not clear. Some commentators argue that bullying has been a response to demands for increased productivity. Alternatively, it may be that a better-educated population recognises the inappropriateness of such behaviour and rights based legislation has encouraged them to speak up. Whatever the reason it appears that, similar to the naming of sexual harassment two decades ago, naming and describing the behaviour has brought discussion about workplace bullying into the open.

Some Local Research

This issue of Issues in Human Resource Management summarises some research conducted by Jan Stuart from Human Resources at UWA and Marie Finlay from Nexus Strategic Solutions during 2001. In order to better understand the impact of bullying behaviour on people and their organisations they conducted a survey that drew 267 responses both from targets and witnesses of bullying or 'negative workplace behaviour' as it was described in the survey instrument.

The Respondents

The respondents referred to experiences in organisations primarily in the higher education (55%) and the public sectors. For over half the behaviour had occurred within the last twelve months. Almost 70% of respondents were female and in almost 60% of cases the gender of the bully was the same as the gender of the target. As well as completing the survey questions most respondents took the opportunity to write additional comments. The survey data was also supplemented by discussions with focus groups and personal interviews. The research was not focused on the incidence of bullying as the authors accepted the results of a Morgan Poll in 1998 that found an Australian incidence rate of 46%, at the high end of international figures between 1 in 8 and 1 in 2.

In general the findings confirmed international research on bullying. The inclusion of witness responses, however, offer particular interest. It was clear that bullying behaviours had significantly impacted on witnesses as well as targets; indeed, there were no significant differences between the groups. And this impact increased in time for witnesses while it declined for targets. On a scale of 1 to 10 targets rated the effect of the behaviour on them at the time as 8.6; this had decreased to 8.3 on reflection. For witnesses the equivalent figures were 6.7 and 7.1. This should be of real concern to managers. If the impact of bullying is not restricted to the targeted individual, its overall effects could be considerably greater than expected, depending on the number of staff in the work area.

The Nature of Bullying Behaviour

Confirming international results in other English speaking countries[1], almost three-quarters of the targets were subordinate to the bully – in other words, it was usually their boss. Only 10% reported bullying by subordinates and 15% by peers. The nature of the bullying behaviours they described was largely covert – verbal, indirect, passive, subtle and hard to describe. Very often targets believed they were subject to a 'blame the victim' syndrome, being seen as 'too sensitive' and/or lacking a 'sense of humour'. Particularly significant for these respondents, a largely white collar group, were threats to personal status such as persistent criticism and public humiliation, and destabilising behaviours including shifting the goal posts without consultation and undervaluing of efforts.

Trigger Factors

When asked what they thought had triggered the behaviour, respondents identified multiple causes although targets and witnesses exhibited significant differences. For example witnesses more commonly saw a disagreement as the trigger while targets more commonly mentioned standing up for a colleague. Perceived discrimination was also seen as a trigger as the following comments suggest: "I felt there was a real fear of me as a middle-aged woman. I think he thought I was his mother …" or "I was targeted because of my sexual preference, which I do not in any way display or discuss in the workplace". Others felt under duress to compromise their principles: "I refused to pass a failing student. I refused to lie".

The Importance of Management Style

The data indicate that bullying is associated with management styles that lack open communication, a willingness to work through conflicts, and an atmosphere of trust. For example, over 70% of respondents agreed that the bully in question seemed to think that an authoritarian style was the best way to get things done with another 15% suggesting an inability to cope. "This person had a strong belief in his own capacity to make good decisions and had a strong preference for working autonomously, without giving or receiving advice or support from others". Similarly, "she had an open and communicative style – as long as you shared her opinions and did not threaten her knowledge base/power".

This section of the survey also drew out a number of comments about poor management and interpersonal skills and the need for management training. "She has no idea about what is appropriate behaviour. She has never been adequately trained or given adequate feedback from her HoD about inappropriate behaviour". There was a concern, too, that authoritarian management styles encouraged others in the work area to behave similarly.

The findings seem to confirm Cary Cooper's view that today's bullies are 'overloaded' and "unable to cope with workload, difficult staff, or their own or others' career-related problems. … They use bullying as a management style reflecting their inability to cope with the demands of their jobs".

Unlike the issue of management style the organisational environment did not seem to be a strong causal factor although cost cutting, workload and job insecurity scored highly as a feature of the workplaces which respondents had experienced. This would lend some support to the 'overloaded' theory. Some respondents identified ethical concerns emerging from such environments. For example one commented "competition for grant money revealed unethical behaviours in management".

Organisational and Individual Impacts

Both witnesses and targets identified the key organisational impacts as decreased morale, increased negativism and cynicism, irritability and people seeking alternative employment. There were comments about the creation of factions and loss of organisational potential as the following comment suggests: "Camps emerged. Sides were taken". Similarly, "… my research and development team was disbanded. … this has ultimately had a huge effect on staffing, morale and cohesiveness."

At an individual level the results were also in line with international evidence. The key psychological impacts were very high stress levels for both targets and witnesses (92% and 65%), insecurity (77% and 44%) and loss of trust (69% and 54%). Physical impacts were also evident with 60% of targets reporting exhaustion and 49% of witnesses with headaches. Some 60% of targets and 46% of witnesses reported lost work time. Together with increased turnover, the need for sometimes complex grievance resolution processes, access to Employee Assistance and, occasionally, litigation, the dollar costs for an organisation can escalate quickly.

Responding to Bullying

The survey also asked respondents about actions they had taken in response to bullying behaviour. Both targets and witnesses had accessed a range of strategies (6.9 and 4.6). Personal networks (family, friends and colleagues) proved most useful while formal mechanisms of redress such as grievance procedures were seen as less helpful. The most effective action, however, was changing jobs.

Targets frequently spoke of self blame. Many indicated they did not realise what was happening until a pattern of behaviour had been established and the downward spiral had become difficult to stop. A cycle of disempowerment evidenced by loss of self esteem, shame, loss of identity and self doubt commences. As their sense of competence diminishes, they have less capacity to deal with the issues.

Worryingly, there was a strong perception that management was reluctant to act when they became aware of bullying behaviour. This was particularly the case where the bully was a senior person in the organisation such as a professor with an international reputation and a number of research grants. At the same time targets were often unwilling to speak out for fear of 'blacklisting'. One academic noted "In this business reputation is all".

Taking Action

There is some good news for organisations. If most bullying arises from social and organisational issues then there are opportunities to address it. A significant first step is for senior management to recognise the issue and to call it by its proper name. A range of suggested strategies include improved information and awareness particularly the development of agreed protocols at the local level, less complicated processes of redress, value-based leadership development programmes, and a clear accountability framework with 360o performance management.

So, what can managers do now?

• Take all complaints seriously.
• Don't punish the messenger.
• Don't make excuses or look the other way.
• Don't transfer the problem.
• BUT remember innocent until proven guilty.

In each of our workplaces we can discuss with staff what they believe to be reasonable expectations and standards for individual behaviour. Developing a set of protocols in this way can bring attention to the problem, create a shared understanding of what is OK and what isn't, and empower individuals to speak out when they believe those protocols have been breached. The following suggestions by Thomas-Peter[2] offer a good starting point for discussion.

• I will not confront my colleagues with information that challenges their actions or participation in projects where they have made significant investments until such time as that issue has been addressed in private with them.
• I will treat my colleagues with the degree of sensitivity, courtesy and respect due from one human being to another, even in the difficult circumstances of disagreement, being criticised or offering criticism and telling or being told bad news.
• I will help my colleagues to recover from error, to change their minds and to acknowledge their limitations without seriously undermining their relationships with individuals and the organisation.
• I will advise my colleagues of dangers and pitfalls that I am aware of and will not allow them to make errors that I can prevent.
• I will not undermine the actions and purpose of my colleagues by instituting policies or practices, alone or with others, without consulting with them, declaring my agenda and disclosing my methods for wider consideration.
• I will encourage my colleagues to question my opinions and decisions without risk to them. In addition I will not obstruct the expression of an opinion or belief merely because it is inconvenient or because I disagree with it.

Remember that every time a bully 'gets away' with the behaviour it is a signal to him or her that the organisation thinks it is acceptable.

The University of Western Australia recognises that bullying does occur from time to time in parts of the institution and is committed to addressing it appropriately when it is reported. The Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee is currently developing a Bullying Action Plan. The Equity and Diversity Office has also negotiated with our Employee Assistance Providers to keep a record of cases that can be defined as bullying so that the University has a benchmark by which to measure improvement. It is also part of the University's Enterprise Agreement with staff to review its grievance procedures in order to simplify them and make them more user-friendly.

Staff members who have been the target of bullying behaviours are encouraged to access the University's Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) either through Davidson Trahaire or the University Counselling Service. Both providers have counsellors who are experienced professionals with specialist expertise and experience. All consultations are confidential. Managers who need advice on dealing with difficult people issues are encouraged to use the Manager Assist facility also provided through the EAP.

source

Workplace Bullying Institute on Evening Magazine

Bullied? Harassed? What happens when you turn to HR for help? Workplace didn't back bullied employee

Dear Ted: I was being bullied at work and I thought I did what I was supposed to do by going to human resources to report it. The results weren't good. They actually turned the entire thing back on me. They told me that they knew the person I was complaining about was difficult to deal with at times; however, she has been with the company for a long time and everyone else seems to know how to handle her. They suggested that I was too sensitive and that maybe I needed to toughen up a bit. I'm confused; I thought HR was supposed to protect me from being bullied.

Answer: Unfortunately, some HR departments are not up to speed with the new obligations that are coming forward. Many are still protecting the bully and blaming the victim. This makes it frustrating for employees who are looking for support. It is also difficult for people to change, especially if this bully has been allowed to continue her behaviour throughout the years.

An employer has an obligation to ensure the workplace is free of harassment and bullying. You do have the right to work in a toxic-free environment. If your HR department is not supportive, it is going to take some work on your part to get it into the 21st century. Of course, as usual, you know I am going to tell you to first approach the bully and tell her what you need, not what she is going wrong. Tell her how she makes you feel and then tell her you need it to stop. You may get a poor response. If so, the next step would be to go back to HR and tell them what you need.

Here are some suggested words: "I know the last time I was in here to talk about how I was being treated in the workplace, you suggested I get some help with my sensitivity. Well I did some research and I found out that it is actually the responsibility of the employer to ensure that I have a toxic-free workplace. I want to be clear, I really enjoy my job and I am not out to harm anyone, but the way I am being treated is beginning to affect my health. If you cannot help me, I am going to have to take further action."

I would suggest that you go online and get some backup as to what your employer's responsibility actually is. Just search "workplace bullying" and you will find plenty of material to support your claim.

If the response from HR is negative, then you should go higher and state

your case. Keep in mind that you should never criticize HR, they are just doing what they believe is right and need updated information. Always take the high road and just tell management what you need. By doing your own research you will help them with the proof it needs to move forward on your behalf.

A tip for the HR department: You have an obligation to ensure a safe work environment for all of your employees. All HR departments should be up-to-date with the rapidly-changing laws and what the responsibilities of the employer are in 2009.

When an employee tells you that he or she is being bullied, take that as seriously as you would take an accusation of racial or sexual harassment, because it is that serious. Many companies have been held liable because they failed to protect their employees from harassment. Stop blaming the victim and focus on the behaviour of the bully.

Ted Mouradian is a workplace relations consultant, author, professional speaker and president of The Mouradian Group Inc. If you have a work-related question for Ted, please send it to info@cooperativeaction.com or by regular mail to Workplace Wisdom, P. O. Box 671, St. Catharines, Ont., L2R 6W8.

source

Kate Miller-Heidke wins 2009 International Songwriting Competition

AUSTRALIAN singer Kate Miller-Heidke has won the International Songwriting Competition (isc) 2009 grand prize with her single 'Caught In The Crowd'.

Miller-Heidke and writing partner and husband Keir Nuttall won the prestigious award for their song Caught In The Crowd, a brilliantly quirky pop song with an emotional message about schoolyard bullying and peer pressure.

Ms Miller-Heidke says the song is about something everyone can relate to.

"It tells the story of befriending an unpopular kid at school and then seeing him get hassled in the school yard, but not feeling able to do anything about it and then years later feeling regretful and sorry" she said.

The Grand Prize winner takes home US$25,000 in cash (US) and more than US$20,000 in prizes — the largest Grand Prize of any songwriting competition.

With judges as diverse as Tom Waits, Neil Finn, Rob Thomas (Matchbox 20), Ray Davies (The Kinks), Chaka Khan, McCoy Tyner, Jerry Lee Lewis, Robert Smith (The Cure) and many more, winning the ISC Grand Prize is an accomplishment that recognises excellence in the craft of songwriting.

Caught In The Crowd struck an emotive chord with the ISC judges for its narrative about a young girl who befriends a fellow student but then, succumbing to peer pressure, turns her back on him when he gets bullied at school. The song, entered in the Pop/Top 40 category, was praised by the ISC judges for its powerful lyrical content and strong pop sensibility.

“The song tugs at my heart and give me chills every time I hear it,” ISC founder and director Candace Avery said.

“Its theme is so personal yet universal that everyone can relate to it. That, combined with its infectious melody, makes the song a stand-out. This is the first time the Grand Prize has ever been awarded to Australian songwriters, and we hope this throws the spotlight on the extraordinary and creative music scene in Australia.”

Miller-Heidke is a trained opera singer who burst onto the pop charts two years ago with her debut album Little Eve, which achieved gold sales and erned four ARIA nominations.

Her latest CD, Curioser, was produced in the USA by Mickey Petralia (Beck, Flight of the Conchords) and released in Australia at the end of last year.

Caught In The Crowd is the newest single from the CD and was part of a national campaign in Australia where high school students were invited to make a video for the song addressing the issue of bullying, a common and disturbing occurrence in schools worldwide.

source