28 September 2009

PAPER : Bullying in the Workplace: A Proposed Model for Understanding the Psychological Harassment Process


ABSTRACT

Because different studies suggest that psychological harassment represents a great threat to most workers, it has received considerable and growing interest across the world and has emerged as a new field of study in Europe, Australia, South Africa and the U.S. In spite of these studies, bullying still appears as a complex phenomenon. This paper summarises the relevant literature and proposes a specific model of the psychological harassment process. This model presents psychological harassment as a four phase process to improve the understanding of this pernicious workplace phenomenon. As a very costly phenomenon, which harms the health of the victim and the competitiveness of the firm, the paper concludes that HR managers should combat psychological harassment in organisations.


26 September 2009

NEW ZEALAND BULLIES - One in 10 are victims of workplace bullies

http://www.foodmag.com.au/Uploads/PressReleases/food/Images-20080922/nz.jpg
One in 10 workers has been bullied by a colleague in the past six months, according to the first comprehensive research into workplace bullying in New Zealand.


The research, a two-year project being undertaken by academics at three universities, has surveyed 20 organisations in the hospitality, health and education sectors. About 1600 employees completed a questionnaire on the issue and preliminary results show a significant number say they have been victims of workplace bullying, with many still suffering.


If the figures were extrapolated to the full working population, it would mean as many as 200,000 people were being bullied at work.


One of the researchers, Professor Michael O'Driscoll, an organisational psychologist at Waikato University, says the questionnaire asked people to identify whether they had been intimidated or abused at work, whether their efforts had ever been sabotaged, and what, if anything, they had done about it.

Bullying is defined by the researchers as a situation in which a person feels they have been repeatedly on the receiving end of negative actions from another worker, in an environment where it is difficult to defend themselves. In other words, it must be ongoing and between people with different levels of power within an organisation.


Preliminary findings have confirmed restaurant kitchens are hotbeds of workplace bullying something referred to as the "Gordon Ramsay effect" after the British chef known for his fiery temper.


Hospital staff have reported bullying from patients' relatives, and teachers recorded instances of being bullied by pupils.

In the past year the Employment Relations Authority has investigated several cases of workplace bullying, including a university employee who claimed "insidious bullying" by her superior, and a man sacked for abusive and aggressive behaviour towards an employee that included driving a forklift in a manner that threatened his safety.


Claims of bullying and intimidation were also made against members of parliament last year as part of an in-house staff survey by Parliamentary Services.


O'Driscoll says of the 10% who reported being bullied, half were still being bullied, and the rest had moved to another role, left the organisation or taken other action.

NZ RESEARCH

The research, funded by the Health Research Council and the Department of Labour, aims to show how workplace bullying affects a worker's health, wellbeing and job performance, as well as finding out what is being done at an organisational level to counteract the problem.


Although final results will not be available until the end of the year, O'Driscoll says preliminary findings show bullying occurs not only from the top down but also in reverse. A staff member can bully a manager or supervisor, perhaps because they have a unique set of skills and are therefore in a position to exert influence or power over others."There are definite negative effects for individuals and for organisations," O"Driscoll says. "People being bullied are experiencing high levels of work-based stress which you would then expect to flow on into physical symptoms."


But he warns that people who try to confront their bully won't necessarily help the situation. "It can inflame the bully, who thinks it is right to engage in more of the same behaviour.


"Bullying can be very self-reinforcing. People can feel very powerful, they have a lot of influence and control and it makes them feel good. The most important thing is that workers know there are consequences if they display that behaviour there will be negative repercussions. It's what an organisation does about it that makes a difference."

O'Driscoll says if there was a more organisational response it wouldn't happen as much. "Many organisations don't quite know how to deal with the problem. Most have a harassment policy and a stress policy but they don't often capture issues of bullying, and that's a problem."

O'Driscoll says it is incumbent on management to be proactive and develop a work culture that promotes collaboration, respect and an environment that treats people with dignity. "If you have an environment where aggression is acceptable, it doesn't help when the issue is raised."
O'Driscoll says while stress is an accepted part of the workplace, with bullying the evidence shows that people's stress levels are "beyond optimal" and that affects their performance and health.

23 September 2009

OPINION: Rudd outburst an abuse of power

Opinion article published on News.Com.AuSeptember 22, 2009 9:16AM

THE latest airing of the now infamous Kevin Rudd temper suggests that, despite his protestations, the PM has bullying tendencies and needs counselling.

By his own admission Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a workplace bully.

Reports this week that Mr Rudd verbally abused colleagues in a profane tirade during a discussion about printing allowances have not been denied by the Prime Minister.

In fact, they have been defended with the PM saying, "I make no apology for either the content of my conversation or the robustness with which I expressed my views."

So what was the "robust content" Mr Rudd was talking about?

"I don't care what you f---ers think," Mr Rudd reportedly told Labor faction representatives. "You can get f---ed. Don't you f---ing understand?"

Let's not mince words, because Mr Rudd clearly doesn't.

The Prime Minister's behaviour in the workplace could be seen as workplace bullying all over Australia, including the Australian Capital Territory, where this unsavoury incident took place.

If Kevin Rudd were running a corner store, carpet store or real estate agency, his staff would be well within their rights to claim workplace bullying, and seek support and compensation.

In a normal workplace the abusive boss could be forced into counselling. But, apparently if you're the PM, it's just "robust" discussion.

What rubbish.

Imagine if a story broke in the Sunday Herald Sun and other Sunday papers that Kevin Rudd was overheard talking to his wife, Therese, like that?

Imagine if someone saw Mr Rudd standing there red-faced telling Therese: "You can get f---ed. Don't you f---ing understand?" What do you think the reaction would be?

My guess is there'd be an enormous public outcry, with most sensible people concluding the behaviour was a form of spousal abuse.

Now, I assume Kevin doesn't treat his wife like that. So why does he feel it's OK to treat his staff like that? Why should they have to put up with it?

The answer is that they shouldn't. Actually, you could also argue that as Prime Minister, Mr Rudd is no ordinary boss and should be held to a higher standard. And yet he seems to get a free pass and the right to smugly laugh off his abusive behaviour, hiding behind words like "robust".

Calling someone a "f---er" is not robust. It is abusive and Kevin Rudd needs to pull his head in.

I don't care if this is the way it's always been. Up until a few years ago the same lame excuse was used to justify bosses sexually harassing secretaries, and a while before that the same excuse was used to allow husbands to rape their wives.

Clearly, Kevin Rudd has a problem and he needs to put his hand up and acknowledge he needs help to curb his abusive tendencies.

There is, sadly, a pattern here. You'll remember Mr Rudd also screamed at a hostess on a RAAF flight when not happy with his meal.

Imagine being screamed at by the leader of the country because he didn't like the meal you had brought him.

Talk about a power imbalance.

And not only is he a bully, he is also apparently hypocritical.

This is the man who sent Belinda Neal to anger management counselling after she abused a staff member at the Iguana nightclub in NSW.

Clearly, Kevin, we hate in others what we hate in ourselves.

And, by the way, where is the intellectual Left during this debate?

Surely they should be speaking out against this latest outrageous example of workplace abuse. Their silence speaks volumes about how little they really stand by their principles.

If that was my husband or child being abused by a boss like that, I would be insisting the bully was brought to account.

Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, it is time for you to clean up your act before you abuse somebody else.

And I would say to those members of Parliament who were at the meeting and saw or were subjected to the abuse, it is not simply enough to leak this story to a newspaper.

If you really believe in protecting Australians workers from abuse in the workplace, you have a responsibility to make a formal complaint about your boss's behaviour.

Sharryn Jackson, Maria Vamvakinou, Carol Brown, Michael Forshaw, Don Farrell and David Feeney - you have a clear responsibility not just to each other, but to workers everywhere.

The Prime Minister is a nasty bully and his flippant justification shows he doesn't get it.

His bullying won't stop until he is made to stop.

It's time to remind the Prime Minister his behaviour wouldn't be accepted in any other workplace in the country.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/opinion/rudd-outburst-an-abuse-of-power/story-e6frfs99-1225778072502

22 September 2009

Bullies at the Top - What happens when the bully is the Prime Minister of your country? 'Rudd outburst an abuse of power'

THE latest airing of the now infamous Kevin Rudd temper suggests that, despite his protestations, the PM has bullying tendencies and needs counselling.

By his own admission Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a workplace bully.

Reports this week that Mr Rudd verbally abused colleagues in a profane tirade during a discussion about printing allowances have not been denied by the Prime Minister.

In fact, they have been defended with the PM saying, "I make no apology for either the content of my conversation or the robustness with which I expressed my views."

So what was the "robust content" Mr Rudd was talking about?

"I don't care what you f---ers think," Mr Rudd reportedly told Labor faction representatives. "You can get f---ed. Don't you f---ing understand?"

Let's not mince words, because Mr Rudd clearly doesn't.

The Prime Minister's behaviour in the workplace could be seen as workplace bullying all over Australia, including the Australian Capital Territory, where this unsavoury incident took place.

If Kevin Rudd were running a corner store, carpet store or real estate agency, his staff would be well within their rights to claim workplace bullying, and seek support and compensation.

In a normal workplace the abusive boss could be forced into counselling. But, apparently if you're the PM, it's just "robust" discussion.

What rubbish.

Imagine if a story broke in the Sunday Herald Sun and other Sunday papers that Kevin Rudd was overheard talking to his wife, Therese, like that?

Imagine if someone saw Mr Rudd standing there red-faced telling Therese: "You can get f---ed. Don't you f---ing understand?" What do you think the reaction would be?

My guess is there'd be an enormous public outcry, with most sensible people concluding the behaviour was a form of spousal abuse.

Now, I assume Kevin doesn't treat his wife like that. So why does he feel it's OK to treat his staff like that? Why should they have to put up with it?

The answer is that they shouldn't. Actually, you could also argue that as Prime Minister, Mr Rudd is no ordinary boss and should be held to a higher standard. And yet he seems to get a free pass and the right to smugly laugh off his abusive behaviour, hiding behind words like "robust".

Calling someone a "f---er" is not robust. It is abusive and Kevin Rudd needs to pull his head in.

I don't care if this is the way it's always been. Up until a few years ago the same lame excuse was used to justify bosses sexually harassing secretaries, and a while before that the same excuse was used to allow husbands to rape their wives.

Clearly, Kevin Rudd has a problem and he needs to put his hand up and acknowledge he needs help to curb his abusive tendencies.

There is, sadly, a pattern here. You'll remember Mr Rudd also screamed at a hostess on a RAAF flight when not happy with his meal.

Imagine being screamed at by the leader of the country because he didn't like the meal you had brought him.

Talk about a power imbalance.

And not only is he a bully, he is also apparently hypocritical.

This is the man who sent Belinda Neal to anger management counselling after she abused a staff member at the Iguana nightclub in NSW.

Clearly, Kevin, we hate in others what we hate in ourselves.

And, by the way, where is the intellectual Left during this debate?

Surely they should be speaking out against this latest outrageous example of workplace abuse. Their silence speaks volumes about how little they really stand by their principles.

If that was my husband or child being abused by a boss like that, I would be insisting the bully was brought to account.

Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, it is time for you to clean up your act before you abuse somebody else.

And I would say to those members of Parliament who were at the meeting and saw or were subjected to the abuse, it is not simply enough to leak this story to a newspaper.

If you really believe in protecting Australians workers from abuse in the workplace, you have a responsibility to make a formal complaint about your boss's behaviour.

Sharryn Jackson, Maria Vamvakinou, Carol Brown, Michael Forshaw, Don Farrell and David Feeney - you have a clear responsibility not just to each other, but to workers everywhere.

The Prime Minister is a nasty bully and his flippant justification shows he doesn't get it.

His bullying won't stop until he is made to stop.

It's time to remind the Prime Minister his behaviour wouldn't be accepted in any other workplace in the country.
source

20 September 2009

STUDY - Workplace bullying of junior doctors: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey

Journal of the New Zealand Medicsss

Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 19-September-2008, Vol 121 No 1282



Abstract
Aim Workplace bullying is a growing concern amongst health professionals. Our aim was to explore the frequency, nature, and extent of workplace bullying in an Auckland Hospital (Auckland, New Zealand).
Method A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of house officers and registrars at a tertiary hospital was conducted.
Results There was an overall response rate of 33% (123/373). 50% of responders reported experiencing at least one episode of bullying behaviour. The largest source of workplace bullying was consultants and nurses in equal frequency. The most common bullying behaviour was unjustified criticism. Only 18% of respondents had made a formal complaint.
Conclusion Workplace bullying is a significant issue with junior doctors. We recommend education about unacceptable behaviours and the development of improved complaint processes.

Workplace bullying has been recognised as a major occupational stressor since the early 1980s. However, bullying has become more recognised in the medical profession in recent years.1–3 Workplace bullying can have detrimental effects such as decreased job satisfaction, depression, anxiety, and absenteeism4 which impacts on staff retention and quality of patient care.

Workplace bullying has been recognised as a major occupational stressor since the early 1980s. However, bullying has become more recognised in the medical profession in recent years.1–3 Workplace bullying can have detrimental effects such as decreased job satisfaction, depression, anxiety, and absenteeism4 which impacts on staff retention and quality of patient care.
The recognition and management of bullying in the workplace is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition. It has been suggested by Rayner and Hoel that bullying can be defined as incorporating any of the following five key elements:

  • Threat to professional status
  • Threat to personal standing
  • Isolation
  • Enforced overwork
  • Destabilisation-(4)

It is generally accepted that bullying incorporates negative behaviour(s) which are carried out repeatedly, rather than a single episode. It is not the perpetrator's intention, but instead the victim's perception, that determines whether the bullying has occurred.

Previous studies of UK junior doctors show that 37% have been bullied in the preceding year.5 An Australian study had this prevalence as high as 50%.6 More recently, an Irish study showed a rate of 30%.1 The studies show that the majority of bullying behaviours were from fellow doctors, in particular, those of greater seniority.

In this study, we attempted to determine the prevalence of bullying at Auckland City Hospital, which is the largest teaching hospital in New Zealand.

Method

Study design - We conducted a cross-sectional survey of all house officers and registrars (registered medical officers—RMOs) working at a teaching hospital with just under 1000 beds.
An anonymous questionnaire was sent via internal mail to 141 house officers and 232 registrars. A self-addressed internal mail envelope was included.

The questionnaire collected information on the participant’s age, gender, postgraduate year, country of training, ethnicity, and whether they were doing a medical or surgical run.

The participants were presented with a table of 14 bullying behaviours (Table 1). They were asked to identify whether they had experienced any of the behaviours in their previous term (3- or 6-month clinical attachment). If they had, they were asked to identify the staff group who perpetrated the behaviour and rate on a scale of 1–5 how frequently they encountered the behaviour.

If they had experienced any bullying behaviours, they were asked whether they had made a formal complaint, and whether this was effective. If they did not make a formal complaint, they were asked why they did not.

Statistics -
All analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute Inc, v9.1) software. Continuous normally distributed variables were compared using Student’s unrelated groups test and Chi-squared analysis was used for categorical data. All tests were two-tailed and p<0.05>

Table 1. Questionnaire
Bullying behaviour
Consult
ant
Registrar
HO
Radio
logy
Nurse
Pharm
acist
Patient
/family
Other (specify)
Undermine your work








Unjustified criticism








Innuendo and sarcasm








Verbal threats








Making jokes about you








Teasing








Physical violence








Violence to property








Withholding necessary information








Ignoring you








Undue pressure








Setting impossible deadlines








Undervaluing of your efforts








Discrimination








Scale:
1=encountered behaviour once
2=once a month
3=once a week
4=>once a week
5=every day

Results

We had a response rate of 34% (48/141) from house officers and 32% (75/232) from registrars. 50% (186/373) of these doctors reported at least one episode of bullying behaviour (95%CI: 41–58%, p=0.047).

50% (93/186) of those who were bullied were either first-year house officers, or first-year registrars (p value=0.008). There was a trend for RMOs doing a surgical run to report a higher incidence of at least one bullying behaviour compared to those doing a medical run (59% [27/46] vs 44% [27/62], p=0.17).

RMOs under the age of 25 reported bullying more frequently than those over the age of 25 (72% [17/24] vs 44% [43/99], p=0.024). There were no differences in gender, ethnicity, or whether the RMO was trained in New Zealand or overseas.

Consultants and nurses were the main perpetrators of bullying behaviour (30% [63/214] each) followed by patients (25% [53/214]), radiologists (8% [18/214]), and registrars (7% [17/214]) (Figure 1). Registrars were more often bullied by consultants, and house officers by nurses.

Figure 1. Who does the bullying?
content01.jpg
The most widespread bullying behaviour encountered was unjustified criticism from consultants, followed by ’undervaluing of efforts’ (Figure 2).

Only 18% (33/186) of those who had experienced at least one episode of a bullying behaviour made an official complaint. 63%(20/33) of those who complained were house officers, and 83% (27/33) were female (p=0.042). Of those who made a complaint, 54% (18/33) reported some improvement. Of those people who did not make an official complaint, 82% (125/153) were not sure how to complain, and 79% (121/153) were afraid of the consequences. 72% (134/186) of those who had been bullied dealt with it themselves.

Figure 2. Most common bullying behaviour (total complaints = 214)
content02.jpg

Discussion

Our study indicates that junior doctors at Auckland City Hospital perceive that they are bullied at the same prevalence rate as similar studies performed overseas.1,3,5,6 Studies such as this, however, suffer from problems of definition, perception, and response bias.

Bullying is clearly a difficult behaviour to define. It must be recognised that the medical education system is a hierarchical, high-pressure environment in which differences in knowledge often lead to an imbalance in power. In such an environment it would be common for performance feedback to be misinterpreted as bullying rather than a misguided attempt to improve performance.7

Irrespective of these qualifying factors, the perception of the victim is still the most important aspect of bullying behaviour. Secondly, in our study, junior doctors have identified instances where they have been bullied on a single occasion which would not meet the accepted definition of bullying.
Finally, the presentation of bullying behaviours in the survey may have prompted respondents to declare bullying behaviours and those who are bullied are possibly more likely to respond (i.e. responder bias).

Despite this, it is reassuring (although still totally unacceptable) that the prevalence of bullying amongst medical staff at our hospital when measured by similar methods and limitations is in line with the reported prevalence (30–50%) as defined from other overseas studies.1,3,5,6

In addition, this study identifies two further issues. Firstly, while our medical personnel may be accused of bullying due to the hierarchical nature of the education structure, it is difficult to explain the high frequency of bullying by nurses towards house officers. Secondly, the majority of doctors who had experienced bullying behaviour did not complain and 79% stated that they were afraid of complaining. This is in line with a study by Dickson in which he states, “It is not that the victim cannot complain; it is that they perceive themselves as helpless or they perceive the consequences of complaining as worse than the status quo.”8

While the bullying behaviour may not have been of sufficient stature to warrant a formal complaint it is still a major concern that a significant number of doctors did not know the process by which they could address the issue. In contrast, however, it was reassuring to note that 54% of those that did complain noted an improvement which somewhat validates our current processes.

In summary, our study has identified a high prevalence of perceived bullying by junior doctors. While the bullying may be a misperception by the victim, it is still of sufficient concern that it requires further study. Organisational support should be given to all employees to minimise such behaviour and support potential victims. We recommend training sessions on effective communication and delivery of constructive criticism for the main perpetrator groups identified in this study. Possibly a formal complaint process should be identified with a standardised format, open accessibility, and confidentiality restrictions. Following these interventions, a repeat study should be conducted to confirm a positive change in bullying behaviours.

Competing interests:
None known.

Author information:
Joanne Scott, House Officer, Department of General Medicine, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland; Chloe Blanshard, House Officer, Department of General Medicine, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland; Stephen Child, Director of Clinical Training, Clinical Education and Training Unit (CETU), Auckland City Hospital, Auckland

Acknowledgements:
We thank David Spriggs (Clinical Director, Department of General Medicine, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland); Gill Naden (Manager, CETU, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland); and Medical Council of New Zealand for their assistance.

Correspondence:
Dr Stephen Child, CETU, Level 15, Support Building, Auckland City Hospital, Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand.

References:
  1. Cheema S, Ahmad K, Giri SK, et al. Bullying of junior doctors prevails in the Irish health system: a bitter reality. Ir Med J. 2005;98(9):274–5.
  2. Kelly S. Workplace bullying: the silent epidemic. N Z Med J. 2004;117(1204). http://www.nzmj.com/journal/117-1204/1125



ssal Association, 19-September-2008, Vol 121 No

10 September 2009

STUDY ABSTRACT - Workplace Bullying Link to Sleep Disturbances

Workplace Bullying and Sleep Disturbances:

Findings from a Large Scale Cross-Sectional Survey in the French Working Population


Isabelle Niedhammer, PhD1,2; Simone David, MSc1; Stéphanie Degioanni, MSc1; Anne Drummond, PhD2; Pierre Philip, MD, PhD3; 143 occupational physiciansa

1INSERM, U687-IFR69, Saint-Maurice, France; 2UCD School of Public Health & Population Science, Dublin, Ireland; 3Clinique du Sommeil, CHU Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France

Study Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to explore the associations between workplace bullying, the characteristics of workplace bullying, and sleep disturbances in a large sample of employees of the French working population.


Design:
Workplace bullying, evaluated using the validated instrument developed by Leymann, and sleep disturbances, as well as covariates, were measured using a self-administered questionnaire. Covariates included age, marital status, presence of children, education, occupation, working hours, night work, physical and chemical exposures at work, self-reported health, and depressive symptoms. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis and was carried out separately for men and women.

Setting: General working population.

Participants:
The study population consisted of a random sample of 3132 men and 4562 women of the working population in the southeast of France.

Results:
Workplace bullying was strongly associated with sleep disturbances. Past exposure to bullying also increased the risk for this outcome. The more frequent the exposure to bullying, the higher the risk of experiencing sleep disturbances. Observing someone else being bullied in the workplace was also associated with the outcome. Adjustment for covariates did not modify the results. Additional adjustment for self-reported health and depressive symptoms diminished the magnitude of the associations that remained significant.

Conclusions:
The prevalence of workplace bullying (around 10%) was found to be high in this study as well was the impact of this major job-related stressor on sleep disturbances. Although no conclusion about causality could be drawn from this cross-sectional study, the findings suggest that the contribution of workplace bullying to the burden of sleep disturbances may be substantial.

Keywords:Sleep disturbances, workplace bullying

Citation: Niedhammer I; David S; Degioanni S; Drummond A; Philip P. Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: findings from a large scale cross-sectional survey in the French working population. SLEEP 2009;32(9):1211-1219.

source

Workplace Bullying Linked to Insomnia - Survey in the French Working Population

http://30tocure30.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/insomnia.jpg

Being bullied at work may make you toss and turn all night.

Researchers have found that people who are intimidated, insulted, or otherwise harassed on the job are more likely to have sleep disturbances than are other workers. Their findings appear in the Sept.1 issue of the journal Sleep.

Workplace bullying may be a common occurrence, according to the new study, which involved more than 7,600 middle-aged workers in southeast France. The study participants answered questionnaires regarding their work environment and ability to fall asleep and return to sleep after early awakenings.

In the study, 11% of women and 9% of men reported being exposed to bullying at work at least once a week for at least six months of the previous year. Workplace bullying was defined as "hostile behavior on the part of one or more persons in the work environment that aim continually and repeatedly to offend, oppress, maltreat, or to exclude or isolate over a long period of time."

The researchers found that women exposed to bullying on the job every day or nearly every day were about twice as likely as their peers to have sleeping difficulties. Men who had to deal with such hostile behavior now or in the past had more than two times the sleep disturbances as men who had not.

The more often someone was bullied on the job, the more likely they were to have sleeping difficulties. The results took into consideration other factors that can affect sleep, such as age, occupation, work hours, and symptoms of depression.

Sleep Also Eludes Observers
The sleep woes also affected those who saw someone else being bullied. Slightly more than a third of workers said they witnessed bullying on the job in the previous 12 months. Among the findings:

• Men who observed workplace bullying had an estimated 60% higher chance of having sleep disturbances.
• The odds for disturbed sleep were 20% higher in women who saw someone else being bullied.

The chances for sleep problems increased more if the workers both saw and experienced bullying. The study authors say their findings highlight the need for greater efforts to prevent bullying in the workplace.

"Workplace bullying may be considered as one of the leading job stressors and would be a major cause of suicide and other health-related issues," Isabelle Niedhammer, PhD, epidemiologist and researcher at the UCD School of Public Health & Population Science at the University College Dublin in Ireland, says in a statement. "Our study underlines the need to better understand and prevent occupational risk factors, such as bullying, for sleep disorders."

Adjustment insomnia is the medical term for sleep difficulties that result from an identifiable stressor, such as workplace bullying. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, symptoms may also involve anxiety, worry, depression, muscle tension, and headaches. Adjustment insomnia usually goes away within three months, but it may linger if the person remains in the stressful environment or can’t otherwise adapt to the situation.

source

This story has hit the news today also, interesting how it has been reported... take a look ..

Work Bullying Linked With Poor Sleep

The reach of the work bully extends well beyond the office.

New research shows that victims of work bullying often have sleep problems once they get home. The trauma of bullying in the workplace is so great that it even appears to affect those who witness a co-worker being mistreated, according to a study published in the medical journal Sleep.

Workplace bullying can include everything from belittling comments and yelling to spreading gossip and excluding someone from an important meeting. Victims often are helpless to defend themselves because many companies don’t have procedures in place to combat the behavior. A study last year found that workplace aggression can be more damaging than sexual harassment.

Work Bullying Linked With Poor Sleep
A study last year found that workplace aggression can be more damaging than sexual harassment. In the latest study, researchers from the French national ...
Blame office bullies for your sleep problems
Workplace bullying disrupts sleep
Trouble sleeping? Blame your bullying boss and co-workers




08 September 2009

Australian Workplace Bullying Is Out Of Control - 25% of Australians have been bullied


Bullying is rife in Australian workplaces, a new survey shows, with one half of respondents saying they had witnessed the behaviour.

The Drake International survey of more than 800 employees also revealed 25 per cent had experienced bullying themselves.

Silence, isolation, verbal insults and sarcasm were the most common cases, with public humiliation ranking in second place.

Bullying from managers or supervisors represented about 50 per cent of cases, while 25 per cent of respondents reported being targeted by other employees.

Gender proved no barrier to the behaviour, with almost equal numbers of male and female perpetrators, the survey found.

Both sexes were also equally targeted by workplace bullies.

Poor management of issues leads to Identifiable psychological Hazards

Poor management of the issue by companies was also revealed, with just 30 per cent of victims and 50 per cent of witnesses satisfied with their employer's response to incidents.

Drake International said the results were disappointing and worrying from an organisational perspective.

"Bullying is an identifiable psychological hazard in the workplace and therefore this is not just a conduct issue," Drake's national client services manager Judy Harper said.

"Organisations need to do more - as a minimum they have a statutory duty of care to manage and control this inappropriate and damaging behaviour."

source

Subtle digs most hurtful in workplace

Workplace bullying is usually subtle, taking the form of silence and isolation, verbal insults, and sarcasm, a recent study has shown.

36 per cent cited subtle forms of bullying as the most common and damaging behaviour. Public humiliation and criticism was the second-most common behaviour – representing 26 per cent of instances. Gender was also revealed as no barrier; male and females were almost equally at fault as the bully or as the target of the behaviour.

Responses highlighted workplaces’ lack of policy and action on dealing with workplace bullying, with only 30 per cent of bullying targets and less than 50 per cent of witnesses satisfied with their organisation’s handling of the situation. More than 50 per cent of respondents also noted that the bullying behaviour had been going on for more than six months.