Whistleblowing on Bullying - Time for Management to take ownership and deal with the Bullies

There is a conspiracy of silence when it comes to workplace bullying. In the many thousands of words recently written about bullying at work in the local press the conspiracy has been maintained.

A conspiracy of silence occurs when everyone knows that bad behaviour is occurring but there is a tacit decision not to talk about it and certainly not to do anything. It was first used to describe incest in families and, more recently, other forms of abuse. People don’t do anything because they don’t want to rock the boat, to avoid conflict, and because it is just too hard. Sadly, by not speaking up or doing anything the observers validate the perpetrator and invalidate the victim.

As I have often seen in clinical practice, the effect of these conspiracies on the victims is monstrous. The victim feels as if he or she is somehow at fault, they are confused, and feel alone and unsupported. Most importantly they come to feel powerless and it is this that results in anxiety and depression, the most common effects of being bullied.

In all that is written about bullying at work there are two major conspiracies of silence that result in enormous pain and suffering for victims. It also seems that workmates who see the bullying can also be badly affected resulting in significant symptoms on their part too.

The first gaping silence is that senior managers in organisations prefer not to do anything about bullies. This conspiracy of silence occurs despite the fact that bullying is against the law and CEOs and boards of directors are in fact culpable by not acting. It is interesting to watch an organisation move a victim of bullying to another branch or even another job, and leave the bully in place: even after admitting openly that the bullying has occurred. Sometimes, it is easier to call a case of bullying a personality conflict and call in a mediator. The damage these behaviours do to the victim is enormous.

It’s also common to blame the victim. This is easy because the bullied worker has repeatedly made complaints, as instructed by the legislation and the bullying literature that is lying on the coffee table in the CEO’s waiting area. The victim, who has become increasingly distressed over time, can be simplistically labelled as unstable or over-sensitive: a trouble maker. Let’s not forget too that bullies often pick on already vulnerable people who might have a reputation already for being over-sensitive.

There have been some notorious bullies in organisations in and around Lismore that have been allowed to get away with bullying behaviour time and time again: I have seem many of their victims at the clinic. Many of these bullies get promoted. There are also large numbers of senior managers that know that their staff are being bullied but do nothing. Under the legislation they are just as culpable as the bully and their organisation can be fined many thousands of dollars. But they still engage in the conspiracy and more often than not put the fox in charge of the chook shed.

The preferred personality profile of a successful manager (or one on the way up) appears to be someone who is aggressive, dominant, single-minded, achievement-oriented, and task-focused. Throw in a little pinch of narcissism, low empathy for others and an unsatisfied need for power and this is a nasty recipe for bullying behaviour. These are not easy people to deal with which makes it so much easier to turn a blind eye. Bullies often appear so good at their job and they create the right relationships with the right people to protect themselves.

And it happens every day in organisations in which we all work. In a recent case a colleague of mine was told by the human resource manager of her organisation that it would be better to let a case of bullying drop because it was against a very senior manager. The reason being that the consequences would not be worth it in the end.

The other conspiracy involves an unholy alliance between the organisation and the insurance company. Despite the pretty advertisements, insurance companies want to avoid liability. To do this they will find any excuse to blame the victim rather than make the workplace deal with the problem. Everyone’s a winner: the insurance company doesn’t have to pay out and the organisation’s premiums are protected.

The main way this is done is to find a pre-existing condition in the victim such as a history of previous abuse, anxiety, depression, previous bullying or any other negative behaviour. This is then used as a means of blaming the victim. This is easy to do by running an unbalanced investigation and being highly selective with ‘the evidence’. For someone who has genuinely been bullied at work this outcome is extremely damaging.

It is time for the conspiracies of silence to be broken. Those with the power to act need to make the hard decision and deal with the perpetrator rather than leaving it up to the victim, who is already disempowered.

Dr Stewart Hase is an Adjunct Fellow with Southern Cross University and a consultant psychologist.

source

Office Rage : What to do when your boss is a bully?

A new book accuses British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of throwing temper tantrums.

How can employees deal with bullying in the workplace?

He’d punch walls and angrily stab chairs with pens. Frequently, he’d yell at his staff, once pulling a secretary out of her chair for typing too slowly.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has a volcanic temper, according to a new book, The End of the Party, in which political journalist Andrew Rawnsley describes a series of tirades during Mr. Brown’s second and third terms in office.

The book was excerpted in Sunday’s Observer, the same day Christine Pratt, the head of the National Bullying Helpline, revealed that Mr. Brown’s staff had called her service .

In the Prime Minister’s defence, Secretary of State for Business Peter Mandelson told the BBC that Mr. Brown is a leader who “gets angry, but chiefly with himself.” Downing Street staff have described a leader who is simply passionate about his work.

The allegations have stirred experts in the growing workplace-bullying industry, and some say “passion” is the cop-out du jour for intimidating bosses.

“Passion can justify any over-the-top emotion. The message is that everyone else should learn to live with it. That’s what it’s like in a bullying environment: Everyone walks on egg shells, but all cater to the Grand Poobah,” said Gary Namie, founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute.

Dr. Namie, who works with WAVE, a human resources company that deals with workplace bullying, describes the behaviour as “health-harming mistreatment” and “psychological violence.”

According to a 2007 study by the institute of 7,740 Americans, 37 per cent had been bullied at work, and 39 per cent of bully targets suffered clinical depression.

Bullies are often bosses: 72 per cent, the study said. Forty per cent of those are women who target other women; men appear to split their bullying evenly between the sexes.

It seems the man has a temper,” said Gerard Seijts, professor of a leadership course at Richard Ivey School of Business in London, Ont.

Prof. Seijts said hotheads can get far in leadership because no one stands up to them.

“Often times, it requires a lot of courage for people around a leader to speak up. … But every time we don’t correct people on their behaviour, we raise the bar for our moral outrage. If we treat this as acceptable, what becomes unacceptable? Maybe slowly, [Mr. Brown's] behaviour became unacceptable.”

Valerie Cade, a Calgary-based workplace bullying expert and author of Bully Free at Work, said that unlike bullying, Mr. Brown’s explosive tantrums may not be deliberate, but they are “unwanted.”

She said bullied employees need to be able to name the behaviour as such, or else they end up viewing the scenarios as a sign of their own shortcomings.

“This is where people get stuck the most. Naming it as bullying lets you separate yourself from the situation. In the absence of doing that, you’re powerless because you’re trying to figure out what you could do differently.”

Ms. Cade suggests employees confront their bosses in person, with direct language, then follow up via e-mail if the behaviour persists.

“In a corporate environment, now, you’ve made a record of that. Now you’ve got grounds to go to that boss’s boss,” Ms. Cade said.

But she added that most bosses deny the behaviour, and then minimize it with comments such as, “You don’t know the pressure I’m under.”

Dr. Namie noted that human resources staff can only go so far to resolve the conflict.

“Bullying is not an HR problem. It’s an executive-team, administrative, leadership problem, and unless and until they want it to stop, it’s not going to. HR hears all the complaints but they don’t have the power to create a new policy and to enforce it.”

Dr. Namie said the biggest mistake that bullying targets make is to let “the bully sink the claws in” the first time around.

“The bully is testing the water. The failure to confront that is what convinces the bully you’re an easy mark. Unfortunately, what makes a target a target is they didn’t see it coming. They’re constantly surprised.”

Asher Adelman said one way to avoid bosses with volcanic tempers is pre-emptively.

“It’s very rare for a workplace to improve it’s culture. Usually, when things go bad, they only get worse. For the most part, aggressive, abusive managers don’t change their behaviour,” said Mr. Adelman, founder of eBossWatch.com, which lets job seekers troll a database of anonymous posts about bad bosses.

The site has rated the top worst bosses for 2009, including a water distribution superintendent who held a four-hour, profanity-laced meeting and instructed employees to hit each other, a football head coach who broke another coach’s jaw during training camp, and an airline CEO who screamed at his employees in front of hundreds of customers lined up at the airline’s check-in counter, ignoring a sign that warned passengers: “Abusive behaviour towards staff will not be tolerated.”

source

COMMENTARY - Who is Gordon Brown? Is he a Bully? What darkness lies behind Gordon Brown's aggressive personality?

Gabby Logan freely admits she had a 'meltdown' when she turned up too late to board the Eurostar in Paris

Gabby Logan freely admits she had a 'meltdown' when she turned up too late to board the Eurostar in Paris and was escorted from the station after being caught trying to crawl under the barrier.

A new book sensationally claims Gordon Brown pushed around people in his office and stabbed the back of a cream car seat repeatedly with a black pen while an official cowered next to him.

Unrepentant, the Prime Minister declares: 'I'm not perfect - but I know where I come from and what I stand for.'

Gordon insists he's angry with himself, not others, but the impression remains that this big bruiser is frightening to be around when he erupts.

Another difference between Gabby and Gordon: she fessed up to her strop on her blog, made a joke and said sorry.

For Gordon to admit having a temper would be construed as a sign of weakness - he now sees himself as the victim of a hostile media.

If he behaved so appallingly, why didn't any of those on the receiving end speak out? In my long experience, this kind of volatile behaviour is pretty common, and when male bosses lose their temper, they usually get away with it.

I've been an executive and I've been a boss. When I was in charge and lost my temper, I was called 'crazy' by my critics. When men behave in this fashion, they're described as 'forceful' or 'opinionated'.

When I dared to sack or criticise anyone, I was berated as erratic. When a man does the same, we say he's 'decisive'. Anger in the work place is all about double standards, as I know only too well.

Once, my boss at the Beeb was so annoyed at my failure to get a comedy star to appear in a show that he went beetroot, screamed his head off, smashed a pencil through a thick notepad and threw everything on his desk on to the floor.

I thought he was having a fit and wondered if I should call for medical help. Two minutes later, his pallor returned to normal and he resumed our conversation as if nothing had happened. I left the room, shaking. The incident was never referred to again.

See Westminster Parliament MPs erupt over Question Time when Gordon Brown is questioned on Workplace Bullying, in 6th May 2009.

Also below some more of Brown's Best Bits, also see Bullying Question asked at 2:10 mins

A new book claims Mr Brown pushed around people in his office and stabbed the back of a cream car seat with a black pen while an official cowered next to him

When I told someone else, I discovered they had experienced a similar strop. We didn't report this man for bullying, but accepted it as part of the high-pressure world in which we worked.

Gordon's temper tantrums are replicated in offices all over Britain. Lots of us will have the misfortune to sit through the frightening experience of a boss in meltdown. Why do we put up with it?

One reason is that we accept anger in men far more readily than in women. Female bosses who lose their temper are seen as less competent, according to a study by Yale University.

It concluded that angry men will earn a higher salary, get a better job and be more successful than bad-tempered women. And female workers are more tolerant of men who behave badly than they are of women. Anger remains a male privilege.

If men apologise for losing their temper, it works against them - research shows we don't rate their chance of succeeding so highly afterwards. But if women apologise, then it can actually help them.

That might explain why Gordon Brown is not going to admit very much. I admit I've been guilty of Brown-style swearing and cussing in the workplace - maybe I've just worked with too many men. But I haven't stooped to ranting and raging in a taxi in front of witnesses.

Isn't there something rather worrying about the revelation that our Prime Minister gets into his official car and spends the journey smashing his fist into the back of the seat in front or defacing it with a pen when he's in a strop?

That sounds like a toddler who can't get his way, not someone who's supposed to be leading us back into the black and out of recession.

Disraeli said 'a person's fate is their own temper'

We shall see if it's true for Mr Brown.

source

IRONY - When the Bully uses the FAIR WORK "Adverse Action" laws to obtain interlocutory injunction to stop potential dismissal

Case note: Fair work “adverse action” claim wins interlocutory injunction

Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd [2009] FCA 1382 (25 November 2009).

Justice Collier of the Federal Court has issued an interlocutory injunction in favour of an Applicant to stop her potential dismissal.

The Applicant, Elizabeth Louise Jones, was the Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre (QTAC).

The Centre processes applications for admissions to the majority of undergraduate courses offered by universities in Queensland and also Bond University, The Australian Maritime College in Tasmania and to some courses at universities in Northern New South Wales. It also processes applications for diploma courses in Queensland Institutes of TAFE and other private providers of post-secondary education.

Ms Jones had been employed by QTAC since about 2002 without any issue being raised about her employment. From the beginning of this year, she was QTAC’s chief negotiator with the Australian Services Union (ASU) in the re-negotiation of the Enterprise Agreement governing the terms and conditions of QTAC’s employees. As a result of her involvement as the negotiator, she was the subject of a number of complaints by the ASU, named individuals and also some complaints which were made anonymously. An investigator was instructed to provide a report, and as a result of the investigator’s report, QTAC was of the belief that Ms Jones had acted in a way which amounted to “bullying or harassment of employees” (at [28]). Ms Jones claimed that the investigation instituted by QTAC into her behaviour was improper and that she was concerned, not only by the investigation, but also by the prospect that she could have her employment terminated.

In her application for an interlocutory injunction and for final relief, Ms Jones asserted that there had been various breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and her contract of employment, that damages were not an adequate remedy and that on the balance of convenience an interlocutory injunction should be granted pending a final determination of her action.

Ms Jones was successful in arguing that there was a serious question to be tried in that there had been a breach on a prima facie level of the Fair Work Act. Paragraph [17] of the judgment sets out the summary of the submissions made by Ms Jones concerning the Fair Work Act. The summary reads as follows:

“[17] In summary, the case submitted by Ms Jones as to the existence of a serious question to be tried can be summarised as follows:

• Section 340(1) of the FW Act provides that a person must not take adverse action against another person because the other person has a workplace right, or has or has not exercised a workplace right.
• A “workplace right” means, inter alia, that a person is entitled to the benefit of, or has a role or responsibility under, a workplace law, workplace instrument or order made by an industrial body (s 341(1)(a)), or is able to initiate or participate in a process or proceedings under a workplace law or workplace instrument (s 341(1)(b)).
• “Adverse action” is taken by an employer against an employee if, inter alia, the employer dismisses the employee, or injures the employee in his or her employment, or alters the position of the employee to the employee’s prejudice (s 342(1) Item 1). Threatening to take such action also constitutes adverse action (s 342(2)).
• Ms Jones’ workplace right was in respect of either:

her role or responsibility in negotiating the Enterprise Agreement on behalf of QTAC: s 341(1)(a); or

her participation in the process of making an Enterprise Agreement: s 341(1)(b).

• In relation to Ms Jones’ participation in the process of making an Enterprise Agreement:

Ms Jones had a role as a “bargaining representative” of QTAC for the purposes of the Enterprise Agreement negotiations;

so far as relevant s 176 of the FW Act provides that:

“a person is a bargaining representative of an employer that will be covered by the agreement if the employer appoints, in writing, the person as his or her bargaining representative for the agreement. (s 176(1)(d))”

in a letter to the ASU dated 18 July 2009, Mr McAndrew said that the QTAC Board had confirmed that Ms Jones would continue to be QTAC’s “bargaining representative”.

QTAC has taken, and is proposing to take, adverse action against Ms Jones because she has exercised a workplace right, in that:


adverse action has already been taken by QTAC in relation to the commissioning and conduct of the Carol Watson report, and informing QTAC staff of the report;

QTAC proposes to take adverse action in that it threatens to terminate or otherwise discipline Ms Jones because of the view QTAC takes of the Carol Watson report and the various complaints.”

The Judge did not find there was a prima facie breach of the contract of employment. However, in view of the serious question concerning the breach of the Fair Work Act, His Honour found there was a serious question to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The Judge said (at [49]):

“Discipline of a Chief Executive Officer for allegedly creating a culture of fear or terror in the workplace, be such discipline in the form of termination of employment or otherwise, is a very serious matter. In my view, it is likely that such a course of conduct would have a detrimental effect on Ms Jones’ reputation and impose a stigma which could adversely affect her future career prospects …”

His Honour, on balance, favoured the making of the interlocutory injunction sought (at [52]) and that the difficulties that might cause QTAC in the granting of such an injunction could be ameliorated by the accelerated timetable for the hearing of the substantive issues in the proceedings (at [58]).

This case is further evidence of the various uses which some of the provisions of the Fair Work Act will be able to reveal as useful adjuncts to employment disputes even for people who are not otherwise covered by industrial instruments.
source

COMMENTARY

Adverse action shock

Not long after the introduction of the Keating Government's 1993 Industrial Relations Reform legislation, the then Minister, Laurie Brereton was forced into an embarrassing back down. The new unfair dismissal laws designed to protect ordinary workers from capricious dismissal was being used by senior management employees to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. The government hastily amended the legislation to prevent the majority of employees who were considered high income earners from making a claim. An arbitrary remuneration limit of $60,000 per annum was introduced.

In what shapes up as an important test case for the legislation, a Chief Executive Officer has won a Federal Court injunction to prevent her employer terminating her employment. The CEO is arguing that the employer was proposing to terminate her employment because she exercised a "workplace right" and because she was participating in the process of making an enterprise agreement.

For many years industrial legislation has protected employees from prejudice in their employment because of their participation in union related activities or because they have insisted on their rights to minimum employment conditions. What makes the case of Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd (QTAC) different, is that the employee has claimed that by representing her employer - not, one will note, other employees - in enterprise bargaining negotiations, she is entitled to the protection of the Act. The timing of events which led to the claim are perhaps a little unusual, but even if Ms Jones ultimately does not succeed in her action, the scope for the "adverse action" provisions of the Fair Work Act to become a heavy yoke for employers is slowly being exposed.

As CEO, Ms Jones represented QTAC in negotiations with the Australian Services Union for a new enterprise agreement. QTAC's initial attempt to put an agreement to an employee vote was thwarted by the ASU obtaining a good faith bargaining order from Fair Work Australia. During the course of subsequent negotiations, the ASU and individual employees made complaints about Ms Jones conduct, which amounted to allegations of bullying and harassment.

QTAC initiated an investigation into the CEO's conduct, as a result of which a report was produced. The findings of the report were adverse to the CEO and QTAC indicated to her that it was considering terminating her employment.

Enter Julia Gillard's "adverse action" laws. Ms Jones successfully argued that there was a serious question for the court to consider as to whether her employment was under threat because of her participation in the enterprise bargaining negotiations. QTAC argued it was acting in good faith in order to prevent further instances of bullying and harassment of the type alleged against Ms Jones, consistently with its obligations under Queensland's occupational health and safety laws.

By identifying the "timing of the allegations against Ms Jones... and the identity of the complainants, including the ASU" as factors weighing in favour of granting the injunction, the Court has left open a finding that the complaints were in fact industrially motivated. The Court recognised in its decision that if Ms Jones is ultimately successful in arguing that, as CEO, she had "workplace rights" as a consequence of the enterprise bargaining process, such a finding could have an impact on all CEO's or executives who have those responsibilities. The court has yet to make its final determination, which will occur when the case goes to trial in early 2010 and there is no suggestion that the outcome of the enterprise bargaining negotiations were themselves negative for QTAC.

Quite aside from its impact in this case, the establishment of a "workplace right" for executives simply because they are involved in enterprise bargaining will potentially hobble the ability of employers to make business decisions about executives who behave inappropriately or who handle negotiations poorly.

Ironically, the consequences of an executive's conduct might include an adverse action claim against the employer by unions or employees. Given the gusto of attacks on the apparent lack of executive accountability to shareholders, you have to wonder if that was really what was intended by the Rudd Government in making the Fair Work Act law. At some point, the Government will have to re-examine the scope of these laws. Hopefully before creative lawyers have their way with Fair Work.'
source

COMMENTARY - Relational Aggressor - Bully Behaviour

Relational Aggressor:

The New Bully On The Block

By Ken Cox

The following discussion of relational aggression proposes to illustrate a type of bullying behavior that pervades all of our relationships.

You and I, by reason of our common humanity, have had more than a casual experience with the bully and victim relationship. All of us have given audience to this cruel drama and many have played the victim's role. A very few of us have come to the victim's rescue and at least one of us, unenviably, has played the bully's part.

According to traditional definitions, we ascribe the word bully to anyone who uses a position of relative power to direct negative intent against another person. Relative power can take the form of physical, financial, social and other circumstantial advantages.

When we first think of aggression, the smirking masculine icon of physical advantage most often comes to the surface. Our memories provide us with obvious and indelibly dramatic prototypes from early schoolyard experiences. Operating out of those memories, we tend to see the relationship between bully and victim as physical, driven by the fear of physical injury and dependent on physical advantage.

Ironically, the most powerful advantage comes not from the bully but from the victim: the pro-social constraint of the victim, the universal yearning for relationship, provides all the advantage the bully ever needs.

This does not absolve the bully. The susceptibility of the victim may have its enticements, but the behavior belongs solely to the bully.

Once a potential victim exhibits social constraint, or responsibility, the bully knows he or she can safely maneuver the situation to the very brink of disgrace. Counting on the integrity of the victim's constraints to keep them both from tumbling over, the bully stands on the crumbling edges of socially acceptable behavior and demands that the victim either jump or submit.

This assumes that social, professional or familial circumstances force the victim into relationship with the bully. Otherwise, the victim would simply disengage. It also assumes the victim's world view and social skill level do not provide alternatives beyond submission or escalation.

Social scientists and psychologists have recently invented a new classification of bullying that reflects the above perspective on aggression. They call it relational aggression. Interpretations of current research attach the label of relational aggressor almost exclusively to women. However, I believe the label applies as well to men.

Socially and culturally, we vastly underestimate the type of aggressive behavior characterized as relational aggression because it has a more elusive and indirect outcome than the easily observed physical aggression normally associated with the behavior of men.

Relational aggression takes form as verbal threats and abuse. Relational bullies exercise their negative intent by directing hurtful statements to their victims and, of greater significance, talking about their victims to others.

This type of aggression uses the threat of social isolation to hurt the victim. The bully's advantage resides in the value the victim places on belonging to a family, school, workplace or other group.

As we shall see later, bullies have no corresponding fear of social isolation. They do not value relationships and therefore perceive themselves as having nothing to lose: interdependent relationships signify weakness.

Relationships only expose one to the possibility of loss. Consumed by self-reliance and the need for control, relational aggressors project the source of their inadequacies and fears on to others.

Some have termed this projection as "hostile attributional bias" or paranoia. Accordingly, relational aggressors see provocation and, thereby, justification where it does not exist. Typically, they take inappropriate revenge for imagined offense and externally impose on others the solutions to problems arising from within.

Surprisingly, bullies see themselves in a positive light, probably because they have so little awareness of what others think of them. No one wants to suffer a bully's wrath by telling them the truth, and so the bully's confidence survives simply because they lack the feedback to perceive themselves correctly in social situations.

In fact, blindness to the feelings of others permeates the behavioral style and outlook of bullies. Lacking social awareness, they certainly don't see the impact of their own behavior on themselves and others. They abuse their spouses and children, creating a miserable family life and still another generation of bullies. In the end, bullies bring at least as much unhappiness upon themselves as upon their victims.

You may well ask, if relational aggression causes so much pain, why do bullies persist in it?

"It's a great strategy for getting what you want," says Illinois's Gary Ladd. "People have a need to control their environment, and perhaps some enter life with differences in that need, as occurs with other traits."

"The great psychological benefit to bullying," says Ladd, "is that bullies feel powerful, in control. They've picked a little microcosm in which to exert control. They think their behavior works because they only see the short term outcome."

Dr. Richard E. Tremblay believes the the first two years of childhood sets a mold for behavior. "Aggression is normal at that age. It builds up from nine months and reaches its highest frequency at age two, and then (hopefully) you learn that it hurts to be aggressed...(because)...adults intervene and indicate that it is the wrong behavior. Language skills increase, and aggression decreases. However, if you don't get it by age two, then you become aggressive."

Aggression seems to mimic adult behavior. Some studies indicate that children learn relational aggression from observing the mother punish or manipulate the father with aloofness and verbal abuse. I think with time we will discover the father can set the same example of abuse as the mother, and for both sons and daughters.

To psychobiologist Gary W. Kraemer, the early caregiver-infant attachment process, "the dance of mother and child," actually configures the developing nervous system and establishes the paradigm for all social behavior. The relationship between mother and infant sets the pattern, and perhaps even the desire or lack of desire for later relationships.

However, if an innate developmental need for relationship exists in infancy, and remains unmet, that unmet need in itself could create inappropriate behavior. Aloofness and other apparently counterproductive behavior such as "doing something in order to get attention", and the words "I won't let you ignore me" come to mind.

According to Kraemer, relational aggressors exhibit both aggressive and reclusive behavior without apparent cause. "They can't anticipate what is going to happen next in social interactions. Something will set them off and once in antagonistic relationships, they have a hard time stopping." They just don't get the give and take of relationships, possibly because their need to for control takes such overwhelming precedence.

We began this discussion with the obvious form of physical aggression traditionally evidenced by male schoolyard bullying and have built upon it by comparing it with relational aggression. Because awareness of relational aggression comes out of studies of female bullying it has led to an interesting and perhaps misleading conclusion regarding gender and behavior.

According to Dr. Nicki R. Crick, "Women are just as capable of being mean as men are. If you go back to the textbook definition of aggression, it's the intent to hurt or do harm," notes Crick. "We've identified a form of aggression unique to females, what we call relational aggression, hurting others by propagating rumors, forming intrigues and socially isolating the victim. If you want to hurt someone and you want it to be effective, shouldn't it involve something they really value?"

Relational bullies typically do not form deep friendships. When they do, they usually choose a very nonaggressive peer. "We think that intimacy is for them a medium of control, for gathering intelligence and achieving an end," says Crick. "Friendship with a relational bully can be a passage to psychopathology."

"If you have not observed such behaviors, it's because they are subtle and sophisticated, and far less visible than the bullying of males. While these behaviors may be harmful to society, relational bullies don't wind up in the criminal justice system," Crick concludes.

This brings us to the idea of complicit aggression. For example, you may not bully others nor suffer others to bully you, but perhaps you participate in aggression as an observer and use the passiveness of your role to rationalize your complicity.

"I no longer think of bullying as something that happens just between two people," says Toronto's Debra Pepler. "Peers are so often involved that it's really in some sense an interaction that unfolds in a context rather than in isolation."

Because this aspect of aggression involves little more than listening to rumors, the individual listener's portion of the responsibility seems to disappear. Nonetheless, someone has received an injury. Relationships have changed and a person's reputation has lost value because of words. Every single listener has amplified and perpetuated the injury.

Dr. Antonius Cillessen calls this effect on group dynamics "the hidden purpose" of relational aggression. He finds that peer groups fan the flames of aggression by conferring reputations that keep victims frozen in their roles.

"Once peers have negative expectations, no matter what victims do, even if they change their behavior, their peers filter observations of them through their negative expectations. As peers see them, they can't do anything right."

It all begins and ends with words. Bullies use words to create fear of loss and fear of injury. Bullies use words to persuade and coerce. Bullies use words to ally with some and isolate others. Bullies use words to hurt people.

When bullies go further than words we call it war, rape, assault and battery, domestic violence, child abuse and other names. We no longer call it bullying and we know how to deal with it.

Which brings us to a familiar childhood ditty, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Does anyone believe that? As long as the bully directs the names, threats and lies at someone else, we act as if we do. We blame the victim.

In the words of Dan Olweus, "It is a basic democratic right to feel safe and to be spared the oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation implied in bullying."

What can you do to stop relational aggression?

• You can begin by not making or listening to comments about another person's character.
• You can improve the quality of your family life, workplace and world by discussing the behavior you want to see changed with the person who can change it.
• You can increase your general awareness of relational aggression by contacting the International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522. Ask them about E-Prime.
• You and I can set an example for others. Yes, old habits die hard and it will take a lot of physical and moral courage to bring about the end of relational aggression, but a worthy goal calls for a worthy effort.

COMMENTARY - Significant damages payout plus costs for sexual harassment claim

Key Points:

Anti-discrimination tribunals and courts are beginning to order more generous payouts

Anti-discrimination tribunals are increasingly prepared to order generous awards for damages.

In the recent decision of Tan v Xenos (No 3) (Anti-Discrimination) [2008] VCAT 584 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that Dr Chris Xenos had sexually harassed Dr Caroline Tan in breach of anti-discrimination legislation. Dr Tan was awarded $100,000 in damages, considered significant in this jurisdiction.

In the associated ruling of Tan v Xenos (Anti-Discrimination) [2008] VCAT 1273, VCAT also ordered the Dr Xenos to pay some of the costs Dr Tan incurred in the lengthy proceedings.

Background

As part of her training to be a neurosurgeon, Dr Tan was employed as a neurosurgical registrar at the Monash Medical Centre. From early August 2004, she moved into a surgical team led by Dr Xenos.

In December 2004, Dr Xenos started inviting Dr Tan to his private rooms. On 15 February 2005, Dr Tan accepted such an invitation. At this meeting, Dr Tan alleged that Dr Xenos sexually harassed her by embracing her, kissing her on the lips, putting his hand down her breast, pinning her against the table, exposing himself and asking her to perform a particular sexual act.

Dr Tan lodged a complaint with the Human Resources Department of the Medical Centre in early 2006. She also made a number of less formal complaints to some of her colleagues after the incident. Eventually, she lodged a complaint in VCAT. Dr Xenos denied the incident took place.

Decision

Under section 87 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1985 (Vic) a person must not sexually harass another person at a location that is a workplace for both of them. Sexual harassment includes making an unwelcome sexual advance or engaging in unwelcome conduct that is of a sexual nature.

Judge Harbison concluded that it was more probable than not that the alleged incident took place. The evidence, including that of Dr Tan making a number of complaints following the incident, was consistent with the complaint. It was not consistent with Dr Xenos' submission that the story had been fabricated because of Dr Tan's unsatisfactory performance as a neurosurgeon and her knowledge of likely failure in her training.

In the result, VCAT awarded substantial general damages in the amount of $100,000. The damages award reflected on a financial basis the hurt that Dr Xenos' act caused Dr Tan. VCAT also disavowed the notion that damages awards in the anti-discrimination jurisdiction should be lower than those awarded in comparable cases in other courts.

While there was no medical evidence as to how the incident had affected Dr Tan, Judge Harbison found that Dr Tan had "suffered acutely", was "terribly affected" by the harassment and had reacted, "unusually severe(ly)" to it "as a gross violation of her body and… trust". What is more, while Judge Harbison considered the incident was not the "worst one (could) imagine", Dr Xenos was in a powerful position in which he had "great influence" over Dr Tan's future career and qualification. she also found Dr Xenos had "deliberately and falsely denied the harassment" and sought to impugn Dr Tan's character. She noted that Dr Tan's capacity to enjoy her profession would be "significantly tarnished".

In addition to the significant damages award, Dr Xenos was ordered to pay one-third of Dr Tan's taxed costs.

VCAT can make costs orders when it is fair to do so, based on the consideration of a number of factors. In this case, costs were awarded because the hearing had been "unnecessarily lengthened". Many days had been spent on hearing evidence of Dr Tan's professional capabilities, introduced to support Dr Xenos' claim that the complaint was fabricated - a claim found to be unsubstantiated.

Implications

Damages awards in sexual harassment matters have by and large been fairly modest and contained. However, in recent times there has been an emerging trend of anti-discrimination tribunals and courts ordering more generous payouts.

In light of this decision in Tan and other like cases that are expanding the range of damages available in this jurisdiction, it is important that employers remain vigilant in preventing and addressing sexual harassment claims.

The policies and procedures of an employer need to, in a practical and real sense, be understood and adopted by staff from the top down. This means that those who are accountable within the organisation need to know how to identify when there is an issue (whatever the level of severity of the conduct) and understand what action should be taken in the circumstances. To that end, due diligence should be exercised regardless of the rank, seniority and standing of the person complained of. A failure to do so puts an organisation at significant potential risk.

source