Workplace Bullying, Harassment, Mobbing and Victimisation. Have you ever been bullied by a psychopath? If not, then you are lucky...for now! as chances are you will eventually come across their path sooner or later. Psychopaths and Bullies are everywhere in Australian corporate offices.
How to identify the bully, the impact & effects of bullying and how to survive.
If there is a bully lurking behind you, move forward to put the bully truly Behind You.
There are many great TED Talks on bullying in the workplace, here is one by English Professor Clive Boddy, based on his research findings looking at the link between Corporate Psychopaths and bullying, in Australian and the UK workplace.
Characteristics of Bullies: Enjoy hurting others, cruel, selfish, parasitic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, callous, disrespectful, abusive, lacking in empathy remorse or guilt, and good at political networking skills. 'Corporate Psychopaths are those people who go into organisational and corporate positions rather than a criminal career.' 'Psychologists have slowly come to realised that those from better socio-economic background, perhaps with a good education and good family backgrounds, have worked out early that it's far easier to get the power, prestige and money that they want from a Corporate career, than from a criminal career.' 'Psychopaths have absolutely no conscious'
2008 Study revealed:
AUSTRALIA * 1% of people (Corporate Psychopaths) accounted for the presence of at least 26% of all bullying by Australian mangers (from study sample of 346) * Under normal managers, employees encountered bullying 9x per year * Under Corporate Psychopaths, employees encountered bullying 64x per year
UK * Found more bullying and more Psychopaths in the UK.* 1% of people (Corporate Psychopaths) accounted for the presence of at least 36% of all bullying by Australian mangers * Under normal managers, employees encountered bullying 13x per year * Under Corporate Psychopaths, employees encountered bullying 84x per year Link between Corporate Psychopaths and Bullying WHY DOES BULLYING OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE?
* Psychopaths bully as it's predatory, they enjoy doing it, they like to hurt people and damage their careers. * 'Instrumental Bullying' - to create confusion and chaos around them, enables them to form their own agenda to promote themselves, creating a smoke screen so they can get on with their agenda. This explains why Psychopaths get promoted over others, as they are manipulators. *Linking at an organisational level eg: Enron, was reported to have a culture of bullying, of staff, agencies, suppliers, to keep them all in check to perpetuate the fraud. The same culture was found in banking institutions during the Global Financial Crisis, don't ask questions or you'll get into trouble' which covers up fraud.
Prof Clive Boddy is a Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at
Middlesex University in England. For the past seven years, he has
studied the evidence and effects of toxic leadership, and in particular
the influence of the presence of corporate psychopaths on various
workplace outcomes, including on levels of conflict and bullying at
work.
Performance reviews are universally unpopular with employees and
managers because they can be confronting, awkward and overly
bureaucratic. But new research and leading Australian academics suggest that ditching them entirely may be misguided. Video :Are performance reviews useful?
Herbert Smith Freehills HR Manager Andrea Bell
and Business Development Manager of Clients and Sectors, Chele Dore talk
about the use of performance reviews.
Deloitte, Adobe and Accenture are among big companies who have dumped performance reviews.
A
new study now suggests that in getting rid of performance
appraisals, some companies may have also stopped having valuable
conversations with their staff, who are becoming less engaged as a
result.
Herbert Smith Freehills HR Manager Andrea Bell and colleague Chele Dore. Photo: Christopher PearceAaron McEwan, from best practice company CEB, said its survey of 9500
employees and 300 heads of human resources managers found employees,
particularly high performers, had become disengaged without
performance reviews.
The study of staff and managers at global companies, including
those operating in Australia, found the move away from performance
ratings had resulted in a 28 per cent drop in the productivity of high
performers. Recognition and feedback were found to be important
in encouraging high performance. While managers who no longer conducted performance reviews were under
less pressure, they also found they were not as closely connected to
their staff after abandoning the annual performance appraisal. The
study found perceptions of the quality of conversations with managers
fell by 14 per cent after reviews were abandoned. Employee performance
was generally 10 per cent lower in organisations without performance
reviews. "The basis on which most organisations removed rankings
was a belief that the rankings got in the way of quality conversations,"
Mr McEwan said. "There was an assumption that if you removed the
ratings what would happen is that engagement would go up because you
have removed something that employees don't particularly like. "What
we found statistically overall, was the organisations that removed
their ratings ended up with 10 per cent lower performance. Your high
performers were least satisfied at the end of the day." Professor of Human Resource Management Carol Kulik, from the
University of South Australia business school, said surveys had shown
performance appraisals were universally unpopular. "We know that
performance appraisal out of all HR activities it's one of the ones that
gets the worst evaluation from both employees and managers," she said. "Surveys
show that 95 per cent of managers think their performance management
systems suck and 75 per cent of employees say they don't get
good performance feedback. "So nobody thinks it is done very well." John
Shields, professor of Human Resource Management and Organisational
Studies at the University of Sydney business school, said companies that
had simply abandoned performance reviews instead of finding a way to
improve them, had "thrown out the baby with the bathwater". "No one has been able to offer what I regard as a viable or sustainable alternative," he said. "Now that doesn't mean I am a supporter of the annual ritual of
performance appraisals. I am not saying that we should insist on
top-down, bureaucratic forensically-defined appraisal systems because
they can be organisational death as well. "It is a matter of degree." Performance
management measured against clearly described performance standards and
expectations relevant to an individual role could be helpful and was
also a requirement under Australian employment law. Andrea Bell,
human resources director for the law firm, Herbert Smith Freehills, said
performance reviews were important, particularly for high performers. "For us the focus is on performance conversations," she said. "I
think the conversations that we are focused on having ... are about
helping people understand their strengths, look for development areas,
get clear about what the coming year or future performance should look
like." Freehills removed school report card style ratings from performance
reviews about 13 years ago because they got in the way of a productive
conversation. "That improved engagement and improved performance," she said. "If
you are not going to have ratings you have to be really careful that
you are having high quality conversations and that's where we put our
effort." Source
Research by Assistant Professor Ithai Stern suggests that corporate leaders are more likely to win board appointments at other firms when they use subtle forms of flattery and conformity within their organizations.
New research reveals seven types of ingratiation that increase boardroom prospects for top executives
In the corporate world, board appointments are typically perceived as markers of success. However, new research from the Kellogg School suggests boardroom entrance strategies are rarely based on merit alone.
According to the study, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior and Board Appointments,” corporate leaders are more likely to win board appointments at other firms when employing subtle, but sophisticated, forms of flattery and opinion conformity within their organizations.
“Past research has demonstrated the effects of corporate leaders taking part in ingratiation and persuasion tactics,” said Ithai Stern, assistant professor of management and organizations and co-author of the study. “However, our study is the first to look at the effectiveness of specific tactics in increasing the likelihood of garnering board appointments at other firms, as well as which types of executives are most likely to effectively engage these tactics.”
As part of the study, Stern and his co-author James Westphal, strategy professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, drew from theory and research on interpersonal attraction, as well as interviews with 42 managers and CEOs of large U.S. industrial and service firms, to identify a set of tactics that are less likely to be interpreted as manipulative or political in intent, and are therefore more likely to bring about social influence.
The researchers identified seven effective forms of ingratiation most likely to help executives win board seats:
Framing flattery as advice seeking: Occurs when a person poses a question seeking advice as a way to flatter the subject (i.e. “How were you able to close that deal so successfully?”).
Arguing prior to conforming: Instead of agreeing immediately, a person will yield before accepting his/her manager’s opinion (i.e. “At first, I didn’t see your point but it makes total sense now. You’ve convinced me.”).
Complimenting manager to his/her friends: Praising manager to his/her friends or social network with hopes that word gets back to manager.
Framing flattery as likely to make manager uncomfortable: Positioning a remark as likely to be embarrassing (i.e. “I don’t want to embarrass you but your presentation was really top-notch. Better than most I’ve seen.”).
Engaging in value conformity prior to flattery or opinion conformity: Expressing values or morals which are held by one’s manager (i.e. “I’m the same way. I believe we should increase minimum wage.”).
Conforming to opinions expressed by one’s manager to a third party: Covertly learning of manager's opinion(s) from his/her contacts, and then conforming with opinion(s) in conversations with manager.
Referencing social affiliations held in common with one’s manager prior to flattery or opinion conformity: Mentioning an affiliation, such as a religious organization or political party, shared by both individuals. (i.e. “I watched the Republican National Convention last night. The keynote presented some great points.”).
As part of these findings, the authors also discovered that managers and directors who have a background in politics, law or sales are significantly more likely to engage in sophisticated forms of ingratiation. Similarly, managers and directors who have an upper-class background are more sophisticated in their ingratiatory behavior than individuals with a middle- or working-class background. The authors argue that this proclivity is consistent with social norms in these environments. These findings shed new light on why there are only a few top managers with backgrounds in engineering, accounting or finance, as compared to top managers with backgrounds in politics, law or sales.
“Lawyers, politicians and salespeople routinely take part in flattery and opinion conformity to complete their jobs, similar to those operating in an upper-class social environment,” said Stern. “Ingratiatory behavior is a form of interpersonal communication that is acceptable and expected in both arenas.”
Stern and Westphal note that acts of flattery are successful in yielding board appointments at other firms if the influence target doesn’t recognize these acts as a favor-seeking motive.
“To tap into the corporate elite’s inner circle, a person cannot be too obvious,” Westphal said. “Being too overt with one’s intentions can be interpreted as manipulative or political. The more covert the ingratiation, the more sophisticated the approach and effective the outcome.” Source The study, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior, and Board Appointments,” appears in the current issue of Administrative Science Quarterly.
THE ART OF SUCKING UP This kind of subtle flattery can also help employees climb up the corporate ladder. The more you disguise the sucking up to bosses and managers, the less likely you will be seen as manipulative and scheming. According to one study quoted here, managers were more likely to come down hard on people they see as sucking up to them, who are not being subtle and who are going over the top. But the study notes that when managers are fooled into believing the compliments are sincere, they are more likely to rate that person’s performance highly.
In other words, you have to do it right. It takes practice and skill the fool the other person.
Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Andrew O’Connell says flattery appeals to people on an unconscious level. When people are gushing all over you, you don’t believe it. But on an unconscious level, he says, you want to believe it. So the trick is getting the person on an unconscious level. “Persuade a customer or colleague on a conscious level, and he or she will retain that conviction only until a better counterargument comes along … Persuade a person on a gut level, and the feeling will last and last. And last.”
New Zealand has some of the highest rates of workplace bullying in the world
One in five employees being subjected to overbearing or belittling behaviour at work, new research shows.
A survey of 1728 workers in the health, education, travel and hospitality sectors found 18% had been bullied, while 75% had suffered workplace stress.
The figures are revealed in a university survey released today.
A joint university research team – from Auckland, Waikato, Massey with London's Birbeck University – polled more than 1700 workers from the health, education, hospitality and travel sectors asking how frequently they were exposed to "negative acts" at work.
Overall 17.8 per cent of respondents were identified as victims of bullying.
The international range was between 5 per cent and 20 per cent.
Higher rates of bullying were found in the education and health sectors and also in kitchen "hot spots" within the hospitality industry.
Bullying included bosses picking on workers, workers harassing colleagues and workers intimidating bosses.
Lead researcher Professor Tim Bentley said the cost of bullying had been estimated in Britain at $NZ2165 per person each year and almost $NZ5.23 billion per year in Australia.
Bullying hit costs because of decreases in productivity due to worker absenteeism, staff turnover, lower staff satisfaction and time spent investigating bullying.
He said workplace bullying in New Zealand could be "a billion-dollar problem".
"Who knows how much this is actually costing organisations? It must be a terrific amount ... Minimum it's a multimillion-dollar problem, it could easily be a billion-dollar problem in New Zealand. That's not taking into account all the indirect costs."
He wants changes to health and safety laws to combat workplace bullying alongside harassment and discrimination.
The report was commissioned by the Labour Department.Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson said it was "an interesting piece of research" but employment courts were able to deal with bullying through personal grievance claims.
"Producing some sort of definition in legislation would be complex and more than likely ineffective," she said.
"What people would normally describe as bullying and `two negative acts in the workplace' are not one and the same," Lowe said.
"If somebody had said to the person, `you're not doing well enough, you need to do it better', and told them that twice in one week, that might amount to bullying under this survey, but it is not bullying, it is simply running your business."
The survey also posed a more direct "self-report" question asking whether respondents felt they were being bullied either "several times a week" or "almost daily" which yielded a smaller figure of 3.9 per cent.
Wilkinson said it was naive to believe bullying did not occur "quite regularly" in workplaces.
Lowe agreed if bullying existed it needed to be addressed.
The Labour Department said it would use the findings to produce fact sheets and other "guidance material" to help employers and staff deal with bullying.
Workplaces Against Violence in Employment director Hadyn Olsen, said workplace bullying was a huge stress factor for many people - the majority of whom chose not to make a complaint or bring up the issue, out of fear of being bullied further.
Mr Olsen said studies by his organisation showed up to 53 per cent of people who do report being bullied got bullied even more.
"And so the stress factor is huge because they don't know when the next situation will be and they don't feel safe," he said.
Mr Olsen said he had dealt with many types of bullying, which include intimidation, behaviour that offends, makes fun, undermines or excludes.
The more severe cases of workplace bullying include sexual harassment.
In one case, a victim decided to make a formal complaint.
A meeting was arranged where the victim and the bully met senior staff, who then went on to reveal in front of the two that a complaint had been made by the victim, against the bully.
When the bully denied the accusation, the victim was not believed by management staff.
The victim suffered more bullying as a consequence.
The research study, funded by the Department of Labour and Health Research Council, also found that employers across all those sectors surveyed did not understand, or know how to address the problem of workplace bullying.
Professor Bentley said there needed to be a cultural change within New Zealand workplaces, with a zero-tolerance policy on bullying.
Researchers from the University of Chicago used brain scan technology to find out. They wanted to learn whether the brain of an aggressive youth responds differently to violence than the brain of someone who is not a bully. In a chilling finding, the researchers found aggressive youths appear to enjoy inflicting pain on others.
In the study, the researchers compared eight 16- to 18-year-old boys who were unusually aggressive to a control group of adolescent boys with no unusual signs of aggression. The aggressive boys had been given a diagnosis of aggressive conduct disorder and had been in trouble for starting fights, using a weapon and stealing from their victims.
The youths were tested with functional magnetic resonance imaging to see how their brains reacted while watching video clips. The clips showed people in pain as a result of accidents — such as when a heavy bowl dropped on their hands. They also showed intentional acts, like stepping on another person’s foot.
When the aggressive youths watched people intentionally inflicting pain on another, the scan showed a response in the part of the brain associated with reward and pleasure. The youths who were not aggressive didn’t show the same brain response.
The study, published in the current issue of the journalBiological Psychology, suggests that the brain’s natural impulse for empathy may be disrupted in the brain of a bully, leading to increased aggression.
“This is the first time that f.M.R.I. scans have been used to study situations that could otherwise provoke empathy,” said Jean Decety, professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Chicago, in a press release. “This work will help us better understand ways to work with juveniles inclined to aggression and violence.”
While the study is small, the striking differences shown in the brain scans suggests that bullies may have major differences in how their brains process information compared to non-bullies. Dr. Decety said the aggressive adolescents showed a strong activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum, areas of the brain that respond to feeling rewarded. The finding “suggested that they enjoyed watching pain,” he said. Notably, the control group of youths who weren’t prone to aggressive behavior showed a response in the medial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction, areas of the brain involved in self regulation. Source
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.
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?
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)
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:
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.
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.
Human resource professionals must clearly distinguish between the two. Here’s a way to make that difficult call.
How is it that a manager can get away with treating employees terribly?
While it may be immoral and unprofessional, it is not universally illegal in the United States for managers to threaten, insult, humiliate, ignore or mock employees. Nor is it illegal to gossip and spread rumors, withhold information, or take credit for someone else’s work.
Unfortunately, these types of bullying are not rare; they take place with distressing frequency.
Workplace bullying refers to "repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, frustrate or get a reaction from another. It is treatment which persistently provokes, pressures, frightens, intimidates or otherwise discomforts another person," according to Dr. Carroll M. Brodsky in The Harassed Worker (Lexington Books, 1976).
Several recent studies clearly confirm the seriousness of the problem in the United States:
* In a March 2007 survey of 1,000 U.S. employees by the Employment Law Alliance in San Francisco, nearly 45 percent of the respondents reported that they have worked for abusive bosses. * In September 2007, a poll sponsored by the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham, Wash.—consisting of 7,740 online interviews—estimated that 37 percent of American workers, roughly 54 million people, would report being bullied at work. When organizational bystanders are included, researchers estimate that bullying affects nearly half of all full- and part-time U.S. employees. * In a 2008 study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Ethics Resource Center of Arlington, Va., 57 percent of the 513 participants confirmed that they had witnessed "abusive or intimidating behavior toward employees," excluding sexual harassment.
While it is already unlawful under federal law for an employer or its agents to harass any member of a protected class based on race, religion, physical or mental disability, sex, or age, federal courts have not yet extended the law to prohibit workplace bullying toward those who do not fit into a protected group.
Model state legislation known as the Healthy Workplace Bill has been proposed. Authored by professor David C. Yamada, director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, and supported by the Workplace Bullying Institute, the bill has not yet passed in any state. Grassroots groups have formed in 16 states to promote the legislation.
What, then, as an HR professional, are you expected to do when faced with such unhealthy and destructive workplace conflict?
Revealing Analysis
In the spring of 2008, I began research to better understand how workplace bullying can be distinguished from situations where a manager is simply a "tough boss." The findings provide some insights about the issue from the point of view of HR professionals.
As Managers See Bullies
Representative comments from interviews with HR professionals reflect their perception of bullies’ intent and help support the view that malice is present in workplace bullying situations:
"With a bully, there’s no goal orientation. There’s nothing to do with your job. There’s nothing to do with the company. … It’s simply something that has irritated the individual. It has maddened him to the point that [he] is driven to make a person’s life miserable … either with verbal threats or actual actions against" the individual.
"It was almost like she had to have a person to pick on and, at different times in the years that I was there, she would choose one person to direct her anger at, and she would do that for a year or so. Then she would pick on somebody else."
"Attempts to make others see the target as unworthy."
Bullies "throw caution to the wind as far as feelings are concerned, and their agenda is simply ‘I’m going to get you.’ "
Interviews were conducted with 20 experienced HR practitioners, uncovering many, often emotional, examples of how HR professionals identify, experience and describe workplace bullying personally—a surprising 80 percent had personally been the target of bullies. The subjects also shared how they experience workplace bullying as observers in their HR roles. This work makes up the basis of my doctoral dissertation at Fielding Graduate University in Santa Barbara, Calif., and part of my research for Stop Bullying at Work: Strategies and Tools for HR & Legal Professionals (SHRM, 2009).
Actions of a Workplace Bully
Participants noted that workplace bullies could be identified by the following characteristics:
*Frequent misuse of power and authority. * Focus on personal self-interest, as opposed to the good of the organization. * Prone to emotional outbursts. * Often inconsistent and unfair in their treatment of employees.
They observed that bullies consistently engage in actions at work that are perceived as overwhelmingly negative. These include a need for control, exploitation, intimidation, threats, humiliation and embarrassment, a failure to communicate, manipulation, engaging in a pattern of obstructive behavior over time, ostracizing and ignoring employees, and gossiping or spreading rumors about their targets. The manager who engages in these negative acts appears to be operating with intent to cause his or her target some kind of pain or personal distress.
Actions of a Tough Boss
On the other hand, participants describe tough bosses differently, suggesting characteristics almost directly opposite those they attribute to bullies:
*Objective, fair and professional. * Self-controlled and unemotional. * Performance-focused—insistent upon meeting high standards and holding employees accountable for meeting those expectations. * Organizationally oriented—consistently operating to achieve the best interests of their company.
The actions of a tough boss were perceived to be overwhelmingly positive. These managers were interactive, using frequent two-way communication and really listening to their employees, as well as mentoring subordinates through coaching, counseling and frequent performance feedback.
While conflict certainly does occur in workgroups led by tough bosses, such bosses work to quickly resolve problems by engaging in honest and respectful discussions. In addition, though tough bosses’ intense focus on results may create tension and stress, employees do not take the situations personally nor do they experience diminished feelings of self-worth or adverse personal or health effects. Instead, they view such managers as "tough but fair" and keenly focused on the good of the organization.
The ‘So What?’
Workplace bullying is an unambiguous and intentional form of abusive behavior, and participants in this study describe clear distinctions between the two types of managers. The findings suggest that whether or not a conflict situation is workplace bullying can be determined by the presence or absence of malice—defined in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (2008) as "the desire to cause pain, injury or distress to another."
As Managers See Tough Bosses
Comments from interviews with HR professionals about the actions of a tough boss suggest no malice or intent to harm, but rather a focus on the achievement of organizational results:
"A tough boss is tough on everybody, not just one particular person. I think you can be tough but at the same time not be a bully. You know, underneath the tough boss’s character, I think you realize that he’s just results-oriented to the point where it becomes like an obsession to him."
"Fairness and intent differentiate a workplace bully from other conflicts. … I didn’t mind him saying ‘That’s bull’ because he respected me."
"People understand that the boss has the ‘right intent’ even when she is being tough on them."
"No intent to intimidate, threaten or embarrass."
"Good intentions geared toward making the company better."
The results of this study yield a conceptual model that can be used by HR professionals to make an initial determination as to whether the facts presented in a complaint of workplace bullying indicate the presence of malice.
If it appears from the facts that malice might be present, this would serve as a signal to HR professionals that the next set of organizational protocols should be followed—moving from the target’s subjective complaint to a more objective, fact-finding investigation by an HR professional, much like what occurs with a sexual harassment complaint. If, however, evidence of malice remains clearly absent from the complaint and initial review of the facts, then there would be no investigation.
The use of this screening tool will help HR professionals make quicker and more definitive determinations about whether an incident might constitute workplace bullying and, if so, what kind of an organizational response is required. These findings also confirm the following definition of workplace bullying in the proposed anti-bullying legislation: "Conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests."
Psychopaths in the workplace Presenter: Dr. John Clarke Cost: AUD165 Meeting: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM | Sat | 14 Nov 09 | 1 meetings
Course description:
The majority of psychopaths are not serial killers or rapists; they're colleagues, bosses and employees found in workplaces throughout Australia. We'll examine what a psychopath is, their personality style, behaviours, interpersonal approach and thought processes. You'll learn how they infiltrate companies undetected and the strategies they use to manipulate those around them to achieve power and promotion. The four different types of workplace psychopath will be explored, and we'll also look at what companies and individuals can do to minimise damage caused by the psychopath. Warning: this course may include material that may confront some students.
Course outline:
- Psychopath Characteristics
- The four types of workplace psychopath - organisational psychopath; corporate criminal psychopath; violent criminal psychopath; and occupational psychopath
- Tactics and Strategies used by each workplace psychopath sub-type
- Workplace Psychopath - Good For Business?
- Victims of the Workplace Psychopath - Protecting yourself and your employees
John Clarke's PhD (completed through the School of Psychology at the University of Sydney) examined sexual homicide offenders and criminal profiling. John is also the main author of a best selling book examining psychopaths, sexual homicide, stalking, sexual assault, and criminal profiling. He has acted as a consultant in a number of sexual homicide and sexual assault investigations, for both law enforcement and criminal law practitioners. John has extensive experience lecturing in the areas of criminal profiling, sexual homicide, forensic psychology and investigative interviewing to members of numerous law enforcement agencies as well as legal professionals, crime fiction authors and the general public
Bullies have harassed 14 percent of Spanish workers over past 6 months.
MADRID -- Fourteen percent of the respondents to a survey in Spain say they have suffered psychological abuse or bullying at the workplace, researchers said.
David Gonzalez of the High Court of Justice of Madrid and Jose Luis Grana of the Complutense University defined workplace bullying as a "process of systematic and repeated aggression by a person or group towards a workmate, subordinate or superior."
Gonzalez and Grana used data from 2,861 workers valid responses received from the Negative Acts Questionnaire -- a specific tool used to measure workplace abuse. They carried out a comprehensive study into the phenomenon of workplace abuse or bullying in Spain. The study includes data on workers from various sectors, and confirms some commonly-held beliefs about workplace abuse while undermining others.
The study, published in the journal Psicothema, also found that results also provide evidence that women are most frequently on the receiving end of workplace harassment, which coincides with the results of other studies carried out on the issue.
However, the findings contradict previous results that indicated that workers under the age of 30 were the most vulnerable to harassment. Gonzalez and Grana found those age 45 and older are more likely to be the victims of abuse.
The study also found that 9 percent of workplace bullying was carried out by subordinates, but 47 percent were bullied by bosses.
According to the authors of the work, published by Psicothema, "the conclusions reached to date have been highly varied, due to the difficulties in the conceptual definition of mobbing". However, they tell SINC that "workplace abuse is a phenomenon with many causes, can lead to negative consequences in workers, their social and family environment, and can impacts on their job performance".
González and Graña were able to describe the characteristics of mobbing within the working population in Spain by using information from the nearly 3,000 valid responses received from the Negative Acts Questionnaire - Revised (NAQ-R), which is a specific tool used to measure workplace abuse.
The survey sections are based on the definition of workplace abuse devised by the Norwegian researchers Einarsen and Raknes, which points out that "a one-off incident does not constitute harassment". The sections within the NAQ-R vary from the subtle, such as "someone has withheld information from you, which has affected your performance" to the most serious, "you have felt sexually harassed" or "you have been threatened with violence or physical abuse".
From the data obtained, the researchers tell SINC that 14% of the respondents have confirmed having suffered situations of psychological abuse over the past six months, with 5.8% suffering frequently and the rest, 8.2%, occasionally. In 2000, the International Labour Organisation said the prevalence of alleged cases of workplace abuse was 5%, a similar figure to the one now obtained by this study.
The results also provide evidence that women are most frequently on the receiving end of workplace harassment, which coincides with the results of other studies carried out on the issue.
Dismantling the myths about mobbing
However, the study by González and Graña contradicts previous results that indicated that workers under the age of 30 were "the most vulnerable to harassment". The study shows that those aged over 45 are more likely to be the victims of such abuse. The myth about workers on temporary contracts being more likely to suffer abuse is also turned on its head. According to the research, "it has been shown that it is not the youngest workers who are most exposed to workplace abuse, but in fact workers with supposedly greater contractual stability" who suffer more from this type of behaviour.
Workplaces with less than 50 workers are also shown to be more likely environments for mobbing, probably because of the absence of a "health and safety committee" (these are established in the Law on Workplace Risk Prevention), which are common features in larger places of work.
Some of the factors that tend to figure most frequently among victims of mobbing include membership of a union, having had previous experience of time off work or having had specialist treatment.
Lastly, the study also shows that only 9% of cases of abuse are carried out by subordinates, while 47.2% of the cases recorded were of vertically-descending abuse, also known as bossing, which is the most common form of abuse in Spain.
This paper argues that workplace bullying can in some cases be a form of organisational politics, that is, a deliberate, competitive strategy from the perspective of the individual perpetrator.
A cross-sectional study conducted among business professionals revealed that there was a correlation between a politicised and competitive climate and bullying.
This finding implies that globalisation, increased pressures for efficiency, and restructuring, which limits the number of management positions and thereby contributes to increased internal competition, may lead to more bullying.
The findings have important implications for management, since the possible political aspects of bullying must be taken into account in order to be able to undertake successful prevention and intervention measures.
