Eliminating Workplace Bullying and Harassment

Like most Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) risks, the 'elimination' of the risk of bullying (or 'harassment' – for present purposes the terms are interchangeable) from workplaces is, theoretically, straightforward.

Putting aside for one moment the '5 pillars' of the risk management process identified in legislation and related materials ¹, effective elimination of the risk of bullying and its consequences from the work environment requires two things:

• firstly, the establishment of appropriate risk management systems and processes; and
• secondly, their rigorous application.

Within the '5 pillars', the establishment of systems and processes incorporates hazard identification, assessment of risks, development of controls, and monitoring and review of the system), while their application picks up implementation of the controls.

Of course there ends the simplicity. At least three difficulties arise that are not necessarily common to the management of other safety risks.

Firstly, the nature of 'bullying' is that it is the kind of behaviour that can be difficult to identify as occurring. In many cases, differing perceptions will mean that what one person regards as 'bullying', another will regard as inoffensive or wholly appropriate or both. In other cases perpetrators might attempt to disguise deliberately malicious behaviour in some other, ostensibly legitimate, process.

Secondly, unlike some other forms of more discrete risks, bullying is impossible to isolate as a 'stand-alone' or 'onceoff' risk. Unlike installing a guard on a particular machine or designing a specific process for the safe undertaking of a specific hazardous activity, the system for managing the risk of bullying has to cover the entire organisation – from CEO to nightwatchman and everyone in between (including contractors).

Thirdly, various other 'formal' business systems and processes – usually with little or no safety focus at all – have the potential to give rise to bullying incidents. The result is that each of these systems and processes must incorporate the bullying system controls, and, the bullying risk management system must accommodate them. In other words, any business system for dealing with people needs, at some point, to recognise and deal with the risk of bullying incidents and, where necessary, feed into the bullying risk management system. In organisations that have a proper appreciation of their obligations, problems arising out of bullying incidents do not generally occur because the employer has failed to establish appropriate systems and processes. Rather, problems occur because something has gone wrong in the application of a relevant process.

This paper looks at both systems and processes on the one hand, as well as their implementation on the other. At the end of the paper, some real life cases and endeavours are considered to draw on some practical observations, to illustrate what can go wrong and why, particularly in the implementation of relevant systems and processes more so than in their establishment.

While each of the states and territories have their own regulatory systems applicable to workplace bullying or 'harassment', this paper is based on the law in Queensland.

What is workplace harassment?

A person is subjected to workplace harassment if they are subjected to repeated behaviour (other than behaviour amounting to sexual harassment) by a person, including the person's employer, co-worker or a group of co-workers, that:

• is unwelcome and unsolicited;
• the person considers to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening; and
• a reasonable person would consider being offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening.

Workplace harassment does not include reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by a person's employer in connection with their employment².

This definition is taken from Prevention of Workplace Harassment Code of Practice 2004 (the Code)³. The Code has statutory force in Queensland, as subordinate legislation, under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld) (WHSA)⁴. It is intended to cover a wide range of behaviour that can have an adverse impact on the workplace health and safety of workers and other people.

Similar, but not identical, definitions have been adopted, in other Australian jurisdictions⁵.

Behaviour is considered repeated if an established pattern can be identified. It does not have to involve the same type of behaviour, but may involve a series of diverse incidents such as, verbal abuse, unreasonable threats of dismissal and sabotage of a person's work.

While a single incident of harassing type behaviour is not workplace harassment for the purpose of the Code, single incidents should not be ignored or condoned. Proper intervention following a single incident may stop the behaviour becoming workplace harassment in the future.

Examples

Harassing behaviours can range from subtle intimidation to more obvious, aggressive tactics, such as:

• abusing a person loudly, usually when others are present;

• repeated threats of dismissal or severe punishment for no reason;
• constant ridicule and being put down;
• leaving offensive messages by email or telephone (including by SMS);
• sabotaging a person's work by, for example, deliberately withholding or supplying incorrect information, hiding documents or equipment, not passing on messages and getting a person into trouble in other ways;
• maliciously excluding or isolating a person from workplace activities;
• persistent and unjustified criticisms, often about petty, irrelevant or insignificant matters;
• humiliating a person through gestures, sarcasm, criticism and insults, often in front of customers, management or other workers; or
• spreading gossip or false, malicious rumours about a person with an intent to cause the person harm⁶.

There will always be differences of opinion, conflicts and problems between workers. Not all of these will amount to workplace harassment. However, where there is repeated behaviour that is unwelcome and unsolicited and it offends, intimidates, humiliates or threatens a person then, as an employer, you have a situation of workplace harassment and action must be taken to stop the behaviour.

When is harassment likely to occur?

While all employers need to actively consider and seek to manage the risk of workplace harassment occurring in their workplace, some situations call for closer management than others. "Special risk" situations identified by the Code, in which the prospect for workplace harassment to occur is aggravated, include:

• organisational change eg in reporting and supervision structures, change in ownership of an employing entity, workplace re-organisation or introduction of new technology;
• where there is a climate or culture of poor workplace relationships or ineffective organisational communication; and
• where there is a culture of condonation of risky activity such as, practical jokes or initiation practices for new workers⁷.

One should add to this any other situation in which workers are exposed to higher-than-usual levels of stress, in which the limits of human tolerance are tested beyond typical levels. In these circumstances relationships between people in the workplace, at all levels and across levels, are liable to be tried, increasing the risk of behaviour that might amount to harassment and the risk of complaints of harassment.

The 'global financial crisis' might contribute, both to the risk of bullying incidents occurring, and also to the risk of adverse consequences from such incidents.

It does not take too much imagination, for example, to picture a scenario where a manager consistently threatens to terminate the employment of a worker – for whatever reason – directly or indirectly preying upon their insecurities brought about by the instability of the labour market. In the not too recent past workers on the receiving end of regular criticism had the opportunity, in a strong economy, to vote with their feet and move on to alternative employment. That safety valve is not as prevalent as it used to be. This has to increase, in the example just given, the risk of a stress type injury occurring, and several of the other risk scenarios discussed below.

At a less insidious level, in the current economic climate more employers are taking a closer look at the performance of 'weaker' workers, with a view to terminating, upon performance grounds, those whose contributions are less meaningful than others. Again, with a greater chance of personal insecurities arising out of a weakening economy and tightening labour market, there is a risk that workers targeted in performance management programs will allege that their treatment amounts to bullying. Those allegations could manifest themselves in a number of ways, including through personal injury in the nature of a stress/anxiety/depression type reaction.

Why bother with bullying?

Potential legal liability The focus of this paper is on the workplace health and safety risks of workplace harassment. However, it is important to realise that, when workplace harassment occurs, an employer is at significant legal risk from a number of other sources.

Causes of action and potential areas of exposure include:

• claims for damages for breach of contract, negligence or breach of statutory duties;
• increased workers compensation claims;
• claims for compensation for sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination or other conduct prohibited by discrimination legislation including, eg vilification ⁸;
• claims for relief from unfair dismissal (particularly claims based upon alleged constructive dismissal);
• criminal prosecution and civil liability for criminal behaviour eg, for assault; and
• vicarious liability for employers eg liability of employers for the conduct of their workers (including both employees and contract workers).

The last section of this paper contains a discussion of relevant case examples.

Impacts on victims

Aside from these legal risks, workplace harassment can have a significant negative impact on both employees and the business itself.

Employees subject to workplace harassment may suffer, for example, from:

• high levels of distress, impaired ability to make decisions and poor concentration;
• loss of self-confidence and self-esteem;
• feelings of social isolation at work;
• panic attacks, anxiety disorders, depression and
  deteriorating relationships with family and friends;
• reduced output and performance, incapacity to work, loss of employment; and
• sleep disturbances, such as insomnia or severe tiredness⁹.

Impacts on business

Workplace harassment can also have significant costs for a business and can lead to:

• a breakdown of teams and individual relationships;
• poor worker health;
• reduced efficiency, productivity and profitability;
• bad publicity and poor public image – becoming known as a difficult workplace environment;
• increased absenteeism and staff turnover;
• poor moral and erosion of worker loyalty and commitment;
• increased costs associated with councilors, employee assistance, mediation, recruitment and training of the workers; and
• increased legal costs and workers compensation claims¹⁰.

Therefore, it makes good business sense to ensure workplace harassment is prevented or minimised.

The legal framework

Obligations The WHSA imposes health and safety obligations on various people to ensure workplace health and safety. A person may owe workplace health and safety obligations in more than one capacity.

A person who conducts a business or undertaking has an obligation to ensure their workplace health and safety, and that of their workers and any other person, is not affected by the conduct of the business or undertaking. The obligation is discharged if the person, each of their workers and any other persons are not exposed to risks to their health and safety¹¹.

There are also a number of other people who have workplace health and safety obligations under the WHSA, including workers, people in control of workplaces, principal contractors, designers, manufacturers and suppliers of plant, suppliers and manufacturers of substances for use in a workplace, erectors and installers of plant, and designers of structures used in workplaces and owners of plant ¹².

Workers in particular are obliged:

• to comply with the instructions given for workplace health and safety by an employer;
• to use personal protective equipment if it is provided by the employer and the worker is properly instructed in its use;
• not to willfully or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided for workplace health and safety;
• not to willfully place at risk the workplace health and safety of any person at the workplace; and
• not to willfully injure themselves¹³.

These obligations clearly require employees not to engage in workplace harassment or put themselves in a situation where they may be harassed.

It is important to keep in mind that failure to discharge obligations imposed by the Act can give rise to criminal (as well as civil) liability. Penalties upon conviction can extend to both monetary penalties and terms of imprisonment.

Employees can be individually prosecuted for breach of these obligations. As an example of a situation in which employees were individually prosecuted for behaviour in a workplace amounting to bullying, see the discussion below of the decision in Inspector Gregory Maddaford v. MA Coleman Joinery (NSW) Pty Ltd.

In July 2004, a radio announcer employed by Radio Ballarat was personally prosecuted, convicted and fined $10,000 by the Victorian Magistrates' Court for the offence, under Victorian OH&S legislation, of failing to take reasonable care and willfully placing at risk the health and safety of other employees in his workplace. The prosecution was based upon a course of sustained verbal abuse and bullying of his fellow employees over a period of 3 years. (The employer was, in respect of the same events, separately convicted and fined $50,000)¹⁴.

More recently, in December 2008, two Victorian workers were convicted and fined $5,000 each, also for offences against the Victorian OH&S legislation, after setting alight a new apprentice, leaving him with serious burns¹⁵.

Discharging obligations

A person who has a workplace health and safety must discharge that obligation¹⁶.

If a regulation made under the WHSA prescribes a way of preventing or minimising exposure to a risk, a person discharges their obligations only by following that prescribed way¹⁷.

If a code of practice, such as the Prevention of Workplace Harassment Code of Practice 2004, states a way of managing exposure to a risk, a person discharges their obligations for exposure to the risk only by:

• adopting and following a stated way that manages exposure to the risk; or
• doing all of the following:
• • adopting and following another way that gives the same level of protection against the risk;
  • taking reasonable precautions; and
  • exercising proper diligence¹⁸.

The risk management process – the '5 pillars'

To properly manage exposure to risks, the WHSA provides that a person must:

• identify hazards;
• assess risks that may result because of the hazards;
• decide on appropriate control methods to prevent or minimise the level of risks;
• implement control measures (the order in which control measures should be considered are included in the WHSA ¹⁹); and
• monitor and review the effectiveness of the measures²⁰.

Workplace harassment is clearly capable of affecting the workplace health and safety of workers, either physically or psychologically. Therefore, to discharge its workplace health and safety obligations an employer must put strategies in place to minimise or eliminate exposure to the risk of workplace harassment.

Defences and penalties

If a person does not discharge their workplace health and safety obligations they are in breach of the WHSA and may be prosecuted for a criminal offence.

Penalties for breach of the WHSA are significant, including fines for corporate employers up to $1,000,000 and up to three years imprisonment for individuals²¹.

To defend a prosecution for breach of workplace health and safety obligations, a person must prove:

• if a regulation has been made about the way to prevent or minimise exposure to a risk – that they have followed the way prescribed in the regulation to prevent the contravention; and
• if a code of practice has been made stating a way to manage exposure to risk – the person:
• • adopted and followed a stated way to prevent the contravention; or
  • adopted and followed another way that managed exposure to the risk and took reasonable precautions and exercised proper diligence to prevent the contravention²².

It is also a defence for a person to prove that the commission of an offence was due to causes over which they had no control²³.

Therefore, employers should comply with the Code in order to manage the exposure of workers and other people to the risk of workplace harassment. If they do so, not only will the risk of relevant misbehaviour be diminished, if an incident does occur, the employer and its officers will have a significantly better chance of defending a prosecution for breach of relevant obligations under the WHSA, or, of avoiding prosecution altogether.

If an employer has not properly observed the Code – and non-compliance is not unlawful per se – they should take reasonable precautions and exercise proper diligence to ensure that exposure to the risk of workplace health and safety is prevented or minimised.

Executive officers

In relation to corporate employers, executive officers of the employer have an express obligation under the WHSA to ensure that the employer complies with the Act.

If a corporate employer commits an offence under the Act, so too does every executive officer associated with it, being the offence of "failing to ensure that the corporation complies with" the provision under which the principal offence was committed. In the event of conviction, an executive officer is liable to the same penalties which would have applied to a natural person offender against the provision in question.

The term "executive officer" is defined by WHSA very broadly to mean "a person who is concerned with, or takes part in, the corporation's management, whether or not the person is a director or the person's position is given the name of executive officer". The definition has the potential to capture not only company board members, but also managerial staff by whatever name called.

Prevention of Workplace Harassment Code of Practice 2004

The Code makes the obvious point that workplace harassment can occur in any workplace²⁴, although the risk profile of workplaces is likely to vary according to their type. Employers should not assume that a workplace is free of harassment just because there are no obvious signs of it. Workplace harassment is often subtle or hidden, making it difficult to detect in the workplace. Workers may also be reluctant to report harassment because they fear retaliation from the harasser, believe they will be labelled as weak or that no one will act on the problem.

Risk management

It is important that employers apply a complete risk management process to prevent or control exposure to the risk of workplace harassment. Doing so will maximise:

• the prospects of preventing incidents of harassment occurring, and;
• the employer's prospects of successfully defending proceedings, including criminal prosecution under OH&S legislation, if relevant incidents occur.

The Code provides a template for the management of exposure to the risks of death, injury or illness created by the prospect of workplace harassment.

That template is built around the 5 core elements of risk management provided for in the WHSA (see 'The risk management process – the '5 pillars'')²⁵.

Consultation

Under the WHSA some consultation arrangements are mandatory²⁶, and the Code encourages consultation with relevant stakeholders in the risk management process²⁷.

Employers should consult with workers, workplace health and safety officers and/or committees throughout all stages of the risk management process, as that will help employers to:

• increase awareness about workplace harassment and promote open communication about the issue;
• identify the hazards and assess if workplace harassment is a problem;
• determine appropriate control measures;
• support acceptance and commitment to any control measures implemented; and
• determine the effectiveness of the control measures.

Identification of hazards

According to the Code, hazards that may cause or contribute to workplace harassment can be identified through:

• personal observation of workplace behaviours;
• discussions with workers, including managers and supervisors;
• anonymous surveys;
• interviews with workers who leave (exit interviews); and
• analysis of human resource statistics, for example, relating to absenteeism and staff turnover, use of employee counseling services, workers leaving an organisation reporting dissatisfaction with working relationships, workers becoming withdrawn and isolated and poor worker morale and erosion of loyalty and commitment.

Risk assessment

Once hazards have been identified an employer needs to assess the risks (likelihood and consequences) of the hazards causing death, injury or illness to a person at the workplace. The Code identifies a number of specific factors for employers to consider when conducting an assessment of the risk of workplace harassment occurring in their workplace. See 'When is harassment likely to occur?'

Records should be kept of the risk assessment as it provides evidence of whether the employer has met part of its workplace health and safety obligations and can help in undertaking future risk assessments²⁸.

Control measures ²⁹

Where workplace harassment has been identified and assessed to be a risk, employers must decide on and put in place control measures to prevent or control the risk. Preventative measures should be aimed at the source of the risk and may include a broad organisational response as well as more targeted initiatives that address symptoms in a specific area.

A strategy aimed at preventing or controlling exposure to the risk of workplace harassment should include:

• a workplace harassment prevention policy;
• a complaint handling system;
• a review of human resource systems; and
• training and education.

No single control measure will effectively prevent workplace harassment from occurring. It is important that different control measures are used together, as part of a broader strategy to prevent or control exposure to the risk of workplace health and safety.

Workplace harassment prevention policy ³⁰

A workplace harassment prevention policy should outline the employer's commitment to address harassment and expectations regarding appropriate workplace behaviour. It may be a stand alone policy or form part of an existing health and safety policy or code of conduct for all workers.

An effective workplace harassment prevention policy should include:

• A value statement: state the employer's commitment to providing workers and other people with a healthy and safe work environment, free from workplace harassment.
• A definition of workplace harassment: refer to the Code definition of workplace harassment and provide examples of harassing behaviour. Clearly outline what is and is not considered to be workplace harassment, with examples.
• The potential impact of workplace harassment: outline the health and safety risks to people and the business from workplace harassment.
• Encourage reporting of workplace harassment: encourage workers who experience workplace harassment to report it.
• Obligations of employers, workers and other persons: detail the obligations of each of these groups of people under the WHSA.
• Workplace strategies to prevent or control workplace harassment: outline the control measures that the workplace will implement to prevent or control exposure to the risk of workplace harassment.
• A commitment to investigate allegations promptly: state that any allegations of workplace harassment will be treated seriously and investigated promptly and impartially.
• Consequences of breach of policy: outline the disciplinary action that will be taken against the person who harasses a worker, victimises someone who has made a complaint or makes malicious, frivolous or vexatious complaints.
• Support services: provide details of the assistance or support of available to workers to manage and resolve workplace harassment complaints.
• Management commitment: have the employer/chief executive/management sign and date the policy to demonstrate their commitment.
• Policy review: include details of when the policy will be reviewed.

A workplace harassment policy is also more likely to be effective if you gain workers' support and commitment to the policy by:

• developing a policy relevant to the particular workplace, its needs, people and conditions;
• developing the policy in consultation with workers;
• securing the support of the employer/chief executive/management; and
• ensuring the policy is followed and consistently and fairly applied.

Complaint handling system ³¹

A complaint handling system will help ensure consistency towards management of complaints. Informal and formal procedures should be available.

An informal procedure may encourage workers to raise their harassment complaint with an appropriate contact person with a view to its management and resolution in an informal and fair manner.

While an informal resolution process may be effective and prevent further escalation of the issues in some cases, it will not be appropriate in every instance. Therefore, it is important also to have a formal workplace harassment complaint procedure in place. It should include a formal reporting and investigation procedure and a complaint resolution and appeal process. It may be that an existing complaint or grievance procedure may be suitable for workplace harassment complaints, or could be adapted to ensure that it is.

Once a complaint handling system is in place, workers should be encouraged to report allegations of workplace harassment so that immediate action can be taken to address any complaint and provide prompt assistance to the complainant. Workers will be more likely to report allegations of workplace harassment if they believe the complaint handling system can be trusted, action will be taken and fair treatment will be offered to those involved.

Human resources systems ³²

Effective and reasonable performance management processes and open communication systems can also help to prevent or control workplace harassment from occurring. In terms of open communication, workplace harassment is more likely to occur in conditions of secrecy and poor communication. Many forms of workplace harassment, such as the spreading of false and malicious rumours or withholding important information from a worker to their disadvantage, prosper in poorly communicating workplaces.

source

PAPER - Chaos and the Abuse of Power : Workplace Bullying in Organisational and Interactional Context

Chaos and the Abuse of Power: Workplace Bullying in Organisational and Interactional Context

Randy Hodson, Vincent J. Roscigno, Steven H. Lopez
Ohio State University

Published in Work and Occupations, Vol33, 4, November 2006

Extract

Bullying is a significant workplace problem—a fact highlighted by a growing body of social science literature. Its causes, however, have received little systematic attention beyond analyses of the personality attributes of bullies.

This article explores the roles of relational power and organizational chaos in the emergence of workplace bullying. The analysis of content-coded organizational ethnographies integrates quantitative and qualitative techniques and draws heavily from the ethnographies themselves.

Results suggest that the interplay of relational powerlessness and organizational chaos gives rise to bullying. In contrast, where there is a disjuncture between organizational and relational factors, the extent of bullying is determined by underlying, context-specific aspects of power.

These results suggest a need for organizations not only to protect the weak, but also to eliminate chaos—chaos that creates openings for the abuse of power.

FULL PAPER HERE

Workplace bullying & Investigations: How to deal with this tough issue

Bullying and harassment is a largely hidden problem in the workplace, often taking place behind closed doors and without witnesses. The effects of bullying can be devastating to the health and well-being of those exposed to it. The cost to organisations in terms of lost productivity and staff turnover can be substantial.

Bullying at work is a problem that is only just beginning to be seen as one of the main causes of workplace stress. It is a form of psychological or physical harassment and women and men at all levels of employment can be affected by it.
*The bully can be a manager, a supervisor or a co-worker.
*It is an employer’s obligation to protect staff from abuse.
*Failure to do so can prove very costly.

Not only can a firm face large compensation payouts, but it can have a major effect on workplace moral and seriously tarnish a company’s reputation.

On 15 March 2006, the NSW Supreme Court awarded $1.9 million in damages to a former employee suffering psychiatric illness caused by bullying in the workplace.
The decision of Justice Adams in Naidu v Group 4 Securitas Pty Ltd and Nationwide News Ltd highlights an employer’s responsibility to ensure the health and safety of employees while at work.

The Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Act and Regulations say employers must provide a safe and healthy working environment – this includes the prevention of bullying and harassment.

Employers should be aware of the legal risks associated with harassment and bullying and the steps that can be taken to minimise their potential liability.
They should be proactive to ensure staff understand their rights and obligations to both themselves and their co-workers under their workplace harassment and bullying policies.

Staff and volunteers should understand they have a responsibility to ensure that their behaviour meets the required standards to ensure a safe and productive workplace.

An Australian Public Service (APS) survey conducted in 2006 found 16 per cent of employees who took part in the survey believed they had been subjected to bullying or harassment in the workplace.

*Women were more likely to feel they had experienced bullying and harassment than men (19% compared to 12%).
*Employees with a disability were also more likely (24%) than those without a disability (15%) to believe they had experienced bullying or harassment.
*An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee census survey conducted the previous year found 23 per cent of Indigenous employees believed they had experienced bullying and harassment.

It is vital to act promptly to eliminate bullying in the workplace.

Ongoing bullying can be costly in terms of increased sick leave, absenteeism and turnover.
By creating a work environment that does not tolerate bullying, you can substantially improve staff commitment and productivity.

A bully is a person who uses strength or power to intimidate others by fear.
Workplace bullying exists in various forms and involves behaviour that intimidates, degrades or humiliates an employee (sometimes in front of other people).
Examples of bullying behaviour include unfair and excessive criticism, publicly insulting victims, ignoring their point of view, constantly changing or setting unrealistic work targets and undervaluing their efforts at work.

Harassment is unwelcome conduct that humiliates, offends or intimidates people.
Under Federal anti-discrimination law an employer, regardless of size, may be legally responsible for discrimination and harassment that occurs in the workplace.

Employers must actively implement precautionary measures to minimise the risk of discrimination and harassment occurring.

Inappropriate comments about personal appearance and persistent, unreasonable criticism of work performance are also common.
Assault, both physical and threatened, can also be a factor.

There are a number of steps that you can take to eliminate bullying in your workplace. The first step in prevention is to acknowledge that bullying can exist in any workplace. The most effective way to prevent bullying is for employers to send a clear message that it is unacceptable. Support and involvement from senior management is essential in effecting change and preventing bullying before it becomes a problem.

Often, it is advisable to seek expert advice when dealing with these issues.
Independent investigations of bullying allegations can be carried out professionally and expeditiously. A full report is prepared for management with clear recommendations and suggested action. For specialist advice on handling workplace grievances and complaints related to bullying and harassment you can find a number of workplace investigators in your capital city.
source

STUDY - Bullying & Organisational Politics in the workplace

Bullying and Organisational Politics in competitive and rapidly changing work environments

Denise Salin

Department of Management and Organisation,
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration,
Helsinki, Finland

Published in International Journal of Management and Decision

Making, 4,1,35-46 2003

Abstract:

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.

Full Paper Published here

BOOK REVIEW - The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't

The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't

by Robert I. Sutton

Robert Sutton, is a Professor of Management Science and Engineering in the Stanford Engineering School, at Stanford University, argues that assholes—those who deliberately make co-workers feel bad about themselves and who focus their aggression on the less powerful—poison the work environment, decrease productivity, induce qualified employees to quit and therefore are detrimental to businesses, regardless of their individual effectiveness.

He also makes the solution plain: they have to go.

Direct and punchy, Sutton uses accessible language and a bevy of examples to make his case, providing tests to determine if you are an asshole (and if so, advice for how to self-correct), a how-to guide to surviving environments where assholes freely roam and a carefully calibrated measure, the "Total Cost of Assholes," by which corporations can assess the damage. Although occasionally campy and glib, Sutton's work is sure to generate discussions at watercoolers around the country and deserves influence in corporate hiring and firing strategies.

What the readers said….

A New Best Book on Empowerment in the Workplace

I have never written a review on Amazon, but feel strongly about writing a review for Sutton's No A**hole book because I feel many people whose might be concerned about the "taboo" title might not look beyond it and do themselves a great disservice.

As a female professional, I felt highly empowered reading this book. Dr. Sutton acknowledges the bullying and crass behavior that frequently occurs in the workplace and offers concrete ways to combat these trying individuals. I have already practiced his technique of publicly discounting bullying behavior with great success.

I found his suggestions for handling office place bullies - as both a superior and subordinate actions extremely smart and well-grounded. This book is based on sound social psychology and organizational research and does a great service to workers throughout the world.

I have dog earred many pages of the book and expect it to be a handy reference for many years to come.

An Excellent Must-Read for Anyone in the Workforce,

I am not one who typically reviews books. I do have to say that the No A**hole Rule was an excellent book both in researched content and personality. I was able to read this book in one sitting. It is very topical for anyone who shares a workplace with A**holes or demeaning people. I am sure that most of us do not have the luxury of avoiding these people on a day to day basis. If so, let me know where you work .

For the most part, it is inevitable that we have to deal with these people face to face. This is the first book that doesn't skirt around the facts of diagnosing these people as a**holes (by there actions) and giving effective advice on how to deal with them or not be one of them.

Bob Sutton's List of The Dirty Dozen Common Everyday Actions That A**holes Use
1. Personal insults
2. Invading one's personal territory
3. Uninvited personal contact
4. Threats and intimidation, both verbal and non-verbal
5. Sarcastic jokes and teasing used as insult delivery systems
6. Withering email flames
7. Status slaps intended to humiliate their victims
8. Public shaming or status degradation rituals
9. Rude interruptions
10. Two-faced attacks
11. Dirty looks
12. Treating people as if they are invisible

The Author sites companies that have effectively instilled a "No A**hole Rule" because they have realized that the true cost of the A**hole runs deeper than the A**hole's salary (TCA or Total Cost of A**holes). It truly can diminish productivity in the office, increase employee turnover, stifle communication, and lower employee self esteem and health. The book explains how to implement a No A**hole Rule at any organization.

According to the book, negative interactions have a five time stronger effect on mood than positive interactions. So you can see that keeping around that "very productive A**hole" may have deeper implications that do not show up on the books, but take a toll on the ones around him/her.
There is a whole section in the book detailing how to avoid being an A**hole which I won't get into here. I think that it is a truly insightful section on how to face ones own demons, and to be a more effective co-worker/partner/boss in a work environment.

The section that really jumped out for me (due to its immediate applicability) was the ways to deal with A**holes. Many books talk about enthusiasm and working harder with passion allows you to get around people who are demeaning and rude at work. This book explains that this is not necessarily the head on solution to avoid rudeness in the workplace. In some instances, developing indifference and emotional detachment may be the best way to survive in the long run while achieving small victories. In the end, small victories can lead to winning the war. You can also limit your exposure, hope for the best and expect the worse, de-escalate and re-educate, or stand up to A**holes.

In conclusion, this was a great read. I think it is extremely topical for anyone who is involved in HR or hiring new employees and management. I also believe that it is an especially good read if you are a victim of A**holes on a day to day basis.

The Cost of Black Holes

Authors not afraid to call it like it is have been in short supply the past several years. The world of business and finance have been filled with executives and managers not willing to be straight about what constitutes ethical or rational behavior. Bob Sutton wasn't afraid. He wrote a controversial book with an edgy title.

It's now common knowledge that all too many companies looked the other way as executives and managers have misbehaved. Sutton had the guts to call these folks out. He did the research. And he has shown the cost of these black holes to organizations.

These jerks can be tremendously threatening when they are in positions of power. Sutton breaks it down and shows how you can gain ground. I love the idea of scheduling short meetings with these blowhards in rooms without chairs, cutting as he calls it "your exposure time by 34 %." Or the trick of hitting the mute button on the conference call during a screed, to tune out a "colleague's nastiness."

Nor does Sutton deny the truth. Being a jerk works for a lot of folks in business. He even has a chapter on the subject and notes that when he matched Steve Jobs with that key "A" word in the title of his book, he "got 89,000 matches." As someone who has seen Jobs do his thing in person all I can say is, only 89,000 matches?

But even in this focused book on the dangers of bullies to corporations, Sutton has the good sense to explain at length, "The Virtues of Nastiness." I dare say if we'd had more people write as honestly about the dark side of human nature - in business and finance - we wouldn't be in such a mess today.

One of my favorite books!

Love this book! The title's been my private mantra for YEARS. Dr. Sutton's concise examination of the trouble caused by workplace antagonists is not only right on, but is the one thing that has been carefully stepped around by HR forever. High time the topic's been given its due. It's an essential guide for anyone up against any of a variety of bullies. And not just at work. I can see The NAR being helpful even at the grocery checkout line.

It's also great from a hiring perspective. By paying close attention to the earmarks of these troublemakers (especially looking to pick up cues and clues when checking a new hire's references), there's a better possibility of keeping the a**h***s from getting hired in the first place.

As much as I enjoyed how refreshingly open and honest as it is on the top of problematic coworkers, I wonder if those coworkers would ever become self-aware enough to read the book themselves and change their behavior as a result. Now THAT would be amazing.

NEWS - Kevin Rudd a Workplace Bully says Bishop

Rudd's a bully: Bishop

JULIE Bishop has suggested sexism, not just rudeness, was behind Kevin Rudd's reducing a flight attendant to tears, as the Opposition continues to use the incident to expose what it calls the Prime Minister's "darker side".

The Deputy Opposition Leader said Mr Rudd was a bully, and mentioned the flight attendant's gender to make the point he had abused his position in an unequal power relationship.

"This is a very powerful man in a privileged position bullying a female defence member whose job it is to wait on the Prime Minister as he travels around the world on a taxpayer-funded private jet," Ms Bishop told ABC TV yesterday.

"Bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister in particular towards a female member of our serving defence force is totally unacceptable.

"The kind of bullying that reduced her to tears and ended up in an incident report being filed ... would not be accepted in any workplace across Australia. It reflects very badly on him."

Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said the attempt by the Prime Minister's office to cover up the incident was worse than Mr Rudd's angry outburst.

Mr Rudd apologised last week after it was revealed he had snapped at a 23-year-old Royal Australian Air Force flight attendant because he was not served the vegetarian meal he had ordered during a flight from Papua New Guinea to Australia in January.

News Limited newspapers have reported that Mr Rudd's press secretary, Lachlan Harris, tried to deny the incident happened when originally contacted for comment.

"What was more alarming out of that entire incident, not just going off the handle at the RAAF staff, but the fact his office was lying to the Australian people about what actually happened," Mr Hockey said yesterday.

"This illustrates a pattern of behaviour out of his office that they are prepared to mislead the Australian people as to the truth of the matter."

Mr Rudd's chief of staff, Alister Jordan, has said both the Prime Minister and he have "full confidence" in Mr Harris.

Opposition frontbencher Nick Minchin said Australians were seeing the real Kevin Rudd, whom people in parliament were already familiar with.

"He's been quite appropriately nicknamed Kevin Rude ... as a result of this episode," Senator Minchin said.

"Those of us who work and live in Parliament House have known for years there's two sides to Kevin Rudd, and that behind closed doors he's prone to temper tantrums and this sort of belittling and very bad behaviour with his own staff.

"For him to reduce a 23-year-old air hostess to tears because of a temper tantrum over his meal is completely and utterly unforgivable. I think Australians are now seeing gradually another side to the bloke they elected Prime Minister 18 months ago."

Mr Rudd has pleaded for understanding over the incident, telling reporters in London: "I'm only human.

"As I said, we're all human - we all make mistakes, your Prime Minister included."

source

The Dark Side of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

by Laurie Oakes

April 04, 2009 12:00am

IT CAN'T be the same Kevin Rudd, can it?

Surely the cranky-pants who reduced a female RAAF flight attendant to tears over a meal mistake on his VIP jet is not the same bloke who ordered backbencher Belinda Neal to undergo anger management counselling?

As an apologetic Prime Minister said in London when the story leaked out, he's human like the rest of us.

He has flaws, and one of them - according to a long-standing acquaintance - is that "Kevin's not flash with people who work for him".

But there's more than that behind the Rudd rage incident. This column can reveal that the Prime Minister has been involved in a long-running spat with the RAAF's 34 Squadron, which operates the VIP flights.

"He has issues with them and they have issues with him," a source said.

Those issues came to a head when the Prime Minister had his brain snap on the flight from Port Moresby after the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in January.

Not only did the PM's "special" meal - he prefers fish or chicken to red meat - go missing, there were no meals available for any of the politicians and senior bureaucrats accompanying him.

Only light refreshments were served and - since the Boeing 737 took off at 9pm, it had been a long day and the plane was not due to land in Canberra until the early hours - that was deemed by Rudd to be inadequate.

He did not hide his irritation, the 23-year-old air force staffer on the receiving end of his blast wept, and -despite a subsequent apology from the PM - an official report on the incident was filed by the VIP Fleet Group Commander.

It blew up the way it did because there was a history.

There had been problems previously involving catering - 6am flights out of Canberra, for example, where breakfast did not turn up.

It is not as though anything very elaborate was expected, given that all Rudd wants for breakfast normally is Vegemite or honey on toast.

The belief grew among those around Rudd that standards in the VIP Squadron had become sloppy, and proper training was not being provided.

The PM would ask for a cup of tea, and a flight attendant would arrive carrying a glass of orange juice.

Rudd would be engaged in an important in-flight meeting with ministers, and a RAAF staffer would enter the cabin and interrupt the discussion.

Rudd does not handle this sort of thing well. He developed a set against those he thought were not upholding the standards expected on VIP flights.

Over the same period, people associated with the VIP Squadron had become sick of what they saw as the Prime Minister's royal ways.

They felt he treated them as menials, and they were upset by the way he spoke to them at times.

It is not as though those who staff the RAAF VIP fleet are unused to prima donnas. Gareth Evans was no slouch when it came to expelling the dummy, and Mark Latham made a mark during his one election campaign as Labor leader.

Rudd's behaviour must have been remarkable to produce the reaction it did.

There was also resentment over repeated cancellations of flights at the last minute, or long periods spent waiting on the tarmac for the No. 1 VIP to turn up.

One person close to the action said yesterday: "It became war." An air war - and now the RAAF has shot down the PM.

He should now be under no illusions - the revelation that his sharp tongue caused a young woman to cry will damage him.

According to officials who were on the plane, Rudd's expression of displeasure to the flight attendant was pretty low on the Richter scale by his standards.

And it is true, as his defenders argued, that the tantrum was a trivial matter compared with the great events that preoccupied the Prime Minister this week. The G20 leaders' summit in London on how to deal with the recession sweeping the world was about as important an international meeting as you'd get, and Rudd's role in it was not insignificant.

Should we care that the Prime Minister has a temper if he is doing the right things to try to protect Australia's economy from a global disaster?

Maybe not. But in politics, small things can often have a big impact. They certainly affect perceptions.

As Rudd prepared for the G20, he basked in the glow of an opinion poll showing his popularity at an extraordinary level - up there with Bob Hawke at his peak.

But the PM will not remain popular if the punters decide that what they see is not the real Rudd.

That is why the story is dangerous. It is the first real public confirmation of claims that there are two Rudds - the bright, cheerful Kevin that viewers of Seven Network's Sunrise program came to know, and a darker, more aggressive, less likeable figure the public does not get to see.

According to a Rudd admirer who nevertheless has few illusions about the bloke: "He just doesn't have a good bedside manner. You'd never employ him in human resources."

Cabinet colleagues, Labor MPs and government staffers have no shortage of stories about the PM's temper and colourful use of expletives.

A close Rudd associate once told a friend of mine: "One day, something will happen and it will all come undone.

All it will take is for someone to spill coffee on him when he thinks there are no cameras there."

Another person who knows Rudd well says: "It's one thing to be cranky, but he can be cruel. And that doesn't sit well with his strong Christian principles."

So Belinda Neal probably has cause to feel miffed. She may well feel that somebody needs to counsel Rudd.

Julia Gillard may be the appropriate person to do it. As Acting Prime Minister, she could phone Rudd and repeat the comment she made when details emerged of Neal's abusive run-in with staff at Iguana Joe's nightclub on the NSW Central Coast.

"As a general statement about politicians, anywhere, anytime," Gillard said then, "we should be treating the people who are dealing with us with respect."

source

INTERVIEW - Bully Prime Minister Kevin Rudd labelled 'Kevin Rude' after mid-air outburst

ABC INTERVIEW

PM - Friday, 3 April , 2009 18:10:00

Reporter: Hayden Cooper

PETER CAVE: The Opposition has dubbed him 'Kevin Rude' but the Prime Minister just wants to move on after apologising for making a female flight attendant cry.

Mr Rudd's outburst happened on a flight home from Port Moresby in February when he was served the wrong meal.

But the incident is just a minor distraction for the Government compared to the growing discontent over the new Job Services contracts.

Tonight the nation's peak welfare body has joined calls for an inquiry.

From Canberra, Hayden Cooper reports.

HAYDEN COOPER: The bad critiques just keep coming for the Government's new Job Services Australia system.

The latest estimates from the job provider industry suggest as many as 2,500 people could lose their jobs after missing out on Government contracts to help the unemployed.

Now the Australian Council of Social Service has added to the criticism.

CLARE MARTIN: I think there are lots of parts of the process that, as we get to the day after the announcements, don't seem to have worked well at all.

HAYDEN COOPER: Clare Martin is the chief executive of ACOSS and former Labor chief minister of the Northern Territory.

She wants to sit down with Julia Gillard and talk about the tender process, which took contracts away from many not-for-profit church providers.

Ms Martin says putting the whole system out to tender at once was a mistake.

CLARE MARTIN: Well, it was interesting.

When they were put out to tender in the early 2000s by the then Howard government, the Labor Opposition was very critical and said 'This is very disruptive'.

But that lesson hasn't been learned for these tenders in 2009.

HAYDEN COOPER: Are you concerned about the treatment of the non-profit sector?

CLARE MARTIN: Even services, or especially services that had been performing well, that were a strong part of local communities, have seemingly lost contracts, and you know, my members are saying to me, 'We don't know why. We don't know why the process of actually informing us has been a very, very poor one. And we don't understand how it is that if we've been acceptable in the past, why now that we've lost out.'

HAYDEN COOPER: So should the process have placed more weight on an organisation's record in providing services, rather than on what they promised to achieve in the future?

CLARE MARTIN: The concern of taking a big chunk of the not-for-profit providers out is that you lose those kind of wraparound services.

At a time when Tanya Plibersek has got a homelessness strategy that is talking about the importance of wraparound services to those who are the most vulnerable, you've got the employment contracts doing the absolute opposite.

HAYDEN COOPER: Clare Martin supports calls by the Greens for a Senate inquiry.

But the Employment Participation Minister Brendan O'Connor is still defending the process.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: This is a difficult task.

It is a very large reform; it needed to be done.

The Job Network system was broken.

In fact, the sector itself told me that we needed to improve the employment services.

We listened to them and indeed we have now got a one-stop shop approach to provide services for jobseekers where they can go through one door to access the services they need, rather than going through up to seven.

HAYDEN COOPER: With the Prime Minister heading home, the fallout is sure to confront him too when he arrives.

But confrontations of a different kind have sidetracked the final moments of Kevin Rudd's effort to save the global economy.

Before leaving London stories broke of a Prime Ministerial outburst directed at a female flight attendant, during a trip earlier this year.

KEVIN RUDD: All of us are human - I'm human. I'm not perfect, you know... And as I said before, if I upset anybody on that particular flight I'm really sorry, I apologise for it.

HAYDEN COOPER: It turns out Mr Rudd berated the RAAF flight attendant when he was served the wrong meal.

Opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott says he's not surprised.

TONY ABBOTT: I think that all prime ministers are at risk of developing a God complex.

It's just that Kevin Rudd has developed it very quickly.

Maybe he had a God complex before he even entered the Lodge.

HAYDEN COOPER: PM understands the Prime Minister prefers chicken or fish for dinner - not red meat.

And to some, that admission is more shocking than the outburst itself.

JOHN COBB: If I went without a lamb chop for very long, I would not be responsible for what my temper might get to, and I think that's the problem the Prime Minister's got.

Nationals MP John Cobb has offered Mr Rudd an excuse.

He says he needs more iron, because he's pale, anaemic and has that limp cabbage look.

JOHN COBB: All Australians, but particularly farmers and regional Australians, are concerned about the mental state of the Prime Minister.

But farmers probably understand why he might have anger issues or a mental meltdown while on a red meat-free diet.

And I am besieged by farmers and entrepreneurs and our chefs in Western New South Wales beseeching me to bring the Prime Minister out so they can give him not just a culinary experience, but put some colour in his cheeks.

Put some soul… put some iron in his soul.

Because they want the Prime Minister at the top of his game.

PETER CAVE: The National MP John Cobb.

Transgenders get support they need

Transitioning in the workplace can be a nightmare for many trans people, but some employers understand that diversity is good for business.

Discrimination, harassment and dismissal are all things that an employee who announces they are going to transition from one sex or gender to another can expect to experience in the workplace. A 2006 report in the UK, Engendered Penalties: Transgender and Transsexual.

People’s Experiences of Inequality and Discrimination, found that the workplace “affords a poor experience for many trans people”. The report, co-authored by Stephen Whittle, Vice-President of lobby group Press for Change, found that more than 10 per cent experienced being verbally abused and 6 per cent were physically assaulted. “As a consequence of harassment and bullying a quarter of trans people will feel obliged to change their jobs,” it said.

Fortunately there are employers that embrace diversity, recognising it’s good for business, and go all out to ensure that trans people feel valued and are protected against unsavoury behaviour from other staff.

One such company is IBM. The IT giant has had several staff transition, the most recent being Business Development Manager, Chrystie Klein, who is based in the firm’s Melbourne office. “I count my blessings,” she tells SX. “My transition was amazing.”

Chrystie informed her manager, Darren, about her intention to transition over coffee one morning before work. “I was quite nervous, but Darren’s reaction was very positive and encouraging,” she says. “He didn’t bat an eyelid and congratulated me on how I’d handled it. He really put me at ease.”

Chrystie was then put in touch with the human resources (HR) partner who was in charge of managing the transition process, along with Darren and Chrystie’s sales manager, Scott, who is based in Canberra. “We determined a time that would be least disruptive to the business, which was January,” Chrystie explains. “One of the recommendations from my sales manager was I should move into a new sales territory so when I came back in my affirmed gender I would have none of my old clients to deal with and explain this to. I really appreciated he’d thought about it and proposed it as it was in my best interest.”

IBM hired a counsellor who specialises in gender identity issues to oversee the transition, particularly how it was relayed to other staff. A meeting was organised between Chrystie, her managers and employees she worked closest with. Invitations to attend were sent out along with an information package outlining what was happening and how staff were expected to behave under the company’s diversity policy. A personal letter from Chrystie was also included, in which she explained why transitioning was important to her. The meeting was led by the counsellor and staff were able to ask questions. At this point Chrystie was still presenting as male. She then took a week off and returned as female.

“The reactions were amazing,” she enthuses. “IBM is mainly filled with family people with little or no experience of transgenderism, but they were great. I got so much encouragement, especially from my female colleagues who quickly adopted me as one of the girls.”

The success of Chrystie’s transition is due to the company’s policy of inclusion, says Robyn Sumner, Diversity Program Manager for IBM Australia. “Diversity for us is making sure we have a broad mix of people in our workforce and making sure everyone feels included. It’s important that people who transition feel valued. We see our diversity strategy as a competitive edge. Employees’ differences lead to diversity of thought which is required for the innovation we need for our clients.”

Other employers also recognise that they could lose the skills a trans person brings to the company if they don’t handle that person’s transition well. “I am so grateful that my bosses understood the gravity of my situation and that they were so understanding, making me feel that I was important to them and the company,” says Stefanie Imbruglia, who transitioned from male to female while working as a long-term contractor of nearly 10 years for Sydney Airport as an architectural consultant.

Stefanie initially met with upper management, armed with folders for each person that contained material about gender dysphoria, the organisation’s own anti-discrimination policy and even photos of Stefanie as female dressed in ‘work mode’. Although her bosses were “shocked” they were positive and explained the news to staff and external clients while Stefanie was on leave. As with Chrystie, the reactions from her colleagues were overwhelmingly positive. “Professionally, it feels like nothing has changed,” she says. “My work is still the same. I still do what I need to do and my clients are happy.”

Josie Emery’s transition was a very public one. Three years ago as the then Director of Literature at Australia Council for the Arts, she was ‘outed’ in The Australian. She decided to use her example to promote the organisation’s equity policy. After meeting with her boss, the CEO and Director of HR, Josie took aside each of her team members and key contacts and told them individually about her intention to transition before the rollout of the organisational and client announcement.

Unlike Chrystie or Stefanie who presented as their affirmed gender very soon after the announcement to staff, Josie gave her colleagues three months to get used to the idea. While some expressed shock and amusement or “retreated and took a while to process the news”, reactions were mostly supportive. “I expected the worst and prepared for it and then I got such overwhelming support I was quite overcome,” Josie says.

If there is a common theme to all these stories it’s that if upper management unreservedly declare their support for a trans person to transition in the workplace – and make it clear that bullying or harassment will be not be tolerated – the transition can be a positive experience for all involved.

source

CANCELLED - UK Bullying at Work Day - Sending wrong message

Bullying at Work Day Cancelled in UK

As long as there is work there will be bullying – get used to it.

The news that Ban Bullying at Work Day is to be cancelled is a real kick in the teeth for those who have fought against the scourge of the workplace tyrant and the blatant abuse of those in unelevated positions who fear reprisals if they so much as wince, let alone actually make a complaint when they feel the cold, hard steel toecap of blind stupidity crunching into their bones asking them to do more for less.

And in these credit-crunched times - in which fewer workers are expected to do more work for less reward - you can bet that bullyboy employers up and down the land will be celebrating the news by invoking some age old tradition of picking on the least able to fight back and dunking them in a wheelie bin of paint and excrement.

Except, of course, they won't. Because the very worst offenders will never even have heard of Ban Bullying at Work Day, because they do not concern themselves with the finer art of people management, preferring to focus on the simple business process of paying someone to do something, and if they don't do it - and more often than not even if they do do it - subjecting them to some pecuniary pain or physical punishment designed to make sure they know who's in charge.

Victorian values

Now, you might be thinking this all sounds a tad Victorian, that working practices have moved on apace since the days of the workhouse. But have they?

Sadly not. But not because there aren't many out there trying to make a difference - not least the currently frowned-upon Labour government, which has done more for workers' rights in the past 12 years through the introduction of a seemingly never-ending stream of employment legislation than had happened for decades previously.

The sheer volume of these new laws - flexible working rights, maternity rights, the minimum wage, increased time off, anti-discrimination legislation, and so on - has led many employers to bemoan the increased red tape and what they see as over-regulation.

As Personnel Today's deputy editor wrote recently (27 March, Editors' Blog, Personneltoday.com), the fact that organisations such as the TUC, Royal Mail, or in fact any major government department or private sector giant are unwilling to fund Ban Bullying at Work Day is, indeed, a "sad state of affairs".

But is it really a surprise that such organisations have lost the stomach for the fight?

Big hitters

Could it be that the big hitters of the business world have been cowed into a small ball of fear by the clearly unencumbered-by-a-sense-of-fair-play bullies of this world? Could the nation's big hitters really be too focused on 'ensuring shareholder/stakeholder value' - that is, making or not spending money - to pay any attention to something as trivial as harassment in the workplace?

Or could it be the subconcious desire to believe that getting heavy with the workforce is the only way - that the big hitters are only known as such on account of their happy-go-lucky use of the iron fist in matters of corporate governance?

Far from being a glancing blow to the forehead of workplace justice, the reluctance to fund Ban Bullying at Work Day is simply the tacit acceptance that without bullying the economy would grind to a halt.

Tough love

So where does this penchant for 'tough love' come from? Why do weak managers seek solace in taking it out on the smallest kid on the block?

In their book Work in the 21st Century, Frank Landy and Jeff Conte characterise the victim of bullying as being "in an inferior position", and say that the harassment, or being made to do "humiliating tasks", must occur "repeatedly" over a long period of time (at least two months).

Surely that is just a description of day-to-day existence for the majority of those employed in any service industry - from cleaners to call-centre operatives?

The definition of bullying used by conciliation service Acas is even clearer: "Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."

That could be a mission statement for how unions try to persuade big companies to change their ways once they've thrown their toys out of the pram because they haven't achieved their ridiculous pay demands, and serves as proof that bullying can be an organisational as well as an individual problem.

And the fact that this description is also a textbook definition of how many people imagine the world's military organisations function on a day-to-day basis goes some way to explaining why beating up on your own staff is such a difficult habit to kick.

Higher power

The notion of being subservient to a higher power is nothing new, however - 'God' has a lot to answer for, really - and working for the Ministry of War (to give it its accurate name) is not a prerequisite for those seeking ritual humiliation on a grand scale. For the whole idea of work is based on one person doing another's bidding for some kind of financial reward- as opposed to some reward in the afterlife.

But it will also mean 'doing as you are told', clocking in (either physically or just in the mind of the time-keeper bully who seems to exist in all organisations and cannot get their head around the idea that it's more important to get things done rather than be seen to turn up at a set time each day, however unnecessary that might be), have meals at set times, use certain suppliers, specific stationery, hold specific beliefs (buy-in to the corporate 'vision') and so on.

And while this basic model of how work works remains, bullying will be going nowhere - and anyone who says differently is likely to have their teeth kicked in.

source