Mobbing merlone

A Systemic Approach to Understand andAnticipate Misbehaviors in Organizations.

An Example of Bullying.

Ugo Merlone

Department of Psychology, University of Torino

CIPESS SeminarTorino, Italy, June, 26, 2012

Ugo Merlone (2012) A Systemic Approach to Understand Bullying June, 26th 2012 1 / 77

Outline

1 Motivation

2 Common ParadigmsSystem DynamicsSocio-psychological approach

3 A Case Study

4 A Preliminary Model

5 A Model of Authority

6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Outline

1 Motivation


3 A Case Study



6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Outline

1 Motivation


3 A Case Study



6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Outline

1 Motivation


3 A Case Study



6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Outline

1 Motivation


3 A Case Study



6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Outline

1 Motivation


3 A Case Study



6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Outline

1 Motivation


3 A Case Study



6 A Refined Model

7 Conclusion


Motivation

Motivation


Motivation

Organizational Behavior

According to Robbins and Judge (2010, p. 26)Organizational behavior (often abbreviated as OB) studies theinfluence that individuals, groups, and organizational structure have onbehavior within organizations. The chief goal of OB is to apply thatknowledge toward improving an organization’s effectiveness. Andbecause OB is concerned specifically with employment-relatedsituations, it emphasizes behavior related to jobs, work, absenteeism,employment turnover, productivity, human performance, andmanagement.


Motivation

Some images for Organizational Behavior


Motivation

The other side of Organizational Behavior

Yet in real organizations sometimes something else also happens


Motivation


1 An Introduction to the Dark Side.2 Workplace Aggression and Violence: Insights from Basic

Research.3 Injustice, Stress, and Aggression in Organizations.4 When the Dark Side of Families Enters the Workplace: The Case

of Intimate Partner Violence.5 Subtle (and Not So Subtle) Discrimination in Organizations.6 Sexual Harassment as Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations.7 Out of the Closet and Out of a Job? The Nature, Import, and

Causes of Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace.8 The Dark Side of Politics in Organizations.


Motivation


9 Under-the-Table Deals: Preferential, Unauthorized, orIdiosyncratic?

10 Extreme Careerism: The Dark Side of Impression Management.11 Psychological Contract Breach and Violation in Organizations.12 Alcohol and Drug Use in the Workplace.13 Broadening Our Understanding of Organizational Retaliatory

Behavior.14 On Incivility, Its Impact, and Directions for Future Research.15 The Methodological Evolution of Employee Theft Research: The

DATA Cycle.16 Dark Side Issues: Concluding Observations and Directions for

Future Research.


Motivation


Among all kinds of misbehaviors

MobbingSome data:

Norway (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996): 8.6% of 7986 respondentshad been bullied at work during the previous last monthsEurope (Zapf et Al. 2003):

serious bullying (weekly or daily episodes): between 1 and 4% ofemployeesoccasional episodes: between 8 and 10% of employees

UK (Hoel & Cooper, 2000): 10.5% of 5288 respondents had someexperience with bullyingUS (Keashly & Jagatic, 2): sample of 1836 adults in Michigan

27% reported mistreatment at work during the previoustwelve-month period42% indicated that mistreatment had occurred at some pointduring their working career


Motivation


Among all kinds of misbehaviors

MobbingSome data:

Norway (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996): 8.6% of 7986 respondentshad been bullied at work during the previous last monthsEurope (Zapf et Al. 2003):

serious bullying (weekly or daily episodes): between 1 and 4% ofemployeesoccasional episodes: between 8 and 10% of employees

UK (Hoel & Cooper, 2000): 10.5% of 5288 respondents had someexperience with bullyingUS (Keashly & Jagatic, 2): sample of 1836 adults in Michigan

27% reported mistreatment at work during the previoustwelve-month period42% indicated that mistreatment had occurred at some pointduring their working career


Motivation

A definition

Mobbing (Continental European Countries) or workplace bullying (US),is defined by Einarsen et Al., 2003) as followsBullying at work means harassing, offending,

socially excluding someone or negatively affectingsomeone’s work tasks. In order for the labelbullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particularactivity, interaction or process it has to occurrepeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over aperiod of time (e.g. about six months). Bullyingis an escalating process in the course of which theperson confronted ends up in an inferior positionand becomes the target of systematic negative socialacts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if theincident is an isolated event or if two parties ofapproximately equal ’strenght’ are in conflict.


Motivation

Stereotypic course over time, Leymann, 1996

Stereotypic course over time1 Critical incidents. The triggering situation is most often a conflict.

Mobbing can, therefore, be seen as an escalated conflict.2 Mobbing and stigmatizing. All of the observed behaviours,

regardless of their normal meaning in normal daily comunications,have the common denominator of being based on the intent to“get at a person” or punish him or her.

3 Personnel management. Due to previous stigmatization, it is veryeasy to misjudge the situation as being the fault of the subjectperson.

4 Expulsion. As far as the mobbing scenario at the workplace isconcerned the social effects of expelling people from working arewell known.


Common Paradigms

Common Paradigms


Common Paradigms

System Theory: a brief history

Chen and Stroup (1993) provide some milestonesAristotele “The whole is more than the sum of parts”A. J. Lotka’s Elements of Mathematical Biology provided anarticulation the priciples of what would become modern systemtheory.Wiener’s Cybernetics: Control of Man and the Machine discussedorganized complexity.Ludwig Bertalanffy established the field of general system theory.Jay Forrester, using availability and increased power of computers,used the very same principle to explain the dynamic behavior ofgovernements, business systems and human behavior.


Common Paradigms

System Theory: basic notions

According to Chen and Stroup (1993, p.448-449) the notions at thebase of system theory are

1 A “system” is an ensemble of interacting parts, the sum of whichexhibits behavior not localized in its constituent parts. [. . . ].

2 A system can be physical, biological, social, or symbolic; or it canbe comprised of one or more of these.

3 Change is seen as a transformation the of system in time, which,nevertheless, conserves its identity. [. . . ].

4 Goal-directed behavior characterizes the changes observed in thestate of the system. [. . . ].


Common Paradigms

System Theory

5 “Feedback ” is the mechanism that mediates between the goaland system behavior.

6 Time is a central variable in system theory. It provides a referentfor the very idea of dynamics.

7 The “boundary ” serves to delineate the system from theenvironment and any subsystems from the system as a whole.

8 System-environment interactions can be defined as the input andoutput of matter, and information, energy. The system can beopen, closed, or semipermeable to the environment.


Common Paradigms System Dynamics

System Dynamics

According to Forrester (2010),System dynamics is a professional field that deals with thecomplexity of systems.System dynamics is the necessary foundation underlying effectivethinking about systems.System dynamics deals with how things change through time,which covers most of what most people find important.System dynamics involves interpreting real life systems intocomputer simulation models that allow one to see how thestructure and decision-making policies in a system create itsbehavior.



System Dynamics

According to Sterman (2000), System Dynamics is interdisciplinarymathematics, physics and engineering: as it is grounded onnonlinear dynamics and feedback control;cognitive psychology, social psychology and economics: as it isapplied to the behavior of human as well as physical and technicalsystems;policy making: as model are builded to solve important real worldproblems.



Some System Dynamics models

At least two models are worth mentioningGilbert Low’s model of the Zimbardo prison experiment;

source: J. K. Doyle, K. Saeed, J. Skorinko (2008)Ugo Merlone (2012) A Systemic Approach to Understand Bullying June, 26th 2012 18 / 77


Some System Dynamics models

andBarry Richmond’s model of the classic Milgram obedience study.

source:http://www.systemswiki.org/index.php?title=Milgram_Experiment


Common Paradigms Socio-psychological approach

Socio-psychological approach

At the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations and the Tavistock Clinicseveral consultants have been working on unconscious aspects oforaganizational life.They developed the socio-psychological approach which draws from

psychoanalysis;Wilfred Bion’s Theory of Groups;open systems theory;group relations training.


Common Paradigms Socio-psychological approach

The common paradigm informs the approachMiller & Rice (1967, p.9)

J. Sterman (2000, p.193)

Basic stocks and flows


A Case Study

A Case Study


A Case Study

Localization in G.A.S. Metaphor

Thorngate (1976) states that it is impossible to develop a socialbehavior theory, which is at the same time:

generalaccuratesimple


A Case Study

Localization in G.A.S. Metaphor

Weick (1979) illustrates this tradeoff


A Case Study

The case of Eve (Leymann, 1996)

A canteen supervisor at a large prison retired and a successor wasneeded. The employer and the personnel department were of thesame opinion, that the opportunity should be used to bring aboutcertain changes. The canteen needed to economize and at the sametime offer healthier food. An individual with suitable training was found.She was employed and assigned to the kitchen where six femalecooks –who all knew how to prepare a thick cream sauce but knewnothing about the impending changes– were standing in front of theirovens. An inevitable conflict soon broke out.


A Case Study

The case of Eve

How was the new manager in the kitchen going to pursue the desiredchanges without the support of her employer? Nobody had informedthe cooks of any planned change. The new methods for preparing foodwere totally alien to them. The idea of making provision for a relevanttraining course had never dawned on the employer. The cooksbelieved that all these new ideas came personally from Eve, their newsupervisor. This caused them to turn against her. They started togossip and counteract her instructions. Even the fact that she had amentally handicapped child was held against her, as if her owncharacter were responsible for this. There were continuous heateddiscussions. The cooks did not listen to Eve and ignored herdelegation of tasks, regularly doing things that led to differences ofopinion. It was maintained that Eve went far beyond the scope of herresponsibility, which in fact was not true.


A Case Study

The case of Eve

On a number of occasions. Eve tried to obtain descriptions of herresponsibilities from the prison authorities. Top management refusedher requests. Her continual requests were interpreted asinsubordination. Here we should bear in mind that such jobdescriptions are in fact a method through which top management canexpress its leadership at all levels; by defining institutional hierarchy ata central level, and defining various areas of competence, an employeris provided with an indispensable control mechanism through whichthe various areas of responsibility can be effected. In Eve’s case, theonly thing that happened was that top management felt attacked by herrequests and defended themselves. This legitimized the cooks’harassment of Eve as they interpreted the situation as if the topmanagement were "on their side".


A Case Study

The case of Eve

The harassment continued and developed into a mobbing process,through which Eve eventually lost her authority completely. Harsharguments took place on a daily basis. One of the top managers whoaccidentally overheard such an argument summoned Eve for a report.She noticed, as she entered the meeting room, that she was standingin front of some kind of court, she was given no chance to explain thesituation but was heavily criticized. Top management ordered (!!) herto take sick leave, which the prison’s own physician validated (!!). Afterhaving been on sick leave for more than two years (!!), Eve eventuallylost her job. She never found another job again.


A Preliminary Model

A preliminary model


A Preliminary Model

Eve’s orders=ARCTAN(Uncompleted orders-Acceptable Backlog)/3.1415+0.5+Arrival rate


A Preliminary Model

A note about modeling details

Sterman (2000) suggests to

“Avoid IF. . . THEN . . . ELSE formulations”

as they introduces sharp discontinuities in the model (actually, bordercollisions.)Rather use min or max functions or even better

“Fuzzy min” or “Fuzzy max”

ARCTAN solves this problem as

arctan (]−∞,+∞[) = ]−π/2,+π/2[ .


A Preliminary Model

Arctan

y = arctan x


A Preliminary Model

Normalized Arctan

y = arctan xπ


A Preliminary Model

Normalized and Adjusted Arctan

y = arctan xπ + 1

2


A Preliminary Model

Graphic table function (Lookup)

Eve’s orders=f (Uncompleted orders)


A Preliminary Model

Example: Eve’s orders

IF Tasks to Below > Acceptable BacklogTHEN Eve’s orders= Tasks to Below - Acceptable BacklogELSE Eve’s orders=0

should be replaced by

Eve’s orders= MAX (Tasks to Below - Acceptable Backlog,0)

yet with MAX and MIN discontinuities remain.


Eve’s orders=ARCTAN(Tasks to Below-Acceptable Backlog)/3.1415+0.5


A Preliminary Model









A Preliminary Model









A Preliminary Model









A Preliminary Model

Work completion rate=Eve’s orders*Cooks’ rate of completion**2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Uncompleted orders)


A Preliminary Model

Eve’s Frustration=ARCTAN(Uncompleted orders-Acceptable Backlog)/3.1415+0.5


A Preliminary Model

Managerial support to Eve=Initial support to Eve-Eve’s Frustration


A Preliminary Model

The preliminary model

Cooks’ obedience to Eve’s orders=ARCTAN(Managerial support to Eve-Eve’s Frustration)/3.1415+0.5


A Preliminary Model

Cooks’ rate of completion=Cooks’ obedience to Eve’s orders*Cooks training


A Preliminary Model

Results


A Preliminary Model

Results: full support and full training (Backlog=20.25)t = 40:backlog is reached

As the backlog limit is reached the system collapses:man. sup., cook’s obedience and rate of compl. dropEve’s frustration raisesrate of uncompleted orders increases


A Preliminary Model

Results: full support and full training (Backlog=40.5)

backlog limit is notreached

The system remains under control


A Preliminary Model

Results: half support and full training (Backlog=40.5)t ≈ 50:backlog is reached

After a long delay the system collapses:man. sup., cook’s obedience and rate of compl. dropEve’s frustration raisesrate of uncompleted orders increases


A Preliminary Model

Results: full support and half training (Backlog=40.5)t ≈ 85:backlog is reached

Well before the backlog is reached the system collapses:man. sup., cook’s obedience and rate of compl. dropEve’s frustration raisesrate of uncompleted orders increases


A Preliminary Model

The preliminar model: analysis

First resultsbacklog limit

seems to be important when cook’s training is adeguatewhen too low the system collapses

cook’s training seems to be more important than managerialsupportwhen cook’s training is low, the disfunctional dynamics betweenmanagement, cooks and Eve, is not evident from the uncompletedorders


A Model of Authority




Obholzer contribution

According to Obholzer (1994):Authority refers to the right to make an ultimate decision, and in anorganization it refers to the right to make decisions which are bindingto others.He considers:

authority from “above”authority from “below”authority from “within”



Authority from “above”

Formal authority is a quality that is derived from one’s’ role in a systemand is exercised on its behalf. (Obholzer 1994, p.39).



Authority from “below”

“Members who voluntarily join an organization are, by definition,santioning the system. By the act of joining, they are, at least implicitly,delegating some of their personal authority to those in authority, and inso doing confirming the system.” (Obholzer 1994, p.40).



Authority from “within”

“[. . . ] there is the vital issue of authorization or confirmation of authorityfrom within individuals. This largely depends on the nature of theirrelationship with the figure of their inner world.” (Obholzer 1994, p.41).

Two extremesundermining self-in-role by inner world figuresinner world figures playing into a state of psychopatologicalomnipotence

Important difference

authoritative: a depressive position state of mindauthoritarian: a paranoid-schizoid position state of mind

















Levels of authority: modelization



A preliminary model


A Refined Model

A model with levels of authority


A Refined Model

Eve’s orders=ARCTAN(Tasks to Below-Acceptable Backlog)/3.1415+0.5+Arrival rate


A Refined Model

Below Authority Rate=Eve’s orders*Cooks’ rate of completion**2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Tasks to Below)


A Refined Model

Within Authority Rate=(1-Eve’s Frustration)*2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Tasks from Above)


A Refined Model

Above Authority Rate=Managerial support to Eve*2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Tasks to be completed)


A Refined Model

Eve’s Frustration=ARCTAN(Tasks to Below-Acceptable Backlog)/3.1415+0.5


A Refined Model

Managerial support to Eve=Initial support to Eve-Eve’s Frustration


A Refined Model

Cooks’ obedience to Eve’s orders=ARCTAN(Managerial support to Eve-Eve’s Frustration)/3.1415+0.5


A Refined Model

Cooks’ rate of completion=Cooks’ obedience to Eve’s orders*Cooks training


A Refined Model

Default Rate1=Def Rate 1*2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Tasks to be completed)Default Rate2=Def Rate 2*2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Tasks from Above/1)Default Rate3=Def Rate 3*2/3.1415*ARCTAN(Tasks to Below)


A Refined Model

Results


A Refined Model

Results: full support and full training (Backlog=10.0)

t ≈ 70:backlog is reached

The system remains under control


A Refined Model

Results: half support and full training (Backlog=10.0)

t ≈ 30:backlog is reached

The system remains roughly under control


A Refined Model

Results: full support and half training (Backlog=10.0)t ≈ 30:backlog is reached

As the backlog limit is reached the system collapses:man. sup., cook’s obedience and rate of compl. dropEve’s frustration raisesrate of uncompleted orders increases


A Refined Model

The model with levels of authority: analysis

First resultsbacklog limit seems to be important only when cook’s training isnot adeguatecook’s training seems to be more important than managerialsupport


A Refined Model

Comparing the two models.

cook’s training seems to be the most important variablethe model with authority levels seems to be less dependent on thebacklog limitwhen considering the authority levels the dynamics betweenmanagement, cooks and Eve seem to be less dysfunctionalin both models, Leymann’s stereotypic course over time is roughlyfollowed


Conclusion

Conclusion


Conclusion

Conclusion

Bullying and other dysfunctional dynamics at the workplace can bequite complex

approaching such problems from a systemic point of view canhelp to understand some of the interaction between partsputting together different approaches which are based on systemtheory may provide a wider perspectivethe modeling process and the simulation results allow us tounderstand how feedback may cause reinforcing loopsin some cases reaching the backlog limit causes the dysfunctionaldynamics but this is not a sufficient condition


Conclusion

Conclusion

A systemic approach may obtain a deeper changement in the system


Conclusion

Conclusion

An ambitious analogy about computer modelingVygotsky described developmental changes in children’s thinkingin terms of the cultural tools they use to make sense of their world

similarly

the computational tools (models) we use–to make sense of theworld–allow changes in our thinking about complex systems.


Conclusion

Conclusion


similarly



Conclusion

Conclusion


similarly



Appendix For Further Reading

Main References I

J. W. ForresterSystem Dynamics: the Foundation Under Systems ThinkingSloan School of Management, MIT, 2010.

J. D. StermanBusiness Dynamics,McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2000.



Main References I

E. J. Miller & A. K. RiceSystems of Organization,Tavistock Publications, London., 1967.

A. ObholzerAuthority, power and leadership: contributions from group relationstraining, in The Unconscious at Work, Routledge, London,pp.39-47UK, 1994.

D. Chen & W. StroupGeneral System Theory: Toward a Conceptual Framework forScience and Technology Education for All,Journal of Science Education and Technology , 2(3) pp.447-459,1993.



Main References I

S. P. Robbins, T.A. JudgeEssentials of Organizational Behavior (Tenth Edition),Pearson, Upper Saddle River, 2010.

R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (eds.)The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2004.

H. LeymannThe Content and Development of Mobbing at WorkEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology ,5(2):165–184, 1996.

U. MerloneIl mobbing e la System Dynamics, Personale e Lavoro, 493, pp19-26, 2006.
