Interventions to Reduce the Health Impact of Workplace Bullying

7/31/2019 Interventions to Reduce the Health Impact of Workplace Bullying

1/31

Interventions to Reduce the HealthImpact of Workplace Bullying: Where Do

We Go From Here?

Dr Christine A. Sprigg, Institute of Work Psychology(IWP), Management School, University of Sheffield,SHEFFIELD, UK.

EAWOP Small Groups Meeting, Nottingham. 24

th

May, 2012 at 4pm.


2/31


3/31

What is Bullying at Work?

Bullying is a non-physical and psychological form ofunacceptable behaviour. Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf andCooper (2003) suggest this definition:

Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding

someone or negatively affecting someones work tasks. In order for

the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity,interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g.,weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., about six months)(p.15).

08/06/2012 The University of Sheffield


4/31

What is Bullying at Work?

The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) (2011) statesthat there is no legal definition of bullying but that it can

take many forms and involve:

ignoring or excluding someone

spreading malicious rumours or gossip

humiliating someone in public

giving someone unachievable or meaningless tasks, and

constantly undervaluing someones work performance



5/31

A Bully at Work?



6/31


7/31

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying the UK

Quine (1999) found 38% (N=1,100) of employees in aUK NHS community trust had experienced one or more

types of bullying in previous year

Hoel & Giga (2006) found 13.6% (N=1,041) of publicsector employees in previous 6 months, compared to anearlier 10.6% described as a national average by Hoel

& Cooper (2000)

Coyne et al., (2003) reported 39.6% (N=288) in oneregional operation of a male-dominated public sectororganisation



8/31

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying the UK

Research conducted by Charlotte Rayner & colleaguesfor UNISON in 2011 found a prevalence of 35% of staffbeing bullied in the previous 6 months (more thanN=6,000)



9/31

Costs of Workplace Bullying

Estimated cost of 13.75 billion in 2007 (Giga, Hoel &Lewis, 2008)



10/31

Workplace Bullying & Psychological &Physical Health

Extensive previous research links bullying topsychological, psychosomatic and physical ill health

(e.g., Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002)

Hansen et al.s (2006) study in Southern Sweden

suggests that workplace bullying may have physiologicalconsequences as well as psychological ones



11/31


Niedhammer et al., (2006) study of the general workingpopulation in the SE France examined the relationships

between workplace bullying and depressive symptoms in3132 men and 4562 women

Workplace bullying was a strong risk factor fordepressive symptoms for both men and women

Association between workplace bullying and depressivesymptoms may be underestimated in the study becauseof the working sample used



12/31


Quine (1999): Bullied employees experiencedsignificantly lower levels of job satisfaction, and higher

levels of job-induced stress, depression, anxiety, andreported being more motivated to leave their job

Finne, Knardahl & Lau (2011) found self-reportedworkplace bullying is a predictor of mental distress two

years later. Bullying had independent effect afteradjustments for job demands & job control. Mentaldistress also predictor of bullying reverse relationshipimportant too.



13/31


Rugulies et al (2012) found that workplace bullyingincreased the risk of a major depressive episode (MDE)

among Danish female eldercare workers. MDE did notpredict risk of bullying.

*Eliminating workplace bullying may contribute topreventing MDE* (Rugulies et al, 2012).



14/31

Workplace Bullying and SicknessAbsence

Surprisingly weak relationships with sickness absencehave been previously found (Einarsen et al. 2003)

But, Kivimaki et als (2000) study of Finnish hospital stafffound that the rate of medically certified sicknessabsence was 51% greater in the bullied employees thanamong other employees



15/31

Workplace Bullying and SicknessAbsence

Hoel and Coopers (2000a) unpublished UK national

study of bullying reports a relatively weak relationship

with absence

BUT, the bullied still took on averageseven days moresick leave per year than other employees

With a bullying rate at 10%, this accounts for 18 millionlost working days in the UK (Einarsen et al., 2003)



16/31


17/31

Thus, interventions really needed...


Clear economic incentives to fully understandingbullying (Einarsen et al, 2003)

Strong moral imperative to limit the health impact ofworkplace bullying on employees


18/31

How do we create effective workplaceinterventions for bullying?

Organisational Level (Monks & Coyne, 2011)

Bullying policy that creates a culture of respect and dignity at

work

Risk management approach treats bullying as a psychosocialhazard. Improve work design (reduce stressors) and goodleadership (Spurgeon, 2003)

Informal buddy networks Clear grievance policy to deal with bullying cases

Monitoring and evaluating the grievance approach used



19/31


Group Level (Monks & Coyne, 2011)

Changing group norms and values. Awareness training and

developing group norms against bullying

Occupational Health can work on initial prevention and mediatein group conflict situations (Vartia et al. 2003).

If group norms too entrenched outside expertise might be

needed and/ or changing group membership



20/31


Individual level (Monks & Coyne, 2011)

Training in emotional regulation and assertiveness might reduce

vulnerability and submissiveness of the victim and dominance ofthe perpetrator

Victims should be able to access informal and informal supportthrough dignity at work advisers and counselling

Rehabilitation of both victim and potentially perpetrator (Tehrani,2003)



21/31


Conclusions:

Monks & Coyne (2011) conclude that despite variousinitiatives and practical guidance to tackle workplacebullying there is little evidence for the effectiveness ofsuch approaches

Those that have attempted to evaluate interventions(Hoel & Giga, 2006; Mikkelsen et al, 2008) thenevidence of success has been inconclusive



22/31

Where do we go from here?

We need to focus on the mechanisms through whichbullying leads to employee ill-health to facilitate the

design of successful workplace interventions....

Interventions need to map onto current thinking onworkplace bullying and undergo increased evaluation(Monks & Coyne, 2011)

Boosting the self-esteem (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002)and optimism (Sprigg, Martin, Niven & Armitage, 2010)of the bullied or indeed all employees may proveuseful...?



23/31

Initial Key Findings from IOSH Study

Funded by the Institution of Occupational Safety &Health (IOSH) to examine unacceptable behaviour

From cross-lagged moderation analyses (N=169), wefound three moderators of causal relationships:

Optimism

Job Demands Self-Esteem

Full details please see Sprigg, Martin, Niven & Armitage (2010) report freeto download from IOSH web pages.



24/31


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low Frequency Bullying

From Inside Organisations

High Frequency Bullying


EmotionalEx

haustio

Low Optimism

High Optimism


25/31


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.55





EmotionalE

xhaustio

Low Job DemandsHigh Job Demands


26/31


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5





GeneralMentalStrain(GHQ)

Low Self-EsteemHigh Self-Esteem


27/31

Raises many questions about potentialworkplace bullying interventions...

How do we develop an optimism or a self-esteembooster?

Do we work with what applied positive psychology hasalready given us?

Do we use the intervention on everyone?

Do we just target the known bullied? How do we convince employers to examine workload

demands?



28/31

The Really Big Question

What do we here today know that might help us inour quest to design and build effective interventions

which may limit the very costly and very unpleasanthealth impact of workplace bullying?



29/31

More Research NeededMy Work Here is Not Done!


30/31

Thanks & Acknowledgements

IOSH Unacceptable Behaviour Team: Dr Chris Armitage (Dept. ofPsychology) & Dr Karen Niven (now at Manchester Business

School) & Alex Martin (now at Sheffield Hallam University) Cyberbullying Team: Dr Carolyn Axtell, Dr Iain Coyne (I-WHO,

Nottingham University) & Sam Farley (Leeds University) (Currentresearch & subject of bid to IOSH)

IOSH & Cyberbullying: All employees and organisations who

participated in the research IOSH Data Support Team: Dr Jeremy Dawson (IWP/ScHARR) & Dr

Ian McDonald (Dept. of Psychology)

The Social Support Team: All my IWP colleagues & Dan Toffolo....



31/31

Thank you for listening!

Any questions?

Email: [email protected]

Documents

Interventions to Reduce the Health Impact of Workplace Bullying