Workplace bullying:Workplace bullying:What we know and what we can do about itWhat we know and what we can do about it

Dr Paul Naylorp.b.naylor@sheffield.ac.uk

School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield

With grateful thanks to

Dr Iain Coyneiain.coyne@nottingham.ac.uk

Institute of Work, Health & Organisations (I-WHO), University of Nottingham

Bullying - termsBullying - terms

Bullying UK, some other European countries, Australia, New Zealand, & increasingly the US

Mobbing Scandinavia

Harassment US, Canada

Victimisation US, Canada

2

Workplace bullying is …

• threatening professional status (e.g., belittling, humiliation, accusation regarding lack of effort)

• threatening personal standing (e.g., name-calling, insults, intimidation, ageism/sexism/racism)

• isolation (e.g., preventing access to opportunities, physical/social isolation, withholding information)

• overwork (e.g., undue pressure, impossible deadlines, unnecessary disruption)

• destabilization (e.g., failure to give credit when due, meaningless tasks, removal of responsibility, repeated reminders of blunders, setting-up to fail)

WP bullying is (continued) …

4

Media:

• Verbally (face-to-face, ‘phone)

• In writing:• hard-copy (e.g., memo)

• electronically – cyber-bullying (e.g., e-mail, text message)

5

Bullying: often summed-up as … the persistent abuse of power

… BUT can one-off events be considered bullying?

… ALSO, what is the distinction between ‘strong management’ & ‘bullying’?

6

How common is ‘traditional’ bullying?

Surveys:• 53% of 1137 part-time students (Rayner, 1997) • 38% of 1100 workers (Quine, 1999)

• 10.6% over past 6 months,1.4% weekly/daily of 5288 workers (Hoel et al, 2001)

• 37% of 594 workers given definition (Quine, 2004)

• 39% of 512 managers (CMI, 2005)

7

How common is cyber-bullying?

Study 1 9% of 649 UK employees reported receiving abusive e-mail (Baruch, 2005)

Study 2 3% of over 1400 online surveyed teachers reported bullying on the Internet

6% by e-mail2.5% by mobile phone texts6% by mobile (& other) phone calls (National

Association of Schoolmasters & Union of Women Teachers, 2008)

Study 3 17% of 379 teachers reported bullying by mobile phone, e-mail or the Internet by managers, co-workers, pupils (Association of Teachers & Lecturers, 2007)

8

Study of 288 fire-fighters in 36 teams (Coyne et al, 2004):

• Self-& peer-reported levels of victimisation & bullying

• Each rank ordered 3 team members most preferred working with & self-reported perceptions of team effectiveness

• Results: 1. People preferred working with ‘victims’2. Bullies were least preferred work mates3. Bully/targets most isolated group4. Group cohesion higher but success perceived lower in teams with

high levels of victimisation

9

But measurement problems:

• how are victims & non-victims classed?

• how is bullying defined, & who by?

• claims usually based on uncorroborated self-report (Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith, & Pereira, 2002)

So, Coyne, Chong, Seigne, & Randall (2003) found:• victims ranged from 4-40% • bullies from 3-19%

depending on whether by self-report, peer-report or both!

10

What we know about victims …• low in independence, extraversion & mental stability (Coyne et al, 2000)

• lose confidence, physically ill, unable to cope (Edelmann & Woodall, 1997)

• show high anxiety, depression, job-related stress (Quine, 1999) & PTSDsymptoms (e.g., Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004; Tehrani, 2004)

• take sick leave (ATL, 2007)

• cyber-bullying may be psychologically more harmful than traditional bullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008)

• but know little about their help seeking behaviour (Slonje & Smith, 2008)

11

What we know about bullies …

• Rationale: protect self-esteem - inflated or unstable view of self

• Characteristics: violent (Leather et al., 1990), tyrannical (Ashforth, 1994), hostile (Baron & Neuman, 1996), aggressive (Seigne et al., in press), lack emotional/self-control & awareness of impact

• Conversely, highly skilled social manipulators (Sutton)

• Micro-political behaviour in group/organisation encourages competitiveness, assertiveness, dominance

• Been suggested that known bullies appointed to ‘get the job done’12

Effects on the organisation• Lower productivity & staff morale (Coyne et al, 2004)

• Absenteeism:– Hoel & Cooper (2000) – victims took 7 days more sick leave on average

than others– Quine (2001) – 8% taken time-off

• Turnover:– Rayner (1997) – 1 in 4 left job due to bullying

• Coyne also notes: - risks of litigation & industrial action- costs of finding & training replacement staff 13

Work climate Work climate Human interactionHuman interaction& conditions & conditions in organisations in organisations

Change (redundancy/position)Work organisation (Role conflict, strained & stressful, lack of autonomy)Culture & ClimatePoor Leadership

Conflict is inevitable. Can be win-win but win-lose may lead to bullying

culture

Causes of workplace bullying?

14

What can we do about it?Prevention Support/ intervention Reaction

Organisation Change work/cultureTrain leader trainingHave a policy

Bullying surveysSupport for change from senior managersMonitor absences

Use sanctions Monitor/change culture

Group Foster positive group behaviourTrain all

Regularly meet groupMonitor group network

Group skills development Team-buildingChange team

Individual Training e.g., assertiveness, social skills for victims & bullies

Contact person, buddy/peer support systemInformal support (friend)Re-define ‘problem’

Formal ‘counselling’ support for victims & bulliesUse grievance procedures

15

16

Thanks

Any questions?

Contact:

p.b.naylor@sheffield.ac.uk