Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors (Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, 4) 9811053073, 9789811053078

Citation preview

Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment  4

Premilla D’Cruz · Ernesto Noronha Loraleigh Keashly Stacy Tye-Williams  Editors

Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors

Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment Volume 4 Series Editors Premilla D’Cruz Organizational Behaviour Area Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, India Ernesto Noronha Organizational Behaviour Area Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, India

This peer-reviewed handbook series is the first-of-its-kind, rigorous, comprehensive and complete resource on workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. The series editors and volume editors are internationally acknowledged experts in the field. The series is timely because of the critical mass of the extant literature and the anticipated increase in the incidence of the phenomenon worldwide in the context of neoliberalism. Over the last 25 years, research attention on workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment has burgeoned across the globe, rendering the problematic into a substantive area in its own right. However, this is the first time that the dispersed literature from across the world has been brought together under one academic enterprise. The thematic handbooks in the series capture diverse strands, from explicating the construct, mapping prevalence and incidence, measurement and scales, causes and consequences, nature and effectiveness of interventions and discussing issues of subjectivity and power to the more recent focus on category-based harassment, cross-cultural insights, cyberbullying and depersonalized bullying. They showcase the state of the art of the field across the constituent topics, presenting holistic overviews and international perspectives, simultaneously highlighting emergent research questions, innovative interventions, the potential for new inquiries and solutions and unchartered avenues of scholarship and practice. The series as a whole therefore defines the direction of research in the substantive area. It is a one-stop guide for both novice and established scholars and interventionists. Researchers and practitioners will gain from the availability of the robust and exhaustive reference books in this series specifically devoted to the phenomenon to anchor their endeavours.

Premilla D’Cruz • Ernesto Noronha Loraleigh Keashly • Stacy Tye-Williams Editors

Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors With 8 Figures and 9 Tables

Editors Premilla D’Cruz Organizational Behaviour Area Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, India

Ernesto Noronha Organizational Behaviour Area Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, India

Loraleigh Keashly Department of Communication Wayne State University Detroit, MI, USA

Stacy Tye-Williams Department of Communication Studies/English Iowa State University Ames, IA, USA

ISSN 2662-3242 ISSN 2662-3250 (electronic) ISBN 978-981-10-5307-8 ISBN 978-981-10-5308-5 (eBook) ISBN 978-981-10-5309-2 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Series Preface

This peer-reviewed handbook series is the first-of-its-kind, rigorous, comprehensive and complete resource on workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. The series editors and volume editors are internationally acknowledged experts in the field. The series is timely because of the critical mass of the extant literature and the anticipated increase in the incidence of the phenomenon worldwide in the context of neoliberalism. Over the last 25 years, research attention on workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment has burgeoned across the globe, rendering the problematic into a substantive area in its own right. However, this is the first time that the dispersed literature from across the world has been brought together under one academic enterprise. The thematic handbooks in the series capture diverse strands, from explicating the construct, mapping prevalence and incidence, measurement and scales, causes and consequences, nature and effectiveness of interventions and discussing issues of subjectivity and power to the more recent focus on category-based harassment, cross-cultural insights, cyberbullying and depersonalized bullying. They showcase the state of the art of the field across the constituent topics, presenting holistic overviews and international perspectives, simultaneously highlighting emergent research questions, innovative interventions, the potential for new inquiries and solutions and unchartered avenues of scholarship and practice. The series as a whole therefore defines the direction of research in the substantive area. It is a one-stop guide for both novice and established scholars and interventionists. Researchers and practitioners will gain from the availability of the robust and exhaustive reference books in this series specifically devoted to the phenomenon to anchor their endeavours. The handbook series uses the nomenclature “workplace bullying”, “workplace emotional abuse” and “workplace harassment” interchangeably. Authors wishing to differentiate between the terms have specified the particularities of their usage in their respective chapters. Titles in the handbook series include 1. Concepts, Approaches and Methods 2. Pathways of Job-related Negative Behaviour

v

vi

Series Preface

3. Dignity and Inclusion at Work 4. Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors Premilla D’Cruz Ernesto Noronha Series Editors

Volume Preface

This volume, titled Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, embodies the twin purpose of highlighting topics beyond the purview of themes commonly associated with workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment and of presenting insights into those occupations, professions and sectors which either have received extensive research attention or hold a pronounced propensity to trigger workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Section 1, which comprises special topics, depicts the intersection between workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment and specific circumstances such as whistleblowing and customer abuse or particular attributes such as violence and ostracism. In so doing, it extends the boundaries of the substantive area, stimulating new themes for further inquiry and indicating new areas for action. Section 2 draws attention to how misbehaviour inheres in particular kinds of tasks and livelihoods due to job design, work organization and other elements such as power, external environment, employment patterns and so on. An array of occupations, professions and sectors such as academe, nursing, law, the police, the military, dirty work, precarious work and so on is covered, reflecting emergent developments in the labour market so as to include those with long-standing and considerable research findings and those where empirical inquiries are more recent. Premilla D’Cruz Ernesto Noronha Loraleigh Keashly Stacy Tye-Williams Editors

vii

Contents

Section 1 Furthering the Frontiers of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment Through Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1

Ostracism in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk and Kamila Madeja-Bien

3

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . Brianna Cregan and E. Kevin Kelloway

33

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully–Bystander Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darren C. Treadway, Huiru Yang, Jun Yang, Allison B. Duke, and Jeffrey R. Bentley

55

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders . . . . . Brita Bjørkelo, Cecilie Thorsen, Premilla D’Cruz, and Eva Gemzøe Mikkelsen

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dana Yagil

109

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as Linked to Hidden Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Craig R. Scott

135

6

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maria Georgo

Section 2 Nuances of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment Vis-à-Vis Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corene de Wet and Lynette Jacobs

75

161

185

187 ix

x

Contents

9

10

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loraleigh Keashly

221

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kate van Heugten

299

11

Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan L. Johnson

12

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Fire Departments: The Case of the US Fire Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John C. Griffith and Donna L. Roberts

13

Police Occupational Culture and Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hilary Miller

14

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matthew Ritzman

331

361 387

415

15

Workplace Bullying in Military Organizations: Bullying Inc.? . . . Eva Zedlacher and Sabine Theresia Koeszegi

435

16

Bullying in the Legal Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kerri Lynn Stone

465

17

Workplace Bullying and Negative Behaviour in the Hospitality Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wendy Bloisi

18

Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mazen El Ghaziri, Matt London, and Jane Lipscomb

19

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in the Context of Dirty Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Avina Mendonca and Premilla D’Cruz

501 529

551

Workplace Bullying in Precarious Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nikola Djurkovic

587

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

615

20

About the Series Editors

Premilla D’Cruz holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India. She is currently Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India. Together with Ernesto Noronha, Premilla has been researching the area of workplace bullying for over a decade and has covered various facets of the phenomenon through pioneering work which has extended the boundaries of our understanding. In addition to two authored books on workplace bullying (Workplace Bullying in India [Routledge] and Depersonalized Bullying at Work [Springer]), Premilla has recently co-edited both a special issue of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management (Emerald) on workplace bullying and a book titled Indian Perspectives on Workplace Bullying: A Decade of Insights (Springer). She has published numerous papers in reputed peer-reviewed journals, such as Journal of Business Ethics, Information and Organization, Economic and Industrial Democracy and International Journal of Human Resource Management, and made several international presentations on the topic. Premilla’s other research interests include emotions at work, self and identity at work, organizational control, and information and communication technologies (ICTs) and organizations. Premilla has been a visiting scholar at various European and Australian universities and has received multilateral and bilateral study grants, in addition to several awards for outstanding academic and research work throughout her student and professional career. She has been President of the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) between 2016 and 2018, having earlier served as Secretary (2010–2016) and Special Interest Groups Coordinator (2008–2010). She is currently the xi

xii

About the Series Editors

section editor of Labour Relations and Business Ethics at the Journal of Business Ethics. More details about Premilla’s work are available at https://www.iima.ac.in/web/ faculty/faculty-profiles/premilla-d-cruz. Ernesto Noronha holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India. He is currently Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India. Together with Premilla D’Cruz, Ernesto has been involved in pioneering studies on various aspects of workplace bullying and has several published papers and presentations in the substantive area. Ernesto’s other research interests include workplace ethnicity, technology and work, and labour and globalization, and he has numerous papers published in reputed peer-reviewed journals on these topics, including Journal of Business Ethics, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Information and Organization and Journal of Contemporary Asia. He has recently co-edited Critical Perspectives on Work and Employment in Globalizing India (Springer). Ernesto has received bilateral and multilateral grants to study various aspects of employee experiences of work in India’s offshoring and outsourcing sector, focusing on new and unexplored areas such as organizational control, diversity, telework and collectivization, in addition to the VVEF Outstanding Researcher Award 2009 and 2017 at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. Ernesto has been a Visiting Professor at the Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) School, Cornell University, and at the Institute for Sociology, University of Vienna. He has presented invited talks as a visiting scholar at numerous European universities, such as Strathclyde, Portsmouth, Bergen and Hamburg, in addition to the keynote address at the 2010 Work, Employment and Society (WES) conference. He is currently a board member of the RC30 Sociology of Work group at the International Sociological Association (ISA) and the section editor of Labour Relations and Business Ethics at the Journal of Business Ethics. More details about Ernesto’s work are available at https://www.iima.ac.in/ web/faculty/faculty-profiles/ernesto-noronha.

About the Editors

Loraleigh Keashly (Ph.D., University of Saskatchewan, 1988) is Professor of Communication and Distinguished Service Professor at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA. She is also Associate Dean, Curricular and Student Affairs, College of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts. Her research and consulting focus on quality of work relationships and conflict and conflict resolution at the interpersonal, group and intergroup levels. Her current research focus is the nature, effects and amelioration of uncivil, hostile and bullying behaviours in the workplace. She has a particular interest in developing bystander efficacy to address negative work relationships and build constructive work relationships. Most recently, she has focused her attention on the academic environment and works with universities on these issues. For further information on her work, visit http://www.comm.wayne.edu/profile. php?id¼103677. Stacy Tye-Williams (Ph.D., Organizational Communication, University of Nebraska–Lincoln) is Assistant Professor of Communication Studies in the Department of Communication Studies/English at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. She examines dark- and bright-side processes in organizational life ranging from workplace bullying to the power of collective storytelling to bring about positive change. Her ultimate focus is how people use communication to organize and create positive outcomes in their organizations and the communities in which they are embedded, along with the ways they fail to do so. In addition to several book chapters, she has published articles in Management Communication Quarterly, Journal of Applied xiii

xiv

About the Editors

Communication Research, Women and Language, Western Journal of Communication, Communication Studies and Ohio Communication Journal. She also serves as co-chair of the National Communication Association’s Anti-Bullying Task Force.

Contributors

Jeffrey R. Bentley California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA Brita Bjørkelo Department for Further and Continuing Education, Section for Leadership, Education, Prevention and Diversity, Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, Norway Wendy Bloisi London Metropolitan University, London, UK Brianna Cregan Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada Premilla D’Cruz Organizational Behaviour Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India Corene de Wet Open-Distance Learning, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Nikola Djurkovic Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Allison B. Duke Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, USA Mazen El Ghaziri Alan and Susan Solomont School of Nursing, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA, USA Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk Faculty in Wrocław, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wrocław, Poland Maria Georgo Consulting, Research, and Training, Talking Hearts Project, Longwood, FL, USA Peace and Justice Institute, Valencia College, Winter Park, FL, USA College of Continuing Education, Social Sciences, Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, NH, USA Human Capital Development and Instructional Technology Management, LaSalle University, Philadelphia, PA, USA xv

xvi

Contributors

John C. Griffith Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide Campus, Daytona Beach, FL, USA Lynette Jacobs Open-Distance Learning, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Susan L. Johnson University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA Loraleigh Keashly Department of Communication, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA E. Kevin Kelloway Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada Sabine Theresia Koeszegi Institute of Management Science, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria Jane Lipscomb School of Nursing, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA Matt London NorthEast New York Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (NENYCOSH), New York, NY, USA Kamila Madeja-Bien Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland Avina Mendonca Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources Management Area, Indian Institute of Management Nagpur, Nagpur, India Eva Gemzøe Mikkelsen Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Hilary Miller Police Sciences, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK Matthew Ritzman University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA Donna L. Roberts Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide Campus, Daytona Beach, FL, USA Craig R. Scott Department of Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Kerri Lynn Stone Florida International University, College of Law, Miami, FL, USA Cecilie Thorsen Jobbfast, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway Darren C. Treadway Daemen College, Buffalo, NY, USA Kate van Heugten Department of Human Services and Social Work, School of Language, Social and Political Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Contributors

Dana Yagil Department of Human Services, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Huiru Yang University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA Jun Yang University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC, USA Eva Zedlacher Institute of Management Science, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

xvii

Section 1 Furthering the Frontiers of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment Through Special Topics

1

Ostracism in the Workplace Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk and Kamila Madeja-Bien

Contents 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptualization of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplace Ostracism in the Context of Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Consequences of Social Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Antecedents of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Consequences of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Towards Prevention and Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 5 7 10 12 16 17 19 21 22 23 23

Abstract

This chapter provides a literature review on workplace ostracism in the context of workplace bullying. First, the context of ostracism in the workplace is conceptualized and distinguished from other phenomena (e.g. workplace deviance, incivility and bullying). A brief history of research on ostracism in the workplace and ways of measuring it are included. Second, a theoretical background is provided, and the most important models of ostracism as well as the outcomes of ostracizing and being ostracized (immediate responses, cognitive and behavioural strategies of coping, and the long-lasting outcomes of being rejected) are described. The M. Gamian-Wilk (*) Faculty in Wrocław, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wrocław, Poland e-mail: [email protected] K. Madeja-Bien Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_2

3

4

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

focus is on the negative consequences of being ostracized (e.g. antisocial responses, including a drop in empathy and self-regulation). Workplace ostracism antecedents, both macro- and micro-organizational (organizational structure, organizational culture, power structure), and their consequences at the individual level, such as the target’s well-being, and at the organizational level, such as job search behaviour, actual turnover and counterproductive behaviour, are presented. Findings that suggest positive outcomes of being ostracized are also provided (e.g. an increase in work performance, compliance). Based on the multimotive model of responses to rejection, the likelihood of antisocial or prosocial responses to ostracism in the workplace is highlighted. The possible mechanisms, functions and moderators of workplace ostracism are discussed as well, and practical implications are drawn. Finally, in the concluding remarks, future research directions and suggestions for prevention and intervention are suggested.

1.1

Introduction

Workplace ostracism has been recognized as a serious problem within organizations. Some studies have reported alarming data suggesting that the majority of organization members have either been ostracized or have ostracized others. Findings have revealed that over a 6-month period, 13% of surveyed workers experienced being ignored or rejected (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006), and during a 5-year period, 66% of surveyed workers (Fox & Stallworth, 2005) reported the same experience. Of those who reported being ostracized, 29% stated that coworkers had left the room when they entered, and 18% reported having been moved to an isolated location (2005). The impact of ostracism is severe and ubiquitous. Findings have suggested that even subtle cues, such as withdrawn eye contact (Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012a; Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010), or when the source is a computer (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004), make people feel rejected and produce negative outcomes. How the subject regards the source of ostracism is not necessary to provoke aversive, immediate responses. Negative effects still occur even when exclusion is unintentional or planned by a computer (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004), or when inclusion increases the chance of losing something (Van Beest & Williams, 2006; Van Beest, Williams, & van Dijk, 2011). Despite the significance of the problem, workplace ostracism is a relatively new research area, one which leaves many research questions as of yet unanswered. Ostracism has long been studied in various social science fields (Williams, 1997, 2007), but the concept of ostracism has thus far been understudied in organizational psychology. The aim of the present chapter is to describe ostracism in the workplace. This chapter includes important findings from social science research as well as reallife examples of ostracism and its potential impact on organizational knowledge. The

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

5

focus is on the antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism. Importantly, ostracism will be described as an aspect of workplace bullying. The similarities and differences between these two phenomena will be highlighted. Finally, the importance of gathering further empirical findings that address organizational problems will be demonstrated. Suggestions for the practical implementation of research for prevention and intervention with respect to workplace ostracism will be presented.

1.2

Conceptualization of Workplace Ostracism

Although the conceptualization of workplace ostracism is relatively new, the topic has been studied earlier in the contexts of workplace bullying, counterproductive behaviour and social influence strategies. As Robinson and Schabram (2017) noted, workplace ostracism has been present in the organizational literature since the 1970s. However, ostracism has been treated as one element of broader phenomena, such as workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998), antisocial behaviour (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), dysfunctional behaviour (Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998), counterproductive work behaviour (Sackett & DeVore, 2001), social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), organizational misbehaviour (Vardi & Weiner, 1996) or workplace bullying (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Salin, 2001). Workplace ostracism was seen as passive undermining behaviour (withholding behaviours, e.g. failing to provide a co-worker with important information) that causes harm to the organization and its employees (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Ignoring others and withdrawing help were also identified as social influence tactics (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1997). However, there is growing evidence to suggest that workplace ostracism is a distinct construct (Edwards, 2000). Ostracism may coexist or be an element of other forms of workplace deviance, aggression and bullying, as will be highlighted later, but some data suggest that it is both theoretically and empirically a separate concept (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Ostracism is defined as being ignored or excluded by individuals or groups, being treated as invisible or denying one’s existence (Williams, 2007). The terms social ostracism, rejection and exclusion are often seen as interrelated (2007). Ostracism in the workplace context is defined from the actor perspective as failure to engage another when it is socially appropriate to do so (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2013) or from the target perspective as the perception of being ignored or excluded by others (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Robinson and Schabram (2017) distinguished two forms of this omission to engage: personal ostracism and task ostracism. Personal ostracism means not including a particular employee in interactions of a personal or purely social nature, such as being excluded from conversations, not being given social support or not being invited to join in during coffee breaks, lunch or other social events. Task ostracism means not engaging a co-worker in task-related interactions, not inviting a co-worker to project meetings, excluding a

6

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

co-worker from projects, omitting a co-worker when sending an email or not answering emails from a co-worker. Workplace ostracism is perceived as distinct from other examples of workplace mistreatment in terms of both conceptual and empirical differences (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Robinson and Schabram (2017) stressed that ostracism is much more ambiguous, may be unintentional and may play a functional role. In a correlation study using questionnaires to measure various forms of workplace mistreatment, it was shown that workplace ostracism is different from other phenomena, such as workplace deviance, incivility or bullying (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Ignoring or excluding an individual within an organization may be used as an interpersonal tactic or a leadership practice (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). Ostracism has an important group function in both animals and humans. Groups become stronger and more cohesive by ostracizing members who are weak or who display significantly different characteristics. Thus, ostracism is not administered randomly. People tend to reject those who are socially unpleasant or difficult in interactions, lack important abilities, possess stigmatizing characteristics or are unattractive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). People prefer and include those who possess desirable characteristics, such as a pleasant appearance and/or being compliant, friendly or helpful (Leary, 2005). Conversely, those who disagree and do not conform to the group are perceived as untrustworthy and have a greater risk of being excluded, especially by individuals who are highly concerned with moral standards (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016). In essence, ostracism may fulfil three functions: to protect a group from unsafe or uncooperative individuals; to correct another person’s behaviour, thus sending cues of potential exclusion that should be interpreted as signals to change and adapt to the group; and to expel individuals who do not correct their behaviour and conform with the group (Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017). Further, ostracism may be beneficial for the excluding actors, as excluding or rejecting others may fortify basic needs, such as positive self-esteem, sense of belonging, control and meaningful existence, although the pattern of results is inconsistent (Zadro et al., 2017). Research on workplace ostracism has shown that ignoring or rejecting a coworker may enable others to avoid conflicts, may calm tension and may avoid the expression of negative emotions (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016). Moreover, ostracism is perceived as a more acceptable activity for organizational members than bullying or other forms of mistreatment (O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Sometimes, ostracism may be used intentionally as a tool for conflict resolution, either by withdrawing from an undesirable relationship or by avoiding the task of giving criticism (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). However, we must remember that although ostracism may be functional for a group, it is not for an individual. Exclusion cues are experienced as serious threats to survival, compelling ostracized individuals to become more sensitive to the cues and more motivated to change their behaviour to gain or regain acceptance by the group. Therefore, excluded individuals must change their behaviour and conform to group expectations. In other words, ostracism is functional: If an individual can adapt to the

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

7

group, then group cohesiveness will be increased. However, sometimes, it is impossible for an individual to conform because the group has difficult or unclear expectations or their values conflict with the individual’s values or norms. In such circumstances, it is better for the individual to quit the group. Ostracism may also be dysfunctional for the group. While group diversity may be a challenge, it also provides an opportunity to introduce new ideas or values. By expelling unique members, the group may be cohesive but less diverse.

1.3

Workplace Ostracism in the Context of Workplace Bullying

Workplace ostracism is one of the unrecognized problems within organizations, unless it is in actuality one of the symptoms of workplace bullying. Yet, workplace ostracism has been identified as a phenomenon distinct from other forms of workplace mistreatment (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Below, we will discuss workplace ostracism as both an aspect of workplace bullying and a phenomenon possessing features distinct from bullying. Bullying is defined as a process in which an employee is repeatedly and systematically exposed to negative behaviours that he or she is unable to defend against (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). Undoubtedly, ostracism is present in workplace bullying. Generally, isolating the affected worker from others is the core activity of bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Leymann, 1996). All typologies of workplace bullying highlight isolation of the target as one of the categories of negative behaviour (e.g. Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Leymann, 1996). When considering two main categories, work and personal bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011), exclusion and rejection may represent both work-related behaviours and personal bullying. Ostracism as work-related bullying may involve offering meaningless tasks or no tasks at all. Personal bullying means exclusion from formal meetings, correspondence and informal social networks. Ostracized individuals most frequently report being socially ostracized (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003), while rumour-mongering and social isolation are the most frequently reported effects of bullying, according to the targets (Vartia, 1996). The reasons for workplace ostracism and bullying may be similar: Non-compliant individuals are perceived as untrustworthy and tend to be excluded (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016). They can also be bullied (Archer, 1999). Bullying is interpersonal in nature, and ostracism has been reported by targeted individuals as one of its core negative activities (e.g. Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1996; Vartia, 1996; Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). Workplace bullying often aims to expel a target from the workplace community (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). Being excluded or rejected from a group at a workplace is, in the case of bullying, a typical form of relational and social aggression (Field, 2014). Moreover, bullying involves various forms of ostracism: physical isolation when the target is excluded from others, for instance, by being assigned a room far apart from other workers; social ostracism, which involves ignoring or excluding the target from social

8

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

activities or preventing him or her from having the opportunity to speak with other workers; and cyberostracism, which includes ignoring an employee’s emails or phone calls (Williams & Zadro, 2005). In the workplace bullying literature, ostracism is treated as either physical aggression, such as moving a target somewhere separate from co-workers (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Radliff, 2014), or relational and social aggression, such as ignoring a target by not inviting him or her to meetings, thereby improving one’s social position and dominance at the target’s expense (Field, 2014). Silent treatment leads to a broadening of power asymmetries between the perpetrator and the target. Therefore, by using ostracism, perpetrators gain power and control over their group of co-workers. Workplace ostracism and bullying are similar in other ways. First, both acts may be carried out deliberately or unintentionally. Although there has been debate over whether workplace bullying is intentional, as are other forms of aggression (see Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Fox & Lituchy, 2012; Keashly & Jagatic, 2011), some theoretical models (Neuman & Baron, 2011) and empirical findings suggest that a bully’s behaviour may be partly a result of an ill-functioning organization (Hauge, 2010; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Hauge et al., 2011; Zapf & Einarsen, 2011) and that perpetrators may display psychosomatic impairment if they are falsely accused of bullying (Jenkins, Winefield, & Sarris, 2011). Second, both workplace bullying and ostracism are connected with experiencing a lack of control over the situation, causing a target to feel powerless and helpless. Third, both workplace ostracism and bullying can involve active rejection, such as expelling a worker from a project team or separating a worker from other workers, and more passive behaviours, such as exclusion or the withholding of contact or connection with co-workers. Finally, the consequences of chronic ostracism can be compared to the consequences of workplace bullying. Chronically excluded or rejected individuals suffer from learned helplessness, isolation and depression and may retreat from opportunities for reinclusion (Ren et al., 2017). They may experience failure in any attempt to fulfil their inclusionary needs. Wesselmann and Williams (2013) suggested that chronically ostracized individuals resort to behaviours focused on fulfilling power and provocation needs and therefore develop hostile cognitions, which can lead to aggressive behaviour. Some real-life events confirm this suggestion: For example, chronically ostracized individuals may be prone to extreme violence (e.g. school shootings) or attempted suicide (Ren et al., 2017). Therefore, it is possible that ostracized workers may bully others (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001). Anger was one of the emotions most frequently expressed by individuals exposed to workplace bullying (Rowe & Sherlock, 2005). A victim–offender cycle has been demonstrated in some studies (Ma, 2001): Socially excluded individuals, including those subjected to workplace bullying, tend to retaliate against others (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), and aggression is likely when social rejection of this type is characterized by a lack of control over an unpleasant situation (Williams & Zadro, 2005). It has been shown, for instance, that individuals exposed to workplace bullying (thus ostracized) display increased hostility, emotional self-aggression (Gamian-Wilk & Bjørkelo, in review) and a tendency to seek revenge (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006).

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

9

Bullying others as a result of being ostracized has been illustrated in studies on prison bullying (Ireland & Archer, 2002; Palmer & Thakordas, 2005). In longitudinal studies, it has been shown that lowered agreeableness is an outcome of exposure to bullying (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015; Podsiadly & Gamian-Wilk, 2017). Therefore, being chronically ostracized or bullied produces similar negative consequences in terms of emotional function and the tendency towards antisocial responses. It is possible that both bullied and chronically excluded or rejected individuals suffer from a deprived sense of belonging, lower self-esteem and, especially, lack of control and a feeling of meaninglessness, all of which may be connected with aggression (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). However, workplace ostracism may also be perceived as a phenomenon distinct from workplace bullying. Ostracism may consist of a single aversive episode, while bullying, by definition, is a process during which various negative activities escalate over time. Research on the 10-item Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS) indicates that workplace ostracism is distinct from workplace bullying, workplace aggression, undermining and interpersonal justice (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). WOS statements refer to silent treatment in the workplace context, including social ostracism (e.g. “Others ignored you at work”) and physical ostracism (e.g. “Others left the area when you entered”). Although scales measuring workplace bullying (e.g. Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQR)) include statements connected with being ignored or isolated, data from the WOS indicate that workplace ostracism is not correlated with bullying (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Comparing the outcomes of both experiences (workplace ostracism and bullying), O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl and Banki (2014) found that ostracism is as aversive, or even more aversive, in the short run (even a single episode) and has longer-lasting consequences for workers than workplace bullying. The researchers demonstrated that workplace ostracism may be even more psychologically harmful than bullying. Being rejected by co-workers frustrates one’s sense of belonging and self-esteem and is connected with psychological withdrawal, depression and health problems. Importantly, the research results indicate that when including both exposure to workplace bullying and being isolated in the model, only ostracism was related to negative psychological outcomes. A threatened sense of belonging mediated the effect of ostracism on well-being and work-related attitudes (low job satisfaction and turnover intentions). Moreover, exclusion and rejection (but not bullying) were related to workplace turnover 3 years later (O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2014). The researchers were also interested in what employees thought about workplace ostracism; thus, they measured lay perceptions of how ubiquitous and harmful workplace ostracism is (2014). Unfortunately, workplace ostracism was perceived as more acceptable, common and innocuous than bullying (2014). These findings suggest that workplace ostracism is very dangerous. Although objectively it causes tremendous negative outcomes, it can subjectively be perceived as a harmless activity. Thus, both perspectives, ostracism as a bullying behaviour and ostracism as a phenomenon distinct from bullying, are reasonable. Workplace bullying may be

10

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

perceived as a construct involving interpersonal rejection as a secondary feature (Leary, 2005).

1.4

Theoretical Background of Workplace Ostracism

Since the 1990s, there has been growing interest in research on ostracism, mainly for practical reasons, with the beginning of research on social rejection and exclusion being connected with the need to belong. Baumeister and Leary (1995) gathered substantial evidence on the impact of the motivation to belong on human behaviour, emotions and thoughts. The basic tenet of sociometer theory is that achieving a sense of acceptance and belonging is essential for self-esteem and psychosomatic wellbeing (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). An individual’s self-esteem is directly dependent on his or her perceived status of inclusion in valuable relationships. The basic desire to belong has evolutionary origins: Humans’ dependence on each other guarantees survival and reproduction. We must cooperate and form groups and supportive relationships in order to persist as a species. A threatened sense of belonging immediately generates lowered self-esteem. Negative affect and lowered self-esteem are the immediate responses to social rejection (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). The construct of inclusion versus exclusion involves a continuum ranging from “maximum inclusion”, in which individuals tend to maintain relationships and seek the company of others, to “maximal exclusion”, in which individuals intend to ignore or reject others (Leary, 2005). Therefore, the concept of the need to belong is the most important theoretical foundation for research on social ostracism. One of the most prominent and comprehensive models of social ostracism is Williams’ (2009) temporal needs threat (TNT) model, which was developed on the basis of real-life examples and findings provided by various research methods (e.g. experimental, diary studies and qualitative interviews). This model will be presented in detail, as it provides important suggestions for future research on workplace ostracism. The TNT model characterizes ostracism along four attribute dimensions, describes three stages of response to being ostracized and identifies its potential antecedents and moderators (Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017; Williams, 1997, 2007, 2009; Williams & Zadro, 2005). The dimensions of ostracism are modality, motive, quantity and clarity. Modality concerns the form of ostracism: physical, social and cyber. One may be physically ostracized by banishment, that is, being separated from others, or may be socially ostracized in face-to-face interaction by being treated as invisible in the presence of others or by a lack of response to emails, phone calls or communication via social networks (cyberostracism). The motive dimension includes five reasons why ostracism is used: “not ostracism”, role-prescribed, defensive, punitive and oblivious ostracism. Someone may ignore an individual or group unintentionally, for example, by being preoccupied with something else (not ostracism). Ostracism may also be connected with a role, such as avoiding a conversation with other passengers on a bus or limiting conversation with a waiter while with clients (role-prescribed ostracism). Ostracism may be

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

11

used intentionally, either for self-protective reasons, such as protecting oneself from rejection or negative treatment (defensive ostracism), or to punish others (punitive ostracism). Oblivious ostracism refers to situations where a target feels invisible (whether the source of the ostracism intends to cause this reaction or not) and not important enough to be punished. Oblivious ostracism, unlike other motives, is connected with a target’s perception. The quantity dimension refers to the intensity of ostracism, from very subtle instances of ignoring (e.g. omitting eye contact) to extreme forms of rejection (e.g. exile or imprisonment). The causal clarity dimension of experiencing ostracism may be connected either with being unsure whether, in a certain situation, others ignore or exclude an individual (especially in informal settings) or with ambiguous reasons for why the target feels he or she is being ostracized. The greater the ambiguity in reasoning about ostracism, the more space is left for the excluded individual to make various interpretations of the situation: One may blame the self or develop situational explanations (which are less harmful for the individual). These four dimensions reflect different aspects of ostracism, each of which generates various potential outcomes (Williams & Zadro, 2005). Although the taxonomic dimensions of ostracism are important in understanding the phenomenon, the core of Williams’ model postulates fundamental needs threat and reactions (immediate, short-term and long-term responses) to ostracism (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015; Williams & Zadro, 2005). During Stage 1 (reflexive reactions), immediate responses to ostracism occur, with ostracized individuals experiencing negative mood and frustration over basic needs (belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence). Additionally, individuals suffer social pain (Tchalova & Eisenberger, 2017). According to Williams (2009), humans are sensitive to the slightest cue that they are being ostracized, which can in turn elicit depressed mood, needs frustration and social pain, in order to avoid danger and survive. Immediate responses to ostracism are experienced by everyone, with few situational and dispositional moderators (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). In Stage 2, reflection and recovery occur. This stage begins within minutes of the ostracism event (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015; Wirth & Williams, 2009). Individuals tend to use cognitive and behavioural coping strategies, with immediate negative responses to ostracism (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). Detecting the pain of being excluded may motivate an individual to undertake one of three cognitive strategies: focusing on attributes of the aversive experience, taking a third-person perspective or reminding himself or herself of positive social relationships (2015). Cognitive strategies help reconceptualize and reduce the uncertainty associated with the ostracism event. Ostracized individuals may also engage in behavioural strategies with either prosocial (e.g. being nice and helpful to rejecters or to other people) or antisocial responses (e.g. aggression). Both types of reactions facilitate threatened needs recovery. However, according to Williams (2009), prosocial responses should fortify inclusionary needs (belonging and positive self-esteem) because fulfilling these needs helps restore social bonds, whereas antisocial responses should fortify power or provocation needs (control

12

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

and meaningful existence) as these behaviours help gain social influence over others. If ostracism is long-lasting, then needs frustration will persist. When recovery strategies fail, an individual will enter Stage 3: resignation. In this stage, an individual will experience acceptance of needs loss in several ways: alienation (as a result of the need-to-belong threat), depression (as a result of the need-for-positive-selfesteem threat), learned helplessness (as a result of the need-to-control threat) and unworthiness (as a result of the need-for-meaningful-existence threat) (Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). One of the most important problems, empirically and practically, is the paradox of antisocial and prosocial responses to social exclusion. It is essential to have insight into the circumstances, of both moderators and mediators, in which a particular pattern of reactions is displayed. Scott and Thau (2013) proposed a solution: If exclusion is less final (less durable, less severe or less inevitable), then participants will have opportunities for reinclusion after an episode of ostracism instigated by a few group members rather than the whole group or an organizational authority. In this situation, individuals tend to display more prosocial than antisocial responses after the experience of being ignored or rejected. Smart Richman and Leary (2009), in their multimotive model of reactions to interpersonal rejection experiences, proposed an alternative answer to the question of paradoxical reactions to ostracism. They posited that the type of response to ostracism will depend on an individual’s construal of the basis for the rejection event. Individuals have one or more of six possible perceptions involving the value of the damaged relationship: perceived costs of the rejection, relationship value, expectations of relational repair, the possibility of relational alternatives, the fairness of the rejection and the pervasiveness or chronicity of the rejection. Thus, construals mediate the relationship between an event that connotes rejection and the type of motivated response that is chosen (seeking acceptance, harming others and withdrawal). Socially appealing responses are likely when there are high perceived costs of rejection, when one expects that a relationship may be repaired, when a relationship is highly valued and/or when there is no possibility of alternative relationships. In the case of chronic rejection, when individuals perceive the rejection as unfair, have little hope of repairing a relationship and perceive it as not being valuable, they tend to behave aggressively. Withdrawal is likely when rejection is chronic, the relationship is not perceived as valuable and expectations of relational repair are low.

1.4.1

Consequences of Social Ostracism

Ostracism is a painful and aversive experience. Being excluded generates severe immediate and long-term negative consequences. Various measurement methods are used to indicate the power of immediate responses to ostracism, including self-report scales, physiological measures and neuroimaging research. However, most research on ostracism has been conducted in experimental settings where participants experienced being either excluded (e.g. deliberately not selected to participate in a task,

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

13

not being given a ball in a computer ball-tossing game or being told they were going to end up alone in the future) or included. These findings clearly indicate that the effect sizes, as reported in studies of ostracism responses, are high (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015; Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017) and that ostracism affects individuals regardless of personal or situational factors (Williams, 2009). In this section, a review of research findings based on experimental studies of ostracism will be presented in order to enhance understanding of the danger of workplace ostracism. In his early work on social exclusion, Leary (1990) indicated that being excluded generates negative emotions, such as social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness and depression. Findings from experimental studies indicate a similar pattern of results, in which rejection leads to feelings such as sadness, distress, anxiety or anger (for a review, see Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Hurt feelings occur as a result of a threat to one’s sense of belonging (Leary, 2017; Leary & Springer, 2000; MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Being ignored and rejected threatens self-esteem (Baumeister, DeWall, & Vohs, 2009; Blackhart, Knowles, Nelson, & Baumeister, 2009; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009). It has been found that even a minimal ostracism manipulation (not receiving eye contact) influenced participants’ implicit self-esteem in an unrelated word association task (Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010). Rejection generates several stress symptoms, including greater salivary cortisol levels (Blackhart, Eckel, & Tice, 2007), lower body temperature (IJzerman et al., 2012) and transient slowing of the heart rate (Moor, Crone, & van der Molen, 2010). Moreover, ostracism hurts, which is apparent both metaphorically in language (being excluded or rejected is connected with such terms as “suffering” and “death”) and literally—as a consequence of being ostracized, an individual experiences social pain, which shares the same neurological system as physical pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2005; Tchalova & Eisenberger, 2017; Wesselmann, Nairne, & Williams, 2012b). Ostracism also leads to decreased performance, as being excluded or rejected impairs self-regulation and increases impulsiveness (Baker & Baumeister, 2017). Experimental studies demonstrated that participants who imagined their future alone performed poorly on cognitive tasks (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002), displayed lower endurance when completing a task (Baumeister & DeWall, 2005) and reacted more slowly (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). Worsened self-regulation by excluded individuals is also connected with an increased tendency to eat more, and to eat unhealthy food (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). Unfortunately, research results suggest that ostracism affects not just the target but both observers (Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009) and rejecters as well (Zadro et al., 2017). Witnessing another person being rejected worsens an observer’s mood and frustrates his or her basic needs (Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009). Ostracizing may, on the one hand, foster basic needs, especially when a group excludes an individual. In such cases, the perpetrators may experience a sense of belonging. However, rejecting and excluding another person may also cause hurt and the frustration of fundamental needs, especially when a rejecter stays alone (Zadro et al., 2017).

14

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

The initial reactions to ostracism (negative feelings, basic needs frustration and social pain) serve as cues which, once detected, motivate individuals to respond in ways that maintain or re-fulfil threatened needs. Several factors and cognitive strategies influence recovery. If individuals have a chance to attribute being ostracized to temporary group membership, then they will recover from negative moods and needs frustration more quickly than those who attribute ostracism to permanent group membership, such as gender (Goodwin, Williams, & Carter-Sowell, 2010; Masten, Telzer, & Eisenberger, 2011; Wirth & Williams, 2009). Instructing them to think of an ostracism event from the third-person perspective has been shown to facilitate recovery, while recalling the event from the first-person perspective does not help (Lau, Moulds, & Richardson, 2009). Therefore, distancing oneself from group membership or taking an observer’s perspective can help one cope with the immediate responses to ostracism. For example, one may cope with ostracism by appropriately interpreting the exclusion situation (e.g. finding external reasons for exclusion, not blaming oneself) and by not thinking about the painful event. These strategies likely decrease the ambiguity of the ostracism event, thus reducing selfblame and helping to maintain positive self-esteem. Importantly, receiving social support after experiencing exclusion helps manage immediate negative responses. Reminders of positive social relationships in which the participant is involved, such as family, or even symbolic or parasocial relationships can facilitate recovery from ostracism (Derrick, Gabriel, & Hugenberg, 2009; Epley, Akalis, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2008; Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005; Laurin, Schumann, & Holmes, 2014; McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011; Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007a). Moreover, engaging in religious or spiritual behaviour may serve as an effective strategy for coping with immediate responses to ostracism (Aydin, Fischer, & Frey, 2010; Aydin et al., 2012). Focusing on valuable relationships helps to restore one’s sense of belonging and can reduce the risk of aggression after experiencing ostracism. Individual differences, such as high interdependent self-construal by defining oneself as a group member (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2013), social anxiety (Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006) and a tendency towards depression and rumination (Poznanski, 2010, cited in Wesselmann & Williams, 2013), are connected with slower recovery time. Moreover, rumination after experiencing rejection delays recovery (Swim & Williams, 2008, as cited in Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). In one study, after experiencing ostracism, participants were told to either focus on completing a cognitive task or to write down their thoughts about possible reasons for being excluded. Those participants who were distracted from thinking about ostracism fully recovered from their negative moods and needs frustration (Swim & Williams, 2008, cited in Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). Ostracized individuals use not only cognitive strategies but behavioural strategies as well: prosocial or aggressive responses to ostracism (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). Both research findings and real-life examples indicate that ostracized individuals behave more antisocially than do non-ostracized individuals (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Philips, 2003; Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; Twenge, 2005; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice,

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

15

& Stucke, 2001; Twenge et al., 2007a). Being rejected by spouses has been shown to be related to spousal homicide (Barnard, Vera, Vera, & Newman, 1982). School shootings are most often carried out by teenagers with a history of being bullied, teased or ostracized by peers (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003), and stigmatized children tend to be more aggressive (Asher, Rose, & Gabriel, 2001). Numerous experimental findings provide additional evidence to support a link between being ostracized and antisocial behaviour (for a review, see Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; Twenge, 2005). Aggression after exclusion is often focused not only on rejecters but also on innocent people (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001) and occurs especially when ostracism is connected with lack of control over an unpleasant situation (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). Findings support the notion that aggressive behaviour may reinforce a threatened need for control (Schoel, Eck, & Greifeneder, 2014; Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). On the other hand, other research indicates that ostracized individuals seek opportunities for reinclusion and thus undertake prosocial behaviours. When given the opportunity for reconnection, ostracized participants behaved less aggressively (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010; Twenge et al., 2007b). As the immediate responses to ostracism constitute important cues for subsequent responses, individuals experiencing rejection can display increased attention to social cues (Bernstein, Sacco, Brown, Young, & Claypool, 2010; Bernstein, Young, Brown, Sacco, & Claypool, 2008; Böckler, Hömke, & Sebanz, 2014; DeWall et al., 2011). For example, Bernstein, Sacco, Brown, Young and Claypool (2010) found that participants who were reminded of past social exclusion preferred faces with genuine smiles to faces with deceptive smiles, as compared to control group participants. The frustrated inclusionary needs mediated the relation between exclusion and the desire to interact with faces displaying genuine smiles. Individuals strive to be perceived positively in order to maintain social bonds. Importantly, experimental research has demonstrated that ostracized individuals focus more on reinclusion with new people, rather than with the rejecters (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007; Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009). Having a choice, ostracized individuals (especially women) tend to engage in collective tasks rather than individual tasks (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Excluded participants showed increased sensitivity to social influence as they conformed to others (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000b), complied with requests (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008), mimicked other people’s behaviours (Lakin & Chartrand, 2005) and obeyed direct commands (Riva, Williams, Torstrick, & Montali, 2014). Therefore, the tendency to re-affiliate increases rejected individuals’ sensitivity to social cues, indicating opportunities to re-establish a sense of belonging. However, there is also some experimental evidence to suggest that ostracized participants tend to withdraw and seek solitude (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2016; Wesselmann, Williams, Ren, & Hales, 2014). All behavioural response patterns to ostracism (antisocial, prosocial and withdrawal) have empirical support. However, it is of vital importance to clarify under which circumstances particular responses will occur. Williams’ (2009) assumption

16

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

about inclusionary needs being fortified by prosocial behaviours, and power or provocation needs being fortified by antisocial behaviours, has gained empirical support. The potential to restore one’s sense of control leads to a decrease in aggressiveness (Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). On the other hand, given the opportunity to restore a sense of belonging reduces the tendency to be aggressive (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010). It is also possible that contradictory behavioural tendencies coexist (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Sommer & Bernieri, 2015), but further research is needed to determine which is the dominant response, according to various moderators and mediators. The above-described theoretical models of ostracism and the review of empirical data on exclusion and rejection may serve as a summary of the research on workplace ostracism generated thus far, and may provide inspiration to conduct further research. In the next sections, focus will be placed on empirical data on workplace ostracism. First, the antecedents of workplace ostracism will be presented, followed by its consequences.

1.5

Antecedents of Workplace Ostracism

Both individual and organizational factors must be regarded as potential predictors of workplace ostracism, as they have been identified in cross-sectional studies as well as in theoretical considerations (Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Individuals who differ in any way from group norms are in danger of being ignored or rejected. Workers who identify themselves as members of minority groups are often discriminated against, for example, African-Americans (Deitch et al., 2003), foreign-language speakers (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006) and people with visible disabilities, physical illnesses (Wynne & McAnaney, 2009) or mental illnesses (Marr, Thau, Aquino, & Barclay, 2012) have reported being excluded or rejected. Some personal traits have been shown to be correlated with being ostracized in the workplace, such as low self-esteem (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001), high neuroticism, low agreeableness and low extraversion (Wu, Wei, & Hui, 2011). Several organizational factors are related to workplace ostracism. Taking macroorganizational features into consideration, Robinson and Schabram (2017) highlighted organizational structure, organizational culture and organizational diversity in relation to workplace ostracism. Workplace ostracism may be generated by the organization and from the type of work, such as physical distance between employees and low psychological or task interdependence among organizational members, respectively. In line with Williams’ (2009) model, distances between work units and the increasing use of virtual communication may be connected with cyberostracism and related to increased feelings of exclusion and a decreased sense of belonging (Harpaz, 2002). In addition, aspects of organizational culture, such as competitiveness, may lead to ostracism. In competitive organizations, workers focused only on their own outcomes may exclude others either unintentionally or deliberately to gain valuable resources. Moreover, ignoring

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

17

co-workers may be normative and even approved as part of the organizational culture. That is, excluding others may be tolerated or modelled by managers, and then copied by subordinates. There are organizational cultures in which members routinely ignore one another; thus, many behaviours are not interpreted as ostracism (Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Ostracism may also occur in response to organizational diversity. As mentioned above, employees who are different (e.g. coming from various countries, speaking various languages, having various norms and expectations) may feel excluded (e.g. Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006; Kistner, Metzler, Gatlin, & Risi, 1993). One experimental study on linguistic ostracism showed how an English-speaking participant experienced negative emotions when colleagues began speaking another language, that is, Russian (Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009). Among micro-organizational aspects, Robinson and Schabram (2017) drew attention to power, work significance and performance. Silent treatment, for example, may be used as a tool for gaining power (see also Gamian-Wilk, Salton Meyer, & Wilk, 2017). By excluding a co-worker from social networks or valuable information, one can gain control over him or her. Conversely, the targeted individual is left without opportunities to influence others. Organizational members who are more engaged tend to have a higher commitment to work; those who identify with the workplace may suffer more strongly if excluded (Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). Finally, workers who are perceived as underperforming may be ostracized.

1.6

Consequences of Workplace Ostracism

The negative consequences of workplace ostracism are noticeable at both individual and organizational levels. An employee subjected to ostracism suffers from hurt feelings, decreased psychological and physical well-being, worsened work-related attitudes and negative behavioural responses. In line with Williams’ (2009) model, exposure to workplace ostracism generates negative emotions and basic needs frustration. Ignored or rejected employees have reported experiencing a negative mood (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Gamian-Wilk, Madeja-Bien, & Dolinski, unpublished data), anxiety (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Williams et al., 2000a; Xu, 2012, after Robinson & Schabram, 2017), anger, embarrassment (Williams, Bernieri, Faulkner, Grahe, & Gada-Jain, 2000a) and emotional exhaustion (Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012). Exposure to workplace ostracism also evokes needs threat (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Gamian-Wilk, Madeja-Bien, & Dolinski, unpublished data), decreased self-esteem (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) and reduced sense of meaningfulness and belonging (O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Being ostracized also produces harmful effects, such as sleep disturbances (Pereira, Meier, & Elfering, 2013), vulnerability and paranoia (Williams et al., 2000a) and impairments in psychological and physical well-being (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006; O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Stress also influences other areas of function, leading to work-family conflict (Liu et al., 2013).

18

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

The negative outcomes of workplace ostracism as experienced by an individual have an impact on work effectiveness and therefore on the organization as a whole. Ostracized workers have reported negative attitudes towards their workplace, coworkers and/or supervisors, including higher job tension (Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012), diminished job satisfaction (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006) and decreased job commitment (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Excluded or rejected employees not only display withdrawal (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) but may also develop the intention to leave (Cottingham, Erickson, Diefendorff, & Bromley, 2013; Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Zheng, Yang, Ngo, Liu, & Jiao, 2016) and search for a new job (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; O’Reilly et al., 2014; Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2013). Co-workers who speak a foreign language may also feel ostracized and subsequently experience increased anger and a drop in creativity (Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009). Such negative outcomes of workplace ostracism at the individual level are likely to have a severe impact on the overall work climate and general productivity. However, further studies are needed to examine this issue. As findings on experimentally evoked ostracism suggest, exposure to workplace exclusion and rejection may produce paradoxical motives that lead to either antisocial or prosocial responses. On the one hand, ostracized workers may exhibit deviant or counterproductive behaviours (Fatima, 2016; Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Hitlan & Noel, 2009; Yan, Zhou, Long, & Ji, 2014), decreased work performance (Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 2011; O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015), decreased citizenship behaviour at work (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Scott & Thau, 2013), a greater tendency to withhold interpersonal citizenship behaviour (Wu, Liu, Kwan, & Lee, 2016; Zhang, Ye, & Ferreira-Meyers, 2017) and greater engagement in interpersonally harmful behaviours, such as slander, verbal abuse and an unwillingness to help co-workers (Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007). In one study, excluded nurses displayed a lower quality of care for their patients (Cottingham, Erickson, Diefendorff, & Bromley, 2013). In another, organizational constraints (e.g. lack of co-worker support or lack of essential materials needed to work) caused employees to stop performing extra-role tasks and citizenship behaviours (Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). On the other hand, workplace ostracism may produce positive outcomes, such as prosocial behaviour or an increase in productivity (Balliet & Ferris, 2013; Williams & Sommer, 1997; Xu, Huang, & Robinson, 2017, after Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Based on the multimotive model of responses to rejection (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009), prosocial responses to ostracism in the workplace are more likely if workplace relationships are perceived as valuable and reparable. The costs of rejection are high, especially if the worker’s previous work commitment was high. Negative outcomes have been shown to be lower when excluded workers felt a strong sense of identification with their organization (Xu, Huang, & Robinson, 2017). Moreover, in line with Scott and Thau (2013), temporary workplace exclusion (employees’ anticipated social reconnection) was positively related to prosocial responses and negatively related to socially undermining behaviours. In contrast,

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

19

severely excluded workers were more likely to adopt aggressive responses (Scott & Thau, 2013). The mere threat of being rejected (e.g. reading examples of social ostracism at work) generates socially valuable responses. Employees focused on social exclusion have displayed greater compliance (Gamian-Wilk, 2013). However, the pattern of results is completely different in the case of chronic rejection, which occurs in workplace bullying. In line with Smart Richman and Leary’s (2009) model, individuals exposed to bullying react with antisocial responses: They do not treat the threat of social exclusion as a motivation to undertake socially desirable behaviours. Instead, they respond with decreased compliance. A similar pattern of results was generated in the case of employees exposed to workplace bullying: As soon as the negative intentions and hostility of the bully were recognized, the targets began with dialogue, constructive conflict-resolving solutions and harder work; moreover, the targets attempted to be more amicable, focusing on both their own and the other party’s interests. They sought to avoid mistakes and any behaviour that would contribute further to the conflict (Rayner, 1997; Zapf & Gross, 2001). However, integrating, task-oriented strategies were often shown to be ineffective. As a result, many employees exposed to bullying have withdrawn or adapted to inconvenient conditions (Zapf & Gross, 2001). This finding is also in line with Smart Richman and Leary’s multimotive model of reactions to rejection, which suggests that chronic rejection generates antisocial responses. Other findings have provided further empirical verification of the multimotive model; acceptance-seeking behaviours were shown to dominate when relationship-promoting construals were developed after experiencing ostracism. In one experimental study, it was found that the perception that workplace relationships were valuable led to a higher compliance rate (Gamian-Wilk, Madeja-Bien, & Dolinski, unpublished data). These findings provide support for the notion that strong identification with one’s work group, a sense of loyalty to that group and the perception that relationships with co-workers are highly valuable and worth repairing—and that reinclusion is possible—result in positive behaviours, even when ostracism occurs.

1.7

Towards Prevention and Intervention

Ostracism is an inevitable element within organizations (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Robinson & Schabram, 2017; Williams, 2009). However, the research findings described above permit conclusions to be drawn about how to avoid ostracism or at least enhance coping mechanisms when ostracism occurs. Ostracism is less likely in cohesive and well-managed groups; thus, prevention efforts should be directed towards creating group cohesiveness, increasing organizational loyalty and developing social networks. In conflict situations, employees should be reassured that they will be supported. Therefore, supervisors and human resource (HR) employees should monitor difficult situations and provide information on strategies for coping with conflicts. Employees who believe that difficult situations can be resolved are

20

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

more likely to cooperate and less likely to undertake aggressive responses (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). When employees perceive that workplace relationships are highly valued and reparable (2009), prosocial responses can be expected, even when workplace ostracism occurs. A workplace canteen may play an important role as a place where people can connect, and it has been shown that well-prepared food may counter the negative consequences of ostracism and feelings of loneliness (Troisi & Gabriel, 2011). In each organization, HR officers should be provided with useful intervention tools. Tools may be focused on helping to reconceptualize and reduce the uncertainty connected with ostracism events. Ostracized workers within an organization should avoid ruminating on the rejection event, as rumination hinders recovery and prolongs negative mood and needs frustration (Wesselmann, Ren, Swim, & Williams, 2013; Zhang, Ye, & Ferreira-Meyers, 2017). As the findings suggest, distraction tasks can help overcome immediate, negative ostracism responses. It has been shown that a brief (12 min) focused-attention lesson that instructs ostracized individuals to focus on their breathing or let their minds wander before the ostracism episode can be helpful (Molet, Macquet, Lefebvre, & Williams, 2013). As coping strategies for immediate responses to ostracism, it is reasonable to instruct ostracized workers about how to distance themselves by appropriately interpreting the exclusion situation (e.g. finding objective reasons why a co-worker did not reply to an email rather than blaming oneself), taking an observer’s perspective or reminding themselves of their positive social relationships (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). It is important to highlight employees’ personal resources, such as specific competencies or optimism, as well. A sense of humour has also been found to be helpful when dealing with workplace ostracism (Neves & Cunha, 2017). As religious symbols and reminders of one’s close relationships may satisfy inclusionary needs when actual workplace relationships are unavailable, it is reasonable for ostracized workers to have some personal belongings (e.g. family pictures) in their work environment, such as on their desks or in their desk drawers. In the case of chronic ostracism, as well as its reflexive effects, pharmacological intervention may be advisable (Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017; Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). It has been shown that regular doses of acetaminophen (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010) and oxytocin, a social-affiliative hormone (Gaertner, 2009, after Wesselmann & Williams, 2013), may reduce the magnitude of physical and social pain. However, influencing only those workers subjected to ostracism is not enough. When planning prevention and intervention, the witnesses and sources should also be adequately instructed and assisted. Perceiving the ostracism situation from the actor’s point of view may be beneficial (Zadro et al., 2017), as it could help to identify the origins of certain critical situations. On the one hand, it is essential to increase tolerance for workplace diversity for newcomers and employees of different backgrounds (e.g. foreign-language speakers) and to encourage group acceptance. On the other hand, it is crucial to clarify organizational norms and standards that help newcomers adapt and thus avoid being ostracized. Supporting workplace networks and fortifying emotional bonds seem to be the most effective strategies for preventing ostracism. To build valuable relationships within workplace teams, conflict

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

21

management skills trainings may be helpful (O’Reilly & Banki, 2016). Ostracism may be used to manage conflicts, meaning that social exclusion and rejection are more likely when employees are not equipped with conflict management tools. They may accordingly avoid conflict situations and the colleagues with whom they are having problems as well. Employees provided with effective interpersonal tools to solve conflicts will likely avoid ostracizing others (2016). O’Reilly and Banki (2016) suggested that some existing training programmes may be helpful in reducing and preventing workplace ostracism; for example, interpersonal training programmes which focus on interactions on the individual and group levels and on understanding acceptable and unacceptable interpersonal behaviours. The authors described one intervention programme, Civility, Respect and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW), which they found particularly fruitful in eliminating uncivil behaviours and workplace ostracism and for enhancing respect. As civil behaviour means being inclusive towards others and ensuring that coworkers feel valued and accepted, this training programme seeks to reduce workplace ostracism. The CREW programme also aims to reduce potentially disruptive activities on the part of targets, which may in turn provoke rejection by co-workers. Moreover, CREW may contribute to creating an inclusive culture (O’Reilly & Banki, 2016). An inclusive interpersonal environment is one which accepts diversity, providing the opportunity for each organizational member to be present and heard. Likewise, an inclusive culture is one in which the contributions of each worker are respected and accepted. In building inclusive organizations, policies and procedures encouraging diversity and promoting inclusiveness are helpful. It is, however, essential that those who have leadership positions promote inclusive policies and procedures as well (2016). It is essential to create prevention and intervention programmes based on research findings on workplace ostracism. Such programmes must be focused, first, on identifying the problem, as exclusion and rejection are subjective experiences and thus generally dismissed, perceived as harmless or construed as useful, and, second, on conducting anti-bullying workshops, as isolation is a type of negative bullying behaviour. However, such programmes might also focus solely on exclusion and rejection signs, as well as on both the antecedents and consequences of the magnitude of harm ostracism generates.

1.8

Future Research

In this chapter, we have presented research findings on workplace ostracism. Using Williams’ (2007) TNT model of ostracism as a theoretical framework, future studies should examine not only immediate responses to workplace ostracism but also cognitive and behavioural coping strategies and the long-term effects of being ostracized at work. It is therefore essential to know what kinds of strategies ostracized workers use to recover from exclusion. It is also crucial to learn which strategies are effective (i.e. leading to reinclusion and basic needs restoration) and which strategies only escalate the problem. For example, following Smart Richman and Leary’s (2009) multimotive model of responses to social rejection, it is possible

22

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

that under some conditions, such as when employees perceive workplace relationships as valuable and reparable or feel strongly loyal and committed to their job, prosocial attempts may be more likely after an ostracism experience. It is also possible that in these circumstances, co-workers would be more reluctant to resort to ostracism. Another area of research on workplace ostracism is the factors which could prevent antisocial responses to workplace ostracism. Until now, studies on workplace ostracism have focused mainly on describing its negative consequences, for example, counterproductive behaviours. It would be worthwhile to conduct research aimed at identifying conditions that would limit aggression and other antisocial responses to ostracism. Further research should also focus not just on targeted employees but on sources of ostracism and observers as well, in addition to the negative effects of ostracism on the whole organization. As the literature on workplace bullying suggests, negative activities cause severe damage to the whole organization in the form of increased absenteeism, lowered job performance and higher employee turnover (Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2011). It is possible that silent treatment and exclusion at the workplace can also damage an organization’s image and generate real monetary costs. Research should also be conducted on identifying the antecedents of workplace ostracism. In the present chapter, potential macro- and micro-organizational antecedents, such as organizational structure, organizational culture and power structure, have been identified. It is necessary to gather empirical data to determine the risks of these various factors for promoting ostracism. Future research should thus concentrate on completing longitudinal studies that would demonstrate both causal and reverse-causal directions. Additionally, this research should emphasize the identification of personal and organizational predictors of workplace ostracism. Finally, research should be performed to examine workplace ostracism from a global perspective. More comparative research on the scale of silent treatment in various organizations in different countries is needed. It is possible that different cultural paradigms (e.g. collectivistic and individualistic) may influence the manifestation and scale of the problem. For example, in collectivistic countries, where the focus is on group norms and processes, ostracism may be more ubiquitous and/or legitimated; for the sake of group consistency, non-conforming individuals may be excluded. An international perspective might also reveal different patterns of responses to workplace ostracism, as well as different ostracism antecedents. Although the ostracism literature is constantly growing, little is known about workplace ostracism. Conducting ecologically valid research on ostracism in the organizational context is a challenge. However, identifying empirical reasons for the workplace ostracism phenomenon is crucial in creating effective prevention programmes.

1.9

Conclusion

Organizational membership provides essential benefits for people. By being included in the workplace, an employee gains self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Pierce & Gardner, 2004), receives social support (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, &

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

23

Murray, 2000) and derives a sense of happiness (Buss, 2000). It is therefore essential to focus greater attention on improving workplace relationships and networks in order to prevent ostracism. In the present chapter, we have focused on the theoretical background of the TNT model (Williams, 2007) and laboratory research findings based on this theory to demonstrate the importance of the silent treatment in the workplace context. The conclusions drawn from both laboratory research and workplace studies on ostracism are consistent—being rejected by or excluded from co-workers and/or the group as a whole can severely damage ostracized individuals. Workplace ostracism causes negative emotional (lowered mood and self-esteem, unsatisfied basic needs), cognitive (negative work-related attitudes) and behavioural (counterproductive behaviour) outcomes. Being isolated or ignored is even more harmful than being exposed to workplace bullying (O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2014). In the present chapter, workplace ostracism has been presented, on the one hand, as one form of bullying behaviour with a similar pattern of results as workplace bullying, and the consequences and functions of ostracism have been shown. On the other hand, workplace ostracism has been identified as a separate construct (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2014) and thus deserving of additional attention from scholars and practitioners. Although lay perceptions suggest that ostracism is not very harmful, research results provide the opposite conclusion: Ostracism is a particularly toxic social behaviour in organizations and, as such, needs further research attention and prevention and intervention efforts.

1.10

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Construct Validity in Workplace Bullying and Harassment Research, Vol. 1 Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1 Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying and Cyberbullying Scales: An Overview, Vol. 1 Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Vol. 3

References Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), 1263–1289. Asher, S. R., Rose, A. J., & Gabriel, S. W. (2001). Peer rejection in everyday life. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 105–142). New York: Oxford University Press. Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turing to god in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167210367491.

24

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

Aydin, N., Krueger, J., Fischer, J., Hahn, D., Frey, D., Kastenmüller, A., & Fischer, P. (2012). A man’s best friend – How the presence of a dog decreases mental distress after social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 446–449. Baker, R. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Alone and impulsive. Self-regulatory capacity mediates and moderates the implications of exclusion. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 29–45). New York: Routledge. Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 298–308. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.004. Barnard, G. W., Vera, H., Vera, M. I., & Newman, G. (1982). Till death do us part: A study of spousal murder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10, 271–280. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173. Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 53–73). Hove/New York: Psychology Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817–827. Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604. Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Social rejection, control, numbness, and emotion: How not to be fooled by Gerber and Wheeler (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 489–493. Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391–405. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187. Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D. F., Brown, C. M., Young, S. G., & Claypool, H. M. (2010). A preference for genuine smiles following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46, 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.010. Blackhart, G. C., Eckel, L. A., & Tice, D. M. (2007). Salivary cortisol in response to acute social rejection and acceptance by peers. Biological Psychology, 75, 267–276. Blackhart, G. C., Knowles, M. L., Nelson, B. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A metaanalytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065. Böckler, A., Hömke, P., & Sebanz, N. (2014). Invisible man: Exclusion from shared attention affects gaze behavior and self-reports. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613488951. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press. Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143–153. Cottingham, M. D., Erickson, R. J., Diefendorff, J. M., & Bromley, G. (2013). The effect of manager exclusion on nurse turnover intention and care quality. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35(8), 970–985.

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

25

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623. Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299–1324. Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs provide the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.003. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45–59. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Bushman, B., Im, C., & Williams, K. D. (2010). A little acceptance goes a long way: Applying social impact theory to the rejection-aggression link. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1948550610361387. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A., & Reid, M. W. (2011). Automatic emotion regulation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity. Emotion, 11(3), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023534. Dotan-Eliaz, O., Sommer, K. L., & Rubin, Y. S. (2009). Multilingual groups: Effects of linguistic ostracism on felt rejection and anger, coworker attraction, perceived team potency, and creative performance. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 31, 363–375. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. Edwards, J. R. (2000). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis. Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2005). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 109–127). New York: Psychology Press. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x. Fatima, A. (2016). Impact of workplace ostracism on counter productive work behaviors: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 388–408. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348–1366. Field, J. E. (2014). Relational and social aggression in the workplace. In J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace. Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 179–192). New York/London: Routledge. Fox, S., & Lituchy, T. R. (Eds.). (2012). Gender and the dysfunctional workplace. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the U.S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438–456. Gamian-Wilk, M. (2013). Does bullying increase compliance? Social Influence, 8(2–3), 131–148. Gamian-Wilk, M., & Bjørkelo, B. (in review). The role of personality in the form of temperament in relation to bullying at work. Violence and Victims.

26

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

Gamian-Wilk, M., Salton Meyer, E., & Wilk, K. (2017). Workplace bullying as an arena of social influence: A review of tactics in the bullying process. Educational Forum, 29(1(57)), 79–96. Gamian-Wilk, M., Madeja-Bien, K., & Dolinski, D. (unpublished data). Compliance after exclusion: Relationship-promoting construals mediate compliance in employed individuals who feel excluded. Gardner, W., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. (2005). Social snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227–242). New York: Psychology Press. Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17456924.2009.01158.x. Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Goodwin, S. A., Williams, K. D., & Carter-Sowell, A. R. (2010). The psychological sting of stigma: The costs of attributing ostracism to racism. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46, 612–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.002. Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Collins, J. M. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 65–82). New York: Wiley. Hales, A. H., Kassner, M. P., Williams, K. D., & Graziano, W. G. (2016). Disagreeableness as a cause and consequence of ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 782–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216643933. Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organisation and society. Work Study, 51(2), 74–80. Hartgerink, C. H. J., Van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS One, 10, 1–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0127002. Hauge, L. J. (2010). Environmental antecedents of workplace bullying: A multi-design approach. Ph.D., University of Bergen. Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and workplace bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21, 220–242. Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., & Skogstad, A. (2011). Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(4), 305–323. Hitlan, R. T., & Noel, J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477–502. Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zarate, M. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1), 56–70. Hoel, H., Sheehan, M., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organisational effects of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 129–148). Boca Raton: CRC Press. IJzerman, H., Gallucci, M., Pouw, W. T., Weiβgerber, S. C., Van Doesum, N. J., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Cold-blooded loneliness: Social exclusion leads to lower skin temperatures. Acta Psychologica, 140, 283–288. Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (2002). The perceived consequences of responding to bullying with aggression: A study of male and female adult prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 28(4), 257–272. Jackson, M. F., Barth, J. M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. E. (2006). Classroom contextual effects of race on children’s peer nominations. Child Development, 77(5), 1325–1337.

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

27

Jenkins, M., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Consequences of being accused of workplace bullying: An exploratory study. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 33–47. Jex, S. M., Adams, G. A., Bachrach, D. G., & Sorenson, S. (2003). The impact of situational constraints, role stressors, and commitment on employee altruism. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(3), 171–180. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviors and bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 41–74). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1997). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 124–143). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Kistner, J., Metzler, A., Gatlin, D., & Risi, S. (1993). Classroom racial proportions and children’s peer relations: Race and gender effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.446. Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2005). Excluding and nonconscious behavioral mimicry. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 279–295). New York/Hove: Psychology Press. Lau, G., Moulds, M. L., & Richardson, R. (2009). Ostracism: How much it hurts depends on how you remember it. Emotion, 9, 430–434. Laurin, K., Schumann, K., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). A relationship with God? Connecting with the divine to assuage fears of interpersonal rejection. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614531800. Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229. Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast (pp. 35–51). New York: Psychology Press. Leary, M. R. (2017). Motivational and emotional aspects of interpersonal rejection: Twenty-five years of theory and research. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 46–60). New York: Routledge. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62. Leary, M. R., & Springer, C. (2000). Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ab.10061. Leary, M., Twenge, J., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 111–132. Leung, A. S. M., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 836–844. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853. Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Lee, C., & Hui, C. (2013). Work-to-family spillover effect of workplace ostracism: The role of work-home segmentation preferences. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 75–93. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and . . . Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406–433. Ma, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims? American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 351–370.

28

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55. Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K. F., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 285–297. Maslach, C., Leiter, M. P., & Jackson, S. E. (2012). Making a significant difference with burnout interventions: Researcher and practitioner collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 296–300. Masten, C. L., Telzer, E. H., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). An fMRI investigation of attributing negative social treatment to racial discrimination. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1042–1051. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21520. Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 467–484. McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, M. T., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239–1252. Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009). Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 415–431. Molet, M., Macquet, B., Lefebvre, O., & Williams, K. D. (2013). A focused attention intervention for coping with ostracism. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 1262–1270. Moor, B. G., Crone, E. A., & van der Molen, M. W. (2010). The heartbrake of social rejection: Heart rate deceleration in response to unexpected peer rejection. Psychological Science, 21, 1326–1333. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2011). Social antecedents of bullying: A social interactionist perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace bullying: Development in theory, research and practice (pp. 201–225). London: CRC Press. Neves, P., & Cunha, M. P. (2017). Exploring a model of workplace ostracism: The value of coworker humor. International Journal of Stress Management. https://doi.org/10.1037/ str0000069. Nielsen, M. B., & Knardahl, S. (2015). Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study. Work and Stress, 29, 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678373.2015.1032383. O’Reilly, J., & Banki, S. (2016). Research in work and organizational psychology: Social exclusion in the workplace. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion. Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. Cham: Springer. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., & Schabram, K. F. (2013). The impact of ostracism on well-being in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for individual well-being (pp. 107–122). New York: M.E. Sharpe. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2014). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 4, 774–793. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S., Banki, S., & Berdahl, J. L. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793.

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

29

Palmer, E. J., & Thakordas, V. (2005). Relationship between bullying and scores on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire among imprisoned male offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 31(1), 56–66. Pereira, D., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2013). Short-term effects of social exclusion at work and worries on sleep. Stress & Health, 29(3), 240–252. Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591–622. Podsiadly, A., & Gamian-Wilk, M. (2017). Personality traits as outcomes or predictors of being exposed to bullying at workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 43–49. https:// doi.org/10.2016/j.paid.2016.08.001. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262. Radliff, K. (2014). Physical and verbal bullying. In J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace. Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 163–178). New York/London: Routledge. Rayner, C. (1997). Bullying at work. Journal of Community & Social Psychology, 7, 177–180. Ren, D., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Interdependent self-construal moderates coping with (but not the initial pain of) ostracism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12037. Ren, D., Wesselmann, E., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Evidence for another response to ostracism: Solitude seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(3), 204–212. Ren, D., Hales, A. H., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Ostracism: Being ignored and excluded. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 10–28). New York: Routledge. Riva, P., Williams, K. D., Torstrick, A. M., & Montali, L. (2014). Orders to shoot (a camera): Effect of ostracism on obedience. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 208–216. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00224545.2014.883354. Robinson, S., & Schabram, K. (2017). Workplace ostracism. In K. D. Kipling & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 224–239). New York: Routledge. Robinson, S., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39(1), 203–231. Rowe, M. M., & Sherlock, H. (2005). Stress and verbal abuse in nursing: Do burned out nurses eat their young? Journal of Nursing Management, 13(3), 242–248. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage. Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425–441. Schoel, C., Eck, J., & Greifeneder, R. (2014). A matter of vertical position: Consequences of ostracism differ for those above versus below its perpetrators. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613488953. Scott, K. L., & Thau, S. (2013). Theory and research on social exclusion in work groups. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social exclusion (pp. 65–73). New York: Oxford University Press. Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250. Sommer, K. L., & Bernieri, F. (2015). Minimizing the pain and probability of rejection evidence for relational distancing and proximity seeking within face-to-face interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 131–139.

30

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 225–243. Tchalova, K., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2017). The shared neural substrates of physical and social pain. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 61–80). New York: Routledge. Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. (2007). Self-defeating behaviours in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 840–847. Troisi, J. D., & Gabriel, S. (2011). Chicken soup really is good for the soul. “Comfort food” fulfils the need to belong. Psychological Science, 22, 747–753. Twenge, J. M. (2005). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of situations, narcissism, emotions, and replenishing connections. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19–34). New York: Psychology Press. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069. Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007a). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., Catanese, K. R., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Lyche, L. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007b). Replenishing connectedness: Reminders of social activity reduce aggression after social exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 014466605X90793. Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918–928. Van Beest, I., Williams, K. D., & van Dijk, E. (2011). Cyberbomb: Effects of being ostracized from a death game. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 581–596. Vardi, Y., & Weiner, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7, 151–165. Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying – Psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–214. Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 42, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.00. Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Ostracism and stages of coping. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Ostracism handbook of social exclusion (pp. 20–30). New York: Oxford University Press. Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “I feel your pain”: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 1308–1311. Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012a). “To be looked at as though air”: Civil attention matters. Psychological Science, 23, 166–168. Wesselmann, E. D., Nairne, J. S., & Williams, K. D. (2012b). An evolutionary social psychological approach to studying the effects of ostracism. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 309–328. Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., Swim, E., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Rumination impairs recovery from ostracism. International Journal of Developmental Studies, 7, 33–39.

1

Ostracism in the Workplace

31

Wesselmann, E. D., Williams, K. D., Ren, D., & Hales, A. (2014). Ostracism and solitude. In R. J. Coplan & J. Bowker (Eds.), A handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 224–241). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., & Williams, K. D. (2015). Motivations for responses to ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(40). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00040. Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York: Plenum. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism. A temporal need – Threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706. Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19–34). New York: Psychology Press. Williams, K. D., Bernieri, F., Faulkner, S., Grahe, J., & Gada-Jain, N. (2000a). The Scarlet Letter study: Five days of social ostracism. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 5, 19–63. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000b). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748. Wirth, J. H., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “They don’t like our kind”: Consequences of being ostracized while possessing a group membership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098780. Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882. Wu, L., Wei, L., & Hui, C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism: An empirical examination. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 5(1), 23–44. Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H. K., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178–199. Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000063. Wynne, R., & McAnaney, D. (2009). Preventing social exclusion through illness or disability: Models of good practice. Work, 32(1), 94–103. Xu, E., Huang, X., & Robinson, S. L. (2017). When self-view is at stake: Responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2281–2302. Yan, Y., Zhou, E., Long, L., & Ji, Y. (2014). The influence of workplace ostracism on counterproductive work behaviour: The mediating effect of state self-control. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(6), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.6.881. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567. Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 42, 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007. Zadro, L., Godwin, A., Svetieva, E., Sethi, N., Iannuzzelli, R., & Gonsalkorale, K. (2017). Creating the silence: Ostracism from the perspective of the source. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 130–145). New York: Routledge. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the

32

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 177–200). New York: Taylor & Francis. Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522. Zhang, R., Ye, C., & Ferreira-Meyers, K. (2017). Linking workplace ostracism to interpersonal citizenship behaviour: A moderated mediation model of work-to-family conflict and rumination. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(3), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/ str0000056. Zheng, X., Yang, Y., Ngo, H. Y., Liu, X. Y., & Jiao, W. (2016). Workplace ostracism and its negative outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(4), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/18665888/a000147.

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace Brianna Cregan and E. Kevin Kelloway

Contents 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Defining Physical Intimidation and Bullying at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Understanding Nuances of Physical Intimidation and Bullying at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Types of Workplace Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Prevalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary and Directions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 34 37 37 38 39 44 47 48 49 49

Abstract

Drawing on existing research, we propose a definition and context for understanding physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace. Defined as comprising physical acts or verbal statements that result in the target individual feeling physically threatened, we suggest that physical intimidation and bullying have largely fallen outside the definition, or operationalization, of workplace violence or workplace bullying. We recognize that such behaviours could be repeated over time and constitute a form of bullying but also believe that single events—for example, a single credible threat of personal attack—fall within the definition of physical intimidation and bullying. Accordingly, perpetrators may be organizational members or external to the organization. We also suggest that physical intimidation and bullying do not require the express intent of the perpetrator but do require that the target or victim feel threatened. Direct physical B. Cregan · E. K. Kelloway (*) Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_4

33

34

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

contact is also not required for an act to be intimidating—invasion of personal space, finger pointing or similar behaviours may constitute physical intimidation and bullying. The extant international literature on the topic, drawing primarily from workplace violence, is reviewed and implications for future research are identified.

2.1

Introduction

The testimony of Elizabeth Cummings and Shannon Lee Sampson made clear allegations of bullying (Lambie, 2017). The same-sex couple, both of whom are Red Seal electricians working at the Halifax Shipyard, claimed that, as a result of conflicts with other workers, they were called “dykes”, “rats” and “hateful troublemakers”. They also reported that other workers at the shipyard purposely “hit into” Cummings and shouldered Sampson, causing her to stumble. In another incident, a worker stepped on Cummings’ calf with his full body weight as she was working on a lighting panel. On the face of it, the story of Cummings and Sampson appears to be an all too common example of workplace bullying. However, the case also serves to highlight what we believe to be an overlooked aspect of workplace aggression— physical intimidation and bullying. We suggest that physical intimidation and bullying are overlooked because such acts span the gap between workplace violence and workplace bullying. Unlike workplace violence that largely comprises clear-cut attacks (e.g. being hit, bit, kicked), physical intimidation can include acts that are ambiguous in intent (e.g. being “bumped”). Unlike bullying, acts of physical intimidation can be single events that do not require repetition over time to have an effect. Our aim in this chapter is to present a definition and overview of physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace. Drawing on the extant international literature focused on workplace violence and workplace bullying, we identify potential individual and organizational predictors and consequences of physical intimidation and bullying as a unique form of aggression in organizations. We conclude with a call for future research focused on physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace.

2.2

Defining Physical Intimidation and Bullying at Work

The general term “workplace violence” has been used as an umbrella concept for a number of related concepts ranging from verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, bullying and a variety of interpersonally targeted negative acts that may be more properly labelled “aggression” (for a review, see Schat & Kelloway, 2005). Indeed, some have suggested that the use of different labels for different forms of aggression is inappropriate (e.g. Hershcovis, 2011). We disagree. Rather, we suggest that there is considerable value in understanding specific forms of aggression in the

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

35

workplace and that policies and procedures aimed at reducing workplace aggression must be based on a detailed understanding of the variety of forms in which workplace aggression can manifest. Indeed, we would suggest that a focus on “violence” in the workplace leads to misdirected attention on relatively rare events such as fighting or attacks with weapons and to overlooking the more mundane and more frequent acts such as shoving or pushing (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008; Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Workplace aggression has been defined as “behaviour by an individual or individuals within or outside an organization that is intended to physically or psychologically harm a worker or workers and occurs in a work-related context” (Schat & Kelloway, 2005, p. 191). Although physical violence falls within this domain, aggression is a broader concept, as it can also be non-physical in nature. The defining elements of aggression include the following: (1) the act of aggression is targeted towards an individual within the organization, not the entire organization itself (as this is considered organizational deviance); (2) the perpetrator either is a member of the public or of the organization; (3) the behaviour is intended to create harm (to be distinguished from workplace accidents); and lastly, (4) the aggressive act is conducted either at work or off-site, for example, at a work-related function (Schat & Kelloway, 2005). Schat and Kelloway (2005) defined physical violence as “a specific type of workplace aggression consisting of behaviours that are physical in nature and that may cause physical harm” (p. 192). This may include behaviours such as beating, kicking, slapping, hitting, pushing, biting, pinching, stabbing or shooting (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; International Labour Organization (ILO), International Council of Nurses (ICN), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Services International (PSI), 2002). It is important to distinguish between physical and non-physical acts of workplace aggression, as the former have a much lower prevalence rate than does non-physical aggression, that is, 6% versus 40% within the United States (US) workforce (Schat & Kelloway, 2005) and 6% versus 12% within European workers (Eurofound, 2013), respectively. Moreover, although researchers generally recognize the potential for acts of aggression to escalate into violence (e.g. Barling et al., 2009), aggression and violence may have very different predictors in the workplace (Schat & Kelloway, 2005). We suggest that Schat and Kelloway’s (2005) definition of workplace violence is flawed in several respects. First, they focused only on the experience of a physical assault and specifically excluded verbal threats of violence. Other authors have included verbal threats of physical violence within the definition of violence (e.g. LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Rogers & Kelloway, 1997; Schat & Kelloway, 2000, 2003). Second, Schat and Kelloway’s (2005) definition of workplace violence has commonly excluded threatening physical acts (e.g. invasion of personal space, displays of physical aggression) that may result in the target feeling physically threatened even though there was no physical contact or expressed verbal threat. Finally, although included in the broad definition of Schat and Kelloway (2005), in practice, researchers have ignored physical acts that may be ambiguous in intent (e.g. bumping into someone in a hallway) in favour of a focus on clearly violent acts

36

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

(e.g. punching, kicking). In doing so, we suggest that an important form of workplace aggression—physical intimidation and bullying—has been overlooked. Workplace bullying is a specific form of aggression that involves the “persistent exposure to interpersonal aggression and mistreatment from colleagues, superiors or subordinates” (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009, p. 24). Traditionally within school research, bullying is understood as a function of intentionality, repetitive behaviour and the existence of a power imbalance (Olweus, 2013). Physical intimidation has been discussed within the bullying literature, although its definition is not always consistent. For example, the revised version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R; Einarsen et al., 2009) includes a subscale labelled “Physical Intimidation” that comprises items referencing (a) threats of physical violence, (b) physically intimidating acts (e.g. finger pointing, violation of personal space) and (c) being the target of anger or shouting. Others have simply asked if respondents had been physically intimidated (e.g. Hoobler & Swanberg, 2006) or whether employees had experienced negative or threatening body language (Dull & Fox, 2010). Again, the definition of bullying may not entirely capture the notion of physical intimidation. Critically, physical intimidation can be, but is not necessarily, a repetitive behaviour. Einarsen et al. (2009) found that 3% of their sample experienced physical intimidation as a form of bullying. However, their focus on the frequency of experiencing the behaviours may underestimate the extent of individuals feeling physically intimidated in the workplace. Einarsen et al.’s (2009) focus on the repetitiveness of the behaviours also limits the focus on co-workers as perpetrators. The very definition of bullying requires frequent interaction between targets and perpetrators. However, physical intimidation does not require repeated interactions, and therefore, perpetrators may be customers, clients or individuals external to the organization. Finally, as with the definition of workplace violence, the intentionality of the behaviour may also be ambiguous (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Individuals who invade others’ physical space may do so unintentionally or may be unaware of the effect of their behaviour on the other person. Accordingly, we define physical intimidation and bullying as comprising physical acts or verbal statements that result in the target individual feeling physically threatened. We recognize that such behaviours could be repeated over time and constitute a form of bullying but also believe that single events—for example, a single credible threat of personal attack—fall within the definition of physical intimidation and bullying. Accordingly, perpetrators may be organizational members or external to the organization. We also suggest that physical intimidation and bullying do not require the express intent of the perpetrator but do require that the target or victim feel threatened. Direct physical contact is also not required for an act to be intimidating—invasion of personal space, finger pointing or similar behaviours may be seen as intimidating even though no contact is made. As previously noted, physical intimidation and bullying have been studied almost incidentally—as a specific form of bullying or as a manifestation of violence. Accordingly, we know little about the predictors or prevalence of such behaviours. However, we do know a considerable amount about workplace violence—the most

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

37

extreme form of physical intimidation. Incidents of workplace violence have been reported since at least the early 1900s (Healdsburg Tribune (Canada) 1934; Northern Territory Times and Gazette (Australia) 1926). Systematic research into workplace violence began to proliferate subsequent to the 1980s (Kinney & Johnson, 1993) and was given greater impetus by the publicity associated with the US Postal shootings (Kelloway, Barling, & Hurrell, 2006).

2.3

Understanding Nuances of Physical Intimidation and Bullying at Work

In order to highlight specific attributes pertaining to physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace, international research on workplace violence as well as workplace bullying has been drawn upon and integrated into the rest of this chapter. Literature from the broader issues of workplace violence and bullying provides insight into physical intimidation and bullying and also points to where future research needs to head.

2.3.1

Types of Workplace Violence

A typology developed in the USA is commonly utilized to categorize workplace violence (Injury Prevention Research Center (IPRC), 2001) into four primary types based on the perpetrator’s relationship to the workplace: (1) Type I violence is instigated by a stranger (i.e. member of the public, criminal) with no legitimate connection to the organization. This is the most common type of workplace violence, and the intent is usually to commit a crime (LeBlanc, Dupré, & Barling, 2006). Correspondingly, the risk factors for Type I violence focus on job characteristics such as working alone or working at night and around valuables (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). (2) Type II violence is also perpetrated by individuals external to the organization but who have a relationship with the organization as a client, customer or patient. Violence against healthcare providers (Lanza, Zeiss, & Rierdan, 2006) is an example of Type II violence. Individuals who are in the position of caring for others, making decisions about other people and denying or withholding a service may be at increased risk of Type II workplace violence (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). (3) In contrast, Type III violence is perpetrated by a member of the organization (i.e. a co-worker or supervisor). Risk factors for such violence include interpersonal conflict in the workplace, abusive or harsh supervision and violations of justice (see Barling et al., 2009). As previously noted, Type III violence is a relatively rare phenomenon—Braverman (1999) estimates that only 4–7% of incidents are perpetrated by organizational insiders.

38

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

(4) Type IV violence is perpetrated by someone who may be external to the organization but has a personal relationship with someone internal to the organization. Intimate partner violence accounts for 1–3% of all workplace violence acts (Duhart, 2001). According to one study, 16% of workplace homicides are instigated by an intimate partner (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 2001). There are three main ways intimate partner violence is initiated, and they are not all physical: stalking the individual at work, disrupting them at work (timing, attendance) or, lastly, harassing them on the job (Swanberg et al., 2006). Half of the victims who experience intimate partner violence in the workplace lose their jobs. Women are disproportionally affected by this type of intimate partner violence. Statistics indicate that one in every four women will experience this type of violence in their life (Widiss, 2008). Similarly, a typology from Australia (Mayhew, 2003) categorizes workplace violence into three types based on the source of violence: external violence (perpetrated by an individual external to the organization), client-initiated violence (an individual who has some interaction with the organization, like a patient) and, lastly, internal violence (between employees, including supervisors and managers). The ILO distinguishes between internal and external sources of violence to the organization (ILO, 2003). Internal workplace violence can occur between employees, including managers and supervisors. External workplace violence can occur between an employee (including managers and supervisors) and any other person who is present in the workplace (aside from an employee).

2.3.2

Prevalence

Although accurate prevalence rates are difficult to capture, in general, estimates indicate that every year 4–6% of employees encounter physical violence in the workplace (Eurofound, 2013; Parent-Thirion, 2007; Schat & Kelloway, 2005). However, prevalence can vary dramatically across industries, countries and organizations (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008; Ferrinho et al., 2003; Lanctôt & Guay, 2014; Robson, Cossar, & Quayle, 2014). Moreover, there is some evidence suggesting that these prevalence estimates are biased downward due to under-reporting. Results from a recent American study found that 88% of participants who selfreported a violent incident at work did not formally report it in their workplace (Arnetz et al., 2015). In a European study of 692 Slovenian nurses, 15% of nurses said they had personally experienced physical violence, but 78% of these did not report the event (Kvas & Seljak, 2014). Nurses reported their belief that nothing would change in the work environment if the event was reported. The fear of losing one’s job, fear that the perpetrator would blame the victim or fear that other individuals would blame the victim for the violent event may also influence the decision not to report (Kvas & Seljak, 2014). Organizational culture can colour an employee’s perception. In industries where violence is expected, an employee may

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

39

choose not to report simply because they do not see the incident as violent but rather as part of the job. Another influence on prevalence rates regarding workplace violence is how organizations and industries measure the occurrence of violent events. While some companies choose to keep track of incidents monthly, some may do so only every 6 or 12 months. Also, definitions of violence may vary. For example, Schat and Kelloway (2005) limit their consideration to direct physical events. However, workplace violence legislation may adopt a more expansive definition—including, for example, direct threats or acts such as intimidation that make the target feel threatened (Kelloway, Francis, & Gatien, 2015). The scope of the definition will influence the resultant estimates of prevalence. We suggest that the prevalence of physical intimidation in the workplace is similarly under-reported. Targets may believe that the organization will not take their concerns seriously or that perpetrators will retaliate with even further physical acts. Moreover, given that physical intimidation may include acts of ambiguous intent (e.g. invasion of personal space, bumping into one another), it may take repeated incidents for targets to realize that they are being victimized.

2.3.3

Predictors

Both individual and organizational factors have emerged as predictors of workplace violence (Hershcovis et al., 2007). Individual Predictors. Demographic variables such as age and gender have been identified as potential predictors of workplace violence, although these findings have not been consistent. For example, one review article analysed the results of 49 independent studies and found that men are more likely to commit and experience workplace violence (Guay, Goncalves, & Jarvis, 2015). Women are more likely to experience less extreme physical violence, such as pinching, scratching, squeezing, hitting, kicking or beating, whereas men are attacked more often with a weapon or stabbed. In Canada, 82% of workplace homicides happen to men (Violence at Work According to Sex and Gender (VISAGE), 2014). In Sweden, the experience of non-workrelated violence is roughly the same for men and women. However, since the 1980s, women experience a higher rate of physical violence at work in comparison to their male counterparts (Estrada, Nilsson, Jerre, & Wikman, 2010). Interestingly, this higher rate of exposure is not consistent across all occupational groups for women; therefore, this increase in exposure is largely attributable to the proportion of women working in fields like healthcare, education and social services. In contrast to these findings, a United Kingdom (UK) study of over 500 police officers found that women were exposed to the same amount of workplace violence as men, regardless of whether the act was public initiated or co-worker initiated (Santos, Leather, Dunn, & Zarola, 2009). It seems likely that gender differences in the experience of workplace violence are at least partially attributable to gender

40

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

stratification in the workplace. The effect of gender that appears in cross-occupational studies may not be evident in studies that focus on a single occupation. Younger workers are typically at a higher risk of exposure to physical workplace violence (Gerberich et al., 2004; Kvas & Seljak, 2014). Again, this may be related to occupational characteristics. Younger people may be more likely to work in the retail or fast-food industries—and providing customer service is a risk factor for violence (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2010; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). As a result of seniority considerations, younger workers may be disproportionately likely to work evenings and night shifts—again an occupational risk factor for violence (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). Even within occupations such as healthcare, younger employees with less tenure are at a higher risk of being exposed to violence while at work (Gerberich et al., 2004). Younger workers may have less training and experience and, as a result, be less aware about what to do if a situation arises. Because of this lack of experience, younger workers may also find themselves in an unsafe situation without even realizing how it happened. Industry. Many studies have shown how much prevalence rates can vary between occupations, industries and even countries (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008; Ferrinho et al., 2003; Lanctôt & Guay, 2014; Robson, Cossar, & Quayle, 2014). For example, health/human services (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008; Lanctôt & Guay, 2014) is an industry with particularly high reports of physical violence. A recent meta-analysis (Tonso et al., 2016) of 136 studies from 62 countries, consisting of 151,347 total participants, found that 36% of nurses reported they had experienced physical violence at work. Physical violence was also found to be more common in certain settings like geriatric facilities, psychiatric units and emergency departments. Similarly, a Danish study found that those working in psychiatric settings were exposed to a higher degree of physical violence in comparison to eldercare and prison and probation services (Rasmussen, Hogh, & Andersen, 2013). Those working in healthcare are also at a higher risk of experiencing physical intimidation or bullying (O’Connell, Young, Brooks, Hutchings, & Lofthouse, 2000). Schlitzkus, Vogt, Sullivan and Schenarts (2014) surveyed 452 nurses and reported that surgical ward and mixed medical nurses reported the highest frequency of physical bullying on a weekly basis, while gerontology nurses experienced the highest frequency on a monthly basis. While patients accounted for 53% of the physical bullying, other medical staff and nursing peers accounted for 75% of reported intimidation. Similarly, O’Connell, Young, Brooks, Hutchings and Lofthouse (2000) surveyed 209 Australian nurses and reported that 8 out of 10 nurses were experiencing some type of intimidation or physical bullying over the previous 12 months. Another study of 216 Australian social workers indicated that 47% had experienced intimidation in the last 12 months (Koritsas, Coles, & Boyle, 2010). In a recent review article of 136 papers including over 150,000 nurses, exposure to physical violence was categorized by world region (Spector, Zhou, & Che, 2014). World regions considered to be Anglo (including Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland and the USA) had the highest

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

41

mean percent of physical violence exposure at 43%, representing over 55,000 nurses. European world regions (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) have a mean rate of physical violence exposure of 35%, representing over 8500 nurses. Asian world regions (China, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand) had a mean percent of violence exposure of 27%, representing over 4500 nurses. Lastly, Middle Eastern world regions (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) had a mean rate of violence exposure of 22%, representing over 9400 nurses. This review article highlights that physical violence is nearly twice as prevalent in Anglo world regions as in the Middle Eastern world regions within the nursing populations. While not confined to a specific culture, workplace violence seems to vary depending on geographical location. Factors that could contribute to these differences include the culture around reporting workplace violence (i.e. organizational methods available for reporting, prioritization of reporting as set by leaders, related workplace violence policies, shared perceptions of reporting effectiveness) and the perspective that violence is inherent to certain jobs (which may vary depending on location). One Iranian study found that counsellors working with individuals in a treatment programme for substance/alcohol abuse are particularly at risk of workplace violence (Bride, Choi, Olin, & Roman, 2015), as are social workers (Padyab, Chelak, Nygren, & Ghazinour, 2012; Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2016). Child and family social workers are at the highest risk among the latter population (Robson, Cossar, & Quayle, 2014; Shin, 2011). Even dentists are not immune to this higher prevalence of workplace violence. In some studies, dentists and physicians are the highest risk group for workplace violence (Pinar et al., 2015). A South African study found that 19% of dentists had experienced physical violence or bullying at work within the past 12 months (Azodo, Ezeja, & Ehikhamenor, 2012). Outside of healthcare, police officers are at increased risk of experiencing violence. One study of German police officers found that over a third of the workforce had experienced physical violence at work in one year (Ellrich & Baier, 2016). Police officers are in a unique situation, as they are aware that physical force or violence is a potential part of their position and that some individuals may even hold resentment towards their position. Ellrich and Baier (2016) found that 31% of police officers who had been violently assaulted reported that the perpetrator’s motive was animosity towards the officer. The increased risk of violence, in itself, can lead to increased anxiety among the police (Pai & Lee, 2011). Government workers are also at a higher risk of experiencing workplace violence in comparison to those in the private sector (Waters, Lynn, & Morgan, 2002). Violence rates in the public sectors are typically higher than those found in private industries. One Turkish study found that 48% of employees in the public sector experienced violence, while only 28% in the private sector reported the same (Pinar et al., 2015). Part of the higher rate of physical violence in government workers is attributable to law enforcement and policing services (Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2013).

42

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

Other service industries (taxi, retail and food services) are also at increased risk of violence (Burgel, Gillen, & White, 2014). Taxi drivers, for example, have an extremely high fatality rate (19.7 per 100,000 taxi drivers; BLS, 2012), which is much higher than the average fatalities (i.e. 3.5) for all other occupations. The majority of fatalities are homicides associated with robbery (BLS, 2011). A total of 70% of the homicides that occur in the workplace involve individuals in retail positions (BLS, 2000a, b). Out of 405 workplace homicides in the USA in 2010, 27% of them occurred in the retail industry (BLS, 2013). Particularly vulnerable are those working in cashier positions in convenience stores or gas stations (ParentThirion, 2007; Richardson & Windau, 2003). Physical bullying has also been reported within the food service industry (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008) and has been attributed to stresses associated with the food service environment. In particular, the ergonomically uncomfortable work environment (hot temperatures in the kitchen, working around many people in cramped quarters, loud noises), shift work (particularly working “antisocial” hours such as overnight or late into the evening), low pay, high pressure when it is busy and conflicts of interest between the staff have been identified as industry-specific risks (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008). Finally, the prevalence rate of physical workplace violence within the teaching/ education field per 100,000 working hours a year is 5% within America (Wei et al., 2013). This not only includes teachers but also teaching aids and other educational support personnel. Special education teachers experience a prevalence almost four times higher than general education teachers. One American study reported a physical violence prevalence rate of 21% in a sample of over 3400 special education teachers, in comparison to 6% of a sample of over 5800 general education teachers (Tiesman, Konda, Hendricks, Mercer, & Amandus, 2013). Special education students disproportionally threaten others as a means of dealing with internal conflict in comparison to general education students (Kaplan & Cornell, 2005). Special education students have also been found to exhibit more aggressive behaviours than their general education student counterparts (Wright & Dusek, 1998). Substitute teachers are also at a higher risk of workplace violence exposure in comparison to part-time or full-time teachers (Wei et al., 2013). One study found that if a class size is under 10 students, there is decreased risk of physical violence (Wei et al., 2013). Occupational Predictors. Differential prevalence rates across industry suggest that there are specific characteristics of occupations that may lead to increased risk. Through one Canadian study, LeBlanc and Kelloway (2002) identified specific job characteristics that increase the risk of violence. These included being responsible for the physical or emotional care of others; handling items of value, guns and/or other weapons; contact with individuals taking medication; exercising security functions; having influence over decisions in others’ lives; disciplining or supervising others; denying services or requests from the public; working alone (particularly evenings and overnight; see Camerino, Estryn-Behar, Conway, Van Der Heijden, & Hasselhorn, 2008; Sharipova, Hogh, & Borg, 2010); working in a client’s house; and, lastly, interacting with individuals who are frustrated or individuals who are under the influence of alcohol/drugs.

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

43

In addition to these characteristics, the arrangement of work may predict increased risk of workplace violence. For example, working longer shifts/days tends to be associated with increased risk of violence within Korean workers (Lee, Kim, & Park, 2014). One Korean study found that individuals working over 60 hours per week were more likely to be victims of violence in comparison to those working 40–48 hours (Lee, Kim, & Park, 2014). This may be a simple function of exposure—in a high-risk environment or occupation, working longer hours results in greater exposure to the risks. Working irregular schedules may also be associated with increased risk of workplace violence (Lee, Kim, & Park, 2014). Job tenure is also associated with the risk of experiencing physical assault (Rodwell & Demir, 2012). An Australian study found that nurses who have been working for a shorter time are at a higher risk (Rodwell & Demir, 2012). Particularly, physical assaults from a co-worker or supervisor are more likely towards inexperienced nurses. Conversely, those who had a tenure of 20þ years were significantly less exposed to physical violence. Similar findings have been shown in Denmark, where those with less seniority reported experiencing more work-related violence (Sharipova, Hogh, & Borg, 2010). Positions encompassing supervisory or managerial duties are at a higher risk of experiencing customer-perpetrated violence in retail settings (Estrada, Nilsson, Jerre, & Wikman, 2010). In a study conducted with over 2000 British workers, 35% of those who reported experiencing workplace violence were supervisors or managers (Arnetz et al., 2015). These findings reflect the influence of responsibility over decisions and other individuals on the risk of exposure to physical violence. Having an organizational culture that allows for violence to be tolerated is also a predictor of physical violence in the workplace. The recent application of the concept of safety climate into the field of workplace violence resulted in the development of a measure of violence prevention climate—defined as the shared employee perceptions of their organization’s ability to control and eliminate violence (Spector, Coulter, Stockwell, & Matz, 2007). One American study found that the dimension of “perceived pressure against violence prevention” predicted violence exposure (Yang et al., 2012). Pressure against prevention is described through items like “In my unit, whenever pressure builds up, the preference is to do the job as fast as possible, even if that means compromising violence prevention” (Spector, Coulter, Stockwell, & Matz, 2007, p. 114). Therefore, in organizational cultures where the precedent is efficiency over safety, employees may be more likely to put themselves at risk of physical workplace violence. Just as an organizational culture can elevate an employee’s risk of experiencing physical violence, it can also reduce the risk. A study of 681 German police officers found that an organizational culture that encourages preparation in the face of workplace violence offers a protective factor for the development of post-traumatic stress symptoms following a violent attack (Ellrich & Baier, 2017). One of the protective factors was having a culture that fostered regular preparatory and follow-up sessions in the workplace as a primary prevention measure. Establishing cultural norms that support preparatory action against workplace violence can potentially help to prevent incidents from escalating. Not only may it help

44

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

preventatively, but after a violent event occurs at work, it can help employees through the coping process. Interestingly, the preparatory culture helped to reduce post-traumatic stress symptoms only in female officers but did not have a significant effect on male officers. This may be related to the heightened post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rates, as well as other psychological and emotional distress rates that females experience (Hu et al., 2017). As women experience stronger PTSD symptoms and longer absences from work after a physically violent act, the preparatory culture may help address these heightened consequences in women.

2.3.4

Consequences

The experience of physical workplace violence has pervasive consequences that can affect an individual’s life inside and outside of work (Kwok et al., 2006; Manier, Kelloway, & Francis, 2016; NIOSH, 2001; Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), 2014). There are many individual and organizational consequences when someone experiences a violent act at work. Individual Outcomes. At an individual level, consequences can be categorized broadly according to the biopsychosocial model (Manier et al., 2016; Santrock, 2007), which identifies biological (biochemical, genetic), psychological (behaviour, mood) and social factors (family, socio-economic) contributing to an individual’s health (Santrock, 2007). Exposure to physical violence at work can increase the chances of physiological health changes including musculoskeletal (back, neck and hand pain) and heart complications, hormonal fluctuations (particularly in stress hormones) and chronic illness. A Norwegian research indicates that health issues such as hormonal fluctuation or imbalances over time can lead to a number of more serious chronic health outcomes (Ursin & Eriksen, 2010). A meta-analysis of 29 international studies found workplace violence predicted physical health outcomes (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Although it is a broad range, it is estimated that 4–65% of employees experience physical injury after workplace violence (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014); 4% of the employees who sustained physical injuries reported they were life-threatening (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Many employees reported having sleeping problems (i.e. insomnia, sleep disturbances) after dealing with a violent act or repetitive bullying (Schat & Kelloway, 2000, 2003). Within Iranian social workers, associations between client violence and sleep disorders, social dysfunction and anxiety have been found (Padyab, Chelak, Nygren, & Ghazinour, 2012). There are even more studies supporting the relationship of workplace violence with psychological consequences than with physical consequences (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). For victims of workplace violence, a commonly reported consequence was initial psychological distress resulting from the event. Subsequently, psychological health and well-being can be damaged as the individual continues to cope with the experience. Another common side effect is hyper-vigilance, or the act of being overly cautious after being subject to workplace violence. Individuals can feel an

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

45

increased concern for their personal safety (Puy et al., 2015) and report a lower quality of life. Symptoms of anxiety such as feelings of panic, worry, apprehension or fear affect 8–65% of physical violence victims (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). A longitudinal study of healthcare workers in Italy found that physical violence predicted anxiety and depression within employees the following year (Magnavita, 2013). The experience of workplace violence can cause depressive symptoms or even clinical depression (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Mucci et al., 2015). The majority of studies report that approximately 20% of employees experience a depressed mood as a result of exposure (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). The duration of depression for those who do experience depressive symptoms after a violent experience is typically estimated to be 4 weeks (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). PTSD is a frequent psychological consequence of being exposed to a violent workplace act. It is estimated that 5–32% of workplace violence victims experience symptoms of PTSD (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Many people report feeling bothered by flashbacks, having negative changes in mood and reoccurring memories or thoughts of the violent event. Some individuals report re-experiencing the event after the trauma. Interestingly, while we know police officers are at an elevated risk of experiencing violent assaults as well as PTSD, there is little known about the link to experiencing PTSD (Ellrich & Baier, 2017). There are many emotional consequences of experiencing workplace violence as well. Five emotions are reportedly experienced most commonly following a workplace violence act, including anger, sadness, surprise, fear and disgust (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Victims of workplace violence are less likely to be able to control feelings of anger in comparison to non-victims (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Also, the more the exposure one has to violence at work, the further one’s feelings of frustration can build. Experiences of emotional distress and feelings of failure are common (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). One study found that 60% of victims who experienced workplace violence also struggled with feelings of helplessness as a consequence (Talas, Kocaöz, & Akgüç, 2011). Feelings of depersonalization and exhaustion while at work were significantly higher in those who have experienced a violent event at work in comparison to those who have not experienced such an event (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Individuals can also report feelings in a state of shock or disbelief after experiencing a physical assault. Exposure to workplace violence can also reduce one’s self-esteem (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Socially, violence can affect work-family issues and other non-work relationships (Langton & Truman, 2014). One study found that 80% of victims reported experiencing a social impact on their lives outside of work (Langton & Truman, 2014). Along with many cognitive and emotional consequences of workplace violence, an individual’s ability to relate to their family and friends can be compromised (Gates, Gillespie, & Succop, 2011), and these effects can endure for longer than a month. Organizational Outcomes. Physical workplace violence not only affects the individual employee but the organization as a whole. A commonly studied organizational consequence of workplace violence is reduced employee job satisfaction

46

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

(Cheung & Yip, 2017). The relationship between job satisfaction and workplace violence is particularly significant when the perpetrator of the act is a superior (Chang & Cho, 2016). A total of 73% of victims also reported feeling as though their experience with workplace violence affected their interpersonal relationships with their colleagues (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Victims of workplace violence are found to have reduced organizational commitment compared to non-victims (Rogers & Kelloway, 1997). Workplace violence can specifically damage employee attitudes pertaining to affective commitment (Ellrich, 2016), which can influence absenteeism rates, counterproductive work behaviours and turnover intentions (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008). In comparison to non-victims, those who have experienced workplace violence demonstrate a reduced willingness to work in their profession and an overall reduced commitment to their organization (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014); 19% of victims report a reduced confidence in their ability to perform their tasks (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Counterproductive behaviours such as employee turnover intention, absenteeism and presenteeism are negatively impacted by the experience of workplace violence. Having a violent experience at work significantly increases the odds of the victim wanting to leave their job or change employers. Intentions to quit are higher in victims of workplace violence in comparison to non-victims (Rogers & Kelloway, 1997). On average, 1–21% of victims quit their job and 13–20% think about quitting after experiencing workplace violence (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). A direct link has also been found between public-initiated violence and turnover (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). It is common to take a sick leave after experiencing a physically violent act (Fujishiro et al., 2011). Most studies report that the victim takes 1–7 days off from work (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Factors contributing to a longer time off work include the perpetrator being another employee, the victim being struck with an object or being attacked from behind, the victim being 60 years of age or older, the victim having an emotional illness and, lastly, the victim having experienced an injury to the head or back. A recent longitudinal study in Denmark followed individuals who had experienced a physically violent attack in the workplace over the course of 10 years (Friis, Larsen, & Lasgaard, 2017). Of the 13,898 individuals tracked, 241 (2%) reported being exposed to physical violence at work within the past 12 months during the initial survey. After following these individuals for 10 years, it was found that 59% of individuals exposed to physical violence at work had health-related absences from work in comparison to only 42% of those individuals who did not report experiencing physical violence. The prevalence rate for health-related absences was significantly higher for the individuals who had been exposed to physical violence in the workplace in comparison to those who had not been exposed. For each follow-up time point, health-related absences varied between 20% and 29% for individuals who had experienced physical violence, in comparison to 14–16% for those who did not have a physically violent experience at work. A review of 68 international studies found that experiences of workplace violence have a negative effect on job performance (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). One Swiss study

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

47

looking specifically at healthcare workers found that experiencing violence may also affect the treatment of patients as the chance for error increases (Puy et al., 2015). Depending on the measurement used and population surveyed, between 4% and 73% of victims working in healthcare reported feeling fearful of their patients (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). This fear not only applies to specific patients but has implications for working with patients in general. For example, a longitudinal Swedish study by Arnetz and Arnetz (2001) reported that 15% of victims indicated they had lost pleasure in working with their patients after experiencing a violent event. Workplace violence also affects employee productivity (Schat & Kelloway, 2005). A total of 62% of physical violence victims report their experience affected their ability to be productive at work. After experiencing a violent event at work, an individual’s cognitive and emotional ability may be adversely affected. As one American study pointed out, for employees in certain positions where their job requires providing emotional support to another individual (e.g. nurses, therapists, teachers), this ability may be compromised (Gates, Gillespie, & Succop, 2011). Even though the experience of workplace violence evidently has psychological consequences for targets or victims, a very small proportion of individuals seek professional psychological help. Many victims report seeking help informally from colleagues rather than a professional. Studies indicate that a small minority of victims (1–7%) have consulted with a psychologist after experiencing a violent event at work (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Also, one UK study has shown only 7% of individuals file compensation claims with their workplace after experiencing a violent event (Bishop, 2006). Further, another study found that 2% file compensation claims (Lanctôt & Guay, 2014). Therefore, even though employees are suffering the consequences of physical violence at work, very few employees seek professional help or even file incident reports when the event occurs.

2.4

Summary and Directions for Future Research

We have suggested that physical intimidation in the workplace may “fall between the cracks” of contemporary definitions of workplace violence and workplace bullying and, therefore, may require a separate focus. We defined physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace as physical acts or verbal statements that result in the target individual feeling physically threatened. Unlike standard definitions of bullying, we recognize that such behaviours could comprise single events as well as repetitive behaviours over time. By extension, this implies that acts of physical intimidation and bullying may be perpetrated by individuals who are external to the organization, in addition to organizational members. Unlike most exemplars of workplace violence, we recognize that some acts of physical intimidation may not involve a direct attack and, indeed, may be ambiguous—leaving the target unsure of whether the event was a threat, an accident (e.g. being bumped into in a hallway) or a result of misreading social norms and cues (e.g. violation of personal space).

48

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

Drawing on international workplace violence literature primarily alongside reference to the workplace bullying literature, we would expect that both individual and occupational characteristics would predict the occurrence of physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace. We hypothesize that fear (i.e. the fear of personal attack) is a primary outcome of physical intimidation and bullying. Consistent with the literature on workplace violence (e.g. LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Rogers & Kelloway, 1997; Schat & Kelloway, 2000, 2003), we anticipate that experiencing physical intimidation and bullying would be associated with a diverse array of adverse personal and organizational consequences. To some extent, these suggestions are necessarily speculative and based on the study of related phenomena in organizations. We know of no studies that adequately capture the domain of physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace as defined above. As a first task, then, research should be focused on operationalizing the construct. Given the dangers of construct proliferation (Hershcovis, 2011), it is important to ascertain whether physical intimidation and bullying are indeed distinct from other forms of workplace bullying or workplace violence. Assuming that measurement development supports the existence of the construct, it remains for research to examine the predictors and consequences associated with physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace. It is also important to identify means of helping and supporting the victims of physical intimidation and bullying. In particular, there is a need to identify means for individuals to safely stay at, or return to, the workplace in which they have been intimidated or bullied. Given the potential for victims to experience long-term physical and psychological consequences, it is equally important for organizations to identify and evaluate interventions designed to reduce or prevent the occurrence of physical intimidation in the workplace (see, e.g., Smith & Kelloway, 2016). Reduction and elimination of the behaviour must be the ultimate focus of research on physical intimidation and bullying in the workplace, and we hope that this initial consideration starts us on the path to achieving this goal.

2.5

Cross-References

▶ Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment ▶ Workplace Bullying and Negative Behaviour in the Hospitality Industry ▶ Workplace Bullying in Military Organizations: Bullying Inc.? ▶ Workplace Bullying in Precarious Employment ▶ Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Corrections ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Fire Departments: The Case of the US Fire Service ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in the Context of Dirty Work ▶ Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

2.6

49

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1 The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide, Vol. 1 The Interface Between Significant Others and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2

References Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741. Arnetz, J. E., & Arnetz, B. B. (2001). Violence towards health care staff and possible effects on the quality of patient care. Social Science & Medicine, 52(3), 417–427. Arnetz, J. E., Hamblin, L., Ager, J., Luborsky, M., Upfal, M. J., Russell, J., & Essenmacher, L. (2015). Underreporting of workplace violence: Comparison of self-report and actual documentation of hospital incidents. Workplace Health & Safety, 63(5), 200–210. Azodo, C. C., Ezeja, E. B., & Ehikhamenor, E. E. (2012). Occupational violence against dental professionals in southern Nigeria. African Health Sciences, 11(3), 486–492. Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692. Bishop, E. R. (2006). Cognitive factors in NHS staff responses to violence and aggression. PhD thesis, University of Leeds. Bloisi, W., & Hoel, H. (2008). Abusive work practices and bullying among chefs: A review of the literature. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4), 649–656. Braverman, M. (1999). Preventing workplace violence: A guide for employers and practitioners (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bride, B. E., Choi, Y., Olin, I. W., & Roman, P. M. (2015). Patient violence towards counselors in substance use disorder treatment programs: Prevalence, predictors, and responses. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 57, 9–17. BJS. (2013). Rates of workplace violence higher for government employees. US Department of Justice Statistics. BLS. (2000a). Report on the youth labor force. US Department of Labor Statistics. BLS. (2000b). Compensation and working conditions. US Department of Labor Statistics. BLS. (2010). Workplace homicides from shootings. US Department of Labor Statistics. BLS. (2011). Occupational homicide by selected characteristics, 1997–2010. US Department of Labor Statistics. BLS. (2012). Table A-2. Fatal occupational injuries resulting from transportation incidents and homicides. All U.S., 2011. US Department of Labor Statistics. Burgel, B., Gillen, M., & White, M. (2014). Work-related violence experienced by urban taxi drivers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57(12), 1377–1385. Camerino, D., Estryn- Behar, M., Conway, P. M., Van Der Heijden, B. I., & Hasselhorn, H. M. (2008). Work-related factors and violence among nursing staff in the European NEXT study: A longitudinal cohort study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 35–50. Chang, H. E., & Cho, S. H. (2016). Workplace violence and job outcomes of newly licensed nurses. Asian Nursing Research, 10(4), 271–276. Chappell, D., & Di Martino, V. (2006). Violence at work. Geneva: International Labour Office. Cheung, T., & Yip, P. S. (2017). Workplace violence towards nurses in Hong Kong: Prevalence and correlates. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 196. Duhart D.T. (2001). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Violence in the workplace, 1993–1999. NCJ 190076. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

50

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

Dull, D. L., & Fox, L. (2010). Perception of intimidation in a perioperative setting. American Journal of Medical Quality, 25(2), 87–94. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnairerevised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44. Ellrich, K. (2016). The influence of violent victimization on police officers’ organizational commitment. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31(2), 96–107. Ellrich, K., & Baier, D. (2016). Police officers as victims of violence: Findings of a Germany-wide survey. In Representative studies on victimization (pp. 139–162). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Ellrich, K., & Baier, D. (2017). Post-traumatic stress symptoms in police officers following violent assaults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(3), 331–356. Estrada, F., Nilsson, A., Jerre, K., & Wikman, S. (2010). Violence at work: The emergence of a social problem. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 11, 46–65. Estryn-Behar, M., Van Der Heijden, B., Camerino, D., Fry, C., Le Nezet, O., Conway, P. M., & Hasselhorn, H. M. (2008). Violence risks in nursing—Results from the European ‘NEXT’ study. Occupational Medicine, 58(2), 107–114. Eurofound. (2013). Physical and psychological violence at the workplace. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Ferrinho, P., Biscaia, A., Fronteira, I., Craveiro, I., Antunes, A. R., Conceição, C., Flores, I., & Santos, O. (2003). Patterns of perceptions of workplace violence in the Portuguese health care sector. Human Resources for Health, 1, 11. Friis, K., Larsen, F. B., & Lasgaard, M. (2017). Physical violence at work predicts health-related absence from the labor market: A 10-year population-based follow-up study. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000137 Fujishiro, K., Diez Roux, A., Landsbergis, P., Baron, S., Barr, G. R., Kaufman, J. D., Polak, J. F., & Stukovsky, K. H. (2011). Associations of occupation, job control and job demands with intimamedia thickness: The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA). Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 68(5), 319–326. Gates, D. M., Gillespie, G. L., & Succop, P. (2011). Violence against nurses and its impact on stress and productivity. Nursing Economics, 29(2), 59–66. Gerberich, S. G., Church, T. R., McGovern, P. M., Hansen, H. E., Nachreiner, N. M., Geisser, M. S., Ryan, A. D., Mongin, S. J., & Watt, G. D. (2004). An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: The Minnesota nurses’ study. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 61, 495–503. Guay, S., Goncalves, J., & Jarvis, J. (2015). A systematic review of exposure to physical violence across occupational domains according to victims’ sex. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 25(Part A), 133–141. Healdsburg Tribune. (1934). Crazed man is caught after murdering six (five relatives and postal official slain). California Digital Newspaper Collection. Health Education & Human Services Division of U.S. General Accounting Office. Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . .oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 32, 499–519. Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 874–888. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238. Hoobler, J., & Swanberg, J. (2006). The enemy is not us: Unexpected workplace violence trends. Public Personnel Management, 35(3), 229–246. Hu, J., Feng, B., Zhu, Y., Wang, W., Xie, J., & Zheng, X. (2017). Gender differences in PTSD: Susceptibility and resilience. In gender differences in different contexts. InTech.

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

51

ILO. (2003). Code of practice on workplace violence in services sectors and measures to combat this phenomenon, OIT, Mevws/2003/11, Geneva. IPRC. (2001). Workplace violence: A report to the nation. Iowa City: University of Iowa. ILO, ICN, WHO, PSI. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: Switzerland. Kaplan, S. G., & Cornell, D. G. (2005). Threats of violence by students in special education. Behavioural Disorders, 31(1), 107–119. Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., & Gatien, B. (2015). Management of occupational health and safety (6th edition). Toronto: Nelson Education. Kinney, J. A., & Johnson, D. L. (1993). Breaking point: The workplace violence epidemic and what to do about it (p. 24). Chicago: National Safe Workplace Institute Press. Koritsas, S., Coles, J., & Boyle, M. (2010). Workplace violence towards social workers: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Work, 40(1), 257–271. Kvas, A., & Seljak, J. (2014). Unreported workplace violence in nursing. International Nursing Review, 61(3), 344–351. Kwok, R. P. W., Law, Y. K., Li, K. E., Ng, Y. C., Cheung, M. H., Fung, V. K. P., Kwok, K. T. T., Tong, J. M. K., Yen, P. F., & Leung, W. C. (2006). Prevalence of workplace violence against nurses in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 12(1), 6–9. Lambie, C. (2017). Female workers called dykes, rats, board hears. The Chronicle Herald. Lanctôt, N., & Guay, S. (2014). The aftermath of workplace violence among healthcare workers: A systematic literature review of the consequences. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 19(5), 492–501. Langton, L., & Truman, J. L. (2014). Socio-emotional impact of violent crime. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Lanza, M. L., Zeiss, R. A., & Rierdan, J. (2006). Non-physical violence: A risk factor for physical violence in health care settings. Workplace Health and Safety Journal, 54(9), 397–402. LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 444–453. Leblanc, M. M., Dupré, K. E. & Barling, J. (2006). Public-initiated violence. In Hurrell, J. J., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 261–280). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Lee, H. E., Kim, H. R., & Park, J. S. (2014). Work-related risk factors for workplace violence among Korean employees. Journal of Occupational Health, 56(1), 12–20. Magnavita, N. (2013). The exploding spark: Workplace violence in an infectious disease hospital-A longitudinal study. BioMed Research International, 2013, 1–9. Manier, A., Kelloway K. E., & Francis, L. (2016). Damaging the workplace: Consequences for people and organizations. Research and theory on workplace aggression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayhew, C. (2003). Preventing violence against health workers. Paper presented at WorkSafe Victoria Seminar, Melbourne. Mucci, N., Giorgi, G., Fiz Perez, J., Iavicoli, I., & Arcangeli, G. (2015). Predictors of trauma in bank employee robbery victims. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 11, 2605–2612. NIOSH. (2001). Research agenda: Update 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-147). Northern Territory Times & Gazette (1926). Postal employee runs amok. O’Connell, B., Young, J., Brooks, J., Hutchings, J., & Lofthouse, J. (2000). Nurses’ perceptions of the nature and frequency of aggression in general ward settings and high dependency areas. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 9(4), 602–610. Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.

52

B. Cregan and E. K. Kelloway

Padyab, M., Chelak, H. M., Nygren, L., & Ghazinour, M. (2012). Client violence and mental health status among Iranian social workers: A national survey. British Journal of Social Work, 42(1), 111–128. Pai, H., & Lee, S. (2011). Risk factors for workplace violence in clinical registered nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 1405–1412. Parent-Thirion, A. (2007). Fourth European working conditions survey. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Pinar, T., Acikel, C., Pinar, G., Karabulut, E., Saygun, M., Bariskin, E., Guidotti, T. L., Akdur, R., Sabuncu, H., Bodur, S., Egri, M., Bakir, B., Acikgoz, E. M., Atceken, I., & Cengiz, M. (2015). Workplace violence in the health sector in Turkey: A national study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(15), 2345–2365. Puy, J., Romain-Glassey, N., Gut, M., Pascal, W., Mangin, P., & Danuser, B. (2015). Clinically assessed consequences of workplace physical violence. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88(2), 213–224. Rasmussen, C., Hogh, A., & Andersen, L. (2013). Threats and physical violence in the workplace. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(13), 2749–2769. Richardson, S., & Windau, J. (2003). Fatal and nonfatal assaults in the workplace 1996 to 2000. Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 3, 673–689. Robson, A., Cossar, J., & Quayle, E. (2014). Critical commentary: The impact of work-related violence towards social workers in children and family services. British Journal of Social Work, 44(4), 924–936. Rodwell, J., & Demir, D. (2012). Oppression and exposure as differentiating predictors of types of workplace violence for nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(15–16), 2296–2305. Rogers, K. A., & Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Violence at work: Personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2(1), 63. Santos, A., Leather, P., Dunn, J., & Zarola, A. (2009). Gender differences in exposure to co-worker and public-initiated violence: Assessing the impact of work-related violence and aggression in police work. Work & Stress, 23(2), 137–154. Santrock, J. W. (2007). A topical approach to human life-span development (3rd ed.). St. Louis: McGraw-Hill. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence survey by Northwestern National Life Insurance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 386–402. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(2), 110–122. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2005). Workplace aggression. In Frone, M. R., Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 189–218). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Schlitzkus, L. L., Vogt, K. N., Sullivan, M. E., & Schenarts, K. D. (2014). Workplace bullying of general surgery residents by nurses. Journal of Surgical Education, 71(6), 149–154. Sharipova, M., Hogh, A., & Borg, V. (2010). Individual and organizational risk factors of workrelated violence in the Danish elder care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(2), 332–340. Shin, J. (2011). Client violence and its negative impacts on work attitudes of child protection workers compared to community service workers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(16), 3338–3360. Smith, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2016). Respect in the workplace: An evaluation of a short online intervention program. Journal of organizational effectiveness: People and performance, 3(4), 395–410. Spector, P. E., Coulter, M. L., Stockwell, H. G., & Matz, M. W. (2007). Perceived violence climate: A new construct and its relationship to workplace physical violence and verbal aggression, and their potential consequences. Work and Stress, 21(2), 117–130.

2

Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace

53

Spector, P. E., Zhou, Z. E., & Che, X. X. (2014). Nurse exposure to physical and nonphysical violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: A quantitative review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(1), 72–84. Strolin-Goltzman, J., Kollar, S., Shea, K., Walcott, C., & Ward, S. (2016). Building a landscape of resilience after workplace violence in public child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 71, 250–256. Swanberg, J. E., Logan, T. K., & Marke, C. (2006). The consequences of partner violence on employment and the workplace. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 351–380). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Talas, M. S., Kocaöz, S., & Akgüç, S. (2011). A survey of violence against staff working in the emergency department in Ankara, Turkey. Asian Nursing Research, 5(4), 197–203. Tiesman, H., Konda, S., Hendricks, S., Mercer, D., & Amandus, H. (2013). Workplace violence among Pennsylvania education workers: Differences among occupations. Journal of Safety Research, 44, 65–71. Tonso, M. A., Prematunga, R. K., Norris, S. J., Williams, L., Sands, N., & Elsom, S. J. (2016). Workplace violence in mental health: A Victorian mental health workforce survey. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(5), 444–451. Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2010). Cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS). Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 34(6), 877–881. VISAGE. (2014). Men and woman facing violence at work: The risks of exposure. Trauma Studies Centre, University Institute of Mental Health in Montreal. Waters, J., Lynn, R., & Morgan, K. (2002). Workplace violence: Prevention and intervention, theory and practice. In L. Rapp-Paglicci, A. Roberts, & J. Wodarski (Eds.), Handbook of violence (pp. 378–413). New York: Wiley. Wei, C., Gerberich, S. G., Alexander, B. H., Ryan, A. D., Nachreiner, N. M., & Mongin, S. J. (2013). Work-related violence against educators in Minnesota: Rates and risks based on hours exposed. Journal of Safety Research, 44, 73–85. Widiss, D. A. (2008). Domestic violence and the workplace: The explosion of state legislation and the need for a comprehensive strategy. Florida State University Law Review, 35(3), 669–728. WBI. (2012). WBI survey: Rank and numbers of perpetrators of workplace bullying. WBI. (2014). The WBI definition of workplace bullying. Wright, J. A., & Dusek, J. B. (1998). Compiling school based rates for disruptive behaviours from student disciplinary referral data. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 138–147. Yang, L.-Q., Spector, P. E., Chang, C.-H., Gallant-Roman, M., & Powell, J. (2012). Psychosocial precursors and physical consequences of workplace violence towards nurses: A longitudinal examination with naturally occurring groups in hospital settings. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(9), 1091–1102.

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully–Bystander Relationship Darren C. Treadway, Huiru Yang, Jun Yang, Allison B. Duke, and Jeffrey R. Bentley

Contents 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

3.7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bystanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Will as Motivation Behind Bystander Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Skill as Enablement in the Workplace Bullying Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Political Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Politically Skilled Bystanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Politically Skilled Bullies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategic Silencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1 Reputation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2 Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 57 58 58 61 63 63 65 66 66 67 68

D. C. Treadway (*) Daemen College, Buffalo, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] H. Yang University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Yang University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. B. Duke Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. R. Bentley California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_23

55

56

D. C. Treadway et al.

3.8 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 70 70 71 71

Abstract

Despite the detrimental consequences of workplace bullying, little research has been done on the relationship between bullies and bystanders. This chapter provides insight into this matter by investigating the role of political will as a motivating factor and political skill as an enabling individual characteristic in the context of workplace bullying. More specifically, we argue that when bystanders perceive their political will to exceed the assessed risk, they will engage in upstander behaviours. Yet, politically skilled bullies can exaggerate the risk perceived by bystanders through tactics such as strategic silencing and mechanisms of ostracism, thus leading bystanders to be less likely to stand up to them. Nonetheless, bystanders can also utilize their political skill to more accurately assess the risk associated with intervening, therefore making upstander behaviours more probable. We also discuss additional considerations and future research directions.

3.1

Introduction

Workplace bullying is prevalent across the globe and it poses a serious threat (see León-Pérez et al., Chap. 12, “Workplace Bullying and Harassment as Group Dynamic Processes: A Multilevel Approach”, Vol. 1, Section 2 for a detailed overview of international prevalence). In Germany, workplace bullying is estimated to influence 17.1% of employees (Lange, Burr, Conway, & Rose, 2019). According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (2014), 19% of employees in the United States (USA) are bullied and 40% of them suffer from adverse health consequences, which might have been caused by a sense of helplessness as many victims choose to be silent about their experiences or even quit their jobs to escape from bullying. Thus, not only is workplace bullying harmful to employees, it also hurts organizations. For instance, one study calculated the cost of bullying on organizations in the United Kingdom (UK) to be £13.75 billion or approximately 1.5% of total Gross Domestic Product in 2007 (Giga, Hoel, & Lewis, 2008), while the Australian Productivity Commission (2012) estimated workplace bullying to have an annual cost between $6 billion and $36 billion. Given the financial costs and moral repugnance of bullying behaviour, it is not surprising that organizational scientists are increasingly interested in the topic. However, little of our research can be shown to have an ecological-level effect on the rate of bullying at work. Perhaps this is the result of limitations in previous treatments of the phenomenon. Much of the previous research has focused on the targets of such abuse, which we would suggest was mostly out of methodological

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

57

convenience. That is, organizational scientists find it difficult to accurately identify and assess workplace bullies. This leaves scientists in the predicament of analysing target or third-party perceptions of perpetrators’ abuse behaviour. Obviously, this has resulted in a wealth of information that identifies the characteristics of victims rather than of perpetrators. Thus, the result is investigating the “what” behind bullying but leaving the “who” and “why” relatively uninvestigated. Our chapter seeks to shed light on one manner in which abusers seek to manipulate bystanders to ensure the bullying behaviours are not only allowed, but potentially rewarded. In doing so, we borrow from scholars of organizational politics who have begun a discussion of the political considerations inherent in workplace bullying (e.g. Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007b; Treadway, Breland, Williams, Williams, & Yang, 2012) and set forth propositions outlining a research agenda related to the concepts of political will and political skill. More specifically, we argue that bystanders’ political will determines whether or not they intervene in workplace bullying situations such that when their political will exceeds the perceived risk of standing up to the bullies, they will engage in upstander behaviours. However, politically skilled bullies can often exaggerate such perceived risk through strategical silencing. Bystanders who are also politically skilled can more accurately assess the risk, thus becoming more likely to intervene. In doing so, we hope to offer researchers a theoretical lens from which to address the interaction between bullies and bystanders, and from where we may begin a debate about how bullies manage the meaning of their abusive behaviour. We will first review previous research on bullies and bystanders, followed by a section on bystanders’ political will as motivation to intervene. Then, we will outline the nature of risk in the determination of the motivation–upstander behaviour link from the perspective of bullies’ political skill. We will continue by explicating a few of the large number of potential strategic silencing behaviours adopted by politically skilled bullies. Finally, we will end the chapter with a discussion of the implications of understanding the bully–bystander relationship as political in nature.

3.2

Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is defined as “systematic aggression and violence targeted towards one or more individuals by one individual or by a group” (Einarsen, 2000, p. 381). The difficulty in identifying and surveying workplace bullies has led to a relatively one-sided research focus. That is, most research has focused on predicting the likely victims of bullying and the psychosocial consequences of being victimized. In these studies, researchers have found that targets typically possess elevated levels of negative affect and neuroticism (Zapf, 1999). Furthermore, victims of workplace bullying tend to experience decreased productivity, lower commitment to the organization, lower morale, higher turnover and increased levels of tension and job stress (Einarsen, 1999; Luzio-Lockett, 1995; Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Zapf, 1999).

58

3.3

D. C. Treadway et al.

Bullies

As previously mentioned, past research on workplace bullying has mainly taken the perspectives of victims and bystanders, while giving relatively little attention to bullies (see Blackwood and Jenkins, Chap. 13, “Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying”, Vol. 2, Section 2). This is likely due to methodological constraints in identifying and obtaining data from bullies in the workplace. To understand the mechanisms of bullying behaviours, Salin (2003) grouped elements associated with workplace bullying into three categories: antecedents, incentives and triggering circumstances. Antecedents refer to conditions that make the occurrence of bullying possible in the first place, and they include perceived power imbalance, low perceived costs, dissatisfaction and frustration. Incentives involve circumstances such as high internal competition that actually make bullying behaviours rewarding. In addition to the aforementioned two factors, some events actually act as triggers for bullying behaviours. For example, downsizing, which is a common organizational change, often precipitates bullying activity (Salin, 2003). Bullies are also motivated to protect their resources through bullying behaviours (Wheeler, Halbesleben, & Shanine, 2010). Consequently, when bullies perceive job security to be low, they are more likely to bully others, especially when they think they have alternative employment opportunities (De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009). Nonetheless, further research is needed to pinpoint the exact motivations behind workplace bullying. In contrast, there has been ample research done on bystanders, allowing us to theorize the “who”, “when” and “what if” behind bystander intervention in workplace bullying.

3.4

Bystanders

Bystanders have been defined in several ways. According to the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1999), a bystander is an individual who is present but not participating in the bullying situation. However, researchers view bystanders as having a more active role characterized by indirect and repeated engagement in the bullying process beyond simple observation (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010; see also Pouwelse et al., Chap. 15, “The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying: An Overview of Theories and Empirical Research”, Vol. 2, Section 2). Research on bystanders or observers has been conducted across several domains within the workplace incivility literature. Whereas not directly tied to strict definitions of bullying, observer effects have been found in relation to workplace incivility and sexual harassment. For example, Reich and Hershcovis (2014) found that, in an experimental setting, observers of workplace incivility were likely to respond with punishment towards the perpetrator. Similarly, Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly (2005) proposed a typology of bystander reactions to workplace sexual harassment. This framework suggested four basic categories of bystander intervention: highinvolvement–high-immediacy (e.g. bystanders directly confronting the bullies), high-involvement–low-immediacy (e.g. bystanders report the bullying incident to management later on), low-involvement–high-immediacy (e.g. bystanders divert

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

59

bullies’ attention away from the situation) and low-involvement–low-immediacy (e.g. bystanders giving advice to victims in private). Subsequent research using this framework indicates that the low-immediacy–low-involvement condition is the most likely activated while the least-utilized intervention was high-immediacy–highinvolvement strategy (McDonald, Charlesworth, & Graham, 2016). Although bystanders are often treated as a tangential part of workplace bullying, scholars argue that they should be treated as an integral part of the bullying context. Indeed, Paul, Omari and Standen (2012) identified bystanders’ involvement in workplace bullying on a continuum, with identification with the bully on the one end, and identification with the victim on the other extreme, resulting in 12 types of bystanders: instigating bystander (who creates situation for bully), manipulating bystander (who influences actions of bully), collaborating bystander (who assists bully), facilitating bystander (who provides audience for bully), abdicating bystander (who does nothing to stop bully), avoiding bystander (who walks away from situation), intervening bystander (who intervenes to stop bully), defusing bystander (who prevents escalation of situation), defending bystander (who defends victim), empathizing bystander (who empathizes with victim but does nothing), sympathizing bystander (who sympathizes with victim and provides comfort), succumbing bystander (who becomes fellow victim) and submitting bystander (who substitutes victim). This continuum offers an important framework from which a bystander can be conceptualized as either encouraging or discouraging the bullying behaviours. Despite not being the direct target of the abusive behaviour, bystanders experience negative outcomes from witnessing workplace bullying. Bystanders are more likely to experience stress (Vartia, 2001) and long-term depressive symptoms (Emdad, Alipour, Hagberg, & Jensen, 2013) than employees who do not witness bullying. Such results might be due to bystanders’ own exposure to bullying behaviours (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). For example, when bystanders perceive high risks of becoming victims themselves of bullying behaviours as others strongly associate them with the victim, they often experience more fear, which then leads to fewer interventions (Mulder, Pouwelse, Lodewijkx, & Bolman, 2014). Not surprisingly, bystanders’ perception of organizational psychological safety and supervisory support has been shown to predict the likelihood of intervening (MacCurtain, Murphy, O’Sullivan, MacMahaon, & Turner, 2018). Who stands up? Given that nearly one-fifth of all employees are bullied at work while another 19% have witnessed workplace bullying (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014), why don’t more bystanders become “upstanders”? Some evidence exists that individual characteristics of the bystanders influence their decision to act. Hellemans, Dal Cason and Casini (2017) indicated three determinants: self-efficacy, perceived severity and causal attributions. Specifically, intervention is likely when bystanders attribute the bullying behaviours to external causes and while having high levels of self-efficacy. The perceived severity of the workplace abuse also predicted public helping behaviour. Finally, internal attributions of bullying behaviour were negatively associated with bystanders’ provision of public and emotional support, whereas external attribution was positively correlated with both types of support.

60

D. C. Treadway et al.

It appears that demographic characteristics also affect the likelihood that individuals will stand up to bullies. Mulder, Pouwelse, Lodewijkx and Bolman (2014) found gender differences in one’s likelihood to respond to bullying behaviour at work. Specifically, women showed less sympathy and more anger towards the abuser under conditions in which the victim had chosen a promotion into their position despite warnings that abuse was likely. In conditions where few co-workers stood up to a bully, male bystanders experienced greater anger and both men and women experienced fear of standing up to the bully. Each of these reactions results in lower intentions to defend or protect the victim of the abuse. When do they stand up? In addition to the individual attributes that predict “upstander” behaviour, there is some work that directs attention towards relational considerations. This work demonstrates that bystanders are less likely to identify with the victim when the bullying is online and when it was related to work, but more likely to identify with the victim when he or she is a friend as compared to co-workers who are simply acquaintances (Coyne et al., 2017). These relational findings are echoed in research on childhood bullying. Specifically, Pöyhönen, Juvonen and Salmivalli (2012) found that children (ages 9–11) were more likely to defend a peer when they expected their own status to be elevated by the behaviour or if they highly valued the well-being of the victim. Bystanders were more likely to remain passive if they felt that sticking up for the victim would not, ultimately, result in the bullying to decrease. Finally, in situations where the bystander believed no improvement would come from defending the victim, did not have empathy towards the victim or that defending the victim would reduce their social status, they were likely to reinforce the bully by their counterproductive behaviour. MacCurtain, Murphy, O’Sullivan, MacMahaon and Turner (2018) found that most often bystanders engage in low-involvement reactions (e.g. they talk to their colleagues about the abusive behaviour). However, support from the organization or from the supervisor increased the likelihood that the bystanders would become more engaged in their responses. This issue of status or social capital is found in the work on adolescent bullying. Evans and Smokowski (2015) found that subjects were more likely to defend or protect the victim of bullying when they possessed social support from teachers or friends, a sense of ethnic belonging or religious affiliation. Interestingly, as the subjects’ self-esteem decreased, they found that they were more, not less likely, to speak up to bullies on behalf of others. Research by D’Cruz and Noronha (2010) provided additional evidence for the criticality of support from powerful others as a determinant of bystanders’ willingness to speak up. Their study found that when the target was a friend of the bystander, behaviours designed to protect the victim and resolve the conflict were most likely. However, this behaviour was significantly diminished if the bystander was not in a position of relative power or if those that were in those positions did not support their initial behaviours. What if they stand up? We often assume that when bystanders speak up, they improve the situation for the victim, themselves and others in the workplace. However, there is little empirical support that this is the case. Scant research has been conducted on upstander effectiveness in either the school or work psychology

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

61

literature; this is assuming that the termination of the bullying and/or increasing the civility of the organizational culture is the goal of upstander behaviour. Whatever research that has been conducted has primarily focused on the outcomes a bystander experiences as a result of trying to stand up on behalf of a victim (e.g. D’Cruz & Noronha, 2010). Ideally, organizations are striving to create a culture in which bystanders feel empowered to speak up and protect or support victims of workplace bullying. Although clear statistics do not exist as to the prevalence of “upstanding” behaviour, the persistence of the bullying problem at work would indicate that high voice cultures are not being created. We offer that the likelihood of speaking up is a result of bystanders’ political will and political skill. In the sections that follow, we will both define and outline the parameters of this concept.

3.5

Political Will as Motivation Behind Bystander Intervention

Until recently, political will has only been discussed as an amorphous, inconsistently defined construct within the macro-level research of political science and economics. This macro-level perspective underlines the collective properties of political will, but ignores the motivations of individuals (Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway, & Bentley, 2016). To address this issue, Treadway (2012) defined political will on the individual level as “the motivation to engage in strategic, goal-directed behaviour that advances the personal agenda and objectives of the actor that inherently involves the risk of relational or reputational capital” (p. 533). Thus, the political will of bullies and bystanders can help us understand the motivation behind bullying behaviours and upstander behaviours. In Treadway’s seminal conceptualization of political will, five dimensions of political will were identified. These include instrumental, relational, concern for self, concern for others and risk dimensions. Treadway grouped these five dimensions into three overarching themes. The first two dimensions centred on the nature of the outcome desired by the actor, constituting the first theme. He suggested that individuals possess various orientations towards either relational or instrumental outcomes. Most basically, individuals can be focused on maximizing their own resources and achievements (instrumental) or they might rather concern themselves with creating and maintaining quality relationships (relational). A second theme within the political will dimensions revolved around the focus of the actor’s concern and could be divided into a concern for one’s self or a concern for others (Treadway, 2012). When the concern for “self” dimension is high, we should expect that individuals will be motivated to engage in behaviours that project a positive self-image and protect a healthy sense of self-esteem. In contrast when the concern for “others” dimension is elevated, it is expected that individuals will engage in behaviours that will be helpful to and protective of others. Unlike the dimensions in the first two themes that directly motivate people to engage in certain actions, the third theme which emphasizes the dimension of risks functions as a regulator buffering against the enactment of behaviours. In other

62

D. C. Treadway et al.

words, people will be less likely to engage in the motivated behaviours determined by the other four dimensions when the perceived personal risk is high. Treadway (2012) suggested that the four dimensions of instrumental, relational, concern for self and concern for others were not part of two continuums, but rather existed as independent characteristics. That is, one could have high or low levels of any or all of the four dimensions, forming one’s political will profile. However, behaviour would be activated when the context within which the individual was operating matched the individual’s political will profile. When the environment or situation activated a behavioural evaluation, the individual then assessed the relative strength of their political will against their perceptions of risk in the environment. When the perceptions of risk exceeded the political will of the individual, no action would occur. However, when perceived risk was lower than the individual’s political will, action would be expected. Similarly, when bystanders perceive that the risk of standing up to the bullies is greater than their own political will, they will remain silent in situations of bullying; whereas when their political will surpasses the risk, they will likely intervene and engage in upstander behaviours. Based upon Treadway’s (2012) initial conceptualization, researchers engaged in an extensive political will scale development to assess whether the original description of political will could be empirically measured. In a three-country, four-sample study, Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway and Bentley (2016) found that political will could best be measured using a two-dimensional structure. They labelled these dimensions benevolent and self-serving. While not confirming the five factors proposed by Treadway, this resultant scale’s two dimensions broadly reflected the underlying ideals of his piece in suggesting that bystanders could engage in political behaviour, and thus risk their own social capital, to help victims as well as to help themselves in workplace bullying situations. Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway and Bentley (2016) found that their Political Will Scale (PWS) predicted variance in several behavioural outcomes. Most importantly, within the context of workplace bullying, they found that though both dimensions (i.e. benevolent and self-serving) were likely to predict political behaviour of bystanders, the benevolent dimension of political will was found to predict voice behaviour. This finding alters the narrative regarding political behaviour in organizations offering strong support for the interpersonal and organizationally functional nature of political behaviour. No longer can political behaviour be seen as solely a self-serving endeavour. Hence, we suggest that Proposition 1 Bystanders possessing high levels of benevolent political will are more likely to engage in upstanding behaviour than those bystanders with high levels of self-serving political will. Absent from the PWS (Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway, & Bentley, 2016) is the notion of risk, which was at the core of the motivation–behaviour linkage. Treadway (2012) suggested that it was risk that would prevent a person from acting in a motivationally salient situation. Specifically, if the actor’s (i.e. the bystander’s) political will does not rise above their perceived level of risk, they will not act, in any manner, to stop the abusive behaviour by the bully. Thus, it is this perception of risk

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

63

inherent in the abusive context that bullies can manipulate to silence bystanders. This strategic silencing by the bullies heightens fear of retaliation, ostracism and anxiety in the workplace. As such, we should not think of bullies as directing abusive behaviour at potential upstanders but rather manipulating the social context to make it appear increasingly punitive for others to stand up for the victims. Cumulatively, we believe that the goals of strategic silencing behaviours are designed to increase fear, create false impressions of the power of the bully and ultimately generate feelings of isolation in bystanders. Indeed, some research alludes to these notions. For example, Twemlow, Fonagy and Sacco (2004) argued that teachers who bully their students suppress the voice of their fellow teachers by labelling them as anti-union and ostracizing them from the group. Fears, in a union environment, of such a strong label may serve to deflect the criticism of bystanders. However, there has been no research that has demonstrated, nor is there a reason to believe, that school bullying prevalence correlates with teacher unionization. Thus, increasing perceptions of fear and concern for retaliation make it less likely that bystanders will speak up to protect victims or to improve the overall health of the work climate. Proposition 2 Bystanders are less likely to engage in upstanding behaviour to the degree their perception of risk exceeds their benevolent political will. One way to increase bystander intervention is to decrease the risk perceived by bystanders, thus making it more probable that their political will would surpass the risk in standing up to the bullies. Such lowered risk perception is achieved through having high political skill which promotes more accurate risk assessment.

3.6

Political Skill as Enablement in the Workplace Bullying Context

Motivation is a key determinant of one’s propensity to act in any given situation. Through the political lens, political will has been shown to be the dominant driver of political behaviour (Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway, & Bentley, 2016). However, the delicate nature of perceptual manipulation makes the skill with which one enacts political behaviours critical to their overall success. Quite practically, we have all seen the classic “yes person” at the office. This is the co-worker who wants to get ahead, but their intentions are so obvious that it leads to the dislike of them by their co-workers and supervisors and ultimately sabotages their long-term career prospects. Indeed, the success of any political behaviour is affected by the actor’s political skill (Ferris et al., 2005, 2007a), to which we now turn our attention.

3.6.1

Political Skill

Political skill is a social influence construct defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris et al.,

64

D. C. Treadway et al.

2005, p. 127). The four dimensions of political skill are social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability and apparent sincerity. Individuals who are highly politically skilled are astute observers in interpersonal settings and can adapt their own behaviours as well as influence others to change behaviours based on the situation. Additionally, because they are strongly networked and seem sincere in their interactions, they are perceived to be trustworthy and can thereby garner necessary resources from others (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007a). Previous research has established political skill as a determinant of influence effectiveness as well as a neutralizer of stressor–strain relationships. Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams and Thatcher (2007) found that when politically skilled subordinates enacted ingratiation behaviours (e.g. flattery), those behaviours were not perceived to be as self-serving as those enacted by subordinates with lower political skill. Similarly, a study of supervisor–employee dyads showed that when employees with high political skill engaged in impression management tactics, they earned higher supervisor ratings than low politically skilled employees (Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Shaw, 2007). Specific to stressor–strain relationships, Perrewé et al. (2005) reported that political skill reduced the negative impact of role overload on job tension, job dissatisfaction and general anxiety. Another study examined the strain created from entitlement behaviours that threatened attainment and retention of limited resources and found political skill to reduce the negative effects (Hochwarter, Summer, Thompson, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010). Other researchers have demonstrated the ability of political skill to alleviate consequences of work stressors such as role and task conflict (Perrewé et al., 2004, 2005), social/interpersonal stressors (Harvey, Harris, & Harris, 2007) and demands for accountability (Hochwarter, Summer, Thompson, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010). In addition to the direct effects, political skill also impacts performance through employee’s application of different influence tactics. People with different levels of political skill are likely to choose different influence tactics (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). Previous research found that for people who frequently use the rationality tactic (i.e. reasoning and rational persuasion), the greater their political skill, the more they are liked and perceived to be similar to their supervisors (Kolodinsky, Treadway, & Ferris, 2007). In addition, apparent sincerity interacted with impression management tactics to influence performance ratings, such that positive impression management is positively correlated with performance ratings for individuals with high apparent sincerity, whereas this correlation becomes negative for individuals with low apparent sincerity (Brouer, Badaway, Gallagher, & Haber, 2015). As a result, people who are low in political skill have worse outcomes when they use influence tactics, because they often appear to be self-serving (Gordon, 1996). Indeed, research showed that individuals with low political skill were more likely than those with high political skill to have their ingratiation behaviours perceived as such by supervisors, who in turn gave them lower ratings on interpersonal facilitation (Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007).

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

65

More recently, researchers have begun to examine the role of political skill in aggressive work environments and workplace bullying. A 2015 study by Zhou, Yang and Spector (2015) found that politically skilled nurses were less likely to experience physical and psychological aggression from patients, suggesting that interpersonal influence and apparent sincerity were used to elicit desired behaviours and thus reduce risk to the nurses. Those with lower political skill, however, experienced not only greater aggression, but also lower job satisfaction and career commitment. In a separate study, those with lower political skill exhibited lower task performance when they perceived their work environment was victimizing (Bentley, Treadway, Williams, Gazdag, & Yang, 2018). These studies substantiate the notion that employees often face aggressive behaviour and bullying in the workplace and those with the lowest political skill fare worst. It has been suggested that having lower levels of political skill (or social incompetence) increases the risk of an employee being a victim of bullying, but what about bystanders? How will the political skill of bystanders influence their reaction to workplace bullying?

3.6.2

Politically Skilled Bystanders

Similar to all the advantages that politically skilled individuals experience, bystanders with high political skill are also more equipped to deal with workplace bullying. Because bystanders determine whether or not to intervene through weighing their political will against the perceived risk, bullies’ constant attempts to distort the risk perception of others around them can greatly influence bystanders’ upstander behaviour (we will discuss this further later in this chapter). Thus, any advantages accrued by politically skilled bystanders must operate through more accurately assessing the perceived threat posed to them and others by the bullies. More specifically, politically skilled bystanders should be able to realize that the actual risk of standing up is not as high as that portrayed by the bullies, and thus they are more likely to intervene as their political will exceeds the reduced perception of risk. Moreover, accurately assessing risk should yield a greater sense of control over an employee’s environment. In political contexts, it has been shown that having greater understanding of one’s environment makes it less likely that employees will experience anxiety (Ferris, Frink, Kacmar, & Gilmore, 1994). Further, the greater perception of control felt by politically skilled employees acts as a buffer for the dispositional affect-strain relationship (Zellars, Perrewe, Rossi, Tepper, & Ferris, 2008). Thus we expect that Proposition 3 Politically skilled bystanders will experience decreased stress and anxiety due to reduced levels of risk perception. Proposition 4 Politically skilled bystanders will be more likely to engage in voice behaviours due to reduced levels of risk perception.

66

3.6.3

D. C. Treadway et al.

Politically Skilled Bullies

While bystanders can use their political skill to obtain a more accurate risk perception, bullies are likely to exploit their political skill to exaggerate the seeming risk to promote personal gain. For instance, a recent study found that politically skilled bullies can strategically bully their co-workers yet still earn positive supervisor evaluations (Treadway, Shaughnessy, Breland, Yang, & Reeves, 2013). Bullying by leaders can be interpreted as a form of political behaviour. We know that when employees perceive their workplaces to be highly political in nature (i.e. where everyone acts to maximize their self-interest), individuals feel they do not have control over their environment (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989), and may choose to participate in bullying behaviours to regain control. Victims of bullying often have similar characteristics that attract each other into the same environment, while individuals who cannot cope with bullying opt out of this environment. Eventually, a “good-fit” arrangement of environment, bullies and victims is formed. In order to achieve personal and/or organizational goals, leaders can utilize bullying behaviours as an influence tactic to make bullying targets more easily influenced and controllable. Politically skilled leaders engage in assertive and strategic forms of bullying (e.g. abusive supervision), which is predicted to have positive influence on subordinates’ job stress and job attitudes, whereas leaders with low levels of political skill take part in assertive and tactical bullying, which is predicted to have negative outcomes regarding job stress and job attitudes (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007b). Although bullying by leaders lead to negative performance outcome in the long term, short-term performance increases as “low-maturity” subordinates are bullied into working harder. Meanwhile, when bystanders attribute the cause of bullying to specific victim behaviours that may have encouraged the bullying, these bystanders are more likely to adjust their own behaviours and increase productivity accordingly to avoid becoming victims themselves. In addition to organizational outcomes, leaders also increase their own reputation and power by engaging in bullying (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007b). Taken together, we expect that Proposition 5 Politically skilled bullies will be more likely to achieve personal success in the workplace than will their less politically skilled counterparts.

3.7

Strategic Silencing

Treadway and his colleagues (2012) found that politically skilled bullies were more likely to have strong performance ratings. In contrast, non-politically skilled bullies experienced lower performance ratings. While this study demonstrated the “why” behind bullying and job performance, it did not explicate the “how”. The perpetuation of bullying in organizations is dependent on the ability of a bully to squelch dissent and accusations by threatening the bystanders, directly or indirectly

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

67

rewarding those who remain silent and/or discrediting or impugning bystanders. We argue that bullies are thus manipulating the observers’ perceptions of risk in the hope that an environment is created in which the costs of speaking up override the observers’ personal political will. Thus, we define strategic silencing as the use of political behaviour by an abuser to manipulate the abuser’s, victim’s or bystander’s perceptions of risk, power or reputation. Since individuals who have high political skills are able to better utilize political behaviours to influence others compared to those with poor political skills, we propose that politically skilled bullies will be more successful at strategically silencing bystanders. Proposition 6 Politically skilled bullies will more effectively enact strategic silencing tactics than will their less politically skilled counterparts. With this in mind, we present two primary ways in which politically skilled bullies are likely to strategically silence their counterparts: reputation management and ostracism.

3.7.1

Reputation Management

Personal reputation is “a perceptual identity reflective of the complex combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behaviour, and intended images presented over some period of time as observed directly and/or as reported from secondary sources” (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003, p. 215). One’s reputation can be multifaceted in that they can have a reputation for just about anything: performance, being friendly or being a bully. Social network type measures have been used to approximate one’s personal reputation for bullying. Treadway and his colleagues (2012) identified bullies in the workplace by using a roster method (i.e. presenting employees with a list of their colleagues’ names) and asking employees if they had seen any of their colleagues engage in a specific set of bullying behaviours, although they did not label those behaviours as bullying due to concerns about social desirability. The cumulative scores represented the reputation an individual employee had among his or her colleagues for being a bully. Perhaps counterintuitively, if employees were perceived as bullies, but highly politically skilled, they were likely to achieve higher performance ratings at work. Bullying reputations only resulted in lower performance ratings when the bullies were less politically skilled. This study clearly linked the political constructs of reputation and political skill to the bullying context and demonstrated their utility of study within it. Personal reputation is an element of personal power. We see bullies as directly manipulating two sources of power as they increase their bullying reputation: coercive and referent (French & Raven, 1959). Most clearly, reputation as a bully elevates the coercive power one has over others. Coercive power exists when a person in a position of authority or power threatens or creates fear in someone else to

68

D. C. Treadway et al.

force them into doing what the power holder wants or suppressing the target from doing what they want (French & Raven, 1959). The concept of referent power is the most seductive but elusive form of personal power. Referent power is rooted in a person’s willingness or desire to identify with the power holder (French & Raven, 1959). Referent power provides for subtle, nuanced influence over a target. Indeed, “P’s identification with O can be established or maintained if P behaves, believes, and perceives as O does. Accordingly O has the ability to influence P, even though P may be unaware” (French & Raven, p. 266). In other words, bystanders who perceive bullies to be powerful and wish to be as powerful themselves might choose to behave, believe and perceive like the bullies do. Perhaps it is not surprising then that referent power has been found to be more important than charisma in downward and lateral relationships (Yukl & Falbe, 1991). Consistent with previous arguments, we suggest that bullies thus cultivate greater power over others through bullying behaviours which create fear in victims and bystanders, resulting in coercive power as well as gaining reference power from holding the more powerful position in workplace relations compared to that of the victims and bystanders. Thus, we suggest: Proposition 7 Bullying behaviour will result in greater levels of coercive and referent power.

3.7.2

Ostracism

Ostracism is the extent to which an individual is ignored or excluded by others (Williams, 2001). Workplace ostracism is a unique, powerful and prevalent phenomenon in many different work settings. A recent survey found that 66% of employees in the USA reported the incidents of ostracism in the past 5 years in the workplace (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). These ostracized employees are at the risk of reduced task performance, affective commitment and work engagement and increased intention to quit (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 2011). While the research on negative consequences of ostracism is notable, evidence shows that ostracized victims’ attitudes towards perpetrators and other people are not consistently negative. For instance, some researchers have found that ostracized individuals found the sources of ostracism less likeable (Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960) and evaluated them less favourably (Geller, Goodstei, Silver, & Sternber, 1974), while other researchers suggested that people who were rejected in their social life seek reassurance of bonding and connection with the group (Schoeck, 1962). Particularly, Schoeck (1962) found that when participants were rejected from a group, their desire to work with the group increased. According to Schoeck, the motivation to remain in the group after rejection was seeking social reassurance. Similarly, researchers argued that ostracism threatened the basic human need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and when this fundamental need is threatened, individuals have a stronger motivation to regain inclusionary status by being friendly or proving their worth to the groups. Specifically, research indicated that individuals

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

69

demonstrated more willingness to work with other people and improved their performance when experiencing ostracism (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007; Williams & Sommer, 1997). Maner, DeWall, Baumeister and Schaller (2007) proposed the “social reconnection hypothesis”, which stated that the “experience of ostracism increases the motivation to forge social bonds with new sources of potential affiliation” (p. 42). Maner and his colleagues found that excluded participants were more willing to work with other people and make new friends. Ostracism does not only increase the motivation of the excluded individuals to re-bond with the group but also enhances their performance. Williams and Sommer (1997) found that ostracized females socially compensated, which meant they worked harder collectively than independently, whereas non-ostracized females neither loafed nor compensated. However, ostracized and non-ostracized males showed no difference in social compensation. Females might have a high level of relationship orientation, which motivated them to improve their performance and increase their value to the group. With this anticipated “favourable” outcome of ostracism, bullies might strategically use it to shun bystanders, and pressure them to keep quiet about the bullying behaviours towards other people. In turn, ostracized bystanders would be impeded in their need to belong, and thus likely work harder to reconnect with the dominant group members, for example, the bully. In that way, bullies can control the rebelling behaviours of bystanders, even motivate them to become an accomplice of the bullies as a way to be accepted by the group. Therefore, we propose: Proposition 8 The ostracism behaviours enacted by bullies on bystanders are negatively associated with the bystanders’ resistance to bullying behaviours, in terms of voice and actions. That is, bystanders are less likely to speak up or act against bullies when they encounter ostracism behaviours from the bullies. Proposition 9 The ostracism behaviours acted by bullies on bystanders are positively associated with the bystanders’ reconnection intention and behaviours with the bullies.

3.8

Considerations

The current chapter makes a deliberate choice to not offer a unifying model of strategic silencing behaviour. The goal of this chapter was to offer a new perspective into the discussion of bystander and bully behaviour at work. We believe that a comprehensive model of bystander behaviour must include the political motivations and abilities of both the bystander and the bully, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Our propositions must be viewed properly, that is, within a set of limitations. For instance, we have not explicitly considered the differences between traditional in-face bullying and cyberbullying at work. Perhaps not surprisingly, little research has been conducted that has addressed these differences as it

70

D. C. Treadway et al.

relates to bystander responses with few exceptions (Forssell, 2016; Privitera & Campbell, 2009; see also Farley et al., Chap. 7, “Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology”, Vol. 1, Section 1). In their comparative study of bystander responses to cyber versus in-face bullying in workplaces, Privitera and Campbell (2009) found that normative acceptance of verbal and cyber aggression predicted bullying reinforcement behaviour by the bystanders in both cyber and in-face situations. A bystander’s affective empathy predicted their support of the victim in both contexts while their cognitive empathy was only predictive of victim support in traditional bullying situations. Interestingly, a bystander’s support of the victim of in-face bullying was also predicted by the bystander’s belief about the acceptability of verbal aggression. This suggests that bystanders who accept verbal aggression simultaneously reinforce the bully and show support for the victim when the bullying takes place face to face. These results demonstrate that while important differences exist in the responses of bystanders in cyber versus in-face contexts, it appears that bystanders’ values and personality characteristics propel them to act in salient contexts. This finding furthers the notion that political will can operate as one such individual difference driving bystander behaviour, and consequently we view the propositions set forth in this chapter about political will as offering a potentially more universally predictive view of bystander behaviour regardless of the medium.

3.9

Conclusion

In this chapter we have offered initial thoughts about the intersection of political theory and behaviours of bystanders and bullies in the workplace bullying context. Given the nascent nature of this endeavour, we acknowledge that the propositions outlined require not a model but perhaps a whole research programme dedicated to the exploration of the phenomenon. The absence of a theoretical model that clearly positions the role of political skill and political will in the workplace bullying context will likely impede the development of such a research programme. With that being said, we outline critical first steps for researchers to discuss, debate and ultimately empirically dissect. These steps include considerations of context, networks, dyads, motivation, behaviour and skill, thus offering a vast opportunity for crossdisciplinary researchers to study abusive behaviour in organizations. For example, regarding the context of bullying at work, future research can tap into the unique characteristics of work-related cyberbullying, especially considering the growing prevalence of remote jobs and the increasing use of social media for work-related purposes.

3.10

Cross-References

▶ Ostracism in the Workplace

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

3.11

71

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Depersonalized Bullying: An Emergent Concern in the Contemporary Workplace, Vol. 1 Ethical Challenges in Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Aware ness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1 The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide, Vol. 1 Theoretical Frameworks That Have Explained Workplace Bullying: Retracing Con tributions Across the Decades, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying: A Social Network Perspective, Vol. 1 Consequences of Workplace Bullying for Individuals, Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Employee Silence and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Health Consequences of Workplace Bullying: Physiological Responses and Sleep as Pathways to Disease, Vol. 1, Vol. 2 Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 Targets of Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment: Helpless Victims or Active Pro vocateurs?, Vol. 2 The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying: An Overview of Theories and Empirical Research, Vol. 2 The Role of Personality in Workplace Bullying Research, Vol. 2 Workplace Bullying and Mental Health, Vol. 2

References Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117(3), 497–529. Bentley, J. R., Treadway, D. C., Williams, L. M., Shaughnessy, B. A., & Yang, J. (2018). The impact of perceptions of a victimizing work environment on job performance: A resourceregulation conceptualization and replication test using political skill. Frontiers on Psychology – Organizational Psychology. Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288–306. Brouer, R. L., Badaway, R. L., Gallagher, V. C., & Haber, J. A. (2015). Political skill dimensionality and impression management choice and effective use. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 217–233. Coyne, I., Gopaul, A. M., Campbell, M., Pankasz, A., Garland, R., & Cousans, F. (2017). Bystander responses to bullying at work: The role of mode type and relationship to target. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3692-2. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33, 269–288.

72

D. C. Treadway et al.

De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23, 206–224. Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 16–27. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 5(4), 379–401. Emdad, R., Alipour, A., Hagberg, J., & Jensen, J. B. (2013). The impact of bystanding to workplace bullying on symptoms of depression among women and men in industry in Sweden: An empirical and theoretical longitudinal study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 86(6), 709–716. Evans, C. B., & Smokowski, P. R. (2015). Prosocial bystander behaviour in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2289–2307. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organisations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organisation (pp. 143–170). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organisations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organisational behaviour: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 211–246). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (1994). Understanding as an antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1204–1220. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126–152. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Brouer, R., Perrewé, P. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007a). Political skill in organisations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320. Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. (2007b). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 195–206. Ferris, L. D., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348–1366. Forssell, R. (2016). Exploring cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying in working life–Prevalence, targets and expressions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 58, 454–460. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438–456. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Oxford: University of Michigan Press. Geller, D. M., Goodstei, L., Silver, M., & Sternber, W. C. (1974). Being ignored – Effects of violation of implicit rules of social-interaction. Sociometry, 37(4), 541–556. Giga, S.I., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2008). The costs of workplace bullying. Gordon, R. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54–70. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill in impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278–285. Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Harris, K. J. (2007). Attenuating the effects of social stress: The impact of political skill. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 105–115. Hellemans, C., Dal Cason, D., & Casini, A. (2017). Bystander helping behaviour in response to workplace bullying. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76(4), 135–144. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 24(1), 89–106. Hochwarter, W. A., Summer, J. K., Thompson, K. W., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Strain reactions to perceived entitlement behaviour by others as a contextual stressor: Moderating role of political skill in three samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 388–398.

3

Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully-. . .

73

Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Treadway, D. C., & Bentley, J. R. (2016). Political will in organisations: Theoretical construct development and empirical validation. Journal of Management, 43, 1–29. Kolodinsky, R. W., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions of an expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model. Human Relations, 60(12), 1747–1777. Lange, S., Burr, H., Conway, P. M., & Rose, U. (2019). Workplace bullying among employees in Germany: Prevalence estimates and the role of the perpetrator. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(2), 237–247. Leung, A. S. M., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organisations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 836–844. Luzio-Lockett, A. (1995). Enhancing relationships within organisations an examination of a proactive approach to “bullying at work”. Employee Counseling Today, 7(1), 12–22. MacCurtain, S., Murphy, C., O’Sullivan, M., MacMahon, J., & Turner, T. (2018). To stand back or step in? Exploring the responses of employees who observe workplace bullying. Nursing Inquiry, 25. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12207. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42–55. McDonald, P., Charlesworth, S., & Graham, T. (2016). Action or inaction: Bystander intervention in workplace sexual harassment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 548–566. Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M., Lodewijkx, H., & Bolman, C. (2014). Workplace mobbing and bystanders’ helping behaviour towards victims: The role of gender, perceived responsibility and anticipated stigma by association. International Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 304–312. Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of Communication, 4, 343–373. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A metaanalytic review. Work and Stress, 26(4), 309–332. Paul, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander/a typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 351–366. Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(3), 359–364. Perrewé, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141–152. Perrewé, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Liu, Y., Zinko, R., & Hochwarter, W. (2005). Political skill: An antidote in the role overload–strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 239–250. Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development, 21, 722–741. Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying? Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, 12(4), 395–400. Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2014). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 203–215. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating, and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232. Schoeck, R. J. (1962). Sir Thomas Elyot. Manuscripta, 6(2), 110–112. https://doi.org/10.1484/J. MSS.3.275. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.

74

D. C. Treadway et al.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 974–983. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Treadway, D. C. (2012). Political will in organisations. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organisations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 529–554). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 848–855. Treadway, D. C., Breland, J. W., Williams, L. A., Williams, L., & Yang, J. (2012). Political skill, relational control, and the relational self in the process of relational leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. M. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership theory: A conversation among perspectives: Leadership horizons series. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Treadway, D. C., Shaughnessy, B. A., Breland, J. W., Yang, J., & Reeves, M. (2013). Political skill and the job performance of bullies. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 273–289. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036(1), 215–232. Vartia, M. A. L. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, 63–69. Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. (2010). Eating their cake and everyoe else’s cake, too: Resources as the main ingredient to workplace bullying. Business Horizons, 53, 553–560. Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by co-workers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 693–706. Workplace Bullying Institute. (2014). 2014 WBI U.S. Workplace bullying survey. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423. Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 70–85. Zellars, K. L., Perrewé, P. L., Rossi, A. M., Tepper, B. J. & Ferris, G. R. (2008). Moderating effects of political skill, perceived control, and job-related self-efficacy on the relationship between negative affectivity and physiological strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 549–571. Zhou, Z. E., Yang, L., & Spector, P. E. (2015). Political skill: A proactive inhibitor of workplace aggression exposure and an active buffer of the aggression-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 405–419.

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders Brita Bjørkelo, Cecilie Thorsen, Premilla D’Cruz, and Eva Gemzøe Mikkelsen

Contents 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 The Context of Leaders in the Whistleblowing–Bullying Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Available Research on Leaders and Whistleblowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 The Organizational, Emotional and Cultural Context of Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Whistleblowing and Retaliation at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 The Link Between Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 After the Whistle Is Blown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Leaders in the Whistleblowing–Bullying Interface Informed by Clinical Work with Actual Whistleblowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.9 Perspectives for Research and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.11 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.12 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B. Bjørkelo (*) Department for Further and Continuing Education, Section for Leadership, Education, Prevention and Diversity, Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] C. Thorsen Jobbfast, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway e-mail: [email protected] P. D’Cruz Organizational Behaviour Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India e-mail: [email protected] E. G. Mikkelsen Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_1

75

76

B. Bjørkelo et al.

Abstract

This chapter discusses the role of leaders in regard to whistleblowing and workplace bullying with some examples from clinical practice. In whistleblowing research, the role of leaders has been described from the earliest literature, yet the focus on the dual role of leaders as both complaint recipients and whistleblowers themselves is rather new. This suggests a turn from investigating individual whistleblowers to studying the phenomenon of whistleblowing in all its complexity, including the role of leaders. In workplace bullying research, some studies have pointed towards a similar shift emphasizing the importance of investigating leadership, work environment and ethical infrastructure. This chapter’s investigation into the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface is based on a contextual stand yet also strives for a holistic perspective, alluding to the relevance of organizational governance. The chapter starts with a broader view of whistleblowing at work and then narrows down to retaliation and bullying after whistleblowing and the role of leaders in this interface. The chapter begins by presenting the context of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface, followed by an elaboration of the extant literature on the role of leaders in relation to whistleblowing. Available findings regarding the organizational, emotional and cultural context of leaders are discussed next, with further inputs from studies into retaliation and bullying, including the role of leaders. In the last part of the chapter, the focus is on targets’ perceptions and descriptions of the role of leaders collected in the time after the whistle is blown, when these issues are raised as a part of treatment.

4.1

Introduction

Due to its potential to stop wrongdoing at work, whistleblowing has gained increasing awareness worldwide since the 1960s (Nader, Blackwell, & Petkas, 1972; Westin, 1981). Whistleblowing is usually defined as “the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action” (Near & Miceli, 1985, p. 4). While these actions are not necessarily criminal, employees often view them as immoral, if not illegal, in a given society (see, e.g., Near & Miceli, 2011). Workplace bullying (also referred to as bullying henceforth) may be related to whistleblowing in different ways. Both bullying and whistleblowing have links to ethics. While bullying is in itself an unethical behaviour that violates employee rights (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016), whistleblowing is associated with attempts to expose and halt wrongdoing and unethical practices (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a). Besides, bullying may represent a specific form of retaliation after whistleblowing (Einarsen, 2000; Jackson et al., 2010; LaVan & Martin, 2008; Matthiesen & Bjørkelo, 2011), in cases when retaliation is repeated and of some duration (Bjørkelo, 2013; Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008). Further, some studies have documented how leaders do not necessarily

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

77

handle bullying cases in a useful way (see, e.g., Namie & Namie, 2003, cited in McKay, 2014). This includes turning a complaint about inappropriate behaviour into an issue concerning the employee that reported, which again may revictimize the person that reported in the first place as well as silence the messenger through inaction. According to Mayer, Nurmohamed, Treviño, Shapiro and Schminke (2013), it may take “‘a village’ to support internal whistleblowing”, and several models describe how different parts of the whistleblowing process may play out (Bjørkelo, 2010; Hollings, 2013; Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008; Near & Miceli, 2011). The contextualized process model of whistleblowing at work specifically places the procedural steps described in previous models into a circumstantial frame (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a). According to the latter model, whistleblowing is influenced by sociocultural dynamics (e.g. ideologies and social relations) and international influences that may impact on both individual orientations (including those of supervisors, managers and leaders) as well as the ethos of a workplace and the surrounding institutional frameworks in the context of the process itself (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a, p. 154). Applying dynamics as a point of entrance may, to a greater extent, enable investigations into goal-based and process-oriented models of organizational effectiveness (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Going into the role of leaders from a whistleblowing–bullying interface also allows for looking into the process of how leaders address whistleblowing situations and what their interpretations mean when seen from the perspective of whistleblowers. One of the publicly known Norwegian whistleblowing cases is the “Monika case” (Schaefer, 2015). The case relates to the reporting of an assumed not fully investigated criminal investigation into the suspicious death of an 8-year-old girl named Monika. The police district where the case was investigated concluded that the cause of the girl’s death was that she had taken her own life, and the case was classified as suicide. In the same district, a police investigator, Robin Schaefer, wondered about parts of the investigative steps taken in the case and reported his concerns to his nearest leader, and as time passed, several attempts to reopen the case were made. After numerous internal and external attempts, including support from Schaefer’s nearest leader, further investigations were made. These led to the conviction of Monika’s mother’s previous cohabitant, who was sentenced to 18 years detention with a minimum term of 10 years for murder (http://norwaytoday.info/news/18years-detention-monika-case-2/. Retrieved 11 Oct 2017). This case includes a situation where a concerned employee makes repeated attempts to raise awareness and action in a case of, at the onset, alleged wrongdoing. It also includes a process of internal and external whistleblowing throughout which the whistleblower experiences more support from his nearest leader, than from both superiors higher up in the organizational hierarchy and other leaders and persons in the organization. Albeit the case includes experiences of being supported, it also includes an experience of feeling left alone and of being a person others would not be seen around with, along with periods of sick leave, due to not being heard, as well as massive media coverage. Thus, this tragic case may shed light on the complexity of whistleblowing. Reporting wrongdoing not only involves an alleged wrongdoing, a

78

B. Bjørkelo et al.

whistleblower and a recipient, but all of these together, and in a context where several recipients and stakeholders may be involved. In this case, the recipients and stakeholders were police employees and members of society at large. This chapter is devoted to the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. We note that we do not provide a full analysis into the case of Monika; it is, in this context, first and foremost, referred to as an illustration of the role of leaders. In the Monika case, the process of not being heard involved several hierarchical leadership levels in an organization. This calls for greater focus into including the role of leaders in whistleblowing cases. In keeping with the contextualized process model of whistleblowing (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a), this chapter is based on a holistic understanding of how management, leadership, the organization and the surrounding society have a role in the reporting of wrongdoing at work. Even so, this chapter’s investigation into the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface attempts to go beyond the contextual position towards a holistic perspective. We first present the context of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. Next, we elaborate the extant literature on leaders and whistleblowing. We then discuss some findings regarding the organizational, emotional and cultural context of leaders, followed by studies into retaliation and bullying, including the role of leaders. In the last part of the chapter, the focus is on perceptions and descriptions of the role of leaders collected in the time after the whistle is blown, when these issues are raised as a part of treatment.

4.2

The Context of Leaders in the Whistleblowing–Bullying Interface

In 1992, Miceli and Near (p. 287) wrote about the need for research “that systematically investigates the impact” of management education, development and training in order to influence managerial ethical values and awareness of ethical issues, as this potentially has an effect on the management of reported wrongdoing. In 2014, Vandekerckhove, Brown and Tsahuridu reiterated how “managerial responsiveness to whistleblowing has received, at best, indirect treatment in research” (p. 302) and that there is a need for research on the importance of the role of leaders in whistleblowing cases (see also Chiaburu, Farh, & van Dyne, 2013; Lavena, 2016). Today’s leaders may be local, national or even global, in that the reported wrongdoing may not even take place in their own national context, but may “just as well concern actions taken by a business in other nations or continents” (Bjørkelo & Madsen, 2013, p. 34; Lewis, 2010). In the rest of the chapter, we will apply the term “leader” (including manager) to denote an employee who has a formal role that entails directing, handling and/or inspiring someone else in pursuing shared goals (Northouse on leadership, 2013, p. 5), as well as doing the necessary administrative work to direct a group of employees towards a common goal (Pierce & Newstrom, 2011). Leaders may be highly influential in some relationships or situations and concurrently be less influential in others (Alvesson, Blom, & Sveningsson, 2017, p. 9).

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

79

Leaders work in a context of the global macroeconomy where the dictates of neoliberalism pervade all work establishments regardless of whether they are small, medium or large or whether they fall within the public or private sector (Noronha & D’Cruz, 2017). Alongside the critical role of competitiveness engendered by neoliberalism is the emphasis on organizational governance where ethics comes into play (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). This necessitates that organizations seek survival and effectiveness while eschewing wrongdoing (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). By extension, it means that when wrongdoing arises, it is both the responsibility of whistleblowers and leaders to put an end to it. Thus, if organizations want to more effectively address the content of whistleblowing reports, we need to know more about how leaders may be a part “of the problem” (Chiaburu, Farh, & van Dyne, 2013, p. 246) and how to ensure that the content of the reported wrongdoing is not lost. Leaders cannot exist without followers (Alvesson & Blom, 2015). In this regard, some argue that employees who report wrongdoing at work are responsible followers (Alford, 2008). A part of the “new managerialism” and the competitiveness engendered by neoliberalism is the emphasis on collective employee mindsets “which are believed to increase the productivity and profitability of organizations” (Uys, 2002, p. 3). Organizational governance thus also needs to provide space for responsible followership within its focus on effectiveness. Leaders are not only vital in creating loyalty towards business competitiveness but also to the ethical commitments of organizational governance, together and with their employees, globally (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Adequately handling reported wrongdoing and potentially changing unwanted practices requires emphasis on the factors that may hinder and aid individual agency within organizational structures (McKay, 2014). It is therefore a legitimate duty for leaders “to address wrongdoing in the interest of the company” or organization (Uys, 2008, p. 907). Destructive leadership may be defined as the systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates. (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007, p. 208)

Whistleblowers, as leaders, balance so-called divided loyalties. The balance may be placed between work roles, such as being a professional, ethical and responsible employee and simultaneously being a follower of the legitimate goals of the organization. In this way, loyalty is multidimensional, being directed at the organization, colleagues, union as well as the general public (Trygstad, 2017). Although these assumptions regarding context and process open up shared ways to act in actual cases of whistleblowing, both leaders and whistleblowers may relate differently to an organization’s legitimate claims and aims towards competitiveness as well as organizational governance (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016) such that achieving mutual interpretations of a reported act in actual cases could be a challenge. The basic challenge of interpretation is additionally influenced by the context of a

80

B. Bjørkelo et al.

whistleblowing process, as it may include bridging local, national and global settings. This implies that an exploration of the acts of the two (or more) parties involved in whistleblowing, including what is perceived as a responsible leader and follower, is complicated by the fact that the reported wrongdoing also may be framed in different contexts. At a local level, policies, organizational culture, management professionalism and conflict management skills may affect the occurrence as well as the probability of stopping whistleblowing from leading to bullying. At a national level, both legislation and culture are relevant to how the parties act, and at a global level, the reigning economic regime may impact how reports about wrongdoings are interpreted by leaders and therefore have implications for the onset (or not) of bullying. Thus, the context of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface may be influenced at local, national and global levels. Dinh and colleagues (2014) emphasize the need for process-oriented and integrative frameworks for understanding the complexity of leadership. They note how such frameworks are especially important when it comes to unethical organizational climates as they may take a great deal of time to emerge (Dinh et al., 2014). In agreement with process-oriented and integrative frameworks, organizational leadership is seen as influenced by individual leaders, his or her work group as well as contextual factors. In accordance with the contextualized process model of whistleblowing (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a), this chapter understands the context of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface as an interactional phenomenon. Just as leaders may achieve their goals indirectly through followers, leaders are also influenced by their followers (Dinh et al., 2014). Thus, how leaders address the situation of whistleblowing and what it means for the experiences of whistleblowers is seen as a contextual and processual phenomenon more than a dichotomous question of either-or. As such, it may be described as supporting the suggested shift from goal-based to process-oriented models of organizational effectiveness that balance “economic and non-economic objectives” (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016, p. 410).

4.3

Available Research on Leaders and Whistleblowing

Going into the whistleblowing literature, it is rich in regard to studies that have investigated the role of leaders, specifically their propensity to report wrongdoing at work (Keenan, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002a, b, 2007; Keenan & Remington, 2002; Sims & Keenan, 1999; Tavakoli, Keenan, & Crnjak-Karanovic, 2003). Studies into the experiences of leaders being bullied for having reported wrongdoing at work and the role of leaders in blowing the whistle themselves are rarer. Few studies have also investigated the impact of different leadership styles in relation to employees engaging in whistleblowing. In one such study, transformational and transactional leadership styles were shown to potentially increase the level of “comfort” employees experience in relation to the likelihood of reporting wrongdoing at work over time (Caillier & Sa, 2016). These results may be due to transformational

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

81

leaders’ emphasis on supporting employees to reach outcomes “beyond their own self-interest” as well as transactional leaders’ focus on establishing systems and rules that, in turn, may decrease assumed risk of reporting wrongdoing at work (Caillier & Sa, 2016, pp. 3 and 5). This finding regarding transformational leadership style resonates with a United States (US) study into individual and organizational factors that may hinder or promote whistleblowing (Lavena, 2016). This mixed methods study found that a leader’s willingness to being open was perceived as a way to promote reports about wrongdoing. As one leader put it, “If I set the tone that I am open to suggestions, and open to criticism, and open to things that are kind of ugly, and I want to hear about them, I want to help the organization work through them, I am probably more likely to foster an environment where people are more comfortable” (Lavena, 2013, p. 164). A similar result was reported from a Norwegian study where a leader described how: “It is my responsibility, when I remind people about it, it [reporting] increases and then it flattens out after some time. That shows how important the leader’s role is in these matters” (Vågen, 2008, p. 42, translated by the authors). Interestingly, according to a study of 532 randomly selected Australian managers, self-reported preparedness to intervene in relation to prevent or limit negative consequences towards whistleblowers differed between leaders at different hierarchical levels (Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014). In this study, both leadership levels generally reported to be inclined to act. Still, when a case worsened, lower level leaders stated being more prepared to take the case further by, for instance, consulting other leaders or an external actor, as compared to more senior leaders who were less willing to pursue the matter. According to the authors, this difference may be related to the power dissimilarity between the levels of leadership. The same study found professional training to be of more self-reported use for senior managers, while lower level leaders reported more value of on-the-job or informal training. These findings indicate that there are differences between leaders in their self-reported preparedness to handle whistleblowing cases depending on their formal position in the hierarchy. This may again show that leadership may play different parts in relation to how one interprets and handles whistleblowing cases. These results are based on leaders’ self-reported intentions and training outcomes. Future studies are therefore needed in order to investigate whether these differences potentially influence how the whistleblowers perceive the handling of the reported wrongdoing as well as of their own reporting. Results from such studies may also indicate whether the described differences also influence employee reporting. Previous studies have also described how leaders themselves may both report wrongdoing and be exposed to retaliation (O’Connor, 2017; Stafford, 2017a). In a study of 11 US public county agency leaders, 10 of 11 faced retaliation following their reports of whistleblowing. Some of the leaders quit due to the retaliation, some experienced losing unemployment benefits, while others lost health or medical insurances as well as reported stigmatization from healthcare providers. Due to these results, Stafford (2017b) calls for “talented, committed, and ethical leaders” (p. 173). She also notes how public leaders, characterized by strong identification with the societies they serve, “are likely to feel the effects of retaliation more intensely and are more likely to blame themselves and feel worthless” (2017b, p. 175). In the

82

B. Bjørkelo et al.

latter study, the investigated leader whistleblowers may, on the one hand, be labelled ethical and responsible leaders, as they are described as being loyal to the ethical and processual goals of their organizations. Simultaneously, on the other hand, these leader whistleblowers are subordinates of leaders higher in the organizational hierarchy who potentially concurrently view the same leaders as disloyal towards other (bottom-line) goals, according to the previously mentioned goal-oriented models of organizational effectiveness (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). In addition to highlighting the difficulty of balancing objectives and goals of different types, the results from the same study point to the previously mentioned multidimensionality of loyalty. As shown above, several studies have investigated the role of leadership styles and leaders as whistleblowers. While some have studied leaders’ intentions and subjectively reported preparedness to listen to and protect whistleblowers (Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014), fewer have investigated leaders and their role and experiences in the interplay with whistleblowers in actual wrongdoing cases, reported to them in depth. The challenge of conducting such a study concerns a range of factors, including research methods and ethics. As noted by Miceli and Near (2005, p. 129), the most relevant research designs may have a strong methodological side in that there is a trade-off between relevance and rigour. Given the lack of contextual and processual data from actual cases on the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface, we therefore continue to pursue this ideal by going further into the matter, this time, from the organizational, emotional and cultural context.

4.4

The Organizational, Emotional and Cultural Context of Leaders

Leaders are “embedded within organizational systems that are continually evolving, creating a more complex picture for understanding how individuals think, feel, and behave in response to changing events” (Dinh et al., 2014, p. 55). We now address how the work environment with its multiple levels and facets affects whistleblowing. As noted by other authors, “organizations do not, in any simple and unproblematic way, adapt to shifting signals from leaders” (Christensen, Lægreid, Roness, & Røvik, 2007, p. xi). The organization therefore holds a vital role in shaping how leaders receive and are met when balancing competitiveness with organizational governance (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). While leaders may perceive themselves as open, the role of the work environment, specifically factors such as solidarity and loyalty in the work group, is important. As one leader expressed: We had a case here about on-job drug use. The loyalty towards the employee from the colleagues was so immense that no one told me. When I finally became aware of it, one after the other of my subordinates came to tell me ‘how happy they were that I finally discovered it!’ Then we had a genuine discussion where I made it clear that I need to know, right away about conditions, persons or episodes that are criticisable. (Skivenes & Trygstad, 2006, p. 40, translated by the authors)

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

83

Thus, although leaders may express a wish to hear reports of wrongdoing, the work group may have multiple loyalties towards its colleagues. As a result, they may choose not to report misbehaviour to a superior. According to Keil, Tiwana, Sainsbury and Sneha (2010), trust in one’s supervisor explains most variance in intentions to report wrongdoing, followed by perceived responsiveness from the manager and the organizational climate, when controlled for the participants’ assumed benefit-to-cost differential associated with reporting bad news. In this context, trust is the “extent to which a potential whistleblower trusts the integrity of his or her immediate superior” (Keil, Tiwana, Sainsbury, & Sneha, 2010, p. 793). These findings show similarities to the social processing model proposed by Gundlach, Douglas and Martinko (2003), which assumes that individual attributions and perceived responsibility in regard to an alleged wrongdoing as well as the costbenefit analysis of reporting the same wrongdoing influence employees’ emotions as well as the decision to actually report the wrongdoing (Gundlach, Douglas, & Martinko, 2003). A work group’s lack of reporting may also relate to issues of loyalty and emotions within them, for instance, by influencing co-workers’ response to a problem and thus managers’ ability to act on it. Lack of reporting may also be related to the leader not having shared her expectations of employee behaviour such that her own leadership practice becomes visible through the inaction of her employees. Whether a leader is perceived as welcoming reports may thus potentially be related to how within-group loyalty influences employees’ reporting of wrongdoing. In line with the processual take on the leader–whistleblowing interface, the actions of the leader may be influenced by the employees and the actions of employees by the perceived leadership practice. If the leader’s and the work group’s insights lead to new practices, the quotation above may be seen as an example of how a leader’s handling of wrongdoing may potentially lead to positive changes in work group culture. Thus, how leadership is perceived, the role of emotion (of the leader, colleagues/bystanders, the whistleblowers and top management) as well as the organizational culture may have a role in how leaders and employees react when wrongdoing is or is not reported and, ultimately, in investigations of how and why leaders hear and protect whistleblowers. Some studies have investigated the role of emotional episodes (e.g. the decision of whether or not to report wrongdoing at work) for non-whistleblowers and whistleblowers (Blenkinsopp & Edwards, 2008; Henik, 2008; Hollings, 2013). Fewer studies have investigated the same decision-making process (e.g. emotion episode) at different levels of the organizational hierarchy. Such studies are encouraged as emotions potentially influence the mechanisms at stake in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. Previous research has shown how emotions influence the leader–employee emotional interplay (Glasø & Einarsen, 2006) and that both social actors express, suppress as well as fake emotions during interactions (Glasø & Einarsen, 2008). The latter study found that even though societal norms seem to regulate the emotion interactions between leaders and employees, leaders report being able to regulate (express, suppress and fake) their emotions more than employees. In sum, it seems as if the role of emotion mainly has been investigated in relation to the decision process of whether or not to report wrongdoing (Edwards,

84

B. Bjørkelo et al.

Ashkanasy, & Gardner, 2009; Hollings, 2013) and less in relation to other parts of the whistleblowing process, such as how emotions may influence how and whether leaders handle actual whistleblowing cases (hear and protect; Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014). As affect-driven reactions may be influenced by the current or reigning organizational climate, we will now turn from leadership, work group and emotions towards the potential influence of organizational culture and top management. As shown by the results on leader whistleblowers, negative reactions after whistleblowing may be a rather general way that organizations meet reports about wrongdoing (O’Connor, 2017; Stafford, 2017a). Culture is one of the primary components of socialization and learning in general and in organizations in particular, and it includes gaining knowledge and actual skills linked to values and actual behaviour (Filstad, 2004). One aspect of organizational culture is solidarity and security, which is vital, for instance, in high-risk and safety-critical organizations. Solidarity and security may again be linked to specific forms of leadership (Eid, Mearns, Larsson, Laberg, & Johnsen, 2012). According to the integrated model of whistleblowing and wrongdoing, organizational culture, organizational ethical standards as well as accurate labelling of wrongdoing may play a part in whether an activity is termed as wrongdoing per se (Near & Miceli, 2011). According to McKay (2014, p. 563), it is not necessarily “authority that is the problem” but “the organizational culture that allows and at times promotes the misuse of authority”. Studies have shown how the perceived climate for freedom of speech and communication may influence actual whistleblowing, the effect of whistleblowing as well as the consequences for the whistleblower (Trygstad, 2010, p. 80). This implies that employees who perceive their climate for freedom of speech and communication as good, to a greater extent, will have reported wrongdoing and are more likely to indicate that their report was effective and to have received positive reactions during or after their report (Trygstad, 2010). Studies have shown how wrongdoing may be associated with the nature of the organizational culture (Kaptein, 2011). At an organizational level, factors such as (1) vigilance, (2) engagement, (3) credibility, (4) accountability, (5) empowerment, (6) courage and (7) options all play a part in “encouraging a culture that supports employee communication, questioning, and reporting of illegal, unethical, and illegitimate practices within organizations” (Berry, 2004, p. 1). How leaders behave is key to, for instance, the third dimension (credibility), which specifically denotes the importance of seeing one’s leader doing as she or he says, that is, that she or he “walks the talk” (Berry, 2004). As in the above-mentioned quote, how a leadership practice is perceived may influence a whistleblowing process. A study of police corruption may exemplify how even leaders, in this case, two new and young leaders, may be received when revealing wrongdoing and trying to stop it (Punch, 1983). According to the author, the result of reporting police corruption, including wrongdoing by senior managers, was 4 years of “unprecedented institutional upheaval” (Punch, 1983, p. 243). The police leader whistleblowers experienced retaliation from subordinates as well as superiors. The middle-level police leaders’ attempts to stop economic mismanagement in the

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

85

above-mentioned study may potentially have been interpreted as a threat against “one of our own” by their higher and lower level organizational members (Bjørkelo, 2014). In a culture of extensive loyalty and solidarity, you do not go after your own. As newcomers, the young and newly appointed police middle leaders may neither have been socialized into the common way of interpreting and acting when confronted with police corruption. Based on that, the police leaders were met with lower and higher level retaliation. This may indicate that reporting police corruption was not a common practice usually adopted by the work group in the past. In this way, not reporting and intervening may have been a more “ordinary” way of reacting in situations of economic wrongdoing in this particular work ethos. The results also illustrate and echo previous descriptions of the reactions police employees, whether leaders or not, are up against when reporting insider corruption (see, e.g., the Serpico case in Maas (1973)). The reactions that met the police middle leaders also show similarities to descriptions of how organizational culture works when a way of handling and solving situations has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 1992, p. 111, cited in Berry, 2004, p. 2)

In the police, some findings show how reporting corruption, even when supported by one’s own colleagues, may lead to an unwanted change of job position or decreased likelihood of reporting the next observed wrongdoing, due to the negative personal consequences (Punch, 2009). In the case described above, the wrongdoer was supported by top leaders, while the whistleblowers, who were newcomers, were hindered from continuing in their current jobs (Punch, 1983). Interpreted at an organizational level and from the frame of organizational culture, the newcomers may have experienced retaliation because the actions they reported were situations which the organization habitually handled in that way. The organization may thus have been more or less aware that it did not want reports about corruption. Rather, it had evolved its own “pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal investigation” (Schein, 1992, p. 111, cited in Berry, 2004, p. 2). The role of such basic assumptions in varying degrees of awareness may be active regardless of public or private sector (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). As presented earlier, the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface necessitates recognition of context and process (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a) as well as recognition of the demands leaders face in balancing competitiveness with organizational governance (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). It is an interplay that involves leaders, whistleblowers and the work group as well as psychological processes that unfold between the social actors. As previously presented, the extent to which retaliation and bullying ensue after whistleblowing differs. Based on previous research, Vandekerckhove, Brown and Tsahuridu (2014) suggested that managerial responses to whistleblowing often fall into two categories: “hearer” (e.g. responsiveness to the reported wrongdoing) and “protector” (e.g. ability/willingness

86

B. Bjørkelo et al.

to refrain from/protect against retaliation and bullying). Others have provided theories into the role of leaders, work group and employees in the development, type, form and regeneration of communication circles that characterize and may be active during retaliation and bullying, including how these may develop, be sustained and stopped (see, e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008). Without undermining the importance of studying and presenting cases of whistleblowing with a positive outcome for the whistleblower, we will continue to focus on cases where the opposite occurs. This highlights instances where the content of the reported wrongdoing is buried and the messenger’s attempts for dialogue are concealed. Such a turn of events may occur when an individual whistleblower’s actions are seen as being up against a formal leader, even though it is the formal leaders’ responsibility to ensure safe workplaces and “keeping organizational governance in check” (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016, p. 412). Under such circumstances, harm, in the form of retaliation and bullying, may follow reports about wrongdoing.

4.5

Whistleblowing and Retaliation at Work

While some whistleblowing studies label the negative reactions that are perceived as coming directly from varied social actors as bullying (Jackson et al., 2010; Matthiesen, Bjørkelo, & Burke, 2011), other studies label these as retaliation (Parmerlee, Near, & Jensen, 1982). Retaliation may develop into bullying when negative acts are repeated and the person on the receiving end feels unable to defend himself or herself. Compared to the onset of bullying cases in general, retaliation after whistleblowing concerns negative acts that are perceived as associated with having reported wrongdoing. In general, models of the factors that may predict retaliation are often based on the power relationships between actors such as the person(s) who (1) report(s) wrongdoing, (2) perform(s) wrongdoing and (3) the complaint recipient(s) (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). According to the model of the predictors of retaliation, retaliation may be predicated where the power processes involved are described as associated with minority influence (e.g. whistleblower and job situation), social power (e.g. situation) as well as resource dependency (e.g. organization; Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). Yet, given that “power relationships may change over time, delineating the interaction effects may be difficult” (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008, pp. 102–103). According to these models, retaliation may be predicted by acknowledging factors pertaining to the individual employee who reports (e.g. minority influence), his or her particular situation as well as the dependence on the reported wrongdoing in the organization (e.g. resource dependency). Together they may assume which risk the individual runs in relation to whether a leader, a work group or organization may react in a negative and harmful way. Thus, whistleblowing is less effective when top management perceives whistleblowing as a threat to the “authority structure” (Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014, p. 304).

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

87

Previous research on retaliation and bullying has also shown how rates of perceived negative reactions and retaliation after having reported wrongdoing differ (Smith, 2014), and that “the conception that retaliation is inevitable” for employees who report wrongdoing at work “appears to be a myth” (Near & Miceli, 1996, p. 517). Further, retaliation rates between 7% and 18% may be described as small (Skivenes & Trygstad, 2017, p. 121) and rates between 17% and 38% as “common” (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008, p. 223) depending on the international context. Different results on retaliation across studies may be due to several factors (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). Firstly, whistleblowing depends on levels of observed wrongdoing (Near & Miceli, 1996), and secondly, whistleblowers may have reported different types of wrongdoing (e.g. severity) with different probabilities of retaliation. It may also be the case that whistleblowers who are still employed in the same position and in the same organization where they reported wrongdoing may have reported less severe forms of wrongdoing and been exposed to less severe forms of retaliation (Bjørkelo, 2010). It may also be that unemployed whistleblowers, who may be over-represented in selected samples of whistleblower studies, may have reported more severe wrongdoing and hence may have experienced higher levels of retaliation and more impaired health. Further, implications for how retaliation may be interpreted and handled may be drawn from studies into how gender and individual differences are of importance in cases of perceived retaliation and bullying. Some studies have, for instance, found gender to be associated with retaliation rates (females more than men) and that gender also may have an impact on how whistleblowers respond to being exposed to negative actions after having reported wrongdoing (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008). Others have found that female whistleblowers “talk differently about their experience than men” (Alford, 2003, p. 67). According to Alford (2003), male whistleblowers, on the one hand, primarily talked about regret and fear of being perceived as disloyal and of not being seen as a team player. Female whistleblowers, on the other hand, talked more about care of others who no one else seemed to care for as well as care for things other than money (Alford, 2003, p. 71). Similar findings have been documented in relation to bullying. According to one study, “the gender of the target, the gender of the perpetrator and the gender of the non-observing third party all were important for whether negative behaviour was perceived as bullying” (Salin, 2011, p. 571). In the same study, males more than females conceptualized bullying as an individual problem while females saw bullying as an organizational problem and further placed more emphasis on organizational antecedents and consequences (Salin, 2011). Other studies have again found that it was more likely that social actors at the workplace perceived the bullying as a token of individual difference, for example, targets of bullying being perceived as neurotic and introverted, and reacted with avoidance more than support (Pallesen, Nielsen, Magerøy, Andreassen, & Einarsen, 2017). This is even though longitudinal results show that personality traits among persons exposed to bullying (e.g. low agreeableness) are a result, rather than a cause, of bullying (Podsiadly & Gamian-Wilk, 2017). These results indicate lower tendency to support, and higher tendency to avoid, someone, for example, from

88

B. Bjørkelo et al.

retaliation or bullying if they are perceived as neurotic and introverted. This may also be due to individual factors being interpreted as causing the bullying in the first place, which again may produce interpretations of the bullying as “fair”. For instance, a study by Persson et al. (2016) showed that a shift in bullying status from non-bullied to bullied over a 2-year period resulted in changes in reported personality scores. Thus, it may seem that anti-bullying policies in themselves do not hinder social actors at the workplace from perceiving the cause of bullying and retaliation as associated with the person exposed to these negative acts (Pallesen, Nielsen, Magerøy, Andreassen, & Einarsen, 2017), even though studies over time show personality change and difference more likely to be a result of being subjected to bullying acts in advance (Podsiadly & Gamian-Wilk, 2017). When leaders and work group interpret bullying more as a phenomenon associated with the person that is exposed to negative repeated acts than to work environment and leadership, this may again hinder leader and work group support for these same persons. They may also centre their attention more towards the person that is exposed to bullying than towards something else, as, for instance, whether the person has reported about wrongdoing at work.

4.6

The Link Between Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work

Previous studies, including longitudinal data, have documented that whistleblowing and bullying are related phenomena, showing that (1) leadership style is perceived as the main cause of later exposure to bullying, at least among employees who perceive they are bullied because of previous whistleblowing, and (2) whistleblowers’ most common perceived negative reaction after whistleblowing was their leaders’ dismay (Bjørkelo, Einarsen, Nielsen, & Matthiesen, 2011; Bjørkelo, Matthiesen, Einarsen, & Een, 2009; Bjørkelo, Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2015; Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008; Høstmælingen, Severinsen, & Matthiesen, 2004; Matthiesen, 2004; Matthiesen, Bjørkelo, & Nielsen, 2008; Nielsen, 2003; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2008). Studies with larger and representative employees’ samples have shown that when asked about negative reactions after whistleblowing, most whistleblowers report these as predominantly coming from leaders, boards or combinations of various social actors (Bjørkelo, Einarsen, Nielsen, & Matthiesen, 2011). Further, retaliation is negatively related to the whistleblower’s relationship with his or her leader, implying that one’s nearest leader is often “viewed as the source of procedural justice or injustice” (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008, p. 236). Going by similar findings showing how whistleblowers “with negative experiences” feel that they “had less support than others from managers and supervisors”, the role of leaders in relation to whistleblowing seems to be global (Brown, 2008, p. 146). As discussed elsewhere, retaliation may differ both in prevalence and form, depending on whether it is performed by a colleague or a leader (Bjørkelo, 2013). While leaders hold powers “to formally alter an employee’s position” (2013, p. 308), which may indicate more formal forms of retaliation, colleague retaliation may be more informal. Leaders may also retaliate independently of the response by the

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

89

whistleblower’s colleagues (e.g. bystanders). For instance, a whistleblower may start by reporting directly to management if the perceived wrongdoing involves the manager himself or herself and/or managerial decisions. It may also be that retaliation comes from colleagues if they are involved in the reported wrongdoing. Colleagues may frame the whistleblower’s actions to management negatively. This may again trigger the manager’s retaliation but may also be the starting point of poor organizational management of the whistleblowing event. The process where management adopts colleagues’ views in a whistleblowing case is one of the stages in Leymann’s description of a typical workplace bullying process (Leymann, 1996), a process found to be similar in Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen and Einarsen’s (2008) whistleblowing case study. In a nationwide US study, the results showed how not even “years in the job can save you from retaliation” as reprisal occurred even to “people in supervisory positions” (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999, p. 125). According to the extensive study, “the bottom line is that the larger and more systemic the abuse that is being exposed, the more intense will be the managerial effort to discredit and to punish the whistleblower” (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999, p. 125). The results also showed how “the organization reserves its most explicit discrimination and punishment for those who block the profit accumulation process by exposing the practices that undergird this process” (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999, p. 125). As indicated in the contextualized process model of whistleblowing at work (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a), the leader’s role in the whistleblowing–bullying interface may thus be influenced by international influences, for instance, profit in a competitive market. The drive for competitive advantage may, in this way, act as a primary motive for retaliation across hierarchical levels. Due to competitiveness, retaliation may cascade upwards and downwards in the organizational hierarchy, even attacking assumed safe formal positions such as middle-level leaders (O’Connor, 2017; Stafford, 2017a). Such cascading may potentially provide an alternative explanation as to why the relationships between individual power (e.g. superior position) and retaliation have been documented as complicated rather than straightforward (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008, p. 234). The varied findings on the role of individual power may also be due to a gender effect (e.g. social role and status characteristics theory), as male whistleblowers are better able to avoid retaliation compared to females (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008). Theoretical explanations for how an organization may react when receiving reports about wrongdoing at work are, for instance, power theory and resource dependency (see, e.g., Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). Along with these theoretical frameworks, it may be that the leaders react to reports about wrongdoing in the form of retaliation and bullying due to perceptions of the reporting in itself as a power struggle or as an evaluation of the value of person reporting or the wrongdoing (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008). Thus, more authority and formal power may increase the individual whistleblower’s effect (“heard”) and decrease retaliation (“protected”; cf. Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014). It may also be that leaders’ retaliation and bullying of whistleblowers stem from a work environment characterized by incivility (see, e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and that reports of

90

B. Bjørkelo et al.

wrongdoing are “framed” as conflict matter more than reports of assumed unethical or illegal actions. Framing and interpreting whistleblowing as a conflict may further influence the ensuing process in a way that it focuses more on the person (messenger) over the subject matter content (message). This is in agreement with the processual view on leadership as well as previous research which has shown how conflicts that have evolved into being person related may both escalate and deescalate over time (Zapf & Gross, 2001), such that a whistleblowing process may move back and forth over time (Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008; Miceli & Near, 1992). Leaders may be the most commonly perceived retaliators and bullies due to their formal roles in the hierarchy. Leaders may also react negatively in the form of retaliation and bullying as a result of how the room for individual agency is interpreted within an organizational structure (see, e.g., McKay, 2014). The interplay between agency and structure may again influence how organizational governance (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016) is interpreted within an organization. Thus, according to our holistic ambition, these results also point towards the influence of organizational factors such as culture on leaders and managers. According to Lavena (2013), the cases that led to negative consequences in the form of unfair treatment seemed to relate to “an existing negative dynamic of people’s management and leadership style that, by maintaining secrecy and disregarding the application of norms”, discouraged employees from reporting wrongdoing (Lavena, 2013, p. 231). Retaliation and bullying after whistleblowing may potentially be a result of formal orders from higher ranks as well as lack of individual leader and managerial skills. These negative reactions may also be one part of a larger work environment and organizational culture where the actions taken may not even necessarily be visible to the leaders who are performing them. Previous studies have found how “bullying and exclusion were made worse by the fact that many people were involved” in tackling whistleblowers (Jackson et al., 2010, p. 39).

4.7

After the Whistle Is Blown

The effects of workplace bullying by itself (see relevant chapters in Section “The Course of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment”, Vol. 2) and after whistleblowing (see, e.g., Bjørkelo, 2013; Bjørkelo & Matthiesen, 2011; Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008; Lennane, 1993; Matthiesen, Bjørkelo, & Burke, 2011; Peters et al., 2011; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999) on individual ill health are well documented. Previous literature has pointed out that whistleblowers have been met with psychiatric evaluations as a part of the attempt to stop whistleblowing at work (see, e.g., Lennane, 2012; Mansbach, 2009; McDonald & Ahern, 2000; Bok, 1984, cited in Perry, 1998, p. 237). This may indicate that it is of importance to address the issue of trust when it comes to understanding and investigating helpseeking behaviour among whistleblowers from psychiatrists, clinical psychologists or other social work and service personnel. Others have also found that whistleblowers themselves do not necessarily wish to seek treatment as their focus

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

91

is on change or eliminating wrongdoing, rather than dwelling on their own personal situation or function (Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008). One of the facilities available globally that presents itself as providing some form of treatment or support for whistleblowers is the Israeli Ombudsman which states that they have a psychologist working specifically on these issues (Zandberg, personal communication, July 2017). There is also ongoing work at Fielding Graduate University on developing an evidence-based intervention for whistleblowers, including an intake assessment questionnaire and testing of the usefulness of the instrument (Stafford, personal communication, August 2017 [http://www.fielding. edu/our-programs/institute-for-social-innovation/isi-fellows/. Retrieved 11 Oct 2017]). Despite some suggestions regarding potential theoretical frameworks (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016b) and treatment content in this regard (Bjørkelo, 2013), systematic descriptions of treatments are scarce. There is also little documentation about the perceived role played by leaders in stories of the individuals seeking treatment. To address this gap, we present some preliminary findings based on actual treatment of whistleblowers which includes descriptions of the role they perceive their actual leaders have had in their individual cases.

4.8

Leaders in the Whistleblowing–Bullying Interface Informed by Clinical Work with Actual Whistleblowers

Previous research has, to some extent, described different treatment options and actual facilities in relation to whistleblowing (see, e.g., the work by Alford (2001) and Soeken (1986)). One of the facilities that provide treatment for whistleblowers in different forms and with different aims is the Jobbfast clinic in Norway. (The Jobbfast clinic was in operation between 2012 and 2017 in Bergen, Norway, and provided treatment to victims of workplace bullying including those who had been bullied on account of whistleblowing at work. The Jobbfast clinic was closed at the end of 2017 due to funding issues, despite its hugely successful intervention programme and despite massive national media protests from researchers and clinicians.) The clinic aimed at providing healthcare to people who have had negative experiences related to workplace bullying in general and also after whistleblowing. Based on 102 individuals treated at the clinic, a study investigated the patients’ self-reported strain, health, participation in working life as well as their evaluation of the programme (Hoprekstad & Magerøy, 2016). The sample consisted of 85 women (83.3%) and 17 men (16.7%) with an age mean of about 50 years (standard deviation (SD) = 8.62). The results showed that 55% of the patients reported having blown the whistle at least once. In sum, the preliminary findings suggest that leaders are primarily responsible for retaliation to whistleblowing and bullying although other colleagues participate but to a lesser degree (Hoprekstad & Magerøy, 2016). The model for treatment at Jobbfast was based on listening to the patients’ stories, perceptions and experiences, thereby providing room and possibility to share individual whistleblowing stories. Stories have been described as “data with a soul” (Brown, 2016).

92

B. Bjørkelo et al.

As such, stories may provide us with a base for going into the whistleblowers’ perceived importance and role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. The narratives described in the following section are based on one of the authors’ clinical experiences with whistleblowers. Only narratives focusing on the perceived role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface are presented. As such, the stories do not proclaim to present a holistic perception of reality but do present reality as perceived by one of the central reality owners in a whistleblowing–bullying process. Based on a presentation of what the whistleblowers went through in relation to their leaders and their perception of why, the preliminary results will be extracted and discussed, in relation to the events assumed to be important for the understanding of the whistleblowing–bullying interface. As such, the focus is individual employees’ perceptions and descriptions of the role of leaders collected in the time after the whistle is blown, when these issues were raised as a part of treatment. The whistleblowers’ current situation, in relation to the role of leaders, shared similar experiences that, in some way, all coalesced into a form of leadership style or a process reflecting a certain leadership style associated with feelings of not being heard, time lags in addressing the issues around the reported wrongdoing as well as disregard for procedures. In the whistleblowers’ experience, the leadership style and process was characterized by communication gaps and lack of dialogue after the reported wrongdoing. A typical description was, “I found it very difficult to communicate with my manager. There was no dialogue”. Further, the leadership style was related to feelings of not having the opportunity to present their side of the story and a lack of being heard or “seen”. A typical description was how “[the leader] was not interested in my point of view”. Many whistleblowers described a feeling of disinterest in their side of the story or even the content of what they blew the whistle about. The whistleblowers further spoke of not being met and of being treated disrespectfully by their leaders. They also indicated the whole whistleblowing process where they reported an alleged wrongdoing as closed and described experiences of information being withheld from them. Processually, disinterest was described as placed before feelings of disrespect. Whistleblowers also reported experiencing a process of silencing predicated on an overall tendency to be kept waiting for some kind of response from their leaders and managers as to what had happened in relation to the wrongdoing they had reported. Ultimately, leaders first demonstrated disinterest followed by disrespect. This concerned, for example, information about whether the case was formally received by the complaint recipient. The perceived waiting time, that is, time spent anticipating a response and waiting without knowing what happened in relation to the reported wrongdoing, resulted in feelings of insecurity. Further communication gaps led to reduced trust in both managers and the organization. During therapy, one whistleblower said, “I feel like sitting stuck in a waiting room”, and another said, “After I blew the whistle, there was total silence for a very long time. It made me feel very insecure and alert”. Thus, one of the characteristics of whistleblowers’ leaders was their seeming unwillingness and failure to follow procedures related to conflict management, bullying and whistleblowing cases. According to the whistleblowers, policies and procedures existed but were not followed. This gap between actual leadership behaviour and the

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

93

organization’s written procedures made the whistleblowers feel that the leaders themselves defined “the rules of the game”. One whistleblower explained how: “In whistleblowing cases, the role of leadership is crucial. It seems as if the managers own the cases. The whistleblower becomes invisible”. In sum, the narratives retrieved from whistleblowers at the Jobbfast clinic circle around difficulties in gaining access to the leaders including being invited to participate in a mutually respectful and open dialogue. The presented stories were shared in a clinical setting in which recovery is the primary aim rather than the aim of providing evidence for a judicial trial. The retaliatory and negative acts described as being directed towards the whistleblowers from a leader were primarily in the form of informal and social reactions, also referred to by previous research as informal and unofficial types of retaliation such as ostracism (Faulkner, 1998), being treated as “persona non grata” (Tucker, 1995) or as a “leper” (Peters & Branch, 1972). The term ostracism refers to when targets are subjected to the silent treatment such as when he or she is ignored by colleagues or leaders or excluded from the work group, which “often occurs without excessive explanation or explicit negative attention” (Williams, 2007, p. 429). The fact that the narratives mostly refer to these forms of repeated negative behaviours could be due to several factors. For example, lack of inclusion may be due to the organization’s lack of willingness to deal with the issues that are invoked by the reporting. Another may be that social exclusion is one of the most basic ways of punishing people who have violated social norms. Overall, our preliminary analysis of whistleblowers’ narratives points to the clinical sample’s encounter with a leadership style or a process reflecting a certain leadership style consisting of lack of dialogue, perceived inaction as well as unutilized organizational procedures. While such leader behaviours may reflect several leadership styles, they certainly do not reflect transformational leadership which entails taking “a specific approach to motivating employees” (Caillier & Sa, 2016, p. 408) and a focus on establishing systems and rules (Caillier & Sa, 2016). Instead, narratives of our clinical sample cohere with destructive forms of laissez-faire leadership which, instead of being a type of hands-off leadership, fails in meeting the legitimate expectations of the employees or other leaders involved (Humborstad & Giessner, 2015; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). The presented narratives indicate whistleblowers’ feelings of not being invited into dialogue and of not being “held” as described by Simola (2016). Applied in relation to whistleblowing, it may be assumed that whistleblowers lack a secure condition where they perceive that they will be objectively and fairly heard and, further, that the existence of such a holding environment could have facilitated the possibility of not only developing but also sustaining one’s personal and professional authenticity (Simola, 2016). As previously mentioned, models have primarily outlined how power relationships may influence the prediction of retaliation, for example, how retaliation may be predicted based on power processes associated with the characteristics of the whistleblower, the job situation, the social power of the situation and resource dependency (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008). Results from the clinical sample show how the role of the leader is perceived as negligent, disinterested, ostracizing and silent, more than holding in Simola’s words (2016),

94

B. Bjørkelo et al.

in that the reported wrongdoing is something that is left undiscussed and hushed. According to studies on the negative impact of laissez-faire leadership, this form of leading and managing may also influence bullying in the work group (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). In keeping with this, lack of dialogue and procedures may potentially influence ambiguity and conflict, bullying and potentially psychological distress. Several studies have documented the negative impact of not being listened to in general (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003) and in relation to whistleblowing and bullying (Bjørkelo, Ryberg, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008; Vega & Comer, 2005). There may be several explanations to the leadership behaviour reported by this clinical sample of whistleblowers. For one, leader responsiveness requires a labelling and shared understanding of a reported wrongdoing. Available literature shows that emotions may play a part in different parts of a whistleblowing process (Edwards, Ashkanasy, & Gardner, 2009; Henik, 2008; Hollings, 2013). Perceived unresponsiveness may also potentially be due to an emotional reaction. Previous studies have shown how leaders suppress and regulate their emotions more than employees (Glasø & Einarsen, 2008) and how emotions (reacting negatively) may influence them into not seeing the content of the reported wrongdoing (Chiaburu, Farh, & van Dyne, 2013). The described negative outcome of the perception of nonleadership for the whistleblowers may point towards expectations of a leadership practice including exactly these components. That is, whistleblowers may have expectations of a just society and just procedures (Alford, 2000; Stafford, 2017b). Yet, the emotional reactions of leaders impede these from being realized. Second, leader behaviour informed by lack of hearing and perceived protection, in the form of intervention and actions, has previously been found to be associated with conflict among co-workers (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), which again may be related to the climate in the work group. As mentioned in the foregoing sections, organizational culture is a critical factor since negative reactions may be a common response “in such situations” (Bjørkelo & Macko, 2012, p. 71), with the result that whistleblowers in leading formal positions may also be met with retaliation after whistleblowing. Perceived inaction and unused procedures, representing a collective way of meeting and handling whistleblowing in an organizational culture (see, e.g., Berry, 2004), may again influence the perceived climate for freedom of speech in a work group and potentially deter future whistleblowing. Third, it may be that leaders in these whistleblowing cases were influenced by their context which led them to stay focused more on competitive tasks rather than inspiring employees and conducting administrative tasks as per prescribed requirements. It may also be that leaders and managers are influenced not just by their local setting but also by reigning economic structures for incentives. In this way, it may be an imbalance between “economic and non-economic objectives” (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016, p. 410). Responsible followership indicates that it is legitimate to address wrongdoing and mismanagement, and through handling wrongdoing, this may again become a competitive advantage (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Research that has investigated the rhetorical strategies referred to by targets of bullying after they have spoken up about perceived professional misconduct to their

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

95

leaders indicates how their attempts could be silenced (Parker, 2014). In one such instance, Parker describes how one employee’s nearest leader asked the employee to continue acting in perceived professional misconduct in order to keep the leader out of trouble from leaders higher in the organizational hierarchy. This occurred even though the employee’s leader expressed not just a desire to understand the employee’s perspective but also indicated a similar view of the situation as that held by the employee (Parker, 2014). Elsewhere, the challenges in achieving a shared view of complex situations are highlighted (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008). Yet, our results tend to suggest that a shared view of the world is not sufficient in itself, as each social actor may have other strategies and concerns, as previously described in goalbased models of organizational effectiveness (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). The lack of dialogue, as presented here, is thus assumed to relate to individual factors of leaders, their leadership style, the social dynamics of the work group, perceived climate for freedom of speech, organizational culture as well as the reigning ideology that surrounds leaders. Seen from a contextual and processual point of view, the leadership style and process presented here opens up the possibility of looking into both individual management skills, but also points to the lack of focus on the importance of constructive conflict management at an organizational level. This includes the importance of the wider context of the social actors that surrounding the leader and the individual involved others which may have a strong impact on why and how the process evolves (Zapf, 2007). In this way, the narratives may also speak back to the process and context (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a) and organizational governance (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016) issues as mentioned earlier. Inability of successful dialogue has been described as influencing the probability of communication gaps and a range of undercurrents beneath the surface of conversations that can bring people together or tear them apart (Isaacs, 1999). Finally, bullying research has documented how not being believed and supported may function as a form of secondary victimization (Björkqvist, Österman, & HjeltBäck, 1994; Mikkelsen, 2001). Experiences such as these have been interpreted along Janoff-Bulman’s (1992) cognitive theory of the symptoms associated with post-traumatic experiences (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). Thus, along this theoretical framework, the impact of feeling not being listened to may be due to the whistleblowers’ beliefs and basic assumptions about the benevolence and meaningfulness of the world (Stafford, 2017b; Stafford & Meier, 2016), but also assumptions about leaders’ assumed interest and willingness about keeping the corporate governance “in check”. Lack of interest in the content of the reported wrongdoing may subsequently influence whistleblowers’ self-worth.

4.9

Perspectives for Research and Practice

Apart from considering contextual and processual issues, including those of an international nature (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a), this chapter has suggested that retaliation and bullying after whistleblowing may profit from applying an organizational governance view on the leaders’ role (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Actioning

96

B. Bjørkelo et al.

this through the systems approach to acts of moral courage (Simola, 2016) holds relevance. Moral courage may be defined as occurring when an individual despite risks “chooses to voice ethical concerns” but in an attempt to respond to apprehensions without aiming for personal benefits (Simola, 2016, p. 1). In our context, we do not only see courage as a vital part for the employee who reports wrongdoing of, for instance, bullying of others but also for the complaint recipient in the form of, for instance, hearer and protector courage (Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014). Protector courage indicates that leaders organize interventions around employees who have reported wrongdoing at work “in order to combat the familiar risks of retaliation, conflict or suspicion of the reporting action” (Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014, p. 321). According to Langer (1991, cited in Alford, 1999, p. 264), it is a question of whether “we are prepared to forsake” what it demands of us as humans to “listen”. It is important to examine the difficulty of creating and being invited into a respectful dialogue. Part of this examination involves exploring how individuals can open up channels to counter the experience of not being heard, taking into account the several hierarchical levels of leaders (the cascade of leadership). These situations may be influenced by individual leaders, work groups, organizational culture as well as local and global context. One implication is that it is too narrow to address leaders exclusively. A greater attention to the level and structure surrounding leaders and whistleblowers should be included in future studies. Further, as noted previously, several studies internationally have investigated the attitudes and propensities of managers themselves to report wrongdoing at work. Fewer studies have investigated the experiences of being a middle manager or top leader who is either a complaint recipient or at the receiving end of a reported wrongdoing. Studies on leaders as whistleblowers have shown how retaliation is not only a topic for whistleblowers without superior job positions (Stafford, 2017b) but also how being a public leader who believes in the greater good of society rather than in his or her own benefit may influence the impact of retaliation following reporting wrongdoing at work. Such studies may also open up knowledge about the role of motives and emotions that trigger a reaction, perceived by whistleblowers, as disinterest, lack of dialogue and communication gaps. This may potentially be done by going to theories of how circles of communication may regenerate and evolve, specifically in relation to the role of leaders, work group and employees (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008). In line with these theories, even though the role of the person that speaks up is vital, the organization often reacts by disregarding the presented reality of employees through emotional abuse and workplace mistreatment. According to “the critical paradox of moral courage”, it is not uncommon that acts of moral courage within an organization may be met with “collective unease” as well as “social ostracism and censure of the courageous members and message” (Simola, 2016, pp. 7 and 2). Simola therefore calls for an enhanced understanding of how organizational groups and members interpret and understand moral courage at work as well as the processes thereof. In a systems approach, every employee and leader interacts at different levels and in different levels of systems. In keeping with these

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

97

assumptions, “the degree to which systems are responsive to change-promoting feedback is affected by the degree they are open or receptive to this feedback” (Simola, 2016, p. 3). Such an approach extends the previously described view of how individual agency is placed within an organizational structure (cf. McKay, 2014) as well as the role of organizational culture (Berry, 2004) in whistleblowing cases. Previous findings have, as mentioned earlier, shown how leadership style of transformational and transactional nature may increase the level of “comfort” employees experience in relation to the likelihood of reporting wrongdoing at work over time (Caillier & Sa, 2016). Future studies are needed to investigate not only how stable leadership styles (laissez-faire, Humborstad & Giessner, 2015; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007; destructive leadership, Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007; and ethical leadership, Bai, Lin, & Liu, 2017) but also more processual leadership variables (cf. Dinh et al., 2014) and the context surrounding the process (cf. D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016b) may relate to retaliation in the form of bullying. How these leadership styles and processes include not only the whistleblower’s nearest leader but also leaders as whistleblowers is an important area to investigate. Ways to do this may be to go even further into the possibilities that organizational governance entails, in order to place the role of leadership into its context of competitiveness and reigning ideologies (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Other ways to continue are by investigating the role of ethical safety nets (Kaptein, 2002), ethical infrastructure (see, e.g., Einarsen, Mykletun, Einarsen, Skogstad, & Salin, 2017; Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, & Umphress, 2003) and multilevel social learning perspectives (Bai, Lin, & Liu, 2017) in relation to the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interplay. A leadership style as characterized by these whistleblowers (lack of dialogue, perceived inaction and unutilized organizational procedures) seems to contrast with well-functioning corporate governance as well as possibilities of responsible followership. One way to increase hearing and protecting from a holistic point of view may be to instigate different forms of organizational incentives. This may enhance the probability of balance among organizational objectives (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). In this way, it is possible for an organization to apply their handling of whistleblowing content into internal corporate governance as well as responsible followership (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Newsletters on “how whistleblowing reports prevented potential loss of human lives in our factories” and “how our internal risk managers aka whistleblowers prevented the production of unsafe medicine reaching the market” are one way of doing so. Outside, handling of whistleblowing cases may be disseminated for publicity and reputation development as well as a business advantage which captures the attention of relevant markets and consumers. How “the framing” of the reported wrongdoing evolves over time, what signals are sent out by senior and top management as well as how the whole whistleblowing case gets “charged” (cf. Piderit & Ashford, 2003) are also of interest. This includes the potential negative dynamics of leader and management styles (cf. Lavena, 2013), as this is especially critical in relation to unethical organizational climates that may

98

B. Bjørkelo et al.

develop over time (cf. Dinh et al., 2014). In addition, it is worth investigating which factors trigger leaders’ emotions in such a way that the outcome, as perceived by whistleblowers, is disinterest and lack of communication. Leaders’ lack of dialogue may influence the organizational culture in a way that it is assumed, but not explicitly stated, that a work group is not open to reporting about wrongdoing at work (cf. Berry, 2004). As whistleblowing may be regarded as a risk management tool, lack of effective dialogue may again hinder corporate governance as well as effective competition. In agreement with a holistic view of leaders’ roles in the whistleblowing–bullying interface, the systems approach emphasizes how individuals exert influence on systems and subsystems while being simultaneously influenced by the very same. By acknowledging the individual and group processes within a system, this approach may potentially extend the contextualized process model of whistleblowing at work (D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a), enhancing the latter’s inclusion of an international frame and a sociocultural focus. The systems approach also adheres to a view of leadership as both stable yet dynamic and processual as well as related to levels within the organization (Dinh et al., 2014). Studies into the paradox of moral courage could be enhanced by considering leaders holistically in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. Turning to practical implications, an analysis of whistleblowers’ narratives showed that the most important and positive experience was a feeling of being heard and understood, along with feelings of acceptance and being believed (Hoprekstad & Magerøy, 2016). It may, therefore, seem as if the patients’ main positive experience of clinical treatment relates to the same dimension as the role of leaders: the importance of being heard and respected. The Jobbfast clinic had a therapeutic approach that excluded interventions aimed at persons other than the whistleblower, namely, the whistleblower’s leader or work group. The argument underlying the choice of excluding the whistleblowers’ leader(s) embodied the aim of preserving a process that consisted of listening to the patient’s story. This also takes into account cases where the individual in question is a leader himself or herself. However, as the clinic dismissed the leader(s) in the actual treatment cases presented here, this may pose a potential limitation to the treatment provided since whistleblowers emphasize the important role which leaders have in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. Simultaneously, the need to be heard comes out as vital both in stories as well as a factor in treatment in general. Thus, the exclusion of leaders may be a strength in relation to the individual recovery of the whistleblower. Nonetheless, bullying consultancy work sometimes includes leaders in the intervention process, for instance, in the form of meetings between the consultant/therapist and the nearest manager, with the aim of planning a return to work or coaching the nearest manager with regard to his or her role in securing a safe and healthy working environment for the target (Mikkelsen & Holmegaard, 2017). Thus, in some cases, treatment of targets may profit from including leaders and human resource professionals (HRPs). The clinical data presented here indicate that it may be problematic to treat bullying detached from the content of the reported wrongdoing, as not being heard is such a vital part of the leaders’ role in the whistleblowing–bullying

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

99

interface. Future studies are therefore encouraged to investigate whether there is reason to suspect that treatment in cases of workplace bullying after whistleblowing, due to the need to be heard and feel protected (cf. Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014), should include or exclude leaders. Equally important is systematic research on how the treatment of whistleblowers is constructed and conducted, in addition to the role of clinicians in regard to this (Stafford, 2017a). Alongside a need for greater awareness within HRPs and healthcare towards whistleblowing and the potential worst-case scenarios that may occur, there is a need for clinics that specialize in assisting whistleblowers.

4.10

Conclusion

In 1995, Near and Miceli argued that whistleblowing should not be “prescribed as panacea for preventing the havoc organizations may wreak upon society until we know something about the conditions under which whistle-blowing actually works effectively” (p. 703). As stated by other researchers, it is naïve to assume that the solution to the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface is limited to teaching organizations to listen to and protect whistleblowers (Vandekerckhove, Brown, & Tsahuridu, 2014). The focus of this chapter has been the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface, as perceived by whistleblowers. This chapter has aimed at positioning this issue as a contextual matter and to strive towards a holistic perspective. After having presented the context of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface, we elaborated the extant literature on leaders and whistleblowing. We then discussed some findings regarding the organizational, emotional and cultural context of leaders, before studies into retaliation and bullying, including the role of leaders, were described. In the last part of the chapter, the focus was on perceptions and descriptions of the role of leaders collected in the time after the whistle is blown, when these issues were raised as a part of treatment. Leaders have the responsibility for securing safe working conditions, freedom of speech and zero tolerance of bullying. Managers have a great impact on organizational culture, and being in a formal position, they receive the concerns of the whistleblower. However, they are also part of a bigger context and may themselves, as previously shown, be whistleblowers in the “cascade of leadership”. Thus, their power and influence differ depending on the context of where their job performance is placed, as they may be highly influential in some aspects and less influential in others (cf. Alvesson, Blom, & Sveningsson, 2017). The way leaders and managers go about their business of checking the organizational governance principles and practices of their workplaces may be influenced by their organizational culture and their national and global cultural context (cf. D’Cruz & Noronha, 2016). Individual leaders are not islands but parts of a greater organizational culture, hierarchy and sociocultural context (cf. D’Cruz & Bjørkelo, 2016a). Targeting leaders in general is not enough, as middle leaders may experience that they are not necessarily supported in their own interpretation of the whistleblower’s report by upper management, even if they are the whistleblower’s nearest leader.

100

B. Bjørkelo et al.

With regard to Robin Schaefer, the whistleblower in the case of Monika presented in the beginning of the chapter, his nearest leader made several attempts to present the whistleblower’s view of the case to upper management, but these attempts were without success. When the whistleblower’s leader resigned from the police service after 37 years, she publicly described the lack of being heard as one of most weighty reasons for leaving. Lack of dialogue may thus be an outcome of leaders’ perceptions of being “between a rock and a hard place” in relation to their relative power and effect in actual whistleblowing cases. Due to the perceived importance of leaders in these cases, the potential effects of gaining more knowledge in order to enable understanding and explanations as to why leaders act as they do are immense. There is need for clarity and routines as well as knowledge and skills in understanding and handling whistleblowing, as this depends on the content of the report, the power processes of individuals involved as well as a larger context (e.g. the individual leader, the work group, the organizational culture, the type of organization and local and global settings). Thus, in the absence of other clinical data of similar specificity, the preliminary results provided here are considered a useful step in enhancing current knowledge into the role of leaders in the whistleblowing–bullying interface. According to Dinh and colleagues, “leaders, followers, and larger social systems jointly influence the unfolding of organizational systems” (Dinh et al., 2014, p. 52). Our hope is that this chapter may contribute to bringing understanding in explaining the factors and processes that may be relevant in the interplay between whistleblowers, leaders and other relevant social actors. If so, it may be a small step towards increasing the probability of effectively ending wrongdoing in organizations and workplaces globally.

4.11

Cross-References

▶ Ostracism in the Workplace ▶ Strategic Silencing: A Political Perspective on the Workplace Bully–Bystander Relationship

4.12

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Ethical Challenges in Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Aware ness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1 Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1 Consequences of Workplace Bullying for Individuals, Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Employee Silence and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Health Consequences of Workplace Bullying: Physiological Responses and Sleep as Pathways to Disease, Vol. 2

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

101

Human Resources as an Important Actor in Workplace Bullying Situations: Where We Have Been and Where We Should Go, Vol. 2 Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 Targets of Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment: Helpless Victims or Active Pro vocateurs?, Vol. 2 The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying: An Overview of Theories and Empirical Research, Vol. 2 The Roles of the Counselling Professional in Treating Targets and Perpetrators of Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Workplace Bullying and Mental Health, Vol. 2 Diagnosis and Treatment: Repairing Injuries Caused by Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3

References Alford, C. F. (1999). Whistle-blowers: How much we can learn from them depends on how much we can give up. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00027649921955254. Alford, C. F. (2000). Whistleblower narratives: Stuck in static time. Narrative, 8(3), 279–293. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107219 Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Alford, C. F. (2003). Women as whistleblowers. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 22(1), 67–76. Alford, C. F. (2008). Whistleblowing as responsible followership. In I. Chaleff, R. E. Riggio, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 237–251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Alvesson, M., & Blom, M. (2015). Less followership, less leadership? An inquiry into the basic but seemingly forgotten downsides of leadership. M@n@gement, 8(3), 266–282. Alvesson, M., Blom, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2017). Reflexive leadership: Organizing in an imperfect world. Los Angeles: Sage. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. Stable URL: http://www.jstor. org/stable/259136 Bai, Y., Lin, L., & Liu, J. T. (2017). Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical leadership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1308414. Berry, B. (2004). Organizational culture: A framework and strategies for facilitating employee whistleblowing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16(1), 1–11. Bjørkelo, B. (2010). Whistleblowing at work: Antecedents and consequences. Ph.D., University of Bergen. Bjørkelo, B. (2013). Workplace bullying after whistleblowing: Future research and implications. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 306–323. Bjørkelo, B. (2014). Sammenhengen mellom organizasjonskultur og risiko for ulovlig gjengjeldelse mot arbeidstakersomvarsler om korrupsjon [The relationship between organizational culture and risk of illegal retaliation against employees reporting about corruption]. In B. Eriksen (Ed.), Å bekjempe et samfunnsonde: Om korrupsjon, forebygging og avdekking [Fighting a societalevil: On corruption, prevention and exposure] (pp. 132–155). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

102

B. Bjørkelo et al.

Bjørkelo, B., & Macko, M. (2012). The stigma of reporting wrongdoing at work: When doing right is perceived as wrong. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 43(2), 70–75. Retrieved 19 Feb 2013, from http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ppb.2012.2043.issue-2012/issue-files/ppb.2012.2043. issue-2012.xml Bjørkelo, B., & Madsen, O. J. (2013). Whistleblowing and neoliberalism: Political resistance in late capitalist economy. Psychology & Society, 5(2), 28–40. Bjørkelo, B., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2011). Preventing and dealing with retaliation against whistleblowers. In D. Lewis & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), Whistleblowing and democratic values. ebook: International Whistleblowing Research Network. http://www.lulu.com/product/ ebook/whistleblowing-and-democratic-values/18732590 Bjørkelo, B., Ryberg, W., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). “When you talk and talk and nobody listens”: A mixed method case study of whistleblowing and its consequences. International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(2), 18–40. Bjørkelo, B., Matthiesen, S. B., Einarsen, S., & Een, V. S. (2009). The role of whistleblowing in relation to bullying behaviours – A predecessor or successor? Paper presented at the 14th European congress of work and organizational psychology, Santiago de Compostela, 13–16 May. Bjørkelo, B., Einarsen, S., Nielsen, M. B., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2011). Silence is golden? Characteristics and experiences of self-reported whistleblowers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(2), 206–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903338884. Bjørkelo, B., Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2015). The role of whistleblowing in relation to bullying behaviours: A predecessor or successor? Paper presented at the EAWOP, Oslo, 20–23 May 2015. Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:33.0.CO;2-D. Blenkinsopp, J., & Edwards, M. S. (2008). On not blowing the whistle: Quiescent silence as an emotion episode. In W. J. Zerbe, N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Emotions, ethics and decision-making (Vol. 4, pp. 181–206). London: Emerald/JAI. Brown, A. J. (2008). Whistleblowing in the Australian public sector: Enhancing the theory and practice of internal witness management in public sector organizations. Canberra: ANU E Press. The Australian National University. Retrieved 21 June 2009, from http://epress.anu.edu. au/whistleblowing_citation.html Brown, B. (2016). Reis deg med ny styrke [Rising strong]. Oslo: Cappelen Damm. Caillier, J. G., & Sa, Y. (2016). Do transformational-oriented leadership and transactional-oriented leadership have an impact on whistle-blowing attitudes? A longitudinal examination conducted in US federal agencies. Public Management Review, 19(4), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14719037.2016.1177109. Chiaburu, D. S., Farh, C., & van Dyne, L. (2013). Supervisory epistemic, ideological, and existential responses to voice: A motivated cognition approach. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Voice and whistleblowing in organizations: Overcoming fear, fostering courage and unlashing candour (pp. 224–253). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. London: Routledge. D’Cruz, P., & Bjørkelo, B. (2016a). Sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing: Insights from India. Asia Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/ APJBA-07-2015-0061. D’Cruz, P., & Bjørkelo, B. (2016b). Bullying in the context of whistleblowing at work in India: The relevance of a sociocultural framework. Paper presented at the 10th international conference on workplace bullying and harassment, Auckland, 19–22 Apr 2016. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2016). Organizational governance: A promising solution for varieties of workplace bullying. Research on Emotions in Organizations, 12, 409–444.

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

103

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2013.11.005. Edwards, M. S., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Gardner, J. (2009). Deciding to speak up or to remain silent following observed wrongdoing: The role of discrete emotions and climate of silence. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 83–109). Bingley: Emerald. Eid, J., Mearns, K., Larsson, G., Laberg, J. C., & Johnsen, B. H. (2012). Leadership, psychological capital and safety research: Conceptual issues and future research questions. Safety Science, 50(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.001. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98) 00043-3. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2007.03.002. Einarsen, K., Mykletun, R. J., Einarsen, S. V., Skogstad, A., & Salin, D. (2017). Ethical infrastructure and successful handling of workplace bullying. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 7(1), 37–54. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134. Faulkner, S. L. (1998). After the whistle is blown: The aversive impact of ostracism. Ph.D., University of Toledo. Retrieved from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/results?set_num=2 Filstad, C. (2004). How newcomers use role models in organizational socialization. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(7), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410558297. Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2006). Experienced affects in leader-subordinate relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(1), 49–73. Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Emotion regulation in leader-follower relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(4), 482–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13594320801994960. Gundlach, M., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 107–123. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30040692 Henik, E. (2008). Mad as hell or scared stiff? The effects of value conflict and emotions on potential whistle-blowers. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551007-9441-1. Hollings, J. (2013). Let the story go: The role of emotion in the decision-making process of the reluctant, vulnerable witness or whistle-blower. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1361-z. Hoprekstad, Ø., & Magerøy, N. (2016). Jobbfast: Status og utfordringer etter 4 års drift [Jobbfast: Status and challenges after four years running operation]. Bergen: Yrkesmedisinskavdeling, Haukeland universitetssykehus [Department of Occupational Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital]. Høstmælingen, A. T., Severinsen, K., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2004). About the link between bullying and whistleblowing at work. Findings from a Norwegian municipality sample. Paper presented at the fourth international conference on bullying and harassment in the workplace, Bergen. Humborstad, S. I. W., & Giessner, S. R. (2015). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206315574597. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue, and the art of thinking together. New York: Doubleday. Jackson, D., Peters, K., Andrew, S., Edenborough, M., Halcomb, E., Luck, L., . . . Wilkes, L. (2010). Trial and retribution: A qualitative study of whistleblowing and workplace relationships

104

B. Bjørkelo et al.

in nursing. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 36(1–2), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2010.36.1-2.034. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions. Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: The Free Press. Kaptein, M. (2002). Guidelines for the development of an ethics safety net. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021221211283. Kaptein, M. (2011). From inaction to external whistleblowing: The influence of the ethical culture of organizations on employee responses to observed wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0591-1. Keenan, J. P. (1990). Upper-level managers and whistleblowing: Determinants of perceptions of company encouragement and information about where to blow the whistle. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(2), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01014334. Keenan, J. P. (1995). Whistleblowing and the first-level manager. Determinants of feeling obliged to blow the whistle. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(3), 571–584. Keenan, J. P. (2000). Blowing the whistle on less serious forms of fraud: A study of executives and managers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 12(4), 199–217. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1013015926299. Keenan, J. P. (2002a). Comparing Indian and American managers on whistleblowing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 14(2/3), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021171520620. Keenan, J. P. (2002b). Whistleblowing: A study of managerial differences. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 14(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015796528233. Keenan, J. P. (2007). Comparing Chinese and American managers on whistleblowing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9036-0. Keenan, J. P., & Remington, S. (2002). Cultural influences on whistleblowing: A study of Philippine and U.S. managers. Paper presented at the proceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the Western Decision Sciences Institute, Las Vegas. Keil, M., Tiwana, A., Sainsbury, R., & Sneha, S. (2010). Toward a theory of whistleblowing intentions: A benefit-to-cost differential perspective. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 787–812. Langer, L. L. (1991). Holocaust testimonies: The ruins of memory. New Haven: Yale University Press. LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and processoriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 147–165. Lavena, C. F. (2013). Deciding to blow the whistle: How individual and organizational factors influence the reporting of wrongdoing in the federal government. Ph.D. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Lavena, C. F. (2016). Whistle-blowing: Individual and organizational determinants of the decision to report wrongdoing in the federal government. American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014535241. Lennane, J. (1993). Whistleblowing – A health issue. British Medical Journal, 307(6905), 667–670. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6905.667. Lennane, J. (2012). What happens to whistleblowers, and why. Classics in Social Medicine, 6(4), 249–258. Lewis, D. (2010). A global approach to public interest disclosure. What can we learn from existing whistleblowing legislation and research? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse: Generation and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(14), 471–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318903251627. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & McDermott, V. (2008). The constitution of employee-abusive organizations: A communication flows theory. Communication Theory, 18, 304–333. Maas, P. (1973). Serpico. New York: Bantam Books.

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

105

Mansbach, A. (2009). Keeping democracy vibrant: Whistleblowing as truth-telling in the workplace. Constellations, 16(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00547.x. Matthiesen, S. B. (2004). When whistleblowing leads to bullying at work. Occupational Health Psychologist, 1(1), 3. Matthiesen, S. B., & Bjørkelo, B. (2011). Workplace bullying – A toxic part of organizational life. In R. J. Burke, S. Clarke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Occupational health and safety (pp. 161–177). Farnham: Gower Publishing. Matthiesen, S. B., Bjørkelo, B., & Nielsen, M. B. (2008). Klanderverdig atferd og varsling i norsk arbeidsliv [Wrongdoing and whistleblowing in Norwegian working life]. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen. Matthiesen, S. B., Bjørkelo, B., & Burke, R. J. (2011). Workplace bullying as the dark side of whistleblowing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 301–324). London: Taylor & Francis. Mayer, D. M., Nurmohamed, S., Treviño, L. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Schminke, M. (2013). Encouraging employees to report unethical conduct internally: It takes a village. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. obhdp.2013.01.002. McDonald, S., & Ahern, K. (2000). The professional consequences of whistleblowing by nurses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16(6), 313–321. McKay, R. B. (2014). Confronting workplace bullying: Agency and structure in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Administration & Society, 46(5), 548–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0095399713509245. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. New York: Lexington Books. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2005). Standing up or standing by: What predicts blowing the whistle on organizational wrongdoing? In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 24, pp. 95–136). Oxford: Elsevier. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Mikkelsen, E. G. (2001). Mobning i arbejdslivet: Hvorfor og for hvem er den så belastende? [Workplace bullying: Why and for whom is bullying such a strain]. Nordisk Psykologi, 53(2), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291463.2001.11863991. Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 87–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000861. Mikkelsen, E. G., & Holmegaard, T. R. (2017). Working with targets of bullying from an organizational consultant’s perspective. Paper presented at the seventh international course on bullying and harassment at work, Skodsborg, 18–20 Sept 2017. Nader, R., Blackwell, K., & Petkas, P. J. (1972). Whistle blowing: The report of the conference on professional responsibility. New York: Grossman. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382668. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management, 22(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200306. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2011). Integrating models of whistle-blowing and wrongdoing. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 302–323). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Nielsen, M. B. (2003). Når mobberen er leder. En studie av sammenhengen mellom lederstiler og psykiske traumereaksjoner hos et utvalg mobbeofre [When the bully is a leader: The relationship between destructive leaders and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder among victims of workplace bullying]. Trondheim: NTNU.

106

B. Bjørkelo et al.

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sampling in research on interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20229. Noronha, E., & D’Cruz, P. (2017). The world of work in contemporary India: The relevance of a critical lens. In E. Noronha & P. D’Cruz (Eds.), Critical perspectives on work and employment in contemporary India. New Delhi: Springer. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. O’Connor, C. (2017). The psychological impact of whistleblowing. Paper presented at the international whistleblowing research network conference, Fafo, Oslo, 22–23 June 2017. Pallesen, S., Nielsen, M. B., Magerøy, N., Andreassen, C. S., & Einarsen, S. (2017). An experimental study on the attribution of personality traits to bullies and targets in a workplace setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01045. Parker, K. A. (2014). The workplace bully: The ultimate silencer. Journal of Organisational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 18(1), 169–185. Parmerlee, M. A., Near, J. P., & Jensen, T. C. (1982). Correlates of whistle-blowers perceptions of organizational retaliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2392544. Perry, N. (1998). Indecent exposures: Theorizing whistleblowing. Organization Studies, 19(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069801900204. Persson, R., Høgh, A., Grynderup, M. B., Willert, M. V., Gullander, M., Hansen, Å. M., . . . Bonde, J. P. E. (2016). Relationship between changes in workplace bullying status and the reporting of personality characteristics. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(9), 902–910. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000822. Peters, C., & Branch, T. (1972). Blowing the whistle: Dissent in the public interest. New York: Praeger Publishers. Peters, K., Luck, L., Hutchinson, M., Wilkes, L., Andrew, S., & Jackson, D. (2011). The emotional sequelae of whistleblowing: Findings from a qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(19–20), 2907–2914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03718.x. Piderit, S. K., & Ashford, S. J. (2003). Breaking silence: Tactical choices women managers make in speaking up about gender-equity issues. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1477–1502. Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Leaders & leadership process, readings, self-assessments & applications (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Podsiadly, A., & Gamian-Wilk, M. (2017). Personality traits as predictors or outcomes of being exposed to bullying in the workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.001. Punch, M. (1983). Officers and men: Occupational culture, inter-rank antagonism, and the investigation of corruption. In M. Punch (Ed.), Control in the police organization (pp. 227–336). Cambridge: MIT Press. Punch, M. (2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. London: Routledge. Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relations. Organization Science, 19(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0310. Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation. The battle to control information about organization corruption. Work & Occupations, 26(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026001006. Salin, D. (2011). The significance of gender for third parties’ perceptions of negative interpersonal behaviour: Labelling and explaining negative acts. Gender, Work and Organization, 18(6), 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00465.x. Schaefer, R. (2015). Monika-saken [The Monika case]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad og Bjørke. Simola, S. (2016). Fostering collective growth and vitality following acts of moral courage: A general system, relational psychodynamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–14. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3014-0.

4

Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

107

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: Culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 243–256. Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1999). A cross-cultural comparison of managers’ whistleblowing tendencies. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 12(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1007711220997. Skivenes, M., & Trygstad, S. C. (2006). Roller, kommunikasjon og ytringsklima [Roles, communication and climate for freedom of speech]. Oslo: Fafo. Skivenes, M., & Trygstad, S. (2017). Explaining whistle blowing processes in the Norwegian labour market: Between individual power resources and institutional arrangements. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0143831X14559783. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80. Smith, R. (2014). Whistleblowers and suffering. In A. J. Brown, R. E. Moberly, D. Lewis, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 230–249). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Soeken, D. R. (1986). J’ Accuse. Psychology Today, 20(8), 44–46. Stafford, R. L. (2017a). Betrayal of local government whistleblowers: Expecting rights and resources, facing harsh realities. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 17(1–2), 162. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2017.085272. Stafford, R. L. (2017b). When public leaders whistleblow: Biopsychosocial trajectory for trauma and transformation in posttraumatic growth. Ph.D., Fielding Graduate University. Stafford, R., & Meier, A. (2016). The shadow side of qualitative research: A researcher’s experiences with secondary psychological trauma and posttraumatic growth. Paper presented at the qualitative methods and research technologies. ESA RN 20 qualitative methods conference, Cracow, Sept 2016. Tavakoli, A. A., Keenan, J. P., & Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2003). Culture and whistleblowing an empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022959131133. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 285–307. Trygstad, S. C. (2010). Med rett til å varsle: - men hjelper det, og er det lurt? [With licence to blow the whistle: But does it help and is it wise?]. Oslo: Fafo. Trygstad, S. C. (2017). Opposing forces: On whistleblowing in Norwegian working life. In F. Engelstad, H. Larsen, J. Rogstad, & K. Steen-Johnsen (Eds.), Institutional change in the public sphere: Views on the Nordic model (pp. 179–199). Warsaw: De Gruyter Open. Tucker, D. (1995). Whistleblowing without tears: The exposure of Brisbane’s King George square car park fraud. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 54(4), 475–482. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1995.tb01161.x. Uys, T. (2002). Corporate loyalty: Whistleblowing in the financial sector. Paper presented at RAU, 13 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa. Uys, T. (2008). Rational loyalty and whistleblowing: The South African context. Current Sociology, 56(6), 904–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392108095345. Vågen, S. R. (2008). Sånn sett så rydder vi i eget hus, men vi gjør det veldig stille: Om avvikshåndtering og ytringskultur [In that sense we clean our own house, but we do it very quietly: About adverse event reporting and climate for freedom of speech]. Master thesis, Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo, Oslo. Vandekerckhove, W., Brown, A. J., & Tsahuridu, E. E. (2014). Managerial responsiveness to whistleblowing: Expanding the research horizon. In A. J. Brown, R. E. Moberly, D. Lewis, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 298–327). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

108

B. Bjørkelo et al.

Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1), 101–109. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-005-1422-7. Westin, A. F. (1981). Whistle blowing!: Loyalty and dissent in the corporation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641. Zapf, D. (2007). Mobbing und whistleblowing in organizationen [Mobbing and whistleblowing in organizations]. In M. Boos, V. Brandstätter, & K. J. Jonas (Eds.), Zivilcourage trainieren (pp. 59–82). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522.

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility Dana Yagil

Contents 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Customer Mistreatment and Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Review of Antecedents, Consequences and Intervening Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Antecedents of Customer Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Consequences of Customer Mistreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Mediating and Moderating Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Customer Mistreatment Compared to Other Sources of Workplace Abuse . . . . . 5.4 Organizational Support and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Future Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110 111 113 113 117 120 124 125 127 129 129 130 130

Abstract

Customer mistreatment is a daily experience of service employees which has more severe outcomes than co-worker or supervisor mistreatment. The chapter reviews the causes and outcomes of aggressive customer behaviours. Research indicates that customer aggression is a common response to dissatisfaction with service quality which stimulates anger and is reinforced by customers’ superior status. Frequent exposure to customer mistreatment results in reduced service performance, employee engagement in emotion regulation, distress and withdrawal. Social support provided to employees as well as employee trait affectivity and expectations regarding customer behaviours moderate the impact of mistreatment on employee reactions. Recommended organizational D. Yagil (*) Department of Human Services, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_3

109

110

D. Yagil

practices to prevent customer mistreatment include using promotional messages to persuade consumers to unlearn patterns of misconduct and developing a zero-tolerance policy towards abusive customers. Organizations can cope with customer mistreatment by practices designed to improve employees’ ability to manage interactions with abusive customers, providing opportunities for employees to share their experiences with colleagues and encouraging them to take work breaks following difficult encounters. Recommended future research directions address the application of novel theoretical approaches to the study of employees’ experience of customer mistreatment, identify specific traits that enhance employee resilience to customer mistreatment, explore how customer mistreatment affects employees outside the workplace, study customer cyber abuse, systematically explore which managerial activities effectively reduce customer mistreatment and conduct cross-cultural research to explore the impact of cultural dimensions on customer inclination to mistreat employees.

5.1

Introduction

The concept of customer misbehaviour refers to behaviours that violate generally accepted norms of conduct (Fullerton & Punj 1993), such as cheating, theft, refusing to cooperate (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr 1994) and causing problems for the organization, service employees or other customers (Lovelock 2001). While several papers have reviewed general customer misbehaviour (e.g. Harris & Reynolds, 2003, 2004), in this chapter I will focus on the violation of interpersonal norms of conduct, conceptualized as customer mistreatment—“low quality interpersonal treatment employees receive from their customers” (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011, p. 312). Customer mistreatment differs from other misbehaviours in that it is directed towards employees (rather than objects, like in the case of vandalism) and does not involve direct material gain for the customer (as opposed to stealing or cheating). Customer mistreatment might be reflected in behaviours of verbal or physical aggression, such as shouting, cursing or throwing things at employees (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011). Unlike workplace aggression expressed by organizational insiders, which in many organizations is considered an exceptional event, customer aggression is a daily experience of service employees (Daunt & Harris, 2012; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004), which is “systemically present within the service economy” (Korczynski & Evans, 2013, p. 769). Customer incivility, a milder expression of mistreatment, reflected in violations of the social norms relating to respect and courtesy, is also a highly frequent experience for service employees (Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010). Customer mistreatment seems to be universal (Harris & Reynolds, 2004), and while it is most frequently directed towards low-status employees, such as call centre service representatives, it is also experienced by high-status professional service providers, such as physicians (Koritsas, Coles, Boyle, & Stanley, 2007).

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

5.2

111

Customer Mistreatment and Workplace Bullying

Conceptualizations of customer misbehaviour, the interpersonal aspect of mistreatment (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011), include behaviours spanning a wide range of severity, in terms of both the customer’s intention and the behaviour’s impact on the employee, as presented in Table 1. Reviewing the descriptions in the table reveals that customer mistreatment has a lot in common with the concepts of workplace bullying, harassment and emotional Table 1 Conceptualizations of behaviours associated with customer mistreatment Concept Perceived customer unfriendliness Interpersonal injustice Customer incivility

Hostility Customer rage

Customer aggression Verbal aggression Oral abusers

Physical abusers

Vindictive customers Jaycustomers Sexual predators

Conceptualization Employees’ perceptions of customers being impolite or abrasive

Source Walsh (2011)

Customers treat employees with a lack of dignity and respect Customer behaviours conducted with equivocal intention to harm an employee, in violation of the norms of respect and courtesy Employees’ perceptions that the customer is treating the employee in an uncivil manner (e.g. being rude, speaking in a disrespectful or insulting manner) Customer intentions to harm employees and the use of verbal and physical aggression A form of anger comprising negative emotions (e.g. ferocity, fury, disgust, contempt, resentment) Deviant behaviour that is a direct and physical form of aggression motivated by the intent to harm Verbal communications of anger that violate social norms Customers who orally, or vocally, disrupt the service encounter, intentionally causing offence by means of oral abuse Customers who intentionally cause physical harm to service employees in order to satisfy non-financial motives Customers who perform premeditated acts of malicious behaviour for either personal or financial gain Customers who act in a thoughtless or abusive way Customers who overtly express their sexual desires to employees for personal gratification (e.g. intentionally offensive body language, sexual comments, physical sexual harassment)

van Jaarsveld et al. (2015) Sliter, Jex, Wolford and McInnerney (2010) van Jaarsveld, Walker and Skarlicki (2010)

Choi, Kim, Lee and Seung Lee (2014) McColl-Kennedy, Patterson, Smith and Brady (2009) Kim, Ro, Hutchinson and Kwun (2014) Grandey, Dickter and Sin (2004) Harris and Reynolds (2004) Harris and Reynolds (2004) Harris and Reynolds (2004) Lovelock (2001) Harris and Reynolds (2004)

112

D. Yagil

abuse, described as persistent exposure to aggressive behaviour of a primarily psychological nature (harassment, offences, social exclusion) that is unwanted by the victim; may be carried out deliberately or unintentionally; causes humiliation, offence and distress; creates an unpleasant work environment; and may interfere with performance (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2010). The label “bullying” is applied to a particular activity, interaction or process that occurs repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) over a period of time (i.e. about 6 months). Bullying is an escalated process in the course of which the focal person ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic, negative social acts (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2010). Customer mistreatment is similar to bullying in the harmful content of the behaviour, as well as the helpless position of the target, because service employees are usually unable to defend themselves against customer abuse, due to service organization rules (Hochschild, 1983). However, unlike bullying, which is conducted regularly and over a prolonged period by the same person/s, customer mistreatment is usually a sporadic, one-off act rather than a systematic, ongoing type of behaviour performed by the same customer. Furthermore, customer mistreatment is usually not directed towards a specific employee per se but rather to an employee as a representative of the organization. Yet, while service employees might not experience repeated abuse from the same customer, they repeatedly experience abuse, only from different customers, with a considerable cumulative adverse impact (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Harris & Reynolds, 2003) reflected in distress (Harris & Reynolds, 2003), burnout (e.g. Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004), reduced performance (Rafaeli et al., 2012) and withdrawal (Dormann & Zapf, 2004). Thus, it is suggested that customer mistreatment can be conceptualized as a unique form of workplace bullying, harassment or emotional abuse. In the following sections, I review literature on the antecedents and outcomes of customer mistreatment, intervening variables and the comparison of customer mistreatment with intra-organizational aggression. Figure 1 displays a summary of the

Perceived service quality Power differentials Job-related characteristics

Anger, rage, wish to retaliate

Emotional labour Performance

Sense of entitlement CUSTOMER MISTREATMENT

Distress

Withdrawal

Physical conditions Social support

Employee affectivity and expectations

Fig. 1 Summary of major variables associated with customer mistreatment: antecedents, intervening variables and outcomes

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

113

major variables discussed in the customer mistreatment literature. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research directions and organizational implications.

5.3

Review of Antecedents, Consequences and Intervening Variables

5.3.1

Antecedents of Customer Aggression

5.3.1.1 Anger Research based on cognitive appraisal theory (e.g. Bechwati & Morrin, 2003; McColl-Kennedy, Sparks, & Nguyen, 2011; Watson & Spence, 2007; Zourrig, Chebat, & Toffoli, 2009) suggests that customer mistreatment is triggered by perceived injustice and a sense of powerlessness when service failure violates the “myth of customer sovereignty” (Korczynski & Evans, 2013). Failed service encounters stimulate customer anger and rage (McColl-Kennedy, Patterson, Smith, & Brady, 2009), engendering a tendency to attack the employee. When customers experience rage-associated emotions, they might express their feelings through various types of aggressive behaviours (physical, verbal, non-verbal or displaced expression). Extreme anger can lead to extremely aggressive behaviours that may result in harm to employees, other customers or even the instigating customers themselves (Fullerton & Punj, 1993; Harris & Reynolds, 2003, 2004; McCollKennedy, Patterson, Smith, & Brady, 2009). 5.3.1.2 Wish to Retaliate Customer mistreatment might be motivated by the wish to punish organizations that have failed to provide the expected service (Grégoire & Fisher, 2008; Grégoire, Laufer, & Tripp, 2010). A service failure might be instrumental (e.g. overcharging the customer) or emotional (e.g. when employees are perceived as unresponsive, not interested in providing service, unfriendly, rude or otherwise unkind) (Sliter & Jones, 2016; Yagil & Luria, 2014). In both cases, customers may view the service failure as the outcome of the employee’s lack of interest in providing proper service. A more suspicious interpretation is that the service failure reflects motivation to promote the service provider’s interests at the expense of the customer’s interests. Retaliation is highly likely when a service failure is attributed to negative organizational motives, such as greed. In this case, the customer suspects that the organization has used questionable tactics, such as fine print or binding contracts, to serve its own interests (i.e. profit) in a way that is detrimental to the customer (Grégoire, Laufer, & Tripp, 2010). A service failure may also be interpreted as a result of the service provider’s incompetence, attributed either to personal characteristics, such as stupidity, or situational causes, such as a lack of experience. Customers might also interpret service failures in terms of employee attitudes, reflecting criticism, disrespect, condescension or customer derogation. In light of their interpretation of the service failure, customers might view their mistreatment of employees as part of the

114

D. Yagil

corrective actions taken to safeguard their interests, which they feel the organization has neglected. By framing their abusive behaviour as a reaction to neglect, customers transform from transgressors into victims, deserving of support and sympathy. Accordingly, customer anger is seen, by customers, as a justified and often uncontrollable response to a service failure (Yagil & Luria, 2014). Following a service failure, customers compare their experience with their notion of acceptable standards of service recovery attempts, placing a strong emphasis on employee reactions to the failure (McColl-Kennedy, Sparks, & Nguyen, 2011). If customers believe that the service provider has refused to accept blame for the service failure and/or fails to offer appropriate service recovery, they are likely to experience anger and be inclined to retaliate (Daunt & Harris, 2012; Harris & Reynolds, 2004; McColl-Kennedy, Sparks, & Nguyen, 2011). Thus, the tendency to retaliate is especially strong when customers feel they have been mistreated (e.g. treated rudely and with disrespect) after a service failure (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003). When they feel they have been treated inappropriately in association with a dissatisfying experience, consumers believe not only that they were wronged but experience a sense of personal insult and thus feel that they are owed an apology. The personal offence may be perceived by customers as damaging to their self-respect, which also stimulates the motivation for revenge (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003).

5.3.1.3 Sense of Entitlement A major source of customers’ belief that they are entitled to mistreat employees stems from the attitude that customers are superior to employees. Customers have more control over whether they have repeated interactions with an employee than the employee does, because customers have the ongoing option to change service providers. As service employees cannot function without customers, an inherent characteristic of the service context is that customers have more power than service employees (Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010). Service slogans promoting the status of customers, such as “The customer is king” or “The customer is always right”, contribute to an unequal power distribution between service employees and customers, implying employee submission to consumer supremacy in their service roles (Chu & Murrmann, 2006; Daunt & Harris, 2014; Fisk & Neville, 2011; Korczynski & Evans, 2013). Furthermore, organizational display rules about the emotions employees are expected to convey in order to attract and retain customers often demand that customers are treated with courtesy and respect, even when they mistreat the employee (Grandey, 2000; Rupp & Spencer, 2006). Thus, service employees are expected to put up with customer mistreatment as an almost formal part of their role (Hochschild, 1983). Negative reactions to mistreatment by customers are sometimes displaced by management on to the employees, thereby not only legitimizing and normalizing customer abuse but also promoting among employees the belief that customer mistreatment is their own fault (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2014). Thus, customers have the freedom to mistreat employees, while employees are prevented from reciprocating customer aggression. Customers also have an indirect influence over employees to the extent that, if they are unhappy

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

115

with an employee, they might complain to the employee’s supervisor (Adams & Webster, 2013).

5.3.1.4 Power Differentials The power gap between customers and employees enhances customers’ sense of entitlement—the belief that they deserve special treatment but need not do anything to earn it (Boyd & Helms, 2005; Fisk & Neville, 2011). Such beliefs are driven by an inflated sense of self-worth and promote idealized expectations about how service encounters ought to unfold and the role customers and employees should play in promoting a smooth exchange relationship (Boyd & Helms, 2005). This sense of entitlement reduces customers’ propensity to engage in equitable social exchanges. When their inflated expectations are not met, customers with a strong sense of entitlement will usually respond with hostility and retaliation (Fisk & Neville, 2011). While customer superiority is a given in almost all service contexts, the type of employee–customer relationship is an important determinant of customer behaviour and misbehaviour. Gutek and colleagues (Gutek, 1995; Gutek, Bhappu, Liao-Troth, & Cherry, 1999) developed a classification based on the continuity of the service provider–customer relationship, differentiating between three types of relationships: service relationships, service encounters and pseudo relationships. Service relationships are formed when a customer has repeated contact with the same provider. The customer and the service provider get to know each other and develop a history of shared interactions. In service relationships, the expectation of further interactions in the future enhances the parties’ self-interest in cooperating with one another. In contrast, service encounters consist of a single interaction between a customer and a service provider, with no expectations of future interactions. In such encounters, there is no intrinsic motivation to cooperate; therefore, management operates to achieve high-quality service by designing structured interactions, providing uniform training to all service providers and monitoring their behaviour. Service pseudo relationships are formed when customers identify with the organization, rather than with a specific service provider, and maintain a long-term relationship with the organization. Since customers interact with a different provider in the organization each time, they are not close with any individual service provider but are familiar with the organization’s characteristics. In service encounters, which are anonymous, customers do not have any obligations based on a shared history with the employee, nor do they face any danger of damage to the relationship in the future (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007; Korczynski & Evans, 2013; Wilson & Holmvall, 2013). Thus, customers may feel that their misbehaviour will not carry any negative consequences for themselves, a belief that is reinforced by the fact that dysfunctional customer behaviours are largely outside the realm of the service organization’s control (Dormann & Zapf, 2004). 5.3.1.5 Job-Related Characteristics Certain occupational characteristics increase employees’ risk of encountering customer aggression, including working early morning or late night shifts, working alone or with few other employees and handling money or something else of

116

D. Yagil

value (Dupré, Dawe, & Barling, 2014). As the status of the service provider also influences customer behaviour, low-status employees (e.g. non-professional service providers) are more likely to suffer customer abuse (Korczynski & Evans, 2013). Service providers who work outside the organization for long periods are also at a higher risk of mistreatment because they are distanced from the support and advice they need if faced with customer aggression. Moreover, these employees are also distanced from the legitimate power of their organization to deal with customer mistreatment and, as a result, might feel they lack the power to control such misbehaviour (Morgan & Martin, 2006; Reynolds & Harris, 2006). From a practical viewpoint, being far from the organization prevents the employee from calling for help in the event of customer violence. This is especially acute in the case of airline and railway employees who, in addition to being unable to call for help, are also unable to walk away from threatening situations involving customers. Airline and railway employees may spend long hours with abusive customers and may have to contend with physical as well as verbal aggression. Service providers in this field were often found to experience verbal abuse in the form of sarcasm, condescending remarks and swearing. Physical abuse could take the form of pushing, kicking, punching, slapping, scratching, striking with an object, spitting, pointing, poking and maintaining inappropriate contact (Boyd, 2002). Human services employees who provide social services also often experience aggression and violence in their interaction with customers, both in the workplace and during home visits (Shields & Kiser, 2003). Restaurant employees sometimes encounter what has been described as “the customer from hell”, namely, a customer whose behaviour is extremely rude. Employees describe the behaviour of such customers as insensitive and arrogant and believe that “customers from hell” enjoy making someone else’s life miserable by their behaviour. Different behaviours were described for men and women: men use foul language, call service providers by a pet name, want to deal only with the manager and scream at employees, while their female counterparts demand special orders at no extra charge, act as if they are the only guest in the restaurant and throw tantrums if anything goes wrong (Withiam, 1998).

5.3.1.6 Physical Conditions The physical aspects of the service environment may influence aggressive behaviour through the emotional responses they stimulate. Service environment characteristics that might stimulate customer aggression include high temperatures (Daunt & Harris, 2012), adversely loud music, environments that are perceived to be unclean, poor ventilation, long lines or wait times (Sliter & Jones, 2016) and crowding (Hui & Bateson, 1991). Cyberbullying (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2014) was found to be triggered by factors similar to the antecedents of face-to-face bullying—a sense of being deceived, long wait time, and communication incongruence. The customer’s distance from employees and the absence of visual cues further exacerbate customer mistreatment since they feel dissociated and cannot see the impact of their actions on employees.

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

5.3.2

117

Consequences of Customer Mistreatment

5.3.2.1 Distress Customer abuse can be conceptualized as a work stressor evoking cognitive appraisals about the situation and inducing a strong state of emotional and physiological arousal, which might result in psychological and behavioural signs of strain (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). The relationship of customer mistreatment with burnout, and especially emotional exhaustion, has been documented in a variety of service contexts such as among drivers (van Dierendonck & Mevissen, 2002), personnel caring for residents living in homes for the elderly (Evers et al., 2002), hospital staff (Winstanley & Whittington, 2002), call centre employees (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004), restaurant employees (Han, Bonn, & Cho, 2016), bank tellers (Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010) and hotel employees (Karatepe, Yorganci, & Haktanir, 2009). In the long term, customer mistreatment can result in stress disorders (Harris & Reynolds, 2003), reflected in involuntary and unwanted recollections of the incident (Walsh & Clarke, 2003), anxiety and sleeplessness (Harris & Reynolds, 2003). Moreover, incidents of public violence and aggression were found to be related to service employees’ fear of violence as well as to turnover intentions (Fullerton & Punj, 2004). Customer mistreatment communicates to employees that they are unsuccessful in fulfilling their role requirement of satisfying the customers’ demands (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004) and violates the interdependent relationship that employees have with their customers (Hershcovis et al., 2007). As a result, mistreatment from customers can significantly lower service employees’ self-esteem and sense of self-worth (Dormann & Zapf, 2004; Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Shao & Skarlicki, 2014) and induce feelings of degradation, worthlessness and humiliation (Harris & Reynolds, 2003).

5.3.2.2 Emotional Labour The negative emotions stimulated by customer mistreatment produce a discrepancy from the objective of satisfying the customer by displaying positive emotions in the service encounter, which signals to employees that they must regulate their emotions and/or emotional expressions in order to show the required emotions (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015). Thus, in response to customer mistreatment, employees engage in emotional labour (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Hochschild, 1983), the process which regulates organizationally required emotions as part of a job, consisting of surface acting and deep acting. Surface acting in response to customer mistreatment reflects employees’ attempts to regulate displayed emotions in compliance with organizational display rules, while their inner negative feelings remain unchanged. Deep acting involves an internal transformation and an active effort to feel more positively during customer service interactions. The feigned emotional display might also be designed to pacify disruptive and aggressive customers (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015; Harris & Reynolds, 2003).

118

D. Yagil

5.3.2.3 Reduced Performance When employees face a threat of resource loss as a result of customer abuse, they become careful about how they use their resources and refrain from engaging in actions that expend further resources. In the face of customer mistreatment, employees choose not to invest extra efforts and time into providing exceptional service to customers, thus withdrawing citizenship behaviour, which reflects the tendency to go above and beyond the call of duty to provide service, in order to prevent further expenses of resources (Shao & Skarlicki, 2014). Additionally, employees experiencing mistreatment from customers are not motivated to provide high-quality service and may simply want to complete a transaction as quickly as possible to end the uncivil interaction, thus providing low-quality service (Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010). In addition to reducing employee motivation to provide high-quality service, customer mistreatment also impairs performance through its effect on the employee’s cognitive processes (Rafaeli et al., 2012). Encounters with verbally aggressive customers reduce the employee’s attention to the task at hand. Instead of focusing on the work task, the employee might engage in rumination, which entails a persistent intrusion of negative thoughts into the employee’s information processing activities. Thoughts about the act of aggression consume cognitive resources needed for performing the service task by stimulating a search for coping strategies and thoughts about appropriate reactions and/or by narrowing the spectrum of utilized cues or increasing employee reliance on dominant responses. Employees who were targets of aggression report difficulties in remembering previous events, concentrating on work-related tasks, solving work-related problems and making job-related decisions (Rafaeli et al., 2012). Employees might view interpersonal mistreatment by customers as violating moral norms of conduct and are consequently motivated to find ways to punish customers (Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008). Applying the explanation of revenge proposed by the theory of comparative emotions to the service context suggests that following mistreatment, employees might believe that the mistreating customer experiences positive emotions, whereas they are unhappy and hurt. This gap is perceived as unfair to the employee, triggers negative emotions and thus motivates revenge in an attempt to address these negative emotions (Bies & Tripp, 1996). In other words, service employees might seek revenge to redress the hurt feelings brought about by the perceived unfairness involved in customer mistreatment. One form of employee retaliation is reflected in treating customers with incivility, despite knowing that the organization might consider such behaviour as counterproductive (van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010; Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2014). The inclination to retaliate might also evoke customer-directed sabotage— dysfunctional service behaviours designed to harm the customer through behaviours such as creating delays in the service process, hanging up on customers or providing customers with disinformation (Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008). This type of service sabotage might be covert, consisting of behaviours that are deliberately concealed, but are part of the organizational culture and have become behavioural

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

119

norms of reducing service quality. Employees may engage in behaviours calculated to influence the speed of service or bypass customer-oriented procedures, thereby acting in contrast to management conceptions of service quality. Employees may also act in a condescending manner without giving the customers the option to complain. Alternatively, employees may overtly adhere to annoying bureaucratic rules and procedures that have a negative effect on service delivery. More extreme covert sabotage is reflected in sabotaging the service of particular customers without their knowledge by intentionally and publicly disrupting the service encounter, damaging property or even harming customers (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). Service sabotage might be performed by employees to regain the self-esteem and self-worth impaired by customer mistreatment (Shao & Skarlicki, 2014) and in order to punish customers for their aggressive behaviour. Alternatively, service sabotage might indicate a state of lost resources. When customers mistreat employees, the customers’ violation of service interaction norms imposes excessive demands on employees’ resources for regulating their behaviours in line with organizational display rules, leading to resource depletion. Consequently, employees lack the necessary resources to control their negative behavioural intentions and thus engage in customer-directed sabotage (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011). Additional employee reactions to customer mistreatment are blaming other service providers’ skills, avoiding violent incidents, bending the rules rather than confronting the customer and risking violence or putting on a brave face to minimize the incident (Bishop, Korczynski, & Cohen, 2005). An extreme reaction to mistreatment is turnover, which is highly prevalent in service organizations and significantly erodes service quality (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Both emotional strain and employees’ negative evaluation of their social exchange relationships with abusive customers are involved in the association between customer aggression and employee turnover intentions (Chang & Lyons, 2012; Li & Zhou, 2013). Quitting one’s job offers the option of withdrawing from the distressing work environment (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Managers of service employees claim that extremely abusive customer behaviour reduces employee retention as a result of impaired employee morale and reduces the levels of motivation and job satisfaction (Harris & Reynolds, 2003). Employees’ subjective appraisal of customer aggression is also predictive of more minor withdrawal behaviours such as employee absenteeism (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004).

5.3.2.4 Effect on Other Customers In addition to its effect on service employees, customer mistreatment might also affect the impression and conduct of other customers who witness the abusive incident (Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Henkel, Boegershausen, Rafaeli, & Lemmink, 2017). A disruption to standard service by customer incivility may lead a customer witnessing the event to recognize the employee as a human being rather than merely an organizational representative, consequently inducing warm feelings towards the employee and the inclination to act in supportive ways when the employee is attacked by another customer. The motivation to provide support is manifested in the expression of sympathy towards the employee who has been a victim of

120

D. Yagil

customer abuse (Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Henkel, Boegershausen, Rafaeli, & Lemmink, 2017), especially when the employee is not held responsible for the customer’s incivility and does not reciprocate it. A customer observing customer incivility and ascribing the blame for the service failure to the employee might presume that the employee deserves the uncivil treatment and thus may be less inclined to offer support to the employee. Blame attributions can similarly attenuate an observer’s positive affect and helping behaviour towards the target employee. Indeed, rude employees are frequent triggers for customer anger and therefore are likely to receive less support in the face of another customer’s incivility (Henkel, Boegershausen, Rafaeli, & Lemmink, 2017). Contagion is an additional effect of observing customer mistreatment, mostly reflected in engaging in illegitimate complaining on the part of observers. In this regard, it appears that once a social norm has been breached by a single individual, a new norm is created and diffused (Harris & Reynolds, 2003).

5.3.3

Mediating and Moderating Variables

5.3.3.1 Employee Personality Several studies explored the role of employee emotional disposition in the relationship of customer mistreatment with outcomes. Positive affectivity and negative affectivity are considered to be stable and enduring dimensions of personality, expressed by the tendency to experience positive or negative emotions over time and across situations (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). High-positive-affectivity individuals typically experience greater life satisfaction, self-esteem and control compared to low-positive-affectivity individuals. In contrast, negative affectivity refers to an individual’s pervasive disposition to experience negative mood states including anger and tension. Compared to low-negative-affectivity individuals, high-negative-affectivity individuals are described as more distressed and more reactant to frustration (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). The affective personality type has been identified as an important factor for appraising stress and adopting strategies to deal with it. Accordingly, several studies assumed that these tendencies play a significant role in moderating the impact of customer mistreatment, because whether an employee is generally inclined to experience positive or negative emotions will determine both his/her reaction to mistreatment and the ability to cope with it (Goussinsky, 2011; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Sliter, Pui, Sliter, & Jex, 2011; Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2014; Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011). Because employees high in negative affectivity are more likely to have a negative worldview and fewer coping resources, they tend to interpret ambiguous customer comments as negative and threatening, react negatively and consequently evoke more aggression from the customer (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). Employees high in trait anger are also more likely to ruminate as a result of mistreatment, thereby becoming drained of resources. Thus, trait anger acts as a moderator in the relationship between customer mistreatment and its outcomes, such that employees

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

121

who are high in trait anger experience more negative outcomes as a result of mistreatment, compared with employees low in trait anger (Sliter, Pui, Sliter, & Jex, 2011). State hostility mediates the relationship between customer mistreatment and service sabotage, as it involves the long-term maintenance of aggressive intentions and reduces employee inhibitions against aggressive behaviours. The experience of hostility also increases employee physiological arousal, which generates negative behaviours (Chi, Tsai, & Tseng, 2013). High-positive-affectivity individuals, being joyful, active, friendly and enthusiastic, are considered likely to fit the requirements of customer service work. However, as these employees are predisposed to exhibit behaviours that benefit customers, they might be more offended by customers’ abusive behaviour compared to low-positive-affect employees (Goussinsky, 2011). Beyond the individual’s affectivity, group affective tone, reflected in consistent group affective reactions, also moderates the effect of customer misbehaviour, as employees observe and use other members’ emotional states or emotional expressions as cues to appropriate emotional reactions. Thus, positive group affective tone mitigates, and negative group affective tone increases, the customer mistreatment-employee hostility relationship (Chi, Tsai, & Tseng, 2013). Several employee characteristics were found to interact with customer mistreatment and influence the inclination to engage in service sabotage. Employees with high neuroticism, who tend to experience negative emotions, such as anxiety, depression, anger and sadness (Barrick & Mount, 1991), are more likely to interpret customer behaviour in negative ways and to perceive customer-related negative events as particularly stressful, enhancing the effects of these events on negative affect. Thus, the customer mistreatment-employee hostility relationship is stronger for high-neuroticism employees (Chi, Tsai, & Tseng, 2013). Dimensions of employee moral identity also moderate the effect of mistreatment on service sabotage (Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008): employees high on symbolization (the degree to which reactions to moral issues are expressed publicly through actions) have a stronger mistreatment–sabotage relationship compared to employees low on symbolization. The moderating effect of symbolization is, in turn, moderated by the internalization dimension of moral identity (self-determined importance of moral characteristics to one’s identity), and the relationship is stronger for employees low on internalization. In addition, employees with lower commitment to organizational service rules are less likely to invest effort into regulating their job-related emotions and behaviours, which, in turn, leads to a higher likelihood of exhibiting customer-directed sabotage behaviours when facing mistreatment (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011). In contrast, job tenure weakens the effect of customer mistreatment on customer-directed sabotage. Employees who have longer job tenure may have higher automaticity in performing their jobs and can allocate more resources to regulating service-related emotions and behaviours in the face of customer mistreatment (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011). Cultural values also affect employee reactions to mistreatment, such that the values of individualism are related to sabotage directed towards the mistreating customers, whereas collectivism is related to indirect, passive reactions, such as the

122

D. Yagil

withdrawal of organizational citizenship behaviour in response to mistreatment (Shao & Skarlicki, 2014).

5.3.3.2 Distress Job stressors, coping strategies, burnout and stress appraisal were typically found to mediate the relationship between customer mistreatment and outcomes. Under the stress of customer mistreatment, employees’ social skills can suffer, and they might react negatively to these difficult social interactions. Emotional exhaustion thus mediates the relationship between customer incivility towards employees and employee incivility towards customers because employees who are emotionally exhausted may lack the cognitive resources to be civil (van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). Stress appraisal, the individual’s perception of a stressor as being threatening, was found to mediate the relationship between customer aggression and emotional labour strategies. Employees who appraise hostile customers as very stressful tend to engage more in surface acting because the negative emotions have to be masked when interacting with these customers (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). Several studies have used the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to explain the role of emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer mistreatment and withdrawal behaviours. Withdrawing from overwhelming work demands has been found to be a prevalent coping strategy with regard to stress and its emotional outcomes. Thus, if customer mistreatment results in employees’ burnout, they may need time off from work to restore lost resources (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Han, Bonn, & Cho, 2016; Li & Zhou, 2013). Additionally, when emotionally exhausted, employees will become motivated to examine the cause of their fatigue and search for ways to protect or replenish their depleting resources. If employees believe that their work exhaustion will not subside, they may decide to leave the job in order to protect themselves (Li & Zhou, 2013). Thus, burnout dimensions mediate the relationship of customer mistreatment with absences and turnover intentions (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Han, Bonn, & Cho, 2016; Li & Zhou, 2013). Studies of variables that mediate the relationship between customer mistreatment and emotional exhaustion have typically focused on employee reactions to mistreatment, as reflected in emotional labour and coping. In order to avoid the potential resource loss involved in mistreatment, employees do not display their felt emotions but rather engage in emotional regulation in the form of surface acting. The effort required to control emotional responses elicited by mistreatment tends to deplete limited emotional resources. This, in turn, leads to exhaustion, which is then related to additional outcomes, such as performance (Adams & Webster, 2013; Sliter, Jex, Wolford, & McInnerney, 2010). To cope with customer mistreatment, employees also engage in various strategies designed to reduce stress, mainly using emotion-focused coping strategies, for example, denial or disengagement. However, such coping is ineffective in reducing burnout (Goussinsky, 2013) and is related to a higher level of depersonalization and a lower sense of accomplishment. Problem-focused coping strategies, reflected in dealing with the problem itself, are not used consistently in response to customer

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

123

aggression, but when used, they were found to be related to high levels of sense of accomplishment (Ben-Zur & Yagil, 2005). Employees use specific coping tactics before, during and after encounters with abusive customers (Reynolds & Harris, 2006). In preparation for a stressful service encounter, employees use tactics such as wearing modest clothing to prevent aggressive customer behaviours. During stressful encounters, employees ignore difficult customers, bribe them to prevent outbursts or elicit support from other customers. Most tactics used after stressful incidents are designed to restore the service providers’ balance, namely, by isolating themselves both from their colleagues and the customers to enable themselves to regain their composure in private. Other tactics include engaging co-workers in conversation and releasing tension through physical exercise.

5.3.3.3 Support The notion of resources was also applied to research on the role of support in the customer mistreatment–outcomes relationship. An employee who experiences customer aggression may seek organizational support as an exterior resource to emotionally compensate for—and relieve—the experienced stress. Highly supportive environments, which provide the resources employees need to complete tasks successfully in the face of customer mistreatment, can assist employees to replenish resource reserves and can also signal to employees that the organization cares about their well-being and values their contributions. Support at work might thus minimize the detrimental effects of exhaustion induced by customer mistreatment (Li & Zhou, 2013), as well as serve as a buffer against the negative impact of customer aggression on positive outcomes, such as work engagement (Goussinsky, 2013). An example of the impact of supervisor’s support is transformational leadership, which affects appraisal processes of customer incivility, fostering employees’ ability to perceive customer incivility as a challenge and assuring employees that they have the resources to cope with this challenge (Arnold & Walsh, 2015). 5.3.3.4 Employee Expectations Employees’ reactions to customer mistreatment are also affected by their previous experiences with mistreatment (Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2014). The inclination to reciprocate with incivility is especially strong among employees who generally perceive their customer interactions to be more versus less civil. For these employees, who are unaccustomed to encountering incivility, such an experience can trigger a stronger psychological state of arousal than among employees who are more used to the experience. Employees who perceive their typical customer interactions to be highly civil also react more strongly to customer incivility because they can readily imagine alternative treatment of a more positive behaviour from the customer (Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2014). On the other hand, previous experience with aggression can increase preparedness and the ability to cope with customer aggression. Psychological symptomatology, as a result of physical or verbal aggression, is negatively related to the extent to which employees expected the incident and how prepared they were to deal with it. Preparedness is, in turn, related to the extent to which employees have

124

D. Yagil

experienced similar events in the past (Walsh & Clarke, 2003). Employee incivility, as a reaction to customer verbal aggression, is also affected by the language content and the customers’ communication style: employee incivility is stronger when the customers’ verbal aggression includes personalized aggression that targets the employee and norm violations, such as customers’ interruptions of the employee. In contrast, employee incivility is attenuated when customers use positive emotion words (Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2017).

5.3.4

Customer Mistreatment Compared to Other Sources of Workplace Abuse

In line with the notion that it is important to distinguish from among the various sources (supervisors, co-workers, customers) of interpersonal mistreatment (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004), several studies have compared customer aggression to intra-organizational aggression—abuse from colleagues and supervisors. These studies generally suggest that customer mistreatment is more frequent and has more severe outcomes than co-worker mistreatment or supervisor mistreatment (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007; Hoobler & Swanberg, 2006; Totterdell & Holman, 2003; Wilson & Holmvall, 2013). Several reasons have been suggested to explain why employees are likely to receive worse treatment from customers compared with organizational members, mainly addressing the unique antecedents of customer aggression. First, interactions among employees in customer service organizations involve collaboration to deliver goods and services to customers. Alternatively, employee–customer encounters primarily take place during an exchange of organizational goods or services for money. In this type of relationship, if employees lack the necessary autonomy to adapt the service to the customer’s needs, they will have limited options regarding how they can deal with customer requests or complaints. As such, customers might express their dissatisfaction with the service to employees, potentially using the employees as their scapegoats (Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008; Wilson & Holmvall, 2013). Additionally, while the relationships with organizational insiders are long term in nature, with a shared history and future, many customer–employee interactions are single, anonymous encounters. Furthermore, customers by definition have more choice over future interactions than co-workers and supervisors (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007). The relationships between customers and employees are more likely to feel impersonal in comparison to employees’ relationships with co-workers and supervisors. Customers feel free to act in socially undesirable ways because they are more likely to feel anonymous than organizational insiders and are less deterred by the prospect of shame and perceived consequences. Moreover, because customers are more able than supervisors and co-workers to avoid future interactions, they face a lower risk of retaliation. Customers are also aware of the strong norms dictating employees’ emotional displays which forbid overt retaliation. Organizational insiders, however, are more aware than customers of organizational sanctions against aggression.

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

125

Likewise, the organization’s ability to impose sanctions or punishments against its own members is greater than its corresponding ability against customers (Inness, LeBlanc, & Barling, 2008). Thus, “a customer is more likely to yell at and threaten an employee than the employee’s supervisor or co-worker because the customer can get away with it” (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007, p. 66). Customer mistreatment also differs from mistreatment by organizational authority figures (e.g. supervisors) in that authority figures have legitimate power to manage employees, whereas employees often question the legitimacy of customers to impose direction and authority over them. Thus, employees might be more easily offended by a forceful remark made by a customer than a supervisor, as the latter might be seen as having the right to make such remarks (Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008). Customer mistreatment has a stronger relationship with burnout than insider mistreatment (Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007; Sliter, Pui, Sliter, & Jex, 2011). This is because, in the case of customer mistreatment, employees have fewer options regarding how they respond to or withdraw from the mistreatment as compared to when they are exposed to co-worker mistreatment. Additionally, with regard to customers, service employees typically have to respond to mistreatment by managing their emotions and continuing to provide “service with a smile”. This effort further depletes their resources, exacerbated by a lack of control in the customer–employee interaction (Sliter, Pui, Sliter, & Jex, 2011).

5.4

Organizational Support and Interventions

This section summarizes major directions proposed in the literature to cope with customer mistreatment. The propositions address preventative steps to reduce customer mistreatment and reactive measures (Daunt & Harris, 2011; van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). First, given the high prevalence and detrimental effects of customer mistreatment, management should develop systems designed to monitor and minimize mistreatment. Specifically, understanding the triggers that prompt customer mistreatment, by following up incidents of mistreatment and analysing each episode, is crucial for instituting procedures to manage these events. For this purpose, incidents of customer mistreatment should be recorded, categorized by level of severity and frequency of occurrence, stored as information and then analysed, so that systemic improvements might be designed into the service delivery processes (Grove, Fisk, & John, 2004; Reynolds & Harris, 2009). As service failures are inevitable, managers can also develop training schemes to anticipate and manage service failures, focused on improving employees’ ability to manage interactions with abusive customers (Grove, Fisk, & John, 2004; Harris & Reynolds, 2004; Reynolds & Harris, 2009). Employees should also receive training and be well informed about appropriate policies and procedures for dealing with misbehaving customers (Daunt & Harris, 2012), for example, through mock customer calls with individuals pretending to be difficult customers, so that employees can practise handling these types of situations (van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). Training employees in the management of emotions, reflection on the positive aspects of their relationships with customers, focus on successful

126

D. Yagil

interactions to foster psychological resources and detachment from negative experiences as they occur or immediately afterwards might also increase both employee resiliency and recovery. Training designed to increase the use of problem-focused strategies when interacting with frustrated customers could help offset negative emotion escalation during customer–employee interactions (Adams & Webster, 2013; Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Furthermore, in addition to training, employees should be rewarded for handling mistreatment incidents (Grove, Fisk, & John, 2004). Along with their training, service employees should act with discretion regarding what they say and the emotions they express when interacting with customers. Empowering employees to use their judgement in interactions, as opposed to rigidly following a service script, could benefit both customers and employees by reducing customer frustration and employee exposure to stressful interactions. Empowering employees signals management’s trust in employees, which has the potential to prevent and diffuse customer frustration. Specifically, providing employees with some autonomy to deviate from scripts when appropriate can encourage an authentic interaction and help protect employees from the negative outcomes of surface acting (Grove, Fisk, & John, 2004; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). As social support at work can buffer the effect of customer mistreatment (Wang, Liao, Zhan, & Shi, 2011), co-workers and supervisors need to be trained in how to effectively support service employees who have unpleasant interactions with customers (van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Management can also provide opportunities for employees to share their experiences and vent their concerns. This can be accomplished by initiating blogs and Facebook groups to discuss various forms of customer mistreatment. Managers could also consider creating online forums within company-sponsored intranets to give employees the opportunity to share their encounters with misbehaving customers and their experiences about how to effectively deal with these encounters with their co-workers (van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). Instrumental support can be provided in face-to-face contexts by supervisors’ continuous presence to magnify employees and customers’ awareness that an authority figure is present. Ease of management access to customers and employees can mitigate many potentially difficult situations before they escalate into confrontations or potential incidents representing incivility (Han, Bonn, & Cho, 2016). In phone service interactions, emotion detection technology might help managers identify when customers are expressing anger or other strong emotions towards service employees. This technology could help supervisors know when to intervene or when to give employees breaks from customer interactions (van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Encouraging employees to take work breaks, even unplanned ones, following difficult encounters, also has the potential to help employees cope with these interactions and recover lost resources (Gabriel & Diefendorff, 2015; van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). As a preventive step designed to reduce turnover due to customer mistreatment, the management can integrate a realistic job preview into the hiring process, for example, by providing examples of actual customer interactions and enabling job applicants to listen to the types of interactions they could have with customers, including examples of angry customers and the type of unfair customer

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

127

treatment employees may experience working for the organization (van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Management can also adopt an educational approach, which uses promotional messages to persuade consumers to unlearn patterns of misconduct and to strengthen the moral constraints that inhibit misbehaviour. Examples of such messages include portraying customer misbehaviours as aversive and increasing public awareness of the detrimental consequences of customer mistreatment. A rationale for such messages is that public education may be able to reinforce consumers’ existing sense of moral propriety and thus strengthen personal restraints against misbehaviour. In addition, educational campaigns directed at mainstream customers may shake off the indifference with which many of them regard the phenomenon by stressing the total costs of such misbehaviour to all (Fullerton & Punj, 1993). As customer behaviours in service episodes have direct implications on the quality of the customer service they receive in the interaction, managers could help customers understand the types of behaviours they can either use or avoid using as a means to attain better service. Managers might consider using organizational resources such as marketing, service design or even announcements to waiting customers, to extend the organization’s training function to customers, in an attempt to directly, or indirectly, educate customers in how to be better customers (van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). Additionally, service managers can attempt to profile and categorize abusive customers through the development of tracking systems recognizing repeated abusive patterns. The utilization of such security and record-based systems might assist managers in identifying flawed or vulnerable points in service design and delivery, thereby helping reduce the perceived opportunity for misbehaviour while increasing perceptions of risk and apprehension (Daunt & Harris, 2011). Lastly, management might consider a zero-tolerance policy towards abusive customers. Organizations can empower employees to terminate a service interaction on the basis of customer behaviour without negatively affecting the employee’s performance evaluation (Rafaeli et al., 2012; Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008; van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). Such a policy might not only help reduce customer mistreatment but also symbolizes that management cares about treating its employees with dignity and respect (Rafaeli et al., 2012; Shao & Skarlicki, 2014). Managers should increase customers’ perception that the organization is willing to act against overly aggressive customers, for example, by “firing” some of these customers (Grégoire, Laufer, & Tripp, 2010). Organizations where workers routinely deal with misbehaving customers may establish a progressive system of “discipline” for customers, starting with the issuance of a warning when an event of mistreatment occurs, followed by permitting the employee to ask the customer to leave or allowing the employee to exit the scene (Hoobler & Swanberg, 2006).

5.5

Future Research Directions

Because customer mistreatment is a major workplace stressor, many studies are based on models of Job Demands–Resources (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) or COR (Hobfoll, 1989), conceptualizing the experience of

128

D. Yagil

mistreatment as a job demand, a threat to employee resources or an actual loss of resources. These models, which have been applied to discuss the employee’s experience, might also be used to analyse customers’ motivation to engage in misbehaviour. Experiencing a service failure might involve a threat or actual loss of resources, such as money or time, while interpreting an employee’s behaviour as reflecting indifference might involve customers’ loss of self-esteem resources. It is also desirable to apply novel theoretical approaches to the study of employees’ experience of mistreatment, for example, exploring how the mediating impact of needs, based on SelfDetermination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), can enhance our understanding of the impact of customer mistreatment on employee-related outcomes. Research on employee-related moderators indicates that the general disposition of affectivity has a significant role in moderating the impact of customer mistreatment. Accordingly, it is desirable to explore specific characteristics reflecting positive/ negative affectivity (e.g. hope, optimism, self-efficacy, trait anxiety), which might affect employees’ reactions to mistreatment. Future research that can identify specific traits that enhance employee resilience or increase their vulnerability to customer mistreatment will have both theoretical and practical significance. Stress literature has established the notion of work–home spillover, showing that stressful workplace events, including bullying, influence home life. For example, abusive supervision is related to family undermining, possibly because negative workplace encounters serve as emotional “training grounds” for negative home encounters (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). An exploration of how customer mistreatment affects employees outside the workplace, for example, its effect on stress experienced at home, interpersonal relationships, employees’ inclination to be aggressive and their reactions to mistreatment outside work, would be a useful addition to the literature. Another future avenue for research pertains to customer cyber abuse. While a great deal of interactions with customers are conducted remotely via the Internet, there is very little research on cyber abuse by customers, which can take place either in the framework of the customer–employee interaction or in the form of negative word of mouth, on various sites dealing with customer complaints and customers’ reviews of the organization, Facebook, Twitter, etc. For customers, negative word of mouth, especially on the Internet, is a highly effective means of retaliation (Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009), which might become personal if the employee is identified. Because such mistreatment is public and involves shaming, it is likely to be highly stressful for employees. The global nature of customer services calls for cross-cultural comparisons of customer mistreatment, addressing the impact of cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1980) and values on types and intensity of customer aggressive behaviours, as well as organizational policies regarding coping with such behaviours. For example, customers from low power distance cultures recognize more service problems and are more inclined to complain than customers from high power distance cultures (Luria, Levanon, Yagil, & Gal, 2016), suggesting that cultural characteristics might also affect mistreatment of service employees following service failures. Lastly, research indicates that customer mistreatment has detrimental effects for employees, organizations and eventually customers (Lovelock, 2001). Unlike intra-organizational bullying, which is under the organization’s control, it is difficult

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

129

for organizations to control customers’ behaviour towards employees because customers are not subject to organizational authority. Furthermore, service organizations depend on customers, and in the current highly competitive service environment, where organizations invest serious efforts into attracting and retaining customers, deterrence becomes almost irrelevant. Yet, some organizations do attempt to protect their employees against customer mistreatment by various means, such as empowering employees or dismissing abusive customers (Grove, Fisk, & John, 2004; van Jaarsveld et al., 2015). It is desirable to systematically explore which managerial activities effectively reduce customer mistreatment. Future research should also explore the role of leadership in affecting customer behaviour and employees’ reactions to mistreatment. Research suggests that through their attempts to protect employees from abusive customers and generally support employees, leaders convey to employees, as well as customers, the importance they attribute to employees’ well-being (Testa & Ehrhart, 2005). Therefore, it is of merit to explore how leadership behaviour conveying support (or the lack of it) influences customer behaviour, as well as employees’ emotional and behavioural reactions to mistreatment and their ability to make use of their coping resources.

5.6

Conclusion

Customer mistreatment is a prevalent experience of service employees, with a considerable accumulating adverse impact reflected in distress, reduced performance and withdrawal. Dissatisfaction with service quality, intensified customer–employee power differentials and customer sense of entitlement are the major causes of customer aggression. Service organizations should engage in preventive practices to reduce the extent of customer mistreatment, as well as support employees who have been subject to such mistreatment. It is desirable in future research to explore the effectiveness of such practices and to incorporate novel theoretical perspectives in the study of service employee experience of customer mistreatment.

5.7

Cross-References

▶ Bullying in the Legal Profession ▶ Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment ▶ Workplace Bullying and Negative Behaviour in the Hospitality Industry ▶ Workplace Bullying in Precarious Employment ▶ Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Corrections ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Fire Departments: The Case of the US Fire Service ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in the Context of Dirty Work ▶ Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

130

5.8

D. Yagil

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Depersonalized Bullying: An Emergent Concern in the Contemporary Workplace, Vol. 1 Ethical Challenges in Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Aware ness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1 Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1 The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide, Vol. 1 Theoretical Frameworks That Have Explained Workplace Bullying: Retracing Con tributions Across the Decades, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying and Harassment and Positive Organizational Scholarship, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying and the Polemic of Subjectivity and Intent, Vol. 1 Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Vol. 3 Bullies, Managers, Workers and Trade Unionists, Vol. 3 Diagnosis and Treatment: Repairing Injuries Caused by Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3 Prevention of Workplace Bullying Through Work and Organizational Design, Vol. 3 Regulation as Intervention: How Regulatory Design Can Affect Practices and Behaviours in the Workplace, Vol. 3 Risk Management: Bullying as a Workplace Health and Safety Hazard, Vol. 3 Strengthening the Evidence Base of Workplace Bullying Interventions through Prevention and Implementation Research, Vol. 3 Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on Effec tiveness, Vol. 3

References Adams, G. A., & Webster, J. R. (2013). Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal mistreatment and distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 697–710. Arnold, K. A., & Walsh, M. M. (2015). Customer incivility and employee well-being: Testing the moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership. Work and Stress, 29, 362–378. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 440–453. Ben-Zur, H., & Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviours of customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 81–99. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: Getting even and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bishop, V., Korczynski, M., & Cohen, L. (2005). The invisibility of violence: Constructing violence out of the job centre workplace in the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 19, 583–602. Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employee’s viewpoint. The Journal of Marketing, 58, 95–106.

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

131

Boyd, H. C. (2002). Customer violence and employee health and safety. Work, Employment and Society, 16, 151–169. Boyd, H. C., & Helms, J. E. (2005). Consumer entitlement theory and measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 271–286. Chang, C. H. D., & Lyons, B. J. (2012). Not all aggressions are created equal: A multifoci approach to workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 79–92. Chi, N. W., Tsai, W. C., & Tseng, S. M. (2013). Customer negative events and employee service sabotage: The roles of employee hostility, personality and group affective tone. Work and Stress, 27, 298–319. Choi, C. H., Kim, T. T., Lee, G., & Lee, S. K. (2014). Testing the stressor–strain–outcome model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional exhaustion, customer orientation and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 272–285. Chu, K. H. L., & Murrmann, S. K. (2006). Development and validation of the hospitality emotional labor scale. Tourism Management, 27, 1181–1191. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2014). The interface between technology and customer cyberbullying: Evidence from India. Information and Organization, 24, 176–193. Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2011). Customers acting badly: Evidence from the hospitality industry. Journal of Business Research, 64, 1034–1042. Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2012). Exploring the forms of dysfunctional customer behaviour: A study of differences in servicescape and customer disaffection with service. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 129–153. Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2014). Linking employee and customer misbehaviour: The moderating role of past misdemeanours. Journal of Marketing Management, 30, 221–244. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centers: Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 471–496. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 61–82. Dupré, K. E., Dawe, K. A., & Barling, J. (2014). Harm to those who serve: Effects of direct and vicarious customer-initiated workplace aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2355–2377. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–40). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Evers, W., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2002). Aggressive behaviour and burnout among staff of homes for the elderly. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 11, 2–9. Fisk, G. M., & Neville, L. B. (2011). Effects of customer entitlement on service workers’ physical and psychological well-being: A study of waitstaff employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 391–405. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (1993). Choosing to misbehave: A structural model of aberrant consumer behavior. ACR North American Advances, 20, 570–574. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption: Consumer misbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1239–1249. Gabriel, A. S., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). Emotional labor dynamics: A momentary approach. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1804–1825. Goussinsky, R. (2011). Does customer aggression more strongly affect happy employees? The moderating role of positive affectivity and extraversion. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 220–234.

132

D. Yagil

Goussinsky, R. (2013). The moderating role of support seeking versus perceived social support in the relationship between customer aggression and job outcomes. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 16, 165–192. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110. Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 397–418. Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 63–79. Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 247–261. Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73, 18–32. Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., & Tripp, T. M. (2010). A comprehensive model of customer direct and indirect revenge: Understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 738–758. Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., & John, J. (2004). Surviving in the age of rage. Marketing Management, 13, 41–47. Gutek, B. A. (1995). The dynamics of service: Reflections on the changing nature of customer/ provider interactions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gutek, B. A., Bhappu, A. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Cherry, B. (1999). Distinguishing between service relationships and encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 218–233. Han, S. J., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2016). The relationship between customer incivility, restaurant frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 97–106. Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types and consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service Research, 4, 163–183. Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer behavior. Journal of Service Research, 6, 144–161. Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2004). Jaycustomer behavior: An exploration of types and motives in the hospitality industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 18, 339–357. Henkel, A. P., Boegershausen, J., Rafaeli, A., & Lemmink, J. (2017). The social dimension of service interactions: Observer reactions to customer incivility. Journal of Service Research, 20, 120–134. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10, 15–41. Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133. Hoobler, J. M., & Swanberg, J. (2006). The enemy is not us: Unexpected workplace violence trends. Personnel Administration, 35, 229–246. Hui, M. K., & Bateson, J. E. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174–184.

5

Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility

133

Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. (2008). Psychosocial predictors of supervisor-, peer-, subordinate-, and service-provider-targeted aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1401–1411. Karatepe, O. M., Yorganci, I., & Haktanir, M. (2009). Outcomes of customer verbal aggression among hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21, 713–733. Kim, G., Ro, H., Hutchinson, J., & Kwun, D. J. (2014). The effect of jay-customer behaviors on employee job stress and job satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 15, 394–416. Korczynski, M., & Evans, C. (2013). Customer abuse to service workers: An analysis of its social creation within the service economy. Work, Employment and Society, 27, 768–784. Koritsas, S., Coles, J., Boyle, M., & Stanley, J. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of occupational violence and aggression towards GPs: A cross-sectional study. British Journal of General Practice, 57, 967–970. Li, X., & Zhou, E. (2013). Influence of customer verbal aggression on employee turnover intention. Management Decision, 51, 890–912. Lovelock, C. (2001). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River. Luria, G., Levanon, A., Yagil, D., & Gal, I. (2016). Status, national culture and customers’ propensity to complain. Social Indicators Research, 126, 309–330. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Patterson, P. G., Smith, A. K., & Brady, M. K. (2009). Customer rage episodes: Emotions, expressions and behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 85, 222–237. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Sparks, B. A., & Nguyen, D. T. (2011). Customer’s angry voice: Targeting employees or the organization? Journal of Business Research, 64, 707–713. Morgan, L. A., & Martin, K. A. (2006). Taking women professionals out of the office: The case of women in sales. Gender and Society, 20, 108–128. Rafaeli, A., Erez, A., Ravid, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Treister, D. E., & Scheyer, R. (2012). When customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay cognitive costs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 931–950. Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2006). Deviant customer behavior: An exploration of frontline employee tactics. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14, 95–111. Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85, 321–335. Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 971–978. Shao, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Service employees’ reactions to mistreatment by customers: A comparison between North America and East Asia. Personnel Psychology, 67, 23–59. Shields, G., & Kiser, J. (2003). Violence and aggression directed toward human service workers: An exploratory study. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 84, 13–20. Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1335–1347. Sliter, M., & Jones, M. (2016). A qualitative and quantitative examination of the antecedents of customer incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 208–219. Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 468–481. Sliter, M. T., Pui, S. Y., Sliter, K. A., & Jex, S. M. (2011). The differential effects of interpersonal conflict from customers and coworkers: Trait anger as a moderator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 424–440. Testa, M. R., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2005). Service leader interaction behaviors: Comparing employee and manager perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 30, 456–486.

134

D. Yagil

Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 55–73. van Dierendonck, D., & Mevissen, N. (2002). Aggressive behavior of passengers, conflict management behavior, and burnout among trolley car drivers. International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 345–355. van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility. Journal of Management, 36, 1486–1504. van Jaarsveld, D. D., Restubog, S. L. D., Walker, D. D., & Amarnani, R. K. (2015). Misbehaving customers. Organizational Dynamics, 44, 273–280. Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Exploring the effects of individual customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: The moderating roles of entity (in) civility and negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 151–161. Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2017). Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can also hurt me: The relationship between customer verbal aggression and employee incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 163–179. Walsh, G. (2011). Unfriendly customers as a social stressor–An indirect antecedent of service employees’ quitting intention. European Management Journal, 29, 67–78. Walsh, B. R., & Clarke, E. (2003). Post-trauma symptoms in health workers following physical and verbal aggression. Work and Stress, 17, 170–181. Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 312–334. Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234–254. Watson, L., & Spence, M. T. (2007). Causes and consequences of emotions on consumer behaviour: A review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 487–511. Wilson, N. L., & Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the incivility from customers scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 310–326. Winstanley, S., & Whittington, R. (2002). Anxiety, burnout and coping styles in general hospital staff exposed to workplace aggression: A cyclical model of burnout and vulnerability to aggression. Work and Stress, 16, 302–315. Withiam, G. (1998). Customers from hell: What do they do? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39, 11. Yagil, D., & Luria, G. (2014). Being difficult: Customers’ sensemaking of their deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior, 35, 921–937. Zourrig, H., Chebat, J. C., & Toffoli, R. (2009). Consumer revenge behavior: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Business Research, 62, 995–1001.

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as Linked to Hidden Organizations Craig R. Scott

Contents 6.1 Describing and Defining Hidden Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Abuse, Bullying, Harassment and the “Hidden” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Secret Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 New Religious Movements and Cults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Hidden Hate Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Criminal Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Terrorist and Counterterrorist Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Dirty Work Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 Other Hidden Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.11 Endnote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.12 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.13 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

136 137 139 141 143 144 146 148 150 152 154 154 154 155

Abstract

This chapter examines bullying, abuse and harassment as they relate in multiple ways to what are called hidden organizations—those where the identity of the collective and/or its members is communicatively concealed from key audiences. More specifically, several types of hidden organizations are identified that are of special importance here: secret societies, cults, hate groups, organized crime (including gangs), terrorist and counterterrorist groups, organizations engaged in dirty work and a range of others. Relevant literature is examined on each of these types of hidden organizations to uncover potential connections to destructive practices such as bullying, abuse and harassment both internal and external to C. R. Scott (*) Department of Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_22

135

136

C. R. Scott

the hidden organization. The chapter closes with key conclusions about these linkages and directions for continued research in this area.

6.1

Describing and Defining Hidden Organizations

Traditionally, most efforts linking organizations to practices such as bullying, harassment and abuse have focused on a variety of job-related workplaces ranging from large for-profit corporations to various small and family businesses and from various governmental agencies to non-profit/non-governmental organizations (NGOs). All these represent relatively visible organizations where we may unfortunately observe destructive practices. With very few exceptions, harassment, bullying and various forms of abuse would be viewed in such organizations as not only nonnormative but also problematic for the organization and its members. However, there are other organizations and groups that remain relatively invisible to much of society. These hidden organizations have been defined as those where the organization and/or its members communicatively conceal key aspects of their identity from various audiences (see Scott, 2013). They may also be represented as clandestine (see Stohl & Stohl, 2011) and secretive (see Costas & Grey, 2016). These hidden organizations include, for example, secret societies, anonymous support programmes, hate groups, terrorist cells, covert military units, organized crime, gangs, parts of the underground economy, front organizations, obscure political fundraising groups, shelters for the abused and marginalized, organizations characterized by dirty work, certain activist movements, stigmatized businesses and even various hidden enterprises in quiet office parks. These collectives are largely hidden not only from the public, but they also have been far less visible in nearly all areas of scholarly research—in part because they are somewhat more difficult to research. As a result, relatively little scholarship has examined abuse, bullying and/or harassment practices in such organizations specifically. The reduced visibility of these organizations and their members to various audiences potentially creates an environment where bullying, harassment and abuse are even more prominent than we would expect in other collectives. The existence of such practices may also further the need for these groups to maintain certain levels of invisibility so as to avoid others who may hold them accountable for such behaviours. Thus, these hidden organizations—especially those that have been described as inappropriately hidden (Scott & Kang, 2017)—provide a climate where the destructive practices may be somewhat more normative as a way to ensure secrecy, maintain power and attract/retain members. Furthermore, the activities of some of these hidden organizations may involve bullying, harassment and abuse of other people and groups beyond the hidden organization itself. Other hidden organizations may even provide a place of refuge for those that experience these destructive behaviours in other contexts. Thus, given the unique nature of these hidden organizations and the lack of prior intensive focus on them, it is important to

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

137

pull from various sources to better describe the range of destructive behaviours linked to these shadowy organizations.

6.2

Abuse, Bullying, Harassment and the “Hidden”

Though the focus here is on abuse, bullying and harassment, no effort is made to clearly distinguish those from one another or from related destructive behaviours (e.g. ostracism, workplace violence). Furthermore, it is not the purpose of this chapter to define or describe the prevalence of these constructs. Instead, the emphasis here is on their connection to the “hidden” generally and “hidden organizations” in particular. In one sense, these behaviours are regularly discussed with terms suggesting concealment: Grow (2012) describes bullying as a hidden hazard of the workplace. D’Cruz and Noronha (2013) describe the invisible and anonymous nature of cyberbullying. Fitzgerald (2017) indicates that harassment is an open secret and a form of hidden violence with often invisible survivors. And abuse may be overt or covert (Hetherington, 2000), with covert bullying especially difficult to recognize and address (Barnes et al., 2012). Specific links between these destructive behaviours and aspects of the organization are less common than might be expected, with prior research on these constructs focusing heavily on individual employees (Neall & Tuckey, 2014) and rarely highlighting the organization. Even those that do consider more macro factors rarely integrate the micro factors with organizational and environmental influences (Samnani & Singh, 2016). Connections between these destructive behaviours and elements of hidden organizations are even more rarely discussed, though they do exist. For example, government intelligence agencies have been linked to human rights abuses (History, 1997). Bullying has been connected to corruption (Vickers, 2014) and online anonymity (Olson, 2014). Salter (2012) discussed ritualistic aspects of organized child abuse, which could have some linkages to cults and secret societies. It may be especially useful to consider the causes of these destructive behaviours that are especially pronounced in hidden organizations. Scholars have identified several influences that seem relevant, including leadership, power, silence and the absence of controls. Bullying is more likely in cultures that encourage aggression (Cowan, 2009; Pilch & Turska, 2015). Goodboy and Martin (2015) argue that cyberbullies tend to have personalities that lack self-control and sensitivity and tend to be higher in psychoticism and verbal aggressiveness. Samnani and Singh (2016) suggest narcissism and perceptions of injustice on the part of the perpetrator may lead to bullying. Tyrannical leadership is one specific aspect of the organization linked to bullying (Fleming, 2016). Conversely, transactional and transformational forms of leadership can mitigate bullying (Dussault & Frenette, 2015). Dougherty (2009) also concludes that authoritarian management structures are more associated with harassment behaviours. Related to this, power differences may facilitate workplace bullying (Samnani & Singh, 2016) as well as covert and overt forms of abuse (Hetherington, 2000). A number of hidden organizations may be characterized by

138

C. R. Scott

aggressive, tyrannical, narcissistic leaders who use that concealment to behave in ways that would be more clearly problematic in more visible organizations. In a similar vein, power imbalances may be more difficult to overcome in tightly controlled hidden organizations which use that power in part to maintain their secrecy. Roscigno, Lopez and Hodson (2009) agree that most contexts of bullying can be characterized as entailing high levels of inequality and powerlessness. Workplace harassment also emerges out of the hierarchical power relations and struggles for power in the workplace (Lopez, Hodson, & Roscigno, 2009). They add that job insecurity and organizational chaos are clearly linked to bullying in the literature (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006). What these scholars see as most concerning in organizations where bullying and harassment occur is the apparent absence of capable guardians in the workplace—for example, grievance procedures and work teams that help minimize such destructive behaviours. Lopez, Hodson and Roscigno (2009) specifically found that chaotic organizations were associated with general harassment and the prevalence of guardians was associated with reduced sexual harassment. A number of hidden organizations may be characterized by chaos, and there are clearly fewer “guardians” in organizations where grievance procedures, for example, will be far less common. Another factor here may be silence. Bullying, abuse and harassment are substantially facilitated through communication—including silence and denying interaction (see Lutgen-Sandvik & Sypher, 2009). Arnejčič (2016) also suggests that organizational silence is related to bullying behaviours. Yet, silence is one of the features of hidden organizations as members maintain silence to protect themselves and the audience from being revealed. In many hidden organizations where there is intense loyalty, silence is a strategy of concealment that shows that loyalty (Scott, 2013). We know in general that silence about these problems may allow them to persist unchecked (see Dougherty, 2009). Furthermore, a culture of silence generally may enable these destructive behaviours. Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie and Namie (2009) note a number of actions and interactions associated with workplace bullying; these include derogatory remarks, explosive outbursts, threats, humiliation, physical harm and insults. Although these can all be found in fairly visible, formal organizations, they may emerge even more readily in more hidden and informal collectives that allow for or even encourage these behaviours. These authors argue bullying is also characterized by hostile environments, power disparities and distorted communication networks; because hidden organizations often have more chaotic environments, greater distance between those at the top and bottom of the organizational structure and restricted communication, they may be especially susceptible to bullying. Because the situations “that scare a bully most are the possibility of more than one person getting together to complain and [thus,]. . .their behavior becoming public” (Crawford, cited in Lutgen-Sandvik et al., p. 31), bullying behaviour may be safer and potentially even more prevalent in contexts that are more hidden from the public. Furthermore, these researchers suggest competitive and blaming cultures are more likely to foster bullying behaviours. Even some of the organizational solutions to

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

139

bullying—such as top-level commitment and member engagement—can be more difficult in hidden organizations where public commitments and actions are less likely in general. Sias (2009) describes causes of isolation and ostracism—two other destructive behaviours that share much in common with bullying and abuse. She notes several causes that may be especially salient in more hidden organizations: lack of physical proximity, organizational uncertainty, ineffective leadership, rigid norms/culture and whistleblowing about organizational wrongdoing. Dougherty (2009) notes that laws exist against various forms of workplace harassment, but those hidden organizations (and their members) that are considered criminal or informal or that otherwise try to avoid public scrutiny may be far less subject to such laws. For issues like bullying, abuse and harassment that are already under-reported, secretive cultures found in hidden organizations may be especially problematic. It is useful to consider the causes of these destructive behaviours—including the absence of legal protections and other guards, power differences, dysfunctional forms of leadership, silence and distorted communication networks—that may take on special significance in more hidden organizations. It may also be valuable to consider the relevant literature pertaining to several types of hidden organizations in an attempt to identify characteristics that may promote bullying, abuse and various forms of harassment. Especially in the absence of general theory guiding work on bullying, abuse and/or harassment in these hidden collectives, such an approach seems reasonable. Thus, the following sections will examine several hidden organizations where these problematic behaviours are of special concern and interest.

6.3

Secret Societies

Although secret societies date back centuries, scholars claim modern secret collectives began in the eighteenth century (Anheier, 2010). Simmel (1906) claimed over a century ago that the control of information and knowledge about one’s secrets is fundamental for these organizations. Others have argued that “secret societies prevent or restrict communication, and distribute information and knowledge in ways that create nuanced structures of knowing and not knowing, of awareness and ignorance” (Anheier, 2010, p. 1356). These organizations vary substantially— some are quite localized and temporary, but others have persisted over time and spread across countries; some are linked to primitive societies with non-literate members, but others are found in very developed countries; some societies are linked to criminal/subversive activities or underground resistance, but others are more social and apolitical in nature (see Scott, 2013). Many colleges/universities have secretive orders that perhaps best illustrate the nature of these organizations (e. g. Yale University’s The Order of the Skull and Bones); indeed, even the fraternities and sororities still found on many university campuses especially in the United States (USA) are a form of secret society with their own secret signs, mottos and rituals.

140

C. R. Scott

The Order of the Skull and Bones, as a particularly secretive organization, has attracted some attention from scholars and journalists. Interestingly, the organization has at times actively discouraged the media from reporting on them through bullying tactics. In writing her book, Robbins (2002) was told people would come after her and that her career was in jeopardy for writing about The Order. More significantly, the society’s activities are known to include a great deal of revealing of one’s history and sexual exploits and giving intense feedback to other members. Foer (2000) describes tap night rituals that involve physical assault, being stripped of one’s clothing and then forced to engage in a form of naked wrestling. Another event for initiates involves personal, frank and often brutal evaluations by other members that have resulted in symptoms of depression and seeking of psychological counselling (Foer). Crane’s (2015) recent dissertation examines not only The Skull and Bones, but an even more problematic secret society known as “The Machine” at the University of Alabama. This coalition of predominantly white fraternities and sororities has attempted to control political power at the university and has a motto of “Little is known and what is known is kept secret”. As Crane outlines, The Machine has a history of threatening and harming other students in the process of fulfilling their aims. In 1993, a sorority member running for student body president without The Machine approval was assaulted with a knife in her apartment. Another student who acquired a university senate seat without The Machine backing endured so much harassment that she left the university. In 1999, another presidential candidate and international student from the Republic of Congo reported anonymous individuals calling his personal phone threatening to lynch him and attacking him and his campaign team with racial slurs. Crane also notes that The Machine made national news in 2013 for their alleged involvement in fraudulent municipal school board elections that helped a university alumnus win office. Although scholarly research about highly secretive groups like The Machine and The Skull and Bones is often lacking, more is known about some of the practices in the less-secretive sororities and fraternities on university campuses. Most of the research about these secretive organizations is based in the USA given their prominence there; however, these social fraternities at colleges and universities can also be found in places such as the Philippines, France and especially Canada (Fraternities, 1948). Teasing in fraternities and sororities may sometimes enhance bonds between members, but when it is targeted at new members (called pledges), teasing involves negative emotions such as embarrassment, fear and hostility (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998). According to Allan and Madden (2012), a majority of fraternity and sorority members reported hazing as a specific form of bullying. Hazing sometimes requires new fraternity members to consume alcohol until they vomit or lose consciousness; it may involve submission to physical, sexual and/or verbal abuse (Sanday, 2007). Ragsdale et al. (2012) notes that in the USA at least one death is attributed to fraternity hazing every year. Furthermore, fraternity/sorority participation is clearly associated with being a victim of hazing behaviours. Indeed, involvement in fraternity/sorority systems is associated with increased experiences of generalized harassment—which then leads

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

141

to greater risky drinking behaviour and heightened depression (McGinley, Rospenda, Liu, & Richman, 2016). Research also suggests fraternity men are more likely to perpetrate these crimes than their non-affiliated peers—for example, they are more likely to commit sexual assault than other college men (Boyle, 2015; Kingree & Thompson, 2013; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007). Although these findings certainly suggest concerns about these organizations with their somewhat secretive practices and cultures, research specifically linking these outcomes to organizational secrecy and hiding is missing.

6.4

New Religious Movements and Cults

Cults, which are collectives defined by their religious, spiritual or philosophical beliefs (or even worship of a particular person or goal), are often largely hidden from a sceptical public. Also known as new religious movements, the growth of these organizations in the 1960s and 1970s has made some of these names familiar: Moonies, Hare Krishnas, Church of Scientology, etc. (see Eyre, 1994). But most movements are largely unknown until some media event brings them to our attention (various doomsday cults, Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Aum Shinrikyo, etc.). There are several characteristics of cults that make their members especially susceptible to bullying and abuse in particular. For example, members of most cults are in relative isolation from the general public and even most legal authorities; this may allow various forms of violence (including murder in extreme cases), ostracism and abuse to occur in these groups. Schwartz and Kaslow (2001) note that addressing these problems is especially challenging in cults because of the isolation and lack of access, a reluctance of cult members to cooperate and differing views of abuse between a “state” and a “religion” already in tension with one another. That isolation, combined with the religious and spiritual basis of most cults, has also facilitated various forms of spiritual bullying and abuse. Ward (2011, p. 903) explains that spiritual abuse consists of six core themes: leadership representing God (powerful symbolic authority), spiritual bullying (manipulative behaviour of leadership), acceptance via performance (approval of the leadership/ group through obedience), spiritual neglect (detrimental acts of omission by the leadership), expanding external/internal tensions (dissonance between one’s inner and outer worlds) and manifestation of internal states (the biological/psychological/ spiritual repercussions of the abuse). Members of cults may not perceive abusive behaviour as they first join the organization—largely because cults generally deploy systematic and sophisticated techniques to induce states of psychological dependency in members (Jenkinson, 2013); however, they may recognize it over time or after leaving the movement. Jenkinson (2013) describes her experience of being a part of a cult group called Love of God Community (LOGC), particularly focusing on the cult’s sophisticated strategies to exploit its members and the lasting effects of such techniques. In her words,

142

C. R. Scott

At first it was a very positive experience. But, with the arrival of a new leader, the group changed; it became authoritarian, dedicated to a form of puritanical Christianity that demanded total obedience from its members, and used physical punishment and sexual abuse to exert control. We were all harmed psychologically and many were harmed physically by sexual abuse and beatings, which were described as punishments for ‘sin’. I eventually managed to leave, but only because the group collapsed, and even then the controls and triggers stayed with me. I remained trapped in fear and cultic thinking for a further 14 years. (p. 18)

Perhaps no religious movement has received more attention that the Church of Scientology, which boasts members from every populated continent across the globe. Despite its visibility and name recognition, Scott (2013) makes a compelling case that its true identity is actually quite hidden from most. Religious studies professor Hugh Urban notes, “From its origins, the Church of Scientology and its founder have been shrouded in complex layers of secrecy . . . the more scrutiny the movement has faced from the government, anticult groups, and the media, the more intense its strategies of self-concealment have become” (2006, p. 358). Several examples of abusive practices within Scientology have surfaced in scholarly and journalistic accounts. The Church of Scientology “survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner” (Behar, 1991, p. 52). Hundreds of long-time Church of Scientology adherents have quit the church citing mental and physical abuse. However, despite attempts to suppress the Church of Scientology, it remains prosperous (Behar, 1991). The movement has also attempted to discredit psychiatry and psychology through the creation of fronts such as the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)—which has had some success in gaining support from various enterprises and political action groups (Fritz, 2006). As a result, there are a number of children of members who lack access to mental healthcare that is needed (Fritz, 2006); indeed, members have died who were denied care. Members are also pressured into continued payment of sizable sums of money to advance in the church, and employees are forced to sign contracts committing themselves to essentially life-long membership. Through such practices the organization demands and attains strong loyalty (Reitman, 2011). What can easily be seen as abusive and bullying practices extend beyond the members of the organization towards others who might threaten it. Urban (2006) argues that organizations “who face political persecution often adopt even more complex strategies of concealment as a basic means of survival. Scientology, however, would go further still, using the cloak of secrecy not only to protect itself but also to carry out aggressive acts against its enemies” (p. 375), including lawsuits against anyone attempting to reveal its secrets. Other cults and cult leaders have also directed their abuse and violence against people outside the cult as well. As one example, the Aum Shinrikyo, led by Shoko Asahara, used violence against the community when over two dozen members were not elected to Japan’s parliament in the 1990s (Weber, 1999). In response, the group released toxic gases in the Tokyo subway in 1997 that killed 20 and injured more than 5000 people.

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

6.5

143

Hidden Hate Groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups in the USA (where first amendment protections help facilitate their existence) in 2016 remained at near-historic highs, rising to 917 known organizations (Year in Hate and Extremism, 2017). Ties to certain hate organizations rooted in Europe, such as the neoNazis, are growing stronger as well (Neo-Nazi, n.d.). Hate groups foster a climate of hatred and violence towards other groups based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation or some other distinguishing characteristic. Thus, the abuse and harassment here is largely externally directed (though may be directed internally to retain members or to discourage them from reporting group activities to authorities). Clearly not all hate groups attempt to hide, especially if they feel empowered; though interesting, these are not our focus here. One of the best illustrations of a relatively hidden hate organization (and one of the historically more regularly examined) is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Although the Klan today is nowhere near its former size and lacks a central organization, it is still considered one of the largest categories of hate groups in the USA (Bostdorff, 2004). The group has received recent attention following the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA, in 2017 where KKK members were among several white nationalist/supremacist hate groups whose rioting resulted in the death of a young woman standing against the protests. Though sometimes referred to as the “Invisible Empire”, Scott (2013) argues it is really the KKK’s members who are the more invisible part of the organization— using several strategies to conceal their membership (which may allow them to engage in some of the violent actions with reduced chances of punishment). The KKK in the USA has a long history of abuse and violence against those not fitting a largely white, Protestant profile. Early in the group’s history, hooded groups known as “wrecking crews” would kidnap blacks or other offenders from their homes and take them to secret locations where they were beaten or subjected to even more violent crimes (Maclean, 1994). Cross burnings, homemade bomb attacks and open vandalism against Catholics and Jews were also reported (Wilkinson, 2006). Today, significant aspects of the KKK’s activity have moved online. Klan rhetoric online encourages acts of violence, at the same time that Klan websites disavow responsibility for the consequences of their messages (Billig, 2001; Bostdorff, 2004). Indeed, KKK-related websites commonly use extreme racist humour—treating racist violence as a matter of enjoyment and a behaviour to be encouraged (Billig, 2001). Waltman (2003) notes that efforts to recruit young readers to KKK websites produce several negative outcomes: it encourages identification with the KKK, it denigrates out-groups, it permanently taints the out-group’s identity by portraying it as a threat, and it encourages segregation from the out-group. These then lay the groundwork for potential participation in more violent action. However, as concerning as much of this is, the existing research provides only limited evidence directly linking the hidden nature of some hate groups to bullying, abuse and harassment behaviours specifically.

144

6.6

C. R. Scott

Criminal Organizations

Criminal organizations have historically been involved with a range of illegal activities including drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, counterfeiting, gambling, prostitution, weapons and stolen goods as well as cybercrime and markets for organs, antiquities and wildlife (see Scott, 2013). Because these acts and the organizations responsible for them are inappropriate and illegal, most criminal organizations (e.g. Mafia, Irish Mob, Japanese Yakuza) and street/ youth gangs with criminal elements (e.g. Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples) attempt to keep a relatively low profile to avoid law enforcement. Thus, secrecy is vital for many criminal organizations (Paoli, 2002). Criminal organizations are often difficult to locate physically (disappearing into the communities in which they operate) and may structure themselves in ways (e.g. networks) that help them to operate with less visibility (see Williams, 2001). Vital to this hiding is keeping silent—which is perhaps best illustrated by the code of silence found in Mafia organizations: Omerta. Gambetta (2009) also highlights three critical concerns stemming from the inherent secrecy of organized crime. The communication problem (needing to interact with known colleagues without unwanted others intercepting or understanding the message), the identification problem (members needing to be identifiable to one another without being recognized by a third party) and the advertising problem (needing to attract relevant resources/buyers but unable to promote goods/services in traditional ways) are constant challenges for these hidden organizations. In general, organized crime has long been linked to violent and abusive tactics against victims and competitor organizations. Even today, triad societies in China are still engaged in transnational crime and utilize such tactics to carry out their missions. “Triads use the threat of violence or actual violence for a variety of purposes: to enforce contracts or agreements, to muscle in on illicit activity, to protect and expand their territory and to maintain honor” (Van Oudenaren, 2014, p. 133). More specifically, human trafficking is the aspect of organized crime where we may see bullying, abuse, violence and harassment most clearly on display. Though this phenomenon has been largely underground (see Crawford, 2017), human trafficking has also been described as “hidden in plain sight” (see Hepburn & Simon, 2010). It is a global crisis with studies focused on the problem in Asia (see Lee, 2005), Europe (see Konrad, 2002), Africa (see Onuoha, 2011) and the USA (see Newton, Mulcahy, & Martin, 2008) and comparisons from across the globe (see Kostantopoulos et al., 2013). However, only some of this work has focused on the bullying, abuse and harassment that victims experience; as Steele (2010) explains, too often people focus on the work the trafficked individuals are forced to do and may label them prostitutes or sex workers—rather than victims of abuse, violence and criminal activities. However, there is some work linking these hidden operations with a variety of destructive practices for those being trafficked. Trafficking for sexual exploitation is associated with violence and a range of serious health problems (Oram, Stöckl, Busza, Howard, & Zimmerman, 2012). Similarly, as a form of gender-based violence, sex trafficking is thought to primarily affect women and girls, posing serious

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

145

detrimental physical and psychological health risks (Kostantopoulos et al., 2013). Crawford (2017) suggests that the impact of human trafficking on its victims is severe—including physical and emotional abuse. Crawford adds that countries where women and girls are most susceptible are often those with great power disparities between men and women in society—suggesting that some of the same dynamics that facilitate gender-based harassment may also contribute to the prevalence of human trafficking. It is generally known that organizations involved in this type of criminal activity can use various coercive and threatening tactics—which may border on abuse and bullying—to enslave individuals in these conditions; however, there is not an actual body of literature yet that clearly establishes the bullying, abuse and harassment that occurs in these underground/hidden criminal organizations specifically. Another specific type of hidden criminal organization is street gangs. Conquergood (1994) describes gang communication as deliberately opaque and relying extensively on cues that are incomprehensible to outsiders. Written manifestos and charters are carefully kept hidden from outsiders, and “the need for silence, secrecy, and circumspection is intensified because the line between insiders and outsiders is slippery and shifting” (p. 29). This secretive communication not only shields members from outsiders, but it also enhances bonding between gang members. “For young people, engagement in bullying or gaining protection from the threat of physical violence may be an important motivation for joining a gang” (White & Mason, 2012, p. 58). Although that linkage is important, even more problematic is the fact that many criminal street or youth gangs are linked to bullying and aggressive behaviours, especially to women. A gang as a group has normative expectations that its members should be involved in various destructive and criminal activities to maintain their identity and group cohesion (Hennigan & Spanovic, 2012). Moral disengagement strategies, such as moral justification or blaming the victim, serve as a psychological mechanism that justifies and facilitates gang members’ violent and abusive behaviour (Alleyne, Fernandes, & Pritchard, 2014). For instance, gang youth are not only more likely to report their involvement in violent crime than are non-gang youth, but the former also employ moral disengagement strategies more in order to account for their violent behaviours (Alleyne, Fernandes, & Pritchard, 2014). Those who use high levels of moral disengagement may turn off their moral self-sanctions more easily and thereby behave less humanely without feeling guilty (Wood, Moir, & James, 2009). Gang membership and bullying also tend to go hand in hand (Thornberry, 1999). Adult male prisoners who are most involved in gang-related activity are perpetrators of bullying and use high levels of moral disengagement (Wood et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, gangs in school are linked to a higher prevalence of bullying (see Goldman, Giles, & Hogg, 2014). Although most of the abusive and violent behaviour is directed towards victims, gang members are also generally at a higher risk of victimization than non-gang members (Curry, Decker, & Pyrooz, 2014; Peterson, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2004). For instance, rival gangs deliberately target each other for violent victimization and enact retaliatory violence (Kumar &

146

C. R. Scott

Skaperdas, 2008). As insightful as the work making these connections is, research directly connecting the more hidden nature of these gangs (and other criminal organizations) and the destructive behaviours examined in this handbook is still lacking.

6.7

Terrorist and Counterterrorist Organizations

Organizations carrying out terror operate both locally and internationally and can be found across the globe. Though many terrorist organizations may engage in their activity for publicity, other efforts are made by these groups and their members to hide their identity (see Scott, 2013). In fact, they share several commonalities with organized crime when it comes to their hidden nature, as both depend on secrecy (secret membership, secret locales, secret leadership, secret communication, etc.; see Shelley & Picarelli, 2002). Stohl and Stohl (2011) describe terrorist groups as a type of clandestine organization based on three characteristics related to their concealment: members agree to keep their own and others’ affiliations secret, internal structures operate outside public knowledge, and external traces of the organization only become visible over time. Although the focus with these organizations is on the terror tactics they use—which may involve extreme forms of violence against others and even their own members who violate rules—it is also reasonable to connect these organizations to other destructive practices of bullying, abuse and harassment within, perpetrated by and perpetrated against these organizations and their (potential) members. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS or IS), for example, uses barbaric actions (e.g. beheadings, burnings) on videotape as part of their recruitment process (Kibble, 2016). Such actions generate a great amount of tension and anxiety, provoking the viewers into a state of fear which eventually leads many of them to take on the fight (O’Briain, 2015). ISIL’s abusive practices also include the enslavement of women and children as sex slaves (Kibble, 2016). Mackert (2014) specifically points to the secretive nature of these terrorist groups as providing social disclosure and detachment that help facilitate these extreme acts of violence. The violence and abusive practices carried out by terrorist organizations are increasingly being viewed as not only physical but psychological. Martín-Peña, Rodríguez-Carballeira, Escartín Solanelles, Porrúa García and Willem Winkel (2010) describe strategies of psychological violence (PV) as based on words, gestures, pictures and symbols meant to intimidate or create fear in a systematic fashion different from isolated acts of violence. These authors specifically examine PV strategies used by the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) terrorist network in the Basque Country context that had serious consequences for their victims. More specifically, these PV strategies focused on isolation and social exclusion, surveillance of activities used as a form of pressure, emotional abuse to intimidate and humiliate and stigmatization of certain people as the enemy. These psychological

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

147

strategies of terrorism seem to have much in common with bullying and harassment behaviours even if they are not usually labelled as such. Bullying practices are also found in recruitment efforts by these organizations. Groups like ISIL have used social media for bullying—primarily in their recruitment of supporters and new members. As Awan (2017) notes, organizations like this are now increasingly fighting an online cyberwar to spread their ideology and propaganda. Social media sites (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) use violent images and videos to target young people. Specifically, online hate is used by ISIL for recruiting new members and spreading their propaganda by promoting violence and encouraging aggressive behaviours. “Isis members act in a cybermob mentality, and are also using social media to cyberbully people through personal interaction with online members” (Awan, 2017, p. 142). Awan found there were some clear overlaps with aggressive behaviours and the use of videos and posts online to coordinate aggressive responses and enter into conversations of hate. Other work has suggested that bullying, isolation and other destructive behaviours towards an individual from family, schools or elsewhere can cause them to join terrorist (or other hidden) organizations and/or to carry out terrorist attacks (Twemlow & Sacco, 2003). “Shaming and a dismissive home and social environment promotes social isolation and disconnection from peer and community group objectives. As these factors percolate, the dialogue between the container (school or nation) and the oppressed (child or political factions) stops and fantasy takes over” (p. 112). In other instances, these destructive practices may be employed by those attempting to fight terrorist organizations. In some cases, harassment may occur within the intelligence community; multiple sexual harassment court cases and other descriptions would seem to confirm that about organizations such as the US Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA (see Hasler, 2013). In other cases, counterterrorism units, eager to clamp down on terrorists, may actively harass suspected organizations and their members. Carpenter, Tait, Quadrelli and Thompson (2016) detail stories of Muslims who had never been charged with any crimes feeling harassed by law enforcement who would surveille them, put them on no-fly lists and make false accusations. Although concerns about abusive practices of law enforcement are perhaps not new, when those involved in the harassment and abuse are secret police or covert counterterrorism units, they may be especially difficult to address by the victims of those actions. Relatedly, the threat of terror has also been used as a justification for various human rights abuses in certain parts of the globe. Tynes (2006) describes the harassment conducted throughout Africa under exaggerated concerns about insurgency and terrorism as well as largely secret courts where those targeted have been prosecuted. Rhodes and Tscherne-Lempiainen (2002) described abuses in Central Asian countries that represent bullying and harassment by law enforcement. They report harassment of Muslims and opposition parties by security forces in Kazakhstan; they note harassment and threats against journalists and human rights defenders who are critical of the government and its extreme counterterrorism practices in Kyrgyzstan; and they document the questionable arrests of thousands of Muslims

148

C. R. Scott

and the subsequent harassment of their friends and family by a government combatting extremists in Uzbekistan. Thus, abuse, bullying and harassment are not only used by terrorist organizations as part of their general activities and recruitment efforts, but are also used by counterterrorist organizations; when these organizations are hidden or more secretive, such destructive practices may be even more consequential.

6.8

Dirty Work Organizations

Dirty work and stigmatized work are often found in organizations that conceal to some degree (see Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Dirty work is defined as jobs or tasks mostly perceived as disgusting or disgracing in society (Hughes, 1951, 1962). This dirty work can describe certain aspects of the sex industry, work that is physically dirty (sewer workers, sanitation/disposal companies) or any of several where the organization’s identity is viewed negatively by the public (e.g. big tobacco or big oil industries). Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) contend that the stigma from dirty work has the potential to jeopardize positive organizational identity formation. In such cases, organizational members might deny or hide their affiliations with the dirty work as a way to manage this identity threat. In other instances, these hidden places may provide a safe haven from destructive behaviours in the outside world; however, being engaged in this sort of work may also make one more susceptible to behaviours such as abuse, bullying and harassment. A number of hidden organizations that involve dirty work also fit what Hudson (2008; Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009) describes as core-stigmatized organizations, which are those collectives whose central outputs, processes or customers violate social norms—resulting in a negative image that often cannot be repaired. Hudson talks specifically about these organizations using various “hiding strategies”, which involve discreet locations, nondescript signage and limited advertising. Scott (2013) notes that a number of core-stigmatized organizations are found in the sex industry—which might include pornography creation/distribution, businesses that provide escorts and adult entertainment, bathhouses, brothels and more. Hudson and Okhuysen (2009) talk specifically about men’s bathhouses, which use hiding strategies to make “bathhouses nearly invisible and anonymous” (p. 141). Even bathhouse patrons often report negative views of these bathhouses and do not wish others to know they were there (Elwood, Greene, & Carter, 2003). Those researchers describe this as a code of silence, where members say nothing about being there or having seen anyone they know. Thus, the bathhouses themselves are not places where we see bullying, harassment and the like. Instead, the places exemplify what has been called an erotic oasis (Delph, 1978), which is a physically bounded and guarded setting that is largely separate from the conventional world. Holmes, O’Byrne and Gastaldo (2007) describe in some detail how men’s bathhouses have emerged as a place of relative safety and privacy for men to have sex with men—at least compared to more public environments where “if the gay men were discovered, they could be arrested, blackmailed, beaten, robbed, or killed”

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

149

(p. 275). Thus, these hidden organizations may provide a sense of protection from certain destructive behaviours found elsewhere in society. Other aspects of the sex industry may be similar. For example, recent work on legal brothels also reveals a complex picture of strategically managing (in)visibility in ways that both reveal and conceal the brothel as well as its employees and clients (Wolfe & Blithe, 2015). Scott and Kang (2017) suggest these organizations may serve an appropriate purpose by providing relatively safe environments for various sexual activities—concealing such activities from general public view but also protecting workers in such industries. Wolfe and Blithe’s interviews with brothel owners and sex workers suggest that brothel workers are safer than street workers and legal brothel workers do have legal protections. Although this greatly reduces bullying, harassment and abuse, members of these organizations and their clients still take several steps to guard against such behaviours (e.g. no use of names, secure facilities, not talking about work in the community). Their study also revealed that clients using such places may have frailties and challenges—suggesting that the brothel (like bathhouses) can be a place of refuge from certain destructive behaviours experienced elsewhere. In other forms of dirty work in the sex industry—especially in parts of the world where such practices are illegal and/or highly stigmatized—examples of bullying and abuse are more prevalent. Miller’s (2002) extensive set of interviews reveals much about different aspects of the sex industry in Sri Lanka, noting that street workers are subject to harassment and abuse from police who berate and scold them and who can exploit them through bribery. These women have no legal recourse and are thus easy targets of abuse. Miller reports that even greater abuse occurs to the gay and transgendered men in the sex industry—who may be in this industry in part because of the bullying and harassment they receive from others that make it hard to attain and hold other forms of employment. A slightly different situation exists for massage parlours and brothels, which “are widespread and often have a cover operation such as a restaurant or garment shop to conceal their activities” (p. 1063); but even these off-street aspects of the sex industry are subject to police and client harassment. Scott (2013) describes a different type of dirty work (tax collection) as found in the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The agency itself is relatively well known— in part because of several scandals (including tax evasion for a former commissioner and recent targeting of certain political groups) that continue to put it in a very negative spotlight—and has in fact been described as engaging in bullying and harassment of taxpayers (see Hirsh, 1997; Topolnicki & McDonald, 1990). However, the hidden aspect of this organization is its members. Because of this bad reputation and the nature of IRS work (i.e. collecting taxes and going after those who have not paid), its members are engaged in dirty work and take several steps to hide their affiliation with this office. If members are able to conceal what they do from most others, this may help them continue that employment without social harassment and ridicule about their work. Though research is lacking, it is also possible that the silence of members in this type of hidden organization (see Scott, 2013) helps create a culture reluctant to stand against bullying and harassment of the

150

C. R. Scott

public. As this example illustrates, there is a potentially vast range of victims and perpetrators of bullying, harassment and abuse in these hidden organizations linked in various ways to dirty work (for a detailed discussion, see Mendonca and D’Cruz, ▶ Chap. 19, “Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in the Context of Dirty Work”, this volume, Section 2).

6.9

Other Hidden Organizations

Although secret societies, cults, hate groups, organized crime, terrorist and counterterrorism organizations and dirty work all represent types of hidden organizations with links to various destructive behaviours, several additional organizations not falling into those categories can also be connected to bullying, harassment and/or abuse. Here, we consider hidden support groups, hacktivist organizations and aspects of the informal economy. Scott (2013) writes specifically about Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as a 12-step support group that is partially hidden as a way to help members manage their addiction to alcohol. Although AA is generally viewed as an appropriately hidden support organization (Scott & Kang, 2017), members in certain cultures may at times feel targeted for belonging. For example, Christensen (2010) reports members in Japan being taunted and ridiculed by loved ones for not drinking alcohol. AA is well known but is representative of a much broader category of support organizations that may use anonymity and other strategies to help hide themselves. These support organizations may specifically help address problems such as bullying, harassment and abuse (e.g. Your Life Your Voice at http://www.yourlifeyourvoice.org/Pages/ home.aspx or Stomp Out Bullying at http://www.stompoutbullying.org/informationand-resources/helpchat-line/)—using anonymous tools and other concealment strategies to help hide members for their own protection. As important as that often is, that same anonymity in these hidden support organizations is sometimes problematic. For example, members may feel rejected if online questions are not answered or if they do not perceive they are receiving support. Malik and Coulson (2010) describe the bullying in online infertility support communities, where the hostile behaviours include bitchy remarks, bullying and patronizing responses—especially those who had been successful with treatments. Indeed, hidden organizations operating largely through anonymous online channels may be more likely to experience cyberbullying. Another type of hidden support organization can be found in community-based agencies and shelters serving victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault as well as those focused on certain homeless or immigrant populations. These facilities remain largely hidden to most of the public since their primary goal is to provide safe places for victims where abusers are unable to locate them (Macy, Giattina, Sangster, Crosby, & Montijo, 2009). In other cases they maintain a reasonably low profile or are located in certain neighbourhoods to avoid negative community reaction and to not draw undue attention to their work. As these examples help illustrate, despite

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

151

some concerns that may accompany online anonymity, most of these support groups provide a refuge for those seeking to escape abuse, harassment, bullying and other destructive behaviours. A rather different type of hidden organization goes by the name Anonymous. Scott (2013) discusses the strategies the organization and its members use to conceal their identity, concluding that they are a well-hidden organization overall. In some ways, this faceless collective has tackled organizations engaged in various forms of harassment and abuse—taking down White supremacist Hal Turner’s website, attacking the Westboro Baptist Church and its anti-gay rhetoric, organizing multiple attacks on the Church of Scientology for its practices and recently unmasking members of the KKK. Klein (2015) argues that 80% of Anonymous’s activities are related to free speech and social justice as it comes to the aid of hate group victims. Others may view the denial-of-service attacks on several corporations and government groups as not only illegal attacks that threaten national security but bullying and harassing behaviours. In revealing the KKK members, Anonymous used “doxing”, which refers to the documenting of others through the release of private information without consent, typically to exert power or blackmail (Ellis, 2017). Such practices may themselves be viewed as harassment. The bullying and harassment may also occur internally. Lewis (2014) notes that because anonymity is fundamental to the group, those who seek name recognition or fame by breaking the rule of maintaining anonymity are ostracized, kicked out of the group and sometimes even doxed. Another set of hidden organizations can be found in what is called the informal economy, which includes the organizations and activities that are not monitored, not taxed and not part of any official estimates of gross national product or employment (i.e. not the formal economy). This exists everywhere and may represent over 40% of the entire economy in some developing parts of the world. Scott and Haseki (2015) have specifically described the informal economy as containing both hidden organizations and/or hidden workers. Webb, Tihanyi, Ireland and Sirmon (2009) describe these organizations as socially legitimate in most cases. Furthermore, some organizations operate in this shadow economy to avoid harassment from government tax collectors and regulators. However, in the vast informal economy there are clearly organizations that operate off the books in part to exploit workers. Perhaps the most obvious example can be found in sweatshops. A quick search online shows numerous examples of alleged abuses in these working environments—abuses and harassment that are made possible in part because the industry is operating below the radar in unregulated ways. Pilisuk (1998) actually describes the hidden structure of violence that occurs to women and children in sweatshops across the globe. Bullman (2003) notes the abusive practices in sweatshops and specifically describes the harassment that immigrant and ethnic minority women disproportionately encounter—harassment that is often difficult for workers to escape from legally or otherwise. Bullman reports that sweatshop owners are able to ensure workers accept terrible working conditions “through a scheme of systematic harassment and degradation” where supervisors “constantly harass their employees to work faster” (p. 1027). Bullman

152

C. R. Scott

goes on to describe the physical, verbal and sexual abuse that is experienced regularly in many of these sweatshops.

6.10

Conclusion

Two primary observations can be made about the linkages between hidden organizations and destructive behaviours such as bullying, abuse and harassment. First, there is clearly only limited research directly examining these behaviours in the context of hidden organizations. However, there is a sizable amount of work about causes and motivations for bullying, harassment, abuse and related behaviours that may take on special significance for more hidden organizations and their members. Silence, a lack of safeguards (e.g. grievance procedures), chaotic leadership and power disparities, rigid/secretive cultures, uncertainty and distorted communication all potentially become more problematic in environments where workers have to remain hidden or the organization itself is operating largely out of public view. All this suggests the need for more research that specifically establishes the links between hiddenness (or visibility) and various destructive organizational behaviours. Work theorizing and problematizing efforts to manage visibility (see Flyverbom, Leonardi, Stohl, & Stohl, 2016) can be a starting point as this construct is then connected to bullying, harassment, abuse and related concerns. The existing work on these destructive practices should move beyond more traditional workplaces to consider a broader range of far less traditional organizations where these practices take on special meaning. Another missing piece that is especially difficult (and yet quite important) in the context of hidden organizations is the work helping people cope with these problems—work related to resilience as well as efforts to provide greater safeguards and other means to address problematic behaviours. Scott (2015) has also suggested that it is essential that we examine the key ethical issues associated with hidden organizations. That call resonates especially loudly when we are describing destructive practices associated with these organizations. Further research is needed to better understand the ways in which hiddenness is both a cause and an effect of behaviours such as bullying, harassment and abuse; we also need to more closely examine the various ways in which hidden organizations represent aspects of the problem as well as a potential solution for these behaviours. It would be easy to simply assume that hidden organizations experience more bullying, harassment and abuse, but such a view is overly simplistic considering that concealment can sometimes encourage more ethical behaviour or provide a refuge from unethical practices. As a second set of observations, the hidden organizations examined here appear to be connected to bullying, abuse and harassment in four key ways. The largest of these categories describes the hidden organization as the perpetrator of these destructive behaviours targeted primarily towards outsiders. The intensity of this behaviour even within this category varies. In some cases, it may be a group like The Skull and Bones or the Church of Scientology harassing journalists or outsiders from looking into their secretive behaviours. Somewhat more intense are efforts by certain

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

153

stigmatized organizations such as the IRS to bully the taxpaying public or online denial-of-service attacks by hacker groups like Anonymous. Obviously some of the most intense tactics are found in violent cults, terrorist organizations, counterterrorist organizations and organized crime which may use abuse and violence targeted at specific others. When the hidden nature of these organizations allows them to successfully engage in such behaviours, this is clearly problematic. A second key connection concerns the internal abuse, bullying and harassment that are directed to one’s own members in these hidden organizations. As noted in this chapter, secretive fraternal organizations may abuse new members, cults and terrorist organizations may use a variety of destructive tactics to keep their members in the group, some anonymous support group members may attack one other and hidden organizations such as Anonymous may be abusive to members who violate rules. Some of the most abusive practices can be found in the sweatshops operating in the informal economy, where workers may endure horrific conditions from which they are largely unable to escape (and from which they have few if any legal protections). These destructive practices may be especially hidden and thus are even more difficult to address. A third connection between hidden organizations and these destructive behaviours is found when the hidden collective or its members actually become the targets of bullying, harassment or abuse from outside perpetrators. Though this reversal of roles seems less common, there clearly are instances of cult and hate group members being harassed by outsiders, sex workers and other dirty workers being attacked by authorities or the public and even members of anonymous support groups being harassed by friends and families. In some cases, groups like the Church of Scientology and the KKK have actually been the external targets of other hidden organizations (i.e. Anonymous). When the organization’s motivation for hiding is seen as problematic, we may find bullying and harassment of these organizations and their members to be justified; however, for organizations or members who are hiding for more acceptable reasons, such destructive practices are likely to be more concerning (see Scott & Kang, 2017). A final, but important, connection between hidden organizations and these destructive practices is found when the hidden organizations provide an escape from outside targeting. Support groups and shelters provide the best examples of how hidden organizations provide safety from the abusive and harassing practices found in one’s home or elsewhere. Stigmatized organizations such as brothels and bathhouses can serve as something of a protected refuge for certain groups which may be attacked for their behaviours outside such contexts. A gang may provide an environment where members can escape outside abuse and bullying and find protection from such behaviours. Even the underground nature of the informal economy may allow some to escape what are seen as abuse and harassment from government authorities. In these situations, hidden organizations are clearly part of broader efforts to curb these destructive behaviours in society. In closing, examining bullying, abuse and harassment as they relate in multiple ways to what are called hidden organizations allows us to more fully consider two aspects of organizing that are rarely connected in the research literature. This chapter

154

C. R. Scott

has attempted to not only highlight some of the existing connections but to suggest several possibilities for continued work in this area. Such work seems essential for understanding these dark behaviours as they relate to the sometimes shadowy places we call hidden organizations.

6.11

Endnote

I would like to acknowledge Alexis Matson for her assistance in locating relevant literature for this chapter as well as Song Hee Park and Xizi Ru for their help in the final stages of the project.

6.12

Cross-References

▶ Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying ▶ Ostracism in the Workplace ▶ Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace ▶ Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders ▶ Workplace Bullying in Precarious Employment ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Corrections ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in the Context of Dirty Work

6.13

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Depersonalized Bullying: An Emergent Concern in the Contemporary Workplace, Vol. 1 Ethical Challenges in Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Aware ness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1 Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1 Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Employee Silence and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 Caste and Workplace Bullying: A Persistent and Pervasive Phenomenon, Vol. 3 Ethnicity and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3 Religious Harassment and Bullying in the Workplace, Vol. 3 Sexual Orientation and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

155

Workplace Bullying and Culture: Diverse Conceptualizations and Interpretations, Vol. 3 Workplace Bullying and Gender: An Overview of Empirical Findings, Vol. 3

References Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 83–90. Alleyne, E., Fernandes, I., & Pritchard, E. (2014). Denying humanness to victims: How gang members justify violent behavior. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(6), 750–762. Anheier, H. K. (2010). Secret societies. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Ed.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pt. 19, pp. 1355–1358). New York: Springer Science. Arnejčič, B. (2016). Mobbing in company: Levels and typology. Organizacija, 49(4), 240–250. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work, and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413–434. Awan, I. (2017). Cyber-extremism: Isis and the power of social media. Society, 54(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0114-0. Barnes, A., Cross, D., Lester, L., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., & Monks, H. (2012). The invisibility of covert bullying among students: Challenges for school intervention. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 22(2), 206–226. Behar, R. (1991). The thriving cult of greed and power. Time, 137(18), 50. Billig, M. (2001). Humour and hatred: The racist jokes of the Ku Klux Klan. Discourse & Society, 12(3), 267–289. Bostdorff, D. M. (2004). The internet rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan: A case study in web site community building run amok. Communication Studies, 55(2), 340–361. Boyle, K. M. (2015). Social psychological processes that facilitate sexual assault within the fraternity party subculture. Sociology Compass, 9(5), 386–399. Bullman, G. A. (2003). Abuse of female sweatshop laborers: Another form of sexual harassment that does not fit neatly into the judiciary’s current understanding of discrimination because of sex. Indiana Law Journal, 78, 1019–1043. Carpenter, B., Tait, G., Quadrelli, C., & Thompson, I. (2016). Investigating death: The emotional and cultural challenges for police. Policing and Society, 26(6), 698–712. Christensen, P. (2010). Struggles with sobriety: Alcoholics Anonymous membership in Japan. Ethnology: An International Journal of Cultural and Social Anthropology, 49, 45–60. Conquergood, D. (1994). Homeboys and hoods: Gangs and cultural space. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in contexts: Studies of natural groups (pp. 23–55). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Costas, J., & Grey, C. (2016). Secrecy at work: The hidden architecture of organizations. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cowan, R. L. (2009). “Rocking the boat” and “Continuing to fight”: Un/productive justice episodes and the problem of workplace bullying. Human Communication, 12(3), 283–301. Crane, M. (2015). The tap: An examination of the controversy of secret societies on college campuses. Theses and Dissertations, University of South Carolina Crawford, M. (2017). International sex trafficking. Women & Therapy, 40(1–2), 101–122. Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. (2014). Confronting gangs: Crime and community (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013). Navigating the extended reach: Target experiences of cyberbullying at work. Information and Organization, 23(4), 324–343. Delph, E. W. (1978). The silent community: Public homosexual encounters (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills: Sage.

156

C. R. Scott

Dougherty, D. S. (2009). Sexual harassment as destructive organizational process. In P. LutgenSandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing (pp. 203–225). New York: Routledge. Dussault, M., & Frenette, É. (2015). Supervisors’ transformational leadership and bullying in the workplace. Psychological Reports, 117, 724–733. Ellis, E. G. (2017, August 17). Whatever your side, doxing is a perilous form of justice. Wired. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from https://www.wired.com/story/doxing-charlottesville/ Elwood, W. N., Greene, K., & Carter, K. K. (2003). Gentlemen don’t speak: Communication norms and condom use in bath houses. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 277–297. Eyre, A. (1994). Religious cults in twentieth century America. American Studies Today Online, 1. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/cults.htm Fitzgerald, L. F. (2017). Still the last great open secret: Sexual harassment as systemic trauma. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 18, 483–489. Fleming, F. (2016). Workplace bullying: A lesson for OH. Occupational Health, 68(4), 23–25. Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P. M., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age: Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10, 98–109. Foer, A. A. (2000). The politics of antitrust in the United States: Public choice and public choices. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 62, 475–497. “Fraternities in Canada”. (1948). The encyclopedia of Canada (Vol. II). University Associates of Canada. Retrieved January 6, 2018, from http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/ quebechistory/encyclopedia/FraternitiesinCanada.htm Fritz, G. K. (2006). Awakening to scientology. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 22, 8. Gambetta, D. (2009). Codes of the underworld: How criminals communicate. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Goldman, L., Giles, H., & Hogg, M. A. (2014). Going to extremes: Social identity and communication processes associated with gang membership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(6), 813–832. Goodboy, A. K., & Martin, M. (2015). The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the dark triad. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 1–4. Grow, M. (2012, February). Hidden hazards in the workplace. Chemistry in Australia, 79(1), 32–33. Hasler, S. (2013). Covert sexism in espionage. World Today, 69(1), 7–7. Hennigan, K., & Spanovic, M. (2012). Gang dynamics through the lens of social identity theory. In Youth gangs in international perspective (pp. 127–149). New York: Springer. Hepburn, S., & Simon, R. J. (2010). Hidden in plain sight: Human trafficking in the United States. Gender Issues, 27(1–2), 1–26. Hetherington, A. (2000). Exploitation in therapy and counselling: A breach of professional standards. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28(1), 11–22. Hirsh, M. (1997). Infernal revenue disservice. Newsweek, 130(15), 33. History that remains hidden. (1997, August 5). New York Times, 146, p. A18. Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: Workplace bullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 382–416. Holmes, D., O’Byrne, P., & Gastaldo, D. (2007). Setting the space for sex: Architecture, desire and health issues in gay bathhouses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(2), 273–284. Hudson, B. A. (2008). Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 252–266. Hudson, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2009). Not with a ten-foot pole: Core stigma, stigma transfer, and improbable persistence of men’s bathhouses. Organization Science, 20, 134–153. Hughes, E. C. (1951). Work and the self. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads (pp. 313–323). New York: Harper & Brothers. Hughes, E. C. (1962). Good people and dirty work. Social Problems, 10, 3–11. Jenkinson, G. (2013). Working with cult survivors. Therapy Today, 24(4), 18–21.

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

157

Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1231–1247. Kibble, D. G. (2016). Beheading, raping, and burning: How the Islamic State justifies its actions. Military Review, 96(2), 28–35. Kingree, J. B., & Thompson, M. P. (2013). Fraternity membership and sexual aggression: An examination of mediators of the association. Journal of American College Health, 61(4), 213–221. Klein, A. G. (2015). Vigilante media: Unveiling Anonymous and the hacktivist personal in the global press. Communication Monographs, 82, 379–401. Konrad, H. (2002). Trafficking in human beings-the ugly face of Europe. Helsinki Monitor, 13, 260. Kostantopoulos, W. M., Ahn, R., Alpert, E. J., Cafferty, E., McGahan, A., Williams, T. P., Castor, J. P., Wolferstan, N., Purcell, G., & Burke, T. F. (2013). An international comparative public health analysis of sex trafficking of women and girls in eight cities: Achieving a more effective health sector response. Journal of Urban Health, 90, 1194–1204. Kumar, V., & Skaperdas, S. (2008). On the economics of organized crime. Prepared for inclusion in N. Garoupa (Ed.), Criminal law and economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lee, J. J. (2005). Human trafficking in East Asia: Current trends, data collection, and knowledge gaps. International Migration, 43(1–2), 165–201. Lewis, H. (2014). Out of the ordinary. New Statesman, 143(5238), 21. Lopez, S. H., Hodson, R., & Roscigno, V. J. (2009). Power, status, and abuse at work: General and sexual harassment compared. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 3–27. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Sypher, B. D. (Eds.). (2009). Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing. New York: Routledge. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). Workplace bullying. In P. Lutgen-Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing (pp. 10–27). New York: Routledge. Mackert, J. (2014). The secret society and the social dynamics of terrorist behavior. Revue de Synthese, 135, 331–359. MacLean, N. K. (1994). Behind the mask of chivalry: The making of the second Ku Klux Klan. New York: Oxford University Press. Macy, R. J., Giattina, M., Sangster, T. H., Crosby, C., & Montijo, N. J. (2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black box. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(5), 359–373. Malik, S., & Coulson, N. S. (2010). ‘They all supported me but I felt like I suddenly didn’t belong anymore’: An exploration of perceived disadvantages to online support seeking. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 31(3), 140–149. Martín-Peña, J., Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á., Escartín Solanelles, J., Porrúa García, C., & Willem Winkel, F. (2010). Strategies of psychological terrorism perpetrated by ETA’s network: Delimitation and classification. Psicothema, 22(1), 112. McGinley, M., Rospenda, K. M., Liu, L., & Richman, J. A. (2016). It isn’t all just fun and games: Collegiate participation in extracurricular activities and risk for generalized and sexual harassment, psychological distress, and alcohol use. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 152–163. Miller, J. (2002). Violence and coercion in Sri Lanka’s commercial sex industry: Intersections of gender, sexuality, culture, and the law. Violence Against Women, 8(9), 1044–1073. Murnen, S. K., & Kohlman, M. H. (2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 145–157. Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), 225–257. Neo-Nazi. (n.d.). Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved January 6, 2018, from https://www. splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/neo-nazi

158

C. R. Scott

Newton, P. J., Mulcahy, T. M., & Martin, S. E. (2008). Finding victims of human trafficking. Bethesda: University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center. O’Briain, C. (2015). ISIL’s outward expression of internal conflict. USA Today Magazine, 143(2836), 56–58. Olson, P. (2014, February 14). Anonymous app ‘Secret’ will add more privacy controls. Forbes, p. 3. Onuoha, B. (2011). The state human trafficking and human rights issues in Africa. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(2), 149–166. Oram, S., Stöckl, H., Busza, J., Howard, L. M., & Zimmerman, C. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence and the physical, mental, and sexual health problems associated with human trafficking: Systematic review. PLoS Medicine, 9(5), e1001224. Paoli, L. (2002). The paradoxes of organized crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 37(1), 51–97. Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2004). Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 793–815. Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2015). Relationships between Machiavellianism, organizational culture, and workplace bullying: Emotional abuse from the target’s and the perpetrator’s perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 83–93. Pilisuk, M. (1998). The hidden structure of contemporary violence. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 4(3), 197–216. Ragsdale, K., Porter, J. R., Mathews, R., White, A., Gore-Felton, C., & McGarvey, E. L. (2012). “Liquor before beer, you’re in the clear”: Binge drinking and other risk behaviours among fraternity/sorority members and their non-Greek peers. Journal of Substance Use, 17(4), 323–339. Reitman, J. (2011). Inside scientology: The story of America’s most secretive religion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Rhodes, A., & Tscherne-Lempiainen, P. (2002). Human rights and terrorism in the Central Asian OSCE states. Helsinki Monitor, 13(1), 36–51. Robbins, A. (2002). Secrets of the tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the hidden paths of power. New York: Little, Brown. Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561–1589. Salter, M. (2012). The role of ritual in the organised abuse of children. Child Abuse Review, 21(6), 440–451. Samnani, A. K., & Singh, P. (2016). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 537–549. Sanday, P. R. (2007). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus (2nd ed.). New York: NYU Press. Schwartz, L. L., & Kaslow, F. W. (2001). The cult phenomenon: A turn of the century update. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(1), 13–22. Scott, C. R. (2013). Anonymous agencies, backstreet businesses, and covert collectives: Rethinking organizations in the 21st century. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Scott, C. R. (2015). Bringing hidden organizations out of the shadows: Introduction to the special issue. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 503–511. Scott, C. R., & Haseki, M. (2015). Communication, visibility, and the informal economy: A framework for future research. In P. Godfrey (Ed.), Management, society, and the informal economy (pp. 42–59). New York: Routledge. Scott, C. R., & Kang, K. (2017). Invisible domains and unexplored terrains: A multi-level view of (in)appropriately hidden organizations. In P. Salem & C. E. Timmerman (Eds.), Transformative practice and research in organizational communication (pp. 43–61). Hershey: IGI Global. Shelley, L. I., & Picarelli, J. T. (2002). Methods not motives: Implications of the convergence of international organized crime and terrorism. Police Practice and Research, 3(4), 305–318.

6

Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as. . .

159

Sias, P. (2009). Social ostracism, cliques, and outcasts. In P. Lutgen-Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing (pp. 145–163). New York: Routledge. Simmel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies. American Journal of Sociology, 11(4), 441–498. Steele, S. L. (2010). ‘Combating the scourge’: Constructing the masculine ‘other’ through US government anti-trafficking campaigns. Journal of Hate Studies, 9(1), 33–64. Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2011). Secret agencies: The communicative constitution of a clandestine organization. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1197–1215. Thornberry, T. P. (1999). Membership in youth gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 147–166). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Topolnicki, D., & McDonald, E. (1990). Presumed guilty by the IRS. Money, 19(10), 80–89. Twemlow, S. W., & Sacco, F. C. (2003). Reflections on the making of a terrorist. In C. Covington, P. Williams, J. Arundale, & J. Knox (Eds.), Terrorist and war: Unconscious dynamics of political violence (pp. 97–123). London: Karnac. Tynes, R. (2006). US counter-terrorism policies in Africa are counter to development. African Security Review, 15, 108–113. Urban, H. B. (2006). Fair game: Secrecy, security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74, 356–389. Van Oudenaren, J. S. (2014). Enduring menace: The triad societies of southeast China. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 41(3), 127–153. Vickers, M. H. (2014). Towards reducing the harm: Workplace bullying as workplace corruption – A critical review. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(2), 95–113. Waltman, M. S. (2003). Stratagems and heuristics in the recruitment of children into communities of hate: The fabric of our future nightmares. Southern Communication Journal, 69, 22–36. Ward, D. J. (2011). The lived experience of spiritual abuse. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 14(9), 899–915. Webb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, D., & Sirmon, D. G. (2009). You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34, 492–510. Weber, E. (1999). Apocalypses: Prophecies, cults, and millennial beliefs through the ages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, R., & Mason, R. (2012). Bullying and gangs. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 57–62. Wilkinson, W. C., Jr. (2006). Memories of the Ku Klux Klan in one Indiana town. The Indiana Magazine of History, 102, 339–354. Williams, P. (2001). Transnational criminal networks. In J. Arquilla & D. Ronfeldt (Eds.), Networks and netwars: The future of terror, crime and militancy (pp. 61–97). Santa Monica: Rand. Wolfe, A. W., & Blithe, S. J. (2015). Managing image in a core-stigmatized organization: Concealment and revelation in Nevada’s legal brothels. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 539–563. Wood, J., Moir, A., & James, M. (2009). Prisoners’ gang-related activity: The importance of bullying and moral disengagement. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(6), 569–581. Year in Hate and Extremism. (2017, February 15). Intelligence Report. Retrieved September 30, 2017, from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/year-hate-andextremism

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying Maria Georgo

Contents 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media and Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media Depictions of Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplace Bullying Depictions in the News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Headlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Corporate Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.4 Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Workplace Bullying Portrayals in Social Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Workplace Bullying Portrayals in Television and Films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.1 Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.2 Hollywood Films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Opportunities for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 Directions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.11 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.12 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

162 163 164 165 166 167 168 168 169 169 172 172 174 177 178 179 180 180 180

M. Georgo (*) Consulting, Research, and Training, Talking Hearts Project, Longwood, FL, USA Peace and Justice Institute, Valencia College, Winter Park, FL, USA College of Continuing Education, Social Sciences, Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, NH, USA Human Capital Development and Instructional Technology Management, LaSalle University, Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_17

161

162

M. Georgo

Abstract

Workplace bullying is a complex global phenomenon, as are the effects of media. This chapter provides the reader with an introduction to media depictions of workplace bullying by asking one simple question: How is workplace bullying represented in media? The chapter takes a closer look at media depictions of workplace bullying in the news, social media, television and movies. We hold media literally in the palm of our hands, and it has the power to both shape perceptions about bullying and provide a platform through which bullying can occur. Media research suggests that what we see can be confused with what we know and, moreover, what we do. It supports the notion that media representations have influence and have the capacity for harm or for education. While the indicators are strong, the proof is still disputed. This chapter raises attention to the abundance of portrayals of workplace bullying in our midst and the conceivable propensity for impact on lived experiences. It highlights the possibility for study of all formats of media and the opportunity for isolating and examining depictions of bullies or targets or bystanders in media and then in turn considering linkages with lived experiences. This chapter provides a synthesis of current literature and examples of depictions and further establishes evidence and justification for the exploration and study of media depictions of workplace bullying. The reader should be prepared to experience a change, perhaps an urging to delve deeper and more urgently into the predilection for media and the doggedness of workplace bullying.

7.1

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to serve as a catalyst for the exploration and study of media depictions of workplace bullying. By providing readers with a unique look at media portrayals of workplace bullying, the aim is to raise questions while recommending pathways for further research. The primary question that provides the framework for this chapter is: How is workplace bullying represented in media? Media is a vehicle of diverse capacity, a means for communicating, and, like work, it is central and prominent in our lives. Its importance is difficult to comprehend, and yet it is deeply rooted in all facets of society (Couldry, 2012, p. 3). Media depictions of workplace bullying appear in non-fiction stories or reports of lived experiences, as well as in fictional stories or what is otherwise considered entertainment. The portrayals discussed in this chapter are primarily through the lens of four types of media: news, social media, television and films—specifically Hollywood movies. Couldry (2012) has described media as being “ambiguous”, “unevenly shared consciousness” and “powerfully transmitted and mediated” (Couldry, 2012, p. 4). Media depictions influence the attitudes and practices of their audiences. Research making connections between workplace bullying and media is limited (Planalp, Metts, & Tracy, 2010). An online search for “media depictions and workplace bullying” yielded 688,000 titles (google.com, 6 April 2018), of which only 3 were

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

163

scholarly references. They were followed by a myriad of separate and distinct search results about workplace bullying and/or media depictions. Research on the topic of media depictions of workplace bullying may be uncommon, but media depictions themselves are innumerable. These depictions may contribute to an erroneous understanding of acceptable behaviours at work. Media sources are in a unique position to teach their audience about “social issues of which they have little knowledge, through a variety of mediums” (Osborne, 2016, p. 17). They also reach “a wide audience of people and influence public opinion” (Osborne, 2016, p. 1). Research of media has suggested its capacity to stimulate perceived realism that in turn can cultivate aspirations, imitation and beliefs (Behm-Morawitz, Lewallen, & Miller, 2016). While not specific to workplace bullying, much research has linked media representations to adverse results, providing a substantive basis for considering the same for workplace bullying. Sumner, Scarduzio and Daggett (2016) suggest “that repeated exposure to media narratives of workplace bullying might influence audience perceptions and normalize bullying behaviors” (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016, p. 2). Studying media depictions of workplace bullying can provide pathways of insight. Media has long been a facilitator or connection for information—the integrity of the source often questioned but the reliance often solidifying complicit acceptance. Media coverage of workplace bullying educates not only those unfamiliar with the phenomenon but also those who have suffered through it (Osborne, 2016). Media reporting has been faulted for unwarranted coverage placing blame on the targets or compassion for the perpetrators (Judd & Easteal, 2013). Given the power of media to shape perceptions of social issues, the connection between workplace bullying and its depiction in media is important to explore.

7.2

Media and Violence

Marshall McLuhan, a noted scholar of media studies, has asserted that there cannot be “a universal definition of media”, because media is an “extension of man” and it is “forever in a state of flux” (Giles, 2003, p. 15). As an extension of man, McLuhan has stated that “media is the message” (McLuhan & Lapham, 1964/1994, p. 7). Media messages are metaphors with power to render altered understandings or meanings (McLuhan & Lapham, 1964/1994), enigmas based on perception and then transformed as messages (Giles, 2003). Media is a constructed vehicle, a means for communicating or transferring a message. Granados (2016) posits that attempting to “define media in the digital space is like shooting at a moving target because it is evolving so rapidly” (Granados, 2016, p. 7). Media has played, and continues to play, a central and prominent role in our lives. Media has been defined as an extension of ourselves. Ultimately, the term “media is used quite broadly to include technologies, artifacts, and even words and scientific theories of human discovery or invention” (Sandstrom, 2012, p. 1). According to Shearman (2017), the lines between work and home are hazy because technology has infiltrated our every thought, action and deed (Shearman, 2017). Media is a curious riddle and questions

164

M. Georgo

persist regarding its influence, leaving no doubt that studying the effects of media depictions of workplace bullying is important. While bullying is a form of violence, it is missing from research related to media violence. Studies about violence in media generally focus on physical forms of abuse. A longitudinal study of television programming spanning 22 years (1967–1989) found “that 80% of all shows in the study (mostly prime-time viewing) contained some element of physical violence” (Giles, 2003, p. 50). A second study during the 1970s examined verbal aggression and other forms of antisocial behaviour and found that on average there were 14.6 violent acts shown on American television every hour (Giles, 2003). Considering and acknowledging media effects is essential. Researchers should resist inclinations to prove or disprove theory and instead focus on continued exploration (Neuman & Guggenheim, 2011).

7.3

Theoretical Perspectives

Media is thought of as a sort of paradox, a system that destroys systems. There is twisting and distorting, propagating a dialectic tension between collective engagement and complicit silence. It is difficult to comprehend media’s reach or our capacity “to imagine what powers of deception, absorption, or of deviation” are at work (Baudrillard & Maclean, 1985, p. 583). We are compelled to divert our attention from uncomfortable depictions while risking absorbing unwelcome attitudes and actions. Media is blurred, intertwining the message, the means and the source (Granados, 2016). It has access to all strata of society and serves a myriad of purposes: It educates, provokes, captivates, comforts and entertains. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, media was believed to have a bullet or a hypodermic role, a direct effect on societal problems (Kellner, 2004). Media has context and it shapes, frames and influences meaning. The viewer is presumed to be an almost defenceless target immediately affected or persuaded—the message not only framed but propagated and rooted—not unlike a target of workplace bullying. Bullying is the result of several different variables interacting: a desire to hurt, a harmful action, a power imbalance, repeated harm and a target aware of being abused (Akella, 2016). Workplace bullying has been defined by Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper (2011) as “negative acts that occur in a persistent and systematic way” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011, p. 179). Workplace bullying is “a phenomenon grounded in an organizations culture”, “a special case of aggression” and “repeated and prolonged hostile treatment of one or more people at work” (Keashley, 2010, p. 10). “Work shouldn’t hurt” (Akella, 2016, p. 8), but all too often, it does. Work has no boundaries; technology overlaps and infiltrates our time, our place and our resources (West, Foster, Levin, Edmison, & Robibero, 2014). No longer are conversations at work limited to offices, corridors, break rooms or meetings but rather extend to the World Wide Web. These advancements have provided greater connection and flexibility but come with a price (Shearman, 2017).

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

165

Behaviours depicted in mass media become symbols for the ways people think and behave, providing affirmations, limitations or guidance. Thus, media drives nearly every aspect of our life (Bandura, 1999). Cultivation theory proposes that the greater the exposure to or the consumption of media, the greater the likelihood of mimicking what has been consumed (Behm-Morawitz, Lewallen, & Miller, 2016). Social cognitive theory posits that “through the medium of symbols, people give structure, meaning and continuity to their experiences” (Bandura, 1999, p. 27). Behaviours observed repeatedly, which are rewarded, are more likely to become adopted behaviours, whereas those that are disciplined are not (Taylor, Alexopoulos, & Ghaznavi, 2016). Sink and Mastro (2016) have stressed the seriousness of the function of media intertwined with learned behaviours. Social cognitive theory together with cultivation theory underscores how media influences our constructions of reality (Sink & Mastro, 2016). Smartphones, tablets and laptops facilitate access for consumption and delivery of media instantly and constantly (Busching, Allen, & Anderson, 2016). We are intricately connected, and these theories are relevant to considering the depictions of workplace bullying.

7.4

Media Depictions of Workplace Bullying

Media continues to be complex—an extension of hands, eyes and ears—leaving society nothing short of wired. Media is now revolutionized, no longer simply a channel or path for communication, but rather it has become the message. “Portrayals legitimize, glamorize, and trivialize human violence” (Bandura, 2009, p. 103). Media depictions are representations with many influences; they are multifaceted and sometimes convoluted and complicated (Monaci, 2017). Technological advancements are an integral part of the prevailing presence and power of media depictions (Helfgott, 2008). Media has the power to both shape perceptions about bullying and also provide a platform through which bullying can occur. The Internet and social media have us constantly connected; boundaries between what is personal and what is professional are increasingly difficult to discern, leaving targets more vulnerable (Shearman, 2017). Media portrayals are often studied for their effect on a myriad of issues and beliefs. Media means “different things to different people” (Granados, 2016, p. 2). Identity is a critical connection between who the individual is and how individual actions are socially shaped (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), both of which are integral perspectives in studying the phenomenon of workplace bullying. Media has and continues to play a central and prominent role in our lives. From long-existing forms of media such as newspapers, films, television and radio to the newer emerging technologies such as social media, blogs, text messaging and the Internet, media “reflects the pattern of value in any society” (Kumari & Joshi, 2015, p. 44). These symbols shape our thoughts and actions and can be likened to contemporary fables (Helfgott, 2008). Media is a powerful entity and provides a new vehicle for studying workplace bullying. Whereas research of media depictions is extensive, exploring gender, poverty, ageing, immigrants, race, violence and more, research related to media portrayals of workplace bullying is sparse (Georgo, 2016).

166

M. Georgo

According to Judd and Easteal (2013), “media reporting may be simplistic, misleading, and overly reliant on clichéd and archetypal characters as ancient as they are inflammatory—the seductress, the victimized man, and the man-hating woman” (Judd & Easteal, 2013, p. 91). Research infers that media is complicit in perpetuating stereotyping (Behm-Morawitz, Lewallen, & Miller, 2016). The next sections in this chapter provide an overview and, in some cases, a sampling of depictions of workplace bullying in four significant media platforms: news, social media, television and movies.

7.5

Workplace Bullying Depictions in the News

Defining what is meant by “the news” is not a simple task. There is television news, radio news, print news and digital news. To say “the news” is not saying much, as the duplicity of sources is difficult to sift through. The search for depictions of workplace bullying in the news resulted in one scholarly study and then a myriad of headlines. This section provides an overview of the research found, but then primarily focusing on third-party sources, essentially excluding what is referred to as social media, which is discussed later in this chapter. I have made a distinction between news and social media, the difference being news is considered from a third-party source and social media conversely is more often derived from selfreports. To accomplish this distinction in seeking out “news” (newsbank.com), NewsBank, Inc. (newsbank.com), a provider of comprehensive data around the world for more than 40 years, was utilized. NewsBank, Inc., collects, consolidates and archives current and historical information from “thousands of newspaper titles, as well as newswires, web editions, blogs, videos, broadcast transcripts, business journals, periodicals, government documents and other publications”; the results are powerful and impactful (newsbank.com). To explore how workplace bullying is depicted in “the news”, a search was launched on infoweb.newsbank.com, 26 July 2017, with the search term “workplace bullying”, spanning 1980 to the present day. This search yielded 39,467 results representing 77 different countries. Of the 77, five countries stood out from this long list, with remarkable preponderance of the total: the United States (USA), 17,247; Australia, 8,715; Canada, 3,157; the United Kingdom (UK), 5,697; and New Zealand, 1,263. The results spanning nearly a four-decade period relating to “workplace bullying” revealed an exponential growth. In 1980–1989, there were only 26 results overall as compared to more recent results of 27,706. Newspapers were the primary source, with 88% of the reports, and the other 12% from audio, blogs, college/university newspapers, journals, magazines, newswires, transcripts, videos and web-only sources (newsbank.com). Despite the plethora of media news reports related to workplace bullying, the paucity of research is alarming. The one recent study that emerged is “An Exploratory Study on How Workplace Bullying Is Conceptualized in the Australasian Media” (Osborne, 2016). This research focused on 200 media reports, derived

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

167

from a wide range of sources, 100 each, from New Zealand and Australia related to some representation of workplace bullying (Osborne, 2016). The incentive for selecting this media format was based on the understanding that anyone and everyone can read them, “be they victims of workplace bullying or policy makers” (Osborne, 2016, p. 17). According to Osborne (2016), this medium has a great capacity for educating and perhaps contributing to the demise of workplace bullying. The study utilized a keyword analysis; the three top words in news reports related to workplace bullying were “complaint”, “harassment” and “culture” (Osborne, 2016). The findings reported that news media depictions of workplace bullying focused on “the acts of bullying rather than the influences of the work environment or the processes used to resolve instances of workplace bullying” (Osborne, 2016, p. 21). This researcher suggests that the portrayal of workplace bullying is diminished by its focus on interpersonal differences, rather than larger organizational culture. Many questions emerge and remain ready for further study, as depictions in the news remain unstudied.

7.5.1

Headlines

Much of what we consider news is derived from the headlines. Headlines alone have influence, the depths of the news stories are often never read, or when read, the headlines have already left their effect. Themes of headlines related to depictions of workplace bullying are varied, including, but not limited to, corporate protection, trauma, suicide and positive influencers, like new legislation and activism. The images are persistent and powerful, for even with a glance we can decide so much. For example, a headline reader of the Australian Daily Mail, 24 September 2015, would discover: “Unfriending a Colleague on Facebook Can Now be Workplace Bullying” (Tozer, 2015). One simple line can create a barrage of questions and assumptions, such as: Can one simple headline have the influence to diminish a claim of workplace bullying? In this story, the Fair Work Commission rules this social media snub as foolish and irrational (Tozer, 2015). One could conclude that bullying has thus become more covert, utilizing news reports as a weapon. It is painful and traumatic; targets are shamed, and their plight is diluted (Shearman, 2017). Headlines are powerful; they grab our attention and often frame a story for us. They provide immediate influence and affect our beliefs, or what we believe to be true. Sometimes it is all we see or read, a quick glance as we scroll our social media news feeds, leaving us with an idea about the rest of the story. Headlines about workplace bullying include, but are not limited to, a myriad of depictions: corporate protection, trauma and suicide. The few examples discussed herein reveal thoughtprovoking potential for further study and understanding of media depictions and workplace bullying. If there are patterns and outcomes, they are unknown presently, simply for lack of study.

168

7.5.2

M. Georgo

Corporate Protection

Headlines have subtle but potent influence. This headline, “Wells Fargo to Claw Back $75 Million from 2 Former Executives” (Cowley & Kingson, 2017), personifies corporate struggle, after a whistleblower revealed the toxic and abusive culture, systemic violence and the requiring of employees to commit fraud to boost profits. The depiction focuses on the suffering of the company, not the victims of the bullying. In another headline, “Now That Workplace Bullying Was Front Page News, Will a Workplace Harassment Policy Sufficiently Protect the Company?” (Yermash, 2014), the focus is on the fiscal impact to the company. By contrast, this headline, “Barclays CEO Investigated for Trying to Unmask Whistleblower” (Katz, 2017), reports of an executive (the bully) being investigated for wrongdoing and seems more representative of both sides. In another headline, “Workplace Bullying Prompts $30K Pay Out” (Middlemiss, 2016), the depiction focuses on a payout. The imagery is either impeding or helping education about workplace bullying, something only thorough and varied research can reveal.

7.5.3

Trauma

Media coverage of workplace bullying has never been more prevalent. Workplace violence is not new, but connecting it to workplace bullying, and catching it in the headlines, is. Some headlines are making connections between the patterns of abuse in workplace bullying and the elements of shame, silence and trauma linked to it. In the 16 November 2016 issue of the Sun Herald, of Biloxi, Mississippi, in an article titled, “Workplace Bullying: A Scourge That’s Hard to Define, Harder to Root Out”, editors characterize victims of domestic violence and workplace bullying as both feeling captive and left to be silent (Stafford, 2014). Both more typically urged to dismiss the harm and rise above it. In the Weekly Standard, the 22 October issue, the headline declared, “Workplace Bullying is like Domestic Violence”, detailing similarities that include the use of manipulation and intimidation to get what the bully wants and then proceeding to offer advice on how to handle it yourself (Bier, 2013). Conlan (2016) zeroed in on the toxicity of workplace bullying and how this phenomenon directly affects nurses: “Reduce Stress for Nurses with a Healthy Workplace Culture”. In this story published in the Daily Sun, the Lincoln Journal Star and the Star Tribune, incessant workplace bullying and persistent abuses are exposed (Conlan, 2016). According to Conlan (2016), the headline provides clues to abuses that nurses face at work; the story discusses a recent survey that found 50% of nurses have been bullied and 42% by a person in a position of authority. Another headline reads, “When Women Bully Women at Work” (Park, 2014). From emails directing hateful bias against co-workers to covert methods, woman-to-woman bullying at work is prevalent. Park (2014) posits that acceptable gender roles facilitate bullying at work, men being verbally aggressive, while for women, social pressure to be always compassionate and supportive leads to more covert methods of attack (Park, 2014).

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

7.5.4

169

Suicide

The seriousness of workplace bullying is also being told with headlines related to death or suicide. The headline in The Guardian (2017), 30 September 2017, reads, “Workplace Bullying and Stress Led to Death of Employee: Compensation Board” (Ross, 2017). The workers’ compensation board was found in favour of Eric Donovan’s complaint related to workplace bullying. Eric had worked for the Queens County Residential Services for 17 years, and his wife fought for 3 years to prove that his heart attack and death was a result of workplace bullying. Other headlines connect suicide and workplace bullying, with some associated reports standing as a form of protest and giving voice to a tragic phenomenon (Waters, 2017). According to this researcher, suicide has often been considered something private, regarded with shame, and therefore kept private and disengaged from study related to the workplace. This, however, is no longer the case, as seen in this headline: “Review of Fairfax Co. Fire and Rescue Finds Workplace Bullying” (Uliano, 2017). Nicole Mittendorff, a 31-year-old firefighter-paramedic, committed suicide after being harassed and bullied at work according to reports. An independent firm confirmed that 37% of the department experienced bullying or witnessed it. The investigation also confirmed that poor leadership had a role in the toxic work environment; furthermore, employees attested to fearing retaliation for whistleblowing. Another tragic suicide headline story: “Cops: Ex-Fox Producer Kills Himself Outside NYC Headquarters” (Tribune Wire Reports, 2015). Philip Perea, 41 years old, shot himself in front of his former employers’ building. His suicide note attributed his death to management decisions, and in a video, he described his past year as his most horrible and wishing the same for his former employer (Tribune Wire Reports, 2015). This last headline perhaps captures the pervasive role of media. The close relationship between news reporting, headlines and social media is more and more frequently overlapping. Social media has evolved to become not only the source but also the purveyor of all that is news.

7.6

Workplace Bullying Portrayals in Social Media

Social media has the power for evil, but also the power for good, as this headline in the Rockford Examiner suggests: “Social Media Holds Potential for Support Among Targets of Workplace Bullying” (Mitchell Front Page, 2015). The emergence of social media has compelled change, increasing self-reports, and insists on accountability and more accuracy from media (Serisier, 2017). Social media has transformed what we have previously known as media; it places direct influence in each of our own hands. Whereas the “nightly news” previously determined what was most important to report on, today minute by minute, each of us has direct power to report and share our thoughts, ideas and observations to the masses. Social media is a format wherein the source of the content is primarily from the user, with “social” referring to the need for personal connection and “media” referring to the technology for dissemination (Custin, Britton, & Yarak, 2014). This is a primary shift in what we

170

M. Georgo

know as media and, more importantly, a major shift in influence. The media shifting from a third-party source to a social and therefore subjective source has immense implications. Current media is now almost synonymous with social media. Social media has transformed the way we share about our personal and professional lives. With the plethora of positive advantages also comes harassment and persistent distress (van Laer, 2014). “Social media is used both formally and informally in organizations” (West, Foster, Levin, Edmison, & Robibero, 2014, p. 608). When British music retailer HMV was conducting layoffs, a fired employee tweeted: “We’re all being fired” (Allen, 2014). It is difficult to discern latitude of freedoms; social media is expansive and powerful, and some would even say dangerous. According to Allen (2014), social media is a double-edged sword in the workplace; employers send mixed messages, both encouraging and discouraging its use by employees. Social media continues to expand into the workplace at an accelerated pace. What is considered public or private is confusing at best. The creation of policy is being considered, but its reach is debatable (Custin, Britton, & Yarak, 2014). Privacy is dead. Social media has transformed the way we communicate personally and professionally. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media formats have become a mainstream method of communication. Employers’ efforts to have jurisdiction over employees’ use of these platforms are complex and continue to be heavily debated (West, Foster, Levin, Edmison, & Robibero, 2014). A search for “workplace bullying” in social media returns endless stories and resources; in an instant, a connection is made with a global community impacted by this insidious phenomenon. In discussions connecting social media and workplace bullying, the topic is typically cyberbullying. Cyberbullying, like all types of bullying, is an intent to harm achieved using technology, that is, social media, email and texting (van Laer, 2014). For more on cyberbullying, refer to the chapter in this series. Beyond the circle of pain, those exposed to workplace bullying are beginning to find support through social media. A quick glance at four popular sources of social media, LinkedIn.com, Facebook.com, YouTube.com and Twitter.com, returned some interesting data. While the information changes by the minute (denoted inline as estimates with an asterisk*), the findings are compelling and provide a plethora of possible directions for research. A search for the topic “workplace bullying” returned from LinkedIn.com a list of 30* different support or advocacy groups and a total of 8,275* followers (LinkedIn.com, 22 April 2018). The same search term in Facebook.com returned 106 pages and 99 groups dedicated to the discussion of workplace bullying and a total of 34,921* followers (Facebook.com, 22 April 2018). In a search for workplace bullying on YouTube.com, 117,000 results emerge. More specifically, in a search of YouTube channels related to workplace bullying, a filtered search returned 900* results, 28,012* subscribers and 2,302* videos (YouTube.com, 22 April 2018). A search of Twitter.com for the same topic, workplace bullying, retrieved 18* broadcasts, 33* news items, 22* top stories and 32* people to follow (Twitter.com, 22 April 2018). The sources varied and include, but are not limited to, the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, Tasmania, India, Ireland and Wales.

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

171

Topics varied from direct and explicit “stop workplace bullying” to related issues of silent epidemic, social justice, survivors and victims, women, gender, disability, trauma, legislation, policy, healthcare, etc. Industries involved in these topics spanned broad corporate environments and healthcare, religious organizations and higher education; more specific examples involved nurses, teachers, IT professionals, oil rig wives and more. Two samples at the top of the list of results from the LinkedIn.com search include the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) and Workplace DETOX: A Coalition Against Workplace Bullying & Toxic Organizations. IAWBH is striving to “promote fairness, justice, and dignity at work for all” (linkedin.com/groups/4516551). With membership from over 30 countries, IAWBH is dedicated to “research and evidence-based practice in the field of workplace bullying and harassment” (linkedin.com/groups/ 4516551). Workplace DETOX: A Coalition Against Workplace Bullying & Toxic Organizations, a more personal group, is dedicated to providing “a safe space for people to share their stories about bullying and toxic workplaces” (linkedin.com/ groups/4516551). The search of Facebook.com reveals groups and pages dedicated to the support of victims and to education related to workplace bullying experiences and solutions. Workplace Bullying in Education, Bully Free at Work and Workplace Bullying Solutions are the top three pages that return in a search for workplace bullying (facebook.com/search/workplacebullying). All three are dedicated to stopping workplace bullying and helping targets persevere. The top three findings in a search of YouTube.com related to workplace bullying were The Four Workplace Bully Types, How I Survived Workplace Bullying and Workplace Bullying. The Four Workplace Bully Types is a video from the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), where the executive director, Dr. Gary Namie, discusses four main types of workplace bullying. Sherry Benson-Podolchuk gives a harrowing personal account of surviving workplace bullying in a TEDx Talk in the second result, and from www. bullyonline, the third result is an animated depiction of how workplace bullying destroys lives (youtube.com/results/workplacebullying). Twitter has options to search for top stories or the latest stories, news, people, videos, photos or broadcasts. In a search for broadcasts, the top result is a live video on “Overcome Workplace Bullying by Quitting Your Job Today!” In the news, the top result is, “Investigation needed into workplace culture at Calvary Hospital”, and the top result in the latest stories is, “Did You Know 43% of Workplace Bullying Victims Reported That Harassment Stemmed from a Line Manager?” (twitter.com/search/workplacebullying). In addition to these four social media sites, there are also websites or blogs dedicated to the topic of workplace bullying, some international in scope; examples include, but are not limited to, culturesafenz.co.nz, workplacebullying.org, healthyworkplacebill.org, safetyatworkblog.com and newworkplace.wordpress.com. Culture Safe (culturesafenz.co.nz) of New Zealand provides education and support related to workplace bullying. They posit that workplace bullying is a “serious hazard” and that employers “have an obligation to provide a safe working environment” (culturesafenz.co.nz). They have partnered with the Workplace Bullying Institute of America (workplacebullying.org), noting that there are similarities in the occurrences of workplace bullying in both countries (Farrow, 2017). They learned of the

172

M. Georgo

Workplace Bullying Institute (workplacebullying.org) and consider their work to be “massive”, noting that Dr. Gary Namie, its founder, has been interviewed extensively in the media, therefore viewing him as an expert (culturesafenz.co.nz). The Workplace Bullying Institute (workplacebullying.org) based in the USA hosts a website dedicated “to research and understand, to educate the public and to teach prevention and correction of abusive conduct at work” (workplacebullying.org). Safetyatworkblog. com is an award-winning independent blog, hosted in the UK by Kevin Jones, a workplace safety consultant. Another blog, titled Minding the Workplace (newworkplace.wordpress.com), is hosted and written by internationally recognized David Yamada, Professor of Law and Director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. There is a plethora of media depictions related to workplace bullying in social media that are understudied at best, if studied at all. These examples provide immense inspiration and opportunity for exploration and study.

7.7

Workplace Bullying Portrayals in Television and Films

The news reports and headlines depict workplace bullying as something to worry about or something to overcome, and the social media depictions range from infliction of harm to circles of support and healing, education and advocacy. Depictions of workplace bullying in television and movies are quite different. In fact, they typically are dismissive and comedic, as discussed later in this chapter. As already emphasized, research on media depictions of workplace bullying is limited, and when considering representations in television and films, presently, only one study for each has been forthcoming. What these two studies demonstrate in their findings is consistent: Workplace bullying is predominantly represented as something to laugh about. Further research is necessary to confirm or discredit this assumption. Both studies are also American grown, so that limits the scope of representation for a horrific phenomenon of global proportions. That said, what has been learned has both impact and relevance while reiterating the critical need for more research.

7.7.1

Television

In a study by Lampman, Rolfe-Maloney, John, Mandy, Nick, McDermott, Winters and Davis (2002), findings showed a relationship between employee expectations at work and television viewing (Lampman, Rolfe-Maloney, John, Mandy, Nick, McDermott, Winters, & Davis, 2002). In another related study, connections were found between sexual messages in workplace scenarios depicted in television programmes and conduct at work (Taylor, Alexopoulos, & Ghaznavi, 2016). These are monumental in linking workplace bullying depictions in television and the capacity for affecting behaviours. The one study specific to television and depictions of workplace bullying, Drama at Dunder Mifflin: Workplace bullying discourses on The Office (Sumner, Scarduzio,

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

173

& Daggett, 2016), “examined the prevalence and discursive framing of workplace bullying behaviors on The Office” (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016, p. 2). The Office as an American television sitcom was an adaptation of an also widely popular British programme of the same name. This infers the global nature and identity of depictions of workplace bullying, confined to humour. Depictions of workplace bullying in The Office permeate the show (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). It portrays workplace bullying as something funny, something to be dismissed in jest, and may contribute to its then being diminished as a problem in the real work environment (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). Questions remain regarding its role in promoting or combating, shaping or shaking this phenomenon (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). The Drama at Dunder Mifflin study focused on 54 episodes of The Office, spanning the show’s nine seasons (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). “Results revealed 311 instances of workplace bullying, for an average of 6.13 bullying behaviors per episode” (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016, p. 1). The top five categories were sexual jokes, public humiliation, practical jokes, belittlement and misuse of authority, with sexual jokes being the most persistent (p. 8). Consider these depictions and then the lived experience attitude of “let it go”. Targets are dismissed as being too sensitive and are not taken seriously (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006, p. 149). The persistence of these behaviours can have disturbing significance. When workplace bullying persists, it is correlated with causing traumatic harm, personally, professionally and organizationally (Burton & Hoobler, 2006). The question persists: Do these portrayals “reinforce the discourses that stigmatize workplace bullying”? (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016, p. 2). When watching the television programme, the evidence of bullying may seem to pass the viewer by, seemingly without notice, under the cape of comedy. However, when revisited in this discussion of media depictions of workplace bullying, they are impossible to miss. This is more than evident in this example from the Sumner, Scarduzio and Daggett (2016) study, describing a prank, in which the bully is telling one character, the target, that she has been fired, after which she bursts into tears. After some time passes, the bully says, “You got x-punked!”, yet he is the only one laughing (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016, p. 13). Humiliation goes unaccounted for, and public name-calling is common communication; examples include, but are certainly not limited to, “idiot, dumbass, little girl, stupid son-of-a-bitch” and “the anti-Christ” (p. 11). Another poignant example is in an episode portraying a co-worker’s method of celebrating a win in a paper airplane flying contest; the bully “proceeded to humiliate him by getting in his face and yelling ‘eat it pig’” (p. 11). When you begin to count, you notice that after 65 occurrences of practical jokes, and/or 68 of public humiliation (p. 11), as compared to lived experiences of workplace bullying, one may begin to ask, what is so funny (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016)? It is well documented that media can influence people’s beliefs (Bandura, 2009), and that would include representations of workplace aggression and bullying. The research demonstrates that the narratives in media become what we retrieve later in real-life experiences (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). A message that is regularly portrayed via media becomes more accessible in the viewer’s memory

174

M. Georgo

and is therefore more likely to be drawn upon to explain real-world events. Depictions of workplace bullying in The Office are disturbing, permeating the show (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). The Office portrays workplace bullying as something to be laughed off, which may in turn contribute to it being dismissed as less than a serious problem in the real work environment (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). It is unfortunate that there are no other studies related to depictions of workplace bullying and television programmes to discuss here. It is a good guess that there are many more depictions out there, and not limited to comedy, but found in all genres of television programming. Analysing additional television programmes that depict bullying would go a long way towards gaining an understanding of how media may influence our attitudes towards workplace bullying.

7.7.2

Hollywood Films

Film, like television, continues to be a powerful tool for media and has an even more enormous possibility for exploring depictions of workplace bullying. Movies are a big deal; research confirms that they become a dialect for expressing our identities, cultures and experiences (Turner, 2006). Film is recognized as more than “makebelieve” but actually “a vehicle for suggestion” (Petersen, 2013). Researchers have been curious about the influence of popular films and social roles for nearly 100 years; films are more than entertainment, they are purveyors of versions of life (Sutherland & Feltey, 2013). Films help us make sense of our world; they tell stories that have international reach or what is referred to as “the transnational cycle of influence among filmmakers around the world” (Olsen, 2013, para. 11). In a sense, the “age of global cinema” (Olsen, 2013, para. 12) has become a simulation of Hollywood. The first evidence was in Bengal, India, in the year 1932, when the name Tollywood was adopted in reference to its film industry. This theme of replication has continued since; herein is a sampling: Bollywood (Mumbai, India), Pollywood (Punjab, Pakistan), Ghollywood (Ghana), Nollywood (Nigeria), Hallyuwood (South Korea) and Riverwood (Kenya) (worldatlas.com). Questions persist related to the effect of media on real life. While there are cultural influences that vary from one country to another, the American effect persists, crossing boundaries, not only in production but also, more simply, that “people watch American movies all around the world” (Olsen, 2013, para. 10). “Films provide an orderly and scripted version of our social world, embedding versions we can refer to or from which we can retrieve information” (Helfgott, 2008, p. 369). Movies “tell stories that, in the end, we find satisfying” (Sutherland & Feltey, 2013, p. 60). It is a common agreement that movies help us make sense of the world. They are often equated with a story that conveys a sense of familiarity or clarity with one’s lived experiences (Fearing, 1947). Film provides a transferable platform for studying workplace bullying. Metaphor analysis captures the depth of pain and devastation experienced from lived experiences of being bullied at work (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). Delving into lived experiences is not easy; it can risk repeated trauma and distress for those already victimized and provide affirmation for perpetrators. As we watch movies again and again, their

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

175

stories become our stories. Indeed, workplace bullying is portrayed in movies across the world; however, due to the paucity of research, this section is limited to the only study found related to this topic: “Hollywood Depictions of Workplace Bullying” (Georgo, 2016). It is a safe leap to consider that the findings in this study are relevant internationally and, most certainly at a minimum, as a starting point for further inquiry. In the study, “Hollywood Depictions of Workplace Bullying” (Georgo, 2016), 100 films released between 1994 and 2016 revealed 453 scenes, with 1,844 depictions of workplace bullying. Results revealed a preponderance of the films studied using comedy as the weapon for inflicting harm predominantly through the actions of Caucasian men. Results also revealed that depictions of workplace bullying are entrenched in the opposing forces of intentional harm and on making this harm seem humorous. Work is represented repeatedly as “stressful or demanding and bullying as a sort of distraction or comical remedy” (Georgo, 2016, p. 155). The films Swimming with Sharks (Alexander & Huang, 1994) and Horrible Bosses (Ratner & Gordon, 2011) depict characters struggling with workplace bullying—two films with titles that provide the viewer with a hint at elements of toxic work environments. Swimming with Sharks (Alexander & Huang) features a suffocating, pervasive and demeaning representation of workplace bullying. The storyline is centred on a new assistant and his abusive boss, who tosses his toxicity around like a rubber ball: “If you were in my toilet bowl I wouldn’t bothering flushing it” (and then starts throwing pencils, pens and a notebook at him); “You have no brain, what you think, feel means nothing, you are here to protect my interests and serve my needs”; and “Excuse me, I just need to yell at my mongoloid brain-dead assistant for a second! Get in here!” are just a few examples (Alexander & Huang, 1994). Horrible Bosses (Ratner & Gordon, 2011) is another movie with one scene after another portraying workplace bullying, the title alone almost normalizing this travesty. It follows the lives of three different individuals who are experiencing persistent bullying and abuses at work. When the three friends cannot take another day of abuse, they conspire to murder their bosses. Another example focusing on a supervisor and a subordinate is in a scene when the bullying peaks, after persistent jabs and nags; belittlement with humiliation is the theme. In this example, the subordinate who has endured endless bullying in expectation of a promotion questions his supervisor when he is not promoted and questions why he should stay, to which the boss replies that “he would have to write that Nick is an insubordinate, dishonest drunk”; then, getting right in his face, he adds that he “owns” him and can “crush” him anytime. This again is just one scene of many and yet is loaded with representation of a bullying boss and what happens when a target stands up. What seems isolated bullying between a supervisor and a subordinate is so much more; there are bystanders and organizational systems also depicted as unengaged or complicit in its perpetration. In Joe Somebody (Milchan, 2001), Joe is an easy-going, hard-working, company man. The film title does not provide any clues to the embedded nature of workplace bullying, which the viewer experiences with the film through its entirety. After Joe reports being physically assaulted and publicly humiliated and mocked by a co-worker, the human resource response sounds like this: “I’m gone for three days

176

M. Georgo

and employees are fighting like school kids in the lot”. The depictions of workplace bullying are powerful, due to the lack of support and the public embarrassment; then, we see scenes of him at home, unshaven, stains on his shirt and drinking a beer. The story also shows depictions of a bystander who stands up for Joe and ultimately resigns her position rather than be complicit with corporate belittling. These examples barely scrape the depth of representations of workplace bullying depicted in today’s Hollywood movies. While most depictions of bullies in the Georgo (2016) study were Caucasian men, bullies were not exclusively men. In The Devil Wears Prada (Rosenfelt & Frankel, 2006), Miranda Priestly is the editor-in-chief for a top fashion magazine. This demanding job seems to serve as rationalization for her bullying methods of leadership. At the mere hint of her arrival to the office, the employees seem to be in a state of panic and chaos, from putting make-up on, cleaning off work spaces and straightening up magazines. In one scene, Miranda, aloof and self-assured, walks into the office. She makes no eye contact with her staff and speaks dramatically and disparagingly, saying, “I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to confirm an appointment”. She is dismissive to her assistant and to everyone in her path. Her assistant tries to explain, to apologize, all which Miranda dismisses, saying, “Details of your incompetence do not interest me”. Another flagrant example of a woman as the bully boss is in the film Wanted (Barber & Bekmambetov, 2008). Janice, Wesley’s boss, almost makes Miranda seem tame. In one scene, she comes up behind him with a stapler in her hand motioning as if to staple his ear and then laughing says, “Oh, my fucking God, I hope that’s not my billing report sitting on your desk”. Wesley sits back and turns towards her, looking down at his hands in his lap, and then reaches for some papers, not saying anything. She continues to shout, “Holy shit on an altar, it is. I want that report on my desk in one hour”. She then turns and, as she is walking away, is shouting, “Okay, everybody, we’re all going to stay an extra hour”. It isn’t too long before Janice is right back in front of him shouting, “Good God almighty, you’re over here like its spring fucking break, I still don’t have that billing report, why do I even keep you around, Wesley?” Wesley says, “I’ll get it done Janice”. She begins mocking him, echoing, “I’ll get it done, I’ll get it done”. With each “I’ll get it done”, she is snapping the stapler, and there is a sound effect of a heavy iron door slamming every time. His heart is racing, his anxiety increasing and the veins in his neck popping. The camera shot and the sounds become distorted, slowing down what she is saying. The sounds are indistinct, chatter slurring in the background, his face is tight, and he is sweating. The veins are popping on his forehead, his mouth is clenched. She is still shouting, but it is diffused, “Why don’t you have anything to say for yourself ?” He tries to reply, but it sounds like a monster in slow motion, distorted, “I’m sorry”. She is relentless and says, “You’re worthless, I’m the one who’s sorry I hired your ass”, and walks away. This scene is startling and disturbing and includes depictions of the bully, the target, the bystanders and the overall culture of the workplace. The 40-Year-Old Virgin (Apatow, 2005) is another example from the 100 films studied in the Georgo (2016) research. This one portrays workplace bullying, not simply between two individuals, not just between a boss and a subordinate, not just between men, or women bullying women as in the previous samples, but as a mob that

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

177

includes all the above: co-workers, supervisors and even customers. In one scene, the store is closed, and some co-workers are playing poker; four guys are sitting around a table in the back of the store, three with a beer and wearing T-shirts. Andy is different, wearing a button-down shirt and a V-neck sweater; he is drinking an orange Fanta. The conversation quickly devolves around sharing sex stories and Andy is visibly uncomfortable. He is reluctant but wants to fit in. His efforts fail to redirect their attention to the game, “Why don’t we just play? Or why don’t you just deal the cards?” They persist, and when he resists, they accuse him of being gay. From here, it digresses further, as his co-workers guess that he is a virgin. Together (except for Andy), they agree that they want to get Andy laid. Andy is horrified and embarrassed. The next morning, things escalate; it quickly becomes apparent that the conversation at the poker game has now been shared with every employee at Smart Tech, even the manager. As Andy walks through the store, he is greeted with jeers, laughter and a barrage of comments and physical moves all related to his virginity and sex from other employees and in front of customers. What follows goes from bad to worse; they are not only undermining his work and using offensive communication but also isolating, intimidating, threatening and belittling, until Andy runs out of the store. These moments of horror for Andy are depicted as comical, something Andy should “let go” or know “it’s just a joke”, when it is apparent that it is not, especially to him. This is just a small sampling of the 1,844 depictions of workplace bullying found in the Georgo study (2016). Hollywood versions of reality have challenged everything from the John F. Kennedy assassination to the plight of the Sioux Indian tribe, American slavery, the launch to the moon, war, adults’ work, the treatment of women, homosexuals, people with disabilities and much more (Storey, 2015). It has been said “that the act of viewing a film plunges the spectator into a world of endless self-references and permutations” (Dixon & Foster, 2011, p. 12). According to Dixon and Foster, Hollywood is calculated, seducing viewers into a sort of trance (Dixon & Foster, 2011). Film portrayals too often reinforce stereotypes of what workplace bullying looks like, depicting targets as weak, nerdy or odd (Stafford, 2014), whereas research on lived experiences reports that victims are often highly skilled and high achievers, viewed as a threat to supervisors or co-workers (Stafford, 2014). Films can provide a unique lens through which to explore difficult issues at work and finding possible solutions (Georgo, 2016). They can serve as a tool for understanding and education, rather than perpetuating the concept of workplace bullying.

7.8

Opportunities for Change

Telling the true stories with news, headlines, social media, television and film can lead to legislation, campaigns and activism regarding the humiliation and injustice of workplace bullying and be an effective and intentional way to get attention and to impact positive change (Garbin & Fisher, 2012). Three such examples are the development of “Brodie’s Law” (Malkin, 2012) in Australia, 16 days of activism targeted at gender-based abuse in Zimbabwe (newsday.co.zw) and the story of Jonathan Martin, a former NFL (National Football League) player who committed suicide in the USA (Victor, 2015).

178

M. Georgo

“Brodie’s Law” in Australia honours the suicide of Brodie Panlock, a 19-year-old waitress, making Australia one of few places with legal protections from workplace bullying. She had been subject to persistent bullying at work by four co-workers where she waited tables in Melbourne. The law is part of an amendment to the Crimes Act, to extend its reach to include incidents in which a perpetrator incites harm that leads to suicide ideation or self-harm (Malkin, 2012). The headline in the News Day Zimbabwe, 2 December 2016, focused on “16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Abuse” and drew attention to the linkages between workplace bullying and domestic violence, emphasizing the often invisible and yet damaging psychological violence. News Day editors have thereby made a connection between prevalence of violence against women and reports that women are targets, 63% in reported incidents of workplace bullying (newsday.co.zw). NFL players are often depicted in media as “larger than life”, and here in this short story, we learn how a toxic work environment leads a player to consider suicide “on multiple occasions” (Victor, 2015). The headline reports, “Jonathan Martin, Former N. F.L. Player, Says He Attempted Suicide”, and Victor (2015) cited workplace bullying as a factor (Victor, 2015). Jonathan Martin shares his pain by becoming vulnerable about the trauma he experienced from being bullied at work. It is a stigma breaker at several levels, an NFL football player harmed from bullying. The Dolphins (his employer) deny all claims of bullying. Another headline related to this same story, “Workplace Bullying More Common Than Most Think” (Brown, 2013), presents a question to think about. If it can happen to Jonathan Martin, a “Stanford-educated, 200-pound NFL offensive tackle”, Brown asks, can it happen to anyone? It can happen; it is happening. This investigative story revealed workplace bullying in the NFL’s Miami Dolphins organization; Jonathan was suffering at the hands of bullies (Brown, 2013). The connections are clear, with workplace bullying increasingly depicted in the media, news reports and headlines; these depictions are concurrently revealing the risk for pain, suffering and death. At the same time, recent increases in media coverage have heightened employer awareness of workplace bullying as well. This awareness, however, has been accompanied with some confusion about what, if anything, should be done to better address the abuses and whether harassment policies are sufficient enough to protect the employers or employees. As the depictions range in focus from victimization, first of the target, then the bully and, finally, the larger company, there is a wide-open field for research, activism and policy change. In the hurried pace of news and social media, much can be determined, much can be missed. Research can help to answer many questions about the influence of media on perceptions of workplace bullying.

7.9

Directions for Future Research

Research can provide important understanding about what imagery and beliefs are being perpetuated in media representations of workplace bullying. This chapter provides an overview of the topic, as well as some vivid samplings of media depictions of workplace bullying.

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

179

Perhaps the most powerful place to begin research is with television and movies. The depictions are extraordinary and provide not only opportunities for content analysis but for some intriguing audience participatory studies as well. An area within these two media formats for further study is the role of comedy in the depiction of workplace bullying. Workplace bullying is a devastatingly harmful phenomenon, and yet the examples discussed in this chapter reveal that the predominant depictions in Hollywood films and television involve comedy. The idea of laughter from witnessing the suffering of others, no matter how ridiculous, persists (Bardon, 2005, p. 2). This is plain to see in portrayals of workplace bullying in movies and television; the question remains: Is this then subsequently played out in real life? This is an important direction for future research, connecting workplace bullying to media depictions and the imitation in lived experiences of workplace bullying, exploring the phenomenon of “it was just a joke, or is it?” Further research is recommended to more closely examine comedic depictions of workplace bullying in television and movies. Research related to depictions of workplace bullying in the news and social media is crucial as well, and currently almost non-existent, although these two platforms of media saturate our lives. Research could be conducted with focus groups to determine any effects from headlines, for example, stigma or bias based on the various perspectives of industry, bullies, targets or bystanders. Broader research can also examine economic and demographic patterns of depictions. For example: Does workplace bullying sell? Does it sell newspapers, subscriptions, tickets? Patterns can also be investigated pertaining to the depictions of workplace bullying. Exploring avenues for use of media depictions as a tool for professional education and training, as well as targeted treatment for survivors, is also recommended. Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. provide vast data and opportunity for tracking patterns of language that facilitate bullying or promote advocacy and support (Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012). The prolific nature of information explosion portends much to be studied about workplace bullying. As headlines depict connections between toxic work environments and suicide, further study could reveal patterns and influences as well as help to propose preventative interventions. Researchers could look for themes of blame or victory, cost or policy, gender or race, promotion or destruction. This chapter serves as a springboard for future research.

7.10

Summary

Curiosity about media depictions and their meaning in our lived experiences has perplexed researchers for more than a century. After more than 25 years of research studying the phenomenon of workplace bullying, a closer look at media depictions is scant. This chapter began with one question: How is workplace bullying represented in media? “Despite vast amounts of empirical data apparently showing a clear relationship between watching violence onscreen and behaving aggressively in real life, both sides of the media violence debate remain as entrenched as ever” (Giles, 2003, p. 51). As workplace bullying persists, it is crucial that we continue to

180

M. Georgo

ask questions and seek new methods for research to bring about needed change (Georgo, 2016). Fuelled by this understanding, significant social change can be accomplished by conscientious leaders. The immediate accessibility of media now gives a voice to anyone at any time. On a more positive note, media’s symbolic representations of lived experiences of workplace bullying offer a new path for much-needed research. Overall, we need to become more careful consumers of media content about bullying. Critical analysis will reveal emerging issues and research gaps. The time for exploration and study of media depictions of workplace bullying is now.

7.11

Cross-References

▶ Dark Behaviours and Shadowy Places: Bullying, Abuse and Harassment as Linked to Hidden Organizations ▶ Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders

7.12

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying and Culture: Diverse Conceptualizations and Interpretations, Vol. 3

References Akella, D. (2016). Workplace bullying: Not a manager’s, right? Sage Open, 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2158244016629394. http://sgo.sagepub.com Alexander, S., & Huang, G. (1994). Swimming with Sharks. Trimark. Allen, E. (2014). You can’t say that on Facebook: The NLRA’s opprobriousness standard and social media. Washington University Open Scholarship. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 195. http://openscholarshp.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol45/iss1/12 Apatow, J. (2005). The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Universal. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024. Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communications. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 94–124). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barber, G., & Bekmambetov, T. (2008). Wanted. Universal. Bardon, A. (2005). The philosophy of humor. In M. Charney (Ed.), A geographic and historical guide. Westport: Greenwood Press. Baudrillard, J., & Maclean, M. (1985). The masses: The implosion of the social in the media. New Literary History, 16(3), 577–589. On writing histories of literature (Spring, 1985). The Johns Hopkins University Press. Behm-Morawitz, E., Lewallen, J., & Miller, B. (2016). Real mean girls? Reality television viewing, social aggression, and gender-related beliefs among female emerging adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(4), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000074. American Psychological Association.

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

181

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: First Anchor Books. Bier, J. (2013, October 22). HHS: Workplace bullying is like domestic violence. The Weekly Standard. http://www.weeklystandard.com/hhs-workplace-bullying-is-like-domestic-violence/ article/764508 Brown, K. V. (2013, November 2). Workplace bullying more common than most think. SF Gate. http://www.sfgate.com Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 340–356. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40604544?uid= 3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103922562151 Busching, R., Allen, J., & Anderson, C. (2016). Violent media content and effects. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.1. http://com munication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-97801902286 13-e-1 Conlan, C. (2016, September 12). Reduce stress for nurses with a healthy workplace culture. Monster Worldwide, Beatrice Daily Sun, Jobs, NE. http://www.newsbank.com/ Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Cowley, S., & Kingson, J. A. (2017, April 10). Wells Fargo to claw back $75 million from 2 former executives. New York Times. https://nyti.ms/2oimaRp Culturesafenz.co.nz/ Custin, R. E., Britton, K., & Yarak, S. (2014). A tweet on social media for your business (January 2, 2014). California Business Practice, April 2014, Issue 3. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2374247 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374247 Dixon, & Foster. (2011). 21st-century Hollywood: Movies in the era of transformation. Rutgers University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://dbproxy.lasalle.edu:5967/lib/lasalle-ebooks/ detail.action?docID=861447 Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Facebook.com Farrow, G. (2017, January 31). Law needed to stop workplace bullies. Hamilton News. http://www. nzherald.co.nz/hamilton-news/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503366&objectid=11791895 Fearing, F. (1947). Influence of the movies on attitudes and behavior. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 254(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 000271624725400112. Garbin, A. D., & Fisher, F. M. (2012). Representations of workplace psychological harassment in print news media. Revista de Saude Publica, 46(3). www.scielo.br/rsp Georgo, M. (2016). A qualitative media analysis of the depiction of workplace bullying in Hollywood films. A dissertation presented to the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences of Nova Southeastern University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Nova Southeastern University. https://search.proquest.com/ openview/5cc0e468250970ac1ff2087a1486f07f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Giles, D. (2003). Media psychology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google.com Granados, N. (2016, October 3). What is media in the digital age? Media & Entertainment, Forbes. com. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2016/10/03/what-is-media-in-the-digitalage/#67c89d6651ea Helfgott, J. B. (2008). The influence of technology, media, and popular culture on criminal behavior: Copycat crime and cybercrime. In J. B. Helfgott (Author), Criminal behavior theories, typologies and criminal justice (1st ed., pp. 367–415). Thousand Oaks: Sage Infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/resources/?p=AWN Judd, K., & Easteal, P. (2013). Media reportage of sexual harassment: The (in)credible complainant. The Deming Law Journal, 25, 1–17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250002641_ Media_Reportage_of_Sexual_Harassment_The_InCredible_Complainant

182

M. Georgo

Katz, G. (2017, April 10). Barclays CEO investigated for trying to unmask whistleblower. U.S. News & World Report, News, Business News. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/ 2017-04-10/barclays-ceo-probed-over-attempt-to-unmask-whistleblower Keashley, L. (2010). Some things you need to know but may have been afraid to ask: A researcher speaks to ombudsmen. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association about Workplace Bullying, 3(2). https://www.sc.edu/ombuds/doc/Keashly_2011.pdf Kellner, D. (2004). The media and social problems. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Handbook of social problems: A comparative perspective (pp. 209–226). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/ 10.4135/9781412973526.n13. Kumari, A., & Joshi, H. (2015). Gender stereotyped portrayal of women in the media: Perception and impact on adolescent. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(4), Ver. II, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-20424452. www.iosrjournals.org Lampman, C., Rolfe-Maloney, B., John, E., Mandy, D., Nick, Y., McDermott, S., Winters, J., & Davis, R. L. (2002). Messages about sex in the workplace: A content analysis of primetime television. Sexuality and Culture, 6(4), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02719213. LinkedIn.com Malkin, C. (2012, June 27). Suicide and workplace bullying: A father, a daughter, and thirty years. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/suicide-and-workplace-bullying-a-father-adaughter-and-thirty-years-7694 McLuhan, M., & Lapham, L. H. (1964/1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man (Reprint edition, October 20, 1994). New York: McGraw-Hill. Middlemiss, N. (2016, November 2). Workplace bullying prompts $30K pay out. HRM New Zealand. http://www.hrmonline.co.nz/news Milchan, A. (2001). Joe Somebody. Fox. Mitchell Front Page. (2015). Horrible bosses – Is your manager making your life hell? Mitchell in Industry, Law Podcast. January 7, 2015. http://mitchellsfrontpage.com/horrible-bosses-is-yourmanager-making-your-life-hell/ Monaci, S. (2017). Explaining the Islamic state’s online media strategy: A transmedia approach. International Journal of Communication, 11, 2842–2860. http://ijoc.org Neuman, W. R., & Guggenheim, L. (2011). The evolution of media effects theory: A six-stage model of cumulative research. Communication Theory, 21, 169–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682885.2011.01381.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01381.x/abstract newsbank.com newsday.co.zw newworkplace.wordpress.com Olsen, M. (2013, February 15). A world of difference in reactions over foreign, U.S. film violence. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/15/entertainment/la-et-mn-violence-inworld-cinema-20130217 Osborne, N. (2016). An exploratory study on how workplace bullying is conceptualized in the Australian media. Dissertation submitted to Auckland University of Technology, Faculty of Business & Law, January 27, 2016. http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/ 9806/OsborneN.pdf?sequence=3 Park, K. (2014, November 3). When women bully women at work. New York Daily News. http:// www.nydailynews.com/opinion/katrin-park-women-bully-women-work-article-1.1994847 Petersen, C. (2013, January). The crowd mind: The archival legacy of the Payne fund studies movies and conduct (1933). Mediascape. http://www.tft.ucla.edu/mediascape/pdfs/Winter2013/ CrowdMind.pdf Planalp, S., Metts, S., & Tracy, S. J. (2010). The social matrix of emotion expression and regulation. In The handbook of communication science (pp. 363–380). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781412982818.n21. Ratner, B., & Gordon, S. (2011). Horrible Bosses. Warner Brothers (New Line). Rosenfelt, K., & Frankel, D. (2006). The Devil Wears Prada. Fox.

7

Media Portrayals of Workplace Bullying

183

Ross, R. (2017, September 30). Workplace bullying and stress led to death of employee: Compensation board. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/local/workplace-bullying-andstress-led-to-death-of-employee-compensation-board-104004/ Safetyatworkblog.com Sandstrom, G. (2012). Laws of media – The four effects: A McLuhan contribution to social epistemology. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 1(12), 1–6. http://wp.me/ p1Bfg0-uc Serisier, T. (2017). Sex crimes and the media. In Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.118. http://criminology.oxfordre.com/ view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-118?print Shearman, S. (2017). Cyberbullying in the workplace: ‘I became paranoid’. The Guardian, Guardian Careers. https://www.theguardian.com Sink, A., & Mastro, D. (2016). Depictions of gender on primetime television: A quantitative content analysis. Mass Communication and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016. 1212243. Stafford, D. (2014, November 4). Workplace bullying: A scourge that’s hard to define, harder to root out. The Kansas City Star, Business. http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article3548491. html Storey, J. (2015). Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction (7th ed.). New York: Routledge. Sumner, E. M., Scarduzio, J. A., & Daggett, J. R. (2016). Drama at Dunder Mifflin: Workplace bullying discourses on the office. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–23. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260516681158. jiv.sagepub.com Sutherland, J. A., & Feltey, K. (2013). Cinematic sociology: Social life in film (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Taylor, L. D., Alexopoulos, C., & Ghaznavi, J. (2016). Touchy subjects: Sex in the workplace on broadcast, cable, and Internet television. Sex Roles, 75, 476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199016-0642-x. Tozer, J. (2015, September 24). Unfriending a colleague on Facebook can now be workplace bullying: Fair Work Commission rules social media snub was ‘unreasonable and emotionally immature’. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3248293/How-unfriendingFacebook-workplace-bullying-Fair-Work-Commission-rules-social-media-snub-unreasonableemotionally-immature.html#ixzz4qFTOSCtn Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 148–185. http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/20/2/148.abstract Tribune Wire Reports. (2015, January 26). Cops: Ex-Fox producer kills himself outside NYC headquarters. Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-ex-foxproducer-suicide-20150126-story.html Turner, G. (2006). Film as social practice (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Twitter.com Uliano, D. (2017, February 15). Review of Fairfax Co. fire and rescue finds workplace bullying. Washington Top News. https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2017/02/fairfax-co-fire-rescue-reviewfound-workplace-bullying-harrassment/ van Laer, T. (2014). The means to justify the end: Combating cyber harassment in social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1806-z. http:// opendaccess.city.ac.ul/6756/ Victor, D. (2015, August 26). Jonathan Martin, former N.F.L. player, says he attempted suicide. The New York Times. https://nyti.ms/1VbfH2X Waters, S. (2017). Suicide voices: Testimonies of trauma in the French workplace. Medical Humanities, 43(1), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2016-011013. http://mh.bmj.com/ content/43/1/24

184

M. Georgo

West, B., Foster, M., Levin, A., Edmison, J., & Robibero, D. (2014). Cyberbullying at work: In search of effective guidance. Laws, 3, 598–617. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3030598. www. mdpi.com/journal/laws/ Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691612442904. First Published 16 May 2012. Workplacebullying.org Worldatlas.com/articles/film-industries-around-the-world-with-hollywood-inspired-nicknames.html Yermash, A. (2014). Now that workplace bullying was front page news, will a workplace harassment policy sufficiently protect the company? Ronkonkoma: Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP. https://cmmllp.com/july-2014-now-workplace-bullying-front-page-news-will-workplaceharassment-policy-sufficiently-protect-company/ YouTube.com

Section 2 Nuances of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment Vis-à-Vis Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools Corene de Wet and Lynette Jacobs

Contents 8.1 8.2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Research on Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Research Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Research Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 A Multitude of Victims and Perpetrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Bullying Behaviour in Schools: Different Work Relations, Different Behaviours? . . . . 8.4.1 Workplace Bullying Among Adults in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 Abusive Teacher–Learner Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 The Antecedents of Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 The Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 The School as an Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 The Effects of Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Effects on the Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.2 Organizational Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 How to Address Workplace Bullying in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.11 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

188 190 190 192 195 196 198 198 201 203 203 205 206 206 208 209 212 213 214 214 216

C. de Wet (*) · L. Jacobs Open-Distance Learning, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_11

187

188

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

Abstract

Workplace bullying within the school context includes a multitude of role players because teachers may be targeted by their colleagues, principals, the members of the management and administrative staff of their school, parents and learners. They may, however, also be guilty of bullying learners placed under their care. This chapter reviews research on workplace bullying in schools, highlighting the preferred research methods, research focus and the under-theorizing of the research. The chapter exposes the influence of different relations, for example, teacher–principal and teacher–learner, on what may be perceived to be workplace bullying in schools. The antecedents of workplace bullying in schools, as well as the negative effects of bullying on the victims and schools as an organization, are underscored. Suggestions on how to address the negative workplace behaviours in schools are offered. Recommendations for future research are made.

8.1

Introduction

Initial studies on workplace bullying began in the Nordic countries in the late 1980s and spread to other European countries in the mid-1990s (Zapf & Einarsen, 2010). Since then, workplace bullying has generated increased public interest, debate and research. A consistency throughout studies that focus on workplace bullying is that teaching is among the high-risk occupations for abuse (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fahie & Devine, 2014). Research highlighting the bullying of teachers began at the turn of the century in the United Kingdom (UK) (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998) and the United States (USA) (Blase & Blase, 2002) and thereafter spread to the rest of the world, inter alia India (Sinha & Yadav, 2017), China (McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009), Ireland (Fahie & Devine, 2014), Turkey (Cemaloğlu, 2007; Kilic, 2009; Kormaz & Cemaloğlu, 2010), Lithuania (Bernotaite & Malinauskiene, 2017; Malinauskienë, Obelenis, & Dopagienë, 2005), Estonia (Kŏiv, 2015), Croatia (Russo, Milić, Knežević, Mulić, & Mustajbegović, 2008), Australia (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011), Uganda (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012), South Africa (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; De Wet & Jacobs, 2006) and Lesotho (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Workplace bullying can be defined as “repeated actions and practices that are directed against one or more workers”. These negative actions are unwanted by the victim and may be carried out “deliberately or unconsciously” causing “humiliation, offence and distress”. This may interfere with job performance and/or result in a negative working environment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003, p. 6). Kilic (2009, p. 870), who prefers the term “psychological violence”, defines psychological violence as “the systematic aggression committed by adult individuals with the intention to damage others in the organization”. According to him, there is a continuum in the psychological aggression: initially victims are ignored by others and denied the opportunity to prove themselves to leadership, but this may well turn

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

189

into verbal abuse and, if no action is taken, can lead to physical abuse. Despite a different emphasis, workplace bullying tends to include four characteristics, namely, intensity (perpetrators’ actions are perceived as harmful by the victim), repetition (occurring at least twice weekly or more often), duration (usually for a minimum of 6 months) and power disparity (the victim feels that it is difficult or impossible to defend himself/herself) (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012). Workplace bullying within the school context includes a multitude of role players because teachers may be targeted by their colleagues, principals and other members of the school management team, administrative and support staff of their school, parents and learners. They may, however, also be guilty of bullying learners placed in their care (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Kŏiv, 2015). Teachers can therefore be bullied on one or more levels, which may include horizontal bullying, such as colleague-on-colleague bullying, and vertical bullying, such as learner-onteacher, teacher-on-learner, principal-on-teacher and/or member-of-the-schoolmanagement-team-on-teacher bullying. A core feature of bullying, namely, the imbalance of power between the bully and the victim, comes under scrutiny when arguing that the bullying of teachers by their learners can be seen as a subset of workplace bullying, since it is construed that teachers have more power than learners. Researchers on workplace bullying in academe (cf. DeSouza, 2011; Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2008) coined the term “contrapower harassment” to denote a situation where “a person with lesser power within an institution harasses an individual with greater power”. Building on Terry’s (1998) argument that teachers relinquish their power to bullying learners if these learners believe that the teachers have not “earned” their respect, Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä (2012, p. 1061) write that learners who have a strong position among fellow learners may use group cohesion to entice their classmates to follow them in bullying their teacher(s). This group force can be disempowering to such an extent that the teachers may believe that they “cannot defend themselves from bullying, despite their formal position as authorities at school”. Pervin and Turner (1998) argue that the bullying of teachers by their learners and learner misbehaviour may be seen as the same thing. Whereas some teachers may perceive negative acts such as insults, namecalling, offensive remarks, shouting and disobedience as learner misbehaviour (Hempel-Jorgensen, 2009; Houghton, Wheldall, & Merrett, 1988), others may perceive these acts to constitute learner-on-educator bullying (Kŏiv, 2015). To clarify this misconception, Pervin and Turner (1998) emphasize the repetitive nature of the negative acts in their characterization of learner-on-teacher bullying. Learner-onteacher bullying can be seen as a subset of workplace bullying in schools. Several school violence researchers (e.g. Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011) and others who focus on learner misbehaviour (e.g. Arbuckle & Little, 2004) briefly refer to bullying directed at teachers as either a subset of school violence or an example of learner misbehaviour. This chapter will not refer to findings from these studies, because these studies ignore three of the aforementioned characteristics of bullying, namely, repetition, duration and power disparity. This chapter will give an overview of research on workplace bullying in schools, bullying behaviours in schools, the antecedents of workplace bullying and the

190

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

negative effects of bullying. A review of the literature on suggestions on how to address workplace bullying in schools will also be given. A distinction will be made, where possible, between the different subsets of workplace bullying in schools, that is, teacher-on-teacher bullying, the bullying of teachers by their principals, learneron-teacher bullying and the bullying of learners by their teachers.

8.2

Overview of Research on Workplace Bullying in Schools

8.2.1

Research Methods

8.2.1.1 Bullying Among Adults in Schools Researchers of bullying among adults in schools usually use interviews with one or a small number of teachers (e.g. De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; De Wet, 2010a, 2011; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011; Sinha & Yadav, 2017) or surveys (e.g. Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & NsubugaKyobe, 2012; Cemaloğlu, 2007; De Wet & Jacobs, 2013; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Kilic, 2009; Russo, Milić, Knežević, Mulić, & Mustajbegović, 2008) to gather data. Researchers who follow a quantitative research method while studying adult victimization often utilize either the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) (Cemaloğlu, 2007; Kormaz & Cemaloğlu, 2010) or the revised Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R) (Bernotaite & Malinauskiene, 2017; Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009; Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen, & Helvik, 2011). Both scales describe items measuring exposure to various negative acts without specifically referring to bullying (cf. Charilaos et al., 2015). Several researchers who studied workplace bullying in the teaching profession developed questionnaires that include 15–44 items of what they perceive to be acts of workplace bullying directed at teachers (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012; De Wet & Jacobs, 2013; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Kŏiv, 2015; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). These negative acts are usually clustered into different categories (cf. De Wet & Jacobs, 2013; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). The following will illustrate the case in point: Kŏiv (2015) clusters 15 negative acts into four categories, namely, threat to professional status (accusation regarding lack of effort, belittling opinion and public humiliation), threat to personal standing (devaluation, insults, intimidation, name-calling, offensive remarks, shouting and slandering), isolation (physical isolation and withholding of information) and physically aggressive behaviour (physical attack, threatening with position and threatening with violence). Even though the researchers by and large state that their instruments were developed by themselves and the acts categorized with the school context in mind, the similarities between acts listed in standardized, leading instruments, such as the above-mentioned NAQ-R and NAQ, as well as Rayner and Hoel’s (1997) categorization of different negative acts, are understandable. Since initial studies on workplace bullying began in the late 1980s and spread worldwide, it has become an

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

191

established field of study which acknowledges directives of influential, groundbreaking researchers such as Leymann (1996), Rayner and Hoel (1997), Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper (2003) and Zapf and Einarsen (2010). Research on bullying among colleagues in schools are thus not always acts or categories exclusive to school settings, but rather indicative of workplace bullying per se (Cemaloğlu, 2007; Kŏiv, 2015; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). This has resulted in a somewhat generic view of bullying that ignores the specific characteristics of bullying within the school context. There are, however, also researchers who have developed their own school context-specific questionnaires (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). The following are examples of statements from Fox and Stallworth’s (2010, p. 938) questionnaire: “Teachers at my school have sufficient input regarding school decisions” and “I have sufficient authority over my students”. Whereas surveys on workplace bullying in schools are usually completed by bullies, victims and bystanders alike, the survey by Blase, Blase and Du (2008) on principal-on-teacher bullying was completed by victims of this type of abuse. The research method of choice when studying bullying among colleagues seems to be quantitative, while researchers who focus mainly on principal-on-teacher bullying seem to prefer a qualitative research method. In the interviews, the interviewees are teachers who were abused by their principals (e.g. Blase & Blase, 2002, 2004; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015).

8.2.1.2 Bullying Between Adults and Learners in Schools Even though researchers on the bullying of teachers by their learners use both quantitative and qualitative research methods, there seems to be a preference for quantitative research. While Terry (1998), Pervin and Turner (1998), Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä (2012) as well as Kŏiv (2015) utilized questionnaires they developed themselves, De Wet and Jacobs (2006) adapted Pervin and Turner’s (1998) questionnaire to make provision for the South African socio-economic and education realities. De Wet and Jacobs (2006) argue in this regard that community violence, crime and poverty among large sections of the South African population may have a direct and severe influence on schools as workplaces: the majority of South African schools are situated in townships and squatter camps. James et al. (2008) adapted Olweus’s (1992) questionnaire to investigate the bullying of teachers by their learners, as well as learners by their teachers (cf. Limber, 2011). In another South African study, De Wet (2012a, b) interviewed seven teachers who were harassed by their learners. Research on the bullying of learners by their teachers is also dominated by the quantitative method. Data from a large-scale Israeli survey among learners (n = 17,465) from Grade 4–11, which used an adapted version of the California School Climate Survey (developed by Furlong and used in California), were, for example, disseminated in numerous publications on, among other things, the victimization of learners by education staff (e.g. Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b; Khoury-Kassabri, 2006).

192

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012) used a questionnaire based on a questionnaire developed by fellow Greek academics. The aforementioned research instrument used in the Israeli studies on teacher-on-learner abuse lists several negative acts perpetrated by teachers, such as mocking, cursing, insulting, pinching and slapping of learners (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a). The questionnaire used by Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012, p. 66) includes items such as “My teacher is sarcastic towards me when I make mistakes”, “My teacher embarrasses me in front of my classmates” and “My teacher deliberately pushes me when I am noisy in class”. The questionnaire used in an Australian study by Delfabbro et al. (2006, p. 80), however, contains only one item pertaining to teacher-on-learner bullying, namely, “picked on by teachers”. Shumba (2002), on the other hand, used both qualitative (document analyses) and quantitative (questionnaire) research methods to investigate teachers’ abuse of learners in Zimbabwe. Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco and Brethour (2006) also studied teacher-on-learner bullying from the perspective of the adults (i.e. the teachers). Respondents were not only asked whether or not they were perpetrators of teacher-on-learner bullying but also asked to name the number of teachers who bully at their respective schools. With the exception of the research by Shumba (2002) and Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco and Brethour (2006) who investigated teacher-on-learner bullying from the perspective of adult perpetrators and onlookers, as well as official documents, researchers explore this type of bullying from the perspective of learner victims. Once again, as was the case regarding other studies on workplace bullying in schools, surveys were the preferred method of doing research, giving a rather one-dimensional perspective on learners’ experiences of abuse at the hand of their teachers.

8.2.2

Research Focus

8.2.2.1 The Bullying of Teachers by Their Colleagues The following are a few examples of the focus of studies on the bullying of teachers by their peers. Two Turkish studies, by Cemaloğlu (2007) and Kilic (2009), investigated the possible influence of the demographic variables on Turkish teachers’ subjection to bullying. Cemaloğlu (2011), in addition, explored the influence of leadership styles on the occurrence of workplace bullying in schools. Another Turkish study by Kormaz and Cemaloğlu (2010) shed light on the influence of workplace bullying on teaching and learning. Fahie and Devine (2014) examined the influence of workplace bullying on Irish teachers and school principals’ psychological, economic, physical and social well-being. From a health perspective, Malinauskienë, Obelenis and Dopagienë (2005) focused on the possible influence of workplace bullying on cardiovascular diseases among Lithuanian teachers. A few years later, Bernotaite and Malinauskiene (2017) investigated the association between psychological distress and teachers’ exposure to workplace bullying in Lithuania. Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä (2012) studied the attribution made by Finnish school teachers for their bullying, what they perceive to be the causes of the bullying and how they cope with their experiences.

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

193

While most of these studies focus on workplace bullying in a specific, predominantly Western context, Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic and Nsubuga-Kyobe (2012) compare workplace bullying in Australia and Uganda. The latter study shows the important role culture plays on the effects of bullying on teachers from two countries that are widely divergent culturally. Authoritarianism and autocratic leadership are often associated with workplace bullying. While Ugandans may perceive authoritarianism and autocratic behaviour by their principals as legitimate leadership behaviour, Australians will shun it as workplace bullying. The study reveals that Ugandan teachers are more often exposed to workplace bullying than their Australian colleagues, yet the effect of the bullying is less negative on them than on the Australians due to the aforementioned differences in attitude towards formal authority in workplaces. The study by Malinauskienë, Obelenis and Dopagienë (2005) mentions that the relatively low prevalence rate of bullying in this former Soviet Union state (2.6% of the interviewed teachers perceived themselves as victims of workplace bullying regularly), if compared to Western nations (studies conducted among Norwegian and Swedish teachers reported prevalence rates of 10.3% and 6%, respectively), may be attributed to under-reporting due to the psyche of the Lithuanian people: “In a strictly ‘authoritarian regime’ it was a shame to be assumed as an unwanted, unloved, unacceptable person” (p. 23). Respondents would rather downplay the extent of their victimization than acknowledge—even in an anonymous online survey—that they were bullied. Whereas some of the above-reviewed papers focus, in a rather simplistic manner, on the influence of demographic variables on bullying among colleagues in schools, others focus on the intricate interplay between workplace bullying and psychosocial, cultural, health and organizational imperatives.

8.2.2.2 The Bullying of Teachers by Their Principals Large-scale quantitative studies by Blase and Blase (2002, 2004) highlight an array of principal-on-teacher abusive behaviours. Four qualitative studies from the African continent likewise focus on what victims of principal-on-teacher workplace bullying perceive this subset of bullying amounts to (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; De Wet, 2010a, 2014; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). A survey by Blase, Blase and Du (2008) also focuses on teachers’ exposure to this subset of workplace bullying. All empirical data for these studies were obtained from the teacher victims. 8.2.2.3 Learner-on-Teacher Bullying Kŏiv (2015) identifies learners as the main culprits of the bullying of teachers (compared to colleagues, administrative staff, parents and maintenance staff). It is therefore understandable that some of the pioneering research of workplace bullying in schools focused on the sometime troubled relationship between teachers and their learners (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998). While Terry (1998) investigated the prevalence of learner-on-teacher bullying among teachers (n = 101) in the North Midlands, UK, Pervin and Turner (1998) surveyed the prevalence of this type of bullying in an inner London school (n = 84). More than half (56.4%) of the teachers who took part in Terry’s (1998) study reported being bullied by learners at least once

194

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

during the preceding term. The majority (91%) of teachers surveyed by Pervin and Turner (1998, p. 5) indicated that they were victims of learner-on-teacher bullying “at some time in their teaching career”. Ten years later, James et al. (2008) used data gathered at two different points in time (2003 and 2005 in the north-eastern area of Ireland and Dublin, respectively) to study the bullying of Irish teachers by their learners. During the first survey, 28.2% of the learners indicated that they have bullied their teachers; during the second survey, fewer learners (16.3%) admitted to bullying their teachers. De Wet and Jacobs’s (2006) study among South African teachers (n = 544) surveyed the nature and extent of learner-on-teacher bullying, as well as the influence of demographic variables on the victims’ exposure to bullying. De Wet and Jacobs (2006, p. 62) found that 76.7% of the teachers who took part in their study were exposed to some form of learner-on-educator bullying “at least once or twice a year”. While the purpose of De Wet’s (2012a) publication on learner-onteacher bullying is to expose the risk factors for this kind of bullying, an earlier study (De Wet, 2010b) focuses on the influence of this type of bullying on the victims’ private and professional (teaching and learning) lives. Despite the fact that work on learner-on-teacher bullying started at the end of the previous century, research on this subsection of workplace bullying in schools has hardly moved beyond the creation of an awareness that learners bully their teachers.

8.2.2.4 The Bullying of Learners by Their Teachers Awareness that teachers bully learners began to grow during the 1990s (cf. Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen, & Helvik, 2011). At the turn of the century, two publications by Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a) and Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor and Khoury-Kassabri (2002b) identified Israeli Grade 7–11 (n = 10,410) and Grade 4–6 (n = 5,472) children who were at high risk for emotional, physical and sexual mistreatment by their teachers. A few years later, Khoury-Kassabri (2006) used data from all the respondents who also completed the aforementioned survey (n = 17,465) to examine the relationships between the aforesaid forms of teacher abuse with a number of variables describing the learners and the school. A decade later, Geiger (2017) used data emanating from interviews with 60 Grade 6 learners in Israel to investigate children’s experiences of verbal abuse by their teachers in the classroom. A study by Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012) focuses on the prevalence of teacher-on-learner abuse in the Republic of Cyprus and the effects of gender and the school grade of learners, as well as the gender of teachers on the different forms of abuse. A study (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012) on teachers’ emotional abuse of secondary school learners in Nigeria (n = 1,559) focuses on the prevalence of different forms of emotional abuse. Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen and Helvik (2011) investigated the possible correlation between 49 psychiatric patients from a Norwegian outpatient clinic who suffered from personality disorders through the exposure to bullying by their teachers during their schooling and their subsequent development of personality disorders. Another retrospective study, this time by Brendgen, Wanner, Vitaro, Bukowski and Tremblay (2007), endeavours to gain insight into the behavioural and emotional adjustment of Canadian youths who were verbally abused by their teachers during early childhood. With the exception

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

195

of the latter two studies, it seems as if the main focus of the reviewed papers on teacher-on-learner abuse was to determine the prevalence of and/or the effect of demographic variables on different negative acts.

8.2.3

Research Theory

The argument posed by Fahie and Devine (2014, p. 239), namely, that research on workplace bullying has been “relatively under-theorized”, is supported by the literature on workplace bullying in schools. There are, however, a few researchers whose studies are underpinned by social theories. Fahie and Devine (2014) utilize key concepts from Foucault that focus on the multidirectionality of power relations and on the resistance dyad when studying the dynamics of principal-on-teacher bullying. Using Foucault’s argument that “power can become embodied into the individual’s sense of self”, Fahie and Devine (2014, p. 247) write that once victims of workplace bullying see themselves as victims, they become totally disempowered and abdicate all control to the bully. De Wet (2014) uses Hodson, Roscigno and Lopez’s (2006) two-dimensional model of bullying in her study on teachers’ understanding of workplace bullying. This model enables her to illustrate how relational powerlessness and organizational discord enable workplace bullying in schools. The social-ecological theory framed several of De Wet’s (e.g. 2010a, b) studies. She uses the aforementioned theory to illustrate the complexity of workplace bullying in schools and to support her argument that the study of the phenomenon should move beyond the work-related and personally related antecedents of bullying. Blase and Blase’s (2007) study on the mistreatment of teachers by their principals utilizes symbolic interactionism. This theory enables Blase and Blase (2007) to gain insight into the subjective lived experiences of victims of principal-on-teacher bullying. Fox and Stallworth (2010) applied the stressor-emotion-control/support (SEC/S) theory in their study that investigated factors that moderate responses to bullying among school teachers in the USA. The researchers used the theory to address specific problems in defining, determining, understanding and resolving teachers’ experiences of bullying. They found, for example, consistent with the moderating role of control and support in stress theory, that teachers perceive effective handling of violence as a form of support by their administration, as well as a form of control over their environment. Engel’s (1977) biopsychosocial theory serves as framework for De Vos and Kirsten’s (2015) study. This theory was used to gain insight into the health experiences of teachers that may stem from victimization at work. The authors argue that workplace bullying may initially cause psychological stress, which may trigger certain physical health issues and in due course affects the victim’s relationships with colleagues and family. This may ultimately result in the collapse of teaching in learning. The attribution theory, that is, a theory that tries to explain why people behave in the way they do due to internal and external attributes, underpins Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä’s (2012) study on the bullying of teachers by their learners. The theory’s suggestion that “we are inclined to attribute negative behaviour directed at us as being caused by other people or by the characteristics of

196

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

the situation” was indeed validated by findings from the study. The few respondents, who acknowledged that their bullying was caused by their own characteristics, identified characteristics “beyond the individual’s own control”, such as age, gender and physical appearance as antecedents of workplace bullying in schools (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012, p. 1066). There is consequent evidence that some researchers’ works on workplace bullying in school are soundly fused in social theory. It is, however, an imperative that more workplace bullying researchers acknowledge the importance of theory undergirding their research.

8.3

A Multitude of Victims and Perpetrators

Studies (Blase & Blase, 2004; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; De Wet, 2010a, 2014; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011) suggest that teachers all over the world may have to face a wide array of bullies during their professional lives. Table 1 gives a summary of findings from four quantitative studies on the percentages of teachers who reported being bullied by different individuals at their respective schools. Three of the studies found that teachers were mostly bullied by their principals. Caution should be taken when comparing the findings from the four studies summarized in Table 1. Different surveys use different terms/scales to denote the frequency of workplace bullying (cf. Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011). Terms commonly used in one education system, for example, “executives” or “school management team”, may not be in everyday use in another system. The fact that none of the respondents who took part in De Wet’s (2014) study indicated that they were victims of learner-on-teacher bullying does not mean that this type of bullying is infrequent in South Africa. On the contrary, a study by De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found that learner-on-teacher bullying is rife in this African country. Studies that focus specifically on the relationship between teachers and learners reveal two sides of the coin: teachers may be bullied by their learners, but they can also bully their learners. Studies in the UK (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998), Europe (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012) and Africa (De Wet & Jacobs, 2006) found that the bullying of teachers by their learners is a pervasive problem. In a Finnish study— in which respondents were given a definition of learner-on-teacher bullying—the respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they had been subjected to bullying by their learners. A quarter (25.6%) reported that they had been bullied “occasionally”, 3.3% reported a bullying frequency of “almost every week” and 3.7% reported having been bullied by learners “almost daily” (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012). While more than half of the teachers who took part in Terry’s (1998) UK study indicated that they were subjected to bullying at least once during the preceding term, 91% of the participants in another UK study (Pervin & Turner, 1998) indicated that they were victims of learner-on-teacher bullying at some stage during their working lives. Although the frequency of incidents varies, 76.7% of the

800

838

59

USA

Australia

USA

South Africa

Fox and Stallworth (2010)a Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011)b Bradshaw and Figiel (2012)b De Wet (2014) 39.3

Executives %

Perpetrators

66.1

38.3

Principals % 45.6

11.9

45

30.3

Colleagues % 19.6

18.7

25

School management team %

94.7% of the 779 respondents indicated that they were victims of workplace bullying (Fox & Stallworth, 2010) The percentages do not always add up to 100%. Respondents could identify more than one perpetrator

n 779

b

a

Participants

Country

Study

Table 1 Perpetrators of workplace bullying directed at teachers

30

19.7

Learners % 29.6

32

18.8

Parents %

3.4

29

10.3

Support staff %

6.1

Other %

8 Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools 197

198

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

teachers who took part in a survey by De Wet and Jacobs (2006) noted that they were bullied by their learners. The prevalence rate of teachers being bullied by learners thus varies between 32.6% in Finland (Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012) and 91% in the UK (Pervin & Turner, 1998). These huge differences may, among other things, be ascribed to the development of more refined questionnaires with precise rating scales and an unambiguous understanding of what learner-on-teacher bullying entails (cf. the repetitive nature of bullying). Studies in several countries, such as Israel (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b), Zimbabwe (Shumba, 2002), Norway (Monsvold, Bendixen, Hagen, & Helvik, 2011), Nigeria (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012) and Australia (Delfabbro et al., 2006), reveal the commonness of teacher-on-learner bullying. The prevalence of teacher-on-learner bullying can be as low as 7.3% in Australia (Delfabbro et al., 2006) or as high as 86.2% in Nigeria (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012). Emotional abuse seems to be the most common form of maltreatment of learners: 24.9% of the learners who took part in a study conducted by Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a) and 33.1% of those who completed Theoklitou et al.’s (2012) survey were emotionally abused by their teachers. Teachers can therefore be the perpetrators and victims of horizontal and vertical bullying that threatens their professional status and personal standing, isolates them or may cause them or threatens to cause them physical harm.

8.4

Bullying Behaviour in Schools: Different Work Relations, Different Behaviours?

While acknowledging that certain bullying acts are universal and can be ascertained through using standardized workplace bullying questionnaires such as NAQ-R, it is important to take cognisance of bullying behaviour that may be typical of, for example, principal-on-teacher or learner-on-teacher bullying.

8.4.1

Workplace Bullying Among Adults in Schools

The research instrument of choice for workplace bullying research in schools seems to be questionnaires. There are, however, a few qualitative studies that give insight into what the participants (usually the victims or bystanders) perceive to be workplace bullying in schools. Teachers who took part in a phenomenological study told De Wet (2011) that their bullying colleagues wilfully harmed their relationship with their co-workers, the parents of learners and learners through the spreading of rumours and unfair criticism of their work. The victims also mentioned that their bullies were setting them up to fail and publicly and privately questioned their professional competencies. Victims were also belittled and/or ignored in front of learners and/or colleagues (De Wet, 2011). In another qualitative study, Matsela and Kirsten’s (2014, p. 485) analysis of data reveals the following negative acts in

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

199

schools: personal derogation and disrespect, being isolated, attacking the victims’ professionalism and not being accepted (“feel like an outsider”). Twenty teachers who took part in a study in India were asked: “What is your understanding of workplace bullying?” According to some of them (18.33%), workplace bullying is humiliating and includes negative acts, such as teasing, gossiping and ignoring. Participants (15%) also identified bullying among teachers as the excessive monitoring of job performance (Sinha & Yadav, 2017, p. 202). Negative acts highlighted in the above-mentioned qualitative studies are, to a large extent, those reported on as the most prevalent in the surveys conducted by Cemaloğlu (2007), Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011) and Kŏiv (2015). The most frequent or persistently negative acts experienced by teachers who took part in a study by Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011) are, for example, tasks set with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines; recognition, acknowledgement and praise being withheld; frozen out/ignored/excluded from decision making; the lack of opportunity for face-to-face discussions to take place; the undermining of personal integrity; areas of responsibility being removed or added without consultation; being ignored or excluded; and exposed to an unmanageable workload. None of the negative acts identified by Cemaloğlu (2007), Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011) and Kŏiv (2015) as the most frequent and persistently negative experiences in schools differ from acts listed in standardized, generic workplace bullying questionnaires. There is also accord between findings from the qualitative and quantitative studies. The quantitative studies did not reveal any “new” or “groundbreaking” insights about the bullying of teachers by their colleagues. They, however, highlight the seriousness of this subset of bullying in schools. Leading researchers on the bullying school principal, Blase, Blase and Du (2008, p. 265), give the following inclusive definition for the mistreatment of teachers by their leaders: “any behaviour – verbal, nonverbal, and physical (excluding physical violence) – that, in the teacher’s perception, causes psychological-emotional, physical-physiological, personal, and/or professional harm to oneself”. According to these authors, the bullying of teachers in their workplace may also include racial and sexual harassment by principals. Four qualitative studies from the African continent give insight into what victims of principal-on-teacher workplace bullying perceive this type of unbalanced work relations constitutes. Respondents’ answers to an open-ended question in a questionnaire reveal that the teacher respondents perceive principal-on-teacher bullying to include the following negative acts: verbal abuse, such as shouting, threats and public humiliation (in front of colleagues and learners); setting victims up to fail by regularly interrupting their classes, regularly changing the grades and/or subjects they teach, forcing them to teach subjects of which the victims have little or no knowledge and withholding important official letters regarding workshops and subject-specific departmental guidelines; work overload and harsh demands; and the blocking of promotion (De Wet, 2014; cf. De Wet, 2010a, for similar findings emanating from interviews conducted with 10 victims of principal-on-teacher bullying). An analysis of the data originating from interviews with 21 Lesotho teachers identified 12 different types of negative acts perpetrated by school management:

200

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

structural violence (abusing official structures to abuse a teacher), work overload, verbal and physical aggression, lack of support, coercion to engage in certain actions, the spreading of gossip and lies, cynical behaviour and attitude, a lack of transparency, victimization, favouritism towards other staff members, isolation and the silent treatment (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Teachers who took part in De Vos and Kirsten’s (2015, p. 4) study recalled that their principals verbally attacked and humiliated them in front of their colleagues. The victims’ professional competencies were often questioned. They also found that bullying principals often misuse their managerial authority to victimize teachers by means of organizational measures. Teachers were “micro-managed”, including the over-control of their work. Victims were often “overly critiqued” and were expected to repeat their work with no help to correct so-called mistakes. Principals also made unfair changes to victims’ workload, giving either too much or too little work to the teacher. De Vos and Kirsten (2015, p. 4) furthermore found that bullying principals use group dynamics to bully certain teachers: colleagues are, for example, used to act as “watchdog” over the victims, and certain teachers are “favoured” by the principal, while others are isolated and excluded from the work group. Victims of principalon-teacher bullying were also harassed through different forms of cyberbullying, such as telephone calls, emails, the editing of photos in an insulting manner and even stalking (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). It should be noted that while most researchers found that physical abuse is not part and parcel of the bullying behaviour of school management (cf. definition by Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008), Matsela and Kirsten (2014, p. 482) cite the following utterance from one of their participants: “I was once physically dragged before the class that I had refused to teach . . . and [he] told them: . . . if she does not teach you, tell me; I will deal with her”. Superficially findings from the preceding four studies differ. Yet, all four studies found that bullying principals threatened the professional status and personal standing of the victims and tried to isolate them (cf. Kŏiv’s (2015) categorization). It is interesting to note that while research on bullying among colleagues in schools is dominated by the use of surveys, only one example of the use of a questionnaire was identified in publications that focus exclusively on principal-onteacher bullying. A US study (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008, p. 279) of 172 teachers reveals the following as the most frequently occurring principal mistreatments: “failed to recognise or praise me for work-related achievements” (69.7%), “favoured ‘select’ teachers” (62.7%), “tried to intimidate me” (58.8%), “failed to support me in difficult interactions with students and/or parents” (57%) and “ignored or snubbed me” (55.2%). Findings from both qualitative and quantitative studies on workplace bullying among colleagues (teachers) suggest that negative acts directed at teachers do not differ fundamentally from other jobs. No mention is made of, for example, negative acts playing out in front of learners and/or parents. However, studies on the bullying of teachers by their principals make reference to job-specific happenings, such as the physical abuse of a teacher in front of learners, the interruption of classes and questioning the victim’s subject knowledge.

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

201

Even though teachers who took part in Australian (Riley, Duncan, & Edwards, 2011), US (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012) and Estonian (Kŏiv, 2015) studies noted that parents-as-bullies is a rather common occurrence in their countries, only one of these papers moves beyond the identification of parent-on-teacher bullying as a subset of bullying in schools. Teachers who took part in the Estonian survey identified the following pre-identified negative acts as the most common types of bullying of teachers by parents: offensive remarks (28.4%), slandering (14.2%), insults (13.6%), intimidation (13.6%) and public humiliation (12.3%) (Kŏiv, 2015). Despite the fact that Kŏiv’s (2015) study gives some insight into what parent-on-teacher bullying entails, it fails to move beyond these statistics.

8.4.2

Abusive Teacher–Learner Interaction

Workplace bullying in schools is not only bullying among adults but also about abusive teacher–learner interactions in which the learner can be either the victim or the perpetrator. Kauppi and Pӧrhӧlä (2012, p. 1061) define learner-on-teacher bullying as “a communication process in which a teacher is repeatedly subjected, by one or more students, to interaction that he or she perceives as insulting, upsetting, or intimidating. Bullying can be verbal, non-verbal, or physical in nature”. Qualitative and quantitative studies give insight into what learner-on-teacher bullying entails. Teachers who took part in an Estonian survey (Kŏiv, 2015) regard the following pre-identified acts of verbal abuse as the most common types of learneron-teacher bullying: shouting (37%), offensive remarks (36.4%), insults (33.3%), belittling opinion (26.5%) and slander (21.6%). De Wet and Jacobs’s (2006, p. 62) study reveals that not verbal abuse but vandalism and the shunning of teachers are the most common types of bullying being reported: participating teachers noted that their classrooms were damaged (13.8%) or they were ignored (12.1%) by their learners either “once or twice a week” or “every day”. They were, however, also the victims of verbal (9.0%) and physical abuse (5.5%). The subsequent findings from qualitative studies, in which the nature of teacher-targeted bullying was deduced from data emanating from interviews, support the findings from quantitative studies. During interviews with De Wet (2010b, pp. 194–195, 199), the victims of teacher-targeted bullying described what may be seen as incidence of verbal and emotional abuse. Participants also mentioned that their school and private property were vandalized. They moreover recalled how they were publicly threatened and humiliated by some of their learners during school and after school hours. Victims alluded to the fact that some learners bully by proxy: one of the participants mentioned that learners “use” parents and the principal to “reprimand” them when they lashed out at the bullying learner after being relentlessly victimized by them. Teachers who took part in Matsela and Kirsten’s (2014) qualitative study additionally identified a lack of respect towards them and misbehaviour as ways that learners bully them. Whereas the above studies reported on the nature and prevalence of learner-on-teacher bullying from the perspective of the teachers (victims), a survey by James et al. (2008) was completed by learners. The learner participants admitted

202

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

that they knowingly bullied their teachers through name-calling, ignoring them, disruptive behaviours and insubordination. Twemlow and Fonagy’s (2005, p. 2387) definition of a bullying teacher gives a clear picture of what they perceive teacher-on-learner bullying to be: “A bullying teacher [is] one who uses his or her power to punish, manipulate, or disparage a student beyond what could be a reasonable disciplinary procedure”. Researchers identify three types of maltreatment of learners by their teachers: emotional, physical and sexual. According to Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a), Shumba (2002) and Brendgen, Wanner, Vitaro, Bukowski and Temblay (2007), learners can be subjected to numerous forms of emotional abuse, such as public humiliation, name-calling, cursing of learners and their families, making fun of the learners’ appearance and abilities. Physical maltreatments may include, but are not limited to, pushing, shoving, slapping, pinching, punching or kicking. Sexual harassment may include sexual advances, inappropriate comments and inappropriate touching. Sylvester (2011) additionally distinguishes between intentional and unintentional bullying. Her study highlights what she perceives to be common unintentional types of teacher-on-learner bullying: sarcasm, name-calling, refusing late or unidentified work and humiliating future learners who they perceive as having “potential” behaviour problems in the classroom. Quantitative studies give insight into the prevalence of the different types of teacher-on-learner bullying. Researchers identified verbal abuse as the most common form of teacher-on-learner bullying (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012; Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & KhouryKassabri, 2002b; Theoklitou, Nabitsis, & Kabitsi, 2012). A review of the literature reveals that the prevalence of verbal teacher-on-learner bullying varies between 22% (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a) and 74.1% (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012). Learners were mocked, insulted or humiliated by their teachers (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b; James et al., 2008). Studies by Benbenishty, Zeira and Astor (2002a), as well as Theoklitou, Nabitsis and Kabitsi (2012), highlighted the commonness of emotional abuse by teachers. A Nigerian study (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012) found that secondary school learners are often subjected to the following forms of emotional abuse by their teachers: terrorizing (86.2%), domination (83.3%), discrimination (82.8%), rejection (74.7%) and verbal malice (74.1%). The prevalence of physical teacher-on-learner bullying diverges between 13% (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a) and 9.6% (Theoklitou, Nabitsis, & Kabitsi, 2012). Teachers pinched, slapped, grabbed or shoved learners (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2002a). Abusive, negative teacher–learner relations seem to be widespread in schools all over the world. Whether or not all these acts can be seen as bullying is debatable; not all research instruments reviewed in this chapter probe the repetitive nature of the negative acts. There is also a fine line between ill-discipline and learner-on-teacher bullying, as well as between bullying teachers and teachers who are strict disciplinarians. Teachers may therefore be unwilling to acknowledge that they are the victims or perpetrators in what is supposed to be a

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

203

compassionate, in loco parentis relationship between them and the children placed in their care.

8.5

The Antecedents of Workplace Bullying in Schools

A number of authors suggest several precursors of workplace bullying in schools, but it should also be understood in the wider societal context. While at times, victims are merely at the receiving end of consistent rudeness and aggression (De Wet, 2014), the lack of values in the community and the organization may escalate the problem (De Wet, 2012a). Furthermore, the cultural contexts of the different countries also seem to contribute to particular kinds of bullying teachers’ experience (Kilic, 2009). In the school context, there are individual as well as organizational antecedents of workplace bullying.

8.5.1

The Individuals

Although stereotypes about typical victims and bullies exist in society, research on workplace bullying in schools does not necessarily support these. Still, certain trends, or the lack thereof, should be mentioned.

8.5.1.1 Victim Characteristics There seems to be no clear indication that the gender of a teacher is a risk factor of bullying. Whereas Jacobs and De Wet (2015a) found male teachers in a study in South Africa to be more at risk of being bullied by their peers, Phooko, Meyer, Fourie and Kirsten (2017) found in the same country the risk to be similar between males and females. Kilic (2009) found in south-eastern Turkey that male teachers were less at risk of experiencing psychological bullying than females and also unmarried teachers compared to their married colleagues. One should, however, keep in mind that this study was done in a patriarchal conservative society. The age of teachers emerges as a stronger determining factor. Most studies found that younger and older teachers are more prone to be bullied, while mid-career teachers experience less of a risk (De Wet, 2012a; Kilic, 2009; Phooko, Meyer, Fourie, & Kirsten, 2017; Terry, 1998). Jacobs and De Wet (2015a), however, found that the differences in exposure to workplace between the different age groups are not statistically significant. The qualifications of teachers also do not seem to be a clear predictor of their vulnerability. Phooko, Meyer, Fourie and Kirsten (2017), for instance, found teachers with higher qualifications to be more at risk of being bullied, while De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found teachers with lower qualifications to be so. De Wet (2012b) found that some teachers who obtain higher qualifications than their principals are more likely to be bullied by the latter. In line with this, teachers who Sorrell (2015) interviewed had the perception that teachers with high salaries are bullied to force them to resign.

204

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

Teachers are often victimized by their colleagues due to otherness, such as speaking a different language or belonging to a different group. These include, among other things, race, ethnicity and religious affiliation, but also simply not being part of the dominant clique (De Wet, 2012b, 2014). Some teachers suggest that they are bullied due to their physical appearance (Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012), while other victim teachers are bullied because they are nonconformist and are innovative in their approach to teaching (De Wet, 2011). While many victim teachers perceive themselves to be hard working and committed (De Wet, 2011), learners in a study by Chen and Astor (2009) indicated that they target teachers because they perceive the teachers to be unfair and unreasonable. Senior teachers bully newcomers or juniors to show their dominance (Sinha & Yadav, 2017). Trainee teachers are bullied by established teachers. Established teachers are harsh in their assessment of trainees and often withhold important information (Maguire, 2001).

8.5.1.2 Perpetrator Characteristics Considering the learners who bully teachers, although teachers believe certain learners simply have bully personalities (Sinha & Yadav, 2017) and are often arrogant (De Wet, 2012a), home circumstances do seem to play a role. In a study in London by Pervin and Turner (1998), teachers suggested that it was mostly children from families where education is not a priority, who bully teachers (see also De Wet, 2012a), while Kondrasuk, Greene, Waggoner, Edwards and NayakRhodes (2005, p. 643) pointed out that “poor home life” was the fundamental cause of learners targeting teachers. Furthermore, the abuse of drugs and alcohol among school learners as well as gangsterism and a tough neighbourhood purport the problem (Kondrasuk, Greene, Waggoner, Edwards, & Nayak-Rhodes, 2005). Teachers seem to be of the opinion that, on the one hand, parents are afraid or unwilling to discipline their children and, on the other, quick to take action against teachers who discipline them (De Wet, 2012a). Within the school system, various studies suggest that both boys and girls equally bully teachers (De Wet, 2012a; Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998) and learner-on-teacher bullying peaks during the 9th and 10th years in school (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Chen & Astor, 2009). This is in line with trends regarding learner-on-learner bullying in schools: bullying tends to peak in Grade 9, and both boys and girls are equally likely to be perpetrators of bullying, even though boys are more likely to be guilty of physical and girls of relational aggression (Espelage, Meban, & Swearer, 2004). In spite of the above trends, some victim teachers shared that they are bullied by learners due to the nature of a teacher’s work, such as guiding, instructing and reprimanding learners. Some of them additionally noted that they work with learners who needed “special attention” (Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012, p. 1065). Some teachers who bully are haughty, mean and overconfident and have no loyalty to their colleagues (De Wet, 2011, 2012b). Bully teachers often have a powerful support base inside and outside the context of the school and have a high standing in society (De Wet, 2011). De Wet (2011) found that teachers who bully their colleagues often have power through their close relationship with the principal and will feed misinformation to the principal. They every so often lack integrity in

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

205

terms of their work and do not hesitate to exploit other people (De Wet, 2011). Bullying among teachers seems to take place at times because the bully is envious of the victim and also because the perpetrator is insecure (De Wet, 2012b; Sinha & Yadav, 2017). School principals are often bullies, particularly those who are authoritarian and judgemental and resist change. Consequently, they do not like teachers who speak their minds or who are progressive and innovative in their approach to teaching (Blase & Blase, 2006; Sorrell, 2015). Principals are able to bully teachers because they have power over them, for instance, in terms of development opportunities, leave applications, workload and other human resource matters (De Wet, 2014), and they misuse this power. De Wet (2012b) found that official structures are misused to bully teachers, for instance, by refusing leave and blocking promotions. Often principals who bully subordinates are unprofessional and ineffective (De Wet, 2014) and resort to favouritism and nepotism (Blase & Blase, 2006). Moreover, some principals who bully are corrupt and unprincipled, and thus they oppress those who try to stand up against them (De Wet, 2014). De Wet (2011, p. 462) aptly concludes that in principals and teachers who bully, there is “a sense of evil”.

8.5.2

The School as an Organization

The school as an organization can be a risk factor. Powell, Powell and Petrosko (2015) found school climate to be a significant predictor of workplace bullying. In particular, in schools where there is an autocratic leadership culture, where there is clique forming and also where the managers are incompetent, workplace bullying thrives (De Wet, 2012b; Fahie & Devine, 2014). De Wet (2012a) furthermore found that the lack of an effective discipline strategy and the lack of clear guidelines to deal with learner misbehaviour contribute to learner-on-teacher bullying. Disorderliness in other classes contributes to learners targeting those teachers who make the learners work hard. Cemaloğlu (2011), however, points out that bullying will only take place if the principals enable it; De Wet (2014, p. 13) concurs by stating that “[b]ullying is likely to occur in schools where organisational chaos reigns”. A study by Cemaloğlu (2011) indeed showed that the prevalence of teacher-targeted bullying is lower in schools where the principal adopts a transformational leadership style. When the organizational health (positive communication, motivation, job satisfaction, etc.) improves, the bullying of teachers drops (Cemaloğlu, 2011). It furthermore seems that the category of school, to some extent, can be seen as a predicting factor: teachers at combined schools were found to be more at risk of teacher-on-teacher bullying than those in primary or secondary schools (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015a). In terms of learner-on-teacher bullying, Chen and Astor (2009) found that those at vocational high schools are more at risk than teachers in elementary schools, while De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found that teachers in primary, secondary and combined schools are, however, all prone to similar levels of learner-on-teacher bullying. Teachers at public schools are more at risk than those in non-public schools (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Phooko, Meyer, Fourie, & Kirsten, 2017), and teachers

206

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

who teach in schools located in shanty towns and other deprived areas are more vulnerable to being bullied than those teachers at schools in established areas (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015a). However, it appears as if school size is not a factor affecting the phenomenon (De Wet & Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015a). Not much is known about where the school teachers are targeted, but it seems to be in the spaces in which they work and move. Pervin and Turner (1998) found that teachers are mainly targeted by learners while teaching or in the corridors, while Terry (1998) found that teachers are being targeted by learners in their home class, but also in other classes. Otherness, powerlessness, superiority regarding work ethics and qualifications, and not gender or age, typify the teacher victims of workplace bullying in schools. The literature gives an unsympathetic description of learner perpetrators of workplace bullying as mostly troubled, delinquent youths coming from dysfunctional homes. Bullying colleagues and principals are often described as overconfident, often incompetent individuals who lust for power. When the powerless and the unprincipled powerful work together in schools serving deprived communities, workplace bullying thrives. The plight of the powerless is exacerbated in schools with a toxic climate and where organizational chaos reigns.

8.6

The Effects of Workplace Bullying in Schools

While an array of reasons for bullying in the workplace of teachers exists, there is no doubt about the negative effect of this phenomenon on the lives of teachers, learners and the school as a whole.

8.6.1

Effects on the Teacher

Workplace bullying affects the psyche of teachers and, in particular, causes nervousness and stress in teachers’ lives (Bernotaite & Malinauskiene, 2017; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Wet & Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Pervin & Turner, 1998). Victims become demoralized and embarrassed, while they tend to overthink and replay episodes of bullying in their minds (De Wet, 2010c; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b). Victims feel unworthy and lonely; they become fearful and paranoid; and many suffer from depression (De Wet, 2010c; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Victims also often feel anger and bitterness, while some start to doubt their religion (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). Owing to their frustrations, some teachers can become aggressive and are unable to control their emotions (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Some victims even undergo personality changes (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Fahie & Devine, 2014), and they become moody and withdrawn (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Workplace bullying negatively affects the sleeping patterns of those teachers who are victimized, as they either cannot sleep at night, have nightmares or simply escape through sleeping (Blase & Blase, 2006; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Jacobs &

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

207

De Wet, 2015b). In spite of these effects, teachers seem to be reluctant to seek help from a therapist, and females less so than males (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012; Terry, 1998). Being the victim of workplace bullying has an effect on the physical health of the teachers. It influences their eating habits. Some stop eating, while others overeat, and this destabilizes their weight (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Fahie & Devine, 2014; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b). Bullying is destructive in itself (Fahie & Devine, 2014), and teachers who are targeted by bullies sometimes resort to self-destructive and addictive behaviour: 16.7% of the victims in a study admitted that they resort to substance abuse (alcohol, smoking or medication), and male teachers, in particular, are more prone to this response (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b). Teachers seem to suffer from constant and severe headaches but also body aches (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Some develop respiratory problems (e.g. difficulty in breathing), digestive problems (e.g. stomach cramps, getting nauseous, ulcers), sexual problems and cardiovascular problems (e.g. high blood pressure) (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; De Vos & Kirsten, 2015; Malinauskienë, Obelenis, & Dopagienë, 2005; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Their resistance to infections decreases and some reported that their hair started falling out (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Spouses and families often suffer as well. Teachers who are victims acknowledge that workplace bullying negatively affects their relationships and their marital life (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). Some shared how they would take their frustrations out on their loved ones (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008). While some teachers shared their experiences with their partners, others refrained from sharing them at all, because they did not want to cause too much distress for their partners (Fahie & Devine, 2014). Some teachers report that their spiritual life suffers as a result of workplace bullying, and they become disillusioned with their faith (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Workplace bullying has an economic effect on teachers who are victimized. Clearly, their health problems, as a result of bullying, have a financial impact due to medical expenses. In addition, De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found that 7.3% of the teachers experience, on a monthly basis or more often, that bully learners damage their private property, such as their vehicles. Some teachers also resign from teaching (Pervin & Turner, 1998). One teacher in a study by Fahie and Devine (2014) shared how she quit her job, lost her home and left her pets behind just to get away, resulting in enormous debt. Some victims shared how they took early retirement, with the subsequent loss in security and income (Fahie & Devine, 2014). Workplace bullying furthermore affects the professional lives of teachers. They start doubting their own abilities (Sinha & Yadav, 2017) and feel as if they are losing control and cannot escape (Terry, 1998). Victims are afraid to enter the school, are stressed out at school, dread going to class and simply do not want to be at work (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Pervin & Turner, 1998; Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011). Workplace bullying furthermore negatively affects their general relationship with colleagues (Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Matsela & Kirsten, 2014); they seem to lose perspective and develop a victim mentality (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014). Being bullied results in the reduction of job satisfaction, teachers dropping their career

208

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

expectations and aspirations which result in some seeking other career paths (De Wet & Jacobs, 2006; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009; Pervin & Turner, 1998; Sinha & Yadav, 2017). Teachers respond to being bullied differently. Some teachers do report it to their colleagues or line managers (Kauppi & Pörhölä, 2012; Pervin & Turner, 1998), but many feel that they still do not get support. Teachers feel that they are not taken seriously and are expected to handle the situation (Pervin & Turner, 1998; Terry, 1998). Some are told that they simply overreact (De Wet, 2012a). In a study in a poor area of London, Pervin and Turner (1998, p. 5) found that the “situation was not resolved despite seeking help from school management”. Others keep quiet about it due to the power differential between themselves and the victim (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008). A teacher in a study by Sorrell (2015) indicated that she did not report the bullying because she did not want to show the perpetrator that she was affecting her. Some indicated that they felt that they could not escape from the situation, while some simply want to run away (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008). However, some teachers found that with time, things got better in terms of learner-on-teacher bullying, as they and the learners got to understand one another (Pervin & Turner, 1998). Other teachers merely accept learner-on-teacher bullying as part of normality (Pervin & Turner, 1998). Workplace bullying in schools has a profound negative effect on the victim’s psyche and physical health, as well as his/her economic well-being. Spouses and families often suffer as well. Victims’ professional lives suffer seriously: once social, popular and inspiring teachers may become lacklustre recluses. This may have dire consequences for schools as teaching and learning organizations.

8.6.2

Organizational Effects

The school as an organization and those within are also negatively affected by workplace bullying. Teachers who are bullied place their focus and energy on surviving the onslaughts, do not enjoy teaching any more, become demotivated and battle to be productive while at school; thus, their work suffers (Blase & Blase, 2004, 2006; Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008; Jacobs & De Wet, 2015b; Ozkilic & Kartal, 2012). In particular, when bullied by the principal or peers, the victim’s loyalty to the school dwindles (De Wet, 2011), and they withdraw from non-compulsory school activities and extra work (Blase & Blase, 2006). Teachers also tend to be absent more often when bullied (Wilson et al., 2011). The quality of teaching that the learners receive subsequently dwindles, teachers feel undermined, the relationship between teachers and learners suffers and the atmosphere in the class deteriorates (Blase & Blase, 2006; Ozkilic & Kartal, 2012). Teachers become less innovative, prepare less and require less of the learners and change to a more teacher-centred style with less practical and other activities (Blase & Blase, 2006; De Wet & Jacobs, 2006; Pervin & Turner, 1998). Teachers sometimes take their frustrations out on the learners, respond aggressively towards

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

209

the learners, become less understanding and simply dislike learners (Blase & Blase, 2004, 2006; Ozkilic & Kartal, 2012). Relationships and colleagueship between teachers go downhill, particularly because of principal-on-teacher bullying (Blase & Blase, 2006; De Wet, 2010c). Spontaneity in communication dwindles, as teachers opt either to remain silent or to be cautious during discussions (Blase & Blase, 2004), and thus the participation of teachers in decision making is hindered (Blase & Blase, 2006). The victims often withdraw from socializing with other colleagues during non-teaching time (Terry, 1998), discussions focus on the negative and a “culture of fear and caution” develops at school (Blase & Blase, 2006, p. 131). When principals bully some teachers, other teachers are too scared to support the victims, for fear of becoming targets themselves (Blase & Blase, 2006), although some remain indifferent (De Wet, 2010c). In the long run, when principals bully teachers, the atmosphere in the school becomes negative (Blase & Blase, 2006). Learner-on-teacher bullying sometimes leads to the damaging of school property, resulting in financial expenditures for the school. De Wet and Jacobs (2006) found that 26.9% of the teachers who took part in a survey reported that classrooms are damaged on a monthly basis or even more frequently. Teachers, who resign and take early retirement, result in staff turnovers that also have implication for the organization in terms of relocation and other expenditures (Fahie & Devine, 2014; Sorrell, 2015). Workplace bullying has serious negative effects on schools as organizations for teaching and learning. Teacher victims may become boring and apathetic teachers who have lost empathy towards their learners. Positive working and social relationships and colleagueship between teachers may disintegrate. Gifted teachers may even decide to leave the profession. It is therefore important to turn to the literature to look for ways to address workplace bullying in schools.

8.7

How to Address Workplace Bullying in Schools

There is no simple solution to workplace bullying in schools. The multifaceted nature of workplace bullying in schools asks for an approach that moves beyond addressing abuse among adult workers; it must also address the bullying of minors by adults and vice versa. The literature emphasizes, among other things, the need for an acknowledgement that workplace bullying is a reality in schools, an encompassing antibullying policy and anti-workplace bullying legislation. The involvement of trade unions to look after the interest of their victimized members and the need for teacher educators to become involved in empowering teachers and teach them how to counteract principal-on-teacher and prevent teacher-on-learner bullying are advocated by workplace bullying researchers. An acknowledgement that bullying in the school yard encompasses more than learners bullying one another is pivotal to dealing with workplace bullying in schools. Researchers who found that there is a lack of knowledge of workplace bullying among members of school staff emphasize the need to create awareness of

210

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

this type of bullying (Fahie, 2014; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009; Sinha & Yadav, 2017). There is thus a need to train principals, teachers, members of the school governing body and learners in anti-workplace bullying strategies (Fahie, 2014). Researchers propose workshops, seminars, conferences (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012; Blase & Blase, 2006), inductions and educational programmes (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012) to teach everybody involved in schooling that bullying is not acceptable behaviour and to teach them effective communication skills. Blase and Blase (2006), in their recommendations on how to address principal-on-teacher bullying, highlight the role teacher educators can play by helping prospective and practising teachers to recognize and understand the possible effects of principal abuse on themselves, their colleagues and the school as a teaching and learning organization. They also recommend that prospective and practising teachers be taught skills for assertively protecting themselves from bullying principals: teacher educators should encourage teachers who are witnesses to principals’ abusive behaviour, to confront the abuser on behalf of the victim. They lastly recommend that teacher educators give teachers guidance on how to work with teachers’ associations or trade unions to lobby for the adoption of antibullying policies. Researchers (Aluede, Ojugo, & Okoza, 2012; Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002b; Theoklitou, Nabitsis, & Kabitsi, 2012) who reported on the abuse of learners by their teachers advocate training for teachers to promote alternative solutions to coercive discipline. Several researchers (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; De Wet, 2011; Fahie, 2014; McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Lang, 2009) recommend that schools should develop anti-bullying policies that clearly stipulate what workplace bullying entails and that such negative behaviour will not be tolerated. A school’s anti-bullying policy should also acknowledge the reality of learners bullying their teachers and teachers bullying their learners. The importance of an all-encompassing anti-bullying policy is emphasized by De Wet and Jacobs (2006). Key features of such a policy are as follows: the definition of bullying should include the bullying of learners by learners, the bullying of learners by teachers, the bullying of teachers by learners and bullying among adults at work. Learners and teachers should be encouraged to report incidents of bullying and support their colleagues who are victims of bullying. Peer mentoring and support strategies should be put in place and victims should keep a clear log of bullying incidents which are accessible to staff and senior management. In addition, class and staffroom discussions should explore the issue of bullying (De Wet & Jacobs, 2006). McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic and Lang (2009) suggest that such a policy should lead to the development of a formal mediation system comprising several staff members and properly trained mediators, external to the school, so that conflict may be resolved in a proper manner. Government should play a leading role in laying down policies and ethical codes of conduct in the workplace (Sinha & Yadav, 2017). Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2011) found that existing legislation in Australia has been effective in reducing certain behaviours that can be seen as bullying. The view that antibullying legislation will reduce workplace bullying in schools is supported by

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

211

Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic and Nsubuga-Kyobe (2012). These authors argue that an important reason why workplace bullying is more prevalent in Uganda than in Australia is the fact that the latter has legislation in place to deal with bullying in the workplace. While other factors might also influence the situation in these two countries, and notwithstanding the acknowledgement of labour laws prohibiting bullying in the prevention of workplace bullying, such laws are the exception rather than the rule worldwide. Barnes (2017) has compiled what she acknowledges to be an “incomplete” list of countries that have enacted workplace bullying “provisions”: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the UK. “Provisions” does not necessarily mean that these countries have formally adopted legislation prohibiting workplace bullying and harassment. No legislation, for instance, exists in the UK specifically to combat workplace bullying, but according to Barnes (2017, p. 2), “British courts have interpreted an existing anti-stalking law, the Protection from Harassment Act (Protection from Harassment Act, 1997, c 40, §1 (Eng)) as providing redress for victims of workplace bullying”. Also, even though there are no specific Korean regulations or laws to prevent or deal with workplace bullying, processes to prevent workplace bullying were announced in 1999 by the then Minister of Employment and Labour (Barnes, 2017). In the case of Canada, the Quebec province was the first jurisdiction in North America to make workplace bullying illegal in 2004, while the Saskatchewan province followed suit in 2007. Ontario implemented Section 32 of the Ontario Occupational and Safety Act prohibiting workplace bullying in 2010, while in November 2013 British Columbia approved three Occupational Health and Safety Workplace Bullying and Harassment Policies to combat workplace bullying (Solon, 2013). According to Namie and Yamada (2017), campaigners for the Healthy Workplace Bill, “the U.S. is the last of the western democracies to introduce a law forbidding bully-like conduct in the workplace”. Comprehensive workplace bullying legislation has not been passed by the federal government or by any US state even though many state legislatures have considered such bills since 2003. As of April 2017, 32 legislatures (30 states and 2 territories) have introduced, but not passed, the Healthy Workplace Bill. This Bill was crafted by David Yamada for the Healthy Workplace Campaign (Namie & Yamada, 2017). Researchers, such as Bradshaw and Figiel (2012) and De Wet and Jacobs (2006), recommend that trade unions become involved in dealing with workplace bullying. Unions should ensure that “enforceable protections” against bullying should be included in the current and future negotiation contracts of employees. Grievance procedures should also be put in place (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012, p. 16). De Wet and Jacobs (2006) posit that trade unions should actively lobby the passing of legislation protecting teachers from abuse at the hands of their learners. They suggest that trade unions follow a “victim-centred” approach. This approach should be characterized by compassion and respect; the availability of information on grievance proceedings and the legal rights of the victim; a willingness to listen to the victims; availing legal aid; a willingness to attend to cases of bullying as soon as possible; the protection of

212

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

the victim’s privacy and identity if need be; and the protection of the victim from retaliation and intimidation. The need for a positive organizational culture, in which learners, teachers, school leaders, administrative staff and parents respect and care for one another, is highlighted in the workplace bullying literature and the creation thereof is suggested as a way to counteract bullying (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012; Kauppi & Pӧrhӧlä, 2012; Fahie, 2014; Sinha & Yadav, 2017). A positive school culture can be created or strengthened by learners, teachers, school leaders, administrative staff and parents being respectful towards one another and given the opportunity to communicate with one another about their fears and frustrations. Strong leadership by the principal can establish high standards for accountability and treating others with respect. Teachers can strengthen the safety of the school by promoting clear communication about, among other things, workload, as well as the unacceptability of aggressive and humiliating behaviour (Bradshaw & Figiel, 2012). There is no one-size-fits-all solution for workplace bullying in schools. The suggestions by researchers on how to address bullying are closely linked to the focus of their specific studies, for example, principal-on-learner and learner-onteacher bullying. The nucleus of their suggestions, namely, the involvement of all role players, including trade unions and government in addressing workplace bullying in schools, and advocacy for the development of anti-bullying policies and the passing of anti-workplace bullying legislation that acknowledge the complexity of workplace bullying in schools, should be urgently implemented in the fight against workplace bullying in schools.

8.8

Recommendations for Further Research

Studies on the bullying of teachers by adults give statistics supporting the assumption that they are victimized by colleagues, principals and other members of the school management team, administrative and/or support staff, members of school governing bodies or parent–teacher organizations, as well as parents. The majority of the research on the bullying of teachers by adults focuses on colleagues or principalon-teacher bullying. With the exception of one study that gives statistics on the different negative acts to which teachers are exposed when bullied by parents, researchers have failed to investigate teachers’ vulnerability when abused by parents—in whatever capacity—as well as administrative and support staff. Even though a study by De Wet (2011) alluded to the possible influence of workplace bullying on the relationship between the victims and their colleagues, there is a dearth of literature on the role of bystanders in workplace bullying in schools. There is thus a need to expand workplace bullying in school research to include bystanders, parents as well as administrative and support staff. Various studies have described the possible influence of childhood victimization on victims becoming bullies themselves (Sekol & Farrington, 2010; Whelan, Kretschmer, & Barker, 2014). Studies reviewed in this chapter are lacking on the extent to which victims of workplace

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

213

bullying turn into bullies (cf. Terry, 1998). This hiatus should be addressed in future research on workplace bullying in schools. In addition, while the voices of the victims are clearly heard in many studies, studies from the point of view of those who are perceived to bully are necessary (cf. De Wet, 2012b). Most studies on workplace bullying focus on the Western context. It is important to compare current findings on workplace bullying in schools in Western cultures with studies undertaken in non-Western countries (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & NsubugaKyobe, 2012). Such a comparison is important because little is known about the influence of different cultural contexts on the extent and experience of workplace bullying in schools. Even though this chapter identified a few studies that shed light on the connection between culture and aspects of workplace bullying (Casimir, McCormack, Djurkovic, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2012; Kilic, 2009; Malinauskienë, Obelenis, & Dopagienë, 2005), there is a dire need for more in-depth studies on the effects of culture on workplace bullying in schools. Such studies may expand researchers’ understanding of why people who accepted or still accept patriarchy, conservatism and authoritarianism as “normal” perceive workplace bullying as less negative than those working and residing in liberal, democratic countries or societies. Although researchers have posed numerous suggestions on how to counteract workplace bullying in schools, none of these suggestions is research based. There is thus a dire need for action researchers to develop all-encompassing, research- and evidencebased anti-workplace bullying programmes. Schools should learn from the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies that single, stand-alone prevention programmes are not effective or sustainable (cf. Escartin, 2017). The claim of successes for an anti-workplace bullying programme should be made only after the necessary longitudinal studies. Even if existing anti-bullying programmes, such as Olweus’s wellknown research-based programme for the prevention of bullying among children (cf. Limber, 2011), are used as a foundation for the development of an anti-workplace bullying programme, developers of such programmes should acknowledge the multidimensionality of workplace bullying in schools. Workplace bullying in schools is more than the bullying of workers by their colleagues and bosses; it is also the bullying relations between teachers and learners. Lastly, as far as could be established, no specific policies to protect teachers in the workplace exist. Education authorities should not only take heed of the devastating effect of the workplace bullying of teachers and work towards such policies; once implemented, the effect of such policies should be analysed (cf. Wilson et al., 2011).

8.9

Conclusion

Workplace bullying within a school context includes a multitude of victims, perpetrators and bystanders: teachers may be targeted by their colleagues, principals, the members of the management and administrative staff of their school, parents and learners. They may, however, also be guilty of bullying colleagues and learners placed in their care. In researching these multitudes of abusive relations in schools,

214

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

researchers acknowledge the groundwork laid by leading researchers regarding the conceptualization of workplace bullying and the development of standardized questionnaires. The influence of these leading researchers is especially obvious in the somewhat generic character of questionnaires used to probe bullying among colleagues. Quantitative studies interrogating principal-on-teacher, learner-onteacher and teacher-on-learner abuse are more unambiguously focused on specific abusive relationships. With the exception of a few studies on principals’ mistreatment of teachers, the main focus of most of the reviewed papers on workplace bullying in schools was to determine the nature and prevalence of the different subsets of bullying. The one-dimensionality of the research is exacerbated by the under-theorized character of most workplace bullying in school research. A theoretical framework provides a grounding base for the literature review, the research method and the analysis. Without it a study lacks structure. This review has illustrated how the utilization of theory enabled researchers to explore the impact of power, culture, psychosocial, mental health, subjectivity and relational issues on workplace bullying. Without a sound theoretical framework, research tends to be descriptive. Notwithstanding the aforementioned critique, research on workplace bullying creates an understanding of the seriousness of the problem. Schools are complex institutions as learners, teachers and other staff members spend many hours together. While certain trends do exist in terms of antecedents of workplace bullying of teachers, the most significant role players are the principals. While a transformative leader can contribute to a drop in the prevalence of workplace bullying by teachers and learners, corrupt, insecure authoritarian and incapable principals and the concomitant unhealthy school culture certainly create an enabling environment for bullying to thrive. Workplace bullying has devastating effects on the school. Victims and the school as an organization suffer, and the quality of teaching and learning is compromised. The chapter highlights the need for government, teacher training institutions, trade unions and education leaders to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem and the importance of creating awareness that all forms of bullying in school are unacceptable. The chapter advocates the development of antibullying policies and the passing of legislation prohibiting workplace bullying.

8.10

Cross-References

▶ Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

8.11

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Ethical Challenges in Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Aware ness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1 Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

215

The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide, Vol. 1 Theoretical Frameworks That Have Explained Workplace Bullying: Retracing Con tributions Across the Decades, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying and the Polemic of Subjectivity and Intent, Vol. 1 Consequences of Workplace Bullying for Individuals, Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 Different Faces of the Perpetrator in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Exploring Upwards Bullying to Learn More About Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Health Consequences of Workplace Bullying: Physiological Responses and Sleep as Pathways to Disease, Vol. 2 Reciprocal Influences Involving Workplace Bullying: The Case of Role Stressors, Vol. 2 Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 Targets of Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment: Helpless Victims or Active Pro vocateurs?, Vol. 2 The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Interface Between Significant Others and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Moderating Effects of Coping Mechanisms and Resources in the Context of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying: An Overview of Theories and Empirical Research, Vol. 2 The Role of Personality in Workplace Bullying Research, Vol. 2 Workplace Bullying and Mental Health, Vol. 2 Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Vol. 3 Bullies, Managers, Workers and Trade Unionists, Vol. 3 Diagnosis and Treatment: Repairing Injuries Caused by Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3 Investigation of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Complaints, Vol. 3 Managing Workplace Bullying Complaints: Conceptual Influences and the Effects of Contextual Factors, Vol. 3 Mediating Workplace Bullying and Harassment Complaints: A Risk Management Perspective, Vol. 3 Prevention of Workplace Bullying Through Work and Organizational Design, Vol. 3 Regulation as Intervention: How Regulatory Design Can Affect Practices and Behaviours in the Workplace, Vol. 3 Risk Management: Bullying as a Workplace Health and Safety Hazard, Vol. 3 Strengthening the Evidence Base of Workplace Bullying Interventions through Prevention and Implementation Research, Vol. 3 Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on Effec tiveness, Vol. 3

216

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

References Aluede, O., Ojugo, A. I., & Okoza, J. (2012). Emotional abuse of secondary school students by teachers in Edo State, Nigeria. Research in Education, 88, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.7227/ RIE8813. Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 59–70. Barnes, P. (2017). When the abuser goes to work . . . International Laws. Available at http:// abusergoestowork.com/legislation/international-laws/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-3. Accessed 14 Oct 2017. Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Astor, R. A. (2002a). Children’s reports of emotional, physical and sexual mistreatment by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 763–782. Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2002b). Maltreatment of primary school students by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1291–1309. Bernotaite, L., & Malinauskiene, V. (2017). Workplace bullying and mental health among teachers in relation to psychosocial job characteristics and burnout. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30(4), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.13075/ ijomeh.1896.00943. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 671–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013161X02239643. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: Implications for administrator preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15700760490503733. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2006). Teachers’ perspectives on principal mistreatment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 123–142. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2007). School principal mistreatment of teachers: Teachers’ perspectives on emotional abuse. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 4(3/4), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1300/ J135v04n03_10. Blase, J., Blase, J., & Du, F. (2008). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810869257. Bradshaw, C. P., & Figiel, K. (2012). Prevention and intervention of workplace bullying in schools. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Verbal abuse by the teacher during childhood and academic, behavioural, emotional adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 26–38. Casimir, G., McCormack, D., Djurkovic, N., & Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. (2012). Psychosomatic model of workplace bullying: Australian and Ugandan schoolteachers. Employee Relations, 34(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451211236841. Cemaloğlu, N. (2007). The exposure of primary school teachers to bullying: An analysis of various variables. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 789–802. Cemaloğlu, N. (2011). Primary principals’ leadership styles, school organizational health and workplace bullying. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 495–512. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09578231111159511. Charilaos, K., Galanakis, M., Chryssa, B., Panagiota, D., Chrousos, C. P., & Darviri, C. (2015). Validation of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) in a sample of Greek teachers. Psychology, 6, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.61007. Chen, J.-K., & Astor, R. A. (2009). Students’ reports of violence against teachers in Taiwanese schools. Journal of School Violence, 8, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1538820802067680. De Vos, J., & Kirsten, G. J. C. (2015). The nature of workplace bullying experienced by teachers and the biopsychological health effects. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), 1138. https://doi.org/10.15700/SAJE.V35N3A1138. 9p

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

217

De Wet, C. (2010a). School principals’ bullying behaviour. Acta Criminologica, 23(1), 96–117. De Wet, C. (2010b). Victims of educator-targeted bullying: A qualitative study. South African Journal of Education, 30, 189–201. De Wet, C. (2010c). The reasons for and the impact of principal-on-educator bullying on the victims’ private and professional lives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1450–1459. De Wet, C. (2011). Educator-on-educator workplace bullying: A phenomenological study. Africa Education Review, 8(3), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2011.618654. De Wet, C. (2012a). Risk factors for educator-targeted-bullying: A social-ecological perspective. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(2), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2012.10820523. De Wet, C. (2012b). Risk factors for workplace bullying in schools: A two dimensional perspective. Acta Criminologica, 27(1), 13–29. De Wet, C. (2014). Educators’ understanding of workplace bullying. South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1–16. Available at www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/ download/767/405. Accessed 07 Aug 2017. De Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2006). Educator-targeted bullying: Fact or fallacy? Acta Criminologica, 19(2), 53–73. De Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2013). South African teachers’ exposure to workplace bullying. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(3), 446–464. Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J., & Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and psychosocial profile. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24645. DeSouza, E. R. (2011). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in higher education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 158–188. https://doi.org/ 10.11770886260510362878. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspective in research and practice (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor and Francis. Engel, G.L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196 (4286), 129–136. Escartin, J. (2017). Adopting an evidence-based approach to prevent and intervene against workplace bullying situations. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7(4), 1–3. https://doi.org/ 10.4172/2161-0487.1000320. Espelage, D. L., Meban, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Moving beyond mean level differences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–35). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Fahie, D. (2014). Blackboard bullies: Workplace bullying in primary schools. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.983679. Fahie, D., & Devine, D. (2014). The impact of workplace bullying on primary school teachers and principals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00313831.2012.725099. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-emotioncontrol/support theory to teachers’ experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63(7), 927–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349518. Geiger, B. (2017). Sixth graders in Israel recount their experience of verbal abuse by teachers in the classroom. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjiabu.2016. 11.019. Hempel-Jorgensen, A. (2009). The construction of the ‘ideal pupil’ and pupils’ perceptions of ‘misbehaviour’ and discipline: Contrasting experiences from a low-socio-economic and a highsocio-economic primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690902954612.

218

C. de Wet and L. Jacobs

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V.J., & Lopez, S.H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: workplace bullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 882–416. Houghton, S., Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. (1988). Classroom behaviour problems which secondary school teachers say they find most troublesome. British Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 297–312. Jacobs, L., & De Wet, C. (2015a). Workplace bullying in schools: Who are being victimised? Acta Criminologica, 28(1), 50–66. Jacobs, L., & De Wet, C. (2015b). A quantitative exploration of the effects of workplace bullying on South African educators. African Safety Promotion Journal, 13(2), 31–57. James, D. J., Lawlor, M., Courtney, P., Flynn, A., Henry, B., & Murphy, N. (2008). Bullying behaviour in secondary schools: What role do teachers play? Child Abuse Review, 17, 160–173. Kauppi, T., & Pӧrhӧlä, M. (2012). School teachers bullied by their students: Teachers’ attributions and how they share their experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1059–1068. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.009. Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2006). Student victimization by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.12003. Kilic, E. D. (2009). Psychological violence in learning organizations: A case study in Sanliurfa, Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(7), 869–880. Kŏiv, K. (2015). Changes over a ten-year interval in the prevalence of teacher targeted bullying. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 171, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.01.098. Kondrasuk, J. N., Greene, T., Waggoner, J., Edwards, K., & Nayak-Rhodes, A. (2005). Violence affecting school employees. Education, 125(4), 638–647. Kormaz, M., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2010). Relationship between organizational learning and workplace bullying in learning organizations. Educational Research Quarterly, 33(3), 3–38. Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2008). Contrapower harassment in academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying and sexual attention. Sex Roles, 60, 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-956-x. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. Limber, S. P. (2011). Development, evaluation and future directions of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Journal of School Violence, 10(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15388220.2010.519375. Maguire, M. (2001). Bullying and the postgraduate secondary school trainee/teacher: An English case study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02607470120042564. Malinauskienë, V., Obelenis, V., & Dopagienë, D. (2005). Psychological terror at work and cardiovascular diseases among teachers. Acta Medica Lituanica, 12(2), 20–25. Matsela, M. A., & Kirsten, G. J. C. (2014). Teachers’ experiences and impact of workplace bullying on their health in Lesotho. Psychological Research, 4(6), 479–491. McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Lang, L. (2009). Workplace bullying and intention to leave among schoolteachers in China: The mediating effect of affective commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2106–2127. Monsvold, T., Bendixen, M., Hagen, R., & Helvik, A. S. (2011). Exposure to teacher bullying in schools: A study of patients with personality disorders. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 65(5), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2010.546881. Namie, G., & Yamada, D. C. (2017). The Healthy Workplace Campaign. Available at healthywork placebill.org/. Accessed 14 Oct 2017. Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In Peters, R.D., McMahon, R.J., & Quincy, V.L. (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 100–125. Ozkilic, R., & Kartal, H. (2012). Teachers bullied by their students: How their classes influences after being bullied? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3435–3439.

8

Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

219

Pervin, K., & Turner, A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils in an inner London school. Pastoral Care, 16(4): 4–10. Phooko, N., Meyer, H., Fourie, E., & Kirsten, T. (2017). Hoërskool-onderwysers in die Vrystaat se ervaring van psigologiese geweld [High school teachers’ experience of psychological violence in the Free State]. LitNet Akademies, 14(2). Available at http://www.litnet.co.za/ hoerskool-onderwysers-die-vrystaat-se-ervaring-van-psigologiese-geweld/. Accessed 05 Aug 2017. Powell, J., Powell, A. L., & Petrosko, J. M. (2015). School climate as a predictor of incivility and bullying among public school employees: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Violence, 14(2), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906917. Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 181–191. Riley, D., Duncan, D. J., & Edwards, J. (2011). Staff bullying in Australian schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102036. Russo, A., Milić, R., Knežević, B., Mulić, R., & Mustajbegović, J. (2008). Harassment in workplace among school teachers: Development of a survey. Croatian Medical Journal, 49, 545–552. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2008.4.545. Sekol, I., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). The overlap between bullying and victimization in adolescent residential care: Are bully/victims a special category? Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1758–1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.020. Shumba, A. (2002). The nature, extent and effects of emotional abuse on primary school pupils by teachers in Zimbabwe. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 783–791. Sinha, S., & Yadav, R. S. (2017). Workplace bullying in school teachers: An Indian enquiry. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8(3), 200–205. Available at http://www.i-scholar.in/index. php/ijhw/article/view/146993. Accessed 02 Aug 2017. Solon, R. (2013). Canada and workplace bullying. Available at https://www.crisisprevention.com/ Blog/July-2013/Canada-and-Workplace-Bullying. Accessed 14 Oct 2017. Sorrell, D. A. (2015). Workplace bullying: The lived experiences of educators. Journal of Bullying & Social Aggression, 1(2). Available at http://sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/work place-bullying-education/. Accessed 01 Sept 2017. Sylvester, R. (2011). Teacher as bully: Knowingly or unintentionally harming students. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 42–45. Available at www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/dkgbulle tinwinter2011.PDF. Accessed 06 Aug 2017. Terry, A. A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: A study to investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255–268. Theoklitou, D., Nabitsis, N., & Kabitsi, A. (2012). Physical and emotional abuse of primary school children by teachers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2011.05.007. Twemlow, S. W., & Fonagy, P. (2005). The prevalence of teachers who bully students in schools with differing levels of behavioural problems. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 2387–2389. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. S., & Brethour, J. R. (2006). Teachers who bully students: A hidden trauma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52(3), 187–198. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0020764006067234. Whelan, Y. M., Kretschmer, T., & Barker, E. D. (2014). MAOA, early experiences of harsh parenting, irritable opposition, and bully-victimization: A moderated indirect-effects analysis. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60(2), 217–237. Wilson, C. M., Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (2011). Violence against teachers: Prevalence and consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2353–2371. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260510383027. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and practice: An introduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 369–373.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience Loraleigh Keashly

Contents 9.1

9.2 9.3

9.4 9.5 9.6

9.7

9.8

Why Academe? The Culture and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 The Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 The Environment: Internal and External . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining the Literature Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prevalence of Academic Bullying and Mobbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1 Samples: Who Is Asking and Who Is Asked? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 Measurement: How the Question Is Asked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.3 Determining Prevalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.4 Duration of Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.5 In Sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academe vs Other Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact of Academic Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 In Sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responding to Academic Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.1 Target Responding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.2 Witness Responding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.3 Institutional Responding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.4 In Sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relational Nature of Academic Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7.1 Relative Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7.2 The Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7.3 In Sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Nature of Academic Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8.1 National Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8.2 Disciplinary Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8.3 Institutional Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8.4 In Sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223 223 226 227 229 229 253 255 258 258 259 259 261 262 262 263 263 264 264 265 267 270 271 271 272 272 273

L. Keashly (*) Department of Communication, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_13

221

222

L. Keashly

9.9

273 274 278 279 282 283 283 283 284

Behaviour Does Not Speak for Itself: Contextualizing Study and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9.1 Research Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9.2 Measurement: What Is Asked Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9.3 Practice Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10.1 One Last Comment: Faculty as Participant-Observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abstract

The culture of academe and academics has been characterized as hostile and cruel with campuses described as “rife” with bullying. In this chapter, extant global research on bullying in academe is reviewed to assess the validity of these characterizations. Given the central role of faculty in shaping the nature of higher education, the experiences of faculty as targets, actors and witnesses of workplace bullying, mobbing and harassment are the focus. The unique features of academe and the nature of the university as a “workplace” and faculty as “workers” as well as the broader social, political and economic context are considered for (1) how they shape the prevalence, nature, dynamics and impact of bullying, mobbing and harassment and (2) resultant insights that have value for the broader workplace bullying literature. Key insights include the status-based nature of bullying, the public and the state as powerful yet understudied actors and the critical influence of culturally shaped behavioural norms in defining what is and is not bullying, who should be involved in assessing and addressing bullying and the limitations of the policy solution. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future research directions as well as current and future practical actions for addressing and ameliorating these destructive and disruptive interactions.

“Bullying rife across campus” —Times Higher Education Supplement headline, September 16, 2005 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/bullying-rife...campus/198392.article

There is a pervasive belief that academe in general and universities in particular are hotbeds of conflict and, by extension, bullying (Barsky, 2002; Berryman-Fink, 1998; Twale, 2017). Academe has been characterized as a “culture of cruelty” (Farley & Sprigg, 2014), and academics, in particular, have been labelled as “mean and nasty” (Hiatt, 2008). The implication is that bullying is inevitable (and by implication unmanageable) given the nature (structure, processes, values, norms) of academe, its occupants and the (neoliberal) university administration and (corporate) management (e.g. Canaan & Shumar, 2008; Chandler, Barry, & Clark, 2002; Twale & DeLuca, 2008; Young, 2017; Zábrodská, Linnell, Laws, & Davies, 2011). To assess the basis and, hence, the validity of this belief, I will consider scholarly and relevant institutional and organizational literature from around the globe that focus on examining bullying and hostility in the academy. The experiences of faculty

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

223

will be the focus of this review because of their central role in the manifestation of the research and education missions of institutions, their partnership with administration (management) through shared governance and, more broadly, their positioning as public intellectuals commenting on the state of the world and specifically the dynamics of power and inequity (Keashly & Wajngurt, 2016). How faculty are doing and how they are feeling both reflects and has profound implications for the wellbeing and success of the institution and its members (including students), the state of higher education more broadly and society writ large (Scholars at Risk [SAR], 2018). A central influence on faculty experience is their relationships with administration (management), students, staff, their faculty colleagues and increasingly the public (e.g. Ferber, 2018; Shin & Jung, 2014; Trower, 2012). To this end, faculty experiences as targets, actors and witnesses of workplace bullying, mobbing and harassment will be discussed. The features of the university and academe as a “workplace” and faculty as “workers” will be considered for how they shape the nature, dynamics and impact of bullying, mobbing and harassment. This discussion will focus particularly on what is distinctive about academe and academics vis-à-vis other sectors and other workers and what this distinctiveness offers our examination of workplace bullying more broadly. The broader social, political and economic context within which academe exists will also be considered. While there is variability across countries, there is also a surprising degree of consistency in terms of the impact of these forces on the societal and institutional enablers of bullying behaviour (Eastman, 2018; Salin, 2003). I will conclude with a discussion of future research directions as well as current and future practical actions for addressing and ameliorating these destructive and disruptive interactions.

9.1

Why Academe? The Culture and the Environment

Discussion of faculty is a discussion of power and its roots in the culture of academe, the structure of institutions and the role of scholars and scholarship in the broader society.

9.1.1

The Culture

Academe as a workplace and academics as “workers” are unique among other sectors, and these unique features have implications for what is expected (normative) conduct for academics and, by extension, what is inappropriate conduct. These features also shape how and by whom inappropriate conduct is addressed. Academe broadly and universities specifically are framed as the places for free and unfettered thought, which is viewed as critical for the development and refinement of knowledge and the vitality of a democratic society, that is, universities as a public good (Gabbert, 2014). The principle of academic freedom supports such inquiry by allowing faculty to pursue ideas and thoughts even if they may be controversial, unpopular and contrary to current thinking or narratives and to do so

224

L. Keashly

without fear of capricious retaliation or sanction, particularly from institutional and state authorities. Academic freedom positions faculty as leaders in, and arbiters of, knowledge production, which is a very powerful position in crafting the narrative of education, research and higher education more broadly. Academic freedom is bolstered by the norm of autonomous functioning and the status protection of tenure or permanent, indefinite contract (job and economic security, albeit only for some faculty), features which are rare in other sectors. Thus, faculty as workers can be viewed as independent contractors with job security with all the freedom that entails to craft their experience and their environment (O’Meara, 2004; Twale, & DeLuca, 2008). The communicative environment conducive to free and unfettered inquiry needs to be vibrant and free-flowing, with ideas promoted and challenged, enhanced or dismissed. Debate, argumentation, critique, disagreement and dissent are the discursive practices critical to this knowledge process resulting in the “cut and thrust” of academe discourse (Armstrong, 2012; Nelson & Lambert, 2001; Tepper & White, 2012; Tracy, 2011). To contribute to and operate in this communicative space, faculty are trained to be analytical, critical, challenging, argumentative and persistent. Tannen (2002) has referred to this environment as supporting agonistic aggression, with scholars competing to gain status by pointing out the flaws and holes in another’s argument and work, that is, “rough-and-tumble” rules of engagement (Sternberg, 2015). These rules are quite different from the rules by which other workers both within the university and outside are expected to abide (Christy, 2010; Fratzl & McKay, 2013). Indeed, the conduct and speech that these rules permit/ promote may be perceived as bullying, mobbing and harassment in other work environments and with other workers. These “rules of engagement” and what is permissible are further shaped by faculty’s distinctive position as leaders in the institution (Keashly & Neuman, 2013). The principle of shared governance uniquely positions faculty among other university workers as leaders alongside administration/management in the development and manifestation of the university and its mission. Such governance involvement and the associated power it entails are not typical for workers in other industries or, indeed, other workers within the institution. In this role, faculty skills in debate, argumentation and critique are extended to (and expected for) the realm of decisionmaking, challenging administrative decisions and administrators, frequently characterized as “speaking truth to power”. Such conduct in other work contexts and within the university by non-academic staff would likely be construed as problematic and disruptive, framed as “insubordinate”, even bullying and, thus, sanctionable. In academe and for academics, then, similar conduct can be framed as normal and indeed necessary (Bloch, 2012; Friedenberg, 2008; Nelson & Lambert, 2001; Simpson & Cohen, 2004). “Power of the peer” is another unique element of faculty as workers. Academics are framed as a self-regulating profession managed through the process of peer review and collegial decision making (Scott, 2014; Twale, 2017). Thus, faculty are empowered to craft their own work environment both individually but also as academic departments or disciplinary units. This framework positions faculty colleagues as particularly influential in assessment of, and response to, faculty conduct

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

225

and experiences. Indeed, peers are to be the arbiters of what is (in)appropriate, in the realm of ideas and knowledge and also in the realm of professional conduct (Braxton & Bray, 2012). This is not the case in other workplaces where co-workers are not vested with legitimate authority to manage each other’s behaviour. Unfortunately, the ideal “power of the peer” as a cooperative and constructive enterprise among scholars often manifests differently in practice (Armstrong, 2012; Tannen, 2002). It cuts in at least two ways. First, “power of the peer” can be embraced as a way of asserting authority vis-à-vis colleagues in order to force conformity or silencing of these other faculty and their ideas. The ones who are often silenced in these ways are those that challenge by their mere presence (e.g. women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning), disabled) or by their actions that contradict current ways of operating within the department, for example (Jones, Hwang, & Bustamante, 2015; Martin, Sharp-Grier, & Piker-King, 2015; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Saloojee, 2014; Twale, 2017). The faculty’s positioning as evaluators in subjective processes such as mentoring, promotion and tenure, review of scholarly and creative work and selection of colleagues to join and continue in the department provides opportunities for exclusionary and derogatory activities to occur outside of others’ eyes, allowing undue influence (Armstrong, 2012). This manifestation of “power of the peer” looks a lot like bullying in terms of misuse/abuse of power. The second twist on “power of the peer” is when it comes to assessing and addressing a colleague’s conduct (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). As Crouch (2016) notes in her analysis of the issues of sexual harassment and racial discrimination in the US academe: . . .there is very little in academe or the discipline that curbs this (abusive) behavior. We tend to leave our colleagues alone, not to criticize their behavior when it is abusive to students or to junior colleagues. . .the reaction of many colleagues, or bystanders, to the knowledge of such conduct is to do nothing. (p. 8)

The norms of autonomy and collegiality create a dilemma for faculty colleagues (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). In her study of beliefs regarding post-tenure faculty review, O’Meara (2004) found that faculty peers believed that giving feedback on a tenured colleague’s behaviour undermines the other’s right to choose their actions and direct their own work, including how they work. This feedback was viewed as not “collegial” because it violated norms of professional respect. The result is colleagues do not engage with others around their conduct, which can facilitate its continuance (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). Thus, what appears as unique power and attendant social control faculty colleagues have with one another is undercut by their interpretation of the very norms that give them that power. This discussion of the “power of the peer” raises the question about who has the legitimacy to define and regulate faculty behaviour generally and specifically to address bullying, mobbing and harassment by faculty. To the extent peer “control” is not embraced, then faculty as workers are operating in an environment that has little to no organizational constraints on the behaviours (Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009).

226

L. Keashly

In essence, the story of academe and academics vis-à-vis faculty conduct is about the sources of power and control that faculty have and the norms and values in which those sources are grounded (Lester, 2009; Simpson & Cohen, 2004). The faculty’s unique organizational citizen status as free-thinking, autonomous actors with leadership of knowledge production as well as the research and education mission of the university, their power as evaluators, and their positioning and training as critics shapes faculty expression, what is considered by faculty (but not perhaps others!) as appropriate (normative or “reasonable”) conduct (and thus, what is not) and also the management of faculty conduct (Tracy, 2011). This assessment of appropriateness of conduct is further influenced by the social context, particularly who says/does what to whom and what the issues are under discussion. For example, contentious engagement between faculty and administration around governance issues such as budgeting and restructuring or among faculty regarding ideological and theoretical perspectives may be contexts that call for “reasonable hostility” by faculty (strong criticism of ideas infused with powerful negative sentiments) but in other contexts such as with students and staff may be considered “unreasonable” (Petrina, 2012; Tracy, 2011). This narrative and the associated norms provide justification for framing of one’s behaviour and actions as other than problematic and often as normal and necessary (Friedenberg, 2008; Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2010; Nelson & Lambert, 2001; Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Tannen, 2002). This narrative can also be used by faculty actors and by faculty witnesses to resist attempts to challenge or manage problematic conduct. This creates a very interesting context in which to examine the manifestation, experience and management of workplace bullying, mobbing and harassment (Lester, 2009).

9.1.2

The Environment: Internal and External

The academy and universities exist within an economic, political and social environment that influences their challenges, experiences and their responses. The academy like other organizations and industries are at greater risk of bullying when under pressure (Salin, 2003). Academe generally and universities specifically are under tremendous scrutiny and pressure globally. The very qualities that make the academy and faculty unique are being challenged from a number of different directions. Globalization, co-modification of knowledge, massification of education, reduction in state or government funding, disruptive technologies and the rise of neoliberalism, managerialism and marketization create competitive pressures directed at institutional survival and fundamental challenges to the role of faculty scholars in institutional leadership and as public intellectuals (Jackson, 2018; Pelletier, Kottke, & Sirotnik, 2018; Petrina, Mathison, & Ross, 2014; Tucker, 2012; Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper, & Ricketts, 2005). Specific threats to academic freedom occur in the form of politicization of the funding agenda (e.g. decreased state funding, targeted research funding), increasing involvement of the state in setting the content and structure of the institution (e.g. Eastman, 2018; Tucker, 2012), increase in contingent and temporary faculty vis-à-vis permanent faculty (American

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

227

Association of University Professors [AAUP], 1993), silencing of scholars asking “dangerous questions” (SAR, 2018) and the rise of anti-intellectualism (Jaschik, 2018; Stanley, 2018). Public responses to controversial social media posts of faculty thought and also websites such as Professor Watchlist https://www.pro fessorwatchlist.org, Campus Reform https://www.campusreform.org and Campus Fix https://www.thecollegefix.com that profile and target faculty as problems are also framed as bellwethers for free-thought (Ferber, 2018). These external and internal pressures, which could be characterized as bullying in and of themselves (D’Cruz, 2015; Tucker, 2012), place tremendous pressure on universities and their own climates as they manage academic freedom and ability to survive in a turbulent and resource-restrictive environment. In essence, the higher education environment is rich with “motivating” (threat to survival) and “precipitating” factors associated with bullying (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Salin, 2003; Twale & DeLuca, 2008), making faculty particularly vulnerable for bullying as targets, actors and witnesses (SAR, 2018; Shin & Jung, 2014). Together, the structure and values of academe and faculty roles and the political, social and economic environment in which universities and higher education exist create a rich context for examining the manifestation, experience, effects and management of workplace bullying.

9.2

Defining the Literature Domain

The life and experiences of academics have been a long-standing area of research interest particularly regarding job/career satisfaction (Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure, & Meek, 2013; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997), job stress (e.g. Catano et al., 2007; Shin & Jung, 2014; Winefield et al., 2003; Zábrodská et al., 2018), work engagement (Mudrak et al., 2018), departure (e.g. Gardner, 2012), conflict (e.g. Barsky, 2002; Berryman-Fink, 1998; Volpe & Chandler, 2001), the changing landscape of higher education (e.g. Burnes, Wend, & By, 2014; Fielden, 2007) and (d) evolution of academic freedom (e.g. Karran & Mallinson, 2017; Turk, 2014). While problematic and abusive interactions have been identified in these literatures, they are not systematically explored and examined as phenomena in their own right. Fortunately, more recently, academics have turned attention to their own experiences of bullying, focusing primarily on documenting and exploring interpersonal bullying (e.g. Henning et al., 2017; Hollis, 2012; Keashly & Neuman, 2013) and, increasingly, depersonalized, organizational or socio-structural bullying (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2009; Keashly & Harvey, 2006; Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001) and bullying and harassment from the public and the state (Ferber, 2018; SAR, 2018; Scott, 2018). Thus, there are rich, diverse and continually evolving interrelated literatures that could be drawn upon for this review. However, the domain needs to be delimited for manageability. To define the pool of relevant studies and writings, the following search terms were used: bullying, mobbing, (personal) harassment, emotional abuse, workplace mistreatment, psychological aggression and incivility in

228

L. Keashly

connection with the terms of academe, university, college, higher (and further) education, professors, faculty and academic staff. Incivility is worth noting for its inclusion particularly since several authors (e.g. Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Hershcovis, 2011) distinguish it from the other terms noted above. There are several reasons for its inclusion in this review. Frequency and persistence of “uncivil” behaviours are key in influencing the degree of impact (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Magley, & Nelson, 2017), and these are also central features of bullying, mobbing and harassment (Leymann, 1996). Further, “uncivil” environments have been argued to create opportunity for bullying through the normalization of aggression and hostility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; King & Piotrowski, 2015; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998), highlighting the connection between incivility and bullying. More pragmatically, measures of incivility encompass behavioural items that are also included in measures of bullying and mobbing suggesting that these constructs, at least in their measurement, are more similar than different (Cortina & Marchiondo, 2012; Hershcovis, 2011). Thus, studies that encompass incivility alongside bullying and mobbing are included in this review. Harassment and discrimination on the basis of identity group membership were not explicitly utilized as a search term. However, given that various forms of mistreatment tend to “travel together” (Raver & Nishii, 2010) and there is evidence that bullying and mobbing can be selective in terms of targeting “others” (Cortina, 2008; Keashly & Neuman, 2018; Sallee & Diaz, 2013), studies that encompass these constructs alongside bullying and mobbing were included. This pool of studies was further affected by the requirement that they be available in English due to the author’s own language limitations. Google and Google Scholar were the primary search engines utilized. While Google Scholar captures the academic literature (published articles, books, conference presentations, dissertations and theses), Google searches capture publicly available reports of surveys and studies by universities, unions and government bodies. Even though these reports may not appear in the scholarly literature, they are often empirically rigorous and perhaps more importantly drive institutional and public policy responses (Keashly, 2018a). There have been a number of articles focused on specific audiences to introduce them to what is known about bullying and academe and whose focus is informational rather than empirical, critical and analytical. This includes pieces in professional or trade publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed (USA (United States)), Times Higher Education Supplement (UK (United Kingdom)), The Guardian (Higher Education section) and University World News as well as popular websites such as http://www.kwesthues.com/mob bing.htm and http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com and Facebook groups such as Workplace Bullying in Higher Education. These articles and sites are important as informational and discussion forums. However, they do not typically provide unique findings and data beyond the studies reviewed here. These writings will be cited as appropriate to make the case for increasing interest and the range of academic contexts and roles for which bullying, mobbing and harassment are relevant.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

9.3

229

Prevalence of Academic Bullying and Mobbing

For the purposes of assessing prevalence, this section will focus on studies that utilized surveys. Table 1 has been organized by country and provides information on the time period of data collection; sample; measurement; timeframe; reported rates of experience as a target, witness or actor; sources of the bullying; and the effects studied. The empirical research on bullying in academe is similar to what is seen in bullying research in other work contexts. Specifically, these studies vary in terms of nature of sample (representative, convenience; population targeted), measurement utilized (self-labelling and behavioural checklist), timeframe (anywhere from currently to “in your career”) and source (none, rank, social identity group). These features influence the numbers that are reported and their meaning (Keashly, 2018a; Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). In essence, there is little standardization, which makes addressing the question of whether bullying is “rife on campus” difficult and cross-study and cross-country comparisons challenging. However, this variety could be a benefit for other purposes as there are studies that can support a variety of claims or goals from “rifeness” to “no big deal” (Keashly, 2018a). With these caveats in mind, here are some observations that are useful in the consideration and discussion of workplace bullying in academe and more broadly.

9.3.1

Samples: Who Is Asking and Who Is Asked?

As can be seen from Table 1, research is predominantly from Western, particularly Anglo-Saxon countries, such as the UK, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. This may well be a reflection of increasing and intense managerial reforms in these countries and the implications for high job stress among academics (Shin & Jung, 2014; Williams, 2008). It is exciting to see the increasing presence of research from Eastern Europe (e.g. Albania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Turkey), the Middle East (e.g. Egypt), Africa (e.g. Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda) and South Asia (e.g. India, Pakistan). This presence enriches the discussion of bullying in academe as countries will vary in terms of the nature and structure of higher education; the social, political and economic context; as well as the social value and status attributed to academe and academics, all of which can be expected to shape the existence, expression and management of faculty experiences (Shin & Jung, 2014; Teichler, Arimoto, & Cummings, 2013). National culture and the presence of legislative or regulatory responses to bullying also can be expected to influence the meaning and (un)acceptability of conduct as bullying (Escartín, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodriguez-Carballeira, 2011; Hershcovis, Reich, & Niven, 2015; Jacobson, Hood, & Van Buren, 2014; Power et al., 2013; Severance et al., 2013). Notable in their absence are prevalence studies of academe from other Asian countries such as China and Russia as well as Latin and South American countries. This is not to suggest that these are not issues in these countries. Research on bullying in other workplaces as well as evidence that workplace bullying tracks

NTEU 2012 Collected 2011

AUSTRALIA Cox and Goodman 2005 Collected 2000

Buka 2013 Collected 2012–2013

Study ALBANIA Buka and Karaj 2012 Collected 2012

Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist— NAQ-R Paper and online questionnaire— definition of mobbing + NAQR

Faculty at four universities N = 105 (response rate 70%)

Paper questionnaire— single item on bullying + behavioural checklist Prof and academic Online staff at one questionnaire— university N = 552 single item (270 acad staff) on bullying + (9.1% response behavioural rate) checklist

All staff at one university; N = 191 (65 acad staff) (9.5% response rate)

Faculty at 22 universities N = 460 (response rate 77%)

Method

Sample

No timeframe provided

No timeframe provided

Prior 6 months

Prior 6 months

Timeframe

Table 1 Empirical studies of workplace bullying in academe

Experienced 68.6% self-label Witnessed/known about 83.2%

Experienced 52.4% self-label Women = men

Experienced 12.3% self-label 5.8% frequent Perpetrated 11.5% self-label 4% frequent Targeted Superior 13.2% Colleague 68.4% Subordinate 18.4%

Experienced 91%  1 behaviour 7% at least weekly

Rates

Co-workers most frequent

Superv/mgmt—30% Colleagues—15%

Superior 39.1% Colleague 56.5% Subordinate 4.3%

Not asked

Actors

Stress, health, work absence, disengagement, job performance, transfer, resign

Ill health, emotional stress, time off work, intent to leave, changing job

Anxiety, depression, motivation, sleepless, fatigue headache Anxiety, depression, motivation, sleepless, fatigue headache

Effects

230 L. Keashly

Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson 2014 Collected 2012–2013

McKay, Arnold, Fratzl and Thomas 2008 Collected 2005

CANADA Catano et al. 2007 Collected 2005

Strachan et al. 2012 Collected 2011–2012

Faculty from 56 universities; random sample; N = 1470 (27% response rate) Teaching staff and librarians at one university; N = 100 (12% response rate); 71% faculty; 23% instructors; 6% librarians Faculty at one institution; N = 121

Academic staff, 19 universities N = 8391 (35% response rate)

Online questionnaire— definition of cyberbullying

Online questionnaire— one item on bullying + behavioural checklist

Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Paper or online questionnaire— one item on experience of harassment or bullying Experienced 48.5% 1 behaviour Women > men

Prior 12 months

Experienced 17% self-label Women > men Tenured > untenured People of colour > Whites English not first language > English speakers

Prior 5 years Experienced 52% self-label 32% “seriously” 10% unsure Women > men

Prior 12 months

Prior 5 years Experienced 29% self-label Women > Men Was severe? 44% (12% of sample) Women < men

Students 12% (no diff in tenure) Colleague 9% Women 13% Tenured target 19%

Superior 45% Peers 64% Students 27%

a

Co-workers > admin = students

Not asked

(continued)

Physical and mental health, confidence, concentration, safety, intent to quit, productivity

Stress, frustration, anger, anxiety demoralize, powerlessness

Stress, health, job satisf, org commitment, medication use

Adverse career impact

9 Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience 231

Sample Faculty at four institutions; N = 331

CZECH REPUBLIC Zábrodská Employees and Ph. and Kveton D. candidates at 2013 three universities; Collected N = 1533 (no 2010–2011 response rate provided); faculty (51.9%), Ph.D. candidates (30.1%) EGYPT Yousef, ElAssist profs and Houfey and demonstrators— El-Serogy six disciplines, one 2013 university Collected N = 535 (no 2012–2013 response rate given)

Study Cassidy, Jackson and Faucher 2016 Collected 2012–2014

Table 1 (continued)

Prior 12 months

Prior 6 months

In-person questionnaire— behavioural checklist based on LIPT

Timeframe Prior 12 months

Online questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Method Online questionnaire— definition of cyberbullying

Superior—73.3% Colleague—23.3% 1 actor—62.2% 2–4 actors—36.3% Men > women

Superiors > co-workers > staff > students

Experienced 1 behav: 53.7% demonstrators Assist profs 44.1%

Actors Students 15% Women 16% Men 13% Colleague 12% Women 14% Men 8%

Experienced: self-label 7.9% at least occasionally 0.7% weekly Experienced 13.6%  1 behav weekly 6.8%  2 behav weekly Witnessed—28.8%

Rates Experienced 25% self-label Women > men Professor > sessional instructor > teaching assistants Tenured > untenured People of colour > Whites English not first language > English speakers

Sadness, fear, rumination, concentration, distrust, sleeplessness, headache, job performance, conflict with others

Not studied

Effects Physical and mental health, confidence, concentration, safety, intent to quit, productivity

232 L. Keashly

FINLAND Bjorkqvist, Osterman and Hielt-Black 1994

ETHIOPIA Marsh et al. 2009

ESTONIA Meriläinen et al. 2017 Collected 2014

Employees at one university; N = 338 (47% response rate)

Female faculty and staff at eight colleges and universities N = 387 (99.9% response rate) 59 faculty 328 admin staff

Staff at nine universities; N = 864 (23% response rate)

Mail questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist based on GWHQ

Online questionnaire— respond to definition of bullying, inappropriate behaviour + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Prior 6 months

Prior 12 months

Prior 6 months

Experienced 20.5%  .75 mean 24.4% women 16.9% men Admin > teaching or research Witnessed—32%

Experienced 1 behav 82.2% 79.7% faculty 82.6% admin staff

Experienced: 42% self-label 27% bullied 15% inapprop

Not asked Superior 55.5% Peer 32.1% Subordinate 12.4%

Boss 24.5% Co-worker 23.5% Student 14%

Not reported

(continued)

Depression, anxiety, aggression

Depressive symptoms

Not studied

9 Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience 233

ITALY Giorgi 2012 Collected 2008–2009

Singh 2017

INDIA Navayan and Chitale 2016

Study Meriläinen, Sinkkonen, Puhakka and Kayhko 2016 Collected 2014

Method Online questionnaire— respond to definition of bullying, inappropriate behaviour + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Administrative staff at one university (faculty excluded)— N = 371 (32.1% response rate)

Paper questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Online questionnaire— single item on repeated mistreatment Teaching faculty at Mail one university; questionnaire— N = 280 (response single item rate 56%) on bullying + behavioural checklist

Teaching faculty in the Pune region; N = 50 (response rate 10%)

Sample Social studies faculty at one university N = 114 (38% response rate)

Table 1 (continued) Rates Experienced: 60% self-label 15% bullied 45% inapprop

Prior 6 months

Prior 12 months

Senior rank 77.7% Boss 44.4% Colleague 33.3% Staff 11.1% Students 11.1%

a

1 actor—50% >1 actor—40.6%

Actors Teaching personnel > admin > student > research personnel

Experienced Not asked 19%  2 behav weekly 7+ years on job more likely

Experienced 12.9% self-label

Not provided Experienced—44.7% Witnessed—53.9%

Timeframe Prior 6 months

Psychological and physical health

Irritability, depression, fear, headache, sleeplessness, loss of confidence and self-esteem

Anger, rumination, self-confidence, work interest, desire to quit

Effects Anxiety, helplessness, selfconfidence, work performance, exclusion, quality of work env’t

234 L. Keashly

Faculty at one university: N = 330 (27.9% response rate)

Staff at one university N = 221 (teaching staff = 57) (16.2% response rate)

NEW ZEALAND Raskauskas Employees; six 2006 universities; Collected in N = 1117 (617 2005 acad, 500 admin staff) (~17% response rate) NORWAY Einarsen and Multi-industry Skogstad samples; 1996 employees at one university; N = 1470 (59% response rate)

JAPAN Takeuchi et al. 2018 Collected 2014

Fadda et al. 2015

Superior—60.7% Co-worker higher rank— 18.1% 1 actor—38.4% 2 actors—29.9% 5 actors—9.4%

Not asked

Experienced Not available for this sample 6.2% self-label 2.7% once/twice 2.8% monthly 0.7% weekly Women = men 50 years of age least likely

Prior 6 months

Mail questionnaire— respond to definition

Experienced 26% 34% women 23.4% men Witnessed 52.7% 63% women 50% men

Experienced Not asked 10.1%  2 behav weekly Admin staff > teaching staff

Previous year Experienced 67.7% self-label 65.3% acad 70.6% admin Of those who self-labelled: 27.4% 1–2 incidents 37.8%  10 incidents

In career at university

Prior 6 months

Online questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist

Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience (continued)

Not studied

Depression, stress, emotional exhaustion, selfesteem, sleeplessness

Burnout

Psychological health

9 235

PAKISTAN Ahmad, Kalim and Kaleem 2017 Collected 2009–2010

Ojedokun, Oteri and Ogungbamila 2014

NIGERIA Nkporbu and Douglas 2016

Study Koval 2014

Academics; 43 universities, Punjab N = 214 (49.7% response rate)

Employees at one university; N = 600; N = 481 academic staff (no response rate reported) Faculty at seven Southwestern Nigerian universities; N = 475 (67.9% response rate)

Sample Employees at one university; N = 211 (response rate 12.7%)

Table 1 (continued)

Mail questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist

Mail questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R as perpetrator

Administrative method unclear— behavioural checklist

Method Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Perpetrated 20.4% self-label

Experienced 1 behaviour 58.5% acad staff 70.1% nonacad Women > men

Rates Experienced 1 behaviour 84.8% now and then 16.1%  weekly 5.2% daily Full prof > admin > asst prof > assoc prof > researcher

Prior Experienced 6–12 months 3 behav/weekly 47.9% Women = men Witnessed—68.2% 41.1% rarely 20.6% monthly 4.2% weekly

Prior 6 months

Not stated

Timeframe Prior 6 months

Not studied

Effects Psych distress, intent to leave

Sr rank—28.4% Same rank—22.6% Jr rank—21.4% Student—14% Admin—13.6%

Not studied

Position of actor not reported Not studied

Boss “most likely”

Actors Not asked

236 L. Keashly

SPAIN LópezCabarcos and VázquezRodríguez 2006 Collected 2003 TURKEY Ozturk, Yilmaz and Hindistan 2007 Collected 2006 Yildirim and Yildirim 2007 Collected 2006

Mail questionnaire— single item on psych harassment

Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Teachers and researchers at a three-university system; N~1500 (~20% response rate)

Nursing faculty, nine state universities N = 162 (66% response rate)

Nursing faculty, 11 university nursing schools; N = 210 (69% response rate) Prior 12 months

In career

Experienced Supervisors > co-workers 91%  1 behaviour 17% multiple behaviours (“direct mobbing”)

a Manager—70% Experienced 20.4%  180/300 total score Colleague—46%

Not reported Experienced—self-label Higher rank—58% 11.6%, 17.7%, 23% (vary by Equal rank—15% university) Lower rank—2% Women > men Teaching > research Witness—46%

2.3% daily 40s > other age grps. Perpetrated: 30.8% self-label 20.6% rarely 3.7% monthly 4.7% weekly 1.9% daily

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience (continued)

Fatigue, stress, rumination, headaches, spillover to family, trust, detachment, conflict at work, displaced aggression

Fear, anxiety, job performance

Anxiety, irritability, concentration, unfairness, powerlessness, trapped

9 237

Faculty at one university; N = 450 (53% response rate)

Senol, Avsar, Peksen Akca, Argun and Avsarogullari 2015 Collected 2010

Korukcu, Bulut, Tuzcu, Bayram and Öztürk Türkmen 2014

Taspinar et al. 2013

Gül, İnce and Özcan 2011

Sample Faculty at five universities; N = 103 (85.5% response rate) Faculty at one university; N = 97 (80.8% response rate) Faculty at one university N = 100 (40% response rate) Health sciences academic staff at one university; N = 270 (no response rate provided)

Study Tigrel and Kokalan 2009

Table 1 (continued)

Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Method Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist Admin method not stated— behavioural checklist—LIPT Paper questionnaire— behavioural checklist—LIPT Admin method not stated— behavioural checklist—LIPT

Prior 12 months

Varying timeframes

Prior 6 months

Prior 6 months

Experienced 53% across timeframes 16.3% often/very often Specific timeframes: 12.2% (current) 4.1% (6 months) 6.3% (3 years) Women > men Experienced 58.2%  1 behaviour 5.4% frequently 16.6% daily Women = men

Experienced 13.6% mean score

Experienced 70%  1 behaviour frequently

Timeframe Rates Not reported Experienced 11.7%  1 behaviour

Musculoskeletal discomfort

Not studied

Not studied

Not asked

Superior > colleague > subordinate

Burnout

Effects Psych distress, depression, intent to leave

Not asked

Not asked

Actors Not reported

238 L. Keashly

Research assistants and assistant prof at 51 universities in 3 cities; N = 605; 141 assist profs (6.1% response rate)

Faculty at one university; N = 102 (not report response rate) UNITED KINGDOM Lewis 1999 Further/higher Wales education union members; 32 institutions; N = 415 (50.3% response rate) Hoel and Multi-industry Cooper 2000 sample; employees at one university; N = 487 (45.4% response rate)

UGANDA Kakumba, Wamala and Wanyama 2014

MinibasPoussard, Seckin-Celik and Bingol 2018

Experienced 7.2% self-label 6% at least occasionally 1.2%  weekly Experienced—21.3% Witnessed—42.8% Women > men

Supervisor 62.9% Colleague 51.4% Subord 11.4% Client/student 2.9%

a

(continued)

Motivation, satisfaction, efficiency, work pressure

Shame

Prior 6 months Past 5 years

Not asked

Mail questionnaire— respond to definition

Not studied

Not reported Experienced—18% Witnessed—22%

Superior >80% Men > women

Mail questionnaire— single item on bullying

Experienced 26%  1 behav/wk Women = men Public Uni > private

Not reported Experienced Sr rank—60.8% Not studied 53.3%  1 behaviour at least Same rank—24.6% once Other of lower rank or staff— 15%

Prior 6 months

Admin method not reported— behavioural checklist

Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist NAQ-R and WAR-Q

9 Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience 239

Boynton— Times Higher Education Supplement Bullying Survey 2005 Court 2008 Stress survey Collected 2008

Simpson and Cohen 2004

Study Kinman and Jones 2004 Collected in 2004

Mail questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist

Method Mail questionnaire— single item on bullying

Online questionnaire— self-definition of bullying + behavioural checklist Members, Union of Online Colleges and questionnaire— Universities; respond to N = 14, 270 (9740 definition of higher education; bullying 3190 further personal education) harassment

Sample Members, Association of University Teachers; 99 institutions; N = 1100 (22% response rate) 840 acad staff Members, Association of University Teachers; one university; N = 378 (19.8% response rate) Self-selected sample of higher education employees; N = 843

Table 1 (continued)

Not reported Experienced Bullied: Further education 27.3% 7.2% often/always Higher education 23.4% 6.7% often/always

Not reported Experienced 25% self-label 28.5% women 19.8% men Witnessed—33% 67.5% women 29.4% men “Currently” Experienced 42% self-label Witnessed—72%

Timeframe Rates Prior 5 years Experienced 18% self-label Women > men

49% Manager 26% Senior rank (not manager) 1 actor—61% Group—39% Men > women Not asked

Superior—80% Colleague—20%

Actors Not reported

Relationship wellbeing Stress

Psychological impact

Anxiety, selfconfidence, selfesteem

Effects Stress

240 L. Keashly

Kinman and Wray 2013a Collected 2012

Court 2008 Negative behaviours survey Collected 2008

Members, Union of Colleges and Universities; N = 679; (response rate 17%) 48% in higher education; 44% in further education Members, University and College Union (UCU)—higher education N = 14, 667 (no response rate reported)

Online questionnaire on stress—respond to definition of bullying personal harassment

Online questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Not reported Experienced Bullied: 24% 15.6% sometimes 8.4% often/always (range 2.2–19%) Personal harassed: 25.5% 17.3% sometimes 8.2% often/always

Prior 6 months

Personal harassed: Further education 31% 8.8% often/always Higher education 25.8% 7% often/always Experienced 25.9% self-label 15.6% now and then 10.3%  several times/ month

Not asked

a Superior—75.4% Colleague—38.7% Subordinate—9.7% Clients—1.6% Students—6.0%

(continued)

Stress, well-being

Relationship wellbeing

9 Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience 241

Faculty readership in UK and outside N = 1366 (685 in UK; 681 outside UK)

Faculty at UK and Online EU universities on questionnaire academic freedom item on being

Guardian Higher Education Network 2014 Collected in 2014

Karran and Mallinson 2017

Online questionnaire on bullying—item on being bullied

Online questionnaire on stress—respond to definition of bullying personal harassment

Members, University and College Union (UCU)—further education N = 2251 (no response rate reported)

Kinman and Wray 2014 Collected 2014

Method Online questionnaire on stress—respond to definition of bullying personal harassment

Sample Members, University and College Union (UCU)—further education N = 7110 (no response rate reported)

Study Kinman and Wray 2013b Collected 2012

Table 1 (continued)

Not provided Experienced: Bullied: 23.1% UK

Timeframe Rates Not reported Experienced Bullied: 26.3% 17.5% sometimes 8.8% often/always (range 0–31.8%) Personal harassed: 30.5% 21.4% sometimes 9.1% often/always Not reported Experienced Bullied: 27.3% 17.4% sometimes 9.9% often/always Personal harassed: 29.3% 19.7% sometimes 9.6% often/always In career Respondents are those who self-identify as bullied Stress, irritability, sleeplessness, headaches, selfconfidence, spillover to outside, work absence, intent to leave Self-censorship

UK Manager > other Outside UK Colleagues > other

Colleagues No specific actors

Stress, well-being

Effects Stress, well-being

Not asked

Actors Not asked

242 L. Keashly

N(UK) ~500: N (EU) ~5000

Mail questionnaire— behavioural checklist GWHQ

Online questionnaire—

Employees at one university; N = 2492; 765 faculty; 295 service; 557 clerical; 875 student workers (51.6% response rate)

Employees at one university;

Keashly and Neuman 2008

Mail questionnaire— item on mistreatment

bullied for acad views by colleagues item on psych pressure from others for views

Richman et al. 1999 Data collected in 1996

UNITED STATES Price Spratlen Employees at one 1995 university; random Collected sample; N = 805; 1990 208 faculty; 92 prof staff; 506 classified staff (51% response rate)

UK and EU Ongoing collection

Experienced self-label 23% overall 11% faculty 38% prof staff 25% classif. staff Women = men Witnessed 27% overall 19% faculty 27% prof staff 31% classif. staff Experienced 55%  1 behaviour 2 times; 50% faculty 57% service 63% clerical 53% student workers Overall: 56% women 54% men Faculty: 68% women 52% men Experienced 32% self-label 1 actor 43% 2 actors 30%

Not asked

Overall: Superior 48% Co-worker 31% Subordinate 9% Other 12% Faculty: Superior 52% Co-worker 36% Subordinate 4% Other 8% incl students

(continued)

Emotional and physical health,

Depressive symptoms, anxiety, hostility, alcohol use

Self-esteem, selfconfidence, job satisfaction, communication, productivity

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

Prior 12 months

Prior 12 months

Prior 18 months

14.1% EU Psych pressure: 26.6% UK 15.7% EU

9 243

Faculty at one institution— N = 399 (61% response rate) Faculty at one university; N = 241 (55% response rate)

Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft and Beneke 2009 Neuman 2009 Collected 2009

Mail questionnaire— behavioural checklist Online questionnaire— respond to definition +

N = 1185; (34.3% respond to response rate) definition + behavioural checklist WAR-Q

Collected 2008

Method

Sample

Study

Table 1 (continued)

Prior 12 months

Prior 12 months

Timeframe 39% faculty; 43% staff; 53% directors and dept. chairs; 9% student workers Bothered by bullying? 62% great deal 27% moderately Women > men Experienced: 23% 1 behaviour week 12% 1–2 behavs/week 11%  3 behavs/week Women > men Witnessed 41% 32% faculty Bothered by what witnessed 64% great deal 23% moderately Experienced 98%  1 behaviour Degree of upset— Women > men Experienced 26% self-label 19%  1 behaviour weekly Witnessed—46%

Rates

Superior 24% Colleague 66% Sr colleague 37% Equal status 21%

Students as actors

3 actors 27% Superior 43% (25% faculty) Co-worker/colleague 42.4% (63% faculty) Subordinate 4% (10% faculty) Customer/student 2% Superior 44% Peer 40% Subordinate 6% Customer/student 2%

Actors

Emotional and physical health, fear, stress, job satisfaction, org

Anxiety, stress, fear, sleeplessness, productivity

fear, stress, job satisfaction, org commitment, intent to leave

Effects

244 L. Keashly

Faculty; convenience sample N = 228

Business and economics faculty, multiple institutions— N = 60 (2.7% response rate)

175 colleges and universities—all employee groups—N = 401 (15.5% response rate)

Fox 2010

Raineri, Frear and Edmonds 2011

Hollis 2012

Online questionnaire— respond to definition

Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist

behavioural checklist WAR-Q

Prior 18 months

Prior 6 months

Witnessed  1 behaviour occurring at least monthly: 55.3% faculty victim 10.9% Sr faculty 44.5% Jr faculty 36.4% admin victim 16.4% staff victim Women > men Experienced 31% Women > men African Am > White LGBTQ > straight Witness 32%

Prior 5 years Experienced 36.6% pervasive/freq bullying Women > men

Negative emotions, physical symptoms, burnout, job satisfaction, commitment, intent to leave Not studied

commitment, intent to leave

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience (continued)

Admin > faculty > staff Not studied Faculty—tenure > untenured

Senior faculty 52% Junior faculty 7.6% Admin 36.4% Staff 4.2% Men > women

Jr colleague 8% 1 actor 43% 2 actors 21% 3 actors 36% Superior 28% Colleague 71% Sr colleague 49% Equal status 15% Jr colleague 7% Superior 22.1% Colleague 23.9%

9 245

Sample Faculty at 100 institutions— N = 524 (66% response rate)

Faculty at one institution— N = 1060 (43% response rate)

Employees at one institution— N = 2254 (374 faculty) (28% response rate overall; 26% faculty)

Study Lampman 2012

Taylor 2013

Williams and Ruiz 2012

Table 1 (continued)

Online questionnaire— respond to definition

Online questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Method Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist

Rates Experienced 91%  1 behaviour; 10–15%—several behaviours Women > men People of colour > White Degree of upset— Women > men Prior Experienced self-label 6 months 12% overall 13% tenured 9% tenure track 10% non-tenure track Women > men LGBTQ > straight Arts and humanities > other disciplines Witness 22% Prior 2 years Experienced 39% overall 11% once 36% 2–3 times 18% 4–5 times 36%  5 times 36% faculty 41–43% staff Women > men Witness

Timeframe Prior 12 months

Physical and emotional health, stress, job satisfaction, work absence, performance, intent to leave

Overall: Supervisor 38% Higher rank not superv 25% Co-worker 32% Faculty 23% Faculty: 74% other faculty 31% admin 7% lower rank 3% student Other staff a

Job satisfaction, cynicism, exit, neglect duties

Effects Not studied

Not asked

Actors Students as actors

246 L. Keashly

Beckmann, Cannella and Wantland 2013 Landes 2013

Nursing faculty in three NE states— N = 473 (28% response rate) Employees at one university; N = 304 (8.2% response rate)

Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist NAQ-R Online questionnaire— respond to definition

Experienced 36%  1 behaviour Women > men Jr faculty > Sr faculty Prior 2 years Experienced 38% >50%  4 times 36% > 5 times Women > men Witness 50%

Prior 6 months

48% overall 43% faculty

Supervisor 37% Someone of higher rank 31% Co-worker 33% Faculty 30% Admin 24% Staff member 20% Lower rank 9% a Faculty 37% Someone of higher rank 32% Co-worker 32% Admin 29% Supervisor 27% Another staff 31% Lower rank 9%

a

Supervisor and co-worker primary actors Overall: a Supervisor 34% Higher rank not supervisor 27% Co-worker 35% Faculty 25% Faculty: 76% other faculty 27% admin 10% lower rank 2–3% student Admin 28% Senior faculty 60% Junior faculty 9%

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience (continued)

Emotional health, self-confidence, job satisfaction, intent to leave

Not studied

9 247

Employees at state university system; N = 786; 163 faculty (16% response rate)

Employees and students of state university system; institution—12 campuses;

MourssiAlfash 2014

Rankin and Associates 2014 Collected 2012–2013

Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin and Wang 2014

Sample Multi-industry sample; business and social science faculty in state university system; N = 83 (4.15% response rate) National sample of health administration faculty; N = 134 (53% response rate)

Study Onorato 2013

Table 1 (continued)

Online questionnaire— respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R Online questionnaire or hard copy—one item personal experience of

Online questionnaire— one item on bullying + behavioural checklist (McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008)

Method Online questionnaire— behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Rates Experienced Behavioural—total score (specific cut-off unclear) Tenured—16.2% Untenured—10.9%

Prior 5 years Experienced In career 64% self-label 55% “seriously” Full > Associate > Asst prof Witness 78% Assoc > full > assist Perceived as bully? 5% Men > women Prior Experienced 6 months 37.7% self-label 15.1% now and then 8.4% several times/week 82.4% 1 behaviour Women > men Prior Experienced: 12 months Overall—24% 9% affected work/ learning Faculty—23%

Timeframe Prior 6 months

Overall: Students—30% Faculty—19% Co-workers—25% Staff—16%

Not asked

Dean 17.7% Full prof 43% Assoc prof 24.9% Assist prof 12% 1 actor 66% 2 actors 20% 3 actors 14% Men > women

Actors Not asked

Not studied

Organizational citizenship behaviours.

Anger, irritability, stress, anxiety, demoralize, selfconfidence, sleeplessness, concentration, powerlessness, performance, spillover to life, desire to retaliate

Effects Not studied

248 L. Keashly

WISELI 2016 Collected 2016

Hollis 2016a

142 community colleges—all employee groups—N = 201 (14% response rate) Tenure/tenuretrack faculty + clinical faculty at one university; N = 2001 (58% response rate)

Online questionnaire— respond to definition of hostile and

Online questionnaire— respond to definition

N = 104, 208; exclusionary, 8010 faculty (27% intimidating, response rate) offensive and/or hostile behaviour

Experienced and witnessed (combined)—64% Women > men Af. American > White LGBTQ > Straight

Prior 3 years Experienced 36.4% overall 24.2% 1–2 times 5.1% 3–5 times 6.1% >5 times Women > men

Prior 18 months

Students—21% Postdoc—17% Staff—30% Women > men Transgender and Genderqueer > other gender identity grps. Under-represented minority and multi-minority > White or other people of colour Witnessed Overall—23% Faculty—25%

Not asked

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience (continued)

Job satisfaction, intent to leave

Admin—16% Supervisors—16% Faculty: Faculty—19% Admin—10% Students—4% Staff—4% Supervisors—3% Staff: Supervisors—57% Staff—48% Admin—41% Faculty—21% Students—6% Students—31% Faculty—17% Co-workers—14% Admin—14% Supervisors—13% Staff members—12% Admin > faculty > staff Not studied Faculty—tenure > untenured

9 249

Sample

Agricultural and life sciences faculty; 20 universities; N = 38 (11% response rate)

Study

Zemanek 2016 Collected 2014

Table 1 (continued)

Method

Online questionnaire— respond to definition (compare Williams & Ruiz, 2012)

intimidating behaviour

Prior year

Timeframe

Rates Tenured > untenured Faculty with disabilities > no disability Soc studies > Science Witnessed 44.2% overall 28.1% 1–2 times 8.4% 3–5 times 5.9% > 5 times Women > men Tenure > not tenure Faculty with disabilities > no disability Soc studies > Science Experienced 52.6% overall 14.3% once 38.1% 2–3 times 9.5% 4–5 times 38.1% > 5 times Witnessed 81.6% in university 63.1% in own dept 38.5% currently 23.1% year ago Admin > tenured > nontenured > staff > higher rank For tenured faculty Admin > tenured For untenured faculty Tenured > admin Tenured—52.6% Admin—44.7%

Actors

Physical and emotional health, stress, job satisfaction, work absence, performance, intent to leave

Effects

250 L. Keashly

University employees; Western and Midwest universities; N = 259; 81 faculty (no response rate provided) Full-time faculty at one university; N = 145 (24% response rate)— focus on faculty-tofaculty bullying

Online questionnaire— respond to definition

Online questionnaire respond to definition + behavioural checklist NAQ-R

Not asked

Experienced (rarely to daily) Colleagues > superiors > Overall—21% subordinates Faculty 22% Admin 19% Support staff 18% Prof staff 26% Women > men Tenured < not tenured

Multiple Experienceda 32.6% 6 mo timeframes— 31.5% 1 year 6 months, Women > men 1 year, Witnesseda 2 years, 44.4% 6 mo 5 years, 41.5% 1 year >5 years Women > men

Prior 6 months

Personal life impact, career impact

Not studied

LIPT, Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (Leymann, 1996); NAQ-R, Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (Einarsen et al., 2009); GWHQ, Generalized Workplace Harassment Questionnaire (Rospenda & Richman, 2004); WAR-Q, Workplace Aggression Research Questionnaire (Neuman & Keashly, 2004) a Multiple responses permitted

Lee 2018 UNF Collected 2017–2018

Aranda 2018

9 Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience 251

252

L. Keashly

broader societal trends on violence suggests that workplace bullying in academe in these countries is quite likely (e.g. Kawabata, 2014; Schafferer & Szanajda, 2013; Van de Vliert, Einarsen, & Nielsen, 2013; Zhang, 2017). In Japan, for example, “power harassment” (power hara) is considered a serious problem affecting approximately 25% of the working population (Roberts, 2014). A very specific form of power harassment in universities is “akahara” (academic harassment), which refers to abuses of power by senior faculty directed at junior faculty and particularly discrimination that keeps women from rising in the ranks (Craft, 2006; Normile, 2001). Recent research by Takeuchi et al. (2018) indicates that both female and male faculty are victims of bullying at rates higher than the general working population. While interest in empirically examining bullying and mobbing in academe has increased compared to earlier reviews (e.g. Keashly & Neuman, 2013), some of these studies are not “published” in traditional scholarly venues such as journals and books. Several are dissertations and theses as well as reports from a variety of public and private entities. Thus, interest is widespread, but it appears that academic empirical research in this area while increasing particularly among newer scholars is still lagging behind other interested parties such as unions, professional associations, governmental bodies and institutional systems. Who is asking has implications for the purpose of the study and resultant influence on who is asked and how they are asked, that is, sample and measurement (Keashly, 2018a). The uniqueness that academics bring to the study of bullying, mobbing and harassment in academe is a broad and deep understanding of macro-, meso- and micro-influences and theorizing around the dynamics and outcomes of these experiences (e.g. Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012; Samnani, 2013a). For example, Giorgi (2012) and Qureshi, Rasli and Zaman (2014) articulate the relationship of institutional climate to workplace bullying and its impact. Effective action needs to be grounded in this deeper understanding of the dynamics and mechanisms that academic research and theorizing have to offer. The specific nature and development of the samples have implications for the generalizability of the findings to faculty experience writ large. Study samples are varied ranging from the broad focus of “academic as an occupation” (across institutions) to more specific focus on particular disciplines or sets of disciplines to institutionally based samples. Of note are the nationwide samples, which tend to be associated with or supported by unions, professional associations, higher education systems and government. These organizations have the mechanisms and resources to permit large-scale samples. For example, the University of California system sample (USA) reported by Rankin and Associates (2014) had over 100,000 respondents! Further, these surveys tend to have greater response rates enhancing the representative nature of the samples and, thus, the generalizability of their findings to the larger population. The samples accessed through unions (e.g. Australia, Cox & Goodman, 2005; National Tertiary Education Union [NTEU], 2012; Canada, Catano et al., 2007; UK, Kinman & Wray, 2013a, b, 2014) encompass a variety of institutions within a specific country, thus permitting a snapshot of national higher education system/approach. The disciplinary samples can provide a glimpse into the influence of disciplinary culture, while the

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

253

individual university samples highlight institutional influences on the prevalence of bullying (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). Another important consideration is the context within which the measures of bullying were embedded, that is, whether they are part of a workplace climate (e.g. Rankin & Associates, 2014; Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute [WISELI], 2016), occupational stress or quality of academic life survey (e.g. Catano et al., 2007) vs those surveys specifically focused on bullying and mistreatment. Surveys that focus explicitly on workplace bullying and mobbing may face selfselection by the respondents. A vivid example is the recent 2014 survey by the Guardian Higher Education Network (Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014), which focused exclusively on those who self-identified as bullied. With surveys focused on bullying, some may choose not to respond for a variety of reasons (e.g. not a victim, afraid to share this information), while those who have had experiences may be more inclined to participate. Thus, prevalence rates from these studies are affected by respondent connection to the topic and affect the accuracy of the resultant rates. Confidence that the reported rates are representative is further affected by the response rate. Thus, samples vary in terms of their representativeness to the population of academics, and this has implications for their contribution to the profile of the extent of the problem of bullying, mobbing and harassment in academe and with faculty. While this review is focused on faculty experiences, several institutional studies included other employee groups in the sample with faculty. When data are broken out by employee group so that faculty are discernible, those data are provided in Table 1. These studies provide the opportunity to examine the relative risk of bullying for faculty vis-à-vis other worker groups within the same institution (Henning et al., 2017).

9.3.2

Measurement: How the Question Is Asked

There are a variety of measurements used to determine rates of experienced bullying. The two broad approaches of self-labelling by single items (with or without a specific definition) and researcher identification (operational) based on multi-item behavioural checklists are represented in the studies reviewed here. These two measurements reflect different aspects of bullying, that is, experience of victimization and exposure to hostile behaviours, respectively (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). While these measures are related, their correlation is not perfect. Thus, rates based on these two types of measures will differ. An examination of the self-labelling measures reveals how meaning and interpretation influence self-identification as a victim of bullying, mobbing and harassment. Thus, how victimization is described influences the self-identification rates. In the case of the single item where the definition of bullying is left up to the respondent (have you been bullied?), several studies of academics utilized items with different terms and the rates were different. Court (2008; UK) had respondents indicate whether they had been bullied and whether they had been personally harassed

254

L. Keashly

resulting in somewhat different rates. In their study of academic freedom challenges for UK and EU academics, Karran and Mallinson (2017) asked about being bullied for their views on academic freedom and experiencing psychological pressure for those views. The rates for these two experiences were different with psychological pressure higher than being bullied. In their industry study, Hubert and Van Veldhoven (2001) found that the education industry (higher education included in the category) reported rates of aggression from co-workers and from superiors lower than the average of all industries while reporting rates of “unpleasant interactions” with co-workers and superiors above average and higher than many other industries. In their study of social studies faculty at one Finnish university, Meriläinen, Sinkkonen, Puhakka and Kayhko (2016) found the 15% of respondents self-identified as experiencing “bullying”, while another 45% identified as experiencing “inappropriate behaviour”, distinct from bullying. These studies beautifully illustrate the influence of what we include in our questions shapes the rates reported. Severity or degree of impact (a proxy for “meaning of the behaviour”) as an element of scholarly definitions of bullying is relevant in this discussion of prevalence. As an illustration, among those who identified as bullied, a proportion of them did not view being bullied as “serious” (Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Strachan et al., 2012) and disruptive to their work (Rankin & Associates, 2014) nor were “bothered” by it (Keashly & Neuman, 2008). These indicators of severity reflect the importance of meaning/ interpretation of behaviour, which is influenced by the normative and discursive context of academe, for example, the cut and thrust of academic life (Nelson & Lambert, 2001). The meaning of behaviour is relevant for the operational method as well. This method, which determines bullying exposure based on a minimum number of behaviours, presumes that behaviours are equal in impact (Cooper, Hoel, & Faragher, 2004). However, behaviours included are unlikely to be perceived and experienced similarly, particularly when we factor in conduct expectations for a specific workplace and specific workers along with the source of the behaviour, its persistence and the presence of other behaviours (Meriläinen & Kõiv, 2017, 2018; Meriläinen, Sinkkonen, Puhakka, & Kayhko, 2016). This is vivid in the academic workplace where, for example, criticizing someone’s ideas will likely be evaluated and experienced differently by faculty vs staff (different conduct expectations) and depending on who delivers it (dean/supervisor vs colleague/co-worker). Given evidence that what is considered problematic behaviour is dependent on who is evaluating it and that scholarly conceptualizations of bullying are distinguished from forms of hostility by severity, pervasiveness or impact, indicators of severity/upset are important in determining and interpreting resultant prevalence rates of bullying (Escartín, Rodríguez-Carballeira, Zapf, Porrúa, & Martín-Peña, 2009; Price Spratlen, 1995). Holding the behaviours included to the side for the moment, several studies that used the operational method in Table 1 defined being bullied as one or more behaviours, often not specifying the more restrictive criterion of weekly or often/ very often. Are such indicators of exposure to one behaviour indicative of bullying

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

255

or of more occasional aggression or the typical friction of interacting with others? For example, Gül, İnce and Özcan (2011) reported that 70% of Turkish faculty indicated they had been the subject of gossip. Is being the subject of gossip sufficient for a definition of bullying? It may reflect an environment that is problematic, but is it bullying? In other studies, the most frequent behaviours fell under the category of work-related where single behaviours may reflect the nature of doing more with less, rather than part of the persistent targeted form of hostility that we typically focus on in workplace bullying research (e.g. Minibas-Poussard, Seckin-Celik, & Bingol, 2018; Zábrodská & Kveton, 2013). In order to distinguish these behaviours from the “day to day” of institutional and social life, persistence and patterning need to be assessed. Persistence is a key distinguishing feature of bullying from other forms of hostility. Persistence is captured in self-labelling measures when the specific definition used includes reference to frequent occurrence. Behavioural checklists such as the NAQ-R and the WAR-Q utilize frequency responses of not at all, occasionally, monthly, daily and weekly. These measures allow the discernment of the degree of exposure, which is related to the nature and degree of impact (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). What is clear from Table 1 is that the more frequent the exposure, the lower the rate of prevalence (e.g. Court, 2008; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Mourssi-Alfash, 2014; Singh, 2017; Zemanek, 2016). Across the studies in Table 1, then, we may be looking at varying degrees of exposure or experience with bullying. Patterning is another element of the definition of bullying and can be assessed by the variety of behaviours involved. For example, Raskauskas (2006; New Zealand) examined the number of incidents people reported once they self-identified as being bullied and found variability in patterning of exposure ranging from one to two incidents to a sizable group reporting ten or more incidents within the timeframe. This argues for the importance of examining both the number and frequency of behaviours in identifying people as being bullied. The time referent also varies notably in these studies ranging from 6 months to 5 years to “in your career or experience as an academic”. What is true for both the operational and self-labelling measures and clear in Table 1 is that the longer the timeframe, the higher the reported rates of exposure and experience of bullying.

9.3.3

Determining Prevalence

Comparing the two main measurement methods, the rates of self-labelling tend to be lower and hence more conservative than those of the behavioural checklist (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). Ideally, to examine this pattern in academe requires that both measures be utilized and compared. While a number of studies report using both measures, prevalence was typically based on self-identification with the behavioural checklist used to describe the experience of those who self-identify as being bullied. Only four studies reported prevalence rates for each type of measure (USA, Keashly & Neuman, 2008; Mourssi-Alfash, 2014; Neuman, 2009; Czech

256

L. Keashly

Republic, Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013). While Mourssi-Alfash’s (2014) study of a US state university system and Zabrodska and Kveton’s (2013) study in the Czech Republic were consistent with the pattern found in other work contexts of higher rates based on operational vs self-identification, Keashly and Neuman’s (2008) and Neuman’s (2009) US studies of individual institutions found that self-labelling rates were higher than operational rates. This may reflect recognition of bullying as an institutional issue. Both institutions specifically requested a study of workplace bullying because other data sources had told them it was a problem. Mourssi-Alfash (2014) and Zabrodska and Kveton (2013) do not appear to have been motivated by an institutional willingness to discuss the issues. Thus, familiarity with, and sensitivity to, workplace bullying and the resultant perceived legitimacy of bullying as a real, genuine and unacceptable experience accorded by the institution gave a name to people’s experience that they may not have had before (Furedi, 2001; Lewis, 2003). In such environments, there may be less stigma associated with perceiving oneself as a victim. These studies illustrate the impact of institutional context and legitimacy particularly on self-labelling and the resultant prevalence. With all these contextual influences in mind, what is the prevalence of faculty bullying? The prevalence of self-labelling with specific definition (perceived victimization) for 6 months varies from 6.2% (Norway, Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996) to 37.7% (USA, Mourssi-Alfash, 2014). With the addition of frequency of this experience, rates are much lower, for example, 0.7% weekly for Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) and 8.4% for Mourssi-Alfash (2014). In the 12-month framework with a specific definition, rates range from 26% (Neuman, 2009) to 52.6% (Zemanek, 2016). Adding the element of frequency of experience reduces this 12-month prevalence rate. For example, Zemanek’s (2016) exposure rate of four or more times in the 12-month period drops the rate to approximately 25%. Prevalence rates based on behavioural checklists, operationalizing persistence as overall frequency (at least one behaviour per week) within a 6-month period, range from 5.8% (Buka, 2013) to 13.6% (Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013). Looking at the mean frequency over 6 months, the range is 13.5% (Taspinar et al., 2013) to 20.5% (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hielt-Black, 1994). Extending the timeframe to 12 months of at least one behaviour weekly, the rates are higher ranging from 19.1% (Neuman, 2009) to 47.9% (Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017). Looking at the stricter requirement of at least two or more behaviours (a pattern) weekly, the rates are lower ranging from 6.8% (Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013) to 12% (Keashly & Neuman, 2008). The rate of 47.9% in Pakistan universities is of particular interest as it is based on a startling three or more behaviours per week! For comparison, Keashly and Neuman’s (2008) study of a US university reported a much lower rate of 11% for three or more behaviours per week. The differences in these rates may illustrate how the meaning and interpretation of behaviours vary culturally. Cultural influences regarding bullying and nature of academia will be explored in a later section. Within countries, rates differ even when measure and timeframe are the same. The Union of College and Universities 2012 surveys (Kinman & Wray, 2013a, b) report institutional rates of bullying in higher education (2.2–19%) and further education (0–31.8%) showing notable variability across universities in the UK.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

257

López-Cabarcos and Vázquez-Rodríguez (2006) found wide variability in a threeuniversity system in Spain. In the USA, separate studies of individual institutions also show variability, even when the measurement is held constant (e.g. Keashly & Neuman, 2008; Neuman, 2009; Rankin & Associates, 2014 (12 campuses)). Such variability highlights the significance of institutional influences such as reward structure, resources, participation in governance, expectations for continued appointment and institutional leadership, beyond the broader cultural influences of academe or country, in shaping people’s exposure and experiences (Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006). Cross-national research is important for discerning how national culture shapes the meaning and experience of bullying beyond what is accounted for by academic culture (e.g. Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017). In order to make cross-national comparisons, the measures and timeframe need to be the same with similar sample composition (e.g. nationwide or multiple institutions; Van de Vliert, Einarsen, & Nielsen, 2013). Comparing studies of countrywide samples that used the bullying definition from the NAQ-R with a 6-month timeframe, national differences are visible, for example, the UK (25.9%; Court, 2008) and Albania (12.3% Buka, 2013). Two studies explicitly focused on cross-national comparisons and found differences. Meriläinen, Käyhkö, Kõiv and Sinkkonen (2019), using the same measures for bullying and for inappropriate behaviour, documented different rates for Estonian and Finnish academic samples. Estonian university staff reported greater exposure to bullying and lower exposure to inappropriate behaviour than the Finnish academics. Interestingly, Finnish academics reported higher rates of inappropriate behaviour relative to bullying rates, while in the Estonian sample, the rates of bullying were higher than the rates of inappropriate behaviour. Karran and Mallinson’s (2017) study of bullying of academics for their views on academic freedom found that UK academics experienced bullying at a higher rate than academics from the European Union (23.1% vs 14.1%). These differences have implications for the types of actions that may be more or less effective in addressing academic bullying in different countries (Van de Vliert, Einarsen, & Nielsen, 2013). Witnessing. Another important indicator of the extent of bullying and mobbing is the witnessing rate. Using a 12-month timeframe with a specific definition of bullying, the rates ranged from 27.1% (Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017) to 46% (Neuman, 2009). Extending the timeframe to experience in one’s career reveal rates of over 50% (e.g. Navayan & Chitale, 2016; Takeuchi et al., 2018) to as high as 83.2% (NTEU, 2012). Clearly, bullying and mobbing occur in the presence, and with the knowledge, of other faculty. Beyond being an indicator of bullying presence, witnessing is important for other reasons (Keashly & Neuman, 2018). First, it is an indicator of the overall climate of the department or university (Hollis, 2012). Second, witnesses may show similar negative effects as targets, spreading the impact net more broadly (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2013; Salin & Notelaers, 2018; Sprigg, Niven, Dawson, Farley, & Armitage, 2018; Vartia, 2001). Third, witnesses are rarely uninvolved (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011; Keashly & Neuman, 2013; Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010; Paull, Omari, & Standen, 2012). Witness involvement can be destructive by, for

258

L. Keashly

example, remaining silent, joining in (mobbing) or instigating others (vicarious bullying; Hollis, 2017). However, this involvement can also be constructive as colleagues work to defuse, intervene or call for aid. Given the centrality of colleagues in faculty life, harnessing other faculty’s presence and developing their ability to constructively engage early on would be a powerful approach for managing bullying and mobbing in universities. Building bystander efficacy will be discussed in the section on strategies for addressing bullying.

9.3.4

Duration of Exposure

The duration of bullying and mobbing is notable ranging from 17.4% (Korukcu, Bulut, Tuzcu, Bayram, & Öztürk Türkmen, 2014) to approximately one third of the targets (Hollis, 2012; Keashly & Neuman, 2008; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008), indicating the bullying lasted more than 3 years! Studies that focused exclusively on faculty report rates as high as half of faculty targets indicate the mistreatment has lasted 3 or more years, with rates of 5 or more years in 10–20% of cases (e.g. Keashly & Neuman, 2008; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013). This long-term exposure may be due to some of the unique features of academe. First, the role of tenure or permanent contract has faculty in long-term relationships with each other and other institutional members. Second, this long-term exposure may also reflect the reduced mobility of faculty within academe. Unless one is a star faculty member, it is hard to move to another institution, particularly once tenure is granted. Third, faculty are tied to departments unlike other workplaces where lateral transfers as a way to cope in other workplaces are available. Thus, environmental escape is limited unless the faculty member were to move to administration or to leave the specific institution. Finally, given the nature of academic culture as one of disagreement, dissent and critique, it is hard to get away from it without leaving academe itself. The data on withdrawal in response to bullying, where faculty remove themselves from department life, may be a more likely form of coping for faculty given their freedom to choose the timing of their presence in the work location (Huston, Norman, & Ambrose, 2007; Keashly & Neuman, 2010). Cyberbullying, however, can tend to undercut this coping response as these types of behaviours have no respect for boundaries or time (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014).

9.3.5

In Sum

It is clear that faculty are exposed to hostile behaviour in their workplaces and that some exposure is persistent and patterned, meeting scholarly definitions of bullying. Using the 12-month framework, approximately 25% of faculty will identify as being bullied. Adding in the witnessing data, the research suggests that 50–75% of faculty will have had some exposure to bullying in the prior 12 months. Extending the timeframe to career, it appears that faculty who have no exposure are in the minority!

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

259

Further, bullying of faculty is notable for its duration. There is also evidence that rates of bullying differ cross-nationally and institutionally, suggestive of sociocultural influences.

9.4

Academe vs Other Sectors

As noted earlier, bullying is perceived to be “rife” in academe with suggestions that the university as a workplace is worse than other industries (Hollis, 2012; Twale & DeLuca, 2008). The veracity of this claim depends upon the comparator. If the standard of comparison is the general working population, rates in academia are notably higher (e.g. Italy, Giorgi, 2012; Norway, Koval, 2014; Pakistan, Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017). The UCU surveys in the UK (Kinman & Wray, 2013a, 2013b, 2014) directly compared results regarding the quality of working relationship indicator (included bullying and personal harassment and anger between colleagues) to the overall industry rating of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) from 2008. They found that further and higher education respondents showed less well-being than the mean of the average working population, suggesting academe was indeed worse off. However, when specific industries or other employee groups within academic workplaces are the comparator, a different picture is revealed. Using multi-industry samples, Hoel and Cooper (2000; UK), Einarsen and Skogstad (1996; Norway) and Onorato (2013; USA) report that rates in academe were among the lowest of any industry in their respective samples. Comparing employee groups within individual institutions (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hielt-Black, 1994; Fadda, Giorgi, & Salinas, 2015; Keashly & Neuman, 2008; López-Cabarcos & Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2006; Nkporbu & Douglas, 2016; Price Spratlen, 1995; Rankin & Associates, 2014; Raskauskas, 2006; Richman et al., 1999; Williams & Ruiz, 2012), faculty rates are lower than staff rates. Intra-institutional differences may reflect the different normative and discursive contexts within which faculty, administration and staff exist and which influence how bullying is defined and experienced (Christy, 2010; Fratzl & McKay, 2013). It may also reflect the power structure of institutions, in which faculty and administration are leaders and students are the clients. Staff provide support and service to all groups, that is, they are more vulnerable to a greater range of actors. A comparative examination of the type and perceived severity of behaviours as well as who are the actors for each of these employee groups would be important to explore this argument.

9.5

Impact of Academic Bullying

The consequences of bullying and mobbing in academe are remarkably consistent across national and institutional contexts and with bullying and mobbing in other sectors. The consequences mirror the effects of other chronic workplace stressors

260

L. Keashly

(see Vol. 2 Section 1; Keashly & Harvey, 2006). The effects manifest at the individual (target, witness), departmental/group and institutional levels. The impact at the individual level (as a target and less frequently as a witness) is the focus of survey research in Table 1. Qualitative research focused on targets’ lived experiences (e.g. Agarwala, 2018; Dentith, Wright, & Coryell, 2015; JohnsonBailey, 2015, Misawa, 2015; Reed, 2016; Sedivy-Benton, Strohschen, Cavazos, & Boden-McGill, 2015; Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Wilkin, 2010) provides rich detail and nuance to the statistics. Being bullied has strong negative implications for psychological and physical health (Giorgi, 2012). As with any workplace stressor, the immediate impact is felt psychologically and emotionally (Barling, 1996). Specific effects include negative mood (e.g. anger, irritability; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Richman et al., 1999; Singh, 2017), anxiety and depressive symptoms (Buka, 2013; Gül, İnce, & Özcan, 2011; López-Cabarcos & VázquezRodríguez, 2006; Marsh et al., 2009; Raskauskas, 2006; Reed, 2016; Richman et al., 1999; Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Singh, 2017; Yousef, El-Houfey, & El-Serogy, 2013) and feeling stressed (Catano et al., 2007; Gül, İnce, & Özcan, 2011; Takeuchi et al., 2018). Cognitive distraction and disruption are also documented noting problems with attention, concentration, intrusive imagery and rumination (Navayan & Chitale, 2016; Yousef, El-Houfey, & El-Serogy, 2013). With prolonged exposure, individuals may develop lowered self-esteem and self-confidence (Navayan & Chitale, 2016; Price Spratlen, 1995; Raskauskas, 2006; Reed, 2016; Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Singh, 2017; Zemanek, 2016), a sense of powerlessness to fundamentally change the situation (López-Cabarcos & Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2006; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008), cynicism (Taylor, 2013) and burnout (Gül, İnce, & Özcan, 2011; Takeuchi et al., 2018). Bullying impact is also manifested physically (Catano et al., 2007; Giorgi, 2012; Qureshi, Rasli, & Zaman, 2014). Specifically, targeted faculty report physical illness (Cox & Goodman, 2005), musculoskeletal pain (Simpson & Cohen, 2003; Taspinar et al., 2013), neurological symptomatology such as headaches (Buka, 2013; Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Singh, 2017), sleeplessness and fatigue (Buka, 2013; Raskauskas, 2006; Singh, 2017) and increased alcohol use (Richman et al., 1999). More long-term and extensive effects can lead to psychological, emotional and physical disability (e.g. Buka, 2013; Cox & Goodman, 2005; Gül, İnce, & Özcan, 2011; Simpson & Cohen, 2004). Prolonged exposure is also associated with increasingly negative job attitudes such as job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011; Catano et al., 2007; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Price Spratlen, 1995; Zemanek, 2016), declining job performance (Celep & Konakli, 2013; Navayan & Chitale, 2016) and exit through psychological or physical withdrawal (time off work, sick leave, transfer, turnover; Cox & Goodman, 2005; Goldberg, Beitz, Wieland, & Levine, 2013; Hollis, 2017; Navayan & Chitale, 2016; Price Spratlen, 1995; Taylor, 2013; Wilkin, 2010). Becoming aggressive or engaging in more conflict was also identified as an effect of exposure (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hielt-Black, 1994; Yousef et al., 2013), which would likely contribute to tension and hostility in the department. The multidimensional nature of faculty work (research, teaching and service) and the intimate connection of faculty identity with their work require that job

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

261

performance, productivity and withdrawal metrics need to be more nuanced. As noted earlier, it is difficult for faculty to leave a bullying situation through internal transfer or a move to another institution. Thus, faculty may withdraw in ways that are not visible in typical productivity or withdrawal metrics. For example, Huston, Norman and Ambrose (2007) argue that the traditional notion of productivity as scholarship and teaching fails to pick up on faculty who continue to write and teach but who disengage from other aspects of university life such as mentoring, advising and service. In their study, they found that in the face of unsatisfying or non-collegial relationships in the institution, some senior faculty continued “producing” but directed their energies outside their department and institution. Future research on the effects of academic bullying needs to assess the unique and complex ways that faculty can withdraw while still “producing”. As targeted individuals struggle and decline, the effects likely extend out and can reduce department and institutional functioning (Faria, Mixon, & Salter, 2012; Giorgi, 2012; Hollis, 2015; Jackson, 2018). Although there is little empirical research on unit and institutional impact currently, consideration of the implications of faculty withdrawal on group functioning reveals what the possible damage could be. Discussion of faculty withdrawal needs to consider all the spheres in which faculty are core to institutional success, that is, research, teaching and service. Faculty reducing or withdrawing from their efforts in scholarship or creative activity not only has huge personal costs for them in terms of their careers (Agarwala, 2018) but also impacts their ability to mentor and advise graduate students and other faculty, increasing the load on their colleagues and putting graduate programmes at risk. Withdrawal also impacts the faculty’s ability to shoulder professional responsibilities such as being reviewers for journals and granting agencies, which has implications for the discipline itself. If faculty reduce their investment in teaching, the students and the quality of their learning experience will be negatively impacted. This has direct implications for the department as well as the institution as they face dissatisfaction from students, their families and other supporters including donors, potentially impacting institutional reputation and accreditation. While service is often seen as less important, withdrawal from service within the institution places a heavier burden on other faculty and staff, increasing their stress and dissatisfaction and decreasing their institutional commitment as well as reducing the amount and quality of work necessary to keep the institution moving forward (Keashly & Neuman, 2013).

9.5.1

In Sum

The impact of bullying in academe is one of loss at a number of levels: • Loss for the individual who has been victimized in terms of their health and wellbeing, productivity and potentially their career • Loss for the students in terms of quality of teaching and faculty advising and mentoring

262

L. Keashly

• Loss for the department and colleagues as they have to shoulder the load of a “missing” colleague and deal with an upset colleague and also their own negative effects from witnessing the mistreatment, including a worry about whether they will be next • Loss for the institution in terms of time and money to replace faculty, to address complaints that are raised, risk of hostile climate, reputation among academic and professional communities, potential students, government attention and funding, donor support, accreditation and the broader community as information about the experiences spread Given the faculty role as innovators, knowledge producers, educators, public intellectuals and social critics, the bullying and silencing of academics can have profound implications beyond the individual and the institution to society more broadly.

9.6

Responding to Academic Bullying

Given that bullying in academe is frequent and harmful, the next section explores what research reveals about how individuals and institutions have responded.

9.6.1

Target Responding

Talking to friends and family is the most frequently reported response to the experience (Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Keashly & Neuman, 2008; López-Cabarcos & Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2006; Senol, Avsar, Peksen Akca, Argun, & Avsarogullari, 2015; Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014; Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013). While this is critical emotional support, because these supporters are not within the university, these friends and family are not in a position to directly impact the situation (Richman et al., 1999). Seeking support from colleagues was also a frequent choice, bringing with it the possibility of direct action in the work environment (Cox & Goodman, 2005; Lewis, 2003; Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014). Informing influential people within the university has the greatest opportunity for substantive change. Official channels include management/administration (Cox & Goodman, 2005; López-Cabarcos & Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2006; Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014), union (Cox and Goodman, 2005; Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; López-Cabarcos & Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2006; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014) and human resources (HR; Cox & Goodman, 2005; Shaw and Ratcliffe, 2014). However, formal reporting was a less frequently chosen response (Cox & Goodman, 2005; Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; López-Cabarcos & Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2006; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Minibas-Poussard, Seckin-Celik, & Bingol, 2018; Senol, Avsar, Peksen Akca, Argun, & Avsarogullari, 2015; Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014; Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013). For example, Zabrodska and Kveton (2013)

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

263

found that less than 2% of targets filed formal grievances. Reasons for not reporting include concern that nothing would be done, no difference would be made, and the fear of consequences such as retaliation (Shaw & Ratcliffe, 2014). Kakumba, Wamala and Wanyama (2014; Uganda) and Boynton (2005; UK) found that response and complaint handling systems were viewed as ineffective in addressing bullying. Cox and Goodman (2005; Australia) found reporting was variably effective with 18% finding resolution, 16% receiving no response to complaint and 4% feeling victimized in response to raising it. Dzurec’s (2013) study of nursing faculty who self-identified as bullied found that over half reported it to their supervisors. Of those who reported, approximately half indicated that no action was taken. In a third of the cases, administrators took action, the majority of which was clear and early. However, regardless of the action taken, respondents indicated that they were uncertain of the outcome resulting in “status limbo” (Dzurec, 2013). Similarly, Keashly and Neuman’s (2008) and Shaw and Ratcliffe’s (2014) studies found that when people report, most efforts did little to change the situation or made it worse. Indeed, McCarthy, Mayhew, Barker and Sheehan’s (2003) study of bullying in tertiary education in Australia found that the majority of actors suffered no consequences. Such experiences solidify the belief that nothing will be done or what is done makes no difference. Finally, studies that considered HR found it was least accessed, which is important given that many policies identify HR as the unit for reporting.

9.6.2

Witness Responding

While it is clear that faculty acknowledge seeing others bullied and that targets frequently tell their colleagues about their experiences, the research on precisely what these witnesses do in response is sparse. What is available does suggest that witnesses are active though. In a study of student affairs professionals, Gerstenfield (2016) found that approximately half of the witnesses sought assistance to address the situation. Keashly and Neuman (2008) had witnesses identify what they did and the perceived effectiveness of the action. Despite many witnesses reported being uncertain about what to do, they still engaged in a variety of actions. The most frequent response involved talking to co-workers, family and friends, likely in an effort to understand what they had seen. Of particular importance, 75% let the target know what they saw, validating the target’s experience. Many actions were focused on buffering the target from the actor. Less than half reported what they had seen to higher-ups. Similar to targets, formal reporting was perceived as worsening the situation.

9.6.3

Institutional Responding

Target experiences of little to no action and ineffectiveness of the action taken may be a result of the administrators’ own uncertainty with how to respond. Research

264

L. Keashly

from the perspective of administrators suggests that they struggle with how to respond, trying a number of different strategies. Administrators may feel particularly hamstrung by the lack of clear work rules and policies regarding conduct making it challenging for them to determine if there has been contravention of appropriate behaviour (Dzurec, 2013; Hegranes, 2012; Theiss, Webb, & Amason, 2012). A solution to this would be the development and implementation of policies, which will be explored in a later section. The explanation above presumes that the university and by extension administrators view bullying as a problem because it runs counter to institutional values, hurts their members and facilitates a hostile climate. The lack of or lukewarm responding by the institution, however, may reflect something more sinister, specifically the privileging of the institution’s needs over the needs of its members. The arguments proposed earlier regarding the nature of academic culture generally and academic freedom specifically can be utilized to reframe bullying from a systemic issue requiring institutional response to a personal or interpersonal issue, which leaves individuals to work it out. This framing permits the institution to ignore or minimize the target’s concern (Keashly, 2001) or to problematize the target as a troublemaker or difficult person (Friedenberg, 2008; Lester, 2009; Martin, SharpGrier, & Piper-King, 2015).

9.6.4

In Sum

Responding to bullying involves a number of players including the target, witnesses and the institution. Targets and witnesses engage in a variety of strategies, many of which fail to ameliorate the situation. Of particular note is the lack of or limited success in effective aid from institutional offices, particularly HR offices. Faculty appear to have little confidence that they will receive institutional support and may well put themselves at risk of being problematized themselves.

9.7

Relational Nature of Academic Bullying

Bullying specifically and workplace aggression generally are inherently relational (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). Thus, who is doing what to whom is important in understanding the manifestation, experience and impact of workplace bullying. Similar behaviours coming from relatively powerful actors (senior faculty to junior faculty, tenured to non-tenured, dean to faculty) vs equal rank (peers) may be experienced and, thus, labelled differently, for example, annoying from the peers or abusive from one with the power to harm. Also, without knowing the source, it is hard to distinguish between single acts by various actors and multiple actions by the same actor, which may reflect hostile work environment vs a bullying relationship, respectively. Finally, evidence suggests that different actors do engage in different behaviours (Keashly & Neuman, 2010; MinibasPoussard, Seckin-Celik, & Bingol, 2018; Senol, Avsar, Peksen Akca, Argun, &

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

265

Avsarogullari, 2015), the patterning of which may be assumed to have different impacts. Given the importance of source of aggression in the experience and impact of bullying, it is surprising that much of the survey research cited here did not gather nor report this information.

9.7.1

Relative Power

As Table 1 reveals, bullying and aggression come from a variety of actors of different organizational levels or relative social power. Of particular note for faculty is that colleagues are frequently identified as the actors (peer-to-peer bullying). Even faculty bullies identify other colleagues as their most likely targets (Buka, 2013). This primacy of colleagues as actors is different than other industries and also within the university context itself, where bosses/superiors are more frequently identified by staff as the bullies (Keashly & Neuman, 2013; Rankin & Associates, 2014; Williams & Ruiz, 2012). In the academic context, the term “peer” obscures the fact that faculty vary in their access to sources of influence or power to manifest their desires. Faculty experiences of bullying may be more accurately described as “positional” bullying (Misawa, 2015). Positional power in academe has several faces. First, the relative institutional position of various groups, specifically faculty, staff, students and administration, influences who bullies and how they do so (Rankin & Associates, 2014; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2015). For example, in the study of a US state university system, Rankin and Associates (2014) reported that organizational position/role was the most frequently identified basis for respondents’ reported mistreatment. With respect to faculty, academic management such as chairs and deans, who control access to key resources and desired positions, are relatively more powerful (e.g. Dentith, Wright, & Coryell, 2015; Wilkin, 2010). Students as consumers or clients within a neoliberal model of higher education may wield considerable power and be permitted greater behavioural latitude as a result, that is, contrapower (academic) harassment (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014; Cassidy, Jackson, & Faucher, 2016; DeSouza, 2011; Lampman, 2012; Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2009; May & Tenzek, 2018; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008). Second, within the faculty category, professorial rank matters because of the associated influence in processes and practices key to career development of other faculty, such as merit review, promotion and tenure/permanent contract as well as the peer review process itself. Studies that examined professorial rank within the category of “colleague” found that actors are more likely to be senior in rank relative to the faculty target (Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017; Beckmann, Cannella, & Wantland, 2013; Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; Neuman, 2009; Singh, 2017). Even within rank, faculty power disparity can come from temporary administrative appointments or involvement as institutional governance representatives such as the academic/faculty senate (Lester, 2009). As noted in the discussion of academic culture, the holding of tenure (permanent employment) is a source of power in the university as it provides protection from

266

L. Keashly

retaliation and has been argued as reducing the perceived cost of behaving inappropriately (Twale & DeLuca, 2008). Only a few studies (Canada and the USA) explicitly gathered data on tenure status of targets and actors. Aranda (2018), Hollis (2012) and Zemanek (2016) find evidence that untenured faculty were more at risk. However, other studies report that tenured faculty were more at risk of being bullied (e.g. Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014; Cassidy, Jackson, & Faucher, 2016; Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; Onorato, 2013; Taylor, 2013; Westhues, 2006; WISELI, 2016). Westhues (2006) suggests that the reason for this is that bullying and mobbing may be framed as the only way to get rid of a tenured faculty member who is perceived as oppositional or “troublesome” by colleagues and administration. Third, a faculty member’s academic capital is defined by their relevance to the university’s agenda, for example, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) focus, major grant getters and high productivity. Such capital permits more influence and these faculty are often given broader behavioural latitude, that is, idiosyncrasy credits (Hollander, 1958; Twale, 2017). “High-performing instigators” (Williams, Campbell, & Denton, 2013, p. 35) who engage in unprofessional behaviour can mobilize their academic capital and associated status to frame their behaviour in ways to resist attempts by colleagues and administrators to manage their behaviours. Being a high performer can also be a risk factor for being targeted (Keashly & Neuman, 2018). Specifically, being a high performer in terms of academic achievements when perceived as a threat to colleagues’ statuses, particularly in a competitive academic environment, may make some faculty “noticeable” and, hence, vulnerable (Friedenberg, 2008; Jackson, 2018; Kim & Glomb, 2014; Kotleras, 2007; Twale, 2017; Westhues, 2006). Junior faculty and faculty-in-training (graduate students and postdocs; Martin, Goodboy, & Johnson, 2015; Morris, 2011; Yamada, Cappadocia, & Pepler, 2014) may be particularly vulnerable. Selected for, and supported in, their scholarly and creative productivity, new tenure-track faculty will be among the high performers. They are at particular risk, due to lack of job security and the reliance on tenured senior faculty in their performance appraisal and promotion. Thus, they are less likely to be able to defend themselves against actors who are senior in rank (Burk & Eby, 2010). Even senior faculty who are high performers have been found to be at risk, particularly for academic mobbing (Friedenberg, 2008; Westhues, 2006). Finally, and most importantly, social power and rank in terms of race and ethnicity, caste, class, gender, LGBTQ and (dis)ability shape bullying expression and experience (Martin, Sharp-Grier, & Piper-King, 2015; Misawa, 2015; Pathania & Tierney, 2018; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2015). Gender was the most frequently studied across countries. However, race, ethnicity, LGBTQ and disability status were reported only in the North American research. As can be seen from Table 1, women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ and disabled faculty are more likely to report being victimized. Similar patterns of biased treatment show up in research on student incivility, with women and minority faculty more at risk of disrespectful treatment and negative teaching evaluations (Boring, Ottoboni, & Stark, 2016; Lampman, 2012; Reid, 2010). These data support the argument that bullying in

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

267

the academy is a gendered (Dentith, Wright, & Coryell, 2015; Lester, 2009; Salin & Hoel, 2013; Sedivy-Benton et al., 2015; Simpson & Cohen, 2004), racialized (Frazier, 2011; Johnson-Bailey, 2015) and heteronormative (Misawa, 2015; Sallee & Diaz, 2013) phenomenon. It may also be a “classed” phenomenon. In many countries, universities have been characterized as reflecting middle- to upper-class values and norms with faculty coming from these backgrounds. The literature on working class academics reveals faculty who feel like fish out of water, struggling to fit in, often meeting with resistance (e.g. Nelson, Englar-Carlson, Tierney, & Hau, 2006). Thus, faculty bullying and mobbing may reflect identity-related bias. The various sources of positional power noted above often co-occur and demonstrate unequal influence. Research on intersectionality reveals that the power (and protection) of faculty rank, tenure/permanent status or institutional position can be overridden by social identity status creating counter-positional bullying (JohnsonBailey, 2015; Misawa, 2015). Faculty with marginalized group identities and particularly those with multiple marginalized identities are more likely to be bullied regardless of being “up in the hierarchy” (e.g. senior rank, tenured, administrative appointment), and faculty of privileged group identities are more likely to be the actors (Johnson-Bailey, 2015; Martin, Sharp-Grier, & Piper-King, 2015; Misawa, 2015; Phipps, 2017; Rankin & Associates, 2014; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2015). Thus, in order to fully reveal the dynamics and nuances of power and vulnerability, research on bullying in academe and other work contexts must focus on organizational and social group identities and their intersectionality (Hodgins, 2014).

9.7.2

The Actors

Faculty as actors. Typically, in workplace bullying research in academe and other work contexts, data are gathered from the perspective of targets and, less frequently, witnesses. Rarely is information provided from the perpetrator’s perspective (Bloch, 2012; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009). Intriguingly, Ahmad, Kalim and Kaleem (2017; Pakistan), Buka (2013; Albania) and Ojedokun, Oteri and Ogungbamila (2014; Nigeria) did ask faculty whether they had engaged in bullying and mobbing, and the reported rates (30.8%, 11.5% and 20.4%, respectively) are remarkable in terms of size. For comparison, rates of 0.3% have been reported in samples of the US working population (WBTI, 2017). Identifying oneself as bullying/mobbing others would seem to be a socially undesirable label. Indeed, there is evidence that faculty actively resist this characterization of their behaviours (e.g. Friedenberg, 2008; Nelson & Lambert, 2001; Westhues, 2004). These rates may reflect cultural differences in terms of the “acceptability” of bullying-type behaviours (Escartín, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodriguez-Carballeira, 2011; Power et al., 2013) or that these labels are highly regarded in these cultural contexts, that is, being tough and smart. Ahmad, Kalim and Kaleem (2017) suggest that the honour culture of Pakistan is reflected in its academic culture. In this cultural context, “being bullied disgraces the honour of an academic” (p. 208), and bullying thus becomes a means to “safeguard their

268

L. Keashly

honour” (p. 214). Ahmad et al.’s interpretation highlights the contextual nature of social behaviour in this case, bullying, that requires a multilevel cultural contextual lens. Student as actor: Contrapower harassment. As evidenced by the robust literature on student incivility in the classroom (e.g. Boring, Ottoboni, & Stark, 2016; Bronstein & Farnsworth, 1998; Clark, 2009; DeSouza, 2011; Goodyear, Reynolds, & Gragg, 2010; Lampman, 2012; Reid, 2010), and as seen in Table 1, students are frequent actors. McKay, Arnold, Fratzl and Thomas (2008) described behaviours of purposeful interruption, challenging authority, excessive/aggressive questioning of decisions, unwarranted professional remarks, yelled at and threatening with law suits directed at faculty. The case of student as actor is interesting because their activities may be considered counter-positional (Misawa, 2015), contrapower harassment (Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2009) or “bottom-up” bullying (McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008). This challenges the notion of power and what contributes to the power differential. While faculty have significant impact on student experience and fate, students do wield power in the current higher education context. With the shift to neoliberal and managerial culture that emphasizes enrolment-driven funding and prioritizing of career-focused training, the student has become a customer and is empowered in that capacity (Cassidy, Jackson, & Faucher, 2016; Lewis, 2003; Twale & DeLuca, 2008). Thus, student evaluations and satisfaction are important metrics in the evaluation of the faculty member and their career progress. Also, the competitive nature of some programmes for entry and the drive to succeed (e.g. pre-med and pre-law) create an environment where students want to ensure top grades and, thus, may pressure faculty. The increased sensitivity regarding dealing with controversial topics and resultant student (dis)comfort have faculty positioned in the role of classroom manager and arbiter. Thus, the environment is ripe with features that would be conducive to bullying and incivility on the part of students. As is clear from Table 1, students are more likely to be uncivil to or bully women, racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ faculty (Cassidy, Jackson, & Faucher, 2016; Goodyear, Reynolds, & Gragg, 2010; Lampman, 2012; Sallee & Diaz, 2013). University as actor: Depersonalized bullying. Institutions may be viewed as “bullying” through the nature of institutional structure and focus, which influences the nature of faculty work and in the process has implication for academic freedom and faculty autonomy. An increasingly academic managerial focus privileges effectiveness and efficiency as key criteria for achieving university goals (Chandler, Barry, & Clark, 2002). Certain activities and, thus, the faculty associated with them are viewed as more supportive of these goals. Some examples are the emphasis on engaging in research that brings in grant money, privileging of “scientific” disciplines over the humanities and the arts, teaching that brings in students (often with a career focus) and conducting teaching in less expensive ways. Not surprisingly then, faculty whose work is not viewed as core to the university agenda receive less support and resources and may even be ignored. Further, faculty who critique the university’ s goals and privileged activities may be perceived as threats to the

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

269

institutional agenda (Ilongo, 2016; Zabrodska, Linnell, Laws, & Davies, 2011). Intimidation and hostility conveyed by administrative representatives such as chairs, deans and other senior administrators, often through selective application of policies (Lester, 2009; Simpson & Cohen, 2004), are utilized to ensure university members’ compliance with the university agenda (i.e. “get with the programme”; D’Cruz, 2015; Ilongo, 2016; Vanhoutte, 2010; Wilkin, 2010). The vulnerability of faculty as critic described earlier, particularly when administrators are involved, captures this dynamic (Dentith, Wright, & Coryell, 2015; Friedenberg, 2008; Oleksiyenko, 2018; Westhues, 2006). Beyond the university: Public and state as actors. Most research on faculty bullying focuses on experiences with actors within the institutional community. Yet there are actors outside the university worthy of note, specifically the broader public and the state. These two sets of actors are particularly influential as they (a) reflect broad societal discourses and narratives regarding what and who are considered as valuable and important and (b) drive public and social policy. The public. While the work of academics has always been subject to public scrutiny, the advent of the Internet and social media has made faculty and their scholarly and pedagogical activities even more visible. In their roles as public intellectuals utilizing social media for knowledge mobilization and dissemination, the availability of recordings of presentations or class lectures on YouTube or simply information about faculty on university websites, faculty perspectives and work are exposed to a broader public, some of whom have different ideological perspectives and values. Further, those outside of academe may not understand nor appreciate the meaning and implications of academic freedom for legitimizing faculty behaviour, particularly speech. As a result, some faculty have been on the receiving end of public targeted online harassment, directed at their scholarship and perspectives (e.g. Ferber, 2018; Flaherty, 2017; Veletsianos, Houlden, Hodson, & Gosse, 2018). These attacks are perceived as attempts to silence and intimidate faculty and the sharing of controversial ideas and challenges, that is, to challenge the role of public intellectual and critic (Ferber, 2018). The harassment is often delivered anonymously through a variety of media including comments posted to websites and blog posts, emails and phone calls, making it difficult to isolate and address the source. The content is often hypercritical and hostile involving name-calling, slurs and threats of job loss and physical harm to the faculty and their family. A powerful feature of information communication technology is the ability to reach a wide and varied audience quickly. That audience can also respond as quickly and has, at times, resulted in online mobbing that fuels more hostile rhetoric and potential for actual harm in terms of faculty and institutional health and well-being (Ronson, 2016). Such media are also boundaryless in terms of time and geography (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013) making it difficult for faculty to get away from the bullying and harassment. The permanence of electronic content also means that the content can be revived, reframed and re-circulated, beginning the harassment anew (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009). Thus, even if a faculty member withdraws from electronic engagement, they cannot hide (Veletsianos, Houlden, Hodson, & Gosse, 2018).

270

L. Keashly

In terms of institutional responding, universities have struggled to address such situations, as they navigate the importance of defending free speech and academic freedom of their faculty and the potential threat to their reputation and economic survival as an institution. Indeed, university responding to these public critiques may result in faculty feeling attacked and then abandoned and betrayed by their own institutions (Smith & Freyd, 2014). The pervasive and virulent nature and wideranging impact of targeting and bullying of faculty by the public warrant more focused attention both for our understanding of faculty experiences and also for the workplace bullying literature more broadly. The state. The literature on academic freedom and threats to academic freedom illustrates how state actors can silence academics in violent, coercive and seemingly peaceful ways. Silencing can be covert through state influence on structures, policies and practices of institutions, what is considered legitimate research and “appropriate” academic curricula. For example, the government of Hungary recently proposed the banning of gender studies programmes citing them as not “economically rational” (Redden, 2018). Postiglione and Jung (2017) in their report on the changing academic profession in Hong Kong note how some academics are subjected to “political bullying” for their scholarship through pro-establishment newspapers. This silencing can be overt through violent and coercive attacks on faculty, students and universities (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack [GCPEA], 2018; SAR, 2018). The most recent report from Scholars at Risk (SAR, 2018), an organization that monitors threats to academic freedom worldwide, highlights a range of violent and repressive incidents and efforts directed at universities, academics and students. SAR (2018) frames these as attempts to undermine the freedom to think and to question, and undercut universities, which have been spaces that allow and support this. Turkey’s current situation is particularly dire, with over 5000 academic staff having lost their jobs and faculty brought up on charges of conspiring to overthrow the country’s leader. These activities are quintessentially bullying and have profound implications for the freedom to think and question, a defining quality of academe and academics. While institutional (depersonalized) bullying has been an increasing focus of workplace bullying research (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2009; Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001), the state as bully is rarely considered in the broader workplace bullying literature (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012).

9.7.3

In Sum

Being different and being “noticeable” in this difference (Dentith, Wright, & Coryell, 2015) are connected to bullying in academe. Faculty who are “different” from some presumed standard or comparator and thus perceived to be counter-normative and a threat to the status quo are more likely to report being bullied or treated uncivilly (Cortina, 2008; Martin, Sharp-Grier, & Piper-King, 2015; Simpson & Cohen, 2004). The presumed standard is deeply grounded in broader socio-structural inequities, in which those with social status privilege victimize those without. Thus, studying and addressing bullying in academe means studying and addressing social inequity.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

271

Finally, compared to other workers, faculty “get it from all sides”, and each set of actors brings their own unique expression and challenges. This variety of actors both within and outside the institution (public and state) and their power to inflict harm is relevant for the workplace bullying literature more broadly.

9.8

Cultural Nature of Academic Bullying

The examination of the prevalence of bullying based on studies in Table 1 highlights that faculty experiences are influenced by other cultural factors, including national (e.g. Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017; Meriläinen et al., 2017), disciplinary and institutional as evidenced by studies of state or national systems of universities (e.g. Rankin & Associates, 2014; UCU surveys, Kinman & Wray, 2013a, 2013b, 2014).

9.8.1

National Culture

The question of national culture influence on academe raises interesting questions. First, what are the relative contributions of national culture and academic culture to the manifestation, experience and management of bullying? Cross-country comparisons of academics’ experiences would provide some insight. Meriläinen, Käyhkö, Kõiv and Sinkkonen’s (2018) comparative study of Finnish and Estonian academics is an exemplar of the type of research. Utilizing the same measure of bullying and collecting data within the same timeframe, the authors reported differences in the rates and forms of academic bullying and suggested these reflected cultural differences between the countries. Comparing academe to other industries within a country (Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017) as well as across countries would be important in sorting out the relative contributions of national and academic culture. Second, what does bullying look like and how is it experienced within an institution, when faculty are from a number of different countries? Research on the relationship of cultural diversity to employee (mis)treatment in multinational organizations (Harvey, Treadway, & Heames, 2006; Leng & Yazdanifard, 2014) suggests this is an important issue. Another interesting question is whether the culture of academe could be considered an honour culture (Leung & Cohen, 2011). For faculty, their identity and their reputation are their currency, grounded in the value of their scholarship and creative activity. To have their reputation attacked or undermined would be deeply threatening. Earlier, the culture of academe was described as one where critique and debate are expected and indeed embraced. The presumption is that critique is to be targeted at ideas and not at people, that is, “not personal”. The challenge for faculty is that their identity and reputation are closely intertwined with their work, so these critiques, depending upon how they are handled or delivered or indeed whether the faculty shares the same normative expectations for critique, may be experienced as personal attacks and deliberate attempts to undermine, that is, a threat to honour (Infante & Gorden, 1989; Tannen, 2002; Tracy, 2011). Examining the culture of

272

L. Keashly

academe through the lens of culture type (e.g. honour, dignity and face; Leung & Cohen, 2011) or via cultural dimensions such as GLOBE (Jacobson, Hood, & Van Buren, 2014) may provide additional insight into the dynamics, impact and management of bullying in the academic workplace, particularly with faculty (Samnani, 2013b).

9.8.2

Disciplinary Culture

Disciplinary culture and practices can also shape bullying. Regarding this influence, some study samples were composed of faculty from specific disciplines (agricultural and life sciences, Zemanek, 2016; business and economics, Raineri, Frear, & Edmonds, 2011; health administration, Dellifraine, McClelland, Erwin, & Wang, 2014; health sciences, Korukcu, Bulut, Tuzcu, Bayram, & Öztürk Türkmen, 2014; nursing, Beckmann, Cannella, & Wantland, 2013; Ozturk, Yilmaz, & Hindistan, 2007; Yildirim & Yildirim, 2007; social studies, Meriläinen, Sinkkonen, Puhakka, & Kayhko, 2016; social work, Horton, 2016; Johnson, 2014) with authors often making the case that the particular discipline(s) would be ripe for bullying. Without providing data from other disciplines for comparators, it is difficult to discern unique disciplinary influence in bullying exposure. Interestingly, most of the studies noted here included faculty of a variety of disciplines, yet disciplinary influences were often not explored. For studies that did explore, it is clear that rates were different. Yousef, El-Houfey and El-Serogy (2013) in their study of Egyptian academics found that the actors from the practical/professional disciplines in contrast to the theoretical disciplines utilized more direct negative behaviours. Taylor (2013; USA) reported higher rates in colleges of arts and humanities. WISELI (2016; USA) noted faculty in social studies, arts and humanities rated overall climate less positively than other disciplines. These latter two studies were single-institution studies, and thus, the influence of institutional culture may also be relevant here as well. Given the significance of discipline to faculty identity and work (Clark, 1987), it would be informative to explore the ways disciplinary norms, structure and the focus and production of work connect to bullying exposure and experience and by extension the implications for addressing bullying (Metzger, Petit, & Sieber, 2015).

9.8.3

Institutional Culture

Universities are not the same, even within a country or higher education system (Rankin & Associates, 2014; UCU surveys). Institutional differences such as type (e.g. research, comprehensive, liberal arts, community colleges), mission (teaching vs research focused), financial and administrative structure, nature of the student body and funding sources (public or private institutions) have implications for the nature of faculty work and overall culture and climate (Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005; Clark, 1987). In the USA, fuelled by the espoused values of diversity and inclusion, many institutions undertake climate surveys, which focus on

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

273

articulating the experiences of faculty, staff and students and identifying the institutional and environmental features that influence those experiences. Several studies in Table 1 are based on institutional climate surveys. The most notable in terms of its extensiveness is the climate assessment of the University of California system, which includes 12 campuses, with varying missions and mandates. A comparative examination of the individual institutional reports reveals the variety in the rates of harassing, discriminatory and bullying experiences. The connection between bullying and climate is recursive; bullying influences and is influenced by work environment. For example, Giorgi’s (2012) study of an Italian university demonstrated how workplace bullying negatively affected institutional climate. On the other side, Qureshi, Rasli and Zaman’s (2014) study of faculty from 144 universities in Pakistan demonstrated how constructive organizational climate as reflected in management support, work–life balance and team orientation reduced workplace bullying and its negative effects on health. An aspect of institutional culture that is particularly relevant to bullying is the culture for conflict management (Einarsen, Skogstad, Rørvik, Lande, & Nielsen, 2018). Desrayaud, Dickson and Webb (2019) demonstrated that academic departments characterized by avoidant or dominating conflict cultures were more likely to experience bullying. These findings underline the need to explicitly identify the aspects of institutional culture central in the support and mitigation of workplace bullying.

9.8.4

In Sum

The research reviewed here has been suggestive of a nested set of cultural influences on academic bullying. Beyond the influence of academic culture, bullying in academe is grounded in and is hypothesized to be shaped by national, disciplinary and institutional culture. The precise nature and intersectionality of these influences and their impact remain to be investigated.

9.9

Behaviour Does Not Speak for Itself: Contextualizing Study and Practice

The available research on the acceptability of bullying behaviours based on national culture (e.g. Escartín, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodriguez-Carballeira, 2011; Power et al., 2013) and research documenting the relationship of identity group membership (Martin, Sharp-Grier, & Piper-King, 2015) and source with the enactment and experience of bullying (e.g. Hershcovis & Reich, 2013) illustrate that behaviour never speaks for itself; rather, behaviour is interpreted within a context. This context is often not clearly articulated nor, as evidenced in the situation of dominant identity group structures (e.g. critique of academe as male and heteronormative), even considered. A consideration of the aspects of academic culture (academic freedom, shared governance, autonomy, tenure) and the role of faculty as scholars/artists, as leaders within the institution and as public intellectuals vividly reveals that “rules of

274

L. Keashly

engagement” for faculty are different in content and perhaps degree than those of other employee groups in the institution and indeed of other sectors (Klein & Lester, 2013; Fratzl & McKay, 2013). These “rules” for academics are further influenced by disciplinary culture (Clark, 1987). Similar contextual logics could be applied in other industries. That is, the nature of the work, values of the organization, organizational culture, role in the work and the organization as well as national culture will influence what the rules of engagement are and that those rules likely vary within the organization across employee groups. The fact that the rules of engagement or relational conduct norms may differ across employee groups or positions and that such differences may not be recognized has implications for the interpretation of, and responses to, conduct generally and to workplace bullying specifically (Klein & Lester, 2013). We can debate (respectfully) whether there should be, or whether it is even possible to have, a single set of rules of engagement or room for multiple sets that interconnect around core conduct rules or more broadly core values. While we theorize the nature and impact of contextual features, we do not often capture the contextual nature of workplace bullying in our measurement and methodology (Hershcovis, 2011; Meriläinen & Kõiv, 2017).

9.9.1

Research Implications

Fully embracing the contextual nature of behaviour has several implications for workplace bullying research in general and academic bullying research in particular. Samples: Partnering with other efforts. As argued earlier, the samples used influence what is found and to whom the findings can be generalized (see also Fahie and McGillicuddy, Chap. 17, “The (Un)Questionable Challenges of Sample Access, Recruitment and Retention in Contemporary Workplace Bullying Research”, Vol. 1, Section 2). The survey studies in this review included samples focused on the academic profession broadly, disciplines, or specific institutions or institutional systems. Each type of sample permits the investigation of different aspects or elements of workplace bullying involving faculty. To address questions about the prevalence, nature and effects of bullying among academics, large-scale representative samples are important. Australia, Canada and the UK through their nationwide academic unions have access to such samples. For other countries such as the USA, where unionization of academics is not widespread, the challenge is how to develop such large representative samples. One possibility is to draw upon, or explicitly partner with, established large-scale surveys such as the General Social Survey (http://gss.norc.org) and the National Health Interview Survey (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/index.htm) in the USA, Health and Safety Executive (http://www.hse.gov.uk) in the UK and the European Working Conditions Surveys (EWCS; https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/euro pean-working-conditions-surveys), which involves multiple countries. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO; http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/en/) sponsors cross-national surveys on various issues, including subjective well-being. These large-scale studies capture country experience and provide the opportunity to

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

275

examine influence and impact of broader social, political and economic situations. As an example, Hodgins (2014) drawing on the 2010 EWCS demonstrated that workplace mistreatment (which included bullying) was associated with a number of work environment factors. Of note were findings that mistreatment was higher in countries with smaller gender gaps, better economic situations and anti-bullying legislations, findings that seem contrary to current theorizing and reflect the complexity of workplace mistreatment. These particular large-scale surveys are also administered periodically allowing examination of changes over time. Further, through their demographic indicators of industry and occupation, these samples would permit comparisons of academe to other sectors. The addition of items on bullying or refinement of current items on bullying and personal harassment, the additional refinement of industry category to separate higher education from the broader education category typically used and the enhancement of the demographic categories to include discipline and faculty status would provide the detailed data to examine the profile of bullying among academics. Beyond the general social or working population surveys, there are surveys focused specifically on the status of the academic profession. One example is the National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF; https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf; Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006), which gathered data from 1989 to 2004. This study was designed to provide data about faculty to postsecondary education researchers, planners and policymakers. Two current examples are the 20-nation study of the Changing Academic Profession (CAP; Teichler, Arimoto, & Cummings, 2013) and the “Academic Profession in Europe” (EUROAC). These studies examine academics’ experiences and perceptions regarding numerous social challenges to higher education and the impact on identity, stress and job satisfaction (e.g. Shin & Jung, 2014). At present, none of the questions tap directly into the quality of working relationships or climate, where bullying would typically appear. It would be useful to explore whether it would be possible to incorporate relevant questions into any subsequent studies. As noted earlier, institutional climate surveys are becoming part of the higher education environment in the USA. These are natural places to include items on bullying alongside items regarding discrimination and harassment. These surveys are rich with demographic data including discipline/department, faculty status and other identity characteristics and would permit exploration of how working environments and climate in departments and units shape the existence, experience and impact of bullying. Disciplines are powerful influences on faculty identity and behaviour. Disciplines differ to some degree regarding expected conduct, which suggests the nature and experience of bullying are shaped by this context (Clark, 1987; Metzger et al., 2015). Accessing discipline-specific samples could be facilitated through partnership with academic disciplinary associations. These associations are interested in understanding the state of the discipline and experience of their membership. An exemplar of such interest is the recently published report by the Royal Historical Society regarding the

276

L. Keashly

racial and ethnic profile and experience of students and staff in UK History Departments. Enhancing the range and variety of study samples will enhance the quality of prevalence data and allow for comparative research. Two types of comparative research of particular importance are (1) cross-discipline, cross-institution and cross-national to examine the unique and shared manifestation of and influences on academic bullying and (2) cross-employee type within academe (staff, students, administration) and cross-industry, which would permit examination of the distinct influences of work type and work context. This comparative research highlights the importance of cross-national and cross-cultural collaborations (Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017; Ojedokun, Oteri, & Ogungbamila, 2014). The extensive collaborative work on cultural acceptability of bullying (Escartín, Zapf, Arrieta, & RodriguezCarballeira, 2011; Power et al., 2013) is a fine exemplar of the richness of the data and interpretation that results. Broadening perspectives examined. In addition to drawing on different cultural perspectives, research in academic bullying would benefit from expanding on whom we focus. Consistent with bullying research in other workplaces, the target perspective has been the focus of most research in bullying involving faculty. The experiences of full-time faculty, particularly those on the tenure track or permanent contract, have been the primary focus. Missing target voices are faculty who are in temporary or contingent status. A recent study in the USA (https://www.aaup.org/ sites/default/files/10112018%20Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf ) found that 73% of faculty were not on the tenure track and most of these were part-time (adjunct) faculty and graduate teaching assistants. These positions may be particularly vulnerable to bullying from other faculty, administrators and students. Because of their precarious connection to the university and lack of job protections, they may be less willing to speak out about their experiences. To get a fuller picture of bullying in academe, it is important that research expand to encompass contingent faculty experiences (see Djurkovic, ▶ Chap. 20, “Workplace Bullying in Precarious Employment”, this volume, Section 2). With a few exceptions (e.g. Ahmad, Kalim, & Kaleem, 2017; Buka, 2013; Ojedokun, Oteri, & Ogungbamila, 2014; Zabrodska et al., 2016), research has not focused on the actor’s perspective. Utilizing a collective biography method, Zábrodská , Ellwood, Zaeemdar and Mudrak (2016) conducted an analysis of target and actor perspectives on initial hostile interactions. Six academics from a variety of countries shared a story where they were the target and a story where they were the actor. Through consideration of both target and actor perspectives, the relational and interactive nature of hostility was highlighted. From the actor perspective, the authors noted how actors justified their actions in terms of target behavioural inadequacies (norm violation) and also the actors’ failure to recognize injury, thus enabling them to disregard the vulnerability of the target. Probing the actor perspective revealed how social norms and moral positioning can be used to support hostile action. Understanding what supports actor conduct highlights places where action can be taken to challenge this mistreatment.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

277

Expanding the net of actor type beyond the immediate environment is important. The examination of academics’ experiences of being bullied reveals the public and the state as powerful actors. Yet, the research on these actors, their behaviours and impact is very limited in the workplace bullying literature. A full exploration of the social architecture of bullying in academe and other work contexts requires that these actors become a focus of research attention (see Vol. 2, Section 2 for chapters on actors in workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment). Another perspective is the witness as third parties to the bullying relationship. As is clear from Table 1, faculty were aware of others being bullied. In addition to the harmful effects of bullying, witnesses can fundamentally influence the bullying interaction in both destructive and constructive ways (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011; Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010; Paull et al., 2012; see also Pouwelse et al., Chap. 15, “The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying: An Overview of Theories and Empirical Research”, Vol. 2, Section 2). Within the community of peers, colleagues as resources for sense-making (Lewis, 2003) and as potential interveners (Keashly & Neuman, 2018) can have profound influences. Thus, research on how witnesses in general and faculty in particular think about, experience and respond to bullying by their colleagues will be critical to understanding the social context and management of bullying in academe. The witness is an exemplar of the much broader category of third party (Ury, 2000). This category also includes those who become informed about or are expected/assumed to have some involvement with addressing or managing the bullying situation. In academe this would include academic leaders such as academic department chairs, directors, deans as well as senior administrators. HR offices, equity offices, ombuds offices and unions would be units or groups that would likely have some contact with bullying situations. How these third parties think about bullying as well as their role vis-à-vis the university will affect how they respond to it. As noted earlier, several survey studies in Table 1 were sponsored by academic unions reflective of their interests in ensuring a healthy working environment for their membership and advocating for effective institutional responding. The perspective of HR professionals has been an increasing focus in the broader workplace bullying literature (e.g. Salin et al., 2018) and more recently in academic environments (e.g. Rockett, Fan, Dwyers, & Foy, 2017). Ombuds in academic institutions are often alerted to bullying situations before formally designated offices. In the USA, ombuds have been particularly influential in institutional change to address bullying (Hollis, 2016b; Keashly, 2018b). These third parties are important aspects of the social architecture of bullying and, thus, worthy of further research attention. Identity, rank and intersectionality. The discussion of bullying in academe as cultural and relational draws attention to the fact that not all academics are equally vulnerable to being bullied or engaging in bullying (Jackson, 2018). Bullying is not status-blind, and to conduct research without questioning this assumption will at the very least create a superficial understanding and, at its worst, contribute to perpetuation of this experience for vulnerable others (see Vol. 3, Section 2 for chapters on workplace bullying and various social identities). Thus, research on faculty experiences of bullying and workplace bullying more broadly needs to take this into account

278

L. Keashly

by consistently including social identity and organizational position of targets, actors and others and examining the nature and impact of intersectionality of these various identities on exposure, enactment, experience and management of bullying (e.g. Johnson-Bailey, 2015; Misawa, 2015).

9.9.2

Measurement: What Is Asked Matters

There is an extensive literature on the nature of measurement of workplace bullying and implications for rates and assessment of the nature and impact of the bullying experience (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010; see also Notelaers and van der Heijden, Chap. 11, “Construct Validity in Workplace Bullying and Harassment Research”, Vol. 1, Section 2). An important consideration from the contextual perspective is the extent to which we are capturing these influences in our measurement. Measurement of bullying has not typically taken into account the relational or conduct norms of the specific work context and how they affect perceptions as victims, as perpetrators, as witnesses and as other third parties. Faculty interpret their behaviour within a discursive and cultural context that creates a broader latitude for what is “appropriate” and, thus, inappropriate behaviour compared to other workers (Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2015). These contextual features need to be reflected in how we measure workplace bullying. In terms of measurement by behavioural checklist, while many of those behaviours may be present and may be experienced as challenging, they may not be considered problematic or out of the norm for academics, where for other workplaces and for other employees within a university context, they are considered/experienced as bullying. Some researchers have attempted to capture the unique conduct norms indirectly by creating context-specific behavioural checklists developed through a focus on faculty or the academic environment (e.g. Meriläinen & Kõiv, 2017; Ozturk, Yilmaz, & Hindistan, 2007). One way of exploring normative influence is to assess the acceptability of different behaviours across employee groups within a university and across industries as has been done with national culture (e.g. Escartín, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodriguez-Carballeira, 2011; Power et al., 2013). Another approach would be to focus on the articulation of norms for different workers within higher education. Braxton and Bray’s (1999) work on faculty articulation of inviolable and other norms regarding teaching demonstrates that such articulation by group members is possible and informative. Normative context is a feature of the work environment, and given the support for the work environment hypothesis and bullying (see Balducci et al., Chap. 1, “The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emo tional Abuse and Harassment”, Vol. 2, Section 1), research focusing on articulating these norms and then empirically examining the connection to bullying definitions, nature and meaning of behaviours and impact is important. Another critical contextual element that influences the meaning and experience of the behaviours is relational, specifically the source/actor and who they are relative to the target. Despite evidence that different actors use different behaviours and that even holding the behaviours constant, who enacts the behaviour matters (Hershcovis

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

279

& Reich, 2013; Lamertz & Aquino, 2004; Neuman & Keashly, 2010), much of the research in academe still does not assess bullying behaviour vis-à-vis the actor. As revealed in the discussion of the types of actors that faculty face, different actors have access to different resources that can be expected to influence the nature, variety and impact of behaviours they can utilize to persistently mistreat a faculty member. The failure to include the source of behaviour reflects a presumption that all behaviours are equal in their meaning and, thus, impact no matter from whom it comes (Cooper, Hoel, & Faragher, 2004). Beyond surveys and checklists. In his critique of the broader workplace bullying literature, Samnani (2013b) argues for academics to draw on interpretivism, critical management theory and postmodernism perspectives to dig into and surface the structures, logics and discourses that position bullying as a strategy for gaining and maintaining power (see Cowan & Toth, Chap. 15, “Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment”, as well as Tye-Williams, Chap. 16, “Innovations in Qualitative Approaches for Studying Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment”, Vol. 1, Section 2). While the findings from the studies in Table 1 help map the domain of the phenomenon of bullying in academe, it is qualitative research grounded in these other perspectives that fills in the rich details, making the experiences more vivid and real and revealing complex and nuanced dynamics and structures that survey findings hint at. Through the rich and thick descriptions garnered through interviews (e.g. Lester, 2009; Misawa, 2015; Simpson & Cohen, 2004; Tigrel & Kokalan, 2009; Williams, Campbell, & Denton, 2013), personal narratives (e.g. Friedenberg, 2008; JohnsonBailey, 2015; Kotleras, 2007), collective biography (e.g. Zábrodská, Linnell, Laws, & Davies, 2011; Zábrodská et al., 2016), case study (e.g. Frazier, 2011; Ilongo, 2016; Nelson & Lambert, 2001; Westhues, 2006; Wilkin, 2010) and policy analysis (e.g. Brisebois, 2010; Smith & Coel, 2018), the nature and structure of bullying of marginalized faculty, within specific disciplines and institutions, the (often covert) means by which legitimate institutional structures and policies are subverted and motives hidden and the dramatic impact of institutional restructuring on bullying of faculty are revealed. These studies draw our attention to broader narratives and discourses that support and normalize bullying in academe often by wrapping them in the sacred value of academic freedom (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012; Nelson & Lambert, 2001). Addressing bullying in academe will be hampered without such nuance, richness and depth.

9.9.3

Practice Implications

Systemic responding: To code or not to code. In terms of addressing academic bullying, the contextual perspective highlights the importance of articulating the various rules of engagement, what they reflect and how that manifests in conduct and in evaluation of the acceptability of conduct (Klein & Lester, 2013). A standard recommendation in the academic bullying literature and bullying literatures in other work contexts is to develop anti-bullying policies (see Ferris et al., Chap. 3, “Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on Effec tiveness”, Vol. 3, Section 1). Lack of policy suggests that bullying is not considered

280

L. Keashly

an important issue in the community and may, in effect, enable these behaviours to continue (Lester, 2009; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Salin, 2003; Twale & DeLuca, 2008). Without policy, bullying incidents are examined in isolation increasing the chances they will be focused on as interpersonal issues, framed as subjective, thus not considering systemic or structural patterns (Lester, 2009). Policies grounded in shared values and ethical standards clarify the university community’s expected standards for conduct and provide the framework by which university members can assess whether their own or another’s conduct is (in) appropriate and constructive (Bray, Molina, & Swecker, 2012; Gallant, 2013; Smith & Coel, 2018). Useful policies articulate the specific steps to be taken to report and address conduct including sanctions for substantiated violation. Policies also provide a mechanism for tracking of complaints and investigations of incidents, which can facilitate the identification of patterning of problematic conduct, a key characteristic of bullying (Lester, 2009). Thus, policies are important in the “deterrence and detection of wrongdoing” (p. 1; Bray & Braxton, 2012). While policies are recommended, their existence is variable across countries. For example, in Japan, Kawabata (2014) found that 40% of higher education institutions did not have policies and guidelines regarding academic harassment. An examination of faculty codes of conduct at 276 US institutions found that while harassment on the basis of protected class was noted and sanctioned, bullying was rarely mentioned (Smith & Coel, 2018). In her study of 15 medical-doctoral institutions in Canada, Brisebois (2010) found that all but one institution had policies on generalized harassment. Several countries have enacted legislation or are moving towards regulations regarding workplace bullying (Cobb, 2017), which will have implications for universities, particularly those that are publicly funded to implement anti-bullying policies (Rockett, Fan, Dwyer, & Foy, 2017). A critique of anti-bullying policies in universities is that they pose a risk to academic freedom and freedom of expression because they fail to acknowledge the uniqueness of the academic and the academic workplace, that is, they do not incorporate context (Klein & Lester, 2013; Petrina, Mathison, & Ross, 2014; Smith & Coel, 2018). To the extent there are different rules of engagement in a university, the question is whether it is possible to formulate a single code of conduct or policy for an institution with diverse identities, work roles and functions (Bray & Braxton, 2012; Bray, Molina, & Swecker, 2012; Gallant, 2013). How can policy be developed that recognizes the importance of values and norms that create different behavioural spaces for different roles and people? The engagement of all university community members in the policy development process is critical (Keashly & Wajngurt, 2016). This increases the likelihood that policies will accurately capture the variety of perspectives and the shared values and goals, which, in turn, increases the likelihood that the policies will be viewed as valid and will be utilized. The involvement of faculty, specifically, has implications for whether the policy will be grounded in a deep understanding of academic freedom and, thus, accepted and implemented appropriately and effectively (Keashly & Neuman, 2018; Westhues, 2007). Further, and perhaps more importantly, the process of policy development provides the opportunity for faculty and staff to explicitly identify, discuss and debate the varying conduct norms for each group, increasing the understanding of each other’s work and goals (Klein & Lester, 2013).

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

281

An interesting example of policy development and outcome in the USA is the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The policy development process engaged faculty and staff as key partners and policy architects (Flaherty, 2014). The outcome was a set of policies with versions crafted for each core constituent group (https://hr.wisc. edu/hib/principles-and-policies/). The set of policies shares the connection to the vision and mission of the institution and constructive work environments. Consistent with a contextual perspective, the policies differ to some degree in what is considered problematic behaviour and processes for assessing and addressing conduct for each constituency. In sum, policy is important for establishing the framework and the procedures for guiding the institution and its members regarding appropriate conduct. Involvement of all campus members in the policy development process enhances the possibility that the policy reflects and supports the unique context and norms of faculty and of staff work. While necessary, policy is not sufficient (Barratt-Pugh & Krestelica, 2019). Beyond policies and codes. The nature of academe and the principles of academic freedom, freedom of expression, collegiality and shared governance create an environment for faculty, in particular, in which attempting to codify or legislate behaviour will be actively resisted. This environment facilitates (indeed requires) an openness to explore means other than restrictions on expression to address bullying (Berryman-Fink, 1998; Cameron, 2014). Thus, while policies and procedures are important, they are considered more limited than the power of the community to define and support constructive behaviour and challenge and address conduct that undermines the community (see also Vol. 3, Section 1 for chapters on intervention in the context of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment). Engaging peer influence. The nature of faculty as a self-regulating profession and community of scholars bolstered by peer review speaks to the importance of the academic community in formulating, enforcing and challenging its norms. Faculty peers communicate what is and is not appropriate from their colleagues through their responses to a situation. As evidenced in the earlier discussion of witness responding, when aware of a colleague being bullied, faculty tried multiple actions to change the problematic situation. Thus, faculty were willing to use their influence to help. The challenge for faculty was being uncertain about what to do. One strategy to leverage colleague influence to address extant bullying and mobbing situations would be developing faculty skills and confidence in intervention, that is, helping faculty become active and constructive bystanders (Keashly & Neuman, 2018; Paull, Omari, & Standen, 2012). Bystander training is grounded in the extensive research on bystander decision making (e.g. Bowes-Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Latané & Darley, 1970; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004). Such training has been utilized on university campuses in the USA and Canada, most often focused on students engaging their peers around high-risk behaviour such as drinking and sexual violence (e.g. Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004) and responding to prejudiced and discriminatory behaviour (e.g. Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008). These efforts focus on articulating and reinforcing desired community norms for conduct. Recent efforts in training faculty in active and constructive intervention in bullying situations with

282

L. Keashly

their colleagues are promising and require more systematic development and evaluation (e.g. Keashly & Neuman, 2018; Roderick, 2016). Broadening the framework: Inclusive climate and culture. The extensive research on experiences of harassment and discrimination on the basis of gender, gender expression, race, ethnicity, class, caste and (dis)ability and the deep exploration within academic environments of these issues reveal the structural and societal nature of (in)justice and its manifestation in institutional inequities. Embracing the social-structural contextual influences means bullying needs to be considered as a reflection of and strategy for maintaining these social and institutional inequities (Samnani, 2013a). We can draw on and draw in the varied literatures on status-based harassment (e.g. sexual harassment, racial discrimination) to enrich and further reveal the dynamics of bullying interactions and how they are fuelled and maintained in service of maintaining the status quo. Within this critical cultural framework, being different is problematized, and harassment and by extension bullying can be framed as a response to that problematization (Berdahl, 2007). The studies reviewed here indicate that this dynamic is alive and well in academe. To address bullying then requires challenging the problematization, which means engaging and dismantling the systemic and social inequities within institutional walls. Klein and Lester (2013) and Barratt-Pugh and Krestelica (2019) argue for the value of developing inclusive and ethical institutional cultures as the means to directly engage these issues and, thus, ameliorate bullying (e.g. Gallant, 2013; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Sallee & Diaz, 2013).

9.10

Conclusion

This chapter began with the intent to assess the validity of the claim that “bullying is rife on campus”. In an attempt to address this question, the global literature on bullying in academe, particularly involving faculty, was reviewed. Research interest has increased substantially in the past decade, which on its own is a notable indicator of its importance. Despite the usual qualifications of sample and measure, it is clear that faculty are sadly familiar with bullying in their institutions. Approximately 25% of faculty will identify as having been bullied in a 12-month period with another 40–50% indicating they have witnessed others being bullied. An examination of who does what to whom reveals that academic bullying is inherently positional (Misawa, 2015) and solidly grounded in and reflective of socio-structural inequities, that is, bullying is not status-blind. Thus, faculty with marginalized social identities and lower organizational rank are the most vulnerable. Examination of the intersectionality of these identities reveals that not even tenure or high organizational status can protect some faculty from being bullied. Bullying occurs most often at the hands of faculty colleagues, many of whom occupy senior ranks. These bullying relationships are very long-standing and hard to exit without leaving academe altogether. The examination of actors reveals that faculty “get it from all sides”. They are bullied by internal actors such as colleagues, students and administrators but also by external actors such as the state and increasingly the public through

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

283

online harassment. The identification of the state and the public as important actors suggests that bullying from these actors may be useful to consider in other work contexts. The examination of bullying in academe reveals the inherently contextual nature of the behaviours. That is, behaviour does not speak for itself; rather, it is interpreted, enacted and experienced in a particular normative and discursive context. The unique nature of academic culture and the unique foundational features of academic freedom, professorial rank and tenure shape expectations for faculty conduct. These expectations and norms are different than norms for other employee groups in the institution as well as other work contexts and industry. These norms are critical in what gets identified and experienced as bullying as well as responses to and management of the bullying. These contextual logics are relevant to workplace bullying in other work contexts. Thus, research and practice must reflect this contextualization.

9.10.1 One Last Comment: Faculty as Participant-Observers Academics as researchers are in a unique position to study workplace bullying in our own backyards (Keashly, 2015). We can apply our critical and discursive skills as well as our analytical perspectives to surfacing and discussing the “elephants in our own room” (Samnani, 2013b). We can embrace the “power of the peer” to engage our colleagues and beyond in analysis and responding to bullying among us. We can explicitly participate in sense-making for targets and third parties by sharing our research and understanding of the dynamics and systemic nature of bullying. We can help people tell their stories (Tracy, Alberts, & Rivera, 2007) as well as guide their attention to ways to address these situations. We may also need to prepare ourselves that we may be perceived as actors and be able to engage constructively and reflexively with that. As a community of scholars, we have a responsibility as members to lift up and address these issues.

9.11

Cross-References

▶ Abuse from Organizational Outsiders: Customer Aggression and Incivility ▶ Physical Intimidation and Bullying in the Workplace ▶ Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment in Schools

9.12

Cross-References to Other Volumes

Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 Mapping “Varieties of Workplace Bullying”: The Scope of the Field, Vol. 1 The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide, Vol. 1 Workplace Bullying and Cyberbullying Scales: An Overview, Vol. 1

284

L. Keashly

Consequences of Workplace Bullying for Individuals, Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 Employee Silence and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Exploring Upwards Bullying to Learn More About Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Health Consequences of Workplace Bullying: Physiological Responses and Sleep as Pathways to Disease, Vol. 2 The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Workplace Bullying and Mental Health, Vol. 2

References AAUP. (1993). The status of non-tenure-track faculty. Washington, DC: Author. Agarwala, T. (2018). Bullying and career consequences in the academy: Experiences of women faculty. In A.M. Broadridge and S.L. Fielden (Eds.) Research handbook of diversity and careers (pp. 241–255). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ahmad, S., Kalim, R., & Kaleem, A. (2017). Academics’ perceptions of bullying at work: Insights from Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 204–220. Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 803–830. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. Aranda, J. L. (2018). Civility and bullying in higher education: Secrets in academia and the culture of incivility. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota. Armstrong, J. (2012). Faculty animosity: A contextual view. Journal of Thought, 47(2), 85–103. Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 332–342. Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1–16. Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61–79. Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Barratt-Pugh, L. G. B., & Krestelica, D. (2019). Bullying in higher education: Culture change requires more than policy. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1502211. Barsky, A. E. (2002). Structural sources of conflict in a university context. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(2), 161–176. Beckmann, C. A., Cannella, B. L., & Wantland, D. (2013). Faculty perception of bullying in schools of nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(5), 287–294. Bentley, P. J., Coates, H., Dobson, I. R., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2013). Academic job satisfaction from an international comparative perspective: Factors associated with satisfaction across 12 countries. In Job satisfaction around the academic world (pp. 239–262). Dordrecht: Springer. Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658. Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised and expanded edition of The four cultures of the academy (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

285

Berryman-Fink, C. (1998). Can we agree to disagree? Faculty-faculty conflict. In S. Bolton (Ed.) Mending the cracks in the ivory tower: Strategies for conflict management in higher education (pp. 141–163). Bolton: Anker Publishing Company. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hielt-Black, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20(3), 173–184. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. (2006). The impact of appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89–123. Bloch, C. (2012). How do perpetrators experience bullying at the workplace? International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 5(2), 159–177. Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research. https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/25 ff22be-8a1b-4c97-9d88-084c8d98187a/ScienceOpen/3507_XE6680747344554310733.pdf Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 288–306. Boynton, P. (2005). Higher education supplement bullying survey. Preliminary findings from the Boynton-THES bullying survey. http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/Preliminary%20Findings% 20from%20Bullying%20survey.pdf Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 154–186. Braxton, J. M., & Bray, N. J. (2012). Introduction: The importance of codes of conduct in academia. New Directions for Higher Education, 122, 1–4. Bray, N. J., & Braxton, J. M. (2012). Reflections on codes of conduct: Asymmetries, vulnerabilities, and institutional controls. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(160), 89–97. Bray, N. J., Molina, D. K., & Swecker, B. A. (2012). Organizational constraints and possibilities regarding codes of conduct. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(160), 73–87. Brisebois, J. (2010). Generalized harassment in Canadian universities: Policies and practices addressing bullying in the academic workplace. Masters thesis, University of Manitoba. Bronstein, P. & Farnsworth, L. (1998). Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climate and processes for advancement. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 557–585. Buka, M. S. M. (2013). Mobbing in higher education in Albania: Its antecedents and consequences. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tirana. Buka, M. S. M., & Karaj, T. (2012). Mobbing in the academe: The case of Albanian universities. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human and Social Sciences, 8, 26–29. Burk, H. G., & Eby, L. T. (2010). What keeps people in mentoring relationships when bad things happen? A field study from the protégé’s perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 437–446. Burnes, B., Wend, P., & By, R. T. (2014). The changing face of English universities: Reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 905–926. Cameron, J. (2014). Giving and taking offense: Civility, respect and academic freedom. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Canaan, J. E., & Shumar, W. (Eds.). (2008). Structure and agency in the neoliberal university. New York: Routledge. Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014). The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbullying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(2), 279–299. Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Faucher, C. (2016). Gender differences and cyberbullying towards faculty members in higher education. In Cyberbullying across the globe (pp. 79–98). Cham: Springer. Catano, V., Francis, L., Haines, T., Kirpalani, H., Shannon, H., Stringer, B., & Lozanski, L. (2007). Occupational stress among Canadian university academic staff. Ottawa: Canadian Association of University Teachers. http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp Celep, C., & Konakli, T. (2013). Mobbing experiences of instructors: Causes, results, and solution suggestions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 193–199.

286

L. Keashly

Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55(9), 1051–1069. Christy, S. C. (2010). Working effectively with faculty: Guidebook for higher education staff and managers. Berkeley: University Resources Press. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Clark, C. M. (2009). Faculty field guide for promoting student civility. Nurse Educator, 34(5), 194–197. Cobb, E. P. (2017). Workplace bullying and harassment: New developments in international law. New York: Routledge. Cooper, C. L., Hoel, H., & Faragher, B. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 367–387. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75. Cortina, L. M., & Marchiondo, L. (2012). Measurement of interpersonal mistreatment in organizations. In R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Research methods in occupational health psychology. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 299. Court, S. (2008). The extent of bullying and harassment in post-16 education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Union of Colleges and Universities Tackling Bullying conference, London. Cox, E., & Goodman, J. (2005). Belittled: The state of play on bullying. Australian Universities Review, 48, 28. Craft, L. (2006). Unequal opportunity: Women engineers and scientists who want to pursue academic careers in Japan face almost insurmountable obstacles, but increasingly their fighting back. ASEE Prism, 11(7). http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar02/unequal.cfm Crouch, M. (2016). Why can’t we behave? Justice and ethical conduct in the academy. Social Philosophy Today, 31, 7–26. D’Cruz, P. (2015). Depersonalized bullying at work: From evidence to conceptualization. Springer India. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2009). Experiencing depersonalised bullying: A study of Indian callcentre agents. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 3(1), 26–46. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33(3), 269–288. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013). Navigating the extended reach: Target experiences of cyberbullying at work. Information and Organization, 23(4), 324–343. Dellifraine, J. L., McClelland, L. E., Erwin, C. O., & Wang, Z. (2014). Bullying in academia: Results of a survey of health administration faculty. Journal of Health Administration Education, 31(2), 147–163. Dentith, A. M., Wright, R. R., & Coryell, J. (2015). Those mean girls and their friends: Bullying and mob rule in the academy. Adult Learning, 26(1), 28–34. DeSouza, E. R. (2011). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in higher education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 158–188. Desrayaud, N., Dickson, F. C., & Webb, L. M. (2019). The theory of bullying conflict cultures: Developing a new explanation for workplace bullying. In R. West & C. Beck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of communication and bullying (pp. 95–106). New York: Routledge. Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188. Dzurec, L. C. (2013). Status limbo: Analysis of nurse faculty member reports of administrator response to workplace bullying complaints. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(5), e1–e9.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

287

Eastman, J. (2018, July 24). University autonomy in Canada: It’s time for a check. University Affairs. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts QuestionnaireRevised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201. Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, Å. B., & Nielsen, M. B. (2018). Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(3), 549–570. Escartín, J., Rodríguez-Carballeira, A., Zapf, D., Porrúa, C., & Martín-Peña, J. (2009). Perceived severity of various bullying behaviours at work and the relevance of exposure to bullying. Work & Stress, 23(3), 191–205. Escartín, J., Zapf, D., Arrieta, C., & Rodriguez-Carballeira, A. (2011). Workers’ perception of workplace bullying: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(2), 178–205. Fadda, S., Giorgi, G., Benitez Muñoz, J. L., Justicia Justicia, F., & Solinas, G. (2015). Do negative acts in Italian academia have a quadratic relationship with determinants of health? International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), 158–166. Faria, J. R., Mixon, F. G., & Salter, S. P. (2012). An economic model of workplace mobbing in academe. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 720–726. Farley, S., & Sprigg, C. (2014). Culture of cruelty: Why bullying thrives in higher education. https:// www.theguardian.com/higher-educationnetwork/blog/2014/nov/03/why-bullying-thrives-highereducation Ferber, A. L. (2018). “Are you willing to die for this work?” Public targeted online harassment in higher education: SWS Presidential Address. Gender & Society, 32(3), 301–320. Fielden, J. (2007). Global trends in university governance (Education working paper series number 9). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Flaherty, C. (2014, December 2). Bully-free zone. U of Wisconsin Madison faculty approves an antibullying policy. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/ 02/u-wisconsin-madison-facultyapproves-anti-bullying-policy Flaherty, C. (2017, June 26). Old criticisms, new threats. Inside Higher Ed. https://www. insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/26/professors-are-often-political-lightning-rods-now-are-fac ing-new-threats-over-their Fox, S. (2010, April). Bullying in academia: Distinctive relations of power and control. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology conference, Atlanta. Fratzl, J., & McKay, R. (2013). Professional staff in academia: Academic culture and the role of aggression. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 60–73). New York: Routledge. Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic bullying: A barrier to tenure and promotion for African-American faculty. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 5(1), 1–13. Friedenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of an academic mobbing. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. Furedi, F. (2001). Bullying: The British contribution to the construction of a social problem. In J. Best (Ed.), How claims spread: Cross-national diffusion of social problems (pp. 89–106). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Gabbert, M. A. (2014). The right to think otherwise. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university (pp. 89–109). Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Gallant, T. B. (2013). The ethical dimensions of bullying. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 118–134). New York, NY: Routledge.

288

L. Keashly

Gardner, S. K. (2012). “I couldn’t wait to leave the toxic environment”: A mixed methods study of women faculty satisfaction and departure from one research institution. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 5(1), 71–95. GCPEA. (2018). Education under attack 2018. http://eua2018.protectingeducation.org/#attacks-onhigher-education. Accessed 26 July 2018. Gerstenfield, J. A. (2016). Understanding workplace bullying among staff in higher education. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian University. Giorgi, G. (2012). Workplace bullying in academia creates a negative work environment. An Italian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(4), 261–275. Goldberg, E., Beitz, J., Wieland, D., & Levine, C. (2013). Social bullying in nursing academia. Nurse Educator, 38(5), 1–7. Goodyear, R., Reynolds, P., & Gragg, J. B. (2010). University faculty experiences of classroom incivilities: A critical incident study. Paper presented as a roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver. Gül, H., İnce, M., & Özcan, N. (2011). The relationship between workplace mobbing and burnout among academics at a Turkish university. Research Journal of International Studies, 18(1), 118–134. Harvey, M., Treadway, D., & Heames, J. T. (2006). Bullying in global organizations: A reference point perspective. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 190–202. Hegranes, C. A. (2012). Leadership response to workplace bullying in academe: A collective case study. Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas. Henning, M. A., Zhou, C., Adams, P., Moir, F., Hobson, J., Hallett, C., & Webster, C. S. (2017). Workplace harassment among staff in higher education: A systematic review. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18(4), 521–539. Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . . oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499–519. Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich, T. C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method considerations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S26–S42. Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C., & Niven, K. (2015). Workplace bullying: Causes, consequences and intervention strategies [White paper]. Retrieved from Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: http://www.siop.org/WhitePapers/WorkplaceBullyingFINAL.pdf Hiatt, G. (2008, February 24). Mean and nasty academics: Bullying, hazing and mobbing. https:// academicladder.com/mean-and-nasty-academics Hodgins, M. (2014). Workplace mistreatment: Health, working environment and social and economic factors. Health, 6(05), 392. Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester: Manchester School of Management, UMIST. Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65(2), 117–127. Hollis, L. P. (2012). Bully in the ivory tower: How aggression & incivility erode American higher education. Wilminton, DE: Patricia Berkly LLC. Hollis, L. P. (2015). Bully university? The cost of workplace bullying and employee disengagement in American higher education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–11. Hollis, L. P. (2016a). The coercive community college: Bullying and its costly impact on the mission to serve underrepresented populations. Bingley, West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group Publishing. Hollis, L. P. (2016b). Canary in the mine: Ombuds as first alerts for workplace bullying on campus. Journal of International Ombudsman Association, 9(1), 23–31. Hollis, L. P. (2017). Higher education henchman: Vicarious bullying and underrepresented populations. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(12), 64–73. Horton, K. B. (2016). Exploring workplace bullying through a social work ethics-informed lens. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 13(1), 25–32.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

289

Hubert, A. B., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2001). Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 415–424. Huston, T. A., Norman, M., & Ambrose, S. A. (2007). Expanding the discussion of faculty vitality to include productive but disengaged senior faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 493–522. Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2010). Bullying as circuits of power: An Australian nursing perspective. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 25–47. Ilongo, F. N. (2016). Forms of workplace bullying in institutions of higher learning in the light of the Integral Model of Workplace Bullying. Journal of Organization and Human Behaviour, 5(1), 17–28. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 81–90. Jackson, L. (2018). Reconsidering vulnerability in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 232–241. Jacobson, K. J., Hood, J. N., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2014). Workplace bullying across cultures: A research agenda. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(1), 47–65. Jaschik, S. (2018, August 15). Anti-intellectualism and “how fascism works”. Inside Higher Education. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/15/author-discusses-his-new-bookanti-intellectualism-and-fascism Johnson, P. (2014). Bullying in academia up close and personal: My story. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 24, 33–41. Johnson-Bailey, J. (2015). Academic incivility and bullying as gendered and racialized phenomena. Adult Learning, 26(1), 42–47. Jones, B., Hwang, E., & Bustamante, R. M. (2015). African American female professors’ strategies for successful attainment of tenure and promotion at predominately White institutions: It can happen. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 10(2), 133–151. Kakumba, U., Wamala, R., & Wanyama, S. B. (2014). Employment relations and bullying in academia: A case of academic staff at Makerere University. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 9(1), 63–74. Karran, T., & Mallinson, L. (2017). Academic freedom in the UK: Legal and normative protection in a comparative context. Report for the University and College Union. https://www.ucu.org. uk/media/8614/Academic-Freedom-in-the-UK-Legal-and-Normative-Protection-in-a-Compar ative-Context-Report-for-UCU-Terence-Karran-and-Lucy-Mallinson-May-17/pdf/ucu_academic freedomstudy_report_may17.pdf Kawabata, T. (2014). The prevention of the workplace harassment at Japanese universities: The perspective of the research and the findings from the complete count survey. In Forum on public policy online (Vol. 2014, No. 1). Urbana: Oxford Round Table. Keashly, L. (2001). Interpersonal and systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work: the target’s perspective. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 233–268. Keashly, L. (2015). When debate, discourse and exchange go bad: Bullying in the academic workplace. SPECTRA, 51(3), 23–28. Keashly, L. (2018a). Nature and prevalence of workplace bullying and mobbing in the US: What do the numbers mean? In M. Duffy & D. Yamada (Eds.), Workplace bullying and mobbing in the U.S. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Keashly, L. (2018b). Ombuds and bystanding: Embracing influence. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 12. https://www.ombudsassociation.org/assets/docs/JIOA-2018-5_ Bystander_PDF.pdf Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2006). Workplace emotional abuse. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. Furrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Keashly, L. & Jagatic, K (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf., & C. Cooper (eds). Bullying and emotional abuse in the

290

L. Keashly

workplace: International research and practice perspectives (pp. 49–79). London: Taylor Francis Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2008). Final report: Workplace behaviour (bullying) project survey. Mankato: Minnesota State University. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from https://www.mnsu.edu/ csw/workplacebullying/workplace_bullying_final_report.pdf Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: Causes, consequences and management. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(1), 48–70. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2013). Bullying in academia: What does current theorizing and research tell us? In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Routledge. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2018). Workplace bullying and mobbing in U.S. higher education. In M. Duffy & D. Yamada (Eds.), Workplace bullying and mobbing in the U.S. (pp. 507–538). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Keashly, L., & Wajngurt, C. (2016). Faculty bullying in higher education. Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 53(1/2), 79–90. Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 619. King, C., & Piotrowski, C. (2015). Bullying of educators by educators: Incivility in higher education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 1–6. Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2004). Working to the limit: Stress and work-life balance in academic and academic related employees. http://www.atn.edu.au/docs/workingtothelimit.pdf Kinman, G., & Wray, S. (2013a). Further stress: A survey of stress and well-being among staff in further education. https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/5898/Further-stress-a-survey-of-stress-andwell-being-among-staff-in-further-education/pdf/FE_stress_report_July_2013.pdf Kinman, G., & Wray, S. (2013b). Higher stress: A survey of stress and well-being among staff in higher education. https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/5911/Higher-stress-a-survey-of-stress-andwell-being-among-staff-in-higher-education-Jul-13/pdf/HE_stress_report_July_2013.pdf Kinman, G., & Wray, S. (2014). Taking its toll: Rising levels in further education, UCU Stress Survey, 2014. https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/7265/UCU-FE-stress-survey-2014%2D%2Dreport/pdf/ucu_festressreport14.pdf Klein, C., & Lester, J. (2013). Moving beyond awareness and tolerance. In J. Lester (Ed.) Workplace bullying in higher education (pp.138–14). New York: Routledge. Korukcu, Ö., Bulut, O., Tuzcu, A., Bayram, Z., & Öztürk Türkmen, H. (2014). An adaptation of Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror to health sciences programs in Turkey. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry/Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 15(4), 335–343. Kotleras, R. (2007). The workplace mobbing of highly gifted adults: An unremarked barbarism. Advanced Development, 11, 130. Koval, O. (2014). Bullying among university employees: Prevalence, correlates, and consequences. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Stavanger. Lacy, F. J., & Sheehan, B. A. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: An international perspective. Higher Education, 34(3), 305–322. Lamertz, K., & Aquino, K. (2004). Social power, social status and perceptual similarity of workplace victimization: A social network analysis of stratification. Human Relations, 57(7), 795–822. Lampman, C. (2012). Women faculty at risk: US professors report on their experiences with student incivility, bullying, aggression, and sexual attention. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 5(2), 184–208. Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2009). Contrapower harassment in academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual attention. Sex Roles, 60(5–6), 331–346. Landes, C. L. (2013). Familiarity and experience with workplace bullying: Workplace bullying at James Madison University. Unpublished master’s thesis, James Madison University.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

291

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts. Leng, C. Z., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). The relationship between cultural diversity and workplace bullying in multinational enterprises. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(6). https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/1316 Lester, J. (2009). Not your child’s playground: Workplace bullying among community college faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 444–462. Leung, A. K. Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within-and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. Lewis, D. (1999). Workplace bullying: Interim findings of a study in further and higher education in Wales. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 106–119. Lewis, D. (2003). Voices in the social construction of bullying at work: Exploring multiple realities in further and higher education. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4(1), 65–81. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. Liefooghe, A. P., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392. López-Cabarcos, M. Á., & Vázquez-Rodríguez, P. (2006). Psychological harassment in the Spanish public university system. Academy of Health Care Management Journal, 2, 21–39. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: How communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 3–47. Marsh, J., Patel, S., Gelaye, B., Goshu, M., Worku, A., Williams, M. A., & Berhane, Y. (2009). Prevalence of workplace abuse and sexual harassment among female faculty and staff. Journal of Occupational Health, 51(4), 314–322. Martin, J. L., Sharp-Grier, M. L., & Piker-King, K. (2015). Prime targets: Identity markers as the secret rationale for the preponderance of bullying in academe. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Bullies in the workplace: Seeing and stopping adults who abuse their coworkers and employees. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Martin, M. M., Goodboy, A. K., & Johnson, Z. D. (2015). When professors bully graduate students: Effects on student interest, instructional dissent, and intentions to leave graduate education. Communication Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041995. May, A., & Tenzek, K. E. (2018). Bullying in the academy: Understanding the student bully and the targeted ‘stupid, fat, mother fucker’ professor. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 275–290. McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia: A Canadian study. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 20, 77–100. McCarthy, P., Mayhew, C., Barker, M., & Sheehan, M. (2003). Bullying and occupational violence in tertiary education: risk factors, perpetrators and prevention. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand, 19(4), 319–326. Meriläinen, M., & Kõiv, K. (2017). Theoretical dimensions of bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty members. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(3), 378–392. Meriläinen, M., & Kõiv, K. (2018). Bullying and an unfavourable working environment. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11, 159. Meriläinen, M., Sinkkonen, H., Puhakka, H., & Kayhko, K. (2016). Bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel. Policy Futures in Education, 14(6), 617–634. Meriläinen, M., Käyhkö, K., Kõiv, K., & Sinkkonen, H. (2019). Academic bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel in Estonia and Finland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 241–261. Minibas-Poussard, J., Seckin-Celik, T., & Bingol, H. B. (2018). Mobbing in higher education: Descriptive and inductive case narrative analyses of mobber behaviour, mobbee responses, and witness support. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(2), 471–494.

292

L. Keashly

Misawa, M. (2015). Cuts and bruises caused by arrows, sticks, and stones in academia: Theorizing three types of racist and homophobic bullying in adult and higher education. Adult Learning, 26(1), 6–13. Metzger, A. M., Petit, A. & Sieber, S. (2015). Mentoring as a way to change a culture of academic bullying and mobbing in the humanities. Higher Education for the Future, 2(2), 139–150. Morris, S. E. (2011). Doctoral students’ experiences of supervisory bullying. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 19(2), 547–555. Mourssi-Alfash, M. F. (2014). Workplace bullying and its influence on the perception of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviour among faculty and staff in the public higher education in Minnesota system. Doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Mudrak, J., Zabrodska, K., Kveton, P., Jelinek, M., Blatny, M., Solcova, I., & Machovcova, K. (2018). Occupational well-being among university faculty: A job demands-resources model. Research in Higher Education, 59(3), 325–348. Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of Communication, 4, 343–373. Navayan, P. K., & Chitale, C. M. (2016). A study of nature and prevalence of mobbing amongst teachers in higher education in Pune. KHOJ: Journal of Indian Management Research and Practices, National Research Conference Special Issue, 297–312. Nelson, E. D., & Lambert, R. D. (2001). Sticks, stones and semantics: The ivory tower bully’s vocabulary of motives. Qualitative Sociology, 24(1), 83–106. Nelson, M. L., Englar-Carlson, M., Tierney, S. C., & Hau, J. M. (2006). Class jumping into academia: Multiple identities for counselling academics. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 1–14. Neuman, J. H. (2009). Workplace behavior project survey. Unpublished raw data. Neuman, J. H., & Keashly, L. (2004, April). Development of the workplace aggression research questionnaire (WAR-Q): Preliminary data from the workplace stress and aggression project. In RJ Bennett & CD Crossley (Chairs), Theoretical advancements in the study of anti-social behavior at work. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. Neuman, J. H., & Keashly, L. (2010). Means, motive, opportunity, and aggressive workplace behaviour. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Insidious workplace behaviour (pp. 31–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2013). Can observations of workplace bullying really make you depressed? A response to Emdad et al. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 86(6), 717–721. Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 955–979. Nkporbu, A. K., & Douglas, K. E. (2016). Prevalence and pattern of work place bullying as psychosocial hazards among workers in a tertiary Institution in Nigeria. Open Access Library Journal, 3(05), 1. Normile, D. (2001). Women faculty battle Japan’s Koza system. Science, 291(5505), 817–818. NTEU. (2012). A report into workplace bullying at the University of New South Wales. http://www. nteu.org.au/unsw/campaigns/bullying O’Meara, K. (2004). Beliefs about post-tenure review: The influence of autonomy, collegiality, career stage, and institutional context. Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 178. Ojedokun, O., Oteri, I. O., & Ogungbamila, A. (2014). Which of the big-five traits is more predictive of workplace bullying among academics in Nigeria? Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 184, 184–203. Oleksiyenko, A. (2018). Zones of alienation in global higher education: Corporate abuse and leadership failures. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 193–205. Onorato, M. (2013). An empirical study of unethical leadership and workplace bullying in industry segments. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 78(2), 4–16.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

293

Ozturk, H., Yilmaz, F., & Hindistan, S. (2007). Mobbing scale for nurses and mobbing experienced by nurses. Hospital Management, 11(1–2), 63–69. Pathania, G. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2018). An ethnography of caste and class at an Indian university: Creating capital. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 221–231. Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 351–366. Pelletier, K. L., Kottke, J. L., & Sirotnik, B. W. (2018). The toxic triangle in academia: A case analysis of the emergence and manifestation of toxicity in a public university. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715018773828. Petrina, S. (2012). The new critiquette and old scholactivism: A petit critique of academic manners, managers, matters, and freedom. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 20, 17–63. Petrina, S., Mathison, S., & Ross, E. W. (2014). Threat convergence: The new academic work, bullying, mobbing and freedom. Workplace, 24, 58–69. Phipps, A. (2017, December 13). Tackling sexual harassment on campus is about more than naming and shaming. The Guardian: Higher Education Network. Postiglione, G., & Jung, J. (Eds.). (2017). The changing academic profession in Hong Kong. Singapore: Springer. Power, J. L., Brotheridge, C. M., Blenkinsopp, J., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bozionelos, N., Buzády, Z., . . . Madero, S. M. (2013). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 374–380. Price Spratlen, L. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university workplace. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 285–297. Qureshi, M. I., Rasli, A. M., & Zaman, K. (2014). A new trilogy to understand the relationship among organizational climate, workplace bullying and employee health. Arab Economic and Business Journal, 9(2), 133–146. Raineri, E., Frear, D. F., & Edmonds, J. J. (2011). An examination of the academic reach of faculty and administrator bullying. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 22–35. Rankin, S., & Associates. (2014). Campus climate project final report. University of California System. http://campusclimate.ucop.edu/_common/files/pdf-climate/ucsystem-full-report.pdf Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people. Campus Pride. https://www.campuspride.org/wpcontent/uploads/campuspride2010lgbtreportssummary.pdf Raskauskas, J. S. M. (2006, April). Bullying in academia: An examination of workplace bullying in New Zealand universities. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association conference, San Francisco. Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 236. Redden, E. (2018, August 13). Proposal to ban gender studies in Hungary. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/13/proposal-ban-gender-studies-hungary Reed, L. (2016). The effects of bullying on emotional well-being as described by non-tenured university faculty: A qualitative inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Reid, L. D. (2010). The role of perceived race and gender in the evaluation of college teaching on RateMyProfessors. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(3), 137–152. Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, J. A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M. L., & Johnson, T. P. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 358–363. Roberts, G. (2014). ‘Power harassment’ and the workplace environment of Japan: The evolution of a concept amidst uncertain times. Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 22, 21–35. Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behaviour of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 658–672.

294

L. Keashly

Rockett, P., Fan, S. K., Dwyer, R. J., & Foy, T. (2017). A human resource management perspective of workplace bullying. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 9(2), 116–127. Roderick, E. (Ed.). (2016). Toxic Friday: Resources for addressing faculty bullying in higher education. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska Anchorage. Ronson, J. (2016). So you’ve been publicly shamed. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561–1589. Rospenda, K. M., & Richman, J. A. (2004). The factor structure of generalized workplace harassment. Violence and Victims, 19(2), 221–238. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232. Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235–251. Salin, D., & Notelaers, G. (2018). The effects of workplace bullying on witnesses: Violation of the psychological contract as an explanatory mechanism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1443964. Salin, D., Cowan, R. L., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., . . . Işik, I. (2018). Prevention of and interventions in workplace bullying: A global study of human resource professionals’ reflections on preferred action. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1460857. Sallee, M. W., & Diaz, C. R. (2013). Sexual harassment, racist jokes, and homophobic slurs. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 41–59). New York, NY: Routledge. Saloojee, A. (2014). Balancing academic freedom and freedom from discrimination in contested spaces, Chapter 10. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Samnani, A. K. (2013a). The early stages of workplace bullying and how it becomes prolonged: The role of culture in predicting target responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 119–132. Samnani, A. K. (2013b). Embracing new directions in workplace bullying research a paradigmatic approach. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 26–36. SAR (2018). Free to think: Report of the Scholars at Risk academic freedom monitoring project. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/resources/free-to-think-2018/ Schafferer, C., & Szanajda, A. (2013). Bullying in higher education in Taiwan: The Taiwan Higher Education Faculty Survey (THEFS). Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 12(1), 81–93. Scott, J. W. (2014). The limits of academic freedom. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Scott, J. W. (2018). Targeted harassment of faculty: What higher education administrators can do. Liberal Education, 104(2), n2. Sedivy-Benton, A., Strohschen, G., Cavazos, N., & Boden-McGill, C. (2015). Good ol’boys, mean girls, and tyrants: A phenomenological study of the lived experiences and survival strategies of bullied women adult educators. Adult Learning, 26(1), 35–41. Senol, V., Avsar, E., Peksen Akca, R., Argun, M., & Avsarogullari, L. (2015). Assessment of mobbing behaviours exposed by the academic personnel working in a university in Turkey. Journal of Psychiatry, 18(1), 1–10. Severance, L., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Gelfand, M. J., Lyons, S., Nowak, A., Borkowski, W., . . . Lin, C. C. (2013). The psychological structure of aggression across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 835–865. Shaw, C., & Ratcliffe, R. (2014, December 16). Struggle for top research grades fuel bullying among university staff. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-net work/2014/dec/16/research-excellence-framework-bullying-university-staff Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2014). Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. The Guardian Higher Education Network, 67(5), 603–620.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

295

Simpson, R., & Cohen, C. (2004). Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education. Gender, Work and Organisation, 11(2), 163–186. Singh, K. (2017). Measurement and assessment of bullying behaviours in departments and affiliated colleges of University of Delhi. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 809–832. Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2004). Third-party reactions to employee (mis) treatment: A justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183–229. Smith, F. L. M., & Coel, C. R. (2018). Workplace bullying policies, higher education and the First Amendment: Building bridges not walls. First Amendment Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21689725.2018.1495094. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575. Sprigg, C. A., Niven, K., Dawson, J., Farley, S., & Armitage, C. (2018). Witnessing workplace bullying and employee well-being: A two-wave field study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(2), 286–296. Stanley, J. (2018). How fascism works: The politics of us and them. New York, NY: Penguin Random House. Sternberg, R. J. (2015, June 29). Coping with verbal abuse: Academic politics are vicious, but that doesn’t me you have to be. Chronicle of Higher Education. Strachan, G., Troup, C., Peetz, D., Whitehouse, G., Broadbent, K., & Bailey, J. (2012). Work and careers in Australian universities: Report on employee survey. Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University. https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/ 88125/Work-and-Career-Report-on-Employee-Survey_Final-v2.pdf Takeuchi, M., Nomura, K., Horie, S., Okinaga, H., Perumalswami, C. R., & Jagsi, R. (2018). Direct and indirect harassment experiences and burnout among academic faculty in Japan. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 245(1), 37–44. Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1651–1669. Taspinar, B., Taspinar, F., Guclu, S., Nalbant, A., Calik, B. B., Uslu, A., & Inal, S. (2013). Investigation of the association between mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort in academicians. Japanese Psychological Research, 55(4), 400–408. Taylor, S. (2013). Workplace bullying: Does tenure change anything? Chapter 2. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 23–40). New York, NY: Routledge. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The design and methods of the comparative study. In The changing academic profession (pp. 25–35). Dordrecht: Springer. Tepper, R. J., & White, C. G. (2012). Workplace harassment in the academic environment. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 56, 81–110. Theiss, S. L., Webb, L. M., & Amason, P. (2012). Workplace bullying: Academic administrators’ intervention strategies. Albuquerque: Western States Communication Association. Tigrel, E. Y., & Kokalan, O. (2009). Academic mobbing in Turkey. International Journal of Behavioural, Cognitive, Educational and Psychological Sciences, 1(2), 91–99. Tracy, K. (2011). “Reasonable hostility”: Its usefulness and limitation as a norm for public hearings. Informal Logic, 31(3), 171–190. Tracy, S. J., Alberts, J. K., & Rivera, K. D. (2007). How to bust the office bully: Eight tactics for explaining workplace abuse to decision-makers (Tech. Rep. No. 0701). Tempe: Arizona State University, The Project for Wellness and Work-Life. Trower, C. A. (2012). Success on the tenure-track: Five keys to faculty job satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tucker, A. (2012). Bully U: Central planning and higher education. The Independent Review, 17(1), 99–119. Turk, J. L. (2014). Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Twale, D. J. (2017). Understanding and preventing faculty-on-faculty bullying: A psycho-socialorganizational approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

296

L. Keashly

Twale, D. J., & DeLuca, B. M. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Tytherleigh, M. Y., Webb, C., Cooper, C. L., & Ricketts, C. (2005). Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 41–61. Ury, W. (2000). The third side: Why we fight and how we can stop (pp. 4–17). New York, NY: Penguin Books. Van de Vliert, E., Einarsen, S., & Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Are national levels of employee harassment cultural covariations of climato-economic conditions? Work & Stress, 27(1), 106–122. Vanhoutte, K. K. P. (2010). The (bad) example of the university. In K. K. P. Vanhoutte & M. Lang (Eds.). Bullying and the abuse of power (pp. 41–48). Oxford, UK: Inter-Disciplinary Press. Vartia, M. A. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27, 63–69. Veletsianos, G., Houlden, S., Hodson, J., & Gosse, C. (2018). Women scholars’ experiences with online harassment and abuse: Self-protection, resistance, acceptance, and self-blame. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818781324. Volpe, M. R., & Chandler, D. (2001). Resolving and managing conflicts in academic communities: The emerging role of the “pracademic”. Negotiation Journal, 17(3), 245–255. WBTI. (2017). Workplace Bullying Institute US Workplace Bullying Survey. https://workplace bullying.org/multi/pdf/2017/2017-WBI-US-Survey.pdf Westhues, K. (Ed.). (2004). Workplace mobbing in academe: Reports from twenty universities. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. Westhues, K. (2006). The remedy and prevention of mobbing in higher education: Two case studies. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. Westhues, K. (2007). Before drafting your policy on workplace decency, compare these two alternatives. http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/dignitypolicies01.htm Wilkin, L. (2010). Workplace bullying in academe: A grounded theory study exploring how faculty cope with the experience of being bullied. Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University. Williams, K. (2008). Troubling the concept of the ‘academic profession’ in 21st century higher education. Higher Education, 56, 533–544. Williams, E. A., & Ruiz, Y. (2012). Workplace bullying survey: Final report. University of Massachusetts Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/local1776/Flyers,%20Updates%20&%20Docu ments_files/WBS%20Final%20Report%202012%2010%2004.pdf Williams, F. I., Campbell, C. R., & Denton, L. T. (2013). Incivility in academe: What if the instigator is a high performer? Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 14(1), 35. Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 51. WISELI. (2016). Results from the 2016 study of faculty worklife at UW-Madison: Tenured and tenure-track faculty. http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/docs/Report_Wave5_2016TT.pdf Yamada, S., Cappadocia, M. C., & Pepler, D. (2014). Workplace bullying in Canadian graduate psychology programs: Student perspectives of student–supervisor relationships. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(1), 58–67. Yildirim, A., & Yildirim, D. (2007). Mobbing in the workplace by peers and managers: Mobbing experienced by nurses working in healthcare facilities in Turkey and its effect on nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(8), 1444–1453. Young, K. Z. (2017). Workplace bullying in higher education: The misunderstood academic. Practicing Anthropology, 39(2), 14–17. Young, K., Anderson, M., & Stewart, S. (2015). Hierarchical microaggressions in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(1), 61–71.

9

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience

297

Yousef, H., El-Houfey, A., & El-Serogy, Y. (2013). Mobbing behaviours against demonstrators and assistant lecturers working at Assiut University. Life Sciences Journal, 10(3), 901–912. Zábrodská, K., Ellwood, C., Zaeemdar, S., & Mudrak, J. (2016). Workplace bullying as sensemaking: An analysis of target and actor perspectives on initial hostile interactions. Culture and Organization, 22(2), 136–157. Zábrodská, K., & Kveton, P. (2013). Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying among university employees. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(2), 89–108. Zábrodská, K., Linnell, S., Laws, C., & Davies, B. (2011). Bullying as intra-active process in neoliberal universities. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 709–719. Zábrodská, K., Mudrák, J., Šolcová, I., Květon, P., Blatný, M., & Machovcová, K. (2018). Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work–family conflict. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 800–819. Zemanek, K. A. (2016). Identification of bullying among tenured and non-tenured faculty in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences at land-grant universities. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Zhang, H. (2017). Workplace victimization and discrimination in China: A nationwide survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517729403.

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

10

Kate van Heugten

Contents 10.1 10.2 10.3

10.4

10.5

10.6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence of Workplace Bullying and Emotional Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Shape of Workplace Bullying in Social Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1 Experiences of Frontline Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 Experiences of Social Work Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.3 Organizational Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.4 Experiences of Bystanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5 Discrimination and Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts of Workplace Bullying in Social Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.1 Impacts on Emotional and Physical Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.2 Intentions to Leave and Burnout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3 Impact on Professional Identity, Meaning Making and Developing Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theories in Relation to Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.1 Discrimination, Ideology and Learned Behaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.2 Hierarchical Power Structures and Power Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.3 Workplace Stress and the Neoliberalization of Social Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interventions: From the Personal to the Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.1 Personalized Approaches to Dealing with Workplace Bullying or Impacts of Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.2 Confronting the Unethical Nature of Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.3 Collective Processes and Organizational/Depersonalized Bullying . . . . . . . . .

300 302 304 305 305 306 307 308 308 309 310 310 311 312 314 315 318 318 320 321

K. van Heugten (*) Department of Human Services and Social Work, School of Language, Social and Political Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_12

299

300

K. van Heugten

10.7 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

323 324 324 324 325

Abstract

Attention to workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment in social work has emerged only recently, since the start of the twenty-first century, and as this review chapter shows, the literature is still relatively sparse. Despite this, research and theoretical literature make an important contribution to understanding the negative impacts of bullying on social workers, social service organizations and service users. Because the purpose of social work is closely associated with overcoming social injustices, targets and bystanders/witnesses can become particularly disillusioned. This leads to disengagement, not only from the workplace but potentially from the profession. Supportive collegial interactions and collective externalizing of the causes of bullying to aggressors, workgroups, organizational structures and sociopolitical conditions can help build resilience. Social work theory draws on critical systems perspectives that locate social problems in the interaction of people with their environments. Consistent with that, authors and research participants relate bullying in social work to multiple factors including interpersonal misunderstandings, workgroup status seeking and workplace stress. The latter problem is often associated with the global neoliberalization of welfare coupled with managerial approaches to the organization of social services. Recommendations for amelioration recognize that bullying needs to be addressed at micro, mezzo and macro levels, including improved workplace policies, ethical leadership and whole-of-workplace approaches that involve educated bystanders. At the macro-political level, recently emerging literature has begun to identify that sociopolitical problems require political interventions and international, interdisciplinary efforts to revise market-driven priorities.

10.1

Introduction

It was not until the start of the twenty-first century that social work academics and practitioners began to publicly raise concerns that workplace bullying and emotional abuse from colleagues might be a major source of distress for social workers. Prior to that, only aggression from service users had attracted any significant attention in the literature. There are some overlapping causes, impacts and interventions, but the occurrence of service user/client violence raises substantially different issues (van Heugten, 2011a). Therefore, rather than conflating these topics, this chapter is focussed on the lesser researched matter of bullying and emotional abuse from workers, including peers, supervisors and managers from within and outside the employing organization. Although the social work literature remains relatively sparse and originates almost exclusively from anglophone countries, it is now

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

301

quite well established that, where the topic has been studied, this form of bullying is a serious problem in social work. This chapter considers impacts, causes and interventions for workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment in social work (using the terms interchangeably). Despite the limited literature, social work authors have made a substantial contribution to the field by applying a critical systems approach that draws appropriate attention to complex contextual factors in relation to causation and amelioration of this problem. Workplace bullying is widely recognized to bring about negative consequences; this chapter focusses on consequences that are of particular concern in the social work/social care sector, including but not limited to negative impacts on professional confidence and decision making and team work leading to negative impacts on client care (Whitaker, 2012). Quantitative and qualitative studies that explore the causes of social worker stress and of employee turnover in social work organizations identify workplace bullying as a source of distress, and as a cause of dissatisfaction and organizational disengagement (Duthie, 2012). Social workers who have experienced workplace bullying frequently comment on the discrepancy between this and the professed purpose of social work, an occupation that is specifically oriented to challenging and overcoming social injustices and the suffering that results from such injustices. Targets and bystanders/witnesses express severe disillusionment with the profession, and as a consequence, some leave the profession, not just the workplace in which the bullying has occurred (Rylance, 2001; Whitaker, 2012). From the outset, social work researchers have tended to employ systems thinking in relation to the topic of bullying and have therefore tended to steer away from overly personalized ideas about targets, bullies and bystanders/witnesses. In some of the earliest writing on the topic, Collins (2001) linked bullying to budget cuts, aggressive output-oriented managerialism (also known as new public management), high workloads and lack of attention to staff well-being. He warned that individualizing the problem of bullying “may imply that ‘the victim’ may invite bullying behaviour and, indeed, that bullying is a functional part of the workplace, that those who are bullied are not meeting the required standards, are unpopular and should be forced out of their jobs!” (Collins, 2001, p. 34). Collins noted the widespread impacts of bullying, including on services and service users. Already, in this earliest substantial writing on workplace bullying in social work, complex relationships of power were identified, and the subject of the oppression of frontline workers and members of minority groups was raised. Although the literature recognizes that restrictive definitions of targets and bullies may be unhelpful, to date there has been little research into the experiences of aggressors or bullies, although there is occasional mention of the distress experienced by middle managers accused of workplace bullying (van Heugten, Kelly, & Stanley, 2013). Recently, discussions about workplace bullying and emotional abuse have emerged in the wider context of discussions about high levels of stress in social work. Stress in social work is commonly associated with the impacts of aggressive neoliberalization of the welfare and social care sector, enforced via new public management, perhaps particularly in anglophone countries. The new public management approach to managing social work, this literature suggests, is focussed on

302

K. van Heugten

budgets and accounting for outputs rather than on service user well-being, and is implicated in promoting a culture of bullying (British Association of Social Workers, 2012; Gibson, 2016; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015; Trevithick, 2014). Despite awareness that bullying in social work is a systemic problem, the intervention literature has tended to focus on advice giving that suggests that individual workers, including frontline workers, teams and organizational leaders are responsible for its amelioration. Less attention has as yet been paid to how social workers may contribute to efforts to tackle broader socio-economic contexts that support workplace bullying.

10.2

Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence of Workplace Bullying and Emotional Aggression

Earliest commentaries on bullying in social work were speculative in as far as they relied on experiential professional insights, information gathered from helpline services and extrapolation from the findings of research into other helping professions such as nursing (Collins, 2001; van Heugten, 2004). Although there is now sustained international evidence that social workers are significantly likely to be impacted by bullying, harassment and emotional abuse from colleagues in the workplace, this evidence still often relies on general surveys of workers which report high levels of bullying in health, education and social/human services (Bentley et al., 2009; McAvoy & Murtagh, 2003; Ortega, Høgh, Pejtersen, & Olsen, 2009; Zapf, Escartín, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2011). In addition, there are service-based surveys, for example, of workers in health (Demir, Rodwell, & Flower, 2014) and mental health (Tonso et al., 2016), which include social workers among affected occupations. However, the data relating to social workers is often not reported separately from that pertaining to other workers included in these service-based studies. Quantitative studies that specifically inquire into bullying in social work continue to be relatively rare, but do show that collegial aggression occurs, and that this is a serious problem for both frontline and management staff. For example, a recent (2015) survey of the National Health Service (NHS) staff in the United Kingdom (UK) found that 22% of frontline social workers (n = 723) and 31% of social care managers (n = 171) employed in National Health Service organizations reported experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in the last 12 months (National NHS Staff Survey Co-ordination Centre, 2015). In Germany, Druge, Schleider and Fuchs (2015) undertook quantitative research with 239 social workers (65.5% female and 35.5% male) and found that 15.7% experienced at least one negative act weekly and a further 76.5% recounted less frequent experiences. People who received regular supervision were notably less likely to be subjected to bullying and only 59.3% of the sample received supervision. Whitaker (2012) undertook a mixed methodology study including a quantitative survey in Washington, DC. More than half (58%) of the 111 social work participants in the quantitative survey reported having experienced “demeaning, rude, and hostile workplace interactions

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

303

more than once in the previous year” (p. 115). In Alberta, Canada, Shier, Graham and Nicholas (2017) surveyed 674 participants (86.65% female and 13.35% male) about their experiences of bullying and emotional aggression from colleagues. Most of the participants were employed in child welfare offices and in government organizations. The researchers found that 56.33% of their participants identified that they had experienced bullying, and these experiences of aggression from colleagues significantly impacted levels of burnout and intentions to leave. However, the researchers recognized that with a response rate of 24%, it was possible that their survey had drawn participants who were planning to leave or were burned out and that these participants might be more able or inclined to remember incidents of aggression that dissatisfied them. An additional problem in terms of making comments about comparative rates of bullying in social work was that, while scales were applied to measure burnout and intentions to leave, the intensity and frequency of the “bullying” incidents were not measured. The review of quantitative studies showed that lack of clarity about the prevalence of workplace bullying from colleagues results, at least in part, from inconsistencies in definitions of bullying and lack of clarity about the frequency and severity of incidents to be included. Furthermore, studies have only recently begun to separate aggression from co-workers (including colleagues, supervisors, managers and subordinates) from aggression from service users and service users’ families and friends (the tendency to conflate these issues was identified by van Heugten (2004)). Social work itself is often not clearly defined (in many countries, the title social worker is not protected and is used by unqualified or minimally qualified workers as well as fully qualified and certificated professionals), and to further complicate matters, data on other health or social care workers is almost always presented together with that pertaining to social workers. An organization that has begun to regularly collect detailed information on the incidence and source of aggressive acts against social workers is the National NHS Staff Survey Co-ordination Centre (2015) in the UK. Despite these limitations, claims that bullying and emotional aggression from other workers is a problem in social work are now well supported, and claims that this problem occurs relatively frequently appear plausible, while as yet not fully evidenced. (For research that found lower-than-average rates of bullying among Flemish social workers, along with teachers and nurses, see Notelaers, Vermunt, Baillien, Einarsen and De Witte (2011). Notably, the researchers explained that the participants from these disciplines carried complex but low workloads and had high levels of autonomy; this is at odds with most reflections on social workers’ workloads and autonomy.) In qualitative studies, a flexible approach to definitions may be considered an advantage rather than obstacle because flexible definitions can allow otherwise constrained information about a topic’s social construction to be revealed (Hanrahan, 1997; Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2010; van Heugten, Kelly, & Stanley, 2013). Furthermore, researchers into sensitive topics have long emphasized the importance of involving survivors’ voices in defining the parameters of their concerns (Hanrahan, 1997; van Heugten, 2004). Qualitative researchers therefore more often employ a flexible approach to defining bullying, emotional abuse and

304

K. van Heugten

harassment. In relation to social work and social services, this approach enables not only interpersonal bullying but more strategic bullying by workgroups seeking to enhance their power in the workplace, as well as organizational bullying to be explored (Sloan, Matyók, Schmitz, & Lester Short, 2010; van Heugten, 2014, 2017; van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015; van Heugten, Kelly, & Stanley, 2013). The small number of qualitative studies of bullying in social work together provide more in-depth information about its forms and its impacts. These studies also consider explanatory theories and make recommendations about interventions. Qualitative authors have noted that workers appear hesitant to disclose bullying, especially by its label, although they may be more willing to describe abusive behaviours. Acknowledging being at the receiving end of bullying or emotional abuse can be especially difficult while targets or witnesses are still employed in the organization in which bullying takes place and while the target is still hoping to overcome these difficulties (Rylance, 2001; van Heugten, 2010; Zigman, 2014). Denial and minimizing are common coping mechanisms. There may also be selfstigma associated with being targeted because being bullied may be pejoratively associated with being a “victim” and with being unassertive or having inadequate communication skills. Disclosures may be especially difficult in some countries or contexts due to cultural constraints or economic circumstances. For example, Zigman (2014), in a study of social care workers in Romania, noted that her 30 participants avoided answering questions about incidents of workplace violence from colleagues, employees and superiors. Such aggression appeared to be a taboo topic. If participants did mention conflicts, they tended to minimize these. That incidents did occur was revealed when four participants later discussed their distress over being targeted, witnessing bullying or participating in bullying of a superior with a view to making that superior leave.

10.3

The Shape of Workplace Bullying in Social Work

At first glance, the forms that bullying takes in social work appear to be similar to forms of bullying in other occupations as identified in the more general workplace literature (see, e.g., Einarsen, 1999). Van Heugten (2010), in one of the first detailed exploratory studies of bullying in social work, reported that the aggression experienced by her 17 participants could be “grouped under commonly occurring categories including: personal attacks; verbal threats; interference with tasks and roles; social isolation; and finally physical violence” although the latter was rare (p. 643). However, certain features of social work may make workers more vulnerable to certain forms of interpersonal aggression. These features include a reliance on interpersonal relationships and networking to connect service users with resources (rather than being able to rely on a more direct delivery of concrete services or resources). In addition, more recent literature included later in the chapter identifies forms of aggression that extend beyond interpersonal to depersonalized organizational forms of abuse and to bullying that is associated with the wider sociopolitical context in which social work and social services are situated.

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

305

10.3.1 Experiences of Frontline Workers There are some differences in the focus of complaints from social workers in the frontline and from social workers employed as managers when they talk about the abuse they encounter in the workplace. In common with colleagues in other helping professions, frontline workers often complain of verbal attacks or outbursts from colleagues (Fink-Samnick, 2016). Recipients of verbal abuse may attribute this abuse to frustration and stress, in which case such outbursts may be considered to be less serious and more forgivable than other more deliberate attempts to undermine. Outbursts may even unite colleagues against a common cause or enemy, such as an oppressive management structure (van Heugten, 2017). Frontline workers commonly complain of bullying by internal supervisors and managers. Social workers expect to be able to rely on their supervisors for support with difficult decision making about assessments and interventions, and with the solving of ethical dilemmas. But some frontline workers instead identify being relentlessly “micromanaged”, including being subjected to detailed scrutinizing of clinical reports, criticizing of overheard conversations in (increasingly common) open plan workspaces and personally invasive supervision that may include suggestions that the supervisee has psychological problems (van Heugten, 2010). Several authors have identified a possible pattern, in which relationships with supervisors and managers deteriorate following initially being supported as “a golden child” (Duthie, 2012, p. 237; van Heugten, 2010), and it has been suggested this may happen once the supervisee becomes more confident and less compliant and challenges the supervisor (van Heugten, 2010). While the expectation that social workers should regularly reflect on their personal professional ideas, ideals and beliefs with a supervisor is creditable, this expectation does potentiate bullying of a personalized or organizational nature. Yip (2006, p. 783) pointed out that “In an oppressive environment, social workers may be obliged to disclose their weaknesses and shortcomings or their unpleasant practice experiences to supervisors within the agency; such disclosure may then be used against the worker as an excuse to abuse, to exploit, to undermine and even to dismiss them”.

10.3.2 Experiences of Social Work Managers Social work–educated middle managers, by contrast, feel particularly disturbed when they perceive that information or resources are withheld from them by senior executives and when this results in their not being able to take adequate care of frontline workers (van Heugten, 2010, 2014). Social work managers may be excluded from decision making in part due to their often lesser status in hierarchical interdisciplinary organizations relative to managers from other disciplines, or relative to generic senior managers or executives enlisted for their business skills rather than their understanding of human services. Middle managers typically find themselves critiqued from above, made responsible for the failures of frontline staff to meet (possibly unachievable) output targets, and from below, by their staff for not

306

K. van Heugten

being able to stand up to executives and achieve a better deal for social work. They may be accused of withholding information by workers who are not aware that their social work managers are threatened with dismissal if they reveal what they have learned (van Heugten, 2014; van Heugten, Kelly, & Stanley, 2013). This can be particularly problematic in public service organizations undergoing restructuring. Added to pressures from more senior staff and subordinates are relentless public and political scrutiny of social work and a fear on the part of managers that, if service user outcomes are poor, the blame and responsibility will be laid at their door (British Association of Social Workers, 2012). While frontline social workers may be becoming somewhat better protected by workplace health and safety policies and unions, middle managers report they are increasingly vulnerable to abuse (McNicoll, 2016; National NHS Staff Survey Co-ordination Centre, 2015).

10.3.3 Organizational Factors Social workers at all levels in organizational hierarchies raise concerns over relentlessly high workloads, excessive monitoring and lack of resources. Cutbacks have led to fewer support staff being employed, and as a result, social workers are increasingly occupied with administrative tasks. Complex assessment tasks may be routinized and delegated to unqualified workers (British Association of Social Workers, 2012; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015). A British Association of Social Workers (2012) survey of UK social workers identified “bullying, intimidation and lack of support” (p. 13). Participants noted that raising concerns led to responses ranging from being ignored by managers to being labelled as incompetent or a troublemaker. Sloan, Matyók, Schmitz and Lester Short (2010), writing from the United States (USA), similarly noted the impacts of being constantly under scrutiny and critiqued, expected to work across disciplinary boundaries but devalued as a professional and facing cutbacks and yet being expected to provide clear and accounted-for outputs of work. Social workers commonly experience such conditions as disrespectful. In interdisciplinary workplaces, such as the health sector, social workers are expected to work collaboratively with workers from other disciplines, and they may be managed by non-social work staff. In multidisciplinary workplaces, staff from other disciplines, for instance, medical professionals, may act as gatekeepers between frontline social workers and service users, preventing social workers from exercising professional discretion about whom to offer their services. Social work–qualified managers in interdisciplinary settings also experience being belittled in meetings. Social workers in Whitaker’s (2012, p. 117) research found being denigrated or humiliated and “having their work contribution ignored” to be particularly disturbing. A lack of respect may extend to a lack of respect for social work ideals. The social work profession delivers its assistance to service users through relationships. The process of service delivery may be as important as the content of material resources that are provided. The fair and ethical conduct of the worker is at the heart of the service. Hence, when social workers feel forced to set aside their ethical boundaries,

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

307

requiring them to undertake work that transgresses professional ethical standards, they experience this as emotionally abusive and aggressive (Webster, 2016). Van Heugten (2014) gave examples of such concerns arising in a disaster aftermath, when social workers were required to comply with command and control disaster management edicts that overlooked service users’ needs, for example, the need for consultation with family members about evacuations of older persons. The workers felt their professional boundaries to be violated, and they experienced significant moral distress as a result. Although responsibility for insensitive and intrusive management may appear to lie with particular managers, there is increasing awareness that relentlessly high levels of stress in social work arise from a combination of factors, including poor resourcing of the social care sector. This awareness draws attention to workplace aggression as an organizational and political problem rather than an interpersonal problem (Trevithick, 2014). Papaleonidopoulos (2015) interviewed five social workers with professional and organizational leadership roles in the UK, who noted that managers of state/public service social workers have been delegated to enforce senior management perceptions on how to regulate and perform the social work role. They are required to enforce models of work that overlook case-based complexities and instead must enforce performance targets, within budget restrictions. Defensive practices lead to less supportive workplaces and organizational cultures that facilitate and enhance the development of bullying. Papaleonidopoulos’s (2015) participants agreed that there was bullying in social work, that it was dominant and that it was a political matter. The impact of the neoliberalization of welfare and the managerialization of the social work workplace are further discussed in the section on theories in relation to causes of workplace bullying.

10.3.4 Experiences of Bystanders In addition to targets of bullying, there is some limited research into the behaviours and experiences of bystanders. Bystanders may be invited to become complicit or threatened into remaining silent when they observe misbehaviour in the workplace. Social exclusion by a workgroup isolates targets, whether this group constitutes a clique that is using such practices to benefit its own status seeking or is more loosely constituted by bystanders who ignore what is happening and thereby add to a bullying atmosphere (van Heugten, 2011b). Social work is heavily reliant on formal and informal networking, and social exclusion is highly problematic and may, for example, result in critical client information not being shared. Cliques may be reinforced through the employment of like-minded people and by reinforcing alliances with newcomers who may be inducted into patterns of interaction via innuendo and rumour (van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015). Alliances are reinforced in patterns of communication, including via email. Although outright cyberbullying may be avoided since it provides an evidence trail, alliances and splits are reinforced by leaving colleagues out of emails, or conversely, exposing people by copying emails to unintended recipients (van Heugten, 2011a).

308

K. van Heugten

10.3.5 Discrimination and Workplace Bullying There is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about specific demographic groups and workplace aggression in social work. There is some evidence that both younger, less experienced and older, more experienced social workers are at increased risk (Shier, Graham, & Nicholas, 2017; Whitaker, 2012). Because social work is a female-dominated profession, it is expectable that targets, perpetrators and bystanders/witnesses are more often women. The broader literature that suggests female managers may be more at risk of being bullied than male managers, and that women may be more often bullied by colleagues and subordinates (in addition to supervisors and managers) than are men, is likely to hold some relevance for social work (Salin & Hoel, 2013). Although the vast majority of social workers are women, top positions in organizations are still often dominated by men, either from within the social work profession or, more commonly, by generic managers. Frontline workers may expect women who are employed in middle management roles to be emphatic and supportive, and be especially disappointed when they do not live up to such (gendered) expectations (for further discussion, see, e.g., Mallinger, Starks, & Tarter, 2017; McPhail, 2004; van Heugten, 2011a, 2014). Researchers have also identified discriminatory bullying and abuse of social workers, in particular in relation to migrant social workers (Fouché, Beddoe, Bartley, & Brenton, 2014; Hussein, Manthorpe, & Stevens, 2011); lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other (LGBTQ+) social workers (McCave, 2008; Messinger, 2004); and social workers with mental health problems (Beresford & Boxall, 2012; McLaughlin, 2007; Stevens et al., 2010). Discrimination can appear to be ideologically sanctioned, based on the idea that outsiders to the dominant social work culture do not possess the requisite knowledge, cultural competencies or personal qualities to effectively practise social work in the local context. This topic is considered further in the section on theories in relation to causes.

10.4

Impacts of Workplace Bullying in Social Work

Bullying and other forms of workplace aggression negatively affect the emotional and physical health of targets and bystanders. There is every expectation that it also impacts people who are identified as bullies, but this topic has not yet been researched to any significant extent in relation to social workers. This chapter considers consequences that are of particular concern in the social care sector, including negative impacts on professional confidence and decision making and on team relationships leading to negative impacts on client care (Whitaker, 2012). As shown in this section, workplace bullying of social workers is particularly damaging to social workers’ sense of professional identity and the meaningfulness of their work; consequently, bullying can lead to a loss of engagement with the purpose and ideals of the profession. This may ultimately result in increased rates of burnout and turnover.

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

309

10.4.1 Impacts on Emotional and Physical Health Surveys of social workers consistently identify concerns over stress overload and the emotional and physical health complaints that result from this overload. Many social workers complain of worry, difficulties in sleeping, anxiety and depression (see, e.g., British Association of Social Workers, 2012; Vyas & Luk, 2011). When aggression from colleagues is added to the stress of working on complex cases with scarce resources, this is identified as a serious additional stressor. And when bullying leads to isolation from colleagues and from supervisors, all of whom ought to be sources of support, social workers are deprived of emotional outlets and practical advice. Common complaints include feelings of anger, loss of confidence and grief over loss of enjoyment of work and loss of belief in the integrity of the profession (see van Heugten, 2010; van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015). Qualitative researchers Rylance (2001) and van Heugten (2010) found that participants who had experienced bullying complained of feeling afraid, threatened and “scared”. Feelings of shame and humiliation commonly resulted in withdrawal, and impacts were felt at home as well as at work. Loss of concentration and memory problems led workers to question their competency. Excessive rumination was common, and this, coupled with hypervigilance and avoidance, might begin to resemble symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Workers identified that they suffered from clinical depression or high levels of anxiety, but in three separate studies, van Heugten (2011a, 2013, 2014) found that seeking counselling support for psychological impacts was somewhat uncommon, possibly because her participants did not think counselling could change the distressing circumstances in which they found themselves. An added complication for social workers who experience psychological distress is that, on the one hand, their codes of practice may require them to seek such assistance, but on the other hand, their profession demands that they function well in stressful circumstances or they may be deemed incompetent and unfit for practice. They may therefore avoid disclosing mental health–related problems (McLaughlin, 2007; Stevens et al., 2010). Physical health consequences of workplace aggression, suffered by targets and bystanders, include over- and undereating and digestive problems, nausea, muscle tensions, skin rashes, headaches and high blood pressure. Social workers will seek medical attention for these problems and may require time off work but commonly avoid declaring bullying as the cause because they fear retaliation or other occupational repercussions (Rylance, 2001; van Heugten, 2011a, 2013, 2014). Being excluded by colleagues, or withdrawing from collegial interaction as a selfprotective mechanism, or as a result of feeling depressed, anxious or burned out, reduces workers’ ability to invest energy in work, perhaps particularly in creative and collaborative endeavours, such as supervising students. When this happens, organizational functioning is diminished and service users’ well-being is potentially put at risk, because information sharing is reduced (MacIntosh, Wuest, Gray, & Cronkhite, 2010; Rylance, 2001; van Heugten, 2010).

310

K. van Heugten

10.4.2 Intentions to Leave and Burnout In the qualitative social work literature, the identification of bullying and mobbing is strongly associated with intentions to leave or actual leaving of workplaces. This association also emerges in quantitative surveys of human service workers that include social workers among the participants. Shier, Graham and Nicholas (2017), in their survey of human service workers (n = 674) in Alberta, Canada, found that bullying significantly increased workers’ levels of burnout and intentions to leave, although, as mentioned earlier, the authors did note that people who are burned out or planning to leave may be more likely to remember such incidents. Demir, Rodwell and Flower (2014), in a study of Australian allied health workers (n = 134), 49% of whom were social workers, found that workers who experienced bullying from colleagues in the workplace were more likely to lose organizational commitment if they were under the age of 50. Having higher turnover rates among younger workers poses a major problem for an ageing workforce such as social work. Burnout is an especially concerning matter for social work because it is characterized by emotional exhaustion and a loss of empathy. Burned out workers may lose organizational commitment and leave their employing organization (Thomas & Lankau, 2009). If, however, workers who are burned out remain in the organization, their lack of empathy impacts service users and colleagues. Burned out supervisors and managers may be unsupportive and appear to behave ruthlessly towards frontline staff (van Heugten, 2011a). Absenteeism, turnover and burnout also affect bystanders/witnesses (van Heugten, 2011b).

10.4.3 Impact on Professional Identity, Meaning Making and Developing Resilience In addition to impacting social workers’ attachment to a particular workplace, bullying can lead to the shattering of central assumptions about the goodness of the profession and the field of social services. Social workers who have experienced workplace bullying from social work colleagues frequently comment on the discrepancy between this behaviour and the professed concerns of social work. They commonly express bewilderment and severe disillusionment that a profession concerned with social justice and human rights, and governed by a code of ethics that exhorts the care of others, can include bullies (Rylance, 2001; Whitaker, 2012). Eventually, the experience of a discrepancy between the professed goals and values of the profession and the conduct of its members may result in a changed meaning of work, whereby work becomes a job rather than a mission (MacIntosh, Wuest, Gray, & Cronkhite, 2010). Fortunately, international shortages of qualified social workers usually mean that there are opportunities available to social workers for changing their workplace without needing to change their occupation. Van Heugten’s (2014) research showed that this knowledge provided her participants with a buffer that enabled some resistance to be practised. Hence, while attachment to organizations

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

311

and agencies in which bullying occurs may be lost, attachment to social work may be able to be retained, especially if there is support from other social workers and external supervisors (van Heugten, 2011a, 2014). Although negative consequences have received most attention, findings from research have shown that dealing with workplace bullying may also result in increased personal growth and resilience (MacIntosh, Wuest, Gray, & Cronkhite, 2010; Rylance, 2001; Sloan, Matyók, Schmitz, & Lester Short, 2010; van Heugten, 2013). Social work definitions of resilience typically identify a process whereby individuals, groups, communities and organizations draw on internal and external resources to adapt to, overcome or change adverse circumstances and move on in a positive integrated way (Nilakant, Walker, van Heugten, Baird, & de Vries, 2014; Shaikh & Kauppi, 2010; Ungar, 2011). Rylance (2001) emphasized that the impacts of bullying are not static, and fluctuate according to changing contexts, such as the availability of support and alternative employment options. Social workers commonly reframe their negative experiences by identifying valuable lessons learned. For example, a social worker interviewed by MacIntosh, Wuest, Gray and Cronkhite (2010) said that, “Looking back, I don’t think I would change anything . . . because I wouldn’t . . . be where I am now if I hadn’t gone through that” (p. 1135). Rylance’s (2001) and van Heugten’s (2013) participants considered their perspectives had become less idealistic and more reality based. They were able to recoup a sense of purpose if they could put their learning into practice, for example, by being a better colleague or social work manager. Such positive remaking of meaning happened more readily after bullying had ended, usually because the target had left the workplace. When social workers begin to identify bullying, in particular when they do so together with colleagues, they may begin to realize that seemingly personal experiences of bullying occur in a wider sociopolitical context. The importance of such insights is discussed further in the following sections on causal theories and on interventions.

10.5

Theories in Relation to Causes

The social work literature contains occasional mention of theories about personal factors in bullying, such as the theory that bullying may be carried out by people who envy other more competent workers (van Heugten, 2010). More commonly, the perceptions reflected in the social work literature are relational and political, however, and point to the involvement of complex power dynamics in workplace aggression. This is not surprising, considering that social work systems theory considers problems to result from an interplay between people and their environments and encourages the identification of micro, mezzo and macro causal factors in social problems. Paradoxically, in an occupation where the achievement of social justice and human rights are central purposes, modelling in social work education has been implicated among causal factors in bullying (Fink-Samnick, 2016; Horton, 2016;

312

K. van Heugten

Kircher, Stilwell, Talbot, & Chesborough, 2011). As identified in studies discussed below, this includes modelling of discriminatory attitudes towards minorities. Once in employment, individuals and cliques may use bullying tactics to secure status and power within hierarchical organizations. Over recent years, the most dominant theme in the social work literature in relation to workplace bullying relates this phenomenon to workplace stress, with stress identified as both an impact and a cause. Furthermore, the neoliberalization of social work organizations has been specifically identified as causing increased stress levels, and as leading to workplace cultures that may promote workplace aggression. Authors have noted that bullying cannot thrive without organizational support and that neoliberalization results in workplaces that evoke, and perhaps even reward, bullying (van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015).

10.5.1 Discrimination, Ideology and Learned Behaviours A number of authors have pointed out that bad behaviour in social work originates in the classroom and in fieldwork practicums where bullying among academics and towards student social workers not only obstructs students’ learning opportunities but models disrespect. When students witness workplace aggression, this sets a poor example that may influence their future conduct towards colleagues and service users (Horton, 2016). Academic bullying is a serious problem across university campuses (Keashly & Neuman, 2013; Kircher, Stilwell, Talbot, & Chesborough, 2011), and Kircher, Stilwell, Talbot and Chesborough (2011) suggested that the harassment of social work faculty by colleagues has become a “silent epidemic” (p. 1). Those most likely to be bullied are newly employed academics including (in the US context) those who do not yet have tenure. Rather than being supportive, mentors may be exploitative and overload new staff with committee work (Horton, 2016). Bullying among social work academics may be at least in part due to the uncertain status of social work as an academic discipline and the high workloads that social work academics face as they attempt to meet the demands of employers, politicians and regulatory bodies to produce work-ready competent practitioners. At the same time, academics from other disciplines question social work’s capacity to deliver theoretically robust courses and produce high-ranking publications. As governments reduce their investment in social work education, threats of redundancy may fuel competitive rather than collaborative workplace approaches. These conditions lead to stress, shame and humiliation which impact performance. Social work students can be unwittingly drawn into bullying and used as tools (Kircher, Stilwell, Talbot, & Chesborough, 2011). They may go on to normalize such experiences, and this puts them at risk of adopting similar attitudes and approaches in practice. The literature also includes specific concerns about discriminatory processes, practices and conditions, including potentially discriminatory screening processes that single out students and qualified workers with mental illnesses, heteronormative work environments and racism, as the following paragraphs discuss. In addition to

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

313

direct impacts on individual workers and groups of workers, discrimination results in a workforce that is less diverse and tolerant. As the profession of social work has become increasingly regulated and risk averse, some authors have raised concerns in relation to discrimination against prospective social work students with past or present mental illnesses, who may be required to defer their training when they disclose their diagnosis. Social work academics Beresford and Boxall (2012) questioned the grounds on which such decisions are made by assessors and the negative messages that are conveyed in relation to mental health and social work. Similar concerns have also been identified in relation to increased scrutiny of qualified social workers by professional registration bodies. For example, McLaughlin (2007) and Stevens et al. (2010) raised concerns about the additional surveillance that has been introduced into workers’ lives by the Social Care Register in the UK which may make decisions about suitability to practise on the basis of personal or mental fitness. A negative emphasis on mental health problems can further complicate help seeking by helping professionals such as social workers (Siebert & Siebert, 2007; Stanley, Manthorpe, & White, 2007). Despite social work’s professed valuing of diversity, diverse perspectives that are potentially introduced by migrants and other minority cultures may be suppressed within dominant social work cultures (Fouché, Beddoe, Bartley, & Brenton, 2014; Hussein, Manthorpe, & Stevens, 2011; van Heugten, 2010, 2011b). Hussein, Manthorpe and Stevens (2011) surveyed migrant social workers and social care workers in the UK, where up to 20% of the social care workforce are migrants and up to approximately 10% have gained their social work qualifications outside of the UK. The researchers found that of 101 participants, nearly a third identified they had experienced mistreatment in the past, where mistreatment was identified “as sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation”. Another 23% said they were presently experiencing mistreatment and 21% had only witnessed mistreatment (Hussein, Manthorpe, & Stevens, 2011, p. 491). In New Zealand, Fouché, Beddoe, Bartley and Brenton (2014) undertook a mixed methodology study with social workers who had immigrated to New Zealand. In this country, about 10% of the registered social work workforce have gained their professional education and initial practice experience overseas. Of 294 participants in the online survey part of the study, 51.4% reported having experienced discrimination and mistreatment, including obstacles being put in the way of being able to undertake work tasks, such as being micromanaged in relation to work, and verbal abuse, such as being insulted about accents and use of the English language. People complaining of discrimination included people from England; participants noted that anyone not Pākehā (Caucasian and born in New Zealand) or Māori (indigenous New Zealander) might be treated in this way. Although migrants may lack detailed knowledge of New Zealand’s bicultural processes (and participants identified gaps in their induction in relation to that), Fouché, Beddoe, Bartley and Brenton (2014) noted that migrants bring extensive cultural skills and knowledge and these appear to be underappreciated. Tensions may increase when the social work profession endeavours to foster local approaches to

314

K. van Heugten

practice and at the same time relies on migrant workers to supplement an ageing and dwindling workforce. Tensions between local and global values are not peculiar to social work and there is no evidence that there is more ethnic discrimination in social work than in other occupations. But unresolved ethnic tensions are a serious matter in a profession that professes its aims to be overcoming social injustice and preventing the breaching of human rights. LGBTQ+ students and qualified social workers also report discrimination in the workplace (McCave, 2008; Messinger, 2004; Trotter, Crawley, Duggan, Foster, & Levie, 2009). Messinger (2004) undertook qualitative interviews with 10 social work students and 20 recently qualified (within the last 5 years) social workers who identified as lesbian and gay about their fieldwork practicum experiences. Her participants identified that they had encountered pressures from fieldwork educators encouraging them to not disclose and instead hide their sexuality, including by removing rainbow stickers from personal cars. They encountered homophobic and heteronormative attitudes from agency staff including supervisors and were provided a lack of opportunity to discuss their concerns about such matters. They encountered homophobic jokes and comments and persistent heterosexist assumptions leading to a sense of invisibility. Practices that privileged Christianity, including in secular agencies, such as praying before meals, gave rise to unease and promoted fear about revealing their true selves. Compliance caused problems with friends, partners and family members who did not approve of denial. Taken together, these studies draw attention to the power of dominant ideologies in the socialization of social workers. The strong values base of the profession may be a double-edged sword if unquestioning adherence to particular professional beliefs and values, rather than competencies, are relied on when judging prospective employees and colleagues. Dissent can become more difficult when powerful workgroups employ like-minded people into agencies.

10.5.2 Hierarchical Power Structures and Power Dynamics Fink-Samnick (2016), commenting on social work in the USA, more broadly implicated hierarchical power structures in organizations that employ social workers as contributing to bullying. The author noted that fieldwork practicums induct students and new practitioners into these hierarchical power dynamics, in particular in the health sector. Within the health sector, medical care and science are respected, whereas the caring professions are considered secondary and devalued. Despite the fact that in the USA most counselling and psychotherapy services are delivered by social workers, they continue to have to justify their roles, and Fink-Samnick suggested that an overriding sense of lack of voice at work can lead to bullying behaviours. Getz (2013), also commenting from the USA, similarly suggested that vertical and horizontal bullying are a result of suspicion, competition and low morale among social workers in hierarchical settings. The leadership in large hierarchical organizations often involves both authoritarian leadership from senior managers outside of social work and a depowered

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

315

leadership from beleaguered middle managers within social work. This may result in a context that is conducive to both downward bullying and upward aggression towards those middle managers, a phenomenon also referred to as “management squeeze” (Ariza-Montez, Muniz, Leal-Rodríguez, & Leal-Millán, 2014, p. 2664; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015). In addition to the valuing of hard science over caring, some authors have pointed to the gender profile of social work, which employs mostly women especially in frontline and middle management positions, and suggested that such occupations are more likely to be oppressed through workplace bullying (Daiski & Richards, 2007; Fink-Samnick, 2016; Salin & Hoel, 2013). It has also been suggested that women may keep other women down, especially in male-dominated contexts, as a feature of “oppressed group behaviour”. Such theories have also been proposed to explain bullying in nursing. It is important to apply caution when considering such theories, however, because they can perpetuate blaming of women and draw attention away from organizational factors in bullying (Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2006).

10.5.3 Workplace Stress and the Neoliberalization of Social Work The social work role requires a balancing of care and control functions and generally involves high levels of person-to-person contact and exposure to emotionally intense experiences. Social workers are under intense public scrutiny because they work with vulnerable people who are at risk of harm. Reliance on indeterminate skills, such as communication skills, can also mean that workers find it difficult to defend themselves against critiques of their practice from service users and service users’ families, colleagues, supervisors/managers and the public (van Heugten, 2010; Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003). Theories of workplace stress, such as Karasek and Theorell’s (1990) demand–control–support theory, help explain how a highly demanding professional occupation such as social work can become increasingly difficult to sustain for many workers. Although a challenging job can provide satisfaction if workers retain autonomy and are well resourced, under new public management, control over social work has diminished, and aspects of the social work task such as assessments are becoming technocratized. Social workers are expected to do more and account for improved outcomes, with fewer resources. When social workers feel that the services they provide are less than adequate, they experience moral distress. Vickers (2010) pointed to the emotional labour engaged in by public service workers, such as social workers, who are expected to explain away the inadequacy of service provisions to service users. High workloads and long hours heighten pressures, and “the lashing out of colleagues manifests across helping professions, as staff members consciously and unconsciously release their frustrations on each other” with social workers, in particular, impacted by these tensions (Fink-Samnick, 2016, p. 121). These “ordinary” aspects of the social work role mean that social work is a relatively

316

K. van Heugten

stressful occupation, and high stress levels have been linked to increased potential for workplace bullying (Timo, Fulop, & Ruthjersen, 2004). When the concepts of bullying and emotional abuse are stretched to include organizational oppression, then relentless pressures on a profession can be identified as not only constituting a stressful environment that may lead to bullying, but as possibly constituting organizational bullying in themselves (van Heugten, 2011a). More recently, postpositivist researchers have drawn attention to macro-level systemic factors such as the neoliberalization of welfare states, accompanied by managerialist approaches to the organization of the social care sector. While neoliberalization favours market approaches, the state has retained some responsibility for social needs. Brought under new public management, however, there is an overriding emphasis on outputs and accountability, rather than on relationships with service users and holistic approaches to supporting their needs. When social workers do not meet “output” targets or make mistakes (which are often systems errors), they may be exposed to public and professional shaming, and they may internalize this shame. Increased surveillance of workers and other bullying approaches may be overtly or covertly endorsed (British Association of Social Workers, 2012; Gibson, 2016; Trevithick, 2014). Attempts to commercialize the social care sector have given rise to value conflicts, including between workers and organizational managers, which may be experienced as workplace aggression (Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007). Trevithick (2014) argued that managerialism fails to recognize the importance of emotion in social work, including the importance of emotional attunement, responsiveness, empathy, understanding of affect and feelings. She pointed out how a ruthless pursuit of assessment and other targets results in “fear and anxiety that lead to compliance rather than courageous decision-making among practitioners, [and] defences that lead to a bullying culture where differences are attacked and independent thinking [is] prevented” (p. 304). Bessant (2017), writing from Australia, similarly pointed out that the transformation of public service and community workplaces under new public management is a significant source of distress for social workers. Senior managers/executives, employed for their management backgrounds rather than their professional expertise, emphasize an overriding requirement to adopt and adapt to the rules of the market, rather than to prioritize care of service users. There is a technocratization of practices, including, for example, risk assessment. Auditing, compliance and competitive individualism are rewarded, and there is minimal attention to worker stress. Bessant (2017) examined the case of child protection services where participants’ complaints included that executives ignored previous approaches to consultation of workers and middle managers. Top-down obedience was enforced, and “uncomfortable knowledge” about unethical practices, including bullying, was denied or ignored. Echoing the fears identified in Trevithick’s (2014) and Bessant’s (2017) research, a noteworthy 46% of 1,100 respondents in a survey by the British Association of Social Workers (2012) identified that they were afraid about negative repercussions befalling them if they were to speak out about their concerns about the parlous state

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

317

of social work and the possible risks this posed to service users. Such findings point to the complexity of bullying as a topic in social work—where it emerges as a cause, an effect and as a tactic for silencing protestations. The present chapter’s review of the literature shows that despite pressures to remain silent, social workers are beginning to label such oppression of concerns and dissent as workplace bullying. Papaleonidopoulos’s (2015) dissertation was based on in-depth interviews with five professionally qualified social workers who held leadership positions in social work organizations or associations and unions. Participants pointed to the political nature of the organization of social work in the UK, where many social workers are employed by local councils: Looking at bullying on a political level, then at an organizational level and then within the team and how these are all really in a reciprocal process with each other. When your political culture accepts bullying as normal, then your organizational culture does likewise. (Papaleonidopoulos, 2015, p. 27)

These participants too identified a pervasive culture of fear, including fear of blame, fear of being compared negatively to workers from another local authority and fear of being seen as a liability rather than an asset. Papaleonidopoulos’s (2015) participants noted that while middle managers might be blamed for bullying, they might in fact be unintentionally passing on the bullying they received from above. The linking of bullying cultures with broader contextual factors within which social work industrial relations are embedded, including neoliberalism and the rise of new public management practices, clearly aligns with the writing of various other authors on bullying in the public services sector, in particular in the public health sector (Hutchinson & Jackson, 2015; Vickers, 2010). In writing from outside the social services, D’Cruz (2015) recently developed a concept of depersonalized bullying (D’Cruz, Noronha, & Beale, 2014; Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001): Depersonalized bullying refers to the routine subjugation of employees by contextual, structural and processual elements of organizational design, which are implemented by supervisors and managers who involuntarily resort to abusive and hostile behaviours in an impersonal way to achieve organizational effectiveness. (D’Cruz, 2015, p. 2)

D’Cruz’s concept of depersonalized bullying echoes the concerns of several social work leaders in Papaleonidopoulos’s (2015) research as mentioned above, when they noted social work managers might unintentionally pass on bullying. The concept of depersonalized bullying was also employed by van Heugten (2017) in her discussion of findings from research with 43 human service workers (approximately half of whom were social work qualified) who had experienced workplace aggression in the aftermath of earthquakes in New Zealand. Van Heugten’s (2014, 2017) participants identified individual bullying, provoked by stress; status-driven bullying, whereby individuals and cliques appeared to take opportunistic advantage of a destabilized environment to improve their organizational status; and top-down approaches to management that accelerated the pace of neoliberal reforms of the welfare sector in the disaster aftermath. They moved beyond intra-organizational to

318

K. van Heugten

more contextual perspectives on bullying in explaining this pattern of top-down management as reflective of a political form of bullying that emerged in an antiwelfare context, and they appeared most concerned about how this would impact on the practice of social work over time. Such far-reaching political aggression impacting the social services is not readily identified if definitions of bullying require repeat events to be directed by a specific person towards a specific individual or if attention is directed towards organizational bullying without a critical analysis of the wider sociopolitical context in which bullying is embedded (Bessant, 2017; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015; van Heugten, 2017; van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015; van Heugten, Kelly, & Stanley, 2013).

10.6

Interventions: From the Personal to the Political

In keeping with social work’s awareness that troubles that at first appear personal may well be due to political problems, social work approaches to workplace bullying usually emphasize the need to address contributing factors at micro, mezzo and macro levels. Overall, there is an emphasis at the mezzo level, on whole-of-workplace approaches and on placing responsibility with workplace leaders. More recently, there is growing awareness that the problem of workplace bullying of social workers is situated in a macro-political anti-welfare context. While the literature contains commentary on how this latter problem might be tackled, this commentary is nascent and does not yet move substantially beyond recommendations for “speaking truth to power” (Bessant, 2017, p. 133).

10.6.1 Personalized Approaches to Dealing with Workplace Bullying or Impacts of Workplace Bullying Given the deleterious impacts of bullying on mental and physical health, it is not surprising that some attention is given to advising individuals about the need for healthy eating, sleeping, keeping fit and pursuing fun leisure activities (Brohl, 2013). But this type of advice is generally understood to be limited in its effectiveness. Some targets of bullying do seek medical and counselling assistance and find that helpful (Rylance, 2001; van Heugten, 2013). External supervision, union advice and the support of friends and family are also commonly found to be helpful in providing perspective. Social workers are expected to be good communicators, and van Heugten (2010) suggested this might be a reason for their persistence in seeking solutions to bullying situations within the context of problematic workplace relationships, sometimes for many years. Getz (2013) recommended addressing simple issues before they escalate by employing social work communication skills. Such approaches may indeed be helpful in situations where distress and misunderstandings are at the root of aggression (van Heugten, 2017).

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

319

When bullying and emotional abuse are more serious and persistent problems, however, conciliatory communicative approaches are less effective. Once they discover that talking directly with perpetuators of workplace bullying is ineffective, targets frequently begin to attempt to avoid the bully or bullies and reinvest in other aspects of work. They may take leave of absence in an attempt to seek to recover well-being. Most often, the benefits of such efforts are insufficient. For example, the positive health impacts of taking leave dissipate soon after the worker returns unless the bullying has ceased (MacIntosh, Wuest, Gray, & Cronkhite, 2010; Rylance, 2001; van Heugten, 2013). Tye-Williams and Krone (2017) undertook an interesting study in which they interviewed 48 people from a range of occupations, including two social workers, about their evaluations of the advice that had been given to them in relation to their experiences of bullying. Advice was generally considered unhelpful, but participants nevertheless passed on similar advice to what they had been given, including recommendations to stay calm and avoid emotionality, to be assertive and to take notes to ensure there is evidence to present to managers. In common with advice given by participants in other research (van Heugten, 2010), targets were recommended to leave the workplace in which bullying took place unless the target thought they were in a position to effect change or cope with ongoing bullying. TyeWilliams and Krone (2017) pointed out that there is no evidence that avoiding emotionality assists in dealing with workplace bullying and that such advice reflects an overvaluing of rationality in the workplace, minimizes the target’s experience and suggests bullying is more amenable to being addressed than it actually is. Offering resistance to bullying can lead to consequences such as retaliation, but enduring silence in the face of oppression does ultimately have negative health consequences (Cortina & Magley, 2003; van Heugten, 2013). Being able to name the abuse and to externalize responsibility to individual bullies or organizations or even political systems has been found to be affirming (van Heugten, 2013). Externalizing the cause of bullying is facilitated by external supervisors, supportive witnesses, friends and family. When colleagues pay careful attention to the distressful emotions of bullying, rather than recommending these should be expunged, this can have a healing effect and may even “inspire collective sense-making and help organize a collective response” (Tye-Williams & Krone, 2017, p. 231). Identity work and resistance efforts that are undertaken together with colleagues (including fellow targets and witnesses) may assist in overcoming the tendency to devalue the profession as a whole, whether interventions are successful in stopping bullying or not (Tye-Williams & Krone, 2017; van Heugten, 2011b). Formal approaches to interventions, taken alone or with colleagues, include taking formal complaint action. Although the relevant social work literature is small, internal mediation is generally considered unhelpful because managers may side with bullies; this is akin to the perspective conveyed in the wider workplace literature. External mediation may not stop bullying but can lead to better exit packages. Formal court processes are particularly stressful, require extensive casebased evidence and may not lead to satisfactory outcomes (van Heugten, 2013). A number of countries have recently instituted firmer legal remedies for individualized

320

K. van Heugten

workplace bullying, with the result that employers are paying closer attention to the development of workplace policies (Ransley, 2017). In the wake of bullying, the rebuilding of a shattered meaning of social work requires conscious effort, often facilitated by finding more supportive alternative employment. At the stage when social workers begin to contemplate leaving, they may begin to make sense of their experiences and, as noted in the section on impacts, they may even identify positive outcomes such as personal and professional growth as a result of their journey. As also already noted, finding new employment appears to be helpful in healing, and this is fortunately made possible by a shortage of social workers. Supportive new employers can assist in the restoration of confidence in professional competence and in the profession of social work (MacIntosh, Wuest, Gray, & Cronkhite, 2010; Rylance, 2001; Sloan, Matyók, Schmitz, & Lester Short, 2010; van Heugten, 2013).

10.6.2 Confronting the Unethical Nature of Workplace Bullying The literature reflects a sense of bafflement and outrage from authors who attempt to make sense of workplace bullying in social work. There is a consensus that its occurrence runs counter to social work’s core mission, which is to empower people who are marginalized. For example, Reichert (2002) pointed out that social work is a helping profession that is tasked with protecting people’s human rights. Workers are entitled to safe and healthy working conditions as a human right and workplace violence breaches this human right. Sloan, Matyók, Schmitz and Lester Short (2010) similarly explained that bullying isolates targets and prevents individuals from meeting their basic human need for social connectedness. Internationally, social work’s purpose, to protect people who are oppressed and to safeguard their wellbeing, is enshrined in the codes of ethics and codes of practice of professional social work associations. Hence, such codes are identified as avenues for seeking recourse. Webster (2016, p. 317), for example, wrote that “The stance that social justice requires us to change structures that contribute to injustice is endorsed in the profession’s Codes of Ethics in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Britain, and the United States”. Getz (2013) noted that bullying also impacts client service and that this is in further violation of the (US) National Association of Social Workers’ standards. And Horton (2016) noted how workplace bullying in academia contravenes duty of care for students and fails to uphold the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics. Expressions of moral outrage about the existence of bullying in social work intend to inspire collective action to overcome this injustice (Webster, 2016). Horton (2016) suggested there needs to be better education of social work students and faculty in relation to bullying, and Webster (2016) emphasized the responsibilities of social work leaders and the need for ethical leadership: “Failure to engage in formal and organic leadership initiatives with a view to changing organisational culture reduces leadership claims to armchair speculation” (Webster, 2016, p. 328). Webster (2016) encouraged whole workplace mobilization, involving bystanders as well as

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

321

leaders. Van Heugten (2011b) earlier noted that there are frequently witnesses in the bullying complex and that the majority remain silent bystanders, not because they are complicit (although some are) but because they do not know how to effectively intervene. Doing nothing in the face of injustice leads to guilt and moral distress. She suggested that education in the form of active bystander training can enable social workers to become more effective change agents in bullying workplaces. Collective approaches by frontline social workers, managers and social work academics, such as those suggested by Horton (2016), Webster (2016) and van Heugten (2011b) above, may be effective in particular against aggressors who are acting without mandate from their organization and against cliques attempting to usurp power. But when organizational bullying is sanctioned within an organization that is located in a wider neoliberal sociopolitical context that appears to devalue the social services, such suggestions can be seen, to an extent, to continue the responsibilization of individual social workers (including social work managers) rather than challenging the structures that underpin problematic power dynamics. Social work authors (van Heugten, 2017; van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015) have drawn on the work of Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson and Wilkes (2010, p. 31) who developed a model of relations of power in the nursing workplace whereby “workplace bullying is a function of four organizational factors: (1) organizational tolerance and reward; (2) networks of informal organizational alliances; (3) misuse of legitimate authority, processes, and procedures; and (4) normalization of bullying in the workplace”. The normalization of depersonalized bullying may be endemic in neoliberalized welfare systems, cast as strong management.

10.6.3 Collective Processes and Organizational/Depersonalized Bullying Realizing the extent that workplace aggression towards social workers involves depersonalized or organizational bullying resulting from political approaches to the delivery of welfare may go some way towards developing effective resistance. Rather than responsibilizing any particular parties, there is an extent to which all members of organizations are both targets of structural oppression and responsible agents. Naming the problem as a systems issue that exists beyond workplace organizations raises more complex questions around interventions (Bessant, 2017; Collins, 2001; van Heugten, 2017). At this level, the emphasis is on resisting neoliberalization and challenging new public management, and solutions require the involvement of not only frontline workers, managers and organizations but of professional associations, unions and governments (Bessant, 2017; van Heugten, 2017; van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015; van Heugten, Kelly, & Stanley, 2013). How realistic are such efforts when the neoliberalization of social work and social welfare is a global trend? Social work is well able to understand systems issues and participate in finding solutions to oppression and aggression and, nonetheless, extensively undermined in its capacity to tackle these concerns due to being silenced

322

K. van Heugten

and removed from consultation processes (Bessant, 2017; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015; van Heugten, 2014). Countering hopelessness, there are international efforts to reinvigorate resistance and reclaim a social justice focus for social work (see, e.g., the blog Re-Imaging Social Work in Aotearoa New Zealand http://www. reimaginingsocialwork.nz/about/). Solutions to bullying, when bullying finds its origins outside of organizations in sociopolitical systems, require commitment to playing a “long game”. Bessant (2017) wrote about the concept of “uncomfortable knowledge” which arises when workers in public and community sector workplaces have knowledge about matters such as bullying and unethical practices. It concerns knowledge about matters that are difficult to attend to and that may seem hopelessly difficult to resolve. Witnesses might prefer to deny that the problem exists, or redirect attention to more solvable causes. But denial and minimization strategies are detrimental to workers, organizations, clients and the public. Bessant recommends instead applying virtue ethics, which involves a collective care for others, an approach he notes to be highly compatible with human service practice. Bessant identified two key features of such an approach: “One is speaking truth to power. The other is being clear about the purpose of our practice. These help prevent harm, promote social goods, and are acts of self-care” (Bessant, 2017, p. 8). Bessant (2017) drew on Foucault’s discussion of parrhesia in relation to truth telling. In discussing parrhesia, Foucault was not concerned with defining “truth” or differentiating truth from untruth but rather with the activity of truth telling. According to Foucault, parrhesia involves the speaking of truth in a situation where doing so poses a danger to the speaker. There is a critique involved in this form of truth telling, and the critique is directed at a, in the particular context, more powerful person or institution capable of acting in retribution against the parrhesiastes (truth teller). The impetus for speaking the truth is not duress, but a sense of duty, freely taken up in the practice of truth telling (Foucault, 1999). Bessant emphasized the importance of clarity of purpose and a sensitivity to context and impacts of actions. Critical questions that can help to guide ethical actions include questions about the values and interests of various parties and about power relations and whose needs are being served. Van Heugten, Kelly and Stanley (2013) recommended taking a sociological approach to the problem of workplace bullying and raising more critical questions about complex relationships of power, rather than only considering power from traditional hierarchical perspectives. They drew on Beale and Hoel (2010) to suggest that it is important to consider not only how relationships of frontline workers and managers are constructed but to understand how relationships between employers and managers are constructed in broader sociopolitical contexts. Although D’Cruz (2015) drew on research outside of social work in developing her concept of depersonalized bullying, she placed a similar emphasis on the importance of countering unacceptable and unethical practices with virtuous ethical leadership and truth telling. She called for an international revision of approaches to work and what makes for competitive advantage. But she also recognized that:

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

323

Primary prevention would yield optimal benefits in removing the problem altogether and hence emerges as the most appropriate intervention. Yet, where such attempts face insurmountable barriers due to the entrenchment of the contemporary business agenda which organizations continue to endorse, secondary and tertiary prevention would provide some relief. (D’Cruz, 2015, p. 69)

Included among secondary and tertiary prevention approaches are workplace policies, legislation and supportive services. While such interventions might not be revolutionary but rather ameliorative, as long as that is understood, they have an important place in a holistic approach to dealing with workplace bullying.

10.7

Recommendations for Future Research

Knowledge about worker-to-worker bullying in social work is still limited, and there is much room for further research. For example, as shown in this review of the extant literature, there is a lack of quantitative information, including information about prevalence rates and demographic details pertaining to targets, bystanders/witnesses and perpetrators. Qualitative research has provided insights into the forms of bullying, especially interpersonal bullying, and about the personal impacts of bullying on targets. There is limited knowledge, however, about the experiences of witnesses/ bystanders and perpetrators (or alleged perpetrators). As also shown by the review, knowledge about the bullying that is experienced by members of minority groups has only just begun to emerge. The impacts of bullying on work with service users are taken for granted but not fully known. More systems-focussed research into the relationship between organizational group/team power dynamics and bullying is urgently needed; achieving a better understanding of the reciprocal influence of group processes on bullying and of the impacts of bullying on group dynamics is especially important in social work because team work and networking are critical to professional practice. The interrelationship between workplace stress that is due to demands, lack of control/autonomy and lack of resources (including support) is also under-researched. Furthermore, the topic of organizational/depersonalized bullying that appears to occur under neoliberal managerialism has been identified by a number of social work authors but requires research to test theoretical ideas (Collins, 2001; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015; van Heugten, 2017; van Heugten & Schmitz, 2015). Commentaries on the impact of the sociopolitical context in which social work is undertaken abound (Bessant, 2017; Papaleonidopoulos, 2015; van Heugten, 2017), but research is still lacking. Finally, effective and professionally appropriate interventions will require holistic approaches that attend to the psychological needs of workers, enlist social support from witnesses, deliver active responses from managers and engage efforts to change workplace cultures. Interventions also need to be aligned with social work’s professional and ethical codes. There is, however, currently little understanding of how such approaches might be constituted and delivered, and there appear to be only anecdotal reports (van Heugten, 2011b).

324

10.8

K. van Heugten

Conclusion

There is clear recognition in the social work literature that workplace bullying causes interpersonal distress, including negative impacts on workers’ mental and physical health. Social work’s emphasis on critical analysis of systems and on problems as occurring in context has ensured, however, that there is also serious attention paid to workplace abuse as an organizational problem and responsibility. Recently, there is an emerging consideration of how bullying is sustained in the wider sociopolitical environment. In particular in anglophone countries, where much of the literature originates, bullying is seen to be associated with a neoliberalization of the social welfare sector and accompanying managerialization of organizations that employ social workers. Reduced resources for social work and diminishing respect and support for social workers’ efforts to ameliorate social injustices have resulted in significant workplace stress. Middle managers are induced to enforce executive demands for countable outputs and may become involuntary parties to depersonalized bullying. Resistance to bullying remains problematic because the hierarchical power structures within which many social workers are employed prevent effective interventions being applied. Instead, targets still often leave the workplace in which bullying has occurred. Recommendations for overcoming workplace bullying include whole-of-workplace approaches that involve ethical leaders and active bystanders. There is some hope that improved legislative remedies that have been enacted in several countries may result in the development of more responsive workplace policies. Addressing and averting an internationally dominant emphasis on competitive market-driven approaches to work, including in the social services, is a difficult problem. It is evident from this review that social work academics and practitioners will continue to endeavour, alongside union organizers, lawyers and academics from other disciplines, to explore and confront this complex problem.

10.9

Cross-References

▶ Ostracism in the Workplace ▶ Whistleblowing and Bullying at Work: The Role of Leaders ▶ Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector

10.10 Cross-References to Other Volumes Depersonalized Bullying: An Emergent Concern in the Contemporary Workplace, Vol. 1 Ethical Challenges in Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Creating Ethical Aware ness and Sensitivity, Vol. 1 Exploring Upwards Bullying to Learn More About Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 Surviving Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

325

The Contested Terrain of Power in Workplace Bullying, Vol. 2 The Contribution of Organizational Factors to Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role and Impact of Leaders on Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 2 The Role of Bystanders in Workplace Bullying: An Overview of Theories and Empirical Research, Vol. 2 Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Vol. 3 Ethnicity and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3 Sexual Orientation and Workplace Bullying, Vol. 3 Workplace Bullying and Gender: An Overview of Empirical Findings, Vol. 3 Workplace Bullying Policies: A Review of Best Practices and Research on Effec tiveness, Vol. 3 Workplace Bullying, Disability and Chronic Ill Health, Vol. 3

References Ariza-Montes, J. A., Muniz, R. N. M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Leal-Millán, A. G. (2014). Workplace bullying among managers: A multifactorial perspective and understanding. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 2657–2682. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph110302657. Beale, D., & Hoel, H. (2010). Workplace bullying, industrial relations and the challenge for management in Britain and Sweden. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 16(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680110364826. Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M., & Trenberth, L. (2009). Understanding stress and bullying in New Zealand workplaces. Final report to OH&S Steering Committee. Retrieved 6 Sept 2017, from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey% 20News/2010/04/docs/Bentley-et-al-report.pdf Beresford, P., & Boxall, K. (2012). Service users, social work education and knowledge for social work practice. Social Work Education, 31(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2012.644944. Bessant, J. (2017). Self-care in public and community sector workplaces. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1076467. British Association of Social Workers. (2012). What social workers think about the state of their profession in 2012. Retrieved 11 Aug 2017, from https://www.basw.co.uk/resource/?id=500 Brohl, K. (2013). Social service workplace bullying: A betrayal of good intentions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, S. (2001). Bullying in social work organisations. Practice: Social Work in Action, 13(3), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150108411517. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247. D’Cruz, P. (2015). Depersonalized bullying at work: From evidence to conceptualization. New Delhi: Springer. D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Beale, D. (2014). The workplace bullying-organizational change interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1434–1459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870314. Daiski, I., & Richards, E. (2007). Professionals on the sidelines: The working lives of bedside nurses and elementary core French teachers. Gender, Work and Organization, 14(3), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00340.x.

326

K. van Heugten

Demir, D., Rodwell, J., & Flower, R. L. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of workplace aggression in the allied health context. Social Work in Health Care, 53(3), 250–267. https://doi. org/10.1080/00981389.2013.873517. Druge, M., Schleider, K., & Fuchs, M. L. (2015). Mobbing und supervision in der sozialen arbeit. Soz Passagen, 7, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12592-015-0199-5. Duthie, D. L. (2012). Reinvigorating the domestic violence sector: Systemically addressing conflict, power and practitioner turnover. Ph.D., Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Retrieved 4 Jul 2017, from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/53134/1/Debbie_Duthie_Thesis.pdf Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1 & 2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729910268588. Fink-Samnick, E. (2016). The new age of bullying and violence in health care: Part 2: Advancing professional education, practice culture, and advocacy. Professional Case Management, 21(3), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0000000000000146. Foucault, M. (1999). The meaning and evolution of the word parrhesia. Discourse and truth: The problematization of parrhesia. Digital Archive: Foucault.info. Retrieved 4 Sept 2017, from https://foucault.info/doc/documents/parrhesia/foucault-dt1-wordparrhesia-en-html Fouché, C., Beddoe, L., Bartley, A., & Brenton, N. (2014). Strengths and struggles: Overseas qualified social workers’ experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. Australian Social Work, 67(4), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2013.783604. Getz, L. (2013). Workplace bullying in social services: Client care at risk. Social Work Today, 13(6), 26. http://www.socialworktoday.com/ Gibson, M. (2016). Social worker shame: A scoping review. British Journal of Social Work, 46(2), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu140. Hanrahan, P. M. (1997). “How do I know if I’m being harassed or if this is part of my job?” Nurses and definitions of sexual harassment. NWSA Journal, 9(2), 43–63. https://www.jstor.org/jour nal/nwsaj Horton, K. B. (2016). Exploring workplace bullying through a social work ethics-informed lens. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 13(1), 25–32. http://jswve.org/ Hussein, S., Manthorpe, J., & Stevens, M. (2011). The experiences of migrant social work and social care practitioners in the UK: Findings from an online survey. European Journal of Social Work, 14(4), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.513962. Hutchinson, M., & Jackson, D. (2015). The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying in the public sector: Insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care. Nursing Inquiry, 22(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12077. Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2006). Workplace bullying in nursing: Towards a more critical organisational perspective. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2), 118–126. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00314.x. Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2010). Bullying as circuits of power: An Australian nursing perspective. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 25–47. https://doi. org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320102. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2013). Bullying in higher education: What current research, theorizing, and practice tell us. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 1–22). New York: Routledge. Kircher, J. C., Stilwell, C., Talbot, E. P., & Chesborough, S. (2011). Academic bullying in social work departments: The silent epidemic. In North American Christian Social Work Convention Proceedings, 1–29. Retrieved 9 Sept 2017, from http://www.nacsw.org/Publications/Proceed ings2011/StilwellCAcademic.pdf Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000762.

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

327

Liefooghe, A., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2010). The language and organization of bullying at work. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP10841806320104. MacIntosh, J., Wuest, J., Gray, M. M., & Cronkhite, M. (2010). Workplace bullying in health care affects the meaning of work. Qualitative Health Research, 20(8), 1128–1141. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1049732310369804. Mallinger, G., Starks, S., & Tarter, K. (2017). Women social workers: A road map to gender equity. Affilia, 32(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109916647766. McAvoy, B. R., & Murtagh, J. (2003). Workplace bullying: The silent epidemic. British Medical Journal, 326(7393), 776–777. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7393.776. McCave, E. L. (2008). Lessons learned as a lesbian clinical social worker: Implications for social work students, practitioners, and the profession. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 14(1), 63–70. http://www.reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/ Reflections McLaughlin, K. (2007). Regulation and risk in social work: The General Social Care Council and the social care register in context. The British Journal of Social Work, 37(7), 1263–1277. https:// doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl079. McNicoll, A. (2016). Social work managers in NHS report rise in stress and bullying. Workforce. Retrieved 6 Sept 2017, from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/24/social-work-man agers-nhs-report-rise-stress-bullying/ McPhail, B. A. (2004). Setting the record straight: Social work is not a female-dominated profession. Social Work, 49(2), 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/49.2.323. Messinger, L. (2004). Out in the field: Gay and lesbian social work students’ experiences in field placement. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10437797.2004.10778489. National NHS Staff Survey Co-ordination Centre. (2015). Staff survey 2015: Detailed spreadsheets. Retrieved 1 Sept 2017, from National NHS Staff Survey Co-ordination Centre http://www. nhsstaffsurveys.com/Page/1062/Past-Results/Staff-Survey-2015-Detailed-spreadsheets/ Nilakant, V., Walker, B., van Heugten, K., Baird, R., & de Vries, H. (2014). Research note: Conceptualising adaptive resilience using grounded theory. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 39(1), 79–86. http://www.nzjournal.org/ Notelaers, G., Vermunt, J. K., Baillien, E., Einarsen, S., & De Witte, H. (2011). Exploring risk groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Industrial Health, 49(1), 73–88. https://doi. org/10.2486/indhealth.MS1155. Ortega, A., Høgh, A., Pejtersen, J. H., & Olsen, O. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: A representative population study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82(3), 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-008-0339-8. Papaleonidopoulos, G. (2015). Diving into uncharted waters: Workplace bullying in state social work. Masters Dissertation, Durham University, Durham. Retrieved 4 Sept 2017, from https:// s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/40472766/Bullying1.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId= AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503904215&Signature=4eKuKH7ZFe7Hcd4h1c l4BLWT%2F70%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDiving_into_ Uncharted_Waters_Workplace_B.pdf Ransley, J. (2017). Situating the legal framework. In E. Schindeler, J. Ransley, & D. M. Reynald (Eds.), Psychological violence in the workplace: New perspectives and shifting frameworks (pp. 60–77). London: Routledge. Reichert, E. (2002). Workplace mobbing: A new frontier for the social work profession. Professional Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 5(3), 4–12. http://www.profdevjournal.org/index.html Rylance, J. (2001). Reaffirmation processes: A study of the experience of responding to workplace abuse. Ph.D., University of Queensland, Brisbane. Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321187.

328

K. van Heugten

Shaikh, A., & Kauppi, C. (2010). Deconstructing resilience: Myriad conceptualizations and interpretations. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(15), 155–176. Retrieved 4 Dec 2017, from http://openaccesslibrary.org/images/TNT218_Carol_Kauppi.pdf Shier, M. L., Graham, J. R., & Nicholas, D. (2017). Interpersonal interactions, workplace violence, and occupational health outcomes among social workers. Journal of Social Work, 1–23. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1468017316656089. Siebert, D. C., & Siebert, C. F. (2007). Help seeking among helping professionals: A role identity perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/00029432.77.1.49. Sloan, L. M., Matyók, T., Schmitz, C. L., & Lester Short, G. F. (2010). A story to tell: Bullying and mobbing in the workplace. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3), 87–97. http://www.ijbssnet.com/ Stanley, N., Manthorpe, J., & White, M. (2007). Depression in the profession: Social workers’ experiences and perceptions. British Journal of Social Work, 37(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/bjsw/bcl058. Stevens, M., Manthorpe, J., Martineau, S., Hussein, S., Rapaport, J., & Harris, J. (2010). Making decisions about who should be barred from working with adults in vulnerable situations: The need for social work understanding. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(1), 290–310. https:// doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn135. Strandmark, K. M., & Hallberg, L. R. M. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(3), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00662.x. Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 417–432. https:// doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20288. Timo, N., Fulop, L., & Ruthjersen, A. (2004). Crisis? What crisis? Management practices and internal violence and workplace bullying in aged care in Australia. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 12(2), 57–89. https://rphrm.curtin.edu.au/ Tonso, M. A., Prematunga, R. K., Norris, S. J., Williams, L., Sands, N., & Elsom, S. J. (2016). Workplace violence in mental health: A Victorian mental health workforce survey. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(5), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12232. Trevithick, P. (2014). Humanising managerialism: Reclaiming emotional reasoning, intuition, the relationship, and knowledge and skills in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 28(3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2014.926868. Trotter, J., Crawley, M., Duggan, L., Foster, E., & Levie, J. (2009). Reflecting on what? Addressing sexuality in social work. Practice, 21(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150902745971. Tye-Williams, S., & Krone, K. J. (2017). Identifying and re-imagining the paradox of workplace bullying advice. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00909882.2017.1288291. Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x. van Heugten, K. (2004). Co-worker violence toward social workers: Too hard to handle? Social Work Review, 16(4), 66–73. van Heugten, K. (2010). Bullying of social workers: Outcomes of a grounded study into impacts and interventions. British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 638–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/ bcp003. van Heugten, K. (2011a). Social work under pressure: How to overcome stress, fatigue and burnout in the workplace. London: Jessica Kingsley. van Heugten, K. (2011b). Theorising active bystanders as change agents in workplace bullying of social workers. Families in Society, 92(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4090. van Heugten, K. (2013). Resilience as an underexplored outcome of workplace bullying. Qualitative Health Research, 23(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312468251.

10

Social Work and Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment

329

van Heugten, K. (2014). Human service organizations in the disaster context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. van Heugten, K. (2017). Interpersonal and organisational aggression in human services following a community disaster. British Journal of Social Work, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx121. van Heugten, K., & Schmitz, C. L. (2015). Stress and violence in the workplace: Theory and practice. In K. van Heugten & A. Gibbs (Eds.), Social work for sociologists: Theory and practice (pp. 141–156). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. van Heugten, K., Kelly, S., & Stanley, T. (2013). Taking a sociological approach to oppression in the neoliberal human services workplace. Paper presented at the International conference on sociology and social work: The interaction between sociology and social work: Creativity, cooperation and knowledge, Aalborg University, Denmark. Retrieved 11 Sept 2017, from http:// hdl.handle.net/10092/14395 Vickers, M. H. (2010). Introduction-bullying, mobbing, and violence in public service workplaces: The shifting sands of “acceptable” violence. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320101. Vyas, L., & Luk, S. (2011). Frazzled care for social workers in Hong Kong: Job stress circumstances and consequences. International Social Work, 54(6), 832–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0020872810382684. Webster, M. (2016). Challenging workplace bullying: The role of social work leadership integrity. Ethics and Social Welfare, 10(4), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2016.1155633. Whitaker, T. (2012). Social workers and workplace bullying: Perceptions, responses and implications. Work, 42(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1335. Yip, K.-S. (2006). Self-reflection in reflective practice: A note of caution. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(5), 777–788. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch323. Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & G. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 103–126). London: Taylor & Francis. Zapf, D., Escartín, J., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2011). Empirical findings on the prevalence rate and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & G. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace bullying: Development in theory, research and practice (pp. 75–106). London: Taylor & Francis. Zigman, O. (2014). Romanian social care workers’ exposure to workplace violence. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 16(1), 223–232. http://cmj.bxb.ro/

Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession

11

Susan L. Johnson

Contents 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Definitional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Description of Workplace Bullying Experienced by Nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.1 Prevalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.2 Types of Behaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Contributing Factors to Workplace Bullying Among Nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Responses to Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

332 332 335 335 342 345 347 350 350 350 351

Abstract

Nursing is one of the professions with the highest rates of workplace bullying. Since most people access healthcare services at some point in their life, and there is evidence that workplace bullying negatively affects patient care, workplace bullying among nurses has ramifications for society in general. In order to understand the phenomenon of bullying among nurses, this chapter critically examines the international research on workplace bullying among nurses. This discussion begins with an exploration of the terms workplace bullying, lateral and horizontal violence and mobbing, which have been used in the nursing academic literature to describe the phenomenon. An overview of the findings of descriptive studies of workplace bullying, including the characteristics of targets and perpetrators, and the most commonly reported behaviours is provided. The outcomes of bullying for nurses, patients and healthcare organizations and the S. L. Johnson (*) University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5308-5_14

331

332

S. L. Johnson

implications for society at large are discussed. In order to understand why workplace bullying is so prevalent among nurses, and to develop effective interventions to counter this bullying, the factors which contribute to workplace bullying among nurses are explored. Finally, an examination of current efforts to address workplace bullying among nurses indicates that these efforts are insufficient as they are not addressing the antecedents of workplace bullying and are only targeting behavioural outcomes at an individual level.

11.1

Introduction

Globally, nurses experience non-physical violence, in the form of incivility, bullying and verbal abuse, at higher rates than actual physical violence (Spector, Zhou, & Che, 2013). Sources of non-physical violence can be co-workers, patients, families and visitors. While non-physical violence perpetrated by patients, families and other visitors is a concern, it is a phenomenon with different root causes and different solutions and is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss. Incivility, bullying and verbal abuse are all forms of non-physical violence; however, there are sufficient conceptual and operational differences in the definitions of the three that the focus of this chapter will be on workplace bullying. The concept of workplace bullying includes behaviours also found in the definitions of incivility and verbal abuse; however, to meet the criteria of workplace bullying, these behaviours have to be repeated on a regular basis for an extended period of time. As such, they have the potential for creating lasting harm and can become more entrenched in an organization. Increasingly, research has demonstrated that workplace bullying rates among nurses are among the highest of any profession. At the same time, the phenomenon has received attention from nurse leaders, educators and researchers. This chapter will provide a critical overview of the current state of knowledge of workplace bullying in the nursing profession with the goal of understanding the roots of the problem and why current efforts to address it are falling short. While great strides have been made in understanding the phenomenon of workplace bullying among nurses, there is much that is yet to be learned. As such, recommendations for future research will be interwoven throughout the chapter.

11.2

Definitional Issues

Within nursing, as within the broader academic community, there has been much debate on how to label and measure bullying-type behaviours in the workplace. Within the nursing literature, workplace bullying, mobbing and horizontal (or lateral) violence are the terms which are most commonly used to describe these behaviours. This section will briefly explore each of these terms, how they are defined and how they are measured in empirical studies.

11

Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession

333

When bullying-type behaviours, such as “overt and covert non-physical hostility . . .criticism, sabotage, undermining, infighting, scapegoating and bickering” (Duffy, 1995, p. 9), were first discussed in the nursing literature (Duffy, 1995; Roberts, 1983), they were given the label of horizontal violence. Horizontal violence (now commonly referred to as lateral violence) was a term which was originally used by Fanon (1963), and later by Freire (1970), to describe the intergroup violence they observed among colonized natives, whom they considered to be politically oppressed. The premise, which is theoretical rather than empirical, was that instead of working together to fight oppression, oppressed groups tended to displace their hostility towards each other (Fanon, 1963; Freire, 1970). Roberts (1983) and Duffy (1995) posit that because nursing practice is historically viewed as subservient to medical practice, nurses are an oppressed group, and, like the colonized natives that Fanon and Freire wrote about, instead of working to improve their organizational positions, they engage in acts of horizontal violence against each other. While some authors view lateral violence and workplace bullying as essentially the same construct (e.g. Sellers, Millenbach, Ward, & Scribani, 2012; Vessey, Demarco, & DiFazio, 2010), others maintain that there are essential differences between the two (e.g. Embree & White, 2010; Nemeth et al., 2017; Oh, Uhm, & Yoon, 2016; Roberts, 2015). These differences will be discussed below. While unique instruments to measure lateral violence have been developed (Demarco, Roberts, Norris, & McCurry, 2008; Nemeth et al., 2017; Oh, Uhm, & Yoon, 2016; Stanley, Martin, Michel, Welton, & Nemeth, 2007), some researchers use instruments designed to measure workplace bullying (such as the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised [NAQ-R; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009]) in studies of lateral violence (e.g. Purpora, Blegen, & Stotts, 2012). Quine (2001) conducted the first study which exclusively examined workplace bullying in the nursing profession, and in the mid- to late 2000s, research on this topic has expanded rapidly. While the specific definitions of workplace bullying used in the nursing literature vary slightly, in general “bullying in the nursing workplace is considered to be the repeated, cumulative, and patterned form of negative behaviours of a perpetrator abusing his or her power over time toward the victim, resulting in a profound negative impact on the bully victim and organization” (Lee, Bernstein, Lee, & Nokes, 2014, p. 263). As in other academic disciplines, workplace bullying in the nursing literature has either been measured through a single-item question (see Ortega, Christensen, Hogh, Rugulies, & Borg, 2011) or through a validated instrument such as the NAQ-R (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009). Researchers who have used the NAQ-R have variously operationalized workplace bullying as one behaviour that occurred at least once a week for 6 months (e.g. Sá & Fleming, 2008; Yokoyama et al., 2016), two behaviours that occurred at least once a week for 6 months (e.g. An & Kang, 2016; Johnson & Rea, 2009; Simons, 2008) or by another scoring method (e.g. Evans, 2017; Sauer & McCoy, 2016). Positing that other instruments did not adequately capture the phenomenon of bullying among nurses, Hutchinson, Wilkes, Vickers and Jackson (2008) designed an instrument to specifically measure workplace bullying in the nursing profession. Likewise, Simons, Stark and DeMarco (2011) developed a four-item version of the

334

S. L. Johnson

NAQ-R to measure perceived bullying among nurses. To date, neither of these instruments has been extensively used in research. The third term that frequently appears in the nursing literature to describe bullying in the workplace is mobbing. Mobbing is used synonymously with workplace bullying and is not seen as a distinct concept. The term most commonly occurs in research that utilized the Workplace Violence Questionnaire (WVQ) (International Labour Organization (ILO), Council of Nurses, World Health Organization, & Public Services International, 2003), a survey which was designed to measure the scope of workplace violence experienced by healthcare professionals around the world. This survey, which has been used in research in countries such as Pakistan, Taiwan, Iran and Australia (Pai & Lee, 2011; Somani, Karmaliani, McFarlane, Asad, & Hirani, 2015; Teymourzadeh, Rashidian, Arab, Akbari-Sari, & Hakimzadeh, 2014; Tonso et al., 2016), uses the phrase bullying/mobbing, which is listed as a type of psychological violence and defined as “repeated and over time offensive behaviour through vindictive, cruel, or malicious attempts to humiliate or undermine an individual or groups of employees” (ILO et al., 2003, p. 3). In the WVQ, the following yes/no question is used to measure the prevalence of bullying/ mobbing: “In the last 12 months, have you been bullied/mobbed in your workplace?” (ILO et al., 2003, p. 9). The term mobbing also appears in a Turkish research of workplace bullying among nurses (Efe & Ayaz, 2010; Ekici & Beder, 2014; Yildirim & Yildirim, 2007; Yildirim, 2009) and is defined as: attitudes and behaviours that can be psychological abuse, such as, terrorizing, annoying, excluding, being considered parenthetical, belittling, being deprived of some organization resources, isolating, being treated unjustly in the use of organizational resources, being prevented from or delayed from claiming rights. (Yildirim & Yildirim, 2007, p. 1445)

While Turkish researchers view mobbing as synonymous with workplace bullying, when studying the phenomenon they typically use instruments specifically designed to capture the experiences of nurses who work in Turkish healthcare settings (Yildirim, 2009; Yildirim & Yildirim, 2008; Efe & Ayaz, 2010). While there are slight differences in the conceptual and operational definitions of workplace bullying, mobbing and lateral (or horizontal) violence, these terms are often used interchangeably within the nursing literature (e.g. Ekici & Beder, 2014; Pai & Lee, 2011; Purpora, 2012; Sellers, Millenbach, Ward, & Scribani, 2012; Tong, Schwendimann, & Zúñiga, 2017). However, by definition, lateral violence can only involve members of the same profession (i.e. nursing) who are peers, and, unlike workplace bullying, even one-time events can be classified as lateral violence (Embree & White, 2010; Griffin, 2004; Nemeth et al., 2017; Roberts, 2015). These differences make it difficult to compare research on lateral violence with research on workplace bullying. In order for the research on workplace bullying among nurses to be placed in context with the greater body of research on workplace bullying, it is recommended that future researchers should uniformly adopt the term workplace bullying and use conceptual and operational definitions that are consistent.

11

Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Profession

335

In this chapter, it is assumed that workplace bullying, mobbing and lateral (or horizontal) violence are essentially the same concept. Workplace bullying will predominantly be used, as this is the terminology which is now most commonly encountered in the nursing literature. However, when reporting results of the given studies, the label that is used by the authors of that study will be used.

11.3

Description of Workplace Bullying Experienced by Nurses

11.3.1 Prevalence The estimated global prevalence rate of workplace bullying among the general population of workers is between 11% and 18% (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). In contrast, a review of the literature on workplace violence in the nursing profession calculated that 39.7% of nurses worldwide have been victims of workplace bullying (Spector, Zhou, & Che, 2013). Among the articles reviewed for this chapter, the reported prevalence of workplace bullying experienced by nurses ranges from 4.6% in Switzerland (Tong, Schwendimann, & Zúñiga, 2017) to 44% in the United Kingdom (UK) (Quine, 2001) (see Table 1). While the comparison of prevalence rates should be done with caution as sampling and measurement methods affect results (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010), and while bullying rates of nurses vary by region (Spector, Zhou, & Che, 2013), it appears that workplace bullying is more prevalent in the nursing sector than among the general population of workers. While studies of workplace bullying among nurses have tended to rely on convenience sampling, and sample sizes have been quite small, these are also limitations to the research on workplace bullying among the general population of workers (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Future research on workplace bullying of nurses should strive for larger samples with a more robust sampling method. It is important to note that cultural differences undoubtedly affect prevalence rates. For example, when comparing studies that used the same operational definition of workplace bullying (two behaviours at least weekly on the NAQ-R), prevalence varied from 15.8% in Korea (An & Kang, 2016) to 22% in Israel (Ganz et al., 2015), 21–31% in the United States (USA) (Johnson & Rea, 2009; Purpora, Blegen, & Stotts, 2012; Simons, 2008) and to 29–33% in Canada (Laschinger, Grau, Finegan, & Wilk, 2010; Spence Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2012). Similarly, when comparing studies that operationalized workplace bullying as one behaviour weekly, using the NAQ-R, rates varied from 13% in Portugal (Sá & Fleming, 2008) to 18.5% in Japan (Yokoyama et al., 2015) and to 34% in Italy (Bortoluzzi, Caporale, & Palese, 2014). Cultural differences that may explain these variations include the status of women in a given country (since nursing is a predominantly female occupation), the status of nursing in the healthcare hierarchy in that country as well as the norms of communication and conflict within a particular culture.

336

S. L. Johnson

Table 1 Summary of studies on the prevalence of workplace bullying and related concepts among nurses

Country Australia

Measurement tool and operational Authors Label used definition Demir and Workplace Single-item Rodwell (2012) bullying question (Hoel & Cooper, 2000) Rodwell and Workplace Single-item Demir (2012b) bullying question (Hoel & Cooper, 2000) Rodwell, Demir Workplace and Steane bullying (2013)

Single-item question (Hoel & Cooper, 2000)

Tonso et al. (2016)

Workplace bullying/ mobbing

WVQ (ILO et al., 2003) Single-item question

Brazil

Fontes, Santana, Pelloso and Carvalho (2013)

Workplace bullying

Canada

Laschinger, Grau, Finegan and Wilk (2010)

Workplace bullying

Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT45) One behaviour at least weekly  6 months NAQ-R Two behaviours at least weekly  6 months

Spence Workplace Laschinger, bullying Wong and Grau (2012) Rush, Adamack, Gordon and Janke (2014)

Workplace bullying

Sample and sampling method Nurses in one hospital Convenience sample Nurses in one hospital and one aged care facility Convenience sample Nurses in multiple hospitals in one organization Convenience sample Mental health workers (76% nurses) who were members of a union in Victoria, Australia Random selection Nurses in public and private sector; employed for >1 year Convenience sample

Nurses with