Building a Culture of Respect

Managing Bullying at Work

Noreen Tehrani

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2001
• eBook ISBN: 9781134577538
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

Bullying is an increasing problem in the workplace. It is estimated that five million workers are bullied each year in the UK, and that one in four employees is aware of colleagues being bullied. Bullying creates significant health problems for employees and, despite this, there is a conspicuous absence of published material on why these behaviors

PART ONE Origins and problems

CHAPTER ONE Origins of bullying Theoretical frameworks for explaining workplace bullying

HELGE HOEL AND CARY L. COOPER

Introduction

A growing body of evidence suggests that the problem of workplace bullying affects a substantial number of British employees either directly as targets of bullying behaviour or, indirectly, as bystanders or witnesses of such activities (Hoel and Cooper, 2000b). In order to be able successfully to prevent or at least reduce the prevalence of the problem, we need to have a clear view of the factors that cause it. Therefore, in this chapter we intend to trace the causes of bullying.

Much of the early UK literature on the problem of workplace bullying located the source of bullying in the personality of those involved, perpetrators as well as targets (Crawford, 1992; Field, 1996; Randall, 1997). By contrast, Scandinavian and German researchers primarily attributed the phenomenon of bullying to the work environment in which it occurs (Leymann, 1996; Vartia, 1996) or to an interplay or dynamic interaction of factors of a personal as well as a situational nature (Zapf et al., 1996; Einarsen, 1999). Recently attempts have also been made to bring society at large and the factors of an economic, social and political nature into the debate (Lee, 1998; Sheehan, 1999).

To reveal the origin of the bullying phenomenon in its many facets, we will explore some of the different theoretical approaches and perspectives that, so far, have been advanced. On the face of it, these approaches may appear to be competing and mutually exclusive. However, if taken as theoretical approaches or perspectives aimed at different levels of analysis (Einarsen, 1996; Hoel et al., 1999), these approaches may in fact complement each other, each serving a separate function depending upon which part of the problem we are exploring. We will, therefore, search for sources of bullying by means of an examination of the problem at the individual level, the dyadic interaction level, the group level, the organisational level and the societal level.

In order to make sense of the investigation consideration must also be given to issues related to definition and problem demarcation. With respect to demarcation, where we decide to draw the limits of the problem would impinge upon the breadth and focus of the subsequent investigation.

Defining workplace bullying

For the purpose of this chapter we will adopt a widely used definition by Einarsen et al. (1994b: 20):

Bullying emerges when one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions.

This definition contains a number of features in need of further investigation.

Negative acts

We can divide the negative behaviour most frequently identified with bullying into the following categories: personal derogation (humiliation and personal criticism), work-related harassment (withholding of information and having one’s responsibilities removed), social exclusion, violent threats and intimidation and work overload (Einarsen and Raknes, 1997; Hoel and Cooper, 2000b).

Persistent

Bullying will normally refer to behaviour that is repeated and persistent. Therefore, while it can be unpleasant to be the target of someone’s occasional aggressive behaviour, such behaviour would in most cases be excluded from the definition. The exception here would be those cases where intimidating behaviour of a severe nature (e.g. physical violence or threat of physical violence) leaves the target in a permanent state of fear.

Long term

In some cases workplace bullying may be resolved in its early phases by means of organisational intervention or by initiatives from those involved or other concerned parties. In other incidents, one of the parties involved may decide to leave. However, the long-term nature of the phenomenon is one of the most salient features of the problem. In a recent study of 5,300 British employees, two out of three people currently bullied reported that the process had lasted for more than one year (Hoel and Cooper, 2000b). The prolonged nature of the exposure is particularly necessary in understanding the severe effects bullying may have on targets as well as the likelihood of finding a solution to the problem (Hoel and Cooper, 2000a).

Imbalance of power

When an equal balance of power exists between two individuals in a conflict situation we would not refer to the situation as bullying. However, it is important to note that power may be formal, drawn from one’s hierarchical position within the organisation, or informal, referring to sources of power such as personal contacts, organisational standing and experience. Knowledge of an opponent’s vulnerabilities may be a further source of informal power often exploited in cases of bullying.

Intent

Though central to many definitions of school bullying (e.g. Besag, 1989), intent is left out of the above definition. The role of intent, however, has given rise to considerable discussion and controversy within the bullying field (e.g. Keashly, 1998). There is disagreement as to the usefulness of including intent among defining characteristics, for example, whether bullying behaviour is necessarily used to harm a target or, at times, may be considered instrumental behaviour, where harm can be considered a non-intended side-effect of the behaviour. Owing to the difficulty of establishing intent in the context of litigation, it has been excluded as a defining feature in cases of other types of harassment that may be considered similar to bullying, e.g. sexual and racial harassment (Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999). As will be evident from the subsequent exploration of the phenomenon, this does not imply that the role of intent is unimportant in understanding bullying and the victimisation process. In fact, according to Einarsen (1999) the attributions made by targets may have as serious an effect on the victim as the negative behaviour itself. (For a more comprehensive discussion, see Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999.)

Subjective perception

Most researchers today would agree that what matters in cases of bullying is the subjective perceptions of targets, or the meaning they attach to their experience. In other words, to understand the phenomenon of bullying we need to explore those factors that may influence how the negative behaviour or bullying acts are perceived (Einarsen, 1999).

Problem demarcation

In media accounts of workplace bullying in Britain, bullying is frequently identified with negative behaviour per se. However, in line with interpretations shared by many researchers and practitioners in the field (e.g. Einarsen, 1999), we consider bullying to be a dynamic phenomenon, where the presence of negative behaviour is seen as a necessary part of the problem but not sufficient to explain the phenomenon in its entirety. Thus, the phenomenon of bullying is seen to be unequivocally tied in with the conflict escalation process in which the response of the targets is seen as integral with process development and outcomes.

At the individual level

In trying to explain workplace bullying by reference to the make-up and personality of those involved, simple popular beliefs often overlap and blend in with other more reflective and theoretically based views. This is not least the case where bullying is explained by reference to pathological and deviant personality traits identified with those of a psychopath (Field, 1996). The British media picture of the adult bully is also one that may fit well with our understanding of psychopathic behaviour.

The interest in the role of personality traits in explaining workplace bullying has largely been informed by research into school bullying. Arising from this research, bullies are recognised as being identified with high levels of aggressiveness. In contrast victims appear to be anxious and to have low self-esteem (Olweus, 1997). These findings have predominantly been explained with reference to early childhood experiences. According to Randall (1997) both aggressive as well as submissive personalities may be seen to result from poor or unsuccessful parenting. As far as the aggressors or bullies are concerned, they appear to come from home environments where inconsistent patterns of discipline, authoritarianism or even rejection on the part of parents are seen as normal. Not only are such parenting styles seen to stimulate aggression, their presence appears to reduce the opportunity for the development of social skills. For victims of bullying, parental rejection may lead to timid, submissive and overprotected children. Being over-protected by parent-figures in childhood is also considered to undermine the development of social skills, a characteristic which victims appear to share with bullies. On a similar note, a feature identified with many bullies and victims is their apparent lack of necessary problem-solving skills (Perry et al., 1998).

In order to explain the behaviour of bullies and victims alike, the ‘social learning theory’ of aggression (Bandura, 1973) is frequently applied (Randall, 1997). According to social learning theory, bullying can be seen as a variant of repeated aggression, and be understood as a learned set of behaviour, primarily stimulated by external sources or modelling (Bandura, 1977). By successfully applying aggression (in other words, getting what you want), such positive reinforcement makes the behaviour more likely to be repeated in the future. The intent behind the aggression or bullying should also be seen as being connected with the expectation of particular outcomes. Thus, according to Randall (1997), expectation of victim distress is part and parcel of the bullying acts. It follows that bullies will pick their victims with great care in order to ensure a successful outcome and positive reinforcement of their behaviour. Therefore, victims who are easily brought to submission appear to make perfect targets in the eyes of the bully (Randall, 1997).

According to the social learning theory of aggression, personality traits such as aggression and submissiveness can, when established, be considered to be relatively stable over time. This gives rise to the idea of a ‘cycle of violence’ (Tattum and Tattum, 1996; Randall, 1997), suggesting that bullying behaviour, established and perfected in childhood and adolescence, continues to express and manifest itself in a variety of situations throughout life (Randall, 1997). In support of such a ‘cycle of violence’, results of some longitudinal studies of childhood aggression are often quoted (e.g. Eron et al., 1987).

However, with reference to the likely negative consequence of being ‘labelled’ at an early stage, Hoel et al. (1999) warn against reading too much into these findings. The fact that many people, who have a past as either bully or target of bullying at school, apparently succeed both professionally and personally later in life suggests that matters are more complicated. Thus recent developments in aggression theory tend to emphasise the role of situational factors in evoking aggressive behaviour (Geen, 1990; Neumann and Baron, 1998).

The evidence of the presence of particular personality traits among perpetrators and targets of workplace bullying is at present sparse. Owing to the difficulty in researching the bullying personality, the evidence that has been produced is predominantly linked to targets. For example low self-esteem and higher than normal anxiety levels are among personality traits frequently identified with targets (Einarsen et al., 1994). In a recent study, individuals who were introverted, conscientious, neurotic and submissive were found to be more likely to be targeted for bullying and subsequently victimised (Seigne et al., 1999).

To state that anxiety, neurotic behaviour and low self-esteem are the predominant personality characteristics of many victims is uncontroversial. What is causing debate, however, is whether, and to what extent, these personality characteristics actually should be considered causes of bullying or whether they are the end-product or the result of the bullying process. With reference to the neurotic and often obsessive behaviour of many victims of bullying, Leymann (1996) argues that their behaviour needs to be understood as a normal response to an abnormal situation. Similarly, when one sees one’s own world collapsing as a result of exposure to bullying, it would not be surprising if the experience affected the way an individual sees the world and their ability to influence and control events (Hoel and Cooper, 2000a). However, we would tend to agree with Einarsen et al. (1994b) who state that bullying is ‘neither the product of chance nor of destiny. Instead, bullying should be understood primarily as an interplay between people, where neither situational nor personal factors entirely suffice to explain why bullying develops’ (translated by Hoel, 1997). However, before we consider the more dynamic aspects of the bullying process as understood in connection with dyadic interaction, we need to examine some other factors which tend to play a role in cases of bullying and operate on the level of the perceptions of individuals.

The role of attribution processes in the bullying process is one such factor that has been emphasised by a number of researchers (Niedl, 1996; Hoel et al., 1999). According to attribution theory (Kelly, 1972), individuals tend to project positive experiences towards themselves, while behaviour or acts that may be considered negative are projected on to others. It is therefore not surprising that targets of bullying tend to attribute blame to external sources or to the work environment, as well as to opponents, as opposed to blaming themselves. Similarly, people tend to explain their own behaviour by pointing to the environment and the circumstances in which the behaviour occurs, while other people’s behaviour is explained as a product of their individual personality. This phenomenon is often referred to as the ‘fundamental attribution failure’ (Jones and Davies, 1965). From studies of targets of bullying, it has become evident that as the conflict progresses, targets will increasingly attribute blame to their opponent while simultaneously attributing less responsibility for events to themselves (Kile, 1990). In order to establish a picture of events with any degree of certainty, such attribution processes must be considered during any investigation (Hoel et al., 1999).

The role of individual perception is also emphasised in the approach put forward by Liefooghe and Olafsson (1999). They argue that, as bullying is a ‘new’, or newly acknowledged social problem, the perceptions of it are likely to vary between individuals. In their view, faced with negative behaviour, people draw on what they refer to as ‘social representations’ in order to make sense of the behaviour to which they are being exposed. Social representations are interpretative frameworks that may account for an event or a phenomenon. When a particular event or behaviour is considered, a number of aspects concerning the event or the phenomenon, for example explanatory models, likely effects, etc. immediately spring to mind. As ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• PART ONE Origins and problems
• PART TWO Size of the problem
• PART THREE Imperative to act
• PART FOUR The way forward