Background of Workplace Bullying
The Special Issue on Behavioral and Social Science © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com196 provides an excellent background and history at taken from the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No. 7 [Special Issue –June 2011] as stated below:
Workplace Bullying: An increasing epidemic creating traumatic experiences for targets of workplace bullying David Farmer (MSW Candidate-August, 2011) Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada 955, Oliver Rd.P7B-5E1
Email: [email protected], Phone: (902) 304-1441 Abstract With workplace bullying continually increasing at an unprecedented epidemic rate around the world, it is now time for organizations and governments to establish zero-tolerance workplace bullying policies to end this dehumanizing behavior. Research has proven that targets suffer from an array of negative health effects such as depression, anxiety, and symptoms mirroring PTSD. This paper will examine why workplace bullying has become so prevalent, the traumatic impacts, and interventions to explore when working alongside targets of workplace bullying. Avenues such as zero-tolerance workplace bullying policies, advocacy, training of professionals, and education will also be discussed when looking to halt workplace bullying. This paper will conclude with recommendations for future action and how the profession of social work is capable of leading to increase advocacy efforts, in the hope of eradicating workplace bullying. Keywords: Workplace bullying, workplace trauma, zero-tolerance anti-bullying policy, workplace bullying policy 1.0 Introduction According to a 2010 survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute, located in the United States, the results reported that one out of three American workers equaling 35% (53.5 million), have been bullied in the workplace. The United Nations International Labor Organization, has also alerted that the issue of workplace bullying is reaching epidemic levels based on the surveyed findings of 15 European Union countries (International Labor Organization, 2006). With statistics so prominent, this evidence now clearly suggests that workplace bullying is thriving throughout most parts of the world. This paper‟s purpose will look to discover if workplace bullying produces traumatic effects and experiences for bullied targets. Workplace bullying rise to prevalence will also be documented, along with interventions and avenues to investigate approaches with the hopes of abolishing workplace bullying. Concluding this paper, recommendations and future action steps will also be highlighted and how the profession of social work is best equipped in taking a lead role against this social injustice which affects millions worldwide. 2.0 What is workplace bullying? Research looking into the impacts of workplace bullying was first conducted during the 1980‟s. Dr. Heinz Leymann (1990) was the first researcher at the time to explore the effects of “mobbing” (also known as workplace bullying) among respondents bullied. Leymann (1990), defined mobbing as hostile and unethical behavior in the direction of individuals who were unable to defend themselves. Leymann (1990), compared bullying in the workplace to the act of mobbing, as he likened the term mobbing to when animals in a pack attack a single or larger animal. Leymann (1990), identified through his research that individuals who had experienced bullying in the workplace were at higher risk of becoming depressed, exhibit signs of anxiety, and display symptoms similar to PTSD. Leymann (1990) also classified that an applicable bullying duration should consist over a six month period, with at least one interaction per week. Later in this paper, a shortened duration of workplace bullying will be proposed in order to classify bullying on an incident basis, rather than a set duration period. Zapf and Gross (2001), define workplace bullying as consistent exposure to persistent, oppressive, offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious, or insulting behavior by a manager/supervisor or co-worker. Workplace bullying, can be seen as a continual purposeful behavior that sets bullying behavior apart from in-civil treatment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper, 2003). As these definitions above suggest along with the current literature, there are many different forms and characteristics which define workplace bullying. Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) reported that experiences from workplace bullying can be compared to that of losing a loved one due to an unexpected death. The Workplace Bullying Institute, found that results show males are more consistently in the role of the bully at 62%, while females comprise 58% of those targeted.
Workplace bullying can appear in many forms and characteristics. These forms and characteristics include (Leymann, 1996; Koonin and Green, 2005):
Verbal or physical attacks
Social isolation and exclusion in the workplace
Ridicule and humiliation in front of work colleagues
Verbal threats and gestures
Assignment of demeaning work tasks
Workplace gossip among workers behind a targets back
Treated in a condescending manner
Receiving “silent treatment”
Belittling the opinion of others
Staring, dirty looks, or other forms of negative eye contact
Reflecting on the characteristics above, an argument could be made for researchers in the field of workplace bullying to narrow the scope relating to which forms and characteristics constitute workplace bullying. One suggestion proposed when narrowing the scope of characteristics, may be for researchers to collaborate and come to a concise consensus as to what forms and characteristics exactly identify the face of workplace bullying. Another recommendation offered, is the Workplace Bullying Institute, located in the United Sates, headed by Dr. Gary and Ruth Namie, could work towards uniting forces with similar organizations, such as those in the United Kingdom. By establishing connections among organizations, this could potentially translate into a significant increase relating to awareness of workplace bullying and also further define what forms and characteristics exactly define workplace bullying. These global organization partnerships for example, could look to sway and exert pressure upon policymakers, which eventually could lead to policies adopted that don‟t tolerate workplace bullying.
References
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No. 7 [Special Issue –June 2011]
International Labor Organization. (2006, June 14). New forms of violence at work on the rise worldwide (news release).
Koonin, M., & Green, T. (2005). The Emotionally Abusive Workplace. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3, 71-79.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at Work and the Development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 119-126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-184.
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, 87-111.
Munoz, A. R., Jimenez, B. M., & Hernandez, E. G. (2010). Post-Traumatic Symptoms among Victims of Workplace Bullying: Exploring Gender Differences and Shattered Assumptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2616-2635.
Namie, G. (2011). 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute United States Workplace Bullying Survey. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.workplacebullying.org/research/WBI-NatlSurvey2010.html
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497-522.
Workplace Bullying: An increasing epidemic creating traumatic experiences for targets of workplace bullying David Farmer (MSW Candidate-August, 2011) Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada 955, Oliver Rd.P7B-5E1
Email: [email protected], Phone: (902) 304-1441 Abstract With workplace bullying continually increasing at an unprecedented epidemic rate around the world, it is now time for organizations and governments to establish zero-tolerance workplace bullying policies to end this dehumanizing behavior. Research has proven that targets suffer from an array of negative health effects such as depression, anxiety, and symptoms mirroring PTSD. This paper will examine why workplace bullying has become so prevalent, the traumatic impacts, and interventions to explore when working alongside targets of workplace bullying. Avenues such as zero-tolerance workplace bullying policies, advocacy, training of professionals, and education will also be discussed when looking to halt workplace bullying. This paper will conclude with recommendations for future action and how the profession of social work is capable of leading to increase advocacy efforts, in the hope of eradicating workplace bullying. Keywords: Workplace bullying, workplace trauma, zero-tolerance anti-bullying policy, workplace bullying policy 1.0 Introduction According to a 2010 survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute, located in the United States, the results reported that one out of three American workers equaling 35% (53.5 million), have been bullied in the workplace. The United Nations International Labor Organization, has also alerted that the issue of workplace bullying is reaching epidemic levels based on the surveyed findings of 15 European Union countries (International Labor Organization, 2006). With statistics so prominent, this evidence now clearly suggests that workplace bullying is thriving throughout most parts of the world. This paper‟s purpose will look to discover if workplace bullying produces traumatic effects and experiences for bullied targets. Workplace bullying rise to prevalence will also be documented, along with interventions and avenues to investigate approaches with the hopes of abolishing workplace bullying. Concluding this paper, recommendations and future action steps will also be highlighted and how the profession of social work is best equipped in taking a lead role against this social injustice which affects millions worldwide. 2.0 What is workplace bullying? Research looking into the impacts of workplace bullying was first conducted during the 1980‟s. Dr. Heinz Leymann (1990) was the first researcher at the time to explore the effects of “mobbing” (also known as workplace bullying) among respondents bullied. Leymann (1990), defined mobbing as hostile and unethical behavior in the direction of individuals who were unable to defend themselves. Leymann (1990), compared bullying in the workplace to the act of mobbing, as he likened the term mobbing to when animals in a pack attack a single or larger animal. Leymann (1990), identified through his research that individuals who had experienced bullying in the workplace were at higher risk of becoming depressed, exhibit signs of anxiety, and display symptoms similar to PTSD. Leymann (1990) also classified that an applicable bullying duration should consist over a six month period, with at least one interaction per week. Later in this paper, a shortened duration of workplace bullying will be proposed in order to classify bullying on an incident basis, rather than a set duration period. Zapf and Gross (2001), define workplace bullying as consistent exposure to persistent, oppressive, offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious, or insulting behavior by a manager/supervisor or co-worker. Workplace bullying, can be seen as a continual purposeful behavior that sets bullying behavior apart from in-civil treatment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper, 2003). As these definitions above suggest along with the current literature, there are many different forms and characteristics which define workplace bullying. Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) reported that experiences from workplace bullying can be compared to that of losing a loved one due to an unexpected death. The Workplace Bullying Institute, found that results show males are more consistently in the role of the bully at 62%, while females comprise 58% of those targeted.
Workplace bullying can appear in many forms and characteristics. These forms and characteristics include (Leymann, 1996; Koonin and Green, 2005):
Verbal or physical attacks
Social isolation and exclusion in the workplace
Ridicule and humiliation in front of work colleagues
Verbal threats and gestures
Assignment of demeaning work tasks
Workplace gossip among workers behind a targets back
Treated in a condescending manner
Receiving “silent treatment”
Belittling the opinion of others
Staring, dirty looks, or other forms of negative eye contact
Reflecting on the characteristics above, an argument could be made for researchers in the field of workplace bullying to narrow the scope relating to which forms and characteristics constitute workplace bullying. One suggestion proposed when narrowing the scope of characteristics, may be for researchers to collaborate and come to a concise consensus as to what forms and characteristics exactly identify the face of workplace bullying. Another recommendation offered, is the Workplace Bullying Institute, located in the United Sates, headed by Dr. Gary and Ruth Namie, could work towards uniting forces with similar organizations, such as those in the United Kingdom. By establishing connections among organizations, this could potentially translate into a significant increase relating to awareness of workplace bullying and also further define what forms and characteristics exactly define workplace bullying. These global organization partnerships for example, could look to sway and exert pressure upon policymakers, which eventually could lead to policies adopted that don‟t tolerate workplace bullying.
References
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 No. 7 [Special Issue –June 2011]
International Labor Organization. (2006, June 14). New forms of violence at work on the rise worldwide (news release).
Koonin, M., & Green, T. (2005). The Emotionally Abusive Workplace. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3, 71-79.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at Work and the Development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 119-126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-184.
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, 87-111.
Munoz, A. R., Jimenez, B. M., & Hernandez, E. G. (2010). Post-Traumatic Symptoms among Victims of Workplace Bullying: Exploring Gender Differences and Shattered Assumptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2616-2635.
Namie, G. (2011). 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute United States Workplace Bullying Survey. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.workplacebullying.org/research/WBI-NatlSurvey2010.html
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497-522.