Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace

08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 183 CHAPTER 8 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace Gina Vega Debra R. Comer B ullying has always been part of the human condition. History is rife with references to abuse of power and unnecessary or excessive force. The classic bully story is of Joseph and his brothers, a tale of envy and hostility. Joseph, his father’s favorite, was thrown into a pit and left alone by his older brothers. When they returned repentant to retrieve him later, he was gone and presumed dead. In fact, he had been “rescued” by Egyptian slavers. This crude display was refined over the centuries. However, the refinement of bullying to include various forms of legally defined social harassment is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bullying is not illegal in the United States, whereas it is illegal in many other countries. Bullying is not benign teasing, nor does it include the off-color jokes, racial slurs, or unwelcome advances that are the hallmarks of legally defined harassment. Workplace bullying is a pattern of destructive and deliberate demeaning of coworkers or subordinates that reminds one of the activities of the “schoolyard bully.” Unlike the schoolyard bully, however, the workplace bully is an adult who is usually aware of the impact of his or her behavior on others. Bullying in the AUTHORS’ NOTE: Parts of this chapter are based on Vega. G., & Comer, D. R. (2003, October). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Vincentian Conference Promoting Business Ethics, New York. 183 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 184 184——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE workplace, often tacitly accepted by the organization’s leadership, can create an environment of psychological threat that diminishes corporate productivity and inhibits individual and group commitment. Bullying Versus Harassment It is important to differentiate between bullying and harassment, both of which are forms of personal abuse. The two examples that follow help to clarify the difference between harassment and bullying on an interpersonal level. Anita Hill and Harassment The following is taken from the testimony of Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law professor, at the U.S. Senate hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on October 11, 1991: In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge [Clarence] Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political appointment and asked if I would be interested in working with him. He was, in fact, appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. After he had taken that post, he asked if I would become his assistant, and I accepted that position. . . . After approximately 3 months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. What happened next and telling the world about it are the two most difficult things, experiences of my life. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and a number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends. I declined the invitation to go out socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so. I thought that by saying “no” and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying “no” to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations which would not have been overheard by anyone else. My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects, or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go to lunch to a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. . . . 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 185 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——185 On several occasions, [Judge] Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful. . . . For my first months at the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn’t go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember him saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn’t go out with him. He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and [in] his demeanor in his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC. (Hill, 1991) Celia Zimmerman and Bullying The following account is excerpted from an article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (Pfaffenbach, 2000): The plaintiff, Celia G. Zimmerman, filed a complaint at MCAD [Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] against the defendants, Direct Federal Credit Union and its president and CEO [chief executive officer], David Breslin. Shortly after delivering her complaint to Breslin, the plaintiff alleged that her situation at the credit union deteriorated. For example, although the plaintiff, as a member of management, had regularly attended annual meetings, she was not asked to attend the annual meeting in March 1997. When the plaintiff was called upon to attend meetings, she testified that her attempts to participate in the meetings were ignored by Breslin. After the plaintiff gave notice of her intention to pursue her discrimination claim in court, a company meeting was called in which Breslin spoke about “integrity” and commented that he would have expected some employees would have already left the employ of the credit union. The plaintiff and some fellow employees testified that they believed these comments were directed specifically at her. In November 1997, the plaintiff was asked to give a presentation at a board meeting. Breslin updated the members of the board on the status of the plaintiff ’s lawsuit immediately before she made her presentation. After this incident, the plaintiff never attended another board meeting. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 186 186——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE In early 1998, the plaintiff was assigned the goal of improving the compliance function at the credit union. To complete this task, she attended a compliance training course aimed at all areas of compliance issues, including year 2000 compliance. However, when the credit union formed a team to deal with year 2000 issues, the plaintiff was assigned the task of doing spreadsheets. In early December 1996, the plaintiff began keeping a journal. In 1997, she learned that she would have to produce the diary to the defendants during the discovery phase of litigation. The diary contained passages describing conversations the plaintiff had with her co-workers in which they expressed sympathy for her situation. After the diary was produced, the plaintiff testified that she witnessed senior managers and other people who were mentioned in the diary being called into the defendant’s office and leaving “visibly shaken.” After these events, the plaintiff alleged that she began to feel overwhelmed and unable to concentrate. Harassment Versus Bullying: Specificity Makes the Difference The main difference between harassment and bullying on an interpersonal level lies in specificity (Pryor & Fitzgerald, 2003). In fact, Einarsen (1999) referred to bullying as “generic harassment.” Title VII protects specific classes of workers from specific types of aggression. Under the law, Anita Hill should have been protected from sexual pursuit by her employer. Workers are protected from persecution or discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, and Vietnam veteran status, any of which may result in actionable events. However, the same worker who is tormented, along with other nonprotected workers, in a generally demeaning or insulting pattern is not protected by the law in the United States. If an individual registers a complaint about this type of behavior, he or she is likely to be branded as hypersensitive, a troublemaker, or unable to take a joke. The case of Celia Zimmerman v. Direct Federal Credit Union is unusual because it validates the legitimacy of protection from workplace bullying practices in the United States. Under most circumstances, the target of the workplace bully receives neither protection from the bully nor recognition of the legitimacy of the target’s complaint. Bullying that results from hyperattentiveness to performance statistics, overt or covert threats to security, abuse or misapplication of personnel policies, and/or forced choices in assignments is also common behavior in many organizations. This type of bullying can be referred to as organizational bullying or institutional bullying (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Little has been written directly about organizational bullying; instead, most research has focused on the individual interactions between bully and victim. However, it is prudent to be aware of the potential within an organization for an individual to use power inappropriately and to create, through the rigid application of rules and protocols, an environment that supports 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 187 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——187 and sustains bullying on both organizational and individual levels. This is discussed later in the chapter. There are many definitions of workplace bullying. The one used here is unwanted, offensive, humiliating, undermining behavior towards an individual or groups of employees. Such persistently malicious attacks on personal or professional performance are typically unpredictable, irrational, and often unfair. This abuse of power or position can cause such chronic stress and anxiety that people gradually lose belief in themselves, suffering physical ill health and mental distress as a result. (Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002, p. xi) This definition comports well with similar definitions internationally (Bernardi, 2001; Costigan, 1998; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Glendinning, 2001; Namie, 1999; Pemberton, 2000; Zapf, 1999). Sexual Harassment and Title VII Title VII of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal to base employment decisions (e.g., hiring, promotion, dismissal) on employees’ race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Later legislation similarly protected older people (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967), pregnant women (Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978), and people with disabilities (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). Title VII does not specifically mention sexual harassment, but the courts have ruled that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and, thus, is illegal. Indeed, two kinds of sexual harassment violate Title VII, according to guidelines issued in 1980 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In quid pro quo harassment, a subordinate’s job benefits and security are made contingent on the subordinate’s compliance with his or her superior’s sexual demands. The second form, hostile work environment harassment, may be more difficult to establish. As Justice O’Connor ruled in Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993), Whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequencies of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The Supreme Court decided in the Harris case that it is not necessary to experience psychological harm to find that there is a hostile environment. Instead, a plaintiff ’s attorney must demonstrate only that a reasonable person assuming the plaintiff ’s perspective would deem the behavior sufficiently offensive. In two 1998 cases, Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the Supreme Court ruled that employers are responsible for taking preventive action against and remedying sexual harassment. In contrast to the clear legal protections against sexual harassment, most Americans enjoy no such safeguards against 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 188 188——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE bullying in their workplaces. Indeed, researchers and legislators in the United States lag markedly behind their European counterparts in their awareness of bullying at work. The Increased Interest in Workplace Bullying Ironically, it was an American who first reported on workplace bullying. Brodsky’s (1976) work was overlooked for years. Nonetheless, as Keashly and Jagatic (2003) observed, Americans have amassed an extensive literature on various forms of hostile and offensive workplace behaviors that can inform the understanding of bullying at work. Their research includes a disturbing list of bullying behaviors distributed through verbal and physical categories. The physical categories make only limited mention of personal physical threat (“physically assaulted”); instead, they focus on being “glared at; . . . theft or destruction of property; deliberately assigned work overload; deliberately consuming resources needed by target; expected to work with unreasonable deadlines, lack of resources; causing others to delay action in matters of importance to target” (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003, p. 137). The verbal abuse includes name calling, use of derogatory terms; subject to insulting jokes; belittled intellectually, talked down to; criticized harshly, attacked verbally in private or public; put down in front of others; sworn at; lied to, deceived; yelled at, shouted at; interrupted when speaking, working; pressured to change personal life, beliefs, opinions; flaunting status; treated unfairly; subject to false accusations; rumours; attempts made to turn others against the target; you or your contributions ignored; silent treatment; had memos, phone calls ignored; been given little or no feedback, guidance; deliberately excluded; failing to pass on information needed by the target. (pp. 136–137). This extensive collection of behaviors comprises the aggressive pattern that our working definition presents. In 1986, Leymann, a family therapist whose experiences with family conflicts aroused his interest in workplace conflict, used the term “mobbing” to describe bullying in the workplace (Leymann, 1986). The radio documentaries and book of Andrea Adams, a journalist, introduced the concept of workplace bullying to the United Kingdom (Adams, 1992). Leymann’s (1986) term (borrowed from the English “mob” to describe aggressive group behavior) “was later adopted in the German-speaking countries and The Netherlands as well as in some Mediterranean countries, whilst ‘bullying’ became the preferred term in English-speaking countries” (Einarsen et al., 2003, p. 5). Adams’s broadcasts (in which listeners and callers shared their personal circumstances as victims of bullies), coupled with subsequent newspaper articles, legitimized bullying as a type of unfair workplace discrimination in the United Kingdom (Lee, 2000). Meanwhile, interest in the topic spread to other European countries. According to Leighton (2001), “The natural assumption in Britain and in other parts of the 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 189 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——189 [European Union] is that bullying is a workplace problem. Bullying is seen to be detrimental to an individual employee, and this should prompt a legal remedy for that individual” (p. 97). The Dignity at Work Bill of 1999 was created to protect U.K. employees from bullying. Nonetheless, Yamada (2003) asserted, “Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. have not enacted legal protections specifically in response to workplace bullying. Rather, efforts to obtain legal relief must be based primarily on a patchwork of statutory and common law measures governing discrimination, personal injury, wrongful discharge, and workplace safety” (p. 400). Yamada commended Sweden’s Victimization at Work Ordinance of 1993 as an appropriate legal response to workplace bullying. This ordinance contains language to prevent workplace bullying, protect employees who try to address bullying, compensate targets/victims, and penalize bullies as well as the employers that permit their transgressions. Targets, Perpetrators, and Effects of Workplace Bullying Bullying can take many forms. In its most destructive incarnation, its spirit-crushing techniques can deform targets’ self-images and their ability to conduct business normally (Crawford, 1999; Namie, 1999). As tolerance for bullying expands within an individual as a result of continued exposure, a cycle of demoralization begins. The victim might feel incompetent to combat or even confront the bully. As the victim becomes less and less confident, the bully pushes more and harder. This cycle often continues until the victim gives up and resigns. According to one study, three of four victims and witnesses to bullying simply quit or are driven out of the organization (Namie, 1999). The face-to-face bullying behaviors described previously, along with the more subtle electronic bullying that may confront victims at their desktops through hostile or misleading e-mails, can be directed toward individuals on the basis of gender, race, religion, or age. It has been suggested that victims of bullying usually are unassertive, are conflict avoidant, and make little effort to be “part of the group.” Some research suggests that such bullying behaviors tend to be directed most often toward the more vulnerable individuals in these categories (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Zapf, 1999). One study concluded that, based on characteristics that map on the “Big Five” personality traits (extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and culture), victims of bullying tend to be submissive, shy, neurotic, and literal-minded (Coyne et al., 2000). If that is accurate, we might be tempted to blame the victim rather than the bully for disagreeable behavior. However, given the prevalence of the phenomenon and the reports of nonvictims having witnessed bullying, as well as the conclusions of that study being disputed by other, equally reputable researchers (Leymann, 1996), this seems unlikely. Besides, as Hoel, Rayner, and Cooper (1999) discussed, victims’ responses to personality assessment instruments may, in part, reflect their traumatic experiences at the hands of bullies. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 190 190——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE In addition, bullying appears to be an equal opportunity activity, both as bully and as target. In a survey conducted by the Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute (Namie, 1999), bullies were women (46%) nearly as often as they were men (54%). Other studies show similar results. The largest such study, conducted in 2000 by the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), showed that men and women were bullied at nearly the same rate, although women tended to report bullying more readily (see also Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Leymann, 1996; Rayner, 1997; Vartia & Hyyti, 2002). Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, and Vartia (2003) concluded that women do not seem to be at greater risk for being victimized due to gender role socialization. They asserted, however, that women’s risk of being bullied may be higher because they are more likely to hold subordinate status and to be perceived as unwanted intruders in male workplaces. Based on the ages of the victims, bullying also tended to extend over longer periods of time with increasing ages of the targets (Rayner et al., 2002). Furthermore, position within the company or rank within the work group can provide a rationale for the badgering that is often the calling card of the bully (Fuller, 2003). The UMIST study showed that 75% of bullying is done by managers, whereas other studies indicated that at least 50% of bullying was done by managers (Rayner et al., 2002) and as much as 89% of bullying was done by individuals whose ranks in their organizations were higher than those of the victims (Namie, 1999). The UMIST study showed that bullying by colleagues is a prevalent activity. In higher education, women were bullied as often by colleagues as by managers, and 40.8% of all women in the study (approximately 2,500 total) identified colleagues as the bullies (Rayner et al., 2002). Whereas Scandinavian studies reported that bullying by colleagues occurs about as often as does bullying by superiors, British researchers found that bullying is done predominantly by superiors (Zapf et al., 2003). Moreover, in a sample of Finnish prison officers, women were bullied more often by their coworkers than were men (Vartia & Hyyti, 2002). When colleagues bully, their actions are often directed to individuals who do not “fit in” or who violate the group norms: “A person may . . . be singled out and bullied due to the fact that he or she belongs to a certain outsider group” (Einarsen et al., 2003, p. 18). This includes workers who work more (or less) diligently than the others and those who adhere more (or less) closely to the organizational rules. It also includes people who are generally disliked due to some personal characteristic such as unattractiveness, irritating personal habits, or simply wearing the wrong clothes (Rayner et al., 2002). The method of bullying focuses primarily on exclusion and social isolation. These are effective means of eliminating the uncomfortable presence of the target. This bullying by colleagues may be the result of competition among coworkers for advancement and promotion, or it may simply be attributed to human pack mentality, the basis for which is survival, ambition, and fear. Power, Organizational Structure, and Bullying Whether a matter of individual behavior or institutional carelessness, bullying is closely tied to power and organizational structure. In organizations where bullying 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 191 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——191 is endemic, a hierarchical structure that reinforces power differences, along with acceptance of indoctrination and initiation rites as closely tied to the socialization process for new members, may exist (Archer, 1999). Archer’s (1999) research indicates that such behavior is learned, if not sponsored, by the organization and that targets accept it as a prerequisite to acceptance. In other words, the bullying is tradition. Organizations that foster and perpetuate workplace bullying exhibit certain specific characteristics. They tend to use top-down management styles, create a separation between superiors and subordinates, reward effectiveness with promotion regardless of leadership ability, encourage internal competition, and establish a culture of fear (Glendinning, 2001). Organizations that have rigid hierarchies and top-down management structures depend on obedience to rules, loyalty to the company, and dependence on supervisors, managers, and leaders to direct the action (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Placing the power for change and direction solely in the upper levels of the hierarchy lends itself to the abusive use of such power. In addition, it supports highly controlling behavior on the part of the organizational leaders such that the needs, feelings, emotions, and affective preferences of subordinates may be overlooked or blatantly disregarded in the interest of efficiency. The focus on control, in turn, creates a culture that accepts bullying relationships (Rayner et al., 2002). According to Liefooghe and Davey (2001), the arbitrariness of the implacable quantitative measurement of output can render managers blind to the human needs of workers and preferences of customers as they focus on the numbers rather than on the implications of those numbers. Workers may be treated so impersonally that a kind of “covert bullying” can result (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Corporate culture, or the ways in which things are done in an organization, can be explained through an examination of the often-repeated stories, myths, rituals, and protocols that organizational members exhibit. This is often referred to as corporate anthropology and is a method that many consultants use to gain an understanding of organizational structure and operations. Some companies have developed a reputation for hard bargaining, aggressive marketing practices, taskbased leadership, and highly competitive business practices. Some renowned “tough” bosses have the additional reputation for bullying practices to promote hard work and commitment. According to Fortune magazine’s list of America’s toughest bosses (Dumaine, 1993), the seven toughest American chief executive officers (Steven Jobs of Apple Computer, Linda Wachner of Warnaco, T. J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor, Herbert Haft of Dart Group, Jack Connors of Hill Holiday, and Bob and Harvey Weinstein of Miramax) used tactics such as intimidation, micromanagement, humiliation, violence, threats, aggression, shouting, overcontrol, and general meanness to terrorize employees into compliance and hard work. With evidence of numerous acquisitions of other companies and, for the most part, healthy ratios, the companies that these chief executives led have shown considerable financial success despite (or possibly due to) their reportedly tyrannical management styles. The relationship between organizational bullying and corporate performance may serve as one explanation for the persistence of the former, especially in a global marketplace with tough competition. That is, organizational bullying happens because it apparently works. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 192 192——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE Why Submit to Bullying? For some people, the importance of working for a successful company may outweigh the importance of maintaining their own self-respect. When confronted by aggressive and demeaning behavior, their sense of loyalty and desire for acceptance not only may keep them from complaining but also may convince them that “paying one’s dues” is the cost of personal success. In the 1995 film Swimming with Sharks, the long-suffering personal assistant to a Hollywood studio executive can finally take no more abuse. Spent from paying his dues, he retaliates against his quintessential bully of a boss in a series of violent and threatening acts. In a self-perpetuating cycle, former victims make sure that others pay their dues as well. Their loyalty to the organization, spurred as it is by self-interest, reinforces the acceptability of poor management behavior as a cost of doing business. Even managers who are innocent of any desire to bully their subordinates may fall prey to the temptation when hierarchical organizations equate obedience with loyalty (Crawford, 1999). In fact, the normalizing or institutionalization of bullying behavior can be the result of an undue emphasis on doing things “the company way” so as to both maintain tradition and socialize group members. In such environments, the human resources department, which normally would be the first line of defense against bad management, tends to be useless to protect employees from the abuse. The bully may be senior to the personnel in human resources, or human resources may be indifferent to the problem because it must deal with more urgent issues (Glendinning, 2001). The ability of the human resources department to investigate complaints of bullying may also be severely limited by frequent requests from victims to protect their confidentiality. If an organization prefers not to protect its employees from such bullying, or if the bullying originates in the highest echelons, the organization ordinarily ignores the behavior completely by failing to establish a confidential means of complaint, a formal protocol that protects the complainant from hostile response or retaliation, or an accurate record-keeping control system (Rayner et al., 2002). For employees who are reluctant to fight the system, the organization then becomes complicit in the abuse. Group Bullies Some widely accepted work structures, such as self-managed work teams, lend themselves to bullying behavior by the group rather than by a manager. When rewards are given for team achievement rather than for individual achievement, the reward itself is based on the efforts of the weakest link. The worker who is less energetic, who has family or other external responsibilities, or who is simply unwilling to work as hard as the rest of the group will be a drag on group success and may find himself or herself badgered, pressured, and bullied by the rest of the team to meet or surpass organizational goals. Thus, these so-called free riders may be encouraged to participate to a greater extent in the work of the team, but they are 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 193 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——193 just as likely to withdraw even further when confronted with aggressive responses from team members. This process of self-discipline works well for the managers but less well for the workers, all of whom are being manipulated. The Impact of Bullying and Harassment Impact on the Organization The negative impacts of bullying and harassment on the organization and the individual are impressive. Organizational costs due to bullying have included the resignation of valuable personnel, reduced productivity, and a loss of creativity and innovation. Efficiency is likely to decline as extra sick days are taken. These costs tend to have a domino effect, creating additional organizational impact. Other workers (nontargets) may be drawn into the fray and suffer personal stress that has a negative impact on their productivity as well. This domino effect has been documented in British studies. In one such study conducted in 1997, the researchers found that 70% of witnesses to bullying felt stressed and 22% of witnesses left their jobs altogether (Rayner et al., 2002). Legal countermeasures by employees can deflect organizational operational funds to legal defense funds, and potential unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation claims can lead to adverse consequences for the financial bottom line (Glendinning, 2001). The greatest organizational cost is the loss of qualified personnel (Rayner et al., 2002), requiring an extensive hiring and training process for new workers. That cost has been estimated at U.S. $30,000 to $100,000 for each individual subjected to bullying (Sheehan & Barker, 1999). Considering that 75% of targets of bullying in the United States have claimed that the only way in which to stop the bullying was to leave the organization (Namie & Namie, 2000), the total financial impact on the organization can be staggering. Impact on the Individual The impacts of bullying on the individual are frightening. Bullying affects people’s health and well-being to an alarming extent. Studies in Norway, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, and the United States clearly point to the relationship between bullying and depression, anxiety, aggression, insomnia, psychosomatic effects, stress, and general physical and mental ill health (Coyne et al., 2000; Glendinning, 2001; Namie, 1999; Rayner et al., 2002; Zapf, 1999). The linking of bullying with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or prolonged duress stress disorder (PDSD) by Einarsen and Matthiesen (1999) and Leymann (1996) further solemnifies the negative effects of bullying. These two conditions arise as an aftereffect of stressful experiences and can have symptoms that include reliving the stressful event or flashbacks of the event when the victim is under stress for any reason. PTSD can be particularly debilitating for an individual 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 194 194——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE who must continue working in the stressful environment or in proximity to the bully who targeted him or her. Personality and character can be distorted as a result of such continued exposure, and personality changes can occur (Rayner et al., 2002). According to the Einarsen and Mathiessen (1999) study, more than three quarters of victims of severe bullying qualify for a diagnosis of PTSD. These victims experience the breakdown of the assumptions that support our normal view of the world, as described by Janoff-Bulman (1992). The three fundamental assumptions that we hold are as follows: 1. The world is benevolent. 2. The world is meaningful. 3. The self is worthy. The combination of these component beliefs provides people with a sense of security that begins during childhood and continues throughout their lives. However, when repeated activities challenge and destroy people’s assumptions, their view of the world may shift. A sense of benevolence may be replaced by a sense of paranoia, the meaningfulness of existence may come into question, and people’s perception of their own worthiness may be challenged. When collegial support is not forthcoming, people feel further abandoned and begin to wonder whether they “deserve” the treatment they have gotten from bullies. The long-term effects of being victimized can create in targets a need to protect their self-images by working harder and longer and by strengthening their self-respect through any means available to them. In worst-case scenarios, bullying has been linked to suicide in studies in the United Kingdom and Norway (Rayner et al., 2002). Global Implications Workplace bullying has received considerably more attention in other countries than in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the Andrea Adams Trust was established in 1997 as the world’s first nonpolitical, non-profit-making charity that deals solely with the issue of workplace bullying. This organization is widely supported and has served as the model for similar organizations in other countries, promoting understanding about bullying, providing resources for victims/targets of bullying behavior, and performing research about the phenomenon and how to address it. A 1999 study of 1,100 National Health Service workers reported that 38% of the study participants had experienced bullying within the previous year (Coyne et al., 2000), and union studies have indicated that 66% of workers had either experienced bullying or witnessed it during the preceding 6 months (Namie & Namie, 2000). In the United Kingdom, the unions have played a significant role in publicizing the problem and in seeking solutions. The Manufacturing, Science, and Finance (MSF) union was instrumental, through its Campaign Against Bullying at Work (launched in 1994), in creating interest in changing U.K. law. In 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 195 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——195 1997, the Dignity at Work Bill was first introduced to the House of Lords, where it failed (Sheehan & Barker, 1999). The bill was then reintroduced, in 2001, with greater success. Workplace bullying has been so pervasive in Australia that a government task force was commissioned to study the trend. Its 2002 Report of the Queensland Government Workplace Bullying Taskforce indicated that incidents of bullying have been widespread in the country. Data in this study were collected qualitatively and identified the following “common” behaviors: rude, foul, and abusive language; repeatedly threatening dismissal; constant criticism; assigning meaningless tasks; humiliating and demanding conduct in front of other workers; ridicule taunts; confusing and contradictory instructions or constantly changing instructions; undermining work performance; isolating and excluding persons from various work activities; leaving offensive messages on e-mail; blocking an employee’s promotion; overloading of work; unexplained rages; unjustified criticism; withholding of information; hiding documents or equipment; setting impossible deadlines; excluding workers on a regular pattern; threatening action that could result in loss. (Workplace Health and Safety, 2002, p. 11) This laundry list of abuses described the harassment behavior experienced by targets in Australia in more general terms than were presented earlier. However, neither the impact nor the implications of the behavior on targets is diminished by the more general terms. The report concluded with a set of 19 recommendations to stem the workplace bullying behaviors, including reminders about the existence of several laws protecting workers from abuse. Scandinavian studies indicate that between 8.6% (Norway) and 10.1% (Finland) of workers experience bullying (Coyne et al., 2000). In Sweden, concerns were so great as to pass an ordinance in 1997 as part of the Swedish Work Environment Act to prohibit bullying or mobbing (Sheehan & Barker, 1999). Although these numbers might appear small in comparison with others, the reader should be aware that workplace mobbing was first studied in Sweden during the 1970s by Leymann, and he began publishing on the topic during the 1980s. Two decades later, workplace bullying is still a problem that has required legislation in Sweden (enacted in 1994) and in Norway (through its Work Environment Act). In the United States, various studies have reported that between 38% and 90% of the workforce has experienced bullying at some point in their work lives (Glendinning, 2001). However, no legislation has been enacted to protect workers from bullying. National Cultural Tendencies What is the basis for these disparate responses to bullying across different societies? An answer could lie within national cultural tendencies and whether workplace bullying is committed by supervisors or peers. The cultural dimension of power distance, identified in cross-cultural research of 50 countries and three 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 196 196——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE general regions by Hofstede (1997), is particularly relevant to this discussion (see also Thorne & Jones, this volume). Power distance describes the way in which people with varying degrees of power relate to one another, that is, the relationship between people with unequal status. The power distance index (PDI) was developed through answers to three key questions pertaining to the frequency of employees’ being afraid to express disagreement with management, subordinates’ perception of their boss’s actual decision-making process, and subordinates’ preference for their boss’s style (Hofstede, 1997). When reverse-ranked by PDI (with lower scores indicating higher acceptance of unequal distributions of power), Norway and Sweden tied at 47/48, followed by Finland at 46, Great Britain at 44, Australia at 41, and the United States at only 38. The higher the power distance (and the lower the PDI ranking), the more likely it is that hierarchy is accepted, subordinates expect to be told what to do, privileges for managers are the norm, inequalities are expected and tolerated, and values are authoritarian. In addition, larger power distance signals an acceptance of the philosophy of “might makes right” and that power is based on the ability to use force, autocracy is the managerial model, and the importance of the role of the manager is paramount (Hofstede, 1997). The preceding rankings suggest that U.S. workers are marginally more comfortable with autocratic bosses than are workers in the other listed countries and, possibly, are more willing to accept their fiats, which might include bullying. When coupled with data from Scandinavia showing that more mobbing is done by peers and data from the United States showing that more bullying is done by managers, it is perhaps understandable that workers do not join together to insist that management respect workplace dignity. Even so, this may be surprising given the traditional emphasis in America, as well as in some Western European countries, on blurring the lines of status in organizations. Keeping Bullying Under Control The cost of bullying to society, as well as to individuals and organizations, can be significant. Alienation, unemployability, disaffection, and court involvement have broad economic and social implications. It is in everyone’s best interest to keep the impact of bullying under control. Although legal protections from workplace bullying are important (Yamada, 2003), the role of the organization in deterring (vs. condoning) bullying cannot be overstated (Vartia, Korppoo, Fallenius, & Mattila, 2003): The response to workplace bullying is an organizational issue, and the conditions in which individuals are able to bully is [sic] also an organizational responsibility. The organization may encourage, through its work practices and structure, the base behaviors of men and women to surface. (Crawford, 2001, p. 23) Any organization that truly wishes to discourage bullying needs a policy explicitly stating that bullying will not be tolerated: 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 197 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——197 A policy makes a clear statement about what an organization thinks, its relationship with staff, and how it expects people to work within its culture. It also makes clear what is considered acceptable behavior and what will not be tolerated. . . . Without a policy which legitimizes complaint[s] about bullying, it is difficult for staff to raise issues about their bullying manager or colleague. (Richard & Daley, 2003, p. 247) Hubert (2003) likewise views an antibullying policy as a necessary condition for resolving complaints. Without such a policy, he explains, it is not possible to intervene on behalf of bullied targets. Beyond a policy statement, Hubert argued, an organization should have a code of conduct that provides concrete examples of desirable and forbidden behaviors. The very process of developing the code of conduct helps to raise awareness of inappropriate interactions. Of course, written documents are effective only insofar as employees know about them and believe that upper management stands behind them: “Having a policy is a huge step forward, but concern about bullying needs to be lodged in people’s minds, not in the written word” (Crawford, 2001, pp. 24–25). Glendinning (2001), highlighting the role of internal human resources professionals in promoting a bully-free workplace, recommended apprising job applicants that civility and respect are key, carefully checking the references of prospective hires and emphasizing that treating coworkers with dignity is fundamental. Once individuals have joined an organization, they can benefit from training sessions that explain the company’s antibullying policy, tell them how and where to report bullying incidents, and clarify where to find support for themselves or other targets (Richard & Daley, 2003). Indeed, employees need to know where to turn if they are the targets of bullying as well as what consequences they will face if they bully others. Rains (2001) described the “peer listening scheme” developed by the Royal Mail (Britain’s post office) in response to bullying. Peer listeners were painstakingly recruited, selected, and trained to serve as informal “compassionate experts” who advise their coworkers on bullying and harassment policies and procedures in their workplace. The implementation of this program signaled to employees that top management was committed to eradicating bullying. Even in organizations that have not instituted such an extensive network of peer listeners, a “contact officer” or “confidential counselor” may be available. This contact person listens empathically to a target’s situation, recommends appropriate medical and/or psychological help for the target, and helps the target to consider and decide among possible ways in which to proceed in accordance with company antibullying policy (Hubert, 2003; Richards & Daley, 2003). Employees might find it easier to speak to a contact person than to approach a manager or union official. Hubert (2003) recommended that, in response to a bullying situation, the target should try an informal intervention, proceeding to a more formal one only later if needed. In certain cases, a “bully” truly might have no inkling that his or her behavior is offensive to a target. In instances involving such a “bully in a china shop,” an explanation and perhaps some minimal coaching might suffice to provide enlightenment and modify behavior. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 198 198——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE If the victim is not confident enough to approach the bully, an impartial mediator may deliver the message. However, mediation is not without its problems: “If the victim ‘wins,’ the offender may have feelings of rancor as well as wishes for revenge” (Hubert, 2003, p. 309). In fact, when an informal strategy is ineffective at resolving, or not viable to resolve, a bullying situation, the target may make a formal complaint. The complaint is then considered by a grievance committee, which weighs the information provided by the victim, the accused, and any witnesses to determine the merits of the complaint (Hubert, 2003). When these more formal interventions are used, more substantial training and rehabilitation are typically required to alter inveterate patterns of inappropriate behavior. Glendinning (2001) asserted that if bullying continues, the bully should be transferred to a position that provides less opportunity to bully (e.g., a nonsupervisory capacity) or even terminated. As Hubert (2003) noted, however, when the bully is valuable to the organization, antibullying protocol may fall by the wayside as the target becomes a scapegoat: “The offender remains in the organization, [and] the victim leaves, sometimes due to illness, sometimes through dismissal” (p. 310). Moreover, other organizational members may conclude that bullying is rewarded. Tehrani (2003) pointed out another, often overlooked difficulty in resolving claims of bullying: Although in some cases there is a “clear bully/victim relationship” (p. 280), who is bullying who is often not immediately obvious. An employee who exhibits negativistic passive aggressive behaviors and adopts a victimized point of view may bully others indirectly. Indeed, McIlduff and Coughlan (2000) and Unterberg (2003) identified the problematic impacts of the negativistic personality type on workplace behavior. When the target of this type of bully strikes back, the bully may portray himself or herself as a wronged victim. It may be that the strikingly high rates of reported bullying are inflated because individuals who perceive and label themselves as wronged victims of bullies are, in fact, the real perpetrators. An organizations needs to determine if a “victim” is actually the root of the problems that he or she portrays. When Bullying Is a Good Thing All this being said, there are occasions when the activities described as “bullying” are appropriate management and/or collegial behavior. A careful look at organizational norms can bring to light circumstances that compel the behavior we have identified as bullying. Norms are the ordinary behaviors in organizations that allow people to function without many surprises during daily operations. Departures from these norms are considered to be “deviant behavior,” and practitioners of such deviance are often shunned or marginalized. It is important to note that deviance in some circumstances can be considered normal behavior in others. For most of this chapter, we have made the assumption that bullying behavior is negative, deviant, and unacceptable. Being mocked, berated in public, sworn at, and treated unfairly, as well as having one’s work denigrated, all are unpleasant and, some would say, uncivilized acts. Yet some organizations routinely depend on these as training methods, geared both to desensitizing individuals to criticism and 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 199 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——199 to creating in recipients an automatic response to the orders or commands of supervisors. Particularly in dangerous situations where lives may be at risk, such as those faced by the military and by paramilitary groups such as firefighters, archetypical bullying behavior is the life-saving norm. In such organizational cultures, there is no more powerful motivator than avoiding exclusion from the group (Archer, 1999). The reason for this is the importance of teamwork in the success of the mission. Only rarely do military or paramilitary organizations permit individual action; the team model is both stronger and safer when conducting dangerous activities. However, for such a model to work, it is necessary that team members set aside their personal preferences and strive to act as one unit. Guerillas and suicide bombers aside, a paramilitary worker without a unit is useless. One way in which to discourage independent, and thus dangerous, action is to make very clear the undesirability of acting alone. Although public humiliation may be counterintuitive, it is accepted as a valuable learning tool by managers and recruits alike. In a process that is reminiscent of fraternity hazing, recruits are subjected to extremes of behavior along with their physical challenges. Those who fail (known in other circles as “targets” or “victims”) are deemed as weak links and are unable to find working partners or teams that will accept them. This protects the rest of the team from erratic responses that may lead to physical threat. Positive bullying is not limited to environments where workers are in personal danger. Other hierarchical structures also support, if not actively encourage, bullying by those in charge. Hospital emergency rooms and operating theaters, staffed by doctors, nurses, and medical technicians, often function in this way. The overarching goal in medical environments is to protect the lives of the patients. All other concerns melt away in the face of this mission. In the process, those in charge (normally physicians) waste no time on the amenities of human interaction. Physicians are trained to be in charge, to take charge, and to take responsibility for human lives. Speed and immediate response to medical orders take precedence over other priorities, and it is expected that those who report to physicians are aware of this and can deal with it. Task leader style rather than relationship leader style is common in medical environments; consequently, few victims make formal complaints. Dangerous overwork of interns and residents has been reported in the press, but there are few complaints about general bullying abuse that occurs as a matter of course. When bullying is accepted as “normal,” people dare not complain. The Ethics of Bullying Bullying can be good business in certain circumstances, as just identified, but even in those circumstances questions arise as to its ethical acceptability. A full discussion of the ethical implications of bullying is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, we can consider several normative ethical frameworks, such as utilitarianism, deontology, the ethics of care, and virtue ethics, as well as the way in which bullying might be addressed by these frameworks. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 200 200——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE According to utilitarian theories, a behavior is considered ethical when it results in more benefits than drawbacks. These theories are commonly used in business to justify certain actions, such as layoffs and reorganizations, that might be deemed unacceptable to certain groups of people due to the secondary impacts of such actions. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of a corporate downsizing recognizes that whatever is done to sustain organizational life can have a concomitant negative effect on an individual’s capacity to survive. The protection of the many requires, in this instance, the sacrifice of the few. Is this sacrificial approach to worker rights transferable to the arena of bullying and harassment? The answer is complex. If we accept the economic theory of utility (i.e., the value that can be placed on an object or action), we must accept that bullying can serve an organizational purpose. The sustainability of a business is the prime responsibility of its managers, and if bullying behavior can result in more economic success than would be possible otherwise, bullying can be part of the managerial repertoire. If we reject the concept of utility in favor of a deontological approach, the sacrifice of an individual’s dignity or employment is out of the question. Deontological theories suggest universal values—what is good for one is good for all, and what is required of one is required of all. Deontologists would remind us that people are to be respected under all circumstances and that their human dignity demands considerate treatment. If bullying were acceptable under some conditions, it would have to be acceptable under all conditions. Universal bullying would create a system of anarchy and, thus, would violate deontological principles. It is critically important that those in hierarchical relationships respect the autonomy of those lower in the hierarchy to avoid using them as pawns, or as means, to an organizational end. The rationality inherent in these two major normative theories ignores the psychological foundations of a third important approach, that of the ethics of care. The ethics of care derives from feminist ethics or ethics based on the connection between moral agents and society. This form of ethics suggests that people cannot be considered in the abstract as fungible but rather must be respected as individuals. This leads to a focus on relationships rather than on the rights and duties of utilitarianism and deontology, and it considers all parties to the relationships as personal equals rather than as contractual associates. The result is a response to the needs and welfare of all members of society, suggesting that bullying is beyond the pale as it elevates one party to the detriment of another party. The virtues inherent to the ethics of care originate from the classical philosophy of Aristotle, which focuses on the development of character as a mark of the moral person. What would virtue ethics suggest about bullying and what it says about character? The development of strong moral character is an intentional act; virtues are not innate or genetic inheritances. One way in which to obtain virtues is to practice them by living a virtuous life. This is not as tautological as it may appear. Because we know that a virtuous life demands prudence, justice, courage, and self-restraint, practicing those virtues can instill them into people’s character. Once these virtues are instilled, individuals will be able to act like “good” people. Good people make good decisions and virtuous decisions. These virtuous decisions exclude the exploitation of others as a form of injustice. Hence, bullying is not permissible. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 201 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——201 Although it is appealing to view these frameworks and their approaches in matrix form, the mutual exclusivity of their foundations does not permit this. What we can do instead is to bear in mind the primary goal. If the goal is organizational survival, we may naturally lean toward a utilitarian perspective. But if the goal is human survival, we must engage one of the other perspectives. If jobs are integral to human survival, bullying can be valid but it cannot be considered acceptable. One more ethical consideration demands our attention. As we have seen, some organizations support bullying, whereas others only condone it. Which position is more dangerous to morale? Which position is more threatening to employees? We would argue that there is no difference between supporting and condoning bullying behaviors in the workplace. Both result in the same feelings of victimization and helplessness, and of frustration and fear, regardless of formal or emergent organizational policies. There are some conditions whose existence alone permeates an entity; they cannot be quantified or validated. Like digital transmission, they are either “on” or “off.” Among these are pregnancy, job termination, conviction of a crime, and personal redemption. There is no such thing as accepting a “little bit” of bullying. References Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work: How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago Press. Archer, D. (1999). Exploring “bullying” culture in the para-military organisation. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 94–106. Bernardi, L. M. (2001, Fall). Management by bullying: The legal consequences. Canadian Manager, pp. 13–16. Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Costigan, L. (1998). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: A guide for employees, managers, and employers. Dublin, Ireland: Columbia Press. Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 335–349. Crawford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organizations: The etymology of the word “bully.” International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 86–94. Crawford, N. (2001). Organizational responses to bullying. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 21–31). London: Taylor & Francis. Dumaine, B. (1993, October 18). America’s toughest bosses. Fortune, p. 38. Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 16–27. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor & Francis. Einarsen, S. E., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1999). Symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. In Abstracts for the Ninth European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology (p. 178). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Prevalence and risk groups of bullying and harassment at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–202. Fuller, R. W. (2003). Somebodies and nobodies: Overcoming the abuse of rank. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 202 202——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30, 269–286. Hill, A. (1991, October 11). Testimony at U.S. Senate hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester, UK: Manchester School of Management. Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 195–230). New York: John Wiley. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw–Hill. Hubert, A. B. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic approach model. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 299–311). London: Taylor & Francis. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: Free Press. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 131–161). London: Taylor & Francis. Lee, D. (2000). An analysis of workplace bullying in the UK. Personnel Review, 29, 593–612. Leighton, P. (2001). Dignity at work: The legal framework. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 97–114). London: Taylor & Francis. Leymann, H. (1986). Bullying: Psychological violence in working life. Lund, Sweden: Student Literature. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184. Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Davey, K. M. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375–392. McIlduff, E., & Coughlan, D. (2000). Understanding and contending with passive aggressive behavior in teams and organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 716–736. Namie, G. (1999, March). The Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute survey results. Paper presented at the Fourth Interdisciplinary Conference on Occupational Health and Safety, Baltimore, MD. Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Pemberton, P. S. (2000, February 21). Bullies at work: It’s nasty business that only boosts the sale of Tums. San Diego Union Tribune, p. D1. Pfaffenbach, W. L. (2000, November 27). Verdict for workplace bullying is upheld: Bias claim fails, but plaintiff gets $730K. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, p. 731. Pryor, J. B., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2003). Sexual harassment research in the United States. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 79–100). London: Taylor & Francis. Rains, S. (2001). Don’t suffer in silence: Building an effective response to bullying at work. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 155–163). London: Taylor & Francis. Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199–208. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 203 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——203 Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis. Richard, J., & Daley, H. (2003). Bullying policy. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 247–258). London: Taylor & Francis. Sheehan, M., & Barker, M. (1999). Applying strategies for dealing with workplace bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 50–57. Tehrani, N. (2003). Counselling and rehabilitating employees involved in bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 270–284). London: Taylor & Francis. Thorne, L., & Jones, J. (2005). Organizational deviance and culture: Oversights and intentions. In R. E. Kidwell, Jr., & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing organizational deviance (chap. 13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Unterberg, M. A. (2003). Personality: Personalities, personal style, and trouble getting along. In J. P. Kahn & A. M. Langlieb (Eds.), Mental health and productivity in the workplace: A handbook for organizations and clinicians (pp. 458–480). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. Vartia, M., & Hyyti, J. (2002). Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 113–126. Vartia, M., Korppoo, L., Fallenius, S., & Mattila, M-L. (2003). Workplace bullying: The role of occupational health services. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 285–298). London: Taylor & Francis. Workplace Health and Safety. (2002). Report of the Queensland Government Workplace Bullying Taskforce. Queensland, Australia: Department of Industrial Relations. Yamada, D. (2003). Workplace bullying and the law: Towards a transnational consensus? In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 399–411). London: Taylor & Francis. Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related, and personal causes of mobbing/ bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 70–86. Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 103–126). London: Taylor & Francis. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 204 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 205 CASE 8 Nurse Cassidy’s Dilemma Julie Ann Cogin ellie Cassidy loved being a nurse. She had studied for 4 years to complete her bachelor of nursing science degree at Sydney University in Australia. During her training years, she had particularly enjoyed the practical placements in several hospitals where she experienced “hands-on” patient care. During her final practical placement from the university, she was sent to Wanula District Hospital in central New South Wales. She was disappointed with this choice because she assumed that it was a small, old, and archaic hospital that presented little challenge. As soon as Cassidy arrived at Wanula District Hospital, her disappointment changed to excitement. The hospital was well equipped, and the staff members were friendly and supportive. She was overwhelmed by the hospitality of the locals and the sense of community spirit shared by everyone she met. By the end of her 3-month rotation, she had fallen in love with the area and a local farmer, John. She hoped to secure a nursing position at Wanula after graduation from the university. Cassidy’s excellent academic record and outstanding performance appraisal during her placement ensured that she would be offered a position at Wanula District Hospital when she graduated 6 months later. She and John K AUTHOR’S NOTE: This case is based on an actual incident investigated by the author. The names of all characters and the hospital are fictitious, as are some details, to protect the identities of the individuals and the hospital involved 205 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 206 206——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE married, and she was warmly welcomed back to the district by her hospital colleagues and the local community. After a few years of working in a variety of specialty areas within the hospital, Cassidy obtained a supervisory position. Her effective people skills ensured that she would quickly gain the respect of her direct reports, peers, physicians, and patients alike. Her career, however, was temporarily interrupted when she took 12 months’ maternity leave for the birth of her first child. After only 6 months of leave, severe drought throughout the region meant that Cassidy had to return to work earlier than expected. The entire farming community was suffering, and income from the couple’s farm was far below expectations. Although she had enjoyed being at home with her child, she was excited about the prospect of returning to nursing in a supervisory role. The newly created position entailed managing a number of student and registered nurses in addition to facilitating ongoing education sessions for nursing staff members. The hospital and her colleagues were extremely pleased to have Cassidy back. During the first week following maternity leave, Cassidy was conducting assessments of patients with a physician, Jake Jacobson. During this time, she became very distressed and uncomfortable with Jacobson’s lewd sexual innuendoes and the way in which he continually managed to brush against her. Initially, she ignored it or laughed it off, but on reflection later, it angered and annoyed her. Cassidy resolved to find out more about Jacobson and whether this kind of incident had been reported previously. What she found out was that his medical credibility was beyond reproach and that his groundbreaking research into cancer treatment was recognized internationally. His fund-raising success had enabled the hospital to purchase much-needed medical equipment, including a linear accelerator to treat cancer patients in a new radiotherapy ward. Sophisticated technology such as this in a small rural hospital was considered to be extremely unusual. The hospital administration attributed the purchase of the linear accelerator to Jacobson’s and his wife’s dedication to raising funds for patient care. In their honor, the ward was named the “Jacobson Wing.” Many large city hospitals had been trying to lure Jacobson away from Wanula District Hospital over the years without success. He refused to leave due to his sense of commitment to the local farming community and strong family ties in the area (his children all attended local schools and were competitive members of several sports teams). Jacobson feared that a move to a large hospital would limit his ability to directly help individual patients and, more likely, would increase his administrative and management responsibilities (which he detested). His position at Wanula allowed him to continue with cancer research, practice innovative procedures, and set his own schedule. He enjoyed coaching one of his sons’ sports teams and watching his other children compete in their matches. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 207 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——207 Jacobson was loved and well respected by his patients; however, most staff members, especially the nurses, found him to be arrogant, aggressive, and very patronizing. As a result, he intimidated most of the staff members under his authority. While performing routine medical procedures, he regularly screamed and yelled at nurses in front of patients and their families. Jacobson justified his actions to patients by implying that the nursing staff members were incompetent. Although Jacobson rarely left them alone to do their jobs without some interference, nurses at Wanula District Hospital were praised by other physicians for their excellence and professionalism. When inducting medical students, Jacobson instructed his recruits to stop talking to particular staff members. It was made clear that not complying with these directions would result in a poor student appraisal and an unpopular medical placement. Despite such behavior, the Wanula staff members all acknowledged the benefits to the hospital and community of Jacobson’s tenure. With this knowledge, Cassidy was very apprehensive about taking any action against Jacobson’s continued sexual comments and lingering touches. She quickly discovered, however, that he had a reputation for such behavior, particularly among the nursing staff members. In fact, Cassidy had heard that a previous sexual harassment complaint made by a radiographer had resulted in that person leaving the hospital without a reference and no reprimand being given to Jacobson. The following week, Jacobson’s actions and lewd comments escalated to several remarks being directed at Cassidy’s breast size and fondling of her buttocks in a joking manner. Because Cassidy did not respond to these actions, Jacobson anticipated a positive response when he suggested that Cassidy and he begin an affair. She exploded at this suggestion and told him to stop harassing and embarrassing her. Jacobson was surprised with her response and told her to “lighten up.” After this exchange, Cassidy was relieved when his behavior improved for a week, but it started up again shortly thereafter. Cassidy felt as though could not approach anyone about her problem. She questioned how she may have contributed to the situation. Was she too familiar with Jacobson in the first instance? Did she lead him on? She considered making a report against him but quickly realized that she would rather leave a hospital than make a sexual harassment complaint against a doctor, especially one so well regarded by the medical administration and community. Cassidy was also well aware of the hierarchical structure within hospitals and the authority given to physicians. Resignation was not an option. The value of Cassidy’s and her husband’s farm had dropped considerably due to the drought, and unfortunately, there were no other hospitals (or jobs) in the area to guarantee an income for the family. During the ensuing weeks, Cassidy began to feel detached from her family, friends, and colleagues due to her ever-increasing level of discomfort at work. She was frequently absent from her job, especially on the days she 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 208 208——MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE was scheduled to work with Jacobson. She began to make simple errors and avoid patients under Jacobson’s care. In a situation where she would normally page a doctor due to a patient’s deteriorating condition, she would avoid alerting Jacobson until her shift was about to end or it was absolutely necessary to summon him immediately. As a result, patient care suffered. One day, Cassidy was unable to avoid Jacobson. Following hospital guidelines, she was required to be present during a gynecological exam that he was conducting. She became clearly disturbed when he remarked, “I’ll do the next [vaginal] exam on you.” Cassidy could not believe that Jacobson was puzzled when she verbally reacted following this statement. He appeared to have no idea of the impact of the remark, let alone the ramifications of such a comment. Cassidy finally decided to speak to the area nursing manager. She detailed the continual barrage of unprofessional behavior from Jacobson on physical, mental, and emotional levels. She was distraught when the area manager implied that she had gotten herself into this situation and that Jacobson would never do anything like Cassidy had suggested. The area manager also told Cassidy that she had depleted all of her sick leave and that perhaps she should reevaluate her nursing career and her position at Wanula District Hospital. Cassidy left the office feeling dejected and guilty that perhaps she had encouraged Jacobson’s actions. As she walked past the human resources department, she happened to glance up and see a notice about sexual harassment that encouraged staff members to speak with an equal employment officer (EEO) without fear of reprisal. Cassidy found this to be ironic and believed that the hospital had no intention of following through with any complaints or implementing any EEO policies. Things got progressively worse. Cassidy believed that Jacobson had found out about her discussion with the area nursing manager. His mannerisms now became insulting as well as offensive in front of patients. Jacobson did not allow Cassidy to perform the most basic and routine of procedures on his patients, even overtly preferring the services and care of a student nurse. Medical students under Jacobson’s influence began to ostracize Cassidy. Her job hours were altered so that she was regularly scheduled for the worst shifts. In addition, her supervisory role in the hospital was being reevaluated due to cost constraints, and this would mean a lower salary. When Cassidy questioned the hospital administration about these issues, there always appeared to be valid explanations for these changes. She could prove nothing. Discussion Questions 1. List acts of bullying and harassment that occurred in this case study. Based on the discussion of bullying and harassment in Chapter 8, explain why you categorized certain behaviors as bullying and other behaviors as harassment. 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 209 Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace——209 2. Discuss the actual and potential effects of harassing or bullying behavior on the people and organizations involved in this case. What actions should the hospital take against Dr. Jake Jacobson? 3. Imagine that when Jacobson was confronted about his bullying of Kellie Cassidy and other nurses, he responded, “I was merely attempting to desensitize these nurses to criticism and ensure that they would respond automatically to my orders in high-pressure situations, which are quite common at the hospital.” Based on the chapter’s discussion of bullying as a good thing and the facts in this case, evaluate the validity of Jacobson’s response. 4. What should the hospital do to prevent situations such as this from occurring in the future? Evaluate the actions, or lack thereof, of the area nursing manager in terms of ethical behavior. 5. What should Cassidy do? 08-Kidwell.qxd 9/16/2004 8:12 PM Page 210