Bullying in the workplace

Workplace bullying is any form of abuse; physical, verbal, psychological or social that is inflicted upon an individual by an employer, employee or group (Australian Human Rights Commission 2011). Methods of bullying include repetitive inappropriate comments (i.e. about one’s background, appearance, gender, culture, sexuality) sexual harassment, intimidation, exclusion, physical assault and threats. In particular instances such as stalking, assault and threats, bullying becomes a criminal offence.

It is a common issue considered to be a silent epidemic (McAvoy and Murtagh 2003) as victims feel intimidated or hopeless thus preventing incident reporting. Statistics show that approximately one in three employees are bullied with the highest prevalence in the education department, healthcare industry and government positions (Fields-Gregor 2013). The workplace bullying institute observed that there is a greater occurrence amongst women being victims, estimating 58% of the workplace whilst it was approximated that 68% of males are found to be “bullies” (Farmer 2011).

There are a variety of factors influencing workplace bullying. According to the interagency round table on workplace bullying these factors include power, self-esteem, difference, perceived threat, organizational culture, organisational factors and working arrangements. Characteristics of a workplace that maybe more susceptible to workplace bullying include industries with unstructured work environments, lacking in supportive leaders and “poor people management skills” (Beswick et al 2006).

Bullying is a problem that continues to linger within a workplace and has progressively become acceptable with the expectation of employees to be tolerable of such an environment. Industries with negative atmospheres condone behaviours and attitudes which encourage bullying. A particular trait, for instance competitiveness within an organisation, encourages ruthlessness within a workplace therefore integrating into the values of the organisation (Farmer 2011). Additionally unethical leadership can also have similar effect modelling how employees manage themselves and interact with others in the workplace (Farmer 2011). This type of organizational environment can be termed as 'toxic' (Dzurec and Bromley 2012).

Industries with an undesirable culture are inclined to have employees who have difficulties with organisational arrangements such as downsizing, new management etc. exacerbating behaviours thus reacting to dissatisfaction by relieving frustrations onto others in the form of bullying (Government of South Australia (2005). Recent studies show a correlation between increased job demand and decreased resources with bullying as well as issues arising as a result of restructuring such as concerns with job loss, uncertainty and insecurities regarding employment positions (Farmer 2011) which promote negative behaviours when ill managed.

Bullies are found to have a motive behind their actions. Insults reflect a feeling of inadequacy; some may find it difficult to adapt to change, bullying individuals who they perceive as different or a threat to their position (Government of South Australia (2005). Bullying can present itself in the form of indirect or direct actions as well as unintended or intended behaviours as mentioned above. It is a health and safety risk that can be inflicted by an individual or group of people also known as ‘mobbing’.

Egan (Gregor 2013) categorises bullies into three formulated profiles according to particular behaviours and personality traits. He identifies bullies as accidental, narcissistic or serial. Accidental or unintentional bullies are considered to be blunt, aggressive in approach to situations and demanding. They are task focused individuals who react in rage if goals are not achieved and fail to acknowledge the impact of his/her actions. The narcissist is power hungry, thriving on superiority and acting in a manner that is manipulative or destructive (Gregor 2013).

It is thought that bullying occurs in “four phases: aggressive behaviour, bullying, stigmatisation and severe trauma (Einarsen et al., 2009).” In the first phase subtle aggressive behaviours begin to manifest towards the victim(s), thus leading to the inability of the victim to defend his or herself as a direct consequence of the bullying or from pre-existing psychological factors which progressively creates stigmatisation on the victim. Such prejudices influences organisations to perceive the victim as problematic and offences against the victim become acceptable as managers are under the pretence that treatment being received is fair and justifiable (Einarsen et al., 2009).

A commonly used tool to measure workplace bullying is The Negative Act Questionnaire established by Einarsen and Raknes. It is a technique used by a variety of industries in detecting targets and “measuring frequency, intensity and prevalence of workplace bullying (Bergen Bullying Research Group 2013).” The method involves participants answering a series of behavioural based questions without referencing individuals as bullies. On completion of the questionnaire the participant is presented with the definition of workplace bullying and is asked if they perceive themselves as bullies. Those found to score higher on the questionnaire were determined to be at greater risk of being targets (Einarsen 1999).

Einarsen (1999) noted that “bullying at work is claimed to be a more crippling and devastating problem for employees than all other work-related stress put together.” It is considered to be a health and safety risk (Government of South Australia 2005), which has a detrimental long term physical and emotional effect on an individual. Mellington’s (Gregor 2013) research explains this theory by addressing how bullying directly affects health. It discovers the relationship between bullying and deterioration of health, the ongoing struggle experienced by the victim after the abuse has ceased and the impacts it has on the environment.

Mellington (Gregor 2013) determines that victims of bullying have poorer health as opposed to those who have not been subjected to such abuse. She identifies that the degree of impact is according to the victim’s perception of the experience and correlates with the scale at which health is affected. For example victims of persistent bullying who have become particularly vulnerable may suffer from suicidal idealisations in severe circumstances. Contrastingly for others, such as young adults entering the work force who have yet to be subjected to bullying (Dzurec and Bromley 2012), bullying is unrecognizable until it is experienced on a regular basis.

Health outcomes include physical manifestations of palpitations, headache, fatigue, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorders and insomnia. Psychologically the victim can experience anxiety, depression, decreased self-esteem and confidence, powerlessness and isolation (Randle 2011). Although it may seem like there has been a resolution to bullying once the issue has been tackled, psychological conditions induced by workplace bullying can continue to persist. Field (Gregor 2013) describes this occurrence as “post-traumatic stress disorder” with victims presenting with complaints of insomnia, nervousness, tension, panic and feelings of being scared (Gregor 2013).

Workplace bullying can have an extensive destructive effect on an organisation, impacting witnesses of bullying and having an undesirable outcome on performance. The bullying suffered by the victim can influence other employees also provoking similar health symptoms as mentioned previously. For colleagues there is generally a fear of being targeted or a pressure to assimilate in order to cope with work life (Gregor 2013) as well as in an environment fostering hostility. Progressively as bullying continues the workplace morale deteriorates and a negative culture can develop leading to a poor organisational image (impact of workplace bullying 2013).

It has been found that there is a higher rate of absence or sick days and greater likelihood of resignations as a direct result of bullying thus increasing employment turnover (Djurkovic and McCormack 2008). The Australian Human Rights Commission (2011) approximates a resignation rate of twenty five per cent for victims of bullying and twenty per cent for witnesses. For organisations this causes financial losses due to reduced productivity and performance, a lack of commitment to the company, and additional expenses incurred by hiring or training new employees as well as liability issues involving compensation, defence claims and civil or criminal action. It is estimated that within Australia six to thirty six billion dollars is spent annually on workplace bullying (Commissioner for Public Administration 2010) with a surge to $46.3 million from $27.4 million within the last three years (Hepworth 2012).

As per the occupational health and safety act it is the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment and the employee’s duty to participate in educational programs to improve health and safety awareness. The employee is accountable as a worker to identify hazards, minimise the risk or hazard exposure, apply prevention measures, notify staff of hazards and measures as well as monitor the outcomes of prevention, ensuring a safe and secure environment for fellow colleagues. Squelch and Guthrie (2010-2011 p25) defines hazard as “a situation or thing that has the potential to cause injury, illness or death of a person.” Employees have a duty of care to themselves, the employer and other employees to take sound care of health and safety for oneself as well as others, by behaving in a manner that does not adversely affecting others, obeying codes of conduct and policies and procedure set by the organisation (Work Health and Safety Act 2011).

An employer is bound by the Occupational health and safety Act under section 16(2)(a)(i) to provide a workplace that is free of health and safety risks (Beswick et al 2006) and to provide an environment that is intolerable to bullying (Australian Government: Comcare 2009). The Occupational health and safety Act outlines the duty of care of employers to maintain a healthy work place and measures to be taken to manage and eliminate risks including psychosocial hazards (Australian Government: Comcare 2009) such as bullying. In support of regulations and Acts are codes of practice that give strategies on implementation and compliance (Funnel, Koutoukidis and Lawrence 2005). Under division five of the Occupational health and Safety act, if practicable steps are not taken to eliminate or minimise risks the employer or bully can be found to be conducting themselves recklessly consequently suffering severe penalties (Work Health and Safety Act 2011).

It is the responsibility of the employer to supply up to date policies and procedures on workplace bullying, which is easily accessible. Processes must be in place to effectively manage bullying incidents with guidelines on reporting, investigating and resolution (Australian Government: Comcare. 2009). Many industries have workplace safety committees and representatives that specialise in particular areas of risk (Funnel, Koutoukidis and Lawrence 2005) that can assist in maintaining a hazard free workplace. These representatives should routinely assess the environment and collaborate with employees to ensure working conditions are safe. Organisations are also obliged to provide educational programs that promote health and safety awareness to ensure work practices are in accordance with regulations and policies. Conflict resolution training is another program that can be beneficial gaining skills to manage bullying or harassment and is usually provided in industries such as health care.

To safe guard victims of bullying there are laws in place such as anti-discrimination, work health and safety, workers compensation and industrial relations laws ensuring bullying is not tolerated. Within Australia each state manages regulations and laws via statutory regulatory bodies. Although for most states within Australia the Act does not specify acts of bullying there are codes of practice and conduct that acknowledge bullying and the importance of managing the issue appropriately. Within these codes are guidelines that define bullying, the process of recognising negative behaviours, intervention methods and the development of adequate policies and procedure (Squelch and Guthrie 2010-2011).

Workplace bullying is a health hazard to all involved and is therefore the responsibility of both the employee and employer to prevent and control the risk. Universal risk management techniques involving the process of identifying hazards, assessing the risk, controlling the risk and evaluation of the implementation methods to eliminate the risk can be used to achieve this goal and fulfil duty of care. Risk communication empowers individuals to protect selves by understanding legally protected current hazards. Studies have shown that this knowledge promotes risk awareness enabling individuals to be prepared to manage and report health and safety dangers which reduce workplace risks and ensures control plus prevention of escalation (Rabin et al. 1998).

Cleary (2009 p34) states that every “person has the right to a workplace that is fair and equitable and in which he or she is treated with respect and dignity.” As a victim of bullying whether an employee or employer it is the individual’s right to report incidences without fear of repercussions for voicing concerns (Cleary 2009). It should be expected that the organisation deals with the incident promptly and professionally to prevent further bullying with adequate steps taken to stop the matter as soon as possible.

It is the right of the victim to seek further guidance and assistance from external sources such as work cover, the police if it is a criminal offence and the Anti-discrimination commissioner if the situation is not remedied. The victims’ rights in relation to bullying can differ according to the nature and reason for bullying. As mentioned previously there are Acts and laws in place that assist victims to exercise their rights and in particular cases where there is an infringement of laws for example Age, sex, racial and disability discrimination Acts. These Acts are in place to protect victims from offending behaviours occurring from these recognised characteristics. Victims can also invoke common law claims based on the grounds of “defamation, the doctrine of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), breach of contract, and unlawful termination” (Martin et al 2009 p148). Evidence of intent that extends beyond what is considered acceptable behaviour and effects of bullying must be proven to support claims.

Workplace bullying is an ongoing issue that has a negative impact on today’s workforce. It is a constant battle for society to attempt to combat harassing behaviours despite the growing awareness of its effects. Although it has devastating results on victims it is crucial that those influenced by the bullying as either the victim or witness seeks assistance with managing the issue immediately to ensure it is resolved and to attempt to preserve health.