Bullies

We have argued earlier that bullying con­flicts involve all affected workers, not simply bully-target dyads, and have outlined both tar­get and bystander dynamics. In bullying con­flicts, however, the bully or aggressor plays a crucial role.

Profiles. Bullying conflicts occur in relation­ships of unequal power, so despite coworkers being most common source of aggression in the workplace (e.g., Keashly & Neuman, 2005), when asked to identify a bully, targets most often report that the perpetrator is some­one with legitimate power—supervisor, direct manager, or upper manager (e.g., Ayoko et al., 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007). Even when lacking legitimate power, bullies tend to have access to more resources than targets, including relationships with per­sons who have influence. In addition to more power and influence than targets, research suggests three general bully profiles based on motivation, tactics, and responses to chal­lenge (Crawshaw, 2007): the accidental bully (under pressure); narcissistic bully (vulnerable, insecure); and psychopathic bully (grandi­ose, power-driven) (Egan, 2005).

Accidental bullies are the most common and are (usually) managers with a very tough, even rough, style and way of interacting and directing others. They demand that others complete work tasks, often within exceedingly tight deadlines, and have little or no percep­tion that what he or she says hurts or disturbs others. The accidental bully typically over­reacts to pressure and passes that reaction on by blowing up, making impossible demands, and otherwise communicating in a blunt, insensitive, and insistent manner. The situ­ational factors that trigger accidental bullies are wide-ranging and can include unorganized or poorly orchestrated changes and demands, organizational conditions such as work pres­sure, high performance demands, role conflict, and role uncertainty (Hoel & Salin, 2003). In their drive toward tasks, they often lose sight of the humanity of others. They frequently act aggressively as a means to an end—to reach higher standards, thrash the competi­tion, protect the company, and so forth. The welfare of people is secondary to task or output goals. Accidental bullies expect others to be resilient—to understand that nothing personal is meant by their tirades. In fact, “such people are often shocked when they are made aware of the consequences of their atti­tudes and actions” (Egan, 2005, para. 8; see also Crawshaw, 2007). This bully type is the most amenable to intervention, particularly if that intervention is tough and straightforward (Egan, 2005).

The narcissistic bully is charismatic but driven by fear, especially fear of appearing incompetent, and so may see harming oth­ers as a justified means of social survival (Crawshaw, 2007).

Narcissistic bullies are typically shame prone and exceedingly sensitive to slights or any hint that they are less than compe­tent (Crawshaw, 2007; Fast & Chen, 2009). Because they have limited impulse control and are fear driven, their grandiose self-image is easily punctured, and they can respond by act­ing out in rage and making outlandish claims about their detractors. That is, if they are crossed or questioned, they can respond with cruel fury (Boddy, 2010). Given these tenden­cies, narcissistic bullies can shift from being very charming to extremely difficult and even vicious. “Their abuse is not cold and calculat­ing and meant to intimidate, it’s just an expres­sion of their superiority when they rage against you because they see you as the idiot. Of course they don’t have much empathy” (Egan, 2005, para. 8). The narcissistic bully can alter his or her communication and behavior if organiza­tions are willing to invest considerable time and effort coaching and counseling. Although the cost may be high, if the narcissistic bullies are valuable, the upper level managers may believe that their talents are worth keeping them.

At Youth Matters, Buddy most closely fit this bully profile. In his job interview, Buddy claimed he could turn the youth program around in less than 6 months. The executive director developed stringent outcome goals, which Buddy easily met. As such, his grandi­ose self-image was supported by his skill. He was an incredibly talented counselor, one able to reach adolescents and their parents, often in one session.

The third bully type is the psychopathic bully, a rare personality type (1%-2% in gen­eral population, 15%-25% in prisons) that is thought to be found in higher proportions in senior-level organizational positions (up to 3.5%) (Boddy, 2010). These aggressors are also called industrial psychopaths, organiza­tional psychopaths, organizational sociopaths, and corporate psychopaths (see Boddy et al., 2010, for discussion). These noncriminal or successful psychopaths, deemed successful because unlike criminal psychopaths they have evaded legal authorities, are “not prone to out­bursts of impulsive, violent, criminal behav­iour” (Boddy, 2010, p. 301). Psychopathic (like narcissistic) bullies are grandiose, and they come across as friendly and charming at first. They are highly motivated to gain power and exceedingly talented at ingratiating them­selves with powerful others. They often rise almost meteorically in organizations “because of their manipulative charisma and their sheer, single minded dedication to attain senior levels of management” (Boddy et al., 2010, p. 124). These bullies can be authoritarian, aggressive, and domineering but in ways that imbue a sense of safety, particularly when organiza­tions face external threats.

Psychopathic bullies usually work to attract a follower base of patrons who can assist in their ascendancy.

2009). These bullies may perform feelings of remorse if the situation calls for it, but these are not felt emotions; such emotions are more likely displayed for manipulative effect. Their personalities are marked by coldheartedness, manipulativeness, ruthlessness, and lack of emotions, including fear, empathy, guilt, and remorse, when they harm others (Boddy et al.,

2010). Psychologists believe that this per­sonality type has no capacity for empathy or perspective taking.

A disturbing part of communicating with psychotic bullies is that they may distort what others say in self-serving ways. They typically blame others if their own actions bring about negative ramifications. If this bully type is challenged about his or her behavior, his or her reaction is as volatile as the narcissist but often involves threats of litigation, claims of being a victim of bullying, threats of divulging information about others, and escalated bul­lying (Egan, 2005). Counseling or mentoring has little effect as the psychopathic bully is unlikely to change his or her communication or behavior (Boddy, 2010).

General Bully Characteristics or Traits for All Types. Most bullies are unlikely to praise others (Wigley, Pohl, & Watt, 1989) and are prone to verbal aggressiveness. They are likely to have this trait to a higher degree than those who do not bully others, regardless of the situ­ation or pressure. Because high verbal aggres- sives have lower scores on perspective taking and higher scores on social dominance orien­tation, they are unlikely to perceive aggressive messages as hurtful (Infante et al., 1992).

Motivations. Accidental bullies are motivated predominantly by e conomic resource goals, the desire to gain or keep something of eco­nomic value (Fukushima & Ohbuchi, 1996). Their drive for achievement comes from this motivation. Typically, the accidental bully wants to reach high standards and meet organizational goals (regardless of human costs). They respond readily to demands from higher-placed organizational members, espe­cially as those demands deal with output or the organization’s financial survival. Certain antecedents can drive the accidental bully by evoking additional stress around work production, which evokes aggression, venting negative emotions, and pushing subordinates and peers even harder (e.g., Hoel & Salin, 2003). Quite likely, frustration exacerbates accidental bullies’ aggression if they believe that employees are stifling production goals (Infante et al., 1984).

Narcissistic bullies, on the other hand, are driven by s ocial identity goals (e.g., face­saving, identity preservation, and maintaining their self-perception of someone exceptional). They justify aggressive treatment as a means of bolstering their persona and maintaining their image or identity management work. Secondarily, they may be motivated by eco­nomic goals of obtaining something of value but only if it serves the primary goal of bol­stering grandiose self-identities. These bullies want to protect others’ perceptions of them as competent and excellent (Crawshaw, 2007; Egan, 2009; Fast & Chen, 2009). Such was the case with Buddy at Youth Matters, who appeared to be driven primarily by identity preservation. When questioned about his mis­treatment of staff, Buddy was keen to defend his use of aggression by drawing on deep-value arguments such as client confidentiality, the fatal course of untreated drug addiction, and the community’s need for a youth program. That is, Buddy deflected critique by focusing conversations on deeply important issues to the other person with whom he interacted. Because of his skill for reading people, he was able to identify issues most important to the other person in order to win that person over. Because of Buddy’s basic insecurity, he often viewed other people’s questions as attacks.

Narcissistic bullies like Buddy and psycho­pathic bullies are often motivated to act aggres­sively because of a tendency to ascribe others’ actions and words as having malevolent intent and see themselves as victims (Burroughs & James, 2005). As such, justice goals are acti­vated for both types, as they believe they have been wronged and so seek retribution (Infante et al., 1992). Other indirect motivating fac­tors are psychopathology (e.g., transference of negative emotions toward someone who represents unresolved conflict) and argumen­tative skill deficiency (e.g., lacking ability to communicate position effectively) that can trigger verbal aggression (Infante et al., 1984).

Buddy at Youth Matters could argue well, but when Claire, the executive director, demanded he stop mistreatment of staff, he said to others that she was “a bitch just like [his] mother.” Narcissistic bullies as high verbal aggressives can be motivated by their own anger and bad mood—emotions they rarely control very well (Infante et al., 1992).

Psychopathic bullies are motivated predomi­nantly by power/hostility social goals, the drive to establish dominance, gain power, and pun­ish anyone who stands in the way of achieving these. As part of a drive for power and influ­ence, psychopathic bullies are often motivated by social identity goals and will cover up errors and bad decisions or scapegoat and shift blame onto others (Egan, 2009). As high verbal aggressives, they can be driven by the desire “to appear ‘tough,’... to be mean..., and to express disdain for” the other person (Infante et al., 1992, p. 122). Self-defense, reprimanding someone, winning arguments, expressing anger, and manipulating another person’s behav­ior also motivate verbal aggression (Infante, Bruning, & Martin, 1994). They may be moti­vated by social justice goals because they often have a retribution bias (belief that retaliation is better than reconciliation); they might also be motivated by a potency bias (tendency to frame conflict as a contest in which to demonstrate dominance or submissiveness) (Burroughs & James, 2005), another form of a power/hostil- ity social goal.

Tactics. Primarily, bullying involves a hos­tile, forcing/dominating conflict management style—bullies want their way and often shift conflicts over tasks (cognitive conflicts) to conflicts attacking targets’ identity or val­ues (affective conflict) (Keashly & Nowell,

2011). Conflict management tactics are aggressive, and bullying conflicts, rather than being marked by a single form of negativity, involve numerous barbs, jabs, and machina­tions. Exchanges are far more extreme and intense than everyday incivilities. Tactics vary by bully type, as might be expected, although all bullies use verbal aggressiveness (passive or active) to varying degrees. Most bullies derogate their targets, often to justify their own abuse of others in the conflict. Caustic humor is a common tactic bullies use against targets because it is ambiguous and provides plausible deniability.

High verbal aggressives [claim] that about 46% of their verbally aggressive messages... [involve] trying to be humorous.... [As such,] using humor may be a tactic for being mean to disdain another, or it may be an “evasive” device which masks the use of per­sonal attacks and avoids provoking physical violence. (Infante et al., 1992, p. 125)

Depending on the bully type, tactics can include blaming targets for the bullies’ errors (narcissistic, psychopathic), making unreason­able demands (accidental), criticizing targets’ work ability (all types), yelling and scream­ing (accidental, narcissistic), inconsistently referring to made-up rules (narcissistic, psy­chopathic), threatening job loss (all types), discounting targets’ accomplishments (all types), socially excluding targets (narcissistic, psychopathic), insults and put-downs (all types), taking credit for targets’ work (narcis­sistic, psychopathic), and scapegoating (nar­cissistic, psychopathic Hoel & Salin, 2003). Psychopathic bullies disparage, belittle, emas­culate, and destroy anyone who appears to be blocking their aspirations (Egan, 2009). Tactics can include physical and psychological intimidation intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the target (Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006). This type of bully employs third-party tactics quite often, depending on the protection of patrons and the important or powerful others with whom the bully has developed power-based relationships. In fact, they are quite adept at managing up, so to speak (Namie, 2007a).

This overview of the involved employee groups outlines many of the issues involved in bullying conflicts and illustrates why bul­lying can be so difficult to stop. Table 13.3 (on p. 368) summarizes involved party pro­files, motivations, and associated tactics. In line with the central themes of this volume, we add to our thrice-told tale an exploration of the contextual and transformational issues affecting bullying conflicts as perceived by the three-employee groups.