Bystanders (Nonbullied Witnesses)

A special note is warranted as we move into this section about bystanders. Because of their once-removed status, they do not have to be active parties to the bullying conflict and may have a particularly powerful type of voice.

They are neither stigmatized like the targets nor instigators of bullying like the aggressors.

Profiles. Because bullying conflicts are so vol­atile and aggressive, they typically spread fear through the entire workgroup and push mem­bers into one of three nonbullied bystander groups: (1) those who cluster around and sup­port bullies ( bully allies), (2) those who support or protect targets (target allies), and (3) those who attempt to distance themselves from the bullying conflict (neutral or silent bystanders). Bystanders are often considered secondary targets because although they are not targeted directly, their “perceptions, fears and expecta­tions are changed as a result of being vicari­ously exposed to violence” (Barling, 1996, p. 35). This group often reports “significantly more general stress and mental stress reactions than employees from the workplaces with­out bullying” (Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011, p. 108) and often leave organizations (avoiding) after witnessing bullying.

Depending on the framework, bully allies are alternately labeled “passive bullies, follow­ers, or henchmen” (Olweus, 2003, p. 67), or patrons and pawns (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). Olweus’s (2003) framework, taken from his work on schoolyard bullying, indicates that passive bullies and followers are those “who participate in bullying but do not usually take the initiative” (p. 67). These “passive bullies can be equally troubling to the victim... where others are gathered willingly or unwillingly to participate in continuous malevolent actions” (Vickers, 2006, p. 271). Henchmen and -women, on the other hand, actively take part in bullying conflicts, loy­ally following the bully’s lead and working to undermine, remove, and sometimes even destroy targets’ reputations.

Bullies often choose these people as a support network. Pawns, who often emerge later as targets, are persons initially loyal to the bul­lies who side with them in bullying conflicts but later feel or discover they are being used or manipulated.

At Youth Matters, Sue and Carrie supported Buddy and could be considered followers or pawns. Despite months of siding with Buddy in various bullying conflicts, Buddy eventually targeted them, and they were driven from the program. The agency administrators were also supportive of Buddy. Claire and Buddy earned their Master of Social Work degrees together and were friends prior to Claire hiring him. The board members had heard from their peers in the community about Buddy’s charismatic, col­laborative approach; they were as impressed as their peers. Because the board was tasked with the agency’s economic oversight, they were also delighted at the impressive increase in client revenue, which allowed the board to purchase new property and pay off a loan. Thus, despite ongoing staff problems, the administrators remained Buddy’s allies. Even when it was necessary to hire outside consultants to inter­vene with Buddy and his staff, administrators remained awed with Buddy’s skills.

When solutions to the problems in the program seemed unachievable, Claire decided she would have to fire Buddy; the board, however, intervened on Buddy’s behalf. The board was so impressed with Buddy that instead they hired Buddy to serve as interim executive director when Claire retired. The promotion may have been due to his ability to “read” his superiors and then “talk to them in their own language.” This skill made believ­ing complaints about Buddy difficult for the higher ups.

At Youth Matters, Buddy was the only person identified as a bully or high verbal aggressive (although no one used these terms).

norms of toughness... tend to reduce the likelihood that witnesses to workplace bul­lying will take action against it. On the con­trary, such norms tend to increase the odds that witnesses will join in and even applaud the action of workplace bullies. (Baron & Neuman, 2011, p. 217)

In a majority of cases, bystanders becoming active bullies is less frequent than members becoming more rude and discourteous in everyday interactions, likely due to the recip­rocal nature of communication. Although some members may become more uncivil over time, others empathize with and try to help targets.

Target allies, in contrast to bully allies, are bystanders who witness abusive conflicts and side with the targets. They comprise a second (albeit small) group of bystanders—those who either believe abuse is morally wrong or have long-standing friendships with targets (Lutgen- Sandvik, 2006). Ferguson and Barry (2011) suggest that directly witnessing another’s abuse

affords the observer an opportunity to wit­ness and, accordingly, vicariously experience the emotions of the target (or victim)... [giving] the observer... an opportunity to empathize with the victim, and perhaps to mentally place themselves in the victim’s shoes. (p. 89)

Other bystanders may eventually join the target’s side of the conflict, especially if they shift from being followers, patrons, or pawns to being targets. At Youth Matters, Crystal often defended colleagues when Buddy humiliated or shamed them, and though she eventually became a target, she remained a staunch defender of others.

Unlike target or bully allies, neutral or silent bystanders withhold voice and alle­giance to parties of the conflict and take a Switzerland-type position in the conflict, striv­ing to be uninvolved noncombatants.

The relative size of bystander groups is unique to each workgroup, as are bullying conflict dynamics, issues of contention, and personalities of those involved. Regardless of the setting, membership in bystander groups continuously shifts and morphs. Targets’ sup­porters may burn out; noninvolved persons can become targets or begin taking sides, and persons in the bully’s circle of supporters are ousted. Persons safe from targeting can become targets when bullies’ alliances shift, which they commonly do. At Youth Matters, Kimberly was a silent bystander and became a passive target. Additionally, individuals may simultaneously fall into multiple categories. Crystal, for example, was a target ally and a provocative assertive target.

Motivations. Nearly all bystanders are moti­vated by e conomic resource goals; like tar­gets, most want to keep their jobs. The threat of becoming embroiled in the bullying con­flict often jeopardizes employment (Lutgen- Sandvik, 2007; Namie, 2007b). Further motivations depend on the bystander’s pro­file. Bully allies who may passively and symbolically side with aggressors are often motivated by social relationship goals and want bullies to see them as allegiant. Such was the case for Sue and Carrie at Youth Matters. Some bully allies are motivated by social justice goals, and they believe that targets are in the wrong and bullies are in the right. Many are motivated by social identity goals and want to prevent their own poten­tial target status.

Target allies are often motivated by s ocial justice goals; their primary motivation is to restore fairness at work and stop abusive treatment of workers (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Some are motivated by a moral imperative to right a wrong and to take action against tyranny. Crystal was motivated by this goal at Youth Matters. In some cases, if bystanders are motivated toward justice, they collectively work with targets and like-minded allies in acts of collective resistance. Target allies are also motivated by social relationship goals and want to maintain their friendships and posi­tive interpersonal affiliations with targeted persons.

Silent bystanders, on the other hand, are typically motivated by personal resource goals; they want to maintain their privacy and per­sonal freedom, which can be threatened if they become involved in the conflict. Another moti­vating factor for silent bystanders is the s ocial identity goal (face-saving and identity preserv­ing); they want to avoid becoming a target. Additionally, silent bystanders may be moti­vated by social relationship goals and hope to avoid alienating bullies, targets, or anyone allied with either side by appearing neutral. Sadly, this strategy rarely works because bul­lying conflicts are so emotionally charged, mainly because the stakes are high, that both target and bully groups negatively judge those who stand by silently. In all bystander groups, the motivations typically drive the tactics or conflict management approaches.

Tactics. Bully allies side with aggressors and use tactics including spying on targets and target allies and reporting back to bullies (third party, forcing), silently looking on as bullies harass and abuse targets (avoiding), and bending to the bullies’ demands (obliging).

For target allies motivated by social justice goals, they may speak with upper management (third party), meet with union stewards (third party), or organize group discussions outside the workplace (avoiding) (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Most tactics have a dominating/forc- ing thread because target allies are interested in taking disciplinary action against bullies— blocking promotions, countering claims, and constructing employment termination—even if third parties are involved. Target allies moti­vated by social relationship goals provide social support. They offer instrumental support by helping targets with their work and trying to arrange breaks and moments of escape, infor­mational support by telling targets of their redress avenues or about powerful allies who might help in the fight for justice and emo­tional support in the form of “empathy, car­ing, acceptance and assurance” (Tracy, 2009, p. 88). Supportive tactics are supplementary to conflict management tactics but often involve advising targets how to fight back in the bul­lying conflict. Thus, even social support can be a form of indirect forcing and advising tar­gets how to win. Tactics of those who choose to remain silent, however, are focused on self-protection.

Silent bystanders try to withdraw into a nonaligned position that appears safe (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010) using avoidance/ withdrawal tactics. Kimberly at Youth Matters used this tactic throughout her time in the program. In toxic working environments, however, neutral bystanders may struggle with whether to stay uninvolved or help the targets being persistently abused. It can be difficult “to remain uninvolved in such cases... due to a seemingly strong need for the target to seek support for their case” (Hoel, Einarsen, & Cooper, 2003, p. 151). On the other hand, neutral bystanders are often motivated by social relationship goals, so they will remain friendly with persons from both sides of the conflict—an obliging/accommodating tactic.