Contextual Factors Complicating Bullying Conflicts

Contextual, organizational factors can exac­erbate and induce bullying conflicts, includ­ing workplace climates and professional cultures, productivity pressure, prevailing social norms external to organizations, and predominant national cultures.

Organizational cultures and economic demands can drive bullying conflicts. Some organizational or professional cultures have adversarial, aggressive norms for working rela­tionships (Hoel & Cooper, 2001) and may even reward aggressive members with promotions, access to leadership, personal credibility, and voice. Economic pressures can also trigger bul­lying conflicts. Demands for increased produc­tivity, especially when coupled with cost cutting, can place incredible pressures on both supervi­sors and employees that can trigger aggression.

External social and cultural belief systems influence employee abuse since boundaries between organizations and external environ­ments are highly permeable (Mumby & Stohl,

a.

b. Verbal aggression is a hallmark of bullies’ communication.

1996). Social discourses or meaning systems contributing to bullying include a wide range of forces, including the ideological link between work and religion, philosophies of individu­alism and meritocracy, a reverence for hier­archical power, profit as an ultimate goal, and Theory X notions of workers as lazy and in need of goading (Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008). Related cultural ideologies can stimulate bullying and include praising power, profit, and position; devaluing human and stakeholder interests; and stigmatizing vic­tims or disadvantaged persons. An important effect of these ideologies is to whom they con­fer voice. Bullied workers (a class of victims) in subordinate positions (low-position status) may be doubted, especially if being bullied by a highly productive (profit) or politically astute (high-position status) aggressor (Lutgen- Sandvik & Tracy, 2012).

Considerable evidence points to predomi­nant national culture as a key factor in bul­lying prevalence. Scandinavia, for example, has far lower bullying rates than the United States and Great Britain (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Zapf et al., 2003)—arguably due to Scandinavia’s low-power distance and feminine-egalitarian norms. As bullying is a power-driven phenomenon, fewer power and status differences between people likely result in lower rates of conflict. In cultures with high concern for the quality of interpersonal relations, persons may communicate more respectfully.

There are many drivers of bullying in organizations beyond the involved parties we have focused on in this chapter. (For in-depth discussions of these, see Baron & Neuman, 2011; Salin & Hoel, 2011.) So, what can organizations and their mem­bers do to transform bullying conflicts and encourage sustainable and respectful conflict management?

Transformational Possibilities

We now bring some optimism to the chapter and talk about directions for transformation.

Bullying really is an organization-wide issue rather than something individuals alone can solve. Solving the problem is not only an organization-wide responsibility, but success­ful efforts also require the total commitment of top-level organizational leadership, involve­ment of middle management, and engagement of employees (Tehrani, 2001). Short-term approaches such as identifying lone perpetra­tors while ignoring initiating and maintaining factors ultimately fail to produce meaningful, lasting change.

Vandekerckhove and Commers (2003), who claim that bullying results from being inadequately prepared for the pressures of globalization, argue that organizations need “new rules” such as “clearly defined channels for support and advice in addition to clear reporting standards, times, and lines. Not surprisingly, this merges with a higher concern for communication” (p. 47). Indeed, there is a “need for new managerial skills such as strong interpersonal, communication, and listening skills and an ability to engage in recipro­cal rather than manipulative behavior.” We would add that all organizational members need these communication skills.

In fact, the most effective interventions for reducing aggressive communication among organizational members occur via changing the very nature of day-to-day conversations (for full discussion and details, see Keashly & Neuman, 2005). Policy development, while important for victim redress, has little effect on reducing bullying if the organizational climate and culture do not change at a fun­damental level. Similarly, although the train­ing of individuals about workplace bullying is important, labels the phenomenon, and should be part of an overall plan for staff edu­cation, training alone rarely has a determin­able effect on interpersonal aggression levels (Vartia & Leka, 2011). Rather, the members need to learn new ways of interacting at the day-to-day level.

From Keashly and Neuman’s (2005) work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, we summarize the following steps for an effective organization-wide approach. This approach requires the involvement of four groups. First, top-level persons must be com­mitted to organization-wide change regarding dignity for all workers. Second, middle man­agers must be involved at each step. Third, members from support staff such as HR, Employee Assistance Program, ombudsper­sons, and unions should be involved. Finally, representatives chosen by direct-line staff in each program or division must be involved. Organizations may benefit from bringing someone in from outside to help facilitate analysis and planning, as an outsider may be more objective and less likely to have a vested interest in outcomes. Teams comprising per­sons from these groups carry out the following steps: (1) each workgroup conducts a baseline evaluation of aggression using a validated measure (Neuman’s WAR-Q, Workplace Aggression Revised Questionnaire is outstand­ing); (2) based on the types of aggression and the unique makeup of each group, teams develop tailored interventions and implement them; (3) after 3 to 6 months, teams conduct a follow-up evaluation using the same mea­sure as in Step (1).

Individual responses to managing bullying conflicts constructively begin when involved parties are able to recognize when a simple conflict has become a bullying conflict. In particular for targets and bystanders, it is being able to name abusive conflicts “work­place bullying”; this is an important first step to understanding what is occurring and what to do about it (Namie, 2007a). Information about bullying (e.g., research articles and books) coupled with being able to name bul­lying as a distinct phenomenon also bolsters employee claims to upper management and HR (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Targeted work­ers may also decide to file formal or informal complaints to unions, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the bully’s boss, or attorneys (Macintosh, 2006)—reports that typically require detailed documentation (e.g., dates, times, and events; Tracy, Alberts, & Rivera, 2007). Targeted workers may also consider filing lawsuits against employers but should understand that such suits are rarely won and take enormous resources and per­sonal energy.

Ensuring self-care and social support is especially important for effectively dealing with bullying conflicts. This may mean tak­ing time off, trying not to take the experience personally, and spending time with trusted others (Namie & Namie, 2009). Gaining peer support is easier if other organizational members understand bullying and know it is occurring. Informally educating peers can be done by distributing articles and talking about bullying in a manner that protects vulnerable persons (Macintosh, 2006). If and when indi­vidual conflict management tactics fail, which is often the case, workers may choose to quit or transfer and, we argue, should frame their exits as a victory rather than defeat.

Bystanders are very important in bullying conflicts. Although directly confronting bul­lies can be risky and make situations worse, there are other responses bystanders can take. Scully and Rowe (2009) suggest that bystand­ers can do two things that will reduce bully­ing, mobbing, verbal aggression, and so forth: “ discouraging negative behaviors, and,... encouraging positive behaviors” (p. 89). This means helping “people in all cohorts to note—and to commend—the achievements of their fellow workers. Such commenda­tions often matter to the person concerned and are thought to be useful in encourag­ing future, socially desirable behavior” (pp. 89-90). Bystander action also means “help­ing people in all job categories to react, and then act appropriately, when they see unsafe, unprofessional, offensive, discriminatory, or illegal behavior in the workplace” (p. 90).

In addition, bystanders can be very helpful for supporting targets’ stories and breaking the bullying cycle; concerted voice simply increases believability (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Collective voice also reduces some of the risk of being labeled troublemakers, mentally ill, or problem employees. Nontargeted work­group members may not be as stigmatized, since they lack the victim label. But even with collective resistance, there is the risk of being pejoratively branded when speaking out against abuse and oppression (Cowan, 2009). These ideas suggest an instructive approach for building others’ competence in work­groups, so that they can help prevent, handle, and, in some cases, stop aggressive communi­cation behavior (Keashly, 2010).

As for bullies, the organizational and communication literatures are sparse regard­ing what they could do to better man­age conflicts and keep conflicts civil and constructive.⁴ Infante, Myers, and Buerkel’s (1994) and Rancer and Avtgis’s (2006) work does provide constructive pointers, how­ever, regarding persons with high-trait verbal aggressiveness—likely present in some degree with all bully profiles. Their scholarship suggests that one of the reasons people use verbal aggression is that they lack argumen­tation skills. Thus, if organizational members who bully others realize they tend to become aggressive in interactions that are conflictual, one remedy could be to learn how to con­structively argue. In fact, Infante (1995) has developed a curriculum specifically for this purpose. Another useful skill is improving one’s ability to read others’ emotions. Laura Crawshaw (2007), who coaches abrasive managers, argues that these individuals tend toward aggression because they have little ability to empathize with others so they do not see fully the effect their aggression has on others. And although learning empathy is not a simple task, persons in the medical profes­sion often complete courses on this skill (e.g., La Monica, 1983). Indeed, the steps that high verbal aggressive might take is an area needing more research.