Future Directions

This look at the three central employee groups suggests areas of research necessary so that we might improve organizational efforts in resolving bullying conflicts. One of the areas that has received little attention is studying the factors that have transformed other work­places faced with bullying.

Target actions rarely resolve bullying, and there is a substantial body of research focus­ing on their (ineffective) efforts (e.g., Zapf & Gross, 2001). What is needed is a look into the experiences of bystanders, especially when bystander action has proven effective in the resolution of bullying conflicts. As important is developing and supporting bystander train­ing programs like Keashly’s (2010) and Scully and Rowe’s (2009), both of which are still in nascent stages. Bystanders more than any other group in the thrice-told tale have been woefully understudied.

As important as bystanders in bullying con­flicts is learning more about the perpetrators’ experiences, perspectives, and motivations. Interpersonal communication research about verbal aggression informs much of what we have presented in this chapter regarding per­petrators. As workplace bullying is currently in the news and is of increasing interest to organizational leadership, researchers might creatively devise means of accessing the bul­lies’ point of view. In Pam’s (first author) experience, after presenting to professional groups about bullying, some audience mem­bers have approached her saying, in effect, “I can see that I’ve been doing this to the people I’m supervising.” These interactions could provide fruitful inroads for deeper discussions or interviews.

Conclusion

We define workplace bullying as a unique type of conflict because it includes power disparities, aggression, and persistence that involves all employees in affected work­groups. Specific to the discussion about workplace bullying conflicts, an explora­tion of these parties’ goals and tactics helps trace the likely motivations and how those differ for targets, bystanders, and bullies. If we say that there are roughly three differ­ent types of target (provocative, submissive, and rigidly conscientious), three types of bystander (bully allies, target allies, and neutral bystanders), and three types of bully (accidental, narcissistic, and psychopathic) and all nine of these general types have different motivations and tactics driven by those motivations, then we have some idea of how impossible it can feel to address bul­lying conflicts once they develop. In fact, many motivations are at odds with each other (e.g., targets and bullies want some­one on their sides, neutral bystanders want to stay out of it).

Notes

1. For a review of communication and supervi­sor-subordinate conflict in organizations, see Roloff (1987).

2. All names are fictitious.

3. Although we do not expand herein about the role of upper management and associ­ated staff (e.g., HR), bullying conflicts often involve these organizational members. In Youth Matters, these were primarily the exec­utive director and secondarily the board of directors. When Deb and Bob complained, the executive director attempted to negotiate compromise in the face of the conflict, asking Buddy to spend more time on site conducting training and asking clinical staff to seek exter­nal training opportunities to improve their skills. The executive director also worked with Buddy extensively, teaching him hiring tactics for finding more qualified staff (integrating/ problem solving). Certainly, there was the unspoken but well-understood power of the executive director to fire, demote, or otherwise sanction involved parties (dominating/forcing) if they failed to go along with his suggested resolutions.

4. Rather, there are various texts to assist upper management dealing with bullies (e.g., Crawshaw, 2007; Namie & Namie, 2011; Twale & De Luca, 2008). Most of these are for acting on the bully (interventions) rather than actions for actual or potential bullies.