Targets

Profiles. Although anyone can be targeted by bullies at work, research on victimization (i.e., being targeted by others’ aggression) suggests that certain traits and tenden­cies appear to situate employees in ways that make them more likely to be targeted.

The second type of provocative target is communicatively assertive employees who readily speak their minds, a tendency that can infuriate some bullies. Depending on the pressures bullies are facing, the argumentative style of a communicatively assertive employee can trigger harsh responses from high verbal aggressives (Fast & Chen, 2009). People who are professionally successful or highly skilled are often assertive and can be targeted because their experience or expertise may pose a threat to a less secure bully (Fast & Chen, 2009; Namie, 2007a). In Youth Matters, Crystal, a well-liked and knowledgeable commu­nity educator, had considerable conflict with Buddy because of what she perceived as his misrepresentation of the program during com­munity outreach sessions.

The assertive provocative target may also have exceptional argumentation skills. High verbal aggressives are often low in argumenta­tion skills and so have considerable difficulty countering skilled peers or “insubordinate” subordinates. When they face conflict situa­tions, they quickly run out of constructive mate­rial and fall back on verbal aggression (Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984). Such was not the case with Buddy, however, who had an incredible acuity at assessing or “reading” people coupled with extraordinary argumen­tation skills. As a result, he was able to stifle nearly anyone who questioned him—including the executive director and the board members.

The next target type is the submissive employee, a person who is conflict aversive. The submissive target is “passive, insecure, frequently rejected by peers, and unwilling to defend against attack” (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004, p. 1025). Submissive targets are less extroverted, less stable, less independent, have a reduced tendency toward self-defense, and an increased dependency on or desire for others’ approval. Appearing weak, anxious, unassertive, low in self-esteem, and conflict- aversive can be provocative for high aggres- sives (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000). These inclinations can make the submissive employee an easy target, as a passive “weakling” can be seen as low risk—someone who can be bul­lied with impunity and serve as an example or warning to others (Neuman & Baron, 2011). In fact, some high verbal aggressives report using aggression to express their disdain of the targets (Infante, Riddle, Horvarth, & Tumlin, 1992).

The final target type is the rigidly conscien­tious worker. These employees are very scru­pulous, assiduous, “organized, self-disciplined, hardworking, conventional, moralistic, and rule-bound” (Lind, Glaso, Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009, p. 234). Rigidly conscientious employees can be bullied at work because others per­ceive them as infuriatingly condescending due to their apparently inflexible, perfectionist approach to work and adherence to work- related rules. Rigidly conscientious workers are unlikely to go along with informal group rules if they believe the informal rules to be morally wrong. When these employees face situations they view as breaking the rules, they can become “rude, suspicious, uncooperative, ruthless, [and] irritable” (Lind et al., 2009, p. 234). They are likely to defend stubbornly their point of view, especially when moral issues such as work quality, client ethics, or productivity expectations are at stake. What they see as moral or ethical issues are far more important to rigidly conscientious employees than are relationships or others involved in the conflict. Additionally, they may report coworkers who break rules, behaviors that culminate to make them widely unpopular, increasing their social isolation and reduc­ing potential allies or supporters (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). When workers are in these socially excluded positions, they are simply easier targets; bystanders may even feel satis­faction at seeing them targeted.

At Youth Matters, Toby fit the rigidly conscientious target profile because he did not believe that anyone in the program was adequately or effectively providing treatment to the clients (except for Toby himself). Toby had registered multiple complaints against a number of his coworkers and against May, the past program director. Because of this behav­ior, he had no friends in Youth Matters and little or no support from the executive director.

In addition to these general profiles, three other factors increase the likelihood of being targeted: organizational position, communica­tion skill deficits, and social difference. First, although employees at all levels can be bul­lied (Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003), typically the higher one’s position, the lower the incidence of bullying (Aquino, 2000). Second, persons who lack effective social and communication skills (e.g., some submissives, many high verbal aggressives) can have great difficulty protecting themselves and can thus be targeted quite easily (Coyne et al., 2000). Third, being noticeably different also increases the risk of becoming an outsider and thus a target. In the United States and Great Britain, for example, employees of African descent “are victimized more frequently than any racial group” (Aquino, 2000, p. 182).

Motivations. Typically all targets are moti­vated to protect their interests and identity and to achieve a fair or just outcome. Although all target types share similar motivational goals in bullying conflicts, they also differ depend­ing on what is important to them person­ally. Most targets involved in an entrenched bullying conflict are motivated by p ersonal resource goals and identity and social justice goals. Interpersonal aggression, by definition, is behavior that targets are motivated to avoid (Neuman & Baron, 2011). Targets are motivated to protect themselves, stop abusive treatment, manage face and identity threats, and be vindicated (Cowan, 2009). Personal resource goals are driven by a need to main­tain personal freedom, in this case freedom from attacks on their character. Targets go to great length to protect themselves and to end the abusive treatment. Most targets are also motivated by economic resource goals; they want to maintain their jobs.

Social justice goals, based on a drive for fairness or restorative justice, are also at play in bullying conflicts. Targets communicatively position themselves as moral warriors, fight­ing depraved enemies, and argue that they respond accordingly to restore justice and fair­ness (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Many responses to bullying conflicts are indirectly motivated by what targets call a m oral imperative to act against what they perceive as corrupt actions and interactions. Beyond restoring justice, however, targets are also highly motivated by identity goals. Targets want to be vindicated (Cowan, 2009); they want to redeem them­selves because being victimized is stigmatiz­ing. Especially in the United States, dominant cultural norms, being a victim brands someone as weak, childish, and usually to blame—if people are victimized, others often assume that they did something to bring it on themselves (Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008). In addition to these motivational goals, specific types of target have unique motivations in bul­lying conflicts.

Provocative targets (aggressive) are moti­vated by social power goals. Rather than a drive to punish (often seen with bullies), these targets’ power goals are to establish influ­ence and dominance over others in conflicts. At Youth Matters, Bob and Deb argued with Buddy because he harassed staff about their inadequacies in working with adolescents. From Bob and Deb’s perspective, Buddy spent too many hours in the community and not enough time on site training staff. Buddy publically humiliating, criticizing, and embarrassing staff for how poorly they pro­vided treatment seemed a kind of betrayal to Bob and Deb since Buddy had promised to train the inexperienced clinical staff he hired. Bob and Deb also clashed with coworkers and community members about adolescent treatment issues.

Although also quick to speak up, the communicatively assertive provocative tar­gets are motivated by economic personal goals—they are driven to protect their right to free speech, personal freedom, and choice. Crystal, the community educator, was a target of this type. When she disagreed with Buddy, she assertively put forth her perspective—something that infuriated Buddy, who thought Crystal should defer to his status and position. Crystal never used verbal aggression but calmly and straightfor­wardly stated her position and reasons for it, an approach very different from the more aggressive targets like Bob and Deb.

Submissive targets want to avoid conflicts and so are motivated by the social function­ality goal—the desire to settle conflicts in a socially proper way. They are also motivated by social relationship goals as they wish to maintain peaceful, nonconfrontational con­tact with others. Kimberly, the young woman hired from the clothing store, most closely fit the submissive profile. She rarely spoke out, followed others’ prerogative, and appeared to be motivated by a desire to please and get along with others. (Kimberly was initially a silent bystander, a point we take up in the bystander section.)

Rigidly conscientious targets are motivated by power goals; they seek to influence the other parties to see the issue as they do. Specifically, rigidly conscientious targets want others to recognize the importance or moral value of the issue. Toby’s goal in the bullying conflict with Buddy was driven by Toby’s concern that adolescents were not receiving correct treat­ment. Specifically, Toby thought Buddy’s new treatment program omitted critical areas that the former treatment program included (e.g., electronic monitoring bracelets), areas Buddy believed were the responsibility of collaborat­ing institutions. Toby also thought that Buddy put too much emphasis on family counseling nights where Buddy was “the star” and the families’ needs were secondary. Toby was the first counselor fired.

Tactics. Bullying conflicts most often involve affective (e.g., threatening identity, values) rather than cognitive (e.g., focusing on ideas, tasks) types of conflict. Although problem solving and compromising work well for cognitive conflicts, such is not the case for affective conflicts. Problem-solving efforts in bullying conflicts often exacerbate the conflict (Keashly & Nowell, 2011). And despite tar­gets’ efforts to appease or oblige high aggres- sives (e.g., speaking with the bullies about the problem, working harder, cutting off com­munication with certain peers, and monitor­ing their own messages to the bullies), hostile actions and interactions continue unabated or even escalate (e.g., Zapf & Gross, 2001).

Specific to the thrice-told tale and in line with diverse target profiles and motivations, victimization literature suggests that “conflict styles [tactics]... [can] distinguish victims from non-victims [and]... employees who rely on certain styles more than others may unwittingly present themselves as potential targets of aggressive action” (Aquino, 2000, p. 174). The provocative aggressive target’s tendency to use forcing communication likely elicits aggressive tactics from other parties. Because provocative aggressive targets want to gain influence over bullies in the conflict, they more often use dominating/forcing tactics, but some form of problem solving typically pre­cedes forcing. Forcing tactics are more often passive aggression because bullies typically have more power, influence, or both than tar­geted workers. In fact,

higher levels of bullying [are] predictive of... behaviors such as purposely wasting company materials and supplies,... doing one’s work incorrectly, and... damaging a valuable piece of property belonging to the employer. (Ayoko, Callan, & Hartel, 2003, p. 283)

The provocative assertive targets are moti­vated to speak their minds in disagreements and argue about issues of disagreement with­out employing verbal aggression. Depending on the parties involved, even their assertive disagreement can trigger aggression, hostil­ity, and behavior framed to “put them in their place.” At Youth Matters, the staff who disagreed with Buddy’s approaches first went to Buddy with their concerns, using problem-solving tactics. When Buddy met their concerns with put-downs, harassment, and public humiliation at case review meet­ings, staff members circumvented the chain of command and complained to the execu­tive director³ and in one case the board of directors—third-party conflict management tactics.

Tactics of submissive targets usually are obliging/appeasingand avoiding/withdrawing, although all targets use these tactics to some degree. They hope that if they do nothing to upset anyone, the conflict might go away. Submissive targets are typically amenable to compromising tactics to manage conflict but rarely suggest such tactics themselves (Ayoko et al., 2003). Rather, they are will­ing to go along with others’ ideas regarding compromises if they believe that those tac­tics will end the conflict. At Youth Matters, Kimberly was a silent bystander but became a submissive target near the end of her time with the program. She remained silent for the most part throughout intervention sessions. When consultants or the executive director approached her in confidence, she said that things were fine. Although passive targets such as Kimberly are particularly uncommu­nicative, such is not the case for the rigidly conscientious target.

Rigidly conscientious targets use forcing tactics because they feel so strongly about the issues at hand. They will also use prob­lem solving, accommodating, and compro­mising but only when these tactics get them the results they want. If less aggressive tac­tics fail, rigidly conscientious targets shift to forceful communication, often coupled with third-party involvement (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Because they believe that they are right—absolutely—they work to involve higher authorities as allies in the conflict. At Youth Matters, Toby used forcing/dominating communication (e.g., repeatedly complaining about the quality of youth treatment, imply­ing that clinical staff were failing the adoles­cents) without apparent concern for how his complaints affected his workplace relation­ships. He typically coupled forcing/dominating with third-party tactics, as Toby often brought complaints to Claire, the executive director, or evoked her name in support of his arguments (e.g., “I talked to Claire about this.”).