United Kingdom: When Grumbling Becomes A Grievance

01 June 2006 - Article by James Libson and Joanna Blackburn

Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 requires that a complaint cannot be presented to the Employment Tribunal unless the Claimant has presented a written grievance to their Employer and waited 28 days before commencing any proceedings.

The statutory rules do not provide for any particular form in which the grievance must be made. As a result, there have been a raft of cases since the new statutory rules came into force in October 2004 considering the issue as to whether a grievance has been made. The recent case of Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited v Stewart & Anor is the latest in a line of cases considering this question.

Prior to instituting his claim, Mr Stewart's solicitors sent a letter to the company detailing the ways in which it was alleged that the company had breached Mr Stewart's contract of employment. The letter was marked "without prejudice" and finished by intimating that if the company did not confirm their acceptance of Mr Stewart's financial proposals within 14 days, Mr Stewart's solicitors would recommend that he should proceed to make appropriate claims in the Employment Tribunal without further notice.

The Employment Tribunal held that the sending of the letter, although not expressly stated to be a grievance letter, amounted to compliance with the requirements of Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. The company appealed but the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the Tribunal's decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that it did not matter that the details of Mr Stewart's grievance were not set out in a letter of a claim or that the letter was marked "without prejudice".

The Employment Appeal Tribunal's finding that it did not matter that the details of Mr Stewart's grievance was set out in a letter headed "without prejudice" is likely to prove controversial and the subject of yet further case law. "Without prejudice" correspondence is not normally admissible evidence and it seems that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may have been persuaded by reason of the fact that the claim issued in the Employment Tribunal mirrored the complaints set out in the solicitors letter.

This case is yet a further cautionary warning to employers to treat any complaint made by employees or their legal representatives as grievances raised under the statutory procedure. This is regardless of how they are communicated – whether by letter, email or even text message.

A failure by employers to comply with the required procedures upon receipt of a grievance could lead to increased compensation payments in successful tribunal claims on the basis that awards are adjusted upwards if employers fail to invite employees to a meeting to discuss their grievance.

An employer is able to avoid liability for harassment committed by an employee in the course of their employment if it can prove that it took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the perpetrator from committing the act of harassment. It has always been considered difficult for employers to successfully argue this statutory defence. However, in the recent case of Caspersz v Ministry of Defence, the MoD did just that and the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal provides useful guidance as to what is required from employers.

The background facts of the case are that Ms Caspersz complained to the Employment Tribunal about a number of matters which she said constituted discrimination against her on the grounds, principally, of sex, but in some cases, race. The relevant part of the appeal related to the Tribunal's finding that Ms Caspersz had been subject to sexual harassment by the Assistant Chief Constable to whom Ms Caspersz reported. The incidents related to two conversations between Ms Caspersz and Mr McDermott.

During one conversation, Mr McDermott made a comment about Ms Caspersz "working her way through the male students" and in another conversation, Mr McDermott commented that Ms Caspersz must have "stepped her way through enough pilots to make it happen". During her employment, Ms Caspersz made a general complaint about Mr McDermott.

The MoD took swift action, arranged an interview and an investigation of Mr McDermott's actions, suspended him and subsequently terminated his employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that in order to avail itself to the statutory defence, the MoD had to show that it had taken steps to prevent the harassment and there were no other steps that the MoD could reasonably have taken.

Of crucial importance to the EAT's decision was that the MoD had a Dignity at Work policy. The introduction of this policy was announced by way of a force order in March 2003. The policy listed certain people to whom any member of staff might go if they needed support or guidance in a situation in which they believed they were being harassed or bullied. Ms Caspersz was aware of the policy but did not use it.

The action taken against Mr McDermott coupled with the MoD's effective policy, which was not just paid lip service but was fully observed, persuaded the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the MoD had taken such reasonable and practical steps to prevent the treatment afforded to Ms Caspersz.

Despite the EAT's decision, the question as to whether an employer is able to show that it has taken such steps as are reasonably practicable will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. An employer may benefit from the defence if:

* There is a relevant and current equal opportunities policy dealing with specific discrimination;

* Employees are provided with equal opportunities training covering the relevant discrimination and are also provided with regular updates; and

* The employer can show that it takes discrimination very seriously, including a thorough investigation of any allegations, prompt action and taking appropriate steps against the perpetrator.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal warned that the decision should not be taken as a "carte blanche for employers to simply adopt a policy and no more." The decision emphasises the importance of training employees and raising awareness of the company's policies.

Some hypothetical questions. What do you do?

• What do you do when your research is plagiarised, copied, taken away from you?

• What do you do if colleagues, managers, supervisors, the university ignored your IPR and they put their dirty hands in your research work?
  
  
• What do you say, or do when your contribution to research work is ignored? When your ideas are taken away from you without our consent?
  
  
• What if you were denied the opportunity to become an innovative researcher due to your own work?
  
  
• Do you tell them to 'take off?' Wouldn’t this be ‘professional suicide’?
  
  
• Do you raise a formal complaint about them? Wouldn’t this also be ‘professional suicide’? What are your chances of success?
  
  
• And how would you feel if others ‘progressed’ at the back of your research, while you are caught in a formal complaint’s procedure that could cost you your job?
  
  
• Do you resign, or do you fight back?
  
  
• Do you say nothing and do nothing? Can this save your job?
  
  
• What do you do? Can you do anything about it?

Jobs for the boys... [and the girls]

The recommendation that HEI Governing Bodies require Committees to carry out reviews of their own effectiveness was included in the 2004 edition of the CUC Guide for Governors for the first time.

Has your Governing Body required its Committees to carry out reviews of their own effectiveness?

All HEIs:
Yes 35 (38%)
No 46 (62%)

Has the Senate/Academic Board in your institution conducted a review of its own effectiveness?

All HEIs:
Yes 40 (43%)
No 53 (53%)

By Committee of University Chairemen, Governance Questionnaire, January 2006

Workplace Power Games

There is a myth that it’s ‘wimps’ who get bullied at work despite the fact that there are plenty of strong and capable ex-employees who have been driven out of their jobs by workplace bullying. Another incorrect assumption is that assertive people probably ‘provoke’ bullying. Even members of the Mediation Service have said that bullying is ‘subjective’ or in some cases merely a ‘clash of personalities’. This erroneous thinking is based on an inadequate understanding of the power games that underpin workplace bullying.

People still tend to see bullying as a ‘physical thing’. In reality most workplace bullying involves a complicated and devastating pattern of power games that can be difficult to prove to people who have not experienced the behaviour. What can compound the problem is that the bully is often a manager and therefore has the power to define the situation. If the target of bullying complains, the bully uses power games to redefine the facts and the rules to his or her advantage. Take a bully to mediation for example and he or she will shift the focus and argue that the target is the one creating the difficulties. Current mediation processes facilitate the bully’s power games by cooperating with the bully who insists that they face their accuser: The mediation process can be used as another forum for power games where the target experiences the ultimate bullying and usually leaves with an exit package.

In an attempt to clarify workplace bullying some practitioners have tried to introduce concepts from other areas of law or from legislation being trialed in other countries. One theory puts the onus on the target of bullying to show ‘intent’. But power games are not something that can be reduced to the perpetrator’s intent. Power games are often so subtle that it can be difficult to show what actually occurred let alone reveal the perpetrator’s intentions. Furthermore not everyone who uses power games is necessarily aware of their behaviour. If the behaviour is a long established pattern that has enabled a bully to succeed in life, he or she may not be aware that their power is founded on the unwarranted control of others.

More and more cases of workplace bullying are coming under the spotlight now that workplace stress can be more effectively dealt with under the Health and Safety Act. What is lacking in the current environment is an adequate means of identifying bullying and the use of power games in the workplace setting. Over time, test cases may provide practitioners with an appropriate framework in which to assess workplace bullying. In the meantime practitioners can use the available literature on power and control in violent relationships to identify and manage the use of power games in the workplace.

What Are Power Games?

When a complaint of workplace bullying has been made an employer needs to look for a pattern of power games. Kay Douglas and Kim McGregor define power games as “the destructive use of power by one person over another. We are involved in a power game when we use our power to undermine someone for our own ends. Power games are about control, winners and losers, scoring points and gaining the upper hand at the other’s expense.” People using power games in the workplace employ a variety of strategies to confuse their targets: isolation, failure to consult, cutting people out of the information loop, refusing to listen, bullying to force agreement, distorting facts, anger, intimidation, overbearing behaviour, and ambushing people when they are already under pressure, overloading staff and criticism or threats.

Bullies will always have seemingly plausible explanations for their behaviour. People who use power games often appear charming to those who have not experienced their manipulation and control. Power games are sometimes blatant. More often they consist of subtle put-downs, and control tactics or unfair criticism and sarcasm that leave the target increasingly confused. A target’s skills and intelligence may be devalued or they may be made an example of, accused of under-performance or treated differently from other staff. “Some people who play power games are well aware of the destructive impact of their actions. They consciously use whatever means at their disposal to overpower others. Others manipulatively act out their unconscious desire for power".

It may take two to tango but it takes only one to play power games. “When power games are being played there is usually one person who is committed to having his or her way regardless of the impact on the other. In many situations the [target] is preoccupied with how to stop the conflict and will often make all kinds of attempts to do so, from confrontation to peacemaking to capitulation, all the time hoping the bullying will stop.” Both parties can get locked into a pattern. The person playing the games becomes increasingly aggressive in an attempt to maintain control while the target becomes worn down from trying to please, or continually trying to keep the peace.

Power games can be particularly difficult to deal with when they are used by a manager or supervisor who holds legitimate power over others. Authority over staff carries the responsibility to be considerate, respectful and accountable. An effective manager works with staff to achieve the organisation’s goals. Managers using power games often lose sight of the organisation’s goals in the pursuit of their own need to control others.

“Honest, clear and kind communication builds and strengthens relationships. A person misusing power usually does not want to explore the issues openly or take responsibility for their behaviour. Instead they use tactics that confuse, disempower, sidetrack or derail.... A smokescreen of blame and accusations may be created when [people] attempt to discuss issues of concern. The person may deny the truth, tell lies, bait… by becoming hurtful or offensive, distract… by changing the focus of the conversation or overpower … by refusing to let [people] have [their] say. These games often leave [a target] feeling bewildered and impotent.”

Mobbing

When workplace power games are not dealt with, the behaviour often spreads through the entire workplace. Colleagues can offer support to a target of bullying. “Having strong alliances with colleagues usually helps us to feel more powerful. Colleagues can provide us with moral support, offer survival strategies and provide us with a reality check about the bullying we are experiencing.” When colleagues begin to fear attracting the bully’s attention they may either withdraw their support or join in the power games themselves. Mobbing can bring its own rewards in the form of preferential treatment and a sense of power by association.

Once workplace power games degenerate into mobbing, both the target and the employer have a major problem on their hands. When mobbing has become the norm, retraining or removing the bully may not resolve the problems. When a bully leaves employment the role is often assumed by another member of the mob. It is likely that the entire workplace or at least that work section will need comprehensive training and support to eliminate the pattern of power games.

Impact of Power Games on the Target

Employers sometimes assume that the use of power to control staff is a legitimate or effective management tool. It is important therefore to distinguish between personal power and power games. “Personal power is power that is characterised by integrity, sensitivity and respect towards ourselves and other people. Personal power involves honouring ourselves and honestly speaking our own truth. Personal power is about self-control, co-operation, equality and clear communication… power games and personal power are very different types of power. Both influence other people, but in very different ways. When we use power games we may get our own way but we also disempower and alienate others, destroy trust and engender fear and loss of confidence. In contrast, when we relate from a place of personal power we maintain our integrity and the dignity of ourselves as well as the other person. We are also more likely to create cooperation, closeness and honesty, build trust and engender confidence in others.”

It is the personal cost to the target that will ultimately cost an employer under the Health and Safety Act. Power games undermine the target’s sense of personal power and affect their self esteem. Targets begin to feel increasingly powerless which Douglas and McGregor describe as feeling “… vulnerable, alone, unsure, discouraged, overshadowed, impotent and fearful.” The resultant resentment, frustration and helplessness can create a range of health problems such as tension, headaches, depression and anxiety.

Coping with power games in the workplace can leave a target feeling continually anxious. A bully’s erratic and often illogical behaviour can be a daily distraction from work duties that progressively undermines a target’s security and commitment. Because bullies often appear plausible to others, a target is “likely to have a lonely uphill battle gaining support.”

Ongoing stress can cause physical symptoms such as “nausea, headaches, dizziness, sleep disturbances and breathing problems.” Over time “… power games whittle away the opinions, values, wants and dreams that guide our behaviour and define our unique self If we continue to give way under pressure and compromise our integrity we feel increasingly out of touch with who we really are and what is right for us. As our stress levels rise we often lose concentration and clarity; our thoughts may become scattered and our emotions intense.” Under unwarranted pressure employees can neglect their own needs, overwork, skip breaks and focus their dwindling energy on holding themselves together. The inevitable result is burnout.

Impact on the Workplace

Power games in the workplace sap employees’ energy, destroy honesty and trust, and foster fear and resentment. Power games will eventually undermine even the most committed employees. “When people are subjected repeatedly to overbearing behaviour they eventually become worn down, anxious and afraid to be honest. They often live with the sense of being under siege, ever ready for the next power struggle.” Managers using power games lose the respect of their staff.

Employees cope with power games in different ways. Some ignore power plays and protect themselves by withholding information from a bullying manager. Some complain to anyone who will listen and even make disparaging comments to customers or clients. Neither response is a solution; ultimately a target can become ‘punch drunk’ which is a short step away from burnout. When a target of power games becomes stressed he or she will look to colleagues for support. As employees line up either with or against the bully, mobbing develops as the workplace becomes divided and ultimately dysfunctional. An employer who fails to deal with complaints of bullying and workplace power games risks facing a claim under the Health and Safety Act. A less visible cost is that the organisations’ credibility can suffer as knowledge of the dysfunction spreads.

What to Look For

Investigating a complaint of workplace bullying requires an open mind and a willingness to consider behaviour that may not be immediately apparent. Avoid at all costs blaming the target. It can be frustrating for an organisation to have to disrupt usual work practices in order to uncover elaborately concealed behaviour. The costs of not doing so however can be great if an employee’s health and safety are jeopardized by an inadequate or unfair investigation processes or by undue delays in resolving the problem. Ensuring a complainant’s safety during an investigation process is crucial. And don’t be distracted by the desire to look for ‘intent’, not only will that course lead to a pointless investigation but also it play’s into the hand’s of the person using power games.

Workplace bullying can be identified by assessing whether there has been a repetitive pattern of behaviour. The behaviour is often subtle and the accused is likely to cover his or her tracks with a smokescreen. If a pattern of behaviour exists an investigation needs to consider the impact of that pattern. Consider whether the behaviour has been warranted, fair or appropriate. Look at the impact on the complainant, has the complainant’s behaviour changed? Are they feeling insecure, unsafe, undermined or disadvantaged? Avoid the trap of judging the complainant’s character which merely adds to the abuse. The issue is not about personality. It is about warrantability, fairness, trust and confidence, and health and safety.

Sometimes a target of bullying will welcome an opportunity to face the accused in a safe environment. This option should only be considered when the complainant feels comfortable and has professional support. Bullies are highly skilled in the use of power games and can use the opportunity to finish their target off. Once a complainant has been interviewed and the accused has had an opportunity to respond, the complainant should be afforded a right of reply. It may take some time to work through the smokescreen and identify the true nature of the problem.

The costs of workplace bullying are too great to wait until precedents have been established. They include not only the costs incurred from personal grievances or claims under the Health and Safety Act. There is the impact on staff morale and staff turnover and the ongoing damaging effects of allowing employees to use power games to control others in the workplace. It is in every employer’s interests to identify and manage workplace bullying. It makes good sense for employers to create an environment where personal power is promoted and power games are eliminated. Employees who feel empowered, confident, supported and safe at work are more likely to develop their full potential to the benefit of themselves and their employer.

By Cheryl Horrell, Consultant, Bluebell Lane Employment Relations Service, Christchurch. Cheryl has almost 20 years experience in employment relations. She specializes in managing workplace bullying and work stress. This writer has had extensive experience in dealing with workplace power games. The work of Kay Douglas & Kim McGregor, Power Games, Penguin Books (NZ), 2000, has been used in this article to support the writer’s observations of power games in the workplace setting.

Thornett v. Scope: Unfairly dismissed after bullying claim

Case report - Thornett v. Scope: [2006] EWCA Civ 1600

The claimant worked for the employers in a managerial capacity. Following a complaint by a colleague who alleged that the claimant had been bullying and harassing him, the employers made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against the claimant and gave her a final written warning.

The claimant, who did not accept that the finding was correct, made it clear that she thought it would be very difficult for her to continue to work with the colleague who had made the complaint. The difficulties between the claimant and her colleague were not resolved and ultimately the claimant was dismissed.

The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was upheld by the Employment Tribunal which found that a reasonable employer would have taken further steps to encourage the parties to work together.

In assessing the amount of the compensatory award under section 123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the tribunal considered how long the employment relationship would have lasted if the employers had encouraged the parties to work together.

The tribunal acknowledged that without hearing evidence from the claimant's colleague it was a highly speculative matter but found that the best assessment it could make was that the claimant's employment would only have lasted a further six months. It accordingly held that the loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the employers' fault was limited to her earnings during that period.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal against the amount of the award, finding that there had been insufficient evidence to entitle the tribunal to speculate as to the duration of the employment relationship and that it should not, therefore, have placed any limitation on her lost earnings.

The employers appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:

An Employment Tribunal's task, when deciding under section 123(1) of the 1996 Act what compensation was just and equitable for future loss of earnings, would almost inevitably involve a consideration of uncertainties and the presence of a need to speculate did not disqualify a tribunal from carrying out its duty under that section.

Although there might be cases in which evidence to the contrary was so sparse that a tribunal should approach the question on the basis that loss of earnings in the employment would have continued indefinitely, where there was evidence that it might not have been so, that evidence must be taken into account.

There had been evidence before the Employment Tribunal which created a risk that the employment would not have continued indefinitely and the tribunal had been right to take that evidence into account, but the reasons for the tribunal's finding that the employment would have continued for six months had not been sufficiently stated in its determination. Accordingly, the case would be remitted to the tribunal for the compensatory award to be reassessed.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: Dijen Basu (Eversheds LLP) for the employers; Andrew Blake (Gill Akaster, Plymouth) for the claimant.

What is required (?)…

What is required (?)…

The recent comments and posts in this blog could easily be interpreted as ‘union bashing’, but this is far from the truth.

We suggest that workplace bullying in academia should involve the collective and coordinated action of many parties, such as colleagues, managers, governors, union reps, funding and quality control bodies, politicians, and communities.

Many of the comments posted here about our union (NATFHE + AUT = UCU), have been made and are made by union members, i.e. individuals who made a conscious decision not to resign from the union and perhaps even pursue legal action against the union, but instead have chosen to stay in the rank and file; to fight the fight from the inside.

These individuals all carry a common experience, in brief a lack of effective support and resolution regarding their particular case of workplace bullying. Yet, they remain members of the union.

To single out the union means that in effect, one is looking for a single cause, and this is simply false, misleading, counter-productive, and dangerous.

In random order, some of the challenges include, and some random thoughts are:

• Failure of some employers/managers to fully implement ACAS guidelines, and in particular the right to call upon witnesses, to have representation, to have access to accurate records of all hearings. Yes, the Employment Tribunals can decide on this but does it have to always go that far? Are there no other options?

• Failure of some employers to have appropriate internal procedures, embedded with principles of natural justice. How many a record of resolving employment disputes through negotiations and a truck record to prove so?

• Colleagues who are afraid to speak up for fear that they may suffer various forms of penalties.

• HR and personnel departments caught in the dilemma between their professional training and professionalism, versus possible management ‘pressures’ to go along with the prevailing and obviously wrong groupthink.

• A noted lack of expert union reps in workplace bullying backed up by union active policy, strategy, negotiation, and legal action. There is a web page online from a network support group, and a legal/counseling help line that union members can phone, but the issue seems to be the lack of satisfactory results in some well document cases. Why are union members voicing concerns?

• Funding and quality control bodies should somehow engage in the process of contributing to the implementation and appropriate application of internal grievance and disciplinary procedures. They should/can consider what is happening with workplace bullying, for this has effects on how the general workplace functions or dysfunctions. – Yes, we know universities are independent bodies. True, but this is where the collective energies of multiple partners at all levels have to come into this, and the union is only one of them. In fact, the union could lead such a campaign and perhaps attempt to unite all the players in some kind of common cause.

Yes, we do have a new booklet that is well written, BUT the issue remains ‘policing’, and from what we know, universities are not always good at policing their own. An independent party is indeed needed, an external party, even an ombudsman, something, anything… for there are far too many instances when universities when left on their own have not always done the right thing… (ACAS, internal procedures, discrimination, victimisation etc)

TUC, Andrea Adams Trust, and other organisations are working/have worked on a number of projects – policing remains the issue, the gap, the weakness…

This is perhaps one of the central challenges. It requires multiple players. The politicians have told us what we already know, ‘universities are independent bodies’. Does ‘independence’ mean lack of accountability and transparency on issues of workplace bullying?

The reply from HEFCE is/was that universities are accountable to their own governing bodies. Well, one wonders how cozy these relationships may become after some time…

There is a voluntary code of practice for governors, but how many of us know about it or have read it? How many governors have been challenged successfully?

So, who has sole responsibility for this mess? So far, we have failed to pinpoint a single agent for change. That would be too easy. A collective and coordinated effort of multiple players is needed. We have a long way to go…

It would be good to hear/read from all on what is required. We accept that certain things are required by our union, but what about the other parties, and how does a strategy progress beyond help lines, online and phone counseling, and well written booklets?

Here is an opinion: There is no doubt that organisational challenges will pop up in any related commentary and discussion, but these issues could/can be resolved if there is a really independent external body to measure, quantify, check, assess how universities are dealing with workplace bullying. If the problem is ‘independence’, can politicians do something about this? The economic argument is easy to make. The membership of such a group can include union reps, employers, independent HR experts, consultants, politicians etc… a wide body with relevant knowledge.

Yes, ambitious… back to the original claim that it is impossible for the union and its members to alone tackle workplace bullying. The responsibility has to be collective.

Victims [in academia] do not come forward?

We received the following email:

Dear Mrs Blackwell,

Recently we have read your comments on bulldieacademics website. You are badly mistaken about the number of cases and members who apply for assistance every year. As to nature of advice NATHFE/AUT [UCU] policy is to instruct a firm of solicitors or counsel whom they can control to get a generic advice -"Your claim has no merit or has less that 50% chances of success".

When the Tribunals heard the evidence, many of these claims were successful. Yet, no regret by the Union leadership and in-house solicitors. In the case of Dr DSilva the Tribunal found in his favour in his absence although, the Union and its counsel and solicitor thought he had no case. What a shame?

Do you have any idea what do the unions do those who come forward what do the Unions do to them. Have you looked at the union new draconian rule 4.6? Since September 2006 three Indian and one Iranian have already became victim of the above union rule. If any one dare question the competency or racism within the union would [they] not see the light of the day.

For further information contact tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

C Kumar, Mrs Mahadevan & AJ Graham - Coordinators
----------------------------------------
Read related previous comment in this blog: Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education - UK [December 07, 2006, bottom of page]
----------------------------------------
How can victims be encouraged to come forward if this is how academic unions deal with them? And what happens to those that question the union leadership and how it deals with these issues? They are branded 'union bashers' and they 'vanish' in the gulags...

What makes a manager a high flyer?

High flyers - those who reach a senior management position in a relatively short space of time - are more broad thinking, challenging of norms, open to doing things in new ways and more capable of understanding themselves and their colleagues emotions, than their senior management peers.

That's the conclusion of research by Troy Jensen of Kaisen Consulting, who assessed 800 senior managers with known career paths using psychometric tests on a range of personality traits including openness, conscientiousness and extraversion.

Managers were considered to be 'high flyers' if they had reached a senior management position within eight years of starting their career.

The study, which was presented at the British Psychological Society's Annual Conference, found that high flyers do significantly differ from their senior manager peers on a number of personality and thinking dimensions.

Broadly, they were found to be higher on many levels of effective social functioning, as well as on breadth and creativity in thinking.

Mr Jensen said: "Our research suggests that effective social and emotional functioning may be an important component of what separates 'high flyers' that rise quickly from other senior managers, especially as we found that analytical ability is similar in both groups.

He continued, "Whilst research into 'high flyers' has tailed off over the past few years, it seems, based on our findings, that there may be a case for further investigation with a view towards differentiating between high-potential employees who succeed and those who are derailed...

From: http://management-issues.com
------------------------------------
Indeed, we would like to know what happened with the 'derailed' ones, and what went wrong with 'breadth and creativity in thinking'.

Bullying in the Workplace: A Proposed Model for Understanding the Psychological Harassment Process

Abstract

...Because different studies suggest that psychological harassment represents a great threat to most workers, it has received considerable and growing interest across the world and has emerged as a new field of study in Europe, Australia, South Africa and the U.S. In spite of these studies, bullying still appears as a complex phenomenon. This paper summarises the relevant literature... a very costly phenomenon, which harms the health of the victim and the competitiveness of the firm, the paper concludes that HR managers should combat psychological harassment in organisations...

Introduction

Recent studies in many European countries suggest that the issues of violence and harassment in the workplace affect a substantial part of the workforce (Paoli & Merllié 2001, Di Martino, Hoel & Cooper 2003, Einarsen & Nielsen 2004). These studies also indicate that psychological violence and harassment, rather than physical violence, represents the greatest threat to most workers (Di Martino, et al. 2003). According to Paoli and Merllié (2001), around nine per cent of European workers had exposure to some psychological violence. When risk of intimidation and bullying was compared between EU countries, the highest risk was found for Finland (15 per cent), Netherlands (14 per cent) and the United Kingdom (14 per cent), whilst the lowest figures emerged for the Mediterranean countries (Italy, four per cent; Portugal, four per cent)...

Victim Characteristics

...an apparent question arises: “Is there a clear and standard profile of victim?” Some (Coyne, Seigne & Randall 2000) argue that individual antecedents, such as the personality of victims (for instance, neuroticism), may be involved as causes of bullying. Nevertheless, most researchers... distance themselves from the simplistic view that bullying is the result of pathologies, or psychopathic personality traits. Indeed, evidence with regard to personality traits as antecedents of bullying is still sparse. When individual antecedents have been the subject of study (e.g., Zapf & Einarsen 2003), victims with low self esteem, high anxiety levels, introverted, conscientious, neurotic and submissive characteristics have been identified. However, as Di Martino, et al. note (2003: 16), “The extent, to which these personality characteristics should actually be considered causes of bullying, or whether they should be considered a result of being bullied, is still an open question.” Leymann (1996b) argues that these characteristics need to be interpreted as a “normal response to an abnormal situation”... In fact, it is the interaction of individuals, the victim and perpetrator, and the work context that creates the situation of bullying at any time...

Perpetrator Characteristics

Is there a clear and standard profile of a perpetrator? While some authors argue that the personality of the perpetrator is a cause of bullying such as the ‘psychopathic personality’ (Field 1996, Hirigoyen 1998), others (Poilpot-Rocaboy 2000) reject this idea and argue the perpetrator is not always a sick person. But, a contrary viewpoint is that not everyone can be a perpetrator in work life, because education and moral values act to stop someone being a perpetrator at work, even in a context where bullying behaviour is allowed.

Zapf and Einarsen (2003) note bullying research has revealed that bullies seem to be male more often than female, and supervisors and managers more often than colleagues. They suggest three main types of bullying related to certain characteristics of perpetrators. The first type is the bullying due to protection of self esteem. Zapf and Einarsen (2003) contend that many theorists assume that protecting and enhancing self esteem, which can be understood as having a favourable global evaluation of oneself, is a basic human motive which influences and controls human behaviour in many social situations. Thus, high levels of self esteem are likely to exhibit more aggressive behaviour than low levels of self esteem. Moreover, Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996) suggested that various negative emotions such as frustration, anger, anxiety and envy play a mediating role between self esteem and aggression. For instance, Ahmed and Braithwaite (2004) show that shame and pride are related to workplace bullying. Likewise, in other studies (Zapf & Einarsen 2003) on workplace bullying using the reports of victims, envy on the part of the bullies is considered one main reason for their bullying. According to Neuman and Baron (2003), the perception of unfair treatment, and the subsequent frustration and stress produced often serve as antecedents to workplace aggression and violence...

According to Zapf and Einarsen (2003), the second type of bullying is due to the lack of social competencies on the part of the perpetrator. Lack of emotional control, lack of self reflection and perspective taking are aspects related to bullying. For example, a supervisor may vent his anger by regularly yelling at one of the subordinates without being aware of the consequences of this behaviour. Finally, Zapf and Einarsen (2003) present bullying as a result of micro political behaviour. It has been suggested that some cases of bullying follow the logic of micro political behaviour in organisations. This type of bullying indicates harassment of another person in order to protect or improve one’s own position and interest in the organisation, and has been described as a phenomenon mainly occurring at the middle and higher hierarchical levels of an organisation.

Some managers profit by using bullying as a form of micro political behaviour, which may be one of the explanations as to why supervisors and managers are so often among the bullies. From a ‘social learning’ perspective, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew (1996) submit that harassment is learned by observation, experience or imitation of several sources (family, school, military service, television, and firm). But as Brodsky (1976) concludes, if perpetrators may indeed have some common characteristics making them prone to bullying, they will not exhibit such behaviour unless they are in an organisational culture that rewards, or at least is permissive of such behaviours. The interaction of individuals and the work context is an essential component of the psychological harassment behaviour.

Organisation Characteristics

In France, Hirigoyen (1998, 2001) has shown that psychological harassment is more often present in certain specific industries and occupations, such as the administrative function, education and the health sector. Di Martino, et al. (2003) confirm this observation and note a recent review of European surveys of bullying identified several high risk occupations. Overall, there appears to be a higher risk of bullying within the public sector (public administration and defence, education and health) than within the private sector...

...A negative and stressful working environment has frequently been associated with bullying (Leymann 1996b). This relationship can be explained as various environmental work factors are considered to produce or elicit occupational stress, which again may increase the risk of conflict and bullying. The characteristics of the negative and stressful environment are, for example, work intensification, a high degree of pressure, unclear and unpredictable job situations, enforced team working, unclear roles and command structures, as well as various job related physical aspects (noise, heat and coldness)...

Moreover, bullying has been found to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing of senior managers, to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviourSuch views seem to be confirmed by the fact that over 90 per cent of respondents in a large survey of members of UNISON, the British public sector union, identified “bullies can get away with it” as a potential cause of bullying (Di Martino, et al. 2003). In some organisations, bullying may not be an integral part of the culture, but it is still indirectly ‘permitted’. If there is no policy against bullying, no monitoring policy and no punishment for those who engage in bullying, it could be interpreted that the organisation accepts the behaviour as normal and legitimate... “For harassment to occur, the harassment elements must exist within a culture that permits and rewards harassment.”

Two styles of leadership have been found to be associated with bullying: an authoritarian style and a laissez-faire style. Indeed, settling conflicts or dealing with disagreements through autocratic leadership has been linked to bullying (Vartia 1996). In contrast, people who had neither been bullied, nor had observed bullying taking place, reported that disagreements at their workplace tended to be solved by negotiation (Vartia 1996). Moreover, a laissez-faire style of leadership may also provide a fertile ground for bullying between peers or colleagues. A manager’s ignorance and failure to recognise and intervene in bullying cases may indirectly contribute to bullying by conveying the message that bullying is acceptable. Similarly, dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of guidance, instructions and given feedback has been shown to be associated with higher levels of bullying...

Organisational Response

Organisations respond to bullying in terms of passive behaviours. Inaction is a passive coping style. Organisational agents ignore the complaint of the victim. Seldom does the organisation appear to be concerned with the complaint. This can be explained by the fact that in accordance to the organisation, the behaviour is regarded acceptable, as ‘the norm’, or the complaint is not taken with interest (“it is not serious!”, “it is for fun!”), or the harassment situation is perceived as an interpersonal conflict (“it is their problem!”; “it is their private life!”). The inaction is also explained by the fact that managers do not often know how to act against this phenomenon ... [poor idiots]

Individual Effects

Many studies show that psychological harassment has extremely negative effects for individuals. Generally, there are three individual consequences. The first effect is a deterioration of the victim’s physical and mental health... Typically, research points to increased stress levels and reduced physical and psychological wellbeing, with the most frequently identified negative health related outcomes including: anxiety, depression, psychosomatic symptoms (hostility, hyper sensibility, loss of memory and feelings of victimisation), aggression, fear and mistrust, cognitive effects (such as, inability to concentrate, or think clearly, and reduced problem solving capacity), isolation, loneliness, deterioration of relationships, chronic fatigue and sleep problems. Workplace bullying not only affects the targets, but also their colleagues or other bystanders. According to different studies (Einarsen & Mikkelsen 2003), witnesses of bullying reported more mental stress reactions than workers who had not witnessed anyone being bullied in their department. Witnesses may also suffer due to a real, or perceived, inability to help the target.

In the most severe cases of bullying, victims have frequently been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD... The PTSD diagnosis refers to a constellation of stress symptoms typically exhibited by victims of exceptionally traumatic events. The hallmark symptoms of PTSD are reexperiencing, avoidance numbing and arousal. First, the trauma is relived through repeated, insistent and painful memories of the event(s) or in recurring nightmares. Also, the victims may experience an intense psychological discomfort and/or react physically when exposed to reminders of the trauma. Second, victims with PTSD tend to avoid stimuli related to the traumatic situation(s) and exhibit a general numbing of responsiveness. For instance, they may have problems remembering the actual event(s) or may exhibit a reduced interest in activities they used to enjoy. Often they feel detached from others. A third symptom is hyper arousal. This may be manifested in, for example, sleeping problems, concentration difficulties, highly tense and irritable behaviour, as well as in exaggerated reactions to unexpected stimuli (Einarsen & Mikkelsen 2003). Some authors (Leymann 1996a, Hirigoyen 2001) have claimed work harassment to be a major cause of suicide. Psychological harassment may also have wider ramifications beyond those directly involved. Research has shown that witnessing violence may lead to fear of future violent incidents and as such has similar negative effects as being personally assaulted or attacked...

The second effect of psychological harassment is the economic consequence for the victim. A loss of income is often real. Harassment may generate coping strategies and health effects which can develop into sickness absence, a lessening of productivity, a reduction of performance, resignation from the organisation, and work incapacity because of a loss of self confidence. Hirigoyen (2001) notes that in 36 per cent of the cases, the victim leaves the firm. In 20 per cent of the reported cases, the person is laid off, in nine per cent of the cases, the departure is negotiated, in seven per cent of the cases, the person resigns and in one per cent of the cases, the person is put in anticipated retirement. In addition to this loss of incomes, the victim may have medical expenses, psychotherapeutic spending and fees of lawyers. According to Hirigoyen (2001), 30 per cent of the victims stopped working due to illness, disability, or are made redundant for medical inaptitude. In 66 per cent of the cases, the victim is actually excluded from the work world...

Poilpot-Rocaboy, G. (2006). Bullying in the Workplace: A Proposed Model for Understanding the Psychological Harassment Process, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 14(2), 1-17.

Available online at: http://rphrm.curtin.edu.au/2006/issue2/bullying.html

Recognizing Retaliation: The Risks and Costs of Whistleblowing

If you plan to challenge the agency or corporation [or university] that employs you, you should know the tactics of retaliation most often used against whistleblowers.

Spotlight the Whistleblowers
This common retaliatory strategy seeks to make the whistleblower, instead of his or her message, the issue: employers will try to create smokescreens by attacking the source's motives, credibility, professional competence, or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issues s/he has raised.

Manufacture a Poor Record
Employers occasionally spend months or years building a record to brand a whistleblower as a chronic problem employee. To lay the groundwork for termination, employers may begin to compile memoranda about any incident, real or contrived, that conveys inadequate or problematic performance; whistleblowers who formerly received sterling performance evaluations may begin to receive poor ratings from supervisors.

Threaten Them into Silence
This tactic is commonly reflected in statements such as, "You'll never work again in this town/industry/agency. . ." Threats can also be indirect: employers may issue gag orders, for example, forbidding the whistleblower from speaking out under threat of termination.

Isolate or Humiliate Them
Another retaliation technique is to make an example of the whistleblower by separating him or her from colleagues. This may remove him or her from access to information necessary to effectively blow the whistle. Employers also may exercise the bureaucratic equivalent of placing a whistleblower in the public stocks: a top manager may be reassigned to tasks such as sweeping the floors or counting the rolls of toilet paper in the bathroom. Often this tactic is combined with measures to strip the whistleblower of his or her duties, sometimes to facilitate subsequent termination.

Set Them Up for Failure
Perhaps as common as the retaliatory tactic of isolating or humiliating whistleblowers by stripping them of their duties is its converse-overloading them with unmanageable work. This involves assigning a whistleblower responsibilities and then making it impossible to fulfill them. One approach is to withdraw the research privileges, data access, or subordinate staff necessary for a whistleblower to perform the job. Another is to put the whistleblower on a pedestal of cards-to appoint him or her to solve the problem s/he has exposed, and then refuse to provide the resources or authority to follow through.

Prosecute Them
The longstanding threat to attack whistleblowers for "stealing" the evidence used to expose misconduct is becoming more serious, particularly for private property that is evidence of illegality. Government workers even have been threatened with prosecution under a McCarthy-era statute for being "disloyal" to the United States, after they made disclosures to or participated in meetings with environmental groups involved in lawsuits challenging illegal government activity. Until adoption of an anti-gag statute, passed annually in appropriations legislation since 1987, workers with security clearances risked prosecution unless they obtained advance permission before blowing the whistle (even on information that was not marked as classified), effectively waiving their constitutional rights.

Eliminate Their Jobs or Paralyze Their Careers
A common tactic is to lay off whistleblowers even as the company or agency is hiring new staff. Employers may "reorganize" whistleblowers out of jobs or into marginal positions. Another retaliation technique is to deep-freeze the careers of those who manage to thwart termination and hold on to their jobs: employers may simply deny all requests for promotion or transfer. Sometimes it is not enough merely to fire or make whistleblowers rot in their jobs. The goal is to make sure they "will never work again" in their fields by blacklisting them: bad references for future job prospects are common.

From: Alaska Whistleblowers Resource Guide
-------------------------------------------

Whistleblowers’ concern about retaliation not without justification, Virginia Tech sociologist’s study shows

...Rothschild, Professor of sociology at Virginia Tech, did an eight-year study, conducting indepth interviews with 300 whistleblowers and more than 200 surveys of people who observed wrongdoing but chose to remain silent. She found that 69 percent were fired as a result of exposing wrongdoing, even when they only reported it to higher ups within their own employer’s organization. Of those who left their organization to report misconduct to outside authorities, more than 80 percent were fired.

Rothschild, who has published five academic articles on her studies, found in many cases that the moment senior management realized an individual might blow the whistle, “they began a race to discredit the would-be whistleblower before the whistleblower could discredit them.” In the battle for vindication, and for their jobs, whistleblowers seldom emerged unscathed. In 84 percent of her cases, former whistleblowers said they became depressed and could no longer trust the managers of organizations. In 53 percent of her cases, the whistleblowers suffered deterioration even in their family relations.

Indeed, Rothschild says, statistical analysis of the data found that the larger and more systemic the misconduct reported by the whistleblower, the more swift and severe were the reprisals. Neither gender, nor race, nor age, nor level of educational attainment, nor years on the job could insulate a whistleblower from retaliation.

Why do people take these personal risks? Rothschild found that 79 percent of her whistleblowers were stirred to action by their values. “Sometimes they said that they got their sense of right and wrong from the codes of professional ethics embedded in their various occupations; sometimes they attributed their moral compass to religious upbringing or family teaching; but in nearly all cases, they said they were trying to do ‘the right thing’,” Rothschild says. “Of the remaining ones, 16 percent said that their whistleblowing had been defensive: they were afraid that they would be blamed for the misconduct of others if they did not report it, and 5 percent said that they really weren’t sure why they had spoken up.”

Many organizational factors lay the groundwork for whistleblowing, Rothschild says. She found that the employee is most likely to blow the whistle when he or she observes the same misconduct many times and comes to view the employer as immoral and the senior managers as non-democratic and probably complicit in the wrongdoing...