ABSTRACT
This paper explores the concept of shame within the context of workplace bullying. Despite a decade or more of international research into bullying at work, there is little or no evidence for explicit exploration of shame amongst those who have experienced bullying. Based on content analysis from the narratives of 15 college and university lecturers who were self-selecting victims of bullying we find clear evidence for feelings of shame which appear to last long after the bullying episodes have ended...
The escalation of workplace bullying
The growth of workplace bullying both in terms of research, and as an organisational phenomena in the UK, has been spectacular since 1993. Although known by a number of different names including ‘mobbing’ (Leymann, 1996; Zapf et al ., 1996), harassment (Bjorqvist et al., 1994), bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Lewis, 1999), workplace harassment (Brodsky, 1976) and emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998) amongst others, the central core of these differing concepts are ‘systematic mistreatment’ of an individual which, if unabated, results in severe problems for the victim (Einarsen et al ., 2003). The reported growth of bullying inside organisations appears widespread, regardless of geography. Studies undertaken in the UK (for example, Hoel & Cooper, 2000; UNISON, 1997), Scandinavia and Europe (for example, Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Vartia, 1996) and Australia (for example, McCarthy et al ., 1996; Richards & Freeman, 2002) have all shown increasing numbers of employees being exposed to bullying behaviours. Part of the reason for this increase in reports of bullying might be the product of amplified coverage by numerous media (Lewis, 2002) and to the growth in litigation and subsequent attention to policy and procedures by organisations and trade unions (Lewis & Rayner, 2003). These different narratives coupled with talk amongst victims, colleagues and ‘canteen lawyers’ provide fertile ground for multiple socially constructed realities of workplace bullying as a phenomenon rapidly on the increase...
Supporting the bullied victim
According to Leymann and Gustafsson (1996) and Matthiesen et al. (2003), bullied victims suffer from a lack of social support in work, which is central to coping with the experience of bullying and in mitigating health and stress symptoms. Hubert (2003) explains that from her experience of dealing with bullied victims, people get pushed from person to person or even institution to institution. Could this process of ‘push’ result in further feelings of shame? Hubert (2003) suggests that the initial desire to offer help to people who have been bullied operates merely as a referral service rather than any real practicable source of assistance. Even when referral to organisational departments who are supposed to assist bullied victims actually takes place, research suggests outcomes can often be unsatisfactory. Both Adams (1992) and Rayner (1998) report how it is often the junior ‘bullied’ individual who is relocated and not the ‘senior’ bully. This sense of injustice might well result in thoughts of shame as one is moved to new surroundings, new colleagues or even new work tasks. Here it is the victim who may suffer feelings of shame for not being able to deal with the original situation...
According to Hubert (2003), inappropriate advice on bullying can often result in escalation of the conflict. Witnesses or bystanders can be drawn into the conflict to such an extent that a ‘conflict of fear’ establishes itself (see Rayner, 1999, for example). Within this enculturation of fear, people become too scared to report bullying or believe that management know about it but will not take appropriate action to deal with it (Rayner, 1999). Liefooghe (2001) showed how employees at a UK bank were reluctant to speak out against bullying, despite assurances of nonreprisal for doing so. Instead, Liefooghe (2001) found more subtle intimidation and discreet forms of bullying occurring as a result...
Given the wider evidence of links between shame and depression, what evidence exists for similar associations in the bullying literature? Although there is limited discussion in the workplace bullying literature about shame, there are clear signals that this construct exists for bullied victims. Regardless of the source of the bullying behaviours, the shame impact, if prolonged and selectively targeted, is the same. Recipients are worn down, frustrated or intimidated, and severe cases can suffer with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003)...
Whilst some bullied victims found it difficult to concede they were victims, they also sought comfort in sharing their experiences with colleagues rather than with legitimised authorities. This contradicts the notion of shame as an isolatory experience. The fact that some victims of bullying seek colleague support during or after a bullying episode may indicate there is a collective need to administer retributive justice that they are unlikely to find within the corridors of personnel or their trades union. Their feelings of humiliation as to what was happening to them can only truly be understood by sharing their experiences with those who have also been bullied, or simply with those who know and understand the context. Neither personnel nor their union representatives seem to be able to undertake this role. This is partly because the bullied victims are experiencing shame at having to expose themselves to authority and also because they have feelings of humiliation for failing to deal with the issues themselves...
In trying to better understand workplace bullying it might serve researchers and those charged with dealing with the aftermath of an event to consider the importance of the shame construct, the ramifications of which are destructive, debilitating and long lasting.
Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 281-299.
September 13, 2010
September 07, 2010
Bullying at Stirling University
I worked at Stirling University for 13 years. I was bullied by my manager. I asked her to stop, but the ill treatment continued, and I raised grievances against her. As a result I was dismissed. Stirling Uni claims to be committed to allowing employees to be able to work free from bullying, victimisation and discrimination. They claim that their commitment exceeds any legal requirement. However, here I provide evidence of the extreme lengths that management takes to protect and support bullies.
More info at: http://bullyingatstirlinguniversity.blogspot.com/
More info at: http://bullyingatstirlinguniversity.blogspot.com/
September 03, 2010
HR stops Workplace Bullying, if 3% = Success
I want to love HR. I know good HR people. One shining example was a 2009 WBI University graduate. She was accustomed to serving at the executive level, as Senior Vice President, in several hospitals. When we met, she had lost two previous jobs simply because she dared to stand up to senior manager bullies. Each time, the CEOs terminated her and kept their buddies. We withhold her name so she can work again.
Another good person is a New York City-based HR professional who blogs and has written a book called the HR Toolkit and works with our NY State group to pass the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, despite SHRM’s official opposition to the legislation.
I write this love letter at the request of HR folks who hate reading the negative news about how HR does too little to stop bullying within their organizations. Believe me, I hate the fact that HR doesn’t help enough, too.
Really, I want to tout the value HR brings to organizations, but I need proof. I do not demonize HR. They are not wicked, ok maybe threatening, but not demonic. But I report the experiences bullied targets tell us. It’s that simple.
Clearly individuals are separate from the institutional role that dictates that they serve their executive masters and allow bullies to operate with impunity. The caveat is that whatever personal conflict over doing the right thing or the commanded or expected thing should compel more HR folks to be ethical, right and just.
That’s why I rely on empirical and anecdotal data to shape the story. HR folks, here is what 462 people who probably had been bullied told us on our summer 2010 online Instant Poll.
The percentage of cases in which HR took action and stopped the bullying: 3.4. There it is — the good news. Headline: HR Effectively Stops Bullying (3% of the time). HR you earned it. Celebrate. The 3%-ers are the good people. But what about the rest of you?
In 60% of cases HR did nothing after bullying was reported to them. Doing nothing was followed by an increase in bullying, for 26.6% of respondents.
Worse still, HR botched matters by taking action that helped the alleged bully and hurt the complainant in 32.5% of cases.
This is the reality confirmed by WBI coaches who have listened to over 6,000 detailed tales. And you might want to view the contributions to our HR Forum.
Don’t get defensive. Don’t attack WBI. Just do the right thing for the person hurt by the ones typically more powerful. Stop siding with the powerful just to keep your job or to curry favor from them. Grow a conscience. Be moral leaders. Teach executives about bullying and show them how destructive it is, for people and for leaders.
Now the Good News …
Here’s some great news for HR staffers. Though you have not fooled those who turned to you for help inside your organizations, the general public believes that HR is serving aggrieved employees. This statistic is derived from the latest 2010 WBI-Zogby national poll.
14.3% of adult Americans credited HR with taking appropriate actions that stopped the bullying with positive outcomes for the target. (compared to the 3.4% from the non-scientific online poll)
Botched efforts occurred in only 5.3% of cases.
HR doing nothing was estimated at 24.9%, allowing the bullying to continue but in only 6.2% of situations was the target harmed by increased bullying.
In the majority of cases, 51% of adult Americans , survey respondents were not sure if HR was told about the workplace bullying situation.
So, HR, please do not demonize WBI. Do better and we will gladly report it.
From: http://www.workplacebullying.org
Another good person is a New York City-based HR professional who blogs and has written a book called the HR Toolkit and works with our NY State group to pass the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, despite SHRM’s official opposition to the legislation.
I write this love letter at the request of HR folks who hate reading the negative news about how HR does too little to stop bullying within their organizations. Believe me, I hate the fact that HR doesn’t help enough, too.
Really, I want to tout the value HR brings to organizations, but I need proof. I do not demonize HR. They are not wicked, ok maybe threatening, but not demonic. But I report the experiences bullied targets tell us. It’s that simple.
Clearly individuals are separate from the institutional role that dictates that they serve their executive masters and allow bullies to operate with impunity. The caveat is that whatever personal conflict over doing the right thing or the commanded or expected thing should compel more HR folks to be ethical, right and just.
That’s why I rely on empirical and anecdotal data to shape the story. HR folks, here is what 462 people who probably had been bullied told us on our summer 2010 online Instant Poll.
The percentage of cases in which HR took action and stopped the bullying: 3.4. There it is — the good news. Headline: HR Effectively Stops Bullying (3% of the time). HR you earned it. Celebrate. The 3%-ers are the good people. But what about the rest of you?
In 60% of cases HR did nothing after bullying was reported to them. Doing nothing was followed by an increase in bullying, for 26.6% of respondents.
Worse still, HR botched matters by taking action that helped the alleged bully and hurt the complainant in 32.5% of cases.
This is the reality confirmed by WBI coaches who have listened to over 6,000 detailed tales. And you might want to view the contributions to our HR Forum.
Don’t get defensive. Don’t attack WBI. Just do the right thing for the person hurt by the ones typically more powerful. Stop siding with the powerful just to keep your job or to curry favor from them. Grow a conscience. Be moral leaders. Teach executives about bullying and show them how destructive it is, for people and for leaders.
Now the Good News …
Here’s some great news for HR staffers. Though you have not fooled those who turned to you for help inside your organizations, the general public believes that HR is serving aggrieved employees. This statistic is derived from the latest 2010 WBI-Zogby national poll.
14.3% of adult Americans credited HR with taking appropriate actions that stopped the bullying with positive outcomes for the target. (compared to the 3.4% from the non-scientific online poll)
Botched efforts occurred in only 5.3% of cases.
HR doing nothing was estimated at 24.9%, allowing the bullying to continue but in only 6.2% of situations was the target harmed by increased bullying.
In the majority of cases, 51% of adult Americans , survey respondents were not sure if HR was told about the workplace bullying situation.
So, HR, please do not demonize WBI. Do better and we will gladly report it.
From: http://www.workplacebullying.org
Professor Caroline Gipps VC of the University of Wolverhampton announces retirement
...and we remind you of some of her 'achievements':
1. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/06/and-ritual-continues.html#links
2. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/05/pack-of-wolves-1.html#links
3. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/04/university-of-wolverhampton-uk-stress.html#links
1. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/06/and-ritual-continues.html#links
2. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/05/pack-of-wolves-1.html#links
3. http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/04/university-of-wolverhampton-uk-stress.html#links
August 30, 2010
University suicide points to nonreponsive employer
At universities, people tend to think of teaching and research faculty and staff as the only employees. At the University of Virginia, the president supports a literary journal, the Virginia Quarterly Review, prestigious to poets and fiction writers. Kevin Morrissey, 52, the VQR managing editor had been hired by a young Ted Genoways, 38, new himself to the editor post in 2003.
On July 30, Kevin Morrissey committed suicide after a reported three years of torment by Genoways despite the two having a genuine friendship at the start of their work together.
There was a record of several calls by Morrissey to university institutional helpers (HR, ombuds, EAP, president’s office). Either his call for help was not answered or treated with indifference. Those familiar with Morrissey’s complaints said that the rationalization for Genoways was that creative people like him could be difficult to work with and were often bad managers! In other words, live with him, adjust to him, Genoways is indispensable. Note the abdication of responsibility by this employer for the safe working conditions of its employees.
Said one fawning former intern, “Ted (Genoways) is the creative genius … the fulcrum of discussions about the future of VQR and, honestly, the future of journalism … Ted is the star at the center of VQR‘s constellation.” A publisher familiar with VQR lamented that “A crisis like this (triggered by Morrissey’s suicide) can be a death blow (sic), even to the strongest scholarly publication.”
The magazine had won awards and Genoways himself won a fellowship allowing him to be out of the office. His focus was on funding and enlisted the help of a 24-yr. old UV graduate, Alana Levinson-LaBrosse (she was so rich she gave $1.5 million herself to the university). Morrissey and she reportedly clashed as she, not Morrissey, was included in activities with Genoways.
Staff recalled Genoways screaming at Morrissey behind closed doors. Three VQR staffers even accompanied Morrissey to the president’s office to complain about Genoways. They were brushed off. There is evidence that Genoways sent Morrissey an e-mail accusing him of “unacceptable workplace behavior,” without specifications, ordered him to work from home and prohibited communication with other VQR staff. These are all classic tactics employed by bullies who enjoy privileged protection from the CEO (the former university president who left in July). They not completely unlike torture. The tactics were probably retaliation for Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse fighting.
The only tangible response from the administration was an apology by the president’s chief of staff to VQR staff for witnessing the clash between Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse at a meeting. No apology to Morrissey. No other official response to Morrissey’s complaints. No holding Genoways accountable. No offer of counseling to Morrissey.
Morrissey’s death followed Genoways’ draconian decisions and one last denigrating e-mail on the morning of his suicide. In that e-mail, Genoways, the espo0used “genius” and “star,” accused Morrissey of failing to help a contributor to a VQR story such that Morrissey put that man’s life at risk!
There was a report that some close to the situation warned the university that Morrissey might commit suicide.
Even after Morrissey’s death, the UVa’s official response to the request for complaint and response details from reporter Robin Wilson for the Chronicle of Higher Education (the source for this story), the university hid behind a faux shield of “confidential personnel records.” Morrissey’s surviving sister blames Genoways and the university and may file a lawsuit.
The negligent employer gets to bury the secrets to protect itself from being revealed.
Epilogue
There’s even more to the Univ. Virginia tale. A couple of years ago, UVa recruited WBI to come to campus. UVa instead brought in a “motivational” speaker. At WBI, we pass on several on-site speeches when employers resist creating a solution for the problem that prompted the request in the first place.
The result at UVa was that nothing was done after the speech. The President’s office was not engaged in discussions about bullying, and possibly the specific Kevin Morrissey complaints. If something had been in place, Morrissey would not have had to resort to pleading with HR and the other institutional helpers as his phone records indicated was done. HR may be implicated in Morrissey’s death. And the feel-good motivational speaker actually encouraged this negligent employer to believe that it had adequately addressed bullying on campus with a speech alone! Get serious UVa. What will it take to get American employers to stop the carnage within the ranks?
From: http://www.workplacebullying.org
On July 30, Kevin Morrissey committed suicide after a reported three years of torment by Genoways despite the two having a genuine friendship at the start of their work together.
There was a record of several calls by Morrissey to university institutional helpers (HR, ombuds, EAP, president’s office). Either his call for help was not answered or treated with indifference. Those familiar with Morrissey’s complaints said that the rationalization for Genoways was that creative people like him could be difficult to work with and were often bad managers! In other words, live with him, adjust to him, Genoways is indispensable. Note the abdication of responsibility by this employer for the safe working conditions of its employees.
Said one fawning former intern, “Ted (Genoways) is the creative genius … the fulcrum of discussions about the future of VQR and, honestly, the future of journalism … Ted is the star at the center of VQR‘s constellation.” A publisher familiar with VQR lamented that “A crisis like this (triggered by Morrissey’s suicide) can be a death blow (sic), even to the strongest scholarly publication.”
The magazine had won awards and Genoways himself won a fellowship allowing him to be out of the office. His focus was on funding and enlisted the help of a 24-yr. old UV graduate, Alana Levinson-LaBrosse (she was so rich she gave $1.5 million herself to the university). Morrissey and she reportedly clashed as she, not Morrissey, was included in activities with Genoways.
Staff recalled Genoways screaming at Morrissey behind closed doors. Three VQR staffers even accompanied Morrissey to the president’s office to complain about Genoways. They were brushed off. There is evidence that Genoways sent Morrissey an e-mail accusing him of “unacceptable workplace behavior,” without specifications, ordered him to work from home and prohibited communication with other VQR staff. These are all classic tactics employed by bullies who enjoy privileged protection from the CEO (the former university president who left in July). They not completely unlike torture. The tactics were probably retaliation for Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse fighting.
The only tangible response from the administration was an apology by the president’s chief of staff to VQR staff for witnessing the clash between Morrissey and Levinson-LaBrosse at a meeting. No apology to Morrissey. No other official response to Morrissey’s complaints. No holding Genoways accountable. No offer of counseling to Morrissey.
Morrissey’s death followed Genoways’ draconian decisions and one last denigrating e-mail on the morning of his suicide. In that e-mail, Genoways, the espo0used “genius” and “star,” accused Morrissey of failing to help a contributor to a VQR story such that Morrissey put that man’s life at risk!
There was a report that some close to the situation warned the university that Morrissey might commit suicide.
Even after Morrissey’s death, the UVa’s official response to the request for complaint and response details from reporter Robin Wilson for the Chronicle of Higher Education (the source for this story), the university hid behind a faux shield of “confidential personnel records.” Morrissey’s surviving sister blames Genoways and the university and may file a lawsuit.
The negligent employer gets to bury the secrets to protect itself from being revealed.
Epilogue
There’s even more to the Univ. Virginia tale. A couple of years ago, UVa recruited WBI to come to campus. UVa instead brought in a “motivational” speaker. At WBI, we pass on several on-site speeches when employers resist creating a solution for the problem that prompted the request in the first place.
The result at UVa was that nothing was done after the speech. The President’s office was not engaged in discussions about bullying, and possibly the specific Kevin Morrissey complaints. If something had been in place, Morrissey would not have had to resort to pleading with HR and the other institutional helpers as his phone records indicated was done. HR may be implicated in Morrissey’s death. And the feel-good motivational speaker actually encouraged this negligent employer to believe that it had adequately addressed bullying on campus with a speech alone! Get serious UVa. What will it take to get American employers to stop the carnage within the ranks?
From: http://www.workplacebullying.org
August 28, 2010
The Psychological Effects of Downsizing and Privatisation
...Early research in this area concentrated on individuals having to cope with unexpected job loss and the effects of long term unemployment. Studies began by looking at the effects of involuntary job losses and the effects on the unemployed (see, for example, the work conducted by DeFrank and Ivancevich, 1986; Leana and Ivancevich, 1987; Leana and Feldman, 1994). These studies indicated that there were emotional, physical, social and psychological effects on the individual. Further research looked at the effects of employee turnover on the individual and the effects of turnover on those remaining employed after redundancy programs had been implemented (see Mowday, 1981; Brockner & Kim, 1993). This literature provided some insight into survivor reactions to redundancy, whereby survivors may evaluate the effects on those made redundant and how that influences their own reactions...
Empirical evidence (e.g. Greenhalgh, 1983; Armstrongstassen, 1993a) suggests that the post layoff environment can be stressful for a number of reasons: survivors are worried about their own job security, there may be anger associated with the process by which the redundancy program has been implemented and there may be concerns about the creation of heavier workloads due to the reduction of manpower. Brockner (1988) suggests that the onset of stress typically leads to changes in survivors’ work attitudes and behaviors such as reduced organizational commitment, job satisfaction and increased turnover intention. Several articles identified emotional responses in survivors such as guilt, betrayal and isolation (e.g. Machlowitz, 1983). These employee reactions were compared to survivors of other distressing events, such as natural and man made disasters. Brockner et al. (1985) undertook a study directly related to layoffs, or rather designed to simulate a ‘layoff’ situation in a laboratory study using students who were required to complete a proof reading task. The students were then subjected to a ‘layoff’ and were subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire to investigate how they had felt and whether or not they felt the process had been fair. The results found, in support of equity theory, that following layoffs ‘survivors’ experienced increased feelings of remorse and negative attitudes towards co-workers (in order to redress the balance of inequity). Secondly, the study revealed that those who perceived there to be an injustice produced less in their second proof reading task simultaneously suggesting that layoffs have the potential (negatively) to influence productivity...
The complete paper: The Psychological Effects of Downsizing and Privatisation
Empirical evidence (e.g. Greenhalgh, 1983; Armstrongstassen, 1993a) suggests that the post layoff environment can be stressful for a number of reasons: survivors are worried about their own job security, there may be anger associated with the process by which the redundancy program has been implemented and there may be concerns about the creation of heavier workloads due to the reduction of manpower. Brockner (1988) suggests that the onset of stress typically leads to changes in survivors’ work attitudes and behaviors such as reduced organizational commitment, job satisfaction and increased turnover intention. Several articles identified emotional responses in survivors such as guilt, betrayal and isolation (e.g. Machlowitz, 1983). These employee reactions were compared to survivors of other distressing events, such as natural and man made disasters. Brockner et al. (1985) undertook a study directly related to layoffs, or rather designed to simulate a ‘layoff’ situation in a laboratory study using students who were required to complete a proof reading task. The students were then subjected to a ‘layoff’ and were subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire to investigate how they had felt and whether or not they felt the process had been fair. The results found, in support of equity theory, that following layoffs ‘survivors’ experienced increased feelings of remorse and negative attitudes towards co-workers (in order to redress the balance of inequity). Secondly, the study revealed that those who perceived there to be an injustice produced less in their second proof reading task simultaneously suggesting that layoffs have the potential (negatively) to influence productivity...
The complete paper: The Psychological Effects of Downsizing and Privatisation
August 25, 2010
Genoways takes charge, VQR staffers pull names
Virginia Quarterly Review staffers were stunned by the news that University officials have allowed editor Ted Genoways, whom they accuse of bullying managing editor Kevin Morrissey before he took his own life on July 30, to take control of the fall issue of the magazine.
“I never could have forecast that the University would allow us to remain in this situation,” wrote VQR online editor Waldo Jaquith on his blog last Friday.
Indeed, workplace bullying expert Gary Namie says he’s surprised by the University’s decision. Genoways was the recent subject of a Today show feature, during which a VQR staff member called his treatment of Morrissey in the last two weeks of his life “egregious.”
“I would have put Genoways on leave,” says Namie, “just to cool things down.”
Instead, it appears the staff has taken leave and the embattled editor is busy putting the fall issue together with UVA spokesperson Carol Wood, who has been ensconced in the VQR office since Morrissey’s death.
“Ted has been involved with editing and proofreading of the fall issue with Carol Wood,” says Genoways’ lawyer Lloyd Snook. “I don’t know whether it is actually ‘to press’ yet— they were proofing furiously yesterday.”
Wood did not immediately respond for comment on Genoways’ status or her own work on the VQR.
Initially, Jaquith and fellow staffers had vowed to finish the fall issue, for which Morrissey had been serving as interim editor in Genoways’ absence; but now they have removed their names from the online masthead and left the “un-proofed and non-fact checked” issue for Genoways to finish.
Jaquith, who resigned just days before Morrissey’s death, will be going on vacation before he starts a new position at the Miller Center. Associate and assistant editors Sheila McMillen and Molly Minturn will be going on leave. Wood, however, emphasizes that they are both still employees of the magazine.
“We came back to finish the issue that Kevin worked so hard on,” says McMillen, “but we’ve had enough.”
Last week, UVA president Teresa Sullivan ordered a “thorough” review of VQR’s management so that “the issues and allegations that have been raised” can be addressed.
From: The Hook
“I never could have forecast that the University would allow us to remain in this situation,” wrote VQR online editor Waldo Jaquith on his blog last Friday.
Indeed, workplace bullying expert Gary Namie says he’s surprised by the University’s decision. Genoways was the recent subject of a Today show feature, during which a VQR staff member called his treatment of Morrissey in the last two weeks of his life “egregious.”
“I would have put Genoways on leave,” says Namie, “just to cool things down.”
Instead, it appears the staff has taken leave and the embattled editor is busy putting the fall issue together with UVA spokesperson Carol Wood, who has been ensconced in the VQR office since Morrissey’s death.
“Ted has been involved with editing and proofreading of the fall issue with Carol Wood,” says Genoways’ lawyer Lloyd Snook. “I don’t know whether it is actually ‘to press’ yet— they were proofing furiously yesterday.”
Wood did not immediately respond for comment on Genoways’ status or her own work on the VQR.
Initially, Jaquith and fellow staffers had vowed to finish the fall issue, for which Morrissey had been serving as interim editor in Genoways’ absence; but now they have removed their names from the online masthead and left the “un-proofed and non-fact checked” issue for Genoways to finish.
Jaquith, who resigned just days before Morrissey’s death, will be going on vacation before he starts a new position at the Miller Center. Associate and assistant editors Sheila McMillen and Molly Minturn will be going on leave. Wood, however, emphasizes that they are both still employees of the magazine.
“We came back to finish the issue that Kevin worked so hard on,” says McMillen, “but we’ve had enough.”
Last week, UVA president Teresa Sullivan ordered a “thorough” review of VQR’s management so that “the issues and allegations that have been raised” can be addressed.
From: The Hook
August 16, 2010
What Killed Kevin Morrissey?
How the death of an editor threatens the future of the University of Virginia's prestigious literary review.
When Kevin Morrissey walked to the old coaling tower near the University of Virginia campus late last month and shot himself in the head, he not only ended his own life, he exposed turmoil within the small staff of The Virginia Quarterly Review that now threatens the future of the high-profile journal.
Family members and people close to the review say Mr. Morrissey, the review's managing editor, had been complaining to the university about workplace bullying by his boss, Ted Genoways. But, they contend, the institution did virtually nothing to help. "Kevin had been to the university as recently as the Monday before the Friday he died," says a person who worked for the review. "The university had tools to step in and mediate, and they didn't." Some close to the situation say that in the days before the death, they even warned the university that Mr. Morrissey, who suffered from serious depression, might commit suicide.
Mr. Genoways, the journal's editor, is highly regarded in publishing circles. He is credited with taking VQR, as the review is known, from a sleepy publication to one of the nation's preeminent literary journals. He denies the allegation of bullying and says it was Mr. Morrissey's depressed state, not their rocky relationship, that caused Mr. Morrissey's suicide. "His long history of depression caused him trouble throughout his career," Mr. Genoways wrote in a statement to The Chronicle, "leading often to conflicts with his bosses."
In the wake of Mr. Morrissey's death, VQR's own stability has been challenged. Mr. Genoways's office has been cleaned out, and police officers have been stationed at the doors of the award-winning journal. The Chronicle got such details, as well as further charges of turmoil, from a half-dozen people close to the situation. None would allow their names to be used because, they said, the university has instructed them not to talk to reporters and they fear for their jobs. (A member of VQR's staff, Sheila McMillen, is the sister of a Chronicle editor. None of the information used in this article is from Ms. McMillen.)
Mr. Genoways told The Chronicle that the university had already "reviewed all the allegations being made against me and found them to be without grounds." The university wouldn't comment on that or answer most of The Chronicle's questions about the situation, citing the confidentiality of personnel matters. A statement on the journal's home page says that UVa "remains strongly committed to VQR."
Still, others are questioning whether too much damage has already been done. Elliott D. Woods, a VQR contributor and an ardent supporter of Mr. Genoways, wrote in an e-mail message to The Chronicle that he feared that accusations about what caused Mr. Morrissey's death could "ruin the greatest little magazine I know."
Gregory M. Britton, publisher of Getty Publications, agrees. "These are tough enough times for small literary magazines," he said. "A crisis like this can be a death blow, even to the strongest scholarly publication."
Former Friends
It was at the Minnesota Historical Society Press, where Mr. Britton was director during the early 2000s, that Mr. Genoways and Mr. Morrissey first came to work together. They got along well enough that a year after Mr. Genoways took over at VQR in 2003, he asked Mr. Morrissey to come to Charlottesville as his right-hand man. It was the kind of job that Mr. Morrissey had done before, those close to him say, and that he did well. People who worked with Mr. Morrissey, including Mr. Britton, say he paid close attention to details and could be counted on to take on more than his fair share of work. They also say Mr. Morrissey, who was 52 and had never been married, could be grumpy and prickly, and that he suffered from what at times seemed to be a deep depression. Some of those who spoke to The Chronicle say he had talked about seeing a psychotherapist and taking medication. "He managed his disease, and he managed to be really high functioning," said someone who worked with him.
When Mr. Genoways took over at VQR at the age of 31, it was with hopes that he would breathe new life into a stodgy-looking black-and-white publication whose editor's office didn't even have Internet access. The departing editor, Staige Blackford, had been at the journal for nearly 30 years and was in his 70s when he decided to retire.
Mr. Genoways gradually began putting the publication on the map, hiring well-known authors and photographers and taking on timely nonfiction projects in addition to the usual poetry and fiction. He paid journalists to write about high-stakes international conflicts like the war in Afghanistan and the violence of the Mexican drug cartel. The change quickly garnered both Mr. Genoways and VQR notice from those at the literary world's highest levels, winning the publication four National Magazine Awards and 14 more nominations, all of which it accomplished on a half-million-dollar budget.
During their first few years at the magazine, as it grew in stature, Mr. Genoways and Mr. Morrissey remained the closest of friends. In a letter Mr. Genoways sent to contributors this month that was obtained by The Chronicle, he said Mr. Morrissey was a fixture in his Virginia home and at holiday dinners with Mr. Genoways's wife and young son. Mr. Morrissey also traveled with Mr. Genoways to New York to accept the National Magazine Award that VQR won for general excellence in 2006. "We were the toast of the publishing world that night," Mr. Genoways wrote in the letter to contributors.
In the last few years, however, as Mr. Genoways took on more and more ambitious projects, and as he also became worried about the magazine's financial future, the relationship between the two men and the atmosphere within VQR's offices began to sour. Some of those close to the magazine say Mr. Morrissey questioned Mr. Genoways about what Mr. Morrissey felt were excessive advance payments to contributors and about bills for parties Mr. Genoways hosted that reached into the thousands.
They say Mr. Genoways, in turn, began cutting Mr. Morrissey out of key decisions and distancing himself from the office, refusing to answer staff members' e-mail messages, shirking many of his day-to-day duties, and dumping most of the work on his small staff. "The whole staff felt Ted took all the credit and did none of the work," said the person who worked for the review, adding that Mr. Genoways spent most of his time at VQR "scrambling to be a star." Mr. Genoways has been away from the office on a Guggenheim fellowship in recent months, but he still has been responsible for making sure the journal's issues are finished on time.
When Mr. Genoways was in the office, some recall, he could occasionally be overheard screaming at Mr. Morrissey behind his office door.
In his statement to The Chronicle, Mr. Genoways acknowledged there "had been tensions between staff members in the VQR offices." But people close to him, including the contributor Mr. Woods, say Mr. Genoways was hardly AWOL from his VQR duties. Nor was he depending on Mr. Morrissey and others to run the place. In fact, the exact opposite was true, says Mr. Woods. Mr. Genoways ran the magazine almost single-handedly, he says: The editor conceived of the ideas that inspired the covers, and cultivated contributors and held their hands through their reporting and writing, while at the same time he reached out to the larger world to gain renown for the journal and insure its continued vitality.
"Ted is the creative genius responsible for the magazine's success," says Mr. Woods, who worked as an intern at the magazine in 2008. "Ted is the fulcrum of the discussions about the future of VQR and, honestly, the future of journalism... Ted is the star at the center of VQR's constellation of writers, poets, and photographers."...
Seeking University Help
It was in this atmosphere, with the VQR staff growing more and more fractious, that Mr. Morrissey, together with three other journal staff members, went earlier this year to the president's office to complain. Mr. Morrissey had already registered his own complaints about Mr. Genoways with the university ombudsman and the human-resources office, according to his older sister, Maria Morrissey.
But university officials, those close to the publication say, brushed off the group's complaints, saying that creative people like Mr. Genoways could be difficult to work with and were often bad managers.
Meanwhile, people who knew Mr. Morrissey say he grew more and more despondent over the last couple of months of his life. He didn't think his problems with Mr. Genoways would ever be resolved. And he also felt trapped because while he may have been a talented editor, he lacked a college degree. Mr. Morrissey had a $76,000-a-year salary at Virginia and owned a condominium in Charlottesville, both of which he feared he might never replace if he had to leave UVa.
It was two final actions in the weeks before Mr. Morrissey's death that his family and friends believe pushed him over the edge. First, Mr. Genoways sent an e-mail message to Mr. Morrissey in mid-July, 10 days before his death (a copy of which The Chronicle has obtained), telling Mr. Morrissey that he had "engaged in unacceptable workplace behavior." In the e-mail, Mr. Genoways did not specify what that behavior was, but he ordered Mr. Morrissey to work from home for a week and warned him not to talk to other VQR staff members. People close to the magazine say Mr. Genoways was furious after learning that Mr. Morrissey and another staff member had clashed with Ms. Levinson-LaBrosse during a meeting...
Ann H. Franke, an expert on the law and higher education, said university officials should respond to all complaints of workplace bullying whether or not they determine a formal investigation is necessary. "Prompt handling of workplace complaints makes a better environment altogether," she said in an interview.
The University of Virginia paid for Mr. Morrissey's memorial service on the campus this month, says his sister, and bought plane tickets for his father and siblings to travel to Charlottesville. After the service, family members and people who worked with Mr. Morrissey went back to his home where they ate some of his favorite foods, including red beet salad and chocolate-chip cookies.
Around his apartment, says Ms. Morrissey, her brother had left signs that he was looking for a new job and considering selling his apartment. And on the bureau in his bedroom, he had a book that Ms. Morrissey believes might give some insight into how her brother viewed Mr. Genoways. It's called: Working With the Self-Absorbed: How to Handle Narcissistic Personalities on the Job.
From: The Chronicle of Higher Education
Read also: Tale of Woe: The death of the VQR’s Kevin Morrissey
And: Did Depression or an Alleged Bully Boss Prompt Editor's Suicide?
When Kevin Morrissey walked to the old coaling tower near the University of Virginia campus late last month and shot himself in the head, he not only ended his own life, he exposed turmoil within the small staff of The Virginia Quarterly Review that now threatens the future of the high-profile journal.
Family members and people close to the review say Mr. Morrissey, the review's managing editor, had been complaining to the university about workplace bullying by his boss, Ted Genoways. But, they contend, the institution did virtually nothing to help. "Kevin had been to the university as recently as the Monday before the Friday he died," says a person who worked for the review. "The university had tools to step in and mediate, and they didn't." Some close to the situation say that in the days before the death, they even warned the university that Mr. Morrissey, who suffered from serious depression, might commit suicide.
Mr. Genoways, the journal's editor, is highly regarded in publishing circles. He is credited with taking VQR, as the review is known, from a sleepy publication to one of the nation's preeminent literary journals. He denies the allegation of bullying and says it was Mr. Morrissey's depressed state, not their rocky relationship, that caused Mr. Morrissey's suicide. "His long history of depression caused him trouble throughout his career," Mr. Genoways wrote in a statement to The Chronicle, "leading often to conflicts with his bosses."
In the wake of Mr. Morrissey's death, VQR's own stability has been challenged. Mr. Genoways's office has been cleaned out, and police officers have been stationed at the doors of the award-winning journal. The Chronicle got such details, as well as further charges of turmoil, from a half-dozen people close to the situation. None would allow their names to be used because, they said, the university has instructed them not to talk to reporters and they fear for their jobs. (A member of VQR's staff, Sheila McMillen, is the sister of a Chronicle editor. None of the information used in this article is from Ms. McMillen.)
Mr. Genoways told The Chronicle that the university had already "reviewed all the allegations being made against me and found them to be without grounds." The university wouldn't comment on that or answer most of The Chronicle's questions about the situation, citing the confidentiality of personnel matters. A statement on the journal's home page says that UVa "remains strongly committed to VQR."
Still, others are questioning whether too much damage has already been done. Elliott D. Woods, a VQR contributor and an ardent supporter of Mr. Genoways, wrote in an e-mail message to The Chronicle that he feared that accusations about what caused Mr. Morrissey's death could "ruin the greatest little magazine I know."
Gregory M. Britton, publisher of Getty Publications, agrees. "These are tough enough times for small literary magazines," he said. "A crisis like this can be a death blow, even to the strongest scholarly publication."
Former Friends
It was at the Minnesota Historical Society Press, where Mr. Britton was director during the early 2000s, that Mr. Genoways and Mr. Morrissey first came to work together. They got along well enough that a year after Mr. Genoways took over at VQR in 2003, he asked Mr. Morrissey to come to Charlottesville as his right-hand man. It was the kind of job that Mr. Morrissey had done before, those close to him say, and that he did well. People who worked with Mr. Morrissey, including Mr. Britton, say he paid close attention to details and could be counted on to take on more than his fair share of work. They also say Mr. Morrissey, who was 52 and had never been married, could be grumpy and prickly, and that he suffered from what at times seemed to be a deep depression. Some of those who spoke to The Chronicle say he had talked about seeing a psychotherapist and taking medication. "He managed his disease, and he managed to be really high functioning," said someone who worked with him.
When Mr. Genoways took over at VQR at the age of 31, it was with hopes that he would breathe new life into a stodgy-looking black-and-white publication whose editor's office didn't even have Internet access. The departing editor, Staige Blackford, had been at the journal for nearly 30 years and was in his 70s when he decided to retire.
Mr. Genoways gradually began putting the publication on the map, hiring well-known authors and photographers and taking on timely nonfiction projects in addition to the usual poetry and fiction. He paid journalists to write about high-stakes international conflicts like the war in Afghanistan and the violence of the Mexican drug cartel. The change quickly garnered both Mr. Genoways and VQR notice from those at the literary world's highest levels, winning the publication four National Magazine Awards and 14 more nominations, all of which it accomplished on a half-million-dollar budget.
During their first few years at the magazine, as it grew in stature, Mr. Genoways and Mr. Morrissey remained the closest of friends. In a letter Mr. Genoways sent to contributors this month that was obtained by The Chronicle, he said Mr. Morrissey was a fixture in his Virginia home and at holiday dinners with Mr. Genoways's wife and young son. Mr. Morrissey also traveled with Mr. Genoways to New York to accept the National Magazine Award that VQR won for general excellence in 2006. "We were the toast of the publishing world that night," Mr. Genoways wrote in the letter to contributors.
In the last few years, however, as Mr. Genoways took on more and more ambitious projects, and as he also became worried about the magazine's financial future, the relationship between the two men and the atmosphere within VQR's offices began to sour. Some of those close to the magazine say Mr. Morrissey questioned Mr. Genoways about what Mr. Morrissey felt were excessive advance payments to contributors and about bills for parties Mr. Genoways hosted that reached into the thousands.
They say Mr. Genoways, in turn, began cutting Mr. Morrissey out of key decisions and distancing himself from the office, refusing to answer staff members' e-mail messages, shirking many of his day-to-day duties, and dumping most of the work on his small staff. "The whole staff felt Ted took all the credit and did none of the work," said the person who worked for the review, adding that Mr. Genoways spent most of his time at VQR "scrambling to be a star." Mr. Genoways has been away from the office on a Guggenheim fellowship in recent months, but he still has been responsible for making sure the journal's issues are finished on time.
When Mr. Genoways was in the office, some recall, he could occasionally be overheard screaming at Mr. Morrissey behind his office door.
In his statement to The Chronicle, Mr. Genoways acknowledged there "had been tensions between staff members in the VQR offices." But people close to him, including the contributor Mr. Woods, say Mr. Genoways was hardly AWOL from his VQR duties. Nor was he depending on Mr. Morrissey and others to run the place. In fact, the exact opposite was true, says Mr. Woods. Mr. Genoways ran the magazine almost single-handedly, he says: The editor conceived of the ideas that inspired the covers, and cultivated contributors and held their hands through their reporting and writing, while at the same time he reached out to the larger world to gain renown for the journal and insure its continued vitality.
"Ted is the creative genius responsible for the magazine's success," says Mr. Woods, who worked as an intern at the magazine in 2008. "Ted is the fulcrum of the discussions about the future of VQR and, honestly, the future of journalism... Ted is the star at the center of VQR's constellation of writers, poets, and photographers."...
Seeking University Help
It was in this atmosphere, with the VQR staff growing more and more fractious, that Mr. Morrissey, together with three other journal staff members, went earlier this year to the president's office to complain. Mr. Morrissey had already registered his own complaints about Mr. Genoways with the university ombudsman and the human-resources office, according to his older sister, Maria Morrissey.
But university officials, those close to the publication say, brushed off the group's complaints, saying that creative people like Mr. Genoways could be difficult to work with and were often bad managers.
Meanwhile, people who knew Mr. Morrissey say he grew more and more despondent over the last couple of months of his life. He didn't think his problems with Mr. Genoways would ever be resolved. And he also felt trapped because while he may have been a talented editor, he lacked a college degree. Mr. Morrissey had a $76,000-a-year salary at Virginia and owned a condominium in Charlottesville, both of which he feared he might never replace if he had to leave UVa.
It was two final actions in the weeks before Mr. Morrissey's death that his family and friends believe pushed him over the edge. First, Mr. Genoways sent an e-mail message to Mr. Morrissey in mid-July, 10 days before his death (a copy of which The Chronicle has obtained), telling Mr. Morrissey that he had "engaged in unacceptable workplace behavior." In the e-mail, Mr. Genoways did not specify what that behavior was, but he ordered Mr. Morrissey to work from home for a week and warned him not to talk to other VQR staff members. People close to the magazine say Mr. Genoways was furious after learning that Mr. Morrissey and another staff member had clashed with Ms. Levinson-LaBrosse during a meeting...
Ann H. Franke, an expert on the law and higher education, said university officials should respond to all complaints of workplace bullying whether or not they determine a formal investigation is necessary. "Prompt handling of workplace complaints makes a better environment altogether," she said in an interview.
The University of Virginia paid for Mr. Morrissey's memorial service on the campus this month, says his sister, and bought plane tickets for his father and siblings to travel to Charlottesville. After the service, family members and people who worked with Mr. Morrissey went back to his home where they ate some of his favorite foods, including red beet salad and chocolate-chip cookies.
Around his apartment, says Ms. Morrissey, her brother had left signs that he was looking for a new job and considering selling his apartment. And on the bureau in his bedroom, he had a book that Ms. Morrissey believes might give some insight into how her brother viewed Mr. Genoways. It's called: Working With the Self-Absorbed: How to Handle Narcissistic Personalities on the Job.
From: The Chronicle of Higher Education
Read also: Tale of Woe: The death of the VQR’s Kevin Morrissey
And: Did Depression or an Alleged Bully Boss Prompt Editor's Suicide?
August 06, 2010
Academic cleared of harassment charge
Fredrics cleared of harassment charge, 23 July 2010
An academic has been cleared of harassing his former vice-chancellor via a “satirical whistleblower website” – but has been convicted of a public order offence relating to a meeting between the two.
Howard Fredrics, former senior lecturer in music at Kingston University, was acquitted by magistrates of harassing Sir Peter Scott, the institution’s vice-chancellor.
The charge centred on a website set up by Dr Fredrics, www.sirpeterscott.com, which he describes as “a satirical whistleblower website containing documentary evidence, musical songs and music videos relating to alleged misconduct by university officials”.
However, Dr Fredrics was found guilty of a lesser offence under the Public Order Act relating to a chance meeting with Sir Peter in Kingston.
Dr Fredrics says in a statement: “I am pleased by the court’s decision on the harassment charge, which is a tremendous victory for the right to free speech in Britain, and quite disappointed that the Crown Prosecution Service decided to pursue these charges in the first instance.
“Most importantly, I am extremely troubled by the fact that [Sir Peter] decided to lodge such a complaint, particularly since he has made public statements in the past to the effect that he did not wish to impede my right to free speech in relation to the website.”
Dr Fredrics said he would consider appealing against the public order conviction, for which he has yet to be sentenced.
Sir Peter said: “I am glad that Dr Fredrics was found guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour likely to cause distress to members of the public after he confronted me in Kingston town centre a year ago.
“Contrary to his allegations, I have never attempted to limit his freedom of speech. My only objection has been to his using my name for his website and untrue allegations against my colleagues. Both these charges were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service – long ago I, and the university, took a decision to ‘live with’ Dr Fredrics’ antics.”
As well as criticising Sir Peter, Dr Fredrics had used the site to expose controversial practices at Kingston.
In 2008, he posted a recording of lecturers trying to pressure students into inflating their National Student Survey responses.
Yesterday’s hearing was the conclusion of a lengthy series of legal battles.
In December 2009, magistrates found Dr Fredrics guilty in his absence of harassing Sir Peter and issued a warrant for his arrest. Dr Fredrics said he failed to appear at the hearing because of ill health. In April 2010, his barrister successfully argued that the lecturer was denied the right to a fair trial with legal representation because the court would not agree to postpone the case until he was well enough to attend.
The conviction and arrest warrant were set aside on the grounds that the trial should not have gone ahead without the academic being present.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
An academic has been cleared of harassing his former vice-chancellor via a “satirical whistleblower website” – but has been convicted of a public order offence relating to a meeting between the two.
Howard Fredrics, former senior lecturer in music at Kingston University, was acquitted by magistrates of harassing Sir Peter Scott, the institution’s vice-chancellor.
The charge centred on a website set up by Dr Fredrics, www.sirpeterscott.com, which he describes as “a satirical whistleblower website containing documentary evidence, musical songs and music videos relating to alleged misconduct by university officials”.
However, Dr Fredrics was found guilty of a lesser offence under the Public Order Act relating to a chance meeting with Sir Peter in Kingston.
Dr Fredrics says in a statement: “I am pleased by the court’s decision on the harassment charge, which is a tremendous victory for the right to free speech in Britain, and quite disappointed that the Crown Prosecution Service decided to pursue these charges in the first instance.
“Most importantly, I am extremely troubled by the fact that [Sir Peter] decided to lodge such a complaint, particularly since he has made public statements in the past to the effect that he did not wish to impede my right to free speech in relation to the website.”
Dr Fredrics said he would consider appealing against the public order conviction, for which he has yet to be sentenced.
Sir Peter said: “I am glad that Dr Fredrics was found guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour likely to cause distress to members of the public after he confronted me in Kingston town centre a year ago.
“Contrary to his allegations, I have never attempted to limit his freedom of speech. My only objection has been to his using my name for his website and untrue allegations against my colleagues. Both these charges were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service – long ago I, and the university, took a decision to ‘live with’ Dr Fredrics’ antics.”
As well as criticising Sir Peter, Dr Fredrics had used the site to expose controversial practices at Kingston.
In 2008, he posted a recording of lecturers trying to pressure students into inflating their National Student Survey responses.
Yesterday’s hearing was the conclusion of a lengthy series of legal battles.
In December 2009, magistrates found Dr Fredrics guilty in his absence of harassing Sir Peter and issued a warrant for his arrest. Dr Fredrics said he failed to appear at the hearing because of ill health. In April 2010, his barrister successfully argued that the lecturer was denied the right to a fair trial with legal representation because the court would not agree to postpone the case until he was well enough to attend.
The conviction and arrest warrant were set aside on the grounds that the trial should not have gone ahead without the academic being present.
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
July 16, 2010
Workplace Bullying: Causes, Consequences, and Corrections
...Most researchers conclude that there is probably no such thing as a “victim” personality and it is equally unlikely that there is a “bully” personality (Rayner et al., 2002; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). However, researchers have attempted to parse out the individual factors that might increase the likelihood of bullying or being bullied (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). We review this literature while counseling caution on the reliance on any simplistic, individual explanations for the phenomenon.
Targets
There appears to be no sex bias in being targeted. Men and women are equally likely to report being bullied at work (Namie, 2007; Rayner, 1997; Zapf et al., 2003). However, organizational position and certain traits or behaviors are linked to being targeted. Organizational position is inversely associated with being targeted. The higher organizational position, the lower the incidence of bullying; low-status workers are simply more vulnerable (Hodson et al., 2006).
Certain traits, behaviors, or markers are associated with increased risk, but the inconsistency of associated markers fails to convey a reliable picture of targets. For example, appearing too weak, anxious, submissive, unassertive, or conflict-aversive is claimed to provoke aggression in others (Coyne et al., 2000). Conversely, communicating aggressively, rejecting less-ethical group norms, and overachieving are also suggested as antecedents to being targeted (Adams & Crawford, 1992). On one hand, targets are characterized as “literal minded, ... somewhat unsophisticated ... overachiever[s]” (Brodsky, 1976, p.89) who lack social, communication skills, have low self-esteem, and are suspicious of others (Coyne et al., 2000). On the other hand, research identifies employees who are particularly talented, conscientious, and well-liked by others as persons likely to be targeted (Coyne, Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Namie, 2003a). Plainly, there is no clear marker-cluster that categorizes targets.
Perpetrators
Whether men or women are more likely to be reported as bullies has yet to be resolved. Research findings are mixed; some suggest that bullies seem to be male more often (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Zapf et al., 2003), and others suggest the opposite (Namie, 2003a). There does appear to be a relationship between position and bullying others—supervisors or upper- managers are identified as abusers in 60 to 80 percent of cases (e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Namie, 2003a; Rayner, 1997). In a nationally representative survey (Namie, 2007), 72 percent of reported bullies were managers, some of whom had the sponsorship and support of executives, managerial peers, or human resources.
Workplace violence researchers have invested considerable effort in identifying precursors of potentially violent organizational actors. The traits and behaviors associated with such aggression likely play a part in bullying. These include lack of self control, self-reflection, empathy and perspective-taking (Douglas & Martinko, 2001); personal volatility; history or tendency toward depression; Theory X beliefs; Type A personalities; negative affectivity; and unstable, unrealistic high self-esteem (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Tepper, 2000; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). For example, inflated views of self that are “unstable or heavily dependent on external validation” (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003, p. 168) are particularly vulnerable to being interrogated, contradicted, or censured.
Other alleged markers include lack of social or communicative adeptness (Einarsen, Raknes, & Mattheisen, 1994), growing up around domestic violence, or being a victim of child abuse (Randall, 2001). Alcohol and drug abuse and aggressive behavior in one’s personal life may also be predictors of workplace bullying (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Whatever the constellations of markers, bullies act in ways identified as pathological, power-addicted, and controlling (Namie & Namie, 2000; Tracy et al., 2006). Bullies are perceived as being good at “managing up” and ingratiating themselves with higher-level persons. As with targets, however, there is little research directly linking any specific personality type to perpetrators of workplace bullying (Rayner et al., 2002)...
From: Lutgen-Sandvik, P. & Sypher, B.D. (2009) Destructive Organizational Communication. New York: Routledge Press.
Targets
There appears to be no sex bias in being targeted. Men and women are equally likely to report being bullied at work (Namie, 2007; Rayner, 1997; Zapf et al., 2003). However, organizational position and certain traits or behaviors are linked to being targeted. Organizational position is inversely associated with being targeted. The higher organizational position, the lower the incidence of bullying; low-status workers are simply more vulnerable (Hodson et al., 2006).
Certain traits, behaviors, or markers are associated with increased risk, but the inconsistency of associated markers fails to convey a reliable picture of targets. For example, appearing too weak, anxious, submissive, unassertive, or conflict-aversive is claimed to provoke aggression in others (Coyne et al., 2000). Conversely, communicating aggressively, rejecting less-ethical group norms, and overachieving are also suggested as antecedents to being targeted (Adams & Crawford, 1992). On one hand, targets are characterized as “literal minded, ... somewhat unsophisticated ... overachiever[s]” (Brodsky, 1976, p.89) who lack social, communication skills, have low self-esteem, and are suspicious of others (Coyne et al., 2000). On the other hand, research identifies employees who are particularly talented, conscientious, and well-liked by others as persons likely to be targeted (Coyne, Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Namie, 2003a). Plainly, there is no clear marker-cluster that categorizes targets.
Perpetrators
Whether men or women are more likely to be reported as bullies has yet to be resolved. Research findings are mixed; some suggest that bullies seem to be male more often (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Zapf et al., 2003), and others suggest the opposite (Namie, 2003a). There does appear to be a relationship between position and bullying others—supervisors or upper- managers are identified as abusers in 60 to 80 percent of cases (e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Namie, 2003a; Rayner, 1997). In a nationally representative survey (Namie, 2007), 72 percent of reported bullies were managers, some of whom had the sponsorship and support of executives, managerial peers, or human resources.
Workplace violence researchers have invested considerable effort in identifying precursors of potentially violent organizational actors. The traits and behaviors associated with such aggression likely play a part in bullying. These include lack of self control, self-reflection, empathy and perspective-taking (Douglas & Martinko, 2001); personal volatility; history or tendency toward depression; Theory X beliefs; Type A personalities; negative affectivity; and unstable, unrealistic high self-esteem (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Tepper, 2000; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). For example, inflated views of self that are “unstable or heavily dependent on external validation” (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003, p. 168) are particularly vulnerable to being interrogated, contradicted, or censured.
Other alleged markers include lack of social or communicative adeptness (Einarsen, Raknes, & Mattheisen, 1994), growing up around domestic violence, or being a victim of child abuse (Randall, 2001). Alcohol and drug abuse and aggressive behavior in one’s personal life may also be predictors of workplace bullying (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Whatever the constellations of markers, bullies act in ways identified as pathological, power-addicted, and controlling (Namie & Namie, 2000; Tracy et al., 2006). Bullies are perceived as being good at “managing up” and ingratiating themselves with higher-level persons. As with targets, however, there is little research directly linking any specific personality type to perpetrators of workplace bullying (Rayner et al., 2002)...
From: Lutgen-Sandvik, P. & Sypher, B.D. (2009) Destructive Organizational Communication. New York: Routledge Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)