That’s a great question and one that came up over and over at the International Association for Workplace Bullying & Harassment conference. Unfortunately we don’t have an answer, but I will weigh in on it here and let you make your own decision.
While there is no research to say either way (and I say that after conferring with the two foremost researchers in the academic “bullying field”), it seems pretty clear that for human resources professionals, intent does matter. Teresa A. Daniel, who seems to be the resident expert on workplace bullying for the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), discusses this in her article and in her book, Stop Bullying at Work (SHRM Press, 2009). She claims the difference between a bully and a tough boss is in fact intent. According to Dr. Daniel, although their behaviors may be similar, bullies misuse power and focus on personal interests while tough bosses are objective and have self-control.
The Healthy Workplace Bill, a Bill that aims to make equal-opportunity bullying illegal, and has been introduced in 17 states but not yet passed in any of them, defines abusive conduct (i.e., bullying) as “conduct, with malice… that a reasonable person would find to be hostile, (and) offensive.” The word “malice” indicates intent. This means that one would have to prove the bully meant to do it in order to obtain legal recourse.
On the flip side, I (and many of my colleagues) have had conversations with bullies who claimed they had no idea that their behavior was so harmful. One in particular said that he knew he was hurting people’s feelings – that much he could tell. But he simply did not have the communication tools to change, and he begged me to help him improve. Is that malicious behavior? I’m thinking no.
Unfortunately, however, one is left to question the reliability of these bullies. How do we really know they are not lying in the face of a consultant, who they know was hired by management? Are they really going to say, “Ha! I did mean to do it and it felt great when I made Sue cry!” Probably not.
This leaves us back at square one. Do bullies really mean it?
Although I am unable to provide a real answer to this question, I will say this. Whether bullies mean to do it or not, their behavior is harmful to targets, witnesses, and the organization. While I believe some bullies do mean it and some do not, I ultimately don’t believe the issue of intent really matters at all. If an organization has rules and a culture in place to enforce a positive and collaborative work environment, bullies will have no choice but to change their behavior. End of story. If they don’t, they will be pushed out of the organization due to inability to meet performance goals. And this is the case whether they intend to bully or not.
We can help you develop a positive workplace where bullying would not be allowed to thrive. Contact us for a complimentary consultation at catherine (at) civilitypartners (dot) com.
Showing posts with label Teresa A. Daniel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teresa A. Daniel. Show all posts
Monday, July 5, 2010
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Common Management Mistakes in Dealing with a Bully
Unfortunately, the organizational response to bullying behavior is fairly predictable and not always on target. Following are some typical management mistakes encountered when dealing with a bully at work (Namie & Namie, 2000; Hornstein, 1996):
• Management often seeks to appease the bully by assuming that his or her
aggressive behavior will cease when the bully is given what he or she desires. This often results in a short-term elimination of the behavior, but the bully usually resumes and sometimes escalates the aggression when he or she wants something else.
• Management often blames both of the parties involved in the situation, with the target being blamed for not getting along with the bully. Usually there is no
credence given to the possibility that the bully may be purely to blame.
• Sometimes management will blame only the target in an effort to stop the target from complaining. As a result, the target is made to suffer twice—once at the hands of the bully and once at the hands of management.
• Management may mistakenly believe that the problems will go away if the bully’s behaviour is ignored—if this is the response, the bully goes unpunished and is likely to escalate his or her aggressive behaviors since there is no logical reason to cease and desist.
• Managers will often emphasize teamwork and ignore individual effort. This strategy makes it easy for the bully to accuse the target of “not being a team player.”
• Believing the group means taking the word of multiple employees over that of the target. With this response, the assumption is that the majority is always right; however, the group may be lying about the target or acting out of fear or
ignorance. The manager may take this approach because it is easier to discipline one employee than to take a stand against multiple employees.
• Stereotyping often skews management’s judgment, and prejudices are prevalent in the workplace despite corporate policies to the contrary. Less overt forms of discrimination are often practiced based on common stereotypes (e.g., women are weaker, men are tougher, etc.).
“Bullying is the sexual harassment of 20 years ago; everybody knows about it, but nobody wants to admit it”.
This is an excerpt from a white paper by the Society for Human Resources Management entitled Bullies in the Workplace: A Focus on the "Abusive Disrespect" of Employees by Teresa A. Daniel (2006). I don't have the link to post here, but am happy to send the white paper to anyone who requests it. Please email me at contact@catherinemattice.com.
• Management often seeks to appease the bully by assuming that his or her
aggressive behavior will cease when the bully is given what he or she desires. This often results in a short-term elimination of the behavior, but the bully usually resumes and sometimes escalates the aggression when he or she wants something else.
• Management often blames both of the parties involved in the situation, with the target being blamed for not getting along with the bully. Usually there is no
credence given to the possibility that the bully may be purely to blame.
• Sometimes management will blame only the target in an effort to stop the target from complaining. As a result, the target is made to suffer twice—once at the hands of the bully and once at the hands of management.
• Management may mistakenly believe that the problems will go away if the bully’s behaviour is ignored—if this is the response, the bully goes unpunished and is likely to escalate his or her aggressive behaviors since there is no logical reason to cease and desist.
• Managers will often emphasize teamwork and ignore individual effort. This strategy makes it easy for the bully to accuse the target of “not being a team player.”
• Believing the group means taking the word of multiple employees over that of the target. With this response, the assumption is that the majority is always right; however, the group may be lying about the target or acting out of fear or
ignorance. The manager may take this approach because it is easier to discipline one employee than to take a stand against multiple employees.
• Stereotyping often skews management’s judgment, and prejudices are prevalent in the workplace despite corporate policies to the contrary. Less overt forms of discrimination are often practiced based on common stereotypes (e.g., women are weaker, men are tougher, etc.).
“Bullying is the sexual harassment of 20 years ago; everybody knows about it, but nobody wants to admit it”.
- Lewis Maltby (Russell, 2001)
This is an excerpt from a white paper by the Society for Human Resources Management entitled Bullies in the Workplace: A Focus on the "Abusive Disrespect" of Employees by Teresa A. Daniel (2006). I don't have the link to post here, but am happy to send the white paper to anyone who requests it. Please email me at contact@catherinemattice.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)