Past Articles and Editorials from our newsletters
We unfortunately don't have lots of time to write original pieces for each newsletter. We will add original pieces here. They will help give you the flavour of our approach - looking forward, and being imaginative in our response.
Newsletters cover everything from the humourous, to news items, books to recommend and some original writing from Karen, Stephen, and our members.
Monthly newsletters - a selected archive.
Below are some of the monthlyish newsletters we send to those who have contacted us and asked to be 'subscribed'. The newsletters are in PDF format.
P.S. We have REMOVED some details of local group meetings as we prefer to have some contact with people first, rather than announcing meeting information to world...!
Bullying and climate change.
Vicki O'Brien's piece on Bad and Good bosses was published in BC Business Magazine. Vicki used interviews with several of our members in her research for the article. You can find it by following this link to our In the News page:
Bad boss bad boss? Watcha gonna do?
Yes, it confirms there are bad bosses and good bosses and they can fall into different categories.
Why do we continue to work for the bad ones? It only encourages them.
The current discussion on climate change too often focuses on what government should do and how 'industry' and 'big business' are to blame, rather than concentrate on our responsibilities and our power to change things for ourselves.
Climate change will only be halted or eventually even reversed if we take greater responsibility for each tiny action we take, each degree we turn down our thermostat, each decision not to encourage transporting lettuce 3000 miles by simply not buying it, each time we refuse to buy bottled water, each time we walk instead of drive.
We can blame 'industry' and 'big business' but who the h*ll do you think buys the products and services of these companies? You do, I do, we do.
So there are two alternatives if you believe change is required. You can either simply stop buying the products of unhealthy enterprises, or you can make it clear to them what changes you expect from them if they expect you to continue buying their goods and services.
So it is with climate change, so it is with workplace bullying - think global and act local.
Study examples of good workplace practice from around the world, and educate yourself in applying them locally, in your own place of work, and those of your friends and family members. Apply these good practices not just in unhealthy workplaces which clearly need change, but in all workplaces - don't wait for signs of toxicity before employing good practice. (The sea level where I live hasn't changed yet so I don't need to worry...)
You can decide to make positive change in your workplace and refuse to encourage bad bosses and workplaces.
You can do this by not working for the bad bosses or in the bad workplaces.
You have the same two alternatives as with climate change - stay and try to improve the situation, or refuse to encourage it and simply get out.
Yes 'someone should do something about' both climate change and workplace bullying, and that someone is you.
Stephen Hill February 2007
March 2007: Workplace bullying vs Harassment in the news.
News items on workplace bullying have perhaps doubled in quantity over the last year.
Whether they add to the sum of knowledge and awareness, or simply repeat the same tired formulas, depends on the ones you read.
It does seem that part of the growth in attention is a blurring of the distinction between bullying and harassment.
The key distinction should be that bullying is about what you do and how you behave and harassment is about what and/or who you are.
So even the recent behavior on the silly Celebrity Big Brother 'reality' show in the UK, where a contestant of Indian origin was picked on and had her accent and diet and name ridiculed, was described as 'bullying'.
It wasn't.
If someone is called lazy that can be bullying, if someone is called (forgive the usage) a lazy Chinese (or worse) or black (or worse) or bitch (or worse) and so on, then this is harassment.
This is not simply a question of language or semantics. The experience of being targetted because of something you can't do anything about is very different from supposed inadequacies in your performance. The mental and physical responses will be entirely different; different therapies, treatments and supports will be required. Different responses are aslo needed to the harasser and the bully. Both are bad behaviour and damaging to people, but they are not interchangeable.
I believe it is important for us to maintain this distinction between bullying and harrassment to prevent every piece of bad behavior at work being called workplace bullying, and diluting our knowledge of the specific damage which this behavior can have, and thus the specific healing it requires.
Stephen
Links to the earlier editorials and articles are here:
Some screen shots from our workshop presentations
'Multi-tasking Teamplayer' - pass the sick bag
Toward a societal definition of bullying
Corporations, the soul stealers
Putting the injured first, not another study
Editorial - some screens from our presentations
The Editorial will be a little different this month, as it is in the form of some screens we have prepared for presentations we are making, and we thought they might be of interest to all.
a) The Kubler-Ross theory of grief has long been used as a model for describing the stages a person goes through when handling loss.
This was expanded on by an employment counsellor (Vancouver based, by the way) named Norman Amundsen to be used when looking at the stages in grieving over 'losing' a job.
Stephen has now used the model to apply to workplace bullying (all situations share loss, grief and change) and even with an audience of seasoned employment counsellors the adaptation seems to hold up.
The first screen shows the basic model, the second how repetition creates such damage.
b) A section entitled 'Remembered all the wrong things and forgotten
so much" includes this summary of the McGregor XY theory of management
styles
(used with permission from the wonderful UK site:
Business Balls by Alan Chapman ; more details can be found there....)
It is a clear and horribly accurate prediction of which managers will essentially 'manage' by bullying.
Great new research.....except it was written in 1960, hence the section title.
This isn't 'rocket surgery'!
'Multitasking Teamplayers' - pass the sick bag.
How many of you have ever played the lifeboat game?
You know, the one (rules vary, but the essence is the same) where 20 people are adrift at sea, and the one lifeboat has room only for 8 people to reach the desert island and a chance for survival.
Who to chose, how to chose?
Among the 20 there's often a doctor, a couple of teachers, a farmer, usually a baby, a nurse, a priest or other religious person, an engineer or two, a counsellor of one sort or another, nowadays a fitness instructor, a writer, and so on.
Then it becomes more complicated as we are given more information about the 20 people.
We learn that the nurse is a male nurse aged twenty, one teacher is female and early thirties, one male and in his 60s.
The fitness instructor, male, is early 20s and very fit.
Would the baby be a drain on the limited resources or a great way of bonding the group?
Who in the group would be best and most realistic about looking after the baby?
Would the writer be too quiet and weak to be worth taking, or would they have words of wisdom to help the others through difficult times? What did they write about? Would their gender alter your selection, and why would this be?
That male teacher in his 60s who doesn't seem to have much to offer, what does he teach? Home economics and nutrition.
Hmmm.
And so the discussions continue, gender and age and stereotypes all influence the decisions.
Now clearly the intent of this game or exercise is to examine the way we assemble a team.
If we could pick 8 of the male fitness instructors, they might have a good chance of early survival, but wouldn't the testosterone begin to destroy the group quite rapidly?
And if the group to be saved were to spend many years on the island, breeding would have to take place, and then which males and females ('straight' by necessity in this case) might be the best potential bond and best gene pool contributors.....
Most winning teams have a carefully assembled blend of age, gender, physical and mental agility.
*** *** *** ***
So what's this got to do with workplace bullying?
Well, we have all seen the ads for job postings which include 'teamplayer' in the requested requirements.
Such are the power of the codewords surrounding employment that we feel we should know what this means.
What it has become to mean is a good little yesman ('yes person' doesn't do it for me but please include women in this).
It's a cookie cutter approach. Stamped out, identikit individuals who leave their individuality at home when they leave for work.
A genuinely well functioning team will have some of these and some of those and maybe one of that and a couple of this.
Whether sorted by age or gender, Myers Briggs or True Colors tests, a true team incorporates as many types as possible and then plays to its strengths.
I recall in the sick workplace that caused me so much pain, before I realised I was being bullied, I was asked to analyze the crazy way staff were selected and assigned to tasks, and came up with an sure way to lose the lifeboat game.
The image I recall using was that if someone was stuck half way up a cliff and we had a choice of a mountain climber or a baker to rescue them, we'd surely send the baker.
I should have known that this organization wouldn't play to my strengths, nor the strengths of those around me, and it would therefore be an unfullfilling, inefficient and troubled workplace.
So look at your workplace.
Does it assemble a team of difference? Does it exploit (in the best and true sense of that word) the differing talents and styles of the team?
Does it acknowledge that we all have special contributions to make?
Throw in 'multitasking', which is becoming to mean 'everyone does everything round here', and what a mess we shall certainly have.
(Look at Chris Newell's definition of career:
"A career consists of: a place to express character, talent and skills in an environment that aligns with values; means of supporting oneself financially and the feeling of being involved in a meaningful activity."
Or does your workplace, or one you are considering joining, use the baker and not the climber to scale the mountain?
Select your workplace with care and ensure that it recognizes the true meaning of a 'team player'.
Here I think we have another early warning sign of a bullying prone workplace.
Oh, and don't rock the boat.....
Stephen Hill: January 2005
*** *** ***
Workplace Targeting
Regarding the workplace, Gloria Steinem discussed glass ceilings, pink collars and sexual harassment. Of the latter she said, "At least there's a word for it. It used to be called 'life'."
Before we had a term for wife abuse or spousal assault, it was called a domestic dispute. Framing the battery of one person on another in a term like "domestic dispute" made us think of a private (domestic) kerfuffle. Not something that belongs in the public realm, with laws to protect the innocent. Also a "dispute" can be seen as a mild disagreement between two equals, something they should learn to work out between the two of them.
Similarly, in a "dispute" the assaulted spouse is assumed to be at least partly at fault. "Why don't you keep a cleaner house? You know how the mess makes him mad."
A working woman experiencing unwanted attention was also until recently assumed to be asking for it in some way. Comments about one's bum, breasts, could be countered by what -- not having any? It was the simple fact of their existence that made the comments possible, along with the harasser's belief he could say that kind of stuff if he felt like it. Even at work, or maybe, especially at work. Made him feel good by putting someone down in that way.
"Oh, I was just teasing, she should get a sense of humour." It's not teasing, it's not funny, it's sexual harassment and it is now against the law. And it's not the target's fault for being in your workplace and being a female.
I remember reading about a court case where a sex-trade worker, a street prostitute was laughed at in court. "Given your profession," the judge joked, "We don't know whether we should call it rape or theft!" Ha ha.
We now call it sexual assault, to remind us all it IS an assault. Does the person walking down the street ask to be mugged? No. Does the target of sexual assault ask to be assaulted? No. "Well, she went out to dinner with him and he paid the bill, so...." No. That is called date rape. It's not about sex, it's about power, power exerted over another in order to hurt them.
Discrimination on the basis of sex and race is now against the law, and has been expanded in many regions to include sexual orientation and physical or mental handicap, and in Ireland you are protected if you are a member of the traveling community, what we used to call gypsies.
Nope, you can't harass or humiliate someone because they are a woman, gay, disabled, a different colour than you.
You can go ahead if they're you're co-worker, especially (but not only) if they are your subordinate.
Right now it's called "workplace bullying" or "workplace mobbing."
Here's Tim Field's definition of bullying:
Bullying is persistent unwelcome behaviour, mostly using unwarranted or invalid criticism, nit-picking, fault-finding, also exclusion, isolation, being singled out and treated differently, being shouted at, humiliated, excessive monitoring, having verbal and written warnings imposed, and much more."
Constant criticism, with proof of achievements at work ridiculed, dismissed, ignored
Trivial fault-finding, doubts re work lack substance
Sidelined, marginalised, ostracised, isolated, excluded
Threatened, shouted at, humiliated
Overloaded with work or have work take away, without prior discussion
Given the silent treatment
Heinz Leymann defines workplace mobbing as:
Psychological terror or mobbing in working life involves hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic manner by one or more individuals, mainly toward one individual, who, due to mobbing, is pushed into a helpless and defenseless position and held there by means of continuing mobbing activities. These actions occur on a very frequent basis (at least once a week) and over a long period of time (at least six months´ duration).
Verbal attacks against you regarding work assignments, verbal threats
You are silenced, colleagues do not talk with you any longer or you are even forbidden by management to talk to them
You are isolated in a room far away from others
You are not given any work assignments at all, or you are given meaningless work assignments.
Others threaten you physically or you are attacked physically.
Characteristics of Targets
Why, they're stupid blondes, of course! Incompetent, humourless masochists! Of course not, just like the targets who are assaulted, harassed or humiliated by others who are a different sex or colour or sexual orientation are not the names called them, either. Research shows targets are well-liked by colleagues, are high achievers at work, have a strong sense of right and wrong. Their vulnerability is their need to stay in the job even while being bullied. Their vulnerability is finding it hard to believe what is happening to them.
Mostly women by a small percentage, usually in the prime of the career, over 40.
Characteristics of Bullies, Mobs, Targeters:
Just hard-nosed managers making tough decisions in a dog-eat dog world, looking out for the best interests of the company and the shareholders? Nope. Those type of managers have no need to call a casual meeting with a target then ambush them with a surprise disciplinary hearing. Those managers don't need vague threats and incoherent criticisms, they don't persistently shout at or isolate good performers.
People who engage in this behaviour worry they are incompetent and inadequate, and project these feelings on others. They wish to hide their fears, and any colleague who is well-liked and high-achieving makes them feel their secret will come out, and they'll be out of a job.
There are numerous types, such as the Serial Bully, who after one target leaves, will sooner or later choose another. This is a life-long habit. It relieves stress and so rewards the behaviour. There are Copy-cat or Opportunistic Bullies who are reacting to a conflict, stress, a new manager, who bully only as a hobby or as the occasion arises. There are Bystanders, who fearing they will be next, say nothing or even encourage the main bully to continue on his or her course of action. Some are text-book sociopaths, many are garden-variety two-faced snakes. See websites for more on this.
Mainly men by a slight percentage.
Workplace Targeting
I propose we call this phenomenon Workplace Targeting for three reasons. First, the word bully conjures up school-yard bullies with runny noses picking on other kids. We who have been targeted are not children. There are, of course, many similarities, but one always needs first to differentiate from childhood woes. This is a grown-up, livelihood, workplace problem.
Secondly, mobbing makes one think of loud noisy barbarians brandishing sticks, when often the target gets the silent treatment, is "forgotten" to be invited to meetings, has had work suddenly taken away and been moved to an isolated desk. When she asks her colleagues what is happening, gets odd looks or shrugs. She is being mobbed, but it is a quiet, secretive, and fearful mob. This is what happened to me, with very little covert nastiness, and mostly at the end.
Third, as new term, Workplace Targeting will have people asking questions rather than making assumptions. Then we describe the behaviours. Then we propose solutions. And, whether we considered ourselves to be bullied, mobbed, abused, or simply unfairly treated, we have all of us, each one, been targeted.
Finally, let me leave you with a metaphor.
In my part of the country, cougar attacks are rare and so all the more shocking and frightening. Unlike bears, both grizzly and black, who we encounter often, and can learn how to deal with, cougars are rarely sighted. When a child is picked off a schoolyard at recess or a cyclist killed while enjoying a city park, we try to understand how to prevent and avoid more deaths by cougar.
If a person is traveling along at some speed, a child running or an adult cycling, and a cougar spies them, it triggers their chase instinct, and they target, then attack. The cougar might be young or old, hungry or full. Nobody says children should not play, and grown-ups should not exercise in the park. We all ask, how do we stop these predators from striking again?
Signed: Targeted, Chewed up a Bit, Still Alive
Your decision, your language.
Time and again we are faced with long and complicated stories of workplace bullying and abuse.
'What do I do next' we are asked.
It is all quite simple.
This the choice you have:
1./ Get out
2./ Get out and fight
3./ Stay and put up with it for financial reasons
4./ Stay and fight
So the choice is clear, but the thought process is difficult.
(For a useful decision making model called 'DECIDES' go to this section on our website:
DECIDES model of decision making )
As a target of workplace bullying you are likely to be suffering from, among other symptoms, a lost ability to concentrate. This baffles attempts at lucid decision making.
Your natural sense of right and wrong will also be stimulated and heightened. Again an obstacle to objective decision making.
Sleep is likely to be very disturbed and unrestful - you may well wake up more tired than when you went to bed. Sleep deprivation is frequently used by interrogators when softening up their victims. Lack of sleep destroys logical thought and the ability to focus and be dispassionate. It also takes away stamina, the very stamina needed to follow through an argument or chose a wise path.
So is the search for a decision making sanctuary impossible?
No, I don't believe it is, and one answer as to where it can be found is by confronting one of the most tenacious of controlling and addictive substances - language. Take back imposed language and use your own instead and progress is swift.
What do I mean by 'imposed language'? The jargon and buzz words ('buzz words' being one itself of course ....) and phrases which the therapeutic self help industry has taught us to use like mantras to ward off evil spirits.
Lets look at three destructively powerful and ubiquitous examples: 'positive thinking', 'self esteem' and 'closure'.
Positive thinking is how we are told (I am indebted to Gabor Maté and his highly recommended book 'When the Body Says No' for the inspiration for this example) to move forward from a difficult situation. Does this really mean anything more than, as the song says, to 'put on a happy face'?
To quote Dr. Maté (page 244): 'In order to heal it is essential to gather the strength to think negatively. Negative thinking is not a doleful, pessimistic view that masquerades as "realism". Rather it is a willingness to consider what is not working. What is not in balance? What have I ignored? What is my body saying no to?'
He goes on to quote some studies on women with breast cancer - those who had the fewest, so called, 'negative' thoughts had the poorest chance of recovery.
Optimism comes close to denial, when it includes a conscious or unconscious refusal to face the grimmer sides of your reality. Your reality includes every emotion, influence, barrier and obstacle, not just the ones you chose to want to view.
*** *** ***
Self esteem as in 'I've lost my self esteem...' is another popular nonsense. Self esteem is the favourable estimate you make of yourself and no one can take this from you. What is often really meant is that some others don't rate me highly. So?
You may rightly claim a loss of 'self confidence', and 'self doubt' may hobble your efforts at rational thinking, but let's leave the cries of 'lost' self esteem to the agony aunts, advice columnists and parasites of the self help press. Perhaps losing your 'self help' psychosis would be a better mantra?
*** *** ***
Saving the best 'till last we come to 'closure', as in 'I'm looking for closure'. This is the most dangerous of the three as believing in the power of closure prevents the necessary perspective and genuine acknowledgment which leads to true and essential healing. The image I have is one of those cupboards, which most of us have, stuffed full with simply too much stuff. Yes you can fling something in and close the door on it if you are quick but on opening the door slowly next time the items come tumbling out. My healthier substitute would be 'release'.
Being released from something doesn't deny it's existence. It doesn't prevent or deny possible future contact, it allows both parties to be themselves, and have equal freedom of movement. The 'release' is from the power something has over us, or rather the power we allow something to have over us. To close this powerful thing in a box, as 'closure' would have us do, is to guarantee that it will jump out and bite us somewhere in the future, probably at a time when we are vulnerable. So instead of looking for 'closure' how about saying 'I am looking for release.'
*** *** ***
Making an important decision is seldom easy. When your clarity and energy are low it is harder still. Marshaling your (few) remaining resources for the vital step of deciding where to go from here may be made more possible by taking back your language.
Armed with a healthy disregard for the buzzwords surrounding and hampering us, I feel it is possible to create your own state of grace allowing for the crucial, clear, concise decision making necessary for progress and a view of the most important part of life - the future.
Stephen Hill
(The quote, used as a review of a recommended book, is from 'When the Body Says No' by Dr Gabor Maté, published by Alfred A. Knopf, Canada. ISBN: 0-676-97311-6)
From a member: The Werewolves and Jekylls and Hydes amongst us
BULLYING: The Werewolves and Jekylls and Hydes amongst us " The search for a relevant working definition of bullying"
An amalgam of classic dictionary definitions defines bullying as follows "a bully is a person who uses strength, power, pressure, persecution , oppression and/or fear etc. to coerce others to do something". Note: The word "Bully", ironically, is rooted in an "old" Dutch word for "Lover".
We all probably relate to our original "childhood" bullying experiences, growing up as pre-adults, and often observed bullies at school. We were all "diamonds in the rough", but eventually "graduated" into the real world, more polished, and considered such bullying conduct passé (though a right of passage towards a maturity process aka adulthood) though bullying is something that we all experience in some way. Now we are all ready to enter the real civilized adult world....right?
In my view, we are all in the midst of a 'Survivor mode' societal Zeitgeist(ie the spirit of the times)The T.V. show Survivor is more reflective of society in general than actually inspiring it. The jungle environment and primal actions are more the norm and increasingly so, in contrast to the classic P.R. that this is a civilized, democratic, modern society that we all(supposedly) live in. This "Modern" society seems to incubate, foster, and literally encourage and support bullying to the point it is retroactively predictable.
But how do we define bullying, adult style?
Bullying often gets caught up in the overlapping definition of other of societies poxes and stereotypes. It exists in a rather gray area, even though we can innately relate to it and subconsciously identify it when it occurs. ( ie. it involves a type of harassment but is it synonymous with harassment) Sometimes a definition results from excluding all possible overlaps and we see what's' left over yet still applicable.
Let's explore two "stereotypes" we can all relate to a(i) Military/ boot camp Drill Sergeant (DS) and, less extreme,(ii)House Breaking a Puppy.
A "DS" is known to be tough, condescending, humiliates subordinates, intolerant, relatively merciless demanding - not fun. However let's explore motive. In a short- term snapshot, yes they(DS) exhibit classic bully behaviour. However, given this "military" environment, the long term and ultimate goal is to create strong, empowered individuals capable of surviving and overcoming extreme situations if need be. It is also classical conduct within that specific environment , to be expected, and few other methodologies exist to the same means to a constructive end. It's not pleasant but necessary. It empowers others further,it does not weaken nor keep weakened. Similarly with a puppy, the puppy is subjected to conduct that will guide it to an ultimate goal of becoming a welcome, low maintenance, ultimately valued member of the household, short term pain leading to long term gain. However, if the DS and/or the puppy's owner do not stop such similarities to bullying after the goal is accomplished, but continue regardless, for no valid reason that, in my view, qualifies as bullying. Bullying can also be analogized as a personal belief system being subjectively imposed upon others. It often has no merit, unnecessary, and all things being equal, bullyings agenda rarely adds to anything in a constructive sense, but is often a detriment and obstacle to the given positive, long- term, formal objectives and collective goals of other parties.
Bullying also is about power. It is about the abuse of power,and symbiotic with control. It is a self- serving perception of power, and the misuse, theft and retention of power. This "power" addiction seems to also be part of a bully- related agenda , as bullies tend to be protecting something they fear losing, either realistically or imagined. Bullying we can relate to as adults includes bully-perceived threats to bullies ambitions/ goal, or fear of disrupting an bullies established status quo, or bully attempting to prove bullies' worth etc. Classic examples of bullying actions being instigated are such things as: an ambitious newcomer making the old-guard look bad, or perceived threat to others ambitions, or serial bully parachuted in , but not shot down, from elsewhere, and just plain psychotics, borderline and otherwise . Bullies, classically, do not have a sober analytical view of their actions, in either a retroactive nor future- potential fashion, nor their potential consequences to other parties,often their victims.
So therefore,where are the bully police?
Bullies tend to be like werewolves/ Jekyll and Hyde; literal and figurative human chameleons that bully "Part-time" to support their "Full-Time" day- job agenda. If you are 24/7 bully, and more open about it, you, the bully, are toast. Thus, detection is often tough. Bullies are like terrorists, often resorting to ambush tactics. Bullies can be either blatant or probably more common in the Adult-"garden variety" version ie Bullies have a 180 degree different outward persona. However in either case, the victim has crossed a line that both(i) they, the victim didn't know existed, or (ii)it shouldn't exist to most rational reasonable people(ie it's the bullies' personal self -serving subjective agenda)Either way, the werewolves' fangs and/or Mr. Hyde (aka the bully) then comes out. Police are sometimes charged with the use of excessive force in the course of their duties, why not bullies??? Should bullying also be defined an excessive use of power, quasi-force whose lack of reasonable discretion versus other actual and reasonable options be another means of defining bullying??
Other bully "advantages": Besides being chameleons,their advantage is their classic environment. Bullies seem to generally exist in the middle ground of their overall environs and also, therefore a quasi "The Peter Principle" candidate, having maximized their potential, or exceeded it, and either sensing or oblivious to this personal plateau, but now determined to establish a "kingdom within a kingdom" of power/agenda. In other words, they will rarely exist in the(i) entry level. nor(ii) at the CEO level. That is being too exposed. Bullies don't like it. They are often entrenched, (chronologically/legally and otherwise), and are paradoxically supported by both (a) "I'm-all- right- Jack" indifference by peers, and (b) these same peers also morph into fearful followers and pro-bully soldiers when the "Mr. Hyde" side comes out. As a further editorial note, perhaps the classic Stockholmian Syndrome also exists, whereby they,the victims' peers, are enamoured by ones' captor ? Using another analogy if you are Batman, don't expect Robin to appear even if you are amongst bullies and their "subjects". As opposed to schoolyard bullies, the Adult bully's victim is blindsided and left numb, often in shock. Did I the victim deserve this (normal response). Was this a one- of bullying situation??? Fight it or forget it??? That is the victims decision, but lack of resolution with respect to bullying does not often solve the problem, but encourages it and other victims: bullies can often be serial bullies
One person's" bullying" is another's "bad hair day" - thus get over it?. We have to respect that it is a personal evaluation within the context of the bullying victims circumstances. We may envision a theoretical interchanging of say two bullied victims individual situation/s and each of these two parties then not considering the others situation as bullying, but that does not necessarily disqualify it as bullying. Subjectivity within an objective context still needs to be considered, or in other words how was the individual victim personally affected. Everyone's' tolerance/threshold/reaction is different.
Bullies soon to be extinct?
No probably not, but think MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Bullies in the "middle ground". The organizations that employ,and possibly tolerate them,are likely caught between a rock and a hard place. Yes, they may agree that they may have a bully, but are sensitive, politically, legally and otherwise to even, ironically, of being accused by the bully of bullying (predictable) and that to discipline or fire the bully may lead to legal action, negative publicity, by the bully. A bully tends to vent and swing out at all threats, even superiors. Bullies often do have a history of bullying, and get shuffled around so as to avoid legal liabilities but also this avoids responsibility, and new situations are graced by the new bullies presence. Also, not all bullies are superiors, nor peers, but bullies can also be subordinates undermining their superiors.
Creating a possible definition of bullying:
Should we, therefore, contribute to identify bullies as follows and thus defining bullying as: Conduct behaviour , that is exacted or enacted, which also includes detrimental/compromising inactions by one party or parties (perpetrators) towards others(victims),directly and/or indirectly that cannot be reasonably justified and quantified to contribute to a positive constructive long term initiatives, goals sense, but can be reasonably claimed and quantified as subjective imposition of actions, agenda by the perpetrator without any reasonable merit. Such bullying conduct may be a single or multiple incidents, and whether or not the victim has formally or informally informed the bullying parties to cease and desist is irrelevant, as the infraction is defined by the initiation of the bullying conduct. Furthermore such behaviour deemed bullying should be, at minimum, also take into account the toll exacted from and upon the victim , including psychological emotional and physical etc.(and fiscal)impacts. Furthermore, avenues pursuant to other existing laws etc. should be explored additionally (ie Human Rights interpretations) that may assist in the expeditious resolution and compensation process resulting from bullying
The Laws in general are written to have a relatively high benchmark with respect to legal breaches. "Reasonable" is a very key term This is necessary so as to restrict and thus not encourage frivolous claims,( and ultimately protects us all),. thus to avoid gridlocking the court system, and also diminishing the concern and its impact. In all likelihood I suggest that an internal mediation process within the given bullying sponsoring organization(see NBFM web-site examples), which first initiates a conduct criteria, defines bullying and a no - tolerance policy, will be the best solution. Bullying likely will be a branch of civil law, and only fall within Criminal Law in extreme cases. Courts in general are overwhelmed, as most cases are settled out of court, and external avenues such as mediation are more and more encouraged and becoming the norm. Like any other party "accused", a Bully has to be deemed ".innocent till proven guilty.". Bullies , however, are a sub-group that often "don't get it", and given the paradox that their conduct is often in a grey area off the radar screen, they do also often exhibit a self -righteous zeal, and thus dig themselves into an evidentiary hole and often with a figurative smoking gun. However, in either case, what is very important, and actually critical in bullying is the (i) ability to objectively identify each incident as bullying (ii) objectively determine if a pattern consistent with bullying is being established(iii) give notice formal and informal to the perpetrators and/or their superiors that such bullying must cease and desist, so they are legally aware, hence have no defence (iv) continue to gather evidence of bullying before,during and after aforementioned " notice" has been given.
Much like MADD, and within a society that deems itself modern and sophisticated certain things once accepted by society NO longer are , and some not even remotely tolerated. A bully literally and ironically, needs a Democratic society in which to exist, and exhibit their version of freedom of expression, yet are classically INtolerant of you and your likely more consistent version of democracy, thus indicative of a mini- dictator within a kingdom. A bully cannot exist openly in a democracy, they paradoxically need democracy yet abuse it, creating a very subjective mini- kingdom. Consider the fact a bully finds you "worthy" of their attention, but more an indication you are likely doing the right thing, because if you weren't, they, the bully, would use more proper/ less personal classic and objective formal channels to complain and adjudicate the matter. A bully (an indicative of one) fears this and the exposure - the jig is up, much like the Toto vs Wizard of Oz. Taking a good point, amongst many, made in September's editorial: your soul has been stolen. You want it back, and like all thefts, there are consequences for such actions, so that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, which doubly indemnifies and thus remedies the costs incurred by the victim and prevents future occurrences. In addition not all bullies exist just in the Private/ For- Profit Sector, a fact that needs to be explored further consistent with power and its abuse: bullying.
This editorials' titles sub-term "Yellow Gauntlet" is a reference to the other facet of bullying, that given the chameleon-like Mr. Hyde/Werewolf etc. character analogies, there is a consistent trait /opinion even applicable to schoolyard bullies, that a bully is a "Yellow" coward. They are dropping a subjective gauntlet, challenging you, hoping you will capitulate and pay homage to them and their agenda, but bullies also take a chance that they can intimidate you so that you either support or do not undermine the bullies agenda. The acid test to a bully is 'show me where you the bully are right and where I the victim are wrong', but, instead of being a victim in the meat grinder,and by showing some backbone, you put a wrench in their gears, and you also ultimately expose the third and main facet of their classic persona, which ultimately overwhelms the other facets ie 'the bully is a yellow coward' goes running. The bully seems to identify a conflict, often self -perceived, and also seems to authorize themselves, via "badge" and "Judges gavel", to take it upon themselves to charge the bully's victim with some infraction in the bullies own rule book. If the bully had, in fact a "valid" case, there are many more neutral and objective societal avenues to pursue,(such as court etc.),and thus their often fickle lack of discretion in dealing with the matter of concern actually indicts the bully even further, thus a "coward" posing as " superhero" and effectively attempting to pulling the wool over everyones' eyes.
One final note,and to demarcate a bully from an appropriate authority figure. I am part of a generation that can relate to the old-school style of School Principal, which, back then, was a person to be "feared". In hindsight what I thought was fear was actually respect , and the actual environment that I was in was a safe one, and one that as long as I didn' t bully , nor engage in other unacceptable forms of behaviour, on my way to adulthood, there shouldn't be a problem, nor anything to fear . It was long term constructive, this passive authoritative shadow, which was generally activated should the situation warrant it for the collective good. Before we go to court we need to actually build a court; one with a solid foundation.
Thus to conclude and summarize, a bully is consistent with a party or parties that engage in conduct or a pattern of conduct that deprives you, the bully's victim of the rights and due process afforded individuals within the greater democratic context most of us exist in. A bully effectively creates a mini- dictatorship within a given environmental context, such as the workplace, (but certainly not exclusive to the workplace). The bully/s often have a goal/agenda that serves little if any constructive purpose in the long term, but such conduct by the bully are a subjective imposition by the bully onto unwitting and unwilling victims without any reasonable and justified merit, and ultimately proves to be self -serving in the bullies interests, who is often the sole beneficiary of such conduct. The bullies ' victims most certainly never requested such conduct,are rarely pre-warned, nor have they, the victim ever given formal or informal approval. Diplomacy,equality,reasonableness, are not words and actions within the bullies world, but fear , power, abuse of power oppression intimidation, undermining, coercion, inconsiderate are. Victims interests are often compromised by the bully , wittingly or unwittingly, and often the victims protests are irrelevant to the bully.
Bullying exacts a toll,it is often hidden, (part of the problem) but needs to be realized and somehow quantified with sensitivity to the victimized individuals particular circumstances as applied to a reasonable definition. With consequences no more or no less than those remedies proved by law when parties mental and physical well-being has been compromised by those who chose to bully( and in doing so mask their personal deficiencies in such a cowardly fashion, which is not societies role to protect nor to subsidize,but to see that justice is done and seen to be done.)
P.S. (We were not put on this earth to put up with this sort of cr*p..but possibly put on this earth to scoop it up and rid the world of it!!!)
Authored by: R.A.H.
Corporations and Bullying Editorial:
Corporations.
They've been called "soul stealers." And for good reason. They steal our joy and love of beauty in life when they are infected with toxic people and environments.
Large corporations in general, and in particular, ones that focus exclusively on the shareholder and on making larger and larger profits every year, do not allow creativity and enthusiasm for life to survive. In fact, they encourage bullying and mobbing of talented and hard-working employees because they focus on making money and not "rocking the boat" over human relationships and creativity.
Working in a large institution, whether for profit or not, inherently creates a system that does not favor human kindness and caring. In the "traditional" large corporation laughter and fun is not approved unless it can be proven to somehow increase profits. In fact, one of our favorite lines at my previous workplace when someone was caught talking was "is it called work" or "talk?"
The ever-popular comic strip "Dilbert" is so popular because it comments on "cubicle hell." And whether you work in a cubicle, a shop floor or a retail environment, you recognize the fawning up-and-comer, the crazy introvert, the dictator, the bully and the psychopath, among others. These caricatures are created in institutions because generally, no one actually relates to anyone else in a healthy way. Once an institution has grown too large, the left hand no longer knows what the right hand is doing, and is likely too busy making its own political plans to "take over" or hold onto its current position to care. "Dilbert" humorously points out how ludicrous and toxic working in large corporations can be.
The only passion or fun allowed in such an environment is the game of "sucking up to the boss" and the ever popular "generating more revenue" at all costs. Stepping on others is perfectly acceptable in this environment as long as you can "justify" it in financial terms. Validation comes in the form of numbers, not emotions.
Corporations more often than not, fail in areas like corporate governance, public safety, anti-harassment and environmental protection issues. When these shortcomings are exposed and threaten productivity and profitability, they react by developing programs to prevent it, thus protecting them selves as an entity. Companies want to survive at all costs, and a prevention program is viewed as a way to protect them selves from liability. However, they often have people within the corporation who believe that they don't actually have to follow the program. They just have to have it "available" because the over-arching mission and goal of the company is to generate profits. They have no pretensions about caring about "lofty" socialistic or humanistic ideals. So when bullying and mobbing is conducted by management, it is not viewed as bullying, but rather "cost-cutting" and "down-sizing" for the companies good. In extension, how can they see employees targeting other employees as an issue, if they don't see it in themselves?
Studies show that 1 in 5 people are bullied at work, and corporations are doing nothing about it except to try and hide or "overlook" it until it's out of control or someone goes "postal." Only when they see they have a real duty to their employees because of legal liability will they change their policies to prevent bullying. Only then will they stop blaming the victim for taking HR's valuable time complaining about "non- issues" or "personality conflicts."
Companies generally only see bullying as a productivity issue. Often they target the "victim" as much or more than they do the bully, causing secondary wounding to an already traumatized person in failing to prevent the emotional violence, even when they know, sometimes for years, about how the person is being bullied.
For example, I personally know of someone who was bullied repeatedly for several years verbally. This person had told management and their union about the issues. Neither the corporation nor the union would help, because they are both there to protect profits, one for the employees and one for the company. They are not there to deal with "relationship issues." So when this person finally gave up trying to overlook the behaviour of this bully and basically told the bully to back off, the bully physically attacked this person. When this person defended himself, he ended up being seen as just as much of a "problem" as the bully and was targeted as "deadwood" to be "gotten rid of" by management as quickly as possible. Both people were suspended for the same amount of time, even though management and the union had had several complaints about the bully from others as well as from the target and witnesses clearly stated the bully had started the altercation. What the company was concerned about in this case, was that this issue, now out in the open, got in the way of their profitability and was taking up "valuable time" on something to do with "relationship issues."
This concern for numbers over people creates psychopaths and brutal environments that steal our souls. But for most companies, blaming the victim is easier than doing the work of educating and helping the targets and bystanders, and especially in dealing with a bully, who might sue them for constructive dismissal or other complaints if they are "punished" in any way for their outrageous behaviour. Often it is far easier for a company to remove the target/victim - as they are seen as the "problem" for "rocking the boat" and showing the company what it wanted to keep hidden.
We are told the corporation is a "good" entity - it is there to kindly and altruistically provide us with jobs, to protect us from harm while at work, and to create a situation whereby if they make more money - we all win because of the supposed "trickle down effect" and "invisible hand" theory of economics. But really, we all lose. Because the theories are flawed. They are not based on ethics and people, but on money and greed. Those billion dollar profits don't go to researching how to make a better work environment, rewarding and training for staff, medi-care, or healing it's people that get injured while making billions for it every year. In fact, as I can attest, companies often fight very hard to get out of their legal obligation to pay for injured workers while they are recovering. So when the corporate system fails, as it often does, especially in situations such as bullying, there is no one to protect us, least of all the corporation as an institution, no matter what their anti-harassment policies state. Bullying simply thrives in the corporate environment.
When companies develop anti-harassment and workplace safety programs, their primary purpose is to protect the company. So is it truly possible for companies to embrace helping anyone being bullied, if the purpose of having the policies is to help protect the company over the employee?
I'd like to believe the workplace is changing. That employers are realizing the value of people more. But I'm an idealist. And it is always more difficult to make large scale changes in larger, more traditional corporations. But there is hope. If we can get companies to adopt the anti-bullying and mobbing policies, to recognize there is a very real problem that they are partially responsible in creating, and that this issue that will affect them in the long run, then change can begin.
Teaching people that difference is valuable, and that communication is the key to a healthy environment is very important. Giving people the education and training to know how to deal with bullying and other soul-stealing activities of the large corporation teaches self-sufficiency and self-esteem and increases morale, efficiency and productivity, which of course, are the "magic words" to any large corporation.
The next step is creating peer support groups, as they will make more of a difference in the long run than the policies alone ever will. Creating kind workplaces is extremely important. Bullying cannot continue if people take a stand for their peers. Caring for others, empathizing with their plight and offering basic human kindness destroys what the bully wants, which is control and fear to paralyze people from acting kindly towards each other.
Bullying is built on pulling people and corporations apart from the inside out. It is a sickness that takes human kindness and caring out of relationships wherever it can. It is the true "soul stealer" in a large corporation because bullying creates more bullies. It creates a toxic environment where people feel they must become a bully or a party to the bully to survive.
But although bullying can only thrive in dysfunctional work places where fear reigns and people are afraid to support others for fear of being hurt themselves - something that is important to remember is that the bully is always outnumbered. Even if there are no real policies in place to protect a worker, employees can affect change by joining with and educating others on this issue. The employees still have the advantage over the bully if they have the courage to stand up to the bully, and are educated and committed to stopping bullying wherever and whenever they can.
Peer support can challenge and prevent bullying. But it is up to the corporation to deal with large scale and repeated bullying and mobbing. Organizations that tolerate and condone bullying only encourage people to give up trying to make a difference, and these same people that no longer feel safe no longer "produce', which is important to the company's "bottom line." If a corporation won't change for the sake of ethics, and because it is the right thing to do, it may change if those in charge can see it will make a difference to the bottom line in reduced sick time, higher morale and productivity, etc.
It's still, in the end, up to the individuals to join together to take a stand. It's up to the targets to educate others. And it's up to the group of us as a unit to lobby government and force large corporations to change and hear our voice. Laws will be changed if enough of us speak out against this "silent epidemic." We need to speak out as often as we can, with as many people as we can, as to the importance of the bullying issue. We can do this individually and as a group, because together we are a powerful force for change.
We can stop the violence done to us emotionally and physically. We can stop the bullying and "crazy making."
Your voice makes a difference!
So what are you going to do?
Karen Learmonth
Putting the injured first.
With the hope, and even excitement, around the Quebec law, proposed WCB changes to include bullying as a part of their Occupational Health and Safety regulations, and research projects underway in New Brunswick, the USA and the UK, it's time to take a look at what we, the targets of workplace bullying, expect from the law and other institutions.
The analogy I most like to use at presentations is that of a traffic accident. Firstly a genuine 'accident' is rare. Secondly, what is the first response at an traffic incident? Certainly not to establish how and why it happened, nor to set up three research projects or write a book. Is the first call to the crash site investigators? No, the priority is the care of the injured; 911.
Cones are then put out to warn others of the incident and prevent further injuries. The injured are cared for, and later investigations into the cause take place and sometimes recommendations are issued about changes in laws, rules or regulations to prevent reoccurrence; this is accompanied by education and training.
In the arena of workplace bullying however the sequence is skewed and flawed.
Almost all the current focus is on the laws, rules and regulations, and meanwhile the injured await even basic first aid. The only purpose of rules and regulations is to prompt and enable organizations to educate and train themselves to avoid legal consequences. Once a situation has gone so far as to involve the Worker's Compensation Board or lawyers, it is a sign of failure of the organizations education and training. It is a last resort and not a healing remedy nor a substitute for education and training. If a law against workplace bullying was in place tomorrow do you really believe that all targets would be free to return to bullyfree workplaces the day after?
No, I don't buy into this 'new rules will make employers change things' idea. It is both the right and the responsibility of all workers to be involved, everyday, in the soul of their workplace. 'Someone should do something about' or 'there should be a law' leaves out the most important component in any progress - the workers, all of them, all of us. It is precisely this lack of genuine involvement in our workplaces which creates a bully ripe environment.
So where should our focus be?
Where is the national helpline / hotline?
Does a larger first aid kit prevent more accidents? Of course not, and yet our current approach is working entirely on this false assumption. Bigger and tougher rules, regulations and laws will heal the situation. What evidence in any other area of social policy explains this belief?
No, it is training and education which prevents accidents, and so it is with bullying in the workplace; as I state above, the only purpose of rules and regulations is to prompt, prod, cajole and encourage workplaces to train and educate themselves. Note that I refer to 'workplaces', not 'employers' as we know that employers are also often the targets. The workplace is an organism which itself has to take responsibility for its health.
We cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility for our workplaces; it could easily be argued that the mind set which expects 'someone to do something' is to blame for this whole bullying problem. The policies, procedures and institutions exist for people, not the other way round. Tim Field is experiencing exactly this sick inversion with an individual union leader using an institution for his own ends.
(We targets are also described as unassertive - 'why don't you just stand up for yourself'? To justify bullying someone because they are so called 'unassertive' sounds to me horribly like the classic rape defense of 'look what she was wearing'.)
No, it is time for us, the targets of workplace bullying, together with our knowledgeable and sympathetic allies, to demand that our hierarchy of needs are recognized.
(An explanation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
MaslowWe want a nationwide hotline for the targets of workplace bullying now. (This is first aid.)
We want a list of the worst workplaces now. (This is putting out the cones. If you can have the 100 best places to work surely we could have the 100 worst.)
We want a nationwide network of support groups now. (This is second level care.)
We want a national register of psychologists, counsellors and other supports who are experienced, knowledgeable and understanding of what targets go through and the help these valuable members of society need to return to the world of work. Now. (This is third level care.)
At present it is a lottery as to whether you find help at all. If you do, are you automatically drugged and returned to work, or genuinely heard with compassion and integrity?
Furthermore this realignment of focus to the care of the injured will force society as a whole to look at the injuries and then the spur for change will come not just from targets or academic career builders, but from the population as a whole. These academic career builders (and here I must stress I do not include all academics interested in this field; there is some fine and genuine work being done) are setting the agenda without concern for the injured.
Referring again to the victims of rape, I see great parallels with the anti workplace bullying movement and the way the feminist response to sexual abuse changed society. The women's movement activists were often former victims themselves; Tim Field, Dr Ruth Namie and both Karen and I are former targets of workplace bullying. As with the women's movement peer counselling approach, it is former targets becoming activists to support and campaign for current targets. As former targets we must not be distracted by legal so called remedies in all their forms and have our focus taken away from current targets.
Research and, more particularly, information gleaned directly from targets still has an important role. If it is aimed at improving the content, level and type of support for injured workers, how could I doubt its usefulness? I will give interviews to positive journalists about what targets go through until I cannot speak anymore. But, and I repeat, if its focus is merely academic, or looks only at possible directions for possible new policies with impossible ambitions, then I know we are wasting our efforts.
I sense a change of emphasis, a new and achievable direction.
This change in emphasis has another important component - time. Any change in laws, rules or regulations will take many months or even years. Give us $60,000 and we will have a national helpline running next week - set up a 1-800 number, rent an office, establish a website to promote the service, and launch with a national press conference; help for targets within days, not years.
Will this happen tomorrow? No; but if you don't ask you don't get.
We, the targets of workplace bullying, are not crash test dummies providing data for researchers.
