Organisational Responses Ameliorate the Impact of Workplace Bullying On
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Page 1 of 13 ANZAM 2012 Organisational responses ameliorate the impact of workplace bullying on employee engagement Tony Cotton University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia [email protected] ANZAM 2012 Page 2 of 13 1 Organisational responses ameliorate the impact of workplace bullying on employee engagement Abstract Employee engagement is a complex workplace phenomenon with well-documented positive outcomes for organisations however, its nature is less well understood. This study considers the role that trust plays in employee engagement by examining the positive impact on employee engagement that occurs when an organisation responds in an active way to employee-reported bullying. Bullying is a breach of trust in the workplace and has a negative impact on all aspects of engagement but when an agency responds to employee reported bullying this reinforces trust and has a positive impact on employee engagement, in some cases returning engagement levels to the same as those who do not report having experienced bullying. Keywords: employee engagement, trust, conflict resolution, public sector motivation. The concept of employee engagement is well known to both managers and human resource practitioners and has received substantial research attention in both the private and public sector, although research in the public sector has been more limited (Scottish Executive, 2007). High levels of employee engagement have positive outcomes for an organisation (Harter, Schmidt, & Killham, 2003) and have been shown to be related to, among other things, sick leave use and intention to leave (Australian Public Service Commission, 2011); there are real organisational benefits to maintaining employee engagement. The search for employee engagement has become something of a quest for both managers and human resource practitioners alike with some seeing an increase in employee engagement as an end unto itself (Macey & Schneider, 2008). But while most seek those conditions that improve employee engagement, less attention has been paid to those characteristics of the workplace that might reduce employee engagement; one workplace characteristic that is widely regarded as Page 3 of 13 ANZAM 2012 2 having a negative impact on employees is workplace bullying (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Berthelsen, Skogstad, Lau, & Einarsen, 2011). Bullying is a difficult and highly damaging workplace behaviour that, among other things, fundamentally damages trust (Georgakopoulos, Wilkin, & Kent, 2011, Mckay & Fratzl, 2011) in the workplace. It has been hypothesised that trust plays a key role in employee engagement (Australian Public Service Commission, 2011a) through the psychological contract that exists between an employee and their work (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003; Rousseau, 1995). Trust is fundamental to the psychological contract (Atkinson, 2007; Robinson, 1996) and there are broad range of negative consequences that occur as a result of a breach of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995), including the impact that a breach of the psychological contract has on employee engagement (Scottish Executive, 2007). So, if trust is a fundamental part of employee engagement, and bullying affects trust, then bullying will have a profound effect on employee engagement. If bullying affects employee engagement because of its effect on trust in the workplace, can an organisation recover trust, once an employee has been bullied? Moreover, what workplace responses to bullying can an organisation employ that will not only rebuild trust but also recover employee engagement? Common organisational responses to bullying fall into two categories; those that attempt to prevent the behaviour and are those that provide a response once bullying has occurred. Preventative responses often focus on the importance of “...treating workmates with dignity and ANZAM 2012 Page 4 of 13 3 respect...” and often include things like promoting a positive workplace culture, commitment from senior managers, communication and consultation, and the development of organisational policies and procedures (Mikkelsen, Hogh, & Puggaard, 2011). While these approaches meet most accepted standards of good practice in workplace behaviour, the efficacy of preventative strategies for bullying are yet to be proved conclusively. One study has shown, at best, equivocal results for the efficacy of programs to prevent bullying behaviour in schools (Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007). As far as workplace programs are concerned, the Australian Public Service has a comprehensive suite of strategies designed to prevent, or reduce, workplace bullying and harassment (Comcare, 2009b, 2009c) yet rates of bullying behaviour experienced by APS employees have remained largely unchanged over the past ten years (Australian Public Service Commission, 2011b). Organisational responses to occurrences of workplace bullying are typically broad and include, investigating whether bullying should be recognised within existing organisational policies (Kieseker & Marchant, 1999), developing effective reporting mechanisms, and investigating whether or not the workplace culture is supportive of bullying or not (Salin, 2009). There can be a range of motivations for the development of such responses, including some that are clearly organizationally focused, e.g., to reduce the costs associated with bullying (Giga, Hoel, & Lewis, 2008; Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper, 2002), but organisational responses to bullying can also be seen as the organisation taking active steps to address the “wrong” that has been done and could be considered an attempt to restore the breach of trust that has been occasioned, although repairing trust has been shown to be difficult (Pate, Morgan-Thomas, & Beaumont, 2012). Page 5 of 13 ANZAM 2012 4 Bullying is typically committed by an individual in the workplace, usually a colleague or supervisor (see, for example, Meglich, Faley, & Dubois, 2012), but Rhodes, Pullen, Vickers, Clegg, & Pitsis (2010) argue that while workplaces can’t necessarily be held responsible for the acts of individuals, the workplace in which the bullying occurs has an ethical obligation to address bullying. It follows therefore, that by responding to a report of workplace bullying the organisation meets these obligations and might contribute to rebuilding trust in the workplace, and, if trust has an impact on employee engagement, then employees who believe that their workplace has responded bullying should show higher levels of employee engagement. Hypothesis: Employees who believe that their workplace has responded to their report of bullying will have higher levels of employee engagement than employees who do not believe their workplace has responded. METHOD As part of its statutory obligation to provide to the Australian Parliament each year a State of the Service Report (SoSR), the Australian Public Service Commission administers a survey to a sample of individuals employed under the Australian Public Service Act (1999) in agencies with at least 100 employees. The data described in this paper was taken from the 2011 State of the Service Employee survey. Research Design A quasi-experimental design was used with individuals assigned to comparison groups based on their responses to the questions regarding whether action had been taken as a result of them reporting being bullied. Mean engagement levels were compared across the groups of ANZAM 2012 Page 6 of 13 5 respondents using one-way analysis of variance and effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s f (Cohen, 1992). A subsequent analysis then compared engagement levels of those who reported action being “fully” taken with those who did not report experiencing bullying at all in the previous twelve months. T-tests were used to test comparisons of average engagement levels for these groups of employees; Cohen’s D was used to estimate the effect sizes for these comparisons. Participants In 2011 the SoS Employee Survey was administered to 17,326 employees who were selected as a stratified random sample from the 164, 832 individuals employed by APS agencies with more than 100 employees. A total of 10,222 responded, giving a response rate of 59%. The survey respondents were representative of the APS workforce; 30.4% were employed at the management level and 44.54% of respondents were male. Among a broad range of factual and opinion items, respondents were asked whether they had been subject to bullying or harassment in the previous twelve months; of the 9,525 who responded to this item, a total of 1,683 or 17.7% responded in the affirmative. These respondents were asked, “Did you report the bullying?” and a total of 663 (or 39.4%) responded in the affirmative. These respondents were then asked whether any action was taken as a result of them reporting the bullying; 77 (11.7%) indicated that action was “fully” taken, 338 (51.1%) indicated that action was taken to some extent, 191 (28.9%) indicted that no action was taken and 55 Page 7 of 13 ANZAM 2012 6 (8.3%) were not sure. Measures Employee engagement is measured in the APS Employee Survey via the APS Employee Engagement Model (Australian Public Service Commission, 2011); this measures four elements of employee engagement on a 0-10 point standardised scale score. The elements of engagement measured in the APS Employee Engagement Model are: • Job engagement – job challenge and job identification. • Team engagement – job recognition and team identification. • Supervisor engagement – supervisor behaviour and work conditions. • Agency engagement