See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232570632

U.S. Workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consultation interventions.

Article in Consulting Psychology Journal Practice and Research · September 2009 DOI: 10.1037/a0016670

CITATIONS READS 39 547

2 authors, including:

Gary Namie Workplace Bullying Institute

11 PUBLICATIONS 155 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey View project

workplace bullying View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Namie on 12 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. U.S. Workplace Bullying: Some Basic Considerations and Consultation Interventions Gary Namie, PhD, and Ruth Namie, PhD Workplace Bullying Institute

Consulting Psychology Journal Special Issue: Workplace Bullying and Mobbing: Organizational Consultation Strategies September, 2009

Abstract Bullying in the workplace is a world-wide phenomenon. There is a sizeable professional literature on workplace bullying is based largely on studies in European and other countries in comparison to studies involving U.S. corporations. Psychological consultants to U.S. corporations need to know and understand how certain consid- erations such as prevalence, legal reform and issues, and employers’ response to bullying differs in the U.S. compared to other countries. A multi-methodological typology is introduced and evaluated for application in U.S. bullying consultations. A case study illustrates the integration of methodologies and predictors of successful inter- ventions.

Historical Roots of Mobbing and Bullying clinician, a researcher, author of popular books, Research on adult bullying began in the and the first public activist and uncompromising 1980’s with physician Heinz Leymann’s (1990) spokesperson for the movement he launched. work in Sweden. He chose the term “mobbing,” British journalist Andrea Adams (Adams & a term adapted from the description of animal be- Crawford,1992) coined the phrase “workplace havior in which a group of smaller animals in large bullying” gave speeches, wrote the first popular numbers attack a single larger animal (Lorenz, book on the topic in the UK, and left a legacy of 1991, cited in Leymann, 1996). Leymann defined activism with the organization she founded. As a mobbing as hostile and unethical communication result of Adams’ pioneering work, union engage- at work directed in a systematic way by one or ment, and prolific academic research, the UK has a few individuals towards one individual who is remained a leader in public recognition of the unable to defend him- or herself. Typically, this phenomenon and related research (Hoel & Coo- occurs at least once a week over a period of at per, 2000; Rayner, Hoel & Cooper, 2002). least six months. The maltreatment results in In the 1990’s there was ongoing debate considerable psychological, psychosomatic, and among proponents of the two terms, mobbing social misery. Mobbing connotes a “ganging up” and workplace bullying. There has been an as- and is congruent with the reported experiences similation about defining criteria while synonyms of people tormented at work. Leymann was a persist: emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998), gener- alized workplace abuse (Richman, Rospenda, & slightly over 110 respondents. The estimate of 1 Nawyn, 1999), or workplace aggression (Neuman in 6 workers bullied, an extrapolation from Mich- & Baron, 1998). Europeans refer to mobbing (as igan to the national population, was disseminated does the prominent Canadian academic Westhues by the popular press as the national prevalence (2008)). Otherwise, it is primarily bullying in statistic until 2007. Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Surveys reliant upon worker perceptions are and the US. meaningful because there is substantial overlap There is consensus among practitioners and between measures based on respondent percep- academics that bullying is repeated and persis- tions and those based on researchers’ operational- tent non-physical mistreatment of a person. It is ization of bullying. Self-labeling asks respondents a sub-lethal form of workplace violence. It is un- to identify with a global definition of bullying. wanted, negative behavior unilaterally instigated In the majority of cases those who self-label as by one or more perpetrators over a prolonged pe- bullied are also operationally classified as bullied riod of time, manifested as verbal and nonverbal (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Note- behaviors or sabotaging tactics or a combination laers, Einarsen, Hans, & Vermunt, 2006; Salin, of all tactics which prevent the targeted person’s 2001). The most frequently used instrument to from performing satisfactorily (Namie & Namie, operationally define bullying by social scientists 2004). Most important, the focused assault threat- is the Negative Acts Questionnaire (Einarsen & ens the target’s psychological integrity, safety Hoel, 2001). The NAQ is a 22-item self-report and health. Unremitting exposure to bullying checklist of items measuring exposure to nega- adversely affects the target’s personal health as tive antisocial behaviors. For example, items stress-related diseases jeopardize both physical include, “Given tasks with unreasonable/impos- and emotional well-being (Tehrani, 2004; Mik- sible targets/deadlines,” “Humiliated or ridiculed kelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Cortina, Magley, Wil- in connection with your work,” but do not ask the liams & Langhout, 2001). Furthermore, bullying respondent if she or he feels bullied. Studies dif- is costly to businesses as it disrupts productivity fer in whether at least one or two negative acts and incurs employee recruitment and retention weekly are required for designation as bullying costs (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). (Lutgen-Sandvik, et al. 2007). Acts must persist One study quantified the proportion of ad- at least six months. verse employment actions experienced by tar- Prevalence comparisons between respon- geted workers. Workers for whom bullying had dent self-report and researcher-defined bullying stopped, gave the following reasons that caused it show that the latter tends to overestimate, while to stop: the target quit (40%), the target was ter- self-labeling tends to underestimate (Notelaers, minated (24%), or the target transferred to anoth- et al. 2006). But there is much commonality. In er job with the same employer (13%) (Workplace a Swedish study, all who self-labeled were also Bullying Institute, 2007). When targeted people classified as being bullied using a scale (Sa- must resolve the bullying situation by losing their lin, 2001). In a US study nearly everyone who livelihood or giving up a beloved position, the re- self-labeled were also identified operationally sult is a strong perception of injustice. as bullied (Lutgen-Sandvik, et al. 2007). In that same study, researchers determined that based on U.S. Prevalence Studies NAQ responses, 28% of the 403-person sample A representative statewide sample of Michi- had been bullied within 6 months of the online gan residents (Keashly & Jagatic, 2000) reported survey, whereas only 9.4% of respondents them- how bothersome a general experience of mis- selves believed they had been bullied by show- treatment at work had been for them in the last ing some agreement with the statement that they 12 months. Sixteen percent stated it was very were subjected persistently over time to negative bothersome. The subgroup of individuals who actions. The 28% estimate is useful to compare claimed to have been severely mistreated number to the Michigan finding of 16% though the on- line study used a convenience, not representative, tion of the principal 20 questions plus additional sample. demographic variables took respondents approxi- A study related to bullying (Schat, Frone, mately 13 minutes. & Kelloway, 2006) produced a large sample (N The sample drawn was 7,740 adults; re- = 2,508 telephone interviews collected over an spondents were screened for age and only adults 18-month period) exploration of aspects of ag- were included. The sample demographics closely gressive work behavior. Keen attention was paid reflected the then current US census data (http:// to sampling methodology. The researchers were www.census.gov/main/www/access.html); the clearly most knowledgeable about traditional pollster claimed that the sample represented all workplace violence issues. However, in this self- adult Americans. The margin of error was +/- 1.1 described national study, they operationalized percentage points. Margins of error were slight- “psychological workplace aggression” in a way ly higher in sub-groups, so slight weights were inconsistent with more than a decade of interna- added to more accurately reflect the US working tional precedents some of which were discussed population. above. The 13% weekly prevalence rate indicated After screening for age, two other screens how frequently respondents had been threatened were used. The first was employment; those em- with a weapon or being physically hit (battery, ployed full or part-time, currently unemployed, not bullying) or having something bad said about or retired were allowed to continue. No other in- you, being publicly insulted, or having obscenities formation about work history was gathered. This shouted at them. When the timeframe expanded screen eliminated self-employed (-855), student to the prior 12 months during which at least one not working (-293), and other/not sure (-329) cat- act happened, the prevalence increased to 41%, egories resulting in 6,263 respondents complet- equivalent at the time to 47 million US workers. ing the first part of the survey. Approximately 59% of respondents never experi- The second screen was for respondents, who enced psychological aggression, thus the sample had experienced or witnessed bullying, which upon which descriptions of bullying were based was defined as follows: was effectively reduced to less than 1,100 inter- “At work, have you experienced or witnessed any viewees. Though the measures of psychological or all of the following types of aggression were unconventional and very lim- repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that ited, the prevalence statistics nearly parallel those prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, found in the next representative study described. threatening conduct, intimidation, humiliation?” A study to determine prevalence (and 19 The categories of bullying, without referring other aspects) of workplace bullying on a nation- explicitly to “bullying,” matched closely the de- al scale with a larger sample was undertaken by lineation into verbal abuse and behavioral acts the Workplace Bullying Institute in partnership (which would include nonverbal passive and ac- with Zogby International, a national polling and tive acts like hostile glaring) and work interfer- public opinion research center (WBI, 2007). The ence adopted by several of the researchers cited population from which the study’s sample was in the previous sections. Global definitions like drawn included over 350,000 participants from this one are also incorporated in most of the anti- every state in the United States. Respondents mobbing/bullying laws. were people who had agreed to participate in on- The survey ended for those who had neither line surveys. Zogby drew a random sample from witnessed nor experienced bullying. The second this panel that were then invited to participate in screen left 3,461 respondents who completed the an online survey and asked to follow a link to a remainder of the survey questions about bullying secure server hosting the survey. Results were and its dimensions. weighted to reflect the target population, in this The prevalence findings (WBI, 2007) were case adult Americans nationwide. The online sur- reported as 12.6% of respondents being bullied vey ran for three days in August 2007; comple- currently or within the prior 12 months; 24% had been bullied but were not currently bullied; a increased since enactment and that employers mutually exclusive 12% of the sample witnessed responded in the intervening years with indiffer- but never experienced the mistreatment; and 45% ence (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). Only one of out reported never being targeted and never having of nine businesses adopted any measures against witnessed it. When the survey was conducted, the bullying. The authors partly attribute this to the aggregate (now + ever bullied) 37% of workers absence of a mandatory intervention methodol- represented 54 million Americans. ogy dictated by legislation. Additional findings from the WBI-Zogby In Britain, the explicit anti-bullying Dignity survey: most (72%) perpetrators were bosses; At Work Act has been repeatedly introduced in the most (55%) targeted individuals were non-su- British Parliament but has yet to pass. However, pervisory workers; although 35% of those bul- employers were shown the power of the existing lied were managers. Additionally, perpetrators Protection From Harassment Act, originally de- enjoyed support primarily from higher-ranking signed as an anti-stalker law. In 2006, Deutsche managers (43% have executive sponsors), peer Bank worker Helen Green won a $1.5 million managers (33%) and human resources (14%) court award. She had suffered a “relentless cam- (WBI, 2007). paign of mean and spiteful behaviour designed to Based on the studies reviewed, the conserva- cause her distress” at the hands of co-workers for tive estimate of US workplace bullying is approx- four years causing disabling depression (Gerard, imately 13% at any given time. The rate at least 2006). doubles when the time period spans a lifetime of After public awareness-raising, legislation work. was enacted in Ireland (Expert Advisory Group The United Nations International Labour on Workplace Bullying, 2005), in several Austra- Organization warned that “violence at work, lian states, several European countries (Namie & ranging from bullying and mobbing, to threats by Namie, 2009) and Canada. psychologically unstable co-workers, sexual ha- Quebec (2004) provincial Labour Standards rassment and homicide, (was) increasing world- refer to repetitive “vexatious behaviour” that con- wide and (had) reached epidemic levels” in the stitutes actionable “psychological harassment.” 15 EU countries surveyed (ILO, 2006). In Saskatchewan (2007), the revised Health and Legal Reforms in Response to the Bullying Safety Act prohibits conduct defined as harass- Movement ment that “adversely affects the worker’s psycho- A small scientific 1984 report by the Swed- logical or physical well-being and that the person ish National Board of Occupational Safety and knows or ought reasonably to know would cause Health triggered the public dialogue in the coun- a worker to be humiliated or intimidated.” try where Leymann had established his clinic The Canada Labour Code (2008) protects for individuals traumatized by the workplace federal government employees against work- (Groeblinghoff & Becker, 1996). The world’s place violence, explicitly expanded to include first anti-mobbing law enacted in 1993 (effec- workplace bullying. In the Code, “work place tive in 1994) -- a Swedish workplace healthy and violence” constitutes any action, conduct, threat safety ordinance – ostensibly gave workers pro- or gesture of a person towards an employee in tections against “Victimisation at Work” without their work place that can reasonably be expected using “mobbing” in the text. Worker health was to cause harm, injury or illness to that employee. paramount. The ordinance fixed responsibility It is the employer’s responsibility to assess the squarely on employers who were to create poli- pre-event risk, respond swiftly to restore safety cies to prevent abuse, train managers to better un- for the bullied person, and develop procedures derstand the psychosocial work environment, and to prevent and correct future incidents. All three to provide help and support to victimized workers Canadian laws describe remedial procedures and and co-workers. Unfortunately, a recent evalua- employer responsibilities more clearly than ear- tion of the law’s efficacy revealed that mobbing lier laws. US employment law, compared to extant in- treatment, bullying, may be an evolved state, the ternational statutes, provides little protection for next version, of discrimination. To her, incivility workers from bullying according to Suffolk Uni- masks blatant socially undesirable racism. Legal- versity Law professor David Yamada (2003). He ity makes it easier for employers to ignore. reviewed the failure of tort protections in several In response to the shortcomings of US law, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) Yamada (2004) wrote legislation – the Healthy cases (Yamada, 2000). For a plaintiff to claim Workplace Bill (HWB) -- enabling states to ad- IIED, the perpetrator’s conduct must be inten- dress workplace bullying separate from civil tional or reckless; the conduct must be outrageous rights statutes and the IIED tort. (offensive beyond societal standards of decency The HWB contains the following: (a) a and morality); there must be a causal connection precise definition of an “abusive work environ- between the wrongdoer’s conduct and the resul- ment,” a high standard for misconduct, (b) re- tant emotional distress; and the emotional dis- quirement of proof of health harm by licensed tress must be severe. To the non-legal observer, health or mental health professionals, (c) affirma- the criteria are met in severe cases of workplace tive defenses against vicarious liability for con- bullying. Yamada found that courts rarely deem scientious employers when they create internal perpetrators’ workplace misconduct sufficiently correction and prevention procedures, (d) preser- outrageous most often siding with employer de- vation of employer rights to terminate or sanction fendants. offenders, unethical employees or workers who Courts are more likely to accept an IIED commit crimes, and (e) a mandate that plaintiffs claim when the mistreatment is coupled with se- must use private attorneys with no government vere discriminatory harassment (Yamada, 2007). enforcement involvement. Discrimination, including well-known varieties Since 2003, 183 legislators have sponsored of racial disparate treatment and sexual harass- 55 versions of the HWB in 16 different states. In ment, are illegal in America. The target-victim 2009, 12 states carried some version of the bill. must be a member of a protected-status group It has not yet become law in any state (Namie & (based on gender, race, age, religion, ethnicity, Namie, 2009). disability, etc.). Discrimination is status-based. However, same-race and same-gender ha- Employer Responses to Workplace Bullying rassment, or bullying, is rarely illegal when the Employers determine the size and composi- harasser and target are both protected-status tion of the workforce, the workplace culture and group members. Harassment refers to illegal mis- every aspect of the work environment. The re- treatment. Bullying is “status-blind” harassment sponsibility for the correction and prevention of when civil rights laws do not apply. The preva- bullying lies with the top management because lence ratio of bullying to illegal harassment and they shape the culture of the organization through discrimination is 4:1 (WBI, 2007). decisions made (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Illegal harassment is a negative experience, Empirical studies established an association be- but it generates less anxiety, anger and hostility tween leadership, or its absence, and workplace than does bullying (Richman, et al.1999). Our an- bullying. For example, Leymann (1996) and Ei- ecdotal experience confirms that a bullied worker narsen et al. (1994) found that bullying among feels that her or his complaint is less legitimate colleagues was often associated with ‘weak’ or when told that no anti-discrimination law or em- ‘inadequate’ leadership by the most senior man- ployer policy was breached. Workers are expect- agers. Similarly, Hoel and Cooper (2000) showed ed to tolerate psychological violence, as long as it that bullying was associated with high scores on remains non-physical and sub-lethal bullying. It a laissez faire style of leadership. A lack of or- is legal in the US workplace. ganizational coherence (integrated, functioning Cortina (2008) posits that because of stigma production procedures), only token accountabil- attached to illegal discrimination, general mis- ity (few consequences for wrongdoing), low se- curity (apprehension about layoffs) all combine employers of bullied targets leading to lost jobs to foster a chaotic workplace climate that gives (24%). Alleged offenders were punished in only opportunistic abusers of authority the chance to 6.2% of cases. These findings suggest creating a harm others (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006). different process to investigate allegations of bul- Conversely, Cortina et al. (2001) found that in a lying policy violations that will be perceived by workplace climate in which fair, respectful treat- employees as more credible and fair. Addition- ment prevailed, bullying was rare. ally, negative consequences for perpetrators who Because of employers’ costs associated with are confirmed policy violators should be imple- bullying -- productivity loss, costs regarding in- mented. terventions by third parties, turnover, increased US employers’ perceptions about the preva- sick-leave, workers compensation and disability lence of bullying within their own organizations insurance claims and legal liability – employers were assessed by a NIOSH research team (Grubb, should logically be motivated to stop bullying Roberts, Grosch, & Brightwell, 2004). A pair of (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). One healthcare indus- nationally-representative federal government try project that improved employee perceptions surveys of non-institutionalized US residents age of trust and fair treatment was estimated to po- 18 and older (the General Social Survey-GSS) tential save $1.2 million annually for a single or- and a second representative sample of US or- ganization (Keashly & Neuman, 2004). So, the ganizations in which the unit of analysis is the “business case” can be made for bullying. It fol- workplace (the National Organizations Survey lows that a rational employer response to learning III – NOS III) provided the study data as admin- that bullying occurs on site might be to stop the istered by the National Opinion Research Center bullying and save money. (NORC). Some GSS respondents were asked to To the contrary, one US study found that name their employers. Then, a single contact per- American employer inertia was the most common son was identified as the representative for each response to reported abuse (WBI, 2007). Over- of 516 organizations, typically human resources all, 1,523 respondents responding to the question professionals or company owners. said, in order of frequency, that organizational The employer representatives were asked authorities did nothing (43.6%), completely or about a variety of organizational factors. Most partially resolved bullying in a way that helped relevant was their response to the question: the target (31.9%), and worsened the situation for “How often in the past year has bullying oc- targets, abuse exacerbation (18.4%). curred at your establishment, including repeated Employer response categories in the 2007 intimidation, slandering, social isolation, or hu- WBI study were too broad to offer prescriptive miliation by one or more persons against anoth- direction to the development of an anti-bullying er?” intervention. In a subsequent survey, a question The majority of employers (75.5%) said bul- was posed to online survey respondents (N=400) lying never happened at their site. Only 1.6% said asking specifically what employers did after bul- it happened frequently. The second most frequent lying was reported to them with seven detailed response was that it was rare (17.4%) with 5.5% response alternatives (Namie, 2008). The results, acknowledging that bullying happened some- based on bullied workers’ self-report data, were times. Employees were seen as the most frequent that employers predominantly did nothing to stop aggressor (in 39.2% of cases) as well as being the mistreatment when reported (53%) and actu- the most frequent victim (55.2%). Two assessed ally retaliated against the person who dared to re- measures of workplace climate were associated port it in 71% of cases. In 40% of cases, targets with increased levels of bullying – lack of job se- considered the employer’s investigation to be curity and lack of trust in management (Grubb et inadequate or unfair with less than 2% of inves- al. 2004). tigations described as fair and safe for the bullied US employers are currently experimenting person. Filing complaints led to retaliation by with ways to address workplace bullying. Based on our consulting experiences, some are willing Formal training for managers was given by 28% to introduce the topic to their workforce. How- of the municipalities, but only 25% had a method ever, fewer are willing to commit to a systemic for recording and tracking the instances of bully- solution. In order to reduce bullying, employers, ing cases (Salin, 2006). with their consultant’s help, need to address is- The Finnish municipal organizations also sues that potentially enable bullying and try to relied primarily (in 79% of cases) on informal “disenable bullying” by increasing the perceived discussions with both parties (a consulting strat- costs for the perpetrator (Salin, 2003). egy called moderation/mediation in a later sec- Perceptions of bullying at the workplace rath- tion of this paper). According to Salin, training or er than researcher-generated models are typically counseling was offered to more perpetrators than the incentives for organizational action (Lutgen- targets. Formal solutions were done in larger or- Sandvik et al. 2007). Organizational authorities ganizations. Targets and perpetrators transferred most often directly deal with perceived bullying, positions to mitigate the bullying in less than one- rather than abstract constructs or first-hand obser- quarter of cases. Punishment for perpetrators was vations. When workers report their perceptions of very rare – employment contract not renewed abuse, and if managers investigate, they do so in (4%), not promoted (2%), dismissed (3%) and al- order to confirm or counter initial perceptions. lowed to voluntarily resign (6%). Targets left in When enough people share the same perception 7% of cases. The employer did nothing in 12% of about the work environment’s toxicity, organiza- cases. tions may finally feel compelled to create formal The two surveys of employers – US (Grubb anti-bullying policies and procedures. et al., 2004) and Finland –relied on a single indi- In fairness to American employers, denial vidual to represent the experiences within orga- that bullying exists, or warrants attention, within nizations. It is possible that high-level represen- their organizations is not problematic, however tatives were unaware of anti-bullying programs uncaring or unethical it may appear. There is no within their organizations, leading to an under- current legal mandate to stop bullying. In other reporting of actions taken. It is also possible that countries, laws do exist. Do employers respond the representatives claimed that a program was differently there? operational when, in fact, employees did not Salin (2006) investigated what organizations know it existed or that it was accomplishing its actually did in order to prevent bullying and inter- intended goals. vene in situations in Finland where anti-bullying Recall that in Sweden, the country with the legislation had been in force for three years prior regulatory ordinance in effect for 15 years, only to the study. Originally, both public and private one of out of nine businesses had voluntarily im- organizations were contacted; however, none of plemented policies and procedures against bul- the private organizations were willing to take part lying (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). The lack of em- in her study. Similar to the NIOSH-NORC-GSS ployer initiative in the Scandinavian anti-bullying study, the unit of analysis was the organization. pioneering nations suggests modest expectations A single contact person to serve as online survey about American employers’ attitudes toward bul- respondent was identified in each of 204 Finn- lying, even if laws are passed. ish municipalities. In most cases (79%), the in- dividual was either the head of administration or personnel manager. Employees were not polled. An Intervention Taxonomy Only 55% of the public organizations had An innovative researcher interviewed a policies written, and the majority of those had sample of German consultants who specialize been written since passage of the law. More or- in workplace bullying prevention and correction ganizations (66%) gave employees general infor- (Saam, 2009). The three strategic practices were mation about workplace bullying; 34% conduct- moderation/mediation, coaching, and organiza- ed internal bullying surveys to assess prevalence. tion development (OD). Interviewed consultants reported the use of acceptable conduct. moderation/mediation only when conflict does Saam (2009) introduced a multilevel ap- not escalate to a level for which only a power in- proach to bullying consulting – an interaction tervention is appropriate. Moderation is a clarifi- between consulting strategy and organizational cation process to allow the parties to move beyond level for the strategy’s implementation. Ideally, misunderstandings or misperceptions. Mediation there would be a series of coordinated interven- refers to the traditional conflict resolution pro- tions at the individual, dyadic, group, and organi- cess. zational levels for optimal effectiveness. The second consulting strategy is coaching. Help for individuals that falls outside the Coaching necessarily develops solutions on a scope of consulting services (and therefore not case-by-case basis. Coaching is support – tacti- part of Saam’s taxonomy) is individual psycho- cal, emotional, career development, personalized therapy or group therapy provided by a licensed skills education and rehearsal. mental health professional. In some cases, the The organization development (OD) ap- coach is a therapist. Therapy can help restore proach is the third intervention strategy. Culture emotional health for bullied targets and affected change is its primary goal (Saam, 2009). The co-workers. Non-clinical consultants can com- source of the bullying problems can be found plement the psychotherapeutic work by working in attributes of the organization – the reporting with targets and witnesses to rekindle a sense of relationships, layers in the hierarchy, transpar- safety and trust in the organization. Targets and ency of decision-making processes, timeliness witnesses reported that nearly half (44%) of bul- in responding to employee concerns, personal lying episodes lasted longer than one year (WBI, accountability for destructive interpersonal con- 2007). This type of coaching involves debriefing duct, equitable processes that match rewards to traumatized bullied targets and affected witnesses performance, trust, reciprocated loyalty, clarity in private sessions to learn what each person feels of roles, incorporation of collaborative processes, they lost during the bullying period. Early recog- and performance expectations. An OD strategy nition skills and group confrontation methods can sets new standards for doing things differently be taught. If the client wants group sessions for and altering performance-consequence contin- the team, for time or cost efficiency reasons, the gencies. The OD consultant defines problems as consultant should provide a licensed counselor systemic. Solutions must necessarily affect all proficient at trauma group facilitation. people at all levels of the organization. The preferred tool of the OD bullying con- Applying the Strategies sultant is the proscription of bullying behavior via The origin of bullying is most likely the in- a new policy and accompanying set of enforce- teraction between impersonal environment fac- ment procedures (Saam, 2009). The OD approach tors, which includes the consequences for past can be characterized as an impersonal solution to bullying (typically reinforcement like promotions an otherwise vexing, emotional, irrational bully- and job security that employees perceive) and the ing crisis unlike the moderation/mediation and personalities of the individuals who are parties in coaching approaches. the dispute (Neuman & Baron, 1998). However Based on her clinical practice with severe the causal attribution explanation agreed upon by cases of bullying, Ferris (2004) contends simi- client and consultant will guide the application larly that helpful, responsive organizations do not of intervention strategies. Sustainable organiza- see bullying as a merely personality issue to be tional change is not achievable when the solution solved by the parties in conflict or through me- is narrowly focused on an individual. That solu- diation. Instead, bullying is seen as an organiza- tion assumes that employers can alter employees’ tional problem that needs to be addressed through personalities rather than modify their behavior. coaching for the bully, counseling, performance Most workplace bullying consulting engage- management, and policies that clearly define un- ments begin with a request to tame a disruptive intimidator who has wreaked havoc for several definition of being bullied (the NAQ) are met. employees. As per the Keashly and Nowell (2003) Therefore, if there is ambiguity about experienc- stage model for de-escalation of conflict, immedi- es at the beginning of the bullying incidents, the ate peacekeeping is required when conflict levels target needs to engage in sensemaking to have an are high and destructive between two individuals explanation for his or her negative arousal state or within a work team. Targets can be made safe (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008). by separation from her or his assailant(s). How- Trained peer experts can also serve as mod- ever, the consultant should guarantee that the sep- erator/mediator. The expert can serve as the third aration not is punitive – no lost pay, lost status, or person to support the bullied target when attempt- humiliation from forced isolation – for the target. ing to personally confront the bully. The presence If both parties consent, the moderation/mediation of a third person who is not a member of the affect- process may be resumed with arbitration. ed work group denies the bully the desired cloak If civility cannot be restored, conflict reso- of secrecy. This type of informal activity changes lution tools should be abandoned. Therefore, the the culture at the dyadic and group levels. It’s a temptation for organizational authorities to in- bottom-up peacemaking-change process. At the struct the bully and target to “work it out between same time, a great deal of the interaction between yourselves” is a mistake (Ferris, 2004). target and resource peer is essentially coaching. Moderation/mediation strategies were rec- Executive coaching can take one of three ommended by the interviewed consultants in forms. First, executives may require help con- Saam’s (2009) study only for minor conflicts and fronting disruptive colleagues. The skill can be never for severe bullying. Mediation has sever- taught by the consultant and tailored to deal with al shortcomings for bullying mitigation (Saam, particular individuals. It is often hard to believe 2009). Traditional conflict mediation ignores the the reports of abuse, especially if committed by targeted worker’s need for justice and acknowl- a similarly high-level executive. Personal barri- edgement of the harm. Mediation focuses only ers, early-life experiences, and family parallels current and future circumstances, ignoring the with workplace dynamics or dysfunction are past. Mediation is a private and secret process. discussed. If the individual requires therapeutic Pattern and practice of hostile actions by per- help, it is recommended. petrators are overlooked when complying with Second, coaching is the opportunity to teach confidentiality requirements. If there is a power the executive about the adverse organizational imbalance between target and bully, as there of- impact of bullying. The executive can be mind- ten is, mediation can harm the target (Keashly & ful of the heretofore overlooked factors and learn Nowell, 2003). Ferris (2004) a counselor who how to control them for the organization’s ben- treats victims of severe bullying, also advises efit. It is empowering for the executive to regain against mediation because mediators often show control of troublesome people and out-of-control a lack of understanding of the difference between situations. bullying and conflict, causing an injury requiring A third type of coaching for executives is psychotherapy to reverse. for the consultant to prepare the organizational It is also a moderation/mediation approach leader for the future systemic anti-bullying initia- when the client creates an ombudsperson-like, tive. The goal is to reduce the executive’s appre- confidential, safe harbor service for employees. hensions – about the process, about fear of con- The validating power of “just being heard” miti- fronting the bully, about needing to trust the new gates the target’s stress resulting from the loss of system about to be implemented, about fighting power and control over one’s work world. Not all the urge to intervene, and about prioritizing the bullied individuals need, or want, to file a formal organization’s needs and the well-being of hun- complaint. Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) found dreds or thousands of workers. that targets do not always consider themselves Coaching perpetrators is most effective af- bullied even when criteria to meet the operational ter a new policy-driven behavioral standard is in place. However, some clients request bully coach- 2004) while 37% of the workforce reported that ing as a pre-intervention and separate service. The they have been bullied in those same workplaces risk to the consultant of out-of-sequence coaching (WBI, 2007). For many reasons, the scope of in- is that the executive may believe the problem is ternal bullying problems remains undetected. solved since one of the few “bad seeds” was dealt When the client is open to a comprehensive with. When bully coaching precedes policy cre- systemic intervention, policy and procedures are ation, the bully perceives the special treatment as written (OD-level tools) while simultaneously punitive. When coaching comes after the policy is coaching the offending bully (coaching tools) or in effect, the individual knows that the same rules attempting to smooth the relationship between apply to everyone else. It is a non-discriminatory a particularly abusive bully and his target (both process and somewhat easier for the consultant as moderation/mediation tools and coaching tools). well as the alleged policy violator. Before describing features of bullying poli- In our experience, the most effective coach- cies and procedures, the reader is alerted to er- ing of perpetrators employs a pair of consultants. rors made by mental health practitioners who are The ideal pairing is a clinical or testing psy- not well versed in workplace bullying. The errors chologist (or trained mental health professional) mirror the consultant and client over-reliance on complemented by an organizational expert, re- individualistic, personality-based explanatory flecting the dualistic goals of personal discovery models for workplace behavior described above. and compliance with new organizational norms. Clinicians have to mindfully avoid committing If personality disturbances underlie the problem the fundamental attribution error to avoid blaming behavior, only a licensed mental health profes- targets for their fate (Ferris, 2004). Bullied targets sional – counselor, psychologist, or psychiatrist are often misdiagnosed as manifesting borderline -- should deal with the bully at an off-site loca- personality disorder. PTSD is a frequently over- tion. looked diagnosis of an injury caused by extreme The goal of bully coaching is to clarify ex- situational stressors (Tehrani, 2004). Traumatiz- pectations for behavioral changes that can start ing, severe workplace bullying is analogous to immediately. Most of the time spent with bullies domestic violence (Janoff-Bulman, 2002). The is dedicated to restructuring their workplace re- interpersonal dynamics between abuser and the ality. With the CEO’s explicit authorization, of- abused are similar to bully and target, complete fenders hear for the first time that the organiza- with intermittent periods of abuse, dehumanizing tion’s needs take precedence over their personal domination, secrecy, and shame. agendas. At the end of the session, they sign con- Co-workers who witness bullying similarly tracts committing to specific observable behav- are afraid to confront the abuser. Results from an ioral changes under threat of termination if they online study (Namie, 2008) with a convenience refuse or if they return to former negative pat- sample of self-identified bullied individuals (N terns. If skill deficiencies are identified, time is = 400) found that co-workers were nearly as un- spent providing the required tutorial with time to helpful as employers. In 46% of bullying cases, practice new skills. co-workers abandoned their bullied colleagues, Workplace bullying consulting differs from to the extent that 15% aggressed against the target most other forms of business consulting because along with the bully. Co-workers did nothing in it rarely begins with an assessment of the problem. 16% of cases. In less than 1% of cases, co-work- As described above, in our experience, interper- ers rallied to the defense of an attacked target and sonal crises drive the call to the consultant. In cri- confronted the bully as a group. sis-driven engagements with clients tell us there As previously stated, in a comprehensive is no time conduct pre-intervention assessments. system to correct and prevent workplace bully- Recall the NIOSH-NORC statistic that only 1.6% ing, both moderation/mediation (at dyadic and of American employers believed that bullying group levels) and coaching tools fit comfortably was frequent in their organizations (Grubb et al. in the framework created by a new policy with enforcement procedures (an OD strategy). After securing executive or board approval, Typical Enforcement Procedures the client identifies participants for a policy-writ- ing group. The composition of the group should • informal, non-complaint information resources represent the different functional units of the or- via client’s intranet sites ganization and key support functions – HR, legal, risk management, executive team, and unions. • formal complaint processes (documentation re- The group should have the authority to create an quirements, criteria for a violation, responsibility internal regulation and to preserve its integrity as for recording and storing complaints, timeframe it passes through approval steps enroute to adop- for starting an investigation and for reaching a tion. The anti-bullying policy that the group may determination and for notification of parties, in- be a stand-alone code or be integrated with exist- vestigation techniques, composition of the inves- ing violence or harassment or safety policies. tigation team)

Typical Policy Features • confidentiality assurances, consequences for breaches • statement of organizational opposition to bul- lying • consequences for retaliation

• rationale for the new policy • dissemination of the decision (who, what, when) • name for the phenomenon, expressed as either positive conduct desired or the prohibition of • innovative remedies/punishment – commen- negative conduct (In the US only school district surate with frequency, severity & historical pat- clients of the authors have used “Workplace Bul- terns lying.” Other clients preferred more euphemistic terms such as Respect, Negative Conduct, Work- • restoral of rights and health for targeted worker place Mistreatment, or Civil Conduct. Consul- tants facilitate the process. Client writing groups • support for team that witnessed incidents collaboratively make all decisions regarding the Post-implementation Activities policy and procedures including terms with which the organization must be comfortable. Soft names • design and administer bullying-related indices are appropriate if the definition is precise.) prior to policy implementation and at periodic intervals thereafter to gauge efficacy of the inter- • clear definition of bullying vention

• illustrative set of examples of unacceptable con- • designate, and prepare, internal educators to duct (Legal professionals Matthiason & Savage train peers and managers (2008) argued for inclusion of minor infractions so that the policy warns employees and manag- • Board and executive team training ers of their misconduct before it escalates It helps build a culture supporting a work environment • training for investigators without abusive individuals.) • production of program materials (video presen- • guaranteed managers’ rights as long as not abu- tation, posters, brochures, reminder cards) sively exercised • plan to integrate the policy principles into per- • anti-retaliation clause formance appraisal/evaluation system The CEO assembled the policy-writing • new employee orientation briefing module group representing the diverse functions of the organization – manufacturing, retail, and educa- • plan to revisit, revise, and sustain policy and tion. The CEO participated himself in the two- procedures day session along with a Board of Trustees mem- ber, the HR director, three department directors, Illustrative Case Study the training director, and two non-supervisory The client was a well-known non-profit or- workers. There were no worker unions. The new ganization with chapters throughout the world. policy was stand-alone and named “Abusive The particular Los Angeles affiliate had approxi- Misconduct/Mistreatment.” mately 1,500 employees. The CEO sought to make his workplace The corporate training director (a position more “democratic” by ceding control of the com- within the HR department) initiated contact. Sub- plaint investigation process to an internal group sequent contact with the CEO led to the proposal. of peer fact finders. Further, he emphasized the The presenting problem was a single vice presi- responsibility of all managers to detect and cor- dent whose misconduct had caused considerable rect bullying by labeling insubordinate any man- concern over the last four years. ager who failed to implement corrective steps to The options were to provide an intervention provide relief for the bullied employee after a for the vice president (bully coaching) or to do policy violation was confirmed. Insubordination something to both correct that particular man’s was punishable by termination. misconduct and to prevent bullying by oth- The group wrote an elaborate set of enforce- ers in the future (the OD strategy). There were ment procedures. There was a formal complaint more troublesome managers looming. The CEO process, decision implementation timetables, and elected the systemic OD approach, supplemented two levels of appeals. The group also devised an by coaching for designated individuals prior to information and service staffed by peers to help policy creation and some peacemaking (modera- bullied workers prior to, or independent of, a for- tion/mediation) within one executive team after mal complaint. policy writing. After the policy was written and before it The organization’s mission of develop- took effect, the consultants interviewed members ing humans to their fullest potential converged of the top three levels of executives and manag- seamlessly with the commitment to make the ers. This was a qualitative climate assessment. workplace safe from abusive managers and co- The process identified several intimidating indi- workers. To effect the mission, the organization viduals in addition to the original problem vice had invested heavily beforehand in the creation president. and dissemination of a set of core operating prin- Next came training of peer fact-finders. Most ciples. were HR staff with experience in conducting ha- The chosen rationale for the intervention was rassment and discrimination investigations. They operationalization of the core principle – Respect received an in-depth exposure to the dynamics of -- rather than correction of the disruptive vice workplace bullying and how the behaviors of the president’s misconduct. In fact, that individual various actors interfere with objective fact find- would not subject himself to accountability under ing. Three individuals from within this group vol- a future policy. He quit before a policy was writ- unteered to serve as employee advocates for the ten. new peer information and support service. The CEO’s professional training as a social Consultants trained the training director and worker allowed him to understood clearly that other designated internal educators to deliver pre- several employees had endured severe stress sentations about the new policy and procedures from working with abrasive, abusive individuals. using consultants’ materials customized for the He wanted it to stop. client. The CEO kicked off the anti-bullying initia- immediate and long-term needs. The consultants tive. His rationale for, and introduction to, the were satisfied that a US employer addressed bul- project was videotaped for use in all presenta- lying. However, satisfaction alone is a modest tions to employees in the field. The consultants achievement. A demonstration of intervention ef- then presented to all managers assembled at ficacy would be an informative next step. headquarters. An ambitious field-training sched- The authors have designed a program for a ule was implemented in two weeks by the inter- pubic school district that includes pre- and post- nal trainers. Peer advocates accompanied trainers intervention measures as part of the comprehen- and introduced themselves at each site. Posters sive program described in the above section. It and brochures were printed and distributed. is the first intervention of its kind in US schools. As with all interventions, there were un- Impact on bullying will be assessed and publicly foreseen obstacles. The HR director resisted disseminated when data are available. implementation though she had been part of the In the US only a few bold early-adopting policy-writing and fact-finder groups. It has been organizations have directly addressed workplace reported to the consultants that her successor, a bullying. For popular organizational issues, to lawyer by training, appreciates the power of the which no stigma is linked, there are highly devel- policy to prevent lawsuits. A high-ranking execu- oped consulting models – assessment, multilevel tive surfaced as a bully and temporarily wrested intervention (moderation/mediation, coaching, control of the program’s enforcement away from and OD approaches, see Saam (2009)), post- the peer group. When he was accused of violat- intervention assessment, and long-term impact ing the policy himself, he wrote a long letter to monitoring. In those mature market segments, staff apologizing for their “misunderstanding” of consultants have the luxury of being practitioner- his management style. A few months later, he ex- researchers. ploded angrily. The CEO dismissed him without European bullying consultants have more invoking the policy. than a decade lead over their US counterparts The policy remains in effect five years later. (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). Academic research Its value is as a deterrent for individuals consid- began in the late 1980’s (Leymann, 1990). Laws ering the consequences of bullying an employee. were enacted in response. Employers began to Enforcement was designed to be bothersome to notice bullying, though they seem to have not accused bullies so that only the most chronic or readily embraced comprehensive anti-bullying pathological would dare offend repeatedly. With programs for the workplace (Salin, 2006; Hoel & multiple confirmed offenses, termination is the Einarsen, 2009). One can infer that Germany has punishment. a more developed bullying consulting industry The client supplemented the policy, proce- than the US because 18 consultants, selected from dures and education program with an additional only three geographic regions, were interviewed service. For employees who believe they are be- for an article to classify the range of approaches ing bullied (after consulting with a peer advocate), used for employer interventions (Saam, 2009). confirmed policy violators, and complainants However, a literature search for a true assessment whose allegation was confirmed by investigation, of anti-bullying intervention efficacy produced the employer offers employer-paid counseling only two foreign-language articles. Even in Eu- with a local mental health professional familiar rope, assessment of the impact of anti-bullying with the provisions of the anti-bullying policy. laws (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009) and of anti-bully- The CEO has told his corporation’s story in both ing employer programs is a nascent field. business print and broadcast media. Somewhat relevant to workplace bullying is an American intervention project that demon- Future Directions strates an ongoing action research process begun The case study described above was deemed in 1999 (Keashly & Neuman, 2004). The large a success for two reasons. It satisfied the client’s government client organization created action teams in 11 sites comprised of union members Specialists in these areas have not chosen to spe- and managers. Consultants trained teams to con- cifically address workplace bullying (Dingfelder, duct internal assessments to create and implement 2006). evidence-based work process changes them- Workplace bullying consulting is not yet an selves. In addition, the consultants developed a industry in the US. The public dialogue began new organization aggression survey instrument to only 11 years ago. The US anti-bullying legisla- capture prevalence of both illegal discriminatory tive campaign started in 2003 (Namie & Namie, misconduct (recall the prior discussion of “status- 2004). The topic is still a taboo business topic be- based” harassment) and workers compensation cause addressing it requires a blunt self-appraisal claim-based misconduct (some inclusion of bul- about the organization’s role in establishing and lying measures along with physical battery, rape, maintaining bullying. The coming years will re- and assault with a weapon). Post-intervention ef- veal whether or not bullying consulting interven- ficacy results showed fewer discrimination and tions develop in the US as they have in other parts workers compensation claim filings. The inter- of the world. vention also changed the nature and the character of conversations within the organization, created an atmosphere of trust, security, and high-quality interpersonal interaction, and engaged the partici- pants in a continuous cycle of action and reflec- tion. The Keashly and Neuman (2004) interven- tion was dubbed a “workplace stress and aggres- sion” project. Bullying, as a form of aggression, was indirectly addressed. It was clearly not a workplace bullying intervention either as its pri- mary goal or by its name. In fact, one of the con- sultants (Keashly in Dingfelder, 2006) believed that a team of outside experts can not tell an em- ployer how to reduce bullying. Kelloway, also dubious about workplace bullying specialization, stated “The way you limit [bullying] behavior is not by developing an exhaustive list of things you can’t do, but by taking a more positive approach, saying ‘This is the way we treat other people here.’” (Kelloway in Dingfelder, 2006). Many US employers have a mission state- ment or code of conduct stating that every em- ployee is to be respected and treated with dignity. However, US prevalence studies demonstrate that bullying is quite frequent (WBI, 2007; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Schat et al. 2006) despite the lofty pronouncements. Consulting interventions with a positivist orientation have not prevented bul- lying. Anti-harassment interventions (focused on the narrow legal definition of harassment) have not prevented bullying. Anti-violence interven- tions too often omit references to non-physical, sub-lethal situations and do not prevent bullying. References

Adams, A., & Crawford, N. (1992). Bullying at work: How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago Press. Canada Labour Code (2008). Part XX. Violence prevention in the work place. Regulations amending Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, enacted May 28, 2008. Cortina, L.M. (2008) Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80. Dingfelder, S.F. (2006). Banishing bullying. Monitor on Psychology, 37 (7) Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001, May). The Negative Acts Questionnaire: Development, validation and revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper presented at the 10th European Congress on Work and Organisational Psychology, Prague. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S.B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4(4), 381- 401. Expert Advisory Group on Workplace Bullying Report (2005) convened by the Irish Minister for Labour Affairs. Dublin: Stationery Office, Government Publications. Ferris, P. (2004) A preliminary typology of organizational response to allegations of workplace bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 389-395. Gerard, J. (2006) Bullying court case led victim to lost family. The Sunday Times (London), August 6. Groeblinghoff, D., & Becker, M. (1996). A case study of mobbing and the clinical treatment of mobbing victims. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 5(2), 277-294. Grubb, P.L., Roberts, R.K., Grosch, J.W., & Brightwell, W.S. (2004) Workplace bullying: What organizations are saying. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8(2), 407-422. Hodson, R., Roscigno, V.J., & Lopez, S.H. (2006) Chaos and the abuse of power: workplace bullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 382-416. Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Working with victims of workplace bullying. In H. Kemshall & J. Pritchard (Eds.), Good practice in working with victims of violence (pp. 101-118). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2009) Shortcomings of anti-bullying regulations: The case of Sweden. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, in press. ILO (2006) New forms of violence at work on the rise worldwide. News release June 14, 2006. Geneva: International Labour Organization, United Nations. Janoff-Bulman, R. (2002) Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free Press Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85 - 117. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003) By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the work place. International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor and Francis. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2000) The nature, extent, and impact of emotional abuse in the workplace: Results of a statewide survey. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Toronto, Canada. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J.H. (2004). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and management. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8(2), 335-373. Keashly, L., & Nowell, B.L. (2003). Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor and Francis. Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5(1), 119-126. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-184. Liefooghe, A.P.D., & Davey, K.M. (2001) Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375-392. Lorenz, K. (1991). Here I am -- where are you? The behaviour of geese. Munchen: Piper. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace bullying trauma and stigmatization. Organization, 15 (1), 97-119. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837-862. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse: Generation and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4), 471-501. Mathiason, G., & Savage, O. (2008). Defining and legislating bullying.The Complete Lawyer, 4 (1), Jan- Feb, 2008. Posted at thecompletelawyer.com Mikkelsen, E.G., & Einarsen, S. (2002) Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 87-111. Namie, G. (2008) Employers’ Response Study. Workplace Bullying Institute. Results posted at workplacebullying.org Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal: Improving the Practice of Management, November/December, 1-6. (reprint # 9B03TF09) Namie, G., & Namie, R., (2009). The bully at work, 2nd ed. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Namie, G., & Namie, R., (2004). Workplace bullying: How to address America’s silent epidemic. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8(2), 315-334. Namie, G., Namie, R. & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2009) Challenging workplace bullying in the USA: A communication and activist perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.) Workplace Bullying: Development in Theory, Research and Practice (2nd edition). London: Taylor and Francis (in press) Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-411. Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., Hans, D., & Vermunt, J. K. (2006). Measuring exposure to bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach. Work & Stress, 20(4), 289-302. Quebec Labour Standards (2004). Commission des normes du travail, Section 81.18 enacted June, 2004. Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis. Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., & Nawyn, S. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89(3), 358-363. Saam, N.J. (2009). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, in press Salin, D. (2006). Organizational measures taken against workplace bullying: The case of Finnish Municipalities. Helsinki: Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration Working Papers, 521. Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425-441. Saskatchewan (2007). Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour (2007) The Occupational Health and Safety (Harassment Prevention) Amendment Act, 2007, Chapter 34, subsection 3(1)(b) (1)(ii), enacted September, 2007. Schat, A.C.H., Frone, M.R., & Kelloway, E.K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E.K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J.J. Hurrell (Eds.) Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tehrani, N. (2004). Bullying: A source of chronic post-traumatic stress? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 357-366. Westhues, K. (2008). Critiques of the anti-bullying movement and responses to them. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying, Montreal, June 2008. Workplace Bullying Institute (2007). The US Workplace Bullying Survey, commissioned byWBI, conducted by Zogby International. Yamada, David C. (2007). Potential legal protections and liabilities for workplace bullying. New Workplace Institute. Posted at www.newworkplaceinsitute.org Yamada, D. (2004). Crafting a legislative response to workplace bullying. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8(2), 475-521. Yamada, D. (2003). Workplace bullying and the law: Towards a transnational consensus. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor and Francis. Yamada, David C. (2000). The phenomenon of “workplace bullying” and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protections. Georgetown Law Journal, 88 (3), 475-536

View publication stats