CONFLICT MOTIVATIONS and TACTICS of TARGETS, BYSTANDERS, and BULLIES a Thrice-Told Tale of Workplace Bullying

13

CONFLICT MOTIVATIONS AND TACTICS OF TARGETS, BYSTANDERS, AND BULLIES A Thrice-Told Tale of Workplace Bullying

P AMELA LUTGEN-SANDVIK AND COURTNEY VAIL FLETCHER

dult bullying at work is a unique type of include a case study to show how targets, Aescalated, entrenched conflict that occurs bystanders, and bullies (dis)engage with bully- between and among organizational mem- ing conflicts in real-life scenarios. By exploring bers. Nearly half of all U.S. workers are bullying conflicts as experienced by these three affected by bullying during their working groups, organizational members and research- lives, either being targeted or witnessing abuse ers might have a better understanding of some as a bystander. The power disparity between of the forces that constitute the phenomenon bullies and targets, the aggressive character and potentially locate leverage points for more of bullying communication, and the persistent effective interventions. We begin by describing wearing down that occurs mark adult bully- the features that make workplace bullying a ing as a unique type of escalated, destructive unique type of conflict. From this, we outline workplace conflict. Adult bullying at work a typology of interpersonal motivations in is not, however, simply a dyadic one-on-one conflict situations adopted from the multiple conflict—many others are involved and goals theory ( Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997) affected. Bullying conflicts are also extremely and a framework for conflict management difficult to resolve, and the targets’ tactics tactics adapted from Rahim’s (2002) theory (especially problem solving) rarely resolve the of managing organizational conflict. We then conflict and often make it worse. explain why the three factors of focus in the We tell a thrice-told tale of bullying con- chapter—profiles, motivations, tactics—are flicts from three standpoints: targets, bystand- useful for understanding bullying conflicts ers, and bullies. To illustrate the tale, we and subsequently flesh out these three factors

349 350 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT for each employee group in the thrice-told antagonism as time passes. In extremely esca- tale. We wrap up the discussion by exploring lated incidences, aggressors may even start to the contextual issues surrounding bullying objectify their targets, which enable the use conflicts, presenting ideas for transformation, of more aggressive, inhuman attacks. In some and suggesting potential avenues for further instances, “the total destruction of the oppo- research. nent is seen as the ultimate goal to be attained by the parties” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003, p. 19). W ORKPLACE BULLYING Conflict, on the other hand, involves (a) AS A UNIQUE FORM OF CONFLICT parties that are interdependent (i.e., they have the capability to impede or interfere with Workplace bullying takes place between and the other), (b) a perception by at least one among people who work together and is party that an opposition or incompatibility marked by (or the potential thereof) exists among the goals or values, and (c) some type of inter- a pattern of repeated hostile behaviors over action among the involved parties ( Knapp, an extended period of time; actual or per- Putnam, & Davis, 1988). Bullying includes ceived intent to harm on the part of the actor [bully]; one party being unable to defend him- these general indicators of conflict but has or herself; [and] a power imbalance between additional features making them conflicts parties. ( Keashly & Nowell, 2011, p. 424) that are “most like intractable, escalating vio- lent conflicts between unequals” ( Keashly & Power disparity is central to bullying conflicts, Nowell, 2011, p. 427). In such conflicts, the and research calls the disadvantaged parties bullies’ goals might be to harm or drive tar- targets . The target’s disadvantaged position gets from the workplace; targets’ goals may can be due to position (e.g., supervisory bul- be to end abusive treatment and repair iden- lying 1 ), influence, or charisma; or can develop tity. And the aggressive character of bullying because of the persistent “hammering away” conflicts creates hostile work environments characteristic of bullying (Tracy, Lutgen- affecting many employees, whether directly Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006, p. 163). targeted or not. Bullying is a pattern of communication, and when targeted workers try to explain their experiences, they often struggle with T HE COMMUNAL encapsulating their story, usually needing “to CHARACTER OF BULLYING CONFLICTS describe the entire set of behaviors and their interrelationships” ( Keashly & Jagatic, 2011 , One of the tendencies, especially in U.S. p. 50). The enduring character of bullying organizations and popular thought, is to indi- contributes to targets’ feelings of powerless- vidualize the problem of workplace bullying. ness. Persistent aggressive attacks contrib- Supervisors, manager, and bystanders often ute to increased stress and decreased coping blame the victims for their own abuse and capacity, which increase feelings of powerless- label targets’ reports of abuse as overexagger- ness, making targets even more easily bullied ated, subjective, and questionable (Keashly, and less able to defend themselves. 2001). By attending to the experiences of Bullying is escalatory ; initially aggression more of the employees who are involved is passive, circuitous, and immensely diffi- and affected by adult bullying, we are better cult to describe, increasing in frequency and able to recognize the complexity of this type Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 351 of conflict and avoid, at least partially, such perform certain image management work, or myopic viewpoints. Thinking of bullying as some combination of these. The three factors a matter involving only a bully and a target flesh out bullying conflicts in particularly use- contributes to viewing it as a solely subjective ful ways. experience and stunts efforts to resolve this toxic form of conflict. From such a stance, managers and peers are less likely to believe M OTIVATIONAL GOALS, TACTICAL target reports and thus take corrective action COMMUNICATION, AND GROUP PROFILES (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010). Because workplaces are collective sites of human inter- Motivational goals and conflict tactics are action, what occurs between any dyad or inextricably linked. Motivational goals fuel among group members bleeds and buzzes action, giving behavior its energy and direc- throughout the workgroup and affects all tion. Motivation is the first link in a chain of in proximity (Waldron, 2000). Thus, some interconnected interactions that lead to vari- understanding of target, bully, and bystander ous outcomes, both intended and unintended. perspectives—especially their motivations— To understand bullying conflicts requires sheds light on some of the reasons these con- understanding the motives of the actors who flicts are so difficult to resolve. are involved or affected. The drive for justice, Certainly, any view of the reality of bully- for example, is often an overriding motiva- ing conflicts is partial, and current research tion in bullying conflicts, particularly for on the subject may overemphasize the target targets, (Cowan, 2009) but also for bystand- perspective. Although literature on adult bul- ers (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006) and even bullies lying extensively examines targets’ perspec- (Crawshaw, 2007). Tactics in conflict manage- tives in these conflicts, it less often explores ment are the ways in which people approach bystanders’ experiences (for an exception, and engage with conflict, and tactics make see Vartia, 2001), and bully explanations sense in light of what motivates them. Tactics are nearly nonexistent (for an exception, see are driven both by personality tendencies, Rayner & Cooper, 2003 ). We call attention social situations, and the relational context to the fact that bullying conflicts involve all of the conflict. In all conflict, and especially affected workers, whether or not those work- in bullying conflicts, “the opponent’s message ers are actively engaged in conflict communi- behavior accounts for the majority of variance cation and behavior. Bullying conflicts slowly in communication strategies” ( Knapp et al., colonize and take over nearly all actions and 1988, p. 416). Underscoring target, bystander, interactions in workgroups where it is present. and bully motivations and tactics helps us To gain a better picture of this involvement, better understand what is going on in these the core material in the chapter explores three conflicts, where to intervene, and why certain interrelated factors associated with targets, interventions are less than effective. In addi- bystanders, and bullies: (1) general profiles, tion to understanding motivations and tactics, (2) motivations to act or withhold action, and different experienced subjectivities (i.e., pro- (3) conflict tactics. We outline these factors files) can contribute to specific motivations because involved parties may be reticent or and tactics. unable to report them for a number of rea- Profiles are the common markers of per- sons. They might not fully understand their sons who self-identify as belonging to one motivations; they may feel bound by emotion of the three groups and report certain per- display rules; they might feel compelled to sonal or social characteristics in interviews or 352 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Table 13.1 Motivational Goals in Conflict Management

Motivational Goal Description

Resource goals • Economic—drive to obtain or protect something of economic value • Personal—drive to maintaining privacy or personal freedom and choice Social goals • Relationship—drive to maintain or protect good relationships with others • Power/hostility—drive to punish or establish influence or dominance over another • Identity—drive to face-saving, identity supporting, and preserving self-image • Functionality—drive to resolve conflict in a constructive way • Justice—drive for fairness and the need to restore social justice

surveys. Profile markers can help organiza- freedom, and choice. Social goals include tional decision makers better discern who relationship, power/hostility, identity, func- is doing what and why, without having to tionality , and justice . Relationship goals are depend solely on he-said she-said accounts. motivated by a desire to maintain or develop On one hand, profiles are overgeneraliza- high-quality connections with others. Power/ tions and exceptions always exist. As such, hostility goals include the drive to punish those dealing with bullying conflicts will or establish influence and dominance over want to avoid using profiles as fuel for others. Identity goals are associated with either witch-hunting or victim-blaming. On face-saving, self-supporting, or preserving the other hand, to ignore personality traits, a preferred image. Functionality goals are social tendencies, and the patterned human drives “to resolve the conflicts in a con- communication and behavior documented in structive or socially appropriate manner” scientific research can be naive and counter- ( Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997, p. 2185). Justice productive when trying to manage such con- goals are the inclination toward equanim- flicts. Profiles are useful sensitizing devices ity and a desire to restore social fairness. when trying to sort out bullying, if used Motivations typically guide tactics. ( Table prudently as a general guide rather than a 13.1 summarizes these goals.) hard-and-fast set of rules. Tactical Communication Motivational Goals in Bullying Conflicts in Bullying Conflicts A popular approach to the study of tactical Multiple goals theory outlines seven core communication in conflicts is Rahim’s (2002) motivations or goals in conflicts—two asso- theory of managing organizational conflict, ciated with resources and five with relation- which identifies tactics as integrating/prob- ships ( Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997 ). Resource lem solving, obliging/accommodating, domi- goals include economic and personal goals. nating/forcing, avoiding/withdrawing, and Economic resource goals include the desire compromising. Integrating/problem solving to obtain or protect something of economic “involves openness, exchanging information, value, and personal resource goals are those looking for alternatives, and examination concerned with maintaining privacy, personal of differences to reach an effective solution Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 353 acceptable to both parties” ( Rahim, 2002 , them toward particular ways of dealing with p. 218). Obliging/accommodating “is asso- conflicts, research suggests that certain types ciated with attempting to play down the of employees are more likely to be targeted, to differences and emphasizing commonalities aggress against others, and to remain bystand- to satisfy the concern of the other party” ers. Targets that are provocative may draw the ( Rahim, 2002, pp. 218–219). A dominating/ attention of aggressive others, whether that forcing style is associated with a win–lose provocation is simply speaking their mind orientation in which “a dominating or com- or tending toward aggression themselves. peting person goes all out to win his or her Bystanders most often remain silent hoping objective and, as a result, often ignores the they can avoid involvement but may also needs and expectations of the other party” side with targets or bullies. Bullies are high ( Rahim, 2002, p. 220). Avoiding/withdrawing verbal aggressives and tend to respond aggres- is ignoring or steering clear of conflicts and sively or harshly in most situations, escalating the involved parties. In compromising, par- aggressive behavior when perceived pressures ties identify and settle on a solution that is increase. For the most part, most bullies fall partially satisfactory to those involved but into the accidental category; they bully oth- not completely pleasing to either. We adopt ers as a means of goading more productivity this formulation as it is common in con- from them. Other bullies, however, appear to flict and adult bullying research ( Keashly & have personality pathologies driven by fear, Nowell, 2011) and consistent with multiple insecurity, or extreme ambition. In the case goal theory. However, we also include third- study that follows, a number of these profiles party tactics from multiple goals theory since are apparent. involving others is common in bullying con- flicts because of power disparities. (See Table A THRICE-TOLD TALE: 13.2 for summary.) TARGETS, BYSTANDERS, AND BULLIES

Group Profiles We offer a case study to illustrate the points Although bullying conflicts are social and made in the following sections about profiles, contextual and a number of systemic features, motivations, and tactics. From the case study, issues, and contingencies press parties to move we detail these three factors for parties.

Table 13.2 Conflict Management Tactics

Conflict Management Tactic Description

Integrating/problem solving Openness, exchanging information, and looking for alternatives Obliging/accommodating Playing down differences, emphasizing similarities for others’ sake Dominating/forcing Winning is objective, often ignoring needs of other party, forcing one party’s position or opinion Avoiding/withdrawing Ignoring, steering clear of conflicts or other parties Compromising Parties identify, settle on partially satisfactory solution Third party Bring someone else into conflict, usually with power to resolve conflict or influence others who have power to arbitrate conflict

SOURCE: Adapted from Ohbuchi and Tedeschi (1997) and Rahim (2002). 354 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Case Study Additionally, the adolescents’ families loved Buddy’s engaging style and had extraordinary The case study 2 is taken from Pam’s (first faith in his ability to help their children. As author) work with organizations troubled effective as Buddy was in the community, with by bullying. The setting was Youth Matters, adolescents, and with their families, he was a youth delinquency program in which staff equally ineffective at managing employees. worked with middle and high school adoles- For instance, Buddy practiced a haphazard cents who had problems with drugs, school failure, and misdemeanor crimes in the com- manner of hiring staff. If he liked someone munity. The bully was the program direc- he just met, he immediately offered the per- tor, Buddy, a male clinical psychologist who son a job, claiming he could train the person oversaw the program, hired clinical staff, to be a youth delinquency counselor. For managed staff, and worked as a community example, Buddy hired Hank, a man who was representative for the program as a liaison an academic guidance counselor at a local with schools, police, legal system personnel, high school. He also hired Kimberly, a young and so forth. Of the eight staff members (40% woman working in a men’s clothing store male, 60% female), six were clinical counsel- (with a college degree but no experience), ors with counseling education, social work, because he “loved her energy.” Buddy did not or psychology degrees (Hank, Bob, Toby, fulfill his promises to train them adequately, Kimberly, Deb, and Sue). One staff member and eventually, they disappointed him. Once (Crystal) was the community educator and staff members drifted into the “disappoint- another (Carrie) served as the office manager ing” category, Buddy systematically blew up who scheduled appointments, maintained cli- at them, constantly criticized their efforts, ent files, billed insurance, and carried out repeatedly spoke with Claire, the executive related support tasks. director, about writing up a (retrospective) Prior to Buddy’s management of the youth case for firing, and ignored or ridiculed them program (he had served as treatment director in case review meetings. for the entire agency), Youth Matters had a Three staff members (Toby, Bob, and Deb) dismal reputation in the community. Educators initially resisted Buddy’s abusive style and and law-related professionals (i.e., probation, complained to the executive director. Kimberly courts, and police) had little faith in the and Hank were too fearful to support others’ program or its staff. May, the past program grievances, stating that they would report their manager, had a confrontational relationship experiences only if their statements would be with these professionals, typically displaying held in confidence. Even when outside consul- undisguised contempt for them and their orga- tants came in, Kimberly and Hank remained nizations’ goals in relation to the youth they reticent to speak, saying they feared Buddy’s were tasked with helping. Buddy, on the other aggression (with good reason; complaining hand, was charismatic and convincing in com- staff always became targets, likely because munity outreach efforts with these profession- Buddy deemed them his “enemies”). Two staff als, easily winning them over. In fact, school members (Carrie and Sue) allied with Buddy and probation professionals described him as and supported his negative judgments and a “breath of fresh air” after May’s dampen- subsequent “punishment” of others. Even dur- ing effect. As a result of Buddy’s charisma ing formal interventions, Carrie and Sue stood and efforts, the client numbers (and related by Buddy. Buddy eventually targeted both of billing revenue) increased fourfold in the first them, however, and they were transferred to year (from $30,000 to nearly $120,000). other organizational programs. Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 355

On one hand, the administration loved general profiles, motivations in conflict situ- Buddy. Claire, the executive director, and the ations, and tactics used to manage conflicts. board of directors were thrilled with his success From this, we will also discuss bystanders and in the community and the revenue generated by bullies using these three factors. increased client numbers (e.g., board was able to pay off a substantial loan). On the other hand, Targets program staff morale suffered horribly. While youth client numbers increased, so did turnover. Profiles. Although anyone can be targeted In the first two and a half years of Buddy’s man- by bullies at work, research on victimization agement, the turnover was more than 200%. (i.e., being targeted by others’ aggression) Many exiting employees filed complaints about suggests that certain traits and tenden- Buddy’s aggressive, abusive management style. cies appear to situate employees in ways Claire and outside professionals assessed the that make them more likely to be targeted. situation, planned interventions, and car- Victimization research points to three general ried out these interventions—interventions target profiles: provocative, submissive, and aimed at capitalizing on Buddy’s charisma and rigidly conscientious (Aquino & Lamertz, effectiveness with community members, adoles- 2004 ). The first author’s work points to two cents, and families and reducing staff mistreat- types of provocative targets: aggressive and ment, turnover, and legal liability from staff assertive. The first type of provocative target grievances. is “aggressive, hostile, or irritating and there- Buddy was a narcissistic bully (explained fore likely to provoke attack from others” in later sections); Buddy saw himself as a ( Aquino & Lamertz, 2004, pp. 1025–1026). superstar and viewed staff as lesser than him. Aggressive provocative targets are conflict- If staff members failed to support Buddy or prone employees, usually less agreeable, and complained about his performance, they were more likely to become involved in con- punished. Following interventions, he would flicts because they often disagree with oth- make small shifts in his abusive behavior but ers and create friction in their interactions continued his wild hiring style—always with (e.g., Aquino & Bradfield, 2000). At Youth an unfortunate result. Sadly, no interventions Matters, May (past program director) was had any long-lasting effects on his behavior. highly confrontational, which is why she When turnover rates were confronted, Buddy had problems with the community member would argue that the program dealt with a organizations. Her removal occurred early in very difficult population that caused staff to Buddy’s tenure as the treatment director (her burn out. In nearly all instances, he was able supervisor) and was linked to May constantly to sway the executive director and the board arguing with Buddy. to see his viewpoint. When Claire retired after The second type of provocative target 4 years of Buddy’s tenure, the board inexplica- is communicatively assertive employees who bly appointed Buddy the interim executive direc- readily speak their minds, a tendency that tor (despite warnings from external consultants). can infuriate some bullies. Depending on the Buddy served for 3 months before exiting the pressures bullies are facing, the argumentative organization. The board did not reveal whether style of a communicatively assertive employee he was fired or left on his own volition. can trigger harsh responses from high verbal We refer to this case throughout the chapter aggressives (Fast & Chen, 2009). People who as it applies to the thrice-told tale. We move are professionally successful or highly skilled now to a discussion of targeted workers—their are often assertive and can be targeted because 356 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT their experience or expertise may pose a threat inclinations can make the submissive employee to a less secure bully ( Fast & Chen, 2009 ; an easy target, as a passive “weakling” can be Namie, 2007a). In Youth Matters, Crystal, seen as low risk—someone who can be bul- a well-liked and knowledgeable commu- lied with impunity and serve as an example or nity educator, had considerable conflict with warning to others (Neuman & Baron, 2011). Buddy because of what she perceived as his In fact, some high verbal aggressives report misrepresentation of the program during com- using aggression to express their disdain of the munity outreach sessions. Because of Crystal’s targets (Infante, Riddle, Horvarth, & Tumlin, stellar reputation both in and out of the orga- 1992). At Youth Matters, Kimberly was even- nization, Buddy’s bullying tactics were less tually a submissive target. Initially she was a effective at marginalizing Crystal, less direct silent bystander, but over time Buddy targeted in form, and more politically focused (e.g., her, eventually driving her from the program. obliquely questioning her knowledge or skill The final target type is the rigidly conscien- when she was not present). She did, however, tious worker. These employees are very scru- eventually exit the organization stating that pulous, assiduous, “organized, self-disciplined, she could no longer work for Buddy because hardworking, conventional, moralistic, and of his manipulative, dishonest character. rule-bound” ( Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, & Einarsen, The assertive provocative target may also 2009 , p. 234). Rigidly conscientious employees have exceptional argumentation skills. High can be bullied at work because others per- verbal aggressives are often low in argumenta- ceive them as infuriatingly condescending due tion skills and so have considerable difficulty to their apparently inflexible, perfectionist countering skilled peers or “insubordinate” approach to work and adherence to work- subordinates. When they face conflict situa- related rules. Rigidly conscientious workers tions, they quickly run out of constructive mate- are unlikely to go along with informal group rial and fall back on verbal aggression (Infante, rules if they believe the informal rules to be Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984 ). Such was morally wrong. When these employees face not the case with Buddy, however, who had situations they view as breaking the rules, they an incredible acuity at assessing or “reading” can become “rude, suspicious, uncooperative, people coupled with extraordinary argumen- ruthless, [and] irritable” (Lind et al., 2009, tation skills. As a result, he was able to stifle p. 234). They are likely to defend stubbornly nearly anyone who questioned him—including their point of view, especially when moral the executive director and the board members. issues such as work quality, client ethics, or The next target type is the submissive productivity expectations are at stake. What employee, a person who is conflict aversive. they see as moral or ethical issues are far more The submissive target is “passive, insecure, important to rigidly conscientious employees frequently rejected by peers, and unwilling to than are relationships or others involved in defend against attack” (Aquino & Lamertz, the conflict. Additionally, they may report 2004, p. 1025). Submissive targets are less coworkers who break rules, behaviors that extroverted, less stable, less independent, have culminate to make them widely unpopular, a reduced tendency toward self-defense, and increasing their social isolation and reduc- an increased dependency on or desire for ing potential allies or supporters (Aquino & others’ approval. Appearing weak, anxious, Lamertz, 2004 ). When workers are in these unassertive, low in self-esteem, and conflict- socially excluded positions, they are simply aversive can be provocative for high aggres- easier targets; bystanders may even feel satis- sives (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000). These faction at seeing them targeted. Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 357

At Youth Matters, Toby fit the rigidly is behavior that targets are motivated to conscientious target profile because he did avoid (Neuman & Baron, 2011). Targets are not believe that anyone in the program was motivated to protect themselves, stop abusive adequately or effectively providing treatment treatment, manage face and identity threats, to the clients (except for Toby himself). Toby and be vindicated ( Cowan, 2009 ). Personal had registered multiple complaints against a resource goals are driven by a need to main- number of his coworkers and against May, the tain personal freedom, in this case freedom past program director. Because of this behav- from attacks on their character. Targets go to ior, he had no friends in Youth Matters and great length to protect themselves and to end little or no support from the executive director. the abusive treatment. Most targets are also When Buddy moved into Youth Matters as the motivated by economic resource goals ; they youth program director, he fired Toby in the want to maintain their jobs. This motivation first 3 months, most likely because Toby, like is well founded as the majority of targets May, continued to argue against Buddy’s ideas find that bullying only ceases when they quit, for treatment provision. transfer to another job, or are fired (Namie, In addition to these general profiles, three 2007b). other factors increase the likelihood of being Social justice goals , based on a drive for targeted: organizational position, communica- fairness or restorative justice, are also at play tion skill deficits, and social difference. First, in bullying conflicts. Targets communicatively although employees at all levels can be bul- position themselves as moral warriors, fight- lied (Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003), ing depraved enemies, and argue that they typically the higher one’s position, the lower respond accordingly to restore justice and fair- the incidence of bullying ( Aquino, 2000 ). ness (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Many responses Second, persons who lack effective social and to bullying conflicts are indirectly motivated communication skills (e.g., some submissives, by what targets call a moral imperative to act many high verbal aggressives) can have great against what they perceive as corrupt actions difficulty protecting themselves and can thus and interactions. Beyond restoring justice, be targeted quite easily (Coyne et al., 2000 ). however, targets are also highly motivated by Third, being noticeably different also increases identity goals. Targets want to be vindicated the risk of becoming an outsider and thus a (Cowan, 2009); they want to redeem them- target. In the United States and Great Britain, selves because being victimized is stigmatiz- for example, employees of African descent ing. Especially in the United States, dominant “are victimized more frequently than any cultural norms, being a victim brands someone racial group” (Aquino, 2000, p. 182). as weak, childish, and usually to blame—if people are victimized, others often assume that Motivations. Typically all targets are moti- they did something to bring it on themselves vated to protect their interests and identity and (Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008 ). In to achieve a fair or just outcome. Although all addition to these motivational goals, specific target types share similar motivational goals types of target have unique motivations in bul- in bullying conflicts, they also differ depend- lying conflicts. ing on what is important to them person- Provocative targets (aggressive ) are moti- ally. Most targets involved in an entrenched vated by social power goals. Rather than a bullying conflict are motivated by personal drive to punish (often seen with bullies), these resource goals and identity and social justice targets’ power goals are to establish influ- goals . Interpersonal aggression, by definition, ence and dominance over others in conflicts. 358 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

At Youth Matters, Bob and Deb argued with along with others. (Kimberly was initially a Buddy because he harassed staff about their silent bystander, a point we take up in the inadequacies in working with adolescents. bystander section.) From Bob and Deb’s perspective, Buddy Rigidly conscientious targets are motivated spent too many hours in the community by power goals; they seek to influence the other and not enough time on site training staff. parties to see the issue as they do. Specifically, Buddy publically humiliating, criticizing, and rigidly conscientious targets want others to embarrassing staff for how poorly they pro- recognize the importance or moral value of vided treatment seemed a kind of betrayal to the issue. Toby’s goal in the bullying conflict Bob and Deb since Buddy had promised to with Buddy was driven by Toby’s concern that train the inexperienced clinical staff he hired. adolescents were not receiving correct treat- Bob and Deb also clashed with coworkers ment. Specifically, Toby thought Buddy’s new and community members about adolescent treatment program omitted critical areas that treatment issues. Buddy, Bob, and Deb were the former treatment program included (e.g., reputed to have near-screaming matches at electronic monitoring bracelets), areas Buddy the site, sometimes even in the presence of believed were the responsibility of collaborat- adolescent clients. (Bob and Deb were the ing institutions. Toby also thought that Buddy second and third staff members Buddy fired put too much emphasis on family counseling after Toby.) nights where Buddy was “the star” and the Although also quick to speak up, the families’ needs were secondary. Toby was the communicatively assertive provocative tar- first counselor fired. gets are motivated by economic personal goals—they are driven to protect their Tactics. Bullying conflicts most often involve right to free speech, personal freedom, and affective (e.g., threatening identity, values) choice. Crystal, the community educator, rather than cognitive (e.g., focusing on ideas, was a target of this type. When she disagreed tasks) types of conflict. Although problem with Buddy, she assertively put forth her solving and compromising work well for perspective—something that infuriated cognitive conflicts, such is not the case for Buddy, who thought Crystal should defer to affective conflicts. Problem-solving efforts in his status and position. Crystal never used bullying conflicts often exacerbate the conflict verbal aggression but calmly and straightfor- (Keashly & Nowell, 2011). And despite tar- wardly stated her position and reasons for gets’ efforts to appease or oblige high aggres- it, an approach very different from the more sives (e.g., speaking with the bullies about the aggressive targets like Bob and Deb. problem, working harder, cutting off com- Submissive targets want to avoid conflicts munication with certain peers, and monitor- and so are motivated by the social function- ing their own messages to the bullies), hostile ality goal—the desire to settle conflicts in a actions and interactions continue unabated or socially proper way. They are also motivated even escalate (e.g., Zapf & Gross, 2001). by social relationship goals as they wish to Specific to the thrice-told tale and in line maintain peaceful, nonconfrontational con- with diverse target profiles and motivations, tact with others. Kimberly, the young woman victimization literature suggests that “conflict hired from the clothing store, most closely fit styles [tactics] . . . [can] distinguish victims the submissive profile. She rarely spoke out, from non-victims [and] . . . employees who followed others’ prerogative, and appeared rely on certain styles more than others may to be motivated by a desire to please and get unwittingly present themselves as potential Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 359 targets of aggressive action” (Aquino, 2000, ( Ayoko et al., 2003). Rather, they are will- p. 174). The provocative aggressive target’s ing to go along with others’ ideas regarding tendency to use forcing communication likely compromises if they believe that those tac- elicits aggressive tactics from other parties. tics will end the conflict. At Youth Matters, Because provocative aggressive targets want to Kimberly was a silent bystander but became gain influence over bullies in the conflict, they a submissive target near the end of her time more often use dominating/forcing tactics, but with the program. She remained silent for the some form of problem solving typically pre- most part throughout intervention sessions. cedes forcing. Forcing tactics are more often When consultants or the executive director passive aggression because bullies typically approached her in confidence, she said that have more power, influence, or both than tar- things were fine. Although passive targets geted workers. In fact, such as Kimberly are particularly uncommu- nicative, such is not the case for the rigidly higher levels of bullying [are] predictive of . . . conscientious target. behaviors such as purposely wasting company Rigidly conscientious targets use forcing materials and supplies, . . . doing one’s work incorrectly, and . . . damaging a valuable tactics because they feel so strongly about piece of property belonging to the employer. the issues at hand. They will also use prob- (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003, p. 283) lem solving, accommodating, and compro- mising but only when these tactics get them The provocative assertive targets are moti- the results they want. If less aggressive tac- vated to speak their minds in disagreements tics fail, rigidly conscientious targets shift to and argue about issues of disagreement with- forceful communication, often coupled with out employing verbal aggression. Depending third-party involvement (Aquino & Lamertz, on the parties involved, even their assertive 2004 ). Because they believe that they are disagreement can trigger aggression, hostil- right—absolutely—they work to involve ity, and behavior framed to “put them in higher authorities as allies in the conflict. At their place.” At Youth Matters, the staff Youth Matters, Toby used forcing/dominating who disagreed with Buddy’s approaches first communication (e.g., repeatedly complaining went to Buddy with their concerns, using about the quality of youth treatment, imply- problem-solving tactics. When Buddy met ing that clinical staff were failing the adoles- their concerns with put-downs, harassment, cents) without apparent concern for how his and public humiliation at case review meet- complaints affected his workplace relation- ings, staff members circumvented the chain ships. He typically coupled forcing/dominating of command and complained to the execu- with third-party tactics, as Toby often brought tive director 3 and in one case the board of complaints to Claire, the executive director, or directors—third-party conflict management evoked her name in support of his arguments tactics. (e.g., “I talked to Claire about this.”). Tactics of submissive targets usually are obliging/appeasing and avoiding/withdrawing, although all targets use these tactics to some Bystanders (Nonbullied Witnesses) degree. They hope that if they do nothing to A special note is warranted as we move into upset anyone, the conflict might go away. this section about bystanders. Because of their Submissive targets are typically amenable once-removed status, they do not have to be to compromising tactics to manage conflict active parties to the bullying conflict and may but rarely suggest such tactics themselves have a particularly powerful type of voice. 360 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

They are neither stigmatized like the targets Bullies often choose these people as a support nor instigators of bullying like the aggressors. network. Pawns, who often emerge later as targets, are persons initially loyal to the bul- Profiles. Because bullying conflicts are so vol- lies who side with them in bullying conflicts atile and aggressive, they typically spread fear but later feel or discover they are being used through the entire workgroup and push mem- or manipulated. bers into one of three nonbullied bystander At Youth Matters, Sue and Carrie supported groups: (1) those who cluster around and sup- Buddy and could be considered followers or port bullies (bully allies ), (2) those who support pawns. Despite months of siding with Buddy or protect targets (target allies ), and (3) those in various bullying conflicts, Buddy eventually who attempt to distance themselves from the targeted them, and they were driven from the bullying conflict (neutral or silent bystanders ). program. The agency administrators were also Bystanders are often considered secondary supportive of Buddy. Claire and Buddy earned targets because although they are not targeted their Master of Social Work degrees together directly, their “perceptions, fears and expecta- and were friends prior to Claire hiring him. The tions are changed as a result of being vicari- board members had heard from their peers in ously exposed to violence” (Barling, 1996, the community about Buddy’s charismatic, col- p. 35). This group often reports “significantly laborative approach; they were as impressed as more general stress and mental stress reactions their peers. Because the board was tasked with than employees from the workplaces with- the agency’s economic oversight, they were also out bullying” (Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, delighted at the impressive increase in client 2011, p. 108) and often leave organizations revenue, which allowed the board to purchase (avoiding) after witnessing bullying. new property and pay off a loan. Thus, despite Depending on the framework, bully allies ongoing staff problems, the administrators are alternately labeled “passive bullies, follow- remained Buddy’s allies. Even when it was ers, or henchmen” (Olweus, 2003, p. 67), or necessary to hire outside consultants to inter- patrons and pawns ( Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & vene with Buddy and his staff, administrators Galvin, 2010). Olweus’s (2003) framework, remained awed with Buddy’s skills. taken from his work on schoolyard bullying, When solutions to the problems in the indicates that passive bullies and followers program seemed unachievable, Claire decided are those “who participate in bullying but do she would have to fire Buddy; the board, not usually take the initiative” ( p. 67). These however, intervened on Buddy’s behalf. The “passive bullies can be equally troubling to the board was so impressed with Buddy that victim . . . where others are gathered willingly instead they hired Buddy to serve as interim or unwillingly to participate in continuous executive director when Claire retired. The malevolent actions” (Vickers, 2006 , p. 271). promotion may have been due to his ability to Henchmen and -women, on the other hand, “read” his superiors and then “talk to them in actively take part in bullying conflicts, loy- their own language.” This skill made believ- ally following the bully’s lead and working ing complaints about Buddy difficult for the to undermine, remove, and sometimes even higher ups. destroy targets’ reputations. Bullies appear At Youth Matters, Buddy was the only to have two other types of allies: patrons and person identified as a bully or high verbal pawns ( Boddy et al., 2010). Patrons help bul- aggressive (although no one used these terms). lies ascend to positions of power and are per- In other workgroups, bystanders who wit- sons to whom bullies turn as third-party allies. ness and then subsequently model aggressive Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 361 communication and become bullies can be eventually became a target, she remained a of grave concern. Whether bystanders mimic staunch defender of others. bullying behavior depends, in part, on group Unlike target or bully allies, neutral or norms and cohesion. If workgroup cohesion silent bystanders withhold voice and alle- is high, bystanders’ direct observation of bul- giance to parties of the conflict and take a lying can increase their own use of aggression Switzerland-type position in the conflict, striv- (Ferguson & Barry, 2011). Additionally, ing to be uninvolved noncombatants. Silent bystanders want to stay out of the conflict norms of toughness . . . tend to reduce the because they see targets being “undermined, likelihood that witnesses to workplace bul- disenfranchised, and emasculated” (Boddy lying will take action against it. On the con- et al., 2010 , p. 124). At Youth Matters, trary, such norms tend to increase the odds that witnesses will join in and even applaud Kimberly silently looked on for most of her the action of workplace bullies. (Baron & time in the program. She apparently wanted to Neuman, 2011, p. 217) avoid conflict and refrained from taking sides in bullying conflicts. Quite possibly, Kimberly In a majority of cases, bystanders becoming emerged as a passive target toward the end of active bullies is less frequent than members her time in the program because she failed to becoming more rude and discourteous in side with Buddy or anyone else. everyday interactions, likely due to the recip- The relative size of bystander groups is rocal nature of communication. Although unique to each workgroup, as are bullying some members may become more uncivil over conflict dynamics, issues of contention, and time, others empathize with and try to help personalities of those involved. Regardless of targets. the setting, membership in bystander groups Target allies , in contrast to bully allies, are continuously shifts and morphs. Targets’ sup- bystanders who witness abusive conflicts and porters may burn out; noninvolved persons side with the targets. They comprise a second can become targets or begin taking sides, (albeit small) group of bystanders—those who and persons in the bully’s circle of supporters either believe abuse is morally wrong or have are ousted. Persons safe from targeting can long-standing friendships with targets ( Lutgen- become targets when bullies’ alliances shift, Sandvik, 2006 ). Ferguson and Barry (2011) which they commonly do. At Youth Matters, suggest that directly witnessing another’s abuse Kimberly was a silent bystander and became a passive target. Additionally, individuals may affords the observer an opportunity to wit- simultaneously fall into multiple categories. ness and, accordingly, vicariously experience Crystal, for example, was a target ally and a the emotions of the target (or victim) . . . provocative assertive target. [giving] the observer . . . an opportunity to empathize with the victim, and perhaps to mentally place themselves in the victim’s Motivations. Nearly all bystanders are moti- shoes. (p. 89) vated by economic resource goals ; like tar- gets, most want to keep their jobs. The threat Other bystanders may eventually join the of becoming embroiled in the bullying con- target’s side of the conflict, especially if they flict often jeopardizes employment (Lutgen- shift from being followers, patrons, or pawns Sandvik, 2007; Namie, 2007b). Further to being targets. At Youth Matters, Crystal motivations depend on the bystander’s pro- often defended colleagues when Buddy file. Bully allies who may passively and humiliated or shamed them, and though she symbolically side with aggressors are often 362 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT motivated by social relationship goals and who stand by silently. In all bystander groups, want bullies to see them as allegiant. Such the motivations typically drive the tactics or was the case for Sue and Carrie at Youth conflict management approaches. Matters. Some bully allies are motivated by social justice goals , and they believe that Tactics. Bully allies side with aggressors and targets are in the wrong and bullies are in the use tactics including spying on targets and right. Many are motivated by social identity target allies and reporting back to bullies goals and want to prevent their own poten- (third party, forcing), silently looking on as tial target status. Power/hostility social goals bullies harass and abuse targets (avoiding), motivate henchmen and -women who, like and bending to the bullies’ demands (obliging). bullies, can be high verbal aggressives. This For allies who also aggress, tactics can include type of bully supporter may want to establish ignoring targets’ feelings or needs (avoiding), their own dominance, strength, and position asserting their influence (forcing), and stressing in the workgroup. their position as a bully ally (forcing, appeas- Target allies are often motivated by social ing). The latter move is closely tied with efforts justice goals ; their primary motivation is to to dominate or force outcomes that favor the restore fairness at work and stop abusive bully allies or the bully (Vickers, 2006 ). treatment of workers (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). For target allies motivated by social justice Some are motivated by a moral imperative goals , they may speak with upper management to right a wrong and to take action against (third party), meet with union stewards (third tyranny. Crystal was motivated by this goal party), or organize group discussions outside at Youth Matters. In some cases, if bystanders the workplace (avoiding) ( Lutgen-Sandvik, are motivated toward justice, they collectively 2006). Most tactics have a dominating/forc- work with targets and like-minded allies in ing thread because target allies are interested acts of collective resistance. Target allies are in taking disciplinary action against bullies— also motivated by social relationship goals and blocking promotions, countering claims, and want to maintain their friendships and posi- constructing employment termination—even tive interpersonal affiliations with targeted if third parties are involved. Target allies moti- persons. vated by social relationship goals provide social Silent bystanders , on the other hand, are support. They offer instrumental support by typically motivated by personal resource goals ; helping targets with their work and trying to they want to maintain their privacy and per- arrange breaks and moments of escape, infor- sonal freedom, which can be threatened if they mational support by telling targets of their become involved in the conflict. Another moti- redress avenues or about powerful allies who vating factor for silent bystanders is the social might help in the fight for justice and emo- identity goal (face-saving and identity preserv- tional support in the form of “empathy, car- ing); they want to avoid becoming a target. ing, acceptance and assurance” (Tracy, 2009, Additionally, silent bystanders may be moti- p. 88). Supportive tactics are supplementary to vated by social relationship goals and hope conflict management tactics but often involve to avoid alienating bullies, targets, or anyone advising targets how to fight back in the bul- allied with either side by appearing neutral. lying conflict. Thus, even social support can Sadly, this strategy rarely works because bul- be a form of indirect forcing and advising tar- lying conflicts are so emotionally charged, gets how to win. Tactics of those who choose mainly because the stakes are high, that both to remain silent, however, are focused on target and bully groups negatively judge those self-protection. Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 363

Silent bystanders try to withdraw into a being most common source of aggression nonaligned position that appears safe ( Namie in the workplace (e.g., Keashly & Neuman, & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010) using avoidance/ 2005), when asked to identify a bully, targets withdrawal tactics. Kimberly at Youth Matters most often report that the perpetrator is some- used this tactic throughout her time in the one with legitimate power—supervisor, direct program. In toxic working environments, manager, or upper manager (e.g., Ayoko et al., however, neutral bystanders may struggle with 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, whether to stay uninvolved or help the targets 2007). Even when lacking legitimate power, being persistently abused. It can be difficult bullies tend to have access to more resources “to remain uninvolved in such cases . . . due than targets, including relationships with per- to a seemingly strong need for the target to sons who have influence. In addition to more seek support for their case” (Hoel, Einarsen, power and influence than targets, research & Cooper, 2003, p. 151). On the other hand, suggests three general bully profiles based on neutral bystanders are often motivated by motivation, tactics, and responses to chal- social relationship goals, so they will remain lenge (Crawshaw, 2007): the accidental bully friendly with persons from both sides of the (under pressure); narcissistic bully (vulnerable, conflict—an obliging/accommodating tactic. insecure); and psychopathic bully (grandi- ose, power-driven) (Egan, 2005). Narcissistic and psychopathic traits are tendencies that Bullies range on a continuum and are influenced to We have argued earlier that bullying con- some degree by contextual, situational factors. flicts involve all affected workers, not simply However, people who have worked with any bully–target dyads, and have outlined both tar- of these bully types will recognize the char- get and bystander dynamics. In bullying con- acteristics to some degree as they are quite flicts, however, the bully or aggressor plays a descriptive of observed behaviors. crucial role. Unlike other types of conflict that Accidental bullies are the most common assume mutuality of parties, “workplace bul- and are (usually) managers with a very tough, lying . . . is characterized as involving a clearly even rough, style and way of interacting and identified actor (bully) . . . [who is] primarily directing others. They demand that others the provocateur” (Keashly & Jagatic, 2011, p. complete work tasks, often within exceedingly 52). Although bullies cannot harass, humiliate, tight deadlines, and have little or no percep- and verbally abuse others unless the organiza- tion that what he or she says hurts or disturbs tion’s climate is marked by a “sense of permis- others. The accidental bully typically over- sion to harass” ( Brodsky, 1976, p. 84), certain reacts to pressure and passes that reaction on personality types appear more likely to use ver- by blowing up, making impossible demands, bal aggression. Some people appear to be more and otherwise communicating in a blunt, verbally aggressive than others, whether it is insensitive, and insistent manner. The situ- an inborn trait ( Beatty & McCroskey, 1997 ) ational factors that trigger accidental bullies or socially learned (Baron & Neuman, 2011). are wide-ranging and can include unorganized These actors may not always instigate the con- or poorly orchestrated changes and demands, flict but are the parties who persistently use organizational conditions such as work pres- hostile, aggressive attacks to press their side. sure, high performance demands, role conflict, and role uncertainty (Hoel & Salin, 2003). In Profiles. Bullying conflicts occur in relation- their drive toward tasks, they often lose sight ships of unequal power, so despite coworkers of the humanity of others. They frequently 364 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT act aggressively as a means to an end—to they don’t have much empathy” ( Egan, 2005 , reach higher standards, thrash the competi- para. 8). The narcissistic bully can alter his or tion, protect the company, and so forth. The her communication and behavior if organiza- welfare of people is secondary to task or tions are willing to invest considerable time output goals. Accidental bullies expect others and effort coaching and counseling. Although to be resilient—to understand that nothing the cost may be high, if the narcissistic bullies personal is meant by their tirades. In fact, are valuable, the upper level managers may “such people are often shocked when they are believe that their talents are worth keeping made aware of the consequences of their atti- them. tudes and actions” ( Egan, 2005, para. 8; see At Youth Matters, Buddy most closely fit also Crawshaw, 2007). This bully type is the this bully profile. In his job interview, Buddy most amenable to intervention, particularly if claimed he could turn the youth program that intervention is tough and straightforward around in less than 6 months. The executive (Egan, 2005). director developed stringent outcome goals, The narcissistic bully is charismatic but which Buddy easily met. As such, his grandi- driven by fear, especially fear of appearing ose self-image was supported by his skill. He incompetent, and so may see harming oth- was an incredibly talented counselor, one able ers as a justified means of social survival to reach adolescents and their parents, often in (Crawshaw, 2007). This bully does not plan one session. With a difficult population (ado- to harm others, “he [or she] does so offhand- lescences from troubled homes), his skills were edly, as a manifestation of his[/her] genuine miraculous. However, Buddy’s skills wildly character” (Egan, 2005, para. 10). They are fluctuated—he was either outrageously suc- exceedingly self-absorbed, frequently preten- cessful (with clients or community members) tious, and can have “fantasies of breathtaking or just outrageous (with his staff). He was achievement” (Egan, 2005 , para. 10). They capable of exceptional success but was also believe themselves to be better than others and self-defeating because of his verbal aggression, therefore should be treated exceptionally, yet aggression that predictably occurred when they feel entitled to treat others as they wish. questioned or critiqued. Buddy seemed aware Narcissistic bullies are typically shame of his shortcomings, had insight into his psy- prone and exceedingly sensitive to slights chological issues, and changed slightly after or any hint that they are less than compe- interventions, but he invariably reverted to tent (Crawshaw, 2007; Fast & Chen, 2009). aggression in time. The paradox for adminis- Because they have limited impulse control and trators was how he could be so effective in the are fear driven, their grandiose self-image is community and with clients and so disastrous easily punctured, and they can respond by act- with staff. ing out in rage and making outlandish claims The third bully type is the psychopathic about their detractors. That is, if they are bully , a rare personality type (1%–2% in gen- crossed or questioned, they can respond with eral population, 15%–25% in prisons) that cruel fury (Boddy, 2010). Given these tenden- is thought to be found in higher proportions cies, narcissistic bullies can shift from being in senior-level organizational positions (up to very charming to extremely difficult and even 3.5%) (Boddy, 2010). These aggressors are vicious. “Their abuse is not cold and calculat- also called industrial psychopaths, organiza- ing and meant to intimidate, it’s just an expres- tional psychopaths, organizational sociopaths, sion of their superiority when they rage against and corporate psychopaths (see Boddy et al., you because they see you as the idiot. Of course 2010, for discussion). These noncriminal or Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 365 successful psychopaths, deemed successful challenged about his or her behavior, his or because unlike criminal psychopaths they have her reaction is as volatile as the narcissist but evaded legal authorities, are “not prone to out- often involves threats of litigation, claims of bursts of impulsive, violent, criminal behav- being a victim of bullying, threats of divulging iour” (Boddy, 2010, p. 301). Psychopathic information about others, and escalated bul- (like narcissistic) bullies are grandiose, and lying (Egan, 2005). Counseling or mentoring they come across as friendly and charming at has little effect as the psychopathic bully is first. They are highly motivated to gain power unlikely to change his or her communication and exceedingly talented at ingratiating them- or behavior (Boddy, 2010). selves with powerful others. They often rise almost meteorically in organizations “because General Bully Characteristics or Traits for of their manipulative charisma and their sheer, All Types. Most bullies are unlikely to praise single minded dedication to attain senior levels others (Wigley, Pohl, & Watt, 1989) and are of management” (Boddy et al., 2010, p. 124). prone to verbal aggressiveness. They are likely These bullies can be authoritarian, aggressive, to have this trait to a higher degree than those and domineering but in ways that imbue a who do not bully others, regardless of the situ- sense of safety, particularly when organiza- ation or pressure. Because high verbal aggres- tions face external threats. sives have lower scores on perspective taking Psychopathic bullies usually work to attract and higher scores on social dominance orien- a follower base of patrons who can assist in tation, they are unlikely to perceive aggressive their ascendancy. They also identify pawns to messages as hurtful ( Infante et al., 1992 ). use or manipulate potential opponents, whom Motivations do differ somewhat, however, they attempt to undermine or disenfranchise based on unique profile markers. (e.g., auditor, HR staff, safety, and security personnel; Boddy et al., 2010 ). Developing Motivations. Accidental bullies are motivated a cadre of followers is important to the psy- predominantly by economic resource goals , chopathic bully, and they are likely to react the desire to gain or keep something of eco- aggressively to those whom they perceive as nomic value (Fukushima & Ohbuchi, 1996). disloyal or oppositional to their goals ( Egan, Their drive for achievement comes from this 2009). These bullies may perform feelings of motivation. Typically, the accidental bully remorse if the situation calls for it, but these wants to reach high standards and meet are not felt emotions; such emotions are more organizational goals (regardless of human likely displayed for manipulative effect. Their costs). They respond readily to demands from personalities are marked by coldheartedness, higher-placed organizational members, espe- manipulativeness, ruthlessness, and lack of cially as those demands deal with output or emotions, including fear, empathy, guilt, and the organization’s financial survival. Certain remorse, when they harm others (Boddy et al., antecedents can drive the accidental bully 2010). Psychologists believe that this per- by evoking additional stress around work sonality type has no capacity for empathy or production, which evokes aggression, venting perspective taking. negative emotions, and pushing subordinates A disturbing part of communicating with and peers even harder (e.g., Hoel & Salin, psychotic bullies is that they may distort what 2003). Quite likely, frustration exacerbates others say in self-serving ways. They typically accidental bullies’ aggression if they believe blame others if their own actions bring about that employees are stifling production goals negative ramifications. If this bully type is (Infante et al., 1984). 366 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Narcissistic bullies , on the other hand, Buddy at Youth Matters could argue well, but are driven by social identity goals (e.g., face- when Claire, the executive director, demanded saving, identity preservation, and maintaining he stop mistreatment of staff, he said to others their self-perception of someone exceptional). that she was “a bitch just like [his] mother.” They justify aggressive treatment as a means Narcissistic bullies as high verbal aggressives of bolstering their persona and maintaining can be motivated by their own anger and bad their image or identity management work. mood—emotions they rarely control very well Secondarily, they may be motivated by eco- (Infante et al., 1992). nomic goals of obtaining something of value Psychopathic bullies are motivated predomi- but only if it serves the primary goal of bol- nantly by power/hostility social goals , the drive stering grandiose self-identities. These bullies to establish dominance, gain power, and pun- want to protect others’ perceptions of them ish anyone who stands in the way of achieving as competent and excellent (Crawshaw, 2007; these. As part of a drive for power and influ- Egan, 2009; Fast & Chen, 2009). Such was ence, psychopathic bullies are often motivated the case with Buddy at Youth Matters, who by social identity goals and will cover up errors appeared to be driven primarily by identity and bad decisions or scapegoat and shift blame preservation. When questioned about his mis- onto others ( Egan, 2009). As high verbal treatment of staff, Buddy was keen to defend aggressives, they can be driven by the desire his use of aggression by drawing on deep-value “to appear ‘tough,’ . . . to be mean . . . , and to arguments such as client confidentiality, the express disdain for” the other person (Infante fatal course of untreated drug addiction, and et al., 1992, p. 122). Self-defense, reprimanding the community’s need for a youth program. someone, winning arguments, expressing anger, That is, Buddy deflected critique by focusing and manipulating another person’s behav- conversations on deeply important issues to ior also motivate verbal aggression (Infante, the other person with whom he interacted. Bruning, & Martin, 1994 ). They may be moti- Because of his skill for reading people, he was vated by social justice goals because they often able to identify issues most important to the have a retribution bias (belief that retaliation is other person in order to win that person over. better than reconciliation); they might also be Because of Buddy’s basic insecurity, he often motivated by a potency bias (tendency to frame viewed other people’s questions as attacks. conflict as a contest in which to demonstrate Narcissistic bullies like Buddy and psycho- dominance or submissiveness) ( Burroughs & pathic bullies are often motivated to act aggres- James, 2005), another form of a power/hostil- sively because of a tendency to ascribe others’ ity social goal . actions and words as having malevolent intent and see themselves as victims (Burroughs & Tactics. Primarily, bullying involves a hos- James, 2005). As such, justice goals are acti- tile, forcing/dominating conflict management vated for both types, as they believe they have style—bullies want their way and often shift been wronged and so seek retribution (Infante conflicts over tasks (cognitive conflicts) to et al., 1992). Other indirect motivating fac- conflicts attacking targets’ identity or val- tors are psychopathology (e.g., transference ues (affective conflict) (Keashly & Nowell, of negative emotions toward someone who 2011 ). Conflict management tactics are represents unresolved conflict) and argumen- aggressive, and bullying conflicts, rather than tative skill deficiency (e.g., lacking ability to being marked by a single form of negativity, communicate position effectively) that can involve numerous barbs, jabs, and machina- trigger verbal aggression (Infante et al., 1984). tions. Exchanges are far more extreme and Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 367 intense than everyday incivilities. Tactics vary This overview of the involved employee by bully type, as might be expected, although groups outlines many of the issues involved all bullies use verbal aggressiveness (passive in bullying conflicts and illustrates why bul- or active) to varying degrees. Most bullies lying can be so difficult to stop. Table 13.3 derogate their targets, often to justify their (on p. 368) summarizes involved party pro- own abuse of others in the conflict. Caustic files, motivations, and associated tactics. In humor is a common tactic bullies use against line with the central themes of this volume, targets because it is ambiguous and provides we add to our thrice-told tale an exploration plausible deniability. of the contextual and transformational issues affecting bullying conflicts as perceived by High verbal aggressives [claim] that about the three-employee groups. 46% of their verbally aggressive messages . . . [involve] trying to be humorous. . . . [As such,] using humor may be a tactic for being ONTEXTUAL ACTORS mean to disdain another, or it may be an C F “evasive” device which masks the use of per- COMPLICATING BULLYING CONFLICTS sonal attacks and avoids provoking physical violence. (Infante et al., 1992, p. 125) Contextual, organizational factors can exac- erbate and induce bullying conflicts, includ- Depending on the bully type, tactics can ing workplace climates and professional include blaming targets for the bullies’ errors cultures, productivity pressure, prevailing (narcissistic, psychopathic), making unreason- social norms external to organizations, and able demands (accidental), criticizing targets’ predominant national cultures. When work- work ability (all types), yelling and scream- places are chaotic and unpredictable, with ing (accidental, narcissistic), inconsistently high job insecurity or role–conflict strain, referring to made-up rules (narcissistic, psy- bullying is more likely (Hodson, Roscigno, & chopathic), threatening job loss (all types), Lopez, 2006). In chaotic workplaces or discounting targets’ accomplishments (all workplaces with high levels of task-related types), socially excluding targets (narcissistic, conflict, bullies may use aggression to main- psychopathic), insults and put-downs (all tain control or advantage. types), taking credit for targets’ work (narcis- Organizational cultures and economic sistic, psychopathic), and scapegoating (nar- demands can drive bullying conflicts. Some cissistic, psychopathic Hoel & Salin, 2003 ). organizational or professional cultures have Psychopathic bullies disparage, belittle, emas- adversarial, aggressive norms for working rela- culate, and destroy anyone who appears to tionships (Hoel & Cooper, 2001) and may even be blocking their aspirations ( Egan, 2009 ). reward aggressive members with promotions, Tactics can include physical and psychological access to leadership, personal credibility, and intimidation intended to cause fear, distress, voice. Economic pressures can also trigger bul- or harm to the target (Parkins, Fishbein, & lying conflicts. Demands for increased produc- Ritchey, 2006 ). This type of bully employs tivity, especially when coupled with cost cutting, third-party tactics quite often, depending on can place incredible pressures on both supervi- the protection of patrons and the important sors and employees that can trigger aggression. or powerful others with whom the bully has External social and cultural belief systems developed power-based relationships. In fact, influence employee abuse since boundaries they are quite adept at managing up , so to between organizations and external environ- speak ( Namie, 2007a ). ments are highly permeable (Mumby & Stohl, 368 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Table 13.3 Three Groups’ Profiles, Motivations, and Tactics

Profile Primary Motivational Goals Most Common Conflict Tactics

Provocative aggressive targeta • Social power • Dominating/forcing • Integrating/problem solving • Obliging/accommodating • Third party Provocative assertive targeta • Justice • Integrating/problem solving • Economic personal • Obliging/accommodating • Compromising • Third party • Dominating/forcing Rigidly conscientious targeta • Social power • Dominating/forcing • Third party Passive targeta • Social functionality goal • Avoiding/withdrawing • Obliging/accommodating Bully ally bystander • Economic resource • Third party • Relationship • Avoiding/withdrawing • Identity • Obliging/accommodating • Justice • Power/hostility Target ally bystander • Economic resource • Third party • Justice • Domination/forcing • Relationship Silent bystander • Economic resource • Avoidance/withdrawal • Identity • Relationship Accidental bully • Economic resource • Dominating/forcingb Narcissistic bully • Identity • Dominating/forcingb • Justice Psychopathic bully • Power/hostility • Dominating/forcingb • Economic resource • Third party (patrons) • Justice

a. All targets are motivated by personal resource goals, economic resource goals, and social identity goals. We note here goals that differ among target types. b. Verbal aggression is a hallmark of bullies’ communication.

1996). Social discourses or meaning systems McDermott, 2008). Related cultural ideologies contributing to bullying include a wide range can stimulate bullying and include praising of forces, including the ideological link between power, profit, and position; devaluing human work and religion, philosophies of individu- and stakeholder interests; and stigmatizing vic- alism and meritocracy, a reverence for hier- tims or disadvantaged persons. An important archical power, profit as an ultimate goal, effect of these ideologies is to whom they con- and Theory X notions of workers as lazy fer voice. Bullied workers (a class of victims ) and in need of goading (Lutgen-Sandvik & in subordinate positions (low-position status) Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 369 may be doubted, especially if being bullied and war zone–like workplaces. Then where by a highly productive (profit) or politically does this leave organizations? Our experi- astute (high-position status) aggressor (Lutgen- ence suggests that organizations dealing with Sandvik & Tracy, 2012). bullying conflicts should carefully consider Considerable evidence points to predomi- this chapter’s discussion to be forewarned nant national culture as a key factor in bul- of the involved actors and their situations. lying prevalence. Scandinavia, for example, Organizations will necessarily have to conduct has far lower bullying rates than the United a careful analysis of the history (e.g., involved States and Great Britain ( Lutgen-Sandvik et parties, motivations, and tactics to date) sur- al., 2007 ; Zapf et al., 2003 )—arguably due rounding the conflict to unravel the situational to Scandinavia’s low-power distance and dynamics unique to the involved workgroup. feminine-egalitarian norms. As bullying is a Bullying really is an organization-wide power-driven phenomenon, fewer power and issue rather than something individuals alone status differences between people likely result can solve. Solving the problem is not only an in lower rates of conflict. In cultures with organization-wide responsibility, but success- high concern for the quality of interpersonal ful efforts also require the total commitment relations, persons may communicate more of top-level organizational leadership, involve- respectfully. ment of middle management, and engagement There are many drivers of bullying in of employees ( Tehrani, 2001 ). Short-term organizations beyond the involved parties approaches such as identifying lone perpetra- we have focused on in this chapter. (For tors while ignoring initiating and maintaining in-depth discussions of these, see Baron & factors ultimately fail to produce meaningful, Neuman, 2011 ; Salin & Hoel, 2011.) So, lasting change. what can organizations and their mem- Vandekerckhove and Commers (2003) , bers do to transform bullying conflicts and who claim that bullying results from being encourage sustainable and respectful conflict inadequately prepared for the pressures of management? globalization, argue that organizations need “new rules” such as “clearly defined channels for support and advice in addition to clear T RANSFORMATIONAL POSSIBILITIES reporting standards, times, and lines. Not surprisingly, this merges with a higher concern We now bring some optimism to the chapter for communication ” (p. 47). Indeed, there is a and talk about directions for transformation. “need for new managerial skills such as strong Although we believe strongly that bullying is interpersonal, communication, and listening an organization-wide issue, individual employ- skills and an ability to engage in recipro- ees are keen to be empowered to improve these cal rather than manipulative behavior.” We situations, so we touch on both. Fleshing out would add that all organizational members the different types of targets, bystanders, and need these communication skills. bullies, as well as their motivations in these In fact, the most effective interventions for conflicts, underscores the complexity of bul- reducing aggressive communication among lying conflicts. Clearly, no “one-size-fits-all” organizational members occur via changing solution will work. Rather, the dynamic nature the very nature of day-to-day conversations of the resource and social goals in combination (for full discussion and details, see Keashly & with the differing tactics to managing conflicts Neuman, 2005). Policy development, while will result in negative spirals of retaliation important for victim redress, has little effect 370 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT on reducing bullying if the organizational enough if true change is desired. However, if climate and culture do not change at a fun- there is no support for this plan, we suggest damental level. Similarly, although the train- the following individual-level actions for tar- ing of individuals about workplace bullying gets, bystanders, and bullies. is important, labels the phenomenon, and Individual responses to managing bullying should be part of an overall plan for staff edu- conflicts constructively begin when involved cation, training alone rarely has a determin- parties are able to recognize when a simple able effect on interpersonal aggression levels conflict has become a bullying conflict. In (Vartia & Leka, 2011). Rather, the members particular for targets and bystanders, it is need to learn new ways of interacting at the being able to name abusive conflicts “work- day-to-day level. place bullying”; this is an important first step From Keashly and Neuman’s (2005) work to understanding what is occurring and what with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to do about it (Namie, 2007a). Information we summarize the following steps for an about bullying (e.g., research articles and effective organization-wide approach. This books) coupled with being able to name bul- approach requires the involvement of four lying as a distinct phenomenon also bolsters groups. First, top-level persons must be com- employee claims to upper management and mitted to organization-wide change regarding HR (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Targeted work- dignity for all workers. Second, middle man- ers may also decide to file formal or informal agers must be involved at each step. Third, complaints to unions, Equal Employment members from support staff such as HR, Opportunity Commission, the bully’s boss, Employee Assistance Program, ombudsper- or attorneys (Macintosh, 2006)—reports that sons, and unions should be involved. Finally, typically require detailed documentation (e.g., representatives chosen by direct-line staff in dates, times, and events; Tracy, Alberts, & each program or division must be involved. Rivera, 2007). Targeted workers may also Organizations may benefit from bringing consider filing lawsuits against employers but someone in from outside to help facilitate should understand that such suits are rarely analysis and planning, as an outsider may be won and take enormous resources and per- more objective and less likely to have a vested sonal energy. interest in outcomes. Teams comprising per- Ensuring self-care and social support is sons from these groups carry out the following especially important for effectively dealing steps: (1) each workgroup conducts a baseline with bullying conflicts. This may mean tak- evaluation of aggression using a validated ing time off, trying not to take the experience measure (Neuman’s WAR-Q, Workplace personally, and spending time with trusted Aggression Revised Questionnaire is outstand- others ( Namie & Namie, 2009 ). Gaining ing); (2) based on the types of aggression and peer support is easier if other organizational the unique makeup of each group, teams members understand bullying and know it is develop tailored interventions and implement occurring. Informally educating peers can be them; (3) after 3 to 6 months, teams conduct done by distributing articles and talking about a follow-up evaluation using the same mea- bullying in a manner that protects vulnerable sure as in Step (1). If desired change has not persons (Macintosh, 2006). If and when indi- occurred, teams assess the follow-up findings, vidual conflict management tactics fail, which design new approaches, implement, and mea- is often the case, workers may choose to quit sure again in a predetermined time frame. We or transfer and, we argue, should frame their cannot stress the importance of this approach exits as a victory rather than defeat. Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 371

Bystanders are very important in bullying aggressiveness—likely present in some degree conflicts. Although directly confronting bul- with all bully profiles. Their scholarship lies can be risky and make situations worse, suggests that one of the reasons people use there are other responses bystanders can take. verbal aggression is that they lack argumen- Scully and Rowe (2009) suggest that bystand- tation skills. Thus, if organizational members ers can do two things that will reduce bully- who bully others realize they tend to become ing, mobbing, verbal aggression, and so forth: aggressive in interactions that are conflictual, “discouraging negative behaviors, and, . . . one remedy could be to learn how to con- encouraging positive behaviors” (p. 89). structively argue. In fact, Infante (1995) has This means helping “people in all cohorts to developed a curriculum specifically for this note—and to commend—the achievements purpose. Another useful skill is improving of their fellow workers. Such commenda- one’s ability to read others’ emotions. Laura tions often matter to the person concerned Crawshaw (2007), who coaches abrasive and are thought to be useful in encourag- managers, argues that these individuals tend ing future, socially desirable behavior” (pp. toward aggression because they have little 89–90). Bystander action also means “help- ability to empathize with others so they do ing people in all job categories to react, and not see fully the effect their aggression has on then act appropriately, when they see unsafe, others. And although learning empathy is not unprofessional, offensive, discriminatory, or a simple task, persons in the medical profes- illegal behavior in the workplace” (p. 90). sion often complete courses on this skill (e.g., In addition, bystanders can be very helpful La Monica, 1983). Indeed, the steps that for supporting targets’ stories and breaking high verbal aggressive might take is an area the bullying cycle; concerted voice simply needing more research. increases believability (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Collective voice also reduces some of the risk of being labeled troublemakers, mentally ill, F UTURE DIRECTIONS or problem employees. Nontargeted work- group members may not be as stigmatized, This look at the three central employee groups since they lack the victim label. But even suggests areas of research necessary so that with collective resistance, there is the risk of we might improve organizational efforts in being pejoratively branded when speaking out resolving bullying conflicts. One of the areas against abuse and oppression (Cowan, 2009). that has received little attention is studying These ideas suggest an instructive approach the factors that have transformed other work- for building others’ competence in work- places faced with bullying. Although there groups, so that they can help prevent, handle, are a number of models outlining organiza- and, in some cases, stop aggressive communi- tion-wide change (e.g., Keashly & Neuman, cation behavior (Keashly, 2010). 2005 ), researchers are yet to explore fully As for bullies, the organizational and what organizations have done in circum- communication literatures are sparse regard- stances in which bullying decreased as a result ing what they could do to better man- of less formal ways of responding and dealing age conflicts and keep conflicts civil and with the problem. From all perspectives in the constructive. 4 Infante, Myers, and Buerkel’s thrice-told tale, what situational, contextual, (1994) and Rancer and Avtgis’s (2006) work or cultural factors assist or thwart targets, does provide constructive pointers, how- bystanders, and perpetrators in resolving ever, regarding persons with high-trait verbal conflicts? 372 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Target actions rarely resolve bullying, and and rigidly conscientious), three types of there is a substantial body of research focus- bystander (bully allies, target allies, and ing on their (ineffective) efforts (e.g., Zapf & neutral bystanders), and three types of bully Gross, 2001). What is needed is a look into (accidental, narcissistic, and psychopathic) the experiences of bystanders, especially when and all nine of these general types have bystander action has proven effective in the different motivations and tactics driven by resolution of bullying conflicts. As important those motivations, then we have some idea is developing and supporting bystander train- of how impossible it can feel to address bul- ing programs like Keashly’s (2010) and Scully lying conflicts once they develop. In fact, and Rowe’s (2009), both of which are still many motivations are at odds with each in nascent stages. Bystanders more than any other (e.g., targets and bullies want some- other group in the thrice-told tale have been one on their sides, neutral bystanders want woefully understudied. to stay out of it). As important as bystanders in bullying con- flicts is learning more about the perpetrators’ experiences, perspectives, and motivations. N OTES Interpersonal communication research about verbal aggression informs much of what we 1. For a review of communication and supervi- have presented in this chapter regarding per- sor–subordinate conflict in organizations, see petrators. As workplace bullying is currently Roloff (1987) . in the news and is of increasing interest to 2. All names are fictitious. organizational leadership, researchers might 3. Although we do not expand herein about creatively devise means of accessing the bul- the role of upper management and associ- lies’ point of view. In Pam’s (first author) ated staff (e.g., HR), bullying conflicts often experience, after presenting to professional involve these organizational members. In groups about bullying, some audience mem- Youth Matters, these were primarily the exec- bers have approached her saying, in effect, “I utive director and secondarily the board of can see that I’ve been doing this to the people directors. When Deb and Bob complained, I’m supervising.” These interactions could the executive director attempted to negotiate provide fruitful inroads for deeper discussions compromise in the face of the conflict, asking Buddy to spend more time on site conducting or interviews. training and asking clinical staff to seek exter- nal training opportunities to improve their skills. The executive director also worked with C ONCLUSION Buddy extensively, teaching him hiring tactics for finding more qualified staff (integrating/ We define workplace bullying as a unique problem solving). Certainly, there was the type of conflict because it includes power unspoken but well-understood power of the disparities, aggression, and persistence that executive director to fire, demote, or otherwise sanction involved parties (dominating/forcing) involves all employees in affected work- if they failed to go along with his suggested groups. Specific to the discussion about resolutions. workplace bullying conflicts, an explora- tion of these parties’ goals and tactics helps 4. Rather, there are various texts to assist upper management dealing with bullies (e.g., trace the likely motivations and how those Crawshaw, 2007 ; Namie & Namie, 2011; differ for targets, bystanders, and bullies. If Twale & De Luca, 2008 ). Most of these are we say that there are roughly three differ- for acting on the bully (interventions) rather ent types of target (provocative, submissive, than actions for actual or potential bullies. Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 373

R EFERENCES Cowan , R. L. ( 2009 ). “Rocking the boat” and “continuing to fight”: Un/productive jus- Aquino , K. ( 2000 ). Structural and individual deter- tice episodes and the problem of workplace minants of workplace victimization: The effects bullying. Human Communication , 12 ( 3 ), of hierarchical status and conflict manage- 283 – 301 . ment style . Journal of Management , 26 , 171 – Coyne, I. , Seigne, E. , & Randall, P. ( 2000 ). 193 . doi:10.1177/014920630002600201 Predicting workplace victim status from per- Aquino , K. , & Bradfield , M. ( 2000 ). Perceived sonality. European Journal of Work and victimization in the workplace: The role of Organizational Psychology , 9 , 335 – 349 . Crawshaw , L. ( 2007 ). Taming the abrasive man- situational factors and victim characteristics . ager: How to end unnecessary roughness in Organization Science , 11 , 525 – 537 . the workplace . San Francisco, CA: Wiley . Aquino , K. , & Lamertz, K. ( 2004 ). A relational Egan , K. ( 2005 ). Bullying, know thy enemy: Talk model of workplace victimization: Social given to Unions NSW Workshop . Retrieved roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic from www.psa.labor.net.au/redtape/13/ relationships . Journal of Applied Psychology , Bullying.html 89 , 1023 – 1034 . Egan , K. ( 2009 , February 9–11 ). People risks, Ayoko , O. B. , Callan , V. J. , & Härtel , C. E. motivation and culture: Human factors and ( 2003 ). Workplace conflict, bullying, and compliance motivations . Paper presented counterproductive behaviors. International at the sixth annual Financial Services and Journal of Organizational Analysis , 11 ( 4 ), Compliance Conference, Sydney, Australia . 283 – 302 . Einarsen , S. , Hoel , H. , Zapf , D. , & Cooper, C. L. Barling , J. ( 1996 ). The prediction, experience and ( 2003 ). The concept of bullying at work. In consequences of workplace violence . In G. R. Bullying and emotional abuse in the work- VanderBos & E. Q. Bulatoao (Eds.), Violence place: International perspectives in research on the job (pp. 29 – 50 ). Washington, DC: and practice . London, England: Taylor & American Psychological Association. Francis . Baron , R. A. , & Neuman , J. H. ( 2011 ). Social Fast , N. J. , & Chen , S. ( 2009 ). When the boss antecedents to bullying: A social interac- feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, tionist perspective. In S. Einarsen , H. Hoel , and aggression. Psychological Science , D. Zapf , & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and 20 (11 ), 1406 – 1413 . doi:10.1111/j.1467- harassment in the workplace: Developments 9280.2009.02452.x in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. Ferguson , M. , & Barry , B. ( 2011 ). I know what you 201 – 226 ). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. did: The effects of interpersonal deviance on Beatty , M. J. , & McCroskey, J. C. ( 1997 ). It’s bystanders . Journal of Occupational Health in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as tem- Psychology , 16 ( 1), 80 – 94 . doi:10.1037/ peramental expression . Communication a0021708 Quarterly , 45 ( 4 ), 446 – 460 . Fukushima, O. , & Ohbuchi, K.-i. ( 1996 ). Boddy , C. R. P. ( 2010 ). Corporate psychopaths Antecedents and effects of multiple goals in and organizational type. Journal of Public conflict resolution. International Journal of Affairs , 10 , 300 – 312 . doi:10.1002/pa.365 Conflict Management , 7 ( 3 ), 191 – 208 . Boddy, C. R. P. , Ladyshewsky, R. , & Galvin, P. Hodson , R. , Roscigno , V. J. , & Lopez , S. H. ( 2010 ). Leaders without ethics in global busi- ( 2006 ). Chaos and the abuse of power: ness: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Workplace bullying in organizational and Affairs , 10 (3 ), 121– 138 . doi:10.1002/pa.352 interactional context. Work and Occupations , Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. 33 ( 4 ), 382 – 416 . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Hoel , H. , & Cooper, C. L. ( 2001 ). Origins of Burroughs , S. M. , & James , L. R. ( 2005 ). Advancing bullying: Theoretical frameworks for explain- the assessment of dispositional aggressiveness ing workplace bullying . In N. Tehrani (Ed.), through conditional reasoning. In S. Fox & Building a culture of respect: Managing bul- P. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work lying at work (pp. 1 – 20 ). London, England : behavior: Investigations of actors and targets Taylor & Francis . (pp. 127 – 150 ). Washington, DC: American Hoel , H. , Einarsen , S. , & Cooper , C. L. ( 2003 ). Psychological Association . Organisational effects of bullying. In S. Einarsen , 374 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

H. Hoel , D. Zapf , & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace in the workplace: Developments in theory, (pp. 145 – 162 ). London, England : Taylor & research and practice ( 2nd ed. , pp. 41 – 71 ). Francis . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Hoel , H. , & Salin , D. ( 2003 ). Organisational Keashly , L. , & Neuman , J. H. ( 2005 ). Bullying in antecedents of workplace bullying . In S. the workplace: Its impact and management . Einarsen , H. Hoel , D. Zapf , & C. L. Cooper Employee Rights and Employment Policy (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the Journal , 8 , 335 – 373 . workplace: International perspectives in Keashly , L. , & Nowell , B. L. ( 2011 ). Conflict, con- research and practice (pp. 203 – 218 ). London, flict resolution, and bullying. In S. Einarsen , England : Taylor & Francis . H. Hoel , D. Zapf , & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Hogh , A. , Mikkelsen , E. G. , & Hansen , A. , M. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: ( 2011 ). Individual consequences of workplace Developments in theory, research and prac- bullying/mobbing . In S. Einarsen , H. Hoel , tice (2nd ed., pp. 423 – 445 ). Boca Raton, FL: D. Zapf , & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and CRC Press. harassment in the workplace: Developments Knapp , M. L. , Putnam , L. L. , & Davis , L. J. in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. ( 1988 ). Measuring interpersonal conflict in 107 – 128 ). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. organizations: Where do we go from here ? Infante, D. A. ( 1995 ). Teaching students to Management Communication Quarterly , 1 , understand and control verbal aggression . 414 – 429 . Communication Education , 44 , 51 – 63 . La Monica, E. ( 1983 ). Empathy can be learned. doi:10.1080/03634529509378997 Nurse Educator , 8 (2 ), 19 – 23 . Retrieved Infante, D. A. , Bruning, S. D. , & Martin, M. from journals.lww.com/nurseeducatoronline/ M. ( 1994, November 18–21 ). The verbally Abstract/1983/00820/Empathy_Can_Be_ aggressive individual: Experiences with verbal Learned.11.aspx aggression and reasons for use . Paper presented Lind , K. , Glasø , L. , Pallesen , S. , & Einarsen , at the Speech Communication Association S. ( 2009 ). Personality profiles among tar- Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA. gets and nontargets of workplace bullying . Infante, D. A. , Myers , S. A. , & Buerkel , R. A. European Psychologist , 14 ( 3 ), 231 – 237 . ( 1994 ). Argument and verbal aggression in doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.3.231 constructive and destructive family and orga- Lutgen-Sandvik, P. ( 2006 ). Take this job and . . .: nizational disagreements . Western Journal of Quitting and other forms of resistance Communication , 58 , 73 – 84 . to workplace bullying . Communication Infante, D. A. , Riddle , B. , Horvarth , C. , & Tumlin , Monographs , 73 ( 4 ), 406 – 433 . doi:10.1080 S. ( 1992 ). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages /03637750601024156 and reasons . Communication Quarterly , 40 , Lutgen-Sandvik , P. ( 2007 ). “But words will never 116 – 126 . doi:10.1080/01463379209369827 hurt me”: Abuse and bullying at work, a Infante, D. A. , Trebing , J. D. , Shepherd , P. E. , & comparison between two worker samples . Seeds , D. E. ( 1984 ). The relationships of Ohio Communication Journal , 45 , 81 – 105 . argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Lutgen-Sandvik , P. , & McDermott, V. ( 2008 ). Southern Speech Communication Journal , The constitution of employee-abusive orga- 50 ( 1 ), 67 – 77 . nizations: A communication flows theory . Keashly , L. ( 2001 ). Interpersonal and systemic aspects Communication Theory , 18 ( 2 ), 304 – 333. of emotional abuse at work: The target’s per- doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00324.x spective. Violence and Victims , 16 ( 3 ), 233 – 268 . Lutgen-Sandvik , P. , & Tracy , S. J. ( 2012 ). Keashly , L. ( 2010 , November 14–17 ). From obser- Answering five key questions about workplace vation to engagement: Building coworker bullying: How communication scholarship efficacy to address bullying . Paper presented provides thought leadership for transforming at the National Communication Association’s abuse at work . Management Communication 96th Annual Convention, Chicago, IL . Quarterly , 26 , 3 – 47 . Keashly , L. , & Jagatic , K. ( 2011 ). North American Lutgen-Sandvik , P. , Tracy , S. J. , & Alberts , perspectives on hostile behaviors and bullying J. K. ( 2007 ). Burned by bullying in the at work. In S. Einarsen , H. Hoel , D. Zapf , & American workplace: Prevalence, perception, Chapter 13: Conflict Motivations and Tactics of Targets, Bystanders, and Bullies 375

degree, and impact. Journal of Management Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 36 (10 ), Studies , 44 ( 6 ), 837 – 862 . doi:10.1111/j.1467- 2554– 2577 . 6486.2007.00715.x Rahim , M. A. ( 2002 ). Toward a theory of man- Macintosh , J. ( 2006 ). Tackling workplace bully- aging organizational conflict . International ing . Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 27 ( 6 ), Journal of Conflict Management , 13 ( 3 ), 206 – 665 – 679 . 235 . doi:10.1108/eb022874 Mumby, D. K. , & Stohl, C. ( 1996 ). Disciplining orga- Rancer , A. S. , & Avtgis , T. A. ( 2006 ). Argumentative nizational communication studies. Management and aggressive communication . Thousand Communication Quarterly , 10 , 50 – 72 . Oaks, CA : Sage . Namie , G. ( 2007a ). The challenge of work- Rayner, C. , & Cooper, C. L. ( 2003 ). The black hole place bullying . Employment Relations Today , in “bullying at work” research . International 34 ( 2 ), 43 – 51 . Journal of Decision Making , 4 ( 1 ), 47 – 64 . Namie, G. ( 2007b ). The Workplace Bullying Roloff , M. E. ( 1987 ). Communication and Institute 2007 U.S. Workplace Bullying conflict . In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chafee Survey . Retrieved from www.workplace (Eds.), Handbook of communication science. bullying.org/wbiresearch/wbi-2007/ Newbury Park, CA: Sage . Namie , G. , & Lutgen-Sandvik , P. ( 2010 ). Active Salin , D. , & Hoel , H. ( 2011 ). Organisational and passive accomplices: The communal char- causes of workplace bullying . In S. Einarsen , acter of workplace bullying . International H. Hoel , D. Zapf , & C. Cooper (Eds.), Journal of Communication , 4 , 343 – 373 . Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Retrieved from ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc Developments in theory, research, and prac- Namie , G. , & Namie , R. ( 2009 ). The bully at tice (2nd ed., pp. 227 – 243 ). Boca Raton, FL: work: What you can do to stop the hurt and CRC Press. reclaim your dignity on the job ( 2nd ed. ). Scully , M. , & Rowe , M. ( 2009 ). Bystander train- Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks . ing within organizations . Journal of the Namie , G. , & Namie , R. ( 2011 ). The bully-free International Ombudsman Association , workplace: Stop jerks, weasels, and snakes 2 (1 ), 89 – 95 . Retrieved from www. from killing your organization . Hoboken, ombudsassociation.org/publications/ NJ : Wiley . journal/2009Vol2Journal.pdf Neuman , J. H. , & Baron , R. A. ( 2011 ). Social Tehrani , N. ( 2001 ). A total quality approach to antecedents to bullying: A social interaction- building a culture of respect . In N. Tehrani ist perspective . In S. Einarsen , H. Hoel , D. (Ed.), Building a culture of respect: Managing Zapf , & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and bullying at work (pp. 135 – 154 ). London, harassment in the workplace: Developments England : Taylor & Francis . in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. Tracy , S. J. ( 2009 ). Managing burnout and moving 201 – 226 ). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. toward employee engagement: Reinvigorating Ohbuchi , K.-i. , & Tedeschi , J. T. ( 1997 ). Multiple the study of stress at work. In P. Lutgen- goals and tactical behaviors in social conflicts. Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 27 ( 24 ), organizational communication: Processes, 2177 –2199 . Retrieved from www.black- consequences, and constructive ways of wellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021- organizing (pp. 77 – 98 ). New York, NY : 9029&site=1 Routledge. Olweus, D. ( 2003 ). Bully/victim problems in Tracy , S. J. , Alberts , J. K. , & Rivera , K. D. ( 2007 ). school: Basic facts and an effective inter- How to bust the office bully: eight tactics for vention programme. In S. Einarsen , H. explaining workplace abuse to decision-mak- Hoel , D. Zapf , & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), ers . Retrieved from humancommunication.clas. Bullying and emotional abuse in the work- asu.edu/aboutus/wellnesspublications.shtml place: International perspectives in research Tracy , S. J. , Lutgen-Sandvik , P. , & Alberts , J. and practice (pp. 62 – 78 ). London, England: K. ( 2006 ). Nightmares, demons and Francis & Taylor. slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors Parkins, I. S. , Fishbein, H. D. , & Ritchey, P. of workplace bullying. Management N. ( 2006 ). The influence of personality on Communication Quarterly , 20 ( 2 ), 148 – 185 . workplace bullying and discrimination. doi:10.1177/0893318906291980 376 SECTION 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Twale , T. J. , & De Luca , B. M. ( 2008 ). Faculty Waldron , V. R. ( 2000 ). Relational experiences incivility: The rise of the academic bully cul- and emotions at work . In S. Fineman (Ed.), ture and what to do about it . San Francisco, Emotion in organizations (pp. 64 – 82 ). CA : Wiley . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage . Vandekerckhove, W. , & Commers, M. S. R. Wigley , C. J. , Pohl , G. H. , & Watt, M. G. ( 2003 ). Downward workplace bobbing: A S. ( 1989 ). Conversational sensitivity as a sign of the Times? Journal of Business Ethics , correlate of trait verbal aggressiveness and 45 , 41 – 50 . the predisposition to verbally praise oth- Vartia, M. ( 2001 ). Consequences of workplace ers . Communication Reports , 2 ( 2 ), 92 – 95 . bullying with respect to the well-being of Retrieved from www.tandf.co.uk/journals/ its targets and the observers of bullying . RCST Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Zapf , D. , Einarsen , S. , Hoel , H. , & Vartia, M. and Health , 27 , 63 – 69 . ( 2003 ). Empirical findings on bullying in the Vartia, M. , & Leka , S. ( 2011 ). Interventions for workplace . In S. Einarsen , H. Hoel , D. Zapf , the prevention and management of bullying & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emo- at work. In S. Einarsen , H. Hoel , D. Zapf , & tional abuse in the workplace: International C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment perspectives in research and practice (pp. in the workplace: Developments in theory, 103– 126). London, England: Taylor & research and practice ( 2nd ed. , pp. 359 – 379 ). Francis . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Zapf , D. , & Gross , C. ( 2001 ). Conflict escala- Vickers , M. H. ( 2006 ). Toward employee well- tion and coping with workplace bullying: A ness: Rethinking bullying paradoxes and replication and extension . European Journal masks . Employee Responsibilities and Rights of Work and Organizational Psychology , 10 , Journal , 18 , 267 – 281 . 497 – 522 . doi:10.1080/13594320143000834