Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin Introduction fied and addressed, along with their interrelations Organizations, including workplaces, deal on an and dynamics. everyday basis with talent, commitment, support- In recent years, important efforts in this direction iveness, solidarity, niceness, friendship and working have been made, dealing with discrimination (Cates together for common goals. All too often, however, & Dorsey, 2011), sexual harassment (LeMoncheck disagreements lead to harsh conflicts. Also, com- & Sterba, 2001), mobbing/bullying (Leymann, monly, groups are formed within organizations, 1990a) and suppression of dissent/discontent (Sup- sometimes creating vested interests that lead to bat- pression of Dissent, 2012). There continues to be tles for power to control processes and resources as confusion about terms (for example, mobbing versus well as to impose certain viewpoints. Destructive bullying) and a lack of awareness and understanding power games linked to these interests are a common of these problems. With few exceptions (Einarsen, negative outcome because sometimes it is assumed Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998; Bjørkelo, et al., that any means available can be used in these strug- 2008), these negative acts tend to be dealt with sepa- gles. Too often, attempts are made to degrade per- rately, one by one, not considering their overlaps sons and/or their work that threatens vested inter- and interactions. In this paper we focus on two is- ests. This can lead to various forms of institutional sues – mobbing and suppression of dis- counter-productive behaviors. To eliminate negative sent/discontent – to distinguish them from each oth- outcomes, these behaviors need to be clearly identi- er and to address some of their overlaps and interac- tions. * † Brian Martin, PhD (Physics), Professor of Social Sci- In mobbing, or “workplace bullying,” a group ences, University of Wollongong, Australia. He is the gangs up on a target, who usually is considered a author of many books and articles on dissent, nonviolent threat. Nasty or undermining comments, ostracism, action, scientific controversies, democracy and other unfair assignments, and many other techniques topics. He has studied tactics against justice and injustice make their life miserable (for an assessment of the for many years. Website: http://www.bmartin.cc/ most common behaviors, see Leymann, 1990b; Email: [email protected] Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Suppression involves attacks on dissidents, protest- Florencia Peña Saint Martin, PhD (Anthropology), Visiting professorial fellow, University of Wollongong, ers, or the discontented, and on ideas or behaviors Australia; Professor, Graduate Program in Physical An- that challenge orthodoxy or powerful cliques. Mob- thropology, National School of Anthropology and Histo- bing sometimes involves suppression of dis- ry, Mexico. She has studied the relationships between human biology and social organization/stratification for many years. Since 2004, she has dealt with mobbing in * Defined by Leymann (1996) as “hostile and unethical organizations. communication, which is directed in a systematic way by Website: http://www.antropologiafisica.net … a few individuals mainly towards one individual, who, Email: [email protected] due to mobbing, is pushed into a helpless and defenseless position, being held there by means of continuing mob- Received: August 15, 2011 bing activities” (p. 168). Accepted: October 30, 2011 † We especially want to call attention to this phenomenon Conflict of interests: none in all kinds of organizations, not only at “workplaces.” Social Medicine (www.socialmedicine.info) - 217 - Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 sent/discontent, but people also become targets of tioning vested interests, who is perceived as a threat. mobbing for other reasons. Suppression may involve In the mobbing scenario, social degradation of mobbing, but can also occur using other techniques. Smith as a person took place. We explain the overlap between mobbing and sup- Attacks of suppression and mobbing can also pression as well as differences. happen because the target is in the wrong place at the wrong time, such as occupying a position that Scenario 1: At a staff meeting, Dr. Smith expresses disa- powerful administrators want for somebody else. greement with the hospital’s policy on handling patients. Less frequently, efforts at social elimination are However, Smith’s views are not recorded in the official based on personal reasons, such as just disliking minutes of the meeting. Shortly after, Smith’s access to somebody or wanting to exercise revenge for per- patients is restricted, with the result that her performance sonal or professional jealousy or former disagree- figures become worse. Smith’s contract is not renewed, though other doctors with similar performance figures ments. Suppression can also happen as “collateral have their contracts signed. Nothing is ever said directly damage.” For example, when a member of a com- to Smith about her views or performance, but she loses mittee wants somebody to win a prize or get a posi- her job. tion and uses influence to prevent better-qualified candidates from getting it. In some cases, a target Scenario 2: At a staff meeting, Dr. Smith expresses disa- might not even be aware of suppression. However, a greement with the hospital’s policy on handling patients. series of apparently independent suppression events A group of administrators feels threatened and, although can be part of a mobbing process. For example, one not saying it openly, they agree that Smith has to go. But there is an obstacle: Smith has tenure. The director’s professor can have publications and promotions position is about to end and the administrators want the blocked, classes cancelled, students discriminated position for one of their own group. Bad publicity at this against and grants rejected, sometimes leading to time is highly unwelcome. Shortly after, Smith’s access denial of tenure or dismissal. Targets of mobbing to patients is restricted. “The fault” is found: a complaint are always very much aware of the attacks against from a patient is registered, leading to an inquiry; and them. It is not difficult to imagine the emotional rumors are circulated about Smith’s sexual behavior. The distress that can arise from confronting these situa- administrators scrutinize Smith’s file in detail, finding tions, with the potential to adversely affect mental, “faults” they never bothered about before; they put to- emotional and physical health (Einarsen, 1996; gether a panel to review the patient’s complaint and the Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Peña & Sánchez, 2007). previous alleged faults. Double-checking, they find the same actions of the complaint in three of Smith’s previ- ous patients, who sustain them in writing. This new evi- Connections between suppression and mobbing dence is added to Smith’s file. Nurses are instructed to The processes and sequences of events in sup- pass information to the administrators about the “misbe- pression and mobbing are remarkably similar haviors” of this “problematic and weird” doctor, and are worldwide and in many different organizations. warned not to be with Smith alone. Because Smith has Generally, an event creates a situation in which been degraded officially and covertly, colleagues stay there is a clash of interests, usually in a context of away. The nurses notice odd aspects in all that Smith unequal power with the future target of attacks in a does, which are reported to the administrators. This goes weaker position. Afterwards, a process of degrada- on for a year and a half, until the board dismisses Smith tion of the target begins, often through spreading officially for “misconduct.” One of the administrators who ganged up against Smith becomes the new director negative and malicious rumors about the target and of the hospital. their performance (Einarsen, 1999), with the end result being stigmatization, ostracism and isolation. In Scenario 1, Smith and her ideas (disagreement Also, the target’s failings are secretly exaggerated with the hospital’s policy) were suppressed but not and achievements ignored. Much of this occurs indi- mobbed; in Scenario 2, she was mobbed as a means rectly and out of sight, without directly challenging of suppression. Both scenarios involve the same the target, although overt and obvious put-downs goal: the social elimination of the individual ques- Social Medicine (www.socialmedicine.info) - 218 - Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 usually happen too. Regarding mobbing, Westhues helma, et al., 2010): these consequences are very (2004) calls this the “preparation phase”. harmful and easily confused with unrelated prob- Then “the fault” is found (or cynically created) lems. and used to justify the initiation of open attacks, What generally differentiates suppression and including formal complaints and/or administrative mobbing is the context that surrounds targets and inquiries or sanctions (Westhues, 2004). At this their personal position within it. If one is in a vul- stage, because the target is already alone and stig- nerable situation (as in Scenario 1), social elimina- matized as a consequence of the preparation stage, tion may follow quickly, with suppression occurring there is little or no collective protective action in by dismissal or not renewing a contract. Suppression response; most members of organizations