DOCSLIB.ORG

Workplace Mobbing: Are They Really out to Get Your Patient?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Workplace Mobbing: Are They Really out to Get Your Patient? Workplace mobbing: Are they really out to get your patient? Consider that coworkers’ hostile behavior could be causing paranoid symptoms r. G, age 46, works for a large federal® Dowden govern- Health Media ment agency in a middle-management position. MHe presents seeking treatment for insomnia. He says, “I just need a sleepingCopyright pill. I haven’tFor been personal able to use only sleep for the last 3 months because everybody at work is talking behind my back and spreading rumors about how I’m crazy. My boss is in on it, too. She is always trying to undermine me and makes a big deal out of every little mistake I make.” Mr. G is suspicious, asking questions about the confi - dentiality of medical records. His speech is rapid, and he is anxious but exhibits a full range of aff ect and no pressured speech or fl ight of ideas. Mr. G describes early, middle, and late insomnia, decreased energy and interest, and gaining 10 pounds over the past 3 months. ALEX NABAUM FOR CURRENT PSYCHIATRY He admits owning a gun and having frequent thoughts of suicide and fantasies of killing his boss, although Mr. G James Randolph Hillard, MD repeatedly affi rms he would never act on these thoughts. A Professor Department of psychiatry week ago, his wife moved in with her parents because, he Associate provost for human health aff airs says, “she just couldn’t stand to be around me any longer.” Michigan State University East Lansing, MI I consider involuntary hospitalization for Mr. G. Ultimately I contact his wife, who agrees to pick him up, stay with him overnight, and return with him the next morning. Because the only medication Mr. G is willing to consider is sleeping pills, I prescribe fl urazepam, 30 mg qhs. Mr. G was apparently paranoid, thinking of killing his boss, and had a gun. If his wife had not answered the phone and been willing to stay with him, he might have been involuntarily committed. As it was, further Current Psychiatry interviews with him revealed that Mr. G had been a tar- Vol. 8, No. 4 45 For mass reproduction, content licensing and permissions contact Dowden Health Media. 45_CPSY0409 45 3/16/09 11:35:47 AM Box Workplace mobbing: How Mobbing, bullying, and harassment. The often does it occur? term “workplace mobbing” was coined by Leymann,3 an occupational psycholo- n 1990 Leymann3 estimated that 3.5% of gist who investigated the psychology of Ithe Swedish workforce had been victims workers who had suffered severe trauma. of signifi cant mobbing. Studies from various He observed that some of the most severe Workplace other European countries have estimated reactions were among workers who had prevalence of mobbing at 4% to 15% of the mobbing been the target of “an impassioned collec- total workforce.10 Studies from Europe have shown that tive campaign by coworkers to exclude, all age groups can be affected, but that punish, or humiliate” them. posttraumatic stress disorder among mobbing Many researchers use the term mobbing victims is more common in patients age >40. to describe a negative work environment 6 Both genders are equally at risk. created by several individuals working to- gether.1-3 However, some researchers such get of workplace “mobbing,” and that his as Namie et al4 use the term workplace Clinical Point insomnia and paranoia developed because bullying to describe the creation of a hos- An uninformed of a deliberate campaign by coworkers. tile work environment by either a single mental health This article discusses how to recognize individual—usually a boss—or a number symptoms of workplace mobbing, using of individuals. professional can Mr. G’s experience to illustrate the dynam- unwittingly make ics of this group behavior. An informed CASE CONTINUED a mobbing victim’s mental health professional can be of enor- Why I fi rst thought ‘paranoia’ situation much mous help to a mobbing victim, but an During our fi rst interview, Mr. G said that 6 uninformed professional can unwittingly months before he sought treatment he had worse make the situation much worse. reported misuse of government property by his supervisor’s boss. The case was investi- gated and dismissed. Mr. G’s supervisor never What is ‘mobbing’? confronted him about the complaint, but Initiated most often by a person in a po- shortly afterwards Mr. G started to notice dis- sition of power or infl uence, mobbing turbing changes in the workplace. has been described as “a desperate urge His supervisor avoided Mr. G’s phone calls to crush and eliminate the target…. As and e-mails and stopped meeting with him. the campaign proceeds, a steadily larger Instead, she met with Mr. G’s subordinates. range of hostile ploys and communica- The subordinates started to ignore Mr. G’s in- tions comes to be seen as legitimate.”1 This structions and would roll their eyes or be in- behavior pattern has been recognized in attentive when he spoke. Coworkers stopped Europe since the 1980s but is not well rec- talking when Mr. G approached, and he start- ognized in the United States. ed receiving anonymous e-mails questioning Davenport et al2 brought the phenom- his ability and sanity. He was reprimanded in enon and its consequences to the U.S. pub- writing for having made a $9 mathematical lic’s attention in 1999 with the publication error in an expense reimbursement request. of Mobbing: emotional abuse in the American Mr. G said when he approached his supe- workplace. Otherwise, little professional lit- rior about the work environment, she stated erature on workplace mobbing has been that he was “just paranoid” and needed to produced in the United States. see a psychiatrist. A PubMed search on the term “mob- When Mr. G’s wife accompanies him to bing” limited to 1982 through October 2008 the second interview, she confi rms his im- returned 95 listings, excluding those deal- pressions of ostracism and gossip at work. ing purely with ethology, but only 1 report She also relates her experiences with people from the United States. Studies from out- from Mr. G’s offi ce who previously had been side the United States indicate that mob- friendly but now were distant or hostile. Mr. Current Psychiatry 46 April 2009 bing is relatively common (Box). G shows me copies of harassing work e-mails 46_CPSY0409 46 3/17/09 11:09:37 AM and memos. I tell Mr. G I believe his story and Table 1 diagnose him as suff ering from posttraumatic Mobbing syndrome: 10 factors stress disorder (PTSD). He begins supportive/ cognitive therapy and continues fl urazepam. Assaults on dignity, integrity, credibility, and competence Negative, humiliating, intimidating, abusive, Mobbing syndrome malevolent, and controlling communication As it turns out, Mr. G was not paranoid; his Committed directly or indirectly in subtle or coworkers really were trying to get him. obvious ways Leymann5 divided 45 types of mobbing Perpetrated by ≥1 staff members* behaviors into 5 categories. These were or- ganized as attacks on: Occurring in a continual, multiple, and • self-expression and ability to commu- systematic fashion over time nicate (victim is silenced, given no oppor- Portraying the victim as being at fault tunity to communicate, subject to verbal Engineered to discredit, confuse, intimidate, attacks) isolate, and force the person into submission • social relationships (colleagues do not Clinical Point Committed with the intent to force the talk to the victim, victim is physically iso- person out Factors that might lated from others) Representing the removal as the victim’s increase one’s risk • reputation (victim is the target of gos- choice sip and ridicule) of being mobbed • occupational situation (victim is given Unrecognized, misinterpreted, ignored, include having a tolerated, encouraged, or even instigated by meaningless tasks or no work at all) management diff erent ethnicity, • physical health (victim is assigned *Some researchers limit their defi nition of mobbing to an ‘odd’ personality, dangerous tasks, threatened with bodily acts committed by >1 person or high achievement harm, or physically attacked). Source: Adapted with permission from Davenport N, Davenport et al2 distilled this list into Schwartz RD, Elliott GP. Mobbing: emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society 10 key factors of the mobbing syndrome Publishing; 1999:41 (Table 1); identifi ed 5 phases in the mob- bing process (Table 2, page 48); and de- fi ned 3 “degrees” of mobbing analogous Secondary morbidity. Victims of work- to fi rst-, second-, and third-degree burns place mobbing frequently suffer from: (Table 3, page 48). • adjustment disorders • somatic symptoms (eg, headaches or Mobbing risk factors. According to Ley- irritable bowel syndrome) mann,5 no specifi c personality factors • PTSD6,7 predispose workers to being mobbed. • major depression.8 Westhues1 and others, however, identify a In mobbing targets with PTSD, Ley- variety of social risk factors. These include mann notes that the “mental effects were any factors that make an individual differ- fully comparable with PTSD from war or ent from other members of his or her work prison camp experiences.”3 Some patients environment, such as: may develop alcoholism or other substance • different ethnicity abuse disorders. Family relationships rou- • an “odd” personality tinely suffer.9 Some targets may even de- • high achievement. velop brief psychotic episodes, generally Whistleblowers or union organizers with paranoid symptoms. also run a risk of stigmatization and mob- Leymann3 estimated that 15% of sui- bing. Organizations with unclear goals or cides in Sweden could be directly attrib- extensive recent turnover in senior leader- uted to workplace mobbing. Although no ship can be conducive to mobbing. Three other researcher has reported such a dra- industries identifi ed as at special risk for matic proportion, others have reported mobbing are academia, government, and increased risk of suicidal behavior among Current Psychiatry religious organizations.5 mobbing victims.10 Vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blame Attribution in Sexual Victimization ⇑ Carin Perilloux , Joshua D
    Personality and Individual Differences 63 (2014) 81–86 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Blame attribution in sexual victimization ⇑ Carin Perilloux , Joshua D. Duntley 1, David M. Buss University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, United States article info abstract Article history: The current study explored how victims and third-parties attribute blame and perpetrator motivation for Received 13 October 2013 actual sexual victimization experiences. Although we do not assert that victims are responsible for per- Received in revised form 24 January 2014 petrators’ behavior, we found that some victims do not allocate all blame to their perpetrator. We sought Accepted 25 January 2014 to examine how victims and third-parties allocate blame in instances of actual completed and attempted sexual victimization and how they perceived perpetrator motivations. Victims of completed rape (n = 49) and attempted sexual assault (n = 91), and third-parties who knew a victim of sexual assault (n = 152) Keywords: allocated blame across multiple targets: perpetrator, self/victim, friends, family, and the situation. Partic- Rape ipants also described their perceptions of perpetrator’s motivation for the sexual assault. Victims tended Blame Perpetrator to assign more blame to themselves than third-parties assigned to victims. Furthermore, victims per- Victim ceived perpetrators as being more sexually-motivated than third-parties did, who viewed perpetrators Sexual violence as more power-motivated. Results suggest that perceptions of rape and sexual assault significantly differ between victims and third-party individuals who have never directly experienced such a trauma. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • What Bullying Is What Bullying Can Look Like in Elementary School What Bullying Can Look Like in Junior High School
    FS-570 BulliesBullies When I was a young boy, What bullying is What bullying the bully called me names, stole my bicycle, forced With all the focus that has surrounded can look like in me off the playground. teenage gangs and gun violence, it may elementary school be easy to forget that the teenage years He made fun of me in are not the only times that children face Being a victim is the most common front of other children, violent behavior. In fact, aggressive in second grade, and the likelihood of forced me to turn over behavior and bullying are even more being bullied decreases each year after my lunch money each day, common in elementary school than in that (see Figure 1). Bullies in elementary threatened to give me junior and senior high! Some studies school are more likely to pick on children a black eye if I told suggest that around 20 percent of all younger than themselves. Bullying is adult authority figures. American children have been the victim often very physical in nature, with open At different times I was of bullying at some point in elementary attacks of aggression being the most subject to a wide range of school, and about the same number common. Boys are more likely to be degradation and abuse – have described themselves as engaging doing the bullying, but girls and boys de-pantsing, spit in my face, in some form of bullying behavior. are equally likely to be victims. forced to eat the playground Bullying can range from teasing, to dirt....To this day, their stealing lunch money, to a group of handprints, like a slap students physically abusing a classmate.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Beneath the Surface: Scapegoating and the Systems Approach in a Post-Munro World Introduction the Publication of The
    Getting beneath the surface: Scapegoating and the Systems Approach in a post-Munro world Introduction The publication of the Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report (2011) was the culmination of an extensive and expansive consultation process into the current state of child protection practice across the UK. The report focused on the recurrence of serious shortcomings in social work practice and proposed an alternative system-wide shift in perspective to address these entrenched difficulties. Inter-woven throughout the report is concern about the adverse consequences of a pervasive culture of individual blame on professional practice. The report concentrates on the need to address this by reconfiguring the organisational responses to professional errors and shortcomings through the adoption of a ‘systems approach’. Despite the pre-occupation with ‘blame’ within the report there is, surprisingly, at no point an explicit reference to the dynamics and practices of ‘scapegoating’ that are so closely associated with organisational blame cultures. Equally notable is the absence of any recognition of the reasons why the dynamics of individual blame and scapegoating are so difficult to overcome or to ‘resist’. Yet this paper argues that the persistence of scapegoating is a significant impediment to the effective implementation of a systems approach as it risks distorting understanding of what has gone wrong and therefore of how to prevent it in the future. It is hard not to agree wholeheartedly with the good intentions of the developments proposed by Munro, but equally it is imperative that a realistic perspective is retained in relation to the challenges that would be faced in rolling out this new organisational agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sociology of Gaslighting
    ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419874843American Sociological ReviewSweet 874843research-article2019 American Sociological Review 2019, Vol. 84(5) 851 –875 The Sociology of Gaslighting © American Sociological Association 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843DOI: 10.1177/0003122419874843 journals.sagepub.com/home/asr Paige L. Sweeta Abstract Gaslighting—a type of psychological abuse aimed at making victims seem or feel “crazy,” creating a “surreal” interpersonal environment—has captured public attention. Despite the popularity of the term, sociologists have ignored gaslighting, leaving it to be theorized by psychologists. However, this article argues that gaslighting is primarily a sociological rather than a psychological phenomenon. Gaslighting should be understood as rooted in social inequalities, including gender, and executed in power-laden intimate relationships. The theory developed here argues that gaslighting is consequential when perpetrators mobilize gender- based stereotypes and structural and institutional inequalities against victims to manipulate their realities. Using domestic violence as a strategic case study to identify the mechanisms via which gaslighting operates, I reveal how abusers mobilize gendered stereotypes; structural vulnerabilities related to race, nationality, and sexuality; and institutional inequalities against victims to erode their realities. These tactics are gendered in that they rely on the association of femininity with irrationality. Gaslighting offers an opportunity for sociologists to theorize under-recognized,
    [Show full text]
  • On Not Blaming and Victim Blaming
    teorema Vol. XXXIX/3, 2020, pp. 95-128 ISSN: 0210-1602 [BIBLID 0210-1602 (2020) 39:3; pp. 95-128] On Not Blaming and Victim Blaming Joel Chow Ken Q and Robert H. Wallace RESUMEN En este artículo se muestra que ser culpable por acusar a una víctima es estructu- ralmente similar a ser culpable por no acusar. Ambos fenómenos se ajustan a los perfiles tradicionales de la responsabilidad moral: la condición de conocimiento y la condición de control. Pero lo interesante es que en ellos conocimiento y control son condiciones in- terdependientes. Al tener una relación con otra persona se dispone de distintos grados de conocimiento sobre ella. A su vez, este conocimiento proporciona distintos grados de in- fluencia mutua a los sujetos de la relación. Ejemplos en los que alguien es especialmente culpable por no acusar a un amigo, a un colega cercano o a un cónyuge así lo atestiguan. La interdependencia de estas dos condiciones en las relaciones interpersonales aclara (parcialmente) por qué es moralmente malo acusar a una víctima. Se argumenta que los que acusan a las víctimas padecen una forma de miopía moral al fijarse únicamente en lo que la víctima podría hacer, por el hecho de tener algún tipo de relación con el causante del abuso, para evitar este. De manera particular, se atiende a los casos en los que la mio- pía moral se alimenta de relatos y esquemas de género jerárquicos y misóginos. PALABRAS CLAVE: responsabilidad moral, ética de la acusación, acusación a las víctimas, normas, misoginia. ABSTRACT In this paper we show that being blameworthy for not blaming and being blame- worthy for victim blaming are structurally similar.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Mobbing in the Workplace and an Overview of Adult Bullying
    1: Introduction to Mobbing in the Workplace and an Overview of Adult Bullying Workplace Bullying Clinical and Organizational Perspectives In the early 1980s, German industrial psychologist Heinz Leymann began work in Sweden, conducting studies of workers who had experienced violence on the job. Leymann’s research originally consisted of longitudinal studies of subway drivers who had accidentally run over people with their trains and of banking employees who had been robbed on the job. In the course of his research, Leymann discovered a surprising syndrome in a group that had the most severe symptoms of acute stress disorder (ASD), workers whose colleagues had ganged up on them in the workplace (Gravois, 2006). Investigating this further, Leymann studied workers in one of the major Swedish iron and steel plants. From this early work, Leymann used the term “mobbing” to refer to emotional abuse at work by one or more others. Earlier theorists such as Austrian ethnologist Konrad Lorenz and Swedish physician Peter-Paul Heinemann used the term before Leymann, but Leymann received the most recognition for it. Lorenz used “mobbing” to describe animal group behavior, such as attacks by a group of smaller animals on a single larger animal (Lorenz, 1991, in Zapf & Leymann, 1996). Heinemann borrowed this term and used it to describe the destructive behavior of children, often in a group, against a single child. This text uses the terms “mobbing” and “bullying” interchangeably; however, mobbing more often refers to bullying by more than one person and can be more subtle. Bullying more often focuses on the actions of a single person.
    [Show full text]
  • Bullying at School: Recommendations for Teachers and Parents
    Practical Recommendations and Interventions: Bullying 1 BULLYING AT SCHOOL: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHERS AND PARENTS Understand what bullying looks like. Bullying is commonly defined as the long- standing physical or psychological abuse of a student who is unable to defend himself by either an individual or group of other students. Most researchers estimate that between 14 and 20% of students in schools will experience bullying at least once during their academic career (Elinoff, Chafouleas & Sassu, 2004). Outcomes for both bullies and their victims are bleak; victims of bullying are more likely than non-victims to report physical and mental health problems, including psychosomatic complaints, and contemplate suicide. Bullies themselves are more likely to drop out of school, spend some amount of time in prison, and become abusive spouses (Elinoff, Chafouleas & Sassu, 2004). General Recommendations for Teachers and School Faculty: 1. Become familiar with the school’s definition of bullying, bullying prevention policies, and the code of conduct. This will ensure that the same policy is being enforced throughout the school. 2. If available, attend a bullying training prevention program or in-service in order to learn more about bullying and their obligations as a teacher related to this issue. 3. Clearly explain to your class what behavior you consider to be bullying. Establish clear rules against bullying and define both desirable and unacceptable behavior. 4. Educate students on certain issues related to bullying. Specifically, raise awareness by providing students with information about different participant roles and group mechanisms involved in bullying. Also, emphasize that certain beliefs about bullying are false, such as the belief that bullied students are at least partly to blame for their victimization, that bullying makes the victims tougher, and that teasing is simply done “in fun.” 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty Toward Cats: Changing Perspectives
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 2005 Cruelty Toward Cats: Changing Perspectives Randall Lockwood American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/sota_2005 Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons Recommended Citation Lockwood, R. (2005). Cruelty toward cats: Changing perspectives. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals III: 2005 (pp. 15-26). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cruelty toward Cats: Changing Perspectives 2CHAPTER Randall Lockwood Some of this content appears in L. Sinclair and R. Lockwood, “Cruelty Towards Cats” (in Consultations in Feline Internal Medicine, 5h ed., ed. J.R. August. 2005. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc.). f all the species that have (from 1567 B.C.), paintings and of Herodotus, about 450 B.C. He been domesticated, cats statues of cats became increasingly describes his visit to the temples in Ohave historically been sub- common in Egypt (Beadle 1977). Bubastis and the various practices jected to the widest diversity of Recently, remains of a cat found surrounding the cult, including treatment by humans. They have buried in association with a human the harsh penalties for injuring or been worshipped as gods and at a site in Cyprus were dated to killing cats (Clutton-Brock 1993, reviled as devils, coddled and pam- approximately 7500 B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Victim Blaming & Question Formulation
    Victim Blaming & Question Formulation What is victim blaming? Victim-blaming can be defined as holding the belief or expressing one’s opinion that the person who is alleging they were sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, or victimized in an intimate relationship, was in some way responsible for what happened. Victim-blaming can be both obvious and subtle. Examples of obvious victim-blaming are expressing one’s opinion that a woman would not have been sexually harassed or assaulted had she not been wearing the clothes she was wearing and drinking alcohol. Subtle victim-blaming can occur in the way questions are asked of a person who has been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or victimized. Why does victim blaming exist? Victim blaming is often tied to myths people hold about sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based harassment, stalking and intimate partner violence. Some people may hold misconceptions about victims, offender and the nature of violent acts. For example, some people may believe that in order for someone to be a victim of sexual assault that some sort of struggle must have ensued during the incident. Being aware of the myths associated with misconduct, particularly gender-based harassment and violence, is an important step in understanding if a question might be victim blaming. In addition, some victims receive more sympathy in society than others. For example, men or women who are victims of random acts of violence by an unknown offender are often granted more sympathy than victims who knew their offender. Additionally, it is theorized that victim blaming occurs as a way to protect the feelings people may have about their own vulnerability.
    [Show full text]
  • Workplace Bullying: What Everyone Needs to Know August 2006 Report # 87-1-2006
    Workplace Bullying: What Everyone Needs to Know August 2006 Report # 87-1-2006 WHAT IS WORKPLACE BULLYING AND Many bullying situations involve employees WHO IS AFFECTED? bullying their peers, rather than a supervisor bullying an employee. Workplace bullying refers to repeated, unreasonable actions of individuals (or a group) One study from the National Institute of directed towards an employee (or a group of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found employees), which is intended to intimidate and that a quarter of the 516 private and public creates a risk to the health and safety of the companies studied reported some occurrence of employee(s). bullying in the preceding year. Workplace bullying often involves an abuse or misuse of power. Bullying includes behavior that intimidates, degrades, offends, or humiliates a Examples of bullying: worker, often in front of others. Bullying • Unwarranted or invalid criticism behavior creates feelings of defenselessness in the target and undermines an individual’s right to • Blame without factual justification dignity at work. • Being treated differently than the rest of your work group Bullying is different from aggression. Whereas • Being sworn at aggression may involve a single act, bullying involves repeated attacks against the target, • Exclusion or social isolation creating an on-going pattern of behavior. • Being shouted at or being humiliated “Tough” or “demanding” bosses are not necessarily bullies, as long as their primary • Being the target of practical jokes motivation is to obtain the best performance by • Excessive monitoring setting high expectations. WHAT IS CORPORATE/INSTITUTIONAL BULLYING? Corporate/institutional bullying occurs when bullying is entrenched in an organization and becomes accepted as part of the workplace culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Victimology
    CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Victimology What Is Victimology? The term victimology is not new. In fact, Benjamin Mendelsohn first used it in 1947 to describe the scientific study of crime victims. Victimology is often considered a subfield of criminology, and the two fields do share much in com- mon. Just as criminology is the study of criminals—what they do, why they do it, and how the criminal justice system responds to them—victimology is the study of victims. Victimology, then, is the study of the etiology (or causes) of victimization, its consequences, how the criminal justice system accommodates and assists victims, and how other elements of society, such as the media, deal with crime victims. Victimology is a science; vi ctimologists use the scientific method to answer questions about victims. For example, instead of simply wondering or hypothesizing why younger people are more likely to be victims than are older people, victimologists conduct research to attempt to identify the reasons why younger people seem more vulnerable. The History of Victimology: Before the Victims’ Rights Movement As previously mentioned, the term victimology was coined in the mid-1900s. Crime was, of course, occurring prior to this time; thus, people were being victimized long before the scientific study of crime victims began. Even though they were not scientifically studied, victims were recognized as being harmed by crime, and their role in the criminal justice process has evolved over time. Before and throughout the Middle Ages (about the 5th through the 16th century), the burden of the justice system, informal as it was, fell on the victim.
    [Show full text]
  • El Tipo Penal De Mobbing En El Código Penal
    EL TIPO PENAL DE MOBBING EN EL CÓDIGO PENAL CARMEN SOTO SUAREZ Licenciada en Derecho. Licenciada en Criminología. Técnico Superior en PRL de las Tres Especialidades RESUMEN La integridad moral es el derecho de toda persona, por el hecho de serlo, a desarrollarse como tal, libremente y en sociedad, derecho que debe ser protegido frente a comportamientos que la humillen, degraden y estigmaticen, entre otros ámbitos, en el laboral. Mediante la LO 5/2012, de 22 de junio, por la que se modifica la LO 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal, se creó el nuevo delito de Acoso Laboral del artículo 173 CP, sin embargo, este tipo penal es insuficiente ante la variedad de conductas constitutivas de mobbing. Las formas de acoso laboral, solo dependen de la imaginación del acosador, y de su interés en causar sufrimiento. PALABRAS CLAVE Acoso. Intimidación. Mobbing. Violencia psicológica. Violencia física. Acoso sexual. Mobbing inmobiliario. 1 SUMARIO I. INTRODUCCIÓN. LA JURISPRUDENCIA. II. EL TIPO PENAL DE ACOSO LABORAL. III.SUJETO ACTIVO. IV. NECESIDAD DE TIPIFICACIÓN EXPRESA DEL ACOSO LABORAL EN EL ART. 173 DEL CÓDIGO PENAL. DOCTRINA Y JURISPRUDENCIA. V. COMISIÓN POR OMISIÓN. VI. FORMAS DE ACOSO LABORAL. 1- Bossing. 2- Mobbing horizontal. 3-Mobbing ascendente. 4-Mobbing maternal. 5-Violencia en el lugar de trabajo. 6-Síndrome del “chivo expiatorio”. 7-Acoso sexual. 8- Bullying. 9- Ciberbullyin. 10- Network mobbing. 11-Acoso Mediatico. 12-Stalking. 13- Peer Rejection. 14- Gaslighting. 15- Mobbing pasivo (agresión pasiva). 16-Cumplimiento malicioso. 17-Agresión Relacional/Agresión encubierta (Covert aggression). 18-Rankism. 19- Control Freak. 20- Shunting.
    [Show full text]