Journal of the International Ombudsman Association Keashly Some Things You Need to Know but may have been Afraid to Ask: A Researcher Speaks to Ombudsmen about Workplace Bullying LORALE IGH KEASHLY ABSTRACT In the early 1990’s, I became interested in understand- ing persistent and enduring hostility at work. That Workplace bullying is repeated and prolonged hostile interest was spurred by a colleague’s experience at mistreatment of one or more people at work. It has the hands of her director. He yelled and screamed tremendous potential to escalate, drawing in others at her (and others), accusing her of not completing beyond the initial actor-target relationship. Its effects assignments, which she actually had. He lied about can be devastating and widespread individually, her and other subordinates. He would deliberately organizationally and beyond. It is fundamentally a avoid when staff needed his input and then berate systemic phenomenon grounded in the organization’s them for not consulting with him. At other times, he culture. In this article, I identify from my perspective was thoughtful, apologetic, and even constructive. My as a researcher and professional in this area current colleague felt like she was walking on eggshells, never thinking and research findings that may be useful for sure how he would be. Her coworkers had similar ombudsmen in their deliberations and investigations experiences and the group developed ways of coping as well as in their intervention and management of and handling it. For example, his secretary would these hostile behaviors and relationships. warn staff when it was not a good idea to speak with him. And yet his behavior took its toll on all of them. KEYWORDS She called asking for my advice as a dispute resolu- tion person. I gave her some ideas, all things it turned Ombudsmen, workplace bullying, workplace out she had tried already. So like any good academic, aggression I went to the literature to find out what was there. At that time, there was very little about what I had come to view as emotionally abusive behavior as described ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in the domestic violence literature. I undertook some The author is grateful to the three anonymous review- research to see if emotional abuse was a workplace ers for their comments and suggestions. The author phenomenon (Keashly, Trott & MacLean, 1994; Keash- is also grateful to Joel Neuman for his thorough and ly, Harvey & Hunter, 1997). Unfortunately, I discovered insightful review of an earlier draft of this manuscript that it was. As I broadened my search in terms of dis- ciplines and countries, I came across other constructs like bullying (Adams, 1992; Einarsen, 1999; Rayner & Hoel, 1997), mobbing (Leymann, 1996; Zapf & Ein- arsen, 2003), harassment (Brodsky, 1976) and abusive treatment (Bassman, 1992) that in essence described the same phenomenon: systematic and prolonged mistreatment of others at work (Keashly, 1998). volume 3, number 2, 2010 10 Journal of the International Ombudsman Association Keashly Since that time, there has been a virtual explosion of WORKPLACE BULLYING: research in these areas and the addition of related THE NATURE OF THE BEAST constructs and terms such as workplace harassment Workplace bullying is a special case of work- (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), abusive supervision, (Tepper, place aggression. Workplace aggression refers to 2000), social undermining (Duffy et al, 2002), incivility efforts by individuals to harm others with whom they (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Gill & Sypher, 2009;), in- work (Neuman & Baron, 1997). Before addressing terpersonal mistreatment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Price- workplace bullying’s unique features, it is important Spratlen, 1995), ostracism (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, to discuss aggressive behaviors more generally. I 2008), emotional tyranny (Waldron, 2009), workplace never cease to be amazed at the range and type of victimization (Aquino & Thau, 2009), and disruptive behaviors that fall within this domain. To more com- practitioner behavior (Joint Commission, 2008) . As pletely map out this behavioral space, Neuman and exciting as this is, I believe it has become confusing Baron (1997) utilized Buss’s (1961) approach of three because it is hard to wrap one’s arms around this area dimensions to define the space. The dimensions are: when the terms and their associated definitions mul- tiply. Thus, it is hard to understand this phenomenon 1) physical (deeds) — verbal (words, tone); and therefore how to address it. Fortunately, several 2) active (doing a behavior) — passive (withhold- very good reviews of the literature that have come ing or “failures to do”); and out that can be helpful in summarizing research on 3) direct (at the target) — indirect (at something these constructs (e.g., Aquino & Thau, 2009; Einarsen, or someone the target values). Hoel, & Zapf, 2010; Griffin & Lopez, 2005; Hershcovis & Barling, 2007; Kelloway, Barling, & Hurrell, 2006; This approach describes the “methods of attack”. Martinko, Douglas & Harvey, 2006; Tepper, 2007) The While much research (e.g. VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996; challenge is there are so many of those reviews that Kelloway, Barling & Hurrell, 2006) and public attention the construct proliferation and its accompanying has been paid to physical, active and direct behaviors confusion continues. For professionals who are faced such as shootings and assaults, i.e., physical violence, with addressing these persistently hostile behaviors Neuman and Baron’s (1997) work and that of others and relationships, it is often difficult to know where (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams & Langhout, 2001; to begin and what to include. Also, the profession- Keashly & Neuman, 2004; Rayner, Hoel & Cooper; als’ timeframe is often such that there is little time to 2002; Richman, Rospenda, Nawyn, Flaherty, Fendrich, distill the essence of what is known and not known Drum & Johnson, 1999; Schat, Frone & Kelloway, from the empirical research literature. In this article, 2006) have demonstrated that the more frequent I will identify from my perspective as a researcher kinds of behaviors in workplaces, particularly among and professional in this area, the current thinking organizational insiders, are often passive, indirect and findings that may be useful for ombudsmen in and nonphysical. These types of behaviors have been their deliberations and investigations as well as their labeled as psychological aggression. For example, management of these hostile behaviors and relation- in their representative survey of American workers, ships with appropriate and timely interventions. To Schat, Frone and Kelloway (2006) found the 41% of accomplish this, using the term workplace bullying, workers report experiencing psychologically aggres- I will discuss what is known about the nature, preva- sive behavior at work while 6% experienced physical lence and effects of these hostile relationships as well aggression. Workplace bullying actions are predomi- as current thinking on antecedents and processes of nantly psychologically aggressive (Keashly, 1998). development. Throughout this discussion, I will note Rayner and Hoel’s (1997) categorization of bullying the implications of different findings for the work of behaviors provides a concise illustration of specific ombudsmen as they investigate and address work- behaviors. This is not a comprehensive listing of all place bullying. I will end this paper with a brief discus- possible behaviors but it will give an idea of ways in sion of the value of taking a contingency perspective which bullying can be conducted. on the development and implementation of interven- tions for the prevention and management of bullying. volume 3, number 2, 2010 11 Journal of the International Ombudsman Association Keashly 1. Threat to Professional Status: Questioning relationships. Thus, behaviors falling under threats to competence, belittling opinion, professional personal and professional standing as well as isolation humiliation in front of colleagues, negative com- are more likely under their control. Subordinates, due ments about intelligence, questioning a person’s to their less powerful organizational position, may ability to supervisors; spreading rumors or gossip. engage in more indirect kinds of behaviors such as These are primarily active behaviors. rumors or gossip or withholding of information. These 2. Threat to Personal Standing. Name-calling, examples of actor means and opportunity illustrate insults, verbal abuse, tantrums, intimidating be- that bullying is not limited to one type of relationship. haviors, devaluing with reference to age, gender, Indeed, bullying can be top-down (boss-subordinate), race/ethnicity or appearance, hostile gestures. horizontal (peer-peer) or bottom-up (subordinate- These are predominantly active behaviors boss) (Rayner & Keashly, 2005). Thus, workplace bullying is considered to be relational in nature — 3. Isolation. Exclusion from work-related gather- harming others through purposeful manipulation ings, silent treatment, withholding information, and damage of relationships. This is important for ignoring contributions, not taking concerns ombudsmen to know as it requires that the relational seriously, preventing access to opportunities or context of the experience be assessed. Thus, investi- promotion, poisoning others against the target. gations will need to involve at the very least assess- These behaviors tend to be passive in nature. ment of target and actor and consideration of the 4. Overwork / Unreal Expectations.