essay on bullying in the workplace

The Impact of Workplace Bullying Analytical Essay

Introduction, impact of workplace bullying on victims and the organization.

Bullying is one of the most common vices manifested in workplaces. Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), explains it as a practice through which employees subject colleagues to patterns of psychological, physical, or collective behavior that compromise dignity, cause harm, or lead to various forms of threats (Wiedmer, 2010). Statistics indicate that 37% of the working population in the United States has been bullied at one point in their workplaces.

This behavior is prevalent among bosses who often look down on their juniors. Men constitute the highest number of bullies compared to women. Workplace bullies mainly target colleagues who pose potential threat to their careers due to their skills, work experience, and contributions towards the overall organizational success.

Employers have an ethical responsibility to ensure that they provide secure and inclusive work environments that allow employees to achieve maximum productivity (Wiedmer, 2010). This is attained through the development of effective policies and practices that govern employee behavior within the workplace. Workplace bullying has direct impact on victims and organizations.

The negative impacts of bullying in the workplace develop as a result of ignorance among employees regarding the vice, unreported cases, as well as the negligence of organizational leaders (Baack, 2011). Since there are various forms of workplace bullying, employees react differently whenever they are victimized.

The most notable outcomes of workplace bullying include impaired decision making, low self esteem, depression, reduced quality of life, stress, low productivity, as well as suicide in extreme cases. Reduced quality of life is exprienced when victims of bullying succumb to pressure and ultimately quit their jobs. Loss of jobs results in loss of medical cover and inability to sustain their families (Wiedmer, 2010).

Workplace bullying also impacts the organization heavily. Employers who fail to provide a secure workplace deal with various challenges related to unethical practices, such as bullying in their workforce.

Some of the negative outcomes experienced by organizations include increased costs of operation due to compensation claims, high levels of absenteeism, low employee morale, bad publicity, and reduced performance (Baack, 2011). Others include reduced efficiency in service provision, as well as increased expenses from recruitment and selection of employees.

Bullying in the workplace happens on a regular basis because people are involved in numerous activities that are not acceptable in the workplace. Culprits often resort to bullying in order to secure their interests and integrity, as well as to protect themselves (Lavan & Martin, 2008). I work as a United States Marine and an administrator. I have experienced a number of bullying practices in my workplace.

In certain cases, I was the victim. The first case of bullying occurred while working as an administrator with the United States Marine. My duties and responsibilities were very clear, and I worked diligently to ensure that everything was in place as expected (Wiedmer, 2010).

However, a slight collision with one of my seniors resulted in the emergence of an unhealthy working relationship between us. My senior stamped his authority over me by overly increasing my administrative responsibilities and simultaneously reducing my influence, which was not in line with contractual terms and conditions.

The second case of bullying that I have witnessed in my workplace involves the denial of rest for the employee by the senior management (Wiedmer, 2010). All United States marine officers sign contracts that allow them to take a short leave, at least three times a year. The senior management has been using the excuse of too much workload to deny employees their contractual rights and privileges.

This has greatly affected efficiency of service delivery, productivity, and organizational culture because employees lacked the morale to do their work. Working in the United States Marine is very demanding, thus there is a need to ensure that all employees enjoy their benefits to the maximum.

Employers have a responsibility to ensure that their workplaces are free of vices such as bullying. It is important for organizational leaders to understand that achieving this feat requires a lot of attention with regard to time, resources, and creation of the right atmosphere for change (Lavan & Martin, 2008).

Organizational leaders can apply a number of techniques to eradicate workplace bullying. First, I would recommend that organizational leaders establish causes and factors that promote the practice, and establish how employees feel about the problem. This would aid in the eradication of factors that encourage propagation of the vice. Bullying can be eradicated through fostering effective communication.

Secondly, I would recommend the identification of available resources and solutions to the problem from within the organization. This would entail the creation of awareness among the employees regarding the importance of teamwork and mutual respect. In addition, it would involve propagation of a culture of working together in order to develop and approve policies for eliminating the vice (Lavan & Martin, 2008).

Bullying is one of the barriers that hinder individual and organizational success within the workplace. The vice has a negative impact on victims, as well as employers. It is the responsibility of every employer to ensure that they provide their employees with a safe and inclusive work environment that motivates them to work and allows them freedom of expression. Organizational leaders must ensure that bullies within the workplace are not protected regardless of their status in the organization.

Baack, D. (2011). Management Communication . New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lavan, H., & Martin, W. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. Workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83 , 147-165.

Wiedmer, T. (2010). Workplace bullying: costly and preventable. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77 (2), 35-41.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 22). The Impact of Workplace Bullying. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-workplace-bullying/

"The Impact of Workplace Bullying." IvyPanda , 22 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-workplace-bullying/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Impact of Workplace Bullying'. 22 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Impact of Workplace Bullying." December 22, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-workplace-bullying/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Impact of Workplace Bullying." December 22, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-workplace-bullying/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Impact of Workplace Bullying." December 22, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-workplace-bullying/.

• Workplace Bullies Are Flawed Personalities
• Character Traits of Bullying
• Light Propagation Through Stratified Medium
• Bullying, Facts and Countermeasures
• The Problem of Bullying
• Bullying: History and Mechanisms for Prevention
• Bullying as a Relational Aggression
• Nature of Bullying
• How to Reduce Bullying in Senior Facilities
• Workplace Bullying and Its Impact on Performance
• Social World Conflicts and Its Resolution Styles
• How Internet Communication Helps Graphic Designers to Spread Their Art Works to the World
• Communication Skills in Management
• Drive In Business Communication
• A Day in My Office Without Internet and New Social Media Technologies in My Workplace

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Confront a Bully at Work

• Savvas Trichas

Build a strong network of alliances to support you.

Early career professionals are more prone to bullying than their senior colleagues. Research shows that power imbalances between experienced and newer workers can create an authority gap that has the potential to generate abusive and intimidating behaviors from those who have higher status. If you’re a young professional dealing with bullying at work, how do you navigate the situation and guard yourself?

• Become a bee: Start by finding your sting — a visible way to defend yourself from bullying behavior. For instance, make it known that you are someone who follows rules and procedures. Playing by the book can give you a sense of security, help you stay on track, and give bullies less weaknesses to exploit.
• Don’t let your emotions overpower your reaction: Put aside your anger, frustration, and the urge to snap back. If you react instinctively, guided by your negative emotions, you may end up increasing the conflict, reducing mutual gain, and damaging any chances of future collaboration.
• Build golden bridges: As soon as you realize you are getting in an office battle zone, start gathering evidence to block all exits besides the one you consider fair. Ask yourself,  “How do I make it easier for the bully to reach the decision that I want them to get to?” This can be an excellent way to inhibit workplace intimidation before following the official path.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Whether it’s a difficult boss, an antagonistic coworker, or a disrespectful client, bullies exist in every area of the workplace. Professionals in the earliest stages of their careers know this better than anyone.

• ST Savvas Trichas, PhD is a keynote speaker who combines cutting edge research with instruction creating motivational moments with practical value. He is a 3-times TEDx speaker and has collaborated with several prestigious universities and organizations such as Stanford University, the University of Durham, the Ministry of Education and Culture, The Million Dollar Round Table, and the Association of Cyprus Banks. He is also associated with the FBI National Academy Associates Cyprus Police where he serves as a guest lecturer under the topics of management, communication, and deception detection.

Partner Center

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Signs and Effects of Workplace Bullying

Sherri Gordon, CLC is a published author, certified professional life coach, and bullying prevention expert. She's also the former editor of Columbus Parent and has countless years of experience writing and researching health and social issues.

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

Gpointstudio/Image Source/Getty Images

• What Employers Can Do

Frequently Asked Questions

Workplace bullying is persistent mistreatment that occurs in the workplace. It can include behaviors such as verbal criticism, personal attacks, humiliation, belittling, and exclusion. It's important to note that anyone can be a bully or be bullied, regardless of the role they have in the workplace.

Unfortunately, bullying in the workplace is far from uncommon. According to a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, 30% of workers have directly experienced bullying while at work. People who work remotely were more likely to report such bullying, with 43.2% responding that they had been bullied on the job.  

Workplace bullying hurts the health and well-being of employees. It can also damage workplace productivity and performance. "Bullying's pernicious nature creates long-lasting scars that have an effect on the victim's sense of self-worth, self-assurance, and general mental health," says Azizi Marshall, LCPC , a licensed clinical professional counselor and founder of the Mental Health at Work Summit and Center for Creative Arts Therapy.

This article discusses some of the signs and effects of workplace bullying. It also covers its impact on the workplace and what people can do to help prevent this type of behavior.

Signs of Workplace Bullying

If you're a target of bullies in the workplace, you probably start each week with a pit of anxiety in your stomach. Then, you count down the days until the weekend or next vacation. Inappropriate behavior by adult bullies may include:

• Berating people
• Coercing people to do things they don't want to do
• Dismissing someone's efforts
• Embarrassing people in front of their employer, co-workers, or clients
• Excluding others
• Intimidating people
• Lying to others
• Making snide remarks
• Minimizing others' concerns
• Taking credit for other people's work
• Threatening others
• Criticizing others unfairly

Workplace bullying is not always overt or openly hostile. It can also take more subtle forms, including gaslighting , where the bully engages in abusive behaviors but then denies the abuse. The goal of gaslighting is to make the victim of bullying doubt their reality and experiences.

Subtle workplace bullying can hide in plain sight, but recognizing its more subtle signs can empower individuals to reclaim their worth.

According to Marshall, some of these more subtle types of workplace bullying can include:

• Deliberately excluding people from conversations, decision-making, or work-related events
• Purposely ignoring, disregarding, or avoiding someone, such as by "forgetting" to invite them to work meetings
• Concealing or distorting information to achieve personal goals
• Feigning ignorance, changing the subject, or canceling meetings to divert attention from an issue
• Emotionally manipulating people by using shame or guilt to cause feelings of inadequacy, undue responsibility, or unworthiness
• Undermining someone's work to hamper their progress or ability to succeed
• Pitting people against one another to create a competitive, divisive environment
• Changing someone's responsibilities to disrupt their work and interfere with their sense of purpose
• Creating unrealistic or unattainable expectations or constantly shifting expectations to ensure failure
• Unfairly criticizing people's work to hurt the other person's self-esteem

Effects of Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying can have a range of negative effects. Research on bullying in the workplace quantifies the personal consequences for the victim and the fiscal consequences that affect the company's bottom line.

Health Risks

The effects of workplace bullying don't end when you leave the office. Experiencing bullying can cause physical and psychological health problems, including high blood pressure, mood changes, panic attacks, stress , and ulcers.

People who are bullied at work may also experience physical symptoms such as headaches, muscle tension, and changes in appetite. Bullying can impact sleep quality and duration as well.

Workplace bullying can contribute to increased stress, low self-esteem , and feelings of anxiety and depression. "One's sense of security is undermined by ongoing unpleasant interactions, which can cause anxiety, tension, and even melancholy," Marshall says.

Researchers have found that the coworkers of those who are bullied also experience negative effects, even when they themselves are not bullied. One study showed that victims of bullying and those who witness it are more likely to receive a prescription for psychotropic medications such as antidepressants, tranquilizers, and sleeping pills.

Bullying in the workplace can increase the risk of negative physical health effects and lead to decreased mental well-being for both the victims of bullying and their co-workers.

Effect on Job Performance

"Bullying at work has a negative impact on a person's ability to do their job. Due to the mental discomfort brought on by the bullying, victims frequently exhibit decreased productivity, increased absenteeism, and difficulties concentrating," explains Marshall.

Bullied workers cannot perform their jobs to the best of their ability. Performance issues include:

• Inability to work or concentrate
• Loss of self-esteem
• Trouble making decisions
• Lower productivity

Bullied workers not only lose motivation, they lose time because they are preoccupied with:

• Avoiding the bully
• Networking for support
• Making plans to deal with the situation
• Ruminating about the situation
• Trying to defend themselves

Targets of bullying feel a sense of isolation.  Workplace bullying can leave the victim so traumatized that they feel powerless, disoriented, confused and helpless.

Changes in the Workplace

Workplace bullying has detrimental effects on employers, not just the victim and their co-workers who witness it. In addition to disrupting the work environment and impacting worker morale, it can also:

• Create a hostile work environment
• Impact workers compensation claims
• Promote absenteeism
• Reduce productivity
• Result in costly, and possibly embarrassing legal issues​

Other effects on the employer include:

• Additional costs to recruit and train new employees
• Erosion of employee loyalty and commitment
• Increased use of sick leave, health care claims, and staff turnover
• Increased risk of legal action
• Poor public image and negative publicity

Coping With Bullying in the Workplace

"To effectively respond to workplace bullying, it’s important to adopt an assertive and direct approach. Confronting the issue head-on and establishing clear consequences for unacceptable behavior is a must," explains Avigail Lev, PsyD , founder and director of the Bay Area CBT Center.

If you are being bullied at work, there are strategies that you can use to cope. Being proactive may help you feel better.

Set Boundaries

When a bully engages in abusive behavior, tell them what they have done and that it is unacceptable. Let them know that their behavior will not be tolerated and that if it occurs again, you will take action. Setting boundaries lets others know what type of behavior you are willing to accept. 

Marshall says that setting these boundaries to establish what is acceptable and improper can help you defend your rights and protect against future abuse.

Confront the Behavior

Once you establish a boundary, following through with the consequences is essential. Marshall suggests always remaining professional, avoiding retaliation, and utilizing "I" statements to assertively voice your concerns and address the specific behaviors that upset you.

If the abuse continues, call out the behavior the next time it happens. Ask them to leave until they can behave in a professional, work-appropriate manner. 

Therapist-Recommended Strategies

Other strategies that Lev recommends to cope with workplace bullying include:

• Detached empathy : It can be helpful to detach yourself emotionally from the other person's actions while maintaining a certain level of empathy. According to Lev, this allows people to become less reactive while staying grounded.
• Reverse DARVO: This self-defense strategy can be utilized to combat manipulation. "This involves recognizing and challenging the Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender tactics employed by the bully. It stands for Detach, Assert, Validate, and Observe. This helps people cultivate detached empathy and helps them stay non-reactive," Lev explains.
• The BIFF technique : BIFF stands for Brief, Informative, Friendly, and Firm. Lev suggests it can be an effective way to cope with gaslighting in the workplace. "When confronted with gaslighting, responding in a BIFF manner involves keeping interactions brief and to the point, providing factual information without engaging in lengthy debates, maintaining a friendly tone, and asserting your position firmly," she explains.

Keep Track of the Abuse

Whenever you feel that you have been bullied at work, document the details including the time and exactly what happened. Write down any witnesses who were present and save any documents or records that can corroborate the abuse.

Talk to Management or Human Resources

If you've tried resolving the bullying on your own without success, it is time to involve your employer. Check with your workplace employee handbook to learn more about what steps you will need to take to file a complaint.

Marshall notes, however, that not all companies are great at addressing bullying. In such instances, it may be helpful to get outside assistance from legal counsel or an employee assistance program.

Care for Yourself

In addition to taking decisive action to protect yourself from bullying, it is also important to take steps to care for yourself. Seek out social support , practice relaxation strategies for stress, and consider talking to a mental health professional if you are experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, or distress.

Creating boundaries and directly confronting the behavior are two strategies that may stop bullies from targeting you. Recording and reporting the bullying is also important. You can also help care for yourself by seeking social support and talking to a therapist.

What Can Employers Do?

It's always in your best interest to confront workplace bullying and maintain a bullying-free workplace because prevention is more cost-effective than intervention or mediation. It's also the right thing to do if you care about your employees.

Workplaces can safeguard their employees' mental health and provide a pleasant and productive atmosphere for all by developing rules and procedures that condemn bullying, offering assistance options, and encouraging open communication.

Employers must offer education opportunities for managers, supervisors, and other authority figures, because the majority of workplace bullying comes from bosses. Strive to create a workplace environment that cultivates teamwork, cooperation, and positive interaction instead.

Employers should also take steps to reduce bullying in the workplace. Educate employees and managers about bullying and outline steps that workers can take if they are experiencing abuse in the workplace.

Workplace bullying can be openly hostile at times, but it can also take more subtle forms. In either case, it can take a serious toll on employee well-being and productivity. It is important to be able to recognize the signs of workplace bullying so that you can take action to protect yourself. Organizations can also take steps to reduce bullying, including helping employees learn how to respond when they witness someone being bullied at work.

Calling out the behavior and making it clear that it will not be tolerated are important actions, but it is also critical to care for yourself outside of the workplace. Talk to friends and loved ones, spend time doing things you enjoy, and look for ways to help relax. Talking to a therapist can also be helpful.

Check your employee handbook to see if it describes steps you should take to report bullying. This may involve talking to your manager or reporting the behavior to human resources (HR) so they can investigate. If your manager is the one engaging in bullying, you might need to report the behavior to HR or to someone who is a position higher up the chain of command.

Workplace bullying can involve a range of damaging actions that can involve verbal, nonverbal, psychological, or physical abuse. Examples can include threats, humiliation, excessive monitoring, unjustified criticism, intentionally lying about work duties, and intimidation.

Employers can help prevent bullying by making it a priority to create a supportive workplace and refusing to tolerate bullying behaviors. Co-workers can help by being supportive and speaking up if they witness abuse in the workplace.

Wu M, He Q, Imran M, Fu J. Workplace bullying, anxiety, and job performance: choosing between "passive resistance" or "swallowing the insult"? .  Front Psychol . 2020;10:2953. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02953

Workplace Bullying Institute. 2021 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey .

Nielsen MB, Magerøy N, Gjerstad J, Einarsen S. Workplace bullying and subsequent health problems . Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen . 2014;134(12-13):1233-1238. doi:10.4045/tidsskr.13.0880

Glambek M, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Take it or leave: a five-year prospective study of workplace bullying and indicators of expulsion in working life .  Ind Health . 2015;53(2):160–170. doi:10.2486/indhealth.2014-0195

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Bullying in the workplace .

Lallukka T, Haukka J, Partonen T, Rahkonen O, Lahelma E. Workplace bullying and subsequent psychotropic medication: a cohort study with register linkages . BMJ Open . 2012;2(6). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001660

Robert F. Impact of workplace bullying on job performance and job stress .  J Manag Info . 2018;5(3):12-15. doi:10.31580/jmi.v5i3.123

Einarsen S, Skogstad A, Rørvik E, Lande ÅB, Nielsen MB. Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis .  Int J Hum Resour Manag . 2016;29(3):549-570. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

By Sherri Gordon Sherri Gordon, CLC is a published author, certified professional life coach, and bullying prevention expert. She's also the former editor of Columbus Parent and has countless years of experience writing and researching health and social issues.

Workplace Bullying: 24 Examples & Ideas to Support Adults

According to Dr. Gary Namie (2021), workplace bullying is the only form of abuse in the United States that is not yet taboo. Because it is legal, it remains invisible.

The US Workplace Bullying Survey (Namie, 2017) states that 19% of Americans have experienced abusive conduct at work and another 19% have been witnesses. A whopping 63% are aware that bullying in the workplace occurs.

In this article, we define workplace bullying and share approaches on what can be done about it.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Work & Career Coaching Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify opportunities for professional growth and create a more meaningful career.

This Article Contains:

Bullying and harassment in the workplace, 21 examples of bullying at work, how to foster a safe work environment, anti-bullying policies in the workplace, supporting your employees: best guidelines, 3 ideas and activities for adults, training in anti-bullying interventions, 3 best books on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

One thing we know about workplace bullying is that it is eerily similar to school bullying and domestic violence (Kohut, 2008).

Bullying in the workplace is a sublethal and nonphysical form of psychological violence . Namie and Namie (2009) state several criteria must exist for negative behavior to be considered bullying, including a pattern of repeated behavior and health-harming mistreatment of an employee by one or more coworkers that prevents the target from accomplishing work tasks.

Mistreatment can take the form of threatening conduct, including verbal abuse, intimidation, humiliation, or sabotage. Specifically, behaviors might include being ridiculed in front of others, being lied about, continually being left out, and receiving repeated criticism without just cause (Kohut, 2008). These aggressions can leave employees feeling on guard, anxious, intimidated, fearful, powerless, incompetent, and ashamed (Kohut, 2008).

Harassment, on the other hand, violates a target’s civil rights and occurs when the target is a member of a protected status group. In the United States, there are seven protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation (Cotterell, 2018).

According to Namie and Namie (2009, p. 299), illegal harassment is status based, whereas “Bullying cuts across boundaries of status group membership.” In other words, “bullying happens when harassment is same-gender or same-race or when the bully enjoys potential legal protection because he or she is a member of a status-protected group” (Namie & Namie, 2009, p. 299).

Workplace torment is complicated, insidious, and ubiquitous.

• Profane, threatening, or disrespectful language or any form of verbal abuse.
• Degrading or demeaning remarks that might include insults or name calling.
• Harsh criticism in the presence of other employees.
• Comments that have a negative effect on work performance.
• Behavior that diminishes psychological safety , such as withholding vital job-related information, refusing to answer questions, or refusing to assist when requested.
• Routinely making unfavorable or unreasonable assignments.
• Retaliation against a whistleblower.
• Using position or authority to talk down to or demean another.
• Deliberate exclusion of individuals from meetings or activities they should be attending.
• Shunning, excluding, marginalizing, or using the silent treatment.
• Personal attacks or threatening comments.
• Setting someone up to fail.
• Not providing important assignment-related information.
• Racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, or religious slurs.
• Circulating private correspondence (emails, messages, texts) without permission.
• Rude nonverbal behaviors and/or gestures (e.g., eye rolling, snickering, finger pointing, staring).
• Taking credit for the work of another.
• Gossip mongering or rumor spreading.
• Interrupting.
• Telling personal jokes about a coworker (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
• Forms of manipulation (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).

Indicators of being bullied

Namie and Namie (2009) include some signs that the target may be experiencing bullying:

• Feeling ill at the start of the work week.
• Loved one’s request that they stop obsessing about work.
• Favorite activities with friends and family no longer appeal to them.
• Days off are spent exhausted and lifeless.
• Others in the workplace have been told to stop associating with them.
• Constant agitation and anxiety.
• Being accused of incompetence, despite an excellent history.
• A transfer request mysteriously being denied.

How can we protect employees from uncivil workplace behavior?

17 More Work & Career Coaching Exercises

These 17 Work & Career Coaching Exercises [PDF] contain everything you need to help others find more meaning and satisfaction in their work.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Although the United States is slowly waking up, it lags behind European countries when it comes to addressing workplace bullying (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott, 1999). In this endeavor, Salin et al. (2020) provide ideas for creating a safe work environment.

1. Redesigning the work environment

Reducing role ambiguity and providing opportunities for increased control and latitudinal decision-making can help reduce bullying and manage high-stress jobs. All of these factors have been correlated with workplace bullying (Salin et al., 2020).

2. Institute effective conflict management/resolution systems

Salin et al. (2020) identified interpersonal conflict as one cause of bullying. Developing a system for addressing conflict in relationships and problem-solving in the workplace can lead to a reduction in bullying issues (Salin et al., 2020). Leadership and emotional intelligence training can focus on improving self-awareness and interpersonal skills.

3. Effective leadership

Leadership style has been identified as an important predictor of workplace bullying (Salin et al., 2020).

4. Anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct

Anti-bullying policies should contain a clear statement coming from the top of the organizational chart regarding intolerance for bullying. In addition, the policies should identify what constitutes workplace bullying and the consequences for such behavior (Salin et al., 2020).

5. Raising awareness in the workplace

By raising awareness, organizations demonstrate a workplace culture that won’t tolerate bullying behavior.

Other ideas include addressing the workplace culture and values and developing a positive communication climate.

Kohut (2008) provides ideas for fostering a safe work environment, including:

• Zero-tolerance policies against bullying
• Encourage confidential communication with management
• Annual briefing on signs of workplace bullying
• Upper management reviews all complaints carefully and fairly
• Employee assistance programs
• Conflict resolution training for all employees
• Value all employees equally

The good news is that there are resources available to help organizations determined to affect change.

Using Utah Administrative Code r. 477-16 as a framework, Clark and Ritter (2018) outlined criteria to create a healthy academic workplace environment, which can and should be considered for cross-discipline application. Below are portions of their report.

Examples of desired behaviors (management responsibility)

• Be respectful and model civility.
• Take responsibility and be accountable.
• Celebrate and reward civil encounters and initiatives.

Examples of desired behaviors (employee responsibility)

• Participate and encourage ongoing civility training.
• Practice prevention strategies.
• Recognize and report acts of civility.

Example policy procedures

• Clearly written, comprehensive, easily accessible workplace bullying policies
• Specific step-by-step procedures for addressing bullying
• Wording that includes the reporting responsibility of all who witness bullying behaviors

Kohut (2008) offers an example workplace policy, outlined here.

• Our organization considers workplace bullying to be unacceptable and intolerable under any circumstance. This behavior degrades, harms, intimidates, offends, or humiliates employees. Bullying results in substantial turnover rates, training costs, and loss of productivity in addition to creating a lawsuit risk.
• Our organization adheres to a safe working environment for all employees, free of bullies.
• Our organization has/is creating an internal grievance and investigation system to deal with bullying allegations. Reports of bullying are treated seriously and investigated promptly and impartially.
• Our organization encourages employees (target or witness) to report incidents immediately. Managers will ensure that reportees are not retaliated against in any way. (Be sure to include contact person’s name and information.)

The Workplace Bullying Institute (n.d.) was first developed in 1997 by Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie and is a bountiful resource for targets of bullies, witnesses, managers, and human resources personnel.

Some of the resources for targeted parties include the first steps to take in this situation, books that can help, coaching, and ideas for creating an action plan.

To fight workplace bullying, the institute offers help for writing policies and procedures, ideas for intervention with bullies, and training for all employees.

Other resources that may be of interest on their website include workplace bullying statistics and current legislation. Interestingly, only Utah and California in the United States have legislation for training mandates (Clark & Ritter, 2018).

This website includes a bevy of resources for stressed workers. What if you happen to work for a stressful boss? This website provides ideas on how to work under these conditions and strategies for interacting with your boss.

This practical workplace bullying guide  originating from the Government of South Australia provides information and insight and includes definitions, behaviors, and factors that contribute to workplace bullying.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has published this website of resources to help combat workplace bullying. In it, you can find information on the impact of workplace bullying, organizational factors , working arrangements, and ideas to address bullying.

Exploring past resilience

Resilience in the Workplace aims to strengthen the abilities to negotiate adverse circumstances and bounce back effectively.

This worksheet provides an opportunity to reflect on a past setback and examine the strategies used to overcome it. A series of questions help guide the client to a deeper understanding of their holistic experience.

Self-Care Checkup

During adversity, self-care is crucial for mental wellbeing. When overwhelmed with issues, we can become complacent and even negligent in areas of self-care, which can decrease wellbeing.

This worksheet helps clients identify which domain – emotional, physical, social, professional, or spiritual – is lacking and in need of support.

A Time You Felt Different

This exercise is for all employees and is intended to build empathy.

Workplace bullies are defined by their lack of empathy, making exercises that address and build empathy crucial. The goal of this exercise  is to enhance empathy by practicing empathic listening with a coworker.

The exercise begins by mentally preparing to listen to another person. Listeners are asked to quiet the mind, listen beyond words, and set aside judgments to be fully present for the speaker.

There are a variety of training topics that can help reduce workplace bullying. Below are just a few.

Workplace Bullying and Violence: Training for Supervisors and Employees

J.J. Keller & Associates offers courses for every size organization. Their Workplace Bullying and Violence: Training for Supervisors and Employees includes an introductory video. They also provide online training.

Cultural intelligence

David Livermore has been writing and speaking about cultural intelligence for years. Cultural intelligence is an individual’s ability to function across national, ethnic, and organizational cultures. Livermore offers cultural intelligence assessments, online learning, workshops, and certification for course completion.

Cultural intelligence includes relational skills, tolerance of uncertainty, adaptability, empathy, and perceptual acuity – all necessary for an inclusive workplace. Culturally intelligent employees can help coalesce people and groups in the workplace.

Workplace training modules

Neil Katz and Associates have been providing a variety of organizational training topics for many years. Dr. Katz is a prolific writer, trainer, professor, and conflict resolution expert.

He and his team have provided training for an array of organizations, institutions, and community partners. They cover topics such as leadership, communication (conflict resolution) , teamwork , and emotional intelligence – all skills that can help reduce workplace bullying through better interpersonal interactions and intrapersonal insight.

1. The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job – Gary Namie and Ruth Namie

One of the first books I used to learn about workplace bullying was The Bully at Work, written by Gary and Ruth Namie, a husband and wife team passionate about workplace bullying. For years, they have led the march against workplace bullying.

The Bully at Work extols the impact of workplace bullying on the lives, careers, and families of millions of bullying targets. They are the founders of the Workplace Bullying Institute, established in 1997 to fight bullying.

Their book teaches targets, witnesses, administration, and human resources personnel what workplace bullying is, how to deal with bullies, actions people can take, and how targets can make themselves safe.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The Complete Guide to Understanding, Controlling, and Stopping Bullies & Bullying at Work – Margaret Kohut

This comprehensive text by Margaret R. Kohut begins with a definition of workplace bullying along with the scope of the issue, then pivots into Profiles of Workplace Bullies .

To explain this toxic behavior in the workplace, this section of the book breaks workplace bullying down by personality disorders such as the narcissist, the antisocial, the paranoid, and the histrionic.

It is both riveting and helpful, as Kohut describes common character traits of each disorder and what to expect from this personality as a boss, coworker, or subordinate.

The toll and types of workplace bullying are included, along with how to survive and what the law says (or doesn’t say) about it. Readers can find experiential exercises and a special section in the appendix on notoriously bad famous bosses. Spoiler alert: Leona Helmsley is included.

3. Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace – Noa Davenport, Ruth Schwartz, and Gail Pursell Elliott

This book describes mobbing as emotional assault inflicted on one person by a group of coworkers.

In addition to disrespectful and harmful behavior, mobbing often escalates into abusive and terrorizing behaviors. This book is a must-read.

Empathy, assertive communication , and team-building skills benefit all employees.

Working on these skills will allow personnel to have insight into their behavior and the behavior of others. The resources below are recommended to build on these skills.

This worksheet encourages participants to imagine the perspective of someone with whom they are experiencing difficulty or discomfort and to notice their thoughts and feelings in a quiet and controlled environment.

Looking at any situation through multiple perspectives allows insight and empathy. This exercise could benefit bullies, targets, and witnesses.

Stories and narratives have played a crucial role in society since people began speaking. This exercise helps encourage empathy by asking participants to step into the shoes of another to tell their story. Explaining what the subject of the story thought or felt adds an added empathic layer to the narrative.

Assertive communication

This worksheet outlines individual rights while acknowledging the role that others’ rights and opinions play.

The “right to make mistakes,” which acknowledges the human condition of making mistakes regardless of what others think, is particularly interesting.

This worksheet outlines strategies to help understand and use assertive language. Included in the worksheet is empathy, which is crucial to solving escalating conflict.

Team building

This exercise requires participants to build a degree of vulnerability in order to create trust. Trust in the workplace can help strengthen teams and open lines of communication.

This worksheet creates an opportunity for team members to move beyond their comfort zone and become better acquainted with those outside their immediate circle. The goal of this exercise is to build rapport, strengthen teams, and enhance team performance.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others overcome adversity, check out this collection of 17 validated resilience and coping exercises . Use them to help others recover from personal challenges and turn setbacks into opportunities for growth.

Some bullying dynamics have existed in organizations so long that the behaviors have become ingrained as part of the workplace culture. As a result, affected employees are resigned to believing that nothing can be done because the culture is too far gone (Clark & Ritter, 2018).

This is simply not true. Just as we have witnessed deeply troubling sociological issues evolve, workplace bullying, which transcends all demographics, is making strides.

Employees are finding their voice and standing up for their rights. Although the United States lags behind other European countries on this issue (Davenport et al., 1999), creating safe workspaces for all employees is gaining momentum through lawsuits, budding legislation, publicized narratives, and more.

Using the resources provided in this article, each of us can mobilize for safety. Join the movement.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Work & Career Coaching Exercises for free .

• Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources , 13 (1), 69–84.
• Clark, C. M., & Ritter, K. (2018). Policy to foster civility and support a healthy academic work environment. Journal of Nursing Education , 57 (6), 325–331.
• Cotterell, T. (2018). Understanding Title VII: What organizations need to know about employees in protected classes . Forbes.com. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2018/08/22/understanding-title-vii-what-organizations-need-to-know-about-employees-in-protected-classes/?sh=5b720cf53a32
• Davenport, N., Schwartz, R. D., & Elliott, G. P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace.  Civil Society.
• Kohut, M. R. (2008). The complete guide to understanding, controlling, and stopping bullies and bullying at work . Atlantic.
• Namie, G. (2017). 2017 Workplace Bullying Institute U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey [National statistics on workplace bullying]. Workplacebullyinginstitute.org. Retrieved October 2021, from https://workplacebullying.org/download/2017-wbi/?wpdmdl=2024&refresh=619558c1d89731637177537
• Namie, G. (2021). Workplace bullying: Introduction by Dr. Gary Namie [YouTube video]. Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1Xx7skPxs
• Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). The bully at work (2nd ed.). Sourcebooks Inc.
• Salin, D., Cowan, R. L., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., … Zedlacher, E. (2020). Prevention of and interventions in workplace bullying: A global study of human resource professionals’ reflections on preferred action. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 31 (20), 2622–2644.
• Workplace Bullying Institute. (n.d.).  About us.  Retrieved December 6, 2021, from https://workplacebullying.org/about-us/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Am learning everyday. As l read the article. It help me a lot to know when act of bullying is used on me by a coworker or by customer. It also give an insight to when is used against me. Bullying is very terrible l don’t Wish to anyone.

Great article. Thank you for many new insights on how to recognize and defuse bullying in the workplace.

Hi, I run a group for dually diagnosed adults with developmental disabilities in an Adult Day Program. I plan to use this article in my vocational skill building group. I look so forward to adapting this content, and have them also look at my company’s policy for bullying. Thank you so much!

Hi Amica Id love more information on tour program. Im based in Australia.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Company Culture: How to Create a Flourishing Workplace

Company culture has become a buzzword, particularly in the post-COVID era, with more organizations recognizing the critical importance of a healthy workplace. During the Great [...]

Integrity in the Workplace (What It Is & Why It’s Important)

Integrity in the workplace matters. In fact, integrity is often viewed as one of the most important and highly sought-after characteristics of both employees and [...]

Neurodiversity in the Workplace: A Strengths-Based Approach

Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace is a priority for ethical employers who want to optimize productivity and leverage the full potential [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (49)
• Coaching & Application (57)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (45)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (18)
• Positive Parenting (4)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (36)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

Download 3 Free Work & Career Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Download 3 Work & Career Exercises Pack (PDF)

Tackling Toxicity: Confronting Bullying in the Workplace

Bullying can happen at any age in any environment. When there’s bullying in the workplace, where we spend a significant amount of our waking lives, it takes a tremendous toll on both employee well-being and organizational effectiveness. Whether bullying is obvious, such as yelling and belittling, or more covert, it can contribute to a toxic work environment that chips away at a person’s well-being and undermines their productivity and job performance. Bullying in the workplace is common, affecting about 30% of the workforce .

So, how do you deal with bullying in the workplace? By empowering managers and leaders to identify the signs and foster a culture of respect, we pave the way for a positive work environment .

What is bullying in the workplace?

It’s hard to pin down an exact definition of workplace bullying because hostile treatment between team members takes many forms, from harsh comments to blatant intimidation. These acts are rarely isolated but rather occur repeatedly over time, creating a hostile environment. Perpetrators of bullying at work can be managers, colleagues, or those in subordinate positions. 

Identifying the type of bullying in the workplace is an important first step in responding appropriately. Most incidents can be grouped into one of these general categories:

• Serial bullying. A person exhibits repeated aggressive or hostile behavior toward one or more teammates. A serial bully may shift targets, switching from one to another over time.
• Mobbing. Mobbing occurs when multiple teammates gang up on one or more people. Sometimes, high-achieving employees are targeted by peers who feel insecure about their status in the organization.
• Regulation bullying. A regulation bully will unnecessarily hold certain teammates to more demanding standards than others, particularly around breaking team rules.
• Corporate bullying. Corporate bullying occurs when a team member uses work tools to attack someone’s privacy, usually through over-surveillance of that person. Video surveillance, for example, is a common tactic.
• Pressure bullying. The bully pressures others to overwork in high-stress environments.

Some specific workplace bullying examples include:

• Blatant insults or harsh or belittling comments
• Backhanded compliments, sarcasm, or passive-aggressive behavior (“Nice job on that project, you did surprisingly well.”)
• Gossiping, spreading rumors, or making false accusations, or failing to stop these behaviors
• Excluding someone from an important meeting or social event
• Assigning the most difficult projects or an unusually heavy workload to a specific team member
• Repeatedly making negative comments without thinking before speaking
• Unjustifiably criticizing someone’s work or putting them down
• Posting offensive comments or photos on social media

Causes of bullying in the workplace

Why do some employees use their precious time and energy to bully others? There are many potential motivations for workplace bullying.

Jealousy – A workplace bully might be jealous of a talented co-worker who receives attention and praise. Or, if someone feels their social standing at work is threatened by another’s popularity, they may target that person.

Control – It’s common for workplace bullies to use their rank, power, or influence to control or manipulate others. Some people gain a sense of control by creating divisions among the people around them. For example, an employee may lash out against co-workers who embody a spirit of collaboration because they feel threatened. 

Personal and family issues – People who bully often have low self-esteem and build themselves up by breaking others down. They may have been bullied themselves in the past or grown up in a family that wasn’t warm or supportive or didn’t teach appropriate social skills.

Cultural causes – Stereotypes and implicit bias can also play a role. Workplace bullying is frequently directed against people whom the perpetrator perceives as “different,” whether that’s related to race, gender, sexuality, or another identity. If a person makes negative comments or actions based on a legally protected status, it can be considered harassment, which gives the victim legal rights to stop the behavior.

Institutional causes – An unhealthy environment can be a breeding ground for bullying in the workplace. If leaders don’t enforce discrimination or harassment policies, look the other way when someone is being mistreated, or offer promotions to bullies, the behavior is likely to escalate. Similarly, if employees feel dissatisfied with their work environment, often due to lack of autonomy , perceived unfairness, or excessive workloads, they may be more likely to engage in workplace bullying. There can also be a “mirroring effect” where employees imitate leaders. If the leader is a bully, the individual contributors may mimic this behavior.

Costs of bullying in the workplace

The costs of workplace bullying are profound, for both the bully and victims as well as the organization.

Employee health

Bullying in the workplace can contribute to depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, adjustment disorders, and other types of mental distress. Physical health is also at stake, as prolonged stress at work can lead to stress-related illnesses , musculoskeletal disorders, pain, cardiovascular diseases, gastrointestinal complaints , and other health conditions . 

Higher health care costs

Bullying at work is also costly for organizations. Physical and mental health issues make it harder for employees to do their jobs and can result in more leaves of absence and higher health care costs for employers. 

Reduced productivity 

According to a Harvard Business Review survey , 48% of people who reported experiencing incivility at work decreased their work effort, and 47% decreased time spent at work. A whopping 80% of respondents said that worrying about the incident had cut into their work time, and 63% lost work time while trying to avoid the person who was uncivil to them. When asked to gauge their work performance, more than half—66%—reported that their performance had declined because of the unpleasant interactions. Just over three-quarters (78%) of respondents reported lower levels of commitment to their organization. 

Higher absenteeism and turnover

Absenteeism and turnover are also concerns. Those who experience bullying in the workplace or observe bullying secondhand take an average of seven more sick days per year than other employees. In the same survey, 20% of surveyed respondents used sick leave to escape bullying, and more than half (60%) considered leaving the job. 

Legal consequences

When left unaddressed, bullying at work can escalate to harassment and violence. In some situations, employers can face increased workers’ compensation claims for a hostile environment or damages for harassment. According to the National Workplace Bullying Coalition , the average cost to defend a harassment lawsuit is $250,000 and hidden costs of harassment are between $300 and $1,000 on average per employee annually.

How to deal with workplace bullying

You can take steps to create a psychologically safe , inclusive workplace . Even small changes can make a big difference.

Know the signs

Watch for telltale signs of bullying in the workplace, such as:

• Berating, criticizing, or publicly embarrassing others
• Taking credit for others’ work or dismissing others’ input and accomplishments
• Coercing others into things
• Excluding certain people from conversations, decision-making processes, or social events
• Lying or misrepresenting information
• Dismissing other people’s concerns
• Intimidating or threatening fellow teammates
• Undermining others’ work; for example, by setting unrealistic expectations, keeping others from needed information or resources, or interfering with their work
• Gaslighting 
• Engaging in emotional manipulation, especially using shame or guilt as a weapon
• Creating division and unhealthy competition
• Leveling unfair or excessive criticism

Develop and enforce anti-bullying policies

It’s not enough to disallow workplace bullying in theory. To make a safer work environment, you need policies around exclusion, incivility, and other acts of bullying. These policies should be clear on the procedure for handling these behaviors and the consequences for engaging in them. 

Model respect and inclusive behavior

Modeling respect and inclusion sends a message about what kind of behavior is expected at work. Make sure that you:

• Are civil and courteous to everyone
• Avoid favoritism 
• Include all necessary teammates in important decisions and give transparent explanations if more selective decision-making groups must be formed
• Get to know all team members
• Respond positively and supportively when a team member asks for help or reports a problem
• Be receptive to other people’s ideas
• Recognize other people’s contributions privately and publicly

Encourage open communication

Build a culture of fairness and respect.

Putting an end to bullying in the workplace isn’t just a matter of policy; it’s a crucial step toward nurturing your people and the fabric of your organization. Every small stride toward change holds the potential for significant impact, shaping a work environment where every member feels valued and respected.

Give every employee the environment to succeed

Lyra offers assessments and tools to create a culture of mental wellness.

Thanks for subscribing!

You will now receive future content from Lyra Health.

Other blogs you may like

Employee Morale: Creating an Environment That Uplifts Your Team

How to Improve Work-Life Balance for Your Employees

10 Ways to Build Trust in the Workplace

Take your workforce to the next level.

Workplace Bullying: Effects on Work, Health, and Family

The effects of workplace bullying are examined..

Posted April 22, 2021 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• How to Handle Bullying
• Find a therapist to support kids or teens
• Workplace bullying affects mental health (e.g., depression), physical health (e.g., tension), and family relationships (e.g., conflict).
• Mechanisms linking workplace bullying and negative outcomes include worse health, lack of need satisfaction, and reduced work engagement.
• Workplaces that identify and put a stop to workplace bullying may improve the mental and physical health of their staff.

Published in Aggression and Violent Behavior , new research by Boudrias and colleagues reviews the consequences and mechanisms of workplace bullying . Before summarizing the study, let's start by defining bullying.

What is Workplace Bullying?

Workplace mistreatment is prevalent. Many employees have experienced some form of workplace mistreatment—being insulted by a customer, harassed by a coworker, denied a promotion, etc.

How is workplace mistreatment different from bullying? For instance, is receiving an unfair performance evaluation an example of being bullied?

Workplace bullying occurs when:

• An employee becomes a target of adverse behavior regularly.
• The victim can neither easily avoid the situation nor the mistreatment.
• There is a power imbalance (e.g., being bullied by supervisors, managers, senior staff).

According to some estimates, the prevalence of workplace bullying is nearly 15 percent. Workplace bullying may be more prevalent in certain environments (e.g., unskilled jobs in male-dominated organizations) and sectors (e.g., health, social, education , public administration), but it can occur anywhere.

Forms and Causes of Workplace Bullying

Causes of workplace bullying may involve individual and organizational factors, like toxic leadership , narcissism , insecurity, lack of emotional control , problematic job design (e.g., role conflict), and issues related to organizational culture and politics .

Workplace bullying takes many forms: Sometimes it comprises indirect tactics of manipulation and abuse, like gossiping, social rejection, and social exclusion (e.g., not being invited to work functions). Other times it is expressed through work-related behaviors, like withholding information, assigning meaningless or unreasonable tasks, setting impossible deadlines, preventing access to work opportunities, interfering with functioning (e.g., constant disruptions and harassment, unnecessary monitoring), or randomly changing the rules or expectations.

Less commonly, workplace bullying involves more direct tactics, like physical intimidation and physically threatening behaviors—making threats, throwing things, or physical assault.

Workplace bullying negatively affects not just the victim but also those who witness (e.g., coworkers) or learn about it (e.g., one’s romantic partner). For instance, witnessing bullying has been linked with developing depression .

Psychological Health and Physical Health Outcomes

Boudrias et al.’s review of 55 longitudinal studies examined the relationship between bullying and depression, poor health, and impaired functioning (See Figure 1).

To begin, the data reviewed showed workplace bullying can be traumatic and lead to mental illness.

Victims of workplace bullying often experienced psychological distress, burnout , and depression. The relationship between workplace bullying and depression was strong, with bullying predicting depression for up to five years later. And exposure to bullying, especially physical intimidation, was linked with suicidal ideation.

Bullying was associated with poor health, muscle tension, musculoskeletal issues, increased neck and back pain (even six months later), and chronic diseases (e.g., type 2 diabetes).

Mechanisms: How did bullying cause these negative psychological outcomes? One mechanism studied was based on psychological need satisfaction (self-determination theory). In short, workplace bullying negatively influenced mental health by preventing the satisfaction of employees’ need for autonomy and competence.

Another mechanism investigated was related to the theory of conservation of resources—when an employee is bullied, the person’s emotional and contextual resources are eroded. The data indicated emotional dissonance (e.g., having to smile even when exposed to hostile clients) and lack of organizational support mediated the link between bullying and health conditions (psychological strain, burnout).

As for mechanisms linking bullying and poor physical health, researchers found no study examining relevant physiological mechanisms, like weight gain or the stress response (i.e. fight-or-flight response).

Occupational Outcomes

Bullied employees had more job insecurity and greater turnover intention (i.e. more desire to leave their jobs). And they were more likely to change jobs or become unemployed.

Compared to violence in the workplace, workplace bullying was associated with a greater likelihood of leaving the profession or early retirement . Why? Perhaps because violence in the workplace is often related to the clients’ actions (e.g., threats by angry clients), while workplace bullying involves mistreatment by one’s coworkers, resulting in increased feelings of isolation and lack of social support.

One investigation reviewed found long-term sickness absenteeism was linked with workplace bullying, even after adjusting for job demand and job control.

And another study observed a correlation between becoming a victim of workplace bullying and depression, with depression increasing the probability of presenteeism (i.e. reduced functioning) or work absenteeism. So bullying resulted in reduced performance and loss of productivity .

Mechanisms: Turnover was mediated by psychological stress reactions (e.g., perceived stress, sleep difficulties) and reduced psychological well-being. And the association between bullying victimization and long-term sickness absenteeism was mediated by reduced psychological functioning or poorer health (e.g., lower work engagement, worse sleep, higher perceived stress).

Family Domain Outcomes

According to the spillover theory, becoming a victim of bullying at work could also spill over into other domains. And four longitudinal studies reviewed observed a correlation between workplace bullying and work-family conflict, family incivility (low-intensity disrespectful behaviors, like ignoring one’s romantic partner), and lack of relationship satisfaction.

Mechanisms: Psychological factors, like burnout, emotional exhaustion, and psychological strain were mediators of the effects of workplace bullying on the family.

Another mechanism was based on the affective events theory, which suggests work events elicit emotional reactions that influence workers’ attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, in reaction to workplace bullying, employees may suppress their own values and put on a facade; this creates psychological strain (e.g., agitation), which is then transferred into the family domain and creates conflicts there.

Concluding Thoughts on Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is a serious problem. It can negatively affect workers’ productivity (e.g. turnover, absenteeism, reduced engagement), physical health (e.g., pain and psychosomatic complaints, sleep problems), mental health (e.g., anxiety , depression, burnout, suicidal ideation), and relationships outside work (e.g., conflicts at home, family incivility).

Therefore, employees need to learn to identify workplace bullying and take steps to protect themselves. And employers who want happy, healthy, and productive workers must do everything in their power to stop workplace bullying.

Arash Emamzadeh attended the University of British Columbia in Canada, where he studied genetics and psychology. He has also done graduate work in clinical psychology and neuropsychology in U.S.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Prevalence, Antecedents, and Consequences of Workplace Bullying among Nurses—A Summary of Reviews

Hongli sam goh.

1 IPE Management School Paris, 21 Rue Erard, 75012 Paris, France; moc.liamg@shgrun

Siti Hosier

2 Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, Singapore; gs.ude.sun@hzrun

Despite over 25 years of extensive research about the workplace bullying phenomenon in various disciplines, there have been mixed conclusions about its prevalence, antecedents, and consequences among nurses reported by multiple systematic reviews. This summary review used the Cochrane’s Overview of Reviews method to examine the prevalence, antecedents, coping behaviors, and consequences of workplace bullying among nurses to understand the interplay of these variables in healthcare workplace contexts. A total of 12 systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2020 were included based on the eligibility criteria. There were differences in workplace bullying prevalence across different reviews, ranging from 1 to 90.4%, but a more recent review estimated the pooled prevalence at 26.3%. This review identified at least five main types of antecedents for workplace bullying: demographics, personality, organizational culture, work characteristics, and leadership and hierarchy. Workplace bullying affected nurses, organizational outcomes, and patient safety. This review proposes an integrative model to explain workplace bullying among nurses and highlights the need for more studies to evaluate interventions to address this phenomenon.

1. Introduction

Nursing has long been recognized as a challenging career, which is beset with workplace adversities, such as stress and bullying, of which the latter warrants a cause for concern. Nurse bullying is not new and has been the subject of research studies for over 25 years. This phenomenon was suggested to affect nurses in the United States (US) more than 100 years ago based on a New York Times article in 1909, “The hospital tyrants” [ 1 ]. Unfortunately, despite years of research in this area, nurses continue to experience bullying today as many leaders, institutions, and even the nurses themselves either deny its existence or accept it as the norm, creating a culture of silence that impedes solutions to the problem [ 1 ].

Within the broader literature, Nielsen and Einarsen defined workplace bullying as extensive exposure to repeated negative behaviors at the workplace, leaving individuals to feel defenseless against such behaviors [ 2 ]. Within the nursing literature, workplace bullying is an umbrella term for most types of workplace aggression and violence, ranging from emotional neglect to threats of violence and physical assault [ 3 ]. Terms that fall under this umbrella include incivility, harassment, and workplace violence. The subject has been extensively studied internationally, across disciplines, particularly within healthcare settings [ 3 ]. Workplace bullying occurs when individuals perceive that they are the target of negative actions from one or more persons over time.

According to Trépanier et al. [ 4 ], up to 40% of nurses faced bullying behaviors at work, while Houck and Colbert [ 3 ] reported prevalence rates ranging from 26 to 77%. These figures suggest that the healthcare industry seems to be acutely affected by this phenomenon. In contrast, a systematic review, which examined non-healthcare studies, reports an estimated global prevalence of only 15%, suggesting that workplace bullying in general workplace settings might be less prevalent than in a healthcare context [ 5 ]. The high bullying prevalence rate reported among nurses warrants an urgent need for nurse leaders to address this issue.

The high prevalence rate of workplace bullying among nurses is alarming given the consequences and impact on nurses and organizations. Exposure to bullying is associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in nurses [ 6 , 7 ], as well as somatic physical health problems, including insomnia and headache [ 8 ]. Workplace bullying can also undermine nurses’ professional well-being, decreasing engagement and quality of work motivation, and increasing absenteeism, turnover, and burnout symptoms [ 4 , 9 , 10 ].

There have been multiple systematic reviews that evaluated workplace bullying in nursing. Most of them reported mixed or inconclusive findings of the prevalence, antecedents, and consequences to address workplace bullying due to the heterogeneity in study designs, measurement instruments, and contextual variations across the included studies. For example, some reviews examined workplace bullying prevalence only, while others focused on its triggering factors. Still, other reviews only focus on specific consequences of workplace bullying [ 1 , 2 ]. The different reviews make it difficult for nursing leaders to comprehend the scope and extent of workplace bullying, much less know how to manage or address it. Castronovo et al. [ 1 ] lamented the persistent existence of these problems despite years of research in this area. In light of the varied conclusions, we decided to conduct a summary review with the aim of summarizing the findings from existing systematic reviews, which examined the prevalence, antecedents, and consequences of workplace bullying among nurses to understand the interplay of these variables within healthcare. At the end of the review, these findings will be used to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing workplace bullying in nursing.

2. Materials and Methods

The summary review of systematic reviews was conducted using Cochrane’s Overview of Reviews method to synthesize reviews examining workplace bullying and its prevalence, trend, antecedents, consequences, and interventions. There have been extensive publications of studies in nursing and healthcare literature. This method was adopted because it provides an explicit and structured approach to extract and analyze results across the topic of interest [ 11 ]. As there have been multiple reviews that focus on different aspects of workplace bullying, this method allows us to compare strengths of evidence derived from varied review designs to draw meaningful conclusions. Finally, the Cochrane Overview of Reviews method allows us to summarize the findings from different reviews about workplace bullying for clinicians and decision-makers rather than leaving them to assimilate the results of multiple systematic reviews themselves [ 12 ]. The Cochrane’s Overview of Reviews method comprises five steps: (i) defining the review and questions; (ii) outlining the search strategy to retrieve systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses); (iii) establishing clear eligibility criteria for article selection; (iv) extraction of data from each review, including its characteristics, risk of bias and outcomes; and (v) collation and summary of results in accordance to the specific objectives or questions of the review [ 11 ].

2.1. Defining the Review Questions

Three questions for the summary review were developed based on the authors’ preliminary literature review:

• What are the prevalence and trends in workplace bullying among nurses?
• What are the antecedents for workplace bullying among nurses?
• What are the consequences of workplace bullying for nurses?

2.2. Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted between April 2021 and December 2021 to search for relevant systematic reviews using the following key search terms and related text words: ‘workplace bullying,’ ‘nurs*,’ and ‘review.’ The search for literature was limited to those published within the past ten years, as this paper aimed to provide a comprehensive review of all recently published reviews on nurse bullying. A total of seven electronic databases were searched: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO. The search was conducted using different combinations of exact keywords on titles and abstracts. Thereafter, the retrieved articles were screened for relevance to the review questions.

2.3. Article Selection

The selection of the studies was conducted independently by two authors based on the eligibility criteria. Disagreement during the selection was resolved by discussion with a third-party arbiter. The inclusion criteria were: (i) derived from a systematic review; (ii) involved nursing professionals; (iii) addressed the review questions; and (iv) published in English. In addition, we excluded studies that were merely literature reviews or any other review that did not demonstrate a systematic process, did not focus on nurses, or were published in other languages with no English translation. The decision-making process and the search results at each step of the course are depicted in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram ( Figure 1 ).

PRISMA diagram.

2.4. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Data were extracted by one author (SG) and verified by another (ZH) for relevancy and accuracy. The two authors then independently extracted the data, including the review objectives, design, search strategy, number of included studies and sample size, geographical location, main findings, and quality appraisal using the ROBIS tool. The ROBIS tool was developed by clinicians at Bristol Medical School with the aim of providing an effective yet robust method to assess the risk of bias for systematic review, and has been recommended by Cochrane for the review method [ 13 ]. The tool can also be used to compare the overall risk of bias across various reviews to derive meaningful comparison and contrast of the various findings [ 13 ]. When there was a disagreement on the quality of an article, this would be resolved through discussion with a third author (SH) until consensus was achieved. An annotated bibliography was developed to tabulate the characteristics and findings of the studies. The reference management software Mendeley and Microsoft Excel were used to sort the records.

A total of 12 reviews about workplace bullying were included in this summary review ( Table 1 ). The types of reviews included were: quantitative systematic reviews ( n = 2), mixed-methods systematic reviews ( n = 1), integrative reviews ( n = 5), narrative reviews or systematic reviews with qualitative synthesis ( n = 3), and scoping reviews ( n = 1). The samples ranged from 61 to 151,347 participants, and the number of databases searched among the reviews ranged from 3 to 8. The reviews were published between 2013 and 2020, and included studies that were published from the earliest date to 2019. With the exception of one review, which focused solely on studies from Australia [ 14 ], most reviews included studies from different countries. Most of the studies were conducted in North America, Europe, and Australia compared to other regions. Rutherford et al. attributed this observation to the inclusion criteria of mostly English-language papers by most reviews and that most journals and databases use English for communication [ 15 ]. The summary review also assessed the methodological quality of all 12 reviews, as shown in Table 2 . Based on the overall quality assessment of the included reviews, only one review was at low risk of bias for the overall study [ 16 ].

Summary table for included systematic reviews.

Legend: WB (Workplace bullying); USA (United States of America); WI (workplace incivility), LV (lateral violence); ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts); BSP (Business Source Premier); CINAHL (Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature); Embase (Excerpta Medica database); JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute); MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online); IBSS (International Bibliography of the Social Sciences); Q1 (Question 1—What are the prevalence in workplace bullying in nursing studies?) Q2 (Question 2—What are the antecedents for workplace bullying in nursing?); Q3 (Question 3—What are the consequences of workplace bullying in nursing?).

Quality appraisal of included systematic reviews.

3.1. Question 1—What Are the Prevalence and Trends in Workplace Bullying among Nurses?

Seven reviews addressed the prevalence of workplace bullying within the nursing and healthcare literature ( Table 3 ). Two reviews conducted a pooled estimation of workplace bullying prevalence and reported a mean prevalence of 26.3 and 66.9% among nurses [ 8 , 18 ]. Spector et al. seemed to be the most comprehensive review between these two reviews, having conducted a quantitative review of 136 healthcare studies on the global nursing violence literature to examine the extent (prevalence), sources, and subtypes of bullying and violence across countries and prevalence. They reported workplace bullying prevalence ranges from 57.6% in hospital settings to 67.7% in psychiatric settings. The mean percentage of perceived bullying also varied across different geographical regions: Middle East (86.5%), Anglo (39.5%), Asia (29.8%), and Europe (8.8%). The highest rate of non-physical violence from peers and colleagues occurred among nurses working in Asia (50.2%), followed by the Middle East (44.9%), Anglo countries (US, Canada, UK, and Australia) (37.4%), and Europe (27.6%). Asian, Anglo, and Middle Eastern nurses suffered similar rates of physical violence at 7.3, 6.6, and 6.0%, respectively. Similarly, a more recent quantitative systematic review involving 45 studies reported a lower percentage of workplace bullying among nurses. They have classified workplace bullying in general terms, demonstrating that the trend in workplace prevalence among nurses has remained vastly varied across different regions [ 8 ].

Summary table of prevalence rate for workplace bullying among nurses.

There were vast differences in workplace bullying prevalence across all seven reviews, with one review reporting the greatest prevalence range from 1 to 90.4% [ 8 ]. Other reviews also reported a similar prevalence range [ 8 , 22 ]. The vast discrepancies in the reported bullying rates across different nursing studies might suggest regional and country differences in the workplace bullying incidence rates and sources of violence, making it difficult for researchers to grasp its extent and impact. One possible explanation for such discrepancies could be that some countries or cultures may trivialize or pay little attention to the problem, leading to under-reporting issues (Spector et al., 2014). Another reason could be the different ways bullying is defined and measured, inconsistent research methods, and an absence of longitudinal studies [ 24 ]. The current lack of local data on the extent of the phenomenon could impede nursing leaders from developing and implementing tailored interventions to address these issues in their specific settings.

Workplace bullying seems more prevalent in hospitals’ high-stress work environments, such as emergency departments, operating theaters, intensive care units, and surgical and psychiatric settings [ 20 , 22 , 23 ]. However, this trend might not be generalizable across different countries, as Bambi et al. highlighted obstetrics wards as the most affected units in public hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. Additionally, it appears that nurses in Asian and Middle Eastern countries have a higher prevalence of workplace bullying, and physical and non-physical violence than their counterparts from other regions [ 8 , 18 ].

3.2. Question 2—What Are the Antecedents for Workplace Bullying among Nurses?

Five reviews identified five antecedents for workplace bullying within the nursing and healthcare literature ( Table 4 ). Among the five reviews, the most comprehensive was Karatuna et al.’s scoping review, which included 166 studies on workplace bullying among nurses. The review was also the most recent, with included studies published between 2001 and 2019. Hence, we used their review to guide the categorization of antecedents into five main types: demographics, personality, organizational culture, work characteristics, and leadership. These five antecedents can also be grouped under two main layers of antecedents—individual-level or organizational-level [ 21 ].

Summary table of antecedents for workplace bullying.

3.2.1. Individual-Level Antecedents

Individual antecedents include demographics and personality traits of individuals who contributed to the occurrence of workplace bullying. The results showed some similarities in the demographical antecedents of bullying across clusters that differ in their cultural practices. In terms of demographics, they found that most studies reported no associations between gender, education level, marital status, and workplace bullying. Conversely, age and length of experience/service were found to be negatively associated with workplace bullying. Other demographical antecedents were found to vary across different geographical clusters and subject to the different socio-cultural and politico-economic influences. For example, nurses considered “vulnerable” to workplace bullying in Anglo countries belong to a certain race, ethnicity, or disability, while those in Latin America and Eastern Europe have children. For personality characteristics, nurses with less locus of control, psychological capital, or poor compliance to social norms were associated with a greater risk of workplace bullying than others [ 16 ].

3.2.2. Organizational-Level Antecedents

Organizational-level antecedents included leadership, work characteristics, and organizational culture. For example, an organizational culture that is performance-oriented is more likely to tolerate workplace bullying, while cultures that emphasize people-orientation tolerate such behaviors if the group views the victim as inconsistent with social norms or misaligned with the organizational structure and hierarchy [ 16 ]. These findings highlighted group inclusivity within the organization, which is highly dependent and varies according to the larger socio-cultural context.

As for work characteristics, Karatuna et al. (2020) reported that negative work environments and characteristics include work overload, staffing shortages, and stressful working conditions. These variables were found to be reported across all clusters. Trépanier et al. [ 4 ] conducted a systematic literature review specifically examining work-related antecedents of workplace bullying in nursing and retrieved 12 relevant studies. They reported similar results to Karatuna et al. based on their four categories of work-related antecedents: (1) job characteristics, (2) quality of interpersonal relationships, (3) leadership styles, and (4) organizational culture. They found that nurses’ better job characteristics, higher quality of interpersonal working relationships, people-centric leadership styles, and positive organizational culture (promoting staff empowerment, distributive justice, and zero tolerance for bullying) were associated with less workplace bullying. Pfeifer and Vessey [ 19 ] conducted an integrative review focusing on examining bullying issues among nurses in Magnet ® organizations, which are designated hospitals that meet the quality benchmark for providing quality of care and nursing excellence. They found 11 articles (eight quantitative and three qualitative studies). Their review demonstrated emerging evidence on how a positive work environment could contribute to reduced reports of verbal abuse, incivilities, and hostile encounters from colleagues. Despite the positive and significant findings, Pfeifer and Vessey cautioned that workplace bullying can still affect nurses in the Magnet ® environment and highlighted the complex interplay of individual and organizational factors in influencing the occurrences of workplace bullying [ 19 ].

Leadership and hierarchy seem to mediate in organizational culture and work characteristics. For example, Karatuna et al. reported that autocratic, unsupportive, and disengaged leadership perpetuates high-power distance clusters and increased bullying behaviors [ 16 ]. On the other hand, Trépanier et al. [ 4 ] found three studies examining how authentic (positive) leadership significantly reduced workplace bullying and burnout reports. All four reviews stated positive leadership mediated the workplace environmental factors by promoting a climate of trust, positive collegial relationships, and mitigating stressful work environments and workplace bullying events [ 4 , 16 , 21 , 22 ].

3.3. Question 3—What Are the Consequences of Workplace Bullying for Nurses?

The workplace culture and pervasive nature of bullying have a significant negative impact on nurses, organizations, and patient outcomes. Nine reviews reported the consequences of workplace bullying among nurses [ 3 , 8 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. The summary review generated five types of consequences: psychosocial well-being, physical well-being, work performance, organizational impact, and patient outcomes ( Table 5 ).

Summary table of consequences of workplace bullying.

3.3.1. Psychosocial Well-Being

From the literature, workplace bullying affects nurses’ psychosocial well-being. Hartin et al. [ 25 ] conducted an integrative review of 23 Australian nursing studies. They reported that nurses who experienced workplace bullying faced greater risks of poor psychosocial outcomes such as psychological distress, depression, and burnout. It also undermines the nurses’ professional confidence and decreases their self-worth, motivation, and work ethic. In another systematic review, Johnson and Benham-Hutchins [ 23 ] reported similar psychosocial consequences of bullying, including increased stress, somatic symptoms, frustration, absenteeism, and lack of concentration. These findings were retrieved from 14 relevant nursing studies conducted in multiple healthcare settings, suggesting the significance of the issues in nursing. Of the nursing population, Hawkins et al. [ 22 ] suggested that workplace bullying might affect new graduate nurses, particularly as this group mainly holds subordinate positions and experiences much uncertainty during their adaption to the workplace. They conducted an integrative review of studies that examined this phenomenon among new graduate nurses and found 16 studies from Canada, the US, Australia, Korea, Singapore, and Ireland. They reported similar consequences on the new nurses, specifically, job satisfaction, burnout, intention to leave, and turnover.

3.3.2. Physical Well-Being

Based on two reviews, workplace bullying is also reported to affect nurses’ physical well-being. The review by Johnson and Benham-Hutchins [ 23 ] found one study that surveyed 248 nurses in the Midwest US using an electronic questionnaire and found that work-related bullying showed a highly significant positive relationship with psychological/behavioral responses. However, they did not specify the types of physical outcomes being affected. In another review, Karatuna et al. [ 16 ] reported headache, tachycardia, fatigue, sleep disorders, and pseudo-neurological and gastrointestinal complaints as common physiological health outcomes of workplace bullying in their review of 166 studies in different countries. Lever et al. conducted a systematic review specifically looking at the health consequences in the healthcare workplace [ 8 ]. They retrieved 45 studies published between 2005 and 2017, with 40 studies examining mental health outcomes and 15 on physical health. They reported that nurses who encountered workplace bullying face a greater risk of developing sleep-related issues, headaches, gastrointestinal problems, and to a lesser extent, back and joint pain and blood pressure changes. As a result, these staff are more likely to report sick leave than those not affected by workplace bullying [ 8 ].

3.3.3. Work Performance

The review outlines two types of organizational-related consequences from the review. The first is about the nurses’ work performance. Workplace bullying reduces nursing performance by affecting nurses’ state of mind and impairs their ability to seek help at work, engage in effective and timely communication, and make clinical judgments. As a result, nurses cannot deliver patient care in a safe and effective manner. Hutchinson and Jackson [ 17 ] conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to determine how workplace bullying can affect patient care. They found 30 appropriate studies and conducted a content analysis to generate four themes: (1) physician–nurse relations and patient care, (2) nurse–nurse bullying, intimidation, and patient care, (3) reduced nurse performance related to exposure to hostile clinician behaviors, and (4) nurses and physicians directly implicating patients. The first two themes highlighted that physicians and nursing colleagues were the two main sources of bullying behaviors. In comparison, the last two themes revealed how bullying behaviors reduce nurses’ work performance. They reported that nurses affected by workplace bullying were reported to (1) avoid or delay effective communication, (2) experience poor concentration at work, preventing them from delivering safe and effective nursing care, (3) fail to raise safety concerns and seek assistance, and (4) become hostile and perpetrators of similar bullying behaviors.

3.3.4. Organizational Impact

The second organizational-related consequence is the organizational impact. Hartin et al. reported that workplace bullying decreases nurses’ job satisfaction and productivity, such as increased absenteeism and committing errors during work [ 25 ]. Johnson and Benham-Hutchins [ 23 ] reported that workplace bullying created a negative and hostile work environment, where teamwork and communication are being impeded. Both reviews reported that this indirectly leads to decreased job satisfaction, increased intention to quit, and staff turnover/attrition rate, leading to a higher organizational cost due to recruitment and retention difficulties. Crawford et al. analyzed 21 studies involving nursing students, new graduates, and experienced and academic faculty [ 21 ]. They reported that new graduate nurses face a higher risk of workplace bullying and difficulty coping with their new role. This situation is especially significant if the workplace environment is perceived as hostile, toxic, and unforgiving. If not managed properly, these events could negatively impact new nurses’ transition experiences and result in impaired peer relations and even higher staff attrition.

3.3.5. Patient Outcomes

In terms of patient outcomes, workplace bullying indirectly influences patient outcomes by negatively affecting nurses’ work performance. Houck and Colbert conducted an integrative review to examine the association between workplace bullying and patient safety outcomes [ 3 ]. They retrieved 11 studies conducted between 1995 and March 2016 in Anglo countries (US, Canada, UK, and Australia). They reported seven patient safety consequences of workplace bullying: (1) patient falls, (2) errors in treatments or medications, (3) patient satisfaction or patient complaints, (4) adverse event or patient mortality, (5) altered thinking or concentration, (6) silence or inhibited communication, and (7) delayed care. Among these themes, the first four were reported as patient-related consequences of workplace bullying. The last three revolved around the negative impact on nursing performance related to patient safety. These findings concur with the review by Hutchinson and Jackson [ 17 ] about patient-related consequences. They also reported similar outcomes such as medication errors, surgical errors, and failure to report clinical issues of concern resulting in adverse events. Additionally, Hutchinson and Jackson highlighted how open displays of workplace bullying could erode patients’ confidence in nurses’ capability and instances of how bullied nurses may, in turn, display hostile behaviors or non-emphatic care, resulting in poor patient satisfaction [ 23 ].

4. Discussion

Workplace bullying is a complex and dynamic social phenomenon that generates various definitions and concepts, making it hard to unify or standardize. Instead, our summary review compared nursing and non-healthcare literature to provide an overview of the various concepts and terms about workplace bullying, as shown in Table 6 [ 2 , 4 , 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ].

Summary of concepts, terms, measurement tools, and theories for workplace bullying in nursing and non-healthcare literature.

* more commonly used in nursing literature.

4.1. Prevalence and Trends of Workplace Bullying among Nurses

The prevalence rate of workplace bullying varies widely. Nevertheless, there is empirical evidence to show the widespread prevalence of workplace bullying in nursing across different countries and healthcare contexts when the data is considered collectively from the included systematic reviews. The review by Lever et al. [ 8 ] showed that the pooled workplace bullying prevalence among nurses is estimated at 26.3%, which was similar to the pooled prevalence rate of 22% as reported by a Korean-language systematic review that examined 23 nursing studies [ 32 ]. However, it was higher than the prevalence rate of 11 to 18%, as reported by a non-nursing systematic review and meta-analysis that extracted 86 studies from various industry fields [ 5 ]. The higher-than-average prevalence rate observed in the healthcare sector could be attributed to several factors, including the highly stressful environment faced by healthcare professionals around the world, availability of reporting systems, and greater staff willingness to recognize and report workplace bullying events [ 8 , 18 ].

A remarkable proportion of nurses in hospital settings have experienced workplace violence, with bullying being the most common. The international variation in workplace bullying prevalence could be due to differences in sample size, type of measurement used, organizational/service setting, and reporting culture [ 2 , 8 , 18 ]. We attributed the extreme prevalence rate, either too high or too low, to the following reasons: (1) poorly defined or inconsistent terms; (2) different measurement tools used to measure workplace bullying events; (3) under-reporting due to a lack of reporting system or fear of repercussions; (4) over-sensitive reporting. Therefore, researchers need to consider the study designs, socio-cultural, and organizational contexts when interpreting the prevalence rates. Additionally, it is good for researchers to consider measuring other indirect measures of workplace bullying, such as job satisfaction, intention to leave, etc.

4.2. Antecedents of Workplace Bullying among Nurses

Workplace bullying can stem from various triggering factors (antecedents) and develop through multiple sources. We identified at least five main types of antecedents. These five can be grouped under two main levels: individual and organizational antecedents ( Table 3 ). Although Johnson (2011) and Samnani and Singh (2012) have suggested the role of societal-level antecedents, such as the societal culture of individualism versus collectivism [ 29 , 33 ], we concurred with the findings by Karatuna et al. that both individual and organizational antecedents exert an overlapping but greater immediate effect on workplace bullying than societal cultures or norms [ 16 ]. This proposition can also be explained by two dominant workplace bullying doctrines: the work environment hypothesis and the individual-dispositions hypothesis [ 31 ]. It is important to note that these antecedents were not mutually exclusive, but reflect the dynamic and mutual interactions between situational and individual factors within the workplace [ 31 ]. The findings from this summary review were also consistent with other rigorous reviews in other fields [ 2 , 16 , 30 , 34 ].

4.3. Consequences of Workplace Bullying among Nurses

This summary review also shows that workplace bullying has many detrimental consequences, not only in terms of the health and well-being of nurses, but also patient safety. For example, Lever et al. reported 45 studies highlighting the mental and physical problems that have afflicted nurses who encountered workplace bullying [ 8 ]. These issues could lead to more staff taking sick leave and providing less-than-effective care at work. In addition, Hutchinson and Jackson found 30 studies demonstrating how workplace bullying reduces nurses’ work performance and productivity and prevents effective teamwork and communication [ 17 ]. This inevitably creates a negative and hostile work environment, leading to organizational consequences, such as reduced job satisfaction, increased intention to quit, and staff turnover/attrition rate, which inevitably leads to higher organizational costs due to recruitment and retention difficulties [ 14 , 23 ].

4.4. Strengths and Limitations of This Umbrella Review

This is the first summary review to synthesize an extensive body of systematic reviews about workplace bullying to the best of our knowledge. We conducted a comprehensive search strategy and critical appraisal of the published reviews under the Cochrane Overview of Reviews method. Ultimately, we generated a conceptual framework to help clinicians and researchers understand the extent of research underlying this topic ( Figure 2 ). However, this review is not without its limitations. First, we excluded several reviews that did not focus primarily on nurses, were published outside the last ten years, did not specify any systematic review methodology, or were published in non-English language [ 1 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. We acknowledge that this could potentially result in the omission of several systematic reviews and their findings. Second, as we only included peer-reviewed journal publications, there is a possibility of publication bias, with studies reporting only positive results more likely to be published. These positive effects may be compounded in our included reviews [ 12 ]. Finally, we did not conduct a re-analysis of possible meta-analysis within the included reviews due to heterogeneity in measurement outcomes and study designs. This aspect may have limited the extent to which we could draw convincing conclusions about the review findings and any associations of variables within the conceptual framework.

Conceptual Framework for Workplace Bullying among Nurses.

4.5. Implications for Further Research

Bullying is a social phenomenon that has been extensively studied within nursing and non-nursing literature. This review found that current studies over-utilized cross-sectional survey designs and generated varied and conflicting results in the literature, making it difficult to determine whether the key correlates of bullying are predictors, consequences, or both. For example, there were times when the occurrence of bullying caused a poor work environment or times when it became vice versa [ 4 , 16 ]. Based on the review, the associations between bullying and correlates are likely characterized by reciprocal relationships. This finding aligns with bullying as a dynamic social phenomenon [ 2 ]. Therefore, there is a need for more advanced study designs where one can also identify and determine directionality between variables based on individual contexts.

Next, there is a need to design robust and effective interventions to address workplace bullying. Although this summary review did not extract systematic reviews focusing on workplace bullying interventions, we observed only a few reviews that addressed this issue. Additionally, these reviews only retrieved a few studies that reported bullying intervention’s effectiveness, highlighting a lack of studies in this area [ 38 , 39 ]. To achieve this, clinicians could consider using advanced and sound methodological designs and a well-developed theoretical framework [ 2 ]. Experimental research designs or survey studies following the same individuals over several time points (e.g., diary studies or longitudinal studies with multiple measurement points) are also needed to provide better indications of causality and intervention effectiveness [ 38 , 39 ].

5. Conclusions

This summary review evaluated the prevalence, antecedents, and consequences of workplace bullying among nurses based on an extensive body of systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2021. Workplace bullying was reported to affect at least one-quarter of the nursing population, higher than in other professions. The huge variation in prevalence rates from 1 to 90% reported across different reviews could be attributed to socio-cultural differences, workplace differences, heterogeneity in study designs, and operationalization of terms and measurement tools. The review findings on the antecedents and consequences demonstrated the complex and overlapping dynamics in the relationships among different variables for workplace bullying. We synthesized the findings from the included reviews and proposed an integrative model to explain this phenomenon and serve as the basis for future research.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: H.S.G. and S.H.; methodology: H.Z.; formal analysis: H.S.G. and H.Z.; writing—original draft preparation: S.H.; writing—review and editing: H.S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

How to Eliminate Workplace Bullying and Incivility

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Bullying in the Workplace

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Business essays
• Reading time: 41 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 21 June 2012*
• File format: Text
• Words: 12,261 (approx)
• Number of pages: 50 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 12,261 words. Download the full version above.

Bullying in the Workplace

Bullying exists within the majority of organisations.

To what extent is this the employer’s responsibility.

This paper is concerned with the concept of bullying in the workplace and examines two critical issues. Firstly the extent to which bullying and the management of it is the responsibility of the employer. Secondly, it examines the differences between how a for profit and how a not for profit organisation approach the problems of bullying to ascertain to what degree they believe it is their responsibility.

The paper finds that whilst there are differences in the ways both types of organisations operate, they show a similar lack of awareness as to the extent, nature and causes of bullying. The paper concludes with recommendations as to what actions they should take to recognise their responsibilities in this area

Introduction.

A Health and Executive survey suggests the number of violent incidents related to bullying by workers on co-workers in England and Wales in 2002/2003 was 849,000 (British Crime Survey 2005). The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 20% of UK employees have experienced some form of bullying over the last two years (CIPD 2006). A Trades Union Congress report in 2006 found that 18 million working days are lost to British industry every year through the effects of bullying (TUC 2006). These statistics show that the issue of bullying is having a serious effect on British industry. The question arises as to who, in the workplace, should be held responsible for the occurrence of the problem and who should be expected to deal with it.

Not for profit or non profit organisations are a growing sector of the British business picture. They vary from the traditional form of business in that there is generally no end product or service. Drucker (1990) defines their purpose as bringing about change in people. For many years, the not for profit sector paid little attention to the concepts of management seeing it as being a device of a ‘business’ and therefore of no relevance to themselves (Drucker 1990). Recently, this opinion has changed and the not for profit sector has realised that they must adopt many of the practices which businesses have been using for years including the ways in which they manage people.

This paper examines the issues of workplace bullying by comparing the views, approaches and actions of a profit orientated business – the DIY store, B&Q – and a not for profit organisation – Cancer Research UK.

Literature Review.

The nature of bullying and harassment..

Rayner et al (2001) suggest that although the concept of bullying has existed for a considerable amount of time, it was only in the 1990s that it was formally recognised as a workplace phenomenon and as such, began to receive academic and professional attention. They refer to a documentary on the BBC in 1990 by Andrea Adams as being a lynchpin for our emergent awareness (Rayner et al 2001, pp. 2), and points out that it is the media who have continued to increase public awareness of the issue and that mainstream management texts rarely contain any reference to bullying at work, and are certainly scant of suggestions as to what to do about it (Rayner et al 2001, pp. 3).

ACAS point out that there is little distinction between the concepts of bullying and harassment by saying that these terms are used interchangeably by most people, and many definitions include bullying as a form of harassment (ACAS advice leaflet 2007, page not given). However, they continue by giving more specific definitions of the two, saying that (h)arassment, in general terms is: unwanted conduct affecting the dignity of men and women in the workplace. It may be related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, nationality or any personal characteristic of the individual, and may be persistent or an isolated incident (ACAS 2007, page not given). They add that (t)he key is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient whereas (b)ullying may be characterised as: offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient (ACAS 2007, page not given). Interestingly, they note that it is not possible to raise a specific complaint of bullying to an employment tribunal and that any such action would need to be defined under discrimination and harassment legislation or under breach of contract relating to duty of care or the Health and Safety at Work Act. The latter can be cited as bullying and harassment can lead to stress and employers have legal duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess the risk of stress-related ill health arising from work activities; and under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to take measures to control that risk (Health and Safety Executive 2007, page not given). Where a case of harassment is found to have occurred, the employer can face an unlimited fine and unlimited compensation (CIPD 2006a).

Employers therefore have a legal obligation to ensure bullying does not take place.

Several writers (see Mullins 2005, Legge (2005), CIPD (2006a) also link the employers responsibilities for managing bullying and harassment to the concept of the psychological contract which implies a series of mutual expectations and satisfaction of needs arising from the people-organisation relationship (Mullins 2005, pp.37). Whilst these expectations may differ between businesses and employers and employees, Stalker (2000) stresses the inclusion of demonstrating a genuine concern for individuals working in the organisation (Stalker 2000, pp. 28). CIPD have found that employers need to provide a positive working environment to satisfy employees’ expectations under the psychological contract (CIPD 2006a, page not given).

It is not only the employer that is seen to have a role in stopping bullying. From a legal perspective, an individual can face prosecution under criminal and civil law and they could be personally liable and have to pay compensation themselves, as well as any payment the organisation may be ordered to make (CIPD 2006a, page not given). Furthermore, the CIPD feels that (i)ndividuals also have a responsibility to behave in ways which support a hostile-free working environment for themselves and their colleagues. They should play their part in making the organisation’s policy a reality and be prepared to take appropriate action if they observe or have evidence that someone else is being harassed (CIPD 2006a, page not given).

A further problem with defining the concept of bullying is described by the CIPD as being that (t)here is no one checklist of what defines harassment as it is often specific to the person, relating to their feelings of respect and dignity (CIPD 2006a, page not given). This introduces the concept that what one person may consider to be bullying, another may not. This makes the management of the problem difficult.

There are various ways in which bullying can occur. The most obvious form of a face-to-face situation is not the only source and cases have been reported of bullying behaviour through e mail and telephone as well as through the use of remote supervision methods, such as the monitoring of telephone calls and computer usage. ACAS (2007) also note the difficulties in determining what is bullying and what could be considered as the normal practice or culture of an organisation. This leads to two areas of concern. Firstly, how a business culture where a degree of what could be considered bullying is normal develops and how it can be changed. Secondly, there are pressures on an individual to be seen to fit in and not be perceived as weak by raising the issue.

ACAS (2007) have examined this point in some detail and conclude that (p)eople being bullied or harassed may sometimes appear to overreact to something that seems relatively trivial but which may be the ‘last straw’ following a series of incidents (ACAS 2007, page not given). Furthermore, they have found that (c)olleagues may be reluctant to come forward as witnesses, as they too may fear the consequences for themselves. They may be so relieved not to be the subject of the bully themselves that they collude with the bully as a way of avoiding attention (ACAS 2007, page not given). Olsen (2005) suggests that the reasons why a victim of bullying may not report it include lack of management support, lack of confidence in how it will be handled resulting in them being worse off, victimisation by the bully and others, fear of seeming weak, being accused of it being their own fault and being discriminated against for promotion. Olsen also notes that bullies take certain actions to dissuade their victims from reporting them. These include charm, subtle or direct threats and pressuring others to allow or ignore certain behaviours (Olsen 2005, pp. 29).

ACAS offer a range of actions to develop a policy on bullying and harassment. These include: statement of commitment from senior management; acknowledgement that bullying and harassment are problems for the organisation; clear statement that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated; examples of unacceptable behaviour; statement that bullying and harassment may be treated as disciplinary offences; the steps the organisation takes to prevent bullying and harassment; responsibilities of supervisors and managers; confidentiality for any complainant; reference to grievance procedures (formal and informal), including timescales for action; investigation procedures, including timescales for action; reference to disciplinary procedures, including timescales for action counselling and support availability; training for managers; protection from victimisation; how the policy is to be implemented, reviewed and monitored (ACAS 2007 page not given). Olsen suggests that a workplace bullying programme is not so much about targeting and focusing upon bullies but about creating a culture that makes the actions of bullying and harassment very unwelcome (Olsen 2005, pp. 31).

An important source of information on bullying is the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line set up in 1997. Their website reports that they receive 200-500 visits per day from various countries indicating that workplace bullying is an international phenomenon. Their statistics show that teachers, nurses, social workers and not for profit organisations are the top four sources of reports of bullying and that (a)pprox 6-8% are from the voluntary and non-profit sector, with small charities featuring prominently (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line a, page not given). Furthermore, they have found that this sector has shown the highest rate of increase in calls since 1998 (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line a, page not given). They suggest that this is because the serial bully is attracted to this role for the opportunities to abuse power over vulnerable clientsas well as the opportunity to show publicly how caring they are ( UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line b, page not given). They go on to say that (t)his narcissistic urge is common to many serial bullies (especially females) who are oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be perceived (as wonderful, kind, caring individuals) and how they are perceived (as aggressive, immature, inadequate and incompetent) (italics in original) (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line b, page not given)

By far the biggest proportion of bullying relationships (90%) are where a manager is bullying a subordinate (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line a), although they note that this figure may be inaccurate as they feel that managers may be less likely to report cases where they are being bullied by a subordinate. They also found that females were more likely to report cases of bullying to them than males (75% of the calls were from females). They feel that this is probably because females are a) more willing to admit they are being bullied, and b) more likely to be motivated to do something about it (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line a, page not given). However, they fail to qualify these statements or provide any evidence that these are the cases. Furthermore, it could be argued that those sectors from which the reports are made are likely to have a higher proportion of female workers.

The UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line found that whilst a fifth of reported cases resulted in the complainant taking legal action, the majority were discouraged from doing so by a lack of support from their trades union or a refusal from their employer to allow them access to their trade union representative. Of those that did result in legal action, only 1% resulted in a successful prosecution (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line a, page not given).

Olsen suggests several reasons why employers are slow to deal with claims of bullying. These include fear that the lack of definition and ability to asses what is bullying and what is not bullying will give rise to many spurious or malicious complaints; there is a single-bottom-line focus and unless issues are seen to have directly affected profits there is reluctance to address them; generational cycles of high conflict, workplace bullying and harassment have created a culture that seems impossible to change; those in positions of power are afraid because they realise it may mean having to change their own style of management; they simply do not want to understand it and do not want to address it; they turn a blind eye and don’t believe it could be a problem within their organisation; they consider it to be too costly to address properly and do not see these costs as being recoverable (Olsen 2005, pp. 31).

Several writers have commented on the effects of bullying. As previously mentioned, the most common effect is that of stress which provides a recourse for the victim to take legal action under health and safety legislation. The CIPD notes that employee stress within an organisation can damage morale and lead to higher labour turnover, reduced productivity, lower efficiency and divided teams (CIPD 2006a, page not given) and for an individual can lead to illness, absenteeism, less commitment, poor performance and resignation (CIPD 2006a, page not given). Olsen and the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line both highlight the more extreme possibilities of suicide and retribution with the National Workplace Bullying Advice Line reporting cases of these occurring being logged on their website.

Causes of bullying.

To examine the extent of the employers responsibility for stopping bullying, it is necessary to examine the causes of bullying. Olsen (2005) suggests several reasons including the personal need to maintain power over others; the personal need to control people, circumstances or situations; a predatory need to victimise or abuse others; wanting to have fun at someone else’s expense; stress of pressure; the need to maintain a culture and teach or toughen up newcomers (rites of passage, initiation practices); a pathological need to appear superior to others or achieve success at another’s expense (Olsen 2005, pp. 28). She also explains the two extremes of reasons behind bullying as being ’situational’ – due to a particular event or situation – and ‘chronic’ – being within the nature of the bully under all situations (Olsen 2005). The situational bully may respond to being placed under pressure, experiencing personal problems, being threatened by others or having their own self esteem threatened by performing an isolated act of bullying. Olsen (2005) sees this as most common form of bullying and the easiest to manage, saying that these individuals will respond well to correction and training. The UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line (date not given) suggests specific psychological disorders that can account for chronic bullying. These include antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, paranoid personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and Munchausen’s Syndrome. Olsen (2005) says that although chronic bullies are less common that situational bullies, they may have greater impact upon people and organisations and be far more difficult, if not impossible, to change (Olsen 2005, pp. 42).

Profit v non profit.

The not for profit organisations are becoming increasing important forms of labour utilisation. Drucker tells us that in the USA, the not for profit sector is the largest employer with over 80 million people working as volunteers (Drucker 2001).

Drucker also tells us that the non profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and in society rather than being driven by an end product or service motive (Drucker 1990, pp. 1). Drucker wrote extensively on the subject of not for profit organisations and how they initially failed to embrace the practices of for profit businesses in areas such as management, marketing and planning, seeing them as the domain of ‘businesses’, something they did not want to be associated with. He feels that more recently, the not for profit sector had begun to adopt these skill areas and that there is a ‘management boom’ going on among the non-profit institutions, large and small (Drucker 1990, pp. xv). Drucker feels that this is due at least partly to an awareness by the not for profit sector that they require a robust management system as they lack the discipline of the bottom line (Drucker 2001, pp. 40) meaning that their overall aim of bringing about change in people is difficult to measure and success for them is a nebulous concept. However, he goes on to point out that there are few tools designed particularly for their style of operation ad that little of it pays any attention to the distinct characteristics of the non-profits or to their specific central needs (Drucker 1990, pp. xv).

Brower et al (2000) also noted differences in the way not for profit and for profit businesses operate and concentrated their research on the moral and ethical practices of company boards. Their findings were that, as would probably be expected, the not for profit board members showed higher levels of principles and benevolence, but lower levels of reasoning than their for profit counterparts (Brower et al 2000). These findings support Druckers view that there are significant differences in the cultures of not for profit and for profit organisations.

The majority of employees within a not for profit organisation are volunteers, a situation which, arguably, makes people management more difficult than it is in the for profit sector. Drucker sees the title of ‘volunteer’ as being misleading and uses the term ‘non-paid workers’ in preference (Drucker 1990, pp. 181). This differentiation by name indicates his view as to how workers within not for profit organisations have been viewed and managed versus how they should be, going forward. Drucker points out that not only are these non-paid workers numbers increasing but that they are taking on more leadership roles and that existing models for their management and development should be adapted to allow them to be applied. Whilst Drucker raises the specific issues of their training and development, of more relevance to this paper is the issue of how poor performance is managed. The quandary facing the not for profit sector is that a large proportion of their workforce is unpaid allowing a larger proportion of donations to be channelled to the cause for which they are working. Should the management of this group be carried out as it is in the for profit business, would this lead to a shortage of volunteers and does this mean that these workers should be allowed to act outside the ‘norms’ of employee relations? Drucker gives a specific situation in relation to this question. He suggests that many people who do volunteer work do so because they are lonely, but that sometimes these people for psychological or emotional reasons simply cannot work with other people; they are noisy, intrusive, abrasive, rude (Drucker 1990, pp. 183).

As has been demonstrated, the not for profit and for profit organisations demonstrate areas of similarity and difference. By examining the work of Drucker, it has been shown that there is emphasis on the not for profit sector to adopt the management practices of the for profit sector. The following section will examine more specifically where these differences occur as an introduction to the possible differences in the way they approach the problem of bullying.

Drucker summarises the general recruitment methods of the not for profit sector. He tells us that experienced volunteers are assigned to scan the newcomer (Drucker 2001, pp. 47) and that then senior staffinterview(s) the newcomers to assess their strengths and place them accordingly (Drucker 2001, pp. 47-48). He continues by saying that (v)olunteers may be assigned both a mentor and a supervisor with whom they work out their performance goalsthese advisors are two different people, as a rule, and both, ordinarily, volunteers themselves (Drucker 2001, pp. 48). This reliance on existing volunteers to recruit and train newcomers returns us to the earlier point regarding the pressures on the not for profit sector in ensuring they have a suitable number of people to be able to raise the finances required and that the majority of the monies raised are channelled to the cause itself. The question can be asked as to the amount of training the selectors receive and the criteria that they employ when making selection decisions. The for profit sector, especially in a large business such as that being examined in this paper, would have a dedicated team working on recruitment and employing advanced recruitment methods such as psychometric testing in their process. Whilst they still have the pressures of achieving the bottom line, they are not subject to the scrutiny of outsiders as to how they reinvest their profit into the support areas. This subject received a large degree of publicity a few years ago when questions were raised regarding the percentage of a donation which actually went to the ‘deserving cause’ and how much was spent on administration costs. In 2000, the BBC reported that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) spent a total of 38m on fundraising, administration and campaigning (and) 28m went on children’s services (BBC 2000, page not given). Similarly, the Guardian newspaper in 2005 reported on a donkey charity who, from a total income of 111,665 spent less than $58,000 on the saving of donkeys (Guardian 2005).

The organisation, Charity Facts, suggests that no more than 15% of donations should be spent on administration, but also questions the professionalism of management where less than 5% is spent on administration (Charity Facts website).

The workers in both types of organisation show marked differences as well. The National Workplace Bullying Advice Line cites the NCVO’s Survey of Job Roles and Salaries which found that there are around 130,000 charities and not-for-profit organisations using around 3 million unpaid workers (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line b). They also found that off these, two thirds are female.

In terms of people management , the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line warns us that responsible charities will have conditions of employment similar to those of any reasonable employer; however, many charities have few or no conditions (UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line b). Volunteers are not protected by employment legislation as paid employees are. The government sponsored website, DirectGov.org recommends the use of a volunteer agreement that helps both the organisation and its volunteers by making expectations clearboth agreements incorporate current thinking on what is good practice in managing volunteers. They also address the unlikely possibility of volunteers being considered employees in the eyes of the law (Direct Gov website, page not given). Their sample volunteer agreement covers equal opportunities but makes no reference to harassment or bullying. Volunteers do have the same rights as paid employees under the Data Protection Act.

B&Q plc. and Cancer Research UK.

B&Q is the leading DIY and garden centre retailer in the UK and Europe and the third largest in the world. Their turnover in 2005 was 3.9 billion and this resulted in a profit of 208.5 million. They employ over 38,000 employees in their 331 UK outlets. They are part of the Kingfisher Group (summarised from B&Q company information).

Cancer Research are the UKs leading cancer research charity, spending 257 million a year on funding research into the disease and increasing public awareness. Their governing structure comprises a chief executive and executive board, a scientific executive board, trustees and members. The trustees advise and support the board in implementing their strategies whilst the members act in a role similar to shareholders with their most important role being the election of trustees (summarised from Cancer Research website). The two main sources of funds for Cancer Research are long term monthly donations from members of the public and the charity shops. Over 1 million people donate monthly to the charity raising over 5 million a month. The 600 shops run by the company and selling both donated goods and new items raised 61.9 million in the financial year 2004/2005. The shops are staffed by around 15,000 voluntary workers, although this figure fluctuates on a constant basis and includes those who volunteer for short periods of time (summarised from Cancer Research website).

Methodology.

The primary research was designed to be able to quantify and qualify the attitudes and actions of the two companies around the subject of bullying.

Face-to-face interviews with representatives from both the personnel and store management functions were used initially as it was thought that the nature of the subject could be seen as being controversial and therefore the expected response rate from a postal or electronic questionnaire would be too low to be able to achieve a worthwhile conclusion.

The writer was able to gain access to representatives from both organisations to conduct these interviews. The questionnaire was based to some degree on the recommendations made by ACAS and CIPD as to what steps employers should take to minimise and deal with incidents of bullying. Further questions were added and both qualitative and quantitative information was gathered. The respondents were briefed beforehand that the survey was a general review of bullying and harassment policies rather than looking at how they viewed their responsibilities as it was felt that this would affect their replies adversely.

Following these interviews it was noted that both organisations had a policy of conducting regular employee attitude surveys and it was felt that reviewing these would be of benefit to the research. However, on closer examination of the survey results, it was found that there was no direct information that was of relevance to this research and they therefore have not been included in this paper.

The third area of research was analysing statistics from the two companies relating to why people left the business, grievances made and any legal action in terms of constructive dismissal or discrimination legislation. It was felt that this information may be able to support the answers received from the interviews in certain areas, but once analysed, proved to be disappointing.

The writer was given access to groups of employees within a working group context to be able to gain an insight into their views on bullying. They were briefed beforehand that they were not expected to talk about specific incidents that had either occurred to them or to their colleagues, but that the purpose was to gain their opinion on the subject.

Several limitation are noted in the methodology. Firstly, as the subject being examined is one with legal and public perception connections, it would be expected that the respondents may give the right answers rather than describe the actual situation. As mentioned, to overcome this, the specific research questions were not raised with the respondents. Despite this it is still possible that model answers were given and the extra action of reviewing company information on leavers, grievances and potential legal cases was designed to lessen this even further. However, it must be noted that duties under the Data Protection Act means that not all information was available.

Secondly, the potentially sensitive nature of the subject made the management of the discussion groups difficult. The aim was to avoid any accusations or hearsay on incidents of alleged bullying and to gain the employees perception of degrees of responsibility between themselves and their organisation. The results have been presented to support this and any references to specific cases, either actual or alleged have been omitted. Results.

Results from personnel representatives. B&Q had a much more robust attitude towards the issue of bullying. Their senior management team had produced a written statement that was included in the company literature. Cancer Research UK had no formal written statement on bullying but the respondent believed them to be fully aware of the possibility of it occurring.

The B&Q policy, which is covered in the induction received by all employees contains specific examples as to what would be considered bullying and states that actions that would be considered bullying are not limited to these examples. Cancer Research believed that using such examples may make it difficult to accuse someone of bullying if their actions were slightly different to the examples. Whilst all new volunteers receive an induction, the personnel policies are not covered in detail.

Both organisations have policies which state that incidents of bullying would be dealt with under the disciplinary procedure. However, they were relatively unaware of the full range of actions that could be considered as bullying and gave a limited number of examples of behaviours concentrating mainly on the more obvious ones.

When asked about the steps they take to prevent bullying, neither organisation referred to actions during recruitment. Both said they conducted staff surveys and would use normal channels of communication to raise awareness and allow the opportunity for people to raise issues. The B&Q approach was much more structured and proactive, utilising other strategies to highlight possible problems such as exit interviews and cases of actual or threatened legal action. The Cancer Research approach was much more reactive, relying on others to raise the issue.

The B&Q managers and supervisors were reported to have a large degree of training and support when dealing with issues such as bullying. The nature of the organisation means that each worksite has its own personnel representative who is on hand to coach and support managers and supervisors. Cancer Research has significantly less resources to be able to offer the same level of support to their managers and supervisors at each individual site central support is available but is under a large degree of work pressure to deal with every request for support. Again, the approach by Cancer Research can be described as being reactive rather than proactive. However, it was at this stage of the research that first mention was made of the difference between employees and volunteers and the Cancer Research representative was clear on the fact that they were under no obligation to utilise a disciplinary process. They also stated that it would often be in the best interests of both parties just to let someone go if there were issues around their actions.

Both representatives believed that a large degree of the responsibility for minimising occurrences of bullying lay with the individual when asked the question specifically. They both felt that it was an action by an individual and that the person must have made the decision to carry out the act themselves. There was degree of expectation around personal behaviour expressed by both respondents, in that bullying would be viewed as socially unacceptable and the Cancer Research representative noted specifically that there would be a contradiction of actions in someone wishing to work voluntarily for a charity and then bully a colleague. Neither recognised the employees legal responsibilities to not bully others. The B&Q representative recognised the relevance of the psychological contract to the management of bullying, but the Cancer Research representative was not familiar with the concept and therefore could not comment on its relevance.

Both representatives thought that there was little they could do proactively to stop bullying occurring and that it was the organisations role to deal with it once it had happened. Both commented that it was important to have the right environment to discourage it although their replies concentrated on awareness and working atmosphere rather than on identifying individuals who may carry out such actions.

The B&Q representative had a much more detailed view of cases of bullying within the business but said that they felt it was not a major problem for them. The Cancer Research representative admitted that they were probably unaware of some cases due to the organisational structure and the high turnover of volunteers.

Both representatives identified that there could be an improvement in their selection processes to try and identify possible bullies before employing them. The B&Q representative was more knowledgeable about procedures such as psychometric testing and the legal problems with references. The Cancer Research representative seemed to have more of a laissez faire attitude, suggesting that the nature of volunteering and the way they utilise them meant that there was little opportunity to conduct more in depth recruitment procedures. The Cancer Research representative also noted that the store managers were probably the most likely population to commit bullying and that many of these had been volunteers for a long time suggesting that they were taken on before the concept of bullying became a concern.

Results from store management representatives.

The store management representative from B&Q supported the personnel representatives statement that there is a clear statement of commitment from senior management that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated. They agreed that it was made clear to all new employees. The Cancer Research store management representative echoed the assumptive view of their personnel representative in that it would be understood that this would be the case.

The B&Q representative agreed that there were examples of what would be considered bullying in the company handbook whilst the Cancer Research representative was not aware of any examples. This is not surprising as the personnel representative had stated that the policies were available for volunteers to examine rather than them being expected to read them it is possible that the store representative had not seen them. This is supported by the answers to the next question where the B&Q store representative was aware that bullying would be dealt with under disciplinary procedures and the Cancer Research store representative assumed they would.

The B&Q store management representative was much more aware of how their organisation acts to prevent bullying and harassment whist the Cancer Research store representative showed a similar view to their personnel representative in that they thought it unlikely that someone who was prepared to volunteer to help others would bully their colleagues. This dichotomy was repeated when asked about the specific responsibilities of supervisors and managers in terms of identifying and managing bullying and how are these communicated to them.

When asked what action they would take if there was an accusation of bullying, as would be expected the B&Q store representative was able to give a much more detailed and substantial answer. They mentioned the role of the personnel representative in providing them with guidance and support. The reply from the Cancer Research representative showed a more individual approach suggesting that they would take it on themselves to make a decision.

When asked how much it was the employees responsibility to not bully others, the B&Q store representative seemed to have a much more practical view. They pointed out that whilst you should be able to expect certain levels of behaviour from people in society, there were many instances where these were not upheld and they saw it as being the same in an work environment with a certain expectation of employees but the need for the business to manage incidents where standards of behaviour were not upheld. The Cancer Research store representative gave an idealistic reply by suggesting that if someone had the desire to give their time voluntarily to help others less fortunate than themselves, they would be unlikely to then commit acts of bullying of other volunteers. Both believed the employees should be responsible for creating a positive working environment.

Both store representatives saw little responsibility for the employer to stop bullying other than deal with it if it occurred.

Neither store representative was aware of any actual cases of bullying or alleged bullying having occurred in their businesses.

Both store representatives thought there were no further actions that could be taken at the recruitment stage to lessen the potential for bullies to be in their organisations.

Analysis of exit interviews, grievances and legal action.

The results of the secondary research were disappointing . Although B&Q had maintained good records in these areas, Cancer Research was less likely to have the information due to the nature of employment of their volunteers. Initially, neither sets of information added significantly to the research. On reflection, however, it became apparent that this supported the findings of the literature review that victims of bullying are unlikely to report it to their employers.

Results from employee working groups.

The employees seemed to have a good understanding of the concept of bullying and both groups were of the opinion that it is a regular occurrence within workplaces. The Cancer Research group believed that it was more likely to occur in businesses with paid employees as in the volunteer status they believed people would find it easier to leave if they had any issues with their work or relationships with others.

The B&Q group identified the difficulties in determining what exactly constitutes bullying and were aware that certain workplace practices that most would take for granted as the culture or the ‘way things are done’ in that particular place, could be seen as bullying to someone.

Both groups felt that a large degree of responsibility rested with the employees to not bully others in the first place. The Cancer Research group were more likely to take some action themselves against someone who was bullying another person, the B&Q group did not mention this option.

When asked about the employers responsibility with regard to bullying, the B&Q employee group mentioned the fact that the majority of cases of bullying were by managers towards subordinates, this had been mentioned by the representative from Cancer Research but was not emphasised as being an important point. The B&Q working group felt that the organisation was responsible for creating the right management style that would not include elements of bullying as a way of getting work done. They felt that the organisations second area of responsibility was to deal with any reports of bullying by removing the individual from employment as they felt that lower levels of discipline allowing the individuals to remain would result in them reoffending.

The Cancer Research group identified the employers responsibilities in a similar way commenting on the organisations role in determining the working environment, they also noted that the majority of cases of bullying were by a manager to a subordinate. Discussion.

The results of the questionnaires show a definite difference as to the way a for profit and not for profit organisation view the issues surrounding bullying and their responsibilities in terms of managing it. The for profit representatives were much more aware and proactive around the issue and had policies and procedures in place both to prevent and deal with any incidents. The not for profit organisation indicated a lack of awareness of the potential for problems that seemed to result from their perception of the nature of their business. The for profit business viewed bullying as a distinct possibility and were aware of their responsibilities. The not for profit organisation showed a less business-like approach, seeing the fact that their volunteers were seeking to assist others and giving their time freely as a contraindication of the likelihood of bullying being a possibility.

Whilst both organisations general view was that it was the employees individual responsibility to treat their colleagues with respect, the for profit business showed a much more robust system of making sure employees were aware that it was unacceptable behaviour and for dealing with it if it did occur. Neither organisation identified significant improvements they as businesses could make on being more proactive in stopping the problem occurring and this could be due largely to the fact that neither business reported it as being a major issue.

A conclusion from this could be proposed as being that the organisations were unaware of the degree of bullying that takes place in their business. The literature review indicated that bullying is a difficult concept to define and highlights that what one person may consider as bullying, another would not. The representatives from neither organisation were able to provide a full description of what types of behaviour would be considered to be bullying although the personnel representative from the for profit business had the most detailed understanding and this would be expected due to the nature of their role. It is possible therefore that incidents of bullying are more numerous in both organisations than they realise and this would limit the degree of action they could take to control the occurrence. Although both organisations indicated that bullying would be dealt with under their disciplinary policy, neither indicted an understanding of the legal aspects. This again indicates a lack of awareness of the concept of bullying and may be a reason why they felt there was little more they could do as an employer about the problem than the steps they were already taking.

The literature review indicated that the incidence of bullying is higher in the not for profit sector than the for profit sector. This makes the research results more disappointing as the not for profit sample showed less awareness of and procedures for the management of bullying. Whilst both organisations felt a large degree of the responsibility for managing bullying came from the employee themselves, the not for profit respondents indicated this to a higher degree than the for profit representatives, citing that they felt that the nature of volunteering would not attract the type of person who would bully. This is in direct contradiction of the findings of the literature review which found that serial bullies, in particular, are attracted to work in the volunteer sector.

Whilst the for profit company had a grievance procedure in place which could be used for employees to report incidents of bullying, they felt that employees would be able to speak with their manager in the first case if they had any complaints. The not for profit representatives gave raising it with the manager as the main course of action for an employee who was being bullied. Whilst the for profit business showed a greater awareness of the issue of bullying, both organisations placed more emphasis on the management of bullying as being an individual responsibility of their employees i.e. they saw it as a concept that is unacceptable within society and therefore unacceptable in the workplace. Processes were in place to deal with managing the issue but although noticeably less existed in the not for profit organisation, neither business showed a proactive approach of seeking out bullying, the processes designed more as a reactive response should it occur.

A major conclusion which can be drawn from this research is the findings from the employee working groups when compared the comments of the personnel and store management representatives. The personnel and store management representatives approached the issue of bullying as a problem that occurs between employees whereas the employee working groups highlighted the fact, as was found in the literature review, that majority of incidents of bullying are cases where a manager has bullied a subordinate. It was employee working groups who suggested that the employers responsibilities lay not only with dealing with cases of bullying, but also around the way the culture or working environment were, an area which they saw as being wholly in the domain of the employer. Furthermore, if the emphasis on the prevention and management of bullying by both organisations management teams concentrates on colleague to colleague bullying, the steps that they currently take would be insufficient to dissuade manager to subordinate instances as the emphasis is on the managers themselves to deal with and report instances. Similarly, the lack of actions to identify potential bullies at the selection stage, particularly by Cancer Research, again indicates a reactive rather than proactive approach to the problem.

Conclusion.

The literature review found that there is a high level of bullying within businesses reported through independent help lines and that there is a reluctance from those subjected to bullying to report these cases to their employer. The reasons for this were seen to be a lack of support from the employer which the victims feel may lead to the problem becoming worse rather than being solved. Linked to this is are the difficulties in defining bullying a such as what it is the personal perception of the person on the receiving end as to whether the actions against them could be classed as bullying. The legal situation does not help the victim as there is no direct recourse in law as there is in cases of discrimination.

It was also found that whilst not for profit organisations are being encouraged to adopt many of the practices of the for profit sector, this does not filter down to the area of bullying and harassment.

The businesses studied show a general view that the issues of bullying is the responsibility of the individual as it is classed as an antisocial action and that their responsibilities as employers – be it of paid or unpaid staff – centre around the dealing of it when it has happened without necessarily encouraging or facilitating the reporting of it. Similarities can be drawn with the application of a legal system, that is, tell people not to do it and punish them if they do it. This leads to an apparent underestimation by both organisations as to the occurrence of bullying in their businesses. The employers also showed a lack of awareness of the role of management in bullying itself. The employee groups were aware of this and it was found in the literature review that this is the most common form of bullying. Unless businesses can ensure they create a climate or culture in which the management demonstrate to their employees that bullying is not acceptable, they will not become aware of the high level of bullying that exists or be able to deal with it effectively.

Actions would be required by both organisations to be more proactive in their management of the bullying issues. They currently fail to recognise their responsibilities in preventing its occurrence, an area in which they could take more actions. Both organisations, but particularly the not for profit example, should develop more robust selection procedures to identify potential bullies during recruitment. More actions and awareness are also required in the development of the organisational culture and management style to realise and accept that these aspects of the business can support the occurrence of bullying. Neither business seemed aware of the importance of these ands whilst the not for profit business may have a disadvantage in the nature of the business and lack the financial resources to be able to invest in doing this, they should not be able to use the volunteer status of the majority of their workers as an excuse. The for profit business can have not explanation for their lack of action other than a failure to recognise the nature and causes of bullying. Unless the employers in both cases accept their responsibilities for the issue of workplace bullying, it will remain a characteristic of businesses and continue to have a detrimental effect on their operations be it in terms of profit or their ability to bring about a change in people.

Bibliography and references.

ACAS (2007). Advice leaflet – Bullying and harassment at work: guidance for employees. Accessed at: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=797 on 9/04/2007.

Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome It. London: Virago Press.

Barbeito, C. L. (2003). Human Resource Policies and Procedures for Nonprofit Organisations. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Bass, B.M. (1960). Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers.

B&Q company information (date not given). Accessed at: http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/templates/content_lookup.jsp?content=/aboutbandq/2004/company_information/general.jsp&menu=aboutbandq on 9/04/2007.

BBC (2000). Children’s charity in spending row. Accessed at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1060802.stm on 13/04/2007.

Bird, C. (1940). Social Psychology. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company.

Brower H.H, Shrader C.B. (2000). Moral Reasoning and Ethical Climate: Not-for-Profit vs. For-Profit Boards of Directors. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 26, Number 2, July 2000, pp. 147-167(21).

Buchanan, D. Huczynski, A. (2004). Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Cancer Research website. (22/05/2006). How we are governed. Accessed at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/whoweare/howwearegoverned/ on 9/04/2007.

Charity Facts website. (Date not given). What is a Charity? Accessed at: http://www.charityfacts.org/charity_facts/index.html on 13/04/2007.

CIPD (2006). Harassment at work. Accessed at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/harassmt/harrass?cssversion=printable

On 9/04/2007.

Direct Gov website. (Date not given). Your employment rights. Accessed at: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Gettinginvolvedinyourcommunity/Volunteering/DG_10038499 on 13/04/2007.

Djurkovic, N. McCormack, D. Casimir, G.(2006). Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model of workplace bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 21, Number 1, 2006, pp. 73-88(16).

Drucker, P.F. (1990). Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices. London: Collins.

Drucker, P.F. (1992). Managing for the Future. New York: Penguin Group.

Drucker, P.F. (2001). The Essential Drucker. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School.

Edmunds, V. Hopkins, M. Williams, A. (2003). Harassment at Work. Bristol: Jordans.

Field, T. (1996). Bully in Sight: How to Predict, Resist, Challenge and Combat Workplace Bullying – Overcoming the Silence and Denial by Which Abuse Thrives. Independent publication.

Graves, D. (2002). Fighting Back: How to Fight Bullying In the Workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guardian.(2005). Show me the money. Friday October 21, 2005.

Hadikin, R. O’Driscoll, M. (2000). The Bullying Culture.Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Health and Safety Executive. (2007). Why tackle work-related stress? Accessed at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/why.htm on 9/04/2007.

Heames, J. Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: a cross-level assessment.

Management Decision, Volume 44, Number 9, 2006, pp. 1214-1230(17).

Hoel, H. Beale, D. (2006). Workplace Bullying, Psychological Perspectives and Industrial Relations: Towards a Contextualized and Interdisciplinary Approach.

British Journal of Industrial Relations, Volume 44, Number 2, June 2006, pp. 239-262(24).

Holme, C. A.(2006). Impact not intent. Industrial and Commercial Training, Volume 38, Number 5, 2006, pp. 242-247(6).

Lee, R. Brotheridge, C.(2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Volume 15, Number 3, September 2006, pp. 352-377(26).

Legge, K. (2005). Human Resource Management. Rhetorics and Realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

McElhaney, M. (2004). Aggression in the Workplace: Preventing and Managing High-Risk Behavior. Indiana: Authorhouse.

Mullins, L.J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Namie, G. Namie, R. (2000). The Bully at Work: What You Can Do… Illinois: Sourcebooks.

Olsen, H. (2005). Workplace Bullying and Harassment: A Toolbox for Managers and Supervisors. New Zealand: CCH.

Olson, B. J. Nelson, D. L. Parayitam, S. (2006). Managing aggression in organizations: what leaders must know. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Volume 27, Number 5, 2006, pp. 384-398(15).

Peyton, P.R. (2003). Dignity at Work: Eliminate Bullying and Create a Positive Working Environment. Oxford: Routledge.

Pynes, J.E. (1997).Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Randall, P. 1997). Adult Bullying: Perpetrators and Victims. Oxford: Routledge.

Rayner, C. Hoel, H. Cooper, G.L. (2001). Workplace Bullying: What Do We Know, Who Is to Blame and What Can We Do? London: Taylor Francis.

Riggio, R.E. Smith Orr, S. (eds.) (2003)Improving Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Robbins, S.P. Judge, T.A. (2006). Organizational Behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Meglich-Sespico, P. Faley, R. Knapp, D.(2007). Relief and Redress for Targets of Workplace Bullying. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Volume 19, Number 1, March 2007, pp. 31-43(13).

Stalker, K (2000). ‘The Individual, the Organisation and the Psychological Contract’, the Institute of Administrative Management, July/August 2000, pp. 28,34.

TUC. (2006). Bullying / Violence at Work. Accessed at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm?mins=30 on 12/04/2007.

UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line. History and Statistics. (Date not given a). Accessed at: http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/worbal.htm on 9/04/2007.

UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line. (Date not given b). Bullying in the charity sector, voluntary sector and non-profit sectors. Accessed at: http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/voluntary.htm on 9/04/2007.

Wolf, T. Carter, B. (1999). Managing a Nonprofit Organization in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Free Press.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire – personnel representatives

Do you have a statement of commitment from senior management regarding bullying or a clear statement that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated?

B&Q Ltd.

Yes, this was produced some time ago – about 3 years. There was a specific action to include this in the company literature. It states that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated at any level.

Cancer Research UK

Our senior management team are aware of the possibilities for bullying and/or harassment for our volunteers and would not tolerate it. There is no formal written statement regarding this.

Do you have examples of unacceptable behaviour to illustrate what constitutes bullying and are these communicated to those who work for you?

Yes, in our personnel policy on bullying and harassment, there is a full description of the types of behaviour that would be considered to be unacceptable. All employees receive an induction which covers the policy.

We believe that this would be too limiting and that it would limit us in being able to take action should an incident occur that was not covered in the examples. We have a policy that states that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated. All our volunteers have access to this document.

What type of behaviours would you constitute as being bullying?

Our policy gives the examples of personal insults, constant, unsupported criticism, ridiculing in public or face-to-face, aggression, swearingthings like that

Picking on someone, being rude, discriminating against someone.

Does your policy state that bullying and harassment may be treated as disciplinary offences?

Yes, in our personnel policy on bullying and harassment the actions that the company may take in reply to incidents are set out and are the same as the disciplinary procedure.

Yes, we state this categorically.

What steps does the organisation take to prevent bullying and harassment?

As well as having a written statement and a policy which is included in induction, we arrange regular awareness training for managers and supervisors. We also conduct regular staff attitude surveys in which they are asked whether they have been bullied. We monitor our leavers and conduct exit interviews too which include a question on whether they feel they have been subjected to bullying and we report to the board of director on any actual or threatened legal action. Actions related to accusations of bullying would be included in this.

We have a specific policy on bullying and harassment and would encourage individuals to report any cases. We have a regular survey of our volunteers where they are asked about their working relationships with their colleagues and believe any incidents of bullying would be highlighted in these. We have regular meetings with shop managers in which we would raise any issues we felt were important such as bullying.

What are the specific responsibilities of supervisors and managers in terms of identifying and managing bullying and how are these communicated to them?

As I said, all our manager undergo regular awareness sessions on issues including bullying. They all undergo a management or supervisory training programme which covers all aspects of their work including their responsibilities in managing their staff. If any issues occurred we would conduct further training and awareness sessions with all individuals. If a manager was aware of a case of bullying through their own observation or by having it reported to them, they would consult with their personnel manager who would guide the through the appropriate course of action.

This would be considered to be a basic part of their job description in terms of managing others and would be in their job description. It would also be covered in their annual review. They would be expected to deal with issues relating to bullying as per the policy.

What actions does your organisation take to encourage employees to report incidents where they feel they have been bullied?

Employees have the grievance procedure they can use to report this but we would feel that the relationship we have with our employees would mean that they would feel comfortable in discussing any concerns they have with their manager in the first place.

The store managers have a good relationships with their teams and would listen to any concerns they had.

What are your investigation procedures?

If an individual is accused of bullying, an investigation would take place to determine if the accusation was valid. If it was thought that there were sufficient grounds, the individual would usually be suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary investigation. This investigation would examine the evidence and statement from the victim and alleged bully plus any witnesses. The likelihood of the accusation being valid would be assessed and appropriate action taken. Depending on the circumstances, nature of the bullying and any previous incidents, this could range form a verbal warning to dismissal without notice.

Both the alleged victim and bully would be questioned along with any other relevant parties. If it was deemed that bullying had taken place or may have taken place the volunteer accused of the action may be told that their services are no longer required. As we are talking about volunteers, you have to remember that we do not have any requirement to use a disciplinary procedure as a business would. We would fine it much easier for both parties just to let someone go if we felt there were any issues.

How much responsibility do you feel lies with your employees to minimise occurrences of bullying?

I would say that it in the most part up to them. It is their actions after all and they should be able to treat others with dignity and respect. Having said that, if that was the case we wouldn’t need any kind of policies or disciplinary procedures or even performance reviews come to that as everyone would be doing the best they could. I would say it’s a lot up to the person though, you must be able to expect employees not to bully each other.

It has to be said that it is totally up to them. We don’t do anything that would lead someone to become a bully so if they decide to do it, it must be their own decision and we can’t do much about it until it has actually happened.

What do you feel their responsibilities are?

To treat their co-workers with the same respect they would show other members of their community. And to report anything they see or hear that someone else is doing.

Not to bully their colleagues. We are all working towards a common good here and people undertake volunteer work to make the world a better place. Surely they realise that bullying someone is counter to this desire.

How much responsibility do you feel lies with the employer to minimise occurrences of bullying?

Well, there is a role for the employer obviously. Generally it would be around dealing with any incidents, making sure everyone knows it is not acceptablethings like that. How much direct responsibility in stopping it in the first place? Well, there’s not that much we can do. How would we know someone is thinking of doing it?

If you can get through to people the purpose of their work and give them a happy place to work in then surely they would be less likely to do anything like that (bullying). But you never know, sometimes it’s the last person you would expect. I guess our main responsibility is to do something once it has happened.

Dealing with it when it is suspected to have happened, let people know it won’t be tolerated. Train managers to deal with it – that kind of thing.

Keep the workplace happy

Do you feel that minimising the occurrence of bullying forms part of the psychological contract between yourselves and your employees?

Yes, I suppose it does. It would fit into the category I suppose of ensuring they do not experience it, but it is easier said than done.

I am not aware of that phrase.

Are bullying and harassment are problems for your organisation?

There have been some issues which we have dealt with. I don’t think generally that it is a major issue for us. There are more urgent concerns such as discrimination that we spend more time trying to ensure it doesn’t happen.

I would be lying if I said it didn’t happen and we are probably not aware of all cases. The nature of the organisation means that we have shops with managers who have their own teams of people who come and go on a fairly regular basis. I cannot say for certain that we don’t lose volunteers because of the way they have been treated by colleagues and some of these situations may have been seen as being bullying.

What further actions could your organisation take at the recruitment stage to minimise the occurrence of bullying?

There is a lot more we would like to be able to do, certainly in recruitment to ensure we didn’t employ people with a tendency towards bullying in the first place. We currently use psychometric testing to get a profile of the candidates but none of the tests available would look specifically at this area. We also follow up references but with the legal issues around giving a poor reference and the difficulties in proving cases of bullying, we are aware that a previous employer might be unwilling to suggest a former employee had been accused of such action.

We do have some work to do on how we vet volunteers. It would be wrong of me to say that the store managers are thorough as we can use all the volunteers we can get and therefore there is not a strict process to go through. I guess we feel that the work environment they are in means that we look at the positives of everyone and that we feel there is little opportunity for them to have any difficulties, but having said that, it would probably be the store managers themselves who would be most likely to bully someone, I suppose. These people have generally been with us a long time.

Appendix 2: Questionnaire – store management representatives

Yes, I know that this is included in the general company information issued to us and all new employees.

I don’t know about this being a specific thing but I would guess that everyone would know that bullying would not be tolerated.

Do you have examples of unacceptable behaviour to illustrate what constitutes bullying and are these communicated those who work for you?

In the policy manual there are examples for all the policies on what constitutes actions that would be dealt with under disciplinary procedures.

No, I haven’t seen anything like that.

Well it’s difficult to say as it is different for different people. Shouting and swearing are the main ones.

Oh, I don’t know..shouting and swearing ?

I haven’t read the policy but it would be wouldn’t it.

We are all made aware that bullying and harassment are not tolerated. There are regular briefings and training sessions that managers and supervisors attend on these subjects. We know that these are illegal in the workplace and know what we should do if we think or are told it is happening.

They would deal with any accusations. I am not sure about stopping it happen in the first place. You wouldn’t expect that sort of behaviour from people who have volunteered to help others would you.

We receive management training on a regular basis that would cover this. We are responsible for the complete management of our teams in terms of their work, attitude and behaviour. If we thought bullying was happening or someone reported it to us we would deal with it with support form our personnel representative.

Well, it would be part of the general duties to ensure the welfare of volunteers.

They can talk to us about it at any time and there is a grievance procedure if they wanted to make a formal complaint.

They would tell the store manager.

These would be the same as with any incident that could lead to disciplinary action with parties being questioned. I would seek advice from my personnel representative on the exact steps to be taken.

I would ask both of them for their view of what had happened and then decide what action to take.

That’s difficult to say. You could see it as an individual thing about respecting each other as you would outside work, but obviously that’s not the case either as you read about what people do in society, so why would they be different in work? I would say that as in normal life you should be able to expect people to behave well but if they don’t someone has to step in and deal with it.

The kind of people who volunteer to work in an organisation are unlikely to be the type who would then make someone else unhappy, surely.

To treat each other well and get on as much as possible.

Not to be a bully, to be friendly and helpful to each other and customers.

It is very much a policing role.dealing with incidents where it has occurred. There is not much they can do to stop it other than say it is unacceptable and then sort it out if it happens by probably removing the person who does it.

If it did happen, I don’t think it is really the fault of the employer. How can you tell if someone is going to do that sort of thing? They would need to stop it happening again by letting the person go.

Using the disciplinary procedure on anyone who bullies.

If someone is suspected of bullying they should be told they are no longer required.

No, I wouldn’t have thought so. I don’t know of any myself. There are some instances of people getting annoyed with each other, but I don’t know of any official complaints of bullying being made.

No not really. Some people don’t get on but that happens everywhere. I haven’t heard of any actual bullying.

We have quite a drawn out recruitment process in place already. As I don’t know of any cases, I would guess we are doing all we can at the moment.

We don’t really recruit as such. If people want to volunteer we make a judgement about them. It’s not like a business here with all that fuss over taking someone on.

Appendix 3: Results of exit interviews, grievances and legal action.

Exit interview.

In the present year, there were 56 exit interviews available for examination. Of these, only 7 (12.5%) indicated that the individual had experienced dissatisfaction with the relationships they had with either a colleague or their manager. From the design of the exit interview it was not possible to determine the exact nature of this dissatisfaction.

Cancer Research

Only 2 exit interviews were available for analysis as it is not common practice for them to be completed for volunteers. Neither indicated any issues relating to bullying.

Grievances.

There had been 78 formal grievances registered in the previous year. Of these, 50 (65%) related to differences between individuals. In none of these was bullying mentioned specifically, with comments and notes tending to suggest that the complainant was not happy with the way they had been dealt with or spoken to.

No grievance records were available to analyse.

Legal action

No evidence was found that suggested that the company had been involved in or threatened with legal action relating to bullying or harassment.

Appendix 4: notes from employees working group.

Are you aware of what bullying is?

The majority of the groups stated that they were but to ensure a full understanding the definition of bullying as set out in the literature review was given to both groups.

Do you believe that bullying is a regular workplace occurrence within organisations generally?

B&Q group – generally believed that it occurred and on a regular basis. They cited several examples which have been omitted under Data Protection requirements. They discussed the different forms of bullying and raised the point that it is a case of individual perception as to what could be considered bullying and what was ‘winding people up’. They discussed how someone could take a comment the wrong way even though it was a normal thing to say and included examples such as comments on work rate, personal appearance and relationships with other colleagues.

Cancer Research – generally agreed that it is a regular occurrence with workplaces. On probing they thought that it could occur in an organisation such as their own but was less likely due to the fact they were volunteers. They believed that an individual who did not like the working environment for any reason would leave before it became a bullying issue. They felt that employees within businesses would be more likely to experience it as they would find it less easy just to leave.

What responsibility do you feel you have with regard to bullying?

B&Q – the group generally agreed that employees should have a moral duty not to bully others. They felt it was antisocial and led to a bad working environment for all employees. They also agreed that they would be responsible for reporting any incidents they had witnessed.

Cancer Research – the group said that there was a significant degree of responsibility on employees to ensure bullying does not occur and that this would be the expectation of any group of individuals in a work or other environments. They felt the same was true in terms of reporting anything they were aware of happening to others, but also commented that they would be likely to step in and say something to the bully themselves before reporting it to higher authorities.

What responsibility do you feel that employers have with regard to bullying?

B&Q – the group felt the employers responsibilities lay in two areas. Firstly, to not encourage an environment of bullying by ensuring that the style of management was appropriate. They highlighted that they felt that most incidents of bullying would be by a manager or supervisor towards a subordinate rather than between subordinates. They saw the second area of responsibility to be to deal effectively with incidents of bullying by removing the person from employment. They felt strongly that if a person had been bullying others they should not be allowed to continue with the company as they were likely to do it again.

Cancer Research group – the group felt that the organisation was responsible for the culture of the business and that they should ensure that it was one where bullying was unacceptable and that they should introduce an environment where everyone dealt with each other in a polite and friendly manner. They stated that as most incidents of bullying occur as a manager bullying one of their subordinates, that the organisation should spend time and resources in training their managers to deal with people on the correct manner.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Bullying in the Workplace . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/business-essays/workplace-bullying-dissertation/> [Accessed 23-04-24].

These Business essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

9 facts about bullying in the U.S.

Many U.S. children have experienced bullying, whether online or in person. This has prompted discussions about schools’ responsibility to curb student harassment , and some parents have turned to home-schooling or other measures to prevent bullying .

Here is a snapshot of what we know about U.S. kids’ experiences with bullying, taken from Pew Research Center surveys and federal data sources.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand U.S. children’s experiences with bullying, both online and in person. Findings are based on surveys conducted by the Center, as well as data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additional information about each survey and its methodology can be found in the links in the text of this analysis.

Bullying is among parents’ top concerns for their children, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with children under 18 . About a third (35%) of U.S. parents with children younger than 18 say they are extremely or very worried that their children might be bullied at some point. Another 39% are somewhat worried about this.

Of the eight concerns asked about in the survey, only one ranked higher for parents than bullying: Four-in-ten parents are extremely or very worried about their children struggling with anxiety or depression.

About half of U.S. teens (53%) say online harassment and online bullying are a major problem for people their age, according to a spring 2022 Center survey of teens ages 13 to 17 . Another 40% say it is a minor problem, and just 6% say it is not a problem.

Black and Hispanic teens, those from lower-income households and teen girls are more likely than those in other groups to view online harassment as a major problem.

Nearly half of U.S. teens have ever been cyberbullied, according the 2022 Center survey of teens . The survey asked teens whether they had ever experienced six types of cyberbullying. Overall, 46% say they have ever encountered at least one of these behaviors, while 28% have experienced multiple types.

The most common type of online bullying for teens in this age group is being called an offensive name (32% have experienced this). Roughly one-in-five teens have had false rumors spread about them online (22%) or were sent explicit images they didn’t ask for (17%).

Teens also report they have experienced someone other than a parent constantly asking them where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with (15%); being physically threatened (10%); or having explicit images of them shared without their consent (7%).

Older teen girls are especially likely to have experienced bullying online, the spring 2022 survey of teens shows. Some 54% of girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least one cyberbullying behavior asked about in the survey, compared with 44% of boys in the same age group and 41% of younger teens. In particular, older teen girls are more likely than the other groups to say they have been the target of false rumors and constant monitoring by someone other than a parent.

They are also more likely to think they have been harassed online because of their physical appearance: 21% of girls ages 15 to 17 say this, compared with about one-in-ten younger teen girls and teen boys.

White, Black and Hispanic teens have all encountered online bullying at some point, but some of their experiences differ, the spring 2022 teens survey found. For instance, 21% of Black teens say they’ve been targeted online because of their race or ethnicity, compared with 11% of Hispanic teens and 4% of White teens.

Hispanic teens are the most likely to say they’ve been constantly asked where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with by someone other than a parent. And White teens are more likely than Black teens to say they’ve been targeted by false rumors.

The sample size for Asian American teens was not large enough to analyze separately.

During the 2019-2020 school year, around two-in-ten U.S. middle and high school students said they were bullied at school . That year, 22% of students ages 12 to 18 said this, with the largest shares saying the bullying occurred for one day only (32%) or for between three and 10 days (29%), according to the most recent available data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Certain groups of students were more likely to experience bullying at school. They include girls, middle schoolers (those in sixth, seventh or eighth grade), and students in rural areas.  

The most common types of at-school bullying for all students ages 12 to 18 were being made the subject of rumors (15%) and being made fun of, called names or insulted (14%).

The classroom was the most common location of bullying that occurred at school in 2019-2020, the BJS and NCES data shows. This was the case for 47% of students ages 12 to 18 who said they were bullied during that school year. Other frequently reported locations included hallways or stairwells (39%), the cafeteria (26%) and outside on school grounds (20%).

Fewer than half (46%) of middle and high schoolers who were bullied at school in 2019-2020 said they notified a teacher or another adult about it, according to the BJS and NCES data. Younger students were more likely to tell an adult at school. Around half or more of sixth, seventh and eighth graders said they did so, compared with 28% of 12th graders.

Students who reported more frequent bullying were also more likely to notify an adult at school. For instance, 60% of those who experienced bullying on more than 10 days during the school year told an adult, compared with 35% of those who experienced it on one day.

In 2021, high schoolers who are gay, lesbian or bisexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to say they’d been bullied, both at school and online, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . In the 12 months before the survey, 22% of high school students who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual – and 21% of those who identify as questioning or some other way – said they were bullied on school property. That compares with 10% of heterosexual students. The data does not include findings for transgender students.

The trend is similar when it comes to electronic bullying through text or social media: 27% of high school students who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual say they experienced this in the 12 months before the survey, as did 23% of those who identify as questioning or some other way. That compares with 11% of those who identify as heterosexual.

• Online Harassment & Bullying

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

About half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, what public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching, what’s it like to be a teacher in america today, race and lgbtq issues in k-12 schools, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Dominic Raab resigns: The key findings from the bullying investigation that sealed his fate

Politics reporter @FaithLRidler

Thursday 4 May 2023 19:32, UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

After five months of investigation, the report into bullying allegations against Dominic Raab has been published.

Earlier, Mr Raab resigned as justice secretary and deputy prime minister - and published a damning 1,100-word essay in the Telegraph.

In his resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, the former deputy PM claimed the investigation had been "flawed" and said the conclusions "set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government".

Politics Hub: Replacements revealed

The 47-page report compiled by independent investigator Adam Tolley examines the former deputy prime minister's behaviour in government, detailing eight accusations of bullying.

Here, Sky News rounds up the key findings of the lengthy report.

1) Raab acted in an 'intimidating' fashion - with 'persistently aggressive conduct'

More on Dominic Raab

Tax cuts, a new PM and a Nigel Farage comeback - what 2024 could have in store for UK politics

Dominic Raab advised Boris Johnson to receive vaccine live on TV and take part in 'cross-country ski marathon'

Dominic Raab 'given five minutes' notice' to run country when Boris Johnson had COVID, inquiry hears

Related Topics:

• Dominic Raab

The probe, undertaken by Adam Tolley KC, found that Mr Raab acted in an "intimidating" fashion with "unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct" in a work meeting while he was foreign secretary.

Mr Tolley wrote that Raab's conduct "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates".

"In particular, he went beyond what was reasonably necessary in order to give effect to his decision and introduced a punitive element."

The lawyer said that Mr Raab "must have been aware of this effect", or "reasonably" should have been.

This relates to one of two upheld complaints of bullying made against the ex-minister.

What has Mr Raab said?

In his resignation letter to the prime minister, the former minister said the "two adverse findings" in the report are "flawed and set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government".

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

2) Perceived 'threatening' references to Civil Service Code

While foreign secretary, Mr Raab referred to the Civil Service Code in a way that he should have known could be seen as a "threat", the report said.

Mr Tolley wrote: "This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual (a different person from the individual who made the FCDO Complaint), who took it seriously."

This was described as a "form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action".

"He did not target any individual, nor intend to threaten anyone with disciplinary action," the report added. "However, he ought to have realised that referring in this way to the Civil Service Code could have been understood as such a threat."

The now ex-minister stressed in a 1,100 word essay published in The Telegraph how Mr Tolley concluded that he "never once swore or shouted at officials, let alone threatened, targeted or threw anything at them".

3) He went beyond what was necessary in providing 'critical feedback'

The second upheld complaint related to Mr Raab's time in the Ministry of Justice.

It found that, on a number of occasions, at meetings with policy officials, he "acted in a manner which was intimidating, in the sense of going further than was necessary or appropriate in delivering critical feedback".

This was also described as "insulting" in the sense of "making unconstructive critical comments about the quality of work done."

Mr Tolley goes on to outline specific examples - including one in which Mr Raab described work done as "utterly useless" and "woeful".

He directly rebutted this finding in his letter to Rishi Sunak, insisting that ministers "must be able to give direct critical feedback on briefings and submissions to senior officials in order to set the standards and drive the reform the public expect from us".

However, he did add: "Of course, this must be done within reasonable bounds."

Read more: T he rise and fall of the karate black belt who briefly ran the country What has led to the deputy prime minister being investigated? Raab 'ruined people's lives', say officials

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

4) Raab's use of 'physical gestures' - and banging on tables

In another paragraph, Mr Tolley says he heard a "good deal of evidence" about Mr Raab's "use of physical gestures in communication". In one case, he said: "This was put as extending his hand directly out towards another person's face with a view to making them stop talking.

"Another example of such an allegation was loud banging of the table to make a point."

However, the report stated: "I was not convinced that the DPM used physical gestures in a threatening way, although those unused to this style of communication might well have found it disconcerting."

5) An abuse or misuse of power - in a way that humiliates

In his conclusions, Mr Tolley again referred to Mr Raab's time as foreign secretary. He said that, with his "management choice", Mr Raab "acted in a way that was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting".

Mr Tolley repeated that this involved "an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates". He says it was "inevitable" that Mr Raab's behaviour was perceived in this way by the affected person.

In his essay, Mr Raab stressed that the British public "expect ministers to exercise rigorous oversight over officials to prevent democratic mandates being unpicked, raise the game of underperforming parts of government, and prevent Whitehall from squandering taxpayers' money."

6) Raab cleared of swearing and shouting at staff

On another note, the former deputy prime minister was cleared of shouting and swearing at staff - as had been suggested.

Mr Tolley wrote in his report: "There was no persuasive evidence that the DPM shouted at individuals. I also conclude that he did not swear at any individual or swear more generally."

Related Topics

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

School Board Cancels Gay Actor’s Anti-Bullying Talk Over His ‘Lifestyle’

Maulik Pancholy was scheduled to give a talk on anti-bullying at a Pennsylvania school next month. School board members scrapped it, citing concerns about his activism and “lifestyle.”

By Orlando Mayorquín

A Pennsylvania school board canceled an anti-bullying speech by the actor Maulik Pancholy, who is gay, after board members raised concerns about his “lifestyle,” prompting outrage from the surrounding community.

The Cumberland Valley School District school board voted unanimously to pass a motion to cancel Mr. Pancholy’s speaking event next month at Mountain View Middle School in Mechanicsburg, a community of about 9,000 people roughly 100 miles west of Philadelphia.

The board drew criticism after the members voiced what some called homophobic concerns about Mr. Pancholy’s activism and his lifestyle.

Mr. Pancholy played the obsequious assistant to Alec Baldwin’s character on the TV show “30 Rock” and voiced Baljeet in the cartoon “Phineas and Ferb.” He is also an author who has written children’s books, including one called “The Best at It,” about a gay Indian American boy named Rahul and his experience dealing with bullying in a small Midwest town.

“He labels himself as an activist who is proud of his lifestyle and I don’t think that should be imposed on our students,” said Bud Shaffner, a board member at the Monday evening meeting.

Kelly Potteiger, a newly elected board member and a member of the local chapter of the right-wing activist group Moms for Liberty , voiced concerns that Mr. Pancholy would discuss his children’s books, which deal with the bullying faced by its L.G.B.T.Q. characters, or his own experience with “anti-bullying and empathy and inclusion.”

“Again, it’s not discriminating against his lifestyle, that’s his choice, but it’s him speaking about it,” Ms. Potteiger said. “He did say that that’s not the topic, but that’s what his books are about.”

In a memo sent on Thursday to faculty, staff and administrators, the leadership of the Cumberland Valley School District said that it was disappointed in the board’s move.

“While the issue of ‘political activism’ was cited, statements made publicly by individual board members identified Mr. Pancholy’s sexual identity as a factor, an identity shared by many of members of our school community,” the memo said.

“We believe that Mr. Pancholy’s assembly should have been allowed to happen and that all of our staff and students should be proud to be part of a community that values who they are,” it added.

Every year, the middle school brings young adult authors to visit with students, according to the district. It noted that the motion to cancel the assembly, which was to have taken place on May 22, had not been on the agenda and was introduced by a board member during the meeting.

In a statement issued on Thursday evening, Mr. Pancholy said: “When I visit schools, my ‘activism’ is to let all young people know that they’re seen. To let them know that they matter.”

He added: “I wonder why a school board is so afraid of that?”

The cancellation prompted a petition to reinstate the event that stated that the decision was made “solely because he is openly gay.”

Trisha Comstock, who has two sons enrolled in the school district, started the online petition. By late Wednesday evening, the petition had gotten more than 1,000 signatures.

In a phone interview, Mr. Shaffner said his comment was misconstrued and that his remark about Mr. Pancholy’s lifestyle had to do with his activism.

“The fact that he is a self-proclaimed political activist is what we object to,” Mr. Shaffner said.

On his website, Mr. Pancholy calls himself an “activist” who works on social justice causes. But Mr. Shaffner and other board members cast his work as political and said they worried his speech could violate a district policy barring political events.

“There is no political agenda,” Ms. Comstock said in a phone interview. “He is not trying to pass policies or change minds or anything like that.”

“They cloaked it as ‘We want to keep politics out of school’ when they clearly knew it had nothing to do with politics,” she added.

Ms. Comstock said that if the policy were applied more broadly, other groups, such as “Mothers Against Drunk Driving,” would be considered activists.

“Would we ban them from coming and talking to our members?” she said.

Ms. Comstock, whose children once attended the school, said the board’s decision was not representative of the community.

“And that’s why our community is outraged right now,” she said. “This isn’t who we are.”

Orlando Mayorquín is a breaking news reporter, based in New York, and a member of the 2023-24 Times Fellowship class , a program for journalists early in their careers. More about Orlando Mayorquín

Where do former Utica schools superintendent Bruce Karam's legal issues stand? A roundup

There’s been lots of legal action surrounding former Utica school Superintendent Bruce Karam in the last month, in county, state and federal court.   

He was sentenced for a felony conviction of public corruption as part of a plea agreement last Friday in Oneida Couty Court.  

A state justice dismissed a lawsuit against Karam by the school district as moot. 

And lawyers for the defendants in a federal lawsuit filed by Karam, his last pending line of redress against the district, used his conviction to argue against the court allowing Karam to amend his original suit. 

Bruce Karam's legal issues: The backstory 

Here’s a quick look back at the history that led to the latest news:  

• In 2021, Karam had his staff send out flyers on behalf of a school board candidate, using work time and school supplies to do so. He admitted to this in his allocution. 
• In 2022, he allowed his staff to do the same thing for mailings former school board President Louis LaPolla sent out for a fundraiser for a scholarship fund in his wife’s memory, which Karam also admitted in his allocation. 
• LaPolla was also indicted for his role in the scholarship flyers, reached a plea deal and was sentenced on April 10 to 60 days in domicile restrictions, three years of probation and the payment of $3,100 in restitution.  (LaPolla also faces six federal counts of mail fraud in another case related to the scholarship fund.) 
• In a separate case, two district administrators filed complaints against Karam for allegedly creating a hostile workplace in 2022.  
• The school board voted 4-3 on Oct. 18, 2022, to place Karam on administrative leave while a third-party investigator looked into the complaints. It also hired Brian Nolan as acting superintendent. 
• The investigator turned in a report in January 2023 that accused Karam of inappropriate behavior that rose to “bullying,” and determined that the behavior merited discipline, possibly up to termination.  
• Karam appealed the report but lost the appeal.  
• Karam filed a lawsuit in state court in December 2022 against the Utica City School District, the school board, Nolan and the four school board members who voted to put him on leave: President Joseph Hobika Jr., Vice President Danielle Padula, James Paul and Tennille Knoop. The lawsuit asked the court to void the votes to put Karam on leave, to hire Nolan and a special counsel. Karam later agreed during a court appearance to drop the individual defendants. 
• On Jan. 4, 2023, Karam filed a federal lawsuit against the same defendants asking for compensatory and punitive damages. The suit claims that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to discredit and oust Karam, violating both his contract and the Constitution in the process, and that Nolan made public comments defaming Karam.  
• Lawyers for the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the federal suit on March 30, 2023, which is still pending. 
• Justice Scott DelConte dismissed Karam’s state lawsuit in April 2023, writing in his opinion that Karam’s contract was not breached and open meetings laws were not violated, as Karam had alleged.  
• The school district and school board filed a state suit against Karam on August 24, 2023, in which they asked the judge to declare Karam’s contract invalid, making him an at-will employee who can be fired by a simple majority vote of the board. Their argument was based on five addendums extending Karam’s contract, which added between six weeks and three months more to Karam’s contract than the five years allowed by state law. 
• Karam filed a motion to amend his federal suit on Feb. 8, 2024, to include his termination and other events that happened after he originally filed the suit.  
• On Nov. 27, 2023, the school voted 5-2 to fire Karam , who had been superintendent since 2011, without waiting for a decision in its court case. 

The sentencing 

Karam apologized in court for his actions that led to the conviction. 

“What brought me before you is a matter that should not have happened,” Karam told Judge Michael Dwyer. “I regret that it did happen. I accept responsibility. I apologize to you, to the court, the community, the district. Most of all, I apologize to my family for the heartache that I have caused them.”  

Oneida County District Attorney Todd Carville said he’s satisfied with the outcome of the case.  

“He publicly admitted his guilt. He paid back what we believe he took from the school system from the funds in that $11,549.68 restitution (for which he gave the court a check on Friday),” Carville said. “He lost a portion of his pension benefits that he would have otherwise enjoyed. He has a felony conviction. He owes 250 hours of community service. He has to serve five years of probably. 

“And he’s no longer in a position of power and I believe that constitutes being held accountable.” 

For the pension giveback, Karam will pay the court $150,000 by May 17, Carville said. 

That is the amount by which his pension will have increased since Karam engaged in criminal activity in March of 2021, as determined by actuaries, Carville said. In other words, Karam will still be paid his full pension, but he’s paying back ahead of time all the money he’ll get based on his work after March, 2021.  

School district response 

The school district released a statement acknowledging Karam’s sentencing and declaring that the district is on the road to closing “this challenging chapter.”  

“The restitution from these proceedings (including the pension money) will be directed back towards educating our students—those from whom these resources were unjustly diverted,” the statement read. “The Utica City School District will utilize these funds to directly support and enhance learning opportunities for our students in need. 

Throughout these proceedings, our district has faced significant financial burdens. The recovery of these funds is a crucial step towards alleviating some of the financial pressures and reinvesting in our educational mission.” 

The district has been making improvements in its operating structure and putting both guardrails and layers of checks and balances in place “to strengthen and fortify the foundation of our school district operations and administration,” the statement continued.  

Federal lawsuit 

Karam’s conviction changes the complexion of the case, lawyers for the school board, school district and Nolan; for Padula; for Hobika; and for Paul have argued in memoranda of law urging the court not to accept Karam’s amended complaint to include his termination. 

The papers go through a variety of legal arguments, but in essence, they argue that Karam wasn’t harmed financially by being fired because he couldn’t hold the superintendent’s job as a convicted felon. And his reputation wasn’t harmed because he confessed to a felony, which makes him “libel proof,” the lawyers argued.  

Karam’s lawyers haven’t filed a response yet. And lawyer Giancarlo Facciponte said he couldn’t comment on the federal case.    

District lawsuit  

But Facciponte did refer to the state Supreme Court decision last week as a victory. 

Justice Julie Grow Denton dismissed the case as moot given that the school board had fired Karam without waiting for the court to rule on the validity of his contract. At one time, a decision in the case may have influenced the board’s decision, but “that ship has sailed,” she noted. 

The courts cannot answer questions that can no longer resolve anything, Denton wrote. 

Her dismissal leaves open the question of the validity of Karam’s contract.