Skip to main content

Study uncovers 22 types of workplace bullying

Subtle, negative types of behaviour that threaten staff engagement and cause absenteeism are slipping under the radar and deserve more attention from HR, research shows.
Researchers studied 500 Australian employees over a 12-month period, and their report identifies 22 distinct experiences or acts of bullying in the workplace:
  1. Withholding information;
  2. Humiliation/ridicule;
  3. Allocating work below the person's level of competence;
  4. Removing responsibility;
  5. Gossip/rumours;
  6. Ignoring/exclusion;
  7. Personal insults;
  8. Shouting;
  9. Intimidating behaviour;
  10. Hints/signals to quit the job;
  11. Reminders of errors/mistakes;
  12. Ignoring/hostile reactions;
  13. Persistent criticism;
  14. Opinions ignored;
  15. Practical jokes;
  16. Unreasonable deadlines;
  17. Making allegations;
  18. Excessive monitoring of work;
  19. Pressure to not claim entitlements;
  20. Excessive teasing;
  21. Unreasonable workloads; and
  22. Threats of violence/abuse and actual abuse.
They found these negative acts appeared across five distinct subtypes of workplace bullying, which they identified as: no bullying; limited indirect bullying; task-related bullying; occasional bullying; and frequent bullying, all of which were linked to absenteeism via physical and mental health problems and lower work engagement.
Co-author of the report, and associate professor at the University of Wollongong's School of Psychology, Christopher Magee says when people think about bullying in the workplace they tend to think of violence and aggression. "That's actually not that common," he says. "It's all these subtle types like ignoring people or micro-managing. When we look at all these covert types, I guess it's not that surprising that it's happening quite regularly."
Whereas previous studies have asked workers, 'have you been bullied?', this study looked into these specific and indirect acts of bullying. What it found was bullying occurred in a number of ways and at different frequencies. No bullying, for example, was characterised by a very low frequency of workplace bullying experiences, whereas task-related bullying occurred when someone had few instances of person-related bullying (hints/signals to quit job, practical jokes, excessive teasing and threats of violence/abuse and actual abuse) but occasional experiences of things like withholding information, reminders of errors/mistakes and their opinions ignored.
Magee told HR Daily it's important for employers to make very clear what types of behaviours are not acceptable in the workplace. "A lot of organisations have policies around workplace bullying but they're very vague and unclear, so when it does occur there's not a lot they can do to hold people to account," he says. "When bullying does occur it's important that an organisation actually acts and is proactive in responding to it."
But he says while the research is helpful for HR professionals in preventing and managing workplace bullying, it's not always useful to label all these acts as bullying. "It's more a matter of, 'this is stuff that's not accepted in the workplace'. There can be a stigma associated with bullying but certainly this shows there's some issues with the workplace culture that might need to be addressed."
Because some acts of bullying are particularly subtle, they can also slip under the radar. "People think these behaviours don't have much of an impact," Magee says. "Our research shows that even people experiencing the most subtle kinds of bullying are not as happy in the workplace or psychologically well.
"What happens with those more subtle types of bullying is they can escalate over time into more severe bullying."
Magee says organisations should focus on building a positive workplace, and encourage leadership that is transformational rather than transactional by giving people positive feedback, autonomy, and the resources to do their job.
Despite being quite common, one thing that can trigger workplace bullying is organisational restructure, he adds. "The way that some people handle or respond to that uncertainty is by lashing out at other people or becoming more competitive and that can lead to a negative workplace and foster bullying over time."
Magee says the answer is for HR to see this type of behaviour as an organisational issue and not put the blame on individuals.
"It's really important that organisations step in and do something about it. Good, strong leadership and communication are things that can really help during times of uncertainty."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...