MBA-thesis-proposal

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 39 | Comments: 0 | Views: 1475
of 145
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Portsmouth Business School MBA (International)

Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying In the “Toxic” Workplace

Richard Alexander Gammons Supervisor: Professor Charlotte Rayner

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

“Courage is fire and bullying is smoke”
Benjamin Disraeli, Politician (1804-1881)

“…The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak, be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly."
Jim Rhon, Motivational Speaker and Author.

“…in human organisations and societies the past projects the present towards the future in a particular way making some outcomes more likely than others”
Andrew Pettigrew, Author, (2003, p.302)

“…we live life forward but understand it backwards”
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, Philosopher, (1813-1855)

ii

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CONTENTS
Declaration of Authenticity Abstract Tables and Figures Appendices Acknowledgments CHAPTER 1 Setting the Scene
1.1 Introduction 1.2 Motivation for thesis and Aims

i ii iii iv v

2 2 3

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction 2.2 Problems Associated with Bullying Research 2.3. Conceptualisation and Study of Bullying 2.4 Contextualising Bullying 2.5 Management Bullying 2.6 The Toxic Workplace 2.7 Toxic Stress? 2.7.1 Stress Effects 2.8 Toxic – A definition

7 7 8 11 19 21 28 31 34 36
ii

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 3
3.1 3.2 3.3

Methodology 38
38 39 40 41 45 49

Important Note To The Reader Proposed Methodology Approach Methodology Options

3.3.1 Proposed Case study Research Approach Proposed Interviews 3.4 Proposed Participant Selection 3.5

CHAPTER 4 Discussion, Findings and Conclusions
4.1 Introduction 4.2 Bullying As A Toxic Process 4.3 Workplace Bullying – A Toxic Concept

52 52 56 66

CHAPTER 5 Recommendations
5.1 Toxic Bullying – How Can Organisations Prevent It 5.2 Final Note

74 74 79 81

REFERENCES APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3

101 104 107

iii

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Portsmouth Business School MBA (International)

Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying In the “Toxic” Workplace

Author: Tutor: Year :

Richard Alexander Gammons Professor Charlotte Rayner April 2006

“This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree for MBA. I, the undersigned, declare that this project report is my own original work. Where I have taken ideas and / or wording from another source, this is explicitly referenced in the text.”

Signed…………………………………………………………………………………………

“I give permission that this report may be photocopied and made available for inter-library loan for the purpose of research.”

Signed…………………………………………………………………………………….

i

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

ABSTRACT

Workplace bullying is an extremely diverse subject, and a very complex phenomenon. From a research perspective, it can be considered as being a very sensitive subject for both affected individuals and organisations alike. This thesis discusses the phenomenon of workplace bullying within ‘toxic’ work places, that is, environments that may condone or exacerbate this behaviour (i.e. from an organisational culture/climate and performance management perspective). It discusses problems associated with research, and then discusses bullying in both terms of concept and context

It explores the notion of workplace bullying, which occurs in a ‘top down’ manner (i.e. manager to subordinate) 80% of the time, as being a ‘toxic process’, with far reaching consequences, for both the individual and the organisation. Previous research has not explored this notion.

Supporting evidence and concepts are put forward by acting as dynamic aids, which may also be used by management in understanding, and therefore, minimising or stopping this toxic process. The ideas and concepts put forward, propose that workplace bullying should be ‘perceived’ and therefore treated (by management) as analogous to a potential toxin with no threshold of toxicity; i.e. like that of a carcinogen, and that it should be treated as such; with Zero-Tolerance.

ii

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
Figure 1. A Framework for workplace bullying based upon and reproduced from research by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003). A revised framework of bullying reproduced from Salin (2003), based upon an original framework by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003). Enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment reproduced from Salin (2003). Basic differences between deductive and inductive case study research approaches. Mechanisms involved in prenatal stress effects (reproduced from Huizink 2000). Conceptual diagram illustrating hypothetical dose response to a stressor such as workplace bullying. Conceptual model identifying possible factors driving and containing ‘toxic’ behaviour (bullying ), and its potentially toxic effects (adapted and modified from Lubit, 2004a). 25

Figure 2.

26

Figure 3.

27

Figure 4.

43

Figure 5.

62

Figure 6.

68

Figure 7.

80

Tables
Table 1. Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Interview types (adapted from Saunders, 2003) 48

iii

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDICES
Appendices
Appendix 1.
Common symptoms of PTSD and Complex PTSD that sufferers report experiencing. 101

Appendix 2. Appendix 3.

Interview Consent form.

104

Proposed interview questions for workplace bullying study.

107

iv

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude, in the first instance to staff at the University of Portsmouth for their support in my studies, particularly during a time of personal illness, upheaval and uncertainty. My special thanks go to Professor Charlotte Rayner, who has been a guiding force, always willing to listen and offer encouragement; her support has been truly appreciated. I would also like to thank Richard Noble and Dr David Smith; their support and encouragement of which, have had a positive impact on my studies; as too did the help of Dr Alan Gilbert and Dr Gary Rees. Their assistance and understanding whilst on the course, was greatly appreciated. In addition I would like to thank both Karen Buddle and Carol Shepherd for their administrative support.

Also, thanks are due to those individuals who have offered their friendship, support and advice, both on and off the MBA course. To this end, I would like to extend my thanks (in alphabetical order!) to Peter, Rhys and Vishal.

Finally I would like to extend my warmest thanks and appreciation to those closest to me. Firstly, to my parents; for their constant encouragement and support. Lastly I would like to thank my truly incredible wife, Rachael; who has been my ‘rock’; giving me support and tireless encouragement, especially this last year. I truly am a lucky man!

v

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 1

1

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 1

SETTING THE SCENE

1.1 Introduction The UK economy has been thriving since the late 1990s and is currently enjoying a period of sustained low inflation as well as near record low unemployment rates (HM Treasury, 2006, 2005; Hamilton, 2005, citing Brown, 2005; BBC Business News, 2004, citing Jones & Brinkley, 2004); leading to further tightening in the labour markets, thereby in the process enabling potential employees an uncharacteristic prospect of being able to differentiate between potential employers for whom to or to not offer their labours (Reenan, 2001). It is therefore, important that organisations demonstrate to prospective employees the added value(s) of employment apart from that of a days wage

In addition to this, employers have to tackle not only the problem of attracting new employees, they also have to consider and indeed be concerned with, in retaining existing employees. Remuneration is not the only factor that should be considered by existing or potential employees but other intangibles e.g. organisational culture and work-life balance (known as quality of life factors), indeed a recent report by the TUC shows that senior managers, are working longer hours and are at the top of the league for un-paid overtime 1 .

One of the main factors that affect workers’ happiness is the quality of their immediate supervisor (Glendinning, 2001); indeed, a recent survey (Personnel Today, 2005) suggests that nearly one in four of the UK's bosses are bad or dreadful2

A report on Sky News (2006) highlights a TUC study that senior managers have overtaken teachers to leap to the top of the league for unpaid overtime – working an extra 12 hours unpaid each week.
1 2

Report also indicates that 58% of 1100 participants surveyed have looked for alternative jobs because of “their bad manager”, citing poor leadership and poor management skills.
2

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

1.2 tion for the thesis and Objectives Motiva This MBA thesis is a study that focuses on workplace bullying. At a personal level I became interested in the workplace-bullying phenomenon after having the unfortunate displeasure of a lengthy management bullying experience whilst working as a project manager in a well-known industrial setting. At the time I needed to know what was happening to me and how best to respond, as the more I tried to prevent it from happening, the more determined the bullies became and complacent their respective managers became. When I sought assistance, from health professionals, counsellors, workplace occupational health advisors; legal professionals and indeed close friends (as well as management colleagues), I noticed that there was confusion and a general lack of understanding about exactly what workplace bullying was. From a management perspective, I hoped that by conducting qualitative research, as well as looking in depth at a small number of participants who had been bullied - I could get closer to what were the important aspects of the experience, and its impact(s) on the target (victim) in addition to the organisation and the role that management behaviour had in the process, i.e. its context. In the process of conducting this research, I might also be able to work through and understand further, my own experiences and as Sheehan 2005 describes, understand the experience as an epiphany or turning point in my life; an understanding that serves as a platform underpinning the experience, especially because the bullying seemed to suggest that my self-esteem had been overly dependent on my professional role and workplace standing. Thus by researching the essential aspects of the bullying

3

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

experience; and implications/effect(s) both on the organisation and the individual, I hoped to become more skilled so that I may be able to undertake a career in helping and advising individuals and management about its potential impact(s) and how to minimise or stop it; thereby, helping others who had or could be subject to the bullying phenomenon; as well as possibly gaining an opportunity for personal growth.

Upon examination, the research literature reveals the phenomenon of workplace bullying to be a myriad of complex human processes and interactions. Researchers from various fields such as business management and economics; occupational health; sociology, medicine (encompassing psychology; psychiatry; counselling), philosophy law as well as education have all contributed to the abundant discourse of bullying.

This rich discourse is further complicated as well as enriched by issues of power, violence, abuse, victimisation, trauma, evil, as well as human rights. It is therefore sensible and prudent to break up into manageable areas this diverse phenomenon for research purposes. For those individuals targeted (victims) by bullies and often their peers and significant others) it is important to note that it is not possible to narrow the focus in this way. They are hit with a multitude of issues, and as a result have the problem of interpreting and making meaning of a myriad of information, ideas, and more often than not, lies and distortions arising from their respective experience(s) (Tehrani, 2003; Field, 2002).

This research aims to explore the experience of management bullying, to provide an understanding of it as ‘toxic management’, when in the form of bullying, and its potential impact(s) on both the individual and the organisation; with an aim of

4

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

proposing concepts and ideas to assist management in understanding that workplace bullying is indeed a ‘toxic phenomenon’, that has serious repercussions, leading to a destruction of the competitive advantage of a company, as well as harming its employees and families alike. This is a phenomenon that should be treated and dealt with extremely seriously by organisations and their associated management. To this end, the aims and objectives of this thesis can therefore be presented as follows:

1. To extensively review the literature on workplace bullying (WPB) and discuss problems of research, as well as its impact(s) on the individual.

2. To explore the notion of the toxic workplace and toxic manager phenomenon.

3. To discuss and put forward additional concepts and ideas, that at a management level, will assist in elaborating that WPB is a directly toxic phenomenon and to:

4. Put forward recommendations so that organisations can stop or minimise its

prevalence and devastating effects.

5

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 2

6

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction The literature available on workplace bullying reveals an extensive amount of information, much of which has appeared in a little over the last decade and is representative of research from numerous fields (Cooper & Robertson, 2001; Einarsen, et al., 2003a). It articulates bullying as a complex phenomenon that encompasses a range of behaviours and contexts (Vartia, 2003).

In addition to this, there is also a sizeable quantity of non-academic literature (books and websites), which has evolved as a result of research in addition to the personal experiences of individuals who have been subject to bullying. For example, the Andrea Adams trust, established in 1997 as the worlds first non-political; non-profit charity dealing solely with the issue of workplace bullying.

Other examples include Jo Anne Browns’ Just Fight On (JFO) website founded in 2004, with the express intention of being a resource for victims by bringing together information, ideas, people and groups; Tim Field’s (who sadly died of cancer early this year) Bully in sight and his website Bully on Line, as well as The workplace bullying and trauma institute, which was set up by Gary and Ruth Namie. These sites are dedicated to helping and advising victims of bullying (Adams, A, 1997; Brown, J, 2004; Field, T, 1996; Namie & Namie, 2003).

7

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

The popular literature assists the general public by providing an informative role, however from a business management and leadership perspective we are interested primarily in focussing on the academic research and evidence of how the impact of management/leadership styles affect both the victim and the organisation.

The current research is now at the stage where information has been gathered from a variety of research perspectives, analysing both the causes and impacts of bullying (Einarsen et al., 2003a). This has resulted in a shift from focusing on bullying as an interpersonal conflict between the bully and the victim to including an emphasis on ways in which organisations inhibit; create; or indeed contribute to the bullying process (Einarsen, et al., 2003b); in addition to looking at the concepts of conflict and violence, and perhaps, most importantly, the role of power in relationships in the workplace (Liefooghe, & MacKenzie-Davey, 2001).

2.2 ted with Bullying Research Proble ms Associa Over the past 15 years or so academic researchers and practitioners alike have been struggling to get to the root cause(s) of the bullying process. Indeed, it is an extremely diverse subject. This has been difficult for a variety of reasons, points of which will be discussed in this thesis.

Firstly, bullying has long been considered a taboo topic in many cultures (Adams, & Crawford, 1992; Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen, et al, 2003a, 2003b; Field, T, 1996) and this essentially deterred initial research (Niedl, 1996.), and continues to permit organisations to over look or indeed cover up the problem. There is evidence, even

8

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

recently, of the continuing fear and reluctance of individuals to discuss and speak out openly concerning the problems of bullying. This is illustrated for example, by the publication of an anonymous paper by a radiological consultant in the British Medical Journal, (Anonymous, 2002) 3 . Bullying has been treated, like other forms of abuse and maltreatment, as a private issue, which does not concern either society or organisations. Indeed, as was the case until the 1970s, issues of both domestic violence and child abuse were also considered as taboo subjects, because they also involved ideas about women and children being the property of husbands and fathers (Herman, 1992). An important vehicle in altering public opinion was the women’s movement, through which justification was given, for authorities to enter the privacy of the home. Victims of all forms of abuse can therefore be classified to a certain extent as victims of public perceptions, which allow and tolerate such abuse. This previous tolerance had restricted researchers from preventing bullying, as well as leaving victims to experience the impacts, feelings of shame and guilt, in addition to being unable to shed the negative self-image that they may have developed during the bullying process (Herman, 1992).

Secondly, bullying has traditionally been considered a trivial issue (Hearn; & Parkin, 2001), merely a conflict between difficult people, whereby, one is overly aggressive and the other being seen as overly passive (Olweus, 2003). In the schoolyard tradition, bullying was seen as a way of ‘toughening up’ weak kids (Field, T, 1996). In other institutions, bullying represented rights of passage (i.e. legitimising the use of the behaviour) and eventual acceptance into cultures where conformity, violence and punishment were often systemic, for example, the uniformed and armed forces (Archer, 1999). In bullying cultures, bullying was likely to be seen as scapegoating (Tehrani, 2003), a habit of blaming

“The cycle of abuse goes on”. Note to reader: The author might well have claimed anonymity, not for his own preservation, but rather to protect the identity of the radiologist who abused him.
3

9

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

someone else. In the globalised world, bullying has been described as a tool of management (Ironside & Seifert, 2003), a way of ‘eliminating’ unwanted employees (Hoel & Salin, 2003; Ironside, & Seifert, 2003; Westhues, 2002; citing Westhues 1998). In all of these situations bullying goes hand in hand with the failure of the culture to tolerate difference between individuals. It is perhaps fair to say, that the cruelty and unnecessary suffering to individuals and the costs to both organisation(s) and society has been hidden by the enduring propensity to trivialise bullying (Boulnois, 1996; Ironside & Seifert, 2003).

A third rationale as to why research into bullying has been a difficult process is due to the fact that when analysing the impact(s) of bullying incidents on an individual, observers often conclude that there is something wrong or weak about the victim and that it is therefore, disproportionate to the cause (Einarsen, et al., 2003b). However, when the impact(s) on the victim are examined from the perspective of bullying as a process, it is clearly seen why its impact(s) can be so devastating. Bullying may be depicted as consisting of unpredictable, offensive or harmful behaviours, which may or may not be intentionally targeted at a particular person. Generally these behaviours occur over many months, even years, often escalating in intensity and frequency, sanctioned by either conscious or unconscious acceptance of bullying within the organisation. It is possible then, to identify and appreciate how the cumulative impact of months of stress caused by workplace bullying can be more devastating than either physical violence or accidents in the workplace (Einarsen, et al., 2003b; Goleman, 1995; Leymann, 1996; Mayhew, & Chappell, 2001a, 2002), it is literally ‘toxic’ to the individual (this will be discussed in further depth and is the main focus of this thesis). Goleman states that to have been selected as a target for malicious harm shatters an individuals assumptions; about the trustworthiness and the safety of the interpersonal world and that the

10

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

social world becomes a dangerous place; one in which people are potential threats to your safety (Goleman, 1995).

Finally, another reason as to why research into workplace bullying has been frustrating is that researchers have been unable to go into organisations and observe directly the ways in which staff members interact with one another (Cowie, H.et al, 2002; Keashley & Jagatic; 2003; Richards & Daley, 2003). Researchers contend, that by listening only to employees’ narratives a biased view is given (Liefooghe & MacKenzie-Davey, 2001); but that examination from the point of view of all parties is difficult because organisations’ clearly don’t want to be scrutinised - they have reputations to protect and naturally wish to avoid litigation and, at a more fundamental level, feel they have a right to decide how they treat their staff (Cowie et al, 2002; Ironside & Seifert, 2003). Organisations are regarded in popular perceptions to have ownership over employees and the right to manage them as they see fit (Ironside & Seifert, 2003).

Without understanding the context and the role of organisations and/or their respective cultural values and morality that sanction bullying, it is impossible to understand its significance.

2.3 Study of Bullying Concep tualisat ion and The focus of much of the bullying research as alluded to, has concentrated on trying to understand the nature and the severity of impact upon the victim(s), their peers, and their organisation, and ultimately on society, together with its incidence in particular workplaces and how to prevent the problem as well as mitigate the pain

11

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

for victims (Einarsen, et al., 2003b). By broadening the focus to include all possible factors contributing to bullying and inhibiting attempts to prevent it, either at the workplace, or the national level, means that researchers are piecing together more parts of this intricate puzzle. Interest in bullying research is evident in a variety of academic disciplines, with much overlap in approach and findings.

Interest was stimulated in the subject of bullying as a direct result of the process of globalisation; firstly, because of the introduction of new laws regulating workers at the global level, and secondly, by the observation of clinicians that aggression was becoming more commonplace in certain workplaces, and that this was also having an impact on family relationships (Leymann, 1989).

Firstly, it is perhaps, important to ask the question: What exactly is workplace bullying? As Rayner posits (2002), there is a lack of coalescence of terminology (alluded to in this thesis) especially in the United States. This has been a topic of curiosity to many Europeans and Australasian academics; and as she further points out:

“… the role of ‘naming’ phenomena is well understood - unless something is named there is a danger that it does not exist and thus can be ignored. From a pragmatic perspective, it is essential for nomenclatures to become established, if any work is to be effective in tackling this issue.”(Rayner, 2002, p.2).

The term bullying, is as alluded to, by Vartia (2003), used synonymously with other terms such as harassment (Brodsky, 1976), scapegoating, (Thylefors, 1987), mobbing or psychological terror (Leymann, 1990), workplace trauma (Wilson, 1991), work harassment (Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, (1994) and abusive behaviour or

12

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

emotional abuse (Keashly, Trott & MacLean 1994; all authors are cited in Vartia, 2003); generalised workplace abuse and workplace aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1994; cited by Keashley & Jagatic, 2003).

Originally, interest in bullying was from a socio-medical perspective by the psychiatrist Dr Carroll Brodsky in the early 1970s. He defined Harassment in the work place (Brodsky, 1976), and his work is important to consider within the review of the literature on the workplace-bullying phenomenon because it is an important early text (Rayner & Hoel, 1997).

"Harassment is behavior that involves repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, frustrate, or get a reaction from another. It is behavior that persistently provokes, pressures, frightens, intimidates, or otherwise discomforts another person." (Brodsky, 1976, p.2).

Academic researchers continue to refer to Brodsky’s findings and much of their research is concerned in finding explanations and exploring relationships between these findings (Rayner & Hoel, 1997; Einarsen, et al, 2003; Vartia, 2003). Brodsky subdivides the “experience” into “subjective” and “objective” forms of harassment, which represents awareness by the victim (target) of the harassment and where external evidence of the harassment is found, respectively.

This book shares in the psychoanalytic and philosophical approaches of more recent research, which attempts to understand concepts which influence thinking and shape how people, organisations and economies behave (Boulnois, 1996; Crawford, 1997; McCarthy, 2003). The importance of Brodsky’s book lies in his early

13

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

appreciation and recognition of the aggressive nature of workplace bullying, which he termed ‘harassment’, in addition to the potential severity of impact(s) upon an individuals’ well being. This included the colleagues of the bullied person, as well as the effects on the workplace (Brodsky, 1976).

Brodsky, (1976), was of the opinion that bullying existed only in organisations that allowed it to exist. He regarded bullying as representing the ‘evil underbelly’ of organisations and believed that some organisations either consciously or unconsciously accepted or therefore, allowed, bullying. In addition he also regarded it as detrimental to both the moral fibre of society and the economy. Such opinions at that time were barely likely to be popular in the United States with its dominant laissez-faire attitudes to business.

The foundation for this book involved the use of his individual case studies of over a thousand people who he had interviewed when determining compensation for psychological injury at work (i.e. victims of bullying). As a piece of research, it constituted a qualitative study rather than that of a quantitative area of scientific research. This is possibly another reason, despite the general taboos about bullying at that time and popular perceptions that bullying wasn’t a serious issue, in explaining why it attracted little attention from academics at that time (Einarsen, et al., preface, 2003a).

During the 1970s, the general public were more likely to be interested in the workplace due to industrial disputes between workers and owners of industry, which threatened to undermine the security of workers (Hoel, Einarsen, Keashly, Zapf & Cooper, 2003; Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper, 2002; Cooper, 2002). The outcome of these disputes, which was victory for the owner(s), was one that would significantly affect the

14

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

workplace, whereby, the conflict that was intrinsic to these disputes appeared to have transformed into other forms of aggression and violence, including that of bullying (Ashforth, 1994; Baron, & Neuman, 1996; Gill, Fisher, & Bowie, 2002; Einarsen, et al., preface, 2003a), rather than dissipating.

These disputes also heralded in the forces of globalisation, the restructuring of the workplace and marked the beginning of the technological revolution of the 1980s; as well as bringing about the decline of trade unions together with a shift away from personnel departments to that of human resource management (HRM) (Lewis, D, 1999; Lewis & Rayner, 2003). These changes often created conditions that were more favourable for management, and were presented as being beneficial for society as a whole. A decline in both paternalism as well as concern for the welfare of workers flowed on to public opinion which became less sympathetic towards both trade unions and workers. As a result of these processes, the bullied victim was now potentially more isolated, not only from the bully; but also their peers, organisation and society (Lewis & Rayner, 2003).

Since the early 1990s, European research has focused on developing systematic methodologies and theoretical models for studying bullying in addition to devising explanatory frameworks to enable the subject to be studied more rigorously (see also next section), as well as being more informative and thus leading to greater perceptual clarification (Cooper & Robertson, 2001; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003; Sheehan, 2005). An important objective of the research has been to support management, academics and professionals to identify and understand the problems faced by employers and organisations, and in 1996 the European Journal of Occupational Psychology emerged on the scene and frequent attention was given to bullying,

15

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

revealing it to be a significant research subject. Early work such as that of Heinz Leymann (1989), described bullying in the Swedish population as a workplace related psychological problem.

Much of the later research that appeared came from an occupational health and safety perspective rather than that of the traditional socio-medical approach, thus enabling researchers to explore the significance of context (Hoel & Salin, 2003).

In both the UK and Europe, the research focuses on both perpetrator and prevention, and the abuse is identified as either bullying or mobbing, whereas the United States pays particular attention to the victim and treatment. Terms referred to commonly here are workplace harassment, emotional abuse (Keashley & Jagatic, 2003) or incivility (Pearson & Porath, 2005). The different research perspectives seen in these two continents are evidence of the different cultural attitudes, and in this environment reflect the differences in socio-political perception(s) regarding the workplace and the right of public authorities to intervene in the internal functioning of organisations (Einarsen et al., 2003b).

The act of bullying can embody a variety of organisational experiences, and can be horizontal (between peers) or vertical (between manager and employee) (Bryant and Cox, 2003); this is discussed in the next section.

By 2003, the academic research in the United States (as had occurred previously in the UK) had soon developed another aim; which was to change the opinions of the general public and policy makers about the existence and prevalence of bullying in order to prevent it (Keashley & Jagatic, 2003). Research into bullying is therefore

16

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

perceived to be driving public opinion rather than the other way round, as is more usual (Keashley & Jagatic, 2003). Recognition that the problem was one that could be inherent in organisations and society meant that the initial focus on the impact of bullying and mitigating the effects on the individual, had now shifted to identifying ways in which to eliminate the problem from the workplace. (Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2003; Zapf & Einarsen, 2001).

An important step in bringing together recent research from the UK, Europe, US, Australia and South Africa is the book Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspective in research and practice, in 2003, (Einarsen, et al., 2003). The book discusses and describes various research approaches taken in relation to different aspects of the bullying process, thus enabling one to observe how each field of research enhances our knowledge, in addition to increasing our appreciation of this complex phenomenon. The definition of bullying presented in this book as well as many other academic papers has evolved from initial research since 1989 (Leymann, 1989) and is described as:

“Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal “strength” are in conflict” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, C, 2003, p. 15).

17

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

This particular definition, it is pointed out by the authors, will not satisfy everyone because of the culturally and contextually different workplaces that exist (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, C, 2003). However, the important features of bullying are patterned (frequency) negative acts, intended (intention) to harm or cause offence, committed over a period of time (duration) and there is a power imbalance (power) between perpetrator and target (existing either apriori, or developing as a result of the conflict (Keashley & Nowell, 2003). These features, by definition, make it gradually more difficult for the victim to defend themselves (Cusack; 2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003b; Vartia, 2003).

There has been a general lack of understanding among the public in general that bullying represents behavioural/cultural norms that are modelled from the top down in organisations (Houghton, 2003), especially in those that persist in operating punitive models of discipline and control. Academic research for example by Rayner (2001), suggests that the prevalence of top down bullying to be as high as 80% in the UK. In schools, just like the armed forces, prisons/correctional centres, churches, hospitals and industry regimentation; individuals are expected to conform, in both an ideological as well as a cultural sense (Ashforth, 1994; Boulnois, 1996; Hubert & van Veldhoven, 2001; Mikkelson & Einarsen, 2002). Victims of bullying commonly question as to how and why the bullies actually behave in such a way (see for example, Brown, 2004). As Brodsky (1976), discussed, they behave that way because their behaviour and conduct is tolerated and as Houghton (2003) similarly posits, aggressive cultures both exist and survive due to ignorance and permission (Brodsky, 1976; Houghton, 2003). However, Baron and Neuman enquire as to why societal norms against aggression fail to apply, or indeed only apply weakly, where the problem of workplace bullying is concerned (Baron,

18

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

& Neuman, 2003). In order to answer these questions it is important to understand bullying in its broadest context including that of how it has changed as a result of the globalisation process.

2.4 Bullying Contex tualisin g “The global dynamics of change has thrown us into a new era. Around the world, organisational management practices are being challenged and have led to new solutions in managing people to realise greater value. The insecurity that has been heightened by the opening up of new markets has driven organisations to adopt newer and better ways of working. It has provided the spur for organisations to take tough decisions…. (ER consultants, 2005).

This process of globalisation now meant that workplaces could exist within a supranational context. What this means is that workplaces could or had become separated from local cultural norms, values; laws and beliefs, which had previously regulated both workers and management. The traditional obligations, loyalties and reverence between “master and servant” were eroded and thus left workers without a clear sense of being valued or indeed belonging (Hoel & Salin, 2003; McCarthy, 2003; 1996). Workers could increasingly no longer identify with an organisation and a “job for life” in a particular place. They were expected to be upwardly mobile, be prepared to change jobs more often, perhaps even have to change their careers during the course of their working lifetimes (Cooper, 2002). Identity was therefore more probable to come from a professional role or from greater emphasis on consumerism, and shaped by the logic of market rules and profit making (McCarthy, 2003; Sennett, 1998). Within a particular profession, workers also had to expect increased regimentation and

19

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

control(s) over their work (Ironside & Seifert, 2003).

In addition to this, workers were also encouraged to embrace the philosophy of change, applaud entrepreneurial activity and value individualism (Cooper & Robertson, 2001). The reality however, for many workers who, for whatever cause, were less than able to adapt to these ‘winds of economic change’, was that only of increased vulnerability (Gill, et al., 2000; Ironside & Seifert, 2003). Organisational change; restructuring and downsizing meant that there were fewer jobs, increased working hours, and quite often decreased hourly rates of pay (Hoel, et al., 2002); leading to questions of work-life balance.

This process of change also led to the introduction of new layers within management with increased control(s) over workers; allowing potentially, for more mismanagement by unskilled and in-competent managers (Adams, & Crawford, 1992). It also led to inherent contradictions between individualism and teamwork, mission statements, company ethics and the dawning realisation that workplaces had become more ruthless and masculine (Ironside & Seifert, 2003; Tehrani, 2003).

Employees today are potentially faced with constant change within their workplace. Organisations often fail to equip their staff with the necessary skills to deal with the changes that are taking place. As the market is becoming more competitive, restructuring, re-engineering, downsizing and right sizing are leading to retrenchment. In addition to this, technological progression is also bringing about a decline in staff within certain organisational settings. Economic, technological and business factors such as downsizing, low unemployment and the associated skills shortage, have forced those workers who are left to give 150%, or more, just to stay on top

20

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

of their workloads, (Johnson & Indvik, 2001); factors that may lead to and exacerbate the bullying phenomenon, by unsympathetic management, who want results at all costs (Brotheridge, 2005; Glendinning, 2001).

2.5 Bullying Manag ement “.. It is managers and management that make institutions perform. Performing responsible

management [emphasis added] is the alternative to tyranny and our only protection against it….”
(Marciarello, 2005; Citing Drucker, P.)

As is discussed by Northouse, (2004) citing Yukl, (1989), there are undeniably clear differences between management and leadership, or managers and leaders. There is, however, also a considerable amount of overlap between them. For example, when managers are involved in influencing a group to meet its goals, they are involved in leadership and when leaders are involved in planning, organising, staffing and controlling, they are involved in the practice of management. Both of these processes involve the influence of individuals within a group to attain certain goals; and therefore, this thesis and review of the literature, will treat the terms of manager(s) and leader(s) synonymously, when discussing “toxic” leadership and “toxic” management in the bullying process in the next section. A typical characteristic of workplaces where bullying prevails is low satisfaction among employees regarding the leadership style of their managers and supervisors; it is either too aggressive or too laissez-faire (Einarsen, 2005). Indeed, as many as 80% of bullying victims claim to be bullied by a superior (Rayner, 2001), again linking bullying closely to leadership and associated power imbalance.

21

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

This is also discussed and summarised by Leymann’s (1993) theoretical claim that four factors are prominent in eliciting bullying at work: (1) deficiencies in work design, (2) deficiencies in leadership behaviour, (3) a socially exposed position of the victim, and (4) a low moral standard in the department (Salin, 2003a; citing Einarsen 2003). It is important to also discuss that bullying is not only limited to vertical aggression (the main area of investigation in this thesis) from managers towards subordinates as for example in “abusive supervision” (Tepper 2000, Zellers and Tepper, 2002) or “petty tyranny” (Ashforth, 1994, 1997); whereby, formal power differences are possible source(s) of such imbalances in power.

As Salin (2003a; 2003b) posits, power imbalances can also be an outcome of other individual, situational or contextual characteristics, and as such, required power differences may also arise among peers. In certain instances subordinates, especially if acting in the context of a group may muster enough power to bully a superior by “ganging up” on them. It should be noted also, that power imbalances may, in addition, evolve over time and that the bullying process may in itself give rise to further increasing power imbalances; e.g. it has been hypothesised that spreading gossip can under some circumstances enhance a gossiper’s perceived coercive, expert or referent power within an organisation (Salin, 2003a; citing Kurland & Pelled, 2000).

As alluded to above, bullying in the workplace has been seen as involving a power imbalance whereby the target of bullying is subjected to negative behaviour(s) to such an extent that they feel inferior and are unable to defend themselves in the actual situation, referred to in the literature as the “victim-perpetrator” dimension

22

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

(Salin, 2003b; citing Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Keashly, 1998; Vartia, 2003)). Therefore, as such, conflicts between parties of perceived equal strength are not considered bullying (Einarsen, Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998).

It is also important to consider in the review that that there is acknowledgement by researchers that workplace bullying and related phenomena are often a result of interaction between individual and institutional factors as discussed by Salin (2003b); she describes these as ‘interaction effects’. She identifies that bullying is a multi-causal phenomenon, and that it is seldom explained by one factor only; together with the idea that bullying may be described as a self-reinforcing or spiralling process (Salin, 2003b; citing Aquino et al., 1999, Ashforth, 1997; Einarson 1999; Neman and Baron, 1998 and Zapf, 1999a).

Einarsen and his research colleagues have presented a framework for the study of the bullying process in the workplace (see Figure 1, below); which gives an overview of the factors at different levels and how they may interact during the stages of this complex phenomenon.

This framework draws attention to both the individual factors (in victims and perpetrators) as well as contextual, organisational and societal factors, and Salin (2003b) has further built on this framework from further research (see Figure 2), which builds and competently discusses a proposed modification of the framework by building on organisational factors of bullying and its tolerance/intolerance through what she terms as ‘enabling/disabling’ factors (see Figure 3).

23

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

These factors are important to consider in the overall review of the bullying process, as it is these processes that she calls the “factors that provide the fertile soil for bullying”. These conditions include a perceived power imbalance, between victim and perpetrator(s), low costs for the perpetrator and dissatisfaction and frustration of the work environment, or what can be considered, in the opinion of the author and described in the US literature as part of the ‘toxic’ workplace/organisation or ‘toxic’ management which will be discussed in the next section, below.

This thesis will go on to and discuss why bullying is toxic and therefore hope to add understanding to the right hand side of the framework, i.e. effects on the individual and the organisation (i.e. context).

24

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Cultural + Socio- economic Factors

Organisational Action Tolerance/intolerance; Social support Retaliation/retribution; Policy enforcement Organisational factors inhibiting aggressive behaviour Bullying Immediate behaviour as behavioural perceived by reactions by the Victim the victim behaviour as Exhibited by the Effects on the Organisation Bullying

+
Individual, social and contextual antecedents of

Emotional Behavioural Effects on the Individual Individual characteristics of the victim

aggre ssive behav iour

Demographic factors and social circumstances Personality and personal history Figure 1. A Framework for workplace bullying based upon and reproduced from research by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003).

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006 Cultural + Socio- economic Factors Power Structures in Society

Organisational Action Tolerance/intolerance; Social support Retaliation/retribution; Policy enforcement Organisational factors enabling/ disabling, motivating and triggering aggression Bullying behaviour as Exhibited by the

,

Effects on the Organisation Bullying Immediate behaviour as behavioural perceived by reactions by the Victim the victim Emotional Behavioural Effects on the Individual

Individual, social and contextual antecedents of aggressive behaviour

Individual characteristics of the victim Demographic factors and social circumstances Personality and personal history

Figure 2. A revised framework of bullying reproduced from Salin (2003), based upon an original framework by Einarsen et al. (2000; 2003).

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006
vating structures and processes Precipitating processes

Internal competition Reward system and expected benefits Bureaucracy &difficulties to lay off employees

Restructuring and crises Other organisational change(s) Changes in management/ Composition of workgroup

Enabling structures and processes

Perceived power imbalance Low perceived costs Dissatisfaction and frustration

BULLYING POSSIBLE AND MORE LIKELY

Figure 3. Enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment reproduced from Salin (2003).

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

2.6 The Toxic Workp lace The terminology of the toxic workplace, has, as discussed by Brown (2004b), entered the lexicon of management in the 21 st century. She articulates, that like many management concepts, it is loosely defined, but however it is labelled, can be even more difficult to fix (that is when a workplace has become poisoned or toxic). She describes the toxic workplace skilfully as:

“It lies just beneath the surface. You can't see it but you know it's there-brewing. An atmosphere of higher stress, conflict and indifference.”(Brown, 2004b, p.2)

She also puts forward the idea that any workplace can become toxic if it includes (or even promotes) those behaviours that negatively affect others individually and/or collectively and that symptoms of a toxic workplace will become evident in ‘short order’, leading to increases in absenteeism, health problems and use of Employee Assistance Programs. She further discusses that, as the problem worsens, the signs of toxicity will become more overt and may include significant lowering of productivity, an increase in health problems and accidents, more resignations and the loss of talented employees (i.e. working capital). and, ultimately, a discernable effect on the organisations profitability(Brown, 2004b).

The terminology of “toxic” in reference to toxic manager (Flynn, 1999; Lubit, 2004); toxic leaders (Reed, 2004, Lipman-Blumen, 2005a, 2005b), toxic culture (Flynn, 1999); the sub units leading to the creation and nurturing of a toxic organisation or toxic workplace are discussed by various academics and practitioners alike; appearing as
28

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

discussed by Reed (2004); with increasing frequency.

Lipman-Blumen (2005a, 2005b), for example, describes toxic leaders as those who engage in destructive practices and exhibit personality dysfunctions, which often cause serious harm to their organizations and their followers: “…Toxic leaders those individuals who, by virtue of their destructive behaviours and their dysfunctional personal qualities or characteristics, inflict serious and enduring harm on the individuals, groups, organizations, communities and even the nations that they lead…”(Lipman-Blumen, 2005b, p. 2).

Wilson-Starkes, (2003, p.2) makes the statement that “Toxic leadership often causes a high turnover rate, a decline in productivity, less innovation, and interdepartmental conflict. She then goes on to submit a skillful analogy to the effects of a toxic leader within an organization.

“…People like this have the same effect on an organisation that termites have on a wooden house. On the outside, things look normal; but there is serious trouble just under the surface. When such a company faces unusual stresses—a depressed economy, for instance—more demands will be put on the workforce. Like a termite-infested house, the organisation crumbles from within...” (Wilson-Starkes, 2003, p.3)

Another detailed definition as given by the analyst Flynn (1999), who describes the toxic manager as:

“The manager who bullies, threatens, yells. The manager whose mood swings determine the climate of the office on any given workday. Who forces employees to whisper in sympathy in cubicles and

hallways. The backbiting, belittling boss from hell. Call it what you want - poor interpersonal skills, unfortunate office practices -- but some people, by sheer, shameful force of their personalities, make
29

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

working for them rotten. We call them toxic managers. Their results may look fine on paper, but the fact is, all is not well if you have one loose in your workforce: It's unhealthy, unproductive and will eventually undo HR's efforts to create a healthy, happy and progressive workplace” (Flynn, 1999, p.44).

As Reed (2004), further posits, a loud and demanding manager is not necessarily toxic; indeed a manager, who hides behind a façade of sincerity with a soft voice can be toxic. Ultimately it is the effect of de-motivational behaviour and climate over time. Even though a manager may be highly competent and effective from an organisational perspective, the contribution to an unhealthy work climate (i.e. toxic workplace) and its ramifications prevail over their continued employ; toxic leaders represent a daily challenge that can result in unnecessary organisational stress, negative values and hopelessness.

What is evident from the literature on toxic management etc, is that it is essentially part of and akin to the bullying process as discussed; and raises the question of whether bullying is and indeed, should therefore, be considered as toxic. That is to say, does the process of bullying by managers (described as ‘toxic’) potentially have and should therefore, be described as ‘toxic’ consequences within the individual(s) who may / are the victims of bullying within the workplace? Having a previous background in toxicology stimulated the author to attempt to address this question, which is as discussed one of the main objective of the thesis

It is important, therefore, to briefly discuss the concepts of workplace stress and that of a toxic substance/toxicity to understand its concept when applying it to bullying and its impact(s) both within and outside the workplace.

30

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

2.7 Toxic Stress? Upon examination of the literature there is a considerable amount of information on workplace stress and its effects. The term stress is a very ‘broad’ term and encompasses a wide and varied response(s) to stressors in the workplace. It is important to consider in the overall context of the impacts of the bullying process.

The literature highlights the important effects of stress and its associated implications for the economy. A report by Robertson and Cooper (cited in Mind 2005), discusses some of the main impacts of workplace stress on the economy. These include:

It has been estimated that nearly 10 per cent of the UK's gross national product (GNP) is lost each year due to job-generated stress.

Stress is the highest cause of absence among non-manual employees, with an estimated 12.8 million working days lost in Britain in 2003/04 due to stress, and depression or anxiety ascribed to work related stress 5 . (Note however note that a recent study puts the figure on days lost to bullying alone at 18 million 6 ).

Health and Safety Executive (2004) Health and Safety Statistics Highlights 2003/04. Available at www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overpic.htm Skynews. (Nov 07 th 2005); Citing TUC study on survey carried out on “Ban Bullying at Work Day”; claiming 2 million bullied, in the last 6 months – bosses being blamed. Available at http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13459538,00.html
31

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Mental health problems account for the loss of over 91 million working days each year and that half of all days are lost through mental ill health are due to anxiety and stress conditions 7 .

In a CBI survey of over 800 companies, 98 per cent of respondents said mental health should be a company concern, with 81 per cent of those saying that the mental health of employees should be a company priority. However, fewer than one in ten [emphasis added] of the companies surveyed had an official policy on mental health 8 .

Another interesting point that Robertson and Cooper identify and elaborate on within their report, is the fact that fewer than four in ten employers say that they would consider hiring someone with a history of mental health problems, compared to more than six in ten for someone with a physical disability. And yet, as will be discussed, it is the possible effects of bullying and/or its associated long-term stress that potentially cause or bring about the mental ill health problems in the first place, by the impacts of sustained stress and its physiological/biochemical action(s) within the individuals concerned! These potentially ‘toxic’ impacts will be elaborated on in the discussion section.

One area that is not discussed or reviewed by Robertson and Cooper in their report, or indeed only minimally throughout the literature, is the impact(s) of stress and /or stress

Gray, P. (2000) Mental Health in the Workplace: Tackling the Effects of Stress, London, Mental Health Foundation. CBI, cited by Gray, P., in Mental Health in the Workplace: Tackling the effects of stress, The Mental Health Foundation (2000). 32

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

related to bullying and associated suicide incidences. This is surprising, considering that there appears to be an increased reporting of it within the news. 9,10 There is also questions raised here on discrimination law based on mental health; whereby disability is defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) as a “physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse affect on a person's ability to carry out normal day to day activities”.

Employers have a duty not to discriminate [emphasis added] directly against disabled applicants and staff, or treat them less favourably, because of their disability, and also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, and yet there appears to be a clear lack of understanding on the law and or lack of policy to deal with this as discussed by Robertson and Cooper (2005).

Stress in its broadest term is discussed and perhaps overused by many people in everyday life and that is why, it appears to be generalized. For example, individuals openly discuss about being stressed out at work or in every day life, how this or that situation is stressful etc. Indeed stress affects us at home, work, and even on our holidays.

Positive stress, also described as eustress, by Maslow (1943), may arise as a result of good management and excellent leadership where all individuals work hard, are kept involved by management and perhaps; importantly, are valued and supported i.e. People feel they are in control (Cole, 2000; Cooper, 2001). On the other hand, “negative stress”, or distress, as

9 TUC

(2006). “suicide verdict on bullied worker” Discusses how a father of four committed suicide after “soul destroying and demeaning bullying campaign” by management.

‘KFC KILLERS’ (Received extensive press coverage – see for example; Daily Mirror; 08/12/2005): A magistrates court returned a verdict that Hannah Kikham; working to pay her law school fees "intended to take her own life after a sustained period of clinically diagnosed severe depressive illness which was significantly influenced by bullying and harassment in the workplace".
10

33

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

termed by Maslow, (1943); is the potential outcome of a bullying climate where threats, fear and coercion substitute for poor and/or non-existent (toxic) management skills. When individuals use the word "stress" on its own, they usually mean "negative stress".

At its extreme it can manifest itself via severe emotional stress/trauma as Complex Post traumatic Stress Order (PTSD), which the author believes has potentially far reaching and potentially devastating outcomes via complex biochemical (at both physiological and psychological level) processes (see Appendix 1 for common symptoms reported and experienced by sufferers of complex PTSD).

These processes may be toxic directly to the individual and those around them, arguments for which will be put forward in the discussion.

2.7.1 Stress Effects

From a personal perspective it is increasingly more evident that individuals think or are indeed, told that they should learn to ‘deal’ or ‘cope’ with stress at work; ‘it’s just part of everyday life’ or ‘comes with the job’. These statements tend to imply that there is perhaps an implicit belief that workplace stress is normal and that we need to ‘manage’ or ‘handle’ stress and just get on with the job.

This view of stress, in the author’s opinion, is wrong. Workplace stress, and more importantly, for the purpose of this thesis, the stress effects caused by bullying, its long-term effects and implications as experienced by victims of bullying is a severe health
34

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

and safety hazard that can have devastating (psychological and physiological) effects; leading to illness disease or death (supported from a risk perspective by academics, such as Spurgeon, 2003); with consequences for the organisation (stress makes workers more susceptible to hazards, injury and disease), which will be further elaborated on in the discussion.

Stress is a combination of physical and psychological reactions to events that challenge or threaten us, affecting everyone; both young and old, but as is Mediciens Sans Frontieres, (2005) discuss, and therefore confirm, attention must be paid to stress and distress since prolonged states of either can cause physical and mental damage; they further discuss stress as:

“Stress is a neurobiological reaction that facilitates the adaptation of the person to external demands. Stress reactions can be caused by pleasant and unpleasant events. In the latter case, stress increases attention and reactivity to perceived or potentially dangerous situations. Three stages of stress can be distinguished: the alarm phase, the reaction phase, and the exhaustion phase. Stress can initially improve performance; but after a certain level and amount of time functioning and health become negatively affected. It is at this point that stress becomes distress” (Medicens Sans Frontieres, 2005, p.24)

In summing up this section, it is clearly evident from the immense literature available, that traumatically stressful events, such as war, emotional abuse etc. for example in the form of workplace bullying, may trigger behavioural and or other biological/biochemical processes in the form of ‘stress’ that may contribute to the onset of illness and/or disease in the victim, as well as having further far reaching impacts. It is intended to identify and elaborate on some of these issues in putting forward the concept that workplace

35

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

bullying should be regarded as a toxic process with far reaching consequences.

2.8 on Toxic – A definiti There are various definitions of ‘toxic’ depending on the context that it is discussed. By definition ‘toxic’ is defined as “capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means;” something that is poisonous or pertaining to poison.” And what is poison? It’s “any substance which, introduced into an organism in relatively small amounts, acts chemically upon the tissues to produce serious injury or death.” The Center for Disease control (US) defines a Toxic substance as:

“ Any substance which can cause acute or chronic injury to the human body, or which is suspected of being able to cause diseases or injury under some conditions”; and a ‘Toxicant’ as ” Any substance producing a toxic effect” (.i.e. Toxicity).

A Dose-response Curve can be used to illustrate the relationship between the amount of a drug or other chemical (and its toxic effects) that an individual is exposed to and the degree of response it produces. When attempting to answer the question as to whether bullying can be thought of as being toxic (i.e. acting like a toxin), the curve can (in the opinion of the author) be applied as a theoretical concept (see any recognised toxicology texts e.g. Ballantyne et al., 1993; Klaassen, C., & Watkins, J., 2003) to help answer this question. It may therefore, also serve as a potential tool in aiding management to understand the severity and consequences of the toxic bullying process. These concepts will be elaborated on further within the discussion section.

36

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 3

37

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 the Reader Import ant Note to It should be noted by the reader that this section includes methodological approaches that were originally to be used in generating additional, primary data towards the project findings. This was to be performed by generating questions and performing interviews (as will be discussed), which it was believed (initially) would add additional insight of the bullying phenomenon by managers.

An extensive amount of time was devoted in proposing and refining questions as well as identifying potential interviewees (see also appendix 5); however, there were potential ethical considerations that were highlighted that may be expressed by the university ethics committee, that initially were not believed were going to be an issue. This occurred quite late on in the project after extensive research had been performed. One of the main concerns was that by performing the interviews, there might be a small risk that the interviewees could be subject to re –traumatisation of their experience. Due to time constraints, and the fact that the researcher was not a qualified counsellor (although it was put forward that this ran counter to both student and academic rights), in submitting further support for the primary data gathering, it was decided therefore, in consultation with the project supervisor to abandon the interviews; even though it may have given additional insight into the phenomenon.

However, as the project had progressed and evolved, substantial secondary data had already been gathered from many sources allowing the author to fulfil the objectives
38

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

originally highlighted (and as will be discussed in section 4). As bullying is an international phenomenon and covers many different fields of research; this is supported by Saunders (2003), who highlights that secondary data will probably be the main source to answer the research questions and address the research objectives.

As it was pointed out by the supervisor that primary data was not mandatory in the thesis; and whilst it would have been of interest to include, it was agreed and decided that it would not be pursued; due to time limitations (in putting forward further support to the ethics committee) which may lead to the project being compromised. However, it was agreed that the ‘proposed’ methodology (for primary data collection) would still be included in the final thesis as it shows to the reader the research that was undertaken in establishing and supporting the collection of the primary data by the author; if indeed it had been possible to do this.

3.2 dology Approach Propos ed Metho This thesis follows that of a constructivist approach. In a complex area such as bullying in terms of organisational behaviour it is not appropriate to develop law-like generalisations. Indeed, as Remenyi et al, (1998) discusses it is preferred to look for the reality behind them when dealing with soft skills such as management competencies. In this field of work a lot of research is concerned with subjective perceptions and therefore it is important to take a position where one can interpret the socially constructed understandings and meaning. In order to satisfy this project investigations have been carried out in different academic fields. Different methods of data collection have been utilised in order to satisfy the objectives of this project.
39

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

In addition, secondary data has been researched and utilised as the main support to the thesis and is used throughout, as this provided the information to support the main objectives of the project. This was obtained from the utilisation of academic books, peer reviewed journal articles, Library databases and also the internet (news articles etc).

3.3 s Metho dology Option The literature review can be described as being the “backbone” of any research project. The preliminary search of reviewing the literature helps one to generate and also to refine the research ideas. There is a need to establish what research has been published in the chosen project area and then to identify any other research that may currently be in progress, which may also be of benefit to the researcher.

The utilisation of library services available at the University of Portsmouth as well as Portsmouth City Council library were used for this purpose and associated online databases for example, Athens, were very useful, together with the library texts that were available. However, the use of inter- library loans was utilised on occasion due to the fact that some recent references were difficult to obtain because some of the original texts were dated.

One of the advantages of this particular topic on workplace bullying and its associated impacts, is that it is currently a very popular area of research with academics and therefore, there was an immense amount secondary data available. It is hoped that this project when completed, will at least in part be published as a unique piece of
40

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

research that assists the topic by identifying that bullying is a toxic phenomenon; and it is hoped that the concepts put forward will be of value in aiding the understanding of this topic by management.

3.3.1 Proposed Case study Research Approach.

From the possible approaches of researching for the thesis (other alternatives included a ‘grounded theory’ approach), the case study approach (inductive method) was originally to be adopted to generate additional primary data to be of added interest; as it was hoped to focus on a group of individuals who had been bullied by management in the same company, within closely linked departments. According to the review of the literature above it seemed the most appropriate for the MBA dissertation the author was undertaking; being strongly associated with qualitative data as opposed to quantitative data. Furthermore, this particular approach was supported by the need that the research process be flexible as well as responsive to change, i.e. during the research process new patterns of thought may evolve about observations and it is therefore, more suitable than building a theory and then ‘evaluating’ the data which would confirm the theory. There appeared to be a void in the literature on in-depth multiple cases of employee accounts of management bullying within a same work setting; relating to highly intelligent and capable, professional employees, together with little inference of it being a ‘toxic phenomenon’; which would have favoured this particular approach. According to Yin (2003), the case study research method is used when phenomena and context do not have precise boundaries. He defines case study approach as:

41

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

“…An empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomena within its real life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.” (Dobson, 2001; citing Yin, 1994).

Therefore multiple sources such as literature review, case evidence and intuition is often applied in case research and is known as iterative triangulation (Yin 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989).

The research question often changes during the research work, partly because of this iterative nature. Description of completed work usually combines both quantitative and qualitative information, using comparisons within and between the case(s) under scrutiny.

Case studies tend to use either an inductive or deductive (see also Figure 4) research approach (Saunders et al, 2003). In deductive research, the work proceeds from current theory to data, trying to use logical deduction to create proper constructions. However, Eisenhardt, (1989); citing Kuhn, 1996 argues that more than one theoretical construction could be fitted on any given data, which decreases the applicability of this approach in a case study context.

Therefore, the following criteria are seen as measures of a successful construction: 1. Relevance to practice. 2. Theoretical connections. 3. Usability in practice. 4. Theoretical novelty value.

42

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

THEORY

INDUCTIVE

DEDUCTIVE

DATA
Figure 4. Basic differences between deductive and inductive case study research approaches.

The Inductive approach is used frequently in case studies, where the data is used to generate new findings from current theories (Saunders et, al, 2003). This was the objective of the author in putting forward primary data to support the idea that WPB is a toxic phenomenon. It is agreed by academics that science could not develop without an inductive element (Kekäli, 2001; citing Kasanen, Lukka and Sitonen, 1993; Kuhn, 1996). However, its generalisations have uncertain features always and therefore the whole of the scientific society could not entirely agree with them.

It is worth discussing that as Kekäli, (2001) posits, researchers are often not able to state which of the two approaches is to be used (whether inductive or deductive). The reason for it is the complex nature of the research work; no ‘pure’ inductive or deductive case study research exists, because every research work is a combination of the two approaches, indeed, this would appear to be the case within this thesis as ideas were built upon and refined throughout the research process.

43

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

However, the inductive research approach does contain more detailed analyses from the underlying empirical phenomena, and emphasises the use of qualitative rather than quantitative information whereas oppositely, the deductive research approach will be inclined to use only use empirical data to confirm used theory, and therefore has more emphasis to use quantitative data.

An important point to note however when considering and reviewing research methods, is to acknowledge the fact that, in the past, the case study approach has been stereotyped and been discussed as the "weak sibling" of research methods within the social sciences, Yin (2003).

It has also been degraded by some as having insufficient precision i.e. quantification, subject objectivity, and rigour etc. However despite these "stereotypical weaknesses", Yin (2003), famous for developing the case study method; points out that it still continues to be extensively used for research in the social sciences in addition to practice orientated fields, for example, management sciences, public administration, urban-planning, education, as well as public policy (Yin, 2003). Further evidence and support for the use of the case study approach within this study is given by Dobson, (2001); citing Cavaye, (1996)); who argues that case study research can be completed in a multitude of ways:

“Case research can be carried out taking a positivist or an interpretive stance, can take a deductive or an Inductive approach, can use qualitative and quantitative methods, can investigate one or multiple cases. Case research can be highly structured, positivist, deductive investigation of multiple cases; it can also be an unstructured, interpretive, inductive investigation of one case; lastly, it can be anything in

44

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

between these two extremes in almost any combination.”(Dobson, 2001).

When considering sample numbers for the study, it must be emphasised that whilst only a small number of WPB cases were originally to be studied (4-5), it is in a unique area of research and would have therefore been acceptable to generate additional ideas and theory; indeed many academics such as Yin (2003; 1994); Dyer and Wilkins (1991) and Dobson (2001; citing Miles & Huberman (1994)) emphasise that the sample size could be even one. However, some academics, such as Eisenhardt (1989), suggests that four to ten cases are needed for generating theory as her opinion is that fewer than four cases does not give potential to create complex theory and with more than ten cases it is difficult to manage the voluminous data.

Dyer and Wilkins (1991), however, argue that the key issue is not the number of cases, the time spent in the field or page length. The most important thing is that the researcher understands; describes the context clearly for readers and that she/he is able to generate theories from it.

3.4 ews Propos ed Intervi It is possible to define an interview as "a purposeful discussion between two or more people", (Saunders et al., (2003); citing Kahn and Cannell, 1957).

It is possible to gather valid and reliable data, which is relevant to one's research questions and objectives via the use of interviewing. Interviews may allow for the collection of detailed verbal and observation data, possibly on tape recorder /
45

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Dictaphone, permitting careful exploration of how people make sense of issues as they occur during the course of a conversation.

When conducted competently, they enable the researcher to engage with the respondents, to develop trust, and thus offer the possibility that the interviewee will share perceptions and stories that may add insights, which are new to the interviewer. While differences in the meanings associated with language can threaten the reliability of the data, the interview method allows the researcher to test differences in meaning with the interviewee.

In-depth, non-standardised interviews (semi-structured) were originally to be to be used in this exploratory study. It is not only important to question ‘what’ and ‘how, but also to explore ‘why’. This may be intensified by the use of both probing and open-ended questions; and according to Robson (2002), may be very useful in gaining new insights and perspectives. The development of questions that were to be used within the thesis were identified and developed as the researcher went though the literature, and allowed for elaboration by the proposed interviewees (see Appendix 3 for proposed questions)

The advantage of the interview process is that allows for possible identification and elaboration of other areas of the experience, which may prove useful in the research. A potential disadvantage of an interview method however, is the issue of researcher bias; for example, the way a researcher asks a question can influence a participant’s response thereby creating a situation where the participants may provide answers that they believe an interviewer will be pleased with. Researchers need to be capable, skilled and aware of their own as well as the participants’ dynamics in the interview process.

46

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Often the sophisticated levels of skill required to interview with sensitivity and to ensure the respondent is ‘ok’ after the interview is underestimated. Different types of interviewing techniques can be employed in order to gather this data; they are, ‘structured interviews’; ‘semi-structured interviews’; and ‘unstructured interviews’ (Saunders et al 2003).

The particular type of interviewing technique that was to be used for this project was that of in-depth non-standardised format (semi-structured). This can essentially be described as the type whereby the researcher has a list of questions (see also appendix 3) to be covered (Saunders et al; 2003). However, the questions asked may change during each interview depending on time and experience shared by the interviewee; the benefit of this type of interviewing technique is that it is possible to ask additional questions as the conversation progresses; to explore particular nuances and issues which may arise, thereby assisting in obtaining further information.

The three interview types described all have their own unique advantages as well as disadvantages, and these can be seen in Table 1 overleaf.

47

Interview Method

Strengths

Weaknesses
© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Structured

Allows same questions to be asked to all interviewees. Do not allow further questioning. Inflexible.

Interviews are generally less time consuming. Unstructured General discussion is often useful in the early stages of a project.

No formal agenda, therefore difficult to control. May deviate from the subject area and produce little information. Potentially Timeconsuming.

Semi-structured

Allows for more indepth questioning. Relatively time consuming. Interview has a broad agenda therefore, should produce relevant information

Table 1.
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Interview types (Saunders et al, 2003 p. 246-249)

48

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

3.5 pant Selection Propos ed Partici From a mutual business contact, the details of my proposed research were circulated to various individuals who were working or had worked for the organisation to determine whether they would be prepared to share their experience(s). The business contact was aware that there were issues of bullying present within the department and knew the individuals personally. The contact approached them initially on the researchers behalf. Of six individuals identified, four were prepared to assist in the research project that had experienced bullying by their manager, realising that this phenomenon was destructive, they felt that by sharing their experience(s), they may in some way add to the research and thereby assist in future prevention of bullying within the workplace. Two individuals had left the company, and two still remained in its employ.

Participants were assured that there would be no reference to them individually or the manager(s) concerned; or indeed the company concerned; thus ensuring absolute confidentiality.

A brief outline of the project was e-mailed to them, with my contact details asking them to contact if they were interested in assisting with the authors’ research. After receiving telephone calls from the participants it was agreed to perform personal interviews (in a mutually agreeable setting).

Originally, questions to be asked during the interview process together with consent forms were to be e-mailed to the applicants (see also appendix II and appendix
49

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

III), so that they would be prepared in advance for potential questions; this was thought to be ethically correct considering the sensitivity of the nature of the topic; enabling all participants to be fully aware of the subject matter in relation to their possible experience(s).

At all times a professional approach would have been followed during the interview process. The interview would have been recorded digitally on a digital dictaphone. This method would have been used in order to maintain that the information obtained was accurate at all times. The interview would then have later been transcribed and written down. The responses to the questions would have then been used as additional information in support of the thesis.

However, whilst this information may have been interesting; adding additional information to the project, the last minute decision not to perform these interviews (because of ethical issues and potential associated time constraints; as highlighted to in the introduction of his chapter, which may have compromised the project), it was felt by both supervisor and researcher alike, would not detract from meeting the project objectives, by which point there was substantial supporting information that was to be used for this purpose.

50

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 4

51

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 4 4.1 Introduction

DISCUSSION, FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

In discussion, it is worth noting as an association that at this time the world appears to be going through a violent period, whereby bullying against nations and individuals appears to be rife. Only recently, pictures and documentary evidence of torture and abuse have exposed the corruption within the United States military, which leads one to the question ‘how can individuals feel so little for their fellow human beings, and act in a manor which is cruel; as well as apparently giving enjoyment to some?’

The old saying “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Originally stated by Lord Acton, 1834-1902), appears to be correct, in that when many normal individuals gain a measure of power over others they often cannot resist the urge to abuse it and treat those below them with contempt, indignity and often cruelty.

This kind of corruption as discussed above, can and does occur in the workplace in the form of bullying; mainly occurring as alluded to in the thesis, vertically or ‘top-down’ 80% of the time (Rayner, 2001), with common estimates of 1 in 4 being affected; often higher in some occupations.

Whilst however, this may not include physical torture of individuals, workplace bullying inflicts psychological abuse and systematic victimisation that is immensely destructive, that may bring about physiological (biochemical) processes that can be literally ‘toxic’ at the cellular level leading to illness, disease and in certain cases death.
52

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Recently, the issue(s) of workplace bullying have gained increasing exposure, as evidenced in the literature and also the press. Some individuals have been so systematically abused that they have committed suicide 11 ; many have developed depression, anxiety and stress disorders, all of which are the result of complex biological processes. Recent research involving 1885 respondents by MORI (cited by the Samaritans) in 2003, indicates that:

“one in five people in Great Britain experiences stress on a daily basis and that the emotional consequences are severe, with a quarter of people who are stressed feeling isolated by it, nearly half feeling depressed or down, and one in eight believing they have nowhere to turn”.

The study goes on to highlight that 45% of those who have been stressed have been depressed as a consequence.

Another study reported in HRM Guide (2003; carried out by Cubiks a specialist HR consultancy), discusses the ‘taboo nature’ of stress and stress caused by bullying, as well as the climate of fear of individuals to actually report or highlight problems for fear of reprisals. Their findings included:

“Complaining of stress will damage your career prospects - 76% of survey respondents thought that their career prospects would be damaged if they complained of stress, and managers confirmed that they are right to think this. 79% of managers said they would be less likely to employ a candidate if they suspected that they were prone to stress and 87% would be less likely to promote an existing employee if they had doubts over their ability to handle stress”.

See footnote 9 and 10; page 30
53

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Although 49% of respondents did think that their line-manager would be concerned or sympathetic if they complained of stress, a quarter (24%) believed that their line managers would become irritated or annoyed if they raised stress as an issue. Almost half said that their relationship with their superiors was a considerable or major cause of concern for them and one in four (23%) complained that they were suffering from harassment or bullying.”

“Few organisations provide facilities for stressed employees - Only one third (34%) of respondents said that stress was recognised as an issue in their workplace and just 31% of respondents said that personal counselling services were available to them. Fewer still (27%) said that their organisation has any formal process for handling grievances or concerns relating to stress”.

Clearly there exists a culture of fear in individuals to express their concerns and a culture of acceptance by the organisations to accept that stress is part of the job. There undoubtedly does need to be a fundamental change within organisational and individual ‘psychies’ to bring about a reduction in ill health caused from bullying and other forms of stress, which has a major impact on the individual, the organisation and the economy as a whole.

As discussed previously, workplace bullying is not a form of ‘tough management’ nor is it a leadership style; it is an abuse of power that needs to be and should be exposed as a severe health and safety hazard, something that in the opinion of the author should not be tolerated in any form, vis-à-vis Zero-tolerance! (Indeed this is one of the rationales behind the thesis, so that it can add to the discourse, and enlighten management if published; or indeed may be the ‘spring board’ to further research by the author).

54

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Unfortunately, from the authors’ personal experience, as well as from understanding the literature, it appears that a majority of workplace bullying is hidden and conducted in secret. A common feature as a result of bullying, evidenced throughout studies in the literature, is that individuals lose self-confidence; which in turn leads to their self-esteem, health and performance being affected 12 , and some never work again. This is truly a waste of human capital.

The manager bully may be revered by many senior managers; appearing to be a high achiever, indeed, may be economically important to the organisation, as was the case in the authors’ personal experience (often leading to the reason why the bully stays and the victim disappears!).

To those below the bully, however, there is often fear and loathing of this ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character. There is therefore, perhaps the temptation by senior management, when a complaint arises to protect the bully and therefore further victimise the complainant. This inevitably leads to the ‘exit’ of the complainant (victim) leading to the apparent ‘resolution of the problem’. However, It only serves to reinforce that bullying is tolerated within the organisation, and is therefore not ‘resolving the issue’, at least not in the medium term. This behaviour, it appears, just gives the impression of ‘Put up and shut up, or leave’; a fact that is highlighted and supported by other authors, for example Reed, (2004), whereby:

Recent report by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents), The most commonly cited effects are worry about going to work, and bullying are a lowering of self-esteem and self-confidence. It also has an impact on performance. 60% of respondents say that it has affected the quality of their work, and 51% say that it has caused them to take time off sick.
55

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

“Subordinates might not report toxic managers because nobody likes a whiner” (Reed, 2004).

This can leave fear in other individuals who may have witnessed or indeed are experiencing similar action(s) by other members of staff, creating anxieties and stress etc, a term the author calls the ‘toxic trickle’ effects of bullying. This can, therefore, also be considered as being ‘toxic’ in the form of inappropriate behaviour and that it may well start to have an impact and therefore, affect other individuals’ well being, i.e. quite literally - spreading like a virus within the organisation. It should be noted here, that this appeared to be the case with several of the individuals who were highlighted for interview (in initial informal discussions; two individuals ‘exited’ the company, without exit interviews - they were ‘paid’ to resign; whilst the bully stayed!), and this may have supported this notion; however, due to the ethical concerns highlighted (as discussed in the methodology), together, with time constraints it could not be corroborated, but however, is an interesting avenue for further research, should the opportunity arise for the author.

4.2 Process Bullyin g as a Toxic “Although everyone comes in contact with germs, not everyone becomes ill. Some people come into contact with billions of germs and never become ill. Its as if they are totally immune to contracting any type of illness. Other people seem to become ill just at the thought of germs” (Despues, 1999).

In discussion, it is the opinion of the author that it is possible to describe the process of bullying as being analogous to a process that is potentially toxic. It can be
56

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

described, therefore, as being indirectly (through ‘toxic trickle’- spreading like a virus) and directly toxic for a variety of reasons. Directly toxic as it comes from a source, i.e. from the bully, potentially acting by causing changes within an individual’s psychological/behavioural and physiological biochemistry (just as a drug could be toxic and an have impact). This may then bring about a possible ‘cascading’ of effects, which over time may have a detrimental impact on the body. These effects may subsequently lead to possible illness and /or disease, such as mental and physical disease(s), resulting as a consequence, for example, from changes in the brains biochemistry and function and its associated impacts on the functioning of the body as a whole; for example changes in immunity.

This has recently been highlighted by the work, of for example, the Garvan Institute in Australia (2005), who have discovered how the hormone, known as neuropeptide Y, (NPY), can affect immune function. NPY is also known in the medical arena as a ‘stress molecule’, which acts both as a neurotransmitter and neurohormone and is intimately involved in stress responses of the body (see for example Zukowska-Grojec, 1995). It can prevent our immune system functioning properly as well as having other major impacts. It may, for example, have profound effects on the cardiovascular system when an individual is undergoing chronic stress, which may occur as a result of the bullying process. This researchers contend, is more pronounced in men, within the process of atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. (See also for example, Zukowska, 2005; her current research is focusing on cellular and molecular mechanisms of neuropeptide actions in vascular diseases).

57

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Severe stress caused as a result or in addition to the bullying process, may also cause the individual to be prone and/or more susceptible to agents within their own working environment (e.g. sick building syndrome?) and general environment. This is a condition known to in the United States as “Environmentally Triggered Illness (ETI), which results from a disruption of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the term that is used to describe the constant state of the internal biological/biochemical environment of an individual or internal ‘balance’, to assist the reader. The processes and activities that help to maintain homeostasis are referred to as ‘homeostatic mechanisms’ and a basic definition given by the (AAEM, 1992) is:

“..metabolic equilibrium actively maintained by several complex biological mechanisms that operate via the autonomic nervous system to offset disrupting changes by environmental stressors..” (e.g. emotional distress from acts of bullying).

ETI, is described by the Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM, 1992) as illnesses that result from disruption, which may result from a wide range of possible exposures. These exposures, they contend, may range from a severe acute exposure to a single stressor, which may result in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as may be the case, if an individual experiences severe bullying (a term the author terms the ‘sledgehammer effect’); to that of cumulative, relatively low grade exposures to many stressors (e.g. emotional stress as a result of bullying) over time, (many months or years), which can be termed ‘drip-drip’ or trickle effects. This disruption can affect any part of the body via dysfunctioning of any number of the body’s many biological mechanisms and systems.

58

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

“. The ongoing manifestations of ETI are shaped by the nature of the stressors and the timing of the exposures to them, by the biochemical individuality of the patient, and by the dynamic interactions over time, resulting from various governing principles such as total load the level of adaptation, and individual susceptibility (biochemical individuality)”(AAEM, 1992).

Another example, which may, the author believes, be of use in illustrating to management the potentially toxic effects of bullying, is by asking the question; ‘what are the potential impacts on a female employee who is being bullied who is, or may, become pregnant?’ As an explanatory description to management this may perhaps do more in enabling them to understand its seriousness and far reaching effects. Indeed, are organisations that are ethically led, that have issues with bullying, going to be more likely to respond and take action if the true understanding of its impacts may even affect the future of unborn children? This is an important consideration that should, in the opinion of the author, be discussed as a potentially toxic phenomenon, and a clear reason why organisations should not tolerate the bullying process in any form. Here, as will be alluded to, is a clear example of where the potential of the mothers own biological chemistry could have an impact i.e. toxicity, on the development of the baby (known as neonatal effects), i.e. whereby the mother’s own physiological biochemistry is potentially acting as a ‘toxin’ on the foetus’s development as a result of severe emotional and or physical stress from workplace bullying.

This idea is supported by many other medical studies. They have shown, for example, that women experiencing high levels of stress have increased risk of

59

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

smaller babies, which can also have potentially profound implications for the babies in later life:

"...the psychological state of the mother may affect foetal development ". (see BBC news and Carrol, et al., 2006), and that in addition:

“...The fetal origins of disease hypothesis contends that an unfavourable intrauterine environment, as evidenced by low birth weight, increases vulnerability to chronic illness in adulthood..” (Carrol, et al., 2006).

Another study by the African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF) focused on the impact of PTSD on subsequent infant development in expectant mothers who were exposed to extreme stress. Women were tested who had experienced PTSD, in addition to being pregnant at the same time. Results showed that whilst the stress levels of the mothers declined slowly with time; their children however, had very high levels of hyperactivity and depression and corresponding challenges in creativity, attention span and social behaviour compared to those in the control group. The researchers tests implied that in-utero stress, as a result of maternal stress, could adversely affect the foetus by impairing psychological development; and therefore can be seen as having an impact on future working capital. "A traumatic experience triggers adrenalin that throws you into a survival state of fight or flight. The physical effect is to cut short the blood supply to the womb, our findings reinforce a theory that a pregnant mother's emotional experiences can be passed on to the child she is carrying."(AMREF, 2005).

60

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

This is emphasised further within the medical arena and should therefore be of interest and concern to organisations when minimising stress in the workplace, especially from a bullying perspective and occupational health point of view. Indeed, it should be noted that the ‘toxic’ effects might also directly act upon the foetus (via pathophysiological mechanisms) in the development of psychopathology (e.g. depression; schizophrenia).

This is supported by numerous medical findings, such as those discussed by Huizink, (2000), below (See also Fig. 5, below of the mechanisms involved (modified for stressful inducer(s) – e.g. bullying). Who suggests that: 1. Prenatal stressors of human life were associated with a significantly smaller head circumference, when corrected for birth weight.

2. Variations in the pre-natal environment can influence the physiological responses of the offspring for life. For example, under-nutrition in-utero changes the body's structure, physiology and metabolism, and predicts the susceptibility to hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke in adult life (Barker, 1995).

3. The principle that the endocrinologic and metabolic environment afforded by the mother has lasting or lifelong significance has been called foetal programming (Lucas,1998).

4. Prenatal stress also significantly worsened the scores on the neonatal neurological

examination. This indicates that prenatal stress is able to directly affect foetal brain development in humans. (Note: this last point is identified widely throughout the

medical literature; see, for example Oates, 2002; O’Connor et al; 2002).
61

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Stressor: e.g. Bullying.

Fig 5. Mechanisms involved in prenatal stress effects (reproduced from Huizink 2000).

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Huizink, (2000), elaborates further by discussing that the effects of prenatal stress may be much more profound, especially if accumulating prenatal and postnatal risk factors, such as maternal smoking or alcohol-intake (themselves potentially toxic to the individual i.e. both male and females; over time) and adverse lifestyles, exist. These risk factors themselves can be induced or exacerbated as a consequence of severe emotional/physical stress (positive feedback loop). They may arise as ‘coping mechanisms’ as a consequence of severe emotional stress, such as bullying (see for example, Traweger et.al., 2004; Hammer & Vaglum, 1989) , or what could be considered as ‘toxic amplification’, and can therefore, be considered as part of the overall picture of the potential toxic impact(s) of bullying.

Much research has been performed looking at cortisol (stress hormone) and its effects on the developing brain, for example by Gunnar (1992, 1998) who found that exposure to high levels of cortisol causes atrophy of hippocampal dendrites, which is reversible when exposure is brief. However, prolonged high levels of cortisol may lead to hippocampal cell death, probably due to increased neuronal vulnerability to glutamate toxicity. Longterm elevated, but not toxic, cortisol levels render hippocampal neurons susceptible to the effects of commonly encountered threats to the brain, namely hypoxia, epileptic seizures, hypoglycaemia, physical trauma, and toxic stress. Indeed, the response of the brain to toxic levels of cortisol from chronic stress is considered to be linked to both dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (e.g. Murialdo, 2000).

Excess stress, it is believed, releases inordinate amounts of cortisol, produced by the adrenal glands in response to stress. In moderate amounts, it is not harmful, however, chronic exposure to toxic levels of cortisol injures and even kills brain cells “by the billions”
63

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

says Khalsa (1997; cited by Russell, 2004) who believes that cortisol toxicity is one of the primary causes of Alzheimer’s disease. This, in the authors’ opinion, goes ‘hand in hand’ with the previous statements.

Further discussion of the consequences of severe emotional/physical stress that may occur as a result of bullying, and its potentially ‘toxic’ effects, are alluded to by many other authors; including, for example, South (2005). He further elaborates on the implications of cortisol and it’s toxic effects; and that stressors leading to its overproduction and hence potential toxicity are infinitely variable. Whereby:

“almost any type of physical or mental stress can lead within minutes to greatly enhanced secretion of
ACTH and consequently cortisol as well, often increasing cortisol secretion as much as 20fold” (South, 2005; citing Guyton & Hall, 2000).

Again, this is dependent on the type of individual, and their respective environment. South (2005) further posits that whilst essential for life, excessive or toxic levels of cortisol can also cause illness/disease states, including abdominal obesity, high blood sugar (“adrenal diabetes”), muscle wasting, bone loss, immune shutdown, brain (hippocampus) atrophy, poor wound healing, thin wrinkled skin, fluid retention and hypertension. When it is chronically excessive, and hence chronically toxic, this may lead to disease states such as cancer, ulcers, heart attacks, diabetes, infections, alcoholism, strokes, skin diseases, psychosis, and possibly Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, it may also lead to multiple sclerosis and myasthenia gravis (for the benefit of the reader – a primary disorder of neuromuscular transmission; occurring usually as a result of autoimmune disease).
64

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

There is an immense plethora of information on these physiological/biological effects; especially cortisol toxicity that brings about a cascade of biochemical effects, leading to disease, however, it is impossible for the author to illustrate them all. Indeed, information has been gathered and researched and used to put forward within the thesis to support the concept(s) that there are potentially a myriad of toxic processes that occur in severe stress such as that which may occur during the bullying process. The aim has been to ‘bridge’ the literature, and define as well as put forward the concept of bullying as a process that is potentially toxic. In addition, using the concept as an aid as a management tool, thereby, highlighting to managers and employees, the implications of, and removing bullying from the workplace.

It is fair to say that we all experience stress to one degree or another every day. As individuals we should therefore not be subject to further stress in the form of bullying which can have far reaching consequences on our health and well being.

The aim of discussing these particular phenomenon’s within the thesis is that this is potentially another avenue for bringing to the attention of organisations and management that bullying has far reaching implications. This is not only at the level of the organisation and the individual(s) concerned, but also potentially on their children (from secondary effects) caused by potential poor home life as a result of stressed and emotionally abused employees taking there emotional pain out on their families. In addition it may affect that well-being of future generations (by having an effect on an unborn child – as discussed), and that is one of the reasons why it should be treated with zero-tolerance, in addition to the fact that they are, in effect, future working capital.

65

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

The author would like to point out to the reader that there are other very interesting yet intellectually challenging articles that look at the impact of chronic and continued stress responses, which may occur, for example, as a result of workplace bullying. These discuss different disease states (for example as elicited in chronic fatigue syndrome) that can be caused by dysregulated stress responses and their potential health impact(s). However, due to constraints in the wording limit as well as the fact that the author is not a medical doctor, are not discussed further. These should be considered by readers / individuals, who may wish to pursue this line of enquiry in further research; in bringing the attention of severe stressors, such as bullying, their impact(s) and disease. An excellent article, for example, is that of Sternberg (2003); who examines the health consequences of a dysregulated stress-response.

4.3

Workplace Bullying – A ‘Toxic’ Concept. In carrying out this thesis the main objective of the author has been to analyse the academic literature and findings from research and media to put forward the concept that workplace bullying is indeed a toxic and potentially devastating phenomenon. This approach does not appear to exist in the literature on bullying; although metaphorically the term ‘toxic’ is used in the US literature as a term for poor management leading to ‘sick’ organisations’ and work place environments’ arguments supporting this idea have been discussed above.

The question that has to be asked from performing this research is how can organisations prevent or stop this toxic behaviour? It cannot just be used as a metaphor. There are far reaching consequences that potentially work at a physiological (biochemical) level within

66

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

an individual. However, we are all different, in terms of genetic make up, life experience(s); nutritional and immunological status etc. That is after all, what makes us so unique.

Bullying in the workplace should be considered from a conceptual point of view (in terms of dose and individual response) like that of a carcinogen (note the author is not stating it is a carcinogen!) What this means is that it is not known from a threshold point of view, at which point it becomes toxic. It depends on an individuals’ genetic make up and past life experiences. Again, this importantly highlights the fact that as individuals, we are all different.

It is seen from the discussion that severe stress like that caused from workplace bullying and its impacts, may be different to each individual. For example, when looking at treatment for PTSD, Bowman (1999) discusses that individual differences may lead to greater distress than that of the event characteristics (trauma) in accounting for differences within individuals. She further discusses that the treatment approach could be improved after a “toxic event exposure,” if individual differences were considered (three individuals were part of, and experienced the same traumatic event; only one suffered PTSD - i.e. each individual exhibited a different dose-response).

Further ‘enlightenment’ of management is, in the opinion of the author, possible by putting forward a ‘dose response concept’. This may assist, the author believes, in reinforcing the idea to management that bullying behaviour is a potentially toxic and even fatal phenomenon, as is demonstrated in Figure 6, below.

67

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Death possible and more likely?

100 %
Severe emotional trauma; depression; PTSD etc.?

(C)
Immunological dysfunction / disease?

Indi

vidu

al

Cha

racte

ristic

s
(B)
“Control”

(A)
Interactive effects? Drug/alcohol misuse from stress? (Toxic Amplification)

Stress symptoms from increase in BP, cortisol production, neuropeptide Y etc?

Hypothetical Dose of stressors/trauma (e.g. Bullying)

Fig 6. stressor such as Conceptu workplace bullying al diagram illustratin g hypotheti cal doseresponse to a

68

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Note that this diagram is put forward only as a concept in an attempt to aid management understanding of the complex processes that may occur as a result of the bullying process. It is a ‘theoretical response curve’, which is based on a hormetic model; used not only in toxicology, but also in the broader domain of the biomedical sciences including immunology, cancer cell biology, neuroscience, and all other fields that rely upon doseresponse relationships (see for example, Calabrese, 2005).

The response(s), or toxic effects (from complex biochemical process) e.g. PTSD or immunological dysfunction (see (c), Figure 6). may, it must be considered, be able to occur at any point, depending on the ‘characteristics of the individual’ (‘the control’).

What is important to consider is that the dotted line can be considered as the control, or a ‘normal’ individual. It should be seen (the dotted line) as being able to move vertically up or down (the y-axis); when taking into account or highlighting the potential type of individual concerned, i.e. ‘individual characteristics’. As discussed, this involves taking into account a plethora of individual characteristics. This is to say that we can consider an individuals’ genetic, emotional, physiological, immunological, and nutritional status; in addition to their respective life experiences (possibly even that of stressors caused in the womb as discussed already?), when applying this concept.

This should also be considered as being a function of both that of the individual and the organisation. If the individual is in a ‘toxic’ work environment (see also Figure 7), as discussed; that condones or exacerbates the behaviour (i.e. from an organisational culture/climate and performance management perspective) then this may potentially amplify or speed up toxic processes and hence disease / ill-health within the individual. It
69

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

may also be considered, that it may therefore, bring about disease/illness in that same individual, that may otherwise not have occurred should they have been employed in a working environment where there is no bullying. That is, if they had been in a workplace where bullying is not tolerated in any form, together with an environment where there is dignity and respect between individuals.

As individuals within any population species are different, there will be a variability in susceptibility to a toxic agent; and a percentage will be hyper-susceptible or hyper-reactive (i.e. affected by low dosages), and a number will not respond until higher dosages are given, which is known as hypo-susceptible or hypo-reactive individuals (again, see for example, Ballantyne 2003). This can therefore also be conceptually applied when considering the emotional impacts (and potential changes in brain biochemistry) and potentially toxic effects of severe stress, which may, or may not arise as a consequence of bullying.

Early on in the process, the stress response (see (A); Figure 6) caused by trauma may even be beneficial to the individual, enabling one to adapt and grow i.e. stress in the early stages can ‘rev up’ the body and enhance performance in the workplace. The individuals’ biological homeostatic mechanisms as discussed, under normal conditions will maintain and prevent damage to the individual. However, if this condition is allowed to go unchecked and continues past a hypothetical ‘threshold’ (see (B); Figure 6), then toxic processes may result, and performance will ultimately decline and the individuals’ health may degenerate, leading to disease and/or illness (e.g. (C); Figure 6) as discussed.

70

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

This process, it must be considered, may also be exacerbated (‘toxic amplification’), by the individual abusing other ‘toxicants’ such as alcohol, tobacco or recreational drugs, which may be used as coping mechanisms as a result of the emotional trauma and stress from the bullying, which can be considered as ‘interactive effects’.

One of the objectives of the thesis is to convey the idea within this concept, that we as individuals are all [emphasis added] different. It is therefore difficult to define a threshold. Indeed, we are dealing with a plethora of systems in the body that may become toxic and cause illness or disease in any given individual, under extreme and maintained distress; or may make the individual more susceptible to toxic agents within their environment.

These effects then have the potential to feed back into the organisation, potentially affecting others in and through the organisational culture and climate. They may have an impact on the organisation in the form of increased absenteeism, poor performance of the individual, loss of intellectual capabilities (through sickness, ‘exiting of employees’ etc.) and eventually, a potential for a loss of competitive advantage (see also figure 7, Chapter 5). In addition, the effects may be more widespread affecting other individuals (‘ toxic trickle’), leading to a spiralling process through a climate of fear, exacerbating the impact upon the organisation. It may also lead, more importantly, to an impact on profits, from extensive litigation.

It is therefore, in conclusion, the opinion of the author that workplace bullying should be ‘perceived’ and therefore treated (by management) as analogous to a potential toxin with no threshold of toxicity, i.e. like that of a carcinogen.
71

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Essentially what this means is that management should treat bullying in the workplace with Zero-Tolerance[emphasis added]!

72

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 5

73

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIO NS 5.1 How Can Organisations Prevent It? Toxic Bullyin gEradicating toxic practices, such as bullying within the workplace, requires a holistic approach embracing a culture of fair dealing in managing employment equity, diversity and employee recruitment, performance, development and promotion, which are research topics in their own rights and therefore outside the scope of this thesis.

Discrimination in the workplace, such as bullying, is manifested in human resources management policies and practices. To prevent illegal discrimination from occurring in the workplace, all employees must be treated and rewarded equally and this must be in an unbiased manner. Leadership should set an example of appropriate behaviour (leadership role model(s)), and its management must firmly express the organisation's intolerance of any toxic, discriminatory conduct such as bullying which, as highlighted within the thesis, can have far reaching implications.

Performing every aspect of the job in a fair and impartial manner, which in itself may have an impact on organisational culture and climate, continuously reinforces these sentiments. A non-discrimination policy and associated code of conduct must be drawn up, strictly and transparently adhered to and effectively communicated to employees.

Management should regularly confer with employees on discrimination concerns, such as bullying in the form of inappropriate comments, or behaviour and ensure that it must
74

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

never be ignored. Its toxic effects, both upon the individual and its potential impact on the organisation, should be openly communicated. Management and employees could be trained either individually or in groups (for example workshops dealing with conflict resolution, stress management etc.), with the concepts and ideas put forward within this thesis (see also Figure 6 & Figure 7), acting both as a dynamic tool and diagnostic aid, which may potentially:

a)

Enable a greater understanding by management and employees of toxic behaviour, in the form of bullying (which can be considered as acting like a toxin), together with its far-reaching consequences for both the individual and the organisation.

b)

Aid in describing and identifying when toxic behaviour may be occurring, by highlighting symptoms which may result and or lead to illness and/or disease, as a result of the bullying process. For example, as an aid in identifying increased absenteeism, through severe stress and/or potential ‘interactive effects’, or ‘toxic amplification,’ as illustrated within the concepts. This could assist in an absenteeism management programme, for example, whereby it may support in identifying employees who are, or may become ill, at an earlier stage.

Employees should also be involved in, and share the responsibility of maintaining a discrimination-free workplace, for example by implementing 360 o evaluation programmes that considers input from peers, subordinates as well as superiors. It is worth considering here, however, that whilst not all subordinates may be competent enough to evaluate their superior, they can give feedback.. Therefore, they can relate whether they are being
75

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

subject to toxic abuse i.e. being bullied by their manager, who may be inflexible, disrespectful, act unethically, or rely on fear and intimidation (power). This may aid as a powerful cultural statement, if supported from the top of the organisation in preventing a toxic climate that can lead to bullying (see also Figure 7).

According to Hannabuss (1998), it has been said that the purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacies. Not only are bullies inadequate managers but so too are the organisations that conceal the bullies and/or ignore the effects they have on productivity as well as staff morale. 12, 13 This is, as discussed, a toxic workplace, allowing ‘toxic behaviour’, which can lead to severe and toxic impacts (as discussed) within the individuals who are on the receiving end of the bully.

Bullies may be socially dysfunctional, compulsive, self-centred, and insouciant. They may also possess various toxic personality traits (Lubit, 2004a) that can be exacerbated further by ‘mediators’, such as anxiety and depression (see also concept, Figure 7) that can lead to toxic behaviour and bullying (if the organisational climate and culture permits it). Innocent victims may fall into their path and some of them may unintentionally appear to throw themselves in their path.

It is important therefore, for victims to admit that bullying goes on. Indeed, as discussed earlier in the thesis, there is often reluctance for victims to actually self label themselves as victims of bullying, for fear of reprisals (Dick & Rayner, 2004). Bullies need to (or be

12

13

Report into workplace bullying by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents surveyed). When asked to identify the factors, which impair their organisation’s ability to deal effectively with bullying, the most commonly cited factors were management’s unwillingness to acknowledge a problem and prevailing management style. Report by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents), The most commonly cited effects are worry about going to work, and bullying are a lowering of self-esteem and self-confidence. It also has an impact on performance. 60% of respondents say that it has affected the quality of their work, and 51% say that it has caused them to take time off sick. 76

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

made to) examine their own toxic behaviour and organisations should take a long hard look as to what is taking place in their own potentially toxic environment. However, it must realistically also be considered that individuals generally are uncomfortable in talking about their true feelings in the workplace, and therefore, a victim may be reluctant (for fear of further reprisals?) to confront the perpetrator, which is clearly a problem. Another consideration is that there is a lack of willingness of perpetrators of toxic behaviour (i.e. bullying) to actually label themselves as bullies (see for example, Salin, 2003b). These are obvious issues that need to be addressed in order for progress to be made.

Ineffective organisational policies only serve to further reinforce, excuse or conspire those patterns of bullying that have already had enough reinforcement from the victims’ reactions. Organisations and their employees have a common interest in the eradication of workplace bullying, right at its source. It is, therefore, vital that a consistent, professional, and perhaps more importantly, honest approach is adopted when dealing with discrimination and bullying practices, thus avoiding the potential pitfall of the process itself becoming discriminatory when it is not applied in a fair and equitable manner. Again, this highlights whether an organisation is toxic.

Toxic discriminatory and bullying practices can become a severe problem that limits the growth and development of an organisation, as well as its workforce, if issues are not dealt with effectively. As discussed previously, this may lead to what the author terms as ‘toxic trickle’, i.e. having a negative effect on other employees’ health and wellbeing 14 . It may also lead to the workplace taking on a ‘free for all’ type of situation where employees
Recent report by Andrea Adams trust (Feb ’06, 2726 respondents), Over 37% of respondents said that they have witnessed colleagues in their own department being bullied, and nearly 70% said that they are aware that bullying occurs elsewhere in their organisation. Their feedback indicates that immediate managers are most commonly responsible, and that the bullying takes a variety of forms. Humiliation and/or ridicule, unfair criticism and intimidating behaviour are the most commonly cited examples, along with verbal abuse. Nearly 5% said that it involved physical abuse. 77

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

blatantly embarrass and humiliate each other without having any consideration for other individuals’ feelings, dignity, values and morale; i.e. it becomes, or perpetuates a ‘toxic workplace’.

Communication, counseling and the development of soft-skills; for example through developing Emotional Intelligence (EI) skills (see, for example, Lubit, 2004a, 2004b; for further information on EI skills), may also be potentially important tools for dealing with bullying as well as eradicating it altogether. If open two-way communication lines are in place, issues can be dealt with swiftly and sensitively, without serious repercussions for all the parties concerned, particularly health related issues, that may occur with time and or associated litigation. ‘Anti – toxic’ or preventative strategies developed and adopted by an organisation must be communicated openly and effectively to all its employees to give them all equal and fair access to the resolution process. These strategies, may as discussed, be improved by using the concepts and ideas described above as well as the previous chapter.

The recommended points put forward here, together with those raised in the discussion section are identified further in Figure. 7, which show, from a conceptual perspective, the possible risk factors that may drive and contain toxic behaviour, leading to bullying and its associated potential effects. As a concept it clearly and powerfully shows that the processes and impacts are extremely complex and takes into consideration how organisational culture, role models and performance measurement systems are important in determining the managerial behaviour(s), and associated bullying and its toxic impact(s).

78

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

5.2 Final Note As a final point of note to this extremely complex phenomenon, it is fundamentally clear that organisations must understand the difference between true leadership and bullying. True leadership creates followers, whereas bullies just create victims. Management bullies may, as discussed, get results, but potentially destroy the lives of individuals on the way. The commitment to both a dignified and respectful working environment is the responsibility of all employees, yet the onus is predominantly upon leaders and managers to set the example and maintain the values of both dignity and respect.

79

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Organisational culture/climate Leadership Role Models ‘Toxic’ Personality Traits
Arrogance Lack of respect

S

Decision to Bully???
Lack of empathy

An xiet y Depr essio n

‘Toxic’
Conscience

Lack of

Tendency to ‘Toxic’ Behaviour
Chaotic, threatening

R

behaviour

Impu lsivity

P e.g.

m

models of the world

bullying
Limited Control of expression and feelings

Employee and organisational effects
Stress/illness (Toxic?) Bullying Poor performance Absenteeism Presenteeism Low morale Loss of Intellectual capabilities? Loss of competitive advantage?

TOXIC EFFECTS
(Chemically mediated) Indirect/Direct Physiological effects Immunological Psychological Neurological Suicide? Pre-natal effects? Etc. etc….

Figure 7:

Conceptual model identifying possible factors driving and containing ‘toxic’ behaviour (bullying), and its potentially associated toxic effects (adapted and modified from Lubit, 2004a).

79

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

REFERENCES

Adams, A., & Crawford, N. (1992). Bullying at work: how to confront and overcome it, London: Virago.

Adams, A. (1997). Andrea Adams Trust. www.andreaadamstrust.org.

Adams, A. (2006). National Workplace Bullying Survey: The Feedback. Retrieved on 12 th March 2006 from : http://www.digitalopinion.co.uk/?SERVICES-BULLYINGNATSURVEYRESULTS

AMREF (African Medical and Research Foundation). (2005). Case Study – Can babies in the womb fell emotion? Retrieved on the 2 nd February 2006 from: www.amref.org/index.asp?PageID=63&PiaID=3&CountryID=1&ProjectID=89

Anonymous. (2002). The cycle of abuse goes on. British medical journal, 325 (7368), 831.

Archer, D. (1999), “Exploring ‘bullying’ culture in the para-military organisation”, International Journal of Manpower, 20 (1/2), 94-105.

Ashforth B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organisations. Human relations, 47(7), 755-778.

Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organisations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (2), 116-140.

81

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

BBC News. (2004). Head to head - Gordon Brown. Discussion between the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in a debate over what Gordon Brown has achieved in his post so far. Retrieved 20 th March 2006 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3806703.stm

Ballantyne, B., Marrs, T., & Turner, P. (1993). General & Applied Toxicology, Basingstoke, England: Macmillan Press.

Baron, R., & Neuman, J. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive behaviour, 22, 161-173.

BBC News. Retrieved 25 th January 2006 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/255243.stm

Boulnois, J. (1996). Where have all the bullies gone? In McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., & Wilkie, W., (Eds.). (1996). Bullying: From backyard to boardroom. (1 st ed.). Alexandria: Millenium Books.

Bowman, L. (1999). Individual Differences in Posttraumatic Distress: Problems With the DSM-IV Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 21-33. Retrieved on 19 th January 2006 from: www.cpa-apc.org/publications/archives/CJP/1999/Feb/bowman.htm

Brodsky, C. (1976). The Harassed Worker, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

82

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Brotheridge, C. (2005). Barnyard Democracy in the Workplace. Team Performance Management, 11, (3,4), 125-132. Retrieved 24 th March 2006 from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=/published/eme raldfulltextarticle/pdf/1350110304.pdf

Brown; J. (2004). Just fight on website. http://www.jfo.org.uk.

Brown, L. (2004). Are you a target for a toxic workplace? Retrieved on 12 th Jan 2006 from: http://tloma.on.ca/publications/0401.pdf

Bryant, M., & Cox, W. (2003). The telling of violence: Organizational change and atrocity tales. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16 (5), 567-583.

Calabrese, E., & Baldwin, L. (2001). Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(6), 285-291

Carrol, D., Davey-Smith, G., Phillips, A., Ring, C., & West, P. (2006). Birth weight, adult blood pressure, and blood pressure reactions to acute psychological stress. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 144-145.

Cooper, C. L. (2002). The Changing psychological contract at work. Occupational and environmental medicine, 59 (6), 355.

Cooper, C., & Robertson, I., (Eds.), (2001). Well-being in organisations: A reader for students and practitioners. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
83

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Cowie, H., Bradshaw, L., Kaipiainen, S., Smith, P., Leifooghe, A., Naylor, P., Olafsson, R., Rayner, C., Rivers, I., & Schafer, M. (1999). Adult bullying, report of a working party chaired by H Cowie of University of Surrey, Roehampton, TMR Network Project, United Kingdom.

Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and violent behaviour, 7, 33-51.

Crawford, N. (1997). Bullying at work: a psychoanalytic Perspective. Journal of community & applied psychology, 7, 219-225.

Cusack, S. (2000). Workplace bullying: Icebergs in sight, soundings needed. The Lancet, 356 (9248), 2118.

Davis C., & McKearney J. (2001). Post-traumatic growth from the perspective of terror management theory. Retieved on 12 th Jan 2006 from: http://www.meaning.ca/pdf/2000proceedings/christopher_davis.pdf

Dick, G., & Rayner, C. (2004). The hidden bullied: An empirical comparison of the harassed that refuse to self label themselves as bullied and the self-labelled bullied. Working paper 75. Retrieved January 6 th 2006 from: www.kent.ac.uk/kbs/research-information/ working-papers/Dickand-Rayner-No-75.pdf

84

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Einarsen, S. (2005). The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work: The Norwegian experience. PISTES, 7 (3), 1-14. Retrieved 7 th January 2006 from: http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v7n3/pdf/v7n3a1en.pdf

Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 127-144), London: Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organisations, European journal of work and organisational psychology, 5 (2), 185201.

Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S. B. & Skogstad, A. (1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being among assistant nurses. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand, 14, 563-568.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.). (2003a). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003b). The concept of bullying at work: the European tradition. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 3-30), London: Taylor & Francis.

85

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Field, T. (1996). Bully in sight: how to predict, resist, challenge and combat workplace bullying, Wantage: Success Unlimited.

Field, T. (2002). The hidden cost of a bully on the balance sheet. Retrieved 5 th February 2006 from: http://www.accanet.com/publications/accountingandbusiness/315685

Field, T. Bully onLine. http://w.w.w.bullyonline.org/

Flynn, G. (1999.) Stop Toxic Managers Before They Stop You! Workforce, August 1999, 78, (8), 44-46. Retrieved 1 st December 2005 from: www.workforce.com/archive/feature/22/22/12/223888.php

Garvan Institute. (2005). SYDNEY RESEARCHERS EXPLAIN HOW STRESS CAN MAKE YOU SICK. Retrieved 13 th February 2006 from: http://www.garvan.org.au/files/Institute-Science/PR2dStressandImmunity3.pdf

Gill, M., Fisher, B., & Bowie, V. (2002). Violence at work: Causes, patterns and prevention. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

Glendinning, P. (2001). Workplace Bullying: curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public personnel Management, 30 (3), 269-286

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

86

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Gregory, A. (2005). “Bad bosses run riot in one in four UK workplaces” Retrived on 11 th Jan 2006 from:http://www.personneltoday.com

Gunnar, M. (1992). Reactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adreno-cortical system to stressors in normal infants and children. Pediatrics, 90, 491-497.

Gunnar, M. (1998). Quality of early care and buffering of neuro-endocrine stress reactions: Potential effects on the developing human brain. Preventative Medicine, 27,208-211.

Guyton, A. and Hall, J. (2000). Textbook of Medical Physiology. Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders

HM Treasury. (2005) Budget Report 2005. Retrieved 20 th March 2006 from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_05/bud_bud05_index.cfm

HM Treasury. (2006) Budget Report 2006. Retrieved 20 th March 2006 from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_06/bud_bud06_index.cfm

Hamilton, D. (2005). Economic Brief. Retrieved 20 th March 2006 from: http://www.davidhamiltonmp.co.uk/page5-3.html#top

Hammer, T., & Vaglum. P. (1989). The Increase in Alcohol Consumption among Women: a phenomenon related to accessibility or stress? A General Population Study. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 767-775. Retrieved 11 th March 2006 from: www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03056.x

87

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Hannabuss, S. (1998). Bullying At Work.. Library Management, 19 (5), 304-310. Retrieved 2 nd February 2006 from: http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/mcb/01435124/v19n5/s2.pdf?ex pires=1143723101&id=27795194&titleid=1149&accname=University+of+Portsmouth& checksum=F6A124648B10A1B2F1D81D39D467D12B

Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and Recovery, New York: Basic Books.

Herriot, P., & Scott-Jackson, W. (2002) Globalization, Social Identities and Employment. British Journal of Management, 13, 249-257

Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., Keashly, L., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying at work: the way forward. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 412416), London: Taylor & Francis.

Hoel, H, Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. (2002). The cost of violence/stress at work and the benefits of a violence/stress-free working environment, Report Commissioned by the International Labour Organiszation, (ILO), Geneva, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 203-218), London: Taylor & Francis.

88

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Houghton, A. (2003). Bullying in medicine, BMJ. 326 (7393), 125.

HRM Guide. (2003). Stress is a taboo subject. Retrieved 10 th March 2006 from: http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/worklife/stress_levels.htm

Hubert, A. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: a systematic approach model. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 299311), London: Taylor & Francis.

Hubert, A., & van Veldhoven M. (2001). Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing, European journal of work and organizational psychology, 2001,10 (4), 415-424.

Incomes Data website. Retrieved February 5th, 2006 from: http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/statistics/statempl.htm

Ironside, M., & Seifert, R. (2003). Tackling bullying in the workplace: the collective dimension. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 383-398), London: Taylor & Francis.

Johnson, P., & Indvik, J. (2001) Slings and arrows of rudeness: incivility in the workplace. Journal of management development, 20 (8) 705-713.

89

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspective on workplace bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 31-61), London: Taylor & Francis.

Keashly, L., & Nowell, B. (2003). Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 339-358), London: Taylor & Francis.

Keashley, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the Workplace: conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of emotional abuse, 1, 85-117.

Kellner, M., Yassouridis A., Hubner R., Baker D., & Wiedemann, K. (2003). Endocrine and cardiovascular responses to corticotropin-releasing hormone in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder: A role for atrial natriuretic peptide? Neuropsychobiology, Basel: 47 (2), 102.

Khalsa, D. (1999). Brain Longevity. New York. WarnerBooks

Khan, R., & Cannell, C. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing. New York, John Wiley .

Kivimaki M., Virtanen M., Vartia M., Elovainio M., Vahtera J., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen L. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational and environmental medicine, 60 (10), 779-83.

90

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Klaassen, C., & Watkins, J. (2003). Casarett & Doull's Essentials of Toxicology. England. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Kurland, N., & Pelled, L. (2000). Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25 (2), 428-438

Lewis, D., & Rayner, C. (2003). Bullying and human resource management: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 3161), London: Taylor & Francis.

Lewis, D. (1999). UK workplace bullying: HRM friend or foe? Paper presented at the Ninth European Congress on work and organizational psychology. Helsinki, Finland.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5 (2), 165-184.

Leymann, H. (1989). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces, Violence and Victims, 5 (2), 119-126.

Liefooghe, A., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2003). Explaining bullying at work: Why should we listen to employee accounts? In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 219-230), London: Taylor & Francis.

91

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Liefooghe, A., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 10 (4), 375-392. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005a). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and How We Can Survive Them, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005b). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why Followers Rarely Escape Their Clutches. Ivey Business Journal, Jan/Feb, 1-8. Retrieved on 24 th November 2005 from: www.hrpao.org/NR/rdonlyres/5D26C7B9-9ED7-4962-B255-51682CB329E1/0/allure.pdf

Lubit, R. (2004a). Coping with Toxic Managers, Subordinates. …and Other Difficult People. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Prentice Hall.

Lubit, R. (2004b). The tyranny of toxic managers: Applying emotional intelligence to deal with difficult personalities. Ivey Business Journal Mar/Apr, 1-7

Maciariello, J. (2005). Peter F. Drucker on a Functioning Society . Leader to leader, 37. Retrieved 16 th Jan 2006 from: www.leadertoleader.org/leaderbooks/L2L/summer2005/maciariello.html

McCarthy, P. (2003). Bullying at Work: a postmodern experience. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, (pp. 231-244), London; Taylor & Francis.

92

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

McCarthy, P. (1996). When the mask slips: inappropriate coercion in organisations undergoing restructuring. In McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., & Wilkie, W., (Eds.). Bullying: From backyard to boardroom. First Edition. Alexandria: Millenium Books.

Madsen, S., (2003). Wellness in the workplace: Preparing employees for change, Organization development Journal, Spring, 21 (1), 46.

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-396. Retrieved 11 th January 2006 from: http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/abrahammaslow-theory-human-motivation.shtml

Medicins Sans Frontieres. (2005). Psychosocial and Mental Health Interventions in Areas of Mass Violence. Retrieved January 25 th 2006 from: www.msf.org/source/mentalhealth/guidelines/MSF_mentalhealthguidelines.pdf

Mikkelsen, E., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 11 (1), 87-111.

Murialdo, G., Nobili , F., Rollero, A., Gianelli, M., Copello, F., Rodriguez, G., & Polleri, A. (2000). Hippocampal Perfusion and Pituitary-Adrenal Axis in Alzheimer's Disease. Neuropsychobiology ,42, 51-57

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job. Sourcebooks. (No place of publication found)
93

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Namie, G., & Namie, R. The workplace bullying and trauma institute. http://bullyinginstitute.org/

Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5 (2), 239-249.

National Statistics website. Retrieved February 5, 2006 from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/glance/#labour.htm

Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24 (3), 391-419.

Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying: a social interactionist perspective? In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, (pp. 185-202), London; Taylor & Francis.

Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications.

Oates, M. (2002). Adverse effects of maternal antenatal anxiety on children: causal effect or developmental continuum? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 478-479. Retrieved 10 th February 2006 from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/180/6/478

94

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

O'Connor, T. G., Heron, J., Golding, J. (2002). Maternal antenatal anxiety and children's behavioural/emotional problems at 4 years. Report from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 502-508. Retrieved 10 th February 2006 from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/180/6/502

Olweus, D. (2003). Bully/victim problems in school:basic facts and an effective intervention programme. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 67-78), London: Taylor & Francis.

Pearson, C., M., & Porath, C., L. (2005). On the Nature, Consequences and Remedies of Incivility: No Time for "Nice?" Think Again. Academy of Management Executive,19, 7-18.

PersonnelToday.com. (2005). Retrieved 13 th February 2006 from: http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/09/12/31520/Bad+bosses+run+riot+in +one+in+four+UK+workplaces.htm Pettigrew, A. (2003), Strategy as Process, Power and Change. In Cummings, S and Wilson, D; (Eds), (2003), Images of Strategy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Rayner, C. (2001), Workplace Bullying. In Taking stress out of work- Conference Synopsis. Stress News 2001. 13(4). Retreieved 23 rd December 2005 from http://www.isma.org.uk/isma7sum.htm

95

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Rayner, C. (2002). Round two! Redefining bullying at work. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO, August 2002. Retrieved 12 th December 2005 from: http://www3.uakron.edu/psychology/faculty/moberg/Rayner.pdf

Rayner, C. & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of community and applied social psychology. 7, 181-191

Reed, G. (2004). Toxic Leadership. Military review. July/August 67-71 Retrieved 10 th Nov 2005 from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_4_84/ai_n7068990

Reenan, J. (2001). No more skivvy schemes? Active labour market policies and the British new deal for the young unemployed in context. Institute of Fiscal Studies. Retrieved 14 th Jan 2006 from: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0109.pdf.

Russel, J. (2004). Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia. Retrieved 18 th February 2006 from: http://www.jrussellshealth.com/alzheimers.html.

Salin, D. (2003a). Bullying and organisational politics in competitive and rapidly changing work environments. International journal of management and Decision Making. 4, (1).

Salin, D. (2003b). Workplace bullying among business professionals: Prevalence, organisational antecedents and gender differences. Helsinki: Library Swedish school of economics and business administration

96

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Salter, A. (1995). Transforming Trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of child sexual abuse. London: Sage Publication, Inc.

Samaritans. (2003). Retrieved 1 st March 2006 from: http://www.samaritans.org/know/news_150503_popup.shtm Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. Essex: Pearson Education.

Sennett, R. (1999). The corrosion of character. New York: Norton books

Sheehan, M. (2005). A Model for Understanding Workplace Bullying. Paper presented at ‘Working together to tackle workplace bullying: concepts, research and solutions’, conference, The British Psychological Society, Wessex and Wight Branch, University of Portsmouth Business School, 14 th – 16 th September, 2005

Sky News, (2006). Retrieved on 25 th February 2006 from: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-13510640,00.html

South, J. (2005). Stress and Cortisol: The Plague of The 21 st Century. Retrieved 10 th February 2006 from: http://www.vrp.com/art/1224.asp

Spurgeon, A. (2003). Bullying from a risk management perspective. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. (pp. 327-338), London: Taylor & Francis.

97

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Sternberg, E. (2003). Health Consequences of a Dysregulated Stress Response. In Neuroimmune Mechanisms and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Will Understanding Central Mechanisms Enhance the Search for the Causes, Consequences, and Treatment of CFS? A Report of the Scientific Workshop Co-Sponsored by the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Trans-NIH Working Group for Research on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Retrieved March 1 st 2006 from: http://orwh.od.nih.gov/cfs_june03report.pdf

Tehrani, N. (2003). Counselling and rehabilitating employees involved with bullying. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C., (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, (pp. 270-284), London: Taylor & Francis.

Tepper, B. (2000): Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 178-190.

Traweger, C., Kinzl, J., Traweger-Ravanelli, B., & Fiala, M. (2004). Psychosocial factors at the workplace - do they affect substance use? Evidence from the Tyrolean workplace study. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13 (6), 399-403. Retrieved 11 th March 2006 from: www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/107631070/ABSTRACT

Vartia, M. (2003). Workplace bullying: A study on the work environment, well-being and health. Academic dissertation, University of Helsinki. Department of Psychology. Retrieved on 28 th Nov 2005 from: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/psyko/vk/vartia-vaananen/workplac.pdf

98

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Vartia, M., (1996). The sources of bullying – psychological work environment and organizational climate. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5 (2), 203214.

Westhues, K., (2002). A summary of research on workplace mobbing. OHS Canada, 18(8), 30-36

Westhues, K., (1998). Eliminating Professors: A guide to the dismissal process. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.

Wilkie, W. (1998). Treating post traumatic stress disorders caused by bullying' in McCarthy, P., Wilkie, S., & Wilkie W., (Eds.), Bullying: causes, costs and cures, Beyond Bullying Association, Nathan, Queensland, pp. 15-21.

Wilson-Starks, K., (2003). Toxic Leadership. Retrieved 6 th November 2005 from: http://www.transleadership.com/ToxicLeadership.pdf

Yin, R, K; (2003) Case study research:design and methods (3 rd edition). London: Sage Publications

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organisations (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and practice – an introduction. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 10 (4), 369373.

99

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Zellars, K., & Tepper, B. (2002): Abusive Supervision and subordinates’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.

Zukowska, Z. (2005). Atherosclerosis and angiogenesis: what do nerves have to do with it? Pharmacological Reports, 57 suppli., 229-234. Retrieved 17 th February 2006 from: http://www.if-pan.krakow.pl/pjp/pdf/2005/s_229.pdf

Zukowska-Grojec, Z. (1995). Neuropeptide Y. A novel sympathetic stress hormone and more. Ann N Y Acad Sci. Dec 29; 77, 219-33.

100

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDIX I

101

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDIX I. Common symptoms of PTSD and Complex PTSD that sufferers report experiencing Hyper-vigilance (feels like but is not paranoia) Exaggerated startle response Irritability Sudden angry or violent outbursts Flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive recollections, replays, violent visualisations Triggers Sleep disturbance Exhaustion and chronic fatigue Reactive depression Guilt Feelings of detachment Avoidance behaviours Nervousness, anxiety Phobias about specific daily routines, events or objects Irrational or impulsive behaviour Loss of interest Loss of ambition Anhedonia (inability to feel joy and pleasure)
102

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Poor concentration Impaired memory Joint pains, muscle pains Emotional numbness Physical numbness low self-esteem an overwhelming sense of injustice and a strong desire to do something about it

103

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDIX II

104

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDIX II. Portsmouth Business School Dept of Business and Management University of Portsmouth Richmond Building Portland Street Portsmouth United Kingdom PO1 3DE

Consent Form POST GRADUATE MBA RESEARCH PROJECT INTO WORKPLACE BULLYING (JANUARY 2006).

Zero-Tolerance: An Investigation of Bullying in the “Toxic” Workplace This qualitative study is being conducted as part of an MBA (international) qualification at the University of Portsmouth, School of Business Studies. Researcher/Interviewer: Richard Gammons, Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Hampshire. [email protected]

105

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Statement of consent

By signing this document below, you are indicating that you: Have read and understood the information sheet about this project; Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction; Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the researcher at any time;

Understand that you are under no obligation whatsoever and free to withdraw from the interview at any time and can refuse to answer any of the questions., without comment, reason explanation or penalty;

Understand that you can contact the researcher if you have any questions about the project, or Professor Charlotte Rayner or the head of the Ethics Committee on 02392 844193 if you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project; and

Agree to participate in the project.

Name:

…………………………………………………………………

Signature:

………………………………………………………………….

Date:

………………………………………………………………….
106

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDIX III

107

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

APPENDIX III. Portsmouth Business School Dept of Business and Management University of Portsmouth Richmond Building Portland Street Portsmouth United Kingdom PO1 3DE

PROPOSED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR WORKPLACE BULLYING (WPB) STUDY Because this is a qualitative research project I will be inclined not to generalise by asking either yes/no type questions, and will therefore, be asking you to describe and explore your experience(s) of WPB as well as your feelings (should you so wish to discuss) during the bullying process. I will ask a lot of questions, and may sometimes repeat the same question, in order to ascertain how you reacted or indeed felt at the different stages. Having been on the receiving end of WPB myself I am only too aware that revisiting past events can be associated with difficult and sometimes uncomfortable emotions which may cause us to relive some of the feelings which we thought we had left behind. It is therefore possible that you may recall some of the upset from your experience of workplace bullying as you describe what happened to you in this interview. As discussed with you previously, if at any time during this process you wish to slow down the interview, or talk more about a particular aspect of your experience, or move to another question, please let me know. Should there be at any time any question(s) that you find difficult these can be discussed later at a time convenient to you when you are feeling more comfortable.

108

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Context: The work organisation Describe the part of the organisation that you work for, number of employees, level of education and skills of employees and the type of service your organisation offers. (This data will not be associated with your story in the final report) What was your position in the organisation/department? Professional status and acceptance status? How long were/have you been employed by the organisation? Substantive position What was the general stress level experienced by staff (stemming from poor management, deadlines, work loads, organisational changes, e.g. re-structuring (i.e. mergers/redundancy exercises) and morale? Did/Does the organisation have a specific policy related to bullying? Was/is it widely publicised? Was/is it actively and effectively supported by management? Was/is there an anonymous method of making a complaint?

The workplace bullying experience Describe what happened. Where were you when the incident/s occurred? How many people were involved or witnessed the incident/s? Was your immediate manager the main perpetrator? Was other management aware of the WPB incident/s Did management help at the time, or did they contribute to the WPB incident? What was the worst aspect of the experience? What was the most painful aspect of the experience? Over what period did the WPB occur? How did the bully(s) achieve their ends?

109

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Background to the WPB incidents Can you describe the period(s) prior to and/or leading up to the bullying? Were you aware of any problems/issues in the lead up to WPB? Do you know anything about the background to WPB in your organisation? For example, other incidents, attitudes towards WPB, tolerance of bullying behaviours, conditions which may have made the organisation more susceptible to WPB Description of the bully Describe the bully’s behaviour Describe the bully’s general demeanour and temperament What if any do you think was the objective(s) of the bully? Did they achieve it? What was the bully’s position in the workplace in relation to the victim/target? What was the bully’s gender, age, and had there been other victims? What was the general relationship between the bully and the victim/target at other times?

Summary of the bully Can you describe/identify the characteristics that were most commonly identified with WPB? (e.g. shouting, uncontrolled rage, humiliation, ostracisation, unfair role or work criticism, personal criticisms, physical violence, emails, excessive work loads, taking away work, withholding information, nastiness, put downs / belittling , sarcasm, undermining, physical attacks, coercion(if evidenced) leaving staff ignorant of their rights)

110

© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

Impact(s) of WPB Behaviour Comments/describe Y/N Avoidance behaviour. Intrusive thoughts or preoccupied with what happened.

A)

Behavioural Responses

Angry behaviour. Blaming yourself for what happened.

B)

Dreaming/nightmares. Feelings/emotions Emotional Response to the WPB Comments/Describe Y/N Depression. Stress. Embarrassment. Loss. Other:

111

Physical Symptoms (Stress) Comments/describe

Anxiety. Headache. C) Physical Response(s) to the WPB Neck ache. Other aches and pains. Insomnia. Loss of appetite. Moodiness, irritability. Lack of concentration. Lack of energy. Loss of interest in activities that you normally enjoy. In my project I might present a brief picture of each case study of what each Any other symptoms: participant experienced. I will assign each with a name, and you are free to choose a pseudonym so that only you can recognise your story. Your workplace and the bully will be de-identified. ________________
© Richard Alexander Gammons 2006

What name would you like--------------------------------------------------------------------------?

112

Sponsor Documents

Recommended

No recommend documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close