What we need to know about workplace bullying

Abstract

According to a 2019 external review, bullying and harassment are “systemic” in the New Zealand parliamentary workplace (Francis, 2019). Its culture is “toxic,” involving “harmful behaviour by and between staff, managers, members, media and the public,” and “unacceptable behaviour is too often tolerated or normalised.” Destructive gossip, undermining, lack of cooperation and support, aggressive behaviour and demeaning language are common. Although there is “a majority of absolutely lovely MPs and Ministers,” others engage in “frequent shouting, abuse calls or texts, character assassination... or ‘just continually being aggressive and shouting... ’.” One staff member said “I was warned... But I just couldn’t cope with it. It shocked me. It’s taken me years to recover.” The review concludes with a list of 85 recommendations to improve matters, including the development of training programmes on combating bullying, a zero-tolerance approach to bullying and harassment, leadership development programmes, and providing access to the services of accredited social workers or psychologists. Is the New Zealand parliamentary workplace a rare bad apple among an unspoilt bunch? I doubt it. The prevalence of bullying, mobbing, harassment, emotional abuse, and mistreatment (to name just a few very similar terms, Einarsen, 1999) is high. In an 86-sample review study, Nielsen et al. (2010) found that on average 14.6% – 1 out of 7 – of the participants in these samples was bullied. This implies that most of us have experience with this type of behaviour; as a (colleague of a) victim, a witness, but perhaps also as a perpetrator. In his seminal paper on workplace bullying, Heinz Leymann (1990) defined mobbing as “hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic way by one or a number of persons mainly toward one individual... These actions take place often... and over a long period... and... result in considerable psychic, psychosomatic and social misery” (p. 120). Other definitions (notably that of Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996) emphasise that bullying is subjectively experienced by a victim, that bullying not only concerns communication issues but negative acts in general (e.g. physical violence or changing work tasks), and that victims should have difficulties in defending themselves against these acts (Nielsen et al., 2010). Several reviews on the antecedents and outcomes of bullying have been conducted, identifying among others perpetrator characteristics, victim characteristics, work design problems, deficiencies in leadership behaviour, and organisational characteristics (such as a low moral standard, bad leadership, or a toxic culture) as possible antecedents (Cao et al., in press; Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen et al., 2002; Van den Brande et al., 2016). Outcomes of bullying include physical health problems, depression, posttraumatic stress, burnout, and strain in general (Boudrias et al., 2021; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Overall, it is fair to say that the antecedents and outcomes of bullying in the workplace have been addressed in a large body of research. Yet, when by chanceWork & Stress recently received five papers on bullying, we decided to use these as the basis for the present special edition. Apart from their subject, these papers have in common that they go beyond current insights on the predictors and consequences