The WBI definition of Workplace Bullying is

repeated, harmful mistreatment of an employee by one or more employees; abusive conduct that takes the form of:

  • verbal abuse,

  • (physical and nonverbal) behaviors that are threatening, intimidating or humiliating,

  • work interference or sabotage,

  • or in some combination.

Harm can refer to health harm or loss of social status (work or familial relationships) or economic status (demotion, punitive transfers, termination).

The English activist, Andrea Adams, coined the phrase Workplace Bullying, when she authored the book — Bullying At Work — in 1992.

School bullying was first discussed by the Norwegian Olweus in the late 1970s. So, when the German scientist Heinz Leymann working in Sweden in the late 1980s first wrote about mistreatment of adults at work, he used the term — Mobbing — to distinguish it from bullying of and by kids. He also characterized the phenomenon as having multiple perpetrators, many against one.

All bullying begins with a single instigator, but that person recruits allies and soon the employing institution circles the wagons to defend bullies. Bullying also becomes quickly a case of being “ganged up.”

Covert or Overt

Both. When bullying happens behind closed doors, perpetrators discredit and delegitimize their targets by convincing investigators that the truth cannot be ascertained. It’s a tossup — she said, she said. And when one person is manager, that person is believed unequivocally. Targets are not believed.

The most covert tactic is to deploy others to do the dirty work against the target making it difficult to pin responsibility on the architect of the attacks. This is bullying at its most subtle.

Overt bullies are the stupidest. They choose to be theatrical in front of others. They seek to control the emotional climate by instilling fear in the target and all witnesses. Witnesses typically comply and do nothing. Of course, doing nothing is not a neutral act. Doing nothing condones the bullying.

We need to condemn bullying, not condone it.

Synonyms

  • Mobbing, Psychological Terrorization, Social Misery (Leymann)
  • Psychological Violence
  • Lateral/Horizontal Violence (specific to nursing profession)
  • Psychological-Personal-Moral Harassment (Canada & France)
  • Abusive Conduct/Abusive Work Environment
  • Workplace Aggression/Abusive Supervision/Emotional Abuse (Academics)
  • Dehumanization/Degradation/Devaluation
  • Incivility, Disrespect (less severe forms of mistreatment preferred by employers)

Another Form of Abuse

Law professor David Yamada incorporated abusive conduct in the draft legislation, the Healthy Workplace Bill, introduced in 30 states, but not yet fully enacted anywhere in the U.S. His intent was to make an abusive work environment more negative and harmful than a hostile work environment that is part of nondiscrimination laws.

What workplace bullying has in common with other forms of interpersonal abuse — child abuse, partner violence and domestic violence — is that the dominating perpetrator seeks to create in the target/victim a sense of worthlessness.

Most Akin to Domestic Violence

  • Abuser’s motive is control & domination
  • Perpetrator objectifies-dehumanizes victim
  • Witnesses stand idly by, choosing to not intervene
  • Emotional harm > physical injuries (short of death)
  • Victim’s anger is directed at institutional non-helpers
  • Institutions fail to adequately protect victims

Targets Are Whistleblowers

Both are highly principled, moral types of individuals. The difference is the motive to disclose. Whistleblowers act to protect a group much larger than themselves — the public, the government, disadvantaged groups. Once they disclose, they are persecuted mercilessly. Their experiences make a lie out of ostensible “protections” for them. They lose their livelihoods, their families, and often their freedom when imprisoned.

Months or years pass before bullied targets inform their employers about the miscreant bully. They, too, are sacrificed for their honesty. In fact, the message they brought to the organization is resented. They have shown that for years the organization has supported and sustained a cruel person whose personal agenda of domination actually prevented good work from getting done. Furthermore, the documentation showed that the accumulated losses from the years of turnover and absenteeism were preventable. All of this makes executives look foolish. And for that HR will show targets the door. Leaders who want to learn to save money and prevent future problems could treat the target’s report as they would a report from an outside consultant, hired at great expense, to discover that BULLIES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE TO KEEP. Instead, the complaining target is banished.

“Seems C-suite dwellers and government senior administrators share

the same thin skin that cannot accept critical evidence.”