Bullying and Intimidation at Workplace, Face-Saving and Face-Giving Behaviors - Coursework Example

BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION: A CASE OF WORK PLACE CONFLICT Introduction Many employees who have fitted in well with any small or major organization started from a lower level and worked their way up the ladder. At one place in their work life, many will admit of having being bullied or intimidated by a senior staff member. Bullying crosses all socioeconomic, racial, gender and ethnic boundaries (Margaret, 2008) .It is manifested in behaviors such as belittling remarks, verbal threats and more to the worker. The victim feels humiliated and pressurized resulting in lower productivity. In light of this, it is the aim of this essay to exhaustively address the issue of bullying and intimidation in the workplaces and further explore the face-saving and face-giving behaviors and their implication to the solving of the conflict. the issues addressed in this essay are not unique to any organizational set up, they occur in almost every organization with the traditional bureaucratic structure and even in the more revolutionary entrepreneurial structure. Bullying and intimidation seemed to be the most prominent conflict scenario that most of my respondents felt is a major issue in their work places. it therefore presented a very serious problem to do with work pace relations that warranted intensive analysis of how the conflict develops , how it manifests itself , the counter-behaviors and how it can be solved. The essay first reviews the available literature on bullying and intimidation as presented by the results of the interviewed respondents. The essay further draws an appropriate conflict theory relevant to the conflict scenario to enable better understanding of the problem. Lastly the essay identifies the key indicators of face-saving and face-giving behaviors and how appropriate the solution to the conflict was Review of relevant literature Extensive literature review was conducted for this particular research problem. Bullying as noted by the Bentley et al OH&S report (2009) report is a common workplace phenomenon in work places all over the world. According to Rayner and cooper (2006) there is no universally accepted definition of workplace bullying. However there is commonality in the views that bullying is a systematic, interpersonal abusive behavior towards a person that may cause social and psychological problems in the victim. Work place bullying according to the Washington state department of labour and industries report (2011), is a repeated, unreasonable series of actions from individuals directed towards an employee which are intended to intimidate, degrade, humiliate or undermine; or which creates a risk to the health and safety of the employee. Bullying is a repeated action involving abuse of power relationship between the bully and the victim Bentley et al OH&S report (2009). Arccording to Adam (2007), bullies are closer to the powerful figures in the organization, they carefully target less powerful employees who don’t have much influence in the organization. Bullying creates a feeling of defenselessness and injustice in the target resulting in gross undermining of the victims right to dignity and freedom to work without intimidation. Bullying results in strong feeling of fear, shame, embarrassment and guilt. The bully encourages these feelings to keep their target under their power (Bully online 2012). It is worth noting that demanding bosses should not be confused with bullies provided they are respectful and ethical when going about their business. The primary motivation of such bosses is to get the best performance from their employees by setting high yet achievable goals. The behaviors from the supervisors that constitute bullying are not properly agreed upon by researchers and policy makers around the world. Zapf, Eirnasrsen, Hoel & Vartia (2003) in their findings concluded there are rare occasion when attacking attitudes and physical violence towards employees were recorded. Their research notes that there are organizational measures affecting targets’ tasks and competencies, social isolation, attacking the private person in the victim, verbal aggression and spreading of rumors. The findings of Zapf et al (2003) underline the fact that bullying and intimidation in the work place is a predominantly psychological rather than physical in nature. Bullying and intimidation in the workplace stems largely from two sources, either task related problem or from relationship problem (Ayoko, victor, charmine, 2003). Whichever the cause, effects of bullying are destructive and will ultimately affect the performance of the group in completing the task. In many instances the behavior of the supervisors or junior managers can be handled by the suffering victims of the conflict however the persistence of the bullying and intimidating behavior is the causative factor of counter-productive behaviors from the victim as he starts losing the face-saving behaviors that he had maintained (Ayoka et al, 2003) The destructive nature of a conflict may not be brought out by the actual act of bullying or intimidation, the victims in this stage try to save-their face with hope that the supervisors shall stop the acts of aggression. However the acts may persist exposing the victims to repeated series of the detested behavior from the supervisors (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003). It is therefore a known fact that one-off incidents of bullying are not instrumental in the conflict but it is rather the intensity and duration of task related and relational conflict that constitute bullying and intimidation which in turn spark emotional reaction from the victims. It is therefore logical to conclude from the literature material that bullying is the frequent and long lasting exposure to negative acts that produce injury as stated by agervold (2007). In majority of the incidents conflict is triggered by task related and relational problems. According to the practical guide for employees by the government of South Australia (2007), the bullying behaviors can be obvious and aggressive manifested in such actions as: abusive, insulting or offensive language; a language that frightens, humiliates or degrades including personal attacks delivered with yelling and screaming; spreading gossip and innuendo of a malicious nature concerning an employee. The conflict might even be a subtle one characterized by actions such as deliberate exclusion or marginalization of a person from normal activities, constant pestering, inappropriate personal comments and belittling remarks. Perhaps the most common types of bullying in the work places according to the south Australia government guide for employees on bullying (2007) is overloading a person with work, setting unrealistic timelines and tasks, deliberate denial of workplace entitlements and information that is entitled to them. The victimized employees in any bullying scenario in a workplace don’t openly show their disapproval of the violation of their rights in the first place. They use face-saving techniques to address the problem like complying. However when the supervisors continue to show behaviors of bullying and intimidation the level of dissatisfaction in the employees grows and they result in expressing their dissatisfaction through face-giving techniques. Ayoko et al (2003) noted that the employees employed several counter productive behaviors to compensate for the feeling of being bullied and having nothing to do about it lest they loose their work. In their research, Ayoka et al (2003) found that many of the respondents have at one point in their careers deliberately lowered their productivity in work to show how they are not content with the state of affairs in the job place, others have deliberately done their tasks in the wrong way, wasted stocks of production material belonging to the business purposely and in rare occasions destroyed valuable assets belonging to the company. These are clear acts of sabotage on the side of the employees. This state of affairs is not healthy for the company at all but the employees feel that is the only way they can solve the conflict. Conflict in the work places can be long and intensive resulting in inefficiency in the work group and more bullying characterized by threats and intimidating acts from the supervisors and the immediate managers (Einsarn 2003). Counter behaviors such as absenteeism can cost the organization by interfering with the normal scheduling and delivery of quality service where applicable (Cooper, 2010). High staffs turn over also negatively affects the productivity of the organization. The fact that the two conflicting sides change tact overtime from face saving techniques to actual face loss is a very positive phenomenon if handled in the correct manner. It will be possible for the parties to address the main tangible issues causing the conflict rather than turning to outsiders for solution. This kind of conflict scenario can theoretically be viewed as attribution. Attribution is an inference made about the causative factor of another’s behavior. The theory postulates that people behave in a particular manner in conflict situations because of the conclusions they have drawn about the other party in the conflict. In this scenario the victimized employees have a conviction that the supervisors and the management in general are only concerned about the growth of their business even if it means violating the rights of their employees. The management and in particular the supervisors are of the view that the employees are lazy or incompetent with the sole aim of being paid for what they don’t do. The result of such a set up is destructive conflict characterized by bullying from the management and counterproductive behaviors from the employees. Through this theory we can understand why the negative aspects that result from the conflict such as the poor definition and management style of the conflict from the supervisors. It also points out the major aspect of the attribution theory of shifting the blame from oneself to others. The supervisors view themselves as those in the right and can demand any results they desire and intimidate those employees that don’t agree with the arrangement. Blame is quickly shifted to the employee in case anything goes wrong. The supervisors issue threats of sacking and demotion. Clearly the choice of solving the conflict is ill advised and can only add more injury to an already worse situation. The management could have achieved far much better results if it could first seek to understand the triggers of the conflict and prevent them, in this scenario bullying behaviors are the triggers of the conflict. The management should also not avoid a conflict situation by denying the existence of the conflict this only serves to take the conflict underground where the results can be disastrous. Actively listening to the both conflicting sides is a good approach to the problem. This provides for clear understanding of the phases of the conflict and quells the repulsive behaviors such as anger, stereotyping and aggressive communication style from the conflicting parties. The employees will have an avenue to bring out their anger and feel appreciated rather than show their anger through counterproductive tendencies that lower the overall productivity of the organization. After all these interactive measures by the management it is possible to craft out a frame of addressing the problem adequately to the ultimate benefit of the parties involved and devise mechanisms to prevent future conflicts in the area of supervisors and employee relations to prevent bullying tendencies. The conflict scenario referred to in this essay was reached at after a rigorous interview exercise. The interview was semi structured and administered to 20 respondents from bureaucratically structured organizations. The results of the interview were qualitatively analyzed to bring out the most prominent conflict scenario. The interviews ware conducted directly without any intermediaries or use of questionnaires in a span of two weeks. We allocated 30 minutes per respondent in the whole interview process. Conclusion Bullying is not an entirely new phenomenon in work places around the world it is very prevalent. It should not be allowed at all to exist in any organization that hopes to bank on team work amongst its employees to gain a competitive advantage over its rivals. However, the fact that no system is perfect means that there will be cases of bullying even in the most perfect of system. The most important steps to be taken by the management are to understand the type of conflict that exists between the conflicting parties. From there an appropriate attempt to devise a frame of addressing the conflict should be reached with the overall objective of benefiting the parties set to loose materially or in other ways should the conflict escalate. The greatest mistake made by management in many conflict scenarios is wrong interpretation of the type of conflict that exists between its employees. From the wrong interpretation the management comes up with wrong styles and measures to solve the problem. It can cost the management so much in employee satisfaction loss and wastage of time and resources all from wrong diagnosis of the problem at hand. Conflicts are not always a bad thing when they occur in an organization; they are a show of independence and self belief amongst the work force. These positive values should not be suppressed through punitive measures but rather harmonized to create a diverse work force that can use their differences positively as a team to achieve the objectives of the organizati Appendix Work place Conflict scenario After conducting an extensive interview from respondents in several organizations, there seems to be a general conflict that is present in almost all work places. In many of my respondents the most mentioned conflict was bullying and intimidation from supervisors or immediate managers. This scenario happens in the context of a business mandated to produce results in terms of profitability and maintenance of a growth momentum in a competitive business environment. As such Managers are always under pressure from the top management to bring the best results that will satisfy the shareholders and ensure survival of the business entity. They in turn direct the pressure to junior employees by setting unrealistic goals for the employees while at the same time bullying them. The employees on the other hand respond to the aggression from the management through various ways that include; compliance, absenteeism, interpersonal aggression, sabotage and reduced levels of job performance. In many cases there is no clear description of work. As a result the employee is assigned multiple assignments that he/she was not initially hired for. The employees grow a lot of dissatisfaction. However, the affected employee cannot complain as it might trigger a conflict that may end up in him or her loosing the job. In almost similar circumstances, the respondents claimed to be handed complex tasks that needed a deep understanding for them to be done in the correct manner. The supervisor only gives a general directive without full details of the work to be done and what he expects at the end of your work, only for him to use belittling remarks and threats to recommend hiring of a competent new employee instead of you. The resulting reaction is of anger and humiliation on the side of junior employee and aggression from the supervisor. The conflict between junior staff and their supervisors mainly stems from task related problems where there is pressure from the side of the supervisor for work groups to perform and produce desired results. In other instances it results from interpersonal problems that may be manifested in undesired behavior from the supervisor. This type of conflict may take a prolonged time to solve and may have caused a great damage already as some respondents admitted to intentionally lowering their overall productivity at work triggered by the conflict. Many of the respondents were of the view that their supervisors employ bullying and intimidation as a method of getting results at the work place. This is generally a show of power and might. It does not improve the productivity of the group in the long run but rather creates confusion, stress and depression in the junior staff members. Some of the respondents reported of having made intentional steps to solving the conflict by expressing their displeasure openly to their supervisors with hope of solving the problem. However in many instances it has been met with competence attacks, threats and non-verbal aggression acts. Other respondents thought openly asserting their disapproval of aggression from the supervisors was not a good idea at all. Instead they opted to comply with the demands set by the supervisors and raise no issues with the management violation of their rights to fair treatment. In this scenario it is simple to understand the type of conflict that exists between the respondents and the management of the organization to which they belong. It’s a conflict characterized by abuse of power and privileges on the side of the supervisors while the employees respond with counter productive behavior manifested in actions such as deliberately reducing their overall productivity in the job, destruction of valuable property belonging to the employer. In many instances the respondents admitted to squandering and misuse of the employer’s resources to compensate for bullying from the supervisors and immediate manager References Adam.c, (2010) Case study: New laws target work place bullying, Times US Wednesday july,7,2010 accessed online on 7,oct, 2012 from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2005358,00.html Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at Work: A Discussion of Definitions and Prevalence, Based on an Empirical Study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 161-172. Bently.t, Final report presented to OH&S steering committee, understanding stress and bullying in New Zealand work places. (2009) [PDF] accessed online on 7, Oct, 2012 from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2010/04/docs/Bentley-et-al-report.pdf Cooper. C. L, (2010) Bullying and emotional abuse in the work place: International Perspectives in research and practice, second edition, pg 130 CRC press Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. (2003). The Concept of Bulling at Work: The European Tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. Cooper (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp. 3-30). London: Taylor & Francis. Margaret R. K, (2008) The Complete Guide to Understanding, Controlling, and Stopping Bullies and Bullying at Work: A Guide for Managers, and Employees, pg 4-6 Atlantic Publishing Oluremi B Ayoko; Victor J Callan; Charmine E J Härtel (2003) International Journal of Organizational Analysis; 2003; 11, 4; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 283 [PDF] accesed online on 7,oct,2012 from http://www.personal.psu.edu/krm10/PSY597SP07/Week%207%20readings/Ayoko%20et%20al%202003.pdf ,Rayner, C. & Cooper, C. L. (2006). Workplace Bullying. In K. E. Kelloway, J. Barling & J. J. Hurrell Jr (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Violence (pp. 121-145). Thousand Oaks: Sage. South Australia government publication, dealing with workplace bullying: a practical guide for employees. [PDF] (2007) accessed online on 7, Oct, 2012 from http://www.stopbullyingsa.com.au/documents/bullying_employees.pdf Washington State Department of Labor & industries report on workplace bullying and disruptive behavior: what everyone needs to know, Safety & Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program (2011) [PDF] accessed online on 7,oct,2012 from http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Researh/Files/Bullying.pdf UK National workplace bullying advice line, (2012) stress injury to health trauma, PTSD, accessed on 7,oct, 2012 from http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/health.htm Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical Findings on Bullying in the Workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. Cooper (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp. 103-126). London: Taylor & Francis. Read More