Use of Bullying as a Management Tool in Healthcare Environments - Assignment Example

Workplace Bullying Workplace Bullying Introduction In the contemporary work place, bullying has continued to be prevalent. Inthe workplace, bullying may take place between co-workers, or managers may choose to bully employees. In other cases, the employees exhibit insulting or malicious behavior towards their supervisors and managers, which qualifies to be bullying. Researchers have made efforts to define bullying precisely. Many researchers agree that bullying is an offensive behavior carried out with malice with the purpose of intimidating or hurting the victim. Other bullies seek to humiliate the victims to greater depths through the misuse of power. Other researchers agree that persistent criticism carried out with the purpose of humiliating someone also qualifies as bullying. It emerges that some managers rely on bullying as an effective management tool. They use different forms of demeaning or humiliating behavior in an effort to make sure that employees comply with their demands. However, bullying does not qualify as an effective management tool because it presents numerous adverse effects on the victims, as this paper will highlight. Specifically, bullying in the workplace involves a range of activities or behavior. In some cases, social isolation or exclusion from meetings is one of the evident activities that define bullying. Some bullies withhold critical information from an individual with the purpose of interfering with their task completion or compromising the quality of their work. A continuation of unfair and highly destructive criticism defines some work places (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). This affects the self-esteem of individuals who face such criticism. In other workplaces, bullying may even involve destruction of property or extreme cases of theft. Some bullies have mastered the art of intimidating behavior perpetrated against their victims. Verbal abuse, which often leads to unnecessary rumors, may also form part of bullying (Barber, 2012). Some managers have the habit of defining impractical targets within a limited time in order to prove the individual ineffective or incompetent. Worse cases of bullying may undermine an individual’s authority within an organization or even destroy the individual’s reputation by making copies of memos to unauthorized audience. Some bullies even compel their victims to quit or resign from their jobs. In addition, bullying may involve the reassignment to menial jobs and termination of previous responsibilities without any formal explanations (Barnetson, 2010). Bullies may make use of telephone calls, emails, or written messages to intimidate or threaten their victims. They may find out about the victim’s private life and expose it in public. There is evidence that bullying is common in many workplaces, although it exists at different levels (Barber, 2012). For example, in the health sector, over 35% of nurses suffered bullying for more than a year. Evidently, some individuals have used bullying as a legitimate management tool. This is majorly because they consider bullying activities as a form of firm management. Such individuals perceive management styles as ranging from the laid-back managers with a wide spectrum of the different management styles being in the middle and bullying management at the extreme end (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). Such individuals, therefore, consider bullying as one of the most stringent management styles that can be of use in the work place. Moreover, it is possible that some individuals have lost the sense of the existing boundaries between different management styles and often find themselves in confusion. This confusion may trigger them to use bullying as a management style without their realization that their style has become unacceptable bullying (Barnetson, 2010). Such managers often express shock when they realize that employees consider them as bullies. Some organizations have a bullying culture and managers in such a setting may adopt the culture unknowingly and practice it (Barber, 2012). These explanations have emerged in order to identify how bullying becomes a legitimate management tool. In a case where bullying becomes a management tool, the supervision in the workplace as well as staff development may prove to be poor. In such a setting, it becomes easier to comprise anti-bullying policies (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). When this happens, senior managers may find themselves relying on bullying as a management tool. On the other hand, the employees may be too afraid to report bullying cases. Whereas such managers consider bullying as a form of firm management, there is an evident difference between firm management and bullying management. In the first place, firm management ensures consistency and fairness whereas bullying promotes inconsistency and unfairness (Barber, 2012). Bullying management proves to be unreasonable and inflexible whereas firm management focuses on the best outcomes while ensuring that the means used are both reasonable and flexible (Barnetson, 2010). Managers who practice firm management usually know exactly what to do, but are willing to consult with fellow managers as well as the employees before making the final decisions. On the other hand, bullies have a self-conviction that their decisions are always right (Barnetson, 2010). Therefore, their opinions are final and they do not have a tie for soliciting ideas from others. Firm managers define high standards of service and ensure that there is behavior in the team. Bullies also define high standards, but are more likely to place blame on others if things do not work out (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). Whereas bullies lack the ability to control their temper, and may humiliate others in public, and give threats without bothering to listen to the other side, managers who practice firm management are more likely to discuss issues in private before making the final decisions. Firm managers are likely to listen and get feedback from others while bullies do not give attention to people’s views. These differences only serve to confirm that bullying is not a form of firm management. The two types of management rely on different principles and the managers have completely different characters traits (Barber, 2012). Therefore, bullying does not qualify as any form of management. According to experts, effective management brings about employee motivation, increases productivity, and promotes a positive reputation of the business. Whereas firm management, which some managers have confused with bullying management has the potential of ensuring that employees register high levels of motivation, bullying does exactly the opposite (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). The development of different management styles sought to introduce new strategies for ensuring that employee motivation is a reality. Bullying has immense effects on the emotional wellbeing of the individual. Victims of bullying register the lowest motivation within the work place. They have high levels of stress and may suffer stress-related disorders. This means that bullying management fails terribly in achieving any of the goals of effective management (Barber, 2012). Whereas effective management has the potential of registering increased productivity within the workplace, bullying reduces the level of productivity immensely (Barnetson, 2010). When employees feel unappreciated and humiliated, they are less likely to perform their duties. Even when they do, the quality of their performance is very low. This means that bullying cannot qualify as a management tool because it can contribute to the decreased sales of the organization. Effective management seeks to foster high levels of job satisfaction while bullying brings about high levels of dissatisfaction in the workplace (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). This explains why about 70% of individuals who face bullying in the workplace are afraid of going to work. More than 50 % of bullying victims seek other job opportunities while a remarkable 20% register high levels of absenteeism (Kelloway & Francis, 2011). This is a clear indication of high levels of job dissatisfaction. This can have adverse effects on the organization because many of the workers are likely to quit in the end. If some of them choose to retain their position, their performance is low because of the psychological effects associated with bullying (Barber, 2012). Many of them have to handle the feelings of fear, anger, disbelief, and extreme powerlessness. Bullying, when taken as a management tool, can present adverse effects to the organization. As highlighted above, bullying causes employees to register low levels of motivation. Therefore, their performance declines immensely. This reduces productivity significantly, a factor that affects the general performance of the organization. In the end, the organization suffers as it loses its position in the market (Kelloway & Francis, 2011). In addition, it earns a bad reputation, which affects its performance as well. This means that bullying can derail an organization’s performance immensely. This is contrary to the cases of effective management styles, which have the potential of improving the organization of a company. When customers begin to complain about the quality of services or products from a certain organization, it marks the beginning of a downfall of the organization. This is one of the potential outcomes for adopting bullying as a management tool (Barber, 2012). One of the reasons why managers seek to employ effective management tools is to ensure high levels of employee retention. This means that effective management should foster employee retention by offering rewarding systems that empower the employees and increase their interest in the organization. Bullying does not have the potential of registering employee retention (Kelloway & Francis, 2011). Instead, it contributes to low employee motivation and increased job dissatisfaction, a factor that leads to rapid turnover. A turnover presents adverse effects to the organization (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). It means that the organization may lose high performers and remarkable talent exhibited by the employees. This has long-term effects on the performance of the organization. Moreover, it compels the organization to recruit new employees. The process of recruiting and hiring new employees proves to be highly expensive and consumes a lot of time. Moreover, bullying affects the reputation of the organization immensely, a factor that may limit the number of willing candidates during the hiring process (Barber, 2012). This introduces a critical issue that the management of the organization must deal with. It makes it evident that bullying is an ineffective management tool. Without doubt, managers who rely on bullying as a management tool are likely to drag their organization into multiple crises. Worth noting is the fact that all forms of bullying represent a contravention of the law. Different countries have in place various regulations that ensure no discrimination occurs within the workplace. These regulations promote equality within the workplace and advocate for effective management styles. This means that employees who face bullying may seek legal aid, a factor that means that the organization will have to handle litigation cases (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). This serves to ruin the reputation of the organization further. Moreover, it attracts litigation costs. Sometimes, employees who face bullying may seek help from the compliance team prompting internal investigations. Although many experts advise bullied employees to follow this course of action, many bullies know how to overcome such allegations. Managers who rely on bullying have perfected the art of appearing as committed individuals to organizational goals. They bully employees by taking credit of the talent exhibited by their teams. Moreover, they are keen to place blame on the employees in order to cover their weaknesses. Therefore, the executives of the organizations may view them as the most reliable managers. Many employees comply with the orders of the bully in an effort to protect their jobs. With the prevalence of unemployment in many states, employees face the compulsion of bearing with bullying so that they do not lose their jobs (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011). This is the only reason why some people have confused bullying as an effective management tool. In any case, it uses unacceptable means in an effort to compel employees to deliver. Although the bully takes credit for the performance of the employees, it remains evident that bullying presents numerous adverse effects to the individual employees, even if they choose to retain their jobs. With time, these employees lose the self-esteem and suffer emotionally, a factor that can affect all their relationships (Barber, 2012). Conclusion Evidently, bullying management represents one of the worst management tools that can damage an organization’s reputation immensely. Bullying is an unacceptable form of behavior in the workplace, and should not qualify to be a management tool. In workplaces where bullying exists, employees lack motivation and register a low performance. This compromises the overall performance of the company in the market. In the service industry, the quality of the services provided is poor causing customer dissatisfaction. As highlighted above, bullying affects employees emotionally, a factor that makes them lose self-esteem and may trigger them to consider other job opportunities. When this happens, the organization faces a rapid turnover, which may prove costly. Bullying is not comparable to firm management, although many people confuse the two of them. Therefore, organizations should ensure stringent anti bullying policies. References Barber, C. (2012). Use of bullying as a management tool in healthcare environments. British Journal of Nursing, 21(5), 299-302. Barnetson, B. (2010). The political economy of workplace injury in Canada. Edmonton: AU Press. Kelloway, E. K., & Francis, L. D. (2011). Management of occupational health and safety. Toronto: Nelson Education. Mathisen, G., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The Relationship Between Supervisor Personality, Supervisors Perceived Stress and Workplace Bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 637-651. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0674-z. Read More