PRELIMINARY SUMMARY
OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Content Analysis of Bullying Definitions in Australia:
Instrumental and Operational
Implications
and Recommendations
Gail
Broady and Sally Jetson
2005
Funded Jointly
by
The Corporate Soul P/L
and Sally Jetson and Associates
Key Points
and Recommendations
Exercise your own judgment and take expert advice on your organisation’s
specific needs and
circumstances before implementing any recommendations
.
.
Summary
of Risks, Benefits, Key Points and Recommendations
Recommendations
constitute general advice only – they may not apply to your circumstances
Exercise your own judgment and take expert advice on your organisation’s
specific needs and
circumstances before implementing any recommendations
|
Element
of Definition |
Instrumental/Operational Risks |
Instrumental/Operational Benefits |
||
|
Risks
of Inclusion |
Risks
of Exclusion |
Benefits
of Inclusion |
Benefits
of Exclusion |
|
|
Undefined,
Value-Based Language
Terms such
as unreasonable, inappropriate, unacceptable, unwarranted are undefined, assume a shared or
common culture and/or agreed understanding or reference point. Approximately
29% of definitions included such terms |
In a
diverse workplace it is unsafe to assume shared values, understandings and/or reference points in
regard to what is appropriate, reasonable, warranted or acceptable Even where
there is a relatively homogenous culture, values and agendas may differ
between work-units, and/or between managers and employees. Making assumptions
of shared meaning or reference points is therefore risky Use of
such terms encourages people to interpret them in a
self-referencing/self-serving manner in order to justify and defend their
choice of behaviour. This can block resolution and lead to costly escalation
and continued conflict |
You may
inadvertently or unintentionally enable some types of bullying behaviour
simply because you failed to specify them in your definition or description
(list of proscribed behaviours) |
Value
based language sound good
and enables you to avoid complex and unwieldy definitions, exhaustive and
prescriptive lists If
you miss something in your definition of bullying or in your list of
proscribed behaviours, value-based language provides decision makers
with a 'fall back' or 'catch
all' |
Eliminating
value-based language from definitions forces policy makers to clearly define
bullying in behavioural terms that cannot be interpreted in self-serving ways |
|
Recommendation |
1.
Eliminate
value-based terms. 2.
If you
choose to use such terms, Specify
the reference point for definition – for example the organisationÕs
or professionÕs code of Conduct, Ethics, Values or Expected Behaviours;
Customer Service Charter, Contract of Employment, Professionalism etc. Define
the terms behaviourally. |
|||
|
Element
of Definition |
Instrumental/Operational Risks |
Instrumental/Operational Benefits |
||
|
Risks
of Inclusion |
Risks
of Exclusion |
Benefits
of Inclusion |
Benefits
of Exclusion |
|
|
Malicious
Intent Terms
implying that bullying involves conscious intent to cause injury, detriment
or harm. For example, behaviours designed to, intended to Just under
17% used such terms |
Difficult
and expensive (time and $$) to prove intent. Can generally only be inferred
unless confessed (which is unlikely in our experience) Easy for
perpetrators to avoid responsibility and sidetrack resolution processes using
arguments of benign intent or absence of intent |
May contribute
to confusion about what is bullying and
what is legitimate or assertive management |
Signals
clearly that intentionally harmful and/or injurious behaviour and/or
behaviour designed to cause detriment is not accepted in the organisation |
Where
definitions are behavioural, á the
organisation can identify bullying and intervene and manage to prevent
or stop detriment even in the absence of reports or complaints; á
decisions
can be made and action taken to manage behaviour without the effort
or expense involved in substantiating intent. á
establishing
existence is easier |
|
Recommendation |
3.
Eliminate
reference to intent in definitions and policy 4.
If you
choose to include such reference, explain the organisationÕs policy
in regard to similar types and/or patterns of behaviour in the absence
of intent, where there is benign intent, or where intent cannot be substantiated |
|||
|
Element
of Definition |
Risks
of Inclusion |
Risks
of Exclusion |
Benefits
of Inclusion |
Benefits
of Exclusion |
|
Subjectivity Some
definitions are subjective – they confirm the existence of bullying based
heavily or solely upon a personÕs á
'feeling'
or 'belief' that they are being bullied or á
experience
of certain emotions Approximately
7% of definitions rested solely on the victimÕs
experience of certain feelings or their belief that bullying had occurred |
Some
feelings associated with bullying (for example fear, stress, humiliation,
intimidation) may also be triggered for some people by legitimate workplace
management This is
especially likely in a politically or culturally diverse workforce Inclusion
of this element may lead to over-reporting of bullying and/or to Ôbad faith
(misconceived, malicious or vexatious) reports that á present
a false picture of workplace relationships and á
overburden
the grievance and line management systems á
harm
reputations, careers and workplace relationships Such
definitions can encourage overstatement of feelings in an effort to justify
complaints Subjective
definitions may lead to unfair findings and actions that á
do not
withstand industrial scrutiny, or that á
punish
or discourage managers from managing |
Perceptions
and feelings matter – especially to those who own them! They are also
real. If
definitions discount perceptions and feelings there is a risk of under-reporting
or thwarted reporting Targets
may be further victimised by a system/policy that excludes them by demanding
they articulate and specify matters that are inherently difficult to pin down
in words 'Clever'
bullies who operate 'under the radar' (using secretive and subtle behaviours)
may continue unchallenged in behaviour of detriment to individuals,
workgroups and the organisation As a
result, individuals making good faith reports may lose faith in the
organisationÕs ability and/or willingness to protect them, and bullies may
prosper |
Where
definitions take account of, but do not rely solely or heavily upon, perceptions and feelings, Ôgood
faithÕ complaints and defences can be encouraged and supported |
Where
definitions are behavioural, rather than subjective, the organisation can
identify bullying and intervene and manage to prevent or stop detriment even
in the absence of reports or complaints. In other
words the organisation does not have to wait until someone feels bad enough
to report |
|
Recommendation |
5.
It is
valid and important to acknowledge individual feelings and perceptions
when investigating the impact of bullying especially since the impact
of bullying can be profound and is always personal. 6.
When defining
bullying, heavy reliance on subjective experience should be avoided 7.
Definitions
should include reference to impact but bullying should not be defined
solely or principally in regard to reported experience or belief |
|||
|
Element
of Definition |
Instrumental/Operational Risks |
Instrumental/Operational Benefits |
||
|
Risks
of Inclusion |
Risks
of Exclusion |
Benefits
of Inclusion |
Benefits
of Exclusion |
|
|
DIRECTED
Nature of Behaviour Terms that refer to behaviour as targeted or selective or directed at, against or towards an individual or group - In other words they differentiate between yelling vs yelling at; swearing
vs swearing at; aggressive vs attacking
Approximately
39% of definitions referred to the directed nature of behaviour |
It may be
difficult to establish the existence of bullying if the person engaging in
the behaviour is clever enough to camouflage the direction or to ÔgeneraliseÕ
the behaviour rather than directing it at a person or group. |
Over-reporting
of unprofessional and/or unacceptable behaviours as bullying. Bad faith
(misconceived, malicious or vexatious) reports that á
present
a false picture of workplace relationships and á
overburden
the grievance and line management systems Unnecessary
inhibition of legitimate venting or expression of strong emotions, such as frustration,
anger or upset, that arise in the course of work |
Clearly
differentiates bullying from other unacceptable and unprofessional behaviours
in the workplace. Signals
clearly that behaviours such as yelling at or swearing at individuals or groups is bullying
and is not accepted in the organisation. Since
direction is behavioural, it is easier to establish it, than it is to prove
Ômalicious intentÕ. |
It may be
easier to 'prove' bullying if you don't have to prove the behaviour
was 'directed at' someone. Allows the
organisation to capture and manage a range of unacceptable behaviours under
one heading. |
|
Recommendation |
8.
The benefits
of including direction in the definition of bullying far outweigh the
risks. 9.
Definitions
of workplace bullying should include the directed nature of behaviour. |
|||
|
REPEATED
Nature of Behaviour Terms that
refer to continuing, ongoing or patterned behaviour that is repeated over
time, differentiating bullying from one-off events Just over
67% of definitions refer to the repetitive or patterned nature of behaviour |
A single
incident of bullying type behaviour cannot be managed under this definition
even though productivity may be disrupted, or an employee or group of
employees may experience hurt, distress, or detriment as a result of the
incident |
Confusion
of bullying with one-off or coincidental incidents of workplace conflict Over-reporting
of unprofessional and/or unacceptable behaviour as bullying Overburdening
of the grievance and line management systems and subsequent damage to
reputation and working relationships as a result of single, isolated
incidents |
Clearly
differentiates bullying from isolated
or coincidental incidents of workplace conflict and/or unacceptable and
unprofessional behaviour in the workplace |
It may be
easier to ÔproveÕ bullying if you donÕt have to show repetition or pattern Allows the
organisation to manage significant one-off events as bullying |
|
Recommendation |
10.
The repetitive
or patterned nature of the behaviour is a key differentiating feature
of bullying and must be acknowledged in any definition |
|||
|
Element
of Definition |
Instrumental/Operational Risks |
Instrumental/Operational Benefits |
||
|
Risks
of Inclusion |
Risks
of Exclusion |
Benefits
of Inclusion |
Benefits
of Exclusion |
|
|
COERCIVE
Nature of Behaviour Reference
to the coercive, forceful or threatening nature of behaviour 55.1%
refer to the coercive nature of behaviour 2.2% of
definitions differentiated between coercion in bullying and coercion in
legitimate management |
Defining
bullying simply as coercive or threatening behaviour fails to differentiate
between bullying and legitimate management and causes confusion for both
managers and employees (The same
applies to bullying defined simply as behaviour causing offence or upset) Over-reporting
may result and managers
may be thwarted or discouraged from the legitimate management of
non-compliant employees |
Definitions
which fail to explicitly acknowledge the coercive nature of bullying miss a
key qualitative feature differentiating it from other forms of misbehaviour Misreporting
of other forms of unacceptable workplace behaviour may result |
Clearly
differentiates bullying from other
forms of misbehaviour in the workplace. More
accurate reporting results. |
May save
some arguments about whether or not behaviour is coercive |
|
Recommendation: |
11. Coercion is a key differentiating feature of bullying and must be | |||