The Impact of Workplace Bullying

By Jason Walker and Miranda Mae Phillips

Workplace bullying is a serious issue, one that can have long-term negative systemic and individual impacts, and the target of workplace bullying may be exposed to increasingly harsh forms of aggression, incivility, and social exclusion. Workplace investigators face an ever-increasing need to respond to situations of suspected bullying and harassment in an objective, fact-based way to determine if bullying has in fact occurred. 

For organizations, workplace bullying is known to lower work productivity and engagement; contribute to a loss of job satisfaction, increased sick time and absenteeism, and higher employee turnover; and expose the company to increased legal risk.(3) At the individual level, workplace bullying has been attributed to severe adverse long-term outcomes including, but not limited to, mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and, in some cases, suicide. (4)

In order to be effective, workplace investigators should be aware of these impacts. Investigations of alleged workplace bullying are often complex, emotional, and challenging. It can be difficult to draw evidence-based decisions. However, it is clear that the impact on a target’s mental health and well-being must be an integral part of the decision-making framework.

The Extent of Bullying

Bullies in the workplace are common to almost all organizations, across cultures and industries. Whether overt or covert, actions by bullies are undertaken to intimidate and harass, which affects the well-being of the impacted individual (who is often referred to as the target). The U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey (2003) reported that most targets (54 percent) reported that the bullying occurred both overtly and in front of others and involved such actions as name calling, making derogatory or harmful remarks towards the individual, questioning competence, and teasing. Only 32 percent said bullying occurred behind closed doors and 10 percent report-ed that bullying happened in an office with the door kept open so others could hear. 

What Is Workplace Bullying?

Workplace bullying is a kind of interpersonal mistreatment that is more severe than simple incivility. It is a complex and deliberate constellation of actions that are harmful when directed at an individual (or individuals) and may create an oppressive work environment.(6) Research into workplace bullying has grown significantly over the past 25 years, and it shows the prevalence and outcomes related to the phenomenon are severe and significant.  

Workplace bullying was first defined in the research, and later the courts, through the investigation of the mistreatment of bank employees. The term “workplace bullying” is described in various ways including harassment, incivility, sexual misconduct, emotional abuse, emotional or psychological terror, and victimization. The most commonly used definition of workplace bullying in the academic literature comes from the work of St?le Einarsen and colleagues who define bullying as behaviors that are offensive, assaultive, harassing, and result in unfavorable outcomes for victims.(7)

In many regions of Canada, various governing sources define workplace harassment and prescribe how it must be investigated. Workplace harassment encompasses bullying, although the term “bullying” is not generally used. This ranges from case law to organizational policy to legislation and it is important that the investigator research and understand the legal framework associated with each jurisdiction. In general, most jurisdictions ensure that the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers include prevention and intervention regarding issues of workplace bullying in the context of occupational health and safety.

Most definitions of workplace bullying include inappropriate conduct or comments by a person directed at a worker that the person knew or reasonably should have known would be unwelcome by the worker (e.g., by causing humiliation or intimidation) but exclude any reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace. 

Oftentimes individuals who are accused of or engage in bullying may state that their intent was not to humiliate, intimidate, or otherwise cause harm. However, bullying behavior must be assessed objectively whatever the respondent’s intent may or may not have been. That being said, there may be situations in which the respondent’s behavior violates other organizational policies (e.g., the code of conduct) even where the behavior at issue does not meet the legal threshold of “workplace harassment.”

There are multiple examples of behavior that could lead to a finding of workplace bullying and harassment and may include the following:

? Insults;

? Verbal aggression;

? Name calling;

? Sabotaging work;

? Spreading malicious gossip or creating rumors;

? Physical threats or threats of physical harm (e.g., violence);

? Hazing or other initiation practices that are harmful or offensive;

? Personal attacks against an individual’s personal or private life or lifestyle choice; and

? Aggressive or threatening gestures.

What Makes a Bully?

Theories guiding research on workplace bullying are limited. Although it is not the investigator’s job to determine how or why any individual develops in a certain way, it is helpful to understand the theory behind the phenomenon of bullying. People become bullies often because of self-esteem issues, personality problems, and anger-management difficulties.(8) Bullies often torment those they believe do not fit into their “ideal group” because of their appearance, behavior, race, or religion; the emergence of a perceived threat to their career; or because bullies may think the target identifies as LGBTQ.

During the investigative process, when considering the characteristics of bullying behavior in general populations, males typically present higher rates of having the personality traits linked to being a perpetrator. This is not to say females do not participate in bullying behavior, but simply that on balance men tend to display higher rates of this behavior. Other research has shown that both males and females who possess personality traits associated with bullying have the related characteristics of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychoticism.(9) Often, perpetrators will engage in employment choices that draw them to a higher level of freedom and stronger hierarchical structures that tend to protect them and allow them to bully.

There is no defined profile that reveals how a bully may choose an organization to work in or a target to bully. However, more often than not, bullies tend to hold positions of power. Bullying more frequently occurs where the organizational structure allows for a vulnerable individual to work in a subordinate position to some-one who is prone to bullying, and where the individual cannot easily defend him- or herself or exit the situation.

Gender and other power imbalances are important factors for investigators to be aware of. Studies of large-scale organizations show that, on average, 11 percent of employees identify as having experienced bullying and that females are typically bullied or sexually harassed more often than men. However, the emotional implications (such as sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, suicide, distress, sexual dysfunction) are equally distributed between men and women.(10) Meaning, although women typically identify at higher rates than men as targets of bullying, the physical and psychological consequences across genders are equally severe. 

The Need to Examine and Document

A great deal of research shows significant and severe physical health implications for targets of workplace bullying. A correlation exists between increased experiences of workplace bullying and adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular issues, high blood pressure, skin conditions, cerebral vascular issues, fatigue, headaches, muscle/neck pain, and other ailments, including psychological distress.(11) Witness reports of such symptoms are relevant to bullying claims and investigators should follow up on them. 

With the consent of the involved party, investigators might com-pare health-related records against the timeline of bullying as well as disclosures to the health care provider that may support or refute an allegation of harassment. Of course, in doing so, investigators must be aware of privacy issues and legal protections regarding access to and use of health-related information.

The impact of bullying on mental health is a serious and sensitive issue. Investigators are often faced with the task of working with targets who display mental health symptoms that could be related to bullying. Targets of bullying may display diagnosable mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, sleep disorders, or adjustment disorder.(12, 13)

It is important, however, to keep in mind that investigators are generally not mental health professionals and should avoid making findings or taking other actions that go beyond their professional expertise. 

The Effect of Workplace Bullying on Organizational Outcomes

When evaluating the effect of workplace bullying on organizational outcomes, bullying behaviors are a strong predictor of low job satisfaction and decreased physical and mental well-being. Investigators should be aware that targets of bullying are often deemed “low performers” and that constructive dismissal or performance management may also be at play.(14) Constructive dismissal would be an issue if the employer were aware of the bullying or ought to have been aware and failed to take effective action to address the bullying. However, it is also possible that the complainant may interpret performance management as “bullying” when in reality the actions of the employer are lawful and appropriate.

Studies indicate that targets of bullying show up to 52 percent of their time as “unproductive.” Instead of doing their work, they are forced to spend time and energy defending themselves, seeking out support from others, and thinking about the impact that the perpetrator’s behavior is having on their career; they also ac-knowledge decreased job satisfaction and increased sick time absence, which is costly to the organization’s bottom line.(15)

For those who engage in workplace bullying, research consistently shows that the detrimental effects of perpetrator behavior on their targets and co-workers can impact corporate culture in very negative ways. Overall, when bullying is taking place in the work environment, ongoing exposure leads to an atmosphere of increased hostility, rudeness, and social marginalization system-wide. Investigators should be aware of the downstream impact on the organization as a whole that perpetrator behavior can cause.

Considerations for Investigators

When conducting investigations related to workplace bullying, the investigator must approach each file in a fair, objective manner focusing on the evidence. The investigator should be aware of any applicable policy or law that would make the employer responsible for failure to adequately address claims of bullying. 

When assessing the complaint of bullying, the investigator should consider who is involved in the events giving rise to the complaint, including current and former employees who may have relevant evidence to submit. It is important to consider whether the matter may have a criminal component that requires involvement of law enforcement.

Legal requirements often drive workplace bullying investigations. The employer might or might not seek advice from the investigator regarding its obligations under human rights law, workplace safety law, and/or criminal law. Some, but not all, attorney investigators will also recommend appropriate discipline if the com-plaint is substantiated. 

The investigator might be asked to consult about interim steps to take pending the outcome of the investigation, such as reassigning employees or placing an employee on administrative leave. There can be consequences to the employer for these actions, and typically an employer will consult with its own legal counsel before proceeding with such actions. 

The investigator should be aware that cumulative trauma related to bullying presents in many ways. At times, bullies may make unreasonable or punitive requests of the target over many years. 

Conclusions

Workplace bullying has severe consequences for both individuals and organizations. In general, the more workplace bullying occurs in an organization, the more detrimental the impact. Essential issues related to employee health and safety continue to be identified, with grave and negative implications for those who are the targets of bullying. Workplace investigators play a crucial role in the identification and remediation of bullying behavior.

Jason Walker, PsyD, PhD, works in First Nation communities and is known for his work as an expert in the assessment and investigation of workplace bullying and sexual harassment.  Dr. Walker earned an honorable BA in psychology from McMaster University, an MSW (clinical) from the University of Toronto, his PhD in psychology from Northcentral University, and a clinical PsyD from California Southern University. Dr. Walker is the director of clinical programs and services for the Inter Tribal Health Authority in British Columbia.

Miranda Mae Phillips, PhD, specializes in health and educational psychology. She graduated from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, with a BS in psychology, earned her MEd in counseling from Lamar University in Beaumont, Tex-as, and earned her PhD in psychology, with a specialization in health psychology, from Northcentral University. Dr. Phillips is dean of students and academic success at Lamar Institute of Technology in Beaumont, Texas.

1. Morten Birkeland Nielsen & St?le Einarsen, Outcomes of Exposure to Workplace Bullying: A Meta-analytic Review, 26 WORK & STRESS 1–24 (2012), available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02678373.2012.73470 9 (last visited Sep 5, 2016).

2. Jason M. Walker, A Quantitative Study of the Prevalence and Impact of Workplace Bullying Amongst First Responders, PROQUEST (2017).

3. Walker, supra note 2.

4. Walker, supra note 2.

5. Fidelindo A. Lim & Ilya Bernstein, Civility and workplace bullying: Resonance of nightingale’s persona and current best practices, 49 NURSING FORUM (2014)

6. Teodora Chiril? & Ticu Constantin, Understanding Workplace Bullying Phenomenon through its Concepts: A Literature Review, 84 PROCEDIA - SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 1175–79 (2013), available at https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1877042813017965 (last visited Dec 20, 2018).

7. St?le Einarsen et al., Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: Interna-tional Perspectives in Research and Practice (2003)

8. Chiril? and Constantin, supra note 6.

9. Holly M. Baughman et al., Relationships Between Bullying Behaviours and the Dark Triad: A Study with Adults, 52 PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 571–75 (2012), available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911005423 (last visited Apr 19, 2018).

10. Randy A Sansone & Lori A Sansone, Workplace Bullying: A Tale of Adverse Consequences., 12 INNOVATIONS IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE 32–37 (2015), avail-able at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382139/ (last visited Dec. 20, 2018).

11. Morten Birkeland Nielsen et al., Workplace Bullying and Subsequent Health Problems., 134 TIDSSKRIFT FOR DEN NORSKE LAEGEFORENING : TIDSSKRIFT FOR PRAKTISK MEDICIN, NY RAEKKE 1233–8 (2014), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/24989201 (last visited Mar 8, 2017).

12. Walker, supra note 2.

13. Nielsen, supra note 11

14. Gabriele Giorgi et al., Detrimental Effects of Workplace Bullying: Impediment of Self-management Competence via Psychological Distress, 7 FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY 60 (2016)

15. J. E. Bartlett & M. E. Bartlett, Workplace Bullying: An Integrative Literature Review, 13 ADVANCES IN DEVELOPING HUM. RESOURCES 69–84 (2011)