"It's not bullying" -...but what if it is?

This article discusses anti-semitism, racism and other stressful topics. Please take care.

Not a day goes by that we don't see a discussion on polarising topics within our society; particularly in the US, but also everywhere else. While these topics may be of deep importance, when they enter workplace, even as needed diversity changes or indeed someone's objection to them, they do so as those topics, and as polarisation.

We rarely, if ever, look at whether or not we are discussing them in a manner that is adult, respectful and appropriate for work.

I often wonder, to myself, just how much of work life should in fact be devoted to topics other than work. I certainly feel there is a lot of space to bring one's authentic self to work, because hiding who we are, or feeling that we might be targeted in some way for who we are, actually takes an enormous amount of energy, not to mention creates a workplace where mistrust and unhappiness reign supreme. But there is a difference between being afraid to speak about aspects of your life or indeed celebrating aspects of yourself - whether that is a religious or ethnic holiday, a historic event or for that matter your same-sex spouse - and demanding that everyone sees things the same way. While it's definitely true that workplace should be a place we at least somewhat enjoy going to (not enjoying can result in the loss of valuable talent for the company), it is an illusion to expect everyone to agree with everyone on everything, and do so enthusiasically. Sometimes, what we need to aim for is to agree to disagree, respectfully and kindly, and keep treating each other this way no matter what our convictions, feelings of being correct, or even any deeply held beliefs.

The more polarisation continues, the more I have been noticing that there are often two camps that are equally set on bullying colleagues and equally set in their belief that when they are doing it it's not bullying. Fun fact : I've also noticed that this is true of both the extremes of the political scale - the rigid right and the rigid left. There are actually few differences in the approach, even if the clash is about different worldviews. And equally interestingly, both sides are quite keen to pick on more moderate colleagues.

In the following text, I will discuss three cases. All are fictional, based on several other cases I have either seen discussed or have had professional experience in myself. The three personas were created for the ease of understanding as well as to protect anyone from being too recognisable. What they all have in common is that all three personas engage in bullying, while being vehement that they are not the bully.

Case 1

Mike is a 40-year-old Black man working in advertising. While Mike has voted for both left and right candidates in his life, he has recently adopted some strong anti-semitic views, as well as anti-Asian views. This has resulted in him acting in a hostile manner towards Asian colleagues and business contacts; he has also expressed contempt towards Holocaust rememberance, and has openly discussed his hatred for the Jewish people. His actions have included verbal harassment and one action of pushing a person when he got irritated during the coffee break and their proximity offended him. The person was not physically injured, but quite shocked. Mike does not believe that his actions are bullying; as a Black man, and as someone who does not believe himself to be politically either far-left or far-right, he does not feel that he could be a bully. Instead, he feels his reasoning is justified, and he becomes hostile when the workplace tries to discuss matters with him.

Discussion :

There are many people who believe that, because they themselves could be a victim of systemic or other abuses, their behaviour does not count. In particular with White and Black Americans (especially women but also men), the notion that they could not be the bully is very strong at present. And yet, anyone can harbour beliefs about others that can constitute as bullying when expressed to a person who has those characteristics, or even someone they feel disagrees with them. Bullying is a description of an act, not a worldview; one may hold any worldview and not be a bully if they do not engage in behaviour that, according to a country's code of conduct, constitutes as such. While some codes may be more open to interpretation than others, thus letting people do more before they are sanctioned, the sanctions happen not because someone has a belief or a conviction but because they think it gives them the right to physically, psychologically or otherwise mistreat someone else.

Case 2

Colette is a 50-year-old White woman working in the HR department. She is very conservative, and feels that celebrating any other holidays than Christian, and allowing colleagues to celebrate as they see fit, is an affront to her personally, as well as the sanctity of her religion. She has used her power in the HR to negatively influence office members' careers; several have quit over her behaviour, and recently, she began shouting at a person who was looking forward to celebrating Eid; she also repeatedly offered them food during the fasting period and took it personally when they politely refused. The argument was explosive, with her stating some very negative views of Muslims, and of the veracity of Muslim faith and holidays. Additionally, she believes that she is the victim of bullying as the colleague in question refuses to eat with her because she is a Christian.

Discussion :

Colette's outburst, to her, was provoked by someone who need to be "saved". While it's perfectly fine for her to hold whatever beliefs she wants in private, constantly pressuring others about their faith, political beliefs and so on, especially if they feel they have to quit to be rid of her badgering, actually constitutes as bullying, no matter what Colette believes personally. In this case, the company has already lost talent, and it's not unlikely that they are gaining a less than savoury reputation, not only because of one bad HR person, but because they have clearly let this go on long enough to enable her to have literally bullied people out of their jobs, and presumably did little to nothing when she verbally attacked a Muslim colleague. Like in the previous case, Colette believes that she is not in the wrong, that she is, in fact, the victim; in reality, she is the one causing a lot of trouble all around. While there is no universal law that means that a person who is a bully cannot be bullied themselves (in fact, it's reasonable to believe that somewhere, at some point, the bully, too, was the victim), it is important to remember that when addressing the problem, we need to look at facts. It may not always be crystal clear who did what at a glance, which is why it is important to get all the facts together before making any decisions.

Case 3

Jody is a 25-year-old far-left activist. She is White but ethnically mixed. She considers herself progressive, is passionate about her causes and while cis-gendered and heterosexual considers herself politically queer. Jody tends to be very outspoken about her beliefs, and she frequently goes out of her way to very negatively challenge her colleagues and shame them for what she feels are their moral flaws. She also firmly believes that cultures exist in separate spaces, and has recently gotten into a verbal fight with an immigrant colleague who is gay, and who is already being bullied by another colleague of the same background who is anti-lgbt due to what they say are cultural perceptions. (This case is serious, as the person has stalked the gay colleague, threatened serious physical harm and arson of the victim's home.) While Jody is not a diversity or HR officer, and while she has only been with the office for two years, she took it upon herself to berate the victim who, she thinks, is espousing Western values when they should be respecting their culture, and therefore understand the first bully's anger at their being gay. Jody was reprimanded for her behaviour (and the office took the threats seriously), but she feels that she couldn't possibly be a bully, as she is very simply correct and no one can possibly tell her otherwise.

Discussion :

Jody is actually not an unusual case. There are plenty of especially young women out there who currently use real, big (often systemic) problems as a personal do-good badge collection; whether they actually believe that they are doing right or are merely using those causes to be a feel-good angry activist is hard to say, and I doubt there exists a firm rule about this. Much like their differently rigid colleagues, these people are going to be convinced that they are right, that those who argue with them are wrong, that it is their duty to "fix" or even remove them from the environment (eg pressuring the person long enough they quit which I think is very similar to how online bullies behave, pressuring a victim to leave their current online space), and that there should be no discussion about their guilt, because this discussion simply indicates that the person isn't as far left as they are. While they may be proud of that, they also feel it gives them power to verbally attack others...which still counts as bullying. If anything, Jody's views are quite covertly conservative as well : by claiming that someone can only be gay if they are Western, she is in one breath discounting all the diversity in the West, claiming there is a fixed way of being in other cultures, races, ethnicities and religions, and enabling what are very serious threats towards someone because they clash with their belief, which in itself is very rigid. She is also using a protected category as an ideological statement, while acting abusively towards actual members of the lgbt+ group who don't fit her idea of who can be lgbt+. Frequently, when bullying becomes very serious, but also when discussing hate crimes, we meet with hesitation when someone's right to belief, speech and/or expression clashes with someone else's right to life, dignity, work and safety. The reality is that the rights to life, dignity, work and safety outweigh careless expressions of dislike or hate, as a bully can learn to control expressions of their dislike (while being welcome to keep their beliefs) while the victim should not consider whether they should change work, be unsafe or feel unsafe, have their self constantly chipped away by abusive behaviour or stop existing because of someone's opinion.

There are never simple solutions to really big problems. But if I had to suggest one thing, it would be this - work on your workplace being a place where everybody lets others be. Take bullying allegations seriously, certainly; but at the same time, try to create a space in which people know that they are not on Twitter, they are not at a rally or a protest, they are not somewhere where they can go on and say and do whatever they want to someone because they think they are right, or try to forcibly change them because their existence offends them. Vast majority of us just want to go to work, go home and live our lives. And an equally vast majority is happy to let others be. Familiarity breeds understanding. At the very least, it can create tolerance, however tacit, even if acceptance is impossible. You're not at work to change people, or to be universally loved, or to love everyone. You are at work because you have a job, which constitutes specific tasks for a specific purpose, and that job comes with an array of people. Some may become great friends; others not so much. But, as adults, you owe each other the respect and space and freedom from bullying. No matter how "right" you think you are, when you are hurting someone, you have gone past the limits of good taste.