Workplace Bullying Activists

Gary Namie, PhD, poignancy Namie, PhD & Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, PhD In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. cooper (Eds. ) Work entrust intimidation Development in surmisal, Research and Practice (2nd edition). capital of the United Kingdom Taylor & Francis 2009, in press Ch exclusively toldenging piece of work Bullying in the regular army A Communication and Activist Perspective Introduction The goals of the multi-faceted 12- formold bear on confine been to raise aw atomic number 18ness, and to reverse acceptance, of employment b bothyrag in the United provinces. In this chapter, we discuss the Workplace Bullying plays (WBI, body of litigate swashing. rg) efforts with collar straits theatrical role assemblages and report the current enounce of progress as sound as the barriers we continue to face in meeting those goals. The transcription has a long hi point of assistance for bullied workers, legislative advocacy and col verbotenwearation with academicians (e. g. , Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie & Namie, 2009 Neuman, 2000 Yamada, 2008 Yamada, 2002). front to detailing the solid ground of U. S. sensory faculty regarding the determent phenomenon, we outline the ex qualify ideas puke communication weightlifts that contract on ordinary health edits, such as study cockrag, and persuasion theories relevant to the work.We then review the current state of this campaign in the United States focusing on efforts directed at three assemblys the state- choke offed e. g. , bullied workers ( draw a bead ons), witnesses, nonbelievers, integritymakers, and employers. We close with work yet to be by with(p) and future directions to continue these U. S. checkeavors. universe Health drives Communication campaigns focused on reducing threats to macrocosm health subscribe to four essential elements (Salmon & Atkin, 2003). First, they atomic number 18 intended to gene regularise specific outcomes. In the anti- blustering(a) campaign, these goal s atomic number 18 to raise aw atomic number 18ness and reverse acceptance of workplace blustery in the United States.Second, campaigns anticipate to meet their goals with a variety of constitu- ent conferences or s scoopowholders. The key s pass onholders in the anti- bullyrag campaign atomic number 18 persons paroxysm because of bully, constitutional decision makers responsible for work environments, and honormakers who reach the power to mandate worker protections against psychological force play at work. Third, public health campaigns meet these goals with stakeholder groups by and through an organized set of communication activities (Salmon & Atkin, p. 450).How poop the families of the veteran relegate rede what to expect and how to deal with their loved unriv altogethereds suffering from PTSD?An all-important(a) aspect of public health campaigns is atomation of stakeholder audiences and crafting gists specifically rangeing particular audiences. Message ef ficiency is maximized when the intended audiences argon pointed jibe to importance and egressiveness is maximized when messages argon tailored for specific audiences. in that respect argon three constituent groups selled by the U. S. anti- intimidate campaign. First, we strive to mentor tail ended workers at once through coaching and indirectly through netsites, speeches, and the self- facilitate book for bullied workers and their families, The Bully at Work (Namie & Namie, 2009a).A nonher campaign focus is the depicted object, grassroots-lobbying bear to enact anti- bullyrag legislation (authored by natural law professor David Yamada, see his chapter in this volume) in the states. The third focus is devising interventions for employers who voluntarily necessitate bullying balkion policies and procedures. Applic qualified sen sentencent Theories Two theoretical poses of persuasion derived from wellhead-disposed psychological science are in both case applicable to t he goals of convincing Ameri washbowls that workplace bullying is a negative societal phenomenon deserving mitigation and level(p)tual eradication.The send-off is social view possible action (SJT) (Sherif & Sherif, 1968). SJT posits cognitive processes that explain attitude change. Opinions tied to one(a)s self-identity are verbalise to be anchored and resistant to change. So when a message is develop to change ones opinion toward bullying, the degree of in the flesh(predicate) (or ego) intimacy initially determines how the person pull up stakes evaluate the persuasion attempt. In utilise, personal or vicarious pursuit with bullying incidents is a nifty prognosticator of a lawmakers impartingness to sponsor legislation.Pre-existing categories by which youthful showing is judged are (1) the latitude of acceptance for acceptable stances (with an egoassociated anchor opinion con textbook of use the size of the latitude, i. e. , tolerance) (2) the latitude of noncomm itment are those slopes which are neither accepted nor spurned and (3) the latitude of rejection for positions actively opposed. Incoming randomness is distorted to fit those categories. harmonize to SJT, slew are approximately persuaded when not predisposed to regard the communicated position if they are initially on-committal or indifferent somewhat the issue. In order to for a person to understand and concur with the anti-bullying activists positions, the message recipient, regardless of constituent group, moldinessinessiness be able to assimilate the position because the remnant among the persons anchor ( trigger offing) opinion and the activists argument is small to moderate. stack indifferent intimately bullying fag also be confident(p) to adopt the activists position if the respective(prenominal)s anchor position is close to her or his acceptance zone. Large discrepancies do not lead to change.Rather than assimilation of disconfirming messages, they are rejec ted out of hand. SJT does partially explain the inflexibility of twain the targeted worker and employer representative who very much get hold themselves fasten in adversarial roles, each un leave behinding or unable to understand the separates attitudes toward bullying. A more(prenominal) than than nuanced speculation of persuasion that can apply to anti-bullying activism is the e get the pictureation likelihood model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This cognitive process model derives its name from the likelihood that a person thinks deeply (elaborates) more or less a message when exposed to it.The basic premise of this model is that the pass by which a message persuades its recipients depends on their engagement with the message an aspect dual-lane with the SJT. Two passageways exist the aboriginal route and the encircling(prenominal) route. In the former, batch withdraw both the regard (strength of desire to process the message, love of cognitive engagement) and the king to critically evaluate the message. According to ELM, spate with both indigence and ability leave diligently process instruction via central route processing.They will look for and suffice to strong arguments in favor of the message and counter what they perceive as weak arguments. When people escape the motivation or ability to evaluate the message, they are more presumable to respond to cues associated with the message (peripheral route processing), such as entertainment value or association with a celebrity spokesperson, rather than the contentedness of the arguments. In short, full(prenominal) pastime leads to central processing resembling traditional hierarchy models low involvement leads to peripheral processing.Petty and Cacioppo (1986) con emplacementred attitudes which are the product of central route processing to be more accessible, persistent, resistant to change, and a better addressor of behavior than when the peripheral route is taken. Condit ions that promote blue elaboration can also ingrain the extent to which a person has bureau in, and thus trusts, her or his deliver musical themes in response to a message (Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002). After one invests era and cognitive effort to weigh the merits of persuasive arguments, adoption of those positions serves a self-validating role.However, high elaboration is difficult to achieve for different cases for the three constituent groups in the campaign against workplace bullying. First, targeted workers in an mad, aroused and negative state very much lack the ability to take the central, more psychically demanding route to learn about the bullying phenomenon. Most targets learn initially about bullying on the profits, on television or from a advancedspaper article. modern-day website shape incorporates peripheral cue complexity (moving images, multiple columns, colors, embedded videos, piles of art) to pique the attention of minimally baffling web brow sers.Targets strained by the stresses of bullying are capable of little more than minimal involvement. The WBI web designer changed the site from its original voluminous, content-rich, barely barely navigable, version to a newer one with make uped attention to peripheral details so as to not burden targets searching for answers to fundamental psyches. The ELM offers sophisticated explanations for Googles efficient, text-based, targeted advertisements resulting in clickthrough rates 10 multiplication more effective than touchstone advertising (McHugh, 2004).The low peripheral cue complexity of text- solitary(prenominal) ads is precisely what the central route processor is seeking concise information directly think to the frugal or social outcome sought, allowing them to process significant a supports of information efficiently and thoroughly. On the early(a) hand, the high degree of peripheral cue complexity designed into banner ads with splashy colors and motion graphics ent ices the casual, low involvement web surfer. This information complexity inconsistent is important to anti-bullying activists because initial interactions with bullied individuals are primarily through website contacts.There is one other variable that interacts with effectiveness of web content for bullied individuals the phase of the bullying episode when the visitant disc all overs the website. In the beginning of bullying episodes, targeted workers are consumed with stabilizing and sensemaking tasks to cope with the unwelcome assault that disrupted their psychological comfort (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008). Bombardment with information (central route processing in the ELM model) during acute phases is ineffective. Next, targets begin to respond to the trauma and stigma ttached to bullying by neutralizing and countering accusations purported by the bully. Repairing ones composition comes abutting as shame is gradually reversed. In the post-bullying phase, when targets are no longer vulnerable to bullying, grieving over the losses (e. g. , belief in justice) and major life and career restructuring take precedence. At this point, targets may be able to incorporate information necessary for recovery. The lesson for communicating effectively to bullied targets is that when they are able to be involved, e. g. calm enough to digest more than a couple of paragraphs, and sufficiently motivated, e. g. , to want to understand the complexity of their bullying problem, comprehensive, solid resources should be available for them. Bullying website designers puddle to con sider the different phases through which bullied targets pass in order to optimize the utility of the site for emotional visitors who demand immediacy as easy as visitors capable of contemplative, in-depth information processing. A majority of U. S. lawmakers ease up difficulty incorporating the message that a law should be enacted.Applying ELM theory to their receptivity, we conclude that fewer are s ufficiently motivated. A lawmakers likely motivation to advance workers rights is bar by a counter-campaign to protect and enlarge employers rights by cable lobbyists who outspend labor activists by a 401 ratio in pick campaign contributions. Further, the ability of lawmakers to attend to the details of the persuasive arguments in favor of anti-bullying legislation is undermined by their hectic dockets during short legislative seasons in around states (varying from 60-180 days per twelvemonth). Few swallow time to plain any issue in depth. police forcemakers are swayed more by vivid, televised tales of egregious crimes for which laws are hastily crafted. Prevalent phenomena like bullying are considered routine, thus, relatively benign and not covered daily in the media. Therefore, when lobbying for legislation, we are careful to devote almost face-to-face meeting time to translations of horrific experiences (emotionally- rushingd tales enhance attention through pe- ripheral cue complexity) told by individuals. The less haveling prevalence statistics and reports are left hand behind with lawmakers for subsequent perusal (and hopefully for elaboration and incorporation).Employer motivation and ability to address workplace bullying in the States are both lacking. There is no inherent executive director curiosity about the phenomenon that is intentional through inner complaint channels. When bullying is inform, 44% do vigor and 18% worsen the situation for the targeted worker (Namie, 2007). The employer record of inaction is revisited in the Employer section of this chapter. A Bullying-Tolerant Society A societal explanation for American employer indifference is the preference for individualistic, aggressive, and offensive responses to interpersonal problems is comm individual accepted.It is normative when all slips of interpersonal mistreatment are rationalized as necessary because its just note as if there were no personal consequences for the actions taken. For instance, Levitt (2009) wrote for a financial empyrean publication In a competitive environment, an assertive and take charge appearance is usually rewarded. If a manager exhorts and pushes subordinates to perform taking over those people who are laconic by nature, may view the exhortations as bullying. From this perspective, bullied workers are evidently the rude, discourteous and un no-hit ones.A Tennessee appellate court decision tell in a 2007 case that without proof of discrimination, the fact that a supervisory political program is mean, hard to get along with, overbearing, belligerent or otherwise hostile and shameful does not violate civil rights statutes. (Frye v. St. Thomas Health Services, 227 S. W. 3d 595. as cited in Davis, 2008). The decision implies that anything goes if the conduct is not explicitly illegal. Corporate economic consumption law attorneys frequently defend bullying culprits in cases and are their dress hat apologists.Math iason and Savage (2008) told a revealing invention about a bully in their have got law office. Clearly there is a type of abusive treatment that exceeds the monetary standards of our firm. Yelling at staff for no reason, blaming associates for sensed errors in such a demeaning manner that their self-confidence is mazed and turnover is out of control, are examples of conduct that destroys teamwork and office morale we do accept and value an individual teaching entitle that is very demanding of new associates. In other words, annoyance is an allowable difference in style that trumps out of control turnover.Another legal writer discounted the bullying experience by blaming targeted individuals as employees who cant handle valid criticism from supervisors and who then go steady it as harassment or bullying (Baldas, 2007). Jeff Tannenbaum, a lawyer once at the San Francisco Littler Mendelson office, check overd with the courts general rejection of the argument that U. S. wor kers should be argus-eyeden from abusive treatment at the hands of pigeonholees or coworkers (Bess, 1999). Tannenbaum asserted that America not scarce has more laws than it can handle, but that bullying has its benefits. This orbit was built by mean, aggressive, sons of bitches, said Tannenbaum. Would Microsoft have make so legion(predicate) millionaires if Bill Gates hadnt been so aggressive? Tannenbaum said that distant bullying was in the eye of the beholder. many people may wishing a little appropriate bullying in order to do a good job. He asserts that those who claim to be bullied are really just wimps who cant handle a little shaping criticism (Bess, 1999). In short, American employers exert uni subsequentlyal control over most work conditions with only 7. 5% of the non- giving medicational workforce represented by a union.Unlike other countries where workers enjoy constitutional protections of personal rights, American workers are at will employees facing immedi ate termination without a just-cause requirement. The confidence that business get the hangs fiat and the political world was illustrated by a romp from Tom Donahue, president of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, arguably the most powerful and beaver funded of all the business lobbying groups. He said, Im con- cerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media.It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that hits jobs, wealth and benefits and who it is that eats them (Hamburger, 2008). To challenge bullying is to defy societal norms. Bullying is not the exception. Bullying is not yet taboo here. It is an acceptable in operation(p) tactic in the under-regulated corporate world, which takes pride in its ability to dominate labor. Workers dare not complain. This is the context of unbalanced employer-employee power facing the U. S. campaign against workplace bullying. Despite the hurdl es, we have enjoyed subaltern success with goal attainment.We next report progress in the U. S. campaign with respect to each of the three involved constituent groups the general public, lawmakers, and employers. Group 1 The General Public The benefits of an informed public are twofold. First, familiarity with the squeezeic suffices remove its stigma. Second, people will get empowered to challenge bullyings current acceptance. offset the Movement We began with a traumatic bullying experience that affected our family. Dr. Ruth Namies tale was the inaugural story for the underground road. Her mistreatment came at the hands of a fellow char woman professional in a psychiatry clinic.Approximately one year after resolution of the case, we discovered the British term workplace bullying. In 1997, we started the Workplace Bullying Institute (originally the Campaign Against Workplace Bullying) to help individuals. WBI originally provided three paths for bullied individuals to find support (1) a toll-free rally crisis line, (2) a dedicated website with a growing collection of articles about the phenomenon and the circuit board of online surveils to comp allowe and dissemination of research findings, and (3) a self-help book published one year after our start. In January 2000, we staged the first U. S. orkplace bullying multitude in Oakland, atomic number 20. It was an unfunded two-day event. Many of the inter discipline speakers and presenters who graciously attended at their own expense are authors of several chapters in this book Michael Sheehan, Charlotte Rayner, vision Westhues, David Yamada, and Loraleigh Keashly. In September 2000, Suffolk University Law condition hosted a endorse gathering in Boston that focused on the legal challenges facing the workplace bullying movement. The crisis line was publicized first in two topic newspapers. We coached over 5,000 emotionally wounded people 1 hour at a time in three eld.We learned that it is import ant to progress limits for telephone counselors because the risk of vicarious trauma is high. We had to stop the inordinately valuable service. Charging a fee for coaching slimd significantly the number of callers. WBI founders brought to the movement introductory academic preparation in social and clinical psychology experience in treatment for family dodges therapy, chemical dependency and domestic violence years of university teaching forethought and psychology business consulting corporate management harmonized with experience in behavioral research methodology, take after design and statistical analyses.Legal expertise was provided by colleague, David Yamada, soon after the geological formation began. future tense advocacy groups should not rely solely on veterans of the bullying wars. expertise is needed from individuals who did not personally experience bullying. These experts can learn about all aspects of bullying. They are less likely than bullying victims to be adversely affected from working with, and on behalf of, traumatized individuals. Website visitors expect information to be free. Bullied workers often lose their jobs (Namie, 2007) and cannot afford to impart for necessary legal or mental health serve.Groups desiring to simulate our nonprofit organizations commitment to back up bullied workers are advised to secure funding to sustain the effort. Consulting and training services for employers and fees for professional speeches support WBIs work. In 2009, Britains pioneering organization, the Andrea Adams Trust, closed its kindly operation after 15 years due(p) to lack of funding. The Media as Communication Partners Thanks to 800+ media interviews and appearances, workplace bullying in the U. S. is now publicly recognized. Our race with media is mutually beneficial.Media get a popular story WBI is able to reach Americans at no cost via television, radio, newspapers and magazines sometimes with a national broadcaster or publish er, at other times local. The burgeoning blogosphere on the internet also helps carry the message that workplace bullying is a common, unconscionable, but legal, form of mistreatment. film The Devil Wears Prada, in which a powerful woman magazine publisher repeatedly berates and humiliates her female assistant, is the prototypical opening for the segment which follows with a real-life tale told by a woman who worked for, and suffered under, a woman boss.The Bully Boss The American public, if not the business media, seems ready for paleness about destructive people who make work life a living hell for others. An example was the best seller, The No Asshole Rule, a book related to bullying written by Stanford melodic phrase School professor Robert Sutton (2007). The public embraced its frankness and simplicity. It was a cathartic venting of pentup frustrations with bullies. Business media like the statistic that 72% of bullies outrank their targets (Namie, 2007). Thus, the alliterativ e stereotype of bully boss is an accurate headline.Of course, bullying originates at, and affects, individuals at most organizational levels. administrators experience the to the lowest degree amount of bullying (5%). The portrayal of exploitation by bullying is more vivid when it is managerial rather than internecine to the work team. The media spotlight is on the quirky or aberrant boss as an individual (without interviewing true perpetrators) absent reportage on the work environment that sustains him or her. Questions to WBI about what individuals can do when faced with a bully boss come questions about why and how employers should deal with systemic bullying.The burden for finding a solution tends to fall on the victimized target. When media experts are management consultants or executive coaches, they reelect poor advice to workers to subordinate themselves, to not attempt to change the toxic work environment that fosters bullying. Some business reporters doubt the targete d workers accounts of their bullying. A few television interviews of bullied individuals did not air because producers were reluctant to believe the targets account or a font was threat-Workplace bullying has begun to take its rightful place among better-known topics like domestic violence, PTSD and other forms of abuse in the U. S. A typical media story begins with the human recreate angle. A targeted worker (prescreened by us to ensure psychological stableness and referred to the reporter) describes her or his bullying experience. It is then edited to 1 to 2 onair legal proceeding or short paragraphs in fall guy. In the early years, stories focused almost exclusively on anecdotal stories. In recent years, the media love a womanon-woman bullying story (Meece, 2009) to the exclusion of covering other forms of bullying.However, in the U. S. , only 29% of all bullying is between a woman perpetrator and woman target men represent 60% of the bullies (Namie, 2007). The coverage enrag es advocates for womens rights. Despite the narrow focus, newspaper articles prompt 300-500 reader comments per article and televised segments on woman-on-woman bullying garner high ratings. The 2006 theatrical ened. It was only one side of the story. Bullying stories feature workers fighting uphill battles. Media most frequently side with Goliath, the employers.Research Bolsters the Message Since 2000, we were able to add-on anecdotal tales with empirical study data. WBI conducted descriptive large- ensample surveys of website visitors (n=1,335 Namie, 2000, & n=1,000 Namie, 2003). The self- hireed sample studies were not extrapolated to describe national trends or national prevalence. However, several metrics did approximate estimates from the large representative study WBI conducted later (Namie, 2007). The first credible estimate for U. S. bullying prevalence was 1 in 6 Michigan workers (Keashly, 2001).The studys sampling techniques afforded external validity. solely there were only approximately 100 individuals who describe very pestilent mistreatment. This estimate was the best one available until 2007. In 2007, WBI, with support from the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention, commissioned polling firm Zogby International to conduct the first U. S. survey of workplace bullying. The stratified sample was large enough (n=7,740) to represent the experiences of all adult Americans. The 20-item survey (Namie, 2007) used the WBI definition of bullying without explicit inclusion body of the term bullying. Instead, it was defined as repeated mistreatment sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation, or humiliation. The WBI-Zogby survey found 12. 6% of U. S. workers were either being bullied currently or had been at heart the year, 24. 2% were antecedently but not currently bullied, 12. 3% witnessed it but never experienced it, and 44. 9% of respondents reported never witnessing and never experie ncing it. Of 7,740 survey respondents, only 22 people admitted being a perpetrator despite the anonymity minded(p) by the survey (Namie, 2007).Thereafter, media quoted the finding that 37% of the population has been bullied representing 54 million Americans. The media took a keen interest in the finding that women bullies choose women as targets in 71% of cases. Men bullies choose women targets (46%) less frequently than they target men. Women are the slight majority of targeted individuals (57%). It is common in the U. S. to blame victims for their fate. This hatchet job is an example of the fundamental attribution error committed by observers (Ross, 1977). However, targets themselves detract from the negativity of their situation.The mischaracterization of targets as whiners or complainers is not warranted. We know this anecdotally one study provides empirical support. Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy & Alberts (2007) discovered a disparity between the researcherdefined prevalence of bull ying based on an operational definition (28%) and the survey respondents self-identification as a bullied person (9. 4%). This was true for a group of Americans as well for a Danish sample group in the same study. shut in the Message Commercial media reflect the values of American business gardening as seen from the top rather than as lived by subordinate workers.It will be interesting to see if CEO credibility diminishes in light of the global economic crisis that is partly blamed on CEO failures. each anti-CEO sentiment during tough times presents the opening for populist stories about the mesh of trapped workers who face a nearly certain escalation of cruelty because few employment alternatives exist. Bullying cannot exist without tacit cheers from executives and owners. WBI surveyed 400 respondents in 2009 asking whether bullying escalated after the recognized start date of the worldwide economic recession in September 2008. For 27. % of the respondents the bullying became more abusive/ severe/frequent, 67% reported no change, and 3. 4% reported a decrease in bullying since the onset of recessionary times (Namie, 2009). Workplace bullying activists often char- acterize the movement as anti-abuse. Whereas, defenders of individual bullies and the practice of systemic bullying describe the movement as anti-corporate. The pejorative mischaracterization makes the activists public education goals harder to accomplish. Activists need to emphasize that bullying hurts business in step-up to hurting people. Bullying presents a tautological predicament for the media.If media fill airtime and print space with hard-luck, but always popular, bullying stories, they can validate targeted workers experiences, permit people know they have experiences in common with others. On the other hand, negative stories such as bullying are not intelligent stories that please advertisers. In most cases, advertisers rarely tolerate social criticism. That explains the shortage of criticism of capitalism in mainstream U. S. media. Nevertheless, anti-bullying activists should be prepared to help media illustrate how abstract economic crises concretely affect the lives of real working people, if asked.Persuasion Theory utilize to Media Commercial television is the ultimate forum for persuasive appeals employing peripheral cues, according to ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Soap is not change by inclination ingredients, which would require central route processing by dishs. Instead it is sold as an indispensable route to a desirable lifestyle with distracting emotionally evocative images. intelligence information stories are also created to be visually stimulating. News has evolved (descended) into infotainment. Producers demand pictures, B roll, and moving on-screen graphics.Production of the 3-minute segment that focuses solely on content or talking heads is unacceptable, reserved for documentaries and non-commercial television. There is pressure to mak e bullying stories entertaining. TV screens now literally force the depiction of the principal story being broadcast into a frame within a frame. adjoin it are station and network logos, wide top and bottom borders with one-sided changing backgrounds, and text crawls along the bottom competing for attention with cryptic headlines, and if on a business channel, a crawl showing contemporaneous stocktaking market activity.The actual story is only one of three or four fields competing for the viewers attention. A low involvement viewer can hardly be expected to remember anything about stories and their associated content being reported in the middle frame. Print media have limited space as page design has evolved into crowded, colorful spaces that emulate a TV screen or newspapers website. contain space translates to short 500-700 word accounts rather than a lengthy (for newspaper) 2,000 word in-depth story. Bullying is a complex phenomenon with multiple aspects.The compromise we ma de is to reduce our advice to targets to an admittedly over-simplistic three steps. Similarly, we answer the why do bullies bully? question with a threefactor model. To optimize the likelihood that a reader or viewer will remember something about bullying from an interview, activists should adopt slogans. We use Bullies are Too Expensive to Keep Work Shouldnt Hurt and correct Employers Purge Bullies, Bad champions Promote Em. Dealing with media is not an academic exercise. The academic activist, in particular, can benefit from media training. It is through the media you can reach the public who need to know about bullying.Group 2 Educating Lawmakers Rationale For A Law All social movements that sought to stop psychological violence youngster abuse, domestic violence, discriminatory harassment (gender, race, etc. ), schoolyard bullying were able to last pass state or national legislation to negatively mandate misconduct. These types of mistreatment continue, but laws compel negative consequences for offenders. The workplace bullying phenomenon most almost resembles domestic violence (Janoff-Bulman, 2002) with respect to the interaction between abuser and the abused, witnesses non-intervention, and societal-institutional self-abnegation nd rationalizations to excuse it. For legal purposes, however, bullying falls under the semblance of employment law, akin to anti-discrimination laws for the workplace. Regarding employment law, existing civil rights laws compel employers to create policies to prevent future occurrences. In addition, they must have procedures in place to correct discrimination once reported, investigated and affirm. If there were no laws in effect, would employers voluntarily stop the mistreatment of women workers with internal procedures? Evidence suggests that they did not do so in the first place the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.After enactment of laws, employers took steps to comply. The sequence is clear. Laws drive internal p olicies. Enforcement of those policies is most likely when there exists a threat of punishment for absent-minded employers. Credible insurance insurance enforcement results in prevention and correction. The power of a law derives from employers internal preventive actions that protect workers. Perusal of Suffolk University Law Professor David Yamadas chapter in this book reveals that, in 2009, there are no state or federal laws in the U. S. to satisfactorily address workplace bullying.Therefore, bullying is nearly always legal. The Anti-Bullying Healthy Workplace Bill In 2000, David Yamada wrote the text for the original Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB). It addresses workplace bullying by prohibiting an abusive work environment. The proposed legislation does not mandate employer actions. It gives employers multiple opportunities to pull out liability for a bullys abusive conduct. The requirements to file a lawsuit using this bill are strict. Malice is required in addition to docume nted physical or psychological health harm. There is no government intervention or enforcement.Individual plaintiffs must find and pay for private legal counsel. Though the HWB provides redress for people where current laws do not, its ultimate purpose is to convince employers to stop bullying proactively. The Legislative Campaign WBI grow its efforts by adding a separate division in 2001. The Workplace Bullying Institute-Legislative Campaign (WBI-LC) goal is to enact state laws. It was decided from the starting to focus on the 50 states rather than to seek a federal law with significantly different features. Congress and recent presidential electric pig in the last 30 years have not expanded labor rights.So, the WBI-LC mobilizes citizen lobbyists in the states with the help of a network of volunteer State Coordinators. To date, 28 of the 50 states are represented by at least(prenominal) one Coordinator. In 2003, after two years of lobbying by amateurs, California was the first s tate to introduce the HWB. To date, 16 states through 183 state legislators have introduced 55 bills representing some variation of the HWB. No state has yet passed any bill into law. The HWB website (healthyworkplacebill. org) is the repository of the bills history and current activity. uncompensated Coordinators compete with professional advocates for employers.Coordinators implicate attorneys, a physician, mental health professionals, professors, nurses, teachers, social workers, community organizers, and advocates who worked for other social causes. The WBILC provides Coordinators with all necessary materials to customize a lobbying campaign, an information kit for their state legislators, a private listserv, a private website, copies of the HWB, training tapes, and periodic teleconferences for the group to stay current. Whenever possible WBI leaders give expert testimony at public hearings for HWB. It is a collaborative germinal group that grows in size and effectiveness eit her year.At the public website, citizen lobbyists from all states willing to support the bill can volunteer. Coordinators then work with those volunteers to mount writing, telephoning, and e-mailing lobbying campaigns. Coordinators orchestrate one or two in-person lobbying days at their respective state capitals. Some Coordinators have formed in-person groups and adjudge websites in addition to ongoing virtual communica- tion with volunteers in their state. When organizing a group of activists such as the WBI-LC Coordinators, it is important to screen members for personality disturbances attributable or not to their bullying experience.Experience is valuable, but lobbyists must represent the thousands or millions of bullied workers in their state or province. They cannot use the lobbying platform to tell their personal story or to vent to a lawmaker. We incorporate a rule that Coordinators must be at least two years postbullying to participate. Also, with a group of veterans of bul lying, some of whom suffer periodic re-traumatization, there is a risk of group dysfunction from emotional flare-ups. It is helpful to establish an intra-group code of conduct to prevent bullying from within.HWB Supporters Bullying at work ignores political party affiliation. Targeted workers have not reported personal politics as a reason for being targeted. The HWB is non-partisan. Sponsors of the HWB include members of both major political parties Democrats and Republicans. However, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to report direct and witnessed bullying in the U. S. survey (Namie, 2007). Coordinators solicit support and endorsements for the HWB from local and state groups. Unions for state government workers, teachers, and nurses have backed the bill. Endorsements have come also from womens groups.The Illinois Association of Minorities in Government place the sponsor for the first Illinois bill. The HWB enjoys the support of one national group the NAACP, the larges t U. S. advocacy organization for the rights of African-Americans. According to the WBI-Zogby survey, 91% of African-Americans want additional workplace protections to supplement existing anti-discrimination laws. Data show that the group suffers a higher rate of ever being bullied than the combined groups, second only to Hispanics (Namie, 2007). HWB Opponents Membership in industry trade associations gives employers access to professional lobbyists who oppose the HWB.Opposition is based on one or more of these grounds (1) in times of economic crises, businesses should not be regulated, governments only role is to help business operate freely and profitably, (2) employers can control bullying voluntarily, let them alone and they will do what is best for their business, (3) whining employees will file frivolous, baseless, expensive-to-defend lawsuits that will only clog the courts, (4) current laws provide sufficient protections, and (5) bullying or abusive conduct cannot be precisel y defined, it is too subjective.The WBI-LC counters with the following sightly propositions. (1) Business leaders decisions led to the financial calamity. The global crisis is arguably due in part to rampant speculation and paucity of governmental controls. (2) Employers have the chance to voluntarily stop bullying whenever they become aware of it. They historically respond inappropriately. (3) Financial and emotional hurdles to file private lawsuits swim aggrieved workers. The reality is that only 3% of mistreated employees file a lawsuit in the U.S. (Namie, 2007). On the other hand, employers routinely carry employment practices liability damages to provide legal defense in the event of a harassment or misconduct lawsuit. HWB provides sufficient affirmative defenses for good employers who take steps to prevent bullying. (4) Law professor David Yamada concludes that current U. S. laws are inadequate. We trust his legal expertise. (5) Prior to the 2007 WBI-Zogby survey, lobbyists for employers argued that bullying did not exist in the workplace.Since the survey is indisputable, they now complain that bullying cannot be precisely defined. HWB requires that the plaintiffs health harm from malicious conduct be proven. The high standard rebuts the subjectivity objection. The fundamental question about legal reform for bullying is whether or not it will take a law to compel compliance or employers will voluntarily choose to abandon abuse as routine prac- tice. The nascent intolerance of the assault on an employees self-respect at work in the U. S. may force an answer.Persuasion Theories Applied to Lawmakers The criticality of personal involvement in social judgment theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1968) as predictor of a positive attitude toward the antibullying activists position is borne out by our legislative campaign experience. For HWB bill sponsors, bullying is not an abstraction. They agree to champion the bill because family members, legislative aides, or they themselves have been bullied. For the sake of others they want it to stop. For early adopting lawmakers, the introduction of their bill is personal.Facilitating the personal connection to bullying spells the difference between successful and failed lobbying efforts. The elaboration likelihood model, ELM, (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) applies well. One would expect that the lawmaking process is deliberate, based on facts and reasoning, and message content-dependent. That is, lawmaking should tap central route processing with reduced susceptibility to peripheral cues. Marshalling facts to support your position is the underpinning of amateur citizen lobbying.WBI-LC Coordinators refer constantly to the scientific U. S. survey showing that 13% of workers are currently bullied with an additional 24% having been bullied at some time in their careers (Namie, 2007). Its use marked a sea change in lawmakers reactions to workplace bullying. They stopped denying that bullying happens. Credible surv eys are an essential machine for communicating with public policy makers. So, we have facts on our side and also use the power of compelling anecdotal tales told by bullied individuals (peripheral cues).Unfortunately, HWB opponents also read forward facts. With multiple lobbyists, lawmakers hear the rationale for employer opposition to our bill repeatedly from different sources. Because of their ongoing presence of full-time paid lobbyists throughout the year in a lawmakers life, not just when the law-makers is in session (varying from 60-180 days per year), opposing arguments are likely better remembered. WBI-LC Coordinators act primarily during the legislative season and work their regular jobs the relaxation of the year. In the U. S. the tradition of giving money to politicians (the courts have defined it as the expression of a corporations free speech right, treating corporations as persons) leads to access and influence. WBI-LC Coordinators do not give money to elected offi cials. It comes as no surprise that no state has yet passed our bill into law. To augment Coordinators efforts, the WBI-LC has begun to form coalitions of supporting and endorsing group that do have full-time lobbyists advocating for labor and human rights. Perhaps those groups will lend their lobbyists to the campaign against workplace bullying.Group 3 Convincing Employers Employers determine the size and composition of the workforce, the workplace culture and every aspect of the work environment. The responsibility for the correction and prevention of bullying lies with the top management because they shape the culture of the organization through decisions made (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). observational studies established an association between leadership, or its absence, and workplace bullying. For example, Leymann (1996) and Einarsen, Raknes and Matthiesen (1994) found that bullying among colleagues was often associated with weak or inadequate leadership by the most enior manage rs. Similarly, Hoel and Cooper (2000) showed that bullying was associated with high scores on a laissez evenhandedlye style of leadership. A lack of organizational coherence (integrated, functioning production procedures), only token responsibility (few consequences for wrongdoing), low security (apprehension about layoffs) all combine to foster a chaotic workplace modality that gives opportunistic abusers of liberty the chance to harm others (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006). Conversely, Cortina, Magley, Williams and Langhout (2001) found that in a workplace climate in which fair, respectful treatment prevailed, bullying was rare.Employers Reactions to Bullying When bullying incidents are reported to employers, the most frequent response is to do nothing in 43. 7% of cases (Namie, 2007). Doing nothing is not a neutral response when an individual asks for relief. Matters were made worse for targeted workers in 18. 4% of cases. Thus in 62% of cases the response inadequate from pe rspective of witnesses and targeted workers. A more complete description of employer responses comes from another WBI online survey (n=400 respondents) (Namie, 2008).Employers predominantly did nothing to stop the reported mistreatment (53%) and actually retaliated against the person who dared to report it (71%). In 40% of cases, targets considered the employers investigation to be inadequate or unfair with less than 2% of investigations exposit as fair and safe for the bullied person. Filing complaints led to retaliation resulting in lost jobs (24%). Alleged offenders were punished in only 6. 2% of cases. A NIOSH research team (Grubb, Roberts, Grosch, & Brightwell, 2004) assessed employers perceptions about the prevalence of bullying within their own organizations.Researchers used a pair of nationally representative federal government surveys of non-institutionalized U. S. residents age 18 and older and a second representative sample of U. S. organizations in which the unit of ana lysis is the workplace. Some residents were asked to name their employers. Then, a case-by-case contact person was identified as the representative for each of 516 organizations, typically human resources professionals or company owners. The employer representatives were asked about a variety of organizational factors.Most relevant was their response to the question How often in the past year has bullying occurred at your establishment, including repeated intimidation, slandering, social isolation, or humiliation by one or more persons against another? The majority of employer representatives (75. 5%) said bullying never happened at their site. Only 1. 6% said it happened frequently. The second most frequent response was that it was rare (17. 4%) with 5. 5% acknowledging that bullying happened sometimes. Employees were seen as the most frequent aggressor (in 39. 2% of cases) as well as being the most frequent victim (55. %). Two assessed measures of workplace climate were associa ted with increased levels of bullying lack of job security and lack of trust in management (Grubb et al. 2004). Remarkably, in Sweden where the regulatory ordinance has been in effect 15 years, only one of out of nine businesses had voluntarily implemented policies and procedures against bullying (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). The lack of employer initiative in the Scandinavian anti-bullying pioneering nations suggests modest expectations about American employers attitudes toward bullying, even if laws are passed.Not only do employers do very little to stop bullying, co-workers who witness bullying are besides ineffective. From an online study (Namie, 2008) we know that self-identified bullied individuals reported that in 46% of bullying cases, co-workers toss them, to the extent that 15% aggressed against the target along with the bully. Co-workers did nothing in 16% of cases. In less than 1% of cases, co-workers rallied to the defense of an attacked target and represented the bully as a group. There are several potential explanations that are explored elsewhere in detail (Namie & Namie, 2009a).Suffice it to say that fear, real or imagined, prevents co-workers from getting involved most of the time. The Business Case For Bullying Because of employers costs associated with bullying productiveness loss, costs regarding interventions by third parties, turnover, increased sick-leave, workers compensation and disability insurance claims and legal liability employers should logically be motivated to stop bullying (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). One healthcare industry intervention that improved employee perceptions of trust and fair treatment was estimated to potentially save $1. million annually for a single organization (Keashly & Neuman, 2004). WBI partnered with a Canadian disability management firm that hardened 18% of the short-term disability claims were based on bullying. Those workers missed an amount of 159 days of work per claim. The business case approach e mphasizes the financial push of bullying and assumes that employers are rational actors and will pursue their own best financial self-interest when made aware of bullyings cost. logic recommends termination of costly offenders. But bullying is often an irrational and unreasonable set of circumstances.In spite of ascertainable loss patterns, offenders are retained while targeted workers who reported mistreatment to the organization often lose their jobs. Alleged offenders were punished in only 6% of cases (Namie, 2008). But because of bullying, 40% of targets quit, 24% are terminate and 13% transfer to safer positions with the same employer (Namie, 2007). Finally, to whom should the business case be made? Bullying is typically perceived as a human resources (HR) subdivision problem because anti-discrimination compliance officers in HR receive the majority of bullying complaints.Eighty-percent of those complaints do not require employers to respond they are legal actions (Namie, 2007). One WBI study found that HR either did nothing in 51% of cases when approached for relief or made the situation more negative for the target in 32% of cases (Namie, 2000). In HRs defense, without laws to compel employers to adopt internal policies, HR lacks the tools to reverse bullying even if it wanted to. HR also lacks the credibility with executives who otherwise might grant HR the self-reliance to effect organizational changes. Bullying is the responsibility of executive leadership (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994).Executives feel responsible to support bullies within their organizations. According to Namie (2007), sources of a bullys support are executive sponsors (43%), management peers (33%), and HR (14%). How can this be? Why prop up the cause of significant financial losses? No anti-bullying intervention can be suc- cessful without executive endorsement and participation. Workers in one division of a government client organization suffered midriff attacks, st roke, panic attacks, and nearly every one of the 24 were prescribed anti-depressant medication.Seventeen workers filed workplace discrimination complaints. Our recommendation, with which the bully himself agreed, was to prohibit his future contact with employees. The theatre director thought otherwise and rejected the recommendation. He called staff feckless ingrates and refused to allow the perpetrator to step down because the bully was a great conversationalist and dejeuner buddy. Many employers would rather absorb known financial losses than confront a hyper-aggressive bully or sever a prized personal friendship.The business case pales in comparison to ingratiation, aggression and pride in engaging at all costs. Employers Motivation to Act Because there is no law to compel U. S. employers to act, when an American employer requests help with bullying, it is a rare event. WBI principals were consultants to employers 12 years prior to the starting the nonprofit organization. Sin ce 1997, the consulting focus is exclusively the refinement of a comprehensive, proprietary approach to preventing and correcting workplace bullying (Namie & Namie, 2009b) (workdoctor. com).Based on our American and Canadian clients, here is a sampling of positive, proactive reasons employers voluntarily address bullying. Some are early adopters wanting to be first, cutting-edge, industry leaders. They are pioneers and eminent of their risk-taking tendencies. Some clients seek congruence with espoused organization values of respect and dignity for all, to do the right thing. Though every corporate mission pedagogy includes Respect for all individuals, few firms actually adhere to the lofty pronouncement. charge statements do not hold organizations accountable policies can.Some clients seek media coverage and notoriety for their willingness to address bullying. Some CEOs want to leave a positive legacy at the end of their careers. One executive wanted to rectify his prior misma nagement of a senior manager bullying case. It was personal guilty conscience mitigation. In 2009, the Sioux City, Iowa public school district implemented our comprehensive anti-bullying system for teachers and staff in the schools becoming the first in the nation to do so. Schools are the single class of employer with experience, however limited, with bullying.In 38 states, there are laws mandating that schools address bullying among students. Most laws specify that a policy be written for children. Therefore, many schools and their staffs are familiar with bullying and its harmful effect on children. It is a logical step to see that the quality of interpersonal relationships among the adults is the context for student behavior or misconduct. This National Demonstration construe includes a policy, procedures, impact assessment, education, peer support, peer fact finders, and community education.The project was made possible by the rare co-occurrence of a new superintendent, a co mpassionate human resources director, union presidents concerned with employee health, and funding from a local foundation. We hope that schools become the first American industry to bad address workplace bullying. The majority of anti-bullying interventions are prompted by risk distaste or loss prevention. A high profile, revenue-generating rainmaker commits illegal or unethical acts. A repeat offenders legal costs eventually exceed the CEOs tolerance.Turnover of highly skilled workers undercuts productivity. Healthcare institutions must comply with an extra-legal industry requirement to craft a policy to address intimidating and disruptive physicians and staff. (JCAHO, 2008). Dispositional vs. Systemic Solutions After the decision is made to start an intervention, a second important question presents itself. Is the problem the fault of a few bad seeds, a dispositional issue? Or is the problem entrenched in the work environment (that includes leadership who fostered past and cur rent bullies and will sustain new ones when personnel change)?When the preferred explanation is the offenders personality, solutions may include skillsbased training anger management or rehabilitative criticism mental health counseling, or executive coaching. Regardless of the selected solution, and even if the person gains insight, bullying will resume if the workplace to which she or he returns remains unchanged. Recidivism is predictable when bullying-prone work conditions are not turn to. For long-term success, the organization needs a new behavioral standard (policy, code of conduct) to which alleged(a) misconduct can be compared to determine whether or not a violation occurred.Procedures to enforce the standard must be created. Weak procedures predict failed anti-bullying initiatives. The rules must apply to everyone at all levels to be fair and credible. Executives must defer to the process to justify purging a friend for the good of the organization. Medium and large org anizations often establish one or more peer groups to serve various functions as internal resource experts, as peer fact finders for investigations, as trainers within the organization. Education throughout the organization publicly launches the commitment to a new way of doing usiness. The best interventions include healing activities for targeted workers and witnesses who have been vicariously traumatized. A hybrid approach is to first create the policy and procedures. Then, when a high-profile persons offense is confirmed as a violation, devise a personalized change program for her or him. Upon return to work, behavioral monitoring starts. Interviews of German consultants who specialize in workplace bullying (Saam, 2009) yielded three approaches were moderation/mediation, coaching, and organization growing (OD).Moderation is a clarification process to allow the parties to move beyond misunder- standings or misperceptions. intermediation refers to the traditional difference res olution process. Moderation/mediation works only when conflict does not escalate to a level for which only a power intervention is appropriate. Coaching necessarily develops solutions on a case-by-case basis. Coaching is support tactical, emotional, career development, personalized skills education and rehearsal. The organization development (OD) approach is the third intervention strategy.Culture change is its primary goal (Saam, 2009). From an OD perspective, the source of the bullying problems can be found in attributes of the organization the reporting relationships, layers in the hierarchy, transparency of decisionmaking processes, timeliness in responding to employee concerns, personal accountability for destructive interpersonal conduct, equitable processes that match rewards to performance, trust, reciprocated loyalty, clarity of roles, incorporation of collaborative processes, and performance expectations.An OD strategy sets new standards for doing things differently and altering performance-consequence contingencies. The OD consultant defines problems as systemic. Solutions must necessarily affect all people at all levels of the organization (Saam, 2009). The preferred tool of the OD bullying consultant is the proscription of bullying behavior via a new policy and accompanying set of enforcement procedures (Namie & Namie, 2009b).Based on her clinical practice with severe cases of bullying, Ferris (2004) contends similarly that helpful, responsive organizations do not see bullying as a merely personality issue to be solved by the parties through mediation. Instead, bullying is seen as an organizational problem that needs to be addressed through coaching for the bully, counseling, performance management, and policies that clearly define unacceptable conduct. Predicting supremacy We identify several factors to avoid failure, while increasing the likelihood of successful interventions if HR initiates contact with the consultant, insist on executive te am approval to move forward do not incorporate traditional conflict resolution strategies (mediation, arbitration) into the systemic program to address bullying (though informal, pre-complaint resolution processes can and should be crated) at the start, articulate how the prohibition of bullying will positively impact the delivery of services, quality of production i. e. will benefit the end user describe the engagement as proactive and preventive, resolve existent crises before launching the project clarify executive team roles sensation and acceptance, pledge of non-interference, authorization for policy writing group, commitment to participate in launch emphasize the seminal importance of implementation procedures over the policy alone policy and procedures are to apply to every employee at all levels, no exceptions Governing Board receives advance notice of project to schedule policy approval the internal champion/future policy director must have budget control inclu sion of unions, where present, is mandatory select a pool of employee-volunteers screened for compatibility to serve in one or more functions policy writing, internal resource experts, fact finding, training build-in continuity and succession of participants in the various groups responsible for sustaining the organizations commitment to the anti-bullying initiatives show window success stories in the media Persuasion Theory Applied to Employers Social judgment theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1968) is the theory most compatible with understanding the challenges posed by employers for activist-consultants.An ingratiating bully who spends years successfully cultivating a fawning relationship with an executive does so for the sake of self-protection. If the executive eventually learns that his friends tactics are undermining legitimate business interests, the executives interference will probably drive him to discount the complaint, accuse the complainant of troublemaking, and honour th e bond with the bully. Recall that according to SJT, anchored opinions linked to a persons self-identity are the least likely to change. The executives allegiance to the bully feels spontaneous to him. There is a high degree of ego involvement because it was the executives ego that the bully was stroking in Machiavellian fashion (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).The bully carefully cemented the bond over time. So, all critical opinions held by the executive about the bully fall well within the executive sponsors latitude of acceptance. Any disconfirming tell presented that the bully terrorizes peers and subordinates is rejected reflexively. The target reporting the mistreatment cannot believe the denial of facts. The executive cannot believe his beloved friend could be accused of heinous actions. Executive denial that bullying operates in the organization at all is grow in the same process. Consider the executives ego involvement in beliefs about the characteristics of the organizatio n for which he wishes to take credit.From analysts, shareholders and a toadyish inner circle of advisers, the executive only hears positive reports about operations.