Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Power must be accountable
- Andrew J Ashworth (12 April 2003)
-
Bullying v social competition
- malcolm weller (17 April 2003)
-
Workplace bullying
- Anonymous Person (17 April 2003)
-
Victims can be helped to help themselves
- Maggie Delauncey, c/o SDCVS, 42-46 Salt Lane, Salisbury SP1 1EG (26 April 2003)
-
Fundamental role of peer networks in the prevention of bullying and exclusion
- Marek H. Dominiczak (9 June 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Andrew J Ashworth, GP non-principal Bonhard House, Bo'ness, EH51 9RR
Send response to journal:
|
Even when bullies are identified by complaint from a victim, it is difficult, if not impossible to address the behaviour through disciplinary means. For the bullied junior, one powerful force to ensure compliance is the power of the bully as an inevitable referee in assessment or appointment processes. Since references are treated confidentially all parties (including the bully) are aware that the referee acts with unaccountable power during this process. To “escape” from the bully requires his or her assistance in the giving of an acceptable reference. Thus the confidentiality of the refereeing process that rests on the integrity of the referee may make a significant contribution to bullying behaviour. An oral reference that is inconsistent with a written reference might say more about the referee than the job applicant. In the NHS it would be relatively straightforward for all references received, including those given orally, to be recorded and forwarded via the recruiting HR department to the applicant’s HR department so that they might be reconciled with appraisal documentation. Honest referees would suffer no detriment, while those giving inaccurate references could be identified and coached (in the knowledge that they might be caught, bullies might even be deterred!).While it may be difficult to stop bullying, its extent could be reduced by increasing accountability over its levers of power. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
malcolm weller, Honorary Prof. Department of Health and Social Sciences, Miiddlesex Univ
Send response to journal:
|
Life can be viewed as an ethological competition in which everyone is competing for retention of their niche in the social hierarchy and for advancement. Those who slip a place or two are inevitably going to feel discomforted in some balancing proportion to the satisfaction of those who advance in consequence. The perception of bullying is an interaction between the actual events and the mental state of the recipient. As well as experiencing unhappiness and frustration, people can become clinically anxious and/or depressed. This can be because of bullying or for other reasons, which can make it difficult to disentangle cause and effect. If a person's perfomance is impaired because of pathological anxiety or depression they may well perceive the displeasure of others as an unreasonable response to their (temporary) impairment of effectiveness. Competing interests: Opinions written for both claimants and defendants in litigation. Cases pending |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anonymous Person Name and address supplied
Send response to journal:
|
I was bullied last year and at this point it still feels like a horrible, life-changing event. The interesting thing here is that I was bullied not by other doctors but by other members of a child psychiatry team, primarily social workers. This team had never previously worked with a full time doctor. Every move was scrutinised, every action reviewed. This was a team so dysfunctional that in the 6 months I was there, 5 of the 8 people I worked with resigned or transferred, claiming stress. When I approached doctors who were in a position to help, their response was for me to do a daily activity report with entries of what time I came and left, what I did, what time I took a lunch break, etc, etc. This only stopped when a representative of doctors in training approached the director and pointed out that this was illegal and inappropriate. I am an ethnic minority and female, and I still wonder if the same would have been done to a white male. The point of my letter is that bullying happens, and it doesn't have to be doctors responsible. The structure of modern mental health teams makes it possible for senior social workers and psychologist to bully a registrar, and the clinical director of the service chose to side with people he would have to work with for years, rather than a registrar who would move on in 6 months. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Maggie Delauncey, Acting Secretary Worms Can, c/o SDCVS, 42-46 Salt Lane, Salisbury SP1 1EG
Send response to journal:
|
Worms Can is a small but evolving support group,
originally set up to help colleagues in a local authority,
and we were very interested to read the article which
was passed to one member by her GP. We have been
closely involved in supporting people who have been
bullied in a variety of ways, some by individuals, others
by the highest levels of management using the
procedures of the organisation to bully and intimidate
employees. Examples of the five categories described
by Raynor and Hoelt can all be identified in the
methods the organisation uses against people.
We would like to endorse the point made in the article,
that communication between general practitioners and
occupational health doctors could do a lot to change
attitudes. In the case of this organisation, the external
occupational health team are well aware of the
enormity of the problem and seem to despair of ever
being able to do anything about it. All the GPs in the
area are also aware of the number of patients they have
whose health problems can be attributed to this one
employer. We feel very strongly that the way to resolve
these problems is to create a forum where they can be
dicussed openly. It is only in this way that people can
learn to recognise the effects that their behaviour can
have on others, and so modify the way they treat other
people.
It must be remembered that it is as difficult for people to
admit they are being bullied as it is to admit they are
bullies themselves, and very often, they are both. We
are particularly interested in helping people who are
resorting to bullying behaviour to understand what they
are doing, and how and why they are doing it. We try to
give sympathy, support and practical advice to anyone
who is bullied or bullying.
Our leaflet can be obtained by visiting our website
www.geocities.com/wormscan or requesting it by email
to wormscan@yahoo.co.uk, or writing to Worms Can
c/o Salisbury & District Council for Voluntary Services,
42 - 46 Salt Lane, Salisbury Wiltshire SP1 1EG
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Marek H. Dominiczak, Consultant Medical Humanities Unit, Gartnavel General Hospital Glasgow G12 0YN
Send response to journal:
|
I found your article on the silent epidemics of workplace bullying (1) very interesting. It struck me though that it treats bullying as a sort of one-to-one encounter between a perpetrator and a victim. As a result, it also places the onus of fighting bullying on the solitary victim, even if supported by well-wishing advocates. I believe that viewing bullying as a result of deviant group behaviour, rather than a conflict between individuals provides useful insight and may offer a conceptual framework for effective prevention. Bullying is not a freestanding phenomenon. It is known, for instance, that in schools increased supervision of playgrounds decreases its incidence (2) and that systemic rather than individualistic approach is necessary (3). Bullying in a workplace is influenced by power relationships within the group (hierarchical vs. egalitarian), by the degree of permissiveness in the existing power networks in an organization, and by accountability of those who are in power, or its lack. There are in fact two terms which are currently used in the context of aggression, harassment and exclusion at workplace: these are bullying, and less known mobbing (4). Bullying is a concept derived from social exclusion among schoolchildren (5). Mobbing, on the other hand describes a phenomenon in biology which involves ‘collective attacks on an individual animal, typically directed against the predator, but sometimes occurring within the same species’ (6). In psychology, it is a term applied to adult environment, and it was first used in description of outsiders in schools and in the military. Bullying, or mobbing, are abuse of social power. Therefore, it is useful to consider them in a perspective of power relationships within groups (7). Social power is defined as ‘individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ status by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments’. In the recent discussion (7) it was proposed that those who are in powerful position (the bosses) tend to act in a more disinhibited way (this applies to both positive and negative actions) than those with less power within a group (the subordinates). I believe that such disinhibited behavior may in certain circumstances manifest itself as bullying or mobbing. Disinhibition may be tempered by ‘the subordinates’, who afford respect and status to ‘the bosses’ on the basis of their behaviour. However, and this is bad news, a threat to the legitimacy of these in power (such as a formal complaint), tends to destabilize hierarchies. Therefore, it may elicit a self-protective response of an organization. This might be at least part of the reason why formal complaints from the less powerful (bullied or mobbed) individuals are not easy to succeed. There is abundant evidence that to win a case of bullying is an arduous task which in fact puts a lot of additional pressure on a victim. Such victim may in fact have to confront the whole power structure of an organization. This sometimes evokes the Erin Brockovich scenario, which is spectacular when successful, but such instances are rare. In any case, complaints and formal proceedings are attempts at late cure. The fundamental question is what are the best ways of prevention. I believe that the best prevention is to influence the organizational culture so that bullying or mobbing becomes unacceptable at its early stage. Nobody in his right mind would today turn the blind eye on sexual harassment or substance abuse. Bullying needs to move away from a grey zone, where it still resides and where too often it can be conveniently ignored. Both the bosses and the subordinates need to participate in preventive actions. The relative effectiveness of each of these groups would depend on the power structure of a particular organization, i.e. whether a group is hierarchical or egalitarian. In highly hierarchical groups the dominant role must be played by peers of the bullying individuals, loosely called the bosses. This is because in such structures the subordinate group may hesitate to act due to self-interest or an instinct for self-preservation. It is fundamentally important that members of networks to which bullies themselves belong are prepared to act at the first signs one of their members showing tendencies to bullying or mobbing. This could stop such behavior before official complaints threaten the image of the whole establishment and make fair assessment of the problem difficult. In more egalitarian groups with the so called smaller distance of power, the less powerful can exert effective restraining influence on the behavior of an emerging bully by withdrawing respect or status. However, changes in organizational culture are unlikely to happen by goodwill alone. There needs to be an educational effort and open discussion to enable recognition of unacceptable behaviour patterns. The author’s Medline search showed that, in relation to the health service, currently the nursing literature provides more information on bullying than the medical one. Finally, an important question is to what extent bullying or mobbing result from stress at work and defects in organizational structure (4). Bullying itself may be an instrument of personal dislike, but might also be related to organizational politics, particularly at times of tension. There are suggestions that mobbing may be more frequent in organizations with deficient structure or inappropriate assignment of tasks to individuals. All this means that identification of bullying behaviour should prompt an organization to examine its structure in this context, and to identify and change potential precipitating factors (4). Thus, to use medical analogy, current therapies for bullying are palliative. Of course, there need to be tough penalties in proven cases to act as a deterrent, and the individual victims need to be encouraged to act. However, uncompromising attitude by peer groups could be a very effective means of prevention. References 1. McAvoy BR, Murtagh J. Workplace bullying. The silent epidemics. Brit Med J 2003; 326: 776-7. 2. Siann, G, Callaghan M, Lockhart R, Rawson L. (1993). Bullying: teachers' views and school effects. Educational Studies, 19, 307-321. 3. Green S. Systemic vs.individualistic approaches to bullying. JAMA 2001;286:787-88. 4. Schuster, B. Rejection, exclusion, and harassment at work and in schools: an integration of results from research on mobbing, bullying, and peer rejection. European Psychologist 1996;1:293-317. 5. Olweus D. Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing 1978. 6. Atkinson S, Becker BL, Johanos TC, Pietraszek JR, Kuhn, BC. Reproductive morphology and status of female Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) fatally injured by adult male seals. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility1994:100, 225-230. 7. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review 2003:110:265-284. Competing interests: None declared |
|||