Transcript Bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying

Bystander behaviour in the context
of workplace bullying:
The influence of workplace
friendship and managerialist HRM*
Premilla D’Cruz, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor, Organizational Behaviour,
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
*Please see D’Cruz & Noronha, Employee Relations, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2011 for the full length paper
The phenomenon of workplace
bullying
• Workplace bullying is defined as subtle
and/or obvious negative behaviours
embodying aggression, hostility, intimidation
and harm, characterized by repetition and
persistence, displayed by an individual
and/or group to another individual and/or
group at work in the context of an existing
or evolving unequal power relationship
(Adapted from Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf &
Cooper, 2011a; Hoel & Beale, 2006; Tracy,
Lutgen-Sandvik & Alberts, 2006).
• Interpersonal versus organizational levels
of analysis
• Other forms of harassment
Salient features
The essential hallmarks of workplace bullying
that distinguish it from other negative
workplace behaviours are:
• target orientation,
• persistence including frequency and
duration,
• escalation,
• harm,
• power disparity, and
• intent (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al,
2011a; Keashly & Harvey, 2004 & 2006;
Lewis et al, 2008; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2005;
Zapf & Einarsen, 2005).
Forms and manifestations
• Personal bullying - making insulting
remarks, excessive teasing, spreading
gossip or rumours, persistent criticism,
playing practical jokes and intimidation
• Work-related bullying - giving
unreasonable deadlines or unmanageable
workloads, excessive monitoring of work,
or assigning meaningless tasks or even no
tasks (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001)
Workplace bullying in India
• D’Cruz and Rayner’s (2010) survey
of the ITES-BPO (offshoringoutsourcing) sector using the WHS
(Bjorkqvist et al, 1992) highlighted
the presence of workplace bullying
• 94.6% respondents reported some
experience of bullying, though for
many it was not a frequent
experience
• 42.3% respondents were bullied
‘often’ and ‘very often’ (an incidence
higher than Scandinavian countries
but comparable with American and
Turkish rates), falling into mild and
moderate levels of severity
• Hierachical factors operated along
with co-bullying
The bystander study
• The parent study – hermeneutic
phenomenological (van Manen, 1998)
study of subjective experiences of
work of agents working in
international facing call centres in
Mumbai and Bangalore
• Evidence of interpersonal bullying
led to study of targets (D’Cruz &
Noronha, 2010) and bystanders
The relevance of bystanders
• The most important yet most
neglected group in the bullying
scenario
• Evidence from incidence studies,
studies of targets and experimental
studies of bystanders suggests
bystander heterogeneity, and
a critical role in influencing bullying
evolution and outcomes
Method
• Conversational interviews
• Sententious and selective thematic
analyses
• n = 17
• Core theme of ‘helpless helpfulness’
Sample features
• 11 women and 6 men (6 from Bangalore
and 6 from Mumbai) working as agents in
international facing call centres
• Age range 21 to 27 years
• Participants were in dyads or triads of
friends who knew each other and the
target closely – Each group worked in the
same organization, with group members
either belonging to the same team and/or
to the same process such that they
worked on the same call floor in the same
shift
• None were members of any unions
Helpless helpfulness
• Work context
• The primacy of friendship – going all
out
• The ascendance of the self – holding
back
Work context
• Hard HRM models couched in soft
terms managed via inclusivist and
exclusivist HR strategies and
socioideological controls
• Professional identity
• Compliance and commitment
• Dependence on employer
organization
Helpless helpfulness
• The primacy of friendship – going all
out
– Making sense of the situation
– Supporting targets
– Approaching bullies and HR
• The ascendance of the self – holding
back
– Facing negative consequences
– Adopting a covert stand
– Coming to terms
The primacy of friendship
•
We told her (target) that we had similar suspicions but maybe we
were wrong so better to observe more carefully. That way, we got
some time without upsetting her.
•
We decided that at least one of us should be with her (target) at all
times between calls, breaks, like that. She would feel better and he
(TL who was the bully) would think twice…But he didn’t always (think
twice).
•
We had been told time and again that the organization is there for
us, it cares for us…It was a mantra …whatever your problem, we will
solve it. So this situation seemed to fit right in.
•
One of us generally went with her (target) to the HR department.
Initially, it was because we had no idea of the people or the
procedures. Later, it was more so that she would feel comfortable.
Because the situation had become difficult by then, so being with
her was important. But we never met them (HR managers) directly –
it would have not given a good impression. Like they would think
she’s weak or it is unprofessional and it would have worsened things.
We felt good that we went with her but it was always that we
should do more.
The ascendance of the self
•
He (TL who was the bully) began to take it out on us. Because he
has the power. So he can manipulate our performance charts, mark
us down. And that means the end for us. We saw that happening
and we became careful. His plan worked.
•
All of us are in a precarious position. Because company is only
concerned with SLAs and revenues – they care for us about that
only. So any problem means you are alone. And if no superior wants
to help you, your team members also cannot. There are no options.
If friends help, they can be kicked out of the job. So employee wellbeing, professionalism – all this is humbug.
•
When I think back, it happened naturally, automatically. I just
withdrew in a way – held back, stayed far. I guess I was so afraid
of being victimized that keeping a low profile seemed the right thing
to do. Of course, I was there for her (target) but mostly outside
the office. I felt completely helpless at that point. I wanted to
protect her but that put me in the problem. So what to do? All
roads were closed.
•
She (target) was more concerned about us. It makes me feel small.
Here, we were darpoks (scared people) and she didn’t hold it against
us but worried about us.
•
I found it difficult to face him (target) at times…you know, to look
at him in the eye. Because I was not really helping him out. I guess
we would go overboard (in supporting the target) outside the office
to make up for what we should have actually done (to help him).
Discussion
• Addresses an important gap in the
literature though it is just a starting
point
• Undercores the relevance of workplace
relationships and managerial ideology
• Implications for further research –
exploration of workplace relationships
and retheorisation of Darley and Latane’s
(1968) bystander effect
• Implications for intervention –
appropriate crafting of bystander
intervention and training