Giving bullies the flick

Last year, one in every three people in Japan who consulted the Labor Standards Bureau about being pressed to resign complained of emotional problems. According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, over 30% cited harassment at the workplace as a cause of their mental anguish.

Although no recent workplace bullying statistics were available for Singapore’s employees, there is reason to believe that threatening, intimidation and “power harassment” – whereby someone in a superior position takes advantage of their power to cause distress to others – is just as prevalent here. In informal conversations with working Singaporeans from every demographic, across industries, workplace politics are a popular topic, usually involving the harassment or betrayal of one colleague to advance another’s career.

HR is aware that workplace bullying is not to be taken lightly but the conflicts that arise from such situations can be delicate and complex. Those in positions of power have risen there because of high performance. Employers are known to turn the other cheek when a high performing employee is not practicing the right social behaviours because they are still excelling as far as the balance sheet is concerned.

But this attitude is short-sighted. The financial impact of workplace bullying is major, not to mention the effects on health and morale. Studies which have tried to quantify the costs of bullying found that companies can lose millions from health coverage, litigation fees, lost productivity and the hiring of outside consultants to manage conflicts.

Mark Powell, Regional Manager, Talent2, believes that one of HR’s tasks is to rectify attitudes towards performance in order to curb bullies. Performance in the corporate environment is perceived only in one dimension, and the resulting assumption is that an employee who does well at his job also practices the appropriate social graces. However, workplace bullies are discerning. They know who to charm and who to treat poorly.

Powell thinks HR needs to change the way power is rewarded to ensure that people take a more holistic approach to performance. “The linear thinking must go. HR has to see things as ecology, a big unification,” says Powell. This requires a revised definition of what it means to excel. HR should instill the notion that employees’ behaviour and interactions with colleagues are as much indicators of performance as their project work and reports. Managers should know that they are not only evaluated for the way they treat their superiors and their equals, but also how they relate to the people working for them.

The current mindset in most organisations is that high performance leads to power. Those who do well are rewarded with promotions. Powell says there is nothing wrong with this system as long as employees realise that power is not the sole driving factor. “When power becomes the objective, then bullies will go for it,” he explains. Organisations see a spike in bullying cases when there is competition for career advancements because some employees will intimidate others in order to secure a promotion.

Such situations and gaps in systems will allow the aggressors to thrive but individuals’ emotional intelligence also plays a part in creating a bully. Powell says this is especially common in people who skyrocket through the ranks between ages 28-38. On this accelerated career track, they haven’t had the chance to pause and experience the life lessons which teach people how to relate to others. “They behave appallingly in the absence of that,” Powell says.

Definitions

In all fairness, the problem with identifying workplace bullying cannot only be attributed to HR’s neglect. Victims of workplace bullying are not always vocal about their plight, unwittingly setting themselves up for more harassment. Some attempt in vain to communicate their conflicts and leave the organisation thinking they are the ones to blame.

This happens largely because defining workplace bullying is such a challenge.

Few employees will readily admit to being bullied. Academics say this reluctance may have something to do with the connotations of the word itself. We associate bullying with the menacing image of a large kid on the playground demanding pocket money from a hapless smaller child. No adult wants to identify with that quivering victim.

These caricatures also present a problem when HR has to identify bullies. The profile of an adult bully doesn’t usually match the childhood model – rarely is the workplace tyrant a brute who shouts and pushes people around. Like most adult behaviours, the act of threatening takes a more insidious form. The definition of a bully as we know it fits into such a narrow context that the bullies themselves do not apply it to their behaviours.

The workplace bully might make snide or passive aggressive comments about other workers’ abilities. They might evade responsibilities and force others to pick up the slack to avoid receiving poor evaluations on a team project. To keep workers from challenging them, they might insinuate that they have more authority in deciding promotions and salary increments.

The list of typical workplace bully behaviours can stretch on because bullies seek opportunities in vulnerable environments. Prevention is where HR plays its most important role. If HR takes steps to ensure its organisation is a bully-free zone, these individuals will feel out of place.

An anti-bullying policy should exist in every organisation, and it should be emphasised during new staff orientation and feedback sessions. Most employers think their harassment and discrimination codes should send across the message that reprehensible behaviour is unacceptable, but these are not enough. Workplace bully victims say that while bullying contains elements of harassment and discrimination, it is in a category on its own and HR should treat it as such.

This isn’t to say that HR should rush to the handbooks and revise the policies. The addition of a clause which makes specific mention of bullying will send across the message that these actions are not welcome in the organisation. For example, Clarion Singapore has a line in its Compliance Activities and Policy which states: “We shall shall also never infringe upon human rights by bullying or harassing.”

But HR’s job doesn’t end here. It must assert and affirm this policy in person. If HR explains the bullying through hypothetical examples employees will recognise these behaviours if they surface. Potential bullies and victims will also see the gravity of the situation if HR clearly states the consequences – both personal, such as mental anguish and low morale, and disciplinary, like suspension or termination.

This is just what Elizabeth-Anne Williams did. The Director, Sefton Park Palm House Preservation Trust, told a UK employment magazine that an anti-bullying policy helped to build on the organisation’s culture of open communication. Examples were helpful in reminding employees that even banter and teasing could cross the line. “We wanted to highlight the less obvious forms such as circulating offensive jokes and consistently setting unachievable deadlines.”

Williams believes staff will have faith in an anti-bullying policy if HR makes it more than just a document. Team meetings and individual discussions made sure staff understood the principles and procedures involved. HR also developed a simple flow chart to show the lines of reporting and procedures at a glance.

If an employer suspects it already has a bully in the office, it is their duty to intervene immediately. HR cannot take sides or advocate for the victim before all details are laid bare, so tactful communication strategies are needed. The services of a mediator may come in handy to determine the source of the conflict.

If it is indeed a workplace bullying situation, the bully should face disciplinary consequences and/or counseling to ensure this behaviour does not occur again. Not forgetting the victim, HR should arrange for counseling and feedback sessions for this person as well. Through these actions, HR must establish and reinforce its role as neutral parties with no agenda or self-serving strategies.