What is Workplace Bullying?
Bullying is a dehumanizing process that is all about power and control.
It’s abusive conduct that diminishes - and ultimately denies - the humanity of the other person. It targets an employee's character, dignity and integrity - not just as a professional, but as a human being.
And it causes profound health harm. The physical and psychological health harm the trauma from bullying causes is significantly worse than that due to rape, sexual harassment or assault. It's more akin to domestic violence, only the abuser is on the payroll and protected - even sponsored - by the organization.
Bruises and bones heal. The "rape of your character and identity" that bullying feels like can take months, or years, to heal.
It’s abusive conduct that diminishes - and ultimately denies - the humanity of the other person. It targets an employee's character, dignity and integrity - not just as a professional, but as a human being.
And it causes profound health harm. The physical and psychological health harm the trauma from bullying causes is significantly worse than that due to rape, sexual harassment or assault. It's more akin to domestic violence, only the abuser is on the payroll and protected - even sponsored - by the organization.
Bruises and bones heal. The "rape of your character and identity" that bullying feels like can take months, or years, to heal.
Bullying or Toxic?
All bullying makes a workplace toxic. But not all toxic work environments involve bullying.
A toxic workplace is one where there is no, or very low, psychological safety. There is psychological safety when we feel included, safe to learn, safe to contribute, and safe to challenge the status quo – all without fear of being embarrassed, marginalized, or punished in some way.
When this safety is absent, the environment may feel toxic. However the absence of safety is not usually due to a specific, tangible threat. The sense of threat is diffuse. No-one person is being singled out or targeted. But no-one feels safe either.
Bullying on the other hand is very targeted and specific. There is always a target to bullying. With bullying the sense of threat is real, specific and active. And it's personal - not generalized. There are actors (the abrasive and destructive leaders) and there are targets.
A toxic workplace is one where there is no, or very low, psychological safety. There is psychological safety when we feel included, safe to learn, safe to contribute, and safe to challenge the status quo – all without fear of being embarrassed, marginalized, or punished in some way.
When this safety is absent, the environment may feel toxic. However the absence of safety is not usually due to a specific, tangible threat. The sense of threat is diffuse. No-one person is being singled out or targeted. But no-one feels safe either.
Bullying on the other hand is very targeted and specific. There is always a target to bullying. With bullying the sense of threat is real, specific and active. And it's personal - not generalized. There are actors (the abrasive and destructive leaders) and there are targets.
Why does it happen?
Quite simply: because it can. Unless a workplace takes active steps to prevent and stop bullying, any organization is prone to it.
Silence, inaction and dismissing it as "personality conflict" are the breeding ground for bullying. Because unless the organization makes sure there are costs to bullying, the rewards of power and control will always drive bullying behaviour.
Silence, inaction and dismissing it as "personality conflict" are the breeding ground for bullying. Because unless the organization makes sure there are costs to bullying, the rewards of power and control will always drive bullying behaviour.
Who is targeted?
Decades of research has not found that there is ANY personality type that is more prone to being targeted. Anyone can be. What the research has found is that social and relational dynamics drive bullying.
Here's who is more likely to bullied:
In other words: it is people with heart, passion, a strong sense of integrity and moral fairness, people who are independent thinkers, people who are skilled and competent, who are most likely to be bullied. Because they pose some kind of threat to someone else's power and control and perceived sense of competence.
Here's who is more likely to bullied:
- People who are skilled and competent at their job
- People who speak out or challenge organizational dynamics, policies or procedures (particularly if they are calling out fairness and equity issues)
- People who expose corruption or wrongdoing
- People who speak out in the public interest
- People who are working for organizational change (particularly if that change is towards greater accountability, transparency, humanity and compassion)
- People who are somehow "different" from the cultural norm - they are cultural "outsiders" rather than cultural "insiders"
In other words: it is people with heart, passion, a strong sense of integrity and moral fairness, people who are independent thinkers, people who are skilled and competent, who are most likely to be bullied. Because they pose some kind of threat to someone else's power and control and perceived sense of competence.
And what about the people who bully?
It would be easy to say bullies are just bad people who maliciously hurt others and simply don't care. It absolutely feels this way to their targets.
But it's just not true.
Here's what we know about them:
So its more accurate to say that they are "insightless" and insecure - even if they don't think so. And they respond to perceived threats to their ego with psychological aggression. In contrast, confident, competent and secure people can tolerate challenges and respond calmly and respectfully.
Think of abrasive, bullying leaders as blind and deaf blamers. And no, the target can't make them see or hear. Because, by definition, the target is the problem - and therefore all complaints by them are meritless.
Only a third party - the organization, a skilled boss, a specialized coach - can make them see and hear.
But it's just not true.
Here's what we know about them:
- They perceive any challenge by other others as direct threats to their own sense of competence and professional survival.
- They defend against this perceived threat with aggression.
- They view their aggression as reasonable, even normal or expected, and necessary to achieve organizational goals.
- They might know they're perceived negatively - but blame others for those perceptions and deny that they're the source of the problem.
- They're entirely or minimally aware of just how destructive their behaviour is.
- If directly confronted with the impact of their behaviour they will claim victimhood or that they're now being bullied, and/or seek to "annihilate" the source of the threat.
- They have very little emotional intelligence and empathy - although they may be quite charming and very skilled at playing office politics.
- They're intensely ego-centric - they think everyone should see it as they do.
- They lack insight and self-awareness into what's driving their own aggression (their sense of inadequacy is typically deep-seated and unconscious).
So its more accurate to say that they are "insightless" and insecure - even if they don't think so. And they respond to perceived threats to their ego with psychological aggression. In contrast, confident, competent and secure people can tolerate challenges and respond calmly and respectfully.
Think of abrasive, bullying leaders as blind and deaf blamers. And no, the target can't make them see or hear. Because, by definition, the target is the problem - and therefore all complaints by them are meritless.
Only a third party - the organization, a skilled boss, a specialized coach - can make them see and hear.
But the target must have done something to cause this, right?
Yes. And no.
Yes - because the target(s) were simply doing their job to the best of their ability. That's it. That's all that they did to "cause" it.
And no - because...Well let me ask you: do you get up every morning looking forward to a day of being harassed, criticized, demeaned and humiliated? Do you keep thinking of all the ways you can provoke people into bullying you? Of course not! That's ridiculous. No-one gets up every day saying "oh goodie, how can I get myself bullied today?" Targets are not at fault. There is not something wrong with then. They did not cause this.
There's also something called fundamental attribution bias. This is our tendency to place blame on individuals, rather than on groups, or larger contexts, when bad things happen. So when bullying happens the fundamental attribution error leads us to explain what happened by looking for something wrong in the individual(s) - the person(s) doing the bullying, or their targets - rather than looking for problems at the organizational level.
Put simply: we routinely explain negative outcomes by looking for the bad apple in the barrel. The bully is a bad person. The victim is a weak person.
We don't see that it's the barrel itself that is rotten - and rotting many apples in the barrel.
Yes - because the target(s) were simply doing their job to the best of their ability. That's it. That's all that they did to "cause" it.
And no - because...Well let me ask you: do you get up every morning looking forward to a day of being harassed, criticized, demeaned and humiliated? Do you keep thinking of all the ways you can provoke people into bullying you? Of course not! That's ridiculous. No-one gets up every day saying "oh goodie, how can I get myself bullied today?" Targets are not at fault. There is not something wrong with then. They did not cause this.
There's also something called fundamental attribution bias. This is our tendency to place blame on individuals, rather than on groups, or larger contexts, when bad things happen. So when bullying happens the fundamental attribution error leads us to explain what happened by looking for something wrong in the individual(s) - the person(s) doing the bullying, or their targets - rather than looking for problems at the organizational level.
Put simply: we routinely explain negative outcomes by looking for the bad apple in the barrel. The bully is a bad person. The victim is a weak person.
We don't see that it's the barrel itself that is rotten - and rotting many apples in the barrel.
The role of the organization
Here's the real truth: bullies are not bad applies; their targets are not bad apples either. It is the barrel itself that is rotting the apples.
Most people are good people - targets and actors alike. We all believe ourselves to be good people. But most good people can - and all to often do - behave in bad, even appalling, ways given the right circumstances. And especially if they have poor or inappropriate coping skills to challenging circumstances.
And sadly too many organizations provide just the right circumstances to drive and sustain bullying. They:
Most people are good people - targets and actors alike. We all believe ourselves to be good people. But most good people can - and all to often do - behave in bad, even appalling, ways given the right circumstances. And especially if they have poor or inappropriate coping skills to challenging circumstances.
And sadly too many organizations provide just the right circumstances to drive and sustain bullying. They:
- Manage for technical work performance, not also interpersonal skills, and most certainly not for mindset.
- Are blind to the costs of interpersonal incompetence.
- Neither screen for, nor focus on development of, interpersonal skills and a positive, rather than negative, mindset.
- Put huge pressure on employees to perform.
- See employees are as costly resources there to generate profit. Not people: with hopes, dreams, lives and imperfections.
- Have a highly competitive environment - where promotions and/or resources (financial or human) are in short supply.
- Show in the day-to-day work that the real culture of the organization is "only the strong belong"; it's a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" where anyone who can't deal with abrasive leaders is too sensitive, a whiner and complainer.
- Reward or ignore interpersonal aggression - through promotions or denying the problem even exists.
- Throw training at the problem (if they even admit there is one) which doesn't solve it because the actors think "soft-skills" training is touchy-feely nonsense.
But if it's organizations, not people, what can be done ?
Lots!
Abrasive leaders can be coached - and completely turn-around their interpersonal style - without going through a "personality transplant" . But it takes specialized coaching - as the standard model of coaching will not break through their resistance and defensiveness.
Targets recover with the right support and coaching. They were stellar performers before the bullying began. They will be stellar performers again - either with an organization who addresses the bullying, or at another organization who creates a psychologically safe working environment.
Leadership teams can turn the entire situation into something that accelerates engagement and productivity. With coaching support they can navigate the complex issues of workplace bullying, and address the issues productively and constructively - so that organizational culture and value is enhanced, not eroded.
Abrasive leaders can be coached - and completely turn-around their interpersonal style - without going through a "personality transplant" . But it takes specialized coaching - as the standard model of coaching will not break through their resistance and defensiveness.
Targets recover with the right support and coaching. They were stellar performers before the bullying began. They will be stellar performers again - either with an organization who addresses the bullying, or at another organization who creates a psychologically safe working environment.
Leadership teams can turn the entire situation into something that accelerates engagement and productivity. With coaching support they can navigate the complex issues of workplace bullying, and address the issues productively and constructively - so that organizational culture and value is enhanced, not eroded.