How can organisations prevent bullying in the workplace? And how should they deal with it if it happens?
Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business, management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
This week is anti bullying week and while the media has focused on the plight of children who are bullied at school, the unfortunate fact is that bullying behaviour doesn't stop after GCSEs.
Unison estimate up to five million workers are bullied at work each year and developments in technology have meant that 'cyber bullying' is on the increase. A survey of over 1000 employees found that one in five had been bullied by e-mail, and one in twenty by text message.
From a psychological view point this isn't surprising. Research shows that people are more likely to lie, be rude and aggressive when they are on the phone versus being face to face - there is more distance and greater anonymity. In cyber space the distance and anonymity is increased further; bullies can't see or hear the distress of their victims, nor gauge the impact of their actions.
In addition, the technology involved in cyber bullying means that the impact on the victim can be much greater than more traditional forms of bullying:
The speed and ease with which we can communicate with a large number of people means that the bully's message can be delivered to devastating effect. For example, in one company a revealing photograph of a worker was circulated to all its staff via e-mail; this just simply wouldn't have been possible in most organisations 25 years ago.
The blurry lines between home and work created by social networking sites, phones and blackberries mean that people can easily be reached when not physically at work.
However, technology also presents an opportunity to the victims of bullying for increased control; e-mails, texts and web posts can all be saved and documented, as evidence in cases of bullying. On social networking sites such as Facebook, there are options to report abuse, delete inappropriate comments and block individual's access.
We need to ensure that these technological advancements are working for victims of bullying, rather than against them. For business, this means understanding cyber bullying, having a clear plan for addressing it and being willing to take action. This won't necessarily be easy; with the blurred boundaries of home and work, this will involve some difficult conversations about where organisational involvement should start and end. But if we don't take action bullying will continue to plague peoples' lives.
Anton du Beke, one of the Strictly Come Dancing professionals, is coming under heavy criticism this week after he called his partner on the show, Laila Rouass, a "Paki" . Du Beke had already said sorry to the actress and she had accepted but when the story hit the press he felt compelled to issue a public apology for his insensitivity. Despite this the BBC is under pressure in some quarters to make an example of the former steel worker and to dismiss him.
By any standards, professional dancing is an unusual occupation where many of the conventions of working life don't really apply. It is highly competitive, demands high levels of fitness and requires a degree of physical contact which would not be tolerated in any work place. Dance partners must understand and trust one another and be able to comment freely upon each other's performance honestly and frankly. It is not difficult to imagine conversations occurring that would never be countenanced by many of us where we work. It is clear, given Rouass's response, that on this occasion the normally debonair and suave Du Beke over stepped the mark. But then again, don't we all on occasion? The key to this is his acknowledgement that he made an error from which he has learnt and hopefully he won't make the same mistake again.
Those who defend him by saying it was only a joke (oh dear, Brucie) miss the point because it clearly upset Du Beke's dance partner and issues of race and colour are highly charged at the best of times. Those who demand his head however, clearly don't believe in letting people learn from their mistakes.
This was all sorted out effectively and swiftly by the pair of them. This is strictly none of our business.
Forget the credit crunch and think more logic crunch. The credit crunch is a global phenomenon that only the least charitable can blame solely on the Government. The new Single Equality Bill is another matter entirely.
One of the measures it puts forward is allowing employers to pick someone from an under-represented group when they have the choice between two or more candidates who are equally suitable. This they term 'Positive Action' and by doing so have re-defined what Positive Action means. This I would define as discrimination, pure and simple.
I have two strong objections to their proposal:
I design selection processes for organizations that will select the best candidate. They work exactly because I can identify the best candidate for each position. They wouldn't be happy if I came up with a list of several and said, ‘here you go, these all seem ok, choose the one you need to meet your equality targets'.
The ‘Positive Action' proposed in this Act is not fair. The one binding theme of all the equality legislation to date has been its underlying fairness. In this way it has created an inclusive approach to the treatment of individuals that we can all buy into, regardless of our demographic make-up. However, this new proposal sounds way too biblical for my liking with its approach of ‘an eye for an eye' or ‘past discrimination for one group perfectly justifies future discrimination of another'. How on earth does the Government think this is going to lead to happier organisations where people are treated fairly? This is a huge step backwards and plays directly into the hands of equality and diversity skeptics.
I would ask the Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman, the Minister responsible for this Bill to rethink it. Perhaps putting herself in the position of someone giving feedback to an unsuccessful candidate might help? Maybe her conversation would go something like this:
HH: I'm afraid you were unsuccessful in this application process. Candidate: I thought I was a strong candidate. Do you have any feedback? HH: You were very strong in some areas, especially your ability to influence and communicate. Candidate: But I didn't get the role. Do you have any negative feedback for me? HH: Well, not really... the real issue is that you are male... Candidate: So from a development perspective, is there anything I can do about that?
As you can see, this approach makes a complete mockery of effective selection processes. You need to discriminate in terms of performance so that you don't have to discriminate on the grounds of ethnicity, gender or any other group membership. If only the Government could see this.
BBC's new talent show, 'I'd do anything' has attracted criticism for being an extended advertisement for the new production of the musical 'Oliver' but could it also be revealing prejudices in the voting public?
The show has a number of musical actresses who are all competing for the opportunity to be the new Nancy; there are ten actresses in total and each week they perform a song which is firstly critiqued by a panel and then by Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber. The viewing public then vote for the woman they would like to see remain in the show. The bottom two sing once more and Lord Webber decides who will remain.
There were two black performers in the show. In week two both were voted in the bottom two and had to sing off against each other. Lord Webber said that this was not a fair result based on the performances, but one had to go.
Week three saw the remaining black woman Keisha in the bottom two again despite the panel and Lord Webber deeming her to be better than some others. Last week she was in the bottom three.
Does this reveal the racial bias in the viewers? Well on the surface you might argue yes, but it might not be as straightforward as that.
Do we really think of any of the main characters being anything other than white?
The images that come to my mind of Oliver Twist are based on old photographs and classic black and white movies. I didn't associate any of the above with black people. The same will be true of Nancy.
The celebrity panel and Lord Webber very admirably stick to their task of picking out talent. Lord Webber attempted, at the start of week three's programme, to remind viewers to judge the performances in the same vein. He referred to not judging people on whether they are from England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland, but on the way they perform. This instruction, worthy as it was, did not work in week two and hasn't been repeated since
Colour is one of the most identifiable features we have and our brains register someone's ethnicity almost before anything else. The association we make between Nancy and a white woman is so strong that we can't cast it off. The Lord needs to keep reminding us though on what we should be judging the women on but Keisha unfortunately will continue to have a rough ride unless she puts in some truly exceptional performances. This is probably the experience of many ethnic minorities struggling for recognition of their talent in a lot of organisations.
Feed
This week is anti bullying week and while the media has focused on the plight of children who are bullied at school, the unfortunate fact is that bullying behaviour doesn't stop after GCSEs.