Acas Policy Discussion Papers No 4, June 2006 Workplace bullying and harassment: building a culture of respect Reports charting an alarming Despite the majority of increase of bullying and organisations now operating The Acas Policy Discussion harassment have been an anti-bullying policy, there Papers series is designed widespread in the British media is evidence of a persistent gap to stimulate discussion during the past decade. Calls between policy and practice. and debate about key about bullying and harassment In a 2005 report by the employment relations to Acas’ own helpline in 2004/ campaigning forum ‘Opportunity issues. 05 numbered over 45,000, a Now’, 59 per cent of women disturbing statistic. Yet, despite managers and 74 per cent This Acas Policy Discussion the worrying indications that of male managers said that paper was written bullying and harassment are they felt ill-equipped to handle by Professor Duncan on the increase, many people instances of bullying and Lewis, Acas Professor of Workplace Futures at the remain unclear as to what harassment of women in their Business School of the these terms really mean. team. The report, based on a University of Glamorgan. The emergence of workplace survey of 800 line managers, bullying and harassment concluded that more training Special thanks are given as serious social and investment was required on to staff at the Cardiff organisational issues cannot be the part of organisations Acas office who gave questioned. Research evidence if managers were to deal their time to outline from across the globe indicates effectively with bullying and their experiences of that significant numbers of harassment issues. dealing with bullying the working population feel This Acas Policy Discussion and harassment with they are experiencing bullying Paper aims to offer clarity employers and employees. or harassment of one kind or and guidance so that we another. What is less clear is might better understand the We welcome your the legitimacy of these claims. complexities and ambiguities comments and opinions. This is because workplace of bullying and harassment, These should be sent bullying and harassment have to help improve the working to the authors c/o only risen to the fore and been environment for us all. It also [email protected] reported on in the last 10 years outlines Acas’ experience of or so. Researchers and policy dealing with these issues and makers are only now beginning examines: to understand the difference between genuine bullying and • definitions of workplace inappropriate behaviour. As bullying and harassment with any emerging field, there will be confusion before there • the legislative and policy is clarity. context • the extent of the problem in UK both unwanted acts. Key to understanding workplaces whether either bullying or harassment has occurred is not whether the conduct was • the individual and organisational impact intended on the part of the perpetrator, but of bullying and harassment whether it was unwanted on the part of the recipient. • the incidence of different forms of The other key difference between bullying negative behaviour, such as harassment and harassment, that the above definitions against minority ethnic groups and make clear, is that harassment is linked to a ‘upwards’ bullying personal characteristic of the recipient, and • the most effective prevention strategies therefore linked to anti-discrimination law in and this country. The terms used to describe bullying tend • the moral and business case for to vary between countries and studies. For effectively tackling bullying and example, in much of Europe ‘mobbing’ is harassment. used instead of bullying, while in the US the term bullying has only recently replaced the Defining bullying and harassment more general term ‘emotional abuse’. It has been suggested that focusing on There is considerable confusion about definitions is not that important. Rather, it is the similarities – and indeed differences the diversity of our knowledge that informs – between bullying and harassment. our thinking about bullying and harassment. While there is clear anti-discrimination Neatly bounded definitions of bullying and legislation covering, for example, race, sex harassment – that establish set margins and disability, bullying is far less clearly for behaviour – may prove unsatisfactory. defined. Acas defines bullying as ‘offensive, For example, some individuals could fail to intimidating, malicious or insulting qualify even though they have legitimate behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power grievances, while others may be forced to through means intended to undermine, shoehorn their own situation into the terms humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.’ of the definition. Acas’ definition of harassment is For example, one well used and broadly ‘unwanted conduct affecting the dignity of accepted definition of workplace bullying men and women in the workplace. It may be suggests that for bullying to count as related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, bullying, the experience must occur sexual orientation, nationality or any repeatedly and regularly over time, for personal characteristic of the individual, and example, six months. If such a boundary may be persistent or an isolated incident.’ was established in a policy document or The harassment definition makes clear definition, how would someone who had that an individual’s dignity is affected experienced bullying for four months feel? by harassing behaviour and that the Would their case be dismissed as failing to harassment is unwanted. While the definition qualify? Could they be forced into enduring of bullying does not express bullying as more bullying for a further eight weeks unwanted, it is taken for granted that no in order to comply with the accepted one desires bullying or that their dignity definition? It makes more sense for those is affected by bullying: the reality of both dealing with bullying and harassment to bullying and harassment is that they are have latitude in interpreting a definition. 2 What follows is therefore a broad set of preclude an individual from bringing forward principles and behaviour around which a their own grievance, nor should it prevent definition may be more helpfully constructed. managers from identifying examples of Workplace bullying is most often bullying and harassment. defined as the repeated, less favourable treatment of a person by another or The legislative context others in the workplace, which may be considered unreasonable and inappropriate Explaining the differences between workplace practice. Unreasonableness or bullying and harassment is difficult. In inappropriateness relate to actions that are many situations, the terms are used offensive, intimidating, humiliating, or that interchangeably although ‘bullying’ is more degrade, ridicule or insult an individual at widely used than harassment. work. Often – although not exclusively – these actions are carried out by managers or Bullying supervisors against their staff. Bullying and harassment tend to consist of negative acts The legislative context of workplace bullying that occur regularly and repeatedly. A good is difficult to interpret. As the legislation legal tenet to apply is ‘would a reasonable changes with regularity and case law sets person observing such behaviour see this as new precedents, it is wise to seek up-to-date bullying or harassment?’ advice from a legal source. Verbal actions generally regarded as Most people would agree that the law typifying workplace bullying include yelling, should encourage preventative measures to screaming, angry outbursts, name-calling, minimise occurrences of bullying at work, inappropriate comments about a person’s but there is no specific legal provision appearance, malicious teasing or being made protecting employees from bullying. We the brunt of pranks or practical jokes. Other would also expect the law to protect all bullying behaviour includes: employees and to recognise employers who take proactive steps to deal with bullying • excessive or harsh criticism of work or incidents as they arise. Similarly, we would abilities expect the law to provide aid to victims, including compensation or other entitlements • isolating employees from normal work if they have suffered from bullying in the interaction workplace. There is a range of statutes that can be • ignoring the person relied on in cases of bullying. For example, • deliberately withholding productive work the Employment Rights Act 1996 enables opportunities an employee to claim unfair constructive dismissal if the employer has failed to • assigning meaningless tasks maintain trust and confidence and has breached their employment contract. • undermining work performance The employer’s duty of care under health • devaluing work efforts and and safety law could also apply to cases of alleged bullying. As well as forming a • failure to give credit when due. common law duty, there is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. An employer could These descriptions of bullying allow for broad be civilly liable for damages if inadequate interpretation. Any definition should not steps have been taken to fulfil its duty 3 to an employee. In the worst cases, the • discrimination on grounds of race, sex, perpetrator of the bullying behaviour could disability, sexual orientation, religion, be criminally liable under the Public Order or other belief if employees believe that Act 1997 or the Protection from Harassment an employer has not dealt with their Act 1997. concerns • unfair constructive dismissal and/or Harassment Harassment, in its general interpretation, • criminal penalties for intentional tends to be applied to front line employees harassment. such as hospital or social services workers From an employer’s perspective it is clear who are experiencing unwanted attention that, to avoid legal actions, a preventative from members of the public. In its strategy is the best course of action. more specific interpretation, it refers to discriminatory behaviour, for example, of a sexual or racial nature. It is important Why does bullying occur? to understand that in an employment There are many possible answers to this law context, harassment only applies to question. Research evidence is varied and behaviours that are covered by the various typically focuses on one of three different strands of anti-discrimination legislation. areas: people who have been traumatised A key development has been the UK’s by their experience of being bullied at work, adoption of the Equal Treatment Amendment the exploration of workplace bullying within Directive (2002/73). This directive a working population, or the use of incidence has effectively altered the 1975 Sex studies. Discrimination Act to allow ‘free standing’ There is significant evidence indicating harassment claims, bringing the provision that the speed of organisational change into line with the other anti-discrimination is a contributory factor in the incidence strands. From October 2006, of course, of bullying and harassment. Today, the new legal definition of, and remedy for, organisations have to cope with the harassment will also apply to age. demands of a rapidly changing and Employers are liable for actions of their competitive environment that in turn can employees who commit bullying and lead to pressures in how they manage staff. harassment unless reasonable steps have Employers also have to adapt quickly to been taken to prevent it – this is known a vast range of challenges exacerbated by as vicarious liability. Action could still be globalisation, for example, the pressure taken against an employer even though an of technological change, the need for employee has left the organisation. Equally, corporate social responsibility and enhanced action could be taken against an employer ethical practice, and fluctuating economic for behaviour of third parties such as clients conditions. In an environment of constant or customers when these parties are under restructuring, the result can be a decline in the control of the employer. staff morale. All these factors increase the An employer who does not take reasonable pressure on both managers and employees steps to prevent bullying and harassment and set the scene for an environment in of an employee could therefore be liable for which workplace bullying may proliferate. any of the following: Organisational pressures such as • a breach of duty of care to provide a safe these might encourage the development and healthy working environment of cultures where the achievement of 4 organisational goals justifies the means. behaviours associated with bullying than is Where such a culture develops, managers reported. This evidence also means that the may be predisposed or forced to use label of bullying may act as a barrier to our whatever means are at their disposal understanding of the phenomenon. We will to organise their human resources. This return to this later. process might create an environment of While a number of studies among different perceived bullying. working populations have been conducted Change puts pressure on the way people in the UK, there appears to be no research surveying the workforce economy-wide. relate to each other. This pressure can result There is therefore no reliable estimate in inappropriate behaviour and perceptions of the overall number of UK employees of, or actual, bullying. experiencing workplace bullying. This is A small number of research psychologists because UK surveys of bullying are mere have argued that personalities of both bully snapshots based on individual employers, and victim help to inform our understanding. particular professions, specific sectors or It has been suggested that those who are trade union memberships. seen to be the perpetrators of bullying have Evidence from the Acas helpline in limited social skills, are autocratic, have 2004/05 showed that most calls about poor communication skills, or enjoy hurting bullying were from employees rather than others. Conversely, it has been suggested employers, and that most callers were that targets or victims of bullying are women. The majority of calls were from vulnerable or are not strong enough to resist people aged over 35 and minority ethnic the bullying. groups were over-represented in the calls Far from a few dysfunctional individuals made. The public sector was represented being responsible for the phenomenon, more than the private sector in calls to the the contributory factors can actually be helpline. many and varied. They might include organisational culture, management style, Individual impact performance expectations, inadequate staffing levels and a lack of mutual trust There are many studies quantifying the within the employment relationship. effects of workplace bullying on those people who experience it. Researchers of How many people experience bullying workplace bullying have described a range of at work? health effects caused by workplace bullying. Psychological effects such as severe stress On an international level, the research symptoms or anxiety, panic attacks, sleep indicates that between 5 per cent and disturbances, concentration difficulties, 50 per cent of employees will experience mistakes and accidents at work, smoking, bullying at some time in their working excessive drinking, and overeating have lives. More time-specific analysis indicates all been reported. International health that between 10 per cent and 20 per cent authorities report physiological effects of employees report feeling bullied at any contributing to raised blood pressure one time. It is important to note that, in and heart disease, reduced resistance to some studies, employees recognised that infection, stomach and bowel problems, they were suffering the negative acts that skin problems, fear or anxiety or depression constitute bullying but did not subsequently leading to suicide, and severe loss of label themselves as being bullied. This confidence and self-esteem. Studies have finding requires further research but, if shown that medical support or professional shown to be commonplace, would mean that counselling are often needed to deal with the many more people experience the negative symptoms resulting from bullying. 5 It is important to understand that the international research studies. There are impact of bullying is not confined to the also similar productivity effects on co- person on the receiving end. Colleagues workers who witness bullying. For example, who witness the negative behaviour can be in the case of staff who have resigned prone to health and emotional effects, and because of bullying, a realistic estimate domestic relationships with partner or family of lost productivity costs should also can also be affected. include the initially lower efficiency level Unfortunately, symptoms tend to persist of replacement employees until they reach over long periods: in some cases, the the same standard of performance as those psychological experience of bullying can they replaced. This also applies, although last many years after the bullying has to a lesser extent, to situations where the ceased. For example, one overseas study person who has experienced the bullying reported that three-quarters of people who transfers to a new position within the same experienced long-term bullying showed organisation. symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder Lost opportunity costs also need to (PTSD), including 65 per cent of people be identified. These exist where people where the actual bullying had ceased five who experience bullying do not take years previously. The individual cost is often up training or promotion opportunities, immeasurable. or become inflexible about working hours or arrangements that in turn The organisational impact reduce organisational opportunities and productivity. The potential loss of employee It is very difficult to come up with an innovation and creativity can be hard to accurate picture of organisational costs. quantify but can have a serious effect on From existing research it has been missed company growth and profits. established that direct economic effects, The negative impact on employee such as the cost of paid sick leave relations and on customer and client and replacing staff, and the legal and relationships also needs to be considered. compensation outlay arising from complaints Corporate reputation can be seriously and grievances, are significant. European damaged in high-profile litigious cases, with estimates put the cost at between £18,000 the resultant impact on shareholders and to £60,000 per case in Sweden and other key stakeholders. In the modern, £30,000 per case in the UK. One of the media-intensive gaze of society, corporate limitations of such studies is that they tend social responsibility (CSR) extends beyond to be restricted to those impacts readily glib claims of corporate-social harmony identifiable such as related absenteeism, to include the very real issue of internal staff turnover, lost productivity, investigation stakeholder wellbeing. Bullying at work time, local management time, and the time therefore counts as a very real cost to good spent by other employees such as welfare CSR practice. officers and senior managers. These cost estimates are likely to be conservative. Minority ethnic groups and bullying Investment in any Employee Assistance Programme and occupational health costs Evidence from a very recent report on are often significant but concealed, for stress, health and ethnicity for the Health example. and Safety Executive (HSE) found that racial Other productivity effects such as reduced discrimination, especially when combined work output, impaired decision making, with gender, is a significant influence on reduced quality and increased wastage stress at work. In a broader social sense, through errors have all been reported in UK society continues to evidence higher 6 crime rates for some minority ethnic groups, The Secret Policeman, showed determined lower employment opportunities and high attempts to bully one member of staff, from economic inactivity in some households. a minority ethnic background, out of the Broad social and economic figures such as force. It is not difficult to see how anyone these demonstrate significant disadvantage from a minority group who is working in for minority ethnic peoples. This section such a culture could become easy prey for therefore casts the spotlight on this one the workplace bully. area of discrimination to provide some insight into the incidence and experience Should we separate bullying from of racial harassment, while bearing in mind racism? that harassment covers all those groups covered by the various strands of UK anti- There is limited research exploring the discrimination law. link between bullying and racism. We do Institutional racism within some UK not definitively know, in all cases, whether organisations has been shown to continue to people who are bullied at work are being exist. For example, the Macpherson report bullied because of their personality, their into the Stephen Lawrence inquiry revealed race, their disability or their gender. More clear evidence of institutional racism within research is needed to explore the underlying the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The reasons for the inappropriate behaviour. Commission for Racial Equality (CRE 2003) The existing research indicates that indicated that institutional racism also stigmatised individuals exist because of both existed in the Prison Service following the bullying and persistent racism. Whether murder of Zahid Mubarek. Yet, despite such such stigmas are caused by racism first and evidence, research into workplace bullying bullying – or indeed harassment – second, against ethnic minority groups is in its or bullying first and race second, is in infancy. one sense irrelevant. What should be of Few studies have concentrated on primary concern is the abolition of negative bullying and ethnicity directly, although behaviour, regardless of the labels applied. secondary analysis has demonstrated that A glance at the research evidence may specific problems exist for minority ethnic help to uncover the extent to which racism employees. For example, a study of a plays a role in bullying behaviour. In a regional UK Fire Service revealed bullying to recent study conducted in South Wales be endemic, partly because of the culture among public sector workers, less than one of the service but also because of ‘white in 10 (9 per cent) of white respondents said male dominance’. It was argued that such that they had experienced bullying, while a culture had a negative influence on both over a third (35 per cent) of minority ethnic gender and race issues. The research respondents said that they had been bullied. demonstrated how initiation ceremonies The research also revealed that minority might be misconstrued as hostile or isolating ethnic individuals experienced more bullying rather than as a universally applied ritual. from line managers as the perpetrator group The conditional unwritten rule of having to compared to their white colleagues. This ‘fit-in’ appears to be a major cultural barrier was the most evident in negative behaviours inside many organisations. such as demeaning work, continued criticism We know from undercover TV reporting of and exclusion. Equally startling was the some UK police forces that both new recruits finding that peer-to-peer bullying – for and other employees hold discriminatory example, being patronised or belittled – was beliefs. The 2004 documentary by the BBC, three to five times more likely to be reported 7 by minority ethnic employees compared to of people is prohibited. If such behaviour white employees. is detected, it needs to be dealt with These survey results, although gathered swiftly, consistently, and in accordance with in one region, demonstrate that minority well-developed policies that address the ethnic employees suffer consistently problem. Swift justice will help to prevent higher levels of bullying compared to their or limit future occurrences. Any workplace white colleagues. What is not discernable anti-bullying policy should also outline the from this study is whether the bullying positive behaviours that are expected of occurred directly because of racist attitudes. staff. Nevertheless, the high incidence of reported The Welsh research also makes clear that bullying by minority ethnic groups points to standardised intervention strategies for the need for more research in this area. dealing with bullying are unlikely to work. If the evidence indicates that managers Fostering a culture of respect and peers are more likely to bully minority ethnic groups than white employees, training With the caveat of further research being and intervention strategies require careful needed to verify the emerging evidence of targeting. Management training for this area a higher level of bullying against black and will need to be distinct from other training minority ethnic groups, the fact remains that programmes. disadvantage at work exists, or is perceived With the UK and much of Western Europe to exist, among minority ethnic employees. facing continued labour shortages in some This finding also appears to be borne out by sectors, such as nursing and education, the higher proportion of calls by people from and recruitment difficulties in others such minority ethnic groups to the Acas helpline. as catering, hotels and tourism, we are It is important to note that, while the increasingly reliant on non-UK labour South Wales study focused on bullying and sources. Our reliance on global labour will ethnicity, we should not lose sight of the force us all to consider the implication importance of other forms of ‘difference’, of ‘difference’ at work and in society. An whether this is the result of disability, organisation’s competitive advantage rarely gender, sexual orientation or any other form comes from equipment or machinery. Rather, of harassment. it arises from the quality, productivity, The research indicates that organisational efficiency and effectiveness of its staff in culture is a good starting point to dealing with customers, suppliers, other understand the roots and incidence of some stakeholders and with each other. Instead types of bullying and harassment. While of seeing difference as a source for attack, being notoriously difficult to understand we should see difference as a foundation and research, organisational culture of opportunity and competitive success. We locates many prejudices. If cultures and should not discriminate, full stop. sub-cultures exist between managers and employees, or between peers that encourage Understanding the routes that bullying bullying of any minority group, this seriously can take disadvantages all employees. It also means that managers specifically, Research conducted in the UK in 2000 and all employees more generally, have revealed that supervisors and managers a responsibility to develop a workplace are increasingly vulnerable to workplace culture where inappropriate behaviour bullying. In today’s leaner organisations, is not tolerated. It should be made clear supervisory positions are scarcer and there that behaviours associated with workplace is therefore greater competition for such bullying and the discriminatory mistreatment positions. Furthermore, roles have been 8 enlarged and supervisors tend to be more It is increasingly reported that managers feel vulnerable because of the intensity of vulnerable to inappropriate claims of bullying change processes. by those staff who are unwilling to accept In a 2005 study sponsored by Acas, performance targets, negative performance UNISON and the Chartered Management appraisals or personal improvement plans. Institute, well over a third (39 per cent) Staff members may use such environs of managers reported being bullied in the to ‘get back’ at the manager by accusing last three years with managers across all them of being a bully. In upwards bullying, grades experiencing such behaviour. Middle it appears that any personal adversity managers formed the group with the highest or hindrance is followed by a search for incidence of being bullied, and the sources someone or something to blame, rather than of such behaviour were not only hierarchical. accountability for one’s actions. Bullying by junior colleagues was reported, There can be a very thin line between for example, as was bullying by customers bullying and firm management. Managers or clients. have a legitimate right to manage and set Many more managers are now responsible realistic performance objectives, and raise for aspects of people management than poor performance with team members. The was the case two decades ago. Appraisals, key point is the manner in which managers training, recruitment and selection, raise and communicate poor performance performance management and other HR issues: for example, an open and inclusive processes are increasingly the domain of management style can do far more to the manager. These tasks, coupled with encourage better performance than an tight budgetary constraints, can make the authoritarian management style. management role a highly pressured one. The routes of bullying do not necessarily One of the main reasons for the existence follow a vertical line either upwards or of bullying relates to power and the abuse of downwards. As the Welsh research on it. For some time, it has been reported that bullying and minority ethnic employees most bullying in organisations is caused by shows, peer-to-peer bullying also exists. managers who abuse their power because While bullying by managers towards of the status they hold. While this is both subordinates is still the most common form straightforward to understand and helps to of bullying, the upwards and horizontal explain the phenomenon of bullying, it is forms are becoming more recognised and only one piece of the jigsaw. Power is both need to be dealt with just as firmly. It has formal and informal. It is formal because of been suggested that, if an organisation does officially appointed roles, and it is informal not treat the claims of those who experience because of associations with a person’s workplace bullying seriously, and deal with influence, or a person’s knowledge and the situation carefully and quickly, it is experience, or because of another person’s colluding with the perpetrator. Whatever the vulnerabilities or lack of power. The potential source of the negative behaviour, prompt therefore exists for those in informal action is essential. positions of power to perpetrate workplace bullying against those in formal positions of A preventative policy power, such as a supervisor or manager. Legitimate management authority applied As indicated above, there appears to be in performance management or appraisal a close correlation between the growth in scenarios is fertile ground for false claims case law on bullying and harassment and of bullying. Fear of being branded can make an increase in policy development in the some line managers cautious about tackling area. The late 1990s saw a rush in policy performance or capability issues. writing by employers and trades unions as 9 they struggled to have in place preventative • the positive behaviours that are expected measures to tackle bullying and harassment. of employees Numerous policies are to be found on organisational websites and most follow a • how harassment and bullying are covered standard format. But are they appropriate? by existing legislation One of the fundamental problems of policies • some reference to the organisation’s is that they focus on the negative alone: for commitment to recent legislative changes example, outlining negative behaviours and on race equality (in statute from April actions and advising how they will be dealt 2006) with. This policy discussion paper advocates the more positive stance of developing a • procedural details, including timescales Dignity at Work policy, as indeed a number and formal and informal processes of employers and trade unions have done. Perhaps we should turn our attention to the • a contact name and secondary name to 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights cover the possibility that such contacts where article 1 states: may be themselves accused of bullying “All Human Beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed • statements on fairness of process, with reason and conscience and should appeals, guidance and support and act towards one another in a spirit of • how this policy fits into wider statements brotherhood”. of values, ethical conduct and corporate Construction of a policy around a set of social responsibility practices. positive behaviour principles like these could These central policy components are a help to promote standards to be upheld that minimum and not a maximum. A positive reinforce the organisation’s expectations. approach, that allows for proactive Failure to uphold these standards would then mechanisms to implement the policy, should have consequences for those who fail to also be incorporated. Regular review should meet them. be a key feature of any organisational policy. Induction and training are also key Policy framework forums to help prevent bullying, and a good opportunity to promote the employer’s The law, as it stands, requires positive expectations for good conduct. There are action from employers and it is essential several factors that can contribute to the that a policy on bullying and/or harassment, success of any such initiatives, for example: however named, should include the following: • the active support of senior management • a glossary of terms and what they mean • appointing a senior HR and trade union/ works council representative to have • examples of negative behaviours that direct input may constitute bullying and harassment (also making clear that the list is not • training those with specific responsibilities exhaustive) within the policy and • a clear statement that the behaviours • regular review of complaints and outlined will not be tolerated and if grievances to observe patterns of proven, could result in dismissal behaviour that may lead on to bullying or harassment. 10