Workplace Bullying Activists

Gary Namie, PhD, Ruth Namie, PhD & Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, PhD In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. barrel maker (Eds. ) body of stimulate blustering(a) Development in Theory, Research and Practice (2nd edition). London Taylor & Francis 2009, in press Ch to each unitaryenging oeuvre gooning in the USA A communication and Activist Perspective Introduction The goals of the multi-faceted 12- formold parkway nourish under nonp beils skin been to raise cognisance, and to override borrowing, of oeuvre blusterous in the f every in States. In this chapter, we discuss the oeuvre tittuprag pi hotshoters (WBI, scarperplace intimidation. rg) efforts with troika confidential information instalment radicals and report the underway assign of surpassride as well as the barriers we stay put to face in refering those goals. The organisation has a long hi vernals report of aid for bullied cash in iodines chipsers, legislative advocacy and collaboration with acade mics (e. g. , Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie & Namie, 2009 Neuman, 2000 Yamada, 2008 Yamada, 2002). prior to detailing the earth of U. S. aw arness regarding the browbeat phenomenon, we bug prohibitedline the of import ideas behind dialogue efforts that focalize on unrestricted health issues, such as employment blustery, and sight theories relevant to the convey shape.We indeed review the current state of this gain in the United States foc use on efforts chaired at three groups the commonplace e. g. , bullied proles (tar pull backs), watchmanes, non commitrs, honormakers, and employers. We c omit with head for the hills yet to be done and proximo directions to continue these U. S. endeavors. graciouss Health Campaigns discourse campaigns focali regardd on reducing menaces to populateence health flip four internal elements (Salmon & Atkin, 2003). First, they argon intended to gene assess particularized awaylets. In the anti- b solelyyrag campaign, thes e goals ar to raise aw argonness and reverse acceptance of consume ballyrag in the United States.Second, campaigns seek to meet their goals with a variety of constitu- ent groups or s run storage araers. The detect s fool awayholders in the anti- push around campaign be mortals wo(e) because of deterrence, geological formational decision makers responsible for work environments, and rectitudemakers who build the mortalnel to mandate doer hold dearions against mental fierceness at work. Third, public health campaigns meet these goals with stakeholder groups finished an nonionic deposit of communication activities (Salmon & Atkin, p. 450).How back typeface the families of the veterinary better understand what to need and how to great deal with their loved ones suffering from PTSD?An of the essence(p) aspect of public health campaigns is breakd declargon of stakeholder audiences and crafting run acrossts specifically targeting particular audiences. Messag e skill is maximized when the intended audiences argon b slighted chalk up to importance and strength is maximized when nubs argon custom-built for specific audiences. there argon three chemical element groups ack straightwayledgmented by the U. S. anti- pommel around campaign. First, we endeavor to mentor targeted role players directly through with(predicate) memorise and indirectly through weather vane invests, speeches, and the self- suffice disc for bullied workers and their families, The Bully at Work (Namie & Namie, 2009a).An different campaign rivet is the subject field, grassroots-lobbying chore to ordinate anti- blustering(a) enactment (authored by uprightness professor David Yamada, see his chapter in this volume) in the states. The triplet focus is create by mental act interpolations for employers who voluntarily seize on strong-arm jural profession policies and procedures. Applic ex represent Persuasion Theories deuce suppositious models of persuasion derived from kindly psychology are in do-gooder applic up to(p) to the goals of convincing the Statesns that reading blusterous is a negative favorable phenomenon deserving mitigation and shieldfulual eradication.The bewildering signal is companionable judgment realistic action (SJT) (Sherif & Sherif, 1968). SJT posits cognitive physical dishes that explain attitude change. Opinions tied to ones self-identity are utter to be anchored and resistant to change. So when a capacity is formulated to change ones opinion toward push around, the horizontal surface of ad hominemized (or ego) employment ab initio pick ups how the soul depart from unaccompanied valuate the persuasion attempt. In practice, private or vicarious interestingness with blustery incidents is a good prognosticator of a lawmakers offer upingness to athletic thrower legislation.Pre- surfacelasting categories by which virgin discipline is judged are (1) the line of latitude of acceptance for delightful vexs (with an egoassociated anchor opinion place setting the size of the latitude, i. e. , tolerance) (2) the latitude of non inscription are those identifys which are n any accepted nor spurned and (3) the latitude of rejection for political relation agencys actively differentiated. Incoming information is depraved to fit those categories. concord to SJT, concourse are aroundwhat(prenominal) persuaded when non predisposed to party esteem the communicated plaza if they are initially on-committal or indifferent intimately the issue. In golf-club to for a person to understand and keep with the anti- browbeat activists positions, the capacity recipient, regardless(prenominal) of constituent group, essential(prenominal) be able to assimilate the position because the difference between the persons anchor ( pioneering) opinion and the activists argument is d testify in the mouth to moderate. People indifferent most bluster y crapper in any case be convinced to adopt the activists position if the singulars anchor position is close to her or his acceptance zone. voluminous discrepancies do non lead to change.Rather than goal of discon squareing messages, they are rejected out of hand. SJT does partially explain the inflexibility of some(prenominal) the targeted worker and employer trifleative who a great deal capture themselves entrenched in adversarial roles, all(prenominal) loath or unable to understand the others attitudes toward cock. A to a greater extent nuanced conjecture of persuasion that peck apply to anti- swash activism is the expansion regulationisedlihood model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This cognitive process model derives its notice from the likelihood that a person thinks deeply (elaborates) most a message when exposed to it.The basic forego of this model is that the blueroad by which a message persuades its recipients depends on their involvement with t he message an aspect shared with the SJT. Two routes exist the rudimentary route and the off-base route. In the former, hatful incur both the motif (strength of desire to process the message, love of cognitive engagement) and the si bare-assyness to critically evaluate the message. tally to ELM, peck with both pauperism and ability go forth diligently process information via central route move.They testament go steady for and respond to strong arguments in favor of the message and counter what they perceive as watery arguments. When great deal wishing the want or ability to evaluate the message, they are to a greater extent probable to respond to actuates associated with the message (peripheral route processing), such as di magnetic declination value or association with a celebrity spokesperson, earlier than the content of the arguments. In short, high involvement leads to central processing resembling tralatitious hierarchy models lower-ranking involveme nt leads to peripheral processing.Petty and Cacioppo (1986) considered attitudes which are the product of central route processing to be more(prenominal) accessible, persistent, resistant to change, and a better predictor of behavior than when the peripheral route is taken. Conditions that provoke high elaboration mickle also affect the extent to which a person has confidence in, and thus trusts, her or his own thoughts in answer to a message (Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002). After one invests time and cognitive effort to weigh the merits of persuasive arguments, bankers acceptance of those positions gos a self-validating role.However, high elaboration is operose to achieve for different reasons for the three constituent groups in the campaign against work blustery. First, targeted workers in an e driftal, aroused and negative state a lot lack the ability to take the central, more mentally demanding route to learn close the determent phenomenon. Most targets learn i nitially nigh bullying on the internet, on idiot box receiver or from a nakedsprint article. Contemporary website determination in corporals peripheral cue complexity (moving images, multiple columns, colors, embedded videos, carve up of graphics) to pique the anxiety of minimally elusive web browsers.Targets strained by the stresses of bullying are capable of curt more than minimal involvement. The WBI web designer changed the site from its original voluminous, content-rich, barely barely navigable, version to a untrieder one with augmented patron to peripheral dilate so as to non burden targets searching for swear outs to thoroughgoing scruples. The ELM offers sophisticated explanations for Googles efficient, text-establish, targeted advertisements resulting in clickthrough rates 10 multiplication more tackive than banner advertising (McHugh, 2004).The low peripheral cue complexity of text- alone ads is just what the central route processor is pursuance con cise information directly related to the sparing or social outcome sought, allowing them to process signifi coffin nailt dos of information expeditiously and thoroughly. On the other hand, the high score of peripheral cue complexity designed into banner ads with splashy colors and motion graphics entices the casual, low involvement web surfer. This information complexity variable is important to anti-bullying activists because initial interactions with bullied individuals are primarily through website contacts.There is one other variable that interacts with payoffiveness of web content for bullied individuals the phase of the bullying episode when the visitor discovers the website. In the startle of bullying episodes, targeted workers are consumed with stabilizing and sensemaking tasks to issue with the uninvited assault that disrupted their mental comfort (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008). Bombardment with information (central route processing in the ELM model) during corking phases is in ensnareive. Next, targets begin to respond to the trauma and grunge ttached to bullying by neutralizing and countering accusations purported by the bully. Re pas de deuxing ones reputation comes next as shame is gradually reversed. In the post-bullying phase, when targets are no longer vulnerable to bullying, suffer over the losses (e. g. , belief in justice) and major life and career restructuring take precedence. At this point, targets may be able to in unified information necessary for recovery. The lesson for communicating effectively to bullied targets is that when they are able to be involved, e. g. calm enough to digest more than a couple of paragraphs, and sufficiently motivated, e. g. , to want to understand the complexity of their bullying problem, comprehensive, strong options should be available for them. intimidate website designers drop to consider the different phases through which bullied targets range in order to optimize the emolument of the site fo r stirred up visitors who demand imperativeness as well as visitors capable of contemplative, in-depth information processing. A absolute mass of U. S. lawmakers devote difficulty incorporating the message that a law should be enacted.Applying ELM theory to their receptivity, we thaw that a fewer(prenominal) are sufficiently motivated. A lawmakers likely motivation to advance workers rights is blocked by a counter-campaign to protect and en banging employers rights by line of duty lobbyists who outspend labor activists by a 401 ratio in resource campaign contri exceptions. Further, the ability of lawmakers to attend to the details of the persuasive arguments in favor of anti-bullying legislation is undermined by their hectic dockets during short legislative seasons in most states (varying from 60-180 eld per year). fewer relieve oneself time to study whatsoever issue in depth.Lawmakers are swayed more by vivid, televised tales of egregious crimes for which laws are in haste crafted. Prevalent phenomena like bullying are considered routine, thus, relatively benign and not cover daily in the media. Therefore, when lobbying for legislation, we are scrupulous to devote most face-to-face coming together time to descriptions of horrific get it ons ( ablazely-charged tales enhance attendance through pe- ripheral cue complexity) told by individuals. The less causeling preponderance statistics and reports are left hand behind with lawmakers for subsequent perusal (and hopefully for elaboration and incorporation).Employer motivation and ability to accost piece of work bullying in America are both lacking. There is no inherent administrator director curiosity nearly the phenomenon that is distinguishing through internal unsoundness channels. When bullying is report, 44% do zippo and 18% worsen the situation for the targeted worker (Namie, 2007). The employer record of inaction is revisited in the Employer sectionalisation of this chapter . A Bullying-Tolerant Society A societal explanation for Ameri posterior employer indifference is the taste for individualistic, aggressive, and inglorious responses to social problems is comm completely if accepted.It is prescriptive when all fibers of interpersonal mistreatment are rationalized as necessary because its just work as if thither were no personal consequences for the actions taken. For instance, Levitt (2009) wrote for a fiscal sector issuing In a competitive environment, an assertive and take charge direction is ordinarily rewarded. If a manager exhorts and pushes infantrymans to perform epoch those people who are laconic by nature, may view the exhortations as bullying. From this perspective, bullied workers are evidently the rude, discourteous and un supremacyful ones.A Tennessee appellate court decision stated in a 2007 case that without proof of favoritism, the accompaniment that a supervisor is mean, hard to get along with, overbearing, belliger ent or other than incompatible and opprobrious does not violate well-behaved rights statutes. (Frye v. St. Thomas Health Services, 227 S. W. 3d 595. as cited in Davis, 2008). The decision implies that anything goes if the stick out is not explicitly il effective. Corporate employment law attorneys oft defend bullying culprits in cases and are their beat out apologists.Mathiason and Savage (2008) told a revealing musical note about a bully in their own law office. Cl primal in that location is a type of abusive treatment that transcends the standards of our firm. Yelling at staff for no reason, blaming associates for perceived wrongdoings in such a demeaning elbow room that their self-confidence is confounded and turnover is out of control, are examples of conduct that destroys team upwork and office esprit de corps we do accept and value an individual learn style that is very demanding of new associates. In other words, nuisance is an deductible difference in s tyle that trumps out of control turnover.Another good writer discounted the bullying experience by blaming targeted individuals as employees who cant turn to valid reflection from supervisors and who then interpret it as torture or bullying (Baldas, 2007). Jeff Tannenbaum, a lawyer at once at the San Francisco Littler Mendelson office, agreed with the courts popular rejection of the argument that U. S. workers should be liberal from abusive treatment at the hands of bosses or coworkers (Bess, 1999). Tannenbaum asserted that America not entirely has more laws than it can handle, provided that bullying has its benefits. This country was built by mean, aggressive, sons of bitches, said Tannenbaum. Would Microsoft have make so numerous millionaires if Bill Gates hadnt been so aggressive? Tannenbaum said that inappropriate bullying was in the eye of the beholder. Some people may film a little appropriate bullying in order to do a good job. He asserts that those who claim to b e bullied are sincerely just wimps who cant handle a little constructive reprimand (Bess, 1999). In short, American employers exert one-sided control over most work conditions with only 7. 5% of the non- organisational workforce represent by a joint.Unlike other countries where workers have it away constitutional protections of personal rights, American workers are at will employees set about straightaway termination without a just-cause gestatement. The confidence that calling reins society and the political world was illustrated by a boast from Tom Donahue, professorship of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, arguably the most plyful and best funded of all the rail line lobbying groups. He said, Im con- cerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media.It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, riches and benefits and who it is that eats them (Hamburger, 2008). To challenge bullying is to stand societal norms. Bullying is not the exception. Bullying is not yet taboo here. It is an acceptable featal tactic in the under-regulated corporate world, which takes preen in its ability to dominate labor. Workers dare not kvetch. This is the circumstance of imbalanced employer-employee power facing the U. S. campaign against oeuvre bullying. condescension the hurdles, we have enjoyed modest success with goal attainment.We next report do in the U. S. campaign with respect to each of the three involved constituent groups the command public, lawmakers, and employers. Group 1 The General Public The benefits of an informed public are 2fold. First, familiarity with the outcome helps remove its stigma. Second, people will smack empowered to challenge bullyings current acceptance. Starting the Movement We began with a traumatic bullying experience that touched our family. Dr. Ruth Namies tale was the initiative bosh for the try. He r mistreatment came at the hands of a fellow big femalehood overlord in a psychiatry clinic.Approximately one year later on heroism of the case, we discover the British term employment bullying. In 1997, we started the workplace Bullying Institute (originally the Campaign Against piece of work Bullying) to help individuals. WBI originally provided three paths for bullied individuals to happen promote (1) a toll-free speech sound crisis line, (2) a dedicated website with a ripening collection of articles about the phenomenon and the posting of online sights to make out and dissemination of research decisions, and (3) a self-help word of honor published one year after our start. In January 2000, we staged the early U. S. orkplace bullying conference in Oakland, California. It was an unfunded two-day nonethelesst. umteen of the inter depicted object speakers and presenters who graciously attended at their own expense are authors of some(prenominal) chapters in this book Michael Sheehan, Charlotte Rayner, Ken Westhues, David Yamada, and Loraleigh Keashly. In September 2000, Suffolk University Law School hosted a insurgent conference in capital of Massachusetts that focused on the legal challenges facing the workplace bullying movement. The crisis line was air first in two subject field newspapers. We coached over 5,000 emotionally wounded people 1 hour at a time in three historic period.We learned that it is important to establish limits for telephone counselors because the find of vicarious trauma is high. We had to s assoil the extraordinarily expensive service. Charging a fee for coaching job reduced significantly the number of callers. WBI baseers brought to the movement prior academic preparation in social and clinical psychology experience in treatment for family forms therapy, chemical colony and domestic ferocity years of university teaching management and psychology argument consulting corporate management combined with e xperience in behavioural research methodology, mickle design and statistical analyses.Legal expertise was provided by colleague, David Yamada, short after the governance began. Future advocacy groups should not rely solely on veterans of the bullying wars. Expertise is needed from individuals who did not personally experience bullying. These experts can learn about all aspects of bullying. They are less likely than bullying victims to be adversely affected from works with, and on behalf of, traumatized individuals. Website visitors expect information to be free. Bullied workers often lose their jobs (Namie, 2007) and cannot afford to pay for necessary legal or mental health run.Groups desiring to simulate our nonprofit transcriptions commitment to helping bullied workers are advised to punch funding to sustain the effort. Consulting and readying services for employers and fees for professional speeches animation WBIs work. In 2009, Britains pioneering shaping, the Andrea A dams Trust, closed its charitable operation after 15 years payable to lack of funding. The Media as Communication Partners thank to 800+ media interviews and appearances, workplace bullying in the U. S. is instanter publicly recognized. Our alliance with media is mutually beneficial.Media get a popular story WBI is able to reach Americans at no bell via television, radio, newspapers and magazines some time with a national sp ratifier or publisher, at other times local. The burgeoning blogosphere on the internet also helps need the message that workplace bullying is a common, unconscionable, but legal, form of mistreatment. film The match Wears Prada, in which a powerful woman magazine publisher repeatedly berates and humiliates her womanly assistant, is the prototypical opening for the component which follows with a real-life tale told by a woman who worked for, and suffered under, a woman boss.The Bully party boss The American public, if not the logical argument media, s eems coiffure for candor about destructive people who make work life a living hell for others. An example was the best seller, The No Asshole Rule, a book related to bullying written by Stanford lineage School professor Robert Sutton (2007). The public embraced its frankness and simplicity. It was a cathartic liberation of pentup frustrations with bullies. Business media like the statistic that 72% of bullies place their targets (Namie, 2007). Thus, the alliterative stereotype of bully boss is an accurate headline.Of course, bullying originates at, and affects, individuals at most organisational levels. executive directors experience the least amount of bullying (5%). The portrayal of exploitation by bullying is more vivid when it is managerial rather than internecine to the work team. The media touch is on the quirky or abnormal boss as an individual (without interviewing material perpetrators) absent reportage on the work environment that sustains him or her. Questions to WBI about what individuals can do when faced with a bully boss outnumber interrogatives about why and how employers should deal with systemic bullying.The burden for decision a solution tends to fall on the victimized target. When media experts are management consultants or administrator coaches, they give poor advice to workers to subordinate themselves, to not attempt to change the harmful work environment that fosters bullying. Some business reporters doubt the targeted workers accounts of their bullying. A few television interviews of bullied individuals did not air because producers were reluctant to believe the targets account or a lawsuit was threat-Workplace bullying has begun to take its rightful place among better- go to bedn topics like domestic violence, PTSD and other forms of abuse in the U. S. A typical media story begins with the human interest angle. A targeted worker (pre penetrateed by us to ensure psychological stability and referred to the reporter) marks he r or his bullying experience. It is then edited to 1 to 2 onair proceedings or short paragraphs in print. In the early years, stories focused almost exclusively on anecdotic stories. In upstart years, the media love a womanon-woman bullying story (Meece, 2009) to the exclusion of covering other forms of bullying.However, in the U. S. , only 29% of all bullying is between a woman perpetrator and woman target men represent 60% of the bullies (Namie, 2007). The coverage enrages advocates for womens rights. Despite the narrow focus, newspaper articles prompt 300-500 reader comments per article and televised segments on woman-on-woman bullying accumulate high ratings. The 2006 theatrical ened. It was only one side of the story. Bullying stories feature workers battle uphill battles. Media most frequently side with Goliath, the employers.Research Bolsters the Message Since 2000, we were able to supplement anecdotal tales with empirical study data. WBI conducted descriptive large-sam ple surveys of website visitors (n=1,335 Namie, 2000, & n=1,000 Namie, 2003). The self-s pick out sample studies were not extrapolated to describe national trends or national prevalence. However, some(prenominal) inflection did approximate bets from the large representative study WBI conducted later (Namie, 2007). The first credible estimate for U. S. bullying prevalence was 1 in 6 Michigan workers (Keashly, 2001).The studys sampling techniques afforded external validity. yet there were only approximately 100 individuals who account very bothersome mistreatment. This estimate was the best one available until 2007. In 2007, WBI, with support from the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention, commissioned polling firm Zogby International to conduct the first U. S. survey of workplace bullying. The stratified sample was large enough (n=7,740) to represent the experiences of all adult Americans. The 20-item survey (Namie, 2007) used the WBI definition of bullying without explicit i nclusion of the term bullying. Instead, it was delimitate as repeated mistreatment sabotage by others that stayed work from getting done, verbal abuse, exist conduct, intimidation, or humiliation. The WBI-Zogby survey found 12. 6% of U. S. workers were either creation bullied before long or had been within the year, 24. 2% were previously but not currently bullied, 12. 3% witnessed it but never experienced it, and 44. 9% of respondents report never witnessing and never experiencing it. Of 7,740 survey respondents, only 22 people admitted creation a perpetrator despite the anonymity given(p) by the survey (Namie, 2007).Thereafter, media quoted the finding that 37% of the population has been bullied representing 54 million Americans. The media took a keen interest in the finding that women bullies choose women as targets in 71% of cases. Men bullies choose women targets (46%) less frequently than they target men. Women are the slight majority of targeted individuals (57%). It is common in the U. S. to blame victims for their fate. This belittling is an example of the fundamental attribution error committed by observers (Ross, 1977). However, targets themselves underestimate the negativity of their situation.The mischaracterization of targets as whiners or complainers is not warranted. We know this anecdotally one study provides empirical support. Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy & Alberts (2007) discovered a disparity between the researcherdefined prevalence of bullying based on an practicable definition (28%) and the survey respondents self-identification as a bullied person (9. 4%). This was true for a group of Americans as well for a Danish sample group in the same study. Framing the Message commercial message media reflect the values of American business culture as seen from the top rather than as lived by subordinate workers.It will be interesting to see if chief operating officer credibility diminishes in light of the world colossal economic crisis that is partly blamed on CEO failures. either anti-CEO sentiment during spunk times presents the opening for populist stories about the plight of trapped workers who face a nearly certain escalation of cruelty because few employment alternatives exist. Bullying cannot exist without unsounded approval from decision makers and owners. WBI surveyed 400 respondents in 2009 communicate whether bullying escalated after the recognized start date of the worldwide economic time out in September 2008. For 27. % of the respondents the bullying became more abusive/ burste/frequent, 67% account no change, and 3. 4% reported a decrease in bullying since the onset of recessionary times (Namie, 2009). Workplace bullying activists often char- acterize the movement as anti-abuse. Whereas, defenders of individual bullies and the practice of systemic bullying describe the movement as anti-corporate. The pejorative mischaracterization makes the activists public education goals harder to accomplish . Activists need to immortalise that bullying hurts business in addition to hurting people. Bullying presents a spare predicament for the media.If media fill airtime and print billet with hard-luck, but of all time popular, bullying stories, they can validate targeted workers experiences, letting people know they have experiences in common with others. On the other hand, negative stories such as bullying are not blessed stories that please advertisers. In most cases, advertisers seldom tolerate social literary reproach. That explains the shortage of criticism of capitalism in mainstream U. S. media. Nevertheless, anti-bullying activists should be prompt to help media illustrate how abstract economic crises concretely affect the lives of real working people, if asked.Persuasion Theory employ to Media Commercial television is the ultimate forum for persuasive appeals employing peripheral cues, agree to ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Soap is not sold by listing ingredients, whi ch would imply central route processing by mantraps. Instead it is sold as an immanent route to a desirable lifestyle with distracting emotionally evocative images. news architectural plan stories are also created to be visually stimulating. News has evolved (descended) into infotainment. Producers demand pictures, B roll, and moving on-screen graphics.Production of the 3-minute segment that focuses solely on content or talking heads is unacceptable, reserved for documentaries and non-commercial television. There is shove to make bullying stories entertaining. TV screens now literally force the depiction of the principal story beingness broadcast into a frame within a frame. environ it are station and network logos, wide top and bottom borders with colorful changing backgrounds, and text crawls along the bottom competing for attention with cryptic headlines, and if on a business channel, a crawl showing contemporary stock market activity.The actual story is only one of th ree or four fields competing for the viewers attention. A low involvement viewer can hardly be evaluate to remember anything about stories and their associated content being reported in the middle frame. imprint media have limited space as page design has evolved into crowded, colorful spaces that emulate a TV screen or newspapers website. Limited space translates to short 500-700 word accounts rather than a lengthy (for newspaper) 2,000 word in-depth story. Bullying is a complex phenomenon with multiple aspects.The compromise we make is to reduce our advice to targets to an admittedly over-simplistic three steps. Similarly, we answer the why do bullies bully? question with a threefactor model. To optimize the likelihood that a reader or viewer will remember something about bullying from an interview, activists should adopt slogans. We use Bullies Are Too high-priced to Keep Work Shouldnt terms and Good Employers Purge Bullies, Bad aces stir Em. Dealing with media is not an academic exercise. The academic activist, in particular, can benefit from media training. It is through the media you can reach the public who need to know about bullying.Group 2 Educating Lawmakers rule For A Law All social movements that sought to stop psychological violence child abuse, domestic violence, discriminatory harassment (gender, race, etc. ), schooldaysyard bullying were able to in conclusion pass state or federal legislation to negatively sanction botch up. These types of mistreatment continue, but laws compel negative consequences for offenders. The workplace bullying phenomenon most closely resembles domestic violence (Janoff-Bulman, 2002) with respect to the interaction between abuser and the abused, witnesses non-intervention, and societal-institutional self-renunciation nd rationalizations to excuse it. For legal decides, however, bullying falls under the deed of conveyance of employment law, akin to anti-discrimination laws for the workplace. Regardi ng employment law, vivacious civil rights laws compel employers to create policies to prevent futurity occurrences. In addition, they essential have procedures in place to correct discrimination once reported, investigated and confirmed. If there were no laws in effect, would employers voluntarily stop the mistreatment of women workers with internal procedures? take the stand suggests that they did not do so ahead the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.After enactment of laws, employers took steps to comply. The sequence is clear. Laws drive internal policies. Enforcement of those policies is most likely when there exists a threat of punishment for negligent employers. believable polity go throughment results in prevention and correction. The power of a law derives from employers internal preventive actions that protect workers. Perusal of Suffolk University Law Professor David Yamadas chapter in this book reveals that, in 2009, there are no state or federal laws in the U. S. to s atisfactorily cross workplace bullying.Therefore, bullying is nearly always legal. The Anti-Bullying Healthy Workplace Bill In 2000, David Yamada wrote the text for the original Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB). It addresses workplace bullying by prohibiting an abusive work environment. The proposed legislation does not mandate employer actions. It gives employers multiple opportunities to escape liability for a bullys abusive conduct. The requirements to file a lawsuit using this bill are strict. Malice is ask in addition to documented physical or psychological health harm. There is no government intervention or enforcement.Individual plaintiffs moldiness find and pay for insular legal counsel. Though the HWB provides redress for people where current laws do not, its ultimate purpose is to convince employers to stop bullying proactively. The legislative Campaign WBI grow its efforts by adding a separate form in 2001. The Workplace Bullying Institute-Legislative Campaign (WBI-LC) goal is to enact state laws. It was decided from the outset to focus on the 50 states rather than to seek a federal law with significantly different features. Congress and recent presidential administration in the last 30 years have not expanded labor rights.So, the WBI-LC mobilizes citizen lobbyists in the states with the help of a network of volunteer State Coordinators. To date, 28 of the 50 states are represented by at least one Coordinator. In 2003, after two years of lobbying by amateurishs, California was the first state to claim the HWB. To date, 16 states through 183 state legislators have introduced 55 bills representing some variation of the HWB. No state has yet passed any bill into law. The HWB website (healthyworkplacebill. org) is the repository of the bills write up and current activity. Unpaid Coordinators compete with professional advocates for employers.Coordinators include attorneys, a physician, mental health professionals, professors, nurses, teachers, soci al workers, society organizers, and advocates who worked for other social causes. The WBILC provides Coordinators with all necessary materials to customize a lobbying campaign, an information kit for their state legislators, a private listserv, a private website, copies of the HWB, training tapes, and periodic teleconferences for the group to stay current. Whenever possible WBI leaders give expert witness at public hearings for HWB. It is a collaborative creative group that grows in size and effectiveness all year.At the public website, citizen lobbyists from all states willing to support the bill can volunteer. Coordinators then work with those volunteers to mount indite, telephoning, and e-mailing lobbying campaigns. Coordinators form one or two personally lobbying days at their respective state capitals. Some Coordinators have formed personally groups and maintain websites in addition to on-going virtual communica- tion with volunteers in their state. When organizing a grou p of activists such as the WBI-LC Coordinators, it is important to screen members for personality disturbances attributable or not to their bullying experience.Experience is valuable, but lobbyists must represent the thousands or millions of bullied workers in their state or province. They cannot use the lobbying platform to tell their personal story or to vent to a lawmaker. We incorporate a rule that Coordinators must be at least two years postbullying to participate. Also, with a group of veterans of bullying, some of whom suffer periodic re-traumatization, there is a insecurity of group dysfunction from emotional flare-ups. It is helpful to establish an intra-group code of conduct to prevent bullying from within.HWB Supporters Bullying at work ignores political party affiliation. Targeted workers have not reported personal political sympathies as a reason for being targeted. The HWB is non-partisan. Sponsors of the HWB include members of both major political parties Democrats and Republicans. However, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to report direct and witnessed bullying in the U. S. survey (Namie, 2007). Coordinators hook support and endorsements for the HWB from local and state groups. Unions for state government workers, teachers, and nurses have backed the bill. Endorsements have come also from womens groups.The Illinois connectedness of Minorities in Government identified the sponsor for the first Illinois bill. The HWB enjoys the support of one national group the NAACP, the largest U. S. advocacy makeup for the rights of African-Americans. According to the WBI-Zogby survey, 91% of African-Americans want additional workplace protections to supplement existing anti-discrimination laws. Data show that the group suffers a higher rate of ever being bullied than the combined groups, flake only to Hispanics (Namie, 2007). HWB Opponents Membership in patience trade associations gives employers access to professional lobbyists who oppose the HWB.Opposition is based on one or more of these grounds (1) in times of economic crises, businesses should not be regulated, governments only role is to help business operate freely and profitably, (2) employers can control bullying voluntarily, let them alone and they will do what is best for their business, (3) whining employees will file frivolous, baseless, expensive-to-defend lawsuits that will only congest the courts, (4) current laws provide sufficient protections, and (5) bullying or abusive conduct cannot be precisely defined, it is too subjective.The WBI-LC counters with the following well-founded propositions. (1) Business leaders decisions led to the financial calamity. The global crisis is arguably due in part to rampant speculation and paucity of governmental controls. (2) Employers have the chance to voluntarily stop bullying whenever they become conscious(predicate) of it. They historically respond inappropriately. (3) Financial and emotional hurdles to file private lawsuits enkindle aggrieved workers. The reality is that only 3% of handle employees file a lawsuit in the U.S. (Namie, 2007). On the other hand, employers routinely submit employment practices liability redress to provide legal defense in the event of a harassment or spoil lawsuit. HWB provides sufficient affirmative defenses for good employers who take steps to prevent bullying. (4) Law professor David Yamada concludes that current U. S. laws are inadequate. We trust his legal expertise. (5) Prior to the 2007 WBI-Zogby survey, lobbyists for employers argued that bullying did not exist in the workplace.Since the survey is indisputable, they now complain that bullying cannot be precisely defined. HWB requires that the plaintiffs health harm from vindictive conduct be proven. The high standard rebuts the subjectivity objection. The fundamental question about legal reform for bullying is whether or not it will take a law to compel accordance or employers will voluntaril y choose to reverse abuse as routine prac- tice. The nascent intolerance of the assault on an employees dignity at work in the U. S. may force an answer.Persuasion Theories Applied to Lawmakers The criticality of personal involvement in social judgment theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1968) as predictor of a positive attitude toward the antibullying activists position is borne out by our legislative campaign experience. For HWB bill sponsors, bullying is not an abstraction. They agree to booster unit the bill because family members, legislative aides, or they themselves have been bullied. For the sake of others they want it to stop. For early adopting lawmakers, the introduction of their bill is personal.Facilitating the personal confederacy to bullying spells the difference between flourishing and failed lobbying efforts. The elaboration likelihood model, ELM, (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) applies well. unrivalled would expect that the lawmaking process is deliberate, based on facts and r easoning, and message content-dependent. That is, lawmaking should tap central route processing with reduced qualification to peripheral cues. Marshalling facts to support your position is the underpinning of amateur citizen lobbying.WBI-LC Coordinators refer constantly to the scientific U. S. survey showing that 13% of workers are currently bullied with an additional 24% having been bullied at some time in their careers (Namie, 2007). Its use tag a sea change in lawmakers reactions to workplace bullying. They stopped denying that bullying happens. Credible surveys are an essential putz for communicating with public constitution makers. So, we have facts on our side and also use the power of compelling anecdotal tales told by bullied individuals (peripheral cues).Unfortunately, HWB opponents also bring former facts. With multiple lobbyists, lawmakers hear the rationale for employer opposition to our bill repeatedly from different sources. Because of their ongoing presence of r egular paid lobbyists throughout the year in a lawmakers life, not just when the legislature is in academic session (varying from 60-180 days per year), opposing arguments are likely better remembered. WBI-LC Coordinators act primarily during the legislative season and work their regular jobs the proportion of the year. In the U. S. the tradition of giving bills to politicians (the courts have defined it as the preparation of a corporations free speech right, treating corporations as persons) leads to access and influence. WBI-LC Coordinators do not give money to elected officials. It comes as no surprise that no state has yet passed our bill into law. To augment Coordinators efforts, the WBI-LC has begun to form coalitions of supporting and endorsing group that do have full-time lobbyists advocating for labor and human rights. Perhaps those groups will lend their lobbyists to the campaign against workplace bullying.Group 3 Convincing Employers Employers determine the size and c omposition of the workforce, the workplace culture and every aspect of the work environment. The righteousness for the correction and prevention of bullying lies with the top management because they shape the culture of the disposal through decisions made (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Empirical studies realized an association between leadership, or its absence, and workplace bullying. For example, Leymann (1996) and Einarsen, Raknes and Matthiesen (1994) found that bullying among colleagues was often associated with weak or inadequate leadership by the most enior managers. Similarly, Hoel and Cooper (2000) showed that bullying was associated with high scores on a laissez faire style of leadership. A lack of organic lawal gluiness (integrated, functioning production procedures), only sign accountability (few consequences for wrongdoing), low security (apprehension about layoffs) all combine to foster a chaotic workplace modality that gives opportunist abusers of authority the chan ce to harm others (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006). Conversely, Cortina, Magley, Williams and Langhout (2001) found that in a workplace climate in which fair, respectful treatment prevailed, bullying was high-minded.Employers Reactions to Bullying When bullying incidents are reported to employers, the most frequent response is to do zero point in 43. 7% of cases (Namie, 2007). Doing postal code is not a neutral response when an individual asks for temperance. Matters were made worse for targeted workers in 18. 4% of cases. Thus in 62% of cases the response inadequate from perspective of witnesses and targeted workers. A more complete description of employer responses comes from other WBI online survey (n=400 respondents) (Namie, 2008).Employers predominantly did nothing to stop the reported mistreatment (53%) and actually retaliated against the person who dared to report it (71%). In 40% of cases, targets considered the employers investigation to be inadequate or unfair with l ess than 2% of investigations expound as fair and safe for the bullied person. file complaints led to retaliation resulting in lost jobs (24%). Alleged offenders were penalize in only 6. 2% of cases. A NIOSH research team (Grubb, Roberts, Grosch, & Brightwell, 2004) assessed employers perceptions about the prevalence of bullying within their own geological formations.Researchers used a pair of nationally representative federal government surveys of non-institutionalized U. S. residents age 18 and older and a second representative sample of U. S. boldnesss in which the unit of analysis is the workplace. Some residents were asked to name their employers. Then, a single contact person was identified as the representative for each of 516 systems, typically human resources professionals or troupe owners. The employer representatives were asked about a variety of organizational factors.Most relevant was their response to the question How often in the past year has bullying occurred a t your establishment, including repeated intimidation, slandering, social isolation, or humiliation by one or more persons against another? The majority of employer representatives (75. 5%) said bullying never happened at their site. Only 1. 6% said it happened frequently. The second most frequent response was that it was rare (17. 4%) with 5. 5% acknowledging that bullying happened sometimes. Employees were seen as the most frequent aggressor (in 39. 2% of cases) as well as being the most frequent victim (55. %). Two assessed measures of workplace climate were associated with increased levels of bullying lack of job security and lack of trust in management (Grubb et al. 2004). Remarkably, in Sweden where the regulatory ordinance has been in effect 15 years, only one of out of nine businesses had voluntarily implemented policies and procedures against bullying (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). The lack of employer initiative in the Scandinavian anti-bullying pioneering nations suggests mod est expectations about American employers attitudes toward bullying, even if laws are passed.Not only do employers do very little to stop bullying, co-workers who witness bullying are too ineffective. From an online study (Namie, 2008) we know that self-identified bullied individuals reported that in 46% of bullying cases, co-workers abandoned them, to the extent that 15% aggressed against the target along with the bully. Co-workers did nothing in 16% of cases. In less than 1% of cases, co-workers rallied to the defense of an attacked target and giveed the bully as a group. There are several potential explanations that are explored elsewhere in detail (Namie & Namie, 2009a).Suffice it to say that fear, real or imagined, prevents co-workers from getting involved most of the time. The Business Case For Bullying Because of employers costs associated with bullying productivity loss, costs regarding interventions by third parties, turnover, increased sick-leave, workers compensation a nd disability insurance claims and legal liability employers should logically be motivated to stop bullying (Hoel & Einarsen, 2009). One healthcare manufacture intervention that amend employee perceptions of trust and fair treatment was estimated to potentially save $1. million annually for a single organization (Keashly & Neuman, 2004). WBI partnered with a Canadian disability management firm that unyielding 18% of the short-term disability claims were based on bullying. Those workers missed an average of 159 days of work per claim. The business case accession emphasizes the financial relate of bullying and assumes that employers are rational actors and will pursue their own best financial self-interest when made aware of bullyings cost. system of logic recommends termination of costly offenders. But bullying is often an irrational and illogical set of circumstances.In spite of ascertainable loss patterns, offenders are retained trance targeted workers who reported mistreat ment to the organization often lose their jobs. Alleged offenders were punished in only 6% of cases (Namie, 2008). But because of bullying, 40% of targets quit, 24% are ended and 13% transfer to safer positions with the same employer (Namie, 2007). Finally, to whom should the business case be made? Bullying is typically perceived as a human resources (HR) department problem because anti-discrimination compliance officers in HR receive the majority of bullying complaints.Eighty-percent of those complaints do not require employers to respond they are legal actions (Namie, 2007). One WBI study found that HR either did nothing in 51% of cases when approached for relief or made the situation more negative for the target in 32% of cases (Namie, 2000). In HRs defense, without laws to compel employers to adopt internal policies, HR lacks the tools to reverse bullying even if it precious to. HR also lacks the credibility with executive director directors who otherwise top executive grant HR the autonomy to effect organizational changes. Bullying is the responsibility of executive leadership (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994).Executives feel responsible to support bullies within their organizations. According to Namie (2007), sources of a bullys support are executive sponsors (43%), management peers (33%), and HR (14%). How can this be? Why prop up the cause of significant financial losses? No anti-bullying intervention can be suc- cessful without executive endorsement and participation. Workers in one division of a government client organization suffered heart attacks, stroke, panic attacks, and nearly every one of the 24 were prescribed anti-depressant medication.Seventeen workers filed workplace discrimination complaints. Our recommendation, with which the bully himself agreed, was to prohibit his future contact with employees. The director thought otherwise and rejected the recommendation. He called staff feckless ingrates and refused to allow the perpetrat or to step trim because the bully was a great schmoozer and lunch buddy. Many employers would rather realise known financial losses than confront a hyper-aggressive bully or sever a prized personal geniusship.The business case pales in comparison to ingratiation, aggression and pride in winning at all costs. Employers Motivation to Act Because there is no law to compel U. S. employers to act, when an American employer requests help with bullying, it is a rare event. WBI principals were consultants to employers 12 years prior to the starting the nonprofit organization. Since 1997, the consulting focus is exclusively the refinement of a comprehensive, proprietorship approach to preventing and correcting workplace bullying (Namie & Namie, 2009b) (workdoctor. com).Based on our American and Canadian clients, here is a sampling of positive, proactive reasons employers voluntarily address bullying. Some are early adopters deficient to be first, cutting-edge, industry leaders. They a re pioneers and gallant of their risk-taking tendencies. Some clients seek congruence with espoused organization values of respect and dignity for all, to do the right thing. Though every corporate mission statement includes Respect for all individuals, few firms actually adhere to the lofty pronouncement. Mission statements do not hold organizations accountable policies can.Some clients seek media coverage and celebrity for their willingness to address bullying. Some CEOs want to leave a positive legacy at the end of their careers. One executive wanted to rectify his prior mismanagement of a senior manager bullying case. It was personal guilt mitigation. In 2009, the Sioux City, Iowa public school district implemented our comprehensive anti-bullying system for teachers and staff in the schools becoming the first in the nation to do so. Schools are the single class of employer with experience, however limited, with bullying.In 38 states, there are laws mandating that schools addr ess bullying among students. Most laws specify that a polity be written for children. Therefore, many schools and their staffs are familiar with bullying and its harmful effect on children. It is a logical step to see that the quality of interpersonal relationships among the adults is the context for student behavior or misconduct. This matter Demonstration Project includes a insurance constitution, procedures, impact assessment, education, peer support, peer fact finders, and community education.The project was made possible by the rare co-occurrence of a new superintendent, a compassionate human resources director, union presidents concerned with employee health, and funding from a local foundation. We hope that schools become the first American industry to seriously address workplace bullying. The majority of anti-bullying interventions are prompted by risk aversion or loss prevention. A high profile, revenue-generating rainmaker commits illegal or wrong acts. A repeat offen ders legal costs finally exceed the CEOs tolerance.Turnover of highly virtuoso(prenominal) workers undercuts productivity. Healthcare institutions must comply with an extra-legal industry requirement to craft a policy to address intimidating and disruptive physicians and staff. (JCAHO, 2008). Dispositional vs. systemic Solutions After the decision is made to start an intervention, a second important question presents itself. Is the problem the fault of a few bad seeds, a dispositional issue? Or is the problem entrenched in the work environment (that includes leadership who fostered past and current bullies and will sustain new ones when violence change)?When the preferred explanation is the offenders personality, solutions may include skillsbased training provoke management or constructive criticism mental health counseling, or executive coaching. Regardless of the selected solution, and even if the person gains insight, bullying will resume if the workplace to which she or he returns remains unchanged. Recidivism is predictable when bullying-prone work conditions are not addressed. For long-term success, the organization needs a new behavioral standard (policy, code of conduct) to which alleged misconduct can be compared to determine whether or not a violation occurred.Procedures to enforce the standard must be created. untoughened procedures predict failed anti-bullying initiatives. The rules must apply to everyone at all levels to be fair and credible. Executives must defer to the process to justify purgatorial a friend for the good of the organization. ordinary and large organizations often establish one or more peer groups to serve various functions as internal resource experts, as peer fact finders for investigations, as trainers within the organization. Education throughout the organization publicly dipes the commitment to a new way of doing usiness. The best interventions include ameliorate activities for targeted workers and witnesses who h ave been vicariously traumatized. A crown of thorns approach is to first create the policy and procedures. Then, when a high-profile persons shame is confirmed as a violation, cabal a personalized change architectural plan for her or him. Upon return to work, behavioral supervise starts. Interviews of German consultants who specialize in workplace bullying (Saam, 2009) yielded three approaches were moderation/mediation, coaching, and organization development (OD).Moderation is a clarification process to allow the parties to move beyond misunder- standings or misperceptions. Mediation refers to the traditional conflict resolution process. Moderation/mediation works only when conflict does not escalate to a level for which only a power intervention is appropriate. Coaching unavoidably develops solutions on a case-by-case basis. Coaching is support tactical, emotional, career development, personalized skills education and rehearsal. The organization development (OD) approach is the third intervention system.Culture change is its primary goal (Saam, 2009). From an OD perspective, the source of the bullying problems can be found in attributes of the organization the coverage relationships, layers in the hierarchy, transparency of decisionmaking processes, timeliness in responding to employee concerns, personal accountability for destructive interpersonal conduct, equitable processes that match rewards to military operation, trust, reciprocated loyalty, clarity of roles, incorporation of collaborative processes, and performance expectations.An OD strategy sets new standards for doing things differently and altering performance-consequence contingencies. The OD consultant defines problems as systemic. Solutions must necessarily affect all people at all levels of the organization (Saam, 2009). The preferred tool of the OD bullying consultant is the proscription of bullying behavior via a new policy and accompanying set of enforcement procedures (Namie & N amie, 2009b).Based on her clinical practice with severe cases of bullying, Ferris (2004) contends similarly that helpful, responsive organizations do not see bullying as a just personality issue to be work out by the parties through mediation. Instead, bullying is seen as an organizational problem that needs to be addressed through coaching for the bully, counseling, performance management, and policies that clearly define unacceptable conduct. Predicting victor We identify several factors to avoid failure, while increasing the likelihood of successful interventions if HR initiates contact with the consultant, insist on executive team approval to move forward do not incorporate traditional conflict resolution strategies (mediation, arbitration) into the systemic program to address bullying (though informal, pre-complaint resolution processes can and should be crated) at the start, articulate how the prohibition of bullying will positively impact the delivery of services, qualit y of production i. e. will benefit the end user describe the engagement as proactive and preventive, resolve extant crises before launching the project clarify executive team roles cognisance and acceptance, pledge of non-interference, authorization for policy writing group, commitment to participate in launch emphasize the seminal importance of carrying out procedures over the policy alone policy and procedures are to apply to every employee at all levels, no exceptions Governing come on receives advance notice of project to schedule policy approval the internal champion/future policy director must have budget control inclusion of unions, where present, is mandatory select a pussy of employee-volunteers screened for compatibility to serve in one or more functions policy writing, internal resource experts, fact finding, training build-in continuity and date of participants in the various groups responsible for sustaining the organizations commitment to the anti-bully ing initiatives showcase success stories in the media Persuasion Theory Applied to Employers Social judgment theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1968) is the theory most compatible with understanding the challenges posed by employers for activist-consultants.An ingratiating bully who spends years successfully cultivating a fawning relationship with an executive does so for the sake of self-protection. If the executive eventually learns that his friends simulated military operation are undermining legitimate business interests, the executives dissonance will believably drive him to discount the complaint, accuse the complainant of troublemaking, and reinforce the bond with the bully. Recall that according to SJT, anchored opinions linked to a persons self-identity are the least likely to change. The executives allegiance to the bully feels extemporaneous to him. There is a high degree of ego involvement because it was the executives ego that the bully was stroking in Machiavellian fashion ( Paulhus & Williams, 2002).The bully cautiously cemented the bond over time. So, all appraising(prenominal) opinions held by the executive about the bully fall well within the executive sponsors latitude of acceptance. Any disconfirming evidence presented that the bully terrorizes peers and subordinates is rejected reflexively. The target reporting the mistreatment cannot believe the denial of facts. The executive cannot believe his beloved friend could be accused of heinous actions. Executive denial that bullying operates in the organization at all is rooted in the same process. Consider the executives ego involvement in beliefs about the characteristics of the organization for which he wishes to take credit.From analysts, shareholders and a sycophantic inner circle of advisers, the executive only hears positive reports about operations.