WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: UNDERSTANDING THE RACIAL DIMENSION

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

This paper reports the research ndings of the experiences of public sector workers of bullying at work across 13 organizations in South Wales. The study explored the experiences of White and Ethnic minority respondents and found that there are signicant differences in the type and frequency of bullying behaviours being experienced by the two groups. Ethnic minority respondents are more likely to label themselves as suffering from bullying behaviours than their White counterparts. The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates how line managers use different tactics when bullying Ethnic respondents compared to White respondents. Furthermore, when colleagues bully fellow colleagues, there are subtly different patterns of bullying behaviour towards White and Ethnic victims. Given the specic requirement to comply with the public duty for promotion of racial equality expected under the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), it is important that these ndings are recognized by UK public sector organizations.

INTRODUCTION In a report on stress, health and ethnicity for the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive (HSE), ndings indicated that racial discrimination, particularly in combination with gender and ethnicity (HSE Research Report 2005, No. 308), was a stark inuence on work stress. In particular, workplace discrimination for Black Caribbean women centred on racial abuse, iniquitous work practices and being felt as valued less by management. Feelings of being devalued and ignored ensued. These facets of discrimination mirror closely the research evidence for bullying at work where inequalities of treatment result in feelings of abandonment and isolation (see, for example, Einarsen et al. 2003; Lewis 2004). This paper takes a novel approach to workplace bullying research by specically exploring the negative behaviours that are reported as bullying and linking them directly with the ethnic classication of employees. A second original feature offered in this paper is specic consideration of the different perpetrators who might instigate bullying behaviours, including different grades of manager and colleagues at different levels. The aims of this paper are therefore twofold: rst, to discover if minority ethnic groups suffer more or less negative behaviour experiences
Duncan Lewis is Acas Professor of Workplace Futures in the Glamorgan Business School and Rod Gunn is in the Welsh Institute for Competitive Advantage, in the Glamorgan Business School, University of Glamorgan. Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

642

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

than White counterparts. Second, to explore if there are differences in the behaviours exhibited by bullies dependent upon their organizational status. Such an approach would enable us to better understand the experiences of Ethnic and White employees and also to attain improved understanding of the behaviours of bullies. With nearly 30 years of legislative experience of dealing with race relations at work (Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003), culture in the UK should be sufciently experienced in understanding and working towards eradicating racism and racial discrimination in the workplace. Yet evidence from UK society still indicates disadvantage for black and minority ethnic [BME] people. UK national statistics reveal that mixed race adults and Asian adults were more likely to be victims of crime compared to White adults (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). In 2002/03, minority ethnic groups faced higher risks of being the victim of a racially motivated incident than White people. Of people who had experienced a crime they thought was racially motivated in a 12-month period, 4 per cent were mixed race people, 3 per cent were Asians, 2 per cent were Black people and 2 per cent were from a Chinese or other background. This compares with less than 1 per cent of White people (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). Employment rates for the United Kingdom in 200203 showed that non-White ethnic groups had 18 per cent lower employment compared to White groups; in parts of London, the levels of lower employment compared to White groups varied between 14 per cent and 39 per cent (Brook 2004). Data collected by Walling (2004) indicate that the majority of ethnic groups have higher proportions of workingage people living in workless households with Black African groups having the highest proportion compared to White groups (workless households are where all adults are unemployed or economically inactive or a mixture of both). Chakraborti and Garland (2004), in a study of racial harassment in rural contexts, reported how ethnic minorities regularly experienced racial harassment. Many respondents had experienced racial harassment on a daily or weekly basis and in one sample some 70 per cent of respondents had some experience of racial harassment within a 12-month period. Broad social and economic indicators such as these paint a bleak landscape for many black and ethnic minority people. Even so, the disadvantage for BME groups is often worse in an organizational context. Institutional racism within some UK public sector institutions has been shown to continue to have prominence. When Stephen Lawrence, a London teenager, was murdered in 1993 by a group of White youths, the subsequent lengthy inquiry revealed clear evidence of institutional racism within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Macpherson Report (Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 1999) of the subsequent Inquiry found that institutional racism played a part in the awed investigation by the MPS of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. One of the most notable features of the Lawrence case was that police ofcers failed to recognize the murder as a crime that was racially motivated. The Metropolitan Police were also criticized for a lack of
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

643

urgency and commitment in parts of their investigation. The Inquiry accepted the Commission for Racial Equalitys (CRE) submission that institutional racism exists, not only in the MPS and other police services, but also in other institutions. The CRE (2003a) also found that in their investigation of the murder of Zahid Mubarek, a young Asian youth murdered by a White racist with whom he was forced to share a prison cell, the Prison Service was guilty of a catalogue of errors in their handling of the two prisoners. Because of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, legislation introduced in 2000 aimed to address the race equality agenda in the public sector specically with the purpose of embracing a more proactive requirement to deliver enhanced race relations and positive race equality outcomes. As part of the government agenda to augment race relations in the public sector, the CRE undertook research to gauge employer responses with the aim of measuring the extent and quality of response to this public duty; a component of the public duty to promote race equality included employee experiences across the employment cycle and to gauge employee satisfaction. Findings from the CRE report entitled Towards Racial Equality (2003b) stated Progress in implementing the employment duty varied considerably and in many cases there was little attention in schemes or policies to employment measures (p. 6). The results also indicated that many institutions needed to move beyond simply monitoring staff proles and applicants for jobs and to move towards addressing human resource (HR) and employment practices of those already in employment (CRE 2003b, p. 12). The Macpherson Report also highlighted that the occurrence of such institutional discrimination is the reason why the public sector has failed in the past to provide an adequate and appropriate service to minority groups. The report subsequently introduced a new denition of a racist incident that aims to cover all hate crime incidents; these can be classied as any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any person. The denition is important for two reasons. Firstly, if the victim thinks that the incident is racist but the perpetrator or investigating ofcer does not, the episode should still be classied as a racist one. Second, if the victim does not accept the incident as racist but the investigating ofcer or witness feels that it was racist, then it remains classied as a racist occurrence. This denition has been widely accepted by the majority of Public Sector organizations. The Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) brought with it an enforceable duty to promote race equality within public bodies. Some of the specic duties to be complied with include the publication of a Race Equality Scheme describing their public functions; the monitoring of staff ethnicity; and staff training to ensure public access for all to their services. Of particular interest is the publication of ethnic monitoring, where the results will provide an overview of the status of the minority ethnic employees and whether those from minority ethnic groups are clustered within the lower strata of organizations. In 2002, the Valleys Race Equality Council (VALREC), based in South Wales, a voluntary agency funded by local and regional government
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

644

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

agencies, published a report (Jones 2002) highlighting that racist incidents in the workplace were prevalent and, in particular, verbal abuse was the most common. While verbal abuse is classied as a form of racial harassment, it may also be linked to a catalogue of workplace bullying incidents suffered by minority ethnic employees. The link between prejudice and workplace bullying can be made using Allports (1954) Scale of Prejudice. Allport (1954) identied ve stages of prejudice: prejudicial comments made against individual or societal groups; avoidance of individuals or groups of people; subtle aggression shown to the individual; physical attack; and extermination with the killing of an individual. In each of these ve stages, we see parallels with workplace bullying research. Comments and snide remarks, social exclusion, aggressive behaviour and attack have all been reported in studies of bullying at work (see, for example, Bjorkvist et al. 1994, Einarsen and Raknes 1995, Vartia 1996; Archer 1999; Rayner 1999). While it is extremely rare that individuals are murdered in the workplace, the victim committing suicide because of the actions of others may also achieve Allports nal stage indirectly. WORKPLACE BULLYING AND RACIAL HARASSMENT In the last decade or so, organizational scholars and writers have increasingly drawn our attention to the growing interest in workplace bullying and other forms of interpersonal conict. Workplace aggression is referred to by many different synonyms, including, for example, bullying (Adams 1992), workplace harassment (Bjorkqvist (1992), mobbing (Leymann 1996), and workplace victimisation (Zapf 1999). As the eld of research into workplace bullying remains relatively underdeveloped (generally considered to be around 15 years old) much of the foundation for its study has involved the analysis of cross-sectional data to identify causes of bullying at individual, social and organizational levels (see, for example, Hoel and Salin 2003; Zapf and Einarsen 2003). Here researchers have painted a picture of bullying where the experience impacts negatively on the psychological well-being of those who experience, witness or are simply bystanders to it (Lewis and Sheehan 2003). In line with many academic paradigms, there are no universally agreed denitions of workplace bullying although there is agreement that bullying is best represented as events that are systematically negative, resulting in social, psychological and psychosomatic problems for the recipient (Einarsen et al. 2003). Salin (2001), Zapf and Gross (2001) and Vartia and Hyyti (2002) all demonstrate the widespread problem of workplace bullying by citing numerous international studies in Scandinavia, the UK, Australia and the USA. A common thread found in studies of bullying is the signicant health effects for all who are exposed to it. Severe psychological distress, self-loathing, heightened anxiety and feelings of depression are all well documented features. In one of the largest ever studies of workplace bullying, Hoel and Cooper (2000) in a cross-sectional study with over
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

645

5,000 UK respondents, found that nearly 40 per cent had been exposed to regular (daily or weekly) negative acts but that only 10.6 per cent had actually reported being bullied. This draws into question methodological concerns of self-reporting of negative experiences and labelling oneself as suffering from bullying at work. It appears in some cases that although individuals experience the same types and frequencies of negative behaviours, there is general reluctance by some to take on the mantle of victim (Einarsen 2000). Workplace bullying is found in most organizations, no matter the size, location or sector (see, for example, Einarsen et al. 2003). The reality in the UK is that most studies of bullying have taken place in the public sector via access through trade union membership lists. Previous studies have highlighted various parts of the public sector that have signicant experience of workplace bullying. Zapf et al. (2003) summarize pan-European research studies where public administration, health, education and social care consistently show higher prevalence of bullying compared to private sector responses. Hoel and Cooper s UK study (2000) showed how bullying was more prevalent in public sector organizations such as the prison service or teaching and less prevalent in retailing or manufacturing. Zapf et al. (2003) attempt to explain why such responses might be better understood, particularly around the concept of emotional labour (Hochschild 1983), something which is clearly found in many public sector jobs, and not in the instrumental roles of some private sector jobs such as in manufacturing organizations. What Zapf et al. (2003) does not explain is the very nature of the changing demands on public sector employees, particularly in the UK. For example, Lewis (2003) explains, in a study of bullying in further and higher education, how the changing global landscape of education, coupled with government pressure to see colleges and universities as autonomously managed organizations, presented pressure-vessel situations where bullying was regarded as commonplace. In a sizeable UNISON (a large public sector trade union) study in 1997, Rayner (1997) highlighted that 83 per cent of bullies were in management grades. When we consider the signicant changes taking place in the public sector through constant restructuring, shifting government policy, and European legislative change such as working time directives, managers tend to adopt more autocratic practices to bring about change (Sheehan 1999). As Salin (2001, p. 435) noted, with the broad European trend of restructuring of the public sector in the 1990s, issues such as downsizing and increased demands for efciency may have contributed to increased stress, frustration, and insecurity. Such a changing landscape could explain why bullying is consistently reported to be more prevalent in the public sector. Archer (1999), in a study of the UK Fire Service, showed how bullying was endemic, partly because of the paramilitary culture of the service but also because of white male dominance which impacts directly on gender and race issues. Archer (1999) argued that when a new member of staff joins an organization which possesses such a culture they may go through some form
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

646

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

of initiation ceremony. Any new employee might be expected to be the recipient of initiation, but for some people from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds, this behaviour may be seen as offensive or hostile behaviour exclusively shown towards him/her, rather than a universal inaugural ceremony. This experience was reported within the Fire Service (Home Ofce Report 1999), where minority ethnic staff stated the difculty they faced by the conscious or unconscious actions of their White male colleagues, and reported their acceptance to the group was only conditional on tting in (p. 25). Such a culture has also surfaced within the Police Force who, despite taking great strides in promoting diversity within their policies and practices, were exposed by a BBC undercover documentary in 2004 entitled The Secret Policeman. The documentary highlighted high levels of discriminatory beliefs held by new recruits and in particular the determination that some held to bully one member of staff, from a minority ethnic background, out of the Police Force. An ethnic minority person, working in an organization in which they are predominately the minority, might explain why they become easy targets for workplace bullies. While it is accepted that anyone can become the victim of workplace bullying, Archer (1999, p. 99) notes; if you are in a minority by either gender or race the likelihood is dramatically increased. Specic studies of workplace bullying and ethnicity are rare. In their broad cross-sectional study, Hoel and Cooper (2000) reported that respondents from an Asian ethnic background were more likely to be bullied than those from a White background, with 19.6 per cent of Asian respondents reporting bullying as compared to 10.5 per cent of White respondents. They also reported that respondents from Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin recounted high frequencies of insults or offensive remarks and practical jokes carried out by people you dont get on with. Chinese respondents reported the fewest negative acts. However, in terms of one negative act being ignored, excluded, or sent to Coventry the Chinese respondents reported the highest prevalence. While these gures provide us with some insight into the level of workplace bullying aimed at minority ethnic people, it must also be noted that less than 3 per cent of respondents from the Hoel and Cooper study came from minority ethnic backgrounds and as such the ndings should be treated with caution. Numerous media articles and small UK surveys have raised the issue of bullying suffered by minority ethnic people in the workplace. People Management magazine (2001) reported that around half of all ethnic minority staff in the NHS reported that they have been racially harassed in the workplace in the previous year. A report from the Royal College of Nursing (People Management magazine 2001) highlighted that nursing is one of the professions at greatest risk from bullying and, in particular, nurses from ethnic minorities were chiey at risk, with three out of ten experiencing bullying in the previous year. In their study of British nurses, Shields and Wheatley-Price (2002) demonstrated how approximately 40 per cent of ethnic minority nurses had been subjected to racial harassment
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

647

by work colleagues (compared to 10 per cent of nurses generally) with over 60 per cent of ethnic minority nurses having been subjected to racial abuse by patients (compared to 20 per cent of nurses generally). However, this study did not concern itself specically with bullying. Other organizations that have been investigated for racially motivated bullying include the automotive manufacturer, Ford, who were ordered to pay 150,000 to a former employee who suffered racist bullying from fellow staff members (Personnel Today 2002, December). Aside from these largely anecdotal or cross-sectional accounts, few empirical studies of ethnicity and bullying exist. Writers such as Adams (1992) are keen to separate the issue of bullying at work from recognized problems of racism. The difculty with this disconnection is that it is not nearly so easy to distinguish where harassment or discrimination because of race or ethnicity differs from bullying because of race or ethnicity. If ethnicity denes why people are initially targeted for general workplace bullying (as opposed to being targeted for racial harassment reasons), the issues are nonetheless the same from an organizational perspective. If employees are targeted for bullying or racial reasons and the impact on the recipient is seen to be negative or pejorative then, in organizational terms, this must be unacceptable. Similarly, if employees indicate that they are recipients of negative behaviours, whether the organization labels these as bullying, racial, sexual or any other classifying label is somewhat meaningless. The reality is that if the behaviours are received as or perceived to be negative they are therefore detrimental to sound working practice. It is both stereotyping and prejudice which leads to the stigmatization of employees from minority ethnic backgrounds (Heatherton et al. 2003). The denition of a stigmatized individual also provides an image of the general prole of a workplace bullying victim. As Heatherton et al. (2003 p. 1) noted: a person who is stigmatised is a person whose social identity, or membership in some social category, calls into question his or her full humanity the person is devalued, spoiled or awed in the eyes of others. As Zapf and Gross (2001) demonstrated, in a typical bullying scenario, the continued subjection to negative behaviours over time leads to a process of stigmatization. Whether such stigmas are caused by racism rst and bullying second or bullying rst and race second, is largely immaterial. What should be of concern to public sector organizations is the understanding and eradication of negative behaviours regardless of the labels applied. METHODS The aim of this research, based in South Wales UK, was to investigate if White British and minority Ethnic employees working across a range of public sector organizations were being exposed to bullying behaviours. We were specically interested in discovering whether the prevalence of bullying was similar or different amongst different ethnic classications of employees and whether the respondents were subjected to negative behaviours
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

648

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

from the same sources in the workplace. Although methodological issues surrounding race or ethnic categories in health contexts have been raised on grounds that race is not a valid scientic concept (see, for example, Fullilove 1998; Stolley 1999), writers such as Krieger (2003) argue that failing to study the health impact of race leaves us with incomplete understanding. We consequently adopt a position that argues that it is critical to understand and identify whether racial disparities exist within the construct of workplace bullying within public sector workplaces. One of the recognized challenges (Lewis 2002) in undertaking research into workplace bullying is the major difculty of access to those who perceive that they are suffering from bullying at work. The issues of stigma, fear, stress, and so on, are often recognized as inhibitors in gaining access to victims, particularly if those victims are men (Lewis 2002). While qualitative data can often provide the rich thickness to illustrate meaning and context for the type of bullying occurrence, accessing those members of the community who in fact represent only 1 per cent of the local population is extremely problematic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES In the 2001 UK census, 96 per cent of the population of Wales described themselves as White British. The ethnic population of the UK as a whole stands slightly higher at 7.9 per cent (2001 national census gures). The population of Wales is clustered into two principal corridors along the southern and northern coastal areas. As with many countries where ethnic peoples are largely located, these include city areas such as Cardiff, Swansea and Newport in the south and Wrexham in the north. Our study focused on four counties in the south-east of Wales where the minority ethnic population was relatively small. The population gures for these counties are shown in table 1. The reason for choosing these areas in particular is founded on the body of evidence that states that rural and semi/rural areas with a low minority ethnic population are those that are most likely to have people who express views of racism, sexism and other forms of discriminatory beliefs as opposed to more multi-cultural areas (see, for example, Jay 1992; Dhillon 1995,
TABLE 1 Minority ethnic population in the geographic areas being studied
County borough Rhondda-Cynon-Taf Bridgend Caerphilly Merthyr Tydl Total population 231,946 128,645 169,519 55,981 Minority ethnic population 2,673 1,767 1,548 564 Minority ethnic population (%) 1.15 1.37 0.91 1.00

Source: National Census Date. 2001. London: National Statistics Ofce (http://www.statistics. gov.uk/census).
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

649

Henderson and Kaur 1999; Jones 2002). Throughout history, the South Wales valleys, although not strictly classied as rural, have been an area of settlement for people from a range of ethnic backgrounds and for a variety of different reasons. Most notable groups include Italians and Poles, who escaped persecution during and after the Second World War; Caribbeans in the 1950s who helped to ll mainly low paid jobs vacated by British servicemen after the Second World War, and Asians throughout the 1960s and 1970s, who mainly settled into work with the National Health Service or started businesses. Other ows of immigration into South Wales include Somalis; East Europeans in the 1990s and Filipinos in recent times following recruitment drives by the National Health Service to ll vacancies in local hospitals. All of this, plus general migration patterns, has seen South Wales become a melting pot, albeit a relatively small one, of people from a wide spectrum of ethnic backgrounds. This small ethnic population required selective targeting of organizations. This type of convenience sampling is essential because of factors such as the availability of certain individuals who are otherwise difcult to contact or identify (see Bryman 2001). This is extremely appropriate for this study since there are very few minority ethnic people living in these county borough communities. Furthermore, given the focus of the study to examine bullying and ethnicity within a public-sector context it was necessary to identify a broad range of organizations that might predictably employ higher numbers of minority ethnic employees. This resulted in the following organizations being sampled for the study: Four National Health Trusts The Welsh Ambulance Service South Wales Fire Service Two Police Forces The Prison Service Three South Wales Universities Three Further Education Colleges Four Local Public Authorities The Royal College of Nursing HM Revenue and Customs Three Trade Unions

The majority of these organizations were known to have employees from a variety or ethnic backgrounds, in particular the National Health Trusts and the Universities who both employ larger numbers of minority ethnic staff. Instrument used In line with many European studies of workplace bullying (see, for example, Einarsen and Raknes 1995; Hoel and Cooper 2000; Gemzoe-Mikkelsen and Einarsen 2001; Salin 2001), a revised and adapted version of the NAQ (Negative Acts Questionnaire) was used. The NAQ questions are a series of
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

650

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

statements of negative behaviours which allow respondents to indicate whether they experienced such behaviours on a daily, weekly, monthly or rarely basis (see tables 2 and 3). Respondents can also indicate if they never experienced such behaviours. It is important to note that all items in the
TABLE 2 Negative acts from line managers as experienced by White and Ethnic staff
Statement Frequency of experience (%) White respondents experiences (monthly or more frequently) Are you given tasks or jobs by your line manager that are demeaning to you? Do you feel your line manager excessively and unnecessarily monitors your work? Do you feel your work is unnecessarily criticized by your line manager? Do line managers withhold information from you which affects your performance? Are you ignored or excluded by your line manager whilst at work? Do you feel singled out by your line manager for any reason? Does your line manager continually remind you of your errors or weaknesses? Do you face continued criticism of your work by your line manager? Are you ever patronized or belittled at work by your line manager? Does your line manager undermine you at work? Has your line manager ever humiliated you in front of other people, whilst at work? Do you face hostility from your line manager? Has your line manager made offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Does your line manager spread gossip or rumours about you? Has your line manager told you to quit your job? Are you the subject of practical jokes made by your line manager? Do you receive threats of physical violence against you by your line manager? Has your line manager ever written racist grafti or racist messages on your property or equipment? 10.9 13.9 11.7 15.3 1.5 5.8 10.9 11.7 8 7.3 5.8 3.6 5.1 1.5 2.9 5.8 1.5 5.1 Ethnic respondents experiences (monthly or more frequently) 28.2 19.1 21.8 15.5 20.9 20 12.7 21.8 14.5 14.5 8.2 10.9 6.4 8.2 5.5 0.9 1.8 6.4

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

651

TABLE 3 Negative acts by colleagues of equal grade or rank as experienced by White and Ethnic staff
Statement Frequency of experience (%) White respondents experiences (monthly or more frequently) Are you the subject of practical jokes made by colleagues of equal rank? Do you feel singled out by colleagues of equal rank for any reason? Are you ignored or excluded by colleagues of equal rank whilst at work? Are you ever patronized or belittled at work by colleagues of equal rank? Have colleagues of equal rank made offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Do your colleagues of equal rank undermine you at work? Do you face hostility from colleagues of equal rank? Do your colleagues of equal rank continually remind you of your errors or weaknesses? Do you face continued criticism of your work by colleagues of equal rank? Have colleagues of equal rank told you to quit your job? Do your colleagues of equal rank withhold information from you which affects your performance? Have you ever been humiliated by colleagues of equal rank in front of the other people, whilst at work? Do you feel your work is unnecessarily criticized by your colleagues of equal rank? Do colleagues of equal rank spread gossip or rumours about you? Are you given tasks or jobs by colleagues of the same rank as you that are demeaning to you? Do you feel colleagues of the same rank as you excessively and unnecessarily monitor your work? Have colleagues of equal rank ever written racist grafti or racist messages on your property or equipment? Do you receive threats of physical violence against you by colleagues of equal rank? 12.4 6.6 8.0 7.3 8.8 5.8 5.1 5.1 2.2 3.6 5.8 5.1 2.2 5.1 2.2 4.4 0.7 Ethnic respondents experiences (monthly or more frequently) 6.4 33.6 30.9 28.2 20.9 21.8 20.9 19.1 14.5 33.6 17.3 16.4 14.5 10.9 13.6 9.1 3.6

0.7

1.8

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

652

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

NAQ are described in behavioural terms without reference to the word bullying. The questionnaire also has one question that asks if the respondents felt they had been bullied at work. This was to identify whether respondents who indicated experience of negative behaviours also indicated that they felt they had been bullied. In addition to the standard NAQ instrument, we wanted to identify who were the sources of such behaviours and whether the negative behaviours differed dependent upon who was the source. We asked respondents to indicate who they experienced any of the negative behaviours from: senior managers, line managers, colleagues of equal grade or rank, colleagues of a lower grade or rank, from members of the public, or from employees of other organizations whom they met as part of their work role. The self-completion questionnaires were distributed by post to 1000 potential respondents. Sudman and Bradburn (2001) note that postal questionnaires could be more appropriate than personal interviews because they dilute the possibility of certain bias and interviewer variability. Sudman and Bradburn (1982) also note that respondents would be more likely to report incidences to which there is anxiety or sensitivity attached, which is clearly the nature of workplace bullying. However, the disadvantages of the selfcompletion questionnaires are the possibility of missing data and that those respondents whose competency in English is limited will be restricted in their ability to answer some questions. Other disadvantages might include low response rates. A covering letter outlining the reasons for the research, why it was important, and giving guarantees of condentiality, was included with the questionnaire as was a reply-paid envelope for returning the completed instrument. We obtained 247 completed questionnaires, giving a response rate of 24.7 per cent. The gender balance of responses was 51 per cent males and 49 per cent females. The survey categorized the age groups into the following: 1624 years (7 per cent), 2534 years (36 per cent), 3544 years (32 per cent), 4554 years (16 per cent) and 55 and above (9 per cent). This presents a normal distribution by age and gender. The distribution between White and non-White was 56 per cent to 44 per cent respectively. It is important to note that while we sought sufcient responses in each of the ethnic categories as outlined by the Commission for Racial Equality, the responses were too few in many cases to analyse the data by classications such as Black, Indian and Pakistani, and so on. As such, it was necessary to adjust the data so that all Ethnic categories were classied as one group and all White respondents as another group. Fortunately, our age and ethnic groupings followed each other well in three of the ve age categories as can be seen from gure 1. RESULTS Before exploring the responses to the negative behaviours contained in the NAQ, we found that, of those surveyed, 20 per cent claimed that they are bullied at work and 80 per cent claimed not to be bullied. However, the level
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

50
White non White

653

40

White Non White

Percent

30

20

10

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-70

Age

FIGURE 1 Age and ethnicity of respondents

of bullying is different for males and females, with 24 per cent of females stating that they had experienced bullying compared to 17 per cent of men. When this same question is analysed by ethnic group, 9 per cent of all of the White respondents indicated they had been bullied but some 35 per cent of all Ethnic respondents reported suffered bullying. This represents a highly signicant difference with c2 = 26.395 and p < 0.001. Using a grouping variable of gender and the Mann-Whitney signicance test, we obtained the following: (1) that there was a signicant difference between the White males and the non-White males in their experience of being bullied. Non-White males demonstrated experiencing greater levels of bullying than White males (U = 1508 with p < 0.05); and (2) the same experience was true for female respondents except that the experience was highly signicant (U = 1169.5 and P < 0.001). Our examination of the data revealed very little evidence of negative behaviours from senior managers, from members of the public, or from workers of associated organizations. The two principal sources of negative behaviours were line managers and colleagues of equivalent grade. We have re-classied the results into two principal groupings of frequency: negative behaviours that occur monthly or more frequently, and negative behaviours that rarely or never occur. Table 2, above, indicates the frequency of negative behaviours where line managers are cited as the foundation. The data in table 2 indicate that Ethnic employees perceive themselves to suffer signicantly more negative behaviours from line managers than their White colleagues. The differences are greatest in behaviours such as demeaning work tasks, unnecessary and continued criticism, exclusion, feeling
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

654

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

belittled and rumour spreading. Only practical jokes occur more frequently for White respondents. Table 3, above, compares the negative behaviours where colleagues of equal grade or rank are the perpetrator. The results in table 3 illustrate even higher frequencies of negative behaviours being experienced by minority ethnic employees. Negative experiences in areas such as being singled out, patronized or belittled, excluded and undermined, are four, ve or even six times more likely to be experienced by Ethnic respondents. Once again, only practical jokes are experienced more by White respondents than Ethnic respondents. These initial results demonstrate that an almost complete range of negative behaviours are frequently being experienced more often by Ethnic respondents compared to White respondents. When we explore the signicant differences based on the negative behaviours from colleagues we nd only one signicant difference for White respondents but 10 signicant differences for Ethnic respondents. These are shown in table 4. These results give further credence to the evidence that minority Ethnic employees appear to endure greater levels of bullying behaviours than their White counterparts. The data were further examined using the statistical technique of factor analysis. Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical procedure used to summarize information from a large number of measured variables into a smaller number of latent variables, sometimes referred to as factors. By adopting this approach, we could better understand the structure of the 18 NAQ variables and reduce the dataset to one of manageable proportions. The varimax orthogonal rotation was considered to be the appropriate approach and this is also in line with that of many other researchers of conict and workplace bullying (see, for example, Withey and Cooper 1989; lafsson and Jhannsdttir 2004). For each of the 18 NAQs, the ve categories of response used were never , rarely, weekly, monthly and daily, in line with the standard categorization. When it came to the data analysis, the ve response categories were somewhat sparse for analysis, with too few frequencies in some categories. These ve categories could almost be considered continuous in nature, and, to overcome such issues, it was decided to regroup the responses into never , rarely and more often by merging categories. These three groups can be seen to be quite discrete and so less subjective in nature. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to see whether there were any differences in terms of factor groups between line managers and colleagues of equal grade, based on responses from White respondents as one discrete group and Ethnic respondents as another group. By adopting this approach we aimed to discern whether the behaviours differ further as a result of ethnic classication. The initial analysis that took place was an exploration of the 18 negative behaviours towards White respondents from line managers (see table 5). The resulting three factor solution (with eigenvalues greater than 1) emerged and accounted for 66 per cent of the variance in the data. Using Cronbachs Alpha
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

655

TABLE 4 Signicant differences in negative behaviours from colleagues of equal grade experienced by White and Ethnic respondents
Mann-Whitney U Are you given tasks or jobs by your colleagues which are demeaning to you? Do you face continued criticism of your work by your colleagues? Have your colleagues told you to quit your job? Are you undermined at work by your colleagues? Do you ever feel singled out by your colleagues? Are you the subject of practical jokes made by your colleagues? Are you ever patronized or belittled by your colleagues at work? Are you ignored or excluded at work by your colleagues? Do you face hostility from your colleagues? Do your colleagues make offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Have your colleagues ever written racist grafti or racist messages on your property or equipment? 6771.000 6407.500 5879.000 6567.500 5165.000 6100.000 6139.000 5639.000 6305.500 6223.000 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) P < 0.05 P < 0.05 P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P < 0.05 Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents White respondents Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents Ethnic respondents

6863.000

P < 0.05

Ethnic respondents

coefcients to test for reliability we obtain the following: factor 1 = 0.884, factor 2 = 0.819, and factor 3 = 0.623. Table 5 illustrates how the three factors could be classied as bullying related to the job or work being undertaken (factor 1), personalized bullying (factor 2) and bullying as social ridicule in the working environment. Factor 1 explains bullying as criticism, excessive monitoring, being reminded of mistakes and errors, withholding information and being singled out. Personalized bullying (factor 2) is interpreted as humiliation, exclusion, being told to quit and comments on race/ethnicity. The third factor presents bullying as a combination of gossip/rumour and practical jokes, making bullying a more socialized negative experience. Our next step was to compare the results of line manager behaviours towards Ethnic respondents. Table 6 demonstrates the factor analysis results in three factors that account for 60 per cent of the variance within the data. Cronbachs Alpha reliability coefcients indicate: factor 1 = 0.792, factor 2 = 0.808, and factor 3 = 0.408.
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

656

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

TABLE 5 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards white respondents

Line managers behaviours towards white respondents Components Bullying by job/work role .846 .773 .711 .706 .704 .683 .620 .842 .832 .614 .488 .774 .772 Personalized bullying Social bullying

Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarily criticized by your line manager? Do you feel your work is excessively and unnecessarily monitored by your line manager? Does your line manager continually remind you of your errors or weaknesses? Do you ever feel singled out by your line manager? Are you undermined at work by your line manager? Are you given tasks or jobs by your line manager which are demeaning to you? Does your line manager with hold information that affects your performance? Does your line manager make offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Has your line manager told you to quit your job? Have you been humiliated in front of other people at work by your line manager? Are you ignored or excluded at work by your line manager? Are you the subject of practical jokes made by your line manager? Does your line manager spread gossip or rumours about you? Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

The results for Ethnic respondents show a similar but discretely different pattern to that of their White colleagues. We nd that factor 1 components are personalized bullying behaviours, factor 2 components are work/role related bullying behaviours and factor 3 components relate to bullying by threats. These two separate analyses yield results that demonstrate that White and Ethnic respondents experience similar negative behaviours from line managers, resulting in common factors between both groups. However, Ethnic respondents suffer greater frequency of personalized bullying than their White counterparts who experience higher frequency of work- or job-related bullying. For Ethnic respondents, there is also evidence of bullying by threats while their White colleagues experience some social bullying although it is important to note that both of these factor components have the weakest Cronbachs Alpha coefcients at 0.4 and 0.623 respectively.
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

657

TABLE 6 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards ethnic respondents

Line manager behaviours towards ethnic respondents Components Personalized bullying Does your line manager make offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Are you ever patronized or belittled by your line manager at work? Are you given tasks or jobs by your line manager which are demeaning to you? Have you been humiliated in front of other people at work by your line manager? Are you undermined at work by your line manager? Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarily criticized by your line manager? Does your line manager with hold information that affects your performance? Does your line manager continually remind you of your errors or weaknesses? Do you feel your work is excessively and unnecessarily monitored by your line manager? Do you receive threats of physical violence against you by your line manager? Has your line manager told you to quit your job? Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a Rotation converged in 6 iterations .824 .769 .743 .600 .770 .694 .672 .621 .601 .900 .424 Bullying by job/ work role Bullying by threats

Our next analysis was to consider the behaviours of colleagues of equal grade to their White and Ethnic colleagues. Following a similar process of using exploratory factor analysis, we undertook a rst rotation for White respondents that revealed 4 factors and accounted for 62 per cent of the variation. Unfortunately, the fourth factor consisted of only one component and this was deemed to be of limited value. Hence the varimax rotation was repeated but with an imposed constraint of three factors. The variance that was now accounted for reduced to 56 per cent but does appear to provide a more coherent solution, even allowing for the reduction in the variance. Cronbachs Alpha coefcient of reliability for table 7 are: factor 1 = 0.890; factor 2 = 0.719; and factor 3 = 0.634. Table 7 illustrates how bullying behaviours
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

658

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

TABLE 7 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards white respondents
Behaviour of colleagues of equal rank towards white colleagues Component Personalized or social bullying .795 .750 .721 .714 .691 .654 .652 .595 .588 .704 .695 .669 .665 .609 .537 .881 .739 Bullying by job or work role Bullying by threats

Have you been humiliated in front of other people at work by your colleagues? Do you ever feel singled out by your colleagues? Are you ignored or excluded at work by your colleagues? Are you ever patronized or belittled by your colleagues at work? Do you face hostility from your colleagues? Do your colleagues spread gossip or rumours about you? Do your colleagues make offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Are you the subject of practical jokes made by your colleagues? Are you undermined at work by your colleagues? Do you feel your work is excessively and unnecessarily monitored by your colleagues? Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarily criticized by your colleagues? Do your colleagues continually remind you of your errors or weaknesses? Do you face continued criticism of your work by your colleagues Are you given tasks or jobs by your colleagues which are demeaning to you? Does your colleague withhold information that affects your performance? Have your colleagues ever written racist grafti or racist messages on your property or equipment? Do you receive threats of physical violence against you by your colleagues? Have your colleagues told you to quit your job?

.555

of colleagues of equal rank fall into categories of personal/social bullying, bullying within work or job role and, nally, bullying by threats. When the data were analysed for negative behaviours from colleagues of equal rank towards Ethnic colleagues, we achieved a factor analysis of three
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

659

TABLE 8 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards ethnic respondents
Behaviour of colleagues of equal rank towards ethnic colleagues Component Personalized bullying .876 .860 .857 .856 .785 .727 .717 .775 .741 .703 .668 .499 .861 .851 Bullying by job or work role Social and threatening bullying

Have your colleagues told you to quit your job? Are you ever patronized or belittled by your colleagues at work? Are you ignored or excluded at work by your colleagues? Do you ever feel singled out by your colleagues? Do your colleagues make offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity? Are you undermined at work by your colleagues? Have you been humiliated in front of other people at work by your colleagues? Do you feel your work is excessively and unnecessarily monitored by your colleagues Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarily criticized by your colleagues? Does your colleague withhold information that affects your performance? Do your colleagues spread gossip or rumours about you? Are you given tasks or jobs by your colleagues which are demeaning to you? Do you receive threats of physical violence against you by your colleagues? Have your colleagues ever written racist grafti or racist messages on your property or equipment? Are you the subject of practical jokes made by your colleagues?

.462

factors that account for 64 per cent of the variance in the data. The Cronbachs Alpha coefcient scores are: factor 1 = 0.932; factor 2 = 0.741; and factor 3 = 0.656. The results in table 8 demonstrate similar patterns within the factor components as for White colleagues. There are however one or two subtle differences. Ethnic respondents appear to experience greater frequency of negative behaviours from colleagues of equal rank than their White counterparts. Furthermore, Ethnic respondents suffer a direct threat of being told
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

660

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

to quit their job alongside more personalized bullying threats of patronization, being singled out, humiliated, or suffering racist comments. These are things which do not appear to happen so frequently with White respondents. Ethnic respondents also appear to suffer fewer social forms of bullying such as gossip or rumours than their White counterparts who experience gossip or practical jokes as part of their personalized bullying experience. DISCUSSION This study of public sector workers has demonstrated that one in ve respondents indicated that they felt they had been bullied at work and this was higher for women (24 per cent) than for men (17 per cent). These ndings are comparable to other studies, where typical prevalence rates uctuate between 5 per cent and over 30 per cent (see Zapf et al. 2003 for summary accounts). It is unsurprising that we could nd little evidence for bullying taking place from senior managers, given that senior managers are less likely to come into direct contact with employees on a day-to-day basis. It is, however, surprising that more evidence was not uncovered for bullying by members of the public or user groups of public services, particularly given the numbers of NHS respondents, education workers and emergency service workers taking part in this study. As with many studies of bullying at work we found clear evidence of negative behaviours from line managers, the most prevalent of these being demeaning tasks, excessive monitoring, excessive criticism, withholding information, and exclusion. However, the novel approach taken in this study also sought to identify the negative behaviours emanating from colleagues of equal grade or rank and not only to consider the Ethnic differences. To our knowledge, such an approach is unique in studies of bullying at work. The negative behaviours from colleagues are quite different from the negative behaviours from line managers. Here we see how jokes, racist remarks, humiliation and hostility are the most frequently occurring negative behaviours. These are important ndings as it enables us to understand how the negative behaviours differ according to whether managers or colleagues instigate them. With this heightened understanding, organizations and those tasked with dealing with bullying at work such as human resource managers and trade union ofcers, can make informed decisions on intervention strategies and possible diversity awareness programmes. The data in this study suggests that adopting a blanket approach to tackling bullying is too simplistic since different groups use different bullying tactics. When specically exploring the data by ethnic classication we nd a higher prevalence of bullying amongst non-White groups, with 35 per cent indicating that they suffer from bullying compared to just 9 per cent of White respondents. The data in tables 2 to 4 demonstrate how minority Ethnic respondents consistently report experiencing more exposure to bullying behaviours from both line managers and their work colleagues compared to White respondents.
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

661

Bullying amongst Ethnic employees is statistically signicant for both men and women, although it is highly statistically signicant amongst women (U = 1169.5, p < 0.001). These ndings are comparable to other studies of bullying where gender was the focus (see, for example, Vartia and Hyyti 2002), although no specic studies have sought to explore the ethnic differences in gender groups. These results conrm the cross-sectional analysis undertaken by Hoel and Cooper (2000) where some Ethnic groups were approximately twice as likely to experience bullying compared to their White counterparts. This study has shown that line managers use different bullying tactics towards White respondents compared to Ethnic respondents. When line managers bully White respondents, the most prominent types of negative behaviour relate to the work or job role rst and personalized bullying second. This order is reversed for Ethnic respondents, with personalized bullying being the most prominent. These ndings are extremely important since they enable us to better understand the negative tactics employed by line managers towards White and Ethnic respondents. When we look at the negative behaviour of colleagues, we nd less distinct differences when the victim is from an Ethnic group. When colleagues bully other colleagues, the focus of the attack is personal rst and foremost. Exclusion and being ignored, humiliation, being undermined and patronized, feature strongly in the armoury of the bully regardless of whether the victim is White or from some other Ethnic classication. However, there are some subtle and notso-subtle differences in the behaviour of colleagues towards Ethnic respondents. Most prominent among these is being told to quit the job, something which occurs with greater frequency for Ethnic respondents. The results show how social forms of bullying such as gossip or rumour or practical jokes are more prominently used against White colleagues than Ethnic colleagues. It is possible that when colleagues bully, their tactics change to reect rstly their organizational status and, secondly, the behaviours they may perceive they can get away with. It is clear from these results that while Ethnic respondents are continuing to experience bullying tactics by their colleagues, the more obvious racist actions of practical jokes and grafti are masked by more subtle bullying behaviours. This might well be the result of over 30 years of the raising of racial awareness in British workplaces that have not eradicated negative behaviours towards Ethnic employees but merely changed them from being overt to covert. We already know from existing European studies of bullying at work how different forms of bullying behaviours can be classied as organizationally derived or socially orientated (see, for example, Einarsen and Raknes 1995; Zapf et al. 1996). What we have not known up to this point is how these negative behaviours have differed based on the perpetrator s position or role in the organization and the recipients ethnic classication. The data from this study have clearly illustrated that managers and colleagues use different bullying behaviours and that these change when the recipient is from an Ethnic group. As Eriksen and Einarsen (2004, p. 473) noted in their study of
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

662

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

bullying amongst male nurses, The risk associated with being different has been documented by many social and political processes throughout human history. Although not reported here, we are continuing to analyse the data for the health effects and intervention strategies adopted by White and Ethnic respondents who are experiencing bullying in public service organizations. This might provide us with further clues as to how difference manifests itself in organizations. Methodological limitations Although we believe we have obtained a balanced sample of Ethnic and White respondents, the relatively small sample size of 247 people must be taken into account. Furthermore, the study contained too few respondents in the different Ethnic classications as outlined by the Commission for Racial Equality to enable us to see whether sub-groups of negative behaviour might exist or not. For example, do Chinese respondents have a different workplace experience compared to Indian employees? It is therefore important that further studies are undertaken using larger datasets where a range of Ethnic and minority groups are represented. Nevertheless, we believe some valuable information has been provided by this study. Self reporting measures of issues such as bullying should always be considered carefully in situations where it is not possible to control for other measures such as health, personality or other psycho-social variables that produce articially high results. Even so, when an employee feels they are experiencing bullying it is their perception that matters to them and we have accepted that insight as the basis for this study. The paper has already recognized the important but constraining issue of access to victims of bullying in a generic way. Studies of this kind add further layers of complexity to the access issue, this time on the basis of ethnic classication. Access to qualitative data that provides the richness of meaning and understanding that workplace bullying requires is extremely important, but researchers will need to nd methods to overcome problems of access, particularly with groups of individuals who fall outside of norm categories. CONCLUSIONS This study reinforces the evidence of other studies conducted globally into bullying at work, in that incidences rates are comparable. The 20 per cent of respondents in this study who indicated they were experiencing bullying at work is relatively high compared to some other studies. This indicates that further work needs to be undertaken across the public sector with a larger sample which brings together both qualitative and quantitative data. A fundamental nding from this study is the use of different negative behaviours by different bullies dependent upon their position in the hierarchy. We now understand how bullying tactics change dependent upon whether the person perpetrating the bullying is a line manager or a peer.
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

663

We also know that clusters of negative behaviours exist and that these are used to bully in relation to an individuals role; as a personalized attack or even as a form of social bullying. The evidence indicates that line managers bully White respondents by attacking their work role while line managers bully Ethnic respondents by a personalized attack. Peer bullying to White and Ethnic respondents remains largely one of personalized or social bullying. This is most likely to be because peers do not possess the power to bully on the basis of work role. These ndings have fundamental implications for strategies of intervention in dealing with bullying at work. The 1999 Macpherson Report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry dened institutional racism as The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage ethnic people. This study has demonstrated that ethnic people continue to be disadvantaged in public sector workplaces. The negative behaviours they experience clearly constitute bullying at work. This has more fundamental implications on the public employment duty for racial equality of the 2000 Race Relations (Amendment) Act. While the 1976 Race Relations Act did not cover racial harassment, by December 2003, racial harassment was an offence under law. The duty on public sector employers to monitor practices by ethnic origin (including grievance) and publish their results annually means that evidence from studies such as ours becomes even more important. However, particularly signicant are the ndings of a report into public duty compliance in Wales (June 2005). In an interview with Chris Myant, Director of the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, we were told that none of the 43 public bodies contacted by the CRE in Wales were compliant and only 8 of these were compliant in part. Results such as these do not augur well when considering the ndings of studies such as ours. What our study now shows us is that the perpetrators of these bullying behaviours discriminate clearly on ethnic grounds and adapt their tactics accordingly. The year 2006 saw the 30th anniversary of the Race Relations Act in Britain. It would seem that so much more needs to be done.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the respondents and organizations who enabled this study to take place. Specic thanks are given to Andrew Jones of the Valleys Race Equality Council. REFERENCES
Adams, A. 1992. Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome it. London: Virago. Allport, G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

664

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

Archer, D. 1999. Exploring Bullying Vulture in the Para-military Organization, International Journal of Manpower, 20 1/2, 94105. Bjorkqvist, K. 1992. Sex Differences in Physical, Cerbal, and Indirect Aggression: A Review of Recent Research, Sex Roles, 30, 3/4, 17788. Bjorkqvist, K., K. Osterman and M. Hjelt-Back. 1994. Aggression Among University Employees, Aggressive Behaviour, 20, 17384. Brook, K. 2004. Labour Market Data for Local Areas by Ethnicity, Labour Market Trends, October 2004, 40516. Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chakraborti, N. and J. Garland. 2004. Englands Green and Pleasant Land? Examining Racial Prejudice in a Rural Context, Patterns of Prejudice, 38, 4, 38398. Commission for Racial Equality. 2003a. Racial Equality in Prisons. London: Commission for Racial Equality. Commission for Racial Equality. 2003b. Towards Racial Equality. London: Commission for Racial Equality. Commission for Racial Equality (Wales). 2005. Welsh public bodies fail race equality survey (available by email from CRE Wales), 27 June. Dhillon, P. 1995. Challenging Rural Racism. London: NCVO. Einarsen, S. 2000. Harassment and Bullying at Work: A Review of the Scandinavian Approach, Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 5, 4, 371401. Einarsen, S. and B.I. Raknes. 1995. Harassment at Work and the Victimization of Men, paper presented at the Seventh European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Gyor, Hungary, May. Einarsen, S., H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper. 2003. The Concept of Bullying at Work: the European Tradition, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis. Eriksen, W. and S. Einarsen. 2004. Gender Minority as a Risk of Exposure to Bullying at Work: The Case of Male Assistant Nurses, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 4, 47392. Fullilove, M.T. 1998. Comment: Abandoning Race as a Variable in Public Health Research an Idea Whose Time Has Come, American Journal of Public Health, 88, 12978. Gemzoe-Mikkelsen, E. and S. Einarsen. 2001. Bullying in Danish Work-life: Prevalence and Health Correlates, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 393413. Health and Safety Executive. 2005. Research Report [RR.308], Ethnicity, Work Characteristics, Stress and Health. London: HSE Books. Heatherton, T.F., R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull (eds). 2003. The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York: Guilford Press. Home Ofce Reports. 1999. Equality and Fairness in the Fire Service. London: Home Ofce. Henderson, P. and R. Kaur. 1999. Rural Racism in the UK. London: Community Development Foundation. Hochschild, A.R. 1983. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hoel, H. and C. Cooper. 2000. Destructive Conict and Bullying at Work, Report produced by the Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Hoel, H. and D. Salin. 2003. Organizational Antecedents of Workplace Bullying, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis. Jay, E. 1992. Keep them in Birmingham Challenging Racism in South-west England. London: Commission for Racial Equality: Jones, A. 2002. Racism in the Valleys Perception or Reality? Valleys Race Equality Council: Pontypridd, South Wales. Krieger, N. 2003. Does Racism Harm Health? Did Child Abuse Exist Before 1962? On Explicit Questions, Critical Science, and Current Controversies: An Ecosocial Perspective, American Journal of Public Health, 93, 2, 1949. Lewis, D. 2002. The Social Construction of Workplace Bullying a Sociological Study with Special Reference to Further and Higher Education. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Wales (Cardiff), School of Social Sciences and Education. Lewis, D. 2003. Voices in the Social Construction of Bullying at Work: Exploring Multiple Realities in Further and Higher Education, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 1, 6581. Lewis, D. and M. Sheehan. 2003. Workplace Bullying: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to a Management Challenge, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 1, 110.

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

665

Lewis, D. 2004. Bullying at Work: the Impact of Shame Among University and College Lecturers, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 3, 281300. Leymann, H. 1996. The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 65184. lafsson, R.F. and H.L. Jhannsdttir. 2004. Coping with Bullying in the Workplace: the Effect of Gender, Age and Type of Bullying, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 3, 31933. People Management Magazine. 2001. A Painful Issue for the Health Service, 12, 78. Personnel Today. 2002. Ford forced to pay 150,000 to victim of racist bullying, December. Race Relations (Amendment) Act. 2000. London: The Stationery Ofce. Rayner, C. 1997. Incidence of Workplace Bullying, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 3, 18191. Rayner, C. 1999. From Research to Implementation: Finding Leverage for Prevention, International Journal of Manpower, 20 1/2, 2838. Salin, D. 2001. Prevalence and Forms of Bullying amongst Business Professionals: A Comparison of Two Different Strategies for Measuring Bullying, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 42541. Sheehan, M. 1999. Workplace Bullying: Responding with some Emotional Intelligence, International Journal of Manpower, 20 1/2, 5769. Shields, M. and S. Wheatley Price. 2002. Racial Harassment, Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit: Evidence from the British Nursing Profession, Economica, 69, 295326. Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, The. 1999. A Report by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: The Stationery Ofce, February. Stolley, P.D. 1999. Race in Epidemiology, International Journal of Health Services, 29, 9059. Sudman, S. and N.M. Bradburn. 1982. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Vartia, M. 1996. The Sources of Bullying Psychological Work Environment and Organizational Climate, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 20314. Vartia, M. and J. Hyyti. 2002. Gender Differences in Workplace Bullying among Prison Ofcers, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 1, 11326. Walling, A. 2004. Workless Households: Results from the Spring 2004 LFS, Labour Market Trends, November, 43545. Withey, M. and W. Cooper. 1989. Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 52139. Zapf, D. 1999. Organizational, Work Group Related and Personal Causes of Mobbing/bullying at Work, International Journal of Manpower, 20 1/2, 7085. Zapf, D., C. Knorz and M. Kulla. 1996. On the Relationship between Mobbing Factors, and Job Content, Social Work Environment, and Health Outcomes, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 21537. Zapf, D. and C. Gross. 2001. Conict Escalation and Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Replication and Extension, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 497522. Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia. 2003. Findings on Bullying in the Workplace, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis. Zapf, D. and S. Einarsen. 2003. Individual Antecedents of Bullying: Victims and Perpetrators, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Date received 17 July 2005. Date accepted 30 January 2006.

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665) 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.