Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Desarrollo, A.C.]
On: 15 September 2014, At: 13:33
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Interventions in workplace
bullying: A multilevel approach
Nicole J. Saam
Erfurt,
2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ejwop
DOI: 10.1080/13594320802651403
52
SAAM
53
Dened as an intervention strategy in which the mediator tries to negotiate between the
parties and to help them build up trust with regard to the third party. S/he selects information,
observes the tactical moves of the parties, and tries to full those communicative functions the
parties can no longer full themselves in direct confrontations. All methods and means of
pressure are available to the mediator to the same extent that they are available to the parties
(Glasl, 1982, p. 134).
54
SAAM
Dened as interventions that clarify misunderstandings and misperceptions and that deal
with other kinds of cognitive and semantic dierences (Glasl, 1982, p. 132).
55
deal with elements not addressed by the initial intervention (Fisher &
Keashly, 1990, p. 238; Keashly & Nowell, 2003, p. 349). As applied to
mediation, the rst argument states that mediation can fail if the conict has
reached an even higher level of escalation at which only arbitration or power
intervention are appropriate. The second argument is that mediation can be
unsuccessful if there is no follow-up intervention. In the de-escalating
sequence of interventions the conciliation and the negotiation phase may
have been forgotten.
Additionally, mediation has been criticized for a number of other failings:
In contrast to the basic assumption of mediation, parties involved in
workplace bullying are not equally capable of negotiating with each other.
Mediation does not address or punish past behaviour because it has a focus
on present and future relationships. The concerns for justice and recognition
of the harm done to the victim are ignored. Mediation keeps wrongdoings
beyond public scrutiny. Condentiality works against the identication of
systematic patterns of conict associated with a particular party, a
particular unit within an organization, or across the organization (Keashly
& Nowell, 2003; Rayner, 1999). These failings reect a crucial dierence
between the concepts of conict and bullying. In conicts parties are equally
able to defend themselves, whereas this is not so in the case of bullying.
There is an imbalance of power among the parties involved in the dispute.
Therefore, Keashly and Nowell (2003, p. 353) argue that mediation may not
only be an inappropriate intervention strategy in workplace bullying, but
that it may even be harmful. They conclude that bullying should not be
described as a conict. Instead, researchers should rather consider what a
conict-oriented perspective might oer in terms of understanding workplace bullying (p. 356).
The imbalance of power argument is also supported by Ferris (2004) and
Hubert (2003). Based on her clinical practice with severe experiences of
bullying, Ferris reports that mediation was frequently unsuccessful due to
power dierentials between the target and the bully, inexperience on the part
of the person conducting the mediation, and lack of understanding of the
dierences between bullying and interpersonal conict. Extensive counselling was often required to help the target cope with the lack of help or the
failed mediation (p. 392).
Huberts (2003) concern with mediation of the superior is based on
personal experience. She reports that this increases the risk of escalation.
The situation may easily turn into a winlose ght, arousing feelings of
rancour as well as wishes for revenge on the side of the oender if the target
wins (p. 309).
Similarly, Aquino (2000, p. 189) questions the use of mediation for cases
of workplace victimization (which is dened very similarly to bullying).
Based on a quantitative empirical study, he argues that eective conict
56
SAAM
Organizational responses
Some authors concentrate on the ways dierent organizations respond to
workplace bullying. Salin (2009) explores what kind of measures personnel
managers have taken to intervene in workplace harassment. She refers to
characteristics of the organization and of the personnel manager to explain
the applied intervention strategy. The organizations relied heavily on
reconciliatory measures for responding to workplace harassment (operationalized as discussion with parties involved, potentially with a neutral
mediator involved; consulting healthcare services; counselling or other help
for target and/or perpetrator). She nds that the likelihood of transferring
either target or perpetrator and the probability of avoiding dealing with
harassment increases with the size of the organization. Whereas female
personnel managers prefer reconciliatory measures and the transfer of either
target or perpetrator, male personnel managers prefer avoidance.
Based on her clinical practice with severe experiences of bullying, Ferris
(2004) has presented a typology on how dierent organizations respond to
workplace bullying. She argues that the most helpful organizations do not
merely see bullying as a personality issue to be solved by the parties in
conict or through mediation. Instead, bullying is seen as an organizational
problem that needs to be addressed through coaching for the bully,
counselling, performance management, and representative training
(p. 393.).
Keashley and Neuman (2004) present the case study of an action research
approach in which the researchers recruited employees, leadership, and
union ocials from the large organization involved. Although situationspecic interventions were designed to address particular problematic
behaviours (p. 360), the major intervention was the action research
approach because it launched an organizational development process: The
action research process changed the nature and the character of conversations within the organization, created an atmosphere of trust, security, and
high quality interpersonal interaction, and engaged the participants in a
continuous cycle of action and reection (p. 362).
On the whole there is only fragmentary information on intervention in
bullying. In particular, one would like to know reasons other than the
characteristics of the organization or the personnel manager that explain
why a certain intervention method is applied. As Salin (2009) states, there
are many more characteristics that might aect the choice of the
intervention strategy, e.g., perpetrator characteristics and harassment
57
severity. Because of the fragmented state of the issue, this study prefers a
qualitative design and employs a new empirical approach. Consultants who
have specialized in bullying consultation are interviewed and asked which
intervention strategies they apply and for what reason and to what purpose
the strategies are adopted. The ndings will not only complement those of
Salin; they will also shed new light on the approaches that classify
intervention strategies and on the appropriateness of mediation as an
intervention strategy.
58
SAAM
Method of analysis
The evaluation consisted of a type formation (Kelle & Kluge, 1999). In
this step the relevant comparative dimensions were determined, based on
the statements of the bullying consultants interviewed. The cases were then
grouped according to their comparative dimensions as well as their
characteristics and analysed as to their empirical regularities. The real
types were then reconstructed following the principles of internal
homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Typical combinations of characteristics were then analysed as to possible contexts of meaning. Finally,
the constructed types were described by a precise description of the
combinations of characteristics and the meaning contexts forming the basis
of each type.
INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
The following categories proved to be the relevant comparative dimensions
for the formation of real types of bullying consultants: The opinion of the
consultant as to the causes of bullying and the stage of conict escalation in
the actual case; the consultants person-oriented or organization-oriented
intervention strategy; the willingness of the client to accept the procedure
proposed by the consultant; the mandate that the person seeking bullying
consultation has received according to his/her formal position from the
organization aected by bullying.
59
person-oriented
and
60
SAAM
61
62
SAAM
63
64
SAAM
Organization development
Bullying consulting as organization development is the intervention strategy
that results in a change in the organization. One consultant describes the
explanations used by bullying consultants, when she suggests organization
development:
The cause of bullying in this case was a bad organization, bad procedures,
non-transparent distribution of tasks. That is why the young woman who
resigned could be treated as scum, even including the manipulation of her
computer, so that she could not work there any more. And the executives
were so bad that they didnt even notice, didnt intervene; that was a mistake
by the management. But the cause, the reason that bullying could occur was
a bad organization, thats how it all started. (OE1, 7784)
Employees from the clients organization work out solutions in workshops
that change the general conditions in such a way that future cases of bullying
become improbable (e.g., formulating a vision, bullying conventions,
company agreements, designating someone responsible for conicts).
Generally, I oer a series of two- to three-day workshops at a time. And
then you see the most varied cases when the people have gained a bit of
trust then they reveal all sorts of things. The workshops are advertised
and anyone who is interested in them can come. In the rst row there are
people directly aected by bullying who want to change something and
therefore join in every time. In the context of the workshop, among other
things, interpersonal communication is improved and motivational
training is conducted. (SB1, 105112)
After the workshops I look to see if follow-up is happening, whether the
people in the actual situation really want to change anything. Bullying is
a sign of decits within an organization. So the second part of my
training works in the direction of what can be done to counteract these
decits. Then I oer workshops to improve the quality within the
organization, organization structure etc. (SB1, 127132)
The organization development measures applied during a case of bullying
can have far-reaching consequences:
Once it happened that in a large company with 2000 employees after a
period of two years 400 people were to leave their jobs. I met the head of
the works council at a seminar about bullying: he was in one of my
seminars and said I should go and see them as they had a problem. And
65
INTERPRETATION
Among the consultants, two views on bullying can be dierentiated: a
conict view and a multilevel view.
TABLE 1
The types of intervention strategies applied by the consultantsa
Consultant is
Intervention strategy
methodologically specialized
methodologically diversied
Moderation/mediation
Coaching
Organization development
66
SAAM
The conflict view: How far has the whole thing already
escalated? (E1, 73)
The consultants who favour conict moderation or mediation conceive of
bullying as a particularly escalated form of conict. It depends on their
judgement of how far the conict has already escalated whether they apply
conict moderation or mediation. Up to this point they are in agreement
with the contingency approach.
However, the consultants report that sometimes they fail because the
actual cause of the conict was unclear. Uninteresting work targets,
management executive behaviour, or other causes they were not able to
identify were the source of the problem. This supports the theoretical debate
on the appropriateness of mediation (discussed earlier).
67
68
SAAM
69
Coaching the victim or the bully (see Conclusions) is not considered here.
70
SAAM
support for group members have increased again due to responsible action
by superiors or the works council. In this indirect way, coaching rebalances
the power relation between the bully and the target.
P3: Organization development is a suitable intervention strategy at the
organizational level. Organization development (French & Bell, 1995)
addresses negative antecedents and consequences of bullying activities at the
organizational level. Organization development also compensates for some
of mediations failings: Mediation keeps wrongdoings beyond public
scrutiny. The condentiality of mediation is complemented by the
publicity of organizational development. Organizational development sets
new standards for doing things correctly (Grunwald, 2002), which
rebalances the power relation between the bully and the target. Other
failings of mediation remain beyond the reach of coaching and
organizational development, particularly the concerns for justice and
recognition of the harm and question of punishment.
CONCLUSIONS
This article has investigated intervention strategies in workplace bullying
that have received little attention from researchers. A short review of the
literature has revealed that till now the primary issues have been approaches
to classifying intervention strategies, the appropriateness of mediation as an
intervention strategy, and ways dierent organizations respond to workplace bullying.
As a result of the fragmented state of the issue, this study has favoured a
qualitative design and has used a new empirical approach. Consultants who
have specialized in bullying consultation were interviewed and asked which
intervention strategies they apply and for what reason and what purpose the
strategies are adopted.
71
Discussion
This article has not yet addressed the question of the relation between the
contingency approach and the multilevel approach in interventions in
workplace bullying. Do these perspectives complement each other or do
they compete with each other? Heames and Harvey (2006) describe
bullying as repeated actions and practices of a perpetrator that are directed
at one or more workers, which are unwanted by the victim, cause
humiliation, oence, and distress, and generate negative consequences
relative to three dierent levels. This is a static conception that considers
the context in which workplace bullying takes place. As opposed to this,
Zapf and Gross (2001) conceive of bullying as a particularly escalated
form of conict, as long-term and badly managed conicts. Here, this
article adds that the conict has not only escalated but is also escalating
further. Their conception is inherently dynamic, like Glasls (1982) model
of the escalation of social conicts. As a consequence a thorough
examination of the relationship between both approaches will have to
discuss the relevance of static and dynamic conceptions, of agency and
structure.
72
SAAM
The results of the empirical study should turn our attention to a closer
inspection of conict moderation, mediation, and coaching strategies: How
are conict moderation and mediation used by bullying consultants?
What are the dierences that can be observed empirically? In the view
of Glasl (1982, p. 132) moderation is appropriate for low intensity conicts;
moderation is not suitable for bullying. Might the application of conict
moderation as opposed to mediation explain the failure of mediation?
What are the causes of the reported lack in methodological skills on the part
of the mediators (Ferris, 2004)? Before considering a response to this
question, it is also advisable to be aware of how often mediation fails.
Coaching emerges as one of the most fascinating intervention strategies
in organizations (Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; Kilburg, 1996;
Sperry, 2008; Taertshofer, 2007). Until this study was carried out,
coaching superiors had been previously suggested as a prevention strategy
in the context of bullying (Schild & Heeren, 2002, p. 138). It was found that
in the context of workplace bullying coaching is used as an intervention
strategy that supports superiors and the works council (OE4, OE5, E3, SB5,
SB6, OE2, E1), or the target (E2, E6). Recently, Crawshaw (2006) has
described the coaching of abrasive executives, i.e., of individuals charged
with managerial authority whose interpersonal behaviour causes emotional
distress in co-workers and is capable of disrupting organizational
functioning. An abrasive executive may be a bully. This demonstrates the
exibility of coaching as an intervention strategy. Important research
questions relate to the long-term eects of coaching of either the bully, the
target, the superior, or the works council. Who should be the preferred
candidate for coaching with regard to intervention in or prevention of
workplace bullying?
Finally, this article wants to encourage empirical research into follow-up
interventions. The contingency approach and the multilevel approach each
consider follow-up interventions. The contingency approach focuses on the
coordinated follow-up of a de-escalatory sequence of interventions
peacekeeping, consultation, mediation, and conciliation (Fisher & Keashly,
1990, p. 238; Keashly & Nowell, 2003), whereas the multilevel approach
directs our attention to the coordinated follow-up of interventions at the
dyadic, group, and organizational levelmediation, coaching, and organization development. What is the empirical evidence in support of these
follow-up interventions?
REFERENCES
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The
eects of hierarchical status and conict management style. Journal of Management, 26,
171193.
73
Bowes-Sperry, L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by
sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288306.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Smith, P. K., Rivers, I., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace
bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 3551.
Crawshaw, L. A. (2006). Coaching abrasive executives: Exploring the use of empathy in
constructing less destructive interpersonal management strategies. Dissertation, Fielding
Graduate University, USA. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing, ProQuest
Information and Learning.
Crowford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organisations: The ethymology of the word
bully. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 8693.
Delbecq, A. L. (2001). Evil manifested in destructive individual behavior. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 10, 221236.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of
Manpower, 10, 1627.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 371401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003a). Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003b). The concept of bullying at work: The
European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3
30). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). Individual eects of exposure to bullying at work. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 127144). New York:
Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological ndings in public and
private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185202.
Elbe, M., & Saam, N. J. (2008). Monche aus Wien, bitte luftets eure Geheimnisse: Uber die
Abweichungen der Beratungspraxis von den Idealtypen der Organisationsberatung.
Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 39, 125.
Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organisational response to allegations of workplace
bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,
32, 389395.
Fisher, R. J., & Keasly, L. (1990). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup and
international conict resolution. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup
and international conict resolution (pp. 211238). New York: Springer.
French, W., & Bell, C. (1995). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for
organization improvement (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conict escalation and the roles of third parties. In G. B. J.
Bomers & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conict management and industrial relations (pp. 119
140). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing.
Goldenhar, L. M., LaMontagne, A. D., Katz, T., Heaney, C., & Landsbergis, P. (2001). The
intervention research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the
National Occupational Research Agenda Intervention Eectiveness Research Team. Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 616622.
Grunwald, W. (2002). Eindammung von Mobbing durch Organisationsentwicklung: Theoretische, empirische und praxeologische Aspekte. In M. von Saldern (Ed.), Mobbing: Theorie,
Empirie, Praxis. Betriebspadagogik aktuell (Vol. 4, pp. 187209). Hohengehren, Germany:
Schneider-Verlag.
74
SAAM
Heames, J., & Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment. Management
Decision, 44, 12141230.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The
impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10, 443465.
Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Organisational eects of bullying. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in
the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 145161). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of
Industrial Organizational Psychology, 14, 195229.
Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 203218). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 485495.
Hubert, A. B. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic approach
model. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 299311). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review
of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 205228.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace
bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3161). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Keashley, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and management.
Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8, 335371.
Keashly, L., & Nowell, B. L. (2003). Conict, conict resolution and bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 339358). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (1999). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in
der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and denition of executive coaching.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 134144.
Kubr, M. (1996). Management consulting: A guide to the profession (3rd rev. ed.). Genf,
Switzerland: International Labour Oce.
Leymann, H. (1990). Manual of the LIPT questionnaire for assessing the risk of psychological
violence at work. Stockholm: Violen.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165184.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at working and the development of post-traumatic
stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 251275.
Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Davey, K. M. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the
organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375392.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying: A social interactionist
perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 185202). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
75
Peyton, P. R. (2003). Dignity at work: Eliminate bullying and create a positive working
environment. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Prein, H. (1984). The contingency approach for conict intervention. Group and Organization
Studies, 9, 81102.
Rayner, C. (1999). From research to implementation: Finding leverage for prevention.
International Journal of Manpower, 20, 2838.
Robinson, S. L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The inuence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 6,
658672.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conict: Escalation, stalemate, and
settlement (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison
of two dierent strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10, 425441.
Salin, D. (2003a). Bullying and organizational politics in competitive and rapidly changing
work environments. Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 3546.
Salin, D. (2003b). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213
1232.
Salin, D. (2009). Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study.
Personnel Review, 38(1), 2644.
Schild, I., & Heeren, A. (2002). MobbingKonikteskalation am Arbeitsplatz: Moglichkeiten der
Pravention und Intervention (3rd. rev. ed.). Munchen, Germany: Hampp.
Sperry, L. (2008). Executive coaching: An intervention, role function, or profession? Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 3337.
Taertshofer, A. (2007). Das Coaching der Organisation: Wozu Organisationen Coaching nutzen.
Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying
at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 7085.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
perspectives in research and practice (pp. 165184). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical ndings on bullying in the
workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 103126). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,
497522.
Original manuscript received December 2007
Revised manuscript received November 2008
First published online January 2009