GROUP NUMBER-11

Shalini Sharma
Sandal Naseeb
Tanvi Jain
Salil Aryan
R Anusha
Rohan Borate
Introduction
Catherine Mattice and Karen Garman define workplace bullying as "systematic
aggressive communication, manipulation of work, and acts aimed at humiliating or
degrading one or more individual that create an unhealthy and unprofessional power
imbalance between bully and target(s), result in psychological consequences for targets
and co-workers, and cost enormous monetary damage to an organization’s bottom line"
Workplace bullying is a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others in the workplace
that causes either physical or emotional harm.It can include such tactics as verbal,
nonverbal, psychological, physical abuse and humiliation. This type of workplace
aggression is particularly difficult because, unlike the typical school bully, workplace
bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and
their society. In the majority of cases, bullying in the workplace is reported as having
been by someone who has authority over their victim. However, bullies can also be peers,
and occasionally subordinates.

Types of Workplace Bullying

 Verbal. This could include mockery,humiliation, jokes, gossip, or other spoken
abuse
 Intimidating. This might include threats, social exclusion in the workplace,
spying, or other invasions of privacy.
 Related to work performance. Examples include wrongful blame, work sabotage
or interference, or stealing or taking credit for ideas.
 Retaliatory. In some cases, talking about the bullying can lead to accusations of
lying, further exclusion, refused promotions, or other retaliation.
 Institutional. Institutional bullying happens when a workplace accepts, allows,
and even encourages bullying to take place. This bullying might include
unrealistic production goals, forced overtime, or singling out those who can't keep
up.
How workplace bullying affects the work culture and organisation?

An individual being targeted for bullying is not the only one getting affected. The
organisation in which this bullying takes place also shares its negative effect. So when an
employee is bullied, it will affect him/her psychologically and as a defensive mechanism,
he would try to avoid his/her work place because this work place is the reason for his/her
depression or anxiety or panic. This would result in making him/her call for more sick
days, resulting in higher rates of absenteeism. Moreover, higher rate of stress related
health issue is found in these employees which yield in an increase in employer’s
healthcare cost.
Apart from these, the employee’s overall productivity, motivation and engagement are
widely affected. Their focus is the prime element that an organisation expects. But if the
environment in which he/she doesn’t feels safe, they would start losing faith in the
organisation.
These bullied individuals are most likely to leave the organisation and will certainly not
recommend this company to their friends or relatives. And in this era, where an
organisation’s best recruits are through referrals, no one will refer an organisation which
has an abusive environment.
Also, in an escalated issue, workplace bullying can be a nightmare for the Public Relation
(PR) team of the organisation. If the victim chooses to prosecute its attacker, it may
become an expensive, high-visibility lawsuit.

Financial cost to an employer

 In a report published by International Labour Organisation (ILO), it was stated
that workplace bullying costs 1.88 billion pounds in the productivity lost.
 Another study by Rayner and Kaeshly, based on replacement cost of those who
left an organisation as a result of being bullied or witnessed a bullying, estimates
that an organisation having 1000 employees would cost $1.2 billion US.

Also, a study in Finland of more than 5000 hospital staffs reports that those staffs who
had been bullied had 26% more certified sickness absence than those who were not.
Hence, bullying has a huge negative impact on an organisation as a whole. Whether
he/she is a direct victim or a witness, it is going to impact their ability to work as a team,
will decrease the productivity and will also affect the organisation’s ability to recruit and
retain talents.
Impact Of Workplace Bullying On Employees
“Bullying can be done in such an insidious way that unless you’re the victim, other
people don’t even know it’s happening,” Sandy Hershcovis, of the University of
Manitoba in Winnipeg, said in an interview.

Psychological Disruption

 Stress
 Anxiety
 Panic attacks
 Trouble sleeping
 Higher blood pressure
 Ulcers.

Performance Disruption

 Trouble in decision making

 Incapacity to work or concentrate
 Loss of self-esteem
 Lower productivity

Bullied workers not only lose motivation but also lose time as they are preoccupied
with:

 Trying to defend themselves

 Ways to avoid the hostile work environment
 Networking for support
 Ruminating about the situation
 Planning how to deal with the situation

Impact on Co-workers

It has a detrimental effect not only on the victim but also on their co-workers who witness
it. Researchers at the University of Helsinki Department of Public Health found non-
target co-workers suffer too. Thus, research on work place bullying quantifies the
personal consequences for the victim and the fiscal consequences that ultimately affect
the company's bottom line.
What are the best ways for managers to deal with workplace
bullying?
Workplace bullying can impact the whole team/organisation. If a good manager doesn’t
deal with this kind of toxic behaviour proactively, it can seriously weaken the objectives
of the workplace and risk employee’s health and well being. People in a leadership or
management role must have the right strategies to recognise, manage and prevent
workplace bullying. Here is how to deal with bullying in your team:
Identify Bullying
Bullying is a way of dominating and intimidating others, through physical, emotional or
psychological control. Workplace bullies will frequently employ silent tactics or subtle
humiliation rather than direct threats. Such people can make their victims feel constantly
excluded, uneasy, and apprehensive.
Educate Teams & Implement Policies
Educate your teams on workplace bullying and set clear expectations through policies
about what workplace bullying is and what team members can do about it – if they come
across a situation where an employee is berating another.

Look At Your Own Management Style

Ask your loved ones or colleagues you trust about your behaviour. Introspect if you
continuously feel misunderstood or if your ideas are never met with diverging views in
meetings. Ask yourself: Is it hard to keep employees in your team for the long term?
Seek the help of your team members to learn what would need to change to remove these
problems. Be open to receiving critical feedback. After addressing the issue, follow up on
the situation.
Address The Workplace Bully
Speak up if you witness workplace bullying or harassment. In case the victimiser is your
supervisor or the CEO of your organisation, it is important to tell someone or tell the
person directly if possible, to prevent the behaviour from continuing.
Prior to questioning the alleged bully, remember to separate them from the complainant,
and try to assure that the initial meeting is not punitive. This is because retaliation can
follow the questioning of the bully, who may try to justify their conduct. The incident
must be recorded in the employee’s file, and at the end of the meeting, the offending
employee must be aware of the repercussions if the patterns of the behaviour persist.
CASE STUDY
A lawmaker’s abuse of her secretary has Japan talking non-stop about “pawa
hara”(power harassment ) (2017)
A recording of a female lawmaker allegedly hurling verbal and physical abuse at her
secretary has been rekindling attention over the issue of power harassment in the
workplace—rendered as pawa-hara—in Japan.

The matter came to light after a magazine published a recording of Mayuko Toyota, a
lawmaker in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), screaming “baldy” and “you
should die” at her male assistant, who implores Toyota not to hit him. She later submitted
her resignation to the party, and earned the nickname “pink monster” by Japanese media ,
as she often wears pink. An LDP official said at the time she had been
hospitalized because of her “unstable mental condition.”
A partial transcript of the audio file, purportedly a conversation between House of
Representatives member Mayuko Toyota and a former secretary.
Toyota: You baldy!
Secretary: I am sorry. It was about contacting XX (a person's name).
Toyota: It's wrong!
[thud]
Secretary: I am sorry.
Toyota: It's wrong!
[thud]
Secretary: I am sorry, but I'm driving.
Toyota: It's wrong!
(Omitting conversation in between)
Secretary: I am sorry, but please don't hit me. I am sorry.
Toyota: How hard have you been hitting my heart?
Secretary: Well ...
Toyota: How hard have you been hitting my heart?
Secretary: Yes, that pain, I know.
Toyota: No you don't understand!
Secretary: Please don't hit me. I'm sorry.
Toyota: How hard have you been hitting my heart?
Secretary: Yes.
Toyota: Don't do anything to bring my reputation down any further.
Secretary: Yes.

Abuse of power by bosses is nothing new in Japan, where many companies remain deeply
hierarchical, and customs like not leaving the office before your manager goes home are
still common. The term pawa-hara itself was coined in 2003 by a Japanese social
psychologist. Perhaps as a sign of the prevalence of everyday harassment across different
facets of life in Japan, the term is just one of a galaxy of portmanteau words defining
different forms of hara: mata-hara for maternity harassment, seku-hara for sexual
harassment, and aka-hara for academic or campus harassment. Forcing a female
employee to sing a romantic song with a male manager at a karaoke outing, for
example, could be considered an example of seku-hara.

In recent years, Japan has embarked on a series of reforms to address the problems
plaguing its workplaces, including excessively long hours and rigid work arrangements.
Now the government is tackling the scourge of harassment in the workplace.

Japan’s parliament voted to force companies to take stricter action against harassment in
the workplace, including implementing “consultation systems” to prevent it and
prohibiting employers from firing or mistreating workers who speak up about harassment.
The abuse of power has been defined to include excessive words and behaviour by people
who take advantage of their superior positions, harming the working environment .

The Japanese government has made labor reform a key part of its policies in recent years,
as prime minister Shinzo Abe tries to root out what he sees as problems that are impeding
the country’s economic growth and efficiency. In a labor reform plan outlined in 2017,
the government mentioned the need to strengthen measures against power harassment in
Japanese workplaces.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also launched a website classifying
harassment into six different categories: physical abuse, mental or emotional abuse,
deliberately isolating an individual in the workplace, overworking an employee, giving an
employee work that is far below their skill level or scope, and infringement of privacy by
asking personal questions not pertinent to work.
Case study : Organisational Bullying – Orange SA
Orange S.A., also known as France Télécom S.A., is a French multinational
telecommunications corporation. It is the tenth-biggest mobile network administrator in
the world and the fourth biggest in Europe after Vodafone, Telefónica and VEON. The
organization's head office is situated in Paris. Orange has been the organization's main
brand for mobile, landline, internet and IPTV services since 2006. It started in 1994 when
Hutchison Whampoa procured a controlling stake in Microtel Communications during the
mid-1990s and rebranded it as "Orange". It turned into a backup of Mannesmann in 1999
and was obtained by France Télécom in 2000. The organization was rebranded as Orange
on July 1, 2013.
In the blue coats and tight hair styles, the top officials of Orange telecom looked awkward
in the court dock. They were blamed for pestering employees so tirelessly that workers
ended up committing suicide. The men, all top officials at France's giant telecom
organization -Orange, needed to cut back the business by a great many workers 10 years
prior. In any case, they couldn't fire the vast majority of them. The workers were state
employees - employees forever - and in this manner secured. So the officials made plans
to make life so intolerable that the workers would leave.
Between the start of January 2008 and April 2011, more than 60 France Télécom
employees committed suicide, (in 2008 and the early piece of 2009 there were 25) some
leaving notes accusing stress and misery at work. Seven previous France Télécom
supervisors, including the previous CEO Didier Lombard and the previous head of HR
Olivier Barberot, were blamed for setting up a toxic management system of institutional
harassment intended to compel workers out. Some staff were routinely compelled to
change work or relocate for work, discovering their positions had been rejected.
The suicide rate among France Télécom's 102,000 domestic employees is 15.3 per year,
compared with an average of 14.7 suicides per 100,000 in the French population as a
whole.
In October 2009, the flood of suicides drove previous Deputy CEO Louis-Pierre Wenes to
leave under trade union’s pressure, to be supplanted by Stéphane Richard. Looked with
rehashed suicides, the organization elevated Stéphane Richard to the CEO on 1 February
2010, while Didier Lombard stayed as director.
The new CEO found a way to recuperate the circumstance. The systematic restructuring,
reclassification, moving and centralisation of occupations was ceased. The organization is
currently looking over the staff for a long time. The primary study was done while the
emergency was most serious and along these lines gave a base pattern. Questions were
created in discussion with the Unions and the workforce to guarantee that the inquiries
was defined in the language of the workers. In the underlying overview 80,000 out of
100,000 reviews were returned affirming the past discoveries from the Observatory's
investigation.
The French workplace health and safety inspectorate started an inquiry into French
Telecom/Orange. Over the span of this inquiry, the systematic idea of the procedure was
uncovered. Managers were furnished with a manual on the best way to urge employees to
leave the organization and even an adjusted rendition of Kubler-Ross 7 phases of distress
model to represent the procedure workers would experience in choosing to leave the
organization.

The story of French Telecom/Orange is emotional and standing up to. It was assessed that
up to 30 suicides were associated with the restructuring of French Telecom/Orange. The
silver lining of this appalling story is that things have improved. France is presently
perceiving death by suicide as the most extraordinary and genuine outcome from absence
of mental safety in the workplace.
After the French Telecom/Orange disaster, a wide scope of organizations including
Renault, Peugeot, Le Poste and a few utilities, banks, grocery stores and the police
powers have been associated with work-related suicides.
In light of these issues the French Government has set up a National Observatory of
Suicide, the National Research Institute for Public Health do explicit research into
modifiable hazard factors in workplace mental health and a unit inside the Ministry of
Public Health.