Chapter 2 Literature review part one: theoretical framework
2.14 Bullying and harassment in the workplace
2.14.2 Theoretical framework for the study and management of workplace harassment…99
99
The second phase of conflict is characterised by a situation where the original issue of conflict has more or less vanished, while the interpersonal tension between the parties and their increasingly difficult relationship becomes the heart of the problem.
The issue of the conflict has more to do with who is the problem than what is the problem. The parties cease to communicate and start to seek allies and support from others. They become increasingly more concerned about their own reputation and about losing face and experience moral outrage against their opponents, perceiving them as immoral, as having a personality deficit, or as being plain stupid. At this point, disrespect, lack of trust and, finally, overt hostility evolve. Ultimately, the interaction is dominated by threat as well as openly hostile and aggressive behaviour. In the following phase, confrontations become increasingly more destructive until the annihilation of the opponent is the sole aim of the parties. Both parties in this struggle are willing to risk their own welfare, even their own existence, in order to annihilate the opponent (Zapf & Gross, 2001:509).
Zapf and Gross (2001:509) argue that “harassment may be seen as a kind of conflict at the boundary between phases 2 and 3. In their interview study of 19 German victims of harassment, 14 victims reported a continuously escalating situation which became worse over the course of time. Almost 50% of the victims described a sequence of escalation resembling Glasl's model”.
Although Glasl (1982) argues that the latter stages of the model may not be reached in organisations, Einarsen et al. (1994a:386) argue that they are, in fact, reached in the more extreme cases of harassment. Some victims commit suicide (Leymann, 1990b:119), and many other consider it (Einarsen et al., 1994a:386). Some victims go to court even though they may be unable to afford a solicitor and are likely to lose. Others refuse a reasonable settlement out of court because they want to take their employer to court at any cost (Diegarten, 1994:72). Some work groups even take pleasure in the suffering of the victim.
2.14.2 Theoretical framework for the study and management of workplace
100
actor or on the perceptions, reactions and responses of the target (Einarsen, 1999, 2000b; Hoel & Cooper, 2001; Zapf, 1999b). On an individual level, the personalities of both the perpetrator and the victim may be involved as causes of both bullying behaviour and perceptions of being harassed. Individual factors may also contribute to the victim's potential lack of coping strategies as well as other emotional and behavioural reactions to be perceived treatment. On a dyadic level, the focus is on the relationship and the interaction between the parties is central to the definition of harassment, a dyadic perspective is vital to the understanding of the concept of workplace harassment. According to Brodsky (1976:21), many cases of harassment involve an artless teaser who meets a humourless target. Also, to focus on a potential clash or mismatch in terms of personalities and power may be as relevant as to focus on the pathological and deviant personality of the perpetrator or the victim. On a dyadic level, we may also focus on the dynamics of conflict escalation and the dynamic transaction between the perpetrator and the victim in the course of the conflict (Glasl, 1994; Zapf & Gross, 2001). In most cases, and especially those involving disputes, the victim is not an entirely passive recipient of negative acts and behaviours (Hoel & Cooper, 2001). The victim's responses are likely to impinge upon the further responses of the perpetrator. As shown by Zapf and Gross (2001:511), victims who successfully cope with harassment fight back with similar means less often and avoid further escalation of the conflict. Less successful victims in terms of coping often contribute to the escalation of the harassment by their aggressive counterattacks and fights for justice (Gross, 2001:511).
On a social-group level, harassment and bullying may be explained in terms of scape-goating processes in groups and organisations. Such witch-hunting processes arise when groups displace their frustrations and aggression onto a suitable and less powerful group member. Being seen as an outsider or as part of a minority may be one criterion for this choice (Schuster, 1996:298). Another may be outdated behaviours that do not keep pace with the developments of the group. Also, being too honest or unwilling to compromise may also contribute to being put into the role of a scapegoat (Thylefors, 1987:67). On the organisational level, many factors may contribute to explain cases of workplace harassment and bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2001:512). Archer (1999:94) has shown how harassment may become an integrated part of an organisational culture, while Zapf and Leymann (1996:171) have shown
101
that requirement for a high degree of co-operation combined with restricted control over one's own time may contribute to someone becoming a victim of harassment.
This situation may lead to many minor interpersonal conflicts and may simultaneously undermine the possibilities of conflict resolution. Similarly, Vartia (1996:213) has shown that the work environment in organisations with harassment is characterised by a general atmosphere experienced by employees as strained and competitive, where everyone pursues his or her own interest.
In Figure 2-4, a theoretical framework is presented that identifies the main classes of variables to be included in future research efforts and future theoretical developments in the field of harassment. The model may also be utilised in order to guide and structure future organisational action programmes. This model pinpoints another level of explanation, the societal level, consisting of national culture and historical, legal and socioeconomic factors (Hoel & Cooper, 2001:513).
102
Figure 2-4: Theoretical framework for study and management of workplace harassment
Source: adapted from Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper (2010:29)
Although it has not been much studied yet, the occurrence of harassment must always be seen against the following background (Ironside & Seifert, 2003:383;
McCarthy, 2003:231). The high pace of change, intensifying workloads, increasing working hours and uncertainty with regard to future employment that characterise contemporary working life in many countries influence the level of stress of both perpetrators and victims. This means both the level of aggression and one's coping resources may be influenced by such factors. In addition, tolerance of organisations and their management of cases of harassment must also, to some extent, be seen in the light of prevailing societal factors.
Following on from the debate on objective and subjective harassment and bullying, Leymann's model distinguishes between the nature and causes of harassment and
103
bullying behaviour as exhibited by the alleged offender and the nature and causes of the perceptions of the target of these behaviours. Furthermore, it distinguishes between the perceived exposure to harassment and bullying behaviours and the reactions to these kinds of behaviour.
Looking at the behaviour of the perpetrator first, Brodsky (1976) claims that although harassers may suffer from personality disorders, they will act as harassers only when the organisational culture permits or even rewards this kind of misbehaviour.
Although there may be situational and contextual as well as personal factors that may cause a manager or an employee to act aggressively towards subordinates or colleagues, such behaviour will not be exhibited systematically if there are factors in that organisation that hinder or inhibit it. On the basis of survey data on the experiences and attitudes of British union members, Rayner (1998:591) concludes that harassment prevails because of an organisational tolerance of such behaviour.
Ninety-five per cent of the respondents in her study claimed that harassment was caused by the fact that "harassers can get away with it” and "victims are too scared to report it.” Harassment behaviour may be a result of the combination of a propensity to harasser because of either personal or situational factors and the lack of organisational inhibitors of harassment behaviour (Pryor & Fitzgerald, 2003:81).
Furthermore, Leymann's (1996) model shows that organisational prohibitive factors as well as an effective support system for victims, are key factors that may moderate the perceptions and reactions of the victim. The model argues that attention to organisational response patterns and other contextual issues within the organisation are highly important understanding the many different aspects of workplace harassment. The latter part of the model has an individual, subjective and, most of all, reactive focus (Einarsen, 2000b:374). Although harassment at work may, to some degree, be a subjectively experienced situation in which the meaning assigned to an incident will differ depending on the persons and circumstances involved, individual characteristics of the model highlight the necessity for any strategy against harassment and bullying to take perceptions and reactions of the victims seriously and functions as a real description of how they experience their work environment.
Second, individual characteristics of the model argues for inclusion of a rehabilitation programme in an effective organisational strategy against harassment and bullying.
104
This theoretical framework also gives some credit to the dynamic process involved in the interaction among perpetrator, victim and organisation. Leymann (1986, 1992) argues that “the stress reaction of the victim to the perceived harassment and the consequential effects on the victim may backfire and justify the treatment of the victim. The process of stigmatisation may also alter the perception of the victim, which may, again, change how an organisation tolerates, reacts to, and manages a particular case of harassment. The behaviour of the perpetrator and the personal characteristics of the victim as well as the organisation's responses to harassment may be altered in the course of the process. Knowledge of the escalation and the dynamics of interaction involved in the victimisation process are essential to the understanding of this phenomenon”.
2.15 SUMMARY
Part two of the literature review shed light on various motivation theories and concepts relevant to the study with emphasis on their application to the topic under investigation. The motivation process was discussed and several motivation theories examined, including: Maslow hierarchy of needs, ERG theory, Hertzberg two-factor motivation theory, the equity theory, the three needs theory, the expectancy theory and reinforcement theory. This part also discussed performance and various ways organisations can improve the performance of their employees, along with the six criteria for assessing the value of performance and productivity, and concluded with conceptual models and theoretical framework of workplace harassment.
Part three outlines human resource management policies. It also discusses policy in detail. Issues covered include formulation and implementation of human resources policies, together with emotional intelligence and the relationship between motivation, job satisfaction and money. This part also examines literature on productivity, leading public human resources and transformational leadership. Lastly, employee evaluation, codes of employment, the role of counselling, emotional competence, harassment drama and managing diversity will be discussed.
105