Workplace Jealousy: A Global Suicidal Factor
to Personal and National Development.
Dr Sudhansu Kumar Dash
Introduction
In a hyper-competitive global
economy, where competition is no longer limited by geography or industry, new
formidable competitors can arise seemingly overnight. In such an environment, one of the
surest ways for an organization to fail is to tolerate workplace bullying.
Bullies not only stifle productivity and innovation throughout the
organization, they most often target an organization’s best employees, because
it is precisely those employees who are the most threatening to bullies. As a
result, enterprises are robbed of their most important asset in today’s
competitive economic environment – precious human capital. To succeed in this
economic environment, organizations must be able to inspire all levels of
employees to be innovative or risk being overtaken by more nimble and creative competitors.
The problem with workplace bullying is that many bullies are hard to identify
because they operate surreptitiously under the guise of being civil and
cooperative. Although workplace bullying is being discussed more than ever
before, and there may eventually be specific legislation outlawing such
behavior, organizations cannot afford to wait for new laws to eradicate the
bullies in their midst. In order to survive, organizations must root out
workplace bullying before it squelches their employees’ creativity and
productivity, or even drives out their best employees, thus fatally impacting
an organization’s ability to compete in this new era. The purpose of this
article is to help organizations learn how to identify bullies, and to suggest
ways that an organization can eliminate this workplace toxin. Bullies are cowards and are driven by deep-seated
insecurities and fears of inadequacy, they intentionally wage a covert war
against an organization’s best employees – those who are highly-skilled,
intelligent, creative, ethical, able to work well with others, and independent
,who refuse to be subservient or controlled by others. A bully
is only interested in maintaining his or her power and control. Bullies can act alone or in groups. Bullying behavior can exist at any
level of an organization. Bullies can be superiors, subordinates, co-workers
and colleagues. Some bullies are obvious – they throw things, slam doors,
engage in angry tirades, and are insulting and rude. Others, however, are much
more subtle. While appearing to be acting reasonably and courteously on the
surface, in reality they are engaging in vicious and fabricated character
assassination, petty humiliations and small interferences, any one of which
might be insignificant in itself, but taken together over a period of time,
poison the working environment for the targeted individuals. Bullying is not
about being “tough” or insisting on high standards. It is “abusive disrespect. Dr.
Hornstein’s view bullies
|
Conquerors
|
1. Only interested in power and control and
protecting their turf. They try to make others feel less powerful.
2. Can act directly insulting and/or rude words or gestures, or tones]or indirectly by orchestrating battles and watching others disembowel each other). |
|
Performers
|
3. Suffer from low self-esteem so belittle
targeted persons (can be obvious or subtle put-downs).
|
|
Manipulators
|
4.
Interested only in themselves.
5. Easily threatened and vindictive. 6. Experts at lying, deceiving and betraying. 7. Take credit for the work of others. 8. Never take responsibility for their own “errors.” |
Bullying is not about a “clash of personalities,” a “misunderstanding,” or “miscommunication.”According to two psychologists who have conducted surveys on bullying, (1) bullies use surprise and secrecy to gain leverage over those targeted, (2) they are never interested in meeting someone else halfway so trying to negotiate with a bully is useless, (3) they routinely practice psychological violence against specific individuals whom they intentionally try to harm which is devastating to the targeted person’s emotional stability “and can last a long time, This psychological violence can take many forms as:
|
Put-downs, insults,
belittling comments, name-calling. They constantly criticize the targeted
person’s competence and glare at the targeted person or deliberately avoid
eye contact when the targeted person speaks. They negatively react to the
targeted person’s contributions with sighs, frowns or the “just sucked a
lemon look and blame the targeted person for fabricated errors in making unreasonable
demands for work with impossible deadlines.
|
|
|
|
They pretend to be
nice while sabotaging the targeted person – one minute vicious, the next minute
supportive and encouraging, ensuring that the targeted person doesn’t have
the necessary resources to do the work. They make nasty, rude or hostile
remarks to the targeted person privately; puts on friendly face in public.
But steal credit for work done by the targeted person.
|
|
Purposefully the
bullies cut the targeted person out of the communication loop, Ignore the
targeted individual or give that person the “silent treatment.” And models
isolation or exclusion of the targeted person for others.
|
|
Review of Literature
Flexible work has become a
widely-discussed topic, attracting attention from academics, lobbyists,
legislators, journalists and industry bodies alike. As a society we are
grappling with major changes in both family structures and employment
arrangements, and with the resultant concerns about work/life balance ( Pocock,
Skinner, & Pisaniello, 2010; Fear & Denniss, 2009). Perhaps more
importantly, the demand for flexibility is also already evident and building
fast. If flexibility is part of our operating environment, managing flexibility
has become part of our core business. Gender
Diversity in Management (2012), which analysed the under representation
of women in management and leadership roles in the workplace. One of the key
findings was the need for increased flexibility in the workplace,committed to
carrying out further research into workplace flexibility with a particular
focus on: How to manage effectively as a manager on flexible work arrangements,
and How to manage effectively staff in an organisation with flexible work
arrangements in place. Although there is a wealth of research on the topic,
there is gap when it comes to a focus on the management tasks associated with
making flexible work practices actually work. This is despite the fact that
much of the research specifically highlights the vital role of managers: the
skills, attitude and resources of managers are make-or-break factors in
implementing flexible work arrangements (Diversity Council of Australia, 2010:
Pocock, 2010: Baird, 2010; Managing Work Life Balance International, 2010; Baird,
Charlesworth, & Heron, 2010) There is now a well-established positive relationship between
flexible work arrangements that give employees greater choice and greater
control over how, when and where they work and human capital outcomes—that is,
employee attraction, retention, satisfaction and engagement (DCA, 2012, WorldatWork, 2011, Corporate Voices, 2011:).
An evidence base is now being built that draws a positive link between these
human capital outcomes and organisational performance. The WorldatWork survey
on workplace flexibility conducted in 2010 returned a relatively low percentage
of organisations (seven percent) actively measuring the ROI of their employee flexibility
programs (2011: 8). However, a study of how businesses measure and define
flexibility undertaken in the United States (Corporate Voices, 2011), provides
several examples of organisations that have taken the ―intuitive logic‖ that
―respecting employees needs‖, including the desire for flexible work
arrangements, makes good business sense and have collected data on the impacts
of flexible work on productivity, financial performance and client
service—resulting in impact-neutral or positive results (2011: 18-20).5 While facilitating flexibility may have direct costs, such as
investment in technology, organisations that have trialled flexible work
options often report a positive return on investment, improved staff
performance or a significant competitive advantage. The case studies presented
in Doing things differently, undertaken recently by the Centre for Work
+ Life, provide a good illustration of a diverse range of organisations‘
approach to the business case for flexibility (McMahon & Pocock, 2011).6Australia www.teleworkaustralia.net.au;
Diversity Council of Australia, 2010; Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2009;
Heron, 2010; Schumacher & Poehler, 2009: 169; Australian Institute of
Management, 2012:
Purpose of the study
The interest of the study is to
undertake the research on the relationship between innovative flexible work
arrangements and organizational innovation, an adaptive workplace environment
that is responsive to its employees‘ needs, facilitate adaptive or innovative
thinking, and the kind of management approach required in this context.
Objectives
1.to study the flexible work arrangement.
2.To study the organizational
innovation.
3.To study the adoptive
workplace environment.
4.To study the facilitation of
innovative thinking.
5.To study the approach of
the management required in the context.
Methodology
The
data collection covered a variety of dimensions – namely, personal characteristics
of the bullies, characteristics of the event that led to pre-crime situation and the crime scenario,
and characteristics of the crime and the victim – and included a number of psychological
tests, including IQ tests. Those computerized IQ test results were used in this
study.
Universe of
the study
This study deliberately used a
limited number of variables, and used a sample of incarcerated bullies without
distinction as to subtypes. Considering the great heterogeneity of offenders,
the use of a validated and reliable taxonomic system would have been
preferable. Unfortunately, it was impossible to use a typology due to the small
number of subjects for which all the information was available for coding. The
strategy of including all incarcerated bullies were allowed for the inclusion
of other subgroups of offenders thus considerably expanding the offender population coverage.
Tools for
collecting data
The investigator uses a
validated computerized assessment of intelligence; the Tests d’Aptitudes
Informatise´s (TAI)
The TAI includes a total of eleven scales measuring various aspects of
intelligence: vocabulary, verbal logical reasoning, knowledge, comprehension,
arithmetic, mental math computations, object assembly, letter–number
sequencing, spatial relationships, perception, and working memory. The TAI is a
test to asses important dimensions of attitude, and it uses similar total
(TIQ), verbal (VIQ),and performance (PIQ) indexes.
Analysis
The subjects in this study consisted of a
sample of 458 bullies. The sample was comprised of offenders from the Province
of Odisha working in different public and private organizations. The subjects’
treatment needs and correctional risk levels were evaluated during a 4- to
6-week procedure. Of the 458 bullies, 305 were inadequate, defective and poorly developed
people and 153 were liars and cowards. 34% percent of the total number
population agreed to take part in the study. For the 153 randomly selected
bullies, only IQ test results were collected from a questionnaire
The comparison of bullies on IQ
results, namely, on all eleven scales, as well as on three composite indexes.
To test for significant differences between the eleven intelligence subscales
and the independent fixed factor of bullies subtype, a multivariate analysis of
covariance (MANCOVA) was performed. In order to control for the possible
confounding effects of other relevant variables, covariates were used to
statistically control for the subjects’ attitude. Three additional simple
analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted in order to compare sex
offenders on composite VIQ, PIQ, and TIQ
scales. The results of the MANCOVA indicated significant, mainly attributable
to the latter’s higher scores on the vocabulary subscale as well as on the
comprehension, arithmetic, mental math computations, object assembly,
letter–number sequencing and perception subscales. The ANCOVA results showed
significant differences for PIQ and TIQ scores.
Findings
The liars and cowards in the sample were
mainly:
|
Nice while sabotaging the targeted person – one
minute vicious, the next minute supportive and encouraging. Ensures that the
targeted person doesn’t have the necessary resources to do the work. Makes
nasty, rude or hostile remarks to the targeted person privately; puts on
friendly face in public. Steals credit for work done by the targeted person.
Says one thing to the targeted person and something completely different
behind the targeted person’s back.
|
|
Purposefully cuts the targeted person out of
the communication loop. Ignores the targeted individual or gives models
isolation or exclusion of the targeted person for others.
|
|
Poisons the workplace with angry
outbursts. Intimidates rough gestures. Purposefully interrupts the targeted person
during meetings and conversations. Discounts/denies the targeted person’s
thoughts or feelings.
|
At the time of evaluation, the offenders had a
lower level of education. Ai most all of the subjects were sadists as diagnosed
with a psychotic or mood disorder.
Suggestions
Since bullies are often skilled
at hiding their actions behind a veil of overt friendliness, helpfulness and
cooperation, organizations must establish processes and procedures to uncover
their actions. An accidental bully, when confronted with his or her behavior,
will quickly apologize and the behavior never happens again. An intentional bully denies that the
behavior is occurring and continues to repeat it. As they are driven by their
own fears and insecurities, therefore they rarely can be cured, but their
behavior can be controlled or eradicated.
To eradicate bullying, employers should:
1. Establish an anti-bullying
policy defining what bullying is and giving some common sense
descriptions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors at work. Included in such
a policy should be a statement that the organization supports the right of all
employees to work in an environment free from bullying. This will give targeted
individuals a context and a constructive way to confront the bullying tactics.
2. Conduct climate surveys to uncover bullying behavior, provided
that these surveys are sent to a neutral-third party for review and
confidentiality is guaranteed. Unless this is done, respondents will not feel
free to express their true feelings.
3. Establish reporting,
investigation and mediation processes, guaranteeing those who avail themselves
of these processes that there will be no retaliation against them. Because bullying is often duplicitous
and slippery to detect, it can be risky for others to complain. This is
especially true when bullying has become part of an organizational culture.
Rather than fight the “mob,” many talented people move on to a healthier
workplace. Therefore, a clear statement and enforcement of an anti-retaliation
policy is essential.
4. Train all employees to
ensure that everyone is aware of his and her responsibility to conduct
themselves in a professional, civil, and businesslike manner. Top management reinforcement of the
“zero-tolerance for bullying behavior” at new employee orientation sessions can
help. Employees should be taught how to recognize the first signs of the
bullying/mobbing process.
Conclusion
Eradicating bullying behavior
from an organization starts at the top because it is the head of any
organization that sets the tone for whether bullying behavior will be accepted. An organization reflects the values,
attitudes, and actions of its leadership. Leaders who ignore, or otherwise
allow, these destructive behavior patterns to occur, are eroding the health of
their organizations and opening the door for some of their best talent to
escape from this upsetting and counterproductive environment.
References
American Psychiatric Association.
(1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological
Association Ad Hoc Committee on Legal and Ethical Issues in theTreatment of
Interpersonal Violence. (1997). Professional, ethical, and legal issues
concerninginterpersonal violence, maltreatment and related trauma (Revised
Edition). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
American Psychological
Association Ad Hoc Committee on Legal and Ethical Issues in theTreatment of
Interpersonal Violence. (1996). Potential problems for psychologists working
withthe area of interpersonal violence. Washington, DC: APA.
.
Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L.
(1995). Violence Against Women: Estimates from theredesigned survey (NCJ
154348). Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report; Washington DC:US
Department of Justice, Government Printing Office.
.
Bograd, M. (1988) Power, gender,
and the family: Feminist perspectives on family systemstheory. In M.A. Dutton
& L.E.A. Walker (Eds.), Feminist psychotherapies: Integration
oftherapeutic and feminist systems (pp.118-133). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Burke, T. W. (1998). Male-to-male
gay domestic violence: The dark closet. In N. A.Jackson & G. C. Oates
(Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships: Examining sociological
andpsychological issues (pp. 161–179). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Busby, D. M. (Ed.) (1996). The
impact of violence on the family: Treatment approachesfor therapists and other
professionals. Needham, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M.
(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality &Social
Psychology, 63(3), 452-459.
Caplan, G. (1964). Principles
of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
Carrillo, R.A., & Tellow, J.
(Eds.) (1998). Family violence and men of color: Healing thewounded male
spirit. New York: Springer.
Cohen, R.A., Rosenbaum, A., Kane,
R.L., Warnken, W.J., & Benjamin, S. (1999).Neuropsychological correlates of
domestic violence. Violence & Victims, 14(4), 397-411.
Coolidge, F.L., & Merwin,
M.M. (1992). Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis IIInventory: A new
inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. Journal of
PersonalityAssessment, 59(2), 223-238.
DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz,
M.D. (2001). Definitional issues. In C.M. Renzetti, J.L.Edleson, & R.K.
Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 23-34).
ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Fitts, W.H., & Roid, G.H.
(1964, 1991). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. Los Angeles:Western
Psychological Services.61
No comments:
Post a Comment