In the Instant Poll, we asked:
For targets of workplace bullying: who is your greatest supporter?

Respondents had to pick their major supporter, making only one choice from the following options.

Spouse/significant other, result = .318

Myself, result = .179

A coworker, result = .164

Immediate family (parent, sibling, child), result = .127

No one, result = .119

Therapist/medical professional, result = .077

Spiritual leader, result = .013

Family — partners and immediate relatives — were credited as the prime source of support by 45% of respondents.

Interesting is that a voluntary reliance upon oneself is given the second highest rating (18%). This could be a healthy reliance, an introspective journey, one characterized by strength and deliberate purpose. Of course, this counters the vast anecdotal record of targets who call WBI for help and who overestimate their power to rectify their employer-generated problem.

The “No one” gives support option (chosen by 12%) suggests that those targets are involuntarily left alone to deal with the bullying situation that resulted from the combination of efforts by several do-nothing, intervention-averse people. They may have asked for help and been denied. Hence, they were isolated.

Families are present for targets in 45% of cases; while 30% of bullied targets are left to cope alone.

Your reactions?

Response options and their corresponding percentages were:


Yes I support and I agree with the tactics .50

Yes I support but I don’t agree with the tactics .173

Yes and I have participated in the protest .082

Yes: = .757

No, disagree with message and tactics used .213

No – don’t support message – but no problem with the tactics .030

No: .243

Read the summary of the British study | Read the 2010 WBI U.S. Survey results

“Ill treatment” included: unreasonable treatment (reported by 47%), denigration and disrespect (40%), 33% experienced both unreasonable treatment and denigration and disrespect, and 6% experienced violence.

The news headline was that “one million UK workers have experienced violence at work.” Using the prevalence estimates from this new study and Office of National Statistics’ number of private and public sectors workers (29.1 million in July), we arrive at the numbers of people experiencing:

- Unreasonable treatment: 13.6 million
- Denigration and disrespect: 11.6 million
- Violence: 1.7 million
- Both unreasonable and denigrating and disrespectful treatment: 9.6 million
- All three categories: 1.4 million
- Denigration & disrespect and violence: 291,000

The questions which appear below included a modified list of items from the Negative Acts Questionnaire which is a checklist of behaviors that academics use to operationally define bullying. In other words, rather than ask people if they think they were bullied (which actually leads to an underreporting because research shows that people do not want to admit it happens to them), the surveyers relied on the behaviors checked to determine if the respondents were bullied.

With respect to individual survey items, 29% of the sample were given unmanageable workloads or impossible deadlines and 27% had their opinions and views ignored. Employers, managers or supervisors were responsible in over two-thirds of incidents. Coworkers were the primary culprits when withholding information which affected performance.

The two most frequent denigration and disrespect experiences were to be shouted at or having someone lose their temper (24%) and being treated in a disrespectful or rude way (23%). More than 20% of people experienced three or more types of misconduct in this category. Regarding sources, managers were responsible in 40% of cases, in 27% of cases clients, customers or the public were perpetrators, while coworkers were 22% of the sample.

In this British study, men in the middle of their careers were the most likely targets. Disrespect rose as the size of organizations rose.

Targets of disrespect were likely to have psychological disabilities. Of course, the researchers made clear in the report that whether the psychological problems were the cause of the disrespect or the result of it could not be determined. Disrespect for this group of targets came from the public in half of the cases and from coworkers in the other half.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual employees were as likely to be disrespected at the same rate as for people with disabilities. In addition, LGBT workers were the workers subjected to the most violence.

The combination of unreasonableness and disrespect (reported by 33% of the sample) is the closest approximation to workplace bullying. The antisocial behaviors depicted by items in those two categories, derived from the NAQ, exclude physical violence. Bullying necessarily stops short of battery — physical violence. The UK prevalence is nearly identical to the US prevalence (35% in the 2010 WBI US Survey and 37% in the 2007 WBI Survey). Both studies were scientific national samples from their respective nations.

Four case studies of organizations are included in the Report. One: a large financial services company; Two: a large National Health Service public agency; Three: a logistics and communication company; and Four: a global engineering company. Each of these anonymous employers offer examples of how and why having policies to address bullying is inadequate.

The final section of the Report focuses on prevention and intervention strategies. In this regard, the authors show remarkable insight that is all too rare among academic researchers. First, they rightly conclude that the notion that employers can find an easy “one size fits all” methodology is wrong. An over-emphasis on policies and enforcement, the HR-led solution, overlooks informal solution opportunities. We heartily concur. Policies, the “lines in the sand,” are necessary, but insufficient if not supplemented by true organizational commitment.

The second major conclusion is that ill treatment thrives when managers in the trenches fail to intervene or to manage properly. Managers can and must stop it. When management abdicates responsibility, ill treatment flourishes. This is the same conclusion we draw in our book, The Bully-Free Workplace (Wiley, 2011).

We are proud to count Prof. Duncan Lewis, co-author of the study, from the Business School at the University of Plymouth, as a WBI colleague.

Download the Report.

Below is a result table showing the results for each of the 21 questions in the British Workplace Behaviour Survey.

29% chose the option: “Bullying becomes illegal (a law is passed)”

28% chose the option: “The bully is punished or terminated”

13% chose the option: “The bully quits”

13% chose the option: “I’m out of the situation permanently under any circumstance”

11% chose the option: “I get separated from the stressful situation/location”

7% chose the option: “I get a severance/separation agreement to leave”

Note: the percentages do not total 100% because respondents could choose more than one option.

Interpretation

The two options tied as the most frequent were the delight from seeing the bully punished/terminated and finally having a law against workplace bullying passed. Both are possible, but difficult to accomplish. First, in only 3% of bullying cases are bullies terminated or even punished, according to a 2009 WBI online study. They bully with impunity, no personal accountability.

Second, we know that according to the 2010 WBI national survey, 64% of the public supports the passage of anti-bullying laws for the workplace. At the time of this Instant Poll, 11 states did have current bills. (Visit the Healthy Workplace Bill website to track progress and to see which state may become the first in the U.S. to pass the legislation.) It is heartening to see the level of support for a law from those with experience being bullied. They know more than others how much having a law might have helped them.

Targets, known to be 98% of the people who complete surveys on the WBI website, may be holding out for rare events before they allow themselves to say “I won.”

It is not surprising that targets, hungry for justice, define negative consequences for the bully as the standard for success in 41% of cases. Either the bully quits or is punished or terminated. Again, in the real workplace, these outcomes are rare.

About one-third (31%) considered getting away from the toxic, health-injuring situation a victory. Separation is the most likely ending of the bullying (66% of the time for women, 49% for men, according to the 2010 WBI national data) — whether voluntary or as the result of target termination or constructive discharge (being driven out against their will).

From our experience at WBI meeting and coaching thousands of bullied targets, we know that in order for people to move on to their personal post-bullying lives, they must give highest priority to their health. Employers do not want to provide the safety required to work in abuse-free environments. So, it is important for individuals to reclaim control over their safety. If that means getting out, it can be perceived as having “won.”

The most beneficial separation is one in which the employer sends you off with a severance agreement. Only 7% think this connotes “victory.” In our experience, this is often the best outcome ever possible. Perhaps targets are not even thinking they can ask for severance. But you always should. In fact, demand severance for your years of loyal, excellent service. You are not choosing to leave. Your productivity has been prevented by the bully. For this, the employer should pay.

Severances are larger when there is a component of illegal discrimination among the tactics. Even without a basis to threaten a lawsuit, you can still demand severance. Don’t leave without trying.

Conclusion

Bullied targets, the majority of whom lose their jobs, are waiting for rare adverse consequences for their bully before they feel that they can claim “victory.” A less attractive set of options, though much more likely to happen, involving separation ranked second. Targets chose separation with severance as the least likely way to define “victory,” despite the positive benefits it carries for targets. The survey findings suggest that targets are unnecessarily hard on themselves waiting on unlikely outcomes before they believe they have “won.”

Note: This survey was an online, non-scientific poll. Characteristics of respondents necessarily restrict extrapolation of results to only bullied targets and not to the general population.

Our Reluctance to Help the Less Fortunate Than Ourselves

Two authors of an academic paper wrote an article for non-scientists in Scientific American called the Last Place Aversion Paradox: The surprising psychology of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The authors note that since the recession began in 2008, public support for economic redistribution (raising the minimum wage) has fallen.

I describe the paradox in this Podcast.

Download Podcast 21 (in .mp3 format)

Simply put, people near the bottom of a distribution are the LEAST likely to agree to help those at the bottom. Seems being next-to-last triggers fears that if those below receive a helping hand, they themselves will be passed up and become the new bottom. It’s an aversion to being last. That fear makes the next-to-last group the most selfish, the least generous.

You can read the research article: “Last-place aversion”: Evidence and Redistributive Implications by I. Kuziemko, R.W. Buell, T. Reich & M.I. Norton in draft manuscript form.

Equally sad is other 2011 research that found that group members choose to banish altruists from their groups even though altruists contribute more and take less than others. They do this because altruists, the givers, raise the ethical standard to a higher level than the group can tolerate. By comparison, regular group members look more selfish, so they kick out their more valuable members who pose an imagined threat.

This summer USA Today columnist, Anita Bruzzese, reported a false claim that a new survey found “up to 70 percent of working adults say they’ve been bullied at some point in their working lives,” citing Civility Partners LLC as the source. The same 70% prevalence rate was repeated by a Fort Worth, Texas TV station on Sept. 26. Repeating a mistake does not make it right.

Here are the facts behind the exaggerated prevalence rate.

When one visits the Civility Partners website, the reader gets several stats about prevalence. The three mentions of a 70% or greater rate are:

- 75% in a 1997 journal article by Norwegian researcher Stale Einarsen (whose study used a single almost all-male industrial org in which 7% met the definition of being bullied, not 75%!) This statistic is a misquote.

- 71% of people reported experiencing workplace “incivility” (which no authority accepts as equivalent in severity as, or level of harm produced by, bullying) from a very narrow sample of employees working within a single federal court system (which does not approximate a nationally representative sample of workers)

- 74.1% of respondents from the Corporate Leavers Survey that the Civility Partners website author described as asking “what forms of unfairness were experienced at a former employer, 74.1% of respondents named bullying…” This must be the figure Civility Partners gave the USA Today reporter that has been spread around without correction.

Here is the requisite fact checking that neither the media nor Civility Partners conducted.

The highly credible Level Playing Field Institute founded in 2001 is a nonprofit that promotes innovative approaches to fairness in higher education and workplaces. With support from Korn Ferry International, in 2007, LPFI conducted its Corporate Leavers Study: The Cost of Employee Turnover Due Solely to Unfairness in the Workplace. LPFI commissioned Knowledge Networks to poll a representative 19,000 person sample of the U.S. population. If the work had ended at that stage, the survey would have been a “scientific” one the results from which could be extrapolated to the entire U.S.

Instead, LPFI was interested only in a narrow subset of the population — professionals and managers (salaried, non-entry level adults aged 18-64) who had voluntarily quit work or who had volunteered for layoff within five years of the survey. They were “Leavers.” This was a special, non-representative group. 1,700 people were left from the original screening to complete the survey.

Because LPFI is concerned with fairness, they considered the following acts evidence of unfair treatment: being publicly humiliated, being passed over for a promotion, being compared to a terrorist, being asked to attend more recruiting or community-related events, being bullied (no clarifying definition found in the research report), having your identity mistaken, and receiving unwelcome questions about skin, hair or ethnic attire.

The only respondents asked to complete the survey were those who said that they left their jobs ONLY DUE to unfairness. That very limited sample of people were asked three related questions — which forms of unfairness led to leaving, which forms led to strongly discouraging others from seeking work with that former employer, and which forms led to discouraging others from purchasing the previous employer’s products or services.

For the managers and professionals completing the main survey, 13.5% said they experienced bullying at their former employer. It was the third least frequent factor given for leaving. [Compare this statistic with the WBI 2007 prevalence statistic of 12.6% of all American adults who said they were currently being bullied with an additional 24% saying they had been bullied before.]

On page 7 of the LPFI Corporate Leavers Survey report, a graph shows that 74.1% of those who reported being bullied told others to not go to work at that former employer’s workplace. The report described these particular responses as “recruitment related reputation costs” to employers. Nearly three-fourths of those who were bullied became impediments to corporate recruiting by the former employer. Read the previous sentence carefully. It is not the same as saying that 74% of the 1,700 survey respondents said they were bullied at work. Nor should one compound the error by suggesting that a nationally representative survey indicates that 74% of the workforce reports being bullied.

Finally, of those who reported being bullied and ONLY left their former employer because of perceived unfairness, 48.7% urged others to boycott that employer’s products or services.

I hope this clarifies the results of the Corporate Leavers Survey as misinterpreted by Civility Partners and embellished by the media for sensationalism.

Workplace Bullying is a major social problem of epidemic proportions. The only two national surveys that represent its prevalence among all American adults (employed and not employed (that would include those who “left” jobs) beyond just managers and salaried workers) were the ones produced by the Workplace Bullying Institute and conducted by Zogby International in both 2007 and 2010.

Read the actual Corporate Leavers Report for yourself.

Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Change Commissioner

My shock is echoed by Connie Hedegaard, the European Union commissioner for climate change. She said, “When more than 90 percent of researchers in the field are saying that we have to take [climate change] seriously, it is incredibly irresponsible to ignore it. It’s hard for a European to understand how it has become so fashionable to be anti-science in the US.”

In November, in Durban, South Africa, 27 EU member states and other western countries will continue their efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and may manage to lay the groundwork for a globally binding agreement despite resistance from China and the U.S.

Read her interview in the Copenhagen Post

Friday May 20
Bullying and Harassment at Work: Recent Developments in Theory Research and Practice

Stale Einarsen

STÅLE EINARSEN is professor in Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Bergen, Norway, and head of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. Professor Einarsen has published extensively on issues related to workplace bullying, leadership, and creativity and innovation in organizations. He is a founding member of the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, has acted as advisor to the Norwegian Government regarding workplace bullying, and has co-edited two international volumes on bullying and harassment in the workplace. His work has appeared in journals such as Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Leadership Quarterly, Work and Stress, British Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

Negative Consequences of Workplace Bullying – paper session
-Luciano Romeo
-Annie Hogh
-Heather K. Spence Laschinger

Saturday May 21

Symposium:  U.S. Employment Practices in Mainstream Workplace Bullying: Insights from HR, Union, Legal, and Consulting Practitioners

-David Yamada
-Gary Namie
-Greg Sorozan
-Matt Spencer

Sunday May 22

Symposium: Understanding the Abusive Workplace: A Multifaceted Discussion of Science, Practice, and Law

-Paul Spector
-Nathan Bowling
-Suzy Fox
-Kerri Stone/David Yamada

Plus multiple sessions on stress research, workplace incivility, biological effects of job stress, stressful work conditions, coping with workplace mistreatment, and unhealthy work

Here is the simplified version of the research article written by Bryant and Sias themselves.

People spend much of their time at work interacting with coworkers. Peer coworker relationships are those between employees of the same rank and are important elements in organizational processes and work-life wellness. Peer coworkers can share off-the-record organizational information and are also sources of emotional and task-related support. Employees who enjoy positive and trusting peer coworker relationships report greater productivity and job satisfaction, making coworker relationships an important concern for organizations.

Unfortunately, deception is a common workplace occurrence that can disrupt peer coworker relationships. Deception refers to acts by which a person misrepresents information to communicate a false sense of reality to others. Deceptive behaviors range from outright lying to strategically omitting or altering details of information shared with others. Such behaviors are extremely common, with numerous studies revealing the average person uses some form of deception in one out of every five social interactions. Organizations function best when individuals work together as a unified system, so deception between coworkers can create individual stress and also provoke a breakdown of organizational communication.

We conducted a study to examine how employees make sense of deception by a peer coworker. We interviewed individuals employed in various occupations and asked them to describe an incident in which they were deceived by a coworker. Our interviews revealed that deceived employees made sense of deceptive events by considering their deceptive coworkers’ motives as well as the degree to which their organization may have influenced the situation. We identified four distinct types of peer coworker deception:

Corrupt System Deception. Many participants blamed systemic company flaws for their coworkers’ deceptive behavior and explained that such organizations require employees to lie to survive. These companies were described as being cutthroat organizations in which deception was rampant. One example of corrupt system deception involved a coworker who, according to the participant, lied because the manager encouraged workers to “give as little information as possible to the other departments” and “intentionally be vague when sending the messages to other departments so they can’t trace it back to us if something goes wrong.” Other examples involved employees who perceived deception as a way to earn bonuses. As one participant explained, “It’s just the culture. So it’s kind of like a survival of the fittest, but you’ve got to be a dirty dog to work there. In my opinion you can’t be an honest person and survive.” Such workplace climates were incredibly stressful for honest employees who learned to survive by expecting that their coworkers will deceive them, adopting a deceptive work style in return, and simply grinding through their days without being invested in their work.

CYA Deception.  Some participants reported their coworkers were deceptive as a defense mechanism or coping response. One person explained, “I don’t know if it’s dishonesty, but people cover their ass, I mean they CYA. They may not necessarily do what they’re supposed to, so they do things to cover up some of their lack of performance.” Employees were somewhat sympathetic towards their coworkers in CYA deception and explained that these lies lacked malice and were simply an attempt to stay afloat and avoid getting in trouble due to an honest mistake. This form of deception was prevalent in highly complex organizations where coworkers could easily deflect blame off of themselves without directly implicating another person. Employees also explained that CYA deception occurred because their coworkers felt they had no outlet to confess their mistakes without retribution, and therefore resorted to dishonesty. As such, the organizational structure received some degree of blame for CYA deception.

Personal Gain Deception. The most prevalent form of coworker deception involved employees who deceived for personal gain. Many employees explained that their coworkers used deception to discredit other employees and make themselves look better within the organization. Other employees told of coworkers who stole money and materials from the company, or inappropriately took clients from other workers via deceptive practices.  Personal gain deception sometimes victimized the organization at large, such as when coworkers lied about the amount of hours they worked. Personal gain deception was most problematic, however, when employees felt targeted and were directly and negatively affected by their coworkers’ gain.  For example, one participant explained that a coworker wanted to get a promotion so she attacked the participant’s character and told lies to discredit her in front of the boss. In such cases, participants found it difficult to continue even a cordial working relationship with their deceptive coworkers.

Personality Trait Deception. The final form of coworker deception was perceived to result from the coworkers’ character or personality flaws. Some reported their coworkers possess avoidant communication styles and therefore tell white lies to avoid looking bad or upsetting someone. This form of deception was conceptualized as a mismatch of communication styles and employees found it to be an unfortunate but unavoidable aspect of relational communication. Other coworkers were perceived to have seriously flawed morals and described as “lazy,” “shady,” “sneaky,” and “unbalanced.” Employees largely ignored the organizational climate when evaluating personality trait deception and instead focused on contextualizing the vast history that proved their coworker was a liar. Employees avoided working with such coworkers and struggled to do so when their job tasks were closely connected. As one participant explained, “Personally, the guy really disgusts me and if I remember what he does I really don’t want to talk to him.”

The average person commits some form of deception in one out of every five interactions, yet these acts might be interpreted in different ways depending on other people’s perceptions of the deception. Our study suggests that deception is viewed as an unavoidable aspect of all relationships; however, lies that maliciously target particular coworkers or reflect a destructive work environment are highly problematic. Indeed, peer coworker deception can wreak havoc when it hinders organizational members’ ability to perform their jobs.

Organizations can minimize deception in several ways. First, employees will be less likely to engage in CYA deception if they feel comfortable admitting to their mistakes. Training supervisors to communicate more effectively and more openly with employees could provide employees with an outlet to seek help and repair mistakes without fear of repercussions. Employees make mistakes and providing a safe channel of open communication could prevent small missteps from becoming large problems when concealed. Similarly, competition is common in organizations, but it does not need to be destructive. However, many participants in our study asserted that coworker deception was a “survival of the fittest” behavior necessary to outperform coworkers, gain commissions, or be promoted. Notably, participants often blamed their company for either creating or fostering this competitive environment, which ultimately destroyed coworker trust and hindered productivity. Organizational leaders might help prevent coworker deception by facilitating a collaborative environment that rewards cooperative success over individual achievement. If workers personally benefit from lying, removing these individual benefits would also likely remove a common motive for deceptive workplace behavior and help shape a more honest and positive organizational climate.

###

The research article:

Bryant, E. M., & Sias, P. (2011). Sensemaking and relational consequences of peer coworker deception. Communication Monographs, 78, 115-137.

Abstract from the article:

This exploratory study examined sensemaking of peer co-worker deception from the perception of the deceived. A total of 58 narrative accounts of deception were collected via face-to-face interviews with 23 employed adults. Analysis revealed four primary narratives of co-worker deception: corrupt system narratives, “cover your ass” (CYA) narratives, personal gain narratives, and personality trait narratives. Perceived motives and consequences were primary considerations in the sensemaking process and employees reported changing their communication patterns to avoid deceptive co-workers or hold them more accountable for their actions. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed and suggestions for future research are posited.

WBI thanks CareerBuilder for conducting the survey. Our results and CB’s converge a great deal. Overall, the CB survey found a bullying prevalence of 27% (34% women, 22% men). WBI found 35% in 2010. Though the definition of bullying used in the CB survey is not yet available, bullying is inarguably a troublesome epidemic that plagues the American workplace!

CB regularly conducts surveys on a variety of workplace topics:  effect of job candidates not sending thank-you notes, use of tax refunds, readiness of managers to lead, march madness office pools, co-worker dating, etc. Bullying is not a regular focus of theirs. The fact that they chose to survey on the topic is evidence of the phenomenon’s further mainstreaming into the HR-related world.

The CB methodology seems sound. This survey was conducted online within the U.S. by Harris Interactive on behalf of CareerBuilder among 5,671 U.S. workers (employed full-time; not self-employed; non government); ages 18 and over between February 21 and March 10, 2011 (percentages for some questions are based on a subset of U.S. Employees, based on their responses to certain questions). With a pure probability sample of 5,671, one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 1.30 percentage points.

However, CB counted responses only from employed private sector adult Americans whereas, the WBI-Zogby surveys count all adult Americans including government workers, allowing for the fact that bullied workers became unemployed as a result of the bullying and they could describe the conditions of their bullying. Hence, the larger prevalence rate in the WBI study.

The Major Differences

A. In the CB survey, nearly half of workers (47%) said they confronted the bully about his/her actions. Of these workers, 43 percent said the bullying stopped, 13 percent reported the bullying became worse while 44 percent said the bullying stayed the same.

This clashes with our in-depth knowledge about targets of bullying. The proportion who said they confronted their bullies is an over-estimation. And the fact that bullying stopped in 43% of cases is unrealistically high. To us, without seeing the wording of the items querying respondents about this, it seems that CareerBuilder-type followers are not typical targets. The tactics and results reported in the CB survey reflect a much more aggressive target than the general population. And bullies, in fact, respond positively to aggression.

If Targets could have confronted, they would have. The big problem with telling people to confront when they did not do so spontaneously (for the “sake of their self-esteem,” or because they have the “personal responsibility” to respond) is that doing so invite dangerous retaliation for the target.

B. In the CB survey, 28% took their concerns to a higher authority and reported the bully to their Human Resources department. While 38 percent of these workers stated that measures were taken to investigate and resolve the situation, the majority of workers (62 percent) said no action was taken. Of those who didn’t report the bully, one-in-five (21 percent) said it was because they feared the bullying would escalate.

In the 2007 WBI survey, only 15% of bullied targets ever filed a formal complaint with HR. We also asked about the employer’s response to a complaint when the bullying became known. In 44% of cases nothing was done and in 18% the situation worsened. Thus, both studies found that employers did nothing positive in 62% of cases.

We are curious about the results of those HR “investigations” reported in the CB survey. Perhaps they asked a follow-up question. We don’t yet know. Here’s a detailed look at what employers actually do from the perspective of the direct customers of those services — the targets themselves.

C. The most common culprit is typically the boss, according to the CB survey. An immediate supervisor was the bully for 14% of workers, 7% were higher-up managers, while 11%  felt bullied by a co-worker. Seven percent said the bully was a customer.

The boss bullying percentage seems extremely low. It speaks to bias in the sample that completed the survey. The WBI bully boss percentage hovers reliably in the 70′s (72% in the national 2007 survey) whether the survey is online with a self-selected sample or otherwise. It was clever to include customers in the CB study, but what about the equivalence of the WBI 10% subordinates who bully group?

At WBI we await the publication of the questions themselves by Harris. The firm posts results from their other surveys in the Harris Vault.

We look forward to seeing the wording of items and the response choices.

We compliment CareerBuilder on supporting the movement and disseminating their survey results to help convince  doubters in American society who think that bullying does not exist.

Gary Namie, PhD  — WBI

This freedom to leave toxic workplaces, coupled with the expectation that they will probably work at 20-50 places in their lifetimes can deflect the harm that bullying can inflict. Younger workers who flee escape most of the health problems that stem from unremitting exposure to stress.

On a completely separate theme, you all know that narcissism plays a huge role in the bully’s repertoire. It is a central driving principle that explains much of what they do. Bullying is not about work. Rather, it is about the bully pushing her or his personal agenda on others and pushing aside the mission of the business or enterprise.

Now, comes a disturbing study from a Univ of Kentucky researcher Nathan DeWall. It seems that the music young people listen to is evolving toward a more narcissistic bent.

DeWall’s team used the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program to analyze the percentage of words in the content of music lyrics in the top 10 Billboard chart songs in the U.S. for each year between 1980 and 2007. Specifically, the use of first-person plural pronouns (we, us, our) declined over the years, while the use of first-person singular pronouns (I, me, mine) increased.

Words reflecting anger or antisocial behavior (hate, kill, damn) became more prevalent over the 28-year period. Terms involved with positive social interactions (talking, sharing) became less common, as did the use of words conveying positive emotions (love, nice, sweet). These findings mirror “recent evidence showing increases in U.S. loneliness and psychopathology over time,” the researchers wrote.

Thus, narcissism and social isolation are major themes communicated to young people. Of course, there is no simple causal connection. However, there is social science evidence that songs do tend to promote aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings.

The ubiquitous anti-bullying messages young people get in school compete with the messages in music. We can only hope that the anti-aggression/anti-violence themes prevail and we have future generations of workers less populated by bullies and less likely to make excuses allowing them to operate.
What say you?

The research article:

Tuning in to psychological change: Linguistic markers of psychological traits and emotions over time in popular U.S. song lyrics. By DeWall, C. Nathan; Pond, Richard S., Jr.; Campbell, W. Keith; Twenge, Jean M.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, March 21, 2011.

The question: If public-sector unions lose the right to bargain for working conditions, do you expect to see more bullying and abuse in your workplace in the future?

216 individuals completed the survey. 47% were members of a union; 53% were not.

The responses:

45.8% — I have no union — YES, I predict more bullying

6.9% — I have no union — NO, I do not predict more bullying

35.1% — I am a public-sector union member — YES,  I predict more bullying

1% — I am a public-sector union member — NO,  I do not predict more bullying

9.7% — I am a private-sector union member — YES,  I predict more bullying

1.4% — I am a private-sector union member — NO,  I predict more bullying

Here are the various ways that people predicted that YES there would be more bullying:

Overall:  YES — 90.7% ;   NO — 9.3%

Union members:  YES — 95% ; NO — 5%

Non-union individuals: YES — 86.8%;  NO — 13.2%

The question: For those who have ever lost a job to bullying, how did the next job compare financially?

Responses from 241 site visitors (a sample of individuals known to declare themselves to be targets of bullying at work)

26% — That job was never replaced – there was no next job

25% — Less money, but safer

13.7% — Less money, bullied again

11.6% — More money and safer

17% — More money, but bullied again

5.9% — Got another job, no change

Of those who did get another job, the financial status was:

LESS money earned — 52.8%

No change — 7.9%

MORE money earned — 39.3%

Thus, nearly 40% did come out ahead confirming the validity of our advice that there will be an eventual end to the bullying. And if you move along quickly enough without suffering severe health harm, you will have a new life. Getting out can be positive.

The fact that 53% did suffer an economic setback is probably based on the dwindling number of well paying jobs on the market to replace the job the target once loved. To those people, we emphasize the benefit to personal health and sanity of leaving the toxic workplace. You were too good for that place anyway.

The saddest fact is that over one-quarter of bullied targets were not able to replace their lost job. We know that bullying comes uninvited. No one asked to be intimidated or humiliated. Since the most veteran, competent workers are targeted, it is safe to assume that they once loved their jobs very much. They simply wanted to be left alone to do the work for which they were getting paid. But bullying displaced them and put them on the street involuntarily, regardless of whether they were fired or had to quit to preserve their health. This is the tragedy of workplace bullying.

The “fair” versions of person blue received the highest retention scores and the selfish person was seen as the least desirable. Surprisingly, the unselfish person was seen as less desirable as the selfish one. In a second round of studies, the benevolent-unselfish actor was expelled but not due to confusion or incompetence on their part.

In a final test of plausible explanations for why the group is willing to expel a valuable member who is an over-contributor to the group’s positive impact while using few resources, participants were asked reasons for expulsion. It turns out that, by comparison to self, for some, it was less fair when someone in the group was altruistic. The prime reason (by 58% of participants) given for cutting the unselfish member was the resultant negative self-evaluation. It also appears that the distinctiveness of being benevolent was resented as being too different from the rest of the group. The person was seen as a rule breaker and non-normative by 35% of participants. The selfish actor was expelled for perceived destructiveness (77%).

This study demonstrated counterintuitive hostility to a generous group member who either makes others feel bad by comparison or appears threatening by virtue of her or his virtue. The benevolent other is not motivated to create either experience for group mates. This matches closely the experience of bullied targets ostracized by coworkers. The study offers these new explanations.

Source:  Parks, C.D., & Stone, A.B. (2010)  The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, Vol. 99, No. 2, 303–310.

City of Helsinki employees engaged in a longitudinal study (baseline period 2000-2002) exploring the association between bullying — reported and observed — and sleep problems. The follow-up survey was in 2007. Respondents were asked if they were  bullied by defining “mental violence or workplace bullying [as] the isolation of a member of the organization, underestimation of work performance, threatening, talking behind one’s back, or other pressurizing.” Frequent sleep problems were defined as delays in falling asleep or waking up too early for at least 15 days per month.

At baseline, both women and men reported a 5% bullying prevalence. The observing bullying at baseline percentages for women and men were 9% and 7%, respectively. Sleep problems at baseline were reported by 21% of women and 17% of men. At follow-up, 26% of women and 20% of men had sleep problems. Follow-up period prevalence rates were not analyzed.

For women (a huge sample of 5,399 respondents), there was an association between earlier reported bullying (in this or another workplace) and current sleep problems. The background factors (covariates) that most weakened the relationship were obesity, mental disorders and long-standing illnesses. For men (n=1,247), bullying during the baseline period was most strongly related to current sleep problems. And as with women, obesity, mental disorders and long-standing illnesses combined to weaken the association.

Witnessing or observing bullying also impaired sleep. Frequently witnessing it caused current sleep problems for women more than men. For both men and women, when social factors and health were taken into account, the link between observed bullying and sleep problems disappeared.

The primary value of the study is the demonstrated link between bullying and sleep problems in a large-sample study. Gender differences also emerged with the key difference being that women were more likely to have sleep disturbances from witnessing bullying.

Download at Source:  Lallukka, T., Rahkonen, O., & Lahelma, E.  (2010) Workplace bullying and subsequent sleep problems — the Helsinki Health Study.  Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, Nov. 30, 2010, an online first article.

Dr. Kristin Neff at the Univ of Texas, Austin has created her own research and practice niche called Self-Compassion. It involves (1) treating ourselves with the kindness we would extend to others, (2) recognizing our shared humanity, and (3) being mindful (and not catastrophizing) about negative aspects of ourselves. Self-compassion is superior to self-esteem since it does not involve evaluation or comparison with others. We think Self-Compassion is going to be a valuable tool for healing wounds from bullying.

Here is Kristin Neff describing the concept. You can visit her YouTube site for all videos.

Neff’s website is a treasure trove of published research articles, her Self-Compassion scale for researchers (though bullied targets will want to apply the scale to themselves and score it to gauge how unnecessarily tough on themselves they might be), and description of a training program that she hopes will create a greater sense of well-being.

Self-compassion sounds a bit like self-love, which borders on narcissism, but it is very different. It is a judgment-free way to perceive your own identity. As Neff describes it, the pursuit of higher self-esteem is problematic and more akin to narcissism.

As the Feb. 28, 2011 New York Times article about Neff’s work by Tara Parker-Pope said in its title, it is about learning to “Go Easy on Yourself.”

Employers have unchecked power over non-unionized employees. Whatever dribbles of democracy and employee participation that happen are determined unilaterally by the employer (the owner or highest-level executive). If sharing does not suit him or her, employees are told to hold on, shut up and be glad you have work at all.

Driving employer rights is the doctrine of “employment at will” adhered to in the U.S. as if the courts had ruled on it (they did not, read this to learn the deliberately distorted history). Business sold this notion as if it were bidirectional. Employers can put you on the street for no cause. Employees can dump their employers and put themselves on the street. See, both have “free will.” Nonsense!

If you are prone to magical thinking, you might believe that all it takes to combat bullying (mistreatment by the employer or its agent, managers) is the collective effort by concerned co-workers who witness the events. Yes, in your dreams you see the heroic target in the boss’s threshold backed by throngs of agitated and supportive peers. In reality, chances are better that only a breeze will be behind our hero at the door when left to fight alone.

The abandonment of bullied targets is not fantasy. It is reality. We have surveyed targets and looked closely at the issue. In less than 1% of cases do co-workers provide support as solid and comprehensive in the above fantasy. There are many reasons to account for this lack of courage. Most explanations come from the field of social psychology. Just this month, there was an article describing the bystander non-intervention effect. And I could lecture on several others. Suffice it to say, the “F” word drives it all. Fear of being the lone supporter, fear of botching the help, fear of being pushed away by the target whose shame makes him want to be left alone, fear of incurring the bully’s wrath and being next.

So, how do workers in the 21st century achieve some sort of power balance with employers? Will Facebook and Twitter accomplish parity with corporations? Some may think so, but why have we given up on Unions? More in a moment about that. But first let’s see what 313 bullied targets who completed the first 2011 WBI Instant Poll thought about the role for unions.

The question:  “Given the current assaults on workers by employers, what role, if any, do you see for unions to address workplace bullying?”

The responses and percentages:

- Unions are more necessary than ever to protect worker health and safety. Employers’ power must be checked.  .4728
- Everyone should have the option to join a union if he or she wishes.   .2396
- Unions are unnecessary. They are no more trustworthy than are employers.  .2396
- The contemporary worker and workplace are rarely suited for unions.  .04792

Results of WBI Jan 2011 Instant Poll

About three-quarters of targets still believe that unions have a positive role to play and want to have the option to join or not. With a new Congress that took power in 2011, it is unlikely that Federal legislation to make joining unions easier will ever pass into law.

However, the most important finding from this small sample survey is that 24% do not trust their unions any more than their employers. This is the reality we hear from callers and what we see when we go on-site. I distinguish this distrust from a negative public stereotype about unions fostered by corporations and media (only 5% adopted that view). The distrust captured here is from people who have probably asked their unions for help with bullying situations and been rebuffed. Their unions did no more for them than HR. It is based on real experiences.

How could unions be so feckless about workplace bullying?

Four principal explanations come to mind:

1) Unions officers rise in the ranks based on their ability to fight and be adversarial (good to win victories for the union’s members) and do not want any curbs on their actions with anyone else, whether it is with management or with other members. In other words, they might be intimidators and want to stay that way without interference from a new company policy or a future law.

2) Unions are organizations, too. The bureaucratic mindset can take over. People get defensive for the organization and show less compassion for the people the organization is supposed to serve. Some unions have a low service threshold. They don’t care about helping members.

3) Too many unions have been co-opted by “partnership” talk with employers. They want to get along and ignore their members’ needs. This doesn’t mean there is corruption in every instance. Unions have been forced into concessions by scheming, but cash-rich employers for years. Employers threaten to shutter the business and move it offshore if pensions aren’t abandoned or health insurance co-pays aren’t increased, etc. In other words, unions have been whipped into submission. Survival is the operating mode. Concern over quality of worklife issues seems unimportant.

4) Unions can be great when the bully is a non-member, typically a manager.  But when bullying is member-on-member, most unions are paralyzed. They erroneously feel compelled to defend both the abusive and abused member. In reality, the responsibility is to represent, never to defend.

None of these reasons are to be used to defend hapless, ineffective unions. However, if unions are to regain trust of their members, each of the above four issues must be confronted honestly and reversed.

Our work has expanded to offer options for unions to serve their bullied members. We have had marvelous union officials attend WBI University to take back to their unions new ways to deal with bullying. In fact, in late 2011, WBI will offer a special Unions-Only University to increase the number of wise member-supporting unions out there.

Perspective 1 is through the lens of people who know bullying from the inside, from the perspective of being the target of a bully’s wrath. They have the experience with their employer’s involvement with bullying. People who visit the WBI website and complete a front-page Instant Poll weigh in on a variety of issues. From their answers, we can describe the world through the lens of bullied targets because site visitors (98%) declare themselves to be bullied targets. The research samples are called “self-selected” samples. Despite the polls being “unscientific,” they provide the most useful information for other bullied targets and shed light on the bullying phenomenon.

Perspective 2 is the national snapshot captured when we commission a national poll. We did this in August for the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey. Our pollsters, Zogby International, polled 4,210 individuals selected to represent all adult Americans. The sample was a “scientific” one because of the sampling methodology used. It allows WBI to extrapolate the findings to the general U.S. adult population. Surveys like these meet the requirement for publication in scientific journals and at academic conferences. However, when half of the population has no knowledge of bullying (49.6% of the 2010 WBI-Zogby respondents claimed never witnessing and never being bullied), results can be misleading.

What a difference personal experience makes. For instance, we asked in our National Survey and also in one of our Instant Polls:

How engaged is your employer with preventing or correcting workplace bullying?

A large portion — 36.9% — of the national survey respondents said they were “not sure” about employer activity. We did not give the online survey respondents the same opportunity. We eliminated the “not sure” people and adjusted the percentages accordingly for a direct comparison between the two groups. Here are the differences.

For each response category, the percentages for the survey groups are given.

From the online targets’ survey, we see that 81% of employers are either doing nothing to address bullying or actually resisting action when requested to do something. The non-expert public direct comparison percentage is 44.8.

Most startling is how optimistic is the general public that employers are very engaged in the battle against workplace bullying. One-third of adult Americans gave employers credit for having specific policies and faithfully enforcing them. Perhaps this confidence assumes that since schools have been forced to deal with bullying, workplaces for adults would similarly address bullying. Of course, this statistic is not founded on truth. Bullied targets tell us that less than three percent (2.7%) of employers are actively engaged like the public thinks.

The two views about employer engagement are divergent. The differences are so great that the veracity of one or both groups warrants scrutiny. Who shall be trusted — the “average” American or a veteran of the bullying wars? We have 14 years experience with the latter group. They have proven themselves to us to be honest.

It also is true that one cannot imagine the intensity of the defense for the bully coupled with attempts to discredit and demoralize you, the target, until it happens to you. In other words, without direct experience, you might believe the promises that all employers care deeply about the health and safety of their workers. This is a naive belief not supported by the evidence — empirical (as shown in the above table) and anecdotal (if you talk to bullied targets).

The findings above illustrate a second point about the American public. Americans hold myths about employers as benevolent stewards of workers. They want to believe. And as most elections prove, they are susceptible to slogans, broad promises, and symbols. Facts and evidence pale by comparison. Americans are willing to ignore facts when their worldview dictates a contrary view. This indefensible ignorance about employer actions seems to have affected our own national survey.

It is critical that lawmakers understand the reality of the bullying phenomenon and employer resistance to voluntary action. A major point of our advocacy for the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill is that without laws compelling action, employers will continue to ignore bullying. Employer lobbying groups promise that voluntary action will suffice. When lawmakers, the source of much of the over-hyped optimism and sloganeering in our culture, adopt the false belief that a third of employers are doing the right thing now, they will be reluctant to sponsor or support the legislation.

The danger of a society duped by untruths about workplace bullying is that action is stalled. The more credible truth about employer action is that very little is happening. Targets have told us so. And we see the resistance up close as consultants (Work Doctor®) who now focus our work with employers exclusively on eliminating workplace bullying in the workplace since 1998.

Gary Namie, PhD Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute

© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 4,210 adults from 8/18/10 to 8/23/10. The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points. The sample was weighted to reflect accurate gender, age, and regional representation.

You can download a pdf version of this report.

Maté, a Canadian physician and author of Scattered Minds about ADD, spoke with host Amy Goodman about the societal corruption of the conditions for normal brain development in children. Too many are neglected or abused, increasing the number of hyperaggressive children, and in turn, adults.

During critical years of brain development Maté argues that neglect of children by loving parental caregivers who are working two or more jobs or simply not emotionally present for their children because of their own depression or stress from working deprives the children of developing a moral sense. Stressed fathers do not support mothers. Normal childhood development requires non-stressed, emotionally available adults.

The absence of a bond with adults can lead to inadequate development of the prefrontal cortex affecting the ability to show empathy, insight or a sense of social responsibility. Without emotional caregivers available, Thus environments account for the quality of brain development in children and young teens. The reliance on parents and environments reflects our social nature. Contrary to the pseudo-Darwinist (Ayn Rand-type) arguments that humans develop solely as individuals, biology  shows that we need parents, extended families and communities surrounding us to be fully developed in a healthy social way. In other words, bullies remain emotionally immature and incredibly cruel and insensitive toward others. There could be a biological explanation.

The work of Robert Hare with serial killers, psychopaths, suggests too a link between inadequately developed prefrontal cortical areas of the brain can account for seemingly inexplicable evilness.

Anthes, in her Boston Globe report, highlighted the research of Martin Teicher that found verbal abuse by parents was as psychologically damaging as physical abuse. Subsequently he found that kids suffered more depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders when bullied by peers than by parents. Teicher said in a 2002 Scientific American article, “Stress sculpts the brain to exhibit various antisocial, though adaptive, behaviors. Whether it comes in the form of physical, emotional or sexual trauma or through exposure to warfare, famine or pestilence, stress can set off a ripple of hormonal changes that permanently wire a child’s brain to cope with a malevolent world.” Teicher’s 2010 fMRI study revealed differences in mylienation of the corpus callosum (the tissue connecting the two brain hemispheres) for kids abused by peers.

Tracy Vaillancourt’s work, also featured by Anthes, found higher levels of cortisol in boys bullied by peers. Too much cortisol can damage brain structures such as the hippocampus that is involved with learning and memory. Paradoxically, girls had abnormally low levels of cortisol. This may reflect living a chronically stressed life.

Cortisol research is burgeoning. In one study, high cortisol levels were associated with feelings of shame and threats to one’s self-image. [Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. by T. Gruenewald, et al. Psychomatic Medicine, 2004, 66, 915-924.]

The Boston Globe’s Anthes also described Daniel Peterson’s research with stressed rats demonstrated the impact of bullying by a dominant other resulted in hippocampal damage. New neurons were produced, but in stressed rats, a high percentage of cells died prematurely.

In a 2009 study that deliberately stressed rats that got “stuck in a rut” due to cortical and mid-brain structural changes in response to the stress, researchers were able to reverse the effects. Robert Sapolsky, stress guru, considered this study an important linkage between the behavioral malaise stressed people feel and the underlying neurological explanations for it. [Chronic stress causes frontostriatal reorganization and affects decision making. by E. Dias-Ferreira, et al. Science, 2009, 325, 621-625.]

Finally, we now know that stress interferes with cellular replication that keeps us young. DNA replication is prevented when the protective tips of the chromosomes, the telomeres, fray. 2009 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine and Physiology, Elizabeth Blackburn at the University of California, San Francisco shared credit for the discovery of telomeres. In a study of chronically stressed mothers who had reared children with special needs for 15 years, the shortening of their telomeres represented an average shortening of their life expectancy by 9 to 12 years. [Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress. by E.S. Epel, E.H. Blackburn, J. Lin, et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), 2004, 101(49), 17312-17315.] So much progress has been made using this cellular marker as predictor of the aging process, Blackburn and her team are developing a commercial process for public use.

We’ll alert site visitors to the latest in relevant neuro and biologically-related research as it surfaces.

Personal shame is made possible by a deep-seated lack of deservedness, as in “I don’t deserve the respect or love of others.” Individuals raised in abusive family environments readily accept the reality that love-depriving parents create. The destructive, hateful messages include: “You are not loveable and no one can love you, ever.” These are the origins of shame. In adulthood, when another person humiliates you, it reminds you of that earlier wound. The pain is re-experienced.

Now in adulthood, repeat same lie-filled script uttered by an abusive spouse or partner and you see how domestic violence induces shame — “you are worthless and unlovable.”

The intimidating, humiliating boss or co-worker says similar things — “you have no brain, why waste money training you when you will forget in a week anyway …”  See the pattern? The message is the same. You do not deserve good treatment because you are a bad, faulty, broken, worthless person.

As an adult who has had many positive experiences in the intervening years since childhood, you could know objectively how valuable you are to your employer and co-workers. You have been the go-to expert for years, the most technically skilled. If you were a vain narcissist like your bully, you would never let in any message from anyone telling you anything that did not reinforce that positive self-image as a valued, trusted, competent individual.

But if you are a target, you may not actually believe the lies spewed by your bully, but your humility compels you to allow for the possibility that there is a “kernel of truth” in the pack of lies. After all, you reason, everyone can improve and maybe this a**hole can actually teach me something to improve myself.

This door-opening, boundary-violating step is the top source of shame ( 35%) for survey respondents — that they might have deserved the criticism.

FACT: The bully probably completed some reconnaissance on you early in the relationship so some emotional buttons could be used later. The problem was made more likely by your willingness to disclose your personal history while the bully gave nothing personal away. The criticisms leveled against you are likely PERSONAL attacks and have little to nothing (depending on your bully’s ability to act shamelessly) to do with work itself.

FACT:  Bullying, just like all illegal forms of harassment, come uninvited. Can you imagine anyone rising on a workday and voluntarily declaring that “today is a good day to be humiliated!!! I’ll be sure to ask for it!!!”? Ridiculous, isn’t it? No one wants or deserves the abuse that is workplace bullying.

The second most frequent source of shame was not being able to confront or counter the bully (28% of survey takers). If you could have, you would have confronted. You were not able for a couple of reasons. First, the bully uses surprise to her or his advantage. It’s the unpredictability and bushwhacking nature of bullying that poses the trauma threat. Bullies not only decide who to target but when and how to attack. Despite their lying rationalization that the target “made” them do what they did, no rational target actually says “bring it on.”  Second, you could not defend yourself because you are not blessed/cursed with a snappy comeback, insulting style of your own. You are quieter, more reflective, more reticent to say the first thing that comes to mind (which serves you well in most circumstances except when under attack). Your inner a**hole stays buried when faced with aggression. Bullyproof people let their inner a**hole fly and the bully backs down, recognizing one of their own kind.

The response that was claimed by 22% of respondents — embarrassment from letting the bullying happen — is also stigmatizing. But it is more likely guilt than shame. Guilt derives from doing bad behaviors. Shame is being a bad person. Bullied targets often ruminate guiltily over being controlled as if they sought it. It is important to re-characterize “letting it happen” to “working with a hyperaggressive person who ignores my professional boundaries.” It is not the responsibility of the invaded person to stop the invader, especially a more powerful one. Invaders must be prevented by their host institutions (employers).  Since the majority (72%) of bullying is done by someone who outranks you, control is in their hands. You have little to say. Couple their title power with surprise and it is remarkable that you can hold on to the amount of personal dignity you have to date. The bully had unilateral decision-making power. Rarely can you stop it.

In a 2010 Today Show appearance, Nicole Williams, was asked to comment on a bullying story (provided by WBI). In studio, she stated naively that bullied targets have the “responsibility” to stop their bullies. She has never been bullied or has no empathy for what it is like to work under someone’s thumb on a daily basis. Watch the clip and see for yourself how wrong she was and is.

With respect to confronting or being targeted, you are not the reason that you were bullied. The motivation comes completely from the bully’s twisted, insecure, threatened mind.

The saddest result from the survey was that only 13% of bullied targets said that they had NO SHAME because they neither invited nor deserved the abuse. It seems that self-effacing, self-defeating explanations are held by the vast majority of bullied targets.

What cannot be ascertained by this simple survey is whether bullied targets had the shame and guilt prior to their experiences with bullying or changed from the prolonged exposure to it. That is, we know emotional and stress-related injuries from bullying change individuals. It is also likely that bullying lowers one’s resistance to shame (and personal self-elevation and self-validation abilities), resulting in shame.

The WBI commitment to public education about workplace bullying necessarily must focus on target perceptions about themselves in order to optimize their mental health for the battles ahead. Neither shame nor guilt helps one cope with bullying.

Bullies aren’t just kids in the playground anymore — they are also adults in the workplace, or lurking online.

As anti-bullying advocates try to push through new legislation at the state level, several new studies have found that bullying affects different people in different ways. In the workplace, bullying is more likely to target educated employees, while victims of online abuse are more likely to feel depressed and isolated.

An estimated 53.5 million Americans are reportedly bullied at work, according to the Workplace Bullying Institute.

The non-profit organization released their 2010 Workplace Bullying Survey this month based on interviews of over 6,000 adults in August, along with data comparing the recent survey with one they conducted in 2007.

“There are many myths and misconceptions about workplace bullying advanced by disbelievers and opponents,” said the institute’s research director Dr. Gary Namie. “One portrayal is that bullying affects only the uneducated, unskilled workers.”

The participants were asked about experiencing mistreatment, sabotage, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation at work, with 11 percent of workers with a college degree — and 7 percent of those without — responding that they are currently bullied in the workplace.

“Note that the respondents with more formal education reported a higher bullying rate,” added Namie.  “Not having a college degree was associated with a higher denial of bullying rate. Myth busted.”

Bullying, according to the organization, is “mistreatment severe enough to compromise a targeted worker’s health, jeopardize her or his job and career, and strain relationships with friends and family. It is a laser-focused, systematic campaign of interpersonal destruction. It has nothing to do with work itself. It is driven by the bully’s personal agenda and actually prevents work from getting done. It begins with one person singling out the target. Before long, the bully easily and swiftly recruits others to gang up on the target, which increases the sense of isolation.”

Writing on the institute’s website, Namie says that workplace bullies are “narcissistic” and “defensive,” and often target people who are effective, popular and helpful on the job — but who also may not be subservient, or not “sufficiently political.”

Among students, a survey by the National Institutes of Health found that depression is high among 6^th to 10^th graders who have been bullied through computers or cell phones.

“Notably, cyber victims reported higher depression than cyber bullies or bully-victims, which was not found in any other form of bullying,” the study authors wrote in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

They also report that “unlike traditional bullying which usually involves a face-to-face confrontation, cyber victims may not see or identify their harasser; as such, cyber victims may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack.”

Bullying has been in the news lately because of the rise of teen suicides and deaths within the LGBT community.

States such as New York and Massachusetts recently passed anti-bullying legislation to protect children in the public schools.

Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute is also directing a program to put similar protections in place at the state level for workers, via the Healthy Workplace Bill.

The proposed law was drafted by the Boston-based legal scholar David Yamada — but while it has been introduced in 17 U.S. states, has yet to be passed in any.

In Canada, the province of Saskatchewan banned workplace bullying in October 2007 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmPBPEWnhRE

The WBI 2003 online survey reported that the five top reasons individuals are targeted for bullying, in rank order, were: (1) refusal to be subservient (being independent), (2) being more technically skilled than the bully, (3) being liked by co-workers/customers (being the go-to expert), (4) being ethical and honest, and (5) not being sufficiently political. Thus, people are targeted for their strengths and the threats they pose to the defensive, narcissistic perpetrator.

In the scientific (nationally representative) 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, respondents could check whether they had a college degree (or beyond) or whether they did not have a degree. That allows us to determine if the reported experiences with bullying differed according to education level.

The prevalence question given to respondents was: “At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?”  Here are the responses sorted by education and compared to the overall sample.

Note that the respondents with more formal education reported a higher bullying rate. Not having a college degree was associated with a higher denial of bullying rate. Myth busted.

Gary Namie, PhD
Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute
© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

Our anecdotal experiences, however, may not accurately reflect the national experience. According to the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, it appears that the 30-49 year age group is the most vulnerable. This finding reflects another major difference between the target audience for WBI and the broader population of adult Americans. Here are the results.

Respondents were asked: “At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?”

For each prevalence question response category, the percentages for each age group are given.

Individuals in the 30-49 age group were the most frequently bullied. The 18-29 year olds were the second highest in currently being bullied and witnessing. The 50-64 year olds were the second highest in being previously but not now currently bullied and in not having any experience with bullying.

The 30-49 age group is also the likeliest representative of the current workforce. The survey respondents included workers and non-workers, all adult Americans. The 30-49′ers are the ones in harm’s way, the most vulnerable to bullying simply by virtue of employment.

Clearly, the national picture does not match our anecdotal database of primarily older workers.

Note how high is the proportion of 50-64 year olds who have historically been bullied. Again, reflecting on the nature of the national survey sample, many of those who had been bullied may now be out of the workforce (often involuntarily). Therefore, they have the lowest rate of currently being bullied.

Gary Namie, PhD
Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute
© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

By contrast, the respondents to the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey (n=4,210) reported a much different story about the recession’s impact. The large scientific (nationally representative) sample included lots of people who either deny bullying’s existence or have a limited experience with it.  Here is the comparison of results from the two studies.

2010 survey question: Has the bullying problem at your workplace changed since the recession (approx. Sept. 2008)?

2009 survey question: Did the bullying change since the economic downturn (Sept. 2008)?

The reader can see the striking difference experience with being bullied makes — 9% vs. 28% who believed that due to the recession, bullying worsened.

In addition to the sampling differences, there were slight variations in definitions used in the two surveys. For the national survey, we stated that: “For the purposes of this survey, workplace bullying is defined as the repeated mistreatment of an individual employee by a person or a group directed that takes the form of verbal abuse, behavior that is humiliating, threatening, intimidating, or sabotage of the targeted person’s work.” For the online 2009 survey, we defined bullying as: “sabotage that prevents work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation, humiliation, or exploitation of a known vulnerability (psychological or physical).” This is the definition used by WBI and codified in the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill.

You can download the results of the Summer 2009 survey — The Economic Crisis and Bullying.

Gary Namie, PhD
Research Director, Workplace Bullying Institute
© 2010 Workplace Bullying Institute

In August, 2010 WBI conducted a follow-up study to compare 2007 prevalence rates to 2010 rates.

Here are the results.

In both measurement periods, respondents were asked the following: At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?

The obvious finding is that rates are stable. Bullying remains a problem for over a third of the population. Given the margin of error for the 2010 survey, the figures are essentially equivalent.

The decline in the reported current rate of bullying is probably best attributed to the fear and stigma that shrouds the phenomenon of workplace bullying. Bullied targets feel ashamed that it happened to them (though they did not seek it). That suppresses reporting.

There is an ever-present fear of retaliation for reporting it. However, this real-world experience should not govern choices on an anonymous questionnaire. Instead, we believe that into national polls is creeping an unwillingness for respondents to make declarations that best serve their personal interests. That is, there is an increasing reluctance to believe that workers deserve rights.

After 40 years of a steady diet of pro-corporate media messages that what is good for corporations is good for America and to believe otherwise is un-American, it seems individuals are uncritically accepting the message despite its harmful consequences to those same individuals. Unions have been vilified. Workers are told they are lucky to have work. Exposure to these messages convince workers to be submissive, to stop believing that they are entitled to work free from abuse.

To declare you are bullied may require more independence, pride, and self-assurance than we originally thought.

We originally hypothesized that bullying rates would have increased since the great economic recession. It sounds logical. However, in a separate question, we explored this question. Few respondents reported that their workplace situations worsened since late 2008. The potential explanation can be found in our report of that finding — Recession & Bullying: 2010 WBI Survey.

In conclusion, we accept the stability of workplace bullying prevalence since 2007 as evidence that the problem is still worthy of elimination. Much work remains to stop bullying for the 35% of affected Americans.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

2010. Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 2,092 adults from 8/18/10 to 8/23/10. A sampling of Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error was +/- 2.2 percentage points.

For the 2010 survey, we addressed the missing groups — those who are both targets of bullying and witnesses. Finally, we asked if respondents were perpetrators, the bullies. A tiny proportion (7/2092) admitted to being one.

The results show that the majority have the dual experience of being bullied and witnessing it.

Here is the complete breakdown.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

According to the University of Western Ontario press release, high levels of cortisol found in hair proved to be a higher risk factor than either age, blood pressure or cholesterol.

Be aware that this is a preliminary study about a technique not yet commercially available, but ….

Here is the CBC report (by the bald guy) about the study.

The study can be downloaded here.

The citation:  Relationship between hair cortisol concentrations and depressive symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease.  by Y. Dowlati, et al. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 24 2010, 6, 393-400.

The question asked: “Do you support or oppose enactment of workplace bullying laws that would protect all workers from what can be considered malicious, health-harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers?” This is the language of the HWB. Here are the results for the entire national sample as well as by political ideology and race.

For comparison, consider that the Sunday newspaper magazine, Parade, asked the same question in a July 18, 2010 article titled: “Workplace Bullying: Do We Need a Law?” The magazine’s online poll results found overwhelming support for a law — 92% yes.

According to a WBI Instant Poll posted on July 23, 2010, 96.8% of 252 online respondents stated their support for a workplace bullying law.

Readers will want to digest Suffolk Law Professor David Yamada’s thorough and thoughtful Labor Day 2010 analysis of the liberal, moderate and conservative features of the Healthy Workplace Bill. He is the bill’s author.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

A recently published journal article by Janet Raver confirmed that those who endure ethnic harassment (which is legal and actionable) have their misery compounded when also bullied. It is an additive effect. [Once, twice or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender harassment and generalized workplace harassment.  by J.L. Raver & L.H. Nishii.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  2010, 95 (2), 236-254.]

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

Because bullying ignores gender and rank boundaries, it makes sense that hyperaggressive perpetrators of abusive misconduct do not identify with a particular political party. Nor are targets selected principally based on a political ideology.

However, in the 2007 WBI survey and now again in the 2010 WBI national survey, the reported prevalence rates for bullying differ based on party affiliation and ideology. Here are the results and comparisons with the national average.

Question: “At work, what is your experience with any or all of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation?”

Survey respondents were asked if they identified with one of the two major political parties or if they self-identified as independents.

A similar pattern emerges when respondents were asked to identify their political ideology.

Thus, Republicans and Conservatives reported less bullying and were more likely to report no experience with bullying at all. In other words, party affiliation and ideology may be serve as a perceptual filter, a lens through which the phenomenon of bullying is interpreted.

Many people do not realize they are being bullied. It is a shameful experience that one does not readily admit to. It’s a stigmatizing act. The findings above illustrate that a conservative perspective makes one less likely to admit that bullying (“repeated mistreatment” as used in the definition in the survey) occurs; conversely, being politically liberal seems to make a person more likely to define observed or experienced misconduct as bullying.

What cannot be determined from the data alone is whether conservatives underestimate bullying that is occurring or if liberals overestimate its occurrence.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

Gender of targets:  58% are women;  42% are men

Gender of perpetrators:  62% men;  38% women

Men bullies target  men in 55.5% of cases; women in 45.5%

What tends to make news (based on the 2007 WBI findings) is that women bullies target women in 79.8% of cases;  men in 20.2%.  In 2007, the woman-on-woman bullying prevalence was 71%. Now it is 80%. Looks like the American workplace is grower ever more toxic for women, at the hands of women.

The frequencies of all gender dyads of all bullying: 34% male perp/male target;  30% female perp/female target; 28% male perp/female target; and  8% female perp/male target.

For our set of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, read this. and a UK story and the Today Show.

All of the above results are from Survey 1 (details below). The results below are from Survey 2 (details below).

Female and male survey respondents reacted differently to the prevalence question.

WBI Research Director, Gary Namie, PhD
© 2010, Workplace Bullying Institute

Survey 2. Zogby International was commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute to conduct an online survey of 2,092 adults from 8/18/10 to 8/23/10.  The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points.

Another good person is a New York City-based HR professional who blogs and has written a book called the HR Toolkit and works with our NY State group to pass the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, despite SHRM’s official opposition to the legislation.

I write this love letter at the request of HR folks who hate reading the negative news about how HR does too little to stop bullying within their organizations. Believe me, I hate the fact that HR doesn’t help enough, too.

Really, I want to tout the value HR brings to organizations, but I need proof. I do not demonize HR. They are not wicked, ok maybe threatening, but not demonic. But I report the experiences bullied targets tell us. It’s that simple.

Clearly individuals are separate from the institutional role that dictates that they serve their executive masters and allow bullies to operate with impunity. The caveat is that whatever personal conflict over doing the right thing or the commanded or expected thing should compel more HR folks to be ethical, right and just.

That’s why I rely on empirical and anecdotal data to shape the story. HR folks, here is what 462 people who probably had been bullied told us on our summer 2010 online Instant Poll.

The percentage of cases in which HR took action and stopped the bullying: 3.4. There it is — the good news. Headline:  HR Effectively Stops Bullying (3% of the time). HR you earned it. Celebrate. The 3%-ers are the good people. But what about the rest of you?

In 60% of cases HR did nothing after bullying was reported to them. Doing nothing was followed by an increase in bullying, for 26.6% of respondents.

Worse still, HR botched matters by taking action that helped the alleged bully and hurt the complainant in 32.5% of cases.

This is the reality confirmed by WBI coaches who have listened to over 6,000 detailed tales. And you might want to view the contributions to the WBI HR Forum.

Don’t get defensive. Don’t attack WBI. Just do the right thing for the person hurt by the ones typically more powerful. Stop siding with the powerful just to keep your job or to curry favor from them. Grow a conscience. Be moral leaders. Teach executives about bullying and show them how destructive it is, for people and for leaders.

Now the Good News …

Here’s some great news for HR staffers. Though you have not fooled those who turned to you for help inside your organizations, the general public believes that HR is serving aggrieved employees. This statistic is derived from the latest 2010 WBI scientific national poll.

14.3% of adult Americans credited HR with taking appropriate actions that stopped the bullying with positive outcomes for the target (compared to the 3.4% from the non-scientific online poll of people with actual experience as customers or HR).

Botched efforts occurred in only 5.3% of cases.

HR doing nothing was estimated at 24.9%, allowing the bullying to continue but in only 6.2% of situations was the target harmed by increased bullying.

In the majority of cases, 51%  of adult Americans , survey respondents were not sure if HR was told about the workplace bullying situation.

So, HR, please do not demonize WBI. Do better and we will gladly report it.

Workplace bullying was defined as “repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation or humiliation.”

In a separate survey, a representative sample of 4,210 respondents was asked about employer engagement in anti-bullying activities. The vast majority (79%) either were not sure or were certain that employers do little to nothing to address it. Remarkably, 21% believed that U.S. employers are currently addressing it through policies and enforcement.

Though the question specifically asked about an anti-bullying policy separate from harassment and violence policies, which most employers do have, one-fifth of respondents still believed that employers had additional procedures to stop bullying.

“This surprising result is probably wishful thinking by bullied individuals and their friends who want to believe that their employer cares about them,” says Dr. Gary Namie, WBI Director. “Similar studies in Scandinavian countries where anti-bullying laws began in the mid-1990′s find a much lower employer compliance rate.”

The positive attitude toward employers was further illustrated by 56% of respondents reporting confidence that American employers would voluntarily stop bullying without being mandated by law to do so. Only 32% disagreed, believing only a legal obligation would compel action.

Respondents were also asked whether they support or oppose workplace bullying laws like the ones that have been introduced in 17 states since 2003 by the Healthy Workplace Bill Campaign. In 2010, both the New York and Illinois Senates passed the bill. However it has not yet become law in any state.

Of the WBI-Zogby respondents, 64% supported having laws to protect workers from “malicious, health-harming abusive conduct” committed by bosses and co-workers (the specific language contained in the introduced bills). 23.8% opposed laws. Gary Namie concludes, “Clearly a majority of Americans want a law. This statistic will be given to lawmakers as proof of the popular appeal of such legislation.”

###

Contact:
Gary Namie, PhD
360-656-6630
info@workplacebullying.org

Researchers from the National Institute on Aging (lead researcher Angelina Sutin, PhD) studied 5,614 residents of Sardinia, Italy. The measure of personalty traits was a modified version of the NEO, a popular five-factor personality assessment questionnaire. One dimension, Agreeableness, tapped a person’s courteousness toward others, desire to compete rather than cooperate, cold and calculating nature, inconsiderateness, willingness to manipulate others and to tell them that they are not liked. Disagreeableness is defined as agreement with the negative actions, and researchers called it an antagonistic personality. Antagonists are primarily antisocial.

There is previous work linking personality (Type A pattern and hostility) to CVD when clinical symptoms are already present (e.g., hypertension, heart attack, stroke).

This study’s major contribution was to use ultrasound technology (non-invasive ultrasonography) to measure arterial wall thickening, a sign of aging, that can predict future CVD. It is called intima-mediat thickness, IMT. IMT is what is called a surrogate marker for, predictor of, stroke and acute myocardial infarction (heart attack). In the study, participants’  IMTs of the carotid artery (which supplies most of the blood to the brain) were measured.

Researchers measured participants’ IMT twice with three intervening years (a longitudinal study, the best way to measure individual changes) as well as measuring blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and diabetes.

The principal result was that the people considered most antagonistic (in the bottom 10% NEO Agreeableness scores) had a 40% increased risk for elevated IMT (in the top 25%), carotid artery wall thickening with its associated risk of stroke.

Antagonistic men had more IMT (averaging 0.04 mm) than non-antagonistic men. The IMT difference for women between antagonistic people and non-antagonistic people was greater than the difference for men (averaging 0.06 mm). This suggests that the role of personality was greater for women.

Because those with thickening had not yet had strokes or other clinical symptoms of CVD, the authors suggest that interventions to minimize the personality problem might be undertaken to prevent cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Redford Williams (see the above video) told a MedPage editor that the degree of cardiovascular event risk suggested by the study findings as associated with antagonistic personality traits was comparable to that of high LDL cholesterol, hypertension, or smoking.
“We really need, in this country and around the world, to begin to focus on ameliorating the effect of psychosocial risk factors just as we are on the physical risk factors,” said Williams.

RELEVANCE to the workplace bullying movement.

Obviously, the study suggests that the hotheaded, emotionally volatile bullies face a health risk of their own. But it could be that bullied targets who are exposed to unending stress from their bully’s assaults (a psychosocial risk factor) can become cynical and skeptical because their trust in the organization is eroded over time.

When individuals no longer feel safe and necessarily retreat from open social interactions which make them feel more vulnerable, they might become temporarily antisocial. Targets are typically high self-disclosers, open and trusting. When that personality style leads to psychological injuries, they may adopt more self-protective, antisocial approaches. They may start to act antagonistically. They certainly stop cooperating with employers who have enabled the harm to happen and failed to stop it. This study tell us that if they become more antagonistic, they risk more health problems.

Finally, it is important to educate courts and public officials to the solid empirical evidence that negative psychosocial factors adversely impact a person’s health as much as smoking, cholesterol, and glucose and insulin levels.

###

Additional reading:

Unpleasant People May Be More Prone to Stroke By John Gever, MedPage Today, August 16, 2010

Antagonistic people have thicker carotid walls, increased CVD risk by Lisa Nainggoian, HeartWire, August 16, 2010

The original source, very technical, article:  Sutin A, et al. “Trait antagonism and the progression of arterial thickening. Women with antagonistic traits have similar carotid arterial thickness as men” Hypertension 2010; DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.155317.

Protecting my interests: HRM and targets’ coping with workplace bullying.

Bullied targets beware! This May 2010 article by IAWBH Board member Premilla D’Cruz debunks some myths about Human Resources positive role in ameliorating bullying.

The context for the study is that previous work has shown that organizations generally do nothing or deem the complainant a troublemaker when bullying is reported. This study explores human resource management’s (HRM) influence on targets’ coping.

I found two HRM typologies used in the study to be pragmatic and useful. The first is Hard and Soft HRM. The former approach exploits employees as inputs in the production process useful only for maximized economic gain. Soft HRM treats humans as assets requiring investment because skilled people add value to the organization. Using the rhetoric of “professionalism,” HR masks hard HRM tactics to better control employees. Professional employees are encouraged to give work and loyalty a higher priority than personal needs ensuring compliance with org requirements, accepting discipline and termination as part of a rational process.

The second HRM dimension is Inclusivist vs. Exclusivist. Inclusivist strategies foster employee loyalty and engagement. The exclusivist approach is transactional in nature focusing on dismissal, layoffs, outsourcing and opposition to unionization.

The authors interviewed 59 telephone call center workers in Mumbai and Bangalore, India whose work is characterized by high volume and service quality demands and the ever-present threat of punishment. Specifically, their methodology adopted hermeneutic phenomenology, the descriptions and interpretations of participants’ work lives as they experienced them. Workers described the work environment as oppressive but that their employer cared about them. From the original group of interviewees, 10 bullied targets who were all new to the call center and not unionized were interviewed about their experiences. Transcriptions of the recorded interviews were analyzed for themes and revealing patterns of themes — specifically how did HRM affect coping with bullying.

The intensive interviews yielded four themes akin to stages of the bullying experience:

• initial confusion (over the bully’s selection of them as targets and the jarring juxtaposition of the espoused professionalism with the unprofessional mistreatment);

• trusting the employer grievance processes for redress (HR initially gives reassurances that a positive solution would result, HR delays are rationalized, eventually senior HR managers admonish complainants and hold them responsible for their fate, HR supports the bullies and the bullies retaliate using the complaint as rationale);

• moving inwards (emotional strain is devastating, social networks make targets feel loved and valued, others convince targets that alternatives exist, once the decision to move is made confidence and productivity return because of their strong work ethic); and

• exiting (though new post-bullying job meant leaving without notice or employer support, sense of regained control, lingering feelings of injustice over having to leave).

The authors conclude that HRM renders employees completely vulnerable because it operates as a one-sided managerial function that looks after only the organizations’ interests leaving the bullied employee with nothing more than their own individual voice. In other words, the maxim that HR is not an advocate for the interests of bullied targets seems true.

Source:  Premilla D’Cruz & Ernesto Noronha. (May, 2010) Protecting my interests: HRM and targets’ coping with workplace bullying. The Qualitative Report, 15 (3), 507-534.

Read the article for yourself.

The essence of the MEG test is the measurement of the dynamic synchronous neural (bundled) interactions, an essential aspect of the brain function. MEG Dewars (caps) are helmet-shaped and contain as many as 300 sensors, covering most of the head. Then, complex statistical analyses of the data are required to differentiate activity across various areas of the brain to identify specific patterns.

MEG can detect neuronal events with a precision of 10 milliseconds or less, while fMRI, which depends on changes in blood flow, has a lower precision of several hundred milliseconds. MEG also accurately pinpoints sources in primary auditory, somatosensory and motor areas.

Research on brain–machine interfaces has been ongoing for at least a decade. During this period, simultaneous recordings of the extracellular electrical activity of hundreds of individual neurons have been used for direct, real-time control of various artificial devices. Thinking about moving an arm is converted to moving an artificial limb — neuroprosthetics restores mobility in severely paralyzed patients.

MEG has been used to diagnose Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, Sjögren’s syndrome, chronic alcoholism, facial pain, and multiple sclerosis.  “Communication patterns are very different from disease to disease,” says Dr. Apostolos Georgopoulos from the Brain Sciences Center at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and University of Minnesota. “So the different diseases create disturbances in the communication that can be used as a fingerprint, a signature, for the disease.”

For years, the diagnosis of PTSD, has been a subjective process involving mental-health professionals conducting structured interviews with patients suffering PTSD-like symptoms.

In a Jan. 2010 issue of the Journal of Neural Engineering, Georgopoulos and his research team reported the successful diagnosis of PTSD using MEG. The Minnesota researchers used MEG to assess 74 U.S. military veterans believed to be suffering from PTSD, along with 250 subjects not thought to be suffering from the condition. Distinctive brain patterns indicating PTSD were found in 72 — or 97.3% — of the 74 people diagnosed with PTSD through the traditional interview process; false positives turned up in 31 of the 250 subjects (12.4%) without PTSD. The findings counter the popular notion that PTSD is not a real disease but a fabricated disorder. The neuronal patterns revealed a distinctive communication pattern, the “PTSD fingerprint.”

Georgopoulos likens the MEG test for PTSD to diabetic blood-glucose monitoring tests to keep their disease under control. “The test is totally safe — there are no magnets, no isotopes — you can do it as frequently as you want,” Georgopoulos says, adding that it also doesn’t require dredging up the traumatic events that generate PTSD. “The whole thing takes literally a minute.”

This most recent application of neuroscience to the world of stressed and traumatized individuals seems profound. However, the question remains about how to distribute the technology and methods to medical practitioners for practical use in the field.

The Jan 2010 J Neural Engr article |  MEG explained at Wikipedia

Brain-machine interface: Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, 530–540 (1 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/nrn2653

MEG detecting diseases: J Neural Eng. 2007 Dec;4(4):349-55. Epub 2007 Aug 27

WBI loves his popularization of the neuroscience of prolonged stress and its impact on health. Adult targets of bullying at work should appreciate his insights. His book  Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: An Updated Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases and Coping a veritable textbook for those of us not in medical school to which we refer in speeches and WBI University. Purchase his book.

His bio
Robert Sapolsky, Ph.D is  Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University . Sapolsky, a neuroendocrinologist, has focused his research on issues of stress and neuron degeneration, as well as on the possibilities of gene therapy strategies for help in protecting susceptible neurons from disease. His lab was among the first to document that stress can damage the neurons of the hippocampus. He is currently working on gene transfer techniques to strengthen neurons against the disabling effects of glucocorticoids. Sapolsky has received numerous honors and awards for his work, including the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, and the Klingenstein Fellowship in Neuroscience. He received the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award and the Young Investigator of the Year Awards from the Society for Neuroscience, the Biological Psychiatry Society, and the International Society for Psychoneuro-Endocrinology. Author of numerous science articles, he is on the editorial boards of several journals, including the Journal of Neuroscience, Psychoneuroendocrinology, and Stress and is a contributing editor for The Sciences.

Listen to two of his speeches at our Audio library.

- Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers

- Stress and Coping: What Baboons Can Teach Us

Purchase his Zebras book.

Read one of his articles written for general audiences. [The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 2005, 308, 648-652.]

Elizabeth Blackburn

The 2009 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine was won by Elizabeth Blackburn and two others for the discovery of “how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase.” Telomere shortening makes humans age faster than they otherwise would. Blackburn, the 60-year old biochemist at the University of California, San Francisco , oversees diverse applications of the science from her lab. Read reporter Katherine Seligman’s profile of the scientist.

The most relevant aspect of her original 1970′s discovery is the study of the impact of exposure to stress on telomeres which shortens the stressed person’s life.

Our personal genetic codes are carried in chomosomes made up of DNA molecules . Telomeres are the caps on the ends of the string-like chromosomes. According to Blackburn, telomeres are “like the plastic ends of a shoelace.” Blackburn discovered that those caps protect the chromosomes during replication.

As we normally age, telomeres shorten and start to lose their protective capacity and we lose protection from diseases. As the caps wear down and the cells shut down, we age. Unprotected chromosomes are prone to mutations and cancer.

Elizabeth Blackburn and felllow Nobel winner, Carol Greider who originally was one of Blackburn’s graduate students, identified telomerase, the enzyme that maintains the stability of the protective telomere caps. Because telomerase rebuilds the telomere caps, the enzyme actually delays aging (called senescence by scientists). This was true in simple organisms (the initial work was with yeast cells) and in humans.

Activity by telomerase — the enzyme not the chomosome telomere caps themselves — is associated with cancer cells. Normal cells divide and lose their telomere caps and require telomerase to rebuild. Cancer cells, however, divide constantly (moreso than normal cells) yet somehow maintain their telomeres caps. Why do cancer cells not age and die? Telomerase may hold the key. Research continues.

For bullied targets, the Nobel winning research is directly relevant. There is a connection between stress (the human response to external psychosocial stressors) and aging at the cellular level. Long-term exposure to stress decreases telomerase activity resulting in telomere cap shortening leading to accelerated aging through premature cell death. Highly stressed women experienced the equivalent of an additional 9 to 17 years of aging when compared to non-stressed women.

In an illustrative study led by another of Blackburn’s former graduate students, Elissa Eppel, mothers were categorized as either “caregiving mothers” or “control mothers” based on whether or not they raised a chronically ill child or a healthy child and self-ratings of stress in their lives. Age affects telomere length. They are shorter as we age naturally.  Telomere length was the key measure of the impact of stress in this study. Sophisticated analyses of blood samples yielded telomere lengths and telomerase levels.

Self-ratings of stress were higher in caregiver moms. Within the caregiver group of 39 women, the more years of stressed caregiving, the shorter was the telomere length and the lower the telomerase activity level. And perceived stress was associated clearly with telomere length. The women with the highest stress had significantly lower telomerase activity level, exposing the ends of chromosomes to damage causing them to age faster.

In addition to shortened telomeres, highly stressed women in this study suffered more oxidative stress (cell damage from circulating free radicals that attack cellular DNA and RNA) which causes diseases like atherosclerosis, heart failure, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The release of glucocorticoids, the primary stress hormones released by the adrenal gland during the body’s initial stress response is known to damage neurons. (Read Sapolsky’s Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers for a clear, non-scientific description of this elaborate physiological process.) Low telomerase levels are associated with premature death in adults from bone marrow failure and vulnerability to infections.

The researchers in this caregiving mother study raised the fascinating possibility that people who are more psychologically resistant to stress have longer telomeres than highly stressed individuals. And telomerase contributes to maintaining telomere length. Longer telomeres can extend the life span (in simpler, non-human, organisms). A missing link in the science is the confirmed association between psychological stress resistance and physiological (at the cellular level) stress resistance. But it makes sense.

You can also view Dr. Blackburn’s streaming and downloadable online video lectures about telomeres and telomerase.

Summary: chronic, unremitting stress causes problems at the cellular level that can prematurely age a person and render him or her vulnerable to diseases that kill. Moral of the story: stress is physiological and works at the cellular level. If your workplace has begun to cause you health problems, escape to live. Your body has already begun the process of decline and is aging you faster than necessary. Put your health first.

G. Namie

Sponsored by the American Psychological Association/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health /Society for Occupational Health PsychologySan Juan, Puerto Rico | The Conference Program | The Conference Website

WBI participation

Symposium: Case Studies in Workplace Bullying – Just Scratching the Surface of Costs and Consequences.  Saturday Nov. 7:  11:30-12:45.  Presenters: Gary/Ruth Namie, Kathy Rospenda, Joel Neuman, Suzy Fox, David Yamada

Roundtable: Workplace Bullying: From Research to Activism. Sunday Nov. 8: 9:45-11.   Presenters: Suzy Fox, Lamont Stallworth, David Yamada, Gary/Ruth Namie, Joel Neuman

Paper: Bullied Workers Shunned in U.S. Workplaces.  Sunday Nov. 8: 2:45-3:45. Presenters: Gary/Ruth Namie

You can read the research works by these WBI-affiliated scholars in the WBI Research section for friends.

Researchers Nathanael Fast of the University of Southern California and Serena Chen of the University of California, Berkeley, found in a series of studies that it is actually the combination of power and incompetence that can result in bad boss behavior. The paper will be published in the November issue of the journal Psychological Science.

 [FYI, the paper is also described in our article and can be requested from the WBI Research list - A7. ]

“It’s not just power that corrupts people and it’s not just incompetence either,” said Fast, the lead author of the study. “It’s the pairing of the two that leads to aggression.”

Over a third of working Americans are estimated to have been bullied—that is, belittled, threatened, humiliated or sabotaged—according to a separate survey of 7,740 workers. And 72 percent of the perpetrators are bosses. The Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group based in Bellingham, Wash., sponsored the national survey.

“

Abusive supervision is a major problem in U.S. companies.This is bad because it leads to high turnover and poorer performance,” Fast said. “We wanted to figure out what the mechanisms were that caused the power-holders to abuse their underlings.”

To do so, the researchers conducted four studies with 410 participants.

In one experiment, half of the participants were conditioned to feel powerful by recalling experiences of power over others. The other participants remained neutral as they were made to remember mundane events. Some members from each group were then conditioned to feel competent by recalling an achievement while the rest were conditioned to feel incompetent by recounting a failure.

Afterwards, the participants’ propensity for bullying was measured using a noise-blast horn, a tool used by psychologists to gauge aggression. The participants were instructed to select the decibel levels of the horn blasts to be used when strangers made mistakes. The volume of the noise blasts revealed how aggressive the participants were.

“The people in the high-power condition who also felt incompetent were the ones who exposed these strangers to high-noise blasts,” Fast said. “None of the other groups did.”

Ruth McKay, an organizational behavior specialist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, said the study has timely implications on workplace conduct.

“I find the results very interesting especially in today’s environment where baby boomers are exiting the workplace and there may be employees that are promoted too quickly without training to fill the gaps,” she said. “They may use aggression as a response if challenged.”

Adam Galinsky, a management and organization professor at the Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University, expressed concern about thrusting unprepared people into leadership positions as well.

“Organizations need to train people for leadership,” he said. “They need to not only give skills but to also provide a sense of ‘I know what I am doing.’”

Bullies present themselves as omnipotent and powerful to dissuade confrontation and to keep from being revealed as something different. Targets intuitively sense that bullying is compensatory behavior, attempts to cover wrongdoing with bluster and bravado. It’s like the Wizard of Oz in the palace who is exposed by Toto, the dog, when he pulled back the curtain showing the small man pretending to be bigger than he was.

It’s nearly impossible to call a bully insecure or cursed with a sense of self-inadequcy because of the power they often enjoy in the workplace. However, the intuition of bullied targets and witnessing co-workers is spot on. Bullies are small people.

In a 4-study research paper to be published in the November issue of the journal Psychological Science, by Nathaniel Fast (University of Southern California) and Serena Chen (University of California, Berkeley) linked aggression at work to perceived inadequacy of people in power (bosses). [Fast, N.J. & Chen, S. (2009) When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence and aggression. Psychological Science, Nov. 2009]

Three of the studies tested working adults and are most relevant to the workplace.

In the first study, 90 working people completed assessments of their formal authority and power at work, the degree to which they feared being negatively evaluated by others (the inadequacy measure), and their level of aggressiveness as traditionally measured (willingness to hit others, ease with which arguments are entered). The aggression survey is a reliable predictor of physical violence, verbal abuse and the tendency to get into fights. For people with organizational power, believing themselves to be incompetent led them to be more aggressive than competent people. This was not true for people without power.

In the second study with working adults, some people were guided to think about their power or competence beforehand. Aggression translated into how loud (decibel levels from 0 to 130) they would be willing to blast a horn at another person who made mistakes over 10 trials. For people who already had organizational power, being primed to think even more about that power made them more aggressive if they also felt incompetent.

The third study of adults asked participants to rate their organizational power and their aggressiveness as in the first study. People were then sorted into low- and high-power groups based the demand their jobs required. Low power tasks typically involved doing simple work, completing tasks, High power tasks involved influencing others — supervising, closing sales. Then, the experimenters manipulated the perceived level of competence for people within each power group. Those subjected to their own incompetence were instructed to write about an experience where they failed to meet a task demand. Competence was primed by having those people recall a time when they successfully completed work projects.

This study also added another manipulated factor. Half of the people in each group were asked to select the value most important to them from a list (social life, relationships, business, etc.). They then wrote a paragraph justifying the value’s personal importance. This was done to bolster a sense of self-worth, a self-affirmation. People in the no affirmation group selected their least favorite value and wrote about how the value could be important to others.

In all three studies, incompetence increased aggression for high-power, but not for powerless, working adults. Aggression decreased when powerful people were reminded of their competence. When incompetence was primed (the person was reminded of failures) for low-power people, aggression decreased. The affirmation factor created some ego defensiveness and it seems to be the explanatory factor for why power and incompetence mix the way they do to lead to more aggression.

Thus, the results point to the dangerous combination of incompetence in the hands of people with power. The authors, Fast and Chen, claim that their work demonstrates that power holders have an increased vulnerability to perceiving potential psychological threats. Rather than feeling safe in their positions of power with the ability to disproportionately affect the outcomes of other people on a routine basis, the feelings of incompetence escalate the perception of threat in the eyes of people with actual power and authority. In turn, this leads to ego defensiveness (a self-protective mental device) that leads to aggression.

There was some limited exposure of participants to flattery, but the manipulations were weak and artificial compared to real-world kissing-up, ingratiation, that bullies receive at work. So, research on flattery’s effect on aggression by a boss is yet to be advanced.

Unfortunately, aggression equals bullying in this study. Regular working people rated their own tendencies to be aggressive. This was not a study of bullies. Of course, bullies do not offer themselves up for research purposes.

It would be an innovative to extrapolate link between perceived threat and aggression to the organizational level. Executive sponsors feel threatened when their bullying toadies are accused of wrongdoing. They react defensively. With guidance from legal counsel and HR, the entire organization responds defensively attacking the bullied accuser who dared to reveal internal weaknesses. But that is a study for another day. As they say, in the academe, further study is warranted.

Gary Namie

You can request this study (A7) at the WBI Research section.

The gist is that during times of economic expansion, workers are stressed by overtime and sleep less, hence they drink and smoke and commute to jobs which causes pollution which in turn leads to a spike in heart disease which all negatively influence health.

However, deaths remained stable during the Depression (except for suicides) and life expectancy increased from 57 to 63 years. You can read the research abstract below.  In 2005 Granados published a similar study in the Journal of Epidemiology and was countered by a researcher who disputed the conclusions (the same ones Granados drew in 2009).

Granados told a Reuters interviewer that during recessions there was less work to do, so employees can work at a slower pace. “There is more time to sleep, and because people have less money, they are less likely to spend as much on alcohol and tobacco,” he said.

José A. Tapia Granados and Ana V. Diez Roux

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), September 2009

Abstract

Recent events highlight the importance of examining the impact of economic downturns on population health. The Great Depression of the 1930s was the most important economic downturn in the U.S. in the twentieth century. We used historical life expectancy and mortality data to examine associations of economic growth with population health for the period 1920–1940. We conducted descriptive analyses of trends and examined associations between annual changes in health indicators and annual changes in economic activity using correlations and regression models. Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy. The only exception was suicide mortality which increased during the Great Depression, but accounted for less than 2% of deaths. Correlation and regression analyses confirmed a significant negative effect of economic expansions on health gains. The evolution of population health during the years 1920–1940 confirms the counterintuitive hypothesis that, as in other historical periods and market economies, population health tends to evolve better during recessions than in expansions.
E-mail: jatapia@umich.edu  Social Environment and Health (SEH/SRC) Program, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248;

The list of known health impacts of bullying is long. Affected systems include cardiovascular (high blood pressure, cardiac ischemia, heart attacks, stroke — a great deal has been discovered by Peter Schnall, MD and researchers associated with the Center for Social Epidemiology), gastrointestinal (colitis, ulcers), auto-immune (fibromyalgia, cancer propensity), and the psychological/emotional (anxiety, panic attacks, clinical depression, acute stress disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder – PTSD).

One characteristic of the onset of depression is sleep disruption — either trouble falling asleep or trouble returning to sleep after premature awakening. A recent study of French workers (E8  by Niedhammer et al. in our Research section) illustrates the association between being bullied and sleep disturbances.

Of those currently experiencing bullying both men and women were twice as likely to have sleep trouble than those not bullied. Problems with sleep were most pronounced when the bullying was daily or almost daily, and for women, if the exposure to bullying lasted more than five years.

Even witnesses to bullying were affected. For men, 60% increase in sleep disturbances; for women, a 20% increase occurs. People who both witnessed and personally were bullied had twice the sleep problems as people not bullied, with men having a slightly worse time than women.

In an American study (E9 in our Research section ), the association between being bothered or upset at work and the quality of sleep was examined. How does work “follow workers home”? Being bothered by work is a direct measure of stress because it captures a person’s emotional reactions to conditions at work. Other negative workplace measures included reports of low control (no autonomy) over work conditions and perceived job insecurity (fearing layoffs). The Univ of Michigan researchers (Burgard and Ailshire) used a longitudinal sample of 1,330 representative adult Americans across the occupational spectrum and across three measurement periods.

The results showed that being bothered or upset at work does consistently account for poor sleep quality. Even stressful negative conditions at home (financial hardship, spouse concerns, children) were not as disruptive as being bothered.

The relevance of the two studies is that sleepy, fatigued workers make performance errors. In manufacturing sites, they risk injury. In white collar workplaces, they make more mental errors. Though bullied workers are subjected to false claims by their bullies that they are poor performers, eventually the stress from bullying makes the person perform poorly. Sleep disruption may be one reason. Thus, the bully’s lies become their own self-fulfilling prophecy.

The studies (both available through our Research section):
Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: Findings from a large scale cross-sectional survey in the French working population. I. Niedhammer, S. David,  S. Degioanni, A. Drummond, & P. Philip  (2009) Sleep, 32 (9), 1211-1219.

Putting work to bed: Stressful experiences on the job and sleep quality. By S. Burgard, & J. Ailshire. Population Studies Center Research Report 08-652, University of Michigan, 2008.

Read the complete results.

1-800-273-TALK  / 1-800-273-8255

Romanow writes eloquently

GDP (gross domestic product) makes no distinction between economic activities that are good for our wellbeing and those that are harmful. Spending on tobacco, natural and human-made disasters, crime and accidents, all make GDP go up. Conversely, the value of unpaid housework, child care, volunteer work and leisure time are not included in GDP because they take place outside of the formal marketplace.

Even the “father of the GDP,” Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets, recognized that “the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP.”

(the late) Senator Robert Kennedy noted that GDP “measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

The Institute of Wellbeing has created the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW). The CIW is rooted in Canadian values.

 It begins with the belief that our cornerstone value as Canadians is the principle of “shared destiny”: that our society is often best shaped through collective action; that there is a limit to how much can be achieved by individuals acting alone; that the sum of a good society and what it can achieve is greater than the remarkably diverse parts which constitute it …

our standard of living, our health, the quality of our environment, our education and skill levels, the way we use our time, the vitality of our communities, our participation in the democratic process, and the state of our arts, culture and recreation.

Good public policies can improve wellbeing, bad ones can harm it. Three examples. Reductions in Employment Insurance (unemployment benefits in the U.S. which several governors have proudly refused to extend despite additional federal funding) increase financial risks and hamper economic wellbeing for people — a negative. Denial of medical services (even in Canada) causes a rise in a family’s health care expenses leading to poorer health for low-income citizens — a negative from the Canadian CIW perspective (as U.S. lawmakers consider taxing workers’ health care benefits and fight over people’s right to care). Significant cuts in welfare benefits increase income inequality (the rich getting richer) — something that impairs Canadians’ wellbeing.

Wellbeing in the U.S. Starting to Get Noticed

The only diectly comparable US counterpart to the Canadian CIW is the Foundation for Child Development (FCD).

The Child Well-Being Index (CWI) is a national, research-based composite measure  updated annually that describes how young people in the United States have fared since 1975.  It combines national data from 28 indicators across seven domains into a single number that reflects overall child well-being.  The seven quality-of-life domains are family economic well-being, health, safety/behavioral concerns, educational attainment, community connectedness, social relationships, and emotional and spiritual well being.

The FCD 2009 Report warned that the recession adversely impacts child wellbeing.

The percentage of children in poverty will rise to 21 percent in 2010, up from about 17 percent in 2006 primarily because of drops in family income from two incomes to one or none. Estimates of the recession’s effects reduce median family incomes to $55,700 by 2010, down from $59,200 in 2007. Single women household incomes fall to $23,000 in 2010, down from $24,950 in 2007. Single households headed by men income is expected to drop to $33,300 in 2010, from $38,100 in 2007.

As a social scientist-turned-advocate, I’ve seen firsthand how science is ignored by public policy decision makers (legislators) and by courts (and lawyers). Mostly it’s science’s fault by being too obscure, incremental, coupled with the common problem that scientists vary greatly in their ability to translate basic science into information relevant to societal problems. A recent (July 9 released) Pew Research Center survey of scientists found that only 3% of scientists are contacted by the media to describe their work; only 8% of scientists believe that public media exposure is important.

However, the library of relevant articles is growing with respect to workplace bullying. (For a sample, consult the WBI Research section.) And the media have been quite kind to WBI.

Lawmakers nearly always respond predictably to the demands of business lobbyists (no regulation, no enforcement, no accountablity, no new worker protections that interfere with absolute control over employees’ lives). Left out of the process is how laws affect real people living real lives, regardless of what’s good for business. Science about the impact of inhumane business practices should inform compassionate policy developers.

That same Pew survey also asked Americans how much various groups contributed to the “well-being of society.” The group credited as the most contributory: members of the military (84%), teachers (77%), scientists (70%), while lawyers (23%) and business executives (21%) contributed the least. In addition, 53% of the public (and only 33% of scientists) agreed that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength. Militarism is a key cultural ingredient in America. Militarism, all about the business of death, certainly undermines attention to wellbeing.

Rugged individualism, another American trait, sabotages the collective nature of society. It coarsens the regard we Americans have for one another. “To hell with him, let him fend for himself” is often the operating creed.

Both militarism and individualism run counter to genuine human altruistic impulses. Elsewhere, we cited the neuroscience of compassion. In America, showing concern for a fellow human’s wellbeing is frequently mocked as being “wimpy” or a “bleeding heart.” It is a challenge to American exceptionalism (the belief that the nation is the best and most advanced in all endeavors) to compare ourselves to European or Canadian progress on a topic like wellbeing. We clearly lag behind.

However, there is a bold new movement called Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ). WBI colleague and law professor David Yamada introduced TJ in his July 2 blog. He reports that a recent conference of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health included panels on mental health law and family law.

Mental health and law professionals are beginning to see the utility of “connecting the dots” (the CIW description of the process) to make the causal connection between social policy and impact on individual lives (as the CIW and FCD already know). These connections come naturally to social scientists, but the barons of the marketplace, businesses, lawmakers, and obviously do not share the same perspective. The TJ movement is bridging that gap in knowledge.

Finally, theologians can soften American attitudes toward defining success. Rabbi Michael Lerner, in his book The Politics of Meaning (1997), wrote:

The goal of the economy should be to help produce and sustain humans who are capable of realizing their highest capacities for love; creativity; intelligence; mutual recognition; solidarity; productive work; freedom; caring and nurturing; intimacy; commitment; trust; vitality; and aesthetic, ethical, spiritual, and ecological sensitivity. The materialist conception that promoting these capacities is difficult when people face material deprivation is correct, but needs to be qualified. There are, and have been throughout human history, societies that more successfully actualize these capacities than some of our contemporary advanced industrial societies, even though these others produce less, materially speaking. In my view, these societies have had a stronger economy-one that we ought to deem more productive and generating a higher standard of living.

Here’s hoping that the public dialogue started in Canada and the rest of the world enthuses America. Taking into account citizens’ wellbeing is one sign of an enlightened society. America needs to catch up. We need only to look north for a model.

UPDATE: 7/15 Public Policy and Health Impact
Los Angeles has an estimated 40,000 homeless people. The city’s policy (called Safer City which spends $6 million to pay for extra 50 police to patrol the downtown 50-block skid row) is to criminalize the destitute (for example, giving harassing tickets for not obeying crossing signals). The city spends only $5.7 million for homeless services at a time when more people, including working people, are living in their cars stripped of their foreclosed homes. Contrasted with LA is New York City with half the homeless population in large part due to a “right to shelter” policy and an investment of $200 million for housing and services for the needy. Read the Reuters report. Policies affect human wellbeing.

Gary Namie

Complaints by managers, that all bullied targets will recognize immediately, included: fear of not being taken seriously, worry that managers may lose confidence in their abilities, and damage to mental health and wellbeing. Poor babies. On the other hand, when managers are bullied companies may be more willing to effect policies and procedures to protect management, their most precious resource.

(The WBI-Zogby US national survey found that 35% of all workers bullied were managers of some level.)

This British article criticizes their government agency HSE. Know that the U.S. OSHA is even less protective of workers.

How realistic are limits when employers want to offer 24/7 operating hours? Nurses are especially vulnerable because patient care requires 24/7 coverage.

No summary can do justice to this detailed article. Read it in its entirety @ Hazards Magazine..

Regardless of personal political leanings, it’s time to form an alliance between the US Workplace Bullying movement which represents 24% of the US workforce who lose jobs due to bullying (64% of the 37%, see the WBI-Zogby statistics) and the Single Payer Health Insurance movement.

The triple whammy: Employer exposes worker to abuse/Worker with declining health loses job for daring to complain/Unemployed, uninsured worker’s health declines further

Good people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Many suffer stress-related health complications as a result. And in America just when you require urgent medical treatment for those problems, taken away is health insurance tied to the job.

A study of medical bankruptcy published in the American Journal of Medicine (May, 2009) summarized at Single Payer Action is shocking.

The inability of Americans to pay their medical bills led to 62% of all bankruptcies in the US. 78% of those who went bankrupt because of medical problems had “health insurance.” Later we will explore the disconnect between having “health insurance” and getting treatment by a medical provider. And these statistics were gathered prior to the economic downturn. It can only be worse in 2009.

We cannot afford to get sick and not be able to afford care. It is the height of American heartlessness.

We first became aware of single payer advocacy with the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

Single Payer Action has a list of groups working for single payer plan.

Dear reader: Help us combine forces and make the obvious connection. Comment below with advice and direction. If you are working with any of the groups listed at Single Payer Action, let them know about WBI and our new outreach effort.

MADRID, June 5 (UPI) –
Fourteen percent of the respondents to a survey in Spain say they have suffered psychological abuse or bullying at the workplace, researchers said.
David Gonzalez of the High Court of Justice of Madrid and Jose Luis Grana of the Complutense University defined workplace bullying as a “process of systematic and repeated aggression by a person or group towards a workmate, subordinate or superior.”

Gonzalez and Grana used data from nearly 3,000 valid responses received from the Negative Acts Questionnaire — a specific tool used to measure workplace abuse.

The study, published in the journal Psicothema, also found that results also provide evidence that women are most frequently on the receiving end of workplace harassment, which coincides with the results of other studies carried out on the issue.

However, the findings contradict previous results that indicated that workers under the age of 30 were the most vulnerable to harassment. Gonzalez and Grana found those age 45 and older are more likely to be the victims of abuse.

The study also found that 9 percent of workplace bullying was carried out by subordinates, but 47 percent were bullied by bosses.

The survey used, the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ), is the favorite tool for academic bullying researchers to use. It was developed by Helge Hoel and Stale Einarsen. Their research and many other studies using the NAQ can be found in the WBI Research section.

Solidarity of the sisterhood is a myth and stereotype. It doesn’t mean it does not exist, it’s just that not all women are nurturant and supportive to one another. Neither is every man macho and hyper-aggressive. Stereotypes are generalizations about sex-role-typed behavior, common acts associated with only one gender and not the other. Many behaviors are gender-typed. 

Workplace Bullying is not gender-typed. Workplace environment factors are better predictors than gender. For example, a culture that carries no accountability or negative consequences, regardless of how harmful the behavior exhibited paves the way for bullies. A place where kissing-up (ingratiation) is the norm is fertile territory, where bullying and favoritism (and its converse, ostracism) thrive.

When we discuss the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, we speak of “status-blind” harassment. Bullying crosses the boundaries drawn by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability. Thus bullying is truly “gender-free.”

What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). Yes, women are crueler to women than they are to men, and that must be explained. But don’t forget that 60% of all bullies are men. 31% of all bullying is men-on-men, 29% is WOW. Why is there so little interest in the more frequent variety of same-gender bullying? Because it’s discounted as routine, expected, predictable. WOW sounds mysterious, counterintuitive, and, I think, somewhat prurient.

So here are some explanations for WOW bullying that rarely make it into TV segments on bullying, print stories and the gabfest which is the blogosphere. We offer this because some readers might get the impression that we are misogynists. We are not! 57% of all bullied targets are women, and the majority of callers seeking help from us are women. We are women’s advocates in the fight against workplace bullying.

The WBI  starter list of explanations

A. It’s the workplace, not the people in it. Employers create work environments where aggression is rewarded. women see this (as well if not better than men) and learn to abuse others to get ahead. It’s the way things are done around here.

In male-dominated organizations, where men hold all the executive positions, women tend to adopt male-sex-typed behavior to survive and succeed. Only in female-run organizations (or those run by males who adopt a female-sex-typed style that values quality of interpersonal relationships as much as power and status differences) can there be hope for a less aggressive, more dignified and respectful way to operate.

See the Women and Bullying articles in our Research section for relevant studies about this particular angle.

B. A double standard about women is alive and well and practiced by both men and women. If women are “nice” they are too soft. If they are tough, they are “bitchy.” There are two social psychological explanations for this. 

First, it is gender bias in the causal attribution process. Causal attribution is simply showing a preference for explaining things that happen. Old research found that if a person is described succeeding at a task, the explanation depends on whether the person described is male or female. Success for men is typically explained by a trait, inherent skill, intelligence, ability. With exactly the same information, when it’s a woman, success is the result of the task being so easy anyone could have done it or luck. And both men and women elect those different explanations. 

Second, the first person to break any barrier and be the lone representative of a group (and therefore, be in the statistical minority) is called a “token.” Tokens are subjected to disproportionate pressure. Errors, however tiny, are magnified. Successes can also be blown out of proportion. In practice, token individuals often break from the pressure. Look at what Jackie Robinson had to endure when he broke the race barrier in the white baseball league. Same for the first woman CEO or the first woman to attain a high rank in any organization. Women are natural tokens in male-dominated domains, like business. Men are rarely the only male in any role, but when they are, they, too are tokens and heavily scrutinized.

C. Women targets are less likely to confront in response to being bullied. But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling. It could be their religion that tells them to turn the other cheek or to never lower oneself to the level of a tyrant. Other targets walk away in fear, stunned at the surprise attack. Getting away is the only reaction they have. Once away, they hope time will heal the wound or prevent it from happening again. Regardless of motive, targets do not defend themselves because either they are unable (it’s not their worldview and never acquired the skill of self-defense because it’s a fair world, no one will hurt you) or unwilling to do so. Targets are all “easy marks.” It’s not just women.

D. Most bullies are bosses (in the US, 72% of bullies are bosses). All bullies prefer to bully subordinates. It’s a permitted prerogative that makes being a boss attractive to many people. So, bullying flows downhill.

Women are bosses, too. But they are lower-ranking than men bosses (only 15% of executives are women, only 3% of CEOs). So they are more likely managing other women and not other men executives. They bully whoever they can. So, WOW may be nothing more than proximity at work. You bully those within reach.

E. Though I’m not a woman, I’ve had a great deal to do with them during my lifetime (and Ruth educates me constantly). (She says that) women are socialized to judge other girls while growing up. They pay attention to how others look and dress all the time. Self-identity can be almost entirely dependent on how others appear and how they are judged by others. Without comparisons to others, some would not know how to make decisions.

Two factors emerge. First, modeling one’s personal behavior on the actions of others gives a great deal of power to the other person. Clearly in WOW relationships where apparent friendship preceded bullying, the bully may have been respected by the future target. When she is betrayed, the target ruminates (for way too long) about the inexplicable turnaround, searching for a rational explanation. It doesn’t matter, it just happened because the bully wanted it to. Wanting to be like someone else gives away too much personal control over one’s own life and choices made.

Second, the skill of paying attention since childhood determines the adult woman’s perceptual field. Other women are salient in the social world. More information is gleaned from cultivating relationships with women. Abusive, exploitative relationships with one person dominating the other is simply a twisted, sick reliance upon getting information from another woman (to then be used against her). Targets fall into the trap easily.

F. Feminist writers claim that women grow up accustomed to having their personal boundaries invaded and thus learn to treat other women that same way. A girl’s opinions are treated as irrelevant by the father compared to her brother’s. A girl’s ambitions are tamped down, expectations made more “realistic,” dreams treated as impossible. This is denial of her very psychological integrity, a discounting of her humanity. If this is how she is raised, she grows accustomed to being treated rudely or denigrated as not deserving equal status with others. So, when bullied at work, the immediate reaction is rarely outrage and righteous indignation that a fool would dare lie so readily or be so unapologetically cruel. It is more likely a timid turing away, starting immediately to blame herself, buying into the lies (as if some “kernel of truth” is buried in all the manure), and spiraling into a psychologically compromised state.

Read Phyllis Chesler’s Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman in the Recommended Books section.

So, there’s my preliminary thinking about the topic. Do you see why reporters can’t handle all this information?

Women:  share your favorite explanation for WOW bullying by adding a comment. We want to see lots of input from you, the experts.

Remarkable in this survey is the fact that so many employees can see and feel bullying’s impact on their daily lives while employers feign blindness and deafness. This survey was conducted in BRITAIN where the term Workplace Bullying is in common usage ever since Andrea Adams launched the UK movement and coined the term there. Of course, U.S. employers are motivated to stay in denial, but even British employers still tempt danger by ignoring bullying.

That’s why there must be specific anti-bullying laws! When laws are in place, employer denials will evaporate.

U.K. Survey: Workplace Bullying Ignored

The Times (London) Online
August 2, 2006

Workplace bullying is a growing problem but bosses are failing to take the problem seriously, according to a report out today. Four out of five people have been bullied at work but most are wary of complaining because they do not believe they will be taken seriously, according to a survey by Peninsula, an employment law firm. (in Britain).

Just 11 per cent of 1,300 workers questioned said they would report workplace bullying to a superior, with only 9 per cent saying they thought their boss would take the complaint seriously.

This is despite 81 per cent of employees saying they had been bullied and 71 per cent saying they thought workplace bullying was on the increase.

The survey reveals a sharp distinction between how employers and employees view the problem, with just 13 per cent of more than 2,000 employers surveyed acknowledging that bullying was an issue in their workplace.

Peter Done, managing director of Peninsula, said: “One of the most serious concerns to come out of this research is that few employers believe their companies are suffering at the hands of bullying, yet a high percentage of employees have been victims. This suggests that workers do not feel confident enough to tell their bosses they are being bullied.”

Mr Done said that in adopting such a stance employers were “attempting to brush the problem under the carpet, which can have serious consequences.”

Yesterday Helen Green, a company secretary at Deutsche Bank, was awarded £828,000 (U.S. $1.5 million) in damages after being driven to a mental breakdown by office bullies.

The judge criticised Ms Green’s managers for being “weak and ineffectual” in the face of a longstanding bullying problem in their department.

Richard Martin, a partner at Speechly Bircham, said: “The Helen Green case serves as a salutary lesson to employers to stamp out behaviour of this kind at a very early stage, particularly when the liability of employers for the bullying and harassment carried out by their employees is increasing all the time.”

Employment experts pointed out that cases like Ms Green’s are rare and that employers are able to protect themselves.

Andrew Chamberlain, an employment lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, said: “When any employee reports bullying or is known to have suffered ill health, it is crucial that firms closely monitor the situation and maintain accurate records to prove they have done so. If it goes to court then it is all too easy for evidence to become a case of one person’s word against another’s but, by maintaining accurate records and taking proactive action to manage the situation, firms will be better protected against such claims.”

Michael Farrier, an employment expert at Boyes Turner, added: “This survey is a reminder to employers, particularly those with considerable resources, to be vigilant and introduce an effective equality and diversity policy as well as anti-bullying and harassment policies. It is vital that employers undertake annual equality and diversity training and monitoring, if they are to be able to demonstrate they take their obligations seriously.”

Targets of bullying experience rejection by cowardly co-workers, indifference from HR and senior management, and limited tolerance by friends and family. Why aren’t people more compassionate? Why don’t they see the pain and help more? Brand new research suggests that we humans are wired to quickly and empathically react to the physical pain of others. For example, watching someone break an ankle and step on it triggers pain centers in our own brains nearly immediately.

However, social pain or the mental anguish of others takes longer to trigger a response and that reaction requires much more brain work. For example, when a woman with cerebral palsy laments that she has never been kissed and probably will never have a romantic relationship, it should trigger a compassionate response. It does, but it takes time. The latency and location of neurological responses are tracked by fMRI. The research was done by Mary Helen Immordino-Yang and Antonio Damasio at USC’s Brain and Creativity Institute. (Paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

I extrapolate the findings to the real world of workplace bullying. Effortful cognitions, hard mental work, is nearly always avoided. Most people seek low challenge activity that sustains comfort and predictability. The vicarious experiencing of the pain of others can be circumvented if the witnessed events pass quickly by, preventing the time it takes for our brains to adequately process the mental pain witnessed. Averting eye contact and turning or walking away allows witnesses to skip the mental work and the discomfort that would result if they stayed long enough to notice the undeniable pain. Disengagement from the target blocks compassion. It makes it easier to side with the bullying abuser. Another layer of denial may even come into play. By refusing to acknowledge what was seen or heard, not only does the pain not get through, but the witness convinces him- or herself that nothing was actually heard or seen (that’s the rationalization driven by cognitive dissonance).

At the broadest level, the lack of compassion by lawmakers is simple to understand. They delve deeply into nothing; they skim everything due to overload from so many people seeking their attention. I’m not letting them off the hook, but clearly attention spread too thin undermines compassion. Most lawmaker sponsors of our bills are people with direct or family experience with bullying. They do not need to be convinced. Their experience is deep and undeniable. They have seen the pain bullying causes.

Brain science is fascinating because it shows how social/environmental factors are filtered through our personal biological lenses often in interaction with learned social ways of coping with stress and interacting with others.

By Julie Steenhuysen

Fri Nov 7, 2008 

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Brain scans of teens with a history of aggressive bullying behavior suggest that they may actually get pleasure out of seeing someone else in pain, U.S. researchers said on Friday.

While this may come as little surprise to those who have been victimized by bullies, it is not what the researchers expected, Benjamin Lahey of the University of Chicago, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.

“The reason we were surprised is the prevailing view is these kids are cold and unemotional in their aggression,” said Lahey, whose study appears in the journal Biological Psychology (the abstract from the article and MRI picture can be read here).

“This is looking like maybe they care very much,” said Lahey, who worked on the study with Jean Decety, also of the University of Chicago.

The researchers compared eight boys ages 16 to 18 with aggressive conduct disorder to a group of eight adolescent boys with no unusual signs of aggression.

The boys with the conduct disorder had exhibited disruptive behavior such as starting a fight, using a weapon and stealing after confronting a victim.

They showed both groups video clips of someone inflicting pain on another person and tracked brain activity with a type of imaging called functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI.

In the aggressive teens, areas of the brain linked with feeling rewarded — the amygdala and ventral striatum — became very active when they observed pain being inflicted on others.

But they showed little activity in an area of the brain involved in self-regulation — the medial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction — as was seen in the control group.

“It is entirely possible their brains are lighting in the way they are because they experience seeing pain in others as exciting and fun and pleasurable,” Lahey said.

“We need to test that hypothesis more, but that is what it looks like,” he said.

Lahey said the differences between the two groups were strong and striking, but cautioned that the study was small and needs to be confirmed by a larger study.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

The scientific article abstract:

Atypical empathic responses in adolescents with aggressive conduct disorder: A functional MRI investigation

Jean Decety, Kalina J. Michalska, Yuko Akitsuki, Benjamin B. Lahey

Biological Psychology, 80 (2), 203-211

Abstract

Because youth with aggressive conduct disorder (CD) often inflict pain on others, it is important to determine if they exhibit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain. In this initial functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, eight adolescents with aggressive CD and eight matched controls with no CD symptoms were scanned while watching animated visual stimuli depicting other people experiencing pain or not experiencing pain. Furthermore, these situations involved either an individual whose pain was caused by accident or an individual whose pain was inflicted on purpose by another person. After scanning, participants rated how painful the situations were. In both groups the perception of others in pain was associated with activation of the pain matrix, including the ACC, insula, somatosensory cortex, supplementary motor area and periaqueductal gray. The pain matrix was activated to a specific extent in participants with CD, who also showed significantly greater amygdala, striatal, and temporal pole activation. When watching situations in which pain was intentionally inflicted, control youth exhibited signal increase in the medial prefrontal cortex, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and right temporo-parietal junction, whereas youth with CD only exhibited activation in the insula and precentral gyrus. Furthermore, connectivity analyses demonstrated that youth with CD exhibited less amygdala/prefrontal coupling when watching pain inflicted by another than did control youth. These preliminary findings suggest that youth with aggressive CD exhibit an atypical pattern of neural response to viewing others in pain that should be explored in further studies.

fMRI images

Abilene Paradox

Jerry Harvey honored his Texas roots when he named this phenomenon. The group dynamic is perhaps the most relevant to understanding why bullies can be witnessed by so many people and still get away with it.

Imagine a committee of bright people making a stupid decision. We know from talking with each person alone that each and every one of them thinks it’s a stupid thing to do. When the committee votes, however, they choose to do the stupid thing! Later, usually much later, when the decision backfires, the committee tears itself apart in its search for a culprit. The group desperately needs someone or something to blame, long after the very preventable decision was made.

This describes a group in agreement, not in conflict. They all agree privately, and individually, about the true state of affairs. They do not communicate their feelings to one another, however. Then publicly, in the presence of each other, they all deny the agreement that they don’t know exists among them.

 That’s the paradox: private vs. public versions of reality. In fact, this is the mismanagement of agreement, not disagreement. It’s all made possible by a public silence regarding what each individual knows to be true. Sound like where you work?

Take the bullying example. All the co-workers of the bully’s target know what is happening. If interviewed alone and free from retaliation, each would deplore the obvious pain the target is experiencing. However, in group settings, even without the bully present, they don’t do the right thing. When together, they don’t plan how to use their group power to overcome a lone bully. Instead, they ignore the rampant mistreatment by not communicating their positions or feelings publicly. If the target later pursues legal action and investigators on her behalf interview the team that made up the hostile environment, the finger pointing begins. 

Why does this happen? Jerry Harvey traces it to people’s overblown negative fantasies. That is, they imagine the worst possible, riskiest outcome from confronting the bully–they would lose their jobs, the bully would turn on them, they would have a heart attack, the bully would kill their children, and so on. With a mind full of negative thoughts like these, mostly about events that would never occur, the individuals act very conservatively as a group. As a group, they want to take no risk. So, they do the wrong thing, all for lack of talking about it openly. They let bad things happen to the target that they believe, as individuals, should not happen. Sick? No, simply human nature’s aversion to risk thanks to an exaggerated imagination that limits thinking about possibilities. 

“Abilene” is the Texas city in the Abilene paradox. It refers to the retelling by Harvey of a lousy decision by his family.  On a hot summer day, the family piled into a car without airconditioning and drove too many to Abilene to try a new diner. The heat was oppressive; the food was lousy. But no one dared to speak in those terms until later that night back home. Finally, the matriarch of the family broke the silence by complaining about the food. Then everyone chimed in with their complaint–the car was hot, it was stupid to try an unknown restaurant. It turns out that no one wanted to go in the first place, but no one said so when it mattered. Eventually, they all blamed the father for suggesting the drive. 

To Harvey, whenever a group is about to do the wrong thing, despite knowing it’s the wrong thing, it is a group “on the road to Abilene.” You can order Harvey’s book from our list of Recommended Books.

Silent, inactive witnesses to the bullying of others is a group “on the road to Abilene.”

The paradox is discussed in our book, The Bully At Work