October 17th, 2017
Freedom From Workplace Bullies Week
Loading Quotes...
|
WBI BLOG
Nexus of Workers' Rights, Research & Social Policies
September 22nd, 2017
Bullied targets at risk from Graham-Cassidy bill: Act now
UPDATE: Senate leadership pulled the Graham-Cassidy bill on Tuesday Sept. 26. There will be no vote that would have shamed those supporting the heinous legislation. Still we cannot rest. Republicans have sworn to “repeal & replace” the ACA. Stay tuned. Be vigilant.
If you are being bullied at work, and part of the 60.3 million American workers affected by bullying, you have a bone in the Senate fight over the attempt to terminate the Affordable Care Act rolling toward a Wed. Sept. 27 vote.
ACTION IS REQUIRED
Here’s why.
An assumed majority of bullied workers or about-to-be bullied workers have some form of employer-based health insurance. It used to be that employers provided the insurance as a benefit. They paid 100% of the premium. But over the years employers learned to shirk that responsibility by making workers pay more as their share. Then they learned to lower their premiums by dumping large deductibles on workers.
We know from a WBI target survey, that for whom the bullying stopped, 77% had to lose their jobs to stop it. Simply put, there is a high probability that once you are targeted, for no reason of your making, you will lose that job.
Either before or shortly after losing the job you once loved, your health will decline — both physical and psychological stress-related problems surface. When insured and if luck, you might have been treated.
Before the ACA, treatment for any condition branded you a person with pre-existing conditions. Insurers had the right to deny you coverage. Some insurers would deny treatment for those specific conditions. Thank Obamacare, the ACA, for stopping this practice of denial of treatment by insurers.
Now you lost your job and with it employer-based insurance. You might have the option to continue the plan for a limited time (under COBRA), but the premiums shift to a very high individual rates now unaffordable without income.
Again, thanks to the ACA, if unemployed, you do not have to go without health insurance when your health is so unstable. You would qualify for either free coverage or subsidized premiums based on your now limited income.
Free insurance —Medicaid— paid for by federal funds and your state,. Of course, if you live in a state that refused the 90-95% federal funding because your red state governor and legislature copped an attitude toward ”guvmint,” you don’t have access to this option. Remember when you vote republican. There are consequences. FYI, Medicaid is how the elderly can get end-of-life nursing home care (rates hover around $6,000 per month). Medicaid helps the disabled and children in poor families.
ACA-subsidized premiums help you get insurance on most incomes. The federal government pays insurers the difference between what you can afford to pay and the premium. Government can help its people to prevent bankruptcy from healthcare-related expenses. We are the only “civilized” nation to allow people to suffer economic devastation on the heels of expensive health crises.
By the way, somehow Trump has been able to curtail payments to insurers in order to make it appear that the ACA is failing. Not so. “Businessman” Trump is throwing the insurance market into chaos deliberately to be able to destabilize the ACA.
This short review of the ACA is to remind you about what the Republicans (U.S. Senators next week, then if successful, House members shortly thereafter) want to terminate. In their zeal to “honor” campaign promises, they are hell bent on repealing Obamacare.
Included in the Graham-Cassidy bill which has never been debated in Congress are heartless, morally reprehensible features such as:
– ending availability of insurance for 22-32 million Americans (according to CBO estimates of prior versions of this legislation)
– the end of subsidies to insurers to offset high premium costs — insurance premiums will rise by approx. 15%
– giving states “block grant” money, ostensibly to pay for healthcare for its citizens, but it is money that can be spent on anything the state desires
– allowing states to allow insurers to again deny coverage (ALL coverage) for people with pre-existing conditions
– ending all Medicaid in 2027 — no more federal support for the least among us.
Thus, bullied targets who lose their jobs and health insurance have a vested interest in sustaining the ACA and not allowing the Graham-Cassidy bill to repeal it.
If you are represented by a Republican Senator or House Representative, you have to contact their Capitol offices to register your displeasure with the fact that they would even consider such an inhumane piece of legislation. Let them know you are their VOTING CONSTITUENT.
Capitol switchboard to get connected: (202) 225-3121
The Senators who once voted against similar, but less draconian, bills to repeal ACA (Obamacare). If they all vote against the bill, it will die.
– Sen. Collins, Maine
– Sen. Murkowski, Alaska
– Sen. Capito, West Virginia
– Sen. McCain, Arizona
Watch Jimmy Kimmel explain some of the details of this horrible legislation.
August 1st, 2017
Foreign employer extortion to create jobs for Americans: Costs vs. benefits
The first glowing positive public headline read “Apple will make products (iPhones and iPads) in the U.S.” Yea! Good news, right? Maybe not so. Reading the details revealed that one of Apple’s major manufacturers in China, the Tawainese company Foxconn, was searching for an American location. Not Apple itself — its contracted manufacturer. Apple not only makes its gizmos offshore; it hoardes millions in profits offshore to avoid a US tax bill.
Foxconn, the astute reader remembers, was rendered infamous years ago when it coerced a spate of employee suicides. Investigations uncovered the fact that young workers were crammed into tiny employer-provided apartments too many for the space allotted. (Think factory towns under total employer control.) Then, at the worksite, the workers were forbidden to speak with one another on the Apple products assembly line. The prohibition extended to any talking, not gossip or non-work-related communications — any interpersonal contact!!!!
Worker have a fundamental human need to belong to groups, to be included. When that need is thwarted in cases of social exclusion or ostracism, individuals suffer social harm. Neuroscience research reveals that the social pain endured is real pain — the kind taking painkillers will reduce. Hence, the suicide by jumping off the roof of Foxconn buildings in China.
Foxconn institutionally abused its workers for some unknown reason. The solution to their suicide “problem” — probably considered nothing more than a public relations crisis — was to install netting to catch the jumpers before hitting the ground below. Great fix, huh? No need to attack the root cause — the Foxconn policy and practice. Better to simply minimize the deaths by suicide with “safety” nets. Stupid (or as Trump would say “Sad!).
Foxconn couldn’t convince Pennsylvania to give them a substantial prize for the locating there. But union-busting Scott Walker delivered Wisconsin. As the following report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel states, the state will pony up $3 billion of taxpayer funds to entice the company to locate in either Racine or Kenosha counties. Further, the full-control Foxconn style practiced in China is likely to be replicated, or attempted, in Wisconsin. The newspaper story stated that the “factory project would involve a virtual village, with housing, stores and service businesses spread over at least 1,000 acres.” That is, employer-controlled housing.
Will Americans be willing to cram 10-15 people into spaces designed for two or three? Or will the company simply provide gymnasium-size quarters with cots so workers can sleep up to 6 hours before getting back to the assembly line?
Most important, watch to see how they manage interpersonal relations in the factory. Will Foxconn prohibit workers from talking to one another as they did in China? There’s not a single U.S. labor law to prevent it. [The Wisconsin legislature in the session immediately prior to Walker and the Republican takeover, not only sponsored the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, it held hearings I attended. The bill did not pass, but at least workers’ rights were on the lawmakers’ agenda. Now, not so much.] And Walker and his Republican thugs have paralyzed once union-proud Wisconsites into fear of union organizing.
Watch for the proactive installation of nets to catch suicide leapers in Wisconsin. Why do we let this happen in America????
Read the Journal Sentinel article that follows.
Continue reading this article… »
July 7th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Survey: Strong Support for a New Law Against Abusive Conduct at Work
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Support for a New Law Against Abusive Conduct At Work
Support for a New Law Against Abusive Conduct At Work
77% of Americans support a new law to address abusive conduct at work
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
We used the definition of workplace bullying that matches perfectly the definition codified in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Bullying is repeated mistreatment but also “abusive conduct.” We asked American survey respondents to consider only the most serious forms of bullying.
When the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying data were collected, legislation written to address abusive conduct in American workplaces – the Healthy Workplace Bill – had been introduced in 30 states and Territories. The bill had not yet been enacted into law in its complete form.
We asked all respondents [N = 1,008] whether they supported or opposed such a law.
Wording of the Support for New Law Question: Do you support or oppose enactment of a new law that would protect all workers from repeated health-harming abusive mistreatment in addition to protections against illegal discrimination and harassment?
It is clear that the American public wants to see worker protections against abusive conduct extended beyond the anti-discrimination statutes – 77% support specific anti-bullying legislation when strongly support and somewhat support proportions are combined.
Self-described political ideology was one of the demographic variables provided by Zogby. There were 242 liberals, 314 moderates and 369 conservatives. Table 12 shows the pattern of support and opposition for the new anti-abuse workplace law. The phenomenon of bullying ignores ideological boundaries (with the possible Trump effect being the exception, see the analysis of the final question). Nevertheless, liberals and moderates showed the strongest support for the bill. It is noteworthy that two-thirds of conservatives support enacting the law against abusive conduct at work.
Gary Namie, PhD
WBI Research Director
Download the pdf version of these Support for New Law findings.
View findings related to other questions asked in the 2017 Survey.
Download the complete report of the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
July 7th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Survey: What Stops Workplace Bullying?
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Stopping Workplace Bullying
Stopping Workplace Bullying
65% of bullying stops when the target loses the job held when first bullied
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
We used the definition of workplace bullying that matches perfectly the definition codified in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Bullying is repeated mistreatment but also “abusive conduct.” We asked American survey respondents to consider only the most serious forms of bullying.
At WBI, we have been immersed in the lives of bullied targets for two decades. Ideally, employers would recognize the risks workplace bullying/abusive conduct pose and act rationally to stop it. However, we know from targets, this is not the case.
Bullying in its simplest manifestation is dyadic. There is a target and a perpetrator. This question explores how much each player contributes to stopping the bullying and through which personal consequences. [N = 350 with no experience respondents and “not sure” respondents deleted.]
Wording of the Stopping the Bullying Question: What stopped the abusive mistreatment?
This Survey question provided the response option: “It has not stopped” that was chosen by 25% of respondents. Thus, the sample was reduced to N = 263 when those respondents were eliminated. The subsequent percentages in the above Table are based on the new sample that excluded the 25%. The options were chosen only by those for whom the bullying had stopped, either for targets or witnesses.
The sad reality is that even the general public seems to know that it is the target, the victim of the abuse, who is asked to make additional sacrifices to stop the bullying. In 54% of cases, bullying stops only when the target loses her or his job. Remember that individuals do not invite this severe misery into their work lives. Therefore, once a person is targeted for bullying – a choice made by the perpetrator(s) – that person has a 5 out of 10 chance of losing her or his livelihood. If one adds the 11% of targets who had to transfer to retain employment, 65% of targets had to leave the job they loved for no cause.
Furthermore, the target is driven to quit. Voluntary quitting (23%) is usually based on escalating health problems that families and physicians recognize, then encourage the target to leave the job. But 12% of quitting is based on decisions made after work conditions become untenable, so cruel as to drive a rational person to escape. Constructive discharge is the goal for many perpetrators. Terminations (8%) of the skilled but threatening (to bullies) targets are typically based on fabricated lies. Several WBI surveys of bullied targets substantiate this claim.
Accepting a transfer to retain a job (11%), to bullied targets, is often a source of perceived injustice. Their reasoning is “I did nothing to deserve the abuse, why should I be the one to leave the job I love and am best qualified to perform.” To many, transfers are punitive. On the other hand, it prevents economic devastation and might provide a degree of psychological safety.
The pattern of results from this national sample stands in marked contrast with WBI studies asking the same question of a sample of only bullied targets. To them, the ratio of negative consequences experienced by targets is 7:1 when compared to negatives for perpetrators. The public overestimates the proportion of negative consequences suffered by perpetrators.
In this 2017 version of the national survey, we added the option for respondents to choose –employers stopped the bullying by doing something positive and proactive such as creating a policy or conducting credible investigations. Ten percent of respondents chose this option.
Gary Namie, PhD
WBI Research Director
Download the pdf version of these Stopping the Bullying findings.
View findings related to other questions asked in the 2017 Survey.
Download the complete report of the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
July 7th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Survey: Reactions to Workplace Bullying of Employers and Witnesses
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Reactions to Workplace Bullying by Employers and Witnesses
Reactions to Workplace Bullying by Employers and Witnesses
71% of U.S. employers react to reports of abusive conduct in ways that harm targets
60% of coworker/witnesses’ reactions to bullying harmed their targeted colleagues
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
We used the definition of workplace bullying that matches perfectly the definition codified in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Bullying is repeated mistreatment but also “abusive conduct.” We asked American survey respondents to consider only the most serious forms of bullying.
EMPLOYER REACTIONS
Employers have the power to either sustain or eliminate abusive conduct. Anecdotal evidence suggests that American employers rarely take steps to assist the aggrieved employee (the target). This question asks what the public believes employers actually do. [N = 479; no experience respondents deleted.]
Wording of the Employer Reaction Question: Upon learning of the abusive conduct, what did the employer do?
For many respondents, employer reactions were obscured. Two sub-groups of respondents were eliminated – “employer never learned” and “not sure” – representing 56% of the initial sample. For a host of possible reasons (e.g., the target never reported it), employer actions were unknown to over half of the sample. It is also very difficult for observers to be certain what employers know and what they do because so many actions are shrouded in secrecy beneath the veil of “confidentiality.”
Respondents who were sufficiently certain of what employers did, the remaining 44% of the sample [N = 212], concluded that 71% of employers took steps that did not benefit the targeted worker. The most frequent negative employer reaction is to conduct what targets describe as “sham” investigations characterized by major shortcomings. Investigator biases are often legend. Coworkers, for understandable reasons, fail to corroborate their bullied peer’s account of alleged bullying incidents. Key individuals are not interviewed. Greater weight is given to perpetrators’ versions of incidents. Objective historical documentation is ignored or discounted. “Sham” investigations end with an inconclusive result but with inadequate or inaccurate execution. To be fair to investigators with integrity, the process is fraught with problems in bullying cases different than investigations of routine conflict or illegal forms of discriminatory misconduct. An endpoint of “she said/she said” is common. WBI survey respondents say it happens in 46% of cases.
Because abusive conduct is a form of workplace violence, the complainant has likely suffered long prior to requesting an investigation. Therefore, when no work environment changes to restore psychological safety for complainants follow an investigation, investigators necessarily should understand the perception of incredulity by victims of the psychological violence.
Employer apologists might argue that an employer’s decision to do nothing is an act of neutrality. However, this is wrong. Doing nothing or showing indifference to filed complaints or discovering a procedural technicality to justify not responding to the complaints is an act of complicity with the aggressor. By enabling bullying with impunity, the institution takes the side of perpetrators and provides shelter from the accountability they seek. Doing nothing happens 26% of the time, according to the survey respondents.
Positive employer actions resulted in 29% of cases. Perpetrators endured negative outcomes in only 6% of the cases.
WITNESS REACTIONS
Results from several WBI online surveys of bullied targets reliably show that coworkers rarely help their bullied colleagues. Several social psychological processes operate in the group setting to explain the failure to act prosocially toward colleagues. The question explored a range of positive and negative actions taken by witnesses to the bullying. [N = 362 with no experience respondents and “not sure” respondents deleted.]
Wording of the Question: How did most of the witnesses react to the repeated mistreatment of their targeted coworker?
Doing nothing was the most cited tactic (40%). Of course, doing nothing to help colleagues when they are distressed is not a neutral act. It is negative. However, it is not the same as betraying the target by siding with the perpetrator(s), believed by respondents from the general American public to happen in only 4% of cases.
Positive witness reactions occurred in 40% of cases, according to survey respondents. Negative actions were taken in 60% of cases.
Gary Namie, PhD
WBI Research Director
Download the pdf version of these Employer and Witness Reaction findings.
View findings related to other questions asked in the 2017 Survey.
Download the complete report of the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
July 7th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Survey: How Rarely Bullied Targets Complain
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Notification by Bullied Targets
Notification by Bullied Targets
29% of targets remain silent about their abusive conduct
only 17% seek formal resolution
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
We used the definition of workplace bullying that matches perfectly the definition codified in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Bullying is repeated mistreatment but also “abusive conduct.” We asked American survey respondents to consider only the most serious forms of bullying.
A key enabling factor of abusive conduct at work is silence. No one talks about what they have either witnessed or directly experienced. Personal shame is frequently a large part of the experience for targets. Without overt sharing of the bullying incidents and the impact of those incidents, the organizational culture that fostered bullying remains unchanged. Perpetrators rely on silence to act with impunity.
This survey question queried who, if anyone, targets told about their experiences and whether informal or formal resolution was sought through employers. [N = 380; no experience respondents and “not sure” respondents deleted.]
Wording of the Notification Question: To what extent did the targeted person make the mistreatment known?
Over one-quarter (29%) of targets were believed to have remained silent over their embarrassing experiences as recipients of abuse at work. Over one-half (53%) of respondents who felt certain about their perceptions of what targets said and to whom believed that targets engaged in only informal notification. That left 18%, less than one in five bullied targets who pursued formal steps to stop the bullying.
Of course, a silent target is likely to suffer from prolonged exposure to distressful work conditions. In fairness, employers cannot be expected to curb bullying when they hear no reports of its occurrence. Targets, without necessarily making a deliberate decision, become their own worst enemies. It is noteworthy that a group of targets of unknown size do choose to not inform their employers out of a genuine fear of retaliation and reprisal.
Contrary to the myth that victims (targets) are “sue-crazy,” only 5% take their stories outside the boundaries of their employers’ world. Thus, bullying is a secret kept by employers within their organizations. A mere 3% use federal or state agencies to seek redress. A miniscule 2% ever file a lawsuit. The author of this report, in the role of expert witness in litigation cases, can confirm that only a small proportion of file lawsuits ever make it the courtroom to be tried on the merits of the cases. The vast majority are tossed by judges acceding to employer motions for summary judgment or dismissal.
Gary Namie, PhD
WBI Research Director
Download the pdf version of these Notification By Target findings.
View findings related to other questions asked in the 2017 Survey.
Download the complete report of the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
July 7th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Survey: Health Impact on Bullied Targets
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Health Impact on Targets
Health Impact on Targets
40% of targets are believed to suffer adverse health consequences from bullying
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
We used the definition of workplace bullying that matches perfectly the definition codified in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Bullying is repeated mistreatment but also “abusive conduct.” We asked American survey respondents to consider only the most serious forms of bullying.
The power of the workplace bullying movement is derived principally from the impact on the health of targeted individuals. Bullying is the dominant psychosocial stressor in the work environment of targeted workers. That stressor triggers the human stress response. In turn, with prolonged exposure to frequent incidents, targets risk the onset of stress-related diseases. In other words, bullying is an occupational health hazard
This question queries the American public about whether health harm from bullying manifested. [N = 479; no experience respondents deleted.]
Wording of the Target Health Question: Was the health of the targeted person adversely affected by the mistreatment?
The split between respondents (targets and witnesses only) who were certain bullying had created health harm was 40%:60% with the latter being those who could not be certain.
Several factors could account for the 60% of uncertain respondents. Targets rarely publicly share their health problems with colleagues. Personal shame suppresses an outpouring. Also targets can endure bullying for long periods of time without awareness that the source of the ill health is their workplace with an attacking bullying in it. That is, the causal links take time to be recognized by targets themselves. Target-respondents could have been part of the 60% of doubters. See Figure 4 below.
Witnesses, too, rarely get into conversations about medical maladies with targets. They, too, may be unwilling or unable to perceive the causal factors which contribute to their friends’ ill health.
[See the WBI extensive survey of bullied targets (a non-scientific sample) of the effects of bullying on targets’ health.]
Gary Namie, PhD
WBI Research Director
Download the pdf version of these Target Health Impact findings.
View findings related to other questions asked in the 2017 Survey.
Download the complete report of the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
July 7th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Survey: Workplace Bullies Are Still Mostly Bosses
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Perpetrator Rank & Numbers
Perpetrator Rank & Numbers
61% of bullies are bosses
in 63% of incidents the perpetrator operates alone
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
We used the definition of workplace bullying that matches perfectly the definition codified in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Bullying is repeated mistreatment but also “abusive conduct.” We asked American survey respondents to consider only the most serious forms of bullying.
Mobbing was the term adopted by Heinz Leymann to describe health-harming abusive conduct at work. Mobbing implies that there are multiple perpetrators, a “gang.” Mobbing preceded the term workplace bullying historically. However, WBI has consistently defined bullying as committed by one or more persons. Bullying nearly always escalates to engage more than one person who joins the instigator to torment the target.
For this Survey question, the response categories allowed respondents familiar with bullying either directly or indirectly as witnesses [N = 374 with no experience respondents and “not sure” respondents deleted] to comment on both number of perpetrators and the organizational rank(s) of the bullies.
Wording of the Rank Question: Who was (were) the principal perpetrator(s)?
From the above table, we can say the following:
• 63% of cases involved single perpetrators
• 37% of cases involved multiple perpetrators
• 61% of perpetrators had a higher rank then their targets
• 33% of perpetrators were peers with the same rank as their targets
• 6% of perpetrators were subordinates who bullied targets with higher rank
In 7% of cases, the bullying was generated by a combination of perpetrators operating at different levels of the organization – bosses, peers, and subordinates.
Gary Namie, PhD
WBI Research Director
Download the pdf version of these Rank & Number findings.
View findings related to other questions asked in the 2017 Survey.
Download the complete report of the 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
June 26th, 2017
Trump Effect on U.S. Workplace Relationships: 2017 WBI U.S. Survey
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey: Trump Toxicity
46% believe the brutish 2016 election campaigns negatively impacted the workplace
The U.S. is unique among nations in the world when it comes to electing its political leaders. Candidates for the highest office, the President, spend nearly two years campaigning for the four-year post. The run-up to the election of November 2016 for President and members of Congress began in 2015. Media coverage was amplified by three major cable networks devoted nearly entirely to political campaigning. The role of social media online also drove the themes during the seemingly endless two years.
The saturation coverage magnified flaws in candidates. There was an unprecedented amount of rancor among candidates on the Republican side. Veteran Republican candidates seemed to coalesce into an anti-Trump coalition. Over the two years, Donald Trump showed a willingness to behave in a non-normative manner. There were several episodes during which his personal vulgarity was exposed. However, he paid no political penalty for these foibles. His shortcomings, read by most as evidence of bullying with a narcissistic flair, encouraged his supporters.
Pundits and commenters lamented the coarsening of political campaigns. Before the election, with nearly two years exposure to bullying and disrespect exhibited at the highest level, school bullying researchers noted the increase in aggression among school age children.
Ultimately, Trump was rewarded, not sanctioned, for his conduct. He had modeled bullying and given license for others to forego norms of interpersonal civility and kindness.
The Workplace Bullying Institute commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct the 2017 national scientific U.S. survey across two days in late April. The stratified random sample of 1,008 individuals represented all adult Americans. [Zogby methodology and sample details here.] It was WBI’s fourth national survey.
This survey question asked the entire sample [N = 1,008] to opine about whether the American workplace had been influenced by the two-year bombardment of bullying messages manifested during the long electoral campaign.
Wording of the Question: How did the presidential and congressional elections of 2016 affect relationships in American workplaces?
Continue reading this article… »
Loading ...
Follow us on...