Posts Tagged ‘Gary Namie’
Monday, January 5th, 2015
Attention California (& all other) Employers
California AB2053 extracted one paragraph from the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill — the definition of “abusive conduct” and made it mandatory to acquaint supervisors and managers with the phenomenon every two years beginning Jan. 1, 2015.
WBI is the source of the phrase and the U.S. movement. There is no better qualified vendor to provide the necessary information to augment your sexual harassment training than WBI.
WBI produced a brief 20 min. video introduction that can be streamed for intranet posting or run during in-person education sessions.
Only $499. Order today.
Products for HR and employers from the originators of the workplace bullying consulting specialization in America.
Order online or call 360-656-6630
Tuesday, November 25th, 2014
Grad and Professional Student Bullying Rises
By Christopher Aadland, Minnesota Daily, November 24, 2014
University of Minnesota surveys show peer-to-peer and faculty-to-student bullying has risen since 2007.
From verbal attacks to threats, graduate and professional students are increasingly experiencing harassment and bullying at the University of Minnesota, according to surveys.
“… I’ve lost all desire for research because of the continual harassment and hostile environment I’ve experienced,” an anonymous student said in a recent survey. “I never thought I would give up on research, but I guess anything’s possible. I’ve given up.”
For the past decade, Jan Morse, director of the University of Minnesota’s Student Conflict Resolution Center, has noticed an upsurge in graduate and professional students coming to her office looking for relief from bullies.
And despite work over the last six years by a group of school administrators, faculty members and students that aims to tackle bullying, this year’s survey still shows graduate and professional students are increasingly experiencing harassment.
Tags: bullying, campus incivility, Gary Namie, grad student bullying, Jan Morse, Keaton Miller, prevalence, survey, University of Minnesota
Posted in Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, Tutorials About Bullying, WBI Education, WBI in the News | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Thursday, November 6th, 2014
WBI Research/Instant Poll: 2014 – F
People who find themselves trapped in a bullying scenario can attest to the crazymaking, irrational nature of the mistreatment. Much of the harm caused by the abusive conduct stems from the shattering of targets’ beliefs about fairness, fairness in the work world specifically. First, they are typically the high performers who unknowingly trigger the envy of perpetrators. Targets are aware of their work skill at a deep personal ontological level. Perpetrators come into their lives who determined to reject the agreed-upon perceptions of the targets’ skills. There are objective truths, a reality.
When Bullies are Bosses
Perpetrators often use their formal (by organizational rank) or informal power to state the obviously opposite perception about technically skilled targets. Though this defies reality, they convince organizational allies to believe them and not targets.
In simplest form, it becomes a “he said, he said” deadlock. But most bullies who are bosses rely on support from higher up to add weight to their side.
The shrewdest perpetrators use ingratiation over many years to convince their executive sponsors (their enablers) that they, the bullies, are indispensable. Further, if and when they are described as abusive or destructive by one or more targets in the future, the executive will defend her or his “indispensable” perp by ignoring the target’s portrayal of a friend and colleague.
Thus conditions are not favorable when targets report the facts about what they have experienced at the hands of the favored perpetrator. After all, targets do bring negative news about people who typically outrank them.
When Bullies are Coworkers
In situations where targets have multiple perpetrators, there are many individuals who can provide accounts of alleged bullying incidents that will be at odds with what targets say happened.
For targets bullied by a gang of coworkers (cliques and mobs also are apt descriptions), it is doubly negative. Not only do they outnumber the target, the target is deprived of the chance to have her or his story corroborated by coworkers. Though few coworkers ever step up to offer support to targets, some do. When coworkers are the bullies, the potential source of support is lost.
Gullible investigators (typically working inside the organization for another department) will have their judgement swayed by many against one, and believe the tale that many tell even if those versions are not true.
The Effects of Not Being Believed
For targets, it’s a matter of honor and integrity. Repeated studies have shown that targets claim that their honesty is one of the major reasons for being targeted for abuse. They do seem to be very principled, non-political workers.
Tags: 2014 ip f, attribution error, believing targets, bullied targets, bullying research, credibility, Daniel Christensen, Gary Namie, instant poll, truth, workplace bullying, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Tutorials About Bullying, WBI Education, WBI Surveys & Studies | 3 Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Monday, November 3rd, 2014
A workshop “Eliminating Bullying and Incivility: Training the Trainer” on Thursday Nov 6 is part of the 8th Annual ABA Labor & Employment Law Conference in Los Angeles.
The session: 2:15-3:30 pm in rooms Platinum H-J, JW Marriott Hotel
Bullying and incivility in the workplace raise concerns that go beyond whether the behavior is illegal, and affect all aspects of the working environment. This program features an expert in anti-bullying training and is designed to provide practical, hands-on training to participants such that they will be able to train others in the workplace.
Monique Gougisha Doucette, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
New Orleans, LA
Luanne M. Peterpaul, Gluck Waltrath, LLP, Red Bank, NJ
Gary Namie, PhD, The Workplace Bullying Institute, Bellingham, WA
Tags: American Bar Association, attorneys, employment attorneys, Gary Namie, labor law, Luanne M. Peterpaul, Monique Gougisha Doucette, training, workplace bullying, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Events & Appearances | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Monday, November 3rd, 2014
State to Workplace Bullies: Knock It Off
By Jonathan Horn, San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 2, 2014
When Stephen Cruz got a new supervisor a few years ago, his staff job at UC San Diego became something of a living hell.
The new boss would repeatedly yell at workers, scold them behind closed doors, tower above them at their desks, get visibly agitated and red in the face, and send out harsh emails when something went wrong. The emails didn’t include foul language but called out workers with phrases like “I told you,” or “I gave you a direct order,” evidence of what Cruz called extreme micromanagement.
“It may have been stylistic, but it was unacceptable,” said Cruz, who works on the medical school campus. “Yes, we need supervisors. Yes, we need managers. But we’re not at each other’s throats. We’re there to work on the mission of the university.”
Cruz, 46, said he considered the supervisor’s conduct — which improved after university and union involvement — to be abusive.
A state law taking effect Jan. 1 hopes to curb that behavior at the start. The legislation, authored by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, requires that employers in California with 50 or more workers include lessons on anti-workplace bullying when they carry out state-mandated sexual harassment training for supervisors every two years.
Tags: AB2053, abusive conduct, Gary Namie, Healthy Workplace Bill, supervisor training, UCSD, workplace bullying, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Healthy Workplace Bill (U.S. campaign), Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, WBI in the News, Workplace Bullying Laws | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Thursday, October 30th, 2014
WBI Research/Instant Poll: 2014 – E
It is common knowledge that politics in 2014 America are quite polarized. No longer do politicians pretend to want to solve social problems with social policy. Interactions between politicians are characterized by ad hominem attacks. Politicians seem to be mimicking the personalized nature of bullying. The parallels between the political and workplace domains seemed obvious to us at WBI.
However, critics quickly pounce on our blog musings about the similarities. Commentators say “stick to workplace bullying and stay out of politics.” They believe politics is a field of employment different than any other. The same failure to see equivalence occurred when NFL player Jonathan Martin walked away from his professional football team claiming he endured an “abusive work environment.” The majority of society granted the NFL exemption from treatment as a workplace where employers bear responsibility for harm their employees suffer. It was said that the locker room is so unique it cannot be changed from its barbaric state.
Ironically, the NFL itself defined its locker room as a workplace. Discrimination laws apply. And the Martin case taught the NFL lessons about human responses to abusive conduct even when targets weigh 300 or more pounds.
In this survey, we asked 307 respondents (bullied targets and witnesses) to give their opinion about whether politics involves bullying or not. Question:
Is bullying by politicians of politicians or citizens as harmful as workplace bullying?
The percentages for each response option were:
.873 Yes, always
.094 Sometimes, only when the less powerful person suffers serious harm
.023 No, political harm is not the same as harm to non-politicians
.001 Never, bullying tactics define politics
The results show that the community of bullied targets does not grant exemptions easily. They conclude that bullying and abuse are the same regardless of venue. Apologists for politicians’ outrageous anti-social behavior towards one another like to say that politics is a special type of workplace, immune from social codes and restrictions that apply to everyone else.
But bullied targets do not see the separation into distinct domains. Anti-abuse rules for everyone should apply everywhere — in families, in schools, in churches, in workplaces and among occupants of our legislative chambers.
© 2014 Workplace Bullying Institute. Do not use without proper citation of WBI as the source.
See the complete set of WBI Studies
Tags: 2014 IP e, bullying research, Gary Namie, instant poll, negative conduct, polarization, political behavior, politicians, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Tutorials About Bullying, WBI Education, WBI Surveys & Studies | 1 Archived Comment | Post A Comment (
Tuesday, October 28th, 2014
Posing this question on the internet is risky, certain to draw unsolicited government surveillance attention in paranoid America. You see, terror existed before America’s Sept. 11, 2001. Just ask Britain. We should be able to use the word when it applies to a variety of situations. But after 9-11, the semantic gods yielded control of the term to western governments.
Here is Merriam-Webster’s definition:
ter·ror noun \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
1: a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Origin of TERROR
Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble First Known Use: 14th century
Thus, a practitioner of terror, the terrorist, is a person who deliberately instills fear and anxiety in others in an intimidating fashion. Isn’t that what a workplace bully does when she or he abuses others? From fear comes paralysis. Shocked and paralyzed targets and witnesses do not respond to aggression with aggression.
Look at the fourth term in the above definition. The goal of intimidation is have “a population or government,” proxies for organizations, grant the bully’s demands. Bullies get their way with their employers. Perpetrators are rarely punished. They abuse others with impunity, rarely facing consequences. American employers do next to nothing to stop bullies while innocent guileless targets lose their jobs, livelihoods and sanity at alarming rates.
Logically, workplace bullies are terrorists within organizations. They are organizational terrorists. Their actions fit the definition. We simply are applying a label appropriately.
Bullying is not simply eye rolling as bully apologists like to characterize it. It is workplace violence, albeit a non-physical form. It is a mistake to underestimate the effects verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, humiliation and domination have on human beings.
History is on our side. The founder of the international movement in Sweden, Heinz Leymann, titled one of his early English-language journal articles — “Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces.” Of course, he chose the term mobbing to connote the interpersonal destruction of workplace victims by multiple perpetrators. To assess the extent to which a target was harmed, he developed his own instrument, the LIPT, the Leymann Interpersonal Psychological Terrorization scale. Leymann minced no words. He died in 1999 before other nations followed America’s descent into paranoia about terrorism. I wonder how close he was to naming the phenomenon we know today as bullying, terrorization.
When Dr. Ruth and I made the commitment to begin the work which evolved into the Workplace Bullying Institute back in 1996-97, we had a choice of two reasonable terms. Mobbing was the Scandinavian and European term. Workplace Bullying was the British term. We deliberately chose to import “workplace bullying” for a variety of reasons. We originally did discuss “terrorization,” but felt it would be considered too radical to be accepted by American media. A short four years later, Sept 11 happened. The movement would have been stopped in its tracks for adopting anything related to “terror.”
Looking back after more than 17 years, in the spirit of realistically naming the destructive force that workplace bullying is, I now see “terrorization” as an entirely appropriate synonym to add to the list of acceptable terms. Invoking Leymann’s courage to call it what it is, bullying is terrorism.
Which employers will launch a “war” against it within their walls? Call us. We’ll help you do it right.
Tags: bullied targets, Gary Namie, Heinz Leymann, psychological terrorization, terror, terrorist, victims, workplace bullying
Posted in Commentary by G. Namie, The New America, Tutorials About Bullying, WBI Education | 3 Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Monday, October 27th, 2014
Kind words of recognition for me and Dr. Ruth from my undergraduate alma mater, Washington & Jefferson College, published in Change Agents The remarkable ways alumni are making the world a better place, Fall 2014.
Thursday, October 23rd, 2014
Why The Office Bully Is Getting Promoted
Your company culture may encourage bullies and you may not even know it.
By Lisa Evans, Fast Company, October 23, 2014
You may have thought you’d escaped bullying when you traded the school yard for the office, but according to the Workplace Bullying Institute, 27% of Americans are still experiencing bullying in the workplace.
Instead of being shoved in a locker or having your head dunked in the toilet, workplace bullying is non-physical, yet still as emotionally harmful. The Workplace Bullying Institute defines workplace bullying as any form of verbal abuse, job sabotage, intimidation, or humiliation.
Tags: 2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, bullies, Gary Namie, perpetrators, reinforcement, reward, workplace bullying, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, Tutorials About Bullying, WBI in the News | 1 Archived Comment | Post A Comment (
Saturday, October 18th, 2014
Nevada State Coordinator Kassina McClary leads a rally
in front of Las Vegas City Hall
495 S. Main St., Las Vegas
Join us for this local celebration of Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week.
The event will include testimony by bullied individuals and education about the WBI anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill to be introduced in 2015 in the Nevada State Legislature.
Also attending and speaking will be Drs. Ruth and Gary Namie, founders of the Workplace Bullying Institute and leaders of the U.S. Workplace Bullying movement and campaign to enact state laws in the U.S. Come meet them in person. They are scheduled for 1:30 pm.
The Namies are authors of The Bully At Work (the book for bullied individuals) and The Bully-Free Workplace (the book for employers). Visit the extensive WBI YouTube channel for hundreds of bullying-related videos.
Tags: Freedom from bullies at work week, Gary Namie, Las Vegas, Ruth Namie, The Bully At Work, The Bully-Free Workplace
Posted in Events & Appearances, Freedom Week, WBI Education | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (