Posts Tagged ‘Gary Namie’
Friday, June 23rd, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
19% of Americans suffered abusive conduct at work
another 19% have witnessed it
63% are aware that workplace bullying happens
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.
Wording of the Prevalence Question: At work, what has been your personal experience with the following types of repeated mistreatment: abusive conduct that is threatening, intimidating, humiliating, work sabotage or verbal abuse? [Response choices are non-italicized phrases in the Table below.]
Tags: 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, 60.3 million American workers affected, abusive conduct, Gary Namie, MAPE, prevalence of workplace bullying, Zogby Analytics
Posted in WBI Education, WBI Surveys & Studies | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Wednesday, June 21st, 2017
Workplace bullying has reached “epidemic level,” according to a new study, and legal analysts are advising companies to take heed.
The San Francisco-based Workplace Bullying Institute’s 2017 U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, released earlier this month, estimated that 30 million American workers have been, or are now being, bullied at work, while another 30 million have witnessed it.
“These proportions are epidemic-level,” the report said. “The number of U.S. workers who are affected by bullying — summing over those with direct bullying and witnessing experiences — is 60.3 million, the combined population of six Western states.”
Unchecked, the repercussions of workplace bullying can result in absenteeism, low morale, high turnover, reputational damage and lawsuits, experts say.
Defining workplace bullying can be challenging, but Gary Namie, the institute’s director, described it as “a form of workplace violence.”
“It is, by our definition, repeated health-harming mistreatment of an employee by one or more employees,” Mr. Namie said. “It’s abusive conduct that takes the form of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, humiliation or workplace sabotage or work interference.”
Peter Dean, president of Leaders By Design at executive consultancy Leaders Edge in Philadelphia and co-author of “The Bully-Proof Workplace: Essential Strategies, Tips and Scripts for Dealing with the Office Sociopath,” said workplace bullying goes beyond someone “just losing their temper or their impulse control for a time.”
“It’s not a one-off,” Mr. Dean said. “It is a targeted attention to one person that is very negative and meant to demean and belittle and degrade that person’s self-esteem.”
And bullying begets more bullying, Mr. Dean added.
“You have one bully getting away with being a bully and it starts to spread in an organization,” he said. “People start to think two things: No. 1, it’s OK to bully here; and No. 2, there’s no way to fight it because it’s accepted.”
The 2007 study said antidiscrimination laws apply in only 20% of bullying cases do. In order to claim sexual harassment, racial discrimination or hostile work environment, the report said, the victim must be a member of a protected status group. Mr. Namie said the Healthy Workplace Bill — which among other things, precisely defines an “abusive work environment” and requires proof of health harm by licensed health or mental health professionals — has been introduced in 30 states and two territories, but has yet to be enacted.
Tags: 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, abusive conduct, Gary Namie, workplace bullying policy, workplace bulying
Posted in Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, WBI Surveys & Studies, Workplace Bullying Laws | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Tuesday, June 13th, 2017
2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey
Major funding from
Gary Namie, PhD
© 2017, Workplace Bullying Institute, All rights reserved.
In our 2017 National Survey workplace bullying was defined as repeated mistreatment of an employee by one or more employees; abusive conduct that is: threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, work sabotage, or verbal abuse.
Bullying is “abusive conduct,” referring to its most serious forms only. This is consistent with the definition used in the Healthy Workplace Bill. Even with this high threshold, workplace bullying remains an American epidemic. Bullied individuals pay dearly with the loss of their economic livelihood to stop it. In the absence of legal prohibitions against it, employers are failing to take responsibility for its prevention and correction.
On the 20th anniversary of WBI’s founding, this is the fourth national scientific poll commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute, conducted by Zogby Analytics. Other years were 2014, 2010 and 2007. Past results can be viewed here.
Thanks to the generous donors to our GoFundMe campaign to cover the costs of the survey.
• 19% of Americans are bullied, another 19% witness it
• 61% of Americans are aware of abusive conduct in the workplace
• 60 million Americans are affected by it
• 70% of perpetrators are men; 60% of targets are women
• Hispanics are the most frequently bullied race
• 61% of bullies are bosses, the majority (63%) operate alone
• 40% of bullied targets are believed to suffer adverse health effects
• 29% of targets remain silent about their experiences
• 71% of employer reactions are harmful to targets
• 60% of coworker reactions are harmful to targets
• To stop it, 65% of targets lose their original jobs
• 77% of Americans support enacting a new law
• 45% report worsening of work relationships, post-Trump election
Click on this link to view the 2017 WBI Survey Infographic
Download the Infographic in pdf format
- National Prevalence & Awareness: Online | Print pdf
- Gender & Race: Online | Print pdf
- Perpetrator Rank: Online | Print pdf
- Health Impact on Targets: Online | Print pdf
- Notification by Targets: Online | Print pdf
- Employer & Witness Reactions: Online | Print pdf
- Stopping the Bullying: Online | Print pdf
- Support for a New Law: Online | Print pdf
- Post-2016-Election (Trump) Effect: Online | Print pdf
- Methodology & Sample
About MAPE, Major Sponsor
MAPE is a 14,000 member public-sector labor union which promotes the welfare and advances the interests of its members while acting as their exclusive representative concerning terms and conditions of employment. Members are probation officers analysts, scientists, foresters psychologists, zoologists and so much more. MAPE members work in all segments of state government to provide Minnesotans with the vital services they need. MAPE is proud to contribute to the high quality of life in Minnesota! The MAPE website.
Tags: 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, American national study, American workplace bullying prevalence, bullying gender, bullying research, Gary Namie, MAPE-Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Perpetrator rank in bullying, Trump effect on workplace, Workplace Bullying Instittue
Posted in Bullying-Related Research, Social/Mgmt/Epid Sciences, WBI Education, WBI Surveys & Studies | 1 Archived Comment | Post A Comment (
Wednesday, May 17th, 2017
State Worker’s Bosses Ignored His Allergies. Now He’s $3 Million Richer
By Adam Ashton, Sacramento Bee, May 17, 2017
A Caltrans employee in Nevada County who claimed his supervisors harassed him by ignoring his documented allergies to perfume and certain cleaning products will receive a $3 million payout from a lawsuit he filed against the state.
A Nevada County jury sided with John Barrie in a one-month trial that ended last week, upholding his claims that he experienced retaliation, that his employer failed to accommodate his disability and that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. He continues to work for Caltrans in a position that allows him to work from home.
Tags: ADA violation, bullying expert witness, California Department of Transportation, CalTrans, chemical sensitivity as disability, Gary Namie, John Barrie, Lawrance Bohm, refusal to accommodate disability
Posted in Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, Rulings by Courts | 2 Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Tuesday, April 4th, 2017
WEBINAR for employers and legal professionals.
Eradicating Workplace Bullying
by Gary Namie, WBI Director
April 19th, 2017 1:00 PM to 2:15 PM ET
Hosted by the Clear Law Institute
This program has been approved for 1.25 (General) recertification credit hours toward PHR, SPHR, and GPHR recertification through the HR Certification Institute.
Clear Law Institute is recognized by SHRM to offer Professional Development Credits (PDCs) for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP. This program is valid for 1.25 PDCs.
Tags: Clear Law Institute, employer webinar, Eradicating Workplace Bullying, Gary Namie, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Advice for Employers, WBI Education, Webinars | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Sunday, March 12th, 2017
Spend three intensive, immersive days with the Drs. Namie in San Francisco.
April 21-23, 2017
Comprehensive curriculum, graduate-level seminar, evidence-based, derived from our experience as consultants to organizations and advisors to bullied targets.
Since 2008. Always new. Constantly updated.
Tuition discount ends March 31. Number of seats limited. Small group. Register with deposit.
Friday, July 29th, 2016
By Darrell Smith, Sacramento Bee, July 28, 2016
with WBI commentary inserted
Sacramento jurors, in a $1.1 million verdict Wednesday, sided with a state corrections employee who claimed her higher-ups did little or nothing to protect her from threats made by one of her subordinates, then retaliated against her when she complained of the threatening treatment.
The threat was a death threat, of bringing a gun to work, not a minor act.
Jurors awarded Onalis Giunta, a supervising dental assistant at Folsom State Prison when she filed the 2012 lawsuit against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, $990,000 for noneconomic losses and mental suffering along with another $107,000 in past and future earnings, in their verdict, court documents showed.
It was not known Thursday whether there were plans to appeal the verdict.
Giunta in the lawsuit characterized the man identified in court documents as Serge Protsyuk, as a problem employee who often ran afoul of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation rules and regulations.
Protsyuk was a former coworker of the newly promoted supervisor, Giunta. He never respected her authority and was coddled by two male supervisors of hers who undermined her role. He aggressively disobeyed rules that he felt did not apply to him, daring her to discipline him.
Giunta alleged that the employee threatened to bring a gun to work after disciplinary action in November 2010. Protsyuk followed the alleged gun threat with months of more intimidation, the lawsuit alleged, forcing Giunta to take a yearlong, doctor-ordered stress leave.
Yes, you read that correctly. After he threatened revenge on her for an unfavorable evaluation by bringing a gun to work, the warden and security staff who had been told of the threat that night planned to search him the next morning when Protsyuk arrived for work. NO ONE ever called Giunta that night to warn her of the threat made against her. Protsyuk was frisked the next morning and allowed to go work as usual. Giunta was told about the threat AFTER she saw Protsyuk walk past her office window! No suspension. No punishment. And Giunta had to work with him for another six months without his removal.
Giunta was traumatized. All the while, the warden had decided that no violation of the strict zero-tolerance Violence Prevention Policy had occurred. No investigation of Giunta’s complaint about the violation was undertaken.
Tags: bullying, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Folsom State Prison, Gary Namie, Lawrance Bohm, Onalis Giunta, Protsyuk, Robert Boucher, trial, violence policy
Posted in Expert Witness, Fairness & Social Justice Denied, Rulings by Courts, WBI in the News | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016
The cover story of Counseling Today magazine is about bullying. A significant portion of that article, written by Laurie Meyers, features an interview with WBI’s telephone coach for bullied targets, Jessi Eden Brown. Jessi maintains a private practice in Seattle in addition to continuing to provide coaching for targets who seek her advice after discovering her services posted at this WBI website.
Jessi is the most expert advisor to targeted individuals in the U.S. Her fees are inexpensive and worth every penny. Time precludes offering free advice, so please don’t insult her and ask. [Neither can WBI offer free advice by phone as it did for 18 years.] Here is Jessi’s information page.
An excerpt from
Fertile Grounds for Bullying
Counseling Today, April 21, 2016
By Laurie Meyers
Bullying isn’t confined to childhood or adolescence. Adults can experience bullying too, particularly in the workplace. Bullying in the workplace involves less obvious behavior than does school bullying and can be almost intangible, says Jessi Eden Brown, a licensed professional counselor and licensed mental health counselor with a private practice in Seattle.
“Bullying in the workplace is a form of psychological violence,” says Brown, who also coaches targets of workplace bullying through the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), an organization that studies and attempts to prevent abusive conduct at work. “Although popular media theatrically portray the workplace bully as a volatile, verbally abusive jerk, in actuality, the behaviors tend to be more subtle, insidious and persistent.”
Instead of shoving and name-calling, Brown says, workplace bullying includes behavior such as:
– Stealing credit for others’ work
– Assigning undue blame
– Using public and humiliating criticism
– Threatening job loss or punishment
– Denying access to critical resources
– Applying unrealistic workloads or deadlines
– Engaging in destructive rumors and gossip
– Endeavoring to turn others against a person
– Making deliberate attempts to sabotage someone’s work or professional reputation
“It’s the fact that these behaviors are repeated again and again that makes them so damaging for the target,” she explains. “The cumulative effects and prolonged exposure to stress exact a staggering toll on the overall health of the bullied individual.”
What’s more, those bullied in the workplace often stand alone, Brown notes. “While the motivating factors may be similar between workplace bullying and childhood bullying, the consequences for the bully and the target are unmistakably different,” she says. “In childhood bullying, the institution — the school — stands firmly and publicly against the abuse. Teachers, staff, students and administrators are thoroughly trained on how to recognize and address the behavior. Students are given safe avenues for reporting bullying. Identified bullies are confronted by figures of authority and influence — teachers, administrators, groups of peers, parents. When the system works as intended, there are consequences for the bully, as well as resources and support for the target.”
Tags: abusive conduct, counseling, Gary Namie, helping bullied targets, Jessi Eden Brown, psychotherapy, Ruth Namie, telephone coaching, workplace bullying, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Bullying & Health, Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, Products & Services, WBI Education, WBI in the News | 4 Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Wednesday, March 30th, 2016
The next 3-day public session in Boise, Idaho is May 20-21-22.
Visit the WBI Workplace Bullying University website for program details. Taught personally by Dr. Gary Namie & Dr. Ruth Namie.
Designed for professionals in Labor, Healthcare, Mental Health, Counseling, Management, Higher Education, HR, Training, Consulting, and those in life & career transition.
Tags: Gary Namie, healthcare bullying, Ruth Namie, training, Unions, Workplace Bullying Institute, Workplace Bullying University
Posted in Unions, WBI Education, Workplace Bullying University | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Thursday, February 25th, 2016
C-Suite Talking Points for HR About Workplace Bullying
By Gary Namie, PhD
Assumptions: (1) No anti-bullying initiative can succeed without support from the top. (2) It will be the job of HR to take that message up the ladder.
Here is a list of reasons senior leaders should care. It includes, but is not limited to, the following:
• Workplace Bullying is a costly litigation nightmare. Even though a low proportion of incidents of bullying also have an aspect of discrimination (20%), the public erroneously believes hostile work environment protections apply to everyone. Therefore, too many individuals shop for an attorney willing to either threaten or file a lawsuit or EEOC formal complaint. At the very least, a defense has to be mounted, or settlement paid, or trial and penalty expenses absorbed.
• Recruitment & retention of highly skilled workers undermined. The typical bullying scenario finds the best & brightest targeted for baseless, mindless persecution until they either voluntarily quit or are driven away. This is unwanted, unnecessary and PREVENTABLE turnover.
• A tarnished reputation as one of the “worst places to work” on the street (mainly in social media) follows the expulsion of highly qualified workers. In turn, recruitment is made more difficult.
• Bullying causes stress-related diseases. Allowing it to continue unabated directly contradicts the internal commitments to wellness and employee well being. In fact, research clearly shows the causal role of personalized bullying in cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases, changes in the brain that lead to irreversible behavioral dysfunction that passes for incompetence to the naive observer, life shortening interference with DNA cellular replication, and doubling the rate of suicidal ideation. Why should we allow the health-harming misconduct to continue knowing that our staff and associates are being so severely impaired?