Workplace bullying in United Kingdom Professor Helge Hoel

Workplace bullying in United Kingdom Professor Helge Hoel The University of Manchester, UK Fairness at Work Research Centre (Fair. WRC) 2013 JILT International Seminar on Workplace Bullying and Harassment

Prevalence of bullying • Prevalence rates vary between 10 -20% • Inconclusive whether rising/increasing • Methods applied impact on prevalence rates – On-line surveys • 20% plus… (e. g. Unison, 2009) – Random, representative self-administered survey • 10% plus (e. g. Hoel & Cooper, 2000) – Representative surveys, face-to face in peoples’ homes • 4 -7% (e. g. Grainer & Fitzner, 2007)

Patterns of bullying • Men and women report similar exposure rates • Some ‘protected groups’ (ethnic minorities, disabled, Lesbian, Gay men and Bisexuals) over-represented • More widespread in public than private sector • Vertical bullying (top-down) dominates (75 -80%) – Also bullying by colleagues, by subordinates and by clients • Bullying is affecting employees across the organisational hierarchy • Singled out or bullied together with colleagues

Consequences of bullying

Consequences of bullying • Impact on job-satisfaction, psychological and physical health (Hoel et al. , 2004; Quine, 1999, 2000) • Organisational consequences are the focus of discussion: making the business case – – – Turnover Productivity Absenteeism Litigation Bystanders • Bullying tentatively estimated to cost UK economy £ 13. 75 Bn annually

Reasons for bullying • Work-environment quality (Coyne et al. 2003; Rayner et al. , 2002) • Style of leadership (Hoel et al. , 2010) – Victims’ perceptions associated with ‘contingent punishment’ – Observers’ perceptions linked to authoritarian leadership • Professional socialisation processes (e. g. Archer, 1999; Bloisi & Hoel, 2008) • Industrial relations climate: bullying as a tool of managerial control • Lack of prospective studies: Current knowledge based on cross-sectional studies

National policies – regulations 1 • No specific UK legislation against bullying – Dignity at Work Bill blocked by successive governments • A range of statutes and legal provisions available to victims • Focus often on case-law and its development: interpretation of employers’ legal duties aimed at protecting employees’ psychological health and integrity from work-related risks and psychological stress. • Employers' duty of reasonable care developed to include psycho-social foreseeable risks

National policies – regulations 2 • Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) – Employers’ duty of care to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and wellbeing of employees • Anti-discrimination legislation (EU/Amsterdam Treaty/UK Equality Act 2010 – Outlaws employment discrimination and harassment of ‘protected groups’ • Conduct that has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading etc. environment – Vicarious liability: protection against repeated conduct by third-parties – Victimisation: recriminations against someone filing a complaint

National policies – regulations 3 • Protection from Harassment Act (Anti-stalking) – “A person must not pursue a conduct a) which amounts to harassment of another and which b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other” – Repeated, at least twice – Deemed harassment by a ‘reasonable person’ – Experiencing anxiety sufficient, not necessary to establish injury to health – Compensation: Currently up to £ 1 M • Employment Rights Act (1996) – Protection against unfair or ‘constructive dismissal’: leaving job against your will/being forced out – Bullying as breach of contract

Interventions: Employer actions　１ • Focus on bullying policies • Content of policies: Expression of employer intent Defining bullying/harassment and provide examples Emphasise a non-recrimination approach Informal approach • Informal face-to-face contact • Mediation (often inappropriate) – Formal approach • Filing a complaint and investigation – –

Interventions: Employer actions　２ • Problems with policies: – Often considered ineffective – Not communicated – Not enforced by managers • A culture of respect: ‘dignity at work’ policy • Critique of employer approach: – The opportunity for a fair hearing? – Widespread belief among HR managers that most complaints of bullying are unfounded and rather reflect a performance management issue

Intervention by Government Agencies • UK Health and Safety Executive responsible for encouragement, regulation and enforcement • Encouraging a risk-assessment approach (not legally enforceable) with bullying considered a stressor • Using standards as a management tool • A collective procedure (rather than individual measures) – Identification of discrepancy between ideal state and reality to be identified by a ‘bottom-up’ approach – Achievement of standards measured by indicators – Gradual improvement: satisfied if 85% of staff agree that a standard is met

Intervention by Trade Unions • Trade unions actively involved since late 1990 s • Focus on policy development and implementation • Provided evidence of prevalence and risk-factors through membership surveys – “Bullies able to get away with it” – “Workers too scared to report it” (Unison, 1997, 2008)

Intervention by Trade Unions • Dignity at Work Partnership Project (£ 1. 3 M)(BERR, 2008) – Employers: , e. g. British Airways, British Telecom – Trade Union: Unite the Union • Success depends on: – – – Commitment from the top Buy-in from workforce Policies to be combined with employee involvement Creating joint ownership and trust Zero tolerance A special focus on minority workers/’protected groups’

Thank you! Contact: helge. hoel@mbs. ac. uk