Workplace Mobbing - Pestering power.;
Workplace mobbing has become a major problem, and the national media in Switzerland recently reported it as being especially prevalent in the banking and insurance industries. Dr Dexter Morse examines the effects of mobbing and how it can be managed.

UK

Mobbing is the term used for systematic bullying, harassment or psychological terror, particularly in workplaces, whereby one person is 'ganged up' on and stigmatized by peers or superiors for no obvious or justifiable reason.

Research into this phenomenon was pioneered in the late 1980s by Heinz Leymann who borrowed the term from animal behavior studies to describe how a group can attack an individual simply based on negative meta-communications. The term has also long been used in ornithology where it refers to the behavior of birds harassing something that represents a threat to them.

Extent of the problem

A survey from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working conditions found that 9% of workers - about 12 million people - in the European Union suffered mobbing or bullying in 2004.

Figures from the UK Trades Union Congress suggest that 2 million people were bullied at work in the first six months of 2006. In about 75% of cases, the managers/supervisors were the perpetrators and the TUC argues that mobbing should be treated as any other workplace hazard.

In most cases, the mobbing can last for long periods of time. The 2006 UK National Workplace Bullying Survey found that most victims had been bullied for more than a year and almost 23% had been bullied for six to 12 months.

Mobbing is very subtle so it can be difficult to recognize but its consequences are easy to see - excessive workloads, lack of support, a climate of fear and high levels of insecurity leading to higher than average staff turnover and sickness absence. If not addressed, mobbing can spread throughout an organization like an infectious disease.

Research shows that victims are normally targeted on the basis that they are more attractive, high achievers, competent, successful or popular. They are usually above-average performers, more efficient and better at what they do than those who bully them.

Such bullying affects employees at all levels but most perpetrators are managers. A study at Manchester University found that 94% of respondents thought bullies can get away with it and one in six said that their employers encourage bullying management. It also found that the problem stems from autocratic management styles, divisiveness and punishment for no obvious reason, high workload and unsatisfactory relationships at work. Further research at Staffordshire University, on behalf of a UK trade union, found that 80% of respondents were mobbed and bossed by their manager. In Switzerland various sources show that 62% to 85% of mobbers are managers, which is supported by research in other countries.

Categories of mobbing action

Various forms of mobbing exist. For example, incidents can stem from communication where actions place limitation on self-expression. The victim may experience constant interruptions, be shouted at and receive unjustified criticism of their work or private life. More overt mobbing in this category would include telephone terror, verbal or written threats, or alienation through devaluing glances or gestures.

Action can also be aimed at the target's social reputation by aggressively bad-mouthing or spreading rumors about them, making them look ridiculous or the focus of mean and abusive jokes.

Furthermore, when a target becomes beaten down, company officials may force them to undergo medical examination. To compound the problem, mobbers instill doubts about the target in others by suggesting that they are 'not really' ill. Other actions include constant questioning of their decisions, making sexual advances or using obscene language.

Another scenario involves attacking a victim's quality of work. For example, a bully may assign them work that is well below their level of knowledge and experience or constantly switch their tasks preventing completion. This seriously compromises their ability to achieve work goals.

Finally, even the menace of physical force may be used. It has been known for mobbers to use actual physical abuse, sexual touching or to damage a target's workstation or home.

By this time, bullying victims have become so beaten down, defamed, ridiculed and assigned inappropriate work tasks that they stand out as the person who must go. And in most cases, when a victim leaves, a new victim is found within six months.
It is interesting that the term mobbing is derived from ornithology since most corporate cultures display an 'ostrich mentality' to the problem. When they do accept it exists, it is frequently trivialized as a mere personality or work conflict. Unfortunately, HR departments often remain passive or even participate in the mobbing.

Even when companies acknowledge problems exist, they can take a long time to resolve. For example, a 2005 UK survey of HR professionals found that 40% of cases take two to three months to resolve while 8% take longer than a year. The main factors cited that impair the ability of HR departments to deal with mobbing were management's unwillingness to acknowledge the problem and prevailing management style. But experience shows that these cases should be handled swiftly, confidentiality and with external help in order to minimize negative effects on the victim and organization.

Effects on the victim

Mobbing has destructive effects on a victim's health. Symptoms range from headaches, sleeplessness, skin rashes, loss of confidence, tearfulness, concentration difficulties, lowered immunity, gastrointestinal problems and nausea to stress-related illnesses, anxiety, depression, heart disease and in extreme cases murder and suicide. In Sweden, Professor Leymann estimated that 15% of all suicides there were the result of workplace mobbing. And in July 2004, a 56 year old senior manager of a major bank in Switzerland came to work and shot two of his bosses and then himself in his office. He was found to have been the victim of severe bullying by the two bosses he shot and, two years later, the bank announced all employees were to attend a conflict management seminar in order to avoid such escalations in the future.

Mobbing also constitutes a severe risk management issue for the organizations where it occurs. It destroys morale, erodes trust, kills initiative and results in a dysfunctional company with a climate of guilt, anxiety, paranoia, negativity and reduced productivity. Key players leave and the effects are long-lasting.

The highly publicized case of Helen Green against Deutsche Bank highlights the catastrophic extent of mobbing. A High Court judge, Mr. Justice Owen, ruled that Deutsche Bank Group Services was responsible for causing her two nervous breakdowns and a major depressive disorder as a result of its "relentless campaign of mean and spiteful behavior designed to cause her distress". In court, Ms Green said that she had suffered psychiatric injury as females colleagues had stonewalled her, removed her name from circulation lists, hid her mail, removed papers from her desk, laughed in her face, and told her "you stink".

Mr. Justice Owen commented that bullying in that department was a long-standing problem to which other employees had fallen victim. He described the bank's management as "weak and ineffectual" and said the managers "collectively closed their eyes to what was going on, no doubt in the hope that the problem would go away." Deutsche Bank was ordered to pay £817,000 plus legal costs and interest.
Under UK occupational health and safety law, employers have a legal duty to identify, assess and control all health and safety hazards in the workplace. To succeed in stress at work claims, employees must prove that bosses knew or ought to have known that their workplace treatment could cause a psychiatric illness. Ms Green succeeded on this count and also in an additional argument that the bullying amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act.

Mobbing cases recently became easier to win in the UK when the House of Lords ruled that employers are vicariously liable under this Act for bullying by employees in the course of their work, even if management is unaware of it.

Other countries have taken a strict approach. For example, in January 2002, France enacted an anti-mobbing law and on 1 June 2004 Quebec became the first North American jurisdiction to legislate for protection against psychological harassment of employees. Following this, employers have established clear procedures for employees to report harassment cases (including psychological), utilizing specialized external bodies more widely. And employers in South Australia can now be fined up to A$100,000 for failing to 'adequately manage' bullying behavior.

What can be done to stop mobbing?

To prevent this problem arising, an anonymous attitude survey of all employees should be conducted to highlight their views on mobbing issues. Exit interviews also represent a good source of information - it may be too late for the exiting employee but information gained at this time may enable the company to improve things for others because the same names crop up repeatedly.

Statistics on staff turnover should also be kept - and this data should be absolute (actual number of staff who leave each year), relative (expressed as a percentage of total staff employed), departmental and manager-based. This will help to identify trouble spots.

Organizations must also strive to understand the problem fully as some people perceive 'tough' managers as 'mobbing' managers when in fact weak, ineffective, unsupportive managers can be just as likely to mob through their behavior. Finally, companies should implement an anti-mobbing policy. Ensure that all staff are aware of the policy and commit to it. Provide ongoing training for all staff covering mobbing, bullying and harassment and how to deal with it. And once mobbing behavior has been identified, swift action must be taken - ideally by utilizing external mediation.

High staff turnover, sickness absence, poor productivity and low morale all cost companies dearly. How long can companies afford to adopt an ostrich mentality?

CASE STUDY: PETER

Peter*, a middle management accountant in a large financial institution, was gradually worn down by bullying. His new boss, Steven*, removed all of his responsibilities, undermining everything he said or did. If technicians approached Peter for advice they had to be referred to Steven.

Peter's qualifications and experience meant nothing to Steven and he shouted at him constantly, using derogatory names in meetings. After several weeks Peter decided that he wanted to leave, but convinced himself that things would get better. They did not and Peter was consigned menial tasks while all major projects were controlled by Steven and allocated to other colleagues. Sometimes Steven could appear nice but then within an hour would swing back the other way. Everyone in the office feared him, and his mere presence ensured silence. Some colleagues tried to be 'pally' with Steven in order to avoid his wrath; they knew that when Steven was picking on Peter he was not picking on them.

The situation at work came to dominate Peter's conversations at home and with friends, he felt stressed even at weekends and holidays. He suffered sleeplessness, waking up in the middle of the night sweating. In the morning he suffered from nausea and knots in his stomach which grew gradually worse the closer he got to the office.

After 14 months Peter decided to contact his HR department. The HR department chose not to intervene and suggested he raise the matter with Steven directly, which Peter did after two weeks. Steven dismissed Peter's suggestions as ludicrous but the next day Peter arrived to find he was locked out of his computer and was fired from the job he had enjoyed so much for the past 16 years. His colleagues expressed concerned looks but looked away as he was escorted off the premises, afraid to get involved. Within six months, nine of Steven's team members voluntarily left the company. Interestingly, Steven has remained with the company in a senior management position.

* Names have been changed to protect the identities of those involved.

CASE STUDY: ANGELA

Angela* had worked for a large rein surer for eight years as a specialist. She had an excellent reputation within the company and was respected and popular with colleagues and clients alike. Problems started when her boss left for a competitor and a new boss, Joanne*, was promoted from within.

Initially relations between Angela and Joanne were very good. Joanne seemed to value Angela's extensive experience, qualifications and high profile. However, gradually this came to be more of a problem for Joanne, who decided unilaterally to change Angela's job title. The first Angela knew of this was from colleagues who had seen the internal phone book. When questioned about this, Joanne insisted it was a mistake. Angela raised the issue with HR via e-mail who immediately forwarded it to Joanne, who exploded at Angela in the middle of the office.

From then on, Joanne set about changing Angela's duties - major, interesting high-profile projects were allocated to other colleagues without consultation. Angela was no longer copied on correspondence and memos and was then made to look foolish in meetings when she was not up to speed. Every morning Joanne greeted all of her team members except Angela, making Angela feel increasingly excluded.

Joanne continuously changed Angela's appraisal objectives so that nothing could ever be achieved and tasks were constantly reallocated before they could be finalized. Angela's appraisals ratings which had always been excellent were now judged by Joanne to be only 'fair'. Discussions with HR were considered futile since Joanne's best friend was the head of department.

Angela found herself unable to sleep, constantly exhausted, run down and depressed, bursting into tears at her desk on a number of occasions. One Monday evening after a particularly bad day with Joanne she consulted her doctor, who signed her absent for two weeks. Every day she received angry calls from Joanne demanding to know when she was coming back and, when she did return, the situation was much worse. Joanne had spread rumors that Angela was incompetent and only pretending to be sick. Two months later Angela decided to leave the company and she no longer works in the reinsurance industry.

* Names have been changed to protect the identities of those involved

- Dr Dexter Morse is chief executive officer of Dexter Morse International, a company specializing in training and consultancy for the insurance/reinsurance industries including seminars on workplace mobbing. Contact for further information.

March 15, 2007