Workplace bullying receives generous inattention in the world of works. It remains intractable and malignant. Institutional systems exemplifying robust “ethical standards” are forcibly its transmission belt. Its cultured tenancy in atypical work conduct constitutes the architectural blueprint aimed at harming individuals to the point of abandoning labour market participation. This alone generates macro-economic ailments such as unemployment breeding generational poverty traps and transmission. In the face of these deleterious effects, organisational justice for the ordinary man remains mythical across its interpersonal, informational, procedural, and distributive organs. This is partly because organisations lack strategic willpower to combat workplace bullying. Responsible for this strategic oversight could be the dearth of a comprehensive national research on workplace bullying, hence, the oblivious association of workplace bullying with workplace conflict
Workplace bullying is a sophisticated construct related to, yet distinctly different from, workplace conflict. Workplace bullying frequently ‘outsets with conflict’ and contains elements of harassment. Whilst conflict constitutes a “controversy, disagreement or opposition” at a point in time as Frank Lorho and Ulrich Hilp articulate, bullying occurs constantly with degrading effects in a ‘series of different actions’ over a considerable period of time. Some of these actions include social ostracism, victimisation, intimidation, sabotage, fallacious performance reportage, frivolous complaints, and obstruction of training and developmental opportunities, “Bullying often occurs in workplace cultures where highly powerful people or those with high-profile jobs work alongside those with lower status, articulates Dana Wilkie’s narrative on bully-prone industries. The healthcare, education and public service industries lend themselves to bullying,” she says. In the academe, “bullying is an endemic problem”, expresses Malcolm Tight. “It’s a silent epidemic”, says Dr Gary Namie Co-Founder and Director of the Workplace Bullying Institute in the USA. Drawing on Ståle Einarsen’s narrative on “the nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work” in the Norwegian context, workplace bullying can be predatory or dispute related. The former is a strategic tool in the hand of a prejudiced organisational leader determined to intimidating, oppressing and persecuting an employee for having done nothing “provocative justifying” the bullying behaviour. Belonging to a minority group, holding certain political affiliation, paying for the ‘sins’ of parents or family, being a “victim of scapegoating processes”, could be fertile ground alluring predatory bullying. This signals destructive organisational leadership.
The latter stems from interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict is natural between two or more people on the job. However, elongated and frequent interpersonal conflict underpinned by tactical aggressive behavior generates avenues for unfair treatment and reduces a target’s self-defense capability against bullying. This is prevalent in organizational cultures that tacitly institutionalise workplace bullying as a leadership tool. It is exactly this problem that triggers the involuntary departure of a skilled workforce from the labour market. Thus, one of the most insidious byproducts of unemployment is institutionalised workplace bullying. Therefore, it becomes less convincing that the astronomical levels of unemployment in an economy is a function of an absolute mismatch between the demand for and supply of labour. In response, anti-bullying legislation is coming into being globally. In the USA, for example, New Jersey and Oklahoma, amongst others, considered anti-bulling legislation, reports Carolyn Said, an enterprise reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle. New York and Washington, amongst others, “have introduced similar bills.” In Europe, the Health and Safety Authority of Dublin under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, published in 2007, a “Code of Practice for employers and employees on the prevention and resolution of Bullying at work”. In Namibia, the need for bullying-specific legislation is dire. Risk assessment for workplace bullying and employers’ declaration that the workplace is bully-free should be mandatory. Independent workplace Ombuds Offices are essential. Education or training for employers and employees is necessary.
No nation wants to build its economy with a wounded workforce.
* Dr Shirley Shivangulula is an Economic and Industrial Sociologist, Director of Workmanship Consultations Proprietary Limited – a Namibian-based Research Institute on Socio-Economic Research, and Consultancy. Her expertise is at the intersection of the Economies of Finance and Labour and Higher Education Policy.