TAKING A SETTINGS APPROACH TO WORKPLACE BULLYINGM. Hodgins

Health Promotion Research Centre

National University of Ireland, Galway

“Oh body swayed to music, oh brightening glance, how can we tell the dancer from the dance”

W. B. Yeats1

The dancer and the dance• Idea at the heart of the settings approach…• …the mutuality of people and their environments

• Complex interdependencies of individual and environmental elements that make up an ‘ecological web’ 2

• The environment may not have meaning without people, and people are influenced by and continually influence their environment

• A systems perspective 3

• Target….• …the system rather than the individual

Translating this into practice…• Focusing on contextual knowledge in developing

interventions, especially relational context, for example the way people and groups relate to one another in the setting 4

• Accepting that organisations, as complex systems, are unpredictable. Change and reaction within the system is not tractable from the elements or parts. There may be unanticipated outcomes, and small events can have large consequences 5

• Developing interventions at a number of levels, including both top-down and bottom-up actions 6

• Workplace bullying is directly experienced by 15-20% of workers 7

• Prevalence rates are typically higher in the public sector, in health and social services, defense and education 7

• Strong associations with reduced health, especially mental health 8,9

• For those that experience it, but also those that witness it

• Almost half of those who experience bullying express a wish to quit their jobs, about half of these do so

From qualitative studies…• Bullying is an escalating process, characterised by

persistent, systematic targeting of one or more workers, involving a range of behaviours, some subtle, some less so

• Targets • May not recognise it for what it is, initially • May experience shame, embarrassment• Can find it has a devastating impact on

their self esteem, confidence 10-13

Yet….• Organisations tend not to deal well with bullying

‘Managers and employers, and sometimes even public sector or government bodies, are often unwilling to accept the very existence of the problem, much less prevent it and manage fairly those cases that come to the fore’. 14

• Either responded to clumsily or not at all

• Few evaluated interventions• Not a popular topic within WHP

Quick and dirty search….HPI GHP HEB HER EJPH SJPH HPP

General WHP

10 16 6 1 9 2

Psychosocial env

2 4 3 2 1

Needs A 2 2 2

Vole H Bash

11 5 15 15 5 12 13

Stress 3 2 3 4

Occur or Illness specific

1 2 2 12 3

Mental H 2 2 1

Other 4 2 2 1 20 3

Mistreatment

1

• Why this ‘head in the sand’ situation?•Organisations can be unwilling, but also ill-equipped to respond

•In short, approaches to bullying• Fail to take relational context into account• Fail to take a systems perspective• Fail to take multi-level approach

Contextual factors

• Power• Those with less power in society are often more likley to

be targeted • Perpetrators are usually in positions of power over their

targets• Targets frequently report either not been taken seriously,

or fear of reprisal, retaliation• Workers are economically

dependent on work

• Industrial relations• Tough/appropriate management

• HR as the default for addressing bullying• Interventions typically focus on the individual and the behaviours,

the ‘errant or deviant worker’, the ‘vulnerable employee’ or the vexatious complainer’ tend to drive organisations down an adversarial, defensive lane

• Even with policy-based approach, most policies require bullying to have been happening (for 6 months) before action can be taken

• Even where there is evidence of negative behaviours, organisations are ultimately responsible for intervening

• Interventions • Typically educational• Focus on behaviour change, individual

• One ‘bit’ of the jigsaw, or the system

• Target units (eg wards in hospitals) or occupational groups, but not the whole organisation

• Poor methodology• Mixed results

• Focus on the organisation, rather than ‘errant’ individuals• Focus on creating a culture of respect and civility in

treatment of each other, in interpersonal communications, in management practices and the implementation of them

• Including a clear and visible commitment to unacceptability of negative behaviour

• Evidence from CREW interventions 21

• May be important to move beyond the capturing and proving/disproving of bullying, but addressing the promotion of respectful communication and practice

• May be useful to consider broader concept of mistreatment rather than ‘bullying’

• Acknowledgment of the context of power relations in causing and maintaining incivility and bullying• ‘an attitude of sceptical empathy and ethical accountability’ 23

References1. W.B. Yeats “Among School Children’

2. Green, L., Poland, B. and Rootman, I. (2000) ‘The settings approach to health pro- motion’, in B. Poland, L. Green and I. Rootman (eds), Settings for Health Promotion: Linking Theory and Practice. Sage: London.

3. Dooris, M., Poland, B., Kolbe, L., de Leeuw, E., McCall, D. and Wharf-Higgins, J. (2007) ‘Healthy settings: building evidence for the effectiveness of whole system health promotion – challenges and future directions’, in D.V. McQueen and C.M. Jones (eds), Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

4. Poland, B., Krupa, G. and McCall, D. (2009) ‘Settings for health promotion: an analytic framework to guide intervention design and implementation’, Health Promotion Practice, 10: 505–16.

5. Capra, F. (2008) ‘The new facts of life’, www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/new-facts-life (accessed 26 August 2010).

6. Grossman, R. and Scala, K. (1993) Health Promotion and Organizational Development: Developing Settings for Health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

7. Zapf D, Escartin J, Einarsen S, Hoel H, and Vartia M. Empirical findings on Prevalence and Risk Groups of Bullying in the Workplace. In: Einarsen S. Hoel H, Zapf D, and C Cooper C. (ends). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. London: Taylor and Francis; 2011.

8. Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. (2007) European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: Dublin.

9. Fifth European Working Conditions Survey. (2012) European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: Dublin.

10. Lewis, S. (2006) ‘Recognition of Workplace Bullying: A Qualitative Study of Women Targets in Public Sector’. Journal of Community Applied Social Psychology;16: 119-135

11. Hodgins M. (2006) ‘Awareness and perceptions of staff of the Anti-Bullying policy in a public sector organization’ 5th International Conference: Workplace Bullying- the Way Forward, June15-17; Trinity College Dublin.

12. Hallberg, L.R.M., Strandmark, M.K. (2006) ‘Health consequences of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector’. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well Being; 1: 109-119.

13. Gillen, P., Sinclair, M., and Kernohan, G. (2008) The Nature and manifestations of bullying in midwifery. University of Ulster Research Report.

14. Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper C. The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work: The European tradition. In: Einarsen S, Hoel, H, Zapf D, and Cooper C (ends). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. London: Taylor and Francis; 2011.