The Abuse of Formal and Informal Power: Workplace Bullying as a Dichotomous Construct. Donna-Louise McGrath

Transcription

1 The Abuse of Formal and Informal Power: Workplace Bullying as a Dichotomous Construct Donna-Louise McGrath Abstract Workplace bullying is characterised by inequitable power relations between the perpetrator and the target; in which different sources of power are abused to bully. Informal power is derived from personal or social strengths, while formal power comes from legitimate control over human and physical resources. By drawing on the extant literature and the results of a workplace study, this paper demonstrates the need to measure workplace bullying as behaviours arising from the abuse of these dual power sources. Informal bullying includes behaviours employed by workers in any position, whereas formal bullying encompasses mutually exclusive behaviours which can only be employed by workers with formal power. It was concluded that workplace bullying should be treated as a dichotomous power construct. Key Words: Informal power, formal power, workplace bullying ***** Inequitable Power Relations Workplace bullying is defined as repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards an employee or group of employees, that creates a risk to health and safety. 1 While children who are bullied at school may be seen as being targeted due to being perceived as somehow weaker and vulnerable, research shows that workplace targets can be strong capable individuals who have greater sources of personal power such as being more qualified or more competent than the perpetrator. 2 Prior work has therefore found a relationship between envy and workplace bullying. 3 Together, these findings suggest that workplace targets may be chosen not because they are perceived as being less powerful or powerless, but rather, because those whose egos they threaten develop a desire to weaken their more advantaged position. This shows that power can be derived from different sources. As indicated in the theme for this conference, bullying is about the abuse of power. Workplace bullying is thus characterised by inequitable power relations between the perpetrator and the target. 4 However this does not mean that power is limited to one source: a power imbalance can be created through means other than formal role based power. Targets may even be in a hierarchically superior workplace position to the perpetrator, suggesting they should have greater legitimate position based formal power. 5

2 2 The Abuse of Formal and Informal Power In one study, almost two-fifths of targets were bullied by superiors, one-third were bullied by colleagues and one-sixth were bullied by subordinates only. 6 These three hierarchical patterns can generally be identified within the bullying literature, where: horizontal bullying occurs between workers on the same level, (e.g. nurse-nurse); vertical bullying is directed downward by workers in superior positions (e.g. manager-nurse) and subordinates can bully upward, toward their superior (e.g. nurses-manager). In each of these scenarios, the perpetrator-target power dynamic differs. These differences clearly challenge the stereotype of the bully boss and demonstrate that different sources of power can be abused to bully. Hence the abuse of power in workplace bullying is not a simple nor static one-dimensional construct. Formal and Informal Power The simple division of formal and informal power is useful to this analysis. 7 Formal power is legitimately derived from one s workplace position (e.g. manager, director or supervisor) such as having responsibility over human and physical resources. What has been termed by the author as formal bullying can thus include an abuse or inequitable application of legitimate rules and procedures, in which targets are unfairly treated. For example, unpleasant tasks may be allocated unfairly, as a punishment. This abuse of formal power may align with the use of a system of work as a means of bullying. 8 In addition, a superior position may afford the perpetrator various supplementary protective layers of formal rule-making power, such as those afforded by taking on committee or board roles. On the other hand, informal power can be seen as that derived from multiple sources such as the ability to influence others or from personal strengths and abilities and is thus independent of workplace position. 9 In this paper, informal bullying includes behaviours such as the building up of social networks to ignore, exclude or to socially isolate the target, to sabotage their work and reputation or to remove their needed resources. Many informal bullying behaviours appear to align with Rayner and Hoel s threat categories of bullying as; threats to professional status and personal standing. 10 These can be directed toward any workers and can feasibly be directed by subordinates in an upward direction, by withholding needing support or covertly sabotaging the work of a superior. Workplace Bullying as Dichotomous The distinction between the influence of dual sources of power on the resultant types of bullying behaviours appears to have been given little emphasis in the target-reported bullying literature. To date, workplace bullying has been predominantly measured from the perspective of the target. 11 Extant target-reported bullying scales tend to merge formal and informal bullying items on the one frequency scale. For example, items such

3 Donna-Louise McGrath as being the subject of malicious rumours (e.g. from a co-worker) and excessive monitoring (from superiors) might be on the one scale. The work role of the perpetrator (e.g. supervisor, team member) is sometimes measured in a separate nominal scale. This renders it impossible to accurately match each behaviour (scale item) to the work role of the perpetrator(s). However, there is clearly a need to do so, since a target can be subjected to different behaviours from a range of different perpetrators. In one study, targets were bullied by several perpetrators from different organisational levels. 12 Further, the psychometric analysis of extant target-reported measures of bullying often lend support to the idea that bullying behaviours are derived from the abuse of different sources of power. This is possibly because scale items such as intimidatory use of competence or discipline procedures 13 can only be implemented by perpetrators with legitimate formal power over subordinates. Further, Rayner and Hoel s bullying category of destabilization (e.g. removal of responsibilities and overwork) also appears to mostly pertain to behaviours which require the perpetrator to have legitimate formal power. 14 However no doubt there has been less concern with distinguishing between power sources in quantitative target-reported measures because their purpose has largely been to measure the overall frequency and duration of bullying. Nevertheless, on account of their conjoined power structure, single scale target-reported measures may not capture the full breadth of behaviours which can be derived from formal power. The imbalance of power in the bullying dynamic has thus largely been measured as a single static construct, quantified by the frequency and duration of a combined range of behaviours. Given that bullying has mostly been measured from the targets perspective, there has been little research debate about the influence of different sources of power on the resultant types of bullying behaviours. However the question of whether or not bullying is a dual construct has been pondered. Einarsen has stated that it is an interesting question whether peer bullying and leadership-bullying in essence is one phenomenon, or whether they are distinct enough to be addressed with different concepts. 15 Vega and Comer have similarly argued that bullying that occurs by supervisors differs from the bullying that occurs from co-workers. 16 However by conceptualising bullying as the abuse of two different sources of power from the perpetrators perspective, the direction of bullying can vary, including the abuse of informal power to bully one s boss in upward bullying, as shown in Figure 1. The abuse of informal power can be enacted by workers in any position (e.g. spreading rumours) against targets in any position. However formal power can only be directed vertically in a downward direction toward subordinates (e.g. withholding a deserved promotion). It should be noted that workers with formal power also have informal power. 3

4 4 The Abuse of Formal and Informal Power Upward Bullying (one s boss) Formal Power Informal Power Horizontal Bullying (co-workers) Vertical Bullying (subordinates) Vertical Bullying (subordinates) Figure 1. The abuse of formal and informal power to bully. Measuring Bullying as a Dichotomous Construct Bullying has previously been measured by the author as a dyadic construct within one section of a self report survey, administered as part of a larger workplace study 17. All participants were randomly selected, voluntary and anonymous. The results for the total sample were aggregated. Not all behaviours were deemed to be bullying. However behaviours pertaining to an abuse of informal and formal power were separately measured in some items within two subscales, which can be labelled here as informal bullying and formal bullying. The behaviours were measured as frequent (e.g. daily, weekly) and enduring (over a 6-12 month period). The informal bullying subscale measured bullying behaviours which could be employed by workers in any workplace position, including: ignoring others, withholding resources, yelling and taking credit for others ideas. Some of the workers across a range of positions, including team members, reported employing these behaviours. The formal bullying subscale measured behaviours which could only be employed by workers with superior job status. Items measured the use of formal power to include, exclude, reward or punish individuals via an inequitable, inconsistent or unnecessary application or extension of legitimate rules and procedures. The items measured behaviours such as an unfair allocation of unpleasant tasks, the inconsistent enforcement of rules and the exclusion of people from communications and organisational meetings. Only 16% of workers in the total sample completed all items on the formal bullying scale; being directors, managers, supervisors and eight workers who had managerial responsibilities but who self-defined as team members. Results showed that there was a moderate positive relationship between formal bullying and informal bullying; r =.48, n = 62, p =.000; p <.01.

5 Donna-Louise McGrath Discussion The purpose of reporting on the author s bullying measure here was to show that power is not derived from one source: bullying is mostly a dyadic construct. Although workers in all positions used informal bullying behaviours, only workers with formal power (in this sample; just 16%) completed all items on the formal bullying subscale. Workers in other positions did not have the power to do so. This renders [total] formal bullying subscale behaviours to be mutually exclusive. Hence bullying by supervisors differs from the bullying that occurs from co-workers 18. Further, selfidentified team members with managerial responsibility surprisingly used formal bullying too. So what was equally interesting was that a formal job title (e.g. Manager of Production ) in itself was not necessary to use total formal bullying, but rather, having some power and responsibility for human or physical resource management was. There was a moderate statistically significant relationship between informal and formal bullying. This suggested that workers in superior positions who frequently employed informal bullying behaviours such as ignoring colleagues also tended to employ formal bullying behaviours such as inconsistently applying rules. Given that the behaviours were measured as repeated and enduring, the relationship possibly suggests that there was some intent to the behaviours, rather than simply being random or incidental acts. The relationship might be interpreted in light of the stress induced explanation for bullying by managers, which some researchers argue can tend to deflect blame away from the perpetrator and onto the environment. 19 Indeed reactions to stress may be marked by random or intermittent outbursts of anger, whereas both informal and formal bullying in this study was measured using the standard application of bullying as being repeated behaviour; hence providing some grounds for rejecting stress and other such excuses. In addition, the direction of the behaviour was not measured in the study, because it was not the intent to capture the position of the target. The considerable international target-reported literature already fulfils that function. However the findings do have some implications for the target. The results for both subscales for workers in all positions support the targetreported literature in showing that workers can be bullied from all directions. It equally should not be forgotten that workers with informal power can bully upward such as toward their manager or director. In summary, both the literature combined with the measure of bullying reported here support the proposition that workplace bullying is a dichotomous construct in which informal and formal sources of power are abused to bully. Only workers in superior positions have the power to use formal bullying, yet all workers can use informal bullying. One methodological implication of this duality is that extant target reported 5

6 6 The Abuse of Formal and Informal Power measures, which tend to aggregate all formal and informal bullying behaviours on the one scale, thus may not match each behaviour (scale item) with the work position of the perpetrator(s). Separately asking targets who bullied you? assumes there was only one perpetrator. From a practical perspective, the dual self-report approach to measurement described here is no doubt useful for preventative anti-bullying programs by informing questions about exactly who is doing the bullying? and what types of behaviours do they employ? The continued treatment of bullying as a dyadic power construct, in both target and self-report measures, is therefore recommended. Notes 1 Victorian Workcover Authority, Prevention of bullying and violence at work. Victoria, Australia: Worksafe Victoria, 2003, p M O'Moore, E Seigne, L McGuire & M Smith, Bullying at work: Victims of bullying at work in Ireland, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, vol. 14, no. 6, 1998, pp , found that targets were more qualified. K Strandmark & L Hallberg, The origin of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector, Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 15, 2007, pp , found that targets reported being strong, competent and a threat to the perpetrator. 3 D-L McGrath, The relationship between envy and workplace bullying, paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, Cardiff, Wales, 2-4 June, C Rayner & L Keashly, Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain and North America in S. Fox & P. Spector (eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C, 2005, pp D Salin, Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying, European Journal of Work And Organizational Psychology, vol. 10, no. 4, 2001, pp ibid 7 C Rayner, H Hoel, & C Cooper, Workplace bullying: what we know, who is to blame, and what can we do?, Taylor & Francis, London, Victorian Workcover Authority, op. cit., p Rayner et. al., op. cit., 2002, p Rayner & Hoel, op. cit., 1997, p See for example, S Einarsen & A Skogstad, Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organisations, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 5, no.2, 1996, pp. 185-

7 Donna-Louise McGrath Also, L Quine, Workplace bullying in the NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, vol. 318, 21 January 1999, pp Salin, op. cit. 13 Quine, 1999, op. cit. 14 Rayner, C., & Hoel, H, A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, vol. 7, 1997, pp S Einarsen, The nature and causes of bullying at work, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 20, no.1/2, 1999, pp , p G Vega & D Comer, Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 58, 2005, pp , p D-L McGrath, The relationship between envy and workplace bullying, paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, Cardiff, Wales, 2-4 June, G Vega & D Comer, Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 58, 2005, pp , p A Liefooghe & R Olafsson, Scientists and amateurs: mapping the bullying domain, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 20, no.1, 1999, pp Bibliography Einarsen, S, The nature and causes of bullying at work, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 20, no. 1/2, 1999, pp Einarsen, S, & Skogstad, A, Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organisations, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 5, no.2, 1996, pp Hutchinson, M, Vickers, M, Jackson, D, & Wilkes, L, Workplace bullying in nursing: towards a more critical organisational perspective, Nursing Inquiry, vol. 13 no. 2, 2006, pp Kaukiainen, A, Salmivalli, C, BjÉrkqvist, K, Ñsterman, K, Lahtinen, A, Kostamo, A., et al., Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees, Aggressive Behavior, vol. 27, 2001, pp

8 8 The Abuse of Formal and Informal Power Keashly, L, Interpersonal and systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work: the target's perspective, Violence and Victims, vol. 16, 2001, pp Leymann, H, Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces, Violence and Victims, vol. 5. no. 2, 1990, pp Liefooghe, A, & Olafsson, R, Scientists and amateurs: mapping the bullying domain, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 20. no. 1/2, 1999, pp McGrath, D-L, The relationship between envy and workplace bullying, paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, Cardiff, Wales, 2-4 June, O'Moore, M, Seigne, E, McGuire, L, & Smith, M, Bullying at work: Victims of bullying at work in Ireland, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety- Australia and New Zealand, vol. 14, no.6, 1998, pp Quine, L, Workplace bullying in the NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey, British Medical Journal, vol. 318, 21 January 1999, pp Quine, L, Workplace bullying in junior doctors: questionnaire survey, British Medical Journal, vol. 324, 2002, pp Rayner, C. Workplace bullying: Do something! Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand, vol. 14, 1998, pp Rayner, C, & Hoel, H, A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, vol. 7, 1997, pp Rayner, C, Hoel, H, & Cooper, C, Workplace bullying: what we know, who is to blame, and what can we do?, Taylor & Francis, London, Rayner, C, & Keashly, L, Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain and North America, in S. Fox & P Spector (eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C, 2005, pp

9 Donna-Louise McGrath 9 Salin, D. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying, European Journal of Work And Organizational Psychology, vol. 10, no.4, 2001, pp Strandmark, K, & Hallberg, L, The origin of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector, Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 15, 2007, pp Turney, L, Mental health and workplace bullying: The role of power, professions and on the job training, Australian e-journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, vol. 2, no.2, 2003, pp Vega, G, & Comer, D, Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 58, 2005, pp Victorian Workcover Authority. Prevention of bullying and violence at work. Worksafe Victoria, Victoria, Australia, Donna-Louise McGrath has a PhD from The University of Queensland and has conducted research on workplace emotions and behaviour. She also holds a Masters degree in which she undertook research on motivation and goal achievement. Her research interests are the tall poppy syndrome, workplace discourse, emotions and personality.