1 / 18

Organisational interventions for workplace bullying MMU May 2007

Organisational interventions for workplace bullying MMU May 2007. Charlotte Rayner Portsmouth Business School. The session overview. Introduction to workplace bullying The DTI/Amicus project Data collection Initial data analysis: the 4 categories Results : the AMOSIS model

chars
Télécharger la présentation

Organisational interventions for workplace bullying MMU May 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Organisational interventions for workplace bullyingMMU May 2007 Charlotte Rayner Portsmouth Business School

  2. The session overview • Introduction to workplace bullying • The DTI/Amicus project • Data collection • Initial data analysis: the 4 categories • Results : the AMOSIS model • Conclusions and further research

  3. Definitions • Bullying is about experience of behaviours • It involves a wide range of behaviours • Behaviours are persistent?: • Over a period of time • Frequently • There is a negative effect on the target? • Person labels themselves as ‘bullied’? Due to ‘?’ employer defs now v vague

  4. Bullying Behaviours • Interpersonal: • Overt / active (e.g. yelling) • Overt passive (exclusion) • Covert / passive / hidden (not copied in etc) But people disagree! • Corporate/ Systems that can bully Appraisal and reward systems Monitoring

  5. Measurement • Questionnaires use two ways: • Labelling = ‘Have you been bullied (time)? Y/N’ • Experience of behaviours e.g. NAQ = 23 items • Daily/ weekly/ monthly/ less than monthly • COUNTING: Academics use Y/N and behaviours to validate • PATTERN: half those who experience negative behaviours also label themselves UK= 10/15% (until recently)

  6. Findings: Incidence • No sig diff on age, gender, hierarchical grade • Sector difference slight (but expectations?) • Few people singled out (i.e. several bullied) • In UK alleged bullies often = boss Effect • 25% targets and 20% witnesses leave job • ++ Stress – now HSE sees wpb as major source of stress • Anxiety & depression (scared)

  7. Failure zone Intervention Zone Prevention Zone Interventions: The Event Hierarchy: Initial ideas Legal redress Formal Complaints Informal Complaints Informal Enquiries Poor Behaviour

  8. DTI/ Amicus study The funders • Dept of Trade and Industry (DTI) • Amicus (UK largest private sector TUnion) The Task To tackle bullying and harassment at work 1. Research stage 2. Training design 3. Training with pre- and post- testing

  9. The research • 46 interviews on what to do: • 12 with sector experts, • 34 with orgs; HR or TU, senior and engaged • 14 Focus groups with 120+ people: what is B&H, what can individuals do, what can orgs do? • 11 general respondents (HR, TUs, managers etc) • 3 minority specific; disability, targets, sexuality Covering public, private, 3rd sector, but almost all large organizations (i.e. not small)

  10. Data analysis • Descriptive of the problem: • Poor definition – policies too generalised • Management /leadership: selection, role modelling, (in)action on occurrences, confidence to act, lack of support. • Job Targets make it hard to complain & get support of colleagues, hard to act – distraction from the task. • Remote HR, TU & HR geared to formal • Legal = failure, but so is formal complaint for all • Descriptive of organisations at stages (see next)

  11. Typology: 4- Stage progression

  12. Typology: 4- Stage progression

  13. Developing the Model • Description of coding categories adequate – most can locate their organization. • Need to get underneath to reveal positive dynamics (but not challenge targets). • Stress common – All individuals need support (target/ accused/ all helpers) • Managers a massive issue as a barrier

  14. Developing the Model Working towards the solution …………. The excellent orgs used data in a classic Risk Management approach: Findings were taken seriously an acted on Org-as-problem enabled no-blame approach, de-personalised problem and solution (popped the energy) – fast solution as no avoidance. Employees taken very seriously, the HR capital argument accepted as crucial. We must stay on top of all negative issues…. Systems.

  15. Appropriate management Fragmented Ideal High exit Fragmented Organisational systems Ideal Individual support Fragmented High exit High exit The AMOSIS Model

  16. Further Research • This is complex and variables are interdependent • Current project starting with data…. Orgs are measuring everything! But very poor data analysis Staff relocating presents tracking problems Other ideas for coping with complexity?

  17. Conclusion • A major project using inductive reasoning • Informal opinion gathered on AMOSIS model has been positive • Requires quantification • BUT issue of definition is highly problematic. • AMOSIS transferable to other H&S/Occ Health situations?

  18. THANK YOU! Charlotte Rayner Charlotte.rayner@port.ac.uk

More Related