Workplace bullying in United Kingdom

Professor Helge HoelThe University of Manchester, UK

Fairness at Work Research Centre (FairWRC)

2013 JILT International Seminar on Workplace Bullying and Harassment

JILPT Tokyo Seminar – 27-28 February 2013

Prevalence of bullying

• Prevalence rates vary between 10-20%• Inconclusive whether rising/increasing• Methods applied impact on prevalence rates– On-line surveys• 20% plus… (e.g. Unison, 2009)

– Random, representative self-administered survey• 10% plus (e.g. Hoel & Cooper, 2000)

– Representative surveys, face-to face in peoples’ homes• 4-7% (e.g. Grainer & Fitzner, 2007)

Patterns of bullying

• Men and women report similar exposure rates• Some ‘protected groups’ (ethnic minorities, disabled,

Lesbian, Gay men and Bisexuals) over-represented• More widespread in public than private sector• Vertical bullying (top-down) dominates (75-80%)– Also bullying by colleagues, by subordinates and by clients

• Bullying is affecting employees across the organisational hierarchy

• Singled out or bullied together with colleagues

Consequences of bullying

Consequences of bullying

• Impact on job-satisfaction, psychological and physical health (Hoel et al., 2004; Quine, 1999, 2000)

• Organisational consequences are the focus of discussion: making the business case – Turnover– Productivity– Absenteeism– Litigation– Bystanders

• Bullying tentatively estimated to cost UK economy £13.75Bn annually

Reasons for bullying• Work-environment quality (Coyne et al. 2003; Rayner et al., 2002)

• Style of leadership (Hoel et al., 2010)

– Victims’ perceptions associated with ‘contingent punishment’– Observers’ perceptions linked to authoritarian leadership

• Professional socialisation processes (e.g. Archer, 1999; Bloisi & Hoel, 2008)

• Industrial relations climate: bullying as a tool of managerial control

• Lack of prospective studies: Current knowledge based on cross-sectional studies

National policies – regulations 1

• No specific UK legislation against bullying– Dignity at Work Bill blocked by successive governments

• A range of statutes and legal provisions available to victims

• Focus often on case-law and its development: interpretation of employers’ legal duties aimed at protecting employees’ psychological health and integrity from work-related risks and psychological stress.

• Employers' duty of reasonable care developed to include psycho-social foreseeable risks

National policies – regulations 2• Health and Safety at Work Act (1974)

– Employers’ duty of care to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and wellbeing of employees

• Anti-discrimination legislation (EU/Amsterdam Treaty/UK Equality Act 2010– Outlaws employment discrimination and harassment of

‘protected groups’• Conduct that has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading

etc. environment

– Vicarious liability: protection against repeated conduct by third-parties

– Victimisation: recriminations against someone filing a complaint

National policies – regulations 3• Protection from Harassment Act (Anti-stalking)

– “A person must not pursue a conduct a) which amounts to harassment of another and which b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other”

– Repeated, at least twice– Deemed harassment by a ‘reasonable person’– Experiencing anxiety sufficient, not necessary to establish injury to

health– Compensation: Currently up to £1M

• Employment Rights Act (1996)– Protection against unfair or ‘constructive dismissal’: leaving job against

your will/being forced out– Bullying as breach of contract

Interventions: Employer actions 　１• Focus on bullying policies• Content of policies:– Expression of employer intent– Defining bullying/harassment and provide examples– Emphasise a non-recrimination approach– Informal approach• Informal face-to-face contact• Mediation (often inappropriate)

– Formal approach• Filing a complaint and investigation

Interventions: Employer actions 　２• Problems with policies:– Often considered ineffective– Not communicated– Not enforced by managers

• A culture of respect: ‘dignity at work’ policy• Critique of employer approach:– The opportunity for a fair hearing?– Widespread belief among HR managers that most

complaints of bullying are unfounded and rather reflect a performance management issue

Intervention by Government Agencies

• UK Health and Safety Executive responsible for encouragement, regulation and enforcement

• Encouraging a risk-assessment approach (not legally enforceable) with bullying considered a stressor

• Using standards as a management tool• A collective procedure (rather than individual measures)

– Identification of discrepancy between ideal state and reality to be identified by a ‘bottom-up’ approach

– Achievement of standards measured by indicators– Gradual improvement: satisfied if 85% of staff agree that a

standard is met

Intervention by Trade Unions

• Trade unions actively involved since late 1990s

• Focus on policy development and implementation

• Provided evidence of prevalence and risk-factors through membership surveys– “Bullies able to get away with it”– “Workers too scared to report it” (Unison, 1997, 2008)

Intervention by Trade Unions

• Dignity at Work Partnership Project (£1.3M)(BERR, 2008)

– Employers:, e.g. British Airways, British Telecom– Trade Union: Unite the Union

• Success depends on:– Commitment from the top– Buy-in from workforce– Policies to be combined with employee involvement– Creating joint ownership and trust– Zero tolerance– A special focus on minority workers/’protected groups’

Thank you!

Contact: helge.hoel@mbs.ac.uk