Workplace bullying investigations : A complex endeavor for a complex problem

Workplace

bullying

investigations:

A

complex

endeavor

for

a

complex

problem

Anneli

Matsson,

Thomas

Jordan

INTRODUCTION

Bullying and emotional abuse are serious problems that affect many employees in the workplace. A recent study inSwedenestimatesthat 20%oftheworkforceareat sig-nificant risk of being bullied or are currently subject to bullying.1_{Bullyingintheworkplacehasbeenaglobalarea}

ofconcernoverthelastdecades.Itisclaimedtobeoneof themoststressfulsocialexperiencesoftheworking envir-onment.Theresearchonworkplacebullyinghasmainlybeen focusingonconsequencesandtheimpactofindividual fac-tors.Theprobablymostwidespreaddefinitionofbullyingis this:

“Bullyingatworkmeansharassing,offending,orsocially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to beappliedtoaparticularactivity,interaction, or pro-cess,thebullyingbehaviorhastooccurrepeatedlyand regularly(e.g.,weekly)andoveraperiodoftime(e.g., aboutsixmonths).Bullyingisanescalatingprocessinthe course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferiorpositionandbecomesthetargetofsystematic negativesocialacts.Aconflictcannotbecalledbullying ifthe incidentisanisolated eventoriftwopartiesof approximatelyequalstrengthareinconflict.”2

This definition is based on three premises: duration, frequencyandinferiority.Itisseenasaprocessofconflict escalation and has been leading the understanding of

workplacebullyinginSwedenamongpractitionersas well as researchers. However, the definition is vague and not deeply elaborated. The lack of clear definition of the concept of bullying, has been identified as a quest for furtherresearch.Arecentstudypointsoutseveral knowl-edgegaps in the research field:A lackof construct clar-ification, theoretical frameworks, causality, processes, mediators and moderators, interventions and rehabilita-tion.Therearealsonogenerallyagreedcriteriafor asses-sing the incidence of workplace bullying, and the theoreticalframeworksneed development foranalysis of bullying.Thismakesitdifficult tocomparecases. Organi-zationalandsocialfactorsarenotwellexplored.Thefocus onindividualfactorsinearlierresearchhasbeencriticized foroverlookingimportantaspectsoftheworkenvironment context.Currentpolicyframeworkshavebeenfoundtobe insufficienttoadequatelyadapttothecomplexityof work-placebullying.Inarecentstudyitissuggestedthatbullying is better understood as occurring on different levels of severity.Allthisuncertaintyleadstoproblemsfor organi-zationsfaced withthe phenomenon. Still,in many coun-tries,itisbylawmandatorytoputastoptobullying.This createsconfusion and stressfor employers and organiza-tionalprofessionals whoarelefttosecondguesswhat to considerasbullyingandnot.Despitetheseknowledgegaps inresearchandthelackofappropriatepolicyframeworks, workplace investigations of bullying are conducted in a numberofcountries, including Sweden.Theinvestigation outcomesand processes havenotbefore been systemati-callystudied,toourknowledge.Thisarticlepresents find-ings regarding the outcomes in 81 investigation cases conductedinSwedenbetween2010and2015.Theaimof thestudywastoexplorewhetherthewidespreadviewpoint ofbullying,generallyreferredtoasthevictim-perpetrator perspective,accuratelyreflects theactualsituationsthat emergedin theinvestigations.Thenature ofthe analysis

1_{Rosander,M.andBlomberg,S.(2019)Levelsofworkplace}

bully-ing and escalation _— a newconceptual model based oncut off scores,frequencyand self-label victimization.European Journal ofWorkandOrganizationalPsychology,28:6,769-783.

2_{Einarsenetal.2011,p.22.}

Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

j our na l ho me pa ge :w ww . e l se v i e r . com / l oca t e / or gdy n

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100840

0090-2616/©2021TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierInc.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).

wasinspiredbytheauthors’ownexperiencesof investigat-ing bullying in combination with conversations with the individualsconcerned, suggestingthat the situations sur-roundingalleged bullyingmayappearvery differentfrom casetocase.

THE

VICTIM-PERPETRATOR

PERSPECTIVE

The dominant researchtradition in thefield is commonly referredtoasthevictim-perpetratorperspective.This per-spective views the phenomena from an individual level whereoneactor is avictimof abuseandanotheractor is perpetratingtheabuse.Fromthisresearchperspectivewe havelearnedalotabouttheeffectsandmanifestationsof bullying,butitfailstorecognizetheroleofwork environ-ment factors contributing to the emergence of bullying. Fromthis perspective, bullying is seen as a consequence ofhighlyescalatedconflictsbetweentwopartieswherean inferiorpositionfortheonebeingbulliedhasdevelopedover time.Thestartingpointforthisperspectivewasresearchon peerbullyinginschools.Hereitissaidthatthedifference between conflicts and bullying cannot be determined by considering the actions alone, but instead by considering thedurationandfrequencyandwhatopportunitysomeone hadtodefendthemselves.Thisperspectivehashadamajor influenceonthedevelopmentofworkplacebullying inves-tigations and policy development in Sweden. The victim-perpetrator perspective has been criticized for ignoring socialandorganizationalaspectsofbullyingandtocreate scapegoating or blaming the victim. In response to this perspective, Heinz Leymann proposed the so-called work environmenthypothesis,whicharguesforseekingthecauses ofbullying in the work environmentinstead ofexplaining bullyingbyindividualfactors.

THE

LEYMANN

PERSPECTIVE

BullyingresearchinSwedenhasatraditiongoingbacktothe pioneerHeinzLeymann,whointroducedtheresearchfieldof workplacebullyinginhisearlystudiesinthe1970s.Hefound that being exposed to bullying could lead to PTSD and suicide. Leymann coined the term mobbing in order to distinguish it fromthe term 'bullying,' which wasinitially synonymouswithpeerabuseatschool.Mobbingisdefinedas follows:

“Psychical terroror mobbingin theworkinglife means hostileandunethicalcommunicationwhichisdirectedin asystematicwaybyoneoranumberofpersonsmainly towardonein-dividual.[...].Theseactionstakeplace often(almosteveryday)andoveralongperiod(atleast forsixmonths)and,becauseofthisfrequencyand dura-tion,resultin considerablepsychic, psychosomaticand social misery.Thisdefinitioneliminatestemporary con-flicts andfocusesonthetransitionzonewherethe psy-chosocial situationstartstoresultinpsychiatric and/or psychosomaticpathologicalstates.“3

FromLeymann’spointofviewthereisaneedtosee work-life bullying as a separate issue from peer abuse among children. Onebigconcernof mobbingat theworkplace is the effect on socio-economic consequences for those affected, which differs from peer-to-peer violence at school. Leymann also points out the imbalance in power betweenemployersandemployees.Hehasshownthatthose in power have a significant influence on the process. Researchersinthefield,however,haswidelyretainedthe conceptofbullying.Theconceptofmobbinghascometobe thetermofchoiceforsomeresearchersinterestedin view-ingtheprocess,while bullyingisthetermof choicemore commonin the dominantresearch-tradition that focuson theindividualsinvolved.

UnethicalCommunication

Acentraldifferencebetweenthedefinitionsbetween bully-ingandmobbingisthatLeymannviewsbullyingasakindof unethicalcommunication intheworkplace.Hestatesthat thiscommunication developswheninteractionsget outof controldue todifficultiesintheworkingenvironment. He compares it to a racing horse where the rider has lost control. He rejects explanations of bullying that have to dowithpersonalityandstressestheneedforlookingintothe contextofaspecificsituation.Leymannarguesthatactsof bullyingshouldnotbeconsideredasisolatedevents;rather, theybecomehostileactsinaspecificsituation,andasingle actinitselfcantakeplaceeverydaywithoutbecomingan actofbullying.Hence,hestressestheimportanceof inves-tigating the situations and processes of bullying to gain knowledge of how psychological violence develops. The focusfromaLeymannperspectiveisonunethical commu-nication in the workplace that can lead to harm to the individual.Twodifferentborderzonesinthework environ-menthavebeen identified;1.Communicativeactionsthat canbeshowntohaveahighriskforpsychologicalill-health or lead to exclusion. 2. Communicative actions that are deeplyoffensivetothevictim.Thecorefeatureinunethical communication iswhat hecallsmonopolizing communica-tion channels. What issaid, howit is said,how feedback takesplaceandwhogetstobeheardwillthusbepossibleto control.Thisreducesthepossibilityofresolvingconflictsand isacentralpartofthemobbingprocessesasithaslimiting effectsontheindividual’sabilitytocommunicate.According toLeymann,therearesixtypesofunethicalcommunication thathasthiseffect:

1.Forced communication, means constantly criticizing someonefortheirpoorachievementsorpersonality. It canbeexpressedverballyinformsofharassmentor in only communicating in writing and is a sign that the victimisnotworthyofbeingaddressed.

2.Non-verbalcommunication, which is a subtle way of expressingpsychologicalviolence.Itincludesbody lan-guage,facialexpressions,gaze,andgestures.

3.False communication, which means to ignore or to pretendnottoseesomeone ortohear whatsomeone said.Leymannseesthisasaformofbetrayal.Hereveals thatthisiscommoninScandinaviaandleadstoconfusion intheworkplace.

4.Bureaucraticcommunication,whichmeansaconstant referencetoparagraphsorsomeoneelse'sresponsibility. 5.Refusedmetacommunication,whichiswhenamember

isnotwillingtodiscusshowcommunicationisdone. 6.Isolationorsilenttreatment,whichisaformofsocial

sanction where a group stops talking to a memberor ostracizesthemfromthegroup.

Further,Leymannidentifiedfivedifferenteffectsonthe victimofbullyingasaresultofunethicalcommunication.

1.Effectsonthevictim’spossibilitytocommunicate. 2.Effectsonthevictim’spossibilitytomaintain

relation-ships.

3.Effects onthevictim’spossibility tomaintainpersonal integrityandreputation.

4.Effectsonthevictim’sworkingconditionsorlife situa-tion.

5.Effectsonthevictim’spsychologicalhealth.

Leymannarguesthatitis thesestrongnegativeeffects thatleadtotheriskofseriouspsychologicalhealthproblems becausetheyinhibitstresscopingstrategies.Hepointsout thattheeffectsshouldbeseennotasanindividualproblem but as a situational problemand that it is of the utmost importancetoinvestigatetherisksofmobbinginthe work-place.

Leymann states that a single act cannot, in itself, be consideredaformofbullyingandthusproposedananalysis ofthesituationinwhichtheactsshouldbecontextualized. Theunderlyingquestionistoexplorepotentialcomplexities intheevaluationofbullyinginvestigations.Fortheanalysis ofthefindingsinthisstudy,wewillapplyLeymann’sconcept ofunethicalcommunicationtointerpretthecasesof inves-tigations. We will also use both the terms mobbing and bullyinginterchangeably.

WORKPLACE

BULLYING

INVESTIGATIONS

IN

SWEDEN

InSweden,duringthetimebetween2010and2015,when theinvestigationsincludedinthisstudywerecarriedout, the definition of bullying was stated as follows by The Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health:

“By victimization is meant recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and can resultinthoseemployeesbeingplacedoutsidethe work-placecommunity.”4

Theguidelinestressesarangeofactionsthatisviewed underan umbrellaofthe termoffensiveunfavorable mis-treatment.

Some examples of actions that are considered in the guidelinesare:blackmailingaco-workerorhisfamily, delib-eratelywithholdingwork-relatedinformationfromsomeone

orprovidingincorrectinformation,sabotagingor complicat-ingtheexecutionofwork,insulting,excludingorneglecting someone,sexualharassment,overcriticalornegative treat-ment,and/or offensive treatment or administrative sanc-tions,directedtowardsanindividual.

Theguidelinesarenotexplicitonhowtoevaluatethis worklifeproblem.Sincethereissomuchunclarityabout the phenomenon, many organizations turn to organiza-tionalconsultantsandotherexpertsinthefield,butthey toolackknowledgesincethesciencearoundbullyingstill has considerableknowledge gaps and different perspec-tivesonhow toview the phenomenahave not yetbeen clearlyoutlined.Thismakesinvestigatorsandother orga-nizationalprofessionals,actorsofgreatinfluencein advis-ingorganizationsonhowtodeveloproutinesforhandling bullying,withoutasolidtheoreticalbasisoftheprocesses involved.

InSweden,thepractitionersconductingbullying investi-gations have different backgrounds. During 2010—2015, whenthe empiricaldata for this analysis werecollected, theratherlimitednumberofprofessionalswhocarriedout thesekindsof investigationswereclinical psychologistsor counselors,HRspecialistswithintheorganization,lawyers, ororganizationalconsultants.

The guidelines from National Board of Occupational SafetyandHealthchangedin2016towardsbeingmorein linewithLeymann’sworkenvironmenthypothesis, stat-ingthatcauses forbullying andoffensivemistreatment shouldbe investigated in theorganizational and social workenvironmentrather thanonindividual level.

CONTRIBUTIONS

In this article, we will present findings from 81 cases of bullyinginvestigationsandinvestigatorinterviews.The con-tributionsofthisarticlearethreefold:(1)Wewillsuggest that in 63 of the 81 cases, there is a complexity in the interactions between the parties that cannot easily be labelledas classicbullying.(2)Usingourfindings,we also showthatbullyingis atoocomplexandvariable phenom-enontotacklesimplybylookingattheindividuallevel.(3) Finally, we suggest an approach for conducting bullying investigations.

METHOD

Interviews with 20 investigators were conducted in 2015and2016.Tenofthemwereconsultantsin occupa-tional health organizations, seven were independent organizational consultants, and three came from HRdepartmentsinthepublicsector.Ofthe20 investiga-tors,12hadonlycarriedout1—5investigations.Onlyfive investigatorshadcarriedoutmorethan20investigations. The study was based on 81cases. The guidelines from the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health wereusedbytheinvestigatorsregardingwhattoconsider as bullying. The investigations in the cases were in most cases initiated by a formal complaint from an employee against another individual, either manager orcoworker.

TypesofScenarios in81Cases

The design of the study developed fromtwoheuristically developedhypotheses,basedonunstructuredconversations with organizational consultants and personal experiences withbullying investigations.The first hypothesis wasthat therewereindicationsthatcaseswheresomeoneclaimedto havebeenbulliedcouldfallintoverydifferentcategories: A/clear-cut casesof bullying, B/clear-cut cases where no offensivebehaviorhadtakenplace,andC/caseswherethe accusedhadbehavedinappropriatelyinsomeway,butnotto theextentthatitfulfilledthecriteriaforbullying(recurrent negativeactionsleadingtovictimization).Thesecondloose hypothesiswasthattherearecasesthatdonotfitwellinto thevictim-perpetratornarrativebutinvolvemorecomplex relational processes where problematic behaviors on the partoftheallegedvictimplayasignificantrole.

Inordertogatherdatathatmightelucidatetherelevance of these hypotheses, the interviewed investigators were invitedtoplacetheir cases,oneby one,in amatrix with threecolumnsandthreerows,formingninecells(seeFig.1

below).

The threecolumnsofferedthefollowingalternatives: A.Theoutcomeshowedthattheaccuseddidnotdo

any-thingwrong.

B.Theaccused’sbehaviorwasproblematic,butitwasnot assessedasbullying.

C.Theaccused’sbehaviorwasassessedasbullying. Theotherdimension,representedbytherows,concerned theroleofthepresumedvictim, thepersonwhoreported havingbeenbullied.Therespondentswerepresentedwith threealternativesandwereaskedtousetheirknowledgeof therespectivecasetoassesstheroleofthebehaviorofthe presumedvictimintheeventsinvestigated:

1.Thepresumedvictimhasnothim-orherselfactedina problematicway.

2.Thepresumedvictimhashim-orherselfactedin prob-lematicwaysbutnotsoseriouslythatthereare legiti-matereasonsfordismissal.

3.Thepresumedvictimhashim-orherselfbehavedinways that could be considered neglect with legal cause of beingdismissed.

Thepurposeofincludingthesethreealternativesinthe studywastoexploretowhatextenttheinvestigatedcases fittedintotheclassicaldescriptionofbullyingintermsofa victim-perpetratorscenario(whichwouldbecellA3inFig.1) andtowhatextenttherewasamorecomplexbackgroundto allegations of bullying. In each case the respondents were invited to elaborate in more detail on the role of thepresumedvictim.Rows2and3representcaseswhere thepresumedvictim'sownbehaviorwasanactive contrib-utingfactorinthecourseofeventsleadingtothebullying

investigation.Row3wasincludedinordertoprobeforthe existenceofcaseswherethepresumedvictimhadbehaved inclearlyunacceptableways.Itmightbeimportanthereto pointoutthatthepurposeofincludingthisdimensionisnot toassignblame,buttoexplorethepotentialvariabilityin theinterpersonaldynamicsbehindallegationsofbullying,in order to better understand how to prevent and handle experiencesofbullying.

FINDINGS

In this sectionthe findings arepresented, withparticular emphasisondescribingdifferenttypesofscenariosthatlead bullyinginvestigations.

ColumnA:NoImproper BehavioroftheAccused

In 19 of the81 cases, the investigatorsassessed that the accusedpersonhadnotactedinaproblematicway.Infact, in14 ofthese19cases, theassessmentwasthatthe pre-sumedvictim had him- or herselfbehavedin problematic ways thatsignificantly contributedtothedevelopmentof thecase. Weidentifieddifferentconflictdynamicsbehind thisscenario.

Conflictdynamics

Theinvestigatorsdescribedthatinsomeofthesecasesthe presumedvictimhadinterpretedjustifiablesupervisionand criticalfeedbackonworkperformanceasactsofbullying.In some cases, the manager had used a harsh tone in the communication,butthereprimandwasbasedonreasonable groundsandwasasingleevent.Inseveralcases,the inves-tigatordescribedthescenarioasamisapprehensionofthe workprotocol,routinesortheroleofthepresumedvictim. This couldbeinterpreted as adispute betweenemployee andmanager.

Oneexampleofthistypeofconflictisacaseinwhichthe reportedvictimhadspecialworktasksduringrehabilitation afteraperiodofillness.Aftertherehabilitationphase,the employeehadtogobacktotheir regularwork tasks.The changeledtoaconflictandwasthenfiledasa mistreat-ment accusation against the manager. In another case, leadershipcoachingwasprovidedtoamanagerwhen lea-dershipwasperceivedtohavenotmetexpectations, and themanagerfeltintimidatedbythesuperiormanagement. Othercasesofconflictscenariosinvolvedisputesbetween employeesthathadescalated,causingtensionandstressin the interactions. In one situation, the conflict started because the coworkers were disappointed with the pre-sumed victim because he/she did not contribute to the required work. In one situation, the alleged victim was foundtohavesexuallyharassed andstalkedtheaccused, apparentlywithoutbeing awarethat thisbehavior consti-tutedharassment.

Itseemsreasonable tointerpret alarge shareof these casesasatleastpartiallycausedbyambiguitiesaroundthe day-to-dayworktasksandinteractionsbetweenemployees thattriggergroupconflicts.Thenarrativesofthe investiga-torssuggestthatsomeparticipantshaveproblematic beha-vioralpatternsthattheyarenotawareof,whichescalates thesituation.

In these cases, what Leymann refers to as effects of bullying for the alleged victim, do not appear to exist. Instead, some alleged victims use what Leymann calls refusedmeta-communication.Inotherwords,theemployee reactstodisputesabout work dutieswithbullying allega-tions,thusblockingpossibilitiestotalkaboutthedisputes. Leymannalsodescribesunfairaccusationsasahazard,and this is exemplified in the case with the stalking of the accused.

Weconcludethatthesescenariosarebetterexplainedas interpersonalconflictsthanasworkplacebullying,butwitha risk of developing to bullying of the accused, when the presumedvictim refuses tometa-communicate. A victim-perpetratorperspective in theinvestigation may overlook sucharisk.

ColumnB:Improper BehavioroftheAccused

Theinvestigatorsplaced40ofthe81casesincolumnB.In thesecases,theinvestigatorassessedthattheaccusedhad actedimproperly,butnottoanextentthatcouldbe classi-fiedasbullying.Themajorityofthesecasesinvolved man-agers who had acted unskillfully towards staff members. Othersoccurredbetweencoworkers.Inthistypeofscenario, threetypesofinteractionswereidentified.

Incivility

Thiscategoryinvolvesmanagerswhogenerallyhadaharsh, over-critical,orsarcasticwayofinteracting,butnottoan extentthatcouldbelabelledbullyingandwithouttargeting specific individuals.Thisrefers tomanagers withawayof communicatingthatisoffensive,clumsy,orrigid.The cul-tureintheworkplacemaybecharacterizedbyharshjargon orcriticismandsarcasmbutnotdirectedtowardsanyone individual.

It reflects unethical communication in form of what Leymanncallsforcedcommunication,thatisaffectingthe workenvironment,butsinceitisageneralizedbehavior,itis problematictoviewitasbullyinganditissuggestedthatitis betterunderstoodasincivility.

Omission

This refers tomanagers whoneglected, ignored, or even avoided employees or conflicts or who did not address problemsindailywork.Thisisinterpretedasanotherform ofunethicalcommunicationthatcouldbelabeledas bureau-cratic communication, where managers simply refuse addressing a significant problem. This avoiding behavior couldbeasubstantialworkenvironmentriskandpointsto aneedforaddressingorganizationalfactorssuchasclimate, cultureandleadership developmentrather thanusingthe frameof victim-perpetrator perspective onbullying. This scenarioissuggestedasbetterexplainedintermsof incom-petentleadershipthanbullying.

Rejection

Thisreferstoemployeeswhohaveavoidedcontactwitha coworkerbutnottotheextentofsocialexclusionor isola-tion.The investigators described the presumed victim as beingperceivedbycoworkerstobedifficulttointeractwith, for example, due to being “overemotional,” critical, or

officious. The results show that the bullying investigators placethereasonwhyemployeesareavoidedinthe person-alitiesofthosewhoareavoided.Inthisway,thereisarisk thatrejectionwillnotbeproblematizedassomethingthat candevelopintosocialexclusion.Weinterpretrejectionas non-verbalunethicalcommunication.Ariskforthedynamic todevelop to social exclusion or isolation might here be overlookedintheinvestigation.Weconcludethattherewas a risk in these scenarios for developing into workplace bullying but that the scenarios are better explained as differentkindsofcounter-productiveworkbehavior.

ColumnC:BullyingHasOccurred

In22ofthe81cases,theinvestigatorsreportedthatbullying hadtakenplace.Namely,mistreatmentorsocialexclusion hasoccurredovertimeandhasmetthecriteriaforbullying. Weidentifiedthreecategoriesofsuchcases.

Unprovokedconfrontations

Someof thecasesinvolved incidentswhere amanager or employeeactedwithhostilitytowardssomeoneinthe work-place.Theinvestigatordescribedthemasunawareoftheir aggressivebehaviorandinterpretedthisas alackofsocial competence. This places the explanation for bullying on individuallevelinlinewiththevictim-perpetrator perspec-tive.Leymanninstead argues thatthe causes for bullying shouldbeviewedintheworkenvironmentandthiscouldbe interpretedasforcedcommunication.

Escalatedconflicts

This category refers to conflicts that have escalated to personalattackstowardssomeoneinapositionwherethe discretionwasimpairedandconflictresolutionpossibilities were refused. Rumors, aggressive impulses, personal attacks,andcounterattackshadoccurredinsuchawaythat theexposedhadbecomebullied. Thisindicatesthatmore than a single “bully” is involved. For rumors to develop, thereneedtobemultipleactorstotake partofunethical communicationinordertoaffectsomeone’sreputationina waythatwillreducesomeone’sinfluenceonwork.Itseems thattheorganizationtreatedthisasaninterpersonal con-flictandlostcontrolovertheprocess.Weinterpretthisasa resultofinsufficientconflictresolutionskillsinthe organi-zation and a victim-perpetrator perspective on bullying, viewingtheproblemfromanindividuallevel.Inthis cate-goryallformsofunethicalcommunicationseemtoflourish. Socialexclusion

Thethirdcategorywasdescribedassocialexclusionofthe allegedvictimsbecausetheircoworkersperceivedthemas beingdifficulttointeractwith.Thegrouprejectedthemor avoidedtheminawaythattheybecomesociallyexposed. Social exclusion is hard to investigate from an individual perspective.Tograsptheeffectsincasesinthiscategory, thesocialdynamichastobeexploredmorethoroughlyona group level. This has not been done in these particular investigations. We interpret this in the light of deniable social sanctions against individuals that break the social norms in the group. The deniability enhances the effects thatLeymannsuggestoftheexposedperson’spossibilitiesof

maintainingrelationships,beingable tocommunicate and alsoaffectstheworksituationandhealth,sinceasolutionis outofreach.Thisisinterpretedasunethicalcommunication informoffalsecommunication,wheresomeoneistreatedas invisible.

Thecasesevaluatedasbullyingshowthata victim-per-petratorisnotsufficienttoexplaintheprocess.Inall22cases thereareseveralactorsinvolved.Allcasesthatwere eval-uating as bullying are in line with Leymann’s concept of unethicalcommunicationinvariousforms.

Row1: VariousDegreesofMistreatment

In five cases, the investigators reported that neither the presumedvictimnortheaccusedhaddoneanythingwrong. This indicates that the investigations were initiated by problems not connected to either the alleged victim or the accused. Importantly,in 34 of the cases,our findings show that the allegedvictims weremistreated tovarious degrees.Thisstressestheimportanceofconductingbullying investigations since about one third of the cases indeed revealed that unprovoked bullying has been occurring in the workplace. It also supports research that identified variousdegrees ofbullying in theworkplace.5 Wesuggest different forms of unethical communication such as non-verbal or false communication, bureaucratic communica-tion,silenttreatmentorrefusalofmeta-communication.

Row2: ImproperBehavioronthePart ofthe PresumedVictim

Theinvestigatorsdeterminedin32casesoutofthe81that theallegedvictim’sownproblematicbehaviorhad contrib-utedtoanexperienceofbeingbullied.Amongthe investi-gators’narratives,weidentifiedthreecategories.

Dominantbehavior

In12cases,theallegedvictimswerethemselves character-izedas aggressiveanddominant,whichleadcoworkersto reactwithavoidance.Thiscategoryalsoinvolvesthealleged victims focusingondoingthings their ownwayand being inflexible. This could be interpreted as refusal to meta-communicate. But with a victim-perpetrator perspective thebehaviorfromtheallegedvictimgoesunnoticed. Unrealisticexpectations

The investigators stated in three cases that the alleged victim had unrealistic expectations and distorted beliefs and that there wasno basis for the bullying claims. This showsthatthevictim-perpetratorperspectiveisfocusedon whetherornottheaccusationsarevalidornot,missingthe problemofwhycommunicationisnotworking.

Reactionstodysfunctionalworkenvironment

Certain cases involved a dysfunctional work atmosphere whereangerandtensioncontributedtoinappropriate beha-vior and wrongdoing, involving far more actors than the

allegedvictimandaccused.Inthiscategoryitisclearthat the victim-perpetratorperspectiveis not enough tograsp theproblemsintheworkenvironmentthatconstitutearisk for developing exclusionprocessesandescalatedconflicts thatcouldleadtobullying.The conceptofunethical com-municationisapplicabletothesereactions.

Tounderstandthesecategories,theexclusiveuseofa victim-perpetratorinterpretationhastobeabandoned. Instead,the categoriesreflectthatunethicalcommunicationisstilldisplayed butfromanotherangle,thatisfromthepresumedvictim.Since theevaluationfromtheinvestigatorsinthesecaseswerethat therewasnogroundforcomplaintsagainsttheaccused,thecore problemisnotdealtwith.Thisstressestheneedforadeeper clarityaboutthesituationsinvestigated.

Row3:Severewrongdoingsandneglectfromthe presumedvictim

In 7 of the 10 cases in this category, the investigators concludedthatthepresumedvictimhadbehavedina reck-lesswayandhadneglectedcomplyingwithinstructionsto suchanextentthatthereweregroundsfordismissal.Inthe remaining3cases,thepresumedvictimhadhim-orherself seriously harassed colleagues. Examples of wrongdoings include refusing to follow work procedures, refusing to comply with decisions, or refusing to cooperate. This is interpreted as a combination of forced communication andbureaucraticcommunication, pointing theproblem in anotherdirectionandat thesametimeaccusing someone withfalseaccusations.

Thecaseshavebeendividedintwocategories,onewhere mangershavedealtwiththeproblemandoneweremanagers ignoredtheproblem.Twosub-categorieswereidentified. Managementhadhandledtheproblem

Inthesecases,investigatorsreportedthatthemanagement hadhandledthewrongdoingsaccording topolicyand reg-ulations.Theyalsodescribedthepresumedvictimsinthese cases as unable tounderstand the consequences of their behavior. Inone case,the problemwasthatan employee refusedtofollowsafetyregulations;consequently,the cow-orkersrefusedtoworkwiththisemployee,whothenfileda reportofbullying.

Managershadnothandledtheproblem

Aspointedoutabove,somemanagersweredescribedas avoi-dant.Insomecases,themanagershadnotbeenaddressingthe problems,sothewrongdoingswerenotbeingdealtwith.

Bothcategoriespointouttheimportanceofdeveloping moresuitableroutinesandpoliciesaroundhandlingbullying, butalsohighlighttheneedforleadershipdevelopmentand awarenessabout thephenomenon.The investigators eval-uatedthatthebehaviorfromtheseemployersshowssevere shortcomings.Thewrongdoingsfromtheactorsinthis cate-gorycanbesignsofcaseswheremanagersare,themselves, exposedtobullying.Thatcouldexplainthefailureto man-agetheproblem.

Summary ofFindings

Placingthecasesin thematrixshows arangeofdifferent scenariosthat,indifferentrespects,couldbeexplainedas

counterproductiveworkbehavior,evenifonly22of81cases wasevaluatedasbullying.Thevictim-perspectiveisclearly visible, sincethe focusfromthe investigator has been to evaluateifavictim hadbeenbulliedasclaimed. Leymann saysthatmobbingwillaffecttheonesexposedinregardto impairingtheirpossibilitytocommunicate,aswellaseffects on reputation, relationships and work conditions, and health. Looking at the cases from that perspective, it is clear that several actors may be affected in that way. Dominant behavior, social exclusion, incivility, omission anddysfunctional work-environment have been identified inthesecasestovariousdegrees.This stressesthe impor-tancetoviewmobbing as acomplexphenomenon, rather thanaclear-cutyesornoproblem.

Otherfactorsofamoresystemicnature,suchas inequal-ities,exerciseofpower,socialstatus,socialinjustice, orga-nizational culture and climate, have been shown to be importantincontributingtobullying,butwehavenotbeen abletoidentifyaspectsonorganizationallevelfromthese data.Furtherresearchwillbesuggestedinthenextsection.

CONCLUSION

AND

FURTHER

IMPLICATIONS

ComplexityAwareness inBullyingInvestigations

Weconcludethatallthestudiedcaseshadasevereproblem athand,inregardtounethicalcommunication,regardlessof whothe victimwas. This pointstosignificantflawsinthe workenvironmentthatneedtobeanalyzedfroman orga-nizationalperspective.Inmanycases,thereseemedtobea problemaroundroutines,discretion,supervision, neglect, and roles. All of these problems could be analyzed and resolvedonanorganizationallevel.ThissupportsLeymann’s theory of looking into the situational context of bullying whenconductingbullyinginvestigations.

Themostapparentaspectofthefindingsisthatin63of the81cases(cellsA1,A2,A3,B1,B2,B3,andC2inFig.1), therewasevidenceof a complexdynamic in the interac-tions.ForeachofthecasesinA1,aninvestigationtookplace and found no wrongdoing from either one of the parties involved.Thisstronglysuggeststhattheproblemneedstobe addressedin a differentway. The evaluations of 40cases foundsomesortofproblematicbehavior,andin24ofthem, theproblematicbehaviorwasonboth sides. Thisstrongly indicatesthattherewassometypeofconflictatthe work-place.Further,in14cases,thepresumedvictimwas eval-uatedastheaggressorandthepresumedperpetratorhadnot doneanythingwrong.

Accordingly,investigationsintobullyingshouldfactorin thecomplexities of thephenomenon. Mostofthe studied casesinvolvedneitherclassicbullyingnorlackofaproblem. Thefindingsrevealthatantecedentsforworkplacebullying arenotbestexplainedontheindividuallevel.Rather,the identified categories reflect a complex dynamic between severalactorsinaworkenvironmentthatcouldbedescribed ashostileandorganizedtowardsnormativecontrol,thatcan be related to the effects that Leymann points out. We conclude that the victim-perpetrator perspective is not adequateforevaluatingallriskofbullyingintheworkplace orvariousdegreesofseverity.Thecategoriesidentifiedin thisstudyare,withoutexception,moreexplainablefroma

social or organizational level. The concept of unethical communicationfitsallcategoriesinvariousways.We there-foresuggestfurtherresearchtodeveloptheoryofbullying withthisconceptaslens.

Anadditionalsuggestionforfurtherresearchistodevelop amodelfor categorizingthe variousforms ofsocial inter-actionsthatcanoccurinrelationwiththeinvestigationof workplacebullying, regardlessof whois makingclaims of beingexposed.Thatwouldmakeiteasiertohelpunderstand thedifferencesindysfunctionalbehaviorbetweenthe dif-ferentactorsthatmayinfluencetheprocedure.

Further, we suggest that the different cases could be viewedas stages of a destructive process. This is in line withrecentresearch.6Theresultsclearlyshowthatbullying cannoteasilybeexplainedintermsofwhoisvictimizedand whois victimizing. The consequence of suchdichotomous thinkingisthattheassessmentsoftenhavethecharacterof; yes,bullyinghasoccurredorno,bullyinghasnotoccurred, whichmakestheinvestigationsone-dimensionalwithlittle opportunitytoremedy theproblem.Itis particularlyrisky giventhelackofaclearresearchdefinitionoftheconceptof bullying.Byshiftingthefocustoamorecomplexviewofthe phenomenonthatinsteadtakesintoaccountthecontextin which thebehavior occurs, a scapegoat syndromecan be prevented.Thisthenpresupposesintegratingan interdisci-plinaryviewofthephenomenonthatweighsintherelations between different actors and the relationship between employersand employeesas well as social justice,status andorganizationalfactors.

InvestigationDevelopmentand Training

Withregardtoinvestigators’preparation,itisimportantto establish interdisciplinary education. Specific learning objectivesofbullying asa complexphenomenon is neces-sary.Thisneedstoincludenotonlypsychologicalaspectsat theindividuallevel,but alsotake intoaccountsocialand organizationalpsychology.Further,investigationofbullying requiresawarenessofworkplaceenvironment, communica-tion,conflicts,leadership,power,socialjustice,ethicsand how organizations function. Beyond a theoretical scope, preparationfor investigators needs to include training of interviewingskills based onan open and empathic stand-pointwithout presupposed interpretationsof theproblem beinginvestigated.Afurthersuggestionisthatinvestigators shouldhaveseveralyearsofexperienceinworkingas orga-nizational professionals. Because investigators encounter potentiallytraumatizedpeople,itisalsocriticalfor inves-tigatorstohaveawarenessofstress,crisis,and traumatiza-tion in order to be able to determine whether medical evaluationisappropriate.

As mentioned in the findings, the (rather few) cases wheretherewasevidenceofseveremisconductonthepart ofthepersonmakingthecomplaint,indicatethatbullying allegationsandrequestsforinvestigationmaybeemployed asatacticalmeansinapowerplay.Itseemsthatacomplaint canbemadeasaformofpoliticalmaneuverinasituation wheresomeonedoesnotacceptsupervisionorboundaries,

whichthenfocuses pressureonotherstakeholderssuchas “badguys”instead.Theneedforknowledgeaboutunethical communication and organizational behavior is recom-mendedwhenconductingbullyinginvestigations.A sugges-tion is to encourage a more open investigation without pointing outindividuals as allegedvictimsor perpetrators andinstead focusonthe occurrenceof unethical commu-nicationondifferentlevelsintheorganization.

Sincestudiesofbullyinginvestigationsarelackinginthe international researchfield,thereisastrongneedforexploring:

Thepracticeofinvestigationsindifferentcountries Theeducationforinvestigators

Thelinkbetweeninternationalpracticeandresearch Ethicaldilemmasrelatingtoinvestigations

Theoreticalgroundsforassessmentsofbullying

Interventionstudies duringtheprocessandoutcome of investigations

TheNeedfor EarlyInterventions

Manyofthestudiedcasesshowsignsofinadequateleadership. We argue thatmanyof theproblemscould have been de-escalatedwithamoreresoluteactionfrommanagementto dealwiththesocialstructureintheworkplaceandalsowith organizingthedailyworkactivitiestoreduce misunderstand-ingsandunclarityaboutwho-does-what-with-whom-and-why. Instead of focusing on asking who-did-what-to-whom-and-why, the management should focus on what needs to be improvedtocreateasafeclimatewithvisibleandtransparent expectationsofwhatisnecessaryforgettingtheworkdone. Thus,analysisonanorganizationallevelisneeded.Wealso recommendthatmanagersgettraininginconflictresolution skillstopreventbullyingandunethicalcommunication.

RoutineSuggestionfor InitiatingBullying Investigations

Wesuggestthatbullyinginvestigationsneedtobeinitiated, ifthereisaconcernaboutunethicalcommunicationinthe work environment andit has effecton anyemployee. An evaluationofriskfor harmtoanybodyneedstobe articu-lated.Thisevaluationshouldbedocumented.Ifthe evalua-tionisthatnoharmisdone,theunethicalcommunication hastobedealtwith,eitherbyconflictresolution,ifitisclear thatthe problemisbetter understoodas an interpersonal conflictbetweentwoindividuals,or,iftherearemoreactors involved, tomake awork-environment assessment. If the evaluationdemonstratesthatsomeoneislikelytobeatrisk ofharm,HRshouldinitiateabullyinginquirythatfocuseson unresolved disputes, unethical communication and the impactofwork-relatedenvironmentalvariables.The inves-tigationshould leadto interventions in thework environ-mentwithanemphasisonsettingboundariesandfostering inclusive communication at both the social and organiza-tionallevels.The initialconcernneedstobere-evaluated aftertheimplementationoftheinterventions.Itis impor-tant toclarifythe evaluationtothe partiesconcerned.If someoneis stillat riskatthispoint, werecommendusing judicialproceduresforhandlingthesituation(Fig.2)

Limitations

Itispossiblethattheinvestigators’loyaltytotheirclients cloudedtheirjudgment.Consequently,theresultsshouldbe viewedwithcaution.Further,theempiricaldata involved manyinexperiencedinvestigators,whichneedstobetaken intoaccount. The proportions of the different categories shouldnotbegeneralized.Importantly,thisisnota quanti-tativestudybutshouldbeviewedasaheuristicexploration ofthepractitioners’evaluationofthecases.

AUTHOR

CONTRIBUTION

ON

BULLYING

INVESTIGATIONS:

A

COMPLEX

OPERATION

Designofthestudyandmethodology:ThomasJordan Collectionofdata:ThomasJordan

Formaldescriptiveanalysis:ThomasJordan Visualizationofmatrix:ThomasJordan Visualizationofmodel:AnneliMatsson

ReportofinitialdescriptivefindingspublishedinSwedish onDepartmentofsociologyandworkscience,Universityof Gothenburg2016:ThomasJordan.

Theoreticaldevelopmentandconceptualization: Anneli Matsson

Interpretationandconclusion:AnneliMatsson Writing:AnneliMatsson(BuildingonJordansreport) Modelforroutineandpracticalimplications:Jordanand Matsson

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BirklandNielsen,M.andEinarsen,S.(2018)Whatweknow, whatwedonotknow,andwhatweshouldandcouldhave knownaboutworkplacebullying:Anoverviewofthe litera-tureandagendaforfutureresearch.AggressionandViolent Behavior,vol.42,71—83.

Hutchinson,J.(2012)RethinkingWorkplaceBullyingasan EmploymentRelationsProblem,JournalofIndustrial Rela-tions,vol.54,issue5.p.637—652

Leymann,H.(1990)MobbingandPsychologicalTerrorat Workplaces,ViolenceandVictims,vol.5,issue2.p.119—126. Leymann, H. (1996) The Content and Development of MobbingatWork,EuropeanJournalofWorkand Organiza-tionalPsychology,vol5,issue2.p.165—184.

Mikkelsen, E.G. & Einarsen, S. (2003) in Einarsen, S, Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C.L. (red) Bullying and

EmotionalAbuseintheWorkplace;International perspec-tives in research and practice. pp. 127—144. London, Taylor& Francis.

Pruitt,D.G. and Hee Kim, S. Ruben, J.Z.(2004) Social conflict:Escalation,StalemateandSettlement, Pennsylva-nia:McGraw-Hill

Rosander,M.andBlomberg,M.(2019)Levelsofworkplace bullyingandescalation—anewconceptualmodeloncut-off scores,frequencyandself-labelledvictimization,European journalofworkandorganizationalPsychology,vol.28issue 6,p.769—783.e

Shallcross, Ramsey and Barker (2013) Severe Work-placeConflict: TheExperience ofMobbing,Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, vol.6 issue 3, p. 191—213.

AnneliMatsson(DepartmentofSocialWork,MalmöUniversity,Malmö,Sweden.Tel.:+46706881685;email:

anneli.matsson@mau.se(Correspondingauthor)).

ThomasJordan(Department ofSociologyand WorklifeResearchatGothenburgUniversity,Sweden. email: