Workplace bullying in United Kingdom
Professor Helge Hoel
The University of Manchester, UK
Fairness at Work Research Centre (FairWRC)
2013 JILT International Seminar on
Workplace Bullying and Harassment
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: [email protected]