Tough Boss or Workplace Bully?

Model state legislation known as the Healthy Workplace Bill has been proposed. Authored by professor David C. Yamada, director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, and supported by the Workplace Bullying Institute, the bill has not yet passed in any state. Grassroots groups have formed in 16 states to promote the legislation.

What, then, as an HR professional, are you expected to do when faced with such unhealthy and destructive workplace conflict?

Revealing Analysis

In the spring of 2008, I began research to better understand how workplace bullying can be distinguished from situations where a manager is simply a "tough boss." The findings provide some insights about the issue from the point of view of HR professionals.

Interviews were conducted with 20 experienced HR practitioners, uncovering many, often emotional, examples of how HR professionals identify, experience and describe workplace bullying personally—a surprising 80 percent had personally been the target of bullies. The subjects also shared how they experience workplace bullying as observers in their HR roles. This work makes up the basis of my doctoral dissertation at Fielding Graduate University in Santa Barbara, Calif., and part of my research for Stop Bullying at Work: Strategies and Tools for HR & Legal Professionals (SHRM, 2009).

Actions of a Workplace Bully

Participants noted that workplace bullies could be identified by the following characteristics:

• Frequent misuse of power and authority.

• Focus on personal self-interest, as opposed to the good of the organization.

• Prone to emotional outbursts.

• Often inconsistent and unfair in their treatment of employees.

They observed that bullies consistently engage in actions at work that are perceived as overwhelmingly negative. These include a need for control, exploitation, intimidation, threats, humiliation and embarrassment, a failure to communicate, manipulation, engaging in a pattern of obstructive behavior over time, ostracizing and ignoring employees, and gossiping or spreading rumors about their targets. The manager who engages in these negative acts appears to be operating with intent to cause his or her target some kind of pain or personal distress.

Actions of a Tough Boss

On the other hand, participants describe tough bosses differently, suggesting characteristics almost directly opposite those they attribute to bullies:

• Objective, fair and professional.

• Self-controlled and unemotional.

• Performance-focused—insistent upon meeting high standards and holding employees accountable for meeting those expectations.

• Organizationally oriented—consistently operating to achieve the best interests of their company.

The actions of a tough boss were perceived to be overwhelmingly positive. These managers were interactive, using frequent two-way communication and really listening to their employees, as well as mentoring subordinates through coaching, counseling and frequent performance feedback.

While conflict certainly does occur in workgroups led by tough bosses, such bosses work to quickly resolve problems by engaging in honest and respectful discussions. In addition, though tough bosses’ intense focus on results may create tension and stress, employees do not take the situations personally nor do they experience diminished feelings of self-worth or adverse personal or health effects. Instead, they view such managers as "tough but fair" and keenly focused on the good of the organization.

The ‘So What?’

Workplace bullying is an unambiguous and intentional form of abusive behavior, and participants in this study describe clear distinctions between the two types of managers. The findings suggest that whether or not a conflict situation is workplace bullying can be determined by the presence or absence of malice—defined in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (2008) as "the desire to cause pain, injury or distress to another."

The results of this study yield a conceptual model that can be used by HR professionals to make an initial determination as to whether the facts presented in a complaint of workplace bullying indicate the presence of malice.

If it appears from the facts that malice might be present, this would serve as a signal to HR professionals that the next set of organizational protocols should be followed—moving from the target’s subjective complaint to a more objective, fact-finding investigation by an HR professional, much like what occurs with a sexual harassment complaint. If, however, evidence of malice remains clearly absent from the complaint and initial review of the facts, then there would be no investigation.

The use of this screening tool will help HR professionals make quicker and more definitive determinations about whether an incident might constitute workplace bullying and, if so, what kind of an organizational response is required. These findings also confirm the following definition of workplace bullying in the proposed anti-bullying legislation: "Conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests." 

_________________________________________

The author is an employment lawyer, author and principal consultant at InsideOut HR Solutions PLC in Ashland, Ky.

Web Extras

SHRM book: Stop Bullying at Work: Strategies and Tools for HR and Legal Professionals

SHRM survey report: The Ethics Landscape in American Business

Research report: U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey 2007 (Workplace Bullying Institute)

Proposed legislation: Healthy Workplace Bill

SHRM video: Attorney Jathan Janove uses hand puppets to illustrate how best to deal with a workplace jerk.