A HISTORICAL STUDY ON WORKPLACE BULLYING

by

Richard M. Bame

Copyright 2013

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership

University of Phoenix
 UMI Number: 3585973

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3585973
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ABSTRACT

Workplace bullying has affected almost half (47%) of American working adults

corresponding to approximately 71.5 million workers who either experienced bullying

directly or witnessed it. This resulted in an alarming turnover of 21 to 28 million

workers. This qualitative historical study explored, identified, and documented through

historical records and documents, the patterns and trends of workplace bullying in

organizations, characteristics and types of bullies, and types of mistreatment workplace

bullies direct toward intended targets over the past 30 years. The data analysis yielded

eight major themes of bullying styles and traits. These consisted of the four bully styles

reinforced from the literature review of the snake, gatekeeper, screamer, and nitpicker.

Additionally, the three new bully styles of the tyrant, joker, and discriminator, and one

outlier bully style of the reverse bully. Themes of leadership skills associated with

reducing or eliminating workplace bullying were also identified and analyzed. These

themes coincided with the successful leadership traits and attributes of ethical leadership,

social responsibility, and encouraging the heart, which led to the development of the

GUARDIAN model. The GUARDIAN model presented recommendations to leaders of

organization that would limit or prevent workplace bullying, which would provide

significant financial savings for organizations because of less human resource issues.

iii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful wife Maria R. Bame (Kay), who gave

me the support and strength to see this journey to the end. Without your support, belief

in me, and love honey, I never would have been able to dedicate myself to this

accomplishment. To the memory of my mother, Barbara Bame who always said I would

be a professional student and taught me to be compassionate even when someone may

not deserve it, not a day goes by that I don’t miss you Mom. To my father, Richard G.

Bame, who taught me about the core values of honor, courage, and commitment even

before I defined these concepts in the United States Navy, dad you define perfectionism.

To my children, Deanna and Ricky, who remind me I am never too old to learn new

things, all I ever want for you both is to be better than me. And to my brother Bob who

helped give me a never quit mentality and face every challenge head-on, even the bullies,

we are an unbeatable team my brother.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation came with plenty of good old hard work and an ocean of sweat.

I was truly blessed in having an extensive support network headed by my chair, mentor,

and dear friend, Dr. Kimberly D. Lowrey, who encouraged, nudged, and occasionally

smacked me when I needed a spark. Dr. Lowrey provided invaluable guidance and

insight, which kept me focused on the task through the many pitfalls of life. Thanks also

to my committee members, Dr. Fortune Taylor and Dr. Anastasia Metros who stayed

with me during my journey giving so generously of their time and feedback to bring out

the best in me and the dissertation. A special thanks to Dr. Gita Ponnuchamy, who

provided outstanding editing skills and friendship that enhanced the dissertation. A big

thank you to the librarians at the Jacksonville Public Library, and the clerks at the Duval

County Courthouse for repeatedly helping me and always with a smile. Thank you to all

my professors at the University of Phoenix and my friends and associates at the Florida

Department of Transportation, which provided insight to the many paradigms that

enabled me to accomplish my research.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xii

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Background of the Problem ....................................................................................... 2

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 7

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 8

Significance of the Problem ....................................................................................... 9

Significance of the study. ................................................................................... 9

Significance of the study to leadership. ............................................................ 10

Nature of the Study .................................................................................................. 10

Overview of the research method. .................................................................... 10

Overview of the design appropriateness. .......................................................... 11

Sample characteristics. ..................................................................................... 12

Data collection and analysis. ............................................................................ 12

Research Questions .................................................................................................. 15

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 15

Psychological theories. ..................................................................................... 16

Attribution theory......................................................................................... 17

Social identity theory. .................................................................................. 18

Social domination theory. ............................................................................ 19

Socio-cognitive deficit theory. ..................................................................... 20

Bully characteristics.......................................................................................... 21
vi
 Types of bullies................................................................................................. 22

The snake. .................................................................................................... 22

The screamer. ............................................................................................... 22

The nitpicker. ............................................................................................... 22

The gatekeeper. ............................................................................................ 23

Forms of mistreatment directed at victims. ...................................................... 23

Leader skills. ..................................................................................................... 24

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 25

Assumptions............................................................................................................. 27

Scope ........................................................................................................................ 28

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 28

Delimitations ............................................................................................................ 28

Summary .................................................................................................................. 29

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature......................................................................... 30

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals .................................. 30

Literature Review..................................................................................................... 31

Origins of workplace bullying. ......................................................................... 33

Relational forms of harassment. ....................................................................... 36

Racism.......................................................................................................... 36

Sexual harassment. ....................................................................................... 36

Social class and occupational position......................................................... 37

Bully characteristics and types. ........................................................................ 37

The narcissist. .............................................................................................. 38

vii
 The psychopath. ........................................................................................... 38

The snake. .................................................................................................... 39

The screamer. ............................................................................................... 40

The nitpicker. ............................................................................................... 40

The gatekeeper. ............................................................................................ 41

The guardian. ............................................................................................... 42

Active and passive accomplices. ...................................................................... 43

Characteristics of targets................................................................................... 44

Characteristics of witnesses. ............................................................................. 47

Workplace environment.................................................................................... 47

Leadership styles promoting bullying. ............................................................. 49

Authoritative/Coercive. ................................................................................ 50

Theory X. ..................................................................................................... 51

Laissez-faire. ................................................................................................ 52

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 53

Summary .................................................................................................................. 54

Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................... 56

Research Method and Design Appropriateness ....................................................... 58

Appropriateness of design. ............................................................................... 58

Feasibility of design. ......................................................................................... 60

Research Questions .................................................................................................. 60

Population ................................................................................................................ 60

Study Sample ........................................................................................................... 61

viii
Informed Consent and Confidentiality..................................................................... 62

Geographic Location ................................................................................................ 62

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 62

Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 63

Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 63

Triangulation..................................................................................................... 65

Saturation. ......................................................................................................... 66

Clarifying researcher bias. ................................................................................ 66

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 66

Summary .................................................................................................................. 67

Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................... 69

Review of Problem Statement ................................................................................. 70

Population ................................................................................................................ 71

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 72

Data Analyses and Study Findings .......................................................................... 73

Types of bullies and types of perpetrated mistreatment. .................................. 75

Theme 1: The snake. .................................................................................... 75

Theme 2: The tyrant. .................................................................................... 80

Theme 3: The screamer. ............................................................................... 84

Theme 4: The gatekeeper. ............................................................................ 87

Theme 5: The joker. ..................................................................................... 92

Theme 6: The discriminator. ........................................................................ 97

Theme 7: The nitpicker. ............................................................................. 101

ix
 Theme 8: The reverse bully. ...................................................................... 107

Additional Findings ............................................................................................... 111

Summary ................................................................................................................ 112

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................... 114

Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 116

Findings: Major Themes and Descriptions ............................................................ 116

Theme 1: The snake. ....................................................................................... 116

Theme 2: The tyrant........................................................................................ 117

Theme 3: The screamer. ................................................................................. 118

Theme 4: The gatekeeper................................................................................ 119

Theme 5: The joker. ........................................................................................ 120

Theme 6: The discriminator............................................................................ 120

Theme 7: The nitpicker. .................................................................................. 121

Theme 8: The reverse bully. ........................................................................... 122

Implications to Leadership ..................................................................................... 122

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 126

Suggestions for Further Research .......................................................................... 131

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 132

References .............................................................................................................. 135

Appendix A: Confidentiality Statement................................................................. 148

Appendix B: Author Biography………………………………………………….149

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Results of the WBI-Zogby international U.S. workplace bullying survey .... 4

Table 2 Common bullying behaviors in organizations ............................................ 33

Table 3 Indicators in an organization that bullying exists ...................................... 48

Table 4 Criteria to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research ..................... 63

Table 5 Coping mechanisms employed by targets of workplace bullying ............. 111

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Workplace bullying taxonomy. ................................................................ 14

Figure 2. Historical study methodology map. ......................................................... 57

Figure 3. An illustration of pressures exerted on bullying victims. ...................... 123

Figure 4. The GUARDIAN model. ....................................................................... 131

xii
 Chapter 1

Introduction

Over the years, leaders in organizations have turned to psychologists and other

management experts to address different types of workplace abusiveness (Sperry, 2009).

Such abusiveness in the workplace takes the form of inappropriate aggression toward

workers which includes sexual harassment, workplace violence, age discrimination, racial

discrimination, and now, mobbing and bullying (Sperry, 2009). The phenomenon of

workplace bullying or mobbing continues to rise throughout the United States and the

world (Sperry, 2009). Researchers at the International Labor Office (ILO) reported that

the phenomenon has reached rampant levels in Thailand, Austria, Denmark, South

Africa, Sweden, Bulgaria, Germany, Australia, Great Britain, and the United States of

America (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006). The ILO research team further reported that the

global cost exceeded millions of dollars spent on employee absenteeism, medical

expenses, and sick leave because of a bullying environment (Chappell & Di Martino,

2006).

Literature has revealed that workplace bullying throughout history does not meet

the legal definition of a form of harassment unless the victims belong to a protected

group (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Martin & Lavan, 2010; Namie &

Namie, 2009; Namie, 2007a; Sperry, 2009; Sitzman, 2004). Therefore, bully bosses

continue to victimize employees perceived as threats to their power bases. The

Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) (2010) conducted a survey that documented that the

trend of bullying has increased steadily in the United States to a level of 37% of the

1
workforce, which coincides to 54 million victimized Americans. Workplace bullying has

caused an alarming loss of 21 to 28 million workers (WBI, 2010). In 77% of bullying

cases reported the personnel involved were not in a protected group defined by race,

gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, or disability (Sitzman, 2004). Therefore, the

qualitative historical study of workplace bullying expected to provide information that

leaders may use to recognize bullying behavior, traits, and the types of abuse perpetrated

by workplace bullies on their victims. This information might help the leadership of

organizations to develop the leadership skills necessary to minimize or control workplace

bullying, thus ensuring a safe and healthy atmosphere in the workplace until the adoption

of laws to protect employees in the United States.

The phenomenon of workplace bullying is explored in chapter 1. Bullying styles,

climate, and the detrimental effects that bullying has caused in the past 30 years are

explored using historical documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions

and professional journals. Chapter 1 also includes a discussion of the background of the

problem, the problem statement, purpose of the study, significance of the problem, nature

of the study, and the research questions addressed by the study. After the theoretical

framework, definition of terms, assumptions, scope, limitations, and delimitations are

discussed before summarizing the chapter.

Background of the Problem

The phenomenon of workplace bullying gained prominence in the United States

after Carroll Brodsky’s book The Harassed Worker (1976) was published. Brodsky

(1976) outlined that victims of harassment and bullying undergo teasing, badgering, and

2
insults with little or no recourse to retaliation in kind. Brodsky (1976) further noted that

bullying contributed to strong negative effects on a victim’s health and well-being.

Brodsky (1976) also described victims of bullying as conscientious and overachievers in

the workplace.

Workplace bullying has been a phenomenon under research by researchers and

lawmakers for approximately 30 years (Namie, 2007a). In the late 1980s, physician

Heinz Leymann (1990) researched adult bullying in Sweden under the term of

‘mobbing.’ The term ‘mobbing’ referred to the animal behavior of smaller animals in

packs attacking single larger animals (Namie & Namie, 2009). Leymann (1990) defined

mobbing as a recurring hostile and unethical occurrence in the workplace perpetuated for

six months or longer by one or more individuals aimed toward a defenseless individual.

The debate between the terms mobbing and bullying continued through the 1990s

with Europeans adopting the mobbing term and Great Britain, Australia, Ireland, Canada,

New Zealand, and the United States adopting the bullying term (Namie & Namie, 2009).

Additionally, terms such as emotional abuse, generalized workplace abuse, and

workplace aggression merged into the broader terms of mobbing and bullying (Namie &

Namie, 2009). Whatever the term used to refer to bullying behavior, workplace bullying

is responsible for a turnover of 21 to 28 million workers (WBI, 2010).

Workplace bully characters can run rampant in an organization unless controlled.

The prevention of bullying in the workplace requires all members of an organization to

work together to create and enforce the organizations policies, values, and procedures

(Wiedmer, 2010). In the United States, researchers at WBI-Zogby International (2007)

3
found that 37% of the workforce reported bullying at work. This percentage computes to

about 54 million people and affects almost half (47%) of American adults corresponding

to approximately 71.5 million workers (WBI, 2010). Three-quarters (72%) of workplace

bullies are supervisors or managers. Additionally, in over half (62%) of the known cases

of workplace bullying, employers either worsen or ignore the offense (WBI, 2010). This

attitude to workplace bullying has caused an alarming loss of 21 to 28 million workers

(WBI, 2010).Table 1 summarizes the key results of the WBI-Zogby International (2007)

survey.

Table 1

Results of the WBI-Zogby international U.S. workplace bullying survey

Finding Percentage

Most bullies are bosses 72

Bullies are men 60

Targets are women 57

Employers ignore or worsen the problem 62

Targets suffer stress-related health problems 45

Bullied individuals never tell their employers 40

Bullied people file lawsuits 3

Bullying occurs within the same gender 61

Female bullies target other women 71

Note. The results are based on 7,740 respondents who comprised a sample representative of all American
adults in August 2007. The margin of error was +/- 1.1 percentage points. Adapted from the U.S.
Workplace Bullying Survey by Namie (2007).
4
 In 2000, researchers of the WBI conducted a study and found that top performing

veteran employees considered the future of the organization instead of the mediocre

performers are most often selected as targets (WBI, 2010). Workplace bullies most often

target people who pose a perceived threat to them or their authority (Namie, 2007b).

Insecure bully bosses typically sabotage skilled targets and take credit for their work

withholding recognition and rewards for the target personnel (Namie, 2007b). Personnel

targeted by workplace bullies often have the attributes of ethics, values, and honesty.

These targets are personnel that focus on building a culture of contribution and

collaboration throughout an organization (Namie, 2007b). Employees once believed to

comprise the future of the organization become victimized and demoralized by the bully

and their accomplices.

Many times the bully supervisor approaches human resources (HR) before the

target can file a complaint under the guise of needing help with a difficult employee. In

reality, the bully desires to enlist HR as a misinformed accomplice in the removal of the

target and any grievances appear as retaliation to counseling (Namie, 2007a). Close

examination may yield warning signs such as the supervisor’s short tenure as a manager,

reoccurring complaints against the supervisor, or the bullied employee has an exemplary

work performance history (Namie, 2007a).

Workplace bullying rarely occurs in an organization without accomplices (Namie

& Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010). A study conducted by Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik (2010)

documented that bullied victims and non-bullied onlookers who witnessed bullying

reported that continued abuse was committed by either several harassers or lone harassers
5
with some support. This support consisted of active aggressor accomplices or passive

accomplices in the form of upper managers, HR staff, and the peers of the bullies and

victims (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010).

Jeffrey (2004) suggested that bullying has perceived winners and losers and that

bullies like an audience. Additionally, bullies enjoy the passivity among witnesses

because they feed off their fear of reprisal (Magnuson & Norem, 2009). Jeffrey (2004)

explains that some members of this audience may even find the observation entertaining

and arousing, which further motivates the bullying behavior.

These tactics and subterfuge of the workplace bully lead to poor team

performance and social climates in organizations. According to Agervold (2009),

bullying results greater work performance pressure on employees. Employees have less

control over their work with increasing rates of ambiguous responsibilities and

expectations concerning their role in the organization (Agervold, 2009). Einarsen, Hoel,

Zapf, and Cooper (2003) defined bullying as harassment that offends or socially excludes

individuals and affects their work tasks. Bullied individuals experience purposefully

negative verbal and nonverbal communications, which threatens their self-esteem. These

challenges affect the culture of an organization and subsequently the people in the

organization and ultimately the organization’s customers (Einarsen et al., 2003).

Recognition of the associated problems of workplace bullying continues to grow

in the United States. Legal enforcement consists of a patchwork of statutory and

common laws (Kaplan, 2010). These laws remain inadequate to correct the growing

number of bullying incidents (Kaplan, 2010). Many anti-bullying advocates continue to

6
seek new legislation in the United States employment law but have had no success

(Kaplan, 2010). Current laws do not protect employees from workplace bullying because

in 77% of bullying cases reported personnel involved could not be categorized in a

sheltered group defined by race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, or disability

(Sitzman, 2004). Under the current laws, workplace bullying is considered

discriminatory only if the targeted employee belongs to one or more of these groups and

the bully does not (Sitzman, 2004).

Statement of the Problem

Based on data from studies and reports on workplace bullying, the conservative

estimate of workplace bullying in the United States was approximately 13% of the

workforce at any given time (Namie & Namie, 2009). Media accounts suggested that the

occurrence of workplace bullying was on the increase in the United States (Sperry, 2009).

The problem is that from 2006 to 2010, 37% of American workers experienced

workplace bullying, which computes to about 54 million people (WBI, 2010). The

problem affects almost half (47%) of American working adults - approximately 71.5

million workers - who either experience bullying directly or witness it (WBI, 2010).

About three-quarters (72%) of workplace bullies are supervisors or managers.

Additionally, in over half (62%) of the known cases of workplace bullying, employers

either worsen or ignore the offense (WBI, 2010). Workplace bullying has caused an

alarming turnover of 21 to 28 million workers (WBI, 2010).

The specific problem is workplace bullying has caused more harm to workers

than has sexual harassment (Sperry, 2009). Psychological disorders such as major

7
depression and posttraumatic stress are byproducts of workplace bullying in victims

(Sperry, 2009). One-third of filed stress claims involve workplace bullying. The direct

and indirect cost associated with this phenomenon to organizations is enormous (Sperry,

2009). The estimates of replacement hiring and training of a new employee, averages

over 150% or more of the lost employee’s salary (Solnik, 2012). These costs include

training, benefits, and the initial wait time for the employee to achieve an acceptable level

of productivity (Solnik, 2012). As cases of bullying litigation flow through equal

employment protection laws in the United States, Fox and Stallworth (2009) estimate that

“litigating bullying-related claims costs can exceed $350,000 per case” (p. 250).

This qualitative historical study explored, identified, and documented information

on bully types and characteristics, forms of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward

intended targets, and leadership skills necessary to minimize the problem of workplace

bullying. The intent is to inform leaders of small and large organizations, who may adopt

the leadership skills necessary to reduce bullying in their organizations with the goal of

ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. For this purpose, the study examined

archived historical documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and

professional journals.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the qualitative historical study research was to explore, identify,

and document information on the characteristics and types of bullies, forms of

mistreatment targeted toward intended victims, and leadership skills required to reduce

bullying behavior. The intent of this study was to inform leaders of small and large

8
organizations, who may identify bullying behaviors and adopt the leadership skills

necessary to minimize bullying in their organization with the goal of ensuring a safe and

healthy work environment. Considering the sensitive nature of the study topic and the

predictable difficulty in finding willing participants, the study analyzed instances of

workplace bullying in historical documents from the archives of publicly accessible

institutions and professional journals in the United States.

Significance of the Problem

Workplace bullying was reported to affect almost half (47%) of American adults.

The problem of workplace bullying has been responsible for a shocking loss of 21 to 28

million workers (WBI, 2010). Workplaces should support respect and civility and be

conducive for productivity (Wiedmer, 2010). Managers, supervisors, and leaders should

lead the fight against workplace bullying by identifying bullies and intervening against

bullying behavior (Wiedmer, 2010). The message throughout the organization must be a

clear zero tolerance policy of workplace bullying in the office, break room, parking area,

classroom, work area, or anywhere else within the organization (Wiedmer, 2010).

Significance of the study. Workers deserve to have their place of employment

free of bullying and undesirable stress (Wiedmer, 2010). To maximize productivity in

the workplace, workers need to feel physically, emotionally, and socially safe (Wiedmer,

2010). The workplace culture must foster a sense of belonging for workers to be

successful. The study’s findings provided information about bullying behaviors and

leadership skills necessary to minimize workplace bullying, and thus achieve the goal of

maintaining a safe and secure workplace environment.

9
 Significance of the study to leadership. Leadership has the responsibility to hire

new personnel and ensure personnel comply with the corporate vision and mission. If

corporations applied the concept of “incompatibility of theories” to personnel, leaders

could identify logical contradictions, and realize when personnel and the vision are

incompatible (Bernstein, 1983). The eradication of workplace bullying is the

responsibility of an organization. However, the organization’s leadership ultimately

carries the responsibility for ensuring a bully-free workplace (Wiedmer, 2010), are often

the perpetrators of bullying. The study’s findings added to the literature on leadership

skills critical to reducing bullying in the workplace.

Nature of the Study

This qualitative historical study explored how leaders might recognize bullying

behavior, traits of bullies, and the types of harassments bullies direct at their victims, and

develop leadership skills to decrease bullying to provide a safe and healthy work

environment until the adoption of laws to protect employees in the United States.

Empirical literature that relates directly to the research topic of workplace bullying is

limited and dates back to the early 1980s. Data were collected from archived historical

documents from publicly accessible institutions and professional journals. Sources of

bullying in the workplace in general and other terms and definitions consistent with

workplace abuse and aggression were explored.

Overview of the research method. A qualitative historical study methodology

was chosen because of its distinctive interpretive approach in understanding the

entangled situation between phenomenon and context (Yin, 2009). Typically,

10
investigators choose this method when no relevant persons are alive to report, or are

difficult to find (Yin, 2009). A qualitative historical design was appropriate for solving

problems by examining patterns in bullying styles, behaviors, and attributes over time

based upon past incidents (Yin, 2009). Additionally, the qualitative historical design

enabled researchers to discover previously unknown patterns and variables in the

workplace bullying phenomenon (Yin, 2009). Investigators of the historical study must

rely on cultural and physical artifacts, primary documents, and secondary documents as

the main sources of evidence (Yin, 2009). Specific instruments were not required for this

qualitative historical study, nor did the research study require precise identification and

definition of variables. However, a well-conducted qualitative study involved the

inductive process of collecting data, categorizing information, developing concepts, and

eventually theorizing (Alasuutari, 2010).

A quantitative research design was not an appropriate method for the study of

workplace bullying because of a lack of quantifiable measures of variables and

hypotheses for testing (Willis, 2007). The nature of the problem did not fit with

quantitative measures and statistical analyses. Gaining insight in the interactions among

people is difficult to attain using quantitative measures because of not being sensitive to

issues such as the differences of sex, race, economic status, and personality (Yin, 2009).

A qualitative method remained the best fit for the proposed research.

Overview of the design appropriateness. Historical research provides a moral

framework built from the past for understanding the present (McDowell, 2002).

Historical research gives researchers new perspectives from the point of view of the

11
views, values, preoccupations, and prejudices of researchers, contributors, and editors of

data (McDowell, 2002). History gives researchers a pallet for moral contemplation. The

review of stories in the past allows researchers to gauge their own moral sense. The

review enabled researchers to sharpen, develop, and test their perceived morals against

the complexities others have faced in difficult scenarios. This knowledge can provide

inspiration in learning about how people face adversity in scenarios that people can

identify within their lives. History teaches by example and provides documentation of

not only heroes who successfully overcame moral dilemmas, but also of ordinary people

who taught lessons in courage, hard work, or constructive protest (McDowell, 2002).

Sample characteristics. The population for the qualitative historical study

comprised of workers who have experienced workplace bullying or witnessed workers

experiencing workplace bullying. Because the majority of these workers are reluctant to

be interviewed, data spanning over the last 30 years was collected from historical

documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional journals

in the United States.

Data collection and analysis. The scope of this study was to explore and identify

bullying behaviors, types, harassments, leadership behaviors in bullying, and effects of

bullying on the workplace environment within the last 30 years. Archived documents on

workplace bullying published since 1980, when physician Heinz Leymann (1990)

researched adult bullying in Sweden under the term of mobbing, till 2010, when the WBI

(2010) documented that 37% of American workers experienced workplace bullying were

analyzed as sources of data.

12
 The taxonomy of workplace bullying is depicted in figure 1. Data were collected

from legal documents, government documents, journals, and prior studies from 1980 to

2010. Legal documents from the Duval County Courthouse yielded 18 records, the

LexisNexis database accessed at the Jacksonville Public Library yielded 121 records, and

the University of Phoenix Online Library yielded 763 records. The triangulation of data

from different sources and methods provided corroborating evidence to shed light on the

theme of workplace bullying and established validity (Creswell, 2007). Sources of

bullying in the workplace in general and other terms and definitions consistent with

workplace abuse and aggression were explored as outlined in figure 1, such as workplace

bullying, bullying, mobbing, poor communication, harassment, emotional abuse, and

poor organizational culture. Traits were grouped into clusters consistent with the bully

types and all others were sorted into the bully xyz category. These bully xyz traits were

further analyzed looking for new bully types or variations of existing traits.

13
Figure 1. Workplace bullying taxonomy.

14
 The content analysis computer software program NVivo 9 (QSR International,

2011) was used to synthesize these textual data for themes that describe workplace

bullying and coping methods for workers. All information addressed the central

questions posed in this research study. Data were presented in a narrative format

reporting the patterns found in the documents.

Research Questions

This research study inquired into the phenomenon of workplace bullying over the

last 30 years, guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of different types of bullies?

2. What are the forms of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward the

intended targets?

3. What are the leadership skills required to reduce workplace bullying?

These questions seek to further the existing knowledge of workplace bullying

through further identification of bully characteristics. Additionally, these questions

sought to gain an understanding of the lived experiences of targets who encounter

bullying behavior and how leaders have reduced this behavior in the workplace.

Theoretical Framework

Bullying in the workplace typically comes accompanied by a poor social climate

controlled by an authoritarian/coercive management style. Agervold (2009) defined

bullying as an offensive, harassing behavior that may exclude workers socially, or

negatively affect a worker’s productivity. Agervold (2009) based this view on research

15
that organizations with high internal or external pressures create an environment with

fertile soil for conflicts and hostile behavior.

Workplace bullying does not encompass benign teasing, off-color jokes, racial

slurs, or unwelcome advances falling under other protected types of harassment (Vega &

Comer, 2005). Workplace bullying does encompass destructive and deliberate

demeaning of workers and managers as in the case of the typical schoolyard bully who

steals lunch money and strikes fear in the hearts of every student (Vega & Comer, 2005).

In the workplace, however, the entire organization suffers from the tactics of the bully,

who usually completely understands the ramifications of his or her behavior on others

(Vega & Comer, 2005).Workplace bullying, if unchecked, frequently creates an

environment of psychological threats that lowers efficiency and stunts individual and

team growth (Vega & Comer, 2005).

Psychological theories. The workplace bully may attribute his or her behavior to some to

personal pathology or other dynamics of the abuser (Sperry, 2009). Additionally, the

organizational factors such as organizational culture and structure may calculate in to the

reason for the bully’s behavior. Different psychological theories subscribe to why bullies

bully their victims. Explanations of the bully in personal terms centers on the “bad

apple” reasoning (Sperry, 2009). While in social terms the explanations encompass the

“bad apples” view of groups of employees conspiring to bully their victims (Sperry,

2009). Finally, the last explanation of the “bad barrel” describes the bullying behavior in

the organizational context (Sperry, 2009).

16
 A more complete explanation that many organizational psychologists favor

involves all three explanations of bullying behavior (Sperry, 2009). Therefore,

organizations that foster bullying behavior share characteristic cultures, structures,

employee interpersonal relationships, and leadership patterns (Sperry, 2009). The

following discussion provides the framework for different psychological theories that

provide patterns into the psyche of the workplace bullying and the social interactions

within an organization.

Attribution theory. One of the more recent approaches to understanding

workplace aggression concerns the attribution theory. The attribution theory centers on

the responses of employees to negative workplace events or situations (Harvey,

Summers, & Martinko, 2010). The attribution theory explains that people form casual

explanations or attributions to explain the outcomes they experience and observe (Harvey

et al, 2010). Therefore, people who experience negative outcomes, such as workplace

bullying, react to that person in a negative fashion. Conversely, the attribution to a

positive experience, such as recognition for a job well done, promotes a positive reaction

to that person. In the context of workplace bullying, the allowing of the phenomenon to

occur can take the form of other-directed aggressions in the workplace. Martin, Gray,

and Adam (2007) explain that an important concept of the attribution theory stems from

assigning particular behaviors exhibited by people as either personal temperament, which

are internal attributions or induced by the situation, which are external attributions.

Tepper (2007) explains the difference between abusive supervision and work

aggression characterized by workplace bullying. The behavior of abusive leaders falls

17
into two motive categories of desiring better performance and causing injury. Work

aggression behavior however only has the motive of causing injury. Therefore by the

attribution theory, workplace bullies have the sole motive of causing injury to their

victims. Dong, Hui, and Loi (2010) investigated in their research the contingent roles of

subordinate-attributed performance promotion and injury initiation motives for

supervisors’ abusive behaviors. Leaders of an organization may tolerate abusive

behavior if they perceive the supervisors’ motive as performance driven. This in turn can

further develop the sub-culture of workplace bullying within an organization. However

as Dong et al. (2010) discussed if organizational leaders interpret the supervisors’

motives as a desire to cause injury, they may perceive the bully boss as unethical and an

opposition to the desired organizational culture. Taylor and Zeng (2011) further

explained that the literature on workplace bullying and the attribution theory approach

incidents of workplace aggression as originating from a supervisory role. However, the

growing incidents of workplace violence suggest that the phenomenon of workplace

bullying may stem from a peer’s perspective as well.

Social identity theory. Ojala and Nesdale (2004) provided research that suggests

that the behavior of the workplace bully consists of a group process, where the involved

parties act in predicable ways outlined in the social identity theory. The social identity

approach contends that the influence of groups enhances the bullying phenomenon

(Humphrey, O’Brien, Jetten, & Haslam, 2005). The social identity theory states that the

aspects of a person’s self-concept developed from the social groups he or she belongs to

makes up their social identity (Jones, Haslam, York, & Ryan, 2008). Group members try

18
to enhance their self-concept through differentiating their group called the in-group from

the other groups called the out-groups. Similar groups represent threats to the in-group’s

distinctiveness, which may spur on bullying behavior to the group posing a threat to their

status or uniqueness (Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). Additionally, social identity aids in the

understanding of when bullying takes place because of the group norms established in the

group which dictate the attitudes and behaviors characteristic of the group that

differentiate it from other groups (Jones et al., 2008). Therefore, individuals may practice

in workplace bullying because it coincides with the group norms of their group identity

(Haslam & Reicher, 2006).

Social domination theory. The social dominance theory states that ideologies

contained in society promote or diminish intergroup hierarchies (Rubin & Hewstone,

2004). Social dominance orientation (SDO) represents the extent of acceptance of these

competing ideologies. Sidanius (1993) defined SDO as the degree an individual desires

social dominance and power for themselves and their ingroup over other groups.

Therefore, people with a high SDO such as workplace bullies possess a strong desire to

promote intergroup hierarchies and have their ingroup dominate their outgroups. The

workplace bully’s ingroup would consist of their followers and fellow bullies within an

organization. Sidanius, Levin, Federico, and Pratto (2001) further defined SDO as the

degree of desire for unequal relations among social groups by means of ingroup

domination or subordination. Sidanius and Pratto (2003) explained that the social

dominance theory must be multi-determined in that it consists of an individual’s

19
temperament, personality, socialization experiences, and their relative position within

relevant group-based social hierarchies.

Parkins, Fishbein, and Ritchey (2006) conducted research that found individuals

more likely to practice bullying who score highly on SDO, who are more anxious and

aggressive, and who are less capable of perspective taking. This added to the research of

Fiske and Emery (1993) that explained that in terms of the social dominance theory,

individuals with high SDO scores treat others as category members instead of as

individuals. Therefore, the workplace bully can satisfy their need to exert personal

influence over others. Parkins et al. (2006) further found that bully’s dispositions and

beliefs heavily reinforced the existence of hierarchies, which drove the level of the

bullying behaviors even higher. Furthermore, bullies with high SDO show a strong

influence by the social context of bullying acts (Parkins et al., 2006). Therefore,

workplace bullies tend to belong to a bully social crowd that endorses that victims

deserve to be treated unfairly and seek to gain control through a bullying hierarchy.

Socio-cognitive deficit theory. The socio-cognitive deficit theory centers on

people lacking self-control. Psychologists define self-control as the ability to tell right

from wrong and behave in a socially acceptable manner (Whitehouse, 2006). According

to Gini (2006) the socio-cognitive deficit theory supports two different bully models.

The first model proposed by Crick and Dodge (1994) describes a bully as a person

lacking in social skills. The second model proposed by Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham

(1999) describes a bully as a person who leads gangs to achieve personal objectives.

20
 The Crick and Dodge (1994) research model identified specific deficits and

systematic biases as components in the social cognition of aggressive children. Crick and

Dodge’s (1994) research cumulated in the development of the social skills deficit model.

This model portrays the bully as an oaf deficient in social intelligence unable to process

information from social interactions and give adequate responses to others (Crick &

Dodge, 1994).

The Sutton et al. (1999) model or the skilled manipulator conversely states that

bullies behave as skilled manipulators that completely understand social cues and exploit

this ability to their advantage. Additionally, the bully lacks any empathic response

towards the emotions of others such as their victims suffering (Sutton et al., 1999).

Classification of these bullies consists of the sociopath, psychopath, and people with a

Machiavellian complex known as the Narcissist.

Bully characteristics. Bullies in the workplace exhibit the fruition of his or her

dreams by having ascended to a manager position that enables them to tell others what to

do (Glendinning, 2001). The bully attacks any perceived employee who may threaten his

or her position of authority. Workplace bullies attack with everything in his or her

arsenal to defend this position against real or imagined threats, rivals, or competitors

(Glendinning, 2001). Bullies perceive that constant threats exist to their power,

competence, and values. Bullies consider these threats as personal regardless of business

conditions and warrant an abusive attack to neutralize (Glendinning, 2001). Bullies

consider themselves as all powerful and attack employees and managers alike to covet

their cherished position of authority.

21
 Types of bullies. Researchers of the WBI discovered and categorized four types

of bullies in a study (Namie, 2000). These bully styles are the snake, the screamer, the

nitpicker, and the gatekeeper (Namie, 2000). Historically, bullies fit into any or a

combination of these styles in the workplace.

The snake. The snake manipulates people and their perceptions of events

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Snakes fabricate their own brand of reality by using

people and events as pawns on a chessboard (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). They exert

a heavy toll on people to maintain their façade and leave people feeling drained, used,

and abused (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The snake seeks to be the puppet master and

control people, their environment, and the perceptions of senior management (Locander

& Luechauer, 2005).

The screamer. The screamer lives by the motto the squeaky wheel gets the grease

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers go on rants to get their way at others’

expense and put their priorities above the priorities of the team and organization

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers often fail when people tend to tune their rants

out and proceed with their own work (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers are

prime candidates for training in anger management and emotional intelligence (Locander

& Luechauer, 2005).

The nitpicker. The nitpicker typically has low self-esteem and always has

something negative to say about other employees and their work (Locander & Luechauer,

2005). Nitpickers fear losing power and therefore never concede that employees perform

correctly (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The nitpicker strives to keep employees under

22
control by highlighting their deficiencies and never admitting someone performs a good

job (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The nitpicker demoralizes employees by eroding

their confidence and putting them on the defensive (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Nitpickers justify their behavior by rationalizing that good help is hard to find or

employees lack the proper attention to detail to succeed in the organization (Locander &

Luechauer, 2005).

The gatekeeper. Gatekeepers use their position to hoard information and

resources to keep employees in a submissive position (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Employees face roadblocks at every turn and stagnate in red tape when working for a

gatekeeper (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). This form of bully saps employee motivation

and energy until employees only go through the motions or seek employment elsewhere,

which often leads to underemployment (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Forms of mistreatment directed at victims. The social construction of bullying

behavior remains a multidimensional issue. Bullies have developed the skills to

manipulate circumstances, abuse their positional power, and are more than aware of what

they are doing to their victims (Lewis, 2006). Lewis (2006) believed that the most

probable reason for the bully’s prowess centers on the development of learned behavior

within the workplace. Lewis (2006) argued that from an integrationist’s perspective

bullying often has a socializing effect on the organization through the constant

reinforcement of the dominant sub-culture, the sub-culture becoming the norm, and the

acceptance of the situation by personnel. Lewis (2006) found evidence of this in his

study and cited that when targets attempted to claim a grievance, they were ignored, or

23
their concerns were marginalized, or frequently the incident was labeled as a personality

clash.

Leader skills. An organization’s environment depends on alignment of the intra-

organizational structure with the organizational culture. Leaders of organizations try to

create a successful organizational culture by providing mission and vision statements and

establishing corporate values. These directives can exist within the organization and

have nothing to do with the true organizational culture. Leaders, managers, and workers

experience the development of subcultures in different parts of the organization (Tichy &

Devanna, 1990). A bullying leader may gain short-term success with bullying tactics,

which establishes the sub-culture of bullying in that department. This behavior of the

bully leads to the ostracization of victims and the creation of an environment in which the

bullied persons receive blame for any problem leading to further isolation, especially in

the case of whistle-blowers who often suffer from retaliation (Roscigno, Lopez, &

Hodson, 2009). Leaders and managers must discourage behavior that encourages a sub-

culture of bullying by effectively handling each incidence of bullying individually and

assessing the compatibility of the sub-culture of bullying with the organization’s vision,

mission, and strategic plan.

Organizations through established leadership, values, and ethics training should

seek constantly to exemplify an honest demeanor free of bullying within the organization

and in dealings with customers and workers. Key leaders through effective leadership

styles need to launch united efforts, define clear policies, and have the courage to stand

up against bullies to prevent workplace bullying (Wiedmer, 2010). The simple formula

24
of combining leadership, ethics, and values contributes to the well-being of workers in an

organization and creates the reality of an improved and healthy work culture and climate

(Wiedmer, 2010).

Leadership in organizations can adopt the principles outlined by Kouzes and

Posner in their book Encouraging the Heart (2003), which is a genuine caring for people,

and is at the heart of effective leadership. Managers can learn to lead; however,

management should not confuse leadership with position and rank. Structures, systems,

tools, and techniques do not cause leaders to earn the respect of employees (Kouzes &

Posner, 2003). What earns employee respect and commitment is whether a leader is true

to what he or she portrays, and if the leader embodies what the employee desires to

become (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).

Definition of Terms

The following terms and definitions are specific to this study. The contextual

definition of each term is listed as follows:

Gatekeeper. This type of bully strives to maintain control over employees by

withholding resources necessary for success (Namie, 2007a).

Guardian. This type of anti-bully protects potential victims from bullying

situations. Guardians may consist of police and other official agents of social control,

family members, friends, bystanders, and many organizational attributes.

International Labor Office (ILO). The ILO is the international organization

responsible for drawing up and overseeing international labor standards. It is the only

'tripartite' United Nations agency that brings together representatives of governments,

25
employers, and workers to shape jointly policies and programs promoting Decent Work

for all. This unique arrangement gives the ILO an edge in incorporating real-world

knowledge about employment and work (Sperry, 2009).

Mobbing. The animal behavior of smaller animals in packs attacking single larger

animals (Namie & Namie, 2009) or the recurring hostile and unethical communication in

the workplace by one or more individuals aimed toward a defenseless individual over a

period of six months or longer.

Nitpicker. This bully labels targets as incompetent from the inner sanctions of

his or her office and engages in a methodical campaign of career destruction through

abusive performance appraisals (Namie, 2007a).

Screamer. This bully is the stereotypical bully, who publicly humiliates targets to

instill fear and to paralyze witnesses (Namie, 2007a).

Snake. The snake is the most common type of bully who has a Jekyll-and-Hyde

personality. Snakes trash people behind their back while smiling to their face

(Locander& Luechauer, 2005).

Theory X leadership. This style of leadership is grounded in the belief that

without an active intervention by management, people would be passive or resistant to

organizational needs. Therefore, managers must persuade, reward, punish, control, and

direct employee activities (McGregor, 1985).

Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI).The first and only U.S. organization

dedicated to the eradication of workplace bullying that combines help for individuals,

26
research, books, public education, training for professionals/unions/employers, legislative

advocacy, and consulting solutions for organizations (Namie, 2007b).

Assumptions

Two assumptions were made in the study. The first assumption is that there

would be sufficient information to conduct the study, even though there are limited

formally reported incidents of workplace bullying in organizations in the last 30 years.

To overcome the lack of published information related to workplace bullying, research

was conducted using archival files and manuscripts for data related to the topic of

workplace bullying and any other inappropriate aggressive behavior in organizations.

The lack of published information on the study topic makes this study an important

addition to the leadership field in general and to organizational culture in particular.

Another assumption is workers who underwent abusiveness in the workplace in

terms of sexual harassment, age discrimination, racial discrimination, and workplace

violence experience workplace bullying. This assumption has been based on research by

Hearn and Parkin (2001) that classifies sexual harassment as a form of bullying.

Furthermore, the survey performed by the WBI (2010), which reported that the trend of

bullying has increased steadily in the United States to a level of 37% of the workforce,

which coincides to 54 million victimized Americans. Therefore, this study assumed that

other formal complaints consistent with workplace abuse and aggression in the workplace

should also be researched as forms of bullying.

27
Scope

The scope of this study was limited to identifying major themes related to bully

types and characteristics, forms of harassment directed at victims, and leadership skills

for detecting and reducing bullying behavior as evident from archived data. The period

covered by the study was limited to 30 years starting from 1980 when physician Heinz

Leymann (1990) researched adult bullying in Sweden under the term of ‘mobbing’ until

2010 when the WBI (2010) documented that 37% of American workers experienced

workplace bullying.

Limitations

According to Neuman (2005), methodological limitations such as specific

measures, sampling, cases, location, or other factors restricted the generalizability of

findings or developed alternative explanations. Two specific limitations to this research

study have been identified in the section above. This study was limited by the amount of

information available on the study topic because the information in libraries’ archives is

scattered, and a large number of workplace bullying incidents go unreported due to fear

of reprisal. Finally, this study’s findings could be subjected to the limitation of

researcher bias to overcome which qualitative software (NVivo 9) was used for coding

themes from data collected.

Delimitations

Delimitations are the boundaries of a research study. This study was delimited to

historical data on workplace bullying with a focus on three major themes, namely,

characteristics and types of bullies, types of mistreatments directed at victims, and

28
leadership skills necessary to detect and reduce bullying behavior in the workplace. Only

data on workplace bullying documented in the past 30 years (1980-2010) were analyzed.

Summary

According to Sitzman (2004), most workplace bullying cases reported do not

include a member of a protected group characterized by race, gender, ethnic origin,

religion, age, or disability. If the bullied worker belonged to one of these groups, the

bullying could be categorized as discrimination (Sitzman, 2004). Because the majority of

workplace bullying does not entail discrimination, workers are not protected under state

and federal laws for a hostile work environment (Sitzman, 2004). In the three-quarters

(77%) of cases reported, neither the worker nor the bully had grounds for a

discriminatory grievance (Sitzman, 2004). Therefore, exploring workplace bullying

necessitated a thorough evaluation of the literature currently available on the subject in

institutions’ archives (Sitzman, 2004).

Chapter 1 contains an outline of the background of the problem along with the

problem this historical study addressed, the purpose of the study, the literature available

on workplace bullying, and the method and design employed to answer the research

questions. Chapter 1 also presented the scope and limitations of the study. The study

was limited to characteristics of bullies in organizations, types of mistreatment directed at

targets, and leadership skills necessary for detecting and diminishing bullying in the

workplace as documented in historical documents from the archives of publicly

accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States of the last 30 years.

Chapter 2 presented a review of literature relevant to workplace bullying.

29
 Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

The purpose of the qualitative historical study research was to explore, identify,

and document information on the characteristics and types of bullies, forms of

mistreatment targeted toward intended victims, and leadership skills required to reduce

bullying behavior. The intent of this study was to inform leaders of small and large

organizations, who may identify bullying behaviors and adopt the leadership skills

necessary to minimize bullying in their organization with the goal of ensuring a safe and

healthy work environment. The intent of chapter 2 was to provide an overview of the

literature relevant to the study of adult bullying in the workplace, types and

characteristics of bullies and targets, patterns of bullying and its effect on workers, and

forms of mistreatment toward victims. The chapter also included a discussion of

leadership styles that promote workplace bullying and leadership skills relevant to deal

with the issue over the past 30 years in organizations.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals

An extensive review of the literature was conducted both online and using

physical libraries. University of Phoenix Online Library was used to access databases

such as EBSCOhost, ProQuest, ERIC, InfoTrac OneFile, Digital Dissertations,

Association for Computing and Machinery (ACM), Business Insights, CQ Electronic

Library, Economist.com, Sage Full Text Collections, Datamonitor, Hoover’s, Leadership

Library on the Internet, Plunkett’s, Mergent Online, Homeland Security Digital Library,

and Uniform Crime Reports. Additionally, physical research was conducted using the

30
LexiNexis database at the Jacksonville Public Library and the library at the University of

North Florida campus located in Jacksonville, Florida. More than 700 peer-reviewed

publications, journals, newspaper business articles, books, and business articles were

accessed and reviewed to gather pertinent information for the research study. Pertinent

data gathered from the literature review was cited throughout the study and compiled in

the reference section.

Both online and physical library searches were conducted using computer-

tracking systems. Terminology used to locate articles, books, and journals included but

were not limited to the following: workplace bullying, bullying, mobbing, abuse,

aggression, harassment, authoritative leadership, coercive leadership, autonomous

leadership, laissez-faire leadership, and Theory X leadership traits. Other search

terminology included bully attributes, workplace bullying background,

authoritative/coercive management background, attributes of victims of bullying, types of

bullies, types of harassment, narcissism, and psychopath. The many resources accessed

as well as the specific and broad searches conducted produced a number of relevant

materials.

Literature Review

This qualitative historical study documented bullying behaviors, types of bullies,

forms of harassments perpetrated by workplace bullies, and leadership skills to recognize

and deal with bullying. Workplace bullying throughout history did not meet the legal

definition of a form of harassment unless the victims belonged to a protected group

(Sperry, 2009). In 77% of bullying cases reported the personnel involved were not in a

31
protected group defined by race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, or disability

(Sitzman, 2004). Therefore, a study of bullying behavior, bully traits, and the types of

mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended targets provided a unique

perspective on dealing with workplace bullying until the adoption of laws to protect

employees in the United States.

Researchers at the International Labor Office (ILO) reported that the phenomenon

of workplace bullying had reached epidemic proportions in several countries (Chappell &

Di Martino, 2006). The ILO research team further reported that the global cost exceeded

several millions of dollars in losses from medical expenses, absenteeism, and sick leave

(Chappell & Di Martino, 2006). Therefore, the identification, isolation, and

categorization of bullying behavior, bully traits, and types of mistreatment could provide

successful methods to combat the phenomenon of bullying and save organizations

millions of dollars.

Australia commissioned a governmental task force to study the trend of

workplace bullying due to the pervasive nature of the phenomenon (Vega & Comer,

2005). The Workplace Health and Safety Department of Industrial Relations (WHSDIR)

(2002) published a report conducted in Queensland Australia indicating that bullying

incidents were widespread throughout the country. Furthermore, the report (WHSDIR,

2002) identified common behaviors of workplace bullies summarized in Table 2. The

report concluded with 19 recommendations to counteract the bullying behaviors, which

included reminders about what laws exist to protect workers from abuse in Australia

(Vega & Comer, 2005). Bullying in the United States is not illegal as in Australia.

32
Therefore, people in the United States lack protection from this deliberate destructive

abuse of workers reminiscent of the schoolyard bully (Vega & Comer, 2005).

Table 2

Common bullying behaviors in organizations

Common Bullying Behaviors

Deliberate, planned activity to discredit

Undermining of work
Disadvantaging the target
Physical abuse (rare)
Verbal abuse
Isolating individuals
Interfering in work practices
Continual criticism, sarcasm, demeaning behavior Destroying confidence
Fabricating complaints
Setting up to fail
Repeatedly threatening dismissal
Assigning meaningless tasks
Humiliating and demanding conduct in front of other workers
Ridicule taunts
Confusing and contradictory instructions or constantly changing instructions
Undermining work performance
Isolating and excluding persons from various work activities
Leaving offensive messages on email
Blocking an employee's promotion
Overloading of work
Unexplained rages
Unjustified criticism
Hiding documents or equipment
Setting impossible deadlines
Excluding workers on a regular pattern
Threatening action that could result in loss
Note. The results are based on study data collected qualitatively and categorized into common behaviors.
Adapted from “Workplace Bullying Taskforce report” by WHSDIR, 2002 and “Nurse bullying:
Organizational considerations in the maintenance and perpetration of health care bullying cultures” by
Lewis, 2006.

These acts summarized in table 2 are frequently insidious, and continue over

periods. They frequently occur behind closed doors; they are difficult to pinpoint and
33
often occur with no witnesses. The majority of bullies are fully aware of their actions.

They are devious and cunning, but may exhibit a Jekyll and Hyde mentality. A

percentage of bullies exhibit personality problems

Origins of workplace bullying. The introduction of the phenomenon of

workplace bullying to the United States came by way of Carroll Brodsky’s book, The

Harassed Worker (1976). Brodsky (1976) defined harassment behavior as repeated and

persistent attempts by an individual to torment, wear down, frustrate, or elicit a reaction

from another individual. This persistent tormenting behavior seeks to provoke,

intimidate pressure, frighten, or cause discomfort to the chosen victim. Brodsky (1976)

documented that bullying provided strong negative effects to a victim’s health and well-

being. Brodsky (1976) also described victims of bullying as conscientious employees

who were typically overachievers in the workplace.

Brodsky (1976) characterized the harasser as not seeing himself or herself as a

harasser. Usually the only person that complained about the harasser is the victim or

target (Brodsky, 1976). Brodsky (1976) described the harasser as someone who can only

function as long as everyone agrees with him or her at all times. Oftentimes, the harasser

will mask the bullying behavior with humor. Brodsky (1976) explained the harasser’s

enjoyment of disparaging humor indicates a repressed need for destruction characterized

by aggressiveness, egocentricity, and a derogatory world view. Brodsky (1976) further

described the harasser as a person believing that rank has its privileges, which requires

complete obedience.

34
 In the late 1980s, physician Heinz Leymann (1990) researched adult bullying in

Sweden under the term of ‘mobbing.’ The term of mobbing referred to the animal

behavior of smaller animals in packs attacking single larger animals (Namie & Namie,

2009). Leymann (1990) associated a period of time with bullying when he defined

mobbing as a recurring hostile and unethical communication in the workplace by one or

more individuals aimed toward a defenseless individual over a period of six months or

longer. The debate between the terms of mobbing and bullying continued through the

1990s with Europeans adopting the mobbing term and Britain, Ireland, Australia, New

Zealand, Canada, and the United States adopting the bullying term (Namie & Namie,

2009). Additionally, terms such as emotional abuse, generalized workplace abuse, and

workplace aggression merged into the broader terms of mobbing and bullying (Namie &

Namie, 2009).

The phenomenon of workplace mobbing and bullying was on the rise in the

United States and worldwide (Sperry, 2009). The ILO conducted research reporting that

the phenomenon reached epidemic levels in several countries (Chappell & Di Martino,

2006). The ILO further reported that the global cost exceeded countless millions of

dollars in losses from medical expenses, absenteeism, and sick leave (Chappell & Di

Martino, 2006).

However, legal enforcement consists of a patchwork of statutory and common

laws (Kaplan, 2010). These laws remain inadequate to correct the growing number of

bullying incidents (Kaplan, 2010). Many anti-bullying advocates continue to seek new

legislation in the United States employment law but have had no success (Kaplan, 2010).

35
Current laws do not protect employees from workplace bullying because in 77% of

bullying cases reported the personnel involved were not in a protected group defined by

race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, or disability (Sitzman, 2004). Under the current

laws, workplace bullying is discriminatory only if the target employee belonged to one or

more of these groups, and the bully did not (Sitzman, 2004).

Relational forms of harassment. Prior research and social theory suggested that

relational powerlessness is a factor of victimization in social settings. Bullies exploited

vulnerabilities created through a victim’s race, ethnicity, sex, differential status, and

power base (Roscigno et al., 2009). Bullies many times seek to ostracize their victims in

organizations. People included in a minority class based on race, ethnicity, sex,

differential status, or power base becomes an easy target for ostracization by a bully

(Roscigno et al., 2009).

Racism. Bullies may use racism as a motivation to bully a victim. Bullies may

simply find minority workers easy targets because of their race (Roscigno et al., 2009).

Einarsen et al. (2003) posited because bullies often attempted to isolate and ostracize

their victims socially, minority workers could become an easy target due to their social

isolation in contemporary workplaces.

Sexual harassment. McCarthy and Mayhew (2004) considered sexual harassment

a form of workplace bullying. Hearn and Parkin (2001) provided evidence that gender

influences the likelihood of being bullied, especially when sexual harassment is viewed

as a form of bullying rather than a completely separate phenomenon. The similarities

between sexual harassment and workplace bullying center around both phenomenon

36
being fundamentally about power and the creation and preservation of a hierarchy

through targeted and abusive behaviors by a bully (Roscigno et al., 2009).

Social class and occupational position. Bullies exploit differences in relative

social class status and occupational position of their victims (Roscigno et al., 2009).

Poorly paid workers make easy targets of bullying by abusive supervisors. In some

organizations, supervisors receive significant discretions within workplace contexts due

to previous success or organizational climate. These supervisors sometimes use the given

discretions in informal and abusive ways and transform into workplace bullies (Roscigno

et al., 2009).

Bullies exploit vulnerabilities created by job insecurity because of a reduced

power base with respect to their bosses. Hearn and Parkin (2001) stated a relationship

existed between an increase in workplace bullying and an increasing insecure job

environment brought about by high unemployment rates, downsizing, right sizing,

restructuring, and outsourcing. This scenario created a pressure-cooker environment as

supervisors and managers replaced civility with bullying and sought to intimidate and

blame employees for mutually held fears about future job security (Roscigno et al.,

2009).

Bully characteristics and types. Research identified four general types of

bullies, two psychological personalities with bully tendencies, and one anti-bully. Each

persona has specific, recognizable characteristics. The personas are summarized as

follows.

37
 The narcissist. Organizations contain a toxic mix of personalities in the

workplace, which includes the highly aggressive narcissist (Namie, 2007a). A study

performed by Carlson, Vazire, and Oltmanns (2011) resulted in three surprising

conclusions about narcissists. Narcissists understand that others view them less

positively than they see themselves. Narcissists acknowledge that they frequently make

good first impressions that deteriorate over time. Finally, narcissists have insight into

their narcissistic personality such as describing themselves as arrogant (Carlson et al.,

2011).These conclusions coincide with characteristics of bullying, which makes the

narcissist a natural bully.

Hirigoyen (2000) explained that the narcissist grows in stature at the expense of

their victim while delivering abuse. The narcissist avoids any inner turmoil by shifting

the blame for the abusive behavior onto the victim (Hirigoyen, 2000). The narcissist

believes that the victim is in the wrong, which justifies the abuse and therefore no wrong-

doing has occurred (Hirigoyen, 2000).

The psychopath. Psychopaths are people characterized as possessing no

conscience, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for other

people (Boddy, 2011). While a bully may not be a psychopath, he or she may have many

psychopathic characteristics. A bully may usually act normally in many non-work

situations. However, the extremely ambitious bully is always waiting to exploit others

when opportunities arise (Namie, 2007a). The Machiavellian nature of the bully is

transparent when using others to advance their careers. Bullies excel at seeing and

seizing opportunities to harm their targets (Namie, 2007a).

38
 Boddy (2011) found a strong positive correlation between corporate psychopathy

and bullying. Boddy (2011) documented that 26% of all bullying incidents in the

workplace were associated with corporate psychopaths. Body also noted corporate

psychopaths represented only 1% of all employees in the workplace (Boddy, 2011).

Hirigoyen (2000) explained that psychiatrists hesitate to use the term of abuse and

often use psychopathy as a catch-all label for anything that they cannot cure. While a

psychopathic illness does not cause abuse, a psychopath’s lack of respect for other

humans coupled with their dispassionate rationality leads to an abusive environment

(Hirigoyen, 2000).

The snake. Namie (2007a) describes the snake as a two-faced Jekyll-and-Hyde

creature that finds ways to destroy targets using rumors and divide-and-conquer schemes

within the workplace. The snake is the antithesis of the servant leader. Greenleaf, Frick,

and Spears (1996) defined servant leadership as a leadership style that originated from

the desire to serve others. The servant leader desires that the followers they serve grow

and become healthier, wiser, freer, and more self-sufficient (Locander & Luechauer,

2005). Servant-leaders develop their followers and are committed to their personal

growth through understanding and empathy (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Conversely, the snake hides in the grass waiting to strike and bring down its

victims. The snake’s viper-like tactics center on making the snake look better within the

organization, which can be deadly to those who work around snakes (Locander &

Luechauer, 2005). A snake’s followers quickly learn to avoid this manager because

collaboration with a snake can end a career. While servant-leaders recognize and nurture

39
the spiritual qualities in people, the snake sees them as a target for the next venomous

bite (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

The screamer. Namie (2007a) describes the screamer as the stereotypical bully,

who publicly humiliates targets to instill fear and to paralyze witnesses. Workers

recognize the screamer by his or her screaming, yelling, swearing, and throwing of things

(Namie, 2007a). Screamers constantly yell at employees in hopes of motivating them.

However, adults in the workplace deal with this yelling from a defensive posture with

negative reactions (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). These reactions comprise of stress,

fear, and eventually avoidance, which leads to the establishment of a culture of blame.

Screamers lead by intimidation and fear and desire their subordinates to contribute their

ideas so he or she can tear them to shreds and reassemble them as his or her own

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

The nitpicker. The nitpicker labels targets as incompetent from the inner

sanctions of his or her office and engages in a methodical campaign of career destruction

through abusing performance appraisals (Namie, 2007a). The nitpicker potentially

provides the most traumatizing ordeal to his or her victims because of the planting of the

seeds of self-doubt in the target’s psyche (Namie, 2007a).

Nitpickers have an incredible attention to detail but they use this talent to insult

those around them. Nitpicking feeds the bully’s ego, but it does little to serve the

organization or its customers. Nitpickers take on the role of micro-managers dictating

every detail of a job to the employees and tearing apart their efforts every step of the way.

Senior leaders need to serve as system architects instead of spending their time managing

40
details and solving problems (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Middle managers need to

focus on solving problems and improving systems, which enables the lower-level leaders

to handle the details of getting the job done (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

The gatekeeper. The gatekeeper bully strives to maintain control over employees

by withholding resources necessary for success (Namie, 2007a). Gatekeepers steal credit,

fawn over favorites, and isolate and torment their targets (Namie, 2007a). Gatekeepers

believe that information is power and often portray themselves as the experts of whatever

resource they are guarding. Gatekeepers are information brokers, selectively sharing

information with their favorites and withholding from their targets (Locander &

Luechauer, 2005). Gatekeepers perceive people who want to learn as a threat and

purposely withhold information to prevent education and development of employees.

The gatekeeper believes that this behavior secures his or her position in the organization.

Conversely, stewards are those who see themselves as being entrusted as

guardians of resources (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Stewards share and deploy

resources in efficient and effective methods. Stewards serve the organization and create

trust, openness, and organizational citizenship (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). In this

way, stewards are complete opposites of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers always serve

themselves first and see to the desires of their favorites (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Stewards serve employees with the goal of serving customers, which ultimately proves to

be self-serving as well. Customers are attracted to products and services where they have

more control over the final product.

41
 The guardian. The guardian portrays the anti-bully, who protects potential

victims from bullying situations (Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009). Guardians may

consist of officers of the law, official agents of society, family, friends, and coworkers

(Roscigno et al., 2009). Additionally, many organizational attributes may play a guardian

role. Examples of an organizational guardian would be labor unions, organizational

administrative procedures, and to what extent an organization holds a supervisor

accountable to employees (Roscigno et al., 2009).

Labor union leaders have long known about the power in numbers and have used

these numbers to aid workplaces in trying to create an environment free of abuse by

management, favoritism, cronyism, and fickle practices in hiring and promotions

(Roscigno et al., 2009). Shostak (1991) labeled grievance procedures as essential

procedure to ensure personnel are protected from abuse and retaliation when a grievance

is filed. Farber and Western (2001) reported that unions have been weakening over the

past two decades, which has led to a shift of a defensive stance in trying to save jobs and

provide job security to the employed.

Organizations provide for another guardian by establishing organizational rules

through administrative procedures (Roscigno et al., 2009). The procedures provide a

legal safeguard against dictator-like managers, often found in smaller, privately owned,

and operated companies. Administrative procedures and organizational rules for

advancement and promotion lead to a larger capacity in monitoring and motivating

employees without direct supervision, bullying, and coercion (Roscigno et al., 2009).

Even though a power-hungry bully can sometimes manipulate administrative rules, the

42
rules generally limit the extent of any social uncertainty and exploitation (Roscigno et al.,

2009).

The extent an organization holds a supervisor accountable to employees also

provides protection against bullying and supervisor coercion. This practice is especially

effective when originating from the organization’s guidelines and culture and provides

control of the labor process. Logue and Yates (2001) wrote that employee owned

organizations or organizations that incorporate inclusive stock ownership plans (ESOPs)

show support toward employees and their rights. Shamir (2005) added that many

nonprofit organizations might also be more protective of employee rights.

Active and passive accomplices. A study by Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik (2010)

documented that 70% of workplace bullying cases involved a single aggressor, which

provided evidence for the assumption that bullies are most often loners. Further analysis

of the cases revealed that in 60% of the lone bully cases, targets thought that bullies had

the support from various accomplices within the organization (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik,

2010). Targets labeled these accomplices as senior leadership, HR staff, other managers,

and coworkers. Harvey et al. (2007) posited that bullying only occurs when a bully feels

he or she has the blessing, support, or at least, the implicit permission of superiors and

other coworkers to behave in this manner.

Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik’s (2010) study documented that the witnesses of

workplace bullying perceived the same sources of accomplices for bullying as targets.

Witnesses and targets believed that senior leadership, HR staff, other managers, and

coworkers were involved in equal proportions. However, witnesses believed that bullies

43
received no more support from accomplices than did targets (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik,

2010).

Three contributing factors may be accountable for this difference in perception of

witnesses and targets. First, targets are experiencing the situation first hand and the

experience often overshadows any other aspect of their job (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik,

2010). Targets expend considerable time and effort in coping with workplace bullying

and its effects. This closeness to the situation gives them a better understanding of

everyone involved.

Second, when witnesses perceive that bullies received “no support”, targets may

interpret the lack of help as passive acceptance (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010).

Strandmark and Hallberg (2007) stated that targets perceive the silence of on-looking

coworkers as betrayal or complicity when they are suffering at the hands of bullies.

Witnesses in bullying situations may perceive their silence not as support for the bully

but as self-defense from becoming potential victims themselves if they got involved in

supporting their victimized peer. Hirigoyen (2000) explained that managers often place a

spin on the abusive behavior and risk losing their principles in the process.

Finally, witnesses may be seen as showing “no support” by themselves or others

because of their own involvement in the bullying event (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik,

2010).Because victims are employing deflecting and coping strategies, they may not have

more access to these “no support” interactions than do witnesses.

Characteristics of targets. The WBI (2007) reported that 61% of bullying occurs

within the same gender, and 71% of female bullies target other women. A study

44
conducted by the WBI (2000) discovered that targets of workplace bullying are veteran

employees comprised of the best and brightest. Hirigoyen (2000) explained that violence

and abuse bloom in an organization when power and perversity collide. Bullying often

starts because a victim resists an authoritative boss’s demands and displays a capacity to

resist the bullying behavior (Hirigoyen, 2000). Bullies target employees of all ranks and

professional sectors as punishment for being assertive or successful, particularly if they

pose a threat to bullies (Magnuson & Norem, 2009; Wiedmer, 2010). Insecure bully

bosses sabotage skilled targets by taking credit for the work of the targets, and withhold

recognition and rewards for their talents and contributions. This behavior portrays the

classic gatekeeper mentality of bullies.

Additionally, WBI (2000) researchers conducted thousands of interviews to

confirm that bullies most often target employees who function as independent and refuse

blind obedience. The study by WBI (2000) researchers confirmed that targets were

usually more technically skilled than the bullies targeting them were. Targets

characteristically were the most reliable veteran employees who provided mentorship to

new employees (Wiedmer, 2010). The study by WBI (2000) researchers documented

that collectively the “targets were reportedly more likeable, had better social skills,

possessed higher emotional intelligence, and felt appreciated by colleagues, customers,

and non-bully management for the warmth and care they brought to the workplace” (p.3).

Targets exhibit the attributes of ethics, integrity, commitment, and productivity and

typically are morally superior to bullies due to their focus on building a culture of

45
contribution and collaboration throughout an organization (Duffy & Sperry, 2009;

Wiedmer, 2010).

Duffy and Sperry (2009) documented that targets often engage in self-deprecation

and feel ashamed or embarrassed that they have succumbed to aggression of a coworker

and may not readily acknowledge that bullying has occurred. Duffy and Sperry (2009)

further explained that targets often feel disenfranchised because they have no way to

communicate their experience. Therefore, targets after repetitive bullying begin to feel

dead, invisible, and abandoned with no explanation for this depression (Duffy & Sperry,

2009). Keashly (1998) conducted individual interviews with people who reported having

interpersonal difficulties in their workplaces. A prominent finding was the inability of

targets to describe their experiences to other people because of the subtle and ambiguous

nature of the bullying. A general perception among the research participants of

Keashly’s study (1998) was that the only way to gain an understanding of the

phenomenon was through experience.

Morgan (2007) explained that some metaphors tapped familiar ways of thinking

while others developed insights and perspectives that were new. Morgan (2007) further

discussed that metaphors demonstrated how a range of complementary and competing

insights could be generated to add to the strengths of different points of view. A study by

Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts (2006) elucidated the effects of workplace

aggression by examining metaphors that the targeted workers used to describe their

experiences. Research participants spoke of feeling dead, beaten, broken, trapped,

betrayed, and eviscerated. Like the participants of the Keashly study (1998), the targets

46
of workplace aggression believed that others would not understand the experiences they

tried to describe (Tracy et al., 2006).

Hirigoyen (2000) explained that victims of emotional abuse have had their psyche

altered permanently to varying degrees. Additionally, while victims recognize they have

suffered they often are in denial that the abuse and violence has taken place (Hirigoyen,

2000). This inability to describe the abuse leads to feelings of inadequacy and being

misunderstood by management (Hirigoyen, 2000).

Characteristics of witnesses. Jeffrey (2004) documented that the phenomenon of

workplace bullying carried with it negative implications that extended beyond bullies and

their targets. Jeffrey (2004) was of the opinion that bullies liked an audience and might

gain motivation because of passivity among witnesses. Some witnesses find the bullying

behavior entertaining and arousing while others become distressed because of associated

guilt, embarrassment, and anger (Magnuson & Norem, 2009).

Witnesses constitute the supporting cast who aid the bully through omission and

commission. Members of an organization often silently witness workplace aggression

because of fear that they could become the next target (Coloroso, 2006). Lawrence

(2001) discussed that self-preservation becomes more important than intervening to

support a target because bullies are often in management positions.

Workplace environment. Workplace bullying is not always directly obvious to

management. However, many signs exist throughout an organization that may indicate

workplace bullying exists. Table 3 provides indicators for the existence of workplace

bullying in an organization and the bully type that drives the behavior.

47
Table 3

Indicators in an organization that bullying exists

Indicator Bully type(s) that drives the indicator

High absenteeism, high turnover All

Slovenly or poorly performed work The nitpicker

High customer complaints The gatekeeper

Turf wars The snake

Verbal or physical intimidation The screamer

Sexist or racist comments The screamer

Foul language The screamer

High workers’ compensation claims All

People refusing/avoiding overtime All

People not turning up to social functions All

High number of personality conflicts The Snake

Note. The information was compiled as indicators of a toxic workplace. Adapted from “Bullying
Workplaces Beware” (2010).

Leadership courses center on promoting and developing a competent, creative,

dynamic, and culturally diverse working environment. However, organizations and their

managers tend to fear cultural differences and remain closed minded to new ideas. In

many cases management perceives non-conventional innovative employees as a threat to

the organizational integrity and consistency of the organization (Durniat, 2010).

Hirigoyen (2000) wrote that in theory, organizations claim to seek original, creative, and

48
innovative employees. However; in practice many organizations follow a different path.

Hirigoyen (2000) concluded that a paradox exists because while society changes toward

an individualistic approach, the working environment centers on teamwork alienating

individual values. Hirigoyen (2000) further explained that while organizations advertise

for employees who exhibit initiative, creativity, and qualifications, their organizational

cultures do not tolerate curiosity. Consequently, employees who significantly vary from

the stereotypical organizational pattern risk neutralization by management, which

sometimes manifests through bullying practices. Hirigoyen’s (2000) research on bullying

factors indicated that the social control mechanisms are more important to an

organization than the promoted concepts of diversity, creativity, and innovation.

Therefore, organizations may fail to inhibit bullying behaviors because these behaviors

form institutional sanctions created by the organization’s culture (Hirigoyen, 2000).

Leadership styles promoting bullying. Subordinates gain influence by a leader’s

effectiveness. Subordinates provide loyalty and support to leaders who satisfy the

subordinates needs and expectations (Yukl, 2010). Subordinates behave positively to

leaders who develop trust for the subordinate’s well-being, possess high integrity, build

self-confidence, provide training to increase subordinate skills, and contribute to their

psychological growth and development (Yukl, 2010). Certain leadership styles fall short

in providing these essential desires and subordinates may seek escape from an

unfavorable environment in the form of absence, seeking employment elsewhere,

grievances, complaints to upper management, transfer requests, malingering, and

deliberate sabotage of equipment and facilities (Yukl, 2010).

49
 Authoritative/Coercive. The foundational theorist Weber (1947) provided the first

authoritative description of the bureaucratic form of organization that has dominated

government and corporate life. Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally

domination through knowledge. Weber (1947) hoped that this concept would enhance

productivity of organizations. Weber’s (1947) concept resembled the workings of a

machine and possessed the characteristics of an organization categorized by functional

specializations. Furthermore, the concept has a hierarchy based on an authoritative

leadership style with a strict system of procedures based on technical competence.

Weber’s (1947) authoritative concept is based on written rules, impersonal orders, and a

clear division of labor.

Turk (2008) explained that the authoritative approach worked best for rigid,

highly controlled, and inflexible jobs. This type of motivation can be effective, albeit

only for the short-term (Turk, 2008). Long-term effects of fear become demoralizing and

may lead to high turnover rates (Turk, 2008).

The authoritative/coercive management philosophy uses fear as a prime motivator

(Singh, 2009). This philosophy convinces subordinates that a loss of privileges, rewards,

promotion, credit, or wage will occur if they fail to comply (Singh, 2009).

Authoritarian/coercive management conditions exhibit higher rates of lack of role clarity

and role conflicts (Agervold, 2009). The authoritative/coercive management philosophy

provides a fertile ground for the phenomenon of workplace bullying, which leads to

public degradation, work obstruction, verbal abuse, intimidating behavior, and multiple

forms of coercion of employees (Agervold, 2009).

50
 The authoritative/coercive management philosophy leads to abrasive power bases,

which establish harsh preconditions that employees cannot morally negotiate (Singh,

2009). The use of authoritative/coercive power manifests itself upon employees through

stress symptoms such as nervousness, irritability, insomnia, and loss of concentration

(Singh, 2009).

Managers who subscribe to the authoritative/coercive management philosophy

believe that workers require close supervision, which leads to mistrust, highly restrictive

supervision, and a punitive atmosphere. Therefore, organizations should consider the

authoritative/coercive management philosophy, commonly associated with a theory X

management style, as detrimental not only to the employee’s performance but also to

organizational performance as well.

Authoritative or coercive power styles are counterproductive to an organization’s

long-term health (Singh, 2009). Research has shown that authoritative power bases result

in poor performance and productivity and provide negative power in both industrial

organizations and research settings (Singh, 2009). Negative power leads to a negative

and unconscionable use of power (Singh, 2009). The use of negative power curbs

creativity, stalls personality growth, limits ethical practice, prevents career advancement,

manipulates the psyche, bears false witness, and overtly or covertly exhibits bias of

personnel (Singh, 2009). Negative power brokers act arbitrarily and capriciously from

their position of power (Singh, 2009).

Theory X. Douglas McGregor (1985) developed the Theory X philosophy and

presented it in his book The Human Side of Enterprise. McGregor (1985) contributed to

51
the negative aspects of the authoritarian management style through his Theory X

philosophy. McGregor (1985) explained Theory X managers believed that without an

active intervention by management, people would be passive or resistant to

organizational needs. Therefore, managers must persuade, reward, punish, control, and

direct employee activities (McGregor, 1985). According to Theory X, exclusive reliance

is placed upon external control of human behavior and supporters of the theory subscribe

to the view managers should treat people as children instead of as mature adults

(McGregor, 1985).

According to Theory X, people are classified as lazy, hating work, avoiding

responsibility, and devoid of initiative and ambition (Turk, 2008). Management must

coerce, punish, intimidate, or reward employees to receive work from them (Turk, 2008).

Although most modern theorists disagree with this theory, the workforce still contains a

number of managers who prescribe to this style (Turk, 2008).

Laissez-faire. Laissez-faire managers provide inactivity in policing bullying

tactics and therefore become passive accomplices. Laissez-faire managers inadvertently

support bullying through unresponsiveness in correcting the behavior (Namie & Lutgen-

Sandvik, 2010). The study by Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik (2010) supported the theory

that aggressive perpetrators of bullying in the workplace rarely do so without active or

passive accomplices. Active accomplices were other aggressors who would join in the

bullying activity (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010). Passive accomplices include upper

managers, HR staff, the bullies' peers, and the targeted persons’ peers (Namie & Lutgen-

Sandvik, 2010).

52
 The study by Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007)

supported the assumption that the ignorance and absence of the laissez-faire leader

directly relates to a potentially high conflict social climate. A lack of supportive

leadership characterizes laissez-faire leadership, which may cause a high incidence of

fight or flight reaction to conflict resolution. The study by Skogstad et al. (2007)

supported the belief that the environment of high levels of interpersonal conflicts and role

stress established by laissez-faire leadership provides unlimited opportunity for the

workplace bully. Furthermore, the study by Skogstad et al. (2007) indicated that laissez-

faire leadership’s counter productivity far exceeds that of the zero type of leadership style

because of the high conflict environment that is established.

The laissez-faire leadership style does not deal with workplace stressors and

interpersonal problems. The laissez-faire leadership environment provides the perfect

opportunity for the bully boss to take control and run rampant creating high levels of

psychological distress for targets and witnesses alike (Skogstad et al., 2007). Therefore,

leadership must not only prevent and manage abusive and aggressive leadership. They

also need to be wary of the potentially negative effects of laissez-faire leaders, who create

high stress work environments (Skogstad et al., 2007).

Conclusions

Chapter 2 presented the review of literature that helped to support the problem the

research study will address and to frame the research questions for the study. The

literature available on the history of workplace bullying was limited probably because of

reluctance of victims to report the phenomenon. A substantial amount of literature

53
focused on the study of workplace bullying and the role of leadership in workplace

bullying during the last 30 years.

Hirigoyen (2000) compared emotional abuse to a machine that once started rolls

over everything in its path reaping destruction. The bullying process terrifies victims

throughout the organization because of its inhuman nature comprised of soullessness and

pitilessness (Hirigoyen, 2000). Hirigoyen (2000) concluded that if the phenomenon goes

unchecked, inflexible companies become more inflexible, miserable victims become

more miserable, and aggressive bullies become more aggressive. Chapter 3 presents the

research method, as guided by the problem statement and the research questions

supported by the literature review in chapter 2.

Summary

The literature review in chapter 2 provided the foundation for the qualitative

historical study. The history of workplace bullying gained awareness and reached the

status of a phenomenon by Carroll Brodsky’s book, The Harassed Worker (1976). The

literature review identified the types of bullies and their characteristics, the different

forms of harassment committed by the bullies, leadership styles promoting bullying, and

other related research findings, which might emerge as themes during data analysis once

the study is conducted. Brodsky (1976) outlined that victims of harassment and bullying

undergo teasing, badgering, and insults with the perception of possessing little or no

recourse to retaliation in kind.

The ILO research team reported that the global cost of bullying exceeded several

millions of dollars in losses from medical expenses, absenteeism, and sick leave

54
(Chappell & Di Martino, 2006). Despite the advances made for protecting employees

from forms of harassment specific to race, sex, age, and disabilities, workplace bullying

exists with little or no laws to protect employees unless they fell under special groups

(Kaplan, 2010). Laws remain inadequate to correct the growing number of bullying

incidents (Kaplan, 2010). Many anti-bullying advocates continue to seek new legislation

in the United States employment law but have had no success (Kaplan, 2010).

55
 Chapter 3

Method

Chapter 1 presented the exploration of the phenomenon of workplace bullying.

This exploration includes the bullying styles, climate, and detrimental factors that

bullying caused in the past 30 years. Chapter 1 also focused on the significance of the

study to the field of leadership by exploring the leadership styles that promotes a bullying

environment in organizations. Chapter 2 provided an overview of the literature relevant

to the study of adult bullying and its effect on workers that correlates and addresses the

pattern of bullying behavior and to recognize the types of mistreatment workplace bullies

direct toward intended targets over the past 30 years in organizations. Chapter 2

described the origins of workplace bullying for the specific purpose of the study and the

characteristics of a bully, target, and leadership styles that promote workplace bullying.

The purpose of the qualitative historical study research was to explore, identify,

and document information on the characteristics and types of bullies, forms of

mistreatment targeted toward intended victims, and leadership skills required to reduce

bullying behavior. The intent of this study was to inform leaders of small and large

organizations, who may identify bullying behaviors and adopt the leadership skills

necessary to minimize bullying in their organization with the goal of ensuring a safe and

healthy work environment. The research study investigated instances of workplace

bullying using archival documents from three publicly accessible institutions and

professional journals in the United States over the past 30 years. The historical study

methodology map shown in figure 2 consists of the major steps of collecting,

56
transcribing, categorizing, analyzing, documenting, and presenting findings of these data

in a time-ordered manner.

Figure 2. Historical study methodology map.

57
Research Method and Design Appropriateness

This qualitative historical study explored types and characteristics of bullies,

types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended targets, effects of bullying

on the workplace environment, leader behaviors promoting bullying, and leadership skills

essential for detecting and decreasing bullying. The study attempted to isolate these

bullying behaviors and types of mistreatment to provide successful methods to combat

this phenomenon. Empirical literature that relates directly to the research topic of

workplace bullying is limited and spans over the last 30 years. Data were collected from

historical documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional

journals in the United States. This study used data sources on bullying in the workplace

in general and on other sources related to workplace abuse and aggression.

Narrative data from the publicly accessible institutions’ archives was transferred

into NVivo 9 (QSR International, 2011), a text management software package for

qualitative analysis. Use of NVivo 9 allowed the research study to code these data and

use an interpretive approach to analyze the qualitative data. The data was examined for

emerging themes and larger patterns related to bullying behavior, the types of

mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended targets, and leadership behaviors

within the last 30 years.

Appropriateness of design. The purpose of the qualitative historical study was to

explore, identify, and document types and characteristics of bullies, types of mistreatment

workplace bullies direct toward intended targets, leader behaviors promoting bullying

over the past 30 years, and leadership skills essential for reducing bullying. Historical

58
study research is appropriate when individual participants are not available to be

interviewed (Yin, 2009). The non-availability necessitates the research study to rely on

archived information. Because the majority of these workers are reluctant to be

interviewed due to the sensitivity of the phenomenon, data were collected from historical

documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional journals

in the United States spanning over the last 30 years.

Historical research data may be selective in nature because often only dramatic

events get recalled, whereas the passage of unremarkable events of long-term

significance are less likely to have been observed and documented at the time they

occurred (McDowell, 2002). However, a proper historical perspective enables

researchers to see the significance of events, which may have seemed insignificant to

those who witnessed them while they were occurring (McDowell, 2002). This qualitative

historical study was used to explore, identify, and document workplace bullying behavior

during the last 30 years by examining historical documents from the archives of publicly

accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States. The study findings

may help to develop a different perspective on past events that may lead to a different

conclusion about the significance of bullying behavior, types of mistreatment, and leader

qualities.

A qualitative historical study methodology was chosen because of its distinctive

interpretive approach in understanding the entangled situation between phenomenon and

context (Yin, 2009). Typically, investigators choose this method when no relevant

persons are alive to report, or are difficult to find (Yin, 2009). Investigators of the

59
historical study must rely on cultural and physical artifacts, primary documents, and

secondary documents as the main sources of evidence (Yin, 2009). For this qualitative

historical study, no specific instruments were required to facilitate the study, except for

the research questions to guide the study. The research study did not require any precise

identification and definition of variables. However, a well-conducted qualitative study

provides an inductive process leading from data collection to coding, concept creation,

category formation, and eventually to the formation of a theory (Alasuutari, 2010).

Feasibility of design. This historical study was used to compile publicly available

data for processing. Therefore, no participants were interviewed, no travel

accommodations or considerations were required, nor any consent forms. Information

gleaned from the research study may prove to be vital for leadership training purposes or

as a basis for additional leadership research.

Research Questions

This research study was an inquiry into the phenomenon of workplace bullying

over the last 30 years, guided by the research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of different types of bullies?

2. What are the forms of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward the

intended targets?

3. What are the leadership skills required to reduce workplace bullying?

Population

The population for the proposed qualitative historical study comprised of

American workers who have experienced workplace bullying or witnessed workers

60
experiencing workplace bullying. Because the majority of these workers are reluctant to

be interviewed, data were collected from historical documents from the archives of

publicly accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States over the last

30 years.

The NVivo 9 (QSR International, 2011) content analysis computer software

program was used to synthesize the textual data for emergent themes related to workplace

bullying. All information addressed the central research questions posed in this research

study. Data were presented in a narrative format, reporting patterns found in the

documents.

Study Sample

The scope of this study was to explore and identify bullying behaviors, types,

harassments, leadership behaviors in bullying, and effects of bullying on the workplace

environment within the last 30 years. Archived documents on workplace bullying

published since 1980, when physician Heinz Leymann (1990) researched adult bullying

in Sweden under the term of mobbing, till 2010, when the WBI (2010) documented that

37% of American workers experienced workplace bullying were analyzed as secondary

sources of data. Historical documents from the archives of publicly accessible

institutions and professional journals in the United States were analyzed. The data were

coded for themes related to bullying behavior and types of mistreatment of victims of

workplace bullying in the United States over the last 30 years.

61
Informed Consent and Confidentiality

Historical documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and

professional journals in the United States over the last 30 years were reviewed.

Participating institutions have publicly accessible manuscripts and archive collections,

therefore, no written approval was needed to access these collections. Because the

materials from the institutions are publicly accessible, forms of confidentiality was not

required for this study.

Geographic Location

The International Labor Office (ILO) has conducted research reporting that the

phenomenon of workplace bullying has reached epidemic levels in several countries

(Chappell & Di Martino, 2006). The phenomenon of workplace mobbing and bullying is

on the rise in the United States and worldwide (Sperry, 2009). The purpose of this

qualitative historical study was to gather information about workplace bullying in the

United States. Research was concentrated on manuscripts and archived information on

workplace bullying in the United States available from historical documents from the

archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States.

Data Collection

Secondary data were collected from publicly available databases, historical files,

and documents held at the archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional

journals in the United States. To collect adequate data, all sources of information

available on the research topic were considered. Data related to bullying behavior and

62
the types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended targets in the last 30

years was collected.

Instrumentation

Because the study was a historical study, primary and secondary sources were

adequate for data collection. This historical study did not require specific instruments to

facilitate the study. The research questions based on the literature reviewed in chapter 2

were used to guide data collection.

Validity and Reliability

In qualitative studies, the term ‘validity’ has a wide range of definitions

(Golafshani, 2003). Creswell and Miller (2000) suggested that a researcher’s perception

of validity in a study and his or her choice of paradigms affect validity. Schwandt,

Lincoln, and Guba (2007) established emergent methodology criteria of trustworthiness

presented in table 4.

Table 4

Criteria to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research

Emergent Methodology Trustworthiness Criteria

Credibility Internal validity (believability of the findings)

Transferability External validity (evidence supporting findings)
Dependability Reliability in quantitative research (repeatability)
Objectivity Neutrality (control of researcher bias)
Note. Adapted from “Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in
naturalistic evaluation” (2007).

63
This belief has caused qualitative researchers to adopt the terms of quality, rigor, and

trustworthiness as measures of validity and reliability (Golafshani, 2003).

Researchers employ emergent methodology or induction while gradually building

a construct for understanding their findings (Suter, 2012). This construct of

understanding is constantly compared against data and revised without looking through

the researcher’s paradigm lens (Dey, 2005). Each new finding that emerges was checked

against other sources of data until saturation, which signals the end of the analysis (Suter,

2012).

Historical research uses criticism to establish the validity or genuineness of

sources (Garraghan, 1946). Criticism entails internal and external methods used by

researchers to appraise sources. External criticism refers to the genuineness of obtained

research documents for the study by examining the nature and authenticity of the

documents (Garraghan, 1946). Internal criticism determines the accuracy of the content

in the obtained documents and reliability of the author by examining the contents of the

documents (Garraghan, 1946). Researchers exercised external and internal criticism by

asking six questions outlined by Garraghan (1946):

1. When was the document written or created (date)?

2. Where the document was created (localization)?

3. Who created the document (authorship)?

4. What was the source material that the document was created from (analysis)?

5. What was the original form of the document (integrity)?

6. What is the value towards evidence of the document contents (credibility)?

64
Internal and external criticism established validation because the majority of the sources

were from legal documents and court case proceedings taken under oath with

undisputable evidence by both sides.

Therefore, the goal of the qualitative researcher in achieving validity and

reliability was to eliminate bias and increase truthfulness by overcoming the researcher’s

perspectives of the study, provide evidence supporting findings, and establish

believability and repeatability of the study (Schwandt, et al., 2007). The methods of

triangulation, saturation, and clarification of researcher bias established validity and

reliability of this qualitative historical study.

Triangulation. Creswell and Miller (2000) presented a method termed

‘triangulation’ that has come to be widely accepted by researchers; in triangulation

researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information

to verify themes or categories of a study. The triangulation of data from different sources

and methods provides corroborating evidence to shed light on the theme of workplace

bullying and establishes validity (Creswell, 2007). The collections of primary and

secondary data were obtained from publicly available archives, databases, and legal

documents at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville Public Library, and the Duval

County Courthouse. The majority of the sources were obtained from legal records and

court cases highlighting the behaviors associated with workplace bullying. Each source’s

credibility, reliability, and validity was assessed by looking at the source of the

information, the purpose of the research, the last revision date, and the appropriateness of

the information for the purpose of the research, which highlights internal and external

65
criticism. Also, care was taken to check if the information is traceable to facts and if

limitations are acknowledged.

Saturation. Saturation in qualitative research signals the point where new data

further supports key categories of sorted data (Schwandt, et al., 2007). Furthermore,

saturation signals the point in data collection when new data no longer bring additional

insights to the research questions (Merriam, 2009). All data collected after saturation

served to confirm emerging themes and provided researchers with the checkered flag

signaling the end of the analysis (Schwandt, et al., 2007).

Clarifying researcher bias. Creswell and Miller (2000) refer clarifying

researcher bias as researcher reflexivity. Creswell and Miller (2000) describe researcher

reflexivity as the process whereby researchers describe their personal paradigm shaping

their analysis. This validity instrument used the lens of the researcher’s paradigm to

reflect on the social, cultural, and historical variables that formed the researcher’s

interpretation (Creswell& Miller, 2000). Researchers can develop unbiased

interpretations by practicing self-reflection and recognizing their bias and factoring them

into the design (Schwandt, et al., 2007).

Data Analysis

Analysis of data took place throughout the data collection process and classifying

began at the beginning of the research process and deepened as the analysis ensued

(Baptiste, 2001). Baptiste (2001) categorized data classification into the two aspects of

tagging data and grouping tagged data. Data tagging refers to the process of selecting

and labeling pertinent data from an amorphous body of material that supports the purpose

66
of the study (Baptiste, 2001). Once tagged and labeled, data are systematically classified

with similar characteristics into the same group or category. To place data into categories

implies the formation of tacit and explicit definitions and the development of common

themes.

Data collected from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and

professional journals in the United States were tagged and labeled. Data were then

analyzed for patterns and themes. Emerging themes related to bullying behavior and

types of mistreatment of workplace bullying were categorized. The analysis of the data

was accomplished through the use of NVivo 9 (QSR International, 2011), a qualitative

data analysis software for coding textual data.

Summary

The purpose of the qualitative historical study research was to explore, identify,

and document patterns and trends of workplace bullying in organizations, characteristics

and types of bullies, types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended

targets over the past 30 years, and leadership skills to reduce workplace bullying. To

collect adequate data, all sources of information available on the research topic was

considered that was available from the historical documents from the archives of publicly

accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States.

The accomplishment of data analysis started with coding, forming categories, and

extracting themes using pattern matching techniques (Creswell, 2007). Saturation

signaled the end of data collection based on diminishing returns (Creswell, 2007). The

goal of data analysis culminated with the gaining of insight on the topic and was

67
presented visually in the form of cross tabulations (Creswell, 2007). Triangulation was

employed to provide validity by using multiple data sources providing a cross checking

of data.

Victims of workplace bullying could best be studied using a qualitative historical

study to determine any patterns or themes of bullying behavior and types of mistreatment.

For this historical study, the main data sources were documents from archives and

manuscripts collections. Data from these sources were tagged, labeled, and analyzed

using NVivo 9 (QSR International, 2011) to determine patterns or themes of the bullying

behavior and types of mistreatment of workplace bullying. Chapter 4 presents the

findings from the data that answered the research questions presented in this study.

68
 Chapter 4

Results

Chapter 4 presents and describes the results derived from the analysis of data.

Data analysis yielded eight major themes of bullying styles. Four bully styles reinforced

from the literature review, three new bully styles, and one outlier bully style emerged

from the archived research data from the University of North Florida, Duval County

Clerk of Courts, and the Jacksonville Public Library. The bully styles identified

represent multifaceted descriptions of the noteworthy points of the historical research.

Chapter 4 presents qualitative data through detailed descriptions and examples

throughout a 30-year period of the target population.

The qualitative historical study explored, identified, and documented through

historical records and documents, the patterns and trends of workplace bullying in

organizations, characteristics and types of bullies, and types of mistreatment workplace

bullies have directed toward intended targets over the past 30 years. Historical study

research is appropriate when no relevant persons are available to report an event that

occurred in the past (Yin, 2009). Non-availability for this study stems from the

reluctance of bullying victims to speak about their ordeals concerning this phenomenon.

The non-availability necessitates the research study to rely on primary and secondary

archived information, which consists of cultural and physical artifacts as the main sources

of evidence (Yin, 2009).

Historical research data may be selective in nature because often only dramatic

events get recalled, whereas the passage of unremarkable events of long-term

69
significance are less likely to have been observed and documented at the time they

occurred (McDowell, 2002). However, an accurate historical perspective enables

researchers to see the importance of events, which may have seemed insignificant to

those who witnessed them while they were occurring (McDowell, 2002). The study

findings may help to develop a different perspective on past events that may lead to a

different conclusion about the significance of bullying behavior, types of mistreatment,

and leadership qualities required to minimize bullying in the workplace.

A qualitative historical study method was chosen because of its distinctive

potential for analyzing the entangled situation between phenomenon and context (Yin,

2009). The facilitation of this qualitative historical study was guided by the research

questions. This qualitative historical study provided an inductive process that led from

data collection to coding, theme creation, bully style formation, and finally to conclusions

(Alasuutari, 2010).

Review of Problem Statement

Based on data from studies and reports on workplace bullying, the conservative

estimate of workplace bullying in the United States was approximately 13% of the

workforce at any given time (Namie & Namie, 2009). Media accounts suggested that the

occurrence of workplace bullying was on the increase in the United States (Sperry, 2009).

The problem was that from 2006 to 2010, 37% of American workers experienced

workplace bullying, which computed to about 54 million people (WBI, 2010). The

problem affected almost half (47%) of American working adults - approximately 71.5

million workers - who either experienced bullying directly or witnessed it (WBI, 2010).

70
About three-quarters (72%) of workplace bullies were supervisors or managers.

Additionally, in over half (62%) of the known cases of workplace bullying, employers

either worsened or ignored the offense (WBI, 2010). Workplace bullying caused an

alarming turnover of 21 to 28 million workers (WBI, 2010).

The specific problem the study wished to explore was workplace bullying caused

more harm to workers than sexual harassment did (Sperry, 2009). Psychological

disorders, such as major depression and posttraumatic stress, were byproducts of

workplace bullying in victims (Sperry, 2009). One-third of filed stress claims involved

workplace bullying. The direct and indirect cost associated with this phenomenon to

organizations was enormous (Sperry, 2009).

This qualitative historical study explored, identified, and documented information

on bully types and characteristics, forms of mistreatment workplace bullies directed

toward intended targets, and leadership skills necessary to minimize the problem of

workplace bullying. The intent was to inform leaders of small and large organizations,

who may adopt the leadership skills necessary to reduce bullying in their organizations

with the goal of ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. For this purpose, the

current study examined archived historical documents from the University of North

Florida, Duval County Clerk of Courts, and the Jacksonville Public Library.

Population

The population for this qualitative historical study comprised of American

workers who had experienced workplace bullying or witnessed workers experiencing

workplace bullying. Because the majority of these workers were reluctant to be

71
interviewed, data spanning the last 30 years were collected from historical documents

from the archives of the University of North Florida, Duval County Clerk of Courts, and

the Jacksonville Public Library. The NVivo 9 (QSR International, 2011) content analysis

computer software program synthesized the textual data for themes related to workplace

bullying. Data collected followed the specifics of the workplace bullying taxonomy

presented in figure 1 and attempted to address the central research questions posed in the

research study.

Data Collection

The research study explored the patterns and traits of bully types classified by the

forms of mistreatment workplace bullies directed toward intended targets in the

workplace between the years 1980 and 2010. Research centered on bullying cases only

in the United States and only in the workplace. Collection of primary and secondary data

took place from publicly available archives, databases, and legal documents at the

University of North Florida, Jacksonville Public Library, and the Duval County

Courthouse.

The research study brings to light the growing problem of workplace bullying by

exploring the plight of targets in the past 30 years. The research study sought to look at

these situations through the paradigms of the targets to gain an understanding of the

phenomena. Creswell (2007) explained that valuable qualitative historical data came

from documents such as legal documents, personal journals, correspondences, diaries,

newspaper articles, archives, and public records. Historical documents spanning the past

30 years, accessed from the University of North Florida, Duval County Clerk of Courts,

72
and the Jacksonville Public Library provided the information needed to address the three

questions that guided this research study.

Data Analyses and Study Findings

Cooper and Schindler (2001) described data analysis as the process of reducing

collected information to a workable size by creating categories, searching for themes, and

organizing data for presentation. Creswell (2007) explained that every time a researcher

read qualitative data an analysis occurred. A review and transcription of data collected

from historical documents and archival files took place, which were imported into NVivo

9 (QSR International, 2011) for analysis. The body of chapter 4 contains the compilation

of written textual summaries in response to the research questions.

The following section provides textual descriptions and examples of analyzed

data. Eight major bully type themes emerged from the data analysis: the snake,

gatekeeper, nitpicker, screamer, joker, discriminator, tyrant, and the reverse bully styles.

The findings on bullying styles clearly revealed that workplace bullies employ a

dominant bully style and switch to other styles when faced with counseling or reprimand

for their actions. Additionally, many bully bosses operate in pacts and promulgate a strict

code of silence.

The phenomenon of workplace bullying gained prominence in the United States

after Carroll Brodsky’s book The Harassed Worker (1976) was published. Brodsky

(1976) outlined that victims of harassment and bullying had to tolerate teasing,

badgering, and insults with little or no recourse to retaliation in kind. Brodsky (1976)

further noted that bullying contributed to strong negative effects on a victim’s health and

73
well-being. Brodsky (1976) also described victims of bullying as conscientious and

overachievers in the workplace.

Workplace bullying was a phenomenon under scrutiny by researchers and

lawmakers for approximately 30 years (Namie, 2007a). In the late 1980s, physician

Heinz Leymann (1990) researched adult bullying in Sweden under the term of

‘mobbing.’ The term ‘mobbing’ referred to the animal behavior of smaller animals in

packs attacking single larger animals (Namie & Namie, 2009). Leymann (1990) defined

mobbing as a recurring hostile and unethical occurrence in the workplace perpetuated for

six months or longer by one or more individuals aimed toward a defenseless individual.

Workplace bully characters can run rampant in an organization unless controlled. The

prevention of bullying in the workplace requires all members of an organization to work

together to create and enforce the organization’s policies, values, and procedures

(Wiedmer, 2010). Victims of workplace bullying identified eight key bullying styles

classified by the types of mistreatment directed at targets, which helps leadership to

further understand the tactics of the workplace bully.

The current historical study developed patterns and trends of workplace bullying

in organizations, characteristics and types of bullies, types of mistreatment workplace

bullies directed toward intended targets, and leadership skills to reduce workplace

bullying in the United States from 1980 to 2010 using historical data. Data analysis

yielded eight major themes of bullying styles and traits. Four bully styles reinforced by

the literature review, three new bully styles, and one outlier bully style emerged from

74
data analysis. The details of the types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward

intended victims are discussed along with the traits of each bully style.

Types of bullies and types of perpetrated mistreatment. The study findings

further supported the four bully types identified by the literature review. Three

additional bully types and one outlier bully type also emerged from data analysis.

Detailing each bully type comprises the characteristics inherent to the type and the types

of mistreatment the bully perpetrates.

Theme 1: The snake. Out of 1,883 data, 658 (34.9%) contained instances that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the snake persona. The snake, which is the

most common bully, manipulates people and their perceptions of events (Locander &

Luechauer, 2005). Data supported the snake as the most common with the highest

percentage of traits recorded. Snakes fabricate their own brand of reality by using people

and events as pawns on a chessboard (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). They exert a heavy

toll on people to maintain their façade and leave people feeling drained, used, and abused

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The snakes seek to be the puppet master and control

people, their environment, and the perceptions of senior management (Locander &

Luechauer, 2005).

According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying supported the literature

review in identifying numerous characteristics and types of mistreatment by the snake

bully persona. Snakes sneak around observing employees in hopes of catching them

doing something wrong. The snake sabotages employees while exhibiting a passive-

aggressive demeanor. Snakes make excessive demands and setup employees to fail by

75
overloading with inconsequential job duties. Many times the snake will torpedo a project

to make an employee look incompetent. The snake tasks workers for instantaneous

results with no allotted prep time causing them to miss deadlines. Snakes create a false

reality in which he or she is irreplaceable and employee victims are expendable by

spreading false accusations. Snakes handle employee reviews by giving adequate write-

ups with steadily falling scores. Many times the snake will coerce friendly coworkers of

a victim to avoid the victim as if the individual had the plague. The snake also

undermines other managers by attempting to lessen their supervisory authority by

spreading malicious rumors. Snakes often interrupt meetings to stall any headway on a

project that was not his or her idea. The snake is an expert at kissing up and kicking

down, eliminating any threat to his or her positional authority.

Example 1.Van Gelder (2013) reported the following case during an interview

with A.C. Willment, an editor for a publisher of legal treatises in Manhattan. She

explained that after 25 years of working for profit, nonprofit, large, and small

organizations, she had met many bullies. She explained that out of all the bullies she had

met, by far the worst was the passive-aggressive bully. Van Gelder (2013) likened this

bully to Herman Melville's main character in “Bartle by the Scrivener” (p.BU8).

Ms. Willment notes that literary critics do not usually describe Bartleby as

a bully, but she says she thinks they might want to reconsider. He exercises his

power by establishing your impotence; malice sets him apart from the standard

procrastinator. A Bartleby, often but not always a superior, can torpedo your

projects, blow your deadlines, make you look incompetent and wastes massive

76
 amounts of your time. I tangled with a Bartleby who was responsible for

generating a particular document for me. Days turned into weeks, deadlines drew

nigh and I couldn't get it out of him with the “jaws of life.” I couldn't even get a

good excuse. My supervisor (roughly Bartleby's equal in the pecking order) came

by my desk, and I confessed I was stymied. She smiled, picked up my phone and

buzzed Bartleby. Our phones had a display feature similar to caller ID. Bartleby

answered the phone with a weary “Oh-Gawd-it's-you-again” drawl. My

supervisor identified herself as calling from my phone and inquired about the

document, which got drafted and delivered with a speed that implied the question,

Why wasn't this possible two weeks ago? (Van Gelder, 2013, p. BU8)

Example 2. Assistant principal, Decoma Love-Lane worked for the school board

as a teacher for 14 years and as an assistant principal for 10 more years (Love-Lane v.

Martin, 2004). During her tenure she consistently received evaluations of excellent or

superior in almost all aspects of her performance (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004). She was

told that her strongest skills were in the areas of communication and problem solving

(Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004). Each of the principals for whom she worked in these years

recommended her for promotion (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004).

In summer 1995, Superintendent Martin assigned Love-Lane to Lewisville

Elementary School as the assistant principal because the school needed "an African-

American presence" (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004, p. 1). Love-Lane voiced her concern

because she had heard that the principal, Brenda Blanchfield, often had difficulty dealing

with African American assistants (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004). Additionally, Love-Lane

77
knew that racial tensions were high at Lewisville because Blanchfield ignored the

problems facing the African American teachers, students, and parents (Love-Lane v.

Martin, 2004).

Love-Lane discovered many discriminatory practices while at Lewisville

over the next three years as the assistant principal. One of the key issues she tried

to address was the time-out room. First, a disproportionate number of African

American students, particularly African American boys, were sent to the time-out

room. Some teachers called on White girls to escort African American boys to

the room, a practice that was no doubt humiliating to the boys. Second, the time-

out room served to relieve individual teachers of responsibility for handling

discipline problems in the classroom. A student could be referred to the room for

any infraction without the knowledge or approval of the principal or assistant

principal. In other words, there were no safeguards to prevent a teacher from

making excessive use of the time-out room. (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004, p.2)

Love-Lane attempted to eliminate the practice of the time-out room. Her

repeated attempts caused principal Blanchfield to retaliate and ostracize Love-

Lane from the staff and Superintendent Martin. Love-Lane's evaluations began to

decline for the first time in her long career in education.

She received for the first time lower ratings on her communication skills.

Blanchfield told Love-Lane that 85 percent of the teachers found her intimidating

and that they objected to her direct style of communication. Blanchfield refused,

however, to provide Love-Lane with any details about these complaints.

78
Blanchfield did tell Love-Lane that she had concerns about Love-Lane's inability

to accept feedback and her blatant actions of disrespect toward Blanchfield.

Blanchfield recommended that Love-Lane receive only a two-year contract as an

assistant principal. (Administrators were given contracts of up to four years.)

Blanchfield informed Love-Lane that she had many strengths, which if coupled

with improvements in working relationships and respect for those Love-Lane is

assigned to work with would make her very effective and efficient in a leadership

role. Blanchfield then advised Martin that she no longer wanted to work with

Love-Lane. (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004, p.3)

Love-Lane over the course of her three years tried to have Superintendent

Martin intervene on behalf of the students. However, Martin refused to

acknowledge a problem existed and would not take any action (Love-Lane v.

Martin, 2004). Additionally, Martin warned Love-Lane that her future as a school

administrator was in jeopardy unless she respected the authority of the principal

(Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004). Love-Lane’s third year evaluation by principal

Blanchfield “rated Love-Lane below standard and unsatisfactory in three areas

that related primarily to communication skills and efforts. Love-Lane received

ratings of at standard or above in eight of eleven evaluation categories, including

two ratings of well above standard” (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004, p. 1). Martin

chastised Love-Lane that the students were not her concern and that her job was

to serve her principal (Love-Lane v. Martin, 2004). Finally, Martin sent a memo

79
 to Love-Lane assigning her to another school in a non-administrative position

teaching high school classes at North Forsyth High School.

Martin's memo informed Love-Lane of Blanchfield's claim that Love-

Lane put forth minimal efforts to carry out the role, responsibilities, and functions

of an assistant principal, which resulted in her lower evaluation for the 1997-98

school year. Martin claimed that Love-Lane had failed to respond positively to

his October 1997 recommendations and that she lacked the ability or desire to

rebuild respect and trust with Blanchfield and other staff members at Lewisville.

Martin concluded that Love-Lane's unwillingness to reestablish working

relationships with the principal and staff had convinced him that Love-Lane did

not have a future as an administrator in the school system. (Love-Lane v. Martin,

2004, p. 4)

Theme 2: The tyrant. Out of 1,883 data, 496 contained instances (26.34%) that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the tyrant persona. The tyrant looks at an

organization as his or her personal kingdom. The tyrant dictates the rules and laws of the

land and expects special privileges because of his or her position. The organization’s

rules and polices do not apply to the tyrant; therefore, the tyrant considers himself or

herself above reproach. The tyrant has characteristics similar to the narcissist and the

psychopath. The tyrant like the narcissist avoids any inner turmoil by shifting the blame

for the abusive behavior onto the victim or the peasant because they are below him or her

(Hirigoyen, 2000). Tyrants like psychopaths are characterized as possessing no

conscience, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for people of

80
low stature (Boddy, 2011). According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying

identified numerous characteristics and types of mistreatment by the tyrant bully persona.

Tyrants bully for the sheer pleasure of exercising power. Tyrants have over-sized egos

and display arrogance freely and openly. The tyrant bully retaliates 100% of the time

regardless of the amount of time that passes. Tyrants regularly invade employee’s

personal space in a show of power. Tyrants often give false praise and make negative

eye contact with employees such as staring and dirty looks to have them look away as a

sign of submissiveness. The tyrant often uses the phrase “do as I say, or else” in dealing

with subordinates and peers. Tyrants confront friendly managers and tell them to mind

their own business when speaking up for a bullied employee. Tyrants give no

explanations for poor appraisals and often tell employees to read and sign their

evaluations. Tyrants get enjoyment out of making employees squirm or feel

uncomfortable. Tyrants speak in a condescending manner to employees and often

interrupt employees and peers without any consideration.

Example 1. Emerson Young (as cited in Jolliff v. NLRB, 2008) submitted the

following letter derived from grievances of the drivers and dock workers for TNT

Logistics of North America, Inc. to TNT's corporate management in Jacksonville,

Florida, which resulted in his termination. Young had worked as a driver since

1990; during his term of employment he received numerous awards for safe

driving and professionalism and had never been disciplined. The complaints

focus on the managers Robert Wheeler and Jeff Basinger and their treatment of

the dock workers and truck drivers.

81
 Mr. Wheeler is hardly ever here to listen to our problems when we need

advice on problem solving. He has lied to us on various occasions and we do not

approve of this and many of his methods. We feel he should be a better leader

and manager. (Jolliff v. NLRB, 2008, p. 2)

Young outlined that the company has lost business under Mr. Wheeler's

management. Young conceded that he had accomplished some good, but the

negative issues outweighed any good for the company and employees. Young

stated that the employees desire a good and decent place to work where their

efforts are recognized.

Mr. Basinger came here with what appears to be his own personal gain for

himself. “He put up a wall to most people, mainly the drivers, under his contract.

You do as I say or else. Well, it may be or else as most people or drivers don't

care for him. He believes he put TNT on the map here, well, we know better”

(Jolliff v. NLRB, 2008, p. 2).

Young further outlined a point system that the two managers instituted

where employees get points for taking days off, which can lead to being

terminated. Points are assigned for employees going to the doctor or the dentist

even if a written excuse is issued by the doctor. Some workers report to work

sick and leave early so they only receive ½ points. Young felt that this was an

unsafe practice and could result in someone getting hurt. Points are also assessed

if an employee attends a family funeral, which has an adverse effect on morale.

Additionally, drivers are receiving pressure to fix their log books so that they can

82
 take extra runs. This is an illegal practice being supported by dispatchers and

management. Finally, the drivers complained of Mr. Basinger’s route

management skills.

We just held the drivers re-bid meeting on the new routes and this is what

happened, to not one but several of the drivers. When drivers went to bid on our

new runs, Mr. Basinger told these drivers these runs were already taken and he

had other runs for them. One driver asked who took the run he wanted and Mr.

Basinger did not want to tell him who took it. But then the driver asked again and

Mr. Basinger told him who got it and it turned out to be one of his friends from a

previous contract. (Jolliff v. NLRB, 2008, p.3)

Example 2. The diary of Connie Pappas (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005) was

presented at a harassment case that detailed the forms of mistreatment toward her in

dealing with a tyrant bully. The journal outlined that Nick Anaya (‘Anaya’) would come

into her department and “would stare at her, give her dirty looks, and would smirk at her”

(Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 1). Pappas overheard Anaya on two separate

occasions telling her employees that “if Pappas kept it up, he would make sure that she

would eventually quit” (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 1). On two occasions in

October 2002, Anaya ran into Pappas while he was walking down the hallway, “and then

smirked at her without saying anything” (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 1).

According to Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc. (2005), “On January 15th, Anaya, in a

hateful and very sarcastic manner in a job-related criticism” (p. 2), falsely accused

Pappas of not properly copying and giving the correct specifications to a coworker.

83
Finally in February 2003, Anaya again yelled at her “in a very sarcastic manner” (Pappas

v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 2), falsely accusing Pappas of making documentation

mistakes in two folders concerning specifications. Pappas became so upset because

“Anaya stood so close to Pappas during the incident that his spit hit her face while he was

yelling at her” (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 2) that she reported the incident to

her supervisor, while crying, and gave her two weeks’ notice. Anaya came into Pappas'

office 30 minutes after she reported him to her supervisor to make copies and started

laughing at Pappas.

Theme 3: The screamer. Out of 1,883 data, 420 contained instances (22.30%)

that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the screamer persona. The screamer

lives by the motto the squeaky wheel gets the grease (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Screamers go on rants to get their way at others’ expense and put their priorities above

the priorities of the team and organization (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers

often fail when people tend to tune their rants out and proceed with their own work

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers are prime candidates for training in anger

management and emotional intelligence (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). According to

data analysis, targets of workplace bullying supported the literature review in identifying

numerous characteristics and types of mistreatment by the screamer bully persona.

Screamers are moody and fling insults and sarcasm at targets on a regular basis. The

screamer often openly mocks targets during meetings and belittles target’s ideas. The

screamer attacks targets with verbal and physical assault in the form of accusations,

pushing, punching, threats, staring, glaring, name calling, screaming, and swearing. The

84
vindictive screamer practices retaliation and often exhibits meltdowns. Screamers exhibit

violent tempers, lack of patience, mood swings, and unduly harsh behavior.

Example 1.Van Gelder (2013) reported the following case during an interview

with Joseph R. Weintraub, a professor of management and organizational behavior at

Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts:

The most outrageous example of workplace bullying occurred at a company I was

asked to consult to. At the company, I encountered a senior executive who liked

to talk about “'cracking the whip” if people were not performing to his

satisfaction. The executive was not just talking. To play out his threat, he had a

real cowboy bullwhip on his wall, which he would use from time to time and

actually crack it in the hall outside his office to show his ire. (p. BU8)

Employees grew very apprehensive to even report to work for fear of this

screamer bully and his bull whip. Additionally, employees feared reporting him

because of retaliation and he occupied a senior executive position. The screamer

bully’s whipping days came to an abrupt end when he accidentally whipped a

senior executive as she was walking in the hallway, which resulted in his

immediate firing. (Van Gelder, 2013)

Example 2. Van Gelder (2013) additionally reported the following case during an

interview with Gregory Alford, a communications manager at OSF St. Anthony Medical

Center in Rockford, Illinois:

When I was a journalist working at daily newspapers, I served under several

editors who desperately needed anger management training. The worst of the lot,

85
 he said, was the managing editor of a daily newspaper published in the afternoon,

which meant that most of the deadlines were before 9 a.m. Unfortunately for Mr.

Alford and his colleagues, the editor in question was not a morning person. (Van

Gelder, 2013, p. BU8)

The editorial office comprised of a large open room that housed the entire staff of

20 at any given time. The screamer bully enjoyed a large audience when he exploded

into one of his frequent temper tantrums (Van Gelder, 2013). If he became interrupted

during a page layout by the telephone, he would slam the phone back in the cradle after

the conversation ended (Van Gelder, 2013). Many times he would slam it repeatedly for

emphasis as he roared in a tirade (Van Gelder, 2013).

Once, he slammed the receiver down so hard that he shattered the base of the

phone. He thought it was hilarious and immediately hung the phone on the wall of

the newsroom to remind all of us of his power and contempt of interruptions. An

additional sign of his masculinity was a metal garbage can with a large dent

caused by his foot, which he proudly displayed at his newsroom desk. (Van

Gelder, 2013, p. BU8)

Mr. Alford (Van Gelder, 2013) added that if an employee began to look for a new

job to get away from the screamer bully, the bully had to be informed or he would fire the

employee. Of course once informed the screamer bully would pout and ostracize the

employee or begin a vocal smear campaign to accelerate the process (Van Gelder, 2013).

Example 3. The third example presents findings from an investigative report by

the Ventura County Grand Jury (2011) on bullying in the workplace. The findings

86
consist of instances “where employees were yelled at by managers in group meetings and

in public areas” (Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011, p. 3).

Theme 4: The gatekeeper. Out of 1,883 data, 356 contained instances (18.91%)

that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the gatekeeper persona. Gatekeepers

use their position to hoard information and resources to keep employees in a submissive

position (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Employees face roadblocks at every turn and

stagnate in red tape when working for a gatekeeper (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). This

form of bully saps employee motivation and energy until employees only go through the

motions or seek employment elsewhere, which often leads to underemployment

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying supported the literature

review in identifying numerous characteristics and types of mistreatment by the

gatekeeper bully persona. The cold and controlling gatekeeper is an expert at ostracizing

targets. Gatekeepers give the silent treatment to targets and often exclude them from

meetings. On the rare occasion that a victim attends a meeting, the gatekeeper ignores

them and rebuffs any input quickly. The gatekeeper assigns targets menial tasks,

reassigns diminished work duties, and withholds information. Gatekeepers only share

information with favorites that give blind obedience. Gatekeepers promote inequities in

workload sparing favorites and overloading targets. Gatekeepers curb communication

toward targets, thus isolating them physically and organizationally.

Example 1.Fairley v. Andrews (2009) presents the case of Roger Fairley and

Richard Gackowski who worked as guards at the Cook County Jail in Chicago. While

87
guards are known to beat their prisoners regularly without justification at jails, the

complaint centered on how fellow guards reacted when Fairley and Gackowski objected

to this practice.

On April 2000, Gackowski objected when Fred Coffey struck inmate Brown.

Gackowski followed up with an internal complaint. Coffey and other guards

responded by taunting Gackowski, calling him a "snitch" who "had no heart."

(Fairley v. Andrews, 2009, p. 1)

Later that year a fight broke out in Special Incarceration Unit 2, which holds the

most dangerous inmates. Once the guards had subdued and cuffed the prisoners, guards

Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Edward Byrne proceeded to beat them. “Fairley

told them to stop. Byrne snapped: They want to hurt my officers.... Kill'em. They

deserve to die” (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009, p. 1). Byrne later outlined the abuse of the

inmates to Gackowski, and threatened Fairley not to file an incident report. Bercasio and

Fermaint tagged Fairley and Gackowski as "inmate lovers" (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009, p.

1).

Though the Department of Corrections' General Orders require guards to

report any misconduct by their peers, plaintiffs say that this does not reflect

reality; according to them, the Jail's real rule is a ban on reporting misconduct, a

"code of silence." At the training academy, instructors told cadets to stick

together and don't say any bad remarks about anybody. This attitude pervaded the

Jail. (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009, p. 1)

88
 The inmates subsequently filed a suit against the officers that beat them during the

incident. Fairley and Gackowski made it known that if subpoenaed, they would not lie to

protect the aggressive officers (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009). This infuriated the other

guards, which led to Fairley and Gackowski being ostracized (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009).

Bercasio and Fermaint forcefully "dry humped" Fairley and Gackowski by

grabbing them from behind and simulating anal intercourse. Bercasio posted on

the Jail's bulletin boards pornographic cartoons featuring Gackowski. Supervisors

repeatedly assigned Fairley and Gackowski to Special Incarceration Unit 2

without adequate supplies; other guards refused to let them out to use the

restroom. Byrne denied Fairley's request for paternity leave and refused to pay

plaintiffs for overtime they had worked. The taunts "inmate lover" and "social

worker" flew freely. (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009, p. 1)

Gackowski filed an internal-affairs complaint in response to the bullying and later

that month an inmate attacked Fairley, which resulted in a cut wrist (Fairley v. Andrews,

2009). Bercasio remarked, “You see that, Fairley? You fuck with people, that's how you

get stabbed” (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009, p. 2). Further ostracizing occurred when internal

officers dragged their feet performing the investigation. Ronald Prohaska told

Gackowski, “If Fairley goes into court on this case and tells the truth, he will fuck

everyone involved. We always knew he was a weak link and when a weak link can fuck

everyone in the chain, then we have to bury the weak link. It's nothing personal. It's just

business. Just like with your complaint trying to fuck fellow officers” (Fairley v.

89
Andrews, 2009, p. 2). After this exchange, Fairley and Gackowski fearing further attacks

used all accrued leave time and quit on February 4, 2003 (Fairley v. Andrews, 2009).

Example 2. The second example highlights the career of Ms. Duncan with the

Denver police force over a 25-year period. She entered the force at a time when it was

unusual for women to be police officers, and she endured more than her fair share of

abuse, hostility, and discrimination. She persevered until the late 1990s, when her

patience was exhausted and she took to court. The following example provides

highlights during her testimony of how she was ostracized, which is the prime weapon of

the gatekeeper bully persona (Duncan v. Manager, 2005).

Ms. Duncan outlines the gatekeeper tactics of her fellow officers and captain. Ms.

Duncan claims she was assaulted while in training by another officer, who grabbed her

clothes (Duncan v. Manager, 2005). When she reported the incident to her training

officer and to the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB), she was “basically told to shut up”

(Duncan v. Manager, 2005, p. 1). Ms. Duncan also received several anonymous letters

from within the department. Whoever sent the letters “threatened to rape and kill her

before cutting up her body and scattering the pieces around the city” (Duncan v.

Manager, 2005, p. 1). Another incident consisted of a fellow officer exposing himself to

Ms. Duncan. After she expressed her disgust to the officer, “he began spreading rumors

that he was sleeping with her” (Duncan v. Manager, 2005, p. 1).

On numerous occasions other officers attempted to grope her, kiss her, grab her,

make lewd comments, spread constant rumors, and subject her to sexual banter increasing

her isolation from the group (Duncan v. Manager, 2005). Ms. Duncan claims that her

90
captain at District Four exhibited discrimination toward female police officers (Duncan v.

Manager, 2005). She alleged that “when her sergeant recommended her for a promotion

the captain asked whether Duncan was "giving him head." When other sergeants joined

in the recommendation, the captain asked if they were all receiving sexual favors from

Ms. Duncan (Duncan v. Manager, 2005, p.1). Her captain further exhibited gatekeeper

bully tendencies in “subjecting her performance to exacting scrutiny by showing up

unannounced while she was on patrol, a behavior she characterizes as highly unusual"

(Duncan v. Manager, 2005, p. 2). The gatekeeper bully relationship between Ms. Duncan

and her captain prompted her transfer to District One in 1984 (Duncan v. Manager,

2005).

Ms. Duncan claims that throughout her 25 year career, the discriminatory conduct

continued. She testified to numerous instances of groping and grabbing, which led to her

isolation. She feared reporting these incidents would result in her facing trouble getting

backup during dangerous situations (Duncan v. Manager, 2005). “She claimed that

during her time at District One, male officers ostracized her and refused to partner with

her. Consequently, Ms. Duncan often worked by herself and did not receive cover from

fellow officers except during urgent situations” (Duncan v. Manager, 2005, p. 3).

Finally in August 1998, Chief Michaud transferred Ms. Duncan to the Police

Academy because her feared for her safety. The final atrocity exhibited toward her

involved a letter circulated accusing her of “using sexual relationships with superiors to

influence personnel placement decisions” (Duncan v. Manager, 2005, p. 4).

91
 Example 3. The third example again presents findings from an investigative

report by the Ventura County Grand Jury (2011) on bullying in the workplace. The

findings consist of numerous instances where employees were ostracized organizationally

and physically by management (Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011). Many employees

suffered organizational separation from their functional departments into single person

work units bypassing their former supervisor and reporting directly to a higher manager

with little or no job responsibilities (Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011). Some employees

suffered physical separation through mandatory Paid Administrative Leave requiring they

stay at home during normal working hours without any work responsibilities (Ventura

County Grand Jury, 2011).

Theme 5: The joker. Out of 1,883 data, 319 contained instances (16.94%) that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the joker persona. The joker uses practical

jokes, teasing, insults, foul language, and ill humor to disguise his or her abuse. Jokers

hide behind the façade of the “just kidding” or “I meant no harm” defense. Jokers only

admit their pranks when caught red-handed; otherwise jokers deny any involvement in

the abusive behavior. Jokers often act in groups to haze an employee with their antics.

According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying identified numerous

characteristics and types of mistreatment by the joker bully persona. If an employee

walks away from his or her computer without locking it, the joker takes advantage of the

opportunity. The joker sends false offensive e-mails, deletes files, deletes incoming

emails requesting information, and changes passwords. Jokers often destroy personal

property such as family photos, a displayed award, plants, fish bowls, office supplies,

92
desks, chairs, or any other item the target might value. Jokers major in sarcasm,

mocking, name calling, eye rolling, teasing, ridicule, lewd gestures, and crass behavior

toward intended targets. Jokers often seek to alter time sheets or falsify records to cause

a target trouble. Jokers intentionally fail to give messages to victims to cause them to

miss deadlines or assignments. Jokers also make obscene phone calls and send hate mail

to a target. The joker attempts to drive away the intended victims or discredit them to

further their own agenda.

Example 1. The diary of Connie Pappas (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005) is

revisited to discuss the forms of mistreatment toward her in a harassment case with a

joker bully. The specific instances of harassment directed at her, as mentioned in her

diary were elaborated in her testimony (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005):

During the month of October in 2002, Pappas experienced the following instances

of joker bullying. First someone tampered with her computer, which she fixed but not

before it affected her job performance. She suspected Anaya because he had a reputation

of getting around passwords. Next someone stapled all of Pappas' business cards

together, which she reported to her supervisor. Finally, “someone used a marker to draw

a mustache and devil horns on the glass of a small picture of Pappas' grandson” (Pappas

v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 1), and someone again tampered with her computer.

In November 2002, the joker bully continued to strike. The month began with her

computer again being tampered with and files being moved around. Additionally,

someone also put shredded paper in Pappas' desk drawer. Pappas informed her

supervisor, who took no action. Two days later Pappas “discovered Anaya putting

93
shredded paper in her desk, to which he stated in a smirking manner that she had caught

him” (Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 2). Pappas informed her supervisor, which

ended the shredded paper and card stapling incidents.

On January 7, 2003, when Anaya discovered that Pappas was getting a new

tamper-proof computer,

he barged into Kevin Beach's office while he was having a meeting with Pappas

and sarcastically stated that he needed a new computer too because his had caught

fire, to which Beach just laughed, which encouraged the joker bully even more.

(Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 2005, p. 3)

Example 2. The next example is testimony by Patrick LaDay (La Day v. Catalyst

Technology, Inc., 2002) concerning a case of claimed same-sex harassment. Catalyst

Technology, Inc. (Catalyst) hired La Day to work as a reactor technician in November

1996. Three incidents occurred that led to La Day filing a suit in March 1998. The

incidents involved harassment by La Day’s supervisor Willie Craft in Montgomery,

Alabama.

Incident one entailed Craft observing La Day sitting in his car with his girlfriend.

Craft noticed "passion marks" on La Day's neck and stated, "I see you got a girl. You

know I'm jealous" (La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002, p. 1).

The second incident outlines how Craft approached La Day “from behind while

he was bending down and fondled his anus. La Day described the contact as similar to

foreplay with a woman. La Day turned around immediately and told Craft not to touch

him that way because ‘I don't play like that.’ Craft laughed and walked away” (La Day v.

94
Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002, p. 1). La Day immediately reported the incident to his

immediate supervisor. Later that day, the third incident consists of “Craft allegedly

spitting tobacco on La Day's hard hat and shirt, stating, “This is what I think of you’” (La

Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002, p. 1).

After the three incidents La Day refused to report to his next assignment because

Craft was the supervisor, which prompted Catalyst to initiate termination proceedings

against La Day (La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002). In response, La Day filed

an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Catalyst,

which resulted in an investigation into La Day's complaint, headed by Andy Clark, the

Vice President for Human Resources. During the investigation, Andy Clark discovered

that two other former employees had made similar complaints against Craft (La Day v.

Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002).

The first complaint concerned Bernard Strange, who had filed a written complaint

against Craft with Catalyst's personnel manager, Charlotte Valentine, “alleging that Craft

had asked him to sit on his lap and told Strange he had "pretty lips" and that he could

"suck dick" or "suck my dick" (La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002, p. 2). The

second incident concerned Chad Johnson, who complained that Craft had touched him

“in the area of his genitals” (La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002, p. 2). Both of

these incidents ended with Willie Craft saying it was a misunderstanding and that “he

was only kidding” (La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 2002, p. 2).

Example 3. The next example provides highlights of an opinion written by Senior

Judge Phillips in a Title VII claim of sexual harassment against Fairfax County by Mark

95
McWilliams (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 1996). The Newington

Facility of the Fairfax County Equipment Management Transportation Agency (EMTA)

hired Mark McWilliams in 1987 as an automotive mechanic. Mr. McWilliams informed

the facility that he had a learning disability. The disability had stopped the development

of his cognitive and emotional skills (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors,

1996).

Two years after his hiring, McWilliams' began having issues with coworkers,

collectively known as the "lube boys" (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of

Supervisors, 1996). They harassed McWilliams with a variety of offensive conduct that

included teasing, taunting, physical pranks, and practical jokes, which all emulate the

joker bully persona. Specifics include teasing him about his sexual activities, and

exposing themselves to him. They taunted him with remarks such as, “the only woman

you could get is one who is deaf, dumb, and blind” (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd.

of Supervisors, 1996, p. 1). A supervisor once “placed a condom in McWilliams' food”

(McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 1996, p. 1).

The physical pranks consisted of “tying McWilliams' hands together, blindfolding

him, and forcing him to his knees, then placing a finger in McWilliams' mouth to

simulate an oral sexual act or placing a broomstick to McWilliams' anus while a third

exposed his genitals to McWilliams” (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors,

1996, p. 2).

According to the Management, “the lube boys were engaging in horseplay and

might investigate the situation” (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 1996,

96
p. 3). McWilliams eventually was referred to the County's Employee Assistance

Program. Once there, McWilliams was diagnosed with severe emotional problems,

which caused him to leave his employment in September 1992 on medical leave

(McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 1996). Later McWilliams informed

EMTA management that he had been sexually abused and filed a charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of

Supervisors, 1996).

Theme 6: The discriminator. Out of 1,883 data, 318 contained instances

(16.89%) that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the discriminator persona.

According to Bateman and Snell (2007), diversity goes beyond skin color and gender.

Diversity is a broad term that describes all kinds of differences in the workplace

(Bateman & Snell, 2007). These differences include religious affiliation, age, disability

status, military experience, sexual orientation, economic class, educational level, and

lifestyle, in addition to gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality (Bateman & Snell, 2007).

The discriminator has the characterizations of any or a combination of prejudice such as

sexism, racism, ageism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, elitism, handicapism, and anti-

semitism, which leads to discrimination in the workplace. Whereas, discrimination

against sex, race, and disabilities are protected by the law, age and sexual orientation

discrimination continues to rise with no legal protections and can be classified as a type

of workplace bullying (Harper & Schneider, 2003; Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2009).

According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying identified numerous

characteristics and types of mistreatment by the discriminator bully persona. The

97
discriminator ignores anyone classified in a different group than him or her.

Discriminators often suffer scrutiny because of violation of sexual, racial, or disability

discrimination policies. Discriminators openly give contempt to people of diverse groups

and exhibit the characteristics of other bully groups toward them. The key characteristic

of the discriminator is his or her motive for bullying, which centers on prejudice.

Example 1. This example provides highlights of discriminator bully traits from an

opinion written by Judge WOOD in a two-count civil action suit against Michael F.

Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, in his individual and official capacities by Valeria

Smith (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999). Valeria Smith and Ronald Gamble both were employed

by the Cook County Jail as guards. Sheriff Michael Sheahan supervised operations and

the guards at this facility. Officer Gamble had a reputation of unpleasant interaction with

female guards and one day took this discrimination to a higher level, which led to

violently assaulting Officer Smith (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999). On August 30, 1992,

Gamble, who entered Smith's work station to collect inmate commissary slips, started an

argument with Smith. During the dispute, “Gamble called Smith a "bitch," threatened to

"fuck her up," pinned her against a wall, and twisted her wrist severely enough to damage

her ligaments, draw blood, and eventually require surgical correction” (Smith v. Sheahan,

1999, p. 1).

Smith immediately reported Gamble to her supervisor, who recommended that

Smith seek medical treatment (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999). Gamble’s supervisor,

Lieutenant Anderson, conducted an investigation, questioned witnesses, and reported the

attack up the chain of command (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999). The response from the

98
Sheriff's Department consisted of “an institutional shrug of the shoulders” (Smith v.

Sheahan, 1999, p. 1). The Department neither conducted further investigation nor

disciplined Gamble, which further empowered the discriminator bully (Smith v. Sheahan,

1999). The only response to Smith's complaint came from Investigator Sullivan, “who

made light of the incident and jokingly suggested that Smith should "kiss and make up"

with Gamble” (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999, p. 1). This became the standard response to

other complaints of Gamble’s discriminator bullying toward women guards.

Smith sought to expose Gamble as a discriminator bully and obtained six

affidavits from other female guards at Cook County Jail (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999).

Yvonne Averhart's affidavit consisted of two incidents with Gamble in 1991 and 1995.

The first incident occurred when Gamble made sexist comments about Averhart's body as

she passed through the x-ray machine he was operating at the jail entrance. When she

objected, “he became hostile and called her a "bitch" (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999, p. 2). The

second incident occurred while Averhart worked in the kitchen. Gamble demanded that

she provide extra rations for some of the inmates. She refused because he could not

provide the proper authorization and again “Gamble became hostile, repeatedly calling

her a "bitch" and threatening to "kick her ass" until another officer intervened” (Smith v.

Sheahan, 1999, p. 2). The Department took no action concerning either event after

Averhart reported them to her supervisor.

Officer Kim Pemberton’s incident with Gamble occurred as he refused to show

her his ID badge when asked as part of her duties at the front entrance of the jail (Smith

v. Sheahan, 1999). She therefore refused to allow him to enter in accordance with

99
procedure, which resulted in derogatory comments and vulgar threats of physical harm

(Smith v. Sheahan, 1999). Pemberton reported the incident and when she gave her report

to another superior, “he ripped it up with the explanation that it takes two to fight” (Smith

v. Sheahan, 1999).

Finally, Officers L.A. Hempen, Renee Hardimon, Myra Greene, and Constance

Wilson documented their similar encounters with Gamble (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999). The

women officers “related a total of seven incidents in which Gamble became verbally

abusive and physically threatening” (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999, p. 2). Gamble thrived in

the Laisser-faire culture and knew the Department had a practice of taking no action on

such matters. This caused Smith to file a criminal complaint against Gamble in Cook

County Criminal Court.

On February 25, 1993, that court found him guilty of criminal battery and placed

him under court supervision. Although Gamble's superiors at the Sheriff's

Department were aware of this criminal conviction, not only did they disregard it,

they promoted him instead. Smith, on the other hand, has been reassigned to

guard inmates with psychiatric problems, a transfer she considers tantamount to a

demotion (Smith v. Sheahan, 1999, p. 3).

Example 2. The next example concerned Plaintiffs, Donald Rochon, a black

Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") agent, and Susan Rochon, his wife, who alleged

that they were the victims of an ongoing conspiracy and campaign of racial

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation that began when Mr. Rochon was assigned to

the Omaha Office of the FBI in January 1983 and that continued through his

100
reassignment to FBI offices in Chicago and Philadelphia. The following is testimony by

Mr. and Mrs. Rochon (Rochon v. Attorney General of US, 1990):

The specific allegations that plaintiffs make in their complaint defy all notions of

human decency. Plaintiffs allege that for more than three years FBI agents and

supervisors committed or condoned frequent acts of racial harassment against

them. This harassment allegedly included hate mail, obscene phone calls, death

threats as well as threats of mutilation, castration, sodomy, and rape, and the use

of defaced pictures and photographs in what plaintiffs allege amounted to a

campaign of ostracization and intimidation. It also included a campaign of

forging Donald Rochon's name to an insurance policy against death and

dismemberment and to requests for more than $1000 of mail-order merchandise.

In addition, plaintiffs allege that FBI supervisors condoned these acts of

harassment and refused to take appropriate corrective action. (p. 1)

Theme 7: The nitpicker. Out of 1,883 data, 298 contained instances (15.83%) that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the nitpicker persona. The nitpicker

typically has low self-esteem and always has something negative to say about other

employees and their work (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Nitpickers fear losing power

and therefore, never concede that employees perform correctly (Locander & Luechauer,

2005). The nitpicker strives to keep employees under control by highlighting their

deficiencies and never admitting someone performs a good job (Locander & Luechauer,

2005). The nitpicker demoralizes employees by eroding their confidence and putting

them on the defensive (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Nitpickers justify their behavior

101
by rationalizing that good help is hard to find or employees lack the proper attention to

detail to succeed in the organization (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying supported the literature

review in identifying numerous characteristics and types of mistreatment by the nitpicker

bully persona. The nitpicker disparages employees’ educational background, especially

when it exceeds his or her own. Comments such as “I am not an engineer, my parents

were married” are not uncommon. The nitpicker makes targets feel as if they are about to

be fired at any moment because of their inadequate work. The nitpicker epitomizes the

classic micro-manager and tends to monitor his or her victims excessively. The nitpicker

creates a dictatorship often claiming they have 51% of the vote. Nitpickers meticulously

scrutinize targets’ work while exaggerating the seriousness of their errors. Nitpickers

trivialize the work and achievements of their victims and use insinuation and insults to

chip away at a victim’s confidence.

Example 1. The first example features the testimony of Marilyn Haley in her suit

against Alliance Compressor LLC and Copeland Corp. (Alliance) (Haley v. Alliance

Compressor LLC, 2004). Haley became employed in 1999 in the HR Department at

Alliance Compressors LLC and reported to her supervisor, Jeff Risinger, the HR

manager. The other key personnel involved in this case consisted of Mark Schuller, a

fellow HR leader, Steve Hokky, Plant Manager; and Bob Anderson, Vice-President of the

HR Department (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004).

Haley handled the duties concerning the machining business unit while Schuller

was responsible for the assembly business unit. Haley and Schuller’s responsibilities

102
included staffing, employee relations, training, and all daily activities in their respective

areas (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004). Haley received marks of meeting or

exceeding job expectations on her performance evaluations in 1999 and 2000 (Haley v.

Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004). However, in October 2000, an employee survey

revealed some issues within the HR department, “including some individual negative

comments directed toward both Haley and Schuller” (Haley v. Alliance Compressor

LLC, 2004, p. 1). This resulted in Alliance conducting feedback sessions with employees

at the plant, which led to the development of a plan of action to improve the performance

of the HR group. Risinger performed a reorganization of the department based on the

survey and feedback, which put Schuller in charge of training, Haley overseeing

recruitment, and Joanna Deloch handling employee relations (Haley v. Alliance

Compressor LLC, 2004).

Risinger, as part of the improvement plan, met with Haley to discuss some

deficiencies in her performance. Risinger treated the meeting as an informal session and

documented the meeting with handwritten notes (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC,

2004). Six months later, Haley filed a temporary disability because her physician

diagnosed her with a stress/anxiety disorder. Her doctor recommended a leave of

absence for two months. Alliance approved Haley's request for leave under the Family

and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and while she was out on leave, Risinger approved a

merit increase in her salary (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004).

Risinger, Hokky, and Anderson felt frustrated when Haley took FMLA leave and

three weeks into Haley’s leave, Anderson requested a meeting with Risinger concerning

103
the reorganization of the HR department (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004).

Anderson claimed they discussed issues relating to preparations for Haley's return,

including any performance issues that still needed to be addressed (Haley v. Alliance

Compressor LLC, 2004). Risinger, however, presented a different version of the meeting

in which Anderson told him to inform Haley her job had been eliminated and not to

return (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004). Risinger objected because firing

Haley would violate FMLA guidelines and would be considered discriminatory.

Anderson agreed and informed Risinger to provide all written documentation of Haley’s

work performance so he could consult an employment attorney (Haley v. Alliance

Compressor LLC, 2004).

Risinger prepared the requested documents, which included the informal meeting

he had with Haley and submitted them to Anderson. There were nine recommended

specific areas of improvement for Haley, and “Risinger stated none of these areas was an

issue anymore and Haley had left for leave in good standing” (Haley v. Alliance

Compressor LLC, 2004, p. 1). However, Anderson claimed not all the performance

issues had been resolved. A month later, Risinger submitted his letter of resignation,

effective four days after Haley’s scheduled return (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC,

2004). Haley’s coworker Schuller also resigned and Steve Ritcheson assumed his duties

as HR manager of employee relations. Hokky and Anderson assumed Risinger's duties

as the HR department manager (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004).

When Haley returned to work, Anderson and Hokky confronted her with the

documents, her perceived job deficiencies, and advised her of the importance of

104
improvements in her performance (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004). A

confused Haley sought out Risinger for advice, who outlined his previous meeting with

Anderson and his aborted firing plan. A month later Anderson and Hokky met with

Haley and informed her verbally and in writing that she needed to improve in the outlined

areas of concern or she faced termination (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004).

At this point Hokky’s nitpicker bully persona blossomed and “any and all of

Haley’s attempted actions at work were now closely monitored and micromanaged by

Hokky and his secretary, Donna Pearce, who Haley says was proposed to replace her”

(Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004, p. 3). Haley stated that “she observed at least

three HR department meetings that took place without her; she could see this because the

meeting room had glass walls” (Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004, p. 3).

Additionally, on numerous occasions she received notice very late about a meeting only

to arrive and find the meeting in progress. On one occasion, “Hokky said sarcastically,

‘Oh, did we fail to tell you about the meeting?’ and everyone sniggered” (Haley v.

Alliance Compressor LLC, 2004, p. 3).

Example 2. The second example again revisits the findings from an investigative

report by the Ventura County Grand Jury (2011) on bullying in the workplace. The

findings documented numerous instances of excessive monitoring of employees,

including those who were highly experienced, by managers, which led to the employees

seeking employment elsewhere (Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011). “Some employees

transferred to other agencies and, at times, accepted a demotion to receive that transfer”

105
(Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011, p. 3). Others went to other agencies, took early

retirement, or chose unemployment to escape management’s bullying behavior.

Many employees who left their positions because of workplace bullying declined

to complain or report their situations through the available organizational channels

because they feared loss of anonymity and the resulting retaliation that would worsen

their situations (Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011). Ventura County incurred excessive

unbudgeted costs for recruitment and training of replacement personnel when bullied

employees left their positions. This also resulted in the overloading of the remaining

employees throughout the recruitment, hiring, and training process. Ventura County had

no written policy specifically directed against workplace bullying only a discrimination

and harassment policy that complied with Title VII, United States Code, Civil Rights Act

of 1964 (Ventura County Grand Jury, 2011).

106
 Theme 8: The reverse bully. Cooper and Schindler (2001) defined outliers as

observations that fall out of the norm from other data in a random sample from a

population. Researchers should perform thorough examinations of outliers to determine

if any valuable information exists prior to eliminating the outliers from data. Out of

1,883 data, one contained an instance indicating workplace bullies have the traits of the

reverse bully persona. The discovery of the reverse bully persona came about because

the reverse bully accused the organization of sexual discrimination and harassment.

Because only one instance of reverse bullying could be discovered, further study on this

topic would be appropriate using a different taxonomy. The reverse bully type believes

he or she is entitled to special considerations because he or she is the victim.

Example. The undisputed facts presented in the case of Ms. White, a Wildlife

Biologist employed with the National Forest Service ("NFS"), who complained primarily

about sex discrimination and harassment she experienced when she was asked to

relinquish a private office she had been given as an accommodation for her need to

breastfeed her children (White v. Schafer, 2010).

Ms. White presented a discrimination lawsuit against her former employers. The

background of the situation started with Ms. White announcing to her employers she was

pregnant and desired special considerations for her condition. She submitted a proposal

to the organization providing for maternity leave for two months. In the proposal she

requested permission to bring her child into the office for a "transition" period of three to

eight months, relocation from her assigned cubicle to a private office with a door to

breastfeed for a period of three to eight months, and a "flexi-place" agreement to work

107
from home, periodically (White v. Schafer, 2010). The organization agreed to all the

considerations and after her maternity leave she moved into her private office and

requested that she be permitted to reduce her workload from 40 to 32 hours per week,

citing difficulty balancing full-time work and daycare, and that request was granted

(White v. Schafer, 2010).

Five months later, which fell within the requested period, another supervisor

requested that Ms. White vacate the private office so that the office could be filled by a

new manager recently hired (White v. Schafer, 2010). In response, management

convened a committee on office space to address the matter of office assignments and

Ms. White was one of the people designated to serve on that committee. One month

later, the committee devised a floor plan which, over Ms. White’s objection, assigned the

office to the newly hired manager (White v. Schafer, 2010). The committee proposed

that appropriate furniture be placed in a conference room and that a lock be installed on

that room's door, so that Ms. White could use that room for breast feeding (White v.

Schafer, 2010). Ms. White responded that the proposal was unacceptable. Despite the

committee's conclusion, management allowed Ms. White to continue occupying the

private office.

One month later, when Ms. White's child was 10 months old, management asked

Ms. White when she expected to finish nursing, as they intended to move another

employee into the private office space. Ms. White responded that she was continuing to

nurse and again refused to accept the alternative of using the conference room for that

purpose. Management again allowed her to continue to occupy the private office for

108
three months longer, which was five months longer than the agreed considerations, when

she weaned her child, and even thereafter, she continued to occupy the private office

(White v. Schafer, 2010).

One year later, Ms. White announced that she was pregnant with a second child.

Four months later management instructed Ms. White to move out of the office, to assign

the office to a manager, as the office space committee had determined (White v. Schafer,

2010). Ms. White insisted that she had a continuing need for the private office, citing her

anticipated need to nurse her second child, due in five months. Management again

allowed Ms. White to continue to occupy the private office.

Ms. White sought and was granted maternity leave following the birth of her

second child. While on maternity leave, some of her physically demanding duties were

reassigned to other employees as a result of her not being able to perform them following

her first pregnancy. Ms. White contended that this caused her to not have a job to return

to after maternity leave (White v. Schafer, 2010). Ms. White filed a complaint that she

was being pushed out of her job and attended mediation with management concerning her

job duties. The result of the mediation was a written agreement that provided Ms. White

would remain in her current position and shift to permanent part-time employment at 40

hours per pay period or 20 hours per week (White v. Schafer, 2010). Six months later

management again told Ms. White to move out of the private office, which Ms. White

resisted, stating that she wished to remain in the private office until her child was one

year old. One month later Ms. White filed an informal complaint of discrimination with

the EEO office for discrimination (White v. Schafer, 2010).

109
 The Court stated that it was not entirely clear what actions Ms. White identified as

disparate treatment (White v. Schafer, 2010). She expressly referenced adverse actions in

three portions of her testimony (White v. Schafer, 2010). She clearly accused NFS of

interference with her job duties and career, specifically the breach of the mediation

agreement (White v. Schafer, 2010). Ms. White acknowledged the various

accommodations NFS granted her regarding maternity leave, work schedule changes, and

a private office for breast feeding. However, she argued that she had to fight to get any

of these accommodations and she never received some of her entitlements (White v.

Schafer, 2010). Ms. White did not elaborate on “how she had to fight to get the

accommodations, nor how the fight, rather than the granting or denying of the

accommodations themselves, constitutes disparate treatment, nor does she explain what

accommodations she was entitled to and did not receive” (White v. Schafer, 2010, p. 3).

Finally, Ms. White made a comment in her complaint asserting that “NFS pushed

her out of her original position, denied her detail positions, promotions, and transfers,

denied her training and altered her job duties to such an extent that she risked being found

unqualified for her own position” (White v. Schafer, 2010, p. 3). The Court found no

evidence in the factual recitation, or evidence that made any reference to “Ms. White

risking being found unqualified for her own position, being denied training, promotions,

or transfers, or being denied ‘detail positions’ with the meaning of that phrase being

unclear” (White v. Schafer, 2010, pp. 2-6).

Ms. White reverse-bullied the organization for a four-year period for special

entitlements concerning her pregnancy resulting in a private office, bringing her children

110
to work, and reduced work duties. Every time the organization tried to move her out of

the office in accordance with her agreement, she refused and threatened to file a

complaint to the EEO office. Each time the organization acquiesced, her reverse bully

persona was further empowered.

Additional Findings

Additionally, different coping mechanisms employed by targets were discovered,

which may help other bully victims cope with the stressful situation of bullying until help

arrives. Many tactics were employed by the victims of workplace bullying with varied

levels of success. Strategies consisted of the common themes of avoidance, counseling,

direct action, and existence summarized in table 5.

Table 5

Coping mechanisms employed by targets of workplace bullying

Coping Mechanisms Theme

Put up with the bullying Existence
Tell yourself it is not important Existence
Recognize and accept the act is harmful Existence
Take breaks (time off) Avoidance
Expose the bully Direct action
Avoid face-to-face communications Avoidance
Let the bully know you did not like the behavior Direct action
Talk to friends and family for advice/support Counseling
File a formal complaint Direct action
Talk with management/leadership Direct action/Counseling
Get help (Boss’s boss) Direct action/Counseling
Keep a diary of incidents Direct action/Existence
Give specifics Direct action/Existence

111
 Zone out through meditation or therapy Existence
Update resume (job hunting) Avoidance
Look for patterns in the bully’s behavior Existence
(i.e. avoid on grumpy Monday)
Leave job (quit or transfer) Avoidance
Block emails Avoidance
Report to human resources, police, or management Direct action
Note. The results are based on study data collected qualitatively and categorized into common themes.

Finally, some key observations by victims and bystanders were compiled and

reproduced to gain insight into the bully psyche:

1. Bullies are not always smart; they often feel self-important.

2. Bullies avoid people they cannot bully.

3. When bullies are in charge, sycophants flourish.

4. Bullies act to hide their own inadequacies.

5. Bullies label their subordinates with their own (the bully’s) inadequacies.

6. Bullies feel they need to keep employees in line.

7. Bullies are often experts at managing up.

8. Ambition is the bully’s ally; they are expert carrot danglers.

9. Bullies develop deputy bullies.

10. A code of silence exists among bully bosses.

11. Bullies always manage by bosses’ desires instead of employee needs.

Summary

The purpose of the qualitative historical study research was to explore, identify,

and document patterns and trends of workplace bullying in organizations, characteristics

112
and types of bullies, types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended

targets over the past 30 years (1980-2010), and leadership skills to reduce workplace

bullying. The research study investigated all sources of information available on the

research topic available from the historical documents from the archives of publicly

accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States.

The inquiry into the phenomenon of workplace bullying over the last 30 years,

was guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of different types of bullies?

2. What are the forms of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward the

intended targets?

3. What are the leadership skills required to reduce workplace bullying?

Data analysis started with coding, forming categories, and extracting themes using

pattern matching techniques (Creswell, 2007). Saturation signaled the end of data

collection based on diminishing returns (Creswell, 2007). Triangulation provided

validity by using multiple data sources that provided a cross checking of data.

The significance of this study to leadership is that organizational leadership has

the responsibility to hire and ensure new personnel comply with the corporate vision and

mission providing a safe workplace environment. Data analysis identified eight major

bully type themes. The major themes of the snake, gatekeeper, nitpicker, screamer, joker,

discriminator, tyrant, and the reverse bully styles emerged from the findings. These eight

themes consisted of four bully styles reinforced from the literature review, three new

bully styles, and one outlier bully style. The findings on bullying styles clearly revealed

113
that workplace bullies deviated from a dominant bully style and executed a different style

of bullying such as counseling or reprimanding, when circumstances or situations

merited.

Chapter 4 reported, in adequate detail, the findings from data analysis. Chapter 4

contained excerpts from data collected to provide evidence of the themes that emerged.

Chapter 5 provides conclusions, implications, recommendations of the study, and

possible future research directions.

Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of the qualitative historical study was to explore, identify, and

document patterns and trends of workplace bullying in organizations, characteristics and

types of bullies, types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended targets

over the past 30 years, and leadership skills to reduce workplace bullying. The inquiry

into the phenomenon of workplace bullying over the last 30 years, was guided by the

following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of different types of bullies?

2. What are the forms of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward the

intended targets?

3. What are the leadership skills required to reduce workplace bullying?

In chapter 4, the findings from data collected from the historical documents of the

archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional journals in the United States

were analyzed, collected, and coded into themes. Eight major themes of bullying styles

114
were discovered. Four bully styles reinforced from the literature review, three new bully

styles, and one outlier bully style emerged from the analysis of the research data from

archives and manuscript collections of the University of North Florida, Duval County

Clerk of Courts, and the Jacksonville Public Library. The bully styles identified formed

the multifaceted description of the meaning and the significant points of the historical

study.

Chapter 5 is used to discuss the significance of the findings on leadership,

implications to leadership, recommendations on the development of leadership skills to

prevent workplace bullying, suggestions for further research study, and the conclusion.

Chapter 5 also contains conclusions drawn from the analysis of themes, additional

information, and outliers presented in chapter 4. Paradigms and conclusions are

compared and contrasted with similar studies from the literature review. Themes of

leadership skills associated with reducing or eliminating workplace bullying are also

identified and analyzed. These themes coincide with the successful leadership traits and

attributes of ethical leadership, social responsibility, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes

& Posner, 2003; Middlebrooks, Miltenberger, Tweedy, Newman, & Follman, 2009;

Northouse, 2007). The contribution of the research study findings to employees and

leaders in the workplace is addressed and the greater social significance of the research

study findings is examined. Study limitations and suggestions for future research in

workplace bullying and leadership are included.

115
Data Analysis

Data analysis reduced the collected data to a manageable size by developing

categories to identify themes, and organizing data into eight major bully type themes.

Creswell (2007) explained that every time a researcher reads qualitative data, an analysis

has occurred. A review and transcription of 1,883 data collected from historical

documents and archival files were imported into NVivo 9 as text files (QSR International,

2011) for analysis. The major themes of the snake, gatekeeper, nitpicker, screamer,

joker, discriminator, tyrant, and the reverse bully styles emerged from the analysis for

presentation. The overlapping of bullying styles in the findings clearly revealed that

workplace bullies deviate from a dominant bully style and execute a different style of

bullying such as counseling or reprimanding, when circumstances or situations merit.

Findings: Major Themes and Descriptions

The study findings supported the bully types identified during the literature

review as the snake, gatekeeper, screamer, and nitpicker. Three additional bully types -

the discriminator, the tyrant, and the joker, and one outlier bully type – the reverse bully -

emerged from data analysis. Each bully type is summarized with the characteristics

inherent to the type and the types of mistreatment he or she perpetrates.

Theme 1: The snake. Out of 1,883 data, 658 contained instances (34.94%) that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the snake persona. The snake, which is the

most common bully type, manipulates people and their perceptions of events (Locander

& Luechauer, 2005). Snakes fabricate their own brand of reality by using people and

events as pawns on a chessboard (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). They exert a heavy toll

116
on people to maintain their façade and leave people feeling drained, used, and abused

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The snake seeks to be the puppet master and control

people, their environment, and the perceptions of senior management (Locander &

Luechauer, 2005). Snakes sneak around observing employees in hopes of catching them

doing something wrong. The snake sabotages employees while exhibiting a passive-

aggressive demeanor. Snakes make excessive demands and setup employees to fail by

overloading with inconsequential job duties. Many times the snake will torpedo a project

to make an employee look incompetent. The snake tasks workers for instantaneous

results with no allotted preparation time causing them to miss deadlines. Snakes create a

false reality in which he or she is irreplaceable and employee victims are expendable by

spreading false accusations. Snakes handle employee reviews by giving adequate write-

ups with steadily falling scores. Many times the snake will coerce friendly coworkers of

a victim to avoid the victim as if the individual had the plague. The snake also

undermines other managers by attempting to lessen their supervisory authority by

spreading malicious rumors. Snakes often interrupt meetings to stall any headway on a

project that was not his or her idea. The snake is an expert at kissing up and kicking

down, eliminating any threat to his or her positional authority.

Theme 2: The tyrant. Out of 1,883 data, 496 contained instances (26.34%) that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the tyrant persona. The tyrant looks at an

organization as his or her personal kingdom. The tyrant dictates the rules and laws of the

land and expects special privileges because of his or her position. The organizations

rules and polices do not apply to the tyrant; therefore, the tyrant considers himself or

117
herself above reproach. The tyrant has characteristics similar to the narcissist and the

psychopath. The tyrant, like the narcissist, avoids any inner turmoil by shifting the blame

for the abusive behavior onto the victim or the peasant because they are below him or her

(Hirigoyen, 2000). Tyrants like psychopaths are characterized as possessing no

conscience, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for people of

low stature (Boddy, 2011). Tyrants bully for the sheer pleasure of exercising power.

Tyrants have over-sized egos and display arrogance freely and openly. The tyrant bully

retaliates 100% of the time regardless of the amount of time that passes. Tyrants

regularly invade employee’s personal space in a show of power. Tyrants often give false

praise and make negative eye contact such as staring and dirty looks with employees to

have them look away as a sign of submissiveness. The tyrant often uses the phrase “do as

I say, or else” when dealing with subordinates and peers. Tyrants confront friendly

managers and tell them to mind their own business when speaking up for a bullied

employee. Tyrants give no explanations for poor appraisals and often tell employees to

read and sign their evaluations. Tyrants get enjoyment out of making employees squirm

or feel uncomfortable. Tyrants speak in a condescending manner to employees and often

interrupt employees and peers without any consideration.

Theme 3: The screamer. Out of 1,883 data, 420 contained instances (22.30%)

that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the screamer persona. The screamer

lives by the motto the squeaky wheel gets the grease (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Screamers go on rants to get their way at others’ expense and put their priorities above

the priorities of the team and organization (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers

118
often fail when people tend to tune their rants out and proceed with their own work

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers are prime candidates for training in anger

management and emotional intelligence (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Screamers are

moody and fling insults and sarcasm at targets on a regular basis. The screamer often

openly mocks targets during meetings and belittles target ideas. The screamer attacks

targets with verbal and physical assault in the form of accusations, pushing, punching,

threats, staring, glaring, name calling, screaming, and swearing. The vindictive screamer

practices retaliation and often exhibits meltdowns. Screamers exhibit violent tempers,

lack of patience, mood swings, and unduly harsh behavior.

Theme 4: The gatekeeper. Out of 1,883 data, 356 contained instances (18.91%)

that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the gatekeeper persona. Gatekeepers

use their position to hoard information and resources to keep employees in a submissive

position (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Employees face roadblocks at every turn and

stagnate in red tape when working for a gatekeeper (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). This

form of bully saps employee motivation and energy until employees only go through the

motions or seek employment elsewhere, which often leads to underemployment

(Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The cold and controlling gatekeeper is an expert at

ostracizing targets. Gatekeepers give the silent treatment to targets and often exclude

them from meetings. On the rare occasion that a victim attends a meeting, the gatekeeper

ignores them and rebuffs any input quickly. The gatekeeper assigns targets menial tasks,

reassigns diminished work duties, and withholds information. Gatekeepers only share

information with favorites that give blind obedience. Gatekeepers promote inequities in

119
workload sparing favorites and overloading targets. Gatekeepers curb communication

toward targets, thus isolating them physically and organizationally.

Theme 5: The joker. Out of 1,883 data, 319 contained instances (16.94%) that

indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the joker persona. The joker uses practical

jokes, teasing, insults, foul language, and ill humor to disguise his or her abuse. Jokers

hide behind the façade of the “just kidding” or “I meant no harm” defense. Jokers only

admit their pranks when caught red-handed; otherwise, jokers deny any involvement in

the abusive behavior. Jokers often act in groups to haze an employee with their antics. If

an employee walks away from his or her computer without locking it, the joker takes

advantage of the opportunity. The joker sends false offensive emails, deletes files,

deletes incoming emails requesting information, and changes passwords. Jokers often

destroy personal property such as family photos, a displayed award, plants, fish bowls,

office supplies, desks, chairs, or any other item the target might value. Jokers major in

sarcasm, mocking, name calling, eye rolling, teasing, ridicule, lewd gestures, and crass

behavior toward intended targets. Jokers often seek to alter time sheets or falsify records

to cause a target trouble. Jokers intentionally fail to give messages to victims to cause

them to miss deadlines or assignments. Jokers also make obscene phone calls and send

hate mail to a target. The joker attempts to drive away the intended victims or discredit

them to further their own agenda.

Theme 6: The discriminator. Out of 1,883 data, 318 contained instances

(16.89%) that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the discriminator persona.

According to Bateman and Snell (2007), diversity goes beyond skin color and gender.

120
Diversity is a broad term that describes all kinds of differences in the workplace

(Bateman & Snell, 2007). These differences include religious affiliation, age, disability

status, military experience, sexual orientation, economic class, educational level, and

lifestyle in addition to gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality (Bateman & Snell, 2007).

The discriminator has the characterizations of any or a combination of prejudice such as

sexism, racism, ageism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, elitism, handicapism, and anti-

semitism, which leads to discrimination in the workplace. The discriminator ignores

anyone classified in a different group than him or her. Discriminators often suffer

scrutiny because of violation of sexual, racial, or disability discrimination policies.

Discriminators openly give contempt to people of diverse groups and exhibit the

characteristics of other bully groups toward them. The key characteristic of the

discriminator is his or her motive for bullying, which centers on prejudice.

Theme 7: The nitpicker. Out of 1,883 data, 298 contained instances (15.83%)

that indicated workplace bullies have the traits of the nitpicker persona. The nitpicker

typically has low self-esteem and always has something negative to say about other

employees and their work (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Nitpickers fear losing power

and therefore never concede that employees perform correctly (Locander & Luechauer,

2005). The nitpicker strives to keep employees under control by highlighting their

deficiencies and never admitting someone performs a good job (Locander & Luechauer,

2005). The nitpicker demoralizes employees by eroding their confidence and putting

them on the defensive (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Nitpickers justify their behavior

by rationalizing that good help is hard to find or employees lack the proper attention to

121
detail to succeed in the organization (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The nitpicker

disparages employees education background, especially when it exceeds his or her own.

The nitpicker makes targets feel as if they are about to be fired at any moment because of

their inadequate work. The nitpicker epitomizes the classic micro-manager and tends to

monitor his or her victims excessively. The nitpicker creates a dictatorship often

claiming they have 51% of the vote. Nitpickers meticulously scrutinize targets’ work

while exaggerating the seriousness of their errors. Nitpickers trivialize the work and

achievements of their victims and use insinuation and insults to chip away at a victim’s

confidence.

Theme 8: The reverse bully. Out of 1,883 data, one contained an instance

indicating workplace bullies have the traits of the reverse bully persona. The discovery

of the reverse bully persona came about because the reverse bully accused the

organization of sexual discrimination and harassment. The reverse bully bullies an

organization or a manager to receive benefits or accommodations in the workplace.

Tober (1988) explained flexible work schedules or flexi-time, while having many

benefits to an organization can have disadvantages such as employee abuse.

Implications to Leadership

Brodsky (1976) outlined that victims of harassment and bullying undergo teasing,

badgering, and insults with little or no recourse to retaliation in kind. Brodsky (1976)

further noted that bullying contributed to strong negative effects on a victim’s health and

well-being. Figure 3 represents the amount of pressure a bullying victim undergoes on a

regular basis in a toxic workplace infested with bullies.

122
Figure 3. An illustration of pressures exerted on bullying victims.

Seifert (2011) stated that the financial costs of responding to workplace bullying

in health care institutions center on employee sick leave and high turnover rates.

Furthermore, a multihospital study conducted by Rosenstein (2010) found a connection

between disruptive behavior and increased staff sickness and staff turnover. The ILO

reported that the global cost exceeded countless millions of dollars in losses from medical

expenses, absenteeism, and sick leave (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006).

Leadership’s response to bullying can employ the tactics of mandating

accountability, initiating zero tolerance, educating team members, and training leaders to

promote a safe work environment (Seifert, 2011). The historical study yielded leadership

123
tactics that victims sought out to prevent or limit bullying. Leaders from 1980 to 2010

demonstrated employee support, developing and enforcing anti-bullying policies, and

establishing leadership training programs.

Organizations, communities, and governments have begun an emphasis shift

where sustainable values and vision have made effective ethical leadership critical to

organizations (Middlebrooks et al., 2009). Themes of responsibility, fairness, honesty,

and environmentalism encompass the fundamentals of ethical values and vision

(Middlebrooks et al., 2009). Northouse (2007) indicated that these themes are similar to

the attributes of accountability, respect, integrity, and community that define ethical

leaders. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO), a leading world figure in the movement for ethical achievements, explained

(1997) that ethics encompasses a process of change in the relationships between social,

economic, and natural systems, and processes. The development of ethics enables

leaders to meet their present needs without sacrificing future generation’s ability to meet

their own needs as ethically accountable leaders (Middlebrooks et al., 2009).

Toor and Ofori (2009) significantly and positively correlated ethical leadership to

the components of transformational leadership. The theory of transformational

leadership explains that leaders shape, alter, and elevate the motives, values, and goals of

the followers (Couto, 1995). Sherwood and DePaolo (2005) defined relationship-

oriented trust for a leader as the willingness to accept vulnerability based upon positive

expectations of the intentions or behaviors of others. It is important to develop

interpersonal trust between leaders and subordinates, which can significantly boost

124
productivity and effectiveness. According to Bass (1985), the transformational leader

motivates followers to become more committed to organizational goals, by encouraging

them to look beyond their personal interests in the pursuit of achieving the shared goal,

and appealing to their higher order needs. According to data analysis, targets of

workplace bullying sought help from trusted leaders who provided support, role

modeling, and responded to issues promptly, sensitively, and with confidentiality. These

are characteristics of an ethical leader and therefore a transformational leader.

Leadership in organizations can adopt the principles outlined by Kouzes and

Posner (2003), in their book Encouraging the Heart, which is a genuine caring for people

and is at the heart of effective leadership. What earns employee respect and commitment

is whether a leader is true to what he or she portrays, and if the leader embodies what the

employee desires to become (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). Organizations can employ a

Managers Academy to teach the practical use of transformational leadership tactics using

the principles of encouraging the heart. The Academy would build on a manager’s

ability to show concern for and empathize with followers and develop transformational

leaders who provide individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation behaviors

to employees (Antonakis & House, 2007). According to data analysis, targets of

workplace bullying believed that many bully bosses received no leadership or ethics

training or refused to practice the learned principles. Therefore, organizations must

establish effective leadership, values, and ethics training. Additionally, organizations

must ensure that leaders constantly seek to emulate an honest demeanor free of bullying

within the organization and when dealing with customers and workers.

125
 Recognition of the associated problems of workplace bullying continues to grow

in the United States. However, legal enforcement consists of a patchwork of statutory

and common laws (Kaplan, 2010). These laws remain inadequate to correct the growing

number of bullying incidents (Kaplan, 2010). Many anti-bullying advocates continue to

seek new legislation in the United States employment law but have had no success

(Kaplan, 2010). Current laws do not protect employees from workplace bullying because

in 77% of bullying cases reported, neither the bully nor the target were in a protected

group defined by race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, age, or disability (Sitzman, 2004).

Organizations should endeavor to establish ethical practices in the workplace and end

bullying. According to data analysis, targets of workplace bullying believed that to

eliminate workplace bullying, organizations had to prevent bullying proactively, establish

written anti-bullying policies, develop codes of conduct, and enforce a zero tolerance

policy.

Recommendations

The guardian persona presented in chapter 2, portrays the anti-bully, who protects

potential victims from bullying situations (Roscigno et al., 2009). Guardians may consist

of officers of the law, official agents of society, family, friends, and coworkers (Roscigno

et al., 2009). Additionally, many organizational attributes may play a guardian role.

Examples of an organizational guardian would be labor unions, organizational

administrative procedures, to what extent an organization holds a supervisor accountable

to employees, and anti-bullying policies (Roscigno et al., 2009).

126
 Organizations provide for another guardian by establishing organizational rules

through administrative procedures (Roscigno et al., 2009). The procedures provide a

legal safeguard against dictator-like managers, often found in smaller, privately owned

and operated companies. Administrative procedures and organizational rules for

advancement and promotion lead to a larger capacity in monitoring and motivating

employees without direct supervision, bullying, and coercion (Roscigno et al., 2009).

Even though a power-hungry bully can sometimes manipulate administrative rules, the

rules generally limit the extent of any social uncertainty and exploitation (Roscigno et al.,

2009).

The extent an organization holds a supervisor accountable to employees also

provides protection against bullying and supervisor coercion. This practice is especially

effective when originating from the organization’s guidelines and culture and provides

control of the labor process. Logue and Yates (2001) wrote that employee owned

organizations or organizations that incorporate inclusive ESOPs show support toward

employees and their rights. Shamir (2005) added that many nonprofit organizations

might also be more protective of employee rights.

Effective leadership creates positive change in organizations through the culture

and values of organizations (Middlebrooks et al., 2009). Leaders guide and develop

organizations enabling them to make future decisions and mold behaviors (Middlebrooks

et al., 2009). The study’s findings confirm the idea that with effort organizations can

create an ethical blueprint for tomorrow’s leaders (Middlebrooks et al., 2009). Change

127
provides a powerful construct for individuals to take the initiative to become an ethical

leader regardless of position (Middlebrooks et al., 2009).

Organizational culture depends on the values of the organization. Employee

integrity commits people to a higher standard of ethical conduct. Ethics is a quality

expected of professionals and is more than simply obeying the law. Ethics deals with

moral conduct, values, character, ideals, and relationships. Allio (2009) discussed the

distinct advantages in developing an objective morality, both in knowing right from

wrong, and in doing the right thing versus doing things right. Therefore, organizations

must incorporate accountability into the values of the organization.

Culture influences ethical norms because culture is inherently value-laden.

Making the “right” ethical decisions poses a challenge even in the ideal organization.

Organizations can combat this challenge by setting an ethical culture throughout the

organization and hiring leaders who are ethical and are held to high personal and

company standards (Beamish, Morrison, Inkpen, & Rosenzweig, 2003). Criteria for

determining when a type of leadership is ethical centers on how a leader handles

positional authority, diverse interests of customers, development of a vision statement,

personal integrity, prudent risk taking, communication, criticism, dissention, and the

development of employees (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Yukl,

2010). Ethical traits of leadership falls into a category of caring for their people, whereas

personal gains fall into the unethical traits. The transformational leadership model has

traits common to the ethical model. The transactional model has some traits in both the

128
ethical and unethical models. Organizations should promote the traits of the

transformational leadership model for the management team.

Hogan and Kaiser (2005) illustrated leadership from a moral perspective and

made three distinct points for leadership and personality. Leadership directly determines

the success of organizations and the well-being and development of their people.

Leadership is an ever-changing development tool for individuals and groups in

developing teams channeled toward a common goal. Finally, the personality of a leader

directly affects the performance of a team because who we are is how we lead.

Moreover, if leaders and managers were morally responsible for the actions they take

intrinsic value would seem relevant to judgments concerning responsibility. Leaders can

delegate responsibility but never accountability and therefore should lead by example in

an ethical manner. Accountability of leadership and employees needs consistency so that

the organization stands for integrity and professionalism.

Bullying behavior leads to the ostracization of victims and the creation of an

environment in which the bullied persons receive blame for any problem leading to

further isolation, especially in the case of whistle-blowers who often suffer from

retaliation (Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009). Leaders and managers must discourage

behavior that encourages a sub-culture of bullying by effectively handling each incidence

of bullying individually and assessing the compatibility of the sub-culture of bullying

with the organization’s vision, mission, and organizational culture. To accomplish this

goal, leaders must nip retaliation in the bud through the development of penalties in anti-

bullying policies. The policy must be enforceable through an informal and formal

129
complaint process. A guarantee of confidentiality must exist with strict consequences for

retaliation. Punishments should consider frequency, severity, and historical patterns of

the bullying behavior. Organizations must develop a support team for victims and

witnesses to include the restoration of rights and health for targeted workers.

Patterns and themes evident from the current historical study findings coupled

with the traits of the guardian persona, transformational leadership, ethical leadership,

and anti-bullying policies formed the basis for the GUARDIAN model. The

GUARDIAN model seeks to assist organizations in developing leadership that provides a

safe, bullying-free working environment for employees. The GUARDIAN model in

figure 5 illustrates how leaders can understand the effects of bullying and emulate the

successful leadership traits and attributes of ethical leadership, social responsibility, and

encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Middlebrooks et al., 2009; Northouse,

2007). Each letter in the word guardian stands for a recommendation for organizations:

Give support to employees by listening to their issues and responding quickly.

Understand the harm bullying causes to victims and the organization.

Activate anti-bullying, safe-reporting policies.

Reinforce role modeling to build trust, respect, and commitment.

Develop transformational leaders through training using the principles of

encouraging the heart.

Instill ethical principles by emulating codes of conduct and values.

Act on zero tolerance policy.

Nip retaliation in the bud through penalties.

130
Figure 4. The GUARDIAN model.

Suggestions for Further Research

Cooper and Schindler (2001) stated that limitations should be revealed with

frankness because all research studies have imperfections. Quality researchers recognize

these limitations and present them in a thoughtful manner to ensure the validity of the

study (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). This study is limited by the amount of information

available on workplace bullying because the information in libraries’ archives is

scattered, and a large number of workplace bullying incidents go unreported due to fear

of reprisal. Additionally, the study will be limited to characteristics of bullies in

organizations, types of mistreatment directed at targets, and leadership skills necessary

131
for detecting and diminishing bullying in the workplace as documented in historical

documents from the archives of publicly accessible institutions and professional journals

in the United States of the last 30 years.

The purpose of the qualitative historical study was to explore, identify, and

document patterns and trends of workplace bullying in organizations including the

characteristics, types, and mistreatments workplace bullies direct toward intended targets.

The study searched for bullying incidents using the workplace bullying taxonomy in

figure 1. In the course of data analysis, the reverse bully persona was discovered; the

reverse bully accused the organization of sexual discrimination and harassment. Because

only one instance of reverse bullying could be discovered, further study on this topic

would be appropriate using a different taxonomy. The reverse bully type believes he or

she is entitled to special considerations because he or she is the victim. Therefore, future

research could focus on the abuse of considerations or employee benefits.

Conclusion

The purpose of the qualitative historical study was to explore, identify, and

document patterns and trends of workplace bullying in organizations, characteristics and

types of bullies, types of mistreatment workplace bullies direct toward intended targets

over the past 30 years, and leadership skills to reduce workplace bullying. Data collected

from the historical documents of the archives of publicly accessible institutions and

professional journals from the University of North Florida, Duval County Clerk of

Courts, and the Jacksonville Public Library in the United States were analyzed, collected,

and coded into themes. Eight major themes of bullying styles were discovered. Four

132
bully styles reinforced by the literature review, three new bully styles, and one outlier

bully style emerged from data analysis. The bully styles identified formed the

multifaceted description of the meaning and the significant points of the historical study.

Themes of leadership skills associated with reducing or eliminating workplace

bullying are also identified and analyzed. These themes coincide with the successful

leadership traits and attributes of ethical leadership, social responsibility, and

encouraging the heart, which led to the development of the GUARDIAN model (Kouzes

& Posner, 2003; Middlebrooks et al., 2009; Northouse, 2007). The GUARDIAN model

presented recommendations to leaders of organization that would limit or prevent

workplace bullying. The contribution of the research study findings to employees and

leaders in the workplace was addressed and the greater social significance of the research

study findings was examined. Study limitations and suggestions for future research in

workplace bullying and leadership were included.

Leaders, managers, and workers experience the development of subcultures in

different parts of the organization (Tichy & Devanna, 1990). A bullying leader may gain

short-term success with bullying tactics, which establishes the sub-culture of bullying in

that department. This behavior of the bully leads to the ostracization of victims and the

creation of an environment in which the bullied victims receive blame for any problem

leading to further isolation, especially in the case of whistle-blowers who often suffer

from retaliation (Roscigno et al., 2009). Leaders and managers must discourage behavior

that encourages a sub-culture of bullying by effectively handling each incidence of

bullying individually and assessing the compatibility of the sub-culture of bullying with

133
the organization’s vision, mission, and strategic plans. The leaders of organizations must

accept the challenge to transform leadership and the organization through ethical

decision-making and accountability to meet the challenges of the future.

134
 References

Agervold, M. (2009). The significance of organizational factors for the incidence of

bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 267-276.

Alasuutari, P. (2010). The rise and fall of qualitative research. International Journal of

Social Research Methodology, 13(2), 139-155. doi:0.1080/13645570902966056.

Allio, R. J. (2009). Leadership - the five big ideas. Strategy & Leadership, 37(2), 4-12.

Baptiste, I. (2001). Qualitative data analysis: Common phases, strategic differences.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3), 193-206.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Management: Leading and collaborating in a

competitive world (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and

praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Boddy, C. (2011). Corporate psychopaths, bullying and unfair supervision in the

workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-

689-5.

Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, On: Lexington Books, DC Heath and

Company.

Bullying workplaces beware. (2010). Industrial Engineer: IE, 42(8), 37.

135
Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). You probably think this paper's

about you: Narcissists' perceptions of their personality and reputation. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 101(1), 185-201.

Chappell, D. & Di Martino, V. (2006). Violence at work (3rd ed.). Geneva: International

Labor Office.

Coloroso, B. (2006). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander. Toronto, ON:

HarperCollins.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2001). Business research methods (7th ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Couto, R. A. (1995). The transformation of transforming leadership. In J. T. Wren

(Eds.) The leader’s companion. Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 102-

107), New York, NY: The Free Press.

Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.

Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information

processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,

115, 74-101.

Dey, I. (2005). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New

York, NY: Taylor and Francis

136
Dong, L., Hui, L., & Loi, R. (2010). An investigation of the cascading impact of abusive

supervision on creativity. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings,

1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.b2010.54499239.

Duffy, M. & Sperry, L. (2009). Workplace mobbing: Family dynamics and therapeutic

considerations. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37(5), 433-442.

doi:10.1080/01926180902945756.

Duncan v. Manager, Dept. of Safety, 397 F. 3d 1300 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit

2005.

Durniat, K. (2010). Organizational culture's mechanism of social exclusion in the process

of workplace bullying. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management,

Leadership & Governance, 127-134.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in

the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London:

Taylor and Francis.

Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F. 3d 518 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2009.

Farber, H. S. & Western, B. (2001). Accounting for the decline of unions in the private

sector, 1973-1998. Journal of Labor Research, 22(3), 459-485.

Fox S., & Stallworth L.E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational

Approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute

Resolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal, 61(3), pp. 220-241.

137
Garraghan, G. J. (1946). A guide to historical method. Fordham University Press: New

York.

Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong?

Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 528–539. doi:10.1002/ab.20153.

Glendinning, P. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American

workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 269-286.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.

Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597.

Greenleaf, R., Frick, D. (Ed.), & Spears, L. (Ed.). (1996). On becoming a servant–leader.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 391 F. 3d 644 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2004.

Harold, J. (2005). Between intrinsic and extrinsic value. Journal of Social Philosophy,

36(1), 85-105. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2005.00260.x.

Harper, G. W., & Schneider, M. (2003). Oppression and discrimination among lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgendered people and communities: A challenge for

community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3-4),

243-252.

Harvey, M. G., Buckely, M. R., Heames, J. T., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R.

(2007). A bully as an archetypal destructive leader. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 14(2), 117–129.

Harvey, P., Summers, J. K., & Martinko, M. J. (2010). Attributional influences on the

outcome-aggression relationship: A review and extension of past research.

138
 International Journal of Organization Theory &Behavior, Pracademics Press,

13(2), 174-201.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the

unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,

1037–1052.

Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. (2001). Gender, sexuality, and violence in organizations: The

unspoken forces of organization violations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Hegney, D., Plank, A., & Parker, V. (2003). Workplace violence in nursing in

Queensland, Australia: A self-reported study. International Journal of Nursing

Practice, 9(4), 261-268.

Hirigoyen, M. F. (2000). Stalking the soul: Emotional abuse and the erosion of identity.

New York, NY: Helen Marx Books.

Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology, 9(2), 169-180.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission

or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43–54.

Humphrey, L., O’Brien, A. T., Jetten, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). Workplace bullying,

well-being and burnout: Social identity and the importance of a group-level

analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Jeffrey, L. R. (2004). Bullying bystanders. The Prevention Researcher, 11(3), 7-8.

Jolliff v. NLRB, 513 F. 3d 600 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2008.

139
Jones, S. E., Haslam, S., York, L., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). Rotten apple or rotten barrel?

Social identity and children's responses to bullying. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 117-132. doi:10.1348/026151007X200385.

Kaplan, J. F. (2010). Help is on the way: A recent case sheds light on workplace bullying.

Houston Law Review, 47(1), 141-173.

Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues.

Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to

rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2009). Age diversity, age discrimination, and

performance consequences: A cross organizational study. Academy of

Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-6.

doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44249873.

La Day v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 302 F. 3d 474 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2002.

Lawrence, C. (2001). Social psychology of bullying in the workplace. In N. Tehrani

(Ed.). Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 61-76).

London: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1201/9780203302262.pt2

Lewis, M. (2006). Nurse bullying: Organizational considerations in the maintenance and

perpetration of healthcare bullying cultures. Journal of Nursing Management,

14(1), 52-58. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00535.x.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence &

Victims, 5(2), 119-126.

140
Locander, W. B. & Luechauer, D. L. (2005). Don't be a bully. Marketing Management,

14(4), 48-50.

Logue, J. & Yates, J. (2001). The real world of employee ownership. Ithaca, NY: ILR

Press.

Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F. 3d 766 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2004

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by Bullying in the

American Workplace: Prevalence, Perception, Degree and Impact. Journal of

Management Studies, 44(6), 837-862. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00715.x

Magnuson, S. & Norem, K. (2009). Bullies grow up and go to work. Journal of

Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 37(2), 34-51.

Martin, A., Gray, C., & Adam, A. (2007). Nurses' responses to workplace verbal abuse:

A scenario study of the impact of situational and individual factor. Research &

Practice in Human Resource Management, 15(2), 1-17.

Martin, W., & Lavan, H. (2010). Workplace bullying: A review of litigated cases.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22(3), 175-194.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-009-9140-4

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCarthy, P. & Mayhew, C. (2004). Safeguarding the organization against violence and

bullying: An international perspective. New York, NY: Palgrave-MacMillan.

McDowell, W. H. (2002). Historical research: A guide. New York, NY: Longman.

141
McGregor, D. (1985). The human side of enterprise (25th anniversary printing).New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Middlebrooks, A., Miltenberger, L., Tweedy, J., Newman, G., & Follman, J. (2009).

Developing a sustainability ethic in leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2),

31-43.doi:10.1002/jls.20106.

Morgan, G. (2007). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Namie, G. & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The

communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of

Communication (19328036), 4, 343-373.

Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2009). U.S. Workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and

consultation interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and

Research, 61(3), 202-219. doi:10.1037/a0016670.

Namie, G. (2000). Workplace Bullying Institute. U.S. Hostile Workplace Survey 2000

[Electronic Version]. Retrieved from

http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/N-N-2000.pdf.

Namie, G. (2007a). The challenge of workplace bullying. Employment Relations Today

(Wiley), 34(2), 43-51. doi:10.1002/ert.20151

Namie, G. (2007b). Workplace Bullying Institute & Zogby International. U.S. Workplace

Bullying Survey [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from

http://www.workpIacebullying.org/docs/WBIsurvey2007.pdf.

Neuman, W. L. (2005). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (6thed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

142
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Ojala, K., & Nesdale, D. (2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms

and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 22, 19–35.

Pappas v. JSB Holdings, Inc., 392 F. Supp. 2d 1095 - Dist. Court, D. Arizona 2005.

Parkins, I., Fishbein, H. D., & Ritchey, P. (2006). The influence of personality on

workplace bullying and discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

36(10), 2554-2577. doi:10.1111/j.0021- 9029.2006.00117.x.

QSR International. (2011). NVivo 9 qualitative analysis software. Available from

http://www.qsrinternational.com

Rochon v. Attorney General of US, 734 F. Supp. 543 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia

1990.

Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory Bullying, Status

Inequalities and Organizational Context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561-1589.

Rosenstein, A. H. (2010). Measuring and managing the economic impact of disruptive

behaviors in the hospital. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 30(2), 20-26.

Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it

rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New

Directions for Evaluation, (114), 11-25. doi:10.1002/ev.223

143
Seifert, P. C. (2011). Reaping what we sow: The costs of bullying. Association of

Operating Room Nurses. AORN Journal, 94(4), 326-8.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.07.007.

Shamir, R. (2005). Mind the gap: The commodification of corporate social responsibility.

Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 229-253. doi:10.1525/si.2005.28.2.229.

Sherwood, A. L., & DePaolo, C. A. (2006). Task and relationship-oriented trust in

leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(2), 65.

Shostak, A. B. (1991). Robust unionism: Innovations in the labor movement. Ithaca, NY:

ILR Press.

Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A

social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.),

Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183–219).Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The

social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of

legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations

(pp. 307–331). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2003). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of

inequality: A reply to Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen and Wilson & Liu. The

British Journal of Social Psychology / The British Psychological Society, 42(2),

207-213.

144
Singh, A. (2009). Organizational power in perspective. Leadership & Management in

Engineering, 9(4), 165-176. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000018.

Sitzman, K. (2004). Express speak: Workplace bullying. AAOHN Journal, 52(5), 220.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., & Hetland, H. (2007). The

destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 12(1), 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80.

Smith v. Sheahan, 189 F. 3d 529 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1999.

Solnik, C. (2012). Surviving employee turnover. Long Island Business News, Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/993795551?accountid=458.

Sperry, L. (2009). Workplace mobbing and bullying: A consulting psychology

perspective and overview. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and

Research, 61(3), 165-168. doi:10.1037/a0016936.

Strandmark, M. & Hallberg, L. M. (2007). Being rejected and expelled from the

workplace: Experiences of bullying in the public service sector. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 4(1), 1–14.

Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach

(2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and “theory of mind”: A

critique of the “social skills deficit” view of anti-social behavior. Social

Development, 8(1), 117-134.

Taylor, C., & Zeng, H. (2011). Case study in threats of workplace violence from a non-

supervisory basis. Mustang Journal of Law & Legal Studies, 55-64.

145
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis and

research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons.

Tober, P. A. (1988). The emerging flexible workplace. Compensation and Benefits

Review, 20(1), 70-71.

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full

range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal

of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533-547.

Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and

slaves. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 148-185.

Turk, W. (2008). Motivate your people for project success. Defense AT&L, 37(4), 44.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1997).

Educating for a sustainable future: A transdisciplinary vision for concerted

action. New York: Author.

Van Gelder, L. (2013, November 23). Foiling the office bully (with sand in your face).

New York Times, p. BU8.

Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can

break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1-3),

101-109. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-1422-7.

Ventura County Grand Jury (2011). Bullying in the workplace. [Final Report] Ventura

County, Ca.

146
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. Henderson & T.

Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.

White v. Schafer, 738 F. Supp. 2d 1121 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 2010.

Whitehouse, P. S. (2006). Bullies and victims from the schoolyard to the boardroom: The

abridged version. Conflict Resolution Institute, 207.

Wiedmer, T. L. (2010). Workplace Bullying: Costly and Preventable. Delta Kappa

Gamma Bulletin, 77(2), 35-41.

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Workplace Bullying Institute-Zogby International Survey (WBI-Zogby). (2007). U.S.

workplace bullying survey. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.workplacebullying.org/docs/WBIsurvey.pdf

Workplace Bullying Institute. (2010). Results of the 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Survey.

Retrieved from http://www.workplacebullying.org/docs/WBIsurvey2010.pdf.

Workplace Health and Safety, Department of Industrial Relations. (2002). Workplace

Bullying Taskforce Report. Queensland, Australia.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

147
 Appendix A

Confidentiality Statement

148
 Appendix B

Author biography

Dr. Richard M. Bame earned his doctorate with the University Phoenix in the

Management (Organizational Leadership) Program. He has an MBA and 21 years of

leadership experience in the Navy Nuclear Power Program. He currently works for the

Florida Department of Transportation as a Field Operations Manager managing asset

maintenance contracts. He has 10 years of instructor experience and currently is an

adjunct instructor with ITT Technical Institute teaching courses in Green Energy,

Quantitative Analysis, Problem Solving Theory, AC/DC Theory, and Quality

Management. Dr. Bame has published on workforce bullying and his research interests

are in the areas of management, leadership, and ethics. Dr. Bame can be reached at

[email protected].

149