Zapf & Gross - Conflict escalation and coping with workplac, MOBBING - różne materiały
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
497
CONFLICT ESCALATION AND BULLYING
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001,
10
(4), 497–522
Conflict escalation and coping
with workplace bullying:
A replication and extension
Dieter Zapf and Claudia Gross
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt, Germany
Bullying or mobbing is used for systematically harassing a person for a long time.
In the context of stress theory, bullying is a severe form of social stressors at work,
whereas in terms of conflict theory, bullying signifies an unsolved social conflict
having reached a high level of escalation and an increased imbalance of power.
Based on a qualitative study with 20 semi-structured interviews with victims of
bullying and a quantitative questionnaire study with a total of 149 victims of
bullying and a control group (
N
= 81), it was investigated whether bullying victims
use specific conflict management strategies more often compared with individuals
who are not bullied, and whether coping strategies used by successful copers with
bullying differ from those of the unsuccessful copers. Successful copers were
those victims who believe that their situation at work has improved again as a
result of their coping efforts. The qualitative data showed that most victims started
with constructive conflict-solving strategies, changed their strategies several
times, and finally tried to leave the organization. In the interviews, the victims of
bullying most often recommended others in the same situation to leave the
organization and to seek social support. They more often showed conflict
avoidance in the quantitative study. Successful victims fought back with similar
means less often, and less often used negative behaviour such as frequent
absenteeism. Moreover, they obviously were better at recognizing and avoiding
escalating behaviour, whereas in their fight for justice, the unsuccessful victims
often contributed to the escalation of the bullying conflict.
Workplace bullying or “mobbing
”
as it is called in many Continental European
countries, has become an important issue in Europe. Research started in Sweden
(e.g., Leymann, 1996), Norway (e.g., Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen & Skogstad,
1996), and Finland (e.g., Björkqvist, Österman, & Hjelt-Bäck, 1994; Vartia,
1996), and many other countries have followed in the meantime. Research was
done by Cowie et al. (2000), Hoel, Cooper, and Faragher (this issue), and Rayner
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Prof. D. Zapf, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-
Universität, Institut für Psychologie, Mertonstr, 17, 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Email:
D.Zapf@psych-uni-frankfurt.de
© 2001 Psychology Press Ltd
DOI:10.1080/13594320143000834
498
ZAPF AND GROSS
(1997) in the UK; by Mikkelsen and Einarsen (1999) in Denmark; den Ouden
(1999) in The Netherlands; Kirchler and Lang (1998) and Niedl (1995, 1996) in
Austria; von Holzen-Beusch, Zapf, and Schallberger (in press) in Switzerland;
Mackensen von Astfeld (2000) and Zapf, Knorz, and Kulla (1996) in Germany;
Kaucsek and Simon (1995) in Hungary; and Cowie et al. (2000) in Portugal.
Outside Europe, bullying research has been carried out by Keashly, Hunter, and
Harvey (1997) in the US and Sheehan, Barker, and Rayner (1999) in Australia.
Research summaries (Einarsen, 2000; Zapf, 1999a) have come to the conclusion,
that bullying is an ubiquitous problem in most organizations with a prevalence
rate between 1% and 4% causing severe health damage in the victim of bullying.
Whereas most research on bullying so far emphasized the stress perspective,
there is comparatively little literature on bullying from the perspective of conflict
research. This will be done in the present article. The central research question is:
How do individuals cope with workplace bullying given that many bullying cases
have reached an advanced stage of conflict escalation? To give an answer to this
question we will deal with the stress and coping as well as with the conflict
management literature.
From a stress perspective, bullying behaviour as a subset of social stressors
(Zapf et al., 1996) can be conceptualized either as daily hassles (Kanner, Coyne,
Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981) or as critical life events, for example, when physical
or sexual violence is used or when substantial decision competencies are taken
away which may completely change the status of a person in the firm. These
social stressors negatively affect the individual’s health. Leymann (1993, 1996)
suggested an operational definition of bullying. To call it bullying, such negative
social behaviour should occur for at least half a year and at least once a week.
Bullying can start with an equal power structure. However, after some time, an
unequal power structure will result and limit the resources of the victims to
defend themselves (Einarsen, 2000; Knorz & Zapf, 1996). This may be so if a
person lacks skills to manage an escalating conflict or if he or she gets into an
outsider position and looses the support of other colleagues and supervisors.
Finally, if social stressors occur in a department, almost everybody will be
negatively affected after some time. However, bullying is usually targeted at
a particular person. These considerations led to the following definition of
bullying: Bullying occurs, if somebody is harassed, offended, socially excluded,
or has to carry out humiliating tasks and if the person concerned is in an inferior
position. To call something bullying, it must occur repeatedly (e.g., at least once
a week) and for a long time (e.g., at least 6 months). It is not bullying if it is a
single event. It is also not bullying if two equally strong parties are in conflict
(cf., Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1993; Zapf, 1999a).
In the present article we will follow this relatively strict definition of bullying. It
should be noted that other authors use less strict definitions with regard to the
time frame (less than 6 months) and the frequency of the bullying behaviour (less
499
CONFLICT ESCALATION AND BULLYING
often than once a week) (cf., Einarsen, 2000; Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999;
Zapf, 1999a)
Various studies have shown that bullying is not a passing problem. Given the
definition above, the minimum duration of bullying is 6 months. Leymann (1996)
reported an average duration of 15 months, Einarsen and Skogstad (1996)
reported 18 months, and Zapf (1999a) summarized various German studies
reporting mean bullying durations of between 29 and 46 months. Taking these
studies together, it can be concluded that a substantial number of all bullying
cases last longer than 2 years. These kinds of long-lasting and badly managed
conflicts that go far beyond everyday quarrelling, are at the centre of this paper.
Some authors suggested that in the context of bullying the conflict situations tend
to escalate (e.g., Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1996) and get worse in the course of
time. In the study of Zapf (1999a), indirect evidence could be found for this in
that the duration of bullying correlated positively with the numbers of bullies. We
will argue that bullying according to the definition mentioned previously is an
escalated conflict situation. This escalated conflict situation is a non-control
situation for the victim. Therefore, otherwise successful conflict management
strategies (Rahim & Magner, 1995; Thomas, 1992) or successful stress manage-
ment strategies such as active problem solving (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) will
not prove successful when applied in an escalated bullying situation. To support
our proposition we will first describe some conflict escalation models referred to
in the bullying literature. Then we will deal with conflict management and coping
strategies.
CONFLICT ESCALATION MODELS
If a conflict is defined as “the process that begins when one party perceives that
the other has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that
he or she cares about
”
(Thomas, 1992, p. 653), there is probably general agree-
ment that bullying falls under this conflict definition. Bullying can be described
as a certain subset of conflicts. Whereas conflicts can even be positive (task-
related or cognitive conflicts, de Dreu & van de Vliert, 1997; Tjosvold, 1991),
can occur between parties of equal power, can consist of only one conflict
episode, and can be resolved relatively quickly, conflicts underlying bullying are
negative for the victim, result in an unequal power structure, consist of a series of
related conflict episodes and last for a long time according to the definition of
bullying presented earlier. Leymann (1996) not only suggested that there should
be a minimum duration to speak of bullying. He also suggested a model
describing the typical process of bullying which showed parallels with escalation
models in conflict research. Another model was suggested by Björkqvist
(1992). Leymann’s (1993, 1996) model differentiated between various stages
over time.
500
ZAPF AND GROSS
Critical incidents
. Leymann argued that the starting point of bullying is
typically a triggering situation which is most often a conflict. Not much is known
about what exactly leads from a conflict into a bullying situation. Hypothetically,
this first bullying phase (which according to Leymann is not yet bullying) may be
very short.
Bullying and stigmatizing
. In the next phase, the person is stigmatized and
becomes the victim of bullying in the sense of the definition of bullying given
earlier. Bullying activities may comprise quite a number of behaviours, which, in
normal interaction, are not necessarily indicative of aggression or expulsion.
However, being subjected to these behaviours almost on a daily basis and for a
very long time, they can change their meaning and may be used in stigmatizing
the person in question. Single bullying behaviours, regardless of their normal
meaning in day-to-day interaction, share the intent to “get at a person
”
or punish
him or her. Thus, damaging the victim is the main characteristic of these events.
Personnel management
. In the next stage, management steps in—making
the case “official
”
in the organization. According to Leymann, the previous
stigmatization of the victim makes it easy to misjudge the situation as being the
fault of the subjected person. Management tends to accept and overtake the
position of the bullies and their negative view of the victim. From the point of
view of the management, it is often easier to get rid of the victim. This is
particularly so if more than one bully is involved, which is very often the case
(Zapf, 1999a). One person, the victim, can more easily be removed and be
replaced than can a group of bullies. According to Leymann, these actions often
imply the violations of rights by personnel management. In this phase, the
subjected person ultimately becomes marked and stigmatized. Colleagues and
management tend to create explanations why bullying developed. They hold
personal characteristics of the victims responsible rather than environmental
factors.
Expulsion
. The final stage of bullying is, according to Leymann (1993), the
expulsion from the organization. The threat to become expelled is made
responsible for the development of serious illnesses (Groeblinghoff & Becker,
1996; Leymann, 1996; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996), which cause the victims
to seek medical or psychological help. However, the subjected person can be
very easily incorrectly diagnosed by some professionals who do not believe the
victim. Some of the misdiagnoses according to Leymann are paranoia, manic
depression, or character disturbance. In recent years, Leymann included this
misdiagnosis as an extra stage in his model (Leymann, 1996).
Leymann described bullying as a situation where the victims can do little to
solve the problem. They become stigmatized. The expulsion from the firm is
501
CONFLICT ESCALATION AND BULLYING
described as the unsuccessful end of the story. Leymann does not go into details
with regard to conflict management or stress management strategies. However,
because the expulsion from the firm is described as against the interest of the
victim, one can assume that in Leymann’s view, the victims’ attempts to solve the
problem are all considered to be unsuccessful.
Björkvist (1992, after Einarsen, 2000) suggested a three-phase model of
bullying with a focus on the intensity of bullying behaviour. In the first phase,
indirect strategies of bullying such as spreading rumours or permanently
interrupting the victims are used aiming at degrading the victim. In the second
phase, more direct acts of aggression appear. The person is isolated, humiliated in
public, and people make fun of him or her. By degrading the victim, the bullies
make sure that their behaviour is justified and that they do not have to feel guilty.
In the third phase, extreme forms of direct aggression and power are used. The
victim is accused of being psychologically ill, he or she is blackmailed, and
threats to distribute intimate knowledge are put forward. Björkqvist et al. did not
discuss the conflict management behaviour of the victim; instead they focused on
the conflict escalation process as characterized by more and more threatening
measures directed against the victim. Björkqvist’s and Leymann’s models have
in common that bullying becomes worse and worse in the course of time, and, in
its final stage, it leaves the victim in a powerless situation where he or she cannot
successfully apply coping strategies which might end the conflict situation.
The use of more and more severe means to harm the other party is also
characteristic for the conflict escalation model of Glasl (1982, 1994; see also
Neuberger, 1999) which was developed before research on workplace bullying
started. Glasl’s model (Figure 1) of “levels of conflict escalation
”
differentiates
between three phases and nine stages.
Attacks against the power nerves of the enemy
Systematic destructive campaigns against
the sanction potential of the other party
Polarization and debating style
Figure 1.
The conflict escalation model of Glasl (1994).
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]