Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

Undefined, Value-Based Language

Terms such as unreasonable, inappropriate, unacceptable, unwarranted are undefined, assume a shared or common culture and/or agreed understanding or reference point.

Approximately 29% of definitions included such terms

In a diverse workplace it is unsafe to assume  shared values, understandings and/or reference points in regard to what is appropriate, reasonable, warranted or acceptable

Even where there is a relatively homogenous culture, values and agendas may differ between work-units, and/or between managers and employees. Making assumptions of shared meaning or reference points is therefore risky

Use of such terms encourages people to interpret them in a self-referencing/self-serving manner in order to justify and defend their choice of behaviour. This can block resolution and lead to costly escalation and continued conflict

You may inadvertently or unintentionally enable some types of bullying behaviour simply because you failed to specify them in your definition or description (list of proscribed behaviours)

Value based language

sound good and enables you to avoid complex and unwieldy definitions, exhaustive and prescriptive lists

If you miss something in your definition of bullying or in your list of proscribed behaviours, value-based language provides decision makers with a 'fall back' or  'catch all'

Eliminating value-based language from definitions forces policy makers to clearly define bullying in behavioural terms that cannot be interpreted in self-serving ways

Recommendation

1.     Eliminate value-based terms.

2.     If you choose to use such terms,

Specify the reference point for definition – for example the organisationÍs or professionÍs code of Conduct, Ethics, Values or Expected Behaviours; Customer Service Charter, Contract of Employment, Professionalism etc.

Define the terms behaviourally.

Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

Malicious Intent

Terms implying that bullying involves conscious intent to cause injury, detriment or harm. For example, behaviours designed to, intended to 

Just under 17% used such terms

Difficult and expensive (time and $$) to prove intent. Can generally only be inferred unless confessed (which is unlikely in our experience)

Easy for perpetrators to avoid responsibility and sidetrack resolution processes using arguments of benign intent or absence of intent

May contribute to confusion about what is bullying and  what is legitimate or assertive management

Signals clearly that intentionally harmful and/or injurious behaviour and/or behaviour designed to cause detriment is not accepted in the organisation

Where definitions are behavioural,

‡ the organisation can identify bullying and intervene and manage to prevent or stop detriment even in the absence of reports or complaints;

‡       decisions can be made and action taken to manage behaviour without the effort or expense involved in substantiating intent.

‡       establishing existence is easier

Recommendation

3.     Eliminate reference to intent in definitions and policy

4.     If you choose to include such reference, explain the organisationÍs policy in regard to similar types and/or patterns of behaviour in the absence of intent, where there is benign intent, or where intent cannot be substantiated

Element of Definition

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

Subjectivity

Some definitions are subjective – they confirm the existence of bullying

based heavily or solely upon a personÍs

‡       'feeling' or 'belief' that they are being bullied or

‡       experience of certain emotions

Approximately 7% of definitions rested solely on the victimÍs experience of certain feelings or their belief that bullying had occurred

Some feelings associated with bullying (for example fear, stress, humiliation, intimidation) may also be triggered for some people by legitimate workplace management

This is especially likely in a politically or culturally diverse workforce

Inclusion of this element may lead to over-reporting of bullying and/or to ïbad faith (misconceived, malicious or vexatious) reports that

‡      present a false picture of workplace relationships and

‡       overburden the grievance and line management systems

‡       harm reputations, careers and workplace relationships

Such definitions can encourage overstatement of feelings in an effort to justify complaints

Subjective definitions may lead to unfair findings and actions that

‡       do not withstand industrial scrutiny, or that

‡       punish or discourage managers from managing

Perceptions and feelings matter – especially to those who own them! They are also real.

If definitions discount perceptions and feelings there is a risk of under-reporting or thwarted reporting

Targets may be further victimised by a system/policy that excludes them by demanding they articulate and specify matters that are inherently difficult to pin down in words

'Clever' bullies who operate 'under the radar' (using secretive and subtle behaviours) may continue unchallenged in behaviour of detriment to individuals, workgroups and the organisation

As a result, individuals making good faith reports may lose faith in the organisationÍs ability and/or willingness to protect them, and bullies may prosper

Where definitions take account of, but do not rely solely or heavily upon, perceptions and feelings, ïgood faithÍ complaints and defences can be encouraged and supported

Where definitions are behavioural, rather than subjective, the organisation can identify bullying and intervene and manage to prevent or stop detriment even in the absence of reports or complaints.

In other words the organisation does not have to wait until someone feels bad enough to report

Recommendation

5.     It is valid and important to acknowledge individual feelings and perceptions when investigating the impact of bullying especially since the impact of bullying can be profound and is always personal.

6.     When defining bullying, heavy reliance on subjective experience should be avoided

7.     Definitions should include reference to impact but bullying should not be defined solely or principally in regard to reported experience or belief

Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

DIRECTED Nature of Behaviour

Terms that refer to behaviour as targeted or selective or directed at, against or towards an individual or group - In other words they differentiate between

yelling vs yelling at; swearing vs swearing at; aggressive vs attacking

Approximately 39% of definitions referred to the directed nature of behaviour

It may be difficult to establish the existence of bullying if the person engaging in the behaviour is clever enough to camouflage the direction or to ïgeneraliseÍ the behaviour rather than directing it at a person or group.

Over-reporting of unprofessional and/or unacceptable behaviours as bullying.

Bad faith (misconceived, malicious or vexatious) reports that

‡       present a false picture of workplace relationships and

‡       overburden the grievance and line management systems

Unnecessary inhibition of legitimate venting or expression of strong emotions, such as frustration, anger or upset, that arise in the course of work

Clearly differentiates bullying from other unacceptable and unprofessional behaviours in the workplace.

Signals clearly that behaviours such as yelling at or swearing at individuals or groups is bullying and is not accepted in the organisation.

Since direction is behavioural, it is easier to establish it, than it is to prove ïmalicious intentÍ.

It may be easier to 'prove' bullying if you don't have to prove the behaviour was 'directed at' someone.

Allows the organisation to capture and manage a range of unacceptable behaviours under one heading.

Recommendation

8.     The benefits of including direction in the definition of bullying far outweigh the risks.

9.     Definitions of workplace bullying should include the directed nature of behaviour.

REPEATED Nature of Behaviour

Terms that refer to continuing, ongoing or patterned behaviour that is repeated over time, differentiating bullying from one-off events

Just over 67% of definitions refer to the repetitive or patterned nature of behaviour

A single incident of bullying type behaviour cannot be managed under this definition even though productivity may be disrupted, or an employee or group of employees may experience hurt, distress, or detriment as a result of the incident

Confusion of bullying with one-off or coincidental incidents of workplace conflict

Over-reporting of unprofessional and/or unacceptable behaviour as bullying

Overburdening of the grievance and line management systems and subsequent damage to reputation and working relationships as a result of single, isolated incidents

Clearly differentiates bullying from

isolated or coincidental incidents of workplace conflict and/or unacceptable and unprofessional behaviour in the workplace

It may be easier to ïproveÍ bullying if you donÍt have to show repetition or pattern

Allows the organisation to manage significant one-off events as bullying

Recommendation

10.   The repetitive or patterned nature of the behaviour is a key differentiating feature of bullying and must be acknowledged in any definition

Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

COERCIVE Nature of Behaviour

Reference to the coercive, forceful or threatening nature of behaviour

55.1% refer to the coercive nature of behaviour

2.2% of definitions differentiated between coercion in bullying and coercion in legitimate management

Defining bullying simply as coercive or threatening behaviour fails to differentiate between bullying and legitimate management and causes confusion for both managers and employees

(The same applies to bullying defined simply as behaviour causing offence or upset)

Over-reporting may result and

managers may be thwarted or discouraged from the legitimate management of non-compliant employees

Definitions which fail to explicitly acknowledge the coercive nature of bullying miss a key qualitative feature differentiating it from other forms of misbehaviour

Misreporting of other forms of unacceptable workplace behaviour may result

Clearly differentiates bullying from

other forms of misbehaviour in the workplace.

More accurate reporting results.

May save some arguments about whether or not behaviour is coercive

Recommendation:

11.   Coercion is a key differentiating feature of bullying and must be acknowledged in any definition.

12.   Since managers are given coercive power and expected to utilise discretion in exercising this power, in the absence of compliance and in order to achieve work objectives,

‡       Bullying must not, for the sake of simplicity, be defined as coercion

‡       Useful definitions will make explicit the difference between bullying and the legitimate use of coercion in management

Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

DETRIMENT TO INDIVIDUAL WELLBEING

Terms referring to harm, injury, hurt or risk to the safety or health (physical or  psychological) of individuals

While 83% of definitions refer to behaviour that has a detrimental impact, 50% refer specifically to detriment of wellbeing and/or safety and 28% make a link to OSH legislation/obligations

Reference to detriment to well-being can be inferred to mean that such detriment must occur or be proven before the organisation can intervene

Definitions which do not identify risks to well-being fail to alert organisations/managers to their obligation to identify and prevent bullying in accordance with OSH requirements

Duty of care is clearly implied and so too is the imperative to act when reference is made to risks to well-being (health and/or safety)

It may be easier to prove bullying if you don't have to prove the behaviour was detrimental or a risk to safety/health/well-being

Recommendation:

13.   References to the risks of detriment to well-being and/or safety should be included since they strengthen definitions and compel organisations to act to prevent and stop bullying

DETRIMENT TO RIGHT TO DIGNITY AT WORK

9% of definitions refer to behaviour that has a detrimental impact on the employeeÍs right to dignity

Definitions referring to ïright to dignity at workÍ assume a base within Australian law that may not exist

This means that action taken on the basis of such a ïrightÍ may difficult to upheld industrially

Where definitions exclude reference to ïright to dignityÍ we do not mislead employees into believing they have a right when in fact such a right may not find support in Australian law

Recommendation:

14.   References to the risks of detriment to well-being and/or safety should be included since they strengthen definitions and compel organisations to act to prevent and stop bullying References to detriment to employeesÍ right to dignity at work may mislead and may not find the support desired in Australian law and should be excluded

15.   Although some definitions assume the existence to ïright to dignity at workî such a right is neither enshrined in legislation, nor clearly established in Australian industrial law. We recommend leaving it out (even though we believe employees have such a right!)

Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

DETRIMENT TO PERFORMANCE

Terms referring to the negative impact of behaviour on individual workgroup or organisation performance, productivity or service, quality or efficiency (costs).

Only 11% of definitions defined the behaviour in terms of its negative impact on workplace performance (7% individual; 4% workgroup/organisation)

Line managers and executive may be uninspired or reluctant to act to prevent or stop bullying if no clear link is made to its negative impact on workplace performance, costs or competitiveness

Those who choose to bully may justify their behaviour to themselves and others  as legitimate efforts to improve or maintain performance

Compels line managers and executives to act since organisational effectiveness and efficiency is their primary concern and interest

Recommendation:

16.   The failure of 89% of definitions to include reference to the detriment caused to business is astonishing given the overwhelming research evidence regarding

‡       the negative impact of bullying on productivity, safety and service quality, error rates, initiative, absenteeism, turnover and the organisationÍs ability to attract and keep talented employees;

‡       the link between bullying and counter-productive behaviour including purposeful waste and neglect, sabotage and damage to equipment, 

‡       the cost ($$and time) of grievances, industrial disputes and workerÍs compensation claims, and

‡       the links to workplace corruption and fraud

17.   The inclusion of such references in only 11% of bullying definitions may

‡       Help to explain the lack of interest organisations and managers exhibit in regard to the prevention and elimination of bullying in the workplace, and/or

‡       Reflect the origin of definitions in HR departments, helping professions rather than line management

18.   Explicit reference to detrimental impact on performance is recommended in defining workplace bullying in order to get line manager and executive support of prevention and intervention

Element of Definition

Instrumental/Operational

Risks

Instrumental/Operational

Benefits

Risks of Inclusion

Risks of Exclusion 

Benefits of Inclusion

Benefits of Exclusion

DIFFERENTIATION

None of the definitions reviewed differentiated bullying from other forms of discrimination or harassment.

8% differentiated bullying from other forms of workplace conflict while just 2% explicitly differentiated bullying from legitimate management.

Mistaking issues covered by other legislation and policy as bullying

Confusion and misunderstanding

Where no differentiation is made between bullying and legitimate management, over-reporting may result and managers may be thwarted or discouraged from the legitimate management of non-compliant employees.

Clear and differentiating definitions enable employees, managers and investigators to feel confident about what is and isnÍt bullying

Recommendation:

19.   Definitions should clearly differentiate bullying from other forms of discrimination, harassment, unacceptable, unprofessional and illegal behaviours.

20.   Definitions should clearly differentiate bullying from legitimate management (and the use of coercive power in the management of non-compliance)