Irish workplacebehaviour study
Report submitted to the IOSH Research Committee
Hodgins M, Pursell L, & Hogan V. NUI Galway
MacCurtain S, & Mannix-McNamara P.University of Limerick
Lewis D.Plymouth University
www.iosh.co.uk/workplacebehaviour Research report
IOSH, the Chartered body for health and safety professionals, is committed toevidence-based practice in workplace safety and health. We maintain a Research and Development Fund to support research and inspire innovation as part of our work as a thought leader in health and safety.
All recipients of funding from our Research and Development Fund are asked to compile a comprehensive research report of their findings, which is subject to peer review.
For more information on how to apply for grants from the Fund, visit www.iosh.co.uk/getfunding, or contact:
Mary OgungbejeResearch and Development [email protected]
Ivan WilliamsResearch and Development [email protected]
Acknowledgement: IOSH would like to thank the peer reviewers of this report.
www.iosh.co.uk/workplacebehaviour Research report
Irish workplacebehaviour study
Report submitted to the IOSH Research Committee
Hodgins M, Pursell L. & Hogan V.NUI Galway
MacCurtain S. & Mannix-McNamara P.University of Limerick
Lewis D.Plymouth University
i
Contents
IRISHWORKPLACEBEHAVIOURSTUDY.................................................................................................1Acknowledgements 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 12 Survey Methodology ........................................................................................ 3
2.1SamplingFrame...............................................................................................................................................................32.2SampleDesignandDataCollection.................................................................................................................................32.3SurveyInstrument...........................................................................................................................................................42.4SampleWeights...............................................................................................................................................................5
3 Survey Outcomes ............................................................................................. 73.1ResponseRate..................................................................................................................................................................73.2SampleProfile..................................................................................................................................................................83.3OriginalandConfirmedReportofExperienceofIllTreatmentItems(Unweighted)......................................................9
4 Results: Experience, Witness and Perpetration of Ill Treatment in the Workplace .......................................................................................................... 11
4.1ExperienceofIllTreatmentintheWorkplace...............................................................................................................124.1.1ConfirmedIllTreatmentExperiencedintheWorkplace(Weighted)....................................................................134.1.2RelationshipsbetweenExperienceofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactors.......................................134.1.3RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceCharacteristicsandExperienceofIllTreatment............................................164.1.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandExperienceofIllTreatment............................................................174.1.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandExperienceofIllTreatment..................................................184.1.6PredictorsforExperiencingIllTreatment..............................................................................................................22
4.1.6.1ModelsincludingFAREItems...............................................................................................................234.1.6.2ModelsincludingWorkPositiveItems.................................................................................................25
4.2WitnessingIllTreatmentintheWorkplace...................................................................................................................294.2.1IllTreatmentWitnessedintheWorkplace............................................................................................................304.2.2RelationshipsbetweenWitnessingofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactors.......................................304.2.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandWitnessingofIllTreatment......................................324.2.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandWitnessofIllTreatment.................................................................344.2.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandWitnessofIllTreatment.......................................................344.2.6PredictorsofWitnessingIllTreatment..................................................................................................................36
4.3PerpetratingIllTreatmentintheWorkplace.................................................................................................................384.3.1IllTreatmentPerpetratedintheWorkplace.........................................................................................................394.3.2RelationshipsbetweenPerpetrationofIllTreatmentandDemographicFactors.................................................394.3.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandPerpetrationofIllTreatment...................................414.3.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandPerpetrationofIllTreatment..........................................................424.3.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandPerpetrationofIllTreatment...............................................434.3.6PredictorsofPerpetratingIllTreatment...............................................................................................................45
4.4RelationshipsbetweenExperience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatment...........................................................475 Items Followed Up ......................................................................................... 49
5.1PercentageofEachIll-TreatmentItemFollowedUp.....................................................................................................495.1.1RelationshipbetweentheGenderofthoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandtheGenderofReportedPerpetrators........................................................................................................................................................505.1.2RelationshipbetweenEthnicityofThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandEthnicityofReportedPerpetrators...515.1.3PerceivedReasonsforIllTreatment.....................................................................................................................51
6 Educational Sessions .................................................................................... 566.1Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................566.2RecruitmentProcess......................................................................................................................................................56
ii
6.3AimsandObjectives.......................................................................................................................................................566.4WorkshopStructure.......................................................................................................................................................576.5Feedback........................................................................................................................................................................576.6Attendees.......................................................................................................................................................................58
7 Case Study Methodology .............................................................................. 607.1Sample...........................................................................................................................................................................607.2Procedure.......................................................................................................................................................................607.3ApproachtoAnalysis.....................................................................................................................................................617.4PolicyAnalysis................................................................................................................................................................61
8 Case Study 1: VORG1 .................................................................................... 628.1PolicyandProcedure.....................................................................................................................................................628.2Interviews......................................................................................................................................................................64
9 Case Study 2: PBS2 ....................................................................................... 709.1PolicyandProcedure.....................................................................................................................................................70
10 Case Study 3: STH3 ..................................................................................... 7710.1PolicyandProcedure...................................................................................................................................................7710.2Interviews....................................................................................................................................................................77
11 Discussion .................................................................................................... 8411.1SurveyFindings:IllTreatmentPrevalenceandPatterns.............................................................................................8411.2CaseStudies:PolicyandPractice,EffectivenessandImplementation........................................................................87
12 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 92APPENDIX 1: IWBS SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................... 95APPENDIX 2: TOPIC GUIDE FOR INTERVIEWS ........................................... 111APPENDIX 3: CALL TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS .............................. 112APPENDIX 4: EDUCATIONAL SESSIONS FLYER ........................................ 113
LISTOFTABLES:Table2.1:CalibrationTotalsUsedForConstructionofWeightson2015WorkplaceBehaviourSurvey.......................................6Table3.1:SurveyOutcomeDetails.................................................................................................................................................7Table3.2:PercentagewithinEachAgeGroupbyGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted).........................................................8Table3.3:SampleEthnicity(Unweighted).....................................................................................................................................8Table3.4:PercentageReportingEthnicity,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted).............................................................8Table3.5:PercentageReportingReligiousAffiliation,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)............................................9Table3.6:PercentageReportingEducationalStatus,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)..............................................9Table3.7:PercentageReportingDisabilities,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)..........................................................9Table3.8:ExperienceofIllTreatmentOriginal,ConfirmedandPercentageReductioninResponses(Unweighted).................10Table4.1:FactorsofIllTreatmentPresentedinEachSection.....................................................................................................11Table4.1.1:PercentageWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentItemswithinEachGender...................................................................13Table4.1.2:PercentageExperiencingIllTreatmentamongDemographicGroups......................................................................14Table4.1.3:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionor
StaffAssociation.....................................................................................................................................................15Table4.1.4:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge..................................17Table4.1.5:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesand
JobPermanence.....................................................................................................................................................18Table4.1.6:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems.......................................................................19Table4.1.7:PercentagesforEachWorkPositiveItem.................................................................................................................21
iii
Table4.1.8:FAREItemsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors................................................................24Table4.1.9:WorkPositiveFactorsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors...............................................25Table4.2.1:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentItemswithinEachGender......................................................................30Table4.2.2:PercentageWhoWitnessedIll-TreatmentFactorsamongDemographicGroups....................................................31Table4.2.3:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofa
TradeUnionorStaffAssociation............................................................................................................................32Table4.2.4:WitnessedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge.......................................33Table4.2.5:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJob
Permanence...........................................................................................................................................................34Table4.2.6:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forWitnessedIllTreatment.............................................................................................37Table4.3.1:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentwithinEachGender.............................................................................39Table4.3.2:PercentagesamongDemographicGroupsWhoPerpetratedIll-TreatmentFactors................................................40Table4.3.3:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofa
TradeUnionorStaffAssociation............................................................................................................................41Table4.3.4:PerpetratedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge.....................................42Table4.3.5:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyOccupationalGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJob
Permanence...........................................................................................................................................................43Table4.3.6:PercentagesWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems....................................................................................44Table4.3.7:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forPerpetratedIllTreatment...........................................................................................45Table4.4.1:CorrelationsbetweenExperiencing,WitnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatment....................................................48Table5.1:FactorLevelFrequenciesandPercentagesofItemsFollowedUpinEachRoundofQuestions..................................49Table5.2:PercentageofIllTreatmentItemsFollowedUp,TotalandbyGender.......................................................................50Table5.3:PercentageofThoseResponsibleforIllTreatmentwithinaSpecificGender,byGenderofthePersonExperiencing
theBehaviour.........................................................................................................................................................51Table5.4:EthnicityofPerpetratorbyEthnicityofthePersonExperiencingtheIllTreatment....................................................51Table5.5:PercentageReportingReasonsforExperiencedIllTreatment....................................................................................52Table5.6:OtherReportedReasonsforIllTreatment..................................................................................................................52Table5.7:LikelihoodofPerceivedReasonforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced......................................................................54Table5.8:RoleofPerpetratorbyIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced..........................................................................................55Table5.9:LikelihoodofPerpetratorRoleforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced........................................................................55Table8.1:VORG1Policy...............................................................................................................................................................63Table8.2:VORG1InterviewParticipants......................................................................................................................................65Table9.1:PBS2Policy...................................................................................................................................................................70Table9.2:PBS2InterviewParticipants.........................................................................................................................................72Table10.1:STH3Policy.................................................................................................................................................................78Table10.2:STH3InterviewParticipants.......................................................................................................................................79LISTOFFIGURES:Figure4.1.1:PercentageswithinEachIll-TreatmentFactorExperienced....................................................................................12Figure4.1.2:PercentagePointsAboveorBelowOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentforEachFactorby
Sector.....................................................................................................................................................................16Figure4.1.3:DifferenceinPercentagePointsfromOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentFactorby
FAREItems(NegativelyOriented)..........................................................................................................................20Figure4.1.4:PercentagePointsDifferenceComparedtoOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentFactor
byWorkPositiveFactors(NegativelyOriented)....................................................................................................22Figure4.1.5:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforDemandbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced..................26Figure4.1.6:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CisforControlbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced....................27Figure4.1.7:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforManagerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced...27Figure4.1.8:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforPeerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced...........28Figure4.1.9:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforRelationshipsbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced..........28Figure4.2.1:PercentageswithinEachFactorofIllTreatmentWitnessed...................................................................................29
iv
Figure4.3.1:PercentageswithinEachCategoryofIllTreatmentPerpetrated............................................................................38Figure4.4.1:ComparisonofPercentageReportedforExperiencing,WitnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatment......................47
v
ExecutiveSummaryThisstudyreplicatedtheBWBSinIreland,employingthesamequestionnaireandsamplingmethodology,inordertoestablishtheprevalenceofnegativeactsintheworkplaceinanationallyrepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.Thefocusofthestudyisworkplaceilltreatmentreceivedatleastonceovertheprevioustwoyears.Workplaceilltreatmenttakesmanyforms.Workplacebullyingisperhapsthemostwellresearchedaspectofworkplaceilltreatment,andhasbecomethedominantwayofconceptualisingtroubleatwork.Workplacebullyingisaproblemforpractitioners,academics,andmostsignificantly,itisaproblemforthosewhoexperienceorwitnessit.Thereisincontrovertibleevidencethatilltreatment,impactsnegativelyonworkerhealth.Manystudiescumulativelyattesttothetoxiceffectsofilltreatmentinworkonbothphysicalandmentalhealthandwellbeing.Despitethis,illtreatmentremainsprevalentinworkplacesinmanycountriesandorganisationalresponseistypicallypoor.In20011and20072,nationalsurveysonworkplacebullyingwereconductedinIreland.Thesestudiesfoundprevalenceratesof7%and7.9%respectively,employingaselflabellingmethod,inwhichrespondentswereasked,followingthepresentationofadefinition,tostatewhetherornottheyhavebeenbulliedinthepastsixmonths.Anumberofcontextualfactorsmakeanewsurveytimely.TheBritishWorkplaceBehaviourSurvey(BWBS)wasadministeredbyface-to-facestructuredinterviewtoarepresentativesampleofUKemployeesbetween2007and2008,gatheringdataondemographicfactors,jobandworkplacecharacteristics,respondents’viewsabouttheirlevelsofcontroloverthepaceandnatureoftheirwork,andaboutwhypeoplethinktheyareill-treatedintheirworkplaces.Thesurveyemployedabehaviouralchecklist,amendedfollowingcognitivetesting,andincludingeightitemson‘unreasonablemanagement’,11itemsmeasuring‘incivilityanddisrespect’andtwoitemson‘physicalviolence’.Thecognitivetestingelementwascriticaltoimprovingthevalidityoftheinstrument,andminimisedthepossibilityoferrorsinconceptualisationandinterpretationofitems.Respondentswerealsoaskediftheyhadwitnessedorperpetratedanyofthe21items.SurveyMethodologyAsurveyonanationalprobabilitysampleofemployeesaged18andoverwhohadworkedasemployeesintheprevioustwoyearswasundertaken.Acompletedsamplesizeof1,500withboostsfornon-Irishnationalsandpersonswithadisabilityresultedin1,764completingthesurvey.Thisrepresentedaresponserateof74%.Thesurveyresponseratewashighforasurveyofthisnature,comparingfavourablywithothernationalsurveysonworkplaceilltreatmentorbullying.Forexample,twopreviousIrishstudieshadresponseratesof23%3,55%4and36%5,whilesimilarUK-basedstudieshadratesof57%6and43%7.
1ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin2O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute3O’Moore,M.,Lynch,J.,NicDaeid,N.,&Cahill,K.(2002).TheEffectsofBullyingBehaviourintheWorkplace:TheUseofResearchDatabasesandVictimImpactStatementsintheLegalProcess.ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonBullyingatWork.UniversityofLondon,England,23-24September20024ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin5O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute6Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity7Hoel,H.,Cooper,C.L.&Faragher,B.(2001).TheExperienceofBullyinginGreatBritain:TheImpactofOrganizationalStatus.EuropeanJournalofWorkandOrganizationalPsychology,10(4),443-465,DOI:10.1080/13594320143000780
vi
Thesampleprofilewasclosetonationalfigures,comprising51.5%malesand48.5%females,predominantly
Christian(84%)andofwhiteethnicity(89%).Amongbothmalesandfemales,6%reportedhavingadisability,
slightlyabovenationalfigures(4%),asaresultoftheboostappliedtopermitsubgroupanalysis.
TheBWBSscaleofilltreatmentitemswasinitiallypresentedatthestartoftheinterview,andthenre-presented
laterduringtheinterviewwhenparticipantswereaskedtoconfirmtheitemstheyhadinitiallyselected.Allitems
showedareducedresponseonconfirmationandtheaveragereductionwas35%.Thisisconsiderablyhigherthan
occurredintheUKsurvey,wheretheaveragereductionwasintheregionof13%.Thestudydemonstratesthat
themeasurementofworkplaceilltreatmentisculturallysensitiveandprevalenceneedstobeinterpretedinthis
light.
Experience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentIll-treatment(asmeasuredbyatleastoneitemonthe21itembehaviouralchecklist)wasexperiencedby43%of
participantswithintheprevioustwoyears.Unreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedby37%,incivilityor
disrespectby31.3%andphysicalviolenceby2.6%.Overlapoccurredbetweenthesefactors,particularlybetween
unreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(25.0%),and2%ofsurveyparticipantsexperienceditemsin
allthreecategories.ThefactorstructureobtainedintheBWBSwasconfirmedinthisstudy.TheBWBSprevalence
findingsofferadirectcomparison,andshowthatthelevelsinIrelandareslightlylowerthantheUK.Overall,the
UKstudy,conductedin2008,found54%ofparticipantshadexperiencedatleastoneaspectofilltreatment(one
item),with47%experiencingunreasonablemanagement,40%incivilityordisrespectand6%physicalviolence.
Theresultsforwitnessingilltreatmentindicatehigherlevelsthandirectexperience,consistentwithmostother
studiesthatmeasurewitnessingofilltreatment.Overall,48%ofrespondentswitnessedatleastonenegativeact,
with42%witnessingunreasonablemanagement,38%incivilityordisrespect,and5%witnessingviolence.The
levelsofwitnesswerelowerintheBWBSfortwofactors(overall38%,unreasonablemanagement28%,incivility
ordisrespect,32%).
Fewstudiesmeasureperpetration.Herewefoundthat17%reportedperpetratingatleastoneitemofill
treatment;14%admittoperpetratingunreasonablemanagement,9.5%incivilityordisrespect,0.5%perpetrating
physicalviolenceand0.5%allthreetypesofilltreatment.ThiscomparesunfavourablytotheBWBSwhereonly
12%overalladmittedperpetration,andonly7%admittedperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement,both
significantdifferences.
WorkplaceBullyingThedegreeof‘illtreatmentexperienced’isnotdirectlycomparabletopreviousnational(Irish)studies,which
measuredbullyingspecifically.ThetwopreviousIrishstudiesfoundlevelsof7%8
and7.9%9
ofrespondents
experiencedworkplacebullying,employingselflabellingmethods.Estimatesofbullyingarelowestwhenthe
methodemployedrequiresrespondentstoindicateiftheyhavebeenbulliedinadirectquestion(i.e.selflabel)
withadefinitionofbullying,andhigherwithbehaviouralchecklists.Theprevalenceoftwonegativeactsweekly,
takenasanindicatorofbullying,was9%,higherthanthe2007findingof7.9%andthe2001studyof7%10
,thus
implyinganincreaseinnegativeexperienceatwork,differencesinmeasurementnotwithstanding,andis
consistentwithexpectationsinthelightofthepressuresonemployeesduringandintheimmediateaftermathof
therecession.ThefindingreinforcesaUS-basedstudythatreportedthreateningandintimidatorycommunication
8
ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin
9
O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocial
ResearchInstitute
10
ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin;O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&
Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute
vii
andacultureoffearexperiencedduringtheeconomiccrises11,althoughtherearesurprisinglyfewstudiesoftheimpactofeconomiceventsorcyclesonworkplaceilltreatment.Theprevalenceoftwoitemsdaily,at2%isconsistentwithotherestimatesofseverebullying.12,13
RelationshipswithDemographicsandSectoralRiskFactorsGenderAlthoughwomenreportedslightlyhigherlevelsofbothexperiencingandwitnessingformostofthe21items,differenceswereonlysignificantinrelationtoexperienceforfouritemsandwitnessingforeightitems,andwhencomparedbyfactor(unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespect,physicalviolence),genderdifferenceswerenotsignificant.Therewasagenderdifferenceobserved,wherewomenweremorelikelytoexperienceatleastanytwoitemsofilltreatmentdaily,whichcouldbeclassifiedasseverebullying.Inthemultivariateanalysiswomenweremorelikelytowitnessunreasonablemanagement.Theseresultsarebroadlyconsistentwithotherstudies.Whilesomestudiesshowgenderdifferencesthatfavourmen(i.e.menlesslikelytobebullied),overrepresentationofwomenastargetsofbullyingcanbeduetooverrepresentationofwomeninthesample14.Largerscale,representativestudiestypicallydonotreportgenderdifferencesacrosstheworkingpopulation.GenderwasnotadeterminantofbeingbulliedinthepreviousIrishnationalstudy15.Therewerenogenderdifferencesforperpetration.However,forasubsampleofrespondentswhomhadexperiencedthreeormorenegativeacts,andwhomwereaskedabouttheperpetratorofthoseacts,therewasastrongeffectforthepersonexperiencingilltreatmenttobethesamegenderastheperpetrator.EthnicityEthnicityshowedasignificantassociationwithboththeexperienceofandthewitnessingofeachofthethreeill-treatmentfactors.Thoseofblackormixedethnicityexperiencedthehighestriskforexperienceofunreasonablemanagement,andalsothehighestlevelsofwitnessingviolence.Asiansaremorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespectandalsophysicalviolence,aremorelikelytowitnessincivilityordisrespectandunreasonablemanagement,andmostlikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagement.ThemultivariateanalysisshowsthattheoddsofexperiencingviolenceareseventimesgreaterforAsiansworkersinIrelandthatotherethnicgroups.Forasubsampleofrespondentswhomhadexperiencedthreeormorenegativeacts,andwhomwereaskedabouttheperpetratorofthoseacts,therewasastrongeffectforthepersonexperiencingilltreatmenttobeofthesameethnicityastheperpetrator.AgeThetwopreviousIrishstudiesreportslightincreasedriskwithage,butdecliningwitholderworkingage(i.e.over55).Generally,therelationshipwithageisnotconclusive.Useofthethreefactorsorformsofilltreatmentpresentsamorenuancedpicture.Theresultsheredemonstratethatthose25-34yearsofageareatgreatestriskforexperience,witnessandperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement,andtoexperienceseverbullying(i.e.atleasttwonegativeactsdaily),whereasyoungerworkers(under25years)areatgreatestriskforexperienceofincivilityordisrespectandthoseaged35-44areatgreatestriskforexperiencingviolence.Thoseaged25-34weremostlikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagementandthose25-34weremorelikelytowitnessilltreatmentinanyofitsforms.
11Rouse,R.&Schuttler,R.(2009).CrisisCommunication.UniversityofPhoenix12Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,HoelH.Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.)BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace.London:TaylorandFrancis13Nielsen,M.,Notelaers,G.,&Einarsen,S.(2011).MeasuringExposuretoWorkplaceBullying.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis14Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,HoelH.Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.)BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis15O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute
viii
EducationThosewithhigherlevelsofeducationalattainmentwereatsignificantlygreaterriskfordirectexperienceofviolence,butweremorelikelytowitnessbothviolenceandunreasonablemanagement.ThepreviousIrishsurveys(2001and2007)bothfoundhigherlevelsofselflabellingbullyingforthosewithhighereducationalattainment.DisabilityTherewasnoassociationwithdisability,eitherexperiencedorwitnessedindirectcontrasttotheBWBS,whichfoundsignificantassociationswithdisability,althoughthelimitationsofsamplesizearenoted.Only7%ofthesamplereportedhavingadisability.LocationTherearecuriousregionaleffects,withthoseinConnaughtorUlster16beingalmostfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceviolenceorinjurycomparedtoDublinresidentsandthoseinalltheruralprovincesmorelikelytoexperienceallformsofilltreatmentthanthoseinDublin,exceptingviolenceandinjuryinMunster.Theeffectsarenotpresentforwitnessingilltreatment,exceptforsignificantlyhigherlevelsofwitnessofunreasonablemanagementinMunster17.TradeUnionTherewasanassociationbetweenthosewhoexperiencedunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjurywiththepresenceofatradeunionintheirworkplace,butnotforincivilityordisrespect.Allthreeformsofilltreatmentweremorelikelytobewitnessedinorganisationswithtradeunions.Althoughnotdirectlycomparable,thisisinterestingtonoteinthecontextofthefindingfromtheFairTreatmentstudyintheUK,thattradeunionmembersweremorelikelytoreportbullying18.OrganisationSizeTheexperienceofbothunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasgreatestinsmallorganisations(10-49employees),butbothweremorelikelytobewitnessedinmedium-sizedinorganisations(50-249employees).Violencewasmostlikelytobeexperiencedandwitnessedinlarge(greaterthan250employees)organisations.Thispresentsamorenuancedpicturetothecommonlyreportedfindingthatbullyingismoreprevalentinlargeorganisations.SectorTheexperienceofIlltreatmentwasmoreprevalentinthevoluntarysectorintheformofunreasonablemanagementbutinthepublicsectorforviolenceandinjury.Themultivariateanalysisconfirmsthisforviolence,whichisalmostfivetimesmorelikelytobeexperiencedinthepublicsector.Theonlyrelationshipbetweenwitnessingilltreatmentandsectorwasforviolenceinthepublicsector.Unreasonablemanagementwas2.5morelikelytobeperpetratedinthepublicsector.Thesectoraleffectsdemonstratedinotherstudies,wereseenhereonlyfortheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementwhichwasmostcommoninhealthandsocialservices,followedbyfinancialservicesandconstruction,andlesslikelytobeexperiencedintheagriculturalsector.BothoftheearlierIrishstudiesfoundHealthandSocialservicestobewellaboveaverageintermsofreportedbullying.However,theeducationalsectorshowedlowerlevelsofilltreatmentcomparedtothelevelsofbullyingfoundinthepreviousIrishstudies.Thehealthandsocialservicesectoralsodisplayedthehighestlevelsofwitnessedilltreatmentfollowedbypublicadministration/defenceandfinancialservices.Witnessing,however,alsohadsignificantsectoralassociationsforviolence,withhealthandsocialserviceagainhavinghigherlevels,butfollowedbyagriculture,whichislowforexperiencingotherformsofilltreatment.
16WesternandNortherncounties;Galway,Leitrim,Roscommon,Mayo,Sligo,Fermanagh,MonaghanandDonegal17SouthWestandSouthEastcounties:Clare,Cork,Kerry,Limerick,TipperaryandWaterford18Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity
ix
BullyingWorkplacebullying,asmeasuredbyatleast2itemsweeklyonthe21-iteminstrumentwasmeasuredfordirectexperienceonlyandmorelikelytobeexperiencedbythosewithmanagerialorsupervisorydutiesandthoseinmedium-sizedorganisations(50-249employees).Severebullying(atleasttwoitemsdaily)wasmorelikelytobeexperiencedbywomen,bythoseinlargeorganisations(greaterthan250employees)andthoseagedbetween25and34years.ManagerialWorkThosehavingmanagerialdutiesreportedhigherlevelsofwitnessingallill-treatmentfactorsandtheseweresignificantforunreasonablemanagementandincivility.Similarly,workerswithmanagerialdutiesweremorelikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagementandincivility.Significantlyhigherpercentagesofthoseinprofessionaloccupations,thoseinpersonalservicesandthosewithpermanentjobsreportedwitnessingviolence.OrganisationCultureThedegreetowhichanorganisationisseentotreatpeopleasindividuals,putstheneedsoftheorganisationbeforetheneedsofpeopleanddoesordoesnotrequireemployeestocompromisetheirprinciplesiscalledtheFAREscore(akatheBWBSreport).Allrelationshipsbetweentheseitemsandboththeexperienceofilltreatmentandthewitnessingofilltreatment,intheformsofunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespectweresignificant.Participantsstatingthattheneedsoftheirorganisationalwayscomefirstare3.5timesmorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagementandthosewhofeeltheirprinciplesarecompromisedinworkareoverfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespect.Perpetrationofunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasassociatedwiththeneedsoftheorganisationcomingfirst,havingtocompromiseone’sprinciples,perceivingpeoplenotbeingtreatedasindividuals,andhavinglesscontroloverworkorpaceofwork.TheBWBSalsofoundsimilarrelationshipswithFAREitems,providingstrongevidencefortheimportanceoftheworkenvironmentasadeterminantofthewayinwhichpeoplearetreatedinwork.Bothstudiesshowclearrelationshipsbetweennegativeworkingconditionsandhigherlevelofilltreatment.ExperiencingandwitnessingviolenceandinjurywasassociatedwithonlysomeFAREitems:havingtocompromiseyourprinciples,notbeingtreatedasanindividual,controlofworkpaceandqualitystandardswereassociatedwithdirectexperienceofviolence.Theweakerrelationshipswithviolenceareborneoutinthemultivariateanalysisforbothexperienceandwitnessingilltreatment.Thosewhoreportthepaceoftheirworkhasincreasedoverthepastyearareninetimesmorelikelytoexperienceviolence.TheresultsareconsistentwiththeBWBS.AsimilarpatternofrelationshipswasalsodemonstratedwiththeWorkPositiveitems,althoughthemultivariateanalysisshowedstrongerrelationshipsbetweentheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementandofincivilityanddisrespectthanviolence.Whereparticipantsreportedthreeormoreitemsamoredetailedanalysisofperpetrationofilltreatmentwasenabledbyfollowingtheseupwithafurtherthreeroundsofquestions.Thisanalysishighlightedthatthoseexperiencingilltreatmentweremorelikelytobetargetedbyindividualsoftheirowngenderandtheirownbroadethnicgroup.Unreasonablemanagementwassignificantlymorelikelytobereportedasbeingperpetratedbysuperiorsandlesslikelybyco-workersandclients.Incivilityanddisrespectwasmorelikelyfromco-workersandclients.Violencewaslesslikelyfromsuperiorsandco-workersbut17timesmorelikelyfromclients.Clientsweremorelikelytohavebeenreportedasperpetratorsbymanagersthannon-managers,however,althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,thisisreversedforincidencesofviolencewithnonmanagersmorelikelytoreportclientsasresponsible.Perceivedreasonsforilltreatmentvariedacrosstheill-treatmentfactors.Significantreasonsforincivilityincludedexclusionbyagrouporclique,theperpetrator’sattitudeorpersonality,thenationalitythepersonexperiencingthebehaviour,theirethicgroup,ortheiraccent,addressorsocialclass.Havingalong-termillnessorhealthissue
x
wasasignificantperceivedreasonforviolence.Otherperceivedreasonsforviolencewereit’sjustthewaythingsareatwork,thegenderofthepersonexperiencingtheilltreatment,andtheirethnicgroup.Casestudies:PolicyandPractice,EffectivenessandImplementationThecasestudyphaseoftheprojectaimedtoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinkeysectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalentandwithasubstantialimpactonhealth,inordertoinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Thecasestudiesaimedtoidentifyrelevantpoliciesinplaceinthesampledorganisations(aspertheBWBS,theorganisationswerelargeorganisations(i.e.250-500employees),toexplorethepracticesthatderivefromandaroundthesepolicies,andtheimplementationofpoliciesontheground.IntheBWBS,thepublicsectorwasclearlyatgreaterriskforbothviolenceandincivility,andthevoluntarysectorforviolence.Healthandsocialworkweresimilarlyathighriskforallthreetypesofilltreatment.Therefore,itwasdecidedtopurposivelyidentifythreeorganisations,atleastonefromthepublicsector,atleastonevoluntaryorganisation,andatleastoneofthesebeingahealth/socialserviceprovider.Inthiswaythreeorganisationswereidentified.Staffmemberswhowereinterestedinbeinginterviewed,followingonopencallmadebytheresearchteam,madedirectcontactwiththeresearcherconductingtheinterviews,andthisconfidentialAllinterviewswereconductedinperson(face-to-face)andrecorded(withpermission),transcribedandsubjectedtoathematicanalysis.Audiotapeswerethentranscribedverbatim.Eachorganisationalsoprovidedrelevantcopiesofrelevantpolicies:theDignityatWorkpolicyinadditiontosupportingpolicies(forexampleDisciplinary,Grievance,CodeofConduct).Inthefirstorganisation,VORG1,anon-statutory,voluntaryorganisationthathasprovidedsocialcaresupportsandservicestoclientswhomexperienceawiderangeofdisabilities,sevenstaffparticipated.Theoverallthrustofthepolicyanalysisandtheinterviewdatawasthattheorganisationhasacommitmenttoprotectingemployeesfromilltreatmentandnoflagrantexamplesofseriousilltreatment,forexample,intimidationorpredatorybullying,weredescribedoralludedto.However,therewereissuesinrelationtoworkingrelationshipsandprotectionofstaff.Themainthemesthatemergedwere‘Reluctancetomanage,reluctancetoreport’,‘Overpolicedyetunderprotectedand‘Returntocorevaluestomoveforward’.TheparticipantsinVORG1feltthatilltreatmentrevolvedaroundmanagementdifficulties,forexamplemanagersnotmanagingwellandstaffbeingresistanttobeingmanaged.Whiletherewassomereferenceto‘difficultconversations’takingplace,therewerealsomanyreferencestoissuesthatwerenotdealtwithadequatelyoratall.Additionally,therewerereferencestostaffbeingreluctanttotakeill-treatmentissuesforwarddespitepolicycoverage.Itwasconsideredthatilltreatmentwouldbebetteraddressedwithintheorganisationbyimprovedmanagementtechnique,andnotjustleavingthingstofesterortobeignored.Itwasagreedbyallintervieweesthatpolicywasplentiful.Policywasseentobebroadlyspeaking,accessible,theretoprovidenecessarysafeguards,anddescribedashavingbeendevisedinpartnershipwithtradeunions.However,thecommentsaboutpolicywerenotwhollypositive,withsomesignificantgapsincoverage,forexampleprotectionfromverbalabusebyfamiliesofclients.Theethosoftheorganisationpresentedconflictsforstaffinthisrespect,beingtheretosupportfamiliesandclients,yetfindingthemselveshavingtolooktopolicytodealwithnegativebehavioursfromthegroup.
Thesecondorganisation,PBS2,isoneof31publicserviceorganisationsprovidinglocalgovernment,administrationandarangeofservices.Itconsistsofelectedmembersandpaidstaffnumbering1,200,overseenbyoneCEOwho,withamanagementteamoften,isexpectedtoimplementpolicyaslaiddownbylocallyelectedrepresentatives.Eleveninterviewstookplacehere.Allelevenparticipantshadnodifficultydescribingilltreatmentintheworkplace.Interpersonalilltreatmentsuchasverbalaggression,lackofmanners,physicalabuseandrudenesswereallcatalogued.Physicalviolenceandintimidationwasacknowledgedasilltreatment,withsomeparticipantswitnessingsuchbehaviours.Directpredatorybullyingwasalsomentioned,interpretedasanabuseofpositionsofauthority.Participantsalsorecognisedwork-relatedilltreatment,forexamplebeingpassedoverforpromotion,nothavingajobdescription,notbeinggiventasksappropriatetoskills,underminingpeers,unreasonablesupervision,andwithholdinginformation.Withoneexception,allparticipantsperceivedill
xi
treatmenttobeveryprevalent,evennormalised,inPBS2.Datawassortedintothreethemes:‘Culture:Demi-Godsandspinningtops’,‘Theskilledmanagerhavingtheskilledconversation’and‘Youcan’tunringarungbell’.Inthissetofinterviews,allparticipantseitherexplicitlymentionedoralludedtothecultureintheorganisationwhentalkingaboutilltreatment.Anautocraticcultureofconformityandobediencewasobserved,seentobeoutdatedandpunitive.Theculturewasdescribedasonewherepowerandstatustookprecedenceoverfunctionandutility.Itwasrecognisedthatthereisaneedforearlyandproactiveintervention,predominately,butnotexclusively,intheinterviewswithmembersofmanagement.Participantswerestronglysupportiveofthenotionthattrainingformanagersisneededindealingeffectivelywithilltreatment.Thethirdthemewastherecognitionofthefactthatilltreatment,inparticularpredatorybullying,isinherentlyproblematic.AcceptingthatitcantaketimeandcouragetoraiseanissuewithHR(informallyorformally)aboutacolleague,thatthetargetmaywellbeinfearof,theproceduresthenmustallowfortheallegedperpetratortorespond.Participantscouldseethattherewasatensionbetweentheprincipleofnaturaljusticeandtheintentunderpinningtheinformalandformalprocedurestoprotectworkersfromilltreatment.Theprocessisunavoidablyadversarialandaccordingtotheparticipantsfrommanagement‘therearenowinners’.Little,however,wasofferedbywayofanalternativesetofprocedures.Thethirdorganisation,STH3,isastatutoryhealthserviceproviderforarangeofhealthservicesforacatchmentareaofonemillionpeople.Theorganisationispartofthewidergroupofacuteproviders,allofwhomare,inturn,partofthenationalacutehealthcarestructure.Anexecutivegroupcouncilmanagesthewidergroup,andthetwositesinvolvedinthisstudyareunderthedirectionofonegeneralmanager.Elevenparticipantswereinterviewed,understandingilltreatmentasbothinterpersonalaggressionandwork-related.Participantsgavevaryingaccountsregardingprevalenceandimpact.Fourthemescouldbefoundinthedata:Contrastingperspectives,cliques,andthe(un)caringorganisation,‘It’sallaboutthehierarchy’,‘Thedifficultyiswedon’timplementthemwell’and‘Wellno,that’stobeaddressedbythelinemanager’.AverydiversepictureemergedfromSTH3withregardtotheprevalenceofilltreatment.Fivepeoplebelievedilltreatmenttobeveryprevalent,even‘endemic’,fivethatitwasn’tprevalent,withoneuncertain.Theperspectivesthatilltreatmentwasn’tprevalentcamemainly,butnotexclusively,frommanagement.Thecompetingperspectiveswereatleastpartiallyexplainedbytheperceptionofwhatconstitutedilltreatment.Sowhilesomeparticipantssawinterpersonalconflictasilltreatment,othersdidnot.ThosewhoworkedinHRacknowledgedthatthereare‘disagreements’betweenlinemanagersandemployeesalthoughdidnotclassifythisasilltreatment.Alsosomework-relatedilltreatment,whileidentifiedasilltreatment,wasnotthoughttooccuronanyregularbasis.Acutehospitalserviceshaveaverywiderangeoffunctionalunits,teamswithinunits,professionalgroups,andcross-disciplinaryteams.One’sperceptionregardingilltreatment,bothwhatitisandhowprevalentitis,dependsonwhereapersonworksintheservice,andwhomtheyworkwith.Consistentlyacrossallinterviews,gender,age,socialclass,disabilityandsexualorientationweredismissedasreasonsfororflashpointsforilltreatment.Equallyconsistently,theexistenceof‘cliques’wasacknowledged,eitherinthecontextofdifferentprofessionalgroupings,orwithinworkunits.Relatedly,participantssawilltreatmenttooccurinthecontextofpositionalpower,andsawthistobeunsurprising,eveninevitableinahierarchical,traditionalorganisation.Staffareexpectedtodowhatthoseabovetheminthehierarchytellthem,andpositionismoreimportantthanrespectfultreatment.Mostintervieweeswerefamiliarwiththepolicyandproceduresdealingwithworkplacebullying,andconsideredthepoliciestobeaccessible.However,therewereclearlyimplementationissues.Participantsspokeoffear:fearoffurthervictimisationorilltreatment,fearofbeingperceivedasatroublemaker,andfearthatconfidentialitywaslacking.PeopledowanttobringtheissuetotheattentionofamanagerorHRbutthendonotwishtoriskexposure.Anotherconcernwasthatthatifaformalissuewasraised,whiletheemployeewouldbelistenedto,noactionwouldbetaken.FinallytherewasevidenceoftensionbetweenlinemanagersandHR.Confusionaboutrolesandresponsibilitieswerenoted,withlinemanagersreferringdifficultiestoHR,andHRmaintaininglinemanagerswereresponsibleforsolvingproblems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the following contributors to this research:
Steering GroupDr M Hodgins, NUI GalwayDr L Pursell, NUI GalwayDr V Hogan, NUI GalwayDr S MacCurtain, University of LimerickDr P Mannix-McNamara, University of LimerickProfessor D Lewis, Plymouth UniversityP Murray, Health & Safety AuthorityDr V Batt, HPRCProfessor M Sheehan (Jan 2014–Jul 2014)Professor T Dundon (Jan 2014–Oct 2014)
Research AssistantsK Fox (Part-time) Jun–Sept 2015C Slattery (Part-time) Apr–Jun 2016C Silke (Part-time) May–Jul 2016A Gallagher (Full-time) Oct 2016A Beckwith (Full-time) Oct–Dec 2016
Fieldwork and data collectionAmárach Research
Sampling design, data weighting and sampling technical reportDr Dorothy Watson, ESRI
1
IRISHWORKPLACEBEHAVIOURSTUDY
1IntroductionWorkplacebullyingisaproblem.Itisproblemforpractitioners,suchasoccupationalhealthorworkplacehealthpromotionspecialists,whohavetodevelopsuitablepoliciesandinterventionstopreventormanageitontheground.Itisaproblemforacademics,whodebateandargueabouthowtodefineit,measureit,andunderstandwhatcausesit.And,mostparticularly,itisaproblemforthosewhoexperienceorwitnessit,giventheclearevidenceofdeleteriouseffectsonbothphysicalandmentalhealthandwell-being,leadingoneoftheprimaryresearchersinthefieldtoclaimthatexposuretobullyinginworkisamorecripplingproblemforemployeesthanallotherkindsofwork-relatedstressputtogether.19In200120and200721,nationalsurveysonworkplacebullyingwereconductedinIreland.Thesestudiesfoundprevalenceratesof7%and7.9%respectively,employingaselflabellingmethod,inwhichrespondentswereaskedfollowingthepresentationofadefinitiontostatewhetherornottheyhavebeenbulliedinthepastsixmonths.Anumberofcontextualfactorsmakeanewsurveytimely.Irelandwasoneofthefirstcountriestoentertheglobalrecessionin2008.Followingunprecedentedeconomicgrowthinthe1990s,whichledtopropertydevelopment,housebuildingandrisingpricesandloans,Irelandwaslefthighlyexposedwithconsequentbankinglossesandfiscaldeficit.Irelandsaw,in2008,aGDPcontractionof1.5%andfurtherquarter-on-quarterdeclinesleadingtoacumulativefallof10%,22alongsiderecordunemploymentlevelsandincreasesinunderemploymentandprecariousemployment.23Economicrecessionisassociatedwithincreasedworkpressure,increasesinresponsibilityandautonomy,andthereforeonemightreasonablyexpect,changesinworkplacebullying.Since2007theliteratureonmeasuringworkplacebullyinghasburgeoned.Whilemanyprevalencestudieshavebeenconducted,therehasbeenapreponderanceofstudiesemployingopportunisticsamples,lowresponserates,orusingnon-standardisedinstruments.Therecontinuestobeaneedforstudiesthataremethodologicallyrigorous,employingrepresentativesamplesandvalidatedinstruments.Further,itisnowapparentthatthe
19Zapf,D.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2003).EmpiricalFindingsonBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandEmotionalAbuseintheWorkplace.London:TaylorandFrancis20ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin21O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute22Barret,A.&McGuinness,S.(2012).TheIrishLabourMarketandtheGreatRecession.https://www.esri.ie/pubs/JACB201234.pdf23SocialJusticeIreland:https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/long-term-unemployment-crisis-and-precarious-employment-problematic
2
frequenciesreportedinprevalencestudiesdependonhowworkplacebullyingismeasured.Estimatesarelowestwhenthemethodemployedrequiresrespondentstoindicateiftheyhavebeenbulliedinadirectquestion(i.e.selflabel)withadefinitionofbullying;higherwithbehaviouralchecklistsandhighestagainwithselflabellingwherenodefinitionissupplied24.Behaviouralchecklistsaremorecommonlyusedinthiscontextsincetheyavoidthedifficultieswithselflabelling,forexampledifferentpersonalthresholdsforlabelling,whichareinfluencedbypersonalityandemotionalfactors.Researchershavelargelymovedawayfromtheselflabellingmethod,makinganewstudytimely.Finally,ithasbecomeapparentthattheconstructof‘bullying’maybetoonarrowtocapturethedamagedoneinworkplacestoemployeesinrelationtohowtheyaretreatedandhowtheytreatoneanother.Thereisconsiderableoverlapbetweenbullyingandconstructssuchasincivility,psychologicalharassmentandabusivesupervision,whichalsohavebeendemonstratedtohavenegativeeffectsonhealth.Witnessingbullyinghasbeenshownalsotoaffecthealthinanadversemanner.Thisandthepossiblepsychologicaldefencesthatcomeintoplaywhenapersonisaskedtorespondtothequestion‘haveyoubeenbullied’,callsfortheuseofavalidatedquestionnaireintheformofabehaviouralchecklist,whichincludesarangeofnegativeactsorbehaviours.TheBritishWorkplaceBehaviourSurvey(BWBS)wasadministeredbyface-to-facestructuredinterviewtoarepresentativesampleofUKemployeesbetween2007and2008,gatheringdataondemographicfactors,jobandworkplacecharacteristics,respondents’viewsabouttheirlevelsofcontroloverthepaceandnatureoftheirwork,andaboutwhypeoplethinktheyareill-treatedintheirworkplaces.Thesurveyemployedabehaviouralchecklist,amendedfollowingcognitivetesting,andincludingeightitemson‘unreasonablemanagement’,11itemsmeasuring‘incivilityanddisrespect’andtwoitemson‘physicalviolence’.Thecognitivetestingelementwascriticaltoimprovingthevalidityoftheinstrument,andminimisedthepossibilityoferrorsinconceptualisationandinterpretationofitems.Respondentswerealsoaskediftheyhadwitnessedorperpetratedanyofthe21items.ThisstudyaimstoreplicatetheBWBSinIreland,employingthesamequestionnaireandsamplingmethodology,inordertoestablishtheprevalenceofnegativeactsintheworkplaceinanationallyrepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.Specificobjectivesforthesurveyinclude:1.TomeasuretheprevalenceofthedirectexperienceofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees,employingthesamedesign,measurementinstrumentandsamplingstrategyasusedintheBWBS.2.Tocompareprevalenceacrossvarioussubgroupswithintheworkingpopulation:menandwomen,youngerandolderworkers,andbetweenworkersandgroupsfoundintheBWBStobevulnerabletoilltreatment,(forexamplepeoplewithdisabilitiesandlong-termhealthconditions).3.Tocompareprevalenceacrossoccupationalgroupsandsectors.4.Toexploretherelationshipbetweenexperienceofilltreatmentandriskfactorsforworkplacestress5.TomeasuretheprevalenceofthewitnessingofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.6.TomeasuretheprevalenceoftheselfreportedperpetrationofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.
24NielsenMB.,MatthiesenSB.&Einarsen,S.(2010).TheImpactofMethodologicalModeratorsonPrevalenceRatesofWorkplaceBullying:Ameta-analysis.JournalofOccupationalandOrganizationalPsychology,83(4):955-79
3
2SurveyMethodologyThisprojectinvolvedasurveyofanationalprobabilitysampleofemployeesfocusingonworkplacebehaviour.Thepopulationforthesurveyconsistsofpeopleaged18andoverwhohadworkedasemployeesintheprevioustwoyears,withacompletedsamplesizeof1,500.Inadditiontothegeneralsampleatleast200non-Irishnationalsand74personswithadisabilityweresampled.
2.1SamplingFrameThereisnonationalregisterofemployeesorofpersonsinIreland.SurveysofthegeneralpopulationlivinginprivatehouseholdsrelyonsamplesdrawnfromtheGeoDirectory.ThisisajointprojectofAnPostandOrdnanceSurveyIreland,andlistsalladdressesinIrelandwithanidentifierforresidentialaddresses.TheGISco-ordinatesofeachaddressareavailableontheGeoDirectory,aswellasotherregionalidentifierssuchascounty,electoraldivisionandtownland.OneaspectoftheGeoDirectoryrelevantforthecalculationofgrosssamplesizeisthatitdoesnotidentifyallvacantaddresses.AccordingtoCensus2011,15.05percentofresidentialaddressesinIrelandarevacant.TheGeoDirectory(Q22014release)identifiesonly5.65percentofresidentialaddressesasvacantorholidayhomes.Thus,itwouldbeexpectedthatapproximately9.4percentofsampledaddressesselectedwouldbevacant.Thereisnowaytoidentifytheseinadvanceoffieldwork,thereforethiswasallowedforincalculatingthegrosssamplesize.
2.2SampleDesignandDataCollectionThesamplerequiredwasaprobabilisticorstatisticalsampleofprimarysamplingunits,orclustersofaddresses,withfourstartingaddressesselectedineachclusterfromwhichfiveresponseswouldbegeneratedusingarandomroutemethodology.Theclusteringandrandomroutemethodwaschoseninordertomaximisetheefficiencyoffieldwork–reducingthetimeandcostofinterviewertravel.Thestagesinsampleselectionwere:Stage1:Selectionof160clustersorprimarysamplingunits(PSUs).Clustersconsistofgeographicallycontiguousaddressesthatliewithintheboundariesofcountiesingroupswithaminimumof500residentialaddresses.Clustersareselectedinproportiontothenumberofresidentialaddressesinthecluster.Priortoselection,theclustersweresortedbylocation(countyandlocationwithincounty)andsocio-economicstatus(socio-economicgroup,matchedonfromtheCensus2011smallareapopulationstatistics).Thisprovidedanimplicitstratificationbylocation(whichiscorrelatedwithpopulationdensity)andsocio-economicstatus.Clusterswereselectedusingsystematicsamplingfollowingarandomstart.Stage2:Selectionoffourstartaddresseswithineachcluster.Sincetheclustersthemselveswereselectedwithprobabilityproportionaltosize,theselectionofanequalnumberofstartaddresseswithineachclusterresultsineachaddresshavinganequalprobabilityofselection.Inthefield,interviewersfolloweddetailedinstructionsinordertogenerateuptofiveinterviewsfromeachstartingaddress.Stage3:Selectionoftheindividualforinterviewinthehousehold.Inlinewithbestpractice,oneemployeeaged18oroverwasselectedforinterviewineachhousehold,usingarandomproceduresuchasthe‘lastbirthday’rule.Thenumberofclustersandthenumberofaddressesperclusterwereselectedsoastoensurethemostefficientuseoffieldworkresourceswhilstachievingasufficientlylargesamplesize.AllfieldworkwasconductedbymarketresearchcompanyAmárachResearchbetweenMay-September2015.Face-tofaceinterviewswereconductedinparticipant’shomes.
4
2.3SurveyInstrumentThequestionnaireincluded:
• Screeningquestionsrelatedtoworkingstatus• Demographicquestions(age,gender,educationalstatus,income,ethnicity,religion,mainlanguage,etc.)25• BWBSScale(modifiedNegativeActsQuestionnaire)comprising21itemsofilltreatment:
- Experienceofthe21itemswithscaledresponseoptions(never,justonce,nowandthen,monthly,daily)
- Confirmedexperienceofthe21items(yes/no)- Witnessingthe21items(yes/no)- Perpetratingthe21items(yes/no)
• Roleatwork(managerialduties,jobpermanence,occupation)• Sector,occupationalgroup,public/private• Natureoftheworkplace(sizeoforganisation,staffcomposition)• Workconditions(controlatwork,paceandintensityofwork)• Predictorsofworkplacestress(WorkPositivemeasure,31items)
ScreeningquestionsAnumberofscreeningquestionswereemployedatthestartofthequestionnaire:workingstatus,employee/employerstatus;full/parttimestatus,inordertoscreenoutthoseneveremployed,notemployedinpasttwoyearsorselfemployed.DemographicquestionsandworkplacecharacteristicsParticipantswereaskedabouttheirgender,theirage,ethnicity,education,disability,placeofresidence(province)andtheirincomecategory.Participantsalsoprovidedinformationonthetypeandsizeoforganisationtheyworkedin(currentormostrecent),thecompositionoftheworkforce,theirstatus(managerialornot),theirjobpermanenceandtheirmembershipofatradeunion.BWBSscale-Experiencing,witnessingandcarryingoutilltreatmentitemsThequestionnaireincludedascalefromasurveyconductedinBritain(BWBSsurvey)26thatcomprisedamodifiedversionoftheNegativeActsQuestionnairedevisedbyEinarsenetal(2009)27Participantswereaskedtorespondwhethertheyhadexperienced21items(Q1)describingilltreatmentona5-pointscale(1:Never;2:Justonce;3:Nowandthen;4:Monthly;5:Weekly;6:Daily)thiswasfollowedbyaskingiftheyhadwitnessed(Q2)thesameitems(responseoptions:1=Yes/0=No)andtheniftheyhadperpetrated(Q3)thesameitemsofbehaviour(responseoptions:1=Yes/0=No).Theoriginalquestion(Q1)askingparticipantstorespondiftheyhadexperiencedtheitemswasrepeatedusingayes/noresponseoption(Q4)toconfirmtheoriginalreportofexperiences.These‘confirmatoryresponses’weretheonesemployedinthedataanalysis.FAREitemsParticipantswereaskedaseriesofquestionsconcerningtheirperceptionoftheirworkplaceandtheirwork,basedonitemsusedintheUKbasedFairTreatmentatWorksurvey28,andalsoemployedintheBWBSsurvey,termed25SexualorientationwascoveredintheBWBSbutnotintheIWBS,itwasconsideredtoosensitiveasubjecttoincludeinaface-to-facesurveyinIrelandatthetime.26Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity27Einarsen,S.&Raknes,B.I.(1997).HarassmentintheWorkplaceandtheVictimisationofMen.ViolenceandVictims.12(3),247-263andEinarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,&Notelaers,G.(2009).MeasuringBullyingandHarassmentatWork:Validity,FactorStructure,andPsychometricPropertiesoftheNegativeActsQuestionnaire-Revised.Work&Stress,23(1),24-4428Fevre,R.,Nichols,T.,Prior,G.&Rutherford,I.(2009).FairTreatmentatWorkReport:Findingsfromthe2008Survey.EmploymentRelationsResearchSeriesNo.103.DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills,London
5
theFAREitems29.Theyexplorethedegreetowhichindividualworkersperceivetheymatterinanorganisationandalsotheircontroloverpaceandintensityofwork.WorkPositiveitemsWorkPositiveisariskassessmenttoolthatmeasuresriskfactorsforwork-relatedstress.IthasbeendevelopedbytheHealthandSafetyAuthority30,basedontheHSE(UK)managementtool31,whichinturnisbasedonanevidencereviewthatidentifiedandisolatedkeycausalfactorsforwork-relatedstress.Thesixfactorsaredemands,control,support,relationshipsandrolechange.Anadaptedversionwasincludedinthequestionnaire.Themeasurecomprises35questions,andtheadaptedversionusedherecontains31items(Allitems,seeAppendix1).
2.4SampleWeightsDatafromallsamplesurveysmustbereweightedorstatisticallyadjustedpriortoanalysis.Thepurposeofthisadjustmentistocompensateinthecompletedsampleforanypotentialbiasesthatmayoccurduetosamplingerrorordifferentialresponseratesamongsub-groupsofthepopulation.Thisprocessensuresthatthecompletedsampleisrepresentativeofthetargetpopulationfromwhichithasbeenselected.Theweightingofthedatainvolvedcalibratingthesampletopopulationcontroltotalsusinganapproachbasedonaminimuminformationlossalgorithm.ThepopulationcharacteristicsusedascontrolswerederivedfromtheQuarterlyNationalHouseholdSurvey(QNHS)fromQ2,2015.TheQuarterlyNationalHouseholdSurveyisdesignedtoprovideinformationonthelabourforceandisthemostreliableandup-to-datenationalsourceofdataforthispurpose.Therewere16,446employeesinthesecondquarteroftheQNHSin2015.Theweightingparameters,asshowninTable2.1,included:
• Genderbyagegroup• Genderbypresenceofdisability• GenderbywhetheranIrishnational• Genderbyeducation• Genderbyoccupation• Genderbynumberofchildren• Region
There-calibrationisconductedusingtheReGeneseesprogrammeinR,developedattheItalianNationalInstituteofStatistics.32Thisisanopen-sourceprogrammefordesign-basedandmodel-assistedanalysisofcomplexsamplingsurveys,whichincorporatesasub-routineforcalibrationofsamples(Zardetto,2014)33.There-calibrationinvolvedconstructingweightssothatthedistributionofthesecharacteristicsinthesample(showninthelastcolumnofTable2.1)matchedthoseoftheQNHS(showninthesecondcolumnoffigures).Inconstructingtheweights,the‘logit’distancefunctionwasusedandweightswereconstrainedtorangefrom0.2to5timestheaverageweight.
29Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity30WorkPositiveProject,HealthandSafetyAuthorityhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Workplace_Health/Workplace_Stress/Work_Positive/Work_Positive_Project_2008-2009/31HSEindicatortoolwww.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/pdfs/indicatortool.pdf32ReGeneseeswasdevelopedasanopen-sourcesubstitutionfortheSAS-basedversionofGENESEES,tocalibratesampleobservationsandtocalculatesamplingvariance.IthasbeenusedatISTATsince2007.ReGeneseesisavailableatJOINUP—theEuropeanCommissionopensourcesoftwarerepositoryhttps://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/regenesees/description.Furtherinformationcanbefoundat:http://www1.unece.org/stat/platform/display/msis/ReGenesees
33Zardetto,D.(2014).PackageReGenesees:RevolvedGeneralizedsoftwareforsamplingestimatesanderrorsinsurveys.Availableathttp://www.istat.it/en/files/2014/03/ReGenesees.pdf
6
AscanbeseenbycomparingthepercentagesfromtheQNHStothepercentagesfromthesample,thesampleisgenerallyquiteclosetothenationalfigures.Themainadjustmentneededwastooccupationalcategory.Amongfemales,employeesinsalesandcustomerserviceswereoverrepresentedcomparedtotheQNHSwhilemalesinelementary(unskilled)occupationswereoverrepresentedcomparedtothenationalfigures.Twoweightingvariableswereprovidedonthedataset:‘Weight’sumstothesamplesize(1764)andhasameanof1;‘Gross’sumstothepopulationsize(1,551,601)andhasameanof880.‘Weight’=Gross/880.Table2.1:CalibrationTotalsUsedForConstructionofWeightson2015WorkplaceBehaviourSurvey
QNHSQ22015,Employees WorkplaceSurvey
(N,‘000s) %employees Ncases%of
sample
Sexbyage Male,15-24 53.7 3% 55 3%Male,25-34 209.2 13% 251 14%Male,35-44 231.5 15% 255 14%Male,45-54 168.0 11% 189 11%Male,55andup 103.0 7% 158 9%Female,15-24 45.4 3% 75 4%Female,25-34 227.1 15% 249 14%Female,35-44 225.1 15% 245 14%Female,45-54 179.8 12% 149 8%Female,55andup 108.7 7% 138 8%
Disability Nodisability 1502.1 97% 1667 95%Male,withdisability 24.0 2% 50 6%Female,withdisability 25.4 2% 47 6%
Sexbyeducation
Male,Lower2ndlevelorless 121.6 8% 130 7%Male,Higher2ndlevel 206.7 13% 329 19%Male,Certordiploma 179.3 12% 174 10%Male,Degreeorhigher 257.9 17% 275 16%Female,Lower2ndlevelorless 68.9 4% 90 5%Female,Higher2ndlevel 185.9 12% 231 13%Female,Certordiploma 229.8 15% 235 13%Female,Degreeorhigher 301.6 19% 300 17%
Sexbyoccupation
Male,Managers&SeniorOfficials 62.4 4% 96 5%Male,Professionals 125.5 8% 67 4%Male,Assoc.Profess.&Technical 114.3 7% 114 6%Male,Administrative&Secretarial 39.6 3% 49 3%Male,SkilledTrades 150.4 10% 93 5%Male,PersonalServices 23.0 1% 20 1%Male,Sales&CustomerServices 46.1 3% 135 8%Male,Process,Plant&MachineOp. 96.8 6% 54 3%Male,ElementaryOccupations 107.3 7% 280 16%Female,Managers&SeniorOfficials 37.8 2% 53 3%Female,Professionals 187.2 12% 117 7%Female,Assoc.Profess.&Technical 81.5 5% 113 6%Female,Administrative&Secretarial 155.7 10% 144 8%Female,SkilledTrades 18.0 1% 30 2%Female,PersonalServices 114.9 7% 95 5%Female,Sales&CustomerServices 94.5 6% 187 11%Female,Process,Plant&MachineOp. 18.9 1% 8 0%Female,ElementaryOccupations 77.8 5% 109 6%
Ethnicity Irishnational 1207.4 78% 1348 76%Male,Non-Irish 178.9 12% 250 14%Female,Non-Irish 165.4 11% 166 9%
SexbynumberChildren
Nochildren 845.3 54% 1047 59%Male,1child 120.4 8% 121 7%Male,2+children 227.9 15% 243 14%Female,1child 148.5 10% 116 7%Female,2+children 209.5 13% 237 13%
Region Dublin 495.9 32% 612 35%Border,Midlands&West 377.2 24% 490 28%SouthandEast 678.5 44% 662 38%
7
3SurveyOutcomesThissectionpresentsthesurveyresponserateanddemographicprofileofthesample.Allestimatesinthesampleprofile(section3.2)areunweightedtopresentsampledemographics.
3.1ResponseRateTable3.1belowshowsthesurveyoutcomesandthecalculationoftheresponserate.Ofthegrosssampleof3200addresses,interviewswerecompletedat1764.Theresponserateisdefinedbythepercentageofeligibleaddresseswhereaninterviewwasconducted.IncalculatingthefinalresponseratetwoadjustmentsweremadetotherawoutcomesasshownintheTable3.1.
1. Thefirstadjustmentistotakeaccountofvacantaddresses.FromCensus2011dataitisknownthat9.4percentofaddressesinaGeoDirectorysamplewillbevacant,or301inthepresentsample.However,interviewersarenotabletoidentifyallvacantaddresses(only52wereclassifiedasvacantbyinterviewersasshowninthefirstcolumn),withtheremaindercodedas‘no-contact’.Thefirstadjustmentinvolvesmovingthedifferencebetweenthesetwofigures(249cases)intothe‘vacant’categoryandsubtractingthemfromthe‘non-contacts’.
2. Thesecondadjustmentinvolvesestimatingthenumberofcasesofunknowneligibility(becausenocontactwasmadeorbecauseofalanguagebarrier)thatwerelikelytohavebeeneligible.Thiswasdonebyusingtheinformationontheeligibilityrateofthenon-vacantcontacts(i.e.(B+N)/(B+N+D)or82%).Thiscalculationledtoanexpectationthat330ofthe401‘unknowneligibility’caseswouldbeeligible.
Theseadjustmentsgivetherevisednumberofeligibleaddresses(1764+623)andtheresponseratewascalculatedasthetotalcompleted(1764)dividedbythetotaleligible(1764+623)or74%.
Table3.1:SurveyOutcomeDetails
RawOutcomes Adjustment1 Adjusted1 Adjustment2 Adjusted2
A GrossSample(160clustersof4X5addresses) 3200 3200 3200
B CompletedInterviews 1764 1764 1764
Ineligibleaddresses
C Vacant(incl.derelict/demolished) 52 249 301 301
D Noemployee 441 441 441
E Totalineligible 493 742 71 813
UnknownEligibility(unknownifemployeeinhousehold)
F HouseholdRefusal(noopportunitytoaskforeligible)respondent).
183 183
G Languagebarrier 54 54
H Noncontact(noreply,couldnotgainaccess) 413 -249 164
I Totalunknowneligibility 650 401 -401
Eligiblenon-respondingaddresses
J Respondentrefused. 221 221 221
K Respondenttemp.absentthroughoutfieldwork 45 45 45
L Respondentphysically/mentallyillorincapacitated. 13 13 13
M Otherreason 14 14 14
N Totaleligiblenon-respondents 293 293 330 623
O ResponseRateB/(B+N) 74%Note:Adjustment1correctsfortheexpectednumberofvacantdwellingswhileadjustment2estimatesthenumberofcasesof‘unknowneligibility’whoarelikelytohavebeeneligible.
8
3.2SampleProfileThosesurveyedcomprised51.5%malesand48.5%females.Themajorityofthesamplereportedwhiteethnicity(89%)andthenextlargestethnicgroupwasofAsianbackground(6.2%).Christianwasthelargestreligiousgroup(84%)followedbyhavingnoreligion(10%).AmongmalestherewerehigherpercentageswithinAsianandBlackethnicgroupsthanamongfemales(chi=18.3,p=0.001).Amongbothmalesandfemales6%reportedhavingadisability.Table3.2:PercentagewithinEachAgeGroupbyGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)
Agegroup Male%(n)
Female%(n)
Total%(n)
18-24 6.1(55) 8.8(75) 7.4(130)
25-34 27.6(251) 29.1(249) 28.3(500)
35-44 28.1(255) 28.6(245) 28.3(500)
45-54 20.8(189) 17.4(149) 19.2(338)
55+ 17.4(158) 16.1(138) 16.8(296)
Table3.3:SampleEthnicity(Unweighted)Ethnicity %(n)
WhiteIrish 76.4(1348)
WhiteBritish 1.9(33)
AnyotherWhitebackground(IncludingeasternEU) 10.3(182)
Mixedbackground(White&BlackCaribbean,White&BlackAfrican,White&Asian) 1.4(24)
Asianbackground(IncludingBangladeshi,Pakistani,Indian,Chinese) 6.2(110)
BlackAfrican 1.9(34)
AnyotherBlackbackground(IncludingBlackCaribbean) 0.3(6)
Anyother 1.5(27)
Table3.4:PercentageReportingEthnicity,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)
Ethnicity Male(n=908)%(n)
Female(n=856)%(n)
Total(n=1764)%(n)
White 84.7(769) 92.8(794) 88.6(1563)
Mixed 1.5(14) 1.2(10) 1.4(24)
Asian 8.9(81) 3.4(29) 6.2(110)
Black 3.3(30) 1.2(10) 2.3(40)
Other 1.5(14) 1.5(13) 1.5(27)
chi 18.28
p 0.001
9
Table3.5:PercentageReportingReligiousAffiliation,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)
Religion Male(n=908)%(n)
Female(n=856)%(n)
Total(n=1764)%(n)
Christian 81.4(739) 86.9(744) 84.1(1483)
Buddhist 0.4(4) 0.1(1) 0.3(5)
Hindu 2.3(21) 1.4(12) 1.9(33)
Jewish 0.1(1) 0.2(2) 0.2(3)
Muslim 3.6(33) 0.7(6) 2.2(39)
Sikh 0.1(1) 0.1(1) 0.1(2)
Anyotherreligion 0.3(3) 0.6(5) 0.5(8)
Noreligion 10.9(99) 9.5(81) 10.2(180)
Refused 0.8(7) 0.5(4) 0.6(11)
Table3.6:PercentageReportingEducationalStatus,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)
Education Male%(n)
Female%(n)
Total%(n)
Higherdegree 12.0(108) 14.5(124) 13.2(232)
Primarydegree 16.8(152) 19.6(167) 18.2(319)
Diploma 19.2(173) 27.5(235) 23.2(408)
Uppersecondary 21.0(190) 20.2(172) 20.6(362)
Vocational 15.6(141) 6.9(59) 11.4(200)
Lowersecondary 11.7(106) 8.4(72) 10.1(178)
Primary 2.4(22) 2.1(18) 2.3(40)
None 1.2(11) 0.7(6) 1.0(17)
Table3.7:PercentageReportingDisabilities,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)
Disability Male%(n)
Female%(n)
Total%(n)
Deafnessorseverehearingimpairment 1.1(10) 0.2(2) 0.7(12)
Blindnessorseverevisualimpairment 0.1(1) 0.4(3) 0.2(4)
Aconditionthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormorebasicphysicalactivities
0.9(8) 1.1(9) 1(17)
Alearningdifficulty 0.8(7) 0.9(8) 0.9(15)
Along-standingpsychologicaloremotionalcondition 0.8(7) 0.5(4) 0.6(11)
Other,includinganylong-standingillness 2.3(21) 2.8(24) 2.6(45)
Nodisability 93.3(847) 92.8(794) 93(1641)
Refused 0.8(7) 1.2(10) 1(17)
Don’tknow 0.4(4) 0.6(5) 0.5(9)
3.3OriginalandConfirmedReportofExperienceofIllTreatmentItems(Unweighted)TheBWBSscaleofilltreatmentitemswasinitiallypresentedtoparticipantswitharangeofresponsesforeachitem.Laterduringtheinterviewthesameitemswerepresentedandparticipantswereaskedtoconfirmtheitemstheyhadinitiallyselected.Table3.8showsthepercentagechangebetweentheoriginalandconfirmatoryresponsesforeachitemintheBWBSscale.Allitemsshowedareducedresponseonconfirmationandtheaveragereductionwas35%.
10
Table3.8:ExperienceofIllTreatmentOriginal,ConfirmedandPercentageReductioninResponses(Unweighted)
BWBSilltreatmentitemsexperienced
Originalresponse Revisedresponse Reduction*
n % n % n%of
originalresponse
Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 206 11.7 126 7.2 80 39
Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 228 12.9 142 8.1 86 38
Havingopinionsandviewsignored 491 27.9 344 19.5 147 30
Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 324 18.4 199 11.3 125 39
Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 136 7.7 89 5.0 47 35
Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 488 27.6 342 19.4 146 30
Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 333 18.9 232 13.2 101 30
Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 287 16.3 189 10.7 98 34
Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 178 10.1 122 6.9 56 31
Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 173 9.8 106 6.0 67 39
Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 260 14.7 178 10.1 82 32
Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 410 23.2 289 16.4 121 30
Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 222 12.6 148 8.4 74 33
Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 139 7.9 92 5.2 47 34
Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 220 12.5 124 7.0 96 44
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 251 14.2 162 9.2 89 35
Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 360 20.4 265 15 95 26
Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 296 16.8 183 10.4 113 38
Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 186 10.5 125 7.1 61 33
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 63 3.6 38 2.1 25 40
Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 53 3 28 1.6 25 47
N=1764(unweighteddata) Average%reduction 35
*Therewerenocasesinwhicharespondentaddedabehaviouritem;allchangeswereintermsofmakingreductionsratherthanadditions.
11
4Results:Experience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentintheWorkplaceThefollowingsectionspresenttheextenttowhichilltreatmentwasexperienced,witnessedandperpetratedintheworkplaceinIreland.Participantswereinitiallyaskedtorespondtotheseriesof21itemsofilltreatmentwith5responseoptionsthatrangedfromnevertodaily.Inthisinitialpartofthesurveyrespondentswereaskediftheyhadexperiencedtheseitems,thiswasfollowedbyaskingforconfirmationofresponsestothesameitemswithyes/nooptionsforeach.Theitemswerepresentedasecondtime,askingifrespondentshadwitnessedany,withayes/nooptionforeach.Athirdpresentationoftheitemsaskedrespondentsiftheyhadperpetratedany(yes/nooptions).TheBWBSsurveyclassifiedthe21individualilltreatmentitemsintothreefactors,unreasonablemanagement(UM),incivilityanddisrespect(ID)andviolenceandinjury(VI),basedonfactoranalyses.AcomparativefactoranalysiswasconductedontheIrishdata,andthethreefactorstructurewasconfirmed34.Overalloutcomesforthesethreefactorsarepresentedinthefollowingsectionsandrelationshipsbetweentheseandvariousrespondentdemographicandworkplacecharacteristicsareexaminedunderthefollowingheadings:
• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsanddemographics(gender,ethnicity,age,education,areaofresidence,disabilityandincome),
• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsandorganisationalcharacteristics(sizeoforganisationandemployeecomposition,occupationalsector,public/private,presenceoftradeunion),
• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsandworkrole(managementduties,jobpermanence,tradeunionmembership)
• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsandworkplaceconditions(FAREitemsforexperience,witnessandperpetrationofilltreatment,andWorkPositiveitemsforexperienceofilltreatment)
TestingofunivariaterelationshipswasfollowedbymultivariateanalysistodeterminethemainpredictorsofilltreatmentoutcomesasoutlinedinTable4.1.Table4.1:FactorsofIllTreatmentPresentedinEachSection
Factorofilltreatment Description Experienced* Witnessed Perpetrated
Unreasonablemanagement Reportofatleastoneofthe8itemswithinthisfactor x x x
Incivilityordisrespect Reportofatleastoneofthe11itemswithinthisfactor x x x
Physicalviolenceorinjury Reportofatleastoneofthe2itemswithinthisfactor x x x
Atleastoneitem Reportofatleastoneofall21items x x x
Atleast2itemsweekly Reportedatleast2weeklyderivedfromresponsestoQ1andconfirmedatQ435 x
Atleast2itemsdaily Reportedatleast2dailyderivedfromresponsestoQ1andconfirmedatQ4 x
*Forexperienceditemsthiswasderivedfromconfirmedreportoftheitem(Q1&Q4)
34PrincipalaxisfactoringusingobliminrotationandKaisernormalisation.Rotationconvergedon21iterationswiththepatternmatrixshowingthe3distinctgroupsofitemsasusedintheBWBS35Criterionfrequentlyusedasanindicatorofbullying(PersonalCommunicationfromM.O’Driscoll,2016)
12
4.1ExperienceofIllTreatmentintheWorkplace AVenndiagramshowingpercentageswithineachill-treatmentfactorandforoverlapbetweenfactorsispresentedinFigure4.1.1.Atleastoneitemofilltreatmentwasexperiencedby43%ofparticipants.Itemsclassifiedasunreasonablemanagementwereexperiencedby37%,with31%reportingexperienceofincivilityordisrespectand2.6%,violenceorinjury.Overlapoccurredbetweenthesefactors,particularlybetweenunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(25.0%).Therewasa2.3%overlapbetweenthoseexperiencingincivilityandviolence,a2.2%overlapbetweenthoseexperiencingviolenceandunreasonablemanagementand2.0%experienceditemsinallthreecategories.
Figure4.1.1:PercentageswithinEachIll-TreatmentFactorExperienced
Unreasonablemanagement:36.7%n=647
Incivilityordisrespect:31.3%n=552
Violence2.6%n=45
25.1%n=442
2.3%
All:2.0%2.2%
13
4.1.1ConfirmedIllTreatmentExperiencedintheWorkplace(Weighted)Percentagesofconfirmedresponsestoindividualitemswithinthethreeill-treatmentfactors,unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjuryarepresentedinTable4.1.1intheTotalcolumnandarealsopresentedbygender.Forthemajorityofitems(17),femalesreportedhigherpercentagesofilltreatment.Fourofthe21itemsshowedsignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentagesforfemales:Havingopinionsandviewsignored(1.4x),Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway(1.4x),Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork(1.8x)andInjuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork(2.5x).Table4.1.1:PercentageWhoExperiencedIll-TreatmentItemswithinEachGender
Illtreatmentitemexperienced Female%
Male%
Total% chi p OR
Unreasonablemanagement
Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 7.4 7.0 7.2 0.095 0.758 1.1(0.7-1.5)
Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 8.3 7.8 8.0 0.137 0.711 1.1(0.8-1.5)
Havingopinionsandviewsignored 21.9 17.0 19.5 6.778 0.009 1.4(1.1-1.7)
Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 11.7 10.8 11.3 0.39 0.533 1.1(0.8-1.5)
Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 4.7 5.4 5.0 0.457 0.499 0.9(0.6-1.3)
Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 19.0 19.8 19.4 0.161 0.689 1.0(0.8-1.2)
Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 12.5 13.8 13.2 0.604 0.437 0.9(0.7-1.2)
Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 11.6 9.7 10.7 1.812 0.178 1.2(0.9-1.7)
Incivilityordisrespect
Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 7.7 6.1 6.9 1.811 0.178 1.3(0.9-1.9)
Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 6.9 5.1 6.0 2.752 0.097 1.4(0.9-2.1)
Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 10.5 9.7 10.1 0.359 0.549 1.1(0.8-1.5)
Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 18.5 14.3 16.4 5.687 0.017 1.4(1.1-1.8)
Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 9.6 7.2 8.4 3.251 0.071 1.4(1.0-1.9)
Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 5.4 5.2 5.3 0.036 0.849 1.0(0.7-1.6)
Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 7.5 6.6 7.0 0.610 0.435 1.2(0.8-1.7)
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 8.5 9.9 9.2 0.998 0.318 0.8(0.6-1.2)
Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 15.9 14.1 15.0 1.073 0.300 1.1(0.9-1.5)
Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 13.1 7.6 10.4 14.411 0.001 1.8(1.3-2.5)
Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 7.9 6.2 7.1 2.016 0.156 1.3(0.9-1.9)
Violenceorinjury
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 2.7 1.6 2.2 2.441 0.118 1.7(0.9-3.3)
Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 2.2 0.9 1.6 4.900 0.027 2.5(1.1-5.6)
*OR=Howmanytimesmorelikelyfemalesreportedexperiencingthebehaviourthanmales.Greyshadinghighlightssignificantrelationshipsbetweenthebehaviouritemsandgender.
4.1.2RelationshipsbetweenExperienceofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactorsSummarytablesforexperienceofill-treatmentfactorsbydemographicfactors(gender,ethnicity,age,education,placeofresidenceanddisability)arepresentedinTables4.1.2–4.1.5below.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceineachofthethreefactorsofilltreatmentbythegenderofthoseexperiencingit(Table4.1.2).However,thereweresignificantly(p=0.032,chisquaretest)morefemales(2.7%)experiencingatleasttwoitemsofilltreatmentdailythanmales(1.3%).
14
Table4.1.2:PercentageExperiencingIllTreatmentamongDemographicGroups Unreasonable
management%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleastoneitem%
Atleasttwoitemsweekly
%
Atleasttwoitemsdaily
%
TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98
Gender
Female 36.73 33.00 3.13 43.74 9.73 2.68
Male 36.62 29.51 1.95 42.37 8.16 1.26
P 0.963 0.114 0.117 0.561 0.248 0.032
Ethnicity White 35.75 29.96 2.14 42.16 9.00 1.95
Asian 44.83 47.13 6.90 52.33 4.65 0.00
BlackorMixed 46.07 39.33 5.68 50.00 12.36 4.49
P 0.040 0.001 0.004 0.072 0.200 0.099
Age
18-24 33.93 35.71 1.77 46.02 12.39 1.79
25-34 42.14 35.69 2.82 47.78 12.10 3.43
35-44 34.87 31.98 5.01 41.43 8.48 2.12
45-54 32.41 25.06 0.25 37.88 7.09 0.51
55+ 37.34 29.05 0.83 43.98 4.98 0.83
P 0.031 0.010 <0.001 0.042 0.007 0.019
Education
Primary&Secondary 33.88 29.87 1.34 40.71 8.02 1.19
Undergraduate&Higher 38.49 32.04 3.31 44.42 9.58 2.49
P 0.051 0.338 0.011 0.127 0.268 0.058
Region Dublin 31.38 28.42 2.48 35.64 7.10 1.60
Leinster(ExclDublin) 38.38 33.89 1.40 44.1 11.52 2.24
Munster 41.18 29.60 2.02 47.61 8.64 2.57
Connacht&Ulster 36.33 36.67 5.00 47.33 9.70 1.33
P 0.007 0.045 0.021 <0.001 0.137 0.535
Disability
Yes 30.36 26.79 3.57 36.84 12.28 3.57
No 36.85 31.40 2.52 43.27 8.90 1.93
P 0.321 0.464 0.623 0.335 0.380 0.387
Income
Under€10,000 38.10 32.38 1.90 48.08 12.40 4.80
€10,000-€19,000 38.08 31.67 1.26 44.77 9.20 1.70
€20,000-€29,000 38.32 36.96 2.99 45.38 10.30 2.40
€30,000-€39,000 36.92 29.50 1.08 43.01 11.20 1.10
€40,000-€49,000 44.51 25.00 2.44 47.24 6.70 3.00
€50,000ormore 37.23 31.39 5.15 44.12 9.60 2.90
P 0.714 0.122 0.122 0.941 0.654 0.330
pvaluesderivedfromchisquaretests.Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey
15
Ethnicityshowedasignificantassociationwitheachofthethreeofill-treatmentfactors,withthoseofblack/mixedethnicityexperiencingthehighestlevelsofunreasonablemanagementandAsianemployeesreportingthegreaterlevelsofincivilityandviolence.Ahigherpercentageofunreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedbythosebetween25-34yearsandbythoseover55,whiletheexperienceofincivilityanddisrespectdecreasedwithage.Violencewasexperiencedbyahigherpercentageatmidcareer(35-44years).Allthreetypesofilltreatmentwereexperiencedbyahigherpercentageofthosewiththirdleveleducation.UnreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedmorecommonlyinMunsterwhileincivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjurywasmorecommonlyexperiencedinConnaught/Ulster.Althoughpercentagesamongthosewithdisabilitieswerehigherforviolenceandforatleast2itemsweeklyanddaily,differenceswerenotsignificant(p>0.05,Pearson’schisquare)comparedtothosewithoutdisabilities,althoughlimitationsofsmallsamplesizeshouldbenoted.Table4.1.3:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionorStaffAssociation
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleastoneitem%
Atleasttwoweekly
%
Atleasttwodaily%
TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98
Typeoforganisation
Private 34.51 29.99 1.18 40.99 8.33 1.77
Public 40.36 33.80 6.15 45.92 10.54 2.58
VoluntaryorOther 50.88 31.58 0.00 58.93 5.26 1.75
P 0.006 0.302 <0.001 0.009 0.215 0.547
Sector
Agriculture 23.33 25.81 0.00 38.71 10.00 0.00
Industry 37.56 30.73 0.00 41.95 7.80 1.95
Construction 39.58 20.83 0.00 42.71 9.38 0.00
Wholesale,Retail,Food&Accommodation(WRFA) 31.79 35.16 1.45 42.94 7.23 2.02
Transport 34.23 26.13 0.90 37.84 11.71 0.90
Financialservices 44.38 30.63 0.63 48.13 10.63 1.88
Publicadmin.&Defence(PAD) 35.00 25.18 5.04 40.00 10.00 0.72
Education 33.61 34.03 2.94 39.92 7.14 2.52
Health&Socialservices 45.15 35.07 7.46 51.12 12.64 2.99
Otherservices 32.32 29.27 1.82 38.18 6.10 3.03
P 0.010 0.110 nv 0.140 0.310 nv
Sizeoforganisation
<10 26.29 24.78 0.65 34.48 6.03 0.86
10-49 42.11 35.54 2.56 48.64 10.09 2.26
50-249 37.50 31.91 3.72 43.09 11.17 2.13
>250 41.56 31.60 3.90 45.89 7.79 3.46
P <0.001 0.002 0.013 0.000 0.036 0.122
PresenceofTradeunion
Yes 40.68 33.07 4.66 46.27 10.42 2.33
No 34.43 29.8 1.31 40.62 8.26 1.88
P 0.009 0.156 <0.001 0.022 0.131 0.521
pvaluesderivedfromchisquaretests.Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.nv:Chisquaretestswereinvalidduetolowexpectedcellcount.
16
4.1.3RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceCharacteristicsandExperienceofIllTreatmentOrganisationalcharacteristicssurveyedincludedsector,size,type(public/private/voluntary)andpresenceoftradeunion(s)intheworkplace.Illtreatmentwasexperiencedbyahigherpercentageofemployeesinsmallorganisations,forunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(Table4.1.3,p.15)Largeorganisationsweremorelikelytoexperienceviolenceandaseverelevelofbullying.Thoseinvoluntaryandinpublicsectorworkplacesweremorelikelytoexperienceilltreatmentintheformofunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjury.Thepresenceofatradeunionwasassociatedwithhigherlevelsofunreasonablemanagementandviolenceandinjury.Figure4.1.2revealstheextenttowhichill-treatmentfactorswereexperiencedinthedifferentsectorsaboveorbelowtheiroveralllevelsbypresentingthepercentagepointsaboveandbelowthoselevels.Itshowsthatthehighestexcessforallthreefactorsoccurredinthehealthandsocialservicessectorandthegreatestdecreasesoccurredinagriculture.
Figure4.1.2:PercentagePointsAboveorBelowOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentforEachFactorbySectorTable4.1.4presentspercentagesofthosereportingill-treatmentfactorsbyethnic,genderandagecompositionoftheworkplacestaffandalsopresentsoutcomesofSpearman’scorrelationsforeachfactor.Significant(p<0.05)butweakpositivecorrelationswerefoundbetweenallill-treatmentfactorsandincreasingpercentageofethnicemployeesexceptforincivility.Withincreasingpercentageoffemaleemployeestherewerealsosignificantbutweakpositivecorrelationswithallill-treatmentfactorswiththeexceptionofunreasonablemanagement.Therewerenosignificantcorrelationsbetweenagecompositionofstaffandilltreatment.
-13.3
0.9
3.0
-4.8
-2.4
7.7
-1.6
-3.0
8.5
-4.3
-5.4
-0.5
-10.4
3.9
-5.1
-0.6
-6.0
2.8
3.9
-1.9
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-1.1
-1.6
-1.9
2.5
0.4
5.0
-0.7
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Unreasonablemanagement36.7%
Incivilityordisrespect31.3%
Violenceorinjury2.6%
Agriculture
Publicadministraton
Constructon
Wholesale,retail,food&accommodaton
Transport
Financialservices
Industry
Educaton
HealthandSocialservices
Otherservices
17
Table4.1.4:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleastoneitem%
Atleasttwoweekly
%
Atleasttwodaily%
TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98
Compositionofstaffintermsofethnicity(%blackorethnicminorities)
None(0%) 31.54 27.56 1.54 37.95 6.41 1.41
Afew(5-10%) 42.27 33.10 2.92 47.77 11.68 2.74
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 34.23 34.23 4.07 42.79 8.56 1.80
Abouthalf(about50%) 41.56 40.26 3.90 50.65 12.82 1.30
Morethanhalf(about60%) 80.00 65.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 15.00
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 37.50 42.86 0.00 42.86 0.00 0.00
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 25.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00
All(100%) 0.00 16.67 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00
Spearman’srho(pvalue) 0.04(0.006) 0.03(0.082) 0.05(0.001) 0.03(0.035) 0.04(0.010) 0.03(0.029)
Compositionofstaffintermsofgender(%female)
None(0%) 30.85 22.77 1.00 35.82 4.98 0.00
Afew(5-10%) 39.36 33.33 1.61 45.78 8.43 0.40
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 41.27 31.75 4.21 46.84 11.58 1.58
Abouthalf(about50%) 35.05 28.87 0.77 41.75 6.17 2.06
Morethanhalf(about60%) 38.46 39.19 3.15 46.85 9.46 3.15
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 40.41 31.44 4.15 46.11 13.92 3.09
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 42.33 42.68 7.36 50.31 15.95 4.88
All(100%) 24.37 21.85 0.00 29.41 3.36 2.52
Spearman’srho(pvalue) 0.01(0.490) 0.04(0.006) 0.05(<0.001) 0.03(0.034) 0.04(0.009) 0.02(0.201)
Compositionofstaffintermsofage(%ofyoungpeopleunder25)
None(0%) 28.62 26.71 2.90 35.14 6.88 0.72
Afew(5-10%) 40.50 32.50 2.66 47.25 9.59 1.95
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 40.51 33.08 3.28 46.08 7.85 2.53
Abouthalf(about50%) 33.70 30.40 2.56 41.03 10.62 2.93
Morethanhalf(about60%) 41.18 36.27 1.96 43.14 6.86 0.98
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 35.19 35.85 1.85 42.59 12.96 3.77
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 34.78 45.45 0.00 52.17 13.04 8.70
All(100%) 10.00 30.00 0.00 40.00 9.09 0.00
Spearman’srho(p-value) 0.01(0.667) 0.01(0.406) -0.01(0.326) -0.003(0.850) -0.01(0.690) 0.02(0.096)
Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
4.1.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandExperienceofIllTreatment
Table4.1.5presentsthepercentagesofthosewhoexperiencedilltreatmentbytheiroccupationgroup,whethertheyheldmanagerialorsupervisorydutiesandtheirjobpermanence.Higherbutnon-significant(p>0.05,Pearson’schisquare)percentagesofthoseamongtheoccupationalgroupofmanagersandseniorofficialsexperiencedunreasonablemanagement(40.1%)andviolence(4.4%).Violencewasalsoexperiencedbyahigherbutnon-significantpercentageofthoseoccupiedinpersonalservice(35.6%).Unreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedbythoseinprocessplants(40.1%)andassociateprofessionalandtechnicalstaff(43.2%)andincivilitybythoseinsalesandcustomerservice(6.8%).
18
Significantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentagesofunreasonablemanagement(42.2%)andincivility(36.5%)werereportedbythosewithnon-permanentjobs.However,higherreportingofviolenceamongthoseinpermanentpositions(2.8%)wasnotsignificant.Thosehavingmanagerialorsupervisorydutiesreportedasignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentageforexperienceofatleast2itemsweekly(12.3%).Table4.1.5:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJobPermanence
Unreasonablemanagement
Incivilityordisrespect
Violenceorinjury
Atleastoneitem
Atleast2itemsweekly
Atleast2itemsdaily
TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98
Occupationgroup
Managersandseniorofficials 40.88 35.77 4.35 46.38 14.49 2.17
Professionaloccupations 34.56 28.33 3.97 38.53 6.52 1.70
Associateprofessionalandtechnical 43.17 35.24 3.08 49.78 11.89 1.76
Administrativeandsecretarial 35.02 23.61 0.92 39.81 8.33 0.93
Skilledtrade 34.97 33.33 0.55 43.72 9.29 2.73
Personalservice 35.57 33.78 6.76 44.30 10.81 3.36
Salesandcustomerservice 34.13 36.90 1.20 46.11 7.19 2.38
Processplantandmachine 40.48 29.13 0.00 44.09 10.32 3.94
Elementary 33.99 30.05 0.99 39.41 5.45 0.50
p 0.406 0.083 nv 0.225 0.060 nv
Managerialorsupervisoryduties
Yes 40.04 31.39 2.01 45.88 12.27 2.41
No 35.35 31.05 2.79 41.85 7.72 1.83
p 0.066 0.891 0.355 0.124 0.003 0.43
Haveapermanentjob
Yes 35.12 29.62 2.78 41.24 8.76 2.29
No 42.19 36.54 1.33 49.83 9.63 0.66
p 0.020 0.018 0.144 0.006 0.629 0.067
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
4.1.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandExperienceofIllTreatmentPercentagesofparticipantsthatrespondedtotheFAREItemsarepresentedinTable4.1.6.ThefirstcolumnpresentstheoverallpercentageinthesamplereportingyesornotoeachFAREitemstatementaspresentedtothem.TheremainingcolumnspresentthepercentagesamongFAREitemresponsesthatexperiencedeachill-treatmentfactor,atleast1itemofilltreatmentandatleast2itemsweeklyandatleast2daily.AllrelationshipsbetweenFAREitemsandill-treatmentfactorsweresignificantwiththeexceptionoftheexperienceofviolencewiththeneedsoforganisationcomingfirst,whereemployeeshavelesscontrolthanayearagoandwheretheirmanagerdecidesspecifictasks.Beingemployedwherethemanagerdecidesspecifictaskswasalsonotsignificantlyrelatedtoexperiencingatleasttwoitemsdaily.OverallTable4.1.6showsthatnegativecircumstancesintheworkplacewassignificantlyrelatedtohigherexperienceofilltreatment.AmorenuancedanalysisagainstthethreefactorsofilltreatmentispresentedinFigure4.1.3.ThefigurepresentsallFAREitemsorientedasnegativestatementsandshowsthedifferenceinpercentagepointsfromoverallpercentagesofthoseexperiencingeachill-treatmentfactor.Forexampletheoverallpercentageexperiencingunreasonablemanagementwas36.7%,incivilityordisrespect31.3%andviolence
19
orinjury2.6%.However,amongthoseworkinginanorganisationwhereindividualsdonotdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork,experienceofthesebehavioursincreasedby22.4,29.6and4.9percentagepointsrespectively.Table4.1.6:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems
Overall
%
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury
%
Atleastoneitem
%
Atleast2items
weekly%
Atleast2itemsdaily%
Total 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98
WhereIwork:
Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 16.10 69.47 57.39 3.52 75.00 22.18 4.58
No 83.90 30.34 26.23 2.30 36.92 6.42 1.49
p <0.001 <0.001 0.226 <0.001 <0.001 0.001
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 8.84 69.03 66.67 5.13 72.26 26.92 5.77
No 91.16 33.52 27.86 2.30 40.24 7.21 1.62
p <0.001 <0.001 0.032 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 92.12 32.98 28.04 2.28 39.73 7.02 1.41
No 7.88 79.71 69.06 5.76 82.01 31.65 8.70
p <0.001 <0.001 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 92.63 34.52 29.36 2.33 40.92 7.65 1.71
No 7.37 63.57 55.81 5.38 70.00 25.58 5.43
p <0.001 <0.001 0.033 <0.001 <0.001 0.004
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIdo 20.69 52.88 40.82 2.19 59.73 13.15 1.92
No 79.31 32.45 28.81 2.64 38.74 7.86 2.00
p <0.001 <0.001 0.625 <0.001 0.002 0.919
IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 94.73 35.43 29.62 2.27 41.69 8.32 1.62
No 5.27 59.14 60.87 7.53 67.74 20.43 8.60
p <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Ihavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 7.43 67.69 50.00 4.62 70.99 27.69 7.63
No 92.57 34.17 29.76 2.33 40.78 7.47 1.53
p <0.001 <0.001 0.107 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 13.10 59.13 50.22 6.52 63.64 28.14 7.36No 86.90 33.27 28.42 1.89 39.92 6.07 1.17p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Thenatureofmyworkchangedoverthepastyear 21.60 50.13 38.85 4.20 54.21 14.44 3.94No 78.40 32.97 29.21 2.10 39.99 7.45 1.45p <0.001 <0.001 0.020 0.020 <0.001 <0.001
Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedyear 23.53 46.27 39.28 6.99 51.69 16.39 4.58No 76.47 33.73 28.84 1.11 40.40 6.74 1.19p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
20
Figure4.1.3:DifferenceinPercentagePointsfromOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentFactorbyFAREItems(NegativelyOriented)Inadditiontotheworkplacecharacteristic(FARE)items,riskfactorsforwork-relatedstresseswereexploredandforthisrespondentscompleted31itemsfromtheHSEWorkPositivequestionnaire.ThesixfactorsderivedfromitemsintheWorkPositivequestionnairearedemands,control,support,relationships,roleandchange.Forthispopulation-basedsurveythesefactorswerecalculatedacrossitemsforeachindividual.PercentagesexperiencingthefactorsarepresentedinTable4.1.7.Relationshipsbetweenthesixworkpositivefactorsandthethreeill-treatmentfactors(unreasonablemanagement,incivilityandviolence)weretested.FromtheseFigure4.1.4presents,foreachworkpositivefactor(negativelyoriented,experiencedoftentoalways),thepercentagepointsaboveandbelowtheoverallpercentagesofthoseexperiencingill-treatmentfactorsunreasonablemanagement,incivilityandviolence.Percentagepointdifferenceswerecalculatedfromtheaveragedifferenceforeachiteminthesixfactors(withtheexceptionofrelationship,forwhichonlyoneitemwasreported).TheFigureshowsthatinhighdemandlowsupportenvironmentsandparticularlywheretherearepoorrelationshipsbetweencolleaguestherewerehighpercentagepointdifferencesfromoveralllevelsforallthreeill-treatmentfactors.
0.9
2.5
3.2
2.8
-0.4
4.9
2.0
3.9
1.6
4.4
26.1
35.4
37.8
24.5
9.5
29.6
18.7
18.9
7.5
8.0
32.8
32.3
43.0
26.9
16.2
22.4
31.0
22.4
13.4
9.6
-5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Unreasonablemanagement36.7%
Incivilityordisrespect31.3%
Violenceorinjury2.6%
Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyear
Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense
InowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanIdidayearago
IdonotdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldofromdaytoday
IdonotdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork
Peoplearenottreatedasindividuals
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples
Theneedsoftheorganisaponalwayscomefirst
21
Table4.1.7:PercentagesforEachWorkPositiveItem
Demand Never%
Seldom–Sometimes
%
Often–Always
%Differentgroupsatworkdemandthingsfrommethatarehardtocombine 42.35 48.29 9.36
Ihaveunachievabledeadlines 42.81 45.56 11.63
Ihavetoworkveryintensively 12.31 48.09 39.60
IhavetoneglectsometasksbecauseIhavetoomuchtodo 33.88 53.65 12.47
Iamunabletotakesufficientbreaks 45.74 45.56 8.69
Iampressuredtoworklonghours 42.92 43.10 13.98
Ihavetoworkveryfast 17.09 49.95 32.96
Ihaveunrealistictimepressures 35.90 51.80 12.31
Control Icandecidewhentotakeabreak 12.90 32.26 54.85
IhaveachoiceindecidinghowIdomywork 13.14 35.02 51.84
IhaveachoiceindecidingwhatIdoatwork 19.19 44.38 36.43
IhavesomesayoverthewayIwork 6.09 35.24 58.66
Myworkingtimecanbeflexible 22.20 45.69 32.11
Managersupport IamgivensupportivefeedbackontheworkIdo 6.02 36.96 57.02
Icanrelyonmylinemanagertohelpmeoutwithaworkproblem 6.95 30.51 62.54
Icantalktomylinemanageraboutsomethingthathasupsetorannoyedmeatwork 5.42 26.67 67.91
Peersupport Ifworkgetsdifficult,mycolleagueswillhelpme 4.61 27.58 67.82
IgetthehelpandsupportIneedfromcolleagues 2.90 28.04 69.06
IreceivetherespectatworkIdeservefrommycolleagues 1.95 18.58 79.47
Mycolleaguesarewillingtolistentomywork-relatedproblems 3.41 30.62 65.97
Relationships
Thereisfrictionorangerbetweencolleagues 49.31 43.89 6.80
Role Iamclearwhatisexpectedofmeatwork 1.68 7.99 90.33
Iknowhowtogoaboutgettingmyjobdone 1.94 8.00 90.07
Iamclearwhatmydutiesandresponsibilitiesare 1.19 9.90 88.91
Iamclearaboutthegoalsandobjectivesformydepartment 2.51 13.22 84.27
Iunderstandhowmyworkfitsintotheoverallaimoftheorganisation 1.77 14.00 84.23
Change Ihavesufficientopportunitiestoquestionmanagersaboutchangeatwork 8.83 39.87 51.30
Staffarealwaysconsultedaboutchangeatwork 7.85 36.47 55.68
22
Figure4.1.4:PercentagePointsDifferenceComparedtoOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentfactorbyWorkPositiveFactors(NegativelyOriented)
4.1.6PredictorsforExperiencingIllTreatmentHavinglookedatrelationshipsbetweenvariousdemographicandworkplacecharacteristicsthissectionexploreswhichofthesearemostlikelytobeassociatedwiththeexperienceofilltreatment.Fortheoutcomesofmultivariatelogisticregressionmodels,eachill-treatmentfactor(violence,unreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect)ispresentedshowinghowmuchmorelikelysomecharacteristicsareassociatedwithilltreatmentthanothers.DemographicandworkplacerelatedcharacteristicsthatwereincludedinthesemodelsareshowninTables4.1.8and4.1.9withestimatesofhowmuchmoreorlesslikelyabehaviouristobeexperiencedforeach(oddratiosand95%confidenceintervals).Enteringarangeofdemographicandworkplacecharacteristicsinasinglemodelcanprovideapictureofwhichhasmoreorlessinfluenceinitsassociationwitheachoftheill-treatmentfactors.Suchmodelscanshowwhethertheinclusionmodifiesoutcomescomparedtowhenthesecharacteristicsareanalysedaloneagainsttheill-treatmentfactors.ForthispurposethefirstsetofmodelswithoutcomespresentedinTable4.1.8includetheFAREitemsaspredictorsofilltreatmentandthesecondsetofmodelswithoutcomespresentedinTable4.1.9includetheWorkPositiveitems.Thetablesreportoddsratios(theseareExp(B)valuesderivedfromlogisticregressionmodels)andtheir95%confidenceintervals.Anodds-ratio(OR)of2.0meansthedemographicorworkplacecharacteristicincreasesexperienceofthebehaviourbyafactorof2,ormakesittwiceaslikely(markedinpinkintable).AnORof0.5meansthecharacteristicdecreasesthebehaviourby50%,ormakesitlesslikely(markedingreenintable).Forcharacteristicsenteredascovariates(i.e.Income),iftheORisabove1,asthischaracteristicincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringincreases;iftheORisbelow1,asthischaracteristicincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringdecreases.ForanORbelow1,todeterminehowmuchmorelikelythebehaviourisinthereferencegroup,usetheformula:1/OR.
19.8
9.3
24.4
21.7
9.8
22.6
39.8
16.6
10.2
23.9
21.3
11.1
20.2
37.5
3.4
1.1
3.1
2.3
-0.4
2.4
5.1
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Unreasonablemanagement36.7%
Incivilityordisrespect31.3%
Violenceorinjury2.6%
Highdemand
Lowcontrol
Lowmanagersupport
Lowpeersupport
Lowroleclarity
Lowcontrolofchange
Poorrelaponship
23
4.1.6.1ModelsincludingFAREItemsExperiencingatleastoneitem
Employeesweresignificantlymorelikelytoexperienceatleastoneitemofthe21illtreatmentitemsiftheylivedoutsideofDublin(Leinster2.3x,Munster3x,ConnaughtorUlster2.9x),workedinthevoluntarysector(3.6x),wheretherewasahigherpercentageofblackorotherethnicemployees(1.1x)wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(3.2x),principleshavetobecompromised(2.7x),everydaytasksaredecidedbymanagement(1.8x),thepaceofworkhasbecometoointense(2.5x)andthenatureofworkhaschangedoverthepastyear(1.5x).Experienceofatleastoneilltreatmentwassignificantlyreducedwheretherearehigherpercentagesoffemalesandyoungpeopleemployed(-8%and-16%foreachincreaserespectively)andwhereorganisationstreatemployeesasindividuals(-68%).Experiencingviolenceorinjury
ExperiencingviolenceorinjuryintheworkplacewassignificantlymorelikelyforthoseofAsianethnicity(8x),livinginConnaughtorUlster(4x),workinginthepublicsector(6x),wherethepaceofworkhasincreasedinthepastyear(3x)andthepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear(9x).Beingagedbetween45-54years(-90%),workinginanorganisationwithahigherpercentageofyoungpeople(-45%foreach25%increase)andwhereindividualsareabletodecidethestandardsbywhichtheywork(-83%)significantlydecreasedthelikelihoodofexperiencingviolence.Experiencingunreasonablemanagement
ExperienceofunreasonablemanagementwasmorelikelyforthoselivingoutsideofDublin,workinginthevoluntarysector,inanorganisationwith10-49employeeswheretheneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirstandprincipleshavetobecompromised,managementdecidesdaytodaytasks,thepaceofworkhasbecometoointenseandthenatureofworkhaschangedoverthepastyear.Experienceofunreasonablemanagementwassignificantlyreducedwithincreasesinthepercentageoffemalesandyoungpeopleemployed(-10%and-16%foreachincreaserespectively),whereemployeesaretreatedasindividuals(-68%)andareabletodecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork(-52%).Experiencingincivilityordisrespect
IncivilityanddisrespectwasmorelikelyforthosewholiveoutsideofDublin,inorganisationswheretheneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst,principleshavetobecompromised,managementdecidesdaytodaytasksandthepaceofworkhasbecometoointense.Experienceofincivilityanddisrespectweresignificantlyreducedamongemployeesagedbetween45-54years(-56%),workinginanorganisationwithahigherpercentageofyoungpeople(-16%foreach25%increase),whereemployeesaretreatedasindividuals(-71%)andareabletodecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork(-62%).
24
Table4.1.8:FAREItemsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors
Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement
Incivilityordisrespect Violence Atleast1ofthe
21items
Female(Male) 1.1(0.8-1.5) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.5(0.5-4.6) 1.2(0.9-1.6)
Age(18-24)
25-34 1.5(0.8-2.8) 0.8(0.4-1.4) 1.0(0.1-16.4) 1.2(0.6-2.1)
35-44 0.8(0.4-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 1.9(0.1-29.9) 0.7(0.4-1.3)
45-54 0.9(0.5-1.7) 0.4(0.2-0.8) 0.1(0.0-2.8) 0.7(0.4-1.3)
55+ 1.0(0.5-2.0) 0.6(0.3-1.1) 0.1(0.0-4.4) 0.9(0.5-1.7)
Ethnicity(White)
Asian 0.9(0.4-1.9) 1.2(0.5-2.6) 7.8(1.6-38.8) 0.9(0.4-2.0)
Black,mixed&other 1.3(0.6-2.5) 1.5(0.7-2.9) 2.3(0.1-46.1) 1.1(0.6-2.2)
Higherqualification(Secondaryandbelow) 1.4(1.0-1.9) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 0.7(0.2-2.5) 1.4(1.0-1.9)
Disability(None) 0.8(0.4-1.9) 1.1(0.5-2.5) 2.2(0.2-23.0) 0.9(0.4-2.0)
Income(increasingincome) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 0.9(0.8-1.1) 0.8(0.5-1.2) 1.0(0.9-1.1)
Region(Dublin)
Leinster(excludingDublin) 2.2(1.4-3.3) 1.8(1.2-2.8) 0.8(0.2-3.1) 2.3(1.6-3.5)
Munster 2.7(1.8-4.0) 1.5(1.0-2.3) 0.6(0.1-2.6) 3.0(2.0-4.4)
ConnaughtorUlster 2.6(1.6-4.0) 2.4(1.5-3.7) 3.9(1.2-13.4) 2.9(1.9-4.5)
Managerialposition 1.3(0.9-1.7) 1.2(0.9-1.7) 0.5(0.2-1.9) 1.4(1.0-1.9)
Permanentposition 0.7(0.5-1.1) 0.9(0.6-1.4) 1.6(0.3-7.0) 0.8(0.6-1.2)
Tradeunionoperatesintheorganisation 0.9(0.6-1.3) 0.9(0.6-1.4) 1.2(0.3-5.1) 0.9(0.6-1.3)
Typeofsector(Private)
Public 1.3(0.9-1.9) 1.2(0.8-1.8) 5.7(1.4-22.4) 1.3(0.9-1.8)
Voluntaryorother 3.0(1.3-6.9) 1.2(0.5-2.7) 1.1(0.0-26.0) 3.6(1.5-8.7)
Workplacesize(lessthan10)
10to49 1.6(1.1-2.2) 1.4(1.0-2.0) 2.6(0.5-13.8) 1.5(1.1-2.2)
50to249 1.2(0.8-1.9) 1.1(0.7-1.7) 4.1(0.7-23.8) 1.1(0.7-1.6)
250ormore 1.3(0.8-2.2) 1.2(0.7-2.0) 4.6(0.6-34.7) 1.2(0.7-2.0)
Workplacecomposition–ethnicity(increasing%ethnic) 1.1(1.0-1.2) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(0.7-1.4) 1.1(1.0-1.2)
Workplacecomposition–gender(increasing%female) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(0.7-1.4) 0.9(0.9-1.0)
Workplacecomposition–age(increasing%younger) 0.8(0.8-0.9) 0.8(0.8-0.9) 0.6(0.4-0.9) 0.8(0.8-0.9)
FAREitems
Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 3.5(2.4-5.1) 2.0(1.4-2.9) 0.3(0.1-1.3) 3.2(2.1-4.7)
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 2.7(1.6-4.6) 4.3(2.6-7.0) 6.5(1.7-25.2) 2.7(1.6-4.7)
Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 0.3(0.2-0.6) 0.3(0.2-0.5) 1.0(0.2-4.5) 0.3(0.2-0.6)
IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 0.9(0.5-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.2) 0.7(0.2-2.5) 0.7(0.4-1.2)
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldo 1.8(1.3-2.5) 1.1(0.8-1.6) 0.5(0.2-1.8) 1.8(1.3-2.5)
IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 0.5(0.3-0.9) 0.4(0.2-0.7) 0.2(0.01-0.7) 0.5(0.3-1.0)
Inowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 1.7(1.0-3.0) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 0.3(0.0-1.8) 1.5(0.8-2.6)
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 2.5(1.6-3.8) 1.9(1.3-3.0) 2.9(0.9-9.8) 2.5(1.6-3.9)
Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 1.5(1.1-2.2) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 0.5(0.1-1.6) 1.5(1.0-2.1)
Thepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear 1.1(0.8-1.5) 1.2(0.8-1.7) 9.2(2.9-28.9) 1.1(0.8-1.6)
Numberofcasesinthemodel=1241
NagelkerkeRSquare 0.320 0.262 0.397 0.304
HosmerandLemeshowTest(pvalue) 0.118 0.438 0.001 0.104
Overallpercentagepredictedbythemodel 74.7 73.9 97.8 72.7Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1
Thetablereportsoddsratios(theseareExp(B)valuesderivedfromlogisticregressionmodels)andtheir95%confidenceintervals.
25
4.1.6.2ModelsincludingWorkPositiveItemsForthe31HSAWorkPositiveitemsincludedinthesurveyquestionnaire,factorlevelscores(Demand,Control,ManagerSupport,Peersupport,RoleandChange)werecalculatedasaveragedscoresacrossindividualcaseswithapossiblerangeof1-5andentrytothelogisticregressionmodelascovariates.Table4.1.9:WorkPositiveFactorsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors
Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement Incivility Violence Atleast1of
the21items
Female(Male) 0.9(0.6-1.2) 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.1(0.3-3.4) 1.0(0.7-1.4)
Age(18-24)
25-34 1.1(0.6-2.1) 0.7(0.4-1.2) 1.1(0.1-11.4) 0.9(0.5-1.6)
35-44 0.8(0.4-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.4) 1.7(0.2-18.3) 0.7(0.4-1.3)
45-54 0.8(0.4-1.6) 0.5(0.2-0.9) 0.1(0.0-2.1) 0.7(0.4-1.4)
55+ 1.0(0.5-2.0) 0.5(0.3-1.1) 0.3(0.0-4.7) 0.8(0.4-1.6)
Ethnicity(White)
Asian 0.7(0.3-1.5) 1.1(0.5-2.4) 3.1(0.5-17.3) 0.7(0.3-1.5)
Black,mixed&other 0.8(0.3-1.8) 0.8(0.4-1.8) 1.0(0.1-19.4) 0.7(0.3-1.6)
Higherqualification(Secondaryandbelow) 1.4(1.0-2.0) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.2(0.3-4.1) 1.4(1.0-2.0)
Disability(None) 0.9(0.4-2.0) 1.1(0.5-2.7) 2.0(0.2-23.1) 0.9(0.4-2.2)
Income 1.0(0.9-1.1) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 1.0(0.7-1.4) 0.9(0.8-1.1)
Region(Dublin)
Leinster(excludingDublin) 2.3(1.5-3.7) 1.8(1.2-2.8) 0.8(0.2-3.5) 2.6(1.7-4.0)
Munster 3.4(2.3-5.2) 1.6(1.1-2.5) 0.8(0.2-3.1) 3.9(2.6-5.8)
ConnaughtorUlster 2.8(1.8-4.6) 2.4(1.5-3.8) 3.7(1.1-12.5) 3.4(2.2-5.5)
Managerialrole 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.2(0.9-1.8) 0.4(0.1-1.3) 1.4(1.0-1.9)
Permanentposition 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.1(0.7-1.6) 2.7(0.6-12.6) 1.1(0.8-1.6)
TradeUnionintheorganisation 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.9(0.4-7.7) 1.0(0.7-1.5)
Publicsector(Private,voluntaryorother) 1.0(0.6-1.4) 1.2(0.8-1.8) 4.7(1.3-17.0) 1.0(0.7-1.5)
Workplacesize(lessthan10)
10to49 1.7(1.2-2.5) 1.4(0.9-2.0) 1.4(0.3-7.1) 1.6(1.1-2.3)
50to249 1.3(0.8-2.0) 1.0(0.6-1.6) 1.9(0.3-10.7) 1.0(0.7-1.6)
250ormore 1.3(0.7-2.2) 1.0(0.6-1.8) 1.8(0.3-12.3) 1.0(0.6-1.8)
Workplacecomposition–ethnicity(increasing%ethnic) 1.2(1.0-1.4) 1.2(1.0-1.4) 1.2(0.7-2.0) 1.3(1.1-1.5)
Workplacecomposition–gender(increasing%female) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(1.0-1.1) 1.1(0.8-1.6) 1.0(0.9-1.1)
Workplacecomposition–age(increasing%younger) 0.8(0.8-0.9) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 0.6(0.4-0.9) 0.8(0.8-0.9)
WorkPositivefactors
Demand(scale:1=low5=high) 2.2(1.8-2.7) 1.4(1.1-1.7) 1.8(1.0-3.4) 2.1(1.7-2.6)
Control(scale:1=high5=low) 1.0(0.8-1.2) 1.0(0.8-1.2) 0.9(0.5-1.7) 1.0(0.8-1.2)
Managersupport(scale1=high5=low) 0.8(0.7-1.0) 0.8(0.6-1.0) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 0.9(0.7-1.1)
PeerSupport(scale:1=high5=low) 1.0(0.8-1.3) 0.9(0.7-1.1) 1.7(0.9-3.1) 1.0(0.8-1.3)
Clarityonrole(scale:1=high5=low) 1.1(0.9-1.4) 1.4(1.1-1.8) 1.0(0.5-2.1) 1.1(0.9-1.4)
Changesupports(scale:1=high5=low) 0.6(0.5-0.7) 0.7(0.6-0.9) 0.6(0.3-1.1) 0.6(0.5-0.7)
Thereisfrictionorangerbetweencolleagues(1=none5=high) 1.4(1.2-1.6) 1.7(1.4-1.9) 1.3(0.8-2.1) 1.4(1.2-1.7)Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1
Thetablereportsoddsratios(theseareExp(B)valuesderivedfromlogisticregressionmodels)andtheir95%confidenceintervals.
Demand(8items)wasenteredwithvaluesrunningfrom1=lowdemand,to5=highdemand.Frictionorangerbetweencolleaguesremainedasthesingleitemandwasenteredwithvaluesrunningfrom1=none,to5=high.Control(5items),Managerssupport(3items),Peersupport(4items),Clarityofrole(5items)andChangesupports(2items)wereenteredwithvaluesenteredfrom1=high,to5=low.
26
NoneoftheWorkPositivefactorssignificantlyincreasedordecreasedthelikelihoodofphysicalviolence.Thoseworkinginhighdemandsettingsweremorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagement(2.2x)andincivility(1.4x)oratleastoneitemofilltreatment(2.1x).Thosereportinggoodmanagerialsupportwerelesslikelytoexperienceincivility(-22%).Employeeswhoreportedgoodchangesupportswerelesslikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagement(-39%),incivility(-28%)oratleast1itemofilltreatment(-37%).AnotherwayofconsideringtherelationshipbetweenWorkPositivefactorsandilltreatmentistocalculatemeansofthefactorscoresforeachindividualwhenplottedagainstthetotalnumberofitemsofilltreatmentexperienced.Figures4.1.5–4.1.8presentestimatedmarginal(EM)meansforWorkPositivefactorsbytotalnumberofitemsthatindividualsexperiencedoutofthe21illtreatmentitems.TheEMmeanswereadjustedbygender,age,ethnicity,education,anddisabilityandderivedfromANOVAmodels.Inthegraphspresented,thefinalnumberofitemsexperienced(16)represents16-21items.ThefiguresshowthatallWorkPositivefactorsshowedstrongrelationshipswithnumberofilltreatmentitemsexperienced(R2valuesareallabove0.6).Highdemandworkplacesandpoorrelationshipenvironmentswereassociatedwithahighermeannumberofilltreatmentitemsexperienced.Workplaceenvironmentswhereemployeeshadhighercontroloftheirworkprocesses,highermanagerandpeersupport,wereassociatedwithalowermeannumberofitemsexperienced.
Figure4.1.5:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforDemandbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items
2.3
2.52.7
2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.92.9
3.2 3.3
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.33.6
3.8
y=0.0732x+2.4461R²=0.84979
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Espm
ated
Margina
lMean1=low5=highde
man
d
Numberofitemsexperienced
Demand 95%CILower 95%CIUpper Linear(Demand)
27
Figure4.1.6:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CisforControlbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items
Figure4.1.7:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforManagerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced
3.23.0
2.8 2.7
3.02.9
2.6 2.5 2.52.4
2.7 2.7
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.0
y=-0.0621x+3.0682R²=0.8377
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Espm
ated
Margina
lMean1=high5=low
con
trol
Numberofitemsexperienced
ControlEMmeans 95%CILower95%CIUpper Linear(ControlEMmeans)
3.93.8
3.43.3
3.3 3.43.2 3.2
2.9
2.6 2.6
2.6 2.6
2.72.5
2.2 2.2
y=-0.1x+3.7718R²=0.91025
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Espm
ated
Margina
lMean1=high5=lowsu
pport
Numberofitemsexperienced
95%CIUpper 95%CILowerManagersupportEMmeans Linear(ManagersupportEMmeans)
28
Figure4.1.8:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforPeerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items
Figure4.1.9:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforRelationshipsbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items
3.93.8
3.6
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.53.4
2.7
2.8
3.7
3.3
2.8 2.8
3.0
2.4
1.9
y=-0.0878x+3.8675R²=0.67154
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Espm
ated
Margina
lMean1=high5=lowsu
pport
Numberofitemsexperienced
95%CILower 95%CILowerPeersupportEMmeans Linear(PeersupportEMmeans)
1.71.8
2.0
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.9 3.03.0 3.0 3.0
3.5
3.2 3.3
3.6
3.4
y=0.1075x+1.9271R²=0.91467
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Espm
ated
margina
lMean1=good
5=poo
rrelap
onships
Numberofitemsexperienced
UpperBound RelaponshipsEMMeansLowerBound Linear(RelaponshipsEMMeans)
29
4.2WitnessingIllTreatmentintheWorkplace
Inadditiontoaskingrespondentsabouttheirdirectexperienceofnegativebehaviours,thesame21-itemchecklistwasusedtomeasurethewitnessingofilltreatmenttowardsotherpeopleintheworkplace.Overall,48%ofrespondentswitnessedatleastonenegativeact,42%ofrespondentswitnessedunreasonablemanagement,38.1%witnessedincivilityordisrespectand4.9%witnessedphysicalviolence(Figure4.2.1).
Figure4.2.1:PercentageswithinEachFactorofIllTreatmentWitnessed
Unreasonablemanagement:42.0%n=742
Incivilityordisrespect:38.1%n=673
Violence5.0%n=88
32.4%n=572
4.8%
All:4.2%4.3%
30
4.2.1IllTreatmentWitnessedintheWorkplacePercentageresponsestoindividualitemsarepresentedinTable4.2.1.Femalerespondentsweremorelikelytoreportwitnessing20ofthe21items(Table4.2.1).Thesedifferencesweresignificant(p<0.05)foreightoftheitems:beinggivenunmanageableworkloadsorimpossibledeadlines(1.3x),employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothers(1.5x),witnessingpeoplebeingtreateddisrespectfully(1.3x),beingexcluded(1.4x),beinggivenhintstoquittheirjob(1.5x),beingcriticisedunfairly(1.5x),beingintimidated(1.4x)orwitnessingbeingpeoplebeinginjuredasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork(1.9x).Table4.2.1:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentItemswithinEachGender
Illtreatmentitemwitnessed Female%
Male%
Total% Chi p OR
Unreasonablemanagement
Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 15.7 13.7 14.7 1.369 0.242 1.2(0.9-1.5)
Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 17.6 17.5 17.6 0.005 0.946 1.0(0.8-1.3)
Havingopinionsandviewsignored 30.6 28.0 29.3 1.395 0.238 1.1(0.9-1.4)
Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 21.4 18.9 20.2 1.753 0.185 1.2(0.9-1.5)
Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 10.1 8.5 9.3 1.401 0.237 1.2(0.9-1.7)
Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 26.8 22.3 24.6 4.868 0.027 1.3(1.0-1.6)
Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 19.5 17.2 18.3 1.485 0.223 1.2(0.9-1.5)
Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 24.6 18.1 21.4 10.82 0.001 1.5(1.2-1.9)
Incivilityordisrespect
Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 13.7 10.7 12.3 3.524 0.060 1.3(1.0-1.8)
Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 18.9 16.7 17.9 1.317 0.251 1.2(0.9-1.5)
Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 19.2 17.3 18.3 1.018 0.313 1.1(0.9-1.4)
Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 24.3 19.4 21.9 6.042 0.014 1.3(1.1-1.7)
Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 20.1 15.3 17.7 6.705 0.010 1.4(1.1-1.8)
Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 10.0 6.9 8.5 5.239 0.022 1.5(1.1-2.1)
Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 15.5 10.8 13.2 8.206 0.004 1.5(1.0.1-2)
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 13.1 13.9 13.5 0.226 0.635 0.9(0.7-1.2)
Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 22.6 19.3 20.9 2.968 0.085 1.2(1.0-1.5)
Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 16.4 12.6 14.5 5.169 0.023 1.4(1.0-1.8)
Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 11.9 9.1 10.5 3.604 0.058 1.3(1.0-1.8)
Violenceorinjury
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 5.1 3.6 4.3 2.219 0.136 1.4(0.9-2.3)
Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 4.3 2.3 3.3 5.26 0.022 1.9(1.1-3.3)
*OR=Howmanytimesmorelikelyfemalesreportedwitnessingthebehaviourthanmales;p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
4.2.2RelationshipsbetweenWitnessingofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactorsPercentagesforwitnessingofill-treatmentfactorsbyrespondentdemographics(gender,ethnicity,age,education,placeofresidenceanddisability)arepresentedinTable4.2.2below.Attheleveloffactorsofilltreatment,noneshowedasignificantrelationshipwithgender.Forage,allill-treatmentfactorsshowedasignificantrelationshipwithahigherpercentageofthosebetween25-44yearswitnessingill
31
treatment.Ethnicityalsoshowedsignificantrelationshipstoallfactors,withAsianrespondentswitnessingsignificantlymoreilltreatmentintheformofunreasonablemanagementandincivility,andthoseofmixedorblackethnicityexperiencinggreaterlevelsofviolenceorinjury.Thosewhoattendedthirdleveleducationweremorelikelytowitnesseachtypeofunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjury.WorkersinMunsterwitnessedsignificantlymoreunreasonablemanagement.InMunsterahigherpercentageofIncivilitywaswitnessedandinConnacht/Ulsterworkerswitnessedmorephysicalviolence,howeverthesedifferenceswerenotstatisticallysignificant.Morepeoplewithdisabilitiesreportedwitnessingeachofthethreefactorsofilltreatment;however,thiswasnotasignificantdifference.Violencewaswitnessedbyasignificantlyhigherpercentageofthoseinthehigherincomegroup.Table4.2.2:PercentageWhoWitnessedIll-TreatmentFactorsamongDemographicGroups
Unreasonablemanagement%
Incivilityordisrespect%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item
Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96
GenderFemale 44.07 38.81 5.82 49.16
Male 39.89 37.47 4.13 46.78
p 0.075 0.562 0.103 0.318
Agegroup
18-24 31.86 33.63 2.65 38.05
25-34 47.78 43.15 6.85 53.83
35-44 44.12 38.73 6.17 48.94
45-54 38.38 33.67 3.28 45.32
55+ 36.25 35.68 2.90 42.74
p 0.001 0.036 0.027 0.004
Ethnicity
White 40.59 36.88 4.47 46.76
Asian 55.17 51.16 5.75 60.47
Mixed,black&allothers 55.06 47.73 13.48 57.30
p 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.009
Education
PrimaryandSecondary 38.04 35.66 2.97 45.17
Undergraduateorhigher 44.66 39.72 6.18 49.91
p 0.006 0.088 0.003 0.053
Disability
No 41.89 37.82 4.86 47.95
Yes 46.43 46.43 8.93 48.21
p 0.498 0.192 0.169 0.969
Income
Under€10,000 37.14 36.19 6.67 41.35
€10,000-€19,000 43.33 35.42 2.08 46.67
€20,000-€29,000 40.49 41.03 3.80 47.55
€30,000-€39,000 46.59 43.73 6.81 54.48
€40,000-€49,000 45.73 40.49 4.27 51.22
€50,000ormore 45.59 46.72 10.22 54.74
p 0.450 0.236 0.008 0.128
Region
Dublin 44.68 36.70 3.90 48.67
Leinster(excludingDublin) 34.17 35.85 4.49 43.14
Munster 45.77 42.73 5.70 50.55
Connaught&Ulster 39.80 35.12 6.33 47.83
p 0.002 0.063 0.346 0.179
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
32
4.2.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandWitnessingofIllTreatmentOrganisationalcharacteristicsincludedsector,size,type(public/private)andpresenceoftradeunion(s)intheworkplace.Table4.2.3showsthereweresignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentagesofwitnessedilltreatmentinthevoluntarysector,althoughsignificantlymorepeopleworkinginthepublicsectorreportedwitnessingviolence(10.9%).Therewerealsosignificantrelationshipsbetweensectorandbothviolenceandunreasonablemanagement,withthehighestpercentagesofbothill-treatmentfactorswitnessedinthehealthandsocialservicessector(violence12.3%andunreasonablemanagement51.5%).Significantlyhigherpercentagesreportedwitnessingunreasonablemanagementandincivilityinorganisationsemployingbetween50-249peopleandmoreviolencewaswitnessedinorganisationswithastafflargerthan250.Witnessallformsofilltreatmentwasmorelikelyinorganisationswithtradeunions.Table4.2.3:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionorStaffAssociation
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96
Typeoforganisation
Private 40.27 36.20 2.61 45.79
Public 46.52 41.87 10.91 52.49
Voluntaryorother 42.11 42.11 5.26 52.63
p 0.059 0.073 <0.001 0.032
Sector
Agriculture 25.81 40.00 10.00 43.33
Industry 34.15 39.22 3.41 42.44
Construction 43.75 36.84 1.04 50.53
Wholesale,Retail,Food&Accommodation(WRFA) 40.06 34.39 1.45 45.24
Transport 41.44 31.53 2.73 43.24
Financialservices 44.65 41.25 3.13 48.75
Publicadmin.&Defence(PAD) 46.76 43.57 8.57 54.29
Education 41.18 38.24 5.88 47.26
Health&Socialservices 51.49 44.03 12.31 58.21
Otherservices 36.36 31.52 3.64 40.61
p 0.006 0.132 <0.001 0.008
Sizeoforganisation
<10 30.60 25.86 1.72 34.99
10-49 47.44 42.86 5.87 53.31
50-249 47.61 43.09 5.85 54.52
>250 41.56 41.99 6.49 48.92
p <0.001 <0.001 0.004 <0.001
PresenceofTradeunionorstaffassociation
Yes 46.03 43.94 9.02 52.48
No 40.15 34.52 2.53 45.50
p 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 0.005
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
33
Table4.2.4showsthereweresignificantrelationshipsforviolencewheretherewerefewpeoplefromethnicminoritiesemployed.However,forunreasonablemanagementandincivility,significantlyhigherpercentageswerereportedwheremorethanhalftheworkforce(butnotthreequarters)wascomprisedofethnicminorities.Higherpercentagesofwitnessedilltreatmentwerereportedforallthreeindicatorswherenearlyallemployeeswerefemaleandnearlyallwereyoungpeople.,althoughfewyoungpeople(i.e.under25)intheworkforcewasariskfactorforunreasonablemanagementandincivility,morethanhalfoftheworkforcebeingyoungwasariskfactorforviolenceandinjury.Table4.2.4:WitnessedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge
Unreasonablemanagement%
Incivilityordisrespect%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96
Compositionofstaffintermsofethnicity(%blackorethnicminorities)
None(0%) 34.36 30.51 2.69 39.10
Afew(5-10%) 48.97 47.68 6.69 56.95
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 45.95 39.19 5.41 52.04
Abouthalf(about50%) 54.55 46.75 3.90 57.14
Morethanhalf(about60%) 90.00 50.00 0.00 90.48
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 37.50 28.57 0.00 37.50
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 25.00 25.00 0.00 25.00
All(100%) 33.33 16.67 0.00 33.33
p <0.001 <0.001 0.036 <0.001
Compositionofstaffintermsofgender(%female)
None(0%) 35.32 33.66 0.00 41.09
Afew(5-10%) 38.80 36.80 4.82 46.59
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 45.79 42.11 5.82 51.85
Abouthalf(about50%) 41.65 34.79 4.90 46.39
Morethanhalf(about60%) 49.10 43.24 4.07 53.60
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 46.91 43.52 6.22 53.89
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 52.15 52.15 9.20 61.96
All(100%) 26.89 18.49 0.00 26.89
p <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001
Compositionofstaffintermsofage(%ofyoungpeopleunder25)
None(0%) 33.70 29.71 3.99 39.49
Afew(5-10%) 47.42 43.34 5.15 53.46
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 44.81 40.51 4.80 50.63
Abouthalf(about50%) 38.10 37.73 5.86 45.05
Morethanhalf(about60%) 46.08 38.83 5.88 51.96
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 45.28 35.85 0.00 46.30
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 39.13 36.36 0.00 56.52
All(100%) 20.00 9.09 0.00 20.00
p 0.005 0.007 0.558 0.004
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
34
4.2.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandWitnessofIllTreatmentTable4.2.5presentspercentagesthatwitnessedilltreatmentbyoccupationalgroup,managerialorsupervisorydutiesandjobpermanence.Thosehavingmanagerialdutiesreportedhigherlevelsofallill-treatmentfactorsandtheseweresignificantforunreasonablemanagementandincivility(Table4.2.5).Significantlyhigherpercentagesofthoseinpersonalservicesandthosewithpermanentjobsreportedwitnessingviolence.Table4.2.5:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJobPermanence
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96
Occupationalgroup
Managersandseniorofficials 51.45 41.30 5.84 54.35
Professionaloccupations 43.47 37.68 8.22 49.58
Associateprofessionalandtechnical 45.37 45.13 5.31 51.54
Administrativeandsecretarial 36.41 33.33 1.38 43.06
Skilledtrade 42.08 37.16 2.73 48.09
Personalservice 40.27 35.14 9.46 46.62
Salesandcustomerservice 43.11 39.29 2.38 48.81
Processplantandmachine 35.43 41.73 6.30 45.67
Elementary 39.90 33.99 1.97 43.84
P 0.147 0.243 0.001 0.466
Managerialorsupervisoryduties
Yes 47.28 42.05 5.43 51.91
No 40.02 36.44 4.86 46.34
P 0.005 0.029 0.619 0.035
Jobpermanence
Yes 40.96 37.83 5.63 46.87
No 44.85 37.54 2.33 50.83
P 0.213 0.925 0.017 0.211
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
4.2.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandWitnessofIllTreatmentTable4.2.6presentspercentagesthatwitnessedilltreatmentbyFAREitems.AllrelationshipsbetweenFAREitemsandill-treatmentfactorsweresignificant(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)withtheexceptionofwitnessingviolenceandbelievingone’smanagerdecidesspecifictasksandthatoneisabletodecidetheirownqualitystandards.FAREitemsthatindicateamorenegativeworkplaceenvironment(theneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst,havingtocompromiseprinciplesandhavinglesscontroloverwork)weresignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)associatedwithhigherpercentageswitnessingallthreeill-treatmentfactors.ConverselyFAREitemsthatindicateamorepositiveworkplaceenvironmentweresignificantlyassociatedwithlowerpercentagesofemployeeswitnessingilltreatment(peoplearetreatedasindividuals,IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIworkandIdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork).
35
Table4.2.6:PercentageswhowitnessedilltreatmentbyFAREitems
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96
WhereIwork:
Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 74.30 68.66 8.80 75.70
No 35.88 32.30 4.26 42.64
P <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 75.64 76.28 9.62 78.85
No 38.74 34.39 4.54 44.96
p <0.001 <0.001 0.005 <0.001
Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 38.77 35.02 4.68 45.05
No 79.86 74.82 8.63 82.01
p <0.001 <0.001 0.040 <0.001
IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 40.02 36.51 4.65 46.14
No 67.44 58.46 9.30 70.77
p <0.001 <0.001 0.019 <0.000
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIdo 59.45 57.26 3.84 65.75
No 37.53 33.17 5.29 43.32
p <0.001 <0.001 0.256 <0.001
IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 40.45 36.51 4.84 46.32
No 69.89 67.74 7.61 77.42
p <0.001 <0.001 0.236 <0.001
Ihavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 73.28 69.23 10.69 79.39
No 39.53 35.64 4.59 45.44
p <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 69.57 59.57 9.96 73.91
No 37.90 34.90 4.24 44.07
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 60.89 55.91 8.66 67.19
No 36.80 33.19 3.98 42.66
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyear 56.63 52.77 10.84 63.13
No 37.58 33.58 3.19 43.29
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
36
4.2.6PredictorsofWitnessingIllTreatmentThissectionpresentsoutcomesofmultivariatemodels(Logisticregression)foreachill-treatmentfactor(violence,unreasonablemanagementandincivilityanddisrespect),presentinghowmuchmorelikelysomecharacteristicsareassociatedwithwitnessingilltreatmentthanothers.DemographicandworkplacerelatedcharacteristicsincludedasindependentvariablesinthesemodelsareshowninTable4.2.7andincludetheFAREitems.Presentedestimatesderivedfromthemodels(ORand95%confidenceintervals)showforeachofthesedemographicandworkplacecharacteristics,howmuchmoreorlesslikelyill-treatmentfactorbehaviourswerewitnessed.AnORof2.0meanstheindependentvariableincreasesthebehaviourbyafactorof2(ormakesittwiceaslikely).AnORof0.5meanstheindependentvariabledecreasesthebehaviourby50%(ormakesitlesslikely).Forindependentvariablesenteredascovariates(e.g.Income),iftheORisabove1asthisvariableincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringincreases;iftheORisbelow1asthisvariableincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringdecreases.ForanORbelow1,todeterminehowmuchmorelikelythebehaviourisinthereferencegroup,usetheformula:1/ORWitnessingatleastoneitem
Employeesweresignificantlymorelikelytowitnessatleastoneitemofilltreatmentiftheywereagedfrom25-34(2x),ofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(1.7x),livedinMunster,ConnaughtorUlster(1.3xand1.7xrespectively),heldamanagerialposition(1.3x)wereemployedinanorganisationwithaworkforceofbetween10to249(1.8x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.5x),employeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(2.5x),managementdecidedaytodaytasks(2.5x),thereislesscontroloverworkthanayearago(2x),thenatureofworkhaschanged(1.9x),thepaceofworkistoointense(1.7x)andhasincreasedoverthepreviousyear(1.4x).Predictorsthatreducedthelikelihoodofwitnessingatleastoneitemofilltreatmentwerehavingapermanentposition(-34%),beingemployedwherethereareahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-10%perincrease),wherepeoplearetreatedasindividuals(-49%)andemployeesareabletodecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork(-52%).Witnessingviolence
Significant(p<0.05)predictorsofwitnessingviolencewerebeingblack,mixedorotherethnicity(5.6x),workingoutsideofDublin(Leinster2.2x,Munster2x,ConnaughtorUlster3x),workinginthepublicsector(3.1x),workingwherethereisahigherpercentageofemployeeswhoarefromanethnicbackground,wherethepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear(2.2x).Witnessingunreasonablemanagement
Employeesweremorelikelytowitnessunreasonablemanagementiftheywerefemale(1.5x),intheagegroup25-34(2.2),ofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(1.7x),livedinMunster(1.4x)heldamanagerialposition(1.5x)wereemployedinanorganisationwithaworkforceofbetween10to249(1.5x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(3.1x),employeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(2.8x),managementdecidedaytodaytasks(2.5x),thereislesscontroloverworkthanayearago(1.7x),thenatureofworkhaschanged(1.9x)andthepaceofworkistoointense(1.8x).Witnessingunreasonablemanagementwaslesslikelywhereemployeeshadapermanentposition(-40%),wereemployedwherethereareahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-10%perincrease),wherepeoplearetreatedasindividuals(-53%)andemployeesareabletodecidehowfasttheywork(-43%).Witnessingincivilityordisrespect
Witnessingincivilitywasmorelikelyforemployeeswhowereofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(1.9x),livedinMunster(1.6x),ConnaughtorUlster(1.6x),heldamanagerialposition(1.4x)wereemployedinanorganisationwithaworkforceof10ormoreemployees(1.6x–1.8x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.6x),employeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(3.6x),managementdecidedaytodaytasks(2.4x),thenatureofworkhaschangedoverthepastyear(1.9x)andthepaceofworkistoointense(1.4x).Thelikelihoodofwitnessing
37
incivilitywasreducedinworkplaceswherethereareahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-12%perincrease)andwherepeoplearetreatedasindividuals(-52%).Table4.2.7:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forWitnessedIllTreatment
Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement
Incivilityordisrespect
Violenceorinjury
Atleast1ofthe21items
Female(Male) 1.5(1.1-1.9) 1.2(0.9-1.6) 1.3(0.8-2.3) 1.3(1.0-1.7)
Age(18-24)
25-34 2.2(1.3-3.8) 1.4(0.8-2.5) 1.8(0.4-8.0) 2.1(1.3-3.7)
35-44 1.6(0.9-2.9) 1.1(0.6-1.9) 1.2(0.3-5.3) 1.6(0.9-2.8)
45-54 1.4(0.8-2.5) 0.9(0.5-1.5) 0.5(0.1-2.3) 1.6(0.9-2.8)
55+ 1.4(0.8-2.6) 1.1(0.6-2.1) 0.5(0.1-2.6) 1.5(0.8-2.7)
Ethnicity(White)
Asian 1.2(0.7-2.1) 1.5(0.8-2.7) 1.5(0.5-4.6) 1.2(0.7-2.2)
Black,mixed&other 2.0(1.2-3.4) 1.9(1.1-3.3) 5.6(2.4-13.1) 1.7(1.0-2.9)
Higherqualification(Secondaryandbelow) 1.1(0.8-1.4) 1.1(0.9-1.5) 0.8(0.4-1.5) 1.0(0.8-1.4)
Disability(None) 0.9(0.4-1.7) 1.4(0.7-2.6) 2.3(0.8-6.9) 0.8(0.4-1.5)
Income(increasingincome) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(0.9-1.0) 1.0(0.8-1.1) 1.0(0.9-1.1)
Region(Dublin)
Leinster(excludingDublin) 0.9(0.6-1.2) 1.4(1.0-2.0) 2.2(1.0-4.7) 1.2(0.8-1.6)
Munster 1.4(1.0-1.9) 1.6(1.2-2.2) 2.0(1.0-3.9) 1.4(1.0-1.8)
ConnaughtorUlster 1.4(1.0-2.0) 1.6(1.1-2.3) 3.0(1.4-6.4) 1.7(1.2-2.5)
Managerialposition 1.5(1.1-1.9) 1.4(1.1-1.9) 1.3(0.8-2.3) 1.3(1.0-1.7)
Permanentposition 0.6(0.4-0.8) 0.9(0.7-1.3) 2.4(1.0-6.0) 0.7(0.5-0.9)
Tradeunionoperatesintheorganisation 1.1(0.8-1.5) 1.2(0.9-1.6) 1.9(0.9-3.6) 1.0(0.7-1.4)
Typeofsector(Private)
Public 1.2(0.9-1.7) 1.1(0.8-1.6) 3.1(1.6-6.2) 1.3(0.9-1.8)
Voluntaryorother 0.9(0.5-1.6) 1.2(0.6-2.2) 1.1(0.2-6.1) 1.0(0.6-1.9)
Workplacesize(lessthan10)
10to49 1.5(1.1-2.1) 1.8(1.4-2.5) 2.0(0.8-4.6) 1.8(1.3-2.4)
50to249 1.5(1.0-2.1) 1.7(1.2-2.5) 2.1(0.8-5.4) 1.8(1.3-2.5)
250ormore 1.0(0.7-1.6) 1.6(1.1-2.5) 1.6(0.6-4.4) 1.3(0.9-2.0)
Workplacecomposition–ethnicity(increasing%ethnic) 1.1(1.0-1.2) 1.0(1.0-1.1) 1.3(1.1-1.4) 1.1(1.0-1.2)
Workplacecomposition–gender(increasing%female) 0.9(0.9-1.0) 0.9(0.9-1.0) 1.0(0.8-1.1) 1.0(0.9-1.0)
Workplacecomposition–age(increasing%younger) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 0.9(0.8-0.9) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 0.9(0.8-1.0)
FAREitems
Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 3.1(2.2-4.3) 2.6(1.8-3.6) 1.5(0.8-2.8) 2.5(1.8-3.6)
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 2.8(1.7-4.5) 3.6(2.2-5.8) 1.9(0.9-4.0) 2.5(1.5-4.0)
Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 0.5(0.3-0.8) 0.5(0.3-0.8) 1.0(0.4-2.4) 0.5(0.3-0.9)
IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 0.6(0.4-0.9) 0.8(0.5-1.3) 0.6(0.3-1.3) 0.7(0.4-1.1)
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldo 2.5(1.8-3.4) 2.4(1.8-3.3) 0.7(0.3-1.4) 2.6(1.9-3.5)
IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 0.6(0.3-1.1) 0.6(0.3-1.0) 0.7(0.3-1.7) 0.5(0.3-0.9)
Inowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 1.7(1.0-2.8) 1.5(0.9-2.5) 0.7(0.3-1.8) 2.1(1.2-3.5)
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 1.8(1.3-2.7) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.1(0.6-2.2) 1.7(1.2-2.5)
Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 1.9(1.4-2.6) 1.9(1.4-2.6) 1.3(0.7-2.3) 1.9(1.4-2.6)
Thepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear 1.3(1.0-1.7) 1.4(1.0-1.8) 2.2(1.3-3.9) 1.4(1.1-1.9)
Nocasesineachmodel=1644
NagelkerkeRSquare 0.299 0.288 0.247 0.272
HosmerandLemeshowtest(pvalue) 0.875 0.014 0.094 0.076
Overallpercentagepredictedbythemodel 72.4 73.4 94.8 68.7Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesbelow1
Thetablereportsoddsratios(theseareExp(B)valuesderivedfromlogisticregressionmodels)andtheir95%confidenceintervals.
38
4.3PerpetratingIllTreatmentintheWorkplaceRespondentswereaskediftheyhadperpetratedanyofthe21itemsofilltreatment.Overall,17%ofrespondentsreportedperpetrationofatleastoneitemofilltreatment,14%ofrespondentsreportedperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement,9.5%incivilityordisrespect,0.5%physicalviolenceand0.5%reportedperpetrationofallthreetypesofilltreatment(Figure4.3.1).
Figure4.3.1:PercentageswithinEachCategoryofIllTreatmentPerpetrated
Unreasonablemanagement:14.0%n=247
Incivilityordisrespect:9.5%n=167
Violence0.6%n=11
6.5%n=115
0.5%
All:0.5%0.5%
39
4.3.1IllTreatmentPerpetratedintheWorkplace
Percentagesofresponsestoindividualitemswithinthethreeill-treatmentfactors,unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjuryarepresentedinTable4.3.1inthe‘total’columnandarealsopresentedbygender.Thehighesttotalpercentagereportedwasforgivingsomeoneanunmanageableworkload(6.9%).Noneofthe21itemsshowedsignificantdifferencesbygender(p<0.05,ChisquaredorFisher’sexacttest).Table4.3.1:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentwithinEachGender
Illtreatmentitemsperpetrated Female%
Male%
Total% chi p OR
Unreasonablemanagement
Withheldinformationwhichaffectedsomeone’sperformance 3.0 3.1 3.1 0.010 0.918 1.0(0.6-1.7)
Putpressureonsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 2.9 2.4 2.7 0.415 0.520 1.2(0.7-2.2)
Ignoredopinionsandviewsofothers 7.0 6.7 6.9 0.075 0.784 1.1(0.7-1.5)
Continuallycheckeduponsomeone’sworkwhenitwasnotnecessary 4.2 3.7 3.9 0.268 0.605 1.1(0.7-1.8)
Putpressureonsomeonenottoclaimsomethingtheywereentitledto 1.7 2.0 1.8 0.167 0.682 0.9(0.4-1.7)
Givensomeoneanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 4.2 4.3 4.2 0.011 0.916 1.0(0.6-1.6)
Notfollowedproperproceduresintheworkplace 2.8 3.8 3.3 1.349 0.245 0.7(0.4-1.2)
Treatedsomeoneunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 3.1 3.0 3.0 0.001 0.973 1.0(0.6-1.7)
Incivilityordisrespect
Humiliatedorridiculedsomeoneinconnectionwiththeirwork 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.086 0.770 1.1(0.5-2.3)
Spreadgossipandrumoursormadeallegationsagainstsomeone 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.006 0.937 1.0(0.5-2.0)
Insultedormadeoffensiveremarksaboutsomeone 3.4 2.1 2.7 2.717 0.099 1.6(0.9-3.0)
Treatedsomeoneinadisrespectfulorrudeway 3.2 2.8 3.0 0.331 0.565 1.2(0.7-2.0)
Excludedpeoplefromyourgroup 3.9 3.4 3.6 0.420 0.517 1.2(0.7-1.9)
Givenhintsorsignalstoothersthattheyshouldquittheirjob 1.3 1.5 1.4 0.090 0.765 0.9(0.4-2.0)
Persistentlycriticisedworkorperformancewhichwasunfair 1.9 1.6 1.8 0.194 0.659 1.2(0.6-2.4)
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 2.0 3.2 2.6 2.561 0.110 0.6(0.3-1.1)
Shoutedatorlostyourtemperwithsomeoneatwork 3.9 3.5 3.7 0.251 0.616 1.1(0.7-1.9)
Intimidatingbehaviourtopeopleatwork 1.3 1.0 1.2 0.336 0.562 1.3(0.5-3.1)
Madesomeonefeelthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.006 0.937 1.0(0.4-2.3)
Violenceorinjury
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.000* 1.6(0.4-6.8)
Injuredanyoneasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.972* 1.0(0.2-4.8)
*pvaluederivedfromFisher’sExacttest
4.3.2RelationshipsbetweenPerpetrationofIllTreatmentandDemographicFactorsPercentagesforperpetrationofill-treatmentfactorsbydemographicfactors(gender,ethnicity,age,education,placeofresidenceanddisability)arepresentedinTable4.3.2below.Asignificantrelationshipwasfoundforunreasonablemanagementandage,withthoseinthe25-34agegroupmostlikelytoreportperpetratingilltreatmentintheformofunreasonablemanagement(18.6%).AmongethnicgroupsasignificantlyhigherpercentageofperpetratingunreasonablemanagementwasreportedbythoseofAsianethnicity(26.4%).
40
Table4.3.2:PercentagesamongDemographicGroupsWhoPerpetratedIll-TreatmentFactors
Unreasonablemanagement%
incivility&disrespect%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item
Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07
Gender
Female 14.24 10.10 0.69 17.70
Male 13.77 8.84 0.56 16.44
p 0.779 0.363 0.729 0.482
Agegroup
18-24 8.04 11.50 0.88 14.16
25-34 18.55 11.29 1.21 21.17
35-44 15.22 10.40 0.19 18.88
45-54 9.60 6.84 0.00 12.15
55+ 12.03 7.05 1.24 14.17
p <0.001 0.098 0.078 0.003
Ethnicity
White 13.10 9.19 0.57 16.11
Asian 26.44 8.14 1.15 28.74
Mixed,black&allothers 17.98 14.77 1.14 22.73
p 0.001 0.200 0.655 0.003
Education
PrimaryandSecondary 15.30 10.55 0.30 19.02
Undergraduateorhigher 13.27 8.84 0.83 15.93
p 0.233 0.234 0.169 0.095
Disability
Yes 17.86 14.04 0.00 21.43
No 13.88 9.31 0.59 16.92
p 0.399 0.230 0.566 0.378
Income
Under€10,000 8.57 6.67 0.00 9.62
€10,000-€19,000 14.17 10.83 0.42 17.57
€20,000-€29,000 16.03 11.14 0.54 19.84
€30,000-€39,000 14.34 10.75 1.08 17.99
€40,000-€49,000 12.20 6.71 0.00 14.02
€50,000ormore 12.50 6.57 2.92 16.06
p 0.469 0.313 nv 0.189
Region
Dublin 15.78 8.16 0.71 18.09
Leinster(excludingDublin) 13.17 10.92 0.28 17.65
Munster 11.40 8.64 0.37 14.15
Connaught&Ulster 16.39 11.67 1.00 19.73
p 0.104 0.246 nv 0.154
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;*pvaluederivedfromFisher’sExacttest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
41
4.3.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandPerpetrationofIllTreatment
Organisationalcharacteristicsincludedsector,size,type(public/private)andpresenceoftradeunion(s)intheworkplace.Table4.3.3showsthathigherpercentagesforperpetrationofunreasonablemanagementandforincivilityanddisrespectwereinconstruction,thepublicsector,inorganisationscomprising10-49employeesandwherethereweretradeunionsoperating.Forviolencehigherpercentageswerereportedinthepublicsectorandinoccupationsinpublicadministrationanddefenceandinfinancialservices.However,therewerenosignificantrelationshipsbetweenallthreeill-treatmentfactorsandorganisationalcharacteristics.Table4.3.3:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionorStaffAssociation
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07
Typeoforganisation
Private 12.89 9.09 0.51 16.51
Public 16.87 10.54 0.99 18.49
Voluntaryorother 14.04 8.77 0.00 17.54
p 0.099 0.639 0.422 0.612
Sector
Agriculture 12.90 9.68 0.00 12.90
Industry 10.24 7.84 0.49 15.12
Construction 23.96 12.50 0.00 27.37
Wholesale,Retail,Food&Accommodation(WRFA) 10.98 8.09 0.58 15.61
Transport 14.41 9.91 0.00 16.22
Financialservices 15.63 10.63 1.88 20.00
Publicadmin.&Defence(PAD) 15.11 5.76 2.14 15.71
Education 13.45 10.55 0.84 14.77
Health&Socialservices 14.93 10.07 0.37 17.54
Otherservices 14.02 10.30 0.00 16.97
p 0.129 0.785 0.264 0.293
Sizeoforganisation
<10% 12.28 8.41 0.43 15.30
10-49% 16.54 10.53 0.75 19.13
50-249% 13.30 9.31 0.80 17.02
>250% 12.93 9.96 0.43 16.45
p 0.176 0.685 0.859 0.394
PresenceofTradeunionorstaffassociation
Yes 15.06 11.02 0.78 18.20
No 13.79 8.90 0.56 16.79
p 0.466 0.151 0.593 0.457
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;*pvaluederivedfromFisher’sExacttest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
Table4.3.4presentspercentagesofthoseperpetratingilltreatmentbycompositionofstaffintheworkplace.Spearmancorrelationswereusedtotestrelationshipsbetweenthesecharacteristicsandill-treatmentfactors.
42
Theonlysignificantcorrelationwasbetweenthosereportingatleastoneitemandpercentageoffemalesemployedwithlowerlevelsofperpetrationwherehigherlevelsoffemalesareemployed.Table4.3.4:PerpetratedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge
Unreasonablemanagement%
Incivilityordisrespect%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07
Compositionofstaffintermsofethnicity(%blackorethnicminorities)
None(0%) 12.84 7.82 0.77 14.89
Afew(5-10%) 16.98 11.84 0.51 20.93
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 11.71 8.14 0.45 15.38
Abouthalf(about50%) 11.54 14.29 0.00 18.18
Morethanhalf(about60%) 20.00 0.00 0.00 20.00
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 28.57 25.00 0.00 37.50
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
All(100%) 16.67 0.00 0.00 16.67
Spearman’srho(pvalue) 0.02(0.535) 0.05(0.055) -0.01(0.572) 0.04(0.097)
Compositionofstaffintermsofgender(%female)
None(0%) 18.32 12.87 0.50 22.39
Afew(5-10%) 16.47 7.23 0.40 18.47
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 17.89 13.76 2.11 24.34
Abouthalf(about50%) 10.05 8.25 0.77 13.37
Morethanhalf(about60%) 13.51 6.76 0.45 14.03
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 14.95 11.92 1.03 19.07
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 14.72 12.27 0.00 17.07
All(100%) 10.08 5.04 0.00 12.50
Spearman’srho(pvalue) -0.04(0.074) -0.02(0.515) -0.03(0.234) -0.05(0.035)
Compositionofstaffintermsofage(%ofyoungpeopleunder25)
None(0%) 14.80 6.88 0.00 15.94
Afew(5-10%) 15.10 9.77 0.71 18.29
Aboutaquarter(about25%) 15.19 10.35 0.51 18.69
Abouthalf(about50%) 14.34 12.82 1.83 18.38
Morethanhalf(about60%) 9.80 3.92 0.00 12.75
Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 18.52 14.81 0.00 22.22
Nearlyall(about85-90%) 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35
All(100%) 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00
Spearman’srho(pvalue) -0.03(0.292) 0.04(0.086) 0.03(0.261) 0.001(0.965)
Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
4.3.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentTable4.3.5presentspercentagesofthosewhoreportedperpetratingilltreatmentbyoccupationalgroup,managerialorsupervisorydutiesandjobpermanence.Thosehavingmanagerialdutiesreportedperpetratingsignificantlyhigherlevelsofunreasonablemanagementandincivility.Amongoccupationalgroupsthehighestlevelsofperpetrationofatleast1itemwasforskilledtrade.
43
Table4.3.5:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyOccupationalGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJobPermanence
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury%
Atleast1item%
Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07
Occupationalgroup
Managersandseniorofficials 18.12 10.95 1.45 21.01
Professionaloccupations 11.90 7.95 1.13 13.88
Associateprofessionalandtechnical 15.04 12.78 0.44 18.14
Administrativeandsecretarial 12.04 6.48 1.38 14.75
Skilledtrade 18.58 13.11 0.00 24.04
Personalservice 10.81 5.41 0.00 12.84
Salesandcustomerservice 10.18 6.55 0.60 13.69
Processplantandmachine 19.69 11.81 0.79 22.83
Elementary 13.30 10.84 0.00 17.73
p 0.079 0.057 nv 0.025
Managerialorsupervisoryduties
Yes 16.73 12.07 0.80 20.32
No 12.57 8.43 0.56 15.37
p 0.023 0.019 0.553 0.012
Jobpermanence
Yes 13.28 9.11 0.70 16.41
No 16.61 11.30 0.33 19.27
p 0.128 0.239 0.470 0.229
p=pvaluefromPearson’schisquaretest;nv=invalidchisquaretestduetolownumbers;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
4.3.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentTable4.3.6presentspercentagesofthosewhoreportedperpetratingill-treatmentfactorsbytheirresponsestoFAREitems.Thetableshowsthathigherpercentagesreportedperpetratingbehaviourswithinunreasonablemanagementandincivilityill-treatmentfactorswherenegativeworkplaceconditionswerereported.However,havingcontrolofthequalitystandardsbywhichindividualsworkanddecisionsbeingmadebythemanager,werenotsignificantlyrelatedtoperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement.Reportofperpetrationofviolencewassignificantlyhigheramongthosewhoworkwheretheyarenottreatedasindividuals.
44
Table4.3.6:PercentagesWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems
Unreasonablemanagement
%
Incivilityordisrespect
%
Violenceorinjury
%
Atleast1item%
Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07
WhereIwork:
Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 30.63 21.48 1.06 34.51
No 10.81 7.16 0.54 13.72
p <0.001 <0.001 0.255* <0.001
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 24.36 24.36 1.29 32.05
No 13.00 8.02 0.50 15.61
p <0.001 <0.001 0.217* <0.001
Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 13.11 8.37 0.43 15.75
No 24.46 22.30 2.88 32.37
p <0.001 <0.001 0.008* <0.001
IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 12.97 8.20 0.55 15.73
No 26.92 25.38 1.54 33.85
p <0.001 <0.001 0.192* <0.001
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIdo 16.71 11.78 0.55 21.37
No 13.30 8.86 0.64 15.94
p 0.094 0.090 0.594* 0.014
IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 13.76 9.04 0.60 16.70
No 18.28 17.20 1.08 23.66
p 0.222 0.009 0.450* 0.082
Ihavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 22.90 19.85 0.76 30.77
No 13.29 8.63 0.61 15.97
p 0.002 <0.001 0.573 <0.001
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 20.35 15.15 0.87 23.81
No 13.10 8.60 0.59 16.05
p <0.001 <0.001 0.645* <0.001
Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 17.63 12.34 0.52 21.26
No 13.01 8.68 0.65 15.91
p 0.021 0.031 1.000* 0.013
Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyear 16.63 13.01 0.96 21.93
No 13.27 8.38 0.52 15.57
p 0.085 <0.001 0.298* <0.001
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;*pvaluederivedfromFisher’sExacttest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.
45
4.3.6PredictorsofPerpetratingIllTreatmentThissectionpresentsoutcomesofmultivariatemodels(logisticregression)foreachill-treatmentfactor(violence,unreasonablemanagementandincivilityanddisrespect),presentinghowmuchmorelikelysomecharacteristicsareassociatedwithperpetratingilltreatmentthanothers.DemographicandworkplacerelatedcharacteristicsincludedinthesemodelsareshowninTable4.3.7withestimatesofhowmuchmoreorlesslikelyilltreatmentwasperpetratedforeach(oddratiosand95%confidenceintervals).Table4.3.7:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forPerpetratedIllTreatment
Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement Incivility Violence Atleast1ofthe
21items
Female(Male) 1.0(0.6-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.2) 1.8(0.3-10.7) 1.0(0.7-1.5)
Age(18-24)
0.4(0.2-1.1)
25-34 2.2(0.9-5.3) 1.2(0.5-2.9) - 1.9(0.9-4.0)
35-44 1.3(0.5-3.2) 0.9(0.4-2.1) - 1.3(0.6-2.8)
45-54 0.9(0.3-2.4) 0.8(0.3-2.0) - 1.0(0.4-2.3)
55+ 1.0(0.4-2.6) 0.5(0.2-1.5) - 0.9(0.4-2.2)
Ethnicity(White)
Asian 1.7(0.7-4.0) 1.0(0.3-3.1) 0.5(0.0-29.8) 1.5(0.7-3.5)
Black,mixed&other 1.7(0.7-4.3) 3.3(1.4-7.9) 8.5(0.6-116.5) 2.1(0.9-4.7)
Higherqualification(Secondaryandbelow) 0.6(0.4-0.9) 0.6(0.4-1.0) 2.7(0.3-26.8) 0.6(0.4-0.9)
Disability(None) 1.1(0.4-3.1) 1.2(0.4-3.7) 1.1(0.4-2.9)
Income 1.0(0.9-1.2) 0.9(0.7-1.1) 1.9(0.9-4.2) 1.0(0.9-1.2)
Region(Dublin)
Leinster(excludingDublin) 0.8(0.4-1.3) 1.4(0.8-2.7) 0.1(0.0-6.6) 1.0(0.6-1.7)
Munster 0.7(0.4-1.2) 1.1(0.6-2.1) 0.4(0.0-3.9) 0.8(0.5-1.3)
ConnaughtorUlster 1.3(0.7-2.2) 1.7(0.9-3.3) 1.3(0.2-8.9) 1.3(0.8-2.2)
Managerial 1.3(0.8-1.9) 2.2(1.3-3.5) 1.7(0.3-8.6) 1.3(0.9-1.9)
Permanent 0.8(0.5-1.3) 0.9(0.5-1.5) 1.6(0.1-21.5) 0.9(0.6-1.3)
Tradeunion 1.0(0.6-1.7) 1.6(0.9-2.8) 0.2(0.0-2.3) 1.2(0.8-1.8)
Publicsector(PrivateorVoluntary) 2.5(1.5-4.2) 1.4(0.8-2.6) 5.2(0.6-43.5) 1.7(1.1-2.7)
Workplacesize(lessthan10)
10to49 0.8(0.5-1.2) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 3.3(0.4-28.8) 0.8(0.5-1.2)
50to249 0.7(0.4-1.2) 0.6(0.3-1.2) 2.5(0.2-30.5) 0.8(0.4-1.3)
250ormore 0.5(0.2-1.1) 0.6(0.3-1.4) 1.6(0.1-38.4) 0.5(0.3-1.1)
Workplacecomposition–ethnicity(increasing%ethnic) 1.0(0.8-1.2) 1.0(0.8-1.3) 0.6(0.2-1.8) 1.0(0.9-1.3)
Workplacecomposition–gender(increasing%female) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 0.9(0.8-1.1) 0.5(0.3-1.0) 0.9(0.8-1.0)
Workplacecomposition–age(increasing%younger) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 1.0(0.9-1.2) 1.3(0.8-2.2) 0.9(0.8-1.1)
Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 3.2(2.0-5.0) 2.3(1.3-3.8) 0.6(0.1-5.0) 2.6(1.7-4.0)
Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 1.6(0.9-2.7) 2.3(1.3-4.0) 0.9(0.1-15.2) 1.9(1.1-3.1)
Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 1.0(0.5-1.8) 0.6(0.3-1.1) 0.1(0.0-0.9) 0.8(0.4-1.3)
IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 0.5(0.3-1.0) 0.3(0.2-0.6) 1.2(0.1-26.8) 0.5(0.3-0.8)
MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldo 1.0(0.6-1.5) 0.8(0.5-1.2) 0.8(0.1-6.3) 1.0(0.6-1.4)
IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 0.9(0.4-1.8) 0.7(0.3-1.5) 0.4(0.0-9.2) 0.8(0.4-1.6)
Inowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 1.6(0.8-2.9) 0.9(0.4-1.8) - 1.5(0.9-2.7)
Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 0.9(0.5-1.5) 1.0(0.6-1.9) - 0.8(0.5-1.3)
Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 1.6(1.0-2.6) 1.1(0.7-2.0) 0.3(0.0-4.5) 1.3(0.8-1.9)
Thepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear 1.0(0.6-1.5) 1.5(0.9-2.5) 1.3(0.2-7.3) 1.5(1.0-2.2)
No.casesineachmodel=1184
NagelkerkeRSquare 0.166 0.173 0.316 0.153
HosmerandLemeshowTest 0.257 0.103 <0.001 0.022
OverallPercentage 86.0 90.2 99.2 83.1Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesbelow1
46
Perpetratingatleastoneitem
Employeesweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportperpetratingatleastoneitemofilltreatmentiftheywereemployedinthepublicsector(1.7x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.6x)andemployeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(1.9x).Predictorsthatreducedthelikelihoodofperpetratingatleastoneitemofilltreatmentwerehavingahighereducationlevel(-43%),workingwherethereareahigherpercentageoffemaleemployees(-12%perincrease)andwhereindividualsdecidehowmuchworktheydoorhowfasttheywork(-55%).Perpetratingviolence
Onthebasisofthelownumbersthatreportedperpetrationofviolencesomevariableswereexcludedfromthismodel(DisabilityandtwoFAREitems:LesscontroloverworkandPaceofworkincreasedoverthepastyear);orwereenteredintothemodelamodifiedway(Agewasenteredasacovariateratherthanasafixedvariable).Onlytwoofthepredictorsinthemodelshowedsignificantoutcomes,bothshowingreducedlikelihoodofviolence.Thesewereforwherethecompositionoftheworkplacehadahigherleveloffemaleemployees(-46%perincrease)andwhereemployeesaretreatedasindividuals(-87%).
Perpetratingunreasonablemanagement
Employeesweremorelikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagementiftheyworkedinthepublicsector(2.5x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(3.2x)andthenatureofworkhadchangedoverthepastyear(1.6x).Perpetratingunreasonablemanagementwaslesslikelyforthosehavingahighereducationlevel(-43%),wheretherewasahigherpercentageoffemaleemployees(-12%perincrease),ahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-14%perincrease)andwhereemployeesareabletodecidehowfasttheywork(-46%).Perpetratingincivilityordisrespect
Reportingofperpetratingincivilitywasmorelikelyforemployeeswhowereofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(3.3x),heldamanagerialposition(2.2x)wereemployedinanorganisationwheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.3x)andwhereemployeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(2.3x).Thelikelihoodofperpetratingincivilitywaslowerforthosewithahighereducationlevel(-42%)andwhereemployeesareabletodecidehowfasttheywork(-68%).
47
4.4RelationshipsbetweenExperience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentThissectionpresentstherelationshipsbetweenreportsofexperiencing,witnessingandperpetrationofilltreatment.Figure4.4.1comparesthepercentagesreportedforeachilltreatmentitemexperienced,witnessedandperpetratedandshowsthatthereportofwitnessingilltreatmentishigherthanfortheconfirmedreportofitsexperienceforallitems.
Figure4.4.1:ComparisonofPercentageReportedforExperiencing,witnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatmentCorrelationsbetweenreportofexperiencing,witnessingandperpetrationarepresentedinTable4.4.1asSpearman’sRhovalues.Thetableshowsthatthatthosewhohaveexperiencedilltreatmenttendtoreportwitnessofit,withmediumtostrongpositivecorrelationsbetweenexperiencingandwitnessingforallitems(Spearman’srhovaluesfrom0.4to0.6;p<0.05).
7.2
8.0
19.5
11.3
5.0
19.4
13.2
10.7
6.9
6.0
10.1
16.4
8.4
5.3
7.0
9.2
15.0
10.4
7.1
2.2
1.6
14.7
17.6
29.3
20.2
9.3
24.6
18.3
21.4
12.3
17.9
18.3
21.9
17.7
8.5
13.2
13.5
20.9
14.5
10.5
4.3
3.3
3.0
2.7
6.9
3.9
1.8
4.2
3.3
3.0
1.7
2.0
2.7
3.0
3.6
1.4
1.8
2.6
3.7
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Someonewithholdinginformatonwhichaffectsperformance
Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence
Havingopinionsandviewsignored
Someonecontnuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary
Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareenttledto
Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines
Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures
Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace
Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectonwiththeirwork
Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegatonsmadeagainstothers
Insultngoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork
Beingtreatedinadisrespecvulorrudeway
Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup
Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob
Persistentcritcismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar
Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper
Intmidatngbehaviourfrompeopleatwork
Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork
Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork
Experienced
Witnessed
Perpetrated
48
Correlationswithreportingperpetrationwerenotasstrong,thosebetweenexperiencingandperpetrationofilltreatmentandbetweenwitnessingandperpetrationwerefrom0.1to0.2(Spearman’srho)butweresignificant(p<0.05)forallitemsexceptinjuryasaresultofviolenceatwork.Table4.4.1:CorrelationsbetweenExperiencing,WitnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatment
Illtreatmentitem ExperiencedxWitnessed
ExperiencedxPerpetrated
WitnessedxPerpetrated
Withheldinformationwhichaffectedsomeone’sperformance 0.436** 0.166** 0.226**
Putpressureonsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 0.431** 0.161** 0.225**
Ignoredopinionsandviewsofothers 0.509** 0.286** 0.276**
Continuallycheckeduponsomeone’sworkwhenitwasnotnecessary 0.485** 0.189** 0.179**
Putpressureonsomeonenottoclaimsomethingtheywereentitledto 0.469** 0.230** 0.287**
Givensomeoneanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 0.569** 0.188** 0.170**
Notfollowedproperproceduresintheworkplace 0.608** 0.249** 0.242**
Treatedsomeoneunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 0.400** 0.130** 0.168**
Humiliatedorridiculedsomeoneinconnectionwiththeirwork 0.461** 0.056* 0.143**
Spreadgossipandrumoursormadeallegationsagainstsomeone 0.267** 0.143** 0.181**
Insultedormadeoffensiveremarksaboutsomeone 0.352** 0.100** 0.245**
Treatedsomeoneinadisrespectfulorrudeway 0.530** 0.156** 0.231**
Excludedpeoplefromyourgroup 0.418** 0.155** 0.236**
Givenhintsorsignalstoothersthattheyshouldquittheirjob 0.391** 0.148** 0.140**
Persistentlycriticisedworkorperformancewhichwasunfair 0.338** 0.144** 0.116**
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 0.411** 0.245** 0.261**
Shoutedatorlostyourtemperwithsomeoneatwork 0.520** 0.214** 0.269**
Intimidatingbehaviourtopeopleatwork 0.392** 0.053* 0.132**
Madesomeonefeelthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 0.502** 0.160** 0.177**
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 0.545** 0.106** 0.193**
Injuredanyoneasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 0.543** 0.0072 0.044
ValuespresentedareSpearman’sRho;*significantat<0.05;**significantat<0.01
49
5ItemsFollowedUpThoseparticipantswhoreportedthreeormoreitemswereaskedfollow-upquestionsregardingtheperpetratorsandtheirperceivedreasonsforthebehaviourstheyhadexperienced.Wheremorethanthreeitemswerereported,thefollow-upitemswereselectedusingascoringsystem(seeAppendix1)basedonresponsestoQ1andQ4.Thescoringprioritisedviolentactsonthebasisthatthesewereconsideredmoreseriousincidents(Fevreetal.,2012)36.Datainthissectionwasthereforederivedfromrespondentswhoexperiencedmultipleformsofilltreatmentandthatwereconsideredtobeofthemostseriousform.Fevreetal.(2012)refertotheseindividualsasthetroubledminority.Theselecteditemswerethefocusofthreeroundsoffurtherquestionsregardingthegender,ethnicityandworkroleofperpetratorsandperceivedreasonsfortheexperienceoftheilltreatment.Thissectiontreatseachilltreatmentitemselectedbythisprocessasanindividualoccurrence.Factor-levelanalysesofitems,(Unreasonabletreatment,Incivilityanddisrespect,andViolenceandinjury)arepresentedasforprevioussections.Table5.1presentsthefactorlevelpercentages(unweighted)foritemsfollowedupineachofthethreeroundsofquestions.Table5.1:FactorLevelFrequenciesandPercentagesofItemsFollowedUpinEachRoundofQuestions
Unreasonablemanagement
%(n)
IncivilityorDisrespect
%(n)
ViolenceorInjury%(n)
Itemaskedabout1st 15.0(69) 75.9(350) 9.1(42)
Itemaskedabout2nd 33.2(153) 63.1(291) 3.7(17)
Itemaskedabout3rd 42.1(194) 57.9(267) 0.0(0)
Total 30.1(416) 65.7(908) 4.3(59)
Intotal461participantswereaskedfollow-upquestionsforthreereporteditemsofilltreatment,therefore1383itemswerefollowedup.Prioritisationoftheselectionofreportedviolenceorinjurymeanttheseitemshadbeenfollowedupbyround2ofthisprocess.
5.1PercentageofEachIllTreatmentItemFollowedUp
Table5.2presentspercentagesofeachilltreatmentitemfollowedupandwithineachitem,thepercentageofthoseresponsibleforthebehaviourbygender.Overallhigherpercentagesofmales(45%)thanfemales(28%)orbothmalesandfemales(26%)werereportedtobetheperpetratorsoftheilltreatmentexperienced.Atthefactorlevelunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjuryshowsignificantlydifferentpercentagedistributionsbygenderwithmoremalesperpetratingunreasonablemanagement(53%,p=0.01,chisquaretest)andmoreviolenceandinjuryperpetratedbybothmalesandfemales.Thedistributionofpercentagesforthelatterismainlyattributabletothe‘actualphysicalviolence’itemofthisfactorthatshowedasignificantlyhigherpercentageofbothmaleandfemaleperpetrators(48%,p=0.03,chisquaretest).However,ofnoteistheoverallperpetrationofthisbehaviourbymales,asthepercentagereportingonlymales(37%)asperpetratorsismorethantwicethatforonlyfemales(15%).Specificitemsdifferedinthegenderoftheperpetratorresponsible.Itemswithsignificantlyhigherpercentagesofmaleperpetratorswere:havingopinionsandviewsignored(males67%,p=0.03,chisquaretest)andfeelingthreatenedwhileatwork(males50%,p=0.02,chisquaretest).
36Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2012).TroubleatWork.BloomsburyAcademic:London,p31
50
Itemswithsignificantlyhigherpercentagesoffemaleperpetratorswere:spreadinggossipandrumours(71%,p=0.03,chisquaretest)andpeopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup(44%,p=0.03,chisquaretest).Table5.2:PercentageofIllTreatmentItemsFollowedUp,TotalandbyGender
Illtreatmentitemexperienced Total%
Genderofpersonresponsible
Male%
Female%
Both% p
Unreasonablemanagement 30.3 53.4 27.5 19.2 0.012
Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 2.1 31.3 50.0 18.8 0.145
Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 2.6 43.8 37.5 18.8 0.644
Havingopinionsandviewsignored 7.3 66.7 16.7 16.7 0.031
Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 3.3 55.0 30.0 15.0 0.476
Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 1.5 38.5 53.8 7.7 0.083
Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 5.6 57.9 18.4 23.7 0.236
Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 4.0 55.9 20.6 23.5 0.416
Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 3.9 50.0 27.8 22.2 0.896
Incivilityordisrespect 65.2 43.5 29.0 27.5 0.369
Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 4.0 61.5 26.9 11.5 0.147
Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 1.9 28.6 71.4 0.0 0.030
Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 3.4 35.7 28.6 35.7 0.690
Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 5.8 39.4 21.2 39.4 0.218
Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 4.8 25.0 44.4 30.6 0.028
Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 2.2 57.1 21.4 21.4 0.667
Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 3.1 37.5 37.5 25.0 0.690
Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 4.7 37.5 33.3 29.2 0.730
Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 15.1 45.7 28.3 26.0 0.990
Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 11.6 40.6 35.8 23.6 0.166
Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 8.6 50.0 17.6 32.4 0.027
Violenceorinjury 4.5 34.0 22.6 43.4 0.016
Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 2.6 37.0 14.8 48.1 0.029
Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 1.9 30.8 30.8 38.5 0.247
Total 45.4 28.2 26.4
p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest.Greyshadinghighlightssignificantrelationshipsbetweenthebehaviouritemsandgenderoftheperpetrator.
5.1.1RelationshipbetweentheGenderofthoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandtheGenderofReportedPerpetratorsTable5.3presentsthepercentageofthoseresponsibleforilltreatmentwithinaspecificgenderbythegenderofthepersonexperiencingit(instanceswherebothgenderswerereportedasbeingresponsiblewerenotincludedinthisanalysis).Nearlyequalpercentagesoffollow-upcasesweremaleorfemale;however,thoseresponsiblefortheirilltreatmentwere8timesmorelikelytobeofthesamegenderasthepersonexperiencingit.Thispatternheldacrossthedifferentill-treatmentfactorsbutwasnotstatisticallysignificantlyforviolenceorinjury.
51
Table5.3:PercentageofThoseResponsibleforIllTreatmentwithinaSpecificGender,byGenderofthePersonExperiencingtheBehaviour
Genderofthepersonresponsible
Genderofthepersonexperiencingtheilltreatment
Male%
Female% chi p OR(95%CI)
Total
Male 67.1 32.9
116.3 <0.001 8.1(5.4-21.1)Female 20.1 79.9
Total 49.0 51.0
Unreasonablemanagement
Male 69.6 30.426.3 <0.001 6.4(3.0-13.4)
Female 26.4 73.6
IncivilityanddisrespectMale 66.8 33.2
89.0 <0.001 9.9(5.9-16.5)Female 16.9 83.1
ViolenceandinjuryMale 55.6 44.4
2.7 0.098 3.75(0.8-18.6)Female 25.0 75.0
5.1.2RelationshipbetweenEthnicityofThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandEthnicityofReportedPerpetratorsTable5.4presentstherelationshipbetweentheethnicityoftheindividualexperiencingilltreatmentandtheethnicityofthereportedperpetrator.Ofthosefollowedup,15.5%wereofnon-whiteethnicity,slightlyaboverepresentationofthisgroupinthetotalsample.Apatternsimilartothatforgenderwasfound:theperpetratorswere6timesmorelikelytobeofasimilarethnicbackgroundtothosetheyill-treat.Table5.4:EthnicityofPerpetratorbyEthnicityofthePersonExperiencingtheIllTreatment Ethnicityofpersonexperiencingtheilltreatment
Ethnicityoftheperpetrator White%
Allotherethnicities
%chi p OR(95%CI)
Total 84.5 15.5
White 85.4 14.624.228 <0.001 6.4(2.8-14.7)
Allotherethnicities 47.8 52.2
5.1.3PerceivedReasonsforIllTreatmentThosewhoseexperienceswerefollowedupwerepresentedwitharangeofpotentialreasonsforwhytheilltreatmenthadoccurred.Table5.5presentsthepercentagesthatreportedthesereasonsamongthosewhoexperiencedbehaviourswithineachill-treatmentfactor.Distributionsofpercentagesforeachill-treatmentfactorsreportingornotreportingtheperceivedreasonsforthebehaviourweretested(chisquared).Wheresignificantrelationshipswerefoundhigherpercentageswerereportedfortheperceivedreasonmainlyamongthosewhohadexperiencedviolence.Aslightlyhigherpercentage,however,wasfoundamongthoseexperiencingincivilityordisrespectthatthoughtthereasonwasduetotheperpetrator’sattitudeorpersonality(41%).Significantlyhigherpercentagesforperceivedreasonsforexperiencingviolencewerefor:it’sjustthewaythingsare(68%),peoplehaveacliqueorgroupfromwhichyouareexcluded(17%)theraceorskincolourofthepersonexperiencingthebehaviour(16%),theirgender(13%),theirnationality(13%),theiraccentofwheretheylive(8%)beingsingledoutorpickedon(8%),longtermillness(3%),orsomethingelsenotalreadyspecified(18%).
52
Table5.5:PercentageReportingReasonsforExperiencedIllTreatment
PerceivedreasonforilltreatmentUnreasonablemanagement
%
Incivility%
Violence%
Total% chi p
Yourpositionintheorganisation 21.90 22.40 20.30 22.10 0.15 0.927
It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork 37.40 40.00 68.30 40.50 21.01 <0.001
Yourperformanceatwork 9.80 10.80 6.80 10.20 1.10 0.578
Theattitudeorpersonalityoftheotherperson(s) 26.80 41.10 40.00 36.70 24.25 <0.001
People’srelationshipsatwork(e.g.favouritism) 11.80 16.50 18.00 15.10 5.09 0.078
Peoplehaveagrouporcliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit 5.80 15.70 16.90 12.70 25.29 <0.001
Yourage 4.60 5.80 6.70 5.40 0.94 0.626
Yourgender 2.00 5.40 13.30 4.80 17.34 <0.001
Yournationality 3.50 9.90 13.30 8.00 17.34 <0.001
Yourreligion 0.50 2.00 3.40 1.60 5.12 0.077
Yourrace,ethnicgroupand/orcolourofskin 3.00 7.70 16.40 6.60 19.74 <0.001
Yoursexualorientation(e.g.gay,straight,lesbian,bi-sexualetc.) 0.00 0.50 1.60 0.40 4.25 0.120
Yourdisability 0.00 0.10 1.60 0.10 9.55 0.008
Yourlong-termillnessorotherhealthproblems 0.70 0.20 3.20 0.50 10.56 0.005
Yourunionmembership 1.00 0.70 3.20 0.90 4.26 0.119
Yourphysicalappearanceorthewayyoudress 2.00 3.80 4.80 3.30 3.14 0.208
Youbeingpregnant/yourfamilyorcaringresponsibilitiesormaritalstatus 1.50 1.00 0.00 1.20 1.23 0.540
Youraccentorthewayyouspeak,addressorwhereyoulive,orsocialclass
2.20 6.30 8.10 5.10 10.27 0.006
Somethingelseaboutyou(e.g.yougetsingledout,yougetpickedon) 1.50 4.00 8.30 3.50 9.64 0.008
Somethingelsenotalreadyspecified 5.50 4.60 18.30 5.50 20.35 <0.001
pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest.Greyshadinghighlightssignificantrelationshipsbetweenthebehaviourfactorexperiencedandtheperceivedreason.
Otherreportedreasons,notalreadyspecifiedonthequestionnaire,areshowninTable5.6bytheilltreatmentexperienced.Table5.6:OtherReportedReasonsforIllTreatment
Behaviourexperienced Perceivedreason
Someonewithholdinginformation,whichaffectsperformance.
Asalreadystatedreceptionnotpassingonnamesofpeopleenquiringaboutnew/second-handcars
Coworkerwasjustlazyandinvoiceswerenotcoded
Shewasundertrainedanddidnotrealisetheinformationwasimportant
Volumeofworkload
Pressurefromsomeoneelsetodoworkbelowyourlevelofcompetence.
AonceoffincidentIamafullyqualifiedcareassistantandIwasaskedtodokitchenwashupastheywereshortstaffed,Irefusedandthatwasit.Iamacarsalespersonmanagementwantedmetodopaperworkfornew/second-handcarsaswell.Accountsresponsibility
Pressurefromsomeoneelsenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightyouareentitledto
Workload
Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines
Bosswantedtheaccountsdonebyanearlierdatethannormal
Itstodowithbellcurvesystemofrating
Refused(verypersonal)
Thingscangetextremelybusyatwork,hecticattimesandwehavetoworkreallyhardtomeetourdeadlines
53
Behaviourexperienced Perceivedreason
Youremployernotfollowingproperprocedures
Againbadscaffoldingandshortcuts
EmployernotfollowingHealthandSafetyrules
Health&Safetyissuesmainly,duringthesilageseasonhealthandsafetynon-existent.
MainlyHealth&Safetyissuesnopropermasksincarsprayingarea
Notdiscussable
Supervisorcuttingcornerstokeepproductionnumbersup
Supervisornotfollowingsafetyprocedures
Supervisoroverworked
Understaffing
Beingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersinyourworkplace Promotionopportunities.FeltlikeIwasoverlooked
Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwithyourwork
TheydidnotlikewhatIwastellingthem
Beinginsultedorhavingoffensiveremarksmadeaboutyou ClientattackedmesayingIinthejobthatIwassomethingspecialverbalabuse
Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway
ClientsgenerallyrudeintheJewellersshop
Peopleexcludingyoufromtheirgroup
Acoworkertookadisliketomeandrefusedtotalktomeforabout6monthssomethingIwassupposedtohavesaidaboutherwhichIdidnotIt’sakindofacceptedorganisationalbehaviour
Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemperwithyou
Clientslookingtosortoutproblems,getveryfrustrated
GuywasunderpressureandIwasn’tgivinghimtheanswerhesought
Itisjustthewaythingsareatwork,everyoneistoobusy,deadlineshavetobemet
Mybeingraisedinanindustrialschool
AfellowcoworkerandIjustdonotgeton
Olderpeoplelivinginthenursinghomearesometimesvulnerableandlosetheirpatience
PersonalityoftheotherpersonWe,theworkers,were(specificnationalitynamed),andthebosseswere(specificnationalitynamed),andtheydidn’ttreatuswell,theotherordinary(specificnationalitynamed)workersweretreatedmorefavourablyWorkpressuresituation
Workload,pressure,fatigue
Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork
Assistantmanagerwasnottotakinghisownresponsibilitiessodelayedtheorganisationalpriorities
Becausehedislikeswomen
Hospitalpsychiatricpatients
Beingonatemporarycontract
Stress,fatigue
ActualphysicalviolenceatworkClientswerepatients
Itspartofthejob
Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork
Challengingbehaviouroftheclientsatwork
Inthecourseofanarrestwasassaultedbyasuspect
Partofjobdealingwithviolentprisoners
Workwithchallengingbehaviourchildren
Table5.7presentsthelikelihood(oddsratios)ofperceivedreasonsforilltreatmentbeingreported.Whereunreasonablemanagementhadbeenexperienced,allsignificantspecifiedreasonswerelesslikelytohavebeenreportedwhencomparedtothosenotexperiencingthisill-treatmentfactor.
54
Table5.7:LikelihoodofPerceivedReasonforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced
PerceivedreasonfortheilltreatmentUnreasonablemanagementOR(95%CI)
IncivilityordisrespectOR(95%CI)
Violenceorinjury
OR(95%CI)
Yourpositionintheorganisation 1.0(0.7-1.3) 1.0(0.8-1.4) 0.9(0.5-1.7)
It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork 0.8(0.7-1.1) 0.9(0.7-1.2) 3.4(1.9-5.9)
Yourperformanceatwork 0.9(0.6-1.4) 1.2(0.8-1.7) 0.6(0.2-1.8)
Theattitudeorpersonalityoftheotherperson(s) 0.5(0.4-0.7) 1.7(1.4-2.2) 1.2(0.7-2.0)
People’srelationshipsatwork(e.g.favouritism) 0.7(0.5-1.0) 1.4(1.0-1.9) 1.2(0.6-2.4)
Peoplehaveagrouporcliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit 0.3(0.2-0.5) 2.4(1.6-3.6) 1.4(0.7-2.9)
Yourage 0.8(0.5-1.4) 1.2(0.7-2.0) 1.3(0.4-3.6)
Yourgender 0.3(0.2-0.7) 1.6(0.9-2.9) 3.4(1.5-7.5)
Yournationality 0.3(0.2-0.6) 2.2(1.3-3.5) 1.8(0.8-3.9)
Yourreligion 0.3(0.1-1.1) 2.3(0.8-6.8) 2.3(0.5-10.3)
Yourrace,ethnicgroupand/orcolourofskin 0.3(0.2-0.6) 1.7(1.0-2.8) 2.9(1.4-6.0)
Yoursexualorientation(e.g.gay,straight,lesbian,bi-sexualetc.) 0.7(0.7-0.7) 2.1(0.2-19.1) 5.2(0.6-47.5)
Yourdisability 0.7(0.7-0.7) 0.5(0.0-8.5) 20.9(1.3-337.4)
Yourlong-termillnessorotherhealthproblems 1.7(0.4-7.9) 0.2(0.0-1.1) 8.5(1.6-44.6)
Yourunionmembership 1.2(0.4-3.9) 0.5(0.2-1.6) 4.2(0.9-19.7)
Yourphysicalappearanceorthewayyoudress 0.5(0.2-1.1) 1.8(0.9-3.6) 1.5(0.5-5.1)
Youbeingpregnant/yourfamilyorcaringresponsibilitiesormaritalstatus 1.4(0.5-3.9) 0.7(0.3-1.9) 1.0(0.9-1.0)
Youraccentorthewayyouspeak,addressorwhereyoulive,orsocialclass 0.3(0.2-0.7) 2.1(1.2-3.9) 1.7(0.6-4.3)
Somethingelseaboutyou(e.g.yougetsingledout,yougetpickedon) 0.3(0.1-0.8) 1.9(0.9-3.8) 2.7(1.0-7.2)
Somethingelsenotalreadyspecified 1.0(0.6-1.7) 0.6(0.4-1.0) 4.4(2.2-8.8)
Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1
Incivilitywasmostlikelyreportedtobeduetoexclusionbyagrouporclique(2.4x).Othersignificantreasonsforincivilityweretheperpetrator’sattitudeorpersonality(1.7x),thenationalityofthepersonexperiencingthebehaviour(2.2x),theirethicgroup(1.7x),ortheiraccent,addressorsocialclass(2.1x).Havingalong-termillnessorhealthissuewaslesslikelytobeperceivedasareasonforincivility(-80%)butmorelikelytobeperceivedasareasonforviolence(8.5x).Othersignificantperceivedreasonsreportedforviolencewereit’sjustthewaythingsarewheretheindividualexperiencingtheilltreatmentworks(3.4x),theirgender(3.4x),andtheirethnicgroup(2.9x).Table5.8presentsthepercentagesofreportedworkplacerolesofperpetrators(superiors,coworkers,subordinates,clientsortheorganisation)amongthoseexperiencingbehaviourswithineachill-treatmentfactor.Forexampleoverall24.5%ofthosefollowedupreportedanemployerwastheperpetrator.Percentagesreportingasuperiorastheperpetratorwere29%amongthosewhoexperiencedunreasonablemanagement,23.5%amongthoseexperiencingincivilityand8.1%andamongthoseexperiencingviolence.Thepercentagesreportedinthetabledonotaddupto100,asonlypercentagesforthosereportingtheperpetratorrolearepresented(e.g.71%ofthoseexperiencingunreasonablemanagementdidnotreportthatasuperiorwasresponsible).Thetableshowsthatoverallthehighestpercentageoffollowedupilltreatmentitemswereperpetratedbysuperiors(25%)andthatlowerpercentagesofsubordinatesornotanindividualwerereportedamongeachill-treatmentfactor.Therewere,however,significantdifferencesinthetypeofilltreatmentperpetratedbysuperiors/employers,co-workersandclients.
55
Table5.8:RoleofPerpetratorbyIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced
Roleofperpetrator Unreasonablemanagement
Incivilityanddisrespect
Violenceandinjury Total Chi p
Employer,supervisor(s)orlinemanager(s),seniormanager(s) 29.1 23.5 8.1 24.5 14.197 0.001
Co-worker(s),colleague(s) 12.6 18.9 6.5 16.4 12.966 0.002
Subordinate(s)orpeopleinlowerpositions 2.9 2.6 0.0 2.6 1.826 0.401
Client(s),customer(s) 1.9 17.2 71.0 15.0 211.034 <0.001
Notanindividual(i.e.theorganisation) 1.0 0.3 1.6 0.6 3.092 0.213
p=pvaluefromChisquaretestThehighestpercentageamongthosewhohadexperiencedunreasonablemanagementreportedthatsuperiorswereresponsible(29%).Thehighestpercentageamongthoseexperiencingincivilityreportedthatco-workersandclientswereresponsibleandthehighestpercentageamongthoseexperiencingviolencereportedthatclientswereresponsible.Table5.9showshowmuchmorelikelythoseinthevariousworkrolesperpetratedill-treatmentfactors.Unreasonablemanagementwassignificantlymorelikelytobereportedasbeingperpetratedbysuperiors(1.4x)andlesslikelybyco-workers(-30%)andclients(-90%).Incivilityanddisrespectwasmorelikelyfromco-workers(1.7x)andclients(1.7x).Violencewasmorelikelyfromclients(17.3x)butlesslikelyfromsuperiors(-70%)andco-workers(-70%).Table5.9:LikelihoodofPerpetratorRoleforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced
RoleofperpetratorUnreasonablemanagementOR(95%CI)
IncivilityanddisrespectOR(95%CI)
Violenceandinjury
OR(95%CI)
Employer,supervisor(s)orline-manager(s),seniormanager(s) 1.4(1.1-1.8) 0.9(0.7-1.1) 0.3(0.1-0.7)
Co-worker(s),colleague(s) 0.7(0.5-0.9) 1.7(1.3-2.4) 0.3(0.1-0.9)
Subordinate(s)orpeopleinlowerpositions 1.2(0.6-2.5) 1.0(0.5-2.1) 1.0(1.0-1.0)
Client(s),customer(s) 0.1(0.0-0.2) 1.7(1.2-2.4) 17.3(9.8-30.7)
Notanindividual(i.e.theorganisation) 2.3(0.6-9.3) 0.3(0.1-1.3) 3.0(0.4-25.1)
Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1
56
6EducationalSessions
6.1IntroductionTwoworkshopstookplace:thefirstinCorkonOctober5thandthesecondinGalwayonOctober19th.ParticipantsattheworkshopinCorknumbered27,whileinGalwaytherewasatotalof26participants.AwiderangeoforganisationswererepresentedateachincludingtheHSE,TradesUnions,Universities,CountyCouncilsandcharitableorganisations,andalsoIOSHmembers.Thoseattendingoccupieddiverseroles,forexampleTeamLeaders,ManagersandHRManagers,aswellasHealthandSafetyManagers.
6.2RecruitmentProcessParticipantswererecruitedviaanumberofchannels,summarisedbelow.Asrecipientsmayhaveforwardednotificationoftheevent,itisnotpossibletoprovideanoverallfigureforthefullreachoftheinvite.
• TheAssociationforHealthPromotionIreland(APHI)circulatedtheworkshopflyerbye-mailto54membersaswellasthroughFacebookandTwitter.Thepostreached119peopleandonTwitterwasre-tweetedbyMarcellaCorcoranKennedy,MinisterofStateforHealthPromotion.
• AnadvertisementwasruninHealthandSafetyReview.• LocalCountyCouncilHRandHealthandSafetyManagerswerecontacted.• Ms.NoritaRobinsonofIOSHcirculatedflyertoIOSHstaffandalsosentto16membersonIOSHIreland
SouthCommitteeandAdultEducationCentreUCC.• TheCharteredInstituteforPersonnelandDevelopment(CIPD)werecontactedandinformationwas
forwardedittoCIPDregionalcontactsandfurthersenttoindividualmembers.• TheSAOLTAHospitalGroupsSeniorManagementandregionalCIPDcontactcirculatedinformation.• TheIrishCongressofTradeUnions(ICTU)circulatedinformationto70individualmembers,57Trade
Unionsand32TradeCouncils.• HSEHealthPromotionCorkcirculatedto11HPstaff.• NationalProjectManagerStaffHealth&WellbeingHSEcirculatedto5colleagues.• InformationwascirculatedtoGraduatesfromtheNUIGMSc/HDipOccupationalandEnvironmental
Health&Safetyprogramme,andtheMA/PDGinHealthPromotion.• Ms.PatriciaMurray(HSA)andmemberofthesteeringcommittee,sentinformationtoanumberof
contacts.
6.3AimsandObjectivesTheworkshopswereaimedatallemployeesincludingfrontlinestaff,managerial,humanresource,occupationalhealthandallthosewithaninterestinpromotingpositiveworkenvironments,cultureandhealth.Theaimoftheworkshopineachcasewastoengageemployeesincriticaldiscussionandidentifypotentialsolutionstoimproveworkplaceculture,employeewellbeingandperformanceinrespectofilltreatment.Theworkshopsprovidedanopportunityforresearchersandpractitionerstocometogetheranddiscussproblematicworkplacebehavioursandfindwaystocreatepositiveworkingenvironments.Therewasafocusondiscussionandnetworkingasameanstoformconcreterecommendationstoimprovecurrentpracticeswithintheworkplace.
57
6.4WorkshopStructureThestructureofthedaywasdevisedbytheProjectteamwithaviewtomaximisingtheinputfromallparticipants.Therewasaformalelementintheformofpresentationsfromexpertsinthefield.ThefirstoftwopresentationswasmadebyPatriciaMurray,PsychologistwiththeHealthandSafetyAuthority(HSA).TherethenfollowedinformationanddiscussiononpreliminaryresearchfindingsbyDr.PatriciaMannixMcNamaraandDr.SarahMacCurtainoftheUniversityofLimerick.PatriciaMurrayfromtheHSAbeganbygivingsomeperspectivesfromthefieldaboutherexperienceswithreportedincidentsofilltreatmentandbullyingintheworkplace,followedbyanopendiscussionaboutthetypesofbehavioursthatmaybeconstruedasilltreatmentorbullyingbehaviour,thecreationofapositiveworkclimateandthelegalobligationsforemployersinrelationtoreportedincidentsofbullyingandhowsuchincidentsmightbestbehandled.Therewassubstantialinputfromparticipants,particularlyinrelationtoexactlywhatconstitutesbullyingandhowbesttodealwithscenarioswhereemployeesperceivedilltreatment.Therefollowedthenapresentationwhichexploredthefindingsofresearch,bothrecentIrishsurveysin2001and2007,andalsointernationalresearch.Prevalenceofbullyingwasdiscussedaswellaslinksbetweenbullyingandstressandhealth.Thedifficultiesforthosewhowitnesssuchtreatmentwerealsohighlighted.Inordertotakefulladvantageofthewiderangeofperspectivesdiscussionwasencouragedthroughoutbothpresentations.Thediscussionraisedquestionsabouthowtodevelopandmaintainapositiveworkclimateandhowcommunicationandcivilityarekeytoestablishingapositiveclimateintheworkplace.Thepresentationswerefollowedbyadiscussioninbreak-outgroups.Eachgroupwasgivenareallifeexampleofilltreatmenttoexamineandaskedtoidentifyproblemsandproposesolutions.Reportsfromthebreak-outgroupsraisedmanyissues,suchastheimportanceofgoodcommunication,andclarityregardingjobroles,aswellasthepotentialofemployeeperformancereviewstoenhancecommunicationforallparties.Otherissuesraisedincludedthesubjectivenatureofhowindividualsperceiveeventsandtheneedforclearpoliciesaroundissuessuchasbullying.Mediationwasalsoexploredasapossiblesolution.Theimportanceofmindingone’smentalhealthwasalsohighlighted.Stresswasexplainedasafactorthatcanchangebehaviourandactasapossiblecauseoferraticorproblematicbehavioursatwork.Beginningwithabriefexplanationonthebenefitsofmindfulnessforrelievingstress,participantsweretakenthroughsomebasicmindfulnessexercisesbymindfulnesscoachMs.OrlaithO’Sullivan.Theworkshopconcludedwithparticipantsbeingprovidedwithsomerecommendationsastohowtoapproachreportedincidentsofbullyingintheworkplace,againgivinganopportunitytoalltocontribute.Thesessionconcludedwithalightlunchwhereparticipantshadanopportunitytonetworkandcontinuediscussionsonissuesraised.
6.5FeedbackInordertoinformthedevelopmentoffutureworkshopsandeducationalsessions,participantsweresentafeedbackform.Onthewhole,feedbackwasextremelypositiveandrespondentsstressedthattheyhadfoundtheworkshopsextremelybeneficial.Theformwascomprisedofthreesections.Thefirstdealtwithinsightsthatweregainedthatmaybeimplementedinpractice.Thesecondreferredtothemainstrengthsoftheworkshopand,finally,recommendationsweresoughtastohowtheformatandthecontentoftheworkshopmaybeimprovedupon.Intermsofnewinsightsintotheareaofworkplacebehaviour,manyparticipantsreferredtotheimportanceofcivilityandthefactthatinappropriateworkplacebehaviourrepresentsapreventablecauseofworkplacestress.Manyalsostatedthattheyfelttheyhadgainedabetterunderstandingoftheprocessnecessarytodealwithallegationsofbullyingandwaystoavertproblems.Anumberofparticipantsalsomentionedthattheyhadnotpreviouslyconsideredthestressesforthirdpartieswhowitnessbullying.
58
Itwasfoundthatthemainstrengthsoftheworkshopincludedbringingresearchersandpractitionerstogethertodiscussthetopicinapracticalmanner.Thegroupworksessionwasfoundtobemostilluminatingduetotheuseofreallifeincidentsandthepresenterswerecommendedbothfortheirknowledgeandpassionaroundthesubject,andalsofortheiropenandhoneststyleofdelivery,whichallowedforplentyofinterestingdiscussion.Feedbackontheworkshopswasresoundinglypositive.Themaincriticismrelatedtolackoftime,inparticulararoundthediscussionofthecasestudies.Itwasalsostatedthatmoretimecouldhavebeengiventotherecommendationsforpreventinganddealingwithbadbehaviour.Forsome,moretimecouldhavebeenallocatedtothewaysinwhichapositiveworkplaceclimatecanbefosteredandlessontheissueofworkplacebullying.Ingeneral,itwasfeltthatthisissuchanimportanttopicthatmoretimeisneededforadeeperexplorationoftheissuesthatwereraised.
6.6AttendeesAsummaryoforganisationsandjobrolesofattendeesforbothworkshopsisprovidedbelow:AttendeesCorkWorkshop5thOctober2016:OrganisationsandJobRoles
Company PositionRepresentativeBody BusinessDevelopmentPharmaceuticalCompany SafetyQualityExcellenceLeadPharmaceuticalCompany SafetyLeaderUniversity DepartmentManagerUniversity DepartmentManagerUniversityPartnershipBody HealthandSafetyOfficerUniversity ProjectManagerUniversity OnlineProgrammesCo-ordinatorUniversity AdministratorPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerRecruitmentFirm TechnicalConsultantPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerUniversity CareersAdvisorPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerUniversity StudentMPHProgrammeUniversity LanguageTutorTradeUnion OrganiserEducationDivisionRepresentativeBody RolenotgivenManufacturingFirm EHSOfficerConstructionFirm RegionalHSEManagerPublicSectorOrganisation HeadofNationalandSafetyFunctionUniversity OfficeAdminConstructionFirm RegionalHSEManagerUniversity PhDStudentUniversity MAHealthPromotionGraduateUniversity MAHealthPromotionGraduatePublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotion
59
AttendeesGalwayWorkshop19thOctober2016:OrganisationsandJobRolesCompany PositionTransportCompany EHSAdvisorSecurityCompany ManagingDirectorConstructionCompany HealthandSafetyManagerCharitableOrganisation StaffNurseCharitableOrganisation SocialWorkTeamLeaderCharitableOrganisation ManagerCharitableOrganisation CEOCharitableOrganisation CommunityCateringGovernmentDepartment HRManagerPublicSectorOrganisation StaffOfficer-HRSectionTrainingandEducationAgency TeacherTrainingandEducationAgency TeacherPublicSectorOrganisation HealthandSafetyInspectorPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerPublicSectorOrganisation DieticianPublication-H&S EditorTradeUnion OrganiserTradeUnion OrganiserTradeUnion DivisionalOrganiserUniversity LecturerPublicSectorOrganisation DataAnalystandProjectManagerPublicSectorOrganisation GroupDirectorHRPublicSectorOrganisation HRTradeUnion RepresentativePowerCompany HSEManagerPublicSectorOrganisation ProjectManager
60
7CaseStudyMethodologyThecasestudyphaseoftheprojectaimedtoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinkeysectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalentandwithasubstantialimpactonhealth,inordertoinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Thecasestudiesaimedtoidentifyrelevantpoliciesinplaceinthesampledorganisations(aspertheBWBS,theorganisationswerelargeorganisations(i.e.250-500employees),toexplorethepracticesthatderivefromandaroundthesepolicies,andtheimplementationofpoliciesontheground.
7.1SampleTimeconstraints,delayswithprocurementandanticipationofdifficultyengagingorganisationsincasestudiesinthecontextofausterityandthechallengesthishasbroughttoIrishworkplaces,meantthatitwasnotadvisabletoawaitthefullcompletionandanalysisofthesurveydatainordertoselectsectors.Instead,theresearchteamlookedtotheresultsoftheBWBSstudytoguidecasestudyselection.IntheBWBS,thepublicsectorwasclearlyatgreaterriskforbothviolenceandincivility,andthevoluntarysectorforviolence.Healthandsocialworkweresimilarlyathighriskforallthreetypesofilltreatment37.Therefore,itwasdecidedtopurposivelyidentifythreeorganisations,atleastonefromthepublicsector,atleastonevoluntaryorganisation,andatleastoneofthesebeingahealth/socialserviceprovider.MiningandquarryingcompanieswereexcludedbecauseofthesmallnumberofcompaniesinthissectorinIreland,whichwouldhavecompromisedanonymity,whileDefencewasavoidedonthebasisofthesectorbeinginvolvedinaworkplaceresearchprojectatthesametimeasthecurrentstudy.Inthiswaythreeorganisationswereidentifiedasfollows:
Sector Occupation/industry Pseudonym
1 Voluntary SocialCare VORG12 Public Administration PBS23 Public HealthCare STH3
7.2ProcedurePotentialorganisationswereidentifiedthroughtheprofessionalcontactsofmembersofthesteeringgroup.Amemberoftheresearchteamarrangedtomeetwithpersonnelfromeachorganisationinthefirstinstance.Theprojectwasoutlinedandiftheorganisationshowedwillingnesstoengage,commitmentrequirementsandbenefitswereoutlined,ineachcase,asfollows:Commitmentorthepartoftheorganisationto:
• Allowresearchteamtoissueanopeninvitationtostafftoparticipateinashortinterview,onavoluntarybasis,whereconfidentialitywouldbeassured
37SectorswithhighprevalenceintheBWBSwereasfollows:ViolenceandInjury:mostprevalentinthepublicsectorandVol/NGOsector;3timesgreaterthanaverageinhealthandsocialwork,twiceaverageinpublicadministrationanddefence.Incivility: most prevalent in public sector, public administration and defence, and health and social work. Industries with highest riskincludedhotelsandcatering,andminingandquarrying.Unreasonablemanagement:mostcommoninhealthandsocialwork,publicadministrationanddefence,alsomorecommonintheutilitiesandfinancialintermediation.
61
• Providingaccesstoatleastthreekeyinformants(e.g.CEO,seniormanagers,HR,TradeUnionrepresentatives)
• Providingcopiesofrelevantpolicies.Theresearchteamcommittedto:
• Providinganindividualcompanyreportalongwithspecificrecommendationstohelpimprovemorale,andpotentiallyreduceabsenteeismandincreaseoutput/productivity
• Ensuringthatneithertheorganisationnorindividualemployeeswouldbeidentifiable.Inthecaseofoneorganisation,abespokesurveywasrequestedforstaff,basedontheinstrumentemployedintheprojectsurvey.Thiswasagreedandresultsweregiventotheorganisation,withthesamecommitmenttoconfidentiality.Thetopicguideforinterviews(seeAppendix2)includedunderstandingofilltreatment,personalexperience,perceivedcausesofilltreatment,supportsavailable,outcomesofusesofpoliciesandprocedures,andideasforsolutions/improvementsinpractice.Therewereminorvariationsintheinterviewstructureforregularstaffandformembersofthemanagementteam.Staffmemberswhowereinterestedinbeinginterviewed,followingonopencallmadebytheresearchteam,(seeAppendix3)madedirectcontactwiththeresearcherconductingtheinterviews.Itwasagreedthatthosewhovolunteeredtobeinterviewedwouldbekeptconfidentialfromtheorganisation,thustheorganisationwouldnothaveanyinformationaboutwhomadecontactandwhosubsequentlypresentedforinterview.Allinterviewswereconductedinperson(face-to-face)andrecorded(withpermission).Audiotapeswerethentranscribedverbatim.
7.3ApproachtoAnalysisTheaimofthecasestudyphaseoftheIWBSwastoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinkeysectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalentinordertoinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Inductive,thematicanalysiswasundertaken.Transcriptswerereadandanyidentifyingdataremoved.Datasegmentswerecodedandthemessought,reviewedandnamed,foreachsetofinterviewsinaseparatesetofprocesses(i.e.threeseparateanalyseswereconducted).Thestudyobjectivesguidedthethematicanalysisalthoughresearchersalsoremainedopentotheemergenceofnovelorunexpectedthemes.
7.4PolicyAnalysis
Itiswell-establishedpractice,andindeedalegislativerequirementinsomecountries,tohaveaBullyingPreventionPolicyoraDignityatWorkpolicy.Variousguidesandspecificationsexisttoassistorganisationdeveloptheirpolicies.Basedonanumberofthesedocuments38,achecklistwasdevisedaspartoftheproject,whichwasthenusedtobenchmarkthepolicyenvironmentforthecasestudyorganisations.
38HealthandSafetyAuthority(2007)CodeofPracticeforEmployersandEmployeesonthePreventionandResolutionofBullyingatWork,Dublin:HealthandSafetyAuthority;Rayner,C.&Lewis,D.(2011).ManagingWorkplaceBullying:TheroleofPolicies.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.BullyingandHarrassmentintheWorkplace,DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice,London:TaylorandFrancis;Woodrow,C.&Guest,D.(2013).WhenGoodHRgetsBadResults:ExploringtheChallengeofHRImplementationintheCaseofBullying,HumanResourceManagementJournal,24(1)p38-56
62
8CaseStudy1:VORG1VORG1isanon-statutory,voluntaryorganisationthathasprovidedsocialcaresupportsandservicestoclientswhomexperienceawiderangeofdisabilities.Itprovidesservicesonbehalfofthestatutoryhealthservices,throughaformalserviceagreement.Theorganisationisregisteredcharity.GovernanceisundertakenbyaBoardofDirectorsthatincludeparentsandfriendsofserviceusers,andcommunityrepresentatives.TheCompanyDirectorsdelegatethemanagementoftheAssociation’saffairstotheExecutiveDirectorandtheManagementTeam,whichincludesaDirectorofServices,aFinancialController,andseniormanagersforvariousmanagementfunctions.Atthetimeofwriting,theorganisationemploysapproximately700peopleincludingclericalstaff,transportandmaintenancestaff,andprofessionalstaffincludingcareworkers(threegrades)andspecialisedtherapiststaff.Theorganisationalsofacilitatesalargevolunteerprogramme,withastructuredfundraisingprogramme.Itisunderpinnedbyavaluebasethatincludedworkinginpartnershipwithfamilies,voluntarism,continualqualityimprovementandequityofaccessinrespectofservicedelivery.Theorganisationhasaclearcommitmenttotheprincipleofclientcenteredness.TheCommunityandVoluntarysectorisIrelandisalargeandvibrantsector.Ithastraditionallyandcontinuestomakesasignificantcontributiontothedeliveryofhealthandsocialservicesinmanyregions.VORG1wasoneoftheorganisationsthatwouldhaveevolvedfromcharity-basedmodelinthe1960stoaparticipationandempowermentmodelinthe1970sand1980s.Thesectorhasbeenchallengedlately,inrespectofbothfundingallocationsthroughouttherecessionandmediaexposureofpocketsofpoorpractice.Fundingforthesectorisestimatedtohavedroppedbyupto29%andthesectorhasborneadisproportionateburdenofthenationalrequirementforfinancialreadjustment.39Financialreportingformanyorganisationsinthesectorhasnotbeenfullyregulatedinthepast,andasaresultofrecentexposuresofunusuallyhighsalariesforexecutivesinasmallnumberofcharities,aCharitiesRegulationActhasbeensignedintolaw.Regulationinrespectofqualityofcare,hasalsobeensomewhatlimited,andanumberofmediaexposesofsubstandardcareanddisempoweringpracticeshavealertedpolicymakerstotheneedforregularinspectionandtransparentreporting.VORG1hasnotbeenbroughtintodisreputeinrelationtoeithersalariesorcarestandards,butnonethelesshastoprovideservicesinthecontextofageneralchangeinexpectation,trustanddemandfromclientfamiliesacrossthecountry.
8.1PolicyandProcedureVORG1,asaregisteredcharityandserviceproviderisboundbystatutorylegislationandregulation.Ithasacoherentandtransparentpolicyportfolio,numbering80documents,addressinghumanresourceprocedures,financialregulationandsafeguardsforstaffandserviceusers.Ofrelevancetothepreventionandmanagementofilltreatment,thereisa‘DignityatWork’policy,disciplinaryprocedures,proceduresforgrievances,managinginvestigationsandanEAP.Thesefivepolicieswereconsideredagainstthechecklistforgoodpractice(seeTable8.1).Fromthisitcanbeseenthattheorganisationiscompliantwithstatutoryregulation,andtherelevantpolicy,inparticularthe‘DignityatWork’policydemonstratesareasonablyhighlevelofadherencetogoodpractice.
39Harvey,D.(2012).DownsizingtheCommunitySector.ChangesinEmploymentandServicesintheVoluntaryandCommunitySectorinIreland20018-2012.IrishCongressofTradeUnions,CommunitySectorCommittee
63
Table8.1:VORG1Policy
Policyshould…DignityatWork EAP Grievance
ProcedureManaging
InvestigationsDisciplinaryProcedure
Becreatedinconsultationwithtradeunionsand/oremployeerepresentatives
ü Notexplicitlystated.ReferenceismadetoEAPStandardsandProfessionalGuidelines(2003)
?40 ? ?
Employsimple,direct,unambiguouslanguageandisasshortaspossible
22pageslong ü ü 35pageslong ü
Be‘owned’byresponsibleperson(e.g.signedorpersonwithresponsibilityforthepolicynamed)
Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesit.Itisnotstatedifthepolicyisownedbyanypersonorunit
Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesit.Itisnotstatedifthepolicyisownedbyanypersonorunit
Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesitbutisnotclearlyownedbyanyonepersonorunit
Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesitbutisnotclearlyownedbyanyonepersonorunit
Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesitbutisnotclearlyownedbyanyonepersonorunit
Containadeclarationofcommitmenttopreventionofharmduetobullyingandrelatedilltreatment
ü û û Employerresponsibilitiesareoutlined,howeverbullyingandrelatedilltreatmentarenotdirectlycited
û
Containadeclarationofunderstandingand/orcommitmenttotherighttobeingtreatedwithdignityatwork
ü û û ü û
Containadeclarationofnon-toleranceofbullyingbyallthefollowingparties:employees,clients,customersorsub-contractors
ü û û û û
Containadeclarationofnon-toleranceofbullyingbyallthefollowingparties:employees,clients,customersorsub-contractors
ü û û û û
PolicylinkedtoorreferencedwithintheSafetyStatementandlinksexplainedwithotherrelevantpolicies(e.g.CodeofConduct
û û û
û
û
Outlinerelativeresponsibilities:-Employerresponsibilityforprotectionfromharm-Responsibilityofallemployeestobecivilandcourteousintheirdailywork-Responsibilityoftradeunionstoparticipateinimplementationofpracticesandprocedures,andthroughprovidingadviceandinformationtomembers
ü BullyingnotreferredtodirectlyResponsibilityoftheorganisation,managers,employeeandfamilymembersareoutlinedinrelationtotheEAPprocessRoleoftradeunionsarenotreferredtoinpolicy.ResponsibilityofEAPproviderisoutlined
ResponsibilityoftheorganisationandsupervisorsindicatedwithinthepolicyinrelationtogrievancesBullyingisnotdirectlyreferencedRoleoftradeunionsnotoutlinedinpolicy
Responsibilityoftheorganisation,managers,investigationteamandemployeesoutlinedRoleoftradeunionsnotoutlinedinpolicy
Responsibilityoftheorganisation,supervisors,andemployeesindicatedwithinthepolicyinrelationtodisciplinarymattersBullyingisnotdirectlyreferencedRoleoftradeunionsnotoutlinedinpolicy
DescribeswhatismeantbyBullying,includinganon-exhaustivelistofexamples
ü û û û No,examplesofgrossmisconductarelistedwhichincludesbullying
40Notstated
64
Policyshould…DignityatWork EAP Grievance
ProcedureManaging
InvestigationsDisciplinaryProcedure
Setoutcomplaintsprocedure,compliantwithnationalcodeofpractice,includingtheinformalandformalprocedures(ifboth),rightstorepresentation,acommitmenttofollowingthroughtoresolutionComplaintsprocedureshouldbeclear,easytofollow,includesflowcharts,formsortemplatesthatfacilitatestaffandpromptkeyinformation
ü ü ü ü ü
Givetimeframesforthestagesofprocedure,asaservice-levelagreement(e.g.investigationwithinXofreceivingcomplaint)
Itisstatedthateveryeffortwillbemadetoexpediteprocessasspeedilyandconfidentiallyaspossible.Sometimeframesgivenwithinformalprocedureoutline,andstatementaboutfurthertimeframesgivenonceinvestigatorappointed
Onlyindicatedfordiscipline-relatedmatters
ü ü Yes,statesthatatallstages,disciplinaryproceedingswillbecompletedasquicklyasiscompatiblewiththeneedtoensurejusticeisdoneandseentobedone
Makeexplicittherespectofconfidentiality
ü ü û
ü
ü
Listtheoutcomesforcomplaints,includingifthecomplaintisdeemedvexatious
ü û û ü û
Extendtoworkoffsiteandwork-relatedsocialevents
û û û û û
Containadeclarationofthecommitmenttotheprotectionofcomplainantsfromvictimisation
ü û Notrelevanttopolicy Notexplicitlystated.Referencetoprotecteddisclosuresofinformationintheworkplace
Notrelevanttopolicy
BeyondPolicy…
Systematicdatamonitoring(absencedata,exitdata,regularengagementandhealthsurveys,whichaskaboutbullyingbehaviours,trainingoffer,attendanceandevaluationdata)
û û û û
û
MakingsureBullyingisaskedaboutinexitinterviews
û û û û û
Havingaprocessforre-buildingworkplacerelations
û û û û û
8.2InterviewsInterviewssetouttoexplorehowtheterm‘illtreatment’wasunderstoodandwhatkindofconversationsfollowedtheuseofthisterm.Intheanalysisattentionwasdirectedtowardwhatworkers’experienceswereinrelationtoimplementationissues,themanagementofilltreatmentandwhethernewandimprovedsolutionsorideasfortheorganisationwouldbeidentified.Threeopencallsweremadetoinvitestafftomeetaresearcherforinterview,atleast20%ofwhichwouldbewithmanagement.
65
Sevenstaffintotalcameforwardandparticipatedininterviews.Fourweremembersofmanagement(MM).Threeintervieweeswereserviceproviders(SP).Twointervieweesweremale.Allwerepermanentlyemployed.Theaverageinterviewlengthwas40minutes(seeTable8.2).Allintervieweeswereprovidedwithpseudonymstoensureconfidentialityandforeaseofanalysis.Table8.2:VORG1InterviewParticipants
Interviewnumber Gender Role/level Pseudonym YearswithORG DurationofInterview
1 F ServiceProvider Vera 18 33mins
2 M ServiceProvider Victor 23 34mins
3 F Management Veronica 30 38mins
4 F Management Valerie 30 35mins
5 F ServiceProvider Vanessa 15 47mins
6 M Management Vincent 30 53mins
7 F Management Violet 1 39mins
Theoverallthrustoftheinterviewdatawasthattheorganisationhasacommitmenttoprotectingemployeesfromilltreatmentandnoflagrantexamplesofseriousilltreatment,forexample,intimidationorpredatorybullying,weredescribedoralludedto.However,therewereissuesinrelationtoworkingrelationshipsandprotectionofstaff.Ideasregardingaddressingproblemsarepresentedinthethreethemesthatemergedinthedataanalysisasdiscussedbelow.‘Reluctancetomanage,reluctancetoreport’Astrongthemethroughoutthedatasetwashowilltreatmentrevolvedaroundmanagementdifficulties:managersnotmanagingwellandstaffbeingresistanttobeingmanaged.Whilethereweresomereferencestodifficultconversationstakingplace,therewerealsomanyreferencestoissuesthatwerenotdealtwithadequatelyoratall.Additionally,therewerereferencestostaffbeingreluctanttotakeill-treatmentissuesforwarddespitepolicycoverage.Mostoftheexamplesofilltreatmentgivenbytheinterviewees,eitherasaresultofdirectexperienceoraswitnessed,revolvedaroundthemanagementofstaff.Managerswhomwerepoorlysuitedtothetaskofmanagementandwhofailedtoeffectivelymanagestaff,ormanagerswhoweredisregardingoforganisationalpolicyandpracticeweredeemedtobemistreatingstaff.Bothlackofcompetenceandtheabuseofpowerwerebehindtheseexamplesofilltreatment.Referencewasmadetomanagersputtingpressureonstaffinwaysthatimpliedamisuseofpower,althoughthewordpowerwasrarelyusedintheinterviews.Victorwastheonlyparticipanttomakeanexplicitreferencetopower,althoughinaqualifiedmanner:Ihadsomethingplannedforanexternalevent…andamanagerrangmeandsaidI’dcomplicatedeverything,inmypreparation,butIactuallyhadn’t,itwasamatterofyesandno,itwasnothingcomplicatedaboutit.But,Iknowithasaffectedmeinthelastfewyearswiththesameindividual,sinceIstartedintheorganisation.It’snearlyapowerthing.I’mnearlyafraidtostepoutsidethebox(laughs)hopingIdon’tupsethim,becausehehastoomuchofthepower,ifyouknowwhatImean?(Victor,SP)Failuretomanageconflictbetweenstaff,rudeness,notlisteningandnottakingothers’opinionsonboardwerealsorecountedinthedata,andinterpretedasaweaknessonthepartofmanagerstodealprofessionallywithdifficultsituations.Itwasacknowledgedthatpeoplecanlackinsightintotheirownbehaviouranditisamanager’sjobto‘haveaconversation’withthemaboutthis.Itwasnotedthatoftentheseissueswerenotsurfaced,andconversationswereavoided.Thiswasdescribedas‘rumblingsofdiscontent’whichneverbecomeformalcomplaints.
66
Ithinktheyhidefromthedifficultsituations.Ithinktheyjustsortof,juststepbackalittlebit,someoneelse’sproblem…if,ifweleaveitlongenough,it’llgoaway…sortofthing,butitdoesn’t(Vanessa,SP)‘…it’s,it’s,it’skindof,thepeoplehaven’tbeenmanaged,intermsof,sotheirbehaviourhasprobablyescalatedandthey’rekindofmanagementissuesthatiftheyhadbeennippedinthebud…(Veronica,MM)Itwasconsideredthatilltreatmentwouldbebetteraddressedwithintheorganisationbyimprovedmanagementtechnique,andnotjustleavingthingstofesterortobeignored.Itwasalsoidentifiedthattherearestaffwhorefusedtobemanaged,whomweredescribedashaving‘strongpersonalities’anditwassuggestedthatthiscouldbestaffwhomhavebeenintheorganisationalongtimeandwerereluctanttochangetheirbehaviourfornewerstaffinmanagementpositions.Thepotentialalsofornewserviceproviderstobeisolatedandunsupportedinthesesituationswasacknowledged.Idofindthatpeoplearen’tbeingmanagedbecausethey’vegotavery,strongpersonality.Iotherwordstheywould,Idon’tknow,theywouldshout,‘union’straightawayorthey’dshout‘bullying’straightawayorthe,sothereforethenit’snearlylikethey’renotbeingmanagedthen,they’rejustsortofleftalittlebit,andnotpulledtotaskon,onthings,Ifindthataswell...,managershavingthe,thestrengthorthe,Idon’tknowthebetterwordbuttheballstosortof,managepeople.(Vanessa,SP)Veronicaplacesreluctancetomanageinthecontextofsmallstaffteamswherepeoplecanbeveryreluctanttoraiseissues.Manyoftheoutcomesofilltreatmentidentifiedbyintervieweesreferredtomovingstaffaroundtheorganisation,whichreinforcesthenotionthatthereisreluctancetomanagedifficultsituations.Managementstylewasdescribedasnotbeinginnovative,avoidanceofdealingwithconflictbeingduetolackofinnovationorimagination:…becausetraditionallymaybealotofmanagershavecomeupthroughthesystem,sothey’renowmanagingpeoplethattheystartedoffthesamedayworkingwith…andhavebuiltarelationshipwithsome…it’sverydifficulttomanage,somebodyyouhavearelationshipwithlike…(Vanessa,SP) Doyouknowwhat,Ithinkit’slackofinnovation,maybewehaven’tmovedon.Wehavepeople,maybemanagingit…andmaybethey’vebeenmanagingtoolongintheoneareaandiftheorganisationhasgottoobigforthatsortofmanagementstyle…itwasfinehavingalaissezfairestyletomanagementwhenyouhadonlyacoupleofhundredpeopleworkingintheorganisation,butwhenyouhaveagoodfewhundredpeopleworking…youknow,youcan’tkeepmanagingthewayyoumanagedtwentyyearsago…orthewayyouweretrained…they’restillmanagingonthebaseof,beingthereforsolong…(Victor,SP)Thereluctancetohavedifficultconversationsalsooccurredinthecontextofsickleave,andhowtoaddressworkabilitysituations.So,andthenagainit’saboutthemanagementstructureaboutsomebodysittinginwiththepersonandactuallyhavinganhonestandstraightforwardconversationinsteadofleavingit100%uptothepersontodecideareyougoingtocomeintoworkornot…(Vanessa,SP)Valerierecountedasituationinwhichtheorganisationletastaffmembergoduetoinabilitytowork,whichwhilenotseenasanexampleofilltreatmentinitself,becameamanifestationofilltreatmentbecause‘wehadignoredtheproblemfortoolong’.Butnotonlyweremanagersreluctanttoreportandconfrontilltreatment,staffwerealsounwillingtoexposenegativebehavioursandexperiencesasrecommendedinthepolicies.Therewereanumberofreferencesinthedatasettopeoplebeingfearfulofreportingilltreatment,asitwasanticipatedthatthesituationwouldonlyworsen.Althoughfearwasnotgenerallyprominentinthedata,whenitwasmentioned,itwasinthecontextofreportingasuperiorandwasmentionedprincipallybyserviceproviders:
67
Ifyoucomplainaboutasenior,theymightrattleyourwagonataseniorlevelandyou’dbe,itisn’tworthyourwhile!…you’dfindthatstaffwouldneverreportitagainbecause,look,itwouldnearlyturnfullcircleonthem…(Victor,SP)Wehavehadtrainingeventsarounddignityatworkandthings…wherestaffhavebeenverycandidandsaidtheywouldn’treportanythingbecauseitcomesbacktothem,iftheydo.(Vera,SP)Fearofsayingthewrongthingtothewrongpersonatthewrongtime.(Victor,SP)Veronica,asamemberofmanagement,alsoobserved‘thefearfactorthatpeoplehave‘inreportingilltreatment.‘Overpolicedyetunderprotected’Itwasagreedbyallintervieweesthatpolicywasplentiful.Policywasseentobebroadlyspeaking,accessible,theretoprovidenecessarysafeguards,anddescribedashavingbeendevisedinpartnershipwithtradeunions.However,thecommentsaboutpolicywerenotwhollypositive.AccessibilitywasdescribedbyVincentinthefollowingway:‘it’sallonline…youknow,there’sno,there’snothinghidden…allofthepoliciesareoutthere,anybodycanreadthem’andbyVeraasreadilyaccessibleasitwasall‘ontheinternet’.Thesenseisgivenherethattheonusisonstafftofindpolicyandreaditperhapsretroactively,whensituationsoccur.ThiswasreinforcedbyVictor’scomment:…youknow,alotofpeoplewouldsaythat,oh,theyquotedthepolicytomewhenIwentin,yet,noonehadmentioneditbeforeIwentin…ormaybewhenImadethemistake.Thepolicyistakenoutthen,toproveapoint,andyoumightbethen,jeez,isthat,isthatinthepolicy?Ineverknewit,doyouknow?(laughs).Akeydifficultywithpolicywasthatitdoesnotaddressalltheissuesthatstaffconfront,andthequantityofpolicymaymaskthis.Valeriepointsout‘Nowwe’vethreemassivefoldersofprocedures…we’re,we’reabitheavyonprocedures,yeah’whileVictorrefersto‘policieswithinpolicies’,andacerbicallycommentsthat‘staffarenearlyburntoutreadingpolicies’.Healsousestheterm‘overpolicied’.Victorusesthistermtorefertotheuseofpoliciesinsituationswheretheydomoreharmthangood,forexample:…it,it’shardtoquantifyinapeopleorganisation,wherewe’redealingwithpeople…doyouknow,some,someoftheissuesthatIhearstaffonaboutare,are,disciplinaryissuesor,someonehasmadeacomplaint…itmightn’tbe,but,itmightbejustthewaytheytalkedaboutsomeone,buttheymightn’thavemeantanythinginit…andthentheyhavetoprovetheirinnocence.Sothat’squitehardforstaffinourbusinessbecauseallittakesissomeonetosay,ohIdidn’tlikethewayMarytalkedtoJohn…thatcouldbeaninvestigatoryprocedure.Nextthingyoucouldbesuspendedduringthatinvestigatoryprocedure…you’resuspendedtoprotectyouasastaffright?Butitdoesn’t,everybodyintheorganisationknowsyou’reoff…(laughs)…doyouknow,andthey,likethey,theyhavemaybeconfidentiality,eventhoughit’stheretoacertaindegree,itisn’tbecause,Iknowthestaffthatareoff,everybodyelseknows,youknow,so…(Victor,SP)Yetallstaffunderinvestigationmaynotbesuspended,asidentifiedbyVeronica.Sheraisestheissueoftensioninworkingwithstaffwhileinvestigationswereon-going:…processesarelonganddrawnoutaswell.Youknow?Andthen,amIexpectedtoworkbesidethisperson,soifIhaveraisedaconcernaboutthemorifIhavetohaveaconversationwiththemandIhavetocomebackoutandworkwiththemstraightaway,you’reinverycloseproximity,andyourelyonyourcolleaguesverymuch,particularlyifyou’reworkingwithchallengingbehaviour,thattheyhaveyourback.So,so,youknowhavingatenseatmosphere.AlthoughcontrastingwithVictor’saccount,itechoesconcernshereregardingtheapplicationofpolicytosituationswhicharenotstraightforward,andinvolvingperceptionsandinterpretationswhichimpingeonon-
68
goingrelationshipsbetweenstaffmembers.Veronicaalsoexpressesconcernaboutdifficultiessuchasoccurindisputes,wherebothpartiesinevitablyseethemselvestoberight,andthereforesomeonefeels‘wronged’followingintervention,whatevertheoutcome.Theimplementationofpoliciesmayfailtoprotectbecausetheyfailtoacknowledgethecomplexityofhumaninterpersonalbehaviourandhowitoperatesinthecontextofahierarchicalpowerbasedorganisation.Iwouldsaypeoplearenever100%satisfiedunlesstheygetexactlywhattheywant.Soyou’vetwopartiesinanissue…andyou’renotgoingtohavebothpartiessatisfied…somebodywillfeelharddoneby,somebodywillfeelupset...(Veronica,MM)Therewasonecleargapinpolicycoverage,highlightedinseveralinterviews:Butwehavenothinginplacetoprotectstaffthatare…,ifthere’sanallegationmadeaboutemployeesfromparentsorfamilies,wehavenothingthere.Wehaveloadsofstufftoprotecttheorganisation…andloadsofstufftoprotecttheserviceuserbutwe’venothingtoprotectusasastaff.(Victor,SP)Anumberofintervieweesrecountedincidentsinwhichstaffwereshoutedatorabusedbyfamilymembers.WhileVeraclaimsitistakenwith‘apinchofsalt’,shealsodescribestheincidentsinquitegraphicterms:We’vehad,we’vehadanumberofincidentswithquiteabusivefamilies…thatmayhavebeenquiteverballyabusive…andslanderousnearly…toanumberofstaff,andthereisnocomebackforthat…one,whojustmadetotallyoffthewallremarks,anditwas,itwasjustabsolutely…itwas,bonkerskindastuff,butImean,youcantakeitinyourstridesometimes…(Vera,SP)Veraalsoacknowledgesthateventhoughstaffcantrytotakethebehaviourofindividualsintheirstride,thiskindofabusemayhaveanegativeimpactonhowstaffareperceivedinthecommunity,andthereisnoprotectionfromdamagetoreputation.BothValerieandVioletrecountthestressinvolvedinsuchincidents:Nomatterwhatwedoit’sjustnotthereandthefamilyarecomplainingtoeveryavenuethereis,becausewhattheywantisn’tsomethingthatthegovernmentwouldstandover,…everythingiswrongallthetimeandit’sjustverydifficulttoworkwith…becauseyoucan’t,am,theyabsolutelywanttherightthingfortheirpersonbutam,itjustgetssowoundupandnotworkingwithyou.Soit’sallthatbuildup…that’s,thatyoufeel,ohmygodyou’resostressedbyitso…Wellyou’dfeelvulnerable…yeah,you’dfeelquitevulnerable.(Valerie,MM)WhenIwashavingcontactwiththemother,shewasgettingreallyfrustrated…,howshecameacrosstome,youknow,quiteoftenshe’dbeshouting,havearaisedvoice…shewouldbe,picking,youknow,everyone,everyonecanhave,youknow,everyone’sgoingtocriticisethings…andthere’salwaysgoingtobeissues.Butyouknow,really,really,pickingatverysmallthings…andthenshoutingaboutthoseissues.And,whenIsayshoutinglike,Imeanlike,therewouldbearaisedvoiceand,youknowareallyraisedvoiceandshewouldmaybehaveherhandsintheair,youknow…shewasreallyreallyangryaboutthisandshewasshoutingatmeaboutit…atonepointIwaskindof,kneelingdownjustto,topickup…andshewaskindofleaningovermeandshouting(laughs)…andIactually,Iactuallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme,that’showangryshewas.Am,Iwasactually,reallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme…am,butthatwasprobablythe,theworstofthatsituationreally.(Violet,MM)TheresponsefromseniormanagementwhenVioletraisedthisissuewasto:...(give)meafewpointersbutIfeltthattheirpointersitwasquite,quitekindofhardtofollowcausetheywouldsaylook,ifshegets,ifshegetslikethatjustsayI’mnotyouknow,wecan’tspeakwhenit’slike,whenyou’re,whenyouragitated…sotheybasicallytoldmetoleaveifshewasgettinglikethat,whichIactuallyfoundquite,quitedifficulttodo.’‘Returntocorevaluestomoveforward’Theneedtoacknowledgestaffandtheirworkwasraisedattimesintheinterviews.Victorfeltforexamplethat:
69
Weneedtodoanawfullotmore,bridgebuildingwithstaffandgoodvaluesthatcomeintoworkand,acknowledgeit,somepeoplethatareinmyworkfortwentyorthirtyyearsandthey’venoqualificationatall,andyet,they’reprobablythebestworkerswehave,andwedon’tacknowledgethatgoodenough…Hegoesontocommentontheneedtoreaffirmcorevalues:Peopleshouldbevaluedfirst…youknow,ahandworkfromthere.NowIknowit’shard,thestructurewhereyouhavepeoplecomingalotandpeoplearemakingaccusationsandstufflikethat…butifthere’satrust,doyouknow,ourheadofficeis,it’ssupposedtobeacommunitybasedthing,butyouneedasecuritypasstogetintoit,youknow…soit’slike,liketheprincipal’sofficeyouknow…Weneedtomoveawayfromthat.Relatedly,improvedrelationshipbuildingandsupportwereseentobeimportantinthecontextofaddressingilltreatment:Idon’tthinkthere’senoughoftimespentonbuildingrelationships…really,withintheorganisation(Vanessa,SP),Yougetmoreoutofpeople,youknowiftheyfeel,intheirtimeofneedyou’regoingtosupportthem(Vincent,MM)Theneedforacultureshiftaroundmanagerialresponsibilitywasidentifiedbytwoofthemanagersandthatthiscouldbeachievedthroughtraining.Opennessandtransparencyaroundreportingunacceptablebehaviourwasdiscussed,andplacedinthecontextofrespect.Veronicasumsthisupasfollows:Youknow,thehammeringhometherespectandthefocusonthewelfareofyouremployees……right?….solookingat,youknow,whatisacceptableinanorganisationandthatbeingveryopenandvery,youknow,clearandunderstandingthatifsomethingisreportedoris,isobserved,thatit’sdealtwithandnotjustleftthere….Andsometimes,likeIsaytopeople,you’renotgoingtolikeeverybodyyouworkwith.Butyou’vegottorespecttheirroleandworkthroughthat,OK,youdon’thavetobetheirbestfriendandyoudon’thavetoworkwiththemout,I’mnotaskingyoutogotothepubwiththem,I’mnotaskingyoutobetheirbestfriend.ButIamaskingthatyouwouldconductyourselfprofessionallyintheworkplace,andmakesurethatyourbehaviourisnotgoingtoimpactanyofyourcolleaguesorourserviceusersthatarearoundyou.
70
9CaseStudy2:PBS2PBS2isapublicserviceorganisationthatprovideslocalgovernment,administrationandarangeofservices.Itconsistsofelectedmembersandpaidstaffnumbering1,200,whomworkacross5functionsordivisions.TheorganisationconsistsofoneCEOwho,withamanagementteamoften,isexpectedtoimplementpolicyaslaiddownbylocallyelectedrepresentatives.PBS2isoneof31suchorganisations,atthetimeofwriting.TheCEOandthemanagementteamoperateunderthesupervisionofelectedmembers,andareanswerabletotheelectedmembers.Awiderangeofprofessional,technicalandadministrativestaffareemployedbyPBS2,includingindoorandoutdoorworkers.
9.1PolicyandProcedurePBS2isboundbystatutorylegislationandregulations.Withregardtothepreventionandmanagementofilltreatment,thereisa‘DignityatWork’policy,disciplinaryprocedure,procedureforgrievances,codeofconduct,procedureformanagementofwork-relatedstressandanEAP.Thesesevenpolicieswereconsideredagainstthechecklistforgoodpractice(seeTable9.1).Table9.1:PBS2Policy
Policyshould…
DignityatWork EAP Grievance
ProcedureCodeofConduct
ManagementofWork-
relatedStress
DisciplinaryProcedure
Becreatedinconsultationwithtradeunionsand/oremployeerepresentatives
û ?41 ? û ? ?
Employsimple,direct,unambiguouslanguageandisasshortaspossible
ü ü ü 20pageslong
ü 14pageslong
Be‘owned’byresponsibleperson(e.g.signedorpersonwithresponsibilityforthepolicynamed)
û û û û ResponsibilityfortheprovisionofthepolicyisattributedtotheHealthandSafetyTechnicalWorkingGroup
û
Containadeclarationofcommitmenttopreventionofharmduetobullyingandrelatedilltreatment
ü û û û No,butbullyingisidentifiedasastressor
û
Containadeclarationofunderstandingand/orcommitmenttotherighttobeingtreatedwithdignityatwork
ü û û û û û
Containadeclarationofnon-toleranceofbullyingbyallthefollowingparties:employees,clients,customersorsub-contractors
ü û û û No,howeverbullyingandharassmentidentifiedaskeyhazardsassociatedwithwork-relatedstress
No,howeverphysicalviolence,serioussexualharassmentandbullyingidentifiedasexamplesofgrossmisconduct
PolicylinkedtoorreferencedwithintheSafetyStatementandlinksexplainedwithotherrelevantpolicies(e.g.CodeofConduct
Linkedtodisciplinaryprocedure
û Linkedtodisciplinaryprocedure
Linkedwithlegislationandothercodesofpractice
Linkedwithlegislation,codesofpractice,standardsandguidancedocuments
û
Outlinerelativeresponsibilities:-Employerresponsibilityforprotectionfromharm-Responsibilityofallemployeestobecivilandcourteousintheirdailywork-Responsibilityoftradeunionstoparticipateinimplementationofpracticesandprocedures,andthroughprovidingadviceandinformationtomembers
ü Bullyingnotreferredtodirectly
Responsibilityofmanagementandstaffformaintainingworkingrelationshipsismentioned
Responsibilityofmanagementandstaffformaintainingworkingrelationshipsismentioned
ResponsibilityofDirectors,LineManagers,Supervisorsandemployeesclearlyoutlined
Responsibilityoftheorganisation,supervisors,andemployeesareindicatedwithinthepolicyinrelationtodisciplinarymatters
DescribeswhatismeantbyBullying,includinganon-exhaustivelistofexamples
ü û û û û No,examplesofgrossmisconductlistedwhichincludesbullying
41Notstated
71
Policyshould…
DignityatWork EAP Grievance
ProcedureCodeofConduct
ManagementofWork-
relatedStress
DisciplinaryProcedure
Setoutcomplaintsprocedure,compliantwithnationalcodeofpractice,includingtheinformalandformalprocedures,rightstorepresentation,acommitmenttofollowingthroughtoresolutionComplaintsprocedureshouldbeclear,easytofollow,includesflowcharts,formsortemplatesthatfacilitatestaffandpromptkeyinformation
ü û
ü û û ü
Givetimeframesforthestagesofprocedure,asaservice-levelagreement(e.g.investigationwithinXofreceivingcomplaint)
Thepolicynotesthatinvestigationswillbeundertakenpromptly
û ü û û OnlyclearlystatedinSection8:Appeals
Makeexplicittherespectofconfidentiality
ü ü û
û û û
Listtheoutcomesforcomplaints,includingifthecomplaintisdeemedvexatious
ü û û û û û
Extendtoworkoffsiteandwork-relatedsocialevents
û û û ü û û
Containadeclarationofthecommitmenttotheprotectionofcomplainantsfromvictimisation
ü û û û û û
BeyondPolicy…
Trainingformanagersandsupervisorsthatincludesdiscussionofpolicyimplementation
û û û û ü û
Reviewandupdateofpoliciesandprocedures
û û û û ü û
Systematicdatamonitoring(absencedata,exitdata,regularengagementandhealthsurveys,whichaskaboutbullyingbehaviours,trainingoffer,attendanceandevaluationdata)
û û û û û û
MakingsureBullyingisaskedaboutinexitinterviews
û û û û û û
Havingaprocessforre-buildingworkplacerelations
Notdirectlyaddressed,butstatespeoplemaybetransferredafteraninvestigation,ifdeemednecessary
û û û û û
9.2InterviewsEleveninterviewswereundertakeninPBS2,followingthreecallstoparticipate.Fourwerewithmembersofmanagement(threeofwhichwereHR),fourwereProfessional/TechnicalstaffandthreewereinAdministration.Fiveintervieweeswerewomen.Oneparticipantwasaunionrepresentative.Allwerepermanentstaff.Interviewdurationrangedfrom20minutesto41minutes(SeeTable9.2).Pseudonymsareemployedforeaseofpresentation,withroleintheorganisation42.
42 MM=Management
PT=ProfessionalorTechnicalAC=Administration/Clerical
72
Table9.2:PBS2InterviewParticipants
Interviewnumber Gender Level/role Pseudonym Yearswith
organisation43 DurationofInterview
1 F Administration/Clerical Pamela - 41mins
2 M Professional/Technical Paddy 8 29mins
3 M Professional/Technical Paul 23 39mins
4 M Professional/Technical Philip 16 40mins
5 F Administration/Clerical Peggy 10 34mins
6 M Professional/Technical Pete 35 33mins
7 F Administration/Clerical Priscilla 8 20mins
8 M Management Pearse - 34mins
9 F Management Patsy 30 30mins
10 M Management Phelim 20 39mins
11 F Management Penny - 34mins
Allelevenparticipantshadnodifficultydescribingilltreatmentintheworkplace.Interpersonalilltreatmentsuchasverbalabuse,beingaggressivevocally,rudeness,forexamplehangingupthephoneoncallersandshoutinginemails,wereallcatalogued.Physicalviolenceandintimidationwasacknowledgedasilltreatment,withsomeparticipantswitnessingsuchbehaviours.Directpredatorybullyingwasalsomentioned,interpretedasanabuseofpositionsofauthority.Participantsalsorecognisedwork-relatedilltreatment,forexamplebeingpassedoverforpromotion,nothavingajobdescription,notbeinggiventasksappropriatetoskills,underminingpeers,unreasonablesupervision,andwithholdinginformation.Withoneexception,allparticipantsperceivedilltreatmenttobeveryprevalent,evennormalised,inPBS2.Threethemesweredevelopedfrominteractionwiththedata,andaredescribedbelow.‘Culture:Demi-Godsandspinningtops’Allparticipantseitherexplicitlymentionedoralludedtothecultureintheorganisationwhentalkingaboutilltreatment.Thecultureoftheorganisationwasseentobeanimportantdeterminantofthepracticeregardingexposuretobothbullyingandincivilityandhowitisrespondedto.Anautocraticcultureofconformityandobediencewasobserved,seentobeoutdatedandpunitive.ItisdescribedbyPriscillainthefollowingway:...it’ssortofaveryantiquatedwayofmanagingstructure.Andit’svery...likeIdothinktheyhaveanawfullotofpower…Idothinkthatthereisaverykindofold-fashionedwayofthinkingthatyouaretalkeddowntoandit’sveryhierarchical.Andifyouareinapositionofmanagement,youareseenasademi-godalmostandthatyoucandowhatyouwantbasically.(Priscilla,AC)Thecultureoftheorganisationwasnotgenerallydescribedinpositiveterms,althoughtherewerereferencestoachangeinmanagementandawelcomechangeinculture.Culturewasseentobefundamentalinexplaininghowandwhyilltreatmentwasaproblemintheorganisation.Theautocraticcultureincludedinaction,bystandernon-interventionandunaccountabilityandwasseentobedysfunctional,insofarasitwasdrivenbyobedienceandconformityratherthanfunctionandutility.Penny,arelativelynewmemberofthemanagementteam,describesitasanadolescentculture,characterisedbypersonallydirectednegativebehaviourandahighlevelofmistrust.Participantsdescribedhowsituationsthatinvolvedbullyingorincivilitywerenotreportedand‘putupwith’,orleftfortoolong.Manyreferencesweremadetomattersnotaddressedatall,ornotaddressedinanyvisibleoracceptablewayfromtheperspectiveoftheseparticipants.Pennyclaimsthattheproceduresmaybeokbuther
43Yearswithorganisationomittedfromtableduetoeitherissueswithrecordingorriskofidentifyingparticipant
73
concernis‘thatweonlyinvokethematthelastpoint’.Paddyforexamplecommentedonthetendencytowardinactionandthepotentialtodamagetothetarget:
It’smorenot...it’snotovert,it’sallcovertand…it’sinaction.Sobytheveryfactthatyou’renotactingmeansyouare...you’re...somebodyisbeingharmedbythewholeinaction.Inabilitytogetthingsdoneandthere’snosenseofproactive‘let’sgetinthereandsortthisoutbeforeitbecomes...’,there’snoneofthat.Theywaituntilitgetssoextreme.(Paddy,PT)OthersinterpretedtheperceivedtendencyonthepartofHRtoblamethetargetwhenbringingmatterstotheirattentionasevidenceofavoidance;inotherwordsareluctancetonameandholdaccountableallegedbullies:Sotheydon’twanttodealwiththeissue.Theydon’twanttotakeonsortofabullyortryingtodealwiththat.Sotheywilljust...theywillbasicallymaketheemployeefeelthattheyareatfaultratherthantheactualpersonwhoreallyisatfault.(Peggy,AC)
AndIthinkHRareinadifficultpositionaswell,becausetheyhaveto,youknow,theydon’twanttodealwithissueseither.And,youknow,thereisalsoamentalitytherewhereyou’reluckytohaveajobandyoujustkeepshtum.There’samentalityacrosstheboardthatveryoftenit’sthepersonistheproblem.Thatreally,you’rejustoverreactingand,youknow,yourviewofitiswrong,it’s...you’remakingitintoabiggerdealthanitis.EvenHRwantsyoutodumbitdownaswell.(Pamela,AC)
Thiswasreinforcedinthemanagementinterviews,withoneHRmanagerforexamplesaying:
…andI’dbesaying‘Butwhatdoyouwant?Andifyouwantthistostopyouhavetotakeownershipofit’andIthink...that’soneofthebiggestchallengesbecausepeoplecometoHRandthey’dsay‘I’mbeingbulliedbymylinemanager,IwantittostopandIwantyoutodosomethingaboutit’andtherecanbeamisunderstandingthereofwhatourroleisandwhattheirresponsibilityis.(Patsy,MM)
Anothermemberofmanagementpointedoutthattherearetwosidestoeveryincident,althoughconcededthatthepersonwhoisfeelingit(thetarget)isusuallymorelikelytosufferinsilence.Philip,whileacknowledgingthecultureofinaction,alsoacknowledgedwelcomechangeinthisrespect,andtheimportanceofleadershipfromthetopinrelationtocultureandculturalchange:
Sothereforeifthereisanincidentandifyouaskforittobeinvestigatedyouarecompletelyignored.That’swhyIsay(newmanager)isthemostimportantpersonIhaveevermet...thefirstpersoninXyearstoturnaroundandsay’I’lllookafterthis,Iwillinvestigateit’(Philip,PT)
Thereluctanceofotherstointervenewassymptomaticoftheautocraticculture.Pamelareportsanincidentthatlasted40minutesinwhichacolleagueshoutedather,inthehearingofatleastnineothers.Sherecallsthatsomepeoplelefttheoffice,ratherthanlisten,andthosethatstayeddidnotintervene.Sheinterpretsthisaspeoplenotknowingwhattheproceduresarewhen‘senior’peoplebehaveinanegativeway.However,alessbenignviewistakenbyotherparticipants,whoperceivethisasanunspokenunderstandingthatseniormanagementareuntouchable.ThiscomesupinPaddy’sinterview,inwhichherecountsanincidentinwhichaseniorstaffmemberwasfoundtohavebeenguiltyofilltreatinganotherstaffmember,butthemorejuniormemberwasmovedandtheseniormanagerwasnot:
…theymovedthealtarboynotthepriestasitwere.SothemanwastransferredoutandtheguywasleftthereThat’sthewayitwas,itwas...becausethisguywasatahigherlevel,theguythatwasdoingtheabuseandwasdoingandfoundguiltytobedoingit,hewasleftasisbecauseitwasmanagementstandingupformanagement...(Paddy,PT)
74
Therewasawidespreadviewacrossthedata,includingmembersofmanagementinterviewed,thatthereasonfornonorminimalinterventionisthatbullyingisnottakenseriouslybytheorganisation.Pamela’sexperienceincludedbeingtoldthatmatterwas‘dealtwith’afterashortconversationinwhichshecouldseeherseniorslaughing.Inthisrespecttheorganisationwasseentohavenomoralcompass,andnowillingnesstotakeseriouslynegativebehaviours,especiallywhenenactedbyseniorstaff.Peggydescribesthe‘promotion’oftheDignityatworkpolicyasajoke:
TheyhavethisDignityatWorkPolicyandtheyhaveaposteruponthewallbutImeanalotofuskindofthinkthat’sabitofajokebecausetheyclearlyweren’ttakingitseriously,particularlywiththatindividualthatwasthere,youknowitwaskindofwell-knownaboutthebullying.Alotofpeoplefeltyouknowthatwasn’t...basicallytheydon’ttakethemseriously.Theydothingsbecausetheyhavetodoorbylegallyorthey’vesigneduptosomething.Ohyeahbutinrealitytheydon’t,Idon’tthinktheytakethemseriouslyatall.(Peggy,AC)
BothPennyandPauldescribeaggressiveinteractionsasnormalised,meetingswheremanagersareapparentlynotreprimandedforshoutingatoneanotherorbehavinginanintimidatingmanner,andageneralacceptanceofunderminingandcriticalbehaviours,thatareinconsistentwithpolicy:
Buttheproblemisthatyouhavealotofbehaviourinbetweenwherepeople...anorganisationseesitasokay.Soit’sokaytoactivelyunderminesomebodyelse’swork.It’sokaytospeakverynegativelyaboutkindoflet’ssaytheChiefExecutive/seniormanagement,openlyspeakingnegativelyaboutthemonanalmostpersonallevel.YouknowImeankindof...andyetyoukindofgobutthat’snotinkeepingwithdignityatwork.(Penny,MM)
TheunaccountabilityinmanagementwasdescribedbyPaddyaspartofalargerdysfunctionality.Inthiswaybullyingproblemswerenot‘just’aproblematicstrandwithinarelativelybenignadministrationbutembeddedintheveryfabricoftheorganisation.Theorganisationwasseentobeinwardlyfocusedandobsessedwithpowerandrank,makingilltreatmentinevitable,astheorganisationexiststoservetheinterestsofapowerfulfewattheexpenseofmany.Asubculturewasdescribedin‘thatsaysyoudon’tdoitbecauseyou’regoingtoscupperyourchancesofanyformof...becauseyou’rerockingtheboat,that’sthewholething.You’renotgoingtodothat;you’renotgoingtorocktheboat’accordingtoPaddy.Hegoestoexpandtothenatureofdysfunctionintheorganisation:
…soIwoulddescribemostofthesituationthatgoesonthereaslikeaspinningtop.Theykeepthemselvesgoingaroundanditallkindofworksinsomesortofdysfunctionalfashion,itkeepsgoingaround,it’swobbling,it’swobbling,itdoesn’tachieveanything,performancetothepublicdoesn’timprove,itjustworksforitself.Itjustexistsforitself,that’swhathappens.
...you’reonlyconcernedaboutkeepinginwiththoseabovebecauseyourchancesareit’sallaboutpromotion…it’sallaboutpromotion.Whatwillgetyoupromoted?There’salotofpeoplethat,likeiftheycanreachacertaingradebythetimetheyretireorwhateverorwithin10yearsofretirementthey’resortedbutthere’salotofpeoplethenthatarebelowthelinethataren’tsortedandthosepeoplearealwayslookingtogetuptoalevel…Onceyou’reatthatlevel,you’resorted,youhaveagoodpensionandthat’sallpeopleareinterestedin…Theissueisgettingyourselfintoapositionwhereyou’recomfortableandthenyouknowyou’regoingtoretirewell.That’sallitis.(Paddy,PT)
Thisissummedupasaculturewherepowerandstatustakeprecedenceoverfunctionandutility.WhilePaddywasparticularlyvocalonthetopicofculture,hewasnotaloneinviewingtheinwardfocusoftheorganisationasdeeplyproblematic.ForPhilipitisanorganisationwithneither‘moralcourage’nor‘moralcompass’,whilePetesumsuplifeinPBS2:‘Youhavetokindofdowhatyouaretoldandkeepunderthethumb.Don’taskanyquestionsevenifyouknowit’swrong’.
I’mstilltryingtounderstandit.Ithinkpartlyit’sthecultureoftheorganisation.Ithasaverystrangeculture,thisorganisation,itisaverycontradictoryculture,soontheonehandthereisalotofwrittenrulesandontheother
75
handwhenit’snot...likethere’snoimplementationofthemalmost.Sothatwe’rehighlyregulatedbutnoimplementation,youkindofgosoit’sapretenceatregulation.(Penny,MM)
‘Theskilledmanagerhavingtheskilledconversation’Asecondthemeemergingfromthedatawastheneedforearlyandproactiveintervention.Thiscameuppredominately,butnotexclusively,intheinterviewswithmembersofmanagement.Participantsrecognisedtheneedtoaddressmattersveryearlyintheprocessandwerestronglysupportiveofthenotionthattrainingformanagersisneededindealingeffectivelywithilltreatment.Phelimsumsupthisidea,stating:
I’mabigsupporterofdignityatworkbutthemoreI’minthisjobthemoreIrealisethesolutiontoallthesethingsisatthebaseandgetdowntothecorelevel.Ifthereisrumblingsinaworkplace,staffsupervisorsneedtobeenabledtodealwiththem,theyneedtoknowthatthere’ssupportsavailablethroughtheirownchainofcommand,throughHR,andifsomethingisgoingwrongitneedstobefedbackquicklyandifpeopleareunsurehowtodealwithittheyneedtogetproperadvices.Lettingsomethingfestercausessignificantdifficultylaterandsometimeswhenitgetstothestageofbeingdealtwithitthereisalotofbadfeelingthereandveryhardtodealwithit.I’mmovingbacksignificantlyfromtheinvestigationtypescenario...Hegoesontosay:I’mnotnaiveenoughtothinkwe’llnipeverythinginthebud…Ifyoucoulddealwithsomethingasclosetosourceaspossiblethatisthebestchanceofasolutionandthebestchanceoffixingit.WehadoneortwotherelatelywherewehaveendeavouredtogetthembacktosourceandIfeeltheyareunderfarmorecontrolnow…(Phelim,MM)Phelimalsoadvocateduseoftheinformalprocess,noting(somewhatincontrasttotheprofessionalandadministrativestaff)thatthepeoplelistedasinformalcontactsareapproachable,andcanofferadviceandoutlineoptionswhichcanhavetheeffectofdiffusingmatterswithoutrequiringthetargettogivetoomuchinformation.Pennytoo,arguedfortheuseoftheinformalprocess:
…itwasaveryquickincidentbutthatseemedtocauseagreatdealofupset...butsomethingweresolvedlocallywiththetwopeopleinvolved.Imetwiththemseparatelyandthen(namesanotherstaffmemberfromHRhere)andImetwiththemtogetherandtheykindoffeltthattheydidbothwanttoresolveitandsothey’restillintheworkareabut...wedid(dealwithitinformally)andwediditrelativelyquicklyIsupposeaswell.(Penny,MM)Managerswereseentobekeyinensuringappropriateresponsetoilltreatment,includingearlyintervention,somethingthathasbeenlackingintheorganisationbutappearstobechanging.Pamela,reflectingonwhyinheropinionilltreatmentiscommonplaceintheorganisation,seeslackofmanagementtraininginthisregardasapossiblereason.Phelimconcurs,clearlyidentifyingtheneedfortraining:Itcouldbebecausethepeoplewhogotpromotedgotpromotedatatimewheretheymightn’thavehadgoodmanagementskills.Thereisverymuch,youknow,Ialwayswonderhowdothesepeoplegetthejobsbecausethey’veverypoorcommunicationskills.They’ve(laughs)verylittlemanagementskills.SoI’mlike,it’sliketheKitKatad,it’slike,youknow,youcan’tsing,youcan’tdance,you’llgoalongway.Whatdotheyhavetoofferbecause…?So,Idon’tknow,wasitjustbeingattherightplaceattherighttime,knowingtherightpeople?Andaveryclosedshop.Idon’tknow.I’dlovetofindouttheanswertothat.ButIdon’tknowiftheyhavethepropermanagementtraining.(Pamela,AC)Weneedtodosupervisorydevelopmenttrainingforstaff.WeneedtodotraininginIthinkmanagementindealingwithdifficultiesintheworkplaceandweneedtoenablepeople.(Phelim,MM)
76
Penny,too,recognisesthatthereisgreaterneedformanagementtraining,butnotjusttraininginleading‘thedifficultconversation’.Shesuggeststhattrainingmanagerscanpotentiallypreventtensionsarisinginthefirstplace,canfocusonsupportingstaffandcreatingapositiveworkingenvironment,wheredignityatworkisareality.
‘Youcan’tunringarungbell’Thethirdthemetoemergefromthedatawastherecognitionofthefactthatilltreatment,inparticularpredatorybullying,isinherentlyproblematicinthecontextofworkplaces.AcceptingthatitcantaketimeandcouragetoraiseanissuewithHR(informallyorformally)aboutacolleague,thatthetargetmaywellbeinfearof,theproceduresthenmustallowfortheallegedperpetratortorespond.Forthetarget,thisisahighriskstrategy,yetthereisnoalternative.Althoughthiscanhappenwithboththeinformalandformalprocess,thefeelingintheinterviewsthattheformalprocessisqualitativelydifferent,orasPearsedescribesit‘adifferentsortofballgamealtogether’.Patsyoutlinesthissituation:
ButalsoitwouldbelookingandsayingifIamgoingtoattempttoresolvethisorsupportyoutoresolveitthiswillrequiremegoingtoyourlinemanager,whatisyourlinemanagerlikelytotellme,right,because...andagainit’sgoingbacktotheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandfairness,thelinemanager,maybethroughaninformalprocessoraformalprocess,ifthesestatementsorallegationsorjudgementsareplacedathimtheyhavearighttocomebackanddefendtheirgoodnameaswellandweallhavethat.(Patsy,MM)
Participantscouldseethattherewasatensionbetweentheprincipleofnaturaljusticeandtheintentunderpinningtheinformalandformalprocedurestoprotectworkersfromilltreatment.Theprocessisunavoidablyadversarialandaccordingtotheparticipantsfrommanagement‘therearenowinners’.Littlehoweverwasofferedbywayofanalternativesetofprocedures,althoughPhelimdidcallforgreaterawarenessthatone’sactionscanhaveanegativeeffect.Hedoesacknowledgethatmicropoliticsmightintersectwiththeprocedures:
…justbecausetheindividualdoesn’tperceiveitasbeingadversarialandthattheyareonlydefendingtheircorneritcausessignificantdifficultyandsometimesalotoftheproblemisthepeopletheyaretakingadvicesfromarewhatIwouldcalleggingthemonandthere’sanelementoftryingtosettlethescoreandgetsomeoneelsetosettleitforyousometimesaswellwhichisabitofaproblem.(Phelim,MM)
PaddytoodescribesthesamescenarioasPatsy,butislesssanguine,seeingthedifficultieshereinrelationtobalanceandequityasawayofaddinginsulttoinjury,andactingasdeterrenttousingtheprocedures,asstaffalreadyfeelwrongedorilltreated.ForPaddy,thereisnothingnaturalorjustaboutthis:
Theyhavethewholedocumentonbullyingintheworkplaceandeverythingissaidandeverythingthereandtheyhavethedocumentbutlowandbehold,thatdocumentcouldbeusedtohityouovertheheadifyou’reavictimbecauseifyou’resaying...suddenlyitbecomes‘everybody’sequalhere,theyhaveasmuchright’,thebullyortheguythatdoesthebullyinghasasmuchrightasyou,soyouifyou,ifsomebodytakesabullyingclaim,youareinasmuchtroubleasthepersondoingthebullyinginyouropinion.Soyoudon’tevengonearitbecauseitcanbeusedagainstyou.
Hegoesontopointouthowtheprocedureshavetheeffectfordouble-victimising:
It’salwaysthevictim...becausenobody’stakingactionagainstthepersondoingthebullyingit’salwaysthevictimbutifsuddenlyyou’resaying‘ohI’mbeingbullied’,ifyouputyourhandupandsay‘bullying’,suddenlyyouknowthebully,thepersondoingit,isasmuch...soeverythingthenstopsandyou’rethen...you’reevenmorevictimisedinonesensebecauseyoudon’tfeelthatyou’regoingtogetanywherebecausethenyouseeyouhavetocomeupwithallthisevidence.(Paddy,PT)
77
10CaseStudy3:STH3
Thethirdcasestudyorganisationisastatutoryhealthserviceprovider.Theorganisationistheproviderofacomprehensiverangeofhealthservicesforacatchmentareaofonemillionpeople.Atthetimeofwriting,3,800peopleareemployedbytheorganisation,includingadministrative,managerial,professional,technicalandoperativestaff,andservicesareprovidedacrosstwositesintheregion.Theorganisationispartofthewidergroupofacuteproviders,allofwhomare,inturn,partofthenationalacutehealthcarestructure.Anexecutivegroupcouncilmanagesthewidergroup,andthetwositesinvolvedinthisstudyareunderthedirectionofonegeneralmanager.
StatutoryHealthServicesinIrelandhavebeeninthemedialimelightfrequentlyinrecentyears,generallyinrelationtotheverysignificantproportionofthepublicpursetheyreceiveinyetwithouttransparentlinkstoproductivity,andspecificallyinrelationtohospitalwaitinglistsandovercrowdinginA&E.Assuch,theyareinasomewhatbeleagueredsituation,underconsiderablepressuretodomorewithless.Thesectorhasseensignificantcutsinpublicfunding(€2.7billionbetween2009and2015),inthecontextofanincreaseinthepopulation(from4.4min2012to4.6min2016),increaseddemandsforandexpectationsofservices,andsignificantstructuralreformsandexplicitperformanceindicators.Therehasalsobeenanumberofhighprofileincidentsrelatingtotheadverseoutcomesforpatientsinthecontextofhospitalreforms/regroupingandservicedeliveryissues.
HealthservicesinIrelandhavenotbeenimmunetothetrendsgloballyinthissector,suchasmanagerialism,performancetargetsandprivatisation.However,healthsystemsarecontextdependent;eventhosewithsimilarfundingmodelsandincountrieswithsimilarpatternsofhealthandillnessareperceptiblydifferent.InIreland,managerialismiscertainlyevident,withmanyhospitalsbeingmanagedbyboardanddirectorates,creepingprivatisationisastrongfeatureoftheIrishHealthCaresystemwithprivate-for-profitprovidersintheacutesectornowmovinginfromthemargins,andprovidingafullrangeofhospitalservicesincludingA&E.Eachofthesefactors,althoughseeminglyremote,canbeseentoimpactonhowindividualstafftreatotheronaday-to-daybasis44.
10.1PolicyandProcedureSTH3isboundbystatutorylegislationandregulations.Withregardtothepreventionandmanagementofilltreatment,thereisa‘DignityatWork’policy,DisciplinaryProcedure,ProcedureforGrievances,CodeofConductandTrustinCarepolicy.Thesepoliciesapplyacrosstheentirestatutoryhealthsector.Thesefivepolicieswereconsideredagainstthechecklistforgoodpractice(seeTable10.1).
10.2InterviewsEleveninterviewswereundertakeninSTH3,followingthreecallstoparticipate.Fourwerewithmembersofmanagement(twoofwhichwereHR),sixwerewithProfessionalstaffandonewaswithanAdministrator.Eightintervieweeswerewomen.Allwerepermanentstaff,havingbeenemployedbytheorganisationfrom8yearsto36years.Interviewdurationrangedfrom21minutesto50minutes.(SeeTable10.2).Pseudonymsareemployedforeaseofpresentation,withroleintheorganisation45.
44Carlise,Y.(2011).ComplexityDynamics:ManagerialismandUndesirableEmergenceinHealthCareOrganisations.JournalofMedicalMarketing11(4),284-29345 MM=Management
PT=ProfessionalorTechnicalAC=Administration/Clerical
78
Table10.1:STH3Policy
Policyshould…
DignityatWork
GrievanceProcedure
CodeofConduct
DisciplinaryProcedure TrustinCare
Becreatedinconsultationwithtradeunionsand/oremployeerepresentatives
ü ü û ü ü
Employsimple,direct,unambiguouslanguageandisasshortaspossible
24pageslongincludingappendices
ü ü 24pageslongincludingappendices
30pagesincludingappendices
Be‘owned’byresponsibleperson(e.g.signedorpersonwithresponsibilityforthepolicynamed)
ü û ü û û
Containadeclarationofcommitmenttopreventionofharmduetobullyingandrelatedilltreatment
ü û û û û
Containadeclarationofunderstandingand/orcommitmenttotherighttobeingtreatedwithdignityatwork
ü No,statedpurposetoenableemployeestoraisecomplaintsconcerningwork-relatedmatterssotheycanbeaddressedpromptlywithoutdisruptiontopatient/clientcare
û û Clientsrighttobetreatedwithdignityishighlighted
Containadeclarationofnon-toleranceofbullyingbyallthefollowingparties:employees,clients,customersorsub-contractors
ü û Nobutstatesthatcodeappliestodirectandindirectemployees,boardmembersandsuppliers
û û
PolicylinkedtoorreferencedwithintheSafetyStatementandlinksexplainedwithotherrelevantpolicies(e.g.CodeofConduct)
Linkedtodisciplinaryprocedure
û PolicylinkedwithlegislationandpoliciesonGoodFaithReportingandFraud
Policylinkedwithlegislation,DisciplinaryProcedure,DignityatWorkpolicy,TrustinCarepolicy,CodeofStandardsandBehaviour
Policylinkedwithlegislation,CodeofBehaviour,DisciplinaryProcedure
Outlinerelativeresponsibilities:-Employerresponsibilityforprotectionfromharm-Responsibilityofallemployeestobecivilandcourteousintheirdailywork-Responsibilityoftradeunionstoparticipateinimplementationofpracticesandprocedures,andthroughprovidingadviceandinformationtomembers
ü ü ü ü ü
DescribeswhatismeantbyBullying,includinganon-exhaustivelistofexamples
ü û û û Describeswhatmeantbyabuse,givingsomeexamples
Setoutcomplaintsprocedure,compliantwithnationalcodeofpractice,includingtheinformalandformalprocedures(ifboth),rightstorepresentation,acommitmenttofollowingthroughtoresolutionComplaintsprocedureshouldbeclear,easytofollow,includesflowcharts,formsortemplatesthatfacilitatestaffandpromptkeyinformation
ü ü û Notcomplaintsprocedurebutratherprocedurefordealingwithdisciplinarymatters
ü
Givetimeframesforthestagesofprocedure,asaservice-levelagreement(e.g.investigationwithinXofreceivingcomplaint)
ü ü û Timeframesgivenforappealsfromemployee
No,howeverstatedtimeframeshouldbeincludedintermsofreferenceofaninvestigation
Makeexplicittherespectofconfidentiality
ü ü Confidentialitydiscussedinrelationtoinformationlearntatwork
ü ü
Listtheoutcomesforcomplaints,includingifthecomplaintisdeemedvexatious
ü û û û ü
Extendtoworkoffsiteandwork-relatedsocialevents
ü û û û û
79
Containadeclarationofthecommitmenttotheprotectionofcomplainantsfromvictimisation
ü û û û ü
BeyondPolicy…
Trainingformanagersandsupervisorsthatincludesdiscussionofpolicyimplementation
ü û û ü û
Reviewandupdateofpoliciesandprocedures
ü û ü ü û
Systematicdatamonitoring(absencedata,exitdata,regularengagementandhealthsurveys,whichaskaboutbullyingbehaviours,trainingoffer,attendanceandevaluationdata)
û û û û û
MakingsureBullyingisaskedaboutinexitinterviews
û û û û û
Havingaprocessforre-buildingworkplacerelations
Notdirectlyaddressed.Statesmediationpreferredasgoalistorestoreharmoniousworkingrelations.
û û û û
Table10.2:STH3InterviewParticipants46
Interviewnumber Gender Level/role Pseudonym Yearswith
organisationDurationofInterviewin
mins
1 F Professional Alison 19 21
2 F Administration/Clerical Anita 16 47
3 F Professional Siobhan 36 22
4 M Professional Peter 12 49
5 F Professional Saoirse 21 22
6 F Professional Laura 11 44
7 F Management-HR Emer 23 33
8 F Management-HR Marie 8 50
9 F Management Helen 23 25
10 M Management Tom 22 32
11 M Professional Brian 12 -
Participantsintheseinterviewsunderstoodilltreatmentasbothinterpersonalaggressionandwork-related.Interpersonalaggressioncouldbebothpassiveorovertlyaggressiveandincludedtalkingdowntopeople,underminingothers,ridiculingpeoplefornotknowingsomethingthattheycouldnothaveknown,andexcludingpeoplefromasocialgroup.Work-relatedilltreatmentincludedlackofsupportfrommanagement,beingthrowninthedeependwithoutadequatetrainingorinduction,andnottreatingstaffequallyorgivingeveryonethesameopportunitiesforgrowthanddevelopment.Participantsgavevaryingaccountsregardingprevalenceandimpact.Foursthemescouldbefoundinthedata,andaredescribedbelow.Contrastingperspectives,cliques,andthe(un)caringorganisationAverydiversepictureemergedfromSTH3,perhapsunsurprisingly,giventhediversitywithinanacutehealthcaresetting.Firstly,fivepeoplebelievedilltreatmenttobeveryprevalent,even‘endemic’,fivethatitwasn’tprevalent,withoneuncertain.Theperspectivesthatilltreatmentwasn’tprevalentcamemainly,butnotexclusively,frommanagement.Thecompetingperspectiveswereatleastpartiallyexplainedbytheperceptionof
46Twoparticipantsrequestednottoberecorded,andsonoquotationsareusedfromthesetwointerviews.Athirdparticipantprovidedawrittensubmission,asitwasnotpossibletoscheduleasuitableinterviewtime)
80
whatconstitutedilltreatment.Sowhilesomeparticipantssawinterpersonalconflictasilltreatment,othersdidnot,althoughmostthoughtinterpersonalconflictwascommoninSTH3.ThosewhoworkedinHRacknowledgedthatthereare‘disagreements’betweenlinemanagersandemployeesalthoughdidnotclassifythisasilltreatment.Also,somework-relatedilltreatment,whileidentifiedasilltreatment,wasnotthoughttooccuronanyregularbasis.Subjectivityregardingilltreatmentiswelldiscussedintheliteratureandthefactthatitemergedintheseinterviewsisperhapsareflectionofthesizeoftheorganisationandthecomplexityofit.Acutehospitalserviceshaveaverywiderangeoffunctionalunits,teamswithinunits,professionalgroups,andcross-disciplinaryteams.One’sperceptionregardingilltreatment,bothwhatitisandhowprevalentitis,dependsonwhereapersonworksintheservice,andwhomtheyworkwith.
Consistentlyacrossallinterviews,gender,age,socialclass,disabilityandsexualorientationweredismissedasreasonsfororflashpointsforilltreatment.Equallyconsistently,theexistenceof‘cliques’wasacknowledged,eitherinthecontextofdifferentprofessionalgroupings,orwithinworkunits.Thiscouldbeapositivefactor,butmoreoftennegative:
…Peoplehaveagrouporacliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit.Thatdoesn’thappenwithinourteambutitcertainlycanhappen…(Peter,PT)
Ohabsolutely,withoutadoubt.Andtomealways,ifyouhaveagroupandtheyareverynegativepeoplethenyouhavenowheretogobecauseyouwillfindthatthecliquewillstaytogetherasacliquebecausetheycan’tcopewithyouknow...theycantoacertainextentoutsideofitbutthereisacliquealwaysyouknow.(Anita,PT)
Soworkingaspartofateamcaneithercontributesignificantlytoanegativeworkexperienceifapersonisexcludedfromaclique,butcanalsoprotectapersonfromthebackdropofamoremalignenvironment.Therewasagreaterlevelofconsistencyacrosstheinterviewswhentalkingaboutthewiderorganisationalculture,generallyseentobeuncaringandremote.Lauraobservesforexample:
WellIthinkthatthatcomesbacktoIthinkinsomeenvironments…theyaresomuchpartofagoodteamsothatkeepsthem.ButIthinkfroma(functionalunitsnamed)kindofsettingtheydon’thavethatsecurity,theydon’thavethosegoodrelationships...andthereisahugeturnoverofstaff.Butyeahpeopleworkingonanindividualbasisoraspartofateamtheycangetwhattheydon’tgetfromthemanagementinthatteamsothey’reokay.Theykindofignoremanagementuntilmanagementannoythemaboutsomethingorhaveunrealisticexpectationsaboutsomethingandit’sthenwhenkindoftheearthkindoftendstoshakeunderneath...andthat’sverytiresomewhenlikeallyourstructuresofmanagementareagainstyou.Soitdoesgiveyouanattitudeof,excusemyexpressionbut‘Idon’tgiveashitanymore.(Laura,PT)
Theparticularworkoftheorganisationisrelevantinsofarasstaffhaveahigherexpectationoftheirmanagementinrelationtobeingacaringorcompassionateemployerandcanthereforebeparticularlyletdownwhenthisisnotmanifest.LauraandAnitaareparticularlyvocalonthispoint,butPeterandSiobhantoo,acknowledgethefrustrationoftheremotenessofmanagement,andtheapparentlackofpraise,ofaffirmationorrecognitionforworkdone,especiallyimportant,andarguablyeasilygiven,giventhenatureofworkintheorganisation:
Ohthatideaoftreatingyouremployeesasiflikecompletedisregard,norespect,noacknowledgement,norecognition,noreward,likethat’showhumanbeingsfunctionandtakeitinaworkenvironment,takeitinalifeenvironment,that’showitisandwhat’sironictomeisthesepeoplethatshouldknowhowthehumanconditionandworkinthehumanbehaviourworkbecausethat’swhatthey’respecialisedin.Don’ttakeanyofitintoconsiderationlikeandthere’smultitudesofstudiesandresearchandevidencethatshowlikehowtogetproductivityyouknow,itbenefitstheminthelongrunbecausetheygetmoreproductivityout,therearehappierstafforabetteroutcomeorbetteroutputs.Butyeah,no,sowhatdoesn’tworkisthestickapproachbasicallyasIsaidlike,thecondescending...wellnotreallycondescendingbutyeah…(Laura,PT)
81
Youseethere’snotrustbecausethetrustisbrokentimeandtimeagain.Nobodytrustsanybodyanditisjustdogeatdog,it’sassimpleasthat,itisdogeatdog.(Anita,AC)
Ithinkwhathappensisthatwedon’tcelebratethepositivesenoughso...andthewiderorganisationintermsofthehealthserviceisverydefensivebecausethemediaissonegative.Sothere’salotofnegativemessagesaroundhealth,it’sallnegativeeveninthelocalpapersitisnegativeandweprobablydon’tcelebrateenoughpositives.Soifyou’recomingintoworkeverydayinasortof...thinkingthateverythingwe’redoingisgrandthenitcangetpeopledownandthatIthinkcreatesasortofslightlynegativeculturewherepeoplegetfedupalittlebitmoreeasilyandthemorestretchedyouarethenthemoredifficultitisandit’shardwithinateamto...wellitcanbehardwithinateamtotryandkeepthatsortofpositiveelement...(Peter,PT)
‘It’sallaboutthehierarchy’Participantssawilltreatmenttooccurinthecontextofpositionalpower,andsawthistobeunsurprising,eveninevitableintheorganisation.Participantsgenerallydescribedtheorganisationashierarchical,formal,andverytraditionalinrespectofthechainofcommand.Staffareexpectedtodowhatthoseabovetheminthehierarchytellthem,andpositionismoreimportantthanrespectfultreatment:There’salsoaprofessionalhierarchywithintheorganisationsoveryfewpeoplewillquerytheguyatthetopofthepyramidyouknowandit’susuallysomebodyelse’sfaultfurtherdown,evenifitisn’t.(Siobhan,PT)Sothatifaconsultanteatstheheadoffyouyou’resortofgoing‘wellIcansortofunderstandwhythathappened’andnotthinkitasabigpersonalattackonyou.It’sjustthewaythingsare…(Peter)Ohyeahit’shuge,yeah,it’sallaboutthehierarchy.Likeit’scrazy,asIsaidit’sreallyarkstyle,it’sreallyoldschoollikeyouknow….it’s‘DearSirandMadam’youknowthatkindofthing,thatyou’reexpectedto...whereaswe’reallmeanttobeonthesamelevelattheendoftheday,bringing...likeweallhavedifferentskillsandwe’reallmeanttobringingthemequallyandrespectingeachother’sskillsequallyandopinionsequallybutitdoesn’thappenthatway,it’slike‘I’myourboss,youdoasIsay’kindofthing…(Laura,PT)Positionintheorganisationisanindicatorofhowvaluedyouareasamemberofstaffandjuniorandtemporarystaffareperceivedtobelessvalued.Beingtemporarycanleadtohavingyouropiniondisregarded,orbeingjuniormeansyouarenotexpectedtochallengeseniorstaff.Thehierarchicalstructuresnotonlyallowthosehigheruptotreatthoselowerdowninwaythatcouldbeconstruedasilltreatment,but,accordingtoTom,alsoledtoseniorpeoplespeakinginanuncivilmannertothoseatthesamelevelandbeingexpectedtoacceptthis.Thisrevealsanegativeculture,inwhichpeopleareallowedtospeaktooneanotherinadisrespectfulmanner.Yeah.IthinkyourpositionintheorganisationisrelevantbecauseIthinkwithinourorganisationthere’sacertainlevelofacceptanceatthehigherlevelsthatilltreatmentandpoortreatmentisjustparforthecourse,it’sthewaybusinessgetsdone.Soifyou’reaseniormanagerit’sexpectedthatyouhavetobeabletotakeit,ifyoucan’ttakeitwellthenwhatareyoudoingintherolekindofyouknow.It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork.(Tom,MM)…newerstaffcominginandyou’retryingtotrainthemandmakethemconfidentandtheyareextremelycapablewhenthey’refirstqualified,thatcanbeveryundermininganditcan...itcanshaketheirconfidenceandthentheydon’twanttogoandworkinthatareaanymorebecausetheyhadabadexperiencelasttime...‘don’tupsetthisanddon’tdothis’andsoreallyyou’remakingthesituationperpetualbythedoingthat.(Siobhan,PT)‘Thedifficultyiswedon’timplementthemwell’Mostintervieweeswerefamiliarwiththepolicyandproceduresdealingwithworkplacebullying,andconsideredthepoliciestobeaccessible.However,therewereclearlyimplementationissues.Participantsspokeoffear:fearoffurthervictimisationorilltreatment,fearofbeingperceivedasatroublemaker,andfearthatconfidentialitywaslacking.PeopledowanttobringtheissuetotheattentionofamanagerorHRbutthendonotwishtorisk
82
exposure.Anotherconcernwasthatthatifaformalissuewasraised,whiletheemployeewouldbelistenedto,noactionwouldbetaken.Whenasked,whenIaskedamemberofstaffwhethertheywouldstandbymewhenItookthisfurthertheydeclined,theydidn’twantto.Theydidn’twanttobebackingmeup.I’dsayfear.Fear.Fearfortheirjobandafearhowtheyweregoingtobetreatedoncetheirnamewasbroughtintotheloop.(Saoirse,PT)They’llinitiatethereport.Butwhenitcomesto...sosayliketheunionswillgivethemdirectioninwhattodo,theywon’tdoitbecausethey’retooscared.(Laura,PT)YeahandifitwastobeontheirrecordorifitwastobeinareferenceafterwardsIthinkpeoplewouldbeconcernedaboutthatandthenmaybebeinglabelledasatroublemakerorsomebodywhois...wellyoudon’twantherinyourdepartment...(Helen,MM)Anitasimilarlytalksaboutlackoftrust,andinageneralwayanunwillingnessto‘rocktheboat’,butalsospecificallygivesanexampleofasituationwherepolicywasnotimplementedinordertoprotectaseniorstaffmember:…speakingtoafriendofminerecently…shetoldmeofanincidentinherdepartmentwheretherewasaladywhobullied,absolutelyoutrageouslybullied,membersofstaff.Shewaskeptinthatpositionandshewillalwaysbekeptinthatpositionbecauseheroverallbossis…(positioninorganisationgiven)…andshe’salsoamanagerand…herbossislookingafterherandthepeoplethatshe’sbullyingareleavingonebyoneandthey’reaskingtobetransferred.(Anita,AC)Reasonsforpoorimplementationincludedthepoliciesbeingtoolong,hardtounderstand,overlylegalistic,notpresentedinauserfriendlyformat,andnottraininglinemanagerseitheraboutthepolicesorintheskillsneededtoimplementthem.Oneparticipantmaintainsshehaslongadvocated‘allofHRdocumentsshouldbebulletedandbulletedwithreallyclearno-jargonEnglish’.OtherparticipantsfromHRpointtotheprovisionofregulartrainingsessions,butbemoanpoorattendanceatthese.Acontrastingviewregardingthevaluetrainingisalsoexpressed.Eitherway,bothparticipantsinterpretthedeficitinimplementationtosignalaculturethatfailstotakeilltreatmentanditsoutcomessufficientlyseriously.Thereisreferencetoacultureof‘sayingnothingandjustgettingonwithit’.Inthiscontextpoliciesarewindowdressing.Sowehaveverygoodwelldefinedpolicies,wellworkedoutandnegotiatedwithalltheunionsandalltherestofitsoeverybodyknowsexactlywheretheystand.Thedifficultyiswedon’timplementthemwellandthereasonwedon’tisbecausethepeoplethatweexpecttoimplementthem,likethefrontlinemanagers–thepeoplethataremaybemanagingawardof30stafformanagingasmallgroupofstaff–theydon’tknow,they’renotfamiliarwiththepolicies,theydon’tknowThat’sonething,wedon’tgivethemenoughoftimeortrainingIthinktodo...Sowedon’tputenoughtimeandeffortintotrainingourmanagerstobeabletodealwiththemandtorecognisewhattheyneedtorecogniseandthentoknowwhattodowhentheydo...andpossiblythenthatindicatesthelevelofprioritythatwegivetoityouknowwithintheorganisation.Ifitwasreally,reallyimportanttouswellthenwewoulddoit,wewouldgivetimetoitandwewouldtrainpeopleinit,yeah.(Tom,MM)Well,Idon’teventhinkitwasmoretraining,thelevelsthatIwenttoshouldhavehadgoodtraininginthese,liketheywerequiteseniormanagers,theyjustdidn’tseemtowanttoknow,tobehonestwithyou.(Saoirse,PT)Tomperceivessomemorefundamentalproblemswithpolicyandpractice.Herecognisesthatthemanagerexpectedtoimplementpolicyisalsoexpectedtocontinuetoworkwiththetargetandortheperpetrator,asituationunlikelytobetenableinthelongerterm.I’verarelyeverseenasituationwhereyouarepresentedwithaproblemandamemberofstaffsayingthattheyfeelorperceivethatthey’vebeenpoorlytreatedinvariousdifferentregardsbyaparticularindividualthatwhen
83
it’sallresolvedandithasgonethroughtheprocessIhaverarelycomeacrossasituationwherethepersonissaying‘WellactuallyIfeelkindofsatisfiedorvindicated’orwhatever.Atbestyoucansometimesgetasensefrompeoplewelltheyfeelthattheywerelistenedtoandtheyweretakenseriouslybutbeyondthatno.Itdoesseemtohavealastingeffectonpeople.Somepeopleareabletomovebeyonditandothersaren’t.I’veseenpeoplewhocarryitwiththemthroughouttherestoftheircareer.Infact,veryoftenit’simpossibletorestoreaworkingrelationship,youknowtherehastobesomefundamentalchanges,somaybemovingapersonoutofonelocationorwhatever,yeah.(Tom,MM)Tom,whoisinmanagement,considersononehandthatpolicyifproperlyimplementedisfairandbalanced,andstaffshouldhavenofearofit,aviewalsoexpressedbyanotherparticipantfromHR.YetclearlypeopleareinfearofitandTomconcedes:OnethingIknowforcertainisthatI’venever...Idon’tthinkI’veeveryetcomeacrosssomebodywhocameoutofaprocesswheretheyfeltthattheyhadbeenpoorlytreated,gonethroughthepolicyandfeltattheendthatwellthatwasgreat,nowthat’sthatsortedkindofyouknow,it’sneverlikethatsoitisn’t.(Tom,MM)‘Wellno,that’stobeaddressedbythelinemanager’Finally,athemeemergedaroundtensionbetweenlinemanagersandHR.Confusionaboutrolesandresponsibilitieswerenoted,wherelinemanagersreferringdifficultiestoHR.ThoseinHRwhoparticipatedintheinterviewswereclearthatlinemanagersinfactareresponsibleforaddressingissueslocally.Soforsomelinemanagerstheyfeelassoonastheyhaveanysortofalinemanagementissueorwhateveritbethatthat’saHRissue,youknowsotheylooktogotoHRtogetitsortedout,whereinactualfactwithinourorganisationandwithinourpoliciesit’sactuallytheirrolesoitistomanageitwithsupportfromHR.AndthesupportfromHRatthatpointisusuallyaroundmakingsurethattheyunderstandthepolicy,thattheyunderstandtheirroleandwhatthey’regoingtodoandsoon.Asyougoonabitfurtherthoughthatrolebecomesabitmoreformalisedsoif,forexample,it’sleadingtodisciplinaryaction.(Tom,MM)Membersofmanagementdoconcedethatlinemanagersmay‘notwanttodealwiththelesspleasantstuff’,anditwasacknowledgedthatthisplacesahugeresponsibilityonlinemanagers,whoareexpectedtopreventproblemsonthegroundandalsotoaddressthemwhentheyarise.
84
11DiscussionTheaimofthisstudywastomeasuretheprevalenceofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees,andtocompareprevalenceacrossvarioussubgroupswithintheworkingpopulationemployingthesamedesign,measurementinstrumentandsamplingstrategyasusedintheBWBS.Thestudyalsosetouttoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinsectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalent,bywayofthreecasestudies,toinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Educationalsessionswereheldintworegions,toengagepractitionersandtoexploretheirconcerns.
11.1SurveyFindings:IllTreatmentPrevalenceandPatternsThefindingsattestedtotherobustnatureoftheBWBSinstrument.Correlationsbetweenthe21illtreatmentitemsshowedthesamefactorialrelationshipsinboththeBWBSandcurrentstudy,producingthesamethreefactorsofilltreatment:unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjury.Overlapoccurredbetweenthesefactors,particularlybetweenunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(25.0%),and2%ofsurveyparticipantsexperienceditemsinallthreecategories.Correlationsbetweenreportofexperiencing,witnessingandperpetrationdemonstratethatthosewhohaveexperiencedilltreatmenttendtoreportwitnessofit,withmediumtostrongpositivecorrelationsbetweenexperiencingandwitnessingforallitems.Thereportedlevelofilltreatmentexperiencedduringtheprecedingtwoyears,was43%,breakingdownto36.7%experiencingunreasonablemanagement,31.3%incivilityordisrespectand2.6%experiencingphysicalviolenceorinjury.PrevalenceislowerthanreportedintheBWBS47(54%experiencedanyonenegativeact,47%experiencedoneformofunreasonablemanagement,40%incivilityordisrespectand6%physicalviolenceorinjury),althoughthecontoursofexperiencemirrorthosefoundintheBWBS,forexampleunreasonablemanagementisthefactorthathasthehighestprevalence48.Itwasalsothefactorthatwasmostlikelytobeperpetrated:14%admittoperpetratingunreasonablemanagement,9.5%incivilityordisrespect,0.5%perpetratingphysicalviolenceand0.5%allthreetypesofilltreatment.WhiletherateofexperiencewaslowerforalltypesofilltreatmentintheIrishstudycomparedtotheBWBStheratesofwitnesswerehigherthanintheBWBS(48%vs38%foranyoneitem,42%vs28%forunreasonablemanagement,32%vs38%incivility)withtheexceptionofviolenceandinjury(5%vs6%).ThepatternintheIWBSisbroadlyconsistentwithotherstudies.Interestingly,thefalloffinconfirmatoryresponseswasconsiderablyhigherinthisstudy.Onaveragetherewasa35%dropinreportedexperiencecomparedto13%intheBWBS,whichcouldbethesubjectofmoredetailedanalysis,alongwithacomparisonofthetwodatasetsonanitem-by-itemandvariable-by-variablebasis.Theilltreatmentprevalencefiguresareconsiderablyhigherthanstudiesofworkplacebullying,giventhebroaderconstructofilltreatment,butmayalsobeduetothemethodemployed.Manyworkplacebullyingprevalencestudiesareundertakeninworkplacesorthroughwork-relatedorganisations,whilethisstudyemployedageneraldoor-to-doorsurvey,whichallowsparticipantstoanswerinawaythatavoidsconstraintsthatmayoperatewhenreportingexperiencesinthecontextoftheirownworkplace.Thedegreeof‘illtreatmentexperienced’isnot
47TheresearchteamhadaccesstotheBWBSdataset.DirectstatisticalcomparisonswiththeBWBSdatawerecalculatedforheadlinefindingsonly.48Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIll-treatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity
85
directlycomparabletopreviousIrishstudies,whichmeasuredbullyingspecifically.Althoughinthisrespecttheprevalenceoftwonegativeactsweekly,takenasanindicatorofbullying,was9%,higherthanthe2004findingof7.9%andthe2007studyof7%.49Thusimplyinganincreaseinnegativeexperienceatwork,differencesinmeasurementnotwithstanding,andisconsistentwithexpectationsinthelightofthepressuresonemployeesduringandintheimmediateaftermathoftherecession.ThefindingreinforcesaUS-basedstudythatreportedthreateningandintimidatorycommunicationandacultureoffearexperiencedduringtheeconomiccrises50,althoughtherearesurprisinglyfewstudiesoftheimpactofeconomiceventsorcyclesonworkplaceilltreatment.Theprevalenceoftwoitemsdaily,at2%,isconsistentwithotherestimatesofseverebullying.51,52Therelationshipbetweengenderandworkplacebullying,asdefinedintheliterature,isnotclear,withsomestudiesfindingwomentobeatrisk,intermsofselfreportedexperience,andothersnot.Findingsarecontradictoryandambiguous.53Whilesomestudiesshowgenderdifferencesthatfavourmen(i.e.menlesslikelytobebullied),overrepresentationofwomenastargetsofbullyingcanbeduetooverrepresentationofwomeninthesample.54ThetwopreviousIrishstudiesfoundthatwomenreporthigherlevelsofworkplacebullying,butinthemultivariateanalysis,genderwasasignificantdeterminantonlyinthe2001surveyandnotinthe2007survey.Largerscale,representativestudiesarelesslikelytoreportgenderdifferencesacrosstheworkingpopulation.Thisstudyaddstotheaccumulatingevidencethatinlargerscalestudiesdrawingonrepresentativesamples,genderdifferencesarelessevident.Here,althoughwomenreportedslightlyhigherlevelsofbothexperiencingandwitnessingformostoftheitems,differenceswereonlysignificantinrelationtoexperienceforfouritemsandwitnessingforeightitems,andwhencomparedbyfactor,genderdifferenceswerenotsignificant.Therewerenogenderdifferencesinperpetrationforanyofthefactors,althoughotherstudieshaveshownthatmenaremorelikelytoperpetratebullying.55Themultivariateanalysisconfirmedthatgenderwasnotapredictoroftheexperience,thewitnessingortheperpetrationofilltreatment.Itshouldbenotedthatthestudyheredidnotemployaselflabellingmethod,whichusuallyreflectsgreatergenderdifferences,(forexamplewomenaremorelikelythanmentolabelnegativeexperiencesasbullying).56However,thisisnottosaythatilltreatmentisnotagenderedphenomenon,assuggestedbySalinandHoel.Womenweresignificantlymorelikelytoexperienceilltreatmentatthemostseverelevel(twotypesofnegativeacts,atleastdaily),likelytobethefouritemsexperiencedatasignificantlyhigherlevelthanmen(havingviewsandopinionsignored,beingtreatedinadisrespectfulway,intimidatingbehaviouratworkandinjuryoractualviolenceatwork).Thelastofthesemaybeduetothehigherlevelsofclientviolenceinfemaledominatedprofessions,butthehigherleveloftheotherthreeitemsimplythatthesebehavioursarequitecommonlyexperiencedbywomenintheworkplace.Itislikelythatilltreatmentandgenderinteractinamuchmorecomplexway,giventhatorganisationsaregenderedandmanyofthenegativeactsinthebehaviouralchecklistusedherecouldbeexamplesoftheenactmentofmasculinity.Inthisrespectitisinterestingtoseethattheproportionofwomenintheorganisation(higher)wasassociatedwithhigherlevelsofbothincivilityandviolence.Also,itwasnotablethatinlookingatthe49ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,DublinandO’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute50Rouse,R.&Schuttler,R.(2009).CrisisCommunication.UniversityofPhoenix51Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.andVartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis52Nielsen,M.,Notelaers,G.,&Einarsen,S.(2011).MeasuringExposuretoWorkplaceBullying.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis53Salin,D.&Hoel,H.(2013).WorkplaceBullyingasaGenderedPhenomenon.JournalofManagerialPsychology,28(3)235-25154Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,HoelH.Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis55Salin,D.&Hoel,H.(2013).WorkplaceBullyingasaGenderedPhenomenon,JournalofManagerialPsychology,28(3)235-25156ibid
86
patternsofself-reportedperpetrationacrosstheindividualitems(Table4.3.1,p.39),althoughnotsignificant,therewasalotofvariationbygenderforadmittedperpetration.Whenrespondentshadtoidentifythegenderoftheperpetratorforanitemiftheyhadexperiencedthreeormoreitems,menweregenerallymorelikelytobetheperpetrators5.2,p.50).Interestingly,whenthegenderoftherespondentwastakenintoconsideration,whereonlyonegenderwasnamed,womenarefarmorelikelytosaytheirperpetratorswerealsowomenandmenthattheirperpetratorsweremen(Table5.3,p.51).Thissupportsfindingsthatthegenderofboththetargetandperpetratormatterinthelabellingofilltreatmentexperiences.57ThecorrelationbetweenbeingdisabledandexperiencingilltreatmentwasthesecondmostprominentfeatureofbivariateandmultivariateanalysisintheBWBS.Althoughtheproportionofpersonswithadisabilityreportingilltreatmentwasquitehighinthestudyhere(7%),thedifferencedoesnotachievesignificance,perhapsduetothelimitationsinsamplesize.Otherdemographicfactorswerebroadlyconsistentwithotherstudies(age,educationallevel)althoughthefindingsregardingethnicityareofnote.EthnicitywasnotmeasuredinthepreviousIrishsurveyssotheIWBSisthefirstnationalstudytomeasureilltreatmentwithregardtoethnicity.Ethnicityshowedasignificantassociationwithboththeexperienceofandthewitnessingofeachofthethreeill-treatmentfactors.Thoseofblackormixedethnicityexperiencedthehighestriskforunreasonablemanagement,andalsothehighestlevelsofwitnessingviolence.Asiansaremorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespectandalsophysicalviolence,aremorelikelytowitnessincivilityordisrespectandunreasonablemanagement,andmostlikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagement.ThemultivariateanalysisshowsthattheoddsofexperiencingviolenceareseventimesgreaterforAsiansworkersinIrelandthatotherethnicgroups.AnanalysisofQNHSdataondiscriminationintheworkplacealsofoundthatnon-nationalIrishweretwiceaslikelytoreportdiscriminationbothinseekingworkandintheworkplace.58ThefindingscontrastwiththeBWBS,wherewhiteworkerswereatgreaterrisk.Ireland,nowamulticulturalsociety,clearlyhaschallengesinthisrespect.However,asforgender,thepatterniscomplex.Thefollowupofitemsshowsthatalthoughahighproportionareofwhiteethnicityitcanbeseenthatperpetratorsofilltreatmentwhoreportedtobewhiteweremorelikelytohavetargetedthoseofthesameethnicity.Similarlyperpetratorsfromotherethnicitiesweremorelikelytotargetthoseofnon-whiteethnicity.Theexperienceofbothunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasgreatestinsmallorganisations(10-49employees),butbothweremorelikelytobewitnessedinmedium-sizedinorganisations(50-249employees).Violencewasmostlikelytobeexperiencedandwitnessedinlarge(greaterthan250employees)organisations.Thispresentsamorenuancedpicturetothecommonlyreportedfindingthatbullyingismoreprevalentinlargeorganisations.Theexperienceofilltreatmentwasmorecommoninthevoluntaryandinthepublicsectorintheformofunreasonablemanagementandphysicalviolenceandinjury,consistentwithpreviousIrishstudies,theBWBSandintheliterature.59,60Themultivariateanalysisconfirmedthis,withviolenceofparticularnote,beingalmostfivetimesmorelikelytobeexperiencedinthepublicsector.Theonlyrelationshipbetweenwitnessingilltreatmentandsectorwasforviolenceinthepublicsector.However,unreasonablemanagementwasalsoimportantinthecontextofsector,being2.5timesmorelikelytobefoundinthepublicsector.Theoccupationalsectoraleffectsdemonstratedinotherstudies,wereseenhereonlyfortheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementwhichwasmostcommoninhealthandsocialservices,followedbyfinancialservicesandconstruction,andlesslikelytobeexperiencedintheagriculturalsector.BothoftheearlierIrishstudiesfoundHealthandSocialservicestobewellaboveaverageintermsofreportedbullying.Thehealthandsocialservice
57ibid58Russell,H.,Quinn,E.,O’Rian,R.&McGinnity,P.(2008).TheExperienceofDiscriminationinIreland.AnalysisoftheQNHSEqualityModule.Dublin:TheEqualityAuthorityandtheESRI59Zapf,D.,Escartin,J,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Vartia,M.(2011)EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis60ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004),GovernmentPublications,Dublin;O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute
87
sectoralsodisplayedthehighestlevelsofwitnessedilltreatment.Witnessing,however,alsohadsignificantsectoralassociationsforviolence,withhealthandsocialserviceagainhavinghigherlevels.Therelationshipbetweenworkingenvironmentandtheexperienceofilltreatmenthasbeenofconsiderableinteresttoresearchersinrecentyears.Movingawayfromanearlierfocusonpersonalityandindividual-levelfactorsaskeydeterminantsofworkplacebullying,theroleoftheworkenvironmentisnowseentobeofmuchgreatersignificance,61andthefindingshereaddtotheaccumulatingevidencethatwhereyouworkmattersmorethanwhoyouare,inrelationtotheriskofbeingilltreated,(and,byextension,howilltreatmentcanbepreventedorreduced).ThecurrentstudyusedtheFAREitemstoexplorerelationshipsbetweenworkenvironmentandilltreatment.Allrelationshipsbetweentheseitemsandboththeexperienceandwitnessingofilltreatment,intheformsofunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespectweresignificant.Participantsstatingthattheneedsoftheirorganisationalwayscomefirstwere3.5timesmorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagementandthosewhofeeltheirprinciplesarecompromisedinworkareoverfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespect.Perpetrationofunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasassociatedwiththeneedsoftheorganisationcomingfirst,havingtocompromiseone’sprinciples,perceivingpeoplenotbeingtreatedasindividuals,andhavinglesscontroloverworkorpaceofwork.Also,experiencingatleasttwoitemsweeklyandatleasttwodailywereassociatedwitheachoneoftheFAREitems.TheBWBSalsofoundsimilarrelationshipswithFAREitems,providingstrongevidencefortheimportanceoftheworkenvironmentasadeterminantofthewayinwhichpeoplearetreatedinwork,andfortherobustnessoftheFAREitems.Bothstudiesshowclearrelationshipsbetweennegativeworkingconditionsandhigherlevelofilltreatment.Interestingly,whilesignificantpredictorsinbothstudies,theproportionofrespondentswhoreportedthattheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst,thattheyhavetocompromisetheirprinciplesandthatpeoplearenottreatedasindividuals,arelowerthanthosereportedintheBWBS,62consistentwiththelowerlevelsofeachfactorintheIrishdata(39%vs16%,30%vs9%,20%vs7.9%).ExperiencingandwitnessingviolenceandinjurywasassociatedwithonlysomeFAREitems:havingtocompromiseyourprinciples,notbeingtreatedasanindividual,controlofworkpaceandqualitystandardswereassociatedwithdirectexperienceofviolence.Theweakerrelationshipswithviolenceareborneoutinthemultivariateanalysisforbothexperienceandwitnessingilltreatment.Thosewhoreportthepaceoftheirworkhasincreasedoverthepastyearareninetimesmorelikelytoexperienceviolence.TheresultsareconsistentwiththeBWBS.Nationalleveldataontheworkpositiveitemshavenotbeenreportedpreviously.Asimilarpatternofrelationshipswasdemonstratedbetweentheseitemsandwithallill-treatmentfactors,althoughthemultivariateanalysisshowedstrongerrelationshipsbetweentheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementandofincivilityanddisrespectthanviolence.Againthedegreeofrelationshipbetweeneachfactorandthereportedlevelsofunreasonablemanagement,incivilityandphysicalviolenceshowedilltreatmentwashigherwheredemandwashighbutlowerwheretheorganisationofferedindividualcontrol,managerialsupports,peersupportandlowroleambiguity.ThismirroredthepatternfortheFAREitems.
11.2CaseStudies:PolicyandPractice,EffectivenessandImplementationTheSafety,HealthandWelfareatWorkAct(2005)isthefoundationallegislationgoverningOHSmanagementatworkinIreland.ThisactisfurthersupplementedbytheSHWWGeneralApplicationRegulations(2007).AlthoughilltreatmentandworkplacebullyingisnotspecificallyaddressedbytheSHWWAct(2005)orbytheGeneral
61Salin,D.&Hoel,H.(2011).OrganisationalCausesofWorkplaceBullying.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis62Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2013).TroubleatWork.London:BloomsburyAcademic
88
ApplicationRegulations,forthepurposeofprotectingtheiremployees,employersmustconsidertheseissuesasaworkplacehazardandperformariskassessment.Inlinewithotherworkplacehazards,thelikelihoodofilltreatmentincludingbullyingoccurringshouldbeassessedandcontrolmeasuresthatcanbeputinplacetoreducetheriskmustbeidentified.Inaddition,aquasi-legalarrangementisinplace,wherebyemployersmustcomplywithCodesofPractice(COP)thatsupplementthestatutoryinstruments.TherearethreeCOPsinIrelandpertainingtoworkplacebullyingandnegativebehaviour,whichare:TheCodeofPracticeforEmployersandEmployeesonthePreventionandResolutionofBullyingatWork2007(HSACode),TheCodeofPracticedetailingProceduresforAddressingBullyingintheWorkplace(SI17/2002)andTheCodeofPracticeonSexualHarassmentandHarassmentatWork(SI208/2012)(EqualityAuthorityCode)63.OrganisationsareadvisedbytheHealthandSafetyAuthoritytodemonstratetheircommitmenttothepreventionofbullyingandharassmentintheworkplace,byadoptingaDignityatWorkCharter.ThreeorganisationsparticipatedinthecasestudyelementoftheIWBS,andprovidedcopiesoftheirpoliciesinrespectofworkplacebullyingincludingDignityatWork,GrievanceProcedure,CodeofConduct,DisciplinaryProcedureandTrustinCarePolicies.Inaddition,29peopleintotalparticipatedininterviews.Theinterviewsconductedinthecasestudiesprovidedrichdataofferinganumberofimportantinsightsintotheimplementationofpolicyandthedifficulties‘ontheground’oftennotadequatelyaddressedbypolicy.TheImportanceofRobustPolicyEachorganisationhasaDignityatWorkpolicyinadditiontosupportingpolicies(forexampleDisciplinary,Grievance,CodeofConduct).Goodpracticeinrespectofpolicydevelopment64includes:beingdevelopedinaconsultativemanner,ownedbyarecognisablepersonoroffice,clearcommitmenttopreventingilltreatment,outliningrelativeresponsibilitiesofallparties,thesettingoutofclearprocedureswithreasonabletimelinesandacommitmenttoprotectstafffromfurthervictimisationiftheyenactproceedings.Allthreeorganisations,basedonananalysisofthewrittendocuments,appearedtohavemetallormostofthesecriteria,althoughPBS2donotappeartohaveconsultedwithtradeunionsoremployeerepresentativesindevisingtheirpolicy.Thepoliciesintwocaseswereduetobeupdated,onehavingreferencestolegislationwhichhassincebeenrevised.Anumberofissuesfeatureintheliteraturethatcanbedescribedasgoingbeyondstandardrequirements:providingtrainingformanagers,systematicdatacollection,theinclusionofadiscussionaboutilltreatmentinexitinterviews,andhavingprocessesforre-buildingworkplacerelations.Thethreeorganisationsperformedquitepoorlyonallofthese,althoughtwodidrefertomediation,whichcouldbeconstruedasaddressingthelatter.However,theeffectivenessofmediationasastrategyforaddressingbullyinghasbeenchallengedbyanumberofexperts65,66indicatingthatpolicyintheseorganisationsisnotevidenceinformed.Despitetheapparentadequacyofpolicyineachoftheorganisations,theinterviewstoldadifferentstory,invaryingdegreesofdistancefromthepolicystatements.Policiesmustbedevelopedandimplementedinawaythatitissafeforworkers.Ifworkersdonotthinktheyarebeingprotectedbythepolicy,despiteastatedcommitmenttotheirprotectioncontainedwithinit,theywillnotuseit.ParticipantsinPBS2forthemostpartthoughtthepoliciesweremeaninglessanddidnotfeelsafeusingthem.Theytalkedaboutfeelingthattheywouldbeseenatfaultiftheyraiseconcernsaboutilltreatment,andtherewasaperceptionthatthesystemfavouredtheallegedperpetrator.InPBS2,policywasdescribedasa‘joke.’
63HealthandSafetyReview(2014).TheHSRA-ZCompendiumofOSHIssues:Part3–Bullyinghttps://www.healthandsafetyreview.ie/article/5442Accessed:19/12/1664HealthandSafetyAuthority(2007)CodeofPracticeforEmployersandEmployeesonthePreventionandResolutionofBullyingatWork,Dublin:HealthandSafetyAuthority;Rayner,C.&Lewis,D.(2011).ManagingWorkplaceBullying:TheroleofPolicies.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace,DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice,London:TaylorandFrancis;Woodrow,C.&Guest,D.(2013).WhenGoodHRgetsBadResults:ExploringtheChallengeofHRImplementationintheCaseofBullying.HumanResourceManagementJournal,24(1)38-5665Saam,N.J.(2010).InterventionsinWorkplaceBullying:AMultilevelApproach.EuropeanJournalofWorkandOrganisationalPsychology,19(1)51-75,DOI:10.1080/1359432080265140366Ferris,P.(2004).APreliminaryTypologyofOrganisationalResponsetoAllegationsofWorkplaceBullying:SeeNoEvil,HearNoEvil,SpeakNoEvil.BritishJournalofGuidanceandCounselling,32,389-395
89
InSTH3fearwasanissue:fearoffurthervictimisation,fearofexposureandthattheprocedureswerenotfullyconfidential.ThosewhoparticipatedinVORG1feltthatthesheervolumeofpoliciesandprocedureswerenotonlyunhelpfulbutcouldbeusedagainstthemifanissuearose.Further,policyalthoughplentiful,stilldidnotprotectstaffagainstabusefromparentsofclients.Concernswereraisedabouthowconfidentialitycouldbemaintained,ifpolicywerecorrectlyimplementedwhereitinvolvedanallegedperpetratorbeingtemporarilysuspended.TheImportanceoftheRoleoftheManagerEmployersexpectmanagerstoplayakeyroletacklingbullying,67andparticipantsinallthreeorganisationsrecognisedthis.InSTH3itwasclaimedtobeexplicitintheirpolicy,andsomeparticipantsindicatedthatlinemanagershadtoberemindedofthisfact,sometimesexpectingHRtodealwithdifficultsituations.InthiscasetheroleofHRwasunderstood(byintervieweesinHR)todirectmanagerstopolicy.Inallthreesetsofinterviews,however,therewasreferencetomanagerseitherbeingunwillingorunableto‘havethedifficultconversation’andneedingtrainingtodoso.Therewerereferencestomanagerswhojustdidn’twanttoknowabouttheseproblems,orwhomarkedtime,hopingproblemswouldsomehowresolvethemselves.InPBS2itwasacknowledgedthatskillwasrequiredforsuchconversations.InVORG1iswasrecognisedthatsmallworkgroupsposeaparticularchallengeasmanagerscanfindthemselveshavingto‘manage’theirformerpeers.Theimportanceofclarityofrole,trainingandsupportformanagersemergesclearlyfromtheinterviews.Thecomplexrealitiesforamanagerontheground,suchashavingtomanageformercolleaguesandfriends,havingtomanagepeoplewhohavebeenintheorganisationforamuchlongertimethanthemanager,andmaintainingconfidentialityareoftennotaddressed.Itisnothoweverfullyacknowledgedthatmanagers,particularlymiddlemanagers,areofteninverydifficultpositions,whowhilebeingovertlyexpectedto‘sort’bullyingproblemsarealsoexpectedtoblind-eyebullyingifitistheorganisation’sintereststodoso,aphenomenondescribedintheliteratureasbullyingasatoolofmanagementcontrol.68TheImportanceofCultureWhiletheindividualbehaviourperspective,thatis,difficultpersonalities,surfacedinsomeinterviews,theimportanceofcultureasadeterminantofilltreatmentandbyextensiontheorganisationalresponsetoit,wasalsorecognised.Inthiswaytherewassometensionintheinterviewsbetweenthecausesofilltreatmentbeingduetoawkwardpersonalitiesorbeingduetoassumptionsemployersmakeaboutstaff,andhowtheycanbetreatedbothbyeachotherandthroughorganisationalpractices.Tosomeextentthisreflectsthetensionintheliterature,whereboththeseperspectiveshavebeenexploredanddebated.Organisationalculturehasbeengivenaconsiderabledegreeofdiscussionintheliterature,bothasanexplanationforthevariationinexposuretoilltreatmentacrosssectorsandacrossindividualorganisationswithinonesector.Forilltreatmenttooccurtotheextentthatitdoes,itmustbeoverlookedorinsomewaycondonedwithinorganisations,andthedegreetowhichthishappensmustvaryacrossorganisations.Leyman,69oneofthepioneersexploringworkplacebullying,arguedforcefullythatbullyingiscausedbytheorganisationalclimate,cultureandworkingconditionstotheextentthatanyonecanbeaperpetratororavictim,inthe‘wrong’workplaceorworkenvironment.Thefindingsofthesurveyreinforcethenotionthatthewaytheorganisationtreatspeopleisveryimportantandthattheorganisationplaysakeyrolefosteringtherightkindofculture,sendingclearsignalsabouttheappropriatenessorotherwiseofbehavioursandpractices.Therearerelativelyfewstudiesinwhichorganisationalcultureismeasuredinthecontextofworkplaceilltreatment,althoughwherethishasoccurredresultsindicatearelationshipbetweenparticularculturesandtheprevalenceofbullying,for
67Beale,D.&Hoel,H.(2011).WorkplaceBullyingandtheEmploymentRelationship:Exploringquestionsofprevention,controlandcontext.Work,EmploymentandSociety,25(1),5-1868ibid69Leyman,H.(1990).MobbingandPsychologicalTerrorinWorkplaces.ViolenceandVictims,5,119-126
90
examplehierarchicalorientatedculturehasbeenshowntobeadeterminantofworkplacebullying.70,71Manyqualitativestudiesontheotherhandthatexaminethelivedexperienceofilltreatmentexposecultureasfundamentaltounderstandingwhypeoplearebulliedandwhytheyarenotadequatelyprotectedbytheirorganisation.72Cultureactslikealensthroughwhichbehaviourisrefracted.Intervieweesinallthreeorganisationsrecognisedtheimportanceofcultureindirectingthepathtakenwhenilltreatmentoccurs.ConcernsaboutcultureemergedmostvisiblyintheinterviewsinbothSTH3andPBS2.Therewasevidenceofnegativeculturalaspectsindifferingdegrees.Participantsinbothorganisationstalkedabouthowseniormanagementdon’ttakebullyingseriously,insofarasaggressivebehaviourandinstancesofrepeatedincivilityweretypicallyignoredordismissed,resultingintargetslosinganyhopethattheorganisationwillmovetoreprimandtheinstigator,andthisisseenbymanyothers,feedingintoageneralexpectationofinaction,whichinturnleadstolowlevelsofconfidenceinprocedures.Inthisway,despitepolicystatements,illtreatmentbecomesnormalised.InSTH3incivilitywasalsoseentobenormalised,aswereexclusioncliquesandoutgroups.Whenilltreatmentisnormalised,theculturehasbecometoxic,andthiswasrecognisedinPBS2andtoanextentinSTH3.Theplacingofapolicyonawebsiteorinafoldercangiveanorganisationasenseofsecurity,butifinfactitdoesnotgiveseriousconsiderationtotheimplementationofpolicy,itismeaningless.Whenthisoccurs,itisseentobeafunctionofanegativeculture,onethatdoesnotvaluestafforhaveanyconcernfortheirwelfare.ThedescriptionoftheculturethatemergesintheinterviewsofferssupportforSalin’s73modelofworkplacebullying.Salinpositstheinteractionsbetweenenabling,motivatingandprecipitatingstructuresandprocessesinanorganisationexplainworkplacebullying.Enablingstructuresandprocessesarethosethatmakeitpossibleforbullyingtooccurinthefirstplaceandincludeperceivedpowerimbalance,lowperceivedcostsanddissatisfactionandfrustration,allveryevidentinthePBS2interviews.Wordssuchasconformity,obedience,oldfashioned,dysfunctional,anddemi-godappearinthedata.Thelowperceivedcostsarealsoclearlyevident,withreferencestonoapparentrepercussionsforbullying.InSTH3,thehierarchicalnatureoftheorganisationandtheabuseofpositionalpowerwererecognisedas‘thewaythingsare’andasfactorsthatcontributetotheirexperienceofilltreatment.Salin’smodelalsoidentifieshighinternalcompetitionasaprocessthatfeedsintoaculturewherebullyingisproblematic,alongwithsystemsthateffectivelyrewardworkerswhoilltreatormanipulateothers,againbothevidentinthedata.TheImportanceofContextTheinterviewdataillustratedtheimportanceofcontext.Althoughthepolicydocumentsfortheorganisationswerenotidentical,theywereverysimilar,containingalmoststandardisedsectionson‘whatisbullying’andhowtofollowprocedure.Yettheveryspecificcontextsoftheorganisationwereraisedintheinterviewsinawaythatrevealedhowamorenuancedapproachtopolicydevelopmentmightbeasignificantadvanceinthearea.InVORG1,theparticularitiesoftheirserviceethos,thatis,theircommitmenttofamiliesandclients,placedtheminadifficultpositionwhenfamilymemberssubjectedthemtoaggressionandabuse.Policydidnotcoverthisadequately,accordingtotheinterviewees,andtheyareplacedinaproblematicalpositioniftheyneedtoraiseissuesaboutparents,asitisincontradictiontothemissionandvisionoftheorganisation.Thattheyfeltconflictedaboutthisisevidentintheinterviews.Oneparticipant,inrecountingadifficultsituationwithafamilymember,inwhichshethoughtshemightbehit,playsitdownintheinterview:andshewaskindofleaningovermeandshouting(laughs)…andIactually,Iactuallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme,that’showangryshewas.Am,Iwasactually,reallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme……am,butthatwasprobablythe,theworstofthatsituationreally’.Protectingstafffromilltreatmentnotonlyhastoincludeotherstaffmembers,thepublicandclients,but70An,Y.&Kang,J.(2016).RelationshipbetweenOrganizationalCultureandWorkplaceBullyingamongKoreanNurses.AsianNursingResearch,10(3)234-23971Pilch,I.&Turska,E.(2015).RelationshipsbetweenMachiavellianism,OrganizationalCulture,andWorkplaceBullying:EmotionalAbusefromtheTarget’sandthePerpetrator’sPerspective.JournalofBusinessEthics,128:83-93.doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2081-372Hodgins,M.(2006).AwarenessandPerceptionsofStaffoftheAnti-BullyingPolicyinaPublicSectorOrganization.5thInternationalConference:WorkplaceBullying:TheWayForward.15-17June.TrinityCollege,Dublin,73Salin,D.(2003).WaysofExplainingWorkplaceBullying:AReviewofEnabling,MotivatingandPrecipitatingStructuresandProcessesintheWorkEnvironment.HumanRelations,561213-1232
91
hastobesensitivetothecontextinwhichtheyinteractwiththeclientandinthiscasethefamily.ParticipantsinVORG1alsoraisedthechallengeofhavingtoworkwithstaffthattheymayhavemadeallegationsagainstinthecontextoftheneedintheirworktosupportoneanothercloselyinworkingwithclientswithphysicalandintellectualdisabilities.InSTH3contextwasalsoimportant,inthiscasethediversitywithintheorganisationpointedtoasituationwheresubculturesexistwithinalargerculture.YetonenationalDignityatWorkpolicyisexpectedtoaddressallcircumstances.Itwasevidentfromtheinterviewsthatdifferentissuesaroseindifferentpartsoftheservice;thereweredifferencesbetweenacuteserviceunitswherethetrajectoryofworkcannotbepredictedonanyonedayandstaffcanfindthemselvesinhighlystressfulsituations,andunitswhereworkisveryroutineandmundane.Interestingly,thelatterwasasiteforilltreatmentintheformofexclusionandoutgroupbehaviour,andpossiblymoredamagingthaninthehighstressemergencyservice,wherestaffcanunderstandandtoadegreeacceptthatinamedicalemergencytempersarefrayedandshoutingwilloccur.Itispossibletootoapologiseinthelattersituation,whiletheformerismorepernicious.InbothSTH3andPBS2thereweresituationswhereprofessionalswerealsoexpectedtoengageinmanagerialworkalbeitwithinspecialisedunitsorfunctions.Yetprofessionaltrainingtypicallydoesnotequippeopleforthis,emphasizingtheneedforspecifictrainingforpeopleintheserolesandperhapsmorefinelytunedprocedures.TheImportanceofPowerInallthreesetsofinterviews,participantscouldseethatilltreatmentneedstobedealtwithverypromptly,usuallyreferredtoas‘nippingitinthebud’.Peoplecouldseehownotdealingwithmattersallowedthemtoescalate,ifconflictwasinvolved,ortofesterunpleasantlyifpeoplefeelunfairlytreated.Perceptionisveryimportantinilltreatmentsituations.Ifpeopleperceivethemselvestobetreatedunfairly,dismissively,rudelyorwithbelligerence,thiswillimpactonallsubsequentcommunicationsandsoveryearlyinterventionisessential.Yetmuchofthepolicystatements,andcertainlyexperienceonthegroundwasthatmatterscanbeprolonged,andlongwaitsaretobeexpected.Infact,ofteninordertotakeaformalcomplaintofbullyingforward,ithastobeon-goingforsixmonths.Interestingly,whileearlyresponsewasidentifiedasbeingveryimportant,preventionasinthepromotionofcivilitywasnotdiscussedatanylength,withtheexceptionofVeronicasstatementattheendofherinterview:…likeIsaytopeople,you’renotgoingtolikeeverybodyyouworkwith.Butyou’vegottorespecttheirroleandworkthroughthat,OK,youdon’thavetobetheirbestfriendandyoudon’thavetoworkwiththemout,I’mnotaskingyoutogotothepubwiththem,I’mnotaskingyoutobetheirbestfriend.ButIamaskingthatyouwouldconductyourselfprofessionallyintheworkplace,andmakesurethatyourbehaviourisnotgoingtoimpactanyofyourcolleaguesorourserviceusersthatarearoundyou.Itwasalsoacknowledgedbyatleastoneparticipantineachoftheorganisations,usuallyamemberofmanagement,thatcurrentpolicyandprocedureisnotfullyfitforpurpose.Despitetheintenttoprotectstaffandevenwhencarefullylaidoutproceduresarefullyimplemented,theprocesswillneverresultinbothpartiesbeingsatisfied.TominSTH3sumsthisup,“OnethingIknowforcertainisthatI’venever...Idon’tthinkI’veeveryetcomeacrosssomebodywhocameoutofaprocesswheretheyfeltthattheyhadbeenpoorlytreated,gonethroughthepolicyandfeltattheendthatwellthatwasgreat,nowthat’sthatsortedkindofyouknow,it’sneverlikethatsoitisn’t.”(Tom,MM),whilePatsy,morepithilycomments‘Youcan’tun-ringarungbell’.Essentiallywhattheseparticipantsaresayingisthatthepolicyandproceduresforilltreatmentdonotaccommodatethecomplexityandsubtletiesofhumanbehaviourwithinahierarchicalstructure.Illtreatmentisenactedinacontextofpowerabusebetweenindividualsandthefailuretoaddressitadequatelyisanabuseofinstitutionalpower.Individualworkersseethisanditdetersthemfromusingthepolicies.Organisationsthatrefusetoacknowledgeitmaynotadequatelyrevisetheirpolicies.
92
Theaccumulatedfindingsonthebroadconstructofworkplaceilltreatmentandthenarrowerconstructsofincivilityandbullyingindicatethattherearenoeasysolutionstothisproblem.Thisstudycertainlyreinforcessuchaconclusion.‘Solutions’areoftenofferedintheformof‘awarenessraising’,policydevelopmentormanagertraining.Itisapparentfromtheresultsofthestudyherethatsuchmeasuresareindeedrequiredinaddressingilltreatment,butitisequallyevidentthatforsuchsolutionstobemeaningfulandworkable,organisationalcultureneedstobeaddressed.StrongpredictorsofalltypesofilltreatmentwerefoundintheFAREandtheworkpositiveitems,whichtrackbackessentiallytoorganisationalculture,includingtreatingpeopleasindividuals,managerialsupport,facilitatingcontroloveraspectsofwork,andexcessivedemand.Thecasestudiesstronglyreinforcedthis,withdiscussionsofpolicyandmanagertrainingplacedinthecontextof,ultimately,apositiveandsupportiveworkingenvironment.Trainingofmanagersisclearlyrecommended.However,tobebothmeaningfulandworkable,managerscannotfindthemselves,despitehavingbeenprovidedwithtraining,inapositionwheretheyareeffectivelyexpectedtoignoresomeproblemsbecause,forexample,theperpetratorsaresenior.Soasupportivecultureandstrongleadershipisanessentialbackdroptomanagertraining.Similarly,DignityatWorkorAnti-Bullyingpolicies,areafirststepinrelationtoaddressingilltreatment.OrganisationsmustnotonlyhaveaPolicytoprotectstafffromilltreatmentintheformofbullying,butitshouldadheretogoodpracticeguidelinesandbeevidenceinformed.Critically,policiesmustbeimplementedinawaythatitissafeforworkers.Ifworkersdonotthinktheyarebeingprotectedbythepolicy,despiteastatedcommitmenttotheirprotectioncontainedwithinit,theywillnotuseit.Thisineffectmeansthattheclimateandcultureoftheorganisationiskey,andtobemeaningfultheorganisationneedstosendclearsignalsabouttheappropriatenessorotherwiseofparticularbehavioursandpractices.Itisevidentfromfindingsthatclearlinesofresponsibility,realisticandresponsivetimelinesandappropriatemechanismsofredressareveryimportanttoemployees.Employeesnotonlyneedprocedurestobeinplace,buttheyneedtohaveconfidenceinthem.Finallythepromotionofcivilityandrespectfulbehaviourcouldusefullybeincludedininductiontrainingprogrammes,thusandsignallingtoallemployeestheimportanceofpositiveactionsandcommunications,thereforefeedingintoacultureofrespectthroughouttheorganisation.
12ConclusionsTheaimofthisstudywastomeasuretheprevalenceofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees,andtocompareprevalenceacrossvarioussubgroupswithintheworkingpopulationemployingthesamedesign,measurementinstrumentandsamplingstrategyasusedintheBWBS.Thestudyalsosetouttoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinsectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalent,bywayofthreecasestudies,toinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Thesurveywascompletedby1,764people,representingaresponserateof74%anddrewonasampleprofilethatclosematchednationalfigures.WorkplaceilltreatmentoverthepasttwoyearswasfoundtoaffectjustunderhalfofIrishworkers.Asmeasuredbyatleastoneitemonthe21itembehaviouralchecklist,illtreatmentwasexperiencedby43%ofparticipants.Unreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedby37%,incivilityordisrespectby31.3%andphysicalviolenceby2.6%.ThesevaluescomparefavourablytothosemeasuresintheBritishWorkplaceBehaviourStudy,fortheexperienceofilltreatment,althoughtheratesofwitnessandperpetrationforIrelandwerehigher.Thestudysuggeststhataspectsofthemeasurementofworkplaceilltreatmentmaybeculturallysensitiveandprevalenceneedstobeinterpretedinthislight.
93
Althoughcomparisonswithpreviousstudiesarenotstraightforward,giventhatpreviousstudiesemployedselflabellingtechniquesandmeasuredbullyingasopposedtoilltreatment,ifthetwo-twice-weeklyindicatorisusedasanestimateofbullying,itappearsthatbullyinghasincreasedinIrelandsince2007,from7.9%to9%.Thiscouldbeafunctionoftheincreasedworkpressureassociatedwitheconomicrecession.ThestudyfoundthatthepatternsandcontoursofworkplaceilltreatmentinIrelandarebroadlysimilartothosereportedinpreviousstudiesandelsewhereintheliterature,withethnicity,ageandsectorbeingariskfactors(public,healthandsocialservices),andtheeffectparticularlystrongforphysicalviolenceinthepublicsector.Althoughilltreatmentisexperiencedatanindividuallevel,organisationsclearlybearresponsibilityforprotectingemployeesfromnegativebehaviour,andinterventionattheleveloftheorganisationisessential.Thestudyfindingsaddtotheaccumulatingevidencethatorganisationalfactorsarestrongpredictorsofilltreatment:forexampleparticipantsstatingthat‘theneedsoftheirorganisationalwayscomefirst’are3.5timesmorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagementandthosewhofeeltheirprinciplesarecompromisedinworkareoverfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespect.Notonlydonegativeenvironmentsincreasetheriskofilltreatment,positiveenvironmentsreducetherisk.Thestudythereforeprovidesstrongevidencethattheworkenvironmentisadeterminantofilltreatment,orconverselypositivetreatment.Increasingcontroloverdecisions,tasksandpaceofwork,managinghighdemand,supportingstaffinapositivewayandtreatingpeopleasindividuals,havethepotentialreduceworkplaceilltreatment.Thecasestudies,whichfocusedonthepoliciesinthreeorganisationsandtheimplementationoftheseontheground,demonstratedclearlythatdespitemeetingthecriteriaforgoodpracticeinrespectofpolicies,thegreatestchallengeliesinimplementation.Policypublicationandavailabilitymaygiveasenseofsecuritytoanorganisation,butifattentionisnotgiventoimplementation,itdoesnotservethepurposeintended.Thestudyfoundthatorganisationsstruggledtofullyprotectworkers,evenwhendevisingarichpolicyportfolio.Ifworkersdonotfeelsafeusingpolicies,theywillnotdoso,andilltreatmentcanbecomenormalised.Thecultureoftheorganisationisoffundamentalimportanceandwherepolicyisnotproperlyimplementedandilltreatmentblind-eyedorrewarded,atoxiccultureresults.Employeesperceivenonimplementationasasignalthattheemployerdoesnottakeilltreatmentseriouslyandthereforedoesnottakeemployeehealthandwellbeingseriously.Organisationsneedtoaddressilltreatmentbyfocusingonthisfundamentalissueandassuringemployees,throughtheirattentiontoimplementation,thatthisisacorevalue.Nottodoso,isaformofilltreatment.Intermsofmeaningfulsolutions,thefindingsofthestudypointtotheneedforspecificattentiontolineormiddlemanagers,whoareexpectedtoplayakeyroleindealingwithill-treatmentissuesthatarise,andtheimportanceaculturethatsupportsthem.Conflictsbetweenstaffcanneverbefullyeliminated,butperhapsthecomplexityoftheseandtheneedfornuanced,contextspecifictraining,hasnotbeensufficientlyemphasisedinpreviousstudies.Thetrainingandon-goingsupportofmanagers,inawaythataddressestheparticularcontextoftheorganisationisessentiallyisaddressingilltreatment.Inparticular,thecomplexityofhumanbehaviourinthecontextofahierarchicalorganisation,wherepeoplearedependentontheiremployersforwork,andfearreprisaliftheyallegeilltreatment,needstoberecognised.Finally,currentpolicies,thatrequiredamagetobedone,eveninorganisationswhereworkersarenotaversetoengagingwiththepolicy,arenotfullyfitforpurpose.Organisationsmustlooktothepromotionofrespectfulbehaviour,andforthisprocedureandpracticesneedtoberespectful.TheplatformonwhichpolicyshouldbebuiltisthepreventionofIlltreatment,startingwiththepromotionofrespectfulpracticesatthehighestlevel.Respectfulbehaviourcanbemodelledbyseniormanagementandreflectedinorganisationalpractices.Addressingtheprobleminthismulti-levelmanner,offersthemosthopeforgenuinereductioninlevelsofilltreatment.
94
95
APPENDIX1:IWBSSURVEYINSTRUMENTIll-treatmentfactorsandspecificitems
Unreasonablemanagement
SomeonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformancePressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetenceHavingopinionsandviewsignoredSomeonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessaryPressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledtoBeinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlinesEmployersnotfollowingproperproceduresEmployeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace
Incivilityordisrespect
BeinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirworkGossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothersInsultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinworkBeingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudewayPeopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroupHintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjobPersistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfairTeasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofarBeingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemperIntimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatworkFeelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork
Violenceorinjury
ActualphysicalviolenceatworkInjuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork
96
SCREENINGQUESTIONSWorkingstatusWhatisyourcurrentworkingstatus? 1 Workingfull-time(30+hoursaweek) 2 Workingpart-time(8-29hoursaweek) 3 Workingpart-time(under8hoursaweek) 4 Retired(nopaidworkatall) 5 Stillatschool 6 Full-timehighereducation 7 Unemployed(seekingwork) 8 Notemployed(notseekingwork) Q.XiAreyouworkingasanemployeeorareyouself-employedorownyourownbusiness? 1 Employee 2 Self-employed(withorwithoutemployees) 3 Ownerofbusiness 4 (DK)Q.XiiHaveyoubeenemployedfullorparttimeatanytimewithinthelast2years?Pleaseexcludeself-employment. 1 Full-timepaidwork(30+hoursperweek) 2 Part-timepaidwork(8-29hoursperweek) 3 Part-timepaidwork(under8hoursperweek) 4 Noemploymentinthelast2years 5 (DK)Q.XiiiHowlongagowasitsinceyoulastworkedasanemployee? 1 Stillworkingasanemployee 2 Withinthelast6months 3 6monthsuptooneyearago 4 Onetotwoyearsago 5 Morethantwoyearsago
6 (DK)Ethnicity Whichofthesebestdescribesyourethnicgroup? 1 WhiteBritish 2 WhiteIrish 3 AnyotherWhitebackground(IncludingeasternEU)
4 Mixedbackground(White&BlackCaribbean,White&BlackAfrican,White&Asian)
97
5 Asianbackground(IncludingBangladeshi,Pakistani,Indian,Chinese) 6 BlackAfrican 7 AnyotherBlackbackground(IncludingBlackCaribbean) 8 Anyother 9 (R) 10 (DK)Religion Andwhatisyourreligion,evenifyouarenotcurrentlypractising?
1 Christian(includingCatholic,Protestant,andallotherChristiandenominations) 2 Buddhist 3 Hindu 4 Jewish 5 Muslim 6 Sikh 7 Anyotherreligion(pleasespecify) 8 Noreligionatall 9 (R) 10 (DK)DISABILITYDoyouhaveanyofthefollowinglong-standingconditions?
1Deafnessorseverehearingimpairment2Blindnessorseverevisualimpairment3Aconditionthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormorebasicphysicalactivitiessuchaswalking,climbingstairs,liftingorcarrying4Alearningdifficulty5Along-standingpsychologicaloremotionalcondition6Other,includinganylong-standingillness7No,Idonothavealong-standingcondition8Refused
9Don’tknow
98
IWBSSURVEYQUESTIONNAIREQ.1Thinkingaboutyourcurrent/mostrecentemployeroverthelasttwoyears,howoften,ifatall,haveyouexperiencedanyofthefollowinginanegativeway,thiscouldbefrompeopleyouworkwithorfromclientsorcustomers.(item1)…Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsyourperformance.(item2)...Pressurefromsomeoneelsetodoworkbelowyourlevelofcompetence.(item3)...Havingyouropinionsandviewsignored(item4)...SomeonecontinuallycheckinguponyouoryourworkwhenITISNOTNECESSARY(item5)...PressurefromsomeoneelseNOTtoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightyouareentitledto(e.g.sickleave,holidayentitlement,travelexpenses)(item6)...Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines(item7)...Youremployernotfollowingproperprocedures(item8)...Beingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersinyourworkplace(item9)...Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwithyourwork(item10)...Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadaboutyouorhavingallegationsmadeagainstyou(item11)...Beinginsultedorhavingoffensiveremarksmadeaboutyou(item12)...Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway(item13)...Peopleexcludingyoufromtheirgroup(item14)...Hintsorsignalsfromothersthatyoushouldquityourjob(item15)...Persistentcriticismofyourworkorperformancewhichisunfair(item16)...Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar(item17)...Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemperwithyou(item18)...Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork(item19)...Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork(item20)...Actualphysicalviolenceatwork(item21)...Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork1:Never2:Justonce3:Nowandthen4:Monthly5:Weekly6:Daily7(R)8(DK)Q.2Thinkingofthesame21itemswehavejusttalkedabout,haveyouseenanyofthesethingshappen,onmorethanoneoccasion,tootherpeopleinyourcurrent/mostrecentworkplaceinthelasttwoyears?…Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance....Pressurefromsomeoneelsetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence....Havingopinionsandviewsignored...SomeonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenITISNOTNECESSARY…PressureNOTtoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto(e.g.sickleave,holidayentitlement,travelexpenses)...Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines...Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures...Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace...Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork
99
...Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers
...Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork
...Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway
...Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup
...Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob
...Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair
...Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar
...Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper
...Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork
...Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork
...Actualphysicalviolenceatwork
...Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork(None)0No1Yes2(R)3(DK)Q.3Thinkingofthesame21itemswehavejusttalkedabout,haveyoudoneanyofthesethings,onmorethanoneoccasion,tootherpeopleinyourcurrent/mostrecentworkplaceinthelasttwoyears?…Withheldinformationwhichaffectedsomeone’sperformance…Putpressureonsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence...Ignoredopinionsandviewsofothers...Continuallycheckeduponsomeone’sworkwhenITWASNOTNECESSARY...PutpressureonsomeoneNOTtoclaimsomething,whichbyrighttheywereentitledto(e.g.sickleave,holidayentitlement,travelexpenses)...Givensomeoneanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines...Notfollowedproperproceduresintheworkplace...Treatedsomeoneunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace...Humiliatedorridiculedsomeoneinconnectionwiththeirwork...Spreadgossipandrumoursormadeallegationsagainstsomeone...Insultedormadeoffensiveremarksaboutsomeone...Treatedsomeoneinadisrespectfulorrudeway...Excludedpeoplefromyourgroup...Givenhintsorsignalstoothersthattheyshouldquittheirjob...Persistentlycriticisedworkorperformancewhichwasunfair...Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar...Shoutedatorlostyourtemperwithsomeoneatwork…Intimidatingbehaviourtopeopleatwork...Madesomeonefeelthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork...Actualphysicalviolenceatwork...Injuredanyoneinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork0No1Yes2(R)3(DK)
100
Q.4(a)CanIjustcheck,theseareallthingsthathappenedtoyouinyourcurrent/mostrecentplaceofworkandwithinthelasttwoyears.Isthiscorrect?Q.4(b)Yousaidthatyouhadexperiencedthis/thesenegativebehaviour(s)overthelasttwoyears,ofthese,whichoneaffectedyouthemost? Q.5Andwhatdidthisexperienceinvolve?Q.5bSummaryofNumberofresponses
1 ThreeormorevalidresponsestoQ1ANDQ4a
Validresponse=codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
2 LessthanthreevalidresponsestoQ1ANDQ4a
Validresponse=codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
3itemswillbeselectedtouseforfollowupquestions.Decidingwhichonestoselect:
Priorityscores:
53 Item21codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
52 Item20codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
51 Item19codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
50 Item18codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
49 Item17codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
48 Item9codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
47 Item14codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
46 Item13codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
45 Item15codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
44 Item16codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
43 Item11codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
42 Item10codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
41 Item12codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
40 Item8codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
39 Item5codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
38 Item7codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
37 Item1codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
36 Item2codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
35 Item3codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
101
34 Item4codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
33 Item6codes04-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
32 Item9code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
31 Item14code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
30 Item13code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
29 Item15code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
28 Item16code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
27 Item11code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
26 Item10code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
25 Item12code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
24 Item8code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
23 Item5code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
22 Item7code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
21 Item1code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
20 Item2code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
19 Item3code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
18 Item4code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
17 Item6code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
16 Item9code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
15 Item14code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
14 Item13code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
13 Item15code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
12 Item16code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
11 Item11code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
10 Item10code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
9 Item12code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
8 Item8code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
7 Item5code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
6 Item7code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
5 Item1code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
4 Item2code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
3 Item3code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
2 Item4code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
1 Item6code02atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a
(anywhicharenotcode1atQ4aareinvalidresponsesandsopriority0)Q.6(a)Yousaidthatyouhadexperiencedatleastthreenegativebehavioursoverthelasttwoyears.Thesearethreeofthenegativebehavioursthatyousaidyouhadexperienced.Iamgoingtoaskyouafewquestionsabouteachoneinturn.
102
Q.6(b)Firstthinkingaboutwhenyouexperienced[inserttextoffirstitemfromQ6a].Inthelast6months/Inthelast6monthsyouwereworking,howoftenwouldyousaythishappened?1Never2Justonce 3Nowandthen 4Fortnightly 5Weekly6Daily7(R)8(DK)Q.7Inthemostrecentincidentofthiskind,thisneednothavebeeninthelast6months,whatgenderwasthepersonorpersonsresponsible?1:Male2:Female3:Bothmalesandfemales4(R)5(DK)Q.8Inthemostrecentincident,whatethnicgroupwasthepersonorpersonsresponsible?01:White02:Black03:Asian04:Other05:Mixedrace06:Mixedgroupincludingpeopleofdifferentraces(R)(DK)Q.9Inthemostrecentincidentwastheperson/personsresponsiblea1:Employer,supervisor(s)orline-manager(s),seniormanager(s)2:Co-worker(s),colleague(s)3:Subordinate(s)orpeopleinlowerpositionsthanyou4:Client(s),customer(s)5:Notanindividual(i.e.theorganisation)(R)(DK)Q.10Doyoubelieve,inthemostrecentincident,thisnegativebehaviourwasbecauseofanythingonthisscreen?[Screen1]1:Yourpositionintheorganisation2:It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork3:Yourperformanceatwork
103
[Screen2]5:Theattitudeorpersonalityoftheotherperson(s)6:People’srelationshipsatwork(e.g.favouritism)7:Peoplehaveagrouporcliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit[Screen3]9:Yourage10:Yourgender11:Yournationality12:Yourreligion13:Yourrace,ethnicgroupand/orcolourofskin[Screen4]14:Yoursexualorientation(e.g.gay,straight,lesbian,bi-sexualetc.)15:Yourdisability16:Yourlong-termillnessorotherhealthproblems17:Yourunionmembership[Screen5]18:Yourphysicalappearanceorthewayyoudress19:Youbeingpregnant/yourfamilyorcaringresponsibilitiesormaritalstatus20:Youraccentorthewayyouspeak,addressorwhereyoulive,orsocialclass21:Somethingelseaboutyou(e.g.yougetsingledout,yougetpickedon)22:Somethingelsenotalreadyspecified(pleasespecify)(None)Q.11Whatdoyouthinkcausedoriscausingthisnegativebehaviour(pleasespecify)?FARE Thinkingaboutyourcurrentworkplace/workplaceduringthelastyearthatyouspentinyourmostrecentjob,whichofthefollowingstatementsapply?Youcanchooseasmanyasyoulikeornoneatall.
…WhereIwork,theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomebeforetheneedsofpeople…WhereIwork,youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples…WhereIwork,peoplearetreatednotasindividuals…IcannotdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIworkduringtheday…MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldofromdaytoday…Ineedpermissiontotakeabreakduringtheworkingday…InowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanIdidayearago…Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense…Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyearorso…ThepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyearorsoQ.WPStillthinkingaboutyourcurrentworkplace/workplaceduringthelastyearthatyouspentinyourmostrecentjob,canyoutellmewhether...-Iamclearwhatisexpectedofmeatwork-Icandecidewhentotakeabreak-Differentgroupsatworkdemandthingsfrommethatarehardtocombine
104
-Iknowhowtogoaboutgettingmyjobdone-Ihaveunachievabledeadlines-Ifworkgetsdifficult,mycolleagueswillhelpme-IamgivensupportivefeedbackontheworkIdo-Ihavetoworkveryintensively-Iamclearwhatmydutiesandresponsibilitiesare-IhavetoneglectsometasksbecauseIhavetoomuchtodo-Iamclearaboutthegoalsandobjectivesformydepartment-Thereisfrictionorangerbetweencolleagues-IhaveachoiceindecidinghowIdomywork-Iamunabletotakesufficientbreaks-Iunderstandhowmyworkfitsintotheoverallaimoftheorganisation-Iampressuredtoworklonghours-IhaveachoiceindecidingwhatIdoatwork-Ihavetoworkveryfast-Ihaveunrealistictimepressures-Icanrelyonmylinemanagertohelpmeoutwithaworkproblem-IgetthehelpandsupportIneedfromcolleagues-IhavesomesayoverthewayIwork-Ihavesufficientopportunitiestoquestionmanagersaboutchangeatwork-IreceivetherespectatworkIdeservefrommycolleagues-Staffarealwaysconsultedaboutchangeatwork-Icantalktomylinemanageraboutsomethingthathasupsetorannoyedmeatwork-Myworkingtimecanbeflexible-Mycolleaguesarewillingtolistentomywork-relatedproblems1:Never2:Seldom3:Sometimes4:Often5:AlwaysQ.AThinkingaboutyourcurrent/mostrecentjob,canyoutellmewhatdoestheorganisationyouwork/workedformainlymakeordoattheplacewhereyouwork/worked?Pleasedescribefully.1Agriculture,huntingandforestry2Fishing3Miningandquarrying4Manufacturing5Electricity,gas,andwatersupply6Construction7Wholesaleandretailtrade,repairofmotorvehicles&motorcycles8Hotelsandrestaurants9Transport,storageandcommunication10Financialintermediation11Realestate,rentingandbusinessactivities12Publicadministrationanddefence,compulsorysocialsecurity13Education14HealthandSocialWork15Othercommunity,socialandpersonalserviceactivities
105
16Privatehouseholdsemployingstaffandundifferentiatedprod17Extra-territorialorganisationsandbodies18Refused/NotStatedQ.BAndstillthinkingaboutyourcurrent/mostrecentjob,whatis/wasyour(main)jobrolethere?Whatis/wasyourjobtitle?Q.CAndwhatdo/didyoumainlydoinyourjob?Pleasealsotellmeifyouneededanyspecialqualificationsortrainingtodothejob.Q.DAnddo/didyouhaveanymanagerialdutiesordo/didyousuperviseotheremployees?1:Manager2:Supervisor/foreman3:No4:Refused5:(DK)Q.EIs/Wasyourjobapermanentjoboris/wastheresomewayinwhichitis/wasnotpermanent?1:Yes-Permanentjob2:No-notapermanentjob3:Refused4:(DK)Q.FWhichoftheseBESTdescribesthewayinwhichyourjobis/wasNOTpermanent?1:Seasonalwork2:Undercontractforafixedperiodoftimeorforaparticulartask3:Agencyworkortemping4:Casualwork5:Governmentsupportedscheme[e.g.JobsBridge,unpaidIntern]6:Othernon-permanentarrangement7:Refused8:(DK)Q.GIncludingyourself,howmanyemployeesare/werethereintotalattheplacewhereyouwork/worked.Pleaseincludeallcontracted,non-contracted,agency,freelanceandtemporaryworkersBUTEXCLUDEanyowners,ordirectorsoftheorganisation.01:1only(meonly,nootherEmployees)02:2to403:5to904:10to1905:20to2406:25to4907:50to99
106
08:100to14909:150to24910:250to49911:500orover12:Don’tknowbutlessthan25013:Don’tknowbut250ormore14:Refused15:(DK)Q.HIs/Wasyourplaceofworkpartofalargerorganisation?Ifyes,canyouestimatethetotalnumberofemployeesinthatlargerorganisation?1:Notinalargerorganisation2:Under103:10-494:50-2495:250-4996:500-9997:1,000-9,9998:10,000+9:Refused10:Don’tknowQ.IWhatkindoforganisationis/wasit?1:Aprivatefirmorbusinessoralimitedcompany2:ApubliclimitedcompanyorPLC3:Anationalisedindustryorstatecorporation4:CentralGovernmentorCivilService5:Localgovernmentorcouncil(includingtheFireService)6:ASchool7:AUniversityorcollege8:AHealthAuthorityortheHSE9:ACharityorVoluntaryorganisation10:ThePolice11:Thearmedforces12:Anotherkindoforganisation(Pleasespecify)13:Refused14:(DK)Q.JHowlonghaveyoubeenworkingforyourcurrentemployer?Pleasedonotincludeanytimespenttempingbeforebeingdirectlyemployedbytheorganisation.Ifyoucan’trememberexactly,pleasegiveyourbestestimate.1:<1year2:1-2years3:2-3years4:3-4years5:4-5years6:5-10years7:10-15years
107
8:15years+9:Don’tknow/NotansweredQK.Whatwouldyousaywasthecompositionofthestaffinyourcurrent/lastworkplaceintermsofrace/ethnicity:1:NoBlackorEthnicMinoritiesinmyworkplace(0%)2:AfewBlackorEthnicMinoritiesinmyworkplace(5-10%)3:AboutaquarterBlackorEthnicMinorities(about25%)4:AbouthalfBlackorEthnicMinorities(about50%)5:MorethanhalfBlackorEthnicMinorities(about60%)6:Aboutthree-quartersBlackorEthnicMinorities(about75%)7:NearlyallBlackorEthnicMinorities(about85-90%)8:AllBlackorEthnicMinorities(100%)9:(R)10:(DK)QL.Whatwouldyousaywasthecompositionofthestaffinyourcurrent/lastworkplaceintermsofgender:1:Nowomeninmyworkplace(0%)2:Afewwomeninmyworkplace(5-10%)3:Aboutaquarterwomen(about25%)4:Abouthalfwomen(about50%)5:Morethanhalfwomen(about60%)6:Aboutthree-quarterswomen(about75%)7:Nearlyallwomen(about85-90%)8:Allwomen(100%)9:(R)10:(DK)QM.Whatwouldyousaywasthecompositionofthestaffinyourcurrent/lastworkplaceintermsofyoungpeopleunder25:1:Noyoungpeopleinmyworkplace(0%)2:Afewyoungpeopleinmyworkplace(5-10%)3:Aboutaquarteryoungpeople(about25%)4:Abouthalfyoungpeople(about50%)5:Morethanhalfyoungpeople(about60%)6:Aboutthree-quartersyoungpeople(about75%)7:Nearlyallyoungpeople(about85-90%)8:Allyoungpeople(100%)9:(R)10:(DK)Q.NAre/WerethereanyTradeUnionsorstaffassociationsatcurrent/mostrecentworkplacethatsomeonedoingyourjobcouldjoin?1:Yes-TradeUnion2:Yes-StaffAssociation3:No
108
4:Refused5:(DK)Q.OAre/Wereyouamemberofthetradeunionorstaffassociationthere?1:Yes-TradeUnion2:Yes-staffassociation3:No4:Refused5:(DK)Q.PPleaselookatthisandtellmewhatyourusualpayisforyourcurrentjob/wasforyourmostrecentjob,BEFOREanydeductionsfortax,PRSIandsoon. Perweek Permonth Peryear CodeA Under€193 Under€834 Under€10,000 1B €193-€384 €834-€1,667 €10,000-€19,999 2C €385-€575 €1,668-€2,500 €20,000-€29,999 3D €576-€767 €2,501-€3,333 €30,000-€39,999 4E €768-€959 €3,334-€4,167 €40,000-€49,999 5F €960ormore €4,168ormore €50,000ormore 6R 7DK 8
Perhapsyoucouldlookatthiscardnowandtellmeinalittlemoredetailwhereyourusualpay,BEFOREanydeductionsfortax,PRSIandsoon,wouldfall? Perweek Permonth Peryear CodeH25A[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYAABOVE]
€86orless €375orless €4,499orless 1€87-€109 €376-€475 €4,500-€5,699 2€110-€153 €476-€667 €5,700-€7,999 3€154-€192 €668-€833 €8,000-€9,999 4
H25B[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYBABOVE]
€193-€240 €834-€1,042 €10,000-€12,499 5€241-€288 €1,043-€1,250 €12,500-€14,999 6€289-€336 €1,251-€1,458 €15,000-€17,499 7€337-€384 €1,459-€1,667 €17,500-€19,999 8
H25C[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYCABOVE]
€385-€432 €1,668-€1,875 €20,000-€22,499 9€433-€479 €1,876-€2,083 €22,500-€24,999 10€480-€527 €2,084-€2,292 €25,000-€27,499 11€528-€575 €2,293-€2,500 €27,500-€29,999 12
H25D[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYDABOVE]
€576-€623 €2,501-€2,708 €30,000-€32,499 13€624-€671 €2,709-€2,917 €32,500-€34,999 14€672-€719 €2,918-€3,125 €35,000-€37,499 15€720-€767 €3,126-€3,333 €37,500-€39,999 16
H25E[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYEABOVE]
€768-€815 €3,334-€3,542 €40,000-€42,499 17€816-€863 €3,543-€3,750 €42,500-€44,999 18€864-€911 €3,751-€3,958 €45,000-€47,499 19€912-€959 €3,959-€4,167 €47,500-€49,999 20
109
H25F[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYFABOVE]
€960-€1,151 €4,168-€5,000 €50,000-€59,999 21€1,152-€1,343 €5,001-€5,833 €60,000-€69,999 22€1,344-€1,534 €5,834-€6,667 €70,000-€79,999 23€1,535ormore €6,668ormore €80,000ormore 24
R 25DK 26
Q.QStartingfromthetopofthescreen,pleaselookdownthelistofqualificationsandtellmethenumberofthefirstoneyoucometothatyouhavepassed.(FromCensus2011)1:HigherdegreeorpostgraduatequalificationsNFQLevel9or10PostgraduateDiploma,MastersDegreeorequivalent,PhD2:DegreeHonoursBachelorDegree/ProfessionalqualificationorbothNFQLevel7or83:DiplomasinhighereducationorotherHEqualifications,HigherCertificateNFQLevel6NCEA/HETACNationalCert.orequivalent,AdvancedCertificate/CompletedApprenticeshipNFQLevel6FETACAdvancedCert.,NCVALevel3,FÁSNationalCraftCert.,TeagascFarmingCert.,CERTProfessionalCookeryCert.orequivalent4:UpperSecondaryNFQLevels4or5LeavingCert.(includingAppliedandVocationalprogrammes)orequivalent5:TradeapprenticeshipsTechnicalorVocationalNFQLevels4or5FETACLevel4/5Cert.,NCVALevel1/2,FÁSSpecificSkills,TeagascCert.inAgriculture,CERTCraftCert.orequivalent6:LowerSecondaryNFQLevel3Junior/Inter/GroupCert.,FETACLevel3Cert.,FÁSIntroductorySkills,NCVAFoundationCert.orequivalent7:PrimaryeducationNFQLevels1or2FETACLevel1or2Cert.orequivalent8:Otherqualifications(includingoverseas)(pleasespecify)9:Noneofthese10:Refused11:(DK)Q.SWhatisyourcountryofbirth?1:England2:Wales3:Scotland4:NorthernIreland5:removedforIre6:RepublicofIreland7:Poland8:Lithuania9:Latvia10:Romania11:Germany12:Slovakia
110
13:Hungary14:France15:Italy16:Spain17:Netherlands18:OtherEU27(Luxembourg,Slovenia,Cyprus,Malta,Greece,Austria,Finland,Denmark,Belgium,Sweden,Bulgaria,Portugal,Estonia)19:Nigeria20:SouthAfrica21:OtherAfrica22:China23:India24:Philippines25:OtherAsia26:USA27:Brazil28:Canada29:OtherAmericas30:Australia31:NewZealand32:Somewhereelse(pleasespecify)33:Refused34:(DK)Q.TAndinwhatyeardidyouFIRSTcometotheRepublicofIrelandtoliveortowork?Q.VDoyouhaveanyofthefollowinglong-standingconditions?1Deafnessorseverehearingimpairment2Blindnessorseverevisualimpairment3Aconditionthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormorebasicphysicalactivitiessuchaswalking,climbingstairs,liftingorcarrying4Alearningdifficulty5Along-standingpsychologicaloremotionalcondition6Other,includinganylong-standingillness7No,Idonothavealong-standingcondition8Refused9Don’tknowQWDoesalong-standinghealthproblemordisabilitymeanyouhavesubstantialdifficultiesdoingday-to-dayactivities?1Yes2No3R4DK
111
APPENDIX2:TOPICGUIDEFORINTERVIEWSTopicGuideforEmployees1)PERSONALPROFILE:Tellmeabitaboutyourself……2)PERCEPTIONOFILLTREATMENTINTHEORGANISATION:(BULLYING,HARASSMENT,RUDENESS,VERBALABUSE,UNREASONABLEBEHAVIOUR)
Ø Whatdoyouunderstandbyilltreatmentintheworkplace?Ø Doyouthinkilltreatmentisprevalentinyourworkplace?Ø Whatareyourexperiencesofilltreatmentintheworkplace?(cancapturepersonalexperiencesandalso
witnessed/observedexperiences)Ø Whatwastheoutcomeforemployee?Ø Whatwastheoutcomefortheorganisation?Ø Whatdoyouthinkhasbroughtitabout?
3)KNOWLEDGEOFSUPPORTAVAILABLE:
Ø Tellmeaboutthesystemsthatareinplacetodealwithissuesofilltreatment?(policies/procedures)?Ø Whowouldyougoto?Ø Whatworks?Whatdoesn’twork?Whymightthisbe?Ø Howeffectivearetheprocesses?
4)OUTCOMES:
Ø Whataretheconsequencesofusingthesystems/proceduresthatareinplace?Ø Whathappensonceyoudoaccessthem?Ø Consequencesofreportingilltreatment?Ø Istheoutcomegenerallysatisfactory?Ø Otherthantheformalprocedures/supports,whatelsehashelpedyouorothersthroughsuch
experiences?Ø Inwhatway?Ø Othersupportmechanisms?
5)SOLUTIONS:
Ø Whatdoyouthinkshouldhappen?Ø Inthefuture,whatwouldbeabetterwayofdealingwithissuesofilltreatmentintheworkplace?Ø Whatchallengesmayarise?
112
APPENDIX3:CALLTOPARTICIPATEININTERVIEWS
IrishWorkplaceBehaviourStudy2015-2016 DearStaffMember
WearewritinginrelationtotheIrishWorkplaceBehaviourStudy,whichisbeingconductedbyresearchersintheNationalUniversityofIreland,GalwayandtheUniversityofLimerick.Negativebehaviours,suchasbullying,harassmentorincivility,haveasignificantimpactonemployeehealthandwellbeing.Organisationstypicallyfinditdifficulttopreventorevenmanagenegativebehaviours,evenwithpoliciesandproceduresinplace.Thisresearchispartofanationalstudy,whichaimstoexplorethecausesandeffectsofnegativeworkplacebehavioursandalsotheimplementationofsupportsandproceduresforaddressingpotentialissues.Yourorganisationisjustoneoftheorganisationsparticipatinginthestudy.Wewouldliketotalktopeople,inanygradeorroleinyourorganisation,togainadeeperunderstandingofperceptionsandexperiences,frompeopleontheground,abouthowtheseproblemsariseandaremanagedinyourworkplace.Ultimately,wewillusethisinformationtomakeusefulandpracticalrecommendationsforworkplacesgenerally.Tofacilitatetheresearch,wewillbeconductinginterviews,whichwillincludequestionssuchasperceptionsofnegativebehavioursinyourworkplace,andproceduresandsupportsfordealingwithsuchissues.Interviewswilltakeapproximately30minstocompleteandallinformationcollectedwillbecompletelyconfidentialandanonymous,meaning:1.Youremployerwillnotbetoldwhoparticipatesintheinterviews2.Thedatawillbepresentedinageneralwayandextremecarewillbetakentoensureandnoone
canbeidentifiedthroughanycommentstheymake3.Theorganisationitselfwillnotbeidentifiedintheprojectreporttofunder(Institutionof
OccupationalSafetyandHealth,UK)4. Onlygeneralissuesarising,andrecommendationsforactionswillbesummarisedandgiventoyour
organisationInterviewscanbeheldinpersoneitherinyourworkplaceifthatcanbearranged,orintheUniversity,ifthatisyourpreference.Wewouldliketoinviteyoucontactusifyouareinterestedintakingpartinthisstudyandtoshareyourexperiencesregardingthisissue.Pleasecontactuson0860208015Thankyouforyourtime.Yourssincerely,DrMargaretHodgins, PrincipalInvestigator,IWBS.SchoolofHealthSciences, NationalUniversityofIreland,GalwayPh(091)493349, Email:[email protected]
113
APPENDIX4:EDUCATIONALSESSIONSFLYER
All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce any part of this work will not be withheld unreasonably, on condition that full attribution is given to the publication and to IOSH.
While this paper reports on research that was funded by IOSH, the contents of the document reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. IOSH has not edited the text in any way, except for essential formatting requirements. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IOSH.
All web addresses are current at the time of going to press. The publisher takes no responsibility for subsequent changes.
Suggested citation: Hodgins M, Pursell L, Hogan V, McCurtain S, Mannix-McNamara P and Lewis D. Irish workplace behaviour study. Wigston: IOSH, 2017.
© IOSH 2017Published by IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUKt +44 (0)116 257 3100www.iosh.com
SD00
98/2
2111
7/PD
F
Institution of Occupational Safety and HealthFounded 1945Incorporated by Royal Charter 2003Registered charity in England and Wales No. 1096790Registered charity in Scotland No. SC043254
IOSH is the Chartered body for health and safety professionals. With more than 46,000 members in over 120 countries, we’re the world’s largest professional health and safety organisation.
We set standards, and support, develop and connect our members with resources, guidance, events and training. We’re the voice of the profession, and campaign on issues that affect millions of working people.
IOSH was founded in 1945 and is a registered charity with international NGO status.
IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUK
t +44 (0)116 257 3100www.iosh.com
twitter.com/IOSH_tweets facebook.com/IOSHofficial tinyurl.com/IOSH-linkedin youtube.com/IOSHchannel
Top Related