Handbook on Sexual Violence (87 page)

From what we know so far, minority groups defined in terms of race/ ethnicity, disability or sexuality appear to be over-represented among targets of violence, bullying and harassment, although the evidence is limited and results are not always consistent (Fevre
et al
. 2008; Giga
et al
. 2008a; Lewis and Gunn 2007). This lack of knowledge about the experience of minority workers seems in part to reflect their social standing and echoes a lack of advocacy (Di Martino
et al
. 2003). Thus, to some extent, to become the focus of research and political attention requires the backing of strong support networks and the ability to create sufficient interest among researchers and other interested parties to steer necessary resources in the direction of systematic scientific exploration. As argued above, little or no attention has been paid to the experience of violence, bullying and harassment by lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (LGBs), a disparity which we will address. Thus, we intend to explore the experience of this under-researched group, particularly focusing on acts and behaviour targeting their sexuality and how sexuality is exploited in scenarios of bullying and harassment.

Workplace bullying: conceptual delineation, evidence and consequences

As indicated above disagreement still exists regarding how to define workplace bullying (Lewis 2006). Nevertheless, there appears to be a growing agreement internationally about how to understand the phenomenon and its defining characteristics. This conceptual convergence is accounted for by factors such as greater awareness and public debate about the issues, spreading of common terms at international meetings and in publications, the introduction of new legislation addressing the issue, ground-breaking decisions by the courts and the proliferation of collective agreement targeting the problem (Di Martino
et al
. 2003).

Bullying is concerned with exposure to negative, unwanted acts or

behaviour on a continuum from common and relatively harmless acts to rare and very severe actions. The behaviour can be direct and indirect, with shouting an example of the former and gossiping the latter. Similarly, bullying acts may be active or passive, with humiliation and criticism representing active acts, while ignoring or excluding an employee indicates passive bullying behaviour. In the same way, some acts might concern or be directed at the way work is being carried out, sometimes referred to as work-related bullying, while other behaviour might refer directly to the persons at the receiving end, in other words, person-related bullying (Einarsen
et al
. 2011). However, it is often argued that the central defining characteristic of bullying is persistency of exposure, with the experience being repeated and often patterned. It follows logically that longevity or duration also plays a core role, with most bullying scenarios lasting for a very considerable time, measured in terms of months and years rather than weeks (Einarsen
et al
. 2011). Despite the focus on persistency, there still appears to be an agreement that one-off acts or more isolated incidents might constitute bullying in some cases. Such situations are generally associated with the severity of the act or their long-term impact which radically redefines the relationship between the protagonists and possibly the target’s relationship with significant others within the organisation. A poignant example of such a one-off event would be the outing of an LGB employees, or in other words, making the target’s sexuality public, against their will, as a one-off act with the ordeal possibly exacerbated by a hostile or homophobic work environment.

Another core characteristic of bullying is the imbalance of power between target and perpetrator, a disparity which might be present at the outset or emergence of the conflict and crystallise itself through the ongoing bullying process (Einarsen
et al
. 2011). In this respect it is important to emphasise that power imbalance might simply be a reflection of the hierarchical position of those involved. Alternatively, it might result from power drawn from alternative sources, sometimes referred to as referent power (French and Raven 1959), including such things as experience, knowledge or access to social support and internal networks (Hoel
et al
. 1999). Thus, having access to intimate knowledge about a person, for example concerning their sexuality or sexual practices, possibly obtained within the confines of a friendship or even a relationship, could be used as a powerful weapon against an opponent during an escalated conflict. The escalating nature and dynamics of the

process should also be emphasised, which suggests that it is not always clear from the outset who might end up in an inferior position, when an escalated personalised conflict becomes a case of bullying and victimisation (Einarsen
et al
. 2011). With reference to Kelly’s continuum of violence one could suggest that either party in the escalating phases of a conflict could make use of violent acts to various degrees of severity in order to counteract or defeat their opponent. Moreover, if at one point in the process one of the parties is able to establish superior relational power over their opponent, the nature of the process will change from mutual aggression to bullying. At this stage one may argue that the violent acts performed by the bully or perpetrator may take on different meaning in the eyes of the target, with even violent acts rated as low level by observers having the potential to be perceived as severe by the recipient.

Whilst the intent of the perpetrator is commonly featured in discussions about the core characteristics of bullying, disagreement still exists on this issue. Not only is it important to make a distinction about intent in terms of the intention to cause harm as opposed to the intent of the act itself, it should also be noted that, whilst an act of bullying and indeed its harmful effects may be premeditated, it might not be the intent of the perpetrator to victimise the target. For example, a manager who is under severe pressure to meet organisational targets may put excessive demands on an individual employee over a period of time, without personally intending to harm the individual. Yet, the individual might feel bullied by their ordeal and suffer detrimental effects to their health and well-being. Still, and more importantly, as the only people who can verify the presence of intent are the perpetrators themselves, the issue of intent remains a hypothetical question and can only be inferred retrospectively (Einarsen
et al
. 2010; Hoel
et al
. 1999). Nevertheless, there is little doubt that perceived intent is of importance to the target as the perceived motivation for the behaviour will impact on its effects on the recipient. It has also been argued that the focus should be moved from intent to one of acceptability, with consideration of likely intent possibly affecting how an offence might be sanctioned by the organisation but irrelevant for the establishment of whether bullying has taken place or not. Thus, perpetrators’ attempts to justify their behaviour by referring to tradition or culture should be rejected with reference to the ‘reasonable person’ legal standard (e.g. Prior and Fitzgerald 2003), particularly where there is reason to believe that the perpetrator is aware that the behaviour is unwelcome. Although potential victims might draw some comfort from this legal position, it raises a problem where bullying of LGBs is rooted in widespread societal homophobia where the man (and woman) in the street might not object to the behaviour.

When examining the characteristics of bullying, a distinction should also be made between subjective and objective bullying. Subjective bullying refers to the individual’s perception of events, while objective refers to incidents or processes verified or confirmed by others (Brodsky 1976). Whilst the experience of bullying always remains in the ‘eye of the beholder’, and as such is a subjective experience, organisations would need more objective criteria to establish whether it has taken place or not when receiving a complaint of bullying. Unfortunately for recipients, many incidents take place without

witnesses present which might militate against the opportunity for a fair hearing (Hoel and Einarsen 2011). Here we would limit ourselves to point out three factors which might be particularly relevant to the experience of LGBs. First, as the meaning of an individual event cannot fully be appreciated by others without prior knowledge of previous events involving the target and the protagonists, they might not appreciate the full meaning of an act or an event which is obvious to recipient and perpetrator. Thus one could envisage situations where knowledge of someone’s sexuality could be exploited in this way. Second, where word stands against word, the organisation might come down on the side of the more powerful or those who fulfil key jobs, and who are therefore considered difficult to replace. This argument might be extended to include cultural dominance, including sexuality (Hearn and Parkin 2001) where perceived deviant sexuality might be a factor undermining social standing and even trustworthiness. Third, as a target’s ordeal might affect their behaviour and emotions, and even their mental stability (Einarsen and Mikkelsen 2003), they are likely to cut a sad figure and as such cannot rely on sympathy for their cause (Hoel and Einarsen 2011) or articulate clearly what has happened to them.

It is suggested that around five to 20 per cent of employees, depending upon context and research methodology applied, suffer from bullying at any one time (Zapf
et al
. 2011). In terms of occupational context, Zapf
et al
. argue that international research suggests that public administration, education and social work are sectors where the frequency of bullying is reported to be particularly high. As previously argued, women appear to be more at risk of bullying than men. Research also suggests that there might be an interaction between sex and organisational status with women in managerial positions significantly more exposed to bullying than their male counterparts (Hoel
et al
. 2001). What has emerged by way of evidence also suggests a heightened risk of exposure for ethnic minorities (Giga
et al
. 2008a) and LGBs (Grainger and Fitzner 2006), although there appears to be considerable variation in experience between sub-groups (Hoel and Cooper 2000). This suggests that neither ethnicity nor sexuality should be seen as unifying concepts in terms of their constituents’ experience. For example, in terms of ethnicity, Hoel and Cooper (2000) reported that whilst Asian respondents were over-represented among targets of bullying, African-Caribbeans, for their part, were no more at risk of bullying than white employees. It should also be mentioned that simply being in a minority position could act as an antecedent of bullying, for example, being a male nurse in a predominantly female environment has been seen to increase the risk of exposure to bullying (Eriksen and Einarsen (2004). Moreover, it is also important to acknowledge the issue of multiple or overlapping identities, and ask the question whether risk could be seen as additive or indeed interactive, with exposure to one exacerbating the effect of exposure to other risks (Lee 2002). Although research does not provide support for such hypotheses, it is plausible to suggest that individuals facing harassment tend to adapt to the situation which appears to protect them against experiencing additional, or additive, harm when exposed to other forms of harassment (Raver and Nishii 2010).

Looking at the overall picture for bullying and harassment within the EU

area, it is acknowledged that exposure rates vary considerably (Zapf
et al
. 2011). Whilst discrepancy in numbers might reflect variation in the methodology applied (Di Martino
et al
. 2003), with the validity of some studies questionable, the difference in numbers might also mirror the attention given to the problem in various EU states, with some countries addressing it systematically while others seemingly turn a blind eye to the problem. Even worse, in some cases the state has actually introduced new legal measures to legitimise discriminatory practices. An example of this is a law passed by the Lithuanian Parliament in 2009 referred to as the ‘Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information’. According to Amnesty International, this law which mirrors the British Clause 28 (introduced by Margaret Thatcher and repealed in 2001), represents an ‘institutionalisation of homophobia’ (Amnesty International 2009), and its very existence is a blatant breach of EU regulation. Such regulatory political intervention may, therefore, be seen to legitimise bullying and violence against LGBs in a region which has a recent history of public violence towards gay and lesbian citizens.

Bullying manifests itself psychologically, physically and behaviourally. Thus, being exposed to bullying is associated with anxiety, depression and a series of psychosomatic symptoms as well as with cognitive effects such as loss of concentration (e.g. Leymann 1996). In severe cases the experience may also lead to symptoms resembling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Einarsen and Mikkelsen 2003). Responding to their ordeal by means of aggressiveness, erratic behaviour, frequent mood swings and social withdrawal (e.g. Field 1996), and therefore effectively undermining any support they may have received previously from colleagues, would also lead to an increasing spiral of social isolation (Leymann 1996). It is assumed that individuals’ pre-existing vulnerability will impact on the consequences of exposure (Hoel
et al
. 2004). In this respect, it is of course possible that LGBs as a group might be more vulnerable than their heterosexual counterparts due to possible previous negative experiences in and outside work and other problems surrounding their sexuality and sexual identity. Moreover, to the extent that LGBs might have weaker links to internal social networks, perceptions of exclusion and isolation might develop faster, to the detriment of their social standing and opportunities for a positive outcome to their case.