Handbook on Sexual Violence (88 page)

For the organisation, the consequences of bullying tend to manifest themselves in higher levels of absenteeism and turnover and a reduction in productivity (Giga
et al
. 2008a). Incorporating the costs involved in internal investigations, and adding the potential cost of litigation and those arising from damage to brand and public reputation, the total bill which organisations might face could indeed be very considerable (Hoel
et al
. 2010). As the effects appear to extend to bystanders and witnesses (Rayner
et al
. 2002), the seriousness of the problem is further emphasised.

Sexual orientation, bullying and harassment

In assessing the existing evidence we need to draw attention to the fact that the validity of existing data is questionable. Thus, it is commonly agreed that

research on sexual orientation often suffers from the application of weak methodologies with respect to sample and sampling procedures, and the measures and instruments applied (e.g. Croteau 1996; Griffith and Hebl 2002). In this respect most studies have relied on probability sampling, using various self-selection approaches such as snowballing. In addition white employees and the better educated are often over-represented within the samples, with implication for generalisation (Croteau 1996). On this matter, research on sexual minorities has much in common with other discrimination-based studies where interrelated shortcomings of access and cost explain the weaknesses of available datasets, and thus reliability of conclusions drawn. As far as LGB employees are concerned, this problem has been further exacerbated by potential concern with anonymity and confidentiality (Day and Schoenrade 1997), where fear of involuntarily disclosing one’s sexuality might raise the bar further.

In terms of the magnitude of the problem, a recent large-scale survey by the Department of Trade and Industry into perceptions of fair treatment at work (Grainger and Fitzner 2006) revealed that 18 per cent of LGBs reported experiencing ‘unfair treatment’ at work, double the national average. Similarly, Stonewall (2007), suggests that nearly one in five lesbians and gay men had experienced bullying due to their sexual orientation, with 13 per cent of the population reporting that they had witnessed verbal bullying in the workplace, while nearly four per cent reported witnessing physical anti-gay bullying. Acas (2007) suggested that 22–48 per cent of LGB employees experience bullying/harassment while a study by TUC (2000) suggested that 44 per cent reported discrimination associated with their sexuality.

The most commonly reported behaviours associated with bullying and harassment were verbal abuse, jokes and pranks, homophobic remarks, threats of physical abuse and what is referred to as a ‘homophobic culture’ (Acas 2007), with many of the behaviours directly or indirectly playing on the sexuality of targets. Acas makes a distinction between three forms of discrimination: direct blatant, subtle unspoken homophobia and unfair treatment. Although blatant discrimination might be less common, informal or subtle discrimination appears to be widespread (Griffith and Hebl 2002). In this respect harassment and violent attacks might live side by side with common but less openly aggressive forms of discrimination in terms of undermining the credibility and respect of their recipients (Croteau 1996).

It is likely that the frequency and forms of discrimination, bullying and harassment of LGBs will vary with the local or employment sector context (Beale and Hoel, in press). Although evidence is sparse, the problems vary substantially between occupations, with for example hotel/restaurant and prison/police in the private and the public sector respectively associated with particularly high levels of complaints (Acas 2007). Research also indicates that whilst some experiences might be similar for lesbians and gay men other experiences may not. This highlights that we need to be careful in applying a ‘one size fits all’ explanation and should treat LGBs as separate constituencies with to some degree their own distinct experiences. Moreover, in some cases, the fact that individuals belong to a minority ethnic group or religion, or are labelled disabled, suggests a complex mix of multiple identities which could

impact on their experience. As argued by one BME interviewee in a rare British study of LGB employees’ experiences, it is ‘like dealing with homophobic experience from a BME perspective’ (Colgan
et al
. 2008: 47).

While we have already addressed how research reveals that discrimination,

bullying and harassment affect its recipients, some studies also indicate that these forms of negative experience might have a particular detrimental effect on the mental health of LGBs (e.g. Cochran 2001; Ellison and Gunstone 2009). Despite methodological shortcomings, an in-depth review of the literature, supplied by a meta-analysis of studies looking into this issue, concluded that ‘whenever significant differences in prevalence of disorders between LGBs and heterosexual groups were reported, LGBs had a higher prevalence than heterosexual groups’ (Meyer 2003: 684). Within this general picture, some studies (e.g. Ellison and Gunstone 2009) have reported higher levels of mental health disorder for lesbians compared with gay men. By contrast, Meyer’s meta analysis (2003) yielded no significant gender differences with the exception of ‘substance use disorder’, which appears to be of less significance for men than for women.

When assessing the findings on LGBs’ mental health situation, Meyer (2003) argues that one needs to bear in mind that it was not until 1973 that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
. The stigma caused by this has negatively affected the ability to get a clear picture of the health situation of LGBs as advocate groups resented the idea of enhanced mental health problems among gay men and lesbians. However, with recent discussions moving in the direction of interpreting findings of any over-representation of mental health problems in terms of the breadth and magnitude of social stress experienced by these
sections of the population, the attitude to such findings is changing (Cochran 2001). Hence, mental health problems are explained by reference to the various additional pressures or social stressors affecting LGBs and captured by the term ‘minority stress’ (Meyer 2003). Such stressors and their implications will be explored in more depth later. Here we will limit ourselves to emphasising that social stressors in terms of ‘minority stress’ are seen to exist independently of how these are perceived or appraised by the individual (Meyer 2003). As far as the UK is concerned, it may be argued that although attitudes to homosexuality and LGBs appear to be changing in a positive direction (NCSR 2010), homophobia is still widespread in society and affects in many ways the lives of lesbians and gay men (EHRC 2009).

Belonging to a socially stigmatised group may also bring about perceptions of shame and self-hatred or what has been referred to as internalised homophobia (Meyer 2003). In its extreme this might lead to suicide or ideas of or attempts at suicide among LGBs. Although evidence among the adult population is not clear, not least due to biases and shortcomings associated with sampling (Meyer 2003), the sort of feelings that can lead to suicide attempts appear to be particularly strong in young LGBs, particularly among boys (Meyer 2003), or those who are uncertain about their sexual identity and who might find it hard to come to terms with their sexuality (Imich
et al
. 2001).

The experience of ‘minority stress’ may also be associated with the process

of self-disclosure and the degree of openness about one’s sexuality.

Consequently, fear of bullying, violence and discrimination in and outside work might be important factors in explaining LGBs’ decision to ‘come out’ or not, or more accurately, their level of personal disclosure of their sexuality at work (Day and Schoenrade 1997; Ward and Winstanley 2006). Disclosure has been described as a double-edged sword due to the potential risks and emotional costs involved with openness as well as the disadvantages of staying ‘closeted’ in terms of lost opportunities for integration with social networks and consequent reduced access to information (Griffith and Hebl 2002). In this respect, the task of concealment both inside and outside of work can place a psychological strain on individuals, leading to stress-related illness (Ragins 2008). Moreover, Day and Schoenrade (1997) reported that LGB employees who had chosen to disclose their identity at work were likely to suffer less role conflict, reduced role ambiguity compared with those who had not disclosed. However, findings of the outcomes of disclosure are contested, with some finding higher degrees of job satisfaction and organisational commitment and less work–home conflict for those revealing their sexuality (Day and Schoenrade 1997), while others also report that disclosure was associated with higher levels of anxiety (Griffith and Hebl 2002). It has also been argued that in some cases individuals had little choice and have been forced to self-categorise or ‘out’ themselves in order to be able to draw attention to their case and receive a fair hearing (Ward and Winstanley 2006).

Altogether, fear of failure, being ridiculed, ostracised or exposed to violence at work may ultimately impact on LGBs’ career choices as they search for careers and places of work which they consider friendly or at least where they can feel safe. In the study by Colgan
et al
. (2008) referred to above, LGB respondents pointed to negative experiences in school as a possible barrier to continuing into further or higher education. Furthermore, although far from necessarily being seen as a safe environment, certain industries were considered more gay friendly, for example, retailing, local government and the IT sector, with public sector jobs generally seen as more likely to provide LGBs with equal opportunities than the private sector. By contrast, LGBs would avoid particular ‘macho’ occupations, such as engineering, where they feared they would become isolated. No doubt, such considerations might impact on the opportunity for self-actualisation and overall standard of living.

Theoretical perspectives on bullying and harassment of LGBs and people with disabilities in the workplace

Research into workplace bullying was pioneered in Sweden by Heinz Leymann in the early 1980s (Leymann 1996). Since the beginning, discussion about the phenomenon’s causes and antecedents has been a contentious issue, with Leymann gradually becoming an exponent of a view which denies any involvement of personality factors in scenarios of bullying, instead explaining bullying entirely in terms of environmental or situational factors. By contrast, popular or lay explanations of bullying, supported by accounts by articulate victim campaigners (e.g. Field 1996) often favour a focus on personality factors, although in the latter cases it is the personality traits of bullies which have

been the centre of attention.

Research on the personality of targets of bullying has suggested that bullying is associated with higher levels of neuroticism (Zapf and Einarsen 2010) and anxiety (Coyne
et al
. 2000), and with lower self-esteem than non- victims (Einarsen
et al
. 1994). One study also reported that targets of bullying were more suspicious than those who had not been bullied. In a more recent study, Glasø
et al
. (2007) identified two subgroups of victims with one subgroup (nearly two-thirds of the victims) strongly resembling the personality profile of a non-victimised control group, while a smaller victim group (approximately one-third of victims) stood out from the control group in terms of being more neurotic and less agreeable, extrovert, conscientious and intelligent. This study appears to suggest that there is no such thing as a general target profile (Glasø
et al
. 2010). Moreover, due to shortcomings of methodology, with studies so far relying on cross-sectional samples, it is difficult to conclude to what extent personality is a risk factor in bullying or whether the particular personality profile identified in some victims may actually be the result of the bullying process, or what Leymann referred to as ‘a normal response to an abnormal situation’ (Leymann 1996).

Alternatively, bullying has been explained by reference to features of the situation, the so-called work environment hypothesis. As argued by Salin and Hoel (2011) various features of the work environment may impact on perpetrator behaviour as well as on targets’ opportunity to retaliate or defend themselves. Typically, studies have identified factors directly associated with the organisation of work such as role conflict and with the style of leadership applied (Hauge
et al
. 2007). There is also evidence that bullying is linked to organisational change (Skogstad
et al
. (2007a)), with a change of management seen as a particular risk factor (Rayner
et al
. 2002). According to Hoel
et al
. (in press), as far as the perceptions of targets of bullying are concerned, bullying is most strongly associated with a style of leadership which applies punishment arbitrarily, seemingly unrelated to prior target behaviour and, thus unpredictable, making it difficult for targets to defend themselves. Another style associated with bullying is laissez-faire, a style of leadership indicating that managers abdicate their responsibility, typically failing to intervene when required or expected, including when someone is being bullied or victimised (Hoel e
t al
., in press; Skogstad
et al
. 2007b).

Within the wider work environment perspectives, bullying can also be

explained by reference to socialisation processes, in which employees gradually succumb to prevailing negative organisational norms and, by implication, ensure the reproduction of bullying and violence. Whilst this particularly applies to behavioural patterns of perpetrators, it might also impact on recipients, contributing to the establishment of a victim mentality. Evidence of this has emerged from studies in as different contexts as nursing (Randle 2003), the fire service (Archer 1999) and restaurant kitchens (Bloisi and Hoel 2008). Interestingly, in both the fire service and among chefs, sexualised harassment and violence are reported among frequently applied bullying behaviour. In some contexts and settings it is realised that what is acted out within the workplace is by and large a reflection and a spillover of violent behaviour external to the workplace. In other words, in terms of the