AUDITORÍAS EXTERNAS

The role played by an individual’s persona in workplace bullying has been well documented. Traditionally, investigation into the antecedents of workplace bullying has focussed predominantly on the persona of an individual. The principal aim was to establish whether an individual’s persona predisposes them to become a target or perpetrator of workplace bullying. In light of the aforesaid, Vartia (1996) pointed out that certain personality traits make an individual more susceptible to experiencing bullying, which also becomes important in predicting workplace bullying. Furthermore, Zapf and Einarsen (2003; 2005) held that certain individual characteristics may in certain instances act as contributing factors of workplace bullying.

It is argued that either an individual’s vulnerabilities in dispositions or the provocative nature of their dispositions may predispose them to be a target of bullying (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Randall, 1997). As early as the mid-70s Brodsky (1976) documented that predisposing factors in victims included: a lack of social competence and self-assertiveness, conscientiousness and tendencies towards overachievement. Individual characteristics like social incompetence and self-esteem (e.g., being unable to manage conflict or defend him or herself), or overachieving and causing conflict with group norms (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003) may promote bullying by means of placing the victim in a vulnerable position.

The view that some people are more vulnerable to bullying than others as a result of their low self-assertiveness, low self-esteem and their inability to defend themselves under certain circumstances is very common and has been well supported by a number of studies.

A study conducted by McGuckin, Lewis and Shevlin (2001) found that victims of bullying score lower on self-esteem and self-assertiveness than non-victims. These findings were supported in later research by Matthiesen and Einarsen (2007) who added that victims of bullying are more likely to also exhibit negative affectivity.

Zapf (1999) argues that a victim’s depressive, anxious and obsessive behaviour may be an effect of bullying while also being a cause of it. Moreover, victims of workplace bullying are reported to be weaker, paranoid, and have less social skills (Einarsen, 2000; Ramsey, 2002; Zapf, 1999). Sadly, it is also documented that some victims may be bullied on the basis of gender and race (Lewis & Gunn, 2007). On the other hand, they are also reported to be enthusiastic, intelligent, highly skilled, loyal, creative and high achievers (Bultena & Whatcott, 2008). Bultena and Whatcott further argue that the employees most vulnerable to workplace bullying are the personality invested high-achievers who threaten colleagues in one way or another. It is therefore assumed that those who feel threatened, whether justifiably or not, regard bullying as their way of controlling, minimizing and even eliminating the threat.

Given the foregoing discussion, it should be noted that the victim’s personality as a causal factor in workplace bullying has been a profoundly debated issue. It is thus essential to take cognisance that no generalisation about the personality profile of the victim can be made due to several apparent contradictions and discrepancies in literature. In addition to examining the victim’s personality, researchers have also aimed to examine the personality profile of the perpetrator.

With the focus on the perpetrator, those who bully will rarely admit to being a perpetrator of bullying. This is often the situation given that in most instances the perpetrator knows that what he is doing is wrong and destructive.

It is therefore difficult to collect valid information from the perpetrators perspective (Baillien et al., 2009). Given this challenge, the characteristics of the perpetrator are commonly based on the victim’s opinion and view. In terms of perpetrator characteristics, those who bully has been reported to be aggressive (Seigne et al., 2007), dictatorial (Ashforth, 1994), and egocentric (Namie, 2003). Zapf and Einarsen (2003) hypothesised that the perpetrators characteristics relate to three main types of bullying such as: the protection of self-esteem, a lack of social competence, and bullying as a result of micro-political behaviour.

Protection of self-esteem draws on research which advocates that aggression is directed towards sources of negative evaluations and constitutes a way of symbolic dominance and superiority over another person (Grawshaw, 2009). The protection of self-esteem can be expected to be a basic human motive that influences and controls an individual’s behaviour in various situations. In terms of a lack of social competence, the perpetrators are often unaware of the effects that their behaviour may have on others. Grawshaw posits that this type of bullying is often unintentional and that perpetrators commonly lack self-reflection, perspective taking and emotional control.

Micro-political behaviour refers to behaviours used by people within the workplace to enhance their own interest and position. These people may make use of organisational structures, processes, coalitions, and power to further their goals and protect their status (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). With micro-political behaviour, the intent is not to harm any particular individual but rather to present the self in a positive light and protect one’s own interest (Grawshaw, 2009). However, this type of behaviour has the potential to manifest itself as bullying.

Additionally, both victim and perpetrator could be fashioned from an incident at work that was left unresolved, which created a cycle of disruptive behaviour between the two. This implies that the victim and perpetrator become subject to circumstances in the event that other variables fail to resolve the issue.

Unaddressed workplace conflict may thus lead to workplace bullying when behaviours are allowed to escalate until violence and abuse occur in the workplace (Ayoko, Callan & Hartel, 2003; Cortina et al., 2001).