CUENTA CORRIENTE BANCARIA

The previously discussed emphasis on bullying as intolerable and rare fits an

organization which has a self-understanding that bullying is unacceptable. Bullying is seen as so out of place within the Church that it is necessary to defend introducing an anti-bullying policy. Possessing an anti-bullying policy can be seen as implying the

50 existence of bullying. This is reflected in an apologetic approach to dealing with the issue: “Recognizing that issues can sometimes arise does not undermine or debase the value of the community; it simply acknowledges human frailty and is a first step in tackling and reducing problems.” (AC, 2008, p.iv). As a justification for action, a call to unspecified Christian values is made: “We are called to create a loving community that models Christian values, and any cases of bullying and harassment are unacceptable” (p.1). These are broad statements which reflect the thought that it is obvious that bullying has no place in the Church, so a great theological justification is not required. However, Raynor and Hoel describe types of bullying behaviour including “threat to professional status… threat to personal standing… isolation… overwork” (Cowie, 2002, p.34). Threat to professional status and personal standing can both be used as tools to win in church conflicts. The Sheldon Report documents isolation and overwork as recognized challenges of clergy life (Horsman and Lee, 2002). There is no substantial reason for assuming that bullying would not arise in a church context.

Justification for addressing bullying is presented through a list of disadvantages which follow from bullying which includes “low morale…loss of respect for those with responsibility for oversight; poor stewardship of ministry resources; loss of confidence; ill health and absence; resignations; and reputation damage for the wider church…” (AC, p.1) These represent the cost of bullying to the organization. This brief section is then followed by three pages outlining the legal position. This draws on discrimination and harassment legislation and ecclesiastical law. However, bringing together the opening and closing paragraphs, I believe it is possible to interpret a driving concern of the Church becoming involved in legal issues.

Both employees and office holders can bring complaints under laws covering discrimination and harassment. (p.2)

Seeking legal remedy can be a protracted, costly and painful process, and is not designed to address the underlying issues. Working to develop a culture that makes it less likely that bullying will take place, and acting swiftly to nip it in the bud if it does, will help reduce the need for legal action. (p.4)

The organizational approach outlined above is illuminated and challenged by two features of current literature. These are a shift away from focussing on bullying as interpersonal aggression to organizational practice and the questionable effectiveness of anti-bullying policies. Liefooghe and Mackenzie highlight organizational bullying:

51 Managers are perhaps placed as the scapegoat in interpersonal bullying research, shouldering responsibility for organizational practices that are predominantly out of their control. The pathologizing of both victim and bully may act as a distractor for organizational practices (2001, p.377).

Basing their conclusions on interviews with the employees of a call centre they examine how practices relating to meeting targets lead to bullying behaviour. Their work is useful as an indication that presenting bullying purely as an interpersonal issue is taking too narrow a view. This is supported further by Noronha’s assertion that bystanders are a significant but under examined resource in addressing bullying (2011).

An important insight into the failure of anti-bullying policies is raised as early as 2005 in the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) document “Beyond

bullying to a culture of respect”. This asks the question, “83 per cent of organizations – 90 per cent in the public sector – have anti-bullying policies, so why is it still

happening?” (p.3). They do not suggest abandoning anti-bullying policies but shift the balance of activity strongly towards establishing and monitoring cultures of positive behaviour.

The policy oriented nature of DaW fits with a Unison document which DaW references. This strongly supports the role of policy but the starting point for policy formation is: “data collection, both qualitative and quantitative….it gives employers the chance to show they have begun to investigate the problem” (Richards and Daley, p.248). They then suggest a working group draws up a draft policy which should “reflect the culture of the organization” (p.248). In common with the CIPD approach there is mention of culture. However, the contrast is in whether a new culture is to be established or the existing culture reflected.

Beale and Hoel also consider the failure of anti-bullying policy. They suggest a potential error in thinking relating to the cost of bullying. Rather than organizations experiencing bullying as a cost they suggest that employers can sometimes further the aims of their organization through bullying: “Employers attempts to eradicate bullying are fundamentally problematic and to varying degrees contradictory” (2011, p.7). Based on labour process theory they invite bullying to be considered as an endemic feature of the capitalist employment relationship (p.7). On this basis bullying is “a tool of

managerial control” (p.9). Managers are there to control labour and can benefit by “condoning or ignoring” (p.10) bullying behaviour. They suggest that modern HR

52 practices shift anti-bullying procedures towards “individualist managerial initiatives” (p.6). They can also be tied into a management “sub-culture” where to criticise another manager offends against the subculture (p.10) leading to looking the other way or having a “quiet word” (p.10). Beale and Hoel do not discard zero tolerance approaches but suggest they require political change on a massive level which may well eliminate them. This implies that zero tolerance approaches, within weak anti-bullying measures, are intrinsically flawed.

Beale and Hoel reference Edwards’ analysis of employment, describing workplaces which can be categorized as a “high status human resource environment” (p.11). The expectation is that bullying is less likely in these workplaces. The Church may see itself in this way, in contrast to the picture of a call centre bullying employees described by Liefooghe and Mackenzie (2001). Edwards describes the elements of the employment relationship as relating to status and contract. At its simplest level clergy could be seen to be workers that fit his status model, highly trained and hard to replace, whereas the call centre workers could be seen as fitting his contract model of being easily

dispensable. However, his key point is subtler than this. Managers in the same

workplace can switch between status and contract approaches giving “contradictions in management rhetoric and practice [with] significant impact on worker’s attitudes, on trust and on management credibility, as well as potentially aiding a trade union ‘counter culture’” (Beale and Hoel, 2011, p.12). A further subtlety in understanding which organizations might experience bullying is Hoel and Salin’s identification that laissez- faire management rather than authoritarian management can promote a culture of bullying (2003, p.213) and their identification that organizational change is a key factor in the presence of bullying (p.214).

Considering the applicability of Beale and Hoel’s identification that zero tolerance policies are in conflict with the capitalist employment relationship, a case could be made that clergy are a long way from capitalism. They are not paid to work. The stipend they receive is intended to free them from the need to work. However, on a practical level stipendiary clergy receive money and complete tasks that serve the organization, which implies that insights based around capitalism are relevant.

When thinking about the human resource environment Church of England clergy might experience, it relates to the oversight of the Bishop and is therefore strongly based on individuals. Within Boyd- MacMillan and Savage’s work with church leaders (2007) there are pointers towards avoidance or a quiet word being likely tools, opening the

53 possibility of a managerial subculture tolerant towards bullying within the Church. Other resonances occur when considering the switching between status and contract approaches. Clergy can be categorized as highly trained and valuable but some clergy are in redundant posts. Clergy are not easily dispensable but the move towards

considering them dispensable is significant. As an illustration, I received a request for parish share which reminded me that clergy posts were at risk if the share was not met. An indication of changing climate is the existence of the Unite faith worker section. Only a generation ago this would have been unimaginable. Clergy might not be like call centre workers but we are significantly closer than we used to be. This reflects that the Church of England is an organization experiencing considerable change.

DaW does address organizational culture to some extent. However, it partially nullifies this by offering policy framing as its first suggestion and then relying on bishops, clergy and laity to set a good example and undertake training as the way to bring cultural change. There is no more specific detail. Therefore, the thrust of DaW is towards policy not culture. This has the outworking in my diocese of being at the draft policy stage for four years and not reaching the suggestions relating to organizational culture. One further reference to culture is: “strong leadership can sometimes tip over into bullying behaviour…. a culture where clergy are consulted and problems discussed is less likely to encourage bullying and harassment than one where there is an authoritarian

leadership style” (AC, p.19).

The church cannot assume that it falls outside the category of bullying organizations. Instead, I suggest it is an organization where people who experience bullying are likely to find it more problematic because as well as the bullying itself they need to cope with the dissonance of being bullied within the Church context. A particular contrast between DaW and the literature comes in the area of management style. The report’s concern that authoritarian behaviour may be interpreted as bullying stands against Hoel and Salin’s observation that laissez faire management gives more room for bullying to occur, demonstrating that one of the few cultural references may be flawed.

Reading DaW in light of the critique of zero tolerance approaches and the risk of the perception of hypocritical behaviour, the overall approach of DaW to bullying comes into question. If we contrast the CIPD position of identifying bullying policies to be prolific but unsuccessful in 2005 with the diocese of study still at draft policy stage in 2012 then the Church of England appears to be behind other organizations. This lack of progress suggests the toleration of bullying. Where other organizations may have tried

54 but been unsuccessful, the Church has hardly made a start. This invites consideration to be made of the relationship between the image of the organization that DaW offers and a victim of bullying who reads this document. My interpretation is that the organization presents itself as having a history, of at least reasonable practice, in the area of

addressing bullying and wishes to build on this. However, I anticipate that a victim of bullying would take a view that the history has been of poor practice and anything built on it will be weak.

A significant omission relates to DaW providing a model policy before carrying out the research suggested by Richards and Daley (2003). Had the research been done first then DaW could have been more closely situated in the culture of the Church. Currently it is neither a reflection of an existing culture or an authoritative attempt to change culture. Use has been made of trade union advice and current research but church has borrowed from these contexts without doing the work to provide its own stamp. Overall this presents a picture of an organization unwilling to examine its own culture, which may be naïve about the potential for bullying and where the experience of bullying could cause additional distress because of perceived hypocrisy. There is a direct conflict between the desire to claim zero tolerance with the need for DaW to be seen as a document with credibility and integrity.