DE LA CUENTA CORRIENTE MERCANTIL ART 519 Hay contrato de cuenta corriente, siempre

Workplace bullying has roots in school bullying and aggression (Liefooghe, 2001, p.375). A Scandinavian tradition can be thought of as arising in the 1980s when Professor Heinz Leymann applied insights from family conflict to workplace conflict (Einarsen et al., 2003, p.3). The growth of workplace bullying as a distinctive field throughout the 1990s is highlighted by a 2002 review (Cowie, et al., 2002, p.34). Hoel and Salin identify a specific British trade union link, referring to unions being in a weakened position and realizing that bullying “lends itself well to complaints from individuals, as well as to more collective strategies [making it] an ideal campaigning issue” (2003, p.203). They identify this as stemming from Andrea Adams’ book, Bullying at Work (1992). This reflects a pattern where “waves of interest” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper, 2003, p.5) follow a court case, leading to a preliminary study, which then feeds back into public opinion. The presence of emotive issues and mix of stakeholders make workplace bullying a complex field.

There are two definitions of bullying used within DaW. One is provided by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS): “behaving in a way that is offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting, with the result that the targeted person feels undermined, humiliated or injured” (AC, p.3). The second definition introduces unacceptable behaviour as the misuse of power with the potential for harm. This becomes bullying when there is “actual harm or distress [over a] prolonged period of time” (p.16). This is clarified by a list of negative acts (p.17). A concern mentioned in the document is that “incisive behaviour” (p.6) might wrongly be interpreted as

45 bullying. The key elements of this definition are the misuse of power, negative acts and timing considerations.

DEFINITION

A power differential between bully and victim is a core part of the definition (Cowie, 2002, p.36) but there are several possible modifications to this basic feature. Zapf and Gross make the observation that “bullying can start with an equal power structure” (2001, p.498) but then go on to lead to unequal power as the bullying behaviour has its effect. Further, there is not only hierarchical power but also social power. This open up the potential for bullying by colleagues and subordinates (Salin, 2008, p.221). Finally, Einarsen’s observation that the power differential can be “real or perceived” (1999, p.18) highlights that although power is significant it is a complex category with which to work.

The consideration of negative acts in DaW represents a strand within workplace

bullying literature of increasing objectivity by researching the occurrence of breaches in behaviour criteria rather than their effect on an individual (Cowie, 2002, p. 36). The 23 behaviours listed relate closely to the 23 behaviours of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R). This was developed by Einarsen and Raknes from 1991 (Einarsen, Hoel and Notelaers, 2009, p. 26) and is still being used in 2011 (Notelaers, et al., 2011, p.76). By using negative acts in conjunction with their effect on a victim’s feelings, DaW is drawing on both objective and subjective strands.

The period over which negative acts must occur in order to be counted as bullying shows great variation. Cowie et al (2002, p.35) summarize Leymann as holding to the strictest definition that a negative act must have occurred at least weekly for 6 months to be defined as bullying. However, if bullying is regarded as a phased process (Einarsen, 1999, p.19) where subtle aggression shifts to open aggression then a time related boundary is hard to establish. Finally, simple timing ideas do not take in bystander effects. D’Cruz and Norhona make use of Twemlow’s “bully bystanders” and “victim bystanders” (2011, p.270) which demonstrates that there may be more experienced than is carried out by one person; others may join in the bullying or stress may be

experienced when a victim of bullying is a bystander to another being bullied. This is reflected in Zapf and Gross who identify “social stressors” as affecting all who work together not just the bully and victim (2001, p.498). This again adds complexity around what might constitute an individual negative act that might be counted.

46 The difficulty of definition is demonstrated by the work of Tepper and Henle (2011) who advocate the maintenance of a multiplicity of terms to preserve the richness of the field. This can be contrasted with Hershcovis (2011) who argues that bringing terms together gives a useful unity. These are reflective of bullying as “a set of events that can be conceptualized in many ways rather than as an “objective reality’” (Liefooghe and Olafsson, 1999, p.48). A feature of workplace bullying research is the need to fit together the stance on definition with the framework in which the research is situated. This concept has the potential to be applied to policy documents.

The DaW definition has both subjective and objective approaches with the inclusion of how a person feels and the behaviours associated with bullying. A reader may think that experiencing these behaviours correlates to being bullied. Although it is indeed possible to work with a bullied/not bullied distinction, this is not the only option. Significantly, Notelears suggests a sub-category of “limited work criticism” (Notelaers et al, 2006, p.291). As these sub-categories are absent from DaW it can be read as an alarming document in which everything becomes bullying. DaW names the concern that work criticism will be wrongly interpreted as bullying and has content which promotes that confusion. This possibility exists because if incisive behaviour is received as offensive and leads to a person feeling “undermined, humiliated or injured” (AC, p.3), then, by their own definition, this is bullying. There is potential for multiple definitions to act as a barrier to engagement because all difficult human interactions begin to look like bullying. Conversely, Einarsen et al., consider multiple definitions as beneficial but these are across different professions (2002, p.14), not in the same document. Concerns around definition are magnified when DaW is considered as a way of addressing bullying and also as grievance policy and a standard for employment tribunal. Difficulties of definition reflect a number of purposes legal, ethical and pastoral. I suggest covering these in one document leads to a dysfunctional document.