DETERMINACIÓN DIRECTA

Several people have attempted to explain the evolution of workplace bullying, particularly the processes involved. In doing so, numerous models of the phenomenon have been proposed in literature.

These models frequently claim that workplace bullying is an evolving process, which starts either as a result of conditions and factors inside the workplace (Giorgi, 2010; Poilpot-Rocaboy, 2006; Salin, 2003) or conditions and factors in the organisations external environment (Johnson, 2011; Moayed, Daraiseh, Shell & Salem, 2006). The author has selected several of the proposed models, thought appropriate for further discussion for the purpose of the present study.

2.4.1 The Heinz Leymann model of workplace bullying

The model of workplace bullying by Leymann (Figure 1) is considered mainly because of the recognition he often receives as being the pioneer in the advent of workplace bullying. According to Leymann (1996; 1990) bullying can be described as an escalating process, which becomes more and more severe if left unaddressed. He conceptualised workplace bullying as proceeding through four distinct stages namely: critical incident; bullying and stigmatising; personnel administration/management; and expulsion.

Figure 1. Leymann’s model of workplace bullying

(Source: Author)

In Leymann’s view the critical incident phase is characterised by a triggering event, specifically a conflict. He argues that the conflict only develops into bullying once the conflict cannot be resolved. In the event that the conflict is resolved then workplace bullying will normally not ensue.

Unresolved conflict Critical incident Bullying / Stigmatising Personnel management Expulsion of victim

However, should the conflict not be resolved one party is generally placed in an inferior position and subjected to systematic and repetitive behaviour, which on face value seems harmless and innocent. However, this behaviour is negative in that it harms the targeted person. The systematic and recurrent nature of the behaviour does in fact become harmful as the person in question are being stigmatised or bullied. According to Zapf and Einarsen (2001) a person may attain a shortcoming and gradually become the subject of highly negative behaviours by others during an escalating conflict. The succeeding phase is thus characterised by the actual bullying and stigmatising of the person in the workplace.

Einarsen (2000) argues that the victim becomes more vulnerable and a deserving target due to his powerlessness as a result of the bullying behaviours escalating frequency and intensity. The bullying or stigmatising phase will thus continue to prosper in the workplace until it is being challenged, ideally from management. Leymann (1996) refer to the intervention by management as the personnel management phase. According to him this phase is distinctive of management desire to take control and eradicate the problem from the workplace.

Additionally, parallel to management desire to eradicate the problem they also elude personal responsibility for the phenomenon by shifting the blame on personal characteristics, generally the victims. This is especially the case when management become aware that the presence of bullying in the workplace is due to conditions in the organisation.

Sadly, the process ends in expulsion whereby the victim is being compelled to leave the workplace. If expulsion is not dreadful enough, the victim also has to battle the various forms of illnesses that might have developed out of the victims bullying experience in the workplace.

The model proposed by Leyman (1996; 1990) appear to be a rather linear process. However, the evolving process of workplace bullying as proposed by Leymann cannot be said with certainty to progress through all the distinct phases.

To illustrate, in Leymann’s explanation of his model he acknowledges that the behaviour involved is often subtle, thus making it difficult to detect and/or prove. Workplace bullying is difficult to identify and analyse mainly because it is considered indirect and psychological in nature with infrequent physical aggression (Bentley et al., 2012; Vie et al., 2011). Additionally, the subtle, indirect and psychological character of the behaviour(s) involved in workplace bullying could make it difficult for the victim, or even others, to detect. Therefore, it cannot be said with confidence that management always become aware of workplace bullying incidents.

Moreover, even if the victim becomes aware that he is being bullied it does not give one the assurance that he will report it. Deductively management will then remain unaware of the incident, thus rendering Leymann’s personnel management phase null and void. In the case where a person is aware that he is being targeted and is unable to handle and survive the bullying and stigmatising in the workplace, he might circuitously be compelled to leave the organisation through resignation. In such an instance the person might not provide any indication that his resignation is due to relentless bullying in the workplace.

Currently in South Africa there are no reported or documented cases of expulsion due to workplace bullying. However, that does not imply that no such cases exist. Lastly, a person could become the victim of bullying without any critical incident or conflict as ancestor. The personality characteristics, experience, education, knowledge, etc could predispose a person to become a victim of workplace bullying without any conflict incident being present.

Therefore, unless the aforementioned factors are also considered as qualifying to represent a critical incident, there would be no such phase in Leymann’s model. In exceptional cases, a person might be subjected to workplace bullying without the perpetrator knowing his actions and behaviour awards him the bully status.

2.4.2. Salin’s model of workplace bullying

According to Salin (2003) workplace bullying can be understood as a result of the interaction between three idiosyncratic structures and processes. As publicized in Figure 2, these include enabling structures and processes, motivating structures and processes, and participating processes. Enabling structures and processes refer to the antecedents of workplace bullying whereas motivating structures and process refer to incentives for being a bully. Additionally, participating processes refer to those triggering circumstances that are responsible for the actual instigation of workplace bullying.

Figure 2. Enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes

(Salin, 2003, p. 1218)

Motivating structures and processes

• Internal competition

• Reward system and expected benefits • Bureaucracy and difficulties to lay off employees

Precipitating processes

• Restructuring and crises • Other organizational changes

• Changes in management / composition of work group

Enabling structures and processes

• Perceived power imbalance • Low perceived costs • Dissatisfaction and frustration