Power relationships in any organisation are fundamental for viability and productivity. People in an organisation use power differently, some to further organisational goals, while others use it for their selfish interest at the expense of others. Generally, power within organisations results from competition for limited resources or opportunities, from technology to people. The term ‘power’ has been defined in different ways and at times related to authority (formal power) and influence (informal) in literature (see Bacharach & Lawler, 1981; Field, 1996; French & Raven, 1959; Merchant, 2005). Authority is the power or right given to a line manager or supervisor by an organisation to achieve its objectives, to give orders to the subordinates and to get obedience from them (Branch et al., 2006; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003; Schein & Greiner, 1988). Influence occurs when one person has technical, knowledge, skills and competences (Schein & Greiner, 1988) to manipulate others’ emotions, opinions or behaviours to comply (obedience), identify (liked and respected) and internalise (accept belief) with the person in power (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Keltner et al., 2003). Therefore, authority (rigid and overtly defined) and influence (not strictly specified) are often interrelated in organisations and essentially different to a great extent. They both give a person ability to influence, reward and impose sanctions on others.
For the purpose of this study, I define power as the ability to directly or indirectly, formally or informally influence others, gain favourable outcomes at the expense of another person, provide or withhold valued resources and administer punishment within an organisation (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Lovaglia, Mannix, Samuelson, Sell & Wilson, 2004; Mechanic, 2003). Depending on how it is used, it can lead to positive or negative outcomes in an organisation (Merchant, 2005).
Bullying in the workplace can be attributed to people (bullies) who are interested in power and control through negative acts diminishing rather than enhancing a person(s) (Query & Hanley, 2010). Cunniff and Mostert (2012, p. 3) contend that it is commonly acknowledged that the perceived power imbalance between targets and bullies “lies at the heart of this phenomenon, and bullying often sees the victim ending up in an inferior position”. Salin (2003) sees the concept of power as pervading workplace bullying and differentiates it from other workplace transgressions.
Bullying in the workplace can occur horizontally (between subordinates) or vertically (top- down or bottom-up), as highlighted above. Kaplan (in Smit, 2014, p. 34) states that “the bullying of subordinates by supervisors is different to that between co-workers or bullying of supervisors by subordinates, mainly due to the relative status of the bully and the victim”. This power difference can be directly or indirectly linked to bullying, amongst others. Hutchinson et al. (2010) and Torres (2008) claim that often bullying involves line managers and factors such as power tripping (abuse of power), making the workplace hostile, insulting employees, or other forms of denigration and harassment due to workplace error, religious and sexual intolerance. The consequence of both horizontal and vertical bullying, if not managed properly, can persuade subordinates to rally or gather enough power to bully a supervisor (Salin, 2003). Raven (2008. p. 8) contends that the target may also have “various motives to either accept or reject influence from the superiors or others, some of which may involve personal factors, such as a need for independence, for power, for self-esteem, and for personal feelings-positive or negative- toward the influencing agent”. However, Bulutlar and Oz (2009) and Samnani and Singh (2012) believe that not only hierarchical positional power are prerequisite to workplace bullying, but that other sources of power can contribute to bullying. Similarly, Salin (2008) states that the power disparity is not only attained from the organisational hierarchy structure but can be achieved from less formal structures, for example, access to information, knowledge and expertise or support by influential people.
Researchers (e.g., Branch et al., 2013; Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers, 2009; Salin, 2008; Smit, 2014) believe workplace bullying pervades every workplace and every sphere of life, since it symbolises a dynamic interaction of organisational and social interactions as opposed to interpersonal conflict. There are several formal and informal or less formal sources of power.The informal or less formalsources of power were identified to play a potent role in bullying (see Hutchinson et al., 2010). These sources of power that characterise the relations between people within the organisation (subordinates and superiors), are reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, personal
68
(referent) power and informational power (see French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 1992). According to Aquino (2000) and Quine (2003), colleagues with equal positional power may bully one another. Although it was cautioned that legitimate or positional power is limited to the amount of power (influence or authority), everyone has the ability to acquire and use more power than they might reasonably expect to have. However, it is also possible for a person with authority and/or influence over others, to feel powerless, mainly due to the perceptions others have of them (Branch, 2006).
Power imbalance and abuse of power by an organisation, line manager or supervisor, individual employee or a group of employees, have been previously and recently emphasised by several researchers to permeate bullying, amongst other aspects, in the workplace in which the target lacks the power or resources to successfully defend himself or herself (Branch et al., 2013; Bulutlar & Oz, 2009; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2005; Momberg, 2011; Pietersen, 2007; Samnani & Singh 2012; Walden & Höel, 2004). According to Raven (2008), the victim might have tried to analyse what sources of power the bully might attempt to use and have prepared to counter these one by one or resort to powers of third parties to assist in their resistance. Momberg (2011) believes that abuse of these powers has become widespread in the workplace and is used as a strategy to bully or harass employees or create a hostile environment. In addition, the abuse of these powers with intent to harm or humiliate someone can also be gained from quoting rules that do not exist or misquoting rules by overstating or understating their meaning (Morgan, 2006).
Vega and Comer (2005) argue that power imbalance and abuse of power often make the targets “start to feel incompetent to combat or even confront the bully, which of course makes it all the more difficult to utilise existing grievance procedures, and the targets might give up or resign or suffer in silence”. Momberg (2011) showed that most South African organisations have grievance procedures in place, but often the process is dominated by bully line managers and supervisors and they often abuse their powers by not investigating grievances timeously. “The ineffective grievances structure or patronage of wrongdoers “provide ‘rogue’ line managers with the opportunity to mistreat employees” (Harvey et al., 2006a, p. 2). According to Einarsen (2000), the bullied employee may even be censured by line management and/or the HR department when he or she lodges a complaint. When this is experienced, targets become vulnerable, lose faith in the grievance process and will not use it to resolve their issues of concern. Similarly, Tepper (2000) believes that employees exposed to routine abusive supervision or management often resort to inactive unsympathetic behaviour, such as ignoring the
team leader or supervisor or working less than they are capable. Adopting passive unsympathetic behaviour at work by an employee or a target, however, could lead to confrontation that may escalate the conflict between the bully and the target and also escalate into a cycle of reciprocal aggression (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Jerkins (2011, p. 16) asserts that often hostile behaviour from others is “likely to be met with counter- aggression from targets”, whereas, at times such retaliation or reverse discourse can also escalate the bullying (Lee & Brotheridge, 2006) and have the potential to separate targets from their colleagues or peers and support from others (Vaillancourt, McDougall, Hymel & Sunderani, 2010).
Lutgen-Sandvik (2006) writes that bullied employees or targets are not necessarily defenceless, but have some power to stop or oppose the workplace bullying attacks. Scholars proposed strategies that targets can employ to overcome bullying, such as confronting the bully with intent to resolve the matter; reporting the behaviour if the bully is egotistical; and fighting back against the bully with all means available in the organisation or leave the organisation (Branch et al., 2013; Lee & Brotheridge, 2006; Vaillancourt et al., 2010).