(1812) Un rey y una reina no consiguen

Workplace bullying stems from multiple causes that are linked to variables relevant to both targets or bullies such as personality traits (Moayed et al., 2006; Seigne et al., 2007; Zapf & Einarsen, 2010), legitimate position (Aguino et al., 2001; Salin, 2003); bullies’ roles (Rayner, 1997) and interpersonal phenomena (Einarsen et al., 2003). Leymann (1996) as cited in Botha (2008), asserts that personality is insignificant as a cause for bullying and that scholars could not establish a deeper relation between bullying and individual personality. Similar findings were reported by Balducci et al. (2011) that personality is not a sufficient factor for understanding bullying at work. Rather, there are other factors beyond personality that provide fertile ground for workplace bullying to occur such job demands, job resources and work stressors (Balducci et al., 2011). On the contrary, other studies consistently identified personality characteristics as an important reason for workplace bullying (see Bowling, Beehr, Bennett & Watson, 2010; Field, 2009). Individual related antecedents to bullying behaviour is discussed under two headings: target and bully characteristics (which relates to personality), and education and career.

3.5.1.1 Target and bully characteristics

An early study by Thylefors (1987) conceptualised the bully and the victims as embodying similarities in terms of narcissistic, authoritarian and mistrustful personality characteristics. Mostly however the targets of bullying are depicted as introverts, sensitive, conscientious, organised and submissive compared to the non-bullied employees (Coyne, Seigne & Randall, 2000). Bullies demonstrate masochism, sadism, narcissism, rivalry and envy (Cilliers, 2012; Kets de Vries, 2007; White, 2007). Aquino and Bradfield (2000) recognise both sides of the coin when it comes to the target’s personality. They categorised the targets of bullying as being either cooperative and submissive personality types (inactive, insecure, rejected by peers, and unlikely to

76

defend themselves against proactive bullying attempts), or displaying a more provocative personality type (highly aggressive and likely to provoke attacks by others).

In order to examine and understand the target’s personality traits in the bullying situation, studies argue that in many instances it is not simple for the targets to accept that their own behaviours might have contributed to the occurrence of bullying at work and the impact they are having on others (Branch, 2006; White, 2007). In most situations, individuals who are exposed to bullying are cooperative and submissive to avoid confrontation or conflict (Salin, 2008; White, 2007). Namie and Namie (2003), maintain that victims of bullying are cooperative and submissive to avoid confrontations and may even blame themselves. However, bullied employees who manage to deal with or cope with workplace bullying effectively are affirmed to be better at identifying and avoiding undesirable behaviours that may escalate to violence, conflict or another bullying situation in the work environment (Zapf & Gross, 2001). Zapf (1999) found that being too aggressive, having poor social skills and performing poorly were the reasons the targets believed they were bullied. Duffy et al. (2006) assert that aggressive people have difficult personalities and struggle to foresee the consequences of their actions. They are more susceptible to being bullied by others with the same difficult personalities. According to Von Bergen et al. (2006), it is common for an ordinary employee to be targeted by the bully usually using indirect threats to test whether the employees (old or new) could take jokes and be part of the group. Consequently, the indirect threats presented as jokes could be perceived as physical or psychological bullying.

Individuals regarded as perpetrators or bullies often take advantage of target weakness in performance or personality and make the target feel powerless (Einarsen et al., 2003). Bullies are able to adapt their inappropriate behaviour to an extent that they are not blamed as tormentor, transgressor, aggressor, harasser or perpetrator (Smit, 2014). Bullies are perceived to violate norms of courtesy or challenge others’ social identities by expressing different opinions and when they feel vulnerable resort to hostile behaviour such as victimisation or violence (Aquino & Byron, 2002). Arsenio and Lemerise (2001), believe that bullies often lack ability in social reasoning and use aggression as an alternative means to obtain any resources they deem desirable and achieve psychological outcomes, even when it requires victimising and harming others. Field (1996) as cited in White (2007, p. 1) argues that a person who is unable to conform to the norms of courtesy and rules of the organisation, has an inability to embrace individual differences or tolerate minor frustrations and “has a tendency to act impulsively or recklessly, has an incapacity for forming stable relationships and fails to learn from past

experiences, however unpleasant”. Field indicates lack of awareness, emotional control and self-esteem on the side of bullies (White, 2007).

Bullies’ lack of awareness, emotional control and self-esteem (emotional intelligence) is a key factor for escalating workplace bullying (Zapf & Einarsen, 2010). Workplace bullying is a consequence of the bully’s inability to acknowledge and take perspective of others (Parkins et al., 2006), leading to inconsistency in demands and deterioration in interpersonal relationships (Botha, 2008). Self-awareness, emotional control, self-esteem and empathy are aspects of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) implying that bullies may be prone to lower emotional intelligence. Randall (2003) argues that bullies continue to perceive themselves as being superior and powerful and demonstrate an inflated opinion of themselves. Crawford (1999, p. 90) argued that the bully behaves as the tyrant boss or leader and emphasise that

...tyrants depend on people giving up; feeling so demoralized that they cannot be bothered to fight. In the cycle of demoralisation, the doubts about oneself, one’s motives, what course of action to take, undermines confidence. This plays into the tyrant’s hands. They rely on the victim feeling that it is not worth bothering to take action.

This view reveals the individual’s interpersonal dimension rather than the perspective of the individual’s personality. Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley & Harvey (2007) caution that bullying behaviours can be used as a deliberate tactic by some individuals to influence others in a quest to accomplish personal and organisational goals.

Throughout the literature there is a consensus that the majority of bullies are in senior position and few are colleagues (Steinman, 2008; Namie & Namie, 2011). It is not uncommon that emotional blackmail is parallel to tactics or manipulation (Smit 2014) and can be considered another form of bullying (Mischke, 2012). For instance, Tehrani (2003) as cited in (Branch 2006) noted that when work relationships are perceived as undesirable, reprimanding an employee for poor performance, late-coming or petty issues such as passing a person without extending greetings may be interpreted as a hostile act, whereas targets of bullying might think that the bully’s difficult personality was the reasons for them to be mistreated or bullied (Seigne, 1998). Therefore, it is important to understand both the target’s reactions and bully’s actions within context (Hoel & Salin, 2003).

78 3.5.2.2 Educational status and career

An individual’s level of education and career were found to create circumstances in which individual employees are bullied. Studies in Canada (McKay, Arnold, Fratzl & Thomas, 2008), Finland (Vartia-Väänänen, 2013), New Zealand (Raskauskas, 2006), United Kingdom (Boynton, 2005) and Turkey (Farley & Sprigg, 2014) found that highly educated and cerebral people experience persistent and long-term workplace bullying more than their colleagues with lower entry qualification, irrespective of hierarchical level in organisations. Individual employees with higher levels of educational status have much more pressure to advance their career in a competitive environment than their counterparts with lower educational status (Farley & Sprigg, 2014).

On the contrary, in South Africa, Cunniff (2011) showed that individuals with lower education status and skills or no formal education experienced more frequent workplace bullying than their counterparts with higher education status and skills. Cunniff (2011) confirms Ortega et al.’s (2009) study in Norway, which found that those employees with lower educational status reported more long-term exposure to the prevalence of bullying than their colleagues with higher level of education and skills. However, Botha (2008) in South Africa contends that most career oriented and professional individuals have higher expectations on how they should be treated and appreciated at work. Once their career and professional expectations are frustrated, it may lead to deterioration in interpersonal relationships, inconsistency in demands and stress, and the main reasons for workplace bullying to rise (Botha, 2008). Similarly, Raskauskas (2006) in New Zealand found that when individuals’ career expectations are frustrated, destructive behaviours are used as an alternative source of stimulation and may inflict bullying to affirm personal control. According to Zapf and Einarsen (2010), these alternative destructive behaviours may prompt some employees to conspire against one another or make conscious or unconscious decisions that will favour them personally, and as such bully others to protect their own position, sovereignty and dignity. Keim and McDermott (2010) maintain that conspiring against one another can lead some employees to emotional and physical distress, such as depression, anxiety, lack of appetite and insomnia, because they are on the receiving end.

Nonetheless, there is insufficient literature in South Africa linking educational status and career with the experience of workplace bullying, but the connection is not yet clear. Interestingly, studies assert that individuals who become targets of workplace bullying might be emotionally intelligent, resourceful, dependable, and thriving at work. The

implication is that these positive qualities make the bully feel inadequate, jealous and unable to work or relate well with others, thus anyone can become a target. The target and bully relationship is not straightforward to describe and individual characteristics are not a single cause of bullying. Rather, there are other factors or circumstances beyond beyond individual’s control that provide fertile ground for overt or covert workplace bullying to occur. I agree with Steinman (2008) that everyone is capable of evil deeds, depending on the situation that confronts them. Conversely, everyone, regardless of levels, race, age or status, is a potential target and not immune to workplace bullying (Zoller, 2015). In addition to individual antecedents, pervasiveness of bullying by group is also seen as an antecedent of workplace bullying.