HRM textbook

470 PART 5 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
Bullying can take many forms, such as:
* Verbal: name-calling, teasing
* Social: spreading rumors, leaving people out on purpose, breaking up friendships
* Physical: hitting, punching, shoving
* Cyberbullying: using the Internet, mobile phones, or other digital technologies
to harm others
Lest there be any doubt, the person to blame for any bullying is the perpetrator.
Employers must have systems in place, similar to those discussed elsewhere in this
chapter, to ensure that the company can identify unfair treatment and deal with
it expeditiously. This includes having policies in place to monitor employees use
of social media Web sites. 61
However, numerous studies (usually conducted under the umbrella of the victim
precipitation model ) show that certain people s traits and how they behave make them
more vulnerable to bullying. 62 These include submissive victims (who seem more
anxious, cautious, quiet, and sensitive), provocative victims (who show more aggressive
behavior), and victims low in self-determination (who, in other words, seem to leave
it to others to make decisions for them and determine the course of their careers).
RESEARCH INSIGHT A recent study illustrates the interpersonal dynamics
involved. Research suggests that people with higher intellectual capability often suffer
bullying in school contexts, for instance, in the form of derogatory names such as
geek and nerd. In this study, 217 employees of a health care organization completed a
survey that measured cognitive ability, victimization, and how the person behaved
at work. 63 The researchers found that it wasn t just whether the person was very smart
that determined whether he or she became a victim, but how the person behaved.
People with high cognitive ability who behaved more independently were more likely
to be victimized by bullying. High-cognitive-ability people who were team players
were less likely to be victimized.
What Causes Unfair Behavior
Some of the things that motivate managers to be fair may (or may not) be surprising.
For one thing, the saying, the squeaky wheel gets the grease is true. One study
investigated the extent to which assertiveness on the subordinate s part influenced
the fairness with which the person s supervisor treated him or her. 64 Supervisors
treated pushier employees more fairly: Individuals who communicated assertively
were more likely to be treated fairly by the decision maker. Furthermore, supervisors
exposed to injustice exhibit abusive behavior against subordinates who they
see as vulnerable or provocative. 65
One study concluded that three supervisory actions influenced perceived fairness: 66
* Involving employees in the decisions that affect them by asking for their input and
allowing them to refute the others ideas and assumptions;
* Ensuring that everyone involved and affected understands why final decisions are
made and the thinking that underlies the decisions; and
* Making sure everyone knows up front by what standards you will judge him or her.
Many employers establish channels through which employees can air their concerns.
For example, the FedEx Survey Feedback Action (SFA) program includes an anonymous
survey that lets employees express their feelings about the company and their
managers. Sample items include:
* I can tell my manager what I think.
* My manager tells me what is expected.
* My manager listens to my concerns.
* My manager keeps me informed.