Issue 7
Bullying
August 2012
APS Human Capital Matters: Bullying
August 2012, Issue 7
Editor’s Note to Readers
Welcome to the seventh edition of Human Capital Matters for 2012—the digest for time poor
leaders and practitioners with an interest in human capital and organisational capability. This
edition focuses on the management of bullying within all sectors of the economy.
About Human Capital Matters
Human Capital Matters seeks to provide APS leaders and practitioners with easy access to the
issues of contemporary importance in public and private sector human capital and organisational
capability. It has been designed to provide interested readers with a monthly guide to the national
and international ideas that are shaping human capital thinking and practice.
Comments and suggestions welcome
Thank you to those who took the time to provide feedback on earlier editions of Human Capital
Matters. Comments, suggestions or questions regarding this publication are always welcome and
should be addressed to: humancapitalmatters@apsc.gov.au. Readers can also subscribe to the
mailing list through this email address.
ACT Government, The Chief Minister’s Department, ‘Respect, Equity and
Diversity Framework’ (the RED Framework), 2010, 28 pp.
The RED Framework has three elements—Respect, Equity and Diversity. It aims to ensure that
all ACT public servants fully value and consider others at work. The Framework is designed to
increase employees’ knowledge of respect, equity and diversity issues and to this end enumerates
positive behaviours which will contribute to a more collaborative, supportive and inclusive ACT
Public Service (ACTPS). Under Sections 39–41 of the ACT Public Sector Management Act
1994, the ACT Government is required to establish an Equity and Diversity Framework for the
ACTPS. In 2010, the Chief Minister endorsed the revision of the 2006 Equity and Diversity
Framework as a priority for the Commissioner for Public Administration. A key addition to the
2010 iteration of the RED Framework is the inclusion of the concept of ‘Respect’ and a
description/definition of what constitutes giving and receiving respect in the workplace. The
document defines Respect as ‘To value and consider others at work’. Along with Equity and
Diversity, it is central to the maintenance of workplaces free of bullying.
The RED Framework document also outlines why placing a high priority on respectful,
courteous behaviour and fairness, and valuing individual differences, are so essential to building
a positive workplace culture; sets out the legislative obligations on ACT departments and other
public sector agencies in relation to Respect, Equity and Diversity; defines Respect, Equity and
Diversity; outlines the workforce challenges for the ACTPS in regard to them; clarifies the roles
and responsibilities for ACTPS employees in relation to Respect, Equity and Diversity; and
establishes a process for monitoring and evaluating ACTPS performance in these areas. The
report contains three Appendices. Appendix A sets out the Actions, planned activities and/or
programs that the Government intends to implement in order to address the challenges identified
in the RED Framework. Appendix B provides ACTPS Respect, Equity and Diversity Statistics.
Appendix C comprises a Respect, Equity and Diversity Maturity Manual aimed at assisting
agencies to measure their performance in the areas of Respect, Equity and Diversity.
2
The ACT’s Commissioner for Public Administration overseas the operation of the RED
Framework under the direction of the Chief Minister.
Comcare, ‘Bullying at Work: A Guide for Employees’, 2009, 15 pp.
This publication provides advice to individuals who believe they have experienced, or are
experiencing, bullying in the workplace. It contains a definition of bullying; gives examples of
bullying behaviour; sets out strategies for dealing with bullying; and outlines the role of the
Comcare OHS investigation in addressing instances of bullying. Comcare defines bullying as
‘repeated unreasonable behaviour that could reasonably be considered to be humiliating,
intimidating, threatening or demeaning to a person, or group of persons, which creates a risk to
health and safety’. The authors make the point that bullying can be intended or unintended, direct
or indirect, and inflicted by one individual or a group of individuals. Bullying can occur in a
number of ways—face-to-face, over the telephone, online (e.g. via social networking forums or
email), or by means of other more subtle but no less negative behaviours.
Comcare cites nine examples of direct bullying and eight examples of indirect bullying. The
former include frequently occurring manifestations such as abusive, insulting or offensive
language, and physical assault or threats. The latter include more complex behaviours such as
unreasonably overloading a person with work, ostracism, failing to acknowledge or respond to
an individual’s presence or comments, and persistent undermining of a person.
The publication identifies 10 impacts of bullying and emphasises that its effects can be felt on
co-workers as well as the person being bullied. The implications of bullying for the victim can
range from impaired concentration or a reduced ability to make decisions at work to feelings of
depression or even suicide. Colleagues sometimes feel guilty if they do not support the victim of
bullying, and can become angry or unhappy about the workplace culture as a result. Bullying
may occur downwards, upwards or in a parallel manner towards a colleague. Comcare also
makes the point that bullying behaviour is not always intentional.
The booklet sets out courses of action for employees who think they might be being bullied,
including guidance on how to request that Comcare undertake an OHS investigation into their
allegations of bullying. The authors also outline what outcomes such an investigation could
generate for the applicant. They emphasise the special importance of recordkeeping in bullying
cases and accordingly provide a template for this purpose designed to enable an employee to
make a comprehensive record of all relevant information.
Comcare, ‘Preventing and Managing Bullying at Work: A Guide for
Employers’, 2009, 14 pp.
This publication, which has a preventative and a management focus, describes the position of
Comcare and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (SRCC) in relation to
bullying in the workplace. Comcare assists employers in meeting their obligations to protect the
health and safety of individuals covered by the relevant OHS legislation. This guide is designed
to assist employers to meet their duty of care by putting in place effective systems aimed at
preventing and managing bullying. The publication provides information on: what bullying is
and what it is not; the responsibilities of employers and employees; federal legislation relating to
workplace bullying and discrimination; ways of promoting a positive workplace culture; and
steps organisations can take to prevent and manage bullying.
3
The guide is based on a number of recent research findings, chiefly, that a positive workplace
safety culture can reduce the incidence and severity of bullying. As such, workplace bullying
should be considered within the broader framework of psychological injury. This calls for
proactive prevention strategies designed to address bullying. The guide advises that where
bullying occurs, employers need to take a holistic approach to responding to and managing the
issue.
The authors argue that consultation, information and education are critical to the better practice
management of psychological injury in the workplace. They also cite Australian research on
bullying in public sector environments which indicates that levels of bullying behaviour reflect
the quality of an organisation’s people management practices. Furthermore, this research
suggests that organisations need to focus on four areas of their people management practices in
order to reduce the incidence of bullying: 1) the quality and frequency of performance feedback;
2) levels of supportive leadership; 3) building an engaging work team environment by involving
employees in decision-making processes; and 4) ensuring that all supervisors and managers are
accountable for people management.
The publication sets out clearly an employer’s responsibilities under the OHS legislation for
dealing with complaints of bullying; and describes Comcare’s role in investigating allegations of
bullying and enforcing its findings in relation to both the employer and the employee. The
authors stress the need for employers to take a proactive approach in order to prevent and
manage bullying by addressing the central imperative of ‘workplace culture’. In doing this,
senior management must be committed to addressing the issue; a bullying policy and related
procedures should be developed; consultation and communication must be fostered; and the
senior leadership’s responsibility to ‘inform, instruct and train’ staff, especially managers, should
be recognised as a priority. The authors also emphasise the importance of systematic, ongoing
risk management approaches in identifying OHS risk management methodologies appropriate to
resolving the bullying issues concerned.
Comcare is the Australian Government agency responsible for ensuring the safety of public
sector employees and the rehabilitation of, and compensation for, those employees injured at
work.
Jordi Escartin et al, ‘Workers’ Perception of Workplace Bullying: A CrossCultural Study’, ‘European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology’,
2010, pp. 1–28.
This article is among the first to approach workplace bullying cross-culturally. More specifically,
it compares employees’ understanding of bullying in two different world regions: Central
America and Southern Europe. It does so by focusing on three aspects of workplace bullying
(‘hypotheses’)—psychological vs. physical harassment, hierarchical vs. horizontal bullying, and
direct vs. indirect aggression. Findings were based on a sample of 246 employees. The study’s
chief research question was: ‘Are there differences in the way workplace bullying is understood
by employees in Central America and Southern Europe?’ The results of the study suggest there
are differences between these regions. However, the data also reveals similarities in how
workplace bullying is seen across cultures. In fact, more similarities than differences were found
to exist.
In relation to the first hypothesis—whether workplace bullying is primarily a psychological or a
physical phenomenon—one-third of respondents from Central America stated that bullying has
significant psychological and physical harassment components; in contrast, most Southern
European employees defined workplace bullying as being mainly a psychological phenomenon.
4
With regard to the second set of hypotheses—hierarchical vs. horizontal bullying—in both
regions workplace bullying was seen almost invariably as supervisors bullying employees. With
respect to the third set of hypotheses—direct vs. indirect aggression—all of those surveyed
emphasised the primacy of direct aggressive behaviours—in particular, the emotional aspects of
such behaviour.
The authors conclude that different working populations share certain core approaches to
workplace bullying. They see this as a positive development which will make it easier to develop
and implement measures for addressing workplace bullying—‘intervention strategies’ focused
on prevention. The authors also emphasise that successful ‘preventative action plans’ to combat
workplace bullying must rest on a detailed understanding of all abusive bullying behaviours.
Such plans could include, in addition to formal procedures, information campaigns and specific
training programs aimed at increasing shared understanding of bullying across agencies which
could also assist in producing codes of conduct designed to prevent bullying behaviour.
Jordi Escartin teaches in the Department of Social Psychology at the University of Barcelona.
8th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment—
Future Challenges, University of Copenhagen, 12–15 June 2012,
‘Proceedings’, International Association on Workplace Bullying and
Harassment (IAWBH) and University of Copenhagen, 2012, 194 pp.
At the conference 230 individuals gave oral presentations on, and/or participated in, subject
discussion panels dealing with the gamut of current global workplace bullying and harassment
thinking and practice. This publication provides a comprehensive record of conference
proceedings in the form of brief but informative abstracts of contributions. The abstracts are
divided into two sections: Oral Presentations; and Poster Presentations. Each of these sections is
further divided into themes. The document also includes an ‘Author Index to Contributors’ (pp.
188–194).
The Oral Presentations abstracts are arranged under the following 15 headings/themes: 1) Law;
2) Discrimination; 3) Intervention; 4) Health; 5) Risk/Leadership; 6) Rehabilitation; 7)
Prevention; 8) Risk/Personality; 9) Coping; 10) Identifying/Measuring; 11) Phenomenon; 12)
Costs; 13) Bystanders; 14) Risk/Work Environment; and 15) Risk. The Poster Presentations
abstracts are set out under eight headings/themes: 1) Phenomenon; 2) Gender; 3) Work
Environment; 4) Risk; 5) Coping; 6) Law; 7) Health; and 8) Intervention. Under each of these
headings the interim and final results of a very broad range of workplace bullying and
harassment investigations and studies are set out.
One example of a contribution dealing with each of these aspects may serve to illustrate the
richness and utility of this volume to both academics and public administration practitioners,
especially human resource management staff.
Oral presentations
Law—‘Bullying Behaviour in Different Countries: A Comparison between Law Suits in Italy,
Germany and Austria’ (Harald Ege, Bologna, Italy), pp. 42–43.
Discrimination—‘“They Change When They are in a Pack”: The Nature of Sexual Harassment
in Rural Workplaces’ (Skye Saunders, The Australian National University and Patricia Easteal,
University of Canberra), p. 46.
5
Intervention—‘Measuring Bystander Intervention in Workplace Bullying’ (Charlotte Rayner and
Lynn Lansbury, Portsmouth Business School, Portsmouth, UK), p. 50.
Health—‘Workplace Bullying in a Survey of Canadian Women Reporting Partner Abuse (Judith
MacIntosh et al, various Canadian Universities), p. 65.
Risk/Leadership—‘Nuances in Destructive Leadership Behaviour’ (Anders Skogstad and Stale
Einarsen, University of Bergen, Norway and Guy Notelaers, Maastricht University, The
Netherlands), pp. 84–85.
Rehabilitation—‘Is It Possible to Rehabilitate Targets of Workplace Bullying?’ (Annie Hogh,
University of Copenhagen), p. 88.
Prevention—‘Approaches to Harassment Prevention in Japan’ (Y. Okada Cuore, Cube Co Ltd,
Japan), p. 91.
Risk/Personality—‘Personalities of Workplace Bullies and Victims (Jacqueline Power,
University of Windsor, Canada and Daniel Linton, Saba University, The Netherlands Antilles),
pp. 95–96.
Coping—‘Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Qualitative Study on Women Targets (Isil
Karatuna, Kirklareli University, Kirklareli, Turkey), pp. 97–98.
Identifying/Measuring—‘An Integrated Approach to Identify Victims of Workplace Bullying’
(Ingrid Rystedt et al, Karlstad University, Sweden and Maastricht University, The Netherlands),
p. 100.
Phenomenon—‘A Phenomenological Study of the Experience of Victims of Bullying in the
Workplace in South Africa’ (Margeretha De Wet and M. K. Du Toit, Stellenbosch University,
South Africa), pp. 113–114.
Costs—‘The Costs of Workplace Bullying: Sickness Absence, Inequality and Unemployment
(Tine L. Mundbjerg Eriksen, Aarhus University, Denmark and Annie Hogh and Aase Marie
Hansen, University of Copenhagen), p. 117.
Bystanders—‘The Influence of Co-Workers in a Target’s Workplace Bullying Experience’
(Paula Saunders, University of New South Wales and Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Charles Sturt
University, Sydney), pp. 121–122.
Risk/Work Environment—‘HR in the Crossfire: An Exploration into the Role of Human
Resources and Workplace Bullying’ (Teresa A. Daniel, Sullivan University, Louisville, USA), p.
125.
Risk—‘Workplace Bullying: The Cumulative Effect of Organisational Risk Factors Among
Various Risk Groups’ (Eleni Apospori, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece),
pp. 131–132.
The Poster Presentation abstracts cover the same subjects.
The publication’s four keynote addresses by themselves deal with a broad array of bullying
research. They are listed below:
1. Professor Suzy Fox (Loyola University, Chicago), ‘Defining and Confronting Bullying:
Does Human Resources Have a Unique Mandate to Create a Bully-Free Work Culture?’
2. Dr Dieter Zapf (Frankfurt University), ‘Bullying in the Workplace: Prevention and
Intervention’.
3. Professor Emeritus Tores Theorell (Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm), ‘Bullying and
Health in a Swedish Context’.
6
4. Dr Laura Crawshaw (Boss Whispering Institute), ‘Sad, Angry & Hopeful: Reflections
from the Front’.
The volume also contains two articles:


‘Workplace Bullying in a Professional Environment: Perspectives of Legal Practitioners’,
by Associate Professor Maryam Omari of Edith Cowan University, Perth and Dr Megan
Paull of the Murdoch University Business School, Perth (pp. 166–176).
‘Workplace Bullying, and Union Role in Restorative Practices’, by Susan J. Coldwell,
Joan Jessome and Zita Hildebrandt of the Nova Scotia Government and General
Employees Union (NSGEU) (pp. 176–188). The article focuses on the NSGEU’s BullyFree Workplaces Program and also discusses the role of ‘restorative practices’ in
preventing workplace bullying and addressing it in a timely manner. It is an additional
tool to the time-honoured ones of ‘policy, appropriate investigation, and sanction’.
Restorative practices is an umbrella term for ‘a general framework for a range of
approaches that give those most affected by conflict the tools and principles needed to
resolve problems and build relationships’ (p. 176). More specifically, restorative
practices include approaches in the areas of education, counselling, criminal justice,
social work and organisational management. The authors argue that ‘The premise of
restorative practice forms a theoretical framework that helps to explain human motivation
and social behaviour not only within families, classrooms, and communities, but within
the social construct of the workplace’ (p. 176).
The International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) was founded in
2008. It has some 150 individual and organisational members from over 20 countries. The
IAWBH stimulates and disseminates research and evidence-based practice in the field of
workplace bullying and harassment. It holds a biennial international conference.
Guy Notelaers, Hans De Witte and Stale Einarsen, ‘A Job Characteristics
Approach to Explain Workplace Bullying’, ‘European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology’, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2010, pp. 487–504.
This article analyses the degree to which ‘job characteristics’ influence the incidence and forms
of bullying in the workplace. The authors conclude that bullying has a variety of job-related
antecedents, but add that recent research suggests these findings should be treated with caution
and their influence not over-estimated. Peter Warr’s so-called comprehensive ‘Vitamin’ model,
developed in 1987, is used to summarise job-related antecedents of workplace bullying. Warr
distinguished nine categories of job characteristics: opportunity for control, opportunity for skill
use, externally generated goals, variety, environmental clarity, availability of money, physical
security, opportunity for interpersonal contact, and valued social position. The authors employ
this classification to structure the findings of previous workplace bullying research; and highlight
the theoretical rationale for their association with bullying as well as the empirical evidence for
this link.
The article tests connections between these antecedents and the incidence of bullying. The study
is based on a large and heterogeneous sample of workers (6,175 employees of 16 Belgian
companies—a response rate of 70%). The authors use a regression analysis to assess the relative
importance of all job characteristics, after factoring in the role of various socio-demographic
variables. The results of the investigation reveal that task autonomy is not significantly related to
bullying and, in line with earlier research within the Scandinavian research tradition, role
conflicts and role ambiguity are the most important antecedents of bullying. The study concluded
that lack (or lower levels) of participation in decision-making, few skill utilisation opportunities,
7
workload, stresses arising from cognitive demands, job changes, job insecurity, and poor taskrelated feedback are directly related to workplace bullying. The authors discuss these findings
within the context of a literature search and also provide some suggestions for future practice
improvements.
Study results indicate that a number of job characteristics are significantly related to workplace
bullying. The authors conclude that, in order to address workplace bullying, managers must not
only prevent conflicts from occurring or escalating, they must learn specific leadership styles
which enable them to do so. In addition, managers can contribute to the prevention of workplace
bullying by creating jobs that are characterised by ‘nonbullying provoking’ job characteristics.
Overall, the study found that attention to three factors does most to prevent bullying in the
workplace: participation in decision-making, skill utilisation, and task-related feedback.
However, workload, cognitive demands, role conflicts, role ambiguity, changes in the job and
job insecurity are also related to a higher probability to be bullied at work. Central to ensuring
that these characteristics or antecedents do not produce bullying is continuous, close monitoring
by managers.
Guy Notelaers and Stale Einarsen teach at the Department of Psychology, Bergen University in
Norway; they are also members of the Bergen Bullying Research Group; Hans De Witte is based
at the Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicole J. Saam, ‘Interventions in Workplace Bullying: A Multilevel
Approach’, ‘European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology’, Vol.
19, No. 1, 2010, pp. 51–75.
The author investigates intervention strategies designed to address workplace bullying which
have so far received little attention from researchers. Until now, she argues, the focus has been
on classifying intervention strategies and assessing their effectiveness in dealing with certain
types of bullying behaviour; the appropriateness of mediation as an intervention strategy; and
how organisations respond to workplace bullying. This study is based on a qualitative design
approach and presents a new framework for analysing bullying. Consultants who have
specialised in addressing workplace bullying through mediation and by other means were
interviewed and asked which intervention strategies they apply, why they do so, and for what
precise purpose the strategies are adopted.
The author found that consultants utilise conflict moderation or mediation, coaching, and/or
organisation development approaches. Interestingly, the long-dominant so-called ‘contingency’
approach to conflict intervention in relation to workplace bullying recommends neither coaching
nor organisation development approaches. Using a 2006 multi-level model of workplace
bullying devised by J. Heames and M. Harvey, the author puts forward a new framework for
addressing bullying behaviour which includes approaches at the dyadic (person-to-person),
group and organisational levels.
The article begins with a description of the contingency approach to conflict intervention and an
analysis of current research on intervention in bullying. Then the author outlines the design of
the qualitative study and the structure of the 18 semi-structured interviews with consultants who,
at the request of organisations, are asked to resolve instances of bullying in their workplaces.
Quotations from these interviews are then presented with each consultant outlining when and
why they apply particular intervention strategies. Following this, the consultants’ statements are
interpreted and the pros and cons of their specific interventions assessed.
8
Under the terms of the ‘multilevel’ approach, as the author puts it, ‘There is a conflict on a
dyadic level between the bully and the target. The conflict, however, is embedded in the group,
and the group is embedded in the organisation. The intervention strategy has to consider the
dyadic, as well as group and organisational levels.’ The author argues that the strength of the
‘multilateral approach’ is that it directs attention to coordinated follow-up of interventions at the
dyadic, group and organisation levels, that is, chiefly mediation, coaching and organisation
development. Another strength is that it makes clear what interventions are most likely to be
appropriate at the dyadic level; for example, while moderation may generally be successful in
resolving low intensity workplace conflicts, this is generally not the case in relation to bullying
behaviour. At the group level, coaching may rebalance the power relation between the bully and
the target. In serious cases of bullying, however, the author concludes that a more ambitious or
‘multilevel’ approach is needed.
Nicole J. Saam is based at Erfurt University, Erfurt, Germany.
State Services Authority (Victoria), ‘Tackling Bullying’, 2010, 28 pp.
This publication is designed for managers needing guidance on how to address instances of
workplace bullying. It describes bullying behaviours, examines the costs of bullying to staff
morale and productivity, and identifies the perceived incidence and possible drivers of bullying
in Victoria’s public sector. It also indicates how to respond to bullying when it first occurs and
what to do to prevent it from happening again. In their analysis, the authors use a WorkSafe
Victoria definition of bullying—‘Repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed at an employee or
group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety’.
The State Services Authority (SSA) monitors perceptions of bullying in Victoria’s public sector.
In recent years, one in five employees has reported that they have personally experienced
bullying in the workplace. This is similar to rates of bullying recorded for the broader Victorian
workforce (14%–15%), the Australian Public Service (17%) and the public services of Western
Australia (18.6%) and South Australia (23%). SSA research indicates that public sector
employers seeking to address perceptions of bullying in the workplace—and, more importantly,
instances of bullying—should focus their efforts on improving employees’ understanding of the
processes and procedures for resolving bullying-related disputes and grievances—whether
perceived or real. This involves forging sound leadership approaches to managing bullying;
establishing supportive workgroups to assist those affected by bullying behaviour; and an
organisational commitment to preventing and/or eliminating bullying through equal employment
opportunity initiatives. When these factors have been satisfactorily addressed, employees are
more likely to say their organisation does not tolerate bullying.
The authors draw on the survey findings of the Victorian public sector’s ‘People Matter Survey
2010’, which is examined in greater detail in the ‘Trends in Bullying’ document discussed
below. These include: 51% of staff who experience bullying say they often think about leaving
their organisation—double the number of employees who have not experienced bullying; the
incidence of bullying in an organisation is significantly correlated with the use of sick leave;
40% of staff who experience bullying and 35% of witnesses to that bullying say their workgroup
does not have a good team spirit; and 22% of staff who are bullied indicate they have submitted
a formal complaint. The authors then advise senior managers addressing the problem of bullying
to make a formal business case early on when designing initiatives to prevent or better manage
bullying. The business case should be drawn up using a variety of objective and quantifiable
data; for example, details of the number and type of complaints formally lodged and reports and
feedback from doctors, counsellors, union representatives and other supporting professional
staff.
9
The second half of the document comprises a set of ‘Resources’ giving specific guidance on
seven aspects of bullying: 1) action to take if you experience or witness bullying; 2) what to do if
you are accused of bullying; 3) the need for managers to accept a duty of care to act in relation to
bullying; 4) how to get the most appropriate strategies and policies in place to combat bullying;
5) the best means of assessing the workplace culture of a team in order to reduce opportunities
for bullying; 6) the importance of managers making a commitment to staff to eradicate and/or
deal expeditiously and thoroughly with incidences of bullying; and 7) how to be a supportive
manager when dealing with cases of bullying.
State Services Authority (Victoria), ‘Trends in Bullying in the Victorian
Public Sector—People Matter Survey: 2004–2010’, 37 pp.
In 2009, the State Services Authority (SSA) published a report on trends in bullying in the
Victorian public sector from 2004 onwards based on the findings of the annual ‘People Matter
Survey’. This (2010) publication identifies developments and trends between 2009 and 2010 and
analyses comparative results with those for the period 2004–2009. The report reveals that 21% of
Victoria’s public sector employees have experienced bullying and 34% have witnessed bullying
behaviour. Five per cent of respondents who indicated they had been bullied submitted a formal
complaint. Despite these findings, some 80% of those surveyed believe that bullying is not
tolerated in their organisation. The Survey definition of bullying is as follows:
Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed to an employee or a
group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety. Types of behaviour that could
be considered bullying include: verbal abuse, excluding or isolating employees,
psychological harassment, intimidation, assigning meaningless tasks unrelated to the job,
giving employees impossible assignments, deliberately changing work rosters to
inconvenience employees, deliberately withholding information that is vital to effective
work performance.
The proportion of employees who reported having been bullied has been 21% in all but two
years of the Survey (2004—23% and 2009—19%). The proportion of respondents who said they
had witnessed bullying was 37% in 2004 and 34% in 2010. The 2009 result for those witnessing
bullying (32%) was the lowest since the Survey began.
The 2010 Survey report contained six principal findings:






the proportion of employees who reported that they had experienced bullying did not
change significantly between 2004 and 2008;
the health sector had the highest incidence of reported bullying of all the sectors within
the Victorian public sector and the water management sector had the lowest;
the proportion of Victorian public sector employees who reported they had experienced
bullying was consistent with that in other Australian jurisdictions and with the data
collected by WorkSafe Victoria;
the reported perpetrators of bullying included colleagues at similar and lower levels,
managers and senior managers;
most of those who reported having experienced bullying had been subjected to a variety
of bullying behaviours; and
employees who had experienced, or even witnessed, bullying were more likely to be
thinking about leaving their organisation and less likely to be satisfied with their jobs or
managers.
10
The State Services Authority is responsible for developing an efficient, integrated and
responsible Victorian public sector.
11