1. 2015 Eastern Academy of Management Conference EFFECTIVENESS OF TARGET RESPONSE TO WORKPLACE BULLYING: RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL AND STUDENT SURVEY May 7, 2015 1 Dr. Wendy S. Becker Professor, Management Dr. Joseph T. Catanio Professor, Management Information Systems Cavet Michael Leibensperger MBA expected, 2015

2. AGENDA  Motivation  Theory  Survey  Data Results / Analysis  Implications for Innovations 2

3. Workplace bullying: verbal and nonverbal behaviors and sabotage tactics, used over a period of time, that negatively impact work performance or socially excludes others (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014) 3 MOTIVATION

4. THEORY 4  Bullying behaviors  Characteristics of bullies  Characteristics of victims  Reasons for bullying

5. BULLYING BEHAVIORS 5  staring dirty looks, intimidating eye contact,  offensive emails and phone messages,  flaunting status or authority,  acting in a condescending manner,  sabotaging the work of others,  providing the wrong information on purpose,  exclusion from workplace meetings or social get togethers,  spreading false rumours,  insults, especially when others are around to hear,  threat of punishment for no reason, and  humiliation through gestures, sarcasm, criticism and insults, especially in front of others (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014).

6. CHARACTERISTICS OF … 6  Bullies  Aggressive  Confrontational  Impulsive  Moody  Lack self-analysis  Not looking for social acceptance  Egocentric  Hostile  Competitive  Lack empathy  Self-centered  Power-hungry  Highly competitive  Victims  Not weak, submissive employees  Well-liked  Socially skilled workers  Technically-skilled veterans to whom others turn for guidance  Ethical and honest  Like to teach, develop and nurture others  Non-confrontational  Do not respond to aggression with aggression

7. REASONS FOR BULLYING 7  Bully envied victim’s competence/social skills  Bully bothered by victim’s ethical behavior  Bully had a vindictive and cruel personality  Victim resisted bully’s control  Competition for positions, status  Aggressors’ uncertainty about self

8. CASE SCENARIOS 8  Scenario 1: Work weekends  Scenario 2: Threaten layoff  Scenario 3: Source code reuse  Scenario 4: Abuse of power  Scenario 5: New employee  Scenario 6: Data security/ employee confidentiality

9. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS  155 students completed the survey (some of these did not answer all questions so data missing)  81 males, 70 females (4 unidentified)  Home country: USA (144), Canada (3), Poland (2), Finland (1), Vietnam (1), unidentified (4)  Age range = 19– 44 years  Number of years worked average = 5.6 years 9

10. GENDER 10

11. NUMBER BULLIED 11

12. BULLIES BY GENDER 12 CategoryNumber Bullied Male bullied by male25 Male bullied by female13 Female bullied by male11 Female bullied by female16

13. HOW OFTEN BULLIED 13

14. WHO BULLIES? 14

15. BULLYING BEHAVIORS 15  23 - staring dirty looks, intimidating eye contact,  5 - offensive emails and phone messages,  27 - flaunting status or authority,  38 - acting in a condescending manner,  10 - sabotaging the work of others,  8 - providing the wrong information on purpose,  7 - exclusion from workplace meetings or social get togethers,  14 - spreading false rumours,  18 - insults, especially when others are around to hear,  12 - threat of punishment for no reason, and  32 - humiliation through gestures, sarcasm, criticism and insults, especially in front of others

16. RESPONSES TO BULLYING 16 Talked to co-workers. Talked with family/ friends. Stayed calm. Avoided the bully. Told supervisor. Acted as if I didn’t care. Asked colleagues for help. Ignored it or did nothing. Asked bully to stop. Behaved extra nice. Went along with behavior. Lowered productivity. Did not take behavior seriously. Told union. Told HR. Had someone speak to bully. Made a formal complaint. Asked to transfer. Threatened to tell others.

17. RESPONSE TO BULLYING PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS 17 Effectiveness Response to Bullying% using this approachMade situation betterMade situation worse Talked to coworkers 47.8% (92.1)38.8% (24.4)9% (15.5) Talked with family/friends 47.8% (88.5) 46.3% (36)1.5% (2.5) Stayed calm 67.2% (79.8)59.7% (26.1)7.5% (10.6) Avoided the bully 56.7% (76.4)41.8% (30.9)14.9% (11.5) Told supervisor 34.3% (57.1)23.9% (23.8)10.4% (26.7)

18. RESPONSE TO BULLYING PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS CONT. 18 Effectiveness Response to Bullying% using this approachMade situation betterMade situation worse Acted as if I didn’t care 65.7% (54.8)49.3% (16.5)16.4% (18.6) Asked colleagues for help 28.4% (52.5) 23.9% (13.7)4.5% (31.6) Ignored it or did nothing 46.3% (52.3)29.9% (17)16.4% (10.6) Asked bully to stop 20.9% (40.4)13.4% (38.9)7.5% (15.3) Behaved extra nice 34.3% (38.5)14.9% (21.7)19.4% (14.5)

19. RESPONSE TO BULLYING PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS CONT. 19 Effectiveness Response to Bullying% using this approachMade situation betterMade situation worse Talked to coworkers 29.8% (36.9)19.4% (18.2)10.4% (7.6) Talked with family/friends 20.9% (35.6) 13.4% (29.7)7.5% (9.4) Stayed calm 34.4% (33.3)26.9% (11.9)7.5% (20.3) Avoided the bully 7.5% (30.8)6% (23.2)1.5% (16.1) Told supervisor 9% (28.6)4.5% (32.7)4.5% (15.4)

20. RESPONSE TO BULLYING PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS CONT. 20 Effectiveness Response to Bullying% using this approachMade situation betterMade situation worse Had someone speak to bully 9% (27.9)4.5% (34)4.5% (16) Made formal complaint 12% (16.3) 9% (37.9)3% (24.1) Asked for transfer 4.5% (9.5)3% (35.3)1.5% (52.9) Threatened to tell others 1.5% (7.8)1.5% (28.6)0% (7.1)

21. IMPLICATIONS FOR INNOVATION 21  Engaged students in realistic cases  Worked across disciplines  Student participation in Survey  Compared Local/National Data

22. 22

23. 23 THANKS FOR COMING!!!!