Also known as bad behaviour in the workplace

Mobbing and harassment?

Alison Katz, WHO

Mobbing and harassment are fashionable terms covering a whole range of things which we might just as well call «bad behaviour towards other staff in the work situation». They are a concern because they are personally upsetting, they can cause depression and anxiety, minor and serious physical illnesses, and less frequently, but no UN organization escapes it suicide. Having to leave one’s job, with the distress and loss that this implies is another consequence.

Mobbing and harassment are also very bad for the organization’s work and for individual and group creativity and productivity. (Documenting the effects of mobbing and harassment on productivity is not easy but is an essential next step for staff associations of the UN and its agencies).

The main warning sign of a working environment where mobbing and harassment will be common is a climate of fear. Other signs are: distrust, competitiveness and excessive deference to those in powerful positions.

A particularly pathetic symptom of fear in these environments is the repetitive use of meaningless jargon in which people can no longer think straight – nor think for themselves.

They search desperately for the buzz words which will elicit approval. Watch out for strings of new management jargon like «evidence based», «core competencies», «critical synergy», and «comparative advantage»! (UN Special is keen to demystify jargon and welcomes readers’ favourites and their interpretation (see last month’s article on «core competencies».)

How does this fear manifest itself? First you will hear in hushed tones that «so and so will be furious», you will see fear on people’s faces and hear it in their voices. You will soon learn that all work is directed towards pleasing the supervisor or the executive director or those who are currently basking in these people’s favours.

So whether the work is worthwhile, important, relevant or well done is secondary to whether it will please someone higher up.

Inevitably the result is mediocrity, timidity, conformism, repetitiveness, extreme conservatism. What becomes very rare is open dialogue, free and energetic debate, the enthusiastic pursuit of truth, creativity, fun and trust. In other words, what results is an intellectual desert.

What I am describing really is authoritarianism which of course often goes with excessive and stultifying hierarchy. So let’s take a look at authoritarian behaviour patterns and at the authoritarian personality.

There is a large body of work in the social sciences on this. One of the key things to understand is that in an organization where authoritarian relationships are the norm, many people play – alternately – both the subservient and dominant role (or when it gets very bad, both bully and victim). The supervisor who has just rubbished someone’s work, trembles as she goes up to present something to her own superior.

In authoritarian organizations, today’s tyrant or even today’s tyrant’s pet is tomorrow’s victim!

In the end, these kinds of relationships are the only ones that people know how to deal with. They no longer know how to behave as equal, mutually respecting individuals.

One of the most important early experiments on the authoritarian personality was conducted after the second world war (Milgram et al in California). Social scientists are all familiar with the classic experiment undertaken to investigate how people could continue to obey certain orders when their own moral education told them that the orders were wrong. The experiment showed that students were willing to obey orders even to the extent of (believing they were) inflicting quite severe electric shock on fellow students. The results were astounding and shocking. Very few students were able to refuse.

The findings from these experiments have a strong bearing on individual moral development and autonomy. It is generally accepted that a person is morally mature if he or she can refer to his or her own set of moral principles without having to refer to a «superior» whether this be one’s parents, one’s superiors at work or perhaps a religious organization. They also showed how terribly dangerous it is to make the obeying of orders into a virtue. The conformist, authoritarian society is not just boring – it is unpleasant, stressful, health threatening and often – as history has shown us – dangerous.

Moral autonomy is terribly important in the avoidance of mobbing and harassment. As we all know, bullies and tyrants will always exist. However, they depend for their effective tyranny on the collusion of others.

Silence and inaction are collusion. If you remain silent and do not act, remember you have already taken a position which is to say, it’s OK.

Remember the well known story of the person who ignored the cries for help of his neighbours when one by one they were carried off at night and deported, when it came to his turn there was no one left to cry out to.

If we want to avoid mobbing and harassment in an organization we have to look at ways of fostering and encouraging moral autonomy, confidence in one’s own judgement, an atmosphere of tolerance and free thinking – a refusal to collaborate or indulge in bad behaviour towards other staff.

Legitimate authority based upon respect and reciprocity – and rules which are applied and which are seen to be fair – requires little or no coercion.

What can UN and UN agency staff do today? Well, be aware that mobbing and harassment are going on and can happen to anyone. Be aware that if you stand firm and speak up, others will too. Be aware of your own power to say «No, I will have no part in this» and see others follow suit. It is amazing how unaware people are of their own power!

If only one person stands up and complains, it is true he or she may also be punished, but if several of you consult and decide together to complain or report bad behaviour to personnel, there is almost no danger. Insist on fairness and objective criteria. Be aware that there will always be personal likes and dislikes but we still have to work with others with respect and interest.

There have been lots of studies of the psychology of mobbing and harassment but it has focussed almost exclusively on the effects on the victim. We need to remind ourselves of the obvious – which is that the victim’s reactions are understandable, predictable – in a way less interesting.

The pathology lies in the tyrant and the bully. Why do people behave like this and why do others follow? What exactly is wrong with them? Deeply unhappy? Frustrated, lonely people? Weak, confused, conformist?

Probably – but not quite good enough as an explanation. We must also look at institutional arrangements and leadership styles which encourage this pathology.

The WHO staff association is considering organizing a lunchtime seminar (the WHO HQ Staff Association will inform other UN staff associations of the date and time of such a seminar as this is of general interest.

Suggestions on topics and presenters are very welcome) on mobbing and harassment – but this time from the point of view of the psychological problems/personality disorders of the bullies and the tyrants and of those who collaborate with them.

Finally, a word about this odd little admonition «not to personalize» which many of you may have heard recently – usually to demonstrate that the job you have been doing for 10 years must not be described as your job. The good news of course, is that when you are fired, you have not lost your job! Because you never had one! So that’s OK then.

Well the fact remains that the personal is political and vice versa. There would be less bad behaviours in organizations if, on the contrary, we all made a point of personalizing. Do remain a human being. Do think personally and politically. Remember that your experience is likely to be the experience of dozens if not hundreds of others. And we each bring to our jobs our personalities and our humanity. We do not leave our personalities in the car (unless you are an ecologist in which case you may leave it in the bus!) and enter the office to perform an impersonal function.

If the UN and its agencies do not understand this today, then the staff associations have a lot of counselling to do!