bullying in a u.k. police service

8/13/2019 Bullying in a U.K. Police Service

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bullying-in-a-uk-police-service 1/30

http://gom.sagepub.com/ Management

Group & Organization

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1059601112449476

June 2012 2012 37: 347 originally published online 19Group & Organization Management

Hilary Miller and Charlotte RaynerOccupational Culture: Bullying in a U.K. Police Service

The Form and Function of ''Bullying'' Behaviors in a Strong

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group & Organization Management Additional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 19, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jun 29, 2012Version of Record>>

by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gom.sagepub.com/



http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347


http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.refs.html


http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://gom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/19/1059601112449476.full.pdf

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.full.pdf




























































































http://gom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/19/1059601112449476.full.pdf

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.full.pdf


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://www.sagepublications.com/





Group & Organization Management

37(3) 347 –375

© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1059601112449476http://gom.sagepub.com

GOM373 10.1177/1059601112449476Millerand RaynerGroup & Organization Management© TheAuthor(s) 2012

1Portsmouth University, Portsmouth, UK

Corresponding Author:

Dr. Hilary Miller, Police Sciences (HESAS), University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, UK

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

The Form and Function

of “Bullying” Behaviors

in a Strong Occupational

Culture: Bullying in a U.K.

Police Service

Hilary Miller

1

and Charlotte Rayner 1

Abstract

The study examines the persistence of bullying in a high-teamwork environ-ment using self-categorization theory (SCT) and interaction ritual chain the-

ory (IRCT). Findings from a qualitative study suggest that “isolation” is the keybehavior police officers label as bullying and that other behaviors thought ofas bullying may be tolerated, providing there is no exclusion. IRCT clarifiedthe dynamics, whereas SCT explained the motivation for engaging in ritualscontaining behaviors that included bullying. The study posits a new frame-work for bullying in high-pressured teams and accounts for the tolerance to“bullying” behaviors in such work environments. Implications for addressingworkplace bullying in these contexts are discussed.

Keywords

police, occupational culture, rituals, identity, workplace bullying, IRCT, SCT



348 Group & Organization Management 37(3)

Introduction

Teamwork is essential in occupations where employees are required to under-

take tasks against tight time frames, pooling their contributions. Such envi-

ronments exist for time-pressured occupations emergency services, media

crews, event organizers, and others where group work is a central component,

described by Maitlis as “tightly coupled social systems” (Maitlis, 2005,

p. 23). Our example examines the police who deal with public disturbances

and time-sensitive investigations involving multiskilled specialists

(Holdaway, 1983; Reiner, 2000). Evidence continues to show that bullying

in the police service is pervasive (e.g., Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004),

which is potentially toxic for individuals, teams, and the organization(O’Boyle, Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011). This article seeks to understand why

the bullying associated with this occupational culture is apparently untouched

by positive initiatives (Loftus, 2010) such as antibullying policies, training,

and public statements by senior officers (Rayner, 2005).

Although the work environment is acknowledged as being of key impor-

tance for the persistence of workplace bullying (Notelaers, de Witte, &

Einarsen, 2010) very few studies have attempted to study environmental fac-

tors (Baillien, Neyens, de Witte, & de Cuyper, 2009). We wanted to explorehow bullying was maintained as part of an occupational culture by examining

a context with a strong occupational culture and an emphasis on teamwork.

The contribution of the article is threefold. First, we seek to examine the

influence of occupational culture on the perceived forms that bullying takes in

terms of behaviors. In this way, we add to the literature on the effect of the

work environment in bullying. Second, we seek to understand the function of

bullying in high pressure teams and contribute to scant research on the pro-

cesses involved in bullying and a gap in the literature on the role of teams.Finally, we seek to contribute to practice through shedding light on why exist-

ing antibullying initiatives have had such a low rate of success in the U.K.

police service.

The article will provide background to bullying and the police culture fol-

lowed by a summary of theoretical bases and methodology. The findings sec-

tion exposes rituals associated with “rites of passage” (Islam & Zyphur, 2009;

Van Maanen, 1972) that maintain the culture for established team members

and set it for new members (Raelin, 2011). The findings challenge extant

notions of “bullying” behaviors, showing that access to the workgroup is

pivotal, with officers tolerating some “bullying” behavior so long as it is part

of the process of gaining such access. In our discussion we apply and elabo-

rate (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablinski, 1999) Collins’s interaction ritual chains

theory (IRCT) using self-categorization theory (SCT) within a new model



Miller and Rayner 349

that sheds light on bullying as a process. Our final comments are directed at

all high teamwork environments, illuminating how antibullying programs

can fail to be successful and making suggestions for practice and research.

Bullying

Workplace bullying is about employees experiencing persistent negative

behaviors perpetrated by one or more individuals on a less powerful “target”

who is often unable to defend themselves (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper,

2011). There is focus on the negative reactions of the target that erode trust and

self-confidence over time (Bowler, Woehr, Bowler, Wuensch, & McIntyre,

2010), working relationships and capability (e.g., Rayner & Keashly, 2004),and health (Hoel et al., 2004). Studies using questionnaires are common

(Neilsen et al., 2010, reviewed 102 studies), which employ lists of a range of

behaviors and judge prevalence of bullying through frequency of experience in

a recent time frame (e.g., the last 6 months or year). Behaviors differ and range

from electronic forms (Baruch, 2005), through interpersonal and task-related

attacks to isolation and exclusion (Einarsen et al., 2011). Recent studies have

shown national culture difference in behavior perception (Escartin, Zapf,

Arrieta, & Rodriguez-Carballeria, 2011; Loh, Restuborg, & Zagenczyk, 2010;Sidle, 2010) providing impetus for the questioning of occupational cultures

influence on the forms of “bullying” behaviors.

Einarsen (2000) identified the working environment as a possible causal

factor of bullying, an aspect that has received little direct attention. Extant

literature has focused on role-related factors; autonomy (Bellingham, 2000),

stress (Baillien, de Cuyper, & de Witte, 2011), and physical environment

(Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001), all calling for more studies on organizational

culture. The work culture has two facets: the legitimate organizational direc-tion and articulated values in the formal organizational culture, such as mis-

sion, job content, and management values (Walton, 2010), and the unofficial

occupational climate sustained by the workforce, including group norms and

values, and the socialization processes (Gracia, Cifre, & Grau, 2010). Archer

(1999) researched bullying in the U.S. and U.K. fire services, concluding that

the most damaging type of bullying to the individual “is contained within the

socialization processes which occur when individuals join groups” (p. 54). It

is to the occupational climate of the police that we now turn.

Police Culture

The police occupational culture has been well researched both by academics

and practitioners (e.g., Holdaway, 1983; Reiner, 2000; Van Maanen, 1972),




and strong similarities have been found worldwide with a “common subscrip-

tion to mission, macho, ‘us/them’ and cynicism” (Waddington, 1999, p. 96).

Islam and Zyphur (2009, p. 121) claim that an organizational culture is cre-

ated through rituals “by establishing public interpretations for interpersonal

behavior.” This behavior can include verbal symbols such as stories that are

passed through the generations and influence officers’ behavior (Chan, 1997),

thus creating rituals. Reiner suggests police culture as “how police officers

see the social world and their role in it—cop culture—is crucial to an analy-

sis of what they do” (p. 85). Given the need for high-performance team-

working in the police, reflecting Raelin’s (2011) postbureaucratic format

(p. 139), it is not surprising that alignment of “what they do” (p. 139) is

crucial between members and occupational climate fulfils this role.Solidarity is a common thread throughout descriptions of police culture,

which Crank (1998) suggests is taught and reinforced during initial training

as an affirmation of police identity. Police officers change jobs in their

careers, moving between teams; hence, workgroups are used to taking on

new members and socializing them to maintain solidarity (Raelin, 2011).

The field of socialization is well researched, and we focus on the two

threads of work we found to be the most promising vehicles to understand the

dynamics in the police: self-categorization theory (SCT), and interaction rit-ual chain theory (IRCT). The next section will provide a brief overview of

associated theory and concepts and explain why SCT and IRCT were used for

this research.

Theoretical Approaches

This study focused on the theories of SCT and IRCT, both of which draw on

social identity theory (SIT). Conformity, stereotypes, and reference groupshave been studied for many years, demonstrating that our behavior is influ-

enced both by the context and the behavior of those around us. SIT has been

described as “an individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social

groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this

group membership” (Turner, 1987, p. 31).

SCT adds the cognitive element to identity theory and concentrates on

how individuals become part of the group rather than examining group

behavior. Here, individuals categorize themselves (and others) by highlight-

ing similarities and distinctions, thereby giving meaning to being part of a

group that in turn is assessed by comparison to other groups. Depersonalization

follows, where individuals become the social group they represent, creating

the transition from “I” (individual) to “we” (a group member) with mutual

group identity being similar to that of the group prototype (Turner, 1987).




Luckmann (2008) sees workers determining appropriate behavior from the

“historical social structure” (p. 11) through obtaining social “knowledge.”

Luckmann also claims that the social structure uses strategies of behavior and

discourse to regulate access to knowledge and consequently inclusion to or

omission from the group. We argue that the prototype is the gatekeeper of

such “knowledge.”

Prototypes are defined by Moreland, Levine, and McMinn (2001) as a

“mental image of the type of person who best represents the group” (p. 96)

and, rather than being the equivalent of a checklist of characteristics, the

attributes of the prototype should be “fuzzy sets that capture the context

dependent features of group membership” (Hogg & Terry, 2001, p. 5). Hogg

and Terry suggest that SCT reflects group members self-stereotyping andconforming to the group prototype, which has been applied to police settings.

For example, Dick (2005) found that police officers’ group identity buffered

personal responsibility for their actions.

Referent informational influence (RII) is grounded in SIT. It occurs in three

stages and is underpinned by self-categorization and conformity. Individuals

self-categorize as a member of a group and then learn the stereotypical norms

and attributes of that group. Finally, they assign the group norms to them-

selves and conform to the normative group behavior. RII is a crucial linkwhere depersonalization occurs and individuals gain “true” acceptance of the

norms, values, rituals, and symbols of the group, explaining the social process

in the conforming process. RII occurs not because individuals seek group

acceptance and approval but because psychologically they feel that they

belong to that group and consequently relate the group norms to themselves

as the appropriate standard of behavior (Hogg, 2001).

While SIT, SCT, and RII help us understand how individuals classify them-

selves as group members, they do not explain how group norms and values are perpetuated. As Chan (1997) pointed out, understanding individual choice

relies on cognitive and behavioral pillars rather than affect. We found the

affective gap could be addressed using emotional energy (EE). A recent and

well-developed theoretical base in this area came from Collins’s interaction

ritual chains theory (IRCT). We sought to use IRCT to understand high-

pressure team processes in an authentic and more original way.

Interaction Ritual Chains Theory (IRCT)Collins (2004) supports Durkheim’s emphasis on values, emotional energy,

and moral solidarity as central to a cohesive society. He maintains emotions

are an essential ingredient for any realistic theory and are responsible for the

dynamics. We ask whether Collins’s theory can be applied to an organizational




setting in order to assist in explaining why bullying is perpetuated in high pres-

sure teams. As Collins’s work has scant use in occupational analysis, we will

use examples from the police environment demonstrating its potential.

Collins defined rituals as a “mechanism of mutually focused emotion and

attention producing a momentarily shared reality, which thereby generates

solidarity and symbols of group membership” (p. 7) and that boundaries are

required to separate people involved in rituals from outsiders who are not

(echoing SCT). Rituals can be classified as natural (often informal, such as

who makes coffee) and formal events (award ceremonies, for example).

Collins’s IRCT model has a core process of intersubjectivity (collective

consciousness) and shared emotion (collective effervescence). The theory

relies on an assembly of people and a “mutual focus of attention” within ashared mood. They engage in ritual events, and through the shared mood,

emotional effervescence is created. The effervescence is key to the outcomes

of IRCT that are group solidarity and emotional energy (EE) for those

involved. Symbols carry EE across situations and are a vehicle to perpetuate

the chain, with members associating the symbols with memories of previous

events and effervescence, which constantly confirms solidarity.

Police officers exist in an environment surrounded by violence, aggres-

sion, and situations of conflict (Reiner, 2000). Collins (2004) considers con-flict situations to be a “high-density interaction ritual” (p. 146) that encourage

individuals to participate if the situations are salient and trigger the primary

emotions of fear and anger experienced collectively. Collins develops this

area of his work (Collins, 2009a, 2009b), identifying that it is fear rather than

anger that is present in violent situations. Although of interest, Collins’s

recent work concentrates on a more physical level of violence not pertinent to

our study; thus, we consider the debate as extraneous to this article.

The notion of “emotional energy” represents a dramatic turn both forresearch into police culture and also workplace bullying. Collins (2004) clari-

fies: “The analytical starting point is the situation and how it shapes individu-

als; situations generate and re-generate the emotions and the symbolism that

charge up individuals and send them from one situation to another”(p. 44).

EE and membership symbols, maintained as a “focus of attention” are the key

to sustaining interaction rituals over time. The persistence of behaviors is a

facet of traditional workplace bullying definitions; hence, the repetition and

regeneration Collins alludes to makes the theory a strong candidate for appli-

cation into the topic.

The publication of the theory has had several critiques. Felson (2009) con-

siders that Collins has failed to place his theory in the wider discipline of

criminology and Cooney (2009) argues that there is insufficient scientific




explanation. Plummer (2006) commented positively on its originality. . . . “It

is not a theory book which simply re-clothes old ideas, but one with luck that

could become an influential and original approach . . . [for researchers to]

take some of its arguments seriously and flesh them out” (p. 716). However,

in an exchange with Collins, Baehr established areas needing clarification

that include the consideration of the role of individuals’ memories of symbols

in the chain and whether EE is an outcome (Collins, 2004) rather than an

ingredient (Baehr, 2005). Collins suggests emotional effervescence is the ele-

ment related to EE that is the ingredient. Finally, Baehr questioned EE as the

sole motivator for actions, invoking altruistic action. Collins’s response was

that one would seek to locate previous ritual chains for any individual and the

driving symbols and emotions. This latter response highlights the long time-frame Collins uses, in keeping with our desire to examine the perpetuation of

bullying in a culture long-term.

Both Goss (2007, 2008) and Summers-Effler (2004) have used aspects of

the theory and found positive results to explain the formation and maintenance

of groups. Brundin and Nordqvist (2008) studied boardroom settings. They

found that understanding the use of emotions is crucial for sustaining and

using EE to the board member’s benefit effectively intertwining individual

behaviors within group membership. This holds parallels for the occupationalsetting of this study. We will question how the elements of IRCT, and specifi-

cally that of EE, may be involved in workplace bullying events and, in this

way, seek to elaborate theory. Theory elaboration is common where extant

theory provides a clear base from which one can shape application into a novel

setting (Maitlis, 2005) and is appropriate in this case where both SCT and

IRCT may contribute to an analysis of police occupational culture and the

dynamics of workplace bullying.

Method

A qualitative method was chosen in pursuing the research question to exam-

ine the form and function of bullying in occupational culture. The literature

on bullying (e.g., Archer, 1999) and police socialization (e.g., Holdaway,

1983) had both suggested that joining a new team was a crucial; hence, we

focused on eliciting narratives from serving officers that described such situ-

ations. The analytic theory was multifaceted; hence, qualitative examination

was essential in order to examine both the processes of IRCT and the poten-

tial role SCT might play in the form and function of workplace bullying,

allowing respondents to provide their own description and interpretations of

events on joining new teams.




The primary data gatherer was a police officer and duty bound to report

specified incidents to her authorities, but events anonymized by participants

could remain undisclosed. Being an occupational insider was beneficial to

understand occupational terminology and, more importantly, to understand

the meaning of the participants lives (Janesick, 2000). As qualitative research-

ers it was impossible to be totally bias free, but acknowledging one’s ideologi-

cal background helped ensure some objectivity when crafting the questions

and interpreting the analysis. Care was taken not to impose the researchers

prior knowledge or beliefs of the topic throughout the interview, analysis, and

when determining the final disclosure of data. Critical reflection throughout

the process provided trustworthiness to the method (Janesick, 2000). Ethical

considerations required us to be entirely open with our respondents and satisfythe employer that no deception was being used. Hence, information sheets

(including disclosure limitations) and questions were sent to participants

before interviews.

Data Collection

Given the constraints and sensitivities of the topics under investigation, data

collection was restricted to a small number of in-depth interviews. Interviewquestions were designed to elicit stories and were provided at least a week

beforehand. Only one question was phrased negatively, which addressed

what happened to those not accepted by a group.

The language used in IRCT and SC theory did not lend itself to direct

questions. Early informal “canteen conversations” established that proto-

types, rituals, and emotion were not terms that would provoke effective

answers if used in questions. Instead, we used a critical incident approach

(suggested by Archer, 1999) and asked officers how they had coped withchanging from one department to another (a characteristic of the police orga-

nization) when they joined a new group. We intended to explore how IRCT

could be applied as the new entrant sought to negotiate their acceptance and

solidarity. Accounts of how they “fitted in” might uncover the maintenance

processes related to the group for us. Although our questions and the conver-

sations never led to discuss bullying behaviors, they were a constant theme

from participants.

Sampling

Sampling was undertaken in two phases. First, one police force was used to

recruit an initial group of participants (n = 12) for face-to-face interviews.




Analysis

We adopted a narrative analysis using interactionism. Denzin (2001)

describes this as an approach to identify “strategic points of intervention intosocial situations” (p. 2). We avoided the dangers of relying on narrative text

alone (Hansen, 2006) and were able to achieve an “ethno-narrative”

approach, as the principle researcher was a police officer and able to provide

contextual interpretation.

Data analysis took several iterations. Initial coding (without reference to

IRCT or SCT) identified six main themes of culture, bullying behavior, emo-

tion, norms and values, rituals, and identity within the first set of interviews.

For the whole data set 30 subthemes were developed, after which links weremade to the theoretical frameworks.

Initially, data were grouped under each element of IRCT, but the presenta-

tion failed to re-create the links between the police occupational culture, self-

categorization, and interaction ritual chains that were evident in the full

narratives. Effectively, we had overfragmented the data in the subgroupings,

losing the story. Polkinghorne (2007) suggests that the interpretative analyses

are, “less rule derived and mechanical . . . instead, they are creative produc-

tions that stem from the researcher’s cognitive processes for recognizing pat-

terns and similarities in texts” (p. 483). The systematic subcategorizations

had reassured us that IRCT-related themes were active in the narratives and

crucially that other themes had not been omitted by taking the IRCT approach

(Fineman, 2004). The findings are presented using multiple categories which

reflect Hogg and Terry’s (2001) “fuzzy sets” conveying the full sense of the

dynamics we sought to expose.

FindingsThis section will first explore the elements of SCT, RII, and IRCT, providing

examples as to their theoretical applicability into our data and patterns iden-

tified. Finally, we examined behaviors traditionally thought of as “bullying”

within this assimilation process in police culture, and these findings will be

presented last.

SCT begins before officers join the police, based mostly on media depic-

tions of the police doing “real police work” (Loftus, 2010; Van Maanen,

1972), the vision of the dynamic crime-fighting officer. Officers’ work nowincludes the category of community policing. In terms of ethnocentrism,

community policing is poorly viewed in SCT:




To be able to drive a big fast car and chase things in the high speed

chases it’s the adrenalin rush—it’s the dealing with things that are

really serious. CID will say I dealt with a murder last week, traffic will

say I had a high speed chase, if you’re on a shift in a station then maybe

you dealt with a GBH (grievous bodily harm) last week and if you’re

on community maybe you dealt with a really exciting meeting last

week There’s definitely a pecking order. (12)

You’ll always get people who want to be thief takers and you can’t do

anything about them they are marvellous. . . . It was shame for me. I’d

always had ambitions to be an investigator and to be put in the bouncy

castle squad, (community) which was totally non-operational as far asI was concerned. . . . The reality of it was I cringing. (9)

What is striking from both quotes is the emotional language participants

used to describe the category of work they did—the policewoman who iden-

tified as a “thief-taker” felt “shame” and was “cringing” when faced with

being “non-operational” as a community officer; the traffic officer’s adren-

alin rush dealing with “really serious” high-speed chases. These quotes were

among many providing triangulation as to the occupational hierarchical orderof police work and reflect SCT at work imbued with emotion.

Many of the emotions we found were positive about the felt experience of

being a police officer, reinforcing their SCT choice “it gives you superb

amounts of confidence . . . an almost like superhuman feeling that I can do

anything, I can solve anything, I can do anything; and that is the police culture”

(7). Hence, while in this article we present results containing negative reports

associated with bullying, the full data contained many positive emotions.

RII is the process of depersonalization in order to fully identify with thegroup, building on SCT as a first stage and as the social process related to

conformity to group norms (Hogg, 2001). The following participant recalls

changing his identity in order to fit in;

I remember being told by my shift Inspector, “You’re far too nice, you

need to be more aggressive” and I was quite happy to adapt to what he

was saying and turned into something that wasn’t me but something I

felt I had to do. . . . It never entered my head to not do what they said.

I was just happy to do everything and follow the examples shown by

my colleagues (7).




The example reflects acceptance of the group norms as described by RII

where conflicts with his personal identity were resolved as he was “happy” to

respond by being more aggressive, thus entering the mutual focus of behavior

as a willing agent and conforming as part of a rite of passage into the group

(Nugent & Abolafia, 2006). But how does someone know what they need to

fit in with, and how to behave? More experienced (and sometimes more

senior) officers give advice, as Participant 7 identified above. He complied

and was accepted. A different participant knew a female officer who declined

joining the after-work gym sessions with her team as she had caring commit-

ments. Despite being a competent officer, she was excluded from the group

as she had failed to pick up this key membership activity:

I thought she would fit in extremely well, even though I know that

she’s not one to conform to a group . . . but I didn’t think, because she’s

a hardworking officer, that that would be an issue. . . . I was very sur-

prised when she spoke to me and stated that she felt that she was being

pushed out. (6)

In rejecting the invitation to the gym, she communicated low categorization

and was alienated. Prototypes have a strong role in the RII process as, by defi-nition, they set the standards for the group and are important to admission or

expulsion to the group (Moreland et al., 2001). In police culture these maybe

senior officers, but often they are constables. Senior managers commented,

They just stand out, they are the ones people just migrate around, they

are the ones that get their tea made for them, they are the ones that do

a good job for you and they are . . . your tried and tested person on this

unit. (16)

One of the biggest issues amongst the teams themselves is peer influ-

ence element, and it can be either negative or positive, and I think if

you've got positive peer influence at constable rank in my organization,

that can be immensely productive, and I think they can set the stan-

dards, because they're almost like un-promoted sergeants, your experi-

enced people, and if they're setting the high standard on a day-to-day

basis that's enormously helpful. (17)

Functional for management and key to team assimilation, prototypes hold

great power. We received reports of bullying such as “old Joe” from Participant

4, “If old Joe doesn’t like you or old Joe says, ‘She’s no bloody good,’ then in

order to gain popularity and approval from old Joe the others will say, ‘I agree




with you there Joe, bloody useless,’ so will find fault in that person” (4). The

prototype barred access to the group and without perceptible reason at times,

leaving the new member adrift. The act of exclusion maintains the proto-

types’ position in the group, thus reducing any symbolic conflict (Islam &

Zyphur, 2009) but may result in bullying toward the individual trying to

access the group.

Our narratives showed sensitivity from participants to these crucial early

days and weeks in their new teams. Quietness was a theme, with participants

reporting passivity:

Although at that stage I was a reasonably experienced X officer you

have to be a little bit quieter for a start and see what the characters werelike and who would be the leader of any team working at the time and

once you’re fitted in and then been accepted by the others then you

could open your mouth a little bit more, so until that stage had come

about, it was best to be a bit quieter than normal. (15)

Hence, while SCT as a cognitive process may be undertaken by a new

entrant, the full RII stage needs group activities to make the transition from

the “I” to “We” and in the police, exclusion has a function of preventing RIIfor this male officer:

It nearly destroyed me . . . If they had seen a weakness they would have

been like a pack of wolves and really gone for the kill, so I put on a

real hard front . . . whereas the reality of it was you couldn’t wait for

the shift to end and go home and cry and cry and I would break my

heart. (5)

This brings our findings to interaction ritual chain theory (IRCT) where

bodily copresence is one essential ingredient, and exclusion disables this.

With bodily copresence a mutual focus of attention can be created, which for

our participants was the work of policing. The mutual focus is the unstated

expectation, the awareness of the in-group members to which the new mem-

ber becomes entrained, including how to behave, what was required, accep-

tance, and the groups’ prototypical identity (Collins, 2004).

A true acceptance of the group norms and values (RII) benefits the indi-

vidual by providing the opportunity to share the feelings of group solidarity,

EE, sacred symbols, and feeling of morality, whereas failure to be accepted

results in knowledge and information being withheld and subsequent isolation

and rejection. For police officers one ritual is that of going to court and getting




a conviction: “There’s a buzz around the place when you get a conviction. I

always think that people talk about the amount of years given to a defendant

of being a measure of how good or not the job was—the longer the sentence,

the better the feeling of satisfaction” (17). This participant alluded to previous

rituals for convictions: “Conviction parties don't happen (anymore). . ., but

years ago, they used to. They'd commission ties, and stuff like that” (17).

Convictions are aided by intelligence, which is often local and nuanced

and held by individuals. Luckmann (2008) claims that the group controls the

“knowledge,” deciding who has access, and this represents another side of

exclusion operating within this context:

They knew the area like the back of their hands. The knowledge theyhad was immense and although I wouldn’t want to be like them, I’d kill

for their knowledge and I just wanted to learn from them. . . . They had

no intention what-so-ever of passing on their knowledge. (1)

The prototype was the gatekeeper of “knowledge.” In addition they pro-

tect the symbolic rituals; we found several instances where prototypes appar-

ently interfered with managers plans for change when the change involved

taking away a ritual behavior. Here a manager describes his experience ofcomputerizing custody suite (cells) records. Reiner (2000) refers to officers

being cynical towards new systems, but in our framework the subgroup were

determined to maintain their rituals (manual records) after a new computer

was introduced:

They’re still entering everything in this book . . . after trying several

times to try and persuade them they didn’t need it, I took the book

home with me one weekend and when I came back in the followingweek, they had sheets of paper that they’d lined off. I picked it up and

in front of them I shredded it. Six months later they were still reproduc-

ing books. When I left they were still using it . . . and it was totally

useless. So I found that very frustrating. (2)

This would be described as “upwards bullying” and lack of support for

managers held a cluster of examples: “They will just give them this bedding

in period and they will say, ‘What do you think?,’ ‘What do you reckon?,’

with each other. And if they don’t like them and they are incompetent they

will let them sink” (16).




The data held many instances of rituals. Bullied officers often failed to

reach this point as they had no access to the group events having been

excluded; hence, the majority of descriptions of rituals were positive and

without bullying. Several narratives concerned “The Thug Bus” or The Ugly

Bus,” which is the van used by officers to go to disturbances. Seating arrange-

ments have strong protocols, with the prototypes sitting in the front seats and

the most trusted officers by the back doors of the vehicle, ready to leap out on

arrival. The ritual becomes symbolic as does the van, reminding participants

of previous journeys and exciting them as to the outcome of the impending

encounter. But “You were invited in the van if you were friends with some-

one” (1), and those who had not been accepted by the group, been bullied and

acquiesced, were left out as they would not have had the required friends.We have shown how the various elements of interaction ritual chain theory

can be used to explain some police behaviors and have demonstrated the

negative effects felt by individuals when feeling bullied. The behaviors of

exclusion and isolation dominated the accounts from participants. However,

our article seeks to shed light not just on the function of bullying but also on

the form of bullying, to which we now turn.

Table 1 has used a classification of bullying behaviors (Rayner & Hoel,

1997) where bullying behaviors are exemplified from the data. These behav-iors are repeated incidents where a person feels unable to defend themselves.

The final aspect of definition is damage to the target of bullying. In our data,

we found many instances where recipients were damaged, but this was not

always the case. Table 1 evidences how an officer might be given meaning-

less tasks, for example, but is willing to comply and undertake them as this is

part of the path to acceptance by the group. Crucially, they do not feel dam-

age. De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) explored interpersonal conflict behavior

among teams where a strong congruence to existing values develops trust andhigh team functioning and is more successful when relationship conflict is

avoided. Our findings point to new team members avoiding relationship con-

flict (thus reducing the risk of bullying) in favor of building trust to secure

high-functioning teams. Hence, we would raise the question whether some-

times “bullying” behaviors are not experienced as bullying and whether the

occupational culture (in this case the rite of passage to team acceptance) has

a major impact in such delineations.

We have also illustrated SCT, IIR, IRCT, and the role of the prototype, and

we now turn to a discussion of the function and forms of bullying in the

police culture characterized by a highly pressured teamwork environment in

order to explore how these theories help us to understand the interpretation of

bullying (form) and the bullying process (function).




Table 1. Damaging Behaviors

Behaviors Representative quotations

Threat toprofessional status

4.171. He never got the same encouragement, support,teaching and development that others did because he wassingled out—ostracised . . . he left the department, he’d hadenough and transferred back (to) uniform.

6.105. They would do things like snide comments that werethen laughed at by the rest of the group and if she triedto partake or ask things like, would anyone like a cup oftea, they all said “no,” and then if a cup of tea was made bysomebody else they would all have a cup and sit drinking it

in front of her.16.441. [On new manager joining] if the person is quite ahorrible person and fairly incompetent, they’ll just let themsink (and) the dominant player within the team will startrunning the show.

17.89. It’s still male dominated, there is still a need to notshow any sort of weakness, and being the best that youcan be is therefore not acknowledging your weaknesses orhelping anybody develop.

Threat to personalstanding

1.107. There was a lot of talk behind this person’s back; it wasunpleasant to work in that environment when that personwent out of the office, to be in there and to hear themtalk about this person in that manner wasn’t pleasant—soand so’s useless, so and so will never come and help—thisperson has deserted us and is not in our club.

5.78. My ways of fitting in with things . . . when I went on (xDept) I was told I had to be prepared to get my hands dirtyand not be so “girly.” I was told all that but I didn’t go with itand I paid the price (exclusion).

Isolation 5.313. Absolutely isolated, I suppose I wasn’t surprised and itreally made me realise that I was on my own and I couldn’ttake much more after that and that’s when I went sick.

8.383. Someone who is well respected on a shift will havesaid something to someone else and if they’ve spoken ina negative term about someone who is well liked, thensuddenly you can almost be ostracised by the one phrase orone sort of off the cuff remark, and suddenly the positionwithin the group can suddenly be isolated at the stroke of

the pen. . . . it’s a very precarious place to be.12.122. You can be ostracised and put outside, it happens.Somebody who objects to an inappropriate joke on parade,doesn’t like something, then everybody will turn around andlaugh at them. That’s still happening, definitely.

(continued)





Overwork 3.210. They were bullying the probationer and not giving themtime to develop themselves complete files of evidence, PDPwork, their reviews were never done on time even thoughthey had been asked for.

Destabilization 4.129. He was kept subservient, he was treated, as I said,as a buffoon, the joke of the department and whateverinformation he came in with it didn’t matter because itcame from him. . . . He was doing surveillance on his ownbecause no one would go with him. . . . He left, he left thedepartment, he’d had enough and he transferred back.

6.81. They would give her menial tasks to do while they didother (real police-work) jobs.

5.269. My equipment was being tampered with . . . the waymy incident of bullying was done, was done so sneakily—sosneaky beaky that um, I think that’s where all my hurt camefrom because I didn’t know where it was coming from.

Table 1. (continued)

(continued)

Nondamaging Behaviors


Threat toprofessionalstatus

1.306. They knew the area like the back of their hands. Theknowledge they had was immense and although I wouldn’twant to be like them, I’d kill for their knowledge and I justwanted to learn from them. . . . They had no intention what-so-ever of passing on their knowledge.

17.89. It’s still male dominated, there is still a need to not

show any sort of weakness, and being the best that youcan be is therefore not acknowledging your weaknesses orhelping anybody develop, it’s still a predominant culture in myopinion.

5.220. They would undoubtedly have the mick taken out ofthem, because this is how we’ve always done it here and itsdown to you to fit in with them.

6.186. They would come in and there would be things on theboard, um, with, “bike for sale,” because the person had beenpoor when they had gone on a bike ride, “bike for sale, no

longer needed,” which was a laugh when the person tookpart but humorously, people who weren’t in the group camein and laughed at, and I went in and laughed because it was agood caricature on the board, um, and the person says,





“yeh, yeh, I know I wasn’t very good,” and felt a part of thegroup because he was actually, not being ridiculed, I thinkhe felt part of the group because they were all giving hima bit of stick, but he was part of the group and the stick hegot wasn’t being nasty, um, he made a concerted effort anddecided to prove them wrong next time.

Threat to personalstanding

15.242. You knew you were part of the group when peoplewould make you the butt of the jokes but you knew they

weren’t too cutting also you could then make other peoplebutts of jokes and they weren’t ostracised—that’s probablythe easy marker. . . . Once that “mickey taking” occurs . . . it’sblack humor and it’s quite prevalent and once you take partin that then you know that everybody accepted you. . . .

8.433. The comments can continue almost on a daily, hourlybasis and we dress it up as police banter, canteen culture,whatever we call it, that carries on.

Isolation No evidence.

Overwork 5.25. There were other incidents, we found it quite interesting,this play-off that was going on. A male colleague had booked(arrested) x amount that month and I had booked a few morethan the x amount and I was told to pull my socks up becauseI wasn’t doing quite as well as I should be doing. Whereas,because I think he fitted into the norm of the male—um— dominance I suppose is the best way of putting it, he wasdoing all right, I just had to do a bit more to prove myself.

Destabilization 4.92. But that’s where, in a very subtle way, power was exertedand you wanted to fit in, because otherwise you were inthat useless group, that “not liked group,” that, “not populargroup,” you were dismissed . . . and nobody wants to be in thatposition in its own way is obviously a negative thing.

Table 1. (continued)

Discussion

Our findings utilize Collins’s (2004) IRCT in an occupational setting of high-

pressure groups and adds to scant research on rites and rituals in organizations

(Islam & Zyphur, 2009). We found many examples of rituals and emotions

being entwined with effective policing and specifically to EE. Formal stan-

dards (Association of Chief Police Officers, 1990) require police officers to

be fair, compassionate, and courteous, and act with integrity, common sense,

sound judgment, and without prejudice. However, the data have supported




the views of Weaver (2006), who warns that a moral identity can be “pushed

out of view by a more salient amoral identity” (p. 353). We have seen how

some bullying behaviors are tolerated if they are part of rituals that gain

access to the group. Some participants did not appear to be damaged by these

experiences if (and only if) they had eventually gained access to the group.

As such the forms of bullying exposed have been strongly influenced by the

occupational culture.

Hence, our first contribution is to consider the implications of strong occu-

pational cultures on what might be termed bullying —its perceived form.

Exclusion from the group was the key form of bullying that participants

found damaging. It appeared to act as a superordinate factor for participants.

Exclusion effectively denied them access to being a police officer in a func-tional sense, but the exclusion from rituals and EE meant their felt experience

of policing was relegated to internal self-categorization, rendering them

unable to move into RII thence acceptance.

Some behaviors that might be termed bullying academically (repeated,

negative, and to someone unable to defend themselves) were not experienced

negatively by participants who saw their treatment as part of a rite of passage

to group acceptance. Employment of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (see

Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010) within the police service would belikely to result in behaviors being reported but without respondents labeling

themselves as “bullied.” This might not be because of low awareness or

unwillingness to self-label (Rayner & Keashly, 2004) but rather because the

behaviors were genuinely not felt as bullying. We have shown that occupa-

tional climate may have an impact on the perceived form of bullying behav-

iors hence adding to knowledge.

Turning now to the function of bullying in high-teamwork environ-

ments, our findings sit alongside SCT and RII and, taken together, enhanceour understanding of groups and bullying in such teams. We note the impor-

tance of bodily coexistence in this occupational setting—not all police offi-

cers are allowed by their group to be present at important events and access

rituals. Collins, However, does not explain how new individuals success-

fully become involved in an existing ritual. Our data suggest that several

layers of occupational culture occur in different spaces into which only

those officers apparently self-categorized and accepted by the group are

allowed to be present.

Thus, we suggest the existence of a series of steps whereby an individual

gains admission to the workgroup bringing them closer to the prototype and

access to rituals. This model is shown Figure 1 that includes a process for

drawing in new members who are motivated to join in a dynamic process

extending both SCT and IRCT theories in a new way.




The model demonstrates how individuals work through stages of catego-

rization each of which is appraised by the prototype. Individuals arrive with

preconceptions of the workgroup (such as from TV and media; Waddington,

1999), undergo induction (basic training) where they are primed for organi-

zational categorization, then join their new group. Using SCT concepts wesuggest they first engage at the RII Stage, initially intrapersonally, and most

likely new members are passive to observers. The new member is highly

vulnerable to bullying until they have actively demonstrated their willing-

ness to conform to the norms and values of the group. They identify the

prototype, recognizing symbols (assuming they decide to continue the cate-

gorization process), and then actively give out messages to the prototype

(such as changing dress, attitudes, and behaviors) that they want to catego-

rize. This overt demonstration of change and adaptation is the Signal Stage.

The risk of exclusion and the potential for bullying intensifies as existing

group members are likely to behave negatively toward the new member to

gain further rewards from the prototype if the Signal Stage is judged

unsuccessful.

RII Stage

Signal Stage

Trial Stage

Evaluaon

Stage

Inducon

New member primed for categorisaon

-Enters process wanng

to join specific category

-Overtly passive

-Recognises prototype

-Decides to categorise

-Acvely adapts norms to

signal categorizaon

-Signals are judged adequate

-Allowed access to rituals*

-Demonstrably values invitaon,

treasures symbols including

shared memory and EE

Group with Bodily

co-presence

Mutual

focus

Collecveeffervescence

Shared solidarity

Bullying potenal increases

High potenal for bullying

-Their interacon in ritual is

observed and judged*

-Full entry granted and

categorizaon complete*

Bullying potenal

decreases

Bullying unlikely

Barriers to

outsiders

Emoonal

energy

Sacred

objects

Shared morality

New Member

+

+

+

Acceptance Stage

+

+

+

* Protoypeis gatekeeper

Figure 1. A staged approach to categorization




The prototype evaluates this effort and (if successful) grants access to a

Trial Stage for the new member to engage in a ritual, such as the “The Thug

Bus.” The new member (if granted access to the trial) can share copresence at

the ritual opportunity but will be observed by others, including the prototype.

Within the Trial Stage the new member needs to appear (at least) to value

their new inclusion and demonstrate positive feedback to the prototype by

treasuring symbols and shared memories of the interaction ritual. Providing

the new member behaves in accordance with the expectations of the proto-

type and group, the risk of bullying decreases. The behavior of the new mem-

ber is again judged by the prototype at the Evaluation Stage where exclusion

and bullying could still occur if they are rejected. If the evaluation is success-

ful the potential for exclusion and bullying becomes unlikely, acceptance isgranted, and the new member categorizes, mutually reinforcing group soli-

darity and cohesion. With repeated instances the “I” becomes “We” as mutual

confidence grows and depersonalization is completed.

The application of Collins’s IRTC enables us to see why seemingly

degrading entry rituals and hurtful jokes might be tolerated by a new member

as, even though they might be the “butt” of the group, they are still part of the

group and can share some effervescence and have a role in solidarity and EE.

Knowledge that their negative role will be taken on by the next new personcan explain apparently perverse engagement in self-deprecating acts.

The data have shown how IRCT is congruent with explaining the values

and practices of the police occupational culture, with particular emphasis on

solidarity, conservatism, machismo, and the sense of mission (Reiner, 2000),

and that bullying is one byproduct of this process. The focus of the prototype

and accepted group members is the retention of solidarity necessary for effec-

tive group working in this pressured environment, where bullying is part of a

larger group process. Our examples have also included different events wherechanges that are seen to attack symbols or rituals that maintain solidarity

produce negative behavior such as the custody officers refusing to change to

a computerized system. Here, management is attempting to move the organi-

zation on, but in ways that are perceived to affect the maintenance of highly

cohesive teams through ritual destruction. Such conflict is actually a dynamic

to protect the ritual, being of importance to the workgroup and unwittingly

challenged by management’s actions.

In this culture, bodily copresence represents a significant and malleable

barrier for the prototype to manipulate, and the data demonstrate complex

interactions between the formal and informal (Walton, 2010). Signals might

include the adoption of dress codes, machismo behavior, or other signs of

wanting to engage in “real” police work. Accordingly, small but important




into rituals in organizations. First, we found that rites of passage are more inter-

active than was previously thought. Although the power resides with existing

group members, there is (through the Signal and Trial Stages) a dynamic role

for the new member to communicate positive categorization and facilitate their

progress to acceptance. We did find degrading events occurred but that this

could not always be explained by threats to the identity of the group. Rather, the

degradation could be part of the identity of the group. Our context comprised

groups with regular need for high team cohesion and solidarity that affect per-

formance dramatically (such as dealing with a disturbance). It appeared that

many rituals had a positive link to task performance. Self-confidence and mech-

anisms to deal with fear are of transparent value in such circumstances. If these

rituals hold value, it is understandable why dealing with bullying becomes mar-ginalized in such situations. Practitioners attempting to tackle bullying need to

be sensitized to the function of bullying in maintaining such teams and have

constructive and acceptable alternative routes for teams to adopt.

The power of prototypes within these highly team-based cultures is dra-

matic. The maintenance of their role and group power clearly contributes to

bullying incidents. This widens our current lens (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland.,

Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010). What was unexpected was that the scope of such

activities extends into apparently manipulating or subverting change, thus potentially neutralizing management ability to tackle this type of dark-side

behavior and undermining perceived organization support (Parzefall & Salin,

2010). Bellingham (2000) identified a relationship between an employee’s

autonomy in relation to the practices to be changed that, in part, is related to

the conservatism and solidarity synonymous of the occupational culture.

Bellingham concludes, “The key to cultural change is managerial intervention

which wrestles the control of the axiomatic knowledge away from the front

line staff” (p. 36). Our findings challenge the realism of Bellingham’s asser-tion as if strong prototypes at low ranks are effectively controlling behavior,

how can hierarchical management (Raelin, 2011) be imposed? Laissez-faire

and poorly trained managers (Hoel et al., 2010) may be only one part of a

broader story. This study suggests it may not be a lack of training or overt

action, but supervisors’ choice to sabotage occupational processes that might

have an impact on rituals linked to solidarity thence performance. Hence, it

may be that bullying is not labeled as a “problem” (Yeo & Marquardt, 2010).

If one was to advise an organization tackling a well-embedded culture that

appears to maintain bullying, then affecting prototypical behavior would be

central. We know of no such advice being given to organizations at present.

Given the positive role of some rituals in the force, we would not suggest

eradicating rites and rituals, even if one could. We saw the police relying on




energy and emotion from its staff in order to be able to meet operational

requirements. Logically, one would seek to work with prototypes to enable

them to develop behaviors that allowed the IRCT to continue but which did

not damage those concerned. How far one can reject a group member and not

damage them is problematic and lends weight to the suggestion that bullying

is part of high-team environments. To those in positions of authority and

sanctioning intervention schemes the benefits of having high levels of soli-

darity could be seen as outweighing the “collateral damage” of an occasional

damaged officer.

Implications for Future ResearchParticipants related prior incidents, but at the time of the event they were

unaware of the effect of the occupational culture on their identity and its

impact. Such reports verify that some individuals develop beyond (and out

of) the occupational culture but the dynamics are unknown. Future studies

that explore bullying in an organization where there is a strong occupational

culture could use this model to explore the cycle of culturalization, ideally

in a longitudinal study. This may help work through a “recovery” cycle for

those people who survive bullying situations, whatever their role. Theirexperience may be used to develop prototypical leadership that does not

damage work colleagues. Understanding senior staff and their process of

problem acknowledgment (Yeo & Marquardt, 2010) and decision making is

another fruitful area for future research if officers damaged by bullying are

seen as acceptable collateral damage in an otherwise functioning work envi-

ronment. This would be very challenging research indeed.

Limitations of Study

We reached conceptual saturation in our interviews very quickly. It is pos-

sible that although technically a correct approach, the research may be ques-

tioned by some because of the small sample. Certainly, we do not have

confidence that we have ascertained all forms of bullying, albeit the process

of bullying was a remarkably consistent narrative. Although the organization

granted access and welcomed the research, the confines of the police codes

of conduct have been restrictive to the primary researcher who was a serving

officer at the time. We cannot know how far it has been detrimental to the

study as participants were warned not to divulge any incriminating informa-

tion; hence, our data might be limited.




Summary

This study investigated the dynamics involved in the maintenance of bully-

ing behaviors in a police culture despite messages that this was not accept-able. It used IRCT to understand the maintenance of occupational culture to

contribute to our knowledge of the impact of work environment on bullying.

SCT can help to explain how individuals are involved at the inception of the

ritual processes. As such, we present a new approach to understanding bul-

lying behaviors, which are apparent in group dynamics and are especially

relevant in high-team organizations.

The model we propose (Figure 1) can help develop organizational and

occupational culture research by showing how new team members interactwith symbols and then rituals to maintain prototypical attitudes and behav-

ior. The implications for practice include the need to alter the prototypes

behavior and the content of rituals. We do not suggest attempting the eradi-

cation of rituals as they provide a key component to energize and bind group

members, but their focus and internal values may be able to be steered

toward less damaging consequences. We also draw attention to the dilemma

faced by senior decision makers who may see the harm from bullying as col-

lateral damage from high-team cultures as an inevitable. We would suggest

that high-pressure teams can exist using bonding behavior that avoids dam-

aging individuals.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Professor David Goss, University

of Surrey, for introducing them to the work of Randall Collins.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-

lication of this article.

References

Archer, D. (1998). Time to kill the culture vulture. In Bullying at Work: 1998 ResearchUpdate Conference. (July, pp.48-56) Stafford, UK: Staffordshire University.

Association of Chief Police Officers (1990). Statement of common purpose and val-

ues. Home Affairs 7th report: Expectations of the police. Retrieved from http://

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/364/36406.htm




Baehr, P. (2005). The sociology of almost everything. Four questions to Randall Collins

about Interaction Ritual Chains. Canadian Journal of Sociology Online. Retrieved

from http://www.cjsonline.ca/pdf/interactionritual.pdf

Baillien, E., de Cuyper, N., & de Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as

antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s Job Demand

Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organi-

zational Psychology, 84(1), 191-208.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., de Witte, H., & de Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on

the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1-16.

Baruch, Y. (2005). Bullying on the net: Adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact.

Information & Management, 42(2), 361-371.

Bellingham, T. (2000). Police culture and the need for change. The Police Journal,

73(1), 31-41.

Bowler, M. C., Woehr, D. J., Bowler, J. L., Wuensch, K. L., & McIntyre, M. D.

(2010). The impact of impersonal aggression on performance attributions.Group

& Organization Management, 36 (4), 427-465.

Brundin, E., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Beyond facts and figures: The role of emotions

in boardroom dynamics. Corporate Governance, 16 (4), 326-341.

Chan, J. (1997). Changing police culture—Policing in a multicultural society.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Collins, R. (2009a). The micro-sociology violence. British Journal of Sociology,

60(3), 565-576.

Collins, R. (2009b). Reply to Felson & Cooney. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3),

595-601.

Cooney, M. (2009). The scientific significance of Collins’s violence. British Journal

of Sociology, 60(3), 586-594.Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Crank, J. P. (1998). Understanding police culture. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy

constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 357-369.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict

and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behav-

ior, 22(3), 309-328.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team

performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.




Dick, P. (2005). Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of

coercive force. Human Relations, 58(11), 1363-1390.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian

approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying

and harassment at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),

Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and

practice (2nd ed., pp. 3-39). London: Taylor & Francis.

Escartin, J., Zapf, D., Arrieta, C., & Rodriguez-Carballeria, A. (2011). Workers’ per-

ception of workplace bullying: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 20(2), 178-205.

Felson, R. B. (2009). Is violence natural, unnatural or rational. British Journal of

Sociology, 60(3), 577-585.

Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion—and the cautionary tale of emo-

tional intelligence. Human Relations, 57 (6), 719-740.

Gracia, E., Cifre, E., & Grau, R. (2010). Service quality: The key role of service

climate and service behavior of boundary employee units.Group & Organization

Management, 35(3), 276-298.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.Goss, D. (2007). Reconsidering Schumpeterian Opportunities: the contribution of

interaction ritual chain theory. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior

and Research,13(1),3-18.

Goss, D. (2008). Enterprise Ritual: A theory of entrepreneurial emotion and exchange.

British Journal of Management, 19, 120-137.

Hansen, H. (2006). The ethnonarrative approach. Human Relations, 59(8), 1049-1075.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but

all bullying behaviors and not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal ofGuidance and Counselling, 32(3), 367-387.

Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles

as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of

Management, 21, 453-468.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorisation, depersonalisation and group behavior. In

M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Group processes (pp. 56 to 85). Oxford, UK:

Basil Blackwell.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (2001). Social identity processes in organizational contexts.

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Holdaway, S. (1983). Inside the British Police, a force at work . Oxford, UK: Basil

Blackwell.

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion

of current theory. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 114-139.




Janesick, V. J. (2000) Knowing her place: Research literacies and feminist occasions.

Qualitative Health Research, 10(4), 571-572.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organi-

zational and vocational psychology: 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

55, 161-187.

Loftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing

and Society, 20(1), 1-20.

Loh, J., Restuborg, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2010). Consequences of workplace

bullying on identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 236-252.

Luckmann, T. (2008). On social interaction and the communicative construction of

personal identity, knowledge and reality.Organizational Studies, 29(2), 277-290.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of

Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.

Mikkelsen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence

and health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

10, 393-413.

Moreland, R., Levine, J. M., & McMinn, J. G. (2001). Self-categorisation and work

group socialisation. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes

in organizational contexts. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodologi-

cal moderators on the prevalence rates of workplace bullying: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 955-979.

Notelaers, G., de Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010). A job characteristics approach to

explain workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-

chology, 19(4), 487-504.

Nugent, P. D., & Abolafia, M. Y. (2006). The creation of trust through interaction

and exchange: The role of consideration in organizations.Group & Organization Management, 31(6), 628-650.

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O’Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels:

An examination or group- and organizational-level effects in the study of coun-

terproductive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36 (1), 39-69.

Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace injus-

tice: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761-780.

Plummer, K. (2006) Interaction ritual chains. British Journal of Sociology, 57 (4), 715-716.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2007). Validity issues in narrative research.Qualitative Inquiry,

13, 471-486.

Raelin, J. A. (2011). The end of managerial control?Group & Organization Manage-

ment, 36 (2), 135-160.




Rayner, C. (2005). Reforming abusive organizations. In B. S. Bowie, S. Fisher, &

C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace violence: Issues, trends, strategies. Cullompton,

UK: Willan Publishing.

Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). Review of literature and workplace bullying. Journal

of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7 (3), 181-191.

Rayner, C., & Keashly, L. (2004). Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain and

North America. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behav-

ior (pp.271 to 296). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Reiner, R. (2000). The politics of the police. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sidle, S. D. (2010). Eye of the beholder: Does culture shape perceptions of workplace

bullying? Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 100-101.

Summers-Effler, E. (2004). Defensive strategies: The formation and social impli-

cations of patterned self-destructive behavior. Advances in Group Process, 21,

309-325.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group–Self categorization theory.

Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Van Maanen, J. (1972). “Pledging the police”: A study of selected aspects of recruit

socialisation in a large urban police department . Unpublished doctoral thesis,

University of California, Irvine.

Waddington, P. A. J. (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture—An appreciation. British Journal of Criminology, 29(2), 287-309.

Walton, G. (2010). The problem trap: Implications of policy archaeology methodol-

ogy for anti-bullying policies. Journal of Educational Policy, 25, 135-150.s

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for

moral agency. Organization Studies, 27 (3), 341-368.

Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). Problems as building blocks for organizational

learning: A roadmap for experiential inquiry. Group & Organization Manage-

ment, 35(3), 243-275.

Bios

Hilary Miller is a retired police officer and currently lectures part-time at the

University of Glamorgan. Her research interest continues to relate to police culture

and rituals. She received her PhD from Portsmouth University

Charlotte Rayner is Professor of HRM at Portsmouth Business School, UK. Her

research interests are around workplace bullying, and understanding how organisa-

tions can intervene to minimise the issue. She received her PhD from Manchester

University.

bullying in a u.k. police service

Documents