8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

1/19

ColorTM

2014 WBI

U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey

Gary Namie, PhD, Research Director

Assistants: Daniel Christensen & David Phillips

360.656.6630

workplacebullying.org

F

& 93 I C

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

2/19

2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey

National Prevalence 3

U.S. Workforce Affected 5

Gender and the Bullying Experience 6

The Challenge of Same-Gender Bullying 8

Gender and Job Loss 8

Race and the bullying Experience 9

Ideology and the bullying Experience 10

Perpetrator Rank Number 10

Employers Reactions to Bullying 12

Coworkers Reactions to Bullying 13

What Stopped the Bullying 14

Support for a Law 16

Causal Factors 17

About Bullied Targets 18

Zogby Analytics Survey Methodology 19

Table of Contents

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

3/19

Workplace bullying is repeaed misreamen and a orm o abusive conduc. For he firs ime, we used he definiiono workplace bullying ha maches perecly he definiion codified in he Healhy Workplace Bill. Tus, we asked

Americans o consider only he mos serious orms o bullying. Eye rolling may be par o bullying, bu i alone is nosufficien. Nonverbal cues coupled wih verbal abuse and he acics o exclusion are delivered by perperaors repeaedlyin order o inenionally harm argeed individuals. Te closes analogy o workplace bullying is domesic violence.Bullying is a non-physical orm o workplace violence.

Troughou his repor, he exac wording o Survey iems begin wih Question:. Te respondens answer choices arehe phrases wihou ialics in all ables. Suboals comprised o ses o response caegories are italicized.

Question: A work, wha has been your personal experience wih he ollowing ypes o repeaed misreamen: abusiveconduc ha is hreaening, inimidaing, humiliaing, work saboage or verbal abuse?

National Prevalence

27% of Americans have suffered abusive conduct at work; another 21% have witnessed it;72% are aware that workplace bullying happens

able 1

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

4/19

Over one-quarer o adul Americans (27%) said hey direcly experienced abusive conduc a work currenly (7%) ora someime in heir work lie bu no in he las year (20%).

In our 2014 Survey, we spli he winessedcaegory ino hose who had seen he bullyingo ohers and hose who knew ha ohers were

bullied. Boh groups would have experiencedhe bullying vicariously. Recen research o

hose who vicariously experienced bullyingound ha he severiy o emoional injuries

were similar in severiy o injuries suffered bybullied individuals.

Te mos imporan change in responseopions in 2014 was o spli he ormerlysingle I have no experienced or winessed ianswer ino hree alernaives. Respondens

were asked o declare i hey were aware ha

bullying happens despie no having personal experiences wih i. Tis subgroup (19%) we call he Aware & Believers.Tey are no in denial. Te Aware & Disbelievers subgroup (4%) would be hose in denial. Te hird subgroup iscomprised o individuals who know nohing, see nohing and are compleely unaware o misconduc occurring in heir

workplace, approximaely 28% o all Americans.

Te pariioning o he I have no experienced or winessed i group also allows us o reue he axiom ha one mushave firs-hand knowledge o bullying o recognize is exisence. In ac, he 52% o he adul American populaion haclaims o have no experience is spli ino hose who are aware (23%) and hose who proess o know nohing (28%).

Te percenage o adul Americans aware ha abusive conduc/workplace bullying happens a work is he sum o hosewih direc and vicarious experience plus hose wih no experience bu who believe i happens and hose who choose o

raionalize abusive conduc as rouine.

Te sum o he aware groups is 72%. Ta means 72% o he adul American public is amiliar wih workplace bullying-- ranging rom a painully inimae immersion o a superficial recogniion o he erm wihou knowing many deails.

A he Workplace Bullying Insiue, we ake some credi or his new high level o public awareness. Our work began in1997 wih he seadas commimen o raising public awareness and he myriad o aciviies and programs developedsince has expanded o drive ha awareness.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

5/19

Te survey was conduced a a ime when he U.S. non-arm labororce was approximaely 137,499,000. By applying heprevalence proporions (able 1), we are able o esimae he equivalen number o working Americans ha correspondo each bullying experience caegory.

37 million US workers report being subjected to abusive conduct65.6 million are affected (those abused + those who witness it)

U.S. Workforce Affected

Te number o U.S. workers who are affeced by bullying summing over hose wih direc bullying and winessingexperiences is 65.6 million, he combined populaion o 15 saes rom he cenral norhern ier o he Gul o Mexico.

able 2

Figure 2

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

6/19

Question:Tink o he perperaor and arge o repeaed abusive misreamen a work. W ha as he gender o each?

69% of bullies are men; 60% of bullied targets are women;women bullies choose women targets 68% of the time

Gender and the Bullying Experience

able 3

Figure 3

Figure 4

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

7/19

Te vas majoriy o bullies are men (69%, See Figure 3). Male perperaors seem o preer argeing women (57%) morehan oher men (43%). Women bullies were less equiable when choosing heir arges or bullying. Women bullied

women in 68% o cases. [In pas WBI naional Surveys, he woman-on-woman bullying percenages were similarlydisproporionaely high.]

When considering all our combinaions o gender pairs, he wo mos requen were bohwhen he perperaor was male (See Figure 4). Female arges bullied by men comprisedhe larges group (39%), ollowed by men bullied by men (30%), women bullied by

women (21%), and he rares o all, men bullied by women (10%).

Women were arges in 60% o cases (See Figure 5).

An alernaive analysis is o cross he respondents genderwih he experiences o beingbullied and winessing i. Te resul hen showed ha 51% o he men Survey respondenswere eiher direcly bullied or winessed i, a higher rae han was rue or women Surveyrespondens.

We invesigaed he ineracion beween gender pairs and he direc experience caegories o currenly bullied and havingbeen bullied. A difference emerges beween siuaions based on perperaor gender(See able 5). Only when he bully ismale, do male arges repor over hree imes he rae o being currenly bullied relaive o emale arges (51% vs. 15%).Male arges are only hal as likely o repor having been bullied in he pas as currenly bullied (27% vs 51%). Femalearges bullied by men are nearly hree imes as likely (39%) o have been bullied han o repor being currenly bullied.

Te explanaion migh be woold. Firs he ac han men repor a higher curren rae o bullying may be due o awillingness o ough i ou and say in abusive siuaions no waning o allow he male bully o win. Perhaps his posesa challenge o American mens rugged individualism. I subbornness is no an explanaion, han he patern migh beundersood by saying ha women arges are quicker o leave, or be orced ou o, bullying siuaions when he bully is

male. In hose cross-gender pairings, women may have a legiimae sexual harassmen complain.

Regardless o he explanaion i seems women repor more hisorical bullying by men han men. Teir memories may bemore resisan o exincion.

Te patern does no occur when he perperaor is emale. However, when we sum over perperaor gender, emalearges sill repor a higher hisorical rae o bullying han heir male counerpars. Te higher requency or hisorical

bullying emerged or boh men and women arges.

able 4

able 5

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

8/19

Te final analysis o gender ells us ha 77% o currently bulliedarges are bullied by perperaors o he same gender, ie.,man-on-man and woman-on-woman (See Figure 6).

Same gender bullying presens a challenge or arges who would like o file a claim odiscriminaion. Wih ew excepions (cases o explici sexual coercion), sexual harassmenrequires ha he perperaor be a member o he opposie sex. In same sex cases he human

resources deparmen and mos employmen lawyers will describe he difficuly ha same-gender harassmen presens. Our 2014 findings (See Figure 4) show ha in 30% o caseshe bully was male and he arge was emale. A simplisic inerpreaion suggess ha hearge could claim sexual harassmen. However, discriminaion law requires ha he argedemonsrae ha gender was he basiso he animus ha he perperaor held agains hearge.

Bullying is cruely and much more requenly saus-blind. In he 2007 WBI U.S.Workplace Bullying Survey, we asked a quesion abou bullied arges membershipin proeced groups. Ta is, were arges proeced by gender, race, age, disabiliy,religion, or anoher class. Te same was asked abou perperaors. In only 1 o 5

cases was he arge he only one who enjoyed proeced saus (See Figure 7). Teremaining 80% o siuaions did no lend hemselves o a simple violaion o sae orederal ani-discriminaion laws.

Te narrowly worded 2014 quesion ha lised gender pairs did no address he uller discriminaory naure o illegalharassmen conained in he 2007 quesion. Bu, he 30% man-on-woman caegory closely approximaed he 20% resulin he 2007 survey. In conclusion, same gender pairings render complains o illegaliy nearly impossible.

For each o he gender pairs we calculaed he raes o job loss or boh arges and perperaors. Job loss percenageswere derived rom responses o a separae quesion (See Wha Sopped he Bullying) or which we summed quiting,erminaion, and consrucive discharge as reasons or a loss.

Te firs observaion is ha arges lose heir jobs a a much higher rae han perperaors (82% vs. 18%). When bulliesare men regardless o he arges gender he loss rae is equally high. However, when bullies are women, women argeslose heir jobs 89% o he ime. Noably women bullies, as perperaors, suffer he highes job loss rae (30%) o anygender pairing.

The Challenge of Same-Gender Bullying

Gender and Job Loss

able 6

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

9/19

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

10/19

Ideology and the bullying Experience

Te respondens sel-idenificaion o a held poliical ideology provided he lens hrough which hey viewed heprevalence o bullying. Conservaives repored experiencing he leas amoun o bullying, direc and vicarious.

able 8

Perpetrator Rank Number

Mobbing was he erm adoped by Heinz Leymann o describe healh-harming abusive conduc a work. Mobbingimplies muliple perperaors. Mobbing preceded he erm workplace bullying. However, WBI has consisenly defined

bullying as commited by one or more persons. Bullying nearly always escalaes o more han one person joining he maininsigaor o ormen he arge.

Question:Who was (were) he principal perperaor(s)?

able 9

From able 9, respondens said he ollowing:- 77% o cases involved single perperaors

- 23% o cases involved muliple perperaors

In 14% o cases, he bullying was generaed by a combinaion operperaors operaing a differen levels o he organizaion bosses,peers, and subordinaes.

Wih respec o perperaors rank, no couning he combined sourcescases: - 56% held a higher rank, was a boss, op-down - 33% abuse came rom peers, laeral or horizonal, same level - 11% bullying rom subordinaes, botom-up

Tis patern is consisen wih previous WBI naional Surveys.

No ineracions beween rank and race or rank and gender were ound.

56% of bullies are bosses

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

11/19

Te WBI Inographic porrayal o rank and bullying.

Figure 11

When perperaors enjoy a higher organizaional rank han arges, opporuniies o abuse auhoriy presen hemselves.Furher, he likelihood o arges being able o conron he boss abou her or his unaccepable conduc approaches zero,given he difficuly o crossing he power gradien. Coworker, peer-o-peer, bullying may no involve power differences,

bu he healh harm caused by social exclusion/osracism ha peers employ poses an equal, i no greaer, hrea o hearges saey.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

12/19

Employers Reactions to Bullying

72% of American employer reactions either condone or explicitly sustain bullying;less than 20% take actions to stop it

In 2014 a he ime o he Survey, here was no sae or ederal law ye enaced o compel American employers o addressabusive conduc ha occurred ouside he limied definiions o illegal discriminaory acions. Te absence o a lawmeans ha employers may olerae misconduc wihou legal risk. O course, repeaed abusive conduc, as defined in heprevalence quesion, does prove cosly or employers who choose o ignore i. angible coss include unwaned urnover

o key skilled personnel, abseneeism, higher insurance coss (healh and employmen pracices liabiliy), and liigaionexpenses. Inangible coss include: damage o insiuional repuaion and an impaired abiliy o recrui and reain he

bes alen.

A raional employer would seek o minimize prevenable coss and srive o eliminae demonsrable abusive conduc. A2013 WBI poll conduced by Zogby o Business Leaders, CXO-level corporae leaders, showed ha 68% o execuivesconsidered workplace bullying a serious problem. And according o his curren 2014 Survey, 48% o Americans areaffeced by bullying. Given he confluence o his awareness, we asked he public how employers were volunarily dealing

wih bullying wihou needing o comply wih laws.

Question:Wha do you know o be he mos common American employer reacion o complains o abusive conduc(when i is no illegal discriminaion)?

able 10

Respondens were clear ha employers ail o appropriaely reac oabusive conduc much more requenly han hey ake posiive seps

ameliorae bullying. Denial and discouning were he mos commonreacions by employers.

Te 6% condemnaion rae in his Survey maches he rae in aseparae WBI sudy (WBI 2012 IP-B) given by arges o describe howmany good employers had creaed effecive ani-bullying policies and

who had aihully enorced hem (5.5%).

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

13/19

Resuls rom several WBI online surveys o bullied arges reliably show ha coworkers rarely help heir bulliedcolleagues. Several social psychological processes operae in he group seting o explain he ailure o ac prosocially.

Te perspecive o he general public capured in his naional Survey describes circumsances somewha more posiivelyhan surveys o bullied arges. We believe he reerence o mos o he winesses led o hese inexplicable resuls. Teflaw is in he design o he quesion.

Doing nohing was he mos cied acic. O course, doing nohing o help colleagues when hey are disressed is no aneural ac. I is negaive. However, i is no he same as beraying he arge by siding wih he perperaor(s). Negaiveacions were aken in 49% o cases.

Respondens rom he naional sample believe ha approximaely one-quarer o coworkers (29%) ake public posiiveseps o help heir bullied riends. Tis is more benevolen han arges credi coworkers o be. And he public esimaeha only 7% o coworkers osracize (socially exclude, ice ou, and isolae) heir peers seems unrealisically low.

Question: How did mos o he winesses reac o he ongoing misreamen o he argeed person?

Coworkers Reactions to Bullying

able 11

We examined he differences in he percepions o bullied arges and winesses wih respec o he raes o hree negaivecoworker behaviors: doing nohing, osracism, and siding wih he bully. Tough arges believed 41% o coworkers didnohing o help, winesses conessed o a relaively high rae o doing nohing hemselves in 30% o cases.

Boh osracism and berayal seemed o be aboo according o boh arges and winesses. Te raes varied beween 3%and 9%. Te low raes probably reflec a social desirabiliy bias.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

14/19

Question: Wha sopped he abusive misreamen?

What Stopped the Bullying

61% of bullied targets lose their job with their employer;74% lose their particular job

able 12

Tis Survey quesion provided he response opion: I has no sopped ha was chosen by 18% o respondens. Tepercenages in able 12 are based on a new sample ha excluded he 18%. Te opions were chosen only by hose or

whom he personal bullying had sopped or he winessed bullying had sopped.

Te sad realiy is ha even he general public seems o know ha i is he arge, he vicim o he abuse, who is asked omake addiional sacrifices o sop he bullying. In 61% o cases, bullying sops only when he arge loses her or his job.Remember ha individuals do no invie his severe misery ino heir work lives. Tereore, once a person is argeed or

bullying a choice made by he perperaor(s) ha person has a 6 ou o 10 chance o losing her or his livelihood.

Furhermore, he arge is driven o qui. Volunary quitingis usually based on escalaing healh problems ha amiliesand physicians recognize, hen encourage he arge o leavehe job. Bu 40% o quiting is based on decisions madeafer work condiions become unenable, so cruel as odrive a raional person o escape. Consrucive dischargeis he goal or many perperaors. erminaions o heskilled and hreaening-o-bullies arges are ypically basedon abricaed lies. Several WBI surveys o bullied arges

subsaniae his claim.

Acceping a ranser o reain a job, o bullied arges, isofen a source o perceived injusice. Teir reasoning is Idid nohing o deserve he abuse, why should I be he oneo leave he job I love and am bes qualified o perorm. o many, ransers are puniive. On he oher hand, i prevenseconomic devasaion and migh provide a degree o psychological saey.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

15/19

When we consider only job loss and no ransers or punishmen wih job reenion, arges lose heir jobs a a muchhigher rae han perperaors (82% vs. 18%). When bullies are men regardless o he arges gender he loss rae is equallyhigh (See able 6, page 8). However, when bullies are women, women arges lose heir jobs 89% o he ime. Noably

women bullies, as perperaors, suffer he highes job loss rae (30%) o any gender pairing.

Tough he raio o negaive consequences or arges relaive o perperaors is 4:1, we inerpre he rising percenage onegaive oucomes or bullies over he years o indicae progress in public (and employer) awareness o bullying. Slowly,

bullying is gaining a negaive connoaion. Perperaors are saring o be sigmaized. O course, given he pauciy o

employer reacions, here is sill much progress o be made.

We do no sugges ha progress requires demonizaion o bullies. Raher, employers need o eel ashamed when heycondone bullying raher han condemn i. Eradicaion o bullying, he sysemic desrucive orce wihin organizaions, ishe goal, no dealing wih he personaliies o offenders.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

16/19

Question: Do you suppor or oppose enacmen o a new law ha would proec all workers rom repeaed abusivemisreamen in addiion o proecions agains illegal discriminaion and harassmen?

Te respondens who answered his quesion were individuals who weredirecly bullied, hose who had winessed i, he ew who were perperaors,

and hose wih no personal experience bu who believed i happened and hosewho believed i was exaggeraed. Tose groups aken ogeher consiued heAmerican public who were aware o abusive conduc a work, he 72% (SeeNaional Prevalence, page 4).

I is clear ha hose respondens, he American public aware o abusive conduc,wan o see worker proecions exended beyond he ani-discriminaion saues 93% suppor specific ani-bullying legislaion.

Support for a Law

93% of the American public aware of abusive conduct at work want a law against it

able 13

Furhermore, 50% o Survey respondens sel-defined as Conservaives srongly suppor he Healhy Workplace Bill.Wih such litle opposiion rom hose expeced o oppose he bill, i is a cerain conclusion ha now is he ime orpassage o his new law.

able 14

Tanks o he pollser we had several demographic groups upon which o compare levels o suppor. Suppor or a lawwas uniormly high regardless o group affiliaion: 91% o men, 95% o women, 88% o 18 o 29 year olds, 94% o 30 o49 year olds, 93% o 50 o 64 year olds, 94% o hose wih no college degree, 92% o college graduaes, 93% o whies,93% o Arican Americans, 99% o Hispanics, 93% o union workers, 93% o non-union workers, 93% o NASCAR ans,90% LGB people, 85% o ea pary sympahizers, and 99% o occupy wall sree sympahizers.

Te phrasing o he prevalence quesion in his 2014 Survey, repeaed misreamen: abusive conduc ha is hreaening,inimidaing, humiliaing, work saboage or verbal abuse, is he definiion used in he Healhy Workplace Bill (HWB).Te HWB is he legislaion ha has been inroduced in 26 saes (as o he dae o his Survey) bu has no ye beenenaced ino law. Te public ha is aware o bullying believes i is ime.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

17/19

wo quesions explored wih varying levels o accuracy he public explanaion or why bullying happens.

In he beter o he wo Survey iems, we asked respondens o choose one primary acor or reason or he bullying.

Question: Which one acor is mos responsible or abusive misreamen a work?

Causal Factors

41% believe bullying can be blamed on the perpetrator; differences among racial groups emerged

able 15

Tere were our acors rom which respondens could choose: wo iems cenered on he arge; wo iems abouperperaor characerisics; wo iems abou he organizaion; and one iem abou our pro-aggression sociey.

arge and perperaor acors are based on individuals personaliies and skills. A responden who assigns he majoriyo responsibiliy o arges is blaming arges or heir ae. Focusing on perperaors blames bullies. Employer workcondiions and he ailure o sop bullying, allowing bullying o happen wih impuniy, hold organizaions responsible.Employer responsibiliy is exernal o boh arge and perperaor. A he broades level, socieal mores surroundingaggression and violence can be credied as he reason so much bullying happens in America.

Te primary causal explanaion chosen by respondens was he perperaor (41%), specifically, he bad personaliy ohe bully (30%). Respondens saw he employer wih is bullying-prone work environmen and ailure o hold bulliesaccounable as he second bes explanaion (28%).

One-fifh o respondens hold arges responsible or heir ae, while hal o ha number (10%) perceive sociey is oblame. Tis Survey quesion was he respondens opporuniy o blame vicims, bu only 20% chose o do so. Te vasmajoriy believed ha acors ouside he arges conrol were responsible.

Tere were differences across he racial groups in which acors bes explained he bullying (See Race and he BullyingExperience, page 9 or a uller analysis). Arican Americans were he only group o assign a high percenage o sociey.O all he racial groups Hispanics blamed arges he mos. Perperaors were blamed mos by whies. Employers were

blamed he mos by Asian Americans and Arican Americans. Te wo groups wih he highes exernal explanaoryacor percenages were Arican Americans (62%) and Asian Americans (50%). Whies and Hispanics preerredinernal personaliy acors o explain bullying (68% & 65%, respecively).

In erms o prevening or conrolling bullying, he prospecs o changing he personaliy o eiher he arge or bully aredim. Change is more likely when organizaional acors are redesigned.

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

18/19

Te second Survey quesion asking respondens o allocae responsibiliy or bullying was less clearly writen and ocusedhan he previous quesion. We used he erm mos worsened he workplace climae, which is a compound quesionand cerainly conusing. Te response opions sored ino arge-relaed acors, coworkers reacions, and wo ypes omanagemen responses.

Question: Which acor mos worsened he workplace climae or he bullied arge, coworkers, and organizaion?

able 16

Te majoriy o respondens (53%) blame arges (mosly or heir inabiliy o deend hemselves). Tere is research hasuggess coworkers perceive bullied colleagues who are no seen fighing back, and hereore assumed o be incapable odoing so, somehow deserving o be bullied. Is a case o double condemnaion by he bully firs, hen by winesses.

Survey respondens blamed coworkers in 18% o cases. Managemen, including HR, a managemen suppor deparmen,was responsible in 29% o cases.

About Bullied Targets

Finally, we asked he American public wha ype o person is argeed or abusive misreamen in he workplace. Toughhis was a shor, no exhausive, lis o personaliy rais, he resuls are clear. Tose who claimed o have been aware ha

workplace bullying happens, believe ha he overwhelming majoriy o individuals argeed possess posiive atribues.

Ta is, he same respondens who believed ha arges are mosly incapable o deending hemselves agains bullyingassauls believe arges are kind, cooperaive and agreeable. Perhaps hese same rais render he guileless person

vulnerable o unpredicable atacks. Tis Survey does no provide a way o draw he causal link beween he rais andarges abiliy o deend hemselves.

I is noeworhy ha only 6% o arges are considered abusers hemselves.

Question: Which personal syle bes describes he argeed person?

able 17

8/10/2019 Wbi 2014 Us Survey

19/19

Te Workplace Bullying Insiue commissioned Zogby Analyics o conduc an online survey o 1,000 aduls in he US.All inerviews were compleed January 27 and 28, 2014. Using rused ineracive parner resources, housands o adulswere invied o paricipae in his ineracive survey. Each inviaion is password coded and secure so ha one respondencan only access he survey one ime.

Using inormaion based on census daa, voer regisraion figures, CIA ac books and exi polls, Zogby uses complex

weighing echniques o bes represen he demographics o he populaion being surveyed. Weighed variables mayinclude age, race, gender, region, pary, educaion, and religion.

Based on a confidence inerval o 95%, he margin o error or 1,000 is +/- 3.2 percenage poins. Tis means ha alloher hings being equal, he idenical survey repeaed will have resuls wihin he margin o error 95 imes ou o 100.Subses o he daa have a larger margin o error han he whole daa se. Addiional acors can creae error, such asquesion wording and quesion order.

One o he convenions used in Zogby surveys is o allow respondens a response opion o No Sure. WBI chose oeliminae he No Sure responses rom he sample in all quesions. Below are he sample characerisics.

Zogby Analytics Survey Methodology

able 18