Irish workplace behaviour study - NUI Galway...Irish workplace behaviour study Report submitted to...

Irish workplacebehaviour study

Report submitted to the IOSH Research Committee

Hodgins M, Pursell L, & Hogan V. NUI Galway

MacCurtain S, & Mannix-McNamara P.University of Limerick

Lewis D.Plymouth University

www.iosh.co.uk/workplacebehaviour Research report

IOSH, the Chartered body for health and safety professionals, is committed toevidence-based practice in workplace safety and health. We maintain a Research and Development Fund to support research and inspire innovation as part of our work as a thought leader in health and safety.

All recipients of funding from our Research and Development Fund are asked to compile a comprehensive research report of their findings, which is subject to peer review.

For more information on how to apply for grants from the Fund, visit www.iosh.co.uk/getfunding, or contact:

Mary OgungbejeResearch and Development Co-ordinatormary.ogungbeje@iosh.com

Ivan WilliamsResearch and Development Adviserivan.williams@iosh.com

Acknowledgement: IOSH would like to thank the peer reviewers of this report.

www.iosh.co.uk/workplacebehaviour Research report

Irish workplacebehaviour study

Report submitted to the IOSH Research Committee

Hodgins M, Pursell L. & Hogan V.NUI Galway

MacCurtain S. & Mannix-McNamara P.University of Limerick

Lewis D.Plymouth University

Contents

IRISHWORKPLACEBEHAVIOURSTUDY.................................................................................................1Acknowledgements 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 12 Survey Methodology ........................................................................................ 3

2.1SamplingFrame...............................................................................................................................................................32.2SampleDesignandDataCollection.................................................................................................................................32.3SurveyInstrument...........................................................................................................................................................42.4SampleWeights...............................................................................................................................................................5

3 Survey Outcomes ............................................................................................. 73.1ResponseRate..................................................................................................................................................................73.2SampleProfile..................................................................................................................................................................83.3OriginalandConfirmedReportofExperienceofIllTreatmentItems(Unweighted)......................................................9

4 Results: Experience, Witness and Perpetration of Ill Treatment in the Workplace .......................................................................................................... 11

4.1ExperienceofIllTreatmentintheWorkplace...............................................................................................................124.1.1ConfirmedIllTreatmentExperiencedintheWorkplace(Weighted)....................................................................134.1.2RelationshipsbetweenExperienceofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactors.......................................134.1.3RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceCharacteristicsandExperienceofIllTreatment............................................164.1.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandExperienceofIllTreatment............................................................174.1.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandExperienceofIllTreatment..................................................184.1.6PredictorsforExperiencingIllTreatment..............................................................................................................22

4.1.6.1ModelsincludingFAREItems...............................................................................................................234.1.6.2ModelsincludingWorkPositiveItems.................................................................................................25

4.2WitnessingIllTreatmentintheWorkplace...................................................................................................................294.2.1IllTreatmentWitnessedintheWorkplace............................................................................................................304.2.2RelationshipsbetweenWitnessingofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactors.......................................304.2.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandWitnessingofIllTreatment......................................324.2.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandWitnessofIllTreatment.................................................................344.2.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandWitnessofIllTreatment.......................................................344.2.6PredictorsofWitnessingIllTreatment..................................................................................................................36

4.3PerpetratingIllTreatmentintheWorkplace.................................................................................................................384.3.1IllTreatmentPerpetratedintheWorkplace.........................................................................................................394.3.2RelationshipsbetweenPerpetrationofIllTreatmentandDemographicFactors.................................................394.3.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandPerpetrationofIllTreatment...................................414.3.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandPerpetrationofIllTreatment..........................................................424.3.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandPerpetrationofIllTreatment...............................................434.3.6PredictorsofPerpetratingIllTreatment...............................................................................................................45

4.4RelationshipsbetweenExperience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatment...........................................................475 Items Followed Up ......................................................................................... 49

5.1PercentageofEachIll-TreatmentItemFollowedUp.....................................................................................................495.1.1RelationshipbetweentheGenderofthoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandtheGenderofReportedPerpetrators........................................................................................................................................................505.1.2RelationshipbetweenEthnicityofThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandEthnicityofReportedPerpetrators...515.1.3PerceivedReasonsforIllTreatment.....................................................................................................................51

6 Educational Sessions .................................................................................... 566.1Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................566.2RecruitmentProcess......................................................................................................................................................56

6.3AimsandObjectives.......................................................................................................................................................566.4WorkshopStructure.......................................................................................................................................................576.5Feedback........................................................................................................................................................................576.6Attendees.......................................................................................................................................................................58

7 Case Study Methodology .............................................................................. 607.1Sample...........................................................................................................................................................................607.2Procedure.......................................................................................................................................................................607.3ApproachtoAnalysis.....................................................................................................................................................617.4PolicyAnalysis................................................................................................................................................................61

8 Case Study 1: VORG1 .................................................................................... 628.1PolicyandProcedure.....................................................................................................................................................628.2Interviews......................................................................................................................................................................64

9 Case Study 2: PBS2 ....................................................................................... 709.1PolicyandProcedure.....................................................................................................................................................70

10 Case Study 3: STH3 ..................................................................................... 7710.1PolicyandProcedure...................................................................................................................................................7710.2Interviews....................................................................................................................................................................77

11 Discussion .................................................................................................... 8411.1SurveyFindings:IllTreatmentPrevalenceandPatterns.............................................................................................8411.2CaseStudies:PolicyandPractice,EffectivenessandImplementation........................................................................87

12 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 92APPENDIX 1: IWBS SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................... 95APPENDIX 2: TOPIC GUIDE FOR INTERVIEWS ........................................... 111APPENDIX 3: CALL TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS .............................. 112APPENDIX 4: EDUCATIONAL SESSIONS FLYER ........................................ 113

LISTOFTABLES:Table2.1:CalibrationTotalsUsedForConstructionofWeightson2015WorkplaceBehaviourSurvey.......................................6Table3.1:SurveyOutcomeDetails.................................................................................................................................................7Table3.2:PercentagewithinEachAgeGroupbyGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted).........................................................8Table3.3:SampleEthnicity(Unweighted).....................................................................................................................................8Table3.4:PercentageReportingEthnicity,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted).............................................................8Table3.5:PercentageReportingReligiousAffiliation,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)............................................9Table3.6:PercentageReportingEducationalStatus,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)..............................................9Table3.7:PercentageReportingDisabilities,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)..........................................................9Table3.8:ExperienceofIllTreatmentOriginal,ConfirmedandPercentageReductioninResponses(Unweighted).................10Table4.1:FactorsofIllTreatmentPresentedinEachSection.....................................................................................................11Table4.1.1:PercentageWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentItemswithinEachGender...................................................................13Table4.1.2:PercentageExperiencingIllTreatmentamongDemographicGroups......................................................................14Table4.1.3:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionor

StaffAssociation.....................................................................................................................................................15Table4.1.4:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge..................................17Table4.1.5:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesand

JobPermanence.....................................................................................................................................................18Table4.1.6:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems.......................................................................19Table4.1.7:PercentagesforEachWorkPositiveItem.................................................................................................................21

Table4.1.8:FAREItemsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors................................................................24Table4.1.9:WorkPositiveFactorsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors...............................................25Table4.2.1:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentItemswithinEachGender......................................................................30Table4.2.2:PercentageWhoWitnessedIll-TreatmentFactorsamongDemographicGroups....................................................31Table4.2.3:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofa

TradeUnionorStaffAssociation............................................................................................................................32Table4.2.4:WitnessedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge.......................................33Table4.2.5:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJob

Permanence...........................................................................................................................................................34Table4.2.6:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forWitnessedIllTreatment.............................................................................................37Table4.3.1:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentwithinEachGender.............................................................................39Table4.3.2:PercentagesamongDemographicGroupsWhoPerpetratedIll-TreatmentFactors................................................40Table4.3.3:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofa

TradeUnionorStaffAssociation............................................................................................................................41Table4.3.4:PerpetratedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge.....................................42Table4.3.5:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyOccupationalGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJob

Permanence...........................................................................................................................................................43Table4.3.6:PercentagesWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems....................................................................................44Table4.3.7:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forPerpetratedIllTreatment...........................................................................................45Table4.4.1:CorrelationsbetweenExperiencing,WitnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatment....................................................48Table5.1:FactorLevelFrequenciesandPercentagesofItemsFollowedUpinEachRoundofQuestions..................................49Table5.2:PercentageofIllTreatmentItemsFollowedUp,TotalandbyGender.......................................................................50Table5.3:PercentageofThoseResponsibleforIllTreatmentwithinaSpecificGender,byGenderofthePersonExperiencing

theBehaviour.........................................................................................................................................................51Table5.4:EthnicityofPerpetratorbyEthnicityofthePersonExperiencingtheIllTreatment....................................................51Table5.5:PercentageReportingReasonsforExperiencedIllTreatment....................................................................................52Table5.6:OtherReportedReasonsforIllTreatment..................................................................................................................52Table5.7:LikelihoodofPerceivedReasonforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced......................................................................54Table5.8:RoleofPerpetratorbyIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced..........................................................................................55Table5.9:LikelihoodofPerpetratorRoleforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced........................................................................55Table8.1:VORG1Policy...............................................................................................................................................................63Table8.2:VORG1InterviewParticipants......................................................................................................................................65Table9.1:PBS2Policy...................................................................................................................................................................70Table9.2:PBS2InterviewParticipants.........................................................................................................................................72Table10.1:STH3Policy.................................................................................................................................................................78Table10.2:STH3InterviewParticipants.......................................................................................................................................79LISTOFFIGURES:Figure4.1.1:PercentageswithinEachIll-TreatmentFactorExperienced....................................................................................12Figure4.1.2:PercentagePointsAboveorBelowOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentforEachFactorby

Sector.....................................................................................................................................................................16Figure4.1.3:DifferenceinPercentagePointsfromOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentFactorby

FAREItems(NegativelyOriented)..........................................................................................................................20Figure4.1.4:PercentagePointsDifferenceComparedtoOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentFactor

byWorkPositiveFactors(NegativelyOriented)....................................................................................................22Figure4.1.5:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforDemandbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced..................26Figure4.1.6:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CisforControlbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced....................27Figure4.1.7:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforManagerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced...27Figure4.1.8:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforPeerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced...........28Figure4.1.9:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforRelationshipsbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced..........28Figure4.2.1:PercentageswithinEachFactorofIllTreatmentWitnessed...................................................................................29

Figure4.3.1:PercentageswithinEachCategoryofIllTreatmentPerpetrated............................................................................38Figure4.4.1:ComparisonofPercentageReportedforExperiencing,WitnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatment......................47

ExecutiveSummaryThisstudyreplicatedtheBWBSinIreland,employingthesamequestionnaireandsamplingmethodology,inordertoestablishtheprevalenceofnegativeactsintheworkplaceinanationallyrepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.Thefocusofthestudyisworkplaceilltreatmentreceivedatleastonceovertheprevioustwoyears.Workplaceilltreatmenttakesmanyforms.Workplacebullyingisperhapsthemostwellresearchedaspectofworkplaceilltreatment,andhasbecomethedominantwayofconceptualisingtroubleatwork.Workplacebullyingisaproblemforpractitioners,academics,andmostsignificantly,itisaproblemforthosewhoexperienceorwitnessit.Thereisincontrovertibleevidencethatilltreatment,impactsnegativelyonworkerhealth.Manystudiescumulativelyattesttothetoxiceffectsofilltreatmentinworkonbothphysicalandmentalhealthandwellbeing.Despitethis,illtreatmentremainsprevalentinworkplacesinmanycountriesandorganisationalresponseistypicallypoor.In20011and20072,nationalsurveysonworkplacebullyingwereconductedinIreland.Thesestudiesfoundprevalenceratesof7%and7.9%respectively,employingaselflabellingmethod,inwhichrespondentswereasked,followingthepresentationofadefinition,tostatewhetherornottheyhavebeenbulliedinthepastsixmonths.Anumberofcontextualfactorsmakeanewsurveytimely.TheBritishWorkplaceBehaviourSurvey(BWBS)wasadministeredbyface-to-facestructuredinterviewtoarepresentativesampleofUKemployeesbetween2007and2008,gatheringdataondemographicfactors,jobandworkplacecharacteristics,respondents’viewsabouttheirlevelsofcontroloverthepaceandnatureoftheirwork,andaboutwhypeoplethinktheyareill-treatedintheirworkplaces.Thesurveyemployedabehaviouralchecklist,amendedfollowingcognitivetesting,andincludingeightitemson‘unreasonablemanagement’,11itemsmeasuring‘incivilityanddisrespect’andtwoitemson‘physicalviolence’.Thecognitivetestingelementwascriticaltoimprovingthevalidityoftheinstrument,andminimisedthepossibilityoferrorsinconceptualisationandinterpretationofitems.Respondentswerealsoaskediftheyhadwitnessedorperpetratedanyofthe21items.SurveyMethodologyAsurveyonanationalprobabilitysampleofemployeesaged18andoverwhohadworkedasemployeesintheprevioustwoyearswasundertaken.Acompletedsamplesizeof1,500withboostsfornon-Irishnationalsandpersonswithadisabilityresultedin1,764completingthesurvey.Thisrepresentedaresponserateof74%.Thesurveyresponseratewashighforasurveyofthisnature,comparingfavourablywithothernationalsurveysonworkplaceilltreatmentorbullying.Forexample,twopreviousIrishstudieshadresponseratesof23%3,55%4and36%5,whilesimilarUK-basedstudieshadratesof57%6and43%7.

1ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin2O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute3O’Moore,M.,Lynch,J.,NicDaeid,N.,&Cahill,K.(2002).TheEffectsofBullyingBehaviourintheWorkplace:TheUseofResearchDatabasesandVictimImpactStatementsintheLegalProcess.ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonBullyingatWork.UniversityofLondon,England,23-24September20024ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin5O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute6Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity7Hoel,H.,Cooper,C.L.&Faragher,B.(2001).TheExperienceofBullyinginGreatBritain:TheImpactofOrganizationalStatus.EuropeanJournalofWorkandOrganizationalPsychology,10(4),443-465,DOI:10.1080/13594320143000780

Thesampleprofilewasclosetonationalfigures,comprising51.5%malesand48.5%females,predominantly

Christian(84%)andofwhiteethnicity(89%).Amongbothmalesandfemales,6%reportedhavingadisability,

slightlyabovenationalfigures(4%),asaresultoftheboostappliedtopermitsubgroupanalysis.

TheBWBSscaleofilltreatmentitemswasinitiallypresentedatthestartoftheinterview,andthenre-presented

laterduringtheinterviewwhenparticipantswereaskedtoconfirmtheitemstheyhadinitiallyselected.Allitems

showedareducedresponseonconfirmationandtheaveragereductionwas35%.Thisisconsiderablyhigherthan

occurredintheUKsurvey,wheretheaveragereductionwasintheregionof13%.Thestudydemonstratesthat

themeasurementofworkplaceilltreatmentisculturallysensitiveandprevalenceneedstobeinterpretedinthis

light.

Experience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentIll-treatment(asmeasuredbyatleastoneitemonthe21itembehaviouralchecklist)wasexperiencedby43%of

participantswithintheprevioustwoyears.Unreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedby37%,incivilityor

disrespectby31.3%andphysicalviolenceby2.6%.Overlapoccurredbetweenthesefactors,particularlybetween

unreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(25.0%),and2%ofsurveyparticipantsexperienceditemsin

allthreecategories.ThefactorstructureobtainedintheBWBSwasconfirmedinthisstudy.TheBWBSprevalence

findingsofferadirectcomparison,andshowthatthelevelsinIrelandareslightlylowerthantheUK.Overall,the

UKstudy,conductedin2008,found54%ofparticipantshadexperiencedatleastoneaspectofilltreatment(one

item),with47%experiencingunreasonablemanagement,40%incivilityordisrespectand6%physicalviolence.

Theresultsforwitnessingilltreatmentindicatehigherlevelsthandirectexperience,consistentwithmostother

studiesthatmeasurewitnessingofilltreatment.Overall,48%ofrespondentswitnessedatleastonenegativeact,

with42%witnessingunreasonablemanagement,38%incivilityordisrespect,and5%witnessingviolence.The

levelsofwitnesswerelowerintheBWBSfortwofactors(overall38%,unreasonablemanagement28%,incivility

ordisrespect,32%).

Fewstudiesmeasureperpetration.Herewefoundthat17%reportedperpetratingatleastoneitemofill

treatment;14%admittoperpetratingunreasonablemanagement,9.5%incivilityordisrespect,0.5%perpetrating

physicalviolenceand0.5%allthreetypesofilltreatment.ThiscomparesunfavourablytotheBWBSwhereonly

12%overalladmittedperpetration,andonly7%admittedperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement,both

significantdifferences.

WorkplaceBullyingThedegreeof‘illtreatmentexperienced’isnotdirectlycomparabletopreviousnational(Irish)studies,which

measuredbullyingspecifically.ThetwopreviousIrishstudiesfoundlevelsof7%8

and7.9%9

ofrespondents

experiencedworkplacebullying,employingselflabellingmethods.Estimatesofbullyingarelowestwhenthe

methodemployedrequiresrespondentstoindicateiftheyhavebeenbulliedinadirectquestion(i.e.selflabel)

withadefinitionofbullying,andhigherwithbehaviouralchecklists.Theprevalenceoftwonegativeactsweekly,

takenasanindicatorofbullying,was9%,higherthanthe2007findingof7.9%andthe2001studyof7%10

implyinganincreaseinnegativeexperienceatwork,differencesinmeasurementnotwithstanding,andis

consistentwithexpectationsinthelightofthepressuresonemployeesduringandintheimmediateaftermathof

therecession.ThefindingreinforcesaUS-basedstudythatreportedthreateningandintimidatorycommunication

ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin

O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocial

ResearchInstitute

ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin;O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&

Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute

andacultureoffearexperiencedduringtheeconomiccrises11,althoughtherearesurprisinglyfewstudiesoftheimpactofeconomiceventsorcyclesonworkplaceilltreatment.Theprevalenceoftwoitemsdaily,at2%isconsistentwithotherestimatesofseverebullying.12,13

RelationshipswithDemographicsandSectoralRiskFactorsGenderAlthoughwomenreportedslightlyhigherlevelsofbothexperiencingandwitnessingformostofthe21items,differenceswereonlysignificantinrelationtoexperienceforfouritemsandwitnessingforeightitems,andwhencomparedbyfactor(unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespect,physicalviolence),genderdifferenceswerenotsignificant.Therewasagenderdifferenceobserved,wherewomenweremorelikelytoexperienceatleastanytwoitemsofilltreatmentdaily,whichcouldbeclassifiedasseverebullying.Inthemultivariateanalysiswomenweremorelikelytowitnessunreasonablemanagement.Theseresultsarebroadlyconsistentwithotherstudies.Whilesomestudiesshowgenderdifferencesthatfavourmen(i.e.menlesslikelytobebullied),overrepresentationofwomenastargetsofbullyingcanbeduetooverrepresentationofwomeninthesample14.Largerscale,representativestudiestypicallydonotreportgenderdifferencesacrosstheworkingpopulation.GenderwasnotadeterminantofbeingbulliedinthepreviousIrishnationalstudy15.Therewerenogenderdifferencesforperpetration.However,forasubsampleofrespondentswhomhadexperiencedthreeormorenegativeacts,andwhomwereaskedabouttheperpetratorofthoseacts,therewasastrongeffectforthepersonexperiencingilltreatmenttobethesamegenderastheperpetrator.EthnicityEthnicityshowedasignificantassociationwithboththeexperienceofandthewitnessingofeachofthethreeill-treatmentfactors.Thoseofblackormixedethnicityexperiencedthehighestriskforexperienceofunreasonablemanagement,andalsothehighestlevelsofwitnessingviolence.Asiansaremorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespectandalsophysicalviolence,aremorelikelytowitnessincivilityordisrespectandunreasonablemanagement,andmostlikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagement.ThemultivariateanalysisshowsthattheoddsofexperiencingviolenceareseventimesgreaterforAsiansworkersinIrelandthatotherethnicgroups.Forasubsampleofrespondentswhomhadexperiencedthreeormorenegativeacts,andwhomwereaskedabouttheperpetratorofthoseacts,therewasastrongeffectforthepersonexperiencingilltreatmenttobeofthesameethnicityastheperpetrator.AgeThetwopreviousIrishstudiesreportslightincreasedriskwithage,butdecliningwitholderworkingage(i.e.over55).Generally,therelationshipwithageisnotconclusive.Useofthethreefactorsorformsofilltreatmentpresentsamorenuancedpicture.Theresultsheredemonstratethatthose25-34yearsofageareatgreatestriskforexperience,witnessandperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement,andtoexperienceseverbullying(i.e.atleasttwonegativeactsdaily),whereasyoungerworkers(under25years)areatgreatestriskforexperienceofincivilityordisrespectandthoseaged35-44areatgreatestriskforexperiencingviolence.Thoseaged25-34weremostlikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagementandthose25-34weremorelikelytowitnessilltreatmentinanyofitsforms.

11Rouse,R.&Schuttler,R.(2009).CrisisCommunication.UniversityofPhoenix12Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,HoelH.Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.)BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace.London:TaylorandFrancis13Nielsen,M.,Notelaers,G.,&Einarsen,S.(2011).MeasuringExposuretoWorkplaceBullying.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis14Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,HoelH.Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.)BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis15O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute

EducationThosewithhigherlevelsofeducationalattainmentwereatsignificantlygreaterriskfordirectexperienceofviolence,butweremorelikelytowitnessbothviolenceandunreasonablemanagement.ThepreviousIrishsurveys(2001and2007)bothfoundhigherlevelsofselflabellingbullyingforthosewithhighereducationalattainment.DisabilityTherewasnoassociationwithdisability,eitherexperiencedorwitnessedindirectcontrasttotheBWBS,whichfoundsignificantassociationswithdisability,althoughthelimitationsofsamplesizearenoted.Only7%ofthesamplereportedhavingadisability.LocationTherearecuriousregionaleffects,withthoseinConnaughtorUlster16beingalmostfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceviolenceorinjurycomparedtoDublinresidentsandthoseinalltheruralprovincesmorelikelytoexperienceallformsofilltreatmentthanthoseinDublin,exceptingviolenceandinjuryinMunster.Theeffectsarenotpresentforwitnessingilltreatment,exceptforsignificantlyhigherlevelsofwitnessofunreasonablemanagementinMunster17.TradeUnionTherewasanassociationbetweenthosewhoexperiencedunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjurywiththepresenceofatradeunionintheirworkplace,butnotforincivilityordisrespect.Allthreeformsofilltreatmentweremorelikelytobewitnessedinorganisationswithtradeunions.Althoughnotdirectlycomparable,thisisinterestingtonoteinthecontextofthefindingfromtheFairTreatmentstudyintheUK,thattradeunionmembersweremorelikelytoreportbullying18.OrganisationSizeTheexperienceofbothunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasgreatestinsmallorganisations(10-49employees),butbothweremorelikelytobewitnessedinmedium-sizedinorganisations(50-249employees).Violencewasmostlikelytobeexperiencedandwitnessedinlarge(greaterthan250employees)organisations.Thispresentsamorenuancedpicturetothecommonlyreportedfindingthatbullyingismoreprevalentinlargeorganisations.SectorTheexperienceofIlltreatmentwasmoreprevalentinthevoluntarysectorintheformofunreasonablemanagementbutinthepublicsectorforviolenceandinjury.Themultivariateanalysisconfirmsthisforviolence,whichisalmostfivetimesmorelikelytobeexperiencedinthepublicsector.Theonlyrelationshipbetweenwitnessingilltreatmentandsectorwasforviolenceinthepublicsector.Unreasonablemanagementwas2.5morelikelytobeperpetratedinthepublicsector.Thesectoraleffectsdemonstratedinotherstudies,wereseenhereonlyfortheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementwhichwasmostcommoninhealthandsocialservices,followedbyfinancialservicesandconstruction,andlesslikelytobeexperiencedintheagriculturalsector.BothoftheearlierIrishstudiesfoundHealthandSocialservicestobewellaboveaverageintermsofreportedbullying.However,theeducationalsectorshowedlowerlevelsofilltreatmentcomparedtothelevelsofbullyingfoundinthepreviousIrishstudies.Thehealthandsocialservicesectoralsodisplayedthehighestlevelsofwitnessedilltreatmentfollowedbypublicadministration/defenceandfinancialservices.Witnessing,however,alsohadsignificantsectoralassociationsforviolence,withhealthandsocialserviceagainhavinghigherlevels,butfollowedbyagriculture,whichislowforexperiencingotherformsofilltreatment.

16WesternandNortherncounties;Galway,Leitrim,Roscommon,Mayo,Sligo,Fermanagh,MonaghanandDonegal17SouthWestandSouthEastcounties:Clare,Cork,Kerry,Limerick,TipperaryandWaterford18Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity

BullyingWorkplacebullying,asmeasuredbyatleast2itemsweeklyonthe21-iteminstrumentwasmeasuredfordirectexperienceonlyandmorelikelytobeexperiencedbythosewithmanagerialorsupervisorydutiesandthoseinmedium-sizedorganisations(50-249employees).Severebullying(atleasttwoitemsdaily)wasmorelikelytobeexperiencedbywomen,bythoseinlargeorganisations(greaterthan250employees)andthoseagedbetween25and34years.ManagerialWorkThosehavingmanagerialdutiesreportedhigherlevelsofwitnessingallill-treatmentfactorsandtheseweresignificantforunreasonablemanagementandincivility.Similarly,workerswithmanagerialdutiesweremorelikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagementandincivility.Significantlyhigherpercentagesofthoseinprofessionaloccupations,thoseinpersonalservicesandthosewithpermanentjobsreportedwitnessingviolence.OrganisationCultureThedegreetowhichanorganisationisseentotreatpeopleasindividuals,putstheneedsoftheorganisationbeforetheneedsofpeopleanddoesordoesnotrequireemployeestocompromisetheirprinciplesiscalledtheFAREscore(akatheBWBSreport).Allrelationshipsbetweentheseitemsandboththeexperienceofilltreatmentandthewitnessingofilltreatment,intheformsofunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespectweresignificant.Participantsstatingthattheneedsoftheirorganisationalwayscomefirstare3.5timesmorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagementandthosewhofeeltheirprinciplesarecompromisedinworkareoverfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespect.Perpetrationofunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasassociatedwiththeneedsoftheorganisationcomingfirst,havingtocompromiseone’sprinciples,perceivingpeoplenotbeingtreatedasindividuals,andhavinglesscontroloverworkorpaceofwork.TheBWBSalsofoundsimilarrelationshipswithFAREitems,providingstrongevidencefortheimportanceoftheworkenvironmentasadeterminantofthewayinwhichpeoplearetreatedinwork.Bothstudiesshowclearrelationshipsbetweennegativeworkingconditionsandhigherlevelofilltreatment.ExperiencingandwitnessingviolenceandinjurywasassociatedwithonlysomeFAREitems:havingtocompromiseyourprinciples,notbeingtreatedasanindividual,controlofworkpaceandqualitystandardswereassociatedwithdirectexperienceofviolence.Theweakerrelationshipswithviolenceareborneoutinthemultivariateanalysisforbothexperienceandwitnessingilltreatment.Thosewhoreportthepaceoftheirworkhasincreasedoverthepastyearareninetimesmorelikelytoexperienceviolence.TheresultsareconsistentwiththeBWBS.AsimilarpatternofrelationshipswasalsodemonstratedwiththeWorkPositiveitems,althoughthemultivariateanalysisshowedstrongerrelationshipsbetweentheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementandofincivilityanddisrespectthanviolence.Whereparticipantsreportedthreeormoreitemsamoredetailedanalysisofperpetrationofilltreatmentwasenabledbyfollowingtheseupwithafurtherthreeroundsofquestions.Thisanalysishighlightedthatthoseexperiencingilltreatmentweremorelikelytobetargetedbyindividualsoftheirowngenderandtheirownbroadethnicgroup.Unreasonablemanagementwassignificantlymorelikelytobereportedasbeingperpetratedbysuperiorsandlesslikelybyco-workersandclients.Incivilityanddisrespectwasmorelikelyfromco-workersandclients.Violencewaslesslikelyfromsuperiorsandco-workersbut17timesmorelikelyfromclients.Clientsweremorelikelytohavebeenreportedasperpetratorsbymanagersthannon-managers,however,althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,thisisreversedforincidencesofviolencewithnonmanagersmorelikelytoreportclientsasresponsible.Perceivedreasonsforilltreatmentvariedacrosstheill-treatmentfactors.Significantreasonsforincivilityincludedexclusionbyagrouporclique,theperpetrator’sattitudeorpersonality,thenationalitythepersonexperiencingthebehaviour,theirethicgroup,ortheiraccent,addressorsocialclass.Havingalong-termillnessorhealthissue

wasasignificantperceivedreasonforviolence.Otherperceivedreasonsforviolencewereit’sjustthewaythingsareatwork,thegenderofthepersonexperiencingtheilltreatment,andtheirethnicgroup.Casestudies:PolicyandPractice,EffectivenessandImplementationThecasestudyphaseoftheprojectaimedtoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinkeysectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalentandwithasubstantialimpactonhealth,inordertoinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Thecasestudiesaimedtoidentifyrelevantpoliciesinplaceinthesampledorganisations(aspertheBWBS,theorganisationswerelargeorganisations(i.e.250-500employees),toexplorethepracticesthatderivefromandaroundthesepolicies,andtheimplementationofpoliciesontheground.IntheBWBS,thepublicsectorwasclearlyatgreaterriskforbothviolenceandincivility,andthevoluntarysectorforviolence.Healthandsocialworkweresimilarlyathighriskforallthreetypesofilltreatment.Therefore,itwasdecidedtopurposivelyidentifythreeorganisations,atleastonefromthepublicsector,atleastonevoluntaryorganisation,andatleastoneofthesebeingahealth/socialserviceprovider.Inthiswaythreeorganisationswereidentified.Staffmemberswhowereinterestedinbeinginterviewed,followingonopencallmadebytheresearchteam,madedirectcontactwiththeresearcherconductingtheinterviews,andthisconfidentialAllinterviewswereconductedinperson(face-to-face)andrecorded(withpermission),transcribedandsubjectedtoathematicanalysis.Audiotapeswerethentranscribedverbatim.Eachorganisationalsoprovidedrelevantcopiesofrelevantpolicies:theDignityatWorkpolicyinadditiontosupportingpolicies(forexampleDisciplinary,Grievance,CodeofConduct).Inthefirstorganisation,VORG1,anon-statutory,voluntaryorganisationthathasprovidedsocialcaresupportsandservicestoclientswhomexperienceawiderangeofdisabilities,sevenstaffparticipated.Theoverallthrustofthepolicyanalysisandtheinterviewdatawasthattheorganisationhasacommitmenttoprotectingemployeesfromilltreatmentandnoflagrantexamplesofseriousilltreatment,forexample,intimidationorpredatorybullying,weredescribedoralludedto.However,therewereissuesinrelationtoworkingrelationshipsandprotectionofstaff.Themainthemesthatemergedwere‘Reluctancetomanage,reluctancetoreport’,‘Overpolicedyetunderprotectedand‘Returntocorevaluestomoveforward’.TheparticipantsinVORG1feltthatilltreatmentrevolvedaroundmanagementdifficulties,forexamplemanagersnotmanagingwellandstaffbeingresistanttobeingmanaged.Whiletherewassomereferenceto‘difficultconversations’takingplace,therewerealsomanyreferencestoissuesthatwerenotdealtwithadequatelyoratall.Additionally,therewerereferencestostaffbeingreluctanttotakeill-treatmentissuesforwarddespitepolicycoverage.Itwasconsideredthatilltreatmentwouldbebetteraddressedwithintheorganisationbyimprovedmanagementtechnique,andnotjustleavingthingstofesterortobeignored.Itwasagreedbyallintervieweesthatpolicywasplentiful.Policywasseentobebroadlyspeaking,accessible,theretoprovidenecessarysafeguards,anddescribedashavingbeendevisedinpartnershipwithtradeunions.However,thecommentsaboutpolicywerenotwhollypositive,withsomesignificantgapsincoverage,forexampleprotectionfromverbalabusebyfamiliesofclients.Theethosoftheorganisationpresentedconflictsforstaffinthisrespect,beingtheretosupportfamiliesandclients,yetfindingthemselveshavingtolooktopolicytodealwithnegativebehavioursfromthegroup.

Thesecondorganisation,PBS2,isoneof31publicserviceorganisationsprovidinglocalgovernment,administrationandarangeofservices.Itconsistsofelectedmembersandpaidstaffnumbering1,200,overseenbyoneCEOwho,withamanagementteamoften,isexpectedtoimplementpolicyaslaiddownbylocallyelectedrepresentatives.Eleveninterviewstookplacehere.Allelevenparticipantshadnodifficultydescribingilltreatmentintheworkplace.Interpersonalilltreatmentsuchasverbalaggression,lackofmanners,physicalabuseandrudenesswereallcatalogued.Physicalviolenceandintimidationwasacknowledgedasilltreatment,withsomeparticipantswitnessingsuchbehaviours.Directpredatorybullyingwasalsomentioned,interpretedasanabuseofpositionsofauthority.Participantsalsorecognisedwork-relatedilltreatment,forexamplebeingpassedoverforpromotion,nothavingajobdescription,notbeinggiventasksappropriatetoskills,underminingpeers,unreasonablesupervision,andwithholdinginformation.Withoneexception,allparticipantsperceivedill

treatmenttobeveryprevalent,evennormalised,inPBS2.Datawassortedintothreethemes:‘Culture:Demi-Godsandspinningtops’,‘Theskilledmanagerhavingtheskilledconversation’and‘Youcan’tunringarungbell’.Inthissetofinterviews,allparticipantseitherexplicitlymentionedoralludedtothecultureintheorganisationwhentalkingaboutilltreatment.Anautocraticcultureofconformityandobediencewasobserved,seentobeoutdatedandpunitive.Theculturewasdescribedasonewherepowerandstatustookprecedenceoverfunctionandutility.Itwasrecognisedthatthereisaneedforearlyandproactiveintervention,predominately,butnotexclusively,intheinterviewswithmembersofmanagement.Participantswerestronglysupportiveofthenotionthattrainingformanagersisneededindealingeffectivelywithilltreatment.Thethirdthemewastherecognitionofthefactthatilltreatment,inparticularpredatorybullying,isinherentlyproblematic.AcceptingthatitcantaketimeandcouragetoraiseanissuewithHR(informallyorformally)aboutacolleague,thatthetargetmaywellbeinfearof,theproceduresthenmustallowfortheallegedperpetratortorespond.Participantscouldseethattherewasatensionbetweentheprincipleofnaturaljusticeandtheintentunderpinningtheinformalandformalprocedurestoprotectworkersfromilltreatment.Theprocessisunavoidablyadversarialandaccordingtotheparticipantsfrommanagement‘therearenowinners’.Little,however,wasofferedbywayofanalternativesetofprocedures.Thethirdorganisation,STH3,isastatutoryhealthserviceproviderforarangeofhealthservicesforacatchmentareaofonemillionpeople.Theorganisationispartofthewidergroupofacuteproviders,allofwhomare,inturn,partofthenationalacutehealthcarestructure.Anexecutivegroupcouncilmanagesthewidergroup,andthetwositesinvolvedinthisstudyareunderthedirectionofonegeneralmanager.Elevenparticipantswereinterviewed,understandingilltreatmentasbothinterpersonalaggressionandwork-related.Participantsgavevaryingaccountsregardingprevalenceandimpact.Fourthemescouldbefoundinthedata:Contrastingperspectives,cliques,andthe(un)caringorganisation,‘It’sallaboutthehierarchy’,‘Thedifficultyiswedon’timplementthemwell’and‘Wellno,that’stobeaddressedbythelinemanager’.AverydiversepictureemergedfromSTH3withregardtotheprevalenceofilltreatment.Fivepeoplebelievedilltreatmenttobeveryprevalent,even‘endemic’,fivethatitwasn’tprevalent,withoneuncertain.Theperspectivesthatilltreatmentwasn’tprevalentcamemainly,butnotexclusively,frommanagement.Thecompetingperspectiveswereatleastpartiallyexplainedbytheperceptionofwhatconstitutedilltreatment.Sowhilesomeparticipantssawinterpersonalconflictasilltreatment,othersdidnot.ThosewhoworkedinHRacknowledgedthatthereare‘disagreements’betweenlinemanagersandemployeesalthoughdidnotclassifythisasilltreatment.Alsosomework-relatedilltreatment,whileidentifiedasilltreatment,wasnotthoughttooccuronanyregularbasis.Acutehospitalserviceshaveaverywiderangeoffunctionalunits,teamswithinunits,professionalgroups,andcross-disciplinaryteams.One’sperceptionregardingilltreatment,bothwhatitisandhowprevalentitis,dependsonwhereapersonworksintheservice,andwhomtheyworkwith.Consistentlyacrossallinterviews,gender,age,socialclass,disabilityandsexualorientationweredismissedasreasonsfororflashpointsforilltreatment.Equallyconsistently,theexistenceof‘cliques’wasacknowledged,eitherinthecontextofdifferentprofessionalgroupings,orwithinworkunits.Relatedly,participantssawilltreatmenttooccurinthecontextofpositionalpower,andsawthistobeunsurprising,eveninevitableinahierarchical,traditionalorganisation.Staffareexpectedtodowhatthoseabovetheminthehierarchytellthem,andpositionismoreimportantthanrespectfultreatment.Mostintervieweeswerefamiliarwiththepolicyandproceduresdealingwithworkplacebullying,andconsideredthepoliciestobeaccessible.However,therewereclearlyimplementationissues.Participantsspokeoffear:fearoffurthervictimisationorilltreatment,fearofbeingperceivedasatroublemaker,andfearthatconfidentialitywaslacking.PeopledowanttobringtheissuetotheattentionofamanagerorHRbutthendonotwishtoriskexposure.Anotherconcernwasthatthatifaformalissuewasraised,whiletheemployeewouldbelistenedto,noactionwouldbetaken.FinallytherewasevidenceoftensionbetweenlinemanagersandHR.Confusionaboutrolesandresponsibilitieswerenoted,withlinemanagersreferringdifficultiestoHR,andHRmaintaininglinemanagerswereresponsibleforsolvingproblems.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the following contributors to this research:

Steering GroupDr M Hodgins, NUI GalwayDr L Pursell, NUI GalwayDr V Hogan, NUI GalwayDr S MacCurtain, University of LimerickDr P Mannix-McNamara, University of LimerickProfessor D Lewis, Plymouth UniversityP Murray, Health & Safety AuthorityDr V Batt, HPRCProfessor M Sheehan (Jan 2014–Jul 2014)Professor T Dundon (Jan 2014–Oct 2014)

Research AssistantsK Fox (Part-time) Jun–Sept 2015C Slattery (Part-time) Apr–Jun 2016C Silke (Part-time) May–Jul 2016A Gallagher (Full-time) Oct 2016A Beckwith (Full-time) Oct–Dec 2016

Fieldwork and data collectionAmárach Research

Sampling design, data weighting and sampling technical reportDr Dorothy Watson, ESRI

IRISHWORKPLACEBEHAVIOURSTUDY

1IntroductionWorkplacebullyingisaproblem.Itisproblemforpractitioners,suchasoccupationalhealthorworkplacehealthpromotionspecialists,whohavetodevelopsuitablepoliciesandinterventionstopreventormanageitontheground.Itisaproblemforacademics,whodebateandargueabouthowtodefineit,measureit,andunderstandwhatcausesit.And,mostparticularly,itisaproblemforthosewhoexperienceorwitnessit,giventheclearevidenceofdeleteriouseffectsonbothphysicalandmentalhealthandwell-being,leadingoneoftheprimaryresearchersinthefieldtoclaimthatexposuretobullyinginworkisamorecripplingproblemforemployeesthanallotherkindsofwork-relatedstressputtogether.19In200120and200721,nationalsurveysonworkplacebullyingwereconductedinIreland.Thesestudiesfoundprevalenceratesof7%and7.9%respectively,employingaselflabellingmethod,inwhichrespondentswereaskedfollowingthepresentationofadefinitiontostatewhetherornottheyhavebeenbulliedinthepastsixmonths.Anumberofcontextualfactorsmakeanewsurveytimely.Irelandwasoneofthefirstcountriestoentertheglobalrecessionin2008.Followingunprecedentedeconomicgrowthinthe1990s,whichledtopropertydevelopment,housebuildingandrisingpricesandloans,Irelandwaslefthighlyexposedwithconsequentbankinglossesandfiscaldeficit.Irelandsaw,in2008,aGDPcontractionof1.5%andfurtherquarter-on-quarterdeclinesleadingtoacumulativefallof10%,22alongsiderecordunemploymentlevelsandincreasesinunderemploymentandprecariousemployment.23Economicrecessionisassociatedwithincreasedworkpressure,increasesinresponsibilityandautonomy,andthereforeonemightreasonablyexpect,changesinworkplacebullying.Since2007theliteratureonmeasuringworkplacebullyinghasburgeoned.Whilemanyprevalencestudieshavebeenconducted,therehasbeenapreponderanceofstudiesemployingopportunisticsamples,lowresponserates,orusingnon-standardisedinstruments.Therecontinuestobeaneedforstudiesthataremethodologicallyrigorous,employingrepresentativesamplesandvalidatedinstruments.Further,itisnowapparentthatthe

19Zapf,D.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2003).EmpiricalFindingsonBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandEmotionalAbuseintheWorkplace.London:TaylorandFrancis20ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,Dublin21O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute22Barret,A.&McGuinness,S.(2012).TheIrishLabourMarketandtheGreatRecession.https://www.esri.ie/pubs/JACB201234.pdf23SocialJusticeIreland:https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/long-term-unemployment-crisis-and-precarious-employment-problematic

frequenciesreportedinprevalencestudiesdependonhowworkplacebullyingismeasured.Estimatesarelowestwhenthemethodemployedrequiresrespondentstoindicateiftheyhavebeenbulliedinadirectquestion(i.e.selflabel)withadefinitionofbullying;higherwithbehaviouralchecklistsandhighestagainwithselflabellingwherenodefinitionissupplied24.Behaviouralchecklistsaremorecommonlyusedinthiscontextsincetheyavoidthedifficultieswithselflabelling,forexampledifferentpersonalthresholdsforlabelling,whichareinfluencedbypersonalityandemotionalfactors.Researchershavelargelymovedawayfromtheselflabellingmethod,makinganewstudytimely.Finally,ithasbecomeapparentthattheconstructof‘bullying’maybetoonarrowtocapturethedamagedoneinworkplacestoemployeesinrelationtohowtheyaretreatedandhowtheytreatoneanother.Thereisconsiderableoverlapbetweenbullyingandconstructssuchasincivility,psychologicalharassmentandabusivesupervision,whichalsohavebeendemonstratedtohavenegativeeffectsonhealth.Witnessingbullyinghasbeenshownalsotoaffecthealthinanadversemanner.Thisandthepossiblepsychologicaldefencesthatcomeintoplaywhenapersonisaskedtorespondtothequestion‘haveyoubeenbullied’,callsfortheuseofavalidatedquestionnaireintheformofabehaviouralchecklist,whichincludesarangeofnegativeactsorbehaviours.TheBritishWorkplaceBehaviourSurvey(BWBS)wasadministeredbyface-to-facestructuredinterviewtoarepresentativesampleofUKemployeesbetween2007and2008,gatheringdataondemographicfactors,jobandworkplacecharacteristics,respondents’viewsabouttheirlevelsofcontroloverthepaceandnatureoftheirwork,andaboutwhypeoplethinktheyareill-treatedintheirworkplaces.Thesurveyemployedabehaviouralchecklist,amendedfollowingcognitivetesting,andincludingeightitemson‘unreasonablemanagement’,11itemsmeasuring‘incivilityanddisrespect’andtwoitemson‘physicalviolence’.Thecognitivetestingelementwascriticaltoimprovingthevalidityoftheinstrument,andminimisedthepossibilityoferrorsinconceptualisationandinterpretationofitems.Respondentswerealsoaskediftheyhadwitnessedorperpetratedanyofthe21items.ThisstudyaimstoreplicatetheBWBSinIreland,employingthesamequestionnaireandsamplingmethodology,inordertoestablishtheprevalenceofnegativeactsintheworkplaceinanationallyrepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.Specificobjectivesforthesurveyinclude:1.TomeasuretheprevalenceofthedirectexperienceofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees,employingthesamedesign,measurementinstrumentandsamplingstrategyasusedintheBWBS.2.Tocompareprevalenceacrossvarioussubgroupswithintheworkingpopulation:menandwomen,youngerandolderworkers,andbetweenworkersandgroupsfoundintheBWBStobevulnerabletoilltreatment,(forexamplepeoplewithdisabilitiesandlong-termhealthconditions).3.Tocompareprevalenceacrossoccupationalgroupsandsectors.4.Toexploretherelationshipbetweenexperienceofilltreatmentandriskfactorsforworkplacestress5.TomeasuretheprevalenceofthewitnessingofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.6.TomeasuretheprevalenceoftheselfreportedperpetrationofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees.

24NielsenMB.,MatthiesenSB.&Einarsen,S.(2010).TheImpactofMethodologicalModeratorsonPrevalenceRatesofWorkplaceBullying:Ameta-analysis.JournalofOccupationalandOrganizationalPsychology,83(4):955-79

2SurveyMethodologyThisprojectinvolvedasurveyofanationalprobabilitysampleofemployeesfocusingonworkplacebehaviour.Thepopulationforthesurveyconsistsofpeopleaged18andoverwhohadworkedasemployeesintheprevioustwoyears,withacompletedsamplesizeof1,500.Inadditiontothegeneralsampleatleast200non-Irishnationalsand74personswithadisabilityweresampled.

2.1SamplingFrameThereisnonationalregisterofemployeesorofpersonsinIreland.SurveysofthegeneralpopulationlivinginprivatehouseholdsrelyonsamplesdrawnfromtheGeoDirectory.ThisisajointprojectofAnPostandOrdnanceSurveyIreland,andlistsalladdressesinIrelandwithanidentifierforresidentialaddresses.TheGISco-ordinatesofeachaddressareavailableontheGeoDirectory,aswellasotherregionalidentifierssuchascounty,electoraldivisionandtownland.OneaspectoftheGeoDirectoryrelevantforthecalculationofgrosssamplesizeisthatitdoesnotidentifyallvacantaddresses.AccordingtoCensus2011,15.05percentofresidentialaddressesinIrelandarevacant.TheGeoDirectory(Q22014release)identifiesonly5.65percentofresidentialaddressesasvacantorholidayhomes.Thus,itwouldbeexpectedthatapproximately9.4percentofsampledaddressesselectedwouldbevacant.Thereisnowaytoidentifytheseinadvanceoffieldwork,thereforethiswasallowedforincalculatingthegrosssamplesize.

2.2SampleDesignandDataCollectionThesamplerequiredwasaprobabilisticorstatisticalsampleofprimarysamplingunits,orclustersofaddresses,withfourstartingaddressesselectedineachclusterfromwhichfiveresponseswouldbegeneratedusingarandomroutemethodology.Theclusteringandrandomroutemethodwaschoseninordertomaximisetheefficiencyoffieldwork–reducingthetimeandcostofinterviewertravel.Thestagesinsampleselectionwere:Stage1:Selectionof160clustersorprimarysamplingunits(PSUs).Clustersconsistofgeographicallycontiguousaddressesthatliewithintheboundariesofcountiesingroupswithaminimumof500residentialaddresses.Clustersareselectedinproportiontothenumberofresidentialaddressesinthecluster.Priortoselection,theclustersweresortedbylocation(countyandlocationwithincounty)andsocio-economicstatus(socio-economicgroup,matchedonfromtheCensus2011smallareapopulationstatistics).Thisprovidedanimplicitstratificationbylocation(whichiscorrelatedwithpopulationdensity)andsocio-economicstatus.Clusterswereselectedusingsystematicsamplingfollowingarandomstart.Stage2:Selectionoffourstartaddresseswithineachcluster.Sincetheclustersthemselveswereselectedwithprobabilityproportionaltosize,theselectionofanequalnumberofstartaddresseswithineachclusterresultsineachaddresshavinganequalprobabilityofselection.Inthefield,interviewersfolloweddetailedinstructionsinordertogenerateuptofiveinterviewsfromeachstartingaddress.Stage3:Selectionoftheindividualforinterviewinthehousehold.Inlinewithbestpractice,oneemployeeaged18oroverwasselectedforinterviewineachhousehold,usingarandomproceduresuchasthe‘lastbirthday’rule.Thenumberofclustersandthenumberofaddressesperclusterwereselectedsoastoensurethemostefficientuseoffieldworkresourceswhilstachievingasufficientlylargesamplesize.AllfieldworkwasconductedbymarketresearchcompanyAmárachResearchbetweenMay-September2015.Face-tofaceinterviewswereconductedinparticipant’shomes.

2.3SurveyInstrumentThequestionnaireincluded:

• Screeningquestionsrelatedtoworkingstatus• Demographicquestions(age,gender,educationalstatus,income,ethnicity,religion,mainlanguage,etc.)25• BWBSScale(modifiedNegativeActsQuestionnaire)comprising21itemsofilltreatment:

- Experienceofthe21itemswithscaledresponseoptions(never,justonce,nowandthen,monthly,daily)

- Confirmedexperienceofthe21items(yes/no)- Witnessingthe21items(yes/no)- Perpetratingthe21items(yes/no)

• Roleatwork(managerialduties,jobpermanence,occupation)• Sector,occupationalgroup,public/private• Natureoftheworkplace(sizeoforganisation,staffcomposition)• Workconditions(controlatwork,paceandintensityofwork)• Predictorsofworkplacestress(WorkPositivemeasure,31items)

ScreeningquestionsAnumberofscreeningquestionswereemployedatthestartofthequestionnaire:workingstatus,employee/employerstatus;full/parttimestatus,inordertoscreenoutthoseneveremployed,notemployedinpasttwoyearsorselfemployed.DemographicquestionsandworkplacecharacteristicsParticipantswereaskedabouttheirgender,theirage,ethnicity,education,disability,placeofresidence(province)andtheirincomecategory.Participantsalsoprovidedinformationonthetypeandsizeoforganisationtheyworkedin(currentormostrecent),thecompositionoftheworkforce,theirstatus(managerialornot),theirjobpermanenceandtheirmembershipofatradeunion.BWBSscale-Experiencing,witnessingandcarryingoutilltreatmentitemsThequestionnaireincludedascalefromasurveyconductedinBritain(BWBSsurvey)26thatcomprisedamodifiedversionoftheNegativeActsQuestionnairedevisedbyEinarsenetal(2009)27Participantswereaskedtorespondwhethertheyhadexperienced21items(Q1)describingilltreatmentona5-pointscale(1:Never;2:Justonce;3:Nowandthen;4:Monthly;5:Weekly;6:Daily)thiswasfollowedbyaskingiftheyhadwitnessed(Q2)thesameitems(responseoptions:1=Yes/0=No)andtheniftheyhadperpetrated(Q3)thesameitemsofbehaviour(responseoptions:1=Yes/0=No).Theoriginalquestion(Q1)askingparticipantstorespondiftheyhadexperiencedtheitemswasrepeatedusingayes/noresponseoption(Q4)toconfirmtheoriginalreportofexperiences.These‘confirmatoryresponses’weretheonesemployedinthedataanalysis.FAREitemsParticipantswereaskedaseriesofquestionsconcerningtheirperceptionoftheirworkplaceandtheirwork,basedonitemsusedintheUKbasedFairTreatmentatWorksurvey28,andalsoemployedintheBWBSsurvey,termed25SexualorientationwascoveredintheBWBSbutnotintheIWBS,itwasconsideredtoosensitiveasubjecttoincludeinaface-to-facesurveyinIrelandatthetime.26Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity27Einarsen,S.&Raknes,B.I.(1997).HarassmentintheWorkplaceandtheVictimisationofMen.ViolenceandVictims.12(3),247-263andEinarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,&Notelaers,G.(2009).MeasuringBullyingandHarassmentatWork:Validity,FactorStructure,andPsychometricPropertiesoftheNegativeActsQuestionnaire-Revised.Work&Stress,23(1),24-4428Fevre,R.,Nichols,T.,Prior,G.&Rutherford,I.(2009).FairTreatmentatWorkReport:Findingsfromthe2008Survey.EmploymentRelationsResearchSeriesNo.103.DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills,London

theFAREitems29.Theyexplorethedegreetowhichindividualworkersperceivetheymatterinanorganisationandalsotheircontroloverpaceandintensityofwork.WorkPositiveitemsWorkPositiveisariskassessmenttoolthatmeasuresriskfactorsforwork-relatedstress.IthasbeendevelopedbytheHealthandSafetyAuthority30,basedontheHSE(UK)managementtool31,whichinturnisbasedonanevidencereviewthatidentifiedandisolatedkeycausalfactorsforwork-relatedstress.Thesixfactorsaredemands,control,support,relationshipsandrolechange.Anadaptedversionwasincludedinthequestionnaire.Themeasurecomprises35questions,andtheadaptedversionusedherecontains31items(Allitems,seeAppendix1).

2.4SampleWeightsDatafromallsamplesurveysmustbereweightedorstatisticallyadjustedpriortoanalysis.Thepurposeofthisadjustmentistocompensateinthecompletedsampleforanypotentialbiasesthatmayoccurduetosamplingerrorordifferentialresponseratesamongsub-groupsofthepopulation.Thisprocessensuresthatthecompletedsampleisrepresentativeofthetargetpopulationfromwhichithasbeenselected.Theweightingofthedatainvolvedcalibratingthesampletopopulationcontroltotalsusinganapproachbasedonaminimuminformationlossalgorithm.ThepopulationcharacteristicsusedascontrolswerederivedfromtheQuarterlyNationalHouseholdSurvey(QNHS)fromQ2,2015.TheQuarterlyNationalHouseholdSurveyisdesignedtoprovideinformationonthelabourforceandisthemostreliableandup-to-datenationalsourceofdataforthispurpose.Therewere16,446employeesinthesecondquarteroftheQNHSin2015.Theweightingparameters,asshowninTable2.1,included:

• Genderbyagegroup• Genderbypresenceofdisability• GenderbywhetheranIrishnational• Genderbyeducation• Genderbyoccupation• Genderbynumberofchildren• Region

There-calibrationisconductedusingtheReGeneseesprogrammeinR,developedattheItalianNationalInstituteofStatistics.32Thisisanopen-sourceprogrammefordesign-basedandmodel-assistedanalysisofcomplexsamplingsurveys,whichincorporatesasub-routineforcalibrationofsamples(Zardetto,2014)33.There-calibrationinvolvedconstructingweightssothatthedistributionofthesecharacteristicsinthesample(showninthelastcolumnofTable2.1)matchedthoseoftheQNHS(showninthesecondcolumnoffigures).Inconstructingtheweights,the‘logit’distancefunctionwasusedandweightswereconstrainedtorangefrom0.2to5timestheaverageweight.

29Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIlltreatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity30WorkPositiveProject,HealthandSafetyAuthorityhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Workplace_Health/Workplace_Stress/Work_Positive/Work_Positive_Project_2008-2009/31HSEindicatortoolwww.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/pdfs/indicatortool.pdf32ReGeneseeswasdevelopedasanopen-sourcesubstitutionfortheSAS-basedversionofGENESEES,tocalibratesampleobservationsandtocalculatesamplingvariance.IthasbeenusedatISTATsince2007.ReGeneseesisavailableatJOINUP—theEuropeanCommissionopensourcesoftwarerepositoryhttps://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/regenesees/description.Furtherinformationcanbefoundat:http://www1.unece.org/stat/platform/display/msis/ReGenesees

33Zardetto,D.(2014).PackageReGenesees:RevolvedGeneralizedsoftwareforsamplingestimatesanderrorsinsurveys.Availableathttp://www.istat.it/en/files/2014/03/ReGenesees.pdf

AscanbeseenbycomparingthepercentagesfromtheQNHStothepercentagesfromthesample,thesampleisgenerallyquiteclosetothenationalfigures.Themainadjustmentneededwastooccupationalcategory.Amongfemales,employeesinsalesandcustomerserviceswereoverrepresentedcomparedtotheQNHSwhilemalesinelementary(unskilled)occupationswereoverrepresentedcomparedtothenationalfigures.Twoweightingvariableswereprovidedonthedataset:‘Weight’sumstothesamplesize(1764)andhasameanof1;‘Gross’sumstothepopulationsize(1,551,601)andhasameanof880.‘Weight’=Gross/880.Table2.1:CalibrationTotalsUsedForConstructionofWeightson2015WorkplaceBehaviourSurvey

QNHSQ22015,Employees WorkplaceSurvey

(N,‘000s) %employees Ncases%of

sample

Sexbyage Male,15-24 53.7 3% 55 3%Male,25-34 209.2 13% 251 14%Male,35-44 231.5 15% 255 14%Male,45-54 168.0 11% 189 11%Male,55andup 103.0 7% 158 9%Female,15-24 45.4 3% 75 4%Female,25-34 227.1 15% 249 14%Female,35-44 225.1 15% 245 14%Female,45-54 179.8 12% 149 8%Female,55andup 108.7 7% 138 8%

Disability Nodisability 1502.1 97% 1667 95%Male,withdisability 24.0 2% 50 6%Female,withdisability 25.4 2% 47 6%

Sexbyeducation

Male,Lower2ndlevelorless 121.6 8% 130 7%Male,Higher2ndlevel 206.7 13% 329 19%Male,Certordiploma 179.3 12% 174 10%Male,Degreeorhigher 257.9 17% 275 16%Female,Lower2ndlevelorless 68.9 4% 90 5%Female,Higher2ndlevel 185.9 12% 231 13%Female,Certordiploma 229.8 15% 235 13%Female,Degreeorhigher 301.6 19% 300 17%

Sexbyoccupation

Male,Managers&SeniorOfficials 62.4 4% 96 5%Male,Professionals 125.5 8% 67 4%Male,Assoc.Profess.&Technical 114.3 7% 114 6%Male,Administrative&Secretarial 39.6 3% 49 3%Male,SkilledTrades 150.4 10% 93 5%Male,PersonalServices 23.0 1% 20 1%Male,Sales&CustomerServices 46.1 3% 135 8%Male,Process,Plant&MachineOp. 96.8 6% 54 3%Male,ElementaryOccupations 107.3 7% 280 16%Female,Managers&SeniorOfficials 37.8 2% 53 3%Female,Professionals 187.2 12% 117 7%Female,Assoc.Profess.&Technical 81.5 5% 113 6%Female,Administrative&Secretarial 155.7 10% 144 8%Female,SkilledTrades 18.0 1% 30 2%Female,PersonalServices 114.9 7% 95 5%Female,Sales&CustomerServices 94.5 6% 187 11%Female,Process,Plant&MachineOp. 18.9 1% 8 0%Female,ElementaryOccupations 77.8 5% 109 6%

Ethnicity Irishnational 1207.4 78% 1348 76%Male,Non-Irish 178.9 12% 250 14%Female,Non-Irish 165.4 11% 166 9%

SexbynumberChildren

Nochildren 845.3 54% 1047 59%Male,1child 120.4 8% 121 7%Male,2+children 227.9 15% 243 14%Female,1child 148.5 10% 116 7%Female,2+children 209.5 13% 237 13%

Region Dublin 495.9 32% 612 35%Border,Midlands&West 377.2 24% 490 28%SouthandEast 678.5 44% 662 38%

3SurveyOutcomesThissectionpresentsthesurveyresponserateanddemographicprofileofthesample.Allestimatesinthesampleprofile(section3.2)areunweightedtopresentsampledemographics.

3.1ResponseRateTable3.1belowshowsthesurveyoutcomesandthecalculationoftheresponserate.Ofthegrosssampleof3200addresses,interviewswerecompletedat1764.Theresponserateisdefinedbythepercentageofeligibleaddresseswhereaninterviewwasconducted.IncalculatingthefinalresponseratetwoadjustmentsweremadetotherawoutcomesasshownintheTable3.1.

1. Thefirstadjustmentistotakeaccountofvacantaddresses.FromCensus2011dataitisknownthat9.4percentofaddressesinaGeoDirectorysamplewillbevacant,or301inthepresentsample.However,interviewersarenotabletoidentifyallvacantaddresses(only52wereclassifiedasvacantbyinterviewersasshowninthefirstcolumn),withtheremaindercodedas‘no-contact’.Thefirstadjustmentinvolvesmovingthedifferencebetweenthesetwofigures(249cases)intothe‘vacant’categoryandsubtractingthemfromthe‘non-contacts’.

2. Thesecondadjustmentinvolvesestimatingthenumberofcasesofunknowneligibility(becausenocontactwasmadeorbecauseofalanguagebarrier)thatwerelikelytohavebeeneligible.Thiswasdonebyusingtheinformationontheeligibilityrateofthenon-vacantcontacts(i.e.(B+N)/(B+N+D)or82%).Thiscalculationledtoanexpectationthat330ofthe401‘unknowneligibility’caseswouldbeeligible.

Theseadjustmentsgivetherevisednumberofeligibleaddresses(1764+623)andtheresponseratewascalculatedasthetotalcompleted(1764)dividedbythetotaleligible(1764+623)or74%.

Table3.1:SurveyOutcomeDetails

RawOutcomes Adjustment1 Adjusted1 Adjustment2 Adjusted2

A GrossSample(160clustersof4X5addresses) 3200 3200 3200

B CompletedInterviews 1764 1764 1764

Ineligibleaddresses

C Vacant(incl.derelict/demolished) 52 249 301 301

D Noemployee 441 441 441

E Totalineligible 493 742 71 813

UnknownEligibility(unknownifemployeeinhousehold)

F HouseholdRefusal(noopportunitytoaskforeligible)respondent).

183 183

G Languagebarrier 54 54

H Noncontact(noreply,couldnotgainaccess) 413 -249 164

I Totalunknowneligibility 650 401 -401

Eligiblenon-respondingaddresses

J Respondentrefused. 221 221 221

K Respondenttemp.absentthroughoutfieldwork 45 45 45

L Respondentphysically/mentallyillorincapacitated. 13 13 13

M Otherreason 14 14 14

N Totaleligiblenon-respondents 293 293 330 623

O ResponseRateB/(B+N) 74%Note:Adjustment1correctsfortheexpectednumberofvacantdwellingswhileadjustment2estimatesthenumberofcasesof‘unknowneligibility’whoarelikelytohavebeeneligible.

3.2SampleProfileThosesurveyedcomprised51.5%malesand48.5%females.Themajorityofthesamplereportedwhiteethnicity(89%)andthenextlargestethnicgroupwasofAsianbackground(6.2%).Christianwasthelargestreligiousgroup(84%)followedbyhavingnoreligion(10%).AmongmalestherewerehigherpercentageswithinAsianandBlackethnicgroupsthanamongfemales(chi=18.3,p=0.001).Amongbothmalesandfemales6%reportedhavingadisability.Table3.2:PercentagewithinEachAgeGroupbyGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)

Agegroup Male%(n)

Female%(n)

Total%(n)

18-24 6.1(55) 8.8(75) 7.4(130)

25-34 27.6(251) 29.1(249) 28.3(500)

35-44 28.1(255) 28.6(245) 28.3(500)

45-54 20.8(189) 17.4(149) 19.2(338)

55+ 17.4(158) 16.1(138) 16.8(296)

Table3.3:SampleEthnicity(Unweighted)Ethnicity %(n)

WhiteIrish 76.4(1348)

WhiteBritish 1.9(33)

AnyotherWhitebackground(IncludingeasternEU) 10.3(182)

Mixedbackground(White&BlackCaribbean,White&BlackAfrican,White&Asian) 1.4(24)

Asianbackground(IncludingBangladeshi,Pakistani,Indian,Chinese) 6.2(110)

BlackAfrican 1.9(34)

AnyotherBlackbackground(IncludingBlackCaribbean) 0.3(6)

Anyother 1.5(27)

Table3.4:PercentageReportingEthnicity,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)

Ethnicity Male(n=908)%(n)

Female(n=856)%(n)

Total(n=1764)%(n)

White 84.7(769) 92.8(794) 88.6(1563)

Mixed 1.5(14) 1.2(10) 1.4(24)

Asian 8.9(81) 3.4(29) 6.2(110)

Black 3.3(30) 1.2(10) 2.3(40)

Other 1.5(14) 1.5(13) 1.5(27)

chi 18.28

p 0.001

Table3.5:PercentageReportingReligiousAffiliation,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)

Religion Male(n=908)%(n)

Female(n=856)%(n)

Total(n=1764)%(n)

Christian 81.4(739) 86.9(744) 84.1(1483)

Buddhist 0.4(4) 0.1(1) 0.3(5)

Hindu 2.3(21) 1.4(12) 1.9(33)

Jewish 0.1(1) 0.2(2) 0.2(3)

Muslim 3.6(33) 0.7(6) 2.2(39)

Sikh 0.1(1) 0.1(1) 0.1(2)

Anyotherreligion 0.3(3) 0.6(5) 0.5(8)

Noreligion 10.9(99) 9.5(81) 10.2(180)

Refused 0.8(7) 0.5(4) 0.6(11)

Table3.6:PercentageReportingEducationalStatus,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)

Education Male%(n)

Female%(n)

Total%(n)

Higherdegree 12.0(108) 14.5(124) 13.2(232)

Primarydegree 16.8(152) 19.6(167) 18.2(319)

Diploma 19.2(173) 27.5(235) 23.2(408)

Uppersecondary 21.0(190) 20.2(172) 20.6(362)

Vocational 15.6(141) 6.9(59) 11.4(200)

Lowersecondary 11.7(106) 8.4(72) 10.1(178)

Primary 2.4(22) 2.1(18) 2.3(40)

None 1.2(11) 0.7(6) 1.0(17)

Table3.7:PercentageReportingDisabilities,byGenderandSampleTotals(Unweighted)

Disability Male%(n)

Female%(n)

Total%(n)

Deafnessorseverehearingimpairment 1.1(10) 0.2(2) 0.7(12)

Blindnessorseverevisualimpairment 0.1(1) 0.4(3) 0.2(4)

Aconditionthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormorebasicphysicalactivities

0.9(8) 1.1(9) 1(17)

Alearningdifficulty 0.8(7) 0.9(8) 0.9(15)

Along-standingpsychologicaloremotionalcondition 0.8(7) 0.5(4) 0.6(11)

Other,includinganylong-standingillness 2.3(21) 2.8(24) 2.6(45)

Nodisability 93.3(847) 92.8(794) 93(1641)

Refused 0.8(7) 1.2(10) 1(17)

Don’tknow 0.4(4) 0.6(5) 0.5(9)

3.3OriginalandConfirmedReportofExperienceofIllTreatmentItems(Unweighted)TheBWBSscaleofilltreatmentitemswasinitiallypresentedtoparticipantswitharangeofresponsesforeachitem.Laterduringtheinterviewthesameitemswerepresentedandparticipantswereaskedtoconfirmtheitemstheyhadinitiallyselected.Table3.8showsthepercentagechangebetweentheoriginalandconfirmatoryresponsesforeachitemintheBWBSscale.Allitemsshowedareducedresponseonconfirmationandtheaveragereductionwas35%.

Table3.8:ExperienceofIllTreatmentOriginal,ConfirmedandPercentageReductioninResponses(Unweighted)

BWBSilltreatmentitemsexperienced

Originalresponse Revisedresponse Reduction*

n % n % n%of

originalresponse

Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 206 11.7 126 7.2 80 39

Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 228 12.9 142 8.1 86 38

Havingopinionsandviewsignored 491 27.9 344 19.5 147 30

Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 324 18.4 199 11.3 125 39

Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 136 7.7 89 5.0 47 35

Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 488 27.6 342 19.4 146 30

Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 333 18.9 232 13.2 101 30

Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 287 16.3 189 10.7 98 34

Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 178 10.1 122 6.9 56 31

Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 173 9.8 106 6.0 67 39

Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 260 14.7 178 10.1 82 32

Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 410 23.2 289 16.4 121 30

Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 222 12.6 148 8.4 74 33

Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 139 7.9 92 5.2 47 34

Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 220 12.5 124 7.0 96 44

Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 251 14.2 162 9.2 89 35

Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 360 20.4 265 15 95 26

Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 296 16.8 183 10.4 113 38

Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 186 10.5 125 7.1 61 33

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 63 3.6 38 2.1 25 40

Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 53 3 28 1.6 25 47

N=1764(unweighteddata) Average%reduction 35

*Therewerenocasesinwhicharespondentaddedabehaviouritem;allchangeswereintermsofmakingreductionsratherthanadditions.

4Results:Experience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentintheWorkplaceThefollowingsectionspresenttheextenttowhichilltreatmentwasexperienced,witnessedandperpetratedintheworkplaceinIreland.Participantswereinitiallyaskedtorespondtotheseriesof21itemsofilltreatmentwith5responseoptionsthatrangedfromnevertodaily.Inthisinitialpartofthesurveyrespondentswereaskediftheyhadexperiencedtheseitems,thiswasfollowedbyaskingforconfirmationofresponsestothesameitemswithyes/nooptionsforeach.Theitemswerepresentedasecondtime,askingifrespondentshadwitnessedany,withayes/nooptionforeach.Athirdpresentationoftheitemsaskedrespondentsiftheyhadperpetratedany(yes/nooptions).TheBWBSsurveyclassifiedthe21individualilltreatmentitemsintothreefactors,unreasonablemanagement(UM),incivilityanddisrespect(ID)andviolenceandinjury(VI),basedonfactoranalyses.AcomparativefactoranalysiswasconductedontheIrishdata,andthethreefactorstructurewasconfirmed34.Overalloutcomesforthesethreefactorsarepresentedinthefollowingsectionsandrelationshipsbetweentheseandvariousrespondentdemographicandworkplacecharacteristicsareexaminedunderthefollowingheadings:

• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsanddemographics(gender,ethnicity,age,education,areaofresidence,disabilityandincome),

• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsandorganisationalcharacteristics(sizeoforganisationandemployeecomposition,occupationalsector,public/private,presenceoftradeunion),

• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsandworkrole(managementduties,jobpermanence,tradeunionmembership)

• Relationshipsbetweenill-treatmentfactorsandworkplaceconditions(FAREitemsforexperience,witnessandperpetrationofilltreatment,andWorkPositiveitemsforexperienceofilltreatment)

TestingofunivariaterelationshipswasfollowedbymultivariateanalysistodeterminethemainpredictorsofilltreatmentoutcomesasoutlinedinTable4.1.Table4.1:FactorsofIllTreatmentPresentedinEachSection

Factorofilltreatment Description Experienced* Witnessed Perpetrated

Unreasonablemanagement Reportofatleastoneofthe8itemswithinthisfactor x x x

Incivilityordisrespect Reportofatleastoneofthe11itemswithinthisfactor x x x

Physicalviolenceorinjury Reportofatleastoneofthe2itemswithinthisfactor x x x

Atleastoneitem Reportofatleastoneofall21items x x x

Atleast2itemsweekly Reportedatleast2weeklyderivedfromresponsestoQ1andconfirmedatQ435 x

Atleast2itemsdaily Reportedatleast2dailyderivedfromresponsestoQ1andconfirmedatQ4 x

*Forexperienceditemsthiswasderivedfromconfirmedreportoftheitem(Q1&Q4)

34PrincipalaxisfactoringusingobliminrotationandKaisernormalisation.Rotationconvergedon21iterationswiththepatternmatrixshowingthe3distinctgroupsofitemsasusedintheBWBS35Criterionfrequentlyusedasanindicatorofbullying(PersonalCommunicationfromM.O’Driscoll,2016)

4.1ExperienceofIllTreatmentintheWorkplace AVenndiagramshowingpercentageswithineachill-treatmentfactorandforoverlapbetweenfactorsispresentedinFigure4.1.1.Atleastoneitemofilltreatmentwasexperiencedby43%ofparticipants.Itemsclassifiedasunreasonablemanagementwereexperiencedby37%,with31%reportingexperienceofincivilityordisrespectand2.6%,violenceorinjury.Overlapoccurredbetweenthesefactors,particularlybetweenunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(25.0%).Therewasa2.3%overlapbetweenthoseexperiencingincivilityandviolence,a2.2%overlapbetweenthoseexperiencingviolenceandunreasonablemanagementand2.0%experienceditemsinallthreecategories.

Figure4.1.1:PercentageswithinEachIll-TreatmentFactorExperienced

Unreasonablemanagement:36.7%n=647

Incivilityordisrespect:31.3%n=552

Violence2.6%n=45

25.1%n=442

All:2.0%2.2%

4.1.1ConfirmedIllTreatmentExperiencedintheWorkplace(Weighted)Percentagesofconfirmedresponsestoindividualitemswithinthethreeill-treatmentfactors,unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjuryarepresentedinTable4.1.1intheTotalcolumnandarealsopresentedbygender.Forthemajorityofitems(17),femalesreportedhigherpercentagesofilltreatment.Fourofthe21itemsshowedsignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentagesforfemales:Havingopinionsandviewsignored(1.4x),Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway(1.4x),Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork(1.8x)andInjuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork(2.5x).Table4.1.1:PercentageWhoExperiencedIll-TreatmentItemswithinEachGender

Illtreatmentitemexperienced Female%

Total% chi p OR

Unreasonablemanagement

Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 7.4 7.0 7.2 0.095 0.758 1.1(0.7-1.5)

Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 8.3 7.8 8.0 0.137 0.711 1.1(0.8-1.5)

Havingopinionsandviewsignored 21.9 17.0 19.5 6.778 0.009 1.4(1.1-1.7)

Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 11.7 10.8 11.3 0.39 0.533 1.1(0.8-1.5)

Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 4.7 5.4 5.0 0.457 0.499 0.9(0.6-1.3)

Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 19.0 19.8 19.4 0.161 0.689 1.0(0.8-1.2)

Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 12.5 13.8 13.2 0.604 0.437 0.9(0.7-1.2)

Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 11.6 9.7 10.7 1.812 0.178 1.2(0.9-1.7)

Incivilityordisrespect

Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 7.7 6.1 6.9 1.811 0.178 1.3(0.9-1.9)

Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 6.9 5.1 6.0 2.752 0.097 1.4(0.9-2.1)

Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 10.5 9.7 10.1 0.359 0.549 1.1(0.8-1.5)

Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 18.5 14.3 16.4 5.687 0.017 1.4(1.1-1.8)

Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 9.6 7.2 8.4 3.251 0.071 1.4(1.0-1.9)

Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 5.4 5.2 5.3 0.036 0.849 1.0(0.7-1.6)

Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 7.5 6.6 7.0 0.610 0.435 1.2(0.8-1.7)

Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 8.5 9.9 9.2 0.998 0.318 0.8(0.6-1.2)

Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 15.9 14.1 15.0 1.073 0.300 1.1(0.9-1.5)

Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 13.1 7.6 10.4 14.411 0.001 1.8(1.3-2.5)

Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 7.9 6.2 7.1 2.016 0.156 1.3(0.9-1.9)

Violenceorinjury

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 2.7 1.6 2.2 2.441 0.118 1.7(0.9-3.3)

Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 2.2 0.9 1.6 4.900 0.027 2.5(1.1-5.6)

*OR=Howmanytimesmorelikelyfemalesreportedexperiencingthebehaviourthanmales.Greyshadinghighlightssignificantrelationshipsbetweenthebehaviouritemsandgender.

4.1.2RelationshipsbetweenExperienceofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactorsSummarytablesforexperienceofill-treatmentfactorsbydemographicfactors(gender,ethnicity,age,education,placeofresidenceanddisability)arepresentedinTables4.1.2–4.1.5below.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceineachofthethreefactorsofilltreatmentbythegenderofthoseexperiencingit(Table4.1.2).However,thereweresignificantly(p=0.032,chisquaretest)morefemales(2.7%)experiencingatleasttwoitemsofilltreatmentdailythanmales(1.3%).

Table4.1.2:PercentageExperiencingIllTreatmentamongDemographicGroups Unreasonable

management%

Violenceorinjury%

Atleastoneitem%

Atleasttwoitemsweekly

Atleasttwoitemsdaily

TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98

Gender

Female 36.73 33.00 3.13 43.74 9.73 2.68

Male 36.62 29.51 1.95 42.37 8.16 1.26

P 0.963 0.114 0.117 0.561 0.248 0.032

Ethnicity White 35.75 29.96 2.14 42.16 9.00 1.95

Asian 44.83 47.13 6.90 52.33 4.65 0.00

BlackorMixed 46.07 39.33 5.68 50.00 12.36 4.49

P 0.040 0.001 0.004 0.072 0.200 0.099

18-24 33.93 35.71 1.77 46.02 12.39 1.79

25-34 42.14 35.69 2.82 47.78 12.10 3.43

35-44 34.87 31.98 5.01 41.43 8.48 2.12

45-54 32.41 25.06 0.25 37.88 7.09 0.51

55+ 37.34 29.05 0.83 43.98 4.98 0.83

P 0.031 0.010 <0.001 0.042 0.007 0.019

Education

Primary&Secondary 33.88 29.87 1.34 40.71 8.02 1.19

Undergraduate&Higher 38.49 32.04 3.31 44.42 9.58 2.49

P 0.051 0.338 0.011 0.127 0.268 0.058

Region Dublin 31.38 28.42 2.48 35.64 7.10 1.60

Leinster(ExclDublin) 38.38 33.89 1.40 44.1 11.52 2.24

Munster 41.18 29.60 2.02 47.61 8.64 2.57

Connacht&Ulster 36.33 36.67 5.00 47.33 9.70 1.33

P 0.007 0.045 0.021 <0.001 0.137 0.535

Disability

Yes 30.36 26.79 3.57 36.84 12.28 3.57

No 36.85 31.40 2.52 43.27 8.90 1.93

P 0.321 0.464 0.623 0.335 0.380 0.387

Income

Under€10,000 38.10 32.38 1.90 48.08 12.40 4.80

€10,000-€19,000 38.08 31.67 1.26 44.77 9.20 1.70

€20,000-€29,000 38.32 36.96 2.99 45.38 10.30 2.40

€30,000-€39,000 36.92 29.50 1.08 43.01 11.20 1.10

€40,000-€49,000 44.51 25.00 2.44 47.24 6.70 3.00

€50,000ormore 37.23 31.39 5.15 44.12 9.60 2.90

P 0.714 0.122 0.122 0.941 0.654 0.330

pvaluesderivedfromchisquaretests.Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey

Ethnicityshowedasignificantassociationwitheachofthethreeofill-treatmentfactors,withthoseofblack/mixedethnicityexperiencingthehighestlevelsofunreasonablemanagementandAsianemployeesreportingthegreaterlevelsofincivilityandviolence.Ahigherpercentageofunreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedbythosebetween25-34yearsandbythoseover55,whiletheexperienceofincivilityanddisrespectdecreasedwithage.Violencewasexperiencedbyahigherpercentageatmidcareer(35-44years).Allthreetypesofilltreatmentwereexperiencedbyahigherpercentageofthosewiththirdleveleducation.UnreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedmorecommonlyinMunsterwhileincivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjurywasmorecommonlyexperiencedinConnaught/Ulster.Althoughpercentagesamongthosewithdisabilitieswerehigherforviolenceandforatleast2itemsweeklyanddaily,differenceswerenotsignificant(p>0.05,Pearson’schisquare)comparedtothosewithoutdisabilities,althoughlimitationsofsmallsamplesizeshouldbenoted.Table4.1.3:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionorStaffAssociation

Violenceorinjury%

Atleastoneitem%

Atleasttwoweekly

Atleasttwodaily%

TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98

Typeoforganisation

Private 34.51 29.99 1.18 40.99 8.33 1.77

Public 40.36 33.80 6.15 45.92 10.54 2.58

VoluntaryorOther 50.88 31.58 0.00 58.93 5.26 1.75

P 0.006 0.302 <0.001 0.009 0.215 0.547

Sector

Agriculture 23.33 25.81 0.00 38.71 10.00 0.00

Industry 37.56 30.73 0.00 41.95 7.80 1.95

Construction 39.58 20.83 0.00 42.71 9.38 0.00

Wholesale,Retail,Food&Accommodation(WRFA) 31.79 35.16 1.45 42.94 7.23 2.02

Transport 34.23 26.13 0.90 37.84 11.71 0.90

Financialservices 44.38 30.63 0.63 48.13 10.63 1.88

Publicadmin.&Defence(PAD) 35.00 25.18 5.04 40.00 10.00 0.72

Education 33.61 34.03 2.94 39.92 7.14 2.52

Health&Socialservices 45.15 35.07 7.46 51.12 12.64 2.99

Otherservices 32.32 29.27 1.82 38.18 6.10 3.03

P 0.010 0.110 nv 0.140 0.310 nv

Sizeoforganisation

<10 26.29 24.78 0.65 34.48 6.03 0.86

10-49 42.11 35.54 2.56 48.64 10.09 2.26

50-249 37.50 31.91 3.72 43.09 11.17 2.13

>250 41.56 31.60 3.90 45.89 7.79 3.46

P <0.001 0.002 0.013 0.000 0.036 0.122

PresenceofTradeunion

Yes 40.68 33.07 4.66 46.27 10.42 2.33

No 34.43 29.8 1.31 40.62 8.26 1.88

P 0.009 0.156 <0.001 0.022 0.131 0.521

pvaluesderivedfromchisquaretests.Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.nv:Chisquaretestswereinvalidduetolowexpectedcellcount.

4.1.3RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceCharacteristicsandExperienceofIllTreatmentOrganisationalcharacteristicssurveyedincludedsector,size,type(public/private/voluntary)andpresenceoftradeunion(s)intheworkplace.Illtreatmentwasexperiencedbyahigherpercentageofemployeesinsmallorganisations,forunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(Table4.1.3,p.15)Largeorganisationsweremorelikelytoexperienceviolenceandaseverelevelofbullying.Thoseinvoluntaryandinpublicsectorworkplacesweremorelikelytoexperienceilltreatmentintheformofunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjury.Thepresenceofatradeunionwasassociatedwithhigherlevelsofunreasonablemanagementandviolenceandinjury.Figure4.1.2revealstheextenttowhichill-treatmentfactorswereexperiencedinthedifferentsectorsaboveorbelowtheiroveralllevelsbypresentingthepercentagepointsaboveandbelowthoselevels.Itshowsthatthehighestexcessforallthreefactorsoccurredinthehealthandsocialservicessectorandthegreatestdecreasesoccurredinagriculture.

Figure4.1.2:PercentagePointsAboveorBelowOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentforEachFactorbySectorTable4.1.4presentspercentagesofthosereportingill-treatmentfactorsbyethnic,genderandagecompositionoftheworkplacestaffandalsopresentsoutcomesofSpearman’scorrelationsforeachfactor.Significant(p<0.05)butweakpositivecorrelationswerefoundbetweenallill-treatmentfactorsandincreasingpercentageofethnicemployeesexceptforincivility.Withincreasingpercentageoffemaleemployeestherewerealsosignificantbutweakpositivecorrelationswithallill-treatmentfactorswiththeexceptionofunreasonablemanagement.Therewerenosignificantcorrelationsbetweenagecompositionofstaffandilltreatment.

-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Unreasonablemanagement36.7%

Incivilityordisrespect31.3%

Violenceorinjury2.6%

Agriculture

Publicadministraton

Constructon

Wholesale,retail,food&accommodaton

Transport

Financialservices

Industry

Educaton

HealthandSocialservices

Otherservices

Table4.1.4:ExperienceofIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge

Violenceorinjury%

Atleastoneitem%

Atleasttwoweekly

Atleasttwodaily%

TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98

Compositionofstaffintermsofethnicity(%blackorethnicminorities)

None(0%) 31.54 27.56 1.54 37.95 6.41 1.41

Afew(5-10%) 42.27 33.10 2.92 47.77 11.68 2.74

Aboutaquarter(about25%) 34.23 34.23 4.07 42.79 8.56 1.80

Abouthalf(about50%) 41.56 40.26 3.90 50.65 12.82 1.30

Morethanhalf(about60%) 80.00 65.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 15.00

Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 37.50 42.86 0.00 42.86 0.00 0.00

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 25.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00

All(100%) 0.00 16.67 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00

Spearman’srho(pvalue) 0.04(0.006) 0.03(0.082) 0.05(0.001) 0.03(0.035) 0.04(0.010) 0.03(0.029)

Compositionofstaffintermsofgender(%female)

None(0%) 30.85 22.77 1.00 35.82 4.98 0.00

Afew(5-10%) 39.36 33.33 1.61 45.78 8.43 0.40

Abouthalf(about50%) 35.05 28.87 0.77 41.75 6.17 2.06

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 42.33 42.68 7.36 50.31 15.95 4.88

All(100%) 24.37 21.85 0.00 29.41 3.36 2.52

Spearman’srho(pvalue) 0.01(0.490) 0.04(0.006) 0.05(<0.001) 0.03(0.034) 0.04(0.009) 0.02(0.201)

Compositionofstaffintermsofage(%ofyoungpeopleunder25)

None(0%) 28.62 26.71 2.90 35.14 6.88 0.72

Afew(5-10%) 40.50 32.50 2.66 47.25 9.59 1.95

Abouthalf(about50%) 33.70 30.40 2.56 41.03 10.62 2.93

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 34.78 45.45 0.00 52.17 13.04 8.70

All(100%) 10.00 30.00 0.00 40.00 9.09 0.00

Spearman’srho(p-value) 0.01(0.667) 0.01(0.406) -0.01(0.326) -0.003(0.850) -0.01(0.690) 0.02(0.096)

Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.

4.1.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandExperienceofIllTreatment

Table4.1.5presentsthepercentagesofthosewhoexperiencedilltreatmentbytheiroccupationgroup,whethertheyheldmanagerialorsupervisorydutiesandtheirjobpermanence.Higherbutnon-significant(p>0.05,Pearson’schisquare)percentagesofthoseamongtheoccupationalgroupofmanagersandseniorofficialsexperiencedunreasonablemanagement(40.1%)andviolence(4.4%).Violencewasalsoexperiencedbyahigherbutnon-significantpercentageofthoseoccupiedinpersonalservice(35.6%).Unreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedbythoseinprocessplants(40.1%)andassociateprofessionalandtechnicalstaff(43.2%)andincivilitybythoseinsalesandcustomerservice(6.8%).

Significantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentagesofunreasonablemanagement(42.2%)andincivility(36.5%)werereportedbythosewithnon-permanentjobs.However,higherreportingofviolenceamongthoseinpermanentpositions(2.8%)wasnotsignificant.Thosehavingmanagerialorsupervisorydutiesreportedasignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentageforexperienceofatleast2itemsweekly(12.3%).Table4.1.5:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJobPermanence

Violenceorinjury

Atleastoneitem

Atleast2itemsweekly

Atleast2itemsdaily

TOTAL 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98

Occupationgroup

Managersandseniorofficials 40.88 35.77 4.35 46.38 14.49 2.17

Professionaloccupations 34.56 28.33 3.97 38.53 6.52 1.70

Associateprofessionalandtechnical 43.17 35.24 3.08 49.78 11.89 1.76

Administrativeandsecretarial 35.02 23.61 0.92 39.81 8.33 0.93

Skilledtrade 34.97 33.33 0.55 43.72 9.29 2.73

Personalservice 35.57 33.78 6.76 44.30 10.81 3.36

Salesandcustomerservice 34.13 36.90 1.20 46.11 7.19 2.38

Processplantandmachine 40.48 29.13 0.00 44.09 10.32 3.94

Elementary 33.99 30.05 0.99 39.41 5.45 0.50

p 0.406 0.083 nv 0.225 0.060 nv

Managerialorsupervisoryduties

Yes 40.04 31.39 2.01 45.88 12.27 2.41

No 35.35 31.05 2.79 41.85 7.72 1.83

p 0.066 0.891 0.355 0.124 0.003 0.43

Haveapermanentjob

Yes 35.12 29.62 2.78 41.24 8.76 2.29

No 42.19 36.54 1.33 49.83 9.63 0.66

p 0.020 0.018 0.144 0.006 0.629 0.067

p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.

4.1.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandExperienceofIllTreatmentPercentagesofparticipantsthatrespondedtotheFAREItemsarepresentedinTable4.1.6.ThefirstcolumnpresentstheoverallpercentageinthesamplereportingyesornotoeachFAREitemstatementaspresentedtothem.TheremainingcolumnspresentthepercentagesamongFAREitemresponsesthatexperiencedeachill-treatmentfactor,atleast1itemofilltreatmentandatleast2itemsweeklyandatleast2daily.AllrelationshipsbetweenFAREitemsandill-treatmentfactorsweresignificantwiththeexceptionoftheexperienceofviolencewiththeneedsoforganisationcomingfirst,whereemployeeshavelesscontrolthanayearagoandwheretheirmanagerdecidesspecifictasks.Beingemployedwherethemanagerdecidesspecifictaskswasalsonotsignificantlyrelatedtoexperiencingatleasttwoitemsdaily.OverallTable4.1.6showsthatnegativecircumstancesintheworkplacewassignificantlyrelatedtohigherexperienceofilltreatment.AmorenuancedanalysisagainstthethreefactorsofilltreatmentispresentedinFigure4.1.3.ThefigurepresentsallFAREitemsorientedasnegativestatementsandshowsthedifferenceinpercentagepointsfromoverallpercentagesofthoseexperiencingeachill-treatmentfactor.Forexampletheoverallpercentageexperiencingunreasonablemanagementwas36.7%,incivilityordisrespect31.3%andviolence

orinjury2.6%.However,amongthoseworkinginanorganisationwhereindividualsdonotdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork,experienceofthesebehavioursincreasedby22.4,29.6and4.9percentagepointsrespectively.Table4.1.6:PercentageofThoseWhoExperiencedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems

Overall

Violenceorinjury

Atleastoneitem

Atleast2items

weekly%

Atleast2itemsdaily%

Total 36.68 31.27 2.55 43.06 8.96 1.98

WhereIwork:

Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 16.10 69.47 57.39 3.52 75.00 22.18 4.58

No 83.90 30.34 26.23 2.30 36.92 6.42 1.49

p <0.001 <0.001 0.226 <0.001 <0.001 0.001

Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 8.84 69.03 66.67 5.13 72.26 26.92 5.77

No 91.16 33.52 27.86 2.30 40.24 7.21 1.62

p <0.001 <0.001 0.032 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 92.12 32.98 28.04 2.28 39.73 7.02 1.41

No 7.88 79.71 69.06 5.76 82.01 31.65 8.70

p <0.001 <0.001 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 92.63 34.52 29.36 2.33 40.92 7.65 1.71

No 7.37 63.57 55.81 5.38 70.00 25.58 5.43

p <0.001 <0.001 0.033 <0.001 <0.001 0.004

MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIdo 20.69 52.88 40.82 2.19 59.73 13.15 1.92

No 79.31 32.45 28.81 2.64 38.74 7.86 2.00

p <0.001 <0.001 0.625 <0.001 0.002 0.919

IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 94.73 35.43 29.62 2.27 41.69 8.32 1.62

No 5.27 59.14 60.87 7.53 67.74 20.43 8.60

p <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Ihavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 7.43 67.69 50.00 4.62 70.99 27.69 7.63

No 92.57 34.17 29.76 2.33 40.78 7.47 1.53

p <0.001 <0.001 0.107 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 13.10 59.13 50.22 6.52 63.64 28.14 7.36No 86.90 33.27 28.42 1.89 39.92 6.07 1.17p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thenatureofmyworkchangedoverthepastyear 21.60 50.13 38.85 4.20 54.21 14.44 3.94No 78.40 32.97 29.21 2.10 39.99 7.45 1.45p <0.001 <0.001 0.020 0.020 <0.001 <0.001

Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedyear 23.53 46.27 39.28 6.99 51.69 16.39 4.58No 76.47 33.73 28.84 1.11 40.40 6.74 1.19p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Figure4.1.3:DifferenceinPercentagePointsfromOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentFactorbyFAREItems(NegativelyOriented)Inadditiontotheworkplacecharacteristic(FARE)items,riskfactorsforwork-relatedstresseswereexploredandforthisrespondentscompleted31itemsfromtheHSEWorkPositivequestionnaire.ThesixfactorsderivedfromitemsintheWorkPositivequestionnairearedemands,control,support,relationships,roleandchange.Forthispopulation-basedsurveythesefactorswerecalculatedacrossitemsforeachindividual.PercentagesexperiencingthefactorsarepresentedinTable4.1.7.Relationshipsbetweenthesixworkpositivefactorsandthethreeill-treatmentfactors(unreasonablemanagement,incivilityandviolence)weretested.FromtheseFigure4.1.4presents,foreachworkpositivefactor(negativelyoriented,experiencedoftentoalways),thepercentagepointsaboveandbelowtheoverallpercentagesofthoseexperiencingill-treatmentfactorsunreasonablemanagement,incivilityandviolence.Percentagepointdifferenceswerecalculatedfromtheaveragedifferenceforeachiteminthesixfactors(withtheexceptionofrelationship,forwhichonlyoneitemwasreported).TheFigureshowsthatinhighdemandlowsupportenvironmentsandparticularlywheretherearepoorrelationshipsbetweencolleaguestherewerehighpercentagepointdifferencesfromoveralllevelsforallthreeill-treatmentfactors.

-5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyear

Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense

InowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanIdidayearago

IdonotdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork

MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldofromdaytoday

IdonotdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork

Peoplearenottreatedasindividuals

Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples

Theneedsoftheorganisaponalwayscomefirst

Table4.1.7:PercentagesforEachWorkPositiveItem

Demand Never%

Seldom–Sometimes

Often–Always

%Differentgroupsatworkdemandthingsfrommethatarehardtocombine 42.35 48.29 9.36

Ihaveunachievabledeadlines 42.81 45.56 11.63

Ihavetoworkveryintensively 12.31 48.09 39.60

IhavetoneglectsometasksbecauseIhavetoomuchtodo 33.88 53.65 12.47

Iamunabletotakesufficientbreaks 45.74 45.56 8.69

Iampressuredtoworklonghours 42.92 43.10 13.98

Ihavetoworkveryfast 17.09 49.95 32.96

Ihaveunrealistictimepressures 35.90 51.80 12.31

Control Icandecidewhentotakeabreak 12.90 32.26 54.85

IhaveachoiceindecidinghowIdomywork 13.14 35.02 51.84

IhaveachoiceindecidingwhatIdoatwork 19.19 44.38 36.43

IhavesomesayoverthewayIwork 6.09 35.24 58.66

Myworkingtimecanbeflexible 22.20 45.69 32.11

Managersupport IamgivensupportivefeedbackontheworkIdo 6.02 36.96 57.02

Icanrelyonmylinemanagertohelpmeoutwithaworkproblem 6.95 30.51 62.54

Icantalktomylinemanageraboutsomethingthathasupsetorannoyedmeatwork 5.42 26.67 67.91

Peersupport Ifworkgetsdifficult,mycolleagueswillhelpme 4.61 27.58 67.82

IgetthehelpandsupportIneedfromcolleagues 2.90 28.04 69.06

IreceivetherespectatworkIdeservefrommycolleagues 1.95 18.58 79.47

Mycolleaguesarewillingtolistentomywork-relatedproblems 3.41 30.62 65.97

Relationships

Thereisfrictionorangerbetweencolleagues 49.31 43.89 6.80

Role Iamclearwhatisexpectedofmeatwork 1.68 7.99 90.33

Iknowhowtogoaboutgettingmyjobdone 1.94 8.00 90.07

Iamclearwhatmydutiesandresponsibilitiesare 1.19 9.90 88.91

Iamclearaboutthegoalsandobjectivesformydepartment 2.51 13.22 84.27

Iunderstandhowmyworkfitsintotheoverallaimoftheorganisation 1.77 14.00 84.23

Change Ihavesufficientopportunitiestoquestionmanagersaboutchangeatwork 8.83 39.87 51.30

Staffarealwaysconsultedaboutchangeatwork 7.85 36.47 55.68

Figure4.1.4:PercentagePointsDifferenceComparedtoOverallPercentagesforThoseExperiencingEachIll-TreatmentfactorbyWorkPositiveFactors(NegativelyOriented)

4.1.6PredictorsforExperiencingIllTreatmentHavinglookedatrelationshipsbetweenvariousdemographicandworkplacecharacteristicsthissectionexploreswhichofthesearemostlikelytobeassociatedwiththeexperienceofilltreatment.Fortheoutcomesofmultivariatelogisticregressionmodels,eachill-treatmentfactor(violence,unreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect)ispresentedshowinghowmuchmorelikelysomecharacteristicsareassociatedwithilltreatmentthanothers.DemographicandworkplacerelatedcharacteristicsthatwereincludedinthesemodelsareshowninTables4.1.8and4.1.9withestimatesofhowmuchmoreorlesslikelyabehaviouristobeexperiencedforeach(oddratiosand95%confidenceintervals).Enteringarangeofdemographicandworkplacecharacteristicsinasinglemodelcanprovideapictureofwhichhasmoreorlessinfluenceinitsassociationwitheachoftheill-treatmentfactors.Suchmodelscanshowwhethertheinclusionmodifiesoutcomescomparedtowhenthesecharacteristicsareanalysedaloneagainsttheill-treatmentfactors.ForthispurposethefirstsetofmodelswithoutcomespresentedinTable4.1.8includetheFAREitemsaspredictorsofilltreatmentandthesecondsetofmodelswithoutcomespresentedinTable4.1.9includetheWorkPositiveitems.Thetablesreportoddsratios(theseareExp(B)valuesderivedfromlogisticregressionmodels)andtheir95%confidenceintervals.Anodds-ratio(OR)of2.0meansthedemographicorworkplacecharacteristicincreasesexperienceofthebehaviourbyafactorof2,ormakesittwiceaslikely(markedinpinkintable).AnORof0.5meansthecharacteristicdecreasesthebehaviourby50%,ormakesitlesslikely(markedingreenintable).Forcharacteristicsenteredascovariates(i.e.Income),iftheORisabove1,asthischaracteristicincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringincreases;iftheORisbelow1,asthischaracteristicincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringdecreases.ForanORbelow1,todeterminehowmuchmorelikelythebehaviourisinthereferencegroup,usetheformula:1/OR.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Highdemand

Lowcontrol

Lowmanagersupport

Lowpeersupport

Lowroleclarity

Lowcontrolofchange

Poorrelaponship

4.1.6.1ModelsincludingFAREItemsExperiencingatleastoneitem

Employeesweresignificantlymorelikelytoexperienceatleastoneitemofthe21illtreatmentitemsiftheylivedoutsideofDublin(Leinster2.3x,Munster3x,ConnaughtorUlster2.9x),workedinthevoluntarysector(3.6x),wheretherewasahigherpercentageofblackorotherethnicemployees(1.1x)wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(3.2x),principleshavetobecompromised(2.7x),everydaytasksaredecidedbymanagement(1.8x),thepaceofworkhasbecometoointense(2.5x)andthenatureofworkhaschangedoverthepastyear(1.5x).Experienceofatleastoneilltreatmentwassignificantlyreducedwheretherearehigherpercentagesoffemalesandyoungpeopleemployed(-8%and-16%foreachincreaserespectively)andwhereorganisationstreatemployeesasindividuals(-68%).Experiencingviolenceorinjury

ExperiencingviolenceorinjuryintheworkplacewassignificantlymorelikelyforthoseofAsianethnicity(8x),livinginConnaughtorUlster(4x),workinginthepublicsector(6x),wherethepaceofworkhasincreasedinthepastyear(3x)andthepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear(9x).Beingagedbetween45-54years(-90%),workinginanorganisationwithahigherpercentageofyoungpeople(-45%foreach25%increase)andwhereindividualsareabletodecidethestandardsbywhichtheywork(-83%)significantlydecreasedthelikelihoodofexperiencingviolence.Experiencingunreasonablemanagement

ExperienceofunreasonablemanagementwasmorelikelyforthoselivingoutsideofDublin,workinginthevoluntarysector,inanorganisationwith10-49employeeswheretheneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirstandprincipleshavetobecompromised,managementdecidesdaytodaytasks,thepaceofworkhasbecometoointenseandthenatureofworkhaschangedoverthepastyear.Experienceofunreasonablemanagementwassignificantlyreducedwithincreasesinthepercentageoffemalesandyoungpeopleemployed(-10%and-16%foreachincreaserespectively),whereemployeesaretreatedasindividuals(-68%)andareabletodecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork(-52%).Experiencingincivilityordisrespect

IncivilityanddisrespectwasmorelikelyforthosewholiveoutsideofDublin,inorganisationswheretheneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst,principleshavetobecompromised,managementdecidesdaytodaytasksandthepaceofworkhasbecometoointense.Experienceofincivilityanddisrespectweresignificantlyreducedamongemployeesagedbetween45-54years(-56%),workinginanorganisationwithahigherpercentageofyoungpeople(-16%foreach25%increase),whereemployeesaretreatedasindividuals(-71%)andareabletodecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork(-62%).

Table4.1.8:FAREItemsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors

Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement

Incivilityordisrespect Violence Atleast1ofthe

21items

Female(Male) 1.1(0.8-1.5) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.5(0.5-4.6) 1.2(0.9-1.6)

Age(18-24)

25-34 1.5(0.8-2.8) 0.8(0.4-1.4) 1.0(0.1-16.4) 1.2(0.6-2.1)

35-44 0.8(0.4-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 1.9(0.1-29.9) 0.7(0.4-1.3)

45-54 0.9(0.5-1.7) 0.4(0.2-0.8) 0.1(0.0-2.8) 0.7(0.4-1.3)

55+ 1.0(0.5-2.0) 0.6(0.3-1.1) 0.1(0.0-4.4) 0.9(0.5-1.7)

Ethnicity(White)

Asian 0.9(0.4-1.9) 1.2(0.5-2.6) 7.8(1.6-38.8) 0.9(0.4-2.0)

Black,mixed&other 1.3(0.6-2.5) 1.5(0.7-2.9) 2.3(0.1-46.1) 1.1(0.6-2.2)

Higherqualification(Secondaryandbelow) 1.4(1.0-1.9) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 0.7(0.2-2.5) 1.4(1.0-1.9)

Disability(None) 0.8(0.4-1.9) 1.1(0.5-2.5) 2.2(0.2-23.0) 0.9(0.4-2.0)

Income(increasingincome) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 0.9(0.8-1.1) 0.8(0.5-1.2) 1.0(0.9-1.1)

Region(Dublin)

Leinster(excludingDublin) 2.2(1.4-3.3) 1.8(1.2-2.8) 0.8(0.2-3.1) 2.3(1.6-3.5)

Munster 2.7(1.8-4.0) 1.5(1.0-2.3) 0.6(0.1-2.6) 3.0(2.0-4.4)

ConnaughtorUlster 2.6(1.6-4.0) 2.4(1.5-3.7) 3.9(1.2-13.4) 2.9(1.9-4.5)

Managerialposition 1.3(0.9-1.7) 1.2(0.9-1.7) 0.5(0.2-1.9) 1.4(1.0-1.9)

Permanentposition 0.7(0.5-1.1) 0.9(0.6-1.4) 1.6(0.3-7.0) 0.8(0.6-1.2)

Tradeunionoperatesintheorganisation 0.9(0.6-1.3) 0.9(0.6-1.4) 1.2(0.3-5.1) 0.9(0.6-1.3)

Typeofsector(Private)

Public 1.3(0.9-1.9) 1.2(0.8-1.8) 5.7(1.4-22.4) 1.3(0.9-1.8)

Voluntaryorother 3.0(1.3-6.9) 1.2(0.5-2.7) 1.1(0.0-26.0) 3.6(1.5-8.7)

Workplacesize(lessthan10)

10to49 1.6(1.1-2.2) 1.4(1.0-2.0) 2.6(0.5-13.8) 1.5(1.1-2.2)

50to249 1.2(0.8-1.9) 1.1(0.7-1.7) 4.1(0.7-23.8) 1.1(0.7-1.6)

250ormore 1.3(0.8-2.2) 1.2(0.7-2.0) 4.6(0.6-34.7) 1.2(0.7-2.0)

Workplacecomposition–ethnicity(increasing%ethnic) 1.1(1.0-1.2) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(0.7-1.4) 1.1(1.0-1.2)

Workplacecomposition–gender(increasing%female) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(0.7-1.4) 0.9(0.9-1.0)

Workplacecomposition–age(increasing%younger) 0.8(0.8-0.9) 0.8(0.8-0.9) 0.6(0.4-0.9) 0.8(0.8-0.9)

FAREitems

Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 3.5(2.4-5.1) 2.0(1.4-2.9) 0.3(0.1-1.3) 3.2(2.1-4.7)

Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 2.7(1.6-4.6) 4.3(2.6-7.0) 6.5(1.7-25.2) 2.7(1.6-4.7)

Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 0.3(0.2-0.6) 0.3(0.2-0.5) 1.0(0.2-4.5) 0.3(0.2-0.6)

IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 0.9(0.5-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.2) 0.7(0.2-2.5) 0.7(0.4-1.2)

MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldo 1.8(1.3-2.5) 1.1(0.8-1.6) 0.5(0.2-1.8) 1.8(1.3-2.5)

IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 0.5(0.3-0.9) 0.4(0.2-0.7) 0.2(0.01-0.7) 0.5(0.3-1.0)

Inowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 1.7(1.0-3.0) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 0.3(0.0-1.8) 1.5(0.8-2.6)

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 2.5(1.6-3.8) 1.9(1.3-3.0) 2.9(0.9-9.8) 2.5(1.6-3.9)

Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 1.5(1.1-2.2) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 0.5(0.1-1.6) 1.5(1.0-2.1)

Thepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear 1.1(0.8-1.5) 1.2(0.8-1.7) 9.2(2.9-28.9) 1.1(0.8-1.6)

Numberofcasesinthemodel=1241

NagelkerkeRSquare 0.320 0.262 0.397 0.304

HosmerandLemeshowTest(pvalue) 0.118 0.438 0.001 0.104

Overallpercentagepredictedbythemodel 74.7 73.9 97.8 72.7Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1

Thetablereportsoddsratios(theseareExp(B)valuesderivedfromlogisticregressionmodels)andtheir95%confidenceintervals.

4.1.6.2ModelsincludingWorkPositiveItemsForthe31HSAWorkPositiveitemsincludedinthesurveyquestionnaire,factorlevelscores(Demand,Control,ManagerSupport,Peersupport,RoleandChange)werecalculatedasaveragedscoresacrossindividualcaseswithapossiblerangeof1-5andentrytothelogisticregressionmodelascovariates.Table4.1.9:WorkPositiveFactorsOddsRatios(95%CI)forExperiencingIll-TreatmentFactors

Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement Incivility Violence Atleast1of

the21items

Female(Male) 0.9(0.6-1.2) 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.1(0.3-3.4) 1.0(0.7-1.4)

Age(18-24)

25-34 1.1(0.6-2.1) 0.7(0.4-1.2) 1.1(0.1-11.4) 0.9(0.5-1.6)

35-44 0.8(0.4-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.4) 1.7(0.2-18.3) 0.7(0.4-1.3)

45-54 0.8(0.4-1.6) 0.5(0.2-0.9) 0.1(0.0-2.1) 0.7(0.4-1.4)

55+ 1.0(0.5-2.0) 0.5(0.3-1.1) 0.3(0.0-4.7) 0.8(0.4-1.6)

Ethnicity(White)

Asian 0.7(0.3-1.5) 1.1(0.5-2.4) 3.1(0.5-17.3) 0.7(0.3-1.5)

Disability(None) 0.9(0.4-2.0) 1.1(0.5-2.7) 2.0(0.2-23.1) 0.9(0.4-2.2)

Income 1.0(0.9-1.1) 0.9(0.8-1.0) 1.0(0.7-1.4) 0.9(0.8-1.1)

Region(Dublin)

Munster 3.4(2.3-5.2) 1.6(1.1-2.5) 0.8(0.2-3.1) 3.9(2.6-5.8)

Managerialrole 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.2(0.9-1.8) 0.4(0.1-1.3) 1.4(1.0-1.9)

TradeUnionintheorganisation 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.0(0.7-1.5) 1.9(0.4-7.7) 1.0(0.7-1.5)

Publicsector(Private,voluntaryorother) 1.0(0.6-1.4) 1.2(0.8-1.8) 4.7(1.3-17.0) 1.0(0.7-1.5)

10to49 1.7(1.2-2.5) 1.4(0.9-2.0) 1.4(0.3-7.1) 1.6(1.1-2.3)

50to249 1.3(0.8-2.0) 1.0(0.6-1.6) 1.9(0.3-10.7) 1.0(0.7-1.6)

250ormore 1.3(0.7-2.2) 1.0(0.6-1.8) 1.8(0.3-12.3) 1.0(0.6-1.8)

WorkPositivefactors

Demand(scale:1=low5=high) 2.2(1.8-2.7) 1.4(1.1-1.7) 1.8(1.0-3.4) 2.1(1.7-2.6)

Control(scale:1=high5=low) 1.0(0.8-1.2) 1.0(0.8-1.2) 0.9(0.5-1.7) 1.0(0.8-1.2)

Managersupport(scale1=high5=low) 0.8(0.7-1.0) 0.8(0.6-1.0) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 0.9(0.7-1.1)

PeerSupport(scale:1=high5=low) 1.0(0.8-1.3) 0.9(0.7-1.1) 1.7(0.9-3.1) 1.0(0.8-1.3)

Clarityonrole(scale:1=high5=low) 1.1(0.9-1.4) 1.4(1.1-1.8) 1.0(0.5-2.1) 1.1(0.9-1.4)

Changesupports(scale:1=high5=low) 0.6(0.5-0.7) 0.7(0.6-0.9) 0.6(0.3-1.1) 0.6(0.5-0.7)

Thereisfrictionorangerbetweencolleagues(1=none5=high) 1.4(1.2-1.6) 1.7(1.4-1.9) 1.3(0.8-2.1) 1.4(1.2-1.7)Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1

Demand(8items)wasenteredwithvaluesrunningfrom1=lowdemand,to5=highdemand.Frictionorangerbetweencolleaguesremainedasthesingleitemandwasenteredwithvaluesrunningfrom1=none,to5=high.Control(5items),Managerssupport(3items),Peersupport(4items),Clarityofrole(5items)andChangesupports(2items)wereenteredwithvaluesenteredfrom1=high,to5=low.

NoneoftheWorkPositivefactorssignificantlyincreasedordecreasedthelikelihoodofphysicalviolence.Thoseworkinginhighdemandsettingsweremorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagement(2.2x)andincivility(1.4x)oratleastoneitemofilltreatment(2.1x).Thosereportinggoodmanagerialsupportwerelesslikelytoexperienceincivility(-22%).Employeeswhoreportedgoodchangesupportswerelesslikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagement(-39%),incivility(-28%)oratleast1itemofilltreatment(-37%).AnotherwayofconsideringtherelationshipbetweenWorkPositivefactorsandilltreatmentistocalculatemeansofthefactorscoresforeachindividualwhenplottedagainstthetotalnumberofitemsofilltreatmentexperienced.Figures4.1.5–4.1.8presentestimatedmarginal(EM)meansforWorkPositivefactorsbytotalnumberofitemsthatindividualsexperiencedoutofthe21illtreatmentitems.TheEMmeanswereadjustedbygender,age,ethnicity,education,anddisabilityandderivedfromANOVAmodels.Inthegraphspresented,thefinalnumberofitemsexperienced(16)represents16-21items.ThefiguresshowthatallWorkPositivefactorsshowedstrongrelationshipswithnumberofilltreatmentitemsexperienced(R2valuesareallabove0.6).Highdemandworkplacesandpoorrelationshipenvironmentswereassociatedwithahighermeannumberofilltreatmentitemsexperienced.Workplaceenvironmentswhereemployeeshadhighercontroloftheirworkprocesses,highermanagerandpeersupport,wereassociatedwithalowermeannumberofitemsexperienced.

Figure4.1.5:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforDemandbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items

2.52.7

2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.92.9

3.2 3.3

3.33.6

y=0.0732x+2.4461R²=0.84979

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Margina

lMean1=low5=highde

Numberofitemsexperienced

Demand 95%CILower 95%CIUpper Linear(Demand)

Figure4.1.6:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CisforControlbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items

Figure4.1.7:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforManagerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperienced

3.23.0

2.8 2.7

3.02.9

2.6 2.5 2.52.4

2.7 2.7

y=-0.0621x+3.0682R²=0.8377

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Margina

lMean1=high5=low

ControlEMmeans 95%CILower95%CIUpper Linear(ControlEMmeans)

3.93.8

3.43.3

3.3 3.43.2 3.2

2.6 2.6

2.72.5

2.2 2.2

y=-0.1x+3.7718R²=0.91025

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Margina

lMean1=high5=lowsu

95%CIUpper 95%CILowerManagersupportEMmeans Linear(ManagersupportEMmeans)

Figure4.1.8:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforPeerSupportbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items

Figure4.1.9:EstimatedMarginalMeansand95%CIsforRelationshipsbyNumberofIllTreatmentItemsExperiencedThefinalnumberofitemsexperiencedonthex-axisofthegraph(16)represents16-21items

3.93.8

3.53.4

2.8 2.8

y=-0.0878x+3.8675R²=0.67154

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Margina

lMean1=high5=lowsu

95%CILower 95%CILowerPeersupportEMmeans Linear(PeersupportEMmeans)

1.71.8

2.9 3.03.0 3.0 3.0

3.2 3.3

y=0.1075x+1.9271R²=0.91467

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

margina

lMean1=good

rrelap

onships

UpperBound RelaponshipsEMMeansLowerBound Linear(RelaponshipsEMMeans)

4.2WitnessingIllTreatmentintheWorkplace

Inadditiontoaskingrespondentsabouttheirdirectexperienceofnegativebehaviours,thesame21-itemchecklistwasusedtomeasurethewitnessingofilltreatmenttowardsotherpeopleintheworkplace.Overall,48%ofrespondentswitnessedatleastonenegativeact,42%ofrespondentswitnessedunreasonablemanagement,38.1%witnessedincivilityordisrespectand4.9%witnessedphysicalviolence(Figure4.2.1).

Figure4.2.1:PercentageswithinEachFactorofIllTreatmentWitnessed

Violence5.0%n=88

32.4%n=572

All:4.2%4.3%

4.2.1IllTreatmentWitnessedintheWorkplacePercentageresponsestoindividualitemsarepresentedinTable4.2.1.Femalerespondentsweremorelikelytoreportwitnessing20ofthe21items(Table4.2.1).Thesedifferencesweresignificant(p<0.05)foreightoftheitems:beinggivenunmanageableworkloadsorimpossibledeadlines(1.3x),employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothers(1.5x),witnessingpeoplebeingtreateddisrespectfully(1.3x),beingexcluded(1.4x),beinggivenhintstoquittheirjob(1.5x),beingcriticisedunfairly(1.5x),beingintimidated(1.4x)orwitnessingbeingpeoplebeinginjuredasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork(1.9x).Table4.2.1:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentItemswithinEachGender

Illtreatmentitemwitnessed Female%

Total% Chi p OR

Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 15.7 13.7 14.7 1.369 0.242 1.2(0.9-1.5)

Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 17.6 17.5 17.6 0.005 0.946 1.0(0.8-1.3)

Havingopinionsandviewsignored 30.6 28.0 29.3 1.395 0.238 1.1(0.9-1.4)

Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 21.4 18.9 20.2 1.753 0.185 1.2(0.9-1.5)

Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 10.1 8.5 9.3 1.401 0.237 1.2(0.9-1.7)

Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 26.8 22.3 24.6 4.868 0.027 1.3(1.0-1.6)

Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 19.5 17.2 18.3 1.485 0.223 1.2(0.9-1.5)

Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 24.6 18.1 21.4 10.82 0.001 1.5(1.2-1.9)

Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 13.7 10.7 12.3 3.524 0.060 1.3(1.0-1.8)

Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 18.9 16.7 17.9 1.317 0.251 1.2(0.9-1.5)

Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 19.2 17.3 18.3 1.018 0.313 1.1(0.9-1.4)

Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 24.3 19.4 21.9 6.042 0.014 1.3(1.1-1.7)

Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 20.1 15.3 17.7 6.705 0.010 1.4(1.1-1.8)

Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 10.0 6.9 8.5 5.239 0.022 1.5(1.1-2.1)

Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 15.5 10.8 13.2 8.206 0.004 1.5(1.0.1-2)

Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 22.6 19.3 20.9 2.968 0.085 1.2(1.0-1.5)

Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 16.4 12.6 14.5 5.169 0.023 1.4(1.0-1.8)

Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 11.9 9.1 10.5 3.604 0.058 1.3(1.0-1.8)

Violenceorinjury

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 5.1 3.6 4.3 2.219 0.136 1.4(0.9-2.3)

Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 4.3 2.3 3.3 5.26 0.022 1.9(1.1-3.3)

*OR=Howmanytimesmorelikelyfemalesreportedwitnessingthebehaviourthanmales;p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.

4.2.2RelationshipsbetweenWitnessingofIll-TreatmentFactorsandDemographicFactorsPercentagesforwitnessingofill-treatmentfactorsbyrespondentdemographics(gender,ethnicity,age,education,placeofresidenceanddisability)arepresentedinTable4.2.2below.Attheleveloffactorsofilltreatment,noneshowedasignificantrelationshipwithgender.Forage,allill-treatmentfactorsshowedasignificantrelationshipwithahigherpercentageofthosebetween25-44yearswitnessingill

treatment.Ethnicityalsoshowedsignificantrelationshipstoallfactors,withAsianrespondentswitnessingsignificantlymoreilltreatmentintheformofunreasonablemanagementandincivility,andthoseofmixedorblackethnicityexperiencinggreaterlevelsofviolenceorinjury.Thosewhoattendedthirdleveleducationweremorelikelytowitnesseachtypeofunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjury.WorkersinMunsterwitnessedsignificantlymoreunreasonablemanagement.InMunsterahigherpercentageofIncivilitywaswitnessedandinConnacht/Ulsterworkerswitnessedmorephysicalviolence,howeverthesedifferenceswerenotstatisticallysignificant.Morepeoplewithdisabilitiesreportedwitnessingeachofthethreefactorsofilltreatment;however,thiswasnotasignificantdifference.Violencewaswitnessedbyasignificantlyhigherpercentageofthoseinthehigherincomegroup.Table4.2.2:PercentageWhoWitnessedIll-TreatmentFactorsamongDemographicGroups

Unreasonablemanagement%

Incivilityordisrespect%

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item

Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96

GenderFemale 44.07 38.81 5.82 49.16

Male 39.89 37.47 4.13 46.78

p 0.075 0.562 0.103 0.318

Agegroup

18-24 31.86 33.63 2.65 38.05

25-34 47.78 43.15 6.85 53.83

35-44 44.12 38.73 6.17 48.94

45-54 38.38 33.67 3.28 45.32

55+ 36.25 35.68 2.90 42.74

p 0.001 0.036 0.027 0.004

Ethnicity

White 40.59 36.88 4.47 46.76

Asian 55.17 51.16 5.75 60.47

Mixed,black&allothers 55.06 47.73 13.48 57.30

p 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.009

Education

PrimaryandSecondary 38.04 35.66 2.97 45.17

Undergraduateorhigher 44.66 39.72 6.18 49.91

p 0.006 0.088 0.003 0.053

Disability

No 41.89 37.82 4.86 47.95

Yes 46.43 46.43 8.93 48.21

p 0.498 0.192 0.169 0.969

Income

Under€10,000 37.14 36.19 6.67 41.35

€10,000-€19,000 43.33 35.42 2.08 46.67

€20,000-€29,000 40.49 41.03 3.80 47.55

€30,000-€39,000 46.59 43.73 6.81 54.48

€40,000-€49,000 45.73 40.49 4.27 51.22

€50,000ormore 45.59 46.72 10.22 54.74

p 0.450 0.236 0.008 0.128

Region

Dublin 44.68 36.70 3.90 48.67

Leinster(excludingDublin) 34.17 35.85 4.49 43.14

Munster 45.77 42.73 5.70 50.55

Connaught&Ulster 39.80 35.12 6.33 47.83

p 0.002 0.063 0.346 0.179

4.2.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandWitnessingofIllTreatmentOrganisationalcharacteristicsincludedsector,size,type(public/private)andpresenceoftradeunion(s)intheworkplace.Table4.2.3showsthereweresignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)higherpercentagesofwitnessedilltreatmentinthevoluntarysector,althoughsignificantlymorepeopleworkinginthepublicsectorreportedwitnessingviolence(10.9%).Therewerealsosignificantrelationshipsbetweensectorandbothviolenceandunreasonablemanagement,withthehighestpercentagesofbothill-treatmentfactorswitnessedinthehealthandsocialservicessector(violence12.3%andunreasonablemanagement51.5%).Significantlyhigherpercentagesreportedwitnessingunreasonablemanagementandincivilityinorganisationsemployingbetween50-249peopleandmoreviolencewaswitnessedinorganisationswithastafflargerthan250.Witnessallformsofilltreatmentwasmorelikelyinorganisationswithtradeunions.Table4.2.3:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionorStaffAssociation

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96

Typeoforganisation

Private 40.27 36.20 2.61 45.79

Public 46.52 41.87 10.91 52.49

Voluntaryorother 42.11 42.11 5.26 52.63

p 0.059 0.073 <0.001 0.032

Sector

Agriculture 25.81 40.00 10.00 43.33

Industry 34.15 39.22 3.41 42.44

Construction 43.75 36.84 1.04 50.53

Wholesale,Retail,Food&Accommodation(WRFA) 40.06 34.39 1.45 45.24

Transport 41.44 31.53 2.73 43.24

Financialservices 44.65 41.25 3.13 48.75

Publicadmin.&Defence(PAD) 46.76 43.57 8.57 54.29

Education 41.18 38.24 5.88 47.26

Health&Socialservices 51.49 44.03 12.31 58.21

Otherservices 36.36 31.52 3.64 40.61

p 0.006 0.132 <0.001 0.008

Sizeoforganisation

<10 30.60 25.86 1.72 34.99

10-49 47.44 42.86 5.87 53.31

50-249 47.61 43.09 5.85 54.52

>250 41.56 41.99 6.49 48.92

p <0.001 <0.001 0.004 <0.001

PresenceofTradeunionorstaffassociation

Yes 46.03 43.94 9.02 52.48

No 40.15 34.52 2.53 45.50

p 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 0.005

Table4.2.4showsthereweresignificantrelationshipsforviolencewheretherewerefewpeoplefromethnicminoritiesemployed.However,forunreasonablemanagementandincivility,significantlyhigherpercentageswerereportedwheremorethanhalftheworkforce(butnotthreequarters)wascomprisedofethnicminorities.Higherpercentagesofwitnessedilltreatmentwerereportedforallthreeindicatorswherenearlyallemployeeswerefemaleandnearlyallwereyoungpeople.,althoughfewyoungpeople(i.e.under25)intheworkforcewasariskfactorforunreasonablemanagementandincivility,morethanhalfoftheworkforcebeingyoungwasariskfactorforviolenceandinjury.Table4.2.4:WitnessedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96

None(0%) 34.36 30.51 2.69 39.10

Afew(5-10%) 48.97 47.68 6.69 56.95

Aboutaquarter(about25%) 45.95 39.19 5.41 52.04

Abouthalf(about50%) 54.55 46.75 3.90 57.14

Morethanhalf(about60%) 90.00 50.00 0.00 90.48

Aboutthree-quarters(about75%) 37.50 28.57 0.00 37.50

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 25.00 25.00 0.00 25.00

All(100%) 33.33 16.67 0.00 33.33

p <0.001 <0.001 0.036 <0.001

None(0%) 35.32 33.66 0.00 41.09

Afew(5-10%) 38.80 36.80 4.82 46.59

Abouthalf(about50%) 41.65 34.79 4.90 46.39

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 52.15 52.15 9.20 61.96

All(100%) 26.89 18.49 0.00 26.89

p <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

None(0%) 33.70 29.71 3.99 39.49

Afew(5-10%) 47.42 43.34 5.15 53.46

Abouthalf(about50%) 38.10 37.73 5.86 45.05

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 39.13 36.36 0.00 56.52

All(100%) 20.00 9.09 0.00 20.00

p 0.005 0.007 0.558 0.004

4.2.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandWitnessofIllTreatmentTable4.2.5presentspercentagesthatwitnessedilltreatmentbyoccupationalgroup,managerialorsupervisorydutiesandjobpermanence.Thosehavingmanagerialdutiesreportedhigherlevelsofallill-treatmentfactorsandtheseweresignificantforunreasonablemanagementandincivility(Table4.2.5).Significantlyhigherpercentagesofthoseinpersonalservicesandthosewithpermanentjobsreportedwitnessingviolence.Table4.2.5:PercentageWhoWitnessedIllTreatmentbyOccupationGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJobPermanence

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96

Occupationalgroup

Managersandseniorofficials 51.45 41.30 5.84 54.35

Professionaloccupations 43.47 37.68 8.22 49.58

Associateprofessionalandtechnical 45.37 45.13 5.31 51.54

Administrativeandsecretarial 36.41 33.33 1.38 43.06

Skilledtrade 42.08 37.16 2.73 48.09

Personalservice 40.27 35.14 9.46 46.62

Salesandcustomerservice 43.11 39.29 2.38 48.81

Processplantandmachine 35.43 41.73 6.30 45.67

Elementary 39.90 33.99 1.97 43.84

P 0.147 0.243 0.001 0.466

Yes 47.28 42.05 5.43 51.91

No 40.02 36.44 4.86 46.34

P 0.005 0.029 0.619 0.035

Jobpermanence

Yes 40.96 37.83 5.63 46.87

No 44.85 37.54 2.33 50.83

P 0.213 0.925 0.017 0.211

4.2.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandWitnessofIllTreatmentTable4.2.6presentspercentagesthatwitnessedilltreatmentbyFAREitems.AllrelationshipsbetweenFAREitemsandill-treatmentfactorsweresignificant(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)withtheexceptionofwitnessingviolenceandbelievingone’smanagerdecidesspecifictasksandthatoneisabletodecidetheirownqualitystandards.FAREitemsthatindicateamorenegativeworkplaceenvironment(theneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst,havingtocompromiseprinciplesandhavinglesscontroloverwork)weresignificantly(p<0.05,Pearson’schisquare)associatedwithhigherpercentageswitnessingallthreeill-treatmentfactors.ConverselyFAREitemsthatindicateamorepositiveworkplaceenvironmentweresignificantlyassociatedwithlowerpercentagesofemployeeswitnessingilltreatment(peoplearetreatedasindividuals,IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIworkandIdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork).

Table4.2.6:PercentageswhowitnessedilltreatmentbyFAREitems

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 42.01 38.10 5.04 47.96

WhereIwork:

Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 74.30 68.66 8.80 75.70

No 35.88 32.30 4.26 42.64

P <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 75.64 76.28 9.62 78.85

No 38.74 34.39 4.54 44.96

p <0.001 <0.001 0.005 <0.001

Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 38.77 35.02 4.68 45.05

No 79.86 74.82 8.63 82.01

p <0.001 <0.001 0.040 <0.001

IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 40.02 36.51 4.65 46.14

No 67.44 58.46 9.30 70.77

p <0.001 <0.001 0.019 <0.000

MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIdo 59.45 57.26 3.84 65.75

No 37.53 33.17 5.29 43.32

p <0.001 <0.001 0.256 <0.001

IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 40.45 36.51 4.84 46.32

No 69.89 67.74 7.61 77.42

p <0.001 <0.001 0.236 <0.001

Ihavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 73.28 69.23 10.69 79.39

No 39.53 35.64 4.59 45.44

p <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 69.57 59.57 9.96 73.91

No 37.90 34.90 4.24 44.07

p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 60.89 55.91 8.66 67.19

No 36.80 33.19 3.98 42.66

p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyear 56.63 52.77 10.84 63.13

No 37.58 33.58 3.19 43.29

p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

4.2.6PredictorsofWitnessingIllTreatmentThissectionpresentsoutcomesofmultivariatemodels(Logisticregression)foreachill-treatmentfactor(violence,unreasonablemanagementandincivilityanddisrespect),presentinghowmuchmorelikelysomecharacteristicsareassociatedwithwitnessingilltreatmentthanothers.DemographicandworkplacerelatedcharacteristicsincludedasindependentvariablesinthesemodelsareshowninTable4.2.7andincludetheFAREitems.Presentedestimatesderivedfromthemodels(ORand95%confidenceintervals)showforeachofthesedemographicandworkplacecharacteristics,howmuchmoreorlesslikelyill-treatmentfactorbehaviourswerewitnessed.AnORof2.0meanstheindependentvariableincreasesthebehaviourbyafactorof2(ormakesittwiceaslikely).AnORof0.5meanstheindependentvariabledecreasesthebehaviourby50%(ormakesitlesslikely).Forindependentvariablesenteredascovariates(e.g.Income),iftheORisabove1asthisvariableincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringincreases;iftheORisbelow1asthisvariableincreases,thelikelihoodofthebehaviouroccurringdecreases.ForanORbelow1,todeterminehowmuchmorelikelythebehaviourisinthereferencegroup,usetheformula:1/ORWitnessingatleastoneitem

Employeesweresignificantlymorelikelytowitnessatleastoneitemofilltreatmentiftheywereagedfrom25-34(2x),ofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(1.7x),livedinMunster,ConnaughtorUlster(1.3xand1.7xrespectively),heldamanagerialposition(1.3x)wereemployedinanorganisationwithaworkforceofbetween10to249(1.8x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.5x),employeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(2.5x),managementdecidedaytodaytasks(2.5x),thereislesscontroloverworkthanayearago(2x),thenatureofworkhaschanged(1.9x),thepaceofworkistoointense(1.7x)andhasincreasedoverthepreviousyear(1.4x).Predictorsthatreducedthelikelihoodofwitnessingatleastoneitemofilltreatmentwerehavingapermanentposition(-34%),beingemployedwherethereareahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-10%perincrease),wherepeoplearetreatedasindividuals(-49%)andemployeesareabletodecidethequalitystandardsbywhichtheywork(-52%).Witnessingviolence

Significant(p<0.05)predictorsofwitnessingviolencewerebeingblack,mixedorotherethnicity(5.6x),workingoutsideofDublin(Leinster2.2x,Munster2x,ConnaughtorUlster3x),workinginthepublicsector(3.1x),workingwherethereisahigherpercentageofemployeeswhoarefromanethnicbackground,wherethepaceofworkhasincreasedoverthepastyear(2.2x).Witnessingunreasonablemanagement

Employeesweremorelikelytowitnessunreasonablemanagementiftheywerefemale(1.5x),intheagegroup25-34(2.2),ofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(1.7x),livedinMunster(1.4x)heldamanagerialposition(1.5x)wereemployedinanorganisationwithaworkforceofbetween10to249(1.5x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(3.1x),employeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(2.8x),managementdecidedaytodaytasks(2.5x),thereislesscontroloverworkthanayearago(1.7x),thenatureofworkhaschanged(1.9x)andthepaceofworkistoointense(1.8x).Witnessingunreasonablemanagementwaslesslikelywhereemployeeshadapermanentposition(-40%),wereemployedwherethereareahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-10%perincrease),wherepeoplearetreatedasindividuals(-53%)andemployeesareabletodecidehowfasttheywork(-43%).Witnessingincivilityordisrespect

Witnessingincivilitywasmorelikelyforemployeeswhowereofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(1.9x),livedinMunster(1.6x),ConnaughtorUlster(1.6x),heldamanagerialposition(1.4x)wereemployedinanorganisationwithaworkforceof10ormoreemployees(1.6x–1.8x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.6x),employeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(3.6x),managementdecidedaytodaytasks(2.4x),thenatureofworkhaschangedoverthepastyear(1.9x)andthepaceofworkistoointense(1.4x).Thelikelihoodofwitnessing

incivilitywasreducedinworkplaceswherethereareahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-12%perincrease)andwherepeoplearetreatedasindividuals(-52%).Table4.2.7:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forWitnessedIllTreatment

Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement

Violenceorinjury

Atleast1ofthe21items

Female(Male) 1.5(1.1-1.9) 1.2(0.9-1.6) 1.3(0.8-2.3) 1.3(1.0-1.7)

Age(18-24)

25-34 2.2(1.3-3.8) 1.4(0.8-2.5) 1.8(0.4-8.0) 2.1(1.3-3.7)

35-44 1.6(0.9-2.9) 1.1(0.6-1.9) 1.2(0.3-5.3) 1.6(0.9-2.8)

45-54 1.4(0.8-2.5) 0.9(0.5-1.5) 0.5(0.1-2.3) 1.6(0.9-2.8)

55+ 1.4(0.8-2.6) 1.1(0.6-2.1) 0.5(0.1-2.6) 1.5(0.8-2.7)

Ethnicity(White)

Asian 1.2(0.7-2.1) 1.5(0.8-2.7) 1.5(0.5-4.6) 1.2(0.7-2.2)

Disability(None) 0.9(0.4-1.7) 1.4(0.7-2.6) 2.3(0.8-6.9) 0.8(0.4-1.5)

Income(increasingincome) 1.0(0.9-1.1) 1.0(0.9-1.0) 1.0(0.8-1.1) 1.0(0.9-1.1)

Region(Dublin)

Munster 1.4(1.0-1.9) 1.6(1.2-2.2) 2.0(1.0-3.9) 1.4(1.0-1.8)

Managerialposition 1.5(1.1-1.9) 1.4(1.1-1.9) 1.3(0.8-2.3) 1.3(1.0-1.7)

Tradeunionoperatesintheorganisation 1.1(0.8-1.5) 1.2(0.9-1.6) 1.9(0.9-3.6) 1.0(0.7-1.4)

Typeofsector(Private)

Public 1.2(0.9-1.7) 1.1(0.8-1.6) 3.1(1.6-6.2) 1.3(0.9-1.8)

Voluntaryorother 0.9(0.5-1.6) 1.2(0.6-2.2) 1.1(0.2-6.1) 1.0(0.6-1.9)

10to49 1.5(1.1-2.1) 1.8(1.4-2.5) 2.0(0.8-4.6) 1.8(1.3-2.4)

50to249 1.5(1.0-2.1) 1.7(1.2-2.5) 2.1(0.8-5.4) 1.8(1.3-2.5)

250ormore 1.0(0.7-1.6) 1.6(1.1-2.5) 1.6(0.6-4.4) 1.3(0.9-2.0)

FAREitems

Inowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 1.7(1.0-2.8) 1.5(0.9-2.5) 0.7(0.3-1.8) 2.1(1.2-3.5)

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 1.8(1.3-2.7) 1.3(0.9-1.8) 1.1(0.6-2.2) 1.7(1.2-2.5)

Nocasesineachmodel=1644

HosmerandLemeshowtest(pvalue) 0.875 0.014 0.094 0.076

Overallpercentagepredictedbythemodel 72.4 73.4 94.8 68.7Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesbelow1

4.3PerpetratingIllTreatmentintheWorkplaceRespondentswereaskediftheyhadperpetratedanyofthe21itemsofilltreatment.Overall,17%ofrespondentsreportedperpetrationofatleastoneitemofilltreatment,14%ofrespondentsreportedperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement,9.5%incivilityordisrespect,0.5%physicalviolenceand0.5%reportedperpetrationofallthreetypesofilltreatment(Figure4.3.1).

Figure4.3.1:PercentageswithinEachCategoryofIllTreatmentPerpetrated

Violence0.6%n=11

6.5%n=115

All:0.5%0.5%

4.3.1IllTreatmentPerpetratedintheWorkplace

Percentagesofresponsestoindividualitemswithinthethreeill-treatmentfactors,unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjuryarepresentedinTable4.3.1inthe‘total’columnandarealsopresentedbygender.Thehighesttotalpercentagereportedwasforgivingsomeoneanunmanageableworkload(6.9%).Noneofthe21itemsshowedsignificantdifferencesbygender(p<0.05,ChisquaredorFisher’sexacttest).Table4.3.1:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentwithinEachGender

Illtreatmentitemsperpetrated Female%

Total% chi p OR

Withheldinformationwhichaffectedsomeone’sperformance 3.0 3.1 3.1 0.010 0.918 1.0(0.6-1.7)

Putpressureonsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 2.9 2.4 2.7 0.415 0.520 1.2(0.7-2.2)

Ignoredopinionsandviewsofothers 7.0 6.7 6.9 0.075 0.784 1.1(0.7-1.5)

Continuallycheckeduponsomeone’sworkwhenitwasnotnecessary 4.2 3.7 3.9 0.268 0.605 1.1(0.7-1.8)

Putpressureonsomeonenottoclaimsomethingtheywereentitledto 1.7 2.0 1.8 0.167 0.682 0.9(0.4-1.7)

Givensomeoneanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 4.2 4.3 4.2 0.011 0.916 1.0(0.6-1.6)

Notfollowedproperproceduresintheworkplace 2.8 3.8 3.3 1.349 0.245 0.7(0.4-1.2)

Treatedsomeoneunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 3.1 3.0 3.0 0.001 0.973 1.0(0.6-1.7)

Humiliatedorridiculedsomeoneinconnectionwiththeirwork 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.086 0.770 1.1(0.5-2.3)

Spreadgossipandrumoursormadeallegationsagainstsomeone 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.006 0.937 1.0(0.5-2.0)

Insultedormadeoffensiveremarksaboutsomeone 3.4 2.1 2.7 2.717 0.099 1.6(0.9-3.0)

Treatedsomeoneinadisrespectfulorrudeway 3.2 2.8 3.0 0.331 0.565 1.2(0.7-2.0)

Excludedpeoplefromyourgroup 3.9 3.4 3.6 0.420 0.517 1.2(0.7-1.9)

Givenhintsorsignalstoothersthattheyshouldquittheirjob 1.3 1.5 1.4 0.090 0.765 0.9(0.4-2.0)

Persistentlycriticisedworkorperformancewhichwasunfair 1.9 1.6 1.8 0.194 0.659 1.2(0.6-2.4)

Shoutedatorlostyourtemperwithsomeoneatwork 3.9 3.5 3.7 0.251 0.616 1.1(0.7-1.9)

Intimidatingbehaviourtopeopleatwork 1.3 1.0 1.2 0.336 0.562 1.3(0.5-3.1)

Madesomeonefeelthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.006 0.937 1.0(0.4-2.3)

Violenceorinjury

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.000* 1.6(0.4-6.8)

Injuredanyoneasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.972* 1.0(0.2-4.8)

*pvaluederivedfromFisher’sExacttest

4.3.2RelationshipsbetweenPerpetrationofIllTreatmentandDemographicFactorsPercentagesforperpetrationofill-treatmentfactorsbydemographicfactors(gender,ethnicity,age,education,placeofresidenceanddisability)arepresentedinTable4.3.2below.Asignificantrelationshipwasfoundforunreasonablemanagementandage,withthoseinthe25-34agegroupmostlikelytoreportperpetratingilltreatmentintheformofunreasonablemanagement(18.6%).AmongethnicgroupsasignificantlyhigherpercentageofperpetratingunreasonablemanagementwasreportedbythoseofAsianethnicity(26.4%).

Table4.3.2:PercentagesamongDemographicGroupsWhoPerpetratedIll-TreatmentFactors

incivility&disrespect%

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item

Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07

Gender

Female 14.24 10.10 0.69 17.70

Male 13.77 8.84 0.56 16.44

p 0.779 0.363 0.729 0.482

Agegroup

18-24 8.04 11.50 0.88 14.16

25-34 18.55 11.29 1.21 21.17

35-44 15.22 10.40 0.19 18.88

45-54 9.60 6.84 0.00 12.15

55+ 12.03 7.05 1.24 14.17

p <0.001 0.098 0.078 0.003

Ethnicity

White 13.10 9.19 0.57 16.11

Asian 26.44 8.14 1.15 28.74

Mixed,black&allothers 17.98 14.77 1.14 22.73

p 0.001 0.200 0.655 0.003

Education

PrimaryandSecondary 15.30 10.55 0.30 19.02

Undergraduateorhigher 13.27 8.84 0.83 15.93

p 0.233 0.234 0.169 0.095

Disability

Yes 17.86 14.04 0.00 21.43

No 13.88 9.31 0.59 16.92

p 0.399 0.230 0.566 0.378

Income

Under€10,000 8.57 6.67 0.00 9.62

€10,000-€19,000 14.17 10.83 0.42 17.57

€20,000-€29,000 16.03 11.14 0.54 19.84

€30,000-€39,000 14.34 10.75 1.08 17.99

€40,000-€49,000 12.20 6.71 0.00 14.02

€50,000ormore 12.50 6.57 2.92 16.06

p 0.469 0.313 nv 0.189

Region

Dublin 15.78 8.16 0.71 18.09

Leinster(excludingDublin) 13.17 10.92 0.28 17.65

Munster 11.40 8.64 0.37 14.15

Connaught&Ulster 16.39 11.67 1.00 19.73

p 0.104 0.246 nv 0.154

p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest;*pvaluederivedfromFisher’sExacttest;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.

4.3.3RelationshipsbetweenOrganisationalCharacteristicsandPerpetrationofIllTreatment

Organisationalcharacteristicsincludedsector,size,type(public/private)andpresenceoftradeunion(s)intheworkplace.Table4.3.3showsthathigherpercentagesforperpetrationofunreasonablemanagementandforincivilityanddisrespectwereinconstruction,thepublicsector,inorganisationscomprising10-49employeesandwherethereweretradeunionsoperating.Forviolencehigherpercentageswerereportedinthepublicsectorandinoccupationsinpublicadministrationanddefenceandinfinancialservices.However,therewerenosignificantrelationshipsbetweenallthreeill-treatmentfactorsandorganisationalcharacteristics.Table4.3.3:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyTypeofOrganisation,Sector,OrganisationSizeandPresenceofaTradeUnionorStaffAssociation

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07

Typeoforganisation

Private 12.89 9.09 0.51 16.51

Public 16.87 10.54 0.99 18.49

Voluntaryorother 14.04 8.77 0.00 17.54

p 0.099 0.639 0.422 0.612

Sector

Agriculture 12.90 9.68 0.00 12.90

Industry 10.24 7.84 0.49 15.12

Construction 23.96 12.50 0.00 27.37

Wholesale,Retail,Food&Accommodation(WRFA) 10.98 8.09 0.58 15.61

Transport 14.41 9.91 0.00 16.22

Financialservices 15.63 10.63 1.88 20.00

Publicadmin.&Defence(PAD) 15.11 5.76 2.14 15.71

Education 13.45 10.55 0.84 14.77

Health&Socialservices 14.93 10.07 0.37 17.54

Otherservices 14.02 10.30 0.00 16.97

p 0.129 0.785 0.264 0.293

Sizeoforganisation

<10% 12.28 8.41 0.43 15.30

10-49% 16.54 10.53 0.75 19.13

50-249% 13.30 9.31 0.80 17.02

>250% 12.93 9.96 0.43 16.45

p 0.176 0.685 0.859 0.394

PresenceofTradeunionorstaffassociation

Yes 15.06 11.02 0.78 18.20

No 13.79 8.90 0.56 16.79

p 0.466 0.151 0.593 0.457

Table4.3.4presentspercentagesofthoseperpetratingilltreatmentbycompositionofstaffintheworkplace.Spearmancorrelationswereusedtotestrelationshipsbetweenthesecharacteristicsandill-treatmentfactors.

Theonlysignificantcorrelationwasbetweenthosereportingatleastoneitemandpercentageoffemalesemployedwithlowerlevelsofperpetrationwherehigherlevelsoffemalesareemployed.Table4.3.4:PerpetratedIllTreatmentbyCompositionofStaffinTermsofEthnicity,GenderandAge

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07

None(0%) 12.84 7.82 0.77 14.89

Afew(5-10%) 16.98 11.84 0.51 20.93

Abouthalf(about50%) 11.54 14.29 0.00 18.18

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

All(100%) 16.67 0.00 0.00 16.67

Spearman’srho(pvalue) 0.02(0.535) 0.05(0.055) -0.01(0.572) 0.04(0.097)

None(0%) 18.32 12.87 0.50 22.39

Afew(5-10%) 16.47 7.23 0.40 18.47

Abouthalf(about50%) 10.05 8.25 0.77 13.37

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 14.72 12.27 0.00 17.07

All(100%) 10.08 5.04 0.00 12.50

Spearman’srho(pvalue) -0.04(0.074) -0.02(0.515) -0.03(0.234) -0.05(0.035)

None(0%) 14.80 6.88 0.00 15.94

Afew(5-10%) 15.10 9.77 0.71 18.29

Abouthalf(about50%) 14.34 12.82 1.83 18.38

Nearlyall(about85-90%) 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35

All(100%) 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00

Spearman’srho(pvalue) -0.03(0.292) 0.04(0.086) 0.03(0.261) 0.001(0.965)

Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.

4.3.4RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceRoleandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentTable4.3.5presentspercentagesofthosewhoreportedperpetratingilltreatmentbyoccupationalgroup,managerialorsupervisorydutiesandjobpermanence.Thosehavingmanagerialdutiesreportedperpetratingsignificantlyhigherlevelsofunreasonablemanagementandincivility.Amongoccupationalgroupsthehighestlevelsofperpetrationofatleast1itemwasforskilledtrade.

Table4.3.5:PercentageWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyOccupationalGroup,ManagerialorSupervisoryDutiesandJobPermanence

Violenceorinjury%

Atleast1item%

Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07

Occupationalgroup

Managersandseniorofficials 18.12 10.95 1.45 21.01

Professionaloccupations 11.90 7.95 1.13 13.88

Associateprofessionalandtechnical 15.04 12.78 0.44 18.14

Administrativeandsecretarial 12.04 6.48 1.38 14.75

Skilledtrade 18.58 13.11 0.00 24.04

Personalservice 10.81 5.41 0.00 12.84

Salesandcustomerservice 10.18 6.55 0.60 13.69

Processplantandmachine 19.69 11.81 0.79 22.83

Elementary 13.30 10.84 0.00 17.73

p 0.079 0.057 nv 0.025

Yes 16.73 12.07 0.80 20.32

No 12.57 8.43 0.56 15.37

p 0.023 0.019 0.553 0.012

Jobpermanence

Yes 13.28 9.11 0.70 16.41

No 16.61 11.30 0.33 19.27

p 0.128 0.239 0.470 0.229

p=pvaluefromPearson’schisquaretest;nv=invalidchisquaretestduetolownumbers;Significancesetatp<0.05andhighlightedingrey.

4.3.5RelationshipsbetweenWorkplaceConditionsandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentTable4.3.6presentspercentagesofthosewhoreportedperpetratingill-treatmentfactorsbytheirresponsestoFAREitems.Thetableshowsthathigherpercentagesreportedperpetratingbehaviourswithinunreasonablemanagementandincivilityill-treatmentfactorswherenegativeworkplaceconditionswerereported.However,havingcontrolofthequalitystandardsbywhichindividualsworkanddecisionsbeingmadebythemanager,werenotsignificantlyrelatedtoperpetrationofunreasonablemanagement.Reportofperpetrationofviolencewassignificantlyhigheramongthosewhoworkwheretheyarenottreatedasindividuals.

Table4.3.6:PercentagesWhoPerpetratedIllTreatmentbyFAREItems

Violenceorinjury

Atleast1item%

Total 14.00 9.47 0.62 17.07

WhereIwork:

Theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomefirst 30.63 21.48 1.06 34.51

No 10.81 7.16 0.54 13.72

p <0.001 <0.001 0.255* <0.001

Youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples 24.36 24.36 1.29 32.05

No 13.00 8.02 0.50 15.61

p <0.001 <0.001 0.217* <0.001

Peoplearetreatedasindividuals 13.11 8.37 0.43 15.75

No 24.46 22.30 2.88 32.37

p <0.001 <0.001 0.008* <0.001

IdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIwork 12.97 8.20 0.55 15.73

No 26.92 25.38 1.54 33.85

p <0.001 <0.001 0.192* <0.001

MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIdo 16.71 11.78 0.55 21.37

No 13.30 8.86 0.64 15.94

p 0.094 0.090 0.594* 0.014

IdecidethequalitystandardsbywhichIwork 13.76 9.04 0.60 16.70

No 18.28 17.20 1.08 23.66

p 0.222 0.009 0.450* 0.082

Ihavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 22.90 19.85 0.76 30.77

No 13.29 8.63 0.61 15.97

p 0.002 <0.001 0.573 <0.001

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 20.35 15.15 0.87 23.81

No 13.10 8.60 0.59 16.05

p <0.001 <0.001 0.645* <0.001

Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyear 17.63 12.34 0.52 21.26

No 13.01 8.68 0.65 15.91

p 0.021 0.031 1.000* 0.013

Thepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyear 16.63 13.01 0.96 21.93

No 13.27 8.38 0.52 15.57

p 0.085 <0.001 0.298* <0.001

4.3.6PredictorsofPerpetratingIllTreatmentThissectionpresentsoutcomesofmultivariatemodels(logisticregression)foreachill-treatmentfactor(violence,unreasonablemanagementandincivilityanddisrespect),presentinghowmuchmorelikelysomecharacteristicsareassociatedwithperpetratingilltreatmentthanothers.DemographicandworkplacerelatedcharacteristicsincludedinthesemodelsareshowninTable4.3.7withestimatesofhowmuchmoreorlesslikelyilltreatmentwasperpetratedforeach(oddratiosand95%confidenceintervals).Table4.3.7:FactorLevelORs(95%CI)forPerpetratedIllTreatment

Independentvariables(referencecategory) Unreasonablemanagement Incivility Violence Atleast1ofthe

21items

Female(Male) 1.0(0.6-1.5) 0.7(0.4-1.2) 1.8(0.3-10.7) 1.0(0.7-1.5)

Age(18-24)

0.4(0.2-1.1)

25-34 2.2(0.9-5.3) 1.2(0.5-2.9) - 1.9(0.9-4.0)

35-44 1.3(0.5-3.2) 0.9(0.4-2.1) - 1.3(0.6-2.8)

45-54 0.9(0.3-2.4) 0.8(0.3-2.0) - 1.0(0.4-2.3)

55+ 1.0(0.4-2.6) 0.5(0.2-1.5) - 0.9(0.4-2.2)

Ethnicity(White)

Asian 1.7(0.7-4.0) 1.0(0.3-3.1) 0.5(0.0-29.8) 1.5(0.7-3.5)

Disability(None) 1.1(0.4-3.1) 1.2(0.4-3.7) 1.1(0.4-2.9)

Income 1.0(0.9-1.2) 0.9(0.7-1.1) 1.9(0.9-4.2) 1.0(0.9-1.2)

Region(Dublin)

Munster 0.7(0.4-1.2) 1.1(0.6-2.1) 0.4(0.0-3.9) 0.8(0.5-1.3)

Managerial 1.3(0.8-1.9) 2.2(1.3-3.5) 1.7(0.3-8.6) 1.3(0.9-1.9)

Permanent 0.8(0.5-1.3) 0.9(0.5-1.5) 1.6(0.1-21.5) 0.9(0.6-1.3)

Tradeunion 1.0(0.6-1.7) 1.6(0.9-2.8) 0.2(0.0-2.3) 1.2(0.8-1.8)

Publicsector(PrivateorVoluntary) 2.5(1.5-4.2) 1.4(0.8-2.6) 5.2(0.6-43.5) 1.7(1.1-2.7)

10to49 0.8(0.5-1.2) 0.7(0.4-1.3) 3.3(0.4-28.8) 0.8(0.5-1.2)

50to249 0.7(0.4-1.2) 0.6(0.3-1.2) 2.5(0.2-30.5) 0.8(0.4-1.3)

250ormore 0.5(0.2-1.1) 0.6(0.3-1.4) 1.6(0.1-38.4) 0.5(0.3-1.1)

Inowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanayearago 1.6(0.8-2.9) 0.9(0.4-1.8) - 1.5(0.9-2.7)

Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense 0.9(0.5-1.5) 1.0(0.6-1.9) - 0.8(0.5-1.3)

No.casesineachmodel=1184

HosmerandLemeshowTest 0.257 0.103 <0.001 0.022

OverallPercentage 86.0 90.2 99.2 83.1Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)Exp(B)valuesbelow1

Perpetratingatleastoneitem

Employeesweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportperpetratingatleastoneitemofilltreatmentiftheywereemployedinthepublicsector(1.7x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.6x)andemployeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(1.9x).Predictorsthatreducedthelikelihoodofperpetratingatleastoneitemofilltreatmentwerehavingahighereducationlevel(-43%),workingwherethereareahigherpercentageoffemaleemployees(-12%perincrease)andwhereindividualsdecidehowmuchworktheydoorhowfasttheywork(-55%).Perpetratingviolence

Onthebasisofthelownumbersthatreportedperpetrationofviolencesomevariableswereexcludedfromthismodel(DisabilityandtwoFAREitems:LesscontroloverworkandPaceofworkincreasedoverthepastyear);orwereenteredintothemodelamodifiedway(Agewasenteredasacovariateratherthanasafixedvariable).Onlytwoofthepredictorsinthemodelshowedsignificantoutcomes,bothshowingreducedlikelihoodofviolence.Thesewereforwherethecompositionoftheworkplacehadahigherleveloffemaleemployees(-46%perincrease)andwhereemployeesaretreatedasindividuals(-87%).

Perpetratingunreasonablemanagement

Employeesweremorelikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagementiftheyworkedinthepublicsector(2.5x),wheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(3.2x)andthenatureofworkhadchangedoverthepastyear(1.6x).Perpetratingunreasonablemanagementwaslesslikelyforthosehavingahighereducationlevel(-43%),wheretherewasahigherpercentageoffemaleemployees(-12%perincrease),ahigherpercentageofyoungemployees(-14%perincrease)andwhereemployeesareabletodecidehowfasttheywork(-46%).Perpetratingincivilityordisrespect

Reportingofperpetratingincivilitywasmorelikelyforemployeeswhowereofblack,mixedorotherethnicity(3.3x),heldamanagerialposition(2.2x)wereemployedinanorganisationwheretheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst(2.3x)andwhereemployeeshavetocompromisetheirprinciples(2.3x).Thelikelihoodofperpetratingincivilitywaslowerforthosewithahighereducationlevel(-42%)andwhereemployeesareabletodecidehowfasttheywork(-68%).

4.4RelationshipsbetweenExperience,WitnessandPerpetrationofIllTreatmentThissectionpresentstherelationshipsbetweenreportsofexperiencing,witnessingandperpetrationofilltreatment.Figure4.4.1comparesthepercentagesreportedforeachilltreatmentitemexperienced,witnessedandperpetratedandshowsthatthereportofwitnessingilltreatmentishigherthanfortheconfirmedreportofitsexperienceforallitems.

Figure4.4.1:ComparisonofPercentageReportedforExperiencing,witnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatmentCorrelationsbetweenreportofexperiencing,witnessingandperpetrationarepresentedinTable4.4.1asSpearman’sRhovalues.Thetableshowsthatthatthosewhohaveexperiencedilltreatmenttendtoreportwitnessofit,withmediumtostrongpositivecorrelationsbetweenexperiencingandwitnessingforallitems(Spearman’srhovaluesfrom0.4to0.6;p<0.05).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Someonewithholdinginformatonwhichaffectsperformance

Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence

Havingopinionsandviewsignored

Someonecontnuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary

Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareenttledto

Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines

Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures

Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace

Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectonwiththeirwork

Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegatonsmadeagainstothers

Insultngoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork

Beingtreatedinadisrespecvulorrudeway

Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup

Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob

Persistentcritcismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair

Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar

Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper

Intmidatngbehaviourfrompeopleatwork

Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork

Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork

Experienced

Witnessed

Perpetrated

Correlationswithreportingperpetrationwerenotasstrong,thosebetweenexperiencingandperpetrationofilltreatmentandbetweenwitnessingandperpetrationwerefrom0.1to0.2(Spearman’srho)butweresignificant(p<0.05)forallitemsexceptinjuryasaresultofviolenceatwork.Table4.4.1:CorrelationsbetweenExperiencing,WitnessingandPerpetratingIllTreatment

Illtreatmentitem ExperiencedxWitnessed

ExperiencedxPerpetrated

WitnessedxPerpetrated

Withheldinformationwhichaffectedsomeone’sperformance 0.436** 0.166** 0.226**

Putpressureonsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 0.431** 0.161** 0.225**

Ignoredopinionsandviewsofothers 0.509** 0.286** 0.276**

Continuallycheckeduponsomeone’sworkwhenitwasnotnecessary 0.485** 0.189** 0.179**

Putpressureonsomeonenottoclaimsomethingtheywereentitledto 0.469** 0.230** 0.287**

Givensomeoneanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 0.569** 0.188** 0.170**

Notfollowedproperproceduresintheworkplace 0.608** 0.249** 0.242**

Treatedsomeoneunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 0.400** 0.130** 0.168**

Humiliatedorridiculedsomeoneinconnectionwiththeirwork 0.461** 0.056* 0.143**

Spreadgossipandrumoursormadeallegationsagainstsomeone 0.267** 0.143** 0.181**

Insultedormadeoffensiveremarksaboutsomeone 0.352** 0.100** 0.245**

Treatedsomeoneinadisrespectfulorrudeway 0.530** 0.156** 0.231**

Excludedpeoplefromyourgroup 0.418** 0.155** 0.236**

Givenhintsorsignalstoothersthattheyshouldquittheirjob 0.391** 0.148** 0.140**

Persistentlycriticisedworkorperformancewhichwasunfair 0.338** 0.144** 0.116**

Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 0.411** 0.245** 0.261**

Shoutedatorlostyourtemperwithsomeoneatwork 0.520** 0.214** 0.269**

Intimidatingbehaviourtopeopleatwork 0.392** 0.053* 0.132**

Madesomeonefeelthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 0.502** 0.160** 0.177**

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 0.545** 0.106** 0.193**

Injuredanyoneasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 0.543** 0.0072 0.044

ValuespresentedareSpearman’sRho;*significantat<0.05;**significantat<0.01

5ItemsFollowedUpThoseparticipantswhoreportedthreeormoreitemswereaskedfollow-upquestionsregardingtheperpetratorsandtheirperceivedreasonsforthebehaviourstheyhadexperienced.Wheremorethanthreeitemswerereported,thefollow-upitemswereselectedusingascoringsystem(seeAppendix1)basedonresponsestoQ1andQ4.Thescoringprioritisedviolentactsonthebasisthatthesewereconsideredmoreseriousincidents(Fevreetal.,2012)36.Datainthissectionwasthereforederivedfromrespondentswhoexperiencedmultipleformsofilltreatmentandthatwereconsideredtobeofthemostseriousform.Fevreetal.(2012)refertotheseindividualsasthetroubledminority.Theselecteditemswerethefocusofthreeroundsoffurtherquestionsregardingthegender,ethnicityandworkroleofperpetratorsandperceivedreasonsfortheexperienceoftheilltreatment.Thissectiontreatseachilltreatmentitemselectedbythisprocessasanindividualoccurrence.Factor-levelanalysesofitems,(Unreasonabletreatment,Incivilityanddisrespect,andViolenceandinjury)arepresentedasforprevioussections.Table5.1presentsthefactorlevelpercentages(unweighted)foritemsfollowedupineachofthethreeroundsofquestions.Table5.1:FactorLevelFrequenciesandPercentagesofItemsFollowedUpinEachRoundofQuestions

IncivilityorDisrespect

ViolenceorInjury%(n)

Itemaskedabout1st 15.0(69) 75.9(350) 9.1(42)

Itemaskedabout2nd 33.2(153) 63.1(291) 3.7(17)

Itemaskedabout3rd 42.1(194) 57.9(267) 0.0(0)

Total 30.1(416) 65.7(908) 4.3(59)

Intotal461participantswereaskedfollow-upquestionsforthreereporteditemsofilltreatment,therefore1383itemswerefollowedup.Prioritisationoftheselectionofreportedviolenceorinjurymeanttheseitemshadbeenfollowedupbyround2ofthisprocess.

5.1PercentageofEachIllTreatmentItemFollowedUp

Table5.2presentspercentagesofeachilltreatmentitemfollowedupandwithineachitem,thepercentageofthoseresponsibleforthebehaviourbygender.Overallhigherpercentagesofmales(45%)thanfemales(28%)orbothmalesandfemales(26%)werereportedtobetheperpetratorsoftheilltreatmentexperienced.Atthefactorlevelunreasonablemanagementandviolenceorinjuryshowsignificantlydifferentpercentagedistributionsbygenderwithmoremalesperpetratingunreasonablemanagement(53%,p=0.01,chisquaretest)andmoreviolenceandinjuryperpetratedbybothmalesandfemales.Thedistributionofpercentagesforthelatterismainlyattributabletothe‘actualphysicalviolence’itemofthisfactorthatshowedasignificantlyhigherpercentageofbothmaleandfemaleperpetrators(48%,p=0.03,chisquaretest).However,ofnoteistheoverallperpetrationofthisbehaviourbymales,asthepercentagereportingonlymales(37%)asperpetratorsismorethantwicethatforonlyfemales(15%).Specificitemsdifferedinthegenderoftheperpetratorresponsible.Itemswithsignificantlyhigherpercentagesofmaleperpetratorswere:havingopinionsandviewsignored(males67%,p=0.03,chisquaretest)andfeelingthreatenedwhileatwork(males50%,p=0.02,chisquaretest).

36Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2012).TroubleatWork.BloomsburyAcademic:London,p31

Itemswithsignificantlyhigherpercentagesoffemaleperpetratorswere:spreadinggossipandrumours(71%,p=0.03,chisquaretest)andpeopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup(44%,p=0.03,chisquaretest).Table5.2:PercentageofIllTreatmentItemsFollowedUp,TotalandbyGender

Illtreatmentitemexperienced Total%

Genderofpersonresponsible

Female%

Both% p

Unreasonablemanagement 30.3 53.4 27.5 19.2 0.012

Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance 2.1 31.3 50.0 18.8 0.145

Pressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence 2.6 43.8 37.5 18.8 0.644

Havingopinionsandviewsignored 7.3 66.7 16.7 16.7 0.031

Someonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessary 3.3 55.0 30.0 15.0 0.476

Pressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto 1.5 38.5 53.8 7.7 0.083

Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines 5.6 57.9 18.4 23.7 0.236

Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures 4.0 55.9 20.6 23.5 0.416

Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace 3.9 50.0 27.8 22.2 0.896

Incivilityordisrespect 65.2 43.5 29.0 27.5 0.369

Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork 4.0 61.5 26.9 11.5 0.147

Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers 1.9 28.6 71.4 0.0 0.030

Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork 3.4 35.7 28.6 35.7 0.690

Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway 5.8 39.4 21.2 39.4 0.218

Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup 4.8 25.0 44.4 30.6 0.028

Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob 2.2 57.1 21.4 21.4 0.667

Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair 3.1 37.5 37.5 25.0 0.690

Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar 4.7 37.5 33.3 29.2 0.730

Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper 15.1 45.7 28.3 26.0 0.990

Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork 11.6 40.6 35.8 23.6 0.166

Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork 8.6 50.0 17.6 32.4 0.027

Violenceorinjury 4.5 34.0 22.6 43.4 0.016

Actualphysicalviolenceatwork 2.6 37.0 14.8 48.1 0.029

Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork 1.9 30.8 30.8 38.5 0.247

Total 45.4 28.2 26.4

p:pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest.Greyshadinghighlightssignificantrelationshipsbetweenthebehaviouritemsandgenderoftheperpetrator.

5.1.1RelationshipbetweentheGenderofthoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandtheGenderofReportedPerpetratorsTable5.3presentsthepercentageofthoseresponsibleforilltreatmentwithinaspecificgenderbythegenderofthepersonexperiencingit(instanceswherebothgenderswerereportedasbeingresponsiblewerenotincludedinthisanalysis).Nearlyequalpercentagesoffollow-upcasesweremaleorfemale;however,thoseresponsiblefortheirilltreatmentwere8timesmorelikelytobeofthesamegenderasthepersonexperiencingit.Thispatternheldacrossthedifferentill-treatmentfactorsbutwasnotstatisticallysignificantlyforviolenceorinjury.

Table5.3:PercentageofThoseResponsibleforIllTreatmentwithinaSpecificGender,byGenderofthePersonExperiencingtheBehaviour

Genderofthepersonresponsible

Genderofthepersonexperiencingtheilltreatment

Female% chi p OR(95%CI)

Male 67.1 32.9

116.3 <0.001 8.1(5.4-21.1)Female 20.1 79.9

Total 49.0 51.0

Male 69.6 30.426.3 <0.001 6.4(3.0-13.4)

Female 26.4 73.6

IncivilityanddisrespectMale 66.8 33.2

89.0 <0.001 9.9(5.9-16.5)Female 16.9 83.1

ViolenceandinjuryMale 55.6 44.4

2.7 0.098 3.75(0.8-18.6)Female 25.0 75.0

5.1.2RelationshipbetweenEthnicityofThoseExperiencingIllTreatmentandEthnicityofReportedPerpetratorsTable5.4presentstherelationshipbetweentheethnicityoftheindividualexperiencingilltreatmentandtheethnicityofthereportedperpetrator.Ofthosefollowedup,15.5%wereofnon-whiteethnicity,slightlyaboverepresentationofthisgroupinthetotalsample.Apatternsimilartothatforgenderwasfound:theperpetratorswere6timesmorelikelytobeofasimilarethnicbackgroundtothosetheyill-treat.Table5.4:EthnicityofPerpetratorbyEthnicityofthePersonExperiencingtheIllTreatment Ethnicityofpersonexperiencingtheilltreatment

Ethnicityoftheperpetrator White%

Allotherethnicities

%chi p OR(95%CI)

Total 84.5 15.5

White 85.4 14.624.228 <0.001 6.4(2.8-14.7)

Allotherethnicities 47.8 52.2

5.1.3PerceivedReasonsforIllTreatmentThosewhoseexperienceswerefollowedupwerepresentedwitharangeofpotentialreasonsforwhytheilltreatmenthadoccurred.Table5.5presentsthepercentagesthatreportedthesereasonsamongthosewhoexperiencedbehaviourswithineachill-treatmentfactor.Distributionsofpercentagesforeachill-treatmentfactorsreportingornotreportingtheperceivedreasonsforthebehaviourweretested(chisquared).Wheresignificantrelationshipswerefoundhigherpercentageswerereportedfortheperceivedreasonmainlyamongthosewhohadexperiencedviolence.Aslightlyhigherpercentage,however,wasfoundamongthoseexperiencingincivilityordisrespectthatthoughtthereasonwasduetotheperpetrator’sattitudeorpersonality(41%).Significantlyhigherpercentagesforperceivedreasonsforexperiencingviolencewerefor:it’sjustthewaythingsare(68%),peoplehaveacliqueorgroupfromwhichyouareexcluded(17%)theraceorskincolourofthepersonexperiencingthebehaviour(16%),theirgender(13%),theirnationality(13%),theiraccentofwheretheylive(8%)beingsingledoutorpickedon(8%),longtermillness(3%),orsomethingelsenotalreadyspecified(18%).

Table5.5:PercentageReportingReasonsforExperiencedIllTreatment

PerceivedreasonforilltreatmentUnreasonablemanagement

Incivility%

Violence%

Total% chi p

Yourpositionintheorganisation 21.90 22.40 20.30 22.10 0.15 0.927

It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork 37.40 40.00 68.30 40.50 21.01 <0.001

Yourperformanceatwork 9.80 10.80 6.80 10.20 1.10 0.578

Theattitudeorpersonalityoftheotherperson(s) 26.80 41.10 40.00 36.70 24.25 <0.001

People’srelationshipsatwork(e.g.favouritism) 11.80 16.50 18.00 15.10 5.09 0.078

Peoplehaveagrouporcliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit 5.80 15.70 16.90 12.70 25.29 <0.001

Yourage 4.60 5.80 6.70 5.40 0.94 0.626

Yourgender 2.00 5.40 13.30 4.80 17.34 <0.001

Yournationality 3.50 9.90 13.30 8.00 17.34 <0.001

Yourreligion 0.50 2.00 3.40 1.60 5.12 0.077

Yourrace,ethnicgroupand/orcolourofskin 3.00 7.70 16.40 6.60 19.74 <0.001

Yoursexualorientation(e.g.gay,straight,lesbian,bi-sexualetc.) 0.00 0.50 1.60 0.40 4.25 0.120

Yourdisability 0.00 0.10 1.60 0.10 9.55 0.008

Yourlong-termillnessorotherhealthproblems 0.70 0.20 3.20 0.50 10.56 0.005

Yourunionmembership 1.00 0.70 3.20 0.90 4.26 0.119

Yourphysicalappearanceorthewayyoudress 2.00 3.80 4.80 3.30 3.14 0.208

Youbeingpregnant/yourfamilyorcaringresponsibilitiesormaritalstatus 1.50 1.00 0.00 1.20 1.23 0.540

Youraccentorthewayyouspeak,addressorwhereyoulive,orsocialclass

2.20 6.30 8.10 5.10 10.27 0.006

Somethingelseaboutyou(e.g.yougetsingledout,yougetpickedon) 1.50 4.00 8.30 3.50 9.64 0.008

Somethingelsenotalreadyspecified 5.50 4.60 18.30 5.50 20.35 <0.001

pvaluederivedfromChiSquaretest.Greyshadinghighlightssignificantrelationshipsbetweenthebehaviourfactorexperiencedandtheperceivedreason.

Otherreportedreasons,notalreadyspecifiedonthequestionnaire,areshowninTable5.6bytheilltreatmentexperienced.Table5.6:OtherReportedReasonsforIllTreatment

Behaviourexperienced Perceivedreason

Someonewithholdinginformation,whichaffectsperformance.

Asalreadystatedreceptionnotpassingonnamesofpeopleenquiringaboutnew/second-handcars

Coworkerwasjustlazyandinvoiceswerenotcoded

Shewasundertrainedanddidnotrealisetheinformationwasimportant

Volumeofworkload

Pressurefromsomeoneelsetodoworkbelowyourlevelofcompetence.

AonceoffincidentIamafullyqualifiedcareassistantandIwasaskedtodokitchenwashupastheywereshortstaffed,Irefusedandthatwasit.Iamacarsalespersonmanagementwantedmetodopaperworkfornew/second-handcarsaswell.Accountsresponsibility

Pressurefromsomeoneelsenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightyouareentitledto

Workload

Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines

Bosswantedtheaccountsdonebyanearlierdatethannormal

Itstodowithbellcurvesystemofrating

Refused(verypersonal)

Thingscangetextremelybusyatwork,hecticattimesandwehavetoworkreallyhardtomeetourdeadlines

Behaviourexperienced Perceivedreason

Youremployernotfollowingproperprocedures

Againbadscaffoldingandshortcuts

EmployernotfollowingHealthandSafetyrules

Health&Safetyissuesmainly,duringthesilageseasonhealthandsafetynon-existent.

MainlyHealth&Safetyissuesnopropermasksincarsprayingarea

Notdiscussable

Supervisorcuttingcornerstokeepproductionnumbersup

Supervisornotfollowingsafetyprocedures

Supervisoroverworked

Understaffing

Beingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersinyourworkplace Promotionopportunities.FeltlikeIwasoverlooked

Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwithyourwork

TheydidnotlikewhatIwastellingthem

Beinginsultedorhavingoffensiveremarksmadeaboutyou ClientattackedmesayingIinthejobthatIwassomethingspecialverbalabuse

Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway

ClientsgenerallyrudeintheJewellersshop

Peopleexcludingyoufromtheirgroup

Acoworkertookadisliketomeandrefusedtotalktomeforabout6monthssomethingIwassupposedtohavesaidaboutherwhichIdidnotIt’sakindofacceptedorganisationalbehaviour

Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemperwithyou

Clientslookingtosortoutproblems,getveryfrustrated

GuywasunderpressureandIwasn’tgivinghimtheanswerhesought

Itisjustthewaythingsareatwork,everyoneistoobusy,deadlineshavetobemet

Mybeingraisedinanindustrialschool

AfellowcoworkerandIjustdonotgeton

Olderpeoplelivinginthenursinghomearesometimesvulnerableandlosetheirpatience

PersonalityoftheotherpersonWe,theworkers,were(specificnationalitynamed),andthebosseswere(specificnationalitynamed),andtheydidn’ttreatuswell,theotherordinary(specificnationalitynamed)workersweretreatedmorefavourablyWorkpressuresituation

Workload,pressure,fatigue

Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork

Assistantmanagerwasnottotakinghisownresponsibilitiessodelayedtheorganisationalpriorities

Becausehedislikeswomen

Hospitalpsychiatricpatients

Beingonatemporarycontract

Stress,fatigue

ActualphysicalviolenceatworkClientswerepatients

Itspartofthejob

Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork

Challengingbehaviouroftheclientsatwork

Inthecourseofanarrestwasassaultedbyasuspect

Partofjobdealingwithviolentprisoners

Workwithchallengingbehaviourchildren

Table5.7presentsthelikelihood(oddsratios)ofperceivedreasonsforilltreatmentbeingreported.Whereunreasonablemanagementhadbeenexperienced,allsignificantspecifiedreasonswerelesslikelytohavebeenreportedwhencomparedtothosenotexperiencingthisill-treatmentfactor.

Table5.7:LikelihoodofPerceivedReasonforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced

PerceivedreasonfortheilltreatmentUnreasonablemanagementOR(95%CI)

IncivilityordisrespectOR(95%CI)

Violenceorinjury

OR(95%CI)

Yourpositionintheorganisation 1.0(0.7-1.3) 1.0(0.8-1.4) 0.9(0.5-1.7)

It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork 0.8(0.7-1.1) 0.9(0.7-1.2) 3.4(1.9-5.9)

Yourperformanceatwork 0.9(0.6-1.4) 1.2(0.8-1.7) 0.6(0.2-1.8)

Theattitudeorpersonalityoftheotherperson(s) 0.5(0.4-0.7) 1.7(1.4-2.2) 1.2(0.7-2.0)

People’srelationshipsatwork(e.g.favouritism) 0.7(0.5-1.0) 1.4(1.0-1.9) 1.2(0.6-2.4)

Peoplehaveagrouporcliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit 0.3(0.2-0.5) 2.4(1.6-3.6) 1.4(0.7-2.9)

Yourage 0.8(0.5-1.4) 1.2(0.7-2.0) 1.3(0.4-3.6)

Yourgender 0.3(0.2-0.7) 1.6(0.9-2.9) 3.4(1.5-7.5)

Yournationality 0.3(0.2-0.6) 2.2(1.3-3.5) 1.8(0.8-3.9)

Yourreligion 0.3(0.1-1.1) 2.3(0.8-6.8) 2.3(0.5-10.3)

Yourrace,ethnicgroupand/orcolourofskin 0.3(0.2-0.6) 1.7(1.0-2.8) 2.9(1.4-6.0)

Yoursexualorientation(e.g.gay,straight,lesbian,bi-sexualetc.) 0.7(0.7-0.7) 2.1(0.2-19.1) 5.2(0.6-47.5)

Yourdisability 0.7(0.7-0.7) 0.5(0.0-8.5) 20.9(1.3-337.4)

Yourlong-termillnessorotherhealthproblems 1.7(0.4-7.9) 0.2(0.0-1.1) 8.5(1.6-44.6)

Yourunionmembership 1.2(0.4-3.9) 0.5(0.2-1.6) 4.2(0.9-19.7)

Yourphysicalappearanceorthewayyoudress 0.5(0.2-1.1) 1.8(0.9-3.6) 1.5(0.5-5.1)

Youbeingpregnant/yourfamilyorcaringresponsibilitiesormaritalstatus 1.4(0.5-3.9) 0.7(0.3-1.9) 1.0(0.9-1.0)

Youraccentorthewayyouspeak,addressorwhereyoulive,orsocialclass 0.3(0.2-0.7) 2.1(1.2-3.9) 1.7(0.6-4.3)

Somethingelseaboutyou(e.g.yougetsingledout,yougetpickedon) 0.3(0.1-0.8) 1.9(0.9-3.8) 2.7(1.0-7.2)

Somethingelsenotalreadyspecified 1.0(0.6-1.7) 0.6(0.4-1.0) 4.4(2.2-8.8)

Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1

Incivilitywasmostlikelyreportedtobeduetoexclusionbyagrouporclique(2.4x).Othersignificantreasonsforincivilityweretheperpetrator’sattitudeorpersonality(1.7x),thenationalityofthepersonexperiencingthebehaviour(2.2x),theirethicgroup(1.7x),ortheiraccent,addressorsocialclass(2.1x).Havingalong-termillnessorhealthissuewaslesslikelytobeperceivedasareasonforincivility(-80%)butmorelikelytobeperceivedasareasonforviolence(8.5x).Othersignificantperceivedreasonsreportedforviolencewereit’sjustthewaythingsarewheretheindividualexperiencingtheilltreatmentworks(3.4x),theirgender(3.4x),andtheirethnicgroup(2.9x).Table5.8presentsthepercentagesofreportedworkplacerolesofperpetrators(superiors,coworkers,subordinates,clientsortheorganisation)amongthoseexperiencingbehaviourswithineachill-treatmentfactor.Forexampleoverall24.5%ofthosefollowedupreportedanemployerwastheperpetrator.Percentagesreportingasuperiorastheperpetratorwere29%amongthosewhoexperiencedunreasonablemanagement,23.5%amongthoseexperiencingincivilityand8.1%andamongthoseexperiencingviolence.Thepercentagesreportedinthetabledonotaddupto100,asonlypercentagesforthosereportingtheperpetratorrolearepresented(e.g.71%ofthoseexperiencingunreasonablemanagementdidnotreportthatasuperiorwasresponsible).Thetableshowsthatoverallthehighestpercentageoffollowedupilltreatmentitemswereperpetratedbysuperiors(25%)andthatlowerpercentagesofsubordinatesornotanindividualwerereportedamongeachill-treatmentfactor.Therewere,however,significantdifferencesinthetypeofilltreatmentperpetratedbysuperiors/employers,co-workersandclients.

Table5.8:RoleofPerpetratorbyIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced

Roleofperpetrator Unreasonablemanagement

Incivilityanddisrespect

Violenceandinjury Total Chi p

Employer,supervisor(s)orlinemanager(s),seniormanager(s) 29.1 23.5 8.1 24.5 14.197 0.001

Co-worker(s),colleague(s) 12.6 18.9 6.5 16.4 12.966 0.002

Subordinate(s)orpeopleinlowerpositions 2.9 2.6 0.0 2.6 1.826 0.401

Client(s),customer(s) 1.9 17.2 71.0 15.0 211.034 <0.001

Notanindividual(i.e.theorganisation) 1.0 0.3 1.6 0.6 3.092 0.213

p=pvaluefromChisquaretestThehighestpercentageamongthosewhohadexperiencedunreasonablemanagementreportedthatsuperiorswereresponsible(29%).Thehighestpercentageamongthoseexperiencingincivilityreportedthatco-workersandclientswereresponsibleandthehighestpercentageamongthoseexperiencingviolencereportedthatclientswereresponsible.Table5.9showshowmuchmorelikelythoseinthevariousworkrolesperpetratedill-treatmentfactors.Unreasonablemanagementwassignificantlymorelikelytobereportedasbeingperpetratedbysuperiors(1.4x)andlesslikelybyco-workers(-30%)andclients(-90%).Incivilityanddisrespectwasmorelikelyfromco-workers(1.7x)andclients(1.7x).Violencewasmorelikelyfromclients(17.3x)butlesslikelyfromsuperiors(-70%)andco-workers(-70%).Table5.9:LikelihoodofPerpetratorRoleforIll-TreatmentFactorsExperienced

RoleofperpetratorUnreasonablemanagementOR(95%CI)

IncivilityanddisrespectOR(95%CI)

Violenceandinjury

OR(95%CI)

Employer,supervisor(s)orline-manager(s),seniormanager(s) 1.4(1.1-1.8) 0.9(0.7-1.1) 0.3(0.1-0.7)

Co-worker(s),colleague(s) 0.7(0.5-0.9) 1.7(1.3-2.4) 0.3(0.1-0.9)

Subordinate(s)orpeopleinlowerpositions 1.2(0.6-2.5) 1.0(0.5-2.1) 1.0(1.0-1.0)

Client(s),customer(s) 0.1(0.0-0.2) 1.7(1.2-2.4) 17.3(9.8-30.7)

Notanindividual(i.e.theorganisation) 2.3(0.6-9.3) 0.3(0.1-1.3) 3.0(0.4-25.1)

Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesabove1 Significant(p<0.05)ORvaluesbelow1

6EducationalSessions

6.1IntroductionTwoworkshopstookplace:thefirstinCorkonOctober5thandthesecondinGalwayonOctober19th.ParticipantsattheworkshopinCorknumbered27,whileinGalwaytherewasatotalof26participants.AwiderangeoforganisationswererepresentedateachincludingtheHSE,TradesUnions,Universities,CountyCouncilsandcharitableorganisations,andalsoIOSHmembers.Thoseattendingoccupieddiverseroles,forexampleTeamLeaders,ManagersandHRManagers,aswellasHealthandSafetyManagers.

6.2RecruitmentProcessParticipantswererecruitedviaanumberofchannels,summarisedbelow.Asrecipientsmayhaveforwardednotificationoftheevent,itisnotpossibletoprovideanoverallfigureforthefullreachoftheinvite.

• TheAssociationforHealthPromotionIreland(APHI)circulatedtheworkshopflyerbye-mailto54membersaswellasthroughFacebookandTwitter.Thepostreached119peopleandonTwitterwasre-tweetedbyMarcellaCorcoranKennedy,MinisterofStateforHealthPromotion.

• AnadvertisementwasruninHealthandSafetyReview.• LocalCountyCouncilHRandHealthandSafetyManagerswerecontacted.• Ms.NoritaRobinsonofIOSHcirculatedflyertoIOSHstaffandalsosentto16membersonIOSHIreland

SouthCommitteeandAdultEducationCentreUCC.• TheCharteredInstituteforPersonnelandDevelopment(CIPD)werecontactedandinformationwas

forwardedittoCIPDregionalcontactsandfurthersenttoindividualmembers.• TheSAOLTAHospitalGroupsSeniorManagementandregionalCIPDcontactcirculatedinformation.• TheIrishCongressofTradeUnions(ICTU)circulatedinformationto70individualmembers,57Trade

Unionsand32TradeCouncils.• HSEHealthPromotionCorkcirculatedto11HPstaff.• NationalProjectManagerStaffHealth&WellbeingHSEcirculatedto5colleagues.• InformationwascirculatedtoGraduatesfromtheNUIGMSc/HDipOccupationalandEnvironmental

Health&Safetyprogramme,andtheMA/PDGinHealthPromotion.• Ms.PatriciaMurray(HSA)andmemberofthesteeringcommittee,sentinformationtoanumberof

contacts.

6.3AimsandObjectivesTheworkshopswereaimedatallemployeesincludingfrontlinestaff,managerial,humanresource,occupationalhealthandallthosewithaninterestinpromotingpositiveworkenvironments,cultureandhealth.Theaimoftheworkshopineachcasewastoengageemployeesincriticaldiscussionandidentifypotentialsolutionstoimproveworkplaceculture,employeewellbeingandperformanceinrespectofilltreatment.Theworkshopsprovidedanopportunityforresearchersandpractitionerstocometogetheranddiscussproblematicworkplacebehavioursandfindwaystocreatepositiveworkingenvironments.Therewasafocusondiscussionandnetworkingasameanstoformconcreterecommendationstoimprovecurrentpracticeswithintheworkplace.

6.4WorkshopStructureThestructureofthedaywasdevisedbytheProjectteamwithaviewtomaximisingtheinputfromallparticipants.Therewasaformalelementintheformofpresentationsfromexpertsinthefield.ThefirstoftwopresentationswasmadebyPatriciaMurray,PsychologistwiththeHealthandSafetyAuthority(HSA).TherethenfollowedinformationanddiscussiononpreliminaryresearchfindingsbyDr.PatriciaMannixMcNamaraandDr.SarahMacCurtainoftheUniversityofLimerick.PatriciaMurrayfromtheHSAbeganbygivingsomeperspectivesfromthefieldaboutherexperienceswithreportedincidentsofilltreatmentandbullyingintheworkplace,followedbyanopendiscussionaboutthetypesofbehavioursthatmaybeconstruedasilltreatmentorbullyingbehaviour,thecreationofapositiveworkclimateandthelegalobligationsforemployersinrelationtoreportedincidentsofbullyingandhowsuchincidentsmightbestbehandled.Therewassubstantialinputfromparticipants,particularlyinrelationtoexactlywhatconstitutesbullyingandhowbesttodealwithscenarioswhereemployeesperceivedilltreatment.Therefollowedthenapresentationwhichexploredthefindingsofresearch,bothrecentIrishsurveysin2001and2007,andalsointernationalresearch.Prevalenceofbullyingwasdiscussedaswellaslinksbetweenbullyingandstressandhealth.Thedifficultiesforthosewhowitnesssuchtreatmentwerealsohighlighted.Inordertotakefulladvantageofthewiderangeofperspectivesdiscussionwasencouragedthroughoutbothpresentations.Thediscussionraisedquestionsabouthowtodevelopandmaintainapositiveworkclimateandhowcommunicationandcivilityarekeytoestablishingapositiveclimateintheworkplace.Thepresentationswerefollowedbyadiscussioninbreak-outgroups.Eachgroupwasgivenareallifeexampleofilltreatmenttoexamineandaskedtoidentifyproblemsandproposesolutions.Reportsfromthebreak-outgroupsraisedmanyissues,suchastheimportanceofgoodcommunication,andclarityregardingjobroles,aswellasthepotentialofemployeeperformancereviewstoenhancecommunicationforallparties.Otherissuesraisedincludedthesubjectivenatureofhowindividualsperceiveeventsandtheneedforclearpoliciesaroundissuessuchasbullying.Mediationwasalsoexploredasapossiblesolution.Theimportanceofmindingone’smentalhealthwasalsohighlighted.Stresswasexplainedasafactorthatcanchangebehaviourandactasapossiblecauseoferraticorproblematicbehavioursatwork.Beginningwithabriefexplanationonthebenefitsofmindfulnessforrelievingstress,participantsweretakenthroughsomebasicmindfulnessexercisesbymindfulnesscoachMs.OrlaithO’Sullivan.Theworkshopconcludedwithparticipantsbeingprovidedwithsomerecommendationsastohowtoapproachreportedincidentsofbullyingintheworkplace,againgivinganopportunitytoalltocontribute.Thesessionconcludedwithalightlunchwhereparticipantshadanopportunitytonetworkandcontinuediscussionsonissuesraised.

6.5FeedbackInordertoinformthedevelopmentoffutureworkshopsandeducationalsessions,participantsweresentafeedbackform.Onthewhole,feedbackwasextremelypositiveandrespondentsstressedthattheyhadfoundtheworkshopsextremelybeneficial.Theformwascomprisedofthreesections.Thefirstdealtwithinsightsthatweregainedthatmaybeimplementedinpractice.Thesecondreferredtothemainstrengthsoftheworkshopand,finally,recommendationsweresoughtastohowtheformatandthecontentoftheworkshopmaybeimprovedupon.Intermsofnewinsightsintotheareaofworkplacebehaviour,manyparticipantsreferredtotheimportanceofcivilityandthefactthatinappropriateworkplacebehaviourrepresentsapreventablecauseofworkplacestress.Manyalsostatedthattheyfelttheyhadgainedabetterunderstandingoftheprocessnecessarytodealwithallegationsofbullyingandwaystoavertproblems.Anumberofparticipantsalsomentionedthattheyhadnotpreviouslyconsideredthestressesforthirdpartieswhowitnessbullying.

Itwasfoundthatthemainstrengthsoftheworkshopincludedbringingresearchersandpractitionerstogethertodiscussthetopicinapracticalmanner.Thegroupworksessionwasfoundtobemostilluminatingduetotheuseofreallifeincidentsandthepresenterswerecommendedbothfortheirknowledgeandpassionaroundthesubject,andalsofortheiropenandhoneststyleofdelivery,whichallowedforplentyofinterestingdiscussion.Feedbackontheworkshopswasresoundinglypositive.Themaincriticismrelatedtolackoftime,inparticulararoundthediscussionofthecasestudies.Itwasalsostatedthatmoretimecouldhavebeengiventotherecommendationsforpreventinganddealingwithbadbehaviour.Forsome,moretimecouldhavebeenallocatedtothewaysinwhichapositiveworkplaceclimatecanbefosteredandlessontheissueofworkplacebullying.Ingeneral,itwasfeltthatthisissuchanimportanttopicthatmoretimeisneededforadeeperexplorationoftheissuesthatwereraised.

6.6AttendeesAsummaryoforganisationsandjobrolesofattendeesforbothworkshopsisprovidedbelow:AttendeesCorkWorkshop5thOctober2016:OrganisationsandJobRoles

Company PositionRepresentativeBody BusinessDevelopmentPharmaceuticalCompany SafetyQualityExcellenceLeadPharmaceuticalCompany SafetyLeaderUniversity DepartmentManagerUniversity DepartmentManagerUniversityPartnershipBody HealthandSafetyOfficerUniversity ProjectManagerUniversity OnlineProgrammesCo-ordinatorUniversity AdministratorPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerRecruitmentFirm TechnicalConsultantPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerUniversity CareersAdvisorPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerUniversity StudentMPHProgrammeUniversity LanguageTutorTradeUnion OrganiserEducationDivisionRepresentativeBody RolenotgivenManufacturingFirm EHSOfficerConstructionFirm RegionalHSEManagerPublicSectorOrganisation HeadofNationalandSafetyFunctionUniversity OfficeAdminConstructionFirm RegionalHSEManagerUniversity PhDStudentUniversity MAHealthPromotionGraduateUniversity MAHealthPromotionGraduatePublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotion

AttendeesGalwayWorkshop19thOctober2016:OrganisationsandJobRolesCompany PositionTransportCompany EHSAdvisorSecurityCompany ManagingDirectorConstructionCompany HealthandSafetyManagerCharitableOrganisation StaffNurseCharitableOrganisation SocialWorkTeamLeaderCharitableOrganisation ManagerCharitableOrganisation CEOCharitableOrganisation CommunityCateringGovernmentDepartment HRManagerPublicSectorOrganisation StaffOfficer-HRSectionTrainingandEducationAgency TeacherTrainingandEducationAgency TeacherPublicSectorOrganisation HealthandSafetyInspectorPublicSectorOrganisation HealthPromotionOfficerPublicSectorOrganisation DieticianPublication-H&S EditorTradeUnion OrganiserTradeUnion OrganiserTradeUnion DivisionalOrganiserUniversity LecturerPublicSectorOrganisation DataAnalystandProjectManagerPublicSectorOrganisation GroupDirectorHRPublicSectorOrganisation HRTradeUnion RepresentativePowerCompany HSEManagerPublicSectorOrganisation ProjectManager

7CaseStudyMethodologyThecasestudyphaseoftheprojectaimedtoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinkeysectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalentandwithasubstantialimpactonhealth,inordertoinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Thecasestudiesaimedtoidentifyrelevantpoliciesinplaceinthesampledorganisations(aspertheBWBS,theorganisationswerelargeorganisations(i.e.250-500employees),toexplorethepracticesthatderivefromandaroundthesepolicies,andtheimplementationofpoliciesontheground.

7.1SampleTimeconstraints,delayswithprocurementandanticipationofdifficultyengagingorganisationsincasestudiesinthecontextofausterityandthechallengesthishasbroughttoIrishworkplaces,meantthatitwasnotadvisabletoawaitthefullcompletionandanalysisofthesurveydatainordertoselectsectors.Instead,theresearchteamlookedtotheresultsoftheBWBSstudytoguidecasestudyselection.IntheBWBS,thepublicsectorwasclearlyatgreaterriskforbothviolenceandincivility,andthevoluntarysectorforviolence.Healthandsocialworkweresimilarlyathighriskforallthreetypesofilltreatment37.Therefore,itwasdecidedtopurposivelyidentifythreeorganisations,atleastonefromthepublicsector,atleastonevoluntaryorganisation,andatleastoneofthesebeingahealth/socialserviceprovider.MiningandquarryingcompanieswereexcludedbecauseofthesmallnumberofcompaniesinthissectorinIreland,whichwouldhavecompromisedanonymity,whileDefencewasavoidedonthebasisofthesectorbeinginvolvedinaworkplaceresearchprojectatthesametimeasthecurrentstudy.Inthiswaythreeorganisationswereidentifiedasfollows:

Sector Occupation/industry Pseudonym

1 Voluntary SocialCare VORG12 Public Administration PBS23 Public HealthCare STH3

7.2ProcedurePotentialorganisationswereidentifiedthroughtheprofessionalcontactsofmembersofthesteeringgroup.Amemberoftheresearchteamarrangedtomeetwithpersonnelfromeachorganisationinthefirstinstance.Theprojectwasoutlinedandiftheorganisationshowedwillingnesstoengage,commitmentrequirementsandbenefitswereoutlined,ineachcase,asfollows:Commitmentorthepartoftheorganisationto:

• Allowresearchteamtoissueanopeninvitationtostafftoparticipateinashortinterview,onavoluntarybasis,whereconfidentialitywouldbeassured

37SectorswithhighprevalenceintheBWBSwereasfollows:ViolenceandInjury:mostprevalentinthepublicsectorandVol/NGOsector;3timesgreaterthanaverageinhealthandsocialwork,twiceaverageinpublicadministrationanddefence.Incivility: most prevalent in public sector, public administration and defence, and health and social work. Industries with highest riskincludedhotelsandcatering,andminingandquarrying.Unreasonablemanagement:mostcommoninhealthandsocialwork,publicadministrationanddefence,alsomorecommonintheutilitiesandfinancialintermediation.

• Providingaccesstoatleastthreekeyinformants(e.g.CEO,seniormanagers,HR,TradeUnionrepresentatives)

• Providingcopiesofrelevantpolicies.Theresearchteamcommittedto:

• Providinganindividualcompanyreportalongwithspecificrecommendationstohelpimprovemorale,andpotentiallyreduceabsenteeismandincreaseoutput/productivity

• Ensuringthatneithertheorganisationnorindividualemployeeswouldbeidentifiable.Inthecaseofoneorganisation,abespokesurveywasrequestedforstaff,basedontheinstrumentemployedintheprojectsurvey.Thiswasagreedandresultsweregiventotheorganisation,withthesamecommitmenttoconfidentiality.Thetopicguideforinterviews(seeAppendix2)includedunderstandingofilltreatment,personalexperience,perceivedcausesofilltreatment,supportsavailable,outcomesofusesofpoliciesandprocedures,andideasforsolutions/improvementsinpractice.Therewereminorvariationsintheinterviewstructureforregularstaffandformembersofthemanagementteam.Staffmemberswhowereinterestedinbeinginterviewed,followingonopencallmadebytheresearchteam,(seeAppendix3)madedirectcontactwiththeresearcherconductingtheinterviews.Itwasagreedthatthosewhovolunteeredtobeinterviewedwouldbekeptconfidentialfromtheorganisation,thustheorganisationwouldnothaveanyinformationaboutwhomadecontactandwhosubsequentlypresentedforinterview.Allinterviewswereconductedinperson(face-to-face)andrecorded(withpermission).Audiotapeswerethentranscribedverbatim.

7.3ApproachtoAnalysisTheaimofthecasestudyphaseoftheIWBSwastoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinkeysectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalentinordertoinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Inductive,thematicanalysiswasundertaken.Transcriptswerereadandanyidentifyingdataremoved.Datasegmentswerecodedandthemessought,reviewedandnamed,foreachsetofinterviewsinaseparatesetofprocesses(i.e.threeseparateanalyseswereconducted).Thestudyobjectivesguidedthethematicanalysisalthoughresearchersalsoremainedopentotheemergenceofnovelorunexpectedthemes.

7.4PolicyAnalysis

Itiswell-establishedpractice,andindeedalegislativerequirementinsomecountries,tohaveaBullyingPreventionPolicyoraDignityatWorkpolicy.Variousguidesandspecificationsexisttoassistorganisationdeveloptheirpolicies.Basedonanumberofthesedocuments38,achecklistwasdevisedaspartoftheproject,whichwasthenusedtobenchmarkthepolicyenvironmentforthecasestudyorganisations.

38HealthandSafetyAuthority(2007)CodeofPracticeforEmployersandEmployeesonthePreventionandResolutionofBullyingatWork,Dublin:HealthandSafetyAuthority;Rayner,C.&Lewis,D.(2011).ManagingWorkplaceBullying:TheroleofPolicies.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.BullyingandHarrassmentintheWorkplace,DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice,London:TaylorandFrancis;Woodrow,C.&Guest,D.(2013).WhenGoodHRgetsBadResults:ExploringtheChallengeofHRImplementationintheCaseofBullying,HumanResourceManagementJournal,24(1)p38-56

8CaseStudy1:VORG1VORG1isanon-statutory,voluntaryorganisationthathasprovidedsocialcaresupportsandservicestoclientswhomexperienceawiderangeofdisabilities.Itprovidesservicesonbehalfofthestatutoryhealthservices,throughaformalserviceagreement.Theorganisationisregisteredcharity.GovernanceisundertakenbyaBoardofDirectorsthatincludeparentsandfriendsofserviceusers,andcommunityrepresentatives.TheCompanyDirectorsdelegatethemanagementoftheAssociation’saffairstotheExecutiveDirectorandtheManagementTeam,whichincludesaDirectorofServices,aFinancialController,andseniormanagersforvariousmanagementfunctions.Atthetimeofwriting,theorganisationemploysapproximately700peopleincludingclericalstaff,transportandmaintenancestaff,andprofessionalstaffincludingcareworkers(threegrades)andspecialisedtherapiststaff.Theorganisationalsofacilitatesalargevolunteerprogramme,withastructuredfundraisingprogramme.Itisunderpinnedbyavaluebasethatincludedworkinginpartnershipwithfamilies,voluntarism,continualqualityimprovementandequityofaccessinrespectofservicedelivery.Theorganisationhasaclearcommitmenttotheprincipleofclientcenteredness.TheCommunityandVoluntarysectorisIrelandisalargeandvibrantsector.Ithastraditionallyandcontinuestomakesasignificantcontributiontothedeliveryofhealthandsocialservicesinmanyregions.VORG1wasoneoftheorganisationsthatwouldhaveevolvedfromcharity-basedmodelinthe1960stoaparticipationandempowermentmodelinthe1970sand1980s.Thesectorhasbeenchallengedlately,inrespectofbothfundingallocationsthroughouttherecessionandmediaexposureofpocketsofpoorpractice.Fundingforthesectorisestimatedtohavedroppedbyupto29%andthesectorhasborneadisproportionateburdenofthenationalrequirementforfinancialreadjustment.39Financialreportingformanyorganisationsinthesectorhasnotbeenfullyregulatedinthepast,andasaresultofrecentexposuresofunusuallyhighsalariesforexecutivesinasmallnumberofcharities,aCharitiesRegulationActhasbeensignedintolaw.Regulationinrespectofqualityofcare,hasalsobeensomewhatlimited,andanumberofmediaexposesofsubstandardcareanddisempoweringpracticeshavealertedpolicymakerstotheneedforregularinspectionandtransparentreporting.VORG1hasnotbeenbroughtintodisreputeinrelationtoeithersalariesorcarestandards,butnonethelesshastoprovideservicesinthecontextofageneralchangeinexpectation,trustanddemandfromclientfamiliesacrossthecountry.

8.1PolicyandProcedureVORG1,asaregisteredcharityandserviceproviderisboundbystatutorylegislationandregulation.Ithasacoherentandtransparentpolicyportfolio,numbering80documents,addressinghumanresourceprocedures,financialregulationandsafeguardsforstaffandserviceusers.Ofrelevancetothepreventionandmanagementofilltreatment,thereisa‘DignityatWork’policy,disciplinaryprocedures,proceduresforgrievances,managinginvestigationsandanEAP.Thesefivepolicieswereconsideredagainstthechecklistforgoodpractice(seeTable8.1).Fromthisitcanbeseenthattheorganisationiscompliantwithstatutoryregulation,andtherelevantpolicy,inparticularthe‘DignityatWork’policydemonstratesareasonablyhighlevelofadherencetogoodpractice.

39Harvey,D.(2012).DownsizingtheCommunitySector.ChangesinEmploymentandServicesintheVoluntaryandCommunitySectorinIreland20018-2012.IrishCongressofTradeUnions,CommunitySectorCommittee

Table8.1:VORG1Policy

Policyshould…DignityatWork EAP Grievance

ProcedureManaging

InvestigationsDisciplinaryProcedure

Becreatedinconsultationwithtradeunionsand/oremployeerepresentatives

ü Notexplicitlystated.ReferenceismadetoEAPStandardsandProfessionalGuidelines(2003)

?40 ? ?

Employsimple,direct,unambiguouslanguageandisasshortaspossible

22pageslong ü ü 35pageslong ü

Be‘owned’byresponsibleperson(e.g.signedorpersonwithresponsibilityforthepolicynamed)

Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesit.Itisnotstatedifthepolicyisownedbyanypersonorunit

Itisindicatedwhowrotethepolicy,whoreviewsitandwhoapprovesitbutisnotclearlyownedbyanyonepersonorunit

Containadeclarationofcommitmenttopreventionofharmduetobullyingandrelatedilltreatment

ü û û Employerresponsibilitiesareoutlined,howeverbullyingandrelatedilltreatmentarenotdirectlycited

Containadeclarationofunderstandingand/orcommitmenttotherighttobeingtreatedwithdignityatwork

ü û û ü û

Containadeclarationofnon-toleranceofbullyingbyallthefollowingparties:employees,clients,customersorsub-contractors

ü û û û û

PolicylinkedtoorreferencedwithintheSafetyStatementandlinksexplainedwithotherrelevantpolicies(e.g.CodeofConduct

û û û

Outlinerelativeresponsibilities:-Employerresponsibilityforprotectionfromharm-Responsibilityofallemployeestobecivilandcourteousintheirdailywork-Responsibilityoftradeunionstoparticipateinimplementationofpracticesandprocedures,andthroughprovidingadviceandinformationtomembers

ü BullyingnotreferredtodirectlyResponsibilityoftheorganisation,managers,employeeandfamilymembersareoutlinedinrelationtotheEAPprocessRoleoftradeunionsarenotreferredtoinpolicy.ResponsibilityofEAPproviderisoutlined

ResponsibilityoftheorganisationandsupervisorsindicatedwithinthepolicyinrelationtogrievancesBullyingisnotdirectlyreferencedRoleoftradeunionsnotoutlinedinpolicy

Responsibilityoftheorganisation,managers,investigationteamandemployeesoutlinedRoleoftradeunionsnotoutlinedinpolicy

Responsibilityoftheorganisation,supervisors,andemployeesindicatedwithinthepolicyinrelationtodisciplinarymattersBullyingisnotdirectlyreferencedRoleoftradeunionsnotoutlinedinpolicy

DescribeswhatismeantbyBullying,includinganon-exhaustivelistofexamples

ü û û û No,examplesofgrossmisconductarelistedwhichincludesbullying

40Notstated

Policyshould…DignityatWork EAP Grievance

ProcedureManaging

InvestigationsDisciplinaryProcedure

Setoutcomplaintsprocedure,compliantwithnationalcodeofpractice,includingtheinformalandformalprocedures(ifboth),rightstorepresentation,acommitmenttofollowingthroughtoresolutionComplaintsprocedureshouldbeclear,easytofollow,includesflowcharts,formsortemplatesthatfacilitatestaffandpromptkeyinformation

ü ü ü ü ü

Givetimeframesforthestagesofprocedure,asaservice-levelagreement(e.g.investigationwithinXofreceivingcomplaint)

Itisstatedthateveryeffortwillbemadetoexpediteprocessasspeedilyandconfidentiallyaspossible.Sometimeframesgivenwithinformalprocedureoutline,andstatementaboutfurthertimeframesgivenonceinvestigatorappointed

Onlyindicatedfordiscipline-relatedmatters

ü ü Yes,statesthatatallstages,disciplinaryproceedingswillbecompletedasquicklyasiscompatiblewiththeneedtoensurejusticeisdoneandseentobedone

Makeexplicittherespectofconfidentiality

ü ü û

Listtheoutcomesforcomplaints,includingifthecomplaintisdeemedvexatious

ü û û ü û

Extendtoworkoffsiteandwork-relatedsocialevents

û û û û û

Containadeclarationofthecommitmenttotheprotectionofcomplainantsfromvictimisation

ü û Notrelevanttopolicy Notexplicitlystated.Referencetoprotecteddisclosuresofinformationintheworkplace

Notrelevanttopolicy

BeyondPolicy…

Systematicdatamonitoring(absencedata,exitdata,regularengagementandhealthsurveys,whichaskaboutbullyingbehaviours,trainingoffer,attendanceandevaluationdata)

û û û û

MakingsureBullyingisaskedaboutinexitinterviews

û û û û û

Havingaprocessforre-buildingworkplacerelations

û û û û û

8.2InterviewsInterviewssetouttoexplorehowtheterm‘illtreatment’wasunderstoodandwhatkindofconversationsfollowedtheuseofthisterm.Intheanalysisattentionwasdirectedtowardwhatworkers’experienceswereinrelationtoimplementationissues,themanagementofilltreatmentandwhethernewandimprovedsolutionsorideasfortheorganisationwouldbeidentified.Threeopencallsweremadetoinvitestafftomeetaresearcherforinterview,atleast20%ofwhichwouldbewithmanagement.

Sevenstaffintotalcameforwardandparticipatedininterviews.Fourweremembersofmanagement(MM).Threeintervieweeswereserviceproviders(SP).Twointervieweesweremale.Allwerepermanentlyemployed.Theaverageinterviewlengthwas40minutes(seeTable8.2).Allintervieweeswereprovidedwithpseudonymstoensureconfidentialityandforeaseofanalysis.Table8.2:VORG1InterviewParticipants

Interviewnumber Gender Role/level Pseudonym YearswithORG DurationofInterview

1 F ServiceProvider Vera 18 33mins

2 M ServiceProvider Victor 23 34mins

3 F Management Veronica 30 38mins

4 F Management Valerie 30 35mins

5 F ServiceProvider Vanessa 15 47mins

6 M Management Vincent 30 53mins

7 F Management Violet 1 39mins

Theoverallthrustoftheinterviewdatawasthattheorganisationhasacommitmenttoprotectingemployeesfromilltreatmentandnoflagrantexamplesofseriousilltreatment,forexample,intimidationorpredatorybullying,weredescribedoralludedto.However,therewereissuesinrelationtoworkingrelationshipsandprotectionofstaff.Ideasregardingaddressingproblemsarepresentedinthethreethemesthatemergedinthedataanalysisasdiscussedbelow.‘Reluctancetomanage,reluctancetoreport’Astrongthemethroughoutthedatasetwashowilltreatmentrevolvedaroundmanagementdifficulties:managersnotmanagingwellandstaffbeingresistanttobeingmanaged.Whilethereweresomereferencestodifficultconversationstakingplace,therewerealsomanyreferencestoissuesthatwerenotdealtwithadequatelyoratall.Additionally,therewerereferencestostaffbeingreluctanttotakeill-treatmentissuesforwarddespitepolicycoverage.Mostoftheexamplesofilltreatmentgivenbytheinterviewees,eitherasaresultofdirectexperienceoraswitnessed,revolvedaroundthemanagementofstaff.Managerswhomwerepoorlysuitedtothetaskofmanagementandwhofailedtoeffectivelymanagestaff,ormanagerswhoweredisregardingoforganisationalpolicyandpracticeweredeemedtobemistreatingstaff.Bothlackofcompetenceandtheabuseofpowerwerebehindtheseexamplesofilltreatment.Referencewasmadetomanagersputtingpressureonstaffinwaysthatimpliedamisuseofpower,althoughthewordpowerwasrarelyusedintheinterviews.Victorwastheonlyparticipanttomakeanexplicitreferencetopower,althoughinaqualifiedmanner:Ihadsomethingplannedforanexternalevent…andamanagerrangmeandsaidI’dcomplicatedeverything,inmypreparation,butIactuallyhadn’t,itwasamatterofyesandno,itwasnothingcomplicatedaboutit.But,Iknowithasaffectedmeinthelastfewyearswiththesameindividual,sinceIstartedintheorganisation.It’snearlyapowerthing.I’mnearlyafraidtostepoutsidethebox(laughs)hopingIdon’tupsethim,becausehehastoomuchofthepower,ifyouknowwhatImean?(Victor,SP)Failuretomanageconflictbetweenstaff,rudeness,notlisteningandnottakingothers’opinionsonboardwerealsorecountedinthedata,andinterpretedasaweaknessonthepartofmanagerstodealprofessionallywithdifficultsituations.Itwasacknowledgedthatpeoplecanlackinsightintotheirownbehaviouranditisamanager’sjobto‘haveaconversation’withthemaboutthis.Itwasnotedthatoftentheseissueswerenotsurfaced,andconversationswereavoided.Thiswasdescribedas‘rumblingsofdiscontent’whichneverbecomeformalcomplaints.

Ithinktheyhidefromthedifficultsituations.Ithinktheyjustsortof,juststepbackalittlebit,someoneelse’sproblem…if,ifweleaveitlongenough,it’llgoaway…sortofthing,butitdoesn’t(Vanessa,SP)‘…it’s,it’s,it’skindof,thepeoplehaven’tbeenmanaged,intermsof,sotheirbehaviourhasprobablyescalatedandthey’rekindofmanagementissuesthatiftheyhadbeennippedinthebud…(Veronica,MM)Itwasconsideredthatilltreatmentwouldbebetteraddressedwithintheorganisationbyimprovedmanagementtechnique,andnotjustleavingthingstofesterortobeignored.Itwasalsoidentifiedthattherearestaffwhorefusedtobemanaged,whomweredescribedashaving‘strongpersonalities’anditwassuggestedthatthiscouldbestaffwhomhavebeenintheorganisationalongtimeandwerereluctanttochangetheirbehaviourfornewerstaffinmanagementpositions.Thepotentialalsofornewserviceproviderstobeisolatedandunsupportedinthesesituationswasacknowledged.Idofindthatpeoplearen’tbeingmanagedbecausethey’vegotavery,strongpersonality.Iotherwordstheywould,Idon’tknow,theywouldshout,‘union’straightawayorthey’dshout‘bullying’straightawayorthe,sothereforethenit’snearlylikethey’renotbeingmanagedthen,they’rejustsortofleftalittlebit,andnotpulledtotaskon,onthings,Ifindthataswell...,managershavingthe,thestrengthorthe,Idon’tknowthebetterwordbuttheballstosortof,managepeople.(Vanessa,SP)Veronicaplacesreluctancetomanageinthecontextofsmallstaffteamswherepeoplecanbeveryreluctanttoraiseissues.Manyoftheoutcomesofilltreatmentidentifiedbyintervieweesreferredtomovingstaffaroundtheorganisation,whichreinforcesthenotionthatthereisreluctancetomanagedifficultsituations.Managementstylewasdescribedasnotbeinginnovative,avoidanceofdealingwithconflictbeingduetolackofinnovationorimagination:…becausetraditionallymaybealotofmanagershavecomeupthroughthesystem,sothey’renowmanagingpeoplethattheystartedoffthesamedayworkingwith…andhavebuiltarelationshipwithsome…it’sverydifficulttomanage,somebodyyouhavearelationshipwithlike…(Vanessa,SP) Doyouknowwhat,Ithinkit’slackofinnovation,maybewehaven’tmovedon.Wehavepeople,maybemanagingit…andmaybethey’vebeenmanagingtoolongintheoneareaandiftheorganisationhasgottoobigforthatsortofmanagementstyle…itwasfinehavingalaissezfairestyletomanagementwhenyouhadonlyacoupleofhundredpeopleworkingintheorganisation,butwhenyouhaveagoodfewhundredpeopleworking…youknow,youcan’tkeepmanagingthewayyoumanagedtwentyyearsago…orthewayyouweretrained…they’restillmanagingonthebaseof,beingthereforsolong…(Victor,SP)Thereluctancetohavedifficultconversationsalsooccurredinthecontextofsickleave,andhowtoaddressworkabilitysituations.So,andthenagainit’saboutthemanagementstructureaboutsomebodysittinginwiththepersonandactuallyhavinganhonestandstraightforwardconversationinsteadofleavingit100%uptothepersontodecideareyougoingtocomeintoworkornot…(Vanessa,SP)Valerierecountedasituationinwhichtheorganisationletastaffmembergoduetoinabilitytowork,whichwhilenotseenasanexampleofilltreatmentinitself,becameamanifestationofilltreatmentbecause‘wehadignoredtheproblemfortoolong’.Butnotonlyweremanagersreluctanttoreportandconfrontilltreatment,staffwerealsounwillingtoexposenegativebehavioursandexperiencesasrecommendedinthepolicies.Therewereanumberofreferencesinthedatasettopeoplebeingfearfulofreportingilltreatment,asitwasanticipatedthatthesituationwouldonlyworsen.Althoughfearwasnotgenerallyprominentinthedata,whenitwasmentioned,itwasinthecontextofreportingasuperiorandwasmentionedprincipallybyserviceproviders:

Ifyoucomplainaboutasenior,theymightrattleyourwagonataseniorlevelandyou’dbe,itisn’tworthyourwhile!…you’dfindthatstaffwouldneverreportitagainbecause,look,itwouldnearlyturnfullcircleonthem…(Victor,SP)Wehavehadtrainingeventsarounddignityatworkandthings…wherestaffhavebeenverycandidandsaidtheywouldn’treportanythingbecauseitcomesbacktothem,iftheydo.(Vera,SP)Fearofsayingthewrongthingtothewrongpersonatthewrongtime.(Victor,SP)Veronica,asamemberofmanagement,alsoobserved‘thefearfactorthatpeoplehave‘inreportingilltreatment.‘Overpolicedyetunderprotected’Itwasagreedbyallintervieweesthatpolicywasplentiful.Policywasseentobebroadlyspeaking,accessible,theretoprovidenecessarysafeguards,anddescribedashavingbeendevisedinpartnershipwithtradeunions.However,thecommentsaboutpolicywerenotwhollypositive.AccessibilitywasdescribedbyVincentinthefollowingway:‘it’sallonline…youknow,there’sno,there’snothinghidden…allofthepoliciesareoutthere,anybodycanreadthem’andbyVeraasreadilyaccessibleasitwasall‘ontheinternet’.Thesenseisgivenherethattheonusisonstafftofindpolicyandreaditperhapsretroactively,whensituationsoccur.ThiswasreinforcedbyVictor’scomment:…youknow,alotofpeoplewouldsaythat,oh,theyquotedthepolicytomewhenIwentin,yet,noonehadmentioneditbeforeIwentin…ormaybewhenImadethemistake.Thepolicyistakenoutthen,toproveapoint,andyoumightbethen,jeez,isthat,isthatinthepolicy?Ineverknewit,doyouknow?(laughs).Akeydifficultywithpolicywasthatitdoesnotaddressalltheissuesthatstaffconfront,andthequantityofpolicymaymaskthis.Valeriepointsout‘Nowwe’vethreemassivefoldersofprocedures…we’re,we’reabitheavyonprocedures,yeah’whileVictorrefersto‘policieswithinpolicies’,andacerbicallycommentsthat‘staffarenearlyburntoutreadingpolicies’.Healsousestheterm‘overpolicied’.Victorusesthistermtorefertotheuseofpoliciesinsituationswheretheydomoreharmthangood,forexample:…it,it’shardtoquantifyinapeopleorganisation,wherewe’redealingwithpeople…doyouknow,some,someoftheissuesthatIhearstaffonaboutare,are,disciplinaryissuesor,someonehasmadeacomplaint…itmightn’tbe,but,itmightbejustthewaytheytalkedaboutsomeone,buttheymightn’thavemeantanythinginit…andthentheyhavetoprovetheirinnocence.Sothat’squitehardforstaffinourbusinessbecauseallittakesissomeonetosay,ohIdidn’tlikethewayMarytalkedtoJohn…thatcouldbeaninvestigatoryprocedure.Nextthingyoucouldbesuspendedduringthatinvestigatoryprocedure…you’resuspendedtoprotectyouasastaffright?Butitdoesn’t,everybodyintheorganisationknowsyou’reoff…(laughs)…doyouknow,andthey,likethey,theyhavemaybeconfidentiality,eventhoughit’stheretoacertaindegree,itisn’tbecause,Iknowthestaffthatareoff,everybodyelseknows,youknow,so…(Victor,SP)Yetallstaffunderinvestigationmaynotbesuspended,asidentifiedbyVeronica.Sheraisestheissueoftensioninworkingwithstaffwhileinvestigationswereon-going:…processesarelonganddrawnoutaswell.Youknow?Andthen,amIexpectedtoworkbesidethisperson,soifIhaveraisedaconcernaboutthemorifIhavetohaveaconversationwiththemandIhavetocomebackoutandworkwiththemstraightaway,you’reinverycloseproximity,andyourelyonyourcolleaguesverymuch,particularlyifyou’reworkingwithchallengingbehaviour,thattheyhaveyourback.So,so,youknowhavingatenseatmosphere.AlthoughcontrastingwithVictor’saccount,itechoesconcernshereregardingtheapplicationofpolicytosituationswhicharenotstraightforward,andinvolvingperceptionsandinterpretationswhichimpingeonon-

goingrelationshipsbetweenstaffmembers.Veronicaalsoexpressesconcernaboutdifficultiessuchasoccurindisputes,wherebothpartiesinevitablyseethemselvestoberight,andthereforesomeonefeels‘wronged’followingintervention,whatevertheoutcome.Theimplementationofpoliciesmayfailtoprotectbecausetheyfailtoacknowledgethecomplexityofhumaninterpersonalbehaviourandhowitoperatesinthecontextofahierarchicalpowerbasedorganisation.Iwouldsaypeoplearenever100%satisfiedunlesstheygetexactlywhattheywant.Soyou’vetwopartiesinanissue…andyou’renotgoingtohavebothpartiessatisfied…somebodywillfeelharddoneby,somebodywillfeelupset...(Veronica,MM)Therewasonecleargapinpolicycoverage,highlightedinseveralinterviews:Butwehavenothinginplacetoprotectstaffthatare…,ifthere’sanallegationmadeaboutemployeesfromparentsorfamilies,wehavenothingthere.Wehaveloadsofstufftoprotecttheorganisation…andloadsofstufftoprotecttheserviceuserbutwe’venothingtoprotectusasastaff.(Victor,SP)Anumberofintervieweesrecountedincidentsinwhichstaffwereshoutedatorabusedbyfamilymembers.WhileVeraclaimsitistakenwith‘apinchofsalt’,shealsodescribestheincidentsinquitegraphicterms:We’vehad,we’vehadanumberofincidentswithquiteabusivefamilies…thatmayhavebeenquiteverballyabusive…andslanderousnearly…toanumberofstaff,andthereisnocomebackforthat…one,whojustmadetotallyoffthewallremarks,anditwas,itwasjustabsolutely…itwas,bonkerskindastuff,butImean,youcantakeitinyourstridesometimes…(Vera,SP)Veraalsoacknowledgesthateventhoughstaffcantrytotakethebehaviourofindividualsintheirstride,thiskindofabusemayhaveanegativeimpactonhowstaffareperceivedinthecommunity,andthereisnoprotectionfromdamagetoreputation.BothValerieandVioletrecountthestressinvolvedinsuchincidents:Nomatterwhatwedoit’sjustnotthereandthefamilyarecomplainingtoeveryavenuethereis,becausewhattheywantisn’tsomethingthatthegovernmentwouldstandover,…everythingiswrongallthetimeandit’sjustverydifficulttoworkwith…becauseyoucan’t,am,theyabsolutelywanttherightthingfortheirpersonbutam,itjustgetssowoundupandnotworkingwithyou.Soit’sallthatbuildup…that’s,thatyoufeel,ohmygodyou’resostressedbyitso…Wellyou’dfeelvulnerable…yeah,you’dfeelquitevulnerable.(Valerie,MM)WhenIwashavingcontactwiththemother,shewasgettingreallyfrustrated…,howshecameacrosstome,youknow,quiteoftenshe’dbeshouting,havearaisedvoice…shewouldbe,picking,youknow,everyone,everyonecanhave,youknow,everyone’sgoingtocriticisethings…andthere’salwaysgoingtobeissues.Butyouknow,really,really,pickingatverysmallthings…andthenshoutingaboutthoseissues.And,whenIsayshoutinglike,Imeanlike,therewouldbearaisedvoiceand,youknowareallyraisedvoiceandshewouldmaybehaveherhandsintheair,youknow…shewasreallyreallyangryaboutthisandshewasshoutingatmeaboutit…atonepointIwaskindof,kneelingdownjustto,topickup…andshewaskindofleaningovermeandshouting(laughs)…andIactually,Iactuallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme,that’showangryshewas.Am,Iwasactually,reallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme…am,butthatwasprobablythe,theworstofthatsituationreally.(Violet,MM)TheresponsefromseniormanagementwhenVioletraisedthisissuewasto:...(give)meafewpointersbutIfeltthattheirpointersitwasquite,quitekindofhardtofollowcausetheywouldsaylook,ifshegets,ifshegetslikethatjustsayI’mnotyouknow,wecan’tspeakwhenit’slike,whenyou’re,whenyouragitated…sotheybasicallytoldmetoleaveifshewasgettinglikethat,whichIactuallyfoundquite,quitedifficulttodo.’‘Returntocorevaluestomoveforward’Theneedtoacknowledgestaffandtheirworkwasraisedattimesintheinterviews.Victorfeltforexamplethat:

Weneedtodoanawfullotmore,bridgebuildingwithstaffandgoodvaluesthatcomeintoworkand,acknowledgeit,somepeoplethatareinmyworkfortwentyorthirtyyearsandthey’venoqualificationatall,andyet,they’reprobablythebestworkerswehave,andwedon’tacknowledgethatgoodenough…Hegoesontocommentontheneedtoreaffirmcorevalues:Peopleshouldbevaluedfirst…youknow,ahandworkfromthere.NowIknowit’shard,thestructurewhereyouhavepeoplecomingalotandpeoplearemakingaccusationsandstufflikethat…butifthere’satrust,doyouknow,ourheadofficeis,it’ssupposedtobeacommunitybasedthing,butyouneedasecuritypasstogetintoit,youknow…soit’slike,liketheprincipal’sofficeyouknow…Weneedtomoveawayfromthat.Relatedly,improvedrelationshipbuildingandsupportwereseentobeimportantinthecontextofaddressingilltreatment:Idon’tthinkthere’senoughoftimespentonbuildingrelationships…really,withintheorganisation(Vanessa,SP),Yougetmoreoutofpeople,youknowiftheyfeel,intheirtimeofneedyou’regoingtosupportthem(Vincent,MM)Theneedforacultureshiftaroundmanagerialresponsibilitywasidentifiedbytwoofthemanagersandthatthiscouldbeachievedthroughtraining.Opennessandtransparencyaroundreportingunacceptablebehaviourwasdiscussed,andplacedinthecontextofrespect.Veronicasumsthisupasfollows:Youknow,thehammeringhometherespectandthefocusonthewelfareofyouremployees……right?….solookingat,youknow,whatisacceptableinanorganisationandthatbeingveryopenandvery,youknow,clearandunderstandingthatifsomethingisreportedoris,isobserved,thatit’sdealtwithandnotjustleftthere….Andsometimes,likeIsaytopeople,you’renotgoingtolikeeverybodyyouworkwith.Butyou’vegottorespecttheirroleandworkthroughthat,OK,youdon’thavetobetheirbestfriendandyoudon’thavetoworkwiththemout,I’mnotaskingyoutogotothepubwiththem,I’mnotaskingyoutobetheirbestfriend.ButIamaskingthatyouwouldconductyourselfprofessionallyintheworkplace,andmakesurethatyourbehaviourisnotgoingtoimpactanyofyourcolleaguesorourserviceusersthatarearoundyou.

9CaseStudy2:PBS2PBS2isapublicserviceorganisationthatprovideslocalgovernment,administrationandarangeofservices.Itconsistsofelectedmembersandpaidstaffnumbering1,200,whomworkacross5functionsordivisions.TheorganisationconsistsofoneCEOwho,withamanagementteamoften,isexpectedtoimplementpolicyaslaiddownbylocallyelectedrepresentatives.PBS2isoneof31suchorganisations,atthetimeofwriting.TheCEOandthemanagementteamoperateunderthesupervisionofelectedmembers,andareanswerabletotheelectedmembers.Awiderangeofprofessional,technicalandadministrativestaffareemployedbyPBS2,includingindoorandoutdoorworkers.

9.1PolicyandProcedurePBS2isboundbystatutorylegislationandregulations.Withregardtothepreventionandmanagementofilltreatment,thereisa‘DignityatWork’policy,disciplinaryprocedure,procedureforgrievances,codeofconduct,procedureformanagementofwork-relatedstressandanEAP.Thesesevenpolicieswereconsideredagainstthechecklistforgoodpractice(seeTable9.1).Table9.1:PBS2Policy

Policyshould…

DignityatWork EAP Grievance

ProcedureCodeofConduct

ManagementofWork-

relatedStress

DisciplinaryProcedure

û ?41 ? û ? ?

ü ü ü 20pageslong

ü 14pageslong

û û û û ResponsibilityfortheprovisionofthepolicyisattributedtotheHealthandSafetyTechnicalWorkingGroup

ü û û û No,butbullyingisidentifiedasastressor

ü û û û û û

ü û û û No,howeverbullyingandharassmentidentifiedaskeyhazardsassociatedwithwork-relatedstress

No,howeverphysicalviolence,serioussexualharassmentandbullyingidentifiedasexamplesofgrossmisconduct

PolicylinkedtoorreferencedwithintheSafetyStatementandlinksexplainedwithotherrelevantpolicies(e.g.CodeofConduct

Linkedtodisciplinaryprocedure

û Linkedtodisciplinaryprocedure

Linkedwithlegislationandothercodesofpractice

Linkedwithlegislation,codesofpractice,standardsandguidancedocuments

ü Bullyingnotreferredtodirectly

Responsibilityofmanagementandstaffformaintainingworkingrelationshipsismentioned

ResponsibilityofDirectors,LineManagers,Supervisorsandemployeesclearlyoutlined

Responsibilityoftheorganisation,supervisors,andemployeesareindicatedwithinthepolicyinrelationtodisciplinarymatters

ü û û û û No,examplesofgrossmisconductlistedwhichincludesbullying

41Notstated

Policyshould…

DignityatWork EAP Grievance

ProcedureCodeofConduct

ManagementofWork-

relatedStress

DisciplinaryProcedure

Setoutcomplaintsprocedure,compliantwithnationalcodeofpractice,includingtheinformalandformalprocedures,rightstorepresentation,acommitmenttofollowingthroughtoresolutionComplaintsprocedureshouldbeclear,easytofollow,includesflowcharts,formsortemplatesthatfacilitatestaffandpromptkeyinformation

ü û û ü

Thepolicynotesthatinvestigationswillbeundertakenpromptly

û ü û û OnlyclearlystatedinSection8:Appeals

ü ü û

û û û

ü û û û û û

û û û ü û û

ü û û û û û

BeyondPolicy…

Trainingformanagersandsupervisorsthatincludesdiscussionofpolicyimplementation

û û û û ü û

Reviewandupdateofpoliciesandprocedures

û û û û ü û

û û û û û û

Notdirectlyaddressed,butstatespeoplemaybetransferredafteraninvestigation,ifdeemednecessary

û û û û û

9.2InterviewsEleveninterviewswereundertakeninPBS2,followingthreecallstoparticipate.Fourwerewithmembersofmanagement(threeofwhichwereHR),fourwereProfessional/TechnicalstaffandthreewereinAdministration.Fiveintervieweeswerewomen.Oneparticipantwasaunionrepresentative.Allwerepermanentstaff.Interviewdurationrangedfrom20minutesto41minutes(SeeTable9.2).Pseudonymsareemployedforeaseofpresentation,withroleintheorganisation42.

42 MM=Management

PT=ProfessionalorTechnicalAC=Administration/Clerical

Table9.2:PBS2InterviewParticipants

Interviewnumber Gender Level/role Pseudonym Yearswith

organisation43 DurationofInterview

1 F Administration/Clerical Pamela - 41mins

2 M Professional/Technical Paddy 8 29mins

3 M Professional/Technical Paul 23 39mins

4 M Professional/Technical Philip 16 40mins

5 F Administration/Clerical Peggy 10 34mins

6 M Professional/Technical Pete 35 33mins

7 F Administration/Clerical Priscilla 8 20mins

8 M Management Pearse - 34mins

9 F Management Patsy 30 30mins

10 M Management Phelim 20 39mins

11 F Management Penny - 34mins

Allelevenparticipantshadnodifficultydescribingilltreatmentintheworkplace.Interpersonalilltreatmentsuchasverbalabuse,beingaggressivevocally,rudeness,forexamplehangingupthephoneoncallersandshoutinginemails,wereallcatalogued.Physicalviolenceandintimidationwasacknowledgedasilltreatment,withsomeparticipantswitnessingsuchbehaviours.Directpredatorybullyingwasalsomentioned,interpretedasanabuseofpositionsofauthority.Participantsalsorecognisedwork-relatedilltreatment,forexamplebeingpassedoverforpromotion,nothavingajobdescription,notbeinggiventasksappropriatetoskills,underminingpeers,unreasonablesupervision,andwithholdinginformation.Withoneexception,allparticipantsperceivedilltreatmenttobeveryprevalent,evennormalised,inPBS2.Threethemesweredevelopedfrominteractionwiththedata,andaredescribedbelow.‘Culture:Demi-Godsandspinningtops’Allparticipantseitherexplicitlymentionedoralludedtothecultureintheorganisationwhentalkingaboutilltreatment.Thecultureoftheorganisationwasseentobeanimportantdeterminantofthepracticeregardingexposuretobothbullyingandincivilityandhowitisrespondedto.Anautocraticcultureofconformityandobediencewasobserved,seentobeoutdatedandpunitive.ItisdescribedbyPriscillainthefollowingway:...it’ssortofaveryantiquatedwayofmanagingstructure.Andit’svery...likeIdothinktheyhaveanawfullotofpower…Idothinkthatthereisaverykindofold-fashionedwayofthinkingthatyouaretalkeddowntoandit’sveryhierarchical.Andifyouareinapositionofmanagement,youareseenasademi-godalmostandthatyoucandowhatyouwantbasically.(Priscilla,AC)Thecultureoftheorganisationwasnotgenerallydescribedinpositiveterms,althoughtherewerereferencestoachangeinmanagementandawelcomechangeinculture.Culturewasseentobefundamentalinexplaininghowandwhyilltreatmentwasaproblemintheorganisation.Theautocraticcultureincludedinaction,bystandernon-interventionandunaccountabilityandwasseentobedysfunctional,insofarasitwasdrivenbyobedienceandconformityratherthanfunctionandutility.Penny,arelativelynewmemberofthemanagementteam,describesitasanadolescentculture,characterisedbypersonallydirectednegativebehaviourandahighlevelofmistrust.Participantsdescribedhowsituationsthatinvolvedbullyingorincivilitywerenotreportedand‘putupwith’,orleftfortoolong.Manyreferencesweremadetomattersnotaddressedatall,ornotaddressedinanyvisibleoracceptablewayfromtheperspectiveoftheseparticipants.Pennyclaimsthattheproceduresmaybeokbuther

43Yearswithorganisationomittedfromtableduetoeitherissueswithrecordingorriskofidentifyingparticipant

concernis‘thatweonlyinvokethematthelastpoint’.Paddyforexamplecommentedonthetendencytowardinactionandthepotentialtodamagetothetarget:

It’smorenot...it’snotovert,it’sallcovertand…it’sinaction.Sobytheveryfactthatyou’renotactingmeansyouare...you’re...somebodyisbeingharmedbythewholeinaction.Inabilitytogetthingsdoneandthere’snosenseofproactive‘let’sgetinthereandsortthisoutbeforeitbecomes...’,there’snoneofthat.Theywaituntilitgetssoextreme.(Paddy,PT)OthersinterpretedtheperceivedtendencyonthepartofHRtoblamethetargetwhenbringingmatterstotheirattentionasevidenceofavoidance;inotherwordsareluctancetonameandholdaccountableallegedbullies:Sotheydon’twanttodealwiththeissue.Theydon’twanttotakeonsortofabullyortryingtodealwiththat.Sotheywilljust...theywillbasicallymaketheemployeefeelthattheyareatfaultratherthantheactualpersonwhoreallyisatfault.(Peggy,AC)

AndIthinkHRareinadifficultpositionaswell,becausetheyhaveto,youknow,theydon’twanttodealwithissueseither.And,youknow,thereisalsoamentalitytherewhereyou’reluckytohaveajobandyoujustkeepshtum.There’samentalityacrosstheboardthatveryoftenit’sthepersonistheproblem.Thatreally,you’rejustoverreactingand,youknow,yourviewofitiswrong,it’s...you’remakingitintoabiggerdealthanitis.EvenHRwantsyoutodumbitdownaswell.(Pamela,AC)

Thiswasreinforcedinthemanagementinterviews,withoneHRmanagerforexamplesaying:

…andI’dbesaying‘Butwhatdoyouwant?Andifyouwantthistostopyouhavetotakeownershipofit’andIthink...that’soneofthebiggestchallengesbecausepeoplecometoHRandthey’dsay‘I’mbeingbulliedbymylinemanager,IwantittostopandIwantyoutodosomethingaboutit’andtherecanbeamisunderstandingthereofwhatourroleisandwhattheirresponsibilityis.(Patsy,MM)

Anothermemberofmanagementpointedoutthattherearetwosidestoeveryincident,althoughconcededthatthepersonwhoisfeelingit(thetarget)isusuallymorelikelytosufferinsilence.Philip,whileacknowledgingthecultureofinaction,alsoacknowledgedwelcomechangeinthisrespect,andtheimportanceofleadershipfromthetopinrelationtocultureandculturalchange:

Sothereforeifthereisanincidentandifyouaskforittobeinvestigatedyouarecompletelyignored.That’swhyIsay(newmanager)isthemostimportantpersonIhaveevermet...thefirstpersoninXyearstoturnaroundandsay’I’lllookafterthis,Iwillinvestigateit’(Philip,PT)

Thereluctanceofotherstointervenewassymptomaticoftheautocraticculture.Pamelareportsanincidentthatlasted40minutesinwhichacolleagueshoutedather,inthehearingofatleastnineothers.Sherecallsthatsomepeoplelefttheoffice,ratherthanlisten,andthosethatstayeddidnotintervene.Sheinterpretsthisaspeoplenotknowingwhattheproceduresarewhen‘senior’peoplebehaveinanegativeway.However,alessbenignviewistakenbyotherparticipants,whoperceivethisasanunspokenunderstandingthatseniormanagementareuntouchable.ThiscomesupinPaddy’sinterview,inwhichherecountsanincidentinwhichaseniorstaffmemberwasfoundtohavebeenguiltyofilltreatinganotherstaffmember,butthemorejuniormemberwasmovedandtheseniormanagerwasnot:

…theymovedthealtarboynotthepriestasitwere.SothemanwastransferredoutandtheguywasleftthereThat’sthewayitwas,itwas...becausethisguywasatahigherlevel,theguythatwasdoingtheabuseandwasdoingandfoundguiltytobedoingit,hewasleftasisbecauseitwasmanagementstandingupformanagement...(Paddy,PT)

Therewasawidespreadviewacrossthedata,includingmembersofmanagementinterviewed,thatthereasonfornonorminimalinterventionisthatbullyingisnottakenseriouslybytheorganisation.Pamela’sexperienceincludedbeingtoldthatmatterwas‘dealtwith’afterashortconversationinwhichshecouldseeherseniorslaughing.Inthisrespecttheorganisationwasseentohavenomoralcompass,andnowillingnesstotakeseriouslynegativebehaviours,especiallywhenenactedbyseniorstaff.Peggydescribesthe‘promotion’oftheDignityatworkpolicyasajoke:

TheyhavethisDignityatWorkPolicyandtheyhaveaposteruponthewallbutImeanalotofuskindofthinkthat’sabitofajokebecausetheyclearlyweren’ttakingitseriously,particularlywiththatindividualthatwasthere,youknowitwaskindofwell-knownaboutthebullying.Alotofpeoplefeltyouknowthatwasn’t...basicallytheydon’ttakethemseriously.Theydothingsbecausetheyhavetodoorbylegallyorthey’vesigneduptosomething.Ohyeahbutinrealitytheydon’t,Idon’tthinktheytakethemseriouslyatall.(Peggy,AC)

BothPennyandPauldescribeaggressiveinteractionsasnormalised,meetingswheremanagersareapparentlynotreprimandedforshoutingatoneanotherorbehavinginanintimidatingmanner,andageneralacceptanceofunderminingandcriticalbehaviours,thatareinconsistentwithpolicy:

Buttheproblemisthatyouhavealotofbehaviourinbetweenwherepeople...anorganisationseesitasokay.Soit’sokaytoactivelyunderminesomebodyelse’swork.It’sokaytospeakverynegativelyaboutkindoflet’ssaytheChiefExecutive/seniormanagement,openlyspeakingnegativelyaboutthemonanalmostpersonallevel.YouknowImeankindof...andyetyoukindofgobutthat’snotinkeepingwithdignityatwork.(Penny,MM)

TheunaccountabilityinmanagementwasdescribedbyPaddyaspartofalargerdysfunctionality.Inthiswaybullyingproblemswerenot‘just’aproblematicstrandwithinarelativelybenignadministrationbutembeddedintheveryfabricoftheorganisation.Theorganisationwasseentobeinwardlyfocusedandobsessedwithpowerandrank,makingilltreatmentinevitable,astheorganisationexiststoservetheinterestsofapowerfulfewattheexpenseofmany.Asubculturewasdescribedin‘thatsaysyoudon’tdoitbecauseyou’regoingtoscupperyourchancesofanyformof...becauseyou’rerockingtheboat,that’sthewholething.You’renotgoingtodothat;you’renotgoingtorocktheboat’accordingtoPaddy.Hegoestoexpandtothenatureofdysfunctionintheorganisation:

…soIwoulddescribemostofthesituationthatgoesonthereaslikeaspinningtop.Theykeepthemselvesgoingaroundanditallkindofworksinsomesortofdysfunctionalfashion,itkeepsgoingaround,it’swobbling,it’swobbling,itdoesn’tachieveanything,performancetothepublicdoesn’timprove,itjustworksforitself.Itjustexistsforitself,that’swhathappens.

...you’reonlyconcernedaboutkeepinginwiththoseabovebecauseyourchancesareit’sallaboutpromotion…it’sallaboutpromotion.Whatwillgetyoupromoted?There’salotofpeoplethat,likeiftheycanreachacertaingradebythetimetheyretireorwhateverorwithin10yearsofretirementthey’resortedbutthere’salotofpeoplethenthatarebelowthelinethataren’tsortedandthosepeoplearealwayslookingtogetuptoalevel…Onceyou’reatthatlevel,you’resorted,youhaveagoodpensionandthat’sallpeopleareinterestedin…Theissueisgettingyourselfintoapositionwhereyou’recomfortableandthenyouknowyou’regoingtoretirewell.That’sallitis.(Paddy,PT)

Thisissummedupasaculturewherepowerandstatustakeprecedenceoverfunctionandutility.WhilePaddywasparticularlyvocalonthetopicofculture,hewasnotaloneinviewingtheinwardfocusoftheorganisationasdeeplyproblematic.ForPhilipitisanorganisationwithneither‘moralcourage’nor‘moralcompass’,whilePetesumsuplifeinPBS2:‘Youhavetokindofdowhatyouaretoldandkeepunderthethumb.Don’taskanyquestionsevenifyouknowit’swrong’.

I’mstilltryingtounderstandit.Ithinkpartlyit’sthecultureoftheorganisation.Ithasaverystrangeculture,thisorganisation,itisaverycontradictoryculture,soontheonehandthereisalotofwrittenrulesandontheother

handwhenit’snot...likethere’snoimplementationofthemalmost.Sothatwe’rehighlyregulatedbutnoimplementation,youkindofgosoit’sapretenceatregulation.(Penny,MM)

‘Theskilledmanagerhavingtheskilledconversation’Asecondthemeemergingfromthedatawastheneedforearlyandproactiveintervention.Thiscameuppredominately,butnotexclusively,intheinterviewswithmembersofmanagement.Participantsrecognisedtheneedtoaddressmattersveryearlyintheprocessandwerestronglysupportiveofthenotionthattrainingformanagersisneededindealingeffectivelywithilltreatment.Phelimsumsupthisidea,stating:

I’mabigsupporterofdignityatworkbutthemoreI’minthisjobthemoreIrealisethesolutiontoallthesethingsisatthebaseandgetdowntothecorelevel.Ifthereisrumblingsinaworkplace,staffsupervisorsneedtobeenabledtodealwiththem,theyneedtoknowthatthere’ssupportsavailablethroughtheirownchainofcommand,throughHR,andifsomethingisgoingwrongitneedstobefedbackquicklyandifpeopleareunsurehowtodealwithittheyneedtogetproperadvices.Lettingsomethingfestercausessignificantdifficultylaterandsometimeswhenitgetstothestageofbeingdealtwithitthereisalotofbadfeelingthereandveryhardtodealwithit.I’mmovingbacksignificantlyfromtheinvestigationtypescenario...Hegoesontosay:I’mnotnaiveenoughtothinkwe’llnipeverythinginthebud…Ifyoucoulddealwithsomethingasclosetosourceaspossiblethatisthebestchanceofasolutionandthebestchanceoffixingit.WehadoneortwotherelatelywherewehaveendeavouredtogetthembacktosourceandIfeeltheyareunderfarmorecontrolnow…(Phelim,MM)Phelimalsoadvocateduseoftheinformalprocess,noting(somewhatincontrasttotheprofessionalandadministrativestaff)thatthepeoplelistedasinformalcontactsareapproachable,andcanofferadviceandoutlineoptionswhichcanhavetheeffectofdiffusingmatterswithoutrequiringthetargettogivetoomuchinformation.Pennytoo,arguedfortheuseoftheinformalprocess:

…itwasaveryquickincidentbutthatseemedtocauseagreatdealofupset...butsomethingweresolvedlocallywiththetwopeopleinvolved.Imetwiththemseparatelyandthen(namesanotherstaffmemberfromHRhere)andImetwiththemtogetherandtheykindoffeltthattheydidbothwanttoresolveitandsothey’restillintheworkareabut...wedid(dealwithitinformally)andwediditrelativelyquicklyIsupposeaswell.(Penny,MM)Managerswereseentobekeyinensuringappropriateresponsetoilltreatment,includingearlyintervention,somethingthathasbeenlackingintheorganisationbutappearstobechanging.Pamela,reflectingonwhyinheropinionilltreatmentiscommonplaceintheorganisation,seeslackofmanagementtraininginthisregardasapossiblereason.Phelimconcurs,clearlyidentifyingtheneedfortraining:Itcouldbebecausethepeoplewhogotpromotedgotpromotedatatimewheretheymightn’thavehadgoodmanagementskills.Thereisverymuch,youknow,Ialwayswonderhowdothesepeoplegetthejobsbecausethey’veverypoorcommunicationskills.They’ve(laughs)verylittlemanagementskills.SoI’mlike,it’sliketheKitKatad,it’slike,youknow,youcan’tsing,youcan’tdance,you’llgoalongway.Whatdotheyhavetoofferbecause…?So,Idon’tknow,wasitjustbeingattherightplaceattherighttime,knowingtherightpeople?Andaveryclosedshop.Idon’tknow.I’dlovetofindouttheanswertothat.ButIdon’tknowiftheyhavethepropermanagementtraining.(Pamela,AC)Weneedtodosupervisorydevelopmenttrainingforstaff.WeneedtodotraininginIthinkmanagementindealingwithdifficultiesintheworkplaceandweneedtoenablepeople.(Phelim,MM)

Penny,too,recognisesthatthereisgreaterneedformanagementtraining,butnotjusttraininginleading‘thedifficultconversation’.Shesuggeststhattrainingmanagerscanpotentiallypreventtensionsarisinginthefirstplace,canfocusonsupportingstaffandcreatingapositiveworkingenvironment,wheredignityatworkisareality.

‘Youcan’tunringarungbell’Thethirdthemetoemergefromthedatawastherecognitionofthefactthatilltreatment,inparticularpredatorybullying,isinherentlyproblematicinthecontextofworkplaces.AcceptingthatitcantaketimeandcouragetoraiseanissuewithHR(informallyorformally)aboutacolleague,thatthetargetmaywellbeinfearof,theproceduresthenmustallowfortheallegedperpetratortorespond.Forthetarget,thisisahighriskstrategy,yetthereisnoalternative.Althoughthiscanhappenwithboththeinformalandformalprocess,thefeelingintheinterviewsthattheformalprocessisqualitativelydifferent,orasPearsedescribesit‘adifferentsortofballgamealtogether’.Patsyoutlinesthissituation:

ButalsoitwouldbelookingandsayingifIamgoingtoattempttoresolvethisorsupportyoutoresolveitthiswillrequiremegoingtoyourlinemanager,whatisyourlinemanagerlikelytotellme,right,because...andagainit’sgoingbacktotheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandfairness,thelinemanager,maybethroughaninformalprocessoraformalprocess,ifthesestatementsorallegationsorjudgementsareplacedathimtheyhavearighttocomebackanddefendtheirgoodnameaswellandweallhavethat.(Patsy,MM)

Participantscouldseethattherewasatensionbetweentheprincipleofnaturaljusticeandtheintentunderpinningtheinformalandformalprocedurestoprotectworkersfromilltreatment.Theprocessisunavoidablyadversarialandaccordingtotheparticipantsfrommanagement‘therearenowinners’.Littlehoweverwasofferedbywayofanalternativesetofprocedures,althoughPhelimdidcallforgreaterawarenessthatone’sactionscanhaveanegativeeffect.Hedoesacknowledgethatmicropoliticsmightintersectwiththeprocedures:

…justbecausetheindividualdoesn’tperceiveitasbeingadversarialandthattheyareonlydefendingtheircorneritcausessignificantdifficultyandsometimesalotoftheproblemisthepeopletheyaretakingadvicesfromarewhatIwouldcalleggingthemonandthere’sanelementoftryingtosettlethescoreandgetsomeoneelsetosettleitforyousometimesaswellwhichisabitofaproblem.(Phelim,MM)

PaddytoodescribesthesamescenarioasPatsy,butislesssanguine,seeingthedifficultieshereinrelationtobalanceandequityasawayofaddinginsulttoinjury,andactingasdeterrenttousingtheprocedures,asstaffalreadyfeelwrongedorilltreated.ForPaddy,thereisnothingnaturalorjustaboutthis:

Theyhavethewholedocumentonbullyingintheworkplaceandeverythingissaidandeverythingthereandtheyhavethedocumentbutlowandbehold,thatdocumentcouldbeusedtohityouovertheheadifyou’reavictimbecauseifyou’resaying...suddenlyitbecomes‘everybody’sequalhere,theyhaveasmuchright’,thebullyortheguythatdoesthebullyinghasasmuchrightasyou,soyouifyou,ifsomebodytakesabullyingclaim,youareinasmuchtroubleasthepersondoingthebullyinginyouropinion.Soyoudon’tevengonearitbecauseitcanbeusedagainstyou.

Hegoesontopointouthowtheprocedureshavetheeffectfordouble-victimising:

It’salwaysthevictim...becausenobody’stakingactionagainstthepersondoingthebullyingit’salwaysthevictimbutifsuddenlyyou’resaying‘ohI’mbeingbullied’,ifyouputyourhandupandsay‘bullying’,suddenlyyouknowthebully,thepersondoingit,isasmuch...soeverythingthenstopsandyou’rethen...you’reevenmorevictimisedinonesensebecauseyoudon’tfeelthatyou’regoingtogetanywherebecausethenyouseeyouhavetocomeupwithallthisevidence.(Paddy,PT)

10CaseStudy3:STH3

Thethirdcasestudyorganisationisastatutoryhealthserviceprovider.Theorganisationistheproviderofacomprehensiverangeofhealthservicesforacatchmentareaofonemillionpeople.Atthetimeofwriting,3,800peopleareemployedbytheorganisation,includingadministrative,managerial,professional,technicalandoperativestaff,andservicesareprovidedacrosstwositesintheregion.Theorganisationispartofthewidergroupofacuteproviders,allofwhomare,inturn,partofthenationalacutehealthcarestructure.Anexecutivegroupcouncilmanagesthewidergroup,andthetwositesinvolvedinthisstudyareunderthedirectionofonegeneralmanager.

StatutoryHealthServicesinIrelandhavebeeninthemedialimelightfrequentlyinrecentyears,generallyinrelationtotheverysignificantproportionofthepublicpursetheyreceiveinyetwithouttransparentlinkstoproductivity,andspecificallyinrelationtohospitalwaitinglistsandovercrowdinginA&E.Assuch,theyareinasomewhatbeleagueredsituation,underconsiderablepressuretodomorewithless.Thesectorhasseensignificantcutsinpublicfunding(€2.7billionbetween2009and2015),inthecontextofanincreaseinthepopulation(from4.4min2012to4.6min2016),increaseddemandsforandexpectationsofservices,andsignificantstructuralreformsandexplicitperformanceindicators.Therehasalsobeenanumberofhighprofileincidentsrelatingtotheadverseoutcomesforpatientsinthecontextofhospitalreforms/regroupingandservicedeliveryissues.

HealthservicesinIrelandhavenotbeenimmunetothetrendsgloballyinthissector,suchasmanagerialism,performancetargetsandprivatisation.However,healthsystemsarecontextdependent;eventhosewithsimilarfundingmodelsandincountrieswithsimilarpatternsofhealthandillnessareperceptiblydifferent.InIreland,managerialismiscertainlyevident,withmanyhospitalsbeingmanagedbyboardanddirectorates,creepingprivatisationisastrongfeatureoftheIrishHealthCaresystemwithprivate-for-profitprovidersintheacutesectornowmovinginfromthemargins,andprovidingafullrangeofhospitalservicesincludingA&E.Eachofthesefactors,althoughseeminglyremote,canbeseentoimpactonhowindividualstafftreatotheronaday-to-daybasis44.

10.1PolicyandProcedureSTH3isboundbystatutorylegislationandregulations.Withregardtothepreventionandmanagementofilltreatment,thereisa‘DignityatWork’policy,DisciplinaryProcedure,ProcedureforGrievances,CodeofConductandTrustinCarepolicy.Thesepoliciesapplyacrosstheentirestatutoryhealthsector.Thesefivepolicieswereconsideredagainstthechecklistforgoodpractice(seeTable10.1).

10.2InterviewsEleveninterviewswereundertakeninSTH3,followingthreecallstoparticipate.Fourwerewithmembersofmanagement(twoofwhichwereHR),sixwerewithProfessionalstaffandonewaswithanAdministrator.Eightintervieweeswerewomen.Allwerepermanentstaff,havingbeenemployedbytheorganisationfrom8yearsto36years.Interviewdurationrangedfrom21minutesto50minutes.(SeeTable10.2).Pseudonymsareemployedforeaseofpresentation,withroleintheorganisation45.

44Carlise,Y.(2011).ComplexityDynamics:ManagerialismandUndesirableEmergenceinHealthCareOrganisations.JournalofMedicalMarketing11(4),284-29345 MM=Management

PT=ProfessionalorTechnicalAC=Administration/Clerical

Table10.1:STH3Policy

Policyshould…

DignityatWork

GrievanceProcedure

CodeofConduct

DisciplinaryProcedure TrustinCare

ü ü û ü ü

24pageslongincludingappendices

ü ü 24pageslongincludingappendices

30pagesincludingappendices

ü û ü û û

ü û û û û

ü No,statedpurposetoenableemployeestoraisecomplaintsconcerningwork-relatedmatterssotheycanbeaddressedpromptlywithoutdisruptiontopatient/clientcare

û û Clientsrighttobetreatedwithdignityishighlighted

ü û Nobutstatesthatcodeappliestodirectandindirectemployees,boardmembersandsuppliers

PolicylinkedtoorreferencedwithintheSafetyStatementandlinksexplainedwithotherrelevantpolicies(e.g.CodeofConduct)

Linkedtodisciplinaryprocedure

û PolicylinkedwithlegislationandpoliciesonGoodFaithReportingandFraud

Policylinkedwithlegislation,DisciplinaryProcedure,DignityatWorkpolicy,TrustinCarepolicy,CodeofStandardsandBehaviour

Policylinkedwithlegislation,CodeofBehaviour,DisciplinaryProcedure

ü ü ü ü ü

ü û û û Describeswhatmeantbyabuse,givingsomeexamples

Setoutcomplaintsprocedure,compliantwithnationalcodeofpractice,includingtheinformalandformalprocedures(ifboth),rightstorepresentation,acommitmenttofollowingthroughtoresolutionComplaintsprocedureshouldbeclear,easytofollow,includesflowcharts,formsortemplatesthatfacilitatestaffandpromptkeyinformation

ü ü û Notcomplaintsprocedurebutratherprocedurefordealingwithdisciplinarymatters

ü ü û Timeframesgivenforappealsfromemployee

No,howeverstatedtimeframeshouldbeincludedintermsofreferenceofaninvestigation

ü ü Confidentialitydiscussedinrelationtoinformationlearntatwork

ü û û û ü

ü û û û û

ü û û û ü

BeyondPolicy…

Trainingformanagersandsupervisorsthatincludesdiscussionofpolicyimplementation

ü û û ü û

Reviewandupdateofpoliciesandprocedures

ü û ü ü û

û û û û û

Notdirectlyaddressed.Statesmediationpreferredasgoalistorestoreharmoniousworkingrelations.

û û û û

Table10.2:STH3InterviewParticipants46

Interviewnumber Gender Level/role Pseudonym Yearswith

organisationDurationofInterviewin

1 F Professional Alison 19 21

2 F Administration/Clerical Anita 16 47

3 F Professional Siobhan 36 22

4 M Professional Peter 12 49

5 F Professional Saoirse 21 22

6 F Professional Laura 11 44

7 F Management-HR Emer 23 33

8 F Management-HR Marie 8 50

9 F Management Helen 23 25

10 M Management Tom 22 32

11 M Professional Brian 12 -

Participantsintheseinterviewsunderstoodilltreatmentasbothinterpersonalaggressionandwork-related.Interpersonalaggressioncouldbebothpassiveorovertlyaggressiveandincludedtalkingdowntopeople,underminingothers,ridiculingpeoplefornotknowingsomethingthattheycouldnothaveknown,andexcludingpeoplefromasocialgroup.Work-relatedilltreatmentincludedlackofsupportfrommanagement,beingthrowninthedeependwithoutadequatetrainingorinduction,andnottreatingstaffequallyorgivingeveryonethesameopportunitiesforgrowthanddevelopment.Participantsgavevaryingaccountsregardingprevalenceandimpact.Foursthemescouldbefoundinthedata,andaredescribedbelow.Contrastingperspectives,cliques,andthe(un)caringorganisationAverydiversepictureemergedfromSTH3,perhapsunsurprisingly,giventhediversitywithinanacutehealthcaresetting.Firstly,fivepeoplebelievedilltreatmenttobeveryprevalent,even‘endemic’,fivethatitwasn’tprevalent,withoneuncertain.Theperspectivesthatilltreatmentwasn’tprevalentcamemainly,butnotexclusively,frommanagement.Thecompetingperspectiveswereatleastpartiallyexplainedbytheperceptionof

46Twoparticipantsrequestednottoberecorded,andsonoquotationsareusedfromthesetwointerviews.Athirdparticipantprovidedawrittensubmission,asitwasnotpossibletoscheduleasuitableinterviewtime)

whatconstitutedilltreatment.Sowhilesomeparticipantssawinterpersonalconflictasilltreatment,othersdidnot,althoughmostthoughtinterpersonalconflictwascommoninSTH3.ThosewhoworkedinHRacknowledgedthatthereare‘disagreements’betweenlinemanagersandemployeesalthoughdidnotclassifythisasilltreatment.Also,somework-relatedilltreatment,whileidentifiedasilltreatment,wasnotthoughttooccuronanyregularbasis.Subjectivityregardingilltreatmentiswelldiscussedintheliteratureandthefactthatitemergedintheseinterviewsisperhapsareflectionofthesizeoftheorganisationandthecomplexityofit.Acutehospitalserviceshaveaverywiderangeoffunctionalunits,teamswithinunits,professionalgroups,andcross-disciplinaryteams.One’sperceptionregardingilltreatment,bothwhatitisandhowprevalentitis,dependsonwhereapersonworksintheservice,andwhomtheyworkwith.

Consistentlyacrossallinterviews,gender,age,socialclass,disabilityandsexualorientationweredismissedasreasonsfororflashpointsforilltreatment.Equallyconsistently,theexistenceof‘cliques’wasacknowledged,eitherinthecontextofdifferentprofessionalgroupings,orwithinworkunits.Thiscouldbeapositivefactor,butmoreoftennegative:

…Peoplehaveagrouporacliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit.Thatdoesn’thappenwithinourteambutitcertainlycanhappen…(Peter,PT)

Ohabsolutely,withoutadoubt.Andtomealways,ifyouhaveagroupandtheyareverynegativepeoplethenyouhavenowheretogobecauseyouwillfindthatthecliquewillstaytogetherasacliquebecausetheycan’tcopewithyouknow...theycantoacertainextentoutsideofitbutthereisacliquealwaysyouknow.(Anita,PT)

Soworkingaspartofateamcaneithercontributesignificantlytoanegativeworkexperienceifapersonisexcludedfromaclique,butcanalsoprotectapersonfromthebackdropofamoremalignenvironment.Therewasagreaterlevelofconsistencyacrosstheinterviewswhentalkingaboutthewiderorganisationalculture,generallyseentobeuncaringandremote.Lauraobservesforexample:

WellIthinkthatthatcomesbacktoIthinkinsomeenvironments…theyaresomuchpartofagoodteamsothatkeepsthem.ButIthinkfroma(functionalunitsnamed)kindofsettingtheydon’thavethatsecurity,theydon’thavethosegoodrelationships...andthereisahugeturnoverofstaff.Butyeahpeopleworkingonanindividualbasisoraspartofateamtheycangetwhattheydon’tgetfromthemanagementinthatteamsothey’reokay.Theykindofignoremanagementuntilmanagementannoythemaboutsomethingorhaveunrealisticexpectationsaboutsomethingandit’sthenwhenkindoftheearthkindoftendstoshakeunderneath...andthat’sverytiresomewhenlikeallyourstructuresofmanagementareagainstyou.Soitdoesgiveyouanattitudeof,excusemyexpressionbut‘Idon’tgiveashitanymore.(Laura,PT)

Theparticularworkoftheorganisationisrelevantinsofarasstaffhaveahigherexpectationoftheirmanagementinrelationtobeingacaringorcompassionateemployerandcanthereforebeparticularlyletdownwhenthisisnotmanifest.LauraandAnitaareparticularlyvocalonthispoint,butPeterandSiobhantoo,acknowledgethefrustrationoftheremotenessofmanagement,andtheapparentlackofpraise,ofaffirmationorrecognitionforworkdone,especiallyimportant,andarguablyeasilygiven,giventhenatureofworkintheorganisation:

Ohthatideaoftreatingyouremployeesasiflikecompletedisregard,norespect,noacknowledgement,norecognition,noreward,likethat’showhumanbeingsfunctionandtakeitinaworkenvironment,takeitinalifeenvironment,that’showitisandwhat’sironictomeisthesepeoplethatshouldknowhowthehumanconditionandworkinthehumanbehaviourworkbecausethat’swhatthey’respecialisedin.Don’ttakeanyofitintoconsiderationlikeandthere’smultitudesofstudiesandresearchandevidencethatshowlikehowtogetproductivityyouknow,itbenefitstheminthelongrunbecausetheygetmoreproductivityout,therearehappierstafforabetteroutcomeorbetteroutputs.Butyeah,no,sowhatdoesn’tworkisthestickapproachbasicallyasIsaidlike,thecondescending...wellnotreallycondescendingbutyeah…(Laura,PT)

Youseethere’snotrustbecausethetrustisbrokentimeandtimeagain.Nobodytrustsanybodyanditisjustdogeatdog,it’sassimpleasthat,itisdogeatdog.(Anita,AC)

Ithinkwhathappensisthatwedon’tcelebratethepositivesenoughso...andthewiderorganisationintermsofthehealthserviceisverydefensivebecausethemediaissonegative.Sothere’salotofnegativemessagesaroundhealth,it’sallnegativeeveninthelocalpapersitisnegativeandweprobablydon’tcelebrateenoughpositives.Soifyou’recomingintoworkeverydayinasortof...thinkingthateverythingwe’redoingisgrandthenitcangetpeopledownandthatIthinkcreatesasortofslightlynegativeculturewherepeoplegetfedupalittlebitmoreeasilyandthemorestretchedyouarethenthemoredifficultitisandit’shardwithinateamto...wellitcanbehardwithinateamtotryandkeepthatsortofpositiveelement...(Peter,PT)

‘It’sallaboutthehierarchy’Participantssawilltreatmenttooccurinthecontextofpositionalpower,andsawthistobeunsurprising,eveninevitableintheorganisation.Participantsgenerallydescribedtheorganisationashierarchical,formal,andverytraditionalinrespectofthechainofcommand.Staffareexpectedtodowhatthoseabovetheminthehierarchytellthem,andpositionismoreimportantthanrespectfultreatment:There’salsoaprofessionalhierarchywithintheorganisationsoveryfewpeoplewillquerytheguyatthetopofthepyramidyouknowandit’susuallysomebodyelse’sfaultfurtherdown,evenifitisn’t.(Siobhan,PT)Sothatifaconsultanteatstheheadoffyouyou’resortofgoing‘wellIcansortofunderstandwhythathappened’andnotthinkitasabigpersonalattackonyou.It’sjustthewaythingsare…(Peter)Ohyeahit’shuge,yeah,it’sallaboutthehierarchy.Likeit’scrazy,asIsaidit’sreallyarkstyle,it’sreallyoldschoollikeyouknow….it’s‘DearSirandMadam’youknowthatkindofthing,thatyou’reexpectedto...whereaswe’reallmeanttobeonthesamelevelattheendoftheday,bringing...likeweallhavedifferentskillsandwe’reallmeanttobringingthemequallyandrespectingeachother’sskillsequallyandopinionsequallybutitdoesn’thappenthatway,it’slike‘I’myourboss,youdoasIsay’kindofthing…(Laura,PT)Positionintheorganisationisanindicatorofhowvaluedyouareasamemberofstaffandjuniorandtemporarystaffareperceivedtobelessvalued.Beingtemporarycanleadtohavingyouropiniondisregarded,orbeingjuniormeansyouarenotexpectedtochallengeseniorstaff.Thehierarchicalstructuresnotonlyallowthosehigheruptotreatthoselowerdowninwaythatcouldbeconstruedasilltreatment,but,accordingtoTom,alsoledtoseniorpeoplespeakinginanuncivilmannertothoseatthesamelevelandbeingexpectedtoacceptthis.Thisrevealsanegativeculture,inwhichpeopleareallowedtospeaktooneanotherinadisrespectfulmanner.Yeah.IthinkyourpositionintheorganisationisrelevantbecauseIthinkwithinourorganisationthere’sacertainlevelofacceptanceatthehigherlevelsthatilltreatmentandpoortreatmentisjustparforthecourse,it’sthewaybusinessgetsdone.Soifyou’reaseniormanagerit’sexpectedthatyouhavetobeabletotakeit,ifyoucan’ttakeitwellthenwhatareyoudoingintherolekindofyouknow.It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork.(Tom,MM)…newerstaffcominginandyou’retryingtotrainthemandmakethemconfidentandtheyareextremelycapablewhenthey’refirstqualified,thatcanbeveryundermininganditcan...itcanshaketheirconfidenceandthentheydon’twanttogoandworkinthatareaanymorebecausetheyhadabadexperiencelasttime...‘don’tupsetthisanddon’tdothis’andsoreallyyou’remakingthesituationperpetualbythedoingthat.(Siobhan,PT)‘Thedifficultyiswedon’timplementthemwell’Mostintervieweeswerefamiliarwiththepolicyandproceduresdealingwithworkplacebullying,andconsideredthepoliciestobeaccessible.However,therewereclearlyimplementationissues.Participantsspokeoffear:fearoffurthervictimisationorilltreatment,fearofbeingperceivedasatroublemaker,andfearthatconfidentialitywaslacking.PeopledowanttobringtheissuetotheattentionofamanagerorHRbutthendonotwishtorisk

exposure.Anotherconcernwasthatthatifaformalissuewasraised,whiletheemployeewouldbelistenedto,noactionwouldbetaken.Whenasked,whenIaskedamemberofstaffwhethertheywouldstandbymewhenItookthisfurthertheydeclined,theydidn’twantto.Theydidn’twanttobebackingmeup.I’dsayfear.Fear.Fearfortheirjobandafearhowtheyweregoingtobetreatedoncetheirnamewasbroughtintotheloop.(Saoirse,PT)They’llinitiatethereport.Butwhenitcomesto...sosayliketheunionswillgivethemdirectioninwhattodo,theywon’tdoitbecausethey’retooscared.(Laura,PT)YeahandifitwastobeontheirrecordorifitwastobeinareferenceafterwardsIthinkpeoplewouldbeconcernedaboutthatandthenmaybebeinglabelledasatroublemakerorsomebodywhois...wellyoudon’twantherinyourdepartment...(Helen,MM)Anitasimilarlytalksaboutlackoftrust,andinageneralwayanunwillingnessto‘rocktheboat’,butalsospecificallygivesanexampleofasituationwherepolicywasnotimplementedinordertoprotectaseniorstaffmember:…speakingtoafriendofminerecently…shetoldmeofanincidentinherdepartmentwheretherewasaladywhobullied,absolutelyoutrageouslybullied,membersofstaff.Shewaskeptinthatpositionandshewillalwaysbekeptinthatpositionbecauseheroverallbossis…(positioninorganisationgiven)…andshe’salsoamanagerand…herbossislookingafterherandthepeoplethatshe’sbullyingareleavingonebyoneandthey’reaskingtobetransferred.(Anita,AC)Reasonsforpoorimplementationincludedthepoliciesbeingtoolong,hardtounderstand,overlylegalistic,notpresentedinauserfriendlyformat,andnottraininglinemanagerseitheraboutthepolicesorintheskillsneededtoimplementthem.Oneparticipantmaintainsshehaslongadvocated‘allofHRdocumentsshouldbebulletedandbulletedwithreallyclearno-jargonEnglish’.OtherparticipantsfromHRpointtotheprovisionofregulartrainingsessions,butbemoanpoorattendanceatthese.Acontrastingviewregardingthevaluetrainingisalsoexpressed.Eitherway,bothparticipantsinterpretthedeficitinimplementationtosignalaculturethatfailstotakeilltreatmentanditsoutcomessufficientlyseriously.Thereisreferencetoacultureof‘sayingnothingandjustgettingonwithit’.Inthiscontextpoliciesarewindowdressing.Sowehaveverygoodwelldefinedpolicies,wellworkedoutandnegotiatedwithalltheunionsandalltherestofitsoeverybodyknowsexactlywheretheystand.Thedifficultyiswedon’timplementthemwellandthereasonwedon’tisbecausethepeoplethatweexpecttoimplementthem,likethefrontlinemanagers–thepeoplethataremaybemanagingawardof30stafformanagingasmallgroupofstaff–theydon’tknow,they’renotfamiliarwiththepolicies,theydon’tknowThat’sonething,wedon’tgivethemenoughoftimeortrainingIthinktodo...Sowedon’tputenoughtimeandeffortintotrainingourmanagerstobeabletodealwiththemandtorecognisewhattheyneedtorecogniseandthentoknowwhattodowhentheydo...andpossiblythenthatindicatesthelevelofprioritythatwegivetoityouknowwithintheorganisation.Ifitwasreally,reallyimportanttouswellthenwewoulddoit,wewouldgivetimetoitandwewouldtrainpeopleinit,yeah.(Tom,MM)Well,Idon’teventhinkitwasmoretraining,thelevelsthatIwenttoshouldhavehadgoodtraininginthese,liketheywerequiteseniormanagers,theyjustdidn’tseemtowanttoknow,tobehonestwithyou.(Saoirse,PT)Tomperceivessomemorefundamentalproblemswithpolicyandpractice.Herecognisesthatthemanagerexpectedtoimplementpolicyisalsoexpectedtocontinuetoworkwiththetargetandortheperpetrator,asituationunlikelytobetenableinthelongerterm.I’verarelyeverseenasituationwhereyouarepresentedwithaproblemandamemberofstaffsayingthattheyfeelorperceivethatthey’vebeenpoorlytreatedinvariousdifferentregardsbyaparticularindividualthatwhen

it’sallresolvedandithasgonethroughtheprocessIhaverarelycomeacrossasituationwherethepersonissaying‘WellactuallyIfeelkindofsatisfiedorvindicated’orwhatever.Atbestyoucansometimesgetasensefrompeoplewelltheyfeelthattheywerelistenedtoandtheyweretakenseriouslybutbeyondthatno.Itdoesseemtohavealastingeffectonpeople.Somepeopleareabletomovebeyonditandothersaren’t.I’veseenpeoplewhocarryitwiththemthroughouttherestoftheircareer.Infact,veryoftenit’simpossibletorestoreaworkingrelationship,youknowtherehastobesomefundamentalchanges,somaybemovingapersonoutofonelocationorwhatever,yeah.(Tom,MM)Tom,whoisinmanagement,considersononehandthatpolicyifproperlyimplementedisfairandbalanced,andstaffshouldhavenofearofit,aviewalsoexpressedbyanotherparticipantfromHR.YetclearlypeopleareinfearofitandTomconcedes:OnethingIknowforcertainisthatI’venever...Idon’tthinkI’veeveryetcomeacrosssomebodywhocameoutofaprocesswheretheyfeltthattheyhadbeenpoorlytreated,gonethroughthepolicyandfeltattheendthatwellthatwasgreat,nowthat’sthatsortedkindofyouknow,it’sneverlikethatsoitisn’t.(Tom,MM)‘Wellno,that’stobeaddressedbythelinemanager’Finally,athemeemergedaroundtensionbetweenlinemanagersandHR.Confusionaboutrolesandresponsibilitieswerenoted,wherelinemanagersreferringdifficultiestoHR.ThoseinHRwhoparticipatedintheinterviewswereclearthatlinemanagersinfactareresponsibleforaddressingissueslocally.Soforsomelinemanagerstheyfeelassoonastheyhaveanysortofalinemanagementissueorwhateveritbethatthat’saHRissue,youknowsotheylooktogotoHRtogetitsortedout,whereinactualfactwithinourorganisationandwithinourpoliciesit’sactuallytheirrolesoitistomanageitwithsupportfromHR.AndthesupportfromHRatthatpointisusuallyaroundmakingsurethattheyunderstandthepolicy,thattheyunderstandtheirroleandwhatthey’regoingtodoandsoon.Asyougoonabitfurtherthoughthatrolebecomesabitmoreformalisedsoif,forexample,it’sleadingtodisciplinaryaction.(Tom,MM)Membersofmanagementdoconcedethatlinemanagersmay‘notwanttodealwiththelesspleasantstuff’,anditwasacknowledgedthatthisplacesahugeresponsibilityonlinemanagers,whoareexpectedtopreventproblemsonthegroundandalsotoaddressthemwhentheyarise.

11DiscussionTheaimofthisstudywastomeasuretheprevalenceofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees,andtocompareprevalenceacrossvarioussubgroupswithintheworkingpopulationemployingthesamedesign,measurementinstrumentandsamplingstrategyasusedintheBWBS.Thestudyalsosetouttoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinsectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalent,bywayofthreecasestudies,toinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Educationalsessionswereheldintworegions,toengagepractitionersandtoexploretheirconcerns.

11.1SurveyFindings:IllTreatmentPrevalenceandPatternsThefindingsattestedtotherobustnatureoftheBWBSinstrument.Correlationsbetweenthe21illtreatmentitemsshowedthesamefactorialrelationshipsinboththeBWBSandcurrentstudy,producingthesamethreefactorsofilltreatment:unreasonablemanagement,incivilityordisrespectandviolenceorinjury.Overlapoccurredbetweenthesefactors,particularlybetweenunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespect(25.0%),and2%ofsurveyparticipantsexperienceditemsinallthreecategories.Correlationsbetweenreportofexperiencing,witnessingandperpetrationdemonstratethatthosewhohaveexperiencedilltreatmenttendtoreportwitnessofit,withmediumtostrongpositivecorrelationsbetweenexperiencingandwitnessingforallitems.Thereportedlevelofilltreatmentexperiencedduringtheprecedingtwoyears,was43%,breakingdownto36.7%experiencingunreasonablemanagement,31.3%incivilityordisrespectand2.6%experiencingphysicalviolenceorinjury.PrevalenceislowerthanreportedintheBWBS47(54%experiencedanyonenegativeact,47%experiencedoneformofunreasonablemanagement,40%incivilityordisrespectand6%physicalviolenceorinjury),althoughthecontoursofexperiencemirrorthosefoundintheBWBS,forexampleunreasonablemanagementisthefactorthathasthehighestprevalence48.Itwasalsothefactorthatwasmostlikelytobeperpetrated:14%admittoperpetratingunreasonablemanagement,9.5%incivilityordisrespect,0.5%perpetratingphysicalviolenceand0.5%allthreetypesofilltreatment.WhiletherateofexperiencewaslowerforalltypesofilltreatmentintheIrishstudycomparedtotheBWBStheratesofwitnesswerehigherthanintheBWBS(48%vs38%foranyoneitem,42%vs28%forunreasonablemanagement,32%vs38%incivility)withtheexceptionofviolenceandinjury(5%vs6%).ThepatternintheIWBSisbroadlyconsistentwithotherstudies.Interestingly,thefalloffinconfirmatoryresponseswasconsiderablyhigherinthisstudy.Onaveragetherewasa35%dropinreportedexperiencecomparedto13%intheBWBS,whichcouldbethesubjectofmoredetailedanalysis,alongwithacomparisonofthetwodatasetsonanitem-by-itemandvariable-by-variablebasis.Theilltreatmentprevalencefiguresareconsiderablyhigherthanstudiesofworkplacebullying,giventhebroaderconstructofilltreatment,butmayalsobeduetothemethodemployed.Manyworkplacebullyingprevalencestudiesareundertakeninworkplacesorthroughwork-relatedorganisations,whilethisstudyemployedageneraldoor-to-doorsurvey,whichallowsparticipantstoanswerinawaythatavoidsconstraintsthatmayoperatewhenreportingexperiencesinthecontextoftheirownworkplace.Thedegreeof‘illtreatmentexperienced’isnot

47TheresearchteamhadaccesstotheBWBSdataset.DirectstatisticalcomparisonswiththeBWBSdatawerecalculatedforheadlinefindingsonly.48Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2011).InsightintoIll-treatmentintheWorkplace:Patterns,CausesandSolutions.Cardiff:SchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity

directlycomparabletopreviousIrishstudies,whichmeasuredbullyingspecifically.Althoughinthisrespecttheprevalenceoftwonegativeactsweekly,takenasanindicatorofbullying,was9%,higherthanthe2004findingof7.9%andthe2007studyof7%.49Thusimplyinganincreaseinnegativeexperienceatwork,differencesinmeasurementnotwithstanding,andisconsistentwithexpectationsinthelightofthepressuresonemployeesduringandintheimmediateaftermathoftherecession.ThefindingreinforcesaUS-basedstudythatreportedthreateningandintimidatorycommunicationandacultureoffearexperiencedduringtheeconomiccrises50,althoughtherearesurprisinglyfewstudiesoftheimpactofeconomiceventsorcyclesonworkplaceilltreatment.Theprevalenceoftwoitemsdaily,at2%,isconsistentwithotherestimatesofseverebullying.51,52Therelationshipbetweengenderandworkplacebullying,asdefinedintheliterature,isnotclear,withsomestudiesfindingwomentobeatrisk,intermsofselfreportedexperience,andothersnot.Findingsarecontradictoryandambiguous.53Whilesomestudiesshowgenderdifferencesthatfavourmen(i.e.menlesslikelytobebullied),overrepresentationofwomenastargetsofbullyingcanbeduetooverrepresentationofwomeninthesample.54ThetwopreviousIrishstudiesfoundthatwomenreporthigherlevelsofworkplacebullying,butinthemultivariateanalysis,genderwasasignificantdeterminantonlyinthe2001surveyandnotinthe2007survey.Largerscale,representativestudiesarelesslikelytoreportgenderdifferencesacrosstheworkingpopulation.Thisstudyaddstotheaccumulatingevidencethatinlargerscalestudiesdrawingonrepresentativesamples,genderdifferencesarelessevident.Here,althoughwomenreportedslightlyhigherlevelsofbothexperiencingandwitnessingformostoftheitems,differenceswereonlysignificantinrelationtoexperienceforfouritemsandwitnessingforeightitems,andwhencomparedbyfactor,genderdifferenceswerenotsignificant.Therewerenogenderdifferencesinperpetrationforanyofthefactors,althoughotherstudieshaveshownthatmenaremorelikelytoperpetratebullying.55Themultivariateanalysisconfirmedthatgenderwasnotapredictoroftheexperience,thewitnessingortheperpetrationofilltreatment.Itshouldbenotedthatthestudyheredidnotemployaselflabellingmethod,whichusuallyreflectsgreatergenderdifferences,(forexamplewomenaremorelikelythanmentolabelnegativeexperiencesasbullying).56However,thisisnottosaythatilltreatmentisnotagenderedphenomenon,assuggestedbySalinandHoel.Womenweresignificantlymorelikelytoexperienceilltreatmentatthemostseverelevel(twotypesofnegativeacts,atleastdaily),likelytobethefouritemsexperiencedatasignificantlyhigherlevelthanmen(havingviewsandopinionsignored,beingtreatedinadisrespectfulway,intimidatingbehaviouratworkandinjuryoractualviolenceatwork).Thelastofthesemaybeduetothehigherlevelsofclientviolenceinfemaledominatedprofessions,butthehigherleveloftheotherthreeitemsimplythatthesebehavioursarequitecommonlyexperiencedbywomenintheworkplace.Itislikelythatilltreatmentandgenderinteractinamuchmorecomplexway,giventhatorganisationsaregenderedandmanyofthenegativeactsinthebehaviouralchecklistusedherecouldbeexamplesoftheenactmentofmasculinity.Inthisrespectitisinterestingtoseethattheproportionofwomenintheorganisation(higher)wasassociatedwithhigherlevelsofbothincivilityandviolence.Also,itwasnotablethatinlookingatthe49ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004).GovernmentPublications,DublinandO’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute50Rouse,R.&Schuttler,R.(2009).CrisisCommunication.UniversityofPhoenix51Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.andVartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis52Nielsen,M.,Notelaers,G.,&Einarsen,S.(2011).MeasuringExposuretoWorkplaceBullying.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis53Salin,D.&Hoel,H.(2013).WorkplaceBullyingasaGenderedPhenomenon.JournalofManagerialPsychology,28(3)235-25154Zapf,D.,Escartin,J.,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.&Vartia,M.(2011).EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,HoelH.Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis55Salin,D.&Hoel,H.(2013).WorkplaceBullyingasaGenderedPhenomenon,JournalofManagerialPsychology,28(3)235-25156ibid

patternsofself-reportedperpetrationacrosstheindividualitems(Table4.3.1,p.39),althoughnotsignificant,therewasalotofvariationbygenderforadmittedperpetration.Whenrespondentshadtoidentifythegenderoftheperpetratorforanitemiftheyhadexperiencedthreeormoreitems,menweregenerallymorelikelytobetheperpetrators5.2,p.50).Interestingly,whenthegenderoftherespondentwastakenintoconsideration,whereonlyonegenderwasnamed,womenarefarmorelikelytosaytheirperpetratorswerealsowomenandmenthattheirperpetratorsweremen(Table5.3,p.51).Thissupportsfindingsthatthegenderofboththetargetandperpetratormatterinthelabellingofilltreatmentexperiences.57ThecorrelationbetweenbeingdisabledandexperiencingilltreatmentwasthesecondmostprominentfeatureofbivariateandmultivariateanalysisintheBWBS.Althoughtheproportionofpersonswithadisabilityreportingilltreatmentwasquitehighinthestudyhere(7%),thedifferencedoesnotachievesignificance,perhapsduetothelimitationsinsamplesize.Otherdemographicfactorswerebroadlyconsistentwithotherstudies(age,educationallevel)althoughthefindingsregardingethnicityareofnote.EthnicitywasnotmeasuredinthepreviousIrishsurveyssotheIWBSisthefirstnationalstudytomeasureilltreatmentwithregardtoethnicity.Ethnicityshowedasignificantassociationwithboththeexperienceofandthewitnessingofeachofthethreeill-treatmentfactors.Thoseofblackormixedethnicityexperiencedthehighestriskforunreasonablemanagement,andalsothehighestlevelsofwitnessingviolence.Asiansaremorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespectandalsophysicalviolence,aremorelikelytowitnessincivilityordisrespectandunreasonablemanagement,andmostlikelytoperpetrateunreasonablemanagement.ThemultivariateanalysisshowsthattheoddsofexperiencingviolenceareseventimesgreaterforAsiansworkersinIrelandthatotherethnicgroups.AnanalysisofQNHSdataondiscriminationintheworkplacealsofoundthatnon-nationalIrishweretwiceaslikelytoreportdiscriminationbothinseekingworkandintheworkplace.58ThefindingscontrastwiththeBWBS,wherewhiteworkerswereatgreaterrisk.Ireland,nowamulticulturalsociety,clearlyhaschallengesinthisrespect.However,asforgender,thepatterniscomplex.Thefollowupofitemsshowsthatalthoughahighproportionareofwhiteethnicityitcanbeseenthatperpetratorsofilltreatmentwhoreportedtobewhiteweremorelikelytohavetargetedthoseofthesameethnicity.Similarlyperpetratorsfromotherethnicitiesweremorelikelytotargetthoseofnon-whiteethnicity.Theexperienceofbothunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasgreatestinsmallorganisations(10-49employees),butbothweremorelikelytobewitnessedinmedium-sizedinorganisations(50-249employees).Violencewasmostlikelytobeexperiencedandwitnessedinlarge(greaterthan250employees)organisations.Thispresentsamorenuancedpicturetothecommonlyreportedfindingthatbullyingismoreprevalentinlargeorganisations.Theexperienceofilltreatmentwasmorecommoninthevoluntaryandinthepublicsectorintheformofunreasonablemanagementandphysicalviolenceandinjury,consistentwithpreviousIrishstudies,theBWBSandintheliterature.59,60Themultivariateanalysisconfirmedthis,withviolenceofparticularnote,beingalmostfivetimesmorelikelytobeexperiencedinthepublicsector.Theonlyrelationshipbetweenwitnessingilltreatmentandsectorwasforviolenceinthepublicsector.However,unreasonablemanagementwasalsoimportantinthecontextofsector,being2.5timesmorelikelytobefoundinthepublicsector.Theoccupationalsectoraleffectsdemonstratedinotherstudies,wereseenhereonlyfortheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementwhichwasmostcommoninhealthandsocialservices,followedbyfinancialservicesandconstruction,andlesslikelytobeexperiencedintheagriculturalsector.BothoftheearlierIrishstudiesfoundHealthandSocialservicestobewellaboveaverageintermsofreportedbullying.Thehealthandsocialservice

57ibid58Russell,H.,Quinn,E.,O’Rian,R.&McGinnity,P.(2008).TheExperienceofDiscriminationinIreland.AnalysisoftheQNHSEqualityModule.Dublin:TheEqualityAuthorityandtheESRI59Zapf,D.,Escartin,J,Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Vartia,M.(2011)EmpiricalFindingsonPrevalenceandRiskGroupsofBullyingintheWorkplace.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis60ReportoftheTaskForceonthePreventionofWorkplaceBullying.(2004),GovernmentPublications,Dublin;O’Connell,P.J.,Calvert,E.&Watson,D.(2007).BullyingintheWorkplace:SurveyReports,2007.Dublin:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute

sectoralsodisplayedthehighestlevelsofwitnessedilltreatment.Witnessing,however,alsohadsignificantsectoralassociationsforviolence,withhealthandsocialserviceagainhavinghigherlevels.Therelationshipbetweenworkingenvironmentandtheexperienceofilltreatmenthasbeenofconsiderableinteresttoresearchersinrecentyears.Movingawayfromanearlierfocusonpersonalityandindividual-levelfactorsaskeydeterminantsofworkplacebullying,theroleoftheworkenvironmentisnowseentobeofmuchgreatersignificance,61andthefindingshereaddtotheaccumulatingevidencethatwhereyouworkmattersmorethanwhoyouare,inrelationtotheriskofbeingilltreated,(and,byextension,howilltreatmentcanbepreventedorreduced).ThecurrentstudyusedtheFAREitemstoexplorerelationshipsbetweenworkenvironmentandilltreatment.Allrelationshipsbetweentheseitemsandboththeexperienceandwitnessingofilltreatment,intheformsofunreasonablemanagementandincivilityordisrespectweresignificant.Participantsstatingthattheneedsoftheirorganisationalwayscomefirstwere3.5timesmorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagementandthosewhofeeltheirprinciplesarecompromisedinworkareoverfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespect.Perpetrationofunreasonablemanagementandincivilitywasassociatedwiththeneedsoftheorganisationcomingfirst,havingtocompromiseone’sprinciples,perceivingpeoplenotbeingtreatedasindividuals,andhavinglesscontroloverworkorpaceofwork.Also,experiencingatleasttwoitemsweeklyandatleasttwodailywereassociatedwitheachoneoftheFAREitems.TheBWBSalsofoundsimilarrelationshipswithFAREitems,providingstrongevidencefortheimportanceoftheworkenvironmentasadeterminantofthewayinwhichpeoplearetreatedinwork,andfortherobustnessoftheFAREitems.Bothstudiesshowclearrelationshipsbetweennegativeworkingconditionsandhigherlevelofilltreatment.Interestingly,whilesignificantpredictorsinbothstudies,theproportionofrespondentswhoreportedthattheneedsoftheorganisationcomefirst,thattheyhavetocompromisetheirprinciplesandthatpeoplearenottreatedasindividuals,arelowerthanthosereportedintheBWBS,62consistentwiththelowerlevelsofeachfactorintheIrishdata(39%vs16%,30%vs9%,20%vs7.9%).ExperiencingandwitnessingviolenceandinjurywasassociatedwithonlysomeFAREitems:havingtocompromiseyourprinciples,notbeingtreatedasanindividual,controlofworkpaceandqualitystandardswereassociatedwithdirectexperienceofviolence.Theweakerrelationshipswithviolenceareborneoutinthemultivariateanalysisforbothexperienceandwitnessingilltreatment.Thosewhoreportthepaceoftheirworkhasincreasedoverthepastyearareninetimesmorelikelytoexperienceviolence.TheresultsareconsistentwiththeBWBS.Nationalleveldataontheworkpositiveitemshavenotbeenreportedpreviously.Asimilarpatternofrelationshipswasdemonstratedbetweentheseitemsandwithallill-treatmentfactors,althoughthemultivariateanalysisshowedstrongerrelationshipsbetweentheexperienceofunreasonablemanagementandofincivilityanddisrespectthanviolence.Againthedegreeofrelationshipbetweeneachfactorandthereportedlevelsofunreasonablemanagement,incivilityandphysicalviolenceshowedilltreatmentwashigherwheredemandwashighbutlowerwheretheorganisationofferedindividualcontrol,managerialsupports,peersupportandlowroleambiguity.ThismirroredthepatternfortheFAREitems.

11.2CaseStudies:PolicyandPractice,EffectivenessandImplementationTheSafety,HealthandWelfareatWorkAct(2005)isthefoundationallegislationgoverningOHSmanagementatworkinIreland.ThisactisfurthersupplementedbytheSHWWGeneralApplicationRegulations(2007).AlthoughilltreatmentandworkplacebullyingisnotspecificallyaddressedbytheSHWWAct(2005)orbytheGeneral

61Salin,D.&Hoel,H.(2011).OrganisationalCausesofWorkplaceBullying.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace:DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice.London:TaylorandFrancis62Fevre,R.,Lewis,D.,Robinson,A.&Jones,T.(2013).TroubleatWork.London:BloomsburyAcademic

ApplicationRegulations,forthepurposeofprotectingtheiremployees,employersmustconsidertheseissuesasaworkplacehazardandperformariskassessment.Inlinewithotherworkplacehazards,thelikelihoodofilltreatmentincludingbullyingoccurringshouldbeassessedandcontrolmeasuresthatcanbeputinplacetoreducetheriskmustbeidentified.Inaddition,aquasi-legalarrangementisinplace,wherebyemployersmustcomplywithCodesofPractice(COP)thatsupplementthestatutoryinstruments.TherearethreeCOPsinIrelandpertainingtoworkplacebullyingandnegativebehaviour,whichare:TheCodeofPracticeforEmployersandEmployeesonthePreventionandResolutionofBullyingatWork2007(HSACode),TheCodeofPracticedetailingProceduresforAddressingBullyingintheWorkplace(SI17/2002)andTheCodeofPracticeonSexualHarassmentandHarassmentatWork(SI208/2012)(EqualityAuthorityCode)63.OrganisationsareadvisedbytheHealthandSafetyAuthoritytodemonstratetheircommitmenttothepreventionofbullyingandharassmentintheworkplace,byadoptingaDignityatWorkCharter.ThreeorganisationsparticipatedinthecasestudyelementoftheIWBS,andprovidedcopiesoftheirpoliciesinrespectofworkplacebullyingincludingDignityatWork,GrievanceProcedure,CodeofConduct,DisciplinaryProcedureandTrustinCarePolicies.Inaddition,29peopleintotalparticipatedininterviews.Theinterviewsconductedinthecasestudiesprovidedrichdataofferinganumberofimportantinsightsintotheimplementationofpolicyandthedifficulties‘ontheground’oftennotadequatelyaddressedbypolicy.TheImportanceofRobustPolicyEachorganisationhasaDignityatWorkpolicyinadditiontosupportingpolicies(forexampleDisciplinary,Grievance,CodeofConduct).Goodpracticeinrespectofpolicydevelopment64includes:beingdevelopedinaconsultativemanner,ownedbyarecognisablepersonoroffice,clearcommitmenttopreventingilltreatment,outliningrelativeresponsibilitiesofallparties,thesettingoutofclearprocedureswithreasonabletimelinesandacommitmenttoprotectstafffromfurthervictimisationiftheyenactproceedings.Allthreeorganisations,basedonananalysisofthewrittendocuments,appearedtohavemetallormostofthesecriteria,althoughPBS2donotappeartohaveconsultedwithtradeunionsoremployeerepresentativesindevisingtheirpolicy.Thepoliciesintwocaseswereduetobeupdated,onehavingreferencestolegislationwhichhassincebeenrevised.Anumberofissuesfeatureintheliteraturethatcanbedescribedasgoingbeyondstandardrequirements:providingtrainingformanagers,systematicdatacollection,theinclusionofadiscussionaboutilltreatmentinexitinterviews,andhavingprocessesforre-buildingworkplacerelations.Thethreeorganisationsperformedquitepoorlyonallofthese,althoughtwodidrefertomediation,whichcouldbeconstruedasaddressingthelatter.However,theeffectivenessofmediationasastrategyforaddressingbullyinghasbeenchallengedbyanumberofexperts65,66indicatingthatpolicyintheseorganisationsisnotevidenceinformed.Despitetheapparentadequacyofpolicyineachoftheorganisations,theinterviewstoldadifferentstory,invaryingdegreesofdistancefromthepolicystatements.Policiesmustbedevelopedandimplementedinawaythatitissafeforworkers.Ifworkersdonotthinktheyarebeingprotectedbythepolicy,despiteastatedcommitmenttotheirprotectioncontainedwithinit,theywillnotuseit.ParticipantsinPBS2forthemostpartthoughtthepoliciesweremeaninglessanddidnotfeelsafeusingthem.Theytalkedaboutfeelingthattheywouldbeseenatfaultiftheyraiseconcernsaboutilltreatment,andtherewasaperceptionthatthesystemfavouredtheallegedperpetrator.InPBS2,policywasdescribedasa‘joke.’

63HealthandSafetyReview(2014).TheHSRA-ZCompendiumofOSHIssues:Part3–Bullyinghttps://www.healthandsafetyreview.ie/article/5442Accessed:19/12/1664HealthandSafetyAuthority(2007)CodeofPracticeforEmployersandEmployeesonthePreventionandResolutionofBullyingatWork,Dublin:HealthandSafetyAuthority;Rayner,C.&Lewis,D.(2011).ManagingWorkplaceBullying:TheroleofPolicies.In:Einarsen,S.,Hoel,H.,Zapf,D.&Cooper,CL.(Eds.).BullyingandHarassmentintheWorkplace,DevelopmentsinTheory,ResearchandPractice,London:TaylorandFrancis;Woodrow,C.&Guest,D.(2013).WhenGoodHRgetsBadResults:ExploringtheChallengeofHRImplementationintheCaseofBullying.HumanResourceManagementJournal,24(1)38-5665Saam,N.J.(2010).InterventionsinWorkplaceBullying:AMultilevelApproach.EuropeanJournalofWorkandOrganisationalPsychology,19(1)51-75,DOI:10.1080/1359432080265140366Ferris,P.(2004).APreliminaryTypologyofOrganisationalResponsetoAllegationsofWorkplaceBullying:SeeNoEvil,HearNoEvil,SpeakNoEvil.BritishJournalofGuidanceandCounselling,32,389-395

InSTH3fearwasanissue:fearoffurthervictimisation,fearofexposureandthattheprocedureswerenotfullyconfidential.ThosewhoparticipatedinVORG1feltthatthesheervolumeofpoliciesandprocedureswerenotonlyunhelpfulbutcouldbeusedagainstthemifanissuearose.Further,policyalthoughplentiful,stilldidnotprotectstaffagainstabusefromparentsofclients.Concernswereraisedabouthowconfidentialitycouldbemaintained,ifpolicywerecorrectlyimplementedwhereitinvolvedanallegedperpetratorbeingtemporarilysuspended.TheImportanceoftheRoleoftheManagerEmployersexpectmanagerstoplayakeyroletacklingbullying,67andparticipantsinallthreeorganisationsrecognisedthis.InSTH3itwasclaimedtobeexplicitintheirpolicy,andsomeparticipantsindicatedthatlinemanagershadtoberemindedofthisfact,sometimesexpectingHRtodealwithdifficultsituations.InthiscasetheroleofHRwasunderstood(byintervieweesinHR)todirectmanagerstopolicy.Inallthreesetsofinterviews,however,therewasreferencetomanagerseitherbeingunwillingorunableto‘havethedifficultconversation’andneedingtrainingtodoso.Therewerereferencestomanagerswhojustdidn’twanttoknowabouttheseproblems,orwhomarkedtime,hopingproblemswouldsomehowresolvethemselves.InPBS2itwasacknowledgedthatskillwasrequiredforsuchconversations.InVORG1iswasrecognisedthatsmallworkgroupsposeaparticularchallengeasmanagerscanfindthemselveshavingto‘manage’theirformerpeers.Theimportanceofclarityofrole,trainingandsupportformanagersemergesclearlyfromtheinterviews.Thecomplexrealitiesforamanagerontheground,suchashavingtomanageformercolleaguesandfriends,havingtomanagepeoplewhohavebeenintheorganisationforamuchlongertimethanthemanager,andmaintainingconfidentialityareoftennotaddressed.Itisnothoweverfullyacknowledgedthatmanagers,particularlymiddlemanagers,areofteninverydifficultpositions,whowhilebeingovertlyexpectedto‘sort’bullyingproblemsarealsoexpectedtoblind-eyebullyingifitistheorganisation’sintereststodoso,aphenomenondescribedintheliteratureasbullyingasatoolofmanagementcontrol.68TheImportanceofCultureWhiletheindividualbehaviourperspective,thatis,difficultpersonalities,surfacedinsomeinterviews,theimportanceofcultureasadeterminantofilltreatmentandbyextensiontheorganisationalresponsetoit,wasalsorecognised.Inthiswaytherewassometensionintheinterviewsbetweenthecausesofilltreatmentbeingduetoawkwardpersonalitiesorbeingduetoassumptionsemployersmakeaboutstaff,andhowtheycanbetreatedbothbyeachotherandthroughorganisationalpractices.Tosomeextentthisreflectsthetensionintheliterature,whereboththeseperspectiveshavebeenexploredanddebated.Organisationalculturehasbeengivenaconsiderabledegreeofdiscussionintheliterature,bothasanexplanationforthevariationinexposuretoilltreatmentacrosssectorsandacrossindividualorganisationswithinonesector.Forilltreatmenttooccurtotheextentthatitdoes,itmustbeoverlookedorinsomewaycondonedwithinorganisations,andthedegreetowhichthishappensmustvaryacrossorganisations.Leyman,69oneofthepioneersexploringworkplacebullying,arguedforcefullythatbullyingiscausedbytheorganisationalclimate,cultureandworkingconditionstotheextentthatanyonecanbeaperpetratororavictim,inthe‘wrong’workplaceorworkenvironment.Thefindingsofthesurveyreinforcethenotionthatthewaytheorganisationtreatspeopleisveryimportantandthattheorganisationplaysakeyrolefosteringtherightkindofculture,sendingclearsignalsabouttheappropriatenessorotherwiseofbehavioursandpractices.Therearerelativelyfewstudiesinwhichorganisationalcultureismeasuredinthecontextofworkplaceilltreatment,althoughwherethishasoccurredresultsindicatearelationshipbetweenparticularculturesandtheprevalenceofbullying,for

67Beale,D.&Hoel,H.(2011).WorkplaceBullyingandtheEmploymentRelationship:Exploringquestionsofprevention,controlandcontext.Work,EmploymentandSociety,25(1),5-1868ibid69Leyman,H.(1990).MobbingandPsychologicalTerrorinWorkplaces.ViolenceandVictims,5,119-126

examplehierarchicalorientatedculturehasbeenshowntobeadeterminantofworkplacebullying.70,71Manyqualitativestudiesontheotherhandthatexaminethelivedexperienceofilltreatmentexposecultureasfundamentaltounderstandingwhypeoplearebulliedandwhytheyarenotadequatelyprotectedbytheirorganisation.72Cultureactslikealensthroughwhichbehaviourisrefracted.Intervieweesinallthreeorganisationsrecognisedtheimportanceofcultureindirectingthepathtakenwhenilltreatmentoccurs.ConcernsaboutcultureemergedmostvisiblyintheinterviewsinbothSTH3andPBS2.Therewasevidenceofnegativeculturalaspectsindifferingdegrees.Participantsinbothorganisationstalkedabouthowseniormanagementdon’ttakebullyingseriously,insofarasaggressivebehaviourandinstancesofrepeatedincivilityweretypicallyignoredordismissed,resultingintargetslosinganyhopethattheorganisationwillmovetoreprimandtheinstigator,andthisisseenbymanyothers,feedingintoageneralexpectationofinaction,whichinturnleadstolowlevelsofconfidenceinprocedures.Inthisway,despitepolicystatements,illtreatmentbecomesnormalised.InSTH3incivilitywasalsoseentobenormalised,aswereexclusioncliquesandoutgroups.Whenilltreatmentisnormalised,theculturehasbecometoxic,andthiswasrecognisedinPBS2andtoanextentinSTH3.Theplacingofapolicyonawebsiteorinafoldercangiveanorganisationasenseofsecurity,butifinfactitdoesnotgiveseriousconsiderationtotheimplementationofpolicy,itismeaningless.Whenthisoccurs,itisseentobeafunctionofanegativeculture,onethatdoesnotvaluestafforhaveanyconcernfortheirwelfare.ThedescriptionoftheculturethatemergesintheinterviewsofferssupportforSalin’s73modelofworkplacebullying.Salinpositstheinteractionsbetweenenabling,motivatingandprecipitatingstructuresandprocessesinanorganisationexplainworkplacebullying.Enablingstructuresandprocessesarethosethatmakeitpossibleforbullyingtooccurinthefirstplaceandincludeperceivedpowerimbalance,lowperceivedcostsanddissatisfactionandfrustration,allveryevidentinthePBS2interviews.Wordssuchasconformity,obedience,oldfashioned,dysfunctional,anddemi-godappearinthedata.Thelowperceivedcostsarealsoclearlyevident,withreferencestonoapparentrepercussionsforbullying.InSTH3,thehierarchicalnatureoftheorganisationandtheabuseofpositionalpowerwererecognisedas‘thewaythingsare’andasfactorsthatcontributetotheirexperienceofilltreatment.Salin’smodelalsoidentifieshighinternalcompetitionasaprocessthatfeedsintoaculturewherebullyingisproblematic,alongwithsystemsthateffectivelyrewardworkerswhoilltreatormanipulateothers,againbothevidentinthedata.TheImportanceofContextTheinterviewdataillustratedtheimportanceofcontext.Althoughthepolicydocumentsfortheorganisationswerenotidentical,theywereverysimilar,containingalmoststandardisedsectionson‘whatisbullying’andhowtofollowprocedure.Yettheveryspecificcontextsoftheorganisationwereraisedintheinterviewsinawaythatrevealedhowamorenuancedapproachtopolicydevelopmentmightbeasignificantadvanceinthearea.InVORG1,theparticularitiesoftheirserviceethos,thatis,theircommitmenttofamiliesandclients,placedtheminadifficultpositionwhenfamilymemberssubjectedthemtoaggressionandabuse.Policydidnotcoverthisadequately,accordingtotheinterviewees,andtheyareplacedinaproblematicalpositioniftheyneedtoraiseissuesaboutparents,asitisincontradictiontothemissionandvisionoftheorganisation.Thattheyfeltconflictedaboutthisisevidentintheinterviews.Oneparticipant,inrecountingadifficultsituationwithafamilymember,inwhichshethoughtshemightbehit,playsitdownintheinterview:andshewaskindofleaningovermeandshouting(laughs)…andIactually,Iactuallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme,that’showangryshewas.Am,Iwasactually,reallythoughtshewasgoingtohitme……am,butthatwasprobablythe,theworstofthatsituationreally’.Protectingstafffromilltreatmentnotonlyhastoincludeotherstaffmembers,thepublicandclients,but70An,Y.&Kang,J.(2016).RelationshipbetweenOrganizationalCultureandWorkplaceBullyingamongKoreanNurses.AsianNursingResearch,10(3)234-23971Pilch,I.&Turska,E.(2015).RelationshipsbetweenMachiavellianism,OrganizationalCulture,andWorkplaceBullying:EmotionalAbusefromtheTarget’sandthePerpetrator’sPerspective.JournalofBusinessEthics,128:83-93.doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2081-372Hodgins,M.(2006).AwarenessandPerceptionsofStaffoftheAnti-BullyingPolicyinaPublicSectorOrganization.5thInternationalConference:WorkplaceBullying:TheWayForward.15-17June.TrinityCollege,Dublin,73Salin,D.(2003).WaysofExplainingWorkplaceBullying:AReviewofEnabling,MotivatingandPrecipitatingStructuresandProcessesintheWorkEnvironment.HumanRelations,561213-1232

hastobesensitivetothecontextinwhichtheyinteractwiththeclientandinthiscasethefamily.ParticipantsinVORG1alsoraisedthechallengeofhavingtoworkwithstaffthattheymayhavemadeallegationsagainstinthecontextoftheneedintheirworktosupportoneanothercloselyinworkingwithclientswithphysicalandintellectualdisabilities.InSTH3contextwasalsoimportant,inthiscasethediversitywithintheorganisationpointedtoasituationwheresubculturesexistwithinalargerculture.YetonenationalDignityatWorkpolicyisexpectedtoaddressallcircumstances.Itwasevidentfromtheinterviewsthatdifferentissuesaroseindifferentpartsoftheservice;thereweredifferencesbetweenacuteserviceunitswherethetrajectoryofworkcannotbepredictedonanyonedayandstaffcanfindthemselvesinhighlystressfulsituations,andunitswhereworkisveryroutineandmundane.Interestingly,thelatterwasasiteforilltreatmentintheformofexclusionandoutgroupbehaviour,andpossiblymoredamagingthaninthehighstressemergencyservice,wherestaffcanunderstandandtoadegreeacceptthatinamedicalemergencytempersarefrayedandshoutingwilloccur.Itispossibletootoapologiseinthelattersituation,whiletheformerismorepernicious.InbothSTH3andPBS2thereweresituationswhereprofessionalswerealsoexpectedtoengageinmanagerialworkalbeitwithinspecialisedunitsorfunctions.Yetprofessionaltrainingtypicallydoesnotequippeopleforthis,emphasizingtheneedforspecifictrainingforpeopleintheserolesandperhapsmorefinelytunedprocedures.TheImportanceofPowerInallthreesetsofinterviews,participantscouldseethatilltreatmentneedstobedealtwithverypromptly,usuallyreferredtoas‘nippingitinthebud’.Peoplecouldseehownotdealingwithmattersallowedthemtoescalate,ifconflictwasinvolved,ortofesterunpleasantlyifpeoplefeelunfairlytreated.Perceptionisveryimportantinilltreatmentsituations.Ifpeopleperceivethemselvestobetreatedunfairly,dismissively,rudelyorwithbelligerence,thiswillimpactonallsubsequentcommunicationsandsoveryearlyinterventionisessential.Yetmuchofthepolicystatements,andcertainlyexperienceonthegroundwasthatmatterscanbeprolonged,andlongwaitsaretobeexpected.Infact,ofteninordertotakeaformalcomplaintofbullyingforward,ithastobeon-goingforsixmonths.Interestingly,whileearlyresponsewasidentifiedasbeingveryimportant,preventionasinthepromotionofcivilitywasnotdiscussedatanylength,withtheexceptionofVeronicasstatementattheendofherinterview:…likeIsaytopeople,you’renotgoingtolikeeverybodyyouworkwith.Butyou’vegottorespecttheirroleandworkthroughthat,OK,youdon’thavetobetheirbestfriendandyoudon’thavetoworkwiththemout,I’mnotaskingyoutogotothepubwiththem,I’mnotaskingyoutobetheirbestfriend.ButIamaskingthatyouwouldconductyourselfprofessionallyintheworkplace,andmakesurethatyourbehaviourisnotgoingtoimpactanyofyourcolleaguesorourserviceusersthatarearoundyou.Itwasalsoacknowledgedbyatleastoneparticipantineachoftheorganisations,usuallyamemberofmanagement,thatcurrentpolicyandprocedureisnotfullyfitforpurpose.Despitetheintenttoprotectstaffandevenwhencarefullylaidoutproceduresarefullyimplemented,theprocesswillneverresultinbothpartiesbeingsatisfied.TominSTH3sumsthisup,“OnethingIknowforcertainisthatI’venever...Idon’tthinkI’veeveryetcomeacrosssomebodywhocameoutofaprocesswheretheyfeltthattheyhadbeenpoorlytreated,gonethroughthepolicyandfeltattheendthatwellthatwasgreat,nowthat’sthatsortedkindofyouknow,it’sneverlikethatsoitisn’t.”(Tom,MM),whilePatsy,morepithilycomments‘Youcan’tun-ringarungbell’.Essentiallywhattheseparticipantsaresayingisthatthepolicyandproceduresforilltreatmentdonotaccommodatethecomplexityandsubtletiesofhumanbehaviourwithinahierarchicalstructure.Illtreatmentisenactedinacontextofpowerabusebetweenindividualsandthefailuretoaddressitadequatelyisanabuseofinstitutionalpower.Individualworkersseethisanditdetersthemfromusingthepolicies.Organisationsthatrefusetoacknowledgeitmaynotadequatelyrevisetheirpolicies.

Theaccumulatedfindingsonthebroadconstructofworkplaceilltreatmentandthenarrowerconstructsofincivilityandbullyingindicatethattherearenoeasysolutionstothisproblem.Thisstudycertainlyreinforcessuchaconclusion.‘Solutions’areoftenofferedintheformof‘awarenessraising’,policydevelopmentormanagertraining.Itisapparentfromtheresultsofthestudyherethatsuchmeasuresareindeedrequiredinaddressingilltreatment,butitisequallyevidentthatforsuchsolutionstobemeaningfulandworkable,organisationalcultureneedstobeaddressed.StrongpredictorsofalltypesofilltreatmentwerefoundintheFAREandtheworkpositiveitems,whichtrackbackessentiallytoorganisationalculture,includingtreatingpeopleasindividuals,managerialsupport,facilitatingcontroloveraspectsofwork,andexcessivedemand.Thecasestudiesstronglyreinforcedthis,withdiscussionsofpolicyandmanagertrainingplacedinthecontextof,ultimately,apositiveandsupportiveworkingenvironment.Trainingofmanagersisclearlyrecommended.However,tobebothmeaningfulandworkable,managerscannotfindthemselves,despitehavingbeenprovidedwithtraining,inapositionwheretheyareeffectivelyexpectedtoignoresomeproblemsbecause,forexample,theperpetratorsaresenior.Soasupportivecultureandstrongleadershipisanessentialbackdroptomanagertraining.Similarly,DignityatWorkorAnti-Bullyingpolicies,areafirststepinrelationtoaddressingilltreatment.OrganisationsmustnotonlyhaveaPolicytoprotectstafffromilltreatmentintheformofbullying,butitshouldadheretogoodpracticeguidelinesandbeevidenceinformed.Critically,policiesmustbeimplementedinawaythatitissafeforworkers.Ifworkersdonotthinktheyarebeingprotectedbythepolicy,despiteastatedcommitmenttotheirprotectioncontainedwithinit,theywillnotuseit.Thisineffectmeansthattheclimateandcultureoftheorganisationiskey,andtobemeaningfultheorganisationneedstosendclearsignalsabouttheappropriatenessorotherwiseofparticularbehavioursandpractices.Itisevidentfromfindingsthatclearlinesofresponsibility,realisticandresponsivetimelinesandappropriatemechanismsofredressareveryimportanttoemployees.Employeesnotonlyneedprocedurestobeinplace,buttheyneedtohaveconfidenceinthem.Finallythepromotionofcivilityandrespectfulbehaviourcouldusefullybeincludedininductiontrainingprogrammes,thusandsignallingtoallemployeestheimportanceofpositiveactionsandcommunications,thereforefeedingintoacultureofrespectthroughouttheorganisation.

12ConclusionsTheaimofthisstudywastomeasuretheprevalenceofnegativeactsinarepresentativesampleofIrishemployees,andtocompareprevalenceacrossvarioussubgroupswithintheworkingpopulationemployingthesamedesign,measurementinstrumentandsamplingstrategyasusedintheBWBS.Thestudyalsosetouttoexploretheexperiencesofpeoplewithinsectorswhereilltreatmentisparticularlyprevalent,bywayofthreecasestudies,toinformmeaningfulandworkablesolutions.Thesurveywascompletedby1,764people,representingaresponserateof74%anddrewonasampleprofilethatclosematchednationalfigures.WorkplaceilltreatmentoverthepasttwoyearswasfoundtoaffectjustunderhalfofIrishworkers.Asmeasuredbyatleastoneitemonthe21itembehaviouralchecklist,illtreatmentwasexperiencedby43%ofparticipants.Unreasonablemanagementwasexperiencedby37%,incivilityordisrespectby31.3%andphysicalviolenceby2.6%.ThesevaluescomparefavourablytothosemeasuresintheBritishWorkplaceBehaviourStudy,fortheexperienceofilltreatment,althoughtheratesofwitnessandperpetrationforIrelandwerehigher.Thestudysuggeststhataspectsofthemeasurementofworkplaceilltreatmentmaybeculturallysensitiveandprevalenceneedstobeinterpretedinthislight.

Althoughcomparisonswithpreviousstudiesarenotstraightforward,giventhatpreviousstudiesemployedselflabellingtechniquesandmeasuredbullyingasopposedtoilltreatment,ifthetwo-twice-weeklyindicatorisusedasanestimateofbullying,itappearsthatbullyinghasincreasedinIrelandsince2007,from7.9%to9%.Thiscouldbeafunctionoftheincreasedworkpressureassociatedwitheconomicrecession.ThestudyfoundthatthepatternsandcontoursofworkplaceilltreatmentinIrelandarebroadlysimilartothosereportedinpreviousstudiesandelsewhereintheliterature,withethnicity,ageandsectorbeingariskfactors(public,healthandsocialservices),andtheeffectparticularlystrongforphysicalviolenceinthepublicsector.Althoughilltreatmentisexperiencedatanindividuallevel,organisationsclearlybearresponsibilityforprotectingemployeesfromnegativebehaviour,andinterventionattheleveloftheorganisationisessential.Thestudyfindingsaddtotheaccumulatingevidencethatorganisationalfactorsarestrongpredictorsofilltreatment:forexampleparticipantsstatingthat‘theneedsoftheirorganisationalwayscomefirst’are3.5timesmorelikelytoexperienceunreasonablemanagementandthosewhofeeltheirprinciplesarecompromisedinworkareoverfourtimesmorelikelytoexperienceincivilityanddisrespect.Notonlydonegativeenvironmentsincreasetheriskofilltreatment,positiveenvironmentsreducetherisk.Thestudythereforeprovidesstrongevidencethattheworkenvironmentisadeterminantofilltreatment,orconverselypositivetreatment.Increasingcontroloverdecisions,tasksandpaceofwork,managinghighdemand,supportingstaffinapositivewayandtreatingpeopleasindividuals,havethepotentialreduceworkplaceilltreatment.Thecasestudies,whichfocusedonthepoliciesinthreeorganisationsandtheimplementationoftheseontheground,demonstratedclearlythatdespitemeetingthecriteriaforgoodpracticeinrespectofpolicies,thegreatestchallengeliesinimplementation.Policypublicationandavailabilitymaygiveasenseofsecuritytoanorganisation,butifattentionisnotgiventoimplementation,itdoesnotservethepurposeintended.Thestudyfoundthatorganisationsstruggledtofullyprotectworkers,evenwhendevisingarichpolicyportfolio.Ifworkersdonotfeelsafeusingpolicies,theywillnotdoso,andilltreatmentcanbecomenormalised.Thecultureoftheorganisationisoffundamentalimportanceandwherepolicyisnotproperlyimplementedandilltreatmentblind-eyedorrewarded,atoxiccultureresults.Employeesperceivenonimplementationasasignalthattheemployerdoesnottakeilltreatmentseriouslyandthereforedoesnottakeemployeehealthandwellbeingseriously.Organisationsneedtoaddressilltreatmentbyfocusingonthisfundamentalissueandassuringemployees,throughtheirattentiontoimplementation,thatthisisacorevalue.Nottodoso,isaformofilltreatment.Intermsofmeaningfulsolutions,thefindingsofthestudypointtotheneedforspecificattentiontolineormiddlemanagers,whoareexpectedtoplayakeyroleindealingwithill-treatmentissuesthatarise,andtheimportanceaculturethatsupportsthem.Conflictsbetweenstaffcanneverbefullyeliminated,butperhapsthecomplexityoftheseandtheneedfornuanced,contextspecifictraining,hasnotbeensufficientlyemphasisedinpreviousstudies.Thetrainingandon-goingsupportofmanagers,inawaythataddressestheparticularcontextoftheorganisationisessentiallyisaddressingilltreatment.Inparticular,thecomplexityofhumanbehaviourinthecontextofahierarchicalorganisation,wherepeoplearedependentontheiremployersforwork,andfearreprisaliftheyallegeilltreatment,needstoberecognised.Finally,currentpolicies,thatrequiredamagetobedone,eveninorganisationswhereworkersarenotaversetoengagingwiththepolicy,arenotfullyfitforpurpose.Organisationsmustlooktothepromotionofrespectfulbehaviour,andforthisprocedureandpracticesneedtoberespectful.TheplatformonwhichpolicyshouldbebuiltisthepreventionofIlltreatment,startingwiththepromotionofrespectfulpracticesatthehighestlevel.Respectfulbehaviourcanbemodelledbyseniormanagementandreflectedinorganisationalpractices.Addressingtheprobleminthismulti-levelmanner,offersthemosthopeforgenuinereductioninlevelsofilltreatment.

APPENDIX1:IWBSSURVEYINSTRUMENTIll-treatmentfactorsandspecificitems

SomeonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformancePressurefromsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetenceHavingopinionsandviewsignoredSomeonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenitisnotnecessaryPressurenottoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledtoBeinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlinesEmployersnotfollowingproperproceduresEmployeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace

BeinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirworkGossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothersInsultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinworkBeingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudewayPeopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroupHintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjobPersistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfairTeasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofarBeingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemperIntimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatworkFeelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork

Violenceorinjury

ActualphysicalviolenceatworkInjuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork

SCREENINGQUESTIONSWorkingstatusWhatisyourcurrentworkingstatus? 1 Workingfull-time(30+hoursaweek) 2 Workingpart-time(8-29hoursaweek) 3 Workingpart-time(under8hoursaweek) 4 Retired(nopaidworkatall) 5 Stillatschool 6 Full-timehighereducation 7 Unemployed(seekingwork) 8 Notemployed(notseekingwork) Q.XiAreyouworkingasanemployeeorareyouself-employedorownyourownbusiness? 1 Employee 2 Self-employed(withorwithoutemployees) 3 Ownerofbusiness 4 (DK)Q.XiiHaveyoubeenemployedfullorparttimeatanytimewithinthelast2years?Pleaseexcludeself-employment. 1 Full-timepaidwork(30+hoursperweek) 2 Part-timepaidwork(8-29hoursperweek) 3 Part-timepaidwork(under8hoursperweek) 4 Noemploymentinthelast2years 5 (DK)Q.XiiiHowlongagowasitsinceyoulastworkedasanemployee? 1 Stillworkingasanemployee 2 Withinthelast6months 3 6monthsuptooneyearago 4 Onetotwoyearsago 5 Morethantwoyearsago

6 (DK)Ethnicity Whichofthesebestdescribesyourethnicgroup? 1 WhiteBritish 2 WhiteIrish 3 AnyotherWhitebackground(IncludingeasternEU)

4 Mixedbackground(White&BlackCaribbean,White&BlackAfrican,White&Asian)

5 Asianbackground(IncludingBangladeshi,Pakistani,Indian,Chinese) 6 BlackAfrican 7 AnyotherBlackbackground(IncludingBlackCaribbean) 8 Anyother 9 (R) 10 (DK)Religion Andwhatisyourreligion,evenifyouarenotcurrentlypractising?

1 Christian(includingCatholic,Protestant,andallotherChristiandenominations) 2 Buddhist 3 Hindu 4 Jewish 5 Muslim 6 Sikh 7 Anyotherreligion(pleasespecify) 8 Noreligionatall 9 (R) 10 (DK)DISABILITYDoyouhaveanyofthefollowinglong-standingconditions?

1Deafnessorseverehearingimpairment2Blindnessorseverevisualimpairment3Aconditionthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormorebasicphysicalactivitiessuchaswalking,climbingstairs,liftingorcarrying4Alearningdifficulty5Along-standingpsychologicaloremotionalcondition6Other,includinganylong-standingillness7No,Idonothavealong-standingcondition8Refused

9Don’tknow

IWBSSURVEYQUESTIONNAIREQ.1Thinkingaboutyourcurrent/mostrecentemployeroverthelasttwoyears,howoften,ifatall,haveyouexperiencedanyofthefollowinginanegativeway,thiscouldbefrompeopleyouworkwithorfromclientsorcustomers.(item1)…Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsyourperformance.(item2)...Pressurefromsomeoneelsetodoworkbelowyourlevelofcompetence.(item3)...Havingyouropinionsandviewsignored(item4)...SomeonecontinuallycheckinguponyouoryourworkwhenITISNOTNECESSARY(item5)...PressurefromsomeoneelseNOTtoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightyouareentitledto(e.g.sickleave,holidayentitlement,travelexpenses)(item6)...Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines(item7)...Youremployernotfollowingproperprocedures(item8)...Beingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersinyourworkplace(item9)...Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwithyourwork(item10)...Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadaboutyouorhavingallegationsmadeagainstyou(item11)...Beinginsultedorhavingoffensiveremarksmadeaboutyou(item12)...Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway(item13)...Peopleexcludingyoufromtheirgroup(item14)...Hintsorsignalsfromothersthatyoushouldquityourjob(item15)...Persistentcriticismofyourworkorperformancewhichisunfair(item16)...Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar(item17)...Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemperwithyou(item18)...Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork(item19)...Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork(item20)...Actualphysicalviolenceatwork(item21)...Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork1:Never2:Justonce3:Nowandthen4:Monthly5:Weekly6:Daily7(R)8(DK)Q.2Thinkingofthesame21itemswehavejusttalkedabout,haveyouseenanyofthesethingshappen,onmorethanoneoccasion,tootherpeopleinyourcurrent/mostrecentworkplaceinthelasttwoyears?…Someonewithholdinginformationwhichaffectsperformance....Pressurefromsomeoneelsetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence....Havingopinionsandviewsignored...SomeonecontinuallycheckinguponworkwhenITISNOTNECESSARY…PressureNOTtoclaimsomethingwhichbyrightstaffareentitledto(e.g.sickleave,holidayentitlement,travelexpenses)...Beinggivenanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines...Employersnotfollowingproperprocedures...Employeesbeingtreatedunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace...Beinghumiliatedorridiculedinconnectionwiththeirwork

...Gossipandrumoursbeingspreadorallegationsmadeagainstothers

...Insultingoroffensiveremarksmadeaboutpeopleinwork

...Beingtreatedinadisrespectfulorrudeway

...Peopleexcludingothersfromtheirgroup

...Hintsorsignalsthattheyshouldquittheirjob

...Persistentcriticismofworkorperformancewhichisunfair

...Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar

...Beingshoutedatorsomeonelosingtheirtemper

...Intimidatingbehaviourfrompeopleatwork

...Feelingthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork

...Actualphysicalviolenceatwork

...Injuryinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork(None)0No1Yes2(R)3(DK)Q.3Thinkingofthesame21itemswehavejusttalkedabout,haveyoudoneanyofthesethings,onmorethanoneoccasion,tootherpeopleinyourcurrent/mostrecentworkplaceinthelasttwoyears?…Withheldinformationwhichaffectedsomeone’sperformance…Putpressureonsomeonetodoworkbelowtheirlevelofcompetence...Ignoredopinionsandviewsofothers...Continuallycheckeduponsomeone’sworkwhenITWASNOTNECESSARY...PutpressureonsomeoneNOTtoclaimsomething,whichbyrighttheywereentitledto(e.g.sickleave,holidayentitlement,travelexpenses)...Givensomeoneanunmanageableworkloadorimpossibledeadlines...Notfollowedproperproceduresintheworkplace...Treatedsomeoneunfairlycomparedtoothersintheworkplace...Humiliatedorridiculedsomeoneinconnectionwiththeirwork...Spreadgossipandrumoursormadeallegationsagainstsomeone...Insultedormadeoffensiveremarksaboutsomeone...Treatedsomeoneinadisrespectfulorrudeway...Excludedpeoplefromyourgroup...Givenhintsorsignalstoothersthattheyshouldquittheirjob...Persistentlycriticisedworkorperformancewhichwasunfair...Teasing,mocking,sarcasmorjokeswhichgotoofar...Shoutedatorlostyourtemperwithsomeoneatwork…Intimidatingbehaviourtopeopleatwork...Madesomeonefeelthreatenedinanywaywhileatwork...Actualphysicalviolenceatwork...Injuredanyoneinsomewayasaresultofviolenceoraggressionatwork0No1Yes2(R)3(DK)

Q.4(a)CanIjustcheck,theseareallthingsthathappenedtoyouinyourcurrent/mostrecentplaceofworkandwithinthelasttwoyears.Isthiscorrect?Q.4(b)Yousaidthatyouhadexperiencedthis/thesenegativebehaviour(s)overthelasttwoyears,ofthese,whichoneaffectedyouthemost? Q.5Andwhatdidthisexperienceinvolve?Q.5bSummaryofNumberofresponses

1 ThreeormorevalidresponsestoQ1ANDQ4a

Validresponse=codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a

2 LessthanthreevalidresponsestoQ1ANDQ4a

Validresponse=codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a

3itemswillbeselectedtouseforfollowupquestions.Decidingwhichonestoselect:

Priorityscores:

53 Item21codes02-06atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a

32 Item9code03atQ1ANDcode1atQ4a

(anywhicharenotcode1atQ4aareinvalidresponsesandsopriority0)Q.6(a)Yousaidthatyouhadexperiencedatleastthreenegativebehavioursoverthelasttwoyears.Thesearethreeofthenegativebehavioursthatyousaidyouhadexperienced.Iamgoingtoaskyouafewquestionsabouteachoneinturn.

Q.6(b)Firstthinkingaboutwhenyouexperienced[inserttextoffirstitemfromQ6a].Inthelast6months/Inthelast6monthsyouwereworking,howoftenwouldyousaythishappened?1Never2Justonce 3Nowandthen 4Fortnightly 5Weekly6Daily7(R)8(DK)Q.7Inthemostrecentincidentofthiskind,thisneednothavebeeninthelast6months,whatgenderwasthepersonorpersonsresponsible?1:Male2:Female3:Bothmalesandfemales4(R)5(DK)Q.8Inthemostrecentincident,whatethnicgroupwasthepersonorpersonsresponsible?01:White02:Black03:Asian04:Other05:Mixedrace06:Mixedgroupincludingpeopleofdifferentraces(R)(DK)Q.9Inthemostrecentincidentwastheperson/personsresponsiblea1:Employer,supervisor(s)orline-manager(s),seniormanager(s)2:Co-worker(s),colleague(s)3:Subordinate(s)orpeopleinlowerpositionsthanyou4:Client(s),customer(s)5:Notanindividual(i.e.theorganisation)(R)(DK)Q.10Doyoubelieve,inthemostrecentincident,thisnegativebehaviourwasbecauseofanythingonthisscreen?[Screen1]1:Yourpositionintheorganisation2:It’sjustthewaythingsarewhereyouwork3:Yourperformanceatwork

[Screen2]5:Theattitudeorpersonalityoftheotherperson(s)6:People’srelationshipsatwork(e.g.favouritism)7:Peoplehaveagrouporcliqueatworkandexcludeyoufromit[Screen3]9:Yourage10:Yourgender11:Yournationality12:Yourreligion13:Yourrace,ethnicgroupand/orcolourofskin[Screen4]14:Yoursexualorientation(e.g.gay,straight,lesbian,bi-sexualetc.)15:Yourdisability16:Yourlong-termillnessorotherhealthproblems17:Yourunionmembership[Screen5]18:Yourphysicalappearanceorthewayyoudress19:Youbeingpregnant/yourfamilyorcaringresponsibilitiesormaritalstatus20:Youraccentorthewayyouspeak,addressorwhereyoulive,orsocialclass21:Somethingelseaboutyou(e.g.yougetsingledout,yougetpickedon)22:Somethingelsenotalreadyspecified(pleasespecify)(None)Q.11Whatdoyouthinkcausedoriscausingthisnegativebehaviour(pleasespecify)?FARE Thinkingaboutyourcurrentworkplace/workplaceduringthelastyearthatyouspentinyourmostrecentjob,whichofthefollowingstatementsapply?Youcanchooseasmanyasyoulikeornoneatall.

…WhereIwork,theneedsoftheorganisationalwayscomebeforetheneedsofpeople…WhereIwork,youhavetocompromiseyourprinciples…WhereIwork,peoplearetreatednotasindividuals…IcannotdecidehowmuchworkIdoorhowfastIworkduringtheday…MymanagerdecidesthespecifictasksIwilldofromdaytoday…Ineedpermissiontotakeabreakduringtheworkingday…InowhavelesscontrolovermyworkthanIdidayearago…Thepaceofworkinmypresentjobistoointense…Thenatureofmyworkhaschangedoverthepastyearorso…ThepaceofworkinmyjobhasincreasedoverthepastyearorsoQ.WPStillthinkingaboutyourcurrentworkplace/workplaceduringthelastyearthatyouspentinyourmostrecentjob,canyoutellmewhether...-Iamclearwhatisexpectedofmeatwork-Icandecidewhentotakeabreak-Differentgroupsatworkdemandthingsfrommethatarehardtocombine

-Iknowhowtogoaboutgettingmyjobdone-Ihaveunachievabledeadlines-Ifworkgetsdifficult,mycolleagueswillhelpme-IamgivensupportivefeedbackontheworkIdo-Ihavetoworkveryintensively-Iamclearwhatmydutiesandresponsibilitiesare-IhavetoneglectsometasksbecauseIhavetoomuchtodo-Iamclearaboutthegoalsandobjectivesformydepartment-Thereisfrictionorangerbetweencolleagues-IhaveachoiceindecidinghowIdomywork-Iamunabletotakesufficientbreaks-Iunderstandhowmyworkfitsintotheoverallaimoftheorganisation-Iampressuredtoworklonghours-IhaveachoiceindecidingwhatIdoatwork-Ihavetoworkveryfast-Ihaveunrealistictimepressures-Icanrelyonmylinemanagertohelpmeoutwithaworkproblem-IgetthehelpandsupportIneedfromcolleagues-IhavesomesayoverthewayIwork-Ihavesufficientopportunitiestoquestionmanagersaboutchangeatwork-IreceivetherespectatworkIdeservefrommycolleagues-Staffarealwaysconsultedaboutchangeatwork-Icantalktomylinemanageraboutsomethingthathasupsetorannoyedmeatwork-Myworkingtimecanbeflexible-Mycolleaguesarewillingtolistentomywork-relatedproblems1:Never2:Seldom3:Sometimes4:Often5:AlwaysQ.AThinkingaboutyourcurrent/mostrecentjob,canyoutellmewhatdoestheorganisationyouwork/workedformainlymakeordoattheplacewhereyouwork/worked?Pleasedescribefully.1Agriculture,huntingandforestry2Fishing3Miningandquarrying4Manufacturing5Electricity,gas,andwatersupply6Construction7Wholesaleandretailtrade,repairofmotorvehicles&motorcycles8Hotelsandrestaurants9Transport,storageandcommunication10Financialintermediation11Realestate,rentingandbusinessactivities12Publicadministrationanddefence,compulsorysocialsecurity13Education14HealthandSocialWork15Othercommunity,socialandpersonalserviceactivities

16Privatehouseholdsemployingstaffandundifferentiatedprod17Extra-territorialorganisationsandbodies18Refused/NotStatedQ.BAndstillthinkingaboutyourcurrent/mostrecentjob,whatis/wasyour(main)jobrolethere?Whatis/wasyourjobtitle?Q.CAndwhatdo/didyoumainlydoinyourjob?Pleasealsotellmeifyouneededanyspecialqualificationsortrainingtodothejob.Q.DAnddo/didyouhaveanymanagerialdutiesordo/didyousuperviseotheremployees?1:Manager2:Supervisor/foreman3:No4:Refused5:(DK)Q.EIs/Wasyourjobapermanentjoboris/wastheresomewayinwhichitis/wasnotpermanent?1:Yes-Permanentjob2:No-notapermanentjob3:Refused4:(DK)Q.FWhichoftheseBESTdescribesthewayinwhichyourjobis/wasNOTpermanent?1:Seasonalwork2:Undercontractforafixedperiodoftimeorforaparticulartask3:Agencyworkortemping4:Casualwork5:Governmentsupportedscheme[e.g.JobsBridge,unpaidIntern]6:Othernon-permanentarrangement7:Refused8:(DK)Q.GIncludingyourself,howmanyemployeesare/werethereintotalattheplacewhereyouwork/worked.Pleaseincludeallcontracted,non-contracted,agency,freelanceandtemporaryworkersBUTEXCLUDEanyowners,ordirectorsoftheorganisation.01:1only(meonly,nootherEmployees)02:2to403:5to904:10to1905:20to2406:25to4907:50to99

08:100to14909:150to24910:250to49911:500orover12:Don’tknowbutlessthan25013:Don’tknowbut250ormore14:Refused15:(DK)Q.HIs/Wasyourplaceofworkpartofalargerorganisation?Ifyes,canyouestimatethetotalnumberofemployeesinthatlargerorganisation?1:Notinalargerorganisation2:Under103:10-494:50-2495:250-4996:500-9997:1,000-9,9998:10,000+9:Refused10:Don’tknowQ.IWhatkindoforganisationis/wasit?1:Aprivatefirmorbusinessoralimitedcompany2:ApubliclimitedcompanyorPLC3:Anationalisedindustryorstatecorporation4:CentralGovernmentorCivilService5:Localgovernmentorcouncil(includingtheFireService)6:ASchool7:AUniversityorcollege8:AHealthAuthorityortheHSE9:ACharityorVoluntaryorganisation10:ThePolice11:Thearmedforces12:Anotherkindoforganisation(Pleasespecify)13:Refused14:(DK)Q.JHowlonghaveyoubeenworkingforyourcurrentemployer?Pleasedonotincludeanytimespenttempingbeforebeingdirectlyemployedbytheorganisation.Ifyoucan’trememberexactly,pleasegiveyourbestestimate.1:<1year2:1-2years3:2-3years4:3-4years5:4-5years6:5-10years7:10-15years

8:15years+9:Don’tknow/NotansweredQK.Whatwouldyousaywasthecompositionofthestaffinyourcurrent/lastworkplaceintermsofrace/ethnicity:1:NoBlackorEthnicMinoritiesinmyworkplace(0%)2:AfewBlackorEthnicMinoritiesinmyworkplace(5-10%)3:AboutaquarterBlackorEthnicMinorities(about25%)4:AbouthalfBlackorEthnicMinorities(about50%)5:MorethanhalfBlackorEthnicMinorities(about60%)6:Aboutthree-quartersBlackorEthnicMinorities(about75%)7:NearlyallBlackorEthnicMinorities(about85-90%)8:AllBlackorEthnicMinorities(100%)9:(R)10:(DK)QL.Whatwouldyousaywasthecompositionofthestaffinyourcurrent/lastworkplaceintermsofgender:1:Nowomeninmyworkplace(0%)2:Afewwomeninmyworkplace(5-10%)3:Aboutaquarterwomen(about25%)4:Abouthalfwomen(about50%)5:Morethanhalfwomen(about60%)6:Aboutthree-quarterswomen(about75%)7:Nearlyallwomen(about85-90%)8:Allwomen(100%)9:(R)10:(DK)QM.Whatwouldyousaywasthecompositionofthestaffinyourcurrent/lastworkplaceintermsofyoungpeopleunder25:1:Noyoungpeopleinmyworkplace(0%)2:Afewyoungpeopleinmyworkplace(5-10%)3:Aboutaquarteryoungpeople(about25%)4:Abouthalfyoungpeople(about50%)5:Morethanhalfyoungpeople(about60%)6:Aboutthree-quartersyoungpeople(about75%)7:Nearlyallyoungpeople(about85-90%)8:Allyoungpeople(100%)9:(R)10:(DK)Q.NAre/WerethereanyTradeUnionsorstaffassociationsatcurrent/mostrecentworkplacethatsomeonedoingyourjobcouldjoin?1:Yes-TradeUnion2:Yes-StaffAssociation3:No

4:Refused5:(DK)Q.OAre/Wereyouamemberofthetradeunionorstaffassociationthere?1:Yes-TradeUnion2:Yes-staffassociation3:No4:Refused5:(DK)Q.PPleaselookatthisandtellmewhatyourusualpayisforyourcurrentjob/wasforyourmostrecentjob,BEFOREanydeductionsfortax,PRSIandsoon. Perweek Permonth Peryear CodeA Under€193 Under€834 Under€10,000 1B €193-€384 €834-€1,667 €10,000-€19,999 2C €385-€575 €1,668-€2,500 €20,000-€29,999 3D €576-€767 €2,501-€3,333 €30,000-€39,999 4E €768-€959 €3,334-€4,167 €40,000-€49,999 5F €960ormore €4,168ormore €50,000ormore 6R 7DK 8

Perhapsyoucouldlookatthiscardnowandtellmeinalittlemoredetailwhereyourusualpay,BEFOREanydeductionsfortax,PRSIandsoon,wouldfall? Perweek Permonth Peryear CodeH25A[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYAABOVE]

€86orless €375orless €4,499orless 1€87-€109 €376-€475 €4,500-€5,699 2€110-€153 €476-€667 €5,700-€7,999 3€154-€192 €668-€833 €8,000-€9,999 4

H25B[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYBABOVE]

€193-€240 €834-€1,042 €10,000-€12,499 5€241-€288 €1,043-€1,250 €12,500-€14,999 6€289-€336 €1,251-€1,458 €15,000-€17,499 7€337-€384 €1,459-€1,667 €17,500-€19,999 8

H25C[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYCABOVE]

€385-€432 €1,668-€1,875 €20,000-€22,499 9€433-€479 €1,876-€2,083 €22,500-€24,999 10€480-€527 €2,084-€2,292 €25,000-€27,499 11€528-€575 €2,293-€2,500 €27,500-€29,999 12

H25D[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYDABOVE]

€576-€623 €2,501-€2,708 €30,000-€32,499 13€624-€671 €2,709-€2,917 €32,500-€34,999 14€672-€719 €2,918-€3,125 €35,000-€37,499 15€720-€767 €3,126-€3,333 €37,500-€39,999 16

H25E[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYEABOVE]

€768-€815 €3,334-€3,542 €40,000-€42,499 17€816-€863 €3,543-€3,750 €42,500-€44,999 18€864-€911 €3,751-€3,958 €45,000-€47,499 19€912-€959 €3,959-€4,167 €47,500-€49,999 20

H25F[FURTHERBREAKDOWNOFCATEGORYFABOVE]

€960-€1,151 €4,168-€5,000 €50,000-€59,999 21€1,152-€1,343 €5,001-€5,833 €60,000-€69,999 22€1,344-€1,534 €5,834-€6,667 €70,000-€79,999 23€1,535ormore €6,668ormore €80,000ormore 24

R 25DK 26

Q.QStartingfromthetopofthescreen,pleaselookdownthelistofqualificationsandtellmethenumberofthefirstoneyoucometothatyouhavepassed.(FromCensus2011)1:HigherdegreeorpostgraduatequalificationsNFQLevel9or10PostgraduateDiploma,MastersDegreeorequivalent,PhD2:DegreeHonoursBachelorDegree/ProfessionalqualificationorbothNFQLevel7or83:DiplomasinhighereducationorotherHEqualifications,HigherCertificateNFQLevel6NCEA/HETACNationalCert.orequivalent,AdvancedCertificate/CompletedApprenticeshipNFQLevel6FETACAdvancedCert.,NCVALevel3,FÁSNationalCraftCert.,TeagascFarmingCert.,CERTProfessionalCookeryCert.orequivalent4:UpperSecondaryNFQLevels4or5LeavingCert.(includingAppliedandVocationalprogrammes)orequivalent5:TradeapprenticeshipsTechnicalorVocationalNFQLevels4or5FETACLevel4/5Cert.,NCVALevel1/2,FÁSSpecificSkills,TeagascCert.inAgriculture,CERTCraftCert.orequivalent6:LowerSecondaryNFQLevel3Junior/Inter/GroupCert.,FETACLevel3Cert.,FÁSIntroductorySkills,NCVAFoundationCert.orequivalent7:PrimaryeducationNFQLevels1or2FETACLevel1or2Cert.orequivalent8:Otherqualifications(includingoverseas)(pleasespecify)9:Noneofthese10:Refused11:(DK)Q.SWhatisyourcountryofbirth?1:England2:Wales3:Scotland4:NorthernIreland5:removedforIre6:RepublicofIreland7:Poland8:Lithuania9:Latvia10:Romania11:Germany12:Slovakia

13:Hungary14:France15:Italy16:Spain17:Netherlands18:OtherEU27(Luxembourg,Slovenia,Cyprus,Malta,Greece,Austria,Finland,Denmark,Belgium,Sweden,Bulgaria,Portugal,Estonia)19:Nigeria20:SouthAfrica21:OtherAfrica22:China23:India24:Philippines25:OtherAsia26:USA27:Brazil28:Canada29:OtherAmericas30:Australia31:NewZealand32:Somewhereelse(pleasespecify)33:Refused34:(DK)Q.TAndinwhatyeardidyouFIRSTcometotheRepublicofIrelandtoliveortowork?Q.VDoyouhaveanyofthefollowinglong-standingconditions?1Deafnessorseverehearingimpairment2Blindnessorseverevisualimpairment3Aconditionthatsubstantiallylimitsoneormorebasicphysicalactivitiessuchaswalking,climbingstairs,liftingorcarrying4Alearningdifficulty5Along-standingpsychologicaloremotionalcondition6Other,includinganylong-standingillness7No,Idonothavealong-standingcondition8Refused9Don’tknowQWDoesalong-standinghealthproblemordisabilitymeanyouhavesubstantialdifficultiesdoingday-to-dayactivities?1Yes2No3R4DK

APPENDIX2:TOPICGUIDEFORINTERVIEWSTopicGuideforEmployees1)PERSONALPROFILE:Tellmeabitaboutyourself……2)PERCEPTIONOFILLTREATMENTINTHEORGANISATION:(BULLYING,HARASSMENT,RUDENESS,VERBALABUSE,UNREASONABLEBEHAVIOUR)

Ø Whatdoyouunderstandbyilltreatmentintheworkplace?Ø Doyouthinkilltreatmentisprevalentinyourworkplace?Ø Whatareyourexperiencesofilltreatmentintheworkplace?(cancapturepersonalexperiencesandalso

witnessed/observedexperiences)Ø Whatwastheoutcomeforemployee?Ø Whatwastheoutcomefortheorganisation?Ø Whatdoyouthinkhasbroughtitabout?

3)KNOWLEDGEOFSUPPORTAVAILABLE:

Ø Tellmeaboutthesystemsthatareinplacetodealwithissuesofilltreatment?(policies/procedures)?Ø Whowouldyougoto?Ø Whatworks?Whatdoesn’twork?Whymightthisbe?Ø Howeffectivearetheprocesses?

4)OUTCOMES:

Ø Whataretheconsequencesofusingthesystems/proceduresthatareinplace?Ø Whathappensonceyoudoaccessthem?Ø Consequencesofreportingilltreatment?Ø Istheoutcomegenerallysatisfactory?Ø Otherthantheformalprocedures/supports,whatelsehashelpedyouorothersthroughsuch

experiences?Ø Inwhatway?Ø Othersupportmechanisms?

5)SOLUTIONS:

Ø Whatdoyouthinkshouldhappen?Ø Inthefuture,whatwouldbeabetterwayofdealingwithissuesofilltreatmentintheworkplace?Ø Whatchallengesmayarise?

APPENDIX3:CALLTOPARTICIPATEININTERVIEWS

IrishWorkplaceBehaviourStudy2015-2016 DearStaffMember

WearewritinginrelationtotheIrishWorkplaceBehaviourStudy,whichisbeingconductedbyresearchersintheNationalUniversityofIreland,GalwayandtheUniversityofLimerick.Negativebehaviours,suchasbullying,harassmentorincivility,haveasignificantimpactonemployeehealthandwellbeing.Organisationstypicallyfinditdifficulttopreventorevenmanagenegativebehaviours,evenwithpoliciesandproceduresinplace.Thisresearchispartofanationalstudy,whichaimstoexplorethecausesandeffectsofnegativeworkplacebehavioursandalsotheimplementationofsupportsandproceduresforaddressingpotentialissues.Yourorganisationisjustoneoftheorganisationsparticipatinginthestudy.Wewouldliketotalktopeople,inanygradeorroleinyourorganisation,togainadeeperunderstandingofperceptionsandexperiences,frompeopleontheground,abouthowtheseproblemsariseandaremanagedinyourworkplace.Ultimately,wewillusethisinformationtomakeusefulandpracticalrecommendationsforworkplacesgenerally.Tofacilitatetheresearch,wewillbeconductinginterviews,whichwillincludequestionssuchasperceptionsofnegativebehavioursinyourworkplace,andproceduresandsupportsfordealingwithsuchissues.Interviewswilltakeapproximately30minstocompleteandallinformationcollectedwillbecompletelyconfidentialandanonymous,meaning:1.Youremployerwillnotbetoldwhoparticipatesintheinterviews2.Thedatawillbepresentedinageneralwayandextremecarewillbetakentoensureandnoone

canbeidentifiedthroughanycommentstheymake3.Theorganisationitselfwillnotbeidentifiedintheprojectreporttofunder(Institutionof

OccupationalSafetyandHealth,UK)4. Onlygeneralissuesarising,andrecommendationsforactionswillbesummarisedandgiventoyour

organisationInterviewscanbeheldinpersoneitherinyourworkplaceifthatcanbearranged,orintheUniversity,ifthatisyourpreference.Wewouldliketoinviteyoucontactusifyouareinterestedintakingpartinthisstudyandtoshareyourexperiencesregardingthisissue.Pleasecontactuson0860208015Thankyouforyourtime.Yourssincerely,DrMargaretHodgins, PrincipalInvestigator,IWBS.SchoolofHealthSciences, NationalUniversityofIreland,GalwayPh(091)493349, Email:margaret.hodgins@nuigalway.ie

APPENDIX4:EDUCATIONALSESSIONSFLYER

While this paper reports on research that was funded by IOSH, the contents of the document reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. IOSH has not edited the text in any way, except for essential formatting requirements. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IOSH.

All web addresses are current at the time of going to press. The publisher takes no responsibility for subsequent changes.

Suggested citation: Hodgins M, Pursell L, Hogan V, McCurtain S, Mannix-McNamara P and Lewis D. Irish workplace behaviour study. Wigston: IOSH, 2017.

Institution of Occupational Safety and HealthFounded 1945Incorporated by Royal Charter 2003Registered charity in England and Wales No. 1096790Registered charity in Scotland No. SC043254

IOSH is the Chartered body for health and safety professionals. With more than 46,000 members in over 120 countries, we’re the world’s largest professional health and safety organisation.

We set standards, and support, develop and connect our members with resources, guidance, events and training. We’re the voice of the profession, and campaign on issues that affect millions of working people.

IOSH was founded in 1945 and is a registered charity with international NGO status.

IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUK

t +44 (0)116 257 3100www.iosh.com

twitter.com/IOSH_tweets facebook.com/IOSHofficial tinyurl.com/IOSH-linkedin youtube.com/IOSHchannel

Irish workplace behaviour study - NUI Galway...Irish workplace behaviour study Report submitted to...

Documents

Chief Operating Officer - NUI Galway - NUI Galway · Web viewThe Chief Operating Officer (COO) at NUI Galway is responsible for ensuring that the University’s core work of teaching,

An introduction to National University of Ireland, Galway (NUI Galway)

Civil Engineering at NUI Galway

Registration Terminology 2020 - NUI Galway - NUI Galway

PhD Viva Guide - NUI Galway

Reframing Dementia - An Irish perspective Professor Eamon O’Shea NUI Galway

Thomas Scharf Director, Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, NUI Galway Respond! Housing Association National Conference Dublin, 23 October 2013 Inclusive

Summer School IN GALWAY IRELAND · Irish Language 5 Irish Studies 6 Achill ... Welcome to the NUI Galway International Summer School, which offers ... elementary, intermediate and

1 APPENDIX 1 - NUI Galway - NUI Galway · Energy biographies : energy consumption through the life course Business, Public Policy, & Law Business & Economics: Irish Research Council

NUI Galway - Executive MBA 2016-18

The Princess batch2 - NUI Galway

NUI Galway - NUI Galway - AUTUMN 2013 · 2016-01-27 · 16 Disclaimer: Cois Coiribe is an annual magazine published by the Alumni Office for alumni and friends of NUI Galway. While

(Training & Education) - NUI Galway - NUI Galway · Introduction The Open Learning Centre at the National University of Ireland, Galway provides accredited courses in training and

Not Guilty batch2 - NUI Galway

CENTRE FOR IRISH STUDIES - NUI Galway...IRISH STUDIES AT THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY Since its inception in 2000, the Centre for Irish Studies at NUI Galway has established

NUI Galway - NUI Galway

Making Your Decisions - NUI Galway

NUI GALWAY SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY

Book of modules - NUI Galway - NUI Galway

INTEGRATING INFORMATION LITERACY - NUI Galway