Gender, Conflict, and Workplace Bullying: Is Civility Policy the Silver Bullet?

The experience of office bullying appears to be commonplace, with approximately thirty-five percent of the workforce reporting psychological and/or physical abuse (Workplace Bullying Institute [WBI], 2011). Websites, public forums, and media scrutiny have made bullying an everyday topic. Correspondingly, there has been renewed attention in academic studies on this increasing form of interpersonal violence. Much of bullying research has focused on: (1) a description of the phenomenon and its widespread impact; (2) perpetrator and target characteristics; (3) outcomes such as stress and somatic complaints; and (4) the aftermath on firms (Namie, 2003; Rayner and Hoel, 1997; Salin, 2003). Untangling the causes and consequences of adult bullying can be complex because according to Rayner and Hoel (1997: 188): "The breadth of the phenomenon encompasses many different forms of behavior ..." More than half of targets in workplace bullying cases are women (WBI, 2011). A potential explanation is that stereotypes regarding their behavior (in some cases) remain stubborn (Duehr and Bono, 2006). Moreover, when women display incongruent role behaviors they may be punished (Berdahl, 2007; Eagly and Sczesny, 2009). However, the research lacks in describing what may happen when women attempt to defend themselves from a bullying attack, and, if any form of organizational intervention can improve the situation. As Rayner and Hoel (1997) have alluded, studying a confluence of variables (as opposed to univariate factors) may be necessary to understand how deviant workplace acts unfold. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how men and women are differentially perceived when they are bullied at work, and whether the existence of a civility policy makes a positive difference. Specifically, the following studies explore whether women who violate gender norms are viewed as more responsible when bullied (as compared to men), and if aggressors are considered less justified when organizations have institutionalized anti-bullying measures. The researchers suspect there are undercurrents of enhanced responsibility (and perhaps a lack of perceived collegiality) when a woman defends herself in a bullying scenario. The researchers also speculate that a civility policy can impact the way individuals process situations. Perceived levels of target collegiality and responsibility, rater hostile sexism, and bully justification (and their interaction with target gender, reaction, rater sex, and rater race) are analyzed under conditions where a civility policy is and is not present. This study examines the interaction of these variables to extrapolate information for future research. LITERATURE REVIEW The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) defines bullying as "repeated, health harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers" which can include "sabotage by others that prevent[s] work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation, and humiliation" (WBI, 2011: "What is Workplace Bullying?"). The preponderance of bullying behavior is the result of non-physical assault (Salin, 2003), such as verbal and psychological attack. These assaults can include shouting, mobbing (the infliction of abuse from a group directed toward a single individual), insults delivered in an audience setting, ostracism, blowing things out of proportion, wielding power in a manner designed to put people in their place (e.g., officiousness), misplaced blame, disrespectful discourse, and using positional power to leverage work-related credit. Bullying is not an across-the-board workplace phenomenon, but is pinpointed toward certain individuals (Salin, 2003). The majority of bullied persons are either subordinate in rank (by 71%) or are direct reports (Namie, 2003). Workplace Bullying: Gender and Race The social construction of gender affects the frequency, duration, and type of bullying that women experience. …