Ralph Fevre and Trevor Jones, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University Duncan Lewis, Business School, Plymouth University.

Ralph Fevre and Trevor Jones, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University

Duncan Lewis, Business School, Plymouth University

Overview of presentation

The research studyKey findingsViolence and injuryUnreasonable treatmentIncivility and disrespectQuestions for discussion

The Research

• British Workplace Behaviour Survey 2008: representative sample of 4000 British employees

• Case studies of four large employers Engineering Logistics and communications Financial services NHS trust

• The ‘Negative Acts’ questionnaire

• Pilot work

Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ)

Being treated unfairly compared to others in your workplace Your employer not following proper procedure Being given unmanageable workload or impossible deadlines Someone continually checking up on you when it is not necessary Having your opinions and views ignored Pressure from someone else to do work below your level of competence Someone withholding information which affects your performance Feeling threatened in any way while at work Intimidating behaviour from people at work Being shouted at or someone losing their temper with you Teasing, mocking, sarcasm or jokes which go too far Persistent criticism of your work or performance which is unfair Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job People excluding you from their group Being treated in a disrespectful or rude way Being insulted or having offensive remarks made about you Gossip and rumours being spread about you or having allegations made

about you Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection to your work Actual physical violence at work Being injured in some way as a result of violence or aggression at work

Headline findings

Three broad categories of ill-treatment at work; violence and injury; unreasonable treatment; incivility and disrespect

About 5% of workforce reported physical violenceNearly 50% reported unreasonable treatmentAbout 40% had experienced incivility and disrespectEmployees with long-term health problems or

disabilities; LGBT employees were significantly more likely to experience ill-treatment at work

Ethnicity: Looking at labour force as a whole, employees from BME groups no more likely to experience ill-treatment

Age: Employees from younger groups more likely to report ill-treatment

Gender: Men and women equally likely to experience ill-treatment

Workplace violence

Percentage of respondents experiencing violence and injury: specific items

5.1%

4.9%

3.8%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

Actual physicalviolence at work

Injury in some way asa result of violence oraggression at work

FTAW WBS

Workers at risk of violence

• Employees with a psychological or emotional condition or a learning disability (7x more likely to experience violence)

• Controlling for perpetrator types, LGBT employees 5x more at risk of violence at work compared to heterosexual respondents

• Those with managerial or supervisory duties, FT workers and TU members

• Personal service occupations more at risk of violence (also significant for injury)

Workplace violence: Who does it and where?Perpetrators mostly clients/general public

(75%)Higher in public sector and third sector (both

9%) compared to private sector (3%)Highest rates of inter-worker violence in

private sector Health and Social Work – 3x average rate of

workplace violencePublic administration and defence (including

‘blue-light’ services) – 2x average rate of workplace violence

Education was the third worst industry Highest rates in more ethnically diverse

workplaces and those with under 250 employees.

Unreasonable treatment

Perecengage of respondents experiencing unreasonable treatment: specific items

11.8%

33.1%

14.9%

14.2%

11.9%

27.0%

17.5%

8.8%

29.1%

21.3%

14.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Someone withholding information whichaffects your performance

Pressure from someone else to do workbelow your level of competence

Having your opinions and views ignored

Someone continually checking up on you oryour work when it is not necessary

Pressure from someone else not to claimsomething which by right you are entitled to

Being given an unmanageable workload orimpossible deadlines

Your employer not following properprocedures

Being treated unfairly compared to others inyour workplace

FTAW WBS

Which workers are most at risk of Unreasonable Treatment?

Employees with impairments, including learning difficulties, or had a long-term health condition

Younger workers more at risk Higher earners more likely to experience UT Having less control over your work increased the risk of

seven out of eight types Employees who said that the nature of their work had

changed, and/or the pace of their work had increased more likely to report UT

The biggest risk was working where you felt the needs of the organisation always came before the needs of people, you had to compromise your principles and people were not treated as individuals (the FARE questions)

Unreasonable treatment: Who does it and where? Perpetrators: Just over two-thirds of incidents

were blamed on employers, managers or supervisors

As with workplace violence, unreasonable treatment more common in health and social work, public administration and defence

Unlike violence, it was also more common in

the utilities and financial intermediation

More likely in a small-to-medium-sized workplace which was part of a larger organisation with human resource functions, union recognition and highly-skilled and well-paid workforces

Patterns of risk of unreasonable treatment Employees with ‘other’ disabilities or conditions, and those

with psychological conditions, were 3 times as likely to say their employer had not followed proper procedures.

Employees with impairments put at risk because of the manner in which employers deal with sick leave, returning to work after sickness absence, the management of ongoing conditions and ‘reasonable adjustments’.

White employees were more at risk of unreasonable treatment because they were more likely to work in workplaces that were hotspots.

Even within those hotspots, White employees were more at risk of their employer not following proper procedures. Women who worked in hotspots were more likely than men in those workplaces to be unfairly treated.

Incivility and disrespect

Percentage of respondents experiencing incivility & disrespect: specific items

8.3%

17.6%

26.1%

7.6%

10.5%

14.7%

22.3%

7.8%

7.2%

11.5%

11.1%

23.6%

13.3%

10.9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Being humiliated or ridiculed inconnection with your work

Being insulted or having offensiveremarks made about you

People excluding you from their group

Persistent criticism of your work orperformance which is unfair

Being shouted at or someone losing theirtemper with you

Feeling threatened in any way while atwork

FTAW WBS

Which workers are most at risk of incivility and disrespect?

• Disabilities and LT health conditions are important risk factors for incivility and disrespect

• The psychological/learning disabilities sub-group were most at risk

• Roughly half of the types of incivility and disrespect experienced by people with psychological problems or learning disabilities were of the type which were more likely to come from clients, customers or the general public. The other half were of the kind more likely to originate with co-workers

• People with physical impairments barely experienced more incivility or disrespect than employees without disabilities. They did not experience more insults, ridicule, humiliation or teasing; only more shouting

• The  risk of incivility and disrespect for LGBT employees was almost as great as it was for employees with disabilities

Beyond protected groups, no clear indication of vulnerable, or marginalised, workers being more at risk. Significant risk factors were having less control over work, and finding the pace of work too intense.

Incivility and disrespect: Who does it and where? Employers, managers or supervisors were main

perpetrators (40%); clients/customers and the general public accounted for 27 per cent and co-workers for (22 per cent)

Typical workplace has 50-249 employees and incivility and disrespect goes up as size increases

Incivility and disrespect also share some patterns with violence and injury, for example both were more common in the public sector. Hotspots in public administration and defence, health and social work

As with unreasonable treatment, incivility and disrespect is more of a problem in highly visible organisations with HR functions, union recognition and highly-skilled, well-paid workforces

Patterns of incivility and disrespect

Bisexual employees significantly more likely to experience hints they should quit, and intimidation, and in both cases the effects were massive

Younger workers slightly more likely to experience gossip, rudeness, hints to quit, persistent criticism, teasing and being shouted at

Employees with Asian backgrounds much less likely to report insults, rudeness, persistent criticism, shouting, intimidation and feeling threatened

Looking only at employees in hotspots, BME employees 4x as likely as non-BME employees to receive hints to quit their jobs, and no less likely to suffer other types of ill-treatment than anyone else.

Women who worked in hotspots more likely than men in those workplaces to be insulted and intimidated

Women 4x as likely as men in the hotspots to be insulted (but less likely than men to be threatened).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UnreasonableMgmt

Denigration &Disrespect

Violence

Proportion of respondents across 3 factors

3 or more items

1 or 2 items

None

UNREASONABLE MANAGEMENT 47%

DENIGRATION & DISRESPECT 40%

VIOLENCE6%

33%

5%1%

UNREASONABLE MANAGEMENT 17%

DENIGRATION & DISRESPECT 13%

VIOLENCE1%

9%

0.8%

Questions for discussion 1# Violence and Injury

1. Do you have experience to share from sectors like health and social care where the risks of violence are greater?

2. Why are managers particularly at risk of violence?

3. Violence continues to be a problem even in workplaces where zero tolerance is professed. What other solutions might there be?

4. How can we minimise the risks of violence towards LGBT and, possibly, employees with disabilities or health problems?

Questions for discussion 2# Unreasonable Treatment.

1. Some complaints about unreasonable treatment might be interpreted as challenges to the right to manage. How would you distinguish the two?

2. In your experience, is there a difference in the treatment of people with psychological problems and those with other types of chronic illness?

3. Why are sickness absences, returning to work processes and reasonable adjustments so problematic?

4. Might your organisation be a hotspot for unreasonable treatment?

5. What special problems do you associate with these factors and how can they be addressed?

Reduced job control Change in the nature Change in the pace of work Super-intense work

6. How would your organisation measure up against the FARE questions?

Questions for discussion 3# Incivility and Disrespect1. Is incivility and disrespect directed at

employees with psychological problems or learning disabilities a problem you recognise?

2. And what about the other equality strands, particularly LGBT?

3. Do you have any good practice to recommend in any of these areas? How do you avoid employees perceiving any interventions as routine compliance rather than something the organisation really wishes to enact?

4. Might your organisation be a hotspot for incivility and disrespect?

5. What special problems do you associate with these factors and how can they be solved?

Reduced job control Change in the nature Change in the pace of work Super-intense work

6. How would your organisation measure up against the FARE questions?

7. Why are mainstream organisations with HR functions and policies on dignity at work and equality and diversity faring no better on measures of ill-treatment?

Prevention and intervention Conventional solutions do not workOne-size does not fit allManaging sickness policies Managing the managers more generally:

not only responsible for ill-treatment dished out by others but directly responsible for 70 percent of unreasonable treatment 40 percent or incivility and disrespect

Mandating civility and respect

Managers are responsible for most unreasonable treatment and constitute the single most important source of incivility and disrespect.

Much of this has nothing to do with the character or personalities of managers and everything to do with their position in the organisation, and the employer’s expectations of them.

It is up to leaders in an organisation to mandate staff with managerial responsibilities to treat everyone fairly and with respect.

This mandate requires specific expectations of the management role.

Managers must be required to fulfil these expectations as part of reviews of their performance and for promotion and progression.

The requirement to promote fairness and respect needs to be embedded in all managerial roles and, on occasion, it may give them new ones.

The prime example is the extension of the requirement to include a management responsibility for the behaviour from customers, clients and the general public, to which employees are exposed.

Mandating fairness and respect means taking the complaints procedure out of the hands of managers but giving responsibility to an ill-trained employee in a call-centre is not good enough.

The managers who build the mandate into their everyday practices should not be expected to add this role alongside all the others.

Expecting them to add the promoting fairness and respect to their workloads, without a reduction in the other demands made of them, would be self-defeating.

Much could be done by looking again at the distribution of responsibilities between line managers and HR professionals.

Employers should not assume that all employees, including those with managerial responsibilities, will understand what fairness and respect mean if this is not spelled out to them.

Spelling out what fairness and respect mean will take much more than those well-intentioned behaviour expected of all employees.

By creating an interactive environment that demonstrates the subtle, and not so subtle aspects of workplace ill-treatment, it is possible to test knowledge, skills and understanding and to adjust the manner of learning to the role of the participant.

A major caveat here is that all employees should take part.

How might HR seek to influence the top management of organizations to set the behavioural tone for organizational culture?

What practical steps might HR take in areas such as job descriptions, person specifications as well as in policy arenas to embrace the findings from this report?

What interventions do you see as necessary to tackle manager behaviour?