|
|
n. 3/2000
|
|
|
.
|
Curriculum |
Harald Ege |
.
|
The purpose of such behavior
may be varied, but is always destructive: to eliminate someone who has
somehow "inconvenient/bothersome", pushing the person towards
'voluntarily' resigning or provoking his/her dismissal. This is a subject only recently
theorized, but well known, closer to our lives than we would ever have
imagined. Who among us lives or has lived a working life without conflict
or problems? Does this mean, then, that we are all victims of mobbing?
The answer is obviously no. If your office supervisor should arrive
late and angry because his/her automobile broke down in the middle of
a road junction in, and you remind this person that he/she has to make
an annoying phone call, or you mention the existence of a problem, then
you will have a ninety-nine out of a hundred chance of being treated
badly and feeling humiliated and hurt. However, one thing is certain:
you are not victims of mobbing, but only of actions that we shall call
mobbng-like: irksome actions, tough even and not pleasant, but linked
to situational factors (a 'bad' day, headache, private problems, or
something else with you or with whoever works alongside you) and therefore
momentary. On the other hand, should this supervisor's overbearing way
of showing who's the boss, or the backbiting by colleagues, or any aggressive
behavior, become routine for some reason, i.e. should the bullying become
regular, systematic and carried on for a long time, then it is a question
of mobbing.
But mobbing is even more than
this: it also provokes an appreciable decline in the productivity of
the company in which it is found. Those who do the mobbing or those
who suffer it record a heavily reduced professional output, and the
victims are often absent for medical visits or periods of illness. This
cost then reflects on entire society: a mobbing victim is usually pre-pensioned
off or invalidated from work and, according to statistical estimates,
a worker constrained to a pension at just 40 years of age is already
costing 1 billion and 200 million Lire more than a 'routinely' pensioned
senior person. MOBBING
STRATEGIES Mobbing
is a complex phenomenon, which may express itself in various ways and
in which the authors may behave according to different canons. However,
we are beginning to realize that there is one constant: the victim is
always in a position inferior to his/her adversaries. 'Inferiority'
not referring to power, intelligence or culture, but to status. In the
course of a long time period of suffering mobbing effects, the victim
gradually loses his/her original standing, i.e. losing 1.
influence
The range of strategies that a mobber can adopt is
truly diabolical. I have heard of clerks transferred to offices not
having restroom facilities, prevented from leaving their work position
for physical needs se non after humiliating telephone calls; of teachers
reduced to librarians; of 50-year old managers cheated with false
promises of re-engagement and who find themselves receiving derisive
and degrading salaries; of clerks mobbed by supervisors as a reprisal
for their refusal to give sexual favors. The most serious cases concern
people brought to considering and carrying out suicide, the final act
of a harrowingly depressed person, or exasperated to the point of thinking
about killing his/her persecutor. As one may well imagine, understanding if a person
has been, is, or is about to be mobbed, is not so simple. Taking, for
example, and average working life of 35 years, reasoning statistically
we might suppose that a case of mobbing would present itself at least
once in the course of each of our working lives, independently of whether
we have lived through it passively (i.e. if we witness a case of mobbing
in our office as non-involved spectators or towards a colleague close
to us) or have taken an active part in it (as victim or as the actual
mobber). The reason is not justifiable, but is at least understandable:
fear. Fear of becoming involved, of making a poor showing, of being
thence accused in our turn of something, of suffering some kind of retaliation,
even of eventually losing our job. Fear, perhaps, of declaring our convictions
to the annoyance of all the others. We could say that there is a sort
of professional connivance, which erects a wall of silence behind which
the mobber can act undisturbed. An old saying, unfortunately, prevails
in mobbing: "Who holds their tongue acquiesces and participates". Mobbing, then, has always existed, but a theorization
of it is only now beginning to spread. Until now it has always been
passively accepted as part of the game. The most common comments that
I have heard about mobbing have been: "Unfortunately one has to
adapt to it" or "Such are the rules of the job". Well
then, it really is necessary for all of us to revise our convictions
and prejudices. Mobbing is not a rule to accept passively, but
an abuse to combat. GLI
ATTORI DEL MOBBING Mobbing is a social phenomenon: it cannot happen on
its own. It is performed, suffered or encouraged by human beings. Those
who take part in it are indispensable principals, with their defects,
personal idiosyncrasies and fears. Mobbing is an aggressive drama with
two parts: the aggressor or mobber, and the victim or mobbed person.
However, in an office or any workplace, it is only rarely that these
two personages find themselves alone, one against the other. In the
overwhelming majority of cases there is a variable number of folks around
them. No mobbing situation can remain unobserved by these so-called
spectators: its measure is too heavy to be in any way unperceived. Of
consequence, even such spectators are involved in it: either as simply
forming the backdrop or openly siding with one of the two parties. The typical reaction of the mobbed person is isolation.
The victim feels unappreciated and alone vis-ą-vis this enemy, in a
situation having no way out, with no understanding of how it came about
and often not even why. In effect, many of the victims are still wondering
what on earth they had done wrong, what was or is so mistaken about
their behavior to provoke such hatred from others. It is difficult to
draw up a case profile for victims, to identify those most predisposed
to being mobbed. In effect, from the standpoint of where research on
mobbing is today, we can affirm that anyone can become a victim and
that a 'predestination' category does not exist. The mobber, may truly have a thousand reasons for perpetrating
the actions: fear of losing a hard-gained job or position or of being
unjustly outclassed by a younger and more qualified person, or simply
a nicer person; career anxieties that lead to the crushing of any obstacle,
actual or presumed, that there appears to be; simple dislike or intolerance
for someone with whom he/she is constrained to share eight hours a day
with. The classic mobber never leaves his/her victim in peace because
the former reckons to gain advantages from the latter's destruction
or else is using him/her as a blowout vent for his/her moods. The mobber
may act alone or seek allies. He or she may even be fully aware of such
actions, mobbing for the taste of doing it ad planning new strategies
for their entertainment value. There are also those who find themselves
find themselves in a mobber's role almost by chance. He/she may be the
winner of a routine competitive struggle and unconsciously continuing
the conflict to the point of completely destroying the victim. Paradoxically,
such people do not realize what they are doing to their victims and
are the first to show incredulity at the situation's developments. Finally
there are those characteristically difficult types: the hot-tempered,
the authoritarians, the megalomaniacs and the faultfinding carpers.
And a whole gamut of the folks frustrated with things outside of work
and who vent their repressed instincts on their colleagues. The onlookers are those colleagues, superiors, staff
who manage the personnel, who are not directly involved in the mobbing,
but who participate in some way, perceiving it, they vicariously live
it. The function that the spectator has in the workplace is crucially
important for the development of the mobbing. Since the mobber's role
crucially depends on his/her hierarchical position (i.e. on how
much executive power can be channeled into the mobbing act), so also
that of the onlooker becomes fundamental in his/her capacity to influence
the mobbing. If the spectator is newly employed, still under a training
contract, then it is understandable that such a person can do very little
in the face of such actions. If on the other hand it is a question of
a department chief, then he/she has the authority to end the process
or let it continue. If an onlooker does not act, very often he/she can
transform into another formidable aggressor. As the saying goes, the
thief isn't just the one who steals, but also the one who hold the sack.
Well then, a colleague who witnesses a mobbing and does not denounce
it or seek to stop it in some way may himself/herself become a reflex
mobber, i.e. a side-mobber: this person in fact encourages the mobbing
by indifference and refusal to intervene. It is the colleague who is
not involved directly who holds the key to permit or not permit the
mobber's actions in their office. In mobbing, more than in other situations,
whoever holds their tongue inexorably complies. MOBBING STAGES: THE EGE 6-PHASE ITALIAN MODEL Mobbing is not a stable situation, but a continually
evolving process. German and Swedish experts have sought to describe
the stages in mobbing on this basis, in the search to understand its
methods and prerogatives. The most famous model is the four-stage one
elaborated by Leymann, the scholar who is considered the founder of
this new branch of Occupational Psychology and who is amply presented
and discussed in my books. As I have already a way of affirming, however,
I consider that Leymann's model reflects a perception of mobbing as
purely applied to the Swedish reality in which he operated, with a valid
and precise integration derived from his German cultural roots. This
is why, presumably, Leymann's model, besides having undisputed validity
for the Scandinavian area, exceptionally also lends itself to the application
in studies conducted in Germany. While I was analyzing the Italian situation,
though, I realized that things were going quite differently. In fact,
Leymann's model as applied to Italy left too many gaps to be filled
with approximations, too many unanswered questions and too many responses
deprived of that exactness that a scientific study requires. "CONDITION ZERO" Not a phase, but a pre-phase, of an initial situation
routinely found in Italy and completely unknown in North European culture:
the normal and accepted physiological conflict. A typical Italian company
is conflicting. There are few firms that shirk this rule. This physiological
conflicting does not constitute mobbing, although there is fertile ground
for its development. It is a matter of generalized conflict that sees
everyone against everyone else and does not have one fixed victim. It
is not completely latent but makes itself known from time to time via
banal differences of opinion, arguments, minor accusations and vindictiveness,
manifestations of the classic and universally known attempt to come
out well compared to the others. One aspect is fundamental: in "condition
zero", there is nowhere the will to destroy, but only to appear
superior over others. Let's see a practical illustration: a services company
that writes computer programs and software. Delivery times are always
very strict and the employees are continually subjected to overwork.
Matteo is a programmer on this company's payroll. Sometimes he finds
himself in difficulties and behind in his work but none of this colleagues
want to help out, because they are busy with their own tight schedules.
Moreover, there is strong competition in this firm: any employee able
to deliver the work on time receives a bonus whereas those who fall
behind run serious risks. As a consequence of all this, personal relations
among all the colleagues (and not only regarding Matteo) are practically
non-existent and marked with a cold formal courtesy. 1ST PHASE: THE AIMED CONFLICT This is the first phase of mobbing in which a victim
is marked out and towards whom the general conflicting is directed.
The basic physiological conflict thus makes a turning point, it is no
longer a stagnant situation but is channeled in a determined direction.
Now the objective is no longer only to emerge on top but to destroy
the adversary, to oust the individual. Moreover, the conflict is no
longer objective and limited to the job but now increasingly sideslips
towards private matters. In our illustration, Matteo receives a conspicuous
bonus for having concluded an important project on time. This arouses
envy in his colleagues who fear being unjustly outclassed. Now, they
think, the supervisor will favor him instead of them. They thus begin
to isolate him and make fun of him: "You're the phenomenon, so
you don't need any advice from us". 2ND PHASE: THE MOBBING STARTS Attacks by the mobber are still not causing any psychosomatic
symptoms or illness in the victim, but they do provoke a sense of unease
and annoyance. The victim perceives a deterioration in relations with
colleagues and is therefore led to a self-interrogation about such change.
Matteo is now made the target of genuine attacks. He is accused of "Stakanovism"
and arrogance towards his colleagues. First he was often attacked, now
every problem is attributed to him and he has now become the office
scapegoat: "The delay is his fault, he wanted to do it all himself",
"He didn't tell us so he alone could have all the", "He
wants to oust everybody". Matteo realizes how things stand from
the coolness that suddenly surrounds him and begins to wonder what on
earth he did to deserve it. 3RD PHASE: FIRST PSYCHO-SOMATIC SYMPTOMS The victim starts to manifest some health problems
and this situation can protract itself for even long periods. These
first symptoms generally involve a sense of insecurity, the onset of
insomnia and digestion problems. By dint of self-interrogation,
our Matteo has arrived at the point where the office situation has become
a fixation: he no longer sleeps well, often wakening up in the grip
of a nightmare, he starts to notice leg tremors when he goes to the
office and he slips into a slight depression since he sees that he is
completely unable to improve things. 4TH PHASE: ERRORS AND ABUSES IN STAFF ADMINISTRATION The mobbing becomes public and is often encouraged
by assessment errors on the part of the personnel office. The prior
phase, which leads to illness in the victim, is the preparation for
this stage in that it is usually the increasing frequent sick leaves
that makes the staff administration office suspicious. Following
the psychosomatic symptoms, Matteo goes off ill for the first time but
on returning to the office things are even worse. Now his colleagues
also tease him for having, as they put it, managed some extra vacation
leave while they were loaded down with work. Matteo tries to resist,
but has to ask for more days off: his insomnia has worsened and the
depression is more profound, he isn't able to come to the office and
work. The personnel office, alarmed too by the lateness of his work,
notes Matteo's repeated absences and begins to investigate. The easiest
solution is to send disciplinary warnings to just one person (Matteo)
rather than to the whole office. 5TH PHASE: SERIOUS WORSENING OF VICTIM'S PSYCHOPHYSICAL At this stage the mobbed person enters a situation
of real desperation. Usually more or less serious forms of depression
are suffered and the treatment is with psychopharmaceuticals and therapies,
which only have a palliative effect since the work problem not only
remains, but also is tending to worsen. In fact the errors made by the
administration are usually due to the lack of awareness of the mobbing
phenomenon and its characteristics. Consequently, the measures taken
are not only inappropriate but also very dangerous for the victim. The
victim ends up convinced that he/she is the cause of it all or is living
in a world full of injustices, which nobody can do anything about, crashing
still further into the depression.
6TH PHASE: EXCLUSION FROM THE WORLD OF WORK This entails the final outcome of mobbing, i.e. the
exiting of the victim from the workplace, through voluntary resignation,
being fired, resorting to an early retirement arrangement or even a
traumatic exit such as suicide, the development of obsessive manias,
homicide or reprisal on the mobber. This phase too is prepared for by
the prior one. The depression leads the victim to seek a way out via
resignation or dismissal; a more serious form may lead to early retirement
or the need for an invalidity pension. The most serious desperation
cases unfortunately end with extreme acts.
DOUBLE-MOBBING What I have called double mobbing is another situation
that I have frequently come across in Italy but of which there is not
a trace in the European research on mobbing. As I have already stated,
double mobbing is linked to the particular role that the family has
in Italian society.
Mobbing, however, is not a normal conflict, a time
of crisis that will soon blow over. Mobbing is a slow trickle of persecutions,
attacks and humiliations that inexorably persist over a long time, and
it in this very duration that its devastating force lies. The victim
suffers and transmits this suffering to the spouse, the children, the
parents, for a lot of time, most times for years. The stress attacks
the family, which will forbear and compensate the losses, at least for
a certain time, but when the resources become exhausted, it too will
enter into crisis. Like a jar that has its capacity limit, so a family
can absorb the laments of one of its own, only up to a certain limit. The mobbing to which he/she is exposed, is doubled:
now not only present in the office, but continuing with other modalities
also afterwards, at home. BOSSING Very interesting in this topic are the cases in which
the first phase is missing, i.e. that of the conflict not yet having
mobbing characteristics. In the most of these cases we are facing what
is defined as "bossing". This is mobbing enacted by one's
superiors or managers in the company, nearly always with the precise
scope of inducing the employee to resign. As we know, today the rights
of workers makes it very difficult for a company to fire someone without
problems, above all when dealing with people organized into trade unions.
However, above all in times of crisis, many companies are forced to
reduce their payroll or to revamp it. Bossing or 'planned mobbing' is
configured in such cases just like a precise business strategy. I was once speechless to find, in a discount supermarket
chain, the extreme ease and routine with which inconvenient employees
were being sabotaged to then be denounced in front of the others as
incapable. I have seen the laying of real traps, some truly devious,
for ensuring false proof to be exhibited for justification purposes
before others in accusing the victim. In a company of this kind
sited in the Veneto, for example, the following acts were put into practice
by the Management or its collaborators against a particular person that
'had' to be eliminated: -
false dates or incomplete instructions were issued, so that he was forced
continuously to make up for errors and "to improvise" most
of the job, never knowing anything with precision; -
he was sent faxes and other communications with anonymous orders and
instructions that contained, in addition to the true trap, also gross
errors that could easy be made to fall back on him: the faxes
would not be signed, so that it was not possible for him to defend himself
saying he received such orders from others; -
the main manager openly discharged the majority of the mobbing actions
as described previously against him. Things were rendered still more
serious by the fact that this manager went to the extent of reprimanding
him with shouts and insults in front of the people who then had to depend
on him, so that his authority was seriously compromised every time; -
conflicts and enmities were encouraged between the target worker and
his colleagues, while contacts were denied him with anyone he had a
good rapport with. At the end, this person was accused of having caused
enormous harm to the company and fired on the spot. Recourse to the
Work Tribunal was prevented by the fact that the bossing had been carefully
prepared: there had effectively been harm done to the company and it
was in no way possible to demonstrate that it had not been him to cause
it. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MOBBING Mobbing is a harmful and truly criminal practice: its
intentions are dictated by deeply destructive feelings towards others
and its outcomes have a disturbing outreach. Easy to intuit therefore
is its disruptive potential on the social fabric. The consequences of
a phenomenon of such seriousness are therefore very imaginable for all,
however we shall consider them from the point of view of the two elements
that usually suffer the most damage: the mobbed person and the organization
(i.e. the employer where the victim worked or currently works). For the mobbing victim it means health problems first
of all, linked to the somatization of nervous tension. The nervousness
often causes palpitations, tremors, breathing difficulties, problems
of expression, gastritis and digestion disturbances. Another sphere
of existence that feels the effects of stress is sleep: nightmares,
interrupted sleep, insomnia. Often then, intellectual function
disturbances manifest: unfocused sight, memory and concentration difficulties
and the more obvious symptoms from psychological pressure are very frequent,
like giddiness and faints. Mobbing then brings financial harm to the
victim, often of considerable extent: to think of the expensive specialist
medical consultations and psycho-analytical sessions, as well as the
disappearance of regular monthly wage checks in the cases in which the
mobbing leads to the loss of the job. The mobbing also causes damage
of the social type, i.e. the collapse of social image and the loss of
colleagues, collaborators or friends who can no longer stand his/her
depressed mood, or of the partner who leaves the nest convinced that
he/she is a failure. For the company, the mobbing has equally devastating
effects, mainly on the economic plane: for sure, if an entrepreneur
was acquainted with mobbing's real harm, he would fight it with decision
and rapidity. I have compiled some calculations pertaining to
a case of mobbing that I happened upon. In a company two persons
were systematically mobbed for several reasons by their colleagues.
After six months of this, one victim had a work performance decline
of 40%, the other of some 60%, and this taking in consideration only
the output efficiency and not the health problems that the two victims
manifested. In a year, these same two had totaled 8 weeks and 10 weeks
of sick leave. Adding all these factors together, the company had endured
in one case a loss of 29.2% and in the other some 41.5% regarding output
performance. To these figures I added the costs of the sick leave replacements
plus the mobbers' waste of productive time (approximately 5% of their
capacity totals in fact were devolved to the mobbing-like actions, away
from their actual job). At the end, the calculated loss total for the
company in a year was of some 190.7%. There is then another entity that is seriously damaged
by mobbing: society itself. Considering a mobbed person forced to protract
sick leaves. INPS (social welfare), a government agency and therefore
financed by taxpayers, distributes money to the company so that this
person is regularly remunerated. But more: USL (health service), another
state body, contributes to expenses for the medical visits, the analyses,
the therapies and any necessary other interventions for the state of
health of the mobbing victim. We proceed however to the extreme consequences to which
the mobbing can lead its victim, to a case of permanent occupational
invalidity. The victim is reduced to a psychical or mental state in
which he/she can no longer carry out normally any type of job (nervous
exhaustion, chronic depression, etc). In situations of permanent
health damage, the victim can be forced into early retirement at a still
relatively young age. Also in this case the costs for society are enormous:
not just considering the pension to be received 10-20 years in advance
of the normal retirement age to which the victim would surely have arrived
if it were not for the mobbing. We may also think of the salary-based
contributions that will no longer be paid and the social loss of the
human resource relating to the victim's working activity no longer carried
on. In practice, we can assert that the victim's working potential is
no longer at the service of society many years too early. Also the ambience of the victim undergoes damage from
mobbing: often the mobbed person's seesawing or insupportable moods
succeed only in getting on the nerves of family members and friends.
Let's imagine a couple where one of the two partners begins to endure
mobbing: he/she would become intractable, always in a bad mood
and depressed; sexual performances would leave much to desire, the springing
up in bed in the middle of the night in the grip of nightmares and thus
waking up the partner. The work problems would be brought home;
seeking to be free from them perhaps by turning to alcohol or smoking;
maybe becoming violent. There is enough going on to stimulate separation.
Also divorce - it seems to me correct - is to be included in the costs
charged to society due to mobbing The first research on mobbing in Italy was conducted
in 1996/97 by PRIMA, the Italian Association against Mobbing and Psychosocial
Stress. MOBBING VICTIMS' SECTORS OF ORIGIN More than 38% of the victims interviewed come from
the industrial goods and services sector, while another strong incidence
of mobbing is had in Public Administration (over 21%). In the industrial
or tertiary sector a sure orientation is very obvious towards profit,
usually translated into a philosophy according to which whoever produces
most gets the biggest reward. We may therefore advance the hypothesis
according to which there is a strong relationship between mobbing and
ambition. Since the more is produced the more gratification are received,
it is possible that a careerist and ambitious employee might resort
to mobbing to get rid of a colleague who is very good at the job, and
could become a dangerous competitor in the race for promotion. In public
administration on the other hand, usually every kind of favoritism carries
weight: family, political, etc. This can carry to a strong tendency
to eliminate anyone not part of the "family", and who therefore
constitutes with his/her simple presence, a threat to the system. I
think another reason for the onset of mobbing in public offices can
be traced to the diffused feeling of "boredom", from which
many employees suffer. In effect, often the staff is in abundance,
and therefore the job that everyone must carry out occupies only a part
of the timetable. The rest of the time must be spent at the workplace
to be bored, and it often becomes a pastime to target a colleague to
make fun off. THE AGE OF MOBBING VICTIMS Nearly half (48%) of mobbing victims are in the age
band between 41 and 50 years, while very few victims are under 30 years
old. The 41-50 year age band is in any case a delicate one and rich
in problems. This is a phase of transition and transformation, from
juvenile freshness to the experience of a mature age and, as if that
were not enough, one may also have many enemies. Many companies,
for example, when they decide to focus on dynamism or at least want
to give an impression of this, tend to privilege the younger employees
to the detriment of the more mature ones. Moreover a certain prejudice
exists according to which an employee of a certain age would not be
in a position to produce as well as someone younger. These impressions
are confirmed by the natural tendency of young people, above all if
newly hired, to propose ideas and to experiment with revolutionary methods
while, understandably, an older employee tends to work to a routine
and to travel the roads he/she is well familiar with. Moreover, upon
this substrate there is also a purely economic-type factor: in the newly
hired, especially in first employment, there is a tendency not to have
too many pretensions concerning economic treatment, which that cannot
be said of a person with twenty years' experience already. Another "enemy"
for this age range is the training contracts: these allow the company
to hire a young person at a fairly low wage and without an excessive
commitment. Therefore it could seem more favorable for the company to
rid itself of an established employee give the post to a training contract
one. THE DURATION AND FREQUENCY OF MOBBING Setting the duration of the mobbing against the frequency
with which is perpetrated, two rather surprising findings ensue: -
a victim who suffers for more than two years under a mobbing situation
is mobbed more frequently. This happens because everybody is well
aware as to who the victim is and therefore has acquired the habit to
always "shoot" at the same person. Plus, a victim who has
been such for years has by now lost with time his/her force of resistance
and defense has become increasingly weaker and less effective. Therefore
to mob a person in this condition is less risky for the mobber, who
can "dare" to do more without bringing on consequences. -
a victim who finds himself/herself in this psychological terror for less
than two years may be targeted in a very intense way or, on the contrary,
only rarely. The mobbing is very intense at the beginning, because
the mobber tries in this way to bend the resistance of his/her victim
at once, and so make it clear who "stronger". In this manner
the victim could lose courage immediately, becoming intimidated and
therefore stops trying to defend himself/herself. On the other hand,
the mobber could decide to act with lesser frequency in order to test
the victim's defense reactions, or because the victim is still feared
and respected. In this last case the mobbing will gradually become more
frequent and intense as the respect and fear of the mobber towards the
victim decline and his/her courage grows to take action. THE MOBBER'S POSITION Approximately 88% of cases involved a mobber in a position
superior to that of the victim. Among these, in approximately 58% of
the cases the mobber is the chief who acts alone, while in the remaining
30% the chief is aided in the mobbing by the victim's colleagues. Only
10% are cases in which the role of mobber was constituted by the colleagues.
Therefore, the presence of a person of superior grading in the mobbing
seems to be a widespread circumstance. However, the chief's role can
be of two types: - the chief may tolerate the mobbing by colleagues,
allowing it or even encouraging it: a colleague mobber always has need
of a sort of "permit" from the chief to mob someone. Both in the former and latter cases the person in a
superior position carries out a "key" role for the survival
and progress of the mobbing. A quantitatively nearly irrelevant type
of mobber (2%) is instead the mobber that it is found in a post subordinate
to that of the victim's. We can reflect that in Italy there is a certain
hierarchy in the workplace that tends to be respected to the point that
the mobbing from 'on high' is almost justified by the greater power
and authority; on the other hand insubordination such as to cause a
mobbing from the lower reaches are not tolerated. This kind of "
rule " seems well rooted in Italy: there is a tendency in fact
to speak with a sense of resignation and inevitability about the possible
problems about workplace relationships: in practice it seems that a
superior would have the right to exercise authority also when is not
strictly necessary and justified, and that for the subordinate there
would be nothing else to do but go along with the situation. Many people
are literally accustomed to enduring even quite strong psychological
pressures from their chiefs, and anyway do not even think that it might
be harmful or that it might not be legitimate. THE SEX OF THE MOBBER AND VICTIM The male mobbers target a male victim, while some 13
out of 14 female mobbers mob another woman. The men moreover are tendentially
more the mobber type than women and would not spurn even a female victim:
approximately a third of male mobbers choose a woman victim. In
these cases it is reasonable to think that the factor of sexual harassments
enters the game, that can often be configured as mobbing with a sexual
backdrop. The women instead tend to mob almost exclusively other women.
This could be correlated to the fact that statistically there are more
men in the top posts, and therefore more difficult to mob, but also
to the fact that also regarding another woman, envies and jealousies
can sub-enter more easily. THE NUMBER OF MOBBERS There is a strong tendency for mobbers to form themselves
into small attack groups: the majority of mobbers therefore does
not have the courage to act alone, so allies and accomplices are sought.
Nearly half (45,5%) of the victims in fact are mobbed by a group composed
of 2-4 people, and in approximately one case in four (ca. 26.2%) the
group of mobbers is constituted by more than 4 people. The restricted
mobber group (2-4 people) is usually made up from colleague-friends
who feel disturbed in some way by the victim, or one of them feels threatened
and has obtained the solidarity of the others in such action. In the
cases of more numerous mobbers, i.e. groups of more than 4, it may instead
be thought that the reason for the Mobbing has been individuated within
the victim: in effect the mobbed person in question has something different,
which places him/her on another plane compared to the others (some special
idea, or a study qualification, clothing tastes, character, origins,
etc). In a clear minority compared to the other cases, are instead
the situations that see a single mobber act independently (ca.
19.9%). The relatively sparse incidence of the solitary mobber is surely
due to the fact that many mobbers try and obtain in several ways the
aid and the collaboration of other colleagues, becoming in the eyes
of the victim, part of a group of aggressors. Still rarer is the case
in which all the unit or work group turns out united against the victim
(ca. 8.3%). These situations usually see the mobbed person assigned
the role of the scapegoat: the sacrificial victim upon whom the blame
for all shortcomings of the office or department is laid |
|
..
Leadership Medica®
Mensile di scienza medica e
attualita`
Copyright 1997© All Rights
Reserved