Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesIntroduction
Psychological harassment in the workplace is a problem that has been studied extensively for the last fifteen years. Numerous studies have focused on the two main elements that surround the definition of psychological harassment in the workplace (Quine, 1999; Faulx and Delvaux, 2005): the behaviour of the harasser (Leymann, 1990, 1996a; Zapf and Leymann, 1996; Brun and Kedl, 2006; Brodski, 1976; Faulx and Geuzaine, 2000) and the consequences for the victim (Brun and Kedl, 2006; Soares, 2004; Hirigoyen, 2001; Leymann and Gustaffson, 1996; Leymann, 1996a; Tehrani, 2003; Gold, 2003; Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2001, 2004; Geuzaine and Faulx, 2003). Most of these authors have also tried to identify risk factors related to harassment, such as the personality of the victim, group dynamics, the characteristics of the organization, etc.
On the other hand, little research has been dedicated to describing more dynamically how different processes interact with each other to generate psychological harassment. Methodologically speaking, it appears that approaching the problem of psychological harassment in the workplace through case studies would allow a better understanding of the subtleties of these processes (Matthiesen et al, 2003), and would complement quantitative approaches, which are much more numerous than the qualitative analyses of this problem (Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999). This would also allow a better understanding of the nature of the relationship between the harasser and the victim and a better comprehension of the impact of the processes occurring around this relationship. Indeed, it is by paying attention to the stories as they are told that one can best understand the complexity of harassment phenomena (Brun and Kedl, 2006).
Through a detailed clinical case study, this article aims to achieve the following two goals: (1) to identify and analyze the personal, interpersonal, group and organizational processes occurring in situations of presumed psychological harassment in the workplace; (2) to identify and analyze the interactions between these different processes.
Theoretical Background: Risk Factors Identified in the Current Literature
Because our study takes into account four levels of understanding (personal, interpersonal, group and organizational), we will first focus on the suggestions that have been put forward to explain harassment at each of these levels. This will allow us then to correlate these explanations with the data available for each case.
Within the Organization
For many authors (Leymann, 1996a; Zapf, Knors and Kulla, 1996; Vartia, 1996, 2003; Ashforth, 1994; Liefooghe and MacKenzie, 2001; Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999), task descriptions, work organization, management styles and the culture of the organization precondition the appearance of harassment.
Where tasks are concerned, the factors usually identified are quantitative overload and monotony (Leymann, 1996b), and low complexity and weak control over time (Zapf and Leymann, 1996). Where work organization is concerned, some authors mention the compulsory cooperation between employees (Zapf and Leymann, 1996), the lack of information, the lack of opportunity to discuss tasks and objectives, a negative communication atmosphere, little support from colleagues (Zapf, 1999), authority-based methods (Vartia, 1996) and rigid hierarchical structures (Crawford, 1997).
On the other hand, the managerial culture, i.e. the way managers are encouraged to behave (Ashforth, 1994; Koubi, 2004) can stimulate or inhibit harassment. According to Einarsen (2000), it is the lack of "constructive leadership", i.e. an approach neither "laisser-faire", nor authoritarian, which opens the door to harassment.
Finally, Weathley (1999: 79) mentions strong links/relationships between the culture of an organization and bullying. In other words, a culture in which the subject of conflict is taboo constitutes a risk factor (Walter, 1995).
Group Level
The main hypothesis concerning the group level is that anxiety, conflict and instability within a group are redirected towards a single individual, who plays the role of the scapegoat (Garcia and Hue, 2002). In other words, violent actions towards an individual appear when the group, after going through a period of frustration, designates one person as "responsible for all of their troubles" (Hirigoyen, 1998). A group in difficulty maintains its balance at the cost of a reinforcement of its norms and cannot tolerate the fact that an individual deviates from them (Leymann, 1996a). If this is the case, these deviations precipitate the rejection of the individual in question (Zapf and Einarsen, 2003). This theory has been most often proposed in cases of harassment from a group of individuals towards a single individual, and is close in perspective to work on bullying at school (Olweus, 2003).
Interpersonal Level
The justifications for the interpersonal level approach are based on the study of relationship modes that exist between the harasser and the harassed individual. Two hypotheses have been put forward at this level.
The first hypothesis postulates the existence of a perverse seduction mechanism from the harasser towards the harassed individual (Hirigoyen, 2001), which would take place in two steps: (1) the harasser exerts seductive forces on the victim and the victim's surroundings; and (2) the harasser puts the victim under his/her hold. It is during this second stage that harassing and repetitive hostile behaviours take place (Hirigoyen, 1998). The relationship process consists of the harasser progressively taking away the identity and the freedom of the harassed individual: it starts with a seduction mechanism, followed by influence and manipulation, which grows stronger and stronger, finally reaching the stage of fascination of the victim for the harasser. Slowly, a real domination process establishes itself, within which the victim is reduced to the status of an object. At that point, the victims are so intellectually or morally dominated that their ability to show opposition has become so non-existent that they become abettors to what oppresses them (Hirigoyen, 1998).
The other hypothesis relates to the degeneration of an interpersonal conflict which, by means of not being correctly managed, turns into the harassment of one protagonist by the other (Leymann, 1996a; Zapf, 1999). Harassment would therefore be the step that follows the degeneration of a conflict.
Personal Level
In general, research studies have demonstrated no convincing association between personality traits and whether or not an individual is harassed at work (Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999). Nevertheless, certain authors have identified risk profiles. According to these studies, harassment victims are, in comparison with control groups, more submissive, conscientious, traditional, dependent, quiet, reserved, anxious, and sensitive (Coyne, Seigne and Randall, 2000). Furthermore, they would rather avoid conflict, and they exhibit difficulty in developing efficient adaptation strategies (Coyne, Seigne and Randall, 2000); they would exhibit symptoms of anxiety or depression, and would exhibit social ineptitude (Zapf, 1999); they are hypersensitive, suspicious, depressed, and have a tendency to express their suffering through psychosomatic symptoms (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2001), or they suffer from Iow self-esteem and a high level of anxiety, and exhibit an introverted and submissive nature (Vartia, 1996). On the other hand, victims may also be too direct, frank, or too involved in their work (Balicco, 2001; Zapf, 1999). Yet, it is necessary to remember that these studies cannot determine whether a trait or symptom is a cause or a consequence of harassment (Schuster, 1996; Leymann, 1996a).
Methods
Mode of Participation in this Research
The detailed clinical case study described here is based on the story of one subject, Lucie, who agreed to participate in this research, the objective of which was to gain a better understanding of psychological harassment in the workplace. What will be examined here is thus the view of this case, as the individual, who sees herself as a victim, tells it. The analyses must therefore be considered in light of the subjectivity inherent in any clinical analysis. Her case appeared to us as a particularly good illustration of the ways processes intertwine within situations of presumed psychological harassment in the workplace. This is because the individual's narration brings to light, despite the small size of the organization, processes that appear at different levels, including dynamics of both the "conflictual" and "harassment" types. We have also chosen to present a situation that unfolds over a long period of time, allowing an observation of the effect of time on the evolution of the situation.
Data Collection
The following analysis is based on the study of six interviews, which lasted between one and one and a half hour: The process of data collection took place in two steps: (1) the individual was invited to narrate her story in a general sense; and (2) she was questioned according to interview guidelines, which followed the analysis model (see Figure 1). Technically, the interviews were conducted with the use of specific prompts (directional actions that initiate a conversation on a specific subject) and of reminder boosters (subordinate actions that refer to the previous statement of the interviewed individual) (Gighlione and Blanchet, 1991). The interviews occurred in the presence of a silent observer. The presence of this silent observer allowed for a comparison and a consolidation of the analysis. Between each interview, the interviewer and the observer were able to exchange impressions and clinical analyses, and to go back to the individual's actual words in order to consolidate and support their observations.
FEED