Bullying Causes Co-Worker Stress

A recent study by researchers at New University of British Columbia (UBC) shows that workers who witness bullying may experience a stronger urge to quit than the actual direct targets of bullying.

According to the study: “Our results show that merely working in a work unit with a considerable amount of bullying is linked to higher employee turnover intentions.”

Sandra Robinson, a professor at the Sauder School of Business at UBC and co-author of the study, said society tends to assume that targets of bullying “bear the full brunt. However, our findings show that people across an organization experience a moral indignation when others are bullied that can make them want to leave in protest.”

The study is  published in the current edition of the journal Human Relations.

The researchers found that employees witnessing coworkers being bullied, or merely talking to them about their experiences, tend to take  the targets’ perspective. As a result, they experience cognitive or emotional empathy, which includes imagining how another feels or actually sharing in another’s feelings. These empathetic responses contribute to the understanding that a significant moral violation has occurred and recognition that the victim does not deserve mistreatment. As a result of this moral uneasiness, bullying at large within a work unit will increase employee intentions to quit their work group

Data used for the study were collected through two surveys of a sample of 357 nurses in 41 units of a large Canadian health authority. The surveys used a series of questions to assess the level of bullying in each nursing unit and then asked participants to rate their positive or negative reactions toward statements like, “If I had a chance, I would change to some other organization.”

Findings show that all respondents who experience bullying, either directly or indirectly, reported a greater desire to quit their jobs than those who did not. However, the results also indicate that people who experienced it as bystanders in their units or with less frequency reported wanting to quit in even greater numbers.

Prof. Robinson said that prior research shows that intentions to quit are directly correlated with employees leaving their jobs. However, she warns that even if employees stay in their roles, an organization’s productivity can suffer severely if staff members have an unrealized desire to leave.

“Managers need to be aware that the behaviour is pervasive and it can have a mushrooming effect that goes well beyond the victims,” says Robinson. “Ultimately bullies can hurt the bottom line and need to be dealt with quickly and publicly so that justice is restored to the workplace.”

EEOC Tackles Ageism in Academia

NOTE: Marymount Manhattan College subsequently entered a consent decree with the EEOC settling the law suit discussed below. Marymount agreed to pay $125,000 to Patricia Catterson and  to comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The decree also requires monitoring and training on anti-discrimination law. The decree will last for four years.  

dancer

It appears that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finally may be cracking down on what some say is blatant, rampant and unchecked age discrimination in academia.

The EEOC has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against an elite private liberal arts college, Marymount Manhattan College of New York City, because it allegedly refused to hire a choreography instructor for a tenure track assistant professorship because of her age.

Marymount initially selected a 64-year-old choreography instructor and two other applicants as finalists for an assistant professorship in dance composition.  After determining that the 64-year-old was the leading candidate, the EEOC said, Marymount’s search committee expanded its search to include a less qualified, 37-year-old applicant as a fourth finalist because it considered her to be “at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position.”  Marymount hired the 37-year-old applicant.

Last year, Nicholas Spaeth, 62, the former state attorney general for North Dakota, filed several groundbreaking lawsuits against law schools, including the Michigan State University College of Law in East Lansing, Michigan, for  allegedly violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Spaeth, a magna cum laude graduate of Stanford Law School, says he couldn’t even get an interview for several advertised teaching position at the law school.

Spaeth has served as general counsel at three publicly held companies with billions in assets, argued a groundbreaking tax case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and was a partner at three law firms. He also taught for four years at the University of Missouri School of Law, three years as an adjunct and one year as a visiting professor.

He applied to Michigan law school, which ended up hiring three attorneys for the 2011-2012 school year who graduated in 2006, 2005 and 2001, respectively. One of the new hires had no experience as a legal practitioner. The applicant who was hired by Michigan to teach in Spaeth’s area of specialty, corporate taxation, had three years of practical experience as an associate in a law firm.  Spaeth, who served two four-year terms as North Dakota’s Attorney General, is a former general counsel of H & R Block.

Spaeth earlier filed complaints with the EEOC against more than 100 law schools that also did not offer him an interview.  The EEOC dismissed most, if not all, if Spaeth’s complaints.

One of Spaeth’s age discrimination lawsuits in March passed a critical stage in the legal process. A federal judge denied a motion by Georgetown University’s law school to dismiss Spaeth’s claims that the law school violated federal and District of Columbia laws when it failed to offer tenure-track teaching job. “It… remains plausible that Georgetown could be liable for age discrimination,”   wrote U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in her opinion in Spaeth v. Georgetown University, United States District Court, District of Columbia, No. 11-1376..

The EEOC’s Marymount suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 12-cv-2388 (JPO) after the EEOC unsuccessfully sought to settle the matter.

“Our suit charges that age was the deciding factor in this case,” said EEOC trial attorney Justin Mulaire.  “Under the law, age has no place in hiring decisions — and tenure-track positions in academia are no exception.”

The Age discrimination against employees and job applicants who are age 40 or older is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Elizabeth Grossman, the regional attorney of the EEOC’s New York District Office, said, “Older workers have the right to be evaluated based on their abilities and not based on their age.  The EEOC is committed to combating bias against older workers in all phases of employment and in all types of employment settings.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 165 other followers

%d bloggers like this: