Abstract
Aim: Our objective was to develop and implement an intervention program in collaboration with workplace personnel, to evaluate the process as a vehicle to prevent and combat bullying. Methods: The project emanates from a community-based participatory approach. We obtained data from individual and focus group interviews. We used grounded theory methodology, and made a comparative analysis before and after the intervention. Results: Focus group interviews at the three first meetings indicated that those best positioned to prevent and combat bullying were the immediate supervisors, in collaboration with co-workers and upper management. The goal of zero tolerance toward bullying can be achieved if all concerned work together, using a humanistic value system, an open workplace atmosphere, group collaboration and conflict resolution. We developed an intervention, including lecturers and reflection groups, which ultimately resulted in an action plan. Focus group interviews at the fourth meeting, after the implementation, showed that employees were then more aware of bullying problems; the atmosphere at the workplace improved; the collaboration between and within the group was stronger; and the supervisor worked continuously to prevent and combat bullying, using the humanistic values suggested. We propose additional systematic work to implement our action plan and a conflict resolution system.
Keywords
Introduction
According to the Ottawa charter (1986), “Health is created and lived by people within settings of their everyday life; where they learn, work, play and love” [1]. Consequently, a workplace is a setting where health can be created and seen as a resource for everyday living. The setting approach can be viewed as a combination of two aspects:
The first, ‘setting approach to health promotion’, involves learning activities that establish awareness that the way employees choose to interact with each other has health consequences, and how actions can promote health as a part of regular activities;
The second, ‘health promotion in settings’, refers to a suitable location for implementing health promotion programs, studying populations, and the structure and resources of organizations.
Often, health merely emerges as an additional benefit in settings, although there may also be an ambition to change ongoing activities for the purpose of gaining health. This aspect is especially important for addressing disease or ill-health, and is related to the ‘setting approach to health promotion’ by means of seeing health as a resource [2,3].
Workplace health promotion is achieved through a combination of an improved work organization, promotion of active participation, and encouragement of personal development [4]. By strengthening the resources for employees to effectively deal with the continuing changes in settings, the employees themselves might generate desirable changes and take more control over work practices [3]. Promoting active participation and encouraging personal development integrate components of empowerment; both psychological and community empowerment, as well as empowered organizations. Psychological empowerment embraces personal trust, personal development and willingness to participate in collective activities and organizations.
Community empowerment includes political, collective and social actions, as well as psychological empowerment. Empowered organizations refer to activities within the organization which generate psychological empowerment, fend off threats from society, improve the quality of life and facilitate participation of the citizens [5,6]. Accordingly, empowerment can be defined as an individual strength which gives the ability to together with others participate within the collective, that can influence the organization from a bottom-up perspective. This process is also emphasized in examples of guiding principles for the evaluation of health promotion, which include empowering individuals and communities, and ensuring participation within the process [7].
According to the Luxemburg Declaration [4], work may be a resource for personal development of skills, as well as a contributor to ill health. The presence of bullying exemplifies an unhealthy workplace practice that causes both individual distress and organizational dysfunction. Individual manifestations of that distress include bodily illness, psychosomatic symptoms, low self-esteem and post-traumatic stress syndrome [8–11]. Bullying is also costly for an organization in terms of sick leave, employee turnover and decreased productivity [12,13]. Workplace bullying has been defined as the behaviors such as harassment, offending, social exclusion or interference with the work of an employee, that occur repeatedly and systematically over time [14]. The bullied victim is pushed into a defenseless position [15] and may be rejected and expelled from the workplace [16].
Bullying at workplaces draws on a combination of two aspects of setting (‘setting approach to health promotion, ‘health promotion in settings’) by health consequences in the form of risk of ill-health due to the employees’ interaction. However, a participatory workplace may prevent and counteract bullying [17] through an open communication about the bullying problems. This can contribute to creating health-promoting workplaces, because empowerment plays a key role in the employees’ job satisfaction, their organizational commitments, job performance and in reducing their stress level [18]. Our research project started from a bottom-up perspective [19] in which the objective was to develop and implement, in collaboration with the workplace personnel, an intervention program aimed at preventing and combatting bullying; and to subsequently evaluate the implementation from the perspective of health-promoting work settings. To our knowledge, there is not much intervention-based research in collaboration with personnel, in the field of workplace bullying; therefore, the aim of our study was to describe and analyze the process of the intervention and the outcome of its implementation.
Methods
Our project followed a community-based, participatory approach [20]. Shared ownership of the research project, a community-based analysis of social problems, and an orientation towards community action distinguish participatory research from conventional research [21]. The qualitative methodology of constructivist ‘Grounded Theory’ was used. Constructivist Grounded Theory is included within the interpretive tradition, where data and analysis is created from shared experiences and relationships with participants or other sources of data [22]. In that way, it is fitted to the approach of participatory research. We used the findings from our Grounded Theory analysis to determine which programs and changes should be implemented and our process evaluation determined the extent to which the implementation adhered to the plan [23]. This paper is a component of an intervention study that was approved by ethics committee at Karlstad University and the Regional Ethics Appeal Board (registration number 2010/149).
Sample and collecting of data
On the basis of questionnaires that were distributed earlier, measuring the presence of bullying problems, we selected three workplaces in consultation with upper-level managers. The identified workplaces included two eldercare wards at nursing homes in two municipalities and one geriatric psychiatric ward at a hospital. There were similarities in the services provided by these workplaces, given that they focused on care for the elderly. The project was introduced to the staff at the selected workplaces. Thereafter, employees voluntarily enrolled as participants in focus groups. At the three workplaces, three individual interviews with female immediate supervisors as well as focus groups were conducted at four times points (total of 15 interviews).
At the first meeting, the focus groups explored how bullying was manifested at the individual workplaces. To assure that the employees felt comfortable to speak freely, supervisors did not participate in this focus group. The subsequent focus-group meetings focused on issues where the presence and participation of a supervisor was necessary, in order for them to play an active role in the development and implementation of the action program. Ensuring anonymity was not possible in the focus groups; however, the participants signed confidentiality agreements promising not to spread the discussions outside the group [24].
A total of 26 employees participated in the focus group interviews, along with a moderator and an observer. In each focus group interview, the participation varied from 6–8 employees, due to issues related to scheduling and sick leaves. Participants included: nursing aides (n = 13), mental health nursing aides (n = 3), a pediatric nursing aide (n = 1), care assistants (n = 2), nurses (n = 6) and a social work counselor (n = 1) from both the day and night shifts. The participants were between 32 and 64 years of age. Two participants were men and two represented the unions. The moderator tried to involve everyone in the discussions [24], which were based on four interview guides. The theme of the first set of meetings explored how bullying was manifested at the workplace. The second meetings focused on what an intervention program should optimally contain. The third meetings discussed the suggestions concerning the presented action plan, based on the previous interviews. The fourth meetings evaluated how the implementation process was proceeding. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, except in one case, due to a technical problem, where this interview was written out from memory immediately afterward.
Analysis
The interviews were analyzed by Grounded Theory methodology [22], consisting of memos and initial and focused coding. One of the researchers listened to all interviews and made a summary, consisting of the first initial codes, which was presented to the participants during the next focus group meeting. In this manner the findings originated, in a continuous and ongoing fashion, from the initially-emergent pattern during the first focus group meeting. The findings were further developed by the discussions in the second and third focus groups. The next step in the analyses consisted of the initial coding of the transcribed interviews, the naming of each segment of data, followed by focused coding in which frequent initial codes were organized to larger amounts of data by means of memos. Thereafter, the focused coding was organized into sub-categories, by specifying their properties and dimension, and by searching for relationships between the categories through axial coding [25]. The sub-categories were then raised to conceptual categories with more analytic direction [22].
Intervention and implementation
The intervention and the implementation contained four parts:
At the first focus group meetings, the participants had difficulty defining bullying. To increase knowledge of the topic, the researchers held a one-half-day seminar on two occasions, for employees at the three workplaces where bullying was present. The education targeted the definition and consequences of bullying, feelings of shame, conflict management and communication. The participants also discussed how they could best initiate and maintain an open discussion about bullying. In this discussion, they were free to make their own suggestions. All of the groups choose, among other suggestions, card playing, because this did not demand any preparation on their part. Thereafter, the researchers developed 20 playing cards with different bullying situations and five alternative resolutions. The supervisors formed groups of 6–8 participants whom were to meet with researchers and play this card game for 2 hours. The researcher began the game by drawing a card, reading the bullying situation described and reflecting on the first alternative, and then the researcher invited the group to discuss it. When everyone had spoken, the next person drew a card and the process continued.
Based on the discussions during the first two focus group meetings and the three individual interviews with supervisors, a concrete action plan was drawn up by the researchers, together with the participants. The plan was developed from the findings presented below. These suggestions were presented and discussed in the focus groups at the third meeting. Then the action plan was revised by the researchers, based on the feedback from participants, submitted to the focus groups and approved by them. All employees were asked to sign the action plan and new employees should also receive a mentor. The immediate supervisor was responsible for the action plan being followed, and the participants in the focus groups committed themselves to keeping the discussion on bullying alive.
The plan was presented and discussed among managerial groups at the workplaces and in one central workplace environment committee. At that meeting, one director announced that the plan was approved by his entire labor force. The other managerial groups discussed the plan with interest and planned to continue the work.
At their final meeting, the focus groups discussed whether the implementation process was succeeding or not.
At the time of writing this article, 2 ½ years have passed since the three workplaces first received information about the project. The lectures and training sessions within the small groups were held about 2 years ago, and more than 1 year has gone by since the action plan was first distributed. At one workplace, a re-organization was carried out and a new supervisor was hired just as the project started. At the two other workplaces, the immediate supervisors were substituted three times. Individuals whom interviewees had labeled as bullies were moved to other workplaces in the organization, as well as being retired.
Results
All the participants in the individual interviews and the three focus group meetings pointed out that a zero-tolerance (core category) should prevail. Bullying is counteracted through competent supervisors, engaged co-workers and engagement of the remaining organization. It is also counteracted by a humanistic value system, an awareness of the bullying problems and a focus on a learning organization and an open atmosphere, where strengths and weaknesses are balanced within the group. These factors foster a strong collaboration and an early resolution of conflicts.
On the contrary, bullying is facilitated by informal supervisors, un-fair, and unknown remaining organizations, disrespect and disloyalty, conscious malevolence and unconscious practice, a stifling atmosphere, alienation and alliance building. Moving the bullies or the bully victims to another ward can both nurture and counteract bullying, depending on the situation. Based on these findings, the researchers and the participants developed the 4-step intervention program that was presented above.
After implementation of the intervention, the findings showed that the supervisors systematically worked to improve the empathic attitudes of coworkers. The participants were more aware of the risks of bullying. They reported a more open atmosphere, where one could speak out against unappreciated behavior and praise good action, and a stronger collaboration. The research project actively contributed to keeping the discussion about bullying alive. Still, there were no systematic workings with conflict management and conflicts were ongoing at workplaces, which could potentially contribute to bullying. The above-mentioned categories are presented in greater detail below.
Participants’ role in influencing prevention and counteracting bullying
The three individual interviews and the focus group meetings showed that the immediate supervisor, co-workers and the remaining organization, as well as the collaboration amongst them, can provide releasing factors which either counteract or facilitate bullying at the workplace. Basic demands that counteracted bullying were identified as: a forceful and empathic supervisor, as well as professional behavior amongst the co-workers. Participants experienced the upper-level of the organization as unfair and strange.
At the fourth meeting, the participants concluded that the immediate supervisors worked steadily to improve attitudes and the overall treatment of co-workers, based on the action plan. They discussed parts of the plan, but did not systematically go through the entire plan with their employees. Criticism of the plan included that it was too long and too difficult to read. One supervisor used the plan as a basis to talk about attitudes and behaviors, and as a determinant of salary criteria. She also presented it to other areas of the organization, and her workplace has served as a model for the management of bullying. Another workplace has consistently talked about tolerance when introducing new employees. At two workplaces, the employees signed the action plan and at one focus group, the participants signed it. The participants found that the discussions were a way of releasing feelings about difficult bullying situations. They expressed curiosity, as well as fear, about the discussions within the groups: “Because we sat and discussed specific people, I was afraid at first; but when talking about bullying it ceased to be strange, the fear disappeared.”
The focus group participants wanted to become ambassadors in the form of an anti-bullying group for preventive work, and as a resource for others to turn to when they encounter issues related to bullying. Two workplaces expressed disappointment that their upper management did not resolutely supported the plan and were not more active in declaring zero tolerance toward bullying. At another workplace, management planned a visit to the actual workplace, because the new upper-level manager wished to be informed about the general situation.
Humanistic value-system working against bullying
The three focus group meetings reported that respect, tolerance and empathy are basic necessities for building good relationships, which can counteract bullying; however, a discrepancy between this ideal and reality frequently evolved. It was said that differences should be tolerated, as long as they did not influence patients and residents negatively. Still, examples of disrespect, where intolerance was dominating, were provided. Doing work differently was not always accepted (e.g. emerged depreciating values), which was a breeding ground for bullying. At the fourth meeting, it was reported that deviation reports and routines were installed. Participants also stood up for their opinions and reflected on an empathic attitude that makes it easier to understand another human being’s situation. This led to a motto of treating others as you want to be treated yourself. Such attitudes and goals have the potential to prevent and combat bullying. Participants emphasized that an employee needs a certain amount of freedom in order to function in the workplace: “The most important thing is that everything gets done and that the residents are happy. The order in which things are done is probably not so important.”
Awareness about raising suitable acts and less fear towards the bullying problems
During the first focus group meetings a contradiction emerged regarding the expressed uncertainty of the limits of bullying, while simultaneously expressing loathing towards bullying, and describing bullying behaviors and their effects. There existed a fear of making the problem worse by speaking of the bullying issues, as well as a fear of bringing in focus on oneself. The bullying can include conscious malevolence or unconscious practice in the workplace. Awareness of the limits for bullying and the existence of a learning organization may prevent and combat bullying. At the fourth meeting, the participants pointed out that the project contributed to employees considering their own behavior. After the intervention, employees tended to identify bullying situations sooner and to look at these situations with different eyes. Most employees thought that using the cards stimulated reflection. They can now act more appropriately and with less fear, because they are well acquainted with the action plan. An openness to use mentors in different ways had also been achieved: “You had good training. It gave you strength and made you very capable [supervisor].”
A more open atmosphere increased the co-workers’ participation
The three focus group meetings focused on there being an open or a stifling atmosphere. This, in turn, affected the possibilities for the counteraction of bullying. An open atmosphere gives the group the safety to openly discuss a bullying problem, while the stifling atmosphere creates a threatening mood, especially in regards to change. During the fourth meeting, it was identified that over the course of the project the workplaces had become more collegial and had reduced display of gossiping. Employees dared to speak out against inappropriate behaviors and also to praise good actions: “Things are quieter on the wards now…and the atmosphere is more cheerful.”
Some workplace meetings can be too large to discuss bullying. Participants thought it was better to discuss these issues in small groups; however, this practice had not yet been implemented. Some of the employees mentioned that workplace meetings were preoccupied with other administrative issues, and that opportunities for questions from co-workers seldom came up. Barriers still existed that prevented people from speaking out, for fear of saying something wrong. Not everyone was capable of telling a co-worker that they do not accept insulting behavior; however, continuous attention to the issue is helpful: “People discuss things. When issues are brought to everyone’s attention, they are easier to keep in mind. If you never talk about something, it disappears. If no one brings it up, it will not be dealt with.”
Balancing the group and stronger collaboration amongst groups counteracting bullying
A supervisor within the third focus groups pointed out that a group composition in which different strengths and weaknesses compensate for and counteract each other creates a balance within the group. A strong collaboration within and between groups, in regard to mutual routines, counteracts bullying. In contrast, the spreading of rumors and alienation, due to alliance building, facilitates bullying. At the fourth meeting, one supervisor reported that she adjusted the balance within the group by switching people whom did not get along well with others. Members of the new group were more helpful to each other and to other groups. Participants emphasized that good collaboration required the group understanding of the role of the group, allowing discussion of all issues, making shared decisions and following up to determine the effects of actions: “Everybody participates: They get involved, discuss these issues, and say what they think before anything is decided.”
Unresolved conflicts facilitate bullying
All three focus group meetings found that conflicts exist within groups and between two persons. Often, conflicts relate to how the work will be performed or how uncompleted work will be finished. Conflicts are avoided, if those involved in disagreements conduct a dialogue directly with each other. There is a need for clear limits that bullying behavior is not acceptable. Humor and compromises are sometimes used as aids in the process of conflict resolution. The most common organizational resolution consists of moving the bully or the bully victim to another ward, when a conflict leads to bullying. These strategies have resulted in that the bullying has been spread, as well as to new, satisfying collaborations against it. The bully victims have also, at times, left the workplace at their own initiative.
The fourth meeting discussed the fact that three new conflicts appeared at two of the workplaces, during the study. These might well have developed into bullying, if they had not been resolved. The conflicts consisted of disagreements regarding job performance and individual properties. One supervisor was asked to actively resolve one conflict addressing work routines. She planned to bring up the problem at the next workplace meeting in which she did not participate, by choosing a chairman, assigning tasks to the group, and by asking for a report on the results. Participants of the working groups were required to read the action plan, to prevent and stop bullying before they met. She meant that the co-workers themselves must come to the decision, because she cannot say what is right or wrong: “They cannot agree on anything, because one half wants one thing and the other something else.”
Another example of a conflict concerned a new employee whose energy and eagerness was too much for the older employees. Participants emphasized that it was necessary to find a balance: the new person must take things easier, but at the same time the others must show more engagement: “It is not fun to be full of energy, cheerful and willing to cooperate, and then have no friends, but just stand there alone.”
Discussion
Evaluations of the process indicated that awareness about bullying and openness at the participating workplaces was increased. The workplaces found their own resolutions and adopted parts of the intervention plan, including implementation of humanistic values and empathic attitudes. The collaborations between and within the groups had also become stronger. Thus, the intervention program contributed to more health-promoting workplace settings similarity as a side-effect of the intervention [2]; however, not all supervisors, employees and upper management took on the responsibility of working systematically with the action plan, to keep the discussions about bullying alive at workplace meeting. Nevertheless, the focus groups revealed a strong desire to continue the process and for participants to become ambassadors for preventative work to counteract bullying, even though there were difficulties in managing conflicts. Some situations can result in bullying, despite one’s best efforts.
The present findings showed that the workplaces became more aware of bullying problems and workers were provided with more capacity to act when a bullying problem arose. Lectures and small group reflection appeared helpful. This combination was previously shown to be effective in preventing and combatting bullying [26]. The nurturing of a humanistic value system was a vital parts of the action plan. Humanistic values are important, because unethical behavior provides a growing ground for bullying [15,16]. Empathic actions, respect and tolerance are fundamental values that provide a foundation for health promotion [27]. The workplaces we studied continued to improve their ethical behavior and empathic treatments of fellow employees. Other key factors of successful workplace health-promotion strategies include problem solving programs and the integration of such programs into management practices, for both individually-directed and environmentally-directed management measures [28]. We believe our action plan answered those demands.
Since the implementation of the intervention, the atmospheres at the workplaces studied have become more open and employees dare to speak out more. It appears that the employees were psychologically empowered by participating in the process. They gained in individual trust, self-esteem and development, and they showed a willingness to participate in collective activities [6,27]. Involvement and participation increased human capital and the community’s capacity to address bullying [29].
Some employees were disappointed to notice that upper management did not appear engaged in the problems of the workplace. It may be that upper managers had not discovered the economic advantages of preventing and combatting bullying [12,13], and did not think it was necessary to participate in the lecture and the training. The researchers informed managerial leadership about the project and the findings on three occasions. This was probably insufficient, and it might have been preferable to include all organizational leaders in the lectures and training [26].
In the first focus group meetings, the supervisors were excluded because their status and presence could influence the co-workers’ openness in the discussion [24]. The researchers expected bullies, as well as bully victims to participate in the group. In this situation, the researchers did not know the participants’ roles in the workplace. After an individual interview with the supervisor and the first focus group interviews, the researchers received a clearer picture of how the roles were implemented.
In the following focus group interviews the supervisors participated, given their formal responsibility for preventing and combatting bullying. The moderator had a role as facilitator, according to a social process of transformation, support and creation of interaction between the participants [21]. The strength of the focus groups interviews consisted of a practical consciousness in the form of new knowledge that could be applied during interactions with colleagues; however, there was concurrently a weakness in that group pressure more or less influences the collection of data. Rich data with thick descriptions and a saturation of categories are recommended in Grounded Theory [22,25]. Rich data was conducted through theoretical sampling, in which the researchers collected more data after analyzing the data, going back to raw data and using the memos [22]. Rich descriptions were created in the present findings, given meaning within the text, which is supported by the carefully selected quotations. The categories were saturated from data collection, before and after the implementation of the intervention.
The process outlined is ongoing and will be carried forward by the workplaces, in order for them to maintain vigilance against bullying. Such sustainable health promotion activities provide benefits for communities and populations beyond the initial stages of implementation [30]. The action plan will be worked through once more, using the participants’ opinions, and sent out once more to the workplaces. In community empowerment, the process can represent the results, which never become complete [29].
Footnotes
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding statement
This work was supported by a grant from AFA Insurance (an organization owned by Sweden labour market parties; a grant, part of a larger project) and Karlstad University.