Talk:Workplace bullying/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Necessary improvement of the article 2 Fixed some of the "Who Gets Targeted by Bullies?" [citation needed] tags 3 Citing sources 4 The deleted section on "who gets bullied" 5 Citations Still Lacking 6 Legality of workplace bullying 7 Pathology of Workplace Bullies 8 Idea to Improve Objectivity 9 Separate Wiki entries for each Anti-Bully Pioneer 10 Psychopathology of Workplace Bullying 11 NPOV 12 Ways to prevent/stop bullying and strategic methods 12.1 Possible Answer 13 Common tactics of bullying 14 Statistics Section 15 Requests for Citations 16 Missing: The Serial Bully 17 Commentary of Relevance of Mobbing Link 18 Success of Workplace Bullying 19 Recommended Books Page For Bullying/Workplace Bullying 20 response 21 Guidelines for Editors 22 Oops, I Thought The Troll Was Gone

[edit] Necessary improvement of the article

There needs to be discussion of the narcissistic personality or "control freak" who thrives and bullies in office environments. Companies as a whole often have narcissistic traits. --Penbat 11:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that not only is there an whole seperate article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder there is also another on Narcissism. That would SEEM sufficient (though I believe "control freak" refers to a Pathological Compulsion to Control and is a quite seperate condition)?--Zeraeph 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the problem is not the disputed contribution. The main problem is that the article is very is selective. It does not represent the whole spectrum of theories on workplace bullying. As far as I know, most research on workplace bullying is about structural factors (e.g. restructuring, stressors, competition, organisational norms) and dynamics (e.g. ingroup/outgroup, conflict, stigmatisation). There is even research on the personality of the vicim. --Sampi/€ 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You said it! I found that out myself yesterday when I went digging for the bully article! There really is so much material, and so many viewpoints out there on Workplace (or Adult) bullying. Which is another question that has me wondering if the article should not, in fact be "Adult bullying" with a redirect from Workplace Bullying so as to cover Military, Prison, etc bullying? (I haven't got a fixed view about this, but it seems to me that something needs tweaking or adding at some stage?). Could be just where I was looking, but it seems to me that there is actually far more research on the personality of the victim than of the bully? --Zeraeph 09:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more handy to have an own article on adult bullying which should be very general and refer to workplace bullying, prison bullying and so on. The specific articles can refer to the article adult bullying, and thus not everything has to be stated seperately in every article. I agree: Some fixing and added is a good idea. If you want to have a good overview on the current research, I can recommend to have a look at the Book of Abstract of the Fourth International Conference on Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace (pdf, 979 KB). It's for free and it provides a good overview on the current research spectrum on workplace bullying/mobbing. If you want to do some improvements of the article, I can assist you. --Sampi/€ 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh PLEASE! I would very much like to have your help in editing this article properly.--Zeraeph 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This article as it is now lacks citing of sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable source and Wikipedia:Citing sources). That is a common problem in Wikipedia. First of all, I think that the whole spectrum of research on workplace bullying should be presented in this article. What chapters are necessary in my opinion?

• Introduction
• Maybe a definition, at least a reference to a more general article with a definition
• A discussion on the demarcation of workplace bullying and workplace mobbing (to most researchers workplace mobbing and bullying is the same; Helge Hoel thinks a little bit different as far as I know) and similar terms
• Phenomenology: Typical acts of workplace mobbing
• Prevalence: May include information on risk groups
• Reasons and triggers: I like the way how Vartia organises this chapter ([1] pdf-file probably here, 618 KB):

• The environmental view
• The personality view
• The process nature of bullying

• Effects: Effects on the target, the organisation and ecomic costs on society
• Prevention and intervention, including an overview on legal rights against workplace bullying
• Standard literature

That's of course one possibility how one can organise this article. --Sampi/€ 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like an excellent plan, I am really looking forward to this.

Just remembered, you are German...there are some really significant articles by Zapf here: [2] but only in German, English versions exist, but not for free --Zeraeph 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself as German speaker and not as German, but I know what you mean. Zapf's articles are very good. If you write something, I will add what I know about Zapf. Btw, if there is also need on Norwegian or Danish skills, I can read Norwegian and Danish because those languages are very similar to Swedish. --Sampi/€ 08:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am SO SORRY for jumping to conclusions about nationality. I think I found some articles in Scandinavian Languages too, but that will have to wait till I have time to dig through them later--Zeraeph 09:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic: I didn't feel offended by being addressed as German. German means citizen of Germany. Nationality is probably a complex topic. Austrians are used to define their nationality by their citizenship, like Swiss people do. However, other nations are defined by language; e.g. I think that people from the Faroe Islands refer to themselves as Faroes and not as Danes. It is impossible to know all that. --Sampi/€ 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate entry on serial bullies. I think a good phrase to define their behaviour is that they work in a cycle which starts with covert coercion, manipulation and abuse motivated by malice and jealousy, and leads into blantant(and often illegal) acts of obvious malice, when they perceive that their behaviour is being/ is about to be challenged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.136.155 (talk • contribs).

I certainly agree that there should be a seperate article on Serial Bullies as soon as somebody has one ready with proper academic citations to post.

However where a lot of articles run into trouble is when editors approach the article with strong preformed ideas and concentrate on finding citations they can fit to those ideas, by bending them if necessary. The best articles I have seen on Wikipedia are the one that begin with searching for available verifiable information on the topic to see what is out there and, objectively, using only that information as a basis for the article.

Writing this I realise that, although I see the phrase "serial bully" thrown around a lot, (to me, meaning, quite obviously, someone who bullies as a way of life and has an ongoing string of targets) I have no idea whether it has ever been formally recognised or researched as a concept, if it hasn't it shouldn't have it's own article (see WP:OR)...if it has been recognised, we should find out on what terms, and start working on it asap. --Zeraeph 14:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zeraeph - a few pointers for anyone planning to research this: I first saw the phrase "serial bully" on Tim Field's website, but I think the only statistic he cited was an analysis of calls to hotlines. I suspect that this is a very difficult thing to research through workplace surveys etc because victims would be unlikely to know the history of their bully, even if they have a vague awareness of others that have been bullied at the same time as them. HR professionals wouldn't know either unless the bully had targetted more than one person within the same organisation and all of the targets had made formal complaints. The easiest serial bullies for survey respondents to identify through observation would probably be the ones working in the caring/ person centred professions, because (in my personal experience and according to Tim Field) these bullies have a tendency to show a disinterest in the clients of the organisation as individuals, and (according to Tim Field's website again), sensitive people tend to want to work in these professions, so lots of people get targetted at once. I suspect that there might have been research on this latter point which used different terminology - i.e. talking about personalities and management styles and the effects on how workplaces function for their clients. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.136.155 (talk • contribs).

Thank you 82.39.136.155, that is a useful starting point. However to be notable enough for an article more formal, scientific sources for the phenomenon are needed. Self report is notoriously flawed as statistical methodology even under controlled circumstances, administered by trained professionals let alone administered by volunteer staff in the stressful and informal atmosphere of an help line.

I do not doubt the existance of serial bullies, having experienced them for myself. In fact, as an human being I would be more inclined to doubt the existance of "once off" bullies. It seems VERY unlikely to me that an individual would bully one person, once, and never do it again, unless there were some symbiosis involved. That is like saying that a wife beater will never beat any other woman.

However, even for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, let alone for an whole article, a phenomenon such as serial bullying must be formally identified and recognised by more than one unqualified, self published source. Though of course there is no reason why it should not immediately be added to the Tim Field article. --Zeraeph 10:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again (I'm Anna by the way) - I agree with your point about helplines. Just to clarify the two things that I think any researcher into workplace bullying would have to bear in mind are that: (1) some really good primary research might exist (e.g. ethnographic research) which might have thrown up direct observational evidence of the phenomenon, but the writers might not use the term "bully", instead they might use words like "tough management style", "unprofessional behaviour" etc.. (2)there is more likely to be research evidence/ expert opinion with regards to the phenomenon of people who bully lots of targets at the same time, than people who tend to focus on targets one after the other - therefore there will probably have been more written about bullies in workplaces where the core business is "people related". I would do some research on this myself but I don't have direct access to academic resources at the moment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.136.155 (talk • contribs).

Hi Anna, why not create an account (which on Wikipedia REALLY only takes a minute) and then everybody will refer to you by a name and not a number? ;o). Very good points to note for trying to get some *hardcore* cited information into this article where it belongs. --Zeraeph 12:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed some of the "Who Gets Targeted by Bullies?" [citation needed] tags

I've found a link describing some potential targets of workplace bullying, and added this link to the "References" section. However, I'm not sure if the victims are 50% male and 50% female, as I always thought that women are more likely to be harassed in the workplace. I would think that the victim's and the bully's personality always sharply contrast each other, but then again there is a possibilty that the bully is much like the victim, e.g. to defend his/her "uniqueness" or his/her competency.

Wrote rather snotty edit summary before I realise you had provided a reference...sorry...

But I am afraid that reference doesn't hack it. It's apparently "original research" or an opinion piece that does not cite it's sources.

The author, Gary Namie, seems bona fide...but even I know the things he is say in this piece are hotly contested by experts...

It's a tough one to call...maybe we could give some time between us to finding a few sources to have some balence? --Zeraeph 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Namie is bona fide, and little of the info in this article is contested by experts. Most of the research world-wide supports his assertions. Also, it's true that women are the primary targets of bullying. It's also true that 65 - 80% of all workplace bullies are female. This is an international statistic--from the U.S., to England, to Israel, etc, everyone is coming up with the similar stats. Aine63 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, I found another stat last night for gender of bullies - 58% being female. I went ahead and added this to the article because it was right there ;) It's also still a majority. I'll dig up the other stats (as they represent an international view) and add them later on. Aine63 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Links to sources for the article should be placed immediately after the points they are supporting. If the source is a book, the author, title, publisher, and date published should be added to the "References" section at the bottom, and the last name of the author and date of publication in parentheses next to the point being made. For example, (LastNameofAuthor, 1990) should be placed after the information taken from this source. Aine63 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The deleted section on "who gets bullied"

While there are references at the end, little of this article is cited, so it's ludicrous to delete one small section, the info in which is very valid, except for the gender stats--most workplace bullies are female, and most bullying targets are female. Someone needs to go through the entire piece and add citations, or start from scratch. Aine63 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know exactly what deletion you are speaking of, I agree that it is totally nonsensical to delete something just because it isn't cited yet. If that were official Wiki policy, most of the article contents at Wiki would disappear. Perhaps it most likely came from someone who was overly uncomfortable learning that women comprise most of the population of workplace bullies? -I am Kiwi 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Still Lacking

This article still needs lots of citation work. For an article this length, footnotes seem a necessity. I know that a lot of the valid research into this topic is fairly new (except in the UK) and most of what is available is just in journals, not books, but it needs to be looked up anyway. Does anyone dropping by live near a university? Does anyone live in the UK?

I live in the UK and am willing to contribute just as long as Zeraeph doesnt start interferring like she did on the Wiki Bully topic. She is currently under suspension. Tim Field (who recently died) is in the UK and was a pioneering anti-bully guru. His book "Bully In Sight" is extremely rich with insightful material. His website is www.bullyonline.org. On that website are carefully documented anecdotal case study accounts of about 100 bully victims who Tim Field personally helped. His work is extremely insightful and based mainly on detailed anecdotal information and his own experiences.

Also of particular interest is "Snakes in Suits - The Psychopath at Work" by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare. Robert Hare is the world's leading psychopath guru.

It is important to consider workplace bullying in terms of recognised psychiatric conditions (psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder etc).

One thing Tim Field mentions in his book "Bully In Sight" is that asertiveness training may be helpful in reducing the chances of getting bullied. "Bully In Sight" is the closest there is to a workplace bullying bible even though it was published in 1996. Understanding of the subject has moved on a bit in some respects - his website www.bullyonline.org takes some things a bit further. He was also half way through a new anti-bullying book when he died - this may yet be published in the next 12 months.

I think Tim Field's work is less politically correct and sanitised than Garry Namie's work (he is the leading US anti-bully guru). --Penbat 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of workplace bullying

The opening paragraphs contained a summary of the legal situation in the USA. To this I have added a short summary of the legal situation in the UK, and cited references! In the US section, the statement "Court action based on workplace bullying is problematic at best." sounds very personal and subjective. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the US legal system and bullying cases could offer an improvement? Justdignity 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathology of Workplace Bullies

(my previous blurb truncated) HarperCollins have replied to my reproduction request indicating that their policy is to permit reproduction of quotations of less than 350 words, subject to the condition that credit be given to the title, author(s), copyright holder and HarperCollins Publishers. Quotations more than 349 words (and verse, graphics and more) require their written permission. This 237 word extract from the book, under the heading "psychopathology..." complies with the publisher's requirements. Justdignity 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hare and Babiak are gurus in the subject of psychopathy and bullying. Their research is on a sound scientific basis. The only Issue i have with it is that there seems to be a strange dichotomy in the field of psychology between psychopathy and narcissism. They seem to be very close to be describing the same thing although typically a researcher in one of them usually acknowledges little about the existance of the other. I think that this is because of two different historical lines of psychological research coliding. Anyway although Hare and Babiak's work is very important there are probably equally valid studies on the application of narcissistic theory to bullying.--Penbat 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a good idea to include summaries from a selection of sources... Do you have any similarly concise commentary from Narcissism experts? Justdignity 17:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Im sure I could dig up something but it will take a while to decide what to use as there is so much to choose from. Unlike psychopathy there isn't an obvious main narcissism guru. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality by Elsa F. Ronningstam is the most academic book I have and it is full of academic citations. It has a chapter devoted to narcissism at work. Just having a list of external links and references would be useful together with the short summary. The Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder Wiki topics could do with some sprucing up as well. Of course the stuff you have just quoted from Hare probably also applies to all bullies not only in the work situation so you could have a Pathology of Bullies in the main Wiki Bully topic as well. --Penbat 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more, this is extremely essential stuff. I think that strictly speaking it is the psychopathology of bullying not pathology. Also most of your excerpt has very little that is workplace specific. The psychopathology of bullying in the workplace will be similar to the psychopathology of bullying in any other context. It's just that the bully will operate in certain ways to suit the context but that has less to do with the psychopathology just social adjustment to a context. I think it may be more appropriate to have this in the Bully entry rather than the Workplace Bullying entry. --Penbat 21:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I realise that the excerpt from Hare and Babiak's book does not in isolation relate specifically or only to workplace bullying, but in the context of the whole book, it is clearly itended to relate to workplace bullying. As you say, it is also relevant to other forms of bullying. Justdignity 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Penbat and JustDignity. What I believe (aka, IMO) is that it is important to cover the psychopathology of bullying in this project of Workplace Bullying as the reader cannot be expected to thoroughly investigate the fuller and longer article, where psychopathology will be, after all, only one of many subtopics covered.

Workplace bullying is uniquely distinguished from other forms of bullying because of the ties of the job. The target is tied down because of need for continued economic stability and is tied down because of what might be called "Basic Decency" that entails all aspects of allegiance and commitment to the employer, as well as to societal dictates and expectations of "good people".

Counterbalanced against the nature of the "target" is the nature of the bully who homes in on that target. Bullying is an antisocial act. For someone to understand Workplace Bullying, it is equally important for people to

* understand the workplace social dynamics

* why a person is targeted (while the next person/coworker is not)

* why the bully needs to dominate and control others

* why the target often suffers lifelong trauma and illness

* recognize the societal and business financial impacts

All considered, I see it as important to include a good solid discussion of basic bully pathology, then an elaboration of how a workplace dovetails into the bully's needs, and then a thorough explanation of the mechanism of choosing a target which will explain how and why a target is chosen for his/her specific vulnerabilities of need and decency.

We cannot ignore the fact that these characterizing pathologies and vulnerabilities are the same for all or any of the Cluster B personality disorders and their targets, regardless of whether we are speaking of pathological bullying or in pathological relationships in other sectors of society. It is only by including the basis for the pathological bullying dynamic that we can truly explain why bullying happens, et al. Comments? - I am Kiwi 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Penbat -- thanks for drawing the link with NPD, and citing Ronningstam for others. I believe she notes that NPD is common among politicians, and that NPD sufferers are widely looked up to for their leadership skills (self assurance?). She also draws attention to the inward, shy NPD personality type. I wonder if these and the "outward" type sort together in various workplaces. NPD often involves the presence of idolized figures.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.92.25 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Idea to Improve Objectivity

It would be a good idea to have a Workplace Bullying Pioneers subtopic which would help to outline the different approaches. It would be worth mentioning Prof Heinz Leymann, Gary Namie, Tim Field, Hare & Babiak etc. Also in each case there would be a short summary of their approaches and the differences between them.--Penbat 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea! Why don't you get it started off. Don't forget Andrea Adams too! Justdignity 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New "Leading Pioneers in the Understanding of Workplace Bullying" section now in place with links to Wiki entry for each pioneer. Some entries have yet to be created. I have emailed the Anthea Adams organisation for info on Anthea. --Penbat 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening section was a bit subjective; I have reordered it and added a definitions section, with three alternatives from different sources. The Statistics text is unchanged but... WHO'S statistics are these? A reference would be handy. The truth is that so little research has been done, and that which has been done produces different results, it would be more objective to state that, and to either publish summaries of different statistics in a consistent, comparable format, and to say "at best, dah dah dah" and "at worst, so-and-so is the case". I wonder about completely re-writing what is now the first paragraph. It is now looking to seem a bit wooly / irrelevant in parts, given the developments in the rest of the article. Justdignity 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me but I fell a little concerned that us two are monopolising and it would be good if someone else chipped in maybe with a different perspective. I suggest you take it fairly slow to give someone else the chance to chip in, maybe someone from the Namie camp. Incidentally, I deleted a few of your "Dr" and "Phds" earlier. They do sound impressive but for example all except probably Andrea Adams in my pioneers list have Phds so i am not sure if it worth making a big thing of it as almost every "expert" seems to have one. You might like to improve the Workplace Bullying summary in the Bully Wiki as well. --Penbat 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be fretting, Penbat. From the project histories I have examined, it is quite usual for very small groups to seem to dominate at any one time in the development of articles. As time goes by, visitors will be arriving and some of those visitors will be moved to contribute.

Some of the edits may be wonderful, some may seem horrible (to the original writers). But this can be a wonderful thing as long as you understand what must go and what must be provided. Your edits already show your recognition of Wiki dictates. It is a gradual learning, often pushed on by the edits of others. :)

Spelling, grammar, verb tense, etc, will be corrected, POV (point of view) will be targeted. All I and we statements reworded or eliminated.

Learn how to enter the mark-up that will produce a read-out that states "citation needed" and use it wherever you write something for which you don't (at that moment) have the citation at your fingertips. This should keep your work safe from deletions, and may prompt others to go looking for the citations needed. Well, we can always hope. :) - I am Kiwi 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Wiki entries for each Anti-Bully Pioneer

I think Tim Field, for one, fully deserves his own Wiki entry. I notice that Robert Hare already has his own but it could be expanded. --Penbat 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just started with a separate Wiki entry for Tim Field. It needs improving though. his book "Buly In Sight" could also justify a separate Wiki entry. --Penbat 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his books justify separate project pages. - I am Kiwi 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychopathology of Workplace Bullying

I have just created this new section. It is very important but is difficult to do. Please be gentle as it needs careful nurturing. It may take a long time to get it written properly. Citations will be included. An equivalent section will need to be written in the main Bullying Wiki. --Penbat 09:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You would have thought that at least one psychology professional somewhere would have written a book or at least an article on the "Psychopathology of Workplace Bullying" or the "Psychopathology of Bullying". It seems like an obvious idea to map bullying to mental conditions etc. If anyone knows of any such book or article please let me know. --Penbat 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added some quite useful material.--Penbat 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I am conscious that this article does not say anything positive about bullying. I wonder if it should include reference to those who might propose that behaviours here described as "bullying" are reasonable reasonable, justifiable etc, and denying the links with narcissism and psychopathy? Justdignity 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't this discussed a few months back ? Personally I'm luke warm as isn't it like saying being physically assaulted can be a good thing ? Psychos might say this though as they are typically "In denial".--Penbat 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can guess I don't advocate bullying (!) but I feel that illustration of an opposing view is necessary to illustrate that some belief systems refute the idea that bullying exists, and to identify what those belief systems are. I feel it would help the article comply fully with Wiki policies, and help to illustrate the cultural source of the problem. Narcs and Psychos may initiate bullying, but they get supported. If someone knows by whom and why, it should be here to complete the picture, don't you think? If you are charged with murder, you can defend yourself saying it was (the lesser charge of) manslaughter. If you're charged with "bullying", you can say it was "management". People do this, so it ought to be included I think. Justdignity 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are bringing up the idea of bully cultures which legitimise particular types of bullying as being valid. This does need to be explained in this Wiki. It all goes back to the idea of a psycho or narc ringleader establishing a group of synchophants (or copycat bullies) who become gang members and often do the chief bully's dirty work. --Penbat 08:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

JustDignity, while Wiki mandates it as both desirable and necessary to present a "neutral point of view" or "balancing points of view" (?), it is as equally important for any viewpoints presented to be supported by reputable citations. If someone can find citations that are both supportive of bullying and validating of bullying's economic impacts on business and society, it will undoubtedly find its way to this topic. At that point in time, others will investigate to validate or invalidate the cited experts.

On the other hand, the Bullying topic already includes a sanctioned bullying - Boot camp in the military. I don't have the citation for it, but first year medical school is another sanctioned bullying situation where it is seen as necessary for the professors to participate in a breaking down all egotism in the students in order to reconstruct them in the mold of a physician. One example of continued bullying throughout the training is the marathon hours and days of being "on call" which is seen by elder doctors as being part of a right of passage necessary to "join the club".

I think these and other sanctioned bullying can certainly be dealt with adequately under a subtopic. I am sure others will add to it. - I am Kiwi 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You could argue that any authoritarian regime or organisation is bullying but some of them are entered into voluntarily.--Penbat 12:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ways to prevent/stop bullying and strategic methods

This section is already in the Bully Wiki but done badly. But it also need to be in this Wiki. Needs to describe ways of reducing bullying in a company as a whole, how to minimise your chance of getting bullied as an individual and what to do if you are bullied. --Penbat 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain that bullying prevention belongs in an encyclopedia entry. It seems better served in outside links that will point to informative and helpful organizations and support groups. Affected businesses or targets will need so much detailed and specialized information when it comes to dealing with the problem. Just as an encyclopedia article on cancer or stroke or bipolar disorder cannot expect to teach recognized medical treatments, I am not cetain that an article on rape or bullying or incest needs to include the steps to prevent these legal and social infractions, or that it needs to include the steps to deal with the perpetrators. I may be wrong. Maybe someone who knows the answer can help out? - I am Kiwi 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Me again. I am more confused by this than earlier. The main thing that keeps jumping up and biting me is how difficult it is to deal with something like prevention and control of bullying in the article. Perhaps if it could be in its own article? It is such a complicated subject, including laws that might be used to force a business to protect employees from bullying, movements to create bullying specific law, the intervention of unions, the role of personnel offices, medical documentation of depression, PTSD and immune deficiency syndromes secondary to bullying, need for documentation, steps to take, tactics. Then there is the vital role of support groups, legal help, seeking counseling. I think a topic of dealing with bullying should be very inclusive, but not involve another discussion of the basics covered here. But for a beginning, I guess I have to support a subtopic. Whether it remains a part of this topic or is moved to its own wiki project will have to be determined by someone who knows more than I do about such things. I am no expert.

Now, if such topics are to be included, I must admit that I guess it seems that a topic of Childhood Bullying has to include covering both helping your child at home and getting school authorities to institute programs. Plus there is the Bullies to Buddies program that has a lot of enthusiasm for it so far. I have written the psychologist who teaches this approach to school faculties and who is currently writing a book to document the successes of his approach. I think the issue of childhood depression, suicide and provoked murder/suicide responses is already being covered under the Bullying topic. - I am Kiwi 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Answer

When it's more "how-to" than a true encyclopedia-type entry, then it doesn't really fit on Wikipedia. When I saw advice to someone compiling a lot of how-to about baseball, I thought it might fit into Wikibooks, but I see that books get deleted regularly if it is felt they "don't fit" -- Topics that fall outside the "generally accepted" non-controversial material.

The better option (maybe the only option) is to use a free software like Open_Office to create a stand-alone .pdf book. It could include examples from real life, different ways that different people might do the same thing, links to support groups, informative websites, etc. It could be uploaded to a yahoogroups' or msngroups' files section (among other places) where it could be stored online for free and accessible to many downloads.

This complete and permanent record could be a compilation of what is most needed for recovery. Perhaps an entire set of books eventually for bullying with various chapters - addressing Childhood/School bullying, workplace bullying, webplace bullying, bullying in the non-profit sector. This wil be a really great way for all this to be recorded and not vulnerable to being deleted/edited away here at Wiki.

I could even see it being a project that you could suggest at BullyOnline or its companion group. Groups dealing with other kinds of bullying could be put in charge of writing the other books. It is an excellent idea and they can all be linked still to Wiki, too. -I am Kiwi 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common tactics of bullying

This appears to come from one source (possibly Dr Namie's research). It falls short of WIKI standards in two ways: (1) simple - Using headings as links; (2) less straightforward - not citing sources. The content appears largely relevant and aligned with what I understand about workplace bullying, but could do with an introduction to explain why THESE tactics are common, how common they are, and references to sources. It also needs rationalising, categorising and extending. The tactics appear to focus on phase 1 bullying (as Field would call it, i.e. pre-complaint). Corporate response to complaints of bullying is not included. Justdignity 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only fair to try and contact Gary Namie and try to get his input on the whole wiki. Incidnetally this "Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute" just sounds like spin to me. It conjours up visions of a huge university with hoards of boffins running around when really it could just be 1 man in an office. --Penbat 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you had only decided to write about Classical Architecture instead of an abusive syndrome of the personality disordered, then you would have all the easy citations you wanted! It is a tall order, I know. But some of the veterans on the support forums are researchers and authors or are in contact with various professionals in this fledgling field, and they might be willing to help in little ways that won't overtax them. Just tell them all up front that all sources and citations must pass Wiki standards. This is the beauty of Wiki and multi-editing. No one person is saddled with Herculean tasks. - I am Kiwi 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics Section

There must have been dozens of surveys done into prevalence of workplace bullying. Some one could summarise the results of, say, three different comprehensive surveys. Each survey can be cited. --Penbat 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to ditch the info currently in place as not cited. Leave until new info available though. --Penbat 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the field of work place bullying research. Usually, there is a theory, when it's about statistics (e. g. gender aspects). Therefore, I think that there should be sections on issues like "Prevalence", "Impact on the target" or gender. --Sampi/€ 13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Citations

I just put in a lot of them. Please understand these are not criticisms of the text, just requests for appropriate references in accord with WP:SOURCE, WP:RS and WP:OR.

Medical related sections must be stringently sourced to published, medical/academic work. There is one interesting piece that, though, apparently, published appropriately, actually cites a blog instead of the publication, which is a shame. It's ok to link to the blog, but the published source must be cited too.

There is really no excuse for not citing sources in legal sections, they are easy enough to find, I'll try to chase them myself when I have time.

If anyone wants to put citations in as links in text (or in brackets where there are no links) I will transform them into inline ciations as soon as I can. --Zeraeph 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing: The Serial Bully

Since I didn't remember seeing it, I did a Wiki search for "Serial Bully" and came up with a blank. It exists nowhere. Not on here on the Workplace Bullying topic, not on Tim Field's topic page, not on bullying - simply nowhere. What happened? Did everyone editing on this topic have memory loss? Or was it deleted?

Without understanding the psychological makeup of a Serial Bully and understanding the psychological drives and compulsions that fuel him/her, one can simply not expect to understand the most dangerous bullying perpetrators/abusers.

"Serial Bully" is on 11,400 webpages. Google Scholar lists "Serial Bully" in these journals, books, university websites, international conference reports and government task force papers. There are undoubtedly far more, but not every scholarly text ro journal, etc, is yet uploaded to the web. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Serial+bully%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1 -- I am Kiwi 11:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief section here Bullying (I would think serial bullying is more appropriate and relevant to generic bullying than workplace bullying?) that urgently requires proper verifiable academic citation in accord WP:RS and WP:NPOV, perhaps, after all your research, you would care to provide some at last (don't worry, if you cannot follow the style of inline citation, just leave the links in the text and I'll fix them later)?

At present this section is just a list of types of serial bully without any explanation of what a serial bully is, which isn't really very useful (or sensible) by itself, perhaps you could also provide a brief, cited explanation of what a serial bully is, while the topic is fresh in your mind?

Naturally, if you have found enough material for two or three strong, well cited, paragraphs and the existing list of types I would be inclined to suggest that you create a new article. --Zeraeph 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When I searched using the Wiki search engine, it did not pull that up for some reason. Don't know why. See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=serial+bully

I am not at all qualified to write this article. It makes more sense to ask someone with the 7 or more years of study in the area, someone like Penbat or JustDignity who own excellent libraries of relevant texts. But 70% or more, of what the two of them added in just this last month, representing scores of hours, days of dedicated work, including adding extensive citations, has been been wiped out by scores of deletions in the past week, all without warning or talk page discussion k, so I question how willing they will be to devote more hours to contributing here.

Wiki has a policy, whether official or of caution and admonition to the more experienced editors, of encouraging new editors with education, guidance, and mentoring. I don't know how to find that page again, but it advises that one doesn't beat up the newcomers or something to that effect. --I am Kiwi 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The only text I saw removed from this article this week was conjecture and original research without any valid citations in accord with WP:RS at all, which, however valid, or not, the comments may be, is against policy, and had to go. Repeated requests for citations drew a total blank. Could you be confusing it with another article?

I have now idea how the search engine works, or does not, I am afraid, though it can be a little "case-hypersensitive".

I am sure that, especially after all your research on the topic, you are more than able to write an excellent subsection on "Serial Bullying" with plenty of appropriate, verifiable, academic citations in accord with WP:RS. All it takes is a little confidence, why don't you just try? --Zeraeph 22:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have now twice asserted now that I have ample ability to write this section on serial bullying, referencing "all (my) research on the topic". This is exceedingly curious thing to you to assert as fact, when you have no way of knowing any such thing nor the absence of any such thing. I have only told the truth, that I am not qualified nor do I have the necessary library at hand, not being at a school with any graduate program in a business oriented psychology. Being able to read some of what exists online and being able to Google scarcely qualifies as "research". Better you should request this of the editor at de:Workplace Bullying, User:Sampi Europa‎ who occasionally edits here since he appears, from his comments on this talk page, considerably knowledgeble in mobbing research. I recall your requesting, some months ago, that he help in developing this topic. Since he has recently begun editing in this topic, he might now have the time and interest.

Regarding the great number and speed of deletions during the past week, I will first note that a great number of citations had already been added and the fact there had not yet been suffient time to add them all does not mean prove that the was untrue and could not be give citations in short time.

Additionally, given that many of these additions, over the course of a month, were added by a newbie to Wiki editing and deletions. Such treatment of a serious, even if inexperinced editor, do not teach, they only discourage and drive away new editors. Like I said before, Wiki policy (unofficial or not, it has its own Wiki Admin webpage) is to not stomp on the newbies.

Things may not happen as rapidly as everyone would like, but respectively, the basis for Wiki is collaborative editing, not sole authorship, nor sole final decision making, nor sole authority of what is topic worthy. --I am Kiwi 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, when you said you had found 11,400 webpages and were so concerned to find the topic on Wikipedia I just assumed you were researching it in some way, I probably shouldn't have assumed that.

Any deleted text remains in the history files, if you find verifiable academic sources, in accord with WP:RS, for any of it you can reinstate it easily enough. --Zeraeph 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How anyone could make such an assumption, that I was engaged in research, purely based on the fact I can read numerals and can transcibe said numerals (ie, 11,400) from a Google search page? Now I know that you have been pulling my leg. I should have laughed at your joke. I am doing so now. :o)

Again, I point out that I don't have access to the academic resources that the prior editor, User:Penbat, has and was busy using, halfway into the long task. And after being bitten scores of times in a few days, I rather suspect he may never return. Also, given the dozens of deletions, it could be difficult if not impossible for him to find them again. Now that is not an amusing thought, is it? --I am Kiwi 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whoever created it, the text I removed was unsuitable for an encyclopaedia in many different ways that are described in the edit summaries and should not be replaced at all without proper citations (in accord with WP:RS) and considerable revision. Some of it would never be relevant to this particular article at all.

May I respectfully suggest that however many academic resources in accord with WP:RS you believe an editor may have available to him/her, they are of no use unless that editor cites those resources properly. --Zeraeph 08:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary of Relevance of Mobbing Link

The template on this topic page is not just for bullying, but for all forms of abuse and includes the abuse of children, police brutality and human experimentation.

Mobbing was the first revolutionary discovery regarding workplace bullying by a researcher (in outside links on topic page). It remains a singularly vital factor in the understanding of and detection of workplace bullying. In the template, there is no indication of this, and thus deserves its own link.

Respectfully, inclusion on a category template does not negate being pointed out as of particular relevance to the topic at hand. --Kiwi

I agree with you totally about the relevance of Mobbing, however it is already linked in the article, from the introduction, and from the abuse template on top right, a third link in "see also" is considered excessive. A Wikipedia article is not a link directory. I hope this helps. --Zeraeph 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I have submitted this query to clarify the matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Internal_Link_to_article_query shall we abide by the response? --Zeraeph 23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to find that the rule of thumb is no more than one link to each topic section, rather than no more than one in the actual article. Thank you for seeking the Help Desk to make the ruling and make it final. --I am Kiwi 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Success of Workplace Bullying

Given the widespread attention to this phenomenon, it seems worth asking why it is so prevalent. Many enterprises appear to thrive while tolerating or perhaps even endorsing this kind of activity. If it's such a bad thing, why hasn't its incidence decreased over time? Has anyone tried to break down the incidence by public and private sector, and within the private sector by industry designation? Aren't many of the most successful business leaders notorious bullies? Perhaps evolutionary psychology can lend some insight. Historically, societies have usually been lead by despots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.92.25 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Recommended Books Page For Bullying/Workplace Bullying

Zeraeph, I decided to glance at the "List of books" link and was quite impressed with how attractive and usable the page is. You have done a lovely job. Wonderful of you to think of doing this. Kudos! --I am Kiwi 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am afraid I didn't do anything but combine two existing booklists that were getting too big for the articles and seemed too good to prune. --Zeraeph 08:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was so attractive and easy to find things. I was unaware of book pages and was so pleased at how great it turned out. Since the book lists in the various categories were offered to persons of all categories. I think it is a brilliant idea. I was very glad that you kept us from having to preform a hatchet job on the list. --Kiwi-- Green in learning mode 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response

[quote]Unfortunately, whoever created it, the text I removed was unsuitable for an encyclopaedia ..snip.. should not be replaced at all without proper citations (in accord with WP:RS) and considerable revision. [/quote]

Well, what is done is done. Damage done is damage done. The losses are all of ours. -- Kiwi --Green in learning mode 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for Editors

For future arriving editors - Please clear all your proposed edits by first posting them to the talk page for comment and review. If you have any questions about anything, please ask on the talk page. When resource pages are linked to, please don't take any action until you have studied what is referred to and understand completely what it means. Never revert a deletion without understanding the ramifications of what you are doing.

In my reading over the past few months, I have found that a great number of Wiki admni pages of editing many and appropriate behavior guidelines repeatedly point out such things as these -

• that it is not necessary or mandatory to remove text that does not yet have citations. Learn how to add citation tags and the "needs citations" template
• that the talk page should be used to reach consensus
• that editors newer and less experienced should not be bitten, but rather treated with kindness and understanding, as you yourself would like to be treated
• that talk pages should be used to teach and explain as well as swap ideas
• that even if another editor says something to offend you, you should not wreak vengeance upon the offender when it causes inappropriate editing - go cool off, take a wiki-break
• that before significant deletions of recently added material, that are not due to vandalism, but come out of inexperienced editing, it it is helpful and appropriate to gently break the news on the talk page
• that Wiki operates on consensus and due process
• that when talk page discussion does not reach a satisfactory consensus, then there is a variety of human intervention resources that can dictate a proper conclusion

=However, all is overridden when what has been added is, rather than simply not appropriate or missing citations, but patently false or outright lies. In that case, immediate deletion.

==Teaching, mentoring and working cooperatively is not just a virtue, but, it seems, an inherent precept of Wikipedia aims and ends. One cannot become a truely representative Wiki editor when one's shoes remain too heavy and one's hands unyielding. I don't know 1/100% of what any half-way decent Wiki editor should know, but all these things above I have already learned. They aren't so much for the benefit of others, though, but for ourselves - to give us peace, happiness and a sense of satisfaction for a job well done and a job done well. With others. -- Kiwi -- Green in learning mode 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have to add some information: Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any edit lacking a source may be removed. Personally, I think that the tag "needs citations" is no good solution. Usually, there is nobody who will provide the source afterwards. --Sampi/€ 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I always regard the "needs citations" tag as a last call before deletion, not a semi-permanent measure.

I think it's vital that articles like Bullying and Workplace bullying cite verifiable academic sources because they are very serious issues, and I do not see how the average reader can take them as seriously as they should without verifiable academic sources.

Personally, when I do contribute to an article, I like to base that contribution on my source, which I have in front of me at the time so it is far easier to just put the citation in along with the text. --Zeraeph 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, I Thought The Troll Was Gone

Thought it was safe to try to contribute to this article again. Obviously not. This article has been destroyed. What a waste of everyones time. I suppose it's only fitting that a bully would target this article. Radyx 05:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just looking up another subject on Wiki and thought I'd look to see if the article still existed. There isn't much left now but I am amazed to see that my contribution on 'Law in the UK' is still here and just about intact. See you all next year. Justdignity 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

'Yes this article has been comprehensively trashed (together with many other articles such as bullying, NPD, mobbing etc etc) by Zeraeph of CPSU fame. A lot of hard work by myself and many other people has been wasted, trashed and trolled. Many people, including myself, have completely given up on contributing to Wikipedia. I am off to the new troll-free version of Wikipedia called http://citizendium.org due to have a public launch very soon. Zeraeph won't be allowed on Citizendium for sure.

--Penbat 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)