Psychological Abuse At The Workplace

DEFINING PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE AT THE WORKSITE

Psychological abuse in the workplace causes untold suffering and long-term damage to the targets.  Psychological abuse is a pattern of negative behaviour performed by a person or group of people who are in a position of power, though not necessarily legitimate power, that covertly attempts to single out and negatively affect an individual.

At work, individuals enter into a contract where they receive payment for services they have agreed to provide for the organisation.  In addition to their pay, workers expect the employer to provide a safe place to work relative to their occupation, clear direction on what is expected in return for their pay, and independence to carry out the set tasks free from unreasonable interference.

Negative actions targeted at one person seriously interfere with the work the individual is able to perform and the level of confidence the individual has in performing the work.  These negative actions include ostracising, marginalising, demeaning and intimidation tactics.  Taken in thoughtlessness in a stressful working environment.  However, the abuse continues over a long period of time and the negative actions are not isolated but repeated negative actions occur with relentless regularity and to some extent, predicability, on the part of the target.  In fact, the anticipation of the next bout of abuse becomes oppressive.  Furthermore, psychological abuse is very difficult to document and even more difficult to prove.  A great deal of the abuse involves non-verbal communication.  No tangible evidence exists.  When the target is asked:

Well, what is happening to cause such stress?

The answers are difficult to express.  Each answer seems trivial and pathetic.

• He ignored me and wouldn’t say "Good morning’
• She gave me a dirty look.
• I’ve heard rumours about me.

The abuser always has an explanation to cover any query about the target:

• She doesn’t really have the experience for the job.
• He is going through a pretty rocky patch in his marriage.
• She has a history of not staying in a job long.

• I can’t get anyone to stick at the job.  I just get them trained and they are gone.
• I end up having to cover for them.
• I can’t be expected to complete these tasks without people who can do the work.

These negative actions can be categorised as follows:

• Direct verbal communication such as name-calling, harsh criticism of outcomes, threats to job security, personal attack, incorrect information and ‘dressing down’.
• Indirect verbal communication such as gossip, slander and innuendo relayed to the individual.
• Non-verbal communication such as disparaging looks and noises, sarcastic/harsh tone of voice, offensive gestures, ignoring, ‘freezing out’, physically standing over another with the intention of intimidating, and thrusting or throwing articles towards an individual.
• Manipulation of the working environment such as withholding needed information, setting unreasonable deadlines, excluding from critical meetings, changing work schedules unfairly, failing to give due credit and retarding opportunities for promotion or higher pay.

Isolated incidents seem justifiable.  If each action is taken separately and out of context, it can probably be justified as legitimate workplace actions or intermittent human failing.  Although isolated intimidating actions causes distress and are not acceptable behaviour, when actions are targeted at an individual continually over a period of time the effect often overwhelms the target because there is no time between bouts to recover and rationalise the behaviour.  The negative actions do not necessarily conform to any rule or order, but over a period of time each negative action targeted at the individual contributes to a meaningful gestalt.  The negative actions occur frequently enough to maintain an intimidating atmosphere and confusion of the part of the target.

The perpetrator has some power to reward or punish the target.  This power may not be legitimate.  Frequently the target relies on the perpetrator for some reason such as supervision, appraisal, access to necessary information, or control of their work schedule.  Their power is not necessarily an officially higher position in the organisation.  Their power may come from their knowledge of the history of the organisation, their access to key information or personnel, their alliance with key personnel, or their control of some aspect of the work environment.  The perpetrator’s position of power often attracts supporters who mimic the actions of the perpetrator to remain ‘in favour’. Often these people are in the position of ‘gate keeper’ and can control access and information flow to the perpetrator.

The negative impact on individual is not easy to describe.  Before a meaningful pattern emerges, both for the individuals and the onlookers, the actions can appear legitimate.  An outsider may not even detect the actions as negative, because the actions are often so subtle or deceptive in intention that they escape recognition.  The individual may even take a while to recognise the pattern of negative actions and so continue to take the blame for causing the negative actions and so continue to take the blame for causing the negative action 

The actions have a purpose and a target.  The attempts take the form of ‘trial and error’ until they find a vulnerable mar.  They are directed at an individual with the intention of putting doubt into the individual’s mind about the validity and value of their attitudes, outcomes, performance, potential and worth in the future of the organisation.  The perpetrator these attempts in progress until they find an area of vulnerability, for example criticising a particular area of performance that the target has a history of success and praise for or inciting a deep fear.

The individual is chosen for a reason.  This reasons may include being new to the organisation, having higher qualifications than the rest of the group, or having innovative ideas.  The individual is targeted for special treatment such as scrutiny, exclusion and or debasement.  Other workers are not receiving the same treatment at the same level of treatment at the same time.  However, there is often of history of serial abuse in by the same abuser.  Some will have left the organisation.  Survivors who have stayed on often build survival techniques and will not get involved when they see abuse happening to another, at least not in the early stages.  The target becomes isolated from co-workers, both physically and emotionally.  When the target is isolated from co-workers, the chance of collaboration on the meaning of the negative actions diminishes leaving the individual believing he or she is the only person this has ever happened to and vulnerable to further negative actions.

The process of degradation becomes entrenched.  The target begins to believe that this abuse is warranted.  The target begins to doubt their worth in the organisation as they doubt their ability at the level intimated by the perpetrator.  The individual cannot compare his or her level of treatment or level of output with co-workers to gauge a realistic evaluation.  The inability to meet expectations becomes accepted as valid.  The target’s reaction to this doubt in self causes a range of destructive feelings ranging from general unhappiness loss of self-esteem, psychosomatic illness through to symptoms of depression and in some cases suicide.
 
Reproduced with the express permission of Robyn Mann (2000).

Return to Psychological Abuse In The Workplace by Robyn Mann