Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Premilla D'Cruz
Depersonalized Bullying
at Work
From Evidence to
Conceptualization
SpringerBriefs in Psychology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Typi-
cal topics might include:
• A timely report of state-of-the-art analytical techniques
• A bridge between new research results as published in journal articles and a
contextual literature review
• A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
• An in-depth case study or clinical example
• A presentation of core concepts that readers must understand to make independent
contributions
SpringerBriefs in Psychology showcase emerging theory, empirical research, and
practical application in a wide variety of topics in psychology and related fields.
Briefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publish-
ing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and
expedited production schedules.
Depersonalized Bullying
at Work
From Evidence to Conceptualization
13
Premilla D’Cruz
Organizational Behaviour
Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad
Gujarat
India
v
Contents
vii
viii Contents
Premilla D’Cruz holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences from the Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai, India, and is currently Professor of Organizational Behaviour
at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India, where she teaches Micro
Organizational Behaviour and Workplace Creativity. Dr. D’Cruz’s research inter-
ests comprise workplace bullying, emotions in organizations, self and identity at
work, organizational control, and ICTs and workplaces. Her studies on workplace
bullying in the Indian context have been pioneering both in terms of geographi-
cal location and substantive issues. Dr. D’Cruz’s research has been published in
reputed peer-reviewed international journals such as International Journal of Hu-
man Resource Management, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Information and
Organization, Industrial Relations Journal, New Technology, Work and Employ-
ment and Employee Relations as well as in several authored books. She has pre-
sented key note speeches at the 2010 Work, Employment and Society Conference
(WES—Brighton, UK) and at the 2012 Association of Industrial Relations Academ-
ics of Australia and New Zealand Conference (AIRAANZ—Gold Coast, Australia),
in addition to invited talks at Yale University and Cornell University in the USA. Dr.
D’Cruz has been a visiting research scholar at leading European and Australian uni-
versities and has been awarded (along with Ernesto Noronha) a number of multilat-
eral and bilateral research grants. She is currently the Secretary of the International
Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH).
ix
About the Book
xi
Chapter 1
The Significance of Understanding
Depersonalized Bullying at Work
The study of workplace bullying originated in Scandinavia in the 1980s with the
work of Heinz Leymann who used the term ‘mobbing’ to describe the phenome-
non (Einarsen et al. 2011; Leymann 1996; Zapf and Einarsen 2005). As a result of
his efforts, mobbing caught the attention of the Scandinavian public, researchers,
unionists and workplace health and safety personnel (Zapf and Einarsen 2005). It
was in the 1990s that interest in the subject began in the United Kingdom (UK)
following journalist Andrea Adams’s book and documentary on ‘bullying’ at work.
Publicity about Leymann’s and Adams’s work brought awareness to the issue of
workplace mobbing and bullying in various European countries such as Austria,
Hungary, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as well as in Australia (Einarsen
et al. 2011; Lewis et al. 2008). In the United States of America (USA, also referred
to as US), workplace bullying has received limited academic attention so far
(Lutgen-Sandvik 2005) and is only recently gathering momentum (Keashly and
Jagatic 2011), in spite of Brodsky’s report on workplace harassment published in
1976 (Einarsen et al. 2011). Concomitantly, empirical enquiries on workplace bul-
lying are now emerging from all parts of the world (Branch et al. 2013) including
the Asia-Pacific region (India, Japan, China, Singapore, New Zealand, to name a
few), Africa (South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria) and South America (Brazil, Uruguay,
Argentina, to name a few) as well as other European (France, Belgium, Spain,
Turkey, Greece, Poland, to name a few) and North American (Canada, Mexico)
nations (see, for example, Abe and Henly 2010; Ceja et al. 2012; Cooper-Thomas
et al. 2013; Cunniff and Mostert 2012; da Paixao 2012; Franco and Vasquez 2010;
Galanaki and Papalexandris 2013; MacIntosh et al. 2011; Power et al. 2013;
Sieglin 2012; Sims and Sun 2012).
Alternatively known as workplace mobbing, workplace harassment, workplace
victimization, workplace psychological terror, workplace aggression, workplace
incivility, emotional abuse at work and generalized workplace abuse (Branch
et al. 2013; Einarsen et al. 2011; Keashly and Jagatic 2011), workplace bullying
bullying are set. In other words, interpersonal bullying at work serves as the
conceptual benchmark for depersonalized bullying at work. Chapter 3 reports
two field-based enquiries on depersonalized bullying at work. Study I examines
the experiences of targets while Study II discusses the experiences of bullies.
Embedded in hermeneutic phenomenology (van Manen 1998) and conducted in
India, these enquiries point to ambivalence as targets’ and bullies’ response to their
interface with depersonalized workplace bullying. Both these studies go beyond
this finding to provide further insights into depersonalized bullying at work.
Harnessing the breadth and depth of the findings, Chap. 4 theorizes about dep-
ersonalized workplace bullying at two levels. First, it describes depersonalized
bullying in terms of source, manifestation, antecedents, course and consequences,
bringing in parity and facilitating comparison with interpersonal bullying. The dis-
tinctive character of depersonalized bullying is thus established. Second, it devel-
ops a theoretical framework of depersonalized bullying at work, integrating extant
knowledge and highlighting gaps and areas for further research. On both these
counts, Chap. 4 advances depersonalized bullying at work as an area of scholar-
ship. In closing, Chap. 4 proposes primary, secondary and tertiary prevention
activities derived from the base enquiries and their subsequent theorizing. Overall,
by progressing the concept of depersonalized bullying, this book provides indi-
cators by which researchers and practitioners in the field of workplace bullying
can more clearly differentiate between the two levels of the phenomenon and so
sharpen their respective pursuits of enquiry and intervention.
References
Abe, K., & Henly, S. J. (2010). Bullying among Japanese hospital nurses: Modeling responses to
the revised negative acts questionnaire. Nursing Research, 59(2), 110–118.
Beale, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Workplace bullying and the employment relationship: Exploring
questions of prevention, control and context. Work, Employment & Society, 25(1), 5–18.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harass-
ment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 280–299.
Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington: D.C. Health and Company.
Ceja, L., Escartin, J., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. (2012). Organizational contexts that foster
positive behaviour and well-being: A comparison between family-owned firms and non-fam-
ily businesses. Revista de Psicología Social, 27(1), 69–84.
Cooper-Thomas, H., Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M., Catley, B., Bentley, T., & Trenberth, L. (2013).
Neutralizing workplace bullying: The buffering effects of contextual factors. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 384–407.
Cunniff, L., & Mostert, K. (2012). Prevalence of workplace bullying of South African employ-
ees: Original research. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(1), 1–15.
Da Paixao, J. G. (2012). Regulating workplace bullying in Brazil: Considerations on regulatory
effectiveness. Paper Presented at the 8th International Conference on Workplace Bullying
and Harassment. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 14–16, 2012.
D’Cruz, P. (2012). Workplace bullying in India. New Delhi: Routledge.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2009). Experiencing depersonalized bullying: A study of Indian call
centre agents. Work Organization, Labour and Globalization, 3(1), 26–46.
References 5
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010a). The exit coping response to workplace bullying: The contri-
bution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Employee Relations, 32(2), 102–120.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010b). Protecting my interests: Target coping with workplace bully-
ing. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 507–534.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM
and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33(3),
269–288.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2012). Clarifying my world: Identity work in the context of work-
place bullying. The Qualitative Report, 17(6), 1–29.
D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Beale, D. (2014). The workplace bullying-organizational change
interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1434–1459.
Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001). The Negative Acts Questionnaire: Development, validation and
revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper Presented at the 10th European Congress
on Work and Organizational Psychology. Prague, Czech Republic, 16–19 May, 2001.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment
at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and harassment in the workplace (pp. 3–40). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men.
Violence and Victims, 12(3), 247–263.
Ferris, P. A. (2009). The role of the consulting psychologist in the prevention, detection, and cor-
rection of bullying and mobbing in the workplace. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 61(3), 169–189.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. (2005). Counterproductive work behaviour: An integration of both
actor and recipient perspectives on causes and consequences. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association/APA.
Franco, S., & Vásquez, A. (2010). Violence at work: When relationships at work become a risk.
Paper Presented at the 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment.
, UK: sCardiff, 2–4 June, 2010.
Galanaki, E., & Papalexandris, N. (2013). Measuring workplace bullying in organizations.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(11), 2107–2130.
Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial rela-
tions: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 44(2), 239–262.
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organizational effects of work-
place bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harass-
ment in the workplace (pp. 129–148). London: Taylor & Francis.
Jenkins, M., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Consequences of being accused of workplace
bullying: An exploratory study. International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
4(1), 33–47.
Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2006). Emotional abuse at work. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, &
J. Furrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 95–120). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviours and bully-
ing in work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harass-
ment in the workplace (pp. 41–74). London: Taylor & Francis.
LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the US workplace: Normative and process-ori-
ented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147–165.
Lewis, D., Sheehan, M., & Davies, C. (2008). Uncovering workplace bullying. Journal of
Workplace Rights, 13(3), 281–301.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.
Liefooghe, A. P., & MacKenzie-Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of
the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392.
6 1 The Significance of Understanding Depersonalized Bullying at Work
Manifestation
The sources of and visibility and forms through which interpersonal bullying at
work is demonstrated are varied. Though downwards bullying (from superior to
subordinate) is the most common source (Branch et al. 2013; Einarsen et al. 2011),
horizontal (between peers) (Einarsen et al. 2011), upwards (subordinate to supe-
rior) (Branch et al. 2007) and/or cross-level co-bullying (where peers and/or sub-
ordinates join superiors) (D’Cruz and Rayner 2012), involving a single or multiple
bully(ies) and target(s) (Lutgen-Sandvik 2006), are also reported. Instances of tar-
gets turning into bullies, termed as provocative victims by Olweus (2003), have
been documented, underscoring that exposure to negative acts can trigger bully-
ing as a ripple or reciprocal effect and blur the line between the two protagonists
(De Cuyper et al. 2009; Hauge et al. 2009). The direct, obvious and in-your-face
and/or indirect, subtle and behind-your-back manifestations (Bloch 2012; Samnani
2013) of bullying could be enacted privately and/or publicly (Lutgen-Sandvik
2006). Boundarylessness, concreteness, permanence, invisibility and anonym-
ity inhere within virtual/cyber forms of bullying, adding to the features it already
shares with real/traditional (face-to-face interactions in a physical site) bullying
Manifestation 9
(D’Cruz and Noronha 2013). Visibility and form have implications for the extent
to which bullying becomes a communal experience (Lutgen-Sandvik 2005) and
whether evidence of its enactment becomes available, complicating target coping
(D’Cruz and Noronha 2013; Samnani 2013).
Targets’ Experiences
subsume revenge and retaliation, gives targets a chance to regain control and to
enhance self-worth (Hauge et al. 2009; Jenkins et al. 2012; Lee and Brotheridge
2006), notwithstanding its negative dimension.
Bullies’ Experiences
Target Orientation
That interpersonal bullying at work involves the singling out, harassment and
victimization of an individual or a group of individuals, who experience extreme
adverse effects as a result, highlights the target orientation of the phenomenon.
That is, the bully’s aggressive behaviour is discriminatory, focusing on a spe-
cific individual or set of individuals who are negatively impacted, rather than
being generally applied across workplace colleagues who are thereby spared
from harm (Einarsen 2000; Einarsen et al. 2011). Indeed, the systematic identifi-
cation, intimidation and cornering of targets by bullies to the point of powerless-
ness and defencelessness mark the interpersonal bullying situation (D’Cruz 2012;
Einarsen et al. 2011). Achieving a sense of one-up-personship (Branch et al. 2007;
Jenkins et al. 2012), either for predatory or conflict-related reasons (Einarsen et al.
2011), is seen as the motive behind interpersonal bullying. Nonetheless, the issue
of intent remains controversial, with targets and bullies likely to differ on this
dimension (Einarsen et al. 2011; Zapf and Einarsen 2005). Perception and attribu-
tion of intent are significant in and integral to targets’ assessment of their experi-
ence. Targets are convinced that bullying is not accidental but purports to harm
them and this view clinches their labelling of the situation as abusive (Lutgen-
Sandvik 2005). Yet, it is almost impossible to verify bullies’ intent as the deniabil-
ity dynamic provides them with an effective cover (Rayner et al. 2002). Further,
even where the motive giving rise to bullying can be determined, it may be purely
instrumental in achieving the bully’s and/or the organization’s goal rather than
linked to unleashing harm towards the target (Einarsen et al. 2011; Zapf and
Einarsen 2005). Obviously, including both target and bully perspectives not only
showcases the complexity that inheres in an interpersonal workplace bullying situ-
ation but also allows for a balanced account of the phenomenon to inform inter-
vention (Bloch 2012; Jenkins et al. 2012).
Power
bullying takes place, being facilitated by issues of social affiliations, expert power,
target dependence/inadequacy, work group dynamics and so on (Branch et al.
2007, 2013). Yet, regardless of the formal workplace relationship, interpersonal
bullying contributes to the growing powerlessness of the target who over time per-
ceives himself/herself as having little or no recourse. That is, while initially tar-
gets may feel as strong as the bully, they gradually realize their weaker position,
ending up vulnerable and defenceless (Branch et al. 2013; Einarsen et al. 2011;
Zapf and Einarsen 2005). Interpersonal bullying is thus an interaction between two
unequally matched protagonists, indicating a sovereign conceptualization of power
as a zero-sum game (Lutgen-Sandvik 2005). Essentially, interpersonal bullying
involves the illegitimate use of personal power and the overstepping of widely
accepted limits of appropriate behaviour (Branch et al. 2007, 2013; Liefooghe and
Mackenzie-Davey 2001). Interestingly, emerging arguments counter this dichoto-
mous depiction, citing the dialectical character of power as evidenced in targets’
coping strategies. That is, while targets feel and describe their sense of impotence,
they simultaneously resist the bully even though these attempts may have lim-
ited and/or delayed outcomes (Lutgen-Sandvik 2005). Namie and Namie (2000)
point out that targets’ agency is empowering and central to feelings of control and
efficacy.
Temporality
Persistence, which includes both duration and repetition of hostile acts, has gener-
ally been associated with interpersonal workplace bullying. The length of bully-
ing appears to be closely related to the frequency of bullying, with those bullied
regularly reporting prolonged exposure (Einarsen and Skogstad 1996). It is this
persistence that sets interpersonal bullying apart from other misbehaviours at
work (Rayner et al. 2002) and gives it a corrosive nature (Lutgen-Sandvik 2005).
In terms of duration, bullying seems to move on a continuum from short-term to
long-lasting exposure to negative acts, with a 6-month time frame often being
used for the purpose of operationalization. The choice of temporal cut-off stems
from assessment procedures in psychiatric disorders which invariably result from
such a difficult and often traumatic experience (Einarsen et al. 2011; Zapf and
Einarsen 2005). Nonetheless, targets usually report that bullying continues beyond
the 6-month criterion (Lutgen-Sandvik 2005; Zapf et al. 2011). In terms of repeti-
tion, bullying is generally defined as habitual, patterned and systematic. Yet, while
an episodic recurrence of aggressive behaviours on a weekly basis is commonly
agreed upon, being bullied with even more regular frequency as well as being
subjected to a single severe bullying encounter experienced as a critical life event
are equally deserving of recognition (Einarsen et al. 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik 2005;
Zapf and Einarsen 2005). There is growing cognizance of the intensity of one-
off incidents, acknowledging the potential of a single extreme event to unleash
Temporality 13
Employer Organizations
Bystanders
Theoretical Frameworks
Interventions
References
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The preva-
lence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 438–452.
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying?
Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(3),
348–371.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Towards a three way model
of workplace bullying: A qualitative study. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 19(1), 1–16.
Beale, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Workplace bullying and the employment relationship: Exploring
questions of prevention, control and context. Work, Employment & Society, 25(1), 5–18.
References 17
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environ-
ments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21(3), 220–242.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of workplace
bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work and Stress, 23(4), 349–358.
Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial rela-
tions: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 44(2), 239–262.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester, UK:
Unpublished project report, Manchester Business School.
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organizational effects of work-
place bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harass-
ment in the workplace (pp. 129–148). London: Taylor & Francis.
Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 485–495.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2011). Individual consequences of workplace bul-
lying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and har-
assment in the workplace (pp. 107–128). London: Taylor & Francis.
Ironside, M., & Seifert, R. (2003). Tackling bullying in the workplace: The collective dimension.
In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace (pp. 382–398). London: Taylor & Francis.
Jenkins, M., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Consequences of being accused of workplace bully-
ing: An exploratory study. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 33–47.
Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the
accused bully’s perspective. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 489–501.
Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2006). Emotional abuse at work. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J.
Furrell (Eds.), Hand book of workplace violence (pp. 95–120). CA, Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Lee, D. (2001). Gendered Workplace Bullying in the Restructured UK Civil Service. Personnel
Review, 31(1/2), 205–222.
Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a
predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 352–377.
Lewis, D., & Rayner, C. (2003). Bullying and human resource management: A wolf in sheep’s
clothing? In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace (pp. 370–382). London: Taylor & Francis.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.
Liefooghe, A. P., & MacKenzie-Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of
the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse generation
and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4),
471–501.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2005). Water smoothing stones: Subordinate resistance to workplace bully-
ing. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona, Tempe, USA.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and …: quitting and other forms of resistance to work-
place bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406–433.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace bullying
trauma and stigmatization. Organization, 15(1), 97–119.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering five key questions about workplace bully-
ing how communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at
work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 3–47.
Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M., Lodewijkx, H., & Bolman, C. (2013). Workplace mobbing and
bystanders’ helping behaviour towards victims: The role of gender, perceived responsibility
and anticipated stigma by association. International Journal of Psychology,. doi:10.1002/i
jop.12018.
References 19
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim
your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). US workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consul-
tation interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 202–219.
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 239–249.
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-
analytic review. Work and Stress, 26(4), 309–332.
Olweus, D. (2003). Bully/victim problems in school. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 62–77). London: Taylor & Francis.
Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social
exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761–780.
Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology
of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
50(3), 351–366.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 7(3), 199–208.
Rayner, C. (1999). From research to implementation: Finding leverage for prevention.
International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 28–38.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to
blame and what can we do?. London: Taylor & Francis.
Saam, N. J. (2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 51–75.
Salin, D. (2009). Organizational Responses to Workplace Harassment. Personnel Review, 38(1),
26–44.
Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Organizational causes of workplace bullying. In H. Hoel, D. Zapf,
& C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Einarsen S (pp. 227–244). London: Bullying and harassment in the
workplace Taylor & Francis.
Samnani, A. K. (2013). ‘Is this bullying?’Understanding target and witness reactions. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 290–305.
Samnani, A. K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of
the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent
Behaviour, 17(6), 581–589.
Schwickerath, J., & Zapf, D. (2011). Inpatient treatment of bullying victims. In S. Einarsen, H.
Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (pp. 396–
421). London: Taylor & Francis.
Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Organizational changes: A precursor
of bullying at work? International Journal of Organization Theory and Behaviour, 10(1),
58–94.
Tehrani, N. (2011). Workplace bullying: The role of counselling. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D.
Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace (pp. 381–396).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Tehrani, N. (2012). Workplace bullying: Symptoms and solutions. London: Routledge.
Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves:
Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication
Quarterly, 20(2), 148–185.
VanHeugten, K. (2011). Theorizing active bystanders as change agents in workplace bullying of
social workers. Families in Society, 92(2), 219–224.
Vartia, M., & Leka, S. (2011). Interventions for the management of bullying at work. In H. Hoel,
D. Zapf, C. L. Cooper, & S. Einarsen (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace
(pp. 359–380). London: Taylor & Francis.
Yamada, D. (2011). Workplace bullying and the law: Emerging global responses. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace
(pp. 469–484). London: Taylor & Francis.
20 2 Interpersonal Bullying at Work as the Conceptual Benchmark …
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in organizations. In S. Fox
& P. Spector (Eds.), Counter productive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets
(pp. 237–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace
(pp. 177–200). London: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A rep-
lication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4),
497–522.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors and
job content, social work environment and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 215–237.
Chapter 3
Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying
at Work
Depersonalized bullying, where the organization is the bully due to the institu-
tionalization of negative behaviour as a means to organizational ends, is only
recently being acknowledged within the field of workplace bullying (D’Cruz
2012). As compared to interpersonal bullying at work which has been the sub-
ject of research for over 20 years (Branch et al. 2013; Einarsen et al. 2011;
Samnani and Singh 2012), very little is known about depersonalized bullying at
work other than its purpose, source, impersonal nature and organizational level
of analysis (D’Cruz and Noronha 2009; Liefooghe and Mackenzie-Davey 2001).
Experiences of protagonists, visibility, form, aetiological factors, issues of power
and temporality, bystanders, outcomes and interventions remain areas calling for
attention. Progressing knowledge on these fronts will take forward the concept
of depersonalized bullying, allowing for theorizing. Apart from scholarly motiva-
tion, the need to comprehend this phenomenon assumes urgency in the contem-
porary economic context where the race for competitive advantage predominates.
Given that depersonalized bullying comes to the fore in the pursuit of organiza-
tional effectiveness, it is expected that the use of abuse and intimidation charac-
terizes modern workplaces (D’Cruz 2012; D’Cruz et al. 2014). Further, insights
into depersonalized bullying become all the more relevant since such behaviour
is considered unethical and wrong (LaVan and Martin 2008; Ramsay et al. 2011).
A well-developed understanding of the concept, anchored in robust and rigorous
research, is the basis for sound applications that enhance benefits and minimize
adversities.
The empirical enquiries included in this chapter through their focus on target/
employee/recipient (Study I) and bully/supervisor/manager/implementer (Study
II) experiences seek to fulfil these aims. Each study is presented in terms of its
method and findings.
Method
Study I draws on a larger enquiry (Noronha and D’Cruz 2009) whose objective was
to explore employees’ subjective experiences of work in international-facing call
centres in Bangalore and Mumbai, India (call centres are a part of the Indian ITES-
BPO [Information Technology Enabled Services-Business Process Outsourcing])
sector, also known as the offshoring–outsourcing sector—see note1). Adopting van
Manen’s (1998) hermeneutic phenomenology as its strategy, the research purported
to grasp the essential structure of the meaning of participants’ experiences as they
were lived (van Manen 1998). Phenomenology derives from the Greek word ‘phe-
nomenon’ which means to show, to put into light or to manifest something that can
become visible in itself (Heidegger, as cited in Ray 1994). According to Bishop and
Scudder (1991), ‘phenomenology attempts to disclose the essential meaning of
human endeavours’ (p. 5). More specifically, the enquiry aimed at grasping the
basic structure of participants’ lived experiences of employment in the offshoring
industry. This reflected van Manen’s (1998) hermeneutic phenomenology which
1 The call centre industry in India is located within the country’s ITES-BPO sector which
encompasses the offshoring and outsourcing of such processes that can be enabled with informa-
tion technology (IT). This sector has demonstrated impressive and consistent growth over time,
even in spite of the 2008–2009 financial crisis. ITES-BPO export revenues grew from US$ 9.9
billion in 2007–2008 to US$ 17.8 billion in 2012–2013 and domestic revenues increased from
Rs. (Indian rupees) 88.7 billion in 2008–2009 to Rs. 167 billion in 2012–2013 (NASSCOM
[National Association of Software and Services Companies] 2013). Offshored services are pro-
vided by international-facing Indian and foreign MNCs (multinational corporations) who serve
overseas clients and customers located in developed countries especially the USA and the
UK whereas outsourced services are provided by domestic organizations who serve local clients
and customers (NASSCOM 2013). India remains the pre-eminent global destination for off-
shored business activities, offering an unparalleled cost savings advantage (NASSCOM 2013).
The availability of quality talent at cost effective rates, focus on optimal cost efficiency and cli-
ent-centricity, creation of a supportive ecosystem and maintenance of a scalable and secure envi-
ronment form central pillars of India’s offshoring value proposition (NASSCOM 2013). Though
higher-end services and knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) are part of the Indian ITES-BPO
industry, the main focus remains lower-end services embodying the mass-customized model
(Noronha and D’Cruz 2012), operationalized through call centres and back offices (NASSCOM
2013). India’s ITES-BPO workforce was calculated at 917,000 for international-facing jobs and
640,000 for domestic jobs (in the latter case, the figure includes IT and ITES-BPO jobs) in 2012–
2013 (NASSCOM 2013), the industry having become a significant avenue for employment espe-
cially for the country’s youth (NASSCOM 2013). Despite ITES-BPO employees being covered
by several labour laws as promulgated in various Indian states as well as in central legislations,
the popular view held in Indian society (and maintained and promoted by ITES-BPO employers,
aided by government apathy) is that Indian labour legislation and related institutional measures
do not apply here (D’Cruz and Noronha 2010c). On the contrary, the image of the workforce
in this sector is that of white-collared professionals (Noronha and D’Cruz 2009). As Taylor and
Bain (2005) assert, India remains attractive to companies who wish to capitalize on the possibili-
ties for flexible labour utilization and the absence of trade unions in the Indian ITES-BPO indus-
try facilitates this.
Study I: Target Experiences 23
accuracy was spelt out to them and its presence did not appear to hinder their
responses. During the interview, observations about the participants were made
and written up after the session ended. Data recorded on the audio cassette were
later transcribed verbatim by the research staff. Informed consent, voluntary par-
ticipation and confidentiality constituted the ethical protocol of the enquiry.
Fifty-nine agents, 25 from Bangalore and 34 from Mumbai, employed in a range
of international-facing call centres and serving overseas clients and customers, partic-
ipated in the study (see Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 for participants’ sociode-
mographic details). Thirty-nine worked in inbound processes, 12 in outbound
processes and 8 in both inbound and outbound processes. All participants were
employed at the entry level of the organization, having been with their current
employer from 1 month to 3.5 years and in the ITES-BPO sector upto 6 years. While
there were 29 women and 30 men whose ages ranged from 20 to 55 years, the largest
number of participants was in the 22–25 years age group. Forty participants were
unmarried and forty were graduates. The average monthly salary of participants was
approximately Rs. (Indian rupees) 12,900, based on a range of Rs. 8,000 to
Rs. 25,000 (see note2). None of the participants were members of any trade unions.
The treatment and analysis of data followed van Manen’s phenomenological
reflection which entailed clarifying and making explicit the structure of meaning of
the lived experience. Given that meaning is multidimensional and multilayered, van
Manen (1998) advocates the use of thematic analyses as themes touch the core of the
notion the researcher is trying to understand, helping him/her to make sense. Since
2 Using a conversion rate of Rs. 40 = US$ 1.00, participants’ average monthly salary is equal
to about US$ 320. With the monthly expenses for a middle class existence being approximately
US$ 280 in cities such as Bangalore and Mumbai, participants expressed great satisfaction with
their salaries.
Study I: Target Experiences 25
themes may not always completely unlock the enigmatic aspects of the experience,
related sub-themes including details and nuances may be required to provide a com-
prehensive picture. In the present study, themes were isolated through sententious
and selective approaches. In following the sententious approach (van Manen 1998),
each transcript was read as a whole to capture the basic meaning of participants’
experiences. That is, through a careful reading of the transcript, the fundamental
structure of the experience for the participant as evident from the complete text was
identified. With ‘being professional’ emerging from the entire contents of each tran-
script as the overarching dynamic that undergirded the whole range of participants’
complex experiences, it formed the core theme which depicted the essential meaning
of participants’ lived experiences at work (see note3). A selective approach (van
3 The core theme that portrayed the basic structure of agents’ experiences was ‘being profes-
sional’. The notion of professionalism embraced agents’ identity, altering their self-concept and
enhancing their self-esteem. According to agents, professionals possess superior cognitive abili-
ties, advanced qualifications and a sense of responsibility and commitment to work. They prior-
itize work over personal needs and inclinations, behaving in a dignified and restrained manner and
performing optimally and rationally while on the job. Professionals comply with job and organi-
zational requirements, absorbing emergent strain. Under such circumstances, not only do agents
perceive material gains accruing from their job as consistent with the notion of professionalism
but also transactional psychological contracts of employment as means of discipline are similarly
justified. Though resistance is displayed by some agents a few times, this is described as a tempo-
rary outlet to ease job-related strain, coexisting with professional identity—it is not an indicator of
anti-work or anti-employer sentiment. Indeed, agents’ professional identity precludes engagement
with collectivization attempts which are seen both as discrepant with the fundamental features of
professionalism and as redundant in instances where employers protect employee interests.
26 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
Manen 1998) was then undertaken where the text is read and examined for the
meaning of statements which are particularly revealing in relation to the essential
theme. Through this process, sub-themes, themes and major themes that contributed
to the core theme were discerned. That is, each transcript was perused repeatedly
and significant statements relating to and illustrating the various dimensions of the
essential theme were demarcated. Labels were assigned to these sub-themes and
later standardized across transcripts. Within each transcript, sub-themes were exam-
ined for their interrelationships. A comparison across transcripts was done to high-
light congruence in the sub-themes and their linkages across participants. Next,
across transcripts, those sub-themes that dovetailed together in meaningful yet dis-
tinct ways were developed into themes. At the following stage, transcripts were com-
pared to ascertain relationships across themes and those themes that held together
were formed into major themes. In this manner, the data analysis process allowed for
a progression from the idiographic to the nomothetic (Karson 2007).
A major theme closely associated with the core theme that emerged during the
analysis process was that of an ‘oppressive work environment’. Participants repeat-
edly referred to this term when describing their work context. At the same time, par-
ticipants emphasized mixed responses towards the oppressive work environment.
Miles and Huberman’s (1994) data analysis techniques were used to explore these
findings further. That is, through the use of various tools such as charts, matrices,
event lists, causal networks and memos (Miles and Huberman 1994), the researcher
identified related categories and patterns emerging from the data (Crabtree and
Miller 1992; Marshall and Rossman 1999). Linkages between these categories and
patterns were examined with the help of Miles and Huberman’s (1994) techniques
and interpretations were made such that sub-themes were developed (Patton 1990).
Further analysis via Miles and Huberman’s (1994) data analysis tools allowed for
interrelationships and interpretations to be formulated at the level of sub-themes
such that themes were identified (Crabtree and Miller 1992; Marshall and Rossman
1999; Patton 1990). In this manner, all the sub-themes that made up the themes and
all the themes that dovetailed together to constitute a major theme were discerned
and advanced (Crabtree and Miller 1992; Marshall and Rossman 1999; Patton
1990). In organizing the categories, patterns, sub-themes, themes and major themes,
the focus on their linkages did not compromise their singularity (Guba 1978) but
privileged their individual and joint meaningfulness (Patton 1990). Through such
a process, internal convergence and external divergence (Guba 1978), within the
nomothetic framework (Karson 2007), were maintained.
Methodological rigour was incorporated through prolonged engagement
(Lincoln and Guba 1985), sample comparison (Krefting 1991), reflexivity
(Krefting 1991) and peer debriefing and consensual validation (van Manen 1998;
Lincoln and Guba 1999). As a result, theoretical generalizability, which is an
important outcome of qualitative research (Thompson 1999), was realized.
While the major theme of an ‘oppressive work environment’ was indicative of
depersonalized bullying, participants’ mixed responses to this work context were
developed into the major theme of ‘bounded benefits’ which is presented and dis-
cussed below.
Study I: Target Experiences 27
Findings
Appreciating Benefits
Participants considered their professional identity and material returns from their
jobs to be significant gains that aligned with their aspirations for social mobility
and thereby added to their sense of well-being. They reported a high degree of sat-
isfaction with their work-related benefits.
Describing themselves as professionals, agents took great pride in this identity. In
their view, professionals possess superior cognitive abilities, advanced qualifications
and a sense of responsibility and commitment to work such that they perform
optimally and rationally and behave in a dignified and restrained manner while on
the job as well as prioritize work over personal needs and inclinations, regardless of
the nature of organizational requirements and demands and of the ensuing strain.
Recognizing that professional identity is greatly valued as a symbol of social status
and upward mobility in the Indian context (see note4), participants capitalized on
this sense of self even though they had liberal arts/science/commerce backgrounds
which neither fall within the purview of professionalism nor automatically qualify
them for any skill-specific job (see note5). For agents, their professional identity was
a coveted possession that they would preserve and retain at all costs. The effects of
professional identity on participants’ self-concept and self-esteem were palpable.
We are basically professionals, devoted to our work and our companies. That is what a
professional is …someone company can depend on, someone who will always put work
first. You see these factory workers, they are so irresponsible…we are educated, trained,
disciplined…society respects us.
4 Notwithstanding the stereotype that Indian culture is collectivist, humanist and spiritual, the
co-occurrence of individualism, personalized and identity-based interactions and materialism
bring in complexity. In spite of their other-oriented and other-worldly stances, Indians pursue
individual interests, favour hierarchical and in-group relationships linked to categories such as
ethnicity, gender, caste, class, region, religion, age, ordinal position, etc., and value power, sta-
tus, success and security. Religious beliefs, social contagion and a resource poor environment
account for these contradictory dynamics (see Beteille 2006; Kakar and Kakar 2007; Sinha
2008).
5 It is important to acknowledge that participants are not professional by training or task. Their
simplified, standardized and routinized jobs do not entail expertise, autonomy and licensing and
are not characterized by authority, influence, regulation and a code of ethics, all of which are
hallmarks of true professions (Abbott 1988; Freidson 1983; Hughes 1963). Yet, the notion of
professionalism is invoked by employers as a means of socioideological control (Evetts 2003;
Fournier 1999). Harnessing the prized attributes of professionalism which cohere with the per-
ceived white-collared nature of call centre work and which are highly rated in India’s materi-
alistic society, employers engage this notion to regulate employee identity and circumscribe
employee behaviour.
6 Insights into the core theme of ‘being professional’ were deepened through in-depth interviews
conducted with 40 call centre managers in Bangalore and Mumbai, all employed with interna-
tional-facing call centre organizations. Transcripts, derived from the interview data (that were
audio-recorded with permission), were analyzed using Miles and Huberman’s (1994) techniques
and major themes (through related categories, patterns, sub-themes and themes) were developed
and interpretations were made (Patton 1990). Managerial perspectives supported the core theme,
showing that the notion of professionalism was used a tool to rein employee identity within the
ambit of socioideological control in order to ensure employee conformity and fulfil organiza-
tional goals.
Study I: Target Experiences 29
professionals neither required nor should be linked with trade unions. They opined
that employees who were vulnerable due to lack of skill and employees who
shirked work needed these associations to protect them. Moreover, in instances
like theirs where employer organizations look after employee interests, unions
had no role to play. Such initiatives were relevant in workplaces where employee
well-being was being compromised and where basic facilities including redressal
avenues were absent or dysfunctional.
Participants stated that collectivization in the Indian ITES-BPO sector would
not augur well for its continuity and success. Currently, overseas clients appreci-
ated India as an offshoring destination not just because of the superior workforce
but also because of the macroeconomic business environment of the country.
Collectivization would pose a serious hindrance to this conducive context, result-
ing in relocation of offshoring to other places in South and South-East Asia and
South America. Such a development had microlevel consequences for agents as
employment prospects would be severely and adversely affected. It is no surprise,
then, that participants disregarded co-worker mobilization and were neither aware
of the existence of nor inclined towards being part of any trade unions in India’s
ITES-BPO sector.
Unions will be doom. See in other industries how unions have made things slow. Here,
there is no union, so it is all smooth. That’s why these foreign clients are coming. If we
start unions then they will pack off. And for what we need unions anyway? It is a profes-
sional company, so everything is taken care (of) well.
Agents’ position suits their employers. From agents’ narratives and manage-
rial interviews, it appeared that employers take pains to nurture this stand.
Cultivating agents’ professional identity is an important step in this direction.
Organizations then build on agents’ self-concept, highlighting the disconnect
between professionalism and collectivization which is strongly linked with blue-
collared work in the Indian context. Providing paths for grievances supports
organizations’ claims, promoting the view that co-worker mobilization and trade
unions are redundant under the circumstances. That employer organizations do
not recognize unions further complicates the perspective meted out to agents.
Agents were told by their employers that their ties with such associations could
result in them being dismissed from their jobs. Finally, organizations’ emphasis
that collectivization endeavours would hamper the growth of the Indian ITES-
BPO sector, with implications for employment opportunities, seals agents’ opin-
ions on the matter.
For what do we need unions? Professionals do not need unions. Unions are for factories
where workers are weak. Here we are all educated and independent. So what for a union?
And modern companies, they see to all aspects, so they will not tolerate all this. Our man-
agers and seniors have told us from the start that there cannot be unions here – if we join a
union, we will be chucked out of the job.
in financial and material forms such as gift vouchers, clothes and accessories,
movie and entertainment tickets, landline phone sets, cordless phone sets, mobile
handsets, iPods, DVD (digital versatile disc) players, etc. Various allowances such
as food allowance and night shift allowance (for those working in the night shift)
as well as transport facilities and medical/health services (including a doctor, a
counsellor and a nutritionist on call) formed part of the deal.
Given the limited employment opportunities for those with a liberal arts/sci-
ence/commerce degree as well as the poor compensation at the entry level in
many technical/professional fields, it is not surprising that the ITES-BPO sector
is widely regarded as the most viable means currently available to achieving a
decent quality of life. Those who had prior work experience in other industries,
which paid meagrely, compared the remuneration received from both the sec-
tors, highlighting in the process the reasons why the ITES-BPO industry was so
much sought after in spite of the challenges it presented. Participants emphasized
the sense of independence and self-reliance that their income allowed them, dem-
onstrating changes in their self-concept. Clearly, the ITES-BPO sector, especially
global offshoring, has altered India’s job market.
But again you know, something like this, probably 5 years ago, when graduates used to
come out of the colleges, what was there? Nothing. People got Rs. 2,000–3,000. Today, an
ITES professional, he will be earning not less than Rs. 10,000 a month. It’s a big amount
and especially for people as young as 22 and 23 years of age.
People can earn here. You will get salary, you will allowance for food, for night shift, you
will incentives if you meet the targets – like you could get cash or vouchers, event tickets,
iPods. Then the office is good. They give lots of facilities like canteen, internet, games.
triggering in agents favourable self-comparisons with people in the West and with
Indian information technology (IT) professionals. Moreover, agents considered
themselves to be superior to employees in India’s government and public sectors
and traditional manufacturing and service industries.
Participants’ benefits strengthened their compliance with job demands and their
commitment to the employer organization. This was so because participants were
well aware that such gains were not available in other sectors of the economy, and
hence, it was in their interests to meet work requirements in order to safeguard the
continuity of their own employment and of the ITES-BPO industry.
Recognizing Boundaries
7 The reader must note the distinction between clients and customers. Clients are entities seek-
ing services from India-based/Indian service providers while customers are the clients’ service
recipients who by virtue of being served by the agents/employees of the service provider are also
referred to by the latter as customers.
Study I: Target Experiences 33
seen as responsible for their oppressive work environment and experience of dep-
ersonalized bullying.
For everyone’s good, we have to go by the SLA. Clients come to India for profits and call
centres must guarantee this. Otherwise, they can go to other places and who will lose?
The company and I. So all the call centres just do what the client says. The managers do
not care for anything else.
While agents were engaged in different inbound and outbound processes, their
descriptions of their jobs underscored the performance of simplified, routinized
and standardized tasks, driven by stringent technology-linked quantitative and
qualitative criteria of service delivery, as stated in the SLAs. Agents functioned
within the mass-customized model (Batt and Moynihan 2002; Frenkel et al. 1998),
with job design elements that involved little complexity, variety and autonomy
but called for completion of high volumes and provision of good quality service.
Failure to meet the employer organization’s expectations based on client stipula-
tions resulted in punishments, ranging from warnings, retraining and suspension
to termination and dismissal. With termination and dismissal being used even in
cases of confirmed employees, the primacy of transactional psychological con-
tracts of employment (Rousseau 1995) was evident.
In order to meet client specifications, employer organizations created 8–9 hour
shifts with two 15-minutes breaks and one 30-minutes break and 5-day work
weeks. Since customers were located in the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia,
employer organizations developed work shifts to match the relevant time zones.
This translated not only in agents having to work during the Indian night but also
going through periodic changes in their work timings as shifts rotated fortnightly
or monthly. Participants worked in teams, headed by a TL, and were required to
report half an hour before their assigned shift for team meetings. During these meet-
ings, TLs indicated daily requirements, shared updates, provided individual and
team feedback and attempted to energize the team besides checking the function-
ing of work-related equipment and technology. Participants’ adherence to shift tim-
ings was recorded via login and logout data. Participants mentioned how such strict
observation of time meant that they could not log out of their systems or leave their
seats even to go to the restroom (if it was an emergency, they had to seek permission
from the TL to do so). During phases when call volumes were high or targets were
not being met, agents were made to stretch such that they took back-to-back calls
and had to forfeit or shorten breaks and/or work beyond shift hours or on weekly/
public holidays. Quite often, agents received no overtime for the work put in.
Even though they say 9 hours of work, it is never 9 hours. You put in 10 hours, 12 hours,
etc. After 9 hours of work, I have to meet my superiors, submit reports and all. So it will
all come to 12 hours of work. When I reach home 3 hours after work, there won’t be any
time for other things.
You cannot take a breather. Basically, you are tied down—until you have your break, you
have to take the calls. There will be calls one after another. There is no breather some-
times. You don’t even know who is sitting next to you. It is stressful. You cannot ask for a
break because calls are waiting. You have to finish your job. And everything is logged in
that system – our time in, our time out, our schedule.
34 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
This pervasive technology-based monitoring and surveillance did not spell the
end of human supervision. TLs, stationed at a central point on the call floor, were
always in a position to oversee the operations and keep an eye on the agents, in
addition to having a master screen on their computers which tracked and high-
lighted in real time the ongoing work of each individual member in the team.
Supervisors and managers routinely resorted to abusive and aggressive tac-
tics to ensure the fulfilment of the SLAs. Agents were pulled up privately and/
or publicly individually and/or in groups either for poor performance or for per-
formance enhancement. Anger, insults, threats, name-calling, labelling and other
negative behaviours featured prominently. Though participants acknowledged
that such experiences were harsh and upsetting, causing them emotional distress,
they asserted that superiors’ behaviour was both involuntary in that the latter had
no choice but were merely doing their jobs and impersonal in that the latter were
not targeting any particular agent but behaving similarly with the entire group.
Participants, while admitting how SLAs impacted them, emphasized that their
employer organizations were just enacting the SLAs, and hence, no particular
person in the workplace was considered to be responsible for the experience of
oppression. On the contrary, the dynamics of doing business in a globalized world
36 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
tangible and intangible returns for similar qualifications, and hence, their career
choices were limited to the options available here. But even within this industry,
a hierarchy of alternatives operated. Rating international-facing organizations as
superior to domestic organizations within the sector in terms of compensation
and workplace facilities, participants described varying degrees of task-linked
demands contingent upon the particular process but pointed out commensurate dif-
ferences in remuneration. Though call centres ranked above back offices in this
scheme of categorization, distinctions within the former were also made. Thus, US
processes involving ‘graveyard shifts’ and outbound processes involving telemar-
keting and collections were considered to be the toughest but also the best paying
because of higher allowances and more incentives while UK and Australian pro-
cesses and inbound processes were seen as relatively easier in terms of temporal
adjustments and process-related targets but came with lower returns.
Participants maintained that exiting this industry was an option only if they got
opportunities of the same type in other sectors or if they improved their qualifica-
tions and so moved to better positions in other industries. Otherwise, they were
left with intra-sectoral transitions across international-facing organizations and the
choice of these were determined by their individual circumstances including mon-
etary requirements, marital and family commitments, health issues, etc.
You cannot do much – move to different call centres, go to day-time shifts like UK or
Australia (processes), maybe go to a back office. Otherwise, do your MBA (Master of
Business Administration) or something like that and go to (a) different industry. It is a
trap situation – you will not get this salary at other places. So what to do? People pull on
somehow … where is the choice?
Handling Misgivings
The contradictions arising from the concomitance of the receipt of benefits and
of the experience of depersonalized bullying triggered qualms in participants. On
the one hand, agents took pride in and derived satisfaction from their professional
identity and material returns, seeing them as symbols of social status and upward
mobility. On the other hand, agents recognized both their stringent and hostile
organizational context and its inextricable link with their gains. They admitted
how the difficult challenges of their oppressive work environment precipitated
adverse physical and mental effects in them. With well-being and strain thus coex-
isting, participants reported a sense of discomfort arising from conflicting experi-
ences that were inevitable if their current benefits had to continue.
Focusing on long-term goals and aspirations, emphasizing positive aspects of
their experiences, considering work-related demands to be an unavoidable part of
their gains and invoking their professional identity were the mechanisms by which
participants coped with the situation.
Participants stated that jobs in the Indian ITES-BPO sector were means to a bet-
ter quality of life and social status. The tangible and intangible returns accruing from
these jobs cohered with participants’ objectives of securing a decent and comfortable
38 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
professionalism while also knowing fully well that if their employers discovered
their behaviour, they would be dismissed.
Team members are all good friends. We will be talking about a good topic. In the midst of
the topic, some call comes. By the time I finish the call, the topic will be over and I miss the
conversation. So we play some tricks. If we disconnect the call, what happens is that if
the call gets monitored, it becomes a serious issue. Better than that, do a double click, you
are now the last person in the queue…One can at least get some breathing time that way.
Method
Study II aimed at understanding managers’ subjective experiences of implement-
ing a downsizing programme through a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) in
a private sector manufacturing firm (henceforth also referred to as Company E)
located in an industrial city in India. Adopting van Manen’s (1998) hermeneutic
phenomenology as its strategy, the research purported to grasp the essential struc-
ture of the meaning of participants’ experiences as they were lived (van Manen
1998). Phenomenology derives from the Greek word ‘phenomenon’ which means
to show, to put into light or to manifest something that can become visible in itself
(Heidegger, as cited in Ray 1994). According to Bishop and Scudder (1991), ‘phe-
nomenology attempts to disclose the essential meaning of human endeavours’
(p. 5). More specifically, the enquiry sought to grasp the basic structure of par-
ticipants’ lived experiences of an organizational change effort. This reflected van
Manen’s (1998) hermeneutic phenomenology which studies the world as it is
experienced pre-reflectively rather than as it is conceptualized, focusing on the
structure of meaning of the experience for the individual, and hence, this approach
was chosen. Van Manen (1998) portrays the methodical composition of phenom-
enology as a dynamic interplay between six research activities. According to
him, the researcher turns to a phenomenon which seriously interests him/her and
commits himself/herself to this abiding concern. The single-mindedness of pur-
pose results in full thinking and deep questioning so that life can be understood
wholly. The experience is investigated as it is lived rather than as it is conceptual-
ized. In other words, the attempt is to renew contact with the original experience
and to become full of it. The researcher then reflects on the essential themes that
distinguish the phenomenon. A true reflection on lived experience is a thoughtful
grasping of what renders it special. The fourth activity is describing the experience
through the art of writing and rewriting. Language and thought need to be applied
to lived experience such that a precise depiction is made. In order to achieve all
of this, the researcher must ensure a strong orientation to the fundamental ques-
tion underlying the enquiry so as to maintain direction and to come out with valid
findings. He/she also needs to balance the research context by considering parts
and wholes; that is, he/she must constantly measure the overall design of the study
against the significance that the parts play in the total structure.
40 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
Van Manen’s (1998) conversational interview was used to explore and gather
experiential narrative material that would serve as a resource for developing a
richer and deeper understanding of the experience being studied. Though unstruc-
tured, the process was disciplined by focusing on the fundamental question that
prompted the enquiry. The clarity of the research question did not preclude explor-
ing issues that emerged during the interview, since the researcher was aware that
they could generate important insights into the phenomenon under study. The
mandate of the interview was to capture participants’ immediate pre-reflective
consciousness as self-given awareness that belongs to and is possessed by him/her
rather than as something that is perceived or represented or exists apart from the
self. In this manner, the researcher explored participants’ original experience in its
full richness, depth and totality.
Participants were selected through two stages. Initially, the HR (human
resource) department of Company E identified a group of managers from differ-
ent functional areas and various levels of the organizational hierarchy (including
HR managers) who had been involved in the change endeavour. These potential
participants were approached by the HR department to ascertain their willingness
to contribute to the study. Those who agreed were put in touch with the researcher.
Sampling could be described as nominated but voluntary.
The research interviews were conducted in English at Company E’s premises.
In keeping with participants’ preferences, interviews were manually recorded.
That is, during the interviews, points discussed were noted in brief by the
researcher. After writing up the discussions in detail following each interview,
the narratives were shared with participants for their comments. Corrections for
accuracy and approval of contents were completed. Observations made during the
course of the interview were maintained as field notes. Informed consent, volun-
tary participation and confidentiality were adhered to as part of the ethical protocol
of the study.
Twelve managers from Company E were included in the enquiry. Participants
were all men whose ages ranged from 34 to 59 years and who had been with the
organization from 4 to 29 years. Apart from two participants who were graduates,
the rest held postgraduate qualifications. Whereas seven participants were HR
managers, administration, commercial services and finance were the others’ spe-
cializations. Participants belonged to different levels of the organizational hierar-
chy (see Table 3.8 for participants’ sociodemographic details).
The treatment and analysis of data followed van Manen’s phenomenological
reflection which entailed clarifying and making explicit the structure of mean-
ing of the lived experience. Given that meaning is multidimensional and mul-
tilayered, van Manen (1998) advocates the use of thematic analyses as themes
touch the core of the notion the researcher is trying to understand, helping him/
her to make sense. Since themes may not always completely unlock the enigmatic
aspects of the experience, related sub-themes including details and nuances may
be required to provide a comprehensive picture. In the present study, themes were
isolated through sententious and selective approaches. In following the senten-
tious approach (van Manen 1998), each narrative was read as a whole to capture
Study II: Bully Experiences 41
the basic meaning of participants’ experiences. That is, through a careful read-
ing of the narrative, the fundamental structure of the experience for the partici-
pant as evident from the complete text was identified. With ‘unsettled satisfaction’
emerging from the entire contents of each narrative as the overarching dynamic
42 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
Findings
Work Context
Company E’s strategy for survival was finalized and adopted after much delibera-
tion based on a well-considered anticipation of positive outcomes. Acceptance and
enactment of this plan by all managers was undisputed, with individual interests
being tied in. Participants were no exception here, and hence, the implementation
of the VRS proceeded as per organizational requirements.
Once the VRS was announced, about 700–800 employees immediately came
forward to avail of it. Employees who voluntarily opted to separate from the com-
pany requested for some changes in the package which were acceded to. That is,
while the initial scheme gave a lumpsum payment, employees indicated a pref-
erence for monthly payments as well as some concessions for housing, electric-
ity and training for themselves and/or their children and these wishes were looked
into and accommodated. Sometimes, when increments were asked for, such
appeals were also conceded. This initial scheme came to be known as Scheme 1
and is depicted in Fig. 3.1. Assistance and advice about investments was given
during the process of separation. Personnel from financial institutions (including
banks) were called to show the separating employees how best they could manage
their money.
Employees who chose the VRS of their own volition were those with employ-
ability, that is, skilled and able-bodied people who were confident of getting
alternative jobs. Employees who resisted the VRS were guided by not just the
profit-making position of Plant A and the general reluctance of the government to
permit closures but also their interrelatedness in that productive units are unlikely
to be shut down. Comprised of people with liabilities, poor employability and/or
doubts about the avenues (and related effects) available to them, concerns about
status and identity also played a role.
When the scheme was launched, (a) number of workers jumped at it. These people
thought that they would get the benefit from here and plus get another job or do some
business, so get (the) best from two places. So the initial part was easy. Then there was
a slow down. Workers were not convinced ki (that) profit-making unit bandh kaise hoga
(how a profit-making unit can be closed down).
After this first group of 700–800 employees who selected the VRS route of their
own accord, the momentum stalled, putting pressure on Company E to evolve
mechanisms appropriate to its realization. That is, notwithstanding the support
of the union in the endeavour, employees asserted their independent stand, main-
taining an adamant position against exiting the organization. From this juncture
onwards, managers responsible for executing the VRS had to expend consider-
able effort to get the remaining group to separate from the company. Given both
organizational imperatives and individual predicaments, depersonalized bullying
46 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
1. Under Scheme 1:
a. Employee of 50+ years: 75 % of last drawn monthly salary payable per month upto 60
years.
b. Employee less than 50 years: 75 % of last drawn monthly salary payable per month for
72 months.
2. Under Scheme 2:
a. Employee of 50+ years: 100 % of last drawn monthly salary payable per month upto
60 years.
b. Employee less than 50 years: 100 % of last drawn monthly salary payable per month
for 72 months.
b. Medical benefits after 60+ years: For self and spouse, as per rules for retiring
employees.
Managers had to resort to various strategies to convince workers who were unwill-
ing to take part in the scheme, to opt for separation from the organization. Though
an entire cohort of employees had to go, managers sought to facilitate their task
by shortlisting those with poorer records or stronger grounds such that convincing
Study II: Bully Experiences 47
Though the history of positive ties helped managers in approaching and interact-
ing with the employees companionably initially, organizational expectations cou-
pled with individual interests and employee resistance rendered such endeavours
redundant. Participants ended up bullying employees, putting down their reliance
on such tactics to a lack of alternatives.
Our approach was very frank and undiplomatic. We left behind all professional ethics. We
accepted it as a professional hazard. ___and I were the focus of the VRS. We managed the
role by dominating the workers. We would go to the plant everyday from 7 am to 8 pm,
with ready reckoners to answer their questions and we would force them to take VRS.
Participants shared that they would intimidate employees. Apart from screaming
and threatening, participants would humiliate and insult employees individually
and/or jointly and publicly and/or privately on numerous occasions over a period
of time. Abuse and force pervaded the separation process.
There was nothing voluntary about it. Voluntary cases were rare. In 90 % of the cases, we
forced them. But we never thought that we were doing anything wrong because we had to
save the company.
worked and did not require implementation in some cases, they were translated
into action and proved successful in others.
In the case of clerical staff, we forced them (to take the VRS) by threatening to transfer
them to the canteen. They got convinced in two sittings.
They were told to come and take VRS. When they refused, we told them they would be
discharged and dismissed and they would get less money than (what they would get) if
they took VRS.
Insults followed threats in terms of frequency of use. Participants would find some
flaw in the employee(s) they were speaking to and anchored their tirade here.
Referring to this shortcoming as the employee’s Achilles heel, participants used
it to their advantage in wearing down the latter. To elaborate, the implications of
the participant’s faults were linked to individual and organizational performance
and questions about commitment and continuity were raised. In so highlighting the
participant’s worthlessness, the case for his exit from the organization was built up.
One person had made (an) error some years back. We spoke only about it, about his care-
lessness. We called him untrustworthy, unreliable…(we) refused to listen to him.
Employees’ responses to managers varied, ranging from stoic listening and defiant
silence to seeking clarification regarding doubts and arguing. Where employees
kept quiet, managers ranted on till the former gave in. Where employees spoke up,
silencing them, ignoring their questions and comments and directing attention to
the organization’s perspective were resorted to. That there was no room for nego-
tiation was made clear to employees.
Participants admitted that they ‘chipped away’ at employees’ self-respect and
peace of mind, cornering them to the point that their resolve caved in. Regard for
means and background was set aside. At the same time, participants emphasized
that their behaviour arose in the line of duty and was not motivated by any per-
sonal differences. Speaking of the influence of macroeconomic forces, participants
underscored that the organizational focus on survival foreclosed their choices.
With the agenda of competitiveness being the essential trigger, participants’ bully-
ing tactics did not embody any singling out of targets.
(It was a) job for us, we did it. We had nothing against them – they were our friends all
this time. But company had to survive, so we did what we had to … went after them till
they signed.
Apart from the aforementioned reactions that took place during face-to-face inter-
actions, some employees assumed aggressive positions, attacking, abusing and/
or threatening participants and/or their families within and/or outside organiza-
tional premises. Notwithstanding the consequent fear felt by some participants,
managers considered employees’ retaliation to be a natural fallout of the ongo-
ing situation linked to their execution of organizational goals and hence took its
accompanying discomfort in their stride.
One guy tried to stop my car. Two guys hid in a bush in my (residence) compound and
threw stones at me.
My wife got threatening calls with very abusive language. I told her to answer in the same
manner.
Study II: Bully Experiences 49
Participants reported that hostile and intimidating measures wore out quite a
few employees who ended up accepting the VRS. But their move came only
after Company E had augmented the VRS package to make it more attractive
and induce more workers to avail of it (see Fig. 3.1, Scheme 2). At this junc-
ture, another 700–800 employees took the VRS. While this development cohered
with organizational objectives, internal equity emerged as a point of controversy.
Employees who opted for the first scheme (i.e., Scheme 1) felt cheated and held
dharnas (demonstrations) and agitations to show their displeasure, aggravating the
already soured employer–employee relationship. Managers acknowledged that the
decision to move from Scheme 1 to Scheme 2 was a mistake.
VRS benefits should decrease with time because people who take it first should get some
benefit out of it – after all, those who take it later are anyway getting their salary for a
longer period of time. But in the company, those who took VRS first got lower benefits
than those who took it later. They were very upset and we were speechless. It was a mis-
take to increase it.
As well as having to tackle the fury of this first group (who had accepted
Scheme 1), participants had to face greater complications in the stand of the 1,000
surplus employees in line for separation. Not only did this latter set of people
maintain their hope the government would not grant permission for closure, but
they also speculated that deferment was preferable as improvements to the VRS
benefits were likely to be made over time.
Managers implementing the VRS programme continued to rely on bullying
and abusive behaviours. The government permission to close Plant A, granted at
Time 3 some months later, played an important role in the management–employee
relationship at Company E since the latter then realized that the management had
not lied to them. The shutdown of Plant A helped to restore the credibility of the
management. A month after the closure order, another 700–800 employees availed
of the VRS either through force or persuasion. As a goodwill gesture, Company
E then extended the VRS for another 6 months so as to allow the unwilling 352
employees of Plant A to take advantage of the benefits. However, it simultaneously
served them with retrenchment notices. The employees, on their part, approached
the High Court (of the state where Company E was located) challenging the gov-
ernment’s permission to shut down Plant A and demanding an upgrade of the pre-
sent VRS package (i.e., Scheme 2) offered by the company. Managers were of
the opinion that if the case lingered for a long period of time, about 220 of these
remaining employees would opt for VRS since their financial conditions were
weak. The rest who were economically strong were expected to keep up with their
wait. Over time, 70–80 people from this group relented and the management of
Company E allowed them to choose the VRS route.
Company never defaulted on procedures – that was our ethos from (the) very beginning.
So when (the) government issued closure orders, workers were shocked. But then they
realized that bhai company has not lied to us. So even those who had left earlier and even
those who were still on rolls felt that we had not lied. Many of the workers who were
resisting VRS came of their own will to avail. And company said that ok, instead of clo-
sure benefits, give VRS.
50 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
That participants were upset on both personal and professional fronts due to job-
related circumstances was attributed to their value systems. Participants’ prin-
ciples privileged integrity, honesty, transparency, consistency, sensitivity and
Study II: Bully Experiences 51
compassion. Permeating all areas of their lives, these standards led participants
to choose employers with similar cultures allowing for a seamless link between
themselves and their workplaces such that their true selves could be brought into
the organization. Indeed, in executing their tasks so far, participants had felt no
gap between their beliefs, the organizational ethos, their personal self and their
professional standpoint. Ongoing events in the employer organization radically
altered this comfortable situation, with participants experiencing variance between
their workplace cultures and their individual values such that personal and profes-
sional quandaries emerged.
Professional puzzles circled around issues of how business should be conducted
and how employees should be dealt with. Participants mulled over maintaining con-
tinuity in principles notwithstanding the vagaries of the economy and of organiza-
tional effectiveness, emphasizing that change called for the observation of ethical
protocols. Personal perplexities included issues of self-definition and interpersonal
relationships. In addition to concerns about how people should be treated, existential
questions about the self vis-à-vis individual survival, others’ livelihood, employer
imperatives, business requirements, social interaction and value systems arose.
Suddenly, everything was different. We had come to this company because we liked its
values … we and (the) company stood for same principles. But in this situation, we were
lost. (The) company had another priority – which was not wrong – but we had to answer
our conscience. (At the) same time, keep our jobs, see to our families. So how to do this
while being the same person, the same manager, the same colleague?
Matters linked to authority, power and ethics came to the fore. Unanimous in their
stand that the engagement of abuse, aggression, hostility and force was wrong,
participants questioned their use of their positions. Their authority as managers
afforded them power but did exercising their influence in the service of the organi-
zation absolve them of the responsibility to be decent human beings and morally
upright professionals? Doubts such as these contributed to participants’ disequilib-
rium and turmoil.
We had to deliver, we had to save the company. But means to the end is also important.
Just because you are a manager, you have a position, can you misuse that? There are no
easy answers for this, you know.
Interestingly, one manager admitted that, during the initial implementation of the
VRS, the feeling of power that came with the performance of such a role was an
enjoyable one. Yet, the heady experience of asserting one’s authority was short-
lived as various dilemmas and quandaries emerged in the wake of observing
employee strain.
In the initial days of the programme, I enjoyed it. I used to say that I had played 50 runs
today, 40 runs today. I was enjoying it as if I had won a battle.
HR managers’ distress was even more pronounced as their actions totally violated
their mandate of protecting employee interests. They had been trained to see their
role as one of giving jobs, developing people, progressing careers and guarantee-
ing employee rights but the execution of the VRS programme demanded actions to
52 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
the contrary. ‘Pushing people out of their jobs’, ‘holding people against the wall’,
‘wearing down his (employee’s) morale with threats and insults’ and ‘destroying
him (employee), his career and his family’ were described as completely out of
synchrony with the former approach.
My role was to give employment and here I was telling people to go.
Relying on bullying behaviours even though targeting was not involved haunted
HR managers who opined that this amounted to undermining employee rights.
That participants were fully overwhelmed by such a work-related demand came
through clearly from their narratives.
We would wonder what kind of a profession we were in which causes so much of distress.
It was very frustrating.
Moreover, HR managers, especially the juniors, stated that nothing in their educa-
tion had prepared them for this responsibility. Neither separating employees nor
being involved in/party to depersonalized bullying had fallen within the purview
of their skill sets. Lacking the training called for in the performance of such a task,
participants reported feeling unequipped for the role enactment expected of them.
Concomitant with their predicament were more fundamental reflections about
the place of HR at work. HR managers anticipated that the changing nature of eco-
nomic imperatives and business contexts heralded a new era for their profession
which had now to balance organizational goals with employee well-being. Their
concerns hovered around retaining their essential pro-employee thrust which they
feared would get compromised as the quest for organizational success became
more intense and competitive.
Apart from value systems, both organizational culture and sociospatial factors
contributed to determining participant reactions.
Characterized by a pro-employee philosophy, the organizational ethos at
Company E had prioritized employee interests, participative management styles
and cordial and understanding interpersonal relationships. That the ongoing
organizational situation was a stark break from the past on all these fronts not
only aggravated participants’ task implementation, making it difficult for them to
approach and interact with employees, but also exacerbated their unhappiness and
bewilderment.
With the industrial city that Company E was located being small in size, physi-
cal proximity and organizational culture together had promoted close, dense,
strong and cohesive ties where multiplexity and mutuality (Kadushin 2012) pre-
dominated. Intra-organizational developments, being inconsistent with this larger
backdrop, vitiated it, worsening the strained employer–employee relationship and
posing more blocks to managerial task fulfilment as well as complicating manage-
rial thoughts and feelings.
See, company, town, people, all were one. We worked together, lived together, everything
together, for many years, many generations sometimes. So the culture was one, whether
you say office or you say home. That made it really (a) challenge. Company culture was
very cordial, democratic. Outside, we all knew each other, lot(s) of bonding. These senti-
ments put lot(s) of blocks for us to execute (the VRS programme).
Study II: Bully Experiences 53
Reflecting on their distress, dilemmas and quandaries and the various triggering
causes underlying these, participants lamented their restricted autonomy to behave
differently, attributing their lack of choice to the ongoing organizational circum-
stances influenced by macroeconomic factors. Indeed, participants’ knowledge that
their execution of the VRS and their use of intimidation and abuse were saving the
company offset their emotional strain to some extent. The sense that at least some
greater good came from partaking in such a difficult and complex situation was
described as the most significant long-term positive outcome, precipitating an ele-
ment of contentment in participants.
That we were saving the company, saving 1,800 people’s jobs, made us feel better about
what we were doing.
Assuaging participants’ misgivings further were the facts that the change effort
was within the purview of industrial and labour laws, provided separating employ-
ees with the maximum possible benefits and enjoyed union support.
Moreover, participants’ loyalty to the organization precluded them from consider-
ing quitting despite the disturbing nature of their task and the discomfort associated
with employee retaliation. Participants maintained that leaving the organization during
the crisis amounted to resorting to ‘abandonment’ and being a ‘time-server’ and a ‘fair-
weather friend’. Such a route would constitute an act of betrayal that questioned their
personal and professional character. That they stayed with and ensured the continuity
54 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
of the organization during adversity despite the ensuing challenges was described with
pride as proof of their propriety, evidencing enhancement of their self-worth.
Nonetheless, participants’ limited contentment was additionally hemmed in by
a sense of selfishness associated with their actions. While, on the one hand, they
were saving the organization and considered this to be a noble pursuit that they
constantly emphasized, on the other hand, they were protecting their own employ-
ment as their KRAs were linked to the successful execution of the VRS pro-
gramme. Participants, being only too conscious of this latter aspect whose inherent
contradictions plagued them, reported being torn between individual interests,
organizational survival, job requirements and employee security. The issue of
inequity loomed large in their minds, compounding their distress and accentuating
their dilemmas and quandaries. Yet, none of them could deny their relief and com-
fort arising from the surety of their own positions.
We had to do it to save the company. But we had to do it to save our jobs. It was terrible.
Unfair, selfish, guilty…I used to feel like that. It was too disturbing.
Consequently, apart from a few cases who reported feeling afraid, participants’
concerns in relation to employee attacks, abuse and threats centred on their fami-
lies not just in instances where the latter too directly faced employees’ ire but also
in terms of foreseeing the latter’s future in case the proposed aggression was trans-
lated into action.
I was not bothered about myself as such. But what would my family do if anything hap-
pened to me? I was afraid for them.
Conclusion
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of the professions: An essay on the division of expert labour.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2004). Social psychology. New Delhi: Pearson.
Batt, R., & Moynihan, L. (2002). The viability of alternative call centre production models.
Human Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 14–34.
Beteille, A. (2006). Ideology and social science. New Delhi: Penguin.
Bishop, A., & Scudder, J. (1991). Nursing: The practice of caring. New York, NY: National
League for Nursing Press.
References 57
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harass-
ment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 280–299.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. London: Sage.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative research: Multiple strategies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D’Cruz, P. (2012). Workplace bullying in India. New Delhi: Routledge.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2009). Experiencing depersonalized bullying: A study of Indian call
centre agents. Work Organization, Labour and Globalization, 3(1), 26–46.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010). Employee dilemmas in the Indian ITES-BPO sector. In
J. Messenger & N. Ghosheh (Eds.), Remote work and global sourcing (pp. 60–100).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan and Geneva: ILO.
D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Beale, D. (2014). The workplace bullying-organizational change
interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1434–1459.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment
at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and harassment in the workplace (pp. 3–40). London: Taylor & Francis.
Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism occupational change in the mod-
ern world. International Sociology, 18(2), 395–415.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(5), 1016–1030.
Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to ‘professionalism’as a disciplinary mechanism. The
Sociological Review, 47(2), 280–307.
Freidson, E. (1983). Thetheory of professions: State of the art. In R. Dingwall & P. Lewis (Eds.),
The sociology of professions: Doctors, lawyers and others (pp. 19–37). London: Macmillan.
Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Shire, K., & Tam, M. (1998). Beyond bureaucracy: Work organiza-
tion in call centres. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(6), 957–979.
Gill, F. (1999). The meaning of work: Lessons for sociology, psychology and political theory.
Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(6), 725–743.
Guba, E. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los
Angeles, CA: UCLA Centre for the Study of Evaluation.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hughes, E. (1963). Professions. Daedalus, 92(4), 655–668.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kakar, S., & Kakar, K. (2007). The Indians. New Delhi: Penguin.
Karson, M. (2007). Nomothetic versus idiographic. In N. J. Salkind & K. Rasmussen (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (p. 684). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Korczynski, M. (2003). Communities of coping: Collective emotional labour in service work.
Organization, 10(1), 55–79.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigour in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.
LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the US workplace: Normative and process-ori-
ented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147–165.
Liefooghe, A. P., & MacKenzie-Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of
the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1999). Establishing trustworthiness. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess
(Eds.), Qualitative research (pp. 397–444). London: Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1998). Women and power: Conformity, resistance and disorganized
coaction. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp.
311–348). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58 3 Experiencing Depersonalized Bullying at Work
Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence
and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600.
Miles, M. S., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new meth-
ods. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
NASSCOM. (2013). Strategic review. New Delhi: NASSCOM.
Noronha, E., & D’Cruz, P. (2009). Employee identity in Indian call centres: The notion of profes-
sionalism. New Delhi: Sage/Response.
Noronha, E., & D’Cruz, P. (2012).Work organization and employee experiences in the Indian
offshoring industry. In Paper presented at the National Conference on New Spatialities and
Labour, 8–9 July, Mumbai, India.
Oreg, N., & Sverdlik, N. (2011). Ambivalence towards imposed change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(2), 337–349.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (1998). Everyday struggles at the workplace: The nature and implica-
tions of routine resistance in contemporary organizations. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 16, 225–257.
Pratt, M. G., & Doucet, L. (2006). Ambivalent feelings in organizational relationships. In S.
Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 204–226). London: Sage.
Ramsay, S., Troth, A. C., & Branch, S. (2011). Workplace bullying through the lens of social
psychology: A group level analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
84(4), 799–816.
Ray, M. A. (1994). The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic and methodologic
concerns. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 117–
133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and
unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.
Samnani, A. K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of
the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent,
Behaviour, 17(6), 581–589.
Sincoff, J. B. (1990). The psychological characteristics of ambivalent people. Clinical
Psychology Review, 10(1), 43–68.
Sinha, J. B. P. (2008). Culture and organizational behaviour. New Delhi: Sage.
Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2005). India calling to the far away towns: The call centre labour process
and globalization. Work, Employment & Society, 19(2), 261–282.
Thompson, C. (1999). If you could just provide me with a sample: Examining sampling in quali-
tative and quantitative research papers. Evidence Based Nursing, 2(3), 68–70.
van Manen, M. (1998). Researching lived experience. London, ON: Althouse.
van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & Yael, N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to
resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1),
45–61.
Chapter 4
Theorizing About Depersonalized Bullying
at Work
Depersonalized workplace bullying is a singular entity with its own special attrib-
utes. Pinning its unique nature is of critical significance not just for conceptual
and theoretical reasons but also for methodological and measurement purposes
with particular emphasis on the issue of its validity. This section elaborates on the
distinguishing character of depersonalized bullying at work as emerging from the
findings of Studies I and II (Chap. 3) as well as from the limited earlier litera-
ture, spelling out its specificities in terms of dimensions such as source, visibility,
form, aetiology, target orientation, temporality, power dynamics and outcomes for
targets, bullies, bystanders and organizations, put forward previously in Chap. 2
in relation to interpersonal bullying at work. The discussion is summarized in
Table 4.1 which also includes the typical features of interpersonal bullying from
Table 2.1 to facilitate a comparison.
Depersonalized bullying at work arises from the quest for competitive advan-
tage (D’Cruz and Noronha 2009; Liefooghe and MacKenzie-Davey 2001). Extra-
organizational business forces and intra-organizational aspirations decide the
organizational agenda and determine the internal workplace context, influenc-
ing managerial ideology and organizational culture (D’Cruz and Noronha 2009,
2014). The intra-organizational environment, comprising policies, practices, struc-
ture, technology, controls and leadership, bears down on employees through abu-
sive and hostile behaviours resorted to involuntarily and impersonally by managers
and supervisors responsible for attaining organizational goals (D’Cruz and Noronha
2009, 2014; Liefooghe and MacKenzie-Davey 2001). Depersonalized bullying,
being thus lodged in the organizational design, is an institutionalized, sociostructural
phenomenon (Keashly and Harvey 2006), instrumental in realizing organizational
objectives (D’Cruz 2012; D’Cruz and Noronha 2009, 2014). Noting the aetiologi-
cal basis for depersonalized bullying, its presence in the workplace is expected to
increase in incidence and intensity in the light of the volatility of the contemporary
business context where organizational survival is constantly at risk (D’Cruz 2012;
D’Cruz et al. 2014). The opportunity to escape from such an environment is remote
given that employment is an indispensable means to securing one’s livelihood dur-
ing adulthood (Einarsen and Raknes 1997; Lutgen-Sandvik 2005).
Enacted by managers and supervisors, depersonalized workplace bully-
ing is downwards in direction (D’Cruz and Noronha 2009, 2014; Liefooghe and
MacKenzie-Davey 2001). While supervisory and managerial layers generally deal
with the workforce immediately below them in the organizational hierarchy, it is
possible that levels are skipped as they attempt to deliver results mandated by the
organization. Indeed, superiors’ behaviour appears to reflect tyrannical leadership
(Aasland et al. 2010) which comprises a pro-organization but an anti-subordinate
orientation where managers and supervisors pursue organizational goals at the
expense of subordinates (Aasland et al. 2010). Yet, while Aasland et al. (2010)
used the concept of tyrannical leadership in relation to interpersonal bullying, ref-
erences to it in instances of depersonalized bullying warrant investigation to assess
its application specific to the latter level of workplace bullying. It would also be
interesting to examine targets’ behaviour when they move up the organizational
hierarchy to ascertain whether they engage in and how they feel about adopting
depersonalized bullying as supervisors and managers. Exploring this trajectory to
find out whether issues such as provocative victims (Olweus 2003) and counter-
aggression (Hauge et al. 2009; Jenkins et al. 2012; Lee and Brotheridge 2006),
associated with interpersonal bullying, are mirrored, although asynchronously, in
depersonalized bullying, can add insights.
Superiors display aggressive and intimidating behaviours to employees indi-
vidually and/or jointly, publicly and/or privately and overtly and/or covertly in
the course of ensuring organizational effectiveness (D’Cruz 2012; D’Cruz and
Noronha 2014). Thus, a single and/or a group of superiors could demonstrate these
behaviours in clear and obvious and/or subtle and ambiguous manifestations to
their subordinates individually and/or jointly while both protagonists are by them-
selves and/or with other colleagues. Further, whereas most research so far shows
62 4 Theorizing About Depersonalized Bullying at Work
the bully plays a role here in terms of impact, especially with regard to the nature
and degree of discomfort. Yet, whether the avoidance aspect of their reactions leads
bullies to alter their own behaviour, organizational internal design, organizational
goals and/or the extra-organizational environment needs to be empirically ascer-
tained. It can be anticipated that ceding to the undesirable part of their ambivalence
would unleash a range of bully responses. Modifying their own actions to ensure
the absence of abuse and hostility is one. Re-examining the intra-organizational
context to eliminate unfavourable structural, processual and contextual elements is
another. Recasting organizational objectives and repositioning the extra-organiza-
tional business environment through lobbying and advocacy such that negative acts
of aggression and intimidation have no opportunity to seep in are the third and the
fourth responses, which could be resorted to individually and/or jointly.
In terms of their experiences of depersonalized bullying, targets in Study I
described the coexistence of their appreciation for their job-related gains and their
dissatisfaction with their oppressive work environment. Yet, ambivalence does not
appear to be the only response here. Allusions to targets’ negative reactions by bullies
in Study II emphasize the importance of further explorations in this area. Is ambiva-
lence as target response to depersonalized bullying true in all cases of the phenom-
enon? If so, what accounts for the similarity? If not, what gives rise to the variance?
And what constitutes target reactions in instances where deviations from ambivalence
are evident? Do industrial sector and organizational events provide some clue to tar-
get responses? Further, targets in Study I showed routine resistance arising from the
avoidance tendency of their ambivalence whereas bullies in Study II described the
formal resistance of their targets stemming from the latter’s adverse reactions. These
insights throw up numerous questions about target resistance in depersonalized bully-
ing. What is the relevance of resistance here? What affects the transition from routine
to formal resistance? What impinges on the trajectory of formal resistance to temper
its impact? What is the role of bystanders, if present, in the resistance effort? The
implications of routine and formal resistance in influencing intra-organizational and
extra-organizational contexts as well as for redefining power dynamics at work in
general and in relation to bullying in particular are worth looking into.
In contrast to the emotion-focused coping displayed by targets in Study I and
bullies in Study II (see Chap. 3), acting on the avoidance aspect of ambivalence
and on negative responses, as described above, brings into play problem-focused
coping, allowing internal loci of control to surface and a sense of agency to be
demonstrated. Nonetheless, whether the selection of the active coping strategies
induces an air of empowerment in the protagonists should be explored.
Going further, career development engenders employees’ progression to super-
visors and managers, begging the question of how their experiences as targets of
depersonalized bullying at lower levels of the organizational hierarchy affect them
at higher positions in terms of the behaviours they enact and the changes they
attempt as superiors.
Quitting and re-employment as means of exiting the depersonalized bullying
situation are possibilities for both bullies and targets. Yet, these steps, which entail
engagement with the extra-organizational business context to check job options,
provide bullies and targets with relief from their interface with abusive and hostile
A Theoretical Framework of Depersonalized Bullying at Work 67
tactics only in terms of the availability of work opportunities that eschew deperson-
alized bullying. Examining bully and target experiences on these fronts is an avenue
for investigation. At the same time, it must be noted that targets in Study I, being
aware of the paucity of job alternatives providing benefits identical to their current
returns, continued in their ongoing employment despite being subjected to deperson-
alized bullying, indicating that decisions here are also influenced by other considera-
tions. How targets in such instances navigate the extra-organizational environment
to keep up with their tangible and intangible job-related gains but move away from
intimidating and aggressive work contexts remains to be understood.
Notwithstanding the nascent stage of research in the field of depersonal-
ized workplace bullying, targets have received maximum attention (D’Cruz and
Noronha 2009; Liefooghe and Mackenzie-Davey 2001), followed by the current
focus on bullies. Bystanders, who cannot be ignored, become relevant in cases
where depersonalized bullying applies to a part of the workforce of an organiza-
tion (i.e., a specific work group). What is this group’s experience of depersonal-
ized bullying? In exploring bystanders’ thoughts, feelings and actions, their role in
the depersonalized bullying situation can be determined. In cases where deperson-
alized bullying applies to the entire workforce of an organization (i.e., all employ-
ees), bystanders are redundant.
Insights into organizations will be progressed by including outcomes and
power. Given that depersonalized bullying is relied on with a view to securing
organizational advantage but has mixed or negative effects on targets and mixed
effects on bullies, its impact on organizational outcomes needs to be ascertained.
Incorporating the effects on bystanders here will complete the enquiry. Granted
that organizational power comes to the fore in instances of depersonalized bully-
ing, the interplay between organizations, targets, bullies and bystanders as well
as extra-organizational factors could have implications for organizational power
dynamics, throwing up several study possibilities.
The linkage between temporality and setting requires unravelling. That is, since
depersonalized workplace bullying as a chronic feature is industry-specific while
as an episodic feature is event-specific, uncovering organizational circumstances
will shed light on time-related issues. Are there particular sectors where deperson-
alized bullying exists and are there certain organizational occasions during which
depersonalized bullying surfaces as well as how both these foregoing questions
relate to the extra-organizational business environment are areas for research.
Moreover, do target, bully and bystander experiences of depersonalized bullying
vary with setting and temporality?
Lastly, to acquire a thorough and holistic picture of depersonalized workplace
bullying, examining and comparing both real/traditional forms and virtual/cyber
forms as well as hearing the voices of top management, industry groups, policy
makers and trade unionists is important.
The theoretical framework of depersonalized bullying at work elucidated in
this section is proposed with the intention of consolidating the extant literature
on and stimulating more enquiries into the phenomenon. The development of a
psychometric scale to measure depersonalized bullying would be a fruitful exer-
cise aiding this latter aim particularly in relation to studies embedded in positivist
68 4 Theorizing About Depersonalized Bullying at Work
ontologies and epistemologies. While the question triggering the research should
decide on the use of the said instrument such that conceptual and technical
designs cohere with each other, its robustness in terms of validity and reliability
cannot be compromised. Guided by rigorous empirical endeavours, the findings
of these enquiries would feed back into and refine the suggested model such that
its explanatory power and predictive capacity are enhanced and scholarship and
application in the field are advanced.
Going forward on the lines elaborated upon in the preceding paragraphs would
promote conceptual parity between interpersonal and depersonalized workplace
bullying. As discussed in Chap. 2, interpersonal bullying already boasts of numer-
ous commendable theoretical frameworks, especially those of Einarsen et al. (2011)
and Branch et al. (2013) whose parsimony does not make any concession on
complexity. Besides, interpersonal bullying by now houses several measurement
scales (see Nielsen et al. 2011), particularly the widely adopted Negative Acts
Questionnaire/NAQ (Einarsen et al. 2009) whose psychometric strengths are une-
quivocal (Nielsen et al. 2011). The NAQ not only has evolved a shortened version,
known as the S-NAQ (Notelaers and Einarsen 2008), but also has been demon-
strated as amenable to the representation of both targets’ and bullies’ perspectives
(Baillien et al. 2011a, b; De Cuyper et al. 2009).
Interestingly, the recognition of compounded workplace bullying in vari-
ous studies (D’Cruz and Noronha 2010a, b, 2011, 2012; D’Cruz et al. 2014) has
not been followed up with systematic empirical enquiries or plausible theoretical
explanations. Studies on the joint occurrence of and linkage between interpersonal
and depersonalized workplace bullying are required. Numerous research questions
come to mind. Does interpersonal bullying lay the foundations for depersonalized
bullying? Or does a depersonalized bullying organizational context sow the seeds
of interpersonal bullying? Do target and bystander efforts to resist depersonal-
ized bullying through co-worker mobilization or trade union action result in new
instances or mitigate ongoing cases of interpersonal bullying? What is the impact
of compounded bullying on targets? How is bully behaviour triggered and affected
in compounded bullying situations? Are there implications for the study of lead-
ership in workplace bullying as leaders are sometimes considered to be proxies
for bullies? What meaning does compounded bullying hold for bystanders? Does
compounded bullying make a difference to redressal and intervention? Through
investigations into these aspects, a unified framework of workplace bullying can
be propounded, subsuming Einarsen et al. (2011) and Branch et al. (2013) for
interpersonal bullying and Fig. 4.1 in this volume for depersonalized bullying.
The acknowledgement that bullying is unethical behaviour which goes against uni-
versal norms of social acceptability (LaVan and Martin 2008; Ramsay et al. 2011)
is sufficient basis to eradicate it completely. That workplaces fall in step with this
Interventions Addressing Depersonalized Bullying at Work 69
stand is then a logical consequence that not only resonates with international calls
for human rights at work (International Labour Office/ILO, not dated/n.d.) but also
pre-empts the need for any corrective measures. Toeing such a line, organizational
cultures would privilege employee well-being concomitant with employer interests
such that misbehaviour would neither arise nor be tolerated should it be enacted.
The presence of depersonalized bullying at work testifies to lapses in human
propriety, underscoring the significance of interventions that could operate at pri-
mary, secondary and/or tertiary levels of prevention. Primary prevention would
yield optimal benefits in removing the problem altogether and hence emerges
as the most appropriate intervention. Yet, where such attempts face insurmount-
able barriers due to the entrenchment of the contemporary business agenda which
organizations continue to endorse, secondary and tertiary prevention would pro-
vide some relief. Intervention could be undertaken by organizations through their
leaders, managers and/or supervisors (i.e., the bullies/implementers), by employ-
ees (i.e., targets/recipients and/or bystanders) either through intra-organizational
co-worker mobilization and/or through extra-organizational links with trade
unions, and/or by trade unions through their independent initiatives. Other extra-
organizational entities such as industry groups, trade bodies, human rights activ-
ists, non-governmental organizations and national and international organizations
including governments and bilateral and multilateral agencies could work either
individually, jointly and/or with employers, employees and trade unions, towards
advocating, designing and implementing interventions at all or any of the three
levels (see Table 4.2 for a summary of recommended interventions).
Across the world, nationally and internationally, amending existing legisla-
tion or creating new legislation protecting employee rights to incorporate clauses
resolving depersonalized bullying at work is called for. Legal mechanisms would
not only exhort the abolition of depersonalized workplace bullying but also spec-
ify procedures for grievances in instances of violation, thereby encompassing pri-
mary, secondary and tertiary level interventions.
70 4 Theorizing About Depersonalized Bullying at Work
References
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The preva-
lence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 438–452.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and post-modernism. In S. R. Clegg &
C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory and method (pp. 185–211). London: Sage.
Baillien, E., Cuyper, N. D., & Witte, H. D. (2011a). Job autonomy and workload as antecedents
of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s job demand control model for targets
and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 191–208.
Baillien, E., Rodriguez- Muñoz, A., van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2011b). Do demands
and resources affect targets’ and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying? A two-wave
cross-lagged study. Work and Stress, 25(2), 128–146.
Beale, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Workplace bullying and the employment relationship: Exploring
questions of prevention, control and context. Work, Employment & Society, 25(1), 5–18.
Bishop, V., & Hoel, H. (2008). The customer is always right? Exploring the concept of customer
bullying in the British employment service. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(3), 341–367.
Bolton, S., & Houlihan, M. (2007). Searching for the human in human resource management:
Theory, practice and workplace contexts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harass-
ment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 280–299.
Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington: D.C. Health and Company.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001).Organizational stress, London: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization theory and design. New Delhi: Thomson.
D’Cruz, P. (2012). Workplace bullying in India. New Delhi: Routledge.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2009). Experiencing depersonalized bullying: A study of Indian call
centre agents. Work Organization, Labour and Globalization, 3(1), 26–46.
References 73
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010a). The exit coping response to workplace bullying: The contri-
bution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Employee Relations, 32(2), 102–120.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010b). Protecting my interests: Target coping with workplace bully-
ing. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 507–534.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM
and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33(3),
269–288.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2012). Clarifying my world: Identity work in the context of work-
place bullying. The Qualitative Report, 17(6), 1–29.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013). Navigating the extended reach: Target experiences of cyber-
bullying at work. Information and Organization, 23(4), 324–343.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2014). Workplace bullying in the context of organizational change:
The significance of pluralism. Industrial Relations Journal, 45(1), 2–21.
D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Beale, D. (2014). The workplace bullying-organizational change
interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1434–1459.
De Cuyper, N., De Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., & Schalk, R. (2008). Literature
review of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment:
Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 25–51.
De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and
targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work and Stress, 23(3), 206–224.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communi-
cation and the politics of everyday life. Albany: SUNY Press.
Delbridge, R., & Keenoy, T. (2010). Beyond managerialism? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(6), 801–819.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harass-
ment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire- Revised. Work and Stress, 23(1), 24–44.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment
at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and harassment in the workplace (pp. 3–40). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men.
Violence and Victims, 12(3), 247–263.
Frege, C. M., & Kelly, J. (2003). Union revitalization strategies in comparative perspective.
European Journal of Industrial Relations, 9(1), 7–24.
Gall, G. (2009). Union organizing: Past, present and future. In G. Gall (Ed.), The future of union
organizing (pp. 1–9). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guest, D. (1998). Human resource management, trade unions and industrial relations. In
C. Mabey, G. Salaman, & J. Storey (Eds.), Strategic human resource management (pp. 237–250).
London: Sage.
Harrington, S. (2010). Workplace bullying through the eyes of human resource practitioners.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Harrington, S., Rayner, C., & Warren, S. (2012). Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource
practitioners’ implementation of anti-bullying policy. Human Resource Management Journal,
22(4), 392–408.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of workplace
bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work and Stress, 23(4), 349–358.
Havard, R. (2007). Virtuous leadership. New York: Scepter.
Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial rela-
tions: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 44(2), 239–262.
Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace
(pp. 203–218). London: Taylor & Francis.
74 4 Theorizing About Depersonalized Bullying at Work
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organizational effects of work-
place bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harass-
ment in the workplace (pp. 129–148). London: Taylor & Francis.
House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concept of social support. In S. Cohen & S. L.
Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 83–108). San Diego: Academic Press.
ILO, (n.d.). Labour standards. Retrieved 16 April 2014 from http://www.ilo.org/global/
standards/lang–en/index.htm.
Ironside, M., & Seifert, R. (2003). Tackling bullying in the workplace: The collective dimension.
In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace (pp. 382–398). London: Taylor & Francis.
Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the
accused bully’s perspective. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 489–501.
Karson, M. (2007). Nomothetic versus idiographic. In N. J. Salkind & K. Rasmussen (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (p. 684). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2006). Emotional abuse at work. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J.
Furrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 95–120). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKerzie, R. B. (1986). The transformation of American indus-
trial relations. New York: Basic.
Korczynski, M. (2002). Human resource management in service wor. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the US workplace: Normative and process-ori-
ented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147–165.
Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a
predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 352–377.
Lewis, D., & Rayner, C. (2003). Bullying and human resource management: A wolf in sheep’s
clothing? In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace (pp. 370–382). London: Taylor & Francis.
Liefooghe, A. P., & MacKenzie-Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of
the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375–392.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2005). Water smoothing stones: Subordinate resistance to workplace bully-
ing, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona, Tempe, USA.
Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M., Lodewijkx, H., & Bolman, C. (2013). Workplace mobbing and bystand-
ers’ helping behaviour towards victims: The role of gender, perceived responsibility and antici-
pated stigma by association. International Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1002/ijop.12018.
Nielsen, M. B., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Measuring exposure to workplace bully-
ing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace (pp. 149–175). London: Taylor & Francis.
Noronha, E. (2003). Indian trade unions: Today and beyond tomorrow. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 39(1), 95–107.
Noronha, E., & D’Cruz, P. (2009). Employee identity in Indian call centres: The notion of profes-
sionalism. New Delhi: Sage/Response.
Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2008). The construction and validity of the short negative scts
questionnaire. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying
and Harassment, 4–6 June, Montreal, Canada.
Olweus, D. (2003). Bully/victim problems in school. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 62–77). London: Taylor
& Francis.
Parkes, C., & Davis, A. J. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility: Do HR professionals have the
‘courage to challenge’ or are they set to be permanent ‘bystanders’? International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24(12), 2411–2434.
Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology
of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
50(3), 351–366.
References 75
Ramsay, S., Troth, A. C., & Branch, S. (2011). Workplace bullying through the lens of social
psychology: A group level analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
84(4), 799–816.
Rayner, C. (1999). From Research to Implementation: Finding Leverage for Prevention.
International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 28–38.
Sahdev, K., Vinnicombe, S., & Tyson, S. (1999). Downsizing and the changing role of HR.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(5), 906–923.
Samnani, A. K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of
the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent
Behaviour, 17(6), 581–589.
Simha, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2012). Ethical climates and their effects on organizational out-
comes: Implications from the past and prophecies for the future. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 26(4), 20–34.
Thompson, C. (1999). If you could just provide me with a sample: Examining sampling in quali-
tative and quantitative research papers. Evidence Based Nursing, 2(3), 68–70.
vanHeugten, K. (2011). Theorizing active bystanders as change agents in workplace bullying of
social workers. Families in Society, 92(2), 219–224.