Bullying: Harassment by Another Name, Yet Still Very Much the Same

Abstract

BullyingHarassment by Another Name, Yet Still Very Much the Same Leah P. Hollis (bio) Intersection of bullying and harassment I have focused my primary research on discrimination and workplace bullying for the past six years, producing four books, six peer reviewed articles, seven conference presentations, and multiple keynote lectures on discrimination, harassment, workplace bullying, and microaggressions. No matter the venue, Milan, Italy; Oxford, England; Northridge, California; or Baltimore, Maryland, those who gather to learn more about the topic let me know through questions or comments after the talk that they are truly hurting. They are struggling to find a way to avoid this psychological and emotional abuse: harassment masquerading in the term bullying. But why couch the same behaviors in the term “bullying” instead of “harassment?” The primary difference is that “harassment” is illegal when abuse and incivility are motivated by the target’s membership in a protected class (race, gender, national origin, pregnancy, age [over 40], disability). While the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation prohibits workplace abuse based on protected class, there are no federal laws to prohibit the same behavior when a colleague is simply being a power hungry or coercive curmudgeon. Further, as sexual orientation is not a federally protected class in early 2016, gender and sexual minorities who are not transgender are not assigned a protected class and therefore have less protection from harassment and bullying. See Table 1. Bullying, while very similar to harassment is legal in the United States because it does not explicitly invoke a protected class status. The legal definition of harassment, which reflects on the same behaviors is illegal because of the additional and explicitly element of protect class (race, color, religion, sex, national origins etc.) Therefore, when a bully abuses, threatens, and diminishes the opportunities of those around him or her without invoking protective classes, the behavior, while destructive, remains legal. Often not status free While Yamada (2000) considers bullying a “status free” experience, in truth, the gender, race, and sexual orientation of the target are compelling factors in who faces bullying. Based on my data collection for Bully in the Ivory Tower (2012) women, people of color, and gender/sexual minorities are more likely to face workplace bullying in higher education. Theoretically, [End Page 2] these populations face more workplace abuse because they challenge the dominant culture that tends to be White and male. Further, compared to the general population, these groups are more likely to leave an institution because of bullying. This data was collected through an online survey from 175 colleges and universities to reflect on the extent of workplace bullying in higher education (see Table 2). Click for larger view View full resolution Table 1. Definitions of bullying and harassment However, despite the disproportionate number of women, people of color, and gender/sexual minorities who face workplace bullying, many institutions are still only grappling with the idea of creating a policy to prohibit harassment, even when it is cloaked as bullying. The result compared to the general population, more women, people of color, and gender/sexual minorities have careers sidetracked and derailed to deal with a bully. In the midst of emotional and psychological abuse on the job, any reasonable person would turn his or her focus from career advancement to survival and protecting personal well-being. Women, people of color, and gender sexual minorities are potentially more likely than the general population to be targets of bullying because they are less likely to reside in the more powerful organizational positions. Bullies operate on a power differential. Typically in a bully-target dyad, the bully has more power. The bully is more prominent in the organization or connected to people in power structure. The bully has established a position where his or her own behavior, good or bad, is accepted because the organization sees some other value in the bully. For example, the bully may bring money, or notoriety to the organization. In contrast, the target is in the inferior position, perhaps because the target is lower in the organization [End Page 3] chart, or new to the organization. Regardless, the bully often perceives that the target is weaker and a viable “mark...