Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research � 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 61, No. 3, 169  189 1065-9293/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016783
THE ROLE OF THE CONSULTING
PSYCHOLOGIST IN THE PREVENTION,
DETECTION, AND CORRECTION OF
BULLYING AND MOBBING IN THE
WORKPLACE
Patricia A. Ferris
Calgary Psychology Group Inc./Janus Associates
It is clear that psychological aggression is both common in workplaces and
harmful to individuals and organizations. An emerging line of research exam-
ines organizational responses to allegations of bullying and mobbing. As a
result, some researchers now identify processes for detecting, correcting, and
preventing bullying and mobbing. Strategies to improve the quality of working
life such as surveillance, policy development, training, coaching, and the de-
velopment of selection, performance management, and reward systems that set
standards for collaborative and supportive behavior at work are all necessary to
move organizations toward eliminating tolerance of bullying and mobbing.
Consulting psychologists have the expertise to provide such interventions be-
cause of their in-depth understanding of personality, testing, and assessment,
and the application of these concepts to selection, coaching, and performance
management. The consulting psychologist brings an attention to human factors
that humanize the workplace. The author reviews research on bullying and
mobbing, adds practitioner insights based on 13 years of practice in this area,
and discusses interventions applied in practice settings.
Keywords: bullying, mobbing, consulting psychologist, human resources, inter-
ventions
Pat Ferris is a partner in a firm that provides Employee Assistance Programs and organizational
consulting to a wide range of organizations across western Canada. The firm also provides individual
counseling to the general public. She has provided consulting services to industry on bullying/mobbing
and has provided individual counseling to both perpetrators and targets for 13 years. She has a doctoral
degree in Industrial Organizational Psychology from the University of Calgary.
I thank Charlotte Rayner and her student Sue Harrington for sharing their work with me and
for our interesting discussions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia A. Ferris, Calgary
Psychology Group Inc., 601-1177-11th Ave. S. W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2R 1K9. E-mail:
[e-mail]
169
170 FERRIS
Researchers first described mobbing behavior in animals, then applied the term to
schoolchildren who attacked each other verbally and physically. Eventually, researchers
applied the term to adults in the workplace. Lorenz first used the term mobbing in the
1960s to describe animal behavior intended to scare away a stronger preying animal. He
described a process in which a number of animals grouped together to display attacking
behavior, such as geese scaring away a fox (as cited in Davenport, Distler Schwartz, &
Pursell Elliott, 1999). Heinemann applied the term mobbing in the 1970s to describe
attacking behavior in children at school (as cited in Davenport et al., 1999). A robust
school literature (e.g., Coloroso, 2002) currently refers to both physical and emotional
attacks by children toward children as bullying. Leymann (1990), a Swedish family
therapist who saw workers damaged by the behaviors of peers and superiors, applied the
term mobbing to adults in the workplace in the 1980s. Leymann defined mobbing as
 psychological terror that involved what he called hostile and unethical communication
directed toward one individual by one or more other individuals in a systematic way, thus
pushing an individual into a defenseless position (Leymann, 1996).
Leymann s work brought this type of workplace behavior into greater scrutiny in both
research and practice settings. Zapf (e.g., Zapf, 1999; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996; Zapf
& Leymann, 1996) followed in the tradition of using the term mobbing. Other researchers
have applied different terms to the original concept of psychological terror, including
harassment (e.g., Brodsky, 1976), bullying (e.g., Adams, 1992; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, &
Cooper, 2003; Field, 1996; Rayner, 1997; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002), workplace
aggression (e.g., Keashly, 1998), incivility (e.g., Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000),
petty tyranny (e.g., Ashforth, 1994, 1997), and counterproductive workplace behaviors
(e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
In addition to the original goose theme, Marais and Herman (1997), Babiak and Hare
(2006), and Hornstein (1997) more recently also used the animal analogy to describe
psychological attacks in the workplace. Marais and Herman refer to perpetrators as
 corporate hyenas, whereas Babiak and Hare suggest that many perpetrators are psychopaths
or  snakes in suits. Hornstein refers to bosses who engage in psychological terror as  brutal
and their targets as  prey, indicating that the animal analogy of this type of behavior
resonates. Nevertheless, it is also fair to state that bullies represent a heterogeneous group, not
all of whom may be psychopathic and deeply flawed people. In a later section in this article,
I review the literature on the antecedents of bullying and provide insight to character and
situational circumstances that can lead to bullying behavior.
My goal in this article is to provide consulting psychologists with a foundation of
knowledge regarding the concepts of bullying and mobbing that then provides the basis for
conducting interventions primarily at the organizational level. In the present article, I inform
consulting psychologists from a practitioner perspective. I am a partner in a large independent
practice that provides employee assistance programs (EAPs) to more than 50 organizations.
The practice also takes referrals from physicians and the public. I have seen employees
presenting with workplace bullying and mobbing issues for 13 years. I have conducted training
programs for industry focused on creating respectful workplaces and specifically for managing
bullying in the workplace for the past 10 years. Organizations contact me for consultation
about the management of employee conflict, harassment, and bullying.
The first section of this article provides a review of the literature to establish an
adequate understanding of the scope of psychologically damaging behavior in the work-
place. This section provides an overview of various definitions of psychologically dam-
aging behavior. I also discuss differences in the use of the terms bullying and mobbing,
and give an anecdotal review of cases from my independent practice to provide insights
SPECIAL ISSUE 171
to practitioners and researchers. I then review the literature on antecedents and organi-
zational impact of bullying and mobbing. The next section provides information on
diagnosing the organizational orientation to bullying and mobbing. This section examines
research on the organizational representative (i.e., the person within an organization to
whom a target reports experiences to) response to allegations of bullying or mobbing and
reviews a process model and a typology of bullying. The last section presents a range of
interventions that consulting psychologists can implement at the individual and organi-
zational level to prevent, reduce, and manage bullying and mobbing in the workplace.
Practitioner Knowledge Base
Defining the Scope of Psychologically Damaging Behavior
As noted above, both researchers and practitioners have applied a wide range of terms to
describe psychological violence in the workplace. Although definitions vary, commonality
exists. These common threads suggest that mobbing and bullying involve a pattern of
repeated hostile verbal and nonverbal interactions that are generally nonphysical and
directed at a target, resulting in a negative impact on the target s sense of self as a
competent worker or person. Bullying behaviors range from subtle (e.g., cutting off
communication) to observable (e.g., teasing and angry outbursts); however, they may also
include the absence of certain behaviors, such as not providing support and information.
Bullying and mobbing are distinct from conflict where the parties involved have equal
power (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). Thus, many of the definitions imply a power imbalance,
whether formal as in a job position or informal as in having some form of economic,
psychological, social, or status power over an individual (Einarsen et al., 2003).
Intent is also implied in most definitions. Although it is difficult to prove intent, where
there are legal standards, an individual may be required to provide evidence that the
behavior was intentional. Nevertheless, in dealing with allegations of bullying and
mobbing at the organizational level, the concept of  reasonable person is helpful: Would
a reasonable person have known that the behavior in question could be hurtful?
Other areas of debate concerning the definition of the concepts include the length of
time over which the behaviors occurred and how frequently the behaviors occurred.
Although most researchers acknowledge that a one-time behavior can be very damaging,
most would not consider this to be bullying. The organization may or should address such
behaviors in the context of respectful workplace policies, however. There is also debate
about the persistency of behaviors, that is, should the behavior be persistent over days,
weeks, or months? Leymann (1996) provided a strict (although considered somewhat
arbitrary) definition that for behaviors to be experienced as bullying, they should have
occurred once per week for a period of 6 months and resulted in harm to the individual.
For legal actions, this may be an appropriate definition; however, in the context of work,
such behaviors should be addressed and defined as unacceptable long before 6 months.
The province of Quebec in Canada is the only province to have legislation about bullying,
which is referred to as psychological harassment. The requirements for legal consideration
include vexatious (repeated) behavior, behaviors seen as hostile and unwanted that affect
a person s dignity, and represent a harmful work environment (Commission des Normes
du Travail, 2004). Einarsen et al. (2003) provide the following definition of bullying:
Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively
affecting someone s work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to
a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g.,
172 FERRIS
weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., about six months). Bullying is an escalating process
in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the
target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident
is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal  strength are in conflict. (p. 15)
Last, the above discussion has focused on understanding bullying as an interpersonal
phenomenon. Liefooghe and Mackenzie Davey (2001) argue that bullying occurs at the
organizational level when many employees frequently experience organizational practices
and procedures as oppressive, demeaning, humiliating, and victimizing. Thus, the concept
of a bullying culture emerges.
In summary, bullying is not about someone having a bad day or a few bad days, and
it is not about conflict between peers. It is about the persistent and repeated targeting of
an individual with the goal of harming them or their work.
Bullying Versus Mobbing
The term bullying seems to be the term most frequently used to describe the harmful
psychological behaviors reviewed in the previous section, although the term mobbing is
used as well. The terms are frequently used interchangeably by both practitioners and
researchers; however, it is not clear whether these actually are the same conceptually. In
general, Germanic and Nordic researchers tend to use the term mobbing, whereas English-
speaking countries tend to use bullying to describe psychologically harmful behaviors at
work. Some researchers, such as Hoel and Beale (2006), distinguish bullying from
mobbing. They argue that bullying is  primarily concerned with aggressive and unwanted
behavior delivered by someone in a managerial position toward a target (p. 242), and that
mobbing is  more likely to be the work of colleagues (p. 242). This perspective suggests
that perpetration of psychologically harmful behavior by a person(s) in a position of power
is different from perpetration by a peer(s). Nevertheless, a study of professional faculty
and students that included the education, medical, nursing, and social work fields showed
that, in comparison to experiences of negative interpersonal interactions from superiors,
similar behaviors from peers led to the perception of greater distress (Ferris & Kline, in
press).
In contrast, others (e.g., Davenport et al., 1999; Westhues, 2007) distinguish between
the two terms on the basis of whether one or more persons are involved in perpetrating
harmful psychological behavior. From this perspective, bullying refers to a solitary
perpetrator and a peer or peers, whereas mobbing refers to more than one perpetrator
acting negatively toward a target.
There is a need for research that examines whether there are two (or more) distinct
concepts of psychologically harmful behaviors based on status and number of perpetra-
tors. There is also a need for conceptual clarity and a common understanding of how the
terms bullying and mobbing are applied that cannot be addressed here. For the purpose of
this article, when citing other authors work, I use the term applied by the authors. When
referring to the concepts in general or describing my work, I use the term bullying to refer
to acts by a single perpetrator and mobbing to refer to acts by more than one perpetrator.
To provide some insight to bullying and mobbing issues, I reviewed the files of 35
individuals seen by myself for bullying or mobbing between January 2006 and August
2008. In approximately one third of identified cases, occupational health professionals
within the organization provided additional information to me (with informed consent
from the client) about the workgroup climate and the alleged perpetrator. In addition, for
those accessing through an EAP, other employees from the same workgroups accessing
SPECIAL ISSUE 173
for other reasons often described witnessing bullying behavior toward the targeted
individuals or a general climate of fear. This supplementary information provided insight
and support to the individuals reported experiences. The majority of remaining individ-
uals supplied correspondence that provided some support to their perspective. Neverthe-
less, the data described below are from the perspective of the target, and there was either
limited or no confirming information about the perspective of the alleged perpetrator or
what role, if any, the alleged target played in the development of the situation. Never-
theless, it is interesting to note that as treatment progressed, most individuals could
identify that some type of challenge to the alleged perpetrator or their objection to their
treatment by the alleged perpetrator likely played a role in their being targeted.
It is further important to note that my role with the individuals reviewed was as a
therapist with the goal of providing support and treatment for their individual experiences.
As such, there are other perspectives that are not considered. Employees on disability
benefits suing their companies may have had a stake in the outcome of litigation, which
may have biased their reporting and recovery. I would note that for the individuals for
whom I had outcome data, all eventually returned to work, albeit in workplaces other than
where the bullying or mobbing had occurred.
At the time of presentation, individuals were employed; however, several were off on
disability because of depression or anxiety. The majority of individuals presented through
accessing their EAP (66%). The majority of individuals accessed from the oil and gas
industry (54%); the service industry (19%); legal profession (9%); union or government
(9%); and health care, education, and other (3%, respectively). In assessing whether
bullying or mobbing had occurred, I used a clinical interview and the Workplace
Aggression Research Questionnaire (L. Keashly & J. Neuman, personal communication,
August 2001). I also used the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993) or the
Symptom Checklist 90 R (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1994) to assess psychological symp-
toms at time of presentation. Consistent with the literature, the majority of individuals
were targeted by superiors: 19 reported bullying (negative behaviors from superiors), 12
individuals reported mobbing (negative behaviors from peers), and 4 individuals reported
both mobbing and bullying. Of these individuals, I assessed that 6 experienced a reduction
of productivity only, 17 incurred significant time off work, 12 left their organizations or
were given a severance package, 6 were terminated for cause, and 4 initiated lawsuits
(numbers exceed the sample size as some cases experienced both time off work and
severance or termination). The outcomes for 2 individuals are unknown. The alleged
perpetrators were primarily male (63%); however, it should be noted that the majority of
cases came from male-dominated industries.
Although the sample described is quite small, several issues stand out from this
review. First, it was striking how frequently superiors attacked employees careers with
seeming impunity. Second, when human resources (HR) personnel became involved,
targets often reported feeling unsupported, and the situation typically deteriorated. De-
termining appropriate interventions in allegations of bullying is a key skill required by HR
personnel and one that many admit to me that they find difficult and feel unprepared to
manage. I review research on HR response in more detail in the section discussing
organizational responses toward bullying and mobbing. Third, three of the four lawsuits
occurred in identified cases where both mobbing and bullying had occurred, and all
individuals reported disability leave. Although the number of individuals reporting law-
suits is quite small, this may suggest that when both bullying and mobbing occur, it may
be the most costly situation for organizations. Finally, individuals from several organi-
zations in which I had conducted comprehensive respectful workplace training (which
174 FERRIS
includes identifying and managing bullying and mobbing as well as supervisor and HR
training) experienced bullying and mobbing. This may suggest that a one-time training
intervention alone is not enough to prevent bullying and mobbing. The current research on
interventions is not sufficient to state what the most effective interventions to reduce
bullying and mobbing are, but it does provide guidelines from practical experience. I
discuss such advantage points for reducing bullying and mobbing in the section on
interventions.
Organizational Impact of Bullying and Mobbing
There is evidence that bullying is associated with negative health outcomes such as
anxiety, depression, headache, and musculoskeletal problems (e.g., Baron & Neuman,
1996; Davenport et al., 1999; Einarsen & Gemzłe Mikkelsen, 2003; Kivim�ki, Elovainio,
& Vahtera, 2000; Kivim�ki et al., 2003; Keashly, 1998; Leymann, 1990; Mikkelsen &
Einarsen, 2002; Namie & Namie, 2000; Quine, 1999, 2003; Tepper, 2000; Vartia, 2001).
For a review of the impact of bullying and mobbing on the individual, see Einarsen and
Gemzłe Mikkelsen (2003) and Moayed, Daraiseh, Shell, and Salem (2006). Research on
the organizational impact of bullying and mobbing shows that bullying results in lower
levels of job satisfaction (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997), greater expulsion from the labor
market (Leymann, 1996), lower commitment and higher perceived levels of injustice and
unfairness (Tepper, 2000), increased absenteeism (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Kivim�ki et al.,
2000; Vartia, 2001), and higher turnover and intention to leave (Hoel & Cooper, 2000;
Hoel, Einarsen, & Cooper, 2003).
The consequences discussed above may also apply to witnesses and bystanders,
although the effects may not be as strong. Vartia (2001) reported that those who witnessed
bullying reported higher levels of anxiety than those who had not experienced or
witnessed bullying. One in five of those who witnessed bullying considered leaving their
organizations because of witnessing bullying (as cited in Hoel et al., 2003). With regard
to the broader concept of workplace aggression, Baron and Neuman (1996) reported that
workplace aggressions is more frequently witnessed than experienced, emphasizing the
importance of considering the impact on the witness.
Researchers estimate that bullying costs organizations billions of dollars through
absenteeism, turnover, and legal actions (Davenport et al., 1999; Namie & Namie, 2000;
Rayner et al., 2002; Tepper, 2000). The most recent and robust research on economic cost
has been conducted in the United Kingdom. Giga, Hoel, and Lewis (2008) estimated the
following costs related to bullying in the United Kingdom: absenteeism, Ł3.06 billion;
turnover, Ł1.55 billion; productivity, Ł9.14 billion; for a total cost of Ł13.7 billion. Hoel
et al. (2003) estimated the total minimum cost of a bullying case to the organization to be
Ł28,109. This estimation did not include the costs of transfer, turnover, legal costs, or the
costs of presenteeism to the target peers in the workplace. Koopman et al. (2002) describe
presenteeism as  when employees are physically present in their jobs, they may experi-
ence decreased productivity and below-normal work quality a concept known as de-
creased presenteeism (p. 14). A recent U.S. study suggests that presenteeism costs
about 7.5 10 times that of absenteeism in terms of productivity (as cited in Nowak, 2006).
It thus becomes evident that the economic cost of a case of bullying can be a major burden
to an organization. Finally, the reputation of an organization may be harmed when
bullying and mobbing occur. I have witnessed workgroups and organizations struggle to
recruit appropriate talent once the group or organization has earned a reputation for having
a bullying culture.
SPECIAL ISSUE 175
Antecedents of Bullying and Mobbing
Research identifies three primary antecedents of bullying and mobbing in organizations:
(a) characteristics of the individuals, both perpetrators and targets; (b) social factors that
promote aggression; and (c) features of the organization.
Zapf and Einarsen (2003) provide a comprehensive review of the research on indi-
vidual antecedents of bullying. They identify three main perpetrator characteristics asso-
ciated with the preponderance to bully or mob. They first suggest that bullying and
mobbing behavior is a result of a need to protect self-esteem. This body of research draws
on the general aggression research that finds that aggression is directed toward sources of
negative evaluations and constitutes a way of symbolic dominance and superiority of
another person. In organizations, this may be particularly relevant to superiors as a certain
amount of dominance behavior in superiors is not only accepted but expected as well.
When a superior has high but unstable self-esteem, even trivial threats may trigger an
aggressive response. If other emotions such as frustration, envy, anger, or anxiety are also
present, these may mediate the role between self-esteem and aggression. Following on
this, I have observed that highly competent, extroverted, and self-assured employees may
trigger such aggressive responses in their superiors, especially if those superiors are under
tough performance expectations themselves, are new to leadership, or new to a group.
Unfortunately, the organization often sanctions this type of behavior. Therefore, this type
of behavior can be difficult to address or change from a consulting position. In my
experience, companies that have instituted mandatory leadership coaching for frontline
and middle managers have greater success in managing this type of antecedent than those
that do not provide any leadership coaching or provide it only to top executives.
The second characteristic of a perpetrator identified by Zapf and Einarsen (2003) is a
lack of social competencies, such as anger management, and lack of self-reflection and
perspective taking. This type of bullying is often unintentional, and the perpetrator is often
surprised at other s reaction. It has been my experience that leadership coaching and
360-degree appraisals show some promise in providing insight for the perpetrator.
The third factor identified relates to micropolitical behavior. Micropolitical behavior
is behavior that people take within organizations to enhance their own interests such as to
further their own goals and protect their own status. According to Zapf and Einarsen
(2003), such behaviors may include building coalitions and  sometimes to plot against
competitors (p. 172). Salin (2003) also suggests that this is an antecedent of bullying.
Micropolitical behavior differs from bullying and mobbing on intent. With micropolitical
behavior, the intent is to present the self in a positive light and protect one s own interest
rather than to harm another. Nevertheless, such behavior can cross the line, especially
when organizations restructure, downsize, or change, or when they reward on an individ-
ual basis in highly competitive environments. In my experience, once micropolitical
behavior becomes commonly accepted and a highly competitive environment exists, the
likelihood of bullying becomes high. This was the case in a work division where I
conducted a climate review. Participants repeatedly identified micropolitical behavior
crossing the line to psychological and even physical aggression. Participants reported that
their leaders did not address such behavior, and that the prevailing attitude was one of
 toughen up. Participants identified leadership enforcement and modeling of respectful
behavior as the single most important advantage point for reduction of this behavior. My
recommendations to senior leadership were to provide a strong statement about zero
tolerance for this behavior, detail consequences of exhibiting this behavior, meet with
each supervisor individually and review any feedback about negative behaviors, and
176 FERRIS
provide leadership coaching to those identified as consistently engaging in negative
behavior. Since that time, employees have reported minimal instances of this type of
behavior.
In addition, Babiak and Hare (2006) suggest that many of those who harm others in
the workplace are psychopaths or have a large number of psychopathic traits. They
suggest that this type of person often rises to the top and is difficult to detect in selection
and promotion screening processes. Psychopaths or those with strong traits are often
difficult to treat. They do suggest, however, that strong cultures of respect and norms of
respectful behavior that senior management enforces set boundaries for this type of
aggressor that they are able to follow. Therefore, critical interventions in organizations
include assisting senior leaders in understanding the importance of including respectful
behaviors as part of their performance management system and providing methods such
as 360� appraisals to assess skills and abilities.
Neuman and Baron (2003) provide a discussion of the social antecedents of bullying.
They suggest that the words and deeds of others cause distress in perpetrators and result
in subsequent aggression. They propose that the norm of reciprocity and perceptions of
injustice underlie bullying and mobbing behaviors. In essence, people  get even. They
note that there is a link between perceptions of unfair treatment and workplace violence
and bullying in particular. Frustration and stress are factors that further trigger aggression.
When working with teams or workgroups that experience high levels of incivility,
bullying, and mobbing, or micropolitical behavior, I have heard comments such as,  I m
going to hit him/her and  I d like to take that person out. If frustration is at this level,
it is a large red flag indicating that violence could be imminent, and a consulting
psychologist must attend to this. The consulting psychologist should alert senior manage-
ment and HR personnel of the dangers of such high levels of frustration. Frequently,
having a  stress session can provide some outlet. Most times, simply listening and
providing an outlet to vent assist employees in finding better ways to manage frustration.
This often results in several people recognizing that they need assistance through coun-
seling to manage their stress and frustration levels.
Hoel and Salin (2003) review what they term the organizational antecedents of
bullying and mobbing. They identify four organizational antecedents: (a) the changing
nature of work, (b) work organization, (c) organizational culture and climate, and (d)
leadership. Briefly, they propose that organizational delayering increases pressures on
individual managers. They suggest that managers may adopt autocratic styles to enforce
change, and that employees, worried about their jobs, do not resist such pressure.
Unfortunately, I have observed that employees become increasingly frustrated with this
type of situation. Subsequently, performance decreases, resulting in further confrontation
from the superior to which the employee tries to respond. Ultimately, the employee may
respond in a stressed and aggressive manner. This may subsequently result in termination
or the psychological collapse of the employee. It is at this point that employees may go
on sick leave or disability. In this scenario, it is clinically very difficult to repair the
psychological damage and have a successful return to work for the employee. Unless there
is support from all professionals involved in this type of disability management case, it is
likely to go on a long time and result in much conflict among team members and the
organization.
Hoel and Salin (2003) next propose that role conflict and role ambiguity create stress
and frustration that may trigger the search for scapegoats and result in bullying. It has been
my experience that, without clear direction, stressed employees may turn on other
employees out of frustration and a desire to displace blame that may be directed toward
SPECIAL ISSUE 177
them. Again, this type of dynamic is often uncovered through stress, team, or climate
reviews. In my opinion, the intervention of choice is to involve the team in identifying
sources of conflict and ambiguity as well as in developing solutions. This process not only
identifies the issues, it also engages the team in joint problem solving and creates a better
sense of a team. Senior leaders should review progress on action items until complete.
Hoel and Salin (2003) also propose that culture plays a part in bullying. They suggest
that some cultures are high pressure and require conformity, such as the service industry.
If a culture is well entrenched, it often takes a new manager to start the process of culture
change. Other than that, a lawsuit or high-profile turnover can create impetus for change.
The consulting psychologist s role in this type of situation is to continually raise aware-
ness of the issue and propose at a minimum an antibullying policy (which will NOT
guarantee that bullying and mobbing will cease). If the organization does move forward
with any training, the consulting psychologist will need to be prepared for sessions with
a high degree of pushback.
Last, Hoel and Salin (2003) propose that leadership is an important antecedent of
bullying and mobbing. They cite research that suggests that low satisfaction with lead-
ership and autocratic leadership are associated with bullying and mobbing. They also cite
an emerging issue in leadership, that of the  laissez-faire leader: the leader who abdicates
his or her role. They indicate that given the conditions noted above, this provides fertile
ground for the emergence of bullying and mobbing behaviors. This becomes especially
salient in times of change and reorganization when a leader must help protect positions
and employees. In my experience, if a leader is unable or unwilling to manage such times,
micropolitcal and bullying and mobbing behavior may emerge. I recommend that orga-
nizations provide change management workshops to frontline supervisors to educate
leaders about managing their own and employee reactions to change.
Diagnosing Organizational Orientation Toward Bullying and Mobbing
Brodsky (1976) argues that for harassment to occur, the organization must permit and
reward such behavior. More recently, Rayner and McIvor (2006) argues that organizations
must take greater ownership of bullying. Their findings suggest that where organizations
use deep processes of engagement and rigorous adherence to value sets, there is greater
success in excluding workplace bullying and harassment. It is helpful for the consulting
psychologist to have frameworks that aid in the assessment of the (corporate) client phase
of development for addressing bullying and mobbing. I review three frameworks for
potentially understanding the orientation of an organization toward bullying and mobbing.
Organizational Representative Responses
The first framework relates to how an organization might respond to allegations of
bullying and mobbing. Lewis and Rayner (2003) state that,  Of all the functional
departments that deal with bullying at work, it is the personnel resource department that
is likely to have the greatest involvement (p. 370). Rayner and McIvor (2006) report that
HR may not want to be involved in managerial issues, and thus typically only become
involved with bullying and mobbing in the case of formal complaints. As a result, HR
professionals may turn away those asking for help in informal ways. Furthermore, Rayner
and McIvor report that participants in their study found that HR often dealt with each
report separately and failed to examine a bigger picture. They thus wonder whether HR
may be a  wolf in sheep s clothing (p. 370).
178 FERRIS
Harrington (2005) found that HR professionals were reluctant to label case scenarios
as bullying, even when the presented scenarios contained all the behaviors defined as
bullying within the extant literature. Harrington (2005) reports that participants chose to
label the behavior as  management style, and even acknowledged that their response
passively condoned bullying. Harrington (2007) further argues that the HR role has moved
from one of employee welfare to one of management of people to meet management s
expectations. She suggests that HR professionals may experience a  sense of powerless-
ness, lack of credibility and pressure to meet organizational requirements (p. 8), and thus
argues that they make decisions to support bullying as a management technique rather
than viewing the managerial behavior as an unethical.
In an earlier review of my practitioner experiences (Ferris, 2004), I identified three
potential responses from those in organizations from whom a target might ask for
assistance. The three responses identified are (a) see no evil: the organization sees nothing
wrong with bullying and mobbing behavior and takes no responsibility for managing
behaviors; (b) hear no evil: the organization confuses bullying and mobbing with person-
ality conflict, and directs the individuals involved to deal with the dynamics themselves;
and (c) speak no evil: the organization recognizes the behaviors as destructive, and
actively participates in seeking resolution. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of each
type of organization.
The  see no evil organization is easy to identify. These organizations are highly
competitive, bottom-line focused, and will make statements about employees such as,
 There are more employees out there,  People need to toughen up if they want to work
here, or  That s our culture if they don t fit, they can leave. Employees in this type of
organization usually understand this about their organization and are not surprised when
this behavior happens. They typically quit or sue the company. When consulting with this
type of organization, the consulting psychologist should start with interventions that
address the basic level of development for addressing bullying and mobbing (see the next
section).
The  hear no evil organization can be hard to identify because, on the surface, it will
look like the  speak no evil organization. These organizations may have respectful
workplace polices and believe in the value of people. Nevertheless, these organizations
often confuse bullying and mobbing with personality conflict. Representatives from these
types of organizations suggest that employees  duke it out in the parking lot,  seek
counseling, or participate in mediation without understanding the concept of bullying and
Table 1
Characteristics of Organizational Response to Allegations of Bullying and Mobbing
Characteristic See no evil Hear no evil Speak no evil
Responsibility for
resolution None Individual Individuals/organization
Typical solution None Counseling/mediation Investigation, support, consequences,
offered counseling, and mediation where
appropriate
Most common Focused on profits Traditional, hierarchical Achievement oriented, with focus on
culture and production people and engagement with
workforce
Typical outcomes Turnover, reputational Presenteeism, absenteeism, Retention, resolution, reputational
loss, lawsuits disability, reputational gain, loyalty
loss, turnover, lawsuits
SPECIAL ISSUE 179
mobbing. These organizations may be traditional hierarchical organizations but may also
be achievement oriented. In my experience, this response appears to be the most damag-
ing. Employees in this type of organization have the expectation that the organization will
provide help. When help is not provided or when the organizational representative
becomes co-opted into a mobbing process, employees are unprepared for this and
experience further psychological damage. These organizations are often responsive to
education about the concepts, and are generally open to policy development and training
procedures.
The third type understands the issues and takes appropriate steps to manage the
problems, including referring the perpetrator for counseling or coaching. This type of
organization is responsive to ongoing training and provision of investigation and media-
tion services, as well as the provision of leadership coaching. Nevertheless, initiatives
must be ongoing to maintain focus on the management of bully and mobbing.
Process Model
Einarsen et al. (2003) proposed a theoretical framework of workplace bullying. The
model shows a top-down and bottom-up relationship among levels of variables. At the
bottom, individual characteristics influence both bullying behaviors exhibited by the
perpetrator and the bullying behavior as perceived by the target. These lead to the
immediate behavioral reactions by the target that ultimately affect both the individual
and the organization. From the top, cultural and socioeconomic factors such as high
pace of change, intensifying workloads, and employment uncertainty are associated
with organizational actions such as (a) tolerance or intolerance and social support, and
(b) retaliation or retribution and policy enforcement. Organizational action is subse-
quently associated with organizational factors inhibiting aggressive behavior. In the
framework, organizational factors in turn relate to bullying behavior as exhibited by
the perpetrator.
Salin (2003) expanded this model to include power structures in society (below
cultural and socioeconomic factors). She also detailed three types of organizational
factors that explain the presence of bullying and mobbing: (a) enabling structures and
processes, (b) motivating structures or processes, and (c) precipitating processes.
Enabling structures and processes include perceived power imbalances, a perception
of low cost for engaging in bullying behaviors (i.e., weak leadership and a permissive
or  tough organizational culture), and dissatisfaction and frustration related to role
conflict and ambiguity, lack of clarity, and stress. Motivating structures or processes
reflect micropolitical behaviors that may make it attractive to individuals to bully
another individual such as high internal competition, reward systems, bureaucracy,
and difficulties laying off employees.  See no evil companies are likely to evidence
numerous instances of enabling structures and processes. Interventions discussed in
the following section are appropriate for this type of organization. Presenting these
interventions as a means of improving retention and improving performance can be
easier than implying culture change. Precipitating processes include the actual trig-
gers, usually a change in status quo such as a restructuring and other organizational
changes and changes in management or composition of a workgroup. Even companies
that reflect good people management will need assistance during these times. Con-
sulting psychologists can frame interventions as not only reducing stress but also
reducing the potential for psychologically harmful behaviors.
180 FERRIS
Rayner and McIvor Typology
Rayner and McIvor (2006) provide a comprehensive  typology of organizations tackling
bullying and harassment framework in their  Report to the Dignity at Work Steering
Committee. They rank organizational effectiveness in dealing with bullying and mobbing
along a continuum of four phases: (a)  oblivious (this would map on to the  see no evil
response); (b)  fragmented, a passive approach; (c)  near, typified by an active approach
but accepting weakness in their systems (this is close to the  hear no evil response); and
(d)  strategic, with regular monitoring and change, being proactive.
On the basis of Rayner and McIvor s (2006) vision of the  strategic phase of tackling
bullying, the following description represents what I believe to be a fully developed
organizational plan to manage bullying and mobbing. The proposed plan is reflective of
good management practices regardless of the issue of bullying and mobbing. This plan
starts with acknowledgment of bullying and mobbing as a potential organizational risk,
and continues with the development of a strategic plan to identify and monitor progress
toward a respectful workplace. Senior leadership owns the problem as a potential orga-
nizational problem. Senior leadership invests in policy development and training for
leaders, HR personnel, and employees. Senior leadership provides resources to their
leaders and employees, including provision of leadership coaches, EAPs, and mediators.
Occupational health (OH) and HR provide readily accessible information about all other
resources such as human rights tribunals, legal advice, and support lines. Senior leaders,
OH, and HR maintain healthy networks with professionals they take time to meet with
and discuss issues with these professionals. All leaders and employees demonstrate a
zero-tolerance attitude toward any form of disrespect. The organization selects all levels
of employees, including senior positions, for integrity. The organization has processes that
measure and reward respectful behavior. Processes for informal and formal complaint
resolution are in place and widely disseminated to employees. In the fully responsive
organization, the actual incidence of bullying and mobbing is low and dealt with imme-
diately in a supportive manner to all parties involved. The following section discusses
interventions that lead to good organizational practices.
Interventions
Basic Interventions: Increasing Organizational Ability To Detect and Correct
The consulting psychologist brings a human orientation to the workplace that is different
from that of management. Newman, Robinson-Kurpius, and Fuqua (2002) state that
managers focus on production outcomes, whereas consulting psychologists focus on the
role and function of human factors to improve the quality of working life. In addition, the
consulting psychologist has a unique set of skills with which to apply interventions. These
unique skills and abilities include in-depth understanding of personality, testing, and
assessment, and the application of these concepts to selection, coaching, and performance
management. As such, the consulting psychologist offers more than good management
techniques. The interventions suggested in this section offer the opportunity to humanize
the workplace using organizational development techniques such as action research,
collaborative client consultant inquiry, feedback, and action planning (Sinangil & Aval-
lone, 2002).
Consulting psychologists work in a wide range of organizations as both internal and
external consultants providing psychological expertise such as leadership coaching, de-
velopment, and training. As such, an organizational representative may ask the consulting
SPECIAL ISSUE 181
psychologist to diagnose and treat not only individuals within the organization but wider
organizational issues as well. Such interventions may focus on individual leaders, teams,
business units, and the organization as a whole. It is likely that an organizational
representative will ask a consulting psychologist about the concept of bullying and
mobbing, or that a consulting psychologist will be confronted with the need to suggest an
intervention to manage bullying and mobbing during his or her career. This section
reviews interventions and strategies that assist organizations to deal with bullying and
mobbing. These interventions represent business opportunities for the consulting psychol-
ogist and opportunities for organizations to develop respectful and subsequently more
productive workplaces.
Raising Awareness of the Issue
Bullying and mobbing are common in organizations. Nevertheless, some organizations
may not understand the risk of such behaviors. A consulting psychologist can be very
helpful to an organization by bringing the issue to the attention of senior management. I
have found that presenting a business case is the most effective way to introduce the need
for policy development and training for the prevention of bullying and mobbing. The
consulting psychologist may introduce the topic in several ways. First, the consulting
psychologist can simply ask whether the company contacts are aware of the concept of
bullying and mobbing, and whether this is an issue that they might be interested in
understanding in greater depth. The consulting psychologist can also provide a definition
and description of bullying and mobbing and ask whether the company has dealt with any
complaints like this. The consulting psychologist may also ask whether the company
conducts employee satisfaction or stress surveys or whether it conducts exit interviews. If
bullying and mobbing is an issue within an organization, then it is likely to be identified
as negative work climate or hostile relationships with peers or managers. During this
conversation, the consulting psychologist may note that (a) the cost of bullying and
mobbing in the workplace is high, (b) that (at least in Canada) civil lawsuits are increasing
and are increasingly costly to the organization, and (c) that many organizations now
include policy statements and processes to address bullying and mobbing as part of their
respectful workplace policies. Offering an education workshop about the concept, con-
sequences, and management of this issue is often a first step to more comprehensive
management.
Policy Development
Einarsen (1999) and Rayner et al. (2002) have noted that in organizations where policies
and consequences of harmful behavior are lacking, bullying appears more prevalent. The
consulting psychologist should encourage every organization to develop at a minimum a
policy and train its HR personnel as well as top, middle, and frontline leaders in the
identification and management of bullying and mobbing. The consulting psychologist
should encourage the company to provide such training to employees as well. Richards
and Daley (2003) provide details for policy development, implementation, and monitor-
ing. Offering policy development in the format of a half-day workshop is often useful.
This provides engagement in the process and tailors the policy to each organization. The
workshop is interactive and engages participants in defining bullying and mobbing, listing
unacceptable behaviors, developing resources to assist individuals, and creating conse-
quences in line with other organizational policies. Nevertheless, unless the organization
182 FERRIS
delivers the policy to employees, monitors, and enforces it, policy alone is unlikely to
make a great impact.
Training
I start with training for senior leaders, HR personnel, and OH services personnel (if the
organization has such personnel) and follow with training for employees. I recommend a
half-day workshop that begins with a discussion of the business, moral, and legal cases for
addressing bullying and mobbing. Following this, I define the concepts and discuss the
differences between bullying and mobbing, human rights protected harassment, and
violence. I believe these are important distinctions to make because it is likely that
organizations will have policies for protected grounds harassment and workplace violence.
This discussion links the concept of bullying and mobbing to other accepted concepts.
Next, the training proceeds to discussing options for addressing bullying and mobbing
behaviors. The options reviewed should include identifying personal behaviors that may
be experienced as negative or harmful and modifying these, empowering all to point out
to each other behaviors that could be experienced as negative or harmful, discussing how
to talk to someone about behavior that is offensive, and discussing how to receive a
complaint about an individual s own behavior.
For leaders, HR, and OH, training interventions provide additional skill development
in constructive confrontation, active listening, and performance management. This train-
ing should provide knowledge about how to investigate allegations of bullying and
mobbing. Training may also facilitate participant examination of their own attitudes about
bullying and mobbing and should present case examples of what is and is not bullying and
mobbing. Training should also include examples of the implications of not addressing
complaints in a supportive manner. The training includes establishing the fact that, similar
to investigating human rights violation allegations, the investigator s role is to establish
the facts and make a decision about whether a complaint is legitimate on the basis of facts
revealed. This part includes a summary of the key skills and abilities required by those at
senior levels who may need to deal with allegations of workplace bullying and mobbing.
These include the ability to maintain records and keep confidentiality, timely investigation
and reporting, report writing skills, active listening skills, harm reduction strategies (i.e.,
keeping the alleged target safe until an investigation and decision has been reached), and
the ability to make decisions that reflect justice. For details, Merchant and Hoel (2003)
provide a comprehensive overview of the investigative process.
Internal staff may not feel competent to investigate; therefore, the consulting
psychologist may also find opportunity through providing external investigation
services. If the consulting psychologist offers this service, it is essential to provide a
contract that outlines (a) the purpose of the intervention, (b) who owns the resulting
report, (c) what confidentiality measures are in place, and (d) organizational commit-
ment to acting on recommendations.
Resolution
Many consider mediation an appropriate intervention for bullying and mobbing. Indeed,
the Quebec legislation makes this a mandatory part of the resolution process. Neverthe-
less, it has been my experience that mediation in bullying and mobbing cases often either
fails or further harms the alleged victim. There may be several reasons for such failure.
First, someone unskilled in mediation or someone unfamiliar with the nuances of bullying
and mobbing may undertake mediation. Second, there is typically a power differential
SPECIAL ISSUE 183
between the alleged target and perpetrator. Thus, one party in the mediation is likely to be
at a disadvantage. If mediation is undertaken, it would be wise that each person involved
be interviewed separately (a) to determine agreement and desire for such a process, (b) to
understand and address any fears they may have about the process, and (c) to determine
their psychological fitness to participate in such a process. Alleged victims are often very
fragile psychologically and may not have the resilience to participate. Alleged perpetrators
may be very angry and may need coaching to discuss their position without further
aggression.
An organizational representative may also ask the consulting psychologist what measures
the organization can take once it has been decided that bullying or mobbing has occurred. Salin
(2009) identifies four measures that an organization may take when dealing with bullying and
mobbing. Salin suggests a reconciliatory process, such as discussions with the parties involved.
It is my opinion that this may be useful if conducted early in a bullying and mobbing process.
Second, Salin suggests transfer of the target or perpetrator to protect a target by physical
distance. Third, she identifies punitive measures, such as withholding promotion or termina-
tion. Punitive measures, although infrequently used, may act as a deterrent to others and restore
a sense of justice. Finally, Salin suggests avoidance of action.
In-depth Interventions: Increasing Organizational Ability
To Prevent Bullying and Mobbing
Raising awareness and engaging an organization in understanding the issues may be
sufficient for those organizations that have a strong commitment to respectful workplaces.
Other organizations may require a greater understanding of the experiences in their
workplaces. This section reviews additional strategies to assist organizations in creating a
respectful workplace.
Uncovering the Extent of Bullying and Mobbing
If an organizational indicates that surveys, interviews, or employee discussions suggest
that bullying and mobbing has occurred, or if it is interested in understanding the nature
and extent of this behavior in the workplace, there are two effective approaches. The first
approach involves conducting an anonymous survey about bullying and mobbing behav-
iors in the workplace. Rayner et al. (2002) provide an excellent overview of a large survey,
including survey questions. Because of their training in survey development and psycho-
metric issues, consulting psychologists have the expertise to use or develop survey
techniques in the workplace. A comprehensive initiative includes a rollout of the survey
results to participating teams and employees within the organization, including a discus-
sion of the results and development of actions to address the problems. Employees
typically are well engaged in the process and develop far more comprehensive and
meaningful actions than a consultant or manager could. The consulting psychologist
should ask organizations to commit to acting on actionable items. The consulting psy-
chologist or the organization should track progress for a period of a year, holding the
teams and their leaders accountable.
Interviews are an alternative to the survey approach. Although more costly, interviews
provide a much greater depth of insight to the issues. Semistructured individual interviews,
followed by team interviews or discussion and report, can be very effective. In one of my
interventions, this approach was successful in moving one organization to adhere to its code
of conduct and vastly reduced the incidence of reported bullying and mobbing behaviors over
a period of 1 year. The report to the company is an important component of this process. The
184 FERRIS
report puts on record the issues and recommendations and becomes a document to which the
company is accountable. Therefore, as much as confidentiality will allow, the report needs to
be straightforward and detailed with specific recommendations.
Coaching HR Personnel
HR personnel have a critical role in the prevention, detection, and correction of bullying
and mobbing in organizations, and they represent a strong point of leverage in organiza-
tions. Assisting HR to define its role within the organization for dealing with bullying and
mobbing is an important intervention. When an organization begins the process of policy
development and training, this represents an excellent opportunity to meet with HR
personnel to discuss these issues. Training on investigation skills, supportive actions, and
active listening and problem solving may be offered. Of critical importance is helping the
HR professional distinguish bullying and mobbing from conflict and other forms of
harassment and developing a set of skills to informally coach managers and employees
who are identified as engaging in repeated behaviors.
Selection, Performance Management,
and Reward Systems
Although research on the individual antecedents of bullying is just emerging, research has
shown a modest correlation between tests of integrity and counterproductive workplace
behaviors (Sackett & Devore, 2002). Thus, the consulting psychologist may be involved in
assisting an organization in developing a selection testing and interview process that assesses
prospective employees integrity. Following selection, the consulting psychologist has a great
opportunity to assist organizations in embedding respectful workplace behaviors in their
performance management system. Finally, many organizations today create highly competi-
tive reward systems that lead to micropolitical behavior (Salin, 2003). The consulting psy-
chologist has the opportunity to assist in the development of team-based rewards.
Leadership Coaching
Research demonstrates that those who bully are more frequently supervisors and managers
than colleagues (summarized by Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003). Because of the
inherent formal power of superiors, it may be easier for superiors to attack the career of
a person. It is my opinion that engaging leaders in creating a respectful workplace through
their modeling and the enforcement of subordinate respectful behavior represents the
single greatest point of leverage in eliminating bullying and mobbing from an organiza-
tion. Leadership and executive coaching is an effective way of holding leaders account-
able for their behavior and providing them with the skills and abilities to manage their
behavior. Therefore, the effectiveness of coaching should not be underestimated as a
strategy to eliminate workplace bullying and mobbing. Leaders own attitudes toward
others and their understanding of the concept of bullying and mobbing should be an
essential part of a coaching process. For example, a case of a senior staff referred for
bullying looked unpromising. The senior staff person referred had a long history of
hostility toward staff. This individual had been witnessed engaging in numerous and
repeated bullying behaviors such as glaring at staff, storming out of their area, withholding
praise, being rude, making negative comments about staff s competence, calling staff
names, providing excessively harsh criticism, and reprimanding staff in front of others.
The company engaged me in a consultation after a key employee quit and clearly
identified this bullying behavior as the reason for turnover.
SPECIAL ISSUE 185
I met with senior executives in this company and reviewed the possible legal
consequences of this type of behavior (in Canada, employees sue in civil court for
 constructive dismissal ) as well as the other costs to the organization, such as increased
turnover and reduced productivity. With the recent turnover, this discussion had a
significant impact. To correct the behavior of the individual, I recommended the follow-
ing: a performance management interview with the individual by senior staff and a letter
of expectation to improve behavior. I suggested that the letter strongly advise attendance
for assessment and coaching. The individual did attend, and assessment revealed that this
person was aware of the reported behavior and aware that others experienced it as harmful.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory results revealed mistrust and suspiciousness,
social isolation, and a negative outlook. On interview, this individual was defensive and
dismissive of the process of assessment. Nevertheless, the company was clear to the
individual that behavior change was expected. This individual valued the job and agreed
to participate. Subsequent to testing, assessment, and review of the finding by the testing
psychologist, I met with this person and gave a checklist of bullying and mobbing
behaviors. This was actually quite interesting to the person involved and generated a good
discussion of the behaviors in need of change. The behavior checklist formed the basis for
leadership coaching. In discussing the need for behavior change, I framed the discussion
in terms of (a) the business risk to the employer (e.g., lowered productivity, high turnover,
and the potential for lawsuits), and (b) the risk of eventual loss of employment if the
behavior did not stop. I then set up coaching with a leadership coach. The leadership coach
set the expectation that senior company leaders provide ongoing feedback to the coach
about progress. The referring contact and leadership coach reported significant improve-
ment in the individual s behavior maintained over a period of 6 months.
When it comes to creating leaders that are collaborative and respectful, psychologists
have much to offer in contrast to those who offer  management or  strategic coaching.
Psychologists have the requisite core competencies to engage leaders in an examination of
their behaviors and triggers for such behavior. Psychologists are able to promote not just
goal-oriented actions, but personal growth as well in the areas of intrapersonal and
interpersonal functioning (Peltier, 2001). According to Peltier (2001), these core compe-
tencies include one-on-one interpersonal instruction, behavior analysis, psychological
assessment, counseling, or psychotherapy.
The above case discussion highlights an individual approach. Applying the interven-
tion strategies previously discussed for organizational-level interventions, this organiza-
tion would benefit from basic interventions such as raising awareness of the issue, policy
development, and training. The organizational representative that liaised with me dem-
onstrated a solid grasp of respectful workplaces. This indicates that in addition to basic
policy and training initiatives, more advanced interventions would be well received,
including the development of an improved performance management system that included
respectful behavior as an expectation and provision of leadership coaching. Leadership
coaching may have identified and addressed such behavior before so many people
experienced the harmful impact of the behaviors.
Conclusion
Bullying and mobbing remain ubiquitous in the workplace despite more than 20 years of
lawsuits and lobbying by researchers, unions, and practitioners for better management of
this psychological form of aggression. Research has established that the consequences
186 FERRIS
ensuing from this type of behavior not only harm the individual but the organization as
well. Research has also established that the antecedents of bullying and mobbing stem
from not only the characteristics of individuals but of organizations as well.
A growing body of research indicates that despite the individual and organizational
costs of bullying and mobbing, some organizational representatives fail to respond
appropriately to allegations of psychological aggression. Work should not hurt. Work is
an integral component of self-identity, and it should be not only be physically safe but
psychologically safe as well. It seems clear that many organizations are unlikely to have
the insight and skills to address fully bullying and mobbing. This presents a needed role
for those in consulting fields. I have argued that consulting psychologists bring a skill set
that is needed to move organizations toward the detection, correction, and prevention of
workplace bullying and mobbing. As such, consulting psychologists can play an important
role in addressing the issue of bullying and mobbing in the workplace.
The research literature and my practice experience converge to provide a set of
interventions that include basic interventions such as raising awareness, policy develop-
ment, and employee training. In-depth interventions include the development and imple-
mentation of surveillance tools and processes; coaching for leaders at all levels and
especially HR; and development of selection, performance management, and reward
systems that promote collaborative working relationships.
In conclusion, I revisit the analogy of geese. There is a need to create organizations
that facilitate the positive aspects of a flock of geese. Geese have many wonderful
qualities. They  honk from behind for encouragement when flying, take turns in the
demanding lead flight position, and follow and support a wounded member until they
recover or die. That s a better analogy for a workplace. Consulting psychologists have an
important role in building a better flock.
References
Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work: How to confront and overcome it. London: Viagro Press.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755 778.
Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126 140.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York:
HarperCollins.
Baron, R., & Neuman, J. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their
relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161 173.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Coloroso, B. (2002). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander: From pre-school to high school: How
parents and teachers can help break the cycle of violence. Toronto: HarperCollins.
Commission des Normes du Travail. (2004). A work environment free from psychological harass-
ment: It s everyone s business. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca
Davenport, N., Distler Schwartz, R., & Pursell Elliott, G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the
American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). BSI: Brief Symptom Inventory. Administration, scoring, and procedures
manual (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). SCL-90-R. Administration, scoring and procedures manual (3rd ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Man-
power, 20, 16 28.
Einarsen, S., & Gemzłe Mikkelsen, E. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work.
SPECIAL ISSUE 187
In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace (pp. 127 144). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The
European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 3 30). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men.
Violence and Victims, 12, 247 263.
Ferris, P., & Kline, T. J. B. (in press). Negative interpersonal interactions: Consequences in the
student practice setting. Journal of Vocational Training and Education.
Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organizational response to allegations of workplace
bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance and Counsel-
ling, 32, 389 395.
Field, T. (1996). Bully in sight. Wantage, Oxfordshire, England: Success Unlimited.
Giga, S. I., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2008). The costs of workplace bullying. Manchester, England:
University of Bradford.
Harrington, S. O. (2005). Bullying: What s in a name? Perspectives from inside and outside of
human resources. Unpublished master s thesis, University of London, Birkbeck.
Harrington, S. O. (2007, November). Seeking understanding from inconsistency: An exploration of
human resource management s response to bullying. Paper presented at the 1st Portuguese
Conference on Workplace Bullying: Increasing Awareness of Workplace Bullying: Concepts,
Research and Solutions, Lisbon, Portugal.
Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial
relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 44, 239 262.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester, England:
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.
Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Organizational effects of bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp.
145 162). London: Taylor & Francis.
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.
Hornstein, H. A. (1997). Brutal bosses and their prey: How to overcome abuse in the workplace.
Toronto: Penguin Books.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 1, 85 117.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace
bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace (pp. 31 61). London: Taylor & Francis.
Kivim�ki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness absence in
hospital staff. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 656 660.
Kivim�ki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas-J�rvinen, L.
(2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational
and Environment Medicine, 60, 779  783.
Koopman, C., Pelletiere, K. R., Murray, J. F., Sharda, C. E., Berger, M. L., & Turpin, R. S., et al.
(2002). Stanford presenteeism scale: Health status and employee productivity. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44, 14 20.
Levin-Epstein, J. (2005). Presenteeism and paid sick days. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social
Policy. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from http://www/clasp.org/publications/presneteeism.pdf
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.
188 FERRIS
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5,
119  126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165 184.
Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of
the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185 201.
Marais, S., & Herman, M. (1997). Corporate hyenas at work: How to spot and outwit them by being
hyenawise. Norwood, South Africa: Kagiso Publishers.
Merchant, V., & Hoel, H. (2003). Investigating complaints of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D.
Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 259  269).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and
psychological and psychosomatic health complaints. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43,
397 405.
Moayed, F. S., Daraiseh, N., Shell, R., & Salem, S. (2006). Workplace bullying: A systematic
review of risk factors and outcomes. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7, 311 327.
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.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Social antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H.
Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp.
185 202). London: Taylor & Francis.
Newman, J. L., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., & Fuqua, D. R. (2002). Issues in the ethical practice of
consulting psychology. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), The California School of Organizational Studies
handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and
techniques (pp. 733 758). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nowak, J. (2006). Presenteeism: A proactive solution for business. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from
http://www.google.ca/search?hl en&q PRESENTEEISM%2C a proactive solution for
business nowak 2005&btnG Search&meta
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 129 137.
Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching: Theory and application. New York:
Taylor & Francis.
Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in an NHS community trust: Staff questionnaire survey.
British Medical Journal, 318, 228 232.
Quine, L. (2003). Workplace bullying, psychological distress and job satisfaction in junior doctors.
Cambridge Quarterly of Health Ethics, 12, 91 101.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 3, 199 208.
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.
Rayner, C., & McIvor, K. (2006). Report to the Dignity at Work Project Steering Committee:
Research findings. Portsmouth, England: University of Portsmouth Business School.
Richards, J., & Daley, H. (2003). Bullying policy: Development, implementation, and monitoring.
In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace (pp. 247 258). London: Taylor & Francis.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 555 572.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145 164). London: Sage.
Salin, D. (2003). Workplace bullying among business professionals: Prevalence, organizational
antecedents, gender differences. Helsinki, Finland: Swedish School of Economics and Business
Administration.
SPECIAL ISSUE 189
Salin, D. (2009). Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study. Per-
sonnel Review, 38, 26  44.
Sinangil, H. K., & Avallone, F. (2002). Organizational change and development. In N. Anderson,
D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and
organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 332 345). London: Sage.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
178  190.
Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets
and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health, 27, 63 69.
Westhues, K. (2007). Test yourself: Is it bullying or mobbing that interests you more? Retrieved
October 19, 2008, from http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ kwesthue/bullyingvsmobbing.htm
Zapf, D. (1999). Mobbing in organisationen. Ein �berlick zum stand der forschung [Mobbing in
organizations. A state of the art review]. Zeitschrift f�r Arbets  and Organizations pyscholo-
gie, 43, 1 25.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victim and perpetrators. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace (pp. 165 184). London: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the
workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace (pp. 103 126). London: Taylor & Francis.
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 Orga-
nizational Psychology, 5, 215 237.
Zapf, D., & Leymann, H. (Eds.). (1996). Mobbing and victimization at work [Special issue].
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 161 307.
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be
available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and
you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!