The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.

htm

Bullying, disability and work: a case study of workplace bullying

Margaret H. Vickers
School of Management, College of Business, University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a woman diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) who was bullied out of her workplace. Design/methodology/approach The paper commences with a narrative about our protagonist, Miranda (a pseudonym), before offering some important contextual theoretical information, including: a discussion of employment concerns for people with disability generally, and for those with MS in particular, and of workplace bullying. Mirandas experiences are then shared as an intrinsic and particularistic case study of her experiences of being bullied following her disclosure of MS at her workplace. Findings Recommendations are made for further research into the potential problems of the workplace experiences of people with disability as a result of learning from the particularities of Mirandas individual case, as well as how this case study has illuminated a potentially much wider and previously unexamined problem of workplace bullying of people with disability. Originality/value The author is unable to nd any other research studies that examine the phenomenon of workplace bullying of people with disability in general, or people with MS in particular. Keywords Bullying, Employment, Workplace, Disabled workers Paper type Case study

Bullying, disability and work 255

I wandered up the cracked concrete garden path beside the semi-detached house matching the address Miranda had given me. I couldnt nd the front door so I resorted to knocking on a window and calling out. Hello, Miranda? Anyone home? I recognised Mirandas voice returning to me, bright and cheery. Is that you, Margaret? Come up the side. The back doors open. A pretty, petite young woman poked her head around from behind the back door she had just opened for me, smiled broadly, then lurched off in the other direction. Her hands never strayed from a sturdy bit of furniture, a wall or bench top to support her as she made her way awkwardly and unevenly toward her sitting room, which was adjacent to where she had let me in. As I walked into her cosy home, I felt immediately overdressed in my business suit. Is it OK to do it in here? asked Miranda. I nodded and smiled briey, trying not to let my discomfort show. As a person with MS myself, I was feeling a few familiar and uncomfortable pangs about my own possible future as I contemplated Mirandas considerable ambulatory difculties. Disturbing images of my own potential future itted unbid through my mind. Quickly, I regathered myself and got on with the job.
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal Vol. 4 No. 3, 2009 pp. 255-272 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1746-5648 DOI 10.1108/17465640911002536

QROM 4,3

Of course. This is perfect, I said. I sat myself down in the nearest sofa chair and proceeded to unpack my tape recorder and associated interview paraphernalia. Miranda sat down in another chair, opposite me. I couldnt help but notice that her slim, somewhat wasted, tanned legs were bruised and scraped from what I would soon learn were the multitude of falls Miranda endured each day. Wind chimes tinkled cheerily from their place hanging from a gum tree outside rather inappropriately I thought, considering the subject matter at hand as a breeze gently stirred that warm, Sydney afternoon. I spied a wheelchair lurking in a dark corner of the hallway, just within my line of vision. It appeared to have been shunned from the main thoroughfares of Mirandas home, its shiny metal frame disguising what felt like an almost malevolent presence. Miranda would later explain to me that she was still refusing to use the wheelchair unless it was absolutely necessary, such as for social outings with her friends to assist her in getting around. Thats just, its there. I dont use it, she later said. It was her mothers wheelchair she explained and it was there because the hospital staff had told her that she needed it to at least use around the house. I assumed she was doing that, having just seen her difculty walking. So, you use that to get around in here? I asked. Wrong. No. said Miranda, shaking her head determinedly. I havent yet, she added with a smile. But Ive got it there. It looks nice; I think it needs dusting. We both laughed a bit of an in-joke that someone without MS wouldnt really be able to share. I understood perfectly her choice to resist using the wheelchair what would bring such a profound shift in her identity. I returned my mind again to the task at hand. I recalled Miranda telling me when we arranged this interview that she no longer worked because her employer had gotten rid of her when they found out she had MS. Miranda was aged 38 years when I met with her. She shared with me that she was single, with no children, and had achieved a high school education. Mirandas career for almost 15 years had been as a ight attendant in the airline [travel] industry. Here I share my interpretations of her passage from that workplace after her disclosure of a diagnosis of MS.

256

As a person with multiple sclerosis (MS), a person with disability, a person who has been bullied at work, and one who has written about many of those experiences as they have pertained to my life and work, and the life and work of others (see, for example, Vickers, 2001, 2007; Hutchinson et al., 2006), I decided to return to Mirandas story to explore it and possibly highlight it as a case study of workplace bullying. Miranda had certainly experienced a negative, even punitive, response (Susman, 1994, p. 16) from her employer after they learned of her illness and I wanted to understand this more. I present this is an intrinsic case study because I needed to learn more about her particular case; I had an intrinsic interest in it (Stake, 1995), meaning that her case was of essential interest to me, both as a worker with MS who had also experienced bullying, but also from the perspective of a scholar interested in the experiences of people who live and work with disability, and who may have experienced bullying as well. I would also characterise Mirandas experience as a case study because it was a bounded system, an object rather than a process (Stake, 1995, p. 2). The case comprises Mirandas experiences of being bullied at her workplace after her disclosure of having MS.

This was also a particularistic case study, which may have been inuenced by the authors bias (Merriam, 1998). However, I prefer to think that my analysis is more inclined to reexivity in the way Clegg and Hardy (1996, p. 4) describe it, as ways of seeing which act back on and reect existing ways of seeing (as cited by Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2005, p. 248). My ways of seeing Mirandas case could not help but be inuenced by my own experiences. The particularisation of the case also involved an emphasis on uniqueness and understanding of the case itself (Stake, 1995), with case study presenting a powerful learning modality designed to vividly engage human empathy and, through that, better implant knowledge in the mind of the reader (de Laine, 1997, p. 12). In learning from the particular, I hoped readers would be able to comprehend my reexive interpretations, as well as vicariously experiencing what happened to Miranda and drawing their own conclusions (which might be very different from my own) (Stake, 2003). I also present Mirandas experiences as a paradigm case offering strong instances of particular patterns of meaning (Leonard, 1989, p. 54). The purpose of the case study is to gather in-depth information and optimise understanding of the case, rather than necessarily generalize beyond it (de Laine, 1997, p. 183). Qualitative case studies such as this one seek to describe in depth, detail, and context the case under consideration. I was reminded that I wasnt studying this case to necessarily understand other cases. My rst obligation was to understand this one (Stake, 1995) and share my interpretations usefully. I hope to have done that. This particularistic case study was used to both examine a specic instance while also illuminating a general problem (Merriam, 1998). Cases studies are accepted as providing interest for both their uniqueness and their commonality. So, while there is much that is unique here, there is also much that should be considered in a wider context of the work experiences for people with disability. Mirandas story, I hope, will provide insights into what can happen to people with disability at work, especially people with a highly stigmatised illness such as MS. The case is designed to highlight the possibility of people with disability, specically MS, being bullied at work. As a case researcher, I sought to understand what was common about Mirandas case, as well as clearly depicting the particular in her story (Stake, 2003). I have already opened with some details about the context of Mirandas circumstances, the setting of our interview, some demographic characteristics of relevance to her story, as well as a ag for readers as to my insider status on this project. My interpretations of her story are offered by one who has both personal and professional insight into her experiences. However, I deliberately avoided bringing my story to centre stage. The interviews with Miranda were part of a larger qualitative research project conducted in Sydney, Australia, funded by a small philanthropic organisation that prefers to remain anonymous. I interviewed over twenty people with MS about their experiences of life and work. The larger study utilised Heideggerian phenomenology as the methodology of choice as I sought to understand the experiences of each individual participant on their own terms one of the fundamental objectives of phenomenological enquiry (Vickers, 2001). Thematic analysis (van Manen, 1990, pp. 78-9) was used to build a phenomenological model (Swanson-Kauffman and Schonwald, 1988, p. 104) that comprised themes such as: why people with MS are really leaving work (Vickers, 2009); Claytons choices and ugly life passages (Vickers, 2008); the role of unseen experiential phenomena on unreliable bodies and uncertain lives,

Bullying, disability and work 257

QROM 4,3

258

as well as concerns with relationships, social support, workplace difculties, personal triumphs and secrets. The study received approval by the University of Western Sydney, Human Ethics Review Committee and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of NSW. Importantly, I highlight that not all respondents in the wider study demonstrated or reported that they had been bullied at work. However, several of them did. I felt it imperative to explore this further. The development of this case study involved a detailed return to Mirandas interview transcripts, and included two stages. First, I re-read the transcripts many times, and listened to the interview tapes to re-immerse myself in her experience, to remember how she looked and sounded, and to take myself back to that interview. Second, I analysed her story. Analysis essentially means taking something apart, to give meaning to rst impressions as well as nal compilations (Stake, 1995, p. 71). This included identifying specic episodes or incidents that could be recognised by readers as bullying by eliciting strong instances of patterns of meaning (Leonard, 1989, p. 54). Of interest, at no time did Miranda actually mention being bullied or suggest to me that her experiences were bullying that was my interpretation. I now offer readers some theoretical information to further contextualise my interpretations including information about employment for workers with disabilities in general, employment for workers with MS in particular; and, the problem of workplace bullying. Workers with disabilities I dene disability as including any impairment, chronic illness or long term health problem experienced by a person for at least six months that is signicant, ongoing and requiring ongoing medical or professional intervention (via pharmacological or other treatment, visits to medical or other professional practitioners, or hospitalisation) to treat acute episodes and/or associated chronic problems (Vickers, 2006). People with disability are substantially more likely to be unemployed and/or underemployed than their able-bodied contemporaries, and these disadvantages are not simply due to the functional limitations of those concerned (Lonsdale, 1986; Barnes, 1991; Barnes et al., 1998; Barnes, 2000). There is universal agreement that people with disability are disproportionately disadvantaged in the current labour market (Barnes, 2000). Unfortunately, and despite the fact that workers with disabilities have recently been found to be equivalent to their non-disabled counterparts with respect to job performance, attendance and safety (Hernandez et al., 2008), they still fare much worse in employment. Flawed stereotypes prevail: people with disability are not productive; they do not t in with the other workers; they cost more than other workers, especially if they need accommodations; they require more supervision; they take more leave; and, they are not likely to be especially useful to the organisation that is striving to do more with less (Vickers, 2008). Despite such assumptions being potentially incorrect, and having little evidence to support them, they continue to inuence the treatment of people with disability at work. The problem of unemployment for people with disability is a global one. In the USA, only three out of ten of working age adults with disability work full- or part-time. In contrast, the employment rate among non-disabled working age adults is eight out of ten. Despite the passage of legislation to protect people with disability from discrimination in the USA in the form of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA, 1990), there has been no signicant improvement in employment or labour force participation rates for Americans with disability (Hernandez et al., 2000). In the UK, the problem is echoed: In 2001, the employment rate was 48 per cent for people with disability, compared to an employment rate of 81 per cent for people not disabled (Smith and Twomey, 2002). As in the USA, the DDA (1995) in the UK has done little to resolve the unequal treatment of people with disability at work. Unfortunately, in Australia, there is a similar story. While we have also had the DDA (1992) in place for years, in 2003, the labour force participation rates for persons with disability was still just 53.2 per cent, compared to those without disability being 81 per cent (ABS, 2003, p. 2; HREOC, 2005, p. 2; BCA, 2007a). Not only are people with disability in Australia less likely to be employed, those who are fortunate enough to nd work will earn less. In Australia, the median income for those with a disability is $538 per week compared to those without a disability being $672 (ABS, 2003, p. 7). Inaccessible built environments, transport and communication systems, as well as stereotypes, stigma and negative employer attitudes remain major obstacles for disabled people wishing to enter the world of work, or stay there. Workers with MS The retention of employment for people with MS is even lower than gures for other people with disability in general, and lower than would be expected even for people with very severe physical disability (Roessler and Rumrill, 1994; Vickers, 2009). More than 90 per cent of people with MS have employment histories, with most (60 per cent) still working at the time of diagnosis (LaRocca, 1995; Rumrill et al., 2000) and yet as few as 25 or 30 per cent of people with MS are able to retain employment as their illness progresses (Jackson and Quaal, 1991; Jongbloed, 1998; Roessler and Rumrill, 1994). Women are signicantly less likely to be employed than are men. In the US, 80 per cent of women and 60 per cent of men with MS were unemployed (LaRocca et al., 1982). In Canada, the gures are similar: 70 per cent of women and 58 per cent of men with MS are unemployed (Edgley et al., 1991). Unfortunately, people with MS who leave work are unlikely to return (Rumrill et al., 2000; Vickers, 2008) as was the case for Miranda. Physical limitations are the most common reason cited for people with MS leaving the workforce (see, for example, LaRocca et al., 1982; Rumrill et al., 2000, p. 111) with others citing problems with personality, coping style, characteristics of the workplace, and social support systems (LaRocca et al., 1982, p. 256). Still others have argued that the ebb and ow of symptoms and disability contribute most to problems at work (Rumrill et al., 1998) and, thus, claimed to be the biggest hurdle to continuing employment. However, Roessler and Rumrill (1994, p. 1) conrm my view that the potentially severe and pervasive impact of MS is just one reason for the low rate of post-diagnosis employment (Vickers, 2008, 2009). Levels of disability do not equate directly or comfortably with levels of employment for people with MS especially when compared, say, to people with other disabilities in the community (e.g. Roessler and Rumrill, 1994; LaRocca and Hall, 1990; Vickers, 2008, 2009). People with MS are being disadvantaged more in employment than people with non-MS related disability, presumably because of the highly stigmatised nature of MS, rather than the actual level of disability. It becomes apparent that physical disability is not the only, or even the primary, cause of unemployment for people with MS (LaRocca et al., 1982). People with MS often leave the work force for non-MS related

Bullying, disability and work 259

QROM 4,3

reasons (Rumrill et al., 2000, p. 113). They may be forced out of their place of work by bullying, intimidation, or other discriminatory practices (Vickers, 2008, 2009). Bullying at work In recent years there has been a growing interest in the phenomenon of bullying at work and the need to better understand it (Einarsen et al., 1994; Hoel et al., 2003). The level of harm that can arise from bullying has increasingly been recognised, with some acknowledging its potentially devastating effects on targets (Yamada, 2000; Hutchinson et al., 2005, 2006). Bullying has been characterised as including hostile verbal, nonverbal, physical, and nonphysical behaviours, harassment, and aggression (Yamada, 2000, p. 478; Felson, 2000, p. 10). Bullies also use other means to make a target feel uncomfortable including (but not limited to): exclusion, stereotyping, rudeness, lying, broken promises, ingratitude (Gabriel, 1998), spreading malicious rumours, intimidating or malicious language, unnecessary disruptions to work, constant changes to work patterns, limited access to training or other career enhancing opportunities, removal of responsibility, undue pressure to produce results, and the withholding of information (Gabriel, 1998; Farrell, 1999; Lee, 2000; Quine, 2002; Vickers, 2007). Bullying is also often thought to involve an abuse of power (McMahon, 2000, p. 384; Simpson and Cohen, 2004). Mobbing refers to bullying incidents with multiple perpetrators, some of them unwitting contributors (Mayhew et al., 2004; Zapf, 1999), and is especially noted as having a particularly severe impact on individuals (Mayhew et al., 2004; Hutchinson et al., 2005, 2006). Targets of mobbing report feeling under siege, with bullying incidents emanating from numerous sources and numerous individuals, and escalating over time. The result of continual exposure to bullying or mobbing can be severe psychological trauma, lowered self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder (Hoel et al., 2003; Randle, 2003; Quine, 2002; Hutchinson et al., 2006) as well as the development or worsening of physical illness, nancial loss and, for some, the eventual inability to work (Einarsen and Mikkelsen, 2003; McCarthy, 2003; Kivimakia et al., 2003; Hutchinson et al., 2006). Importantly, bullying has also been linked to staff turnover, intention to leave, lowered morale, reduced workplace productivity and reduced loyalty (Yamada, 2000). It is now also recognised that features of organizations and their processes can serve to enable bullying, such as job design, political behaviour, job related stress and conict (Einarsen, 1999; Zapf, 1999). Organizational factors have also been conrmed as precipitating and perpetuating bullying, including workplace culture and the misuse of organizational procedures and organization change processes (Hutchinson et al., 2005). If one combines the negative stereotypes and unexamined assumptions routinely associated with people with disability, with the misuse of legitimate organizational processes, the result could well be persons with MS being bullied out of their jobs. Mirandas story: a bullying case study Miranda commenced by describing to me her rst MS attack. She told me that her vision became clouded, as though lled with thick black smoke, and that she was unable to see for several months. This necessitated her taking ve months off work.

260

At that point she did not disclose her MS, giving her employers very little detail of why she had the time off:
MV: So what happened? Did you have to have time off? Miranda: Yes. I was given, I had ve months off [. . .] They told me Id used all my sick leave and they told me that I had to use my Long Service Leave and I used a few months of my Long Service Leave [. . .] and then I later found out I didnt have to use it [the Long Service Leave] [. . .] MV: Oh, ok. So they didnt put you on like a temporary disability status[1] or anything like that. They told you to take time off [meaning taking Long Service Leave instead]. Miranda: No, they never. Yes.

Bullying, disability and work 261

Mirandas colleagues, from the outset, were giving her advice that would harm her nancially. It was completely improper to advise her to take Long Service Leave in order to recuperate from a medically supported illness or injury. She should have been placed on Temporary Incapacity Benet until her future work situation had been investigated and determined. After Miranda returned to work when her vision improved, she reported having no further problems with MS, other than developing a slight limp over time. Miranda assured me that she could still do her job and that the limp would not have been obvious to another. Then, Miranda disclosed her illness to a Performance Development Manager where she worked a choice she came to regret. The question of disclosure of a stigmatising illness is a complex one, and people with stigmatising illness rarely consider the pros and cons adequately before sharing this crucial information about them selves, especially at work. The decision to tell who, what, when, why and how with regards to a stigmatising illness such as MS is critical and can have a dramatic impact on the disclosers life after the fact (Goffman, 1963; Vickers, 2001). Once the information is out, it cannot be taken back. I highlight at this point that a common tactic of bullies is to undermine or destroy the professional reputation of the target. A well timed letter of complaint from a customer could well have offered a useful way for a bully trying to undermine Miranda and raise a question mark about her performance, especially in light of her formerly blemish-free record:
MV: Right, and who did you tell? Like, how did that unfold? Miranda: I didnt tell anybody [when she was rst diagnosed]. Like as in, I didnt really speak to anyone [at work] [. . .] Then, a couple of years before I left, I spoke to a, they call them PDMs, Performance Development Managers. I spoke to a manager in there and I was signing on for a trip and I got emotional, and I walked into the ofce [. . .] and I said Oh, I believe, I think Ive got MS. I was a bit emotional. Then he said, Are you ok? Do you want to talk? and I said, No, its alright. And I was about to sign on and y out to, I dont know, to London or something and nothing was said. And then I went away on the trip and a disgruntled passenger wrote a report about me [. . .] It was my rst bad letter in 10 years of my ying, and he wrote in his letter that I seemed to be off my face [meaning drunk or drugged] [. . .] And they took me out of the sky and grounded me [weeping]. MV: Did you think you were?

QROM 4,3

262

Miranda: No! No!! So not. I wish I was in a way [. . .] I had a slight limp if anything. This was just, one of the passengers wasnt happy. I didnt bow down to him or whatever, and he wrote this stupid letter and that letter then made the PDM [Performance Development Manager] click and he thought, she talked about MS [. . .] So they pretty much stood me down, brought me into the ofce, took me out of ying [. . .] Then there was another Performance Development Manager [. . .] I was ying to Hong Kong and I was making a funny joke about how he employed all these Thai crew and, I was telling him a funny story [. . .] And then he later saw me and said that I seemed to be intoxicated.

Miranda connected her negative performance outcomes and her subsequent grounding from her job as a ight attendant, to her disclosure of the MS. It appears that a second manager was also making comments intended to undermine her professionally and denigrate her reputation, implying that she was drunk. The literature states that bullying can include hostile behaviours designed to negatively impact the targets sense of self as a competent person, such as what is being described here. It has also been described as including persistent, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, the abuse of power and unfair penal sanctions, making the target feel upset, threatened, humiliated or vulnerable (Vickers, 2007). It is also worthwhile to consider the seminal work of Hochschild (1983) on the commercialisation and management of feelings at work which, coincidentally, was undertaken with regard to ight attendants having to manage their emotions and behaviour to such an extent that they were required by their employers, not just to look happy and pleasant at all times during their work, but to feel it. Miranda explained how she had become emotional shortly before boarding a long international ight, having disclosed her MS to her Performance Development Manager. It is easy to imagine that Mirandas ability to feel happy and upbeat following such a meeting may have been impeded during that ight, thus potentially contributing to three negative outcomes of relevance for Miranda: (1) Miranda did not succeed in maintaining a sufciently positive emotional presence on that ight, after the disclosure of MS to her manager. (2) Mirandas inability to be sufciently positive may have contributed to the outcome of the rst letter of complaint against her from a customer, after so many years of ying. (3) The unreasonable but normalised expectations of management about the performance of ight attendants (as highlighted by Hochschild, 1983) may have enabled a bullying manager to espouse concerns with Mirandas poor performance relying on just one letter of complaint to stop her ying, while the actual motive of bullying her was obscured a rational organisational process being used to punish, demean and bully (Hutchinson et Hutchinson et al., 2006). Bullying is usually considered as involving repeated, less favourable treatment of one person by another (or others) (Barron, 2002) and can include overt aggression and violence, as well as very subtle and covert acts (Zapf, 1999). One of the more subtle manifestations of bullying is where the bully professes concern for a target enabling them to misuse other legitimate organisational processes as part of the bullying:
Miranda: So, [. . .] they stood me down [. . .] and they called it a duty of care. If I talked about my MS to a Customer Service Manager [. . .] they would write a report to [Mirandas

employers senior management] and say, We are concerned for you as welfare, as a duty of care. They would rip me out of the sky for any report that was written. This happened once, this happened twice, and this happened three times [. . .] The fourth time I saw the doctor at [Mirandas employer] [. . .] and I said, Doctor Smith [pseudonym], Ive got a limp and Ill show you. Here it is because my left leg is weak and I said, The day I cant take my peers and passengers out of that air craft, Ill be telling you, Ill be going. He said, Miranda, I know, he said, You are the talk of the town in the company now, because youve got MS and its just, you know how [name of employer] is, when they start the rumours. And he said, Would you agree to an ergonomics testing? The company pays a lot of money to do it. MV: Is this to test to see if you were t to still y, is that right? Miranda: Yes, I agreed with that.

Bullying, disability and work 263

Mirandas managers had been undermining her professionally by suggesting she was intoxicated. Then, the company doctor appears to have been co-opted (perhaps unknowingly) to pressure Miranda into doing ergonomics testing. Bullying has been elsewhere characterised as profound psychological torment (Mann, 1996) given its systematic process and the apparent rational purpose in the mind of the torturer (Mann, 1996). Bullying has also been linked to economic pressures in managerialist work environments. Here, what appears to be a rational request for ergonomics testing actually stemmed from multiple internal letters of complaint to senior management about Miranda that only commenced after her disclosure of MS. Miranda was adamant that, at this point, she could still do her job without difculty. Miranda agreed to undertake the ergonomics testing to test her tness for duty as a ight attendant at the request of her employers doctor. The reality was that she had little choice. Miranda also commented that it took two months for her to get the results of the tests tests she passed. However, over that time, her illness and resulting disability did get worse as a result of the stress she was under. The literature has conrmed that long term bullying can result in worsening physical illness, nancial loss and, for some, the eventual inability to work (Einarsen and Mikkelsen, 2003; McCarthy, 2003; Kivimakia et al., 2003; Hutchinson et al., 2006). Miranda then explored her legal options believing that she was being treated unfairly. However, it is often the case that legislative initiatives can be highly stressful, time consuming, expensive, with the target being the one needing to prove that bullying or discrimination has taken place, beyond a reasonable doubt. The outcomes, even if one wins, are high levels of stress and relatively small nancial compensation. Mirandas choice not to proceed with legal action was well founded:
MV: Do you think the stress affected that? Miranda: Yes, Oh, for sure. But to prove that was so hard [. . .] The lawyer said, Maybe youll get 30, 40 thousand dollars, and we are talking top lawyers, and the stress it will cause you. Is it worth it? And I just looked at it and thought, No.

Over time, the stress of her situation at work continued to escalate as she found herself being scrutinised excessively by those around her, managers and colleagues. Bullying often involves excessive scrutiny by bullies, with targets reporting feeling watched with the intention of undermining their condence over time:
Miranda: I felt like everyone was just looking at me, at everything I did, everything I did wrong. And I started to get really quite upset.

QROM 4,3

The bullying literature has conrmed that continual exposure to this form of attack can result in lowered self-esteem, depression and anxiety (Hoel et al., 2003; Randle, 2003; Quine, 2002; Hutchinson et al., 2006) elements all present in Mirandas story. Miranda continued, describing further requests by her employer to test her physical capacity, even though she had passed the previous ones:
Miranda: They sent me into the city, up and down ights of stairs, like you said, carrying weights in a trolley across a room. MV: How did you manage with all of those things? Miranda: I managed, I did alright [. . .] I did everything. I did everything. I went up and down stairs. I guarded doors. MV: You mustve felt very stressed while you were doing the test? Miranda: Oh, yes. MV: Tell me about that, how were you feeling? Miranda: She was a lovely lady [. . .] She said, You do you understand. We are just like doing this as a safety thing. I said, I want to do it. You know, I want to be able to do my job [. . .] MV: Tell me how you felt before you went along to these tests? Were you thinking about it much? Miranda: [. . .] Yes, I was really thinking about it. And I thought, Should I be conscious about my limp? [. . .] What if I do lose my balance?. I was, yes, I was s**t-scared. I thought, This is it, because someones going to be fully looking at me. I didnt really know what it was, what it would entail. So, I had no idea. MV: Did you think your job was on the line? Miranda: Yes. I thought, This is the way the Company wants me out. This is how they are going to nd a way to discriminate against me, make me sign on a dotted line. Theyd probably prefer to see the back of me. I thought, Yep. This is the way the Companys going to do it. Im going to fail this and its going to look like if they are not discriminating and theyre doing the right thing. And yes, extremely stressed, and knowing I had a mortgage to pay off [. . .] And it was like, Oh, my God, Im going to lose my job. And so panicked, scared. Like, there was just, and I just had no idea what they were going to do.

264

Bullying has also been associated with the use and misuse of legitimate organisational processes to cause harm to targets. Bullies have been found to use organisational processes such as performance management reviews to attack targets, undermine their condence and, ultimately, contribute to their removal from the organisation (Hutchinson et al., 2005). Mirandas response was that of an anxious person with a disability, concerned about losing her job. I asked her how she was feeling after the physical testing:
MV: When you were talking about the lead up to this particular test, when they took you out of the sky, and you said that you felt that everybody was watching every little thing that you did. What were your colleagues doing, and were they saying anything to you?

Miranda: The managers were trying to calm me down, having interviews telling me, No, no we are not [trying to get rid of you]. No, we are not. No, we are not. No, we are not. And then just kept denying it and saying that they were not.

There is agreement by researchers that bullying includes patterns of behaviour involved over a period of time, rather than a single incident, and that signicant negative outcomes can arise for both organisations and individuals as a result (Hutchinson et al., 2006). Bullying is generally agreed to consist of a constellation of repeated acts, where one or more individuals engage, over time, with the intention to harm (Einarsen, 1999; Hutchinson et al., 2005, 2006). One very disturbing feature of Mirandas story is what appears to be the predatory alliance of her managers and colleagues (Hutchinson et al., 2006) who she believed were all working towards her removal from the organisation. I remind readers that Miranda did pass the numerous physical tests her employer had asked her to undertake, conrming her ability to do her job at that time. The next thing Miranda had to do was undertake an unscheduled Emergency Procedures test:
Miranda: [. . .] And then you have what we call EPs, Emergency Procedures [. . .] you have to pretty much get 97 per cent to pass [. . .] They gave me a one-on-one [rather than the usual group testing procedures] and I wrote to the union. My unions saying, I smell a rat in here, [said very slowly] and a huge report about everything [. . .] This one-on-one. I dont trust it. And, Why they are giving me a one-to-one? MV: Yes, did they give you a reason at the time? Miranda: No [. . .] The manager rang the head of the Emergency Procedures and said to her, We want this girl to have one-on-one. And then I rang the Manager and I said, Why I am having one-on-one? [. . .] and Well, the Emergency Procedures Department has been advised thats just what weve got to do. So, I rang the Emergency Procedures and asked them why I am doing this. They made out the guy that was giving me one-on-one had no idea, and I thought B******t!, B******t! He knows. And then two representatives from the Union came with me [. . .] And they said, Oh, we are just here to make sure everythings ok [. . .] And I looked at the Union and said, Listen, Ive already had two months off work. I know then they will ground me even more. I need to get back to work. I said [to the union], I know what they are doing. You are here to see it. I said, Im going down that slide. I will prove to myself that I can still do this. And I went down the slide twice. They also [. . .] have like a [. . .] smaller mockup aircraft, and you have to open that door to get it over the wing slides. You push the door in and you throw it out. And because of injuries to peoples backs and things like that, they stopped doing it [. . .] You could pretend that you were opening the door out, because of the too many injuries. Not me. I had to throw the door out. So, that was huge discrimination [emotion in Mirandas her voice].

Bullying, disability and work 265

Another feature of bullying is their tendency to give targets additional tests, additional work requirements, or create circumstances which can make the target fail. Stigmatisation of the target through attack upon reputation and competence, such as the tests that Miranda had to face, are common bullying tactics. For a person with a stigmatising chronic illness or disability, such as MS, it is very easy for bullies to tarnish the targets reputation for competence in the eyes of co-workers. Unfortunately, while Miranda passed all the physical tests, after months of bullying and the associated stress, when she eventually was allowed back on a plane to do her job, her MS had deteriorated and she now found that she was having difculty with her balance which was now affecting her ability to do the job. After a further year off work,

QROM 4,3

Miranda was offered a medical retirement from her workplace. But the bullying didnt end there: Rather than supporting her request to nd other work in this very large organisation, this long term employee found herself unable to secure any work, even when seeking lower paid and lower status roles:
Miranda: Before I signed on the dotted line, I said, Is there anything I can do on the ground? and I said, Like, I can sit behind a desk, or whatever. They said, You have to apply for the jobs. I said, OK. A couple of jobs came up. I applied for a cargo job on the ground, sitting behind the desk [. . .] When I walked into do that interview, I lost it. I couldnt even speak. I was so nervous [. . .] and remembering I hadnt been in an interview for about 10 years [. . .] I had two, one was on the ground again, picking up telephones and stuff like that, like a scheduling job, where you answer when the crew rings in sick [. . .] and I didnt get that job or the cargo one because I was so nervous. I just s*****d myself [. . .] They couldve given me a job on the ground. What a huge company, that they employ so many people [. . .] God, even if I had to unravel head sets. Theyve got autistic children doing those [sounding upset]. Like I mean, they couldve found something. Of course they couldve, but they didnt.

266

The literature conrms that the type of jobs offered to disabled people are low status, low waged occupations with poor working conditions and few opportunities for advancement (Barnes, 2000). It is notable that Miranda remarks that she was unable to even gain work currently undertaken by autistic children, signalling at once Mirandas judgement of her own disability to be less severe in her mind than that of a child with autism and, concurrently, Mirandas employers judgement that Mirandas MS may have been a more serious impairment than that of a child with autism. Both interpretations ag the existence of an assumed and unexamined hierarchy of disability that is neither appropriate nor helpful. The outcome for Miranda remains: her employer was not prepared to support her continued employment, even in a low status position. Conclusion: learning from the particular and illuminating the general I hope to have enabled us to learn from Mirandas experiences of bullying at her former place of employment. I have presented what I believe to be evidence of bullying in her story including: exclusion; stereotyping; rudeness; lying; broken promises; the spreading of malicious rumours; unnecessary disruptions to her work; excessive scrutiny; constant changes to work patterns; the removal of responsibility; and, undue pressure to produce results and perform physical challenges (Gabriel, 1998; Farrell, 1999; Lee, 2000; Quine, 2002; Hutchinson et al., 2005, 2006). The outcome for Miranda was, as the literature conrms, an eventual inability to work. I am not suggesting that, over time, Mirandas MS may never have required her medical retirement. What I am suggesting is that, as a result of the actions of Mirandas colleagues, Mirandas departure from work was well before it needed to be. Beyond the particulars of Mirandas case, is the illumination of a more general problem, and highlighting it as an area worthy of further exploration. During the larger phenomenological study from which Mirandas case was drawn, several respondents indicated that they had also been unfavourably treated, discriminated against, bullied and generally had their work lives made more difcult, they believed, as a result of having MS (Vickers, 2008, 2009). It is my hope that exposing Mirandas experiences might generate further research into the work lives of people with disability, especially as this pertains to the wider problem of workplace bullying.

Illuminating the possibility of a more general problem of bullying for people with disability is also worthy of further research. One phenomenon potentially contributing to this outcome may be the construct of ableism, which contributes to negative assumptions that may surround disability in society. Ableism encourages the valuing and commodication of ability or able-ness for individuals, especially at work, and is embedded deeply and subliminally within culture (Campbell, 2008a, b; Hehir, 2005; Campbell, 2009). Ableism features negative differentiations between those with impairment and those without. A chief feature of an ableist viewpoint is a belief that impairment is inherently negative and should, if the opportunity presents itself, be ameliorated, cured or eliminated (Wolbring, 2008). The familiar concepts of sexism and racism denote similarly negative differentiations on the basis of sex or racial origin. Studies in ableism concern themselves with the processes and effects surrounding notions of normalcy versus disability, and examine how opposing concepts of well-beingness and deciency impact upon economic, social, legal and ethical choices. Assumptions surrounding compulsory ableness can shape social thinking about the kinds of bodies, mental and emotional capacities that are valued (Campbell, 2009), especially in workplaces. For people with MS, the unfortunate corollary that emerges from this analysis is that employers may well believe that a diagnosis of MS in an employee is inherently negative and, if the opportunity presents itself, that the person with MS should be eliminated from their workplace. One means of achieving this would be through bullying or mobbing that person. Another problem worth future consideration is the frequently narrow and incomplete understandings of bullying that are espoused, resulting in remedies and responses from both individuals and organizations that are inadequate. Unfortunately, even if Mirandas employer wanted to punish the bullies in this story (and it appears that they did not), awed managerialist solutions to the problem of bullying continue to be proffered in organizational life, without full understanding of the phenomenon, the possible motives of the bullies, the rationale for identifying targets, the signicance and serious potential outcomes of chronic workplace bullying or mobbing, and the likelihood that the organisations own legitimate processes and procedures for getting things done, as well as their current means of dealing with bullies and episodes of bullying, may well be making things worse (Vickers, 2007; Hutchinson et al., 2005). In Mirandas case, it appears that the disclosure of her MS triggered the bullying she experienced, which ultimately resulted in her leaving the organisation. Certainly, there is evidence of the misuse of power by her superiors, and misuse of the organisations legitimate processes to put unreasonable pressure on Miranda, inducing high levels of stress that would have been likely to contribute to the decline of her health and ability status, and her ultimate withdrawal from her workplace. Motives of bullies may well be inuenced by the requirements of rationalist organisations with managerialist and efciency-related imperatives. However, this is no excuse for bullying a worker with a disability, or anyone else. The purpose of this case study was two-fold: (1) to consider Mirandas experiences as an individual case study of bullying; and (2) to draw attention to the wider question of whether people with disability are being bullied at work and whether that bullying is contributing to them leaving work prematurely.

Bullying, disability and work 267

QROM 4,3

I have elsewhere noted that people with disability are leaving the places of work for reasons other than their illness or disability (Vickers, 2008, 2009). Further research is required to ascertain whether people with disability are leaving work because they are being bullied, rather than leaving as an outcome of the limitations imposed on them by their disability.
Note 1. In Australia, when a person has to temporarily cease work due to injury or illness, and their sick leave entitlement has been exhausted, a Temporary Incapacity Benet may be payable (e.g. UniSuper Superannuation Fund, 2007a, b; viewed 6 February, 2009). These benets are funded by a superannuation fund or insurer, rather than the employer, and may entitle the employee to receive approximately 60 per cent of their salary entitlement (as calculated by the fund) for a maximum period of up to two years. If it is deemed, either during or at the end of this period that the cessation of work due to injury or illness is permanent, a more permanent Disablement Benet may be payable instead, also funded by the superannuation fund or insurer, until the recipient reaches the age of 65 at when they would qualify for a retirement benet. However, when Mirandas sick leave entitlement ran out, she was told to take Long Service Leave (an additional paid vacation leave entitlement for long term employees, usually granted after ten years service).

268

References ABS (2003), Disability, ageing, and carers, Australia: summary of ndings, 2003, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia, available at: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4430. 0 (accessed 26 June 2008). ADA (1990), Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The United States Code, Federal Government, USA, available at: www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm (accessed 12 March 2009). Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2005), Reexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Barnes, C. (1991), Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti-discrimination Legislation, Duggan Hurst in Association with the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, London. Barnes, C. (2000), A working social model? Disability, work and disability politics in the 21st century, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-57. Barnes, H., Thornton, P. and Maynard Campbell, S. (1998), Disabled People and Employment, The Polity Press, Bristol. Barron, O. (2002), Why workplace bullying and violence are different: protecting employees from both, in Gill, M., Fisher, B. and Bowie, V. (Eds), Violence at Work: Causes, Patterns and Prevention, Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp. 151-64. BCA (2007), Employing Our Potential: Ensuring Prosperity through Participation, Workforce Participation Roundtable Discussion Paper, Business Council of Australia, Sydney. Campbell, F.K. (2008a), Refusing able(ness): a preliminary conversation about ableism, Media and Culture, Vol. 11 No. 3, available at: www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/ mcjournal/article/view/46 Campbell, F.K. (2008b), Exploring internalised ableism using critical race theory, Disability & Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-62. Campbell, F.K. (2009), Contours of Ableism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Clegg, S. and Hardy, C. (1996), Some dare call it power, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, London. DDA (1992), Disability Discrimination Act, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. DDA (1995), Disability Discrimination Act, Ofce of Public Sector Information (OPSI), National Archives, London, available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_1 (accessed 12 March 2009). de Laine, M. (1997), Ethography: Theory and Applications in Health Research, MacLennan & Petty, Sydney. Edgley, K., Sullivan, M.J.L. and Dehoux, E. (1991), A survey of multiple sclerosis. Part 2: determinants of employment status, Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, Vol. 4, pp. 127-32. Einarsen, S. (1999), The nature and causes of bullying at work, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 16-27. Einarsen, S. and Mikkelsen, E.G. (2003), in Einarsen, S.E., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 127-44. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S.B. (1994), Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 381-401. Farrell, G. (1999), Aggression in clinical settings: Nurses views a follow up study, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 26-33. Felson, R.B. (2000), A social psychological approach to interpersonal aggression, in Van Hasselt, V.B. and Hersen, M. (Eds), Aggression and Violence: An Introductory Text, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 9-22. Gabriel, Y. (1998), An introduction to the social psychology of insults in organizations, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 1329-54. Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Penguin Books, London. Hehir, T. (2005), New Directions in Special Education: Eliminating Ableism in Policy and Practice, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge. Hernandez, B., Keys, C. and Balcazar, F. (2000), Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: a literature review, Journal of Rehabilitation, Vol. 66, pp. 4-16. Hernandez, B., McDonald, K., Divilbiss, M., Horin, E., Velcoff, J. and Donoso, O. (2008), Reections on the disabled workforce: focus groups with healthcare, hospitality, and retail administrators, Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 157-64. Hochschild, A.R. (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Hoel, H., Einarsen, S. and Cooper, C. (2003), Organisational effects of bullying, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 145-61. HREOC (2005), WORKability II: Solutions, People with Disability in the Open Workplace, Final Report of the National Inquiry into Employment and Disability, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney, available at: www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/ employment_inquiry/docs (accessed 26 June 2008).

Bullying, disability and work 269

QROM 4,3

270

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M.H., Jackson, D. and Wilkes, L. (2005), Im gonna do what I wanna do!: organisational change as a vehicle for bullies, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 331-8. Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M.H., Jackson, D. and Wilkes, L. (2006), Like wolves in a pack: stories of predatory alliances of bullies in nursing, Journal of Management and Organisation, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 235-51. Jackson, M. and Quaal, C. (1991), Effects of multiple sclerosis on occupational and career patterns, Axon, Vol. 13, pp. 16-22. Jongbloed, L. (1998), Disability income: the experiences of women with multiple sclerosis, The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 65, pp. 193-201. Kivimakia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahterac, J. and Ferrie, J. (2003), Organisational justice and health of employees: prospective cohort study, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 60, pp. 27-34. LaRocca, N.G. (1995), Employment and Multiple Sclerosis, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New York, NY. LaRocca, N.G. and Hall, H.L. (1990), Multiple sclerosis program: a model for neuropsychiatric disorders, New Directions for Mental Health Services, Vol. 45, pp. 49-64. LaRocca, N., Kalb, R., Kendall, P. and Scheinberg, L. (1982), The role of disease and demographic factors in the employment of patients with multiple sclerosis, Archives of Neurology, Vol. 39, pp. 256-60. Lee, D. (2000), An analysis of workplace bullying in the UK, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 593-610. Leonard, V.W. (1989), A Heideggerian phenomenologic perspective on the concept of the person, Advances in Nursing Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 40-55. Lonsdale, S. (1986), Work and Inequality, Longman, Harlow. McCarthy, P. (2003), Bullying at work: a postmodern experience, in Schorr, A., Campbell, W. and Schenk, M. (Eds), Communication Research and Media Science in Europe, deGruyter, Berlin, pp. 231-43. McMahon, L. (2000), Bullying and harassment in the workplace, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 12, pp. 384-7. Mann, R. (1996), Psychological abuse in the workplace, in McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M. and Wilkie, W. (Eds), Bullying: From Backyard to Boardroom, Millennium Books, Sydney, pp. 83-92. Mayhew, C., McCarthy, P., Chappell, D., Quinlan, M., Barker, M. and Sheehan, M. (2004), Measuring the extent of impact from occupational violence and bullying on traumatised workers, Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 117-34. Merriam, S.B. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Quine, L. (2002), Workplace bullying in junior doctors in the UK, British Medical Journal, Vol. 354, pp. 878-9. Randle, J. (2003), Changes in self-esteem during a 3-year pre-registration diploma in higher education (nursing) programme, Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 142-3. Roessler, R.T. and Rumrill, P.D. (1994), Strategies for enhancing career maintenance self-efcacy of people with multiple sclerosis, The Journal of Rehabilitation, Vol. 60, pp. 54-9.

Rumrill, P.D., Roessler, R.T. and Cook, B.G. (1998), Improving career re-entry outcomes for people with multiple sclerosis: a comparison of two approaches, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 10, pp. 241-52. Rumrill, P.D., Tabor, T.L., Hennessey, M.L. and Minton, D.L. (2000), Issues in employment and career development for people with multiple sclerosis: meeting the needs of an emerging vocational rehabilitation clientele, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 14, pp. 109-17. Simpson, R. and Cohen, C. (2004), Dangerous work: the gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 11, pp. 163-86. Smith, A. and Twomey, B. (2002), Labour market experiences of people with disabilities, Labour Market Trends, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 415-27, available at: www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed 26 June 2008). Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Stake, R.E. (2003), Case studies, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 134-64. Susman, J. (1994), Disability, stigma and deviance, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 15-22. Swanson-Kauffman, K. and Schonwald, E. (1988), Phenomenology, in Sarter, B. (ed.), Paths to Knowledge: Innovative Research Methods for Nursing, National League for Nursing, New York, NY, pp. 97-105. UniSuper Superannuation Fund (2007a), Temporary incapacity benets for dened benet division for accumulation 2 members, UniSuper Fact Sheet, UniSuper, Melbourne, available at: www.unisuper.com.au (accessed 6 February 2009). UniSuper Superannuation Fund (2007b), Disablement benets for dened benet division for accumulation 2 members, UniSuper Fact Sheet, UniSuper, Melbourne, available at: www. unisuper.com.au (accessed 6 February 2009). van Manen, M. (1990), Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy, The University of Western Ontario, Ontario. Vickers, M.H. (2001), Work and Unseen Chronic Illness: Silent Voices, Routledge, London. Vickers, M.H. (2006), Towards employee wellness: rethinking bullying paradoxes and masks, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 267-81. Vickers, M.H. (2007), Autoethnography and sensemaking: a story of bullying in the workplace, Culture and Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 223-37. Vickers, M.H. (2008), Why people with MS are really leaving work: from a Claytons choice to an ugly passage a phenomenological study, Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 43-57. Vickers, M.H. (2009), Why people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are really leaving work: an exemplar case study with lessons for managers, The 2009 Pfeiffer Management Development Annual, Section: Learning Activities, Questionnaires and Articles, Pfeiffer (An Imprint of Wiley), San Francisco, CA, pp. 139-54. Wolbring, G. (2008), Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement?, European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 25-40. Yamada, D.C. (2000), The phenomenon of workplace bullying and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 475-536. Zapf, D. (1999), Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 70-85.

Bullying, disability and work 271

QROM 4,3

272

About the author Margaret H. Vickers, Professor in the School of Management, University of Western Sydney, has undertaken qualitative research into many aspects of workplace trauma and adversity: bullying in the workplace; being made redundant; unseen chronic illness and disability; life and work with Multiple Sclerosis; grief and loss at work; caring for a child with disability while working full time; emotions in the workplace; and living with mental illness. Professor Vickers is the author of over 110 international refereed articles, as well as two international research books based on qualitative research into lives of people dealing with disability who work: Work and Unseen Chronic Illness: Silent Voices (Routledge, London, 2001) and Working and Caring for a Child with Chronic Illness: Disconnected and Doing it All (Palgrave MacMillan, London, 2006). She is Editor-in-Chief of the international Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, and an editorial/international advisory board member of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, Administrative Theory & Praxis, International Journal of Action Research and the Asia Pacic Journal of Business Administration. Margaret H. Vickers can be contacted at: m.vickers@uws.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints