End Term Project Report

Comparison between developed and underdeveloped country

Of Development Economics

Faculty of Management Sciences

Lahore Business School

Lahore, Pakistan
 Group Members

No Name Roll No

1. Haroon Rauf BA-01083-124

2. Waqas Sarwar BA-01083-150

4. Yasir Afzal BA-01083-176

5. Abrar Ismael BA-01083-149

 DEDICATION:

 Firstly, we thank Allah for giving us the strength for

completing this job.

 To all the people who prayed for us and sent us their

best wishes and gave us the courage to keep going on and
never break in the face of difficulties.

 To our respected teacher Sir Asim Khan Sabri, without

whose guidance this project could not have been
completed.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

 Our teacher, Sir Asim Khan Sabri who provided us with

endless and invaluable guidance throughout.

 We also thank all the individuals who have contributed

towards the completion of this project.
 SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Background

Unheard of until the 1970s, SEXUAL HARASSMENT has become a dominant

concern of employers, schools, and other organizations throughout the country. It
is one of the most litigated areas of sexual DISCRIMINATION law, and virtually
all major companies, government organizations, colleges and universities and even
the military now have sexual harassment policies in place. Even the president of the
United States has been subject to a sexual harassment lawsuit.

What is Sexual Harassment?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment

this way: "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1)
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual’s employment; (2) submission to or rejection of such
conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting
such individual or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive work environment."

Types of sexual harassment

There are two types of legally recognized way of committing sexual harassment: (1)
Quid pro quo sexual harassment; and (2) Hostile environment harassment.
I. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when an employee is offered to be retained
in his/her job or be promoted in exchange for sexual favors. In case of a student,
the offer is to help receive a good grade or a favorable recommendation in
exchange for sexual favors. The person who commits quid pro quo sexual
harassment is a person with power to influence the victim's employment or
educational situation like a supervisor, manager or a teacher in case of a student.
An example would be if a manager suggests that an employee goes out with him on a
date or asks for a neck or back rub every so often in exchange for retaining her
post or be promoted.

In this type of sexual harassment, it is not important if the victim gave in or

agrees to the offer. It is enough that the harasser floats or makes the offer and
the victim is not barred from filing a claim if he or she later on changes his or her
mind.

II. Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment

Hostile work environment sexual harassment, on the other hand, occurs when a co-
worker, manager or supervisor in the work place makes unwelcome sexual advances
which interferes with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or
offensive work environment, or learning environment in the case of students. The
sexual harassing conduct could be verbal, non-verbal, visual or physical. Example of
a verbal harassing conduct is when one makes a sexual comment about a person's
clothing, anatomy or looks. In cases of non-verbal sexually harassing conduct an
example would be leering, staring or glaring at someone. Visual sexually harassing
conduct on the other hand could be displaying sexually suggestive calendars,
photographs, posters or cartoons in the workplace. Physically harassing conduct is
when someone gives a massage around the neck or shoulders and the victim did not
ask for it and regards it as offensive.

In this type of sexual harassment, even the employer is liable if he has knowledge
or should have knowledge of the sexual harassment perpetrated on one of the
employees and the employer either does nothing about it or even faulted the victim
for the happening of the sexually harassing conduct.

On the job. The behaviors that have contributed to a hostile environment have
included:

 Unfulfilled threats to impose a sexual quid pro quo.

 discussing sexual activities;
 telling off-color jokes;
 unnecessary touching;
 commenting on physical attributes;
 displaying sexually suggestive pictures;
 using demeaning or inappropriate terms, such as "Babe";
 using indecent gestures;
 sabotaging the victim’s work;
 engaging in hostile physical conduct;
 granting job favors to those who participate in consensual sexual activity;
 using crude and offensive language

History

Sexual harassment law has had a history in the United States only since the 1964
CIVIL RIGHTS Act, and even then, the first sexual harassment cases were not
brought under the Act until the 1970s. Since then, the trend has been for courts
to broaden their interpretation of what constitutes sexual harassment under the
law, with some exceptions.

Title VII and EEOC Guidelines

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the first time sexual
discrimination was banned in employment. Title VII prohibits discrimination by
employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations with 15 or more full-time
employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It applies to
pre-interview advertising, interviewing, hiring, discharge, compensation, promotion,
classification, training, apprenticeships, referrals for employment, union
membership, terms, working conditions, working atmosphere, seniority,
reassignment, and all other "privileges of employment."

In the years immediately following the passage of Title VII, sexual harassment
claims were rarely brought under the STATUTE, and when they were, courts
dismissed their claims as not applying to the statute. Finally in the mid-1970s,
courts began to accept sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination under
Title VII.

This trend received an enormous boost with the EEOC's passage of the first
guidelines against sexual harassment in 1980. The guidelines which courts are not
required to follow, specifically stated for the first time that "harassment on the
basis of sex is a violation of Title VII," and then the guidelines go on to define
sexual harassment. However, these standards remained ambiguous enough as to
create some disagreement among appeals courts as to what actually constitutes
sexual harassment and defines hostile environment sexual harassment.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, decided in 1986, marked the first time the
Supreme Court considered a sexual harassment case under Title VII. The case
involved a female employee at a bank who alleged she was forced to have sex by
her supervisor, fearing the loss of her job if she refused. The EVIDENCE showed
the employee had repeatedly advanced through the bank by merit, that she had
never filed a complaint about the supervisor's behavior, and that she was
terminated only because of lengthy sick leave absence. Yet the Supreme Court
ruled that she had a case against her former employer on the basis of hostile
environment sexual harassment.

For sexual harassment to be actionable, the court declared, it must be

"sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim's]
employment and create an abusive working environment." In this case, the Court
held, the facts were "plainly sufficient to state a claim for 'hostile environment'
sexual harassment." The Court also added that on the facts of the case, the
plaintiff had a claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment as well.

The Meritor case was a landmark for sexual harassment rights in that it
established the legal legitimacy of both quid pro quo and hostile environment
sexual harassment claims before the Supreme Court. It also rejected the idea that
there could be no sexual harassment just because the sexual relations between the
plaintiff and the DEFENDANT were voluntary. The results opened a floodgate of
sexual harassment litigation.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.

The 1993 case of Theresa Harris marked the Supreme Court's next foray into
sexual harassment law. Harris was a manager who claimed to have been subjected
to repeated sexual comments by the company's president, to the point where she
was finally forced to quit her job. The question before the Court was whether
Harris had to prove she had suffered TANGIBLE psychological injury or whether
her simply finding the conduct abusive was enough to prove hostile environment
sexual harassment.

In allowing Harris to proceed with her case, the Court took a "middle path"
between allowing conduct that was merely offensive and requiring the conduct to
cause a tangible psychological injury. According to the Court, the harassment must
be severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person
would find hostile or abusive and also is subjectively perceived by the alleged
victim to be abusive. Proof of psychological harm may be relevant to a
determination of whether the conduct meets this standard, but it is not
necessarily required. Rather, all of the circumstances must be reviewed, including
the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically
threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it
unreasonably interferes with an employee/s work performance." The Harris case
further broadened sexual harassment law, making it much easier for plaintiffs to
prove harm from sexual harassment.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.

Oncale, a 1998 case, marked the Supreme Court's RATIFICATION of the same-
sex sexual harassment case. The Court held that male-on-male and female-on-
female sexual harassment violated Title VII in the same way a male-female sexual
harassment situation would violate it. The Court said harassing conduct did not
have to be motivated by sexual desire to support an inference of discrimination on
the basis of sex.

Forager v. Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellet

Forager and Burlington Industries both stood for the same proposition: employers
are vicariously liable for the actions of their supervisors in sexual harassing
employees even if they did not ratify or approve of their actions or even if they
had policies prohibiting sexual harassment in place. However, the Supreme Court,
decided in these two 1998 cases that employers could defend themselves against
supervisor sexual harassment cases by proving (a) that the employer exercised
reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior;
and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any
preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm.
Even with these two caveats, however, the Supreme Court expressly held that
these defenses were not available "when the supervisor's harassment culminates in
a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable
reassignment."

Clark County School District v. Breeden

The 2000 case of Clark County School District v. Breeden was the first time the
Supreme Court narrowed the scope of Title VII sexual harassment claims. Ruling in
the case of an employee who said she had been retaliated against for reporting a
sexually offensive mark made by a supervisor, the Court ruled that for sexual
harassment conduct to be severe and offensive enough to be actionable, it had to
be more than teasing, offhand comments, or an isolated incident, unless that
incident was extremely serious. The case served notice that courts had to be
careful to find a balance in sexual harassment cases in the process of determining
what constitutes creating a hostile environment.
Other Legal Issues

Although the Supreme Court has the final word on sexual harassment cases,
litigation has proved broad enough that there are many unsettled questions that
still remain in regards to sexual harassment.

These questions include the proper standard to be imposed in sexual harassment

cases, whether a "reasonable person" should be more like a reasonable man or a
reasonable woman. Also, whether employers can be held liable for "second-hand
sexual harassment," sexual harassment not directed at the plaintiff. Another issue
is whether is constitutes sexual harassment when a

The Effects of Sexual Harassment on the Victim

the effects of sexual harassment vary from person to person, and are contingent
on the severity, and duration, of the harassment.  However, sexual harassment is a
type of sexual assault, and victims of severe or chronic sexual harassment can
suffer the same psychological effects as rape victims.  Aggravating factors can
exist, such as their becoming the target of retaliation, backlash, or victim
blaming after their complaining, or filing a formal grievance.  Moreover, people who
have experienced sexual harassment  occupy a place in our society that is similar to
where rape victims were placed in the past, and they can be abused further by the
system that is supposed to help and protect them.  Indeed, the treatment of the
complainant during an investigation or litigation can be brutal, and add further
damage to their life, health, and psyche.  Depending on the situation, a sexual
harassment victim can experience anything from mild annoyance to extreme
psychological damage, while the impact on a victim's career and life may be minimal,
or leave them in ruins.
Overall data of sexual harassment,

* 31% of the female workers reported they had been harassed at work
* 7% of the male workers reported they had been harassed at work
* 100% of women reported the harasser was a man
* 59% of men reported the harasser was a woman
* 41% of men reported the harasser was another MAN.

EEOC harassment statistics

Some of the effects a sexual harassment victim can experience:

 Decreased work or school performance as the victim must focus on dealing

with the
harassment and the surrounding dynamics and/or effects; psychological
effects of harassment
can also decrease work and school performance
 Increased absenteeism to avoid harassment, or because of illness from the
stress
 Having to drop courses, or change academic plans; academic transcripts may
be weakened
because of decreased school performance
 Retaliation from the harasser, or colleagues/friends of the harasser, should
the victim complain
or file a grievance (retaliation can involve revenge along with more sexual
harassment, and often
involves stalking the complainant)
 Having one's personal life offered up for public scrutiny --the victim
becomes the "accused," and
their dress, lifestyle, and private life will often come under attack. (Note:
this rarely occurs for the
perpetrator.)
  Being objectified and humiliated by scrutiny and gossip
 Becoming publicly sexualized
 Defamation of character and reputation
 Loss of trust in environments similar to where the harassment occurred
 Loss of trust in the types of people that occupy similar positions as the
harasser or their
colleagues
 Extreme stress upon relationships with significant others, sometimes
resulting in divorce;
extreme stress on peer relationships, or relationships with colleagues
 Being ostracized from professional or academic circles
 Having to relocate to another city, another job, or another school
 Loss of job and income; loss of tuition because of having to leave school
 Loss of references/recommendations
 Loss of career
 Weakening of support network: colleagues, friends, and even family may
distance themselves
from the victim or abandon them altogether.

Some of the health effects, psychological and physiological, that can occur in
someone who has been
sexually harassed:

 Depression
 Anxiety and/or panic attacks
 Traumatic stress; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
 Sleeplessness and/or nightmares
 Shame and guilt; self-blame
 Difficulty concentrating
 Headaches
 Fatigue or loss of motivation
 Difficulties with time (forgetting appointments, trouble gagging time)
 Stomach problems; gastrointestinal disorders
  Eating disorders (weight loss or gain)
 Feeling betrayed and/or violated
 Feeling angry or violent towards the perpetrator
 Feeling powerless, helpless, or out of control
 Increased blood pressure
 Loss of confidence and self esteem
 Overall loss of trust in people; problems with intimacy
 Problems with sex (sexual dysfunction)
 Withdrawal and isolation
 Suicidal thoughts or attempts; suicide  

Please note, the above symptoms may not be generated only from the harassment,
but can be the cumulative result of the harassment, retaliation, backlash, and/or
blaming a sexual harassment victim may endure.  

Environmental changes:  The Women’s' Crisis Support and Shelter of Santa Cruz
has created a list of the changes that might occur in a sexual harassment victim's
environment after they have complained of the behavior,  or other's have found
out about it.   While written for the workplace, you can generalize
many of these patterns to sexual harassment in an educational setting.  (Note: this
was written for female victims, but a male victim may experience similar pressures;
however, because of the "double-standard" in our society regarding sex and
gender, a male will most likely have different concerns, and struggle with different
emotions.)

 Her social environment may be entirely transformed. If only some people

know, she may constantly wonder who knows and what they are thinking. She
may overhear conversations of her superiors about her case. She may become
the subject of juicy gossip and wild misinformation and speculation. The
harasser may be conducting their own campaign of misinformation. She will be
judged by all who know about it, whether positively or negatively. This is a
huge burden to carry through your work or school environment.
 Her support network may be torn. The environment in which it happened may
be a big part of her life and her social sphere as well.  It can be turned upside
down in the wake of a complaint.  If she does not have a strong network of
friends outside of that sphere, she can become highly isolated. Those who she
would ordinarily rely on for support may have mixed loyalties or may turn
against her altogether. They also may not be free to support her for their own
political reasons. If the proceedings are confidential, she can be isolated from
potential supporters because she can't bring it up.

 Because it's a subject which has meaning for a lot of people, even those who
are not connected to the particular job or school may have mixed reactions to
her dilemma. One advantage could be that she will find out who her real
friends at work or school are. However, she may lose some friends whom she
would still rather have kept. Also, she is more in need of friends now than
usual.

 There may be a series of intrigues which continually intrude upon her ability
to do her work as usual. She is now no longer an ordinary student or employee,
she is part of a major underground drama. She may be called away for
meetings with people high up, she may get urgent confidential letters and
phone calls.

 Fellow women coworkers may be her best friends or worst enemies. They
have the potential to be sources of support and validation. If they went
through it too, they could become allies in the process. However, fellow women
may also be the least sympathetic. This could be due to internalized sexism, or
they may even feel threatened by her, either because she had the guts to
speak up for herself, or because they are jealous for her sexual attention.

 She becomes publicly sexualized, a walking icon of misplaced amorous

attentions. Is she attractive enough to get in trouble over?

 Additional effects in the aftermath of speaking up. Suppressed anger: she is

cast as the aggressor; she may feel she must come across as non threatening
and as non angry as possible. She is pressured to show caring for the accused,
 and compassion for his plight. However, through her various struggles, she will
become stronger and will know herself better. Opportunities to really take a
stand on what one believes in are rare, and even if undesirable, they can have
positive effects as well. She is on the front line of a battle for women's
rights. Another significant effect can arise from the outcome. In many cases,
she may have paid a tremendous price for nothing.

The Effects of Sexual Harassment on the Workplace:

Sexual harassment has been linked to decreased job satisfaction, and

can lead to a loss of staff and expertise because of resignations to avoid
harassment, or because of resignations or firings of alleged harassers.  Every year,
hundreds of millions of dollars are lost in productivity because of effects such as
employee absenteeism to avoid harassment, and increased team conflict in
environments where harassment is occurring.  The increased team conflict also
leads to problems with team cohesion and less success in meeting financial goals.
The knowledge that harassment is permitted can undermine ethical standards, and
discipline in the organization.  Prequel writes, “…staff loses respect for, and trust
in, their seniors who indulge in, or turn a blind eye to, sexual harassment.”  If the
problem is ignored, a company’s image can suffer amongst clients, employees,
potential customers, and the general public.  Health care costs can increase
because of the health consequences of harassment, not to mention the legal costs
if a victim files a lawsuit after complaints are ignored or mishandled.
 Workplace BULLYING

WHAT IS BULLYING?
Bullying is persistent unwelcome behavior, mostly using unwarranted or invalid
criticism, nit-picking, fault-finding, also exclusion, isolation, being singled out and
treated differently, being shouted at, humiliated, excessive monitoring, having
verbal and written warnings imposed, and much more. In the workplace, bullying
usually focuses on distorted or fabricated allegations of underperformance.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF WORK PLACE BULLYING

In order to understand why one adult bullies another it is necessary to return to

the roots of that behavior.

According to researchers such as Parke and Slab, aggressive behavior is actually a

part of normal development in young children in the same way as learning controls
that dissuade the child from taking specific courses of action such as fighting or
putting ones hand into a fire for example. As aggression grows through various
stages, the child develops parallel controls to counteract each stage of aggression.

Szegal who carried out observational studies in this area suggested that the first
real intentions towards intentional aggression are usually revealed between 7 and
12 months in response to experiences of frustration or tension and at times when
the infant demands attention.

Randall (Adult bullying: perpetrators & victims. P.75) argued that "By the age of 12
months, it is believed that the infant begins to organize cognitive and behavioral
expressions in respect of their primary caregivers, usually the mothers" In short,
Randall is arguing that the child is strategically thinking through his actions in a
form of cause and effect, e.g.: "if I cry my mother will come" or "if I hold out my
arms I will be picked up". Randall argues that these factors combining can be
understood as part of an attachment relationship with the primary career of which
the overall quality of interactions is critical for the successful functional
development of a child. It is argued that the satisfaction derived by the infant
from the interactions with the primary career do a great deal to increase the rate
at which the career is able to control the aggression. It is argued that with the
correct attention at this age, the child is more able to deal with tension and stress
without the need to respond aggressively.

The need to possess is another trait which produces aggressive behavior. The most
common aggression in the nursery is over the possession of certain toys. Randall
(Adult bullying: perpetrators & victims. P.75) argues that it is this need to ‘have’
objects which is the major forerunner of the behavior which the child eventually
refines into bullying. In short, he argues, "being able to ‘snatch and grab’ is one of
the earliest abuses of power we know of".

It is believed that most children are able to express the full range of human
emotions by the age of 3 and indeed, researchers such as Dunn argue that a child
of just 18 months is able to pre-meditate getting other small children into trouble
in the home environment. Frustration however tends to reduce as children gain the
ability to communicate through speech, enabling them to off-load casual distress.
At this stage children become able to use other strategies, such as negotiation
based upon expressive language instead of aggression.

At about the age of 18 months, some researchers believe a child will develop the
ability to feel sympathy and empathies with other people in response to any
distress which they may be going through. This characteristic is of course an
important inhibitor to aggressive behavior.

TYPES OF BULLYING

Pressure bullying or unwitting bullying is where the stress of the moment causes
behavior to deteriorate; the person becomes short-tempered, irritable and may
shout or swear at others. Everybody does this from time to time, but when the
pressure is removed, behavior returns to normal, the person recognizes the
inappropriateness of their behavior, makes amends, and may apologies, and -
crucially - learns from the experience so that next time the situation arises they
are better able to deal with it. This is "normal" behavior and I do not include
pressure bullying in my definition of workplace bullying.

Organizational bullying is a combination of pressure bullying and corporate bullying,

and occurs when an organization struggles to adapt to changing markets, reduced
income, cuts in budgets, imposed expectations, and other external pressures.

Corporate bullying is where the employer abuses employees with impunity knowing
that the law is weak and jobs are scarce, e.g.:

 coercing employees to work 60/70/80 weeks on a regular basis then

making life hell for (or dismissing) anyone who objects
 dismissing anyone who looks like having a stress breakdown as it's
cheaper (in the UK) to pay the costs of unfair dismissal at
Employment Tribunal (e.g. £50K maximum, but awards are usually
paltry) than risk facing a personal injury claim for stress breakdown
(e.g. £175K as in the John Walker case)

Client bullying:

Is where employees are bullied by those they serve, e.g. teachers are bullied (and
often assaulted) by pupils and their parents, nurses are bullied by patients and
their relatives, social workers are bullied by their clients, and shop/bank/building
society staff are bullied by customers. Often the client is claiming their perceived
right (e.g. to better service) in an abusive, derogatory and often physically violent
manner. Client bullying can also be employees bullying their clients.

Hierarchical bullying, peer bullying, upward bullying

The majority of cases of workplace bullying reported to the UK National

Workplace Bullying Advice Line and Bully Online involve an individual being bullied
by their manager, and these account for around 75% of cases. Around a quarter of
cases involve bullying and harassment by peers (often with the collusion of a
manager either by proactive involvement or by the manager refusing to take
action). A small number of cases (around 1-2%) involve the bullying of a manager by
a subordinate. Serial bullies like to tap into hierarchical power, but they also
generate their own power by simply choosing to bully with impunity and justifying
or denying their behavior with rationalization, manipulation, deception or lying. 
In a case of bullying of a manager by a subordinate, it's my view that as bullying is
a form of violence (at the psychological and emotional lever rather than the
physical) it's the responsibility of the employer, not the individual manager, to deal
with violence at work.

CONDITIONS FOR BULLYING AT WORKPLACE

People who are bullied find that they are:

 constantly criticized and subjected to destructive criticism (often

euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an oxymoron) -
explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or
ignored
 forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the triviality is the
giveaway)
 undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are raised, or
doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard of work -
however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable evidence, for they are
only the bully's unreliable opinion and are for control, not performance
enhancement
 overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalized, ostracized
 isolated and excluded from what's happening (this makes people more
vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
 singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can have long
lunch breaks but if they are one minute late it's a disciplinary offence)
 belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronized, subject to disparaging
remarks
 regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or
inappropriate bad language
 the target of unwanted sexual behavior
 threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of others
 taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and humiliate
 set unrealistic goals and deadlines which are unachievable or which are
changed without notice or reason or whenever they get near achieving them
 denied information or knowledge necessary for undertaking work and
achieving objectives
 starved of resources, sometimes whilst others often receive more than they
need
 denied support by their manager and thus find themselves working in a
management vacuum
 either overloaded with work (this keeps people busy [with no time to tackle
bullying] and makes it harder to achieve targets) or have all their work taken
away (which is sometimes replaced with inappropriate menial jobs, e.g.
photocopying, filing, making coffee)
 have their responsibility increased but their authority removed
 have their work plagiarized, stolen and copied - the bully then presents their
target's work (e.g. to senior management) as their own
 are given the silent treatment: the bully refuses to communicate and avoids
eye contact (always an indicator of an abusive relationship); often
instructions are received only via email, memos, or a succession of yellow
stickiest or post-it notes
 subject to excessive monitoring, supervision, micro-management, recording,
snooping etc
 the subject of written complaints by other members of staff (most of whom
have been coerced into fabricating allegations - the complaints are trivial,
often bizarre ["He looked at me in a funny way"] and often bear striking
similarity to each other, suggesting a common origin)
 forced to work long hours, often without remuneration and under threat of
dismissal
 Find requests for leave have unacceptable and unnecessary conditions
attached, sometimes overturning previous approval. especially if the person
has taken action to address bullying in the meantime
 denied annual leave, sickness leave, or - especially - compassionate leave
 when on leave, are harassed by calls at home or on holiday, often at unsocial
hours
 receive unpleasant or threatening calls or are harassed with intimidating
memos, notes or emails with no verbal communication, immediately prior to
weekends and holidays (e.g. 4pm Friday or Christmas Eve - often these are
hand-delivered)
 do not have a clear job description, or have one that is exceedingly long or
vague; the bully often deliberately makes the person's role unclear
 are invited to "informal" meetings which turn out to be disciplinary hearings
  are denied representation at meetings, often under threat of further
disciplinary action; sometimes the bully abuses their position of power to
exclude any representative who is competent to deal with bullying
 encouraged to feel guilty, and to believe they're always the one at fault
 subjected to unwarranted and unjustified verbal or written warnings
 facing unjustified disciplinary action on trivial or specious or false charges
 facing dismissal on fabricated charges or flimsy excuses, often using a
trivial incident from months or years previously
 coerced into reluctant resignation, enforced redundancy, early or ill-health
retirement
 denial of the right to earn your livelihood including preventing you getting
another job, usually with a bad or misleading reference

However, there is never any cost-benefit justification to the reorganization - no

figures before and no figures after to prove the reorganization has brought
benefits.

BULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE

Generally speaking, bullying in the workplace goes largely unrecognized by both

government and by employers alike. Research compiled by the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology however indicates that
somewhere between one third and one half of all stress related illness is directly
attributable to bullying at the workplace. Despite this staggering fact however, it
has to be said that until recently, even trade unions never realized the full extent
of the problem and chose instead to remain in denial for many years.

The statistics world-wide are frightening as I shall now indicate. The US

Department of Justice and the Bureau of Justice have compiled data which would
appear to be in line with many of the statistics available in the United Kingdom.
These findings include:

Over one million individuals are the victims of violent crimes in the workplace each
year. For comparison reasons, this is said to be around 15% of all violent crimes
committed annually in the United States.

Of specific interest to the topic of workplace bullying, of all the violent crimes
committed in the workplace, 19% were committed by individuals well known to the
victim.
It was estimated that aggression in the workplace caused some 500,000 workers
to miss 1,751,000 work days annually or 3.5 days per incident. This loss of working
days equated to $55 million in lost wages.

In November 1994 the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD) published the
results of a survey revealing that 1 in 8 (around 3 million) UK employees have been
bullied at work in the last five years. Over half of those who have experienced
bullying say it are commonplace in their organization and a quarter say it has got
worse in the last year. These figures appear to be backed up by survey after
survey.

Workplace bullying can take many forms and may include examples of Racial and/or
Sexual harassment. On the whole however, bullying in workplace takes place as
clear examples of the abuse of power.

The issue of ‘power’ is central to the theme of workplace bullying and indeed, most
examples of bullying at work will involve an imbalance of power between the two
parties. Olweus stated of bullying that whatever else may be true, there is always
an imbalance of power. The research which I have carried out in the UK retail
industry would appear to be no exception to that rule.

The workplace bully is generally well known by both the employees and the
employer, even in the case where the bully is not identified within the often
entirely unsatisfactory procedure. The bully will often be in a position of authority
over the people that he or she terrorizes in the workplace and as such is often the
first port of call within the grievance procedure. This fact in itself will suppress
most if not all potential complaints and invariably, those which do become aired will
be ignored, disbelieved or trivialized by the personnel department.

If the victim of the bully is really unlucky they may find that the personnel
department is powerless to deal with the bully as the bully is senior to the
Personnel department. This is particularly likely in smaller companies and in
organizations in which the lines of demarcation between the line manager and the
personnel department are rather blurred. It may also be that the organization has
been run in an authoritarian style for so long that bullies have congregated in a
gang to support each other against complaints in much the same way as the school
bullies only acquaintances are quickly reduced to other ‘toughs’.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO WORKPLACE BULLYING

There are a variety of reasons why a person may bully another person in the
workplace. These reasons may include:
 POWER
 SELF-ESTEEM
 PERCEIVED THREAT.
 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

HOW BULLYING AFFECTS ORGANIZATIONS:

Each of the individual consequences listed above can be very costly for the
organization. Costs of bullying generally fall into three categories:

1. Replacing staff members that leave as a result of being bullied.

2. Work effort being displaced as staff cope with bullying incidents (i.e., effort
being directed away from work productivity and towards coping).

3. Costs associated with investigations of ill treatment and potential legal action.

Bullies do not run good organizations; staff turnover and sick leave will be high
while morale and productivity will be low. Stress, depression and physical health
problems result in time away from work that is costly in terms of workers’
compensation and lost productivity.
The health problems experienced by victims of bullying result in a sense of
helplessness and negative emotional states among employees. Low self-esteem and
a negative organizational climate suppress creativity and hamper employees’
abilities to respond to difficult situations or challenging goals.

The breakdown of trust in a bullying environment may mean that employees will fail
to contribute their best work, do not give extra ideas for improvement, do not
provide feedback on failures and may be less honest about performance.

WHEN A TARGET REPORTS BULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE:

11% of targets are transferred

38% left voluntarily
 44% were terminated
In only 7% of those cases, was the bully censored,
transferred or terminated.  

*WBTI Research (2003)

THE SELECTION OF VICTIMS

Research by Randall (Adult bullying: perpetrators & victims. P.24) shows that up to
the age of seven bullies may pick on anyone and will meet with limited success
depending on the ability of the particular child to retaliate. From seven onwards
however, Randall suggests that bullies tend to single out particular victims and that
these children may acquire a ‘whipping boy’ status for the rest of their school
careers.

Randall backs this statement up by referring to research carried out by Ladd

suggesting that bullies engage in a selection process in order to determine which
children are likely to make the easiest target. Ladd points out that in the beginning
of the school year, when children do not know each other; approximately 22% of
children report at least one experience of victimization. In contrast to this
statistic however, by the end of the school year it was shown that only 8% of
pupils were being regularly singled out by bullies.

In 1995 Randall (Adult bullying: perpetrators & victims. P.26) carried out research
into the attitude towards bullying in several local schools which presented some
interesting findings of significance to the difficulties expressed by many trade
union activists in the early identification of workplace bullying and the
consequential attitudes of denial shown by higher management who, although
sympathetic, refuse or simply fail to tackle the problem once it has been
identified.

STRESS AND ITS EFFECTS ON HEALTH

As I shall outline in this chapter onwards, workplace bullying, in just the same way
as school bullying or bullying in the community has definite undesirable medical
effects which cost industry billions of pounds each year.
The effects are linked to stress and in this respect I feel that I should go into
some detail regarding the medical effects of stress in this chapter.

The word stress derives from the Latin word ‘stringer’ meaning to ‘draw tight’ and
was used during the seventeenth century to describe hardships or affliction.

The chart below shows how stress in the early stages can ‘rev up’ the body and
enhance performance in the workplace, thus the term ‘I perform better under
pressure’. If this condition is allowed to go unchecked however and the body is
revved up further then performance will ultimately decline and the persons health
will degenerate as demonstrated in fig 1.

Source of chart above: Stress UK.

The symptoms of stress which I have outlined below in fig 2 and 3 are believed to
stem from our primitive ‘fight or flight’ response to perceived dangers. This
response produces surges of chemical reactions in the blood stream as outlined in
fig. 3 which can cause psychological problems such as Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder or Cumulative Stress Disorder for example.

It is believed that man has retained much of his primitive hormonal and chemical
defense mechanisms intact throughout the centuries which enabled the cave man
to either fight the perceived danger or to retreat, thus the phrase ‘fight or flight’.
Unfortunately, the lifestyle which we live in today does not allow us to react
physically to the problems which we face. We are not for example able to punch
our boss when he or she is acting aggressively as such actions is all forms of
behavior that are not tolerated in today’s society. Similarly, in today’s society we
are not able to use the ‘flight’ response either. The consequences for manager who
flees from a stressful meeting are likely to be sweeping. It is believed that it is
this denial of our primitive responses which causes the strains on our body and
leads to stress related disease and sickness, as the adrenaline which runs through
our body and prepares us for our basic responses has no outlet.

Cooper (Stress and employer liability P.9) argues that "our thought patterns
regarding ourselves and the situations we are in trigger events within two branches
of our central nervous system, the ‘sympathetic’ and the ‘parasympathetic’ ". In
short, the ‘sympathetic’ reaction is where the body ‘revs up’ the adrenaline and
other hormones in the blood stream in response to a perceived danger and the
‘parasympathetic’ is where the body ‘revs down’ and unwinds itself. The ‘rev up’
activity is designed to improve performance in the body however, as Cooper puts it
"if the stress that launches this activity continues unabated, the human body
begins to weaken as it is bombarded by stimulation and stress related chemicals".
Melhuish described many of the long term effects of pressure in Fig 3.

List of Ailments recognized to have stress background.

Hypertension: high blood

Menstrual difficulties.
pressure.
 Coronary thrombosis: heart Nervous dyspepsia: flatulence and
attack indigestion.

Migraine Depression

Hyperthyroidism: overactive thyroid

Hay fever and allergies
gland

Asthma Diabetes mellitus

Purities: intense itching Skin Disorders

Peptic ulcers Tuberculosis

Constipation Colitis

Rheumatoid Arthritis Indigestion

*Source: Cary Cooper. Stress and employer Liability (P9)

THE COSTS OF STRESS

There can be little dispute against ever growing research that stress has a
significant negative impact on the well-being of both the individual and the
organization. Links have been demonstrated between stress and the incidence of
heart disease, alcoholism, mental breakdowns, job dissatisfaction, accidents, family
problems and certain forms of cancer.

In the UK during the 1980’s, stress in the workplace proved to multiply similar
costs due to Industrial Action by more than 10 fold. Recent figures released by
the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in 1995 calculate that alcohol and
drink related diseases cost the UK economy approximately £1.7 billion and 8 million
lost working days, with coronary artery disease and strokes costing a further 62
million days lost and mental health at £3.7 billion and 91 million days lost.

Certain countries (e.g... the USA and Finland) are showing declines in certain stress
related illnesses such as heart disease and alcoholism. In contrast to these figures
however the UK is simply not even coming close to matching up. The World Health
Organization recently published figures indicating that not only is the UK near the
top of the world league table in terms of fatality due to heart disease, it is also
extending that lead on an ongoing basis with ever yearly increases in the statistics.
The British Heart Foundation recently released figures that heart disease costs
the average UK employer 10,000 employee’s, 73,000 lost working days and the
death of 42 of its employee’s (between the age of 35 and 64), together with a loss
of £2.5 million in productive value of its product.

Costs to the nation are of similar staggering proportions. The British Heart
Foundation Coronary prevention group has for example calculated that 180,000
people die in the UK each year from coronary heart disease, which equates to 500
people per day. In addition to this, the mental health charity MIND has estimated
that 30 or 40% of all sickness absence from work is attributable to mental and
emotional disturbance. The suicide rate among the younger age group of employee’s
has increased by 30% between the late 1970’s to the early 1990’s. RELATE has
estimated that by the year 2000 there will be 4 divorces in every 10 and indeed
this would appear to be the direction the nation has been going as divorce rates
have raised from 27,000 in 1961 to 155,000 in 1988. Finally, Alcohol Concern has
estimated that one in four men in the UK drink more than the medically
recommended number of units per week and that 25% of accidents at work involve
workers under the influence of alcohol.

WHO PAYS THE COSTS?

One does have to ask why countries such as the USA and Finland are able to show
lower levels of stress related illnesses such as heart disease and alcoholism whilst
the UK’s are still rising.
Cooper (Stress and employer liability P.15) argues that the two most likely
explanations are that, firstly "American industry is facing an enormous and ever
spiraling bill for employee health care costs. Whilst individual costs have risen by
50% over the past 20 years, the contribution by employers has risen by more than
140%. It has also been estimated that over $700 million a year is spent by
American employers to replace the 200,000 men aged from 45 to 65 who die from,
or are incapacitated by, coronary artery disease alone. At Xerox for example, top
management estimate that just one executive being lost due to a stress related
illness costs the organization $160,000." Research also indicates that high
turnover, absenteeism, poor working relationships, and acts of retaliation may
result from such environments. A 1998 study by University of North Carolina
management professor Christine Pearson of 775 targets of workplace incivility and
aggression found that "28 percent lost work time avoiding the instigator," "22
percent decreased their effort at work," and "12 percent actually changed jobs to
avoid the instigator." Severely bullied employees sometimes must seek workers'
compensation or disability benefits because they can no longer expose themselves
to the stress of the abusive work environment. In some cases, bullying can prompt
violent behavior. Joseph Kinney, the founder of the National Safe Workplace
Institute, reported that "there have been numerous instances where abusive
supervisors have baited angry and frustrated employees, pushing these individuals
to unacceptable levels of violence and aggression."

THE BUSINESS CASE AGAINST WORKPLACE BULLYING*

Allegations of intimidating and angry treatment of co-workers lodged against

John Bolton, the Bush Administration's newly-appointed Ambassador to the United
Nations, have put a spotlight on the problem of workplace bullying. While Bolton
has not quite done for bullying what Clarence Thomas and his 1991 Supreme Court
confirmation hearings did for raising awareness of sexual harassment, it is clear
that this story struck a responsive chord with many workers who have experienced
abusive treatment at the hands of bosses and co-workers.

Workplace bullying can be defined as the deliberate, hurtful, repeated

mistreatment of an employee, driven by a desire to control that individual.
According to researchers on abusive work environments, some of the most common
bullying behaviors include yelling, shouting, and screaming; hostile glares and other
intimidating gestures; behind-the-back put-downs, insults, and unfair criticism; and
the deliberate sabotage and undermining of another's work performance.

In recent months, many of these behaviors have been attributed to Bolton by

current and former State Department co-workers and contractors. Ex-State
Department intelligence Chief Carl Ford, a Republican appointee, called Bolton a
"serial abuser" of subordinates, adding that he showed a talent for stroking
superiors while kicking down underlings.

The most publicized allegations came from Melody Tonsil, a woman who worked
with Bolton in Moscow under a government contract in 1994. Tonsil told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton chased her down the halls of a Moscow
hotel, threw a tape dispenser at her, made disparaging remarks about her
appearance, left threatening letters under her hotel door, and pounded on her door
and yelled at her.

Bolton is said to have pursued the removal of two intelligence analysts simply
for disagreeing with him. He sought to have them fired, claiming that their work
had deteriorated. Internal agency reviews of the analysts' work found no merit to
the claims. Other reports indicate that Bolton has a talent for shouting down
diplomats from other nations and throwing last-minute monkey wrenches into
delicate treaty negotiations.

While the Bolton situation may have been particularly newsworthy, workplace
bullying is commonplace, and too many businesses prefer to ignore the problem.
Bullying is considered roughly four times more prevalent than sexual harassment
alone. In a recent Wayne State University survey, nearly 60 percent of
respondents reported experiencing emotionally abusive behavior from co-workers
during their working lives. In the 1990s, Columbia University researcher Harvey
Hornstein examined information about abusive supervision from 1,000 workers in a
wide variety of occupations and concluded that approximately 90 percent of the
workforce experiences abuse from their bosses at some point in their careers. Of
course, this did not even include the many instances where peers or even
subordinates engaged in bullying.

* David C. Yamada Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School Boston

RECOMMANDATIONS:

Businesses that want to minimize the likelihood of bullying can take concrete
steps to do so. Here are several measures that may prove helpful:

 Send a message that bullying is unacceptable behavior. This message must

come from the top and find its way through the organization. It can include
the drafting and implementation of policies related to workplace bullying,
offering in-house educational programs and presentations, and using
effective "360 feedback" systems to evaluate employees. Moreover, a
climate of open, honest, and mutually respectful communication will have the
salutary effect of reducing the likelihood of bullying situations.
 Empower HR to handle bullying situations fairly and forthrightly. One of the
most common remarks from targets of bullying is how "HR was useless" in
handling their complaints about bullying and in some cases turned out to be
complicit with the bullies. Effective preventive and responsive measures by
HR are key components of any anti-bullying initiative.
 Dismiss destructive bullies. It may be good for business! Even if an
incorrigibly abusive individual happens to be a leading "rainmaker" in
attracting business, the increased productivity through better morale and
less time lost to the gossip mill may make this a sound decision from a purely
cost-benefit standpoint.
 The needs of, and pressures generated by, the service sector economy are
making conditions particularly ripe for workplace bullying. In White-Collar
Sweatshop, business writer Jill Andresky Fraser observed that "unpleasant
working conditions, difficult job demands, and rising career insecurities have
combined to make stress the constant companion of many of today's white-
collar men and women." Although bullying is no stranger to the assembly line,
the very nature of service sector work creates conditions in which this
 behavior is more likely to occur. Frequent, ongoing personal interaction
between workers often becomes a basic element of a job, especially in work
arrangements between supervisors and subordinates. When people interact
more, the likelihood increases that personalities will clash and that
individuals who are prone to bullying will have opportunities to do so.
 In addition, we must come to grips with the unfortunate fact that some
people think nothing of treating others in manipulative and cruel ways.
According to Dr. Martha Stout, a practicing psychologist and instructor at
Harvard Medical School, approximately four percent of the population
suffers from "antisocial personality disorder," meaning they have "little or
no conscience." In her recently published book, The Sociopath Next Door,
she includes chilling case studies of how these individuals abuse their co-
workers.
 Another factor that contributes to the toleration of bullying is that there
are few clear lines of legal liability. Although some bullying situations may
involve illegal discrimination or retaliation, in many instances they fall into
gray areas of the law. This makes it easier to write off the behavior as a
mere "personality clash" or disagreement over "management style." Whereas
most companies have established protocols for handling, say, sexual
harassment complaints, few have set policies for bullying and generic
harassment.

What's the difference between bullying and harassment?

Acts of harassment usually centre around unwanted, offensive and intrusive

behavior with a sexual, racial or physical component. Measures to identify and
proscribe acts of harassment derive from the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race
Relations Act and the law of assault. More recently, the Disability Discrimination
Act (1996), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Protection
from Harassment Act (1996) have also influenced attitudes towards harassment.
Significantly, the Protection from Harassment Act accords emphasis for the first
time on the target's perception of the harassment rather than the perpetrator's
alleged intent.

At present, if one is being bullied and is white, British, able-bodied and the same
gender as the bully, one is not currently covered by discrimination law. Ironically,
one is thus discriminated against by not qualifying under existing discrimination
law. Whilst the DTI like to quote the Protection from Harassment Act as the way
to deal with bullying at work, the Act is designed to deal with stalkers, not an
incompetent manager criticizing a subordinate in a work environment.

Under the previous Conservative government, the DTI similarly quoted the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act as the way to deal with bullying. To my knowledge not
a single case of workplace bullying has been resolved by either act - or is ever
likely to be.

Definitions of harassment and bullying vary and there is much overlap. The
essential differences between harassment and workplace bullying are as follows:

Harassment Workplace bullying

Has a strong physical component, eg
Almost exclusively psychological (eg
contact and touch in all its forms,
criticism), may become physical later,
intrusion into personal space and
especially with male bullies, but almost
possessions, damage to possessions
never with female bullies
including a person's work, etc
Tends to focus on the individual because
Anyone will do, especially if they are
of what they are (eg female, black,
competent, popular and vulnerable
disabled, etc)
Although bullies are deeply prejudiced,
Harassment is usually linked to sex, race, sex, race and gender play little part; it's
prejudice, discrimination, etc usually discrimination on the basis of
competence
Bullying is rarely a single incident and
Harassment may consist of a single tends to be an accumulation of many
incident or a few incidents or many small incidents, each of which, when
incidents taken in isolation and out of context,
seems trivial
The person being bullied may not realise
The person who is being harassed knows
they are being bullied for weeks or
almost straight away they are being
months - until there's a moment of
harassed
enlightenment
Everyone can recognise harassment,
especially if there's an assault, indecent Few people recognise bullying
assault or sexual assault

Harassment often reveals itself through trivial criticisms and false allegations of
use of recognised offensive vocabulary, underperformance; offensive words
eg ("bitch", "coon", etc)
There's often an element of possession,
eg as in stalking
The harassment almost always has a
strong clear focus (eg sex, race,
disability)
Often the harassment is for peer
approval, bravado, macho image etc
Harassment takes place both in and out
of work
The harasser often perceives their
target as easy, albeit sometimes a
challenge
Harassment is often domination for
superiority
The harasser often lacks self-discipline
The harasser often has specific
inadequacies (eg sexual)
Workplace bullying tends to fixate on
rarely appear, although swear words may
be used when there are no witnesses
Phase 1 of bullying is control and
subjugation; when this fails, phase 2 is
elimination of the target
The focus is on competence (envy) and
popularity (jealousy)
Tends to be secret behind closed doors
with no witnesses
The bullying takes place mostly at work
The target is seen as a threat who must
first be controlled and subjugated, and
if that doesn't work, eliminated
Bullying is for control of threat (of
exposure of the bully's own inadequacy)
The bully is driven by envy (of abilities)
and jealousy (of relationships)
The bully is inadequate in all areas of
interpersonal and behavioural skills

Recommendation

The three main point companies typically use to discuss sexual harassment are
as follows:

 State clearly that sexual harassment & workplace bullying will not be
tolerated in the workplace.
  Set up procedures for dealing internally with complaints promptly,
thoroughly, and fairly.
 Provide training programs to ensure that all employees understand what
constitutes sexual harassment and the employer's plans for dealing with it.

The important thing is that gave the confidence to their employees that your
complaints are confidential and we will take the action very seriously and strictly.
And we think if any employee is involve in such activity the organization simply fire
him or her with heavy fine n we hope so next time every one think before to do
these type of activity.

Conclusion:-

The challenge before employers and managers today is to develop strategies or

find ways to enhance the old ones and to protect the organization from sexual
harassment & workplace bullying complaints. Effective prevention and correction
mechanisms can reduce the occurrence and damage of sexual harassment &
workplace bullying to the minimum. Oftentimes sexual harassment & workplace
bullying arises from gender or power inequalities. It may be helpful to consider the
degrees of these factors when designing an approach to handle sexual harassment
& workplace bullying in a specific organization. It would also enhance the usefulness
and effectiveness of an organization's approach to handle sexual harassment &
workplace bullying by studying other organizations that have successfully reduced
or eliminated problems caused by this harmful misconduct.

“Don't hesitate to report sexual harassment! Waiting is never the best option”.