Leadership and Workplace Bullying: Friend or Foe?

Attribution Theory

The attribution theory centers on the responses of employees to workplace events or situations, which includes negative and positive experiences (Harvey, Summers, & Martinko, 2010). The attribution theory explains that people develop casual explanations or attributions to explain the outcomes they experience and observe (Harvey et al., 2010). Therefore, people who experience negative outcomes, such as workplace bullying, react to a bully in a negative fashion. Conversely, the attribution to a positive experience, such as recognition for a job well done, promotes a positive reaction to the praising leader (Harvey et al., 2010).

The attribution theory interfaces with leadership based on the follower’s perceptions. A follower’s perceptions come from whatever personal paradigms exist on how the follower believes a leader should behave (Aleksic, 2016). Followers have a picture in their minds of what leadership qualities, abilities, and styles the perfect leader should possess, and they judge if their leader exceeds, meets, or falls short of these expectations (Aleksic, 2016). The follower internalizes and determines if the leader has a value system compatible with their own and therefore is worthy of being followed and of the investment of the follower’s energy in that leader (Aleksic, 2016). This assessment dictates how the follower behaves toward the leader based on respect, contempt, or indifference.

Social Identity Theory

Ojala and Nesdale (2004) provided research that suggests that the behavior of the workplace bully consists of a group process, whereby the involved parties act in predictable ways as outlined in the social identity theory. The social identity approach contends that the influence of groups enhances the bullying phenomenon (Humphrey, O’Brien, Jetten, & Haslam, 2005). Jones, Haslam, York, and Ryan (2008) stated that people develop their sense of who they are, or self-concept, based on their group memberships. Based on this assessment, group members try to enhance their self-concept through differentiating their group, called the in-group, from the other groups, called the out-groups (Jones et al., 2008). Bullying behavior develops because similar out-groups represent threats to the in-group’s distinctiveness, which may cause a perception that the out-group poses a threat to their status or uniqueness (Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). Additionally, social identity aids in the understanding of bullying because of the established norms of the group, which dictate the attitudes and behaviors characteristic of the in-group that differentiate it from other out-groups (Jones et al., 2008). Therefore, individuals may practice workplace bullying because it coincides with the group norms of their in-group identity (Haslam & Reicher, 2006).

Aleksic (2016) outlined how the process of social identification includes people’s tendency to define themselves based on the groups they belong to at work and in their personal lives. Aleksic (2016) further stated that this occurs because people accept this practice based on the importance of their social identity to themselves. The more the organizational values match a follower’s personal values, the more the follower will value their social identity (Aleksic, 2016). The more followers value their social identity, the closer their goals match with the organization’s mission, vision, and goals (Aleksic, 2016). Based on this process, servant leadership coupled with a high social identity provides internal motivation, which drives employees to focus on personal incentives, such as self-expression and self-promotion, but in such a manner that is not contrary to the interests of the organization itself (Aleksic, 2016).

Social Domination Theory

The social dominance theory states that ideologies contained in society promote or diminish intergroup hierarchies (Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). Social dominance orientation (SDO) represents the extent of acceptance of these competing ideologies. Sidanius (1993) defined SDO as the degree an individual desires social dominance and power over other people and groups. SDO-driven people consider any group they belong to as their in-group and any other nonmember group as an out-group (Sidanius, 1993). Therefore, people with a high SDO, such as workplace bullies, possess a strong desire to promote intergroup hierarchies and have their in-group dominate other groups. Conversely, the servant leader may desire dominance by their in-group as well. However, domination would occur in a collaborative manner. Sidanius, Levin, Federico, and Pratto (2001) further defined SDO as the degree of desire for unequal relations among social groups using in-group domination or subordination. Sidanius and Pratto (2003) maintain that determining a person’s SDO takes into account their level of empathy, social experiences, and hierarchy within their groups. Duckitt and Sibley (2009) explained that high-SDO people correlate negatively with egalitarian values. Conversely, high-SDO people correlate positively with the characteristics of valuing power, achievement, and hedonism. Additionally, high-SDO people share a world view of a dog eat dog world in which the strong win and the weak lose (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). Furthermore, Aiello, Pratto, and Pierro (2013) further characterized high-SDO people as cold, callous, and cruel preferring harsh power tactics, whereas low-SDO people were more emphatic and preferred soft power tactics. Therefore, someone with a high SDO may not necessarily be a workplace bully. However, a workplace bully would certainly have a high SDO.

Theme 1: The Snake

Bame (2013) identified the snake bully persona as the most common bully. The snake bully, like the rock python character Kaa in the Jungle Book, manipulates people and fabricates a reality favorable to their agenda with a simple “Trust in Me” mantra. The snake would rank as a grandmaster in the chess world because of his or her innate ability to control events and develop an alternate reality that becomes accepted by employees and senior management alike. The snake bully exerts a heavy toll on people in maintaining the snake’s façade and often leave people feeling emotionally drained, used, and abused (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The snake has a very high emotional intelligence (EQ) yet uses it in a negative manner to control people, their environment, and the perceptions of senior management (Bame, 2013).

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Snakes sneak around observing employees in hopes of catching them doing something wrong and often sabotage employees while exhibiting a passive-aggressive demeanor (Bame, 2013). Snakes make excessive demands and set up employees for failure by overloading them with inconsequential job duties to make an employee look incompetent (Bame, 2013). The snake ensures the failure of an employee by tasking them with unrealistic deadlines and isolating them from receiving any assistance (Bame, 2013). Snakes create a false reality in which the bully is irreplaceable, and every employee victim illustrates their mantra that “good help is hard to find” (Bame, 2013). Snakes handle employee reviews by giving adequate write-ups with steadily falling scores and provide no feedback on how to improve (Bame, 2013). The snake also undermines other managers by attempting to lessen their supervisory authority by spreading malicious rumors (Bame, 2013). Snakes often interrupt meetings and provide various distractions to stall any headway on a project that was not the bully’s idea (Bame, 2013). The snake is an expert at kissing up and kicking down, eliminating any threat to the bully’s positional authority (Bame, 2013).

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora (2008) characterize the servant leader as being a transforming influence. In this respect, the servant leader influences the organization like the snake bully, however, in a positive way on an emotional, intellectual, social, and spiritual level. This allows the servant leadership mantra, to lead is to serve, to spread throughout the organization creating positive change. These changes occur through visioning, which encompasses leading by example, mentoring, and empowering employees (Sendjaya et al., 2008). Washington, Sutton, and Field (2006) outlined the value of empathy in the servant leader. A leader with high empathy would thrive as either a snake bully or a servant leader with the key difference being the servant leader’s ethical nature. The servant leader empathizes with their followers to fulfill their needs (Washington et al., 2006), whereas the snake bully empathizes with an employee to learn how to manipulate them based on their desires. A study performed by Washington et al. (2006) illustrated that the relationship between the value of empathy and servant leadership provided evidence that the servant leader cares for the followers. Many of the followers surveyed felt that their supervisor had the traits of being helpful, forgiving, considerate, and understanding (Washington et al., 2006).

Theme 2: The Tyrant

Bame (2013) detailed in his study that 26.34% of bullies have the traits of the tyrant persona. The tyrant treats an organization as his or her personal kingdom where the tyrant dictates the rules and laws of the land. The tyrant acts like an elitist and expects special privileges because of the bully’s position. The tyrant bully strictly enforces the rules and policies of the organization meting out punishment with glee. However, the tyrant believes that the rules do not apply to the tyrant because of their superior status (Bame, 2013). The tyrant shares some characteristics of the narcissist and the psychopath. The tyrant, like the narcissist, avoids any inner turmoil by shifting the blame for the abusive behavior onto the target (Hirigoyen, 2000). Tyrants resemble psychopaths in their lack of conscience and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for people of low stature (Boddy, 2011).

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Bame (2013) identified the tyrant bully as an individual who possesses an over-sized ego and displays arrogance freely and openly. Tyrants bully for the sheer pleasure of exercising power and regularly invade employee’s personal space in a show of power (Bame, 2013). The tyrant bully retaliates 100% of the time regardless of the amount of time that passes, developing revenge plans that can span years of planning in hopes of the most opportune moment to strike (Bame, 2013). Tyrants often give false sarcastic praise and make negative eye contact with employees such as staring and dirty looks to have them look away as a sign of submissiveness (Bame, 2013). The tyrant often uses the phrase “do as I say, or else” in dealing with subordinates and peers when wielding their power (Bame, 2013). Tyrants confront friendly managers and tell them to mind their own business when speaking up for a bullied employee (Bame, 2013). Tyrants give no explanations for poor appraisals and often tell employees to read and sign their evaluations with little or no discussion (Bame, 2013). Tyrants get enjoyment out of making employees squirm or feel uncomfortable. Tyrants speak in a condescending manner to employees and often interrupt employees and peers without any consideration for privacy (Bame, 2013).

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. Sendjaya et al. (2008) described how the servant leader desires to renounce any superior status attached to leadership. This is completely the opposite of the tyrant bully who feels superior in every way to the employees. Therefore, employee references to the “ivory tower” do not exist in a servant leadership scenario. Servant leaders seek to emulate voluntary subordination (Sendjaya et al., 2008). Voluntary subordination implies that servant leaders continuously seek to do more than simple acts of service, but seek to serve their employees. Employees see the servant leader as a guiding force that cares about the employee as a person and not just as a subordinate.

Theme 3: The Screamer

Bame (2013) described the bully persona of the screamer as a bully that frequently goes on rants to get the screamer’s way at others’ expense and put their priorities above the priorities of the team and organization. A study by Toti (2006) correlated high levels of anger with low EQ and a reduced ability for emotional management. Therefore, screamers are prime candidates for training in anger management and EQ (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Bame (2013) characterized the screamer bully as a moody individual that insults and flings sarcasm at targets on a regular basis (Bame, 2013). The screamer bully often openly mocks their chosen target during meetings and belittles their ideas (Bame, 2013). The screamer assaults targets verbally and even physically in the form of accusations, pushing, punching, threats, staring, glaring, name calling, screaming, and swearing (Bame, 2013). The vindictive screamer practices retaliation and often exhibits meltdowns to obtain an audience as a warning to stay off the screamer’s territory in the organization (Bame, 2013). Screamers exhibit violent tempers, lack of patience, mood swings, and unduly harsh behavior, all indicative of someone with low EQ (Bame, 2013).

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. Effective leaders understand they must be careful in how they display their emotions. Intense emotions can create barriers between the leader and followers or conversely inspire them to reach new extraordinary levels (Connelly, Gaddis, & Helton-Fauth, 2007). Goleman (as cited in Reilly & Karounos, 2009) listed five components of EQ that an effective leader exhibits: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. Servant leaders exhibit these components in a positive manner, contrary to the characteristics of the screamer bully. A key example consists of the principle of self-regulation, which encompasses the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods and the propensity to suspend judgment or to think before acting. Characteristics include trustworthiness, integrity, comfort with ambiguity, and openness to change (Reilly & Karounos, 2009).

Theme 4: The Gatekeeper

Several studies (Bame, 2013; Locander & Luechauer, 2005) characterized the gatekeeper persona as a bully who uses the bully’s position to hoard information and resources to keep employees in a submissive position. Employees face roadblocks at every turn and stagnate in red tape when working for a gatekeeper (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). This form of bully saps employee motivation and energy until employees only go through the motions or seek employment elsewhere, which often leads to underemployment (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Bame (2013) characterized the cold and secretive gatekeeper as an expert at ostracizing targets and hoarding information. Gatekeepers give the silent treatment to targets and often exclude them from meetings and training opportunities (Bame, 2013). On the rare occasion that a target attends a meeting, the gatekeeper ignores the target and rebuffs any input quickly and publicly to punish the target for speaking (Bame, 2013). Gatekeepers only share information with favorites that give blind obedience (Bame, 2013). Gatekeepers promote inequities in employee workload by assigning high-profile jobs to their favorites and overloading targets with menial tasks (Bame, 2013). Gatekeepers curb communication toward targets from all sources, thus isolating them physically and electronically within the organization (Bame, 2013). Working for a gatekeeper bully ensures oneself of a very lonely existence that can lead to being forgotten by an organization (Bame, 2013).

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. A stark contrast to the gatekeeper would consist of the servant leader as a teacher. The prototypical servant leader represents the epitome of a noble teacher (Robinson, 2009). Greenleaf told a story of the teacher as a servant, which illustrated how servant leadership develops young people into servant leaders that value social responsibility, community, and service to others (Greenleaf, Beazley, Beggs, & Spears, 2003). Additionally, a servant teacher unlocks and develops an employee’s strengths, talents, and passions (Jennings & Stahl-Wert, 2003). The servant leader develops into a wayfinder, in the view of the employee, representing a guide who removes all obstacles that stand in the way of the employee’s success.

Bowman (2005) stated this relationship thrives based on the foundation of a shared sense of purpose and accountability for the organization. Robinson (2009) outlined that collaborative learning guides the servant teacher. The learning process involves the employee as an active learner with the servant teacher as a co-learner (Robinson, 2009). Unlike the gatekeeper, the servant leader uses collaboration which minimizes the power differential between the leader and the employee to almost a state of equality (Robinson, 2009). Furthermore, the servant teacher or wayfinder understands that providing feedback stimulates growth. However, the feedback needs to consist of constructive feedback in a supportive manner that accentuates strengths and develops considerations to provide challenges that provide more learning opportunities (Robinson, 2009).

Theme 5: The Joker

The joker bully, as outlined by Bame (2013), uses practical jokes, teasing, insults, foul language, and ill humor to disguise his or her abuse. Jokers hide behind the façade of the “just kidding” or “I meant no harm” defense. Jokers only admit their pranks when caught red-handed; otherwise, jokers deny any involvement in the abusive behavior. Jokers often act in groups to haze an employee with their antics and recruit cohorts to their clique.

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Bame (2013) described the joker as a bully that majors in sarcasm, mocking, name calling, eye rolling, teasing, ridicule, lewd gestures, and crass behavior toward intended targets. Jokers often seek to alter time sheets or falsify records to cause a target trouble. If an employee walks away from his or her computer without locking it, the joker takes advantage of the opportunity by sending false offensive e-mails, deleting files, deleting incoming emails requesting information, and changing passwords (Bame, 2013). Jokers often destroy personal property of their targets such as family photos, displayed awards, plants, fish bowls, office supplies, desks, or chairs (Bame, 2013). Jokers intentionally fail to give messages to victims to cause them to miss deadlines or assignments (Bame, 2013). Jokers thrive in performing practical jokes like stuffing a desk with shredded paper or drawing mustaches on family photos with a marker. These pranks would happen right before an important meeting to embarrass the target in hopes of obtaining a resignation or discrediting them to further the joker’s agenda (Bame, 2013). Therefore, the practical joker’s goal does not center on humor but rather focuses on pain for the target.

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. The joker bully seeks to drive employees away and make them feel disconnected and disorientated. The servant leader combats this through transcendental spirituality. Transcendental spirituality creates spiritual values in the organization, which creates a sense of wholeness in the employees (Sendjaya et al., 2008).

Theme 6: The Discriminator

According to Bateman and Snell (2007), diversity goes beyond skin color and gender. Diversity is a broad term that describes all kinds of differences in the workplace (Bateman & Snell, 2007). These differences include religious affiliation, age, disability status, military experience, sexual orientation, economic class, educational level, and lifestyle, in addition to gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality (Bateman & Snell, 2007). The discriminator has the characterizations of any or a combination of prejudice, such as sexism, racism, ageism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, elitism, ableism, and anti-Semitism, which leads to discrimination in the workplace (Bame, 2013). The law protects employees from discrimination against sex, race, and disabilities. However, age and sexual orientation discrimination continue to rise with no legal protections and fall under forms of workplace bullying (Harper & Schneider, 2003; Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2009).

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Bame (2013) characterized the discriminator bully persona as an individual that openly gives contempt to people of diverse groups and exhibits the characteristics of other bully groups toward them. Discriminators abhor diversity of any kind and ignore anyone classified in a different group than the bully (Bame, 2013). The key characteristic of the discriminator is the bully’s motive for bullying, which centers on prejudice (Bame, 2013). Therefore, discriminators often suffer scrutiny because of repetitive violations of sexual, racial, or disability discrimination policies (Bame, 2013). Discriminators often feign friendship toward a new employee to learn about their background so they can discover a trait that does not fit into their “ideal” mold to scrutinize.

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. The discriminator treats employees in a prejudicial manner, preying on any way they might differ from the bully. Sendjaya et al. (2008) describe the servant leader as building covenantal relationships. Unlike the discriminator, servant leaders accept employees for who they are and not how they differ from them (Sendjaya et al., 2008). Employees feel included and enjoy equal treatment throughout the organization. This creates strong bonds within the organization based on mutual trust, shared values, and concern for their welfare (Sendjaya et al., 2008).

Theme 7: The Nitpicker

Bame (2013) described the nitpicker as a bully who typically has low self-esteem and always has something negative to say about other employees and their work. Nitpickers fear losing power and therefore, never concede that employees perform correctly (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The nitpicker strives to keep employees under control by highlighting their deficiencies and never admitting someone performs a good job (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). The nitpicker demoralizes employees by eroding their confidence and putting them on the defensive (Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Nitpickers justify their behavior by rationalizing that good help is hard to find, or employees lack the proper attention to detail to succeed in the organization (Locander & Luechauer, 2005).

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. Bame (2013) characterized the nitpicker as the classic micro-manager on steroids. The nitpicker belittles an employees’ educational background, and any other special qualification especially when it exceeds the nitpicker’s level of accomplishment (Bame, 2013). Any praise by the nitpicker tends toward sarcasm or has the obligatory “but” following closely (Bame, 2013). The nitpicker makes targets feel as if they are about to be fired at any moment because of their performance which, according to the nitpicker, consists of inadequacies and errors (Bame, 2013). A report reviewed by a nitpicker often returns covered in yellow post-it notes and red ink. These corrections, when implemented, create a substandard report blamed on the target. Nitpickers meticulously scrutinize targets’ work while exaggerating the seriousness of their errors (Bame, 2013). Nitpickers trivialize the work and achievements of their victims and use insinuation and insults to chip away at a victim’s confidence (Bame, 2013).

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. Sendjaya et al. (2008) defined another servant leader characteristic as employing a responsible morality. Nitpickers seek to destroy an employee’s confidence and cause employees to doubt their abilities. The servant leader employing a responsible morality uses relational power to facilitate good moral communication between the leader and employees (Sendjaya et al., 2008). Once this communication flourishes between the leader and the employees, it develops further to include other leaders and other employees throughout the organization. This causes employee morale to grow and create positive changes in the ethical climate of the organization.

Theme 8: The Reverse Bully

Bame (2013) discovered the persona of the reverse bully when an employee accused the organization of sexual discrimination and harassment. The reverse bully seeks entitlements and manipulates an organization through the Human Resource (HR) Department threatening legal action for discrimination. Reverse bullying also has been named upwards bullying.

Characteristics and types of mistreatment. The reverse bully type believes that, as the victim, they are justified to receive entitlements and special considerations (Bame, 2013). However, if the organization gives in, the requests begin to escalate in frequency and considerations.

Servant leadership implications from an employee perspective. Andersen (2009) defined the servant leader as a leader who serves with a focus on the followers, whereby followers are the first concern; the organizational concerns are secondary. Because servant leaders develop people by helping them to strive and flourish, they essentially serve their employees (Andersen, 2009). This effect on the reverse bully may develop into a very slippery slope. The Servant Leadership Model eventually leads to a fork in the road for the reverse bully. The reverse bully may adopt the servant leader’s goals and strive to contribute to the good of the organization and team. Conversely, the reverse bully may alternately continue on their selfish path and manipulate the system using their inherent nature to receive more considerations and disrupt the team and eventually the organization.