Developed societies have been slow to acknowledge abuse, let alone
educate the public and implement measures to prevent it. Domestic violence, for
example, started to gain widespread public attention only in the 1970ies. It
took another approximately 20 years for the passing of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, 1994) which finally changed the way we view and deal with
domestic violence. Similarly, mandatory reporting laws in case of suspected
child abuse are phenomena of the 1960ies. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was only passed in 1974.
The shortcomings in dealing with domestic abuse are not specific to
the United States. Other developed countries, Germany and the United Kingdom,
to name a few, have a relatively similar history.
The purpose of this article is to draw attention to another area where
abuse occurs regularly, however, has to-date escaped the public attention, as
reflected in the shortage of literature and education: employee abuse.
One Of Five People Gets Abused By A Boss On Any Given Day
According to Harvey Hornstein, a Columbia University Professor,”90% of the U.S. workforce has at some point been
subjected to abusive behavior” and “on any given day, one of five people gets abused by a
boss.”
One of the most challenging aspects of employee abuse is that—at least
in developed societies—it predominantly occurs in psychological form. Meaning,
even though the behavior can have a severe impact, there are hardly any bruises
or cuts that can help identify the damages done to an employee. Not only that,
employee abuse, particularly in the white-collar workplace, often happens very
subtly which makes it additionally difficult to identify the behavior and
respond properly.
Domestic And Employee Abuse—Similarities
There are key similarities between domestic and employee abuse.
Firstly, they both occur in connection to a place where affected individuals
spend a significant amount of time. Therefore, the abuse can have a severe
impact on an individual’s health and well-being. Secondly, affected individuals
tend to be (or perceive themselves to be) economically dependent on the
perpetrator(s). However, the dependency is generally not limited to economics.
In the case of employees, they usually build their identities around their
jobs. When they fear losing their jobs, they fear more than the loss of their
economic well-being. Which brings us to the third similarity, abuse is about
power and control operating in an environment of fear. The more fearful an
individual, the more power a perpetrator is likely to have, and, subsequently,
the more s/he can control the individual.
Current Legal Situation
There are no laws that protect employees from general abuse. Employees
in the USA are protected from abuse under the law only if the abuse occurs in
connection with protected traits such as
race, national origin, gender, age, and other similar factors. Outside of this
scope, employees may have protection under organizational policies.
What Is Employee Abuse?
Employee abuse is the health-harming treatment of employees in the
workplace which includes but is not limited to abusive supervision. Single
incidents of misbehavior toward an employee generally do not constitute abuse.
The abuser can be anyone. However, due to the power imbalance created
by the hierarchies in organizations, supervisors and managers are more likely
to be the perpetrators. Health consequences can vary from depression, anxiety,
sleep disturbance, gastrointestinal disorders, hair loss, self-doubt,
forgetfulness to post-traumatic stress disorder. Abusive conduct can be overt
or covert. Overt abuse includes behavior such as yelling, cursing, or throwing
objects at an employee.
The rather covert forms of abuse include behavior such as talking
down, belittling, lying, excessive criticism, gaslighting, bullying, excessive
monitoring of work, lack of transparency and accountability, withholding of
information or resources, devaluing employee’s credentials or work, interfering
with work activities, delaying actions on matters of importance, preventing
from expressing one’s self or a combination of these behaviors.
Employee abuse can also be a(n indirect) consequence of being expected
to perform in a chaotic work environment; created, for example, by management
inability to communicate properly or to establish logical processes, for which
management does not take responsibility. Hierarchies in organizations provide
certain individuals with notable power over others. The proper utilization of
this power requires accountability. When individuals with power fail to hold
themselves accountable, they can create havoc for subordinates.
We are now going to discuss more in detail two common abusive
practices in the workplace.
Micromanagement
Micromanagement is the excessive monitoring of an employee’s work. It
is not the same as a superior being detail-oriented. Micromanagement is also
not an acceptable form of management; it is the result of an absence of proper
management. Micromanagers lack the appropriate ability to delegate; a primary
skillset required for the role of a supervisor or manager.
Micromanagement is a way to exert control. The perpetrator acts on
his/her pathologies such as anxiety, deeply-rooted insecurities, or arrogance.
It is one of the most dreaded and wide-spread challenges in the workplace. It can have serious health consequences. It destroys morale,
confidence, and creativity. It not only hurts employees but also the
organization. Depending on the severity of their behavior, micromanagers, in
effect, prevent workers and themselves from doing their jobs because
they require constant, superfluous interactions. However, micromanagers do not
hold themselves accountable for the disruptions they cause. Lower productivity
tends to be the outcome of micromanagement in the long-run.
Fear And Coercive Power
Employers have coercive power to fire or otherwise punish employees if
they don’t comply with the directions of management. They can use
this tool in legitimate ways to ensure that workers are doing what they
are supposed to and to keep the organization moving in the direction they
desire. However, they can also use this tool to exploit and otherwise harm
workers.
One of the common ways coercive power is misused today is by
pressuring employees to work at a health-harming speed by setting unrealistic
expectations. The tool is highly effective because it maximizes output by
exploiting the existential fears of employees. In fact, employers don’t even
have to explicitly threaten employees with sanctions to coerce employees. In
the USA, employees have such an immense fear of losing their jobs, they are
relatively compliant, even in the absence of any threats. The US workforce is,
in fact, astonishingly well-conformed, for a society that values liberty as
much as we do. Employers can capitalize on these fears relatively easily if
they desire to do so.
Lack Of Public Education And Authority
There is an overall understanding that domestic abuse is not
acceptable in our society today. There are countless non-profit organizations
and government agencies that offer expert advice, education, and other
resources to assist affected individuals. However, the same does not apply
to employees who experience abuse in the workplace. Workplace bullying may be
considered an exception, as education and non-profit organizations that cover
the topic are on the rise. However, even bullying is to-date generally not dealt with very effectively.
Given the status quo, there is an array of opinions and suggestions in
the media. They range from questioning if what feels abusive to an employee,
is, in fact, abusive from an “objective” perspective to suggesting to prevent “meltdowns by recognizing triggers and proactively
taking care of those small problems that tend to set the person off” (Monster.com), confronting the problem to drawing a lesson from getting sworn at by a boss. Abusive behavior tends to be played down or ignored
particularly when the abuser is a successful individual; in an article
published in 2006, the author praises Harvey
Weinstein for his accomplishments while
nonchalantly acknowledging him as one of the “great intimidators.” Fortunately,
today, we have a better understanding of Weinstein’s legacy.
What we learn about abusive leaders like Weinstein
should not surprise us because misconduct
is rarely an isolated, single behavior. When individuals abuse the people they
work with, they generally don’t stop after one or two incidents or in one or
two areas, especially then when those around them fail to speak up or push
back.
Speaking Up Or Remaining Silent In View Of Wrongdoing
Educating the public on how best to deal with abuse in the workplace
is crucial to a society that values human dignity. However, no matter the
amount of available resources, at the end of the day, every individual must
take responsibility for their own lives; in this case, the affected individuals
have a choice to make, between being silent, not drawing healthy boundaries,
letting themselves down versus standing up for themselves, speaking up, and
drawing healthy boundaries; they have to make that choice regardless if they
decide to stay or leave a particular organization.
Remaining silent may seem like the safer choice. However, over time,
there is a significant price for that, most of which is generally hidden from
the plain view—unexplained illnesses, back, neck and shoulder pain, ulcers,
depression, and the long list goes on; however, the most painful price is a
loss of confidence, self-esteem, and self-respect.
There is no doubt that speaking up can be risky. However, there
are many reasons to do it anyway.
An individual who speaks up in the workplace will have heightened
self-esteem, be more confident and, subsequently, attract healthier relationships,
professionally, and beyond; such a person is less likely to become a target of
abuse in the future.
Professionalism—Silence, Looking Away, Lying?
Silence, looking away, and (letting others get away with) lying has
become such an epidemic in workplaces; they are often equated with
professionalism. One’s emotional intelligence even seems to be measured by how
unmoved an individual remains in view of wrongdoings. Behavior that one would
not tolerate anywhere else has become acceptable in the workplace. Much
of the misconduct is often in plain sight, for everyone to see; because the
perpetrators can rely on a majority, if not all, to look away.
Subsequently, when one can no longer take it, it has become customary
to leave an organization, without saying anything or even lying about the
reasons for leaving, to ensure one doesn’t “burn any bridges.” On the other
hand, many individuals “speak up” after they leave an organization or
retire—when it is relatively safe to speak—, after having participated in
keeping up the status quo in their organizations for many years; they write
books in which they “finally tell it all.” We celebrate such individuals and
award them with fame and fortune, instead of asking tough questions about their
legacies and motives.
There is a notion that it is acceptable to become “someone else” in
the workplace, professionals who do what they have to do to put food on the
table. However, the workplace is not only where people spend their most
productive hours, but also, all important decisions that affect the lives of
others are usually made in places where people work; the Congress, The White
House, the automobile industry, pharma, news outlets, detention centers,
grocery stores, meat industry, animal shelters, fast food restaurants, and the
long list goes on. Employees cannot simply detach themselves from the
consequences of their actions or inactions in the workplace.