Workplace Bullying Institute


The WBI 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces


Why Targets Are Bullied

1. Ranking of the 14 Reasons, most to least frequent

Rank Reasons as provided by the survey itself
1. I remained independent, refused to be controlled or to be subservient (70%)
2. My competence and reputation were threatening (67%)
3. The bully's personality (59%)
4. My being liked by co-workers and customers (47%)
5. In retaliation for my reporting unethical or illegal conduct, whistleblowing (38%)
6. I was focused solely on work and ignored the politics (36%)
7. Bully had personal problems (35%)
8. I am nonconfrontive and easily overrun by others (33%)
9. It was at a time of personal med or life vulnerability or changes (30%)
10. I could not afford to leave the job and the bully knew it (30%)
11. It was my turn in the rotation among co-workers (29%)
12. No apparent reason; I do not know (28%)
13. Result of the bully's promotion or newness to my workplace (25%)
14. The bully was following either explicit or 'understood' instructions from boss above (19%)

2. Different Selection Reasons based on Bullies' Gender

a.) From the respondent targets' perspective, men perpetrators were more likely(& showed a statistically significant greater likelihood) than women perpetrators to select their targets for the following reasons:

  • Targets' asserted independence, 75% of men bullies vs. 66% of women bullies
  • Targets focused on work, ignoring workplace politics, 38% vs. 31%

    • b.) From the respondent targets' perspective, women perpetrators were more likely(& showed a statistically significant greater likelihood) than men perpetrators to select their targets for the following reasons:

  • Threat posed by targets' competence & reputation, 68% vs. 61%
  • Co-worker/customer liking the targets, 49% vs. 40%
  • Ease of overrunning non-confrontive targets, 36% vs. 25%
  • Simply the target's turn in the bully's rotation among targets, 31% vs. 22%
  • Newness of the relationship, 25% vs. 19%

    • 3. Different Selection Reasons based on Targets' Gender

    From the respondent targets' perspective, women targets were more likely(& showed a statistically significant greater likelihood) than men targets to be selected for only the following reason:

  • The bully knew that the target could not afford to leave the job, 29% vs. 19%

    • 4. Another view of the 14 potential reasons

    The above 14 potential reasons were collapsed into three categories and the proportions of reasons designated by respondent targets within each category were calculated. In other words, the respondents gave more or less explanatory weight to the three factors by choosing to explain reasons for being targeted within each category.

    Explanatory Categories

  • Characteristics of Targets themselves (above items: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9)
    Women targets' proportion: 45.1% Men targets' proportion: 46.9%
  • Characteristics of Bullies (above items: 3, 5, 7)
    Women targets' proportion: 42.7% Men targets' proportion: 40.6%
  • The Situational context of the bullying (above items: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
    Women targets' proportion: 24.5% Men targets' proportion: 22.1%

    • 5. An Attributional Approach to Understanding Why Bullies Bully

    In a separate section of the WBI survey, people were asked to explain why the bullying happened in a second, more direct, way. Survey respondents divided 100% of the total responsibility across five (5) categories. When people assigned responsibility for events in this way, they were making "causal attributions." They attributed, or designate, the cause of events from the perspective of a bullied target.

    The Potential Causes, Attributions

  • Bad luck to be in the wrong place and wrong time or it simply was my turn.
  • The work environment was hostile, sometimes breaking internal policies or laws.
  • The harasser's responsibility -- by virtue of job skills or lack of them, or personality, or interpersonal style or some combination of each.
  • My responsibility -- by virtue of job skills or lack of them, or personality, or interpersonal style or some combination of each.
  • I did not try hard enough to fit in.

    • a.) Overall Rankings based on average respondent percentages to each cause

    1. The harasser, the bully -- 54.6%
    2. Hostile work environment -- 31.8%
    3. In the wrong place at wrong time -- 16.6%
    4. Personal (the target's) skill or personality-- 14.1%
    5. Personal (the target's) insufficient effort -- 9.9%

    [Note that the total is not 100% but closer to 127%. Averaging distorts the process and respondents had difficulty limiting their total to 100% across the five categories.]

    What it could mean: Targets principally blamed the harasser and the work environment for the bullying. This makes sense in the context of attribution theory because from the targets' (actors') point of view, they see how the bully controls the onset, manner and duration of the bullying and that it takes a bullying-tolerant or bullying-rewarding environment to sustain, rather than to stop, the mistreatment. Targets do accept personal responsibility nearly one-quarter of the time. Though this sounds laudable, it must be remembered that when individuals blame themselves for the bad things that happen to them, their mental health suffers. Self-blame and the overattribution of internal reasons for negative outcomes is well documented in people with clinical depression.

    Research has shown that observers/witnesses of events commit the mistake of blaming victims for their fate. This is called the Fundamental Attribution Error. It is partly due to an outsider's focus on the individual while not attending at all to situational factors to which the target (actor) may be reacting. When co-workers are part of the bullying environment, they make the Error choosing to rationalize their conduct by portraying the target as somehow deserving or inviting the mistreatment endured. When targets turn on themselves, it seals their fate among witnesses who see targets as accepting their plight and begins the downward spiral of personal emotional health.

    b.) Gender Differences in Attribution

    There were no statistically significant differences in attributions made with respect to women and men targets. Both women and men ranked the causes identically to the overall pattern seen above.

    However, targets differed in the percentage of cause assigned to the Hostile Work Environment and Personal Responsibility attributions based on gender of the bully. Men bullies were perceived as making the workplace more hostile than women bullies (35.5% vs. 29.3%). Men perpetrators also led targets, both women and men respondents, to blame their own skills or personalities more than did women bullies (15.7% vs. 12.6%).

    What it could mean: This attribution result confirms the role that targets who see themselves as independent and not subservient incur the wrath of workplace bullies. Independence is an aspect of one's personality. Thus, targets could see their strength as a cause for bullying by an insecure, emotion-challenged bully. And it is men bullies who create a more hostile workplace when targets dare to threaten their will to control them.

    6. The Threats Targets Pose to Bullies

    a.) Among the most prevalent reasons targets reported for being bullied was that they had been seen by their bullies as threatening, either because of superior skills (2nd ranked reason) or social skills (being liked was 4th ranked). The WBI survey asked respondents to make compare on several characteristics themselves to their assailant. The response options were to declare either a superiority (target had more of a particular characteristic than the bully), a deficiency (bully had more), or an equivalence (both were approximately equal).

    The comparative dimensions included technical skills, organizational politics, social skills, identification with job, ethicality, independence, and some physical characteristics.

    As for Technical Job Skills, a vast majority of men targets (74%) believed they were better than their bully , but only slightly over half of women targets (55%) felt superior. Women bullies were held in slightly lower regard than male bullies (61% of targets felt superior to women bullies, 56% felt superior to men bullies). On related characteristics, targets said they were slightly better at Planning and Prioritizing Work Tasks (54% superiority by men, 52% by women), Time Management (58% superiority by women, only 43% by men), and Flexibility, having an openness to change (79% superiority by women, 75% by men).

    Both women and men targets reported that they had the advantage in the Ability to Get Along Well with Others (74% of women, 84% of men), thus supporting the 4th highest ranked reason for being targeted. On related dimensions in this section of the WBI survey, targets saw themselves possessing a greater Ability to Get Others to Do Work Without Resentment (84% men, 74% women), more Empathy (95% women, 91% men), more Social Ability (79% women, 74% men), better able to keep Long-Term Relationships (65% by both women and men), more Emotional Control (59% women, 52% men), and better able than bullies to Separate Family from Work (55% women, 49% men).

    b.) When asked to compare themselves on "Independence, Strength of Personality," 54% of both women and targets claimed superiority. Perceived equality was reported by 31% of women and 24% of men; bullies were rated as showing more Independence by 15% of women and 22% of men. This finding stands in marked contrast to the top ranking given to target Independence as the top reason for being targeted.

    What it could mean: In one section of the WBI survey, independence was defined as refusing to be controlled or to be subservient. In another, it was defined as strength of personality. The former is a positive, dignity-asserting definition, while the latter "strength" could also describe an intimidating, battering, abusive individual who uses her or his strength to harm others. Therefore, the construction of the separate views of Independence tapped different aspects of the phenomenon and respondents were appropriately particular about how they answered.

    c.) Bullies were also rated by targets as having less Integrity (92% women target superiority, 87% men target superiority), less Ethicality (3% bully superiority as rated by both women and by men targets), a superiority in Organizational Politics (62% by women targets, 63% by men), more committed to Personal Career Advancement (46% by women, 44% by men), having inferior Emotional Control (29% by men, 24% by women), and having more of their Identity Defined by the Job (59% by women, 58% by men).

    Some physical dimensions illustrated differences between targets and bullies. Targets saw themselves as slightly more Attractive (55% superiority by women, 51% by men). Men bullies had a Height advantage over women targets (49%), but men targets were taller than their bullies in 49% of cases. Bullies of women targets had a greater Physical Size in 60% of the cases. For men targets, the size difference was evenly split--43% of the time the target was larger, 40% of the time the bully was larger.

    © 2003 Gary M. Namie, All rights reserved.