In previous blogs I talked about the key differences between traditional, face-to-face (f2f) bullying (or offline bullying), and cyberbullying (AKA online bullying) at work, as identified from my research.
Just to refresh our memories, f2f or offline workplace bullying is localised, involves persistent or repetitive harassment and power imbalance between the perpetrator and target(s), often causing the target(s) to feel powerless to defend themselves.
Workplace cyberbullying, or bullying using
technology, is the ability of abusive content to be anonymously and rapidly broadcast globally, and follow target(s) from work to home, job to job, state to state, often causing the target(s) to feel powerless to defend themselves. Workplace cyberbullying is viewed as more intense, as defamatory content
can be immediately "viralised" and hard to remove from the internet, potentially defaming the target's reputation and/or career.
Where the identity of the cyberbully is clear, the general rule of thumb is to copy, save and retain as much evidence as possible to later share with an HR or a legal adviser who can work to resolve the case for you. In some instances, overt cyberbullying, where the perpetrator's identity is clear, may be easier to resolve than face-to-face bullying given the trail of hard evidence.
Saving and retaining evidence also holds true where the perpetrator remains anonymous, although in these cases the target's access to natural justice (the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing) is somewhat eroded as, depending on the situation, the online behaviour may take months to be shut-down or removed from the internet.
Where the identity of the cyberbully is clear, the general rule of thumb is to copy, save and retain as much evidence as possible to later share with an HR or a legal adviser who can work to resolve the case for you. In some instances, overt cyberbullying, where the perpetrator's identity is clear, may be easier to resolve than face-to-face bullying given the trail of hard evidence.
Saving and retaining evidence also holds true where the perpetrator remains anonymous, although in these cases the target's access to natural justice (the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing) is somewhat eroded as, depending on the situation, the online behaviour may take months to be shut-down or removed from the internet.
Based on my research, traditional advice in resolving workplace cyberbullying seem variable...
For instance, ICT or HR areas may recommend turning-off or developing new work email, workplace Facebook and internet accounts, or to block the offending email address, phone number or web account.
These strategies may work for a while. However, if the target relies on their email or web accounts to progress their work, then closing down their online accounts is both isolating and potentially substantiates the cyberbully's claims regarding the target's under performance. Furthermore, targets dealing with a technological savvy perpetrator who regularly changes email and web accounts can be difficult to block and can possibly track the target's new workplace email and web accounts.
These strategies may work for a while. However, if the target relies on their email or web accounts to progress their work, then closing down their online accounts is both isolating and potentially substantiates the cyberbully's claims regarding the target's under performance. Furthermore, targets dealing with a technological savvy perpetrator who regularly changes email and web accounts can be difficult to block and can possibly track the target's new workplace email and web accounts.
Employees seeking transfers, or promotion may now need to be aware of how to best respond to questions during a job interview about a defamatory social media website, YouTube video or photo that they are, or had experienced in the past, and had been unable to (completely) remove from the internet. This type of discussion during interview has the potential to be embarrassing, so training or awareness programs on dealing with this situation may become increasingly important.
Additionally, the employee may find themselves hired in the new job, however the new employer may, quite reasonably, raise a file note may in the employee's personnel file regarding the internet claims. Dealing with this could be tricky and potentially stressful, and may require training in EQ, resilience and communication skills to successfully navigate.
Furthermore, employees newly promoted into management roles may need additional resilience training and new work strategies in dealing with staff seeking to embarrass, or even bully, their new boss by making use of the publicly available online information to undermine their new boss.
One thing is clear, resolving workplace cyberbullying communications, behaviours and events by retrofitting traditional anti-bullying policies, and intervention and prevention programs will most likely result in the development of an extensive network of probably well-written artefacts.
However, these artefacts, intervention and prevention measures must specifically treat workplace cyberbullying behaviours and outcomes to be effective.
Dr Lawrence has a BA SSc and a PhD in organisational social psychology and works with individuals and organisations as a consultant, speaker and trainer. She uses her social science expertise to enhance interactions between organisations and the people who lead and work in them by fostering new insights for diagnosing organisational problems, and build new capabilities and culture.
No comments :
Post a Comment