Recently making the rounds among folks in the workplace anti-bullying community was a news summary of a 2009 study by Kansas State University doctoral graduate Meridith Selden (now a professor at Wilkes University) and her KSU dissertation adviser, prominent organizational psychology professor Ronald Downey, documenting the reluctance of employees who have been subjected to ongoing workplace hostility to leave their jobs.
Here is what Keri Forsythe said about the study on Office Arrow (link here):
According to a . . . study conducted by researchers at Kansas State (K-State) University, many workers would rather stay in hostile environments than seek employment elsewhere. Case in point: 45 percent of employees who report regular victimization by their coworkers and supervisors have no intention of leaving their jobs. Also, despite the constant emotional abuse they endure, 59 percent of respondents said that they either liked or “did not dislike” their jobs. A sign of the failing economy and workers’ lower career expectations? Not so, says Ron Downey, PhD, a psychology professor at K-State.
Since the research took place before the economic downturn, something else explained this phenomenon. Downey’s take: People would rather work in an oppressive environment than exert themselves to find a new job. “They might like their job, just not certain elements of it,” he says. “That really surprised us; that people weren’t ready to jump ship. We talk about the new workplace where people don’t stay at the same job forever, but getting a job is difficult and people don’t like to do it.”
I have speculated on the “Should I stay or should I go” dilemma and realize it can be a complicated decision. Of course, since the economic meltdown, many have no choice but to remain in a bad job. However, some people who do have options, or at least who could generate some possibilities, choose to stay.
Comparisons to domestic abuse
I’m veering off a bit from the focus of Drs. Selden and Downey, but I can’t help but ponder why people remain in work environments that have become downright abusive or bullying on a recurring basis.
Such scenarios often resemble all-too-common domestic abuse situations where the abused party stays in the relationship, either hoping that things will change or otherwise feeling trapped and without options. Looking at her choices “objectively,” we can see how she could remove herself from the relationship. However, there are complex psychological and economic reasons why she might remain.
Similar patterns often appear in severe workplace bullying situations. The abuse continues, and some targets keep enduring it, sometimes for years. Eventually they’re so psychologically beaten up that they lack the self-confidence and judgment to move on to a hopefully healthier work setting — or at least to remove themselves from the abusive one. On occasion, they become so consumed with the bullying situation itself that their “fight or flight” instincts break down and they become embroiled in a game they can’t win.
Workplace bullying resembles domestic abuse in another way: As a society, we have been too willing to deny its destructive impact and to dismiss it as a personality conflict or a bad match. It took us many, many years to recognize the harm wrought by domestic abuse, even in the face of mounting evidence. We’re still fighting that uphill battle with workplace bullying, despite real progress over the past decade.
When people ask me if workplace bullying is a lot like schoolyard bullying, I typically respond, yes, in a way, but that domestic abuse is the more apt comparison. These are among the reasons why.
Hat tip on Kansas State study: Drew Mitchell