Workplace bullying is any aggressive behavior, associated with work, and primarily intended to cause physical or psychological harm to a target. Workplace mobbing is bullying by a group directed at an individual target. In the professional workplace, the abuse is usually psychological, but it can be physical in any workplace. Typically, one person leads the mob.
Factors driving the mob's leader can be numerous. Examples are professional jealousy, social jealousy, power maintenance, or even personality disorders. Similar factors can drive mob members, but mob members might also fear being targeted themselves if they don't support the mob or the mob's leader.
We usually regard the mob leader as the bully, and the rest of the group as members of the mob. And typically, leader, mob, and target all have similar organizational rank. If they aren't all peers, they're close to being peers.
When mobbing happens, its occurrence is evident to everyone. At the urging and direction of the leader, the mob isolates the target professionally and socially. Targets might exhibit severe emotional distress. The target's job performance suffers. If the mobbing is in retaliation for some real or perceived offense, all concerned are usually aware of the issue.
Consider the example of Aaron:
Aaron (who will become the target in this scenario) has declined to participate in a group's intentional and conspiratorial deviation from established and required procedures. Fearing the possible consequences if Aaron reports the infraction, the leader and several mob members meet to discuss their options. They decide to conspire to destroy Aaron's credibility in advance of any action by him. They reason that if he does later decide to report the infraction, he'll seem to be a disgruntled, socially isolated individual who is making false charges because he is a social failure.
So that's mobbing as it's generally practiced — peer-on-peer mobbing. It's usually confined to a peer group. And the mob's leader is known and clearly identified. Power mobbing is something else.
Peer-on-peer mobs have leaders; power mobs have orchestrators
In power In power mobbing, the organization
itself is the bully, in the sense
that it provides the leadership
function for the mobmobbing, the organization itself is the bully, in the sense that it provides the leadership. The identity of the power mob's leader might not be obvious in day-to-day interactions — rather like the role of the orchestrator of a musical piece. The leadership role of a power mob is thus less evident to the target and the mob, and more subtle and variable. The power mob orchestrator bases his or her leadership position on the formal power granted by the organization. That power becomes a tool for controlling the mob.
Just as the identity of the power mob orchestrator might be unclear, the very existence and membership of the mob itself might also be unclear. Rather than regarding themselves as members of a mob, mob members regard themselves as merely doing their jobs, or complying with what is requested of them. They're aware that the target is regarded as having transgressed, because the orchestrator has taken steps to communicate his or her displeasure. But the mob members aren't explicitly directed to isolate the target. Still, mob members are aware that safety lies in distancing themselves from the target, in openly criticizing the target's work, and in declining to cooperate in any way with the target.
By indirect means, the orchestrator of a power mob achieves the same effects as the leader of a peer-on-peer mob, while maintaining the illusion for all that no bullying is taking place.
Power mobbing actions are indistinguishable from management actions
Bullying by the leader of an organization is always deplorable. It is an abuse of power and it is unethical. It is a threat to morale and to the good order of the organization. It compromises the organization's ability to carry out its mission.
With few exceptions, managers and leaders understand this. They know that if they carry out a mobbing agenda in the open, charges might eventually lead to career stagnation or worse — demotion or dismissal. To mitigate that risk, power mob orchestrators undertake power mobbing covertly. They arrange for every act and policy associated with formation, direction, or maintenance of the mob to appear to be a responsible, if unconventional, action of management.
For example, to communicate to the mob their displeasure with the target, the power mob orchestrator uses indirect means. Instead of simply omitting the target from a meeting invitation, the power mob orchestrator schedules the meeting for a time and place that precludes the target's attendance. Instead of omitting the target's presentation from a meeting agenda, the power mob orchestrator schedules the target at the end of the agenda, knowing that many attendees will have departed by then. Options like these are uncountably numerous. The consistency of these actions communicates to the mob the clear message that the power mob orchestrator is dissatisfied with the target.
Power mobbing has multiple goals
Peer-on-peer mobbing tends to have goals related to harming the target physically or psychologically. In that respect, power mobbing is similar to peer-on-peer mobbing. In both forms of mobbing we might find additional goals: personal power aggrandizement, retrospective or prospective revenge, jealousy, and more. However, in power mobbing, goals other than harming the target tend to be more important to the orchestrator than they are to the leader in peer-on-peer mobbing. In power mobbing, inflicting harm on the target is more likely to be a means to the orchestrator's end, than it is an end in itself. For example, consider the case of Erin:
Erin was a project manager whose project was at risk of a severe budget overrun due to the sponsor's repeated changes in requirements. Darth, the project sponsor, directed her to shade her status report in a favorable direction. That is, Darth directed Erin to misreport her project's status. Erin complied. But she also reported Darth's request to the Project Management Office, seeking advice. She received advice in the form of "we'll take it from here," and she was transferred to another project. The truth was never reported openly.
But the project to which Erin was transferred was also one of Darth's. Erin's new project was in even more serious trouble than the prior one, a fact at the time known only to Darth. The trouble was not evident until six months had passed, when, with assistance and confirmation from several project team members, Darth blamed Erin for both project failures. That enabled Darth himself to escape accountability.
In this example, Darth coordinated a mob against Erin, and although he did harm her and her career, he also benefited himself by shifting responsibility for project failures from himself to her. Which goal was primary? Difficult to say.
In power mobbing, the benefits to the mob's orchestrator tend to be as important as is harm to the target. Indeed, harming the target is typically the means of obtaining the benefits the orchestrator desires. Benefits appear in the form of avoidance of responsibility for failure, or greater control of the behavior (if not the thoughts) of the mob's members. Other benefits can be easier removal of noncompliant subordinates, and enhancement of the political power of the power mob's orchestrator.
The target must seem to have failed
Whatever steps the orchestrator takes to harm the target using the mob, it's essential that those steps seem to be justified in terms of organizational priorities. If they are not so justified, the orchestrator might be seen as bullying, which could compromise organizational performance or lead to an investigation of the orchestrator.
Specifically, the steps taken, including changes in the target's assignments or responsibilities, must seem reasonable in terms of disciplinary action or protection of organizational assets including intellectual property. Excluding the target from any activity that would normally have included the target is risky for the orchestrator unless it can be justified as a responsible action.
The target almost certainly will experience emotional distress, and that could cause her or him to seek support among peers. If the orchestrator has planned carefully, these searches for support will fail, because the target's own actions will seem to have left the orchestrator little choice. Of course, the orchestrator always has a range of choices, but typically, mobbing the target will have been the choice that offers the greatest benefits to the orchestrator. For orchestrators, the fundamental principle guiding decisions is maximum personal benefit.
This approach can be challenging for the orchestrator when the target is a top performer, or even merely competent. The difficulty lies on demonstrating the incompetence of a competent performer. With sufficient relish for ruthlessness, this challenge is one that can be met, because the power mob orchestrator has options that the peer-on-peer mob leader does not. Specifically, the orchestrator controls resources, staff assignments, and most important of all, information. Orchestrators can use this control, both directly and indirectly, to deprive their targets of anything their targets need, just at the critical moment. Or orchestrators can assign their targets responsibilities that appear to be reasonable, but which are essentially impossible to carry out successfully.
Of all forms of workplace bullying, power mobbing is among the more difficult for targets to withstand or challenge. Believing in yourself is extraordinarily difficult when people you regarded as friends or colleagues suddenly won't have lunch with you, or return your email messages, or cooperate with you on even the simplest things. And challenging the orchestrator of the power mob using the organizational grievance procedure — or in extreme cases, a legal process — is nearly impossible when there is so little direct evidence that the orchestrator contributed in any way to the abuse. As a target of power mobbing, there is rarely any alternative to moving on.
For supervisors of orchestrators, the news isn't much better. I know of no convenient or elegant methods of detecting power mobbing. A useful approach might involve detecting a pattern of the use of power mobbing tactics. Detection would usually entail many so-called "skip-level" interviews or mob members and targets. Sadly, this might require standing by while the orchestrator engages in several cycles of abuse.
Is a workplace bully targeting you? Do you know what to do to end the bullying? Workplace bullying is so widespread that a 2014 survey indicated that 27% of American workers have experienced bullying firsthand, that 21% have witnessed it, and that 72% are aware that bullying happens. Yet, there are few laws to protect workers from bullies, and bullying is not a crime in most jurisdictions. 101 Tips for Targets of Workplace Bullies is filled with the insights targets of bullying need to find a way to survive, and then to finally end the bullying. Also available at Apple's iTunes store! Just . Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrensDaBMTItJCwaKsgNner@ChacCrQTBGMzBwhIqYTXoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Bullying:
- Deniable Intimidation
- Some people achieve or maintain power by intimidating others in deniable ways. Too often, when intimidators
succeed, their success rests in part on our unwillingness to resist, or on our lack of skill. By understanding
their tactics, and by preparing responses, we can deter intimidators.
- Confronting the Workplace Bully: I
- When a bully targets you, you have three options: accept the abuse; avoid the bully or escape; and confront
or fight back. Confrontation is a better choice than many believe — if you know what you're doing.
- When the Chair Is a Bully: II
- Assertiveness by chairs of meetings isn't a problem in itself, but it becomes problematic when the chair's
dominance deprives the meeting of contributions from some of its members. Here's Part II of our exploration
of the problem of bully chairs.
- When the Chair Is a Bully: III
- When the chair of the meeting is so dominant that attendees withhold comments or slant contributions
to please the chair, meeting output is at risk of corruption. Because chairs usually can retaliate against
attendees who aren't "cooperative," this problem is difficult to address. Here's Part III
of our exploration of the problem of bully chairs.
- Judging Others
- Being "judgmental" is a stance most people recognize as transgressing beyond widely accepted
social norms. But what's the harm in judging others? And why do so many people do it so often?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 12: Downscoping Under Pressure: II
- We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope. Available here and by RSS on October 12.
- And on October 19: Bullying by Proxy: I
- The form of workplace bullying perhaps most often observed involves a bully and a target. Other forms are less obvious. One of these, bullying by proxy, is especially difficult to control, because it so easily evades most anti-bullying policies. Available here and by RSS on October 19.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrensDaBMTItJCwaKsgNner@ChacCrQTBGMzBwhIqYTXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info