Bullying by Proxy: II

This exploration of bullying by proxy began last time with definitions of workplace bullying and workplace bullying by proxy. If you haven't yet seen that post, I recommend starting there. In this post I examine how the practice of bullying by proxy complicates design and enforcement of anti-bullying policy.

How primary bullies respond to reports of bullying by the proxy

Typically, supervisors play a critical role in enforcing anti-bullying policy. That's why the enforcement mechanism is at risk when the primary bully is the supervisor of the proxy bully. Because the primary bully and the proxy bully are co-conspirators, and because the primary and proxy conceal the bullying activities of the primary bully, the primary bully has a conflict of interest relative to enforcing anti-bullying policy vis-à-vis the proxy bully's activities.

For example, the primary bully might "deal with" a report of the proxy bully's behavior by schooling the proxy bully in the need to be more sophisticated or covert about bullying. With greater sophistication, the proxy bully can achieve the shared objectives of the primary and proxy while reducing the probability of any targets or witnesses filing complaints with the primary or with Human Resources (HR).

The futility of filing complaints with either HR or the primary bully can become so well known among the target population that they adopt a stance relative to the bullying that can best be described as learned helplessness. [Maier 2016]

In effect, reports of bullying by the proxy that do reach the primary bully, either directly or through HR, serve largely to help the primary and proxy "improve" their approach to bullying. Over time, they become more effective bullies by taking steps to avoid detection and to deter the filing of complaints.

The role of the primary bully's supervisor

In what Bullying by proxy complicates design
and enforcement of anti-bullying policyis perhaps the simplest case, the supervisor of the primary bully might be unaware of any bullying activity by the primary bully, because the proxy bully insulates the primary bully from any bullying incidents in which the primary played a role. In this case, there are few, if any, third-party reports of bullying activity by the primary, because these activities are so rarely observed by anyone other than the proxy bully.

Moreover, when investigators interview the proxy bully, the proxy is unlikely to reveal the primary's role in the bullying. Because the primary is the supervisor of the proxy, the proxy quite rationally might fear retaliation. And even when bystanders do witness the activities of the primary, learned helplessness can reduce their motivation to report their observations.

The fundamental attribute of the nightmare scenario

To describe more complex configurations, let the notation S(A) represent the supervisor of individual A. Let P(A,n) denote the nth proxy bully for primary bully A. (A might be directing more than one proxy bully.) Consider a report chain A-B-C, where A = S(B) and B = S(C). Then, for example, A = S(S(C)). If B is the jth proxy bully for A, then B = P(A,j). And if C is the kth proxy bully for B, then C = P(B,k) = P(P(A,j),k). In that case, which we might call the nightmare scenario, its characteristic attribute would be that it contains this structure:

When bullying by proxy has permeated the organizational culture to the extent that such notation is useful, the complexities of the dynamics can be difficult to contemplate. In these situations, a more promising approach to managing bullying activity might involve cultural considerations. [Pheko 2017]

Nevertheless, the above speculations about how bullying by proxy can create difficulties for enforcement of anti-bullying policy in the simplest case would seem to be even more significant in situations like the nightmare scenario. Specifically, any reporting chain that contains a subchain of the form C = P(P(A, j), k), or subchains of even higher orders, could potentially present insurmountable challenges to policy enforcement programs that are restricted to using conventional investigative techniques that depend for their effectiveness on the role of the supervisor.

Recommendations for policy and enforcement

In terms of behavior observable to third parties, bullying by proxy is indistinguishable from direct bullying by the proxy acting alone. For this reason, any direct bullying incidents that are detected must be presumed to be bullying by proxy until there is evidence to the contrary. From that presumption we deduce the need for four principles that act as safeguards.

Collect data regarding prevalence of bullying incidents in a given organization

A pattern of reports of bullying within a single organization reporting to a single manager is an indicator of bullying by proxy. An impartial investigator can investigate such patterns. The manager of the implicated organization is presumed not to be an impartial investigator.

Direct all reports of bullying incidents to an impartial investigator

Assigning a single investigator (or investigative group) to receive all reports of bullying is an essential element. It supports pattern recognition and learning at the organizational level. The supervisors of the alleged perpetrators are presumed not to be impartial investigators.

Bullying is a performance issue for both the bully and the bully's supervisor

In the case of non-proxy bullying, regarding the bully as the sole perpetrator is an enforcement error. The bully is a perpetrator. The bully's supervisor had a duty to ensure compliance with the anti-bullying policy, and for some reason did not fulfill this duty. Investigation is required.

Bullying is a performance issue for both the proxy bully and the primary bully

In the case of bullying by proxy, regarding the proxy bully as the sole perpetrator is an enforcement error. Both the primary and the proxy are perpetrators, though the primary's responsibility is probably the greater.

Last words

Tracking the incidence of reports of bullying is an essential element of anti-bullying programs. In some cases, the trail of reports might be the only observable indicator of the activities of a primary bully, as he or she moves from unit to unit, through reorganizations, and upwards in the organizational hierarchy. A dedicated investigative element of HR is likely necessary.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

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!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Bullying:

Looking the Other Way

Sometimes when we notice wrongdoing, and we aren't directly involved, we don't report it, and we don't intervene. We look the other way. Typically, we do this to avoid the risks of making a report. But looking the other way is also risky. What are the risks of looking the other way?

Responding to Threats: III

Workplace threats come in a variety of flavors. One class of threats is indirect. Threateners who use the indirect threats aim to evoke fear of consequences brought about not by the threatener, but by other parties. Indirect threats are indeed warnings, but not in the way you might think.

So You Want the Bullying to End: I

If you're the target of a workplace bully, you probably want the bullying to end. If you've ever been the target of a workplace bully, you probably remember wanting it to end. But how it ends can be more important than whether or when it ends.

Look Where You Aren't Looking

Being blindsided by an adverse event could indicate the event's sudden, unexpected development. It can also indicate a failure to anticipate what could have been reasonably anticipated. How can we improve our ability to prepare for adverse events?

Strategy for Targets of Verbal Abuse

Many targets of verbal abuse at work believe that they have just two strategic options: find a new job, or accept the abuse. In some cases, they're correct. But not always.

See also Workplace Bullying and Workplace Bullying for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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