| | 1) A workplace level intervention to reduce inappropriate behaviour in schools | Author(s): Maarit Varita Country: Finland Level of Intervention: Primary | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | Employees, supervisors and safety delegates worked collaboratively together; the authorities of the city supported the work. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The intervention was carried out in eight primary schools in one municipality in Finland. There were between 25-90 teachers and other members of staff in the schools. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the amount of perceived inappropriate behaviour, perceived bullying and observed bullying in the work units. Only inappropriate behaviour and bullying among staff was looked at, not inappropriate behaviour by pupils. The intervention was based on the environmental view on the antecedents of workplace bullying.
| Implementation: The project lasted approximately one year. In each school the interventions included: - a starting meeting with a pre-intervention survey and training about the phenomenon and causes of bullying (about 2 hours) - a feedback session with training and discussion about bullying, particularly about the risks of inappropriate behaviour in the specific school (about 1½ hours) - a joint event for all the participants (1/2 day) - a meeting where a post-intervention survey was conducted with discussion (about 1/2 hour) - a feedback session with discussion (about 1 hour). | Practical applications:
The intervention demonstrated that this kind of an approach works and there are plans to adapt the same procedure in other workplaces in the city.
| Innovative aspects: Inappropriate behaviour and bullying were directly discussed in the workplace with the whole staff several times during one year. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
Pre- and post-intervention measurements were used. The pre-intervention questionnaire included questions on different forms of inappropriate behaviour, perceived bullying, observed bullying, psychosocial work environment, including atmosphere in the workplace and some questions on leadership style. The post-intervention questionnaire included the same questions on inappropriate behaviour and bullying, and questions about the intervention and the effectiveness of the activities carried out.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
The results demonstrated that by bringing up inappropriate behaviour and bullying with the whole staff, and discussing and examining the risk situations and antecedents of bullying in the respective work unit it is possible to gain positive results. A slight decrease in some forms of perceived inappropriate behaviour, and observed bullying was received. The intervention was experienced positively. Many employees reported that they paid more attention to their own behaviour toward co-workers than before, and that they intervened more easily if they saw inappropriate behaviour occurring. Many employees found that not enough had been done in their own workplace to reduce inappropriate behaviour. The reason for this was most often due to a high workload experienced by the majority of employees.
| References:
Vartia, Maarti (2009). Vastuullisen työkäyttäytymisen pilottihanke Vantaan kaupungissa. (Responsible behaviour at work - A pilot project in the city of Vantaa). Vautsi, Vantaan kaupungin henkilöstölehti, 14-15. (In Finnish)
| Comments: Commitment of the supervisor is important so that all the meetings can be arranged. In schools the meetings were arranged after-school hours. High workload and big incidents (in this case school shooting that happened during the year) have considerable effect on the process. |
| 2) The Systematic Approach model - how to prevent and overcome undesirable interaction | Author(s): Adrienne Hubert Country: Netherlands Level of Intervention: Primary | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | The model was first developed in cooperation with different social partners and then further discussed with representatives of umbrella organisations: including employers' organisations, trade unions, occupational health and safety professionals, occupational welfare workers, Labour Inspection and the national organisation for confidential counsellors. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The Systematic Approach Model was designed to prevent and manage undesirable behaviour (bullying/harassment) at work. It is a Dutch intervention but can be modified to policies and other national contexts. The Model is a five phase approach, which seeks to provide advice and guidance to organisations on how to build and develop a systematic and comprehensive programme to address undesirable behaviour (bullying and harassment) at work effectively.
| Implementation: The phases of the programme are as follows:
1) Prevention, setting up a preventive policy for the company (including a policy statement), developing knowledge and raising manager awareness on bullying and harassment at work, on their financial consequences, and on the organisation’s legal obligations. Subsequently, developing a code of conduct, as a more profound policy; whereby procedures for reporting undesirable behaviour are outlined, responsibility is assigned, and the developed and existing procedures are continuously evaluated. 2) Uncovering, developing knowledge about the nature of bullying and harassment, making the phenomena visible. 3) Support, for the victim, mainly social and psychological help: for example, confidential counsellors in the organisation can provide support, occupational health care and psychological support. 4) Intervention can be: a) informal solution (victim talks directly to the perpetrator, and mediation or mediation/correction is provided by the supervisor), b) formal complaint or c) transfer to another department or outplacement. 5) After-care, should match the chosen intervention strategy. After-care can take many forms: for example, in cases of undesirable group behaviour it means that the supervisor remains alert to signals of objectionable behaviour. In the case of mediation, after-care means that the counsellor remains in contact with the victim and continues to provide him/her with support. | Practical applications:
Parts of the model have been implemented in more than 350 organisations. The method is suitable for medium and large organisations; and more recently, has been trailed in small-sized enterprises. This method has implemented in a variety of occupational sectors: namely, government and public administration, health care and the hotel and catering industry
| Innovative aspects: The Model was developed through a process of social dialogue where a series of discussion were held with staff representatives and representatives of institutions (e.g. managers, works councils, human resources department, confidential counsellors, labour inspection and labour unions). The model tackles a large variety of undesired behaviour and takes into consideration different stages, from prevention to management and support. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): Four times a year, ‘a day of return’ including feedback and counselling is organised. During these days a lot has been learned about the functioning of the model in practice.
The effectiveness of the model has not, however, been systematically evaluated. | Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
Due to the comprehensive nature of the Model, this approach promotes deeper change in the workplace in relation to undesirable behaviour, bullying and harassment. The goal of the method is to create a lasting solution.
| References:
Hubert, A.B. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic approach mode. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (Eds.) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International perspectives in research and practice (pp.299-311). London & New York: Taylor & Francis.
| Comments: It is important that that the Model is developed in cooperation with all the relevant stakeholders in the organisation/enterprise. The Model is a comprehensive intervention; despite being labelled a primary intervention, it includes a variety of methods and strategies commonly observed in secondary and tertiary level programmes. |
| 3) Bullying Groups - rehabilitation of the targets of workplace bullying | Author(s): Klinik Berus, Schwickerath Josef and Kneip Volker Country: Germany Level of Intervention: Tertiary | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | No | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | Yes, the method promotes employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | No, this method does not promote social dialogue. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
Klinik Berus is a Centre for Psychosomatic and Behavioural Medicine that has offered rehabilitative treatment for the victims of bullying since 1999. Since that time, more than 1200 targets of bullying have been treated. The Bullying Groups method uses group therapy based on behavioural therapy principles. The overall objective of Bullying Groups is to empower the target of bullying and to promote the development of active coping strategies1 to help facilitate recovery, and sustain its maintenance.
| Implementation: The intervention starts by giving the patient information regarding bullying and by initiating an active process of addressing the problem. The person is guided to build his/her own personal motto for his/her career (this is seen as key success factor for the intervention). Rehabilitation phases in the Bullying Groups treatment include: learning how to understand, training behavioural steps of coping.
Methods and strategies used during the Bullying Group sessions are: dissemination of information, behavioural analysis, role play, and anger management. The group sessions are led by two therapists. Trust is of central importance both within the group and with the therapist. During the group therapy sessions irrational thoughts and dysfunctional beliefs are identified, critically evaluated and subsequently reframed within a more positive self-enhancing perspective. Role play is used during group session to facilitate the development and mastering of new skills. Issues surrounding anger management are one of the central issues discussed.
Patients usually spend 6-8 weeks in treatment; over the course of which they participate in approximately 8 sessions. The group sessions have a maximum size of 12 patients. | Practical applications:
The Bullying Group method requires the professional experience of a trained therapist in its implementation. The most important element of the treatment is for patients to actively participate in the group therapy.
| Innovative aspects: The Bullying Groups method is a group therapy technique, underpinned by an empowerment approach, which teaches patients to develop and use active coping strategies to enhanced management of negative emotions resulting from previously traumatic incidents. Active coping strategies are either behavioural or psychological responses designed to change the nature of the stressor itself or how one thinks about it. Generally speaking, active coping strategies are thought to be a better way to deal with stressful events than passive strategies. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
The effectiveness of the treatment has been evaluated using a comparative assessment of patients’ psychological complaints and overall mental health both prior to and directly following participating in the Bullying Groups treatment. Additionally, several longer follow-up evaluations have also been conducted, to examine the sustainability of the observed results and patient improvements. Patients were assessed by an admission interview and by the completion of several questionnaires.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness): The observed benefits of Bullying Groups are: · Following the intervention, patients felt a decreased sense of isolation in addressing issues of bullying in the workplace, as compared to the beginning of the therapeutic process. · Patients reported feeling less helplessness with fewer depressive symptoms. · Patients redefined their values and aims; and felt they received more courage. | References: Schwickerath, J.(2005). Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz, Grundlagen und stationäre Verhaltenstherapie psychosomatischer Erkrankungen bei Mobbing. Klinik Berus. Praxis Klinische Verhaltensmedizin und Rehabilitation , 69, 132-145. Inter alia Bullying Groups.
Schwickerath J., Carls W., Zielke M., Hackhausen W. Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz, Grundlagen, Beratungs- und Behandlungskonzepte. Pabst Science Publishers.
Schwickerath J., Riedel H., Kneip V.(2006). Le Harcèlement Moral sur le lieu de Travail: Fondements et Thérapie Dognitivo-Comportementale des Maladies Psychosomatiques Liées au Harcèlement Moral Dans le Milieu Hospitalier. Journal de Thérapie Comportementale at Cognitive 16 (3), 108-112. | Comments: A key success factor for the implementation of the intervention is the motivation and engagement of the patient. |
| 4) Management training - management interventions to reduce negative behaviour and bullying at work | Author(s): Helge Hoel, Sabir Giga and Brian Faragher Country: United Kingdom Level of Intervention: Tertiary | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | Yes, the intervention is directed at management, and directly focuses on increasing the commitment and responsibility of managers in addressing bullying at work. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | The intervention does not directly promote social dialogue. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
This management training intervention was implemented in five public organisations: three health trusts, one police force and one governmental organisation. Training was directed particularly at managers. Targeting managers was considered to be the most cost effective method as managers are in many ways key persons in the management of bullying at work and in shaping organisational climate. The training programmes focussed on different key issues that included policy communication, stress management training and negative behaviour awareness training.
| Implementation:
Three different bullying training programmes were used: 1) Policy communication; training time 30 minutes, 2) Stress management training programme; training time 3 hours, and 3) Negative behaviour awareness training programme; training time 3 hours.
About 20-25 managers (and other employees) were invited to attend the respective training sessions in all organisations. During the project, the Bullying Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT) was developed to measure potential risk factors of bullying. The tool examines the following themes: organisational fairness, team conflict, role conflict, workload and leadership. | Practical applications:
The management intervention was carried out in five organisations, demonstrating its practical applicability across a wide variety of occupational sectors and sizes of enterprises. Additionally, a trained psychologist is required to conduct the training programmes. | Innovative aspects: This was the first academic anti-bullying intervention study which included different organisational contexts and different variations of interventions. Additionally, through this study the BRAT risk assessment tool was developed. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): The interventions were evaluated by means of participant feedback at the end of the training sessions and six months afterwards, by pre and post intervention surveys and feedback from post-intervention focus groups. The time lag between the pre- and post- surveys was 6 months.
In order to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention programmes and validity of the risk-assessment tool, a comprehensive questionnaire comprising of questions related to experiences of bullying and negative behaviour, and potential risk-factors of bullying was used. The questionnaire survey allowed the comparison of pre- and post- training data.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the different training programmes, five study groups were formed: 1) control group, 2) policy communication group, that received only policy communication training, 3) policy and stress management group, that received both policy communication training and stress management training, 4) policy and negative behaviour awareness group, that received policy communication training and Negative Behaviour awareness training and 5) a final group that was trained with all three training programmes. Additionally, trainers' feedback was collected following each session. | Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
Based on the results of the assessment, positive outcomes were achieved. Improvements were found in 45% of experiment groups. The results indicated that the combination of all three interventions (policy communication, stress management, and negative behaviour awareness training programme) together led to best results.
| References: Hoel, H. & Giga, S. (2006). Destructive Interpersonal Conflict in the Workplace: The Effectiveness of Management Intervention, The University of Manchester, Manchester Business School. Retrieved from http://www.bohrf.org.uk/downloads/bullyrpt.pdf. | Comments: A key success factor for the implementation of the intervention is stability, having a proper team to work with systematically and take responsibility, and management commitment. One key challenge was how to get some specific people to actively participate and, moreover, to attend the training sessions. |
| 5) Monitoring of working and health conditions in victims of bullying at work | Author(s): Luciano Romeo, Emanuele Quintarelli, Silvia Tisato, Luigi Perbellini, Antonia Ballottin Country: Italy Level of Intervention: Secondary | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | No | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | During the implementation of the intervention continuous dialogue between researchers, inspectors, occupational physicians and harassment advisors was established. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The method, called VAL.MOB, was proposed by the National Network for the Prevention of Psycho-social Discomfort in the Workplace, recently constituted by ISPESL in Italy. VAL.MOB seeks to asssess and monitor the work and health conditions of the victims of bullying at work. The infomation yeilded from this working and health condition assessment can assist researchers and practicioners tailor practices and initiatives to improve the implementation of the workplace intervention by different professionals (e.g. occupational physician, harassment adviser); thereby, assisting workers in the most effective way.
| Implementation:
The health status and working conditions of victims of bullying are periodically evaluated by interviewing the victim starting from six months after the first observation. On a regular basis these workers receive psychological support; and, if necessary, psychiatric treatment. Simultaneously, researchers act to modify, in different ways, the negative conditions found in the workplace and provide legal advice. The primary purpose is to verify which approach is more effective and if it is necessary to modify the intervention. Telephone interviews and questionnaires are used for periodical checks.
| Practical applications:
VAL.MOB has been successfully implemented in both the private and public sector; however, most cases have been from the private sector.
| Innovative aspects: VAL.MOB monitors the efficacy of interventions in addressing negative working situations; whilst improving the clinical condition of victims of bullying at work. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
Indicators of efficacy are the numbers of cases improved as assessed by the frequency of medical interventions, clinical improvement, modification of drug treatment, frequency of sickness absence and the number of resolved cases.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
Preliminary results indicate that the improvement of working conditions is the most effective intervention, and highlight the importance of human resource management and the application of ethical codes in companies.
| References:
Centre for the Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Pathologies at Work, Department of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Verona, Italy.
| Comments: The method has been used in several cases but the results are still preliminary. |
| |