Back in 2013, I
penned Bullying
is in the News, Is It in the Workplace (November 2013). The premise was a pair of bills
introduced in the Florida Legislature. I briefly returned to the subject in
2019, in Aggressive
Without Being Obnoxious (August 2019) and Great
Public Harm - and Social Media (March 2019). You have no way to know what pressure
someone is under. At the end of the day, the two bills in 2013 did not become
law. I have not returned recently to the idea of bullying. But overall, it is
important to remember to treat others with kindness and dignity.
The British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) recently published Workplace
bullying is more harmful than we realized. It asserts that bullying is
likely to have emotional effects, "but could also have serious
consequences for your (physical) health." The article concedes that the
studies "can’t outright prove that workplace bullying causes"
physical maladies. It is "possible . . . pre-existing mental health
vulnerabilities increase a person’s risk of being bullied," thus
potentially becoming a chicken v. egg analysis on causation. However, the study
results are nonetheless worthy of consideration.
The article recites
anecdotal complaints of physical symptoms. It asserts that "researchers
have long known about the adverse mental health effects of workplace
bullying." Cited studies from Sheffield University support that these
mental health effects may be experienced by bullied employees or those who
merely witness the bullying. Furthermore, this article concludes that there is
now suggestion that bullying "could have serious effects on physical
health." This comes from an examination of medical records from "nearly
80,000 male and female employees in Sweden and Denmark."
The foundation of the
study relied upon self-reporting by patients regarding "whether they’d
been bullied at work in the previous year." Medical records were then
examined for evidence of development of "any cardiovascular illness over
the next four years." The study concluded that those who "more
frequently" self-reported being bullied exhibited a greater "risk of
developing cardiac problems." The researchers concluded the risk was
markedly higher (1.59 times more likely).
There is an element of
frequency stressed also. The authors concluded that "8% to 13% of survey
respondents" reported they had been bullied. The BBC does not provide
edification as to why there is a 5% spread. It therefore remains unclear how
prevalent workplace bullying is in actuality. However, either of these is a
significant figure.
Too often, we hear about
frequency studies, and there is little or no effort to ensure the absence of
coincidental positives. Thus, it is interesting that the researchers concluded
that the increase of "59% in the bullied compared with the non-bullied"
remained defensible after controlling for "factors such as body-mass index
and smoking status." Despite this effort, the reader must return to the
concession that it remains possible that some with physical maladies might be
more prone to bullying or to self-reporting it.
A similar analysis in the
article identified a link between bullying and the onset of type 2 diabetes.
The increased diabetes prevalence (46% higher) while not as high as with
cardiac disease (59% higher), but is very significant. The potential for
coincidence here is likewise conceded. However, the significance of the
finding is worthy of consideration. In each disease process, the bullied appear
to have an approximately 50% higher incidence of serious disease processes.
A recent post covered the
occupational disease standard in Florida. In Florida
Occupational Disease Burden (December 2019), two Florida First District Court decisions
were reviewed. The Court there explained that Florida law creates "a dose-response analysis." That is, the worker seeking compensation for such
disease must demonstrate both "actual exposure" and "dose"
(the level to which exposed.) It is possible that we as individuals may see our
"dose" of bullying differently. Possibly what I would self-report as
bullying you would not. That is one potential perception bias of
self-reporting.
That "dose"
analysis seems congruent with the reported bullying study. The authors there concluded
that "the more frequently participants said they were bullied, the greater
their risk." The dose of bullying seems to have a relationship to the
onset of both cardiac disease and diabetes. The study leader, Xu, says this
might be explained by bullying leading to "chronically rising levels of
stress hormones," as well as the "victims adopting harmful coping
behaviors" (overeating or alcohol). It may thus be either these hormones
or our coping reactions that stimulate the untoward health results.
The premise that bullying
equates to a greater risk is therefore not proven by this study. The data does
support significantly greater diagnosis in those who have been bullied at work.
It is possible that those with predispositions toward either cardiac disease or
diabetes may be disproportionately represented in the bullied population.
It is also possible that results might be different in studies of other
cohorts; this study population was entirely European. However, the overarching
recommendation is that “employers should be aware of the adverse consequences
to their employees from experiencing workplace bullying.” There is some belief
that education may be of benefit both for those who are doing the bullying and
for the "victims to 'seek help as soon as possible'.”
The costs of healthcare
for such conditions may be significant. It is possible therefore that the costs
may drive employers to more closely monitor for bullying in the workplace. It
is also possible that there will be some who note the costs of resulting
absenteeism and perhaps diminished productivity, and those costs may drive
employer monitoring also.
Whether any states seek
again to legislate workplace anti-bullying remains to be seen. However, it appears
that there is at least the beginning of a foundation for evidence or indicia
that diminished workplace bullying would be beneficial to both the workplace
and the health of those who labor there.
