Bullying in the Indian workplace: A study of the ITES-BPO sector

Abstract

This article reports on an empirical enquiry undertaken in India’s ITES-BPO (offshoring-outsourcing) sector to ascertain the presence of workplace bullying, the influence of sociocultural factors, the nature of bullying categories and the availability and use of extra-organizational redressal options. Survey data, gathered through structured interviews incorporating the Work Harassment Scale, conducted with 1036 respondents located in six cities, showed that 44.3% of the sample experienced bullying, with 19.7% reporting moderate and severe levels. In keeping with India’s hierarchical society, superiors emerged as the predominant source of bullying, displaying task-focused behaviours. Yet, the presence of ‘cross-level co-bullying’ where a personal focus was emphasized points to the role of identity-based affiliations intrinsic to India’s ethos. Key informant data, gathered through unstructured interviews with lawyers/legal activists, labour commissioners and trade unionists/labour activists and thematically analysed, underscored the influence of professional self-identity, career interests and a dysfunctional judicial system in targets’ choice of extra-organizational options.

The questionnaire for diagnosing mobbing in employees’ relationships

“…Aspects of reputation in the context of mobbing are abundantly analysed by different authors in different countries (D'Cruz & Rayner, 2013;Fox & Stallworth, 2010;Harvey et al, 2007;Hugh-Jones & Zultan, 2013;Katrinli, Atabay, Gunay, & Cangarli, 2010;Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008;Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012;O'Donnell, MacIntosh, & Wuest, 2010). The damage of mobbing to health is discussed in scientific articles by the following authors: Duffy and Sperry (2007), Yildirim, Yildirim, and Timucin (2007), Testa (2013), Burgi (2014), Garot (2014), andSchindeler (2014).…”

The workplace bullying-organizational change interface: emerging challenges for human resource management

“…Taskrelated bullying includes behaviours such as giving unreasonable deadlines or unmanageable workloads, excessive monitoring of work and assigning meaningless tasks or even no tasks (Einarsen and Hoel 2001). While downwards bullying (from superior to subordinate) is most common, horizontal bullying (between peers), upwards bullying (from subordinate to superior) and cross-level co-bullying (where peers and/or subordinates join superiors) are also reported (D'Cruz and Rayner 2012). Yet, regardless of the formal organizational relationship, bullying contributes to the growing powerlessness of the target who over time perceives himself/herself as having little or no recourse .…”

Organizational Governance: A Promising Solution for Varieties of Workplace Bullying

“…Yet, the direction of internal bullying in interpersonal instances is largely downwards (from superior to subordinate) (Branch et al, 2013;Einarsen et al, 2011), though horizontal (between peers) , upwards (subordinate to superior) (Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2007) and/or cross-level co-bullying (where peers and/or subordinates join superiors) (D'Cruz & Rayner, 2012) are also reported. In instances of depersonalized bullying, internal bullying moves downwards, with superiors implementing the organizational agenda and ensuring subordinates' compliance (D'Cruz, 2015).While supervisory and managerial layers generally deal with the workforce immediately below them in the organizational hierarchy, it is possible that levels are skipped as they attempt to deliver results mandated by the organization (D'Cruz, 2015).…”