Of gaslighting, DARVO, and flying monkeys: What fuels the emotion-laden descriptions of workplace bullying and mobbing?

(Flying monkey image courtesy of Clker.com)

Workplace bullying and mobbing. Yes, generically speaking, it’s about the experience and conditions of work. But at a human level, it’s often about apprehension, fear, and even terror. And for someone experiencing full-on work abuse or recovering from it, it’s very likely driven by the dynamics of psychological trauma.

A new lexicon

Andrea Adams, the British journalist who popularized the term workplace bullying during in the late 1980s, knew well about how terrifying, cruel, and malicious this form of abuse could be. In a 1994 speech before a British trade union (link here), she observed that, in the course of her investigations:

…people have described this experience as everything from psychological terrorisation, to emotional rape, to entering a war zone. Their accounts are all so similar that l can now predict when somebody contacts me, what they are actually going to say and the way in which they identify bullying, and their physical and emotional responses to it.

Adams’s journalistic explorations would be echoed by academic research. I frequently invoke an important study by communications professors Sarah Tracy, Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, and Jess Alberts, “Nightmares, Demons, and Slaves: Exploring the Painful Metaphors of Workplace Bullying,” Management Communication Quarterly (2006) (link here), which found that bullying targets’ narratives of their experiences “were saturated with metaphors of beating, physical abuse, and death.”

Once a targeted individual learns about workplace bullying and mobbing and certain terms used to describe its variations, a familiar vocabulary may come into play: These terms are often woven into narratives that describe their experiences in very emotional terms. They include, among others:

Gaslighting — In The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life, (2018 rev. ed.), Dr. Robin Stern defines gaslighting as:

a type of emotional manipulation in which a gaslighter tries to convince you that you’re misremembering, misunderstanding, or misinterpreting your own behavior or motivations, thus creating doubt in your mind that leaves you vulnerable and confused. Gaslighters might be men or women, spouses or lovers, bosses or colleagues, parents or siblings, but what they all have in common is their ability to make you question your own perceptions of reality.

I have written frequently here about gaslighting, including its use as a work abuse tactic (e.g., links here and here).

DARVO — As explained by Dr. Jennifer Freyd (President, Center for Institutional Courage; U. Oregon, emerit):

DARVO stands for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim — or the whistle blower — into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of “falsely accused” and attacks the accuser’s credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

I have written about DARVO in connection with aggressors claiming victim status in workplace bullying situations (link here).

Flying monkeys — As explained for PsychCentral by Christine Hammond (link here):

When the narcissist wants to evoke some punishment on a target they dispatch their henchmen (aka flying monkeys) to do their bidding. Unfortunately, this can and often does include abusive behavior such as guilt-tripping, twisting the truth, gaslighting, assaults, threats, and violence.

She further details the roots of the term:

The term was coined from the movie The Wizard of Oz in which the Wicked Witch dispatches monkeys to fly and get Dorothy and her dog. The monkeys obey her command, doing her dirty work for her, taunting and terrorizing Dorothy as she tries in vain to get back home. And so it is with narcissists and their flying monkeys.

Thus, we are most likely to hear references to flying monkeys in the workplace bullying and mobbing context when a boss directs their minions to harass and abuse a designated target. I have dubbed this behavior “puppet master bullying” (link here), but the choice of terminology is less significant than understanding the underlying behavior itself.

The neuroscience of bullying and mobbing at work

Why do so many targets of severe, continuous bullying and mobbing at work invoke emotional terms and descriptions in characterizing their experiences, rather than provide ordered narratives of their stories? For insight, I once again turn to Dr. Bessel van der Kolk‘s indispensable The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma (2014).

Dr. van der Kolk summons neuroscience research on brain functioning to explain what happens to some people when experiencing or reliving a traumatic event. In essence, the side of the brain associated with emotions, intuition, creativity, and imagination — the so-called right side — becomes fully activated. During brain scans when individuals are asked to recount traumatic events, it lights up like the proverbial Christmas tree. By contrast, the side of the brain associated with logic, raw facts, linear thinking, and sequencing — the s0-called left side — shuts down. During these brain scans, it goes dark.

With this in mind, it is utterly understandable why targets of bullying and mobbing at work often describe their experiences in emotion-laden terms. Many will experience difficulty reducing these experiences to the kinds of sequential narratives that HR personnel, union shop stewards, or employment lawyers typically seek in trying to grasp what happened and whether an individual can provide facts to support their claims. This can further undermine a target’s credibility and make them appear unstable and unreliable, when in reality it is often the trauma talking.

Feeding our dialogue about workplace bullying

Hello dear readers, I’ve collect some of my recent contributions to the dialogue about workplace bullying and related topics. I’m including several that I wrote about in earlier posts in case you missed them.

Article excerpted in popular law school casebook

I’m happy to share that my first law review article about workplace bullying and U.S. employment law, “The Phenomenon of ‘Workplace Bullying’ and the Need for Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection” (Georgetown Law Journal, 2000), has been excerpted in the new edition of a leading employment law casebook used in law schools, Mark Rothstein, Lance Liebman, Kimberly A. Yuracko, Charlotte Garden & Susan E. Cancelosi, Employment Law, Cases and Materials (10th ed., 2024).

In U.S. law school courses covering specific areas of law, casebooks usually comprise the main reading assignments. A typical casebook is a mix of edited judicial decisions, statutes, and regulations, often framed by the editors’ own commentaries and excerpts from legal treatises and law review articles.

This excerpt (see photo above) is part of a modest milestone of sorts. You see, the Rothstein casebook is, by my estimation, the first to include a standalone subsection on workplace bullying. Whereas major U.S. textbooks in fields such as organizational psychology and organizational behavior have included coverage of workplace bullying for some time, those in the legal field have lagged behind — in part because of the resistance of American legal jurisdictions to enact express protections against workplace bullying.

This means that law students assigned the Rothstein casebook will likely be introduced to the topic of workplace bullying, even as advocacy efforts to enact the workplace anti-bullying laws such as the Healthy Workplace Bill continue.

Although the Rothstein casebook is not freely accessible online, you may download a pdf of my 2000 Georgetown Law Journal article without charge here.

Call for amending OSH Act to include risks of serious psychological harm at work

Last fall, my essay “Expanding Coverage of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act to Protect Workers from Severe Psychological Harm” (freely downloadable pdf here) was published in the Suffolk University Law Review.  I used the opportunity to propose that we have a serious conversation about expanding the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to cover workers from workplace hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious psychological harm. Here’s the abstract:

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was designed to safeguard workers from hazardous working conditions that can cause serious physical harm and death. Since becoming law, the ongoing toll of physical injuries and fatalities at work reminds us of the compelling need for the OSH Act and its many state equivalents to protect workers. In addition, various research and public education initiatives are now spotlighting workplace hazards that severely threaten the psychological health of today’s employees. Toxic work environments generally, the extraordinary workplace stressors prompted by the COVID pandemic, and workplace bullying and abuse, among other concerns, have underscored the human costs of trauma, fear, anxiety, and stress.

Against this backdrop, this essay encourages a needed conversation about extending the regulatory reach of the OSH Act to cover severe psychological harms at work and to anticipate the impact of added enforcement responsibilities on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most significantly, it will examine two potential policy responses: First, applying the current OSH Act to workplace bullying, pursuant to a theory first advanced by Professor Susan Harthill; and second, amending the OSH Act to expressly cover workplace hazards that may cause severe psychological harm.

Four basic postulates about women and workplace bullying

Recently my law review essay, “Four Basic Postulates Concerning Women and Workplace Bullying in the United States” (freely downloadable pdf here), was published in the FIU Law Review (2023), based at the Florida International University College of Law. It appeared as a collection of invited responses to FIU law professor Kerri Lynn Stone’s excellent book, Panes of the Glass Ceiling: The Unspoken Beliefs Behind the Law’s Failure to Help Women Achieve Professional Parity (2022).

I wrote the essay to propose and expound upon four basic postulates concerning women and bullying in the American workplace:

• First, “women are likely to be disproportionately targeted for workplace bullying, a reality that carries multifaceted implications.”
• Second, “men are disproportionately the perpetrators of workplace bullying, another reality that carries important significance for understanding relational workplace mistreatment.”
• Third, “complicated dynamics are in play when women are alleged perpetrators of workplace bullying.”
• Fourth, “the enactment of workplace anti-bullying laws can help to fill some of the legal gaps confronted by women who face both bullying and discriminatory harassment at work.”

Podcast episode about HR and workplace bullying

Last fall, Dr. Gary Namie (founder, Workplace Bullying Institute) and I jointly appeared on a podcast episode, “Wiping Out Workplace Bullying,” as part of HRMorning‘s “Voices of HR” series. The series is hosted by Berta Aldrich, a high-ranking senior executive turned author, executive trainer, and coach who engaged us in a very lively conversation.

The episode runs for almost an hour, but for those interested in a more pro-active role for HR in addressing workplace bullying, I think it is useful. Here are the links:

• Apple podcasts (audio), click here.
• Spotify (audio), click here.
• YouTube (video), click here.

Podcast episode about personality characteristics associated with bullying

Earlier this week, I was interviewed about bullying generally, and workplace bullying specifically, by the Breakfast Show of the Voices of Islam podcast, based in London. Most of the questions surrounded personality traits associated with bullying and bullies, which gave me an opportunity to discuss how both qualities of empathy and Adverse Childhood Experiences can elevate the risks of someone becoming a bully or a target.

You may access the podcast episode from SoundCloud click here without charge (free registration necessary). My segment starts at the 1:28 mark (1 hour, 28 minutes) and runs for about 12 minutes.

When dealing with workplace bullying, don’t overlook good nutrition

Last week, I received an email from Torii Bottomley, a veteran educator who experienced workplace bullying in the Boston Public School system and spent years in an ultimately successful, yet exhausting legal battle to recover workers’ compensation benefits. Her core message was simple: When dealing with bullying at work and other forms of traumatic mistreatment, don’t overlook the vital importance of good nutrition to support your health.

With Torii’s permission:

I used to say the First Response to a bullying situation would be: get a lawyer, get a notebook, and to that I would add get Meals on Wheels.

So much of the damage I am trying to heal from is the result of years of poor nutrition because I could not take care of myself.  The poor nutrition exacerbated the mental and physical toll that the PTSD took on me. IF I had thought about and availed myself to meal deliveries which I could have “afforded” at the time because Meals on Wheels is free or a contribution, my recovery would have been easier and I would not have lost so much.

(For readers not familiar, Meals on Wheels is a non-profit organization that works with local networks to provide daily, in-person delivery of hot, prepared meals to seniors and other eligible individuals.)

Trauma, nutrition, and mental health

Although healthier eating is often a casualty of psychological trauma and other severe stress generally, my exchange with Torii’s prompted me to realize that we don’t highlight this important aspect of self-care nearly enough in discussing how to cope with abusive work environments and the road to recovery.

In a blog piece for Psychology Today titled “How Trauma, Nutrition, and Mental Health Fit Together” (link here) connecting trauma, nutrition, and mental health, Dr. Gia Marson explains that “(w)hen it comes to our basic need for nourishment, trauma can interfere with healthy eating. Traumatic experiences can have impacts on food-related experiences and behaviors including”:

• Eating without routine
• Stocking up on food.
• Losing control with food.
• Restricting or controlling food.
• Consuming high-fat, sugar, and/or salt diets.
• Body shaming experiences.
• Relying on easy-to-access foods.
• Experiencing food scarcity.
• Basing decisions about food on short-term needs.
• Feeling shame utilizing food assistance.
• Difficulty planning and budgeting for food.

More from Torii Bottomley

In a follow-up email, Torii revised her suggested “First Response” kit for targets of workplace bullying to include:

• lawyer
• therapist
• doctor
• Notebook
• Meals on Wheels
• therapy animal

For those not eligible for Meals on Wheels or a similar service, I recommend searching “advice on trauma and nutrition” for ideas and guidance.

Family and friends can play an important role here, too, by providing encouragement and support to maintain a good diet, as well as cooking healthy meals or helping out with the grocery bill. In addition to asking “how are you doing?,” one might add, “how are you eating?”

In sum, maintaining a healthy diet is an integral part of one’s toolkit for dealing with and recovering from workplace bullying and other traumatic experiences. Thank you to Torii Bottomley for providing this very important reminder.

Delving into the Dark Triad

I’m working on a law review article that will examine how insights about trauma and traumatization can inform law reform efforts. Part of that work involves a consideration of the psychological make-up of those who engage in abusive behaviors. Those whose personalities encompass the “Dark Triad,” i.e., a combination of narcissistic, sociopathic/psychopathic, and Machiavellian traits, come up frequently in these discussions. In fact, more than a few perpetrators of workplace bullying and abuse are said to meet the Dark Triad profile.

The article pictured in the screen shot above, Delroy L. Paulhus & Kevin M. Williams, “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy,” Journal of Research in Personality (2002) (link here; account necessary), was the first articulation of the Dark Triad, analyzing how the three traits may overlap and interact.

More recently, the Dark Triad is the centerpiece of a new article by Arthur C. Brooks for The Atlantic magazine, “The Sociopaths Among Us–And How to Avoid Them” (link here). Here’s how he dives into the topic:

We all have stories of meeting people who appeared wonderful at first but turned out to be just awful. Perhaps it was a charming suitor, or a charismatic colleague, or a fascinating new friend. They attracted you on initial impression, but before long, you started to notice behaviors that gave you pause. Maybe it was a little shading of the truth here and there, or a bit too much vanity and selfishness. Perhaps they constantly played the victim, or took credit for other people’s work.

Or maybe your disillusionment with the person was not gradual, but through a dramatic—and dramatically unpleasant—episode. All it may take is a minor disagreement, and suddenly, you get screamed at, threatened with retaliation, or reported to HR. This kind of encounter leaves you, understandably, baffled, hurt, and confused.

Very likely, this person was a “Dark Triad” personality. The term was coined by the psychologists Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams in 2002 for people with three salient personality characteristics: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and a measurable level of psychopathy. These people confuse and hurt you, because they act in a way that doesn’t seem to make sense. As one scholar aptly described the ones whose behavior shades more obviously into psychopathy, these are “social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets.”

For the curious, there’s a lot of stuff out there about the Dark Triad, as a quick Google search will reveal. To explore the Dark Triad in specific settings, simply search “Dark Triad and —” to limit the scope of what comes up. When I get a chance, I’d like to do a deeper read into the abundant popular and scholarly literature on the Dark Triad at work. 

Fear at work

The Economist news magazine recently reviewed a new book by historian Robert Peckham, Fear: An Alternative History of the World (2023) (link here; registration necessary), and I couldn’t help but relate it to some of the less wonderful aspects of work and employment. Here are some snippets of the review (with selected passages bolded):

Fear is a primal, necessary emotion. Mr Peckham calls it “a neurobiological process to keep us alive”. If our ancestors had not feared cliff-edges or sabre-toothed tigers, we might not be here today. The flipside is that, since humans are a communicative, imaginative species, fear can be conjured out of whispers. His book does not quite live up to its ambitious subtitle, but it illuminates the many ways in which fear has shaped human behaviour over the past 700 years, from which readers can draw lessons for the present.

The main one is: “Power depends on fear.”

.***

Much of this book was written during the covid-19 pandemic, so the author naturally ponders the fear of infection—and its manipulation by the powerful. When the Black Death struck Europe, rumours spread that unpopular minorities, such as “Jews, Muslims, paupers, lepers and foreigners”, might be “malevolent carriers of contagion”. Horrific persecution followed.

***

Fear of the coronavirus seeded all manner of conspiracy theories, and many governments took advantage of pandemic panic to suppress civil liberties. While living in Hong Kong, Mr Peckham observed first-hand how the Chinese Communist Party used the virus as an excuse to ban the pro-democracy protests that had rocked the place in 2019-20.

The book explores how easy it is for bold liars to fan terror. As Hermann Göring, Adolf Hitler’s air chief, summarised: “All you have to do is tell [the people] they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Fear at work

So, to borrow from historian Peckham, does power at work depend on fear?

Our need to earn a living and pay the bills, as well as — for some — a desire for self-expression and accomplishment, make work and employment central to many lives. Of course, it also means that threats to our job security and our ability to perform those jobs can fuel fear and apprehension. Rumors of layoffs, reorganizations, plant closings, for example, can generate deep anxieties across the workforce. Some employers will engage in such rumor-mongering in order to “motivate” workers or to discourage union organizing.

Furthermore, targeted mistreatment such as sexual harassment or workplace bullying constitute not only interpersonal abuse, but also a fundamental undermining of someone’s ability to do their job. The possibility of facing more of the same can certainly induce fear, especially if trustworthy internal avenues for addressing the abusive behaviors do not exist. Ethical organizations prohibit such mistreatment and take reports of offending behaviors seriously, but as we know, too many employers do not rise to that level of decency. 

Here in the U.S., we have fairly strong laws on the books against sexual harassment, but all too often, judges do not grasp the realities of this abuse and dismiss many valid claims before they go to trial. As for workplace bullying, we continue to advocate for the enactment of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, but for now, targets of severe bullying often have no legal recourse. In short, with sexual harassment, the law is often misapplied. With workplace bullying, needed legal protections often do not exist.

For an excellent exploration of fear at work, I reiterate my earlier recommendation of The Psychology of Fear in Organizations (2015) by Dr. Sheila M. Keegan. As I wrote in several years ago:

Dr. Keegan has done her homework for this book. Those who are attentive to high levels of fear and anxiety in many modern workplaces will find plenty of research and analysis that validates their concerns.

For those specifically interested in workplace bullying, there’s a subchapter that covers the basics, including references to work done by the Workplace Bullying Institute. The deeper value of this volume is how it places bullying and other negative behaviors in an organizational context.

Indeed, I consider the book title itself to be a triumph of messaging, expressly linking fear at work to organizations. After all, rare is the lone wolf supervisor or co-worker who makes everyone’s work life a misery, amidst an otherwise happy, functional workplace. Organizational cultures typically enable practices and behaviors that fuel fear, anxiety, and foreboding at work.

You may go here for my review of Dr. Keegan’s book. It remains a very relevant and insightful commentary on fear at work.

Labor Day 2023: Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. workers report workplace toxicity in APA study

On this Labor Day 2023, let’s focus on a recently-released survey by the American Psychological Association (APA), reporting that some 19% of respondents labeled their workplace as being “very or somewhat toxic.” 

The 2023 release of the APA’s annual Work in America Survey (link here) shows that many U.S. workers are not happy with the culture and climate of their workplaces:

For a sizeable portion of Americans, work is demoralizing, frightening, and even traumatic. “Toxic workplace” is an abstract term to describe infighting, intimidation, and other affronts that harm productivity. The result—in any context—is high absenteeism, low productivity, and soaring turnover.

The personal and organizational impacts of toxic workplaces are significant, as additional survey data shows:

• “The majority (59%) of those who were not at all or not very satisfied with their job described their workplace as toxic. Further, 58% of those who reported a toxic workplace also reported that they intend to look for a new job at a different company or organization in the next year, compared with only 27% of those who did not report a toxic workplace.”
• “Those who reported a toxic workplace were more than twice as likely to report that their overall mental health was fair or poor (58%) than those who did not report a toxic workplace (21%). Likewise, more than three-quarters (76%) of those who reported a toxic workplace also reported that their work environment has a negative impact on their mental health, compared with fewer than one-third (28%) of those who did not report a toxic workplace.”
• “Those who reported a toxic workplace were more than three times as likely to report having experienced harm to their mental health at work, compared with those who did not report a toxic workplace (52% vs. 15%, respectively). In addition, 77% of those who reported a toxic workplace also reported that their employer thinks their workplace environment is mentally healthier than it actually is, compared with 49% who did not report a toxic workplace.”

Of course, any reference to a toxic workplace, workplace toxicity, toxic boss/co-worker, etc., requires some unpacking. As I wrote last year:

It appears that a mix of the following has given rise to generic references about toxic work settings:

• • • • The MeToo movement;
      • The pandemic and overwork of workers in essential job categories;
      • The Great Resignation;
      • Diversity, equity, and inclusion;
      • Political and social discord;
      • Bullying and incivility;
      • Attention to bad bosses;
      • Wage stagnation and benefit cuts;
      • The recent dramatic uptick in union organizing.

The APA survey recognizes that point, as well. But larger message is that this broad topic encompasses negative behaviors and actions that need to be taken seriously.

Surgeon General’s Framework

The APA survey expressly tracks the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s 2022 Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being (link here), which includes workplace toxicity among its major concerns and specifically mentions workplace bullying under the category “protection from harm.”

Later this year, I will discuss my forthcoming law review article on workplace safety and health laws that also invokes the Surgeon General’s Framework. I think that this growing attention to toxic workplaces and the accompanying human and organizational costs potentially opens the door to a stronger federal regulatory role in safeguarding workers’ mental health.

Responding to toxic workplaces

The APA also commissioned writer Scott Sleek to do an accompanying article (link here; screenshot above) on how to combat toxic workplaces. I was among those interviewed for the piece, and here is what I said:

• “Toxic workplaces can involve ethical and legal offenses, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation, said David Yamada, director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School. In other cases, the toxicity involves bullying or unreasonable workloads. The result—in any context—is high absenteeism, low productivity, and soaring turnover.”
• “People who believe they’re being mistreated at work can look for corrective options in their employee handbook, from their union, or from an attorney, psychologists say. They should also consider whether their organization’s human resources department takes employee complaints seriously, Yamada said. In many cases, seeking a new job may be the best recourse, he added. Employers should investigate complaints and concerns about toxic work conditions as soon as they emerge…. They should look for and eliminate discrimination or sexual harassment to avoid legal exposure, and establish policies and procedures to address bullying….”

Long-term UIC study: Chronic workplace bullying can negatively impact targets for years; laws and policies needed

An important new research study (go here for pdf) coming out of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) finds that, among other things, targets of chronic workplace bullying may face higher levels of psychological distress and alcohol misuse for years after exposure to the abusive behaviors.

This “is the first study to examine the effects of [workplace harassment] over an approximately 25 year period.” The findings and recommendations are the latest results of a significant longitudinal research project launched at UIC in 1995 to understand the impact of sexual harassment and “generalized workplace harassment” (workplace bullying) on targeted workers, using mental health and alcohol misuse as the primary measures. The findings of this latest study are based on survey data received from over 2,300 self-identified targets of sexual harassment and bullying.

Major findings concerning bullying

The principal investigator of this study, Dr. Kathleen Rospenda, and the principal investigator of the original studies, Dr. Judith Richman, are pioneering researchers on harms caused by workplace bullying and sexual harassment. Dr. Rospenda recently shared her summary of the latest study, emphasizing its findings concerning bullying:

We just published an article using long-term follow-up data from our original harassment study. People who were classified as being exposed to a chronic pattern of generalized workplace harassment (aka bullying) during the first 10 years of the study reported higher levels of other stressors and greater alcohol misuse at follow-up (nearly 15 years after last recorded exposure to harassment). Chronic generalized harassment was indirectly associated with greater psychological distress at follow-up through its effects on current levels of stressors. Chronic generalized harassment was also associated with lower income at follow-up. Sexual harassment had similar effects, except also had a direct effect on psychological distress at follow-up. In short, even if you were exposed to workplace harassment a long time ago, it looks like it may make you more susceptible to experiencing other life stressors and it can have long-term impacts on your mental and behavioral health.

Because of the ongoing focus of this blog, here I’m emphasizing the study’s findings concerning workplace bullying. The full piece goes in depth on the very similar long-term effects of both workplace bullying and sexual harassment.

Laws, policies, and enforcement

These aren’t the survey results I’d prefer to share, but they surely buttress the case to take workplace bullying very seriously. Indeed, I am in full agreement with the authors’ recommendations for on-the-ground responses:

Given our findings that exposure to [workplace harassment] can have long-term effects on worker health, stronger enforcement of [sexual harassment] law and enactment of laws to prevent [generalized harassment]/workplace bullying are crucial for the protection of worker health. Additionally, employers should enforce existing sexual harassment policies and institute policies that explicitly prohibit generalized harassment or bullying in the workplace. Policies should include clear reporting procedures and clear penalties for policy violations.

The road to enacting workplace anti-bullying laws in the U.S. is proving to be a long one, stoked by employer opposition to creating liability exposure for even the worst instances of targeted abuse. Recently I completed a draft of a book chapter on international legal responses to workplace bullying, to be included in a forthcoming, multi-author treatise on global work laws. I came away from that project more convinced than ever that the U.S. is becoming an unfortunate outlier in its resistance to the idea that severe workplace bullying should be an unlawful employment practice. 

Thankfully, the UIC study contributes to an evidence-based argument that American workplace law should intervene when bullying behaviors cause tangible harm to workers. I am heartened that it implicitly supports enactment of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, in addition to other measures that can safeguard workers from this form of mistreatment. In addition, I’d like to thank Drs. Richman and Rospenda for their extended and steadfast commitment to this uniquely valuable research agenda, which is now yielding important findings about the long-term personal harms wrought by both workplace bullying and sexual harassment.

***

The article containing the UIC study is “Effects of chronic workplace harassment on mental health and alcohol misuse: a long‑term follow‑up,” published in BMC Public Health (2023), and co-authored by Kathleen M. Rospenda, Judith A. Richman, Meredith McGinley, Kristin L. Moilanen, Tracy Lin, Timothy P. Johnson, Lea Cloninger, Candice A. Shannon, and Thomas Hopkins.

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part 3: Applications to therapeutic jurisprudence

In this, my third look at Dr. Judith Herman’s important new examination of psychological trauma, Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023), I would like to connect the theme of trauma and justice to therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), a multidisciplinary school of theory and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of law, legal processes, and legal institutions.

To summarize: Dr. Herman holds that the final stage of recovering from trauma is justice, reasoning that “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.” She identifies acknowledgment, apology, and accountability as the key elements of justice. Also, she identifies restitution, rehabilitation (of the offender), and prevention as the key elements of healing.

Therapeutic jurisprudence

Basic TJ principles hold that, whenever reasonably possible, outcomes of legal events (e.g., litigation, negotiation, or drafting of documents such as wills and trusts) should affirm the dignity and promote the psychological health of the parties involved.

These general goals are a strong match for Dr. Herman’s elements of justice and healing.

Truth and Repair frequently endorses restorative justice (RJ) — a concept and practice often mentioned in the same breath as TJ — as a promising avenue toward helping trauma survivors obtain justice. Herman invokes Australian criminologist and RJ adherent John Braithwaite in observing that RJ is about focusing on “repairing the harm of a crime rather than punishing offenders for breaking a law.” In fact, Braithwaite’s own work has closely analyzed what he sees as the similarities and differences between RJ and TJ.

I’ve noted on many occasions that therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship and practice need to better incorporate trauma-informed understandings and perspectives. Dr. Herman’s positing that justice is a final recovery step for trauma survivors significantly helps us to link trauma-informed prevention and response to TJ, and vice-versa.

***

Additional Reading

For free access to John Braithwaite’s comparison and contrast of TJ and RJ, “Restorative Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” Criminal Law Bulletin (2002), go here.

For free access to my extensive survey of therapeutic jurisprudence, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Foundations, Expansion, and Assessment,” University of Miami Law Review (2021), go here.

 

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part 2: Workplace bullying targets and the search for justice & healing

In my previous post, I set out the basic premises behind Judith Herman’s new examination of psychological trauma, Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023). In her welcomed volume, Dr. Herman’s focus is on a final stage of recovering from trauma, that of justice, reasoning that “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.”

I’d now like to apply Herman’s core precepts to targets of workplace bullying, mobbing, and related mistreatment whose experiences have been deeply traumatizing, including physical and psychological health impairments and costly impacts on careers and livelihoods. In other words, how might those whose lives have been so negatively upended by targeted work abuse regard the concepts of justice and healing?

Applying the elements of justice and healing to workplace bullying

Dr. Herman identifies acknowledgment, apology, and accountability as the key elements of justice. She identifies restitution, rehabilitation (of the offender), and prevention as the key elements of healing.

Let’s look at Herman’s elements of justice first. For targets of workplace bullying, we immediately see the problem. Most instances of severe bullying do not result in acknowledgment, apology, and/or accountability. The most common “resolution” of a targeted campaign of bullying is that the target either resigns or is terminated.

Next, let’s look at Herman’s elements of healing. Again, the problem is obvious. Most targets of severe bullying do not receive restitution. The offenders often continue in their ways; rehabilitation usually doesn’t enter the picture. And all too few employers learn from bullying within their organizations and resolve to engage in preventive measures.

A big missing piece in the U.S.: Legal reform

For her book, Dr. Herman interviewed “twenty-six women and four men who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, sex trafficking, sexual harassment, and/or domestic violence.” This interview cohort may yield some insights into applying her elements of justice and healing to workplace bullying targets. In each form of interpersonal abuse experienced by her interview subjects, civil and/or legal protections already exist. Granted, the effectiveness of these legal protections may be very uneven. But at least there are laws on the books, and sometimes they work.

By sharp contrast, workplace bullying is largely legal in the United States. Simply put, few targets of severe workplace bullying in the U.S. have a clear path toward harnessing the justice system to obtain relief in the form of acknowledgment, apology, accountability, restitution, offender rehabilitation, or employer prevention.

Herman found that most of her interviewees “seemed remarkably uninterested in punishment.” I cannot say the same thing for many targets of workplace bullying whom I’ve interviewed over the years. A good number of targets feel like their tormenters got away with something awful, because, frankly, that’s what happened. The anger can be palpable. While the intensity of these feelings may subside over time, and with it the desire for punishment, oftentimes the triggering factor is the absence of any semblance justice. Furthermore, much of the healing is self-generated. And in toxic workplaces, the bullying tends to go on and on.

As many readers of this blog know, I am the author of workplace anti-bullying legislation called the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB). I’m part of a group of advocates from across the nation (go here for the national HWB campaign page) who have been urging elected officials to enact it. While enacting the HWB will not be a panacea, at least it will help to push open doors towards justice and healing that are often closed. Without legal incentives to take bullying at work seriously, too many employers dismiss reports of bullying, side with the aggressor, and allow this costly and destructive form of mistreatment to continue unabated.

***

Those here in Massachusetts who wish to become involved in advocacy efforts supporting the HWB may contact me directly at dyamada@suffolk.edu. Although we are not equipped to do legal or psychological advising concerning individual instances of workplace bullying, those in search of guidance or assistance may find helpful the “Need Help?” page of this blog by clicking here.

In my final look at Dr. Herman’s book (for now, at least!), I’ll be applying her precepts to the interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence.

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part I: Trauma survivors’ perspectives on justice and healing

In 1992, psychiatrist Judith L. Herman shared her groundbreaking analysis of psychological trauma, Trauma and Recovery. For years this has been among the “must read” books  on the topic, and Dr. Herman has remained a leading authority in the field. In a 2022 edition, she would add an epilogue that examines new understandings and developments in trauma research and treatment during the ensuing decades.

Throughout this time, I sensed that a lot of folks who are deeply interested in trauma wondered if Dr. Herman might have another major work in her, one that might advance our understanding of this important topic even further. This welcomed volume has arrived in the form of Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023).

In this three-part series of posts, I’m taking a good look at Truth and Repair and applying its precepts to two topics that recur often on this blog, workplace bullying and therapeutic jurisprudence.

The path to Truth and Repair

In her new book, Dr. Herman summarizes that Trauma and Recovery identified three general stages of recovery from trauma, all closely focused on the individual survivor: The first stage is “the complex and demanding task of establishing safety in the present, with the goal of protection from further violence.” The second stage involves “revisit[ing] the past in order to grieve and make meaning of the trauma.” And the third stage involves a “refocus on the present and future, expanding and deepening…relationships with a wider community and…sense of possibility in life.”

It was the contemplation of a “fourth and final stage of recovery,” that of justice, which prompted Herman to work towards a new book. After all, she reasoned, “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.” 

With this new focus, Herman interviewed “twenty-six women and four men who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, sex trafficking, sexual harassment, and/or domestic violence.” The results of these conversations helped her to conceptualize elements of justice and healing from a trauma survivor’s perspective.

Elements of justice and truth

Through her interviews, Dr. Herman identified three precepts of justice and truth, as defined by trauma survivors:

Acknowledgment — “The first precept of survivors’ justice is the desire for community acknowledgment that a wrong has been done,” for public recognition of a “survivor’s claim to justice must be the moral community’s first act of solidarity” with the survivor.

Apology — Perpetrators should provide a genuine apology for their traumatizing offenses, taking responsibility for their actions and offering to make amends. In some instances, an apology may “create the possibility of repairing a relationship.”

Accountability — While trauma survivors interviewed by Herman were ambivalent about punishment for perpetrators and complicit bystanders, many were drawn to the broader precept of accountability for individuals and institutions. Ideas behind restorative justice — a movement that embraces values of “nondomination, empowerment, and respectful listening” — resonated strongly in this context.

Elements of healing and repair

Dr. Herman’s interviews also identified three precepts of healing and repair, again as defined by trauma survivors:

Restitution — Restitution can take the form of money to cover a survivor’s losses and recovery, but it also can be defined in more systemic ways, such as creating more humane justice systems and safer institutional spaces (including workplaces). This broader take on restitution expands on the traditional legal notion of “made whole,” typically defined largely as financial compensation.

Rehabilitation — Because our justice systems, especially those governing criminal behavior, are vested mainly in the objective of punishment, “we know little about what it would actually take to bring perpetrators to relinquish violence and feel genuine remorse for their crimes.” Nevertheless, if we can find ways to “instill empathy or a feeling of common humanity in those who lack it,” we may create moral awakenings that truly safeguard our communities.

Prevention — Prevention, of course, means reducing potential exposure to traumatizing acts and events and help trauma victims in their healing. Educational programs, bystander training, and counseling and support for victims are among the preventive measures that can be implemented.

***

Truth and Repair is much richer and more fulsomely detailed on a deeply human level than I can provide in a relatively digestible summary. Indeed, this important book merits a close reading by anyone who is interested in how we, as a society, respond to psychological trauma. 

Brevity aside, I hope this gives you a good sense of Dr. Herman’s essential theme. In the next two blog posts, I will apply these findings to (1) the experience of targets of severe workplace bullying and potential responses by the legal system; and (2) the interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence, which examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of our laws, legal systems, and legal institutions.