Upwards bullying in the workplace

Helen Giles , 07 Dec 2012

I doubt whether any HR professional would disagree that any kind of bullying and harassment in the workplace is harmful to the victim’s health and wellbeing, odious in the extreme and not to be tolerated.


It is also clear that the body of discrimination legislation that has grown up over the last 40 years, as now consolidated in the Equalities Act, has been both vital and powerful in setting boundaries for how people should behave in terms of non-discriminatory behaviour towards others at work.

However, it would seem that something in the way that legislation has been understood and applied has given rise far too often to a set of unintended consequences.

In my own workplace we have very advanced structures of support for managers in applying procedures properly and fairly. Yet despite this, in a recent managers’ meeting a number of them admitted that they had held back from tackling certain individuals for their underperformance because they are very adept at implying that the manager’s reasons for pulling them up are discriminatory in some way.

I regularly train managers working in voluntary and public services in managing poor standards of performance, conduct and attendance.  It saddens me that I have to warn them that they will very likely be unjustly accused at least once in their careers of harassment and bullying, most likely on the grounds of one or more of the protected characteristics. This has become an occupational hazard of line management

Working with a variety of organisations, I have too often seen a manager’s health and mental stability severely taxed when they have been investigated for bullying, discrimination and harassment because of the way the law is applied. If an organisation fails to investigate – however obvious it may be in a particular case that the allegations are a defence tactic and a smokescreen on the part of an employee who wants to shift the focus away from their own shortcomings – then it is at significant risk of being found guilty of discrimination if the vexed employee goes to ET.

Not infrequently I have been asked by managers placed in this position whether they can take a counter-grievance about being falsely accused of bullying and discriminatory behaviour.  As tempted as I have been to say ‘yes, go for it’, I invariably have to advise them that in reality this is a hiding to nothing. They just have to put up with the stigma and duress until a thorough investigation is done and, as is so often the case, nothing found against them.

I admit it isn’t easy to come up with an answer as to how we can achieve the balance between ensuring people with legitimate grievances about bullying or discriminatory treatment are supported and heard and preventing these rights being used as a stick with which to beat managers who are simply doing their jobs properly.  But there needs to be more open airing and debate of these very real issues without people feeling that by raising it they are somehow anti-equalities.  Apart from anything else, it is not only the manager in this kind of situation who suffers but also the employee who seeks refuge in perceptions that someone else doesn’t like them because of who they are rather than face up to the fact that they need to accept feedback and support to do their jobs better.

2 comments on this article

Your comment

Click here to comment

poor article

Anon 18 Jul 2013

This is pro-management excuses for weak managers, who fail to manage their staff and allow bullying behaviour to arise. The commentary in this article is a typical HR defence for the unacceptable behaviour of others in the workplace. Such typically inert HR's dismiss ALL claims of bullying and harassment as mere "perceptions", which shows exactly how much importance they put on the whole issue as they try to duck responsibility for Duty of Care and a host or related issues. The irony is that HR is often failing to protect those who complain of bullying and harassment and immediately align themselves to the "poor managers", whose weak leadership and terrible people management is obvious. Then it is wondered how such "relationship breakdowns" could ever occur and HR try to play the part of psychologist on the victims of shabby treatment at work. As a matter of urgency, a serious review is required of how HR interacts with employees, who often do little more than wave around policies as a defence against failing management. Organisations that are dismissive of employees deserve all that they will receive by the time the victims of such corporate failure reaches an Employment Tribunal

Poor Article - more like poor attitude!

Maz 28 Aug 2013

I am an HR Manager who often has to tread the fine line between supporting the manager and the member of staff and protect the organisation in these situations. Just as there are managers who lack skills (it takes years to acquire them - you cant just read them from a book), there are equally staff who have a superior attitude and sense of entitlement and possess a 'you can't touch me' attitude and they endeavour to use the bullying card to their advantage. As anyone with half a brain knows, there are always two sides to every situation and HR (nor anyone else) should ever pre empt who may be in the right or wrong without establishing the facts. HR are there to facilitate a fair process for all parties concerned, and as wishy washy as 'anon' may find this - it is reality. We live in a litigious society where HR has become a risk management function first and foremost as well as being expected to support all parties and do right by everyone. There are some employees who expect their managers to behave as parents - unrealistically! Equally there are managers who lack ability to be all things to all people - and lets face it, the expectation upon them when faced with a difficult employee is very high - they are human beings too! I have seen strong, confident, effective managers ground down by difficult employees and vica versa. No two cases are ever the same, each case its own personalities and each parties perception is their own reality (yes the perception word!), it is HR's job to pick their way through that and utilise investigating officers to establish the facts - they are there to facilitate. Whoever wrote this article response named 'Poor Article', clearly lacks the courage of their convictions -hence being 'anon' they also have a one sided distorted view of reality. Get real!

In this issue: August 2015
fragment image

Stand and deliver: Fresh austerity measures are on the way – but can public sector HR seize the strategic opportunity?

Eureka moment: HR at engineering firm AMFW

Going for gold: Maintaining the Olympic legacy

On the money: Providing innovative rewards

MA Business & Leisure Limited © Copyright 2015, All Rights Reserved