|
Copyright 2003 by the Advancing Women in Leadership, Advancing Women
Website,
www.advancingwomen.com; reproduced with permission from the publisher.
When the Wrong Woman Wins: Building Bullies
and Perpetuating Patriarch
Penelope
W. Brunner, Ed.D.Melinda L. Costello, Ph.D.
BRUNNER &
COSTELLO, SPRING, 2003
Through bully methods, women supervisors and managers
may provide organizations with the underhanded behaviors that keep competent
women from being noticed and promoted.
Some women
are not good managers; and that is exactly why some companies keep them. For
30 years, researchers and working women have watched the progression of
females into America's corporate management positions, and in their
examination of the glass ceiling phenomenon, Corsun and Costen (2001) report
that 40% of US executives, managers, and administrators are now women.
During the early years of the women's movement, it was hypothesized that as
the number of women entering the working public increased, a feminization or
softening of business organizations would also occur. Publications such as
Helgesen's (1990) The Female Advantage, Helgesen's (1995) The Web of
Inclusion, and Rosener's (1990) "Ways Women Lead" led us to believe that
kinder, gentler, and nurturing environments fostered by humane, caring, and
intuitive leaders were developing. Multiculturalism and diversity were the
expected outcomes.
The facts
reported today do not support this earlier view. Most women managers remain
at the lower to mid-level ranks of management, and the workplace is more
violent, competitive, and aggressive than before (Corsun & Costen, 2001).
Popular media such as Time (Labi, 2001), Management Today (Kennett, 2001),
and Psychology Today (Bertucco, 2001) have all featured stories concerning
bully pervasiveness, and as many as 21% of workers may have been targeted
directly by office bullies (Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000).
In situations involving bullying, 81% of the bully behavior is attributed to
employees in a supervisory role (Namie & Namie, 2000).
One
expectation is that much of the bullying is perpetrated by males, perhaps
threatened by the increased number of women in the management ranks. Sadly,
however, this is not the case. According to Namie's U.S. Hostile Workplace
Survey (2000), men and women are equally responsible for the bullying
behavior, and 84% of those employees targeted for the abuse are female.
Surprisingly, women bullies target women employees more often than they
target males (Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000).
In other
words, despite the increasing number of women in America's workforce, the
corporate environment has become even more hostile, especially to women.
Instead of laying the groundwork for the advancement of the sisterhood,
women have joined men in the harassment of their own gender. This in no way
suggests that women should be denied admittance to the hallowed halls of
corporate work; it does, however, encourage examination of the phenomena
contributing to this unexpected outcome. What type of system fosters or
maintains a bully's growth? Why do women bullies target women? Are women
bullies helping to perpetuate the existing workplace patriarchy? This paper
explores the dynamics that promote the development of women as bullies and
that encourage women, perhaps unconsciously, to support a system that keeps
them subordinate.
The Bully
Model
In her book
Why So Slow?, Valian (1999) contends that the glass ceiling continues to be
held up, in part, by gender schemas: those stereotypes and biases learned in
childhood and that perpetuate into adulthood and consequently into the
workplace. The gender schema for men includes "being capable of independent,
autonomous action...assertive, instrumental, and task-oriented" (Valian, 1999,
p. 13). For women, the schema is different and includes "being nurturant,
expressive, communal, and concerned about others" (Valian, 1999, p. 13).
While everyone, regardless of gender, has and expresses all of the
behavioral traits to a certain degree, men present to the world more of the
masculine traits and women present more of the feminine (Matusak, 2001;
Valian, 1998). The norms of organizations are defined in masculine terms,
and "feminine attributes are valued only in the most marginal sense" (Ely &
Meyerson, 2000, p. 109). The criteria for success that organizations have
established are based on the stereotypical male characteristics such as
aggressiveness, competitiveness, and autonomy (Bailyn, 1993). Over time,
these leadership traits are taken for granted and become legitimized, though
often invisible, guides for future leader evaluation. Employees who want to
advance up the corporate ladder may feel they must demonstrate that they
carry the male leadership traits and that they are willing to use them.
Instead of embracing the feminine characteristics that could balance the
historical male hierarchical model, corporations may force women to assume
the characteristics of the dominant culture or may base promotions on the
masculine traits that women possess (Corsun & Costen, 2001; Ely & Meyerson,
2000; Valian, 1998).
Bully
behavior is the amplified acting out of masculine behaviors that range from
blatant demonstrations such as aggressively screaming, yelling, and
threatening dismissals to subtle, underhanded displays. Making unreasonable
job demands, criticizing abilities, and excluding targeted employees from
meetings and necessary information are all found in the bully's repertoire (Namie
& Namie, 2000). Research on bully behavior and harassment concludes that
bullies, like harassers, are driven by a need for power and control and
choose to seek out a perceived weaker employee to dominate (Namie & Namie,
2000; Kurth, Spiller, & Travis, 2000).
The
corporate world in which workplace bullies thrive is established according
to the white male experience and represents an extension of the military and
sports models followed by men for generations (Corsun & Costen, 2001;
Harragan, 1977; Hornstein, 1996). "Organizational power hierarchies,
competitive work climates, and the bunker mentality of contemporary
corporate life all provide a hospitable environment for the toxin of
disrespect, and even induce it, from bosses who would otherwise be just" (Hornstein,
1996, p.6). According to Corsun and Costen (2001), competitiveness and the
desire to dominate are understandable consequences of the existing corporate
system:
The
corporate office is the habitat of the powerful. Corporate America is the
kind of place that is natural for white males. The game of business has a
unique military-sports theme, the rules of which were established years ago
by White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male 'captains of industry.' The military
influence is evident in organizational form and structure, whereas the
organization's function (to win the game or make a profit) is influenced by
team sports. (p. 4)
The bully's goals
parallel those found both in military battles and in sports arenas;
competition is the ultimate game in the bully's mind, and winning requires a
singular focus. In order to win, bullies believe that their targets must be
beaten up and eliminated (Namie & Namie, 2000). New leaders stepping into
this existing military/sports model must seek and destroy the weakest
opponents in order to prove their worthiness to the powers that be. Many
managers who use these bullying techniques are viewed as effective and are
rewarded for their take-no-prisoners style of tough leadership (Russell,
2001). Divide and conquer is the mode of operation that allows the bullies
to maintain control over their employees. Any show of collegiality among
ranks is perceived as threatening and quickly dispersed to forbid the
development of strength in opposition (Cox, 1993).As the numbers illustrate,
women unfortunately are enlisting, or are being drafted, into the bully
battalion at a rate similar to that of their male counterparts. And, more
frequently than men, the opponents women challenge are other women (Namie &
Namie, 2000). This becomes a more painful and confusing dynamic because the
existing gender schemas indicate that women should be nurturing
caregivers-especially toward the females who are already disadvantaged in
the eyes of corporate observers. This is also a damaging dynamic, because
women who oppress other women help to maintain the existing social order in
which men remain dominant and women are subordinate (Acker, 1990; Brunner &
Costello, 2002).The Bully's Role in Perpetuating TyrannyIf there is a
perceived lack of rewards for females throughout the corporate structure,
the competition for power among women may be intensified. Because feminine
traits, skills, qualifications, and accomplishments are undervalued in a
masculine system, certain women may feel a greater need to demean other
women in order to protect the little power base they have already achieved
(Ely & Meyerson, 2000). With lower rank and limited financial resources, the
most vulnerable member of the corporation is typically the subordinate
female, and she provides the bully with the easiest prey in the competition.
Thus, female bullies help limit the number of women able to challenge the
existing hierarchy.Through bully methods, women supervisors and managers may
provide organizations with the underhanded behaviors that keep competent
women from being noticed and promoted. When male executives allow female
bullies to demonstrate these bad behaviors toward other women, the men
remove themselves from the risk of legal and ethical concerns. Thus, female
bullies protect and preserve the male-dominated, existing structure while
men are able to keep their hands clean. The bully behavior is tolerated
because "organizations of all kinds keep a comfortable place for bosses who
will do their dirty work" (Hornstein, 1996, p. 103). Workers who publicly
question "why can't women get along?" may not realize the part that the
system plays in these power dynamics. The woman promoted to the highest
levels in the organization may not need to possess great credentials or
management skills. In fact, her sole strength may be her ability to puppet
upper management's traditional agenda. So in addition to keeping other, more
competent women from advancing, the female bully also serves as a poor
representative and role model for workingwomen in general.Lewis Maltby,
President of the National Work Rights Institute, states, "Bullying is the
sexual harassment of 20 years ago; everybody knows about it, but nobody
wants to admit it" (Russell, 2001, p. 4). However, when a mean woman
discriminates, harasses, and mistreats other women and no man is deemed
responsible, it is difficult for the victim to find protection or legal
recourse. In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
developed guidelines for identifying and dealing with a hostile work
environment, but the interpretation is based on sexual discrimination and
harassment, and bullying has yet to be defined in concrete legal terms. This
means that the bully's victim, unlike the victim of sexual harassment, has
no clear-cut path of protection to follow. And without consistent legal
avenues readily available, the bully's victim cannotexpect an alteration of
organizational behavior and may believe that changing jobs is her only
option. According to the US Hostile Workplace Survey (Namie, 2000), 82% of
bullied employees lost their jobs, and 38% left voluntarily. The target that
chooses to stay in the organization may experience a drop in productivity,
effectiveness, and opportunities for advancement. The Canada Safety Council
(Institute of Management and Administration [IOMA], 2001) estimates that up
to 52% of a target's day is devoted to counter-bully tactics such as
building a defensive network, developing counteractive strategies, or
seeking political allies. So, in reality, the bully has won, and the
organizational structure remains intact. Within this type of corporate
atmosphere, other employees, wondering if they are the next target,
understand that challenging the status quo may involve significant risk. In
fact, employees often rally to support the bully out of fear of reprisals,
thus weakening the prospects of other women forming support coalitions (Namie,
2000). Research shows majority group members are threatened by minorities
who might join together for support (Cox, 1993); so the female bully once
again, albeit inadvertently, helps to maintain a structure that limits the
opportunities for all women,including the bully. Even though she may feel
she has joined the "good old boys' club", the club ultimately may not
provide the female bully with the same upper-level positions afforded to its
other members. Publicly, male leaders may compliment female bullies for
demonstrating that "she kicks ass with the best of them" or "she's hard as
nails," (Martin, 1996, p. 191); and in only 7% of the reported cases was the
bully punished, transferred or terminated (Namie, 2000). But as Ely and
Meyerson (2000) point out, aggressive, task-oriented women may also be
criticized privately. While this criticism may remain secret because the
organizational hierarchy does not want to appear discriminatory to women, it
nevertheless may limit the bully's advancement thereby blocking the route
for other women.
Conclusion
Bully behavior, whether
perpetrated by men or women, should be examined further because of the
long-term costs allocated to both employees and the organizations in which
they work. Health problems, legal problems, and productivity problems tied
to bully behavior all represent expenses that could be avoided (Flynn, 1999;
Hornstein, 1996; Namie, 2000). Turnover expense also should be examined--
and not just as it relates to replacing targets. Women who do not buy into a
masculine style of leadership may find themselves in a position where they
feel forced either to conform to bully behavior or to take their talents
elsewhere; and starting over slows their progress. "To the extent that
employees find it difficult to conform to the image of the successful
employee, or find it difficult to bring all of their relevant skills and
insights to their jobs, important human resources are lost" (Ely & Meyerson,
2000, p. 128). Like other researchers, we agree that corporate management
needs to acknowledge that bullying is a major employment issue and requires
education, training, and a zero tolerance policy. More importantly, bullied
employees need to feel there is a place to be heard and that interventions
are possible. Existing laws concerning hostile work environment, defamation
of character, and vicarious liability may need to be altered or expanded to
include bullying behavior as a punishable offense (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 1999; Namie & Namie, 2000).Real change,
however, is possible only when management is willing to examine the model
that rewards just a fraction of the behavioral traits that all employees
possess. Until organizations recognize and reward "wholeness" of employees,
the feminine and masculine traits we all embody, symptoms of a fragmented
workplace will continue to rear their ugly heads. Sexual discrimination,
sexual harassment, and bullying fall on the same continuum and serve to
maintain the existing corporate structure. While there is no shortage of
change models available, what does seem to be missing on the part of
executive management is willingness or desire to change. Women, even more
than men, should not accept that the established model is infallible and
certainly should not contribute to its continuing devaluation of feminine
characteristics. When the wrong woman wins, all employees lose. For thirty
years we have wanted to believe that any woman manager would be a welcome
change in any organization. We also have wanted to believe that as a woman
climbed the corporate ladder she would extend her hand to other women
following the leadership path. Recognizing that women are more likely than
men to bully other women is hard to accept and even harder to discuss in a
public forum. But the statistics should not be ignored. If half of the
bullies in the workplace are women, then women managers need to assume
responsibility for analyzing their roles and contributions to this
organizational dynamic. Even one bully is too many.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies,
jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 139-158.Bailyn,
L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men and time in the new corporate world.
New York: Free Press.Bertucco, M. (2001, May/June). Bad behavior. Psychology
Today, p. 28.Brunner, P. W., & Costello, M. L. (Spring, 2002). Where's
the joke? The meaning behind sexual humor. Advancing Women in Leadership.
Retrieved November 15, 2002, from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/spring2002/
BRUNN%7E37.HTM Corsun, D. L., & Costen, W. M. (2001). Is the glass ceiling
unbreakable?: Habitus, fields, and the stalling of women and minorities in
management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(1), 16-25. Cox, T. (1993). Cultural
diversity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Ely,
R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations:
A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational
Behaviour, 22, 103-151. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1999). Enforcement
guidance: Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors
(Report No. 915667). Washington, DC: Author.Flynn, G. (1999, August). Stop
toxic managers before they stop you! Workforce. Retrieved May 28, 2001, from
http://www.workforce.com/archive/ article/000/36/83.xci Helgesen, S. (1990).
The female advantage. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Helgesen, S. (1995). The
web of inclusion. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Harragan, B. H. (1977). Games
mother never taught you: Corporate gamesmanship. New York: Rawson Associates.Hornstein,
H. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey: How to identify and overcome abuse
in the workplace. New York: Riverhead Books.Institute of Management and Administration.
(2001, April). Workplace bullying: Why you need to be concerned about it.
Safety Director'sReport. Retrieved May 29, 2001, fromhttp://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_ansset=GeHauKO-EVYRMsSEVYRUUWR
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2000, January). Workplace abuse and aggression.
Paper presented at Workplace Bullying 2000: Redefining Harassment, Oakland,
CA.Kennett, M. (2001, March 5). First class coach. Management Today, p. 106.Kurth,
S. B., Spiller, B. B., & Travis, C. B. (2000). Consent, power, and sexual
scripts: deconstructing sexual harassment. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White
(Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 323-354). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Labi, N. (2001, April
2). Let bullies beware. Time, pp. 46-47.Martin, P. Y. (1996). Gendering and
evaluating dynamics: Men, masculinities, and managements. In D. Collinson
& J. Hearn (Eds.), Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives
on men, masculinities, and managements (pp. 186-209). London & Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.Matusak, L. (2001, June 28). Leadership: Gender
related, not gender specific. Academy of Leadership. Retrieved June 28, 2001,
from http://www.academy.umd.edu/scholarship/casl/salzburg/chapter3.htmNamie,
G. (2000). Quick View fact sheet. Retrieved January 8, 2002, from the Workplace
Bullying, USA Research 2000 Web site: http://www.workdoctor.com/home/twd/employers/res/
surv2000qv.htmlNamie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work. Naperville,
IL: SourceBooks, Inc.
Rosener, J. B. (1990).
Ways Women Lead. Harvard Business Review, November/December, 125.Russell,
J. D. (2001, March 5). Bully in the office. VARBusiness . Retreived May 29,
2001, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_ansset=GeHauKO-EVYRMsSEVYRUUWRValian,
V. (1998) Running in place. The Sciences, 38, pp. 18-23.Valian, V. (1999).
Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Authors
Dr. Penelope W. Brunner
is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of North Carolina
at Asheville.Dr. Melinda L. Costello is an Associate Professor of Management
at Siena College, Albany, New York.
Copyright
Advancing Women in Leadership holds the copyright to each article; however,
any article may be reproduced without permission, for educational purposes
only, provided that the full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following
credit line is cited: Copyright (year) by the Advancing Women in Leadership,
Advancing Women Website, www.advancingwomen.com; reproduced with permission
from the publisher. Any article cited as a reference in any other form should
also report the same such citation, following APA or other style manual guidelines
for citing electronic publications.
|
