Bullying vs mobbing (January 2009)

HOT TOPICS

Bullying vs mobbing (January 2009)

The terms bullying and mobbing are often seen together, and in some cases they are used interchangeably. The use of these terms remains contentious in the field, and this “hot topic” is not designed to change that. However, we thought it was about time we commented on this important issue, and made our views on the usage of “bullying” and “mobbing” clear.

The word “mobbing” originates from a phenomenon observed in bird behaviour. Birds often gang up on predators, or other animals who are seen as a threat, protecting themselves and the group.

The Royal Society for Protection of Birds (2001), indicates that:

Mobbing is a noisy, obvious form of behaviour that birds engage in to defend themselves or their offspring from predators. When a predator is discovered, the birds start to emit alarm calls and fly at the predator, diverting its attention and harassing it. Sometimes they make physical contact. Mobbing usually starts with just one or two birds, but may attract a large number of birds, often of many species. For example, a chorus of different alarm calls coming from the same tree is often a good sign of a roosting owl or a cat.

Mobbing behaviour has been recorded in a wide range of species, but it is particularly well developed in gulls and terns, while crows are amongst the most frequent mobbers. In addition to flying at the predator and emitting alarm calls, some birds, such as fieldfares and gulls, add to the effectiveness by defaecating or even vomiting on the predator with amazing accuracy...

In German and Scandinavian countries, the translation of  “mobbing” started to be used to refer to the behaviour of people at work, and included both group and individual behaviour. Leymann (1990), one of the original mobbing researchers, defined mobbing as “hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic way by one or a number of persons mainly toward one individual” (pp.120, italics added). However, in other locations, “mobbing” was taken to only refer to situations where groups of people enact particular negative behaviours on others. This seems reasonable, given the clear connotation of group behaviour that “mobbing” has in English.

“Workplace bullying” started to be used, presumably because (a) people already have an idea of what it means and (b) because they wanted to account for unreasonable behaviour that occurred between one individual and another.

 This would have been ok, except for the tendency that people have to use “bullying” and “mobbing” interchangeably, or use “bullying/mobbing” without delineating exactly what they mean. This has served to create confusion and had made comparison of different research findings problematic. Leymann (2000) suggested that we use “bullying” for school yard behaviours, and “mobbing” for workplace behaviours, but this has not really been taken up.

 The distinction between the terms is more than just a semantic or preferred usage issue, because different usage reflects different assumptions and values. Again, this has major implications for both research and practice. Some researchers have suggested conceptual differences between bullying and mobbing which go beyond the individual and group behaviour distinction. Some of these suggested distinctions appear to be inappropriate, based on how we typically define workplace bullying, and the cases of which we are aware.

 For example, Bultena and Whatcott (2008) suggest that the target of mobbing (which they identify with group behaviour) is strong, accomplished, competent etc, while the typical target of bullying (which they identify as one on one) is thought to be weak and chosen for their weakness. There is no real evidence that this is the case, and in fact there is evidence to suggest that the targets of bullying can also be strong, accomplished, competent and envied (Irish Health and Safety Authority, 2001).

Bultena and Whatcott (2008) go on to suggest that mobbing behaviours are more covert and indirect, while bullying is more direct and overt. Again, there is little evidence for this, and evidence to suggest that behaviours enacted by one individual on another can be extremely covert (e.g., leaving people off email lists). They suggest that management often sides with the “victim” in bullying, but with the mob in mobbing, consistent with their view that mobbing is more serious than bullying. There does not seem to be any substantial evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support this.

Westhues (2006) prefers the word “mobbing” (as opposed to bullying) due to its connotation with instinctual behaviours. By contrast, we far prefer to view bullying behaviours as being able to be displayed by anyone in any situation, and subject to learning and change. Claiming them as “natural” could lead to a spiralling dismissal of responsibility and unwillingness to change. If these behaviours were viewed as “natural”, individuals, work groups (or “mobs”) and organisations could get away with doing nothing. This view can be quite dangerous in terms of improving the level of dignity and respect afforded to all employees.

Proponents of “mobbing” may well be right about the stages of mobbing (see Westhues, 2006), and it seems reasonable that mobbing and bullying may have different motivations/explanations (eg., mobbing may be explained by social identity theory, in-group/out-group processes, or conservation of resources theory, see Hobfoll, 1989). We agree with proponents of mobbing (eg Westhues, 2006) on the call for gaining objective evidence on what occurs in bullying and mobbing situations, rather than only relying on the target’s view of the behaviour. We also agree that the intentions of the person who uses the behaviours, or lack thereof, are really not that important in the prevention and management of bullying.

However, we view the chief difference as being the involvement of one individual (bullying), or a group of individuals (mobbing). In both situations, people can be significantly harmed. The likely differences in progression and motivation further justify the need to retain both terms.

For the abovementioned reasons, and because the use of “mobbing” alone, in its current usage, does not account for one-one one unreasonable behaviours, we prefer to use bullying to refer to repeated unreasonable behaviours used by one person on another; and we use mobbing, more specifically, to refer to repeated unreasonable behaviours used by a group towards an individual.

More research is needed on bullying and mobbing, though at this point, good working definitions, consistently applied, are probably sufficient. However, because people around the world do continue to use the words differently, it is always important to clarify exactly what one means when using the terms, especially when using them together. We hope this “hot topic” has assisted with this aim.

References 

Bultena, C. D. & Whatcott, R. B. (2008). Bushwacked at work: A comparative analysis of mobbing and bullying at work. Proceedings of American Society of Business and Behavioural Sciences, 15(1), 652-666.

Irish Health and Safety Authority (2001). Dignity at work – The challenge of workplace bullying. Report of the Task Force on the prevention of workplace bullying. Dublin: The Stationery Office

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victim, 5, 119-126

Leymann, H (2000). The Mobbing encyclopaedia. Accessed on 15 November 2008, at http://www.leymann.se/English/frame.html

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2001). Mobbing. Accessed on 17 November 2008 at http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/watchingbirds/behaviour/mobbing.asp

Westhues, K. (2006). The remedy and prevention of mobbing in higher education. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press

Westhues, K. (2006). Ten choices in the study of workplace mobbing or bullying. Paper presented at the 5^th International Conference on Workplace Bullying, Dublin, June 2006.

Comment

Was this helpful?
No Very

Name (optional)

Website (optional)

Email Address (optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below

Comment (optional)