BULLYING IN SMALL TOWN SERVICE PROVIDERS IN NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA: THE EXPERIENCE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND
PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE

by

Mindy Vandenberg
B.A., Thompson Rivers University, 2005

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
DISABILITY MANAGEMENT

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
April 2012

© Mindy Vandenberg, 2012

1+1

Library and Archives
Canada

Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada

Published Heritage
Branch

Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
Your file Votre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-87543-,
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-87543-,

NOTICE:

AVIS:

The author has granted a non­
exclusive license allowing Library and
Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distrbute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non­
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le
monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur
support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou
autres formats.

The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in this
thesis. Neither the thesis nor
substantial extracts from it may be
printed or otherwise reproduced
without the author's permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni
la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci
ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting forms
may have been removed from this
thesis.

Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la
protection de la vie privee, quelques
formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de
cette these.

While these forms may be included
in the document page count, their
removal does not represent any loss
of content from the thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans
la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu
manquant.

Canada

ii

Abstract
This work is on bullying in small town service organizations from the perspective
of executive directors. The literature review touches on bullying research and discusses
theoretical lenses and the Salin (2003) lens that is used in this study. This is a qualitative
study using a phenomenological approach. Data come from text of seven interviews of
executive directors that manage organizations run by volunteer boards from Prince
Rupert to Prince George, British Columbia. The significant questions were the utility of
using Salin (2003) as a tool for focusing attention on important elements related to
workplace bullying, the role of location, and whether theory operationalizes neatly into
practice when it comes to workplace bullying. Five themes emerged: autonomy/lonliness,
measures of success, communication, fear, not just a job, and a discussion of what did not
fit into these themes. Discussion of the findings, limitations, recommendations and areas
for future research are presented.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract

ii

Table of Contents

iii

Acknowledgement

v

Chapter One

Introduction

1

Chapter Two

Literature Review
Prevalence
Defining Workplace Bullying
Specifics of Bullying Acts
Legal Issues and Human Rights
Perspectives on Antecedents of Bullying
Perspectives of Bullying
Costs of Workplace Bullying

3
3
6
8
9
10
13
18

Chapter 3

Methods
21
Quantitative Versus Qualitative
21
Selection of Agencies
23
Selection of Qualitative Method
24
Significant Questions
30
Positioning the Researcher
30
Rationale for Use of Salin (2003) as a Lens 33
Motivating Structures and Processes 35
Precipitating Processes
35
Enabling Structures and Processes 36
Further Study from Salin (2003)
36
Participant Selection
36
Analysis
37

Chapter Four

Results

39
Themes
39
Theme 1: Autonomy/Lonliness
39
Theme 2: Measures of Success
39
Theme 3: Communication
40
Theme 4: Fear
41
Theme 5: Not Just a Job
42
What Did Not Fit
43
Salin (2003) Utility in Detection/Prediction 44
Definition
53
Resolution and Prevention
54
Organizational Structure
56

iv

Chapter 5

Discussion
Effectiveness of Salin(2003) in
Prediction/Detection
Role of Location
Echoes in the Literature
What Makes a Successful
Executive Director?
Recommendations
Limitations of this Study
Further Research

References

58
58
61
64
68
71
76
78

80

Appendix A:

Participant Interview Questions

86

Appendix B:

Consent Form

88

V

Acknowledgement
I want to thank my family, in particular my husband Albert and my son Anyon, who had
to live with me through this process from start to finish. Mommy is no longer "on her
thesis", it finally hatched. It has been a trying few years for multiple reasons, but we are
all through it better and stronger.
I also want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Henry Harder for sticking with me. I also want to
thank my committee members Dr. Shannon Wagner and Dr Cindy Hardy. Thanks go to
Shannon for convincing me to go this route at the beginning of my studies, and thanks go
to Cindy for her meticulous feedback. Both of your contributions made my work so much
better.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to the participants in my study, as without their interest and
participation this thesis could not exist.

1

Introduction
Workplace bullying is becoming a topic of increasing interest in the fields of
Disability Management, Rehabilitation, Human Resources, and Organizational
Behaviour. Workplace bullying, psychological harassment and mobbing are terms used to
describe certain toxic acts within organizations that illustrate extreme elements of
negative psychosocial environments, and may be indicative of violence prone
environments.
Workplace bullying is considered an important area of study for reasons of law,
costs to the organization and society, and of ethics. The inherent injustice of the
workplace bullying situation is one where no society considering itself a moral and just
entity should tolerate. The personal impact on targets is severe (Leymann, 1990;
Leymann, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008). There is further evidence that targets suffering
workplace psychological harassment are more adversely affected than targets of
workplace sexual harassment: "...being the victim of workplace aggression is associated
with more harmful outcomes than is being the victim of sexual aggression" (Hershcovis
& Barlow, 2010, p. 886). This issue is one that can be very emotionally charged, as it can
also be linked to devastating events in the media such as workplace shootings in Canada
(CBC News, 2000; Macatee Report, 2003). As awareness of this phenomenon spreads,
the ethical imperative to curb this behaviour within organizations becomes more salient
and politicized. This is evidenced in Canadian society by the changes to legislation in the
provinces of Quebec (Gouverenement du Quebec, 2006), Province of Saskatchewan
(2007), Province of Ontario (2009), Province of Manitoba (2011), the Canada Labour
Code (2008), and the final outcome of the Sulz case (Court of Appeal for British

2

Columbia, 2006). It remains to be seen if the interpretation of these laws result in real
changes within affected work environments. The legislation taken from Canadian
Provinces use the term "harassment" and clearly state variations on the definition as
being unwanted behavior that a reasonable person would interpret as being unwelcome or
psychologically damaging. Generally one common element in the research is that
multiple acts of harassment must occur over time. One large difference between
legislation and the literature when it comes to defining the parameters of bullying is that
legislation accepts single acts while the literature stipulates occurrences over time.
Another element that contributes to difficulties in describing the parameters of bullying is
power imbalance. Employees can be mistreating each other, but if they are successful in
defending against these negative actions then it cannot be said that bullying has occurred.
It can be stated that the psychosocial atmosphere within the workplace is negative, and
the risk for bullying to occur is increased. It is difficult for the law to make distinctions
between what constitutes bullying and what is conflict or issues of normal workplace
disciplinary practices.
Diligent research into the phenomenon can illuminate elements that relate to
theoretical practice to recognize, remediate or prevent workplace bullying, but these
theories are difficult to test in practice. Ethical considerations and confidentiality are two
major barriers to this research, particularly when this research involves organizations that
are located within smaller or rural communities.

3

Literature Review
Prevalence
In British Columbia, an 800 household telephone poll found that 28% of the
respondents had experience with workplace bullying (Lome Mayencourt, 2008), and in
Quebec, the rate estimate is 1 in 10 workers (Canada Safety Council, 2005). Agervold's
(2007) study results illustrate how a definition can make a big difference in determining
prevalence of workplace bullying. Within this study sample results ranged from an
overall sample population measure between one and twenty-six percent, depending on the
specific definition used. When the definition is based upon respondents self labeling their
experience as bullying, the prevalence rate is around 1%. If measures of observed
negative acts are the focus then the rate is 3.3%. When the measure is changed from acts
occurring weekly to 2-3 times per month, the prevalence rate rises to 26%. LutgenSandvik et al. (2007) found the prevalence rate when self identified was 9.4%. When
operational measures were used this figure rises to 28%. The measure used was at least 2
negative acts per week for 6 months. Yildiz (2007) found in his Turkish study that
workplace bullying prevalence is 47 %. All of these studies utilized some form of a
Negative Acts Questionnaire of at least 20-40 items except for Agervold (2007) which
only utilized 10 items. This may be a reason that this study's prevalence rate of observed
negative acts is 3.3%. Namie (2010) with the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI)
illustrates prevalence rates from 2007 and 2010. The categories measures are currently
bullied, bullied in past but not now, and witness of bullying. The 2007 survey results
show a rate of 36.8% of experience with bullying and in 2010 this measure is 34.5%. The
tally for current, past and witness is 49% for 2007 and 50% for 2010. It is safe to

4

conclude that parameters of definition make a difference in prevalence rate. A further
complication in measures of prevalence of workplace bullying is whether or not there is a
requirement of the target to self label their experience as a bully victim. This illustrates
the merit in stating that the stipulated use of self identification with this label could
contribute to under reporting of workplace bullying as discussed in Lutgen-Sandvik et al
2007. Reasons that targets may not want to admit to ownership of the label of victim of
workplace bullying discussed are a stigma of weakness or a lack of visibility of
workplace bullying in the culture. It is safe to conclude that bullying in the workplace is a
widespread phenomenon based on operational prevalence measures. It can be further
concluded that negative psychosocial environments appear to be quite common, even if
bullying in these individual workplaces is not specifically quantified. Salin (2003)
reviewed literature on bullying and summarized the phenomenon which helps to clarify
and illuminate the phenomenon from an organizational approach.
The complexity of the phenomenon makes it difficult for researchers to gain
access to comparable data across studies with elements related to issues such prevalence
rates, definitions, and antecedents among others. Cross study comparisons are further
complicated when subjective elements are introduced. Limitations related to ethics and
confidentiality further make studies focused on smaller or rural communities more
difficult, which may explain why there is a gap in the research in this area.
One focus of this study is to gain insight into the phenomenon of workplace
bullying from a smaller or rural community perspective. Other questions are related to the
utility of using the work of Salin (2003) as a lens through which to identify the
phenomenon, and help to focus on relevant elements within workplaces to identify and

5

define the phenomenon, recognize antecedents, the role of power dynamics, and
resolutions or prevention of this phenomenon in real life workplace settings.
Sorensen (2005) compiled a Rural British Columbia Profile: A ten year census
analysis (1991-2001). Within this document there is discussion of two different measures
of rural. One being cited as McNiven et al (2000) discussion of Metropolitan Influence
Zone (MIZ). The other is Rural and Small Town (RST), Census Metropolitan Area
(CMA) and Census Agglomeration (CA) which are derived from population numbers
gathered by Statistics Canada (Sorensen, 2005). RST is a population less than 10,000
with less than half of employees that commute into work to a CMA. A CMA is a location
that has a core population of at least 100,000 and includes all neighboring municipalities
where half or more of employees commute to the CMA urban core. A CA location has an
urban core of 10,000 to 99,999 with the same commuting rules for CMA (Sorensen,
2005). These are sensible quantitative measures of rural and urban, and they relate
directly to British Columbia which is the location of this study, in Northern British
Columbia. This study is focused upon communities from Prince Rupert to Prince George
along Highway 16. The largest community within that geographic area is Prince George.
According to the Live Prince George website, the population falls within the previous
parameters of a CA population in that the core of Prince George population is 71,030
and has a CA of 83, 225 from surrounding areas. Sorensen (2005) stipulated that CMA
and CA would be considered "urban", so Prince George with a rating that falls within a
CA measurement would have been considered urban in that study. However, in this
study, Prince George was a location included in the target research communities as the
focus is on qualitative experiences, and individuals who reside in this community may

6

not perceive themselves as being members of an urban community. The main focus of
this study is on the lived experiences of the participants more than on quantitative
measures based upon census data.
Defining Workplace Bullying
One difficulty in a discussion about workplace bullying is arriving at an
acceptable, descriptive, and measurable definition. Such a definition must encompass the
scope of the behaviour and experience of the bullies as well as targets, be distinguishable
from commonplace negative workplace behaviours which do not necessarily qualify as
bullying, and be clear enough to gain an accurate measure of prevalence. Heinz Leymann
(1990) is credited for producing the seminal research in this area, and his definitions are
loosely used to study this phenomenon (Agervold, 2007; Yildiz, 2007). Generally, studies
utilize some form of Leymann's definition which holds that negative acts must occur
with a stated frequency and duration, usually one to two acts weekly and persist for at
least 6 months in order to qualify the behaviour as bullying (Agervold, 2007; LutgenSandvik et al., 2007). Agervold (2007) stipulates the general framework of definition for
study based upon the work of Leymann. Agervold followed Leymann's work in that the
definition is distinct from conflict in that there are measures of frequency, duration,
subjective experience, and escalation. Also included is an element of power imbalance in
that it involves a supervisor or superior, or over time the target becomes increasingly
powerless as the situation escalates. Hartig and Frosch (2006) discuss international
terminology, and offer a further definition of 'mobbing'. They use mobbing to describe
instances of workplace harassment as characterized by a single target being attacked by
many: "the ganging up on co-workers" (p. 2). It is important to note that the terms

7

bullying and mobbing are often used interchangeably, and other terms may include
'emotional abuse', 'victimization', 'mistreatment', 'harassment', and 'psychological
terror', 'personal abuse', 'psychological harassment', 'workplace violence', and, in some
of the literature, may be covered under 'abusive supervision'(Agervold, 2007; Canada
Labour Code, 2008; Governement du Quebec, 2006; Hartig & Frosch, 2006; Leymann,
1990; Leymann, 1996; Namie, 2007; Province of Manitoba, 2011; Province of Ontario,
2009; Province of Saskatchewan, 2007). Saunders et al (2007) include discussions around
essential and non essential criteria for definition. Elements such as types of behaviours
(covert/overt) and effects on targets are classed as essential. Non- Essential elements
include persistence, perceived power imbalance and labeling. Generally, studies utilize
some form of Leymann's definition which holds that negative acts must occur with a
stated frequency and duration, usually one act weekly and persist for at least 6 months in
order to qualify the behaviour as bullying (Agervold, 2007; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).
Canadian governments place this issue under the umbrella of workplace violence. Of
interest, some governments break with the literature by including single serious acts
within legislation (Governement du Quebec, 2006; Province of Manitoba, 2011; Province
of Saskatchewan, 2007)
The definitions of bullying within the legislation in Saskatchewan and the Canada
Labour Code generally follow the same pattern that was placed in the Quebec legislation,
the first of its kind in North America. However, the legislation in Ontario, which is often
cited as a response to bullying or psychological harassment, misses the mark for
workplace bullying, as it stipulates a threat that must be in physical form. The definition
of workplace bullying according to Agervold (2007) is:

8

...a social interaction in which the sender uses verbal and/or non-verbal
communication regularly, weekly and for a period of at least 6 months that is
directed towards the personality and self-esteem of the receiver. A person
perceives or feels that he is being bullied when he regularly, weekly and for a
period of at least six months, experiences such verbal and non-verbal
communication as intentionally negative and as constituting a threat to his selfesteem and personality (p.165).

Agervold's definition clearly illustrates the non-physical form of threat to individuals
who are targeted for mistreatment. The government of Manitoba has the most complete
definition in that it covers repeated acts over time, single serious acts, misuse of power
and authority, acts that threaten economic livelihood, undermine job performance,
interference with career, adversely affect dignity, psychological or physical integrity, or
results in a harmful workplace (Government of Manitoba, 2011).
Specifics of Bullying Acts
It is important to discuss specific examples of harassing acts in order to
differentiate and expand on psychological harassment from a discussion of stressful
workplaces or aggressive supervision. The presence of stress in workplaces or aggressive
supervisors does not necessarily mean the presence of bullying, particularly if the
definition used specifies the target of the harassing acts does not self identify as a victim
or feel they are at a power disadvantage. However, measures of the presence of targeted
specific acts over time has been used by researchers to state the presence of workplace
bullying independent of the subjective experience of individual workers. Sweden has
defined acts of psychological harassment within their legislation as has the International
Labour Organization, and in Canada the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and
Safety (CCOHS) ("Answers Page", 2008). They all use very similar examples. These
include but are not limited to things like persistent criticism, abuse of authority, setting

9

employees up to fail, tampering with personal workspaces, ostracism, supervision with
harmful intent, sabotage, impeding performance, gossip, threats, ridicule, constant change
of work guidelines, removing areas of responsibility without cause, belittling by
assigning tasks below job description or skill level, with holding information, shouting
and verbal abuse, use of profanity, and subjecting an employee to offensive
administrative or penal sanctions such as delaying applications for leave, training, or
vacation (CCOHS, 2008;Von Bergen et al., 2006, p. 15).
Legal Issues and Human Rights
Typical workplace psychological harassment or bullying actions are not based on
any protected status of the target and are therefore not covered under Canadian Human
Rights Legislation (Government of BC, 1996; Government of Canada, 1960,1982).
The Canadian Human Rights Act (Government of Canada, 1985) is the basis for
discrimination law in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (2011) and
similar venues for hearings accepts cases based on discrimination protected grounds such
as race, colour, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, sex, marital status, family status,
mental or physical disability, pardoned conviction, and sexual orientation. In their
definition of harassment they include threats, intimidation, or verbal abuse, and note that
it can consist of a single incident or more incidents over time and that it can create a
negative or hostile work environment. These acts within workplaces can and do occur but
may not be specifically linked to the protected grounds within human rights legislation.
Therefore these issues cannot be pursued under this legislation.
With respect to tort law in Canada the following cases are illustrative. Heeney
(2007) discusses the case of Shah v. Xerox Canada Ltd. in which the court found that

10

resignation following harassment constitutes constructive dismissal. Humphrey (2006)
lists cases in which significant awards were granted in cases of harassment. These cases
include Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, Rees v. RCMP, and Sulz v. RCMP. These cases
illustrate willingness on behalf of the courts of Canada to enforce requirements on
employers to address personal harassment in their workplaces.
Perspectives on Antecedents of Bullying
An obvious question that arises from even the most conservative prevalence rate
is what factors contribute to this phenomenon. Some researchers have focused on
personality or individual traits of targets (Glaso et al., 2007; Michell & Ambrose, 2007;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002) in an effort to determine factors that contribute to a
bullying situation in the workplace. This is an important element in promotion of
understanding regarding this question, and great care must be taken in this approach as
this line of reasoning could easily degrade into blaming the victim and stigmatization.
However, it has been determined it cannot be claimed targets of workplace bullying
display any set personality profile (Glaso et al., 2007, Peyton, 2003). There is discussion
regarding common traits being the result of bullying, or traits being present previous to
becoming a target, such as measures of neuroticism (Glaso et al., 2007; Leymann, 1996).
This is a question that can never be definitively answered due to the nature of ethical
research practices. Correlational studies are not able to illustrate cause and effect of
bullying on the personality. In order to show workplace bullying causes personality
changes it is necessary to take a reasonably healthy individual, measure their personality,
subject them to workplace bullying for varying amounts of time and then measure
personality afterwards for change. It would be irresponsible and unethical in the extreme

to subject a psychologically healthy individual to repeated and persistent abuse in the
form of workplace bullying in order to causally prove the extent and causes of permanent
psychological damage to the personality. However, it is interesting to note that Leymann
provides some correlational evidence that prolonged exposure to workplace bullying can
result in permanent personality changes (Leymann, 1996).
Other contributing factors that have been explored are related to management and
supervision styles (Aryee et al., 2007; Bono et al., 2007; Harvey et al., 2007; Hoel &
Beale, 2006; Skogstad et al., 2007; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007; Takao et al., 2006),
general cultural contributions on a macro scale (Hyde et al., 2006; Kelly, 2007; LutgenSandvik et al., 2007; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007; Yildiz, 2007), or on the scale of
industrial relations and general workplace culture (Hoel & Beale, 2006; Hyde et al.,
2006; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007;
Yildiz, 2007). Since experts in the field generally support the notion of power imbalance
or struggle for power as a contributing factor in the emergence of bullying in the
workplace, it is not surprising that much attention is placed upon the role of managers
and supervisors within the workplace environment. Hoel and Cooper and Unison found
that one in four cases of bully behaviour occurred between a supervisor and subordinate
as cited in Hoel & Beale, (2006). A US survey found that 72 percent of cases were
managers as the perpetrators (Fitzgibbon & Gervais, 2008; Namie, 2007). Much
discussion is centered on the psychosocial environment of individual workplaces and the
role of management to encourage or discourage a hostile working climate which fosters
bullying behaviour. Common contributing factors related to management practices and
promotion of a culture at risk of bullying behaviour include: ignoring conflict, lack of

12

clear policy on duties causing a scramble for power and increased role conflicts,
encouragement of competition, implicit and explicit acceptance of bully behaviour, and
poor change management (Bono et al., 2007; Hoel & Beale, 2006; Hyde et al., 2006;
Kelly, 2007; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Skogstad et al., 2007; Strandmark & Hallberg,
2007; Takao et al., 2006; Yildiz, 2007).
There are studies that explore aspects related directly to the individual who
performs these negative acts. Harvey et al. (2006) provide an interesting discussion
regarding the brain structure of bullies based upon aggression research. They elaborate
the discussion to include the aggressor's past experience, and opportunity. The majority
of bullies are described as being opportunistic with an ability to read favourable
situational cues on which they can then act. Harvey et al (2006) recommend management
identify and screen employees to treat bullies in their midst, as well as prevent their
hiring in the first place. This is a problematic approach, as argued in Denenberg and
Braverman (1999), as they quote a specialist in the field: "...clinical research 'indicates
that psychiatrists and psychologists are accurate in no more than one out of three
predictions of violent behavior over a several year period among institutionalized
populations,' whose past behaviour is well documented. There is even less chance of
correctly predicting the behaviour of non institutionalized persons, such as workers" (p.
148). Therefore any screening tool used is at best a snapshot in time for prospective job
applicants, and would therefore be even less reliable. The latter would lack a thorough
background knowledge that is present in the case of the former. Although Denenberg and
Braverman (1999) are discussing the violence prone workplace, much of the information
presented is applicable to bullies, targets and workplaces, as bullying can be a trigger for

13

violence or even be considered as a type of workplace violence, as was posited of Pierre
LeBrun in the OC Transpo case (CBC News, 2000; Williams & Sharp, 2003). Denenberg
& Braverman (1999) argue that bullying can lead to violent outbursts:

. .imagine being

subjected day after day to abuse, hardship, or humiliation by a bully.. .each of us would
resort to it [violence] if pushed to the limit" (p. 142). It is posited that an approach that
has its focus on preventing a bully prone individual from joining the organization is an
impulsive quick fix answer in that its appeal lies in its simplicity even if it may not be
effective (Vu, 2003). Blind to problems until after a violent incident has occurred; the
organization and the public may find it difficult to separate the bully from the bullied.
There is some evidence that any individual can become the aggressor if the circumstances
and related stresses are right (McKenna, 2004; Tepper, 2007). A more useful direction of
investigation into solving this complex problem would be to focus on the organization
itself, arguably the only place that has the power to remedy the situation. "Rather than
hunt for a few supposed 'bad apples' in the barrel, we ought to examine the barrel itself,
recognizing that violence is ultimately the product of social or organizational change and
other factors that leave the working environment potentially volatile" (Denenberg &
Braverman, 1999, p. 16). Indeed, the efficacy of management training programs to
increase competence of managers has been questioned, as skill may not be able to be
separated from individual predispositions or the context of behaviour (McKenna, 2004).
Perspectives of Bullying
The Strandmark and Hallberg (2007) study, which looks at the origins of
workplace bullying, provides an explanatory framework that synthesizes many of the
mechanisms that give rise to this phenomenon. The situation begins in a small way and

14

then escalates. This beginning is rooted in an environment where there is "restricted
participation, weak or indistinct leadership, betrayed expectations and unclear roles" (p.
335). In other words, the organization provides the parameters of the psychosocial
environment. The presence of this unstable foundation in the psychosocial environment
makes it possible for a values conflict between individuals. If management is
unresponsive to these conflicts, then they become entrenched. Persons who do not mesh
with hidden cultural norms risk being singled out for mistreatment. Strandmark and
Hallberg were interested to note that engagement and competence were often cited as
reasons for being singled out for mistreatment. The results of this situation often give rise
to a power struggle, and if management fails to remedy the situation, both sides become
more estranged from each other and individual stances become more disparate. This
ultimately ends when one side is victorious over the other by managing to isolate the
individual and begins the systematic bullying practice to gain/maintain power. If these
contributing mechanisms as outlined in this work are accepted, then it is easy to see how
things like poor change management, weak or absent leadership, lack of clear
organizational direction, role ambiguity, role conflict and other associated workplace
stressors that give rise to frustration can easily be viewed as a recipe for workplace
bullying. It is also easy to see that the workplace itself is not only the key to giving rise to
this destructive phenomenon, but it also holds the keys for successful prevention and
outcomes.
Salin (2003) illustrates a very useful framework when describing the process of
bullying. She utilizes a three pronged and interrelated conceptual lens which consists of
three categories: motivating structures and processes, precipitating processes, and

15

enabling structures and processes (p. 1218). Motivating structures and processes is a
category that relates to the organization. Examples in this category are internal
competition, reward system and expected benefits, bureaucracy, and difficulties to lay off
employees. Precipitating processes is a category that relates to external issues of which
individuals and the organization have little to no control. Examples given are
restructuring and crises, other organizational changes, changes in management or
composition of the work group. Enabling structures and processes is a category that
relates to the individuals within the workplace. Examples given are perceived power
imbalance, low perceived costs, and dissatisfaction and frustration (p. 1218). Each of
these elements are viewed as possibly necessary but not sufficient to the presence of
bullying in any individual organization. Salin (2003) argues that if elements are present
from some or all of these categories the presence of bullying within an organization is
more likely. The work of Salin (2003) is very useful as it describes many contributing
factors in the psychosocial environment of the workplace, such as structure, competition,
power dynamics, change management, outside social forces, culture, and personalities of
the individuals within the workplace. This fits well with other discussions of bullying that
describe a step by step process. This model could prove to be a very good lens through
which to examine the phenomenon of bullying or psychological harassment in the
workplace. Its utility and success comes from its three pronged approach to bullying. It
utilizes views from within the organization, from without the organization and
individuals within the workplace. It serves to focus attention on elements and take a more
holistic view of the organization. Using these elements could serve as a tool to identify

16

flags of risk. These elements relate to literature that focuses on definitions, power
dynamics, change management, resolutions and prevention.
Lutgen-Sandvik (2003) describes six stages of bullying: initial incident,
progressive discipline, turning point, organizational ambivalence, isolation/silencing, and
expulsion/cycle regeneration. Hartig and Frosch (2006) discuss five stages from work
from Davenport et al. (2002) based upon earlier work of Heinz Leymann. The five stages
are: initial conflict; aggressive acts; involve management; branded as difficult/mentally
ill; and finally expulsion. Earlier cited examples of bullying behaviour fit into many
different stages which could be helpful in discovering bullying and help determine how
to short circuit the cycle.
Hoel and Beale (2006) argue for a "less orthodox" (p. 239) approach to bullying.
They place responsibility directly upon management and the organization as a whole.
Imbalance of power is also central to their argument for their ideas regarding prevention
and treatment of the bullying phenomenon. Their discussion centers on the UK public
service, where there is high prevalence of workplace bullying. A reason for this is
discussed as a change in culture resulting from a move from a public service orientation
to a private sector orientation. In other words, there is a major philosophical change that
results in the destabilization of the power dynamic, which falls under all three elements
of the work of Salin (2003). The focus of this study is a sample in the UK public service
at a time when there were cultural changes taking place, mainly the cultural change from
a government not focused on profit toward a more for - profit private sector approach.
They examine the change in working conditions and the resulting associated pressures
from factors such as downsizing, increases in private sector - like performance appraisals,

coupled with cultural changes that reduce the power of unions, and change of the culture
of management and traditional management controls. It is posited that management
assumes bullying behaviours as a reaction to the cultural change situation in order to
reestablish and maintain control of the workforce. This hypothesis fits with Tepper's
(2007) research on how anyone can become a bully in the right circumstances, further
illustrating the futility of using psychological testing to weed out undesirables. The
argument put forward in Hoel and Beale (2006) is to distribute the balance of power more
equally by encouraging unions to exercise their position in the workforce to alleviate
injustices to individual workers. Essentially, the organization is the bully and individuals
need to organize to rectify the power imbalance. However, this may be too simplistic an
approach, which may do more harm than good. Denenberg & Braverman (1999) warn
against setting up circumstances which encourage labour-management polarization, as
often these situations increase risk of violence and do little to encourage mutually
beneficial outcomes. The Hoel and Beale (2006) study looks at the issue from a macro
conflict theorist perspective, which helps to explain the recommendation to look at power
between management and employee groups within the workplace and not necessarily
individuals. Other studies such as Strandmark & Hallberg (2007) focus on micro
perspective in that the focus is placed upon individuals within the workplace. However,
both perspectives suggest that poor psychosocial environments, no matter what their
cause, can be improved with good management and organizational practices that are
completely within the scope of action available to organizations. As Hoel and Beale
(2006) work from a conflict theory perspective, an increase in union power is suggested.
This may be helpful if the act of negotiating this power does not come from struggles

18

emanating from polarized entities which set up win or lose situations. This polarization
does not contribute to positive relationships, but encourages conflict. Power and control
rests with management, and ability to rectify poor psychosocial elements within the
workplace also rests with management, provided stakeholder involvement is encouraged.
Clear, firm policy initiatives would go far in preventing conflict and bullying, as well as
maintaining vigilance when it comes to prevention. If warnings from Denenberg and
Braverman (1999) regarding polarization are incorporated into the framing of a remedy
by engagement of all stakeholders, chances of success should increase. This appears to
be positive information for organizations that have an ethic of real commitment to the
promotion of respectful workplaces.
Costs of Workplace Bullying
Workplace bullying is costly to the target/victim, the workplace, and to society
(Canada Labour Code; Court of Appeal, 2006; Leymann, 1990; Leymann, 1996, LutgenSandvik, 2008). The target of bullying can suffer permanent damage to reputation,
psychological well being and financial security, and runs the risk of being unable to
participate in the workforce resulting in remaining disabled for the balance of their life
(Leymann, 1996). Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) report that bullying can "fundamentally
threaten essential life domains (professional/personal identity, ability to provide for
oneself, security of physical safety)" (p. 855). There is also evidence to support the
assertion that other individuals within the workplace are adversely affected by bullying
even if they are not the direct target of negative acts. Witnesses of these acts experience
deterioration in their workplace environment and may fear becoming a target themselves
(Harvey et al., 2007; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Rudner, 2007). Generally this can have

19

negative effects throughout an organization (Leymann, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003;
Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007;
Skogstad et al., 2007). Costs of workplace bullying to the organization include reduced
productivity related to morale, decreased engagement, and severe damage to the company
reputation (Hoel & Beale, 2006; Hyde et al., 2006; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; LutgenSandvik et al., 2007; Leymann, 1996; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Mitchell & Ambrose,
2007; Shannon et al., 2006; Skogstad et al., 2007; Yildiz, 2007). Leymann (1996) argues
there is resulting costs to the overall healthcare system.
More societies are recognizing the associated costs of bullying to individuals,
organizations and society, and are taking steps to enact anti-bullying legislation. Quebec
is the first province in Canada, and indeed the first jurisdiction in North America, to
introduce law specific to this type of workplace issue by amending its Act Respecting
Labor Standards (LSA) to define psychological harassment (Canada Safety, 2005;
Government of Quebec, 2005). Saskatchewan has amended the Occupational Health and
Safety Act to protect workers from psychological harassment. Changes were made to the
Canada Labour Code and the Province of Manitoba has enacted legislation to address
bullying. This follows laws that have been enacted in Europe. Leymann, (1996) under
"Effects on Society" from his online mobbing encyclopeadia discusses changes to
Sweden's Vocational Rehabilitation Act that came into effect in 1993 and 1994:
This law states that employers are obliged to present a vocational rehabilitation
plan to the Social Insurance Office as soon as an employee has been on sick leave
one month, or ten times within a twelve month period. The purpose of this
enactment is to transfer costs for rehabilitation to the origin; the workplace where
poor environmental conditions triggered costly consequences (third paragraph).

20

These measures recognize the power of the workplace to control and prevent this type of
injury by requiring workplaces to bear a direct cost in relation to its occurrence
(Leymann, 1996).
The goals of this study are to examine the lived experiences of individuals
regarding workplace bullying and to test the theory of workplace bullying being an
organizational problem. This study will examine the lived experience of individuals in
workplaces located in perceived smaller community organizations in relation to
workplace bullying. The second goal is to test the utility of the Salin (2003) framework in
detecting the presence of workplace bullying within these individual workplaces. There is
a further interest in how these organizations deal with workplace bullying if it is present
and how the presence or absence of workplace bullying in these workplaces relate to the
literature. This study will build on the existing literature because it has its focus from an
organizational theoretical perspective on workplace bullying through individuals' lived
experience in real workplaces. Studies of bullying have their focus on quantitative
methods such as questionnaires, or approaches based upon surveys of self identified
targets. This study is unique in that there is no specific focus or requirement for bullying
to be present in the target workplaces, just risk factors for the presence of bullying. The
aim of this study is to use the summary framework from Salin (2003) on workplace
bullying to see if individuals in real life work situations could find utility in the
framework that assists in defining, preventing or remediating the problem of workplace
bullying in the participant workplaces.

21

Methods

The purpose of this study was to examine workplace bullying specifically in
workplaces located within smaller communities. One of the largest challenges in the
workplace bullying research is the fact that information about bullying is mostly made up
of data collected from individuals who self-identify as being targeted within their
workplace. There is little objective data that clearly illustrates that these individuals were
targets or if they were aggressors, or simply embittered employees who were unhappy
with management practices at their organizations. Difficulties with the subjective nature
of issues related to the definition of bullying, such as requiring targets to adopt the label
of victim, complicate the study of bullying. Due to the nature of bullying, there are
barriers to overcome to obtain objective data. There are difficulties associated with access
to private personnel records, and ethical considerations related to labeling an individual
as a bully or a victim. It was decided to shift focus away from specific organizations who
reported issues with bullying and look at general service agencies within smaller
communities.
Quantitative Versus Qualitative
The obvious quantitative approach for a study on workplace bullying would be to
conduct a survey with a validated instrument such as the Negative Acts Questionnaire
(NAQ), as there is evidence of the utility and validity of this measure (Einarsen et al,
2009). It became clear that this approach has several barriers as outlined in Cozby (2001).
These barriers relate to issues of sampling, response rates, and administration of the
NAQ. As the focus in this study is on smaller populations, finding a large enough target
sample would be problematic. There would be a possibility of targeting a large number of

22

individuals randomly based upon where they reside. This would provide a large enough
sample size, but finding a list of persons who would meet criteria would be very difficult
to obtain. In smaller communities, readily available lists such as phone book listings
would not be useful as these populations have different mailing addresses from the
physical addresses listed in telephone directories. Another issue with a quantitative
survey approach besides gaining a large enough representative sample would be the
information that can be gleaned with an approach using the NAQ. This approach would
be useful in determining prevalence within smaller community populations, but it would
be difficult to glean details that would illuminate issues specific to these smaller
communities. So it was decided that richer data could be obtained using qualitative
methods.
Another barrier to using quantitative methods in researching subjects such as
workplace bullying in smaller communities is obtaining large enough samples of
participants. Often the largest services and therefore the largest number of available
participants are attached to very large organizations such as government agencies or
health authorities. However, when these institutions were approached, they were adverse
to participating in this area of research. These larger agencies have the resources to study
this issue in house without having to deal with scrutiny from outside the organization.
Due to the sensitive nature of workplace bullying, it is understandable why larger
organizations would choose to forgo participation in such studies. This fact was a large
consideration in choosing a qualitative approach as the requirement to obtain large
samples is not stressed.

23

Therefore, smaller agencies located within rural areas that provide social services
with volunteer boards were targeted. These organizations were posited to be more open to
this type of research and this indeed proved to be the case. These agencies lack the
resources of the larger agencies such as provincial government agencies or health
authorities. If the larger agencies identify internal issues such as workplace bullying, they
usually have resources to scrutinize their organization in-house, an approach that is
beyond the reach of smaller organizations.
Selection of Agencies
Social service agencies were chosen for a very specific reason: these are the
services that are often under-funded in rural areas and there is a shortage of qualified
individuals residing in rural areas to run these programs. A minimum of a Bachelors
degree, and often a Masters degree is needed for individuals of these agencies to qualify
for service provision contracts, depending on the service. These organizations rely upon
public fluids or grants. Accountability is essential for the survival of these organizations
and their ability to obtain funds. Issues related to professional competence are outlined on
the CARF website (CARF International, 2011). Accountability for public funds is a
requirement and this is illustrated by the presence of organizations such as CARF
International whose mandate through accreditation strives to ensure quality in service
provision. This trend is further evidenced by requirements of individual professionals to
obtain accreditation through professional associations. In smaller rural communities, the
demographics of the population that hold necessary educational requirements clearly
illustrate how small this population is in these smaller centers. For example, from the
Statistics Canada Community Profiles 2006, in one of the target communities it was

24

found that of the total population of residents 15 yrs of age and above, 150 out of 1595
had a university certificate, diploma or degree; or just 9% of the population. This
population is not specific to individuals who work in service professions, but includes
every profession located within the area. The percentage of those individuals who qualify
to provide social services would be even less. The issue of professional competency is
one that has been clear in personal experience as a member of a Board.
One conclusion reached from these facts is that the only way to be able to
guarantee anonymity due to the population size would be to target a wide range of
agencies from a wide range of communities. Therefore, it was decided to target all
communities between Prince Rupert and Prince George BC, along Highway 16. EDs that
run agencies that provide social services with volunteer boards were targeted because the
structure of these workplaces could be seen as a risk for the presence of workplace
bullying. This is thought to be an accurate inference due to the ambiguities of power
inherent in the structure and due to the stressful nature of the work performed.
Participants were approached based upon those elements, but it was not assumed that
bullying was present in these workplaces. It was assumed that if the work of Salin (2003)
could help to predict presence of workplace bullying, then absence of the risk factors
cited in the work and literature could be used as a contrast to illustrate risk or prevention
in real workplaces.
Selection of Qualitative Method
Once the choice of target organizations and qualitative approach were made, it
was necessary to examine which qualitative approach would be the best fit for this study.
The first approach considered was the Case Study based upon the work of Yin (2009).

The advantage of using the case study approach for this study would have been
the information that could be gleaned regarding bullying in smaller communities in social
service organizations run by volunteer boards. This approach could have included
perspectives of not only those who consider themselves targets but also could enable
inferences about the targets' identified bullies or harassers. This approach would have
been useful to gain multiple perspectives on the subject of workplace bullying not only
through personal accounts from individuals within organizations, but also with
supporting documentation specific to the organization. Documentation such as grievance
reports, personnel reports, e-mails, memos, history of the organization, past employees,
past board members, policy manuals, and minutes of Board meetings. The critical
element in the case study approach would have been to find an organization that was
willing to be subject to such scrutiny as well as admit to experience with bullying in their
workplace. Such an organization was identified, and permission was even obtained in
writing from this organization's executive director as well as the Board of Directors.
However, upon reflection of ethical considerations, this was found not to be a good
method of study in this situation. Even with access granted to the needed data and written
consent, the ability to maintain anonymity was determined to be extremely difficult, if
not impossible due to the fact that the organization is located within a small community.
Due to the delicate nature of the information that would have needed to be examined for
triangulation of data, this approach for this particular study and subject could not be
justified. Therefore, a different approach was needed.
Four other qualitative approaches were examined. They were Narrative,
Ethnography, Grounded Theory, and Phenomenology. Narrative research was discounted

26

as again, the focus is on only one or two individuals and anonymity guarantees would be
difficult. Another reason for discounting the Narrative approach is that workplace
bullying is viewed as more of an organizational problem that does not fit neatly into an
individualized story with a set beginning, middle and end. It was also posited that EDs
are very busy people and it would be a considerable imposition on their time to require
multiple interviews of varying lengths. Ethnography was discounted mostly because the
demands of being present for participant observation of a group or wide variety of groups
would be problematic. There were also ethical considerations due to the nature of work
that takes place in social service agencies. Clients expect confidentiality and having an
outsider present to see who uses the services of these organizations would be a severe
ethical breach. Grounded theory was discounted because much of the selection process
that went into choosing the target participants was already based on a previous
framework. The interest was not placed upon developing theory, but adding insights into
workplace bullying. Phenomenology became the obvious choice as the focus in this
approach is on the lived experiences of individuals. Anonymity could be guaranteed by
the inclusion of many communities and it would be a reasonable request of the time of an
ED of one single interview to gain insights into their personal experience. Also, this
approach did not need to stipulate the presence of workplace bullying. Therefore the lived
experiences of individual EDs who did not experience workplace bullying would add an
extra dimension in the understanding of contributions of why bullying appears or why it
does not.
For these reasons, it was decided to use a phenomenological approach to gather
information from semi-structured interviews with these EDs. A deliberate choice was

27

made to bracket personal experience and focus solely upon the content of the individual
interviews, excluding greetings, rapport building or conversations that happened with
EDs before and after recording.
A phenomenological approach informed by Maxwell's Nine Arguments for a
Qualitative Proposal from Cresswell (2007) was used. The list of nine arguments are: we
need to know more about; how can this be illustrated; we know little about;
appropriateness of setting; appropriateness of participants; data collection; validation of
findings; eithical considerations; and preliminary results. The arguments and how they
relate to this study follows.
We need to better understand bullying or psychological harassment in real life
workplaces. This can be illustrated by how Executive Directors (EDs) for organizations
run by volunteer Boards view their organizational structure. EDs experiences within these
structures could illustrate how the challenges inherent in this organizational structure do
or do not conform to the organizational view of workplace bullying cited in the literature.
It is generally accepted that an imbalance of power plays some role in the phenomenon of
psychological harassment. Usually power involves the hierarchical structure within
organizations which is usually comprised of workers, then levels of management ending
with the higher levels having the most power. In these particular instances executive
directors are in charge of everything that pertains to day to day matters, and the Board is
usually not privy to this level of detail. The Board is ultimately responsible, but they do
not usually have direct say in the day to day operations. This sets up an interesting
dynamic of power in that the Executive director runs things and is in charge, but does so
at the direction of the board whose members most likely have little to no knowledge

28

about daily operations. Influences on the psychosocial environment could depend on who
sits on the Board and there is extreme variety of individuals who take on this task
voluntarily. Directors may have differing worldviews that influence their decisions and
the organization they serve. Union involvement in these organizations may play a
significant role in the climate and power structure in these organizations. The challenges
related to securing stable funding for programs is another factor to consider in these
workplaces.
The situation may be further complicated by being located in small communities
as there are extensive family and social ties between individuals and as such, Directors
may be influenced by these ties and have a worldview that makes them unintentionally
vulnerable to bias. Often it is unclear where the ultimate power would rest in these
organizations, particularly if the workplace is unionized. Unions likely hold more power
than these small individual agencies located so far away from larger centers. This could
be a further confusion to power dynamics within these workplaces as employees
performing daily work tasks may hold more power in practice than the Executive
Director or individual or collective members of the Board. These smaller organizations
often struggle for funding and this may result in competition with groups that provide
similar services. In unionized environments, they may have difficulty meeting monetary
requirements outlined in collective agreements. The community in which these
organizations operate could have an influence upon the dynamics in the particular
workplace.
We know little about bullying in these types of organizations in particular and in
smaller or rural centers in general. Therefore the study recruited social service

29

organizations located within communities that are perceived as smaller or rural with a
focus on psychosocial work environment in general and bullying in particular.
The setting and participants are appropriate for this study. These workplaces
would seem to be vulnerable due to the nature of work, stresses on the organization, and
have a heightened risk of leadership ambiguity. Workplaces that meet these criteria
would be a good test to see if the use of the work of Salin (2003) has utility in real world
settings. For example, how such organizations prevent or rectify these issues, and what
role if any, does a rural location contribute to bullying. Executive Directors were
interviewed to gain insight into their organizational structure or workplace, and how they
define psychological harassment or bullying and how they resolve it if present.
Participants approached were Executive Directors who run organizations located within
rural areas that provide social services and are headed by volunteer boards.
The use of personal interviews to gain insight into individuals' lived experience of
what it means to be an Executive Director for this type of agency located in a smaller or
rural area will provide needed data to answer the research questions regarding bullying or
psychological harassment in these settings. Analysis of personal interviews was posited
to generate answers to these questions.
Findings were validated by identifying common themes from multiple
interviewees and noting similarities and differences in accounts, and comparison of those
who did experience the phenomenon and those who did not. This study posed no ethical
problems as multiple organizations and individuals are recruited from multiple
communities and individual identities, organizations and locations were masked.

30

Preliminary results did indeed support the practicability and value of this study by
using the work of Salin (2003) with the application of this work retroactively to a known
case of bullying.
Significant Questions
Is the Salin (2003) model effective in predicting or detecting the presence or
likelihood of bullying in these real world situations?
Does a rural or remote location play a role in cases of bullying in these
workplaces?
Do these individuals' lived experiences echo the literature in terms of definitions,
antecedents, power dynamics, and resolutions or prevention of bullying in their
workplaces? In other words, does theory operationalize neatly into practice in real life
workplaces?
These are the three main questions this study was designed to address.
Positioning the Researcher
I sought to determine the lived experience of study participants while keeping in
mind that research is value laden and that bias of the researcher is unavoidable. I have
experience of working as an ED as well as being a member of volunteer Boards, all
within smaller or rural settings.
The executive director experience helped to illustrate where to focus attention,
and assisted with rapport building as there was a common understanding of the demands
of this type of position. Being a member of the Board for agencies located in small
communities, this also helped to frame the research. Experience of being on these boards
helped me to gain insight into the structure of these types of agencies and allow an

31

understanding that would not be easy to gain without this personal experience. While
these experiences certainly assist in formatting questions and avenues of enquiry, an
attempt was made to bracket these experiences and focus upon the content of the
interviews and perceptions of the interviewees. This was addressed by making sure that
during the interview the focus was on the words of the participant. A deliberate effort was
made to avoid providing any information before or during the interview that would
provide my personal opinions regarding bullying. Past experience with these types of
agencies was useful in establishing rapport with the interviewees, but the focus was on
the opinion of the participants, not mine.
I have personal experience of being not only the target employee of bullying, but
upon great personal reflection, can admit that power struggles in past employment
situations showed experience as an employee that is guilty of performing negative acts
consistent with bullying. This personal experience gives me a richer understanding of
what possible feelings and thoughts may be involved when people act as they do in
situations of workplace bullying. My experience as an aggressor was a result of
frustration with dealing with disrespect, and unclear rules and expectations. Upon
reflection I feel my youth, inexperience and ignorance of proper management techniques
and knowing how to address my own frustration was as responsible for the bullying as
was the lack of communication surrounding role expectations. This gives me some
understanding as to possible reasons some may choose to act in a negative manner. My
experience as a target allows me very clear understanding of how it feels to be under
attack for no discernibly fair reason. These experiences give me insight from both
perspectives of bully and target which in turn give me some frame of reference when I

examine bullying cases or hear stories about workplace bullying. I attempted to bracket,
as much as possible, personal knowledge and focus on the experience of participants.
However it is impossible to ignore past experiences, so the experiences of being an
aggressor, target, member of a board and an executive director did contribute to the lens
used to examine the data. I am human and I accept that crafting my lens involves my past
experiences so these experiences contribute in some way to what catches my attention as
being relevant, the crafting of my questions, building rapport and even the reason I am
interested in the topic. The focus was on participants' meanings to use in interpretive
enquiry to come to a holistic account of what it is to be an ED in small rural
organizations. I also wanted to take the text of the participants to illustrate complex
interactions that help explain the phenomenon of bullying or psychological harassment
and its presence or absences in these types of workplaces.
Going into this process I was very aware of the fact that I have a certain biased
view of how individuals within these types of workplaces would look at the issue of
workplace bullying, the power structure in the organization, what would cause
frustration, and perhaps how perpetrators and targets of bullying acts within the
workplace would be viewed. The plan to address this bias was to avoid divulging my own
opinion before or during the interviews with participating EDs. Then a deliberate choice
was made to make every effort to bracket my bias and focus solely on the text of the
interviews. Conclusions drawn from the data of many interviews were then compared to
the individual interviews to ensure it was really coming from the text of participants and
not based upon my bias.

33

Rationale for Using Salin (2003) as a Lens
It is well understood that mental health issues and psychosocial determinants play
a major role not only in mental health incidences of illness, injury and absenteeism, but
also in physical injuries (Harder & Scott, 2005). Workplace bullying, by whatever term,
definition, or prevalence rate used, is a particularly salient topic when investigating
psychosocial issues within a work environment. A wealth of research supports the
assertion that bullying is an organizational problem, in that many different organizational
failures contribute to the presence of a bullying climate (Bono et al., 2007; Denenberg &
Braverman, 1999; Hoel & Beale, 2006; Hyde et al., 2006; Kelly, 2007; Lutgen-Sandvik
et al., 2007; Skogstad et al., 2007; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007; Takao et al., 2006;
Yildiz, 2007). If respectful working conditions prevail, and policies and good
management practices exist and are followed with buy-in from all stakeholders working
in concert, then bullying cannot arise in that environment. The work of Salin (2003)
which is a summary of the literature, could provide a useful lens in which to focus
attention and observe the phenomenon of psychological harassment in real life situations.
This perspective could be used to identify and synthesize information from many
different workplace settings in order to better illuminate salient issues surrounding this
problem.
The work of Salin (2003) is very useful as it describes many contributing factors
in the psychosocial environment of the workplace, such as structure, competition, power
dynamics, change - management, outside social forces, culture, and personalities of the
individuals within the workplace. Since the work of Salin (2003) places the focus on an
organizational view, and the literature supports the utility of an organizational view, it

34

was decided that the summary of the literature in the work of Salin (2003) would have
utility in the real world settings that are the focus of this study.
The work of Salin (2003) was used to select the types of organizations for this
study. The work consists of three categories: Motivating Structures and Processes,
Precipitating Structures and Processes and Enabling Structures and Processes. The
selection process fell under Precipitating Structures and Processes as this is the category
that relates to these particular challenges in the targeted organizations. These challenges
relate to the structure that is common to social service organizations run by volunteer
boards. The fact that agencies were chosen without specifying the presence of bullying
was deemed to be a good way to scrutinize the phenomenon using a Salin lens to
illustrate subtleties in the interaction of the three categories. For instance, risk factors
related to the structure of these workplaces was posited to be a necessary but not
sufficient element to the presence of bullying in these organizations. Social service
providers located within small or rural communities fit in the precipitating processes
element of the work of Salin (2003). Specifically, they are prone to restructuring and
crisis due to funding issues as they are almost exclusively funded through government
grants, which are known to change constantly. In northern rural communities there are
many First Nations Bands, and these Bands have been taking more control of the social
services offered to their members, which affects organizations that do not specify First
Nations as their mandate. Funding for social services provided by local Associations
often have to work very hard to secure funding for their operations which sets these
organizations up for risk in the element of precipitating processes of the work of Salin
(2003). This was a common element that was found in these organizations. The

35

commonality was either funding changes or policy changes imposed from outside the
agencies that are beyond the control of these individual organizations.
This study used the categories described in Salin (2003) of structures and
processes as a lens to identify salient information in the study. Therefore the results may
be descriptive of this theory in action in other workplaces. The work of Salin could be a
useful tool for organizations to identify the presence of bullying in their workplace and
identify where to focus remedial efforts. Scrutiny of the processes illuminated through
the use of this model may further be able to expand on issues unique to smaller
population centers, which is a gap in the research.
Motivating Structures and Processes. Bureaucracy is present in the structure of
these social service organizations. The Executive Director (ED) is in charge but subject to
a Board of Directors that is made up of volunteers who may or may not be
knowledgeable of daily operations. Employees may have different views of where the
power of management truly lies. It may be unclear if power is with the ED or the Chair of
the Board. Small towns may have trouble recruiting qualified staff and therefore may
have issues with employees but may be willing to implicitly accept certain behaviours
due to a lack of qualified available staff.
Precipitating Processes. These types of organizations are often vulnerable in
securing funding. They are often 'bare bones' operations that have to be careful as they
are using public funds and may often experience crisis and struggle to juggle service
provision and business needs. Turn over in staff and Board members may also be
common.

36

Enabling Structures and Processes. Power imbalances may be present,
particularly if it is a unionized environment. Small town connections between different
individuals could affect power dynamics. There might be the presence of perceived low
risk of negative behaviours, since they may not be able to afford to lose personnel. The
nature of work and structure of the organization and funding difficulties could result in
frustration and dissatisfaction of employees.
Further Study from Salin (2003). The Salin (2003) study suggests a need for
more qualitative study as the majority of research to date is based upon quantitative
surveys which may be missing important nuances of behaviour, attitudes and perceptions.
This study was most focused on these attitudes and perceptions of individuals to try and
address this gap in the literature to contribute to a more holistic view of the phenomenon
of psychological harassment or bullying, particularly in smaller communities.
Participant Selection
Participants were approached individually based upon their experience of running
a social service organization in a small community that is lead by a volunteer board.
These organizations were found by approaching known organizations and the use of
snowballing when participants were found. Internet searches were conducted on
communities along Highway 16 between Prince Rupert and Prince George to identify
agencies that met the criteria and the EDs were contacted individually. Current or past
executive directors were deemed to be acceptable as participants, but only current
executive directors participated. All interviews took place at the EDs' place of work in
their private offices. All interviews were recorded. Interviews took place within the

37

months of November and December 2010. Seven EDs participated in the study; and the
interviews ranged in time from about an hour to an hour and a half.
Analysis
Each interview was transcribed by the researcher, and then listened to multiple
times. The plan was to read through each individual transcription, but it was found that
nuances that related to things like tone, sarcasm and humour were not clear or lost in the
transcriptions.
The process was the same for each interview. The first step was to listen to the
interview in its entirety in order to gain a feel for the voice, tone, personality and overall
impression of the interviewee. Then the interview was transcribed. The next step was to
listen to the interview a third time and make note of statements that touched on the
significant questions that guided the data collection. An example would be when
discussion about rural or northern living came up, or if they discussed what they know
about bullying or harassment. Then the interviews would be listened to again but with a
sheet with headings and spaces for checks, and spaces to place individual responses to
questions from the text of the interviews. The elements of the sheets were: three
«

categories of the work of Salin (2003); Time at their position; governance versus
operational model of the board; unionized or not; bullying present or not; elements
related to antecedents, definition, power dynamics, resolution and prevention; main
challenges; main successes; relationship with board; role of location in small community.
The interview questions were the same for each individual interview, though they were
not always asked or answered in the same order due to individuals' responses. Some
participants spoke at great length covering many different elements from one question,

38

while others preferred to hear the question and answer. Elaboration was encouraged and
participants were allowed to take the discussion in any direction that they saw fit.
The responses were scrutinized and the common elements were examined to
identify similarities across interviews in experiences related to the significant questions
that guided the data collection. These similarities were then examined to determine if any
common themes emerged. The next step was to listen to the interviews for a fifth time to
see if these themes were true to the individual interviews in that the researcher was not
biased into making them fit. A sixth hearing of the interviews followed to look for things
that stood out as being markedly different in the accounts. Then the differences were
grouped together and similarities and differences between the individual interviews were
categorized. These categories were used to answer the study questions. The final step of
the analysis was inspecting the individual quotes from the transcripts to make sure that
the wording was correct and in the interviewees' exact words.
A core focus of this study was to test the utility of the summary of the literature
cited in Salin (2003) to predict or detect the presence of psychological harassment in real
world settings. A further aim of this study was to contribute to data that is specific to
workplaces that are located within smaller communities. The last goal of the study was to
gather qualitative data to expand upon the available research to help illuminate elements
encompassed within the bullying literature that relates to definitions, antecedents, power
and resolution or prevention which are subsumed in the work of Salin (2003) of the
workplace bullying phenomenon. The aim was to focus on the lived experiences of ED's
to attempt to tease out meaningful insights into the phenomenon of workplace bullying in
real workplaces.

39

Results
Themes
After the data analysis was completed, it was clear that five themes had emerged.
These are: autonomy/lonliness, measures of success, communication, fear, and not just a
job. A short discussion of each theme follows.
Theme 1: Autonomy/Loneliness. Many participants discussed the issue of
workload and isolation. One stated: "[the biggest challenge is] isolation. Like being the
only exempt person and having 80 staff,... that's hard. (Interview 6). Another said, "my
biggest challenge is working alone and making sure your doing your job efficiently ... it's
lonely..."(Interview 5).
However, the flip side is that they enjoy the autonomy of their position, "[the ED is] still
accountable because you tell themfthe board] what's going on ...you have a lot of
autonomy and you can tell what's needed and you can drive the bus..."(Interview 6).

It is bad and good ...at the end of the day you're exhausted because
...you're doing so much, but then that's what keeps me going too. I don't
think that I could have it any other way. And if I did have another worker
in here I would probably have a hard time ...designating some jobs or like
handing it down ... I think that sometimes I am... [a] control freak.
(Interview 5)
Theme 2: Measures of Success. Two groups were represented in the data: those
who had experience of bullying and those who did not. Of the two groups, those who had
not experienced bullying stated that meeting their organizational mandate was the
greatest success. This included keeping families together, bringing in services and
making real measurable changes in their communities. Of those who have experienced
bullying and come out the other side, they found success in fixing the psychosocial

40

workplace in addition to making a difference in the community. Both groups discussed
financial or service growth as great successes. One obvious difference is that those who
had direct experience of solving bullying issues linked these changes in environment to
success in their mandates. One of the participants who did not have direct experience of
the phenomenon could not see how success and bullying could both be present because it
would interfere with their work:
there really isn't much of it [harassment or bullying] because our work
can't get done ...if we can't work together as a team ... our clients suffer
and if the clients suffer they get fired its simple as that...If there's any
degradation of client service you're out the door, because I won't put up
with that and neither would our Board... (Interview 2)
It can be posited that bullying can have a very detrimental effect on the efficacy
of the agency as discussed by participants:
In the past year, the ministries, our funding agency... they would not refer
clients to us. We were at that stage because of the attitude, because of the
working habits of our... [employees] at the time who are no longer with
the agency. Our own funding agency would not refer... clients to us and
that was a very, very strong statement. (Interview 7)
The last quote shows vividly that presence of bullying can have a huge influence
on the organization's ability to meet its mandate, and may threaten the organization's
continued existence.
Theme 3: Communication. All of the participants discussed the importance of
good communication. When there was board aggression communication issues were
identified as the main issue, and when there was an employee aggressor power issues
were identified. However, in both circumstances, communication was the key to
resolution of issues. It was made clear by the participants who had to work very hard on
improvements to communication that simply writing policy was insufficient. Education

41

and the ability to enforce the communication policy, which translates into role
clarification, was a common element. This theme fits with the organizational structure
and the importance the participants place on clarity of roles and expectations. Having a
structure was not enough. Education, communication and understanding of the structure,
roles and expectations are the vehicle for change. This clarity of roles and expectations is
cited as the best prevention of issues in the first place.
Theme 4: Fear. The presence or absence of fear was an interesting finding. Fear
took on different forms, such as the fear to speak out, the fear to challenge the status quo,
the fear to make the change:
...well around the topic [bullying] I think people have been afraid to take
it on... I have found that wherever I have worked in the past its been
something that people are afraid to deal with. Management is afraid to
take [bullying] on. So that to me is one of the biggest issues, and I don't
know if that s a Northern issue or I don't know if it's an all over issue, or
what it is. But that is probably the biggest barrier to dealing with bullying
is that people are afraid of it...its hard to name like I said. Sometimes the
more subtle things are hard to put your finger on, and in unionized
environments] we know that when we start taking... something on that
isn't black and white, its gonna be a long haul.. .so that can scare people
away, like I understand that, but we have to do it... there's just no two
ways about it. So that would be, I guess my concern is, that I do see that
and even within the Ministry, within other agencies, I see that. You know
that people are afraid to touch things ... it'll never go away (Interview 6)
I think that those type of situations [frustration from not getting needed
help from the Board and protecting the staff from the problems at that
level] do induce a bit of fear and stress obviously because you're... getting
the pressure [the] stress from the board, and sometimes its really hard to
walk in the next day and be 'everything's all great'... (Interview 3)

42

Conversely, in the two workplaces where the phenomenon of bullying or
harassment was not present; the topic of fear did not come up. Relationships were clear:
We [board and staff] have a good enough relationship where there's none
of our staff who would feel uncomfortable in saying 'that's a dumb idea'
and that includes myself ...on the other hand...they generally listen to us
just like we listen to them, so really...like I say they are a governing board
but the governing is joint... [its] definitely.. .very collaborative. We
couldn't function otherwise I don't think (Interview 2)
One ED discussed the fear of predecessors to make the tough decisions that
needed making, and it was inferred it was fear that made them avoid issues or put the
responsibility of day to day matters on their Board:
For example, if [they] had to make a decision dealing with personnel
issues ... [they] come to the board, and the board says go and do it. [the
board has]... taken that accountability from [the ED] so if anything
happens ... [they]can always shift the responsibility...(Interview 7)
Theme 5: Not Just a Job. One common theme was the passion for the work that
gets done in these agencies:
I would always work for not for profit with a board ...I don't know
whether it's the structure of it as having the passion for the mandate of the
organization. Not for profits generally come with a mandate to serve the
public in some way shape or form, and that's generally what drives me is
the mandate and the passion for the mandate. (Interview 4)

When conflicts arose, this passion for the organization and the service to the community
brought an element of emotion that may not be present in other organizations:
I like doing this. I like doing the work because it's never boring. There's
always a challenge of some sort and I also know that at the end of the day
we've done something that has helped the community. It may not be a
great big thing, it's just little things that made it a bit of a better place to
live (Interview 2)

43

The passion for the job and the benefit to community could be responsible for elements
of frustration that would relate to the enabling structures in the work of Salin. The
extreme negative nature of the phenomenon of psychological harassment or bullying
might cause the stress and frustration because it is so counter to the values that such
organizations hold in common,"...to take pride in what we do. It is not just a job that we
come in eight thirty in the morning and four thirty we leave. Offering services in small
communities; people are looking up to us."(Interview 7)
What Did Not Fit. Of the seven participants, one stood out as being markedly
different from the rest. This individual identified bullying and harassment as being an
issue that was faced in the past, yet this person is not new to their position. As stated
earlier, this situation fits with the Salin lens in precipitating processes. This particular ED
had this experience at the beginning of their tenure. However, what is markedly different
is that the issue was fixed quite quickly because the incoming new executive did not give
credence to the accusations. So in this case it is interesting that a change in management
did not cause the problem; it fixed the problem. Of all the participants, this one
experienced change at the board level yearly, and this is also the only board that was not
identified as a governance board. Board members in this agency are clients of the service,
and handle all business matters such as funding issues and business operations; which is
unique in this sample. What is also unique is that this particular ED is the sole employee
in the agency.
Generally, this participant's experience fit within the themes, but with two
exceptions: fear and communication. Nowhere in the text of this person's interview is
fear alluded to or inferred. This might be the nature of the work or the nature of the

44

organization because the clients are the pool from which the board is drawn.
Communication was common in that the ED felt it was their job to continually
communicate to the board about how the business works, but other than that, structure did
not come out as a pertinent issue. Perhaps these differences are due to the fact that this
was the only agency that did not identify as a governance board. Further study on this
type of board situation may be fruitful in exploring these differences.
Another outlier that did not fit was one of the agencies that did not experience
bullying. This particular ED was adamant that location within a smaller community
played little to no part in the challenges or successes of their organization. This agency
did fit with the study when it comes to making inferences about prevention of bullying,
and in identifying risks for the presence of bullying. The presence of this outlier gives
weight to the inference that location in a small community is not in and of itself a risk for
bullying to occur; or a significant risk to complications related to bullying.
In all, three of the seven participants did not directly state that location in a
smaller community had an influence on their workplace. One stated they had nothing to
compare it to, as they had always worked in a small community. Another one stated that
they thought it did not make a difference, but the problem could be with the definition.
This individual was comparing two towns that fell within the target area of this study, and
would be considered similar locations.
Salin Utility in Prediction/Detection
Another aim of this study was to see if there is any utility in using the work of
Salin (2003) as a tool to identify elements for a workplace to focus attention in detecting
or preventing issues around workplace bullying. The experience of bullying, successfully

45

addressed and no experience were chosen as a first step of analysis because it was
decided that this is a way to make inferences about how to remediate the problem of
bullying in these types of workplaces. The presence of a union was thought to be a
significant element as this was a factor cited in the work of Salin (2003) as it is indicative
of difficulty to lay off employees and implies bureaucracy. Time at position was
considered an important element as this relates to stability in the organization as the ED
is the operational link between the Board and the workplace. This fits with the
discussions in the literature that are focused upon management and supervisors within the
workplace. Aggressors were cited as either Board members or employees as this is
indicative of different processes of power dynamics at work in these workplaces.
Although the literature supports the aggressor as the supervisor, it was beyond the scope
of this study to include the ED as the aggressor, as it is very unlikely that an interviewee
would self identify as a bully. Change in service provision and funding were separated in
the analysis as the data showed these as two distinct precipitating processes.
The next step in the analysis was to examine the data to see if and what elements
are present that fall under the categories of Motivating Structures and Processes,
Precipitating Structures and Processes, and Enabling Structures and Processes.
From these results it appears that enabling structures and processes play a large
role in the phenomenon of bullying. This conclusion was drawn as two interviews that
had no experience with bullying were also the two that did not fall under that category.
Those two EDs were very clear in that they take a proactive approach to issues with and
between staff in their workplaces. This is the area where the organization has the most
power to facilitate change. This may be a key link in how the organization produces and

46

enforces the rules of behaviour. In workplaces where bullying was present, this was the
element that was cited as the solution to the presence of the phenomenon. On page 1218
of Salin (2003) Enabling Structures contains: "perceived power imbalance, low perceived
costs and dissatisfaction and frustration". Within the two workplaces that have no
experience with bullying, there is a cost to disruption of the workplace caused by
bullying acts. These two EDs that had no experience with bullying do not allow the
behavior. This is enforced through the structure of the organization and communication
of rules and written expectations of everyone associated with the workplace, up to and
including the members of the Board. Of the five workplaces that have experience with
bullying, three stated bullying was no longer an issue in their workplaces. Two of these
stated the way bullying was addressed was through making rules of conduct and
communication very clear. Costs of negative behavior was very high, in that in both of
these workplaces the bullying employee was removed when they did not conform to the
written and stipulated rules of the workplace. In the last case where bullying was no
longer a problem, the bully left the board. In this organization a high level of attrition at
the board level is normal as the service provided by this organization is time limited, so
when the time is up, the board members move on. The last two EDs who are in process of
working through their bullying issues are instituting changes to structure, communication
and expectations around behavior. They are trying to raise the perceived cost of
performing negative bullying behaviours within their workplaces.
This model was used to identify a target group that would be prone to
experiencing the phenomenon of psychological harassment or bullying in the workplace.
Of the seven interviews only two did not have any experience with the phenomenon. Of

47

the five that did have experience with bullying, three have dealt with the issues and do
not identify this as a current problem, and two are in process of dealing with the issues.
As expected, the model fit quite closely with the precipitating processes, as these
were part of the selection process and the criteria used to select the target group. As
hypothesized, every participant identified restructuring, crisis, and organizational changes
as constants in their workplaces. The text from the participants discusses these
precipitating processes:
It's stressful ...and it's all because of all the challenges you have to deal
with and you think you've got everything going where you want it and
then the Ministries change their mind and they're doing something else
and you start all over again... (Interview 1)

I would say that the biggest challenge is dealing with staff issues that do
come up and its not just about those kind of conflicts [harassment or
bullying] it's a lot of issues that have to do with everything from the
change in a lot of the work we do is with the provincial government and
changes in policies some of the services we deliver we don't have any
control of this here coming out of Victoria ... they don't really know their
butts from their elbow when it comes to small communities and they can
make policy changes...that have serious, serious effects on people in small
communities and they don't seem to get it they just don't seem to care
...(Interview 2)
This supports the earlier assertion that precipitating processes are necessary but not
sufficient to the presence of bullying in the workplace. The preceding quotes are both
from the EDs who have no experience with bullying in their workplaces. The two
participants who did not have experience of bullying in their workplaces were the same
two that have held their positions for 17 and 20 years. One of them was present at the
inception of their organization in their community. It seems that these types of
organizations are particularly vulnerable to bullying when a new executive director
comes along, or when there are major changes at the board level. This fits within the

48

Salin work as change at the ED level could be the catalyst that exposes the organization
to all three categories of risk. This is echoed in the statement made by one of the ED's
who has had no experience with the phenomenon, "...it would be hard for somebody to
walk into my position and take it over without a lot of work..." (Interview 1).
Four of the other participants had been in their position for less than 5 years, and
the last has been in their position for 8 years and they had experience with bullying at the
beginning of their time at their job. In the last case natural attrition at the board level
solved the problem. The two EDs that actively solved their issues with bullying did so by
making structural changes and both stated these changes took years. In both cases the
EDs noticed that bullying was a problem from the time they took their positions and that
half of their entire time at the position was what it took to rectify the problem of bullying.
The ED who was at their position for four and a half years stated it took three years to
rectify the situation. The other was at their position for 3 years and it took one and a half
years to address the issue of bullying. In both these cases half or more of their tenure at
their position was taken up addressing the problem of bullying and making needed
changes to transform the culture of their organizations. The last two EDs that have
current problems with workplace bullying were at their positions for one year and the
other for three years. All five EDs that have experience with workplace bullying are
relatively new to their positions, except for one and this ED states that bullying was
present only at the beginning of their time at their position. This fact appears to be
significant, as it would appear that whenever there is a new executive director in these
organizations, there is an increase of risk for this phenomenon to occur, or at least be
recognized. The support for this inference is related to the key role of the ED in these

49

organizations and relates to their discussions surrounding structure and communication.
The ED is the link between the organization and the Board, so when there is a new ED, it
interrupts the communication of the organization.
The motivating structures part of the Salin model helps illustrate other elements of
the phenomenon of psychological harassment or bullying. It was useful to examine the
individual workplaces to identify elements that illustrate how motivation to harass or
bully could be beneficial in some workplaces and not others. Of the five participants who
identified harassment or bullying as a problem, three identified employees as the
aggressors, and two identified Board members as aggressors. In the cases of employee
aggressors, rewards and benefits of the behaviour were identified by the ED's. One
participant said:
They always needed something in their power or their control or their
arsenal if I may use the word, to blame someone. To blame the employer
to blame the employees, the funding agency because [if] the problems are
solved they don't have anybody to blame then everybody will be expected
to perform to their full potential...and when you blame someone then you
shift the responsibility 'I could not do this because of this'... they lacked
the ability to do their job and that's why they always wanted ... to have the
boogey man... that for years they felt that were hindering their ability to do
their job (Interview 7)

The EDs were very specific in the belief that the aggressor employees had something to
gain.
In the two cases where issues were with the Board, rewards and benefits to board
members were not so clear. What is common to the two cases is that both participants
identified communication issues and understanding of the organizational structure as
being the root of their problems with their board members.

50

... its more of a communication than it is you know trying to harass
somebody ...I think that there is some of that that happens in an
inadvertent way...they're not understanding roles and sometimes not
understanding their own role and perhaps having unrealistic goals at
times... to be in the meeting saying you should have done this or it would
have been better done that way or didn't you think of this those kinds of
things maybe I...call it harassment but sort of like in a bullying manner
like you didn't show up to two board meetings now this event didn't go
well and you want to tell me its because I didn't do this and this which is
the wrong...approach (Interview 3)
...it was my instinct 'ok something's going on here' but nothing was said
to me. So I just didn't put too much to it... And then ... the new executive
was coming forth and I'm hearing all this stuff about me; accusations; and
it was like...a stab in the back (Interview 5)
Of all the participants, three managed in a unionized environment. It could be
posited that the presence of a union would be a good predictor of bureaucracy and
increased difficulties in laying-off employees as discussed in the work of Salin (2003);
yet this was not the case. One of the participants who did not identify the phenomenon as
an issue is unionized. Of the five that identified the phenomenon as an issue, only two are
a union environment. Further, the two who stated they have managed the problem, one is
a union environment and one is not. Based upon these findings, union involvement is not
a good predictor of difficulties in remediation of the issue. The participant who works
with a union stated it took approximately three years to achieve the desired change in
their workplace. The participant who does not have a union to work with stated three
years into their tenure they still actively manage the issue, as it was their belief that these
types of issues are never solved, but managed, which is how they defined success in
eliminating the issue in their workplace. In all three cases where employees were
identified as the aggressor, those staff were removed from the workplace. Difficulties
relating to the removal of employees was not related to unions, though where present the

51

union did play a role. The participants cited difficulties that were related to dealing with
the community. Complications to lay-off workers in these work environments were
associated with issues like recruitment of competent employees or volunteers because of
the smaller size of the community, and the smaller size of the organization. In one
instance where bullying was not present, the union agreement was cited as being a major
obstacle in recruitment: "if you are anywhere that [is subject to] our collective agreement
you have to hire accordingly ...that's our biggest challenge" (Interview 1).
Participants' discussion illustrates the influence of their community on their
difficulties: "I just cannot go and out on the street and grab the next person to come and
provide the ...services because we live in a small community..." (Interview 7).
...being non profit your wages are less than like Northern Health or
Ministry of Children and Families... its just the way it is... Or even the
School District so that it is harder to recruit... I don't think it would be like
that in [larger center] I don't think it's that difficult to recruit in [larger
center]...but again, you have more amenities... (Interview 6)
[the] challenges I think from a smaller community... its just high
competition ... I'm sure there is in larger centers as well but there may be
other opportunities for partnering for new local sponsors; you just have a
bigger audience ... recruitment wise is always a bit of a challenge ...when
you're kind of reliant on some of the same industries; its kind of difficult
to get other people involved, [in a larger center they have] a bigger pool to
draw from.(Interview 3)
Other organizational changes did help illustrate an explanation for why particular
agencies became vulnerable. In one instance the agency had split from its First Nations
roots, lost capacity and went through several name changes and continued losing capacity
to other agencies, all the while going through executive directors as well. This example
illustrates a great lack of stability. The agency is also unionized, and they are in process
of working through their issues. The current ED has been in place for just over one year.

52

The only element of the Salin motivating structures that did not show up in any of
the cases was internal competition, which is most likely due to the nature of the work
being performed in social service agencies and the nature of the mandate of these
agencies. They are not there to make money, but rather to provide community services,
so it would seem that internal competition is not an issue. Further, the skill set required of
an ED is markedly different than the skill set required to provide professional social
services.
The most common change that was present in every agency that had experience
with bullying was a change in leadership with the EDs as well as changes in their Boards,
"... leadership with the executive, yeah in the last 3 years ... this would be our 4th
president [and] all other executive committees have changed as well..."(Interview 3)
All five EDs that experienced bullying but one has taken their position in the last five
years. The exception has been in place for 10 years, but the experience of bullying
happened only once, which was in the first year of work with the organization. The
enabling processes section in the Salin model is most pertinent to the individuals within
an agency. However, inferences can be made regarding the presence of power struggles
between EDs and employees or board members.
[Using] very[subtle means] to exert pressure on the ED ...and then failing
that they would want the board to come and discuss the relationship and
the board sees 'oh what is this ED doing staff is on sick leave and services
are being withheld and the funding agency is threatening to withdraw the
funds. That is putting pressure on the ED to bend to the will of one or 2
staff members., .a power struggle... (Interview 7)

They had an agenda it seemed like and they took it upon the next
executive board that was coming on and it was them that came forward
[with the complaints about service]... I was just kind of hit with it and it
came out of nowhere. (Interview 5)

53

Dissatisfaction and frustration was also present in this section
... you could work 7 days a week all day long and never achieve what
you're always trying to achieve... just always pushing forward... the drive
and the pressure is never not there... I have to do everything all the time
but I'm not doing anything well ...so [you]question whether you
communicated very well cause you... leave a board meeting and ...the
point wasn't made or the need wasn't met... thinking you haven't done
enough... (Interview 3)
It seems the work of Salin is a good predictor of real life situations in workplaces.
It can help ascertain which workplaces could be vulnerable on different levels and in
different areas. This framework could be used to illustrate how major changes such as
complete turnover in management groups or the make up of the workplace teams could
be a real risk factor in the workplace if there are risks present from the other elements of
the work of Salin (2003). It certainly shows utility in these targeted workplaces. What
was common to the two work places that did not experience the phenomenon is that they
scored negative in motivating structures and enabling structures, and only one element in
precipitating processes. The common element is restructuring and crisis, which was
present in all the organizations. The Salin lens was successful in identifying different
elements of risk to organizations for bullying.
Definition
A very interesting finding of the study is that those who did not have any
experience with bullying did not have a strong or clear cut definition for the
phenomenon. Of those that did have experience dealing with this issue they had
definitions, but all discussed how difficult it is to come up with one overriding, clear and
encompassing definition:

54

Overtly ignoring people because that was the punishment of the day for
them... I had one instance of outright threat... nasty emails or behaviours
to one another ...there wasn't violence there was just attitude and
negativity ...sarcasm ...off the cuff remarks... trying to mentally challenge
people, put them down...(Interview 4)
...long term kind of pressures, unfair pressures and realities to be put on people, like
verbally, mentally, those kinds of things...(Interview 3)
...It's just so not blatant you know what I mean? It's hard to name
sometimes ...there's some subtle stuff ...there can sometimes be dismissal
just by facial expression, eye rolling you know those kind of things ...that
is a piece of bullying, but I'm not sure what category that would come
under but definitely that kind of stuff can occur...(Interview 6)

Overall, the definitions echoed what is found in the literature with the most
common being isolation and silencing or social exclusion.
Resolution and Prevention
Out of the seven interviews, only two did not have any issues with bullying. They
experienced the same stressors that are common to all the ED's such as workload, policy
changes in services from funding agencies or government policy changes and cited
challenges with unions if present and other issues such as geography, weather, and travel
issues that go along with rural areas. The main difference seems to be longevity in the
position, clearly defined roles and expectations, and not having difficulty making the hard
decisions and acting on them quickly to avoid escalation that is associated with
harassment or bullying cases. This element relates back to precipitating processes in the
Salin model
[when] there happens to be something like that [bullying] with staff or
they have a problem with another staff person then we sit down and work
it out...[it never escalates because]...I have an invisible talking stick... so
when I have the talking stick who evers' turn it is to talk, talks. The other

55

person doesn't...we always have one individual, you always do I think in
every workplace, who thinks they should have their way...we just have to
say 'do your work and get on with it'...you have to maintain respect with
your staff (Interview 1)

Our number one policy is that if you have a problem with a coworker
settle it with the coworker. If the two of you can't settle it then you come
to me [but] don't come to me unless you've sat down and talked with the
person. If you don't like this person's attitude confront them ... If you're
not a confrontational person, get over it. Because you're gonna have to try
to settle it yourselves. If you can't, then I'll get involved, and if I do,
neither one of you are gonna like the solution I come up with. So better do
it yourself. And it works. Not that I'm trying to be a jerk about it but
generally once they know that they have to sit down and talk to each other
they do it and ... generally speaking, get it solved. Its not very often that
I've had to ... intervene ... it has happened over the 17 years but you know
it hasn't happened a lot. (Interview 2)
It takes real commitment and courage to solve issues when they are identified;
particularly long standing issues in smaller centers. Those who have faced this issue
talked about having a commitment to make change and they understood it would take
work and resources.
Sometimes it is very difficult for a newcomer to deal with staff issues
especially staff that is long term resident of [the] community. They have
rules, networks in [the] community, friends, family...so he or she
...would...prefer to go to [the] board to get the direction to say 'OK do this
do that' so the responsibility is shifted...(Interview 7)

...a lot of people think that...when there's a situation of bullying deal with
the two individuals or the individual or what ever it is but I think you have
to do it at a systemic level. You have to address both not just the one
instance. You have to address it systemically as well. (Interview 6)

We hired a third party consultant to come in that is a professional coach
...for... a good solid year and a half. Every month we would do a couple
hours workshop, we'd work on different ways of communicating, respect
in the workplace, a number of things with the coach present and then we'd
talk about it at the next session and go through another training, so it was a
lot of intensive hands on measuring and monitoring the changes through

56

all of that whole piece of training. So it wasn't a quick one shot you know
let's do team work workshop then not do it again. It was very continual
and very, very much an expectation that change is going to happen and
that with the skills being learned here will be applied in the workplace...
(Interview 4)
Organizational Structure
This appears to be the area where being in a small town is very different from a
larger center. An organizational structure is a basic structure that is common in many
areas, not just in community service agencies. What is unique to the agencies located in
smaller communities are the ties that residents take for granted which have less likelihood
of occurring in larger centers:
...the structure is its standard structure in any non profit... it is just that in
small towns it becomes a little bit more challenging because...say...we
have 10 directors they're are all living in the communities, they are
members of the community. Then we have 10 staff members [and] they
are living in the community...one staff member could be the neighbor with
a director or maybe ...friends of or even related in some cases ... They
cannot differentiate between their personal relationship and their
professional relationship. They feel that no matter what they [employees]
do [they] can go to the director and they will get away with it and so that's
what happened in many cases. (Interview 6)
There is agreement that a small or rural location is most problematic when it
comes to board members and employees. Particularly if roles and responsibilities are not
made clear:
I think that maybe more small towns some staff members have been here a
very long period of time, much longer than I have and I'm not from the
community. So board members have become friends with some of the
staff, like there will be that kind of dynamic that I think is inappropriate.
(Interview 6)

When I first came here the staff really thought they could all go directly to
the board. It's been more enforced in the last few years. Part of it is the
change of management, part of it is the change of some of the directors

57

and the board, so its gotten much more structured around the process of
who you come to discuss issues with. (Interview 4)
This is related to the enabling structures in the Salin model as it could be posited
to contribute to a perceived power imbalance, in that the ED may think they cannot
manage their employee, or that the employee would not go through proper channels to
resolve issues. The structure needs attention to make sure all the roles are clearly defined:
Its clearer now but I felt that I've had to take on a role of educating the
board around roles as well...Instead of it being a process of... you apply
to the board to determine whether you're suitable. You go through a
training phase. ...it was never really set up that way now it is... everything
is clearer and upfront (Interview 6)

Overall, most participants agreed that ties inherent in small communities have a
great influence in their workplaces. Yet, it cannot be concluded that this was the most
important issue to the participants. While the accounts are peppered with references to the
size and ties in their community, the overriding issue was clearly identified as replacing
the unwritten structure and hierarchy. The unwritten rules need to be replaced with
concrete rules and policy based upon accepted models and structures generally accepted
for non-profit societies. This was a common element in remediation of the issues of
power in workplaces, and a common element to the two agencies that did not identify
bullying as an issue. Of the two interviews that did not have experience with bullying,
both discussed how they had very clear roles and policy. Further, those who did have
experience with bullying, spoke about the amount of work it took to institute policies and
rules surrounding roles.
In spite of the differences, all participants have one overriding commonality. They
all provide much needed and valued services to their communities.

58

Discussion
Effectiveness of Salin (2003) in Prediction and Detection
Motivating structures and processes is the element in the work of Salin
that deals with the structure or culture of the individual organization under scrutiny.
Literature on bullying that fits with this element is related to culture in the organization
that rewards or condones aggressive or bullying behavior. This reward system is usually
related to supervision within the organizations. The two supervision styles that are
discussed in the literature as being most related to workplace bullying are laissez-faire
and aggressive leadership (Hauge et al, 2007, Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Mitchell &
Ambrose, 2007; Skogstad et al, 2007; Tepper, 2007) Rewards could result from explicitly
promoting these individuals into positions of power, or rewarding these individuals with
perks. This reward could happen implicitly by the organization permitting these
behaviours to occur (Skogstad et al, 2007). These rewards would be tied to the theme of
fear of taking on the problem, making change, or lack of will to define and enforce
boundaries and rules. The Motivating structures and processes element also links to the
theme of communication and boundaries, in that when these are explicit and enforced, the
problem is prevented or solved. It also dovetails nicely with the literature that cites lack
of strong management or laissez-faire styles of management or unclear rules and
expectations in the workplace as risk factors for the presence of bullying or psychological
harassment (Einarsen, 1999; Hauge et al, 2007; Skogstad et al, 2007).
Precipitating processes in the Salin lens serves to focus attention on issues related
to bullying that originate from outside of the workplace or in which the organization has
little to no control. The element fits with literature that cites major upheaval and crisis as

59

a risk (Hoel &Beale, 2006). Individual workplaces may have very little control over
things such as crisis in the economy, or over individuals who choose to leave
organizations causing management or workgroup changes.
The enabling structures and processes of the Salin lens illustrate issues that relate
to individuals within the workplace. Enabling structures relate to literature that cites
power imbalances between employees or supervisors and employees as an essential
element in bullying or psychological harassment (Aryee et al,2007; Einarsen, S, 1999;
Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007). It can be concluded that low
perceived costs of the behaviours is a contributing factor. Dissatisfaction or frustration
could be as a result of crisis or restructuring from precipitating processes, but it is placed
in this category as it is a possible outcome for individuals. Dissatisfaction or frustration
could also relate to other elements within a workplace that may be unrelated to
precipitating processes.
When the lens of the work of Salin is applied to the workplaces in the study, it
highlights elements about bullying which allows comparisons and conclusions about the
phenomenon. Using the motivating structures element, five of the seven workplaces
scored a positive. Under the precipitating processes element all seven of the workplaces
scored a positive, while five of seven scored positive for enabling processes. Of the seven
workplaces, two did not have experience with bullying.
When these two workplaces without bullying experience were compared and
contrasted using the Salin model, the findings were interesting. While they both scored
positive for precipitating processes, they also both scored negative for enabling
processes. Where they differed was in motivating processes where one scored positive

60

simply because they are unionized and would have a greater difficulty laying-off
employees. This finding suggests that simply being a unionized environment is not
sufficient enough to place these types of organizations at risk. It also implies that
difficulties with recruitment of staff due to the location of these types of organizations are
also not enough of a threat for risk for the phenomenon. Even the combination of unions
and difficulties with recruitment in combination are not necessarily sufficient enough risk
for the presence of bullying. As these were also the two interviewees who had been in
their positions for the longest time, it seems the keys to success in these organizations is
stable leadership, clarity of rules and roles, and a willingness and personal ability to
manage difficulties as they come up. In essence these interviewees were the opposite of a
laissez faire management style. Time at their position could also mean that these
individuals are suited for their position. In other words, they have the skills and
predispositions that are compatible with these types of workplaces. Further study that
targets individuals that have been in these positions for more than 15 years would be
needed to confirm the validity of this finding.
Of the five that did have experience with bullying, there were positive scores with
all three elements of the Salin lens. The interesting finding here is that in these particular
types of organizations, the most prominent elements are all examples under enabling
structures and the reward system and expected benefits under motivating structures. Only
two of the five are unionized environments, and while this fact was cited as a
complication in the resolution of the phenomenon in these workplaces, the responses of
the ED's were not markedly different from their cohorts who did not have a union.
However, in the motivating structures and processes, it was the perception that the

61

aggressor employees were very motivated to keep their views and power and control over
the ED and prevent the ED from performing their duties as directed by their Boards.
Three of the five who experienced bullying were very clear that the individual aggressor
employees were interested in maintaining their view and their position of power in the
organizations. In all three instances the ED's removed their difficult employees despite
the fear of change and the inherent challenges. The other two EDs that cited their Boards
as the problem of bullying or psychological harassment, both shared the problem of
massive change at the Board level. But they differed, in that one ED was currently in
crisis at the time of the interview and the other stated that this happened at the beginning
of their tenure many years in the past, and wholesale change at the Board level is what
solved the issue. The other alluded to continued change at the Board level was a
significant contributor to their issues.
Role of Location
Generally speaking, it can be stated that a smaller location does play a role in
bullying, but it is not in and of itself a good predictor of risk for the presence of bullying.
During the course of the analysis it became clear that there were issues surrounding
definitions of what each individual saw as a rural or remote community. There was an
issue with some participants in that they had never worked outside of a small community
and therefore had no basis of comparison.
The problem of a proper definition of a smaller or rural community arose out of
the difference of definition from the participants. The target communities were between
Prince Rupert BC and Prince George BC and any community along Highway 16. For
example, individuals who reside in places such as Hazelton or Fort Fraser might view

62

places such as Burns Lake or Smithers as larger centers. Individuals who reside in places
such as Prince Rupert or Burns Lake might view places such as Vanderhoof or Terrace as
being a larger center; while most or all individuals in each of these communities might
view Prince George as the 'Big City'. Or the view of all individuals could be that every
town in the target area is a small town, which was the definition used in this study. It may
be fruitfiil in future studies to explore these differences in viewpoint, and if or how these
views affect bullying. Another possibility is to set a quantifiable definition of rural or
remote communities that include measures of population or available services, such as
shopping or healthcare/educational/recreational infrastructure. A further possibility is to
specifically include the participants' definition of a small town.
Individuals who have no comparison of work with larger centers versus smaller
centers are worth exploring. If respondents state that they have no basis of comparison, or
are using one of the targeted areas as the comparison to a larger center, then a level of
complexity is brought to the analysis. Of the seven interviewees, only one individual had
explicitly had experience working not only in larger centers but internationally. This
individual was adamant that there is a great difference between urban or larger centers
and small communities. This participant is explicit in their discussion that they have
experience in both areas. This individual clearly states that a smaller or rural location
plays a key role in issues within these particular workplaces. Three of the seven
interviewees classified target locations as being urban as they had worked in smaller
towns and viewed the change to a different larger center within the target area as urban.
Four of the participants had only worked in smaller locations so they had no basis of
comparison to a larger center. One interviewee was adamant that location played little to

63

no role in their workplace. Of the seven interviewees, only in two cases was it unclear if
the individuals had experience working in a larger center defined according to the
parameters of the study. One was the individual who was adamant that location plays
little to no role. Of the two interviewees who were most adamant on this question, each
stated the opposite of the other in that one said rural/remote location plays a large role in
their workplace and one said it did not. Of the interviewees who were comparing
differences between communities that fell in with the definition parameters of this study
stated there were no differences between rural or urban communities, it is concluded that
the difficulties cited or positives cited could be attributed to rural/remote location. In all,
the text of six of the seven interviews illustrates that location does contribute to the
phenomenon as the interviews are peppered with references to location. Even in the
interviews where a location was cited as being urban and it fell within the parameters of
the study, those who worked in these cited communities did not differ in their responses
regarding location. The single interviewee who had clear experience with both was clear
on their opinion of location and it mirrored statements of the other participants, so it can
be inferred that a smaller location does contribute to bullying in these types of
workplaces. However, it is cited as a contribution, it is not sufficient on its own as a risk
factor, but a complication or a contributor.
In essence, it can be concluded that a remote or rural location does contribute to
the phenomenon for reasons cited by the participants. These reasons include issues that
relate to clarity of roles and responsibilities and clear rules that are muddied in smaller
communities because of close personal or social ties between levels or hierarchy within
the organizations. This further plays into issues of power dynamics. There are different

levels of ties and supports that can bolster power of individuals which contribute to
ambiguities of power and responsibility within the organization. These ambiguities relate
to issues such as an employee's relation to a member of the Board, or when an ED is a
new member of the community. EDs could be naive of these social ties and be lacking in
these social ties, which may serve to limit the management power that the ED holds.
Echoes in the Literature
In general the literature surrounding bullying places focus on definitions,
antecedents, power dynamics, resolution and prevention of the phenomenon. It is
generally accepted that this is an organizational issue as this perspective takes in all the
perspectives that are cited in the literature (Hauge et al, 2007; Hoel & Beale, 2006). The
individual elements were what this study attempted to investigate qualitatively. There
was interest in seeing if individuals in these workplaces mirrored the literature in these
elements.
The literature is not always clear about definitions, and in order to study the
phenomenon, researchers would often stipulate a definition such as Leymann (1996)
where it is a certain amount of negative acts in a certain time frame, such as single versus
multiple negative acts per week or month (Agervold, 2007). Examples of incidents of
bullying or psychological harassment are used by researchers such as Namie (2007)
which include verbal attacks and profanity, blocking promotion or limiting access to
needed tools to do the job. Particular attention was paid in this study to focus on the
respondents' definitions of workplace bullying. In this study, of those who did not have
direct experience of bullying in their workplaces, the definitions were nebulous, and the
interviewees did not have ready answers or clear cut definitions. These two respondents

65

also had difficulties in citing examples of bullying behaviours. The five participants who
did experience bullying all had difficulty in coming to a specific definition, but were able
to readily give examples of the behaviours. Examples included dismissal, eye-rolling,
seclusion and mind games. Based upon this finding it seems it is best in terms of
education regarding workplace bullying is to focus on specific behaviours or negative
acts. These behaviours do echo the literature (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Einarsen, 1999).
Discussion in the literature on bullying also cites the difficulties in stipulating a clear cut
definition (Agervold, 2007.
In the case of antecedents it was difficult to come to a firm conclusion as most of
the interviewees who did have experience with bullying were fairly new to their
positions, so they did not have first hand knowledge regarding how bullying came to be
in their workplaces. However, two of the respondents were clear that the issues they
inherited were due to past EDs fearing to act, which relates to laissez-faire management
styles (Hyde et al, 1982; Skogstad et al, 2007). In both these cases the individuals spoke
to longstanding issues, and due to the fact that things had been that way for so long, it
contributed to the difficulty in resolution of the problem of bullying. Another interviewee
alluded to the fact that their aggressor individual was not reigned in early on and that the
negative behaviour became habit and spread through the entire organization. In every
case where there was experience with bullying, the common element seemed to be clarity
of roles and communication. As a result of this finding, it can be said that the experience
of antecedents echo literature that cites leadership styles and clear roles (Einarsen, 1999;
Hauge et al, 2007; Hyde et al, 1982; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Skogstad et al, 2007).

66

Conversely, the lack of strong leadership and clarity of roles and expectations can
contribute to the presence and likelihood of bullying.
The focus of power dynamics is also echoed in the literature (Einarsen, 1999;
Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). The EDs who cited problems with employees stated that it was a
power struggle with these employees. These struggles could be linked with change
management, as where the ED identified the presence of bullying, it was at the beginning
of their tenure at the workplace. One ED spoke about how they would have done things
differently in hindsight, such as waiting a few months before making large changes in the
workplace. These could have exacerbated the power struggles that were experienced. The
two EDs who identified bullying as related to their Boards, were not as clear when it
came to the question of power dynamics. This could be explained by noting that board
members are not present for daily operations and interact perhaps once a month with the
ED, so the ED may not have as much time to clarify the issue with these individuals. EDs
with employee issues would interact with the employee on a regular basis, and so would
have more information to form insights into the behaviours of the other individuals.
However, in these two cases, clarity of roles and responsibilities and communication
were common strategies to all the interviewees. Bullying occurred because these roles
and responsibilities were unclear or unwritten. Incoming EDs would be at a disadvantage
having no clear system in place, and employees might try to take advantage to gain
personal power in the workplace. Board members might not understand what is expected
of them, or perhaps the past ED had different expectations of the Board. If these
differences are not communicated well, it could lead to issues that bring rise to the risk
for workplace bullying.

67

All EDs who identified as having experience with bullying employees discussed
how they had to expel those employees from the workplace. Or said another way, they
won their power struggle with their employee. In all three cases, the EDs stated they had
tried to work with the employees, but it would seem the differences were entrenched. All
three tried resolutions such as hiring a consultant to mediate, illustrating an expectation
that issues would be solved to move forward, and being open to beginning this process by
offering resources to do so, and instituting training regarding workplace bullying. In all
three cases it was alluded to by the EDs that their aggressor employees did not want these
initiatives to proceed. This echoes the work of Namie (2007) in that the aggressors seem
to have their own agendas and do not place the needs of the organization above their own
personal agendas. One ED was very clear in stating that the behaviour of their particular
aggressor employees placed the agency in jeopardy of folding. In these three cases,
resolution had to come in the form of ejecting the aggressor employees, and the result
was improvement in all three workplaces. Using the two agency EDs perspectives that
did not have experience with the phenomenon, it is clear that prevention knits closely
with resolution.
The two workplaces where there was no bullying present had many
commonalities. It is from these two workplaces where elements regarding prevention of
the phenomenon can be inferred. Both EDs had very clear rules and policy in place
outlining responsibilities, and these were well known by every person attached to the
workplace, from employees to the Board. Not only were these policies clear, they were
followed in daily practice, and respect was maintained at all levels within the workplace.
Both EDs had a willingness and ability to recognize issues immediately and act on them

68

accordingly. This is the opposite of the laissez-faire management style that was cited in
the literature as a risk factor. The other commonality is that they both had been at their
positions for the longest of all the respondents. These two workplaces could be at risk if
and when the EDs leave the position. Particularly if the incoming ED has a laissez-faire
management style, and the established rules surrounding roles and responsibilities and
communication change drastically. However, if these changes are managed properly, then
there is every reason to believe that the risk would be less or even absent. The position of
ED is not for everyone, and this was alluded to by all interviewees. This echoes the work
of McKenna (2004) in that while managers can be taught skills, these skills are viewed in
context of the workplace and individual predispositions. One ED stated they did not think
this type of job was a good fit for them but stated that they knew of individuals who hold
their position for many years. That statement clearly fits with the work of Mckenna
(2004). Conclusions gleaned from the lived experiences of these EDs do fit with the
literature of bullying.
What Makes a Successful Executive Director?
Five themes emerged: Autonomy/Lonliness, Fear, Not Just a Job,
Communication, and Measures of Success. When the themes are taken holistically,
inferences can be made as to what makes an ED successful.
All EDs are 'take charge' kind of people. Of the seven interviewees, only one
stated that they did not think that this type of job was for them. It was stated that they had
learned a great deal about themselves personally, but in future they would not be
targeting the same type of position. They did not enjoy the responsibility and diversity of
workload, and the heavy responsibility for the varied myriad of tasks that are part of the

69

EDs job. One interviewee stated that they would not take on a similar position in future
because it is a lot of work, and they felt they were too close to retirement, even though
they like the work. Two interviewees stated that they would only search out similar
opportunities. One stated it was because they liked being the one in total control even
though it is lonely work. The other stated it was the mandate that drove them, and this
type of position is usually the volunteer board structure. The other three interviewees also
stated that they enjoyed this type of work due to the ability to make relevant change
quickly, and to make a measurable difference in the communities they serve. Resulting
from these findings, it can be posited that a successful ED should be a person who enjoys
leading and performing varied tasks and who enjoys and is capable of managing a large
share of responsibility.
Further, EDs need to be relatively fearless, willing to make tough decisions, and
have a thick enough skin to handle the fallout. This is particularly true in smaller
communities. This finding also relates to the members of the Board in that if they want
to keep their organization stable they must have faith in their ED to make tough
decisions. The elements were evident in all seven interviewees, but it was most
noticeable in the individuals who were forced to make unpleasant choices and had to let
go their aggressor employees who were longtime members of the community. Ironically,
two of the three who had to make this decision stated that there was some feed back from
the community that was 'well finally, thank goodness'. This was not the only reaction,
but it was a prominent reaction that was taken from these two interviewees, in that the
expectation is that the reaction would have been different.

70

The theme of 'not just a job' was not entirely unexpected. Individuals who choose
serving community as a profession would naturally be drawn to these organizations. It
was stated by interviewees that their organizations were at a disadvantage because of lack
of resources in terms of recruitment, but they tried to focus on the mandate and
workplace environment. This ties in with the theme of communication in that all seven
interviewees stated that communication is critical to success. This was common to those
with experience of the phenomenon as well as those who did not. It can be inferred that
successful EDs are strong communicators and are able to blend different elements into
their positions to facilitate good communication. One ED stated that they hired a
consultant to draft policy and procedures, another stated they instituted this process and
put it in place and that had solved many of their issues. Two who did not have issues with
the bullying stated their policy and structure was very clear and that contributed to their
success.
The measures of success theme was interesting in that the three interviewees who
had experience with bullying as related to employees cited resolution of these personnel
issues as strongly related to their measure of success. The one that had the issue with
their board stated that a success was getting policy and procedures in place, or the
infrastructure to better communication in place. Of the two that did not have experience
with bullying echoed the others in that their great successes were the services they
provide to their communities and the differences they make in their positions. Securing
reliable funding sources was also a measure that was cited.

71

Recommendations
These findings strongly echo the literature in that organizations that provide social
services with volunteer boards are vulnerable to the phenomenon of bullying. However, it
is impossible to list specifics of what organizations like this should do as each one is
unique with unique sets of issues. These workplaces need to look at the risks and the
themes to see if these match issues in their workplaces.
Organizations that wish to address issues of workplace bullying should focus in
three specific areas to prevent or remediate the problem. The first key area is to focus on
policy. Often in cases where bullying is present the policy either does not exist in tangible
form or it is inadequate or not enforced. If policy is unwritten it is very likely that there
are unwritten rules of behavior that are being followed in the workplace. Intangible rules
need to be made tangible, specific and clear. However, simply having policy or writing
policy is not enough. It is essential that an educational component be included with any
policy roll out. Because the nature of bullying in the workplace is subtle and nebulous
and can change depending on context of culture and individuals, everyone in the
workplace needs to be informed about what constitutes a bullying act. Every effort needs
to be made to ensure that everyone is aware of what specific acts could be considered as
bullying. Everyone in the workplace should have the tools or the understanding of how to
recognize bullying and they should be aware of what steps to take if and when bullying is
identified. This awareness of steps ties into the last essential element of what needs to
happen in the workplace to be successful in addressing issues, which is communication.
Communication of roles and expectations of behavior is essential. Clarity regarding
expectations and steps to follow and consequences is very important. Clearly stated rules

72

and expectations through policy, education regarding issues and elements of policy on
behavior, and clear communication of how these are interpreted and implemented in the
workplace setting should increase success in preventing or eliminating bullying issues
within these workplaces.
The communication theme is where the Board of Directors needs to take an active
role with their ED. Organizations such as these should be doing what they can to manage
personal bias among directors. This could be accomplished by having clear policies on
recruitment of Board members that address things such as relationships in the
community, rules around conflicts of interest and what would constitute a conflict, and
these could be tailored to each organization as it sees fit. For instance, it may be
acceptable for a former ED after a period of time to apply to be a member of the Board,
while in others, this may be very inappropriate. There should also be education and
training for new members joining the Board. This should include information on the past
history of the organization, information about structure, some understanding of daily
operations, and what liability and responsibility means operationally for individuals who
sit on Boards. Rules surrounding confidentiality must also be made explicit, and there
should be rules surrounding how the Board removes other Board members or the ED.
There should be clear policy and rules about how the ED communicates with the Board,
and what the Board is expected to do to support their ED. This should help the issue of
isolation of the ED as the Board must be supportive of their ED in order for the
organization to function. However, there should also be a whistle blowing policy which
should provide a check and balance of the power of the ED, as the ED is the gatekeeper
of information between the Board and the Employees of the organization. The Board

should set clear policy that defines the ED's roles and responsibilities. If this is in place,
and is enforced and effective, then the whistle blowing policy should be moot. But it
would be important to illustrate due diligence on the part of the Board. There should also
be clear policy that defines the rules of conduct for Board members, as communication is
key to success and this should go both ways between the Board and the ED. Boards
should also be sensitive to flags that would indicate the presence of the phenomenon in
their organization. Examples would be things such as turnover or a large amount of
illness or absenteeism among the staff. These flags could be made clearer to the Board if
they utilize the work of Salin as a lens to scrutinize the health of their organization on an
annual or as needed basis. It is best to manage the communication to prevent workplace
bullying or to manage issues as they arise before they become problems. The Salin lens
could be used to help identify risk and reduce that risk before problems occur.
The largest risk in these types of workplaces rests with the ED. Stability in this
position is very important. If one of these organizations experiences too much change in
this position, it becomes a real risk factor for the agency, as fixing the problem can take
years. Board members need to be very cognizant of this issue. Great care must be taken to
ensure that not only do they hire the correct person for the position, but they must take an
active leadership role in making sure that the transition is handled properly. The perfect
situation of changeover in the ED position would be having the former ED present to
train and assist the incoming ED to understand their particular workplace. This is a
recommendation particularly for workplaces like the two in the study that have enjoyed
decades-long stability in their workplaces. However, this may not be possible, so then it
would become an important task for the Board of the organization to make sure that

74

change is managed while the new ED is coming on board. The Board of Directors could
do this by making sure that any communication structure is followed properly and that
they give their full support to the ED as they learn about the workplace. Usually a Board
has expectations of their new ED and these should be made clear upfront. However, if
there is major change on the horizon, it would be advisable for the Board to do what it
can to make it clear through the ED to staff that these changes are a result of Board
expectation and not only coming from the ED. The ED should be supported to be
autonomous, but it is the role of the board to support the ED if needed, or indeed, to make
sure the ED is performing their tasks as assigned by the Board. New EDs need to realize
that if there are longstanding issues they must take the initiative and make the changes as
needed, but it is imperative to have the Board's support. This is particularly critical if the
ED is new to the community and the members of the Board are not. It would be the role
of board members to use their knowledge and ties to help support their ED. Not to take
full responsibility for the decisions, but to understand why these decisions need to be
made. The ED has a great responsibility and needs to have the maturity and a willingness
to act. The individual members of the Board need to fully understand their role,
responsibility and liability and act in the best interest of the organization.
If bullying is present in the workplace, it takes commitment and resources to
resolve this issue. EDs and board members alike should be very aware of the need to
manage the issue right away. If bullying is present, it means that there are serious issues
within the workplace that can eventually threaten the viability of the organization itself. It
follows that this is a threat to the community because there is danger of losing much
needed resources. If this happens, then the whole community suffers. Service availability

75

in smaller or rural/remote areas is an issue that may not be well understood by those who
reside in more urban areas. There may not be another group or organization that would be
willing or able to meet the needs of clients who suffer from the removal of an agency's
services.
If organizations like the ones that are part of this study want to be successful in
dealing with or preventing bullying they need to actively manage their issues. The use of
the Salin (2003) lens could be a useful tool for EDs and Board members as a measure of
risk. If there are elements of all three categories, then management could take the
opportunity to act before things become unmanageable. The Board should be aware of
the laissez-faire style of management and avoid that style at all costs. These organizations
are so vulnerable to issues because of their structure and frailty of funding sources, that
they do not have much room for error. These organizations face constant imposed
change. These impositions arise from funding sources that require reorganization or even
elimination of services. The fact that these are imposed from forces outside the
community is a common frustration. Having to experience major change impositions of
policy and funding constantly is a major stressor in these workplaces. It is clearly related
to precipitating processes in the Salin model. This fact clearly illustrates the need for
these organizations to be aware of the other two categories as described in Salin (2003)
and manage them closely. Roles and duties should not be unwritten, they should be
explicit. This is particularly important if there is turnover at the ED level. It would be
impossible for an incoming ED to manage if policy of the organization is unwritten,
unclear or not enforced. Communication and management of the communication system
should be a top priority, and all who are connected with the workplace should be aware

76

of and understand the communication expectations. In these cases it is better to have
things be clear as lack of clarity can lead to issues. Specific attention should be focused
upon the Board in that it should be clear what roles and expectations are made of the
members of the Board. It would most likely be helpful to have a specific vetting policy
for members of the Board, particularly if the agency has had problems in the past. A clear
finding of this study was that it may be difficult for members of the Board to differentiate
between their personal role and their responsibility as a member of the Board to the
agency. Bullying is very emotionally charged, and even if the workplace 'solves' the
problem or the ED 'wins' the power struggle, small towns are unique in that these
individuals are still around and in the community. EDs will continue to have to interact
with these individuals. Board members may feel conflicted because they may need to act
on behalf of their agency, in spite of personal feelings regarding individuals. Board
members and EDs need to understand and accept that resolving these issues will take
resources and will be a drain on the agency until resolution is reached. Having clear cut
policy that is understood and enforced at all levels should be invaluable to members of
the Board, EDs and employees. Clear policy and clear expectations of individuals in the
organization is a tool that can be utilized by the Board members individually to come to
the proper decisions. Clarity of expectations and roles should to prevent bias of
individuals within the organizations. This is true of unionized workplaces as well as nonunionized workplaces.
Limitations of this Study
The specific focus of this study is dependent upon experiences of seven
individuals. As in all self report work, there is no quantitative accounting for the veracity

77

in the reports of individuals. If other individuals related to these workplaces were
approached, the findings may be very different. Employees or members of the Boards
may differ in the view of the presence or absence of bullying, influence of location,
structure or communication and policy. This study is limited to the views expressed by
individuals who hold a specific position in these workplaces. Limitations also exist in the
fact that these workplaces have a specific geographic area, they provide specific services,
are dependent to a certain degree upon public funds and they are run by volunteers, so
this research is very specific to these of workplaces. The sample size is extremely small
so care needs to be taken in making generalizations to other similar organizations. These
results offer insights into the phenomenon of workplace bullying. They are not
generalizable to the population at large.
The use of the Salin (2003) summary of the literature on workplace bullying
showed utility in these workplaces. However, it would need much more rigorous research
and on a much larger scale to conclude that this is the best tool for organizations to
utilize. The framework offers a quick, easily understood framework for organizations, but
there are other measures available. Other measures such as more established and
validated surveys like the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) or hiring consultant
companies that will conduct surveys and provide quantitative measures of detection and
remediation. Validation of the framework of Salin was not the intent or within the scope
of this study. The utility lies in using the framework as a tool to help focus attention on
relevant issues as related to workplace bullying, not to quantify the problem or as a
measure of remediation. The framework is only a possible tool for assistance in finding a
beginning point to frame the problem of bullying within the context of individual

78

workplaces. Another limitation in the study is in regards to making generalizations to
rural or small town populations. This study is based upon the subjective experience of the
participants, and therefore limits the generalizability beyond the participants of the study.
One goal of the study was to add perspective related to location to the literature, not to
draw conclusions about organizations and location which would be unrealistic in this
case.
Every effort was made to identify and invite as many EDs as possible to
participate in this study. Contact was made by approaching known organizations as well
as internet searches. An example of the result of an internet search would be looking for
community services listed on target community websites, visiting these organization
websites, then making telephone contact and asking for the Executive Director. A
snowballing effect was also utilized by asking participants if they had contact information
for EDs that provide similar services in their neighboring communities. A total of seven
executive directors participated and the total number of communities was five. Two of
these five communities had two participants in each, while the other three communities
had one participant. Saturation was reached when no other participants agreed to partake
in the study.
Further Research
Areas of further research could focus on issues arising from this study. One would
be to compare these types of agencies by contrasting rural and urban agencies to see how
large a role location plays in bullying. Great care must be taken to clearly define urban
and rural and make sure that the respondent agrees with the definition stipulated in the
study. Another avenue of exploration could focus upon employees of these organizations,

79

as this perspective was not present in this study. Of particular interest are employees who
were removed from these organizations. It would be interesting to see if these employees
self identify as targets particularly since the EDs are likely to identify these individuals as
the aggressors. This could bring a useful perspective to the literature as most research is
based upon self identified targets. This would further illuminate issues around definitions
and identification of workplace bullying. Another focus that would be fruitful is to
interview members of the Board to see if there is any similarity in accounts with the EDs,
particularly around communication issues.
These workplaces do seem to be vulnerable to the presence of bullying simply
due to the nature of the work and funding structures. If Boards and EDs experience the
presence of bullying, it may be difficult to know how to remediate the problem, and there
is a great deal of risk inherent in both action and inaction for this issue. The work of Salin
(2003) could be a useful tool for the management of these organizations to help frame the
issues and risks associated with the bullying phenomenon. If this work is used as a tool, it
can provide a useful lens in which to focus attention upon the elements within their own
workplaces. Once issues are identified, then all parties can work toward solutions. As
bullying is such a nebulous phenomenon, tools are needed for organizations to gain
understanding of the larger issues and understand the best ways to address them. With the
right education and awareness, the phenomenon of workplace bullying can be eliminated
to the benefit of everyone associated with the workplace.

80

References
Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work: a discussion of definitions and prevalence, based
on an empirical study. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology. 48(2) 161-172
Aryee, S., Sun, L.Y., Chen, Z.X., Debrah, Y.A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology.
92(1), 191-201.
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., Muros, J. P. (2007) Workplace emotions: The role
of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357-1367.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (2008). OSH Answers "Violence in
the Workplace". Retrieved November 7, 2011. from
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psvchosocial/violence.html
Canada Labour Code (2008). Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Health
and Safety Regulations. Retrieved on November 7, 2011
fromhttp://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-05-28/html/sor-dorsl48-eng.html
Canada Safety Council (2005). Targeting Workplace Bullies. Retrieved November 15,
2008 from: http://www.safetv-council.org/info/OSH/bullv-law.html
CARF International (2011). "Online Standards Manuals" Retrieved November 27,2011
from: http://www.carf.org/Accreditation/OualitvStandards/OnlineStandards/
CBC News (2000).0c transpo hears last witness, cbc.ca. Retrieved June 15, 2008,
from:http://www.cbc.ca/news/storv/2000/02/l 8/octranspo000217.html#skip300x25
0
Court of Appeal for British Columbia (2006). Sulz v. Minister of Public Safety and
Solicitor General. Retrieved November 15,2008 from:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/idb-txt/ca/06/05/2006bcca0582.htm
Cresswell, J.W.(2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cozby, P.C. (2001). Methods in Behavioral Research seventh edition. Mountain View
California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Denenberg, R.V. & Braverman, M. (1999). The Violence-Prone Workplace: A new
approach to dealing with hostile, threatening, and uncivil behavior. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and
harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the

81

Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress: An International Journal of
Work, Health & Organizations 23,24-44.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of
Manpower 20,16-27.
Williams, S. & Sharp, J.D. (2003). Bullying at work: another form of workplace violence.
Archived focus articles. Retrieved November 15,2008 from: http://www.emondharnden.com/publications/feb03/bullies.pdf
Fitzgibbon, M.D. & Gervais, B.L. (2008). Workplace bullying and harassment.
Addendum, business and corporate edition. January, 3-6. Retrieved April 4,2008
from: http://www.cba.org/cba/newsletters/addendum0108/PrintHtml.aspx?DocId=30048.
Former RCMP officer awarded $950,000.(2006 February \5).Canadian Employment Law
Today. 455, 3563-3567.
Glaso, L., Berge Matthiesen, S., Birkeland Nielsen, ML, Einarsen, S.(2007). Do targets of
workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology. 48(4), 313-319.
Gouverenement du Quebec (2006). Psychological harassment at work. Commission des
norms du travail. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from:
http://wAvw.cnt.gouv.ac.ca/en/normes/harcelement.asp
Government of British Columbia (1996) Human Rights Code. Retrieved June 15, 2008,
from:http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/H/96210 01.htm#section!3
Government of Canada (1960).Canadian Bill of Rights. Department of Justice Canada.
Retrieved June 15, 2008, from: http://laws.iustice.ec.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/C12.3///en
Government of Canada (1982). Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Department of
Justice Canada. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from:
http://lois.iustice.gc.ca/en/charter/#charte
Government of Canada (2007) Human Rights Commission. Retrieved April 6,2012
from: www.chrcccdp.ca/disputeresolution reglementdifferends/remedies P 3 redressement 1eng.aspx
Government of Canada (2011). Human Rights Commission. Retrieved April 6,2012
from: www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/harassmentchra-eng.aspx

82

Harder, G.H. & Scott, L.R.(2005). Comprehensive Disability Management. London:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Hartig, K., & Frosch, J.(2006). Workplace Mobbing Syndrome: The 'Silent and Unseen'
Occupational Hazard. Our Work ... Our Lives: National Conference on Women
and Industrial Relations. Retrieved November 15,2008 from:
http://www.awws.0rg.au/filestore/0W0L%20Papers/PDF/Hartig%20and%20Frosc
h%2Qpaper%20FINAL.pdf
Harvey, M.G., Buckley, M.R., Heames, J.T., Zinko, R., Brouer, R.L., Ferris, G.R. (2007).
A bully as an archetypical destructive leader. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 14, 117-129.
Harvey, M.G., Heames, J.T., Richey, R.G & Leonard, N. (2006). Bullying: From
playground to the boardroom. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.
12,1-11.

Hauge, L.J., Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress
21(3) 220-242.
Heeney, J. (2007). Personal harassment liability always a danger for employers.
Canadian HR Reporter, 20, B15.
Hershcovis, S.M. & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for
workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
874-888.
Hoel, H. & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and
industrial relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach.
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 239-262.
Howe, R.B. & Johnson, B. (2007). Restraining Equality: Human Rights Commissions in
Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Humphrey, B.G. (2006 February 20). Employee awarded $1 million damages: Mental
health ruined by supervisor treatment. Human Rights Law Alert. Retrieved
November 15,2008 from
http://www.sbhlawvers.com/media/HR%20Law%20Alert%20Februarv%202006.pd
f
Hyde M; Jappinen P; Theorell T; Oxenstierna G. (1982) Workplace conflict resolution
and the health of employees in the Swedish and Finnish units of an industrial
company. Social Science & Medicine 63,2218-27.
Kelly, D. (2007). Workplace bullying, women and WorkChoices. Hecate 33,112-125.

83

Leymann, H. (1996). The mobbing encyclopaedia bullying; whistleblowing. Retrieved
April 4, 2008 from: http://www.leymann.se/English/frame.html
Lome Mayencourt MLA (2008). Poll shows workplace bullies a serious problem in BC.
Retrieved June 15, 2008, from:
http://www.lornemavencourtmla.bc.ca/EN/3874/68298?PHPSESSID:=5cda6fc9711
7d648143edcl06441d344
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and..: Quitting and other forms of resistance to
workplace bullying. Communication Monographs 73(4) 406-433.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace
bullying trauma and stigmatization. Organization 15, 97-119.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P.(2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse:
Generation and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management
Communication Quarterly, 16, 471-501.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S.J., & Alberts, J. (2007). Burned by bullying in the
American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of
Management Studies, 44, 837-862.
Macatee Report (2003). Ministry of water, land and air protection incident report.
Retrieved November 15,2008 from:
http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/361763/03 apr!7 macatee repor
t.pdf
McKenna, S. (2004). Predispositions and context in the development of managerial skills.
The Journal of Management Development, 23, 664-667.
Mikkelsen, E.G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationship between exposure to bullying at
work and psychosocial and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state
negative affectivity and generalized self-efficacy. Scandanavian Journal of
Psychology, 43, 397-405.
Mitchell, M.S. & Ambrose, M.L.(2007). Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance
and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 92 (4), 1159-1168
Mountie's million dollar award upheld by B.C. court.(2007, January 3). Canadian
Employment Law Today. 472, 3-8.
Namie, G. (2007). US workplace bullying survey Sept 2007. Workplace Bullying
Institute. Retrieved on November 15, 2008 from
http://bullvinginstitute.org/zogbv2007/WBIsurvev2007.pdf

84

OSH Answers: Bullying in the Workplace (2008). "What are examples of bullying?"
Retrieved November 15, 2008 from:
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psvchosocial/bullving.html
Peyton, P.R. (2003). Dignity at work: eliminate bullying and create a positive working
environment. Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
Province of Manitoba (2011). The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act
(Harassment and violence in the Workplace). Retrieved November 7,2011 from
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-4/pdfyb219.pdf
Province of Ontario (2009). The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act
(Harassment and Violence in the Workplace). Retrieved November 7, 2011 from
http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39 Parliament/Sessionl/bl68ra.pdf
Province of Saskatchewan (2007) The Occupational Health and Safety (Harassment
Prevention) Act. Retrieved November 15,2008 from:
http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/english/Chapters/2007/Chap-34.pdf
Rudner, S. (2007). Psychological harassment hurts employers, productivity. Canadian
HR Reporter, 20, 31.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling,
motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment.
Human Relations. 56, 1213-1232.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torbjorn, T., Aasland, M.S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12, 80-92.
Strandmark, K.M., Hallberg, L.R. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: experiences
from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of
Nursing Management, 15, 332-341.
Supreme Court of British Columbia (2006). Sulz v. Attorney General et al. Retrieved
November 15,2008 from: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/idbtxt/sc/06/00/2006bcsc0099.htm
Takao S; Tsutsumi A; Nishiuchi K; Mineyama S; Kawakami N. (2006). Effects of the job
stress education for supervisors on psychological distress and job performance
among their immediate subordinates: a supervisor-based randomized controlled
trial. Journal Of Occupational Health. 48 (6), 494-503.
Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis and
research agenda. Journal of Management. 33, 261-289.

85

Von Bergen, C.W., Zavaletta Jr, J.A., & Soper, B. (2006). Legal Remedies for
Workplace Bullying: Grabbing the Bully by the Horns. Employee Relations Law
Journal. 32, 14-40.
Vu, U. (2003). New rules to prevent violence. Canadian HR Reporter, 16, 1.
Yildiz, S. (2007). A 'new' problem in the workplace: Psychological abuse (bullying).
Journal of Academic Studies, 34,113-128.
Yin, R.K. (2009).Case Study Research: Design and Methods fourth edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

86

Appendix A
Participant interview questions

Would you please tell me about your experience running your organization?

What specific role does your Board perform in your organization?

What do you view as the positives and negatives of this structure when it comes to power
dynamics if and when conflicts such as personnel issues, grievances, policy changes or
policy enforcement, or interpersonal issues arise?

What role if any, do you think operating in a smaller/rural center plays/played in your
organization's challenges and successes? Would these be any different in a larger center?

Could you please describe your relationship with your Board? What influence, if any, do
you think these individuals have on the psychosocial environment of your workplace?

In the context of your workplace, how would you define psychological harassment or
bullying?

Have you encountered problems of bullying or psychological harassment in your
organization? If so, what did you do to rectify the situation? If not, what do you think
prevents/prevented this issue in your workplace?

87

What are/were your most significant challenges as an ED?

What do you see as your largest successes as an ED and why?

Would you consider working for an organization like yours again? Why or why not?

Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your experiences as an ED?

88

Appendix B
Consent Form
CONSENT AND INFORMATION FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY OF
BULLYING IN SMALL TOWN SERVICE PROVIDERS

Background Information
My name is Mindy Vandenberg and I am conducting research for a thesis in the
Disability Management Program at UNBC. I am conducting a study that focuses on the
experience of executive directors for social service agencies that are run by volunteer
boards located within small communities. My research interest is in psychological
harassment in particular and the workplace atmosphere in general.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose and goals of this study are to examine these specific work environments
through the perspective of executive directors in hopes of better understanding how such
organizations deal with psychological harassment in the workplace.

Benefits of this study
The benefits of this study are to gain a better understanding of what elements within a
psychosocial work environment contribute to or help protect against the presence of
psychological harassment or bullying in general. It is hoped that this study will contribute

89

a view that is specific to the experience of those in smaller communities which is not well
documented.

Selection and Participation
You have been approached to participate in this study because you have current or past
experience as an executive director running a social service agency in a small
community, and can provide invaluable information to this study regarding the work
environment of such organizations. Your participation will consist of an interview to gain
insight into your view of the work environment of your organization.

Confidentiality
Interviews will be recorded, transcribed and any identifying characteristics will be
masked. All information obtained in the interview will be kept in digital form in a locked
secure location and be destroyed after one year. The locked secure location is in the
researcher's office in a locked filing cabinet and after the conclusion of the thesis, the
information will be kept in Dr. Harder's office at UNBC in a locked filing cabinet.
Interviews will be identified by time and date of the interview. Community, agency and
individual names will not be used. Every effort will be made to keep any information
provided in the strictest confidence. Any and all information will be used for the
completion of a thesis and may be used in presentations or journal articles.

Participation is voluntary and participants can withdraw their consent at any time without
any reason given and all contributed data will be removed and destroyed. Participants are

90

not required to answer all questions. Only the researcher and the supervisor, Dr Harder
will have access to individual responses.
Risk
There are minimal risks associated with participation in this study, and all efforts have
been made to eliminate this risk.

Consent
By providing your signature below, you are stating you agree to participate in this study
and that all questions and concerns were answered.

Contact Information
To obtain a copy of a summary of the research results upon completion of the study,
contact Mindy Vandenberg at vandenO@unbc.ca or Dr. Henry Harder at
harderh@unbc.ca.

Any complaints about this research project should be directed to Dr. Henry Harder at
(250) 960-6506 or to the Office of Research reb@unbc.ca or (250) 960-5650.

Signed

Date