In previous writings about gender and occupational health and safety (OHS), the work of Jerald Greenberg was mentioned, particularly his book “Insidious Workplace Behaviour”. His perspective seems even more pertinent today as many of us are weaving our way cautiously through communications and interactions with our work colleagues as we clarify what is acceptable behaviour so as to avoid offence or accusations of bullying and sexual harassment.
SafetyAtWorkBlog’s position is that sexual harassment is part of OHS and safety management systems due to the potential physical and psychological harm, in a similar way that bullying became an OHS concern.
Greenberg researches organisational behaviour and has written about corporate misdeeds and misbehaviour but he identified many precursors to some of these incidents. He and his colleague, Marissa S Edwards, wrote
”Far beneath the surface, however, lays a broad base of deviant behaviour that fail to grab public attention because they are prosaic, sometimes covert, and seemingly benign in nature…” (Page 3)
This constitutes “insidious workplace behaviour” (IWB).
Many of these behaviours seem benign with a low-level severity but repeated actions can generate harm, presenting a link to the established hazard of workplace stress and the contemporary interest in mental health and wellbeing. For OHS people this is similar to the accumulation of harm or damage over many years leading to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD). In fact some OHS researchers have linked psychosocial hazards and MSDs.
When OHS professionals and senior executives refer to an organisational culture, or one that focuses on safety, IWB is likely to be part of “the way we do things around here”; the little things that can become big things to some workers and yet are totally undetected by others. Discussing IWB is a way for the potential harm to be discussed outside of the gender-charged context of sexual harassment and bullying.
In the context of sexual harassment and bullying, Edwards and Greenberg wrote:
”The stealthy and frequently ambiguous nature of IWB means that it is generally difficult to detect, allowing individuals to engage in IWB for long periods of time before they are caught…. Two reasons for this may be identified. First, it takes time for someone to eventually recognize a pattern in which the cumulative impact of the insidious acts appears. Second, over time the odds are increased that the perpetrator will cross the line into the realm of blatantly unacceptable behaviour.” (Page 330)
They believe that the work of researchers Neumann and Baron and Buss’ typology of aggression should be incorporated into definitions of IWB and provide a useful example of sexual harassment:
”…these authors classified sexual harassment as active, verbal and direct aggression, and sabotage as active, physical, and indirect aggression. However sexual harassment can take many forms, including inappropriate touching and staring….” (page 330)
The authors also discuss incivility, a term increasingly appearing in the OHS/mental health discussions, and identify these forms of incivility:
- ”… giving the silent treatment…
- …. showing up late for meetings held by the target….
- …. making rude or disrespectful comments…” (page 330)
To these Edwards and Greenberg would add lying and revenge. The first of these links incivility to the issue of trust in organisations which is gaining increasing attention (refer to the EY document pictured above).
There are several potential applications of the research into Insidious Workplace Behaviour. Firstly, this research can be incorporated in to training programs designed to raise awareness of incivility, mental health, wellness and sexual harassment. A more sustainable strategy, and “sustainable” means, in this case, likely to lead to long-term, organisational cultural change, would be to start mentioning IWB in a range of formal and informal OHS conversations in workplaces. In this way, there is no big culture changing/Leadership fuss which can devalue IWB’s importance rather than promoting its significance. These conversations should encourage ethical bystanders who speak up or step in when IWB is observed or experienced. As these “gentle” interventions are made by many across an organisation, the culture will change for the better, as the ethical underpinnng of the organisation is constantly demonstrated and reinforced in the workplace, instead of in the training rooms that are sanitized from reality.
When investigating workplace incidents, OHS people look for causes and contributory factors. When investigating psychosocial incidents, it is highly likely that IWBs will emerge as one or more of those factors. They were clues to bad behaviour, toxic personalities or unhealthy organisational cultures.
During these investigations, and even regular site visits and walks, OHS professionals often ask why something was done, why something was not done and why some action, that led to harm, was not stopped. OHS is about encouraging active and ethical bystanding and early intervention. This same action needs to be applied to insidious workplace behaviours so that “the perpetrator will [NOT] cross the line into the realm of blatantly unacceptable behaviour” and create unnecessary workplace mental ill-health and harm.