Confronting Workplace Bullying

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399713509245
• Published date: 01 July 2014
• Date: 01 July 2014
• Author: Ruth B. McKay
• Subject Matter: Articles

Administration & Society

2014, Vol. 46(5) 548 –572

© 2013 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0095399713509245

aas.sagepub.com

Article

Confronting Workplace

Bullying: Agency and

Structure in the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police

Ruth B. McKay1

Abstract

Organizational awareness and responses to workplace bullying is in a state of

change and innovation. While employees are gaining awareness, organizations

are unable or unwilling to change rapidly enough for employee needs. This

paper examines the dynamic between agency (individual influence) and

structure (organizational forces) as applied to workplace bullying in a public

organization. A case example involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

is included to explore the organizational impediments, particularly resulting

from structure, in addressing workplace bullying.

Keywords

workplace bullying, change, organizational culture, structure, police

organization

Introduction

Public organizations have strong structural features of hierarchy and author-

ity that create particular organizational challenges. In the case of interper-

sonal conflict and workplace bullying, the structural design of the bureaucracy

and the attention to process over individual agency, essential in delivering

1Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Ruth B. McKay, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, 810 Dunton Tower, Ottawa,

Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.

Email: ruth_mckay@carleton.ca

509245AAS46510.1177/0095399713509245Administration & SocietyMcKay

research-article2013

McKay 549

consistent services to the public, can create hurdles and barriers in addressing

cases of workplace bullying. For example, research by Archer (1999) on bul-

lying in the fire service described the fire service culture as being a “culture

based on power, that is to say rank and position with unargued obedience to

orders and instructions” (p. 95). An earlier study by Vartia (1996), looking at

sources of bullying in a municipal organization in Finland, had a similar find-

ing. Vartia found that a key cause of bullying was an “authoritative way of

settling differences of opinion” (p. 203), an approach built into the very struc-

ture of a bureaucratic organization.

Individual agency, particularly at the bottom of the organization, is cur-

tailed in a bureaucracy to maintain standards, efficiency, and accountability.

The bureaucratic focus on hierarchy gives a large amount of power and

responsibility to managers and supervisors, which can contribute to bullying

through the excessive use of power. Many studies on bureaucracies and pub-

lic organizations have flagged concerns about workplace bullying (Zapf, Isic,

Bechtoldt, & Blau, 2003), for example, in universities (Björkqvist, 1994;

McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008), prisons (Vartia & Hyyti, 2002),

hospitals (Kivimäki, Elovainio, & Vahtera 2000; Moayed, Daraiseh, Shell, &

Salem, 2006), the navy (Magerøy, Lau, Riise, & Moen, 2009), fire stations

(Archer, 1999; Coyne, Craig, & Smith-Lee, 2004), and police organizations

(Torres et al., 2008; Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009). A study

by the University of Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology (2000)

of 5,500 employees in the United Kingdom suggested that bullying may be

even more prevalent in the public sector than the private sector. Other research

has reached a similar conclusion (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Hoel, Faragher, &

Cooper, 2004; Lewis, 1999; Zapf et al., 2003).

Zapf et al. (2003) argue that more research is needed on cause and

effect of workplace bullying. Three factors have been identified as key

sources of bullying—individual factors, for example, issues of self-

esteem or lack of social competencies (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011); social

factors, for example, norms of reciprocity and perceptions of injustices

(Neuman & Baron, 2011); and organizational factors, for example, job

design and organizational culture (Salin & Hoel, 2011). In some organiza-

tions, such as public offices, the structural antecedents (part of organiza-

tional factors) of bullying can be very strong. Structure can limit efforts

to resolve differences because hierarchy, power, and organizational cul-

ture will supersede individual agency. In addition, hierarchy, power, and

organizational culture are identified as means by which bullying maybe

imposed on others or intentionally or unintentionally reinforced (Aquino

& Lamertz, 2004; Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2010; Zapf &

Einarsen, 2011).