One of my M-students (Heine Engelbrecht) just completed his dissertation with the following title:
"The relationship between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and the intention to quit in an IT company"
Globally, workplace bullying is a growing phenomenon which affects millions of employees. It is characterised by frequency of incidence, duration and reaction on the side of both the perpetrator and victim, ultimately caused by power struggles in ineffective working environments. The impact on both the company and employee is significant and there is a negative impact on the employment relationship. It may lead to reduced performance and productivity, individual health problems, impact on job satisfaction and foster intentions to quit.
The primary objective of this research was to determine the prevalence of workplace bullying in a South African Information Technology (IT) company, and determine the impact of this construct on job satisfaction and intention to quit. A cross-sectional survey design was used. The constructs were measured by means of a biographical questionnaire, The Negative Acts Questionnaire Revised, a Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and an Intention to Quit Questionnaire. Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were used to assess the validity and reliability of the measuring instruments.
This research indicated that although the perception of the majority of the respondents is that they have never been bullied (self-reported based on the definitions of bullying), the frequency analysis of the negative actions that bullying is indeed prevalent in the company and thus poses a threat to both the company and the employees. Bullying did not just affect the victim but also observers/witnesses of this occurrence. The research also indicates that the perpetrators of bullying are mostly managers, followed by colleagues and then customers. The findings also suggest that victims are bullied in work groups based on the victims' perception which further support the fact that managers are more often than not the perpetrator.
The characteristics of the participants indicated that the workforce is relatively young with the majority younger than thirty and more than half the study population employed for less that two years. The findings further suggests that it may well be this young workforce that is prone to bullying.
The majority of bullying behaviour is related to the job itself and refers to more subtle forms of abuse including high frequencies of negative acts such as "someone withholding information that affects your performance", "having your views and opinions ignored", "being ordered to do below your level of competence" and "having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks".
Bullying behaviour experienced least in the company, is more related to verbal abuse and violence and includes being "threatened with violence or physical abuse", "hints or signals from others that they should quit their job", "being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm", "experienced practical jokes carried out by people they did not get on with" and "experienced intimidating behaviour such as finger pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way" which support the findings that bullying in this company is more task-related than person-orientated.
A once-off study is not sufficient to understand this phenomenon, and continual studies to monitor and manage incidence and awareness of this construct are recommended and to determine the impact on of workplace bullying on both the company and individual in the South African context.
The thought crossed my mind: "How reliable is polygraph-testing ('Lie Detector Test') in the employment environment in the South African context?
With the prevalence of crime in the workplace such as misconduct, theft, fraud, sexual harassment and other work- and employment relations-related matters, the Polygraph Institute of South Africa (Pisa) is of the opinion that polygraph-testing can be used as a tool to establish the truthfulness of employees
Polygraph testing is quite a new concept in South Africa, with reference to employment disputes. We have no legislation up-to-date to control the use / abuse of the test or to protect the right of the employee's regarding the tests.
The Constitution of South Africa prohibits a person to undergo a polygraph test, unless he or she consents to it in writing.
I came across a very important court case on the Internet: (Harmse v Rainbow Farms 1997 WE) where the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration of South Africa (CCMA) set a precedent in the South African labour law. The finding in this case allowed for companies and businesses to use polygraph-testing in the workplace in a responsible and sensible way.
The Labour Relations Act (Item 7a of Schedule 8) requires an employer to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged employee was actually involved in or guilty of misconduct.
Polygraph-testing is not the only tool to rely on when disciplining employees. In other words, polygraph-testing cannot lead to the dismissal of an employee. There must still be a procedurally-correct disciplinary enquiry where the chairperson must wheigh the evidence submitted, mitigating and aggravating circumstances etc. and "apply his/her mind" regarding the outcome of the case.
According to the Internet the polygraph-testing is not 100% reliable (most sources indicate a maximum of 96%). Perhaps we should do some research on the validity and reliability regarding the accuracy of this tool in employment issues.