Do you think bullying only occurs in big corporate houses where you have to work with a large number of employees and get smarted under a bully? Did you think a PR or an Advertising agency is free from such a social menace? Think again, ask around and you would come across anecdotes that is fit to give you sleepless nights. Such agencies fail to go through a proper induction process of forming, storming, norming and performing and end up with a lopsided organizational structure.

How do you erase this indelible scar created by your senior? Do you move to seek help from the human rights commission or speak against it and jeopardize the rest of your career growth with bad recommendations? I have been a victim of such circumstances facing bullying in the workplace for three consecutive years, which led me to do some study in this field. I wanted to know what exactly is bullying. Who is responsible for it and what could be the possible solutions?

Several definitions of workplace bullying have been provided in literature. Despite several definitions of bullying, there is a general consensus regarding what constitutes bullying (e.g. Einarsen et al., 2003). Specifically, for behaviour to qualify as bullying, it must be perceived by the victim as oppressive, unfair, humiliating, undermining, threatening, difficult to defend against or an infringement of the victim’s human rights. Furthermore, according to several authors (e.g. Vartia, 2001; Einarsen et al., 2003), such behaviour is considered to be bullying only if it recurs over an extended period of time. While I was writing this article, I felt that I had gone through each and every aspect of bullying in my workplace. I was treated in an unfair manner, humiliated and undermined by my superior Ms. SASA over an extended period of three years, which physically and mentally made me distraught. 

Bullying is a multidimensional construct and comprises a wide spectrum of behaviour that can be targeted at the work or at the personal characteristics of the victim. The more subtle types of bullying behaviour include withholding information and physically or socially isolating the victim, whereas the more overt types include setting impossible deadlines for the victim and publicly belittling the victim. Little did I realize at that point of time that setting of impossible deadlines or procrastinating the work towards the deadline is a form of bullying, victimizing me in my workplace.

Workplace bullying behaviours, as suggested by Hoel and Cooper (2000) comprises of four categories: (1) work-related harassment (e.g. persistently criticizing the victim’s work); (2) personal harassment (e.g. spreading rumours about the victim); (3) organizational harassment (e.g. removing key areas of responsibility from the victim); and (4) intimidation (e.g. threatening the victim with violence). Workplace bullying has several unfavorable psychological effects on victims (Fox and Stallworth, 2005), such as negative affect, depression, low self-esteem and suicidal thoughts (Einarsen and Matthiesen, 1999). There is evidence supporting the psychosomatic model of bullying, which posits that bullying leads to negative affect, which then leads to physiological problems. Consistent with the psychosomatic model of bullying, being bullied has been shown to be associated with physiological problems, such as musculoskeletal pains, chronic fatigue syndrome (Einarsen and Mikkelsen, 2003), headaches, stomach disorders,

rashes (e.g. O’Moore et al., 1998; Vartia, 2001) and cardiovascular disease (Kivimaki et al., 2003).

Workplace bullying has widespread negative effects on organizations because it affects not only the victims but also those who witness the bullying (Hoel et al., 1999). Bullying adversely affects organizational performance in terms of output, creativity and innovation (Rayner et al., 2002). Being bullied at work also reduces the organizational satisfaction and commitment of victims (Hoel and Cooper, 2000), If an organization is to send a message to its employees that they are valued and cared for, then it is imperative that leaders themselves are aware of the various subtle behaviour that constitute bullying and that they refrain from enacting such behaviour (Fox and Stallworth, 2005).

How can this bullying stop, is there a solution to it? I think when informed of workplace bullying, leaders need to respond in ways that demonstrate to victims and other staff that the organization supports them and will not tolerate such behaviour (Brodsky, 1976; O’Moore et al., 1998; Hoel and Salin, 2003). Better still, leaders need to proactively address workplace bullying and can do so by developing formal statements and policies that indicate clearly that bullying is unacceptable and that bullying holds serious consequences for the perpetrators. Such primary interventions play a critical role in preventing bullying behaviour in the workplace (Djurkovick N et al, 2008).

Specific ways in which an organization can demonstrate that it is supportive of its employees include providing avenues for victims to lodge their complaints and ensuring that these complaints are acted on in ways that signal to all employees that the organization will protect their basic human rights. Furthermore, it is important that organizations demonstrate that they are concerned about the welfare of their employees by encouraging them, from time to time, to come forth should they have any work-related or personal problems with which the organization can assist them. An example of such an approach is the use of employee assistance programmes. It is in the hands of the leaders to stop this bullying and create a whole new world of harmony.

We have seen that in recent time the spotlight has been put on Corporate America in a way that has not been seen since the Great Depression. Newspaper polls suggest that many investors and members of the general public no longer trust Wall Street and corporate boards for obvious reasons. In order to try to restore the reputation of Corporate America, politicians and law makers are suggesting more stringent reporting and controls. Does it make sense for a company to try to form its reputation in such a way that it helps to gain a competitive advantage relative to its industry rivals?

Richard Branson, the founder of the Virgin group of companies in the UK had advised senior managers to build their corporate brands not around products and services, but around their company’s reputation. In order to consider whether to compete on one’s corporate reputation is a sensible strategy, managers need answers to the following questions:

- What are corporate reputations and can they be crafted to provide an advantage over those of other industry rivals?

- How are corporate reputations validated?
- What type of reputation should be fostered?

Let us explore what is corporate reputation and how is it formed? A dictionary defines a reputation as the estimation in which a person or thing is held by other people. A corporate reputation is an overall evaluation that reflects the extent to which people see the firm as substantially “good” or “bad.” Good reputations foster trust and confidence, bad ones do not. Corporate image is a person’s beliefs about an organization, and corporate identity is the attributes used to describe an organization. Thus, corporate image means that we are talking about people’s perceptions of the organization and answers the question “What do people think about you?” Corporate identity refers to the way that the organization presents itself to its stakeholders and answers the question “Who are you?” An organization develops and highlights the parts of its identity that it hopes will foster a better image than its rivals in the minds of key stakeholders. If this occurs, the organization is said to have a good reputation.

For an organization to use its corporate reputation as a competitive weapon it must initiate a set of programmes to shape its identity, namely, its character, ability, products and services, and its behavior so that these will be evaluated favorably by its key stakeholders—relative to that of its industry rivals. Two basic options are either to foster a broad-based “good” reputation that will resonate with all stakeholders or one that is anchored to a specific identity attribute that is highly valued by one or more key stakeholder groups.

In some industries, it is important for competitors to have a broad-based good reputation. Trust and confidence in the organization is a strategic factor in its success. Those organizations that lead their rivals in this endeavor can gain a competitive advantage. In other industries, the establishment of a good corporate reputation is anchored to an attribute of the organization that is of particular importance to target customers and/or a key stakeholder groups. In both cases, corporate reputation can be a strategic asset that provides a source of potential competitive advantage. An organization that seeks to compete on its corporate reputation does so by choosing to promote some of its identity attributes or to publicly trade on its good name. In both cases, the corporate brand name is used to direct attention to the organization as the source of some type of communication, such as advertising, press releases, sponsorships, community activities, and investor relations.

For an organization to be a persuasive source of communication, it must be perceived as either:

- Credible, e.g., expert, objective,
- Attractive, e.g., likable, similar to the stakeholder, or
- Powerful, e.g., authoritative, influential.

The question then arises as to how can an organization present itself as credible and/or attractive and/or powerful? John Rossiter and Larry Percy suggest that because claims made by the organization will be carefully considered, they should be:

- Emotionally authentic (and this needs to be checked as it will vary across stakeholder groups)

- Convincing, that is, pitched to build on, or gently refute, the target stakeholder’s current beliefs.

Maintaining a good reputation requires constant vigilance. The actions of a rogue employee can quickly damage such a reputation. Also, it is easy for a company to pronounce its good intentions but fail to put in place formal procedures to ensure and measure compliance. To make a reasoned judgment, managers need to understand how good reputations are formed and maintained. This understanding suggests that the organization’s behavior is the prime determinant of its reputation. This will be driven by its overall system—such things as its strategy, business process, culture, controls, employees, and governance. Another crucial reputation driver is the value proposition offered to customers Also, the integrity of the top team —the Board, CEO, and executive managers—play a crucial role in personifying and creating trust and confidence in the company. Because different stakeholder groups often hold different reputations of an organization, managers need to address the problem of achieving a balance among the competing interests of their stakeholders.

To sum it up, a corporate reputation reflects the organization’s strategy, culture, and values. A good corporate reputation signifies trust in the company; creates an emotional and intellectual bond with employees, target customers, and other important stakeholders; and acts as the source of authority and credibility for all the organization’s dealings.

I have been working with PR agencies in India for almost 12 years and the last 3 years have been with a leading agency in India. One of their key clients that I handled was on mobile telephony. As is true to the nature of the client, crisis was an everyday issue.

Crisis always led to chaos and chaos to confusion, resulting in numerous phone calls, direction less running around and tension. I wondered why such situations cannot be approached in a more systematic and planned way. While conducting my study with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) UK, I chose Crisis Communication as my personal project. I would like to share with you some of my thoughts and the theories behind it.

Let us first define what is crisis. Crisis as described by Banks K.L. is a, “major occurrence with a potentially negative outcome affecting an organization as well as its public services, products and good name.” It interrupts a normal business transaction and can at its worst threaten the existence of an organization. Not all crisis are alike and the response to different crisis differs at any point. Nevertheless, crisis management regardless of parameters requires strategic action be taken both to avoid and mitigate undesirable developments and to bring about a desirable resolution to the problem (Burnett J 1998).

Crisis management is a continuous effort. It is a strategic issue that looms as one of the most difficult to resolve because of both the additional elements of time pressure, limited control and high uncertainty. Crisis is better when it is averted. Weick (1998) in his “enactment perspective” also focuses on the prevention of error occurrence in an effort to reduce the magnitude of those errors. The anticipatory model of crisis management therefore argues that effective crisis management is prevention oriented because it is hard to cope with a crisis for which one has not prepared. The anticipatory model states that although human error cannot be eliminated in their entirety, it still is our responsibility to engage in prevention efforts that require anticipation of these errors.

Public relations experts are urged to move beyond traditional communication responsibilities and to develop skills in researching the company and industry history

and forecasting potential problems with remote stakeholders. Being prepared requires having self awareness knowledge, realizing one’s vulnerability to crisis and engaging a plan of action that counteracts the risk of crisis (Udwadia and Mitroff 1991). Paying attention to the interactions of human, technological and general management factors are the only way to exacerbate a crisis.

A typical crisis situation comprises of 5 stages as referred by Barton (1993). The initial prodromal stage when the organization is watching for warning signs. The second is the preparation or prevention stage. The third stage is that of containment, the efforts to limit the duration of crisis or keep it from becoming more serious. The fourth stage is that of recovery, the efforts spent in salvaging the situation. The fifth stage is that of learning, the process of evaluation and how to convert the learning as knowledge base for future warning signs.

Some of the best practices involved in a crisis management as enlisted by (Fearn Banks 1996 a) are given below.

* The public relations head should be a part of the top management team. Being a part of the dominant coalition, it helps the PR personnel to be privy to all management decisions. They are aware of the issues from the initial stage which may lead to a crisis situation.

* The programmes are designed to build relationships with all key stakeholders who are ranked and segmented according to importance. The organization should know who its stakeholders are and strive to maintain a strong relationship with them.

* An ongoing public relation plan is developed for each key stakeholder. A continuing dialogue with publics helps to bridge the gulf between an organization and its stakeholders. This is what has been defined by J. Gruning (1992) as ‘excellent communication’.

* A strong network and bonding with the media is essential during a crisis situation.

* An ongoing two way symmetrical crisis communication plan is developed as a response to a crisis. The plan should identify the crisis team, spokesperson, duties and the key talking points.

* The organization maintains a reputation for having an overall ‘open and honest’ policy with publics all the time.

The public relations manager should use their boundary spanning role to provide a contingency plan in case of a crisis situation. Given the public relations manager’s knowledge on communication concepts they need to assume a leadership role to resolve the crisis. Crisis like competition is a phenomenon that public relations managers can plan for and produce strategic responses to minimize adverse effects. Public relations is about an effort to mitigate uncertainty. It can do so by manipulating public behaviour or by being proactive to deal with uncertainty strategically.

Crisis communication is not a stand alone module of communication. It has a boundary spanning role and encompasses organizational variables such as strategy, leadership, training, culture, structure and socio-psychological behaviour of both the organization and their stakeholders on whom crisis creates a greater impact.