please email me at stellrock@msn.com

Anthony

We do have to be aware of how we are perceiving things, and often conflict is a group phenomenon because of how the group as a whole reacts to it (e.g., 2 people are butting heads, but some staff are taking sides or encouraging bullying by laughing at jokes, etc, and the conflict becomes a group interaction). So bullying does need to be looked at through something more than “this person feels bullied and that’s the end of the story.” I do agree.

Yet, what happens when one person is consistently identified by staff members as someone who bullies them and others? Would you be willing to label them a bully then? Back to my previous point… if someone lacks in conflict management skills, and they continue to use “bullying behaviors” as a means to resolve their conflicts with others… aren’t they a bully?

Looking forward to your more in depth article Tammy. Agreed that it’s easy to write someone off as a bully and therefore disengage from having any responsibility in the behavior being directed at you… but…

Lisa, thanks for adding some additional thinking to this complex question. I agree that there’s a whole lot of possibility that’s lost when we label instead of use our good curiosity to try to understand first. I can’t say that I agree that much of conflict management work misses the two items you mention, though…my sense is that really well trained and seasoned CM folks work in much the way you describe!

I think much of conflict management work misses two important things: First, when we label someone “bully” we place ourselves outside the conflict, and outside the solution, as if we are somehow not a party, and not responsible. We are all 100 percent responsible for our perceptions and our reactions. We may not be conscious of the effect of our perceptions and resulting actions, which leads to my second point:

I feel that the solutions are found by meeting the conflict with curiosity and a goal of connection. If we really really look, connection is what we’re after, it’s the bigger purpose holding the resolution conversation.

What if we come to the table curious about what’s in the field of the dispute, argument or action? What are the underlying assumptions or unmet needs? How do we peel apart what’s real?

Bullying is a convenient label to bring us into the discussion, but I think it has to be abandoned to get anywhere, anywhere toward resolution.

My 2 cents.

Writing my thesis on bullies in the work place, so very interested in your comments. You say, “…it may be a person whose (just) acting less effectively than they might outside of the conflict.” Are you saying if the incident is isolated within the conflict the two co-workers are experiencing the perpetrator is not a bully? The perp is simply not handling the conflict effectively, but shouldn’t be called a bully?

Lack of conflict management skills and the inability to argue well are both identified as correlations to bullying behaviors, so I suppose I am disagreeing with you.

If you don’t like the way someone’s treating you, and it’s affecting your work, your confidence and your happiness, then it’s bullying. Whether the person is insulting you because you are in a conflict with them is irrelevant.

If one lacks conflict management skills, they will continue to insult or ignore others along the way through out their life, and by the very nature of that, they are a bully.

How amazing it would be if we could find a way to connect at the point of conflict…!

If it’s the latter, I want to pause and be careful. If it’s the others, then there’s a lot more to figure out, I think.

Thanks for starting the conversation, Robyn!