Brazilian banks tend to address bullying through internal compliance channels, focusing on coaching, training, etc. Unions are sceptical of case-by-case solutions. Paulo Marzionna writes that how each side reacts to the problem reflects their different frames of reference. Whereas banks view bullying as an individual issue, unions think it’s a structural problem caused by aggressive performance targets. Unions sometimes even sympathise with bullying managers for the pressures they suffer.

Understanding workplace bullying poses a substantial challenge. Although most can agree on the general terms of its definition (that is, a systematic display of aggressive behaviour and social exclusion at work), there is more debate concerning its root causes. Is workplace bullying linked to the structural features of specific sectors, or is it the result of the actions of individual ill-intentioned managers? This distinction is not a matter of different perceptions over the causes of bullying. It reflects deeply rooted differences in views on labour relations that can shape how different actors respond to workplace bullying. This complex interplay between views on labour relations, understandings of bullying and decisions on how to respond to it came to light during my research into the Brazilian banking sector.

Banks and unions diverge

In the early 2000s, when the term workplace bullying (or assédio moral in Portuguese) started to resonate within the Brazilian banking sector, unions were primarily focused on defining this specific type of conflict to their members. As described in a 2002 union publication:

“[Bullying is characterised by] bosses yelling, professional disqualification, constant humiliations, criticisms of the job performed, and termination threats.”

Though the initial descriptions provided by the banking unions emphasised individual behaviours, this perspective evolved. According to union publications, bullying gradually came to be seen as an intrinsic characteristic of the Brazilian banking sector, a symptom of the pressure to meet aggressive performance targets set by top management, as opposed to a result of individual misbehaviour by middle managers. A union leader well summarised this shift in perspective:

“[Workplace bullying] is implicit in the employment relationship due to some practices banks adopt, such as performance targets. Targets have no limit. They are numbers that never go down, never! […] That is why we have such a difficult relationship with targets, no matter the bank, whether public or private.”

In stark contrast, banks categorically deny that bullying is a structural issue in the sector. For them, bullying is not an inevitable consequence of setting and pursuing performance targets but rather the result of specific managers failing to adhere to best practices.

The role of frames of reference

These contrasting definitions of bullying do not come about by chance. They offer evidence of the distinct general understandings of labour relations held by banks and unions. To understand why these differences arise, it is essential to delve into the concept of frames of reference, which was introduced in the field of labour relations over half a century ago (Fox 1966). As defined by Budd, Pohler, and Huang, frames of reference are “the lenses through which actors perceive, understand, and react to the world around them”.

In labour relations, researchers classify actors in an employment relationship as holding three frames of reference: unitarist, pluralist, and critical. As summarised by Budd and Colvin, under the unitarist frame, employers and employees share a unity of many interests, and, therefore, conflicts tend to be interpersonal or a sign of organisational dysfunction. Under the pluralist perspective, employers and employees have a mix of shared and conflicting interests, demanding that conflicts be solved through institutional interventions that try to balance bargaining power. Finally, under the critical frame, the employment relationship is a forum for sharp conflicts and unequal power dynamics between management and labour.

Indeed those different frames of reference are identifiable in employers and unions in the Brazilian banking sector, manifested in their different interpretations of workplace bullying. Banks, holding a unitarist frame, see bullying as an interpersonal/individual problem, while unions, holding a pluralist or critical frame, see in bullying another evidence of the inherent conflicts of interests between managers and employees.

How frames of reference shape responses to bullying

Although it is intriguing to see how different frames of reference lead to different interpretations of bullying, the real value of this research lies in highlighting the implications of these frames on conflict management strategies.

Operating under a unitarist frame of reference and perceiving bullying as an individual problem, banks in Brazil have tended to address workplace bullying through internal channels, such as ombudsman offices, employee hotlines, or other compliance and grievance channels. The solutions proposed and implemented typically focus on individual-level interventions, such as coaching, training, lateral transfers, or, occasionally, termination of the alleged bullying manager.

However, unions operating under a pluralist or critical frame of reference see bullying as a structural problem. Therefore, they are sceptical of solutions offered by those responsible for the structure at the root of bullying (that is, the top management that defines and demands aggressive performance targets). As one union representative stated:

“We do not trust the company’s investigation. […] If the bullying is organisational, how can I allow the grievance investigation to be conducted by the one who instructs the bullying to occur? It is like putting a fox to guard the chicken coop, exposing the victim.”

Under different frames of reference, unions advocate for different conflict management strategies. For instance, pluralist unions negotiated for a clause in the collective bargaining agreement that mandates banks to respect investigation deadlines and provide unions with information on all grievances related to workplace bullying. Because they view bullying as an organisational or sectoral problem, pluralist unions try to use the protocol to promote deep changes in how banks set their performance targets. As workplace bullying is understood as an inherent conflict between labour and management, unions might even develop sympathy for middle managers who engage in bullying because they too are “victims” of institutional pressure. As revealed by a union leader:

“We believe that workplace bullying is institutional. Some people can deal better [with the pressure], can filter it, but there are people who explode and end up passing on [the pressure] to the team. We also believe that the aggressor is also a victim in some way.”

While pluralist unions have a final goal of changing how the sector sets its performance targets via combined efforts with the banks, unions holding a critical frame go one step further. Since bullying manifests the unequal power dynamics that unequivocally characterise the employment relationship, it is impossible to give the employer a central role in a conflict management strategy that aims at structurally transforming how the sector organises its activities. As stated by a union leader:

“We have to conduct our own investigation by giving all the support to the victim – and not handing it to the bank. […] The solution to the problem, we can even do it together, but the investigation cannot be conducted by the bank. […]  The bank does not punish [the bullying boss] because the bank is the aggressor. […] It has no independence.”

Beyond Brazilian banks

This research’s implications go far beyond the Brazilian banking sector, providing insights into other forms of workplace conflict. The results of this study underscore the importance of frames of reference in shaping how conflicts are perceived and addressed.

As new forms of conflict arise (such as workplace bullying), actors rely on their frames of reference to make sense of and respond to these conflicts. While this study focused on workplace bullying, the same phenomenon should apply to other forms of conflict, such as sexual harassment or discrimination. As long as there is room for interpretation about what is behind the definition of a particular type of conflict, actors’ frames of reference will play a role in determining how those conflicts will be understood and how each actor will respond to them.

• This blog post is based on Is this workplace bullying? How ideas about conflict shape conflict management strategies, in British Journal of Industrial Relations.
• The post represents the views of its authors, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.
• Featured image by Damir Kopezhanov on Unsplash
• When you leave a comment, you’re agreeing to our Comment Policy.

Print Friendly