Group & Organization Managementdocshare04.docshare.tips/files/18535/185358927.pdf348 Group & Organization Management 37(3)Introduction Teamwork is essential in occupations where employees

http://gom.sagepub.com/Management

Group & Organization

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1059601112449476

June 2012 2012 37: 347 originally published online 19Group & Organization Management

Hilary Miller and Charlotte RaynerOccupational Culture: Bullying in a U.K. Police Service

The Form and Function of ''Bullying'' Behaviors in a Strong

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group & Organization ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 19, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jun 29, 2012Version of Record >>

by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by alina ciabuca on October 20, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gom.sagepub.com/

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.refs.html

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/347.full.pdf

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/06/19/1059601112449476.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml































Group & Organization Management37(3) 347 –375

© The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1059601112449476

http://gom.sagepub.com

449476 GOM37310.1177/1059601112449476Miller and RaynerGroup & Organization Management© The Author(s) 2012

1Portsmouth University, Portsmouth, UK

Corresponding Author:Dr. Hilary Miller, Police Sciences (HESAS), University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, UK Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

The Form and Function of “Bullying” Behaviors in a Strong Occupational Culture: Bullying in a U.K. Police Service

Hilary Miller1 and Charlotte Rayner1

Abstract

The study examines the persistence of bullying in a high-teamwork environ-ment using self-categorization theory (SCT) and interaction ritual chain the-ory (IRCT). Findings from a qualitative study suggest that “isolation” is the key behavior police officers label as bullying and that other behaviors thought of as bullying may be tolerated, providing there is no exclusion. IRCT clarified the dynamics, whereas SCT explained the motivation for engaging in rituals containing behaviors that included bullying. The study posits a new frame-work for bullying in high-pressured teams and accounts for the tolerance to “bullying” behaviors in such work environments. Implications for addressing workplace bullying in these contexts are discussed.

Keywords

police, occupational culture, rituals, identity, workplace bullying, IRCT, SCT

348 Group & Organization Management 37(3)

Introduction

Teamwork is essential in occupations where employees are required to under-take tasks against tight time frames, pooling their contributions. Such envi-ronments exist for time-pressured occupations emergency services, media crews, event organizers, and others where group work is a central component, described by Maitlis as “tightly coupled social systems” (Maitlis, 2005, p. 23). Our example examines the police who deal with public disturbances and time-sensitive investigations involving multiskilled specialists (Holdaway, 1983; Reiner, 2000). Evidence continues to show that bullying in the police service is pervasive (e.g., Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004), which is potentially toxic for individuals, teams, and the organization (O’Boyle, Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011). This article seeks to understand why the bullying associated with this occupational culture is apparently untouched by positive initiatives (Loftus, 2010) such as antibullying policies, training, and public statements by senior officers (Rayner, 2005).

Although the work environment is acknowledged as being of key impor-tance for the persistence of workplace bullying (Notelaers, de Witte, & Einarsen, 2010) very few studies have attempted to study environmental fac-tors (Baillien, Neyens, de Witte, & de Cuyper, 2009). We wanted to explore how bullying was maintained as part of an occupational culture by examining a context with a strong occupational culture and an emphasis on teamwork.

The contribution of the article is threefold. First, we seek to examine the influence of occupational culture on the perceived forms that bullying takes in terms of behaviors. In this way, we add to the literature on the effect of the work environment in bullying. Second, we seek to understand the function of bullying in high pressure teams and contribute to scant research on the pro-cesses involved in bullying and a gap in the literature on the role of teams. Finally, we seek to contribute to practice through shedding light on why exist-ing antibullying initiatives have had such a low rate of success in the U.K. police service.

The article will provide background to bullying and the police culture fol-lowed by a summary of theoretical bases and methodology. The findings sec-tion exposes rituals associated with “rites of passage” (Islam & Zyphur, 2009; Van Maanen, 1972) that maintain the culture for established team members and set it for new members (Raelin, 2011). The findings challenge extant notions of “bullying” behaviors, showing that access to the workgroup is pivotal, with officers tolerating some “bullying” behavior so long as it is part of the process of gaining such access. In our discussion we apply and elabo-rate (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablinski, 1999) Collins’s interaction ritual chains theory (IRCT) using self-categorization theory (SCT) within a new model

Miller and Rayner 349

that sheds light on bullying as a process. Our final comments are directed at all high teamwork environments, illuminating how antibullying programs can fail to be successful and making suggestions for practice and research.

BullyingWorkplace bullying is about employees experiencing persistent negative behaviors perpetrated by one or more individuals on a less powerful “target” who is often unable to defend themselves (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). There is focus on the negative reactions of the target that erode trust and self-confidence over time (Bowler, Woehr, Bowler, Wuensch, & McIntyre, 2010), working relationships and capability (e.g., Rayner & Keashly, 2004), and health (Hoel et al., 2004). Studies using questionnaires are common (Neilsen et al., 2010, reviewed 102 studies), which employ lists of a range of behaviors and judge prevalence of bullying through frequency of experience in a recent time frame (e.g., the last 6 months or year). Behaviors differ and range from electronic forms (Baruch, 2005), through interpersonal and task-related attacks to isolation and exclusion (Einarsen et al., 2011). Recent studies have shown national culture difference in behavior perception (Escartin, Zapf, Arrieta, & Rodriguez-Carballeria, 2011; Loh, Restuborg, & Zagenczyk, 2010; Sidle, 2010) providing impetus for the questioning of occupational cultures influence on the forms of “bullying” behaviors.

Einarsen (2000) identified the working environment as a possible causal factor of bullying, an aspect that has received little direct attention. Extant literature has focused on role-related factors; autonomy (Bellingham, 2000), stress (Baillien, de Cuyper, & de Witte, 2011), and physical environment (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001), all calling for more studies on organizational culture. The work culture has two facets: the legitimate organizational direc-tion and articulated values in the formal organizational culture, such as mis-sion, job content, and management values (Walton, 2010), and the unofficial occupational climate sustained by the workforce, including group norms and values, and the socialization processes (Gracia, Cifre, & Grau, 2010). Archer (1999) researched bullying in the U.S. and U.K. fire services, concluding that the most damaging type of bullying to the individual “is contained within the socialization processes which occur when individuals join groups” (p. 54). It is to the occupational climate of the police that we now turn.

Police CultureThe police occupational culture has been well researched both by academics and practitioners (e.g., Holdaway, 1983; Reiner, 2000; Van Maanen, 1972),


and strong similarities have been found worldwide with a “common subscrip-tion to mission, macho, ‘us/them’ and cynicism” (Waddington, 1999, p. 96). Islam and Zyphur (2009, p. 121) claim that an organizational culture is cre-ated through rituals “by establishing public interpretations for interpersonal behavior.” This behavior can include verbal symbols such as stories that are passed through the generations and influence officers’ behavior (Chan, 1997), thus creating rituals. Reiner suggests police culture as “how police officers see the social world and their role in it—cop culture—is crucial to an analy-sis of what they do” (p. 85). Given the need for high-performance team-working in the police, reflecting Raelin’s (2011) postbureaucratic format (p. 139), it is not surprising that alignment of “what they do” (p. 139) is crucial between members and occupational climate fulfils this role.

Solidarity is a common thread throughout descriptions of police culture, which Crank (1998) suggests is taught and reinforced during initial training as an affirmation of police identity. Police officers change jobs in their careers, moving between teams; hence, workgroups are used to taking on new members and socializing them to maintain solidarity (Raelin, 2011).

The field of socialization is well researched, and we focus on the two threads of work we found to be the most promising vehicles to understand the dynamics in the police: self-categorization theory (SCT), and interaction rit-ual chain theory (IRCT). The next section will provide a brief overview of associated theory and concepts and explain why SCT and IRCT were used for this research.

Theoretical ApproachesThis study focused on the theories of SCT and IRCT, both of which draw on social identity theory (SIT). Conformity, stereotypes, and reference groups have been studied for many years, demonstrating that our behavior is influ-enced both by the context and the behavior of those around us. SIT has been described as “an individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership” (Turner, 1987, p. 31).

SCT adds the cognitive element to identity theory and concentrates on how individuals become part of the group rather than examining group behavior. Here, individuals categorize themselves (and others) by highlight-ing similarities and distinctions, thereby giving meaning to being part of a group that in turn is assessed by comparison to other groups. Depersonalization follows, where individuals become the social group they represent, creating the transition from “I” (individual) to “we” (a group member) with mutual group identity being similar to that of the group prototype (Turner, 1987).


Luckmann (2008) sees workers determining appropriate behavior from the “historical social structure” (p. 11) through obtaining social “knowledge.” Luckmann also claims that the social structure uses strategies of behavior and discourse to regulate access to knowledge and consequently inclusion to or omission from the group. We argue that the prototype is the gatekeeper of such “knowledge.”

Prototypes are defined by Moreland, Levine, and McMinn (2001) as a “mental image of the type of person who best represents the group” (p. 96) and, rather than being the equivalent of a checklist of characteristics, the attributes of the prototype should be “fuzzy sets that capture the context dependent features of group membership” (Hogg & Terry, 2001, p. 5). Hogg and Terry suggest that SCT reflects group members self-stereotyping and conforming to the group prototype, which has been applied to police settings. For example, Dick (2005) found that police officers’ group identity buffered personal responsibility for their actions.

Referent informational influence (RII) is grounded in SIT. It occurs in three stages and is underpinned by self-categorization and conformity. Individuals self-categorize as a member of a group and then learn the stereotypical norms and attributes of that group. Finally, they assign the group norms to them-selves and conform to the normative group behavior. RII is a crucial link where depersonalization occurs and individuals gain “true” acceptance of the norms, values, rituals, and symbols of the group, explaining the social process in the conforming process. RII occurs not because individuals seek group acceptance and approval but because psychologically they feel that they belong to that group and consequently relate the group norms to themselves as the appropriate standard of behavior (Hogg, 2001).

While SIT, SCT, and RII help us understand how individuals classify them-selves as group members, they do not explain how group norms and values are perpetuated. As Chan (1997) pointed out, understanding individual choice relies on cognitive and behavioral pillars rather than affect. We found the affective gap could be addressed using emotional energy (EE). A recent and well-developed theoretical base in this area came from Collins’s interaction ritual chains theory (IRCT). We sought to use IRCT to understand high-pressure team processes in an authentic and more original way.

Interaction Ritual Chains Theory (IRCT)Collins (2004) supports Durkheim’s emphasis on values, emotional energy, and moral solidarity as central to a cohesive society. He maintains emotions are an essential ingredient for any realistic theory and are responsible for the dynamics. We ask whether Collins’s theory can be applied to an organizational


setting in order to assist in explaining why bullying is perpetuated in high pres-sure teams. As Collins’s work has scant use in occupational analysis, we will use examples from the police environment demonstrating its potential.

Collins defined rituals as a “mechanism of mutually focused emotion and attention producing a momentarily shared reality, which thereby generates solidarity and symbols of group membership” (p. 7) and that boundaries are required to separate people involved in rituals from outsiders who are not (echoing SCT). Rituals can be classified as natural (often informal, such as who makes coffee) and formal events (award ceremonies, for example).

Collins’s IRCT model has a core process of intersubjectivity (collective consciousness) and shared emotion (collective effervescence). The theory relies on an assembly of people and a “mutual focus of attention” within a shared mood. They engage in ritual events, and through the shared mood, emotional effervescence is created. The effervescence is key to the outcomes of IRCT that are group solidarity and emotional energy (EE) for those involved. Symbols carry EE across situations and are a vehicle to perpetuate the chain, with members associating the symbols with memories of previous events and effervescence, which constantly confirms solidarity.

Police officers exist in an environment surrounded by violence, aggres-sion, and situations of conflict (Reiner, 2000). Collins (2004) considers con-flict situations to be a “high-density interaction ritual” (p. 146) that encourage individuals to participate if the situations are salient and trigger the primary emotions of fear and anger experienced collectively. Collins develops this area of his work (Collins, 2009a, 2009b), identifying that it is fear rather than anger that is present in violent situations. Although of interest, Collins’s recent work concentrates on a more physical level of violence not pertinent to our study; thus, we consider the debate as extraneous to this article.

The notion of “emotional energy” represents a dramatic turn both for research into police culture and also workplace bullying. Collins (2004) clari-fies: “The analytical starting point is the situation and how it shapes individu-als; situations generate and re-generate the emotions and the symbolism that charge up individuals and send them from one situation to another”(p. 44). EE and membership symbols, maintained as a “focus of attention” are the key to sustaining interaction rituals over time. The persistence of behaviors is a facet of traditional workplace bullying definitions; hence, the repetition and regeneration Collins alludes to makes the theory a strong candidate for appli-cation into the topic.

The publication of the theory has had several critiques. Felson (2009) con-siders that Collins has failed to place his theory in the wider discipline of criminology and Cooney (2009) argues that there is insufficient scientific


explanation. Plummer (2006) commented positively on its originality. . . . “It is not a theory book which simply re-clothes old ideas, but one with luck that could become an influential and original approach . . . [for researchers to] take some of its arguments seriously and flesh them out” (p. 716). However, in an exchange with Collins, Baehr established areas needing clarification that include the consideration of the role of individuals’ memories of symbols in the chain and whether EE is an outcome (Collins, 2004) rather than an ingredient (Baehr, 2005). Collins suggests emotional effervescence is the ele-ment related to EE that is the ingredient. Finally, Baehr questioned EE as the sole motivator for actions, invoking altruistic action. Collins’s response was that one would seek to locate previous ritual chains for any individual and the driving symbols and emotions. This latter response highlights the long time-frame Collins uses, in keeping with our desire to examine the perpetuation of bullying in a culture long-term.

Both Goss (2007, 2008) and Summers-Effler (2004) have used aspects of the theory and found positive results to explain the formation and maintenance of groups. Brundin and Nordqvist (2008) studied boardroom settings. They found that understanding the use of emotions is crucial for sustaining and using EE to the board member’s benefit effectively intertwining individual behaviors within group membership. This holds parallels for the occupational setting of this study. We will question how the elements of IRCT, and specifi-cally that of EE, may be involved in workplace bullying events and, in this way, seek to elaborate theory. Theory elaboration is common where extant theory provides a clear base from which one can shape application into a novel setting (Maitlis, 2005) and is appropriate in this case where both SCT and IRCT may contribute to an analysis of police occupational culture and the dynamics of workplace bullying.

MethodA qualitative method was chosen in pursuing the research question to exam-ine the form and function of bullying in occupational culture. The literature on bullying (e.g., Archer, 1999) and police socialization (e.g., Holdaway, 1983) had both suggested that joining a new team was a crucial; hence, we focused on eliciting narratives from serving officers that described such situ-ations. The analytic theory was multifaceted; hence, qualitative examination was essential in order to examine both the processes of IRCT and the poten-tial role SCT might play in the form and function of workplace bullying, allowing respondents to provide their own description and interpretations of events on joining new teams.


The primary data gatherer was a police officer and duty bound to report specified incidents to her authorities, but events anonymized by participants could remain undisclosed. Being an occupational insider was beneficial to understand occupational terminology and, more importantly, to understand the meaning of the participants lives (Janesick, 2000). As qualitative research-ers it was impossible to be totally bias free, but acknowledging one’s ideologi-cal background helped ensure some objectivity when crafting the questions and interpreting the analysis. Care was taken not to impose the researchers prior knowledge or beliefs of the topic throughout the interview, analysis, and when determining the final disclosure of data. Critical reflection throughout the process provided trustworthiness to the method (Janesick, 2000). Ethical considerations required us to be entirely open with our respondents and satisfy the employer that no deception was being used. Hence, information sheets (including disclosure limitations) and questions were sent to participants before interviews.

Data CollectionGiven the constraints and sensitivities of the topics under investigation, data collection was restricted to a small number of in-depth interviews. Interview questions were designed to elicit stories and were provided at least a week beforehand. Only one question was phrased negatively, which addressed what happened to those not accepted by a group.

The language used in IRCT and SC theory did not lend itself to direct questions. Early informal “canteen conversations” established that proto-types, rituals, and emotion were not terms that would provoke effective answers if used in questions. Instead, we used a critical incident approach (suggested by Archer, 1999) and asked officers how they had coped with changing from one department to another (a characteristic of the police orga-nization) when they joined a new group. We intended to explore how IRCT could be applied as the new entrant sought to negotiate their acceptance and solidarity. Accounts of how they “fitted in” might uncover the maintenance processes related to the group for us. Although our questions and the conver-sations never led to discuss bullying behaviors, they were a constant theme from participants.

SamplingSampling was undertaken in two phases. First, one police force was used to recruit an initial group of participants (n = 12) for face-to-face interviews.


After seven interviews (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006), data was analyzed to confirm that IRCT and SCT themes were present in the data. A further two interviews were conducted to confirm conceptual saturation ensuring that the data fully illustrated the features of the categories and themes selected without digression (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Three focused interviews subsequently investigated specific areas of interest. In this first phase of interviews, all participants had undertaken a course in diversity awareness so we knew they had knowledge of some of the terms being used in the questions; hence, sam-pling was purposive. The second phase of interviews did not have this con-straint and took referrals from a training establishment that had links to police officers in forces around England and Wales. The training establishment acted as a gatekeeper and provided information sheets (that held the questions) to potential participants, referring on those who volunteered to take part. It was unknown how many individuals were invited by the training organization, but 7 volunteered to be interviewed, bringing the total participants to 19. The second phase used the medium of telephone interviews due to resource con-straints. Overall, the sample included officers from a geographic range of forces (n = 8), specialists (e.g., firearms), generalists (beat, detectives, traffic, and community officers), and managers. All interviews were recorded and transcribed with consent. Altogether the 19 interviews represented 7,797 lines of data. Interviewees were numbered, as shown in parentheses next to quotes.

SaturationGuest et al. (2006) conducted an experiment to establish where data satura-tion would occur and found that 97% of common themes were identified after 12 interviews and 94% could be established from as little as 6 inter-views. This claim has been tested in numerous other studies where small samples have successfully produced credible and trustworthy data with satu-ration occurring in 12 or less interviews. (e.g., Dahl & Moreau, 2007). We found elements of IRCT and SCT in all interviews and were confident after nine interviews that the theoretical basis was enabled; hence, the process of bullying would be illustrated by the data. Behavior was judged as bullying if experienced repeatedly with a harmful effect on the target who felt unable to defend themselves. All forms of bullying in the police occupational culture may not be present in the data, and this is a limitation of the study. We found no new forms after 10 interviews; however, it is possible other forms than those found exist.


AnalysisWe adopted a narrative analysis using interactionism. Denzin (2001) describes this as an approach to identify “strategic points of intervention into social situations” (p. 2). We avoided the dangers of relying on narrative text alone (Hansen, 2006) and were able to achieve an “ethno-narrative” approach, as the principle researcher was a police officer and able to provide contextual interpretation.

Data analysis took several iterations. Initial coding (without reference to IRCT or SCT) identified six main themes of culture, bullying behavior, emo-tion, norms and values, rituals, and identity within the first set of interviews. For the whole data set 30 subthemes were developed, after which links were made to the theoretical frameworks.

Initially, data were grouped under each element of IRCT, but the presenta-tion failed to re-create the links between the police occupational culture, self-categorization, and interaction ritual chains that were evident in the full narratives. Effectively, we had overfragmented the data in the subgroupings, losing the story. Polkinghorne (2007) suggests that the interpretative analyses are, “less rule derived and mechanical . . . instead, they are creative produc-tions that stem from the researcher’s cognitive processes for recognizing pat-terns and similarities in texts” (p. 483). The systematic subcategorizations had reassured us that IRCT-related themes were active in the narratives and crucially that other themes had not been omitted by taking the IRCT approach (Fineman, 2004). The findings are presented using multiple categories which reflect Hogg and Terry’s (2001) “fuzzy sets” conveying the full sense of the dynamics we sought to expose.

FindingsThis section will first explore the elements of SCT, RII, and IRCT, providing examples as to their theoretical applicability into our data and patterns iden-tified. Finally, we examined behaviors traditionally thought of as “bullying” within this assimilation process in police culture, and these findings will be presented last.

SCT begins before officers join the police, based mostly on media depic-tions of the police doing “real police work” (Loftus, 2010; Van Maanen, 1972), the vision of the dynamic crime-fighting officer. Officers’ work now includes the category of community policing. In terms of ethnocentrism, community policing is poorly viewed in SCT:


To be able to drive a big fast car and chase things in the high speed chases it’s the adrenalin rush—it’s the dealing with things that are really serious. CID will say I dealt with a murder last week, traffic will say I had a high speed chase, if you’re on a shift in a station then maybe you dealt with a GBH (grievous bodily harm) last week and if you’re on community maybe you dealt with a really exciting meeting last week There’s definitely a pecking order. (12)

You’ll always get people who want to be thief takers and you can’t do anything about them they are marvellous. . . . It was shame for me. I’d always had ambitions to be an investigator and to be put in the bouncy castle squad, (community) which was totally non-operational as far as I was concerned. . . . The reality of it was I cringing. (9)

What is striking from both quotes is the emotional language participants used to describe the category of work they did—the policewoman who iden-tified as a “thief-taker” felt “shame” and was “cringing” when faced with being “non-operational” as a community officer; the traffic officer’s adren-alin rush dealing with “really serious” high-speed chases. These quotes were among many providing triangulation as to the occupational hierarchical order of police work and reflect SCT at work imbued with emotion.

Many of the emotions we found were positive about the felt experience of being a police officer, reinforcing their SCT choice “it gives you superb amounts of confidence . . . an almost like superhuman feeling that I can do anything, I can solve anything, I can do anything; and that is the police culture” (7). Hence, while in this article we present results containing negative reports associated with bullying, the full data contained many positive emotions.

RII is the process of depersonalization in order to fully identify with the group, building on SCT as a first stage and as the social process related to conformity to group norms (Hogg, 2001). The following participant recalls changing his identity in order to fit in;

I remember being told by my shift Inspector, “You’re far too nice, you need to be more aggressive” and I was quite happy to adapt to what he was saying and turned into something that wasn’t me but something I felt I had to do. . . . It never entered my head to not do what they said. I was just happy to do everything and follow the examples shown by my colleagues (7).


The example reflects acceptance of the group norms as described by RII where conflicts with his personal identity were resolved as he was “happy” to respond by being more aggressive, thus entering the mutual focus of behavior as a willing agent and conforming as part of a rite of passage into the group (Nugent & Abolafia, 2006). But how does someone know what they need to fit in with, and how to behave? More experienced (and sometimes more senior) officers give advice, as Participant 7 identified above. He complied and was accepted. A different participant knew a female officer who declined joining the after-work gym sessions with her team as she had caring commit-ments. Despite being a competent officer, she was excluded from the group as she had failed to pick up this key membership activity:

I thought she would fit in extremely well, even though I know that she’s not one to conform to a group . . . but I didn’t think, because she’s a hardworking officer, that that would be an issue. . . . I was very sur-prised when she spoke to me and stated that she felt that she was being pushed out. (6)

In rejecting the invitation to the gym, she communicated low categorization and was alienated. Prototypes have a strong role in the RII process as, by defi-nition, they set the standards for the group and are important to admission or expulsion to the group (Moreland et al., 2001). In police culture these maybe senior officers, but often they are constables. Senior managers commented,

They just stand out, they are the ones people just migrate around, they are the ones that get their tea made for them, they are the ones that do a good job for you and they are . . . your tried and tested person on this unit. (16)

One of the biggest issues amongst the teams themselves is peer influ-ence element, and it can be either negative or positive, and I think if you've got positive peer influence at constable rank in my organization, that can be immensely productive, and I think they can set the stan-dards, because they're almost like un-promoted sergeants, your experi-enced people, and if they're setting the high standard on a day-to-day basis that's enormously helpful. (17)Functional for management and key to team assimilation, prototypes hold

great power. We received reports of bullying such as “old Joe” from Participant 4, “If old Joe doesn’t like you or old Joe says, ‘She’s no bloody good,’ then in order to gain popularity and approval from old Joe the others will say, ‘I agree


with you there Joe, bloody useless,’ so will find fault in that person” (4). The prototype barred access to the group and without perceptible reason at times, leaving the new member adrift. The act of exclusion maintains the proto-types’ position in the group, thus reducing any symbolic conflict (Islam & Zyphur, 2009) but may result in bullying toward the individual trying to access the group.

Our narratives showed sensitivity from participants to these crucial early days and weeks in their new teams. Quietness was a theme, with participants reporting passivity:

Although at that stage I was a reasonably experienced X officer you have to be a little bit quieter for a start and see what the characters were like and who would be the leader of any team working at the time and once you’re fitted in and then been accepted by the others then you could open your mouth a little bit more, so until that stage had come about, it was best to be a bit quieter than normal. (15)

Hence, while SCT as a cognitive process may be undertaken by a new entrant, the full RII stage needs group activities to make the transition from the “I” to “We” and in the police, exclusion has a function of preventing RII for this male officer:

It nearly destroyed me . . . If they had seen a weakness they would have been like a pack of wolves and really gone for the kill, so I put on a real hard front . . . whereas the reality of it was you couldn’t wait for the shift to end and go home and cry and cry and I would break my heart. (5)

This brings our findings to interaction ritual chain theory (IRCT) where bodily copresence is one essential ingredient, and exclusion disables this. With bodily copresence a mutual focus of attention can be created, which for our participants was the work of policing. The mutual focus is the unstated expectation, the awareness of the in-group members to which the new mem-ber becomes entrained, including how to behave, what was required, accep-tance, and the groups’ prototypical identity (Collins, 2004).

A true acceptance of the group norms and values (RII) benefits the indi-vidual by providing the opportunity to share the feelings of group solidarity, EE, sacred symbols, and feeling of morality, whereas failure to be accepted results in knowledge and information being withheld and subsequent isolation and rejection. For police officers one ritual is that of going to court and getting


a conviction: “There’s a buzz around the place when you get a conviction. I always think that people talk about the amount of years given to a defendant of being a measure of how good or not the job was—the longer the sentence, the better the feeling of satisfaction” (17). This participant alluded to previous rituals for convictions: “Conviction parties don't happen (anymore). . ., but years ago, they used to. They'd commission ties, and stuff like that” (17).

Convictions are aided by intelligence, which is often local and nuanced and held by individuals. Luckmann (2008) claims that the group controls the “knowledge,” deciding who has access, and this represents another side of exclusion operating within this context:

They knew the area like the back of their hands. The knowledge they had was immense and although I wouldn’t want to be like them, I’d kill for their knowledge and I just wanted to learn from them. . . . They had no intention what-so-ever of passing on their knowledge. (1)

The prototype was the gatekeeper of “knowledge.” In addition they pro-tect the symbolic rituals; we found several instances where prototypes appar-ently interfered with managers plans for change when the change involved taking away a ritual behavior. Here a manager describes his experience of computerizing custody suite (cells) records. Reiner (2000) refers to officers being cynical towards new systems, but in our framework the subgroup were determined to maintain their rituals (manual records) after a new computer was introduced:

They’re still entering everything in this book . . . after trying several times to try and persuade them they didn’t need it, I took the book home with me one weekend and when I came back in the following week, they had sheets of paper that they’d lined off. I picked it up and in front of them I shredded it. Six months later they were still reproduc-ing books. When I left they were still using it . . . and it was totally useless. So I found that very frustrating. (2)

This would be described as “upwards bullying” and lack of support for managers held a cluster of examples: “They will just give them this bedding in period and they will say, ‘What do you think?,’ ‘What do you reckon?,’ with each other. And if they don’t like them and they are incompetent they will let them sink” (16).


The data held many instances of rituals. Bullied officers often failed to reach this point as they had no access to the group events having been excluded; hence, the majority of descriptions of rituals were positive and without bullying. Several narratives concerned “The Thug Bus” or The Ugly Bus,” which is the van used by officers to go to disturbances. Seating arrange-ments have strong protocols, with the prototypes sitting in the front seats and the most trusted officers by the back doors of the vehicle, ready to leap out on arrival. The ritual becomes symbolic as does the van, reminding participants of previous journeys and exciting them as to the outcome of the impending encounter. But “You were invited in the van if you were friends with some-one” (1), and those who had not been accepted by the group, been bullied and acquiesced, were left out as they would not have had the required friends.

We have shown how the various elements of interaction ritual chain theory can be used to explain some police behaviors and have demonstrated the negative effects felt by individuals when feeling bullied. The behaviors of exclusion and isolation dominated the accounts from participants. However, our article seeks to shed light not just on the function of bullying but also on the form of bullying, to which we now turn.

Table 1 has used a classification of bullying behaviors (Rayner & Hoel, 1997) where bullying behaviors are exemplified from the data. These behav-iors are repeated incidents where a person feels unable to defend themselves. The final aspect of definition is damage to the target of bullying. In our data, we found many instances where recipients were damaged, but this was not always the case. Table 1 evidences how an officer might be given meaning-less tasks, for example, but is willing to comply and undertake them as this is part of the path to acceptance by the group. Crucially, they do not feel dam-age. De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) explored interpersonal conflict behavior among teams where a strong congruence to existing values develops trust and high team functioning and is more successful when relationship conflict is avoided. Our findings point to new team members avoiding relationship con-flict (thus reducing the risk of bullying) in favor of building trust to secure high-functioning teams. Hence, we would raise the question whether some-times “bullying” behaviors are not experienced as bullying and whether the occupational culture (in this case the rite of passage to team acceptance) has a major impact in such delineations.

We have also illustrated SCT, IIR, IRCT, and the role of the prototype, and we now turn to a discussion of the function and forms of bullying in the police culture characterized by a highly pressured teamwork environment in order to explore how these theories help us to understand the interpretation of bullying (form) and the bullying process (function).


Table 1. Damaging Behaviors

Behaviors Representative quotations

Threat to professional status

4.171. He never got the same encouragement, support, teaching and development that others did because he was singled out—ostracised . . . he left the department, he’d had enough and transferred back (to) uniform.

6.105. They would do things like snide comments that were then laughed at by the rest of the group and if she tried to partake or ask things like, would anyone like a cup of tea, they all said “no,” and then if a cup of tea was made by somebody else they would all have a cup and sit drinking it in front of her.

16.441. [On new manager joining] if the person is quite a horrible person and fairly incompetent, they’ll just let them sink (and) the dominant player within the team will start running the show.

17.89. It’s still male dominated, there is still a need to not show any sort of weakness, and being the best that you can be is therefore not acknowledging your weaknesses or helping anybody develop.

Threat to personal standing

1.107. There was a lot of talk behind this person’s back; it was unpleasant to work in that environment when that person went out of the office, to be in there and to hear them talk about this person in that manner wasn’t pleasant—so and so’s useless, so and so will never come and help—this person has deserted us and is not in our club.

5.78. My ways of fitting in with things . . . when I went on (x Dept) I was told I had to be prepared to get my hands dirty and not be so “girly.” I was told all that but I didn’t go with it and I paid the price (exclusion).

Isolation 5.313. Absolutely isolated, I suppose I wasn’t surprised and it really made me realise that I was on my own and I couldn’t take much more after that and that’s when I went sick.

8.383. Someone who is well respected on a shift will have said something to someone else and if they’ve spoken in a negative term about someone who is well liked, then suddenly you can almost be ostracised by the one phrase or one sort of off the cuff remark, and suddenly the position within the group can suddenly be isolated at the stroke of the pen. . . . it’s a very precarious place to be.

12.122. You can be ostracised and put outside, it happens. Somebody who objects to an inappropriate joke on parade, doesn’t like something, then everybody will turn around and laugh at them. That’s still happening, definitely.

(continued)



Overwork 3.210. They were bullying the probationer and not giving them time to develop themselves complete files of evidence, PDP work, their reviews were never done on time even though they had been asked for.

Destabilization 4.129. He was kept subservient, he was treated, as I said, as a buffoon, the joke of the department and whatever information he came in with it didn’t matter because it came from him. . . . He was doing surveillance on his own because no one would go with him. . . . He left, he left the department, he’d had enough and he transferred back.

6.81. They would give her menial tasks to do while they did other (real police-work) jobs.

5.269. My equipment was being tampered with . . . the way my incident of bullying was done, was done so sneakily—so sneaky beaky that um, I think that’s where all my hurt came from because I didn’t know where it was coming from.

Table 1. (continued)

(continued)

Nondamaging Behaviors


Threat to professional status

1.306. They knew the area like the back of their hands. The knowledge they had was immense and although I wouldn’t want to be like them, I’d kill for their knowledge and I just wanted to learn from them. . . . They had no intention what-so-ever of passing on their knowledge.

17.89. It’s still male dominated, there is still a need to not show any sort of weakness, and being the best that you can be is therefore not acknowledging your weaknesses or helping anybody develop, it’s still a predominant culture in my opinion.

5.220. They would undoubtedly have the mick taken out of them, because this is how we’ve always done it here and its down to you to fit in with them.

6.186. They would come in and there would be things on the board, um, with, “bike for sale,” because the person had been poor when they had gone on a bike ride, “bike for sale, no longer needed,” which was a laugh when the person took part but humorously, people who weren’t in the group came in and laughed at, and I went in and laughed because it was a good caricature on the board, um, and the person says,



“yeh, yeh, I know I wasn’t very good,” and felt a part of the group because he was actually, not being ridiculed, I think he felt part of the group because they were all giving him a bit of stick, but he was part of the group and the stick he got wasn’t being nasty, um, he made a concerted effort and decided to prove them wrong next time.

Threat to personal standing

15.242. You knew you were part of the group when people would make you the butt of the jokes but you knew they weren’t too cutting also you could then make other people butts of jokes and they weren’t ostracised—that’s probably the easy marker. . . . Once that “mickey taking” occurs . . . it’s black humor and it’s quite prevalent and once you take part in that then you know that everybody accepted you. . . .

8.433. The comments can continue almost on a daily, hourly basis and we dress it up as police banter, canteen culture, whatever we call it, that carries on.

Isolation No evidence.Overwork 5.25. There were other incidents, we found it quite interesting,

this play-off that was going on. A male colleague had booked (arrested) x amount that month and I had booked a few more than the x amount and I was told to pull my socks up because I wasn’t doing quite as well as I should be doing. Whereas, because I think he fitted into the norm of the male—um—dominance I suppose is the best way of putting it, he was doing all right, I just had to do a bit more to prove myself.

Destabilization 4.92. But that’s where, in a very subtle way, power was exerted and you wanted to fit in, because otherwise you were in that useless group, that “not liked group,” that, “not popular group,” you were dismissed . . . and nobody wants to be in that position in its own way is obviously a negative thing.

Table 1. (continued)

Discussion

Our findings utilize Collins’s (2004) IRCT in an occupational setting of high-pressure groups and adds to scant research on rites and rituals in organizations (Islam & Zyphur, 2009). We found many examples of rituals and emotions being entwined with effective policing and specifically to EE. Formal stan-dards (Association of Chief Police Officers, 1990) require police officers to be fair, compassionate, and courteous, and act with integrity, common sense, sound judgment, and without prejudice. However, the data have supported


the views of Weaver (2006), who warns that a moral identity can be “pushed out of view by a more salient amoral identity” (p. 353). We have seen how some bullying behaviors are tolerated if they are part of rituals that gain access to the group. Some participants did not appear to be damaged by these experiences if (and only if) they had eventually gained access to the group. As such the forms of bullying exposed have been strongly influenced by the occupational culture.

Hence, our first contribution is to consider the implications of strong occu-pational cultures on what might be termed bullying—its perceived form. Exclusion from the group was the key form of bullying that participants found damaging. It appeared to act as a superordinate factor for participants. Exclusion effectively denied them access to being a police officer in a func-tional sense, but the exclusion from rituals and EE meant their felt experience of policing was relegated to internal self-categorization, rendering them unable to move into RII thence acceptance.

Some behaviors that might be termed bullying academically (repeated, negative, and to someone unable to defend themselves) were not experienced negatively by participants who saw their treatment as part of a rite of passage to group acceptance. Employment of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (see Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010) within the police service would be likely to result in behaviors being reported but without respondents labeling themselves as “bullied.” This might not be because of low awareness or unwillingness to self-label (Rayner & Keashly, 2004) but rather because the behaviors were genuinely not felt as bullying. We have shown that occupa-tional climate may have an impact on the perceived form of bullying behav-iors hence adding to knowledge.

Turning now to the function of bullying in high-teamwork environ-ments, our findings sit alongside SCT and RII and, taken together, enhance our understanding of groups and bullying in such teams. We note the impor-tance of bodily coexistence in this occupational setting—not all police offi-cers are allowed by their group to be present at important events and access rituals. Collins, However, does not explain how new individuals success-fully become involved in an existing ritual. Our data suggest that several layers of occupational culture occur in different spaces into which only those officers apparently self-categorized and accepted by the group are allowed to be present.

Thus, we suggest the existence of a series of steps whereby an individual gains admission to the workgroup bringing them closer to the prototype and access to rituals. This model is shown Figure 1 that includes a process for drawing in new members who are motivated to join in a dynamic process extending both SCT and IRCT theories in a new way.


The model demonstrates how individuals work through stages of catego-rization each of which is appraised by the prototype. Individuals arrive with preconceptions of the workgroup (such as from TV and media; Waddington, 1999), undergo induction (basic training) where they are primed for organi-zational categorization, then join their new group. Using SCT concepts we suggest they first engage at the RII Stage, initially intrapersonally, and most likely new members are passive to observers. The new member is highly vulnerable to bullying until they have actively demonstrated their willing-ness to conform to the norms and values of the group. They identify the prototype, recognizing symbols (assuming they decide to continue the cate-gorization process), and then actively give out messages to the prototype (such as changing dress, attitudes, and behaviors) that they want to catego-rize. This overt demonstration of change and adaptation is the Signal Stage. The risk of exclusion and the potential for bullying intensifies as existing group members are likely to behave negatively toward the new member to gain further rewards from the prototype if the Signal Stage is judged unsuccessful.

RII Stage

Signal Stage

Trial Stage

Evalua�on Stage

Induc�on New member primed for categorisa�on

-Enters process wan�ngto join specific category

-Overtly passive-Recognises prototype-Decides to categorise

-Ac�vely adapts norms tosignal categoriza�on

-Signals are judged adequate

-Allowed access to rituals*-Demonstrably values invita�on,

treasures symbols includingshared memory and EE

Group with Bodily co-presence

Mutual focus

Collec�ve effervescence

Shared solidarity

Bullying poten�al increases

High poten�al for bullying

-Their interac�on in ritual is observed and judged*

-Full entry granted and categoriza�on complete*

Bullying poten�al decreases

Bullying unlikely

Barriers to outsiders

Emo�onal energy

Sacred objects

Shared morality

New Member

+

+

+

Acceptance Stage

+

+

+

* Protoypeis gatekeeper

Figure 1. A staged approach to categorization


The prototype evaluates this effort and (if successful) grants access to a Trial Stage for the new member to engage in a ritual, such as the “The Thug Bus.” The new member (if granted access to the trial) can share copresence at the ritual opportunity but will be observed by others, including the prototype. Within the Trial Stage the new member needs to appear (at least) to value their new inclusion and demonstrate positive feedback to the prototype by treasuring symbols and shared memories of the interaction ritual. Providing the new member behaves in accordance with the expectations of the proto-type and group, the risk of bullying decreases. The behavior of the new mem-ber is again judged by the prototype at the Evaluation Stage where exclusion and bullying could still occur if they are rejected. If the evaluation is success-ful the potential for exclusion and bullying becomes unlikely, acceptance is granted, and the new member categorizes, mutually reinforcing group soli-darity and cohesion. With repeated instances the “I” becomes “We” as mutual confidence grows and depersonalization is completed.

The application of Collins’s IRTC enables us to see why seemingly degrading entry rituals and hurtful jokes might be tolerated by a new member as, even though they might be the “butt” of the group, they are still part of the group and can share some effervescence and have a role in solidarity and EE. Knowledge that their negative role will be taken on by the next new person can explain apparently perverse engagement in self-deprecating acts.

The data have shown how IRCT is congruent with explaining the values and practices of the police occupational culture, with particular emphasis on solidarity, conservatism, machismo, and the sense of mission (Reiner, 2000), and that bullying is one byproduct of this process. The focus of the prototype and accepted group members is the retention of solidarity necessary for effec-tive group working in this pressured environment, where bullying is part of a larger group process. Our examples have also included different events where changes that are seen to attack symbols or rituals that maintain solidarity produce negative behavior such as the custody officers refusing to change to a computerized system. Here, management is attempting to move the organi-zation on, but in ways that are perceived to affect the maintenance of highly cohesive teams through ritual destruction. Such conflict is actually a dynamic to protect the ritual, being of importance to the workgroup and unwittingly challenged by management’s actions.

In this culture, bodily copresence represents a significant and malleable barrier for the prototype to manipulate, and the data demonstrate complex interactions between the formal and informal (Walton, 2010). Signals might include the adoption of dress codes, machismo behavior, or other signs of wanting to engage in “real” police work. Accordingly, small but important


symbols (such as going to the gym) hold far deeper significance for group dynamics, potentially providing entry through invitation to the highly con-trolled informal situations by which deeper group membership can be established, but the new member must perceptibly value their invitations and the events themselves. In this occupational setting, we found data indi-cating that the most prized rituals such as “The Thug Bus,” although notion-ally a piece of equipment for a formal task, was in fact a complex ritual. What is needed to participate is the intimate informal group acceptance for invitation, which was found laden with symbolic significance on seating arrangements and the like.

The maintenance of the police occupational culture contributes to high-functioning teams, and it appears bullying through exclusion is an aspect of such processes. We posit that this behavior may be chosen as exclusion sub-tly enables existing team members to avoid overt relationship conflict with new members and thence avoid overt relationship conflict that can be extremely disruptive in highly complex teams (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Our conceptual model sums up the dynamics we have found in order that other work environments characterized by high levels of teamwork can be examined. We have seen that studying bullying as part of the work environ-ment, and especially occupational culture with its group dynamics, rather than in a silo (as previously discussed) generate a new view with conclu-sions that may apply to other apparently negative team responses such as resistance to change. Our model predicts that the management of bullying needs to occur with and through the prototypes. It is not surprising to see how untailored training, bland antibullying policies and generalized state-ments by senior officers have failed.

Implications for Those Engaged in Research and Tackling BullyingOur findings regarding the form of bullying provide a challenge to those measuring bullying with standardized instruments that hold generic lists of behaviors. Interpretation needs to be finely attuned to the occupational cul-ture. In some, “bullying” behaviors might be seen as inclusive (e.g., hurtful jokes) and tolerated because the work environment in question holds factors that cast such behaviors into a “not-bullying” light. Our data thus contribute to our understanding of the form that bullying takes in occupations with strong work cultures.

Our model shows dynamics that can explain the maintenance of bullying and responds to several of Islam and Zyphur’s (2009) propositions for research


into rituals in organizations. First, we found that rites of passage are more inter-active than was previously thought. Although the power resides with existing group members, there is (through the Signal and Trial Stages) a dynamic role for the new member to communicate positive categorization and facilitate their progress to acceptance. We did find degrading events occurred but that this could not always be explained by threats to the identity of the group. Rather, the degradation could be part of the identity of the group. Our context comprised groups with regular need for high team cohesion and solidarity that affect per-formance dramatically (such as dealing with a disturbance). It appeared that many rituals had a positive link to task performance. Self-confidence and mech-anisms to deal with fear are of transparent value in such circumstances. If these rituals hold value, it is understandable why dealing with bullying becomes mar-ginalized in such situations. Practitioners attempting to tackle bullying need to be sensitized to the function of bullying in maintaining such teams and have constructive and acceptable alternative routes for teams to adopt.

The power of prototypes within these highly team-based cultures is dra-matic. The maintenance of their role and group power clearly contributes to bullying incidents. This widens our current lens (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland., Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010). What was unexpected was that the scope of such activities extends into apparently manipulating or subverting change, thus potentially neutralizing management ability to tackle this type of dark-side behavior and undermining perceived organization support (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). Bellingham (2000) identified a relationship between an employee’s autonomy in relation to the practices to be changed that, in part, is related to the conservatism and solidarity synonymous of the occupational culture. Bellingham concludes, “The key to cultural change is managerial intervention which wrestles the control of the axiomatic knowledge away from the front line staff” (p. 36). Our findings challenge the realism of Bellingham’s asser-tion as if strong prototypes at low ranks are effectively controlling behavior, how can hierarchical management (Raelin, 2011) be imposed? Laissez-faire and poorly trained managers (Hoel et al., 2010) may be only one part of a broader story. This study suggests it may not be a lack of training or overt action, but supervisors’ choice to sabotage occupational processes that might have an impact on rituals linked to solidarity thence performance. Hence, it may be that bullying is not labeled as a “problem” (Yeo & Marquardt, 2010).

If one was to advise an organization tackling a well-embedded culture that appears to maintain bullying, then affecting prototypical behavior would be central. We know of no such advice being given to organizations at present. Given the positive role of some rituals in the force, we would not suggest eradicating rites and rituals, even if one could. We saw the police relying on


energy and emotion from its staff in order to be able to meet operational requirements. Logically, one would seek to work with prototypes to enable them to develop behaviors that allowed the IRCT to continue but which did not damage those concerned. How far one can reject a group member and not damage them is problematic and lends weight to the suggestion that bullying is part of high-team environments. To those in positions of authority and sanctioning intervention schemes the benefits of having high levels of soli-darity could be seen as outweighing the “collateral damage” of an occasional damaged officer.

Implications for Future ResearchParticipants related prior incidents, but at the time of the event they were unaware of the effect of the occupational culture on their identity and its impact. Such reports verify that some individuals develop beyond (and out of) the occupational culture but the dynamics are unknown. Future studies that explore bullying in an organization where there is a strong occupational culture could use this model to explore the cycle of culturalization, ideally in a longitudinal study. This may help work through a “recovery” cycle for those people who survive bullying situations, whatever their role. Their experience may be used to develop prototypical leadership that does not damage work colleagues. Understanding senior staff and their process of problem acknowledgment (Yeo & Marquardt, 2010) and decision making is another fruitful area for future research if officers damaged by bullying are seen as acceptable collateral damage in an otherwise functioning work envi-ronment. This would be very challenging research indeed.

Limitations of StudyWe reached conceptual saturation in our interviews very quickly. It is pos-sible that although technically a correct approach, the research may be ques-tioned by some because of the small sample. Certainly, we do not have confidence that we have ascertained all forms of bullying, albeit the process of bullying was a remarkably consistent narrative. Although the organization granted access and welcomed the research, the confines of the police codes of conduct have been restrictive to the primary researcher who was a serving officer at the time. We cannot know how far it has been detrimental to the study as participants were warned not to divulge any incriminating informa-tion; hence, our data might be limited.


SummaryThis study investigated the dynamics involved in the maintenance of bully-ing behaviors in a police culture despite messages that this was not accept-able. It used IRCT to understand the maintenance of occupational culture to contribute to our knowledge of the impact of work environment on bullying. SCT can help to explain how individuals are involved at the inception of the ritual processes. As such, we present a new approach to understanding bul-lying behaviors, which are apparent in group dynamics and are especially relevant in high-team organizations.

The model we propose (Figure 1) can help develop organizational and occupational culture research by showing how new team members interact with symbols and then rituals to maintain prototypical attitudes and behav-ior. The implications for practice include the need to alter the prototypes behavior and the content of rituals. We do not suggest attempting the eradi-cation of rituals as they provide a key component to energize and bind group members, but their focus and internal values may be able to be steered toward less damaging consequences. We also draw attention to the dilemma faced by senior decision makers who may see the harm from bullying as col-lateral damage from high-team cultures as an inevitable. We would suggest that high-pressure teams can exist using bonding behavior that avoids dam-aging individuals.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to extend their gratitude to Professor David Goss, University of Surrey, for introducing them to the work of Randall Collins.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-lication of this article.

References

Archer, D. (1998). Time to kill the culture vulture. In Bullying at Work: 1998 Research Update Conference. (July, pp.48-56) Stafford, UK: Staffordshire University.

Association of Chief Police Officers (1990). Statement of common purpose and val-ues. Home Affairs 7th report: Expectations of the police. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/364/36406.htm


Baehr, P. (2005). The sociology of almost everything. Four questions to Randall Collins about Interaction Ritual Chains. Canadian Journal of Sociology Online. Retrieved from http://www.cjsonline.ca/pdf/interactionritual.pdf

Baillien, E., de Cuyper, N., & de Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s Job Demand Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organi-zational Psychology, 84(1), 191-208.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., de Witte, H., & de Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1-16.

Baruch, Y. (2005). Bullying on the net: Adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact. Information & Management, 42(2), 361-371.

Bellingham, T. (2000). Police culture and the need for change. The Police Journal, 73(1), 31-41.

Bowler, M. C., Woehr, D. J., Bowler, J. L., Wuensch, K. L., & McIntyre, M. D. (2010). The impact of impersonal aggression on performance attributions. Group & Organization Management, 36(4), 427-465.

Brundin, E., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Beyond facts and figures: The role of emotions in boardroom dynamics. Corporate Governance, 16(4), 326-341.

Chan, J. (1997). Changing police culture—Policing in a multicultural society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Collins, R. (2009a). The micro-sociology violence. British Journal of Sociology,

60(3), 565-576.Collins, R. (2009b). Reply to Felson & Cooney. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3),

595-601.Cooney, M. (2009). The scientific significance of Collins’s violence. British Journal

of Sociology, 60(3), 586-594.Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.Crank, J. P. (1998). Understanding police culture. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy

constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 357-369.De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict

and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 22(3), 309-328.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.


Dick, P. (2005). Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force. Human Relations, 58(11), 1363-1390.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3-39). London: Taylor & Francis.

Escartin, J., Zapf, D., Arrieta, C., & Rodriguez-Carballeria, A. (2011). Workers’ per-ception of workplace bullying: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(2), 178-205.

Felson, R. B. (2009). Is violence natural, unnatural or rational. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 577-585.

Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion—and the cautionary tale of emo-tional intelligence. Human Relations, 57(6), 719-740.

Gracia, E., Cifre, E., & Grau, R. (2010). Service quality: The key role of service climate and service behavior of boundary employee units. Group & Organization Management, 35(3), 276-298.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.

Goss, D. (2007). Reconsidering Schumpeterian Opportunities: the contribution of interaction ritual chain theory. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research,13(1),3-18.

Goss, D. (2008). Enterprise Ritual: A theory of entrepreneurial emotion and exchange. British Journal of Management, 19, 120-137.

Hansen, H. (2006). The ethnonarrative approach. Human Relations, 59(8), 1049-1075.Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but

all bullying behaviors and not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3), 367-387.

Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management, 21, 453-468.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorisation, depersonalisation and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Group processes (pp. 56 to 85). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (2001). Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Holdaway, S. (1983). Inside the British Police, a force at work. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current theory. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 114-139.


Janesick, V. J. (2000) Knowing her place: Research literacies and feminist occasions. Qualitative Health Research, 10(4), 571-572.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organi-zational and vocational psychology: 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.

Loftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society, 20(1), 1-20.

Loh, J., Restuborg, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2010). Consequences of workplace bullying on identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 236-252.

Luckmann, T. (2008). On social interaction and the communicative construction of personal identity, knowledge and reality. Organizational Studies, 29(2), 277-290.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.

Mikkelsen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 393-413.

Moreland, R., Levine, J. M., & McMinn, J. G. (2001). Self-categorisation and work group socialisation. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodologi-cal moderators on the prevalence rates of workplace bullying: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 955-979.

Notelaers, G., de Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010). A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-chology, 19(4), 487-504.

Nugent, P. D., & Abolafia, M. Y. (2006). The creation of trust through interaction and exchange: The role of consideration in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(6), 628-650.

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O’Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination or group- and organizational-level effects in the study of coun-terproductive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), 39-69.

Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace injus-tice: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761-780.

Plummer, K. (2006) Interaction ritual chains. British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 715-716.Polkinghorne, D. E. (2007). Validity issues in narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry,

13, 471-486.Raelin, J. A. (2011). The end of managerial control? Group & Organization Manage-

ment, 36(2), 135-160.


Rayner, C. (2005). Reforming abusive organizations. In B. S. Bowie, S. Fisher, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace violence: Issues, trends, strategies. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). Review of literature and workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 181-191.

Rayner, C., & Keashly, L. (2004). Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain and North America. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behav-ior (pp.271 to 296). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Reiner, R. (2000). The politics of the police. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Sidle, S. D. (2010). Eye of the beholder: Does culture shape perceptions of workplace

bullying? Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 100-101.Summers-Effler, E. (2004). Defensive strategies: The formation and social impli-

cations of patterned self-destructive behavior. Advances in Group Process, 21, 309-325.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group–Self categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Van Maanen, J. (1972). “Pledging the police”: A study of selected aspects of recruit socialisation in a large urban police department. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of California, Irvine.

Waddington, P. A. J. (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture—An appreciation. British Journal of Criminology, 29(2), 287-309.

Walton, G. (2010). The problem trap: Implications of policy archaeology methodol-ogy for anti-bullying policies. Journal of Educational Policy, 25, 135-150.s

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27(3), 341-368.

Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). Problems as building blocks for organizational learning: A roadmap for experiential inquiry. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 35(3), 243-275.

Bios

Hilary Miller is a retired police officer and currently lectures part-time at the University of Glamorgan. Her research interest continues to relate to police culture and rituals. She received her PhD from Portsmouth University

Charlotte Rayner is Professor of HRM at Portsmouth Business School, UK. Her research interests are around workplace bullying, and understanding how organisa-tions can intervene to minimise the issue. She received her PhD from Manchester University.

Documents

Group & Organization Managementdocshare04.docshare.tips/files/18535/185358927.pdf348 Group & Organization Management 37(3)Introduction Teamwork is essential in occupations where employees