Abstract
The purpose of this study was to gain consensus from experts on the best practices that might be taken into account when developing early bystander intervention training programs to reduce both workplace intimate partner violence (WIPV) and workplace bullying (WB). A U.S. nationwide panel of 17 experts completed the qualitative five-round modified Delphi study. The experts were leaders or managers from business, government, not-for-profit, and academic organizations who exceeded the criteria to participate in the study. Research included the collection of data electronically to answer the research question: What do experts with experience in the area of workplace violence (WV), WB, or WIPV agree constitute the best practices that might be considered when developing a bystander training program to address WIPV or WB? In Rounds 1 and 2, participants provided their demographics and initial opinions about best practices. Likert-type scales were used as follows: Round 3, to rate agreement about which statements constituted best practices; Round 4, to rank order statements from Round 3; and Round 5, to rate the importance of each statement. Results were analyzed for top best practices. Three themes emerged: leadership, training, and people involved in the incident. Findings indicated that senior management must be committed to lead the way; that victims, targets, and bystanders need to be protected, and confidentiality must be maintained. The study was based on the concept of altruism and empathy that humans show to others experiencing crisis or suffering. Practical implications showed a clear emphasis on the critical need for leadership as the foundation for reducing all forms of violence in the workplace; training should instruct staff in how to identify WV, WB, and WIPV, when to intervene, and how to get help; and ensure that victims are treated in a supportive and caring manner.
Keywords
Introduction
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defined workplace violence (WV) as “Any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide” (OSHA, n.d., “Training Materials,” Slide 2). Thus, workplace intimate partner violence (WIPV) and workplace bullying (WB) may be considered as included in the overall definition of WV. To mitigate WV, the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a) (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 1970, requires U.S. employers to provide a hazard-free workplace to minimize serious harm or death to their employees, yet WIPV costs employers US$1.8 billion in lost productivity and approximately 8 million work days each year, and WB costs nearly US$436.8 million (Giga, Hoel, & Lewis, 2008; OSHA, 1970). Not included in the aforementioned costs are amounts for injuries covered by employer-provided health care, crisis intervention caused by the violence, counseling services, or any indirect costs such as legal fees or how affected an organization’s reputation is (Bryant, 2010).
In spite of the financial impact, lost time and productivity, and possible damage to an organization’s reputation, a study on WIPV using a group of 200 Fortune 1500 executives showed that only 13% of the leaders believed their organization should address WIPV, which is considered to be a private matter not affecting their companies, while other research indicated 57% of executives (n = 248) thought that WIPV was a serious problem that did affect their companies (O’Leary-Kelly, Lean, Reeves, & Randel, 2008; Swanberg, Logan, & Macke, 2005). In another study of 250 employers, 88.4% refused to accept responsibility for incidents of WB in their organizations when they occurred (Namie, 2012). A study of 1,000 senior executives indicated 72% did not consider WB an issue while other executives deemed anyone who tried to resolve WB as a troublemaker (Namie, 2012; Namie, Christensen, & Phillips, 2014). Two 2017 studies indicated that witnessing higher levels of WB reduced employees’ satisfaction, as well as their adjustment and motivation at work (Bureau, Gagné, Morin, & Mageau, 2021; Goodboy, Martin, & Bolkan, 2020). Consequently, the facts of WV overshadow organizational leaders’ efforts to deny them.
For example, the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report covering the years from 2006 through 2015 indicated that 76% of domestic assaults totaling 1,014,073 females were perpetrated by their intimate partner (Reaves, 2017). Furthermore, the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reported the amount of lifetime physical violence by an intimate partner was experienced by 32.9% of women in the United States (n = 9,086) and this did not include sexual assault, stalking, or other forms of intimate partner violence (IPV; Breiding, Chen, & Black, 2014). In 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also reported the leading cause of death for women at work was homicide (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Abusive men find the woman’s workplace to be an ideal place to attack their wives or girlfriends because work is one place that women go to daily (Swanberg et al., 2005). Mankowski, Galvez, Perrin, Hanson, and Glass (2013) referenced other research that showed up to 75% of working women are harassed by their intimate partner during work. Such results indicate that even the workplace may not be safe for many women.
Women are not the only victims of abuse. The aforementioned numbers do not include male victims of WIPV, nor do they consider WIPV among the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender community (LGBT). The most recent BJS report noted that 24% of men experience IPV from their intimate partner for a total of 313,579 men while the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicated the abuse of men was higher at 28.1% (Breiding et al., 2014; Reaves, 2017). In addition, a 2014 study by Breiding, Chen, and Black used a sample size of 9,086 women and found that 43.8% of lesbians were victims of IPV while bisexual women were being abused at a rate of 61.1%. In a similar study with a sample size of 7,421 homosexual men, 26% of the men experienced IPV with bisexual men experiencing abuse at a rate of 37.3% (Breiding et al., 2014). Thus, the 2014 trend indicated that while both sexes were victims of IPV, bisexual females experienced more IPV than lesbian or heterosexual females while homosexual men showed no significant difference in being victims of IPV than did heterosexual men (Breiding et al., 2014). Much abuse occurs in private; abuse can and does move into the public realm of the workplace where the violence is seen and heard by coworkers who are unintended bystanders to the abuse. Bystanders, then, are frequently in the best position to interrupt and intervene in WV before it heightens, yet the problem is that the best approaches for developing early bystander intervention training programs focused on teaching strategies to interrupt WIPV and WB are not known (Namie, 2012; Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2014).
A 2012 study by Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott showed that when bystanders learned ways to intervene when violence occurred, victimization reduced by 50% (n = 12,874 college students). In one of the few articles on workplace bystander training, Griffin (2004) noted that 100% of the 26 bystanders who participated in intervention training were able to stop WB. Additional research on WIPV or WB emphasized the importance of organizations developing and implementing bystander intervention training programs (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Banyard, 2011; Benavides-Espinoza & Cunningham, 2010; Paull, Omari, & Standen, 2012; Stagg & Sheridan, 2010).
If organizational leaders ignore the serious issues of WIPV and WB, the two forms of WV could damage the organization’s reputation, compromise profitability, decrease productivity, and cause potential liability from employees injured on the job. Furthermore, WV affects both the victims and the bystanders who see the abuse as well (Namie, 2014; Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2014). Specifically, the best approaches for developing early intervention strategies for bystander training programs focusing on WIPV and WB were not known (Namie, 2012; Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2014).
Examination of over 100 studies addressing WIPV and 49 separate WB studies since 2004 found no research that addressed both forms of WV. In spite of a lack of research on WIPV and WB, the concept of altruism and empathy toward helping others during periods of crisis or suffering provided the theory behind moving forward with this study (de Waal, 2008). Thus, the objective of this modified Delphi study was to determine consensus from experts across the United States on best practices that might be taken into account when developing early bystander intervention training programs to reduce both WIPV and WB. Results of the study may help leaders to decide to incorporate such practices into the development of employee training programs to improve internal safety. Such programs could also help organizations to decrease costs from absenteeism, reduced productivity, and lower medical expenses as well as protecting the organization’s reputation. The theoretical basis for anticipating results of the study to be similar or the same for WV, WIPV, and WB relied on the fact that all three areas have a common connection; they are all violence in some form and all occur in the workplace (Dillon, 2012).
Literature Review
According to McMahon, Postmus, Warrener, Martinez, and Spencer-Linzie (2013) individuals must be responsible for being active bystanders when sexual violence or an incident of abuse happens. Even though bystanders are frequently nearby before the incident, during the incident, or immediately afterward, bystanders might not take action to avoid compromising their roles as witnesses. Still, if bystanders take action, the efforts they take help to reduce or stop IPV (McMahon et al., 2013).
Prior research on two bystander intervention programs on college campuses by Potter, Moynihan, Stapleton, and Banyard in 2009 and another by Moynihan et al. in 2014 showed that even a year after the students received training in how and when to intervene, the bystander training programs continued to be effective. A study by DeMaria et al. (2018) indicated that campus bystander training programs need to use repetition and promote prevention to be the most effective; these results can be transferred to the workplace as well, because repetition embeds the message in the minds of management and employees and may serve to reduce WV overall. Medical facilities also introduced bystander training programs in an effort to protect medical personnel from harm; these programs have primarily focused on addressing harassment and WB (Polanin et al., 2012). Thus, other than training in educational institutions and medical facilities, the lack of research indicates that bystander intervention training programs in other organizations either does not exist or it has not been documented. Without adequate training on WIPV and WB, employees at all levels of an organization may be at risk.
WB
Approximately 35% of Americans (54 million people) experienced WB at an annual cost of US$180 million dollars (Tye-Williams & Krone, 2014). While bosses, managers, or supervisors who are in higher positions than the targeted employee often commit WB, peers may also use WB to undermine coworkers (Lutgen-Sandvik, Namie, & Namie, 2009). WB is defined by the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI; 2014): Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is Threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or Work interference—sabotage—which prevents work from getting done, or Verbal abuse. (para. 1)
Thus, the conclusion to draw is that while there is not necessarily physical violence with WB, it can be every bit as dangerous and harmful in the workplace as WIPV.
Interestingly, WB shares many characteristics with WIPV insofar as both forms of violence focus on controlling the victim (Namie & Namie, 2011). Men lead the way in both forms of violence with 99% of men committing IPV (n = 1,000 females 12 or older) according to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2009, and men committed 62% of WB (n = 1,000), while women made up the rest of workplace bullies (Namie & Namie, 2011).
WB takes a number of forms including being excluded from employee events, activities, or meetings; giving the target the silent treatment; spreading rumors, humiliating, or yelling at the target (victim); and sending nasty notes or emails (Hershcovis, 2008; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). The perpetrator may use excessive criticism, curse at the target, or hide or destroy the target’s work or personal property; the perpetrator may also refuse to acknowledge the target’s accomplishments (Hershcovis, 2008; Tracy et al., 2006). WB may also intensify to the point of physical violence including shoving, slapping, or hitting (Crothers, Lipinski, & Minutolo, 2009; Hershcovis, 2008; Taneja, 2014; Tracy et al., 2006).
While a majority of WB is committed by men, 58% of women (n = 7,740) bully, and women often prefer the passive-aggressive tactic of relational aggression (WBI as cited in Crothers et al., 2009). Around 90% of women bullies target other women and use techniques like harming the reputation of the target, stealing friends, spouse or romantic partner, or withdrawing support or friendship (Crothers et al., 2009). Women are able to bully targets quite effectively because women crave being part of their work or social community, yet they are often excluded because of the bully (Crothers et al., 2009).
Results of WB are many: reducing productivity, increasing insecurity, stress and tension, undermining confidence, impeding concentration, damaging interpersonal relationships, and causing serious, long-term health consequences including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD—especially in women) or suicidal ideation (Giga et al., 2008; Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006, Wardell, 2011). Not only are targets affected by WB, but bystanders as well. Paull et al. (2012) noted that bystanders not only see the abuse but have to make a decision as to whether to take action or remain a passive observer. Estimated costs for U.S. businesses losses because of WB are about US$300 billion annually from reduced productivity, higher absenteeism, more employee turnover, and increased medical expenses from higher stress levels at work (Daniel, 2009).
IPV
Breiding et al. (2014) noted that IPV occurs in a variety of relationships: marriage, cohabitation, and dating; it happens in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships and in any race and culture as well as at any socioeconomic scale. IPV encompasses physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse. Abuse includes threats, stalking, withdrawing affection, denying financial support, humiliation—both private and public—or reducing the intimate partner’s self-esteem or self-confidence (Wathen, MacGregor, & MacQuarrie, 2016). Abuse also includes hitting, punching, kicking, biting, hair-yanking, choking, or using some type of weapon to injure or kill the partner; and sexual abuse includes forced intercourse, unwelcome touching, and rape, which includes sodomy—either oral or anal (Wathen & MacGregor, 2014).
Considering abuse, Hispanic/Latino females (Hispanic females/Latinas) experience more forms of ill-treatment than non-Hispanic/Latino women at a rate of 3.5 times (Cuevas, Sabina, & Milloshi, 2012). Black women have a higher lifetime rate of physical violence, rape, or stalking by their intimate partner at 43.7% (4 out of 10 women) than do White women at 34.6% (n = 10; Breiding et al., 2014). Research by Breiding et al. (2014) and Fujie Parks, Cohen, and Kravitz-Wirtz (2007) indicated that Pacific Islander and Asian females appear to experience IPV at rates between 41% and 60% (n = 10). Another study of 378 Asian and Pacific Islander women comprised of Asian, Hawaiian, and Filipino women found that although rates of IPV for Asian women were low, 44% of Hawaiian women suffered IPV and 42% of Filipino women were victimized (Crowne, Juonm, Ensminger, Bair-Merritt, & Duggan, 2012). In a 2006 survey of 106 American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) women, Evans-Campbell, Lindhorst, Huang, and Walters (2006) found the women lived with high levels of depression, had an increased likelihood of risky sexual behaviors that may result in HIV, were unhappy with their lives, and they sought frequent help from medical or mental health care providers. Men can also be victims of IPV.
As an example, Black men experience a higher rate of IPV at 38.6% while multiracial men are even higher at 39.3%, and White men experience IPV at the rate of 28.2%, (sample size 8,079 men; Breiding et al., 2014). There is increased IPV among Alaskan Natives and American Indian males abused at a rate of 45.3% (n = 10). Interestingly, no rates of IPV were found for Hispanic/Latino men in any of the research literature (Breiding et al., 2014).
LGBT Victims of IPV
According to Breiding et al. (2014), 43.8% of lesbians experience IPV while bisexual women stand at 61.1% (sample size, 9,086 women). For homosexual men, 26% of homosexual men suffer IPV and bisexual men are abused at a rate of 37.3% (sample size 7,421 men; Breiding et al., 2014). Finally, between 30% and 50% of transgendered people experience IPV during their lives (Dottersmusch, 2016). No matter the person abused, the results of IPV erode both the physical and mental health of the victims.
Health Effects of IPV
García-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, and Watts (2005) pointed out the physical injuries that have occurred from IPV: fractures, wounds, concussions, eye or ear injuries, sprains, bruising, bite marks, burns, results of forced sexual violence, as well as internal injuries (García-Moreno et al., 2005) Additional health problems include heart problems, central nervous system issues, chronic pain, sexually transmitted disease (STD), unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage, and birthing complications (García-Moreno et al., 2005; Ghanbarpour, 2011). IPV may also cause memory loss or mental health problems like PTSD, depression, anxiety, psychosomatic disorders, or suicide attempts (Dutton et al., 2006; García-Moreno et al., 2005; Ghanbarpour, 2011).There is also an increased risk of victims becoming substance abusers (Dutton et al., 2006).
Method
The study used Purposive sampling to invite a nationwide panel of experts for the modified Delphi research from leaders or managers in their professions, all of whom exceeded the study criteria for participation. Experts personally known to the researcher received invitations to participate in the study as were experts who authored or coauthored articles on the topics being studied. Experts who became panelists referred other potential panelists who met the criteria for participation (snowball referrals), and those referrals also received invitations to join. Expert panelists were recruited by email invitation to participate in all five rounds of the study. Purposive sampling was appropriate for this study, because there was a specific group necessary who met the required experience and expertise in the areas of WIPV, WB, and WV to participate as expert panelists in a modified Delphi study.
Experts identified for the research included educational level, years of experience as a leader, and specific experience in the areas of WV, WB, or WIPV. The study design accommodated up to 30 expert panelists. Of that number, there were 26 panelists identified as being appropriate for the study who received an invitation email. In total, 20 experts responded. Three panelists participated in the pilot study and the remaining 17 experts completed all five rounds of the questionnaires for a 100% response rate.
The research question being addressed was,
Procedures
A Delphi study is based on the assumption no information is available other than from experts with real world experience; however, there was minimal or incomplete amounts of information available from a literature review that explored the research topic; finding minimal information allowed a modified Delphi method to be used (European Commission, 2006). The Delphi method, originally envisioned as a communication process for groups of experts to achieve a merging of opinions from real life experiences within a specific topic area, helped to reduce the likelihood of the negativity that may occur in groups (Geist, 2010; Hsu & Sandford, 2007). The Delphi method employed in this study determined consensus from a nationwide panel of experts in the fields of WV, WIPV, or WB on best practices that might be used in developing bystander early intervention training programs.
All the open-ended questions were developed by the lead author, reviewed and approved by the second author, and validated through a pilot study using three of the expert panelists. When assessment of the pilot study ended, slight adjustments facilitated the ease of panelists moving through the questionnaires, and data collection began.
By using multiple rounds of data collection, the Delphi method used knowledge from experts to find solutions that other research methods cannot produce (Heitner, Kahn, & Sherman, 2013). In conjunction with the Delphi method, data included collection using five rounds of individually accessed questionnaires through SurveyMonkey with each round building on results from the previous round. The initial round of the study included asking the same eight open-ended questions covering three areas: WV, WIPV, and WB. If a panelist had little or no experience in a specific area, he or she advanced to the next topic area with the same open-ended questions.
Some of the questions in the first round were as follows: Question 5 asked, “What ‘best practices’ would you propose for an early intervention training program aimed at bystanders taking action to stop workplace violence?” Question 6 asked, “How would you train bystanders to take action during occurrences of workplace violence? What steps would you take to educate them and in what order if any?” Question 7 asked, “What special considerations, if any, should be considered when developing an early intervention training program for bystanders about workplace violence? These might include such considerations as gender, cultural orientation, sexual orientation, age, etc. Why might these be important, and how could they be addressed?” All responses to the questions were reviewed and coded by the lead author. Coding required reading each response to uncover an initial grouping by similarities in words, phrases, and ideas; this was completed by the lead author and reviewed by the second author for accuracy (Heitner et al., 2013).
Three themes began to emerge from the analysis of the first round of questions—leadership, training, and statements more generally applicable to all members of an organization, including victims, bystanders, and perpetrators, referred to as “people involved in the incident.” These themes included specific views or subthemes within each main theme. For example, leadership included leaders becoming examples for their people to follow, ways organizations should deal with issues in each of the three theme areas, and organizational policies. Training concentrated on what steps to take, as well as how and when to take each step. People involved in the incident covered such comments as the following: suspected or reported acts of violence would be investigated and not tolerated, how to assist victims of the violence, and how to help bystanders who witnessed the events.
The second round of questionnaires provided a compilation of all responses from the experts in the first round for review, comments, or additions. The second set of questionnaires resulted in a total list of best practices with 24 statements for WV, 13 statements for WB, and 14 statements for WIPV. The third round of questionnaires used a 5-point Likert-type scale to rate agreement on best practices with choices ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Some examples of best practices for the first topic area, WV, were the following:
A needs assessment would have to be taken to find out the culture of the organization and what is actually going to work for those particular employees.
The first step is recognition. Just describing the act as violence is a critical first step.
There must be a strong message and established culture from leaders that WV at all levels will not be tolerated.
As noted above, the experts provided steps needing to be taken to prior to the development of a bystander early intervention training program.
Calculations for the number of occurrences of the two highest ranked responses (strongly agree and agree) and the median for each statement helped to uncover the amount of initial consensus for each area—WV, WB, and WIPV. Statements ranked at 3.5 or above were advanced to the fourth round. As 3 is the mid-score on a Likert-type scale, 3.5 was selected as an appropriate cutoff point for inclusion in moving statements forward because 3.5 indicates a greater level of agreement than using the mid-score of three (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). A Cronbach’s alpha measured internal consistency in each of the three categories—WV, WB, and WIPV. The Cronbach’s alpha results showed WV =.911, WB = .933, and WIPV = .923 indicating good internal consistency in each topic area.
The fourth round asked the expert panelists to sequentially rank order (1, 2, 3, etc.) the best practices in each area of their experience from most important to least important. An analysis of the fourth round indicated approximately a 50% agreement rating among the experts on the ranked level of importance in each category; thus, a fifth round ensued to determine final consensus.
The fifth round used a Likert-type scale to rate the degree of importance of each best practice from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Results were then compiled and analyzed to determine the top 10 to 15 best practices for each type of abuse—WV, WB, or WIPV. Mean scores were determined for each abuse category (WV, WB, and WIPV) with best practices having a median ranking of 3.5 or higher being reported in the final results. Statements with a lower ranking were excluded. Mean scores were determined and analytics from SurveyMonkey were used to find the weighted averages. Weighted averages helped to determine the initial rank order of the top best practices, and the mean scores helped to break any ties in the weighted averages (Lassiter, 2017).
All panel experts received an email of the final results for review and final comments as part of ensuring the study’s reliability and credibility. Panelists confirmed their agreement that the results were accurate, so the final results were considered confirmed, and the study was finalized.
Sample Characteristics
As part of Round 1 of the questionnaire, demographic information provided by the panelists facilitated gaining insight into their background and experience in the topic areas. The criteria to identify experts were educational level, current position, years of experience about the topic areas being researched, their industry sector, and the size of their organization. Experts needed either a master’s degree and seven years’ experience in the research topic of WV, which included WB or WIPV, or a bachelor’s degree and 10 years of experience in WV, WB, or WIPV.
Organizational sizes went from seven employees to more than 100,000+. All participants lived in the United States across multiple states, and a number of them authored or coauthored research articles or books on the topic areas being studied. Six of the experts were male and 11 were female. The majority of the experts had a doctoral degree (53%; n = 9), 29% (n = 5) had a master’s degree, and 18% (n=3) had a bachelor’s degree. The experience levels in the areas of WV, IPV, WIPV, and WB ranged from a minimum of 10 years of experience to a maximum of 45 years of experience. All experts responded to an email invitation to participate in the study. The invitational email clearly specified the requirements to participate as noted previously, and all participants self-identified as being qualified and willing to participate in the study.
Using direct contact and snowballing, the experts were recruited from professions the spanned business, government, not-for-profits, and academics, and they represented a wide swath of occupations, namely, Psychology, education at the college level (including educational leadership), military command, government, healthcare management, law enforcement (including law enforcement leadership), corrections management, research, law, human resources, training, and coaching.
The educational levels and work background for the expert panelists are found in Table 1.
Education and Work Backgrounds of Experts.
Note. N = 17. Background included experience with WV, WB, IPV, or WIPV. Total years of education or professional experience may have exceeded 100% due to rounding. WV = workplace violence; WB = workplace bullying; IPV = intimate partner violence; WIPV = workplace intimate partner violence.
Results and Implications for Practice
Analysis of Round 5 revealed the final list of best practices in the three theme areas of leadership, training, and people involved. Each area reviewed had medians of 3.5 or higher for inclusion in the final list of best practices, means were calculated, and SurveyMonkey analytics reviewed for weighted averages. Weighted averages aided in determining the final order of the top best practices under each theme. If multiple statements had the same weighted averages, the means were used to determine statement order. The final statement order indicated the level of importance the experts assigned to each best practice for consideration by decision makers, HR, and instructional designers who develop employee training programs.
Results showed that for WV there were 24 best practices with 19 rated at 3.5 or higher. Of the 19 best practices, the top 15 comprised the final list of best practices that covered all three theme areas: leadership, training, and people involved. For WB, 11 best practices made the final list with 10 practices ranking above the median of 3.5, and all 10 made the list for best practices in cases of WB. WIPV had 14 best practices, of which 10 ranked at 3.5 or above. The 10 rated best practices were also included in the list for WB. All best practices in all categories below 3.5 were set aside in a separate list for review if so desired. Best practices in all three categories, WV, WB, and WIPV are listed in Tables 2 to 4. Decisions on where to place each best practice was based on the researcher’s determination as to the most logical and accurate category. For example, in Table 2, the statement, “Offer communication training, diversity training, emotional intelligence training, and problem solving” was grouped under leadership rather than training because leaders would have to approve the decision to offer such courses before they could be added to the training agenda.
Top Best Practices—WV Interventions.
Note. WV = workplace violence.
S = Statements, which are numbered to make it easier to reference each statement within a category, and not for any other reason.
R = Rank order of statements where N = 24 and n = 15.
Top Best Practices—WB Interventions.
Note. WB = workplace bullying.
S = Statements, which are numbered to make it easier to reference each statement within a category, and not for any other reason.
R = Rank order of statements where N = 11 and n = 10.
Top Best Practices—WIPV Interventions.
Note. WIPV = workplace intimate partner violence; IPV = intimate partner violence.
S = Statements, which are numbered to make it easier to reference each statement within a category, and not for any other reason.
R =Rank order of statements where N = 14 and n = 10.
Discussion
Three themes emerged from the research—leadership, training, and people involved in the incident, emphasizing the critical role of leadership as the foundation for reducing WV, WB, and WIPV. By, Burnes, and Oswick (2012) noted the importance of strong leadership, indicating that . . . leaders must be instilled with a moral compass fitting the organization of which they are in charge . . . [and] must . . . be expected to make decisions in the interest of the many rather than the few, [as well as] refrain from abusing the faith that is placed in them and the unique freedoms that they enjoy. (p. 3)
Similar sentiments recurred in multiple ways in the list of best practices in all three areas—WV, WB, and WIPV. The experts were clear in their agreement on best practices for leaders with comments indicating they need to make a commitment, send a strong message, create a culture of safety, maintain zero tolerance of any form of workplace abuse, and establish policies for dealing with WV, WB, and WIPV.
Laschinger, Wong, Cummings, and Grau (2014) suggested developing a resonant leadership style using emotional intelligence to help employees to develop and sustain a positive organizational culture and reduce the likelihood of WV. Nater (2010) supported the previous point, commenting that when leaders develop bonds of trust by engaging with and responding to their employees, it results in greater perceived levels of safety in the workplace.
Further support for strong leadership came from Yang and Caughlin (2017) who noted that the attitudes of leaders affect employee behavior at work, and when leaders encourage and support nonaggressive behaviors, employees emulate their leaders. Dussault and Frenette (2015) found that using transformational leadership at work mitigates the effects of WB, and Taneja (2014) noted that leaders of an organization have a legal and moral obligation to create and implement a WV prevention program. Finally, Angood (2016) warned organizational leaders to avoid becoming complacent about violence that is frequently portrayed by the media, so WV in its different forms appears to have become a significant issue and workplace safety of greater concern than in the past. Results from this study indicated organizations should consider incorporating the leadership best practices as a starting point in developing early bystander intervention training programs to tackle all forms of WV. Research on training programs provided similar results.
In a study of 10 existing programs dealing with workplace aggression, Wu (2014) found all programs did reduce the violence. Furthermore, Nixon (2010) argued the need for six elements for effective prevention training programs: (a) leaders need to be good communicators and have training and are effective in managing their people respectfully, (b) organizational culture supports transparent communication between leaders and employees, (c) HR policies support fair and respectful treatment of employees, (d) the organization has a comprehensive WV prevention policy, (e) an employee assistance program is in place to provide assistance and support to employees, and (f) the organization uses a selection process to ensure potential employees fit the organization’s culture. The first four elements in Nixon’s research appear to support the best practices determined by the experts in the current study, while the last two elements lacked mention.
Martinez (2015) provided guidelines for organizations to reduce WIPV that supported some of the best practices in the current study. Martinez (2015) noted that states need to pass laws to sanction perpetrators of IPV, organizations have to establish and enforce policies to prevent IPV with clear penalties to deal with the perpetrators, and organizations should require perpetrators of IPV to enroll in and attend a batterer’s intervention program (BIP). Thus, Martinez corroborated the best practice for WIPV in the current research on organizational policies prohibiting WIPV and the best practice supporting zero tolerance for WIPV. Since 2012, research in the areas of WV, WB, and WIPV correlates and aligns with the best practices resulting from the present study.
While research included discussion of prevention or intervention in cases of WV, WB, or WIPV, there was minimal information available addressing early bystander intervention training to reduce WIPV or WB. Best practices identified in the Lassiter study, therefore, may be a starting point in facilitating the development of a program that addresses both WIPV and WB. Even though the current research may not be generalizable because of the small number of experts on the panel (17), results may still be useful to any size organization where WV, WIPV, or WB may occur. While each form of workplace abuse can erode a sense of safety for employees, cause a decrease in productivity, increase costs to an organization, and affect its reputation, adequate training on how to intervene safely and early may help to reduce the violence. Stene, Larson, Levy, and Dohlman (2015) completed a survey of 6,300 nurses and found that more than half (50%) thought they had to tolerate WV at work, yet after completing training on WV, 77% of the nurses began reporting abuse and filing complaints (Stene et al., 2015). Thus, when appropriate training is available and provided to staff members, a reduction in violence can be accomplished to the benefit of both the organization and its people.
This study might be useful for decision makers who need to be aware of their responsibilities to their organizations and staff, for HR managers responsible for training to enhance workforce effectiveness, and most of all for instructional designers who are tasked with developing training programs to mitigate WV, WB, and WIPV. If the best practices uncovered in this study are incorporated or used as a basis for such training programs, the programs are more likely to be focused and applicable to the needs of organizations. The list of best practices can also be used by leaders to support the efforts of making their workplaces safer and help leaders to recognize the importance of their role in the implementation of cultural change (Randal & Wells, 2003). The best practices uncovered in this study might also be useful to instructional designers who develop training programs for organizations.
Limitations
There were limitations to the study: the questionnaire instrument may have been too lengthy for the experts to fully complete, or the instrument may have been inadequate to elicit full answers to the research question. The study was qualitative, which means the research occurred in a natural setting and might be difficult to duplicate. The research could fail tests of reliability or validity (Simon & Goes, 2013). Self-selection of the experts may be less reliable than engaging specific candidates although a vetting process was used to ensure panelists met the criteria. Finally, researcher bias may have occurred despite best efforts to remain neutral and open to any results.
Implications for Further Research
Recommendations for future research include a suggestion to complete follow-up research on the effectiveness of any early intervention bystander training programs that may be developed from incorporating some or all of the best practices identified in this study to learn if such programs work to reduce WV, WIPV, or WB. Furthermore, best practices determined by the experts may provide a starting point that could be adaptable to different sized organizations. Future research might also address why employers deny or ignore problems with WV, WB, and WIPV in their organizations as workplace abuse frequently is witnessed by employees. Study results might uncover steps to take to help leaders with coping strategies to become more effective in preventing WV, WB, and WIPV, and indicate ways to intervene when those types of abuse occur. Such research might provide insights into reasons employers are in denial about the different forms of WV and the research might compare employer attitudes before and after training on the topic.
Summary
The purpose of the current modified Delphi study was to determine consensus by a panel of experts regarding best practices to consider when developing an early bystander intervention training program to reduce WV, WIPV, or WB. Three themes emerged from the research: leadership, training, and people involved. If developers of training programs incorporate the best practices from each of the three themed areas determined in this study, a balanced program may be developed that addresses the most important safety issues while providing techniques that help everyone in an organization to maximize their effectiveness in knowing what to do and when to take action to reduce the risk of injury at work.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biographies
