BEHIND THE SCENES

Alfred P. Dizon
Terror in the office

(Wilma V. Lacaba writes this week’s column)

Although recognized as a problem in the work place, bullying tends to be ignored rather than confronted. But victims have options in seeking redress. Aubrey (not her real name) is in her late 20s and works in a supervisory capacity in one of the country’s top call centers. She resents the female operations manager in her unit for being a nitpicking faultfinder who makes life hell for many subordinates.

Early this year, for instance, she witnessed how the woman—who was their team leader then—slapped down so hard on the head of a male agent wearing a baseball cap that she nearly gave him a whiplash injury, then just walked away as though nothing had happened. “Most people at work hate her guts,” she says. “She’s a bully in every sense of the word.”

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), a publicly funded UK-based group working to foster better employment relations, defines bullying as “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behavior; an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.” It occurs when the conduct in question is “unacceptable by reasonable normal standards and is disadvantageous or unwelcome to the person or people subjected to it or witnessing it.”

According to Loree Cruz-Mante, book author and part-time career counselor with the transitions firm DBM Philippines, bullying goes by a broader name in the local workplace: “harassment” (indeed, the two labels are often used interchangeably). She says that in offices, in particular, bullying takes such subtler forms as snooping or spying on co-workers, excluding certain persons from group activities, spreading malicious rumors, forwarding private messages without the sender’s permission, withholding information meant to be otherwise communicated, and embarrassing subordinates openly.

In the Philippines, though, this type of behavior—whether it takes place in a factory or a boardroom—tends to be ignored rather than confronted. Observes Ric Abadesco, vice-president of the People Management Association of the Philippines (PMAP), a non-profit organization of professionals involved in human resource management and industrial relations founded in 1956: “Take, for example, the telling of off-color jokes during breaks, or maybe the teasing of someone about her Visayan accent, or calling someone ’Duling’ [cross eyed] or ’Negro’ [Nigger]. Most of the time, it’s tolerated, even encouraged, although it could be quite an aggravation to some people.”

Perhaps it’s culture-related, but Filipinos seem to be impervious even to issues that are serious enough to cause the filing of court suits elsewhere in the world. As a case in point, violations of the Anti-sexual Harassment Act of 1995 continue to be committed despite strides achieved by the local feminist movement in raising consciousness about rights of women.

Stories make the rounds, for instance, about male team leaders at call centers using their clout to extract sexual favors from their young female subordinates. Formal complaints are few and far between. In Aubrey’s case, although she has thought of reporting her superior to their HR department, she has not actually done it. “I didn’t know how to go about it,” she says. “I’m not sure if actually walking up to the HR is a smart move for me because I’m pretty sure that she’d find out one way or another. She knows she wields power over us and uses it to her advantage.”

Aubrey couldn’t help but compare the work situation here and that in the US where she had also held employment in the past. She says: “The thought of speaking your mind to the boss is an absurd idea here, a big no-no. We just put up and shut up or else do it through the rumor mill, which doesn’t help the situation any.” Over in the US, she says, feedback—be it negative or positive—is encouraged and immediate action is taken to find out whether the complaint against any co-worker (even one’s manager) has basis and merits appropriate sanctions.

It’s true, Abadesco grants, that a tyrannical boss can get things done quickly. But he cautions that in the long run, this management style would be unproductive because it disempowers and demotivates people. In fact, an extremely passive, compliant staff could end up doing damage to the company. Hasn’t the excuse “Just following orders” been used all too frequently when something that could otherwise have been averted goes wrong?

A workplace where harassment exists, Cruz-Mante points out, pays the cost in terms of disharmony, hampered productivity, diminished level of performance, waste of time, lack of focus, distrust, stress, and loss of a person’s confidence and self-worth. The attrition rate also rises because people are likelier to leave than to stay in such an environment. It’s as much to the employer’s advantage, therefore, to make sure that clear-cut policies on harassment are put in place and—more important—implemented.

Aubrey, who has been in the call-center industry since the start of its boom in 2000, observes that the urgent need for personnel has caused a decline in the standards for hiring and promotion. While other business sectors normally require an MBA degree for their top management people, call-centers don’t. In some respects, this can be a good thing, but what if the designated manager turns out to be ill equipped, if not completely unsuitable, for a leadership role?

When this happens, a subordinate like Aubrey would likely be raring to tell the bully-boss this: “A true leader earns your respect and doesn’t demand it.” But, for fear of losing her job, would she ever?