Honestly, this post kind of surprises me. It seems like you would be the last person to be skeptical about the impact of months or even years of what amounts to mental and even emotional abuse.
Yeah, I thought about it, almost didn’t post it, and then thought, ‘‘What the hell, if I’m wrong then at least I’m going to learn something.’’
I’m a skeptic, even of mental health experts, because I think an alarming number of them don’t base their conclusions on scientifically rigorous evidence. I’m just sitting here trying to understand how being left out of a memo or not invited for lunch fits the diagnostic criteria for ‘‘intense fear, helplessness, or horror.’’ I don’t think of a coworker as someone who is capable of dishing out emotional abuse, because coworkers are my equal, and if I’m uncomfortable at work, I can quit my job. It is difficult for me to imagine a social scenario at work in which I could ever reach traumatic levels of terror.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying it seems extremely unlikely to me.
That said, I will try to think about this more critically.
Some considerations:
- not everyone can quit their job
- there is such a thing as learned helplessness, meaning that a person may perceive him or herself as helpless even if he or she is not, and in PTSD, perception is really all that matters.
Obviously I can only read the abstract, but this is a small-scale study of 20 people, and it’s not clear how long after the event the study was conducted. This is relevant because a lot of people having survived a trauma initially exhibit symptoms of having been traumatized, but don’t qualify for a diagnosis unless the symptoms persist more than one month after the event. A large percentage of those originally diagnosed with PTSD no longer qualify for the diagnosis after three months. According to this study you cited, Lamia, 55% of the people exhibited signs of trauma. Out of a sample of 20. **That is really freaking high for any traumatic incident.
**
According to this website,
Why is the prevalence rate in this study so much higher than the overall rate for developing PTSD? If replicable, those are some truly disturbing findings. They would suggest that mobbing at work is more likely to cause PTSD than rape, which as far as we know is the greatest diagnostic factor for developing PTSD.
It would be intellectually irresponsible of me not to be skeptical of results like that.
(bolding mine)
Now this I find interesting. Assuming that these findings are replicable, I wonder if this might be a culturally-bound phenomenon or if it has to do with the social nature of the trauma. I wonder if there are studies showing kids who are victims of school bullying have similar rates of PTSD. I wonder if those kids also have issues with physical pain and somatic symptoms. I mentioned in a BBQ Pit Thread recently how important social support is for preventing PTSD. I wonder if these findings may suggest that the inherently social nature of the trauma increases the risk of PTSD.
Better?
I’d also be skeptical as to whether being left out of a memo would result in PTSD, but if the only bad thing that ever happened to someone at work was that they were once left out of a memo then that wouldn’t be workplace mobbing.
*If my response to this were “I’m sitting here trying to think how having sex fits the diagnostic criteria for ‘intense fear, helplessness, or horror.’ I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying it seems extremely unlikely to me”, then would you think that I was expressing healthy skepticism or would you think that I really did not understand the problem of rape at all?
You’re right, I didn’t understand the nature of the problem, and I failed to realize you had experienced it yourself. I truly apologize for my insensitivity.
I have been spending the last few hours trying to learn more about this. It’s clear from the article that most people who are victims of mobbing are trapped in their jobs and that the power relationship is a requirement to fit the criteria. So I obviously didn’t understand what mobbing actually was. I think I have a better idea now.
Having said that, I still retain my right to be skeptical that it causes PTSD. There is a difference between recognizing that something causes enduring psychological harm and recognizing that it fits specific criteria for a psychological disorder.
According to the DSM-IV,
As a child, I experienced egregious emotional abuse – really, really heinous – but the damage that has done to me psychologically and the emotional abuse itself does not qualify me for a diagnosis of PTSD because emotional abuse as defined by the DSM-IV is not a qualifying event. There are several qualifying events I have had that fit the criteria, but emotional abuse is not one of them.
I am aware that there are other tools besides the DSM-IV used to make these determinations. Professor Lehmann on his website defines PTSD in a way that is unfamiliar to me and is not based on the DSM-IV. His definition is much more broad than the DSM-IV and includes threat of harm to psychological integrity. I am only familiar with the DSM-IV, as it is the most widely used diagnostic tool in the United States. I think an argument can certainly be made for alternative definitions of PTSD, but given the fact that the vast majority of the research I encounter is based on the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV, I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to use that as my own yardstick.
I am also aware that emotional abuse has lasting consequences, and I would be willing to argue that those consequences may even be worse than other kinds of abuse (in my experience that is the case.) However, that does not mean it fits the DSM-IV criteria for PTSD.
Maybe it should. But it doesn’t.
The prevalence rates that these studies are claiming for incidence of PTSD among victims of mobbing are are not trivial. They are higher than for any other trauma. Leymann’s claim for the high prevalence rate is that it involves continued, long-term, repeated incidents of abuse. This fits with general notions about predictive factors of trauma, but childhood abuse and prisoners of war experience the same thing and yet have lower rates. Why?
I have looked very hard for the basis of his research, I even ran his name through my university’s research database, and I’ve got nothin’. I can’t determine his methodology. His website contains a summary of findings, not the research itself. I did turn up several studies about workplace bullying, but only one about workplace bullying and PTSD–a single case study. Only one hit for ‘‘mobbing,’’ and it’s a field study, not a clinical study.
So what I can conclude based on the literature I can find – mobbing is a recognized problem that causes significant psychological and even physical distress to those who experience it, but the research (by Lehmann’s own acknowledgment) is still in the earliest stages of its development.
I heard a spot on NPR the other day about nurses who eat their young – they also call it ‘‘horizontal violence’’ – and there are a lot of hits for that in my university’s literature database. I wonder if this may be construed as another example of mobbing.
Ok, I’ve done some digging to determine Lehmann’s definition of PTSD. It appears to be a loose interpretation of the DSM-III revised edition (1987), and adds the phrase ‘‘threat to psychological integrity’’ as a qualifying event. Nowhere in the DSM-IV (or DSM-III 1987 revised edition as far as I can tell) is ‘‘threat to psychological integrity’’ identified as a qualifying event for a diagnosis of PTSD, though I note with some interest that Wikipedia claims it does, using a citation that links directly to a definition lacking that very clause.
I guess that is the crux of my argument. Does threat to one’s psychological integrity qualify as an event for the diagnosis of PTSD, and if so, what does ‘‘threat to one’s psychological integrity’’ mean? How do we define and measure it? So far the psychological community has failed to come up with a definitive answer to this question, though the DSM-IV itself is pretty clear.
This might seem like a trivial distinction, but to me it’s not. I think the more rigorously we define a psychological disorder the more likely we are to be precise in our investigation of etiology and treatments surrounding that disorder. In other words, the more precise we are in our definition of the thing, the more precise our research, the more effective our treatment, and ultimately, the more people we can help.
In making that distinction I mean in no way to minimize the suffering experienced by victims of mobbing, or for that matter, any kind of emotional abuse, or any kind of really ugly experience. I just think there is a danger in confusing shitty life experiences with immediate threats to your physical being. It’s not even that one is necessarily worse than the other, it’s that they might manifest themselves in completely different ways, and that difference should be honored, particularly as regards research and treatment.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
FWIW, I do not believe that I personally experienced PTSD as the result of workplace mobbing. While I was at this job I did experience psychological symptoms like those associated with PTSD, but things improved dramatically once I was out of that work situation. I also saw a psychologist for a few months, which definitely helped, but even before I started counseling I was feeling a lot better than I had while I was still working at that place. But I can easily believe that someone in a more severe or prolonged mobbing situation or who had other problems/vulnerabilities in addition to the mobbing might continue to suffer from the same symptoms for much longer.
*Looking at the DSM-IV myself right now, it seems that Adjustment Disorder would be a more appropriate DSM-based diagnosis for problems caused by workplace mobbing: “The diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder is appropriate…for situations in which the symptom pattern of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder occurs in response to a stressor that is not extreme (e.g., spouse leaving, being fired).” (Differential Diagnosis section of the DSM-IV entry on PTSD.) However, Adjustment Disorder by definition does not last for more than six months after the stressful situation has ended. I’m not seeing a diagnosis that would apply if the symptoms persisted for longer than that.
*No, but since most of the research on workplace mobbing seems to have been conducted in Europe then I think it’s likely that they are using something other than the DSM-IV as their yardstick.
*I’m not that familiar with Heinz Leymann’s work, but I’m finding him as an author on four articles in PsycINFO and ten (the other four plus six more) in Scopus. But he was a native German working in Sweden and has been dead for over a decade, so I’m guessing that much of his work was not published in English and he of course wouldn’t have been publishing anything recently. Both of his English-language articles on mobbing that I’m seeing in Scopus were published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and have been cited over 100 times each, so he appears to have been a legitimate scholar and not some crackpot with a degree.
In case you’re interested, those two articles are:
Leymann, H. The content and development of mobbing at work. (1996). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), pp. 165-184.
Leymann, H. Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. (1990). Violence and Victims, 5 (2), pp. 119-126.
I also get 37 hits in PsycINFO for “(work OR workplace) AND mobbing”, and 738 hits on the same search in Scopus. I also get 116 hits in Scopus on “(work OR workplace) AND mobbing AND post-traumatic”. I’m not sure what resources you have available to you at your university, but if you’re only getting one hit on “mobbing” then the database you’re using probably is not the best one for this subject.
ETA: olives, I see that you keep spelling Heinz Leymann’s last name as “Lehmann”. Wikipedia tells me that there was a famous psychiatrist named Heinz Lehmann, but he apparently did not have anything to do with mobbing research.
I was using EBSCO megafile, which I had used to research PTSD before, but no, probably not a great database. One possible explanation for my lack of hits is the fact that I was searching ‘‘Hans Lehmann’’ and not ‘‘Heinz Leymann.’’ :smack:
Thanks for the cites. I will try to learn more about this, because I certainly don’t think the idea that it causes psychological harm is unfounded by any means. It really sounds like an awful thing to go through.
Replace “patrons” with “children” and you’ll have my definition. 
As for what’s being described by other posters, I’d consider that a “hostile work environment,” but I suppose that’s the name of the overall condition, rather than the mechanism used to create it.
Bullying is definitely what it is. Despite the connotations, “mobbing” doesn’t have to involve more than one person.
And yes, it creates a “hostile work environment.”
In my father’s case, the first instance (I was too little to remember it) involved being parked at work and threats of “you’ll never find another job” (he finally did, in another town and thanks to a tip from a friend). The second time, his employers were trying to get him to leave his job rather than having to fire him, in order to save the payout (he never got the memo, they eventually fired him); there were times when he would have come home at 10pm after a 4h drive from the company’s home office, then be awakened at 3am by a phone call from his asshole of a boss saying “I want you in my office at 8am”… yes, in the office which was 4h-drive away. The same boss would call at home at 6pm (Dad’s theoretical hours were 7am-3pm) and start barking insults and orders; I’d cut him off with “I’m not my father” “uh? where’s he then?” “at work, as you should know, since he never comes home before 8pm. Good bye. click” That’s the tip of the iceberg; I spent the two years it took them to figure out he was not going to leave praying that they would fire him before he killed himself on the highway or from going through 4-5 packs of cigarretes in a day as he was doing.
Well, from what I understand about Leymann’s research that started it, and the subsequent research, it’s more important to tell doctors, psychologists and people working for unions that they are dealing with what looks like PTSD even if the cause is not a qualifying event according to the DSM. Because the therapists report that remembering that mobbing can cause symptoms like PTSD, and then treating them accordingly, works better than previous approaches.
Getting back to the term “mobbing” itself, in the 1996 Leymann article I cited above (“The content and development of mobbing at work”) he explains that he uses this term in his English writing instead of the more common “bullying” because the word bullying suggests crude or childish violence and threats while workplace mobbing involves the use of more sophisticated behaviors against the victim such as social isolation and is rarely violent. The term “mobbing” has apparently been used in this way in Scandinavian countries since the 1970s.
Mobbing is basically caused and condoned by management and more often than not it happens to hard working honest employees, especially in businesses where one can work their way up the ladder. It starts with someone being jealous of another employee and if the jealous employee is in a position of authority this then creates a serious problem for the unsuspecting subordinate. The reasons for the jealousy can vary, but most likely the subordinate is seen smarter and becomes a threat to the supervisor or manager and thus has made the subordinate a target that must be rid of at all costs. Or it can be another co-worker that is threatened by a more competent co-worker; it’s one of the same anyway you look at it. These types of people are extremely insecure and feel inadequate and therefore fear being exposed. So here is when the web starts to get spun to solely destroy and discredit the target. First the insults, then extra work with short time lines to complete, then poor work performance evaluations. The second the subordinate expresses concerns or complains, more work sabotage will happen, such as being left out of the loop, missing paper work, tools to do the job, writing warnings etc. Next the isolation begins; other co-workers are now gossiping and spreading rumours. If the target decides to file a formal complaint, the harassment will intensify greatly. And after that, there won’t be a day that will go by that the target is not in trouble for something, something that was not their fault. This behaviour will go on until the target quits their job or better yet is fired; this will be a victory for the bullies and they will actually get off on it. The sad thing is there will be another target to replace the one that just left and it will only take a few days or even a few hours to put another in the cross hairs. Bullies are repeat offenders! They spend their whole working careers being a subeditor. I know this because I am a victim and there were victims before and after me. And because the harassment I was subjected too went on for a few years, I have been diagnosed with PTSD and am in therapy and since my termination I have been fighting for my life and trying desperately through all this to keep my home. The good news is I‘ve decided not to give up just yet. I have an attorney handing my case and is almost ready to start the lawsuit. These bullies still work for the company to this day.
My story, on 8/14/12, i was written up at work, oral warning and written warning both at the same time. I had never been written up before at this job. I had called my bank and they told me, not to do this again. This was not against the rules, but only for me. Then HR said i was cursing, about my supervisor to her, defiant, very angry. I needed to speak to someone before returning to work. I had another job, offer, and was going to call them for the new job, that paid more than this job.
The next emails states I am difficult to supervise, no reason given. Another hand written note, claims I will sue the company if they bother me in any way, i want to get paid, I will do anything fake a back injury etc etc. I went to the bathroom, and was again written up for leaving my phone. All lies about me.
I had worked there for 6 years with zero problems until 8/14/12, 9/6/12, 9/10/12. Terminated on 10/1/12. They even sent the police to my home.
I’ve never heard this expression. Well maybe “I’m mobbed at work” meaning “I have a ton of shit to do”.
From a professional services (accounting, law, consulting, finance, etc) manager standpoint, here is what I see. Much like the article describes, work load is often vague, has few formalized or defined processes and often has impossibly demanding deadlines. The firms themselves often function like a fraternity. A bunch of guys (and girls) who may not particularly even like each other are forced to work together. The success of their work improves their collective image and reputation. However, they cannot all equally succeed so they are also in competition.
If you fail to fit in or if your work product is below par, you can become a convenient scapegoat.
I don’t think it’s anything formalized though. It’s more of an emergent behavior. One of my people does something idiot. I’m talking to another manager about him and turns out he did something idiotic with that manager too. All of a sudden, the person in question now has a reputation for being an idiot. The professional thing would be to try to correct the behavior, but what I’ve found is a lot of people (especially young ones) don’t like their behavior corrected. They get all defensive and stressed out and the problem just gets worse.
Companies like Google and Facebook are often described as “best places to work”. But having worked in similar environments with the same sort of Ivy League MIT “delicate genius” types, and I highly doubt they are. They are great environments if you are a super overachiever and fit a certain type and willing to work long hours as if it were your life’s work. Otherwise, they are extremely stressful places where you will be constantly “coached” until you quit or get “counseled out”. It’s why you typically only see people stay at these “best places to work” for only a few years.
You must have missed this thread in 2010 and 2012, then.
ETA: Not snarking on you msmith537 – just pointing out this is a double zombie.
From what I’ve seen, this other usage of the word is prevalent in other English-speaking countries, and on the Continent in those countries that like to adopt English words. In fact, I first heard about das Mobbing from a German TV website.
I was rather surprised; as I’ve usually heard the term it’s a good thing. If a musician gets mobbed after a show, it means the audience liked the performance.
That’s how I would normally use it. It could also mean being mobbed people wanting you to do things for them, not by way of bullying or harrassment but as a proper part of the job, as with clients.
Called your bank? Told not to do it again?
I’m confused…what does your bank have to do with a reprimand at work? (Only if you care to elaborate, of course; I understand if you don’t. Seeing as it’s a zombie thread I won’t hold my breath either way.)
Once I went in for my semi-annual review, which I already knew wasn’t going to be pleasant for a variety of reasons. Essentially I was in the wrong job, having been reassigned from the job that I already been doing for several years at the same company. But it turned out to be even worse than I imagined. I was accused very vaguely of having nearly cost the company several million dollars but for the alertness and quick action of a colleague. But here’s the thing: my manager could NOT tell me what this mistake of omission had actually been.
My take on it is that the person was reprimanded for making a personal call (to their bank) during work hours.
I was unfortunate enough to experience “mobbing” at my last job. It was awful. I was fired after 7 months, and was so shaken up by the experience that I was having acute anxiety issues at my new job, to the point where I was almost unable to perform that job. I got treatment, first from my PCP, then from an actual head shrinker, who diagnosed me with PTSD (and a hatful of other psych disorders to boot). Luckily the anxiety was transient, and as I expected, it went away after a little bit of time on calming meds.
For the record, I was a trucker before I got an office job, and I’m a very thick-skinned person, so the effects of “mobbing” were as surprising to me as they are to many of the people posting to this thread. And honestly, I don’t really think I had/have PTSD from it, but it’s my opinion that PTSD has become a sort of catchall diagnosis for the general malaise associated with the kind of unpleasantness I endured. I don’t for a minute think that what I experienced was on par with what I consider actual PTSD, as suffered by combat vets, kidnap victims, etc. But I do believe that a person can suffer lingering effects based on prolonged unpleasantness.
It was actually someone here at the SDMB that told me my situation was an example of mobbing, and she was right on the money. I’d never even heard the expression before that.