Staffing: Does the rot really always start from the head of a fish?

It seems to be fashionable to vent on social media about the conditions at one's workplace or about one's superiors. At what point do these taunts become a "bullying from below" problem? What factors encourage it? Are managers simply to blame themselves when they are "staffed"? Ricarda Rafalski, a psychologist at INSITE, takes us closer to the subject in this article.

While there are countless articles, tweets as well as posts on portals on the internet in which employees vent about bossing and mean superiors (of course, there are far more employees than managers), the opposite phenomenon still receives surprisingly little attention in our society. Yet it does exist - and it is no less relevant: it is often referred to as Staffing¹ or Upward Bullying².

Staffing is a form of mobbing that takes place across hierarchical levels. Unlike bossing - a form of bullying perpetrated by superiors against employees - the direction of staffing is from the bottom up. In this case, a manager is antagonised, discredited and humiliated by the team with all possible means and with the aim of exclusion, up to and including dismissal¹. The physical and mental health of the supervisor can suffer massively as a result^{3, 4}.

Team members have a wide range of options in their arsenal: starting rumours, withholding information, passive-aggressive behaviour in an irritated and annoyed tone, cynicism, but also failure to complete tasks on flimsy grounds^5,6. It becomes explosive because a leader is measured by the achievement of team goals.

It is often stated that workplace bullying is essentially a problem of leadership style, as a manager must see themselves as responsible for the working atmosphere they create^{1, 3, 5}. But does this also apply when the manager himself becomes the target of the attacks? To put it bluntly: Is it simply their own fault that they is in this situation?

In times when health in the workplace is of increasing relevance, agility, diversity and changes in corporate hierarchies, the conditions under which staffing is created in companies must be taken into account so that managers and their teams can fulfil the tasks assigned to them well together and so that recalcitrant teams do not "burn out" one manager after the other. Ultimately, staffing harms an entire company^{4, 5, 8}.

Under what conditions does staffing dynamic develop and what can be done about it?

From the outset, it is important to note that there are few serious findings on the spread of staffing in workplace research. Data are lacking. Nevertheless, we encounter it in EAP counselling. Perhaps this is because it is much harder for managers to admit that they are being staffed than to see themselves as victims of bossing^{4, 5, 9}. In staffing, the hierarchy is questioned; in bossing it is not.

With the phenomenon of staffing, a reversal of identification with the roles of "perpetrator" and "victim" can often be observed, which does not correspond to reality: as in the case of bossing, the employees doing the staffing see themselves as victims of their leadership and thus justify violent perpetrator behaviour². This only works in a larger complicity (including by omission!), because staffing does not work alone². Aggressive behaviour towards a manager attempts to compensate for dissatisfaction, perceived insignificance and asymmetry in the hierarchy. Powerlessness turns into power; weakness turns into strength.

Favouring factors

Staffing dynamics are favoured by an interplay of environmental and personal factors. Workplaces with large hierarchical differences, low budgets, a high number of detailed regulations as well as high demands with little room for manoeuvre⁷ in particular seem to more commonly produce such dynamics⁹.

As far as leadership style and behaviour are concerned, there is no clear tendency as to which is the best or the most harmful. On the one hand, a leadership style that is too authoritarian can foster resentment among the workforce, especially when combined with arrogance, arbitrariness, lack of transparency and an unruly demeanour⁷. On the other hand, a leadership style that is too lax, as well as "blind actionism", are equally problematic^{5, 9}, because the latter reveals that a leader is losing control.

The decisive factor is the fit between the leadership style, the company and the team.. Fit also explains why staffing usually occurs when there is a change in leadership^{3, 5, 6} and a new must be found - from both sides. In principle, this means that new managers (especially young and female ones^{7, 8, 10}) are in a vulnerable situation. It doesn't matter whether they come in from the outside or the inside: a new external force has to familiarise itself with the conditions and processes of a company, refute prejudices and, in addition to style-related errors, formal mistakes can easily occur. New leaders found internally are also more often affected by envy, resentment and rivalries within the team^{7, 8}.

If team and leadership do not find each other, a team can - consciously or even unconsciously - bring the leader down.

What can be done about staffing?

Doesn’t a leader determine such dynamics themselves? In short: no. Of course, team dynamics depend strongly on a leader's ability to deal with conflict, mental and physical stability^{11, 12} and communication skills. Yet there are situations against which they are not able to fight. The decisive factor then is protection by higher authorities and adherence to the set framework.

The mission statement, code of conduct or other rules of conduct must apply to everyone without exception. Consequences for misconduct or attacks must be clear^{2, 3, 4, 6}, regardless of the direction from which they may come. Giving this process space, pursuing it with care, writing it down, communicating it clearly and living it openly is an important step towards "putting an end" to dominant disruptors⁴. Even if a mission statement or similar does not solve a problem on its own, it at least provides a frame of reference for solutions.

It also does not help to flatten hierarchies in order to meet more "at eye level". A fit between hierarchy and management style as well as between what a team, an industry and a team have been used to up to now must be established. If changes are sought, a team must be picked up from its habits. New leaders must be prepared for their role and accompanied. Coaching within the first 100 days can be an effective instrument^{6, 8}.

Creating a constructive climate characterised by a solution-oriented approach is just as essential as having the courage to take responsibility at all levels. The feeling of self-efficacy is one of the most sustainable pillars for sustained motivation. This applies to all levels and hierarchies. However, this requires room for manoeuvre and trust. Only in this way can team dynamics change from the search for "culprits for problems" to the search for "discoverers of solutions". As a side effect, it is then no longer so easy to shift the "blame" upwards or downwards. What applies to the leader in terms of mindset and conflict skills must also apply to every team member.

Moreover, we still talk too little about the fact that empathy can be shown across hierarchical levels. An important aspect here is that leaders can show themselves as authentic persons with their own concerns and free of fear. Participation and empowerment go hand in hand with trust and letting go. For some, leaving the comfort zone involves a great deal of effort, but it can improve the team climate enormously.

Furthermore, managers are expected to regularly ask how their employees are doing, but are rarely asked how they are doing themselves. This also has an impact on their relationship with the team. It is therefore worthwhile to sincerely ask the manager how they are doing from time to time.

When it comes to staffing, it is not always only the head of a fish that determines whether it stinks or not. It might emit an unpleasant odour from both sides. Those who want to be led must also allow themselves to be led and accept that decisions are made for them. A team is more than the sum of individuals who happen to work together. Not being in a leadership position does not absolve one from acting as a responsible human being. Viktor Frankl put it aptly: "To be human is to be conscious and responsible."¹³ There is nothing to add to this.

Sources

1. Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz durch den Chef (2020, 17. August). Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund. https://www.1.de/mobbing-am-arbeitsplatz-was-tun-bei-mobbing-durch-chef-oder-kollegen
2. Mobbing, Staffing, Bossing und Bullying (n. d.). Wiki to Yes – Mediation unlimited. https://wiki-to-yes.org/tiki-print.php?date=0&page=Mobbing&display=pdf
3. Büntemeyer, L. (2019). Staffing – Wenn Mitarbeiter ihren Chef mobben. Impulse –Netzwerk und Know-how für Unternehmer. https://www.impulse.de/personal/staffing/7399493.html
4. Staffing: Was das ist und was man dagegen tun kann (n. d.). Wirtschaftsforum. https://www.wirtschaftsforum.de/tipps/staffing-was-das-ist-und-was-man-dagegen-tun-kann
5. Mai, J. (2023). Staffing: Wenn der Boss gemobbt wird. Karrierebibel. https://karrierebibel.de/staffing/
6. Püttjer, C. & Schnierda (n. d.). Staffing ▷DAS tun, wenn Chef/-in vom Team GEMOBBT wird. Karriereakademie.de. https://www.karriereakademie.de/staffing
7. Köllner, V. (2017). Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz. Fehlzeiten-Report 2017: Krise und Gesundheit–Ursachen, Prävention, Bewältigung, 121-129. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Volker-Koellner/publication/319987605_Mobbing_am_Arbeitsplatz/links/5a47a4560f7e9ba868ab475e/Mobbing-am-Arbeitsplatz.pdf
8. Redaktion business-wissen.de (2022, 30. August). Staffing – mit mobbenden Mitarbeitern umgehen. Business-wissen.de. https://www.business-wissen.de/artikel/staffing-mit-mobbenden-mitarbeitern-umgehen/
9. Roy, A. (n. d.). Staffing: Wenn die Belegschaft den Aufstand probt!. Cornerstone. https://www.cornerstoneondemand.com/de/resources/article/staffing-wenn-die-belegschaft-den-aufstand-probt-de/
10. Meschkutat, B., Stackelbeck, M., Langenhoff, G., & für Arbeitsschutz, B. (2002). Mobbing-Report: eine Repräsentativstudie für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.
11. Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 9(3), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943200417957
12. Rammsayer, T., & Schmiga, K. (2003). Mobbing und Persönlichkeit: Unterschiede in grundlegenden Persönlichkeitsdimensionen zwischen Mobbing-Betroffenen und Nicht-Betroffenen. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 5(2), 3-11.
13. Frankl, V. E. (2005). Ärztliche Seelsorge: Grundlagen der Logotherapie und Existenzanalyse. Paul Zsolnay Verlag.