The Core Assessment Task In This Subject Is A Research Proje

The Core Assessment Task In This Subject Is A Research Projectanalysin

The core assessment task in this subject is a research project analysing your own experiences with work, organisations and society. There are both collaborative and individual components to this task: 1. You will write an individual analysis of 1,500 words about the vignette you presented as a group and submit this to Canvas at the start of Week 8. 2. The topic is Harrington, S., Warren, S. and Rayner, C. (2013), ‘Human Resource Management practitioners’ responses to workplace bullying: Cycles of symbolic violence’, Organization, 22(3), pp. 368–389. Vickers, M.H. (2007), ‘Autoethnography as sensemaking: A story of bullying’, Culture and Organization, 13(3), pp. 223–237.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Workplace bullying remains a pervasive challenge confronting organizations worldwide, impacting employees' psychological well-being, organizational culture, and overall productivity. This paper presents an autoethnographic analysis rooted in personal experience, contextualized within scholarly discourse on workplace bullying. Drawing insights from Harrington et al. (2013) and Vickers (2007), the analysis explores the cyclical nature of symbolic violence in organizational settings and how autoethnography serves as a potent method for sensemaking and understanding such complex phenomena.

Understanding Workplace Bullying Through Theoretical Frameworks

Harrington, Warren, and Rayner (2013) investigate how HR practitioners respond to workplace bullying through cycles of symbolic violence. Symbolic violence, a concept rooted in Bourdieu's theory, refers to the subtle, often invisible forms of power and domination that perpetuate inequalities. Harrington et al. (2013) argue that organizations often respond to bullying through symbolic actions that legitimize existing power structures, thereby perpetuating a cycle that resists change. This cyclical process includes initial denial, minimization, and eventual institutionalization of bullying behaviors, often concealed beneath formal policies.

Vickers (2007), employing autoethnography, offers a personal perspective on experiencing and making sense of workplace bullying. Autoethnography as a method allows researchers to reflect deeply on their experiences, linking personal narratives to broader social and organizational dynamics. Vickers emphasizes that autoethnography enables individuals to surface hidden aspects of bullying, challenge organizational silence, and catalyze change by sharing lived experiences.

Personal Experience and Autoethnographic Reflection

My encounter with workplace bullying aligns with the cycles described by Harrington et al. (2013). Initially, I experienced subtle exclusion and gossip, which I rationalized as organizational culture. Over time, the behavior escalated to overt criticism and isolation, mimicking the 'cycles of symbolic violence' as colleagues and management appeared complicit or indifferent. Reflecting through an autoethnographic lens, I recognized the silences and unspoken rules that enabled such behaviors, consistent with Vickers’ approach.

The organizational response—or lack thereof—mirrored Harrington et al.’s (2013) notion of symbolic violence, where responses were superficial, often characterized by symbolic gestures or formal policies that lacked genuine enforcement. This perpetuated the cycle, discouraging reporting and resistance, and reinforced the dominance of the bullies. Personal autoethnography was instrumental in both making sense of these experiences and understanding how organizational culture and power dynamics facilitated the persistence of bullying.

Implications for Practice and Personal Growth

Analyzing personal experiences through theoretical frameworks reveals critical insights for organizational practice. First, organizations need to recognize the subtle forms of symbolic violence that sustain bullying behaviors and work proactively to disrupt these cycles. Implementing genuine, enforceable anti-bullying policies, fostering open communication, and training leadership to recognize and address subtle power plays are vital steps.

On a personal level, autoethnography fosters resilience and self-awareness. It encourages individuals to critically reflect on their experiences, thereby empowering them to advocate for change or seek support. For instance, sharing my narrative contributed to a better understanding of the organizational silence and motivated me to engage with allies and mates to challenge harmful behaviors.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that workplace bullying is deeply intertwined with organizational power structures and cultural norms, often maintained through symbolic violence. Autoethnography proves a valuable tool for personal sensemaking, illuminating the subtle dynamics that enable bullying to persist. Addressing workplace bullying requires organizational acknowledgment of these hidden forces and commitment to fostering transparent, inclusive practices that challenge symbolic violence. Personal reflection, grounded in theoretical insights, can be a catalyst for both individual resilience and organizational change.

References

• Harrington, S., Warren, S., & Rayner, C. (2013). Human Resource Management practitioners’ responses to workplace bullying: Cycles of symbolic violence. Organization, 22(3), 368–389.
• Vickers, M. H. (2007). Autoethnography as sensemaking: A story of bullying. Culture and Organization, 13(3), 223–237.
• Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
• Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2011). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice. CRC Press.
• Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of empirical research. Human Relations, 56(4), 487-514.
• Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). Workplace bullying: What we know, what we can do. CRC Press.
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
• Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Riggio, R. E. (2017). Bullying as organizational misconduct: The case for moral recovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 319-331.
• Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, Å. M. (2011). Exposure to bullying at the workplace and self-rated health. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 84(2), 199-206.
• Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying education and intervention. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(2), 93-109.