1

The Bullying of Staff in Catholic Schools - Both Paradox and Possibility

Deirdre J Duncan (ACU), Dan Riley (UNE), John Edwards (Riley Duncan & Edwards Workplace Bullies Research)

Abstract

Bullying of staff in Catholic schools is a situation of both paradox and possibility. That bullying

occurs is beyond contention as almost a decade of research by Riley, Duncan and Edwards

amply demonstrates; that it occurs within Catholic schools is a paradox as they are founded on

gospel values and are committed to enhancing the dignity of all persons. Bullying of staff

diminishes and destroys persons. This paper contends that the bullying of staff occurs in schools

which are not actively engaged in asking the question, “Do we have a bully-free culture?”

Paradoxically, schools not asking this question will end up with a culture of bullying by default

as the factors giving rise to bullying are structurally embedded within the school environment.

The solution is found in building a bully-free culture, one rich in the values which Catholic

schools understand and proclaim; one rich in possibility and complementing the ethos of

Catholic schools and Catholic school leadership. Such a culture is encapsulated in the National

Framework for a Bully-free Workplace Culture in Schools (Riley et al. 2012)

2

The Bullying of Staff in Catholic Schools - Both Paradox and Possibility

Deirdre J Duncan (ACU), Dan Riley (UNE), John Edwards (Riley Duncan & Edwards Workplace Bullies Research)

1. Introduction

This paper contends that the bullying of staff within Catholic schools presents us with a paradox

as we grapple to understand its occurrence. But once grasped, it presents us with a rich set of

possibilities for building not only a bully-free culture but one replete with the values

foundational to a Catholic school. That bullying can be found in Australian schools, across all

states and across all school systems is beyond contention as almost a decade of research by

Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 20121) amply demonstrates; its occurrence

within Catholic schools confronts us with the paradox that given their commitment to gospel

values and to enhancing the dignity and human rights of all persons then how could bullying

possibly occur? Bullying diminishes a person's rights and affronts their dignity - this is the

antithesis of what a Catholic school is about. This paper contends that bullying of staff occurs in

schools which are not actively engaged in asking the question, “Do we have a bully-free culture

in our school?” Paradoxically, schools not asking this question risk ending up with a culture of

bullying by default because the factors which give rise to bullying are structurally embedded

within the very fabric of the school. The solution is found in building a bully-free workplace

culture, one rich in the values which Catholic schools understand and proclaim; rich in

possibility and complementing the ethos of Catholic schools and Catholic school leadership.

Such a culture is encapsulated in the National Framework for a Bully-free Workplace Culture in

Schools (hereafter the National Bully-free Schools Framework)(Riley et al. 2012) which we

believe all schools should adopt. It presents a comprehensive program for building a bully-free

school workplace culture.

2. Paradox

2.1 Why is bullying of staff a paradox in Catholic schools?

1 The 2012 research was a meta-analysis of the research from 2005, 2007 and 2009 which was reported in Riley et

al. 2012.

3

A paradox is a statement that either contradicts itself or seemingly does so. 'I always lie' is a

paradox because if I am telling the truth then sometimes I do not lie and hence the statement, 'I

always lie', is false. The statement, 'The Bullying of Staff in Catholic Schools' is a paradox

because a Catholic school which teaches gospel values and a rich vision of the dignity of persons

as children of God, cannot at the same time condone behaviour which undermines and destroys

human dignity. However the corollary, 'Catholics schools are a bully-free environment', is not

only not contradictory but propounds a statement that should be true of all Catholic schools. Alas

the evidence does not show this to be the case.

2.1.1 The Catholic school: A values based environment

One does not need to search far to find references to the Catholic school as a values-based

community. The Second Vatican Council in its declaration on Christian Education refers to the

Catholic school as a community "animated by the Gospel spirit of freedom and charity" (n.8,

Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 2004, p.11). In reference to teachers it says that "[i]ntimately linked in

charity to one another and to their students... may teachers by their life as much by their

instruction bear witness to Christ the Teacher" (n.8). They do so not only in the way they behave

towards their students but also in how they behave towards each other and other members of the

school community, both support staff and parents. The 1977 document, The Catholic School,

sees the school environment as one that" promote[s] the formation of the whole [person], since

the school is a centre in which a specific concept of the world, of person, and of history is

developed and conveyed." (n.8, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 2004, p.21). Clearly the concept of

person envisaged here is one modeled on Christ, a person imbued with the gospel message and

gospel values. The school is cast as a "centre" where a specific concept of the world, person and

history is not only "developed" but "conveyed", conveyed in a way that the vision goes beyond

mere possibility and is actualised in the community itself. The document makes clear the role of

the teacher and the "nobility of the[ir] task" as requiring "the imitation of Christ, the only

Teacher, [as] they reveal the Christian message not only by word but also by every gesture of

their behaviour." (n.43, p.28). Given that the document articulates a virtue-based ethics (n.37),

this implies a specific set of values that teachers encompass, model and convey. The saying,

'You can say what you like, but you thunder what you are', aptly sums up this aspect of the role

4

of the teacher and highlights the need for consistency between words and deeds, between values

proclaimed and values lived.

2.1.2 The dignity of persons and the dignity of work

The above brief section on the Church's documents on the Catholic school strongly

communicates the dignity of teachers in a Catholic school. Teachers act not only in loco parentis

but also in loco Christi Magistri or in the place of Christ the Teacher. They do so both by their

teaching and by their example. In fact, as is examined in more detail below, Christ the Teacher is

the foundational myth upon which the culture of Catholic education is centred, just as the Good

Samaritan parable is the foundational myth underpinning the health services (Arbuckle

2012,p.76) . Furthermore, the phrase in loco Christi Magistri conveys a second important

meaning in emphasising the dignity of the work teachers do. This aspect of the teacher's role

provides the keystone for the overarching vision of the National Bully-free Schools Framework

which says, "All schools are safe, supportive and respectful teaching and learning communities

that promote student and staff wellbeing. Such a community requires a bully-free culture that is

supportive and respectful of each member of staff in the school." Clearly this overarching vision

is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a Catholic school; it is necessary because its

absence would call into question whether the school is truly committed to promoting the dignity

of persons within the school, but it is not sufficient as a Catholic school entails more than this.

2.1.3 Human rights and the right to work

In looking at the question of human rights and the right to work, one needs to keep in mind that

the Church subscribes to a virtue-based ethics rather than a human rights ethics. A virtue ethics is

focused more on the virtues an individual should develop, based in this case on gospel values,

whereas a human rights ethics looks at the rights due to a person by virtue of their dignity as a

person. James A Coriden, priest, professor of church law and author and editor of The Code of

Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1985) suggests that many of the rights of Catholics are

stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. However, he contends, that "other rights, [such as] basic

human rights, ... are not treated explicitly [there] because people do not look to the Church to

provide or guarantee them." (Coriden, 2007,p.xii). He suggests that such basic rights include the

right to life, to food, clothing shelter, education and personal safety and that "[we] expect the

5

church to teach and honor these rights, to assist in providing them where necessary, and certainly

not to jeopardize them" but it is not the Church's primary responsibility to provide them.

Within the Australian context we look to civil society to provide human rights protection either

through common law rights, statute law where necessary or through international human rights

covenants such as with the United Nations. The right to work is enshrined in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, while the right to work in a safe environment is increasingly

overseen by such bodies as Safe Work Australia or their state counterparts. We contend that the

National Bully-free Schools Framework (Riley et al. 2012) honours the commitment to

providing a safe work environment for all staff, which is a fundamental human right, in the same

way that the National Safe Schools Framework (MCEECDYA, revised 2011) provides a safe

environment for students.

2.2 What is the evidence that bullying of staff occurs in Catholic schools?

There is no doubt that workplace bullying exists in Australian Catholic schools (Duncan & Riley

2005). The results of the research revealed many of the respondents (97.5%) had experienced

bullying. This means workplace bullying is a part of school life that cannot be ignored, even

though, for some people, it may be a relatively infrequent occurrence or no issue at all. One out

of every two of the 200+ participants experienced a third of the bullying behaviours listed in the

survey and 9 out of 10 experienced bullying at some time. A pertinent question here is: Does this

stem from a culture of high work ethic2 and work expectations in Catholic schools? If so, there

are implications for leaders in providing ‘safe workplaces’?

Riley, Duncan and Edwards (2009, 2011) reported experience of workplace bullying in Catholic

schools in a national online survey of Australian schools. That research of Government, Catholic

and Independent schools from all states and territories revealed 99.6 per cent of respondents had

experienced some form of bullying during their employment. (Riley, Duncan & Edwards, 2011,

p.17).

2 There is a possible contradiction here between 'work ethic' (a principled value system) and 'high work

expectations' which has no such principled underpinning. 'Work ethic' is often used simply to convey a willingness

to work hard rather than in its original sense to work in a principled way with honesty, diligence and care for one's

work and those with whom one works.

6

2.3 What do we mean by 'bullying of staff'?

The Dignity and Respect in the Workplace Charter developed by Unions NSW and the NSW

Premier’s Department and funded by WorkCover NSW (2007) defines workplace bullying as:

… any behaviour or series of behaviours that is unreasonable or undesirable at the place of

work and /or in the course of or related to employment which intimidates, humiliates and/or

undermines a person or group of people (Riley, Duncan & Edwards 2012, p.2).

A shortcoming with the above definition is that it does not include an important feature of

bullying behaviour in that it is repetitive or persistent behaviour. To compensate for this, we

adopted in our work (2005, 2009, 2011) the definition of Salin (2003, p.10) that defined

workplace bullying as, ‘repeated and persistent negative acts towards one or more individual(s)

which involve a persistent power imbalance and creates a hostile work environment.’ (Riley,

Duncan & Edwards 2012, p.3).

Essentially, bullying behaviour exemplifies four characteristics: ‘it is repeated; it is unwelcome

and unsolicited; the recipient(s) considers the behaviour to be offensive, intimidating,

humiliating or threatening; and, based on the available information, the behaviour would be

considered offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening to the individual it is directed at,

or, for that matter, others who are witness to or affected by it’ (NSW Premier’s Department,

Workcover NSW & Unions NSW, 2007, p.1).

2.4 A model of bullying of staff and its harmful effects.

In an effort to present a coherent summary of the literature and to position our research within

the national and international study of workplace bully, we adapted Moayed et al’s., model to

suit an educational environment (2006, p.13).

7

The

model shows that the workplace culture, pressures from the education system, internal workplace

practice, and staff, both bullies and targets, are risk factors. Our research revealed that position is

a key factor in school workplace bullying, hence people, according to the position they hold,

become risk factors. Targets are risk factors also because the outcomes of bullying affect

witnesses and other staff, they have a multiplier effect as indicated by the cyclic nature of the

model above. Bullying induces a toxic culture which begets further bullying.

What is evident is the challenge to break the cyclic nature of school workplace bullying. That is,

the links between the risk factors that lead to bullying behaviours and the negative outcomes as

detailed in the model. Essentially, bullying behaviour acts as a negative feedback loop, with the

problem increasing with each iteration. To break this nexus requires implementation of the

National Bully-free Schools Framework because embedded within it are elements needed to

ameliorate bullying behavior.

8

The impact of bullying on the targets is extensive (see Figure 1), ranging from negative impact

upon their physical and mental wellbeing, desire to leave the profession, increased isolation and

withdrawal to thoughts of self-harm. The qualitative data reveal extreme cases. For example,

‘I’ve had to go to court over this entire thing as I ended up with…depression…coupled with

suicidal tendencies…’ (Online respondent, Riley et al., 2007, p.36).

2.5 How is the bullying of staff structurally embedded within the school environment

The model of school workplace bullying reveals that the educational system, workplace culture,

workplace practice and staff (i.e. bullies and targets) comprise the risk factors leading to

bullying. But these components constitute the building blocks of education itself. As such, these

risk factors are structurally embedded within the very fabric of the school and if not recognised

and countermanded pose a risk that bullying will result. It is important to note that bullying

behaviour ultimately affects the whole ethos and culture of a school. The very structure of the

workplace contributes to workplace bullying. That is, the potential for bullying exists and if not

addressed emerges by default as the workplace culture.

Essentially, a culture of bullying may exist within a school by virtue of an unwillingness to

identify certain behaviour for what it is. Bullying may masquerade under the name of workplace

‘custom and practice’, be necessitated by ‘temporary circumstances’ or generated by forces

external to the school. These findings raise the question, ‘How is it possible for such a situation

to exist?’

The drivers of workplace bullying are given in the risk factors noted above. These factors are

evident in bullying behaviours. Our research identified 42 examples of bullying behaviour such

as, ‘information being withheld which affects your performance; tasks being set with

unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines; staff being publicly reprimanded and persistent

criticism of a person’s work or effort’ (Riley, Duncan & Edwards 2012, p.103 - For a complete

list see Table 6.1 Appendix A) Seven of these items are covered by anti-discrimination or

criminal laws or civil litigation (Table 6.1 Appendix A).

To the lack of knowledge of what behaviour constitutes workplace bullying may be added a lack

of education and development of skills to address bullying and to ensure that the exercise of

authority is reasonable

9

2.6 Dialectic versus diagnosis: Bullying of staff an "invisible" problem?

The word dialectic has a number of meanings, it can mean "proceeding by debate between

conflicting points of view", or "a process of change that results from an interplay of opposite

tendencies", as well as a number of more technical logical or philosophical uses (Macquarie

Online Dictionary). Dialectic, as a form of argument, is often associated with the ancient

philosopher Socrates who stood in the marketplace arguing with those who would engage with

him as he sought to discern what moral virtue was. Similarly discussion on the bullying of staff

often involves a verbal interplay between different points of view, often to the effect to try to

argue bullying away, that it is really not bullying at all but just part of normal school life. A

good example of this is in a recent article in the tabloid press titled, "Bullying opens a can of

norms" which argues that "[i]f bullying is everywhere, doesn't that make it by definition normal?

And if it's normal, can we change it? Should we?" (Elizabeth Farrelly, SMH 4th April, 2013). It

further suggests that "bullying is about power, and as primates we are power creatures. Put three

humans in a room and their first act... is to establish the power relationship between them. Power

... over each other ... is our medium, as natural to us as breathing. Bullying is simply [our

emphasis] the misuse of power." What this reductionist analysis omits, of course, is the whole

ethical dimension of bullying, the fact that we are not simply primates but persons who are moral

agents, both in the way we act towards others and accord them respect. Missing also from this

simplistic analysis is any consideration of the outcomes of bullying leading to deteriorating

health outcomes for the targets of bullying or even suicide as the model of bullying indicates.

The research data indicates that 7 out 10 targets of bullying report that their "mental or physical

health has been affected by [bullying] behaviour towards [them]" (Riley et al., 2012, p.24)

The effect of the above reductionist approach to workplace bullying is to reduce the problem to a

pseudo-problem, or a non-existent or invisible one, by suggesting that it is just a part of normal

school life. As surprising as this line of argument is, it is one that is often encountered when

discussing bullying of staff in schools. Some educators, who are not themselves the targets of

bullying and are often at some distance from its effects , pick one or two of the less extreme

examples of bullying behaviours, such as questioning of your decisions or set unreasonable

targets or deadlines, and suggest that it is "simply" a part of "normal" school life, much as the

article cited above attempts to do. In this way, a complex set of disturbing bullying behaviours is

10

reduced to one or two "normal" behaviours which are then explained away as not bullying at all

but a simply a part of a busy school life. But the problem with this line of argument is that

bullying rarely entails the experience of just one or two behaviours. The research shows that over

half of the respondents experienced more than half of the listed bullying behaviours. Only one in

twenty respondents (5.3%) had no experience of such behaviours at all, indicating that 19 out of

20 do to varying degrees. If we label the above approach to bullying as dialectical, then the

alternative approach, which we would argue for, could be labeled diagnostic. This entails putting

the question, 'Do we have a bully-free culture in our school?' Such a culture, the authors

contend, is encapsulated in the National Bully-free Schools Framework. If this is the case then

the answer to the question of whether a school has a bully-free culture is found by assessing to

what extent the 30 indicators of a bully-free workplace culture exist within a school or not. These

30 indicators are derived from the National Bully-free Schools Framework and capture well the

essence of the 41 components and six guiding principles which comprise it.

3. Possibility

3.1 Is a bully-free workplace possible?

Before attempting to answer this question one needs to consider what constitutes a ‘bully free

workplace?’ To provide an easily understood measure of the problem, the Experience of

Bullying Behaviour scale (EoBB) was designed to measure the incidence of individual bullying

behaviours. While it recognises that any incidence of bullying above 0% as too high, it

nevertheless suggests that it should not exceed Category 1 (see Table 1).

11

Table 1 (Riley et al. 2012, p.23)

Therefore, the question may be rephrased as, Is it possible to reduce bullying to Category 1 of

the EoBB scale? That is, no more than 1 in 80 members of the workforce should experience

bullying. Hence the response is ‘Yes’ and may be achieved by eliminating the cyclic and

escalating impact occurring between the risk factors and outcomes of bullying. The National

Bully-free Schools Framework is designed to break this cycle. Achieving the vision of the

framework in eliminating bullying would be assisted by the following measures. One is

legislation and the Victorian Government moved in this direction with the Crimes Amendment

(Bullying) Act 2011. Legislation is to be reserved for the more severe cases of workplace

bullying while other cases need to be resolved in the workplace through due process which is

recognised as ensuring the parties receive a ‘fair go.’ Another is the development of awareness of

what constitutes ‘workplace bullying’ by all those in the workplace. Essentially, employers and

employees need to appreciate that ‘Bullying behaviour is what a reasonable person considers to

be unreasonable or undesirable in the workplace’ - this is the standard the courts apply to such

cases (Riley, Duncan & Edwards 2012, p.132).

3.2 Dialogue versus dialectic

We referred previously to the dialectical approach that is often adopted to diminish or dismiss

the issue of bullying of staff so as to render it as a non-existent problem - except to the target of

bullying. For the target of bullying the issue does not simply disappear by such verbal

12

legerdemain, rather for 7 out of 10 respondents bullying affects their physical or mental

wellbeing. It should also be noted that if targets of bullying perceive they are being bullied, that

is reality for them and they will react accordingly and experience the outcomes of bullying

shown in Fig. 1 (Peyton 2003, p.84). Rather than sweeping the issue under the carpet it seems a

far better response is to talk openly about this issue and simply allow school staff to ask, 'Does

our school have a bully-free workplace culture?' Such an intention is interpolated within the

elements of the National Bully-free Schools Framework. The Framework gives focus to

questions school staff need to ask about their school and it attempts to respond to many of the

behaviours which respondents experienced, such as 'Your concerns about unfair treatment,

bullying and harassment are simply dismissed' (experienced by 53.4% of respondents) or 'Frozen

out, ignored or excluded from decision making' (73.1%). The National Bully-free Schools

Framework endeavours to counteract each of these behaviours with a commitment to such

positive practices such as in Element 5 : 'Inclusion of all relevant staff in decision making',

'Availability for face-to-face discussions to take place' and 'Clear two-way communications

regarding expectations held for any job/task...,deadline or workload'. There is a clear relationship

between the components of the National Bully-free Schools Framework and the bullying

behaviours targets of bullying experience. But the key step is openness and dialogue between all

members of staff in maintaining and building a bully-free workplace culture. This is a move

away from the dialectical or agnostic approach to one of openness, dialogue and diagnosis.

3.3 The structure of the National Bully-free Schools Framework: From possibility to actuality

The National Bully-free Schools Framework is adapted from the National Safe Schools

Framework (revised 2011) developed by the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood

Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). The National Safe Schools Framework focuses

upon students whereas the National Bully-free Schools Framework focuses predominantly upon

staff and complements the Safe Schools Framework which focuses upon students. The structure

of the National Bully-free Schools Framework is similar to the National Safe Schools

Framework in an effort to establish their common focus which is the well-being of those in

schools. It has:

• Overarching vision

13

• Guiding principles

• Context of the framework

• Elements of the framework

Overarching Vision

All Australian schools are safe, supportive and respectful teaching and learning

communities that promote student and staff wellbeing. Such a community requires a

bully free culture that is supportive and respectful of each member of staff in the school.

Guiding principles

Australian schools:

• affirm the rights of all staff members of the school to feel safe and be safe from bullying

at school

• acknowledge that being safe and supported at school is essential for staff wellbeing and

effective performance

• accept responsibility for developing and sustaining a safe, supportive and bully free

culture for all staff

• encourage the active participation of all staff members in developing and maintaining a

safe workplace culture for staff

• actively support staff to develop understanding and skills to establish and maintain a

safe workplace culture

• commit to developing a safe school community through a whole-school and evidence-

based approach to the elimination of bullying.

What resonates from these principles are the rights and responsibilities together with engagement

and commitment by individual staff to the establishment and maintenance of a bully-free

workplace. Appreciation by individuals of their role in achieving a positive culture for the

betterment of all is fundamental. Such awareness may take time as it is a matter of education

and persuasion which may be titled professional awareness.

14

Context of the framework

Staff have a fundamental right to work in a safe, supportive environment and to be respected.

The National Bully-free Schools Framework identifies eight key elements to support school staff

to establish and maintain a ‘safe, supportive and bully-free staff culture that promotes staff safety

and wellbeing’ (Riley, Duncan & Edwards 2012, p.149). The eight elements of a bully-free

framework are:

1. Leadership committed to a bully-free workplace culture.

2. A supportive and connected workplace culture, with a zero tolerance for bullying of staff.

3. Policies and procedures aimed at the elimination of bullying of staff.

4. Professional development about identification of bullying of staff and how to deal with it.

5. Positive performance management of staff and workplace culture.

6. A focus on staff wellbeing and ownership of a safe workplace culture.

7. Early intervention and targeted support.

8. Partnership with families towards embracing a shared workplace culture (Riley, Duncan

& Edwards 2012, p.149).

The specific characteristics of the eight elements at the school level are detailed in Riley, Duncan

& Edwards 2012, pp.149-151. To illustrate the characteristics consider for example, the details in

2. A supportive and connected workplace culture:

2.1 Staff connectedness to the school and its workplace culture.

2.2 Staff modeling of behaviour that reflects the vision and attainment of a bully-free

workplace.

2.3 Clear demonstration of respect and support for colleagues through inclusive actions and

structures.

2.4 Positive, caring and respectful staff-staff relationship.

2.5 A focus upon staff wellbeing and safety.

2.6 Maintaining and establishing an environment that has a zero tolerance for bullying of

staff.

15

2.7 Recognition of individual vulnerabilities of staff in respect to workplace bullying and its

different forms.

The implementation of these characteristics would entail that individuals fulfill their

professional responsibilities by modeling appropriate behaviour in their interaction with others

including colleagues, support staff and students. Essentially, one needs to ensure that what is

‘preached’ is practiced. A commitment to a bully-free workplace is equated to the attainment of

a professional culture in the workplace.

3.4 The values embedded within the National Bully-free Schools Framework

This section examines the axiological or values dimension of the National Bully-free Schools

Framework. Among the top twelve most frequently occurring words are staff (57), bully (36),

bullying (20), culture (20), school (17), support (17), workplace (16) and wellbeing (8). Clearly

this is a document centered on the notion of person, i.e. staff, their cultural environment (culture

(20), school (17), workplace (16)) and their wellbeing (8). Equally clearly it is about the quality

of that environment and the values which permeate it, e.g. supportive, caring, respectful, or those

that should not be part of it such as bullies (36) or bullying (20). A quarter of the words in the

short overarching vision (26.3%) of the National Bully-free Schools Framework either articulate

specific values or refer to complex clusters of values and symbols which promote human

flourishing (e.g. community, culture).

Perhaps the word that best brings out this axiological dimension of the framework and its impact

on persons is the word 'well-being' which is the tenth most frequent word in the framework.

Well-being is defined as "a state characterized by contentment, prosperity and the fulfillment of

fundamental human needs"(Arbuckle 2012, p.69). Well-being is also importantly linked to

another key word and that is health. The World Health Organization defines health as ‘a state of

complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or

infirmity' "(Arbuckle 2012, p.69). And to complete the picture is the connection between stress,

culture and well-being. While this is not the place to develop this linkage further (see Arbuckle

2012), it is important to notice that culture is an important link to whether a person flourishes or

not. One way that a culture does that is by highlighting those values or virtues that allow a

person to develop both individually and communally. When a culture loses sight of its core

16

values, especially those of its foundational myth (see below), then such a culture becomes toxic,

personal and communal well-being wanes and a culture of bullying emerges. The National

Bully-free Schools Framework endeavours to highlight those values which have a key role in

promoting personal well-being and highlighting behaviour which is antithetical to it, it promotes

practices which enhance well-being and eliminates those which do not.

3.5 A workplace culture built on the gospel myth of the Good Teacher.

As noted above the teacher acted in loco Christi Magistri and that Christ the Teacher is the

foundational myth (in the social anthropological sense) on which the culture of Catholic

education is centred, just as the Good Samaritan parable is the foundational myth underpinning

the health services. To understand the importance of the foundational myth to the culture of an

organisation, it is perhaps worthwhile to briefly examine its functioning in the health services

area, an area with significant similarities to that of education.

3.5.1 Comparison with hospitals reclaiming the myth of the Good Samaritan

In examining the notion of a foundational myth in its anthropological sense, it is important to

understand that myths are not fairy tales but are rather narrative symbols. Myths, symbols and

rituals are central to defining a culture. In expounding upon the Good Samaritan parable as the

foundational myth for the health services, Arbuckle (2012) notes its broader application and

contribution to Western culture generally. To this end he cites the Canadian philosopher Charles

Taylor (1931-) who contends that the story of the Good Samaritan "can be seen as one of the

original building blocks out of which our modern universalist moral consciousness has been

built" (2012, p.75). Furthermore, the parable "carries tremendous rhetorical power, for it evokes

one of the most seminal narratives in the Western cultural tradition"(Chris Marshall, cited in

Arbuckle 2012, p.75). Arbuckle notes that in the early Christian era, the Good Samaritan parable

became "the operative founding myth among Christians in general ... obliging them to take care

of the sick" (2012,p.76), viewed now as our neighbour created in the image of God. This led to

monasteries and charitable institutions springing up to form a "miniature welfare state". Myths

are not only motivational in character, but they also reflect a specific set of values within them

which come to characterise the culture founded upon them. Arbuckle notes that "in the case of

the founding healthcare myth [these are] values of solidarity, equity, compassion, mercy and

17

social justice" (p.76). In health, as in education, the foundational myth articulates not simply a

vision but an expectation of a set of values and culture which if denied or suppressed constitutes

an act of violence to human dignity.

In the modern world, good quality healthcare is considered a fundamental human right. This

claim would generally be considered uncontentious today, so much so that Arbuckle contends

that "[to] ignore this human right is an act of violence, an affront to the dignity of the person"

(p.76). And herein lies it relevance to the educational context. Bullying, in this case the bullying

of staff represents the denial of a basic human right. This basic human right is clearly stated in

the Context to the Framework (see above). Bullying of staff is a denial of this basic human right

and as such is an act of violence and an affront to the dignity of school staff.

3.5.2 Reclaiming the gospel myth

In the light of the above brief analysis of the foundational myth of the Good Samaritan, one can

begin to see not only the importance of the foundational myth to an organisation's culture but

also the consequences which stem from ignoring it. In education the foundational myth is that of

Christ the Teacher. The history of education shows a similar pattern to that of the healthcare

services, where various Christian orders, predominantly religious sisters and brothers, provided a

"miniature education system" until governments gradually became involved in the provision of

that service. The danger however in the transition to the secular provision of education is the loss

of the focus on the foundational myth underpinning the educational services.

In an earlier analysis of the social disease of bullying, Arbuckle sets out a gospel response to it

which he formulates in five principles. These are:

Principle 1: Recognise that bullying is an evil and an assault on the dignity of the human person

Principle 2: Acknowledge that everyone is capable of bullying because we are all prone to sin. Consequently, we must be vigilant that the disease does not spread within ourselves or our organisations.

Principle 3: Understand that God has a preferential love for the victim and so must the followers of Christ.

18

Principle 4: Foster the values and structures of openness in organisations and clearly state that bullying is to have no place in them.

Principle 5: Identify and challenge prejudices within oneself, one's workplace and one's community because prejudices lie at the root of bullying. (Arbuckle, 2004)

The authors believe that the National Bully-free Schools Framework incorporates Principles 1, 4 and 5 directly and indirectly acknowledges the spirit of Principle 2.

3.6 A culture owned and monitored by the workers in the vineyard

As noted earlier, responsibility for workplace culture is not the sole responsibility of the school

leadership team but rests with all members of the school staff. This presupposes ownership and

engagement by staff in establishing and maintaining a bully-free workplace. Therefore,

education and development of staff to implement the National Bully-free Schools Framework is

critical. Structural procedures at the school, system and national levels (such as a uniform legal

framework) are needed to deal with workplace bullying. At the school level there is a need to

establish:

• a well-defined protocol to handle reports of workplace bullying.

• a register to formally record incidents of workplace bullying.

These and other steps are contained in the National Bully-free Schools Framework. The

importance of due process at all levels but particularly the school must not be under-estimated

because it provides an opportunity for immediate resolution and redress of such claims. At the

system level establishment of a register and due process are equally applicable as at the school

level plus the appointment of an independent arbiter or ombudsperson to adjudicate claims of

bullying are warranted. At the national level a uniform legal framework is required given that

the nine jurisdictions have various definitions and approaches to workplace bullying. Having a

due process provides natural justice and a ‘fair go’ to both targets and perceived perpetrators

involved in claims of bullying.

4. Conclusion

The theme of this conference lent itself perfectly to our research on the bullying of staff and we

have demonstrated in our paper that there can be both paradox and possibility, as regards this

issue, in a Catholic school. We have pointed out that if there is a culture of bullying in a

19

Catholic school, this is a paradox as it should be impossible to exist in such a school given its

commitment to the gospel values and to enhancing the dignity and human rights of all staff. We

have then gone on to show how it is possible to have a bully-free workplace culture.

Contentious itself is the definition of bullying and we have addressed that in the paper. Where

there is lack of clarity or awareness of what constitutes bullying, we have argued, this can lead to

a reductionist approach to bullying, and then it is too easy for those in a position to do something

about staff bullying to do nothing about it at all! In the paper, one way we have attempted to

overcome any lack of clarity about what bullying is is to describe actual behaviours identified in

our research as bullying. They fall into two main forms – personal confrontation and professional

destabilisation. To ignore bullying is untenable given the fact that our research showed that 95%

of respondents indicated they had some experience of this behaviour. The obvious question

which we addressed in the paper is: can there be a bully-free workplace? Our main suggestion is

to test the school workplace culture against the yardstick provided by the National Bully-free

Schools Framework. Finally it is our hope that our work of the last ten years might lead to truly

Catholic school workplaces where gospel values are lived fully and the dignity and human rights

of all staff are acknowledged and respected.

20

References

Arbuckle, G.A. (2004), Dealing with Bullies - A Gospel Response to the Social Disease of Adult Bullying. St Pauls Publication, Strathfield. 2004

Arbuckle, G.A. (2012), Humanizing Healthcare Reforms. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.

Arbuckle, G.A. (2004), Violence, Society and the Church - A Cultural Approach. Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.

Beal J.P., Coriden J.A. & Green T.J. (2000), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law - Study Edition. Paulist Press, New York, N.J./Mahwah, N.J.

Coriden, J. A. (2007), The Rights of Catholics in the Church. Paulist Press, New York. Duncan, D.J., & Riley, D. (2005), "Staff Bullying in Catholic Schools", Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law & Education, 10(1) 47-58. Farrelly, E. SMH 4th April, 2013 Bullying opens a can of norms, accessed at http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/bullying-opens-a-can-of-norms-20130403-2h6z7.html Liberia Editrice Vaticana (2002) Church Documents on Catholic Education 1965 - 2002. St Pauls Publications, Strathfield.

Moayed, F. A., Daraiseh, N., Shell, R. and Salem, S. (2006), “Workplace bullying: a systematic review of risk factors and outcomes”, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(3) 311-327. National Safe Schools Framework (2012), Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/national-safe-schools-framework-0

NSW Premier’s Department, Workcover NSW & Unions NSW, (2007), Dignity and Respect in the Workplace Charter. Retrieved from http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10896/Dignity_Respect_Charter.pdf

Peyton, P.R. (2003) Dignity at work: Eliminate bullying and create a positive working environment. Brunner-Routledge: Hove:UK.

Richards, H & Freeman, S, (2002), Bullying in the Workplace: An Occupational Hazard. HarperCollins Publishers: Sydney. Riley, D., Duncan, D. J, & Edwards, J. (2012), Bullying of Staff in Schools. ACER: Melbourne.

Riley, D., Duncan, D.J, & Edwards, J. (2011),"Staff bullying in Australian schools", Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1) 7-30.

21

Riley, D, Duncan, D.J, & Edwards, D. (2009), Investigation Of Staff Bullying in Australian Schools. Armidale: University of New England. Salin, D, (2003), Workplace Bullying Among Business Professionals; Prevalence, Organisational Antecedents and Gender Differences, Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino, Helsingfors.

Zapf, D., Knorz, C, & Kulla, M, (1996), ‘On the Relationship between Mobbing Factors and Job Content: The Social Work Environment and Health Outcomes’ (1996), 5(2) European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 215-237. In K. Rigby, Bullying in Schools and What to Do About it. ACER: Melbourne.

22

Appendix A

Table 6.1

Experience of Bullying Behaviours

In Australian Schools

(Source: Riley et al. 2012, p.103)

23

24

25