Talk:Workplace bullying/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

POV problems

This article now reads more like journalism than an encyclopedia article, and suffers from serious POV problems in that parts of it are either how-to guides or diatribes against bullying. Section headings like "Workplace Managers Often Worse than the Criminally Insane" are actively counterproductive to this article being taken seriously, which would be a shame, given the seriousness of its subject. -- The Anome 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have got carried away with your POV objections. However I agree that the section "What to do About Workplace Bullying" is a bit flabby and could be better but it is not so much a POV issue. The content of the section "Workplace Managers Often Worse than the Criminally Insane" is based on solid research but I accept that the title itself overstates the case. I will think of a slightly less dramatic title for that section after which I can see no reason to keep your POV objections.--81.2.80.50 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing section title for "Managers Often Worse than the Criminally Insane". The section title is now much better. I agree with your "howto" tag for What to do About Workplace Bullying but I now dont see any reason for general NPOV and cleanup tags for this article so I have removed them. --81.2.80.50 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mind you there is a lot more additional contributions that remains to be done on this article. It is a pity that there is little sign of willing contributors. --81.2.80.50 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now chopped out three sections which I did not feel added significantly to the article: two were just lists of points, without any narrative content, and the third was a how-to-guide. I've also deleted the tags I added earlier. -- The Anome 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking really good to me.--Zeraeph 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with your changes but it is a big shame to have lost "Top 25 Workplace Bullying Tactics" as it was very useful in informing people how workplace bullying manifests itself - it would have easy for people to relate to rather than the dry academic stuff. "Types of Workplace Bullying" was pretty useful as well. There really ought to be a section about what to do about workplace bullying but accept that the previous material on this was inadequate.--82.153.107.122 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why there is anything intrinsically wrong with lists anyway. I note that we still have a list in the "United States" section which you have left. --82.153.107.122 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If readers wanted associated narrative content for "Top 25 Workplace Bullying Tactics" and "Types of Workplace Bullying" they could have clicked on the references included. --82.153.107.122 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how this link of Namie's is research related

Could you please explain how this link of Namie's is research based and not self promotion (#12 on the bully ref page): http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/WBIbrochure.pdf

He promotes his professional services, DVD and self-help books - that is really within your codes?

You have taken my 2 - 3 sentences off on research of the economic cost of allowing bullying in the workplace, that is cited from my white paper, based on information from Harrison Psychological Associates & Proudfoot Productivity reports - these are world known! I did not promote my services and I am a professional with a degree in social work and group dynamics. My papers do not show a bias of upset and anger towards dissonant individuals. This link goes to my white paper - which is not the same as Namie's sales brochure cloaked as a champaign for "Bully Week"!

If you do not want us to site ourselves then how about this one: http://www.overcomebullying.org/costs-of-bullying.html it seems only fair if people can advertise there services forwardly - then researchers should be able to use their hard work to support their statements - that is why we do the research! user: Tamara Parris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the actual link you are suggesting is dead, whoever owns the site does even provide their NAME, let alone any credentials to establish them as WP:RS. I am not overfond of Gary Namie myself, but he does provide his name, address, telephone number and credentials and he certainly did not post his own link. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph - did you even bother to follow the link before writing this? It takes you to a pdf brochure that promotes his services, dvd, and books - look in the middle of the brochure. His name is clearly on it, as well as phone numbers. How is this not advertising? You say none of his people put it here? What is your proof? Please provide your supporting information (I have) Find out who did it, and remove the link! Why are they permit to put SPAMlinks up to a service promoting brochure masked as a "Bully Week" champaign? It was smart of them - because no one has noticed the marketing scam here! So lets look at your logic flow for editing peoples citations - You will allow a SPAMlink to a brochure that took someone 1-2 hours to make as a creditable source - while you then go around removing links to peoples white papers that they have worked on for years!(and then name calling us as "people who woke up one morning think they are expertise") and putting invalid information back up on legislation that does not exist - even when a telephone number is given to you to confirm. Here read my paper and then you can tell me that I am bias and emotional after you have read it. http://www.overcomebullying.org/costs-of-bullying.html

Zeraeph- Remove the link to this brochure and you might be able to have some creditability here, why not put a link to his bullying page that provides information about bullying. Call the Ontario Occupational Safety and Health office and confirm the information on the laws before reposting the information (Ontario Occupational Health and Safety – 416-314-5421) ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The person with no credibility here is you, particularly when you keep removing a thoroughly verified link to a Government site on the grounds that bullying is restricted to psychological harm.
Gary Namie is named, qualified, peer reviewed, and has his own domain, you are using a freeserver to promote your own ideas, as is the unnamed owner of the other site you refer to. Please stop vandalising the article. If you are as serious about your work as you say then I am sure you can find reliable, verifiable, academic sources to cite in support of your point in accord with WP:RS. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you are mud throwing by down grading the users of a freeserver. How is that relevant to our discussion? OH yeah I forget you enjoy name calling as a tactic to get your point across - does this work on most people?

I gave you the telephone number to Ontario Occupational Health and Safety – 416-314-5421 and you are trying to say they are not a reliable source and this makes me have no credibility? Explain how speaking directly to their staff and reading the actual Act makes me non-credible, but you looking at an old website does?

I am not vandalizing the article - I am correcting the misinformation. You are trying to lead people to believe that this act covers "bullying" which is defined as a psychological harassment by Namie, and others in their published works. However, you have not yet called to confirm if the information is correct or not - you simply put it up. As for the other link - it goes to Namies site! Look at the url http://www.bullyinginstitute.org - that is Namies site!

What you are talking about is assault and battery - "Bullying" as it is used by Namie and others refers to psychological harm. The Acts DOES NOT cover psychological harm. Why don't you just read the Act! If this continues I will get a third part involved now - Your discussion on this issue has moved off relevance to name calling and insults. That it not what being an editor is about. It is about validating information, which you are refusing to carry out with a simple phone call or reading the real Act - here is a link for you http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o01_e.htm ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullying does not "refer to psychological harm" it is the act of intentionally causing harm to others through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation. That includes physical violence. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the page we are discussing "Bullying in the Workplace" it is in reference to psychological harm. Physical assault is covered under the act and in the workplace is assault and battery, however that is not what Namie and others are referring to in relation to "Bullying in the workplace".

Why are you constantly deleting my citation information - as I am citing the direct source of my information an Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament Andrea Horwath Tel: (416) 325-2777 Email: ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca are you trying to make people believe I am not credible by removing my citations? ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Her site does not mention any kind of bullying at all, and you cannot cite somebody's phone number, that would be WP:OR --Zeraeph (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed Namie's link myself to http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/res/2003results.pdf - this goes to his actual research paper that the citation is probably from Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces October 2003 by Gary Namie ~~Tamara Parris02:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parriswolfe (talk • contribs)

Also, please read WP:SOAP --Zeraeph (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one to see the irony that this argument has happened over an article about bullying? Without getting into the substance of the disagreement, for what it's worth WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EW also make for good reading. Wikidemo (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There are no prizes for working out who is the certified bully around here - Madam GD aka "-------"--91.84.95.148 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That's enough. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

<personal attack removed per WP:NPA>


Vital need to recognize workplace bullying, resultant PTSD and loss in workforce due psychiatric disability determinations=

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-&p=bullying%20ptsd&ei=UTF-8

Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22workplace+bullying%22+ptsd&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-&p=%22workplace%20bullying%22%20%20%22psychiatric%20disability%22&ei=UTF-8 Google Scholar http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-&p=%22workplace%20bullying%22%20%20disability%20ptsd&ei=UTF-8

Persons with search engine access to psychology and psychiatric research search engines could help this topic tremendously. Spotted Owl (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vital need to incorporate more supported research pairing personality traits and motivations of bullies

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22workplace+bullying%22+%22personality+traits%22+motivation&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGIC_enUS256

Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=50&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGIC_enUS256&q=%22workplace+bullying%22+%22personality+traits%22+motivation&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1

Spotted Owl (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vital need to note considerable research in discerning what characterizes those most prone to respond to overwhelming stress by developing PTSD

You will find that there will be a lot of overlap with studies with children which much further back in time and in volume. Spotted Owl (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We need counselors to glance at what significant source(s) you may have pass across your desk

Remember that not everything is online and indexed by Google. I encourage counselors in all professional fields and those in corporation human resource departments take advantage of journals and texts that aren't yet online. If you add only one tiny sentence and proper academic citation will be needed. Spotted Owl (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Question - Why is this article not listed under psychology

For that matter, since when does abuse and psychological damage qualify as philosophy territory when it belongs under psychiatry, too since PTSD causes changes in brain structure and chemistry, and is treated with medications? Spotted Owl (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Comments by Spotted Owl

I have done quite a lot of background reading relating to workplace bullying. Many of the books are listed on my booklists on my homepage at [1].

Workplace bullying has valid sociological dimension (based on field research and surveys) and a valid psychological dimension (based on research, theory and clinical experience).

I think, for example, Gary Namie's perspective is mainly sociological.

However i do think the psychological dimension is critical in understanding workplace bullying. It can be understood using established psychological ideas, for example the basic mechanism behind bullying is the defense mechanism "projection".

Also there are many psychology-based books which describe how to deal with different types of dysfunctional people either in or outside the workplace such as:

1 Snakes in Suits : When Psychopaths Go to Work (by Paul Babiak, Robert D. Hare)

2 Coping with Toxic Managers, Subordinates ... and Other Difficult People: Using Emotional Intelligence to Survive and Prosper (by Roy H. Lubit)

3 Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job (by Alan A., Ph.D. Cavaiola, Neil J., Ph.D. Lavender)

4 Emotional Vampires: Dealing With People Who Drain You Dry (by Albert J. Bernstein)

5 In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People (by George K Simon)

6 Who's Pulling Your Strings?: How to Break the Cycle of Manipulation and Regain Control of Your Life (by Harriet B. Braiker)

The above six books are written by qualified psychologists who are experts in their field. Book 1 has already been referenced by this article.

In the above 6 books, "bullying" is just considered to be a subset of a wide range of dysfunctional behaviour which you may have to encounter from a dysfunctional person. Many dysfunctional people are destructive in some way but others may just be difficult or awkward people to deal with. There is no precise scientific definition of what bullying is or isnt but it is certainly a subset of a range of possible dysfunctional behaviour.

A while ago Z wrongly (in my view) blanked a short abstract of "Board, B.J. & Fritzon, Katarina, F. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 17-32". This is an excellent piece of reasearch tied in with the other material in the Bullying and Personality Disorder section of this article.

In my view, a lot of other useful material has blanked by Z which was very useful, such as research made by Gary Namie.--Penbat (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Penbat. I am happy that you have done so much research on books and such available. the NAMED concept may be new, but I know that the earliest cultures had workplace bullies. Heavens, even ape studies (chimps in the wild) not only show bullying, but show how in one case an otherwise healthy chimp died shortly after the death of his mother - who happened to be the lowest ranking chimp in the group. His mother had been his only friend and community link.
Say, it is possible to save PART of a talk page (complete with attached history) while retaining the rest of the page with attached history. Don't ask me how to do it. I can't even archive a webpage, never mind delete page histories for those archives like I've seen done on a user page. Anyway, if you can read the directions and make sense of them... or if there is someone who knows how to do it, it would be nice, don't you think, to chop off unpleasantness, archive it and start with this portion still be here.
By the way, I dropped by philosophy and saw that it's because of the ethical considerations, with business owners and non-bully managers, never mind "I don't want to be involved" as the targets of why do they have such defective ethics and can workplace ethics be changed. That's all I can tell. I have to laugh, thinking that articles like torture and murder and prisons and relationship abuse and ALL sorts of articles should certainly be added to Philosopy as well, don't you think? (laughing) Take care and teach teach teach. This article is already so much better than it was the last time I looked months ago...

Spotted Owl (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't intro WP:OR?

It just seems to be somebody's personal opinion without sources, and a list seems a weird thing to have in an intro at the best of times. I just found as source for another bit, and, when I did I realised the text was very innaccurate too? That doesn't seem right either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.97.181 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It isnt helpful to pick holes in this article. Certainly there is plenty of room for improvement in this article and I, for one, am striving to do this. But making improvements is a delicate matter as there are several complex issues. For a start the bullying article is in a significantly worse state than this one and much of the description of workplace bullying also applies to bullying in general. It would help the foundations of this article if the bully article was better. It doesnt make it right, but many Wiki articles are lacking citations. I am trying to tighten this article up with more citations over time but it is a slow process.
It is not clear at this time what is the best way to improve the article structure so some experimentation may be necessary and changing on a gradual incremental basis.
Ideally the material in the workplace aggression article ought to be incorporated into this one IMHO.
Less than half the intro is in the form of a list and I fail to see what is intrinsically wrong with the list. But I accept that this text should be reorganised and with one or more citations. Do you actually know much about workplace bullying ? The intro text is basically consistent with my experience and almost everything I have read about the subject.
Some text needs citations but it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to ditch uncited text which will be improved over time and will include citatations eventually.--Penbat (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Having just looked over this article for the first time in a year, I see it has changed radically and for the better - Great Work! Mygrievance (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Workplace bullying in different professions

At some point in the future it makes sense to have new separate articles for bullying in different professions, such as:

  • bullying in nursing
  • bullying in teaching
  • bullying in further education (students and lecturers)
  • bullying in IT

--Penbat (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Potentially useful material on a workpage

A user coatracked a bunch of material related to workplace bullying on the article Employee assistance programs. I moved all that content to a working page because it was coatracking and big-time POV, but there might be some material there worth salvaging. Could some of you who watch this article check the working page for any potentially useful material? It may be found at Talk:Employee assistance programs/Bullying. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

needs quite a lot of analysis. I'll probably get round to it at some point.--Penbat (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed how-to section

I removed the "How to deal with workplace bullying" section as a violation of copyright (http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240085434/IT-workers-being-bullied-says-union) and policy (WP:NOTHOWTO). Jojalozzo 21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Workplace bullying

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Workplace bullying's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Clarke":

  • From Psychopathy in the workplace: Clarke J Working with Monsters: How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the Workplace Psychopath (2012)
  • From Charlotte Dawson: Clarke, Jenna (21 October 2012). "From top models to Twitter trolls". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 22 February 2014.

Reference named "Harvey":

  • From Psychopathy in the workplace: Harvey, M. G., Buckley, M. R., Heames, J. T., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L. & Ferris, G. R. 2007, ‘A Bully as an Archetypal Destructive Leader’, Journal of Leadership and rganizational Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 117–129.
  • From Diversity (business): Harvey, Carol P.; M. June Allard (2012). Understanding and Managing Diversity (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. pp. xii-393. ISBN 0-13-255311-2.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

PROBLEM NOW FIXED.--Penbat (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why we must be careful with verifiability and citations

There is an growing volume of subjectivity, partial information and misinformation on this topic on the internet posted by self appointed experts, most usually individuals who self report as "victims of bullying", which, however well -intentioned they may be, makes them too subjective and inclined to over identify to the point of not just POV but some serious distortions.

The trouble is it is just TOO EASY fall into the trap of assuming that some of this misinformation is established and verified fact or academic theory, when, too often it is just one person's, subjective, thinking.

I think it is very important on Wikipedia to dismiss all that misinformation and get back to established and verified fact or academic theory, from reputable sources and objective experts.

I personally feel bullying is a very important topic and that we owe it to those who have been bullied, are being bullied and will be bullied to present the most thorough, valid, objective and balanced information we can find.

Because of the plethora of misinformation already available, I am hoping we can try to achieve this by sticking to citing sources that people can, at least partially, check for themselves, rather than obscure paper only sources?

Let's do it, huh? --Zeraeph 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

      • 8 YEARS LATER AND STILL THIS ADVICE HASN'T BEEN HEEDED. THIS ARTICLE MAKES UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS AND THEN LINKS THEM TO SOURCES SUCH AS NEWS REPORTS THAT NO LONGER EXIST OR ARE OPINION PIECES BY NON-PROFESSIONALS. SOMEBODY PLEASE REPLACE THE SECTIONS OF THIS PAGE THAT MAKE DUBIOUS CLAIMS WITH VERIFIED, ENLIGHTENING MATERIAL INSTEAD OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.28.99 (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Workplace bullying. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Who?

"According to Sean Kennedy..."

Who the hell is Sean Kennedy? --106.182.61.113 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced statement
"According to Sean Kennedy, more common abusive workplace behaviours include:
  1. Being ridiculed because of the volume, tone, enunciation, projection, or clarity of one's voice when communicating verbally"
--Boson (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Workplace bullying. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A great review

Here's a great 2013 review on the topic[2], I updated some key points quickly such as the definition, but this review could be much more exploited by someone with more knowledge on the topic than me --Signimu (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ticket to work workplace bullying as I am the EN

Supposedly, disability beneficiaries are not to be ENs ..... But Brigit44 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Online bullying

This is also called obstruction of Justice.. Brigit44 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for Further Research

I think there needs to be more research conducted on the history of this problem. I think that there could also be statistics added on the prevalence according to each field of work, as in what fields are more likely to have this occur. Finally I think the facts need to be checked a little more carefully, there are quite a few missing sources or that seem redundant. Texley (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Prevention

Could be helpful to include the prevalence of Workplace Violence Prevention plans in its own section, I added a little bit about this. They are becoming more popular especially in the healthcare field as of late. Carlykoppenhaver (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Carlykoppenhaver

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BRD1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Texley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Workplace_bullying/Archive_2&oldid=1197208363"