The OHS harmonization process will revolutionise how individuals and organisations approach workplace bullying. If it doesn’t, workplace bullying will continue as a critical physical and psychological issue affecting individuals and organisations forever. 

So far in Australia, there have been relatively few prosecutions of organisations or individuals for health and safety breaches relating to workplace bullying. However, the recent successful prosecution of and employer and employees linked to the death of Brodie Panlock in Victoria may be the first step as Governments are starting to view deadly implications of the short, medium and long term and sometimes fatal impact of this insidious practice.

Despite publicity generated by Government Departments and strong media interest when there has been a death following a workplace bullying incident, I believe that many public and private sector organisations are being lulled into a false sense of security. Lack of data, small numbers of allegations dealt with quickly, or individuals not reporting incidents create an illusionary perception that ‘all is well’ and ‘we are doing enough.’

The tides of change are coming and as every day goes by, the tide is picking up strength just like a tsunami. What is this tide of change? In a nutshell, it is the Work Health and Safety Act that is due to be implemented in January 2012. Will it make a difference?

I believe that some of the changes will have a dramatic affect on how executive officers think about, and even commit themselves to the notion of work health and safety. They will have to about the physical and the psychological aspects if they are to meet their obligations and show that they can meet due diligence requirements.

Barry Sherriff and Michael Tooma have written an excellent, user friendly publication that is produced by CCH. I believe the way that they have interpreted the legislation has resulted in the publication of the book ‘Understanding the Model Work Health and Safety Act’. Their explanations of various definitions and what they actually mean gives credence to the belief that the tides of change are coming.

It is not intended to reproduce all the definitions covered by Sherriff and Tooma, but I am going to refer to few where I believe public and private sector agencies need to focus in terms of workplace bullying.

Officer

Executives might be blissfully unaware that changes to the legislation means that there is every possibility that they will be considered an ‘officer’ under the model WHS Act, and as such they must exercise due diligence to ensure that there organization complies with its duties under the legislation. Sherriff and Tooma point out that the term “officer” has the same definition as it has in the Corporations Act 2001. They also indicate that the definition is extended to apply to officers of the Crown by s. 244 of the model WHS Act. So, are you an officer? Sherriff and Tooma (2010:32) provide a list in relation to who is an officer.

Who is and who is not an officer in your organisation?

They also discuss due diligence and provide some discussion as to what is meant by due diligence. It is interesting to note that Sherriff and Tooma (2010:33) indicate that officers need to make themselves aware of changes to legislation and developments in case law as well as Australian standards.  Does this apply to workplace bullying? Well yes, it does. Courts, Commissions and Tribunals are continually making decisions that impact directly and indirectly on individuals and organisations. Whilst some organisations may cut back on training, it is essential that the Board and Executive officers be regularly briefed or involved in training sessions so that they can maintain currency in trends and issues and even decisions associated with workplace bullying.

Cutting back on training may even have a negative impact on how ‘officers’ demonstrate that they have met their obligations or fulfilled due diligence requirements.

Worker

Some things in relation to workplace health and safety might not change dramatically, but the definition of a worker is worth considering. As Sherriff and Tooma (2010:52) indicate, a person is a “worker” if they carry out work in any capacity for a PCBU. It is a broad definition, but they also indicate that it ‘includes work as an employee, a contractor, a subcontractor, an employee of a contractor or subcontractor, an employee of a labour hire company, an outworker, an apprentice, a trainee, a student gaining work experience, or even a volunteer.

Each of the ‘workers’ identified above can at any stage be involved in a workplace bullying incident so it is important that the safe system of work, including the prevention, detection and resolution of workplace bullying cover these people. The task is to read your current policy and see if the definition of worker meets this requirement. 

Does your policy cover those ‘workers’ in terms of workplace bullying?

Who is a person at a workplace?

There are some subtle changes to the meaning of ‘who is a person at a workplace?’ Given that workplace bullying can involve internal and external employees or customers, this is an important definition. As Sherriff and Tooma (2010:53) indicate, ‘the duty of care of a person at a workplace is intended to capture visitors to workplaces, such as customers and clients, passers-by, relatives and associates of workers, and trespassers’. 

Does your workplace bullying policy cover this definition?

What is a workplace?

Workplace has been mentioned several times. Workplace bullying can happen across a diverse range of locations and a key example of this is ‘cyber bullying’ or stalking (a criminal offence). It is important that employers and employees have a detailed understanding of this section. Sherriff and Tooma (2010:53) indicate that:

‘a workplace is defined as a place where work is carried out for a business or for an undertaking. It includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work (for example, a vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or other mobile structure, any waters and any installation on land, and on the bed of any waters or floating on any waters). As such, not only are factories, shops, construction sites and offices workplaces, but roads, homes, national parks, schools, hotels, airports, aeroplanes, ports and ships are also workplaces when people are working there. Indeed, any place can be transformed into a workplace if people work there.’

So what is the relevance of that definition to workplace bullying? Workplace bullying can occur in any of the above places, and can be committed by employees of the organisation, or by employees of other organisations. How does your workplace bullying policy define workplace? Is it defined in your health and safety policy, or in some other document that employees hardly ever refer to? 

Action

Given that Courts, Commissions and Tribunals appear to have taken a broad view about workplaces and what is workplace related, it is important that employees understand the parameters in which they operate. For example, the birthday bash of work colleagues held in an off site location may be considered work related if an event that occurs at the party site is discussed in the workplace proper. 

Some organisations will allow employees to attend post event functions e.g. after a Conference, but ‘kick on events’ may occur after the post event functions. Depending on the circumstances, a ‘kick on event’ may be considered work related, or even a workplace.  From time to time, allegations of sexual harassment and bullying arise following such events, and in some cases, excessive consumption of liquor has occurred. 

Changes to the workplace, broadening of definitions and allegations of all forms of inappropriate behaviour can result in adverse publicity and damage to individual and organisational reputations. 

Is there a need for panic?  Well, no not at the moment. 

However, if I were an Executive in the public or private sector, I would want to make sure that I could meet all the obligations placed on me through the changes to the Work Health and Safety Act and I would to be able to demonstrate that I could meet due diligence requirements. I would not to be sitting in some Court, Commission or Tribunal trying to explain why I had failed in my duties as an ‘officer’. I don’t think like would like to be explaining to the CEO or to the Board about how my inactions failed the organisation.

At the same time, if I was an employee giving evidence in a Court, Commission or Tribunal as to why I had committed a breach of work health and safety, I would want to know the answers.

What should I do?

Executive officers should be getting briefings from their health and safety personnel.

Health and safety personnel should be working hand in glove with HR, Risk Managers, and other key personnel concerned with managing physical and psychological hazards in their organizations.

Employees should approach their unions or health and safety personnel to find out what their obligations are and what they have to do meet them.

Health and Safety policies and procedures, along with various HR policies should be reviewed to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Work Health and Safety Act.

In the meantime, publications such as that listed in the references provide a very good understanding of the key issues identified in this short paper.

Alternatively, there are a number of Safety Conferences being held between now and 2012 where key note speakers address the Work Health and Safety Act. I have been to several of these, and the Melbourne SIA featured the eloquence of Barry Sherriff of Norton Rose explaining in a no-nonsense manner just how the new Act is going to impact on organisations and individuals.

References

Sherriff, B. & Tooma, M. (2010) Understanding the Model Work Health and Safety Act. CCH AUSTRALIA LIMITED. Printed in Australia by McPherson’s Printing Group. ISBN: 978 1 921593 72 7.

According to Bloomberg’s Businessweek, computer giant Intel is one of four companies trialing the use of online personal health records to help employees monitor their own health.

A consortium of companies including Intel, Wal-Mart and Pitney Bowes are involved in the project that hosts the records of employees so they have a good way of getting their entire medical [history] in one place.

According to the report about 7 percent of Americans have now used personal health records, nearly double the percentage a year ago. In theory, by giving employees an online tool to monitor their health, companies can cut health-care costs without raising concerns about data privacy. Plus doctors have better information with which to recommend treatments.

Personal-health-record software from companies like Dossia, as well as from Google’s (GOOG) Health system and Microsoft’s (MSFT) HealthVault, takes the place of pen-and-clipboard medical histories that patients fill out before doctor visits.

The information is different from that kept in electronic medical records, which can be difficult for patients to transfer among heath care providers. In addition to patients’ medical histories, personal health records also contain information about drug prescriptions and lab results.

The systems typically work by collecting health information from doctors’ offices, health plans, pharmacies, and labs — plus data that employees enter themselves — into a secure Website. The information is private to employees; employers can’t see it. And when employees leave a company, they take their personal health records with them.

Personal health records aren’t a cure-all: Employees must do the hard work of living healthfully. Yet the software can encourage positive changes.

The awards are a joint initiative by the National Safety Council of Australia and GIO. They are designed to celebrate Australian innovative safety solutions, best practice OHS and safety communication in the workplace.

The key objectives of the awards are to recognise high standards of safety by Australian organisations and individuals, promote OHS excellence and increase awareness of the Safety Council’s commitment to safety.

People or organisations can nominate under six categories:

1. Best Implementation of a Specific OHS Management System
2. Best solution of a OHS Workplace Risk
3. Best OHS Training Program
4. Best Communication of a Safety Message
5. Excellence in Innovative Environmentally Sustainable Work Practices
6. Business Excellence through OHS Management

Previous winners of the awards came from companies such as CGU Insurance, Railcorp, Queensland Department of Public Works and Bluescope Steel.

Each winner of the six categories is automatically in the running for the annual Award for Excellence in OHS which is the pinnacle for the award program and seen as an ultimate recognition for workplace safety.

Nominations for the awards are open till 2 July 2010. If you are interested in entering the 2010 Awards visit the Safety Excellence Awards Entry page.

Organizers of the event pointed out that about 7,000 Australians die each year from work-related causes and that in Western Australia alone 21 people had died at work since January 2009. In fact there was some criticism of the WA government because it had refused to sign up to nationally agreed safety laws and that was seen as leaving workers with “the weakest safety laws in Australia”.

Meanwhile, thousands of construction workers have marched in Melbourne’s CBD to protest against the rising rate of deaths and serious injuries at work. According to union figures, deaths in the construction industry increased from 3.14 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2004, to 3.86 in 2005, 5.6 in 2006, 4.48 in 2007 and 4.27 in 2008, he said. Workers placed black helmets on white crosses symbolising the eight construction workers who had died since the last memorial day.

In NSW, hundreds of family and friends placed flowers on the Memory Lines sculpture at Reflection Park in Sydney’s Darling Harbour to honour those who had died as a result of a workplace accident or illness.

The survey found that 50% of OHS Personnel said efforts to minimise OHS risks within their organisations are compromised by concerns that they will have a negative impact on productivity. It said that almost a quarter (23%) of senior managers who participated in the survey echoed these concerns about OHS and reduced productivity.

According to the survey less than half of CEOs and Board members (49%) and senior managers (44%) said they ‘strongly agreed’ that ‘there is OHS leadership within my organisation’. And a similar number do not believe their organisation has a ‘well entrenched OHS culture’.

This represents a worrying gap between the views of top level management and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Personnel. Just 44% of OHS personnel said there is a ‘very high priority’ placed on health and safety in their organisations compared to 71% of CEOs and Board members and 64% of senior managers.

According to AIM Victoria CEO, Susan Herron, given that OHS personnel are crucial to an organisation’s health and safety performance, this points to leadership and internal communication challenges for many Australian organisations if a high level, consistent response from all management and personnel segments is to be achieved.

The Business of Safety survey provides an insight into how Australian organisations regard workplace health and safety as a driver of organisational performance and employee engagement. It covered a wide range of business sizes and industries, from small businesses to large organisations.
 
Wayne Patterson is on the National Board of Directors of the Australian Institute of Management. He said “While the results were obtained by surveying a largely Victorian database the findings could be applied to business in all states. Business practice does not differ materially between states. If we find in one state there is a gap between what leaders say about the importance of OHS and what their line people tell us happens in reality, then you can bet that is the story everywhere else”.

The report finished by saying effective leadership on workplace health and safety is overdue. If you want to read the full report it can be found at Business of Safety.

Under this major project WHSQ inspectors will be visiting every medium sized business in Queensland to check the systems they use to meet their workplace health and safety obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.

WHSQ aims to use the initiative aims to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities occurring in business, increase awareness and knowledge of workplace health and safety risks and improve the capability of mid tier businesses to effectively manage workplace health and safety risks in consultation with workers.

There are nearly 8000 medium sized businesses in Queensland, employing 18 per cent of the state’s workforce. While these businesses only employ about 1 in 5 of the workforce; they account for over 1 in 3 workers’ compensation claims lodged every year.

The Queensland Workplace Health and Safety Strategy 2004-12, sets targets for a reduction in fatalities and injuries. They include:

• 40 per cent decrease of work-related injuries, and 
• 20 per cent decrease in work-related fatalities.

Over the next few months half of Queensland’s medium sized businesses will receive a letter advising them of the initiative. If you are a medium sized business and you don’t receive a letter in March 2010, you will receive a letter later in 2010 advising you are part of the second wave.

The letter will be sent to both the business owner and the workplace health and safety officer of each medium sized business. The inspection will focus on assessing the effectiveness of your health and safety systems, and identifying opportunities for improvement. Inspectors will draw on their enforcement options under workplace health and safety legislation to address any health and safety issues identified.

Before the inspection takes place WHSQ are offering businesses the opportunity to attend one of the 50+ free workplace health and safety advisory sessions being held across Queensland. This enables businesses to learn more about effective safety management systems and ask questions about the upcoming inspections.

For more information please visit Worksafe QLD.

The Australian and New Zealand Chapter of the International Association of Safety Professionals was launched on the 1st January 2010 and is now taking new memberships.

As a non-profit organization, the IASP reaches out to workers worldwide with fellowship, training, advice, and equipment designed to reduce the inordinately high number of workplace injuries and deaths. The IASP is currently working in more than 42 countries to improve workplace safety and operates at the highest levels.

The United Nations has approved the establishment of consultative status with the International Association of Safety Professionals (IASP).  The IASP works with committees of the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations supplying representatives and providing advice and world wide perspectives.

Safety Concepts has been accepted as a foundation partner in the establishment of the ANZ Chapter of the IASP. According to Director General of the IASP, Thomas Hardin, the partnership between IASP and Safety Concepts is based on shared values and a mutual passion for safety in the workplace.

For safety professionals in Australia and the Asian region the IASP provides access to a high level professional association participating in and sponsoring worldwide debate and networking.

Members of the IASP become part of an international network of safety professionals and are encouraged to contribute and participate in networking activities. Members are also able to add the IASP to their resume or CV.

 The IASP helps build the social capital of the safety profession by creating a community with strong ties  and by promoting standards of professional practice. The IASP also allows safety professionals who can find themselves working in isolation an opportunity to access a like minded social network and benefit from international reciprocity with other overseas contacts.

If you’re interested becoming a member of the IASP please click here.

Being always so active at work my friend kept a lean body frame, ate a nourishing meal during his break, and always had plenty of energy to join in full-on activities on a weekend.

That all changed within about four months of his promotion.

My friend was no longer physically active at work.

He not only ate his nourishing meals during his breaks, he also took to snacks and soft drinks while staring at a computer screen.

He began piling on the weight, and it wasn’t distributed over his usually lean frame, it all settled on his chest, stomach and waist.

Suddenly he was more exhausted after a day’s work sitting than when he was out working machinery and supervising on the floor. He no longer had energy to do things with his family and friends, so home life and social gatherings became a routine of watching TV and eating.

As his general health and outlook took a plunge he also became more prone to colds and sickness that went through the office.

Now, a promotion is an excellent thing. Don’t most people desire recognition for their efforts and achievements? Isn’t it good to know at the end of the day you contributed somehow and the company recognized that? Doesn’t that bit extra in your pay packet help out at home? Doesn’t it feel good to tell your friends and family that you received a promotion?

And being promoted or advancing in our jobs needn’t have a detrimental affect on our health.

If your job doesn’t require much physical movement, then incorporate simple things like:

• walking to and from the train station rather than driving
• going for a walk during your lunch break
• getting out your seat to file each document as you finish with it rather than building up a pile of files and then walking to the filing cabinet
• getting up and opening the door for people who come into your office rather than sitting in your chair and telling them to enter (if your door is always open, even standing up as people enter will work)
• walking to the next department to deliver a spoken message rather than getting on the phone
• doing some general stretching exercises throughout the day

You can also supplement a light physical work existence with a slightly more physical outside of work existence:

• wake up that little bit earlier and go for a walk
• join a club and swim, walk, run, play volley-ball, tennis, squash, row, cycle, learn martial arts, do aqua aerobics, yoga, dance, etc.
• park at the end of the shopping centre carpark and walk that little extra
• opt for fun activities with friends, eg. climb a mountain (I’m not suggesting Everest!), walk through a National Park, walk through some markets, cycle tour, go sand-boarding, snow-boarding, learn to surf, etc.

Just a little exercise goes a long way to a happier, healthier, and more energetic you! After all, don’t you want the energy to enjoy that new promotion?

Knowledge

Currently there is a collective body of knowledge developing in Australia and much of this knowledge comes from victims, alleged bullies, organisations, medical and legal professionals, family/friends and associates, investigators and the media.  There is no unified approach.

Whilst there may be some individuals and/or professional differences of opinion about the best possible solution, a national approach that allows collaboration to build on mutual respect and dignity may ultimately result in strategies or guiding principles that will benefit all and sundry irrespective of individual values and beliefs, cultural background or other critically relevant issues.

Some literature has in the past suggested that guidelines such as those for risk management, quality management and the like be developed.  This approach could have merit if they were developed as industry standards.  They could be guidelines but not compulsory, and tied to the proposed OHS harmonisation processes. 

They would be generic and allow the public and private sector to apply them, and this could result in some cost savings.  Licensing arrangements could allow individual organisations to use the guidelines without having to write numerous pages of policies or procedures.  In some cases, the guidelines might be the extension of a Code of Practice currently owned by a State Government agency.

Emerging trends and issues

Recent media sources indicate that workplace bullying is escalating.  Court, Commission and Tribunal decisions are resulting in an increased need for organisations and individuals to be increasingly vigilant about issues that will impact on workplace bullying allegations.

There are also indications that workplace bullying reduces the corruption resistance of agencies, and at the very least, creates a pathway to corruption or unlawful activities. 

It would be in the best interests of public and private sector agencies (irrespective of size) to develop a system or process that allows them to stay in touch with trends and issues.  It could up being embarrassing for an executive officer if they are confronted in a Court, Commission or Tribunal trying to respond to something they know nothing about.

Deviance

There seems to be little doubt that there is a strong link between deviance and bullying.  For some, ideas about deviance or deviants create a belief it only means rapists, murderers, paedophiles, child molesters or domestic violence perpetrators. 

What if bullying does not meet social norms and values (as if it ever did)?  Would we as individuals or as organisations believe that workplace bullying is something to be tolerate, excused or accepted as part of the ‘norm’?

If we as a society believe that workplace bullies are deviants who fail to meet community standards about treating others with respect and dignity, surely it is time to recognise the financial and societal costs and treat it as disease.  Perhaps it is time that bullying, as well as being recognised as a health and safety issue, be treated as a public health issue.

New Directions

There has to be community debate about the acceptability of workplace bullying if organisations and individuals are expected to survive.  In much the same way that informed debate lead to changes in domestic violence and in leadership, similar processes have to be started to generate understanding about the negative impact on workplace bullying on business and society.

Just because it has existed in many forms across a range of societies and communities since time immemorial, it doesn’t mean that no attempts should be made at a national level.

It is time to treat workplace bullying as a national disgrace and take positive action to create a bully free society and workplace.

All it will take is a few good people to stand up and be counted.  Will you be one of them?

Conclusion

Everyone in society feels the impact of workplace bullying.  As taxpayers, customers or clients we experience higher costs, reduced service and increased levels of frustrations because of the bullying that occurs in some organisations.

When I wrote my book about Resolving Workplace Bullying, I found that there were some common issues involving the victims, the alleged bully, the organisation, the medical and legal professionals, the family/friends and associates, the investigators and the media.  Everyone had a vested interest and everyone wanted to ask questions. 

However, not everyone knew what question to ask or why it should be asked.  My practical experience in speaking with victims, alleged bullies and organisations led me to believe that whilst bullying seemed to be part of life, many people were uncomfortable with it happening.

It was a concern that whilst organisations were able to produce policies and procedures about the prevention, detection and resolution of workplace bullying, not much was being done to educate people on the basics of organisational life.

You do need to plan for the day they will be involved in a workplace bullying incident.  When it does happen, how are you going to respond? Whether you believe it or not, we are all in this together.  One of the great things about treating people with respect and dignity is this.  We might not agree on each other’s viewpoint, but we can have some constructive discussions that might be emotive and challenging and we can still agree to disagree without humiliating, intimidating or threatening each other.  It is about communication.

I have set out a few ideas that I believe if addressed not only at a National level but on an organisational and individual level, can make a major inroad into reducing the incidence of workplace bullying.

We can individually and as organisations keep treading water or going around in circles doing the same old thing, and nothing will change.

Alternatively, we can get involved, set the ball rolling and make positive changes.

Thank you so much to Bernie for all of his advice on Bullying in the Workplace.

Reputations

Workplace bullying incidents have the potential to negatively impact on individual and corporate reputations.  Some individuals who are subjected to workplace bullying may find the barriers that exist make it harder for them to report the incident, let alone get an outcome they are satisfied with. 
Some may be confronted with a cone of silence where organisations and work colleagues take a dim view of whistleblowers or those seeking to right workplace wrongs.  Whilst some may suffer in silence for some period of time, the full impact or cost of bullying might never be known if they are not encouraged or required to report.

It should be understood that whilst some individuals take action immediately, others may think about the issues for some time.  Some victims may be so traumatised by the circumstances that simple processes like dealing with the paperwork become overwhelming and increase the negative stress levels.  As a result, the way in which they respond can have a negative impact on their claim process, and they may ultimately do something or take some action that impact on their personal reputation.

Data collection

There is no national data collection system in place so the full extent or cost of bullying is not known.  Projections on averages seem to be one way of working out costs.  It is also problematic for States and Territories wanting to appear proactive. 

Informed decision making is affected as the lack of data means that interventions can be developed on data obtained from a minority.  Surveys can be conducted involving small data collection groups.  Silo approaches used in the prevention, detection and resolution of workplace bullying sometimes mean that critical interpretation regarding the level of risk and exposure being faced by an organisation is overlooked.

The direct and indirect costs can mean that the intangible costs are not captured, not understood and therefore not considered as part of the total cost caused by the bully.

Who would think to capture costs related to resources, meeting rooms, computer storage space, stationery and the like?  After all, aren’t these just abundant office supplies to be used?  If they weren’t being used in the pursuit of bullying incidents, perhaps some costs could be saved along the way.

Data collection models should be carefully considered.  After all, who wants to be so busy collecting data that they don’t have time to do the work for which they are paid.

Some of the literature discusses average costs, but it is hard to know how this should be determined when no two allegations are identical.

Change

Workplace bullying is a complex situation requiring complex solutions.

However, as with any change there is a need for a change in attitude about the short, medium and long term impacts on the physical and psychological wellbeing of individuals and organisations.  There has to be a national commitment to change.  Successful change has to be driven from the top and the positive messages communicated consistently across the Nation.

Just as other forms of physical and psychological hazards are treated as a priority, the same rules have to apply in the way organisations respond to workplace bullying.

Sometimes organisations may use financial data as a way of setting benchmarks against which performance can be measured.  Imagine if your organisation was able to create change by highlighting increases or decreases in the financial cost of bullying.

Financial impact

The financial impact of workplace bullying across the Nation has to be considered as a critical area of improvement.

Ad hoc and inconsistent approaches, whilst providing some relief for those involved, may not provide a holistic, long term approach to problem solving.

It might also be symptomatic that whilst there is no national data collection process in place to give an accurate understanding of workplace bullying, the lack of co-ordination or financial recording of costs within individual work units contributes to a lack of organisational responsiveness.

If the average cost of one workplace bullying incident is $20,000 and there are a number of such incidents across an organisation, how does an organisation recognise the risk expose when the collective cost of several incidents is not recorded? 

There is an inconsistent and perhaps inaccurate process in place to measure the financial cost of bullying.  Some measures take prevalence into consideration and some estimates may not consider all of the indirect costs.

As far as can be determined, there is no national model that can be used to cost workplace bullying, although there are some excellent publications that can be used to form a framework under which costs could be captured.

It does appear that costs of bullying can range from as low as $60 per person per annum to as high as $4690 per person per annum.  Some of these costs have been calculated on a prevalence rate as low as 3.5%, whilst others (the high rate) do not give a prevalence rate.

Whichever way you do the calculation, the figures are almost unbelievable; hence the reason why I indicated it is a national disgrace.  If you are an executive officer, wouldn’t you like some certainty about the degree of accuracy?  That is not to say that the dollar costs indicated in the previous paragraph are inaccurate. 

Hence the imperative to generate a model that can predict with a higher degree of accuracy, all the direct and indirect costs associated with workplace bullying.