Management's latest worry: nonsexual harassment.

While much of the media attention is fixed on issues of sexual harassment in the workplace, a more common and potentially dangerous form of harassment is just beginning to gain the attention it deserves. In spite of glowing appraisals for excellent work, some employees are subjected to constant attacks by managers on their worth to their companies. In many ways, these attacks on egos are far more debilitating to both employees and the companies they serve. If costly legal confrontations are to be avoided, organizations will need to deal swiftly and effectively with managers who abuse employees in this fashion.

Mary's boss, the medical director, has never said anything to heR that could in any way be construed as sexual harassment. Instead, he publicly berates her for every flaw, real and imagined, that happens to be on his mind. He. takes credit for her work (no one is fooled, not even the CEO) and suggests that she should "look around." Last year, he made her life a nightmare, but she got a $10,000 bonus. This year, senior management has told Mary's boss to look around.

Jack's boss, Sharon, the vice president for patient services, tells everyone that he's a "dumb jock." While insulting him whenever she can, she got his job reclassified one level higher and gave him a small Christmas bonus. Jack's harassment isn't sexual, but it's still painful. Sharon is being counseled on her management style. She has three months in which to effect a total change.

Mark's client, the marketing director of a regional hospital chain, has been told that he will be charged if he insists on changes after copy has been approved. The client has also been told that yelling and clenching his fists every time he talks to Mark aren't improving the final product.

Our guess is that sexual harassment accounts for only 5-10 percent of all employee abuse. The great underbelly is ego-blasting, performance- and productivity-destroying abuse that is not actionable under law. Top management is taking notice, however, and it means to confront. What bothers top management is that abuse runs parallel with a demand for shared sacrifice, greater effort, and greater productivity, especially in heath care.

There's general agreement that sexual harassment has more to do with power tripping and bullying than with sex. How else can you explain the fact that vulnerable, fortysomething, single mothers are far more likely to be harassed than cute, blond cheerleader types? Vulnerability is also the issue in other kinds of abuse, although not many victims see themselves that way. Power tripping is always involved, too.

Power motivates internal and external clients to mistreat the help. In the past, such behavior was "part of the territory" - to be expected and not to be confronted. That's changing. Clients are being "counseled" about behavior that puts relationships at risk - ridicule, aggressive unreasonableness, and last-second expectations.

The perpetrators are quick to defend themselves. As the economy has deteriorated and managers at all levels have stretched - and keep stretching to do high-quality work - a certain amount of snapping, barking, and general venting can be expected. However, I'm seeing hoards of people who are being abused, not merely reprimanded or criticized. The abuse may come from a boss who feels threatened himself. It may come from a corporate client or patient who realizes that what he or she has demanded is neither effective nor possible and that a scapegoat is necessary.

Or maybe the perpetrator is a perfectionist. Perfectionists, who are never perfect themselves, don't distinguish major from minor. They brutalize everyone who makes minuscule, as well as seismic, mistakes.

The harassers aren't totally stupid; they don't necessarily want victims to depart. Generally, they send mixed messages. "It's either kisses or blows," one victim said. Many men and women tell me clients and bosses do both, sometimes simultaneously. Remember that both Mary and Jack got bonuses and good reviews while their day-to-day work was routinely savaged, leaving them ego-damaged and confused. Mark's client did not withdraw his account.

Why do people put up with mistreatment? "My boss would give me a bad reference if I left; he'd say I'm obviously disloyal" is the single most-cited reason. "I absolutely must get a good reference from my patients or I'll never get a better job" is an equally popular response. Like the victims of domestic violence who "have no place else to go," these people are sure they'll never advance unless everyone says great things. And they're sure that won't happen if they confront. This is self-victimization. One vindictive boss or client can't keep a good performer from getting a job.

Another reason for tolerating abuse is also common to victims of domestic violence or sexual harassment: The victims blame themselves. Exceptions are the blond cheerleaders who can identify a bully at 100 yards and drop kick him or her into the end zone. Everyone else takes it personally.

Time was when top management and its acolytes in human resources didn't really care. They'd say "there, there," but, unless the abuse was physical, they'd take no action.

A new standard is emerging, ahead of the law. Companies are showing genuine concern, i.e., they are firing abusive managers and citing specific objections with clients. Part of this stems from having refused to take sexual harassment seriously until victims got sizable monetary damages. Organizations want to avoid that kind of legal vulnerability at all costs. As one hospital CEO said, "There are too many lawyers with nothing to do. Some day soon, one will figure out a way to make a strong legal case for punishing employee abuse. It's cheaper to fire the perpetrators or confront the client before that happens."

Individual workers don't have to choose between abuse and unemployment. The two best ways to confront the crude, rude, and abusive are sanctioned by Miss Manners, who suffers from neither garden variety rudeness nor abuse. When someone attacks, don't defend. Instead say, "What did you say?" or "I beg your pardon." The strategy is to let the perpetrator's words linger in the air so he or she hears just how ugly what he or she said really was. The second strategy is to ask for further explanation. "You said Could you elaborate?" The more an abuser talks the more he or she is likely to recognize he or she is out of line. Sarcasm and biting back don't work. They escalate rather than contain the conflict.

There is always a lag between legal recognition and remedy of a problem and the suffering that problem provokes. Victims need to let others know how they feel. Perpetrators need to know that the axe falls swiftly and without notice these days - a message only top management can deliver.