Workplace bullying is prevalent in higher education...

 

Workplace bullying is prevalent in higher education, often occurring at higher rates than in other sectors. Studies suggest that systemic issues related to university structures and academic culture create an environment where bullying can easily develop and persist. The complex power dynamics within academia make addressing bullying especially difficult.

Reasons for high rates of bullying in academia

Hierarchical structure: Universities have well-defined hierarchies where power imbalances make junior staff, adjunct professors, and even graduate students particularly vulnerable to bullying by those in senior positions.

• Neo-liberal managerialism: The increasing corporatization of higher education, with its emphasis on metrics, competition for funding, and pressure to "publish or perish," intensifies job insecurity. This hyper-competitive climate can fuel bullying and hostile behavior.
• Poor managerial training: Leadership within academia is often drawn from senior faculty who have strong research backgrounds but may lack formal management training. This can leave them ill-equipped to handle bullying situations effectively.
• Culture of silence: Victims often remain silent for fear of retaliation, damage to their reputation, or harm to their career progression. Some view reporting an academic superior as "the kiss of death" for their career. A culture of distrust and silence can also make bystanders reluctant to speak up.
• Lack of effective recourse: While most universities have anti-bullying policies, the procedures are often insufficient to address complex bullying dynamics. The institutional response can sometimes be more traumatic for the victim than the bullying itself.
• The "brilliant jerk" phenomenon: In a system that rewards research output and academic achievement above all else, institutions may tolerate or even protect high-performing faculty members with poor social skills or a history of abusive behavior. 

Manifestations of bullying

Academic bullying can take many forms, including subtle and insidious behaviors that are difficult to prove. 

• Professional undermining: Unjustified criticism, exclusion from meetings or opportunities, ghost authoring (taking undue credit for others' work), and the removal of authority without reason.
• Abuse of power: Setting impossible deadlines, assigning meaningless tasks, and excessive monitoring of work.
• Verbal and social abuse: Public humiliation, insults, spreading malicious rumors, and social isolation.
• Mobbing: A particularly sophisticated form of bullying where multiple people gang up to systematically target and diminish a victim through intimidation and harassment. 

Impact of bullying

The effects of bullying in higher education are severe, impacting individuals, institutions, and even the progress of science. 

• On individuals: Victims often suffer from serious and long-lasting mental health issues, including stress, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal thoughts. Bullying can also lead to physical health problems and addiction.
• On institutions: Bullying negatively affects workplace culture, leading to reduced productivity, lower employee morale, increased employee turnover, and damage to the institution's reputation.
• Systemic issues: By creating a toxic research culture, bullying and harassment hinder scientific progress and negatively impact research integrity. 

Potential solutions

Addressing bullying in higher education requires a multi-pronged approach that targets systemic and cultural issues. 

• Training and accountability for leaders: Provide mandatory management training for academic leaders to help them recognize and effectively address bullying. A zero-tolerance policy must be enforced consistently.
• Improved reporting systems: Establish clearer, more effective, and confidential reporting and grievance mechanisms that offer victims support without fear of reprisal.
• Address systemic factors: Critically examine and address institutional drivers of bullying, such as hyper-competitiveness and power imbalances. Promote a culture that values collaboration, emotional intelligence, and integrity.
• Robust support for victims: Offer accessible support services, such as counselling and mediation, to help staff cope with the psychological effects of bullying.
• Shift evaluation criteria: Broaden promotion and hiring criteria beyond publication records to include social skills and emotional intelligence, thus de-legitimizing the "brilliant jerk" archetype. 
  
  

  https://www.google.com/search?q=workplace+bullying+higher+education

  
  

Chronic silencing is a critical barrier to breaking the cycle of bullying in academia and industry

 ...To effectively address and resolve the pervasive issue of bullying in academic workplaces, stakeholders must take decisive action to dismantle the entrenched, albeit often implicit, culture of silence that surrounds it. This culture, which often protects the reputations of institutions and those in power, allows harmful behaviors to persist unchallenged, and undermines the principles of integrity, transparency and accountability that are essential to academic environments. Institutions must be held accountable by fostering open dialog, implementing transparent reporting mechanisms and ensuring that policies are enforced equitably to create safe and supportive environments for all members of the academic community.

Research indicates that bullying is rife in higher education and that members of underrepresented groups suffer most at the hands of bullies. Many contend that endemic features of higher education — hierarchy, hypercompetition, a cult of personality, ever-dwindling resources and increasing precarity — help to create a climate conducive to bullying or, as Wyn Evans of the University of Cambridge, UK, suggests, make bullies a “feature, not a bug”. In such a climate, bullying is not just an unfortunate byproduct; rather, it functions as a career tool used by mediocre academics to “remove their competition”...

...In addition to perpetuating the cycle of abuse within departments and universities, silencing those who allege abuse (for example, through isolation, exclusion, dismissal, legal threats and/or non-disclosure agreements) only serves to deepen the psychological wounds and breed mistrust among survivors. Dorothy Suskind describes the silencing and othering associated with workplace bullying as leaving targets in a “state of suspension” that may result in what therapist and researcher Pauline Boss terms ‘ambiguous loss’ — “a loss that remains unclear and without official verification or immediate resolution, which may never be achieved”. It is in this space that shame, despair and distrust set in. We have seen this firsthand in our advocacy work and in our own experiences of bullying: chronic exposure to abuse and unresolved trauma can leave emotional scars that distort perceptions and responses in targets. Even after the bullying has ceased, targets may be easily triggered, even by those organizations and people who are trying to help...

...the compulsion to silence and ‘disappear’ bullying claims is fundamentally inconsistent with universities’ missions as truth-seeking and truth-sharing organizations. Moreover, university administrators can no longer claim ignorance about the prevalence and consequences of academic bullying. The responsibility now lies with university leaders and those tasked with handling complaints to educate themselves about bullying and its associated traumas and to provide fair hearings for all community members...

Vogelaar, A.E., Mahmoudi, M. Chronic silencing is a critical barrier to breaking the cycle of bullying in academia and industry. Nat Biotechnol 43, 1577–1579 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02803-9

Silence on bullying at universities ‘like Post Office scandal’, says Cambridge chancellor hopeful

The culture of silence on bullying at universities is like the Post Office scandal, a candidate in the running to be the next Cambridge University chancellor has claimed.

Prof Wyn Evans, one of 10 hopefuls who could become Cambridge University’s next figurehead, said academics were routinely made to feel as if their allegations about bullying and harassment were isolated cases.

In an interview with The Telegraph, the astrophysics professor at Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy claimed he was subject to “prolonged retaliation” after he tried to blow the whistle over mistreatment of a colleague.

Prof Evans raised concerns with the university in July 2021 that a female member of staff in his department in the “throes of extreme mental distress” was being bullied by a more senior employee, adding that he was worried about her welfare as a result.

Cambridge University appointed an independent barrister to investigate the claims, but also tasked them with probing separate allegations made about Prof Evans’s own behaviour.

It took more than a year and a half before the investigation was completed. The barrister concluded that Prof Evans’s intervention met the legal threshold for whistleblowing, but that the behaviour reported by him did not constitute bullying.

The lawyer dismissed the personal allegations made against Prof Evans and said the claimant provided no evidence to substantiate them.

Prof Evans told The Telegraph that the drawn-out process had an enormous impact on his mental health, and that at his lowest ebb during the investigation, he had thoughts of ending his own life.

‘Not even a droplet of compassion’

“My problems all started when I intervened on [my colleague’s] behalf. I contacted a prominent figure in the university for help in dealing with the victim… No help was offered. There was not even a droplet of compassion for the victim,” he said.

“As is very common in whistleblowing cases, there was then prolonged retaliation against me. The retaliation caused significant disruption to my work and my mental health. I went on sick leave. Sleep was an elusive luxury [and] I was plagued with recurrent nightmares.”

The astrophysics professor has promised to introduce an ombudsman at Cambridge University to investigate “serious abuses or mismanagement” if elected chancellor. The scientist, whose research is around the formation of the Milky Way, launched a blog about his ordeal in 2023 calling for other academics to come forward with their own experiences…

The 21 Group, named after the percentage of Cambridge University employees who reported being subjected to bullying or harassment in an internal staff survey, has seen almost 300 academics from around the world share their stories about bullying and harassment to date.

The 21 Group has seen more than 8,000 visitors to its website in the past week alone, according to Prof Evans, with most academics active on the platform claiming to be from research-intensive universities across the UK.

Some allege they have been stripped of research funding as part of power struggles with more senior colleagues…

“The magnificent role the university could play in encouraging greater empathy, diversity, kindness and inclusion as well as public interest in scholarship and learning, is undermined by its poor culture,” he said.

“Culture is set by the people at the top. This is one of things I would change as chancellor.”

Cambridge University said it strongly refuted Prof Evans’s claims.

The astrophysics professor will run against rival candidates including Sandi Toksvig, the comedian and ex-presenter of the Great British Bake Off, and Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner, in the race to become the next Cambridge chancellor…

https://www.yahoo.com/news/silence-bullying-universities-post-office

Workplace Bullying in Academia: A Conditional Process Model

Although it is unfortunate, academia fosters a culture where workplace bullying can occur among organisational members. Workplace bullying refers to “repeated actions and practices that are directed against one or more workers, that are unwanted by the target, that may be carried out deliberately or unconsciously, but clearly cause humiliation, offence and distress, and that may interfere with work performance and/or cause an unpleasant working environment”…directed against one or more workers, that are unwanted by the target, that may be carried out deliberately or unconsciously, but clearly cause humiliation, offence and distress, and that may interfere with work performance and/or cause an unpleasant working environment”…





…around 25% of academic faculty have been bullied within the past 12 months and 50%–75% of faculty have been exposed to and/or witnessed bullying. Academic bullying includes incidents like those found in other workplaces including excessive monitoring, humiliation, unfair criticism, spreading rumors, yelling, withholding information, and isolating…



…bullying in academia (often out of jealousy for academic accomplishments) includes attacks on professional identity with terse conversations, harsh feedback, awkward looks, and avoidance and/or exclusion. These incidents make it more difficult to be a productive faculty member…



…bullying directed toward professional identity includes undermining professional competence, increasing administrative and teaching duties, reducing research and teaching resources, and excluding faculty from conversations or activities, among other forms…

bullying in academia most commonly involves threats to professional status and obstruction of job duties… academics bully through professional undermining by demeaning academic achievements and purposefully making academic work more difficult…



…faculty members are different than employees in other organizations because they may have academic freedom and thought (to say controversial things), are evaluated by their peers (who hold power over each other during peer review), and have more self-regulated job duties (that are not always structured in terms how teaching, research, and service requirements are met). All these factors change the potential power dynamics involved in workplace bullying…

The faculty’s unique organizational citizen status as free-thinking, autonomous actors with leadership of knowledge production as well as the research and education mission of the university, their power as evaluators, and their positioning and training as critics shapes faculty expression, what is considered by faculty (but perhaps not others!) as appropriate (normative or “reasonable”) conduct (and thus, what is not) and also the management of faculty conduct…



…the issue of academic bullying can be offset to some degree by a chairperson’s managerial decisions and communication practices with faculty. However, we recognise that chairpersons and other academic leaders are frequently cited by faculty as the sources of bullying themselves…

 …our results indicated that for professors in departments where a chairperson provides less social support to faculty, having autonomous control over how job duties are completed also buffered against workplace bullying due to stress. It is important to note that even with low social support from a chair, as long as professors had high decision authority in completing their job duties, there were no indirect effects of job demands on bullying due to stress. But it is also important to note that for faculty with restricted decision authority and low supervisor social support, the indirect effect on bullying was present and strongest. 



Although we would argue that supervisor social support is paramount, some chairs might not have the interpersonal disposition to be highly supportive. Other chairs may face legitimate time constraints that prevent them from providing each individual faculty member with the necessary immediate social support. Although the chair may be unable to provide the necessary support, chairs could likely improve faculty members’ well-being by allowing them to be more autonomous in their work…

Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., Mills, C. B., & Clark-Gordon, C. V. (2022). Workplace Bullying in Academia: A Conditional Process Model. Management Communication Quarterly, 36(4), 664-687. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221103625 (Original work published 2022)

The Road to Abilene...

A classic example of groupthink is the "Road to Abilene" paradox, which illustrates how group consensus can lead to poor decisions despite individual members having private reservations.

In this story, a family on a hot afternoon in Texas decides to take a long, uncomfortable drive to Abilene for dinner. Each member agrees to the trip, not because they genuinely want to go, but because they mistakenly believe the others want to go and do not want to express dissent or disrupt group harmony.

The trip turns out to be unpleasant, and only afterwards do they reveal that none of them wanted to go; they all went along to satisfy the others' perceived preferences. This illustrates how groupthink causes individuals to suppress their doubts and conform to what they perceive as the group consensus, leading to suboptimal outcomes.


Groupthink, as defined by social psychologist Irving Janis, occurs when members of a cohesive group prioritise consensus and cohesion over critical evaluation of alternatives, often resulting in irrational or flawed decisions. Key characteristics include illusions of unanimity, self-censorship, direct pressure on dissenters, and rationalization of warnings, all of which contribute to poor decision-making.


The "Road to Abilene" story exemplifies these dynamics, illustrating how the desire to avoid conflict and maintain group cohesion can override individuals' valid preferences, ultimately leading to collective mistakes.

“My Core Is Cracked”—Bullying in Higher Education as a Traumatic Process

 

The higher prevalence in universities can be understood in terms of well-established institutional factors that predispose specific organizations to bullying and coalesce in HEIs. Large organizations, hierarchical organizations and public sector organizations are vulnerable to a higher prevalence of bullying. 

Crucially, all three features are present in higher education institutions (HEIs). The hierarchical nature of HEIs reaches beyond the institution itself as academics also work within networks of disciplines outside of their organisation, which can create ‘split loyalties and responsibilities’ and exacerbate power differentials. Male-dominated organisations are also subject to higher rates of bullying ; again, this is a well-established feature of HEIs, as universities are predominantly run and managed by men.

Early work on bullying observed that bullying is more likely in “total” organizations, where ‘dominance and power imbalances are strongly emphasized’ and where there is a strong emphasis on rank, authority, and conformity, or which are competitive and politicized. 

These conditions are typically associated with institutions such as the military or prisons. Still, a pervasive neoliberal ideology that inscribes corporatisation and managerialism throughout the higher education sector foregrounds these conditions within higher education, both nationally and internationally.

…despite evidence that bullying has a substantial negative impact, both at the level of individual health and organizational productivity and costs, organisations typically fail to prevent or ameliorate it. Barratt-Pugh and Krestelica refer to bullying in HEIs as culturally resilient, despite extensive policy regimes, due to hierarchical and bureaucratic structures that embed power inequalities, which are further intensified by the move towards a more competitive, individualistic, and managerialist model. They argue that, while anti-bullying policies are essential, they only represent the first stage in changing HEI cultures and are futile without ‘authentic’ management intent…

 

…Several situations involved perpetrators who were senior academics; however, there were also situations recounted that were better characterised as upward bullying or mobbing by a group of peers. Both academic departments, labs and specialised units provided contexts for bullying. However, regardless of the context and situation, as Fran stated—‘it’s all power dynamics’. Participants consistently identified issues of power and control as central to their experience of being bullied, repeatedly using words such as ‘belittling’, ‘undermining’, ‘excluding’, ‘undercutting’ and ‘blocking’. Both position[al] power and social or emotional power were evident.

What is striking is that once targets start to recognise bullying, they are in no doubt that the perpetration of bullying is an exercise of power and that they are being targeted to reduce or circumscribe their power, thus rendering them impotent. Bullying was interpreted primarily as a pernicious exercise of power as opposed to an escalating aggression or conflict…

Changing power dynamics in the HEI often result from professional envy on the part of the perpetrator when, for example, the target develops an independent research profile. This results in what may be seen as a challenge to their superior’s dominance and professional status. Anna’s comments were as follows: “… we were quite research-aligned and so… me coming into the department was a bit of a threat to him and he wanted me to act more like a senior postdoc in his group rather than pursuing my research interests”.

 

… A sense of organisational betrayal pervaded. A loss of trust was evident throughout the data. Participants were cynical and attributed this to their experience of having had faith in an organisational process that revealed itself to be unjust, unfair and, employing one participant’s word, dishonest. Cynicism was reflected in a shift in priorities and a greater focus on self-preservation, even at the expense of colleagues' workloads. There were references to disengagement, increased caution around others, and a decreased expectation of justice or fairness within the organisation, or even the sector…

 

Despite all the institutions having anti-bullying policies (all Irish universities, at the time of data collection, had anti-bullying or dignity at work policies in place), it is abundantly clear that they are not affording protection to all staff. The systems, processes and procedures in place to address bullying and provide redress are not nuanced enough to accommodate the complex behaviours and power plays involved in bullying in HEIs. They appear to assume a rationality behind behaviours, stripped of power dynamics, which the data here show is unrealistic, and which risks aggravating the damage already inflicted by bullying. Indeed, these findings suggest that the institutional response, or lack thereof, can sometimes be more [re]traumatising than the act itself, as it calls into question one’s worldview…

 

Hodgins, M., Fahie, D., MacCurtain, S., Kane, R., & McNamara, P. M. (2024). "My Core Is Cracked"-Bullying in Higher Education as a Traumatic Process. International journal of environmental research and public health, 21(11), 1462. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21111462

The effects of long-term workplace bullying on academics

Long-term workplace bullying can have significant adverse effects on academics, impacting their psychological well-being, job performance, and overall career prospects.

Negative consequences of workplace bullying:

Psychological and Emotional Effects: Workplace bullying can lead to increased stress, mental distress, sleep disturbances, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and even work-related suicide. Victims may experience a loss of self-esteem and feelings of isolation, powerlessness, confusion, and helplessness.

Impact on Job Performance: Bullying negatively affects a person's ability to perform their job, leading to decreased productivity, increased absenteeism, and difficulty concentrating. Bullied workers may struggle with their ability to work or concentrate, have trouble making decisions, and experience lower productivity.

Behavioral Changes: Victims of workplace bullying may spend time avoiding the bully, networking for support, planning how to deal with the situation, ruminating about the problem, and trying to defend themselves.

Effects on Well-being: Studies show that bullying impairs psychological well-being and erodes self-esteem, leading to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, burnout, negative self-evaluations, and physical health problems.

Risk of Job Loss: Targets of workplace bullying are more likely to change employers and face a higher probability of unemployment in the long run. Workplace bullying is linked to a perceived loss of professional reputation, bad references, motivational problems, and a loss of self-confidence, increasing the likelihood of unemployment.

Organisational Impact: Workplace bullying can create a hostile work environment, impact workers' compensation claims, promote absenteeism, reduce productivity, and result in costly legal issues.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-effect-of-long-term-workpl-oDy_5eOdRQu8Y7NzvzMJ2Q

The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors

 

Kenneth Westhues, professor emeritus at the University of Waterloo, in his 2006 book, The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors, Westhues developed a list of criteria to identify mobbing. Amongst them:

• The target is popular and high-achieving. Mediocre performers tend not to arouse the eliminative impulse in peers.
• Unanimity prevails among colleagues: “The loss of diverse opinion is a compelling indication that eliminative fury has been unleashed.”
• The charges are vague and fuzzy.
• Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
• Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e.g., apart from the annual performance review.
• Adding up the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
• A lack of due process.
• The rhetoric is overblown. “The more fervent, excited and overwrought the language used against the target, the less likely is the basis for exclusion of anything but a collective will to destroy.”
• The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatising, exclusionary labels are applied.

The Silent Crisis: Bullying Among Nurse Educators in Higher Education

 

Bullying in nursing is a well-documented issue, but less attention has been given to the experiences of nurse educators who face hostility within academic institutions. While nursing education should promote professional growth, collaboration, and mentorship, many nurse educators—especially those in tenure-track positions—experience bullying from colleagues, senior faculty, or administrators. These hostile work environments have profound consequences, leading many talented educators to leave academia entirely or return to clinical practice...

The Scope of Bullying in Nursing Academia

Bullying in higher education is a widespread and systemic issue. Keashly and Neuman (2010) found that faculty members in academia frequently experience bullying behaviors, including persistent criticism, professional exclusion, and attempts to damage their reputation. These behaviors often go unaddressed due to power imbalances, hierarchical structures, and institutional tolerance for incivility. Within nursing education, bullying often manifests in ways that undermine an educator’s credibility and professional standing, such as excessive scrutiny of work, withholding of resources, and exclusion from key academic opportunities. 

The hierarchical structure of academia places tenure-track faculty at particular risk, as they are vulnerable to unfair evaluation practices, disproportionate workloads, and a lack of mentorship from senior faculty. Levecque et al. (2017) found that faculty in highly demanding positions—such as those pursuing tenure—are at greater risk for mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and burnout. When bullying is added to these pressures, the result is often faculty disengagement or attrition. 

The Impact on Nurse Educators and Institutions

The consequences of academic bullying extend beyond the individuals directly affected. Nurse educators who experience bullying report increased stress, reduced job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion (Clark, Olender, Cardoni, & Kenski, 2011). When educators feel unsupported, their ability to mentor students and contribute to nursing scholarship declines, diminishing the overall quality of nursing education. 

This loss of faculty members is particularly concerning, given the ongoing nursing faculty shortage. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) reports that thousands of qualified nursing applicants are turned away each year due to a lack of faculty. Bullying-induced faculty turnover exacerbates this crisis, forcing institutions to rely on fewer educators to meet growing educational demands. Furthermore, a toxic workplace culture may discourage younger nurse educators from entering academia, perpetuating the shortage and reducing the profession’s ability to educate future nurses. ...

From: https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/academic-leadership/the-silent-crisis-bullying-among-nurse-educators-in-higher-education/

The industries most at risk for bullying

Workplace bullying can occur in any industry, but specific sectors face a heightened risk due to their structural and operational dynamics. For example, industries with rigid hierarchical structures may create an environment where authority figures can exploit their power and mistreat subordinates. 

Factors that foster a toxic work environment and increase the likelihood of bullying include:

 

●Rigid hierarchical structures 

●High-pressure environments 

●Frequent interpersonal interactions 

●Lack of clear communication 

●Unbalanced workloads 

●Authoritarian leadership styles 

●High employee turnover 

●Limited career advancement opportunities 

The industries most affected by workplace bullying are retail (60%), healthcare (30%-60%), hospitality (38%), education (32%), and technology/IT (30%). 

https://www.onfocus.news/the-industries-most-at-risk-for-bullying/