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/

Cambridge University accused of bullying ‘cover-up’ as internal survey revealed

 Only a quarter of staff at Cambridge University are satisfied with how their department tackles bullying and harassment, according to an internal survey seen by the Observer.

Cambridge undertook its staff culture survey in January 2024 and is now facing accusations from academics that it tried to cover up the “grim” results, which have been released through freedom of information (FoI) requests.

A spokesperson for the university said this weekend that it was supporting departments to take action where issues had been identified. They said: “We take concerns about bullying seriously and strongly encourage anyone who experiences such behaviour to report it.”

Just 27% of staff agreed that they were happy with attempts to address bullying and harassment – with some of the most high-profile science departments scoring especially badly – and only half of staff (52%) said their department supported their mental health and wellbeing.

The results have prompted an academic at the university, astrophysicist Prof Wyn Evans, to break with tradition and seek nominations in the forthcoming election of Cambridge’s new chancellor on an anti-bullying manifesto, after Labour peer David Sainsbury announced his resignation from the post last year...

A survey by the university and the three main campus unions in 2020 found that nearly a third of staff had experienced bullying or harassment at work in the previous 18 months. Then vice-chancellor Stephen Toope wrote a statement to accompany the survey results, pledging action and stating: “To be a leading institution, we must accept this type of behaviour has no place at Cambridge.”

The university is far from alone in facing challenges of this kind. In 2020, a survey by the Wellcome Trust, one of the largest charitable funders of research in the UK, questioned more than 4,000 researchers across 20 universities, and found that nearly two-thirds of them had witnessed bullying and harassment, and 43% had experienced it themselves.

More than three-quarters of them felt that intense competition to win research grants and publish in high-profile journals – with research departments also competing to perform well in league tables and respond to government initiatives – had created “unkind and aggressive” conditions...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/12/cambridge-university-accused-of-bullying-cover-up-as-internal-survey-revealed

The Peter and Dilbert Principles applied to academe

…individuals can be placed in managerial positions for which they are not competent. Thus, Peter (1969) and Peter and Hull (2011) refer to the Peter Principle, which asserts that within a firm's hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence, which may be an outcome of this process… 

A restatement of this principle asserts that company employees are ultimately promoted out of jobs for which they are capable of doing more or less what is expected of them, a hierarchical position referred to in Peter and Hull (2011) as the “level of competence,” and into positions which are situated in the company hierarchy at what is referred to in Peter and Hull (2011) as the “level of incompetence,” where they are incapable of doing what is expected of them. 

Another possible outcome of the promotion system… occurs when a company’s “most ineffective” workers are promoted to management, an outcome that Adams (1996) refers to as the Dilbert Principle. Put differently, the Dilbert Principle asserts that a company’s least effective employees are ultimately promoted directly to (middle) management without ever passing through what Peter and Hull (2011) describe as the temporary competence stages of the company hierarchy…

...university administrators sometimes engage in a variety of other productivity-stifling behaviors. For example, Faria et al. (2012) provide an economic analysis of “downward mobbing” in academe, describing a university administration’s bullying of productive faculty. This type of productivity-stifling activity may be motivated by professional jealousy, budget concerns, or retaliation for whistle-blowing activity on the part of the faculty, among others… 

These types of systems and their consequences explain why, as Cardoso et al. (2016) point out, academics tend to blame a lack of quality in higher education on the design and functioning of institutional governance and management systems… 

 …more than one-third of all appointments to the highest administrative position in U.S. business colleges and schools—that of dean—come from internal promotions. Given that the professoriate is made up mainly of risk-averse actors, using internal promotion as an incentive system may promote more faculty than is efficient, an example of the Peter Principle. Such a result may also be consistent with productivity-stifling governance systems in academe that lead to misaligned incentive structures and workplace mobbing. Additionally, we find evidence that the tenure of a typical “outside” dean exceeds that of a typical “inside” dean, suggesting that the Dilbert Principle is also an essential feature of management in higher education…

Faria, J. R., & Mixon Jr, F. G. (2020). The Peter and Dilbert Principles applied to academe. Economics of Governance, 21(2), 115-132.

Universities with the highest number of non-disclosure agreements

The universities with the highest number of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) issued between 2014 and 2019 include:

• London Metropolitan University: 473 NDAs.

• University of Central Lancashire: 431 NDAs.

• London South Bank University: 413 NDAs.

• University of Sheffield: 335 NDAs.

• University of Oxford: 256 NDAs.

• Cardiff University: 220 NDAs

These figures highlight universities' extensive use of NDAs, particularly in staff disputes or grievances.

Some universities refuse to provide data on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) due to concerns over confidentiality, legal implications, and institutional reputation. NDAs are often used to protect sensitive information, and disclosing details about their use could violate the terms of these agreements or expose the university to legal risks. 

Additionally, universities may fear that releasing such data could lead to negative publicity or scrutiny, especially if NDAs are perceived as being used to cover up misconduct or suppress complaints. This reluctance is further compounded by the lack of a standardised reporting framework, making it challenging for institutions to share this information transparently.

Source: Perplexity.AI

The cost of non-disclosure agreements in Higher Education

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in higher education have significant financial and reputational costs. Between 2014 and 2019, UK universities issued nearly 11,000 NDAs, with 2,600 signed in 2017-18 alone. These agreements are often used to silence misconduct allegations, such as bullying or harassment, raising concerns about their impact on transparency and accountability.

NDAs can be costly. Some agreements cost as much as £500,000, and institutions like the NHS have spent millions on similar confidentiality clauses. Additionally, negotiating NDAs can lead to costly settlements, with colleges potentially paying between £20,000 and £200,000 in cases involving discrimination claims.

The reputational costs are also significant. NDAs can prevent institutions from addressing systemic issues, as they limit public disclosure of misconduct. This can hinder efforts to improve policies and practices, ultimately affecting the quality of education and the well-being of staff and students.

Recent legislative changes, such as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, aim to curb the misuse of NDAs by banning their use in cases of sexual misconduct or harassment. These reforms seek to protect victims and promote transparency, though their long-term impact remains to be seen.

Source: Perplexity.AI