Workplace Bullying Among Higher Education Faculty: A Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature - Part 2

 

...The structural characteristics of higher education institutions make university settings susceptible to abuses of power that produce ongoing, and frequently escalating, perceptions of injustice... Faculty self-governance processes that include the nomination and election of a Chair from within a department create situations in which department leaders possess limited management experience or training and instead have spent their careers in competitive isolation as they confront the challenges of publication, teaching, service, tenure and promotion... As a result, Chairs may not have the skills or motivation to effectively intervene to stop abusive conduct among faculty. In addition, in many universities, Chairs do not have actual organizational power when making decisions and so when conflicts arise, Chairs must rely on their Dean to enforce an administrative action.

This organizational arrangement creates situations in which Chairs can become targets of their own faculty who may refuse to cooperate in good faith, or who undermine them through the Dean’s authority. Alternatively, a Chair who is themselves a bully can use the lack of accountability that accompanies self-governance processes to carry out abusive conduct in relative isolation...

 

In addition to management structures that are easily corrupted, the retention, tenure and promotion process in university workplaces leads to organizational incentives for untenured faculty or those seeking promotion to remain silent in the presence of abusive conduct, either toward themselves or others. Professors working toward tenure or promotion depend on positive recommendations from their department peers, their Chair, their Dean, college-level and university-level committees, as well as the University Provost and President. Each of these recommendations are typically made in unmonitored and confidential meetings and through the use of often subjective, ambiguous or vague performance evaluation policies.

 

Processes to ensure compliance with existing policies, or mechanisms to promote ethical, unbiased and thorough performance evaluations are not a typical aspect of university institutional structures... It is easy to see the many ways such a structure can be manipulated to arrive at, and then justify a negative recommendation. As a result, the processes surrounding these decisions, as well as the decisions themselves become mechanisms through which abusive conduct is perpetrated...

 

...qualitative study of targeted faculty reported that faculty with previously strong performance reviews found their evaluations suddenly negative, seemingly without warning. Participants describe receiving reviews in which objective accomplishments were ignored, while narrow and minor issues (such as student evaluations from one course), were overemphasized in order to justify a negative performance evaluation decision...  targeted faculty described having guidelines for publication changed during the process to exclude their scholarly achievements from review...  that the threat of negative tenure and promotion decisions was a persistent fear among targeted faculty...

 

Lemon, K., & Barnes, K. (2021). Workplace bullying among higher education faculty: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(9), 203-216.

Workplace Bullying Among Higher Education Faculty: A Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature

 

Characteristics of the target

...Some research has focused on professional and personality characteristics of the target that may provoke envy or other negative emotions in individuals with low levels of emotional maturity. For example, characteristics such as integrity, loyalty, superior competence, cooperativeness, creativity, positivity toward work and a willingness to engage in new ideas are characteristics that are associated with being a target of workplace bullying and mobbing (Davenport et al., 1999; Westhues; 2005). Reasons for such dynamics may be related to sociological research suggesting that work groups respond to high-achieving and low achieving members in characteristic ways (Goode, 1967; Hermanowicz, 2013). Goode (1967) suggested that once a less-competent individual becomes a member of a work group, they are more likely to be protected than fired, because a termination would draw negative attention to the group. Hermanowicz (2013) extended these ideas to consider what happens when the less-adept comprise the majority of the group and are confronted with a high-achieving member. 

Applying this question to higher education settings, Hermanowicz (2013) suggests that, rather than protecting the highly competent, a mediocre group will engage in marginalization processes that relegate the individual to an insignificant and powerless position. Tenure often prevents outright termination of the targeted individual and so abusive conduct in the form of bullying and mobbing are used as covert tactics to expel a highly-competent member from a mediocre group (Hermanowicz, 2013). In this context, having tenure and being highly competent can actually increase the likelihood of abusive conduct being used as a strategy for removal from the work group...

Tenure and duration of the bullying experience

A distinctive feature of workplace bullying and mobbing among faculty in higher education settings is its lengthy duration, often lasting for multiple years (Hollis, 2015; Keashly & Neuman, 2008). The uniqueness of tenure creates situations in which faculty often must interact with one another in long-term relationships. As a result, if abusive conduct develops, it may continue for long periods of time (BerrymanFink, 1998; Twale, 2018). Due to the protections of tenure, both termination and resignation in higher education workplaces is low (Taylor, 2013; Westhues, 1998). 

As a result of this job security, combined with the highly specialized nature of knowledge and training that faculty members must possess in order to enter the higher education field, many may be unable or reluctant to leave an abusive work environment. For an academic, the process of changing jobs or leaving academia altogether may include accepting a lower salary and working below one’s competence level, as well as the prospect of beginning a new career trajectory altogether. Simultaneously, the difficulties in employment termination create situations in which bullying may be used as a mechanism to push someone out of the organization (Keashly & Neuman, 2013; Taylor, 2013; Westhues, 2005)...

Attributes of the bully

An understanding of the typical characteristics of workplace bullies in higher education is hindered by a lack of knowledge surrounding the intentions of perpetrators (Einarsen et al., 2016). However, it is possible to draw on research with targeted faculty to illustrate the perceived attributes of perpetrators of workplace bullying and mobbing in higher education (Lewis, 2004; Persky, 2018). Scholars note these characteristics share similarities with the diagnostic indicators of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Piotrowski & King, 2016; Ross et al., 2019). Such indicators include: the need to obtain admiration in order to self-regulate emotions and self-esteem; seeing oneself as exceptional and entitled to special treatment; impairments in empathy; and interpersonal relationships that are largely superficial and used for personal gain (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These attributes are associated with an inflated sense of self that easily becomes threatened in challenging and competitive environments.

Given the highly competitive nature of academia, and its narrow focus on individual achievements, it is not surprising that targets report bullying behaviors indicative of pathological personality traits. Descriptions of workplace bullies in higher education are replete with these types of attributes. Wilkin (2010) reports that bullies are described as “charismatic,” “seductive,” “a pit bull,” “vindictive,” “unprofessional,” “paranoid,” “manipulative,” and “narcissistic.” Targets in Burris’ (2012) study described bullies as sociopathic, manipulative, and intimidating. Bodensteiner (2017) reports that targets perceived the intentions of bullies as self-serving so that they could improve their rank or status...

The types of organizational cultures in which abusive conduct is pervasive are indicative of the “toxic triangle” of destructive leadership (Padilla, 2007). Pelletier et al. (2019) applied this model to a higher education workplace to shed light on the harmful and abusive interactions that developed between a new university president and faculty. The toxic triangle includes leaders at the top who are attention-seeking, narcissistic, self-serving and perpetuate false dichotomies based on who is with them and who is against them (Pelletier, 2010). Toxic leaders are actively supported by individuals who collude with them, either because they share their values, or because they view alignment with the leader as the best way to capitalize on the situation for professional and personal gain. 

Another part of the toxic triangle includes those who do not actively support the destructive leader, but do conform to the organizational culture for various reasons, such as: 1) a belief that employees should comply with authority; 2) a fear of retaliation if they challenge the leader; 3) an emotional need to be liked by the leader; or 4) a sense of hopelessness about the situation. The final components of the toxic triangle are aspects of the work environment that make it particularly susceptible to destructive leadership, including harmful social norms, instability in the organization, fears of retribution, and a lack of accountability (Pelletier et al., 2019).

Pelletier et al. (2019) observed bullying and mobbing to be present in all aspects of the toxic triangle of destructive leadership. Destructive leaders are themselves abusive and are one source of bullying in the organization. Susceptible followers perpetuate this abuse through their support of the leader and their willingness to engage in bullying behaviors, or remain silent in the presence of mistreatment of others. In Pelletier et al.’s (2019) case study these dynamics were observed to create feedback loops of escalating abusive conduct combined with a lack of resistance to these behaviors. In particular, they characterized the widespread and rigid unwillingness to acknowledge abusive conduct in this organization as a type of “paralysis"...

Lemon, K., & Barnes, K. (2021). Workplace bullying among higher education faculty: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(9), 203-216.

‘Divestors of People’©

‘Divestors of People’© is a standard awarded to Higher Education institutions that excel in mismanaging, bullying, and harassing their staff.

Nominations are open to all staff in all universities. Institutions qualify for the ‘Divestors of People’© award if they meet at least 50% of the criteria. Nominators can remain anonymous.

The criteria are:

1. Lack of strategy to improve the under-performance of the institution regarding workplace bullying. This does not exist, is not clearly defined, or is not communicated to staff.

2. There is a lack of coherent investment in staff development.

3. Whatever strategies exist to manage staff, these are implemented to promote cronyism, incompetence, favoritism, or inequality and to disguise management failures.

4. The capabilities managers need to learn and manage staff are not defined. Managers received little or no training to improve their communication, behaviour and people skills.

5. Managers are ineffective in leading, managing, and developing staff—high levels of over-management or under-management.

6. Staff are not encouraged to take ownership and responsibility through involvement in decision-making. There is no accountability and transparency in the decision-making process.

7. Staff are demoralised, de-skilled or demoted. The working environment is toxic.

8. Lack of improvements in managing people is chronic.

9. The working environment shows high levels of work-related stress.

10. Internal grievance procedures are used selectively by managers against staff. Some managers are untouchable despite their failures.

11. Staff report elevated levels of bullying and harassment by managers. Fear prevails among the silent majority.

12. The governing body is detached from the staff and is in the same bed with the management. Governors show no interest in the affairs of the academic staff.

University of Aberdeen staff speak out over claims of 'bullying' and 'culture of fear'

University of Aberdeen staff have spoken out and made claims that the management of the city's oldest institution has created a culture of "fear and suspicion."

The claims from multiple whistleblowers come after an internal survey discovered that around 11% of staff at the university had been 'bullied or harassed' at work.

David Anderson, a professor in anthropology, was one of the staff members who spoke up, as he claimed staff were left feeling 'disempowered.'

He told The Herald: "People in certain departments are very overworked. They are afraid senior management will come after them, so they don’t speak up or say no.

"People feel completely disempowered. There is no evidence that feedback is being implemented."

Another anonymous staff member raised their concerns also, stating: "People who ask difficult questions are being targeted with the effect of silencing them, creating a chilling effect on free speech.

"We have been stripped of our autonomy as academics. It makes many of us feel disrespected."

The claims come after the university revealed in late 2023 that it was facing a funding black hole of £15m following a significant drop in the number of international student enrolments.

More than 200 staff members were also let go through several rounds of voluntary severance, with tensions heightened when 30 modern languages staff received 'risk of redundancy' letters.

In a statement, a University of Aberdeen spokesperson said: "The UK higher education sector is experiencing unprecedented financial challenges, and the University of Aberdeen took early and effective action to make £19m of in-year savings.

"During this change programme we offered voluntary severance and enhanced retirement packages, reviewed the courses that we offer and provided regular financial updates to staff...

From: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/university-aberdeen-staff-speak

Also: Aberdeen University staff open up on ‘bullying’ and ‘disrespect’

Bully University? The Cost of Workplace Bullying and Employee Disengagement in American Higher Education

Abstract

Workplace bullying has a detrimental effect on employees, yet few studies have examined its impact on personnel in American higher education administration. Therefore, two central research questions guided this study: (a) What is the extent of workplace bullying in higher education administration? and (b) What is the cost of workplace bullying specifically to higher education administration? Participants from 175 four-year colleges and universities were surveyed to reveal that 62% of higher education administrators had experienced or witnessed workplace bullying in the 18 months prior to the study. Race and gender were not parameters considered in the sample. A total of 401 (n = 401) higher education respondents completed the instrument from various departments on a campus: academic affairs, student affairs, athletics, development/advancement, admissions/financial aid, information technology, arts faculty, sciences faculty, and executives. Employment disengagement served as the theoretical lens to analyze the financial cost to higher education when employees mentally disengage from organizational missions and objectives. With this lens, the study examined staff hours lost through employee disengagement and the associated costs.

From: https://journals.sagepub.com/