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 lowachieving 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.