Academic bullies leave no trace

Academic bullying has recently received much greater attention from stakeholders and decision-makers in the scientific community through news coverage, actions taken against culpable lab leaders, and serious corrective measures taken by large institutions. Though some reports claim higher rates of bullying in academic compared to non-academic settings, one suspects there would have been an even larger gap between these two settings if all incidents were reported. 

Possible reasons for unreported incidents of bullying include, but are not limited to, (i) lack of robust and easy-to-access institutional protocols for reporting incidence, (ii) feelings of insecurity among lab members about their positions and dependence on monthly paychecks, (iii) fear of being fired, (iv) fear of being treated unfairly, and (v) concerns over receiving substandard recommendations for future jobs. These issues are much more threatening for international students/scholars, who are in the US on visas and therefore feel more pressure than domestic lab workers. 

To date, reported incidents of academic bullying have consisted mainly of insults, snubs and/or invasions of privacy by lab leaders. However, higher-level and more serious types of bullying include violations of intellectual property and unfair crediting of authors in scientific publications. 

These kinds of abusive behaviors cause serious and long-lasting effects on both the academic and personal lives of targets and their families. It is therefore pressing that academic institutions and funding agencies offer clear, fair, and accessible protocols for students/scholars to report abusive behaviors of any kind, as free as possible of concerns about recrimination. Ideally, institutions could play a key role in reducing academic bullying by designing fair and thorough reporting systems and minimizing the possibility of reprisal. It should be noted that though well-intentioned institutions may believe their investigations of bullying to be fair and unbiased, their corrective actions against bullies may be insufficient, for several reasons.

A central issue is concern of possible damage to the reputation of the institution. Another important issue is that, compared with bullies in other types of workplaces, bullies in academia are likely to be intelligent enough to leave minimal evidence of their inappropriate actions; e.g., they may use phone or individual meetings rather than emails or public/group meetings to attempt to exercise power over a bullying target. In order to improperly take control of intellectual property or inappropriately alter author positioning, academic bullies may force their targets to sign falsified consent forms stating that they made no contribution or have no rights to publications/patents that actually arose from their own work.

One way for institutions and other stakeholders to combat bullying would be to create strategic plans to identify and eliminate these more-sophisticated forms of false documentation. One strategy might be to create a team of multidisciplinary expert investigators (including lawyers and psychologists) to examine all such documentation for signs of coercion or inaccuracy. In addition, specific trainings should be offered to those at risk of abuse (e.g., students and postdocs) on how report bullying, even when confronted with intelligent bullies who attempt to leave no trace.

From: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6726746/

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