American University library staff detail culture of bullying by supervisors

Across the two years she has worked at the American University library, Sydney Henry has compiled a notebook of her experiences. The pages chronicle, she says, a years-long pattern of intimidation and belittlement by supervisors. 

Henry said she was left out of meetings and was told she was lucky her employers gave her a chance despite her youth. Henry, 23, is the library’s communication and event coordinator. 
When she was assigned work beyond her pay grade and started seeking a raise, Henry met with University Librarian Jeehyun Davis, a member of the Dean’s Council and Henry’s top supervisor. Davis told her she likely wouldn’t do anything going through the Staff Union or human resources, Henry said.  

Henry, a unionised employee, had already filed a pay grievance through AU’s Staff Union in February 2025. When her supervisors learned of this, the bullying increased, Henry said. 
Henry is not the only library employee to say she’s faced mistreatment specifically from Davis, nor is she the only one to report it with no actionable results. Davis declined to sit for an interview but said in an emailed statement she “cannot comment on individual personnel matters” and that she takes “any concerns about workplace culture seriously and supports the university’s established processes for reviewing and addressing them.” 

According to Henry, others have reported Davis to the University over the last two years. One of those staff members is Bella Goris, now an adjunct professor in the College of Arts and Sciences, who formerly worked in the Office of Inclusive Excellence and for budget and personnel in the library.

Goris said their experience working in the library was similar to Henry’s. They too said they were asked to do work beyond their job description and paygrade and were belittled and excluded once they started asking for a raise.  

In spring 2025, Goris said she filed a Title IX complaint against Davis for discrimination, but never heard back from the Office of Equity and Title IX. The Eagle has not seen documentation of the complaint because it was made verbally and in person at the office...

According to Elison, the system to report workplace bullying at AU isn’t responsive enough to address the scope of the issue. He said he’s seen staff become so disillusioned with the reporting process that they don't follow through.

“It’s not even worth the trauma of going and reporting it,” he said. “Sometimes you just need to leave.” 

Henry, who first filed a grievance with the union in February 2025, said she saw an increase in mistreatment and described the reporting process as exhausting.

When it comes to reporting workplace mistreatment, staff at AU generally have two options: going through AU human resources directly, or union-eligible employees can file a grievance through AU’s Staff Union, part of Service Employees International Union Local 500.

Employees can also file a Title IX complaint through the Equity and Title IX Office when they feel like they’re being discriminated against based on their sex or gender identity. Goris said she filed a Title IX complaint regarding her experiences in the library but never heard back from the office...

From: https://www.theeagleonline.com/article/2026/01/american-university-library-staff-detail-culture-of-bullying-by-supervisors

Professors call for overhaul of university governance - University of Luxembourg

Two University of Luxembourg professors are calling for the institution’s governance to be overhauled as it approaches its 25th anniversary, and with an audit to get underway in the coming weeks.

In an open letter published Saturday in the Luxemburger Wort, Luc Heuschling, a professor of constitutional law, and Benoît Majerus, a European history professor, described the university as hierarchical and not democratic enough.

The letter was published as the government is preparing an audit of the university’s governance structures.

The audit comes after persistent media reports of bullying and mismanagement within the institution – including by this newspaper – which began after masked protesters had handed out flyers to members of parliament last September, warning of an “alarming situation behind the scenes.

Heuschling and Majerus criticised the university’s response to the reports, saying it had attempted to discredit the testimonials, describing them as personal frustrations while also presenting the university as the victim.  

Complaints mechanisms within the university appear not to fulfil their role if members of staff feel no other recourse than turning to the press, they said.

From: https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/university-of-luxembourgs-professors-call-for-governance-overhaul-amid-bullying-claims/140217072.html

Some 2025 posts...

Academic bullying is hidden in plain sight

... And, above all, there is no mention of emails, emails, emails: hundreds, thousands of them, full of unnecessary or impossible jobs – emails telling you off for not doing said unnecessary or impossible jobs – emails undermining you in front of others – emails magnifying minor failures – or emails damning with faint or ambivalent praise. Those emails sent on Monday mornings, to upset you at the start of the week – emails sent on Friday afternoons, so you dwell on them all weekend. Emails, emails, emails incessantly scything to and fro above you, like a razor-sharp pendulum, looming closer and closer…


https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2024/09/academic-bullying-is-hidden-in-plain.html

-------------

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 have limited management experience or training and have instead spent their careers in competitive isolation as they confront the challenges of publication, teaching, service, tenure, and promotion...

https://articlegateway.com/index.php/JHETP/article/view/4601

-------------

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, an outcome of this process… 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-020-00235-6

 -------------
The effects of long-term workplace bullying on academics
...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...

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-effects-of-long-term-workplace.html

 -------------
“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...

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2025/06/my-core-is-crackedbullying-in-higher.html

 ------------
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 than in non-academic settings, one suspects there would have been an even larger gap between the two settings if all incidents had been reported. 

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2025/10/academic-bullies-leave-no-trace.html

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

  
  

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/