Abuse of Phd students

My PhD was a complete setup at Brunel university London. They accidentally sent me an email where one of the professors threatened to send me one of her scary emails (ONE OF HER SCARY EMAILS!!!). In a bid to cover up I got a letter of withdrawal in response to my complaint about the email. The review panel of doctors included one that advised me to use hard drug (YES HARD DRUGS) and I have a witness on the day he advised. The other two are addicted to nicotine gum (which results in bipolar). Sadly, one of them was my supervisor. I intend to fight for my right. Can anyone give me advice on how to bring this unworthy group down? Advise is needed. Oh, and I do have copies of the emails which they accidentally sent to me.

Anonymous

DEFENSIBLE ELIMINATIONS

Kenneth Westhues, 2006

The single best way to understand academic mobbing is to study many different cases of it, thereby to grasp the core reality amidst its many different expressions, details, and circumstances. 

Documentation on many such cases is available online (some recent ones here, for example), in my five books on this subject, on many other websites and in many other books.

A complementary way to understand academic mobbing is to study instances of professors being punished or losing their jobs that do not qualify as mobbing cases. One learns to recognize this organizational pathology the same way one does a poisonous plant: by inspecting not only varied specimens in varied locales but also a variety of nonpoisonous look-alikes. One way to grasp what academic mobbing is is to study examples of what it is not.

Below are four examples of professorial elimination that do not quite capture what academic mobbing means, though they resemble it in some respects. I hope to add further examples to this webpage in coming months — toward the end of bringing the subject of study into still sharper focus.

(1) Valery Fabrikant's loss of his job at Concordia University in 1992, and his imprisonment for life. There is a great deal of evidence, especially in the 1994 report by Harry Arthurs et al (summarized in the perceptive article by Morris Wolfe), of a process of administrative mobbing targeting Fabrikant in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It is not far-fetched to understand his shooting spree in August of 1992, resulting in the deaths of four colleagues, as having been precipitated by many years of ill-treatment, harassment, shunning, and humiliation. Yet once Fabrikant had lashed back at his tormentors in murderous rage, there was nothing to do but lock him away. His being convicted of murder and imprisoned on that account does not deny his talent as an engineer or professor, nor should it be seen as retrospective justification of the earlier ill-treatment of him. But no fanatic ganging up at all is implied by the elimination not just from the university but from a free society of a man who has committed multiple murders. (For further discussion of the Fabrikant case, see Eliminating Professors, Chapter 10.)

(2) The firing of Lana Nguyen at the University of Regina in 2001. The Regina administration was prepared to let Nguyen resign quietly (a common indicator of non-mobbing) until news of her offense was leaked to the press. Only then did it commission the public inquiry by Stuart McKinnon and Constance Rooke, which laid out the facts of the case in detail. Essentially, Nguyen was an imposter. Holding only an undergraduate degree, she had laid claim to the PhD earned by her ex-husband and used it to land a position on Regina's engineering faculty. Students had protested en masse against her teaching. Her lawyer argued that male faculty, administrators, and/or students had ganged up on her. There may or may not have been some truth in that allegation, but the fact remains that she committed a clear offense, major falsification of credentials, and was not at all qualified to teach in an engineering faculty. Ganged up on or not, she deserved to lose her job. (For further discussion of the Nguyen case, see The Envy of Excellence, pp. 210, 228.)

(3) Eric Poehlman's resignation from the Universities of Vermont in 2001 and of Montreal in 2005. According to a press release in 2005, from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Poehlman admitted that he falsified and fabricated data in articles and grant applications about his medical research. A student working with him had discovered the fraud and reported it to university authorities. While under investigation at Vermont in 2001, Poehlman moved to an endowed chair at Montreal. Investigations continued by both the University of Vermont and the U.S. government, which had funded his research. As investigators unearthed ever more conclusive evidence of his fraud and as criminal charges came to be laid, Poehlman decided to admit guilt and settle with the U.S. government. He resigned from the University of Montreal in January of 2005. This case appears from press reports as one involving a clear, academically fatal offense by a professor highly regarded by administrators and colleagues at both Vermont and Montreal. It does not at all appear to qualify as a mobbing case.

(4) The dismissal of history professor Leo Johnson from the University of Waterloo in 1983. Having worked with Johnson and read some of his work, I can personally attest to his talent and assiduity as an historian and teacher. Being a Marxist, he was not popular with the Waterloo administration, and he had never completed his Ph.D., but he survived on the faculty well enough until 1982, when he was charged and then pled guilty to nine counts of indecently assaulting young girls, and one count of having sexual intercourse with a girl under 14 years of age. He was sentenced to two years in prison. The university faced the choice of granting him unpaid leave to serve his prison term or firing him. Following the policy and procedures then in place, the university chose the latter. Then and now, I believe this was the right decision. Criminal conviction should not automatically result in a professor's dismissal. It depends on the crime. Sexual predation on children seems to me, as to most people, an offense more than serious enough to warrant elimination from a university position. (For further discussion of the Johnson case, see The Envy of Excellence, p. 36.)

http://www.kwesthues.com/defensible.htm

The many faces of Prof. Hassan Abdalla...

The one on the right...

Producing anxiety in the neoliberal university

 Abstract

This article investigates processes of neoliberalization of the academy. It argues that neoliberalism entails shifts from exchange to competition, from equality to inequality,and turns academics into human capital. It suggests that auditing systems are key mechanisms of neoliberalization that produce unhealthylevels of anxiety and stress in the academy. This paper presents a theoretical analysis of the neoliberal production of anxiety in academic faculty members in universities in Northern Europe. The paper focuses on neoliberalization as it is instantiated through audit and ranking systems designed to produce academia as a space of economic efficiency and intensifying competition. We suggest that powerful forms of competition and ranking of academic performance have been developed in Northern Europe. These systems are differentiated and differentiating,and they serve to both index and facilitate the neoliberalization of the academy. Moreover, these audit and ranking systems produce an ongoing sense of anxiety among academic workers. We argue that neoliberalismin the academy is part of a wider system of anxiety production arising as part of the so-called soft governance of everything, including life itself, in contemporary late liberalism.

Introduction

...Why might we care about this? Perhaps the recent death of Professor Stefan Grimm of Imperial College, London, provides a particularly graphic example of the impact that rising levels of anxiety and stress are having in the academy. It also illustrates how that stress is linked directly to systems of “performance assessment.” Professor Grimm was found dead in his home in September of 2014 after complaining that he was to be fired by Imperial College for failure to meet professorial grant “income targets” of £200,000 per annum as a Principal Investigator (PI) (Colquhoun 2014; Parr 2014a, 2014b, 2015). One month after his death— which was ruled to be a suicide by asphyxiation—an email was sent from Professor Grimm’s Gmail account to colleagues at Imperial College that outlined what he deemed to be his poor treatment. This email stated:

On May 30th 13 my boss came into my office together with his PA and ask[ed] me what grants I had. After I enumerated them I was told that this was not enough and that I had to leave the College within one year max...

There are, of course, other signs of the rising levels of anxiety and stress amongst university faculty. The Guardian newspaper, for example, has put together a collection of more than 40 articles under the title Mental Health: The University in Crisis and with the by-line: “Mental health issues have become a growing problem among students and academics. This series will uncover a hidden side to university life ” (The Guardian n.d.). The New York Times recently published an article about the rise of suicide deaths on campus, linking many of these deaths to the “ culture of perfection ” that predominates in university settings, especially among academic faculty members (Scelfo 2015). This is not surprising given existing levels of work-related psychological stress in the academy...

Complete paper at: https://goo.gl/wkOczp

Tenure Denied - Dartmouth College

At Dartmouth, an Asian-American professor receives unanimous English department backing and is rejected at higher levels. The same happened to a black historian at the college. Many see a disturbing pattern. Tenure denials happen all the time, and they’re most often accepted by fellow professors and students as an unpleasant byproduct of the tenure system. But sometimes such denials rock an institution.

That’s what’s happening now at Dartmouth College, regarding the failed bid of Aimee Bahng, an assistant professor of English who faculty members and students alike say deserves a permanent position on campus. Beyond Bahng, concerned professors say the case speaks to bigger questions about commitments to minority faculty members, interdisciplinary research and shared governance at Dartmouth and beyond.

“The issue of faculty governance at Dartmouth is a heated one, and it extends to broader issues than [this] tenure case -- though that has been a trigger for many of the broader discussions we're having now -- and though it is widely perceived as unjust and shortsighted,” said Annelise Orleck, a professor of history at Dartmouth who criticized the tenure decision at a recent town hall about the findings of a campus climate survey. Several hundred faculty members, students and staff reportedly were in attendance.

In addition to the town hall, professors and students have taken their protest to Twitter under the hashtags #fight4facultyofcolor and #dontdoDartmouth; the latter features students and academics advising would-be applicants to avoid the institution. Public details on Bahng’s bid are few, and she did not respond to a request for comment. But fellow faculty members confirmed that she was unanimously approved by the department's tenure committee. Her bid fell short higher up in review chain, which includes the associate dean, the dean of the faculty and the arts and sciences faculty’s Committee Advisory to the President.

Dartmouth says it’s bound by confidentiality surrounding the tenure process, but that unanimous department decisions don’t always lead to tenure. And that’s true -- the departmental tenure committee merely makes a recommendation. Yet at many institutions, it’s rare for a unanimous faculty vote to be overturned. Orleck and others on campus say Bahng’s case is similar to several others in recent years, in which department votes for tenure and unanimous recommendations for tenure by outside reviewers are overruled by deans or the Committee Advisory to the President.

A number allegedly have been faculty members of color who were respected by their colleagues and students. One such case is that of Derrick White, now a visiting associate professor of history. White did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but his name and failed tenure bid last year -- despite the unanimous vote of his departmental peers and outside reviewers -- have been mentioned in many of the conversations about Bahng.

 In short, the most recent case appears to be something of the last straw on a campus that’s already facing criticism for what many see as a lack of commitment to diversity...

More info: https://goo.gl/BlkVP6

Useless UNISON...

I have been a UNISON member for just under 10 years. I ended up being disciplined and even though the process is still ongoing I believe and has been so for nearly two years, the rep clearly has not read any of the papers. When I put this to him in Jan 2016 and expressed my frustration that despite me explaining verbally to him and providing him with all the information he has requested he still doesn't understand. I am in a bullying situation and UNISION say that I have not followed advice so have refused representation...

Anonymous

UCU is not much better...

Charles Mitchell

http://www.paintinginitaly.com/charles-mitchel-painting-tutor

Bullying happens in academia

I REFER to the letter “Dealing with bullies at work” (The Star, April 15). One such place where bullying often occurs but unknown to most is academia, although university administrators may deny this. The hard truth is bullying in the form of mobbing, camouflaged aggression and harassment exists within academia.

Academics are surprised to experience hazing as those with genuine and good qualifications but from less prestigious universities are continually treated as second-class academics at best by those who graduated from elite universities. Those from lesser-known colleges are often ridiculed even if they can hold their own ideas and defend them. Their fault is the lower rank of their alma mater.

Academics are also bullied by administrators who get them to show support for certain individuals when well-known personalities visit the campus.

Compulsory attendance is a definite method to fill the hall, and a full hall augurs well for the administrators and makes the prominent visitors feel welcomed and comfortable. The postponement of classes to attend these functions doesn’t matter to the administrators. What matters is the acceptable turnout in the hall to please the guests and put the administrators in a good light.

This method is also used to fill the hall to listen to top management outlining the future plan of the university. Attendance is recorded electronically and an academic’s presence or absence will be easily detected. His/her absence is taken to mean that he/she does not have the shared vision of the top management.

This will be used to deny him/her leave, travelling and subsistence allowances when opportunities come to attend and to present papers at a conference.

The difficulty in finding time for replacement classes is the problem of the academics even though it was initiated by the administrators. To solve the problem, academics would do a “speed up” or summary of the lessons or considered the period as cancelled and the topic done.

Presenting papers at conferences abroad is an opportunity for academics to promote their institutions, travel abroad and share their findings and ideas with other academics. But procedures as prescribed by the universities are like invisible barriers discouraging the academics from going.

Attending international conferences locally or abroad is challenging. The acceptance of a paper is testament to its quality as confirmed by a conference’s committee after being scrutinised for its worthiness. Despite this, it is still subjected to approval by the faculty’s or the university’s committees.

A junior academic and those from lesser-known universities may find their papers being rejected perhaps out of envy or jealousy by senior academics who sit on the committees.

To overcome the obstacle and out of fear his/her application may not be approved, he/she may endorse the administrators and/or those seniors as co-writers. Thus, instead of 100% credit as author, he/she has to share it with the “co-authors”. Worse he/she may feel obliged to name the administrators or senior academics as the lead authors. This is tantamount to blackmail and corruption although no money is involved.

Why join the academia? The answer normally centres on love for teaching, writing and research. But over and above these, an academic has to be involved in several activities and hold administrative posts to help his/her faculty.

Though the involvement is voluntary in nature, many academics will admit that they have to comply with the wishes of the administrators. Their high marks in teaching, writing and research will be deemed useless if there is hardly any non-academic contribution.

Those returning with PhDs, hoping that their specialisation will contribute to a university’s academic advancement through research and writing, are also not spared. What surprises them – and is a loss to a university – is their placement as administrators rather than as academics. This defeats the purpose of having a specialist.

In this age of electronic communication, to gain access and quick response, many heads of department set up their own complaint blog online or on Facebook to get feedback from students. Some students have no qualms ganging up on academics. They want excuses to explain their own poor performance and grades and may not hesitate to undermine the genuine efforts of the academics and hold them to ransom. As an analogy, football referees will testify that those who are quick to voice their dissatisfaction are normally from the losing team.

No one deserves to be humiliated, undermined, insulted, shunned, marginalised, ganged up on or even spoken to harshly in any workplace. Academics are no exception.

DR ARZMI YAACOB
Retired academic
Subang Jaya

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2016/04/26/bullying-happens-in-academia/ 

Ian Farren

Working with an unsupportive supervisor

A supervisor was retired in a small research group. The retired professor continued to guide the studies under the power of the new supervisor. After some years, the supervising altered more and more unsupportive for scientific work. This delayed the studies and made our cooperation difficult. The supervisor forbade the retired professor to have relations with companies, which limited his possibilities to guide students and purchase financing. I was workplace bullied during my PhD defense. In order to avoid such problems, I suggest that the power of the retired professor, the actual supervisor, should be expanded. I also highlight the importance of academic freedom for successful studies.

Introduction
A professor emeritus continued to guide our studies after his retirement. Our new supervisor was an old PhD student of the retired professor. The new supervisor had made a consult agreement with the retired professor for handling the studies. The new supervisors’ participation was only partial. As a consequence, I together with the retired professor led our research and purchased our financing.

Our group of two PhD and one licentiate student made progress and created many new research contacts. Also the new supervisor was very interested in our work at the beginning.

A change in atmosphere

The new supervisor had gathered plenty of project financing. It appeared that he started to see our co-operation as a threat for his own studies. Providing samples to be studied to our partners was limited. When I asked, why he did not allow to purchase samples to our partners, while similar samples were provided for the supervisors´ own partners, he answered that our partners were “not buddies of his”. He also explained that this was a way to prevent research competition.

PhD students from our partner group were in a big trouble. They had not produced any meaningful results despite of over two years research. The students asked my help. I understood, how difficult the situation was. Hence, I made a plan that had a good synergy for my studies and would have produced the needed results quickly. We needed a very conventional sample for the experiments. The supervisor forbade purchasing the sample. We, therefore, had to replace the plan with another with much higher risks. Unfortunately the risks of the new plan realized and the partner group students remained without any results after four years work. It appeared that the PhD studies of the partner group students were cancelled.

The supervisor appeared to become reluctant to cover the expenses (like travelling costs) of the retired professor. While my colleague from our group was finalizing his PhD, the supervisor accused the retired professor of “information leakage”. The retired professor had shown my colleagues PhD plan to an international research partner. The supervisor ended the retired professors’ consult agreement and told that he was not allowed to have contacts with companies. The decision was poorly justified. After all, the plan was already nearly 100 % public and the rest were to be published within months. Discussing about it was in line with the long-range policy agreed with the companies. Naturally, the retired professor was shocked of, de facto, being kicked out from the laboratory by his own student. The decision made our guidance and possibilities to purchase funding difficult. Ever since, the retired professor concentrated to make science in another laboratory in another country.

The supervisors’ incomplete presence affected his competence to evaluate the studies. A big project ended after three years. A licentiate student had made plenty of work for the project. The supervisor told that the project had been lousy and decided to dumb the results to a wastebasket. Later, an international scientific evaluator estimated that the project had been of good quality. Also in the opinion of mine, and the other professors related to the project, the results were good and therefore a suitable basis for her licentiate thesis. The licentiate student had to start her studies from the very beginning.

The supervisor and retired professor had some differing views related to my PhD. While the retired professor emphasized the quality of science, the supervisor was focused on timetables and the fluent progress of the PhD process. PhD defense and post-doctoral party was very important for me. At the age of 8, I had witnessed my fathers’ PhD defense. During my studies I was very impressed about the extreme pride of the Custos, when they told about the brand new thesis and doctors. The university guidelines emphasize the nature of the post-doctoral party as “coronation”.

My PhD manuscript was a few months late, because I had faced difficulties in writing my last articles. In addition, two of my last articles were rejected in the beginning of September. Because of the unexpected drawbacks the retired professor recommended adjourning the defense to the next year. This was, however, denied by the Head of Department denied due to budget reasons.

The supervisor reacted to the problems partly in an abusive manner. In a private meeting he laughed to me derisively about the timetable of the thesis.

In order to complete my studies, I needed to write a report from my last experiments. The supervisor called and asked about the situation of the report.

I answered that I would first make the corrections proposed by my pre-reviewers to the PhD manuscript and then finalize the report.

Something was wrong in my answer. The supervisor started to bemoan loudly. It was not possible to continue the conversation. Three days later my forthcoming Custos (supervisor) called again. He told with an extremely impolite way that the defense would be arranged 5 days earlier than already agreed. No apologies were presented. My wife became angry, since this surprise move messed up the efforts to find the place for the post-doctoral party. Only two weeks was left to find a new place for the party and to invite guests to the new place. I had already informed my relatives about the defense date. It was only good luck that no one needed to retract airplane tickets.

PhD thesis must be public 10 days before the defense. One (!) day before this compulsory 10 days deadline Custos (supervisor) called. He shouted to the phone to take the manuscript out of press in the middle of printing. The reason was the minimal corrections (few typographical errors etc.) that had arrived to my last article. Demanding these corrections was not accordance with the practices of the university. It is enough that the article has a permission to be published. The press was upset. I made the small corrections and send the thesis again to the pressing queue. The PhD ceremony was not far from cancellation due to the episode.

My big day dawned. I defended my thesis successfully. Opponent gave praise to the thesis. My family, wife, doctor-father, who paid the post-doctoral party and the workplace were witnessing. Despite of the tight timetable, my wife had managed to book an elegant place for traditional post-doctoral party.

Custos tried to hide his antipathies during the ceremony. He made, anyhow, several sarcastic comments about me such as: "Jee, is he really going to follow the rules" (the procedure of dissertation was discussed together with Opponent). He also carefully avoided saying anything positive about my thesis and presented only negative critics. This was in contrast with his earlier views that had been very favorable for the thesis. Custos became angry, when I mentioned the corrections. ln his speech Custos brought up positive aspects, such as my capability to supply money to the laboratory, but what it came to the thesis itself, he quoted and paralleled the words of the head of the department (apparently, he was not willing to say anything positive from his side personally). The speech included a sarcastic remark about the PhD timetable.

When the supervisor discussed with other people about my work, he appeared to unilaterally focus on its negative aspects such as the thesis being late (I spent plenty of time in answering continuous questions about the difficulties faced during in my party).

During the post-doctoral party, while the supervisor was not around, the retired professor recommended me to change workplace into another laboratory.

Custos left from the party around 23. I escorted him to the door for hand shaking. His facial expression was disrespectful and hand so sluggish that it was difficult to shake.

Next time I saw my Custos two days after the defense. When I arrived his room, his face turned red. We had a very short conversation, since Custos was hardly able to speak anything.

5 weeks after the defense our laboratory engineer called. She had a long experience about salaries. The laboratory engineer was angry and depressed. She had tried to raise my last salary due to my graduation, as was the common practice. My supervisor had, however, refused to raise my salary. The meaning came clear. No thanks in the end.

After the defense I had meet the retired professor and another one of the pre-reviewers. They had started to behave in a peculiar way (avoiding eye contacts etc.).

The behavior of my supervisor was characteristic for workplace bullying /1-4/. The bullying was “subtle”, which is typical for academic environment.

The timing of bullying was worst possible. After all, I had just recovered from the depression caused by the rejected articles. PhD ceremony happens only once in a life and an identity of doctor is a life-long one. Custos has an important ceremonial role. Pride of PhD, if successfully defended, is part of academic culture. One may compare the situation to weddings, where the priest bullies the bride and bridegroom.

After the defense I suffered sleeping disorders and flashbacks. I was not able to read my PhD thesis for many years. In post-doctoral parties I feel myself uncomfortable near the number one table, where the Custos and Opponent sit. My symptoms are typical for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, a common consequence of bullying.

The supervisor has afterwards explained his behavior by accusing me of causing hard stress, since he had promised my thesis being ready by the end of the year and, according to him, I had delayed the completion of my PhD. The supervisors’ critic is imbalanced. The timetable became challenging, because the supervisor had prohibited sending our last article to the editor before he had read it. This was despite of the tight timetable. We waited the comments of the supervisor over a month. We reminded him about the topic. Nothing happened. Finally, the retired professor decided to send the manuscript for the editor without supervisor’s permission, since defense timetable would otherwise collapse.

The end of research branch

Soon after my PhD defense, I left the university. This was a difficult decision. The head of department had hinted that my future might not be at the laboratory. Also the retired professor had recommended me a career outside the laboratory. However, the professors of our partner groups saw my leaving as a big loss.

While I was leaving, I took care about the continuation our research. I guided one master´s thesis maker and purchased financing for a big project. The same licentiate student, whose results the supervisor had earlier abandoned, continued her studies in the project.

We had had good experiences about utilizing master´s thesis in scientific articles. I, therefore, made a scientifically ambitious plan for the master’s thesis worker. The supervisor rejected the plan. He also discouraged us in making any scientific articles.

The last student from our group made her studies without any guidance a long time. Naturally, this hindered her studies.  Finally, she asked help from the project partners and from the retired professor. With the aid of them she was able to finalize her licentiate thesis. The project partners planned to carry on the studies and purchase more financing. The supervisor told, however, that he was not interested to continue. The laboratory even withdraw from the project prior its’ ending. The licentiate thesis was finalized as unemployed.

Later, the research branch has gathered plenty of scientific and financial interest. Meanwhile the big projects at the laboratory ended. This caused lack of finance. At this situation it would had been a wise idea to focus the research on our field again (researchers in close contact with the laboratory had been hoped so). Once terminated, the research branch was difficult to revive. Valuable contacts and know-how had been lost.

What could be learned

Two out of three students, the retired professor and our project partners suffered from supervising that had altered unsupportive for academic work. This prolonged the studies and hindered our cooperation. It had also financial effects, since the income of the laboratory was allocated by means of accepted theses.

The roots of the problems are related to change of generation in supervising. This is a common source of tensions in academy. The new supervisor holds the power, while the studies continue under the guidance of the retired professor, the actual supervisor. I suggest that our problems would have been avoided, if the power and guidance were more clearly concentrated on the hands of the retired professor. The retired professor had originally hoped more power relating to our research. Those universities offering official positions (as a research director etc.) for the retired professors should set a good example. These kinds of positions should be decided at an upper level of the organization and not by one supervisor alone.

I was ordered to cede my thesis for pre-reviewing, although the retired professor, who had handled tens of PhD thesis, had warned that it would be unwise. Do these kinds of orders violate the rights of students? According to the rules of our university, PhD candidate decides his thesis timetable. Budget estimations should not control the graduation timetables.

I would also like to question, whether it is wise to close down research branches in the middle of successful studies. I have been familiarized myself to three such cases. In all of them, the ending of studies has been regretted afterwards.

Finally, I manifest that it is important for researchers to freely implement their ideas. Certainly, co-operation with companies limit the academic freedom. Anyhow, the restrictions should be as minimal as possible. Good ideas are rare and difficult to replace. Research synergy is difficult to build, if the research partners are seen as potential competitors.

References

1. Peyton P.R., Dignity at Work, Eliminate Bullying and Create a Positive Working Environment, Brunner-Routledge, 2003.

2. Rayner, C., Hoel, H., Cooper, C.L., Workplace Bullying, Taylor & Francis, 2002. 

3. Workplace Bullying, Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying

4. Bully On-line: http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/amibeing.htm