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/

The less talent they have...

 

"The less talent they have, the more pride, vanity and arrogance they have. All these fools, however, find other fools who applaud them." Erasmus,1509.

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…

In the tale by Edgar Allan Poe that famously depicts such a torture device (a scything pendulum, that is, not email), the reader hardly glimpses the torturers themselves. For all but the opening of the story, the Holy Inquisitors remain offstage, operating the torture machinery from afar. This is what technology of many kinds – from inquisitorial pendulums to institutional email to X/Twitter to academic acronyms – facilitates: for torture to be inflicted remotely, for the torturers to remain invisible.

Of course, the beauty of “cyber-bullying” and “trolling” is that the torturers can disown their own torture devices: It wasn’t me, guv’nor. I didn’t do nothing. Perhaps it wasn’t anyone. Perhaps it was the victim themselves crying “Wolf!” Remote bullying can efface itself, X accounts can be anonymised, passive-aggressive emails reinterpreted (Of course I didn’t mean that) – to the extent that the victims themselves come to be suspected of paranoia: There’s no one there, there’s nothing wrong, it’s all in your head, stop imagining things, stop attacking yourself...

... the languages of discipline and bullying can all too easily get mixed up, and the very cleverest bullies know this. So, the best hiding place for a bully is not behind a mobile hut, but within the very disciplinary system that is supposed to deal with them.

I was repeatedly threatened with disciplinary action by my professorial bully, to which my only recourse was to appeal to the same disciplinary system that was being used against me. To no one’s surprise but my own, it didn’t work: my bully’s command of institutional language far outstripped mine.

From: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/academic-bullying-hidden-plain-sight

Organizational Narcissism as an Adaptive Strategy in Contemporary Academia

 ...Stein (2003) suggests that extreme organizational narcissism will possess and behave according to five principles. First, members will believe that the organization is extraordinarily special and unique, to the point of delusion. Second, the organization will be characterised by an all-powerful sense of entitlement and anything of potency will be felt to legitimately belong to it. Third, the organization will be convinced of being omniscient. It will believe to have access to all internal and external information relevant to the organization. Fourth, the narcissistic delusion of the organization will lead it to be dismissive of other organizations, people and information and treat them with triumphant contempt. Fifth, these attributes become pervasive to the point of permanently taking over all organizational functioning (Stein, 2003).

The problem with this adaptive strategy is that it may offer short-term gratification to the individual/organization embracing it, but wreaks havoc among the individuals used as mirrors to reflect the narcissists’ false and idealised self (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Moreover, this strategy is not sustainable and demands increasing resources. In its eagerness to gain visibility and recognition in the marketplace, the organization over engages in self-reflection, at the expense of the full range of organizational stakeholders and public opinion’s expectations (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). When the ideal self is inevitably challenged (by arising problems, etc.), truth or compromise are not the priority of the narcissist/narcissistic organization, instead, the maintenance of a positive self-image is the priority, and if necessary, the narcissist/narcissistic organization lies, deceives and socially manipulates to maintain the internal status quo (Pincus & Roche, 2011). As maintenance of the idealised self is based on deceit and covert manipulation, it is extremely difficult to contain these toxic behaviours whilst they are enacted, until they reach catastrophic proportions (Vazire & Funder, 2006)...

...In a working environment where claimed core values revolve around mutual trust and credibility, narcissistic behaviours can be enacted whilst taking advantage of these beliefs. Workplace bullying is a common behaviour for individuals chronically incapable of feeling empathy in work contexts. The perpetrator does not understand other people’s subjectivity and cannot help but victimize his/her interlocutor when frustration runs high, thus abuse becomes a possible means to achieve goals (Misawa & Rowland, 2015). The strongly hierarchical structure of academia and the highly dependent relationships between senior staff and junior academics allow the practice to go unnoticed and discourage its reporting and mitigation, due to concerns of possible damage to the reputation of the institution (Mahmoudi, 2019)...

From: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-022-09456-2

Can academic bullying be stopped?

...Academic bullying is ubiquitous. A survey of more than 2,000 academics (primarily post-doc and graduate students in life sciences) revealed 84% had experienced “sustained hostile behavior from one’s academic superior.” According to study coauthor and Wake Forest University business professor Sherry Moss, “those who had been bullied or abused were unlikely to report the abuse due to fear of retaliation.”

Silence, however, is a dangerous solution. “One thing that keeps coming up about bullying is the impact on people’s health—insomnia, panic, mania, anxiety, even suicidal ideation—because they feel trapped in a situation or organization that does not support them,” says Leah Hollis, associate dean of access, equity, and inclusion at Penn State University...

...Despite starting as a tenured associate professor, Keller recalls being essentially “ignored” by the department. Although most associate professors were promoted after three years, Keller remained one for a decade. After insisting that it was long overdue, the department relented and began the promotion process—but stopped it once she got pregnant. Eventually, Keller received the promotion, but the battle further ostracized her in the department.

 

... Rather than being ignored like Keller was, some instances of academic bullying aim to destroy a career. That is what happened to Nancy Olivieri, a University of Toronto pediatrics professor. In 1989, she started a clinical trial on a blood disease drug. When data revealed safety concerns about the drug, the pharmaceutical company that made it—and funding the study—curtailed the trial and threatened to sue her if she released the data. When Olivieri argued for more safety testing of the drug, the company did sue her, and her hospital tried to fire her and have her medical license revoked. Fortunately, the Canadian Medical Protective Association defended her...

 

Addressing academic bullying after it occurs isn’t enough; proactive solutions are needed. “Most higher education and research institutions have adequate policies and measures in place to reduce bullying, discrimination, and harassment,” says Janet Hering, professor emerita of environmental chemistry at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne. “They don’t work because they are not taken seriously and implemented.”

Ending systemic academic bullying might require even broader protection—like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects workers. “If I had a magic wand, there’d be federal legislation prohibiting workplace bullying,” says Hollis. “And it would be a serious part of the accreditation reviews of colleges and universities.”

From https://www.science.org/content/article/can-academic-bullying-be-stopped

 

 

 

"... If you’re that unhappy, please do us all a favour and leave. We’ll hold the door open for you so that it doesn’t hit your arse on the way out..." Professor of Law Paul Myburgh

 

An internal survey at the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) law school has revealed issues with its work culture, with one staffer saying they believed there would be “serious consequences” for speaking up against senior leadership.

And one senior professor has clapped back at staff for leaking results of the survey after no action was allegedly taken to address the unsatisfactory results, saying they should leave if they are unhappy.

A spokesperson from AUT said they did not wish to comment on the emails but were concerned about the results of the survey.

Twenty of the 26 law staff responded to AUT’s “Your Voice” survey for 2024, which found the law school had “lower favourable ratings than the faculty average across most factors”, as described by the business, economics and law faculty.

Results of the recent survey leaked to the Herald showed;

• 20% have personally experienced discrimination at work in the past six months
• 35% have personally experienced bullying or harassment at work in the past six months
• 30% feel comfortable reporting inappropriate behaviour
• 5% believe AUT would intervene if someone was not delivering in their role

In a series of emails between law staff following the results, acting dean Mike French said he was not sure there was much to be gained by the school discussing the staff responses and was “not very clear” on how best to address or deal with reports of bullying...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-university-of-technology-survey-uncovers-concerning-law-school-workplace-higher-staff-bullying-rates/G27CB6BR3JGRPI2VX6DP4I4UEI/

Professor of Law Paul Myburgh is a complete arsehole... The arrogance of this piece of shit is based on the impunity the system provides to protect him.

Auckland University of Technology survey uncovers concerning law school workplace; higher staff bullying rates

 

An internal survey at the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) law school has revealed issues with its work culture, with one staffer saying they believed there would be “serious consequences” for speaking up against senior leadership.

And one senior professor has clapped back at staff for leaking results of the survey after no action was allegedly taken to address the unsatisfactory results, saying they should leave if they are unhappy.

A spokesperson from AUT said they did not wish to comment on the emails but were concerned about the results of the survey.

Twenty of the 26 law staff responded to AUT’s “Your Voice” survey for 2024, which found the law school had “lower favourable ratings than the faculty average across most factors”, as described by the business, economics and law faculty.

Results of the recent survey leaked to the Herald showed;

• 20% have personally experienced discrimination at work in the past six months

• 35% have personally experienced bullying or harassment at work in the past six months

• 30% feel comfortable reporting inappropriate behaviour

• 5% believe AUT would intervene if someone was not delivering in their role

In a series of emails between law staff following the results, acting dean Mike French said he was not sure there was much to be gained by the school discussing the staff responses and was “not very clear” on how best to address or deal with reports of bullying.

In response, results of the survey were leaked by staff.

After learning the results of the survey had been leaked, AUT professor of law Paul Myburgh sent an email to all law school staff with the subject line, “the coward who did this should be utterly ashamed of themselves”.

“Civilised human beings wash their dirty linen indoors. If you’re that unhappy, please do us all a favour and leave. We’ll hold the door open for you so that it doesn’t hit your arse on the way out,” the email read.

When Myburgh’s email was also leaked and he received an email from a member of the public saying he was “famous for all the wrong reasons”, Myburgh sent another email to staff, saying they were “Pathetic. Puerile. Pusillanimous”.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-university-of-technology-survey-uncovers-concerning-law-school-workplace-higher-staff-bullying-rates/G27CB6BR3JGRPI2VX6DP4I4UEI/