by bridget defalco & dr. peter crabb pennsylvania state university hazelton

ACADEMIA WORKPLACE BULLYING; AN

OVERVIEWBy Bridget DeFalco & Dr. Peter

CrabbPennsylvania State University

Hazelton

Definition of Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is defined as workplace interaction consisting of any combination of harassment, discrimination, social exclusion, public and professional humiliation, criticism, intimidation, psychological, and sometimes physical abuse that occurs repeatedly and over a  period of at least six months

Who Is Targeted

Colleagues Usually those whose skills, ethics, and

independence are found to be threatening Students Administrators New Hires Untenured Tenured Both Genders

Who Perpetrates

Administrators Colleagues

Sense of Inadequacy Students

Contrapower Harassment Both Genders

Females more likely to engage in same-sex bullying

People With Power Over Others

Methods of Bullying

Incivility Disregarding Your Concerns Ignoring Contributions Intimidation Rumors Subtle Sexism and Racism Undermining Authority Humiliation in Presence of Colleagues Shouting Subordinate Style (Student to Faculty and

Bottom-Up)

Methods of Bullying (Cont’d)

Belittlement Eye Rolling Unwarranted/Unprofessional Remarks Ostracizing Withholding Information Assigned Unreasonable Workload Excessive Monitoring Exclusion from Relative Meetings

“Mobbing” in Academia

Definition: Form of Organizational Pathology in which coworkers gang up and engage in ongoing rituals of humiliation, exclusion, unjustified accusations, emotional abuse, and general harassment in their malicious attempt to force a targeted worker out of their workplace.

The Term Originates from the similarities to Bird’s Mobbing Activities

Methods of Mobbing

Attack on Target Self-Expression Attack on Target Social Relations Attack on Target Reputation Attack on Target Professional Life Attack on Physical & Mental Health of

Target

Phases of Mobbing

PHASE I: Critical Incident Target accused of unacceptable behavior Accusation gives mobbers justification to take

administrative actions whether accusation is real or perceived

PHASE II: Mobbing & Stigmatizing Aggressive acts and psychological assaults

against target More people have co-opted into mobbing

process Target has been instilled with terror and fear

Phases of Mobbing (Cont’d)

PHASE III: Personnel Management Administration seriously enters into the

mobbing usually after having ignored or minimalized the problem

Target is blamed for problem Institution creates explanations based on

personal characteristics rather than environmental factors

Phases of Mobbing (Cont’d)

PHASE IV: Incorrect Diagnosis Administration allies with mobbers Target is constructed as “Difficult, Under

Extreme Stress, or Mentally Ill” If Target seeks psychological help, Target risks

being labeled with incorrect diagnosis such as “Paranoia, Adjustment Disorder, or Character Disorder”

PHASE V: Expulsion Target forced out of organization by dismissal

or resignation Mobbing process continues to justify actions

taken

Targets of Mobbing

The Targets of Mobbing Generally Honest, Successful, and Loyal to Organization

Professors with Many Publications High Salaries High Evaluation Scores Foreign Born Speak with Accent Mobbing Targets Frequently Wish to Leave Jobs,

But Many Stay due to Pursuit of Tenure or Because They are Tenured

Where or How Bullying Occurs in Academia

Through Email Reported as Most Severe Form of Bullying

One-on-one Confrontation No Witnesses

In Meetings In Classrooms

Underlying Causes

Organizational Culture Being “Foreign-Born” Difference from Majority in Sex, Sexual

Orientation, or Credentials Belonging to a Discipline with Ambiguous

Standards Working Under a Punitive Administrator Member of Financially Strained Academic

Unit

Underlying Causes (Cont’d)

Power Games Paranoia Manipulative Approach to Management Misdirected Politics Opportunism Mirrored Behavior (Target becomes Bully) Management Ignores or Misinterprets

Problem Tenure (or hope of achieving tenure)

Extends Length of Time Employees Tolerate Bullying

Methods of Bullying by Students(Contrapower Harassment)

Sleeping in Class (78.3%) Request for Easier Assignments/Exams

(76.1%) Engaged in Non-Class Activity During

Class (71.3%) Continuous Interruptions During Class

(67.5%) Showed Disdain (65.7%) Answered or Talked on Cell Phone

(61.3%) Verbally Disrespected or Challenged

Authority (60.7%)

Consequences of Bullying in Academia

Interfere with Job Performance Create Hostile Work Environment Increased Employee Turnover Negative Perception of University Reduced Employee Engagement Impact on Health and Welfare of Employee

Stress Frustration Anger Demoralization Powerlessness Lowered Self Esteem

Consequences of Bullying in Academia (Cont’d)

Increase of Time Wasted Need to talk with colleague repeatedly

Behaviors Learned and Values Learned at University Carried by Students into Workplace

Legal Issues Governmental Legislation Required

Consequences of Mobbing

Damage to Target is an Injury Workplace Safety and Health Issue

In Extreme Cases, Can Lead to Suicide Lack of Commitment to Staff Higher Absenteeism Bystanders More Likely to Join Mobbers

than Show Compassion toward Target

Suggested Remedies

Implement Policies on Workplace Behavior Specify What Constitutes Bullying

(Harassment) Process for Dealing With Bullying Cases Consequences for Frivolous Claims

Educational Program for Faculty, Administrators, and Staff

Prohibit Harassing Communication Between Faculty

Effective Counseling Intervention at All Levels

Suggested Remedies (Cont’d)

Early Management Intervention Focus on Situation, Not the People Employee Commitment to Stop Bullying

Conclusion

Academic Bullying is a Type of Psychological Bullying that Predominantly Occurs at Colleges and Universities.

Academic Bullying Will Not Stop until Colleagues and Administrators Actively Say “NO” to Bullying Behaviors

References Cassell, M.A. Bullying in Academe: prevalent, significant, and

incessant. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4. 33-44.

Fogg, P. (2008). Academic bullies. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55. B10-B13.

Giorgi, G. (2012). Workplace bullying in academia creates a negative work environment. An Italian study. Employee Responsibility and Rights, 24. 261-275.

Gravios, J. (2006). Mob rule. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52. A10-A12.

Keashly, L. & Neuman, J.H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32. 48-70. doi: 10.2753/ATP1084-1806321103

Keim, J., & McDermott, J.C. (2010). Mobbing: workplace violence in the academy. The Educational Forum, 74. 167-173.

doi: 10.1080/00131721003608505 Khoo, S.B. (2010). Academic mobbing: hidden health hazard at

workplace. Malaysian Family Physician, 5. 61-67.

References (Cont’d) Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S. & Beneke, M. (2009).

Contrapower harrassment in Academia: a survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual attention. Sex Roles, 60. 331-346. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-` 9560-x

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5. 119-129.

McKay, R., Arnold, D.H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia, a Canadian study. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 20, 77-100. doi: 10.1007/s10672-008-9073-3

Raineri, E.M, Frear, D.F., & Edmonds, J.J. (2011). An examination of the academic reach of faculty and administrator bullying. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2. 22-35.

Tigrel, E.Y., & Kokalan, O. (2009). Academic Mobbing in Turkey. Work Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 55,

963- 970. Zabrodske, K. & Kveton, P. (2013). Prevalence and forms of bullying

among university employees. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 25. 89-108. doi: 10.1007/s10672-012-9210-x