By Bridget DeFalco & Dr. Peter Crabb
Pennsylvania State University
Hazelton

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

Colleagues







Usually those whose skills, ethics, and independence
are found to be threatening
Students
Administrators
New Hires
Untenured
Tenured
Both Genders


Administrators
Colleagues


Students


Contrapower Harassment
Both Genders


Sense of Inadequacy
Females more likely to engage in same-sex bullying
People With Power Over Others










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 BottomUp)








Belittlement
Eye Rolling
Unwarranted/Unprofessional Remarks
Ostracizing
Withholding Information
Assigned Unreasonable Workload
Excessive Monitoring
Exclusion from Relative Meetings


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





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

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


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

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







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

Through Email


One-on-one Confrontation



Reported as Most Severe Form of Bullying
No Witnesses
In Meetings
In Classrooms






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








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







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%)






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

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

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

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



Early Management Intervention
Focus on Situation, Not the People
Employee Commitment to Stop Bullying


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







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.






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