Anti-Bullying and Civility Statement

Mobbing has been labeled an organizational epidemic as well as a psychological crime (Zambrano et al, 2022). The longer bullying persists the easier it may be for bystanders to acknowledge it as the status quo. This may result in bystanders becoming less impartial and more involved, leading to higher incidences and intensity of bullying. This potential multiple-participant dynamic can add a mob effect to the bullying incident (Keashly & Neuman, 2013). 

Given the traditional hierarchical structure and power dynamics of academia, power imbalances can become normative—the status quo. In this way, “mobbing” may also implicates organizations as complicit in a systemic reproduction of a bullying culture.

Incivility can be defined as actions that are rude and in violation of “the norms of mutual respect” (Clark, 2008). It has also been labeled a “new type” of inappropriate behavior utilized by “smart bullies” who may be “aware of the definitions of bullying and want to operate around those definitions” (Heffernan & Bosetti, 2021).

Thought to be “low-intensity antisocial behavior” (Pearson, Andersson, Wegner, 2001), actions of incivility can be high in insensitivity. As a label, incivility provides a general umbrella of inappropriate behaviors that contrast with the morally upright, fair and kind behavior associated with civility.

Incidents of incivility can fall within a range (from low to high) of severity and are not as likely to be influenced by the traditional hierarchy. Formal statuses and positions are less likely to determine the target of an incivility as they can be perpetrated throughout the power dynamic. They may involve:

• Not speaking to or greeting people/ Ignoring people
• Failure to be present, attentive or on-time
• Disregard for professional timeliness in the sending of or replying to emails as well as using disrespectful language in emails
• Lack of common courtesy when using common spaces
• Displaying visible and overt apathy and indifference to colleagues

Power imbalance. While bullying and incivility may occur among and between colleagues who share similar standing, in organizations such as universities and schools, bullying and incivility often occurs where there is an imbalance of hierarchical positioning.

Upper-level Administrator to Faculty and Graduate Students

A seasoned professor and the provost were close friends at a university. Soon after the provost assumed his current position, his friend was appointed to a position overseeing the university’s research efforts. As such he was responsible for reviewing research grant proposals, as well as graduate theses and dissertations. By nature, he was very insecure. On top of that, he had limited experience with publication standards. These two traits combined to create the Intimidator whose actions were characterized by verbal outbursts, a condescending style, and tedious critiques of submitted research manuscripts. His domineering approach and bullying escalated to the point where faculty advisors, department chairs, and deans had to employ ‘intermediaries’ in any communications with the Intimidator. His severe criticism of faculty research proposals and graduate theses and dissertations prompted an official meeting before the faculty senate, where he was uniformly rebuked for his harsh and unwarranted written and verbal attacks. Despite this obvious ‘bullying’ style, the provost dismissed all concerns and retained the Intimidator in his position. When he learned that the provost had accepted a position at a different university, the Intimidator immediately resigned his position. By that point, he had lost all credibility with the university community.

Administrator to Administrator

He was a former faculty member who ascended to a position of authority in the administration by coercion. His arrogant and egocentric tendencies preyed on administrators with two different types of personalities. The first personality type was one where the administrator was equally arrogant and egocentric, but totally unprepared for the job at hand. The Coercer made these individuals believe that they could not perform their administrative tasks without total reliance on him. Over time, the Coercer took every advantage of the observed insecurities to demean the fellow administrators and exert his control over important decisions. The second personality type was one where the administrator harbored few insecurities, and garnered the general respect of peers and subordinates. The more unsuccessful the Coercer was at exerting his main weapon of coercion on this type of administrator, the more frustrated and insecure he became. Therefore, rather than direct attacks, the Coercer sought to demean his secure colleagues through indirect bullying, i.e., attempting to convince others to gang up on the administrators and launch attacks from multiple positions. In the end, the Coercer returned to faculty, but not without exerting significant harm on the institution and those around him.

Administrator to Subordinate

She was also a former faculty member who ascended to a position of authority in the administration. Unlike the Coercer, her weapons were flattery and manipulation. Her peers were mostly flattered; her subordinates were mostly manipulated. As one might imagine, the flattery worked well on the arrogant and egocentric peers. In some cases, these peers were made to believe that they could not function without the Flatterer, and therefore became totally dependent thereon. Those who suffered the most, however, were the subordinates who were manipulated, disrespected, and harassed. The Manipulator spent her days creating meaningless tasks for her subordinates to complete, and took every opportunity to demean their positions and accomplishments. Because her job function was marginal at best, the Manipulator’s creation of the meaningless tasks was an attempt to provide the appearance of her relevance to the operation of the university. Any subordinate who attempted to ‘escape’ and find a job elsewhere at the university was severely reprimanded for not being loyal. In the end, the Flatterer and Manipulator returned to the faculty, but not without exerting significant harm on the institution and those around her.

Faculty to Faculty

They were both in the same department, and by all accounts equal in rank and promise. Personality-wise, they were as different as two individuals could be. One was a former defensive football player who had a history of using his muscle to thwart the opponent. The other had never played any type of contact sport and generally got along with those around him with his non-aggressive behavior. Things went well until the two began dating the same student. This in and of itself was a challenge. However, the real problem surfaced when the football player became the Bully Extraordinaire. It began with general incivility between the two departmental colleagues, and quickly escalated as the Bully Extraordinaire took aim on his departmental colleague whom he viewed as the opponent. His tactics shifted from the physical weapons used in defensive football, to psychological tactics designed to destroy his opponent in the eyes of the ‘prize’, i.e., the female student. These psychological tactics involved harassment, stalking, and lie spreading. At one point, security was called in because of concerns over the personal safety of departmental colleagues. In the end, both colleagues lost when the female student graduated. However, this loss was not without cost to the non-aggressive departmental colleague who felt that his only long-term option was taking a job at another university. The Bully Extraordinaire remained in the department, creating a toxic environment anytime he did not get his way.

Faculty to Staff

She was the ‘Golden Haired Girl’ who charmed her superiors with her supposed intellect and resulting promise. It was, however, a time when universities were very much focused on affirmative action in hiring decisions. This had the effect of creating the perception of an unequal power balance wherein the Golden Haired Girl was considered untouchable. Unfortunately, she took this to heart in her research endeavors (or lack thereof), and in her dealings with departmental staff members. As her research efforts began to falter, she started blaming her shortcomings on the department’s secretaries. She would verbally abuse them in public, and complain about their perceived incompetence to the department chair and anyone else who would listen. In effect, through her abuse, she created a toxic work environment whereby she attempted to shift the blame of her shortcomings from herself to others who could not fight back. Repeated interventions by the department chair were largely unsuccessful, due in part to the fact that the Golden Haired Girl was considered untouchable. One of the departmental secretaries eventually left the position because of the extreme hostilities. The other departmental secretary stayed because she needed the job. In the end, the Golden Haired Girl left the university for a job elsewhere, but not before inflicting severe psychological damage on both secretaries, and damaging the general collegiality in the department

Student to Faculty

She was a much respected faculty member known for her challenging and engaging classes. Her students were generally aware of her high standards, and many rose to the occasion. However, one semester, one of her more difficult classes was largely composed of cohort-based students who knew each other well both inside and outside of class. Several of the students had strong personalities and had been successful in the past in manipulating other class members to their points of view. In this particular class, the first two exams were rigorous, as they had been in past semesters. The class as a whole did not do as well as they thought they should. The strong personality students became Group Bullies, convincing their peers that the problem was not with their lack of mastery of the subject matter, but rather with the faculty member. The more the Group Bullies agitated their peers, the more hostile the situation became, quickly escalating into a group grievance against the faculty member. The grievance involved the department chair, the dean, and ultimately the provost. Largely because of the hostility that the Group Bullies were able to generate, the powers that be sided with the students. This was much to the dismay of the faculty member’s departmental colleagues and the faculty member herself. She felt demeaned and betrayed, and passed away several years later carrying those feelings to her grave. Many of the students went on to graduate. Whether they were successful in their professional endeavors, however, is unknown.

* Vignettes as excerpted from King, C., & Piotrowski, C. (2015). Bullying of Educators by Educators: Incivility in Higher Education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 257-262.

• Columbia University Ombuds Office
• Employee Assistance Program
• Columbia Anti-Bullying Initiative
• Anti-bullying Workgroup Report
• Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL)