Administrator Management

Location:

Philippines

Posted:

February 12, 2013

Contact this candidate

Resume:

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

An Examination of the Academic Reach of Faculty and Administrator Bullying

Ellen M.Raineri, Ph.D.

Dean F. Frear, Ph.D.*

Jennifer J. Edmonds, Ph.D.

Wilkes University

United States of America

E-mail: ****.*****@******.****

Abstract

Within academia, bullying occurs through non-physical abusive behaviors in which an individual or a gang

targets a victim due to personal inadequacies or personal gain. Despite numerous monetary and nonmonetary

costs resulting from bullying, this activity continues to thrive. Accordingly, this study examines the reach of

faculty and administrator bullying within a sample of small and midsize colleges and universities in the

northeast and central locations of the US. Specifically, the study examines behavioral displays of academic

bullying. It additionally queries the roles of faculty who demonstrate bullying: Sr. faculty bullying Jr. Faculty;

Jr. faculty bullying Sr. faculty; Faculty bullying non faculty (staff not administrators); and Faculty

participating in gang bullying. It also queries the roles of faculty who are victims: Jr. Faculty bullied by Sr.

faculty; Sr. faculty bullied by Jr. Faculty; faculty bullied by non-faculty (staff- not administrators); and faculty

bullied by gangs. Last, the study explores the elements of age, gender, and frequency. Paralleling the

examination of faculty bullying is an examination of administrator bullying within similar areas . As a result,

this study not only advances the understanding of academic bullying, but also suggests avenues for future

academic bullying research.

Key Words: bullying; academia; faculty bullying; administrator bullying

Introduction

Within academia, bullying occurs through non-physical abusive behaviors in which an individual or a gang

targets a victim due to personal inadequacies or personal gain. Despite numerous monetary and nonmonetary

costs resulting from bullying, this activity continues to thrive. Over the past few decades, there has been an

increase in the study of bullying in academic environments (Sweeney, 2007). Based upon a survey completed

by Keashly at Wayne State University, in 2000, approximately 1 in 6 workers experience direct bullying in

today s workplace (Namie, 2008). Dunn approximates an even higher ratio: 1 in 5 workers are bullied. (2000).

Finally, more recent data in 2008 indicates that 1 in 3 workers are bullied (Dedyna, 2008).

Bullying not only occurs in corporations; it also occurs and thrives in academic institutions despite the

monetary and non-monetary consequences that ensue. Colleges and universities may seem to be an ideal

environment for bullying behavior because of their decentralization (Fogg, 2008). Accordingly, due to the

increase of bullying as well as to the academic environment, a study was conducted to examine the reach of

faculty and administrator bullying within a sample of small and midsize colleges and universities in the

northeast and central locations of the US. Both faculty and administrators were asked to share their

observations of bullying in academia. The results of the study are discussed as well as future ideas for research

in this area.

The Concept of Bullying

Bullying can be referred to as persistent uncivil conduct by one or several individuals, can be defined in a

variety of ways; and reach from the more obvious displays, such as repeated acts of hostility and sarcasm, or

exclusionary behavior, to subtle acts including targeting individuals based on their popularity and/or success

(Peyton, 2003; Cooper & Snell, 2003; Martin & Hine, 2005; Fogg, 2008; Keeling, Quigley & Roberts, 2006).

GPMU, an online site dealing with workplace issues, indicates that bullying is usually vindictive, cruel,

malicious or humiliating behavior towards an individual or even a group and i s demeaning (2006). Cox

and Goodman elaborate: Key aspects include its duration, character, subjective effects, intentionality, is

generally understood as a product of the workplace context and organizational process as much as inter -

personal relations (2005, p. 29).

Bullying in colleges and universities takes on many different forms. Sometimes bullying tendencies carry over

from childhood, and people who bully take advantage of an imbalance of power, such as greater physical

size, higher status, or the support of a peer group (Cooper & Snell, 2003, p. 23).

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

The key feature of the bully is to hurt another person in such a way as to exercise power over another person.

One might think that academia would be immune to such petty behavior as bullying. What with all of the lofty

goals and research, the aura of the academy does not portend this sort of behavior. The hallowed halls and the

ivy should be a safe haven for its inhabitants. Studies indicate that this is not necessarily the case. Simpson

and Cohen indicate that bullying in academia is related to a masculine style of management and creates a

gendered style regarding power and intimidation (2004). The categories rated as the highest for both men and

women were: unfair criticism 60.6%, Intimidation 55.6%, and Humiliation 46.5% (Simpson & Cohen, 2004).

A study by McMahon corroborates this by stating bullying can also involve verbal abuse (2000).

Bullying Characteristics

Research indicates that bullies are represented by men or women. They tend t o be talented and are highly

educated (Tombaugh, 2003). The higher intelligence is often used in cleverly misrepresenting information and

scheming to set up their victims. Additionally, bullies tend to have high persistence to wear down their victim

(Peyton, 2003).In some cases; the bully has repeated the antics with numerous victims over time. Namie s

term is the chronic bully (2003, p. 15). The individual has adopted a type of bullying behavior that is

participated in regularly. Bullying becomes this individual s lifestyle in the workplace.

Bullies choose to engage in bullying behavior for numerous reasons that fall into the categories of personal

characteristics, external factors, and ignorance. On a personal level, bullies may feel a sense of inadeq uacy or

insecurity or a lack of self-confidence so they divert attention away from themselves by focusing on the victim

(Namie, 2003). The focusing on is actually like a type of relentless public flashing of a real or connived

flaw of the victim. In some cases, the flaw mirrors the bully s very own flaw. Since the bully is unable to

improve the flaw, the bully attacks the mirrored, fabricated flaw in the victim. In addition, on a personal

level, bullies sometimes feel the need to control or exert power over others. A final personal characteristic that

may contribute to bullying behavior is envy towards other people s abilities that is often described as

workplace envy. Bullies fear that their victims can do their jobs better than they can and become envio us

(Peyton, 2003; GPMU, 2006).

Externally, a highly stressed environment may foster bullying as might the pressure of having unrealistic

deadlines and a highly competitive work environment. In reference to the latter, the author is aware of an

organization s detrimental highly competitive culture such that its employees had the reputation of eating

their own kind. Additionally, the external culture can contribute to bullying. For example, if the bully s

culture is one that degrades or insults others, the bully in the workplace may simply be expressing cultural

beliefs (Alsever, 2008; McIlvanie, 1999). Highly punitive cultures as well as cultures that impeded open

communications also breed bullying behavior (Ideas and Training, n.d.).

Last, ignorance of particular characteristics and behaviors can contribute to bullying behavior. Theorists have

cited lack of skills in emotional intelligence, anger management, and stress management as being critical

deficits (Namie & Namie, 2003; Robinson, 2001).

Appearance of Bullying Behavior

Numerous theorists describe appearances of bullying behavior (GPMU, 2006; Canada Safety Council, n.d.;

Fogg, 2008; Namie, 2003; Peyton, 2003). First, the bully can initiate actions directly with the victim. These

actions include delegating menial tasks, withholding key information, removing key resources, setting

unrealistic due dates and overworking the victim. The bully is constantly scrutinizing work, withholding

praise, setting up the victim for failure, requiring excessive rewr ites, participating in one-upmanship, blaming

for the bullies own mistakes, assigning busywork (to divert from key projects), trivializing accomplishments,

intimidating (though words, tones or gestures), and encouraging the victim to seek alternative employment.

Second, the bully can initiate public actions such as taking the credit for the victim s work, criticizing the

victim in front of others at meeting or through email, interrupting the victim, hiding the victim s talent from

others, and discrediting the victim s commitment to the team, organization, or project.

Third, the bully can initiate covert group actions such as attempting to align others with the bully and turn

others against the victim, misrepresenting the victim, spreading rumors, and cross-examining the victim by

soliciting evidence from others.

Victim Characteristics

Several differing views exist concerning the profile of a victim. For example, an article in the New York

Times (Pope, 2008) states that bullying does not typically seem to be motivated by race, age or sex and occurs

simply due to one person not liking another person; while other articles highlight young women or popular

employees as likely targets of bullying (Fox & Stallworth, 2009; Syedain, 2009).

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

Alternatively, several concurring profiles of the victim have been formulated. First, the victim tends to possess

positive attributes and is accordingly admired by others. Victims are often highly educated, and Namie

summarizes that 21 % of targets have graduate or professional degrees and 63 % have some college or a

college degree (2003, p. 39). Other positive attributes include confidence, kindness, overly optimistic,

competence, and liked by others. Due to these personal qualities and talents, the victim is often seen as a

threat to the bully, and accolades pertaining to the victim s talents can increase the intensity of bullying

behavior (Canada Safety Council, n.d.).

Second, the victim is often profiled as an accommodating type of individual, one who is courteous, gentle, and

non-confrontational. The victim seldom challenges the bully, and tends to be quiet about the injustices

experienced. The bully often looks for a victim who will endure without complaining.

Third, the victim is profiled by being noticeable. In some cases, the victim is physically noticeable,

representing a minority, having a pronounced physical feature, having a mental or physical challenge, or

appearing physically attractive or unattractive. In other cases, the victim is noticeable due to work or life

circumstances (Peyton, 2003).

Effect on Victims

Victims of bullying usually experience emotional, health and well -being problems, stress, humiliation,

feelings of worthlessness, shame and isolation (Fogg, 2008; Nielsen, Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2008; Syedain,

2006; Lewis, 2004). The New York Times reports that the emotional toll of workplace bullying is more

severe than that of sexual harassment (Pope, 2008, para. 4). Bullying tends to primarily occur from

supervisor and managers to direct reports, but increasingly, bullying behaviors happen between lateral

positions (Gazdova, 2003).

Bullying behavior has a negative impact on various stakeholders. First, the victim may experience physical

and psychological health issues: headache, nausea, stress, panic attacks, posttraumatic stress disorder,

depression, resigned attitude, irritability, and insomnia. Friends and family of the victim may experience stress

as they listen to and observe the victim s challenges. Co-workers often experience guilt as they observe

bullying behavior yet do not always have the knowledge to solve the problem or the courage to expose the

problem. Last, the organization experiences negative consequences as the victim may have low productivity

due to fear or absenteeism. In addition, the organization may experience high job turnover costs due to victim

or observers resignations (Peyton, 2003; Fogg, 2008; Groeblinghoff & Becker, 1996).

Solutions

Numerous recommendations exist for dealing with bullying behavior. From the victim s perspective, it is

recommended to first admit that there is a bullying problem and document each instance in which it occurs .

Additionally, the victim can align with a mentor who can be a good listener as well as a wise advisor. It is

important for the victim to maintain high self-esteem, a positive attitude, stamina, and perseverance. The bully

and/or the bully s network may scrutinize the victim on a regular basis. Consequently, t he victim must

maintain high job performance. Last, it is recommended that the victim form strong peer networks for support

awareness (McKay, 2008).

From the organization s perspective, it can develop anti-bullying policies that are reviewed with all employees

and reinforced. Any accusations of bullying must quickly be investigated (Canada Safety Council, n.d.). If the

accusations are true, then consequences for the bully must follow. Organizations can also offer counseli ng to

victims or bullies by funding an Employee Assistance Program.

Another approach is to utilize the human resources or personnel department. Human resource practitioner

journals emphasize the importance of the supervisor s responsibility to take a stand with the bullies to

address such behavior (HR Magazine, 2009). There must be a clear process for filing a nd receiving

complaints. Unfortunately, these types of claims may often go unanswered, so dealing with the effects of

receiving bullying is taken in the employee s own hands.

Purpose

This paper focuses on the bullying that occurs in higher education, originating from both faculty and

administrators. Specifically, the study examines behavioral displays of academic bullying. It queries the roles

of faculty and administrators who demonstrate bullying. The study also explores the elements of age, gender,

and frequency of bullying. The study examines faculty and administrators as both bullies and victims.

Gender is an indicator of the bully s identity.

Hypothesis 1:

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

If gender is an indicator, the findings should show that one gender is more often the bully than another in

academia. Tombaugh (2003), however, argues that workplace bullies are both men and women.

Hypothesis 2: Gender is an indicator of the victim s identity.

If gender is an indicator, the findings should show that one gender is more often th e victim than

another in academia, as in Fox & Stallworth (2009).

Hypothesis 3: Faculty rank has an impact on bullying tendencies.

The literature indicates that in non-academic jobs, senior employees tend to be the bullies (Cooper &

Snell, 2003). This hypothesis investigates whether seniority has an influence on bullying behavior in

academia.

Hypothesis 4: More administrators bully faculty than faculty bully administrators.

This hypothesis attempts to determine who bullies whom, by role. Administrators may be more

prolific bullies because of the power differential. According to Cooper & Snell (2003), a power differential

influences bullying.

METHOD

Sample

A study was conducted to examine the reach of faculty and administrator bullying. An invitati on to participate

was emailed to 2,200 Business and Economics faculty from a sample of small and midsize colleges and

universities in the northeast and central locations of the US, both public and private. The current studies have

been performed in non-US universities and organizations and within single departments of a university. We

developed this instrument to survey Business faculty, as this is our discipline. A response rate of 2.7% yielded

a final sample of 60 Business and Economics faculty. Seventy-five percent of these faculty members observe

bullying behavior from faculty in their department; fifty percent observe bullying behavior from

administrators.

Instrument

The self-report survey was delivered electronically on three occasions over a six wee k period. The

questionnaire was designed using nine statements describing characteristics of bullies and victims.

Respondents were not asked whether they were bullied, but to report on observations of bullying behavior in

their departments. Other items on the instrument include observations on the age, gender, rank, and so forth of

both the faculty and administrator bully and victim. Tables 1 and 2 contain the exact verbiage of items

included on the questionnaire.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Tables 1 and 2 contain a report of all survey results. Table 1 pertains to responses regarding faculty bullies.

Table 2 pertains to responses regarding administrator bullies.

[Insert Tables 1 & 2 here]

All hypotheses were evaluated using two-sample proportion hypothesis tests. All conditions are evaluated at

the 5% significance level. Common bullying tactics, age and bullying frequency were also evaluated in this

manner.

Faculty Perceptions of Bullying Behavior

Table 3 lists the 14 characteristics used to describe actions by Faculty and Administrators as bullies.

Participants were asked to indicate their awareness of any of the following types of routine bullying

behaviors that involve faculty and/or administrators as bullies within their department, where routine can be

defined as occurring at least once a month for a six month period. This item was represented separate ly twice

on the survey. All options appeared in both the faculty as bully and administrator as bully items. The

characteristics in this table also represent the items used to describe actions observed as acted upon both

faculty and administrator victims.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

Table 3. Types of Routine Bullying Behaviors

1. Attempts to turn others against the victim

Blames victim for bully s mistakes

3. Blocks career goals

4. Constantly scrutinizes

5. Criticizes in public

Cross examines victim directly or by soliciting evidence from others

7. Discounts accomplishments

8. Erodes physical or mental health of victim

9. Schedules meetings that the victim cannot attend

10. Sets up target for failure

11. Spreads rumors/misperceptions

Tries to hide victim s talent from others

12.

Utilizes Put downs such as I thought I asked you to or What did I tell you about

13.

14. Utilizes resources needed by the victim (time, people, and so on)

The participant responded to as many characteristics as deemed appropriate. Items not incorporated here, but

included in other studies include: hostile glares, tardiness to meetings called by the victim and refusal of the

victim s requests for assistance (Fogg, 2008). Table 4 compares the responses from item 1 of the survey. For

these items, respondents were asked to characterize observed acts of bullying originating from faculty. Each

column and row in the table corresponds to a bullying tactic, using the numbering system in Table 1. For a

given column, that tactic is observed more often than those toward the bottom of the column which are

flagged with significance. The results shown in the table are one-tailed significance values.

[Insert Table 4 here]

The faculty results indicate that the single most frequent type of bullying behavior observed is behavior 7,

which involves discounting a person s accomplishments. Respondents identified observing this tactic when

the faculty member is either the bully (50%) or the victim (51.7%). Other behaviors falling into the most

commonly observed tactics category include: attempting to turn others against the victim (observed at 48.3%),

public criticism (48.3%), rumor spreading (43.3%), constant scrutiny (48.3%) and blocking of the victim s

career goals (41.7%). The bullying tactics observed the least often include: wearing down the victim s

physical or mental health (28.3%), blaming the victim for the bully s mistakes (26.7%), direct cross

examination of the victim (25.0%), use of put downs (23.3%), use of resources needed by the victim

(18.3%) and scheduling meetings at the inconvenience of the victim (16.7

Item 2 of the questionnaire pertains to faculty members as victims. The most often observed tactic responses

align with the bully responses, and are not discussed in this section, but test results appear in Table 6.

[Insert Table 5 here]

Table 5 compares the responses from item 10 of the survey. For these items, respondents were asked to

characterize observed acts of bullying originating from administrators. The table can be interpreted in the

same manner described above. The single most frequent type of bullying behavior originating from

administrators is behavior 3, which involves blocking of the victim s career goals. Respondents identified

observing this tactic when the administrator is either the bully (30%) or the victim (36.7%). Other behaviors

falling into the most commonly observed administrator bullying tactics category include: discounting the

victim s accomplishments (30.0%), setting up the victim for failure (23.3%), constant scrutiny (21.7%) and

use of resources needed by the victim (18.3%). Item 11 of the questionnaire pertains to administrators as

victims. The results shown in Tables 6 & 7 are the one-tailed significance values from two-sample proportion

tests.

[Insert Tables 6 & 7 here]

There is no significant difference in the occurrence of blocking career goals as it originates from faculty or

administrator bullies. Constant scrutiny, discounted accomplishments, and public criticism are observed more

often from faculty bullies.

Faculty Perceptions of the Bully s Age

Figure 1 shows the responses to items 6 and 15 of the questionnaire: the distribution of age for both faculty

and administrative bullies. The participant responded to as many characteristics as deemed appropriate.

Seventy-four faculty bullies were identified by age; fifteen administrator bullies were identified.

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Figure 1. Age Distribution of Bullies

46.7%

50.0%

40.0%

33.3%

32.4%

29.7%

27.0%

30.0%

Admin

20.0%

Faculty

6.8%

10.0%

2.7% 1.4%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

under 20 **-**-**-**-**-** 51-60 61-70 over 70

The contribution from participants falling in the extreme age categories, under 20 and over 70, are negligible.

Eighty-nine percent of observed faculty bullies and 100% of observed administrator bullies range from 41-70

years of age. The results indicate that faculty perceive more bullying originating from faculty than from

administrators.

Perceptions of Gender

Figure 2 illustrates items 5 and 14, which identify the direction of the bullying behavior by gender. The

participant responded to as many characteristics as deemed appropriate.

Figure 2. Bullying Behavior by Gender

45.0%

38.0% 39.5%

36.0% 36.8%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

18.4% Admin

20.0% 16.0%

Faculty

15.0% 10.0%

10.0% 5.3%

5.0%

0.0%

Male to Male Male to Female Female to Female Female to Male

There are 76 instances of bullying and 71 instances of victims identified by gender in the faculty results. There

are 50 instances of bullying and 50 instances of victims identified by gender in the administrator results.

Approximately, three-quarters of the bullies observed are male; the remaining quarter is female. There is no

significant difference in the gender of a male bully s victim. The results also indicate that when a female

faculty member is the bully, the victim is significantly more often also female (female victims observed

18.4% compared to male victims at 5.3%); this is not the case for administrators (female victims are observed

at 16% compared to male victims at 10%).

Faculty perceptions of the impact of rank

Figure 3 illustrates items 3, 4, 12 and 13, identify the direction of the bullying behavior by rank. Staff is

defined as a non-faculty, non-administrative role, with a reduced amount of power compared to an

administrator. The participant responded to as many characteristics as deemed appropriate. There are 118

instances of bullying and 128 instances of victims identified by rank in the results. Those responses were

cross-tabulated and Figure 3 contains the results of the cross-tabulation.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

Figure 3. Direction of Bullying Behavior 1

60.0%

51.7%

50.0%

44.5%

40.0%

36.4%

Axis Title

30.0% a s Bullies

28.1%

a s Victims

20.0%

16.4%

10.9%

10.0%

7.6%

4 .2%

0.0%

Sta ff Admin Jr fa culty Sr fa culty

Figure 3 shows a significant increase in the likelihood of bullying tendencies with rank, in both faculty and

non-faculty positions. Across all positions, senior faculty members are the most often observed bully (51.7%).

This finding supports previous research that bullying behavior thrives in situations of a power imbalance

(Cooper & Snell, 2003). Figure 3 also shows that, in non-faculty positions, there is a significant increase in the

likelihood of falling prey to bullying behavior. In faculty positions, however, junior faculty members are more

likely to be observed in a victim role (44.5%).

Figure 4. Direction of Bullying Behavior 2

Faculty Admin

Bullying b ullying

Admin Faculty

50% 50%

Figure 4 shows that there is no significant difference in the how often faculty bully administrators and

administrators bully faculty.

Faculty perceptions of age

Figure 5 shows the responses to items 6 and 8 of the questionnaire: the distribution of age for faculty bullies

and victims. The participant responded to as many characteristics as deemed appropriate.

Figure 5. Age Distribution of Faculty Bullies and Victims

35.0% 32.4%

31.0% 31.0%

29.7%

30.0% 27.0%

25.0%

20.0%

16.7%

Bully

13.1%

15.0%

Victim

8.3%

10.0%

6.8%

5.0% 2.7%

1.4%

0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

under 20 20-30 31- 40 41-50 51- 60 61-70 over 70

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Results presented earlier show that both faculty and administrative bullies range from 41 -70 years of age. As

can be seen in Figure 5, the most common age range for faculty victims is between 31-50 years of age (62%).

Participants falling in the extreme age categories, under 20 and over 70 are negligible. The results show that a

significant proportion of faculty perceive that the faculty victim is slightly younger than the faculty bully.

Figure 6 shows the responses to items 15 and 17 of the questionnaire: the distribution of age for administrative

bullies and victims. This figure shows that the most common age range for administrative victims is between

31-60 years of age (76.7%).

Figure 6. Age Distribution of Administrator Bullies and Victims

50.0% 46.7%

45.0%

40.0%

33.3% 33.3%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0% 21.7% 21.7% Bully

20.0%

20.0% Victim

13.3%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

under 20 **-**-**-**-**-** 51-60 61-70 over 70

Figure 6 shows that the distribution of age for bullies is somewhat right skewed, while the distribution for

victims appears normal. These observations report skewness measures of 0.94 and 0.24 for administrator

bullies and victims, respectively. This shows that, the administrative bullies are perceived to be slightly older

than the administrative victims. Participants falling in the extreme age categories, under 20 and over 70 are

negligible. Other results from the survey indicate that a significant proportion observe that faculty bullies

operate according to a regular weekly or monthly schedule. A sizeable proportion (21.7%) of faculty do not

perceive that administrator bullying occurs at all. A modest observance, 18.3% (5%) of faculty (administrator)

participation in gang bullying is reported.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that there is an observance of bullying in academia. Both faculty and administrators are

observed engaging in bullying behavior. Gender has an impact on bullying, as bullies are observed more often

to be male. The faculty male is more often perceived as the bully. This may be because there are more faculty

to observe than there are administrators. Females bully much less than males. The study results show that if

females bully at all they tend to engage in same-sex bullying. Rank also has an impact on bullying, as

administrators and senior faculty are more often seen as bullies, compared to non - administrative staff and

junior faculty. Non-faculty are less likely to be bullies than faculty. Junior faculty are more likely to be

bullied. Conversely, faculty members are no more often the bully of administrators than administrators are the

bully of faculty.

Academic Bully Profile

Business and Economics Faculty view the primary bully as a male senior faculty member, between the ages of

41-70. The most likely bullying behaviors observed are direct and personal attacks including: discounting a

person s accomplishments, attempting to turn others against the victim, public criticism, spreading rumors,

constant scrutiny and blocking of the victim s career goals.

Academic Victim Profile

Business and Economics Faculty view the primary victim as a female junio r faculty member, between the

ages of 31-50, who is persistently bullied, according to a weekly or monthly schedule. The victims will most

likely receive direct and personal attacks including: discounted personal accomplishments, attempts by the

bully to turn others against them, public criticism, rumors, constant scrutiny and blocked career goals.

Limitations

Limitations include sample size. Although a large number were polled, the resulting sample size is small. The

sample (small and midsize colleges and universities in the northeast and central locations of the US, both

public and private) can be considered a limitation for it excludes other geographical locations and sizes that

may have significant bearing on findings.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

Another limitation is that this study omitted key demographic data from the respondent such as age and

gender. It is difficult to survey every topic related to bullying, so any survey will be incomplete. Last,

although the instrument was critiqued internally at the researchers university, it was not critiqued externally

from multiple, diverse higher education facilities.

Future Research

Numerous emerging research topics and methods exist in the area of bullying in academia. These topics

include bullying in small/midsize institutions vs. large institutions, bullying in public vs. private institutions,

individual vs. gang bullying, and correlation of bullying with negative events (a financially challenged

institution, high turnover, low student retention, low teaching scored, low salaries). Future research methods

include qualitative case studies with victims, phenomenological research that depicts the meaning of bullying

by each victim, and ethnographic research to study bullying in its natural workplace environment. Last,

bullying research can be approached from almost any discipline including sociology, psychology,

anthropology, or leadership. For example, if males are the perceived predominant bullies, then within the

discipline of psychology, one might research if the communication styles of men and women influence the

perception of bullying.

References

Alsever, J. (2008). How to handle a workplace bully. Retrieved from

http://www.workplacebullying.org/press/bnet-alsever102008.pdf.

Canada Safety Council Website. (n.d.) Bullying in the workplace. Retrieved from http://archive.safety-

council.org/info/OSH/bullies.html

Cooper, D. & Snell, J. L. (2003, March). Bullying Not just a kid thing. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 22

25.

Cox, E. & Goodman, J. (2005). Belittled; The state of bullying. Australian Universities Review, 48(1), 28-34.

Dedyna, K. (2008). Bullied right out of the door. Retrieved from

http://www.workplacebullying.org/press/timescolonist112008.html.

Dunn, K. (April 2000). Bullying in the workplace often goes unnoticed. Workforce, 79(4), 28. Costa Mesa.

Fogg, P. (September, 12, 2008). Academic bullies. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(3), B10-B13.

Fox, S. & Stallworth, L. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational approaches to resolving

and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute resolution and training. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 220-241.

Gazdova, K. (2003). How to tackle bullying in the workplace. Bachelor thesis. Leiden University,

Netherlands. Retrieved from:

http://www.mobbingopdewerkvloer.nl/documenten/How%20to%20tackle%20bullying%20in%20the

%20workplace.pdf.

GPMU, (2006). Bullying at work. Retrieved from: http://www.gpmu.org.uk/bullysign.html.

Groeblinghoff, D & Becker, M. (1996). A case of mobbing and the linical treatment of mobbing victims.

European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5(2), 251-275.

Ideas and Training website. (n.d.). Workplace bullying and harassment prevention training DVDs. Retrieved

from http://www.ideasandtraining.com/Bullying-Prevention.html.

Keeling, J., Quigley, J. & Roberts, T. (2006). Bullying in the workplace: What it is and

how to deal with it. British Journal of Midwifery, 14(10), 616-621.

Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college lecturers. British

Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3).

Martin, R. & Hine, D. (2005) Development and validation of the uncivil workplace

behavior questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 477-490.

McIlvaine, R. (August, 1999). Working with wolves. HR Executive Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.workplacebullying.org/press/hrexec.html.

McKay, D. R. (2008). How to deal with a workplace bully. About.com Guide to Career Planning. Retrieved

from http://careerplanning.about.com/b/2008/12/29/how-to-deal-with-a-workplace-bully.htm.

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

McMahon, L. (2000). Bullying and harassment in the workplace. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 12 (6), 384-387.

Namie, G. (2008). U.S. hostility workplace survey 2000. Retrieved from

http://www.workplacebullying.org/res/N-N-2000.pdf.

Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2003). The bully at work. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.

Namie, G. & Namie, R. (3rd quarter, 2003). Anti-bullying advocacy: An unrealized EA opportunity. Journal of

Employee Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.workplacebullying.org/press/eajournal.html.

Nielsen, M., Matthiesen, S. & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of coherence as a protective mechanism among

targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 128-36.

Peyton, P. (2003). Dignity at work. New York: Brunner-Routledge Publishers.

Pope, T. (2008, March 25). When the bully sits in the next cubicle. The New York Times.

Robinson, K. (2001, July 18). Desk rage on the rise, cause for concern. Retrieved from

http://www.workplacebullying.org/press/hrnews011801.html

Simpson, R. & Cohen, C. (2004). Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher

education. Gender, Work, and Organization, 11 (2).

Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and the workplace:

Are there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 175-188.

Sweeney, P. (2007, May). Organizational chaos and relative powerlessness: Breeding ground for bullies?

Research Brief. Academy of Management Perspective, 27-28.

Syedain, H. (2006). Nowhere to run. People Management. Retrieved from

http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk.

Tombaugh, E. (2003). There is no room for workplace bullies in the best places to work.

Houston Business Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/10/20/focus14.html.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

Table 1. Response Summary of Faculty Involvement with Bullying In the Workplace

1. Please check if you are aware of any of these types of routine bullying behaviors that involve

faculty as bullies within your department*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 *-**-**-**-**-**

48.3 26.7 41.7 43.3 48.3 25.0 50.0 28.3 16.7 35.0 43.3 31.7 23.3 18.3

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

2. Please check if you are aware of any of these types of routine bullying behaviors that involve

faculty as victims within your department*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 *-**-**-**-**-**

45.0 30.0 38.3 41.7 36.7 21.7 51.7 30.0 13.3 38.3 48.3 25.0 18.3 20.0

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

3. Please check the types of bullying behavior that involves faculty as bullies in your department

Faculty

Sr faculty Jr faculty Faculty Staff participatin

bullying Jr bullying Sr bullying bullying g in gang

faculty faculty Staff faculty bullying

55.0% 5.0% 20.0% 8.3% 18.3%

4. Please check the types of bullying behavior that involves faculty as victims in your department

Faculty

Sr faculty Jr faculty Faculty Staff participatin

bullying Jr bullying Sr bullying bullying g in gang

faculty faculty Staff faculty bullying

56.7% 5.0% 8.3% 5.0% 16.7%

5. Please check the gender of these bullies

Male to Male Male to Female to Female to

Female Female Male

46.7% 50.0% 23.3% 6.7%

6. Please check the age range of these bullies

under 20 **-**-**-**-**-** 51-60 61-70 over 70

0.0% 3.3% 8.3% 36.7% 40.0% 33.3% 1.7%

7. Please check the gender(s) of the associated victims

Male to Male Male to Female to Female to

Female Female Male

46.7% 50.0% 23.3% 6.7%

8. Please check the age range(s) of the associated victims

under 20 **-**-**-**-**-** 51-60 61-70 over 70

0.0% 3.3% 8.3% 36.7% 40.0% 33.3% 1.7%

9. Please check the single category that best describes the occurrence of faculty involved bullying

behavior in your department

Does not

Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly occur

5.0% 26.7% 33.3% 11.7% 16.7%

*These numbered items use the numbering system as shown in Table 1.

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Table 2. Response Summary of Admin Involvement with Bullying In the Workplace

10. Please check if you are aware of any of these types of routine bullying behaviors that involve

administrators as bullies within your department*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 *-**-**-**-**-**

15.0 15.0 30.0 21.7 30.0 11.7 5.0 23.3 11.7 16.7 18.3

% % % % 16.7% 13.3% % % % % % % 8.3% %

11. Please check if you are aware of any of these types of routine bullying behaviors that involve

administrators as victims within your department*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 *-**-**-**-**-**

10.0 36.7 13.3 15.0 13.3 8.3 10.0 16.7 10.0 13.3 11.7

% 1.7% % % 18.3% 8.3% % % % % % % % %

12. Please check the types of bullying behavior that involves administrators as bullies in your

department

Admin

Admin Admin participating Admin

Admin bullying bullying Jr bullyin in gang bullying

Sr faculty faculty g Staff bullying Admin

18.3% 38.3% 15.0% 5.0% 6.7%

13. Please check the types of bullying behavior that involves administrators as victims in your

department

Staff

Jr faculty bullyin Gangs

Sr faculty bullying g bullying

bullying Admin Admin Admin Admin

46.7% 10.0% 3.3% 6.7%

14. Please check the gender of these bullies

Male to Male Male to Female Female to

Female to Male

Female

30.0% 31.7% 13.3% 8.3%

15. Please check the age range of these bullies

under 20 **-**-**-**-**-** 51-60 61-70 over 70

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 11.7% 8.3% 0.0%

16. Please check the gender(s) of the associated victims

Male to Male Male to Female Female to

Female to Male

Female

28.3% 30.0% 15.0% 10.0%

17. Please check the age range(s) of the associated victims

under 20 **-**-**-**-**-** 51-60 61-70 over 70

0.0% 10.0% 21.7% 33.3% 21.7% 13.3% 0.0%

18. Please check the single category that best describes the occurrence of administrators involved

bullying behavior in your department

Monthl Does not

Daily Weekly y Yearly occur

3.3% 16.7% 26.7% 8.3% 21.7%

These numbered items use the numbering system as shown in Table 1.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 12; July 2011

Table 4 Bullies: Comparison of Faculty Bullying Characteristics

7 1 5 4 11 *-**-**-*-*-*-**-** 9

Percent

age 18.

Values 48.3% 26.7% 41.7% 43.3% 48.3% 25.0% 50.0% 28.3% 16.7% 35.0% 43.3% 31.7% 23.3% 3%

7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 0.428 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5 0.428 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 0.232 0.291 0.291 - - - - - - - - - - -

11 0.232 0.291 0.291 - - - - - - - - - - -

3 0.180 0.231 0.231 0.427 0.427 - - - - - - - - -

10 0.048* 0.069 0.069 0.175 0.175 0.226 - - - - - - - -

12 0.021* 0.031* 0.031* 0.093 0.093 0.128 0.349 - - - - - - -

8 0.008* 0.012* 0.012* 0.043* 0.043* 0.063 0.216 0.345 - - - - - -

2 0.004* 0.007* 0.007* 0.028* 0.028* 0.042* 0.161 0.273 0.419 - - - - -

6 0.002* 0.004* 0.004* 0.017* 0.017* 0.026* 0.116 0.209 0.340 0.417 - - - -

13 0.001* 0.002* 0.002* 0.010* 0.010* 0.016* 0.080 0.153 0.266 0.337 0.416 - - -

14 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.002* 0.002* 0.003* 0.019* 0.046* 0.098 0.137 0.188 0.250 - -

9 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.001* 0.001* 0.001* 0.011* 0.027* 0.063 0.092 0.131 0.181 0.405 -

The numbered items above use the numbering system as shown in Table 1.

The percentage values report the proportion of participants that responded positively to the characteristic.

* Significance at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). 1-tailed significance values are shown.

Table 5 Victims: Comparison of Faculty Bullying Characteristics

7 11 1 4 *-**-*-*-*-**-*-** 13 9

Percent

age 20.

Values 45.0% 30.0% 38.3% 41.7% 36.7% 21.7% 51.7% 30.0% 13.3% 38.3% 48.3% 25.0% 18.3% 0%

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.358 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.232 0.357 - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.136 0.231 0.356 - - - - - - - - - - -

0.071 0.135 0.229 0.355 - - - - - - - - - -

0.071 0.135 0.229 0.355 0.500 - - - - - - - - -

0.049* 0.098 0.177 0.287 0.425 0.425 - - - - - - - -

0.008* 0.020* 0.045* 0.091 0.168 0.168 0.219 - - - - - - -

0.001* 0.004* 0.011* 0.026* 0.058 0.058 0.083 0.270 0.270 - - - - -

0.000* 0.001* 0.003* 0.009* 0.023* 0.023* 0.035* 0.149 0.149 0.333 - - - -

0.000* 0.001* 0.002* 0.005* 0.014* 0.014* 0.021* 0.103 0.103 0.256 0.411 - - -

0.000* 0.000* 0.001* 0.003* 0.008* 0.008* 0.012* 0.068 0.068 0.188 0.324 0.408 - -

0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.001* 0.001* 0.002* 0.013* 0.013* 0.052 0.115 0.164 0.227 -

The numbered items above use the numbering system as shown in Table 1.

The percentage values report the proportion of participants that responded positively to the characteristic.

* Significance at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). 1-tailed significance values are shown.

Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Table 6 Bullies: Comparison of Administrator Bullying Characteristics

3 7 10 *-**-*-**-*-*-*-*-** 13 9

Percent

age 18.

Values 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 21.7% 16.7% 13.3% 30.0% 11.7% 5.0% 23.3% 11.7% 16.7% 8.3% 3%

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.204 0.204 - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.149 0.149 0.413 - - - - - - - - - - -

0.068 0.068 0.250 0.324 - - - - - - - - - -

0.042* 0.042* 0.181 0.243 0.405 - - - - - - - - -

0.025* 0.025* 0.123 0.173 0.312 0.401 0.401 - - - - - - -

0.013* 0.013* 0.078 0.115 0.227 0.305 0.305 0.397 0.397 - - - - -

0.007* 0.007* 0.046* 0.071 0.153 0.216 0.216 0.296 0.296 0.391 - - - -

0.001* 0.001* 0.012* 0.020* 0.054 0.084 0.084 0.128 0.128 0.189 0.271 0.271 - -

0.000* 0.000* 0.002* 0.004* 0.011* 0.020* 0.020* 0.034* 0.034* 0.057 0.093 0.093 0.232 -

The numbered items above use the numbering system as shown in Table 1.

The percentage values report the proportion of participants that responded positively to the characteristic.

* Significance at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). 1-tailed significance values are shown.

Table 7 Victims: Comparison of Administrator Bullying Characteristics

3 *-**-*-*-*-**-**-** 12 1 6 9 2

Percent

age 11.7

Values 10.0% 1.7% 36.7% 13.3% 18.3% 8.3% 15.0% 13.3% 8.3% 10.0% 16.7% 10.0% 13.3% %

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.012* - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.007* 0.405 - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.003* 0.312 0.401 - - - - - - -

Contact this candidate