Understanding Workplace Bullying

I continue to receive an increasing number of inquiries about the subject of bullying as it relates to campus civility. In December, I wrote about student bullying. However, bullying is not limited to students. Bullying can also affect the workplace, creating a toxic work environment that is apathetic, ineffective, and dysfunctional. College and university employers are no exception.

Workplace bullying involves deliberate, repeated, and hurtful acts that take place at work or in the course of employment. Bullying is distinguished from isolated acts of incivility in that bullying is intentional, systematic, and persists over time. The harassment occurs repeatedly and regularly (at least once a week) over a period of time (at least six months).  

Common examples of workplace bullying include verbal abuse, threatening and intimidating conduct, constant criticism, undermining of work performance, exclusion, marginalization, spreading rumors, overloading with work, and taunting. This conduct is characterized by unfair and unwarranted treatment. 

The goal of the bully is to use negative social pressure to humiliate, undermine, or demean the target. The deliberate and continuous pattern of abuse can cause severe psychological damage to the victim. In fact, the American Psychological Association recently reported that the psychological impact of dealing with workplace bullying may be more harmful than sexual harassment. 

There have been a number of studies that show that failing to address bullying in the workplace may have a significant financial impact on the employer. For example, a workplace that is ravished by bullying is less productive. Robert Sutton, management professor at Stanford University, estimates that productivity declines as much as 40 percent in workplaces dominated by bullies. Employees who are bullied have higher rates of absenteeism, are more distracted at work, and exhibit lower levels of morale and engagement. 

Another significant expense associated with workplace bullying is turnover related costs. A report released by No Workplace Bullies suggests that up to 30 percent of bullied employees, and up to 20 percent of employees who witness bullying, will resign when bullying persists. Turnover related costs, which often include recruitment, training, severance pay, and lost productivity, can be 50 percent or more of the exiting employee’s annual salary. Accordingly, replacing just one employee as a result of bullying could cost the employer thousands of dollars. 

Lost productivity and turnover related costs are not the only expenses. If bullying persists, employers could face unnecessary legal expenses in addressing employee conflict, lawsuits, and workers compensation claims. For example, the University of Virginia is currently defending a lawsuit seeking more than $10 million in damages. The lawsuit alleges the university negligently failing to address claims of bullying which resulted in an employee suicide. 

Bullying is a serious problem for employers. It can create an uncivil environment that reduces productivity, morale, and engagement and can drive some of the most talented employees out the door. These repercussions can take a significant financial toll on an organization. Accordingly, employers should take meaningful steps to promote a more respectful working environment and a culture of civility. When employees are afforded a safe and bully-free workplace, they will likely be more productive, innovative, and engaged. A culture of civility does not mean that colleagues will always agree, but rather differences will be vetted respectfully and without malicious personal attacks, threats, or verbal harassment.   

Kent M. Weeks 

Student Bullying in Higher Education

For many the subject of bullying conjures up images of harmless childhood pranks occurring on the playground. However, bullying is no longer limited to just the playground banter. It has become a significant problem in high schools, colleges, and even in the work place.

Bullying made national headlines in the context of higher education in 2010 when Tyler Clementi, a freshman at Rutgers University, committed suicide just three days after learning that his roommate had used a webcam to spy on him while kissing another man in his room. Clementi’s suicide has caused many colleges and universities to reconsider how to address bullying on campus. While the prevalence of bullying in higher education is just beginning to be assessed, a 2011 study conducted by researchers at Indiana State University found that approximately 15 percent of the college students surveyed reported being bullied and 22 percent reported being cyberbullied.                

Bullying involves the systematic and persistent aggression or unwelcome pattern of intimidation and harassment by one person intentionally designed to humiliate, frighten, or isolate another. Victims are repeatedly exposed to negative actions, which may be physical (i.e., pushing, shoving, or stealing), verbal (i.e., spreading rumors, teasing, or taunting), or emotional (i.e., shunning, humiliating, or excluding). Unlike traditional forms of bullying, cyberbullying has the potential to remain in the digital domain indefinitely. Through the Internet, the bully could potentially expose the victim to international embarrassment, which can have damaging effects on the victim’s personal, social, and professional lives.  Ultimately, the bully’s goal is to control and intimidate victims.

The effects of bullying on victims can be profoundly destructive. Victims may suffer loss of concentration, anxiety, and insomnia. These conditions may impair the victim’s academic performance and mental health. Victims may also suffer depression, decreased self-worth, hopelessness, and loneliness, which are often precursors to suicidal ideations. Bullying may also create an environment that is ripe for violence. A 2002 study conducted by the Secret Service found that 71 percent of students involved in school shootings had “felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by others prior to the incident.” The correlation between bullying and victim violence is difficult to measure, but it appears that bullying may be a contributing factor.

Perhaps the best approach to addressing bullying is to focus on cultural changes on campus. Implementing programs, courses, and activities that promote a positive and inclusive community tend to go a long way toward fostering an environment of tolerance and mutual respect. College and universities might also use social norming to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of students believe bullying is reprehensible and not a shared community value. These types of approaches may be more effective for college students than rigid student codes. In our fast-paced, ever changing world, students may not realize how their conduct, especially online, can negatively affect others. Programs that focus on civility, mutual respect, and understanding can help new students conceptualize how their behavior can impact others and the entire community. 

Kent M. Weeks

Corporate Values, Faith, and Chicken Sandwiches

One of the most divisive social issues in the United States today is same-sex marriage. A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 50 percent of Americans approve gay marriage and 48 percent oppose it. On both sides of this issue are impassioned people and organizations that hold strong convictions based on notions of equality, fairness, and religious beliefs.

The national discussion of same-sex marriage was recently stoked when Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, told the Baptist Press that his company was “guilty as charged” in its opposition to same-sex marriage. Cathy later elaborated on his comment on a radio talk show stating “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’” 

Cathy’s polarizing comments immediately energized the various factions for and against same-sex marriage. The Jim Henson Company immediately pulled its Muppet toys from Chic-fil-A kids’ meals. The mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco made public statements condemning Chick-fil-A for its position on gay marriage. Pro-gay organizations launched boycotts and demonstration denouncing Chick-fil-A’s “prejudice” and “hatred” of homosexuals. The Gays & Lesbians Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) planned a “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” to be held at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country.

Not to be outdone, public figures and organizations opposing same-sex marriage rallied in support of Chick-fil-A. Reverend Billy Graham publicly commended Chick-fil-A for “never compromising their values” and expressed appreciation for Cathy’s “public support for God’s definition of marriage.” Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee organized a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” which according to organizers drew hundreds of thousands of supporters. According to the company the event was a “record-setting day” with some stores running out of chicken.  

Should large corporations express opinions on controversial sociopolitical issues? A number of big name corporations, such as Target, Starbucks, and General Mills have publicly expressed pro-gay viewpoints. However, Amicus Reed, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told NPR that “Most brands are keeping their heads down” choosing not to weigh in on controversial issues. According to Reed, a more neutral strategy probably makes good business sense. This may explain Chick-fil-A’s recent statement that “going forward” the company plans to “leave the policy debate overs same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

Civility does not require one to be neutral on issues such as same-sex marriage; however, it does require respect for other’s views and beliefs. Ultimately, whether a corporation supports or opposes same-sex marriage is a decision made by the corporation’s leadership. As consumers, we can ultimately choose whether we want to patronize a corporation based on its values, beliefs, and political positions. Perhaps this is the most civil solution to such a divisive issue. 

Kent M. Weeks

Piercing the Bubble

It seems only natural that communities form around common beliefs and values. Sometimes, these communities become so exclusive and self-absorbed that interactions with others who do not share the same beliefs and values result in unproductive conflict.

I would refer to these self-absorbed communities as “bubbles.” People inside the bubble create their own reality. They are inclined to only surround themselves with people who share their perspectives, they constantly feed themselves with information that supports their views, and they see others who are outside their bubble as inferior or misguided and may even develop prejudices.

The bubble provides a filter through which others outside are viewed. Engagement between members of conflicting bubbles is not based on mutual respect and understanding, but often unfair preconceived notions created within the bubble.

In a democratic society, we are free to express our own beliefs and associate however we please. Clearly we are entitled to disagree with others views, especially in an educational environment. In the context of civility, the issue becomes how do we disagree with others or challenge their beliefs in a way that is productive and does not involve bashing or personal attacks?

I would suggest that an important first step is to pierce our bubbles. This can occur when we engage others with mutual respect. In a civil democratic society, we must acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own perspectives. When confronting differences, it may also be helpful to recognize the merit of other’s positions and attempt to understand why a person holds a particular position. By extending this respect and courtesy, the tone of the discourse is likely to change when differing positions are presented.  The key is respect.  Perhaps when we learn to genuinely respect the diverse views of the people in our community meaningful engagement and expanded learning can occur. We may learn that we are similar in more ways than we are different. 

Kent M. Weeks

Do Civility Policies Work?

Civility polices are often used as a tool to respond to incivility. Colleges and universities were early adopters of civility policies. Today, civility-based policies are emerging everywhere. These policies run the continuum of simple and aspirational to complex and legalistic. For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has adopted a list of “rules and manners” for patrons, which include among others: be courteous, put trash in bins, and give your seat to someone who needs it more than you. 

On the other end of the continuum is the NFL. The NFL and 32 NFL teams have adopted an official code of conduct for fans. According to the NFL, the code of conduct is designed to “set clear expectations and encourage a stadium environment that is enjoyable for all fans.” The code restricts conduct such as foul or abusive language, obscene gestures, intoxication, and verbal or physical harassment of opposing team fans. Fans that violate the code of conduct will be subject to ejection and loss of ticket privileges for future games. In addition, several NFL teams require ejected fans to pass a four-hour online class that costs $75 before they can purchase tickets again. 

Many critics see civility policies as a threat to free speech. Over the years, students and civil liberties groups have challenged the constitutionality of civility policies that restrict speech. For example, in 2006, a Republican student group at San Francisco State University stepped on flags representing the militant organizations Hamas and Hezbollah during an anti-terrorism rally. Each flag had the word “Allah” written on them in Arabic. Others on campus complained that the conduct at the rally violated the institution’s civility policy, which was a system-wide policy adopted by all of the 28 institutions in the California State University system.

An investigation found the student group’s conduct during the anti-terrorism rally did not violate the civility policy, which prohibits “actions of incivility.” However, the group filed a lawsuit alleging that the civility policy was too broad and vague and could be used to chill freedom of expression. A federal district court agreed with the students and entered a preliminary injunction preventing disciplinary action based on a violation of the civility policy. The case ultimately settled with the college essentially keeping its civility policy in place, but amending it by adding a disclaimer that the policy could not be used as grounds for disciplinary actions against students.

With the proliferation of civility policies, one has to wonder what affect, if any, they have on the conduct of others. Are metro riders now more likely to give up their seats to pregnant women? Will NFL spectators refrain from using foul or abusive language during games? Can colleges and universities use civility policies to punish acts of incivility? It’s hard to say. Perhaps the more important purpose behind civility policies is to put the community on notice regarding expected standards of conduct. Clearly, civility policies cannot be seen as a silver bullet to eradicate bad conduct, but they certainly are a step in the right direction. Civility policies represent community values; however, real change requires cultural changes.

Kent M. Weeks

Hazing

Most people desire acceptance. Students are no exception, especially when they are new on campus. When acceptance into a group requires some form of “initiation” that humiliates, degrades, or risks emotional or physical harm, the group has engaged in hazing. 

The subject of hazing has recently gained national media attention following the death of Robert Champion—a drum major in Florida A&M’s high-profile marching band The Marching 100. According to university officials, Champion was punched repeatedly by a small group of band members on a bus following a football game. According to Fox News, he suffered blunt trauma blows to his body and died from shock caused by severe bleeding. Authorities suspect that the attack was part of hazing ritual.

The Marching 100 is internationally recognized and has performed at numerous prestigious events like presidential inaugurations, the Grammy Awards, and five Super Bowls. At Florida A&M, the popularity of the band exceeded that of its football team. Band members are treated like celebrities; however, celebrity status did not come easy. There is evidence to suggest that hazing incidents, such as the attack on Champion, was a part of the band’s subculture for decades. Unfortunately, Champion’s death was not the first serious hazing incident at the university.

The notion that acceptance into a group would be based on enduring violent physical attacks by peers is disturbing. Nevertheless, students seeking acceptance into certain groups often voluntarily subject themselves to hazing, while existing members readily participate in acts that put new members in danger. It could be that students do not fully appreciate the gravity of hazing. Many see hazing as just harmless pranks. Others view hazing as a rite of passage or a time-honored tradition that must be continued. However, in most states hazing is illegal and students who haze could be prosecuted and sent to jail. 

When hazing is assessed in the context of civility, one must determine whether the practice promotes mutual respect and dignity? Is the community strengthened when existing members use a power differential to coerce others to engage in dangerous activities?  I believe the answer to these questions is no. Furthermore, there may be intense social pressure not to report hazing incidents. No one likes a snitch. However, when the health and safety of another is in jeopardy, reporting could possibly save a life.

The Uncivil Professor

The core of civility issues in higher education lies at the heart of education itself—the classroom.  The knee-jerk reaction to an effort to address classroom incivility might be to view students as the exclusive source of incivility.  As one commentator noted, “ill-mannered antics of college students are a tradition as old as academe itself.” While it’s probably true that most civility issues involve students and their attitudes and behaviors towards others, sometimes professors are to blame.  

The relationship between a student and a professor is a critical component of student learning. A professor’s ability to transmit knowledge and promote inquiry based on research, study, and practical experience is one of the fundamental purposes of education. While most instructors are committed to free discussion and open inquiry, there have been growing concerns that some college classrooms are becoming platforms for political and social indoctrination, where students are essentially attacked for reasoned views that are contrary to those of the instructor. When faculty publicly debase, humiliate, or invalidate students during classroom discussions, they essentially provoke student incivility.

Professors often rely on their right to academic freedom to justify uncivil actions taken in the classroom. Faculty academic freedom typically includes the right to study, discuss, investigate, teach, and publish. However, academic freedom does not give faculty the right to say or do whatever they want in the classroom.  Specifically, academic freedom does not protect a professor who compromises a student’s right to learn in an environment free of hostility or engages in controversial speech unrelated to the course.  For example, according to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), professors should “encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression” and that “students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study” regardless of the professor's views. AAUP further recommends that “students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation.” The AAUP policies, while not mandatory, provide guidance as to how professors should engage students.

Poor classroom management may also cultivate an environment that breeds incivility. Some professors ignore incidents of student rudeness or incivility in the classroom. However, there is research to suggest that failure to address uncivil student conduct in the classroom sends the messages that the behavior is condoned and that incivility can be repeated. When a professor is unable to manage the classroom, and student incivility persists unchecked, student grades, learning, and achievement will be adversely affected. (see Classroom Decorum: What Happened and Does it Matter?)

Faculty behavior is an important component of promoting civility on campus. The attitudes of professors toward students may have profound implications on learning and civility. When promoting civility, colleges and universities must be willing to look within. Are administrators, teachers, and staff modeling civil behavior? If not, efforts to push civility may appear to be insincere and somewhat hypocritical to students. 

Kent M. Weeks