Human Resource Perspectives on Workplace Bullying in Higher Education

Understanding Vulnerable Employees' Experiences

Leah P. Hollis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000383720
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management

This analytical volume uses qualitative data, quantitative data, and direct employee experiences to aid understanding of why workplace bullying occurs in universities throughout the US. To address higher education workplace bullying, this text offers data-driven interventions for human resource staff and departments to effectively tackle this destructive phenomenon.

Drawing on Hollis' first-hand research which is supported by findings from a 2019 Human Resources data collection, this text identifies populations which are most vulnerable to discrimination within academia. The data shows how human resource departments, executive leadership, and faculty might proactively intervene to prevent workplace bullying. Divided into two parts, the book offers empirical analysis of structural interventions for human resource efforts to combat workplace bullying in higher education. Second, the book puts forth solutions based on empirical findings for organizations and human resources to combat workplace aggression and civility which hurts higher education. Further, the author examines the specific effect of workplace harassment and cyberbullying on women of color, junior faculty, women, and the LGBTQ community.

This text will benefit researchers, doctoral students, and conducting higher education research. Additionally, the book focusses on structural issues which interfere with multicultural education more broadly. Those interested in Human Resource Management, the sociology of education, and gender and sexuality studies and will also enjoy this volume.

Part 1

Human Resources and Higher Education

Foreword

Structural Aggression: The Organizational Scaffolding That Enables Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying researchers and employees enduring workplace bullying often indict the human resources department for allowing the proliferation of aggressive behaviors that jeopardize work functions and employees’ health. Harrington and Rayner (2011) comment that human resources personnel need to cultivate trusting relationships with the campus community to curtail the 27 billion dollars lost to workplace bullying annually. Scholars further comment that 90% of targets are afraid to report the behavior, even though a majority of management personnel already know which staff members are bullies. Their commentary continues to include Reilly and Williams (2003), who note that human resources departments face a crisis of trust. Caught in a tenuous situation, human resources personnel often manage expectations from staff to serve as a viable employee advocate while simultaneously working with executive management (Harrington & Rayner, 2011; Reilly & Williams, 2003). Some studies show that human resources remained inert when employees reported workplace bullying (Namie & Namie, 2009). For example, in a study of 401 human resources managers, the Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM) found that 89% of those who face workplace bullying initially seek out human resources for relief (Daniel, 2018). However, when human resources personnel are unable or not empowered to thwart workplace bullying, employees crystallize their notions that human resources personnel are apathetic, powerless, and duplicitous.

When facing traumatic workplace aggression, targets are understandably desperate to find relief. Workplace bullying, which can extend past three years in higher education (Hollis, 2015), creates health-harming problems for the target. Those facing workplace bullying report insomnia, panic attacks, depression, burnout, post-traumatic stress, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation (Kivimäki et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2011; Hollis, 2019a; Spence Laschinger & Nosko, 2015; Leach et al., 2017; Varhama & Björkqvist, 2004). Workplace bullying targets also create strategies to leave the toxic work environment (Kim & Park, 2016; Knox & Bohle, 2020; Nabe-Nielsen et al., 2017). Understandably, employees need a champion in a toxic work environment to halt the abuse and the precipitating threat to their health and their careers.

In thinking about embedded discrimination, harassment, and tyranny, I recall Freier’s discussion (1972) regarding oppression. The xenophobic ills in society inform prejudice and its corresponding behaviors (Allport, 1958). At one time in higher education, such prejudice was expressed through hanging nooses, swastikas, girlie pin-up calendars, and several other sexist and racist markers. Arguably, this animus remains, yet not with such overt signifiers. Whether these symbols are offered for public consumption or not, those who harbor such bias can exhibit more passive-aggressive behaviors through bullying. I am not claiming that racism and sexism are the only motivators for workplace bullying, yet I do profess that the power differentials embedded in workplace bullying disproportionately affect women and people of color (Hollis, 2017; Lee et al., 2013; Salin, 2003).

Acker (1992), Bonilla- Silva (2006), and Einarsen et al. (2017) offer insight into organizational structural problems, which culminate in oppression. Specifically, Acker’s (1992) theory about gendered organizations considers how policies and procedures are used to hurt women’s career. For example, only in the last 10–15 years have colleges and universities been willing to slow a woman’s tenure clock because she chooses to start a family.

Bonilla-Silva’s (2006) analysis regarding structural racism invokes individualism and a laissez-faire approach. Though dominant cultures acknowledge the presence of racism and discrimination, when asked about modifying the conditions through legislation, many people state that a community should not be forced to change, or that Blacks and Hispanics are in disenfranchised positions because of character flaw such as being lazy or having too many children (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Some report that they understand that slavery was a significant problem, yet Blacks need to get over it and move on (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Such a stance, while not overtly racist on its face, ignores decades of generational wealth and privilege that the dominant culture has been passing along to their families. These positions or frames, as Bonilla-Silva (2006) states, deflect the reality of racism, which is woven into common occurrences such as discriminatory housing red-lining practices or discriminatory banking practices (Beeman et al., 2011; de la Garza, 2020). Besides, blame is assigned to the person of color instead of the silent institutional barriers designed to keep Blacks and Hispanics in a certain position.

In another discussion about structural oppression, Einarsen et al. (2017) conducted a study of 429 organizations in Norway to examine ethical structural issues and satisfactory responses to workplace bullying. This research team conducted the study in a country that formally and legally prohibits workplace bullying; therefore, the human resources personnel who participated in the study were lawfully obligated to respond to bullying complaints. In this study, an ethical structure embraced formal consequences for those who were responsible for bullying (Einarsen et al., 2017). Further, an ethical structure mandated training, consistent communication, and observations to curtail bullying (Einarsen et al., 2017). As a result, the people in the organizational culture learned from their respective positions that aggressive behaviors would not be tolerated and subject to appropriate discipline (Hollis, 2019b; Schneider et al., 2013). In short, ethical systems that built a structure that prohibited bullying behaviors were significantly more successful in addressing workplace bullying (Einarsen et al., 2017).

The aforementioned theoretical approaches from Ackers (1992) and Bonilla-Silva (2006) inspire my perspective for Part 1 that the higher education structure must have the scaffolding built into its policies and procedures which empower human resources to take proper action regarding workplace bullying allegations. The findings of Einarsen et al. (2017) further confirm the need for researchers to investigate the structural problems that enable workplace bullying.

In Chapter 1, I analyze if traditional Title VII rules training and policy, specifically invoking the term “workplace bullying,” influenced organizational behavior. The chi-squared analysis in Chapter 1 verified that explicit policies have a statistically significant impact on diminished workplace bullying. In Chapter 2, I use the qualitative content analysis process to examine 96 human resources personnel’s open-ended comments in higher education to highlight emergent themes which confirm that executive leadership should authorize human resources personnel to address workplace bullying. Given my years in higher education, a collective anecdotal assumption was that the closer a unit sits to the president in the organizational chart, the more likely that unit is to have principled and accountable operations. However, Chapter 3, which examines the human resources’ organizational placement, identifies executive leaders’ commitment to ending workplace bullying is an essential element to ending deleterious behaviors, not simply the organizational position for human resources.

In Chapter 4, I confirm that unresolved internal complaints about workplace bullying significantly lead to external complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor (DOL), whistleblower agenci...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Introduction
• PART 1 Human Resources and Higher Education
• PART 2 Workplace Bullies and Vulnerable Populations
• Index