FX’s “The Americans”: Putting on masks at work

images

I’ve been making my way through season 2 of “The Americans,” an FX drama series featuring Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys as a Soviet couple operating as deep cover spies in Washington D.C. during the early 1980s, the decade leading to the end of the Cold War.

On the surface, Elizabeth and Philip Jennings are your basic well-scrubbed American couple, living with their two kids, Paige and Henry, in Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb right outside of Washington D.C. They work together in a travel agency, and they mix pretty well with the neighbors. In reality, however, they are KGB sleeper agents who blend the facade of their everyday lives with serious, often deadly intelligence work.

The other day, it hit me that “The Americans,” however unintentionally, is all about putting on masks at work. Elizabeth and Philip must wear these masks almost all the time, even with their kids.

In their work, they take on different roles, identities, and personalities. For example, in an ongoing plot line, Philip poses as government operative “Clark,” who deliberately woos and eventually marries a clerk for the FBI, as a way of keeping tabs on the Bureau’s counter-intelligence efforts. In a shorter story line, Elizabeth poses as a shy single woman in Annapolis to manipulate an innocent young Navy enlisted man to obtain the military records of an officer she claims sexually assaulted her.

Elizabeth and Philip have no purely authentic selves. Although they confide in each other, even their marriage isn’t real. They live to serve the Motherland.

Granted, most of us cannot relate to the lives of deep cover spies. But many of us have been in jobs where we couldn’t quite be ourselves. In fact, most jobs require putting parts of our personalities on the shelf. And in the cases of jobs done largely for the pay, big chunks of our personalities may be buried while at work.

At the same time, we may be expected to show qualities of friendliness, courtesy, or deference, even when we don’t honestly feel them. Organizational psychologists call this “emotional labor,” and it can be taxing. Think about the ticket taker at the movie theatre who cheerfully says “Welcome to Loews” to every customer entering the theatre, or the lawyer who must be deferential toward a judge she doesn’t respect through a long trial.

When I think about those aspects of work, I have even less desire to go into the espionage business! The freedom to be one’s true self, as much as possible, is a blessing. I’m happy to get my spy-versus-spy thrills vicariously, thank you.

Myths and realities about working in the non-profit sector

It’s possible to make a difference in the non-profit sector, but no one should assume that work life there is a picnic. Like for-profit and public employers, non-profit employers run the gamut. Some are terrific, many are okay, and others are positively dreadful.

In addition to facing the financial pressures of trying to do more with limited resources, non-profits suffer from their own brands of employee relations problems. So steer clear of the myths of non-profit employment, and understand the realities. Here are among the major ones:

1. Myth: Non-profit employers care deeply about their employees.

Reality: Don’t count on it. The non-profit sector sometimes forgets about its own.

In a 2007 piece for the Stanford Social Innovation Review, “Guess Who’s Socially Irresponsible?,” fundraising consultant Mal Warwick noted that “philanthropy — the love of humankind — is missing from the practices of many nonprofits.” He urged that non-profits must “come to understand that philanthropy begins at home.”

2. Myth: There’s very little bullying, mobbing, or sexual harassment in non-profits, because people working in that sector watch out for each other.

Reality: Some of the worst bullying, mobbing, and sexual harassment situations I’ve heard of over the past 15 years have come out of the non-profit sector.

A do-gooder organizational mission doesn’t ensure high-character employees. It’s one thing to fight for The Cause; it’s quite another to treat people decently. I’d be surprised if prevalence rates of interpersonal abuse are materially lower at non-profits than in the for-profit or public sectors.

3. Myth: You won’t encounter any psychopathic or narcissistic types in the non-profit sector; they’re only to be found in the big bad corporations.

Reality: Sorry, but these folks can easily turn up as senior administrators in non-profits.

It seems like such a disconnect when people with these personality traits and disorders are hired into institutions that embrace a social mission, but it happens — a lot. Once empowered, they may bully, connive, and manipulate, sometimes while serving as the charismatic, smiling face of the organization.

4. Myth: There’s very little hierarchy in the non-profit sector, because everyone is in it together.

Reality: Oh, don’t get me started on this one.

Malcolm Warwick observed that many non-profits use “strictly hierarchical, command-and-control” management techniques. Check out a typically large, multi-layered non-profit organization, and you’ll see what I mean.

5. Myth: Non-profit board members really care about the organization’s employees.

Reality: Non-profit boards often are comprised of business executives, many of whom don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the well-being of rank-and-file workers.

To the degree that employee relations matters are brought to their attention, they usually will be filtered through the organization’s top management. Workers’ concerns are more likely to be regarded as a nuisance than as a priority.

6. Myth: Lawyers that represent non-profits take on a more humanistic approach to employment disputes.

Reality: Do not make that assumption, ever.

Many non-profits, especially larger and more prestigious ones, are represented by corporate law firms that specialize in advising management. Especially if a non-profit has a track record of treating its workers poorly, one can expect its lawyers to echo those values and practices.

******

Related posts

Prestigious honorary society president may be a bullying boss (2013)

Bullying of volunteers (2013)

Burnout in the non-profit sector (2012)

When the bullying comes from a board member (2011)

When bad employers retain thuggish employment lawyers (2011)

Workplace bullying in the non-profit sector (2011)

As Millennials enter the workforce, many are clinically depressed

Duke University psychiatrist Doris Iarovici, blogging for the New York Times, believes that anti-depressant medications can help her patients, but she also expresses deep concern over an increasing share of young people who are using them:

…(A) growing number of young adults are taking psychiatric medicines for longer and longer periods, at the very age when they are also consolidating their identities, making plans for the future and navigating adult relationships.

This trend is especially significant for people finishing school and entering the workforce:

Indeed, the psychologist Jeffrey Arnett calls the young adult years “the age of instability.” Dr. Arnett coined the term “emerging adulthood” to define a new psychological developmental stage for 18- to 29-year-olds in industrialized countries. But now, growing numbers of young people experience rapidly changing living situations, classes, jobs and relationships only while taking an antidepressant.

Iarovici adds that some of these younger people are arriving at college “so burned out by the pressures of high school that they get to college unable to engage in the work,” and they are “so fragile or overprotected in their formative years that they fall apart at the first stress they encounter.”

In a piece for PsychCentral.com, Dr. John Grohol echoes some of these observations, noting high levels of depression and weak emotional coping skills among many Millennials:

All of this is informed conjecture, of course, as there’s not much research that’s been done in this area. But some of it rings true to me, and from talking with others — both therapists and young adults — I’m not the only who sees more and more young adults who just don’t seem to have the emotional and psychological coping skills as young adults that were once more commonplace.

Implications for workers and workplaces

These trends do not bode well for those individuals and the places that employ them.  Some folks will arrive at work dependent upon anti-depressants to get them through the day. Some will struggle to deal with stressful work situations that inevitably arise. They also may lack the means to build personal resilience toward life’s ups and downs, some of which will be related to work and careers.

Their employers also will pay a price, dealing with a larger share of a workforce pushing the boundaries of psychological well-being and less capable of handling the emotionally challenging aspects of employment.

I can’t say I’m surprised about burnout symptoms appearing as early as college. The competition to get into the “best” schools has become brutal, and the treadmill of activities, prep classes, and AP classes necessary to play that game has become steeper and faster. Young people are being pushed to relentlessly chase their futures before they know what they want those futures to look like.

Let’s not blame the Millennials

These observations should not be taken as a slam on a generation. As an NPR program this week noted:

The “millennial generation” has been getting a bad rap in popular culture in recent years. Millennials, roughly defined as people born in the 1980s and ’90s, frequently see themselves depicted as entitled, coddled and narcissistic.

But many — including millennials themselves — dispute those characterizations. Young adults today are tolerant, civic-minded and entrepreneurial, they note, and are thriving despite entering into a tight job market, often with significant amounts of student loan debt.

Lots of Millennials are being raised a certain way and then pushed into a world that has raised the credential bar for their success and saddled them with other burdens passed on by preceding generations. In terms of weaker coping skills, Grohol points to the “helicopter parent” mentality and overly protective upbringings as likely culprits.

As a university professor for over 20 years, I’ve now taught students spanning three generations — Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials. In the aggregate, I do see generational differences, and I can offer generalizations about each, some positive, others less so.

Like any generation, the Millennials bring their strong and weak qualities to the workplace. It is disturbing, in any event, that depression appears to be disproportionately present among them. This reflects most critically not on the Millennials themselves, but rather on the preceding generations that have ushered them into the world.

LOL: Humor as a salve for a lousy workplace

photo-47

If you’re dealing with a less-than-wonderful workplace, then maybe a dose of humor can help to ease the experience.

Recently I posted an article, “Dealing with a bad workplace: Getting to tolerance,” that offered some coping points for those in unpleasant work situations. I’d like to supplement the post by suggesting that some hearty laughter may make a positive difference too.

For some, being able to kick back and enjoy a funny movie, television show, or book may be a healthy way of dealing with a bad workplace. I’ve offered some suggestions in the photo, while conceding that my sense of humor is not exactly, well, refined. For those whose emotional ages have transcended adolescence, some other selections may be more appropriate.

I fully acknowledge that humor is not a cure-all. If you’re experiencing an abusive work situation (as opposed to a “merely” unpleasant or dysfunctional one), then this suggestion probably isn’t for you. Humorous distractions are of limited value if you’re feeling targeted or mistreated. Also, while a good laugh or three may be a salve for a bad workplace, it’s not a fix for the situation itself.

But maybe, just maybe, that LOL movie may be enough to put you in a better mood. It sure does beat the opposite.

Should HR be eliminated?

Lauren Weber and Rachel Feintzeig, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal, examine an emerging trend of employers replacing their human resources departments with outsourced personnel management firms and even software programs that perform basic HR tasks:

Companies seeking flat management structures and more accountability for employees are frequently taking aim at human resources. Executives say the traditional HR department—which claims dominion over everything from hiring and firing to maintaining workplace diversity—stifles innovation and bogs down businesses with inefficient policies and processes. At the same time, a booming HR software industry has made it easier than ever to automate or outsource personnel-related functions such as payroll and benefits administration.

Misguided cheers?

From those who have had terrible experiences with an HR office, I can practically hear the (understandable) cheering. Eliminate HR, and you’ve taken care of the problem.

But it’s not that easy.

In fact, Weber and Feintzeig go on to examine the functions that may fall through the cracks by closing down the HR office, including ensuring that managers comply with employment laws and resolving interpersonal disputes between employees.

In a post for Workplace Prof, law professor Charles Sullivan (Seton Hall) largely concurs with the assessment of the potential downsides:

While outsourcing many of the mechanical operations of HR is much easier today with technological advances, it remains true that both managing “human resources” and complying with the law requires a more sophisticated understanding of both than a typical outside firm can provide.

The real culprits

Long-time readers know that I can be hard on HR, especially HR offices that are complicit in advancing bad, unfair, or abusive management practices. But when it comes to acknowledging the importance of an in-house office charged with implementing employee relations policies and practices, I see the HR function as essential.

Good HR offices serve a valuable training, compliance, and mediating role in the workplace. They do so with a much better understanding of the organization’s people and culture than any outside firm could provide. And they can troubleshoot issues over pay and benefits better than any software program.

Bad HR offices, by contrast, are often tools (negative connotation intended) of bad executive leadership. HR offices may get the lion’s share of blame for poor handling of employee relations, but in reality they may simply reflect and advance the values of their equally terrible (or worse) bosses. Show me a nasty HR director and I’ll show you the organization’s nasty CEO.

In some workplaces with lousy top leaders, “rogue” HR officers with conscience and heart may serve a mitigating presence by helping to stave off or soften the impact of bad personnel decisions and practices that reduce morale and increase liability risks.

As I’ve suggested before, to get to the core of what makes for a good or bad place to work, we typically need to look higher up on the organizational chart. The character and values of those at the top commonly dictate the kind of HR office that you can expect to encounter.

***

Related posts

HR, workplace bullying, and the abandoned target (2013)

Quiet cover-ups (2011)

Can an ethical HR officer survive at a bad company? (2010)

Don’t assume that HR is your buddy (2010)

“HR was useless” (2009)

Visioning law and legal systems through a psychologically healthy lens

One of my periodic “battery rechargers” is the opportunity to reconnect in person with a network of law professors, lawyers, judges, and students associated with a school of legal thought called therapeutic jurisprudence (“TJ”), which examines law, legal procedures, and the legal profession from the standpoint of psychological health. Law professor and TJ co-founder David Wexler (U. Puerto Rico) defines therapeutic jurisprudence this way:

Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) concentrates on the law’s impact on emotional life and psychological well-being. It is a perspective that regards the law (rules of law, legal procedures, and roles of legal actors) itself as a social force that often produces therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences. It does not suggest that therapeutic concerns are more important than other consequences or factors, but it does suggest that the law’s role as a potential therapeutic agent should be recognized and systematically studied.

David was among those who came to Boston and Suffolk University Law School for a Friday public symposium, “The Study and Practice of Law in a Therapeutic Key: An Introduction to Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” followed by a smaller Saturday workshop to plan future TJ activities and initiatives.

In addition to thanking David, I’d like to extend my warm appreciation to out-of-town participants Mark Glover (U. Wyoming), Michael Jones (Arizona Summit), Shelley Kierstead (York U., Osgoode Hall), Michael Perlin (New York Law School), Amanda Peters (South Texas), Amy Ronner (St. Thomas U., Florida), and Carol Zeiner (St. Thomas U., Florida), as well as to my Suffolk colleagues Gabriel Teninbaum, Kathleen Vinson, and Patrick Shin, for being a part of the two-day program.

You can view the agenda for the Friday symposium here. My presentation on  employment law drew heavily from this blog to emphasize the significant stress and anguish experienced by workplace bullying targets, the importance of multi-faceted counseling & coaching for those targets (legal, mental health, and career), and the need to reform our legal processes for resolving employment-related disputes.

As a law professor and lawyer, the TJ community has become my intellectual home base. Equally important, it has provided me with a group of dear friends and colleagues. Last night, a group of us went out to a karaoke bar here in Boston, and while we probably shouldn’t count on Plan B careers as performing artists, we had great fun. Tonight we’ll be heading out for a nice Italian dinner in Boston’s North End. Such fellowship with good people confirms that I’m running with the right crowd for me.

***

For more on the International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, go to the network website.

You may also join the TJ Facebook page here.

 

Roundup on bullying and mobbing in higher education

On Thursday I’m presenting on workplace bullying in higher education at the annual continuing legal education conference of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, being held this year in Boston. I’ll be sharing a lot of the knowledge and insights I’ve gained about bullying and mobbing behaviors in academe, and then examining the legal issues they raise for institutions of higher education.

I thought this would be a good occasion for me to update my primary (and very popular) post on bullying & mobbing behaviors in academe, as well as summarize several other relevant posts. Here goes:

Revised “Foundational” Post

I just revised my very first post (2009) on bullying in academe, Workplace bullying and mobbing in academe: The hell of heaven?, to include updated information and sources:

Academic life can be a great thing, providing one with the opportunity to engage in teaching and educational activities, scholarly research and writing, and myriad forms of public service.

However, the culture of academe can be petty, mean, exclusionary, competitive, and hierarchical.  Bullying and mobbing behaviors occur with surprising frequency, and sometimes with stunning brutality.  They can transcend the type of institution, academic disciplines, and political beliefs.

Other Relevant Posts

UMass Amherst launches campus-wide workplace anti-bullying initiative (2013)

Yesterday the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the flagship entity of a major public university system, publicly launched a workplace anti-bullying initiative with a campus symposium that attracted over 500 UMass employees. This remarkable turnout, which included staff, faculty, and administrators, was over triple the number of RSVPs for the event.

…I had the privilege of presenting the keynote address, and one of the lasting memories I’ll have is that of standing at the podium and seeing the large auditorium fill with people, with some having to stand even after dozens of extra chairs were brought in to accommodate the overflow.

Illuminating bullying, mobbing and conformity in academe (2012)

First, the value placed on compliance empowers some to bully others who won’t go along. A minor “rebellion” such as declining to follow a suggestion for revising a paper or dissertation, or a major one such as refusing to vote a certain way at a meeting, can trigger retaliatory responses. Graduate students and junior faculty are especially at risk in this regard.

Second, the embrace of authority explains the frequency of “puppet master” bullying and genuine mobbing in academic workplaces. Especially in academic workplaces that cannot tolerate dissent or diversity of opinion, individuals seen as not being with the program may face an onslaught of hostility or isolation. These behaviors may be inflicted on anyone, ranging from a graduate student to a senior tenured professor.

Study on incivility toward graduate students reports effects similar to workplace bullying (2011)

During the past decade, we have learned a lot about incivility, bullying, and other negative behaviors in the workplace. However, we don’t know much about similar forms of mistreatment in academic settings.

That void is what led Susan Stewart (Western Illinois U. — Quad Cities), Nathan Bowling (Wright State U.), and Melissa Gruys (Wright State U.) to develop a study that asked graduate student members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) about their experiences with anti-social behaviors by faculty members and fellow students.

 

The main objectives of schooling (and how mainstream higher ed is retreating on some of them)

In a 1990 lecture at the Harvard Extension School, renowned educator Mortimer Adler identified what he believed to be the “three main objectives of schooling”:

  • “preparation for earning a living”
  • “preparation for intelligent fulfillment of one’s civic duty, to be a good citizen of the republic” and,
  • “preparation for fulfilling one’s moral obligation to lead a morally good life.”

Each objective, Adler noted, would be “enriched by the continuation of learning after all schooling is terminated.”

Last week, I wrote about how many American colleges and universities are embracing the values of the New Gilded Age and retreating from their obligations to help us create a better society. Adler’s main objectives of schooling offer a useful framework for that critique.

Plenty of schools are emphasizing jobs and careers, and that’s fine. A college education should enhance someone’s employability and facilitate their vocational future. But this shouldn’t occur at the expense of preparing students to become useful, knowledgeable citizens and helping them grow into better human beings.

Indeed, one of the perverse ripple effects of the economic meltdown is how so many standard brand universities are cutting back on instruction that might shed insights on the very political, economic, social, and moral dynamics that led us to the Great Recession in the first place! More concretely, this has manifested itself in the decline of the liberal arts and humanities in the basic college curriculum.

Especially given the runaway costs of higher education, I understand the significance of a college education having some “return on investment” in terms of the job market. But it must be about more than economic gain. A higher ed industry that simply readies the next generation of worker bees is failing our society. We need a world of good workers, good citizens, and good people, with hopefully most of us possessing a healthy mix of all three qualities.

Peter Drucker’s “Managing Oneself”

Managing Oneself

The late Peter F. Drucker’s Managing Oneself (2008), an offering in the Harvard Business Review Classic series, is a smart, thought-provoking little monograph on career development and assessment. He opens this way:

History’s great achievers — a Napoleon, a da Vinci, a Mozart — have always managed themselves. That, in large measure, is what makes them great achievers. But they are rare exceptions, so unusual in both their talents and their accomplishments as to be considered outside the boundaries of ordinary human existence. Now, most of us, even those of us with modest endowments, will have to learn to manage ourselves. . . .

In fewer than 60 pages, Drucker asks us to consider the following questions:

  • “What are my strengths?”
  • “How do I perform?”
  • “What are my values?”
  • “Where do I belong?”
  • “What should I contribute?”

He also urges us to think about our “responsibility for relationships” and to develop opportunities for “the second half of your life.”

Drucker was a man of the 20th century, so he references many historical leaders of the era. But even if you’re a 21st century kinda person, his larger points merit consideration. Drucker was one of the most forward looking thinkers in management theory and practice, and his ideas remain very relevant today. This little book provides more questions than answers, but that’s probably the way it should be. The rest is up to us.

Announcing the U.S. Academy on Workplace Bullying, Mobbing, and Abuse

academy-web

The Workplace Bullying Institute and the New Workplace Institute are collaborating on an important new initiative, the creation of the U.S. Academy on Workplace Bullying, Mobbing, and Abuse.

The Academy will support and promote the multi-disciplinary work of its Fellows, a group of leading and emerging educators, researchers, practitioners, writers, and advocates who are dedicated to understanding, preventing, stopping, and responding to workplace bullying and related forms of interpersonal mistreatment.

Although we recognize the universality of these destructive behaviors, we are creating this network to focus on the unique challenges posed by American employee relations, mental health, and legal systems.

This initiative has been in the works for over a year, and I’m delighted to see it taking shape. The Academy’s website, to which more will be added in the months and years to come, is here. And here is the initial list of Fellows.

Academy Co-Facilitators

    • Gary Namie, Ph.D.
      Director, Workplace Bullying Institute, Bellingham, WA
    • David C. Yamada, J.D.
      Professor of Law and Director, New Workplace Institute, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA

Academy Fellows

(Note: Fellow status does not imply agreement with, or endorsement of, editorial, analytical, or public policy positions taken by the Workplace Bullying Institute or the New Workplace Institute.)

    • Beverly J. Aho, M.B.A., J.D.
      Attorney, James H. Gilbert Law Group, Eden Prarie, MN
    • Carol Arao, M.A.
      Co-Coordinator, California Healthy Workplace Advocates
      Columnist, Workplace Bullying Institute blog
    • David W. Ballard, Psy.D., M.B.A.
      Assistant Executive Director for Organizational Excellence
      American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
    • Peggy Ann Berry, Ph.D. candidate, R.N., SPHR, COHN-S
      Owner, Thrive At Life: Working Solutions Dayton, OH
    • Jane Bethel
      President, SEIU/NAGE Local R4-200, Norfolk, VA
      State Coordinator, Virginia Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Sharon Brennan, Ph.D.
      Past Pres. & 2014 President-elect, Division of Organizational, Consulting & Work Psychology
      New York State Psychological Association; Psychoanalyst, NY, NY
    • Jessi Eden Brown, M.S., LMHC, LPC, NCC
      Psychotherapist, Seattle, WA
      Professional Coach, Workplace Bullying Institute
    • Carrie Clark, M.A.
      Co-Founder, California Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Ellen Pinkos Cobb, J.D.
      Senior Legal Analyst, Isoceles Group, Boston, MA
      Author, Bullying, Violence, Harassment, Discrimination and Stress: Emerging Workplace Health and Safety Issues (2013)
    • Lana Cooke
      State Coordinator, West Virginia Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Barbara Coloroso
      Author, The Bully, The Bullied and the Bystander (Wm. Morrow, 2009)
      Expert in Youth Bullying, Littleton, CO
    • Pamela Countouris
      Bullying Prevention Trainer and Consultant, TCB Training & Consulting, Pittsburgh, PA
    • Teresa A. Daniel, J.D., Ph.D.
      Dean & Professor, Human Resource Leadership Program, Sullivan University
      Consultant & Author, Stop Bullying At Work (SHRM, 2009)
    • Michelle K. Duffy, Ph.D.
      Professor, Work & Organizations, Center for Human Resources & Labor Studies
      Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota
    • Maureen Duffy, Ph.D.
      Author, Overcoming Mobbing (Oxford U Press, 2014) and Mobbing: Causes, Consequences & Cures
      (Oxford U Press, 2012) and Psychotherapist & Consultant, Miami Shores, FL
    • Lisa Farwell, Ph.D.
      Professor of Psychology, Santa Monica College
    • Carol Fehner
      Co-Coordinator, California Healthy Workplace Advocates
      Union Bullying Consultant, AFGE National Officer (Ret.)
    • Bernice L. Fields, J.D.
      Arbitrator & Attorney, Minneapolis, MN
    • Jackie Gilbert, Ph.D.
      Professor of Management, Middle Tennessee State University
      State Coordinator, Tennessee Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Denise Halverson, Ph.D.
      Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young University
      State Coordinator, Utah Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Leslie Hammer, Ph.D.
      Professor of Psychology, Portland State University
    • Katherine A. Hermes, J.D., Ph.D.
      Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University
    • Victoria Johnson, Ph.D.
      Author & State Coordinator, Pennsylvania Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Melody M. Kawamoto, M.D., M.S.
      Public Health & Occupational Medicine Physician, Cincinnati, OH
    • Loraleigh Keashly, Ph.D.
      Associate Professor of Communications, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
    • Wynne Kearney, Jr., M.D.
      Surgeon & Activist, Mankato, MN
    • Kevin Kennemer, M.A.
      President, The People Group, Tulsa, OK
    • Paul Landsbergis, M.P.H., Ed.D., Ph.D.
      Associate Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
      SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY
    • Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, Ph.D.
      Associate Professor of Communication, North Dakota State University
      Author, Adult Bullying: A Nasty Piece of Work (2013)
    • Lewis Maltby, J.D.
      Founder & Director, National Workrights Institute, Princeton, NJ
      Author, Can They Do That? Retaking Our Fundamental Rights in the Workplace (Portfolio, 2009)
    • Andrew Mitchell
      Activist, Blogger – Stop Workplace Bullies Now, Dixon, IL
    • Ruth F. Namie, Ph.D.
      Founder, Workplace Bullying Institute
      Author, The Bully-Free Workplace (Wiley, 2011) and The Bully At Work (Sourcebooks, 2009, 2nd ed.)
    • Joel H. Neuman, Ph.D.
      Director Center for Applied Management, State University of New York at New Paltz
      Associate Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior
    • Christina Purpora, R.N., Ph.D.
      Associate Professor of Nursing, University of San Francisco
    • Judith A. Richman, Ph.D.
      Professor of Epidemiology in Psychiatry, University of Illinois, Chicago
    • Heidi R. Riggio, Ph.D.
      Professor of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles
    • Kathleen M. Rospenda, Ph.D.
      Associate Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago
    • Mike Schlicht, M.S.
      Founder & Co-Director, New York Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Peter Schnall, M.D., M.P.H.
      Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, Irvine
      Director, Center for Social Epidemiology
    • Michelle E. Smith, M.A.Ed.
      Co-Founder, California Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Gregory Sorozan, M.Ed., L.C.S.W.
      President SEIU/NAGE Local 282, Quincy, MA
      State Coordinator, Massachusetts Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Matt Spencer, Ed.D.
      Consultant, Workplace Bullying in Schools Project
      Author, Exploiting Children: School Board Members Who Cross the Line (R&L Education, 2013)
    • Len Sperry, M.D., Ph.D.
      Clinical Professor, Florida Atlantic University & Medical College of Wisconsin
      Author, Overcoming Mobbing (Oxford U Press, 2014) and Mobbing: Causes, Consequences & Cures
      (Oxford U Press, 2012)
    • Lamont E. Stallworth, Ph.D.
      Professor of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola University of Chicago
      Founder & Chairman, Center for Employment Dispute Resolution
    • Kerri L. Stone, J.D.
      Associate Professor of Law, Florida International University, Miami, FL
    • USN LCDR Leedjia A. Svec, Ph.D.
      Director & Senior Scientist, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Patrick AFB, FL
    • Bennett J. Tepper, Ph.D.
      Deans Distinguished Professor of Management & Human Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
    • Darren Treadway, M.B.A., Ph.D.
      Associate Professor of Organization & Human Resources, State University of New York at Buffalo
    • Esque Walker, M.S., Ph.D.
      Arbitrator/Texas Credentialed Distinguished Mediator
      State Coordinator, Texas Healthy Workplace Advocates
    • Tom Witt, M.L.S.
      Co-Director, New York Healthy Workplace Advocates
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 904 other followers

%d bloggers like this: