Feeding our dialogue about workplace bullying

Hello dear readers, I’ve collect some of my recent contributions to the dialogue about workplace bullying and related topics. I’m including several that I wrote about in earlier posts in case you missed them.

Article excerpted in popular law school casebook

I’m happy to share that my first law review article about workplace bullying and U.S. employment law, “The Phenomenon of ‘Workplace Bullying’ and the Need for Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection” (Georgetown Law Journal, 2000), has been excerpted in the new edition of a leading employment law casebook used in law schools, Mark Rothstein, Lance Liebman, Kimberly A. Yuracko, Charlotte Garden & Susan E. Cancelosi, Employment Law, Cases and Materials (10th ed., 2024).

In U.S. law school courses covering specific areas of law, casebooks usually comprise the main reading assignments. A typical casebook is a mix of edited judicial decisions, statutes, and regulations, often framed by the editors’ own commentaries and excerpts from legal treatises and law review articles.

This excerpt (see photo above) is part of a modest milestone of sorts. You see, the Rothstein casebook is, by my estimation, the first to include a standalone subsection on workplace bullying. Whereas major U.S. textbooks in fields such as organizational psychology and organizational behavior have included coverage of workplace bullying for some time, those in the legal field have lagged behind — in part because of the resistance of American legal jurisdictions to enact express protections against workplace bullying.

This means that law students assigned the Rothstein casebook will likely be introduced to the topic of workplace bullying, even as advocacy efforts to enact the workplace anti-bullying laws such as the Healthy Workplace Bill continue.

Although the Rothstein casebook is not freely accessible online, you may download a pdf of my 2000 Georgetown Law Journal article without charge here.

Call for amending OSH Act to include risks of serious psychological harm at work

Last fall, my essay “Expanding Coverage of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act to Protect Workers from Severe Psychological Harm” (freely downloadable pdf here) was published in the Suffolk University Law Review.  I used the opportunity to propose that we have a serious conversation about expanding the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to cover workers from workplace hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious psychological harm. Here’s the abstract:

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was designed to safeguard workers from hazardous working conditions that can cause serious physical harm and death. Since becoming law, the ongoing toll of physical injuries and fatalities at work reminds us of the compelling need for the OSH Act and its many state equivalents to protect workers. In addition, various research and public education initiatives are now spotlighting workplace hazards that severely threaten the psychological health of today’s employees. Toxic work environments generally, the extraordinary workplace stressors prompted by the COVID pandemic, and workplace bullying and abuse, among other concerns, have underscored the human costs of trauma, fear, anxiety, and stress.

Against this backdrop, this essay encourages a needed conversation about extending the regulatory reach of the OSH Act to cover severe psychological harms at work and to anticipate the impact of added enforcement responsibilities on the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most significantly, it will examine two potential policy responses: First, applying the current OSH Act to workplace bullying, pursuant to a theory first advanced by Professor Susan Harthill; and second, amending the OSH Act to expressly cover workplace hazards that may cause severe psychological harm.

Four basic postulates about women and workplace bullying

Recently my law review essay, “Four Basic Postulates Concerning Women and Workplace Bullying in the United States” (freely downloadable pdf here), was published in the FIU Law Review (2023), based at the Florida International University College of Law. It appeared as a collection of invited responses to FIU law professor Kerri Lynn Stone’s excellent book, Panes of the Glass Ceiling: The Unspoken Beliefs Behind the Law’s Failure to Help Women Achieve Professional Parity (2022).

I wrote the essay to propose and expound upon four basic postulates concerning women and bullying in the American workplace:

• First, “women are likely to be disproportionately targeted for workplace bullying, a reality that carries multifaceted implications.”
• Second, “men are disproportionately the perpetrators of workplace bullying, another reality that carries important significance for understanding relational workplace mistreatment.”
• Third, “complicated dynamics are in play when women are alleged perpetrators of workplace bullying.”
• Fourth, “the enactment of workplace anti-bullying laws can help to fill some of the legal gaps confronted by women who face both bullying and discriminatory harassment at work.”

Podcast episode about HR and workplace bullying

Last fall, Dr. Gary Namie (founder, Workplace Bullying Institute) and I jointly appeared on a podcast episode, “Wiping Out Workplace Bullying,” as part of HRMorning‘s “Voices of HR” series. The series is hosted by Berta Aldrich, a high-ranking senior executive turned author, executive trainer, and coach who engaged us in a very lively conversation.

The episode runs for almost an hour, but for those interested in a more pro-active role for HR in addressing workplace bullying, I think it is useful. Here are the links:

• Apple podcasts (audio), click here.
• Spotify (audio), click here.
• YouTube (video), click here.

Podcast episode about personality characteristics associated with bullying

Earlier this week, I was interviewed about bullying generally, and workplace bullying specifically, by the Breakfast Show of the Voices of Islam podcast, based in London. Most of the questions surrounded personality traits associated with bullying and bullies, which gave me an opportunity to discuss how both qualities of empathy and Adverse Childhood Experiences can elevate the risks of someone becoming a bully or a target.

You may access the podcast episode from SoundCloud click here without charge (free registration necessary). My segment starts at the 1:28 mark (1 hour, 28 minutes) and runs for about 12 minutes.

Delving into the Dark Triad

I’m working on a law review article that will examine how insights about trauma and traumatization can inform law reform efforts. Part of that work involves a consideration of the psychological make-up of those who engage in abusive behaviors. Those whose personalities encompass the “Dark Triad,” i.e., a combination of narcissistic, sociopathic/psychopathic, and Machiavellian traits, come up frequently in these discussions. In fact, more than a few perpetrators of workplace bullying and abuse are said to meet the Dark Triad profile.

The article pictured in the screen shot above, Delroy L. Paulhus & Kevin M. Williams, “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy,” Journal of Research in Personality (2002) (link here; account necessary), was the first articulation of the Dark Triad, analyzing how the three traits may overlap and interact.

More recently, the Dark Triad is the centerpiece of a new article by Arthur C. Brooks for The Atlantic magazine, “The Sociopaths Among Us–And How to Avoid Them” (link here). Here’s how he dives into the topic:

We all have stories of meeting people who appeared wonderful at first but turned out to be just awful. Perhaps it was a charming suitor, or a charismatic colleague, or a fascinating new friend. They attracted you on initial impression, but before long, you started to notice behaviors that gave you pause. Maybe it was a little shading of the truth here and there, or a bit too much vanity and selfishness. Perhaps they constantly played the victim, or took credit for other people’s work.

Or maybe your disillusionment with the person was not gradual, but through a dramatic—and dramatically unpleasant—episode. All it may take is a minor disagreement, and suddenly, you get screamed at, threatened with retaliation, or reported to HR. This kind of encounter leaves you, understandably, baffled, hurt, and confused.

Very likely, this person was a “Dark Triad” personality. The term was coined by the psychologists Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams in 2002 for people with three salient personality characteristics: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and a measurable level of psychopathy. These people confuse and hurt you, because they act in a way that doesn’t seem to make sense. As one scholar aptly described the ones whose behavior shades more obviously into psychopathy, these are “social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets.”

For the curious, there’s a lot of stuff out there about the Dark Triad, as a quick Google search will reveal. To explore the Dark Triad in specific settings, simply search “Dark Triad and —” to limit the scope of what comes up. When I get a chance, I’d like to do a deeper read into the abundant popular and scholarly literature on the Dark Triad at work. 

Labor Day 2023: Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. workers report workplace toxicity in APA study

On this Labor Day 2023, let’s focus on a recently-released survey by the American Psychological Association (APA), reporting that some 19% of respondents labeled their workplace as being “very or somewhat toxic.” 

The 2023 release of the APA’s annual Work in America Survey (link here) shows that many U.S. workers are not happy with the culture and climate of their workplaces:

For a sizeable portion of Americans, work is demoralizing, frightening, and even traumatic. “Toxic workplace” is an abstract term to describe infighting, intimidation, and other affronts that harm productivity. The result—in any context—is high absenteeism, low productivity, and soaring turnover.

The personal and organizational impacts of toxic workplaces are significant, as additional survey data shows:

• “The majority (59%) of those who were not at all or not very satisfied with their job described their workplace as toxic. Further, 58% of those who reported a toxic workplace also reported that they intend to look for a new job at a different company or organization in the next year, compared with only 27% of those who did not report a toxic workplace.”
• “Those who reported a toxic workplace were more than twice as likely to report that their overall mental health was fair or poor (58%) than those who did not report a toxic workplace (21%). Likewise, more than three-quarters (76%) of those who reported a toxic workplace also reported that their work environment has a negative impact on their mental health, compared with fewer than one-third (28%) of those who did not report a toxic workplace.”
• “Those who reported a toxic workplace were more than three times as likely to report having experienced harm to their mental health at work, compared with those who did not report a toxic workplace (52% vs. 15%, respectively). In addition, 77% of those who reported a toxic workplace also reported that their employer thinks their workplace environment is mentally healthier than it actually is, compared with 49% who did not report a toxic workplace.”

Of course, any reference to a toxic workplace, workplace toxicity, toxic boss/co-worker, etc., requires some unpacking. As I wrote last year:

It appears that a mix of the following has given rise to generic references about toxic work settings:

• • • • The MeToo movement;
      • The pandemic and overwork of workers in essential job categories;
      • The Great Resignation;
      • Diversity, equity, and inclusion;
      • Political and social discord;
      • Bullying and incivility;
      • Attention to bad bosses;
      • Wage stagnation and benefit cuts;
      • The recent dramatic uptick in union organizing.

The APA survey recognizes that point, as well. But larger message is that this broad topic encompasses negative behaviors and actions that need to be taken seriously.

Surgeon General’s Framework

The APA survey expressly tracks the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s 2022 Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being (link here), which includes workplace toxicity among its major concerns and specifically mentions workplace bullying under the category “protection from harm.”

Later this year, I will discuss my forthcoming law review article on workplace safety and health laws that also invokes the Surgeon General’s Framework. I think that this growing attention to toxic workplaces and the accompanying human and organizational costs potentially opens the door to a stronger federal regulatory role in safeguarding workers’ mental health.

Responding to toxic workplaces

The APA also commissioned writer Scott Sleek to do an accompanying article (link here; screenshot above) on how to combat toxic workplaces. I was among those interviewed for the piece, and here is what I said:

• “Toxic workplaces can involve ethical and legal offenses, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation, said David Yamada, director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School. In other cases, the toxicity involves bullying or unreasonable workloads. The result—in any context—is high absenteeism, low productivity, and soaring turnover.”
• “People who believe they’re being mistreated at work can look for corrective options in their employee handbook, from their union, or from an attorney, psychologists say. They should also consider whether their organization’s human resources department takes employee complaints seriously, Yamada said. In many cases, seeking a new job may be the best recourse, he added. Employers should investigate complaints and concerns about toxic work conditions as soon as they emerge…. They should look for and eliminate discrimination or sexual harassment to avoid legal exposure, and establish policies and procedures to address bullying….”

Trolls at work: Bullying, button-pushing, and provoking

(image courtesy of Clip Art Library)

Have you ever dealt with someone at work who behaves like some of the most annoying, high-conflict people you’ve encountered in social media settings?

I had a clarifying moment the other day. While reading a recent Framelab newsletter piece by Dr. George Lakoff, the brilliant linguistics professor and political analyst, about the futility of arguing with online trolls, I realized how this personality type can also be a giant pain to deal with at work.

In academe, I’ve seen troll behaviors in both in-person and online environments. I’m sure that many readers have witnessed or experienced trolling in other occupations and professions as well. So, I think this is worth a deeper dive.

Defining the troll

An online troll, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, is “someone who leaves an intentionally annoying or offensive message on the internet, in order to upset someone or to get attention or cause trouble.” Similarly, a generic troll is someone who would “intentionally do or say something annoying or offensive in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble.”

As I see it, one of the key definitional elements is intent. Troll behavior is about intentionally trying to get under someone’s skin, even when followed by astonished denials if called out on it. Deeper intentions may vary. The behavior could be designed simply to annoy or distract a perceived opponent or competitor. Or maybe it’s part of a more orchestrated campaign to undermine a co-worker.

I tend to ask myself where unwelcome work behaviors place on the broad spectrum, ranging between severe and targeted bullying, mobbing, and harassment on one end, and milder, unintentional incivilities and micro-aggressions on the other. The more intentionally harmful or destabilizing the behavior, the more it smacks of severe mistreatment.

Trolling definitely can be characterized as intentionally aggressive, passive-aggressive, or manipulative in nature. As such, repeated, frequent trolling can be a component of workplace bullying or mobbing.

Trolling vs. genuine disagreements and faux pas

Let’s first establish some dividing lines here. Not every provocative or disagreeable statement or idea is trolling, even if it’s likely to stir discomfort or discontent. For example, just because someone opposes an idea you’ve expressed in a meeting doesn’t mean you’re being trolled. It could happen multiple times, in fact, due to fundamental differences of opinion about the matters at hand.

Furthermore, even when possessing the best of intentions, many of us are capable of saying something annoying or offensive during the course of a spirited conversation. Perhaps we were misunderstood, in which case hopefully we get a chance to explain ourselves more clearly. In circumstances where we said something we regret, then ideally we’d have an opportunity to apologize and possibly change our mind. These instances aren’t trolling, either.

But let’s say you become aware of an individual who often operates in a disingenuous space, frequently setting up “straw men” in discussions or mischaracterizing information or opinions for the apparent purpose of being critical, disruptive, or engaging in button-pushing. And maybe it involves a sort of “stalky” tracking or following of someone to continually hassle them in this way. Well then, that’s troll territory, and whether online or in-person, it’s no fun to deal with.

Trolling vs. gaslighting

Trolling and gaslighting are related concepts and practices. Both are intended to mess with someone’s head, and both are typically conducted under a veneer of civility.

Gaslighting is a form of deliberate manipulation intended to disorient, confuse, and frighten those on the receiving end. In both intensity of behavior and malicious intent, I regard it as a targeted step up from trolling.

Trolling as setting up the aggressor as victim

Trolls can push people’s buttons. They intend to provoke. And if they push hard enough, they may prompt an angry, accusatory response from the target of their attentions. When that occurs, the trolls may be the first to claim victim status.

I’ve seen this dynamic occur frequently in workplace bullying situations. The perpetrator is an expert button pusher. The target reacts emotionally, perhaps even accusing the perpetrator of wrongdoing, while the latter responds with incredulous disbelief and claims that they are being victimized. The “judo flip” having been completed, the target is put on the defensive.

Dr. Jennifer Freyd has given a more formal name to this process, with an acronym that sounds like something drawn from the Department of Defense: DARVO, short for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

Dealing with genuine troll behaviors at work

Effective trolls are devious and clever. They contemplate what they’re going to say and how they’re going to say it for maximum effect.

In terms of psychological makeup, some of the worst workplace trolls may have a personality disorder, such as narcissism, sociopathy, or psychopathy. Despite the diminutive imagery of the term, trolls can be pretty disturbed and determined individuals.

It’s one thing to deal with a nasty troll on social media, but it’s quite another to deal with such an individual at work. Put simply, the stakes are typically higher when it involves one’s employment. 

For dealing with social media trolls, Dr. Lakoff advises:

• “Avoid the engagement trap.” — In other words, don’t go down the rabbit hole with a troll, having fallen for the bait set out by the troll.
• “Frame the issue from your own viewpoint.” — Use your frame and perspective, not the troll’s.
• “Block liberally.” — Drop, block, mute, unfriend, whatever.

Well, in the work context, we can dismiss the third piece of advice, as it’s pretty darn hard to completely block a co-worker or boss. The first two suggestions may be possible, however.

So what kind of advice are people dispensing specifically about trolling and the workplace? I found helpful Michael Schneider’s 2018 piece for Inc., “3 Rules for Surviving Trolls at Work” (link here). He advises:

• “Kill them with kindness” — “As in most bullying cases, the other person is likely dealing with their own insecurities and is taking it out on others. Show them kindness and empathy, and it will likely suppress the trolling. Don’t let them pull you into their negativity, instead pull them into your serenity.”
• “Use humor to counteract.” — “Trolls like to make others the brunt of their jokes. They love the reactions and attention it brings from others. However, if you’re wittier than they are, they will likely back down.”
• “Address them individually” — “When kindnesses and wit doesn’t work, it’s time to call the person out and address the situation face-to-face. When stating how you feel, use “I” statements. They prevent the other person from shifting the blame or minimizing the severity, and they clarify the impact of the person’s behavior.”

The first two pieces of advice — employing outward kindness (even if it feels insincere) and using humor (though measured) — can be effective, especially if one is confident in their ability to respond. However, especially if the trolling is part of a pattern of targeted bullying and the aggressor is a superior, then calling out the behavior and the individual can backfire.

Conventional wisdom sometimes says that because bullies are cowards, they will naturally back down when confronted with their behavior. However, time and again, those of us who have learned interviewed workplace bullying targets have heard accounts of attempts to confront the perpetrator failing miserably, oftentimes causing the bullying and accompanying retaliation to worsen.

Bottom line: When trolling becomes more frequent, severe, and targeted, it has entered a phase of bullying-type mistreatment. Resources for dealing with workplace bullying may be accessed from the Need Help? page of this blog, link here.

***

Related posts

Workplace bullying, DARVO, and aggressors claiming victim status (2019) (link here)

Gaslighting at work (2017, rev. 2018) (link here)

The bullied and the button pushers (2014) (link here)

When workplace bullies claim victim status: Avoiding the judo flip (2013) (link here)

 

Watch and learn: Video recordings of 2022 programs

 

Hello dear readers, I’m linking below video recordings of several programs in which I participated during 2022. I hope you’ll find something of interest!

• “Bullying and Incivility in the Academic Workplace” (March 2022) (link here) — I gave a presentation about “Bullying and Incivility in the Academic Workplace” to the Northeastern University College of Science in Boston, as part of a series on “Disrupting Academic Bullying.” I first cover bullying, mobbing, and incivility generally, then I examine these behaviors in academic workplaces.
• “Creating Healthy Workplaces Through Legislation” (April 2022) (link here) — At a conference hosted by the U.S. Department of the Navy and Howard University, I was invited to participate in a panel discussion on “Fostering Professional Climates and Cultures Through Accountability.” The conference was the 2022 “National Discussion on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at America’s Colleges, Universities and Service Academies.” I joined Rear Admiral Rebecca Patterson, Keetah Salazar-Thompson, and Kelley Bonner on this panel. My brief handout for the conference is posted here.
• “The WBI Story: Drs. Ruth & Gary Namie” (July 2022) (link here) — I had the privilege of interviewing Drs. Ruth and Gary Namie, co-founders of the Workplace Bullying Institute and long-time colleagues and friends, about the history of their pioneering work to address workplace bullying. This program was part of Gary’s Workplace Bullying Podcast series.
• “The Hero’s Call: Workplace Bullying” (Sept. 2022) (link here) — Suffolk Law alumnus and trial attorney Marc Diller extended an invitation to appear on his law firm’s video web series, The Hero’s Call. Marc and his colleague, Dr. John Naranja, asked me about my work around workplace bullying, the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, and associated activities in the field of therapeutic jurisprudence.
• “The Dignity of an Intellectual Life for All” (Oct. 2022) (link here) — I organized and hosted an interactive discussion featuring Zena Hitz (tutor, St. John’s College and author, Lost in Thought: The Hidden Pleasures of an Intellectual Life (2020)), followed by a responsive panel of distinguished educators, including Joseph Coulson, Hilda Demuth-Lutze, Linda Hartling, and Amy Thomas Elder. Hosted by Suffolk University Law School and co-sponsored by the Basic Program in Liberal Education for Adults at the University of Chicago, Harrison Middleton University, and the World Dignity University initiative of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies.

We need to dig beneath generic references to “toxic workplaces”

(image courtesy of clipart-library.com)

If you’ve been following media coverage of some of the not-so-wonderful aspects of the current American workplace, then you may have encountered the growing cacophony of references to “toxic workplaces,” “toxic work environments,” “toxic jobs,” and the like. (If you doubt me, do a few Google searches and you’ll quickly see what I mean!)

It appears that a mix of the following has given rise to generic references about toxic work settings:

• The MeToo movement;
• The pandemic and overwork of workers in essential job categories;
• The Great Resignation;
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion;
• Political and social discord;
• Bullying and incivility;
• Attention to bad bosses;
• Wage stagnation and benefit cuts;
• The recent dramatic uptick in union organizing.

Organizational behavior research from years ago taught me that different forms of workplace mistreatment tend to run together in packs. Thus, if you encounter a workplace rife with sexual harassment, then you’re quite likely to see other forms of interpersonal mistreatment flourishing as well. Contemporary news accounts often confirm this. For example, I’ve noticed that investigative pieces focusing on sexual misconduct in a given workplace often then segue into describing behaviors that might be labeled as bullying and/or incivility.

In any event, if we wish to create healthier, happier, and more productive workplaces, then we need to dig beneath the generic tag of toxicity and ask specifically what’s going on. The results may yield different problem areas and different fixes. Some bad behaviors may be intentional. Others will fall under the categories of negligence or dysfunction. Some may implicate employment and labor law violations. Certain concerns may be organizational in nature; others may be limited to a department or working group.

It’s also true that, on occasion, frequent complainers will invoke the language of toxicity to avoid supplying specific allegations that won’t hold up. Some will do so as attempted shields against accountability for their own inadequate work performances.

That said, I feel confident in saying that there is a fair amount of genuine unhappiness and undue stress in our workplaces during this snapshot moment in time. Some of the causes may be beyond the means of even well-intentioned organizations to remedy. But good employers will address worker concerns with attention to detail and an innate sense of fairness and dignity, while bad ones will dismiss reports of workplace toxicity and sometimes pay the consequences.

The Amy Wax situation: On academic freedom, diversity & inclusion, workplace mobbing, and cancel culture

Screenshot from Inside Higher Education

Applying just about any conventional measure, law professor Amy Wax has built a spectacularly successful career. She holds a chaired professorship at an Ivy League law school (University of Pennsylvania). She has assembled a ferocious c.v. (link here), loaded with sterling academic and professional achievements, publications, and awards. Her degrees include a J.D. from Columbia and an M.D. from Harvard.

And yet she is under heavy fire for an ongoing, alleged series of polarizing, critical statements and negative characterizations about people of color, women, and gays. For that she faces potential discipline and loss of tenure protections. The Dean of her law school has asked the university’s faculty senate to impose sanctions on her, a possible prelude towards eventual termination proceedings.

Scott Jaschik, writing for Inside Higher Education (link here), provides a lot of details about this situation, which has received national attention. Here’s his lede:

Some students and faculty at the University of Pennsylvania have been clamoring for years for the ouster of Amy Wax, the polarizing law professor who courted scandal with incendiary and racist remarks and writings and seemed to relish the resulting controversies. Despite the repeated calls for her removal from her tenured position, and the criticisms of her actions—including by university leaders—that followed each controversy, Wax remained in the position and seemed firmly protected by free speech and academic freedom rights.

That pattern may be about to change: the dean of the Penn law school has started a process that could lead to Wax’s termination.

To be clear, we’re not talking about an isolated instance or two of questionable speech. From Penn Law dean Theodore Ruger’s memorandum to the Chair of the Faculty Senate (link here), here are some of Prof. Wax’s alleged statements, made to individual students, her classes, and public audiences:

• “Stating in class that Mexican men are more likely to assault women and remarking such a stereotype was accurate in the same way as ‘Germans are punctual.'”
• “Commenting in class that gay couples are not fit to raise children and making other references to LGBTQ people that a student reported evinced a ‘pattern of homophobia.'”
• “Commenting after a series of students with foreign-sounding names introduced themselves that one student was ‘finally, an American’ adding, ‘it’s a good thing, trust me.'”
• Telling a Black student…”who asked whether Wax agreed with [a panelist’s] statements that Black people are inherently inferior to white people, that ‘you can have two plants that grow under the same conditions, and one will just grow higher than the other.'”
• Telling a Black student “that Black students don’t perform as well as white students because they are less well prepared, and that they are less well prepared because of affirmative action.”
• “Stating, based on misleading citation of other sources, that ‘women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men,’ women are ‘less intellectual than men’ and there is ‘some evidence’ for the proposition that ‘men and women differ in cognitive ability.'”
• “Stating that ‘our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.'”
• “Stating that Asians have an ‘indifference to liberty,’ lack ‘thoughtful and audacious individualism’ and that ‘the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.’”
• “Stating that ‘there were some very smart Jews’ among her past students but that Ashkenazi Jews are ‘diluting [their] brand like crazy because [they are] intermarrying.'”
• “Stating that low-income students may cause ‘reverse contagion,’ infecting more ‘capable and sophisticated’ students with their ‘delinquency and rule-breaking.'”
• “Stating that ‘if you go into medical schools, you’ll see that Indians, South Asians are now rising stars. . . . [T]hese diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are poisoning the scientific establishment and the medical establishment now.'”

In her recently posted GoFundMe appeal to create the “Amy Wax Legal Defense Fund” (link here), Prof. Wax states that Dean Ruger’s charges of inappropriate conduct are an attack on her conservative principles and are “littered with indignant invective and unsubstantiated and distorted claims.” She adds:

Penn Law Dean Ruger’s latest steps are part of a longstanding campaign at Penn Law School against me based on my stated positions, opinions, and speech, and despite my stellar performance as an award-winning teacher and academic during my decades-long career as a law professor. Penn’s actions represent an unprecedented and deeply destructive threat to the practice and traditions of free expression on campus and the tenure protections afforded to professors who express unpopular views. They are further evidence of the “woke” takeover of our university system, which seeks to stifle and punish dissent and purge our campuses of any deviation from a narrow set of progressive dogmas.

Academic freedom and tenure

While academic tenure may not be the lifetime job guarantee that some claim it is, it’s true that tenured professors at stable institutions who perform their work satisfactorily can expect continued employment. (For more about this topic, see my blog article, “What is academic tenure?,” link here.) And as a tenured professor at a prestigious university, Prof. Wax enjoys some of the strongest job protections available to any American employee.

One of the main purposes of tenure is to safeguard academic freedom in teaching, scholarship, and service activities. This includes freedom of expression, written or spoken. I regard academic freedom and tenure as carrying both rights and responsibilities. They include earned protections and accompanying obligations to perform one’s job with integrity. Tenure revocation is possible in cases of serious misconduct.

For controversial speech in such a context, I suggest that we establish a spectrum between being a thought-provoking scholar and being a simple provocateur.

The thought-provoking scholar pushes the boundaries of our assumptions and perceptions, using facts, analysis, interpretation, and sometimes creative expression. At times, this may include voicing or supporting unpopular viewpoints. The simple provocateur is more akin to a keyboard warrior, playing to the crowd in the comments section. This is the stuff of the internet troll and has very little to do with reasoned thought.

Where Amy Wax places on that spectrum may help us understand how her situation should be resolved. If her statements are considered so outlandish, irresponsible, and hurtful as to constitute misconduct, then sanctions may be in offing.

One of the most challenging considerations here is that we don’t have a bevy of comparable situations to give us guidance on how this should be handled. Assuming that Prof. Wax said or wrote most of the statements attributed to her, then this is a far cry from more typical scenarios that involve isolated instances or a small cluster of utterances deemed problematic.

It’s fair to point out that if Wax had been employed in a standard-brand, private-sector job setting (like a law firm or medical center), then it’s likely that she would’ve been terminated for cause already, perhaps following disciplinary warnings or a suspension. But academic freedom and tenure provide both substantive and procedural protections that most jobs do not offer.

Diversity and inclusion

You can easily see how the Wax situation is tailor-made for America’s tortured and fraught political and civic dialogue about diversity and freedom of expression. Her alleged statements have caused such an uproar because many have found them to be outrageous, hurtful, and wrongheaded. They’ve come at a time when “DEI” (diversity, equity, inclusion) is a deep focus of the day, in academe and corporate America alike.

Wax’s defenders range from those who agree with the substance of her alleged statements to those who place a very high value on academic freedom. 

Workplace mobbing

Folks have every right to criticize or defend Wax. She should be subjected to appropriate discipline if she’s crossed a clear line. From my concededly distanced perch, I believe that she is at that line or has even crossed it. While some of her alleged statements may fall under the cloak of academic freedom, many others appear to be grounded in animus towards difference.

Whether one agrees with Wax or not, there’s always a risk that critical voices can become an unruly mob. I find Wax’s worldview deeply objectionable, but I’m not happy about workplace mobbing scenes either. Prof. Kenneth Westhues’ pathbreaking work on mobbing in academe has repeatedly illustrated how quickly and dramatically such behaviors can escalate.

I imagine that Prof. Wax is feeling quite under siege right now. I don’t envy her. If she does face any disciplinary proceedings, then I hope — for everyone’s sake — that they will be conducted with dignity, fairness, and honesty.

Cancel culture

Especially because there is no legal definition of cancel culture, it’s important that we have some understanding of what it means in the employment context. I suggest that we define cancel culture at work as a response claimed to be disproportionately harsh — typically, either severe discipline or termination — to statements or actions deemed objectionable, hurtful and/or controversial.

At this juncture, it’s hard for anyone to legitimately claim that Amy Wax has been “cancelled.” However, the University’s moves toward possible disciplinary action and/or termination will cause the term to be used. And especially if her tenure is revoked and she is dismissed, then notwithstanding any due process she had been accorded, the cries of cancel culture from certain circles will be loud and sustained.

If Wax does leave Penn under whatever circumstances, then she will very likely land on her feet. She will be accorded martyr status and will no doubt be hired by an institution more compatible with her social and ideological views.

Summing up

While admitting that I’ve waded into this conversation with some trepidation, I feel obliged to share my own sense of this situation. I consider many of Amy Wax’s alleged statements to be hurtful and divisive. They sound like those of a provocateur fueling an ugly, exclusionary worldview, rather than those of a thought-provoking professor who occupies a position of enormous privilege and responsibility.

Yup, issues surrounding diversity and difference are challenging and can yield honest differences of opinion. There is a place in that discussion for strong language. But I don’t think that the heart of Wax’s rhetoric is contributing to our understanding of these issues. Sadly, one thing I’m certain of is that the eventual outcome of this situation — whatever it happens to be — will drive a deeper wedge into our political and social divide. 

The pandemic hasn’t curbed workplace bullying, but the Great Resignation might do so

Image courtesy Clipart Panda

As discussed on this blog last year, the pandemic did not put the breaks on workplace bullying, at least in the U.S. Rather, as verified in a scientific study by the Workplace Bullying Institute done with Zogby Analytics, much of the offending behavior simply went online, mainly via video conferencing platforms such as Zoom.

But perhaps the greatest shift in the labor market related to the pandemic — tagged broadly as the “Great Resignation” — is signaling to employers that it would be in their best interests to take bullying and related behaviors more seriously. 

You see, even the mainstream business media, such as Bloomberg and Forbes, are acknowledging that toxic work cultures are a major driver of the Great Resignation. And although references to toxic work environments do not necessarily equate with workplace bullying, you can bet that the latter makes up a lot of the former.

The pandemic has given many people opportunities to reflect upon their work experiences, and a good number have reckoned that they’ve been toiling under unpleasant conditions. Overall, a more plentiful labor market has offered workers greater flexibility in terms of changing jobs.

In addition, a resurgent labor movement — most strongly evidenced by a wave of successful union organizing campaigns at Starbucks locations across the country — is providing more workers with an opportunity to voice concerns about their conditions of employment, including bullying, harassment, and abuse. Bullying and related concerns can, in turn, be raised at the bargaining table. (Some unions, such as SEIU/NAGE here in Massachusetts, have become major allies in standing against workplace bullying.)

Generational dynamics are playing a role. There’s evidence that younger workers, in particular, appear to be valuing respectful working conditions over trendy perks. Many are entering the workforce after learning about bullying and exclusion during their years of schooling.

It’s too early to tell how many employers will take hard looks at their workplace cultures in the midst of this evolving labor market. After all, if there’s one word that characterizes our current climate of employee relations and the wider frame of the economy, uncertainty is it. In fact, if the economy goes into recession, then workers may suddenly find themselves with much less bargaining power over job offers and working conditions.

Nonetheless, smart employers will proactively address bullying and other abusive workplace behaviors as part of an intelligent program of employee relations aimed at bolstering productivity and worker well-being. The resources for doing so are readily available. The Workplace Bullying Institute, for example, offers a “Healthy Workplace System” with various education and training components. For starters, it can be as simple as applying lessons from The Bully-Free Workplace (2011), by Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie.

Opportunities to build healthier workplace cultures abound. Reducing and responding to workplace bullying can be chief among them.

Presentation: “Bullying and Incivility in the Academic Workplace”

Earlier this year, I gave a virtual presentation about “Bullying and Incivility in the Academic Workplace” for the Northeastern University College of Science in Boston, as part of a series on “Disrupting Academic Bullying.” The recording has been posted to YouTube (link here). I use the first 18-19 minutes to cover bullying, mobbing, and incivility generally, and then I discuss these behaviors in academic work settings. My prepared remarks run for about 44 minutes in all, followed by Q&A and comments for another 25 minutes.

Relevant Earlier Posts

• Addressing workplace bullying, mobbing, and incivility in higher education: The roles of law, cultures, codes, and coaching (2017) (link here);
• UMass-Amherst launches campus-wide workplace anti-bullying initiative (2013) (link here);
• Workplace bullying and mobbing in academe: The hell of heaven? (2009; rev. 2014) (link here).

Bullying, mobbing, and incivility in the healthcare workplace

On Wednesday, I discussed bullying, mobbing, and incivility in healthcare workplaces at a Grand Rounds session hosted by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, in New York City. It was a welcomed opportunity to discuss the challenges of the current healthcare work environment with physicians and other professionals.

Grand Rounds are a form of continuing professional education for those who work in healthcare settings. Sessions typically feature a presentation plus Q&A. Although many Grand Rounds presenters are experts in specific areas of healthcare practice and delivery, at times folks from related fields are invited to present.

When I first became involved with anti-bullying work in the late 1990s, it soon became evident that many healthcare workplaces were sites of significant bullying and related behaviors. I first started hearing accounts of bullying from nurses. Then came the stories from physicians, residents, and medical students. These streams of reports have remained consistent over the years.

Fortunately, some positive signs have appeared as well, at least at the bird’s eye level. Here in the U.S., two significant professional bodies — the Joint Commission and the American Medical Association — have now weighed in strongly against bullying-type behaviors.

The Joint Commission

In 2008 (modified and reaffirmed in 2021), the Joint Commission — an independent, non-profit organization that accredits health care organizations and programs — issued a standard on intimidating and disruptive behaviors at work, citing concerns about patient care (link here):

Intimidating and disruptive behaviors can foster medical errors, contribute to poor patient satisfaction and to preventable adverse outcomes, increase the cost of care, and cause qualified clinicians, administrators and managers to seek new positions in more professional environments. Safety and quality of patient care is dependent on teamwork, communication, and a collaborative work environment. To assure quality and to promote a culture of safety, health care organizations must address the problem of behaviors that threaten the performance of the health care team.

As you can see, the Joint Commission’s primary focus was on how bullying-type behaviors can have a negative impact on patient care.

American Medical Association

More recently, the American Medical Association — the largest national association representing the interests of doctors and other healthcare stakeholders — has issued statements, reports, and training materials covering bullying and related behaviors. The AMA defines workplace bullying as (link here):

…repeated, emotionally or physically abusive, disrespectful, disruptive, inappropriate, insulting, intimidating, and/or threatening behavior targeted at a specific individual or a group of individuals that manifests from a real or perceived power imbalance and is often, but not always, intended to control, embarrass, undermine, threaten, or otherwise harm the target.

These 2020 developments are shared on the AMA website (link here):

• “‘Bullying in the workplace is a complex type of unprofessional conduct. Bullying in medicine happens as a result of a combination of individual, organizational and systemic issues,’ says an AMA Board of Trustees Report on the topic. ‘The first line of defense against this destructive behavior are physicians, residents and medical students. There is no justification for bullying, disrespect, harassment, intimidation, threats or violence of any kind to occur among professionals whose primary purpose is to heal. Physicians choose medicine as their life’s work for many reasons, one of the most important being their desire to help and care for people.'”
• The AMA House of Delegates “adopted guidelines for the establishment of workplace policies to prevent and address bullying in the practice of medicine, saying that ‘health care organizations, including academic medical centers, should establish policies to prevent and address bullying in their workplaces.'”

In 2021, the AMA published a short training guide, Bullying in the Health Care Workplace: A Guide to Prevention and Mitigation, which can be accessed here.

My Advice

I closed my prepared remarks with recommendations on how healthcare institutions can address bullying behaviors, adapting them from a recently published piece on bullying in the legal profession, written for the American Bar Association:

• “Understand that health care professionals have not necessarily been trained to work well with others. Some may not grasp the distinctions between assertive, aggressive, and abusive behaviors.”
• “Include all stakeholders, recognizing that bullying can be vertical (typically top-down) and horizontal/lateral (peer(s) to peer(s)).”
• “For healthcare employers, start at onboarding and orientation, messaging to new hires that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect.”
• “Include bullying in employee handbooks and employee training programs, per AMA recommendations.”
• “Use climate surveys and 360 feedback mechanisms to help identify problems concerning bullying and related behaviors. Don’t sweep bad reports under the rug.”
• “Consider coaching, counseling, and – if necessary – termination for abusive individuals, even if they are proficient in other areas of their performance.”
• “Medical and nursing schools should include bullying and incivility in their curricula.”
• “Especially during the pandemic, incivility and bullying behaviors from patients and their families should be part of education, training, and institutional responses.”

***

As I noted during my presentation, all the best practices and policies aren’t worth a thing if they are not implemented and followed with good intentions. But the fact that national healthcare associations are recognizing the harms caused by bullying behaviors to workers and patients alike is encouraging.

The Mount Sinai event attracted a strong turnout, and I received very positive feedback on the session from the program organizers. As I said to those who attended, I am especially grateful to all healthcare providers during this pandemic. I hope that they found the hour we spent together useful and interesting.