Bullying in Academia,MBT Kisumu 2 Sandale
Bullying is an aggressive behavior characterized by three defining conditions: (a) negative or malicious behavior intended to do harm or distress; (b) behavior that is repeated over a period of time; and (c) a relationship in which there is an imbalance in strength or power between the individuals involved (1). This imbalance in power is extremely prevalent in academia, where bullying is common, but often ignored. It has been suggested that cultures that are characterized as competitive, adversarial, and highly politicized are breeding grounds for bullying behavior (2).
Academia is a culture that breeds power differences and political maneuvering. It is also a culture that focuses on accomplishments and reputation. If the academic bully wants to harm a colleague, then their behaviors will be designed to undermine their victim's professional standing, authority, competence, and impede their ability to acquire resources for their work (such as money, space,billige MBT Schuhe, time, and curriculum support). These will be the weapons of choice for the academic bully.
Academic bullying involves the following behaviors: 1. threats to a colleague's professional status; 2. trying to isolate a colleague; and 3. obstructing a colleague's academic and professional progress. Academic bullies will often act in a passive aggressive manner while appearing civil and collegial. This is because civility and collegiality are part of the cultural expectations in higher education. In the case of the academic bullying, however, civility and collegiality are merely tools of deception.
Academic bullies will not resort to insults,Mbt Sandalen Jawabu, swearing, shouting, or threats of physical harm. This type of behavior may result in disciplinary action from colleagues and place an unnecessary burden on administrators who have to deal with the procedural issues that arise from such an action. Administrators will often view disciplinary action against a colleague as a professional threat to their own management and leadership abilities. This is another reason why responses to academic bullying are ignored or diminished.
Although research and the current media have characterized bullying in a negative manner, bullying can be used by politically skilled leaders in a manner that can result in positive consequences (3). Administrators and supervisors will sometimes ignore bullying because they recognize that it can work in their favor. For example, administrators can use academic bullying as a strategic attempt to influence others at work in order to maximize personal and/or organizational objectives. In academia, however, the consequences of bullying can be quite damaging.
Of particular relevance is the impact on job satisfaction, productivity/performance, and turnover as well as reduced positive interactions with students (4). Bullying behavior also goes against academia's notions of collegiality, civility, freedom, and autonomy. Lack of collegiality is a key influence on faculty leaving their institutions (5). Due to ineffective leadership and lack of intervention, faculty will eventually "check out" and have little motivation to deal with the academic bully. Not dealing with the academic bully leads only to more toxic environment and an increased likelihood of aggression and bullying (4).
Mechanisms available in higher education institutions may not be suitable for helping faculty deal with this toxic environment due to their highly formalized structure and limited authority (6). The issue of academic bullying is usually dealt with by administrators who view this as a threat to their own reputation which could eventually make matters even worse for the bully and the victims. Early action is the first step in preventing academic bullying from occurring in the institution. Administrators, faculty, and staff must come to an agreement on how to create the type of culture in which they want to work in. Bullying must always be seen as a destructive behavior that goes against academic civility and collegiality.
Institutions must learn to identify the characteristics of the culture that promote bullying. This will be a challenge because each individual must take responsibility for reflecting on their own personal values and behaviors. The following characteristics of a bullying culture must be addressed: power, control, pride, envy, selfishness, neglect, malevolence, vindictiveness, deceit, and indifference. Administrators must not remain indifferent on this matter. Indifference is destructive to an organization. New leadership models are now suggesting that the most effective leader is interested, compassionate, empathetic,Mbt Sandalen Katika, merciful, humble, selfless, decisive, and benevolent.
It is time to integrate values into academia that promote a healthy thriving culture where academic bullying is regarded as an offense to that vision. Perhaps academia can reflect on the concept of shalom. The basic meaning for shalom is totality or completeness. It includes fulfillment, completion, maturity, soundness, wholeness (both individual and communal), community, welfare, friendship, agreement, success, and prosperity (7).
References:
1. Stein et al. (2007). Adolescent Male Bullies, Victims, and Bully-Victims: A Comparison of Psychosocial and Behavioral Characteristics. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,Mbt Schuhe Nafasi, 32(3), 273-282. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsl023
2. Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 203-218). London: Taylor & Francis.
3. Ferris et al. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195-206.
4. Keashly & Neuman. (2010). Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education: Causes, Consequences, and ManagementAdministrative Theory & Praxis. 32 (1), 48-70.
5. Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46, 803-830.
6. Leal, R. R. (1995). From collegiality to confrontation: Faculty-to-faculty conflicts. New Directions for Higher Education, 92, 19-26.
7. Youngblood,Mbt Laufschuhe, R.F. (1986). Peace. In G.W. Bromily (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 3, pp. 732),Mbt Sandalen Panda, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
相关的主题文章：
没有评论:
发表评论