University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of community college department chairs in the prevention of bullying

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of community college department chairs in the prevention of bullying

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content i
11
The Role of Community College Department Chairs in the Prevention of Bullying
by
Lester Mikio Tanaka
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2022
Copyright 2022 Lester Mikio Tanaka

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my wife, Colleen, who tolerated my mood swings and never stopped knowing the
spiritual truth of my doctoral journey. I cherish the wind you have always provided under my
wings. To my son Luke and daughter Dayna, thank you for your encouraging words and for
believing in me when I had doubts. I am so proud of the kind, supportive, and curious adults you
have become.
My most profound appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, for
her support, insight, and feedback through each phase of my study. Thanks to my dissertation
committee members, Dr. Jennifer Phillips and Dr. Sheila Banuelos, whose kind yet poignant
comments and suggestions were much appreciated. Next, thank you to Dr. Carey Regur and Dr.
Evelyn Felina Castillo for their early support. Lastly a huge thank you to Dr. Justin Gatewood
and Karen Renee Gatewood for their feedback and encouragement the final stages.
I am deeply grateful for my late mother, May Chizue Hikokawa Tanaka, who never
stopped believing in my academic prowess, knowing that I would find my way to ikigai. To my
late father, Tom Mitsuru Tanaka, a man of few words, I appreciate your kindness and patience.
You have taught me the courage to care despite all challenges. A heartfelt domo arigatou
gozaimasu to my late Aunty Harriet and Uncle Fred Chong. Thank you for your never-ending
interest in my adventures. Your incredible financial support provided the means to pursue my
Ed.D. at the University of Southern California.
Lastly, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to anyone who has been the target of
bullying. I know that this lesson in adversity has given you the courage and resilience to find
your authentic, purpose-driven path.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………..ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Context of the Field of Practice and Mission .............................................................................. 2
Global Goal ................................................................................................................................. 3
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 3
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 4
Stakeholder Group's Performance ............................................................................................... 5
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal .................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .......................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation.................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 11
Bullying Defined ....................................................................................................................... 11
Defining and Identifying Bullying ............................................................................................ 12
Bullying in Higher Education ................................................................................................... 18
Conducive Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 20
Positionality of Department Chairs ........................................................................................... 20
Leadership Preparedness ........................................................................................................... 21
Leadership Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 22
Consequences of Bullying ......................................................................................................... 22
Human Costs ......................................................................................................................... 22
Organizational Costs ............................................................................................................. 24
Roles and Antecedents of Bullying ........................................................................................... 27
Bullies .................................................................................................................................... 28
Victims .................................................................................................................................. 30
Leadership Response and Style ................................................................................................. 32
Constructive Management ..................................................................................................... 32
Incomplete Management ....................................................................................................... 32
Disengaged Management ...................................................................................................... 34
Destructive Management ....................................................................................................... 34
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ................................................................. 35
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................................... 36
Factual Knowledge ................................................................................................................ 36
Conceptual Knowledge ......................................................................................................... 37
Categories and Classes of Bullying ........................................................................................... 37
Understanding Bullying Intensity and Frequency ................................................................. 37
Procedural Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 38
Limitations of Existing Bullying Policies ................................................................................. 39

iv

Adherence to Timelines and Procedures ................................................................................... 40
Resistance to Reporting Bullying .............................................................................................. 42
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 44
Self-Efficacy Theory ............................................................................................................. 44
Utility Value .......................................................................................................................... 45
Organizational Culture Gaps ..................................................................................................... 47
Cultural Model....................................................................................................................... 48
Cultural Settings .................................................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 52
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 52
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale ............................................................................. 52
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale................................................... 53
Data Collection and Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 54
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 54
Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................... 55
Document Review ..................................................................................................................... 55
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 55
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 56
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Research Positionality ............................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................. 59
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 59
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 60
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................................... 62
Factual Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 63
Bullying Behaviors and Activities......................................................................................... 63
Physical and Psychosocial Effects ......................................................................................... 69
Institutional Costs .................................................................................................................. 70
Conceptual Knowledge ............................................................................................................. 72
Procedural Knowledge .............................................................................................................. 74
Bullying Policies and Procedures .......................................................................................... 75
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 77
Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................................................... 78
Utility Value .......................................................................................................................... 81
Cultural Model....................................................................................................................... 85
Cultural Setting ...................................................................................................................... 91
Synthesis .................................................................................................................................. 101

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN .................................... 105
Proposed Knowledge Influence Training and Recommendations .......................................... 106
Increase DC’s Knowledge of Bullying Activities and Behaviors ....................................... 106
Increase DC’s Knowledge of the Physical and Psychosocial Effects of Bullying .............. 110
Increase DC’s Knowledge of the Institutional Cost of Bullying ......................................... 111
Increase DC’s Knowledge of How to Report and Respond to Bullying ............................. 112

v

Proposed Motivation Recommendations…………………………………………………. 113
Increase the Self-Efficacy of Department Chairs for Effectively and Efficiently Handling
Bullying in Their Departments ............................................................................................ 118
Increase the utility value of reducing bullying in academic departments ........................... 119
Proposed Organizational Recommendations........................................................................... 120
Proposed Training Recommendations .................................................................................... 122
Increase Awareness of Cultural Models That Apply to Bullying ....................................... 122
Increase Organizational Commitment to Educating Employees on Working Knowledge of
Laws, Policies, and Procedures That Apply to Bullying ..................................................... 124
Establish a Clear Procedure of How Existing Laws, Codes, and By-Laws Apply to the
Bullying of Unprotected Classes ......................................................................................... 126
Establish Antibullying Training for Senior Leadership, DCs, and Faculty ........................ 127
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 128
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................................... 129
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................. 129
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 132
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................ 136
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................. 141
Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................... 144
Summary of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Approach ............................................................... 146
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................................... 146
Immediately Following the Program Implementation ........................................................ 147
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation ................................................... 149
Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................... 149
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 151
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 152
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 152

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 155

APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................ 188
Appendix A Proposed Qualitative Questions ............................................................................. 188
Appendix B Proposed Document Analysis................................................................................. 190
Appendix C Evaluation Questions .............................................................................................. 192
Appendix D Blended Evaluation Tools ...................................................................................... 195

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Organizational Mission and Global Goal ......................................................................... 6
Table 2 Historical Timeline of Bullying Definitions ................................................................... 13
Table 3 AQ-R Subfactor Correlations ......................................................................................... 16
Table 4 Knowledge Influence, Types, and Assessments ............................................................. 43
Table 5 Motivation Influence and Assessment ............................................................................ 47
Table 6 Assumed Organizational Influences, Gaps, and Priorities ............................................. 50
Table 7 Participant Demographics ............................................................................................... 61
Table 8 Assumed Knowledge Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings. ............... 62
Table 9 NAQ-R Subcategory Examples Mentioned During Interview ....................................... 65
Table 10 Assumed Motivational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings ........... 78
Table 11 Assumed Organizational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings ........ 85
Table 12 Internet Institutional Search for Antibullying Policy ................................................... 97
Table 13 Description of Prior Experience, Improvements in Self Efficacy, and Institutional
Training in ..................................................................................................................................... 99
Table 14 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 107
Table 15 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 117
Table 16 Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations................................. 121
Table 17 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Lead Indicators ............. 130
Table 18 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 133
Table 19 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 135
Table 20 Components of Learning for the Program .................................................................. 140
Table 21 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. ................................................... 143
Table 22 Training and Review Sequence .................................................................................. 148

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Critical Path: Responding to Reported Bullying ......................................................... 115
Figure 2 Proposed Assessment of Level 1 Reactions ............................................................... 145
Figure 3 Proposed Known Bullying Cases by Department ....................................................... 150

viii

ABSTRACTS
This qualitative study triangulates interview data from 12 Department Chairs from three
of the four Nevada Community Colleges with publicly available documents at each community
college in the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), NSHE codes, and federal
employment laws. This study examined performance gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008) that contributed to bullying among academic faculty
and the role of department chairs as key stakeholders.
The study determined a lack of factual knowledge of individual effects, organizational
consequences, and procedural knowledge in responses to bullying. Department chairs (DC)
reported limited self-efficacy and lacked perceived utility value based on past events and
resistance to organizational change. Cultural models revealed an organization that promoted a
reluctance to action and no incentives for effective conflict resolution. Additionally, institutions
were void of anti-bullying policies or were unknown to DCs.
Lastly, none of the participants reported formal institutional training in bullying. The
final chapter examined training recommendations based on validated gaps and outlined
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level evaluation plan in reverse order. The researcher
suggested that anti-bullying training for all academic leadership will support a collegial
environment and reduce the personnel hours involved in addressing ongoing bullying cases.

1
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This dissertation addressed the problem of bullying among academic faculty at
Community Colleges in the United States. Since the seminal work of Brodsky (1976) in the
Harassed Worker, a proliferation of terms, constructs, and definitions surfaced in the United
States relating to bullying (Keashly & Jagatic, 2011). This dissertation defined bullying as ". . .
Unwanted, negative behavior unilaterally instigated by one or more perpetrators over a
prolonged period, manifested as verbal and nonverbal behaviors or sabotaging tactics or a
combination of all tactics which prevent the targeted persons from performing satisfactorily"
(Namie & Namie, 2009b, p. 203). The term bullying was selected over harassment as the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 2019) defines harassment as unwelcomed
conduct based on protected class status in which conduct becomes a condition of employment
and is severe or pervasive enough to be considered a hostile environment.
Given postsecondary education's competitive, accomplishment-based nature, higher
education provides a context-rich environment where bullying still thrives (Keashly & Neuman,
2008). In a survey of 3,200 respondents from 175 higher education institutions, 64% were targets
or witnessed bullying in the previous 18 months (Hollis, 2015a). This problem was important to
address because workplace bullying can lead to employee turnover, declines in employee
engagement (McKay et al., 2008), and costs associated with loss of productivity and new
employee training (O'Connell & Kung, 2007). Therefore, this dissertation examined the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that influence bullying among faculty.
Department chairs’ knowledge and motivation influences within their institutional context play a
critical role in the implementation of strategies to eliminate bullying.

2

Context of the Field of Practice and Mission
The purpose of community colleges (CCs) is to increase access to higher education,
provide developmental education for students lacking academic skills, facilitate workforce
education, and transfer to 4-year institutions (Dougherty et al., 2017). With 29% first-generation
college students, 20% students with disabilities, 15% single parents, 9% non-U.S. citizens, and
5% veterans (Snyder, 2019), an estimated 81% of disadvantaged students would not have
attended any college (Mountjoy, 2021). With CCs providing access to higher education through
their open enrollment policies, this sector served as a significant resource for workforce
development in the United States (Jacobs & Worth, 2019).
Research on higher education bullying was sparse (Hollis, 2015a; Keashly & Neuman,
2010; King & Piotrowski, 2015; Swearer & Hymel, 2015). In a study of 142 community colleges
in six states, Hollis (2016a) found that 64% of the respondents indicated that bullying affected
them. Fogg (2008) noted workplace bullying could lead to a substantial dip in productivity,
increased stress, and an inability to attract new hires in postsecondary education. According to
Hollis (2015a), persistently bullied higher education employees are more likely to quit or
withdraw. Hollis also stated that 20% of higher education personnel had left a previous
institution, while 15% considered leaving their current employer. The hierarchical nature of
higher education exacerbated and, at times, promoted bullying (Hollis, 2016a). Postsecondary
institutions have clear reporting lines and unspoken expectations for faculty and staff to follow
the chain of command. Not surprisingly, respondents indicated that bullies originate from the
following classifications (top five): tenured faculty 43%, union representative 23%, director
21%, vice president or provost 20%, and entry-level/admin support 18% (Hollis, 2016a).

3

Unfortunately, higher education perceives bullying as lower in intensity and a lesser form of
harassment or discrimination (Cassell, 2011).
Global Goal
The global goal guiding this study was to eliminate the problem of bullying among
academic personnel in U.S. community colleges by examining the knowledge and motivation of
department chairs and the organizational factors that influenced antibullying strategies. The
study examined the lived experience of past and present department chairs serving in a mid-
management position to understand the nature and complexity of bullying and provide
recommendations for closing implementing strategies to address bullying in the community
college context.
Importance of the Evaluation
This problem of bullying-related grievances filed among academic personnel is important
to address given the higher number of disadvantaged students enrolled in America's community
colleges and how disengaged faculty and other academic personnel hurt students and the
organizational mission (Hollis, 2015a). Bullying correlates to higher employee turnover,
declining faculty engagement, and institutional perception changes (McKay et al., 2008). In a
meta-analysis, Nielsen and Einarsen (2018) determined that bullying demonstrated consistent
features and adverse outcomes globally. Salin (2008) reported research findings confirming
negative consequences for individuals and their organizations. Those exposed to bullying
showed decreased productivity and performance (Matthiesen et al., 2000) which correlated with
reduced health and well-being (Hogh et al., 2011). Human costs included the target's physical
and mental health (Samnani & Singh, 2012), while organizational costs included absenteeism,
turnover, reduced productivity, and litigation (Hassard et al., 2018).

4

If bullying in community colleges continues without intervention, then a bully culture, as
described by Hollis (2015a), will negatively affect employees and the students they serve. Namie
and Namie (2009b) described this condition as a silent epidemic, where 49% of workers were
affected by bullying. In addition to providing training and support, establishing an institution's
understanding and awareness of bullying is needed. Without supervisory encouragement,
modeling, and strategic practice (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006), academics are less likely to
effectively navigate bullying in their departments. At the institutional level (McKay et al., 2008),
bullying would result in employee turnover and declines in employee engagement. O'Connell
and Kung (2007) stated that institutional costs would include declined productivity of remaining
employees and training and onboarding of new employees. In a study examining common
misconceptions about bullying, (Allen et al., 2010) estimated costs associated with turnover
ranged between 90% and 200% of an employee's annual salary. Unwanted consequences for CC
students, academic personnel, and the institution corroborated the need to address bullying in
American CCs.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Department chairs, instructional faculty, senior leadership (deans, associate vice-
presidents, and vice-presidents), and students are the academic affairs stakeholder groups
involved in the student experience. The first stakeholder group was department chairs (DC). DCs
typically rose from the ranks and moved into supervisory positions while remaining faculty.
Group two is instructional faculty, who also served on department, school, or college
committees. The third stakeholder group is the senior leadership. Unlike instructional faculty,
these employees were not tenure-eligible, were considered administration, and had limited

5

employment protections. The last stakeholder is students, who typically had minimal influence
regarding organizational structure, policies, and treatment.
Stakeholder Group's Performance
This study focused on CC DCs in NSHE community colleges and their role in
eliminating bullying of academic personnel. Department chairs affect department culture based
on prior experiences, willingness to enforce policies, and leadership approach. The American
Association for Community Colleges (AACC Competencies for Community Colleges Leaders,
n.d.) stated leadership should be competent in: increasing student access and success,
institutional transformation, and proficiency and self-progression. Berdrow (2010) described
DCs as gatekeepers for curriculum changes, budgeting, hiring, class scheduling, promotion, and
tenure. Additionally, Bowman (2002) described the role of DCs as resource managers, instant
problem solvers, motivators, and meaning makers. Adner and Helfat (2003) stated managers in
the workforce were responsible for: managing human capital, social capital - social relations and
networks, and cognition - perspective, beliefs, and mental models.
The researcher examined the field-based mission and performance goal for a U.S. CC
subjected to efforts to inform, motivate its academic personnel, and address organizational
culture and climate shortcomings in Table 1.

6

Table 1

Organizational Mission and Global Goal
Table 1. Mission and Global Goal
Field-Based Aspirational Global Goal
By December 2023, eliminate bullying in the academic ranks of the community college.
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By May 2023, all Department Chairs (DC) will implement strategies to address bullying.

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
This study examined CC academic DCs and how they affected the departmental culture
as its stakeholder of focus. Although the nature and duration of contact that instructional faculty
at CCs have had with students are significant, teaching faculty do not typically influence
policies, procedures, tenure, department budgets, teaching schedules, and department culture
(Wolverton et al., 2005). Likewise, academic deans and vice presidents are considered senior
administrators, having minimal contact with faculty and students and focusing on balancing
demands at the institutional, state, regional, and national levels (Homepage, n.d., 2019a).
Complete College America (Homepage – Complete College America, 2017) predicted
positive changes in faculty and leadership behaviors would improve communication,
engagement, momentum, and graduation rates. Both abusive and passive leadership was a root
cause of workplace stressors (Kelloway et al., 2005). Poor leadership isolated subordinates and
deterred social support that buffered stress. Lucas and Associates (2000) noted that only 40% of
4,800 DCs surveyed indicated that they successfully handled conflict and strategic
communication within their departments. Additionally, Gmelch (2000) stated that only 3% of
over 2000 DCs surveyed had prior leadership preparation. What is equally concerning is that

7

supervisors are perpetrators in 50% to 80% of bullying cases (Zapf et al., 2003). Namie (2017),
in the 2017 U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, stated that 37% of single perpetrators and 20% of
multiple perpetrators were of higher rank. Lastly, 65% of DCs return to the classroom,
emphasizing the added pressure of maintaining collegial institutional and departmental relations
(Gmelch et al., 1999).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors related to strategies to eliminate bullying of academic personnel in U.S. community
colleges. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, this study
examines the lived experiences of current and past community college department chairs.
The research questions examined in this study are as follows:
1. What are department chairs' knowledge and motivation related to implementing
strategies to eliminate bullying in their departments?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and department
chairs' knowledge and motivation for implementing strategies to eliminate
bullying in their departments?
Definition of Terms
This section provides abbreviations and terms used throughout this research study and
dissertation.
AACC – American Association of Community Colleges

8

Bullying – Unwanted, negative behavior unilaterally instigated by one or more perpetrators
over a prolonged period, manifested as verbal and nonverbal behaviors or sabotaging
tactics, or a combination of all tactics which prevent the targeted persons from
performing satisfactorily (Namie & Namie, 2009b, p. 203).
CC – Community College
CCA – Complete College America
DC – Department Chairs
EEOC – U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
IPEDS – Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Association
Mobbing – Hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic way by
one or several persons mainly toward one individual (Leymann, 1990, p. 120).
NACADA – National Academic Advising Association
NCES – National Center for Educational Statistics
NWCCU – North West Commission of Colleges and Universities
SL – Senior Leadership
WASC – Western Association of Schools and Colleges
WBI – Workplace Bullying Institute
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 addresses the problem of bullying in the workforce and U.S. CCs (Hollis,
2015a). Keashly and Neuman (2014) stated that given postsecondary education's competitive,
accomplishment-based nature, higher education provided a context-rich environment where
bullying thrives. This problem is important to address because workplace bullying can lead to

9

employee turnover, declines in employee engagement (McKay et al., 2008), stress, and a
substantial dip in productivity (Fogg, 2008). According to Hollis (2015a), bullying results in
more employees quitting or withdrawing. Bullying may also result in employees (Hollis, 2015a),
and organizations burdened with costs associated with loss of productivity and new employees'
training (O'Connell & Kung, 2007).
Although student success is the goal of several stakeholder groups, the stakeholder of
focus is CC DCs in the United States. According to Berdrow (2010), academic DCs are
gatekeepers for curriculum changes, budgeting, hiring, class scheduling, promotion, and tenure
(Berdrow, 2010) and serve as resource managers, instant problem solvers, motivators, and
meaning makers (Bowman, 2002). Community college DC’s performance goal is to implement
strategies to address bullying by December 2023. Chapter 1 also provides abbreviations and
definitions used throughout this study, an overview of Chapters 2 through 5, and a proposed
completion timeline.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review that informed the study's direction and research
design. Chapter 3 describes the interview sampling and recruitment, data collection and analysis,
credibility and trustworthiness, and ethical considerations. Chapter 4 includes data analysis, open
and axial coding, theme production, researcher notes, and interview quotes. Chapter 5 interprets
the findings in the context of the existing body of research and provides recommendations based
on knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) gaps.
The research timeline included the defense of the dissertation proposal and University of
Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Next, the researcher
approached, selected, and interviewed CC DCs, then collected, coded, and analyzed interviews,

10

notes, and triangulated institutional data. The study reports findings, research-based solutions,
and proposed implementation and evaluation timelines.

11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review examined the terms, definitions, and behaviors associated with
bullying. The researcher examined the human and organizational consequences of bullying in the
workforce. This chapter then focuses on research specific to higher education. Next, the chapter
discusses the structure of U.S. CCs and their unique role and mission, the professoriate and
students, and what is sometimes unknown or misunderstood. This researcher then discusses how
knowledge and motivation factors within an organizational climate could affect current and
desired performance gaps.
This researcher used the term “bullying” due to the term “harassment” in the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) definition of harassment. According to Gavins
(2016), harassment is a type of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990. Gavins further stipulates that these laws protect race, color,
religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy), national origin, age
(beginning at age 40), disability, or genetic information. If any organization based in the United
States or abroad with 15 or more employees learned of a case of sexual harassment or the target
of harassment is of a protected class, the said organization must provide reasonable
accommodations to rectify this inequity. These accommodations included but were not limited to
antiharassment programs, clear and sufficient investigation procedures, and company officials
designated to accept claims of harassment.
Bullying Defined
This study uses Namie and Namie's (2004) definition of bullying. The authors stated that

12

it is unwanted, negative behavior unilaterally instigated by one or more perpetrators over a
prolonged period, manifested as verbal and nonverbal behaviors or sabotaging tactics that
prevent the target from performing satisfactorily.
Defining and Identifying Bullying
The lack of agreement among researchers on what bullying is and what it looks like
continues to be a problem. According to Rayner and Lewis (2020), the literature contained no
comprehensive list of indicators of bullying. Rayner and Lewis also stated that statements,
textual definitions, and specific examples in various contexts are needed. In the United States,
bullying behaviors included (Von Bergen et al., 2006): hostile glares, rude/disrespectful
treatment, interfering with work, silent treatment, absence of feedback, lack of praise, delaying
actions or decisions, lying, and disallowing subordinate self-expression.
This study attempted to cross-reference and synthesize historically broadening bullying
definitions, items found in self-reported negative acts inventories, and phrases examining
attitudes derived from a literature analysis. The list used keywords from the Table of Selected
Definitions of Bullying (Keashly et al., 2020, pp. 58-61). These definitions, in Table 2,
demonstrate the breadth and depth of the researcher’s attempt to characterize and frame bullying.
The following are terms, listed in chronological publication date, commonly used in
bullying research: harassment (Brodsky, 1976); mobbing (Leymann, 1990); workplace
aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1998); workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999);
abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000); workplace victimization (Aquino et al., 2001); workplace
bullying (Namie & Namie, 2009a); social undermining (Duffy et al., 2002; Duffy et al., 2012);
workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006); and emotional tyranny (Waldron, 2009).

13

Table 2

Historical Timeline of Bullying Definitions
Table 1. Timeline of Bullying Definitions
Author Year of
Publication
Key Phrases Used
Brodsky 1976 Repeated and persistent attempts to wear down, frustrate, or get
a reaction
Baron & Neuman 1998 Intentional effort to harm
Richman et al. 1999 Violation of workers' physical, psychological, and professional
integrities
Anderson &
Pearson
1999 Low-intensity deviant behavior with intent to harm
Namie & Namie 2000 Deliberate, hurtful, and repeated mistreatment
Duffy et al. 2002 Intent to hinder the ability to establish and maintain positive
relationships
Lutgen-Sandvik 2003 Repetitive, targeted, and destructive abuse
Meares et al. 2004 Interactional, distributive, procedural, or systematic abuse
Waldron 2009 Destructive, controlling, unjust, and cruel use of emotions

In an attempt to better identify bullying behaviors, this study presents three collections of
behavioral terms from a table of definitions (Keashly et al., 2020), items from the Negative Acts
Questionnaire-Revised (Notelaers et al., 2018), and Braithwaite's (2013) reference to an
international study of workplace violence.
Researchers described the proliferation of constructs related to bullying as hindering
research and developing a comprehensive picture of hostile behaviors at work (Keashly et al.,
2020; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). Crawshaw (2009) stated that the expansion of terms and
definitions over the last 3 decades impedes the ability to conceptualize workplace aggression.
Fox and Stallworth (2009) noted that this lack of clarity is tedious and confusing and is
exhausting and perplexing for employers, legislators, and the targets themselves. Hershcovis

14

(2011) claimed that the proliferation of bullying constructs demands a synthesis. Besides
construct overlap, Crawshaw suggested that continuous debates over definitions limit
researchers' ability to address bullying. Hershcovis also called for a restructuring of workplace
aggression constructs. After Hershcovis offered abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, social
undermining, and interpersonal conflict as sample constructs, her meta-analytic analysis
concluded that a predictable pattern of outcomes lacked any evidence. Neall and Tuckey (2014)
noted that, when compared to global research, construct proliferation appears to be a U.S.
phenomenon.
To add to this confusion, researchers suggested using other constructs to help define
bullying or excluding certain aspects currently being discussed. Nielsen and Einarsen (2012)
called for a comprehensive theoretical model based on transactional theories of stress. Nielsen et
al (2016) suggested excluding intentionality due to the difficulty in proving it, perpetrators of
limited social skills as an excuse, and the difficulty of measurement.
Nielsen and Einarsen (2018) examined definitions of bullying from a meta-analysis of
existing research and concluded that bullying is a unique and highly detrimental form of
workplace aggression. Three characteristics appeared to be consistent in the analysis from the
victim's perspective. These included being the target of systematic malicious and unwanted
behavior, exposure for a prolonged period, and difficulty of escape, avoidance, and stoppage of
unwanted treatment (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). Given the numerous definitions of bullying in
U.S. research, the Workplace Bullying Institute co-researchers Dr. Ruth Namie and Dr. Gary
Namie provided a starting point for anyone affected by workplace bullying. The following
section examined bullying research in higher education. Characteristics specific to higher
education offer a context-rich environment for bullying. DCs are in a position to influence

15

collegial department conduct and behaviors. These influences were in the KMO sections found
later in the chapter.
The behavioral experience method replaced the shortcomings of the single item self-
labeling method used in surveys in the 1990s and early 2000s (Nielsen et al., 2020). Keywords
selected from items found in the NAQ-R (Notelaers et al., 2018) helped identify actual
behaviors. NAQ-R included: withheld information affecting work performance, gossip and
rumors, ignored or excluded, insulting or offensive personal remarks, shouted at, demonstration
of rage, hostile reaction, criticizing of work and effort, and unwanted practical jokes. Table 3
illustrates all 22 items from the NAQ-R. The questions fall into work-related, person-related, and
physical-intimidating bullying categories. Work-related bullying describes workload,
competence, deadlines, and monitoring elements. Person-related bullying relates to remarks,
criticisms, rumors, and innuendos about or directed at the employee. Finally, physical-
intimidating bullying includes behaviors that threaten, evoke fear, or create discomfort.

16

Table 3

AQ-R Subfactor Correlations
Table 2. NAQ-R Subfactor Correlations
Factor

NAQ-R
item
number
Item wording
WRB 1 Someone withholding information that affects your performance
WRB 3 Being ordered to do work below your level of competence
WRB 14 Having your opinions ignored
WRB 16 Being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines
WRB 18 Excessive monitoring of your work
WRB 19 Pressure not to claim something to which by right you are entitled (e.g., sick leave,
holiday entitlement, travel expense)
WRB 21 Being exposed to an unmanageable workload
PRB 2 Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work
PRB 4 Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or
unpleasant tasks
PRB 5 Spreading of gossip and rumors about you
PRB 6 Being ignored or excluded
PRB 7 Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes, or your
private life
PRB 10 Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job
PRB 11 Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes
PRB 12 Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach
PRB 13 A persistent criticism of your errors or mistakes
PRB 15 Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get along with
PRB 17 Having allegations made against you
PRB 20 Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm
PIB 8 Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger
PIB 9 Intimidating behaviors such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space,
shoving, blocking your way
PIB 22 Threats of violence or physical abuse, or actual abuse
Note. Work-related bullying (WRB); person-related bullying (PRB); Physically-intimidating
bullying (PIB). Adopted from (Einarsen et al., 2009, p. 32)

17

The NAQ-R as an instrument adapted for Anglo-American cultures without any reference
to “bullying” or “harassment” (Einarsen et al., 2009). The consistent (factor loading >.70) NAQ-
R comprises work-related, person-related, and physical-intimidating bullying sub-categories. The
high scores on the NAQ-R correlated with reduced employee performance, reported
consideration of leaving one’s job, psychosomatic issues, and increased sickness absenteeism
(Einarsen et al., 2009).
In a sample of 5,288 UK employees, the NAQ-R had high internal stability and good
construct validity (Einarsen et al., 2009). The researchers also described it as a “standardized and
valid instrument” (p. 24). Targets of bullying scored higher on all three factors than those not
bullied. Lastly, the NAQ-R correlated with mental health measures, psychosocial work
environment, and leadership (Einarsen et al., 2009).
Lastly, Braithwaite (2013) created a framework for controlling and eliminating bullying
in a meta-analysis of the workplace bullying research in a paper for the Regulatory Institutions
Network at the Australian National University. Phrases reported in a cross-national study of
Australian and Japanese attitudes toward crime that did not overlap with the NAQ-R are listed
here. These include: unjustified criticism, unreasonable work pressure, shifting of goals,
undervaluing efforts, removal of responsibilities, and unreasonable refusal of employee requests
(p. 4). Regardless of these suggestions, a comprehensive list of bullying behaviors does not exist
in the research.
Yamada (1999) stated that although statutory and common-law protections are growing,
they are not effective against bullying. Practitioners could adopt behaviors listed in an instrument
such as the NAQ-R as a starting point. The NAQ-R and Namie and Namie’s (2009a) definition

18

of bullying provided a baseline to identify unacceptable, actionable behaviors for DCs and other
CC administrators.
Bullying in Higher Education
Much of the previous discussion examined research from the U.S. workforce and the
global level. The limited number of research studies conducted on mid-level managers at U.S.
CCs encouraged the expansion of articles from the general population as well as a limited
number of multinational studies, which included the United States Of the references in Namie
and Namie’s (2009a). The Bully at Work, 26% were international studies. Keashly et al. (2020)
stated that much of the research in the early 1990s in the United States primarily focused on
physical aggression and violence, mainly targeting sexual harassment. Conversely, the interest in
workplace bullying in Europe originated in Scandinavia in the 1980s, influenced by bullying
studies conducted with school-aged children (Einarsen, 2000).
Cassell (2011) stated that higher education institutions failed to recognize the
significance and persistence of bullying, and that mobbing would further lead to unrelenting
behaviors and actions. A 2007 Zogby International study indicated that 72% of perpetrators were
of higher rank than their targets. In Hollis’ (2015a) study of 175 4-year institutions, 28% of
employees stated that their institutions were apathetic when dealing with bullying. Another 19%
indicated that the organization supported the bully. Lastly, according to Hollis (2015a), those
reported as perpetrators most often are directors, deans (including associate or assistant deans),
and tenured faculty. In a series of 40 semistructured interviews with Human Resources and other
personnel, Thrilwall (2015) stated that their organizations sequestered their complaints in three
ways. First, they reframed the issue or viewed bullying as something else. Second, they

19

reconfigured the workplace and provided coping mechanisms instead of resolving the issue.
Thirdly they rebuffed the target’s complaints and pushed them away.
Customs, mores, traditions, and expectations served as filters for civil and uncivil
behaviors (Ferriss, 2002). Being forced to independently learn the subtle, hidden nuances of an
institution’s or department’s culture is daunting and a form of incivility. Fogg’s (2008) article on
academic bullies described covert behaviors such as eye-rolling, questioning credibility, and
excluding targets from social conversations. Westhues (2004) stated how even the most talented
faculty, whose fame, connections, eloquence, wit, pedigree, looks, or family, faced mobbing.
These faculty may be subjected to increased social isolation, petty harassment (lost or delayed
requests, inconvenient parking, or class schedule), critical incident (ethics charge), and
adjudication.
Lester (2009) describes the perpetrator’s assessment that the risk of being reprimanded,
socially ostracized, or punished is relatively low. Bullying among faculty concerns the use of
formal power in the institution’s hierarchical structure. Lester further stated that leadership
changes, organizational size, college mission (academic versus vocational), and tolerance of
incivility encouraged bullying. Heams and Harvey (2006) explained that witnesses sided with the
bully when the perpetrator is a supervisor or manager and are less inclined to support the target
openly. Additionally, Namie (2017) in the U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey indicated that 29%
of targets remained silent, while only 17% sought formal resolution. In addition to formal power
held by a supervisor or manager, informal power such as knowledge, experience, and support
from other influential people further skewed the power imbalance (Hoel & Cooper, 2000).

20

Conducive Characteristics
Bullying occurred at a significantly higher rate in postsecondary education than in the
general workforce (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). Cassell (2011) asserted that the failure of higher
education administrators to acknowledge the significance and prevalence of bullying contributes
to its ongoing nature. Hollis (2015a) suggested that limited resources, surprise layoffs, or
furloughs, often experienced during recessions, created institutional instability that contributed to
bullying. Keashly and Neuman (2010) stated that given higher education's competitive,
accomplishment-based nature, academia provided a context-rich environment where bullying
thrived and that persistently bullied postsecondary faculty are more likely to quit or withdraw.
O'Connell and Kung (2007) further claimed that employees who left are usually high-performing
faculty or staff with other employment options. In 15 empirical studies of bullying, Keashly and
Neuman (2012) reported the overall occurrence of bullying ranged between 11.7 % and 67.7%.
Women reported bullying between 20.5% and 67.5%, and men ranged between 16.9% and
53.5%.
Positionality of Department Chairs
This study focused on the unique positionality of DCs and their role in eliminating
bullying. Immediate supervisors hold critical roles in preventing and combating workplace
bullying (Strandmark et al., 2017). Department chairs should, therefore, adopt and persist in
practices focused on the humanistic value-system, bullying awareness, group collaboration,
bullying atmosphere, and conflict resolution (Strandmark et al., 2017). Berdrow (2010) described
DCs as gatekeepers for curriculum changes, budgeting, hiring, class scheduling, promotion, and
tenure. Additionally, adjunct instructors, employed on a contingent and part-time basis,
comprised 70% of all instructional faculty and were highly dependent on DCs for information

21

and access to resources. The nature and duration of student contact that instructional faculty at
CC had with students are significant. Teaching faculty, however, do not typically influence
policies, procedures, tenure, department budgets, teaching schedules, and department culture
(Wolverton et al., 2005) to the same extent as DCs.
Leadership Preparedness
Morris and Laipple (2015), in a study of 1,515 midlevel university administrators,
mentioned that addressing grievances and appeals was an area for which they felt least prepared.
They further stated that administrators who had taken coursework in business administration,
human resources leadership, industrial-organizational psychology, and behavioral psychology
reported feeling better prepared for their roles. The DCs’ selection assumed that those who were
excellent at teaching and research would be excellent as a DC (Gonaim, 2016). Institutions often
undervalued DCs and believed that their role was temporary. Gmelch and Miskin (2011) stated
that only 3% have programs to prepare DCs. DCs enter their roles without prior administrative or
leadership experience and do not clearly understand their responsibilities. Gmelch (2000)
concluded that only 3% of over 2000 DCs surveyed between 1990 and 2000 had any prior
leadership preparation.
DCs typically rose from the ranks after serving on committees and senate and moved into
a supervisory position while remaining faculty (Cooper & Pagotto, 2003). Carroll and Wolverton
(2004) stated that DCs are typically responsible for 80% of all administrative responsibilities. In
their study with 128 college leaders, Cooper and Pagotto concluded that graduate leadership
programs lacked the skills and knowledge needed. Not surprisingly, Morris and Laipple (2015)
concluded that most DCs become less interested and enthusiastic as the term progresses. Each
year, one in five chairs or deans abandoned their positions (Gmelch & Miskin, 2011).

22

Leadership Characteristics
Kelloway et al. (2005) stated that abusive and passive leadership are a root cause of
workplace stressors. Additionally, poor leadership isolated subordinates and deterred social
supports that acted as buffers to stress. Zapf et al. (2003) indicated that supervisors are
perpetrators in 50% to 80% of bullying cases. Namie (2017), in the 2017 U.S. Workplace
Bullying Survey, concluded that higher-ranked single perpetrators committed 37% of bullying,
and multiple perpetrators committed 20% of bullying. Bowman (2002) described the need for
DCs to establish a co-leadership culture and solicited the subordinate perspective to uncover
organizational problems. Gmelch et al. (1999) noted that 65% of DCs returned to the classroom,
emphasizing the need to maintain collegial institutional and departmental relations. This
researcher focused on academic DCs who had served as full-time teaching faculty.
Consequences of Bullying
This problem is important to address because bullying correlates to higher employee
turnover, declines in faculty engagement, and changes in institutional perception (McKay et al.,
2008). Nielsen and Einarsen (2018) performed a meta-analysis and systematic review and
determined that bullying demonstrated consistent features and adverse outcomes globally. Salin
(2008) reported research findings confirming negative consequences for individuals and their
organizations. Those exposed to bullying showed decreased productivity and performance
(Matthisen et al., 2008), which correlated with reduced health and well-being (Hogh et al., 2011).
Human Costs
Samnani and Singh (2012) stated that bullying correlates with an adverse effect on the
target's physical and mental health. Studies in the past 3 decades have revealed a breadth of
target symptoms and underlying factors (Mikkelesen et al., 2020). Researchers concluded that

23

interviews focused on targets are most common (Kartuna, 2015; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003).
However, Nielsen and Einarsen (2018) noted that most bullying research used nonrandom
sampling and forced-choice self-reporting.
Physical and Psychosomatic Symptoms Since the 1980s, quantitative studies have
confirmed correlations between bullying and a wide array of individual outcomes (Mikkelsen et
al., 2020). Since 2000, an extended body of research has demonstrated the association of
workplace bullying with mental and psychosomatic symptoms (Meseguer et al., 2008), anxiety
(Bilgel et al., 2006; Melia & Becerril, 2007), depression (Bilgel et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2011),
suicidal ideation (Leach et al., 2020; Nielsen et al., 2016; Sterud et al., 2008), burnout (Lever et
al., 2019), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004; Nielsen, et
al., 2016). A meta-analysis of 42 cross-sectional and 21 longitudinal studies confirmed bi-
directional correlations between bullying and depression, anxiety, and stress (Verkuil et al.,
2015). Although Harvey et al. (2017) questioned the quality and trustworthiness of several
studies by Verkuil et al., Harvey et al. concluded that workplace bullying and mental health
problems are prospectively related.
Physiological Consequences This section examined the physiological effects of
bullying-on-bullying victims. Due to the limited body of research investigating bullying and
physical symptoms, Mikkelsen et al. (2020) concluded that positive associations are tentative.
The following are selected studies from the most commonly reported symptoms. Rafnsdottir and
Tomasson (2004) concluded that bullied workers are more likely to experience sleep difficulties.
Lastly, Vartia (1996) stated that victims of bullying are prone to higher sleep-aid and sedative
use.

24

Additionally, Hansen et al. (2011) noted that frequently bullied employees experienced
poorer health and lower salivary cortisol levels compared to a control group. Tynes et al. (2013)
stated that bullying targets were twice as likely to suffer from headaches and migraines 3 years
after their initial assessment. Furthermore, Kivimaki et al. (2003) indicated that bullying victims
experience a 2.3 times higher risk of cardiovascular diseases. Lastly, Bellou et al. (2018) noted
that targets subjected to physiological stress experienced metabolic changes that likely
contributed to the development, manifestations, and progression of Type 2 diabetes.
Organizational Costs
Hoel et al. (2020) stated that organizational consequences and costs received scant
attention despite the growing inquiry into the personal effects of workplace bullying. Hassard et
al. (2018) described the difficulty of identifying direct costs involving monetary exchanges such
as: health care, medications, insurance, litigation, and indirect costs such as sickness
absenteeism, turnover, reduced productivity, and presentism. This study examined: sickness
absenteeism, turnover, impact on productivity grievances, and the litigation process.
Sickness Absenteeism Hoel and Cooper (2000) concluded that the correlation between
bullying and absenteeism is weak, if not insignificant (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Additionally,
Niedhammer et al. (2012), in a sample of over 19,000 workers from 31 countries, concluded that
the association between sickness absenteeism and work factors was weak. Still, bullying
remained consistently correlated to increased absenteeism. Other researchers have attempted to
analyze the association by quantifying significant findings. Kivimaki et al. (2000) concluded that
of the over 5,000 healthcare workers surveyed, bullied employees were 1.5 times more likely to
claim sickness absence or suffer from chronic illness. Of the 1,171 elder-care employees bullied
for the past 12 months, the risk for long-term sickness absence was 1.92 times higher regardless

25

of psychosocial work characteristics (Ortega et al., 2011). Hoel and Cooper (2000) noted that
bullied employees from multiple British sectors took 7 more days of sick leave and reported
being adversely affected in sickness absence, intention to leave, organizational performance,
commitment, and satisfaction.
Presenteeism Neto et al. (2017) defined presenteeism as the impact of sick employees
who have chosen to work with sickness. This practice, not surprisingly, is highly detrimental if
condoned or permitted by organizations (Kayode et al., 2018). Ferreira et al. (2019) described
presenteeism as receiving increased attention due to its adverse effects on productivity. Ferreira
et al. (2019) studied the impact of emotional exhaustion and the perceived reduction in
productivity due to presenteeism. Naseem and Ahmed (2020) asserted that presenteeism is a
relatively new condition that impacts employees' productivity because of physical or
psychological illness. Lastly, Burton et al. (2004) surveyed 16,651 employees at a large
midwestern U.S. financial corporation and ascertained that 47% reported at least one chronic
health condition, with 20% claiming two or more.
Disengagement Hollis (2015a) described bullying as a petty thief, depleting institutional
resources by stealing productivity and causing employee disengagement. However, Hoel et al.
(2020) stated that researchers found no empirical evidence correlating productivity and bullying
despite the difficulty of measuring productivity. Bardwell et al. (2001) described disengagement
coping as a maladaptive response to a perceived problem, which results in avoidance, denial,
substance abuse, and wishful thinking. Researchers documented how bullying has dampened
productivity resulting in high turnover and disengagement (Hollis, 2015a; Namie & Namie,
2009a; Olive & Cangemi, 2015). However, research with smaller samples verified this
association. In a study of 243 full-time professionals and managers, Goodboy et al. (2017)

26

concluded that bullying indirectly disengages workers by denying them autonomy and
fulfillment.
Turnover According to O'Connell and Kung (2007), the three main turnover components
are staffing, including recruitment and hiring, vacancy or the time the position remains unfilled,
and the cost of onboarding, training, and development of new hires. Tracey and Hinkin (2008)
asserted that productivity loss occurs while new employees gain proficiency in addition to these
components. Peers and supervisors are also distracted by the new hire, and there are lost
opportunities in terms of diminished sales or revenues. Conversely, Tracey and Hinkin asserted
that dissatisfaction with relationships with supervisors, pay, job duties, and work conditions
trigger turnover. Multiple studies concurred that workplace bullying positively correlated with
employee turnover and intention to leave (Djurkovic et al., 2008; Glambeck et al., 2014; Hoel et
al., 2020; Hogh et al., 2011; Simons, 2008). It is important to note that although the intention to
leave is a good predictor of turnover (Begley, 1998), most studies focused on the intention to
leave rather than termination itself (Hoel et al., 2020).
Grievances and Litigation This section examined the individual and organizational
responses that result from workplace bullying and included grievances, investigations,
compensation, and litigation. Hoel et al. (2020) stated that organizational level resolution occurs
despite existing variance between countries. Giga et al. (2008) suggested that costs will increase
if an early resolution is not prioritized and dealt with internally. Finally, Giga et al. (2008) stated
that estimating litigation cost is difficult to determine but that personal injury payouts have risen
to upwards of one million pounds (1.97 million U.S. dollars).
Richardson et al. (2016), in an analysis of U.S. court cases between 2009 and 2015, stated
that retaliation followed by breach of contract, which includes: discrimination, wrongful

27

termination, sexual harassment, and forms of bullying, was the most common cause of litigation.
Yamada (1999) asserted that Title VII's precedent for addressing sexual misconduct for protected
classes marginalizes other types of nonsexual behaviors that might constitute workplace
bullying. Additionally, Richardson et al. (2016) noted that the United States does not provide
redress to bullied workers at the federal and state levels creating significant legal hurdles for
victims. Litigation is stressful, time-consuming, and costly. In addition to the individual and
organizational consequences of bullying, defining and recognizing bullying contributed to the
reluctance of action at the institutional and national levels.
Roles and Antecedents of Bullying
This section examined how bullying roles and antecedents of those involved in bullying
parallel. DCs must be aware of the bullying terms used in the literature and be mindful of what
words may imply or suggest. The three primary bullying categories are bullies, victims, and
bystanders. Bullies are known as “actors” or “perpetrators.” A bully is habitually cruel,
threatening, or insulting (Merriam-Webster, n.d., 2020a). By definition, “actors” take part in any
affair (Merriam-Webster, n.d., 2020a) but are often assumed to be the perpetrator. A
“perpetrator” is assumed to have carried out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act (Merriam-
Webster, n.d., 2020c).
Next, the “target” specifies who has been the intended object of ridicule or criticism
(Merriam-Webster, n.d., 2020d). A “victim” is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed by a force or
agent (Merriam-Webster n.d., 2020e) and is used interchangeably with targets. Lastly,
“witnesses” have been present or know something (Merriam-Webster, n.d., 2020f). Conversely,
“bystanders” are chance spectators not having taken part in an event (Merriam-Webster, n.d.,

28

2020b). Despite subtle differences, this study used all commonly used terms interchangeably and
aligned with the preferred terminology used in each reported study.
Understanding the characteristics of bullies and victims involved in bullying provided
information on the problem's breadth, external forces in play, and complexity. Although Niven et
al. (2020) stated that bystanders have an active role in the bullying process, examining
bystanders is beyond the scope of this study. The following discussion combined research
findings on bullying antecedents in these three categories.
Bullies
Hollis (2016a) stated that CC respondents indicated that bullies originate from the
following classifications (top five): tenured faculty 43%, union representative 23%, director
21%, vice president or provost 20%, and entry-level/admin support 18%. Identifying actions that
qualify as bullying requires understanding the laws, definitions, and clear examples of bullying.
Namie (2017) reported that 61% of bullies are bosses, and in 63% of cases, the perpetrator
operates alone. Namie further stated that 37% of cases involved mobbing, commonly used in
European research, or multiple perpetrators.
Despite most of the research originating from the victim’s perspective, Zaft and Einarsen
(2003) summarized empirical findings and determined three bullying types related to perpetrator
characteristics: self-regulation and a threat to self-esteem, lack of social competencies, and
micropolitical behavior. Baumeister et al. (1996) stated that aggression, directed at the evaluation
source, is the most common response to a perpetrator’s positive and self-inflated views. Instead
of adapting to appraisal, individuals with excessive self-esteem engaged in tyrannical behaviors
fueled by perfectionism, arrogance, and narcissism (Ashforth, 1994; Baumeister et al., 1996).
Tokarev et al. (2017) suggested the concurrent modeling of narcissism (entitlement, grandiosity,

29

and self-love) and psychopathy (impulsivity, manipulativeness, and callousness) are good
predictors of bullying. Conversely, individuals with lower self-esteem are less aggressive, show
signs of depression, and withdraw (Zaft & Einarsen, 2003).
In a measure of social competence, Zaft and Einarsen (2017) stated that bullying might
result from the absence of self-reflection and perspective-taking and that bullies may be unaware
of their actions and their effect on victims. Self-reported bullies in Matthiesen and Einarsen
(2007) described themselves as low on social competence and self-esteem and high on social
anxiety and aggressiveness. Hudson and Ward (2000) suggested that those with low social
competence had an aggressive, unempathetic communication style that correlated to behaviors
that offended and humiliated others.
Finally, micropolitical behaviors operate on the premise that undeveloped structures and
processes attempt to protect or improve an actor’s status within the organization and are not
considered bullying (Zaft & Einarsen, 2003). When manifested as bullying, micropolitical
behaviors attempt to enhance one’s position or weaken the reputation or status of others (Zaft &
Einarsen, 2003). Furthermore, Matthiesen and Einarsen (2007) described bullying as a next step
or extreme form of micropolitical behavior after intense interpersonal conflicts or efforts have
failed. Ferreira et al. (2019) stated that intention and desired outcomes are the same regardless of
bullying behavior. If successful, the bully or leader became more powerful and reached their
goal, while subordinates became weaker and helpless.
Hollis (2016a) stated that the hierarchical nature of higher education exacerbated and, at
times, promoted bullying. Institutions have clear reporting lines and unspoken expectations for
faculty and staff to follow the chain of command. In a study of 30 interviews and 36
observations, Lester (2009) discussed how formal and positional power grants temporary status

30

based on institutional hierarchy. Additionally, Lester mentioned how academic senate members
used their position and knowledge of governance rules and faculty by-laws to influence, subvert,
or harass faculty colleagues. The following section examined the antecedents of the targets and
bystanders of bullying.
Victims
Although Zaft and Einarsen (2003) stated that 63% of bullying victims attested that they
were not personally involved, 2% admitted that their lack of social skills or being difficult was
an antecedent. In a meta-analysis of studies up to 2015, Nielsen et al. (2017) concluded that
bullying exposure was significantly correlated with neuroticism or low emotional stability and
negatively correlated to extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Based on Elias’
(1986) victim-precipitation theory, Samnani and Singh (2016) suggested the existence of the
vulnerable and provocative victim.
Vulnerable targets appeared weak and withdrew when attacked, according to Samnani
and Singh. Zaft and Einarsen (2003) described vulnerable victims of bullying as having low self-
assertiveness, incapable of defending themselves, and unable to manage work conflicts
constructively. Matthiesen and Einarsen (2001) tested 85 Norwegian bullying victims using the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). The results indicated elevated levels
of hypochondria, depression, hysteria, and paranoia. Subsequent studies with different
populations found similar results (Girardi et al., 2007; Romeo et al., 2013). Glaso et al. (2007), in
a study of 144 employees using Goldberg’s (1999) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP),
stated that despite a significant difference in four out of five personality dimensions, 64% of
victims scored similarly to nonvictims of bullying. However, Glaso et al. (2007) concluded that a
general victim personality profile does not exist.

31

Provocative targets, another type of victim, escalated situations by behaving in a manner
that provoked their bullies by continually striking back and, in some cases, starting the conflict
(Zaft & Einarsen, 2003). Matthiesen and Einarsen (2007) stated that 2.1% of their participants
reported being both perpetrators and victims. Matthiesen and Einarsen described participants as
insensitive, ruthless, revenge-oriented, and retaliatory. Revenge and aggression are motives for
counter-aggression and a desire to fight for justice (Zapf & Gross, 2001) or address frustration
(Hoel et al., 1999).
Lastly, Zapf and Einarsen (2003) identified overachievers as victims of workplace
bullying. Zapf (1999a) stated that 69% of bullying victims reported being conscientious
compared to 40% of the control group. Additionally, 62% of bullying victims reported being
achievement-oriented compared to 41% in the control group. Coyne et al. (2000), in an Irish
study of public and private organizations, stated that bullying victims (n = 60) were more rule-
bound, honest, punctual, and accurate when compared to their nonbullied colleagues (n = 60).
Lastly, Zaft and Einarsen stated that overachievers tended to think they knew better, clashed with
organizational norms while insisting on their way, and had difficulty empathizing and taking
others' perspectives.
Hollis (2016a) and Keashly and Neuman (2010) stated that there is limited research on
workplace bullying in higher education in the United States. In a replication study with 201 CC
respondents, 64% reported being affected by bullying (Hollis, 2016a). Twale and De Luca
(2008) described faculty economically reliant on the institution seldom use the provided channels
to report bullying. Dereshiwski (2020) stated that targeted postsecondary educators were
exceptionally competent, well-liked by others, possessed a high moral compass, and resisted

32

being dominated or controlled. The following section describes witnesses or bystanders of
workplace bullying.
Leadership Response and Style
Woodrow and Guest (2017) described four types of management responses to bullying on
a continuum, starting with constructive management and ending in destructive management.
Although this study acknowledges the effects of leadership style and subsequent responses, it is
beyond the scope of this study. The following sections illustrate potential effects on DCs based
on their management styles and how they respond to bullying.
Constructive Management
Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that constructive leaders build favorable work conditions
that deter bullying through transformational and transactional leadership. Burns (1978) described
transactional leadership as the exchange of goals focused on marginal improvement, and
performance. According to Northhouse (2019), transformative leadership includes charisma and
vision, assessing followers' motives, satisfying their needs, and treating others as whole and
complete. Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) examined how transformational leaders motivate followers
to internalize their values and beliefs and accomplish goals that followers would not have
typically pursued. Kelloway (2017), in 62 studies, suggested that transformational leadership
skills could be improved through training and could also result in an increase in affective
employee commitment to their organization.
Incomplete Management
According to Woodrow and Guest (2017), the next step in the continuum is incomplete
management, where insufficient time invested by leaders results in failed interventions.
Incomplete managers do not allow the time to complete the task. Using a purposeful sample of

33

31 HR directors, an exploratory, critical incident approach revealed that managers did not take
bullying seriously, could not address the complaint fully, and left the case incomplete (Woodrow
& Guest, 2017).
Salin et al. (2018) illustrated the complexity of bullying by suggesting three levels of
intervention. Primary interventions included: redesigning the work environment, devising
conflict resolution systems, leadership training, antibullying policies or codes, and raising
awareness of bullying and its consequences. Secondary interventions called for differentiating
between formal and informal attempts to address organizational bullying. Lastly, tertiary
intervention seeks to heal potential damage by seeking counseling, rehabilitation, and other
aftercare (Salin et al., 2018).
The following research illustrates assessed conditions and failures in the workplace that
perpetuated workplace bullying. Hutchinson (2016b) suggested that overlooking cultural,
organizational, and employment factors by focusing on the individuals involved further
complicated bullying resolution. Rocker (2012) asserted that frontline Canadian nursing
managers need knowledge of workplace policies, collective agreements, resources, and
alternative resolution options to address bullying. Hutchinson further stated that increases in
precarious employment, greater workload expectations, reorganization, downsizing, and
decreased third-party intervention in the Australian public sector further exacerbated bullying.
Lastly, Hoel and Salin (2003) described unreasonable demands, poor work conditions, and
punitive, retaliatory responses that contributed to bullying escalation. Earlier in the research,
seminal author Heinz Leymann (1993) stated that the organization and leadership style were the
leading causes of bullying.

34

Disengaged Management
Next, Woodrow and Guest (2017) described disengaged management in which
unsupportive managers refused or failed to intervene. Researchers suggested that, unlike
incomplete managers, these disengaged managers lacked effective supervisory skills and could
benefit from supervisory support and leadership skills. Bass (1990) stated that laissez-faire
leadership was the "absence of leadership" (p. 20), avoidance of action, or both. Skogstad et al.
(2007) described this form of poor leadership as passive, exhibiting characteristics of both
laissez-faire leadership and management by exception, which demanded leadership attention in
favorable and unfavorable situations. In laissez-faire leadership, delayed decisions, lack of
involvement, arbitrary rewards, improper feedback, and no attempts to motivate employees to
occur (Bass, 1990, p. 20).
Destructive Management
Lastly, Woodrow and Guest (2017) described destructive management where leaders lack
management training and people skills and are the alleged perpetrators. Padilla et al. (2007)
suggested a toxic triangle exists that combined destructive leadership behavior, susceptible
followers, and conducive environmental factors resulting in adverse organizational outcomes.
Hoel et al. (2010) reported that among 5,288 British employees from 70 organizations in all
sectors, noncontingent punishment was the best predictor of reported bullying. Additionally,
autocratic leadership correlated highest with observed bullying (Hoel et al.). Hauge et al. (2007)
reported that in a sample of 2,530 Norwegian workers, tyrannical leadership was the strongest
predictor of interpersonal and role conflicts. Woodrow and Guest stated that destructive
managers possessed a “bullying leadership style” (p. 26) or had bullied subordinates during

35

performance reviews. The following section examines knowledge and motivational factors that
potentially contribute to performance gaps.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
This review of the current literature focused on two dimensions of what full-time CC
DCs need to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The performance goal for this
stakeholder group is the elimination of formal grievances related to bullying filed with Human
Resources within 2 years of implementation. As mentioned in the previous chapter, terminology
and definitions of bullying have grown exponentially, exacerbating the ability to address
workplace violence effectively. Namie and Namie (2009b) stated bullying is ". . . unwanted,
negative behavior unilaterally instigated by one or more perpetrators over a prolonged period,
manifested as verbal and nonverbal behaviors or sabotaging tactics or a combination of all tactics
which prevent the targeted persons from performing satisfactorily" (p. 203).
This section discusses the factual and procedural knowledge and the self-efficacy and
utility value motivation factors that close performance gaps. If DCs are aware of what bullying
policies apply, who to go to for support, how to respond to reported cases, and when each
benchmark is required, they are more likely to resolve reported issues before grievances are filed
with HR. Also, DCs must first choose to work at a task, persist, and invest the required mental
effort, according to Pintrich (2003), to demonstrate motivation. If DCs lack self-efficacy for
resolving conflict or having difficult conversations, they are less likely to eliminate bullying.
Lastly, DCs needed to see the importance and value of investing time and effort in addressing
noncollegial behavior before escalating.

36

Knowledge Influences
The application of knowledge is essential for DC’s effective resolution of bullying. Clark
and Estes (2008) stated that knowledge and skills are critical factors required to solve problems
and close performance gaps. The authors noted that an employee's lack of knowledge and
reluctance to communicate their deficits further complicate this issue. Rueda (2011) stressed the
importance of educational leadership, clarified what knowledge is necessary to address gaps, and
provided this information to those working directly with all stakeholders.
As one type of cognitive approach, Anderson et al. (2001) suggested four types of
knowledge useful in problem-solving: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. Factual knowledge refers to the domain-specific, basic knowledge regarding the
vocabulary, elements, or contexts (Rueda, 2011). Another influence is conceptual knowledge, or
the awareness of a framework, principles, theories, or constructs related to a topic. The third
influence is procedural knowledge, which means knowing how to do something and includes
methodologies or techniques used to accomplish a task (Anderson et al., 2001). The final
category is metacognitive knowledge, a subject's awareness of their cognitive processes to
address a problem (Rueda, 2011). This study focuses on factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge.
This section examines bullying categories or classes, intensity and frequency, the
individual and organizational cost of bullying, behaviors that constitute bullying, antecedents of
bullying, and how leadership styles influence bullying.
Factual Knowledge
Rueda (2011) described factual knowledge as domain-specific, including its details,
elements, and terminology. These are needed to function or solve problems in this domain

37

effectively. DCs needed a working definition of bullying and what acts may or may not
constitute bullying. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that individuals are unaware of their
knowledge gaps and are reluctant to admit so. Therefore, recognizing the conditions,
antecedents, and characteristics of perpetrators, victims, and bystanders are vital to
understanding the complexity of bullying.
Conceptual Knowledge
Knowledge of classifications, categories, models, principles, and structures is conceptual
knowledge (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) explained that knowledge starts as conceptual
and conscious and becomes unconscious and automatized. Chairs would need to identify what
acts would constitute harassment and retaliation and which cases would be governed by Title VII
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Categories and Classes of Bullying
In addition to the definition of bullying discussed earlier, behavioral descriptions of acts
that constitute bullying must be determined. The breadth of terms used to describe hostile work
actions further complicated unacceptable workplace behaviors. For example, Cassell (2011)
classified bullying activities and behaviors into five types as follows: name-calling, scapegoating
failure, increased work or performance pressure, sexual harassment, and physical abuse or harm.
This study examined the first three types, as federal and state laws address sexual harassment and
physical abuse. This section explains the importance of intensity and frequency and their role in
determining the severity of a bully’s actions.
Understanding Bullying Intensity and Frequency
Classifications of bullying provided a means of classifying or categorizing the severity of
an alleged offense and a response proportional to the action. Magee et al. (2017) identified five

38

bullying classes, based on surveys of 1,454 Australian respondents, that attempt to combine both
frequency and intensity in their classification. The first had a low frequency of bullying and was
labeled "no bullying" (35.8%). The second grouping experienced a few occurrences of being
ignored or excluded and is referred to as "limited indirect bullying" (28%). Those in the "task-
related bullying" group (18.6%) experienced more information withheld, reminders of errors and
mistakes, and a feeling of being ignored. The fourth class reported a wide range of infrequent
bullying behavior and was labeled "occasional bullying" (7.6%). Finally, the fifth class of
"frequent bullying" (10%) reported a relatively higher level of frequent bullying occurring daily
or weekly.
Procedural Knowledge
Smith and Coel (2018) declared that college and university policies do not adequately
address bullying and describe higher education as a fertile ground for abusive conduct. Faculty
codes of conduct addressed sexual harassment and a hostile work environment but rarely
addressed more subtle forms of bullying (Smith & Coel, 2018). Unless the target is a member of
a protected class covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, legal redress and relief are unlikely (Duffy, 2009). Yamada (1999)
noted that without bullying policies with clearly stated definitions and repercussions, abusive
behaviors continue to harm employees and organizations and are rarely illegal. Duffy (2009)
suggested that legislation and policy development are key strategies to prevent bullying with a
top-down approach. Leymann and Gustaffson's (1996) five-phase model resulted in target
expulsion by organizational termination or target's exit. This model placed immediate
supervisors in a pivotal role in preventing and combating bullying (Strandmark et al., 2017). The
danger is when management constructs a case built on unrelated evidence substantiating that the

39

target was the problem, making a bad situation even worse (Duffy, 2008). The following section
addressed why current policies and protections are limited, the importance of adhering to
established resolution timelines, the reporting hierarchy and HR support, and protections for
anyone reporting bullying.
Rueda (2011) described procedural knowledge as knowing how to do something and the
methods, techniques, and methodologies needed to accomplish a specific task. This section
discussed the importance of clearly stated employee rights, responsibilities, and protections
against retaliation. Next, DCs need to understand the importance of knowing the reporting
structure and alternative resources provided through HR. Finally, this section describes
safeguards that offer options and procedures to anyone seeking clarification or reporting
bullying.
Limitations of Existing Bullying Policies
Yamada (1999) called for status-blind hostile environment protection that treats all
employees equally. Employees who do not qualify under Title VII or ADA would have limited
protections without a specific antibullying policy. Yamada criticized the application of
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), where “outrageous conduct,” as mentioned in
the Restatement Pronouncement, requires the victim to recover from "severe emotional distress"
(p. 499) caused by the persecutor. Yamada further stated that: Title VII under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 is limited by status-based harassment and disregards behaviors, ADA covers those
considered disabled, and OSHA is focused primarily on physical workplace protections.
Rayner and Lewis (2020) suggested three central policy creation approaches in
organizations void of specific bullying policies. These include using: a specific bullying policy,
an all-inclusive policy combining all areas of harassment, and bullying and a "Dignity at work"

40

(p. 504) approach focused on embedding good organizational behavior. Rayner and Lewis
suggested another approach that expounds on collegiality as an expected, normative behavioral
standard involving all stakeholders in its development. Keashly and Neuman (2010) portrayed
the evolution of a toxic academic culture based on the interpretation between collegiality and
autonomy. Kligyte and Barrie (2014) described collegiality as a complex and contradictory term.
Lastly, Baporikar (2015) noted that a lack of collegiality is detrimental to the institution, a
disenchant students, and could eventually lead to faculty disengagement or termination.
Adherence to Timelines and Procedures
Saundry et al. (2011) asserted that early resolution is vital for informal and formal
bullying complaint resolution processes. Hoel and Einarsen (2020) claimed that investigators are
deemed fair and impartial in addition to the organization adhering to legal frameworks and
internal policies and procedures. Hoel and Einarsen further stated that the longer a case persists,
the more significant the negative impact on both individuals and organizations. Leck and
Galperin (2006) concluded that victims of bullying, in a sample of 474 undergraduate students
working a minimum of 20 hours per week at the University of Ottawa, indicated that targets
reported: a lower comfort level for filing complaints and a fear of being blamed, a stronger belief
that HR and senior management were indifferent to bullying complaints, the organization
accepted bullying, and uselessness of filing a complaint.
Woodrow and Guest (2017) affirmed that managers are central to the bullying process
and potentially play a crucial role in preventing simple conflicts from escalating. Salin et al.
(2018) stated that even with antibullying policies, managers' willingness to take action was not
affected. Accordingly, Harrington et al. (2012) noted that HR professionals were often distrustful
of local managers' effectiveness in dealing with conflicts among their subordinates. Leck and

41

Galperin (2006) reported that HR professionals were hesitant to take action when the alleged
bullying was productive and effective. To better understand bullying, leadership must understand
the role of power or perceived power.
Reporting Structure and Power
Scott (2013) described higher education institutions as organizations that exemplify the
hierarchical underpinnings of authority and responsibilities. Cassell (2011) noted that this
hierarchy tends to maintain its static nature and is less likely to be challenged by scholars. Lee
(2020), in a synthesis of 115 articles, noted that lower-rank higher education employees are
victims of hierarchical microaggressions regardless of their demographic characteristics.
Einarsen et al. (2003) equated power imbalance with the existing organizational power
structure in each organizational context. Knowledge or experience (Hoel and Cooper, 2000) or a
social, physical, or economic reliance on a perpetrator (Niedl, 1995) offered additional
explanations for power imbalances. Researchers suggested that bullied targets perceived their
inability to escape or defend themselves due to formal or informal power relations between the
target and the perpetrator (Lester, 2009; Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2011; Namie & Namie,
2009a; Niedl, 1995; Salin, 2020). Zapf et al. (2020) concluded that bullies are more often male
and in positions of authority. DiTomaso et al. (2007) defined power as access and control over
resources. Given the power dynamics involved in bullying, it is likely that targets and witnesses
may be of an equal or lesser rank or status than the bully. Lester (2009) stated that situational or
contextual conditions also encourage women and minorities to believe that they have less status
and power and are more vulnerable to societal power differences. Lastly, Hodson et al. (2006)
reported that relational powerlessness and organizational chaos correlate with increased bullying.

42

Resistance to Reporting Bullying
Salin (2020) stated that bullying victims consistently reported being dissatisfied with the
support received and the role played by HR. Human resources managers are passive or
uninformed at best and a bully’s accomplice at worst (Harrington et al., 2012; Thirlwall, 2015).
Thirlwall concluded after interviews with those bullied and their managers that HR professionals
attempted to reframe the incident, trivialized or questioned their concerns, or provided temporary
solutions. Harrington et al. stated that HR professionals were inclined to value business
competitiveness over employee comfort and were likely to see complaints as an organizational
threat.
Hutchinson (2016) reported that despite the introduction of antibullying policies, little
evidence of prevention was apparent. Chappell and Di Martino (2006) stated that the grievance
or complaint process drew the most workplace bullying policy criticism. The 2017 U.S.
workplace survey noted that 29% of targets remain silent, with only 17% seeking formal
resolution. According to Namie (2017), the perpetrator suffers negative consequences only 6% of
the time. Hutchinson continued equating formal complaints to “taking on the entire organization”
(p. 647) and preparing for leadership to protect its own. This condition made reporting unwanted
behavior problematic, especially if the bully is the target or witness' supervisor.
This researcher listed the field-based mission statement, performance goal, and
stakeholder goal in Table 4. The table also illustrated knowledge influences by knowledge type
and explained the proposed assessment methods.

43

Table 4

Knowledge Influence, Types, and Assessments
Table 3. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments
Field-Based Mission Statement
The institution shall provide an organizational culture and climate that encourages and supports employee
engagement and collegiality, free of bullying or harassment.
Field-Based Performance Goal
The institution will have eliminated bullying-related grievances filed with the Human Resources Department.
Stakeholder Goal
Within 24 months of implementation, the Community College shall eliminate grievances filed among academic
affairs personnel
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment

DCs need basic knowledge about
bullying, which includes:
● What qualifies as bullying
activities and behaviors
● Physical and psychosocial
effects on targets (victims)
● Organizational Costs
● Role of Power Dynamics
Factual
Knowledge &
Conceptual
Knowledge
Using interviews, ask DCs direct or indirect
questions that allow them to paraphrase, give
examples, summarize in their own words,
classify, categorize, interpret, compare, explain,
and differentiate.
DCs need knowledge of reporting
and responding to bullying incidents
according to institutional policies and
procedures. These include:
● Reporting procedures and
options
Procedural
Knowledge
Using interviews or observations, ask DCs to
perform or articulate the specific steps related to
the performance of the skill (reporting or
confronting bullying behavior, starting a difficult
conversation, reporting the action to their
supervisor or the supervisor's supervisor).
Note. Revisions from the previous version of Table 4 included: Roles (perpetrators, target/victim,
and witness) were included in Role of Power Dynamics; employee rights, protections, and
responsibilities are out of the parameters of this study and were eliminated; organizational costs
were added to Knowledge Influences.

44

Motivation Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) defined motivation as keeping us going, moving, and how much
effort we expend on tasks. The three indexes applied to the work environment include: the active
choice to pursue a goal, persistence despite distractions or competing goals, and mental effort or
focused hard work.
Rueda (2011) espoused four variables that explain the drivers of motivation. The first
driver is self-efficacy, competence, or one's ability to complete a task. Secondly, stability or
permanence, locus of control, and control or mastery were elements of the attribution theory. The
third is the value or importance one places on a task. Finally, goals or the desire to achieve an
outcome drove behavior. Rueda stated that goals consist of content orientation or the proximal,
specific, or level of challenge, and goal orientation or the purpose or reasons for engaging in a
behavior. This study focused on DC’s self-efficacy and utility value in determining the chair’s
willingness to attempt, persist, and resolve reported bullying cases.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Pajares (2006) described self-efficacy as self-perceptions regarding their capabilities to
learn and perform at designated levels. Individuals formulated these beliefs from mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences or observation, social persuasions or messages received from
others, and physiological or visceral responses. Pintrich (2003) claimed that when individuals
expect to do well, they persist longer and perform better. Much of the recent research on self-
efficacy has focused on subject-specific efficacy. Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy theory, a
primary construct of social cognitive theory, suggested DCs high in self-efficacy are likely to
believe that their efforts would positively affect their decision to intervene.

45

Manz (1986) introduced the concept of self-leadership, which proposes that external
factors such as organizational resources and management rather than self-efficacy cause success.
Manz suggested that feelings of competence, self-determination, and purpose form the essence of
self-efficacy. Paglis (2010) described leadership self-efficacy (LSE) as a manager's confidence
assessment in their ability to fulfill the leadership role. Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) concluded
in their meta-analysis that self-efficacy correlates positively with job performance. Given the
complexity of serving as a DC (Berdrow, 2010; Bowman, 2002; Wolverton et al., 2005), much is
unknown about their background, experience, and knowledge. Stajkovic and Luthans (1998)
stated that lower self-efficacy levels strongly correlate with lower performance and task
complexity plays an important role. Highly complex tasks, therefore, place greater demands on:
required knowledge, cognitive ability, memory, behavioral facility, information processing,
persistence, and physical effort (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Paglis described self-efficacy as a
central construct in social cognitive theory that influences behaviors' initiation, intensity, and
persistence.
Utility Value
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) described a direct link between a stakeholder's expectancy
and task-value belief with their achievement performance, persistence, and choices. More
specifically, Eccles (1983) defined utility value as a measure of how a task relates to present or
future goals. If DCs lacked experience with difficult conversations and conflict resolution,
providing them the rationale and opportunity to practice these skills would increase motivation.
Most department chairs entered their roles without being adequately trained (Cooper & Pagotto,
2003; Gmelch & Miskin, 2004; Morris & Laipple, 2015). Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that

46

if individuals focus on the benefits of finishing a task despite the absence of interest or
discomfort caused, they are more likely to complete the job.
Flaherty (2016) described DC training as "woefully inadequate." Those who received
training focus on hard skills and not the interpersonal or soft skills critical to a department's
climate (Flaherty, 2016). Suppose department chairs had a comprehensive understanding of their
jobs' informational, interpersonal, and big-picture issues. In that case, they are more likely to
create positive environments where delegation, trust, and cultural knowledge are prevalent
(Wolverton et al., 2005).
Table 5 states the stakeholder goal, field-based mission statement, and performance goal.
It also provides the department chair’s self-efficacy, utility value, and open-ended questions used
in the interviews.

47

Table 5

Motivation Influence and Assessment
Table 4. Motivation Influence and Assessment
Field-Based Mission Statement
The institution shall provide an organizational culture and climate that encourages and supports employee
engagement and collegiality, free of bullying or harassment.

Field-Based Performance Goal
The institution will have eliminated bullying-related grievances filed with the Human Resources Department.

Stakeholder Goal
Within 24 months of implementation, the Community College shall eliminate grievances filed among academic
affairs personnel

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-Efficacy – Department Chairs (DC) need
to feel confident that they can use their
knowledge, experience, and communication
skills to resolve bullying within their
departments.

Interview item:

"How confident are you with addressing
bullying within your department?"
Utility Value - DCs need to see the value of
implementing strategies to address bullying in
their departments.
Interview item:

"How would your faculty feel if bullying in your
department ceased"?

Organizational Culture Gaps
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that organizational gaps result from work processes and
resources that are ineffective and inefficient. Clark and Estes described organizational culture as
existing at the conscious and unconscious level that dictates what we value, do, and work
together. These organizational gaps included cultural models or shared models of how things
work and cultural settings or the tangible aspects.

48

Cultural Model
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) stated that cultural models are shared understandings
or mental schemas of how things work or should work. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that much
of an organization's culture is implicit, unconscious, automated, and beneath the surface. As
such, the cultural norms of an institution often inform and dictate employee behavior. Clark and
Estes also suggested that what is visible in an organization becomes rooted over time. Schein
(2017) asserted that what is at the heart of an organization is not revealed to newcomers. These
secrets are only shared after a member has gained permanent status and is allowed into the inner
circle.
Smith and Coel (2018) noted that college and university policies do not adequately
address bullying and described higher education as fertile ground for abusive conduct. Liefooghe
and Davey (2001) argued that output-based cultures promoted and encouraged bullying and that
organizations rewarded managers for enforcing these standards. Samnani and Singh (2012)
stated that organizations that normalize abuse and competition might enable, trigger, and even
reward bullying. Lutgen-Sandvik and McDermott (2011) indicated that 92.3% (n = 227) of U.S.
interviewees described upper management's reluctance to stop abuse, take action, punish actors
(persecutors), cover up inadequacies, and use aggression as an HR tool.
Cultural Settings
As described by Rueda (2011), cultural settings are the more visible aspects of the whom,
what, when, where, and why of an organizational context. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that
organizational gaps exist if policies fail, materials or equipment are unavailable, and
interdepartmental communication is ineffective.

49

Higher education institutions have complex managerial structures, policies, and codes of
conduct that cause frustration and confusion (Hollis, 2016). Schraw and McCrudden (2006)
suggested that mastery requires leaders to acquire the component skills, integrate expertise, and
understand when to apply them. DCs are aware of the existing policies, procedures, and by-laws
that govern faculty collegiality but may not know how these apply to bullying. These factors
further complicated the prospect of reporting the unwanted behavior, especially if the bully is the
target’s supervisor. Uninformed DCs that become aware of noncollegial behaviors are more
likely to accept bullying as a normative part of organizational culture. Twale and De Luca (2008)
stated that higher education institutions function through shared governance but are slow to
resolve issues, often acting like bureaucracies. Faculty self-governance within this hierarchical
structure caused conflict and may inadvertently shield, protect, and encourage bullying. Higher
education's competitive, accomplishment-based nature provided a context-rich environment
where bullying thrived (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). Cassell (2011) stated that bullying is deemed
lower in intensity compared to other forms of harassment and discrimination. Hodgins and
McNamara (2017) noted that a "certain degree of incivility is assumed to be intrinsic to
organizational life” (p. 191).
This researcher outlined an approach to address the cultural model and cultural settings in
U.S. community colleges in Table 6. This table also recognizes the probability of influences
contributing to a gap and the need to address them.

50

Table 6

Assumed Organizational Influences, Gaps, and Priorities

Field-Based Mission Statement
The institution shall provide an organizational culture and climate that encourages and supports employee
engagement and collegiality, free of bullying or harassment.

Field-Based Performance Goal
The institution will have eliminated bullying-related grievances filed with the Human Resources
Department.

Stakeholder Goal
Within 24 months of implementation, the Community College shall eliminate grievances filed among
academic affairs personnel
. Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence #1: Faculty need to
believe that the college believes it is important
to address workplace bullying and that there
will be no associated retaliation for coming
forward.

What are indications that your college
supports an environment free from bullying,
if any?

What are examples of retaliatory actions
taken against faculty who have reported
bullying, if any?

Cultural Setting Influence #1: Colleges need to
have a clear process to report bullying for those
who do not have federal protections.

What antibullying policies exist at
your college, if any?
Cultural Setting Influence #2: Colleges need to
have training that examines the knowledge and
motivational influences and how these are
supported within the organizational culture
when responding to reported bullying.
Describe any antibullying training
you received as DC, if any?

Note. The author added Cultural Setting Influence #2 to address gaps found in this study. DCs
described their antibullying training received and gave suggestions for training as part of their
interviews.

51

This study attempted to gain insight into the problem of bullying among academic
personnel at U.S. CCs by focusing on DCs. Chairs are in a unique position to influence
department culture and climate. In a meta-analysis, Nielsen and Einarsen (2018) concluded that
bullying is a unique and highly detrimental form of workplace aggression. Bullying is important
to address at an individual level because it correlates with higher employee turnover, declines in
faculty engagement, and changes in institutional perception (McKay et al., 2008). Despite the
difficulty of identifying direct organizational costs (Hassard et al., 2018) and scant research
attention (Hoel et al., 2020), workplace realities include absenteeism, turnover, disengagement,
and litigation.
Bullying in higher education occurred at significantly higher rates than in the general
workforce (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). The characteristics such as competitiveness and
accomplish-based nature correlated with an environment where bullying thrived and persisted.
CCs have received little attention in research despite their distinct population and purpose. Given
the unique positionality of DCs and their lack of previous experience (Gmelch, 2000), multiple
responsibilities (Bedrow, 2010; Bowman, 2002; Wolverton et al., 2005), and lack of leadership
and personnel training (Fulton-Calkins & Milling, 2006), DCs hold critical roles in combating
and eliminating bullying (Strandmark et al., 2017). Currently, the United States has no federal
laws (Duffy, 2009) or state laws (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2020) governing workplace
bullying, with only California and Utah mandating training.

52

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This study aimed to determine the community college department chair's role in
eliminating bullying, measured by the absence of bullying-related grievances filed by academic
personnel in U.S. community colleges. In this field-based study, the researcher sought to
understand the lived experiences of CC DCs as the stakeholder group in a position to perpetuate
collegial behaviors within their organizations.
This study used a qualitative research approach that focused on process, understanding,
and meaning, researcher as the primary instrument, an inductive approach, and rich in
description (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This gap analysis attempted to expose the difference
between current and desired performance goals and the cost-benefit of closing these gaps.
Questions examined the gaps in CC DC's knowledge and motivation within the context of the
department or organization. Triangulation with data from the institutional, system, and state
websites provided validity by illustrating organizational and external influences.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders selected for this study were DCs who have served a minimum of 1 year
within the last 3 years. This researcher interviewed 12 participants from community colleges in
NSHE.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
This study used purposive, nonprobability sampling due to its selective and subjective
characteristics (Sharma, 2017). Creswell (2012) described the following types of purposeful
sampling: typical, unique, maximum variation, convenience and snowball or chain sampling (p.
97). This researcher contacted department chairs or department directors listed on Nevada CC

53

websites by email. Emails included selection criteria and mentioned the researcher’s current
employment with the College of Southern Nevada (CSN).
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
This researcher served as an interim dean at a large urban CC. The dean’s servant
leadership style and open-door policy encouraged frequent interaction with all school members.
A small number of faculty and chairs were responsible for most complaints about noncollegial
behaviors regarding their peers, supervisors, and subordinates. The lack of protections for those
without a protected-class status and the absence of a specific bullying policy made the
enforcement and encouragement of collegial behaviors difficult. This study examined factors
such as the lack of knowledge and motivation by middle-managers (DCs) and the organizational
factors that exacerbated bullying.
The researcher requested the help of DCs who have served for a minimum of 1 academic
year within the last 3 years. All Nevada CC DCs were sent emails within 2 weeks of USC’s IRB
approval. The researcher sent potential participants who responded with possible days and times
and scheduled them within 10 days. Letters included reference to this researcher’s long-term
employment at the College of Southern Nevada (CSN), names of employees at the recipient’s
institution familiar to the researcher, or a chair from a parallel area at CSN. Confirmation emails
reiterated inclusion criteria, the study’s voluntary nature, and included the social-behavioral
protocols of the study (see Appendix C).
Criterion 1
This researcher contacted past and present DCs who served at the CC level within NSHE
in the past 3 years for a minimum of 1 year.

54

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study used semistructured interviews and document analysis. Interviews provided a
rich understanding of the participant’s lived experience with bullying. Online document analysis
provided information on policies, procedures, training, and support services at the institutional,
system, and state levels.
Interviews
This study used a semistructured interview protocol (Appendix A). This flexible format,
guided by Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO influences, allowed the researcher to omit questions
when participants indicated discomfort or a lack of knowledge and probe deeper when answers
lacked specificity or depth. The expected variance in prior leadership experience, years of
service, and training provided calls for probing participants with expertise and insight into
specific topics or themes. The researcher used open-ended questions and follow-up questions in
all interviews.
This researcher interviewed 12 participants, where each interview lasted between 60 to
90 minutes. If time became a concern, the researcher limited follow-up queries or skipped
redundant questions covered in previous answers. This researcher recorded remote interviews
and transcribed them on Zoom due to COVID 19 restrictions. These restrictions in Nevada
included but were not limited to: social distancing, wearing a mask in public, reporting exposure
to someone who tested positive, and isolation. The researcher scheduled participants within a 2-
week minimum, with email reminders sent the day before the interviews. Zoom meeting
transcriptions were saved and reviewed for accuracy before open coding. A smartphone or
similar device was used as a backup audio recording and the audio level was checked before
every interview.

55

Instrumentation
Semistructured, open-ended questions addressed potential gaps in knowledge and
motivation within the participants’ organizations. Questions 1 through 6 examine the
demographic characteristics of the participants. Question seven asked if the interviewee had
served as a DC for a minimum of 1 year within the last 3 years and worked for a Nevada CC.
Questions eight through 11 examined participants' factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge of DCs. Questions 12 and 13 probed chairs’ self-efficacy and utility value. Finally,
questions 14 through 17 examined organizational cultural models and cultural settings. For
specific questions and related research questions and influences, see Appendix A.
Document Review
This study triangulated interview data with related electronic public data found at Nevada
CCs and the NSHE system website. The study also examined antibullying policies or statutes at
the institution or system level, which provided DCs with factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge to guide their response. The study also reviewed the available faculty handbook,
faculty senate governance bylaws, and memos referencing collegiality and civility at each
institution. These documents, when available, provided factual and conceptual knowledge and
precedent, providing a secondary approach to curbing bullying. Lastly, this study accessed state
and federal workplace antibullying statutes from websites such as stopbullying.gov, EEOC.gov,
and other nongovernment agencies, providing pertinent knowledge.
Data Analysis
Creswell (2012) suggested scrubbing interviews for accuracy and overall meaning before
deriving key ideas. The researcher recorded notes in ATLAS.ti in the margins or as the italicized
text followed. Findings were compiled and synthesized using additional printed documents and

56

handwritten notes. The gap analysis conceptual framework and research questions informed the
coding process. Open coding identifying chunks of data ensued. Lastly, codes also included
expected, surprising, and unusual topics.
The subsequent analysis phase introduced axial or analytic coding (Corbin & Strauss,
2015) based on reflection and meaning derivation. Axial coding commenced after transcripts
from two or three interviews were openly coded. The researcher sorted and organized data, then
identified patterns, themes, and findings. At this point, the process required alternating between
open and axial coding as additional themes or patterns emerged. Coding was tied back to
research questions and factors identified in the conceptual framework whenever possible.
Codes also generated distinctions in CC settings and models. As indicated by Creswell,
five to seven themes should emerge in a research study. The researcher used narrative passages
from notes and interviews to convey findings. Finally, this study discussed the findings or
lessons learned.
The researcher assigned pseudonyms to all participants to protect participants’ identities.
The researcher backed up files on an external hard drive in password-protected subfolders and
unique, double-encrypted Google Drive accounts. Additionally, the researcher will destroy all
interview recordings and transcripts within 3 years of the first interview. Lastly, all electronic
recordings, transcripts, and written files will be password protected. Printed material, if any, will
be kept in a locked filing cabinet. This researcher will be the only one with access to the
passcodes and keys.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative validity requires the researcher to check for accuracy and that the researcher,
participant, and reader interpret the findings consistently (Creswell, 2012). Of the eight validity

57

strategies Creswell recommends, this study used triangulation, member checking, external audit,
and clarifying researcher bias. This study triangulated the interview findings, institutional and
system antibullying policies found online, state antibullying laws, leadership human relations
training, resources, and support provided to DCs. Additionally, this researcher shared
preliminary findings with their dissertation committee for feedback. Lastly, the results section
discussed overcoming bias from prior life experiences, the researcher’s role in this study, and
their relationship with each participant.
Corbin and Strauss (2015) categorized qualitative research questions that allowed
researchers to use: sensitizing questions that allow for clarification and elaboration, theorizing
questions that help with the understanding process, variation, and connection, practical questions
that provide direction and theory building, and guiding questions that inform interviews,
observations, document gathering, and analysis. The researcher, therefore, asked the interview
questions in a manner that engaged, empathized, and connected them to the participant.
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that research ethics correlated with the researcher’s
demonstrated competence and trustworthiness. The Ethical Issues Checklist (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, pp. 264-265) guides this study’s safeguards. The initial email and the first few minutes of
the interview provided a clear explanation of the study's purpose, approval of USC’s IRB,
reciprocity, promises of participant sharing, risks of discussing difficult matters, and the required
Informed Consent Form. The participant was informed and reminded that they may terminate the
interview at any point.
The researcher revealed the types of triangulated data collected in this study. This
researcher also assured the participant’s identity would only be known by the researcher.

58

Nothing said or implied was shared with anyone outside those associated with the dissertation
team. Lastly, the research indicated that PTSD has occurred in a small number of bullying cases.
This researcher will provide Employee Assistance Program information if concerns arise during
interactions up to 2 years following completion of all interviews.
Research Positionality
Due to the likelihood that participants at the researcher’s institution had similar lived
experiences, the researcher emphasized the confidentiality of all statements made and did not
confirm or deny knowledge of institutional history in his follow-up questions or comments.
As the former Interim Dean of the School of Arts and Letters at the College of Southern
Nevada, four DCs were formerly this researcher’s direct reports. On several occasions,
subordinates of one of these chairs reported them as hostile, vindictive, and controlling. This
chair, however, did not respond to any invitations or inquiries sent. This researcher was also the
target and witness to incivilities, such as scandalous rumors, power-mongering tactics, and
favoritism occurring within his department before serving as Interim Dean.
Chapter 4 will discuss the results and findings based on Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework discussed in previous chapters. Findings from each assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influence described in Chapter 2 are analyzed to determine if gaps
are validated, invalidated, or undetermined.

59

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Chapter 4 presents the research findings analyzed through the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences described in the gap analysis framework. Gaps are examined and
supported with data from interviews. Frequency of validating or nonvalidating responses are
noted in each examined influence. Finally, the triangulation of publicly available institutional,
system, and federal documents are included, where aligned with the analysis. An overview of
documents or artifacts and performed searches are found in Appendix B.
Research Questions
The following research questions have guided this study:
1. What are department chairs' knowledge and motivation related to implementing
strategies to eliminate bullying in their departments?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and department
chairs' knowledge and motivation for implementing strategies to eliminate bullying in
their departments?
This study collected and examined multiple qualitative data sources to support its
findings. In addition to interviews with 12 department chairs, the author read publicly available
documents such as faculty handbooks, institutional and NSHE policies, and memos from senior
officers. Lastly, the researcher examined EEOC documents on harassment and retaliation, Title
VII, Title IX amendment, and job descriptions for deans and DCs. This researcher conducted
one-on-one interviews online due to the COVID-19 pandemic using the Zoom platform and
Otter.ai for transcriptions. Data collection and review of public documents and artifacts were
conducted during and following interviews.

60

Participating Stakeholders
Participants were primarily from the CSN (75%), male (75%), and are acquainted with
this researcher (75%). Additionally, DCs served between one and 11 years (mean = 5.6 years.;
mode = 1 year) and worked at their respective institutions between 8 and 42 years (mean = 20.4
years). Chairs supervised between 19 and 144 full-time and part-time faculty (mean = 86.2 years;
median = 60.5 years) . Only four of the 12 participants had previous managerial experience.
Table 7 summarizes the participant demographics.
The participants from the three participating institutions came from three organizational
structures. DCs all tasked with scheduling classes, communicating with full-time and part-time
faculty, and involving personnel concerns. Chairs at one institution were not direct supervisors of
full-time faculty and were considered equals. DCs at the second institution were considered
faculty but had signature authority over department faculty. Chairs at the third institution are
called department directors, have a wider variety of disciplines, and have responsibilities typical
of DCs and deans. These duties included scheduling, screening, hiring, evaluating part-time
faculty, department reports and statistics, and addressing complaints. Throughout the study, all
participants are referred to as department chairs, chairs, or DCs.

61

Table 7

Participant Demographics
Table 6, Participant Demographics
Participant
Number or
Identifier
Supervise
Faculty
Years in DC
Position
Years at
Institution
Full-time &
Part-time
Department
Faculty
Previous
Supervisory
Experinece
Participant1
or P1
Yes >6 20 or less 50 or less No
Participant2
or P2
Yes 6 or less 20 or less 50 or less No
Participant 3
or P3
Yes 6 or less >20 >50 No
Participant 4
or P4
Yes >6 20 or less >50 Yes
Participant 5
or P5
Yes 6 or less >20 >50 Yes
Participant 6
or P6
Yes >6 20 or less >50 No
Participant 7
or P7
Yes 6 or less 20 or less >50 Yes
Participant 8
or P8
Yes 6 or less 20 or less >50 No
Participant 9
or P9
No >6 >20 50 or less No
Participant
10 or P10
No 6 or less 20 or less 50 or less No
Participant
11 or P11
No >6 >20 >50 No
Participant
12 or P12
Yes >6 20 or less >50 Yes
TOTALS NA 67.8 245 1,034 NA
Mean NA 5.7 20.4 86.2 NA
Median NA 6.5 19.5 60.5 NA
Mode NA 1 17 & 20 54 NA
Note. College of Southern Nevada (CSN); Great Basin College (GBC); Truckee Meadows
Community College (TMCC); Western Nevada College (WNC). Despite multiple attempts to
contact DCs from GBC, none participated.

62

Knowledge Influences
This study uses three of Krathwohl's (2002) knowledge types. Factual knowledge
consists of rudimentary elements such as terminology, details, or elements. Conceptual
knowledge requires an understanding of classifications, principles, theories, and models. Finally,
procedural knowledge pertains to solving or troubleshooting a problem. Table 8 lists the assumed
knowledge influences discussed in Chapter 2, the determination of a reported gap, and a
summary of the findings.
Table 8

Assumed Knowledge Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings.
Table. Assumed Knowledge Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Knowledge Influence Gap Validated, Invalidated, or Undetermined
What qualifies as bullying activities and behaviors Gap Validated. Chairs reported a mix of behaviors
and actions that they would consider bullying. Most
Chairs did not consistently name behaviors from the
three subcategories of the NAQ-R.

Physical and psychosocial effects on targets
(victims)
Gap Validated. Department Chairs appear unaware
of the physical, psychosomatic, and physiological
consequences to targets. Responses were generic
and described institutional conditions instead of
individual effects.

Institutional Costs Gap Validated. Chairs seldom mentioned costs to
their institution other than bullying effects on
students.

Role of Power Dynamics Gap Undetermined. Department Chairs reported a
varied understanding of the role of power or
perceived power in bullying.

Reporting Procedure and Options

Gap Validated. Department chairs are unclear if a
bullying policy exists or the procedural steps
involved in addressing it. Additionally, few
mentioned Chapter 6, harassment, and retaliation.

63

Factual Knowledge
Factual knowledge identifies the essential elements, terminology, or specific details
within any domain (Krathwohl, 2002). The following DC statements exemplify the unique
position of Chairs, examples of what bullying might entail, and how it may manifest among
faculty. Participant 7 (P7) explains that DCs are ". . . heckled on both sides" and suggests that a
"very careful balance" is required. The following participant statements indicate an awareness of
some of the 22 items in Einarsen et al. (2009) NAQ-R. This study uses the three subcategories of
the NAQ-R as a baseline to identify bullying behaviors. These consist of work-related, person-
related, and physically intimidating bullying.
Additionally, high scores on the NAQ-R correlated with reduced employee performance
reported consideration of leaving one's job, psychosomatic issues, and increased sickness
absenteeism (Einarsen et al., 2009). A 2012 meta-analytic review of 66 independent samples
found insignificant or weak correlations for intention to leave, reduced job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, and symptoms of PTSD and burnout (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).
Therefore, the NAQ-R provides a working list of acts correlated to several elements of employee
performance, organizational commitment, and psychosomatic issues.
Bullying Behaviors and Activities
DCs reported an inconsistent mix of behaviors and actions that they considered bullying.
Most DCs also failed to report work-related, person-related, and physical-intimidating behaviors.
These findings confirm a gap in DC’s knowledge of participants who answered, "What specific
behaviors or actions would qualify as bullying?" This researcher categorized DC’s responses into
the three subcategories of the NAQ-R. Namie and Namie's (2009a) definition informed the
definition of bullying. DCs may have responded according to their new conceptualization of

64

bullying. Participants did not comment on Namie and Namie's definition or confirm their
agreement or disagreement with the use of terms such as health-harming, verbal abuse,
threatening, intimidating, or humiliating behaviors, or sabotage. The researcher submits the
need for a revised protocol that requires the participant to define what they believe to be bullying
which would better represent DC's knowledge of what constitutes bullying.
Therefore, DC's responses could be deemed anecdotal based on their newly acquired
understanding of bullying, according to Namie and Namie’s (2009a) definition. Asking for
examples that qualify as bullying without referencing experience or observations is not the
equivalent of knowing what actions constitute bullying. Table 9 indicates participants' responses
when asked and any subsequent reference to behaviors according to the NAQ-R. The majority of
participants mentioned at least one work-related and person-related bullying example, while the
majority did not state knowledge of physical-intimidating bullying. Examples included a direct
answer to an interview question requesting an example of behaviors considered bullying and
other statements related to items from each of the three subcategories from the NAQ-R.
The researcher determined knowledge gaps when most participants failed or
inconsistently mentioned the majority of the knowledge factors mentioned in this study or
avoided answering the semistructured interview questions despite additional probing. Examples
of this include providing bullying behaviors from each of the three categories in the NAQ-R. A
“Yes” in any column in Table 9 does not depict knowledge of the majority of items but instead
any behavior that may be categorized as a work-related, person-related, or physical-intimidating
related action.

65

Table 9

NAQ-R Subcategory Examples Mentioned During Interview
Table 9. NAQ-R Subcategory Examples
Participant Work-related
Bullying
Person-related
Bullying
Physical-Intimidating
Bullying
P1 Yes No No
P2 Yes No No
P3 Yes Yes No
P4 Yes Yes Yes
P5 Yes Yes Yes
P6 No Yes No
P7 Yes Yes No
P8 Yes No Yes
P9 No Yes Yes
P10 No No No
P11 Yes Yes No
P12 No Yes No

Percent Yes

67%

67%

33%

Note. A “Yes” recognizes on or more item identified in each NAQ-R bullying category. Number
of items are as follows: Work-related bullying = 7; Person-related bullying = 12; Physical-
Intimidating bullying = 3.
Work-Related Bullying. Work-related bullying (Einarsen et al., 2009) includes
unrealistic expectations placed upon subordinates. P7 describes deadlines with short turn-around
times, stating that if something were "thrown" at them at the last minute, they would be ". . . up
until all hours of the night, trying to comply," and wondering if ". . . you're going to be bullied."
Participant 3 describes how a tenure-track faculty member's tenure chair had implied that their

66

tenure was in question. She stated that the tenure-track faculty member had been "browbeaten"
by the committee chair and essentially, ". . . bullied." The faculty member did not have the extra
2 weeks to work on her application and perceived that if she did not get it in by October 1st, the
tenure committee chair would "tank" her tenure application. Participant 3(P3) describes another
case of faculty-to-faculty bullying, where a tenured faculty member places unreasonable
expectations on a tenure-track faculty member. They depict the situation as "forced babysitting."
They continue by saying, "The kids are left in the lab. . ." where the faculty member being
affected works with the assumption that they need to watch the children, "While hubby and I go
out and do some work." This statement indicates the bully’s intention to leave their children with
the target while they attended to other work.
Under the category of work-related supervisory bullying, Participant 4 noted, "Their
supervisor's main focus was ". . . always looking for what can I catch you out on that [sic] you
did wrong." P4 explains that their supervisor did not ". . . really understand anything," and spent
time ". . . listening for wrong notes, and not helping, not advocating, not making anything better .
. ." P4 continues by saying their supervisor would question, "Why aren't you doing this faster?
And why didn't you do more?" They finally stated that "pretty much everybody" experienced this
for almost 2 years.
Personal-Related Bullying. The following depicts examples of personal bullying
identified in the NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2009). These include ridicule or humiliation, criticism,
sarcasm, offensive personal remarks, being reminded of mistakes or errors, hostile reactions,
gossip, and rumors about the target.
According to Merriam-Webster (n.d.), "gaslighting" is a form of psychological
manipulation over an extended time. The victim begins to question their perception, thoughts,

67

and memories and becomes confused and uncertain of their emotional or mental stability.
Participant 12, in a gaslighting example, stated that some faculty would question the relevance of
their peer's work ". . . in a way that is not meant to be constructively critical," but instead in a
way meant ". . . to undermine and shake their confidence." In a climate where females and males
appeared to be at odds, P9 stated that comments are often ". . . directed at the males in the
department." Participant 6 described gaslighting as attempting to ". . . shake someone else's
confidence" and question how they fit into the community, how relevant they might be, or how
respected they are among peers.
When it came to lying and falsifying the truth, P4 referenced interactions with their
supervisor and stated that the Vice-president of Academic Affairs (VPAA) would iterate
"outright lies" at committee meetings despite their attempts to challenge the accuracy of the
VPAA’s statements. Participant 5 described how senior members in their department would
attempt to manipulate others by using ". . . half-truths to bully." These members would threaten
others by falsely reporting having spoken to the Regents.
The following examples have to do with attacking one's character or reputation.
Participant 9 describes rumors as an attempt to "ruin" a faculty member's reputation. Participant
9 stated that someone started a widely circulated rumor that a particular faculty member was ". . .
receiving oral sex in his office from a certain student." P7 describes how they were embarrassed
by "All" emails about missed deadlines without being given adequate time to respond. They go
on to tell how members of their department responded to missed deadlines by stating, ". . . you
know they didn't have your back, you know that they were talking behind your back, you know
that they were plotting."

68

Furthermore, P11 describes examples of character attacks perpetrated by a previous
Dean, stating that their Dean created an environment that made people "afraid" that they were
going to be reprimanded for duties that they ". . . didn't even know that they were responsible
for." P11 reported that the dean, ". . . had her favorites," and in a school of over 100 faculty, she
managed to ". . . piss everybody off." These were only a few examples of attacking one’s
character and reputation, putting unknown expectations onto individuals and direct lack of
support.
Physical-Intimidating Related Bullying. The following were examples of physical
bullying described by Einarsen et al. (2009). Participant 9 described physical bullying that they
witnessed or experienced themselves. In several instances, P9 states, a faculty member entered
another faculty member's office, slammed the door, and began yelling and pointing at them.
They further reported other perpetrators using their physical size to ". . . get in their space" and
"intimidate them." Participant 8 acknowledges the criminal nature of some of these threats and
stated the actions of one faculty member threatening them, implying that they were ". . .going to
beat the daylights out of you." P8 further elaborates by saying, when somebody ". . . gets up in
your face, raises their voice and have their ". . . hands clenched, or they are sticking their chest
out right up against you, they are ". . . signaling that this may escalate unless you give me what I
want, or unless you back off." Finally, examples of physical bullying include P9's descriptions of
some faculty, ". . . yelling, screaming [sic] pounding your fist on the desk." Lastly, P4 describes
an incident where they witness their supervisor going after their administrative assistant by
"yelling" at them in public. These are clear examples of physical bullying through the direct
experiences of these participants.

69

P1, P2, P5, and P10 avoided answering with bullying-specific actions. This avoidance
could indicate that they are either responding in a politically correct manner, lacking personal
experience with bullying, or are not entirely forthcoming.
Physical and Psychosocial Effects
This section examines the human costs of bullying, including physical, psychosomatic,
and physiological symptoms. Mikkelsen et al. (2020) stated that studies since the 1980s have
confirmed the correlations between bullying and symptoms such as: anxiety, depression,
burnout, suicide ideation, and PTSD. However, research on physiological symptoms is scant and
positive associations are tentative (Mikkelsen et al., 2020). The most commonly reported
symptoms included sleep difficulties, headaches, migraines, sleep aid, and sedative use.
Participants did acknowledge effects on faculty engagement but few, if any, recognized
psychosocial or physical consequences experienced by faculty. Instead, participants answered in
a generic manner using terms that described low morale, disengagement, and anxiety. Participant
11 mentioned "low morale, discord, less social interaction" and declines in faculty passion,
interest, and willingness to engage with students. Both P11 and P3 responded that faculty
experienced "low morale" without reference to their well-being or wellness. Furthermore, P4
acknowledged faculty experienced "negative feelings." P12 described faculty questioning their
employment status, and four participants described "disengagement" in response to bullying.
Participant 8 stated that dealing with bullying has caused ". . . a great deal of anxiety,"
but did not explain how it had manifested in faculty. In a case where a tenured faculty member
was attempting to control a tenure-track faculty member, P3 reported the latter stated it has
caused ". . . great mental angst" in the tenure-track faculty member. None of the participants,
other than P8, referenced mental, psychosomatic, or physiological symptoms. Health

70

information, including mental health, is protected by HIPPA (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, 2015) law and cannot be released without the patient's consent making it
challenging to assess employee mental, psychosomatic, and physiological symptoms. Knowledge
of these effects is not typically made known to DCs unless the employee self-discloses.
Furthermore, this study found no additional comments in word searches using the terms anxiety,
angst, distress, worry, stress, and terror.
Lastly, outlying responses included those that did not describe what the individuals'
experienced. P2's response was organizational, P9 only spoke about personnel actions such as
termination and grievances, and P10 focused on procedural steps. Participant 7 stated
consequences were "very small," answering from an HR perspective. Overall, responses were
generic, focused on observable behavioral characteristics, and lacked an explicit
acknowledgment of the severity and diversity of physical and psychosocial effects of bullying.
Institutional Costs
DCs are typically not involved in institutional budget discussions and cost-benefit
analysis estimations. The institutional personnel costs associated with filed grievances, litigation,
and turnover are not likely known. Regardless, the documentation is as follows. When asked in
follow-up questions what the institutional costs associated with bullying were, five of the 12
participants mentioned litigation. P9 and P11 stated that perpetrators in cases they knew of were
senior administrators. Participant 10 said that targets were bullied by ". . . another colleague or
particularly [sic] administration." Both P10 and P7 indicated their awareness of how some cases
typically escalate into lawsuits. Word searches in ATLAS.ti using keywords "litigation" and
"lawsuit" and other inflected forms resulted in no additional passages.

71

Additional word searches of interview transcripts uncovered statements referencing
participants' knowledge of personnel actions that resulted in termination, retirement, and
resignation. Three of the 12 participants indicated the following. P9 was aware of "A couple of
people terminated" and others who just ". . . quit, walk [sic] away." P11 recalls a Vice-President
who had three Deans and a Chair quit who were "longtime institutional faculty." P4 describes a
"culture of bullying" in which individuals who were not liked were driven ". . . out the door" or
to retire.
P5 had several interesting observations regarding the grievances filed. In litigious matters
in the NSHE system, they estimated that 80% of the grievances are settled outside and sealed.
Consequently, these accounts cannot be used to address problems but instead, ". . . They get
buried." Participant 8, when asked about filed grievances, stated, those who file grievances
usually ". . . lose those grievances." P1 mentioned turnover by saying the number one
consequence would be ". . . losing valuable and talented faculty members." P1 failed to mention
the costs associated with advertising, screening and hiring new faculty. Finally, P3 described
costs as time and salaries of personnel interviewing all those involved in a bullying complaint.
Participants were asked to name institutional costs associated with bullying but focused
on institutional conditions instead. In direct responses to this question, P1 spoke of supervisors
"lording over" subordinates and exerting pressure to complete delegated work. In addition, P2
stated their "very awkward" experience when disagreeing with their supervisor. P9 describes a
faculty member "yelling, screaming, pounding your [sic] fist on the desk." Furthermore, P5
noted "groupthink" where leadership "make less good decisions and sometimes downright bad"
ones. Lastly, P8 described having "pretty low feelings" about administration and a downward
trend in workplace climate and morale at their institution.

72

Word searches for the remaining sickness absenteeism and presenteeism discussed in
Chapter 2 resulted in no matches in the ATLAS.ti interview transcripts. Some DCs tended to
describe institutional conditions rather than institutional costs. In their responses, less than half
of the participants mentioned grievances, litigation, or separation from employment, and none
spoke of all three. Findings, therefore, validate a gap in DC's factual knowledge of institutional
costs.
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge requires an understanding of classifications, principles, theories,
and models (Krathwohl, 2002). Bullying among faculty concerns formal power in the
institution's hierarchical structure (Lester, 2009).
Role of Power
Researchers suggested that bullied targets perceived their inability to escape or defend
themselves due to formal or informal power relations between the target and the perpetrator
(Lester, 2009; Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2011; Namie & Namie, 2009a; Niedl, 1995; Salin,
2020). Knowledge or experience (Hoel & Cooper, 2000) attributed to a senior faculty member or
social, physical, or economic reliance (Niedl, 1995) found in those higher in the hierarchy offer
additional explanations. DCs’ answers to the effects of power and perceived power resulted in a
mixture of responses. The following sections first separate power into hierarchical power or the
authority given to an individual based on their position within an institution. The second is
perceived power, or the belief that one can control or influence others.
Hierarchical Power. Participant 5 stated that their institution has transformed from a
"professional bureaucracy to a political arena." In contrast, P6 said, people in actual power ". . .
don't [sic] bully as much." Participant 8 stated that "bullying wouldn't have any effect if there

73

weren't a power differential." Several participants spoke of those supervising DCs forcing them
to comply with suggested actions or criticizing inadequately thought-out actions or decisions.
What was not acknowledged by DCs were those in senior leadership often possessed more
experience and information-making decisions focused on structural and political frames (Bolman
& Deal, 2017).
Participant 1 reported their workload realities when sharing that a supervisor had said,
"You need to do this because this is what you're expected to do, despite it not being part of the
job description." P1 continues by explaining if your supervisor does not want to do something,
they can simply ". . . hand it off to you." P1 further explains you are not likely to say no, and if
you do not do this, ". . . you may lose your job." P7 describes how an administrator might put
pressure on a DC. In response to a refused request, they might reply, "It's gonna [sic] be a
problem for the college," but not say that your position is in question. However, they may say ". .
. everything else under the sun." These statements would indicate not fully understanding job
descriptions containing "and other duties as required." DCs may have also forgotten their
position in the organizational hierarchy and their supervisor's power to finalize decisions.
Perceived Power. Participant 4 stated the problem is, ". . . Probably more perceived
power than anything else when it comes down to it." Regardless of its origin, understanding the
role of power allows DCs to inform and prevent faculty members from asserting their will on
less-powerful or knowledgeable colleagues. Several DCs responded that perceived power
"invigorates" (P11), is "dangerous" (P6), and may result in faculty trying to "blow that up" (P1).
Participant 6 describes the problem that committee chairs may assume that they are "the
boss" and can "tell people what to do." P6 further states that this power results in faculty
neglecting institutional models, "taking the path of least resistance," and operating with

74

“insufficient knowledge.” P7 says that right or wrong decisions are "not always done fairly and
equitably." Participant 1 describes how chairing a tenure committee typically results in asserting
power. P1 claims that perceived power is ". . . the 800-pound gorilla." This perceived power
results in the belief that if I have power, ". . . I'm going to lord it over somebody." P1 finished by
saying, ". . . Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The chair (P3) of a targeted
tenure-track faculty member stated that the tenured faculty member ". . . holds no position of
authority" over them. The target in this example said, "This person holds my job in their hand
[sic] and can can [sic] make me go away . . ." Lastly, P3 indicated that the power differential is
the root cause of bullying and states, that the power issue is probably the "paramount reason" for
bullying. They continue by saying, ". . . If it weren't for a power separation or perceived power
separation there, I don't think there would be bullying."
Other examples of perceived power included tenured faculty placing inappropriate
expectations on tenure-track (P3) or part-time faculty (P10). P4 explains how faculty who
believe they have "support from the power structure" may feel immune to bullying. Conversely,
P11 describes how a former chair who had returned to the classroom "became great friends with
the VP" and "terrified" the rest of the faculty for 2 years. P12 stated that power plays a "huge
role" and that faculty who are trying to "undermine somebody else" do it for a reason. This
action could lessen someone else's status or gain favor towards future opportunities.
Procedural Knowledge
Anderson et al. (2001) described procedural knowledge as knowing how to complete a
task with finite skills, methods, or procedures. Acquisition of this knowledge by DCs is needed
to effectively and efficiently address bullying within their departments. The following section

75

examines DC's knowledge of existing NSHE personnel policies, institutional antibullying
policies, and associated procedures analyzed to triangulate interview data.
Bullying Policies and Procedures
Currently, no training exists that provides new or existing chairs working knowledge of
state and federal employment laws applied to targets who are not a protected class. These
documents include NSHE codes, institutional faculty senate bylaws, and EEOC federal
employment laws. Additionally, no discussion of how harassment, retaliation, and hostile
environment (OSHA) may provide a means to address bullying. Lastly, none of the participants
from TMCC acknowledged their institutional antibullying policy currently in place.
Antibullying Policy. The following paragraphs demonstrate how DCs responded when
asked about the existence of an institutional bullying policy. DCs answered in one of three ways.
They believed that bullying was either generically covered, that an antibullying policy existed, or
that a policy did not exist.
The DCs’ vicarious statements in the transcripts depict their knowledge of a bullying
policy. In response to knowledge of a bullying policy, Participant 10 noted that they did not
believe a "formal" policy existed but that ". . General antibullying and antidiscrimination"
statements were available. However, P10 references policies on harassment that cover similar
issues. None of the three DCs interviewed at TMCC (D9-D11) were aware of Policy 2525:
Stance Against Workplace Bullying. It states that the Institution shall maintain a work
environment:
. . . Considered free from bullying, as described by the provisions, definitions, and
procedures of this policy." This researcher discovered no other details or specifics at
TMCC.edu Policy 2525. P5, P8, and P9 referenced the letter of instruction (LOI), a

76

coaching tool used before the first step in the disciplinary process, as outlined in the
Board of Regents Handbook, Section 2, Chapter 6 (NSHE Handbook & Policies, n.d.)
Responses to the procedural knowledge question included participants who believed that
an overarching policy existed to those who guessed that no such policy existed. Participant 2
indicated that they did not know of an antibullying policy through Human Resources but had
recalled reading something about it. Participant 9 noted that everything is in the Board of
Regents (BOR) Handbook. Lastly, Participant 12 was confident that an antibullying policy did
not exist and stated that their institution had policies on student conduct and prohibited faculty
conduct covered by the NSHE code. However, they continued by stating, none of it ". . . directly
deals with the issue of bullying."
In contrast, Participant 10 mentioned that providing a safe environment for students is
part of their syllabi but did not apply to faculty and staff. P5 did not recall any policy or at least
any that has ". . . been enforced." Participant 6 said, "I'm going to guess. I don't think there is
one." Participant 3 stated, "I’m behind the eight ball as far as knowing what the policies are if
there’s an antibullying policy.” None of the DCs described a straightforward procedure that
separated federally protected classes, those involved in acts of downward retaliation, grievances,
and disciplinary actions covered in Chapter 6 of the NSHE Board of Regents Handbook. It is
apparent that, except for two DCs who relied on their immediate supervisors, the appropriate
application of policies, codes, and laws about faculty conduct remains unknown and only
examined when bullying cases.
Reporting Procedures. Finally, the DCs demonstrated a gap in their understanding of
the existence of antibullying policies and procedural steps in addressing bullying. When
referencing what faculty members know about this process and who can help, Participant 3

77

stated that faculty members do not know what to do or how to contact those at the institution
who can help. With P7’s management experience, they described a disconnect between the
disciplinary process and practice and questions if a “. . . shared understanding” exists. As a
result, P7 states that there is a lack of structure to support the “. . . appropriate action.”
When asked how they would respond to bullying in their departments, seven of 12
participants stressed the importance of “clarification,” “taking a step back,” or “gathering” more
information. Several of these participants emphasized “informal” or “in-house” approaches
indicating a willingness to respond to reported bullying within their departments. The five
remaining participants answered in a variety of ways. P9 stated they would refer faculty to their
dean or the Office of Institutional Equity. Participant 6 responded that it would depend on those
involved. Some faculty members may need “coddling,” and others might need an “iron fist.” P10
indicated that they did not know but had heard what other chairs had done in the past. P11 stood
their ground by stating that they “don’t [sic] have any obligation or right to intervene” with full-
time faculty since they are not in a supervisory position. Finally, Participant 12 would seek
advice from their supervisor or a peer who had experienced similar circumstances.
Once again, the lack of a uniform response and the importance of identifying targets of a
protected class or those involved in retaliation of some kind indicates a gap in participants’
procedural knowledge. Additionally, only five of the participants referenced NSHE’s Chapter 6,
letters of instruction (LOI), grievance procedures, or the BOR Handbook. Two of these five
participants had multiple years of supervisory experience and HR training.
Motivation Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) define motivation as what keeps us going, moving and how much
effort we expend on tasks. Rueda (2011) espouses four variables that explain the drivers of

78

motivation. This study focuses on DC’s self-efficacy and utility value in determining their
willingness to attempt, persist in, and focus on resolving reported bullying cases. Table 10
illustrates the assumed motivational influence, the existence of a gap, and a summary of the
findings.
Table 10

Assumed Motivational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Table 10. Assumed Motivational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Motivational Influence Gap Validated, Invalidated, or Undetermined

Department Chairs need to feel confident that they
can use their knowledge, experience, and
communication skills to resolve bullying within
their departments.

Gap Validated. Prior external experiences, industry
HR certifications, and time in position appeared to
indicate reported self-efficacy in resolving bullying.
Greater variance in reported confidence recorded
with more experienced chairs.

Department Chairs need to see the value of
effectively dealing with bullying and adjust their
performance, persistence, and behavioral choices.

Gap Invalidated. Chairs reported limited value of
effectively dealing with bullying and appeared
frustrated with current conditions.

Self-Efficacy
According to Pajares (2006), self-efficacy is described as self-perceptions regarding their
capabilities to learn and perform at designated levels. Pintrich (2003) claimed that when
individuals expect to do well, they persist longer and perform better. DCs responded to how
confident they were in dealing with bullying within their departments or areas as a measure of
self-efficacy.
Self-Assessed Confidence. Robinson and Kimberly Firth Leonard (2019) describe self-
reports as rife with inaccuracies, fabrications, and the subject of social desirability bias. A

79

participant reporting “confidence” may have the required self-efficacy but not be willing to
respond to reported bullying.
When asked how confident participants were in addressing bullying in their departments,
six responded with “confident” or “very confident.” P6 responded with “mid-level confidence”
and P7 “somewhat confident.” P12 elaborated by stating that they were confident when the
bullying was directed at them by subordinates or peers but mentioned they were “not as
confident” if bullied by supervisors. P12 also noted that they “relied heavily” on HR when
bullying occurred between their direct reports. Participant 8 stated that they “never really” felt
confident even after two terms as chair. “P10 avoided answering directly and instead discussed
authority, assertion, and support issues as chair. Lastly, P11 responded with an unrelated
description of how no process was in place when they were a new chair.
Two participants also responded using numeric estimates of their confidence levels. P6
rated themselves at a 95% confidence, which they credit to their prior experience in a previous
department. However, when asked how they felt about taking over another department, their
rating dropped to 50% after 1 year. P6 attributed this drop to their inexperience and unfamiliarity
with the new faculty and understanding of what worked and did not work in their new
department. P11 ranked their confidence at an “eight out of ten” but omitted other descriptions.
P5, P7, and P9 reported having previous leadership experience in higher education or the
corporate workplace. However, they reported varied confidence levels of “somewhat confident”
(P7), “pretty confident” (P5), and “very confident” (P9). Lastly, the author asked no follow-up
questions regarding mastery experiences, feedback from their peers, or physiological or visceral
responses.

80

Vicarious Experience. Bandura (1977) stated that performance outcomes are the most
critical source of self-efficacy. Although not directed asked, DCs did not mention physiological
feedback or verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997) and did not reference past cases. Additionally,
“Peer modeling,” vicarious experiences, or observing the success and failurs of peers of similar
capabilities has a powerful influence on self-efficacy beliefs (Pajares, 2006). DCs observations
of their peers dealing with bullying among faculty in their departments and downward bullying
from supervisors can influence DC’s self-efficacy. CSN (n = 20) and TMCC (n = 13) DCs
reported the existence of a Counsel of Chairs and a monthly informal gathering of chairs within
their institutions. P1 stated there is an “atmosphere of support” in the Council of Chairs.
Conversely, P7 stated that their propensity to “speak the truth” and not being willing to “.
. . take one for the team” resulted in negative consequences for them. They describe how others
would talk about them behind their back and how they would be “thrown under the bus”
regardless of who was at fault. These conditions were further exacerbated by having an Interim
status making them an “easy target.” Consequently, P7 stated the need to be careful and that
confiding in someone else could result in embellished stories and that one would be better to
assume that anything shared is likely to become public knowledge. This researcher’s interview
memos noted that P2’s responses “. . . appeared to be guarded,” controlled, and lacked references
to specific people. Lastly, interview research notes from only P12 indicated answers that
indicated institutional awareness above the DC level and the confidential nature of much of their
knowledge.
The majority of participants indicated self-efficacy in dealing with bullying within their
departments. However, the lack of direct experience, the required confidentiality of cases outside
their department, and the social desirability of demonstrating confidence could have skewed their

81

responses. These influences combined with gaps in knowledge and organizational factors could
result in avoidance, resistance, and confusion.
Utility Value
Eccles (1983) define utility value as to how a task relates to present or future goals. If
DCs lack experience with difficult conversations and conflict resolution, providing them the
rationale and opportunity to practice these skills would increase motivation. To ascertain the
utility value participants experienced, this writer asked, “What are the benefits of effectively
addressing bullying in your department, if any?” This question assumes that the DC’s goal
included eliminating interpersonal conflict within their department. It also presumes that it takes
precedence over other DC tasks such as scheduling, assessment, faculty requests, and student
concerns. This study, as such, could not fully ascertain DC’s utility value in addressing bullying.
Overall, DCs reported limited value in effectively dealing with bullying. Unspoken
cultural models, organizational reluctance to fully address bullying cases, and the complex roles
within DC’s institutions exacerbate the gap. The following paragraphs depict how predetermined
decisions and a loss of confidence emerged around the topic of utility value.
Benefits of Eliminating Bullying. Five of the 12 participants attempted to answer what
they perceived to be the benefits of eliminating bullying. Responses focused on institutional
culture and interpersonal communication. P5 described the importance of “teamwork” and the
need for everyone to contribute to the solution. Participant 4 depicted a culture of “caring and
support” where faculty could count on their help in resolving problems. P7 reported increasing
trust, camaraderie, “collaboration, and teamwork” where productivity and morale flourish.
Participant 10 stated that eliminating bullying would provide “a positive work environment and a
safe workplace.” P10 further suggests that faculty would feel “comfortable sharing our [sic]

82

ideas expressing ourselves” in a community of collaboration and conflict resolution. Lastly, P12
suggested that the institution would be able to continually serve students better.
Four participants avoided directly answering the question and commented on aspects of
the DC’s role at their institution. P3 commented, "If it wasn’t for personnel issues, this job is
easy.” Participant 2 described faculty discord and the difficulty of having to support an
administrative position. P8 reported how HR, legal counsel, and direct supervisors revised LOIs.
Finally, participant 11 stated how new administrators disrupted their institution and how it
sometimes took retirement “to fix” unresolved conflict.
None of the participants referenced the reduction or elimination of individual
consequences or organizational costs resulting from effectively addressing bullying. Instead,
answers centered on faculty communication and institutional culture. DCs appeared to be
frustrated with leadership conditions and depicted limited value in effectively dealing with
bullying within their departments.
Additional word searches of interview transcripts revealed the different statements that
reflect positive changes to institutional culture due to eliminating bullying. Participant 9
described how, “. . . younger faculty members may feel “. . . more free” to speak out, take charge
and participate. P11 stated an “. . . increase in morale” which would result in faculty sharing their
“passion” in their respective fields. P12 described how it would affect “. . . basic well-being and
mental health” of those we manage. Participant 12 continues by stating that faculty are more than
just components of the institution and that redirecting our “. . . energy to a positive place” would
benefit everyone. P4 suggested that building a culture of “caring and support” was a personal
priority. P7 continues by saying that as “. . . trust increases, there’s an increase in collaboration
and teamwork,” and departmental productivity. P8 predicts the improvement of workplace

83

climate would reduce “tension” felt and that the “failure to effectively deal” with bullying will
have “. . . repercussions and consequences on morale.” Finally, P8 states that not dealing with
bullying would “probably” result in the loss of leadership respect.
Path of Least Resistance. The desire to avoid bringing attention to oneself by
disagreeing or complying with supervisory directives describes the path of least resistance. P6
describes how to understand the culture of the past, how things work, and the importance of
traveling the “. . . path of least resistance” is crucial. Participant 2 stated how awkward and
pressured they felt when the path forward involved disagreed upon or uncomfortable decisions.
P2 described the feeling of being stripped of their authority and how their supervisors implied “. .
. you’re not going to get something” without specifying what. Participant 7 observed how other
department faculty “. . . aren’t going to step up” and are simply “. . . unwilling to put their neck
on the line” as DCs. They further stated that they had both the prior experience and training to
deal with bullying in their department but were not confident about the support they would
receive. P7 lastly mentioned that higher education was a different environment from corporate
America and doubted that their “. . . backs [sic] covered by my Dean or by anyone else for that
matter.”
Conversely, three other DCs who served as faculty supervisors praised their immediate
supervisors and appeared comfortable with their guidance and suggestions. P2 mentioned that
administration “. . . generally have your back.” Participant 1 rationalized the role of
administration as having the “. . . 30,000-foot view . . .” and that DCs were the “. . . boots on the
ground.” P8 had no prior leadership experience and relied on their dean for advice and guidance.
Participant 8 reported that their dean ascended from the DC post and was “. . . well aware of the

84

policy.” P8 stated that their dean would entertain cases without asking for specifics, thus
maintaining the confidential nature of the situation.
Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) describe organizational culture at the conscious and unconscious
levels that dictate what is valued and how we act and work together. Organizational gaps that
result from ineffective and inefficient work processes and resources provide researchers and
senior leadership the means to identify and address problems. Cultural models are the unwritten
norms or expectations within an institution (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011). Conversely,
cultural settings are more visible, such as policies and procedures (Rueda, 2011). Table 11
examines assumed organizational influences, gap validation, and a summary of the findings.

85

Table 11

Assumed Organizational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Table 11. Assumed Organizational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Organizational Influence Gap Validated, Invalidated, or Undetermined
Cultural Model Influence: Colleges need to
believe it is important to address workplace
bullying.

Gap Validated. DCs have a shared model that
their institutions are reluctant to respond to
bullying and leave reported incidents
unresolved. Bullying is a subtle form of
retaliation, such as inaction or avoidance.

Cultural Setting Influence #1: Colleges need
to have a clear process to report bullying.
Gap Validated. None of the institutions have
a straightforward process or policy to address
reported bullying. DCs are inconsistent about
who they can report bullying to at or outside
the institution.

Cultural Setting Influence #2: Colleges need
to have training.
Gap Validated. DCs consistently indicated
that they have not received any training on
addressing bullying other than Sexual
Harassment training and required state
supervisory training modules.

Cultural Model
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) stated that cultural models are shared understandings
or mental schemas of how things work or should work. An organization’s culture is implicit,
unconscious, automated, and beneath the surface, according to Clark and Estes (2008). Schein
(2017) asserted that a new member must gain permanent status and acceptance into the
organization’s inner circle before learning these secrets. Participants’ responses indicated that
DC held mixed beliefs whether that their college supported a bullying-free environment.
Four participants believed that their institutions supported a bully-free environment. P10
stated that administrators at their institution welcomed input from chairs and that they “want to
resolve” any issues. They felt “supported” and that “there are people out there that are willing to
listen and help.” P12 was adamant that "any supervisor” or Human Resources would take

86

reported bullying seriously. Participant 12 further stated a “standard institutional statement” that
the institution is “committed to providing a safe and supportive workplace.” P6 acknowledged
that “everybody wants a bully-free environment” but stated that they had “first-hand evidence”
of bullying in other departments. Lastly, P9 reported that a double standard existed at their
institution, and the administration only supported cases “if it’s a male bullying a female.”
Several other DCs indicated inconsistencies and changes which affected their perception.
P4 described a culture in which “everybody holds each other up,” and support exists up the chain
of command. However, Participant 4 also stated, “It hasn’t been that way for a while.” P11
reported how extensive changes in senior leadership instigated by a VP at their institution
resulted in faculty feeling “like they were being bullied and disrespected. As a result of multiple
administrative changes and a nonlinear organizational structure, P2 noted, “they had my face,
they didn’t have my back.” P8 describes a similar position stating that administration “were
supportive on the front end, but at the end of the day” were disengaged. Participant 8 further
reports how institutions ignored LOIs until a complaint escalated into a disciplinary procedure.
As such, no meeting to discuss the status of the case or update occurred.
The remaining DCs indirectly answered or avoided the question. Participant 1 indicated
that although faculty evaluation addresses “treating everyone with respect,” they were unaware
of any public indication that the institution supports a bully-free environment. P3 stated that
bullying is “whitewashed” and that bullying often comes down to a “he said, she said” situation.
Lastly, Participant 5 spoke of a previous chair who attempted to incorporate “business
decisions,” ignored the department’s culture, and the importance of “meritocracy.” Subsequent
sections address reluctance to action, the dependence on addressing bullying at the lowest
possible level, forms of subtle retaliation, and how passivity can lead to coercion.

87

Administrative Reluctance to Action. Any resistance to resolving bullying complaints
caused frustration, reduced trust, or fostered disrespect. P4 describes a VP who bullied many
people “regardless of the reason.” The Council of Chairs voted “No confidence,” but the
administration kept them in their position. P4 further suggests that the VP’s actions encouraged
other people to do things they would not have otherwise done and in some cases drove faculty to
withdraw or retire. P11 stated that their former dean bullied them, but “. . . Never in a way that
she could get in trouble.” Participant 11 continues by describing verbal communication that they
questioned but were told, “. . . There’s [sic] no laws against it.” Senior administration was “. . .
too cowardly” to intervene and reverted by saying, “You’ve got to be respectful (P11).”
Moreover, P3 describes how complaints have a “shelf life.” They continue stating that
stories have to be “100%” verified, and even if there are witnesses involved, the “. . .
ramifications of bullying are slim to none.” P8 concludes that the structure and senior leadership
exists, but the problem is “. . . more about the people in those positions and what they do and
don’t do.” P9 describes the administration as “very distant,” “removed from wanting to deal with
faculty, and make faculty “feel unwelcome.” They continue by stating that the dean and the VP
are “. . . so hesitant to discipline any faculty for bullying and things like that.” Participant 5
stated that senior leaders have never “dealt with” or “enforced” bullying. They continue saying
that the institution does not “enforce the rules.” Lastly P5 mentions that even if individuals “play
by the rules, sometimes those are ignored for specific people.”
A lack of support from one’s supervisory chain, according to P4, is “. . . going to be a lot
more detrimental” to faculty. Participant 4 notes that a “lot of stuff” happened at their institution,
which resulted in DCs not knowing where to find support. P10 answered that “colleagues and
friends” were one of several options when needing advice or help at their institution. Participant

88

10 also stated that their circle of fellow chairs formed a “safe place” to discuss concerns openly.
P12 described their college as having “Lots of open doors” and that some senior faculty had a
trustworthy reputation. P4 explained how their supervisor was actively manipulating chair
evaluations and fabricating stories. P6, P8, and P3 shared similar details corroborating this and
other accounts with shared knowledge and perspectives.
P7 states that the “. . . Consequence [sic] for bullying are very small,” and HR has “. . .
little to no power” over those with tenure. Additionally, it “. . . would take an awful lot” to evoke
the disciplinary process, and some decide to “turn a blind eye” to incidents. Participant 7
concludes that bullying is not “well defined” and dealt with in a “negligent” or “unprofessional”
manner. Chairs, according to P7, have to “dance between” their faculty, what they believe is
best, and what administrators want.
Lowest Denominator. Handling bullying at the lowest level possible appears to be an
unwritten rule. P8 stated that direct supervisors need to deal with bullies. They describe a
situation where an LOI was written by the administration and handed to them as the faculty
member’s supervisor. Otherwise, DCs work directly with HR or Legal Counsel so that LOIs do
not read like “documented verbal verbal [sic] warnings.” In another case, P8 terminated a faculty
member but was not involved in the process except by clicking “Approve” on the termination on
the institution’s web service platform. P8 stated that “The administration will give you every
assistance short of help.” When it comes to escalating a case to the next level, P8 commented, “.
. . sometimes the administration hates for that to happen,” and “. . . want to be managed at the
lowest level possible.” P10 noted that when resolution does not work at the DC level, it
inevitably goes “. . . higher and higher to the VPAA,” and “. . . sometimes to the President.”
They further elaborated that they knew of “. . . Several lawsuits going on regarding this issue,”

89

emphasizing administrators as the perpetrators. Participant 10 stated they should “. . . go along
and and [sic] not to question.”
Directionality of Bullying. Since none of the questions in this study referenced mobbing
or bullying involving multiple perpetrators, only reported cases with a single perpetrator and
target are examined. Participants in this study indicated bullying occurred downward (67.5%),
horizontal (9.6%), and upward (22.9%). In 34% of coded passages, DCs were the targets of
downward bullying by their direct and second-level supervisors.
Unexpected Findings. The research revealed two unexpected themes. First, subtle
retaliation or making another person’s life more difficult despite the specific system-wide policy
regarding retaliation. The second was passive coercion, or the threat of inaction or delays to
manipulate subordinates.
Subtle Retaliation. Five of the 12 DCs mentioned subtle actions that go unnoticed that
may not rise to the level of bullying. Regardless of the NSHE Code that protects those who file
grievances and bystanders who come forth, more subtle forms of retaliation can occur. P6,
describes how a “corrupt” chair could “. . . make somebody’s life miserable.” They explain how
such a chair could deny the target office supplies, committee membership, or approval to move
into an open office. P6 states that if the retaliation is between two faculty members, the
organizational structure limits response choice. They describe how the reported individual might
retaliate by making the reporter feel stupid or getting them to cry at a department meeting. P9
described a situation at another institution in a previous position where their supervisor was
“vindictive.” Their supervisor refused to sign anything and was “. . . one of the reasons” they
resigned. Having served in several senior leadership positions, P9 describes retaliation as “. . .
the biggest form of bullying” and has resulted in termination, retirement, and individuals who

90

have “. . . quit, walk [sic] away.” P4 stated that a former Interim Dean was “. . . absolutely
retaliatory.” Two of the DCs received “. . . Poor scores” with “. . . limited or flimsy” rationale or
justification. P4 associated these scores with having “challenged” or questioned the VP.
P6 described how faculty who have perceived losing a disagreement with another faculty
member will “. . . fight you on all topics” and engage in repeated “snubs” and commenting
“under their breath.” P10 explained how the administration believes faculty “do what they want”
and gave an example of administrators coming by faculty offices during scheduled office hours
to check on them. They described administrators as really “micromanaging” them and appeared
to be “. . . going crazy with the rules and regulations.” P10 describes how some males in their
department are reluctant to listen to their ideas or accept them as an authority figure. Over the
last several years, the male-to-female ratios flipped to more female faculty. P10 then discovered
that some males felt bullied by females and were “. . . sticking together and voting the same
way” to remain “in charge.” Finally, P11 recalls how a faculty member described as a “terrible
bully” themselves became great friends with an incoming Vice-president to gain favor and
influence.
Passive Coercion. Four of the 12 participants described how delays and inaction cause
frustration and resentment for those affected. According to Lutgen-Sandvik and McDermott
(2011), those higher in the organizational structure are reluctant to stop abuse, take action,
punish persecutors, and cover-up inadequacies. P5 described how the administration ignored
poor evaluations of some tenure-track faculty. Participant 5’s attempted to report three senior
faculty members who would assign “A” grades to entire classes regardless of the work submitted
and was told, “You take care of it.” P5 continues with faculty who were double-dipping by being
paid additional grant-related funds or working second jobs without reporting the potential

91

conflict of interest to the institution. The senior administration addressed this concern but
without any resolution. P5 describes it as a “corrupt” situation and explains, “. . . They’re [sic]
kind of guaranteed if they don’t, if they don’t [sic] stir the pot, then nobody’s going to bother
them.” P5 further believed that rules regarding bullying existed but stated, “I’ve never seen any
[sic] really dealt with” or “enforced.” Participant 5 describes faculty complaints as going into a “.
. . delay game” where “. . . layers of sponge . . .” prevent effective resolution. Lastly, P5
observed the importance of “. . . playing by the rules” and how it is “. . . ignored for specific
people.”
P7 describes how the resistance to engaging in the disciplinary process is “Negligent,”
and some administrators “. . . decide to turn a blind eye” to the issue. Participant 7 recalled
incidents where their supervisor led them to believe that they are “at-risk” and that “. . . whatever
they say you have to do” was expected. They continue saying, “. . . they won’t say your job is on
the line, but they’ll say everything else under the sun.” P11 stated, “I’ve never seen a more
abusive dean . . .” Participant 11 noted that their dean didn’t manage bullying directly but only
reacted when problems occurred. P8 explained how a Letter of Instruction (LOI), considered the
first step in the disciplinary process, can be ignored. Participant 8 mentions how different faculty
had numerous letters on the same concern written, but “nothing” happened.” P8 explains that
some administrators were supportive on the “front end” but were ignored “at the end of the day.”
P2 experienced “extreme pressure” to decide and take appropriate action when they neither had
the authority nor agreed with their supervisor’s assessment.
Cultural Setting
Rueda (2011) describes cultural settings as the more visible aspects known as the whom,
what, when, where, and why within an organization’s context. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that

92

organizational gaps exist if policies fail, materials or equipment are unavailable, and
interdepartmental communication is ineffective. The following sections confirm gaps in codes,
policies, and bylaws governing Nevada CCs, institutional antibullying training, and other
personnel training options offered.
Institutional Antibullying Policies. The participants responded in various ways to the
existence of an antibullying policy at their institutions. Five of the 12 DCs concluded that no
policy existed. P1 concluded they were unaware of “anything of any antibullying program or
policy, even [sic] statement about it.” Participant 5 stated that although there was “stuff on
paper,” they have “never seen any really [sic] dealing” with bullying. P10 described going
through sexual harassment training but had never seen the word bullying and that it was “not
even on their radar.” P10 also claimed that although the Regent's Handbook, Chapter 6 (Faculty
Disciplinary Actions), and institutional mission statement exist, they have never seen
antibullying policies, workshops, or professional development. After mentioning the BOR
Handbook, Chapter 6, and mission statements, P9 concluded they had “never seen any
antibullying policies.” Lastly, P8 correctly paralleled sexual harassment as a form of bullying
but states that their institution does not have a policy on bullying.
Three DCs either did not say or were uncertain if a policy existed. Participant 3
emphasizes the need to define bullying and that “you don’t know it till [sic] you, you, you [sic]
know it when you see it.” P3 states that they were “behind the eight ball” when it came to
policies but never directly answered the question. P2 seemed uncertain, saying that they
remembered “reading something about it” or seeing a “senate executive” statement regarding it,
then finally concluding that they were “not sure.” Participant 4 stated, “I’m sure there are some,”
then reported seeing them but later wondered if they imagined them.

93

The remaining DCs concluded that a policy or substitute existed. Participant 6 concluded
that they believed a policy existed at a “gut” level but could not think of any specifics. P7
mentioned the need for a “proper structure” and then interjected the words “I believe.” This
author did not pick up on the ambiguous statement and did not ask for further clarification. P11
equated the term “collegiality,” stating that it was the closest they knew. Lastly, P12 spoke of
harassment policies thinking that these “would probably cover the same issues.”
Reporting and Investigating Bullying. This writer searched documents found in the
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) Board of Regents Handbook which provides all
Nevada institutions with governing policies and codes to determine the intersectionality between
participants’ statements and publicly available documents. Differences between institutions are
due to provisions providing colleges authorization to establish institution-specific policies and
procedures. Before addressing bullying, DCs must thoroughly understand the following Federal
and NSHE-based protections.
P7 identifies why the following provisions are critical and described the problem at their
institution as the “structure of the disciplinary process is not well defined, nor has it been
practiced so that there is a shared understanding.” Three participants reported prior management
or supervisory experience. All but one indicated that their self-efficacy improved, and none
received antibullying training from their institution. Those who were unsure described
mandatory training required by the state for any personnel who supervised classified employees.
Faculty Disciplinary Sanctions. At CSN, a DC may use an LOI one or more times
before evoking the NSHE Code's disciplinary sanctions. These letters are considered a coaching
tool to explain expectations and are not part of the disciplinary process (NSHE Chapter 6
Disciplinary Procedures at DuckDuckGo, n.d.). Searches at the remaining Nevada CCs resulted

94

in no matches. Chapter 6, Section 6.3 describes sanctions that prescribe several levels of
discipline, starting with oral or written warnings and ending with termination. However, Chapter
6 states that “Depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, these sanctions may be imposed
in any order” (p. 8).
Besides sexual harassment, Chapter 6 disciplinary action applies to all faculty members if
the use of a threat of violence or force or restriction of movement of a person or vehicle on
campus grounds (NSHE Chapter 6 disciplinary procedures at DuckDuckGo, n.d.) occurs.
Additionally, bullying-related acts may include intentionally falsified accusations, repeated use
of “obscene or abusive language,” and “lewd or indecent conduct” (p. 4). These sanctions could
serve as a deterrent to acting out in such a manner but fail to detail many behaviors, such as those
found in the NAQ-R.
Nonsexual Harassment. NSHE addresses Nonsexual Harassment in Title 4, Chapter 8,
Section 13 (Board of Regents Handbook, n.d., Title 4 Chapter 8), in which employment or
education discrimination is illegal based on age, disability, gender, military status or obligations,
national origins, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression, genetic information, race,
color, or religion. Although the Civil Rights Act (1964), Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(1967, ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990, ADA) provide all protected
classes, those not listed remain without protection against nonsexual harassment.
Grievance Procedure. According to the NSHE Board of Regents Handbook (Board of
Regents Handbook, n.d., Title 2 Chapter 5 Section 7) Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 7, each
institution “. . . may establish in their respective institutional bylaws procedures for reviewing
faculty grievances” (p. 25). Grievances are designed as a structured process to examine and
resolve workplace disputes that are caused by an “. . . act or an omission to act” (Board of

95

Regents Handbook, n.d., Title 2 Chapter 5 Section 7) by an administrator at an NSHE institution.
Given this limitation, faculty to faculty cases or the bullying of someone higher in the
organizational structure does not qualify. P9 reflected on how a faculty member who was not in a
protected class said that awareness of this lack of protection “. . causes many issues of anger and
[sic] screaming and yelling.” The Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) advised the faculty
member, but additional assistance was unavailable.
Retaliation Protections. Protection for anyone who has filed a grievance or bystanders
who have “. . . participated in a grievance meeting” (Board of Regents Handbook, n.d., Title 2
Chapter 10) exists. This protection covers all employees who participated in a grievance meeting
or targets of sexual harassment. However, those without protected status cannot file a grievance
for nonsexual harassment.
Antibullying Policy. Public searches at all institutions revealed only TMCC with an
Antibullying policy. Policy 2525 Stance Against Workplace Bullying (Personnel (2000-2999) -
TMCC Policy Manual - Truckee Meadows Community College, n.d.) states:
It is the Policy of Truckee Meadows Community College to maintain a work
environment that a reasonable person would consider free from bullying, as described by
the provisions, definitions, and procedures of this policy. This stance is consistent with
the College’s efforts to maintain equal employment opportunity, equal educational
opportunity, and nondiscrimination in programs, services, and use of facilities. It is the
responsibility of all Covered Persons to know and apply the provisions of this policy.
Additional keyword searches and links did not reveal any definitions or procedures of this policy
(see Table 14). None of the interview participants from this institution were aware of the

96

existence of this policy. As of December 2020, a Faculty Senate Task Force with representation
across the college was finalizing training for this policy.
This study searched Nevada CC websites using “anti-bullying," “anti-bullying policy,"
“bullying policy," “incivility,” and “faculty misconduct” with varying results. TMCC results lead
to the policy mentioned previously. None of the keyword searches in WNC or CSN websites
found references to a bullying policy. GBC’s site resulted in multiple 10-hour antibullying
training sessions offered in late July and early August 2014. This researcher found no workshop
topics, objectives, or scheduled training after this time.
Nevada’s Whistleblower’s Law. Nevada’s Whistleblowers provision found in Nevada
revised statutes NRS 281.611 through NRS 281.671 limits its application to elected or appointed
state officers. Since no employees in the NSHE system meet this qualification, this law governs
“improper governmental action” (NRS: CHAPTER 281 - GENERAL PROVISIONS, n.d.)
perpetrated against institutions by elected or appointed public officials only.

97

Table 12

Internet Institutional Search for Antibullying Policy
Table 12. Internet Institutional Search for Antibullying Policy
NSHE
Institution
Availability Document
Type(s)
Date of
Document(s)
Specific and Related
Findings

CSN (csn.edu) No Internal
Hyperlinks
November 2021 Found under the link to CSN
Policies and Procedure: Hate
Crimes Policy,
Nondiscrimination Policy,
Sexual Harassment Policy.
Link to Policy Against
Unlawful Discrimination &
Harassment: Complaint
Procedure

GBC
(gbcnv.edu)
No Calendar of
Training
7/2014 – 8/2014 McGrath Anti-bullying
Training. 10-hour sessions.
TMCC
(tmcc.edu)
Yes Policy 2525
Stance Against
Workplace
Bullying.
Minutes of
Faculty Senate
meetings

9/13/19 –
12/11/20.
Passed by
Faculty Senate
on 11.18.19
Link to policy and Faculty
Senate meeting minutes.
WNC (wnc.edu) No Internal
Hyperlinks
6/2019 - Present WNC Policy Manual, Title IX
Hearing Officer and Decision
Maker, Con-Sensual
Relationships-WNC, Annual
Security Report, Sexual
Conduct and Safety Survey.

Note. Search terms used: “anti-bullying," “anti-bullying training," “bullying policy," “faculty
incivility,” and “faculty misconduct.”
Antibullying Training. In response to whether or not DC’s institutions provided
antibullying training, 10 of 12 indicated that they had received no antibullying training (see
Table 14). All participants reported the mandatory sexual harassment training and subsequent
refresher courses offered in-person and online. When asked if they had received training specific
to eliminating bullying, all participants responded with different degrees of certainty that none
existed. P6 and P2 both referred to several pieces of training they received but then stated that

98

they had “forgotten it (P6)” or there was no “extra training (P2).” P7 discussed the need for
antibullying training and how ill-preparedness could end in a lawsuit or bad press. They also
emphasized the need to “. . . make people aware, hold people accountable,” and put processes in
place that work.
Table 13 attempts to illustrate the overall lack of prior supervisory experience, the
correlation of time serving as chair, confidence level (self-efficacy), and absence of antibullying
training provided by their respective institutions.

99

Table 13

Description of Prior Experience, Improvements in Self Efficacy, and Institutional Training in
Addressing Bullying
Table 13. Description of Prior Experience, Improvements in Self-efficacy and Institutional Training in Addressing Bullying
Participant
Number
Prior
Management
or
Supervisory
Experience

Years in DC
Position
Improve
with Time
as DC.

Reported DC Go Tos Institutiona
l Training
Provided
P1 Not Reported
11
Yes Dean, VPAA, HR
Legal

No
P2 Not Reported
1
Yes Administration

No Answer
P3 Not Reported
5
Yes Up the Food Chain, HR

No
P4 Not Reported
9
Yes Everybody (Other DCs)

Possible,
Not Certain

P5 Yes
1.8
Yes Administration up to the
President

No
P6 Not Reported
7
Yes

Dean, VPAA, HR No
P7 Yes
1
Yes

Administration No
P8 Not Reported
6
No

Dean, HR, Legal, Other DCs No
P9 Yes
9
Yes Dean, NSHE Code, VPAA,
Other DCs

No
P10 Not Reported
1
Yes

Dean, Colleagues/Friends No
P11 Not Reported
8
Yes

Dean, VPAA (depending on
the issue)

No
P12 Yes
8
Yes VP, HR No

Note. Management Experience includes any supervisory position held. Go Tos lists who and
when indicated in the order in which DCs consult with them. PT and FT Faculty and supervisor
describe the DC’s self-efficacy in dealing with reported bullying.

100

Other Personnel Training. One DC enrolled in management coursework while two
participants recalled hearing about, but not enrolling in, specialize institutional leadership
training. P9 describes how they were motivated to enroll in graduate classes in conflict
management, “Organization Behavior, Organizational Psychology,” and searched resources on
Google. P1 stated that their institution sponsored an off-campus retreat called the “Regents'
Academy," primarily focused on giving new hires a "peek behind the curtain." P8 recalled that
some years ago, an external entity called the "Chair Academy" was made available for DCs. It
consisted of panels discussing interpersonal relationships and conflict and coincided with a
professional conference. No other chairs referenced external resources and awareness of training.
Finally, P8 stated that most of the training they received was from their ". . . previous chair or
administrative assistant."
Given 10 of 12 DCs reporting the absence of antibullying training at their institution, this
study searched each institution's website for personnel training and professional development
information. Firstly, this researcher determined the existence of an employee-focused office
using the terms "Professional Development" and "Faculty and Staff Training." Google-assisted
searches examined page one results designed for employee access. In addition to these site
searches, this study conducted searches within CSN's Center for Academic and Professional
Excellence (CAPE) and TMCC's Professional Development Office. Keyword searches used:
"Personnel Training," Conflict Resolution," "Soft Skills Training," "Emotional Intelligence
Training," "Managing Difficult People," "Difficult Conversations," "Gaslighting," and
"Professional Development." WNC's results indicated three professional development
(continuing education) courses in life coaching, retail customer services skills, and handling
difficult conversations. GBC had one result for a continuing education course on "How to

101

Handle Difficult Conversations" from April 2020. CSN's search resulted in a pdf document titled
"Resolving Family Conflicts." Lastly, TMCC’s search resulted in three "Expert" listings. Two
faculty members listed "Conflict Resolution” and "Difficult People," and the last faculty listed
"Emotional Intelligence."
Synthesis
This study offered seven assumed influences that may impact Nevada CC DCs’ ability to
implement strategies to eliminate bullying among faculty in their departments. The research
identified six areas for improvement related to DCs' knowledge and motivation within the
cultural models and settings at the CC. Some of these interconnected influences may have
contributed to other identified gaps.
From a factual knowledge perspective, DCs were generally unaware of the individual
consequences to targets of bullying and the cost to their institutions. DCs also lacked procedural
knowledge of how policies intended to protect those covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applied to unprotected faculty classes. Additionally,
Chairs indicated a "powerlessness," contributing to a lack of motivation to address incivility
among faculty. In addition, DCs spoke of how their colleges resisted fully addressing bullying of
unprotected faculty classes. Next, several chairs identified the absence of clearly outlined
policies that protect all faculty from bullying from a work cultural perspective. In addition to
these verified gaps, two unexpected cultural model gaps of subtle retaliation and passive
coercion emerged. The following paragraphs describe each of these verified influences. Lastly, a
surprising number of downward bullying occurred, with DCs as the target.
DCs demonstrated a gap in their factual knowledge of the human cost associated with
bullying. Mikkelsen et al. (2020) indicated that bullying studies in the past 3 decades had

102

revealed a breadth of target symptoms and underlying factors. A limited number of DCs
referenced anxiety, angst, and low morale in their responses. Participants did not iterate terms
such as mental health, stress, terror, psychosomatic, and physiological symptoms.
Overall, DCs' knowledge of organizational cost was limited to litigation matters and
employment separation. According to Hassard et al. (2018), organizational costs received limited
attention despite growing research. Direct costs such as health care, insurance, and litigation and
indirect costs such as absenteeism, turnover, and productivity continue to be challenging to
determine. This researcher conducted word searches for "absenteeism," "presenteeism,"
"disengagement," "turnover,” "litigation," “termination,” "retirements,” "resignations," and their
synonyms. Forty-two percent of DCs indicate an awareness of active and past litigation over
bullying and hostile environment cases. In addition, 33% of participants acknowledged that
terminations, retirements, and resignations resulted in some instances.
DCs need to effectively and efficiently address bullying within their departments.
Anderson et al. (2001) stressed the importance of procedural knowledge or the acquisition of
finite skills, methods, and procedures. The following section examines existing NSHE personnel
policies, institutional antibullying policies, and associated procedures. Currently, no training
exists that provides new and existing DCs working knowledge of federal, state, NSHE, and
institutional laws and policies applicable to all faculty. Additionally, participants could not
consistently reference policies and procedures, resources, or priorities at their institutions.
Eccles (1983) describes how self-efficacy diminishes when there are delays in the prompt
and effective enforcement of appropriate faculty conduct or improvements. The absence of
procedural knowledge training, the lack of awareness of antibullying policies that apply to

103

unprotected faculty, and subtle forms of retaliation, including passive coercion, further
compromise utility value.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described how explicit, unconscious, and automated
cultural models affect organizational culture. Several DCs described how cultural models lead to
a reluctance to action, a desire to address bullying at the lowest level possible, and how passivity
contributed to coercion. Five participants clearly stated that a lack of organizational support
existed at their institutions. Participant 7 describes the problem at their institution as a
"structural" problem where the absence of a “shared understanding” leads to inconsistent
practices.
Currently, no training exists that provides new or existing chairs working knowledge of
how unprotected classes and state and federal employment laws apply. Except for TMCC, an
antibullying policy exists for those without federal protections. Participants from TMCC were all
unaware of Policy 2525, and no additional details or specifics were available in public
documents.
In addition to assumed influences, three additional influences appeared. These included
subtle retaliation, or the less apparent actions taken by a persecutor to make the target's life more
difficult. Secondly, passive coercion results in delays or inaction that adversely affect the target
as a form of retaliation. Lastly, as part of this downward bullying, senior administration is
responsible for many cases directed at DCs.
Subtle retaliation is actions taken by bullies in response to adverse actions taken against
the perpetrator. These may include but are not limited to denying the target office supplies,
committee membership, conference attendance, or approval to move into an open office.
Downward retaliation could also include delaying or refusing to process requests or using a

104

limited or flimsy rationale in decision-making. Among peers, this might show up as gaslighting,
"snubbing," or vehemently opposing a target's ideas or suggestions.
Additionally, passive coercion is the threat of inaction or denials to manipulate a
subordinate’s desired action or decision. P7 describes how their choices, including “stirring the
pot,” could put them at risk. P8 mentioned how administrators would provide "front-end
support" but lacked follow-through. As a form of manipulation, bullies would use passive
coercion to encourage decisions aligned with senior leadership's agenda by providing arguments
designed to influence a target's choices.
Lastly, in 34% of coded passages, DCs were the targets of downward bullying examples.
Participants indicated bullying occurred downward (67.5%), horizontal (9.6%), and upward
(22.9%). Comparing these numbers with Namie's (2017) national workplace survey would
indicate a lower level of horizontal bullying of peers and a higher level of upward bullying
reported in this limited sample.
In Chapter 5, this study discusses research-based solutions, training suggestions, and aids
used in closing these confirmed gaps. Additionally, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's (2016) four
levels of evaluation shall provide a means to determine the effectiveness of closing the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that exist.

105

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN
Prior to the disclosure of recommendations and a proposed evaluation plan, this
researcher will address the perceived reluctance of all participants to fully disclose their
observations, assessment, and unedited thoughts. DCs may have become aware of the need to
maintain confidentiality and neutrality or answer in a politically correct manner to avoid
implicating themselves or their institutions. Although none of the participants outwardly refused
to answer interview questions, this researcher observed longer pauses, a repetitiveness in
answers, and stereotypical answers found typically observed in media interviews.
Chapter 5 examines the validated knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence
gaps, provided research findings that align with these influences, and applies Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four levels of training evaluation in reverse to ascertain the effectiveness of
the proposed training. This study examines the validated knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs determined from the triangulation of interviews and publicly available
documents. Achieving the stakeholder goal requires recommendations from the literature review
validated in surveys and grounded in learning theory. As indicated in Table 8, all but one of
these influences are validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders' goal.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that declarative knowledge is necessary before classifying,
identifying, or recognizing conditions. As determined by institutional or faculty senate policy, a
clear understanding of what constitutes bullying is needed. Krathwohl’s (2002) factual,
conceptual, and procedural knowledge of DCs revealed gaps in knowledge necessary to address
bullying effectively. Table 14 examines the validated and undetermined knowledge influences,
their principle and citations for each need, and content-specific recommendations. The summary
table did not include power dynamics influences because of DC’s documented, varied, yet

106

consistent understanding of how power affects bullying. This study’s proposed training
recommendation does not include this conceptual knowledge influence.
Proposed Knowledge Influence Training and Recommendations
This study examined specific recommendations in the previous sections based on
fundamental principles found in existing research. The following sections will discuss the
knowledge influences validated in this study and the recommendations for training.
Increase DC’s Knowledge of Bullying Activities and Behaviors
This study examines the work-related, person-related, and physical-intimidating related
subcategories of the NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2008) as the foundation for determining unwanted
bullying behaviors. The NAQ-R provides a baseline to identify and act on unwanted, actionable
behaviors by DCs and other CC administrators. Namie and Namie (2009a) provide an
overarching framework for prolonged bullying, unwanted verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and
sabotaging tactics that prevent satisfactory work performance. Furthermore, Namie and Namie
(2009a) stated that bullying is “. . . repeated and persistent nonphysical mistreatment of a person”
(p. 203). Additionally, researchers described the proliferation of constructs related to bullying as
hindering research and developing a comprehensive picture of hostile behaviors at work
(Keashly et al., 2020; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). DC’s inconsistency when describing bullying
actions confirms this proliferation of interpretations.

107

Table 14

Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Table 14. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Factual,
Conceptual, or
Procedural
Validated
Need (Yes,
Unknown,
or No)

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation

Factual Knowledge
– Bullying
Activities and
Behaviors

Yes

Effective problem solving
requires specific terminology,
details, or elements (Rueda,
2011)

Use Namie and Namie’s (2004)
definition of bullying and
specific examples of bullying
based on the work, human, and
physical-intimidation related
categories of the NAQ-R.
Factual Knowledge
- Awareness of
physical and
psychosocial
effects on targets

Yes All faculty and leadership
need to have organizational
values and goals
communicated to them (Clark
& Estes, 2008)

Limited knowledge of
terminology, details, or
elements results in
misunderstanding and
ineffective problem-solving
functioning (Rueda, 2011).
Provide mandatory training for
DCs and senior academic
leadership with written materials,
online resources, and training
aids.

Encourage open discussions to
address the target’s physical and
psychosocial consequences of
bullying. Emphasize prevention
as well as formal and informal
options for victims.
Factual Knowledge
- Awareness of
Institutional Costs
Yes All faculty and leadership
need to have organizational
values and goals
communicated to them (Clark
& Estes, 2008)

Limited knowledge of
terminology, details, or
elements results in
misunderstanding and
ineffective problem-solving
functioning (Rueda, 2011).

Provide mandatory training for
academic leaders with all written
materials, multiple case studies,
and training aids.

Encourage discussion among
DCs about how institutional costs
affect department budgets and
hiring practices.

108

Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Factual,
Conceptual, or
Procedural
Validated
Need (Yes,
Unknown,
or No)

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Procedural
Knowledge - DCs
need knowledge of
how to report and
respond to bullying
incidents according
to institutional
policies and
procedures -
Reporting
procedures and
options
Yes Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is known or
made available. (Clark et al.,
2008).

Knowledge should be specific
and presented in the sequence
that will be used (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Task completion requires
knowledge of the necessary
steps (Krathwolhl, 2002)

Provide mandatory training for
academic leaders with all written
materials, multiple case studies,
and training aids.

Encourage open discussion
among DCs on how to address
different examples of bullying.
Examples could differ in 1)
severity, (2) frequency, (3) prior
history of the perpetrator, (4)
written documentation, (5)
witnesses, etc.

Provide job aid that includes a
decision flow chart for steps in
effectively responding to
bullying

Provide self-paced training
modules that utilize case studies
to practice when bullying has
occurred who to report it to

NSHE and institutional documents (Board of Regents Handbook, n.d.) discuss
institutional values of collegiality and respect for all individuals. Clark and Estes (2008)
espoused the need for demonstration, guided practice, and feedback to improve procedural
knowledge. Recommended training will include online modules focusing on Namie and Namie’s
(2004) definition and behavioral examples based on the NAQ-R. Whenever possible, in-person

109

training will utilize Communities of Practice (CoP, Wenger, 2004) composed only of DCs or
cross-functional teams (Basten & Haaamann, 2018), including input from senior administration,
HR, and legal counsel to facilitate truthful, open, and balanced interactions. Training that
addresses bullying cases could use CoPs to build camaraderie among DCs, further encouraging
collaboration and mutual support. Cross-functional teams will provide expertise from various
units. They will be formed and used to discuss concerns that would determine what constitutes
an unreasonable deadline, what is persistence, how to limit subjectivity, and under what
circumstances should disciplinary action be warranted. When exploring options for unprotected
classes, teams will reinforce the awareness of physical and psychosocial consequences of
bullying to targets and explore options.
Based on the NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2008), work-related bullying included withholding
information, being given unreasonable deadlines or unreasonable workloads, and the excessive
monitoring of DC’s performance. Some behaviors considered person-related bullying would be
ignored or excluded, hints or signals that faculty should quit their jobs, and persistent criticism of
past errors or mistakes. Lastly, physical-intimidating related behaviors included being shouted at,
invasion of personal space, or threats of violence (Einarsen et al., 2008). Fortunately, physical
altercations or abuse in NSHE institutions are not tolerated and will result in disciplinary action
such as a written warning or termination, depending on the severity of the offense. The NAQ-R’s
22 items establish a benchmark for identifying and responding to bullying. Chairs will be
encouraged to add or subtract items based on similar bullying instruments or unwanted acts
observed at their institutions leading to negative personal, physical, and psychosocial responses.
DCs should also be aware of how variations of direction and unique combinations of actors and
targets may vary in how they or the senior administration may respond.

110

Furthermore, DCs will be encouraged to continue skills practiced in live sessions in one
or more communities of practice. These CoPs will further examine strategies for dealing with
perceived bullying directed at themselves and differentiating what interactions are a component
of the hierarchical nature of their organizational structure. Lastly, empowered members of these
CoPs will serve on committees to guide and advise their institutions to better recognize actions
that constitute bullying.
Increase DC’s Knowledge of the Physical and Psychosocial Effects of Bullying
Regardless of the statement by Mikkelsen et al. (2020), that research on physiological
symptoms is scant and positive associations are tentative, the same researchers acknowledge that
studies since the 1980s confirm correlations between bullying and anxiety, depression, burnout,
suicide ideation, and PTSD. The most commonly reported symptoms include sleep difficulties,
headaches, migraines, sleep aids, and sedatives.
According to Rueda (2011), a lack of knowledge of terminology, details, or elements
results in misunderstanding and ineffective functioning when problem-solving. Once again,
participants acknowledged the effects on faculty engagement but few, if any, recognized the
physical or psychosocial consequences experienced by faculty. Instead, participants generally
noted low morale, disengagement, and anxiety. Health information protected by HIPPA (U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, 2015) law, and the required confidentiality further
complicates access to health information. Overall, DC responses were generic, focused on
observable behavioral characteristics, and lacked explicit acknowledgment of the severity and
diversity of physical and psychosocial effects of bullying.
Mandatory training shall discuss the known physical and psychosocial correlations
between bullying and the effects on those targeted. This researcher recommends providing

111

antibullying training for all academic leadership (AL). This training shall include written
materials such as meta-analytic research studies and publications that further illustrate the depth
and breadth of physical and psychosocial effects. Additionally, examples will vary in bullying
severity, frequency, history, documentation, and the presence of witnesses. Finally, the training
facilitator reinforces learning with training aids such as flow charts, lists, and tables. HIAPA
protections shall be insured through providing employees of each institution secure HIPPA-
compliant file-sharing for data collection.
Increase DC’s Knowledge of the Institutional Cost of Bullying
At the institutional level, McKay et al. (2008) suggested that bullying would result in
employee turnover and declines in employee engagement. O'Connell and Kung (2007) stated that
institutional costs would include declined productivity of remaining employees and costs
associated with training and onboarding new employees. Department chairs tended to describe
institutional conditions rather than institutional costs. In their responses, less than half of the
participants mentioned grievances, litigation, or separation from employment, and none spoke of
all three.
The researcher concluded that DCs appeared to be unaware of institutional costs
validating a knowledge gap. A series of mandatory training for DCs, including online modules,
interactive in-person learning, and communities of practice, is suggested. Chairs will be
reminded of organizational values and goals and how these align with departmental priorities.
Next, chairs will be included in discussions of incidental institutional costs of bullying such as
personnel time associated with interviewing involved parties, penalties owed by the institution,
and costs of hiring external legal counsel. DCs will explore how these institutional costs affect
departmental budgets, hiring requests, and decision-making. Discussions will be conducted in

112

cross-functional teams where personnel from HR, legal counsel, and senior administration will
participate. Kesby (2008) suggested the use of an action learning process where participants will
be encouraged to reflect and learn from their own and the group’s experiences.
Increase DC’s Knowledge of How to Report and Respond to Bullying
The results and findings of this study indicate that the majority of leadership and faculty
are not familiar with the causes, steps, applications, and timing used in disciplinary action at their
institutions regarding bullying. A recommendation grounded in Information Processing Theory
is applied to close this procedural knowledge gap (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Schraw and
McCrudden’s work suggests that providing learners with workplace experiences in addressing
bullying can help them to make sense of the material. An example of this is to provide training
utilizing examples that parallel actual cases where participants would refer to the NSHE
handbook (Board of Regents Handbook, n.d.), institutional faculty by-laws, and develop a
strategy to work with both actors (perpetrators) and targets (victims) of bullying.
However, the goal of preparing leaders to address bullying cases in which the target is not
considered a protected class (race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability) is
complicated. NSHE’s Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 13.A.1 (Board of Regents Handbook, n.d., Title
4 Chapter 8) fails to consistently include unprotected classes in the description of individuals
who are covered under unlawful discrimination and harassment not considered sexual
harassment. Einarsen et al. (2019) state that organizations need an ethical infrastructure that
defines acceptable behaviors and the potential consequences of violations. These include formal
systems that include rules, training, and communications overseen by the institution and informal
networks that are intangible and implicit. Yamada (2000) asserts that bullying is not a form of
harassment, and policy documents imply antibullying measures are not a priority. The support of

113

upper management plays a critical role in validating, approving, and enacting policies (Cowan,
2011). As such, senior leadership will be called upon to treat all cases as equally important,
reinforce knowledge of behaviors deemed inappropriate, overtly expect professional conduct and
behaviors, and provide an avenue to complain.
Leadership's grasp of bullying-related knowledge informs action and how to address
cases brought to their attention. Salins (2009) suggests communicating information about
bullying support during orientation, in the faculty handbook, and on the Human Resources
website. Mikkelsen et al. (2011) recommended the organization offer lectures on bullying and
courses in conflict management and prevention. The American Association of Community
Colleges (AACC, 2018) suggests that both leadership and faculty engage in professional
development and use all resources available to develop alternative pathways to preventing and
alleviating bullying in the workplace and in academia.
In addition to formal self-paced remote training and in-person workshops utilizing CoPs
and CFTs, all academic leaders are provided concept maps and other job aids explaining types of
written knowledge that inform appropriate leadership responses. During open discussions, DCs
are exposed to various hypothetical bullying cases where variables such as severity, frequency,
written documents, witnesses involved, and prior history between the parties are altered.
Facilitators will encourage participants to establish what is unacceptable in each continuum and
examine how the combination of these and other variables inform appropriate responses.
Whenever possible, senior leadership shall be immersed in training materials before DC training.
Figure 1 below provides a visual representation of how all DCs should approach and
report bullying. This flow chart is based on my experience as a former Interim Dean at CSN and
is verified by documents found at the federal, NSHE, and institutional levels. Hyperlinks provide

114

quick access to the documents referenced. Rectangles indicated decision points and arrows are
labeled with affirmative or negative responses. Ovals represented required referrals to the Office
of Institutional Equity or the option to take disciplinary action.

115

Figure 1

Critical Path: Responding to Reported Bullying

A
Figure 1. Critical Path: Responding to Reported Bullying

Is the Target
considered a
Protected Class?
Yes
Refer to Office
of Institutional
Equity (or
Equivalent)
Did the Target
participate in an
investigation of a
case involving a
Protected Class?
Yes
Was Retaliation
Involved?
No

No

YES – Actor of higher rank
Evoke
Chapter 6:
Disciplinary
Measures

Click Here for EEOC
Retaliation Questions
& Answers

Click Here for Workplace
Laws Not Enforced by the
EEOC
No to
Both

Does the Action
Directed to the
Target Qualify as
Sexual Harassment?
Yes – Actor of equal of lessor rank
No

Does the Action Qualify as Unlawful
Discrimination & Harassment Not
Covered Under Title IX Sexual
Harassment?
(NSHE Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 13.A.1
Policy Applications & Sanctions,
Paragraphs 3-5)
Yes
Yes
No
Refer to Office
of Institutional
Equity (or
Equivalent)
Options Include: Internal – Grievance,
Ombuds (if applicable) External –
Legal Counsel, OSHA (Whistleblower),
National Workplace Bullying Coalition
(NWBC), etc.

116

Proposed Motivation Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) define motivation as what gets and keeps us going, and how much
effort we will expend on tasks. The three motivational indexes that apply to the work
environment include: the active choice to pursue a goal, persistence despite distractions or
competing goals, and mental effort or focused hard work. If DCs are unable to see the benefits of
dealing effectively with bullying or do not have the confidence or energy to do so, cultures that
support and, in some cases, encourage bullying will persist.
DCs, as compared to instructional faculty, are more likely to be in a position to influence
the institution's culture by how they choose to lead (Bryman, 2007; Nielsen, 2013). This study
recommends chairs examine how understanding the utility value of dealing with bullying will
improve faculty trust, morale, and engagement. The research also suggested leadership develops
self-efficacy by engaging in goal-directed behavior with credible and targeted feedback from
trusted models (Pajares, 2006). Next, chairs are encouraged to set challenging but realistic goals
that promote mastery of learning (Pintrich, 2003) Lastly, department chairs will engage in five of
11 focus areas suggested by AACC (2018) for leadership development (organizational culture,
institutional leadership, relationship cultivation, communication, and collaboration). As such,
institutions should encourage DCs to set realistic goals while striving to eliminate bullying at
their institutions. Chairs should also be encouraged to reflect and engage with peers while
addressing the complexity of bullying’s effect on faculty.

117

Table 15

Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Table 15. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability
, No
(V, HP, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific Recommendation
Department chairs
need to feel confident
that they can use their
knowledge,
experience, and
communication skills
to resolve bullying
within their
departments.

No Self-efficacy beliefs
are formed from
mastery experiences,
observation of
others, social
persuasion, and
visceral responses
Pajares (2006)

Three motivation
indexes include
choice, persistence,
and mental effort
(Clark and Estes,
2008)
Encourage the free exchange of
information and support through ongoing
DC communities of practice (CoP).

Provide realistic case scenarios in
ongoing institutional-supported training
in bullying resolution that illuminates
options for action and provides feedback
from senior leadership Human
Resources, and legal counsel.
Department chairs
need to see the value of
effectively dealing
with bullying and
adjust their
performance,
persistence, and
behavioral Choices
Yes Individual’s
expectation for
success and the value
attached are linked to
achievement-related
activities and events
(Eccles, 1983)

Provide research findings in ongoing
leadership training on how discretely and
effectively handled bullying cases build
employee trust and reputation
Provide research findings in ongoing
leadership training on how a reduction of
bullying enhances faculty morale,
engagement, and positive perceptions
Provide and encourage networking
among leadership at their peer level to
develop comradery and trust among DCs
Provide DCs with how new department
norms and standards when dealing with
bullying will limit or eliminate the time
required to address faculty concerns.

118

Increase the Self-Efficacy of Department Chairs for Effectively and Efficiently Handling
Bullying in Their Departments
Pajares (2006) describes self-efficacy as self-perceptions that individuals have regarding
their capabilities to learn and perform at designated levels. Individuals formulate these beliefs
from: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences or the observation of others, social persuasions
or messages received from others, and physiological or visceral responses. Wolverton et al.
(2005) describe comments of several interviewed chairs indicating a lack of the necessary skill
set to deal with personnel issues. DCs need to understand how discretely and effectively
handling bullying cases lead to employee trust, chair reputation, faculty morale, and positive
perceptions.
Clark and Estes (2008) indicated the three indexes that motivation researchers agree on
are: choice to pursue a goal, persistence or not being distracted, and the mental effort invested.
As such, if department chairs receive antibullying training, realize that cases are challenging but
achievable, and receive supportive coaching, they are more likely to address bullying. Hellemans
et al. (2017) stated that low general self-efficacy correlated with higher levels of intervention
fear. According to Gelmch (2000), only 3% of all academic leaders surveyed between 1990 and
2000 had any leadership training. The CC DCs’ role remains one of the most complex and
ambiguous positions. Hecht et al. (1999) describe the leadership provided by DC as critical to
institutional success.
Based on AACC recommendations (2018), training should include ongoing mandatory
DC training in communication, relationship building, organizational culture, collaboration, and
motivation combined with Pajares’s (2006) suggested involvement in challenging but solvable
cases and instructional support, scaffolding, and private feedback. DCs engage in forums, such

119

as CoPs, that promote the free exchange of information on an ongoing basis. Supervisors’
systematic and consistent support and encouragement to effectively resolve reported bullying are
also needed. Chairs have opportunities to discuss their concerns and perceptions regarding
multiple aspects of bullying in cross-functional teams that encourage two-way feedback and
input.
The recommendation is to provide realistic case scenarios in ongoing training in bullying
resolution that explores options for action and provide feedback from senior leadership,
respected peers, Human Resources, and legal counsel.
Increase the utility value of reducing bullying in academic departments
Eccles (1983) defined utility value as to how a task relates to present or future goals.
Suppose department chairs had a comprehensive understanding of their jobs' informational,
interpersonal, and big-picture issues. In that case, they are more likely to create positive
environments where delegation, trust, and cultural knowledge are prevalent (Wolverton et al.,
2005). Training will emphasize research findings that suggest a reduction in bullying can
enhance faculty morale, engagement, and positive perception of leadership and the institution to
increase utility value. Participants shall become aware of the correlation between the effective
and discrete responses to bullying and building faculty trust and respect. Additionally, DCs will
be encouraged to participate in creating new institutional norms and procedures for addressing
bullying and provide this information to faculty. This improved communication could also result
in a reduction of bullying among department faculty.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that if individuals focus on the benefits of finishing a
task despite the absence of interest or discomfort caused, they are more likely to complete the
job. If chairs lack experience with difficult conversations and conflict, providing them the

120

rationale and opportunity to practice these skills could increase motivation. Chairs will be highly
encouraged to continue participation in CoPs (Wenger, 2004) and cross-functional teams (Basten
& Haamann, 2018). Rueda (2011) suggests DCs should focus discourse on the importance and
utility of the content and objective of training when given all relevant materials and resources.
Senior leadership must create an environment that encourages the elimination of bullying,
persistence despite distractions, and the investment of mental effort required (Clark & Estes,
2008). In addition to promoting DC team confidence, senior leadership must promote individual
confidence by encouraging ownership, setting challenging but achievable goals, providing
positive feedback, offering alternative approaches, projecting their expectation of success, and
listening empathetically when necessary (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Proposed Organizational Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) described organizational influences as what we value, do, and
how we work together. These influences at the conscious and unconscious levels are unspoken
norms or an institution's more tangible rules and policies.
Cultural models are shared understandings or schemas of how things work or should
work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). These implicit and unconscious models dictate employee
behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008). Conversely, cultural settings are an organization's more visible
aspects that depict the whom, what, when, and why (Rueda, 2011). The complexity of
organizational structures, policies, and codes of conduct in higher education is a source of
frustration and confusion, according to Hollis (2016). Table 16 outlines how cultural model and
cultural setting influences are addressed in training.

121

Table 16

Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Table 16. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organizational
Influence*

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to believe
that the college believes it
is important to address
workplace bullying and
that there will be no
associated retaliation for
coming forward.
Yes Clark and Estes (1999) state
that highly novel and complex
goals require more extensive
performance support
Employees with concerns or
problems should be empowered
and engaged at the political and
decision-making levels
(Morrison & Milliken, 2000)
Failure to implement change is
correlated to failure to provide
resources, enforce policies, set
standards, assign a responsible
party, and discredit change.
(Agocs, 1997)

Senior leadership needs to
provide support to navigate
the complexity of how
federal, NSHE, and
institutional laws, codes, and
by-laws apply to all targets
of bullying.
Institutional Ombuds Office
need to be established and
given the authority to advise,
direct, and support all targets
of Bullying.
Colleges need to have a
straightforward process to
report bullying for those
who do not have federal
protections.
Yes Knowledge should be specific
and presented in the sequence
that will be used (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Mastery requires leaders to
acquire the component skills,
integration of expertise, and an
understanding of when to apply
them (McCrudden, 2006)

Colleges need to examine
how antibullying procedures,
application of laws, codes,
policies, and consequences
of noncompliance affect
bullying in various
situations.

122

Assumed Organizational
Influence*

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Colleges need to have the
training to address
bullying regardless of
status.
Yes Engaged employees need to get
the big picture, feel
appreciated, and are
interpersonally connected.
(Berbary & Malinchak, (2011)
Cross-functional teams (CFT)
and communities of practice
(CoP) are central elements of
organizational learning (Bastin
& Haamann, 2018; Wenger,
2004)

On-going mandatory training
on bullying needs to be
provided for all levels of
personnel so that rights,
applicable rules, procedures,
and consequences are
understood.
Provide worked examples
focused on applying existing
codes, policies, and by-laws
apply to all faculty regardless
of status.
Training shall illuminate
response options and provide
feedback from senior
leadership, Human
Resources, and legal
personnel.

Proposed Training Recommendations
The following sections discuss recommendations based on gap verification and
participant suggestions grounded in research findings. These topics included revealing cultural
models that apply to bullying, the existence and application of policies, codes, and by-laws that
apply to unprotected classes, and establishing antibullying training at the institutional level.
Increase Awareness of Cultural Models That Apply to Bullying
Cultural models have shared understandings or mental schemas of how things work or
should work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that much of an
organization's culture is implicit, unconscious, automated, beneath the surface, and becomes

123

rooted over time. Schein (2017) asserted that what is at the heart of an organization is not
revealed to newcomers. As such, tacit knowledge becomes known only after a member has
gained permanent status and is allowed into the inner circle. Therefore, the cultural norms of an
institution often inform and dictate employee behavior.
Based on Clark and Estes (1999), highly novel and complex goals, such as addressing
bullying, require more extensive performance support. This support is more clearly outlined in
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) level 3 required drivers that discuss administrators' role in
reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring DC's performance.
Additionally, senior leadership must be made aware of issues with organizational silence,
resistance to change, and areas of leadership training needed. Patterns of organizational silence
are tough to break, are not subject to observation, and are not usually discussed (Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). Morrison and Milliken further suggested that speaking out is unwise, must be
addressed, and those involved should be empowered and engaged at the political and decision-
making levels. Agocs (1997) stated that organizations resist change because of inertia, associated
costs, limited resources, and threats to the power base. Agocs further suggested six strategies to
advocate for fundamental change. Strategies include resisting for ethical or strategic reasons,
creating allies, making a case for change, using existing resources effectively, mobilizing
politically, and building parallel organizations of support. Finally, the American Association of
Community Colleges (2018) emphasized the need to develop skills in organizational culture,
advocacy and mobilizing others, communication, collaboration, and personal traits and abilities.
Institutions need to develop formal and informal means of imparting awareness of
cultural models in new DCs. Forums such as CoPs for DCs to openly discuss concerns among
themselves in CoPs or with members of senior administration, HR, or legal counsel in CFTs.

124

Chairs’ feedback can inform senior leadership of what they consider indications that their
institutions encourage and support the importance of addressing workplace bullying. Senior
leadership should continue these conversations or take steps toward responding to these
concerns. Discussions could include but are not limited to expected institutional resolution,
support for faculty considered an unprotected class, defining borderline unacceptable behaviors,
and rationale behind current and past decisions.
Increase Organizational Commitment to Educating Employees on Working Knowledge of
Laws, Policies, and Procedures That Apply to Bullying
Higher education's competitive, accomplishment-based nature provides a context-rich
environment where bullying can thrive (Keashly & Neuman, 2010). De Luca (2008) describes
higher education institutions that function through shared governance but appear to be
bureaucracies. Faculty self-governance, the researchers suggest, within this hierarchical structure
causes conflict and may inadvertently shield, protect, and encourage bullying. Cassell (2011)
posits that bullying is deemed lower in intensity when compared to other forms of harassment
and discrimination. Hodgins and McNamara (2017) state that a "certain degree of incivility is
assumed to be intrinsic to organizational life (p.191)." As such, uninformed DCs that become
aware of noncollegial behaviors are more likely to accept bullying as a normative part of
organizational culture.
Department chairs are aware of the existing policies, procedures, and by-laws that govern
faculty collegiality but may be unaware of how these apply to bullying. A recommendation
would include worked bullying examples in mandatory DC antibullying training that emphasizes
the strengths and limitations of existing federal laws, institutional policies, and Faculty Senate
Bylaws. For example, a case study examined during training would require DCs to find pertinent

125

statutes or by-laws that would guide an appropriate response to both the actor (perpetrator),
target (victim), and bystander (witness). Facilitators must examine the severity of the offense, the
duration of the unwanted behaviors, and the number of related bullying behaviors. As mentioned
previously, this training should be mandatory for all levels of academic leadership to ensure
support and response consistency. Whenever possible, bullying training shall be imbedded in
mandatory sexual harassment training emphasizing differences in how cases should be
addressed.
Institutions should establish an Ombuds Office charged with status-blind support of
targets of bullying. Ombuds shall assist all targets in: accessing institutional and external
resources, understanding their rights, responsibilities, and consequences, provide support through
the process. Members of this office may also serve on multifunctional teams, consult taskforces
and CoPs.
Hollis (2016) stated that higher education institutions have complex managerial
structures, policies, and codes of conduct that cause frustration and confusion. Schraw and
McCrudden (2006) suggest that mastery requires leaders to acquire the component skills,
integration of expertise, and an understanding of when to apply them. The findings of this study
indicate a lack of a cohesive knowledge of policies, procedures, and by-laws that govern bullying
leading to avoidance and complacency. Additionally, Yamada (2000) stated that although
statutory and common-law protections are growing, they are ineffective against bullying.
Yamada further posits that: Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is limited by status-
based harassment and disregards behaviors, ADA covers those considered disabled, and OSHA
is focused primarily on workplace environment protections. Yamada (2000) posits that
employees who do not qualify under Title VII or ADA would have limited protections without a

126

specific antibullying policy in place and called for status-blind hostile environment protections.
More importantly, institutions need to examine how targets not considered protected classes can
be protected from bullying.
Establish a Clear Procedure of How Existing Laws, Codes, and By-Laws Apply to the Bullying
of Unprotected Classes
Antibullying training should introduce a standardized critical path for responding to
reported bullying or hostile environment-related claims or grievances regardless of status. Such
paths should present knowledge in the specific sequence that will be used (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Finally, institutions should task shared-governance bodies such as faculty-senate to establish,
expand, and approval of antibullying policies.
Rayner and Lewis (2020) suggested three central policy creation approaches in
organizations void of specific bullying policies. These include using: a specific bullying policy,
an all-inclusive policy combining all areas of harassment, and bullying and a "dignity at work"
(p. 504) approach focused on embedding good organizational behavior. Another method would
expound on collegiality as an expected, normative behavioral standard involving all stakeholders
in its development (Rayner & Lewis). Antibullying training must introduce a suggested critical
path for responding to reported bullying or hostile environment-related claims or grievances
regardless of status. More importantly, conversations regarding targets who are not considered a
protected class and not covered under federal law and how institutions can provide needed
support.
Ongoing CoPs at the DC level would generate additional questions, concerns, and
inequities directed at senior leadership regarding past and current cases of bullying. Members of
the revision committee shall consult with senior leadership, HR, and legal counsel. The

127

committee will recommend institutional policy changes or addendums to the faculty senate for
further clarification, review, and establishment. This new bylaw could be established under
employee collegiality, establishing a form of harassment or bullying based on the NAQ-R three
types, or expanding the scope of the Office of Institutional Equity (or equivalent) to protect all
employee rights.
Establish Antibullying Training for Senior Leadership, DCs, and Faculty
Starting with academic personnel, each institution needs to establish antibullying training
as outlined in the following section that addresses gaps in KMO influences identified in this
study. Berbary and Malinchak (2011) stated that engaged employees need to understand the big
picture, feel appreciated, and interpersonally connect. In addition to CoPs (Wenger, 2004) and
CFTs (Bastin & Haamann, 2018) established in training, these groups shall meet regularly as
suggested in the implementation and evaluation plan. Chairs will also be encouraged to
periodically gather input from department faculty and administrative assistants in focus groups,
individual meetings, and emails.
Mandatory training shall determine the current status of bullying at the institution,
examine the known and theoretical consequences, and establish the next steps taken. Training
shall commence with senior leadership to establish buy-in and expected behaviors and clarify
their role in supporting, providing resources, and addressing questions and concerns from DCs
and other faculty questions and concerns. When possible, hire external training facilitators and
consultants familiar with the implementation and evaluation plan. If funds are unavailable,
multiple content-specific academic community members, HR, or legal counsel will finalize
desired outcomes, training content, and evaluation tools needed using the suggested
implementation and evaluation plan as a guideline.

128

After the senior administrator's training, DCs shall complete the four-part training and
continue participating in CoP. Cross-functional teams will meet a minimum of once a semester,
providing DCs access to senior leadership, HR, and legal counsel. Training will reference
existing federal laws, NSHE codes, institutional policies, and faculty bylaws whenever possible.
Academic faculty will attend workshops and provided handouts and other resources once DCs
have completed training.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The following section discusses the proposed implementation and evaluation framework,
the organization’s purpose, need, and expectations, and Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
four stages of implementation and evaluation in reverse order.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is the framework
for this implementation and evaluation plan. The New World Model flips the four stages initially
proposed in the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
This reversed sequence suggests that evaluation starts with internal and external organizational
goals in Level 4 to reveal global "leading indicators" (p. 13) that avoid narrow soiling,
dysfunction, and waste. In Level 3, organizations then identified critical behaviors and required
drivers that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the skills and knowledge learned by
providing support and holding employees accountable. Next, learning in Level 2 examines if
learners have gained the knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment needed. Finally,
the evaluation examines if participants found the training favorable, engaging, and relevant
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The flipped model operates with the premise that planning,
implementation, and course correction will align with desired organizational outcomes by
beginning with the end in mind.

129

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The purpose of the proposed NSHE Middle-Leadership Antibullying Training is to
provide a forum to engage in practice and discussion that increases the self-efficacy of DCs for
effectively and efficiently handling bullying in their departments. This project will focus on
eliminating all forms of nonsexual harassment or bullying among all full-time instructional
faculty and others in their leadership hierarchy. The project also examines the effect of
knowledge, skills, motivation, and organizational barriers and how they prevent DCs from
addressing bullying. DCs are the primary stakeholder group because they need management
training and leadership experience. An ongoing personnel management training, job aids,
mentoring, and support network will promote a bully-free environment where faculty are more
involved, participate in institutional governance, and remain employed. These changes will
eliminate OSHA and EEOC reporting, eliminate formal grievances filed, reduce nonretirement
exits, and increase faculty engagement.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 17 below refers to external and internal outcomes that provide metrics and methods
to indicate desired results and lead indicators. External lead indicators examine the number of
faculty complaints resulting in external legal counsel's involvement and complaints filed with
OSHA or EEOC. These complaints would be indicators of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
market/industry response listed as lawsuits and claims. The three aspects of internal lead
indicators are associated with Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s employee satisfaction. These
indicators are employee engagement, satisfaction, and regrettable turnover.

130

Table 17

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Lead Indicators
Table 17. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Lead Indicators
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1) Elimination of external legal counsel
involved in litigation cases involving
unprotected classes.
Number of cases pending Legal Counsel tally
2) Elimination of cases brought to OSHA,
EEOC regarding unprotected classes
Number of cases pending Office of Human Resources tally
Internal Outcomes
3) Elimination or reduction of all formal
grievances filed
The number of formal grievances
filed
HR query
4) Decrease the number of (nonretirement)
faculty exits, including terminations
The number of faculty who exit
(leave for another position)
HR query comparing previous
years' numbers
5) Increase the percent of NSHE CC faculty
engagement in 1) Surveys, 2)Workshops,
3) Conferences, and 4) Committees
(department, school, and college-wide)
5a. The number of faculty
completing surveys
5a. Office of Technology query
5b. Number presenting or
attending internal workshops or
training
5b. Center for Academic and
Professional Excellence (CAPE)
or equivalent query
5c. Number of faculty presenting
or attending external professional
conferences
5c. Institutional conference
funding numbers (indication of
financial assistance provided to
faculty attending conferences)
5d. Number of faculty serving on
department, school, or college
committees or task forces.
5d. HR/Department Leadership.
Check faculty completed self-
evaluation numbers and responses
Note. All references to faculty and metrics refer to full-time, tenured, or tenure-track faculty.

131

If bullying violates occupational safety or federal labor laws at an NSHE CC but are not
resolved internally, plaintiffs would have the option to file complaints with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
2019) or OSHA (Home/ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2019). As such,
monitoring the number of past and ongoing cases would serve as two lead indicators of each
institution’s performance. Yamada (2000) calls for a “status blind” (p. 523) protection but
suggests imposing a “reasonable standard” (p. 525) to discourage mild instances of bullying
qualifying as actionable.
Filing formal grievances would be a clear internal lead indicator signifying employee
dissatisfaction. The NSHE states that institutions may establish institutional bylaws “. . .
procedure for reviewing faculty grievances” (Board of Regents Handbook, n.d., Title 3 Chapter
5, p. 25). Grievances must, however, adversely impact employment conditions “. . . related to
promotion, appointment to tenure or contractual status” (p. 26) or other violations of the NSHE
Code. These conditions limit the applicability of grievances filed and must determine if the claim
results from bullying or retaliation within the institution.
Item 4 examines faculty exit not prompted by retirement, promotion, or leaving higher
education. Therefore, the institution needs to code all separation of employment correctly.
Lastly, Item 5 attempts to look at faculty engagement measured by faculty completion of
institutional surveys, faculty presentations, or attendance at internal and external workshops or
conferences and the total number of faculty actively engaged in institutional committees or task
forces.

132

Level 3: Behavior
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 3 examines how participants apply what they
have learned as DCs. Department chairs and their supervisors should be prepared for training and
be clear of their roles before, during, and after the recommended training sequence. This
improvement process must be comprehensive and include continuous monitoring of critical
behaviors and drivers.
Critical Behaviors. Job-specific critical behaviors need to be specific, observable, and
measurable, according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016). Table 18 illustrates three critical
DC behaviors that represent gaps in identified KMO influences. As such, DCs must explain to
targets of bullying in a consistent and timely manner with applicable procedures, codes, and
bylaws. Second, chairs must keep targets informed of progress made in the resolution process
and be able to offer explanations grounded in institutional policies and procedures. Finally,
participants must act in an equitable, ethical manner while remaining transparent in their
communication.

133

Table 18

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Table 18. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1) DCs respond to
reported bullying
consistently and
promptly, fully explain
procedures and options,
and disclose applicable
laws, codes, and bylaws.
Scaled questions combined
with some open-ended
prompts are sent to targets
DC self-reports with open-
ended questions and
supervisor observation
checklists completed.

DC self-report. Target’s
comments and feedback
on questionnaires. Their
supervisor's observations
include comments shared
by HR and legal
counsel.

Bi-monthly for
the first 6
months
After that –
once a
semester.
2) DCs keep targets
informed of the resolution
progress, discuss
available options, and
offer explanations of
outcomes grounded on
institutional policies and
procedures.

Scaled questions combined
with some open-ended
prompts are sent to targets.
Questionnaires are sent
to bullying targets.
Once per
semester.
After that –
once an
academic year.
3) DCs consistently
demonstrate transparency
in decision making,
equitable treatment,
ethical behaviors and seek
input from all department
faculty.
Scaled questions combined
with some open-ended
prompts.
Record the frequency of
posted messages, notes, and
projects on the department
data board or Canvas shell.
Chairs' available
appointments are visible to
department faculty.
Anonymous online
questionnaires are sent to
all department faculty.
Once per
semester.
After that –
once an
academic year.
Items 1 and 2 will use questionnaires disseminated to all targets of bullying who make
their situation known to their DC. Most of the questions will contain Likert-scaled questions
asking to what degree targets agree or disagree with items related to their experiences with

134

bullying. Topics surveyed may ask if faculty felt that their chairs: treated them fairly, addressed
their concerns promptly and consistently, and kept them informed of the resolution progress.
Faculty will also answer open-ended questions to ascertain examples of what they consider
bullying behaviors. Item 1 will also include DC’s self-reported and supervisors’ assessment
checklists. These reports will contain open-ended questions and welcome additional senior
leadership, HR, and legal counsel comments.
Item 3 will include a scaled questionnaire assessing department perception of the culture
within their departments. Questions will address perceived transparency, support, ethics, and
equanimity. Questionnaires will be sent to all faculty and completely anonymous on an ongoing
and continuous basis.
Required Drivers. Regardless of their experience, department chairs need the support
and modeled behavior of more senior chairs and their supervisors (deans or VPs) to apply what
they learned in training. Examples of recommended drivers that support critical behaviors
include encouragement linked to DC's efforts, compliance, and job aids. Listed below in Table
19 are recommended drivers, timing, and supported behaviors.

135

Table 19

Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Table 19. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aids include definitions, clear examples of
what does and does not constitute bullying,
procedures (flow charts), and links to all pertinent
regulations, policies, and by-laws.

Displayed continuously in
office suites Printable
electronic copies (with
hyperlinks) provided for
individual reference

1, 2

Follow-up online (MS Teams or equivalent) and
in-person (COVID 19 dependent) modules and
refreshers a minimum of once or twice a semester
Weekly updates as needed,
24-7 online access.

1, 2, 3

Deans, AVPs, and VPAAs model desired
behaviors. Obtain support and commitment from
all senior leadership (SL). Select SL champions to
serve on the CFTs.
Weekly check-ins for the first
month followed by monthly
follow-up

1, 2, 3

Encouraging
Mentoring – provide all new DCs a senior
department chair (from the same school when
possible). Senior chairs should select another
senior chair.
Bi-monthly follow-ups,
weekly check-ins for the first
month for the next 6 months.
Monthly after that.

1, 2, 3

Coaching – designate additional personnel (e.g.,
External Facilitator, Project Team, etc.) and
provide access to HR (including the Office of
Institutional Equity), Ombuds, legal counsel, and
other members of senior leadership.
Weekly check-ins for the first
month followed by bi-
monthly follow-ups for the
first 6 months Monthly after
that

1, 2, 3

Rewarding
Recognition – expect Deans or VPs to regularly
recognize efforts to engage in all personnel matters
related to bullying and build a department culture
of transparency, trust, and communication.

Bi-Weekly verbal or written
(email) for the first 3 months.
Monthly after that.

1, 2, 3

136

Monitoring
Survey of department faculty: Develop a 5-minute
Survey Monkey questionnaire addressing each
critical behavior (Table 18) with Likert scaled and
open-ended questions to identify potential
concerns, issues, and questions about DC
behaviors.
Bi-annually (beginning of fall
semester (September) and
middle of spring semester
(March)).

1, 2, 3

Supervisor (Dean, VP, or designee) observation
checklist completed over several weeks to months
filed in specific increments
Bi-semester at first. Once an
academic year after that.
1, 2, 3

Organizational Support. Successful implementation requires institutional resources,
department chair release time, and supervisor support. Department chairs and senior leadership
need to designate time to update dashboards, schedule individual and group meetings, and listen
to the concerns and suggestions of all faculty. Communication of the importance, value, and ties
into the institution’s mission is imperative. Chairs should distribute scheduling tasks, and other
personnel concerns to administrative assistants and faculty leads. Lastly, utilizing technology as
identified requires additional funding for training, software, development, and licensing.
DCs will also support and encourage accessing Ombuds for themselves or the targets of
bullying at any stage of resolution. Ombuds shall be charged with advising, directing, and
supporting all employees who are the targets of bullying.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals. After the completion of the recommended solutions, most notably the
antibullying training, the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Recognize the regulations, policies, and by-laws that apply to bullying with 100%
accuracy (Factual Knowledge, (FK))

137

2. Recognize 90% of what behaviors or actions are bullying and what is not is determined
by their institution using the NAQ-R as a training baseline (FK)
3. Recognize 90% of the individual and organizational consequences of bullying
discussed in training (FK)
4. Create an urgency-based (action as a priority) timeline for different review processes
and steps (Procedural Knowledge, (PK))
5. Plan, monitor, and adjust DC’s work to prioritize adherence to personnel regulatory
guidelines, timelines, and deadlines for personnel concerns (PK)
6. Indicate confidence that DCs can oversee bullying cases effectively and within the
prescribed time limits (Self-efficacy, (SE))
7. Articulate the value of accuracy (gathering of multiple perspectives, written
documentation, and timeliness of the bullying review processes), (Utility Value, (UV))
8. Articulate the importance of planning, monitoring, prioritizing, and adjusting DC’s
work duties and responsibilities (UV)
Training Program. A training program that explores applicable laws, regulations, and
policies achieves the learning goals listed in the previous section. Department chairs will
examine a broad range of cases requiring the assessment and management of bullying. The
program is blended, consisting of two online modules interspersed with two online or face-to-
face (COVID 19 dependent) application workshops. The total estimated time for completion is
360 minutes (6 hours). Subsequent online or face-to-face sessions beginning 3 months after that
and scheduled once every semester will address shortcomings and other formative concerns.
Training includes 1) job aids of procedural charts, essential terms, examples of bullying
(based on the NAQ-R), and personal and institutional consequences, 2) applicable references and

138

guides (hyperlinks to federal laws, NSHE codes, and institutional bylaws), 3) worked examples
of behaviors (considered and not considered bullying) during the asynchronous e-learning
modules, as well as 4) procedural charts of internal and external pathways for filing grievances,
evoking disciplinary actions, among others. Another job aid will contain a critical path flow chart
clearly illustrating codes, regulations, and statutes and how decision points dictate subsequent
action or internal referrals (Figure 1). The job aids will be demonstrated on videos using
potential bullying cases with varying circumstances (intensity, duration, and actions). Key terms
illustrated with qualifying examples and nonexamples during training and made available for
reference after completion. The video will pause from time to time to enable the learners to
check their assumptions, understanding, and proposed actions through built-in topic-relevant
multiple-choice assessment questions. Following the demonstrations, the stakeholders will
practice using job aids and receive feedback from peers, trainers, and observers (HR, Legal
Counsel, or supervisors). The demonstration, practice, and feedback approach will also utilize
strategic planning training for prioritizing job duties and time management.
Training shall also include the breadth and scope of the state of Nevada’s Employee
Assistance Program (EAP). The EAP provides access to counseling, mediation, worklife
assistance, Stress Management and Wellness training, Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress,
and others. DCs shall be educated on the explicit role and limitations of entities within each
institution such as, HR (Ombuds, OIE, etc.), legal counsel, and the BOR. Lastly, resources
available at the federal level shall be explored. These include but are not limited to Mental
Health Hotlines, NAMI Nevada, Mental Health American (MHA), etc. (Staff, 2022).
During the synchronous online or in-person sessions, the focus will be on applying what
stakeholders have learned asynchronously to bullying applications in communities of practice

139

(Wenger, 2004) and cross-functional teams (Basten & Haamann, 2018). Pedagogy within these
formats will include peer modeling, role-playing, and discussions. Ask supervisors or more
experienced chairs to discuss the potential consequences of delayed or inadequate responses to
cases. Senior DCs will model how to strategically plan their use of time to complete the bullying
procedural process and methods of avoiding distractions within the prescribed timeline.
Components of Learning. Demonstrating factual and conceptual knowledge is often
necessary as a precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is essential to
evaluate learning for both factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge taught. It is also
crucial that learners value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge
and skills. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in applying their
knowledge and skills and be committed to using them on the job. As such, Table 20 lists the
evaluation methods and timing for these learning components.

140

Table 20

Components of Learning for the Program
Table 20. Components of Learning for the Program
Method or Activity Timing
Factual Knowledge "I know it."
Knowledge checks using multiple-choice
questions.
In the asynchronous sessions during and after
video demonstrations, role-playing, or essential
information
Knowledge checks through observation of interaction,
"pair, think, share," and other individual or group
activities.
Periodically during the synchronous online or in-
person workshops and documented via
observation notes and digital recordings

Procedural Skills "I can do it right now."
During the asynchronous portions of the course using
scenarios with multiple-choice items
In the asynchronous portions of the course, at the
end of each module, lesson, or unit
Demonstration in groups and individually using the job
aids to perform the skills successfully
During the workshops and pre-recorded videos
used in online segments.
Observation of the quality of the feedback from peers
during group sharing
During the workshops
Individual application of skills to potential bullying
cases
At the end of the workshop
Retrospective pre-and posttest assessment surveys
asking participants about their level of proficiency and
confidence before and after the training
At the beginning and end of the workshop
Attitude "I believe this is worthwhile."

141

The facilitator's observation of participants' actions,
nonverbal behaviors, and engagement demonstrated
participants see the benefit of required actions
During the workshop
Discussions of the value of required actions and
negative consequences of inaction or delay
During the workshop
Retrospective pre-and posttest assessment item Before, immediately after, and 3 months after the
course
Confidence "I think I can do it on the job."
Survey items (ordinal, interval, and ratio) with
questions using scaled items
Following each module, lesson, or unit in the
asynchronous portions of the course
Observations of discussions following practice and
feedback
During the workshop
Retrospective pre-and posttest assessment item Before, immediately after, and 3 months after the
course
Commitment "I will do it on the job."
Observations of discussions following practice and
feedback

During the workshop
Create an individual action plan with built-in follow-up
and review.

During the workshop
Retrospective pre-and posttest assessment item Before, immediately after, and 3 months after the
course

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), reaction examines engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction. Table 21 below explains the methods, tools, and timing

142

used in assessing the reactions to the proposed training. Level 1 attempts to investigate how
participants find the training favorable, engaging, and pertinent to their roles as department
chairs in responding to bullying.

143

Table 21

Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Table 21. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics in the learning management system (time
spent, assignment completion, and responses to
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment questions)
Ongoing, during the remote, asynchronous
portion of the course
Completion of all required online
modules/lessons/units, completion of optional
modules/lessons/units, and use/reference to provided
hyperlinks
Ongoing, during the remote, asynchronous
portion of the course
Observation by trainer/facilitator (checklist and notes) During the workshop
Observation by External Facilitator or Special Project
Lead (if applicable)
During the workshop
Full attendance and promptness of
participants
During the workshop
Course evaluation Three weeks after the course (15 working days)
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via a survey (online)
and discussion (ongoing)
After the selected module/lesson/unit and the
workshop session
Course evaluation Three weeks after the course (15 working days)
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via an online survey
and discussion (ongoing)
After several select modules/lessons/units and
the end of the workshop

Course evaluation Three weeks after the course (15 working days)

144

Data Analysis and Reporting
The monitoring of informal (conversation and consultation) and formal reporting (filed
grievance) measures the Level 4 goal of eliminating bullying. Each month, department chairs
will track the number of incidents, determine if a case rises to the level of bullying, and log an
overview of their response and how the situation was resolved, including the proposed plan and
actual resolution. The bar chart in Figure 1 hypothetically depicts how the number of
institutional nonbullying incidents, bullying incidents, and grievances filed in a given month
appear. Gathered data of incident types will illustrate disaggregated trends in each academic
school. Similar tables will show Levels 1, 2, and 3 compliances.
Figure 2 displays a hypothetical comparison of participation levels in terms of online
modules completed and in-person training attended by percentage with the responses to
engagement, relevance, and satisfaction factors in self-evaluations and the checklist scores of up
to two observers present during training. All figures were converted to percentages of the
maximum scores possible for comparison purposes.

145

Figure 2

Proposed Assessment of Level 1 Reactions

Figure 2. Comparison of Participation, Self-evaluation, & Observations
Note. All figures were converted to percentages of the maximum scores or time possible for
comparison purposes.
The bar graph depicted in Figure 2 presents a visual representation of how each
participant compares to the mean for all participants. However, self-report and observer
assessments limit objective comparisons in Figure 2. In the example provided, participation
levels do not appear to correlate with engagement, relevance, or satisfaction with the observer’s
assessments.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Mean
Recoded Percentage
Participant Scores
Comparisons of Participation, Self-evaluation, & Observations
Modules Completed % Live Attendance %
Course Eval - Engagement % of max Course Eval - Relevance % of max
Course Eval - Satisfaction % of max Observer #1 Checklist %
Observer #2 Checklist %

146

Summary of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Approach
The New World Kirkpatrick Model plans, implements, and evaluates proposed
recommendations to address bullying and create a collaborative, supportive climate at NSHE
community colleges. This model requires a compelling chain of evidence to demonstrate a return
on expectation (ROE). The project starts with the end in mind, focusing on internal and external
outcomes and lead indicators (Level 4), critical behaviors, and required drivers (Level 3). This
initial focus on Levels 3 and 4 provides evaluators with clear targets to establish learning goals
(Level 2) and participant reactions (Level 1). This model bridges potential gaps between training,
organizational, and stakeholder goals.
Evaluation Tools
Appendix C lists potential quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) questions
designed to ascertain participants' reactions (engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction)
and learning (declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment).
Additionally, Appendix C outlines Level 1 factors (declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge, attitude, confidence, and commitment) and Level 2 factors (engagement, relevance,
and participant satisfaction), and potential quantitative (Quan) and qualitative (Qual) questions.
Quantitative questions also include the sequential or interval answer choices provided. This
researcher uses data from both formative and summative evaluations to update training content,
pedagogy, and format to increase the probability training bridges what Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) term the gap between Level 2 and Level 3, otherwise known as the "great
divide (p. 20)."

147

Immediately Following the Program Implementation
During the first asynchronous and third segments of the course (Sessions 1 & 3), the
learning analytics tools in Canvas Learning Management System (LMS; or equivalent) will
collect data about stakeholder attempts, duration, and item completion, as well as learning
assessment scores. These data will indicate engagement, persistence, and learning with the
course material. The LMS will also administer interspersed brief surveys, including sequential
and open-ended questions after each module, requesting the participants report the relevance of
the material to their department chair roles and their overall satisfaction with the content and
delivery method of the online course. Table 22 provides a breakdown evaluation after each
session and the two subsequent attempts after completing initial training.

148

Table 22

Training and Review Sequence
Table 22. Training and Review Sequence
Session
and
Timing
Format Survey Observation Analytics
Review
Formative
Review
Summative
Review
Level
Assessed
1 Online
Asynchronous
Yes No Yes Yes No 1,2,3,4
2 Synchronous
(Online/In-
person)
Yes Yes No Yes No 1,2,3,4
3 Online
Asynchronous
Yes No Yes Yes No 1,2,3,4
4 Synchronous
(Online/In-
person)
Yes Yes No Yes No 1,2,3,4
6
weeks
after
Online with auto-
reminders
Yes No Yes No Yes 1,2
16
weeks
after
Online with auto-
reminders
Yes No Yes No Yes 1,2,3,4

For Level 1, during the in-person workshop (Session 2), the instructor will conduct brief,
periodic online pulse-checks by asking participants sequential quantitative questions about the
relevance of the content to their work about the session's organization, delivery, and learning
environment. Level 2 will include qualitative learning checks, such as observation checklists or
notes, and short answer questions asked individually or in small groups. Individuals will reveal

149

their knowledge by explaining their decision-making process drawn from case studies and
examples.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately 6 weeks after completion of the initial training sequence (Sessions 1-4),
and then again at 16 weeks, facilitators will administer a survey containing scaled and open-
ended items (Appendix C). This blended evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will
measure:
1) the participant's perspective, satisfaction, and relevance of the training (Level 1),
2) confidence and value of applying their training (Level 2),
3) application of the training to potential or ongoing departmental bullying cases and
receiving the support and encouragement from senior administration and senior DCs
(mentors, Level 3), and
4) the extent to which their handling of bullying cases have led to increases in awareness
of cases and the reduction in the number of grievances filed (Level 4).
Appendix D lists potential open-ended blended questions for Levels 1 through 4 asked 3
months after the program implementation. The sample questions focused on Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) learner reaction. Learning, behaviors, and results. Proposed questions used
a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Level 4 uses several informal (conversation and consultation) and formal (filed
grievance) reporting to measure the goal of eliminating bullying. Each month, each department
chair will track the number of incidents, determine if a case rises to the level of bullying, and log
an overview of their response and how the situation was resolved, including the proposed plan

150

and actual resolution. The bar chart in Figure 3 hypothetically depicts the number of institutional
incidents, bullying incidents, and grievances filed over a semester. Gathered data of incident
types across all departments will illustrate disaggregated trends in each academic school. Similar
tables and figures will show Levels 1, 2, and 3 compliance.

Figure 3

Proposed Known Bullying Cases by Department

Figure 3. Status of Known Bullying Cases by Department
The cluster column chart depicts the number of directly and indirectly reported
departmental bullying cases and how internal and external personnel are involved. Figure 3
illustrates institutional costs associated with resolved or persistent cases. Cost estimates increase
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
NUMBER OF RECORDED CASES
LEVEL OF SERVERITY
Status of Known Bullying Cases by Department
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Mean

151

with each case brought to subsequent levels (represented by the length and number of the bars
moving to the right).
Limitations and Delimitations
The following section examines factors that may affect or restrict the methods used in
this study. One limitation was that participants were considered mid-level managers, but their
roles and authority differed at each participating institution. The participants in this study were
75% men, and 75% knew the researcher. Another factor that may have skewed responses was the
chairs’ experience with a varying number of supervisors and executive leadership. Several
participants reported changes in culture who experienced leadership change while serving as DC.
The voluntary nature of recruitment and the snowball methodology was somewhat helpful in
preserving anonymity but not helpful in recruiting additional participants.
Additionally, research on bullying among academic faculty at U.S. community colleges
was limited. The study referenced findings from the general U.S. workforce and a limited
number of international studies that included English-speaking countries. Publicly available
documentation, organizational structure, and personnel support offices varied between
institutions.
A delimitation of this study includes adding the criterion of a minimum of 3 years of
experience in their position without any previous leadership experience in higher education or
the private sector. Including more seasoned chairs would eliminate inexperienced chairs and
those with prior management experiences to compare their current experience with previous
leadership posts. Additionally, the organizational structure for all participants at the three
participating institutions varied and limited what participants were willing and able to do.
Finally, selected participants should have similar institutional statuses and have parallel job

152

descriptions, rights, and authority. Participants deemed administrative faculty or administrators
may have different job descriptions, priorities, and relationships with teaching faculty.
Recommendations for Future Research
Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted at three of four Nevada community
colleges to assess knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gaps experienced by
department chairs. Although participants were considered mid-level managers, their roles and
authority differed at each institution.
The first recommendation was to interview a larger pool of participants from all four
Nevada community colleges. The timing of initial inquiries during the regular semester but
avoiding high-demand times such as the beginning or end of the semester and when scheduling
is in progress could have resulted in a larger pool. Next, additional research questions focused on
a bullying culture, tacit knowledge, and senior leadership actions or attributes that might affect
subordinate bullying.
Future research into this topic should attempt to interview DCs with similar job duties
and authority levels and be representative of the male-female ratios at their institutions. A
reduction of DC characteristics might further limit unnecessary variables in managerial
parameters. Senior leadership could become the stakeholder group of focus in additional studies
to avoid the ambiguity of DCs' dual role as faculty and administration at their institutions. Lastly,
the study could expand its reach to larger community college districts such as those found in
California or Arizona or across multiple districts.
Conclusion
This dissertation examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
affecting Nevada community college department chairs’ capacity to eliminate bullying among

153

department faculty. A qualitative research approach and snowball sampling methodology yielded
12 participants from three community colleges. Eight of 20 chairs at CSN, three of 12 chairs at
TMCC, and one of three department directors at GBC participated in the study. This researcher
triangulated coded data from semi-structured interviews with publicly available documents found
at the institutional, system, and federal levels. The researcher used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis framework to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps
substantiated by existing academic literature to establish content-specific recommendations to
address bullying. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four stages of training evaluation in
reverse order provided the basis of a detailed implementation and evaluation plan.
In general, DCs perceived a lack of a clearly outlined procedure when addressing
bullying. An absence of institutionally sponsored antibullying training was consistent across all
participants’ institutions. When addressing reported bullying, factors such as the party’s history,
the severity of the offense, the number of unacceptable behaviors, and the duration of said
activity created uncertainty and varied responses. Some DCs perceived hierarchical power and
directives as bullying. In the absence of recognized institutional antibullying policies, chairs
looked to other chairs, supervisors, human resources, and legal counsel for advice. Chairs
provided with flow charts depicting the necessary steps to respond to reported bullying would
increase their working knowledge of bullying actions, personal consequences, and institutional
costs.
None of the participants spoke extensively on the Board of Regent’s handbook,
specifically chapter 6 (faculty disciplinary procedures). Several chairs reported that some of their
faculty persisted despite being issued letters of instruction (LOI). Some faculty disregarded the
disciplinary process due to their false perception of tenure protections, according to a few DCs.

154

The lack of perceived consequence for perpetrators of bullying, the lack of protections for
unprotected classes, and the institution’s reluctance to sanction perpetrators may further
encourage bullying. As such, institutions must establish clear procedures and support all efforts
to respond to bullying.
The subjectivity and difficulty of determining institutional cost and individual
consequences and their effect on faculty engagement and classroom performance create
obstacles to corrective action. Given the departmental demands placed on DCs and institutional,
system, regional and national demands on senior leadership, addressing bullying is not a priority.
From a cost-benefit perspective, the number of personnel hours involved in effectively
investigating and responding to reported bullying continues to be unjustified. Implementing
antibullying training for all academic leadership will support the importance of a collegial
environment and potentially reduce the personnel hours involved in addressing ongoing bullying
cases.

155

REFERENCES
AACC Competencies for Community College Leaders. (n.d.). AACC.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/publications-news/aacc-competencies-for-community-
college-leaders/
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.331
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917-931.
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(2), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.51827775
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., & Lovett, M. (2018) How learning works: Seven
research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L., Krathwolhl, D., Airasan, P., Creikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., &
Wittrick, M. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The
effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and
reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59.
Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 1(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509400
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-778.

156

Attell, B., Brown, K., & Treiber, L. (2017). Workplace bullying, perceived job stressors, and
psychological distress: Gender and race differences in the stress process. GHPC Articles.
168.
Bahr, P. R., Columbus, R., & Chen, Y. (2021). Are there age disparities in community college
completion? Evidence from Ohio’s community colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1976308
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental
education in community college. Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Bailey, T., Jeong, D., & Cho, S. (2009). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental
education sequences in community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges,
145, 11-30.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry
Holt.
Baporikar, N. (2015). Collegiality as a strategy for excellence in academia. International Journal
of Strategic Change Management, 6(1), 59-72.
Baron, R., & Neuman, J. (1998). Workplace aggression – The iceberg beneath the tip of
workplace violence: Evidence of its forms, frequency, and targets. Public Administration
Quarterly, 21, 446-464.
Bartlett, J., & Bartlett, M. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(69). Doi: 10.1177/1523422311410651

157

Bardwell, W., Ancoli-Israel, S., & Dimsdale, J. (2001). Types of coping strategies are associated
with increased depressive symptoms in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep,
24(8), 905-909.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial
applications (Vol. 3). Free Press.
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Basten, D., & Haamann, T. (2018). Approaches for organizational learning: A literature review.
SAGE Open, 8(3), 215824401879422. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018794224
Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
Begley, T. (1998). Coping strategies as predictors of employee distress and turnover after an
organizational consolidation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 71, 305-329.
Bellou, V., Belbasis, L., Tzoulaki, I., & Evangelou, E. (2018). Risk factors for type 2 diabetes
mellitus: An exposure-wide umbrella review of meta-analyses. PLoS One, 13(3),
e0194127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194127.
Berbary, D. F., & Malinchak, A. A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. Public Manager, 40(3), 55.
Berdrow, I. (2010). Kings among Kings: Understanding the role and responsibilities of the
department chair in higher education. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 38(4). DOI: 10.1177/1741143210368146

158

Bilgel, N., Aytac, S., & Bayram, N. (2006). Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers.
Occupational Medicine, 56(4), 226-231.
Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from
https://files-eric-ed-gov.libproxy1.usc.edu/fulltext/ED327218.pdf
Board of Regents Handbook (n.d.). Nevada System of Higher Education. Retrieved March 27,
2022, from https://nshe.nevada.edu/leadership-policy/board-of-regents/handbook/board-
of-regents-handbook-subchapters/
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bowling, N., & Beehr, T. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A
theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998-1012.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Bowman, R. F. (2002). The real work of department chair. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 75(3), 158–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650209599258
Braithwaite, V. (2013). A multipronged approach to the regulation of workplace bullying.
Canberra: Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) Australian National University.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/155690
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general
harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Review, 15, 280-299. DOI:
10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x
Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Lexington Books.

159

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in
Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Burton, W., Pransky, G., Conti, D., Chen, C., & Edington, D. (2004). The association of medical
conditions and presenteeism. JOEM, 46(6), S38-S45.
Carroll, J., & Wolverton, M. (2004). Who becomes the chair? New Directions for Higher
Education, 126, 3-10. doi:10.1002/he.144
Cassell, M. (2011). Bullying in academe: Prevalent, significant, and incessant. Contemporary
Issues in Educational Research, 4(5). 33-44.
Catley, B., Blackwood, K., Forsyth, D., Tappin, D., & Bentley, T. (2017). Workplace bullying
complaints: Lessons for good HR practice. Personnel Review, 46(1), 100-114.
Chappell, D., & Di Martino, V. (2006). Violence at work (3rd edition). International Labour
Office.
Clark, C., & Olender, L., Kenski, D., & Cardoni, C. (2013). Exploring and addressing faculty-to-
faculty incivility: A national perspective and literature review. Journal of Nursing
Education, 52(4), 211-218.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Coleman, B. (2006). Shame, rage, and freedom of speech: Should the United States adopt
European “mobbing” laws? Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 35,
53-99.
Cooper, J. E., & Pagotto, L. (2003). Developing community college faculty as leaders. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 123(Autumn), 27–37.

160

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.
Cortina, L., Rabelo, V., & Holland, K. (2018). Beyond blaming the victim: Toward a more
progressive understanding of workplace mistreatment. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 11(1), 81-100. doi:10.1017.iop.2017.54
Cowan, R. L. (2011). “Yes, we have an anti-bullying policy, but …:” HR professionals’
understandings and experiences with workplace bullying policy. Communication Studies,
62(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.553763
Coyne, I., Seigne, L., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victim status from personality.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 335-349, DOI:
10.1080/135943200417957
Crawshaw, L. (2009). Workplace bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distractions by a thousand
definitions. Counseling Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 263-267.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(3rd ed.). Sage.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles
in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1019–1024.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.228.
Crow, M. (2010). Differentiating America’s colleges and universities: A case study in
institutional innovation in Arizona. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5),
36-41.

161

Dereshiwski, M. (2020). Bullying and harassment of faculty in higher education. In R. Papa
(Ed.), Handbook on promoting social justice in education. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
14625-2_50
Deterline, B. (2012). Creating ethical cultures in business. TEDxPresidio. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzicXbnmllc&feature=youtu.be
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473-501.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace bullying and intention to
leave: The moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Human Resource
Management Journal, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00081.x
Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive
work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83,579–
599.doi:10.1348/096317909X470690
Dougherty, K., Lahr, H., & Morest, V. (2017). Reforming the American community college:
Promising changes and their challenges. Columbia University. doi:10.7916/d8md05tk
Duffy, M. (2009). Preventing workplace mobbing and bullying with effective organizational
consultations, policies, and legislation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 61(3), 242-262.
Duffy, M., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 331–351.
Duffy, M., Scott, K., Shaw, J., Tepper, B., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy
and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643-666.

162

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. Achievement and achievement
motives.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Reviews
Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Einarsen, K., Nielsen, M., Hetland, J., Olsen, O., Zahlquist, L., Mikkelsen, E. G., Koløen, J., &
Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Outcomes of a proximal workplace intervention against
workplace bullying and harassment: A protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial
among Norwegian industrial workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02013
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment
at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire-Revised, Work & Stress, 23:1, 24-44, DOI:10.1080/02678370902815673
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zaft, B., & Cooper, C. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at
work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and
practice (pp. 3-40). Taylor and Francis.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zaft, B., & Cooper, C. (2020). Bullying and harassment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: Victims, victimology, and human rights. Oxford
University Press.

163

Eluwole, K., Lasisi, T., & Avci, T. (2018). Demystifying the antecedents of presenteeism in the
hospitality industry. In C. Cobanoglu, M. Cavusoglu, & A. Corbaci (Eds.), Advances in
global business and economics (Part 1, pp. 134-139). University of South Florida Scholar
Commons.
Ferreira, A., da Costa Ferreira, P., Cooper, C., & Oliveira, D. (2019). How daily negative affect
and emotional exhaustion correlate with work engagement and presenteeism constrained
productivity. International Journal of Stress Management, 26, 261–271.
Ferriss, A. L. (2002). Studying and measuring civility: A framework, trends, and scale.
Sociological Inquiry, 72, 376-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-682X.t01-1-00023
Flaherty, C. (2016). Forgotten chairs. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/12/01/new-study-suggests-training-
department-chairs-woefully-inadequate-most-institutions
Fogg, P. (2008). Academic bullies. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(3), B10-B19.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health
status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50(3), 571–579.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.571.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational
approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute
resolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61, 220-
241.
Fulton-Calkins, P., & Milling, C. (2006). Community college leadership: An art to be practiced:
2010 and beyond. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29, 233-250.

164

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gavins, R. (2016). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Semantic Scholar.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316216453.097
Girardi, P., Monaco, E., Prestigiacomo, C., Talamo, A., Ruberto, A., &Tatarelli, R. (2007).
Personality and psychopathological profiles in individuals exposed to mobbing. Violence
and Victims, 22, 172-188.
Giga, S., Hoel, H., & Lewis, D. (2008). The costs of bullying. Dignity at Work Partnership,
University of Bradford. A Partnership Project Funded Jointly by Unite the Union and the
Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform.
Glambeck, M., Skogstad A., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Take it or leave: A five-year prospective
study of workplace bullying and indicators of expulsion in working life. Industrial
Health. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/indhealth/advpub/0/advpub_2014-0195/_pdf
Glaso, L., Matthiesen, S., Nielsen, M., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Do targets of workplace bullying
portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(4),
313–319. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.csn.edu/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00554.x
Gmelch, W. (2000). Rites of passage: Transition to deanship. Paper presented at the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Conference. Chicago, IL.
Gmelch, W., & Miskin, V. (2011). Sources of stress for academic department chairpersons.
Journal of Educational Administration, 32, 79-94. doi:10.1108/09578239410051862
Gmelch, W., Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. (1999). The academic dean: An
imperiled species searching for balance. Research in Higher Education, 40, 717-740.

165

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &
F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7-28.
Gonaim, F. (2016). A department chair: A lifeguard without a life jacket. Higher Education
Policy, 29, 272-286.
Gonzales, L., & Ayers, D. (2018). The convergence of institutional logics on the community
college sector and the normalization of emotional labor: A new theoretical approach for
considering the community college faculty labor expectations. The Review of Higher
Education, 41(3), 455-478.
Goodboy, A., Martin, M., & Bolkan, S. (2017). Workplace bullying and work engagement: A
self-determination model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-23.
Griffeth, R., Horn, P., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of
employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next
millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Hansen, A., Hogh, A., & Persson, R. (2011). Frequency of bullying at work, physiological
response, and mental health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70(1), 19-27.
Harrington, S., Rayner, C., & Warren, S. (2012). Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource
practitioners’ implementation of anti-bullying policy. Human Resource Management
Journal, 22, 392-408. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12004
Hassard, J., Teoh, K., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P., & Cox, T., (2018). The cost of work-related
stress to society: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
23(1), 1-17.

166

Hauge, L., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21,
220-242. doi:10.1080/02678370701705810
Harvey, S., Modini, M., Joyce, S., Milligan-Saville, J., Tan, L., Mykletun, S., & Mitchell, P.
(2017). Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk
factors for common mental health problems. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
74(4), 72-79.
Healthy Workplace Bill, (2020). Workplace Bullying Institute, Retrieved from
https://workplacebullying.org/hwb/
Heams, J., & Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment. Management
Decision, 44(9), 1214-30.
Hecht, I. W. (2004). The professional development of department chairs. New Directions for
Higher Education, 126, 27-44.
Hellemans, C., Dal Cason, D., & Casini, A. (2017). Bystander helping behavior in response to
workplace bullying. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76(4), 135-144.
Hershcovis, M. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my!”: A call to reconcile
constructs within the workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 499-519.
Hershcovis, M., Neville, L., Reich, T., Christie, A., Cortina, L., & Shan, J. (2017). Witnessing
wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 45-57.

167

Hodgins, M., & McNamara, P. (2017). Bullying and incivility in higher education workplaces:
Micropolitics and the abuse of power. Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 190-206.
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V., Lopez, S. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: Workplace bullying
in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupation, 33(4), 384-416.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. British Occupational
Health Research Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.bollettinoadapt.it/old/files/document/19764Destructiveconfl.pdf
Hoel, H., Cooper, C., & Einarsen, S. (2020). Organizational effects of workplace bullying. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed., pp. 209-234). Taylor & Francis.
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2020). Investigating complaints of bullying and harassment. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, (pp. 3-40). Taylor and
Francis.
Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C., & Enarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as
predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of
Management, 21, 453-468. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00664.x
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper and I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14,
195-230.

168

Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zaft, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace.
International perspectives in research and practice. Taylor & Francis.
Hogh, A., Hoel, H., & Carneiro, I. (2011). Bullying and employee turnover among healthcare
workers: A three-wave prospective study. Journal of Nursing Management, 19, 742-751.
DOI; J.1365-2/34.2011.0124.x
Hollis, L. (2015a). Bully university? The cost of workplace bullying and employee
disengagement in American higher education. Sage Open, 5(2), 1-11.
doi:10.1177/2158244015589997
Hollis, L. (2015b). Take the bull by the horns: Structural approach to minimize workplace
bullying for women in American Higher Education. Oxford Roundtable Presentation,
Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030897
Hollis, L. (2016). The coercive community college: Bullying and its costly impact on the mission
to serve underrepresented populations. Diversity in Higher Education 18, 1-26.
Hollis, L. (2017a). Evasive actions: The gendered cycle of dress and coping for those enduring
workplace bullying in American higher education. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3030904 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3030904
Hollis, L. (2017b). Workplace bullying in the United States and Canada: Organizational
accountability required in higher education. Comparative Civilizations Review, 76, article
13.
Home | Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2019). Osha.gov.
https://www.osha.gov/
Home Page. (n.d., 2019a). AACC. https://www.aacc.nche.edu

169

Homepage - Complete College America. (2017). Complete College America.
https://completecollege.org/
Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (2000). Interpersonal competency in sex offenders. Behavior
Modification, 24(4), 494–527.
Hutchinson, J. (2016b). Rethinking workplace bullying as an employee relations problem.
Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(5), 637-652.
Jacobs, J., & Worth, J. (2019). The evolving mission of workforce development in the community
college. Columbia University. doi:10.7916/d8-w5pw-eg92
Karp, M., & Bork, R.(2012). “They never told me what to expect, so I didn’t know what to do”:
Defining and clarifying the role of a community college student (Working Paper No. 47).
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Kartuna, I. (2015). Targets, coping with workplace bullying: A qualitative study. Qualitative
Research of Organizations and Management an International Journal, 10(1), 21-37.
Kayode, K., Eluwole, T., Lasisi, T., & Avci, T. (2018). Demystifying the antecedents in the
hospitality industry. In C. Cobanoglu, M. Cavusoglu, & A. Corbaci (Eds.), Advances in
global business and economics (Part 1, pp. 134-139). Scholar Commons University of
South Florida.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviors and
bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zaph, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace. Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.,
pp. 41-71). Taylor & Francis.

170

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education:
Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(1), 48-70.
doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. (2012). Bullying in higher education: What current research,
theorizing, and practice tell us. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education
(pp. 15-36). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122938
Keashly, L., Tye-Williams, S., & Jagatic, K. (2020). By any other name: North American
perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd
ed., pp. 55-102). Taylor & Francis.
Kelloway, E. K. (2017). Mental health in the workplace: Towards evidence-based practice.
Canadian Psychology/psychologie canadienne, 58(1), 1.
Kelloway, E., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling, E.
Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Sage.
Kesby, D. (2008). Exploring the power of action learning. KM Review, 11(5), 26-29.
King, C., & Piotrowski, C. (2015). Bullying of educators by educators: Incivility in higher
education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 8(4), 257.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Barrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria Atd Press.
Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness absence in
hospital staff. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 57, 656-660.

171

Kivimaki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovinio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L.
(2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(10), 779-783.
Kligyte, G., & Barrie, S. (2014). Collegiality: Leading us into fantasy - The paradoxical
resilience of collegiality in academic leadership. Higher Education Research and
Development, 33(1), 157-169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.864613
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krishnaveni, R., & Sujatha, R. (2012). Communities of practice: An influencing factor for
effective knowledge transfer in organizations. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management,
10(1), 26-40.
Kuhnert, K., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A
constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Prentice-
Hall.
Leach, L., Too, L., Batterham, P., Kiely, K., Christensen, H., & Butterworth P. (2020).
Workplace bullying and suicidal ideation: Findings from an Australian longitudinal
cohort study of mid-aged workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 7(4), 1448.
Leck, J., & Galperin, B. (2006). Worker responses to bully bosses. Canadian Public Policy,
32(1), 85-97.
Lee, A. (2020). Toward a conceptual model of hierarchical microaggression in higher education
settings: A literature review. Educational Review, 11.

172

Lester, J. (2009). Not your child’s playground: Workplace bullying among community college
faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(5), 444-462.
Lever, I., Dyball, D., Greenberg, N., & Stevelink, S. (2019). Health consequences of bullying in
the healthcare workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(12),
3195-3209. doi:10.1111/Jan.13986.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,5,
119–126.
Leymann, H. (1993). Mobbing - Psychoterror am Areisplatz und wie man sich dagegen wehren
kann (Mobbing - psychoterror in the workplace and how one can defend themselves).
Reinbeck: Rowohlts.
Leymann, H., & Gustaffson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of post-traumatic
stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 251-275.
Li, J., Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (2016). The effects of proximal withdrawal
states on job attitudes, job searching, intent to leave, and employee turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1436-1456.
Liefooghe, A., & Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the
organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 375-392.
Long, A. B. (2018). Retaliation backlash. Washington Law Review, 93, 715.
Lucas, A. & Associates (2000). Leading academic change: Essential roles for department
chairs. Jossey Bass.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse.
Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4), 471-501.

173

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & McDermott, V. (2011). Making sense of supervisory bullying: Perceived
powerlessness, empowered possibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 74(4), 342-
368.
Magee, C., Gordon, R., Robinson, L., Caputi, P., & Oades, L. (2017). Workplace bullying and
absenteeism: The mediating roles of poor health and work engagement. Human Resource
Management Journal, 27, 319-334.
Manz, C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600.
Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of
social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72, 413-434. doi:10-
1007/s10734-016-0015-x.
Matthiesen, G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2-configurations among victims of bullying at
work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 467-484.
Matthiesen, G., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among
victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(2), 335-
356.
Matthiesen, G., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress
and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 22(6), 85-104.
Matthiesen, G., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2008). The occurrences and correlates of bullying
and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 59-68.
doi:10.1111/j.1467.-9450.2007.00602.x
McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia: A
Canadian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(2), 77-100.

174

McKinney, L., & Hagedorn, L. (2017). Performance-based funding for community colleges: Are
colleges disadvantaged by serving the most disadvantaged students? Journal of Higher
Education, 88(2), 159–182.
Meares, M., Oetzel, J. Tores, A., Derkacs, D., & Ginossar, T. (2004). Employee mistreatment
and muted voices in the culturally diverse workplace. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 31(1), 4-27.
Meliá, J. L., & Becerril, M. (2007). Psychosocial sources of stress and burnout in the
construction sector: A structural equation model. Psicothema, 19(4), 679–686.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d., 2020a). Actor. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
December 17, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actor
Merriam-Webster. (n.d., 2020b). Bystander. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
December 17, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bystander
Merriam-Webster. (n.d., 2020c). Perpetrate. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
December 17, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate
Merriam-Webster. (n.d., 2020d). Target. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
December 17, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/target
Merriam-Webster. (n.d., 2020e). Victim. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
December 17, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim
Merriam-Webster. (n.d., 2020f). Witness. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
December 17, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witness
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

175

Meseguer, M., Soler Sánchez, M. I., Navarro, M. C. S., & Izquierdo, M. G. (2008). Workplace
mobbing and effects on workers' health. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 219-
27.
Mikkelsen, E., Hansen, A., Persson, R., Byrgesen, M., & Hogh, A. (2020). Individual
consequences of being exposed to workplace bullying. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D.
Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory,
research and practice (3rd ed., pp. 163-208). Taylor & Francis.
Mitchell, R. (2015). Fifty state systems of community colleges: Mission, governance, funding,
and accountability (4th ed.). Community College Review, 43(2), 217-219.
Morris, T. L., & Laipple, J. S. (2015). How prepared are academic administrators? Leadership
and job satisfaction within US research universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy
& Management, 37(2), 241–251. https://doi-org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019125
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
Mountjoy, J. (2021). Community colleges and upward mobility (No. w29254). National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Namie, G. (2011). Healthy workplace bill. Retrieved from Workplace Bullying Institute:
https://workplacebullying.org/hwb/
Namie, G. (2017). 2017 Workplace Bullying Institute U.S. workplace bullying survey. Minnesota
Association of Professional Employees. Retrieved June 23, 2018, from
https://www.workplacebullying.org/wbiresearch/wbi-2017-
survey/https://www.workplacebullying.org/2017-us-survey/

176

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2004). Workplace bullying: How to address America’s silent epidemic.
Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8(2), 315-334.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009a). The bully at work: What you can do to stop hurt and reclaim
your dignity on the job, 2
nd
ed. Sourcebooks, Inc.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009b). U.S. Workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and
consultation interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
61(3), 202-219. https://www.doi-org/10.1037/a0016670
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009c). Workplace bullying and mobbing: Organizational consultation
strategies. U.S. workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consultation
interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal Special Issue, 61(3), 202-219.
Naseem, K., & Ahmed, A. (2020). Presenteeism as a consequence of workplace bullying:
Mediating role of emotional exhaustion and moderation of climate for conflict
management. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 14(1), 143–
166. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/216868
National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. (1998). A changing understanding of
community college faculty. Change, 30(6), 43-46.
Neall, A., & Tuckey, M. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and
consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 87(2), 225-257.
Neto, M., Ferreira, A., Martinez, L., & Ferreira, P. (2017). Workplace bullying and
presenteeism: The path through emotional exhaustion and psychological wellbeing,
Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 61(5), 528–538,
https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx022

177

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of
Management, 24, 391–419.
Niedhammer, I., Chastang, J., Sultan-Taieb, H., Vermeylen, G., & Parent-Thirion, A. (2012).
Psychosocial work factor and sickness absence in 31 countries in Europe. European
Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 622-628.
Niedl, K. (1995). Mobbing/bullying am Arbeitsplatz [Bullying at work]. Munchen, Germany:
Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Nielsen, M. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 54, 127-136. DOI:10.1111.sjop.12011
Nielsen, M., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-
analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 309-332,
DOI:10.1080/02678373.2012.734709
Nielsen, M., & Einarsen, S. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should
and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and
agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 71-83.
Nielsen, M. B., Einarsen, S., Notelaers, G., & Nielsen, G. H. (2016). Does exposure to bullying
behaviors at the workplace contribute to later suicidal ideation? A three-wave
longitudinal study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 42(3), 246-
250.
Nielsen, M., Glaso, L., & Einarsen, S. (2017). Exposure to workplace harassment and the five
factor model of personality: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,
104, 195-206.

178

Nielsen, M., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2016). Exposure to aggression in the workplace.
The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of occupational safety and workplace
health (pp. 205-227). Wiley-Blackwell.
Nielsen, M., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Measuring exposure to workplace bullying. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace. Developments in theory, research and practice (pp. 149-175). Taylor &
Francis.
Niven, K., Ng, K., & Hoel, H. (2020). The bystanders of workplace bullying. In S. V. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace:
Theory, research and practice (pp. 385-408). CRC Press.
Northhouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.) Sage.
Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2013). The world turns at 33 and 45: Defining simple cutoff scores
for the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised in a representative sample, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 670-682. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2012.690558
Notelaers, G., Van der Heijden, B., Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2019). Measuring bullying at work
with the short-negative acts questionnaire: Identification of targets and criterion validity.
Work & Stress, 33(1), 58-75. DOI:10.1080/02678373.2018.1457736
NRS: CHAPTER 281 - GENERAL PROVISIONS. (n.d.). Www.leg.state.nv.us. Retrieved March
27, 2022, from https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-281.html#NRS281Sec631
NSHE handbook & policies. (n.d.). Nevada System of Higher Education. Retrieved March 26,
2022, from https://nshe.nevada.edu/leadership-policy/nshe-handbook-policies/

179

O’Connell, M., & Kung, M. (2007). The cost of employee turnover. Industrial Management,
49(1), 14-19.
Olive, K., & Cangemi, J. (2015). Workplace bullies: Why they are successful and what can be
done about it? Organizational Development Journal, 33(2), 19-31.
Ortega, A., Christensen, K., High, A., Rugulies, R., & Borg, V. (2011). One-year prospective
study on the effect of workplace bullying on long-term sickness absence. Journal of
Nursing Management, 19, 752-759.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Paglis, L. (2010). Leadership self-efficacy: Research findings and practical applications. The
Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 771-782. http://dx. DOI.org
/10.1108/02621711011072487
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://222.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander: A typology of
the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
50(3), 315-366.
Personnel (2000-2999) - TMCC Policy Manual - Truckee Meadows Community College. (n.d.).
Www.tmcc.edu. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://www.tmcc.edu/tmcc-policy-
manual/personnel-2000-2999
Pink, D. H. (2018). DRIVE: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Canongate Books Ltd.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 667-686.

180

Pouwelse, M., Mulder, R., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2021). The role of bystanders in workplace
bullying: an overview of theories and empirical research. Pathways of job-related
negative behaviour, 385-422.
Rafnsdottir, G., & Tomasson, K. (2004). Bullying, work organization and employee well-being.
Laeknabladid, 90(12), 847-851.
Rayner, C., & Lewis, D. (2020). Managing workplace bullying: The role of policies. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, (pp. 3-40). Taylor and
Francis.
Redding, W. C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication.
Communication Education, 34(3), 245–258. https://
DOI.org/10.1080/03634528509378613
Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic
labor. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Richardson, R., Hall, R., & Joiner, S. (2016). Workplace bullying in the United States: An
analysis of state court cases. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), Article 1256594
https:// DOI.org/10.1080/2331195.2016.1256594.
Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Robinson, S. B., & Kimberly Firth Leonard. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Rocker, C. (2012). Responsibility of a frontline manager regarding staff bullying. OJIN: The
Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18(2), T02.

181

Romeo, L., Balducci, C., Emanuele, Q., Riolfi, A., Pelizza, L., Serpelloni, A., Tisato, S., &
Perbellini, L. (2013). MMPI-2 personality profiles and suicidal ideation and behavior in
victims of bullying at work: A follow-up study. Violence and Victims, 28(6), 1000-1014/
Rueda. R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College
Press.
Salin, D. (2008a). The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource
management: measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 24(3), 221-231. https: DOI.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.04.004
Salin, D. (2008b). Way of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10),
1213-1232.
Salin, D. (2020). Human resource management and bullying: Part of the problem or part of the
solution? In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed., pp. 521-540).
Taylor & Francis.
Salin, D., Cowan, R., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., Djurkovic, N.,
Durniat, K., Escartin, J., Guo, J., Isik, I., Koszegi, S., McCormack, D., Montserrat, S., &
Zedlacher, E. (2018). Workplace bullying across the globe: A cross-cultural comparison.
Personnel Review, 48(1), 204-219. doi:http://dx. DOI.org /10.1108/PR-03-2017-0092
Samnani, A., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the
antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 17, 581-589.

182

Samnani, A., & Singh, P. (2016). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between
individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 537-549. http://dx.
DOI.org /10.1007/s10551-015-2653-x
Saundry, R., Jones, C., & Antcliff, V. (2011). Discipline, representations and dispute resolution -
exploring the role of trade unions and employee companions in workplace discipline.
Industrial Relations Journal, 42(2), 195-211.
Schacter, H., Greenberg, S., & Juvonen, J. (2016). Who’s to blame?: The effects of victim
disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 57,
115-121.
Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Scott, W. (2013). Organizational theory and higher education. Journal of Organizational Theory
in Higher Education, 1(1), 35-47.
Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of
Applied Research, 3(7), 749-752.
Shearon, R., & Tollefson, T. (1989). Community colleges. In S. B. Merriam & P. C.
Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 332-331). Jossey-
Bass.
Simons, S. (2008). Workplace bullying experienced by Massachusetts registered nurses and the
relationship to intention to leave the organization. Advances in Nursing Science, 31(2),
E48-E59.

183

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., & Hetland, H. (2007). The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12(1), 80-92. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Smith, F., & Coel, C. (2018). Workplace bullying policies, higher education, and the First
Amendment: Building bridges, not walls, First Amendment Studies, 52(1-2), 96-111.
Snyder, T. D. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2017. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Staff, H. (2022, January 10). Mental health hotline numbers and referral resources,
HealthyPlace. Retrieved on 2022, June 2 from https://www.healthyplace.com/other-
info/resources/mental-health-hotline-numbers-and-referral-resources
Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
Sterud, T., Hem, E., Lau, B. & Ekeberg, O. (2008). Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in a
nationwide sample of operational Norwegian ambulance personnel. Journal of
Occupational Health, 50(5), 406-414.
Strandmark, K., Rahm, G., Larsson, B., Nordstrom, G., & Rystedt, I. (2017). Preventive
strategies and processes to counteract bullying in health care settings: Focus group
discussions. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 38(2), 113-121.
Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward
a social-ecological diathesis-stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344–353.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178–190.

184

Tollefson, T. (2009). Community college governance, funding, and accountability: A century of
issues and trends, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3-4), 386-
402, DOI: 10.1080/10668920802580481
Thirlwall, A. (2015). Organizational sequestering of workplace bullying: Adding insult to injury.
Journal of Management and Organization, 21(2), 145-158.
Tokarev, A., Phillips, A., Hughes, D., & Irwing, P. (2017). Leader dark traits, workplace
bullying, and employee depression: Exploring mediation and the role of the dark core,
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 911-920.
Townsend, B., Bragg, D., & Kinnick, M. (2001). Taking stock of the literature on community
colleges. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of Council for the Study of Community
Colleges, Washington, DC.
Townsend, B., Donaldson, J., & Wilson, T. (2009). Marginal or monumental? Visibility of
Community Colleges in Selected Higher-Education Journals, Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 33(9), 708-720, DOI: 10.1080/10668920903022441
Townsend, B., & LaPaglia, N. (2000). Are we marginalized within academe? Perception of two-
year college faculty. Community College Review, 36(1), 5-24.
DOI:10.1177/0091552108319538
Tracey, J., & Hinkin, T. (2008). Contextual factors and cost profiles associated with employee
turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(1), 12-27.
Troester-Trate, K. (2020). Food insecurity, inadequate childcare, & transportation disadvantage:
Student retention and persistence of community college students. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 44(8), 608-622. DOI:http://dx. DOI.org
/10.1080/10668926.2019.1627956

185

Twale, D., & De Luca, B. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and
what to do about it. Jossey-Bass.
Twombly, S. (2005). Values, policies, and practices affecting the hiring process for full-time arts
and sciences faculty in community colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 423-
447.
Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know and need to
know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5-24.
Tynes T., Johannesse, H., & Sterud, T. (2013). Work-related psychosocial and organizational
risk factors for headache: A 3-year follow-up study of the general working population in
Norway. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55(12), 1436-1442.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2015, April 16). Privacy. HHS.gov.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2019). EEOC Home Page. Eeoc.gov.
https://www.eeoc.gov/
U.S. Office of the President. (2010). Building American skills through community colleges.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/White-House-Summit-
on-Community-Colleges-Fact_Sheet-100510.pdf
United States Census Bureau (2020). Quick facts. Retrieved from https://www.
census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying - psychological work environment and organizational
climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 203-214.

186

Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S. & Molendijk, M. (2015). Workplace bullying and mental health: A meta-
analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PLoS One, 10(8), 0135225. https://
DOI.org/115610.1371/journal.pone.0135225.
Von Bergen, Z., Zavaletta, J., & Soper, B. (2006). Legal remedies for workplace bullying:
Grabbing the bull by the horns. Employee Relations Law Journal, 14-41.
Waldron, V. (2009). Emotional tyranny at work: Suppressing the moral emotions. In P. Lutgen-
Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), The destructive side of organizational communication:
Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing (pp. 7-26).
Routledge/LEA.
Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy
through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal (Online), 1.
Westhues, K. (2004). Envy of excellence: Administrative mobbing of high-achieving professors.
E. Mellen Press.
Williams, M., Nourie-Manuele, M. (2018). The role of the community college in addressing
poverty. New Directions for Community Colleges, 184, Wiley Online Library.
DOI:10.10032/cc.20324.
Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for leadership: What academic
department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
27(2), 227-238. DOI:10.1080/13600800500120126
Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. (2017). Leadership and approaches to the management of workplace
bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 1-13.
DOI:10.1180/1359432X.2016.1243529.
Workplace Bullying Institute. (2020). Workplacebullying.org. https://workplacebullying.org/

187

Yamada, D. C. (1999). The phenomenon of workplace bullying and the need for status-blind
hostile work environment protection. Georgetown Law Journal, 88, 475.
Yamada, D. C. (2007). Potential legal protections and liabilities for workplace bullying. New
Workplace Institute. Retrieved from http://www.newworkplaceinstitute.org/bullying.php.
Zapf, D. (1999a). Mobbing in organizations: A state of the art review. Magazine for Work and
Organizational Psychology, 43, 1-25.
Zapf, D., Escartin, J., Scheppa-Lahyani, M., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2020).
Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed., pp. 105-162). Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victim and perpetrators. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zaft, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace. International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 183-202). Taylor &
Francis.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the
Workplace. In S. Eiarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper. Bullying and harassment in the
workplace. Developments in theory, research and practice (2nd edition). Taylor &
Francis.
Zapf, C., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10, 497-522.

188

APPENDIXES
Appendix A
Proposed Qualitative Questions
Questio
n
Number
Open-ended Question Qualifier,
Research
Question, or
Characteristi
c
(See Notes
for details)
Conceptual
Framework
(See Notes
for more
information)

Possible Follow-up Question
1 How many faculty do you
supervise?
D1 NA
2 How long have you been a
DC?
D2 NA
3 How long have you been at
(CSN, GBC, TMCC, or
WNC)?
D3 NA
4 How many full-time and part-
time faculty are there in your
department?
D4

NA

5 What disciplines
(degree/certificate) programs
fall under your department?
D5

NA
6 How many departments are
there at your institution?
D6 NA
7 Are you currently serving as
DC in a Nevada CC serving
within the last 3 years for a
minimum of 1 year?
Criterion 1 NA
8 What are the individual
consequences of bullying at
your institution?
RQ1 FK1 What are the institutional
costs of bullying at your
institution?
9 What specific behaviors or
actions would qualify as
bullying?
RQ1 FK2 How often do these have to
occur to be considered
bullying?
What might be considered
subtler forms of bullying?
10 What role does power or
perceived power play in
bullying?
RQ1 CK2 Is the power real or
perceived?
11 Describe the steps involved
in responding to reported
bullying?
RQ1 PK1 At what point would you end
an investigation?
How would you follow up
with the target? Alleged
bully?
What would motivate a
faculty member to report
witnessing or being bullied?

189

12 How confident are you in
addressing bullying in your
department?
RQ1 MSE1 What are the lessons you’ve
learned from your
experience?
What role does
communication play in
bullying resolution?
How would you approach an
alleged bullying who is
dismissive or flippant?
Would you describe a case
where poor communication
backfired, if any?
13 What are the benefits of
effectively addressing
bullying in your department,
if any?
RQ1 MUV1 What if individuals felt that
the resolution was unfair or
biased?
How important is it to resolve
a complaint promptly?
Are there circumstances when
the bullying complaint must
wait?
14 What are indications that
your college supports an
environment free from
bullying, if any?

RQ2 CM1

15 What are examples of
retaliatory actions taken
against faculty who have
reported bullying, if any?
RQ2 CM2 Are you aware of anyone who
came forward to support
them?
16 What antibullying policies
exist at your college, if any?
RQ2 CS1 What are overt and covert
examples of their position?
How is this demonstrated?
17 Describe any antibullying
training you received as DC,
if any?
RQ2 CS2 How has this worked or not
worked?
What percentage of faculty
are aware of this option and
why?
Notes Qualifier: D: Demographic Data. Differences in participants’ leadership and life
experiences and organizational structure and leadership preparation differences. RQ1.What are
department chairs’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing strategies to eliminate
bullying in their departments? RQ2.What is the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yeth5v_5dPM interaction between organizational culture
and context and department chairs’ knowledge and motivation for implementing strategies to
eliminate bullying in their departments? Conceptual Framework: FK: factual knowledge; CK:
conceptual knowledge; PK: procedural knowledge; MSE: Motivation- Self-efficacy; MUV:
Motivation-Utility Value; CM: Cultural Model; CS: Cultural Setting

190

Appendix B
Proposed Document Analysis
Document or Artifact related to
Participant
Search Items

Conceptual Framework
FK: factual knowledge;
CK: conceptual
knowledge;
PK: procedural
knowledge;
MSE: Motivation- Self-
efficacy;
MUV: Motivation-Utility
Value
CM: Cultural Model
CS: Cultural Setting

Institutional Website ● Institution location,
population (students & staff)
● Organizational structure
● Bullying Policy (applied to all)
● Grievance Procedure
● Mission, Vision, and Values

● FK

● CK, CS
● PK, CS
● PK, CS
● CK, CS
Institutional Newsletters, Senior
Leadership Memos
● Leadership support of
collegiality
● Communication Frequency

● CM

● CM
Institutional Human Resource
Department’s webpage
● Employee Assistance
Program
● Other Health Benefits
● Services of the Institutional
Equity Office
● Resolution of Grievances
● Employee Discipline Policy
● DC annual evaluation criteria
regarding conflict resolution
or the number of recorded
grievances

● FK
● FK
● FK, CS
● PK
● FK, PK, CS
● MSE, MUV
Institutional Faculty Governance or
Faculty Senate
● Mention of collegiality
● Mention of faculty civility
● DC evaluation policy
regarding conflict resolution

● FK, CS
● FK, CS
● MUV
System Website (if part of a
multicampus CC or district)
● Bullying Policy (applied to all)
● Mission, Vision, and Values
● Mention of collegiality
● PK, CS
● PK, CS
● FK, CS

191

● Mention of faculty civility

● FK, CS
Accrediting Body’s (NWCCS, WASC)
Website
● Bullying Policy (applied to all)
● Mention of collegiality
● Mention of faculty civility

● PK, CS
● FK, CS
● FK, CS
State Government Website or
Summary of State Laws Site
● Antibullying Workforce Law

● FK, CS

192

Appendix C
Evaluation Questions
Declarative Knowledge (I know it) Item
Know the timing involved that qualifies as
"persistent."
(QUAN) Repeated verbal comments
referring to a faculty member's limited work
experience that occurs 9 months apart qualify
as bullying? (SA, A, D, SD)
Know what actions are bullying and what
are not
(QUAL) Provide examples of perpetrator
actions that would not qualify as bullying,
and why not?
Procedural Knowledge (I can do it)
Understand when to involve HR and the
OIE
(QUAN) Upon learning about a potential
case of several faculty bullying other faculty
in their area, I should immediately consult
with the Office of Institutional Equity. (SA,
A, D, SD)
Understand which actions violate faculty
collegiality policy
(QUAL) How do institutional Faculty
Bylaws referring to collegiality apply to
severe and persistent criticism by a male
faculty?
Attitude (I believe this is worthwhile)
Determine DCs' perception of the value of
antibullying training.
(QUAN) How valuable is this training in
preventing bullying in my department? (1
(not at all valuable) to 10 (extremely
valuable))
Determine how DCs' value perception
changed as a result of training.
(QUAL) How does your perception of the
value of our training previous to training
differ from how you think now?

193

Confidence (I think I can do it)
Determine if DCs are confident in dealing
with bullying in their departments.
(QUAN) I am confident about how to deal
with bullying in my department. (SA, A, D,
SD)
Determine if DCs actions of those in
hierarchical power are misinterpreted.
(QUAL) How would you explain to a senior
faculty member how repeated criticism of a
tenure-track new hire might be perceived as
bullying?
Commitment (I will do it on the job)
Determine if DCs are committed to dealing
with bullying cases promptly.
(QUAN) I am committed to handling
potential bullying cases promptly. (SA, A, D,
SD)
Determine if DCs prioritize bullying as their
job duties.
(QUAL) How important is addressing
bullying when your plate is full of other
duties?
Engagement
Understanding which behaviors would be
considered bullying was engaging.
(QUAN) The presentation on what behaviors
constitute bullying engaged you? (SA, A, D,
SD)
Understand if dealing with, "he said . . . "she
said" cases were engaging.
(QUAL) What, if anything, did you find
engaging in the Zoom training on dealing
with conflicting stories?
Relevance
Determine if the selected case studies and
examples paralleled "real-life" examples.
(QUAN) The case studies and examples used
were similar to those in your department.
(SA, A, D, SD)
Determine if the selected case studies and
examples paralleled "real-life" examples.
(QUAL) Describe how case studies
paralleled past situations in your department.

194

Participant Satisfaction
Understand if DCs found the connection
between leadership style and bullying
satisfying.
(QUAN) I found the segment on leadership
informative and insightful (SA, A, D, SD)
Understand what DCs' major takeaways
were.
(QUAL) What were your most satisfying
training takeaways?

195

Appendix D
Blended Evaluation Tools
Level Question
L1: Reaction In training, what I learned has been valuable
in dealing with bullying within my
department. Describe how.
L2: Learning After the workshop, I conducted an informal
inquiry into a bullying case more effectively.
How did it change?
L3: Behavior My fellow department chairs and I refer to
the job aid when bullying occurs in our
departments. Explain why.
L4: Results I determine if reported actions qualify as
bullying, identify applicable codes or
policies, and discuss options and procedures
with targets of bullying. Explain your
process.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study triangulates interview data from 12 department chairs from 3 of 4 Nevada community colleges with publicly available documents at each community college in the Nevada system of higher education (NSHE), NSHE codes, and federal employment laws. This study examined performance gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (Clark and Estes, 2008) that contribute to bullying among academic faculty and the role of department chairs as key stakeholders.
The study determined a lack of factual knowledge of individual affects, organizational consequences, and procedural knowledge in responses to bullying . Department chairs (DC) reported limited self-efficacy and lacked perceived utility value based on past events and resistance to organizational change. Cultural models reviewed an organization that promoted a reluctance to action and no incentives for effective conflict resolution. Additionally, institutions were void of anti-bullying policies or were unknown to DCs.
Lastly, none of the participants reported formal institutional training in bullying. The final chapter examined training recommendations based on validated gaps and outlined Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level evaluation plan in reverse order. The researcher suggested that anti-bullying training for all academic leadership will support a collegial environment and reduce the personnel hours involved in addressing ongoing bullying cases.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Fostering a climate that prevents workplace bullying

PDF

Promising practices in preventing bullying in K-12 schools: student engagement

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

PDF

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives

PDF

Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

Evaluating the relationship between communication, trust, and retention at Tombstone Police Department

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of healthcare volunteers in addressing social determinants of health

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Tanaka, Lester Mikio (author)

Core Title The role of community college department chairs in the prevention of bullying

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/24/2022

Defense Date 06/01/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bullying prevention,community college,negative acts questionnaire-revised,OAI-PMH Harvest,subtle retaliation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kim (committee chair), Banuelos, Sheila (committee member), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member)

Creator Email lestertanaka@gmail.com,lmtanaka@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375411

Unique identifier UC111375411

Legacy Identifier etd-TanakaLest-10952

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Tanaka, Lester Mikio

Type texts

Source 20220728-usctheses-batch-962 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu