For the Health of It: An Analysis of Faculty Wellness and Workplace Bullying

• In Event: 34.074 - Faculty Development: Well-Being, Workplace Bullying, and Faculty Networks

Abstract

Several international studies consider the frequency and impact of workplace bullying on a variety of work sectors (Einarsen, & Nielsen, 2015; Finne, Knardahl, & Lau, 2011; Rodríguez-Muñoz, Notelaers, & Moreno-Jiménez, 2011). In contrast, American research on workplace bullying tends to have a litigious focus, while European studies consider workplace bullying a threat to employees’ wellness (Hollis, 2017). In the absence of a volume of literature addressing workplace bullying and faculty wellness, this study considers the relationship between this abuse and faculty. Further, this analysis considers the institutional policy as a mitigating variable that might have a positive impact on faculty wellness.
In late 2017, I collected data from faculty regarding their experiences with workplace bullying and wellness, such as insomnia, alcohol use, seeking a counselor, sedative use, and suicidal ideation. Table 1 shows the gender and position percentage for the respondents in this analysis. Eighty-seven percent of respondents (n = 174/180) answered that they had been affected by workplace bullying. Further, respondents were asked, “How did the organization react to the bully?” Seventy-one percent reported that the university/college did nothing to address bullying. Another 28% reported that the organization actually supported bullying. When asked if they had left a previous higher education position to avoid workplace bullying, 38% offered an affirmative answer. Also, through this instrument, several faculty members reported insomnia, increased alcohol intake, counseling, and sedatives (see Table 2).
Presumably, organizations have a duty of care to keep employees safe from harm (Bible, 2008; Boyle, 2008; Ivensky, 2015). In fact, Ford (2014) asserts that employment law creates a duty of care that would minimize hardship and discrimination for employees. In turn, organizations can respond by prohibiting the higher rates of workplace bullying in higher education that currently stands at 57% (Hollis, 2018), a rate 20% higher than the general United States workforce (Namie & Namie, 2009).
Respondents were asked to consider their respective workplace bullying policies. Only 12%(n = 17) stated that their organization effectively implemented an anti-workplace bullying policy. Eighty-seven percent reported no anti-workplace bullying. Table 3 shows the reported health concerns of respondents from institutions with effective policies and those from institutions without effective policies.
While the descriptive statistics show a higher frequency for health issues for faculty working without an anti-workplace bullying policy, with the Chi-square analyses showing a positive relationship, this was not a statistically significant difference. Only two of the variables had a count of five or higher to support a valid chi-square test (see Tables 4 and 5). All tests confirmed a positive relationship; if there is a policy prohibiting workplace bullying, many faculty members report better wellness. As Swarbrick, D'Antonio, and Nemec (2011) state, a "well" staff is more productive and experiences less absenteeism. Both the faculty employee and higher education employer should engage in a “conscious and deliberate” process, which is internally motivated by the individual to engage better wellness practices (Swarbrick et al., 2011).

Author

• Leah P. Hollis, Morgan State University