Mobbing (from the English verb to mob — to be rude, attack in a crowd, in a flock, to poison) is a form of psychological violence in the form of bullying an employee in a team with a view to his subsequent dismissal. Mobbing appears in the form of psychological harassment of an employee that occurs for a long time and includes negative statements, unreasonable criticism of the employee, social isolation, and the dissemination of knowingly false information about the employee.
University/academic mobbing cannot be considered in isolation from the institutional and socio-economic crises, which, for example, today help make the impossible possible: teachers begin to lose their jobs in the middle of the school year. However, before talking about the factors that determine the specifics of modern university mobbing, we should recall the causes and methods of repression and persecution that are stereotypical, “old like the world” (cf. Renee Gerard. Scapegoat) and are often uncontextual. Let's call them “basic” for convenience. The “basic” reasons for university mobbing include those in which:
1. The object of mobbing is often a highly qualified teacher/researcher who actively demonstrates his independence, professionalism and zeal. He poses a “threat” to the team and management when the team is in a state of latent mobbing, but is always appointed a “victim” in the event of an economic crisis or reorganization.
2. Both young professionals and elderly, senior employees, as well as those who are considered “ballast” by the team, are the targets of mobbing. Their fate may depend on changes in external conditions or on the will of the manager.
3. The mobbing initiative comes from the head of the department/department who causes discord by “dividing and ruling” in order to subdue the team, manipulate people and solve their problems, for example, bring “his own people” — relatives or students — to the department.
4. The mobbing initiative comes from an insecure supervisor or an executive who has “stayed” in office. He will eradicate any dissent in the bud, prevent “conspiracies”, and get rid of potential competitors — highly qualified or “disloyal” employees.
5. The mobbing initiative comes from the head of the department/department, who, as a result of professional deformations, develops a syndrome of “permissiveness”, which is expressed in violation of professional and ethical standards in assessing the professional activities of subordinates.
6. According to psychologists, a common reason for vertical (coming from the manager) and horizontal (coming from the team but initiated by the manager) mobbing is banal envy of a younger, more successful or talented colleague or colleague who, in the opinion of the team and manager, demonstrates his significance and capabilities. In this case, envy should be considered as a form of aggression. At the same time, jealous colleagues can interpret others' success as their own defeat.
The “basic” methods of persecution in the academic environment (and even more broadly, at any workplace) are even more stable than the reasons, and are evident in:
— making false statements about the employee's behavior in the team (“too excited”);
— expressing doubts about the employee's professionalism and competence;
— intentionally failing to provide important information to the employee;
— in discrediting an employee in the eyes of management, colleagues and students;
— in creating fabricated collective complaints and reporting on it;
— in organizing meetings at which colleagues stigmatize the “scapegoat”;
— closely monitoring attendance at classes and the workplace;
— in illegitimate decisions taken in the absence of an employee;
— in insulting remarks about the employee.
A careful examination can even reveal “basic” conditions for the emergence and development of university mobbing. These “timeless” conditions, which certainly aggravate the repressive scheme, include the existence of opposing “scientific schools”, “favorite students”, and “family contracts” in science and teaching.
In Soviet times, the head of the department/department/laboratory, in order to “get rid” of a negligent/middle/young/successful/disloyal/“ presumptuous” employee, needed to use “mass energy”, namely: to initiate “horizontal” mobbing in the team on the eve of an objectionable colleague going through the election procedure or defending a dissertation. The reason for mobbing could be one of the ones listed above, or there could be new ones, formed taking into account political realities.
But the ideological and socio-economic conditionality of university/academic mobbing is unpredictable and variable, and contributes to the aggravation of the “basic” causes, conditions and methods of persecution. However, if a political system or an economic or institutional crisis is delayed for a long time or periodically comes back in a new version, then the causes, conditions and methods of persecution that have developed during this time under their influence add to the list of “basic” ones. This, for example, happened with the “basic” reason why a person was not only mobbed, but could even be shot. When an extraordinary, talented person was charged with “putting himself above the team”, this meant that he was not afraid and did not feel grateful for being told the way to go, and, in the end, he might be able to betray the interests of the party and the state.
It is worth mentioning other means of reprisal associated with the historically determined “gene of persecution”, which during the Soviet era have become “basic”: fabricated collective complaints and reports, organizing meetings at which colleagues stigmatize the “scapegoat”, surveillance of professional duties and then denouncing his attendance at lectures (“visit logs”, etc.).
The list of “basic” reasons, conditions and means of mobbing in recent years may be significantly expanded if the current situation of institutional and economic crises is extended indefinitely. The heavy legacy of the past, which burdens the difficult life of a university teacher and researcher, has not only not become a thing of the past, but has also been exacerbated by the expected and much-needed reform of the higher education system, which coincided with changes in the funding system for science and education, as well as with the demographic “hole”.
In 2003, Russia embarked on the path of European higher education reform by joining the Bologna educational system, which, despite its obvious shortcomings, has a number of advantages necessary to “cheer up” any higher education representative by giving them a “European vaccine” and increase the university's competitiveness. At the same time, the scientific achievements of each teacher, the ability of university staff to quickly adapt to new conditions, taking into account the ratings of subjects and teachers among students, the increase in classroom load, the inability to “combine”, and the increase in the “Hirsch index” suggest a struggle for the survival of each teacher, complicated by circumstances beyond his professional competence. The objective processes associated with the necessary reform of higher education tragically coincided with the deterioration of the economic situation in Russia and in almost all countries of the former USSR. In the current conditions, scientific grants, funded projects, and internships are necessary conditions for the professional activities of a researcher and teacher, for which it is worth fighting for. The situation of department heads is now “worse than that of the governor's”: they must write more reports, force employees to meet European requirements, decide on layoffs, give subordinates a workload, comply with the university's “line” and have time to cling to some financial source so as not to leave teachers not only without travel allowances, grants, bonuses, but also without salaries.
All these circumstances add to the list of reasons for university mobbing, as over time, the relevance of George Orwell's Animal Farm begins to creep up. The gap between “equals” and those who are “more equal” is increasing. The centralized distribution of funds in the hands of the management not only makes these leaders almost untouchable in the eyes of their subordinates, but also creates the aura of a “savior” who, after the cancellation of the teachers' “Yuri's Day” (the inability to “combine” at other universities, job losses, the absence of open and fair elections, the signing of an annual employment contract), puts all the levers of influence and influence in his hands. This is how a strong foundation for vertical mobbing was laid. And where a vertical of power is established, only loyalty is valued, which is especially relevant in a situation of increased inter-university competition, when not only “duplicate” specialties and programs, but also “duplicate” faculties and universities are about to be reduced. And where loyalty is the main criterion for professionalism, Soviet collectivism begins to “metastasize” and fertile ground for university/academic bossing/mobbing/bullying begins to appear. And all this will continue until universities are interested in ensuring that their employees are not subjected to psychological violence, but are able to work and create in peace for the benefit of the institution and the country. And this requires only the willingness of university leaders to introduce an anti-mobbing procedure similar to the one that exists, for example, in Jagiellonian University.
Test your mobbing resistance and answer questions about “familiar situations”.
Familiar situations
1. Institute (laboratory or department). The supervisor calls his graduate student. “At a time when our enemies are on the alert, we must stick together and take preventive measures. Did you know that Professor N is determined to cut down your work?” Graduate student (timidly): “No, I didn't hear. I thought he was kind...” The professor interrupts: “You're wrong. I learned that he is very determined. Try to keep communication with him to a minimum. He's going to the polls right now. Talk to your colleagues and tell us that he is going to take the grant from us and give it to his graduate students. This is the only way we can help each other.” What will you do as a graduate student?
— Listen to your supervisor and stop communicating with Professor N.
— You will begin to disseminate the information that the professor gave you about Professor N.
— Go to Professor N and talk to him honestly.
— Ask your colleagues what to do.
— Continue to live and work as if this conversation with your supervisor didn't happen.
2. The head of the department addresses his fellow teacher: “You know that the workload has decreased. If you want to keep your courses and even increase your workload, we must vote tomorrow to transfer Professor K part-time.” The teacher asks in surprise: “Does Professor K know about this? How can we vote when he's not here right now — he's on a sabbatical?” The head of the department is strict: “You are asking too many questions. You must understand that in these difficult times we must keep every employee's jobs.” What will you do as a teacher?
— You'll start arguing with your boss and arguing that you can't vote without a colleague.
— Talk to a colleague and tell him about your conversation with the head of the department.
— Discuss the situation with your colleagues, learn about their feelings and make your own decision.
Literature
Nevskaya D.R. If university mobbing exists, then someone needs it// http://mobbingu.net/articles/detail/18/
Nevskaya D.R. Kalydonian Boar Hunting Time// http://mobbingu.net/articles/detail/15/
Druzhilov S.A. Psychological terror (mobbing) at the university department as a form of professional destruction// http://mobbingu.net/articles/detail/47/
The article was published in the electronic magazine “Gefter” http://gefter.ru/archive/18381
.png)
