Conflicts are assumed to be the natural and inevitable aspects of human interaction, and may create functional or dysfunctional consequences according to the way that they are handled. One of the earliest pioneers in the behavioral movement was Mary Parker Follett. Rather than assuming classical management’s strongly hierarchical position of power in organizations, Follett asserted that power should be cooperatively shared for the purpose of resolving conflict. Creative conflict resolution involves cooperatively working with others to devise novel solutions, often resulting in strong interpersonal benefits [1].

Many researchers and practitioners have identified reactions to conflict as among the main causes of mobbing in organizations. Mobbing is the nonsexual harassment of a coworker by a group of other members of an organization for the purpose of removing the targeted individual(s) from the organization, or at least a particular unit of the organization [2] Mobbing involves individual, group, and organizational dynamics.

In this study, we examine mobbing behavior, where an unresolved conflict can advance to a serious issue for the individuals and organizations involved. We explore this issue through three separate cases. The cases are real, with the identity of the organizations and the individuals being protected. Each case will be analyzed through the stages of mobbing to determine in order to identify in which stage the victims were in when this research was carried out. In addition, the case explores how the victims in these cases resolved or are still resolving their circumstances. Finally, we conclude by suggesting best practices that can be used to address mobbing.

The term “mob” is generally understood to mean a “disorderly crowd engaged in lawless violation” [3,4]. Mobbing as a term was first used by Konrad Lorenz while examining the psychological behavior of animals. Leyman [5] indicated that Peter-Paul Heinemann had identified a similar behavior in Swedish school children. Leymann, himself, realized that a similar behavior also existed in the workplace, defining it as "psychological terror" involving "hostile and unethical communication directed in a systematic way by one or a few individuals mainly towards one individual" [5].

Since then, this phenomenon has garnered the attention of many researchers. Different terminologies have been used to describe mobbing, most synonymously; such as bullying [6], workplace trauma [7] scapegoating [8] work abuse [9], victimization [10], petty tyranny [11], emotional abuse [12] and workplace aggression [13]. Leymann [14], contrasts ‘bullying,’ which includes physical aggression and threat and is used generally to describe conflicts in school settings, with ‘mobbing behavior,’ which includes non-sexual harassment in the workplace. Brodsky [15] used the term “harassment” to describe the claims of workers who were “ill and unable to work because of illtreatment by employees, co-workers, or consumers, or because of excessive demands for work output”. He also indicated that this behavior involves repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, and frustrate another. Both Leymann and Brodsky emphasize the fact of frequency and duration of this hostile behavior. Mobbing is multi-directional. Mobbing directed from managers to subordinates is referred to as downward; by peer-to-peer at the same level in the authority as horizontal, and by subordinates on managers as upward. In most cases, once the mobbing starts it spreads to everyone in the organization. Some are involved actively and some become observers.

Mobbing as an action is hard to identify due to the complexity of such behaviors [16]. In general, the mobbers hide themselves and/or show a different face in the organization. Experienced mobbers act as a cooperative member that helps the most employees and projects a positive image within the organization.

Conflict transitioning to mobbing: The length of time is the critical point in determining the mobbing act. It usually lasts between 6 and 18 months and sometimes longer. The psychological and physical wear and tear on the victim can even occur during a protracted period. Health injuries caused by mobbing can be catastrophic and result in long-term consequences.

Leymann and Gustafsson [17] identified five general stages faced by those who are the target of mobbing:

Critical incident: Conflict that is not managed properly on time and continues as unsolved. Accusations toward the victim escalate to a critical incident and mobbers take action toward the victim based on real or perceived accusations.

Mobbing and stigmatizing: The mobber begins to show behaviors such as criticism, insulting comments, whispers etc. The victim feels humiliated, intimidated, and fearful. At this point the victim is embedded in the mobbing act.

Personnel management: Management becomes involved with mobbing and because of the stigmatization of the victim, it becomes easy for the management to misjudge and blame the victim.

Incorrect diagnosis: The victim is under a lot of pressure and expresses concerns about the mobbers’ actions. However, at this point, the victim will be labeled with an incorrect diagnosis and will be considered as having a negative attitude or being paranoid. If the victim seeks help from a psychologist, he or she can be incorrectly diagnosed with paranoia, adjustment disorder or character disorder.

Expulsion: The victim is forced out of the work place. It can be voluntary or involuntary-leave, and it can even result in complete expulsion from the labor market, as he or she may be unable to secure subsequent employment.

Many researchers and practitioners have identified reactions to conflict among the main causes of mobbing in organizations. Glasl’s nine-stage conflict escalation model [18] refers to the incident that starts as content-oriented and evolving into a personal issue. Management involvement between the parties in conflict is critical. “If the conflict is not solved successfully, the relational component will lead to a pattern of negative behavior, which, in turn, may escalate into destructive behavior”[19]. The best possible ways of preventing escalation of conflict is to ensure that workplaces are psychologically safe and healthy environments to work in, and employees and management are trained in the stages during an effective orientation process for each new employee. In general, manufacturing organizations have a greater tendency to train employees in conflict resolution or management. However in academia, it is less likely for such training to occur. If there is such training, it is primarily for sexual harassment.

Utilizing Leymann and Gustafsson’s [17] five stages of mobbing as a guiding framework, this paper will explore three separate cases involving this phenomenon in an academic context in the United States. All three cases were in the same state. However, the cases were in three different institutions. The first case took place at a 4-year research institution. The, second case is from a 4-year teaching institution, and the third case took place at a 2-year, public community college.

Post-secondary, or higher education in the United States is multidimensional. This has the advantage of providing students with many options upon successful completion of their secondary education. Broadly speaking, higher education can be divided into public and private institutions, as well as, two-year and four-year institutions. The two-year degree may be vocational or technical in nature, or it may be an associates degree used as a stepping-stone to a four-year school for a bachelors degree. Two-year schools are often called community or junior colleges. Beyond these basic distinctions, there are subclassifications of institutions; the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education categorizes 17 types of undergraduate and 18 types of graduate schools. Among these, are the widely-known, highly-ranked institutions which are often known as research institutions. In contrast, while still producing research, teaching institutions are those where faculty may have a higher teaching load and there is a greater emphasis on teaching than producing research. Although, with the increasing reliance on external funding and emphasis on university rankings, these lines are becoming blurred.

The three cases illustrated below help us to understand how conflicts can escalate and evolve into mobbing in an academic setting. Each of the cases will discuss resolution possibilities, as well as the means that the victims used to protect themselves. For the confidentiality of the victims and organizations, the names have been changed and “he” will be used as the pronoun.

Data collection methodology

For the purpose of examining mobbing through these three cases, a Phenomenological study was conducted. This form of research is carried out with the aim of generating a common meaning for a lived experience. Utilizing this methodology data is collected from individuals who have experienced the phenomenon (e.g. mobbing), leading to a “composite description of the essence of the phenomenon” The emerging description is an account of what and how the individuals experienced the phenomenon. The data collection procedure for phenomenological studies, and this one in particular, is generally comprised of interviews, with some additional exploration of any relevant artifacts (e.g. emails or hand-written notes). Specific statements or actions are aggregated and examined for more general categories and themes. This stage is followed by a descriptive summarization of the individuals’ experiences. What follows in the three individual cases is the end-product of this process, conducted for the purpose of this study.

Case 1: Riley

Riley started a new position as a program director in a two-year community college. He had lived in a different part of the country and was now relocating to a region and a state with what could be characterized as more traditional, conservative values. When he reported to his new job on the first day, he realized that they were not ready for him and he did not have an office. He spent his day in the school’s cafeteria waiting for the school officials to welcome him and provide guidance, but they never came. The next day, they gave him a temporary office that had recently been vacated by a faculty member. After one month, Riley still did not have an office, and a brief investigation revealed that the Facilities Department had not received any orders to establish one for him. Therefore, he remained in the vacated faculty member office.

At this point, some employees began questioning his motivation in using an office that was not his. Because of his roles and responsibilities, Riley needed to be easily accessed by the community, and able to generate reports to generate additional, external funding. After a month of many inquiries through the proper channels, there were no improvements in his situation. He determined that the best course of action may be to write a memorandum to the administration and attach the by-laws specifying that college had agreed to participate in the program for which Riley was the administrator.

Critical incident: “The memo triggered a chain effect and made some of the staff members uncomfortable.” “They had been ordered to find a place and set up an office for me,” says Riley. The office space was found, and a desk and a chair were arranged in a hallway, lacking both space and privacy. Riley needed to write another memorandum and once again point out that because of his role and according to the bylaws, he required a private room with enough space to offer a workstation for program participants. Riley says, “The management just ordered the facilities to find a private room and set it up. They did not say why.” Because there was no explanation or justification for the private room, people began to gossip and isolate Riley.

Mobbing and stigmatizing: “When I made attempts to explain why there is a need for the private office, people were giving me the cold shoulder,” reported Riley. After four months, Riley received his office. Then the next issue arose. “My office was in one building, and my mailbox in another. The forms that were being mailed to me, and that I needed on a daily basis, were not being delivered,” recalls Riley. In addition, when it came to performing any function that required forms and signatures from various departments, Riley reports that he was “sent on a wild goose chase” all over campus, trying to determine who signed which form, and in what order, and frequently being sent to “do it all over” because of the smallest mistakes on the paperwork. “When I asked for help, I was getting answers like, ‘You should know these since you are so good,’ or ‘Why did they hire you if you cannot do this simple task?’”

Personnel management: The Human Resources manager was also the Facilities manager, who was also the Vice President of Operations. When Riley was attempting to organize his work-space and work flow, he was unable to receive help from HR because it was the same office that, organizationally, should have been facilitating these activities. “There was no other option, other than to keep running to my superior, the Vice President of Academic Programs, for help.” This made it difficult to seek resolution of issues as the Vice President of Academics was unable to pressure the Vice President of Operations to help Riley. “The VP of Academics was not the kind of person who will step up for anyone.” Instead of working toward a solution with the Vice President of Operations, the Vice President of Academics started to admonish Riley to be more careful and “stay away from trouble.” “However, it was impossible not to make any mistakes because every time I turned around, the form or the process was changing on me. There was no way I could stop making mistakes because I didn’t know what I was doing wrong.”

Incorrect diagnosis: Riley was targeted by many of his colleagues and everywhere he went, people were unfriendly toward him. If they were in groups, they stopped talking or made him feel unwelcomed. Riley decided to approach the President and discuss his situation. He asked for a meeting. “At the meeting, I was surprised to get the response, ‘File a grievance.’ I did not understand why I needed to go through a process. Was there a problem with my work?” Following numerous calls to the Vice President of Academics, he was informed that Riley was under investigation for manipulating forms and plagiarizing signatures. “I immediately went to an Attorney and explained everything. The attorney informed me that there should be a warning prior to any legal action.” Riley was having difficulty whenever he attended meetings. Even the College President did not pay attention to Riley’s comments, or would interrupt him midsentence. Riley felt that he was not able to contribute. “I felt threatened. I started to feel anxiety. I couldn’t eat or sleep.” Riley sought help from a psychologist who specialized in workplace stress. “When I started to tell her my problems, I was not able to hold back my tears. My anxiety was so high that I started to get sick.” He was referred to a physician and was prescribed antidepressants.

Expulsion: Riley was not able to go back to work after the doctor’s visit. He was given a house rest for two weeks. While at home, he began receiving certified mail from the College. “Every day, they were sending me a different certified letter, asking me to reply to some forms that they were questioning. I was not sure why they did not call me and ask in person or correct the forms when they knew the correct answer themselves.” After the first week, Riley’s e-mail stopped working. When he called for assistance, they informed him that VP of Academic Programs had made the decision to terminate his access to email. Riley attempted to contact the Vice President, but was unable to do so. Ten days after he began his sick leave, Riley received a certified letter signed by the Vice President indicating that his employment at the College had been terminated. It was dated one week prior to his sick leave.

Case 2: Jordan

Jordan had been a faculty member in a 4-year research institution. Jordan was well liked by his students and well known by his peers. He had proven to be quite successful with more publications than others in his department, and he also garnered consistently high marks on student evaluations. Within the university, he was recognized on a number of occasions for his project work. As Jordan reports, his Program Chair started to monitor Jordan more closely. As an example, he says, after he would leave his laboratory or classroom, the Chair was going in and checking on the conditions of the lab. Jordan says, “He repeatedly sent negative emails to me and my coworkers if he believed that I did something wrong, such as one of my students forgetting to lock in a hard drive in one of the labs.”

Jordan was not offered any opportunities to teach advanced classes, nor was he included by the Chair in any new projects. When he complained to his superiors about the mistreatment, they would send him back to his Chair to discuss the issues. Every time he tried to talk to the Chair, he was sent to the superiors. Jordan realized that this back and forth was not going to change anything, therefore he applied to another position at the University. When he was offered the job he was offered less salary than the others. When he complained, he was advised to accept it and be happy to have a job. Jordan, at that point, officially submitted his first discrimination complaint.

Critical incident: When Jordan submitted his first discrimination complaint, the position was re-posted. Jordan decided to make another attempt and he applied again. Following an eight-month process, the job was re-offered to Jordan with a higher salary, but still lower than the others who were at the same positions within the department. “I reapplied for the same position in January…This time I was offered $2,000 less than what other colleagues were offered. I was hired for a tenure-track position in August at the rank of Instructor.” After his first complaint, the conditions became more difficult for Jordan. People started to distance themselves from him. “As soon as I filed my first discrimination charge, things turned for the worse. I was shut out of everything. In the previous Fall, I was on several committees and then, all of a sudden I am not invited to any more meetings.”

Mobbing and stigmatizing: “He also mocked me in meetings in front of other faculty by making fun of my clothing when I was wearing a suit. Furthermore, he assigned me classes that were all over the place so that I had morning classes and classes that ended at 10:00 PM on the same day.” Jordan started to feel that everyone was stigmatizing him. In one incident, his dean called him at home. “I had my speaker phone on, and my family was able to hear him tell me that things are not looking good for me. He told me that I need to apologize to the Chair or things are not going to go good for me.” The faculty members that Jordan was collaborating with started to remove themselves from the projects they were working on together. “For example, the following November, a colleague wrote to tell me that the tenure committee had told him it is not in his best interest to work on a paper he and I were writing.”

Personnel management: “Another recent incident worth noting is when I discovered that the Chair placed a false and derogatory statement in my personnel file without my knowledge. The document was in my file for 16 months before I discovered it. When I asked him about it, he replied that he had meant to talk to me about it, but because of extenuating circumstances he did not get to it.” When Jordan complained to the Dean, “he told me to take the high road and not to worry about it.” The Dean told Jordan that he discussed the situation with the Equity Office and that they would be contacting him soon. While waiting approximately two weeks for an answer from the Equity Office, Jordan states, “I began to get threats from Chair. So I emailed the Equity Office to inform them of what had transpired.”

Incorrect diagnosis: Jordan’s colleagues and the administration continued to stigmatize him. “The only thing I am aware of is the Chair of my program placing false comments on my faculty annual review which stated that I had behavior issues. When I asked him if he ever told me my behavior was bad or that I am affecting others, he replied ‘No’”. Jordan was confused with the allegations because the Chair was accusing him of a poor attitude that was affecting others in the department. But when Jordan inquired, he was repeatedly told the contrary. Jordan remarks, “If the Chair had said ‘Yes’, I am sure I would have been counseled on it by now.”

Expulsion: According to Jordan, the program Chair would make comments such as “You need to leave and then file your lawsuit.” And, “It is not right for you to stay here and sue [this University].” In a rare moment when he was feeling sorry about Jordan being mistreated, he told Jordan that he was “given all the dirty work that no one would take such as maintaining web pages.” Jordan also added, “And when I didn’t leave when they thought I would, they set out to destroy me.” Jordan was being isolated and being out forced by his Chair and colleagues. The conditions were becoming worse for him. In one incident, he was working on a grant application with a colleague and she stopped working with him. She also removed him from her Facebook friends and told him that someone from the Dean’s Office told her to stay away from Jordan because they were going to accuse her of helping him since she had a law degree. Currently, Jordan is on medical leave, taking antidepressants, and still in a legal fight with his employer.

Case 3: Dakota

Dakota started as an instructor in a 4-year, teaching university. In a relatively short period of three months, with his constructive input and open communication style, administration realized that he was more qualified than simply being an instructor. He was asked by the president to help the upper administration to strategize the University’s international projects. The director in charge of the Office of International Programs was coming from a non-academic background and her strengths were more in marketing and communications. Dakota started to help her on a part-time basis. Shortly after he started his new role, he started to ask what his responsibilities would be. However, the director was not able to provide direction and he was left alone to self-initiate. He made a plan for his role and shared this with the director. She agreed on it, and they subsequently shared it with the President. Dakota started to work according to the plan, however, he started to receive many other very simple tasks like editing memos. Meanwhile, he began to have a very open dialog with the President, with the support and encouragement of the Director. Although, the lack of direction was continuing from the director, Dakota was happy to work on any projects where he felt he could make positive contributions, from editing to developing partnerships with institutions in other countries.

Critical incident: “One day, the director, myself and the coordinator were invited to a meeting with the President, but no agenda was provided beforehand.” Dakota recalls, “We were thinking that the President would ask for an update on the strategic plan that we had been working on for our Office. When we started the meeting, the President informed us that our roles had been changed.” The President had divided our Office into three sections. Dakota was assigned to the role of coordinator for External Projects, the director was assigned to internal coordination, and the coordinator was to maintain exchange agreements. In other words, Dakota’s role had been elevated, essentially assuming a significant, and important, portion of the director’s responsibilities. This new role division had been discussed with Dakota prior to the meeting, however he was not certain if the others were aware of the pending re-structuring. “During the meeting, the director did not say anything. She just listened and did not contribute. After we left the President’s office, I wanted to talk with her, but she was gone.” Dakota later saw the director and others at lunch, where he was not invited. Since Dakota was working in that office part-time, it was not until a week later that he was able to discuss with her what had occurred.

Mobbing and stigmatizing: Dakota started to feel like a “stranger”. He felt that he was being isolated. He was working in the same office space with the two others, ostensibly collaborating on day-to-day activities and projects; his cubicle was between that of the director and the other program coordinator. Following the restructuring, Dakota began working in the office full time. Every day at lunch, the Director would walk past Dakota’s cubicle to the other coordinator and ask that person to lunch. Dakota was never invited. When there were meetings that Dakota should have been part of, whether in the office or outside the office, the director never invited him.

“One day, I was sitting in my office and working. The director came with a group of foreigners and started a meeting at the conference table that was in the common area of our office space. I was hired to assist, or at least participate in these kind of meetings. I never learned or understood what the meeting was about and why I was not invited.” Dakota recalls that, “I was continually ignored and not included in anything.” When Dakota inquired about projects or tasks that he should be working on, the Director’s common reply was, “I don’t know. I am not sure what I am supposed to be working on either.” He felt that he was being underutilized, and that he was feeling cheated.

Personnel management: Dakota met with the President on a regular basis. In general, they had good communication and open discussions. When he began to ask questions about his role and what the future would be for him, the President directed him to the Provost, indicating that the Provost would clarify Dakota’s role and responsibilities. Dakota asked the Provost’s assistant to arrange a meeting with him. In this organization, appointments are not made; requests to meet are made, and the individual or his/her assistant will call when an opportune moment arises. After a few days of waiting and not receiving a reply, Dakota went to the Provost’s assistant to make another request. His persistence paid off after two weeks. The Provost’s assistant finally allowed Dakota to meet with the Provost, for ten minutes. The Provost was not able to provide clear answers. “He said that he needed to discuss the issue with the President,” said Dakota. He was confused by the lack of decisiveness and direction at the top. At the conclusion of their brief meeting, the Provost advised Dakota to take his annual one-month summer vacation, and that when he returned there would be greater clarity.

Incorrect diagnosis: Dokota was under a lot of pressure at this point. He expressed concerns of being confused and misunderstood. Because he has considerable experience and an advanced degree in educational organizations, he is able to perceive the future. Shortly after the meeting with the Provost, he learned that the contracts were generated for the following year and his was not ready. He lamented, “I want to work in a healthy environment.” He felt that his university was lacking effective communication, as well as a strategic plan for the international division. Before the situation became to stressful, Dakota began seeking positions in other organizations.

Expulsion: “I feel like I’ve done something wrong here, but no one has told me so. I feel like I’ve been fired, but no one wants to tell me so,” says Dakota. He is taking his vacation as suggested and meanwhile arranging interviews with other educational organizations. He firmly mentions that, “I don’t want to go back. I have pretty much emptied my office, and I will find something else as soon as possible.”

Case correlations

Although the literature states that mobbing is a group activity, there are certainly key players that can be commonly identified. One clearly being the “victim”. According to Bultena and Whatcott [8] the victim is not usually the weak individual in the organization. In fact, it is generally the case that high achievers are more likely to be targeted. All three of the participants mentioned above were high achievers and results-focused. They were hired to do a job and that is what they were focused on. All participants stated that when the mobbing first began, they were unaware that it was happening, but that they later realized that they had been isolated from the outset by the primary instigator of the mobbing.. That is why, at the conflict stage, they took responsibility for what was taking place; i.e. they thought that they were the cause of the problems. There is also the common thread of trying to communicate and discuss issues, but being ignored. In addition, Faria [20] examined downward mobbing in academia, which they defined as the intentional and repeated inflictions of psychological harm by supervisors on subordinates in an organization.” An example of this was in Jordan’s case where he was offered a lower salary for the same position when he applied the second time.

In the next stage, the “illness” spreads to others in the organization. Dakota remembers being told by a colleague that, “the poisoned dart is in the air.” Studies show that most mobbers are not aware that they are mobbing; as a matter of fact they may think they are the one being mobbed [21]. In some cases, they may seem to be the most helpful ones in the organizations [2]. This type of person can be called the “poisoned dart”. When participants start to feel more pressure, they start on counter acts. They start fighting back with all kinds of actions such as withdrawing from the social environment to taking legal actions. In these three cases all three of them started to look for an exit at the mobbing and stigmatizing stages. However, there are other studies that show different behaviors. In Tugrel and Kokalan’s, study their participants developed more aggressive counter-acts:

They expressed that they developed counter behaviors as afterwards they became aware of mobbing. Whereas some of the participants explained that they developed aggressive behaviors against mobbers at the end of the period, some others pointed out that they only engaged in professional business relations with the mobbers and that they never communicated with them in any other ways [22].

The third type of participant, who turns a blind eye to the problems, can be called the “silent” victim. This person, or persons, may not only be the co-workers, but may also include management. Yet, in all three cases, management took an invisible role, “passing the buck” to someone else, and ultimately failing to intervene in a conflict resolution role. Likewise, none of those to whom the victims were directed for help had the responsibility or power to assist. Therefore, the “help” assumes a hands-off approach as well. At this stage all three participants felt that they had no recourse for help. Because there was neither help nor clear communication from the management, the victims experienced increasing stress. Many times the stress causes intense medical conditions. Johnson [23] recounted his personal mobbing case at his university, where he suffered a serious stroke, which dramatically affected his quality of life. In Riley’s and Jordan’s cases, they both reached a point where medical assistance was necessitated. Dakota felt the same stress. However, since he was at the beginning of this stage, he was able to cope with the pressure by taking a month of annual leave (i.e. not sick leave). In all three cases, the victim’s focus shifted from roles and responsibilities to selfpreservation and the rapid development and execution of an exit plan.

The final stage for all three victims was to leave the workplace. Dakota is actively seeking a new job and is fortunately able to maintain his employment at this stage, albeit in a lower, less-desirable position. Riley and Jordan were both terminated without valid justification

Coping with mobbing

Coping with the mobbing is a very difficult stage for the victims. Mobbing is often characterized as a series of very subtle actions that, for the most part, may seem odd or annoying, but may also be shrugged off as “typical office politics.” However, unless there was an occasion where the victim had witnessed or experienced workplace mobbing previously, awareness comes at a point when it may be too late to mitigate. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water, the victim may notice the mobbing too late to do anything about it. The difficulty in identifying the mobber, or poisoned dart, or silent participant, is that the victim looks at himself for the mistakes first. Problematically, it is at this stage where the conflict is not yet identified and the opportunity to seek a solution is missed. Keim and McDermott [24] admonish any employee to maintain good files of all relevant records and advise institutions to store e-mails and reports outside of the institution to be able to provide records when needed.

Riley’s case was completed a year prior to this study; he had left the institution where the mobbing had taken place and was trying to move forward with his life. He is still taking antidepressants and has nightmares and fears of the incidents. “Most nights, I have dreams that I am being isolated and made fun of by my colleagues…I still hope that they will pay for their actions somehow.” He also says that at his new institution, “I am extremely cautious with my co-workers now.”

He started a new life and a new job in a new place. He says, “I am lucky to be able relocate and have found a position with very good working conditions.” However, his fears are still very active. He emphasizes that he is very happy to have been able to move out of the environment that he calls “toxic” and adds, “At this point, I am able to look and see a bright future.” He reports that he cut all connections with the institution and adds, “I even blocked e-mails from those who were not actively involved and even showed empathy. I want nothing to do with that institution. I am trying to put it behind me and move on. The only way to effectively do this is through a one hundred percent break with them.”

Jordan lost his job in the summer of 2012 for his “not fitting in” behaviors. He points out that, “I will not give up and will continue to pursue my law suits.” He is currently focusing on starting his own consulting company and looking toward the future. He has also been seeking different positions, but due to poor economic conditions the employment market is extremely competitive right now.

Dakota is still at his institution, and continues to encounter mobbing behaviors. He is using what he refers to as a “duck and cover” strategy at work, which he describes as not hiding behind bushes, but keeping low and as far off the radar as possible. He too is actively seeking employment elsewhere, saying that, “All I want is to find a new position and move on. I want them to know that they lost an employee that tried hard for the organization.”

When we look at all three victims, we see common vulnerability factors. All have linguistic accents that differ from the majority of those in their working environment. All three have strong work ethics, focusing more on productivity. Despite the challenges, all three of them still have a positive attitude for the future. Even though they have fear and feel the revenge, they see a bright future in front of them. In the most extreme mobbing cases, the last stage may be taking one’s life. The victims in our study were able to avoid this last stage. Yet, they still live with fear, and cautiously build trust with coworkers from this point forward.

In our research on the topic, there are many studies on how an individual and organizations can avoid mobbing in the preliminary stages. Studies suggest a multitude of solutions such as organizational training, establishing legal offices, conflict management training, teaching techniques to cope with mobbing during employment, strategies to avoid mobbing, seeking a trusted advisor, and so forth. However, few studies offer strategies to address mobbing after a successful exit from a detrimental situation. As mentioned, the extreme cases result in the tragic solution of death. In less extreme cases, such as those of Riley, Jordan and Dakota, they were able to exit the negative work environment and move on with their lives. Duffy [25,26] focuses on the future and suggests that, “the ultimate objective is for the target to recover his or her working life and get back on track whether through administrative reform, publicity of the wrong, redress in courts, removal to new workplace or therapy. The fear and lost trust is, on the other hand, permanent, which will affect their future work ethics.”

Suggestions for living with fear of mobbing

It is difficult to stop mobbing once it starts, but individuals can learn to recognize the patterns. However, once it happens it stays with the victim. In general it takes time to realize that mobbing is very difficult to stop after the first stage [26]. Riley says since he is no longer in that “toxic” environment, he can think more clearly. He shared his way of dealing with mobbing as victim after a year as, “I share my story with people. I learned that it is not my fault.” He also keeps a watch-list of behaviors and personalities on his desktop to look at from time to time in order to remind him not to fall into the same situation. “When I am feeling down, I remind myself of my positive qualifications and my strengths. I also remind myself that after losing a bunch of battles, I won the war.”

Mobbing is a term that developed in late 1990s, with interest growing rapidly since then. In academia, it has generally been regarded as a topic of research, but has increasingly become a common phenomenon as well. To this point, however, higher education administrators actually lack the leadership and managerial training and skills to recognize and to mitigate it. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that there is such a prevalence of mobbing in academia. The same could be said of the many staff throughout higher education institutions: They lack the training, skills, and experience in identifying mobbing and in addressing mobbing. Celep emphasized the mobbing experience of instructors, stressing in their conclusion that scientific and managerial evaluations must remain objective and completely void of personal opinions.

In this study, we explored three cases of mobbing in higher education. In all three instances, the pattern of development was virtually the same, and in all three cases, the victims demonstrated the same tendencies toward vulnerability. From the institutional side, all three cases contained at least three common mobbing characters: the mobber, the poisoned dart, and the silent group. The study also offered common suggestions for avoiding mobbing. There remains a gap in the research of this phenomenon, particularly regarding how the victim can return to a sense of normalcy following the incident. The victims in this study provided suggestions for the people who may face similar circumstances. However, for more detail and grounded suggestions, a larger group of victims should be studied and a road map should be given for those who find themselves back in such environments. The suggestions would not only help the individuals, but also organizations to avoid unnecessary organizational cultural conflicts, valuable employee loss, and potentially devastating lawsuits.