One might also add The Ideologue, for example the historian interested in excluded others who undercuts those teaching in more traditional areas of history, or vice-versa.

The Sexist, for example, the woman who once was discriminated against and now is the enemy of all male faculty members, or the man who cannot find any sympathy for junior faculty women who must negotiate between family and professional activities.

Be professional and friendly but reserved, be careful about joking (you want to be good humored but not a comedian, that is the job of folks with tenure), keep your own counsel (work is always work), be silent as you get the lay of the land, never overextend, and don't ever fully trust anyone until you get tenure (never ever forget that you are on probation until you get tenure).

Publish, publish. Do good teaching, do good service (but not too much as junior professor). Do NOT openly take sides in faculty gatherings. Noncommittal works well.

The Unequal Partner: May apply to a man or a woman. This is a colleague who enjoys power and privelege that is not obviously in line with their talents or virtues, funding levels or productivity, whatever these may be. When you find such a person, find out who they are sleeping with/married to, because that can explain their position. Then, steer clear of both partners.

All of these caricatures have been applied to professors of genuinely solid standards for the discipline and academia, especially those who intend to promote the role of faculty recommendation in university governance, especially but not exclusively with the curriculum. Certainly, there are men and women who are mostly just one or the other of these caricatures, but I'd like you to consider how we can recognize the smearing of a good and decent professor with one of these caricatures, when he or she is really doing important and thankless service, to the disciplines and academia?

Although this article focuses on the untenured as the usual victim of such behaviors, I have more often seen it wielded against tenured faculty -- often even chairs. As you say, it is difficult to leave an unhealthy situation when you don't have tenure, but it is at least somewhat possible. Once you have tenure, however, getting out of an unhealthy environment becomes virtually impossible. I have seen one friend -- a tenured full professor -- leave a department where she was bullied by her chair and an associate professor (both jealous of her international reknown, which they could not claim). She's now working a two-year temporary job, with no idea what comes next. I was forced out as chair of a department by a faculty that defined "dysfunctional" allied to a dean that didn't want to be bothered. I have three friends at my current institution who have been bullied as chairs -- all women targeted by men who thought themselves more qualified to be chair or resentful about working under a woman supervisor. Academic bulling is pervasive and insidious; if I had known that the profession was as full of bullies as it is, I never would have entered it.

And let's not forget about the smarmy Assoc. Prof. who spends his/her office hours writing two-dimensional stereotypes about his/her colleagues in the guise of "advice and admontions to the tyros." Here's a bit of advice for new Asst. Profs: keep your mouth shut, your head down, be kind to students and staff, and GET YOUR WORK DONE.

The (Tor)Mentor. One of my "colleagues" embodied nearly all of these characteristics so I took to calling him (privately) "The (Tor)Mentor." He wanted all junior faculty, and he emphasized that we were indeed "junior," to ape his teaching and follow his lead. If we didn't adhere to what he thought best, we paid the price. While his behavior was a problem, the fault lay with ineffective administrators (provost, dean, and chair) who let themselves be bullied for years. While my university has an excellent policy regarding sexual harassment, we have no such policy for bullying or mobbing, I'm sorry to say.

There is no substitute for being more competent than one's enemies, especially bullies. Publishing more, teaching and advising better, and doing sufficient service are strong antidotes for poor tenure and promotion recommendations. Keep track of how many times your publications are cited by others, and by whom. It matters. And if you leave your university, be certain the Provost, the President and the Board all know why you did. Keeping quiet perpetuates a sick culture. Confront bullies and they will back down. Undesireable character traits do not like the light of day.

There is also, alas, the Bully who has learned Smiling. There is little one can do about behind-the-scenes machinations, fair or not.

And what if your chair IS the bully?

Amusing article, but really more a sad statement on the profession than anything else. I'd expect professors to rise above such petty games, including writing articles that defame colleagues.

Sometimes, just being a purveyor of change is enough to draw fire. A senior faculty member, who had joined academia while Berlin still had a wall, addressed me with the following: "We know you come from the professional world, but we've been doing things this way for many, many years."
I had never before actually had the opportunity to begin a sentence with, "Therein..." And no, I had not quit my day job.

Strive for excellence and give the nay-sayer, bully or torturer little to fault. Be yourself and if that provokes the bully into attacking over and over, then good. The bully shows his/her truest self. Then hope to become a bigger dog by your good work.

If you get to be a big dog (chair, dean)remind the bully often that you are now the big dog and he could easily land in academic Siberia counting paperclips if he/she is not careful.

If a mean bully dog is going to bite a puppy, he/she better kill it outright early on because puppies who get bit, and survive, can grow up to be very tough big dogs.

It seems this article hit a couple of people too close to home. I wonder which type of faculty enemy they identified themselves as!

To the snide folks attempting to trivialize this artice: This is genuinely useful advice for those of us walking (blindly, because we're not trained to deal with it as grad students) into a politically-charged climate. Perhaps if the profession let its journeymen take a few peeks behind the curtain, this type of article would not be necessary. We would be ready for the ambushes laying in wait for us when we arrive, rosey-cheeked and exhilerated to be starting a new academic life at a bustling campus. Or perhaps if people were honest about their department culture during the interview process, new assistant professors would not feel like rag dolls being torn apart by rottweilers when they realize (often too late) that they are being used in the power games of the mighty.

But since transparency is too much to hope for, this kind of article is a welcome glimpse into the dangers awaiting the newly-minted PhD. I thank the author for writing it, and take the humor with a grain of salt.

Based on my experience in non-academic as well as academic careers, I would say that a) most of these types are not unique to academia and b) they are sometimes combined in one person. What is distinctive in academia is how seriously people take the fights without acknowledging the personal stakes involved, and how long is the expectation of involvement with the adversary.

To this list, I would add: The Gatekeeper. This is the person who genuinely believes that his or her animosity toward a colleague is motivated not by perceived threat but by erosion of standards in the discipline. I am not sure if this type is described above. In my experience, assistant professors are the most vigilant occupants of this role.

It is not at all the case that if you keep your head down and produce, you will be okay. These patterns work against the interests of the department and discipline, they need to be discussed, and Perlmutter should be thanked for talking about them.

For me, the biggest problem was not the department bully/turfboy/passive-aggressive paranoid, but rather the administrative cowardice that meant he was allowed to run over everyone else unchecked. I was in a tiny 3-person department, and the culprit had a 20-year running battle with the chair such that the latter did not want to look like the "persecutor". Added to that, the dean of the faculty quietly informed me that the bully was gunning for me as early as my second semester on campus; but she couldn't "do" anything about it, as she felt her most important role was to be the sounding board for the faculty. Gee thanks. When I finally left this eternal battleground, I felt like placing a warning beacon in my old office.

I do so tire of pieces in The Chronicle that reduce academics--most often tenured academics--to a set of stereotypes and caricatures. Reading The Chronicle for a few weeks or months could very well give one the impression that only graduate students, adjuncts, and assistant professors are real people.

Right, and the Public Sector has none of this ever going on, of course. It is simply "efficient."

Oh how tempted am I to give examples of each type from my department! Dear Ms. Mentor, may I do so?

I think this is a very good article because students often idealize their professors and don't realize some dark agendas can be going on in the backrooms.

Based on my experiences with bullying outside of academe, just doing good work will not save the target, in fact it might bring on more bullying. People who bully have motives, and the target's hard work and likelihood of success may be part of what motivates a bully to go after them. Plus, if the target is really working at doing some great achievement, the left over energy they have available for fending off a bully may be limited. If the target's success would make the target more competitive with his or her peers, the peers may not be so eager to rush in to help.

Workplace bullies often have years of practice, where the target's practice at defense from that type of adult bullying may be limited. If you are being bullied, the bully selected you, and bullies are often skilled at target selection, and at recognizing the limitations and weaknesses of a social setting.

Still, all people including bullies, are unique individuals, so ... it may be worth mentioning that the categories in the article could be taken as generalizations that describe motivations and situations in weak organizations that can produce these predictable patterns of bullies and bullying.

I think universities and other organizations that can defend their members from distractions and loss due to internal bullying will be the most successful and productive.

The politics of a department are what you are trying to discern when you interview in the first place. While an organization will evolve with time, the underlying culture of the department and college will persist. I would encourage those that are interviewing to try and determine whether this is a good place to be by asking questions and interviewing, challenging, probing the department before you take the position. That said, it would be wise to understand that not all departments want people who are willing to "keep their head down" in order to get/keep a job. To me, this would appear to indicate a weakness in a colleague. I would suggest rather, that departments should seek those that have confidence as untenured faculty to voice opinions and "not play the game". I want colleagues that are strong, not ones that cower and worry about getting tenure. But maybe that is why I chose a department without this angst that seems to be pervasive in many other schools and departments.

Sometimes when I read articles and comments in the Chronicle, I'm saddened by how much hurt we feel from some of the people in our jobs (myself included)and how much animosity exists in faculty. Reading each of the comments carefully, we know that many if not most of them are touching upon personal experiences (whether as the victim or the alleged offender).

One just has to look at the comments about the articles on bullying to see this as well...

This is my profession, and I cannot leave it. But it is incredibly depressing the dynamics of faculty. I wonder if it is the constant critique within the academe that causes this or a selection bias of folks with antisocial behavior. Whatever it is, is is neither healthy nor professional. Unfortunatly, I doubt if there is any way to "fix" it.

acad301: When you see a discussion forum about "people who have inexplicably decided to be your enemy" you have to wonder: is this who the "enemy" sees himself?

An amusing piece that has a great deal of truth to it. Julian Schnabel once divided the world into "bums" and "mensches." This may be an easier division for the "powerless." More seriously, however, these types and worse exist in the academy. Sadly, no one does anything about it--"Huh, what, huh? I'm late for a meeting." Bullies bully, liars lie, etc. Rarely does the victim see justice. In fact, the worst offenders usually become chairs or deans. Scholarship, good teaching, a**kissing won't help. Once targeted by one or all (they seems to team up) these academic monsters, you're a goner . . . unfortunately.

"This is why I will not work in academe. I am so turned off by the butt kissing one has to do. None of this has to with the tenure candidate's competency. I found many in academe to be quite childish especially as it relates to the tenure process. Professional jealousy derails so many careers. I'm amazed at all one has to go through to get tenured and the little money professors make in return. It's not worth it. The great thing about achieving tremendous wealth independently is that you no longer have to play that game."

"To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels." Frank Sinatra, My Way

A few observations -

It is not helpful to label people "enemies". The issue at hand is one's behavior; not who they are as people. It's a basic human need to feel a part of something bigger than one's self and to get along. Unfortunately, many of us have learned over time to respond to conflict in destructive ways as a survival mechanism.

While we can't change other people's behaviors, we can change how we respond. Whenever we use constructive responses to conflict, we are sending the message that we respect ourselves and others, we stand the best chance to remove ourselves as "victims" and we teach others how we want to be treated.

By avoiding, yielding and blaming ourselves for other people's difficult behaviors, we continue the cycle of dysfunction and limit individual and institutional change.

Being business-like and brief with a "Prickly Pear" is all good and fine in theory, but having to work with one closely as co-directors of a program in our department for almost ten years has been miserable. This person is not only a prickly pear, they are also, to add more expressions, a true kiljoy when they are not in the limelight or perceive others as a threat. They are slow to change and rarely show appreciation, or else it's just lip-service. I have tried everything--nothing works. This person is never wrong, has never apologized once in almost 10 years of working together. Throw in a dash of harsh remarks, and you have an almost unbearble colleague. This type of colleague is especially insideous when they appear to have a veneer of aimiability and collegiality to others who do not work closely with them. I'm sure other readers have faced working with this type of person. I look forward to the day they retire, not a moment too soon.

Having walked face first into some of these all unknowing, I can attest that the clear identification of the problem and coping mechanisms is of definite benefit. I don't think of these people as my enemies, but they can certainly be the enemy of progress, emotional well-being, and achievement on campus. For those decrying that we shouldn't spell such things out, I wonder if you're the same people who sit on the committees or in your office allowing this kind of subordinate or colleague to abuse your new employees without ever intervening?

What about the Gossip who tells you more than you want to know? About decisions made when you were hired? About colleagues? I've found myself politely avoiding him.

Allow me to add another archetype to the list: The Terrorist, who hates your guts for reasons that aren't entirely clear and attempts to make your life miserable in ways both large and small. There's no appeasing this person, no chance of reconciliation, because The Terrorist doesn't want anything from you. He or she just wants you dead.

One of our assistant professors once launched into one of her many complaints about the "mistreatment" she thought she was receiving at our institution by telling me how different (harder) things were for her than they were for me when I was earning tenure. Her comment clarified for me how one-dimensional her view of me really was. I am not sure how she gained her knowledge of what my tenure process was like. It certainly wasn't from any interest she ever showed in asking me about it, or for that matter, any interest she ever showed in asking me about anything. We are all complex humans. Categories may have some use but I believe we are much more complex than any category (or combination of categories) can possibly contain. Mutual respect by definition flows in 2 directions. It has been my experience that people often demand respect and compassion without offering it. Often these are the people who begin to speak in cliches and who write people off in simplistic caricatures. (This comment is not aimed at the author of the original article but the opinions expressed in the article obviously did spur my thoughts).

From "Conan the Destroyer's Guide for the Tenure Track":

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women".

Translation: Obtain a 2.1 million dollar grant for your work that ends no sooner than one year after the tenure decision is made. That drives the difficult faculty nuts, guarantees tenure, and is likely to garner a "professor of the year" award, arranged by Queen Provost herself. Just like winning the lottery.

A friend of ours was actually punched in the face by a prof with whom he disagreed as a new professor during the first faculty meeting at Trinity. He managed to escape.

Boy, this got lots of comments rather quickly. Somewhat disheartening. Here's another though:

Has anyone had to deal with the "unorganized/incompetent posterior-coverer"? I had a colleague, with whom I had to work rather closely, whose poor organizational skills were the undoing of many a project/initiative but routinely found ways to avoid accountability for the problems, and ended up dragging people who participated in those projects down too. Very difficult to deal with. Anyone else?

This article reminds me of why I left academe. Why slave away in a TT position where this kind of behaviour is so common that there are articles like this. I always felt that dept meetings were horrible displays of all the things wrong with higher ed. They're like grad seminars full of egotistical students left to their own devices, debating things that they have no skills or expertise on.

As some other posters point out - yes, there are these types in every workplace. Thankfully, these place don't have tenure and there are consequences for such behaviour.

I'll admit to being a bit of a turfmaster, particularly if the person invading my turf is an administrator without a degree in my subject. Part of academic freedom, just like political freedom, is "I'll respect your turf if you respect mine."

And stay off my lawn, too. :)

You can find all the characters described in this article in just a couple of faculty members that succeeded to destroy the department over and over. All they do is put on facades with the only purpose to gain personally while at the same time to destroy some people. In my department the chair is the biggest bully, and he makes others to be bullies too. He does not have much to show for his "career" yet he recently chose to attack the only assistant professor in the department with international recognition and NSF research grant. And when I say attack is in the sense that he (the chair) together with other troglodites in the department decided to not support the young assistant's tenure. This is done so the assistant prof will leave no matter what which will give even more power to the bullies. t the same time he destroys the department and generations of students by crippling them with the aberrant things that are allowed to go on: promoting cheating (yes, CHEATING), praising incompetent faculty members while reprimanding excellent young faculty, not respecting any rules and lying about everything. Every normal person will leave sooner or later. The upper administration wants to build something in this university but this little anachronistic, full of resentment and hate, quite incompetent old "professors" create toxic environments so people will leave. They should be asked why they are wasting the university's money. Only one of the terrible things these bullies are doing should be grounds for dissmissal. It is time for any university that respects itself to get rid of these blood sucking vampires.

We need a follow up article. See this from 2002.

http://chronicle.com/article/Figuring-Out-What-Counts-in/46255/

for tay 192;
what do you do when you are attacked no matter what? what do you do when these attackers do not respect any rules? what do you do if these bullies lie to your face, and in public? what do you do if they lie to the upper administration? what do you do when you realize that these people need a psychological evaluation?
do you think that we can we always be perpetual assistant professors?

Sometimes keeping your head down and excelling at your own research is irrelevant if the cause of the bullying is something beyond your control. I was bullied unmercifully by my old Dept Chair, and the only reason I could find was that his wife (another faculy member in the Dept) was unable to have biological kids of her own, which I managed to do (while working in that Dept). She and another childless woman made my life a living hell.

What about Dr. PhDitis, newly minted, who is short on long-term experience, while riding the wave in his duckpond of narrow dissertation experience? Been there, done that, but some seem to make a long childhood of it before they realize there is another generation younger than they that will gradually push them out, too.

It is important to remember that you *do* have rights. A p&t committee who regularly puts out letters saying you are meeting the requirements can only decide you do not get tenure at their own peril. More than one faculty member has chosen to take their case to court and has won.

My advice is to take every single annual review letter seriously. Respond in writing to the letters that are inaccurate and whatever you do, with any bully in the department, do NOT keep silent.

You might have a weak chair or administration, but I doubt every single person with authority on your campus can be characterized as weak. Let your bullies know you have a voice and be ready to take your case to more than one person in the event of a dispute over tenure.

Finally, while I'm putting my two cents in here, remember that there are people (I hope) within your department worth knowing and there are people across the campus worth knowing. Make your institutional "family" out of these folks. It might be risky leaving the bully out of your social circle, but giving the enemy too much information is a major mistake and allows the P&T stuff to look like a petty fight instead of a real review of your work in order to receive tenure.

Don't give up. Fight, fight, fight. And never choose silence. If you have to take it court, then go. Every office is somewhat like a shark tank; you just need to be aware that winning that job didn't mean you were entering a place of safe acceptance. It just means they had to have someone teaching what you teach and that they will get rid of you if it seems to benefit them more to not have you around.

Keep your eyes open and choose your words very, very carefully.

Book recommendation: "The No A**h*** Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't" by Robert I Sutton

Just finished it - very educational.

Obviously the best textbook is the one the prof. wrote.

I've worked as a staff member and an administrator at several levels and across several academic disciplines. There is a tremendous amount of what is described in this article and it is unique to faculty. At the core of the problem is that most of these people have never had a real job in their lives. They are children and the most effective support staff know this and work to manage them with this in mind.

The common advice to untenured faculty to "keep quiet and keep your head down" assumes (often falsely, especially for women) that the untenured faculty's only interest is in gaining tenure and that the untenured faculty member benefits from the status quo. But tenure isn't worth having if the institutional status quo is one that discriminates against women or others, is anti-intellectual, etc. If you are more competent than others and have good ideas on how to change things, you can achieve tenure at an institution at which you'd be proud to have tenure. Speak up!

There should be a code of conduct. I've seen it all: altered evaulations, slander and libel, escalating conflicts because administrators lack character and are too weak to intervene quickly, etc. People who deliberately act to sabotage others should be held accounatble by their own institutions. Much of this Lord of the Flies nonesense could be stopped if administrators had the backbone to make decisions and impose accountability.

Was in a toxic department with several of the archetypes above. The university required them to hire women because there had never been any hired...but didn't require them to tenure them. I could have used this article 15 years ago when I stopped the chairman of my tenure committee from sexually assaulting a student in a classroom (fifth time - five lawsuits). Denied tenure. Big surprise. Sued...my attorney was practicing law with a brain tumor and let the statute of limitations run out with an offer on the table. The regrets are overwhelming. These archetypes are real people and real careers that are ended. What do you do when you've had your career ruined by these people?

Jr. faculty should not sacrifice scruples or dignity when bullied by senior faculty. Over the years a number of my colleagues have done so, offering the excuse: "Once I have tenure I will speak my mind and stand up for what I think is right." In none of these cases was there measurable spine growth upon award of tenure. There is always the next promotion or committee perq, or pet project to use as an excuse. Integrity is more easily maintained than regenerated.

the way to deal with a bully is to kick him in the nuts (figuratively)

The bully is not satisfied until he/she has pushed you out of your job. The quality of one's work is irrelevant, and in fact being capable and competent only makes you a bigger threat. Targets of a workplace bully, check out the link below which provides excellent resources:

http://www.workplacebullying.org

To #51: I would have loved to literally, but I took years off his life with the stress I caused him, plus the damage to his reputation once the truth got out.

TO THE TARGETS OF BULLIES: FIGHT! Bullies count on darkness cowardly silence--shed light and make noise! No matter what happens, remember who you are and what you're worth.

Six categories (or "caricatures," if one insists)--but six million permutations, at least. . . .

Yes, this article was helpful, but the possible adversaries come around in so many different variations that it is impossible to categorize them all. The ones that I have found to be the hardest to deal with are those who respond to peaceful overtures with ever-escalating counter-attacks.

In some academic cultural settings, there are, regrettably, some very real no-win situations. Some adversaries will not rest until they see their victim(s) leave. It happens every day: someone is forced out somewhere for reasons that have nothing to do with anything real, but solely as a result of distorted perceptions.

Academia is hardly the only place where the kind of conflict described here occurs. Wherever there are formal bureaucracies or other hierarchies, some will always be jockeying for position and prestige in those hierarchies based on appearances rather than on true (but not always obvious) contributions. Some will win and some will lose. Sometimes everyone loses when this sort of thing spirals out of control.

I like to think that responding to evil with good is the best strategy, and I really believe that it is, but that is not to say that the more benevolent person will always be the one who survives.

Finally, the line between the good guys and the bad guys is typically quite blurry: no one is perfect, and very, very rare is there the perfect villain. We need to cut each other a little slack, I believe, for none of us is beyond improvement.

There is no formula for winning over one's very worst enemies. They will always be implacable. That is a tragedy, one that is slouching to fruition for someone, somewhere at this very moment.

"Scene: The assistant professor sits down for his very first faculty meeting, with some satisfaction, after being hired right out of a doctoral program."

Well, this is pure science-fiction today. I'd appreciate a more realistic approach to tenure-track.