Checklist of Mobbing Indicators
By Prof. Kenneth Westhues,
University of Waterloo
As workplace mobbing becomes
more widely known and deplored, it is to
be expected that many workers in academe, as in other
fields, will claim to be mobbed as a way of warding
off criticism and strengthening their positions in
office politics. Indeed, many workers will genuinely
feel that they are being mobbed and will attribute
lack of sympathy from others as proof that the others
are part of the mob. It is therefore essential that
any claimed or apparent case of mobbing be subjected
to hard-nosed scrutiny in light of empirical mobbing
indicators, measurable criteria by which to conclude
that yes, this is a case of mobbing, or no, it is
not.
Below is a checklist of 16 mobbing
indicators or measures that I have used in my research,
and offered on workshop handouts entitled, "WAMI,
The Waterloo Anti-Mobbing Instruments" (PDF).
In the introduction to my 2006 book, The Prevention
and Remedy of Mobbing in Higher Education, I apply
these 16 indicators systematically to two different
mobbing cases, to illustrate variations on common
themes.
There is nothing sacred about this
list of mobbing indicators. In my book, The
Envy of Excellence, the 16 indicators are boiled
down to ten. Perhaps the most important indicator
is shown here as No. 12, the enlargement of some real
or imagined misdeed or fault in order to smear the
target's whole identity, so that he or she is seen
as personally abhorrent — a totally alien other,
a dangerous, repugnant entity that turns the stomachs
of good and decent people.
Mobbing Indicators
| 1. |
By standard criteria of job
performance, the target is at least average, probably
above average. |
| 2. |
Rumours and gossip circulate
about the target’s misdeeds: “Did
you hear what she did last week?” |
| 3. |
The target is not invited to
meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded
or excludes self. |
| 4. |
Collective focus on a critical
incident that “shows what kind of man he
really is.” |
| 5. |
Shared conviction that the
target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to
be taught a lesson.” |
| 6. |
Unusual timing of the decision
to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance
review. |
| 7. |
Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric
about the target in oral and written communications. |
| 8. |
Formal expressions of collective
negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a
vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting
to discuss what to do about the target. |
| 9. |
High value on secrecy, confidentiality,
and collegial solidarity among the mobbers. |
| 10. |
Loss of diversity of argument,
so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up
for” or defend the target. |
| 11. |
The adding up of the target’s
real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal
sin that cries for action. |
| 12. |
The target is seen as personally
abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing,
exclusionary labels are applied. |
| 13. |
Disregard of established procedures,
as mobbers take matters into their own hands. |
| 14. |
Resistance to independent,
outside review of sanctions imposed on the target. |
| 15. |
Outraged response to any appeals
for outside help the target may make. |
| 16. |
Mobbers’ fear of violence
from target, target’s fear of violence from
mobbers, or both. |
TOP of Checklist of Mobbing
Indicators
|
