Consensus

There's been a lot of attention given to bullying lately, and rightly so, as kids learn how wrong it is and what to do about it, and we all learn about the hazards of cyberbullying.   But this is about bullying in the workplace.

Of course intimidation is a time-honored management style.  I remember a teacher/football coach from high school who used to say, for instance, that "the only thing the primitive animal understands is pain," as we were apparently the primitive animals to which he referred. Delightful fellow. But it isn't just about preying on the weak for figurative lunch money anymore.  I've seen a different type of workplace bullying, where apathy, self-interest, and fear are  artfully corralled and manipulated.  I call this "consensus bullying."  

Here's how I've seen it work, with faculty, at least.  An individual with a small amount of power creates or participates in the illusion that the group is to make a decision in a democratic manner.  When the group meets, that individual strongly, even relentlessly, presses his/her case.  There may be some others that agree or are convinced by the presentation, but most have reservations or disagree.  Those others know that there is a price to pay for "speaking up."   For the untenured members, the imagined price is risking one's career (tenure) by taking sides or potentially alienating anyone that might influence one's career.   (This is an interesting aside, so I'll make the next entry about tenure games.)  That's understandable.  Cowardly,  melodramatic, but understandable.  For the tenured members, the price is the hassle.  And this is the key. Where the typical bully, such as the instructor that loves to exert power over students (and we've all seen these pitiful, insecure instructors) calculates that the weak will not engage in the hassle because the conflict is likely to have negative repercussions for the loser, the consensus bully understands that it's not so much about the strength of the "opponent" as it is about the size of the hassle.  Most people don't enjoy conflict (though faculty are famous for notable exceptions), and most of us have learned to "pick our battles." So in finding an issue that is important to the bully and not  terribly important to the others, when the bully creates a high hassle potential situation, most others will simply let the bully have his/her way.  At most, token resistance may be forwarded, then abandoned when it becomes apparent that it's not worth the hassle.  And the thing is, most of the time a faculty member (or probably most people, really) will not think it's worth the hassle if it doesn't seem to affect him/her directly and significantly.  For example, if there is a suggested change to a course/program, if it's not your course/program, you probably don't care that much and will just go with the flow, even if you disagree, when faced with the aggressive bully.  But let me be clear, where faculty do have self-interest at stake and it's perceived to be a fair fight, faculty can mix it up with and beyond the best of them.

What often happens, then, is that the silent majority is uncaring or opposed, but unwilling to go through the hassle of fighting the battle that may be harmful or at least uncomfortable, so most people will just let it slide, say little or nothing, and vote yes.  And then the bully is able to say that there was a democratically determined, even mandated, outcome, and move forward with the aegis of consensus.  Yet the truth is that the bully got his/her way.