1. What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive?
2. How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment?
3. What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment? Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from principal mistreatment?
4. What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors for the participants? Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors?
5. What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various demographic variables?
6. What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

• descriptive study, self-administered, on-line questionnaire of 219 items at the website of the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse (http:endteacherabuse.org)
• 172 US elementary, middle, and high school teachers indicating they had experienced mistreatment by a principal (database currently 333)
• original questionnaire, The Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI): (a) a section on mistreatment, (including frequency, intensity, and duration of 38 mistreatment behaviors); a section on effects (i.e., 72 physical, psychological, emotional, behavioral items); (c) a section on victims’ coping; (d) questions addressing factors that potentially contribute to mistreatment (respondents’ perceptions about why they were mistreated); and (e) a section on demographic (i.e., personal and institutional) questions. Mistreatment and effects items were identified from mistreatment behaviors and effects generally described in the empirical studies of work mistreatment/abuse conducted in profit and non-profit organizations (Cleveland & Kerst, 1993; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993; Hornstein, 1996; Namie & Namie, 2000; Neuman & Keashly, 2002; NNLI, 1993).
• PMAI pilot tested with 310 public school teachers. SPSS programs were run on the data included frequencies, crosstabs, ANOVA, and reliability. Reliability analyses were run across the harm levels and frequencies of the 38 principal mistreatment behaviors in the final version. Cronbach’s alpha values were .9645 for the harm levels from the 38 behaviors and .9675 for the frequencies from the 38 behaviors, indicating a high degree of reliability or stability.

Approximately 70% of participants were female and 30% were male; 88% were White, 6% were African American, 7% were other or unknown; half worked with union contracts and half worked with non-union contracts; 2% were under age 25, 16% were age 25-29, 31% were age 30-39, 29% were age 40-49, 20% were age 50-59, and 2% were age 60 and over. Approximately 37% of the participants had Bachelors degrees, 49% had Masters, 10% had Specialists, and 2% had Doctorates. About 15% of the participants had 1-3 years of teaching experience, 36% had 4-9 years of experience, 33% had 10-19 years of experience, and 13% had 20 or more years of experience. Participants’ school levels were elementary (35%), middle/junior high (29%), and senior high (34%, including vocational and alternative schools). Thus, participants in the survey were predominately female, white, equally likely to have union or non-union contracts, aged 30-50, held a master’s degree, had 9-20 years of teaching experience and were equally likely to work at the elementary, middle/junior high, or high school level (See Table 1).

In response to the question, “For how long did the mistreatment continue?” 15.7% of the research participants indicated 1-5 months, 16.9% reported 6-12 months and 40.1% and 25.6% reported 1-3 years and over 3 years respectively.

• Half of the participants reported that principal’s mistreatment caused serious or extensive harm to themselves and their work, and about one-third reported that such mistreatment caused serious or extensive harm to their families. When harm to self, work, and family were “combined”, about half of the participants rated it as serious or extensive.
• Half of the participants attributed at least half of their “total life harm” to a principal’s mistreatment.
• 51.2% of the 172 participants, or one out of two, said being at school was so harmful at times that they could not cope.

• An overwhelming majority (76.7%, or 132 participants), indicated that they would leave their job for another because of the harm caused by their principal’s mistreatment.
• Half (49.4%) of the teachers we studied “wanted to leave teaching altogether” because of their mistreatment.

• The top ten most-frequently used coping strategies (in rank order from the first to the tenth) were: (1) avoid the principal (79.7% of the participants); (2) talk with others for support and ideas (77.3%); (3) endure the principal’s mistreatment (61%); (4) rationalize the principal’s behavior (47.10%); (5) reading, music, TV (45.9%); (6) detach (44.8%); (7) assert myself with the principal (44.8%); (8) look for good in the principal (44.2%); (9) report to a union official or association representative (43.6%); and (10) think positively or accept as part of the job (42.4%).
• 51.2% of the participants indicated that they sought medical (31.4%) and/or psychological treatment (19.8%) for illnesses resulting from a principal’s mistreatment.

• The five most- frequently occurring principal mistreatment behaviors were (in rank order, from the first to fifth): failed to recognize or praise me for work-related achievements (69.7% of the participants), favored “select” teachers (62.7%), tried to intimidate me (58.8%), failed to support me in difficult interactions with students and/or parents (57%), ignored or snubbed me(55.2%). Other high-frequency mistreatment behaviors reported by 40% or more of the participants were (in rank order, from sixth to seventeenth): (6) nitpicked about time or micromanaged me, (7) was insensitive to my personal matters, (8) made unreasonable demands, (9) stonewalled or failed to respond to me, (10) used a snitch’s information (other teacher or student) to criticize me, (11) overloaded me with work and/or overloaded me with trivial work, (12) lied to me or about me, (13) attempted to isolate me or control my interactions with other teachers and colleagues, (14) spied on me, (15) used negative terms to label me and my behavior, (16) gossiped about me with teachers, parents, and other people, (17) unjustly criticized me. The five least-frequently occurring mistreatment behaviors were (in rank order, from 34th to 38th): prevented me from changing jobs, destroyed or removed my instructional aids, stole from me, displayed racist behavior towards me, sexually harassed me. Overall, 30.8% of the participants reported mildly frequent harm from the 38 mistreatment behaviors, 50% reported moderately frequent harm, 12.2% reported seriously frequent harm, and 7% reported severely frequent harm.
• Females, more frequently than males, reported that they experienced 28 of the 38 misbehaviors identified.

• The ten principal mistreatment behaviors that resulted in the most intense harm for teachers (i.e., the most intense) were, in rank order: (1) tried to intimidate me (66.3% of the participants), (2) failed to recognize or praise me for work-related achievements (64%), (3) failed to support me in difficult interactions with students and/or parents (63.9%), (4) gave me unwarranted reprimands (62.3%), (5) made unreasonable demands on me (62.2%), (6) favored other teachers (62.2%), (7) lied to me or about me (58.2%), (8) nitpicked about time or micromanaged me (58.1%), (9) used negative terms to label me and my behavior (57.6%), and (10) unjustly criticized me (57.6%). Twenty-one additional principals’ mistreatment behaviors were rated at least moderately harmful by over 40% of the study participants. The five principal mistreatment behaviors that resulted in the least intense harm for teachers were, in rank order, from 34th to 38th: destroying or removing instructional aids, displaying offensive personal habits and unprofessional conduct at work, stealing from a teacher, exhibiting racist behavior, and sexually harassing a teacher.
• Twenty-one (of the remaining 33 items) were also rated at least moderately harmful by over 40% of the study participants.
• 1.2% of the participants reported no harm from principal mistreatment, 36.8% reported moderately intense harm, 23.3% reported seriously intense harm and 8.7% reported severely intense harm. Female teachers, teachers with union contracts, and divorced teachers tended to experience a higher total intensity of harm.

• The ten most-frequently reported effects on teachers participating in our survey were (in rank order): stress (90.7% of participants), resentment (80.8%), anger (75%), insecurity (70.3%), a sense of injustice and moral outrage (70.3%), self-doubt (68%), anxiety (65.7%), sense of powerlessness (64.5%), and bitterness (64%).

• Norway, 8.6% (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996)
• Austria, 7.8% (Niedl, 1995)
• Finland, 42% (Bjorkvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back, 1994), 24.1% (Salin, 2001) and 10.1% (Vartia, 1996
)
• Sweden, 3.5% (Leymann, 1992b)
• Australia, 30% (Farrell, 1999) and 54% (Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU], 2000b)
• Ireland, 23% (O’Moore, 2000), 7.0% (Irish Task Force on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying, 2001) and 26.5% (External Advisory Committee on the Defence Forces, 2002)
• Great Britain, 14% (UNISON, 1997) and 24.7% (Hoel & Cooper, 2000)
• United States, 25% (Northwest National Life Insurance [NNLI], 1993), 23% Price-Spratlen, 1995), and 27.2% (Keashly & Jagatic, 2000)
• Worldwide, 10%+ of the current international workforce is being mistreated (Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper, 2001)

• teachers were among the largest group of abused workers (bullybusters.org)
• teachers were the largest group of enquirers and callers(bullyonline.org)
• National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse (NAPTA) launched a website (endteacherabuse.org) devoted to addressing the specific problem of teacher abuse

• Leymann (1990) mobbing communication by one or more individuals acting together toward a coworker over the long term that results in considerable psychological, physical, and social harm
• Einarsen and Skogtad (1996) bullying repeated harassment to one or several people by one individual of superior power
• Bjokquist, et al (1994) work harassment actions with the intention of causing psychic pain toward an individual(s) unable to protect themselves
• Price-Spratlen (1995) mistreatment and abuse behavior a recipient perceives as “unwelcome, unwanted, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, or a violation of human rights”
• Namie and Namie (2000) bullying “…the repeated, malicious verbal mistreatment of a target (the recipient)…that is driven by bully’s desire to control. That control is typically a mixture of cruel acts of deliberate humiliation and interference and the withholding of resources and support preventing the target from succeeding at work. The most important characteristic is that the bully’s action damages the target’s health and self-esteem, relations with family and friends, economic livelihood, or some combination of them all” (p. 3)

• Tepper (2000) abusive supervision subordinates’ perceptions of a “sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, including physical contact” (p. 178)
• Ashforth (1994) petty tyrant “an individual who lords his or her power over others…acts in an arbitrary and self-aggrandizing manner, belittles subordinates, evidences lack of consideration, forces confluct resolution, discourages initiative, and utilizes non contingent punishment” (p. 772)
• Hornstein, Michela, Cohen, Van Eron, Heckelman, Sachse-Skidd and Spencer (1995) and Hornstein (1996) Abusive disrespect “transgressions” by administrators including deceit, coercion, selfishness, cruelty, and disregard directed toward subordinates
• Keashly (1998) comprehensive definition workplace emotional abuse “hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors…directed at gaining compliance from others” (p. 85). Such behavior is unwanted by the target, intended to harm the target (as perceived by the target), constitutes a pattern of mistreatment, violates norms for proper conduct and individual rights, results in harm and exists within a relationship of unequal power
• Blase & Blase (2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006) school administrative mistreatment any pattern of behavior-verbal, nonverbal, and physical (excluding physical violence)-that, in the teacher’s perception, causes psychological/emotional, physical/physiological, personal and/or professional harm to him/her (racial and sexual harassment are included)

1. Administrators (vs. co-workers) are the primary workplace abusers between 50% and 90% of the time (e.g., ACTU, 2000a, 2001; Brodsky, 1976; Bjorkvist et al., 1994; Canada Safety Council, 2006; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Irish Taskforce on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying, 2001; Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Namie & Namie, 2000; NNLI, 1993; Pearson, 2000; Rayner, 1998; Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute [WBTI], 2003; Zapf, 1999).
2. US rates of abuse by superiors may exceed European countries (due to power inequalities that render subordinates unable to adequately defend themselves [Keashly, 2002] and “power distance” [Hofstede, 1980] (i.e., the degree to which organizational cultures enhance an administrator’s absolute power over employees; US is high power distance country--administrators are “superiors” not to be challenged (Keashly, 2002).
3. Link to the development of administrative cultures that directly or indirectly permit or reward such abuse (e.g., Ashforth, 1994; Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Brodsky, 1976; Grubb, Roberts, Grosch, & Brightwell, 2004; Hornstein, 1996; Jennifer, Cowie, & Ananiadou, 2003; Leymann, 1990).
4. Study of abuse of power/potential for abuse of power by organizational superiors is well-established in the social sciences (e.g., Adams and Balfour, 1998; Baumeister, 1996; Katz, 1993; Kekes, 1990; Kets de Vries, 1989; Kipnis, 1972; Lee-Chai & Bargh, 2001; Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Milgram, 1974; Winter, 1973).
5. Little attention has been given to the dark side of organizational life in either the management literature (Ashforth, 1994; Yukl, 2001) or the educational administration literature (Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Hodgkinson, 1991; Kimbrough, 1985; Starratt, 1991).
6. Coleman (2004) concluded that “…something approaching a ‘scholarly taboo’ may explain the neglect of workplace bullying” (p. 310).

1. Verbal forms of mistreatment/abuse: scapegoating, threats (e.g., of job loss, of poor evaluations), put downs, belittling, false accusations, swearing, yelling, angry outbursts, name calling, public humiliation, criticism (i.e., excessive and/or unfounded criticism about work abilities or personal life), gossiping, spreading false rumors, blaming, sexual harassment, racial harassment, deceit, dishonesty, favoritism, unfair evaluations, unwarranted reprimands, stonewalling, taking credit for another’s accomplishments, unreasonable assignments, excessive monitoring/micromanagement, dismissing another’s thoughts/feelings, implying a master-servant relationship, unfair job references, undermining advancement, imposing unreasonable deadlines, unfair reassignments or terminations, and obstructing opportunities for professional development.
2. Nonverbal forms of mistreatment/abuse: ignoring, snubbing, aggressive eye contact (e.g., staring, “the silent treatment”, dirty looks), spying, and physical gestures (e.g., foot stomping, finger pointing, throwing and /or slamming objects, and violations of physical space).
3. Physical forms of mistreatment/abuse: exclusion and/or isolation, withholding needed resources/conspiring with others to withhold needed resources, theft, and destruction of property (Ashforth, 1994; ACTU, 2000b; Baron & Neuman, 1996; Bjorkvist et al., 1994; Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Brodsky, 1976; Davenport, Distler-Schwartz, & Pursell-Elliott, 1999; External Advisory Committee on the Defence Forces, 2002; Glomb, 2002; Harlos & Axelrod, 2005; Harlos & Pinder, 2000; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Irish Taskforce in the Prevention of Workplace Bullying, 2001; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Keashly, 2001; Keashly & Rogers, 2001; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990; Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Price-Spratlen, 1995; Queensland Government Workplace Bullying Taskforce, 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991, 1998; Salin, 2001; Stern, 2004; WBTI, 2003; Westhues, 1998, 2004).

1. psychological/emotional health: reduced job satisfaction; negative feelings (e.g., desperation, incompetence, inadequacy, embarrassment, guilt, shame, self-doubt, loneliness, powerlessness); loss of concentration; obsessive thinking/intrusive thoughts; distrust; cynicism; anxiety; emotional exhaustion; compulsivity; burnout; disorientation; shock; chronic fear; socio-phobia; panic attacks; hypervigilance; depression; generalized anxiety disorder; suicidal thoughts; and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
2. hysical/physiological health: hair loss, back and neck pain, headaches/migraines, skin disorders, racing heart rate, loss of strength, significant weight changes (loss/gain), ulcers, chest pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, high blood pressure, angina, irritable bowel syndrome, TMJ, heart arrhythmia, and heart attacks
3. ork performance/relationships with coworkers: work impairment (i.e., decreases in initiative, creativity, risktaking, commitment, concentration, effort, work time, ability to do job); distrust; tardiness; absenteeism; voluntary attrition; stress/strain; job mistakes; sabotage; social withdrawal; isolation from colleagues; deterioration of relationships; impaired individual and group decision-making; thoughts of quitting; change of career goals; withdrawal from extra-role and social involvements; and deterioration of quality of relationships with clients
4. family/personal life include increases in family conflict and deterioration of relationships among family members, and loss of friendships (Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2000b; Bassman, 1992; Bjorkqvist, et. al, 1994; Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; External Advisory Committee on the Defence Forces, 2002; Glomb, 2002; Harlos & Pinder, 2000; Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Hornstein, 1996; Hornstein et al., 1995; Irish Taskforce on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying, 2001; Keashly, 2001; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Leymann, 1990; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996; NNLI, 1993; O’Moore, Seigne, McGuire, & Smith, 1998; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000; Price-Spratlen, 1995; Queensland Government Workplace Bullying Taskforce, 2002; Ryan & Oestrich, 1998, 1991; Tepper, 2000; UNISON, 1997; WBTI, 2003; Westhues, 1998, 2004)

• Glomb (2002) used the total number of abusive behaviors reported for each incident of mistreatment as a proxy for the intensity of harm.
• Price-Spratlen investigated the victims’ mean ratings of perceived severity (i.e., intensity) of harm from different types (i.e., verbal, physical, environmental, and other categories) of mistreatment of abusive behavior, not individual behaviors.
• Intensity of harm of individual behaviors has not been studied.

• Direct action by a victim (e.g., reporting an abuser to a superior or a union) results in no response, efforts to protect the abuser, or reprisals against the victim (Blase & Blase, 2003; External Advisory Committee on the Defence Forces, 2002; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly, 2001; Keashly, et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990; Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie & Namie, 2000).
• Keashly (1998) concluded that a victim’s most frequent response to abusive behavior by a superior was to “do nothing” to directly address the problem, and only about 10% of victims make a formal complaint.
• Beyond our previous study (Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, 2003b), how public school teachers cope with abusive school principals has not been systematically studied.

1. Blase & Blase (2002, 2003a, 2003b) published the first and only study of school principal mistreatment of teachers in the world.
2. interviewed 50 exemplary teachers throughout the U.S. who experienced severe patterns of prolonged mistreatment by principals
3. used grounded theory method to collect, analyze, and conceptualize findings related to principal behaviors teachers described as abusive and their effects on teachers, teaching, and students
constructed a model of principal mistreatment consisting of three levels of aggressive, escalating mistreatment (Level 1-indirect aggression, moderate mistreatment; Level 2-direct aggression, escalating mistreatment; and Level 3-direct aggression, severe mistreatment). principal mistreatment of teachers consisted of, for example, ignoring, being insensitive to personal matters, stonewalling, nitpicking, nonsupport with parents/students, withholding resources and taking credit for teacher achievements, overloading, withholding professional development; and, more seriously, sabotaging, prohibiting teacher interaction, docking sick leave, spying, destroying teacher aids, stealing, public and private criticism, favoritism, lying, being explosive and nasty, threats, writing reprimands, giving unwarranted evaluations, mistreating students, forcing one out of a school or teaching job, and sexual and racial harassment
4. effects of these behaviors included teacher disorientation, humiliation, being ostracized, lowered self-esteem, fear, anger, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), physical damage, damage to professional relationships, damage to performance in the classroom, decreased involvement in the school, and harm to one’s personal and family life. In short, principal mistreatment significantly damaged teachers affectively, cognitively, behaviorally, and physically, and such mistreatment also resulted in considerable adverse effects on classroom teaching

Top

SURVEY

HOME