Lessons from the University of Maryland’s Policy on Workplace Bullying 

HR Homeroom

By Edward Stern (OSHA, ret.)  

Introduction 

The University of Maryland (UMD) has a Policy on Professional Conduct and Workplace Bullying. (See https://policies.umd.edu/personnel/policy-on-professional-conduct-of-nonexempt-and-exempt-staff-employees.)  The policy was created by the University System of Maryland (USM), which consists of 13 state universities.  

It is worth looking at the Workplace Bullying part of that policy, because of what’s missing. The policy has many good ideas.  It is a thoughtful start.  But it overlooks important, subtle aspects of bullying/abusive conduct. The best policies cover the subtle elements.  I will point to some of them. (Link to 25 articles below.)   

Key Elements to Look For 

Organizations that have workplace bullying policies usually address the most obvious kinds of bullying (called abusive conduct in some states).  Many of them overlook more subtle forms of abuse.  So, I look for coverage of the subtle forms of abuse, and also for elements that help to assure the effectiveness of the policy.  Most of the elements addressed here can be found in the policies of Howard University, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), and UCLA, among others.   

Elements to check are: 1) omissions (per the Tennessee Model Plan); 2) non-verbal expressions of hostility (cited by Charles Darwin in 1872);  3) what is not prohibited conduct; 4) public humiliation; 5) severe single events; 6) gossip that is true and hurtful, 7) requirement for supervisors  to act (per Nashville E.O. 39); and 8) when to call the police before calling HR. 

Does the UMD/USM Workplace Bullying section address these issues? 

Here, I refer to some provisions by their numbering in the UMD policy.  

1. Re: omissions, i.e., deliberate inactions, refusals to meet/speak.  No. The policy does not explicitly address this problem.  This type of abusive conduct is subtle, and the  targets may not quickly recognize they are being abused by being ignored. The policy language on sabotage (IV. E.) might be thought to cover this, but there is no clear implication. This is something that many people will not think of. (This is in the NIH CIVIL policy discussed below, and the Tennessee Model Plan.) 

2. Re: non-verbal hostility, i.e., glares and sneers, angry gestures, etc. No. The policy does not address non-verbal expressions of hostility and contempt. Charles Darwin discusses this in his book, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872).  Section IV. B. addresses only verbal abuse. If people were not affected by glares and sneers, their coworkers would not use them to intimidate and demean others. 

3. Re: what is not prohibited conduct/not considered bullying.  Yes. The policy covers this.  However, the best policies note that feedback should be factual and civil and professional.  This is missing. False or uncivil feedback is bullying. An M.D. friend who studies bullying suggested to me that “professional” be dropped (at least from policies in hospitals), because M.D.s think that harsh language toward staff is “professional.”   

4. Re: Public humiliation.  Yes, this is covered in IV.C. Public humiliation is always psychological aggression, and not legitimate. Ancient and modern Jewish law view public humiliation as equal to physical violence, because of its effects on people.  

5. Re: Extreme one-time behavior?  No. This should be covered. Perhaps the developers of the policy thought “severe” would cover it.  But that is not clear. The best policies consider one event of public humiliation to be extreme behavior. 

6. Re: What if the gossip is true but private and harmful? Partly!  Section IV. H. speaks of “publicly sharing via social media or digital devices private information about another employee, obtained through employment…”  This does not cover private information shared directly by word.  Also, it does not cover private information obtained outside of employment –whether true or false.  The “obtained by employment” is a loophole. Sharing private information gathered outside of work should be covered. This grasp of false and true is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the sin of gossip and the sin of detraction. This is old stuff. 

7. Re: Requirement for supervisors/managers  to act when informed. No. The policy begins with I. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY – “This policy establishes expectations for the conduct of Regular and Contingent Nonexempt and Exempt staff employees. Failure to comply with these expectations may result in disciplinary action.” This is a good message, BUT it does not require supervisors/managers  (or HR) to act when informed of bullying/abusive conduct.   

One Maryland county school system had a decent anti-bullying policy. The system had a scandal because top management knew of allegations of sexual harassment BUT no one filed a complaint on the “official forms.”  So, management did not respond! Instead, they promoted the offender to be a high school principal!  All hell broke loose. People talked to the Washington Post. Then the School Board found out, and handed out terminations, demotions, and reassignments in the high ranks.  (See my article: Two scandals… in link below.) 

This disgrace to the school system could have been averted by the good sense in the last line of Executive Order 39 of Megan Barry, Mayor of the Metropolitan 

 Government of Nashville and Davidson County.  It says: “Supervisory personnel who allow abusive conduct to continue or fail to take appropriate action upon learning of such conduct will also be subject to corrective and/or disciplinary action.”  I would keep the introductory message, and add  E.O. 39’s warning to management in the policy. (This should be revised to include HR staff along with the supervisory personnel.)    

8. Re: When to call police instead of management. No.  This is a relatively new element, perhaps less than 10 years old.  The idea is to distinguish conduct that is physical abuse from conduct that is psychological. Management or HR can deal with psychological abuse.  For physical abuse or threats of it, employees should call the police. HR is not the police, but HR does need to know about the abuse. NIH “CIVIL” distinguished these two groups of conduct in a workplace violence brochure for some years. At this writing, the brochure is down for review along with sites that might relate to DEI. Many organizations have been disgraced by handling reports of physical violence internally, when it should have involved the police.  

Tightening Up Examples of Behavior That Is Not Bullying (IV. I) 

“The following examples shall not be considered bullying behavior:”  

1. Disciplinary action taken in accordance with applicable law or policy [ADD: “for the legitimate interest of the employer”. -- This is in the California anti-abusive conduct law.];  

2. Routine employee coaching or counseling, including feedback about and correction of work performance or conduct [ADD: “provided the feedback is factual and civil.” (from HUD and NIH)]; 

3. Exercising management’s prerogative to appoint, promote, transfer, or reassign an employee, to direct or assign work, and to determine the methods and means by which the unit’s functions will be carried out. [ADD: “However, assigning a highly skilled person to remedial training is for humiliation and therefore prohibited.”]; 

4. Individual differences in style of personal expression, provided that the expression is [ADD: “civil and”] not intended to intimidate; and  

5. Differences of opinion [ADD: “stated in a civil manner”] on work-related concerns. 

One Strong Element To Consider 

The Harvard Anti-Bullying Policy was strong in one part and weak in some other parts. The strong part prohibits words, gestures, and acts that put people in fear for their personal safety or for the safety of others.  This is the best language on this topic I have seen.  I covered this in my article, “Lessons from the Harvard Anti-Bullying Policy.” (Alan Garber, M.D., PhD, the President of Harvard, sent me a very gracious note for the article.) 

Conclusion 

The USM anti-bullying policy is a worthy start.  It misses various subtle forms of bullying, harassment, and abuse. The policy also could use a couple of suggested elements for improving the likelihood of compliance.   

I have addressed here as much as I can see. I may have missed something. It is good to look regularly at other organizations’ policies for their ideas.  

It is also desirable for a policy to require new employees to be trained on a bullying policy within the early months of their employment. Also, at least supervisors should be trained on this subject every two years (per UCLA).  Let the UMD policy be a lesson. 

Link to articles: https://muckrack.com/edward-stern/portfolio/list 

Share This Article: