Ten rules for succeeding in academia through upward toxicity

Love it :)

Are you me? Is it defamation if I tag my uni in this?

These days the Machiavellian manoeuvrings of our more psychopathic (ruthless, conscience-free, manipulative, self-oriented) colleagues are well understood and easy to describe. Just yesterday an inter-state visitor told me that she thought her Vice-Chancellor was highly psychopathic as judged against ten of the most proto-typical characteristics of the ‘corporate’ or ‘primary’ psychopath. These people are adept at getting to the top, where, because of their power and influence, they can do enormous damage. The best way to stop them is probably at the recruitment stage, but shallow interview-based selection methods will not achieve this. Deep investigation is needed and while this is costly in terms of time, it aces any type of cost-benefit analysis. Post-appointment the psychopathic are extremely difficult to deal with and a team effort is needed because individual action is too dangerous. These people are ruthless and vindictive when challenged. Nevertheless, potentially fruitful areas to investigate include past plagiarism, pornography use during work hours, undeserved promotion of cronies, sexual coercion and philandering in the workplace, CV fraud, inflated expense claims, huge falls in job satisfaction together with high levels of staff exit behaviour among those who work closely with the psychopathic individual and an increase in the signing of non-disclosure agreements among those who do leave. This is emotionally costly and often damaging for those employees who get involved and detrimental to the institution and society.

Except for 1 and 9, this is exactly my PhD advisor. Or should I say, the guy I try to cut out of my life as much as possible but he better sign my paperwork when the time comes, since the university environment gives me zero defenses or recourse or ability to change advisors without throwing away years of work.

I've never thought of university life like this. But when I was working at Us Career Institute reviews department I really did not understand lots of things... Now it's little more clearly, thanks to the list of your rules.

During my 10 years as a Lecturer at a Western Australian University I found these same issues/problems rearing their ugly head. I was discriminated against, harassed, and bullied by senior staff because I refused to accept bribes from students ($10,000 for an "A", or an "A" for a lay). I was sacked as a result, but being an independent person was able to survive by returning to buying and selling Small Businesses, which was my area of expertise. Being smarter than the Boss does not work in the Australian University sector, but creates opportunities in the real world.

Why are only white men pictured? Women are often the victims of such toxicity but they can also be the perpetrators.

@susanne_brander_oregonstate_edu Because white men occupy most leadership roles and have privilege/power to enable this type of environment. Anyways, this article laid it all out. Very relevant to my industry.

Black guy, america, STEM, outside attacks, threats of violence, constant denial, newly appointed federal judges, no escape, no way in, no way out, guess ill start selling drugs, rapping, or be a token... somewhere... somewhere

Might i add other rules to stamp out African Americans from STEM.... Make sure you interrupt any thing they say when in the presence of any one who may be a neoliberal... Don't hear what they say... they are subhuman... so point out any inconsistency... people suffering from white guilt will have some burden relieved and will be grateful to you for it... the closet racist will say to themselves 'they get it!!' and will admire you.. n-word lovers will try to criticize but there is always rule 8... hell you will always use it against an cis n-word male who doesnt know his place... It's America!! If there is anything we can do it is that!! Is that all we can do? ... doesn't matter that's been enough since i can remember :)