Skip to main content

An Analysis of Transparency in the Letter Announcing McKiddie’s Resignation

By January 11, 2024April 19th, 2024No Comments

Star cluster Westerlund 2
Photo Credits: NASAESAthe Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), A. Nota (ESA/STScI), and the Westerlund 2 Science Team


Introduction to Concepts of Transparency and Cognitive Dissonance

This is the first in a series of articles where we will look at communications from leaders at the Chapel Hill Bible Church through the lens of transparency. Although the examples here are from a specific church, readers from other churches may find the analysis helpful in understanding their own situations.

“Transparency” is a contemporary expression of what the Bible calls “walking in the light.” If we’re transparent, there are no dark places behind which to hide things.

When our leaders communicate with us as congregants, most of us are predisposed to implicitly believe what they say. If we didn’t believe they were trustworthy,  we wouldn’t have elected them to office. We can quote Bible verses about submitting to them, such as Heb. 13:7 or 1 Peter 5:5. Most of us experience our church as a safe refuge and our fellow congregants as family . Our network of relationships there give us joy, comfort, and the beauty of community. Our role in the church gives us meaning.  If we’ve been there long enough, being associated with a particular local church contributes to our sense of identity. We want it to stay that way, and trusting our leaders is part of that.

However, some in a congregation may also treasure these same aspects of their church, but be less predisposed to trust without verifying. Perhaps previous church experiences have taught them to be wary when certain patterns emerge. Or perhaps actions of a church leader call to mind actions they’ve observed in other contexts such as a secular workplace.

Image Repair Theory/ Image Management


A stark contrast exists in Scripture between the motives of the Pharisees, of whom Jesus said, “They do all their deeds to be seen by others.” (Matt. 23:5) and the standard for Christ’s followers, who are encouraged: “Let us not love in word or talk  but in deeds and in truth.” (1 John 3:18).

Image management and repair are for caring for image—what is seen by others.

Image repair theory, as conceptualized by William Benoit, “outlines strategies that can be used to restore one’s image in an event where reputation has been damaged.” Image repair theory is applicable to both individuals and organizations and includes multiple strategies. A part of PR strategy, it is also known as “crisis communication.” It includes strategies to evade responsibility, to reduce the public perception of the offense, and to take corrective action or “mortification” (admitting wrongdoing and asking forgiveness.) [1]

Taking corrective action and “mortification”, when done with authenticity, are consistent with Christian ethics.

Wade Mullen used a similar rubric in a Christian context for his doctoral thesis: “ “Impression Management Strategies Used by Evangelical Organizations in the Wake of an Image-threatening Event.”

In his dissertation [2], he distinguishes between managing one’s image from managing the problem, and lists six negative impacts when Christian organizations choose image management over problem management:

  1. “The organization may become increasingly concerned with covering up evil for the sake of preserving a positive appearance.”
  2. “Organizations can choose to protect themselves… [because] to look at a problem means one is now responsible to… respond.”
  3. “Victims can be easily forgotten.”
  4. “Organizations may act in ways that are destructive rather than redemptive.”
  5. “The use of impression management for the purpose of deception may cause the organization to become increasingly adept at using deceit, manipulation, and secrecy…”
  6. “….can strengthen a clan culture mentality.”

Cognitive Dissonance

Sometimes a communication can raise yellow or red flags for a reader.  When these flags collide with the predisposition to trust, cognitive dissonance is created. As people realize things aren’t adding up, that realization will conflict with the expectation that our leaders can be counted on to  tell the truth. To think otherwise threatens to rock the reader’s world.

People will resolve this cognitive dissonance in different directions and at different paces. Those who have had only positive interactions with leaders will be the quickest to resolve the disconnect in favor of trusting the leaders and mentally ignore, explain away, or discount any contradictions. Those who like the sermons, whether or not they have personal connections with any leader, will likely do the same.

Others will have had experiences which raise the likelihood that they will see contradictions and omissions as yellow flags and trust will begin to erode. Some may have observed things on occasion which raised eyebrows, but not alarm. Still others may have had direct experiences that caused a harmful impact. People with previous experience with similar communication—whether in another church or a workplace or a family–will also be more likely to see signs that transparency is lacking.

The creation of cognitive dissonance sows division in the Body

When leaders communicate in a way that lacks full transparency, it triggers cognitive dissonance; when congregants with a multitude of experiences  attempt to resolve the cognitive dissonance on their own, they will end up with different conclusions about what is true. Communication that lacks transparency therefore inevitably leads to division in the Body and erosion of trust in the leaders.

Balancing trust and submission with commands to “Beware.”

While most Christians in evangelical churches are aware of the biblical commands to submit to their leaders, it is also typical for most to regard the Bible’s many warnings about untrustworthy spiritual leaders as applying somewhere else: “back then” or to another sort of Christian church, but not here, not to this church I attend. As a result, those commands tend to fade into the background for many people and they may even believe that it is wrong to give anything less than unquestioning trust to leaders .

Yet there are many more warnings to “beware” or “stay alert” than there are to submit. (If you need a refresher, read Marks of a Wolf.)

Format of analysis:

With those things in mind, let’s take a look at the letter members of the Chapel Hill Bible Church received on On April 17th, 2021,  from  Jay Thomas, Lead Pastor, and Steven King, Elder Chair, announcing the resignation of Executive Pastor, Eric McKiddie.

Our reaction will include 3 perspectives:

In the first two perspectives,  we present thoughts or conversations that may be occurring as different recipients read the letter.  These examples are inspired and informed both by typical reactions of congregants and victims when spiritual or other abuse has been alleged in a church, as well as familiarity with the situation at Chapel Hill Bible Church and how people in different groups were responding.

The purpose of offering these examples of possible “thoughts” or “conversations” is to help the reader understand how ambiguity and lack of full transparency in communication by leaders results in cognitive dissonance in the recipients, and then division within the group.

The perspective labeled analysis zooms out to provide a wider-angle view.

1.Congregant who was passively impacted by McKiddie:

Individuals who were passively impacted by McKiddie’s behavior may react differently from those with who were personally impacted.  The announcement may even have come as a complete surprise to them. Quotes are indicative of what such an individual may think or how they might verbally respond (to roommate, spouse, etc.) when reading the letter. Various possible perspectives of these congregants will be presented. Specifically, these sections will highlight the rise of cognitive dissonance as congregants respond to ambiguous communication. As you read, note how division within the Body arises as individuals attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance and end up with different conclusions about what is true.

2. Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

Numerous Chapel Hill Bible Church employees and congregants who regularly interacted with McKiddie were deeply affected by his actions. Additionally, many of these individuals spoke with the investigator and may have been aware of the other stories shared with the investigator, a private attorney. These quotes highlight how an individual directly impacted may think or verbally respond (to roommate, spouse, etc.) as they read the letter.

To understand how this group may be processing this letter, it may be helpful to the reader to have a glimpse into future revelations by Chapel Hill Bible Church leaders regarding McKiddie’s behavior.

Some weeks following this letter, Elder Chair Steven King acknowledged publicly that he was “confident” that there was

“abuse of power…regular and repeated use of power and authority to put down people with a different opinion. For some of the people interviewed, this was ongoing…We have people telling us that:  they have been abused… he [McKiddie] used language and  power in ways that hurt them emotionally… he shamed them with other staff members… [McKiddie] directly and publicly criticized staff members that disagreed with him… [there was] …an inability to demonstrate care and concern and an abrasive personality. Each one of these points listed hurt people in some way emotionally.”


This description of behavior correlates with several descriptions of “workplace bullying.”   [3] [5] [6]

Chapel Hill Bible Church subsequently contracted with  G.R.A.C.E. [Godly Response to Abuse in Christian Environments] to assess the culture of the church. About a year and a half after this letter was written, after an exhaustive assessment process, GRACE issued a 64-page report and recommended that it be released in its entirety to the congregation. Instead,  the leadership wrote its own 18- page “summary” of the GRACE report . This summary included more detail about what types of harm were experienced at Chapel Hill Bible Church, including, but not limited to,  from interactions with McKiddie:

GRACE noted some reported impacts such as: weight loss, anxiety, depression, PTSD, isolation from church community, and an “emotional roller coaster.”
As GRACE noted, “The mark left on many of those within the reach of CHBC has been indelible. Not only directly harmed [sic], but indirectly as others stand in support of their brothers and sisters. Many feel they have been alienated and dismissed and in turn have lost their community. This conflict has hindered the process of healing. Many people said they have been hurt at CHBC, and much remains unresolved…”  Leaders’ summary of GRACE report 

These impacts are associated with workplace bullying. [4] [7] [8] [9]

3.  Analysis  

The sections labeled “Analysis”  will zoom out to use an editorial lens incorporating general knowledge to point out problems with various statements and why they might be “yellow flags” or “red flags ” to various people reading the letter.

Analysis of the Letter


Dear Brothers and Sisters,

This has been a really challenging year for our church family and now we have another reason to lament. We anticipate this news will be difficult for many to receive. We have had a difficult time processing it, but we believe our church family needs to know this important information. Please understand we are trying to balance being transparent about the situation while respecting individuals’ privacy and caring for all of those involved.


Note that this is initially framed as a reason to lament, something difficult to process. The leaders also mention their own difficulties. This could be an attempt to empathize with the congregation.

As you read keep in mind that Steven King and Jay Thomas state that they are trying to balance transparency, privacy, and caring. At the end, you can rate how well the three concerns are balanced.

Due to formal complaints concerning a problematic work environment involving Executive Pastor Eric McKiddie, the Elders recently commissioned an independent, external review.

Background: The formal complaints were from congregants who presented them directly to the Executive Pastor Support Team. As the Executive Pastor, Eric was at the top of the supervision chain for everyone else on staff except Lead Pastor Jay Thomas. This limited options for staff member to bring a complaint.

We took the situation seriously and as a result of the review, the Elder Oversight Team has concluded that there are some important issues to be addressed:

  1. Relationship conflicts along with a direct and sometimes insensitive management style resulted in some staff and volunteers experiencing a difficult work and ministry environment, which is not consistent with the values of our church and how a Christian workplace and church should operate.

Congregant passively impacted :

This description of Eric’s conduct sounds totally normal.  I’d rather have a manager who was direct than one who beat around the bush so that no one ever knew what was expected!  Who among us is not “sometimes insensitive?”  And who doesn’t have occasional “relationship conflicts?” Why was this reason for an external evaluation? Why would some staff and volunteers experience this as a “difficult” environment?

I’ve never had any bad interactions with him.

I’m confused. How does this line up with ‘a reason to lament,’ or a need for an ‘independent, external review,’ or something ‘difficult to process?


It doesn’t.

Yellow flag #1. Depending on one’s own propensity to trust,  at the very least a congregant reading this would experience a state of confusion. People may have to re-read what they’ve just read to see if they missed something, for instance.

Wade Mullen actually cites this exact phrase, “This is not in accordance with our values,” as a type of “concession” that excuses: “Apologies often include attempts to dissociate the behavior from what the apologizer wants others to believe is their typical conduct.” He refers to these as “apoloscuses.” [8]

Congregant personally impacted by McKiddie:


I didn’t…

leave my job

withdraw from a ministry I loved

or develop depression , anxiety, PTSD, or a stress-related health condition 

as a response to a ‘direct management style’!


For those who were significantly impacted by Eric’s behavior, this could be received as a gut punch. Having been hopeful that the truth about what they experienced would be told, they may now feel shock, followed by a sense of betrayal and anger. They may suspect that they are being thrown under the bus, whether intentionally or not.  For many, this communication minimizes the harm done to them. Minimization is an image management strategy used to “reduce offensiveness.”   [11]

By minimizing this behavior, Jay and Steven’s characterization of what people personally impacted had endured likely compounds the harm they have already experienced.


2. The existing organizational structure consolidated too much responsibility and authority into a single position that did not have a specific and in-office supervisor.
3. A lack of accountability and oversight structures for the church’s most senior supervisory role, Executive Pastor, allowed the issues to both grow and continue.

Congregant passively impacted :

Ok, so organizational structure was part of the problem and allowed “issues to both grow and continue.” But I still don’t know what “issues”  you are talking about. 

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

This was obvious for a long time. It looked to me like the one person who was in-office and who could have intervened  wasn’t doing much about it.


Yellow flags continue. Items 2 and 3 concern organizational structure and Eric’s role on the organizational chart where Eric had too much responsibility and authority with too little  accountability. But there is no clarification about what went wrong. What issues were allowed to grow and intensify?

The independent review found no evidence of sexual misconduct or physical abuse.


Congregant passively impacted:

Whew. I was beginning to worry about whether there was some kind of sexual misconduct.

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

Fine, but I don’t know anyone who has made accusations of that sort. What about the emotional/ psychological and spiritual abuse I experienced and told the interviewer about?  


Before this statement, some congregants may have started to wonder whether there was sexual misconduct since that sin or embezzlement are typically the only kind of sin that draws an institutional response from a church. This statement puts this speculation to rest. It was an important statement to make at the beginning.

However, in future weeks and months, this statement will be repeated frequently as if it ends the discussion and as if there were no other possible forms of harm.

People in various roles on staff and serving as volunteers felt hurt or wounded by the issues listed above.


Congregant passively impacted :

It sounds like some people were being oversensitive and Eric got thrown under the bus.

This is not adding up.  


Notice the use of a feeling verb here: “People in various roles felt hurt or wounded…”  This phrasing allows for the interpretation that there was a passing feeling or a subjective reaction that maybe less sensitive people would not have had. It begins to place responsibility on the people on the receiving end of McKiddie’s behavior.

Notice the difference if the verb is changed from “felt” to “were.”

“People in various roles were hurt or wounded…”  This conveys something factual. Harm was done.

A congregant who is reading this cannot be faulted for wondering whether the real issue was  someone’s subjective and oversensitive feelings rather than any wrongdoing on Eric’s part, especially since the only thing that is  described is normal management behavior.

This will be one way that some people will start to resolve the cognitive dissonance: If these oversensitive unnamed people are the real villains, that lets our leaders and our church off the hook. Whew!

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

This makes it sound like we just got our oversensitive feelings hurt! This is infuriating. 

I did not withdraw from my ministry because of some one-time misunderstanding. This happened day in and day out and you never knew what was coming.

I didn’t feel hurt. I was hurt and I have the diagnosis to prove it. 

Sounds like they believe the effects of Eric’s behavior were not significant. 


This is what many refer to as the second wounding, the institutional betrayal a person feels when a church they had previously trusted minimizes or outright disregards their account of what happened.

People who were affected most deeply by Eric’s behavior are in a position to realize that the narrative is already being shaped in two ways:

1) Eric’s behavior has been described using words that could apply to any normal manager, minimizing his actions and responsibility.

2) The impact on them has been minimized in a way most readers could translate as merely “getting their feelings hurt.”

People in various roles on staff and serving as volunteers felt hurt or wounded by the issues listed above and by the lack of engagement when concerns were raised. [Emphasis added.]

Congregant passively impacted :

So how long have people in leadership known about these issues?

What do you mean by “lack of engagement?” That’s rather vague.

Were concerns not treated as credible or what? 

You mean multiple  concerns were brought and they were still weren’t treated as significant?

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

I was just told to go back to Eric, by myself, after what I just experienced. Matthew 18 and all that. He makes me tremble like a leaf inside. I wasn’t going to put myself through that.

I was told to go back to Eric, which I did. Nothing changed. I realized there was no point.


Lack of engagement by whom? Not revealing who was responsible for “lack of engagement”  is another yellow flag. It is a variation of “Mistakes were made.”

It also sounds like this happened multiple times. This is often a clue that Matt. 18 is being misused: a person under the authority of a leader experiences something disturbing enough that they bring it to another leader’s attention. They are told to go directly to the leader and work it out and not talk with anyone else. Perhaps there is an excuse or even words of apology, but no fruit of repentance. However, since each incident is treated as a one-off, no one is aware of  the pattern of the leader’s behavior.

The elders took these findings seriously and are addressing the issues in the following ways:

  1. Eric McKiddie resigned on Thursday, April 15 to complete his doctorate requirements and pursue a new career path.

Congregant passively impacted :

Wait. What? Eric just coincidentally happened to resign to finish working on his doctorate? Not buying it.

The elders are hiding something big.

Oh, I see. The real problem is that the elders are rolling over in response to the complaints of oversensitive people. They wronged Eric and he resigned as a result.

This wording sounds like a lawyer is involved.

I’m totally confused!

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

 He just happened to resign to go finish the work on his doctorate? Right. Well at least he’s gone and can’t do any more damage.


That little preposition “to” implies that what follows is the reason that Eric resigned. Had they written “Eric McKiddie resigned on Thursday, April 15 “and will” complete his doctorate requirements and pursue a new career path,” it would have simply communicated what Eric would be doing after his resignation.

Some readers are predictably getting frustrated at this point –and maybe even angry- no matter which explanation they think is most likely.

2. The elders are contracting with a Christian organizational consulting firm to conduct a detailed analysis that will yield suggestions for a better organizational structure and help ensure these issues do not happen again. This process will work to improve reporting structures, accountability requirements, and office policies.

Congregant passively impacted :

Well, at least this is consistent with discovering structural problems you didn’t know about before. But you still haven’t told us what these so-called “issues” are.

 The problem was not the structure. Lack of engagement in response to concerns is not a structural problem.

 You created this mess by mucking around with our leadership structure. Why do our tithes now have to pay for someone else to fix it?

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

Maybe that will help some, but that’s not the main problem, and it may amount to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. 

3. We are actively working to provide care and counseling for all involved.

Congregant passively impacted:

I’m glad our church is providing counseling. Well done!

Why does the church need to pay for counseling for  people’s hurt feelings?

Were people hurt or did they feel hurt? Is it overkill or what? Which is it?

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

I’m thankful for the offer of counseling paid for by the church, that my identity is being kept confidential, and that I can choose my own counselor.  But we also need the full truth to be told and so far, you’re not doing that. 


The offer to pay for counseling without controlling who people see for counseling, is a way to begin to restore those who have been harmed. It is indeed well done.

This is a difficult time for our church, those hurt by the issues above, and the McKiddie family. Out of respect and care for all involved, we ask that you keep this information within our church family. Members of the McKiddie family are relationally connected in many places in our community, including schools. We want to protect the children from unnecessary and potentially hurtful conversations.

Notice that three groups of people get mentioned: the congregation, those hurt, and the McKiddie family. Which concern gets the most attention?

Congregant passively impacted :

Those who are beginning to feel that Eric has been treated unfairly: At least you are warning people not to gossip! Reaching out to support Eric’s wife and children is the least we can do.

Those who are confused: What would we tell our kids? We don’t  know what’s going on!

Those who see the inconsistency in treatment between McKiddie and a former staff member:  Of course, we’re not going to tell our kids, but if  Eric actually sinned, there should be a public rebuke. That is not inconsistent with caring for the family. And by the way, where was this concern for a family when not too long ago, you publicly rebuked a staff member who also resigned but was not even an elder? You did it during a church service with his wife and children sitting in the service. Even my kids felt sorry for his kids. 

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

Caring for Eric means rebuking him publicly according to the Bible.  I  feel sorry for his wife and kids and want them to get the support they need. This is not their fault. And of course, we wouldn’t tell our kids. But it’s Eric’s behavior that has brought this onto his family. There is no way around that. And where was this concern for the family when not too long ago, you publicly rebuked a staff member who also resigned and was not even an elder? You did it  during a church service with his wife and kids sitting there.” 


The differential treatment is a red flag.  Why is one man being treated so differently from another?


As we work through these issues, we want to apologize to those who are hurting.

Congregant passively impacted :

Congregant who is resolving the cognitive dissonance in the direction of trust will grasp onto the word apologize: Ok. Maybe the elders didn’t do everything right, but they are apologizing. We forgive you! (We’re not sure for what, though.)

Those who are still sifting this will have more questions: Who is the “we” who are “apologizing? Just Jay and Steven? Are you speaking for yourselves or for a broader group of leaders?

We now realize that we could have acted faster and cared better.

Congregant passively impacted :

Congregant who is resolving cognitive dissonance in the direction of trust: They’re confessing! This is so Christian of them! We have such humble, godly leaders!

Congregant who still has questions and rising concern: What do you mean that you could have acted faster? On what? (You haven’t told us.) But apparently there were reports. To whom? What kind of reports? What did you do instead of acting? Have you personally apologized to those who came for help, but didn’t receive any?

So you cared, but could have done it better? What does that even mean?  Could you please explain this to us so we know what the failures were? Did you sin? Or just fall short of perfection?  Is this your whole apology? 

People will also start to fill the vacuum with their imaginations. Hmm. Now that I think of it, how many staff members have left since he came?  I wonder if this had something to do with why they left….

Individual Personally Impacted by McKiddie:

Well, maybe they are planning on apologizing in person? I hope so. Otherwise, this is meaningless.


This is a gloss, not an actual confession of sin. Another yellow flag.

The “apology” in this letter is sent out publicly, but no one knows who is included in the “we” who owe apologies or exactly what they are apologizing for.

The vague phrases “ We could have acted faster,” and “We could have cared better,”  imply that there was action taken (just not fast enough) and there has been care given (but it could have been better). This gets really close to “We humbly apologize for not being perfect.”

For these reasons, the apology offered appears to be an image-management and repair strategy rather than a genuine expression of contrition and repentance.

However,  since  the word “apologize” was used, it will register in the minds of many in the congregation as their leaders doing the right thing. Those who were not negatively impacted themselves may believe this now settles the matter. Apology given. Forgiveness should be forthcoming. Everything is resolved and we can go on trusting.

We know this is hard news for you to digest. It has felt like a relentless season of lament for our church family in so many ways, and we long with you for the sun to set on it. But we are also reminded of Romans 12: 12 as we continue on in the work God has given use to do”: Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” We ask that you would join us in renewed and fervent prayer for God to be at work in the midst of these things for His glory and our good.

Congregant passively impacted:

Congregant resolving cognitive dissonance in the direction of trust in the leaders: Oh, we want this all to be over soon, too! God works all things together for good! 

Congregant resolving cognitive dissonance in the direction of suspecting McKiddie was unfairly treated: Tribulation for Eric and his family, you mean. I can’t believe you accepted his resignation!  

Congregant with questions and rising concerns: How disconnected can these leaders be with what’s happening at this church? Why don’t you know what’s going on? You’re “lamenting” your lack of engagement, but then giving the impression that this is a burden to you. 

Individual personally impacted:

I’ll be praying for the truth to be revealed and for Eric’s family.


Yellow flag. This is a misdirection. The situation is being characterized as “tribulation” (which in the Bible nearly always denotes persecution from without), and as part of an “endless season of lament.”  However, there is the implication of sin here- not only McKiddie, but apparently other elders in “lack of engagement when concerns were expressed”—sin that is not being forthrightly confessed, nor responded to biblically with a public rebuke. There are multitudes of Bible passages that could have been quoted that involve lament for sin;  instead this is characterized as “tribulation.”

Red flag: Exactly 0 words connoting sin have been used in the entire letter .

As members of our church family, we invite you to join us for a member gathering tomorrow, Sunday, April 18, following the second service (~ 12:30 pm) to process this information and to pray together for those involved and for our church as a whole.

We are committed to caring and shepherding all of our brothers and sisters in Christ that have been involved. We are committed to working through these difficult issues together for a healthier church. We are confident that we will look back on this season and know that God has better equipped us for his work in shepherding our church body well.


The actual commitment will be revealed in time.

There is also misdirection here. The focus is on a confident expectation of learning and development ( God will better equip them to shepherd well ) rather than a focus on what they haven’t done well through reflection, repentance, and repair, thereby working toward true reconciliation and restoration.


In Christ,

Jay Thomas, Lead Pastor

Steven King, Elder Chair


One would think the “we” who could have “acted faster” and “cared better” would certainly include the two men signing off on the letter. One wonders at their confidence in proclaiming how God is going to act.

Your Own Analysis:

At the beginning of the letter, Jay & Steven said they were trying to balance being transparent while respecting individuals’ privacy and caring for all involved. How did they do?

On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is not at all and 10 is totally, rate the following:

Degree of transparency?  1-10

How well privacy was protected?  1-10

How well care & concern was expressed for the following groups of people?

  • Eric & his family 1-10
  • people Eric had harmed 1-10
  • church leaders 1-10
  • the congregation as a whole 1-10

Overall job of balancing transparency with respect for privacy and caring for all involved? 1-10


1 Image Restoration Theory

2Mullen Dissertation  p 2-3

How Bullying Manifests at Work & How to Stop It   Harvard Business Review. Contains helpful chart with characteristics of both overt and covert workplace bullying.

4. Workplace Bullying  University of Louisville  Discusses obvious vs. clever bullies, some effects on targets.

5.20 Subtle Signs of Workplace Bullying  At ERC (Employers Resource Center).

6. WBI Definition of Workplace Bullying.

7. Workplace bullying and Common workMental Disorders.

8.Workplace Bullying: A Tale of Adverse Consequences.

9. Impact of Workplace Bullying on Individuals’ Health.  [Click “download” for full access to paper.]

10.  A concession is defined as a “statement made to avoid a scandal rather than as a genuine apology that is intended to heal and restore.”  Something’s Not Right; Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse and Freeing Yourself from its Power  

11. Putting Image Repair to the Test  William L. Benoit p. 15