valuing collegiality

As a labor economist, I'm continually amazed by the apparent divide between what we say we want in employees and coworkers and what we actually compensate and incentivize.  There are few things worse that working with a total asshole, and yet, assholes abound, and often in positions of great power.

I just saw a description of a top administrator (not at my university) which lauded him as "collegial."  That must mean that "collegial" behavior involves nasty yelling phone calls to employees at their homes, bullying people who disagree, playing favorites with friends, and acting unethically in romantic relationships with employees and job candidates.  Good to know.

I've often heard the top brass at my university talk about how we cannot request or reward collegiality in our departments. Why can't we?  Every employee should be expected to pull his/her weight for the greater good of the institution.  Why does that not have value?  And bad behavior is too often unchallenged.  For instance, after I experienced a few troubling incidents, my supervisors strongly recommended that I not initiate a grievance "for my own good."  That may have saved me from any further backlash, but it also gave apparent endorsement for the bad behavior.  How does that serve our institutional mission?

It's clear to me that the status quo enables bullying behavior and does little to nothing to encourage or reward collegiality.  And I suppose the take-away message is that publications or donor dollars or grants received are so valuable that we should turn a blind eye to any cruelty and intimidation that might come along.