Mentorship has always been regarded as one of the defining pillars of academia. It is through mentorship that knowledge is transferred, research capacity is developed, and future scholars are nurtured. Every successful academic can usually point to one or more mentors who provided guidance, challenged their thinking, opened professional doors, and helped shape their careers. Effective mentorship is therefore one of the most valuable investments a university can make in sustaining academic excellence.Unfortunately, mentorship does not always fulfil this noble purpose. In some instances, it gradually degenerates into a subtle but damaging form of bullying, where authority is exercised not to develop younger academics but to intimidate, control, or exploit them. Because such behaviour often occurs within relationships characterised by significant power imbalances, it frequently remains hidden from public view. Many postgraduate students and early-career academics endure these experiences in silence, believing that speaking out may jeopardise their academic progression or professional future.As a professor, researcher, supervisor, and journal editor, I have become increasingly convinced that academic bullying is one of the most underreported threats to research excellence and institutional integrity. Universities devote considerable attention to research output, global rankings, and innovation, yet comparatively little attention is given to the quality of the relationships through which future researchers are developed. A university cannot genuinely claim to pursue excellence if fear becomes the dominant language of mentorship.The challenge begins with a misunderstanding of what mentorship is intended to achieve. True mentorship is founded on trust, mutual respect, intellectual honesty, and the genuine desire to see another person succeed. It requires mentors to challenge ideas rigorously while supporting the individuals behind those ideas. Bullying, on the other hand, thrives on fear, intimidation, manipulation, and control. While effective mentors cultivate independence and confidence, bullies create dependence by constantly reminding junior colleagues of the power they hold over their academic and professional lives.Academic bullying rarely resembles the overt forms of harassment commonly associated with other workplaces. Instead, it often manifests through persistent patterns of behaviour that gradually undermine confidence and professional development. It may involve publicly humiliating students during presentations, consistently dismissing their ideas without constructive feedback, imposing unrealistic expectations designed to ensure failure, or deliberately delaying feedback on theses and manuscripts. In other cases, it takes the form of excluding junior researchers from collaborative opportunities, appropriating their ideas without proper recognition, or threatening to withhold recommendation letters, research funding, conference opportunities, or thesis approval unless unreasonable demands are met. Individually, some of these actions may appear insignificant, but together they create an environment in which intimidation replaces intellectual growth.The power imbalance inherent in academia makes this form of bullying particularly dangerous. Supervisors influence graduation timelines, mentors shape publication opportunities, department heads affect workload allocation and promotions, while senior academics often determine access to research funding, professional networks, and career advancement. These legitimate responsibilities exist because universities depend on trust and professional judgment. However, when such authority is exercised without accountability, it becomes a mechanism for coercion rather than leadership.One of the reasons academic bullying persists is that its victims are often reluctant to report it. Postgraduate students may fear delayed graduation or unfavourable examination outcomes. Early-career academics may worry about promotion, contract renewal, or future collaborations. Others fear being labelled as difficult, uncooperative, or incapable of coping with academic pressure. In environments where seniority commands unquestioned authority, silence frequently becomes a survival strategy rather than a choice.The consequences extend far beyond the individuals directly affected. Persistent intimidation erodes confidence, diminishes creativity, and reduces scholarly productivity. Research thrives on curiosity, critical thinking, and intellectual risk-taking. These qualities cannot flourish where individuals constantly fear humiliation or retaliation. Many talented researchers gradually withdraw from collaborative activities, abandon promising research ideas, or leave academia altogether. Institutions therefore lose not only capable scholars but also the diversity of perspectives that drives innovation.Perhaps even more concerning is the long-term cultural impact. Academic environments are often shaped by apprenticeship. Junior academics learn not only research methods but also professional behaviours from their supervisors and senior colleagues. When bullying is normalised under the guise of maintaining high standards, it risks becoming institutional tradition. Those who have experienced abusive supervision may unconsciously replicate similar behaviours when they eventually occupy positions of authority, believing that harsh treatment is an inevitable component of academic success. In this way, one generation inadvertently passes the culture of intimidation to the next.It is important, however, to distinguish between rigorous supervision and bullying. Universities must continue to uphold high academic standards. Supervisors have a responsibility to challenge weak arguments, demand methodological rigour, and insist upon intellectual excellence. Constructive criticism is an indispensable part of scholarly development. The difference lies not in the intensity of the academic expectations but in the manner in which they are communicated. A good mentor critiques ideas while preserving dignity. A bully attacks individuals while undermining confidence. One develops scholars; the other produces fear.Addressing this problem requires deliberate institutional action. Universities should establish clear policies defining academic bullying and distinguishing it from legitimate academic supervision. Confidential and independent reporting mechanisms must be strengthened so that students and junior academics can raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Mentorship training should become a routine component of academic staff development, recognising that research excellence alone does not automatically translate into effective supervision. Equally important, universities should incorporate mentoring effectiveness into promotion and leadership assessments. Outstanding publication records should never overshadow repeated patterns of abusive behaviour toward students and colleagues.Senior academics also bear a special responsibility. Leadership within the university extends beyond producing influential publications or securing competitive grants. It includes creating environments where younger scholars are encouraged to ask difficult questions, challenge conventional thinking, and develop intellectual independence. The greatest mentors are remembered not because they inspired fear, but because they inspired confidence. Their legacy is measured not only by the papers they published but also by the scholars they helped to flourish.As universities strive to improve their global standing and research impact, they must recognise that excellence cannot be sustained through intimidation. Fear may produce compliance, but it rarely produces innovation. The world’s greatest discoveries have emerged from environments where curiosity was encouraged, diverse opinions were respected, and intellectual courage was rewarded.Mentorship is one of academia’s greatest privileges because it involves shaping future generations of scholars. That privilege must never become an instrument of domination. Universities that are truly committed to academic excellence must reject every culture in which power is abused and replace it with one in which mentorship is defined by respect, integrity, accountability, and genuine care for the development of others.When mentorship empowers, universities thrive. When mentorship becomes bullying, everyone loses; the student, the supervisor, the institution, and ultimately the credibility of higher education itself.Prof. Kofi Agyekum is an Associate Professor of Building Performance and Sustainability at the Department of Construction Technology and Management at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana. He serves as an Associate Editor for several international journals and has edited and reviewed hundreds of manuscripts across the built environment and sustainability disciplines. His research interests include research integrity, scholarly publishing, sustainability, and construction innovation.