How to get rid of good professors

The following description is a condensation of informal discussions with other professors over the years, and is not in any way a report of the findings of systematic research. Nevertheless, it is a formalized description of a method that some ( and likely many) have experienced. It is presented as information that may provide support to those professors who have been attacked by their peers. By understanding both the nature of the methods used by their attackers, and the biological consequences they themselves are experiencing, faculty members, especially new faculty, can make better decisions as to how to respond to such attacks. What follows is a description of the basic method of attack, written from the perspective of the attackers. This manner of presentation is selected because it more effectively serves as an early warning device for those being attacked or who are candidates for such attacks.

Why do some want to drive away good professors?

It may seem a mistake to target these professors, because they are the ones who are the most effective at producing student learning. But if the faculty members in a given department are not motivated to teach well, and are not interested in the mastery of academic subject matter, they will find that good professors disrupt the harmony of the faculty by raising performance expectations. Moreover, students will come to expect more of all their teachers. If merit pay is involved, they know who should receive it. However, with the right counter-measures, it is possible to keep good teachers from receiving merit pay, or any other recognitions or benefits.

There is the old aphorism that when all is said and done, everyone, in schools at every level, knows the names of the good and poor teachers. This social fact is further highlighted when a teacher is given some award or is publically honored. Some conclude that such institutional facts require that good teachers be removed from the faculty. To accomplish this, it is necessary to form a power group—or to activate it, if one already exists.

Who are the candidates for membership in the power group?

1. Some have spent time and money studying to become professors, but when they begin to teach, they find that they do not like teaching. They do, however, like the money and the small amount of time and effort that seems to be required of them. Besides that, there are summer vacations and sabbaticals. Some are intellectually and physically lazy, but they desire a job that gives them social status.

2. Some faculty members actually try to teach well, but discover that the students do not like them, give them poor evaluations, and avoid them as much as possible. Of course, the students’ poor attitudes are to blame for these low evaluations. Such faculty members are excellent candidates because they have an intrinsic dislike of the good teachers; moreover, they require the protection of the power group for their own survival.

3. The point of being a professor is to teach well and publish, but some seek other means of holding on to their positions. Look for the professors who have no books in their office. They are not drawn to academic journals and books, because their interests lie elsewhere. In addition, reading takes away from their leisure time, or from their time schmoozing with others as a survival technique.

4. Some people are in teaching positions for which they are poorly prepared. These are excellent candidates. For example, in some schools of education, there are faculty members who had never taught before they began to teach teachers how to teach. Imagine how experienced teachers relate to them in graduate courses.

5. Any teachers who are reluctant to join the power group are told they are uncooperative and not team players; this is to be pointed out as often as possible. When they see that they may be targeted, they will seek protection.

6. It is probable that the relevant chairperson or dean will not interfere with the activities of the power group. Management researchers report that in many cases managers feel vulnerable and anxious that some initially small event could turn into a disaster that damages or ends their careers. Administrators who see their positions as solely a matter of local politics, as opposed to those who strongly identify with an academic field, will be reluctant to intervene with the activities of the power group.

What is the best method of driving away good teachers?

Step One: Target Selection
Identify professors who are enthusiastic about teaching, have received teaching awards or other kinds of public recognition, those who publish in major academic journals or present papers at respected academic meetings, are widely recognized as good teachers by other faculty and administrators, or are popular with students. Note that those professors who identify with an academic field are not easily influenced by the power group, because they judge themselves in comparisons with national and international peers. It is possible to use this identification against them.

Step Two: Dirt Alert
Be warm and accepting toward targeted colleagues. When they seem to be comfortable with the attackers (or better still, trust them), become more invasive. In discussions, press them as to how they feel about anything, but especially matters relating to teaching and school politics. Show up uninvited at their homes or apartments as this will often provide information about them that they would not mention in a university context. Be especially aware of possible boilerplate criticisms--sexism, racism, elitism, and incorrect ideology.

Step Three: Initiate Whisper Campaign
Report to other faculty members anything the targeted professor has said about them that can be interpreted as negative or critical. Point out how the target thinks differently about policies than do the other faculty members. The goal is to isolate the target from other faculty by creating feelings of distrust in the target’s peers. This prevents the target from correcting the misperceptions that the whisper campaign is creating. Mention how the targeted teachers only care about publishing and not relationships with their colleagues.

Step Four: Bullying
In public contexts, directly and vehemently challenge anything the target has said or done. It is important that others see that it is not a good idea to come to the target’s defense, as that would serve to make them a target themselves. If everything the target says is challenged, the target will eventually become non-responsive and withdraw from discussions. Especially important is the fact that they do not defend themselves.

Step Five: Blame the Victim
In occasions when bullying is not possible because there is no one else around, take on an “I’m being helpful” demeanor, and inform the target that it is their fault that the other faculty members are shunning them—even if they are not. The goal is to have the target believe that everything would be going smoothly if they would just not be such a know-it-all, or have such a superior attitude.

Step Six: Watch for Renegotiation
When humans and other animals realize they are in danger, they have three options: fight back against their attackers, take flight and escape their attackers, or freeze and endure the attack. For those animals that freeze, nature protects them from pain by putting them into a catatonic state so that in the event that they are seriously injured or killed, they do not feel the pain. This is sometimes referred to as nature’s anesthesia. Because they possess reflective intelligence, humans suffer a different consequence of serious attacks.

The energy required to fight or take flight is generated by the adrenalin produced by the realization of the attack. If the only option is to freeze, the energy generated must be absorbed by the body itself. In place of the catatonic state, humans have panic attacks. The mind is sending a message, to the effect, “wake up and do something—you are in danger!” But, being frozen, there is nothing that can be done beyond endurance.

Some researchers report that people who experience panic attacks feel that their own body “has let them down” at the very time when they need to be strong and stable. This serves to make the targeted teacher feel even less confident. When experiencing severe panic attacks, some may try to fight back in various feeble ways; this can be used to make them seem more uncooperative, and will further isolate them.

Researchers, such as Peter A. Levine, point out that people who are attacked try to renegotiate their relationships with their attackers. Since they believe that either they have been misunderstood, or that it is their fault that they are being attacked, they hope they can take action to improve their relationships with their colleagues. This effort can be used against them, because in this endeavor, they will invariably make themselves vulnerable by admitting that they regret something, or have done something or the other wrong. These feelings and admissions can be exploited in future attacks, thereby increasing their anxiety to the point that they will resign.

Russian proverb: The tallest blade is first cut by the scythe.
Chinese proverb: The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
American proverb: Good teaching never goes unpunished.

Postscript
Peter A, Levine’s Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (North Atlantic Books, 1997), may be helpful to those who have experienced such attacks.

The concept of academic freedom suggests that professors have the right to freedom of inquiry, which is a negative right in that others have the obligation not to interfere with that right or freedom. For a recent discussion of rights, see John Searle’s, Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (Oxford University Press, 2010). Following Searle’s analysis of social institutions, we have to ask: Who has the obligation to protect this right?

Note that the existence of power groups indicates the presence of ineffective or incompetent academic administration.

Jerome Popp, Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
profpopp@gmail.com

Sign the petition - Spread the word

Sign the petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to instigate an open enquiry into allegations of workplace bullying / harassment in institutions of higher education and concerns about the way the judicial system has dealt with complaints about such bullying and with those who protest (publicly or otherwise) about wrongdoing by their employers; the enquiry to be conducted with a view to addressing issues of concern that it may uncover.

Workplace bullying is a widespread problem wrecking health and careers and costing billions to the taxpayer. This problem is particularly serious in higher education. A recent survey by the Universities Colleges Union showed that as few as 45.1% of the participants were fortunate enough to never experience bullying.

Existing legislation addresses some aspects of workplace bullying, but does not deal with this problem comprehensively. There is also a perception that the judicial system does not always enforce the existing legislation fairly. Dissatisfaction with the way bullying is dealt with has led some to go public.

In response to the handling of a recent case by the courts, many academics and others expressed their indignation about the bullying that prevails in institutions of higher education, as well as the failure of the judicial system to deal with these problems satisfactorily. Similar concerns have been voiced before.

In addition to the obvious non-pecuniary benefits, addressing the problem of workplace bullying will bring about substantial pecuniary benefits in the form of improvements in the economy and cost savings to the taxpayer.

Sign the petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

Financial costs to employers

Several studies have attempted to quantify the cost of bullying to an organization.

• According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH) mental illness among the workforce leads to a loss in employment amounting to $19 billion and a drop in productivity of $3 billion (Sauter, et al., 1990).

• In a report commissioned by the ILO, Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper did a comprehensive analysis of the costs involved in bullying. They estimated a cost 1.88 Billion Pounds plus the cost of lost productivity.

• Based on replacement cost of those who leave as a result of being or witnessing bullying, Rayner and Keashly (2004) estimated that for an organization of 1000 people, the cost would be $1.2 million US. This estimate did not include the cost of litigation should victims bring suit against the organization.

• A recent Finnish study of more than 5,000 hospital staff found that those who had been bullied had 26% more certified sickness absence than those who were not bullied, when figures were adjusted for base-line measures one year prior to the survey (Kivimaki et al., 2000). According to the researchers these figures are probably an underestimation as many of the targets are likely to have been bullied already at the time the base-line measures were obtained.

Research by Dr Dan Dana has shown organizations suffer a large financial cost by not accurately managing conflict and bullying type behaviors. He has developed a tool to assist with calculating the cost of conflict.In addition, researcher Tamara Parris discusses how employers need to be more attentive in managing various discordant behaviors in the workplace, such as, bullying, as it not only creates a financial cost to the organization, but also erodes the company's human resources assets...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying

Peltzing in Arkansas

The scientific study of mobbing proceeds most fruitfully by thoughtful dissection of specific cases. The common point of reference for all five of the papers below is the case of Richard J. Peltz, a tenured high-achiever in the Bowen School of Law, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This well-publicized case has given birth there to a new synonym for mobbing, namely peltzing, which means getting together and pummelling a professor with a barrage of aspersions and accusations toward the end of destroying the prof's good name, curtailing his or her work, and eventually eliminating the prof from the faculty. So adroitly has Peltz fought back, however, that in the longer run, peltzing may come to mean fending off collective attack — not mobbing itself, but effective self-defense from it. However the case turns out, it is instructive on many counts.

Invited by Robert Ashford, Professor of Law at Syracuse University, the papers below are published here in the order of their presentation at the session, "Workplace Mobbing and Academic Freedom: the Socio-Economic Connections," 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, New Orleans, 7 January:

(1) Mark A. Schneider, Introduction

(2) Richard J. Peltz, Academic Mobbing in my Own Experience,

(3) Joan E. Friedenberg, Mobbing Indicators and their Economic Consequences,

(4) Kenneth Westhues, Mobbing, Socio-Economics, and the Case of Richard Peltz,

(5) Mark A. Schneider, Concluding Comments.

From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/AALS10.html

Suicides soar as 1.5 million workers a day fall victim to bully bosses

AN EPIDEMIC of workplace bullying is sweeping through Germany, with as many as 1.5 million people a day affected and the economy haemorrhaging money. Known in German as "mobbing", the harassment in offices, call centres, factories, warehouses, police stations, doctors' surgeries and hospitals has reached such a level that workplace bullying has been linked to numerous suicides...

More at: http://news.scotsman.com/world/Suicides-soar-as-15-million.6004718.jp

About the University of Leicester...

I am an academic employment lawyer. In November 2007 I brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal (ET) at Leicester against my former employer, the University of Leicester, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Robert Burgess, and the (now former) Director of Personnel Services, Dr Alison Hall.

I had resigned from my post as lecturer in the University's Department of Law in May 2007. The core allegations in my claim were disability discrimination (against all three respondents), constructive unfair dismissal (against the University) and detriment and/or dismissal for having made protected disclosures (against the University). I lodged a second claim with the ET against the above three respondents in 2008. This claim alleged continuing disability discrimination. The respondents denied the allegations.

In June 2009 an application was submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on my behalf. This application was concerned with case management matters in the ET; there has been no determination by the ET of the merits of my claims.

A judgment was posted on the EAT website on 19th January 2010 (Dr G M Truter v (1) University of Leicester; (2) Professor R Burgess; (3) Dr A Hall). The judgment was written by Judge McMullen. I wish to issue a health warning about this judgment: some elements of a factual nature are not accurately or fairly described and significant issues are not identified. For instance, one would not know, on reading the judgment, that AFTER I informed the ET that I would be appealing certain orders and other matters to the EAT, the ET made an order stating that my claims would be struck out unless I complied with the relevant orders (a so-called 'unless order').

The ET refused to stay or postpone the ET proceedings until the appeal process had been completed. And the EAT refused to order the ET to do so. So, when matters were before the EAT, the ET struck out the claims. The unless order was one of the issues in my initial application to the EAT and when the ET struck out my claims, I asked the EAT to permit me to include an appeal against the striking out in my Notice of Appeal. Serious issues were raised in the EAT proceedings, relating to the legality of both the making of the unless order and the striking out of my claims.

Also not revealed in Judge McMullen's judgment is that one of my allegations in the EAT proceedings was apparent bias on the part of the ET, and that a question had been raised 11 months before the striking out of my claims as to whether the ET was in a position of a conflict of interest arising from associations or connections between the University of Leicester and the ET. There is documentary evidence suggesting associations or connections, though it is not clear from that evidence precisely which individuals this involves in the Tribunal system. No comment on this was made by, or requested from, the respondents; the question was never addressed by the ET. Apparently, the EAT was not troubled by this notwithstanding strict legal and ethical standards requiring such questions to be addressed.

The EAT judgment seems to give the green light to Employment Tribunals to take what may have the appearance of revenge, with impunity, on a party who has alleged apparent bias, by 'killing off' a claim when the ET's warning to kill off the claim has been referred to the EAT. I consider this to be a shocking state of affairs, especially in a legal system generally considered to be advanced.

The issues mentioned above are some of several in my case that I believe to be of considerable public interest. All of these matters will be aired in due course. If anyone wishes in the meantime to read the submissions made on my behalf that are not identified in Judge McMullen's judgment, the documentation can be obtained from the EAT.

I wish to end by expressing my solidarity with those of you struggling with a sense of injustice or any distress arising from the great evil that is bullying, which seems to be so pervasive in our society.

Glynis M. Truter
LL.B. (Hons.) (London), PG Dip. Legal Practice (College of Law), LL.M. (London), Ph.D. (Cambridge)

Conflict of Interest?

On some of my internet browsing I have failed not to notice about Ms Judith Jewell: -------http://www.indigoassociates.co.uk/who.html -----------
Magistrate, Judith Jewell's company -- note her role as Governor at Roehampton University is referenced here………….

“[...] She likes to get involved in things - she is a magistrate on Kingston-upon-Thames bench, an Executive Member of Kingston Racial Equality Council, and a Governor of Roehampton University, as well as more creative pursuits like cooking and eating adventurously". ---------

Moreover…… http://www.westfocus.org.uk/westfocus/w47_Roehampton.aspx ---------- you will note the WestFocus consortium relationship between Kingston and Roehampton University shown at the bottom of the home page.--------

Furthermore, I have noticed: http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/partnerinstitutions/ --------- Kingston University and Roehampton University are listed as "Partner Institutions".---------

It is very well known that university governors and vice-chancellors are very much in contact with governors and vice-chancellors of other universities in order to exchange views and ideas on policies and performance for the goodness of the public interests and the pursuit of the perfection of the sector of education of our children: our future.

Given the background information on links between Kingston University – Judith Jewell – Roehampton University, and Ms Jewell’s position as magistrate of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) -which potential conflict of interests could be very easily extrapolated from the internet- I must say that it is unfortunate that Ms Jewell has been appointed to make a decision on a case where a jail sentence could be ordered on a man who has informed the public with his website “sirpeterscott.com” on issues which otherwise would have been swept under the carpet as usually might happen in universities and other public sector companies where confidentiality is paramount.

In addition, I would like to point out once more that the Police report has found no element of harassment in the website whatsoever. Although there are so many magistrates out there in the all UK who could have been chosen to decide on this case, it is however very unlikely that none of the parties like the CPS, or Ms Jewell or any of the board of governors of Kingston University and their lawyers has deliberately overlooked this potential conflict of interests and therefore unwittingly allowed this to however proceed in the circumstances.

Therefore, I really hope that in the light of the awareness of this disturbing conflict, for the sake of justice, public interest and freedom of speech, the authorities reconsider the conviction of Dr Howard Fredrics and thus restoring to the public the faith that the juridical system of a democratic society deserves.

Anonymous

Defend Hamish Murphy

Hamish Murphy, Principal Lecturer in Youth and Community work at Glyndwr University and a supporter of our Campaign has been dismissed because of his trade union activities.

A Facebook, Support and Defend Hamish Murphy has been created to support his appeal for reinstatement. It tells us:

Hamish Murphy, Principal Lecturer in Youth & Community Studies at Glyndwr University has been dismissed for his trade union activities. Please support the call for his immediate reinstatement. Hamish has been a youth worker for over 35 years, mostly in Edinburgh but more recently in Wrexham as a volunteer and committee chair within his village youth club. He has been a detached youth worker, managing one street-work project and chairing another city-wide one. He has been a volunteer in a drop-in centre, run a youth information project, initiated a drug support agency and created a youth homelessness project. He has been a community centre manager, an adventure playground worker and a community education services manager. Hamish has written widely about youth work, including editing the book Conceptualising Youth Work, and is currently working on a new book on Youth Rights and Age Discrimination. Coming to Glyndwr University in 1999, Hamish has lectured in Scotland, Wales and China and is an external examiner in England. He has also undertaken consultancy work with local authorities, voluntary organisations and trade unions across the UK. His expertise rests in work with young people, recently specialising in its international forms though he has also been active in ‘anti-poverty’, ‘age discrimination’ and ‘professional education’ research.

We are being asked to e-mail Professor Mike Scott at m.scott@glyndwr.ac.uk to express our concern and argue for his reinstatement.

In addition the UCU has issued the following statement, which is to be found below. As things stand it appears that Hamish’s appeal is yet to be heard. Further action in support of Hamish is being planned for the coming weeks – particularly around graduation day. He continues to need our solidarity in these authoritarian times.

STATEMENT to Branch Members from UCU Wales Support Official 14th October 2009

I can confirm that Hamish Murphy was dismissed by Helen James on Wednesday the 5th October on the authority of the Vice-Chancellor. Helen James stated at the beginning of the hearing that Hamish Murphy was there in his capacity as UCU Branch Chair. I can confirm that I believe he was sacked because of his trade union activities.

Hamish Murphy was dismissed for the part he played in producing the UCU March issue of the UCU branch newsletter Hamish was clearly relaying concerns expressed by members and acting in what he believed to be the best interests of the members when he distributed the newsletter. Hamish has never been accused of any wrongdoing as a lecturer in Youth & Community studies and I can confirm that his dismissal had nothing to do with his role as a lecturer.

He was accused and found guilty of the following three offences:
- Bringing the University into disrepute;
- Damaging the relationship of trust and confidence between himself
and the University; and
- Raising false accusations against colleagues.

These allegations refer mainly to the distribution of the March 2009 UCU Branch Newsletter. There was also an issue raised about allegations made in what Hamish had intended to be a protected disclosure under the Universities Public Information Disclosure Policy. Hamish relayed the complaint on behalf of a number of members in a more specific way to the University soon after the newsletter came out.

We are currently taking legal advice to assist us with the appeal.

Unfortunately I cannot say any more at this stage as would not want anything to prejudice our chances of success at the appeal and any subsequent tribunal proceedings.

I would urge members to support the campaign to reinstate Hamish in any way you can.

Phil Markham
UCU Wales Support Official

The winter of discontent is closing in and it is no coincidence that the bureaucracy in Higher Education is keen to strangle debate and dissidence.

From: http://indefenceofyouthwork.wordpress.com/2009/10/

Bullying in the workplace on the rise

The recession has seen a big increase in bullying at work, the Guardian has learned. One in 10 employees experience workplace bullying and harassment, according to the conciliation service Acas, while a survey by the union Unison reports that more than one-third of workers said they were bullied in the past six months, double the number a decade ago.

"The fact that bullying has doubled in the past decade is shocking," said Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison.

Fraser Younson, head of employment at the law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner, said: "In the last year or so, as running businesses has become more difficult, the way managers interface with their staff has become more demanding. Managers are chasing things up, being more critical. If they are not trained to deal with increased levels of stress, then we are seeing them do this in a way that makes staff feel bullied."

Samantha Mangwana, an employment solicitor at Russell Jones & Walker, said: "We are getting a very high level of cases. Most of the people who come to us with a problem at work talk about bullying. It frequently arises in people's line-manager relationship."

Employment lawyers say allegations of bullying have become a frequent feature of claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Support groups are struggling to cope with the rise in cases, with one helpline recently forced to close.

"We have been overwhelmed by a huge rise in complaints over the last two years," said Lyn Witheridge, who ran the Andrea Adams Trust bullying helpline until last year. "We had to close the charity and the helpline because we couldn't cope with the number of calls – they more than doubled to 70 a day.

"The recession has become a playground for many bullies who know they can get away with it. Under pressure, budgets have got to be met. Managers are bullying people as a way of forcing them out and getting costs down."

News of the increase comes amid a number of high-profile employment tribunal cases, including a News of the World sports reporter, Matt Driscoll, who was awarded almost £800,000 by an east London tribunal after he suffered "a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour" from staff, including Andy Coulson, now David Cameron's head of communications.

Last month two yeomen were sacked from the Tower of London after an inquiry revealed a campaign of bullying against Moira Cameron, the first female yeoman warder in the tower's 1,000-year history.

"We see some cases of bullying in discrimination where the employer invokes what we colloquially call the 'bastard defence'," said Mangwana. "Their defence is that they were a bastard to everyone, so it's not discriminatory."

Academics have long warned of the link between economic conditions and bullying, with studies in the 1980s and 1990s predicting that workplace competition and the threat of redundancy were most likely to cause an increase. The decline of trade unions and of collective action has also been cited as a factor.

Experts also believe that press coverage of bullying cases has raised awareness, encouraging more employees to take advantage of what has been described as an "explosion" of individual employment rights over recent years.

Although "bullying" is not a legal term, cases of bullying at work have arisen through employment law, health and safety and protection from harassment legislation. But news of the rise in bullying cases across different jurisdictions, which research suggests contributes to the 13.7m working days lost every year as a result of stress and depression, has prompted criticism that the government has failed to adequately address the problem.

"The increase in tribunal claims this year is part of a lurch towards the American culture of litigation, but that is not necessarily the answer," said Witheridge. "More should be done to resolve bullying disputes without litigation, and for people to be treated with the dignity they deserve at work, while also being strongly managed."

The government said it was working to tackle the problem. Lord Young, the employment relations minister, said: "Workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and the government is committed to addressing these problems."

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Lecturer 'intended to harass' VC, court finds

An academic is wanted by police after being found guilty of harassing the vice-chancellor of Kingston University.

Howard Fredrics, who worked at the university as senior lecturer of music between 2003 and 2006, was convicted at Kingston Magistrates' Court of harassing Sir Peter Scott via postings on a website, www.sirpeterscott.com.

Dr Fredrics was found guilty in his absence, having failed to appear for the hearing last month, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He will be sentenced later this month.

At the trial, Sir Peter said the site was "intended to embarrass and humiliate" him and that some of its material, such as an allegation that he was a friend of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, was inaccurate. He added that he had met Dr Fredrics only five times.

Finding Dr Fredrics guilty, Judith Jewell, chairman of the bench, said: "We believe the course of conduct he pursued in setting up this website was intended to harass Sir Peter Scott ... he ought to have known that such actions would amount to harassment."

Dr Fredrics has used the site to expose controversial practices at Kingston in recent years. In 2008, he posted a recording of lecturers pressurising students to inflate their National Student Survey responses.

Sir Peter complained to the World Intellectual Property Organisation that Dr Fredrics was infringing his right to the domain name www.sirpeterscott.com. In May 2009, it ruled that the vice-chancellor had no rights to the name.

In a statement issued after the trial, Dr Fredrics says the conviction had been handed down despite a "compelling police report that indicated there was no evidence that the site contained anything that could lead to such a charge".

The report, seen by Times Higher Education, says the "sites listed do not contain content that is consistent with any harassment".

A second charge against Dr Fredrics of threatening and abusive behaviour following an encounter with Sir Peter in Kingston last year was put on hold.

melanie.newman@tsleducation.com

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Whistleblower Ex-Lecturer Convicted of Harassment Against British Knight

On 22 December 2009, Dr Howard Fredrics, former Senior Lecturer of Music at Kingston University, London, was convicted in absentia of harassment against Sir George "Peter" Scott, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University for having operated a website that revealed evidence of misconduct by the University. The conviction was handed down by the Kingston Magistrates Court despite a compelling police investigation report that indicated that there was no evidence that the site contained anything that could lead to such a charge.

Kingston Police Report on Content of Website, www.sirpeterscott.com

Dr Howard Fredrics failed to appear in Court on 22 December to answer charges that by virtue of operating a website, http://www.sirpeterscott.com since July 2007, he had breached Section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Act, which was devised to deter stalking, was, in this case, applied for the first time ever towards the dissemination of musical works contained on the website.

In addition to the songs and song parodies that refer to a number of widely-publicized scandals at the University in the past few years, including the National Student Survey Scandal, and the External Examiner Scandal, whereby staff were recorded pressurising students into falsifying their responses to the Survey in order to inflate Kingston University's position in the League Tables, and whereby an External Examiner in the now defunct School of Music was found by the Quality Assurance Agency to have been pressurised by School administrators into changing her damning report on academic standards.

In May of 2009, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) ruled on a complaint made by Prof Scott concerning Dr Fredrics' alleged use of his personal name in the domain name of the site. WIPO, however, issued a strong rebuke of Prof Scott's claim of trademark infringement in finding that Prof Scott held no trademark interest whatsoever in the domain name in question, and that Dr Fredrics had properly registered the domain name.

Following that ruling, Prof Scott filed a complaint with the Kingston Police, alleging that Dr Fredrics' site allegedly constituted harassment of him personally, despite the fact that it contained no references to any matters relating to the personal or private life of Prof Scott, and the fact that the vast majority of the site did not relate at all to Prof Scott. Indeed a police report produced in September 2009 after a thorough investigation of the contents of the site, showed that there was no evidence whatsoever of any material that could sustain a charge of harassment. Despite this finding, however, the Crown Prosecution Service refused Dr Fredrics' solicitor's application for discontinuation of the prosecution, and the Court further refused an application for postponement when Dr Fredrics' solicitors were forced to withdraw from the case for reasons related to a separate professional matter on the day before the trial was set to begin.

As a result of the refusal (in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) by the Court to postpone the case so that Dr Fredrics could locate suitable representation for the trial, and because both Dr Fredrics and one of his key witnesses both suffered from documented illnesses and were unable to appear, the trial went ahead in Dr Fredrics' absence. It was, however, only after the Court found Dr Fredrics guilty of harassment that the Clerk of the Court informed the presiding Magistrates and courtroom observers that Dr Fredrics' lawyers had withdrawn. By this time, however, the ruling was issued and Dr Fredrics' guilty verdict stands.

Following the trial, a warrant was issued for Dr Fredrics' arrest for having failed to appear in Court. His whereabouts are unknown, however, a spokesperson indicated that he intends to contest the verdict through the appeals process. If, however, he does present himself to authorities, it is likely that he will be held without bail pending his appeal, notwithstanding his ongoing poor state of health, and his current lack of legal representation.

Dr Fredrics is due to appear along with representatives of Kingston University at a Pre-Hearing Review on 6 January 2010 in the Employment Tribunal, followed by a seventeen-day full merits hearing in April-May 2010 of his case for unfair dismissal, whistleblower victimization, disability discrimination and wrongful/automatically unfair dismissal. The efforts by the University's lawyers to, in the name of Prof Scott, launch various civil and criminal proceedings against Dr Fredrics are seen by Dr Fredrics as thinly veiled attempts to silence his right to free speech and artistic expression, with the ultimate goal of preventing him from receiving a full and fair hearing of his ongoing Employment Tribunal case.

From: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/12/443912.html

Anonymous said

I was bullied out of my job by a manager who hates Christians. The University supported her over me because they wanted to avoid bad publicity. Their policies on bullying were meaningless and they didn't follow their own procedures. I know of 13 other people who have left due to bullying at the University. My advice to anyone in UK HE who is getting bullied - DON'T GO TO HR UNLESS YOU ARE A MANAGER - either leave or get a good lawyer.

Anonymous

Bully in Sight

How to predict, resist, challenge and combat workplace bullying. Overcome the silence and denial by which abuse thrives. By Tim Field. Read online.

Are Workplace Bullies Sabotaging Your Ability to Compete? Learn to identify and extinguish problem behavior

...The problem with workplace bullying is that many bullies are hard to identify because they operate surreptitiously under the guise of being civil and cooperative. Although workplace bullying is being discussed more than ever before, and there may eventually be specific legislation outlawing such behavior, organizations cannot afford to wait for new laws to eradicate the bullies in their midst. In order to survive, organizations must root out workplace bullying before it squelches their employees' creativity and productivity, or even drives out their best employees, thus fatally impacting an organization's ability to compete in this new era...

Recent commentators have used different ways to describe bullying behavior, but they agree that a bully is only interested in maintaining his or her power and control. Because bullies are cowards and are driven by deep-seated insecurities and fears of inadequacy, they intentionally wage a covert war against an organization's best employees - those who are highly-skilled, intelligent, creative, ethical, able to work well with others, and independent (who refuse to be subservient or controlled by others). Bullies can act alone or in groups. Bullying behavior can exist at any level of an organization. Bullies can be superiors, subordinates, co-workers and colleagues.

Some bullies are obvious - they throw things, slam doors, engage in angry tirades, and are insulting and rude. Others, however, are much more subtle. While appearing to be acting reasonably and courteously on the surface, in reality they are engaging in vicious and fabricated character assassination, petty humiliations and small interferences, any one of which might be insignificant in itself, but taken together over a period of time, poison the working environment for the targeted individuals...

Bullying is not about a "clash of personalities," a "misunderstanding," or "miscommunication." According to two psychologists who have conducted surveys on bullying, (1) bullies use surprise and secrecy to gain leverage over those targeted, (2) they are never interested in meeting someone else halfway so trying to negotiate with a bully is useless, (3) they routinely practice psychological violence against specific individuals whom they intentionally try to harm which is devastating to the targeted person's emotional stability "and can last a long time."

From: http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/014/bullies.html

Eliminating Professors. A Guide to the Dismissal Process. By Kenneth Westhues

With publication of this book and his continuing research on the subject, Westhues has virtually founded a new field in sociology. ... Tongue in cheek, the book gives supervisors step-by-step advice on how to get rid of a misfit professor named PITA (Pain In The Ass): oddly, but typically, the only one in the proximate institutional setting who actually gives a damn about what they do. His or her commitment will tend to embarrass and threaten all those (the overwhelming majority) around him or her, whose only commitment is to their paychecks and leisure. The book is amusing but very scary at the same time.

David S. Clarke, Professor of Management of Technology, Southern Illinois University, and Editor, Knowledge, Technology, and Society, in his weekly e-newsletter, 2003.


The book's chapters—highly readable, personal, engaging, and illuminative—alternate between a suspenseful narrative of Westhues's own case winding its tortured and exasperating way through an appeal, and the "how-to" chapters, which are written, this reader presumes, with an intensely ironic, but tellingly effective voice. They sound like advice-to-administrators' manuals, of which genre the readers of this journal should be overly familiar. But let the reader beware that Westhues skewers them with a satiric intensity that chills the blood.

David W. Leslie, Chancellor Professor of Education, The College of William and Mary, book review in The Journal of Higher Education, 2000.


...a remarkably perceptive account of the techniques useful for getting rid of unwelcome academics. Of course, it can also be read by those who are targeted, and their supporters, as a primer on what is likely to happen and how best to oppose it.

Brian Martin, Associate Professor, Department of Science, Technology, and Society, University of Wollongong, book review in Campus Review (1999).

-----------

A Sample Chapter from Kenneth Westhues, Eliminating Professors: a Guide to the Dismissal Process, Lewiston: NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998.

Chapter 18: Making the Star Chamber Work

So that this book may be of maximum practical value, this chapter sets forth in point form some helpful hints for the professors, secretaries, and students who sit on harassment tribunals. Not being professional administrators, these people may lack managerial sophistication. Whoever appoints them will do well to provide them with guidelines that will ensure the tribunal’s effective operation.

These tips are for the modal situation, where the tribunal needs to bring down a finding of DR. PITA’s guilt and a recommendation for punishment. Cases where DR. PITA herself appeals to the tribunal are easier to deal with, usually by finding a plausible way to rule her complaint out of jurisdiction.

These suggestions are based on the functioning of ethics and harassment committees in actual cases at Waterloo and elsewhere. Since policies differ somewhat among universities, these measures must not be applied mechanically but with due regard for the enabling statute in a given institution. Still, the functioning of such tribunals is quite similar across universities. I was surprised that a fictional depiction of a university ethics tribunal in 1996, on the popular TV sit-com Third Rock from the Sun, was a credible composite of actual cases in my study.

1. The tribunal should extend its jurisdiction or catchment area however broadly is required to take up the complaint against DR. PITA—whether the incident occurred on campus or off, in his professorial role or outside it.

2. Ideally, DR. PITA should be found guilty of something before he finds out what it is. The Harassment Officer may assist one or more complainants in drawing up a plausible preliminary indictment for subsequent approval by the tribunal as a whole.

3. To enlist DR. PITA’s cooperation in his own undoing, confound the roles of counsellor, prosecutor, and judge. In conversations with an official he believes is being friendly, he may make incriminating statements that can later be held against him.

4. Make sure the victim-accuser is on side. More than one case has been lost, even with many ardent complainants, because the alleged victim did not herself find DR. PITA’s behaviour objectionable.

5. Reward accusers. For lowly undergraduates, the attentions of important university officials may be reward enough. Financial compensation or revision of grades, on account of injuries sustained, may also be considered.

6. Avoid falsifiable statements in the indictment. Vagueness and innuendo are far more effective than charges that lend themselves to being disproven.

7. Once the decision is made to proceed to a formal hearing, move as quickly as possible, showing a sense of great urgency. A hearing that cannot be arranged promptly may not be able to be arranged at all.

8. Ignore DR. PITA’s lawyer, if he has one, and forbid the lawyer’s presence at the hearing. Explain that domestic tribunals of a university proceed by norms of collegiality, and that legalistic, adversarial measures are out of place.

9. If the faculty association or other bodies attempt to intervene on DR. PITA’s behalf, accuse them of trying to exert undue influence. Insist that the tribunal will not bend to the political pressure being applied.

10. Ignore claims that the tribunal is biased against him. Respond as one chair did: “I am satisfied that this committee member has no apprehension of bias.”

11. Disregard evidence in DR. PITA’s favour on substantive grounds. Describe it as irrelevant or not germane to the issues under consideration.

12. Disregard evidence in DR. PITA’s favour on procedural grounds. Say it was submitted at the wrong time, to the wrong official, or in the wrong format.

13. If there is evidence that DR. PITA has discussed the case outside the tribunal (he may admit, for instance, having talked about it with his wife, his dean, or some colleagues), charge him with breach of confidentiality.

14. If DR. PITA speaks his accusers’ names outside the tribunal, charge him with breach of confidentiality and with attempting to damage their reputations and cause them to suffer.

15. If DR. PITA (or his colleague-advisor, if the policy provides for one) objects to the tribunal’s procedures, remind him that this is not a court of law, that collegiality must be insisted upon, and that the tribunal will not entertain editorial comments.

16. Ignore the references to context that DR. PITA is almost sure to make. Explain that the tribunal’s only concern is with this particular incident, not with what may have happened before or after.

17. Find an excuse to make a confidential investigation that may yield additional complaints and is useful in any case for damaging DR. PITA’s reputation. Contact former students, for example, or advertise in the newspaper. In a case against a policeman pita, the tribunal set out to contact each of the 2,047 women he had had something to do with during his eight years on the force.

18. Try to provoke DR. PITA into losing his temper or doing something rash, then make appropriate additional charges. Like most professors, DR. PITA is so proud and vain that the hearing itself will insult and fluster him.

19. In the report at the end, find DR. PITA guilty of something, even if it is not what he was initially charged with. The important thing is to find against him. The precise nature of the finding is of secondary importance.

20. Write a long report, preferably at least ten pages single-spaced. Number sections and paragraphs. Include lots of footnotes. Be vague and repetitive. Include nothing that could be quoted out of context as being in DR. PITA’s favour.

21. Recommend multiple punishments: for example, requirements to make several different apologies, go for counselling, and attend a series of workshops, in addition to a financial penalty.

22. Do not let your animus against DR. PITA show, nor lead you to write things that are obviously untrue. Senior managers will not take kindly to a report so extreme they are obliged to reject it, and may deny you the rewards you will otherwise receive for your service to the university.

23. The report should include innuendo so damaging to DR. PITA that he will not himself release it publicly, however strong his objections. Suggestions of sexual predation or mental unbalance serve well.

24. Do not release the report publicly, lest the tribunal be revealed as a kanagaroo court. After my first ethics hearing, the provost put the report on the Internet. I understand from him that he now regrets that decision.

25. For the same reason, never release audio-tapes of the proceeding, much less a transcript. If this cannot be avoided (in connection with an appeal, for instance), DR. PITA may be allowed to listen to the tapes under administrative supervision, but under no circumstances should he be allowed to walk away with a copy.

From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/starchamber.htm

Workplace Bullying for Dummies

Save University of California

Dear Colleagues,

As you may know, the University of California is facing very devastating budget cuts that could lead to the end of affordable and accessible public higher education in the state of California.

The University of California has been the premiere public university in the United States, offering extraordinary teaching and research opportunities for international students and faculty as well as affordable education for students of any means. Students are now looking at tuition hikes that will put the university out of reach for many of them. Faculty are undergoing salary cuts and loss of staff which means that the research and teaching activities of the University are curtailed.

Many of the cuts are happening behind closed doors, which means that shared governance has been set aside as a basic principle of administration.

Please take a look at the attached petition and see whether you might lend your support to our efforts to achieve transparency to the budget, an affordable education for students, and maintain the tradition of academic excellence at the University of California. It is most important that our international colleagues register their concern about the future of our university during this quite perilous time.

http://www.saveuc.org/petition.php

Howard Fredrics Criminal Defence Fund

Dr Fredrics stands accused of harassment in connection with this website and breach of the public order in connection with an alleged conversation with Sir "Peter"Scott in the Kingston shopping area, during which issues related to Kingston University's ongoing conduct were allegedly discussed among Dr Fredrics, Mrs Fredrics and Prof Scott.

Dr Fredrics faces trial on 22 and 23 December and is facing up to 6 months in jail for these charges.

Defending himself against these allegations is very expensive and, with all of the previous efforts by the University to run up Dr Fredrics' legal bills to defend a baseless complaint to WIPO and to deal with a veritable deluge of paperwork sent by the University's lawyers in connection with his Employment Tribunal claim, matters have become quite dire.

Dr Fredrics kindly asks for your contribution, in order to help to defray some of the costs of defending himself against these recent charges, to which he has pleaded "not guilty."

How to donate.

Loved lecturer loses his battle to keep job at 65

THE 65-year-old lecturer who waged a six month battle against forced retirement has been told by the university that he has to leave his job in February.

After two weeks of waiting for a verdict, Ron Delves, a senior film studies lecturer, has been told that he must leave the university at the end of this semester, after a final internal tribunal rejected his bid to stay on.

“I feel deflated. I expected the result in the post this morning and was not prepared for the news tonight.

“It was as though the final meet had never happened. All the reasons they gave were the same as always - it’s the university policy and I don’t have adequate researching qualifications,” the KU lecturer of 14 years said.

Whilst the University can lawfully ask staff members aged 65 to leave, it has no obligation to do so.

A petition signed by 56 film students was given to the Dean of Faculty before the tribunal. “More than anything else I will miss the students. I will miss teaching,” he said. Mr Delves has taught at KU for four years and was described by a student as “truly motivational”.

"After all the coverage in The River, and the petition, I thought I might stand a chance,” he said. Mr Delves was told to expect the news within a fortnight of the tribunal. He received the verdict on the 14 October, but has been told that he can make a further appeal against the decision. “I will make the appeal, but it will probably be the same result,” he said.

Mr Delves was told in February that he was expected to resign in the year he turned 65, unless he had strong reasons for wanting to stay. The appeal process has consisted of three meetings over six months, in which Mr Delves claims the university has been unclear about why they want to get rid of him.

“If they simply want to get rid of me because I am turning 65 then I object on these grounds: It’s pure ageism,” he said.

Stephanie Henderson-Brown, a second year history of art, design and film student, said: “I am devastated. I will be truly sorry to see him go.” Mr Delves will leave before he can pioneer a new film studies module in The Western, planned for the second semester.

University officials were unavailable to comment on the decision.

From: http://www.riveronline.co.uk

Instances of workplace bullying double - UK

New statistics have revealed a record number of British workers have been bullied in the last six months.

Figures from the union Unison show that more than a third of the 7,000 workers who took part in a survey have experienced bullying over the last half a year, double the number recorded in 1997.

Among the top complaints were rudeness, criticism, excessive work monitoring, intimidation, exclusion and withholding information.

Of those questioned, 80 per cent said the abuse had affected their physical and mental health and a third had decided to take time off, or even left their jobs as a result.

Dave Prentis, Unison's general secretary, said: "The fact that bullying has doubled in the past decade is shocking.

"Workers have the right to earn a decent living in a safe environment. They need to be treated with respect and not forced to take time off work because bullying has made them ill.

"Only last week figures showed that 13.7 million working days are lost every year as a result of stress and depression in the workplace.

"It makes sound moral and financial sense to look after your workforce."

Mr Prentis said the union would continue with its calls for the government to revise the current dignity in the workplace bill to include an anti-bullying policy.

Today's research also coincides with Ban Bullying at Work Day as the union tries to encourage employers and employees to make a stand against bullies.

From: http://www.inthenews.co.uk

Also: http://www.kcj.co.uk/legal-industry-news

A question of 'conduct unbecoming' revisited

Should those who are concerned about these things wonder whether the questions posed in the posting on this website, 'Conduct unbecoming...' (February 07, 2009), have taken on greater urgency? Here are some observations: On 29th October 2009, there was a letter from Professor Robert Burgess, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leicester, to 'the Leading Researchers of Tomorrow', in the appointments section of the Times Higher Education (THE) (p. 75). That letter advertised a 'New Blood lectureship scheme.' In the letter Robert Burgess stated that the THE had 'applauded Leicester's very different approach, declaring the University "elite without being elitist".'

Actually, according to the THE, it was Robert Burgess himself who made this declaration: see 'The Winners' booklet for the 2008 THE Awards, included with the THE on 30 October 2008 - '"Elite without being elitist": this is how Bob Burgess, vice-chancellor of the University of Leicester, describes his institution.' Does the THE approve of this? Not a very good example for students or new blood researchers, is it? (And what would the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) or IUSS parliamentary select committee members say?)

The above letter from Robert Burgess also tells the reader, 'Earlier this month the Times Higher Education named the University of Leicester as winner of the award for "Outstanding Student Support".' (For those who are interested in these things, that category was sponsored by the QAA.) The particular programme for which Leicester was 'rewarded' was named 'Access to Employability', which, it was said, 'aims to dismantle the barriers to employment that confront students and graduates with disabilities' (see the booklet included with the THE on 22 October 2009).

To refer back to the posting on this website on 7th February 2009, perhaps one could add to question 3 the question: Do those involved in judging for the annual THE awards ever ask for data relating to the treatment of staff by the institution in the particular area in order to ascertain whether the institution is fully committed to tackling the relevant problem, or whether the programme might largely be a PR exercise? Sources of such data might be staff survey results, grievances and legal claims. I suggest that had the judging panel done so in this instance, it might have been disappointed.

Lastly, did anyone notice that Robert Burgess was himself on the THE judging panel this year, as was the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Academy (Paul Ramsden), of which Robert Burgess is the Chair? I am sure that neither of these men were involved in the judging of the award that went to Leicester, but is it really appropriate to have on a judging panel of this kind people directly connected, or connected through association, to a shortlisted institution?

Anonymous contribution

Perhaps a lot of people don't realise...

Perhaps a lot of people don't realise that it's not just academics who are victims in the bullying culture at Kingston University. Admin/Support staff including those in KUSCO (the service company wholly owned by the university and set up by them to save money - joke) bear the brunt of stalinist diktats. I for one wholeheartedly support Dr. Frederics in his continued fight against the mindless morons who run this institution. Cripes, am I allowed to say that?

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Not Your Child's Playground: Workplace Bullying Among Community College Faculty

Community colleges have provided an entree into higher education for many women. Yet, women faculty perceive the overall climate of community colleges as “chilly.” To deconstruct the interpersonal dynamics that may lead to perceptions of a chilly climate, this study examines the prevalence of workplace bullying among and between community college faulty. The purpose is to understand the nature of harassment, the ways in which women define and respond to it, and the importance of contextual factors in the prevalence.

Workplace bullying is a form of interpersonal aggression that has implications for how individuals perceive the organizational climate, job productivity, and job satisfaction. Findings from this study indicate that workplace bullying among faculty includes many subtle practices characterized by informal and formal use of power, faculty workplace bullying is affected by several enabling structures specific to the context, and victims typically respond with avoidance. This study has implications for harassment policies, faculty involvement in institutional governance, and the gendered nature of interpersonal dynamics.

From: http://www.ingentaconnect.com

Leadership Styles as Predictors of Self-reported and Observed Workplace Bullying

The connection between leadership or management style, on the one hand, and perceptions of bullying, on the other, has received little attention within bullying research. Hence, the aim of this study is to examine the relationship between subordinates' ratings of their immediate superiors' behaviours, and both perceived exposure and claims of observations of bullying at work. Based on a sampling process which emphasized randomness and representativeness, the responses from 5288 respondents in Great Britain taking part in a nationwide study on psychosocial issues at work were included in the analysis.

Bullying correlated with all four leadership styles measured. Yet, 'non-contingent punishment' emerged as the strongest predictor of self-perceived exposure to bullying, while autocratic leadership was the strongest predictor of observed bullying. Hence, while observers particularly associate bullying with autocratic or tyrannical leader behaviour, targets relate bullying more to non-contingent punishment, i.e. an unpredictable style of leadership, where punishment is meted out or delivered on leaders' own terms, independent of the behaviour of subordinates. In addition, laissez-faire leadership emerged as a predictor of self-reported as well as observed bullying. Thus, leadership styles seem to play an important but complex role in the bullying process.

From: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com

Website ban for academic bailed on harassment charges

Ex-Kingston lecturer faces six months’ jail if found guilty. Melanie Newman reports

A criminal court has banned an academic from adding material to a website criticising Kingston University’s vice-chancellor. Kingston Magistrates’ Court imposed the ban on Howard Fredrics as a condition of bail after he was charged with harassing vice-chancellor Sir Peter Scott.

Dr Fredrics was dismissed from his job as a music lecturer at the university in 2006 and has been involved in an employment dispute with the university ever since. He faces up to six months in jail if found guilty.

The harassment charge brought against Dr Fredrics relates to his website, www.sirpeterscott.com, on which he regularly posts songs, performances and other material critical of Sir Peter and the university.

The magistrate said that since July 2007, when the website was set up, Dr Fredrics had “pursued a course of behaviour which amounted to harassment” of Sir Peter. He was also charged with breach of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to a chance meeting with Sir Peter in Kingston in summer 2009. The charge sheet says the academic used “threatening words or behaviour” to “cause harassment alarm or distress”.

The academic was given bail on condition that he did not contact the vice-chancellor by any means or add further material to his website.

In 2008, Dr Fredrics published on the website an audio recording of a psychology lecturer at Kingston telling students to give the university good scores in the National Student Survey because “no one will employ you if they think your degree is shit”.

Sir Peter later complained to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) that Dr Fredrics was breaching his trademark by using the site.

But in May 2009, WIPO ruled that Dr Fredrics had the right to continue using the domain name, saying that Sir Peter had not acquired sufficient goodwill to establish the name as a trademark, and that Dr Fredrics had not commercially exploited it.

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Study confirms role of perpetrator incompetence in workplace bullying

Individuals bullied at work have intuitively felt that they pose a threat to bullies -- the integrity of independence, possessing more technical skill, being well liked, and acting ethically and honestly. When personally threatened, people tend to get defensive. This seems true in bullying situations at the bully to target, interpersonal, level.

Bullies present themselves as omnipotent and powerful to dissuade confrontation and to keep from being revealed as something different. Targets intuitively sense that bullying is compensatory behavior, attempts to cover wrongdoing with bluster and bravado. It's like the Wizard of Oz in the palace who is exposed by Toto, the dog, when he pulled back the curtain showing the small man pretending to be bigger than he was. It's nearly impossible to call a bully insecure or cursed with a sense of self-inadequacy because of the power they often enjoy in the workplace. However, the intuition of bullied targets and witnessing co-workers is spot on. Bullies can be small people.

Now there is some science to back the common-sense notion.

In a 4-study research paper to be published in the November issue of the journal Psychological Science, by Nathaniel Fast (University of Southern California) and Serena Chen (University of California, Berkeley) linked aggression at work to perceived inadequacy of people in power (bosses). [Fast, N.J. & Chen, S. (2009) When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence and aggression. Psychological Science, Nov. 2009] Three of the studies tested working adults and are most relevant to the workplace.

In the first study, 90 working people completed assessments of their formal authority and power at work, the degree to which they feared being negatively evaluated by others (the inadequacy measure), and their level of aggressiveness as traditionally measured (willingness to hit others, ease with which arguments are entered). The aggression survey is a reliable predictor of physical violence, verbal abuse and the tendency to get into fights. For people with organizational power, believing themselves to be incompetent led them to be more aggressive than competent people. This was not true for people without power.

In the second study with working adults, some people were guided to think about their power or competence beforehand. Aggression translated into how loud (decibel levels from 0 to 130) they would be willing to blast a horn at another person who made mistakes over 10 trials. For people who already had organizational power, being primed to think even more about that power made them more aggressive if they also felt incompetent.

The third study of adults asked participants to rate their organizational power and their aggressiveness as in the first study. People were then sorted into low- and high-power groups based the demand their jobs required. Low power tasks typically involved doing simple work, completing tasks, High power tasks involved influencing others -- supervising, closing sales. Then, the experimenters manipulated the perceived level of competence for people within each power group. Those subjected to their own incompetence were instructed to write about an experience where they failed to meet a task demand. Competence was primed by having those people recall a time when they successfully completed work projects.

This study also added another manipulated factor. Half of the people in each group were asked to select the most important value to them from a list (social life, relationships, business, etc.). They then wrote a paragraph justifying the value's personal importance. This was done to bolster a sense of self-worth, a self-affirmation. People in the no affirmation group selected their least favorite value and wrote about how the value could be important to others.

In all three studies, incompetence increased aggression for high-power, but not for powerless, working adults. Aggression decreased when powerful people were reminded of their competence. When incompetence was primed (the person was reminded of failures) for low-power people, aggression decreased. The affirmation factor created some ego defensiveness and it seems to be the explanatory factor for why power and incompetence mix the way they do to lead to more aggression.

Thus, the results point to the dangerous combination of incompetence in the hands of people with power. The authors, Fast and Chen, highlight that their work demonstrates that power holders have an increased vulnerability to perceiving potential psychological threats. Rather than feeling safe in their positions of power with the ability to disproportionately affect the outcomes of other people on a routine basis, the feelings of incompetence escalate the perception of threat in the eyes of people with actual power and authority. In turn, this leads to ego defensiveness (a self-protective mental device) that leads to aggression.

There was some limited exposure of participants to flattery, but the manipulations were weak and artificial compared to real-world kissing-up, ingratiation, that bullies receive at work. So, research on flattery's effect on aggression by a boss is yet to be advanced.

It would be an innovative to extrapolate link between perceived threat and aggression to the organizational level. Executive sponsors feel threatened when their bullying toadies are accused of wrongdoing. They react defensively. With guidance from legal counsel and HR, the entire organization responds defensively attacking the bullied accuser who dared to reveal internal weaknesses. But that is a study for another day. As they say, in the academe, further study is warranted.

From: http://www.examiner.com