A real story - The real story

Nature of complaint

1. Details not recorded
2. Details not recorded
3. XXX
4. Terms & conditions
5. Terms & conditions
   
6. Terms & conditions
   
7. Working relationships
8. Working relationships
   

Length of Service - completed years

1. Over 25 years
2. 1-5 years
3. 6-10 years
4. 6-10 yeas
5. Over 25 years
6. Over 25 years
7. Less than 1 year
8. Less than 1 year
   

Ethnic Origin

1. White - British
2. Other White Background
3. Black or Black British - Caribbean
4. White - British
5. White - British
6. Not Known
7. Black or Black British - Caribbean
8. Other Ethnic Background

Stage at which complaint was completed

1. Grievance investigation
2. Informal Grievance
3. Formal Grievance - Stage 2
4. Formal Grievance - Stage 1
5. Formal Grievance - Stage 1
6. Formal Grievance - Stage 1
7. Formal Grievance - Stage 1
8. Informal Grievance
   

Outcome of complaint

1. Ongoing
2. No formal action
3. Complaint not upheld
4. Complaint withdrawn
5. Complaint upheld
6. Complaint upheld
7. Complaint not upheld
8. Complaint not upheld
   

Did complainant remain in College for 6 months following outcome?

1. N/a
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. No
8. Yes

At last an acknowledgement from one of the candidates for General Secretary of UCU - Roger Kline mentions the 'B' word

Saturday 27th January 2007

Question: Big Brother, bullying and post 16 education

“Bullying appears to be an acceptable form of management in our college. What would you do about it if you became general secretary?”

Lynne, Manchester FE lecturer
--------------------------
Answer by Roger Kline:

The Health and Safety Executive estimates that bullying costs UK employers 80 million lost working days and £2 billions in lost revenue.

Bullying is widespread in post 16 education. Numerous surveys including the most recent UCU stress at work survey (Link to press release) have demonstrated how widespread it is. Bullying is incompatible with a collegial management or a learning environment.

Some managers seem to think that Rambo style management is effective. The growing climate of fear amongst senior management, especially in further education, makes it likely that such practices will increase unless challenged. [So will they be challenged?]

As head of equality and employment rights I have ensured we have developed a range of work around bullying.

Firstly, your employer should have a Bullying and Harassment Policy or Dignity at Work Policy. UCU’s web site at www.natfhe.org.uk/?entityType=Document&id=150 has a model policy. We want every employer to agree such a policy with UCU. [Agreeing is one thing, implementing and monitoring is another.]

Secondly, a bullying culture is a breach of the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards for Stress (www.hse.gov.uk). A survey – jointly with management if possible - using the HSE model survey will confirm the scale of bullying and which departments are especially bad. [Good idea, do we have any volunteers?]

Thirdly when individuals feel they are being bullied they must start to record what is happening and alert their local representative. It is very unlikely that such individuals are the only ones being bullied. [True, but what happens after one alerts the local rep can be an issue.]

Finally, bullying often has discriminatory overtones linked to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and so on. Whilst it remains very difficult to pursue bullying cases through the courts, the link with discrimination may make it easier to force your employer to act in case legal action is taken. However it is much, much better to take these issues up collectively if possible rather than assume there is easy legal redress. [So what happens to individual cases?]

An excellent guide to tackling bullying at work, co-sponsored by UCU has just been published by the Equality challenge Unit, on whose board I sit. It can be downloaded at www.ecu.ac.uk. [Thank you for the guide.]
---------------------------
From: http://roger4gs.blogspot.com/

Did he answer the question?

The other candidate for the position of General Secretary (Sally Hunt) has not mentioned the 'B' word yet.

What Makes Narcissists Tick - "All con artists are thus protected by the pride of those they con..."

...Many, if not most, narcissists get away with bullying, slander, calumny, and abuse (even as prosecutable offenses) their whole lives. How? It's easy:

• make the abuse so outrageous people cannot see why anybody would do such a thing
• destroy the victim's credibility in advance.

No one does the things a narcissist does without thinking about the possible consequences. So, they are going to think up ways to avoid those consequences, too.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you want to get away with abusing someone, you first launch a pre-emptive attack on their character, so that nobody will believe them when they soon complain about what you are doing to them…

Everybody knows that when somebody defends himself from accusations with accusations, the crowd always believes the one who accused first and views the defendant as the attacker. This is irrational, because the initial accuser is the attacker and there is no more reason to believe one party than the other.

So, people don't do this in good faith. Indeed, the more preposterous the initial accuser's accusations, the more firmly people believe them! They do this out of self interest, because the return allegations make them look bad for eagerly swallowing the first accuser's preposterous and juicy lies whole. All con artists are thus protected by the pride of those they con.

The narcissist commits moral mayhem by destroying the victim's reputation and credibility, so that nobody will believe her about him. His description of her is projection, a perfect description of himself... Nobody will even listen to her. Thus, the narcissist reduces her to a hapless and helpless state.

Narcissistic bullies in the workplace, especially as administrators in nonprofit institutions, are notorious for doing this. Their total destruction of the victim's life is so willful and wanton that it can sometimes only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to drive him or her to suicide. And all too often it does…

Attention is a value judgment. We pay it only to things we deem worthy of it. So, by treating others as unworthy of any regard, Narcissus is acting as though they are beneath notice, insignificant and infinitely less important than all-important him. He pays no more regard to them in what he does than you pay to bug you step on while crossing the street. They are nothing; he is everything.

This is how he compensates for that demeaning value judgment his narcissistic parent imprinted on his soul. This is how he edits the shameful image of himself he saw reflected in that parent's contemptuous eye. In other words, he does to others what that parent did to him. Since that's what made that parent a god, that's what makes him a god.

How does he enact this fiction? By treating you like dirt. And by maligning you behind your back. You could define a narcissist as someone who likes to treat others like dirt and ruin their reputations.

This is the game a narcissist plays, in a nutshell. Because he is an emotional imbecile (i.e., mentally of pre-school-age maturity).

The only people he doesn't abuse this way are those he doesn't dare abuse. Or those he can aggrandize himself by association with. Or those he can con and is setting up for a con job. Like psychopaths, narcissists view others as but objects, material to exploit for their own aggrandizement…

Narcissists are predators, but many people fail appreciate the meaning of that term, letting it in one ear and out the other...

Being predators puts narcissists in a special class with psychopaths, that class of people who don't wish you well, no matter how friendly their facade — that class from which sexual predators and all other kinds of predators come…

They're regulating, manipulating your reactions. But you aren't like them. Your reactions come from within. So, what are they ultimately regulating and manipulating? Your thoughts. Manipulation is mind control.

Manipulation is a subtle thing. So subtle that we are usually unaware of being manipulated, unless the manipulator blows it and breaks the spell. So, manipulators are putting thoughts into our heads that we think are ours. A very dangerous thing.

Since a narcissist isn't acting on normal human premises, since all he is doing is playing you for the reaction he wants, truth is irrelevant. Truth or lies — it's all the same to him. Whichever works. Usually that's lies.

It would be more correct to say that there is no such thing as truth to a narcissist. Because there is no such thing as truth when playing Pretend. That's why narcissists and psychopaths beat lie detector tests...

Psychopaths are known to get so good at manipulating people that, by the time they're teenagers, they routinely fool and manipulate mental healthcare professionals, judges, prison officials, parole boards, and social workers who know they are psychopaths, are on the lookout for attempts to manipulate them, and should be immune to manipulation.

It isn't a matter of intelligence: it's a matter of practice, experience. This is because most of what transpires in interaction happens too quickly to think it through…

Don't trust an institution or organization to filter out the personality disordered on the road to the top. Indeed, narcissists have great climbing skills!

Narcissists are expert at tearing down whoever is above them on the ladder of success. That's what narcissists do, nonstop, all their lives, because that's what narcissism is. They get very good at it, because it's an aspect of the disease, an aspect that is more a benefit than a curse in society. In fact, they get so good at climbing over those they throw down that they come out smelling like a rose, because nobody even knows who instigated the talk that destroyed that person…

What's more, narcissists have no compunctions about exploiting and tearing down their betters, because they have no empathy, no conscience. Another big advantage over normal people.

Nor do they have any compunctions about "getting tough" with their subordinates and firing people. They love doing that, because that's what narcissists do — vaunt themselves on others by bullying whomever they can. It's an aspect of the disease. And it's an asset, because it makes them look like good "tough" managers of personnel.

Narcissists are shameless but subtle self-promoters, expert at carving out the perfect (false) image for themselves. Yet another big advantage.

In fact, being for looks only, they see no reason to work for credit or credentials, so they just fake it whenever possible. They may cheat their way through college or buy a degree from a diploma mill or fake their credentials altogether. On the job they steal the credit that belongs to others…

I should think that a narcissist would not be at home in a smart and sophisticated big business with competent personnel managers, one that measures job performance accurately by objective metrics. Most of the narcissists I have known were in the "helping professions," particularly education. Little real accountability and abundant means to fake it.

Among those who were teachers that I have known or heard about, I noticed a peculiar similarity. They avoided accepting any position that would set them up as the responsible party and a target for criticism. For example, they would come up with excuses for why they could not fill a vacant head-coaching position. They preferred to call the shots from behind the scenes as a "humble" assistant coach, who manipulated the head coach.

…This is why narcissistic bullies in the workplace are a particular problem in private nonprofit institutions.

…In fact, the "helping professions" in general attract more than their share of narcissists: little real accountability and plenty of ways to fake it. All you have to do is fool people: you never have to prove that you are doing a good job.

…No one wants others to see them as bad. Moreover, that's the kiss of death to a predator, because it's like a repellant that warns potential prey to mistrust and stay away from him. Indeed, if you were a malignant narcissist, what would be your biggest fear?

Exposure, right? You're like a vampire to whom the light of day is lethal. Your greatest fear would be the same as that of any hungry, stalking predator — exposure.

You'd live in constant fear of people finding out that you're a wolf beneath your sheep's clothing, that you just use people, that you want to take away anything they have that you don't have, and that you will vandalize their image to improve your own. You'd live in constant fear of them learning the shocking truth about your past exploits, about the many you've used and trashed in your wake. You'd live in constant fear of people discovering, not just what you do for a moral living, but whom you do it to.

Since narcissists are such expert con artists, how do you spot them? …Here are eight red flags:

• puts on a conspicuous display of goodness and kindness
• damages the images of most others
• has a history of past upheavals
• hated for mysterious reasons by people close to them
• exhibits unnatural and perplexing behavior — backwards reactions to things
• is a control freak, trampling privacy/boundaries
• is extremely self-absorbed
• has a hostile reaction to attention and credit given others

…If you know a narcissist's history, you will usually see a track record of mysterious upheavals in his life. He suddenly up and moves to a different school or job in a different town every few years. That is, every time the good angels in his Pathological Space start comparing notes, get his number, and become enraged.
-----------------------
From: What Makes Narcissists Tick - Understanding Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Data Protection Act 1998 - Use it or loose it

We received the following email:

Dear PJP,

you should note for your own reference and others (that is if you do not already know this) that using the DPA [Data Protection Act] will also give the University the ability to withhold information, e.g. investigation reports where third parties have refused to permission for disclosure or have asked for confidentiality. They will seize upon any exemptions that they can apply.

It is likely that in these cases the information comissioner will hold the University to be in breach of the Data Protection Act, but penalities for this are not always severe, thus since it takes months to resolve complaints with the information comissioner, and the University of course know this, then it serves their interests at the time to deny disclosure.

It is better to go for the information that you think will be withheld, informally, before making a Subject Access Request - I would also get a solicitor to handle a DPA request in future, as there can be a lot of things to challenge when you receive the return of a Subject Access Request.

In summary, using the DPA is a powerful and cheap right - it is very effective.

Cheers,

EF

Employers would more readily admit to rape...

Stuart has left a new comment:

Perhaps the biggest problem of the anti-bullying policy is what to do when a complaint is upheld - have you ever heard of a complaint being upheld? My barrister said most employers would more readily admit to rape. So the policy is a political document that nobody dare implement because they cannot conceive of a fitting punishment. But really it is an immature behaviour that is easily challenged - take the bullies aside, tell them to stop and if they don't comply then strip them of title, authority and responsibility. Prevention is the aim, not punishment - motive is harmless without opportunity. They probably did their old job better anyway, and were promoted to Bully.

High stress levels in colleges and universities 'caused by management culture' - UK

High levels of stress are widespread amongst staff throughout further and higher education and staff widely believe that management - far from addressing the issue - are contributing to the problem.

The problem is revealed in results of a survey conducted on behalf of UCU and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL). Around 5,000 staff in FE and HE in England, Wales and Northern Ireland received a questionnaire on workload and stress during September 2006. More than a thousand responses were received, providing the unions with a representative snapshot of current workplace pressures and recent trends.

The main sources of work related stress were heavily linked to demands for hitting targets and deadlines, long working hours, increased workloads and frequent changes of timetables or courses. Not being able to exert control over demands made - and being given responsibility without the authority to take decisions - also scored highly, as did feeling undervalued and lack of administrative support.

A massive 82% of respondents reported that their overall workloads had increased in the last three years. The same proportion felt that this had directly or indirectly increased stress levels.

Respondents were asked which factors had contributed to the increase in workload. (They could tick more than one box). Overall 88% indicated 'more administration' (83% in HE, 92% in FE) and 46% said 'having more students per lecturer' (in both HE and FE) were the key causes of increased work.

Long hours are common in both further and higher education. Of all respondents, 41% work an average of 46 hours or more per week during term time, with 19% working 51 or more hours. 23.5% of staff in colleges work 46-50 hours (22.1% in universities). 12.5% of college staff work 50+ hours a week, while this is normal for 24.4% of university staff.

An astonishing 82% said their institution had a management culture which 'actively contributed to stress' ( 87% in colleges, 80% in universities). 27% thought their management 'acknowledged the causes of stress' but only 15% thought their management 'sought to address the causes'. Managers in HE appear to be making a slightly better effort to tackle the problem (17.7% of universities, 11.6% of colleges).

Many respondents recorded pronounced symptoms of stress. The symptoms reported as most frequently occurring were poor sleep patterns (46%), exhaustion (39%) and anxiety (35%). However high percentages of HE and FE staff said they also sometimes experienced many other stress symptoms: 58% reported an inability to concentrate, 56% reported headaches and migraines and 54% reported erratic moods.

15% of respondents had taken leave due to work related stress, a third of these for over 2 weeks and in 39% of cases the respondents' GP said their illness was work-related.

High numbers of staff considered their stress was partly due to their powerlessness to control their work: 71% said they found it stressful or very stressful that they are given responsibility without the authority to take decisions, 69% cited their lack of participation in decision making.

Not surprisingly, 78% of respondents said that morale had worsened over the last 3 years. Despite this 32% said they would recommend their job as a career, but 45% said they would not. Asked where they might be in 5 years time, 25.4% of university staff expected promotion compared to only 17% in colleges. 32% of university staff expected to be retired. This was 38% in colleges - further evidence of an ageing workforce which may soon create staff shortages.

UCU head of equality and employment rights Roger Kline said: 'Across the whole of post-16 education stress is now at epidemic levels. We have warned for a long time that something has to be done but this survey suggests things have deteriorated still further.

'Tackling the causes of stress - excessive workloads, a long hours culture, a lack of influence over their work, job insecurity, a bullying culture and burgeoning administration - is now the top priority for our union. It is bad for staff and damaging to students, learning and research.

'We are now actively seeking legal test cases on excessive hours and against employer's breaching their duty of care to staff, to back up our local campaigns. As student staff ratios rise and bureaucracy rockets, it appears that only collective action and legal threats will serve as a wake up call.'

Dr Mary Bousted, ATL general secretary, said: 'We are surprised, but still horrified by the story this survey shows. Staff working in FE and HE should not be suffering harassment - 61% - or being bullied - 58% - at all, let alone in these large numbers. We are deeply concerned that so many of them feel undervalued - 72%. Staff can't work effectively in colleges which treat them badly - not only do the staff suffer but their students also suffer as a result and it's not good for the colleges in the long-run either.

'We can't allow these appalling conditions to continue unchallenged - it really is not good enough in the 21st century. ATL urges members to report any instances of poor behaviour so they can be contested for the good of everyone working and studying in FE and HE.'

Help and advice about dealing with stress: The College and University Support Network (CUSN) is a support network which provides support by qualified professionals for FE/HE staff and their families. It includes a 24 hour helpline 08000 32 99 52 www.cusn.org.uk

Contact: Press officer, Trevor Phillips
press@ucu.org.uk | Tel: 020 7520 1032 or 07773 796 882 (mob)
----------------------------
From: University and College Union

[Academic] Staff report regular bullying - Sheffield Hallam, UK

Phil Baty, Times Higher Education. Published: 22 December 2006

Leaked survey at Sheffield Hallam reveals 'disturbing' fears of victimisation, high stress and sub-par performance in many areas of work that require 'urgent action'.

Phil Baty reports Almost 100 members of staff at Sheffield Hallam University have reported being bullied "always, often or sometimes" in an internal survey leaked to The Times Higher.

The report also highlights serious concerns about staff stress levels, noting that "urgent action" is required by the university in ten areas of work relating to staff stress and that "clear improvement" is needed in 22 other areas. In no category was Sheffield Hallam rated as doing "very well", based on scales devised by the Government's Health and Safety Executive and benchmarked against other universities.

The survey follows a similar internal report, which was leaked to The Times Higher in the summer, in which staff rated the quality of the university management as "very unsatisfactory" in "many aspects". This report warned that staff had lost a sense of collegiality.

The University and College Union said the latest findings were "disturbing", but it pointed out that such problems were common throughout the sector. It praised Sheffield Hallam for seeking to understand the issues. Diana Green, vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam, said this week that the fact that Sheffield Hallam had produced the report showed how seriously it took the issue of staff welfare. She confirmed that plans to improve the situation had already been put in place.

The Stress Survey 2006 was carried out this year by the university's Centre for Research and Evaluation for Sheffield Hallam's internal health and safety service. It received 844 responses.

In the survey, the university performed below national comparators in six of seven general work areas. The areas in which it was judged deficient were "demands, managers' support, peer support, relationships, role and change".

Staff reported greatest concern about their "role", which indicates that "urgent action" is needed to improve the situation, the report states. With regard to role, staff reported very negative responses to the statements: "I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are, I am clear about the goals and objectives of my department, and I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organisation."

The report finds cause for alarm in response to the statement: "I am subject to bullying at work." Some 96 of the 844 staff report that they have been bullied "always, often or sometimes" - just over 11 per cent of respondents. Sixteen staff report that they are "always" bullied.

Professor Green said: "The survey allows us to take action to alleviate stress where there are concerns and the board of governors and I are publicly committed to improving the university's performance in this area."

She pointed out that there were 5,111 staff at the university and that 17 per cent had responded to the survey. This meant that the 96 staff who reported being bullied "represent about 2 per cent of overall staff numbers".

Roger Kline, head of equality and employment at UCU, said: "This report makes disturbing reading - it shows the pressures that university staff are under and the levels of stress.

"This is not unique to Sheffield Hallam. I am quite certain that were surveys to be done in most institutions they would show similar or even worse responses."

He said that there had been a "good institutional response" from Sheffield Hallam and called on other institutions to conduct similar surveys.
----------------------------------------
Something about early intervention... something about the lack of accountability, no monitoring and no policing for 'independent' organisations... something about union (in)action that can contribute more...

Yes, what a lovely idea 'were surveys to be done in most institutions they would show similar or even worse responses'. Can we have some individual surveys please? We need some data and statistics to compare individual performances and ratings...

The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown

Up until today the 10 year abuse of this clinical psychologist has been shrouded in secrecy. The evolving story is likely to have many implications. It has to do with the use of mental health diagnosis to suppress dissent. It also raises the problem of academic freedom issues that arise outside of universities.

This blog is about the distortion of scientific debate, most particularly by powerful forces in medicine. It is about the way in which industry, professional bodies, government regulators and powerful individuals collude to prevent scientific debate and to victimize those asking difficult questions (www.nhsexposed.com). It is about the way those entrusted with authority behave.

I have been contacted by many individuals who have found themselves in difficulty. Some of these stories are urgent enough for me to want take a break from my most interesting correspondence with Dr Larry Games Vice President at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

One such case is that of the psychologist Lisa Blakemore Brown, a specialist in Autism, ADHD & Aspergers [website] [Book]. Blakemore Brown has been involved on the "wrong side" of the debate about the psychiatric disorder Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), maintaining that many parents have been falsely accused of injuring their children. There have been high-profile releases from jail of women such as Angela Canning.

MSbP is a disorder in which an adult invents or deliberately creates a child’s illness to draw attention to themselves. She has challenged prominent doctors such as Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall who, in her view, have promulgated a wholly inappropriate approach to scientific evidence. She has irritated pharmaceutical companies. But instead of debate Lisa has encountered its very opposite. The abuse of science goes right into the heart of a prominent professional body. Her colleagues have stood by in silence.

I have no special knowledge of the science that underpins the debate surrounding autism, MSbP or vaccine side effects. But I do know that debate is important. It is the lifeblood of science. I will be discussing much more of this tragic case over the next few weeks. It is not only a tragedy for Blakemore Brown, but also part of the tragedy of medicine.

For now I simply place in the public domain a letter written this week by John Stone and myself to the British Psychological Society. It speaks for itself.

Ray Miller, President,
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Road East
Leicester LE1 7DR 14 January 2007

Re: Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dear Mr Miller,

We are writing to express our concern regarding the treatment of Lisa Blakemore-Brown (LBB) by the British Psychological Society. The actions of the Society are such as to cast serious doubts upon its motives as well as upon its plausibility as a professional regulatory body.

It is disturbing that the Society appears to be acting to suppress open debate about controversial theories. Our purpose here is not to get involved in this debate, nor do we necessarily agree with her views. Ms Blakemore-Brown's views are in fact irrelevant. She is entitled to hold any views and to express these, no matter how uncomfortable they are to yourselves. This is enshrined by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems that the Society have developed an unhealthy obsession with preventing free speech through abuse of mental health diagnosis. Its actions may also be construed as a breach of the Harassment Act 1997.

It cannot be in the interests of society, human rights, patients and of the British Psychological Society to suppress open debate and academic freedom through such mechanisms. The society seems to have encouraged an endless series of unsupportable complaints against LBB, and then progressed them despite evidence that they were not sustainable. The society itself then generated an entirely different complaint (about her irritated response to these very complaints). This is not a proper example for resolving scientific or academic disputes. It appears to be more a method of silencing a critic.

Irritation with a professional body is not in any event an offence. Neither is annoying a professional body. Disagreement with the professional "view" is not a reason to refer an individual for psychiatric assessment except in a Stalinist state. This approach of the BPS is wholly anti-academic and unprofessional. To quote Kingsley Amis "If you can't annoy someone, there's little point in writing". It is also not a prime facie offence to perceive oneself to have been bullied, as the BPS seem to be suggesting.

Having read the case transcripts, we must confess that we find them most extraordinary. The transcript of the first three days of the Fitness to Practice hearing July 2006 reads like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. If LBB has responded with irritation, this would seem to be understandable.

• Lisa had been coerced into "hearings" despite having left the society years before. The main charge was modified progressively until it bore no relation to the flawed original charge. The modified "charge" of supposed mental illness (so called "paranoia") was not revealed to Lisa for months after the process had been set in motion.
  
  
• Evidence was assembled by the panel as if having been provided by Lisa herself, and presented to others in a jumbled order and without context to suggest mental incoherence in her correspondence with the BPS (a supposed offence).
  
  
• In one instance it emerged that the material was forged. Despite that, the original complainants were not invited to be cross-examined, and no action was taken against them after the information was dropped.
  
  
• An independent psychiatric report declaring LBB perfectly lucid, quite normal and fit to practice was rejected, and others were requested instead. This is a rather interesting approach for a "psychological society" towards the reliability of such reports. This interesting approach of the BPS appears to be on the basis of the findings of the reports themselves rather than upon the methodology used (since the panel seemed quite happy to consider an assessment based only on LBB's correspondence with the BPS complaining about her treatment, compiled without seeing "the patient" and without any relevance whatever to her clinical practice). More convincing evidence supporting justifiable paranoia and predetermination would be hard to find.
  
  
• A psychiatrist declared Lisa to be unfit to practice with the diagnosis of "paranoia" without examining her, and on the basis of material constructively assembled by the committee. Having read the transcript relating to this material we find this "diagnosis" intriguing, and wonder whether a majority (or even any) other psychiatrists or members of the public would reach such a conclusion based on the same information if we were to provide it to them. In any event the material bears no apparent relation to her practice, only to her views about the suppression of scientific debate.

The society has acted callously over a sustained period seeking to undermine and silence Ms Blakemore Brown, despite her unfortunate family circumstances. It has used the practice of psychiatry and psychological assessment in a non-evidence-based way as a tool for destruction. It cannot improve the reputation of the society to be seen to act in such an arbitrary way using its own tools of trade.

The society must bring this charade to an end before any more damage is done, both to society itself and to the chances of proper public discourse in an atmosphere that is free from fear.

1. We would appreciate the views of the society before taking this matter forward in terms of public discussion.
2. We are unable to find any list of the psychological traits that would render an individual unfit to practice and would appreciate a copy of the same. If supposed "paranoia" or "irritation with the BPS" is on such a list, perhaps bullying should also be added.
3. In addition we would also request that the society provide what scientific evidence it has in relation to the, indications for psychiatric assessment in such cases, as well as the reproducibility and plausibility of such reports.
4. So bizarre are the case transcripts, we believe that open discussion is required. We intend to publish these in full, with appropriate commentary as part of a campaign to prevent such behaviour by professional regulatory bodies. If the society can see any reason such publication should not take place, we would appreciate it if you would let us know those reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Mr John Stone

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Scientific Misconduct Blog: The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown

Threat of legal action by Sussex University against student protestors

The management of the University of Sussex are threatening legal action against some 50 students out of 80 who took part in a peaceful sit-in at the library last November to call for better teaching provision.

The University obtained an injunction from Brighton County Court in advance of the occupation to try to prevent it. Over the vacation the management wrote to those suspected of taking part in the sit-in, suggesting that they intend to pursue action under civil law against them being in contempt of court and to recover legal and other costs incurred by the sit-in from them.

For press coverage see <http://sussex80.blogspot.com/>.

Can anyone direct me to a place where I can find arguments about the implications for academic freedom of this kind of legal action by a university, and information about whether it has been taken before in the UK. I know about the George Fox 6 case but I wonder if there are any others.

Yours
Andrew Chitty
University of Sussex
----------------------------------
Solidarity with others who are fighting against management bullying.

Defending quality

Comment: Defending quality - Academics must guard against losing their voice

By Sally Hunt, Tuesday January 23, 2007, The Guardian

'...Defending quality means putting our arguments on workloads, pay and insecure employment in the wider professional context of the encroachment on academic freedom, diminishing control over curriculums, deskilling of academic-related jobs, threat of marketisation, and a growth of corporate, not collegiate governance...'
-------------------------
Nice words... and then Sally goes on to explain in detail everything except for the 'growth of not collegiate governance'. There are no specific references to workplace bullying in academia.

Some rough figures: It is estimated that 14-16% of the British workforce experiences workplace bullying. In a union with a membership of over 100.000, this translates to over 14.000 members...

None of the two candidates for General Secretary of the new University and College Union (UCU) - Roger Kline and Sally Hunt - have made any explicit references to workplace bullying in academia. The closest we have got to is 'growth of not collegiate governance' - it doesn't sound too bad.

It is bullying Mr Kline and Mrs Hunt, it is bullying...

Early Intervention? What Early Intervention?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Literature on effective interventions to prevent a...":

The whole issue of intervention is so amazingly undeveloped - just today I saw a press release via CCN Matthews ("news distribution experts") saying "Amicus, with the support of the DTI, is running the world's biggest anti-bullying project - a new website for advice on how to deal with bullying in the workplace" co-sponsored by the DTI. Yet on searching for the new DignityAtWork website - omitted by the news experts - there is no mention of intervention!

(http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action
=showRelease&actionFor=631523
and
http://www.dignityatwork.org/default.htm)

Interventions I have seen mentioned by those affected by bullying include

1) (externally audited) statistical monitoring,
2) acceptance of a uniform definition of bullying,
3) exit interviews to determine why staff are leaving,
4) emotional intelligence screening,
5) support of the target in situ (i.e. any intervention must impact the bully, not the target),
6) state appointment of an external reviewer of bullying cases (or an approved mechanism for third-party review).
----------------------------
Thank you Anonymous :)

- Certainly the AMICUS definition of workplace bullying is a bit too narrow.

- From the Dignity at Work site:

Aims

To encourage employee representatives and employers to build cultures in which respect for individuals is regarded as an essential part of the conduct of all those who work in the organisation. The project will also increase awareness and knowledge of 'dignity at work' issues, and encourage the development of partnership working in the workplace through the promotion of joint working on dignity at work.

Their aim is to 'encourage', not impose, not monitor and not police, just encourage...

Literature on effective interventions to prevent and manage bullying at work

General comments on evaluation

It appears that there are few, if any, ‘formal’ evaluations of bullying intervention programmes. For example, the recent HSE Research Report 024 reviewing supporting knowledge for stress management standards (Rick et al, 2002) found no studies examining evidence on interventions to reduce the bullying/harassment stressor.

Informal discussions with delegates at the recent Economic and Social Research (ESRC) seminar confirmed that there is a lack of evaluated interventions. There are many reasons why evaluations are seldom carried out. For one thing, it is often problematic to ensure an appropriate level of scientific rigour in the workplace. However, researchers are starting to acknowledge that some scientific rigour will have to be sacrificed if any evaluation is to be carried out in ‘the real world’.

The measures used to indicate the success of an intervention were discussed at the ESRC seminar, and delegates noted that ‘higher order’ measures such as social competency and selfefficacy may be useful to evaluate success. Delegates noted that the use of diary studies and examining the content validity of an intervention by use of expert panel could be useful methods of evaluation.

General comments on interventions

One of the strongest messages that came out of the ESRC seminar was that the organisational or team context is crucial when designing a bullying intervention. It was also considered vital to motivate people to engage in the intervention – measures must have a positive outcome for employees. [How much money they will save and how more productive the workforce will be] For many, the main aim of an intervention is to ‘do things to create a positive psychosocial work environment’.

Problems with interventions

Some authors (e.g., Rayner, Cooper and Hoel, 2001) have noted that interventions aimed at increasing employee control over their work have been difficult to implement in reality. There may also be problems with initiatives aimed at management level as they might serve to reinforce management control (a potential antecedent of bullying). [One way or another, management does control the process - with or without early intervention]

Initiatives aimed at the selection arena (i.e., selecting out bullies) are also problematic as selection tools can be unreliable and bullies can find ways around them. [They may even claim discrimination...]

Do organisational interventions work?

There are few evaluations that have addressed the impact that an organisation’s bullying interventions/policies/actions have on the ‘targets’, bullies, or other workplace outcomes. This in an area that needs much more work. Some suggestions include auditing bullying policies, exploring what blocks senior managers from tackling bullying.

From: Health and Safety Laboratory,Bullying at work: a review of the literature, 2006. Project Leader: Johanna Beswick. Author(s): Johanna Beswick, Joanne Gore, David Palferman (HSE). Science Group: Human Factors
----------------------------------
So much for early prevention...

However, they got it right with the suggestion to include (external, we hope) auditing of bullying policies - and this should include the keeping of records.

What blocks senior managers from tackling the bullying? They are the problem! 'Leadership' and 'emotional intelligence' workshops for this lot have little - or negative - measurable impact on positive change.

NSW Premier Iemma Control Bullying? What a Laugh - Australia

By Jolly Judge Judy Tuesday January 23, 2007 at 01:45 AM - reporter@wbde.org - Melbourne Indymedia

With hilarity we read that NSW Premier Morris Iemma may attempt to adentify and reduce workplace bullying. NSW is Iemma country - the bullies' paradise.

With hilarity the following article was circulated among some of the huge number of public servant whistleblowers who were bullied/victimised by the corrupt, vindictive Carr/Iemma government. Iemma's and Carr's boys lead the parade of bullies in NSW.

WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed web site have hundreds of items showing the million$$$ of dollar$$$ they have misappropriated to serve their own benefit: silence whistleblowers.

See TAFE teacher Val Kerrison's case at http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_03_IndyMedia_
HealthQuestingValKerrison.php
[This case has been going on for ten years and involves a teacher at a further and higher education institution]

See how Ken Boston bullied and victimised the teachers reporting the pedophile Peter Boys at
http://www.wbde.org/documents/Article_
NewcastleHerald_%207July1998.php

...Now we see the pathetic little Telegraph report that the equally lazy/corrupt NSW Teachers' Federation opine that "...It is expected the Iemma Government will be asked to fund formal training "to recognise and reduce workplace bullying."

HA! HA! HA!

Iemma's punks could write the manual on how to bully the defenceless.

Carr [previous Premiere of NSW] already srote the instructions manual on how to send whistleblowers to the corrupt HealthQuest psychiatrists, and make them submit to this degregation, then dupe them out of their jobs with HealthQuest's fraudulent, fake retirement certificates http://www.wbde.org/documents/2001_LozaAffidavit.pdf

Carr's instructions on how to force unwanted public servants to submit to unwanted medical 'assessments' especially to persecute whistleblowers are now held by Iemm. This is Soviet-style psychiatry to punish, discredit, and ruin NSW whistleblowers http://www.wbde.org/references/PsychiatryPolitica
GermanySovietRussiaChinaAustralia.php

NSW government's bullying/victimisation/corruption extends across participating departments, watched by idle, useless 'watchdog' departments state wide http://www.wbde.org/documents/IF_2_OR_MORE_ARE_
RESPONSIBLE_FOR_THE_SAME_PROBLEM_NO_ONE_IS_RESP.php

The courts and ICAC (NSW corruption centre) show their colours towards the bullied/victimised whistleblowers.
http://www.wbde.org/documents/judicial_
corruption_reported_to_ICAC.php

All of this is a great expense to the public, both financially and morally by getting rid of the ethical public servants out of government departments.

Jo Hewitt
reporter@wbde.org
WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed http://wbde.org

Quiz

Quiz. Question 1 - Name an HEI (Higher Education Institution) where:

• many staff have rock-bottom moral
  
  
• staff often work in a culture of fear
  
  
• some staff feel isolated and unfairly treated
  
  
• anger exists between different groups and individuals
  
  
• where there is fear of victimisation
  
  
• leadership and management style is at the heart of much of the unhappiness
  
  
• where an "inner circle" takes over - who are happy in their work and a majority who feel bullied, isolated and discriminated against
  
  
• staff recruitment processes are between "reasonably sound" and "flawed"
  
  
• there is concern about fairness and transparency of the promotions process
  
  
• where performance management are "punitive", and nearly all staff consider communications to be poor

Who is it?
If all bullet points do not apply to your answer, then the winner will be the one with the highest number of bullet points from the above list. ; )

Independent intervention

"It is far more productive to intervene before disciplinary decisions are imposed. For an independent body, external body to assess if the university (employer) has indeed followed the right procedures before reaching a decision. This needs to happen before a decision is imposed and not after."

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : )

'Punishing' style puts staff on critical list

Phil Baty, THES. Published: 19 January 2007 - Whistleblower investigates

Academics at Birmingham's School of Health Sciences feel 'failed' by senior management who, a leaked report shows, were slow to address 'rock-bottom morale' and a 'culture of fear'. Phil Baty dissects the bones of contention.

"I have the sense of a school that is divided, where many staff feel isolated and unfairly treated... "Everyone is aware of the tension, pressure, even anger that exists between different groups and individuals".

This is the conclusion of a report on Birmingham University's School of Health Sciences that is so sensitive that the university refused to even confirm its existence when The Times Higher asked to see it under the Freedom of Information Act.

The report, which was leaked to The Times Higher this week, paints a damning picture of a school at war. It raises serious questions about the state of personnel management at the university and the future of the school.

Stuart Hunt, a human resources consultant, produced the report, which was handed to staff in the school in August 2006. It reports the results of a consultation exercise that involved 22 staff in "focus groups" and one-to-one interviews at the school and "several" further direct contributions to Mr Hunt.

The local branch of the University and College Union had suggested that disgruntled staff boycotted the consultation for fear of victimisation, but the paper, however, concludes that an "excellent level of engagement... should mean that the findings... are valid".

The report identifies a number of "key issues". "Leadership and management style is at the heart of much of the unhappiness that was expressed by the majority of respondents," it says.

A clear split emerges between a minority of staff - described as an "inner circle" - who are happy in their work and a majority who feel bullied, isolated and discriminated against.

The report says that although some staff felt recruitment processes to be "reasonably sound", many others found them to be "flawed". Staff expressed "deep concern about the fairness and transparency" of the promotions process.

They also said favouritism was shown in the allocation of tasks, the granting of permission to attend conferences and the handling of promotion opportunities.

The management was said to be supportive by some staff, but many more felt that the systems and the management style were "much too controlling, even punishing". The report says: "Although several staff explicitly said they had not experienced or witnessed bullying, many more comments contradicted this."

Some staff said feedback and performance management were "punitive", and nearly all considered communications to be poor.

The school, founded in 1995, combines nursing and physiotherapy. For most all of its time, it has been headed by Pat Wrightson, a professor of physiotherapy. It has 63 academic staff and 22 academic-related and support staff who are responsible for more than 500 undergraduate students, 87 taught postgraduates and 15 postgraduate research students.

Nursing received a 3b rating in the 2001 research assessment exercise. The Hunt report highlighted staff fears that the school's problems could further damage its profile and even threaten its survival in a university committed to top-rated research.

Staff blamed high workloads for cutting into research time. The report says some staff felt that teaching and administration was valued more highly than research.

"There is significant concern about personal job security and about the future of the school as a whole, especially in relation to the vice-chancellor's statements about (the need for) research excellence," Hunt says.

The report highlights major staff concerns about five general aspects of work - leadership, professional and career development, communications, management, recruitment and promotion. In each of these areas, between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of all comments made were "negative".

These areas, the report said, "should be seen as highly significant to address".

The university this week released a statement to The Times Higher in which it said that the consultation and meetings with staff have allowed the university to "develop additional responses to address staff concerns".

In particular, "leadership training" for staff at various levels has been implemented.

Staff in the school were due to meet Mr Hunt this week, as The Times Higher went to press, to agree "some key actions" to help develop "a framework for collegiate leadership" in the school, according to a leaked memo.

The Hunt report concludes: "Finally, nearly half of respondents made comments relating to the sense that the university centrally has not supported the school... effectively."

Certainly, the university had clear warnings of the emerging crisis. In October 2005 - almost a year before the Hunt report and as Professor Wrightson's second five-year term of office was coming towards an end - 17 members of academic staff wrote to the head of personnel, Jane Usherwood, raising concerns about how the school was being managed.

The letter, which was followed by a similar one in summer 2006 to the vice-chancellor, stated explicitly that it would not be "appropriate" to reappoint Professor Wrightson because of a number of "significant concerns about the current management style and the relationships within the school, which have led to inequitable workload distribution and inconsistent promotion decisions".

It reported that 12 staff had resigned in the previous three years - six of them "within the last few months" - and referred to "widespread concern that we may not be able to deliver existing courses, nor that we will be returnable in the next RAE". But as the Hunt report noted almost a year later, five staff asked: "What happened to the letter... there was no response, no feedback."

A major warning - described by one staff member as a "huge emergency siren" - came in the form of an October 2005 staff "stress survey" that highlighted the same issues as Hunt, but almost a year earlier. This survey, obtained by The Times Higher under the Freedom of Information Act, showed staff reporting "a culture of fear" and "rock-bottom morale" in health sciences.

Some 47 staff in the school, including 41 academics, participated in the survey. They reported that promotion and job opportunities were "unfair", that the school suffered from a "blaming culture" and an "unrewarding social climate", and that they suffered "low autonomy, insufficient participation and a sense of lack of control". The report, by consultants Applied Research Limited, recommended an "urgent" investigation into allegations of bullying and favouritism and said that "organisational interventions... are urgently required".

But nine months after the survey was completed, the Birmingham UCU was bemoaning the lack of action. A submission from the Birmingham UCU to a July 10, 2006, meeting of the university stress review group said: "It is no exaggeration to say that UCU members in health sciences are at the end of their tethers. They are asking how much more time it takes for the university to act to address the problem."

In the same month, 15 school staff complained in a letter to the vice-chancellor of a "lack of strategic planning", a "climate of low morale" and "raised stress levels".

Michael Clarke, the vice-principal, replied 18 days later, on July 28, rejecting their request for a meeting but saying that the vice chancellor would "take into consideration" their views about leadership when deciding on the future headship of the school.

Just four days after that, Professor Clarke told the school: "Professor Wrightson has agreed to continue as head of the school. Both Pat and the vice chancellor recognise there are significant issues to be resolved... about the future direction of the school." This should be taken forward by staff "working constructively together". But Professor Wrightson's new term would run only until March 31, 2007, he said.

In a statement this week, the UCU branch said that it had been aware of "serious problems" in the school for several years.

It said: "Some of our members in the school have been off work with stress-related illnesses, and many of them have been afraid to raise their concerns with the university for fear of victimisation.

"Members have also expressed anxiety about their future careers because the perceived absence of a clear research strategy has apparently made the prospect of an RAE return in this round unlikely."

As one member of staff who did not want to be named said: "The university has failed us. They had the stress survey and did nothing for a year. Then they sent in a consultant to find out what the problem was when they knew the problem all along.

"It is very sad. There is a lot of enthusiasm and ability and potential, but we've just been ground into the ground."

STAFF CLAIMS

"You don't get promoted unless you are part of the 'favoured few' and your face fits." Eight people shared these sentiments.

"My sense is that everything is designed to support the 'inner circle'."

The report said that this term was "used by several people".

"Criteria for promotion are fixed so that only certain individuals can meet them". Five people expressed this view.

"Some people are allowed to go to international events and others are not - this is a favouritism issue." Four staff repeated such sentiments.

"We are desperate for help. We are vacillating between despair and anger."

"There has to be a change in leadership."

Source: the Hunt report

THE BIRMINGHAM RESPONSE IN FULL

"Birmingham University, as a responsible employer, conducts periodic reviews of stress in its schools. As a result of findings of the 2005 stress survey in the School of Health Sciences, the university, in consultation with the school, commissioned a further review from an independent consultant.

"This was intended to provide a more detailed insight into issues raised in the original survey. The university considers the results of both to be confidential, other than to its senior management group and the appropriate staff in the school concerned.

"The findings of both reviews and meetings with staff have enabled the university to develop additional responses to address staff concerns. One such response is to implement a package of leadership training for differing levels throughout the school.

"The university has every confidence in Professor Pat Wrightson, the head of school, who was recently reappointed by council following the normal procedure of consultation with the school.

"The university will not comment further on specific personal cases."

Professor Wrightson declined to add any additional comments beyond the university's official response.

One more golden oldie... Dismissal as an academic boomerang

'...Attacks sometimes recoil against the attacker, a process that can be called the boomerang effect... Attacks can boomerang when they are perceived as unjust by participants and observers... The dismissal of an academic can be interpreted as an attack on the academic or on academic freedom, and thus can potentially boomerang...

For getting rid of an academic without repercussions, the cover-up is a powerful tool. If few people know about the reasons, the processes and the outcome, then the potential for generating outrage is minimal.

Many academics cooperate in a cover-up because they are ashamed by the criticisms of their performance and because they are not accustomed to seeking publicity. Indeed, most academics avoid public engagement, much less publicity, seeking recognition only among peers through scholarly publications and conferences.

This means that if discreet efforts are made to get rid of them, many are inclined to go quietly. For them, going public is not dignified. Scholarly self-image can get in the way of the quest for justice or even for survival.

In some cases when academics sue for wrongful dismissal, they reach a settlement with the university that includes a payment to them only upon acceptance of a silencing clause, namely a settlement condition that restricts future public comment about the case. Silencing clauses are potent means for cover-up...'

From: The Richardson dismissal as an academic boomerang

The role of HR and management - older post but worth reading again

'...Most of the available books are far better on giving personal advice to victims of bullying than on providing policy advice to managers who concerned about the impact of bullying on their organisation. This might be explained by the fact that there are far more actual and potential victims in the book market than concerned managers. But there is something deeper involved. Many managers are themselves bullies and many others are supportive or tolerant of peers or subordinates who are bullies...'

From: Insight and advice about workplace bullying
------------------
'...If situations of mobbing are diagnosed in a wider organisational context, it could be possible to take preventive measures through changes in work organisation. However, this could lead to a modification in the power relations in the company or institution and would involve making the management responsible for resolving the problem...'

From: Court rulings recognise bullying as 'occupational risk'
------------------
'...Lack of leadership in high-level positions leads to nonsense contentions on their part as to no responsibility extending to the target who is being mobbed, no duty of care owed to them, no right of the mobbed to natural justice or procedural fairness. Without the lack of leadership, mobbing could not occur or, if it did, could not prevail...'

From: Mediocrity and the 'No Change' Principle, a recipe for mobbing
------------------
'...Personnel management: When management eventually steps in, the case becomes officially "a case". Due to previous stigmatization, it is very easy to misjudge the situation and place the blame on the mobbed person. Management tends to accept and take over the prejudices produced during previous stages. This very often seems to bring about the desire to do something in order to "get rid of the problem", i. e. the mobbed person. This most often results in serious violations of the individual´s civil rights. In this phase, the mobbed person ultimately becomes marked/stigmatized. Because of fundamental attribution errors, colleges and management tend to create explanations based on personal characteristics rather than on environmental factors (Jones, 1984). This may be the case particularly when management is responsible for the psychosocial work environment and may refuse to accept this responsibility...'

From: Heinz Leymann - file 12220e
----------------
'...Eventually there is a defining moment when the target asserts their right not to be bullied, perhaps by filing a grievance. At this point, the bullying moves into phase two which is elimination. The human resources department and management are hoodwinked by the bully into seeing the target as an underperformer who needs to be got rid of... In this respect the employer becomes an unwitting victim too...'

From: The hidden cost of a bully on the balance sheet
---------------
'...Mobbing is difficult to respond to, legally, or by the usual institutional procedures, because there is typically no single, or identifiable, perpetrator as there is, say, in discrimination, sexual harassment, or workplace bullying. The victim is, typically, at bay: surrounded by an anonymous pack. Moreover, the litany of complaint ("he/she is not doing his/her job, as we are") is, ostensibly, respectable. The mobbee is not being picked on. Legitimate grievance is being aired - democratically...'

From: Mobbing, a term borrowed from ornithology...
---------------
'...Respondents saw university HR departments as protecting institutions and helping bullies rather than victims...'

From: Bullying rife across campus
---------------
'...Empower HR to handle bullying situations fairly and forthrightly. One of the most common remarks from targets of bullying is how "HR was useless" in handling their complaints about bullying and in some cases turned out to be complicit with the bullies. Effective preventive and responsive measures by HR are key components of any anti-bullying initiative...'

From: The business case against workplace bullying
---------------

• Lesson learnt: HR always works for the employer even if they show sympathy with your situation.

Fight back against compromised HR:

If you have the evidence, you can report all HR mistakes, errors and inappropriate behaviour, to their professional association, the CIPD (The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development is the United Kingdom), and we strongly suggest you do so.

From the CIPD Code of Conduct for the members:

[4.2.1] required to exercise integrity, honesty, diligence and appropriate behaviour in all their business, professional and related personal activities.

[4.2.2] must act within the law and must not encourage, assist or act in collusion with employers, employees or others who may be engaged in unlawful conduct.

If you have evidence that your HR colluded to discriminate against you, victimise you, marginalise you, or collude with the employer, then you should report it to the CIPD. Why do they have a code of conduct for their members?

Stuart said... A commitment to monitoring... Ireland

Stuart said...

Pierre-Joseph wrote "Employers should keep all statistics of workplace bullying and provide reports" - we had the suggestion from an expert review group that the Health & Safety Authority require all employers to record the number of bullying complaints, outcomes (upheld , dismissed, resolved without finding), proportion of staff on fixed-term contracts, sickness rates, stress-related leave, staff law suits, legal fees and settlements.

The new Guidelines were watered down to "Monitoring : The policy should include a commitment to monitoring incidents of bullying at work so as to evaluate and improve upon the policy and procedures as necessary".

(http://consultation.hsa.ie/general-applications/cop/
DraftCoPBullyingWeb.8December2006.pdf)
--------------------------------------------
A commitment to monitoring...

Reports are exaggerated...

"...the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated..."

Mark Twain: published in the New York Journal

The mobbing process

Phase 1: is characterized by an initial conflict. At this stage it is not mobbing and the target may not even realize the significance of this critical incident.

Phase 2: characterized by aggressive acts and psychological assaults... that set the mobbing processes into motion.

Phase 3: then involves management that play a role in the negative cycle by misjudging and/or mis-interpreting the situation. Instead of extending support, they begin the isolation and expulsion process.

Phase 4: is critical. Targets are now branded as difficult or mentally ill. This misjudgment by management and/or health professionals reinforces the negative cycle. It will almost always lead to expulsion or forced resignation.

Phase 5: is the expulsion. The trauma of this event, can additionally, trigger post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After the expulsion, the emotional distress and psychological injury can continue and intensify.

Westhues (1998; 2004a) prefers the term elimination rather than expulsion from the workplace. He acknowledges that this is a harsh term but his intention is to highlight the devastating consequences of mobbing activities that is ‘happening everyday in workplaces in our most civilised societies’...

As noted above, targets are characterized as having a strong commitment to their work. This commitment also engenders feelings of loyalty and a strong belief in the goals of the organization (Davenport 2002). Such principles promote a feeling that that complaining is an act of disloyalty making many stay silent about their ordeal.

Davenport et.al. (2002) noted that once the phases begin they develop their own momentum. Research indicates that the longer the worker endures the mobbing, the more difficult it is for bystanders to remain neutral and they become implicated in the mobbing process (Zapf et.al 2003).

As indicated in the above phases, Phase 3 would seem to represent a circuit breaker to the cycle. Unfortunately, when the target finally seeks assistance they are inevitably suffering a stress related illness and management support the mobbers rather than the mobbing target.

Vanderkerchhove and Commers (2002) assert that the labelling of the target as a ‘troublemaker or mentally ill based on rumours and gossip legitimizes senior management decision to eliminate the target from the workplace’...

Dr. Kate Hartig (NSW) and Jeannene Frosch (ACT), Workplace Mobbing Syndrome: The ‘Silent and Unseen’ Occupational Hazard, Our Work … Our Lives: National Conference on Women and Industrial Relations, Queensland Working Women’s Service and Griffith, Griffith University, Brisbane 12-14 July 2006

Shall we pay the presidents? - Universities rely on institute intake to keep "elite" status

Dear Louise [Michel],

The privatising vanguard of Irish university heads have used "fostering quality" to justify their abysmal record on human relations, without once defining quality. When challenged on their records of institutional bullying they refer to growth in student numbers, private research income and capital assets to defend themselves - not student-staff ratios, professional accreditation, publication output, student achievement, doctoral awards or other "traditional" educational metrics.

Below is an article from the Irish Times newspaper by Professor Emeritus Dr Edward Walsh founding president of the University of Limerick (as he styles himself) advocating "no-nonsense policies that nurture excellence and ostracise the second-rate" and a pay rise of between 66 and 72 percent for university presidents and vice presidents. (Actually they receive between 185,000 and 205,000 euro, which is cheap by comparison with many other countries, but the manner of the appeal offends me).

Below that article is another printed in the same issue on how universities are increasing elitism by failing to admit disadvanted applicants and mature students who are potentially challenging, preferring the malleable "Powerpoint generation" who return the lecturer's own notes as bullet-points in examination.

Best wishes, ...
--------------------------------------
The Irish Times, 16 January 2007 - Shall we pay the presidents? By Ed Walsh

The demand by university presidents for a €300,000 salary is not outlandish.

We must reward those who are committed to change, relevance and the pursuit of excellence. Otherwise, Ireland will fail to sustain the building of the great universities it needs, argues Ed Walsh.

Competition in the knowledge age has become a race for talent: universities have moved to the apex of the competitive system in developed countries. World-class universities give a special competitive edge: they strongly influence foreign direct investment and wealth creation. As a result, governments globally are pressing to ensure that their universities are vibrant and competitive.

Most European governments are agitated by the fact that their universities fare so badly in new international rankings. Prior to the second World War, the world's best universities were in Europe. Now the US wins most of the Nobel prizes in science and European universities make poor showings. Eight of the world's top 10 universities are in the US, and seven of these, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT and Columbia, are run as private corporations with the associated no-nonsense policies that nurture excellence and ostracise the second-rate.

In contrast, many European states have in effect nationalised the universities, turned academics into public servants, locked them on salary scales and created bureaucratic formulas that tolerate mediocrity and often fail to reward excellence. Talent has drifted away and many of Europe's once-great universities have been humbled.

Poor rankings in the international polls have highlighted this reality and many European governments are now moving to revitalise their lacklustre universities. Germany is attempting to create nine elite universities and Britain has given university leadership considerable discretion in fostering and recruiting vital talent.

Recently, under the National Development Plan, Ireland has moved in a most determined and creative way to boost the low research standing of its universities and compensate for 80 years of neglect. Research funding has been dramatically increased from miserly millions to generous billions in a way that has caught the imagination of the multinationals and the international research community. Science Foundation Ireland has been established with panache and is proving a remarkable success. Flexibility has been demonstrated in offering the kind of remuneration packages essential to compete internationally in attracting some of the world's great researchers to Ireland.

The strategy is already paying off: major multinationals have started to make research investments unprecedented in Ireland. Enterprise that invests in research and intellectual talent puts down deep roots that make flitting eastwards before the next minimum wage increase much less likely.

But our universities are still under the maw of the State, governance structures are inappropriate and cumbersome, the executive is constrained and leadership lacks the financial discretion necessary to weave and duck while pursuing and capturing world talent.

The best of the US, UK and Australian universities have the kind of discretion that permits them to "go for broke" in the pursuit of a person who is vital... an academic who is a potential Nobel laureate or a president or vice president with the necessary exceptional abilities. Ireland's development agencies are becoming increasingly aware that Irish universities need similar flexibility and unless a number of our universities make good progress towards the top-100 international rankings Ireland's long-term wealth and job-creation prospects are at some risk.

Moving a university into the top-100 category calls for remarkable commitment at all levels: especially from the president and vice-presidential team. [What happened to academics and the other staff? Do they no come into this?]

Courage and management skill is called for in terminating jaded programmes and transferring resources to more relevant ones, facing down entrenched university groups committed to the status quo - and then selectively allocating resources and reward to those who are committed to change, relevance and the pursuit of excellence. Unless the Irish universities are encouraged to do this, and can compete internationally in attracting and retaining the necessary leadership talent, Ireland will fail to sustain the building of the great universities it needs.

The quality of the university executive leadership team is a key determining factor in building a great university. [Indeed] Despite the public image created by gown-clad presidents mumbling Latin at conferring ceremonies the leadership and executive challenge at presidential and vice-presidential level are immense. With annual budgets now measured in fractions of a billion, several thousand staff, overseas programmes, international fundraising and a diverse list of campus companies, few are fit to undertake the multidimensional role of university president. Given the nature of the people involved and the complexity of the structures, the challenge in driving forward a university is far more demanding than doing likewise with a business of comparable scale.

Universities intent on achieving excellence compete globally and use international head-hunters to track down talent. When a presidential or vice-presidential vacancy is due to arise, a major global talent hunt is launched. In leading US universities, salary is seldom the constraint: but finding the right person willing to take the job is.

The situation in Ireland is otherwise. University governing authorities are finding that, while they have the discretion to head-hunt, salary constraints dominate the recruitment of senior talent.

The annual salary paid to Irish university presidents ranges from €186,000 to €205,000 and in some cases the president is obliged to live on campus in the president's residence (often considered more of an imposition than a benefit). It might seem that remuneration is high enough already and the proposal to move into the €300,000 range is unjustified. But the reality is vividly evident, to those attempting to recruit leadership at both presidential and vice-presidential levels, that existing remuneration packages are uncompetitive. For example, recently a potential candidate for a vice-presidential position at an Irish university was approached. He was working in a senior position in Ireland and willing to accept the university challenge, but when it emerged that his existing earnings were over €300,000 discussions came to a grinding halt: the university could not compete and the appointment was not made.

With experiences like this it is not surprising that those who recognise the importance of moving our universities towards the top-100 league realise that, if world-class leadership is to be attracted and retained, Ireland must abandon the old constraints that hamper senior executive recruitment. Ireland has made great strides recently in putting flexible remuneration packages in place to attract academic research talent; it must do likewise for university leadership.

Remuneration for university presidents has escalated rapidly elsewhere, as an increasing number of developed countries competes intensely for scarce talent. Ireland is now at a serious competitive disadvantage. In the UK the earnings of many university vice-chancellors breached the ?300,000 mark several years ago, while in the US, 50 university presidents are paid over $500,000 and five over $1 million a year.

In this competitive international context the proposed annual salary for Irish university presidents, in the €300,000 range, does not appear outlandish. Smart organisations committed to excellence don't skimp on their senior executive team.

Dr Edward M Walsh is founding president of the University of Limerick
--------------------------------------
Universities rely on institute intake to keep "elite" status. By KITTY HOLLAND

By relying on institutes of technology to increase the proportion of students from disadvantaged groups accessing third-level education, universities are maintaining their "elite" status, an expert on the issue has said.

Prof Tom Collins, head of education at NUI Maynooth, speaking yesterday at the publication of the first directory for mature students of Irish third-level institutions, also said the record of higher education in increasing mature students' access was "patchy" and that secondary schools were not preparing young people for "the intellectual challenges of adult life".

The directory gives a guide to the 32 institutions that admit mature students, along with information on everything from what the CAO is to what supports are available in each institution for mature students.

Prof Collins said access for mature students was patchy from institution to institution.

"It will become easier in the future. I think as modularisation and semesterisation models work their way through, colleges will realise these open up opportunities for different ways of being in college that haven't been explored yet."

He said mature students "challenge universities in their pedagogies", while students straight out of secondary school needed everything set out for them.

"They [second-level students] think like Powerpoint. They find it difficult to construct a narrative; they return exam scripts in bullet points. Second-level education is not training them to link their ideas, to tell a story. They come to university singularly unprepared for the intellectual challenges of adult life.

"Universities are still relying too heavily on the institutes of technology to deal with class," he continued, adding that Dundalk IT had four times the proportion of students from the lowest socio-economic groups as had the universities, while those from disadvantaged backgrounds who did get into university were generally not accessing the "high-prestige" courses such as law and medicine.

The directory has a limited print run as funding was limited. It can be viewed at www.tcd. ie/Trimry_Access/directory_mat urestudents2006.pdf

Reputation Defender to 'consider' Bullied Academics blog!

Reputation Defender, Inc. 2023 Cherokee Parkway, Suite #18 Louisville, KY 40204, January 11, 2007

Dear Professor Neilson,

We are writing to you in behalf of Profession Ivan Perry. He has asked us to contact you and see if you will consider removing the content about him at the following web pages:

* http://www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson/Complaint_Report.htm
* http://www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson/

Please allow us to introduce ourselves. We are ReputationDefender, Inc., a company dedicated to helping our clients preserve their good name on the Internet. Our founders and employees are all regular Internet users. Like our clients, and perhaps like you, we think the Internet is sometimes unnecessarily hurtful to the privacy and reputations of everyday people. Even content that is meant to be informative can sometimes have a significant and negative impact on someone's job prospects, student applications, and personal life.

We invite you to learn more about who we are, at www.reputationdefender.com

When our clients sign up with our service, we undertake deep research about them on the Internet to see what the Web is saying about them. We find sites where they are discussed, and we ask our clients how they feel about those sites. Sometimes our clients express strong reservations about the content on particular websites. They may feel hurt, ashamed, or "invaded" by the content about them on those sites.

As you may know, more and more prospective employers, universities, and newfound friends and romantic interests undertake Internet research, and the material they find can strongly impact their impressions of the people they are getting to know. When people apply for jobs, apply for college or graduate school, apply for loans, begin dating, or seek to do any number of other things with their lives, hurtful content about them on the Internet can have a negative impact on their opportunities.

At some point or another, most of us say things about ourselves or our friends and acquaintances we later regret. We're all human, and we all do it!

We are writing to you today because our client, Ivan Perry, has told us that he would like the content about him on your websites to be removed, as it is outdated and feels that it is invasive of both your and his privacy. Would you be willing to remove or alter the content? It would mean so much to Professor Perry, and to us.

Considerate actions such as these will go a long way to help make the Internet a more civil place. Thank you very much for your consideration. We are mindful that matters like these can be sensitive. We appreciate your time.

Please let us know if you have removed or changed the content on these sites by sending an e-mail to: daves@reputationdefender.com

Yours sincerely,

Dave S., Reputation Defender Service Team
---------------------------------------------
Dear Dave S.,

Many thanks for your message of 11 January 2007 informing me that your client Professor Perry would like me to remove references to my workplace experiences from www.geocities.com/stuartdneilson and related URLs.

Professor Perry may wish to additionally consult, amongst other sources, the online or print versions of University College Cork's Express Student Newspaper (www.ucc.ie/en/SIN/Communications/UCCExpress/) on 17 October 2006 and 31 October 2006, University College Cork's Motley Magazine issue of December 2006, The Irish Examiner (www.examiner.ie) on 18 October 2006, 21 October 2006 and 27 October 2006, The Sunday Times (www.timesonline.co.uk) on 10 August 2003 and The Irish Independent (www.unison.ie/irish_independent) on 25 November 2004, 3 February 2005 and 9 December 2006 for further reference to substantially the same and related issues.

There are further online references at the FUCC University College Cork bulletin board (specifically forum.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?t=9114), at the Bullied Academics site (bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/index.html, specifically bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/01/professor-
ivan-perry-formal-complaint.html) and at Indymedia Ireland (specifically articles and comments at www.indymedia.ie/article/78472, www.indymedia.ie/article/78749, www.indymedia.ie/article/79696 and www.indymedia.ie/article/80342, although Indymedia is currently offline).

These sources, dates and articles are not comprehensive.

I am actively seeking resolution of these issues with University College Cork.

With best wishes, Stuart Neilson.
----------------------------------------
Dear Professor Nielson,

Thank you for your response. We will take these additional sources into consideration.

Dave S. - Reputation Defender Support Staff
----------------------------------------
So now we are waiting - here at this blog - to be taken into 'consideration' by Reputation Defender.

The experience of injustice...

'...When fairness is flouted, the universe is at risk. Injustice is always unacceptable... Being the recipient of such an injustice is more than emotion. It is excrutiatingly visceral. It invades the human psyche with the most lancing cut. Depending on the severity of the injustice, life may ever after be divided mentally between the time before and after the injust event.'

'The experience of injustice alters the percpetion of oneself, off the safety of the world, the security of life, and the belief that wrongs inflicted will be put right. Injustice destroys justice because it destroys belief in justice. It destroys the notion of justice as something more than an activity or an act but as a powerful principal at work in the universe...'

'For some what is perceived as judicial injustice is a crime upon the crime: a further defilement after rape and an insult that exceeds the original assault...'

'Clinically, the emotions and behaviours consequent upon persception of grave injustice are many... It is all action and immobility, all words and silence, all reality and illusory. Sometimes it chokes in indignation...'

From: Dealing with injustice, by Marie Murray

Allegations concerning higher education institutions: HEFCE policy and procedure

14 January 2003 - To Heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions, Heads of universities in Northern Ireland - Circular letter number 01/2003 - HEFCE

For further information contact Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk

Dear Vice-Chancellor or Principal

The HEFCE and its Audit Service receive, from time to time, a range of allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions, from a variety of sources. The attached annex sets out our procedure for dealing with allegations.

We welcome these allegations insofar as they are brought to our attention in good faith and relate to our statutory functions. Our public interest disclosure, or whistleblowing, procedure has been in existence for a number of years and it has guided the Audit Service in dealing with allegations received. The volume of cases is increasing, and the interaction with those making a public interest disclosure is becoming more complex. Therefore, the policy and procedure have been reviewed and redrafted, informed by legal advice.

If you require any further information, please contact Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk.

Yours sincerely

Howard Newby, Chief Executive

Download: Annex A - Allegations concerning higher education institutions: HEFCE policy and procedure. Appendix - Form for submitting allegations about higher education institutions
---------------------------------------------------
From the above download(ed) file:

'...The identity of a discloser and the source of his or her information can be kept confidential on the request of the discloser. However, the Chief Executive and other employees of the HEFCE may need to be given these details to determine the action to be taken in relation to a complaint, to enable enquiries to be made of the institution, and to enable any investigation to be carried out. Confidentiality will be respected if it is still possible for the case to be properly investigated. If it is not possible to protect confidentiality, the discloser will be given the choice of withdrawing or being identified...'

Chances are slim that academics are likely to raise complaints with HEFCE about financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions, when this is likely to end in 'early retirement', 'garden leave', or even straight forward disciplinary and sacking. However, consider the following:

'...1. Where an individual wishes to make an allegation to the HEFCE about matters in a higher education institution, then he or she should:

a. Read carefully this document and, if necessary, the Financial Memorandum that governs the relationship between the HEFCE and institutions. The Financial Memorandum is available on the HEFCE web-site (reference HEFCE 00/25).

b. Seek further clarification from the Clerk to the HEFCE Board (Simon Cannell, tel 0117 931 7405, e-mail s.cannell@hefce.ac.uk) or the HEFCE Chief Auditor (Paul Greaves, tel 0117 931 7378, e-mail p.greaves@hefce.ac.uk).

c. Satisfy him or herself that:

i. The allegation relates to the HEFCE’s functions and its relationship with the institution as set out in the Financial Memorandum.

ii. The institution’s internal public interest disclosure procedure has been exhausted.

iii. The matter does not relate to an individual or collective personnel dispute for which there are established routes of complaint and remedies.

iv. The matter does not relate to an academic dispute between a student and the institution. Guidance on complaints of this nature can be found in the Code of Practice on Student Complaints to be found on the web-site of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (www.qaa.ac.uk).

d. Complete the form at the Appendix and submit it to the Clerk of the HEFCE Board. An acknowledgement will be sent within five working days.

So one needs to exhaust all internal procedures before reporting to HEFCE. The chances are that by the time an academic has exhausted all internal procedures, they are not likely to have a job, their health will not be the best due to the huge trauma, and other priorities become more important... HEFCE is showing ignorance of the effects of workplace bullying on the targets (victims). Chances are that the target(s) are likely to suffer some degree of PTSD and the last thing they will want is another painful investigation. We know that in some cases 'negotiations' result in a financial payment and a confidentiality clause, and the story of the target never sees the light of day...

An FOI request to HEFCE can perhaps request answers to some interesting questions:

• How many academic/staff complaints regarding allegations of financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud in higher education institutions have you received in 2006?
  
  
• In how many cases did HEFCE 'penalise' or 'report' a university for financial irregularity or impropriety, mismanagement, waste and fraud?
  
  
• How many of the academics/staff who reported such irregularities are still working with the same university?
  
  
• How do you define 'mismanagement'? Does it include not following university regulations concerning disciplinary procedures for academics?
  

We can easily think of a few more...

Equal opportunities and diversity for staff in higher education

Statistics for equal opportunities in higher education, May 2005

Project 1 - Report to HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW by Pamela Abbott, Roger Sapsford, Laura Molloy

Grievance, discipline and working conditions

In a number of circumstances it has been found that an indicator of poor working relationships, and particularly of harassment and bullying, is rapid staff turnover. In principle the HESA record includes date of entry to current institution, date of leaving/changing employment (for leavers) and destination on leaving (divided into early/‘normal’ retirements, those moving to another HEI post and those leaving the sector).

It would be possible to look at speed of turnover, perhaps comparing it with level or salary achieved, separately by gender or ethnic group – controlling for age by discarding people retiring at the normal time, though extent of early retirement and retirement on health grounds might be of interest here). In commerce or industry it is admitted that departments with high turnover may have poor working practices or working conditions.

However, in practice the use of identification numbers may not be sufficiently reliable, between institutions, for such an analysis to be carried out – though it is hoped this problem will soon be solved - nor will existing data permit this kind of analysis for non-academic staff. Further, the ‘destination’ information itself tends to be of poor quality, with a high proportion of reasons for leaving coded as ‘unknown’.

Straightforward records of grievance procedures and disciplinary procedures brought during a given year are kept by institutions. [Good to know.] Some of them monitor these to see if any demographic category of staff is over-represented, and this might be commended to all institutions as an interesting and perhaps enlightening indicator. [Indeed.] It would be possible to aggregate the figures centrally, to look for trends over time or between types of institution, but numbers are always likely to be too small for valid judgments to be made about individual institutions. [Really? How convenient!]

The problem with formal grievance/discipline procedures, from the point of view of statistical monitoring, is that they come at the end of a long chain of actions and decisions and are therefore rare...
---------------------------------------
How rare is rare?

The higher education workforce in England - A framework for the future, HEFCE, July 2006

Challenges for HEIs in implementing equal opportunities

Paragraph 142:

In addition to the legislative and good practice demands on institutions, there are a number of areas where HEIs face specific challenges in implementing equality of opportunity for staff.

Studies[1] as part of the joint funding councils’ research programme into equal opportunities for staff showed that the general lack of commitment of middle managers was a key barrier to the implementation of initiatives, and that under-investment has an impact on improving equality in HEIs (for example, the resourcing of equality practitioner posts, equal opportunities training for staff and other interventions such as mentoring). [We think we could have saved them the time regarding the general lack of commitment of middle managers. They are part of the problem and often the problem itself...]

In most of the institutions studied, the equal opportunities monitoring information was often incomplete and/or HEIs had failed to act on the basis of the data they had collected. Bullying and harassment were found to be a problem in a number of HEIs (17 per cent of survey respondents had experienced either bullying or harassment), with the most likely perpetrators being senior colleagues.
-------------------------------------
1. We would like to know about these studies.

So HEFCE knows, or at least suspects, but does it do anything else?

So HEIs have failed to act on the data they collected... What a surprise! And nobody has done anything about it... More surprises! In fact, life is full of surprises...

Time to kick racism out of university

Harinder Bahra bemoans the failure of higher education to adequately tackle racism on campus

Thursday November 16, 2006 - Education Guardian

Far from celebrating the growing diversity of UK university staff and students, the higher education sector is almost doing the opposite. There has been a collective failure of employers in the university sector to tackle race discrimination and racism, or even accept it exists.

Like football clubs, universities are descending on developing countries, picking up cheaper black and minority ethnic (BME) researchers and lecturers in response to the transatlantic brain drain and continued pressure on operating costs.

BME staff are often on part-time or fixed-term contracts with lower salaries and have difficulty in progressing through to senior positions. Meanwhile, BME students are increasingly being stereotyped as "extremists" in addition to being seen as academically less able.

As the University and College Union today launches a race equality campaign it is high time to ask what is being done.Some universities, like the trade union sector, have appointed BME chancellors or presidents in voluntary, unpaid roles, but without corresponding changes in senior paid positions. This window dressing presents a diverse public profile, but still preserves the status quo.

Leeds Metropolitan University has become the first in the UK to appoint an independent staff ombudsman to cover equality issues - a role that I am delighted to take on. Our initial discussions led to the development of an innovative model where the employee, the university and the trade union could work together with an informed independent intermediary to seek an amicable solution to discrimination cases.

It is encouraging to work with a senior management team that not only recognises that inequalities exist, but are prepared to invest time and effort to develop new solutions rather than resort to normal adversarial responses, which can often destroy the employment relationship leading to a waste of human talent.

Although we are still refining how the process will work, it may provide us with a sector-wide model where we seek mediated solutions instead of adversarial ones. Apart from reducing costs, the process will help develop an inclusive culture, which will enable staff to manage conflict, while maintaining their dignity.

With the plethora of legislative requirements, it has become increasingly difficult for the public sector to keep up to date with best practices on diversity and equality issues. There are no records kept by the funding council for England, Hefce, on the amount universities spend on legal fees dealing with employment matters, or the costs of such discrimination cases on the brand, recruitment of suitable staff, productivity and staff turnover.

I have had first hand knowledge of tackling race discrimination, having been successful in a tribunal case against Brunel University, where the senior management team was heavily criticised for failing to follow their internal processes.

Any attempts to raise issues of racism or other dubious practices within the sector often leads to the withdrawal of "honorary membership" for individuals, who quickly get labelled troublemakers, leading to further discrimination, victimisation, or academic "containment". Some become the subject of a "reorganisation". Some individuals I have encountered are so systematically hunted that they leave voluntarily or are "managed out" of employment through ill health, redundancy or alleged poor performance. It is with sadness, that I have watched the career destruction of those who are far more talented than myself.

Although the sector has collectively responded via Universities UK and Hefce to fund the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), to date it has made some progress, but allowed universities to hide behind their often plagiarised and commended race equality schemes - excellent written documents, but rarely measured or monitored for outcomes. This lack of progress, whatever the reasons - poor understanding, ignorance, collusion, resources or institutionalised racism - has, obviously, led to little change.

It is time for the government to set up an independent commission into the experiences of BME staff and students in higher education (like the FE sector), to investigate the challenges diversity brings the sector and how leadership and the culture of higher education needs to adapt to grasp current and future opportunities.

The trade union movement is often unable to understand and respond to the concerns and experiences of BME staff. Members who have paid union subscriptions and are facing discrimination visualise this giant machinery kicking into life and regiments of trade union activists coming to their aid like a fourth emergency service. Many have commented they have been left stranded and forced to become litigants in person. The added complexity of their cases and difficulty in securing direct evidence often leads to cases being abandoned or to a forced settlement.

Although it is comforting that trade unions have accepted the existence of racism, it is time for trade unions and universities to undertake impact assessments on their respective polices and procedures, including satisfaction surveys, to improve their employment and service delivery. It is only through critical self-reflection and a commitment from both university leadership and trade unions to work together that we can have changes that will enable us to develop world-class cultures that afford equal treatment for staff and students.

· Harinder Bahra is Professor of Management and Diversity at Leeds Metropolitan University.
-----------------------------------
Schwartz slated for role in sacking
Phil Baty - Published: 20 May 2005, Times Highr Education

The Government's senior adviser on the fairness of university admissions has been criticised for the "deeply unfair treatment" of a senior colleague, writes Phil Baty.

The Watford Employment Tribunal this week described how Steven Schwartz, the vice-chancellor of Brunel University, presided over the victimisation of his marketing director, Harinder Bahra.

Releasing its full written reasoning after announcing its verdict last month, the tribunal said that Mr Bahra, who is of Indian origin, was summarily dismissed after revealing that he had an outstanding race discrimination case against his previous employer.

Professor Schwartz, who wrote a landmark report on university access last year, was personally criticised for ordering the sacking. The tribunal said Professor Schwartz's claim that Mr Bahra had been treated "fairly and appropriately" was "simply a travesty"...

1984 by George Orwell, Chapter 7

...The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth's centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O'Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows...

1984 by George Orwell, Chapter 7

United Kingdom: When Grumbling Becomes A Grievance

01 June 2006 - Article by James Libson and Joanna Blackburn

Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 requires that a complaint cannot be presented to the Employment Tribunal unless the Claimant has presented a written grievance to their Employer and waited 28 days before commencing any proceedings.

The statutory rules do not provide for any particular form in which the grievance must be made. As a result, there have been a raft of cases since the new statutory rules came into force in October 2004 considering the issue as to whether a grievance has been made. The recent case of Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited v Stewart & Anor is the latest in a line of cases considering this question.

Prior to instituting his claim, Mr Stewart's solicitors sent a letter to the company detailing the ways in which it was alleged that the company had breached Mr Stewart's contract of employment. The letter was marked "without prejudice" and finished by intimating that if the company did not confirm their acceptance of Mr Stewart's financial proposals within 14 days, Mr Stewart's solicitors would recommend that he should proceed to make appropriate claims in the Employment Tribunal without further notice.

The Employment Tribunal held that the sending of the letter, although not expressly stated to be a grievance letter, amounted to compliance with the requirements of Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. The company appealed but the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the Tribunal's decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that it did not matter that the details of Mr Stewart's grievance were not set out in a letter of a claim or that the letter was marked "without prejudice".

The Employment Appeal Tribunal's finding that it did not matter that the details of Mr Stewart's grievance was set out in a letter headed "without prejudice" is likely to prove controversial and the subject of yet further case law. "Without prejudice" correspondence is not normally admissible evidence and it seems that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may have been persuaded by reason of the fact that the claim issued in the Employment Tribunal mirrored the complaints set out in the solicitors letter.

This case is yet a further cautionary warning to employers to treat any complaint made by employees or their legal representatives as grievances raised under the statutory procedure. This is regardless of how they are communicated – whether by letter, email or even text message.

A failure by employers to comply with the required procedures upon receipt of a grievance could lead to increased compensation payments in successful tribunal claims on the basis that awards are adjusted upwards if employers fail to invite employees to a meeting to discuss their grievance.

An employer is able to avoid liability for harassment committed by an employee in the course of their employment if it can prove that it took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the perpetrator from committing the act of harassment. It has always been considered difficult for employers to successfully argue this statutory defence. However, in the recent case of Caspersz v Ministry of Defence, the MoD did just that and the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal provides useful guidance as to what is required from employers.

The background facts of the case are that Ms Caspersz complained to the Employment Tribunal about a number of matters which she said constituted discrimination against her on the grounds, principally, of sex, but in some cases, race. The relevant part of the appeal related to the Tribunal's finding that Ms Caspersz had been subject to sexual harassment by the Assistant Chief Constable to whom Ms Caspersz reported. The incidents related to two conversations between Ms Caspersz and Mr McDermott.

During one conversation, Mr McDermott made a comment about Ms Caspersz "working her way through the male students" and in another conversation, Mr McDermott commented that Ms Caspersz must have "stepped her way through enough pilots to make it happen". During her employment, Ms Caspersz made a general complaint about Mr McDermott.

The MoD took swift action, arranged an interview and an investigation of Mr McDermott's actions, suspended him and subsequently terminated his employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that in order to avail itself to the statutory defence, the MoD had to show that it had taken steps to prevent the harassment and there were no other steps that the MoD could reasonably have taken.

Of crucial importance to the EAT's decision was that the MoD had a Dignity at Work policy. The introduction of this policy was announced by way of a force order in March 2003. The policy listed certain people to whom any member of staff might go if they needed support or guidance in a situation in which they believed they were being harassed or bullied. Ms Caspersz was aware of the policy but did not use it.

The action taken against Mr McDermott coupled with the MoD's effective policy, which was not just paid lip service but was fully observed, persuaded the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the MoD had taken such reasonable and practical steps to prevent the treatment afforded to Ms Caspersz.

Despite the EAT's decision, the question as to whether an employer is able to show that it has taken such steps as are reasonably practicable will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. An employer may benefit from the defence if:

* There is a relevant and current equal opportunities policy dealing with specific discrimination;

* Employees are provided with equal opportunities training covering the relevant discrimination and are also provided with regular updates; and

* The employer can show that it takes discrimination very seriously, including a thorough investigation of any allegations, prompt action and taking appropriate steps against the perpetrator.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal warned that the decision should not be taken as a "carte blanche for employers to simply adopt a policy and no more." The decision emphasises the importance of training employees and raising awareness of the company's policies.

Some hypothetical questions. What do you do?

• What do you do when your research is plagiarised, copied, taken away from you?

• What do you do if colleagues, managers, supervisors, the university ignored your IPR and they put their dirty hands in your research work?
  
  
• What do you say, or do when your contribution to research work is ignored? When your ideas are taken away from you without our consent?
  
  
• What if you were denied the opportunity to become an innovative researcher due to your own work?
  
  
• Do you tell them to 'take off?' Wouldn’t this be ‘professional suicide’?
  
  
• Do you raise a formal complaint about them? Wouldn’t this also be ‘professional suicide’? What are your chances of success?
  
  
• And how would you feel if others ‘progressed’ at the back of your research, while you are caught in a formal complaint’s procedure that could cost you your job?
  
  
• Do you resign, or do you fight back?
  
  
• Do you say nothing and do nothing? Can this save your job?
  
  
• What do you do? Can you do anything about it?

Jobs for the boys... [and the girls]

The recommendation that HEI Governing Bodies require Committees to carry out reviews of their own effectiveness was included in the 2004 edition of the CUC Guide for Governors for the first time.

Has your Governing Body required its Committees to carry out reviews of their own effectiveness?

All HEIs:
Yes 35 (38%)
No 46 (62%)

Has the Senate/Academic Board in your institution conducted a review of its own effectiveness?

All HEIs:
Yes 40 (43%)
No 53 (53%)

By Committee of University Chairemen, Governance Questionnaire, January 2006

Workplace Power Games

There is a myth that it’s ‘wimps’ who get bullied at work despite the fact that there are plenty of strong and capable ex-employees who have been driven out of their jobs by workplace bullying. Another incorrect assumption is that assertive people probably ‘provoke’ bullying. Even members of the Mediation Service have said that bullying is ‘subjective’ or in some cases merely a ‘clash of personalities’. This erroneous thinking is based on an inadequate understanding of the power games that underpin workplace bullying.

People still tend to see bullying as a ‘physical thing’. In reality most workplace bullying involves a complicated and devastating pattern of power games that can be difficult to prove to people who have not experienced the behaviour. What can compound the problem is that the bully is often a manager and therefore has the power to define the situation. If the target of bullying complains, the bully uses power games to redefine the facts and the rules to his or her advantage. Take a bully to mediation for example and he or she will shift the focus and argue that the target is the one creating the difficulties. Current mediation processes facilitate the bully’s power games by cooperating with the bully who insists that they face their accuser: The mediation process can be used as another forum for power games where the target experiences the ultimate bullying and usually leaves with an exit package.

In an attempt to clarify workplace bullying some practitioners have tried to introduce concepts from other areas of law or from legislation being trialed in other countries. One theory puts the onus on the target of bullying to show ‘intent’. But power games are not something that can be reduced to the perpetrator’s intent. Power games are often so subtle that it can be difficult to show what actually occurred let alone reveal the perpetrator’s intentions. Furthermore not everyone who uses power games is necessarily aware of their behaviour. If the behaviour is a long established pattern that has enabled a bully to succeed in life, he or she may not be aware that their power is founded on the unwarranted control of others.

More and more cases of workplace bullying are coming under the spotlight now that workplace stress can be more effectively dealt with under the Health and Safety Act. What is lacking in the current environment is an adequate means of identifying bullying and the use of power games in the workplace setting. Over time, test cases may provide practitioners with an appropriate framework in which to assess workplace bullying. In the meantime practitioners can use the available literature on power and control in violent relationships to identify and manage the use of power games in the workplace.

What Are Power Games?

When a complaint of workplace bullying has been made an employer needs to look for a pattern of power games. Kay Douglas and Kim McGregor define power games as “the destructive use of power by one person over another. We are involved in a power game when we use our power to undermine someone for our own ends. Power games are about control, winners and losers, scoring points and gaining the upper hand at the other’s expense.” People using power games in the workplace employ a variety of strategies to confuse their targets: isolation, failure to consult, cutting people out of the information loop, refusing to listen, bullying to force agreement, distorting facts, anger, intimidation, overbearing behaviour, and ambushing people when they are already under pressure, overloading staff and criticism or threats.

Bullies will always have seemingly plausible explanations for their behaviour. People who use power games often appear charming to those who have not experienced their manipulation and control. Power games are sometimes blatant. More often they consist of subtle put-downs, and control tactics or unfair criticism and sarcasm that leave the target increasingly confused. A target’s skills and intelligence may be devalued or they may be made an example of, accused of under-performance or treated differently from other staff. “Some people who play power games are well aware of the destructive impact of their actions. They consciously use whatever means at their disposal to overpower others. Others manipulatively act out their unconscious desire for power".

It may take two to tango but it takes only one to play power games. “When power games are being played there is usually one person who is committed to having his or her way regardless of the impact on the other. In many situations the [target] is preoccupied with how to stop the conflict and will often make all kinds of attempts to do so, from confrontation to peacemaking to capitulation, all the time hoping the bullying will stop.” Both parties can get locked into a pattern. The person playing the games becomes increasingly aggressive in an attempt to maintain control while the target becomes worn down from trying to please, or continually trying to keep the peace.

Power games can be particularly difficult to deal with when they are used by a manager or supervisor who holds legitimate power over others. Authority over staff carries the responsibility to be considerate, respectful and accountable. An effective manager works with staff to achieve the organisation’s goals. Managers using power games often lose sight of the organisation’s goals in the pursuit of their own need to control others.

“Honest, clear and kind communication builds and strengthens relationships. A person misusing power usually does not want to explore the issues openly or take responsibility for their behaviour. Instead they use tactics that confuse, disempower, sidetrack or derail.... A smokescreen of blame and accusations may be created when [people] attempt to discuss issues of concern. The person may deny the truth, tell lies, bait… by becoming hurtful or offensive, distract… by changing the focus of the conversation or overpower … by refusing to let [people] have [their] say. These games often leave [a target] feeling bewildered and impotent.”

Mobbing

When workplace power games are not dealt with, the behaviour often spreads through the entire workplace. Colleagues can offer support to a target of bullying. “Having strong alliances with colleagues usually helps us to feel more powerful. Colleagues can provide us with moral support, offer survival strategies and provide us with a reality check about the bullying we are experiencing.” When colleagues begin to fear attracting the bully’s attention they may either withdraw their support or join in the power games themselves. Mobbing can bring its own rewards in the form of preferential treatment and a sense of power by association.

Once workplace power games degenerate into mobbing, both the target and the employer have a major problem on their hands. When mobbing has become the norm, retraining or removing the bully may not resolve the problems. When a bully leaves employment the role is often assumed by another member of the mob. It is likely that the entire workplace or at least that work section will need comprehensive training and support to eliminate the pattern of power games.

Impact of Power Games on the Target

Employers sometimes assume that the use of power to control staff is a legitimate or effective management tool. It is important therefore to distinguish between personal power and power games. “Personal power is power that is characterised by integrity, sensitivity and respect towards ourselves and other people. Personal power involves honouring ourselves and honestly speaking our own truth. Personal power is about self-control, co-operation, equality and clear communication… power games and personal power are very different types of power. Both influence other people, but in very different ways. When we use power games we may get our own way but we also disempower and alienate others, destroy trust and engender fear and loss of confidence. In contrast, when we relate from a place of personal power we maintain our integrity and the dignity of ourselves as well as the other person. We are also more likely to create cooperation, closeness and honesty, build trust and engender confidence in others.”

It is the personal cost to the target that will ultimately cost an employer under the Health and Safety Act. Power games undermine the target’s sense of personal power and affect their self esteem. Targets begin to feel increasingly powerless which Douglas and McGregor describe as feeling “… vulnerable, alone, unsure, discouraged, overshadowed, impotent and fearful.” The resultant resentment, frustration and helplessness can create a range of health problems such as tension, headaches, depression and anxiety.

Coping with power games in the workplace can leave a target feeling continually anxious. A bully’s erratic and often illogical behaviour can be a daily distraction from work duties that progressively undermines a target’s security and commitment. Because bullies often appear plausible to others, a target is “likely to have a lonely uphill battle gaining support.”

Ongoing stress can cause physical symptoms such as “nausea, headaches, dizziness, sleep disturbances and breathing problems.” Over time “… power games whittle away the opinions, values, wants and dreams that guide our behaviour and define our unique self If we continue to give way under pressure and compromise our integrity we feel increasingly out of touch with who we really are and what is right for us. As our stress levels rise we often lose concentration and clarity; our thoughts may become scattered and our emotions intense.” Under unwarranted pressure employees can neglect their own needs, overwork, skip breaks and focus their dwindling energy on holding themselves together. The inevitable result is burnout.

Impact on the Workplace

Power games in the workplace sap employees’ energy, destroy honesty and trust, and foster fear and resentment. Power games will eventually undermine even the most committed employees. “When people are subjected repeatedly to overbearing behaviour they eventually become worn down, anxious and afraid to be honest. They often live with the sense of being under siege, ever ready for the next power struggle.” Managers using power games lose the respect of their staff.

Employees cope with power games in different ways. Some ignore power plays and protect themselves by withholding information from a bullying manager. Some complain to anyone who will listen and even make disparaging comments to customers or clients. Neither response is a solution; ultimately a target can become ‘punch drunk’ which is a short step away from burnout. When a target of power games becomes stressed he or she will look to colleagues for support. As employees line up either with or against the bully, mobbing develops as the workplace becomes divided and ultimately dysfunctional. An employer who fails to deal with complaints of bullying and workplace power games risks facing a claim under the Health and Safety Act. A less visible cost is that the organisations’ credibility can suffer as knowledge of the dysfunction spreads.

What to Look For

Investigating a complaint of workplace bullying requires an open mind and a willingness to consider behaviour that may not be immediately apparent. Avoid at all costs blaming the target. It can be frustrating for an organisation to have to disrupt usual work practices in order to uncover elaborately concealed behaviour. The costs of not doing so however can be great if an employee’s health and safety are jeopardized by an inadequate or unfair investigation processes or by undue delays in resolving the problem. Ensuring a complainant’s safety during an investigation process is crucial. And don’t be distracted by the desire to look for ‘intent’, not only will that course lead to a pointless investigation but also it play’s into the hand’s of the person using power games.

Workplace bullying can be identified by assessing whether there has been a repetitive pattern of behaviour. The behaviour is often subtle and the accused is likely to cover his or her tracks with a smokescreen. If a pattern of behaviour exists an investigation needs to consider the impact of that pattern. Consider whether the behaviour has been warranted, fair or appropriate. Look at the impact on the complainant, has the complainant’s behaviour changed? Are they feeling insecure, unsafe, undermined or disadvantaged? Avoid the trap of judging the complainant’s character which merely adds to the abuse. The issue is not about personality. It is about warrantability, fairness, trust and confidence, and health and safety.

Sometimes a target of bullying will welcome an opportunity to face the accused in a safe environment. This option should only be considered when the complainant feels comfortable and has professional support. Bullies are highly skilled in the use of power games and can use the opportunity to finish their target off. Once a complainant has been interviewed and the accused has had an opportunity to respond, the complainant should be afforded a right of reply. It may take some time to work through the smokescreen and identify the true nature of the problem.

The costs of workplace bullying are too great to wait until precedents have been established. They include not only the costs incurred from personal grievances or claims under the Health and Safety Act. There is the impact on staff morale and staff turnover and the ongoing damaging effects of allowing employees to use power games to control others in the workplace. It is in every employer’s interests to identify and manage workplace bullying. It makes good sense for employers to create an environment where personal power is promoted and power games are eliminated. Employees who feel empowered, confident, supported and safe at work are more likely to develop their full potential to the benefit of themselves and their employer.

By Cheryl Horrell, Consultant, Bluebell Lane Employment Relations Service, Christchurch. Cheryl has almost 20 years experience in employment relations. She specializes in managing workplace bullying and work stress. This writer has had extensive experience in dealing with workplace power games. The work of Kay Douglas & Kim McGregor, Power Games, Penguin Books (NZ), 2000, has been used in this article to support the writer’s observations of power games in the workplace setting.

Thornett v. Scope: Unfairly dismissed after bullying claim

Case report - Thornett v. Scope: [2006] EWCA Civ 1600

The claimant worked for the employers in a managerial capacity. Following a complaint by a colleague who alleged that the claimant had been bullying and harassing him, the employers made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against the claimant and gave her a final written warning.

The claimant, who did not accept that the finding was correct, made it clear that she thought it would be very difficult for her to continue to work with the colleague who had made the complaint. The difficulties between the claimant and her colleague were not resolved and ultimately the claimant was dismissed.

The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was upheld by the Employment Tribunal which found that a reasonable employer would have taken further steps to encourage the parties to work together.

In assessing the amount of the compensatory award under section 123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the tribunal considered how long the employment relationship would have lasted if the employers had encouraged the parties to work together.

The tribunal acknowledged that without hearing evidence from the claimant's colleague it was a highly speculative matter but found that the best assessment it could make was that the claimant's employment would only have lasted a further six months. It accordingly held that the loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the employers' fault was limited to her earnings during that period.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal against the amount of the award, finding that there had been insufficient evidence to entitle the tribunal to speculate as to the duration of the employment relationship and that it should not, therefore, have placed any limitation on her lost earnings.

The employers appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:

An Employment Tribunal's task, when deciding under section 123(1) of the 1996 Act what compensation was just and equitable for future loss of earnings, would almost inevitably involve a consideration of uncertainties and the presence of a need to speculate did not disqualify a tribunal from carrying out its duty under that section.

Although there might be cases in which evidence to the contrary was so sparse that a tribunal should approach the question on the basis that loss of earnings in the employment would have continued indefinitely, where there was evidence that it might not have been so, that evidence must be taken into account.

There had been evidence before the Employment Tribunal which created a risk that the employment would not have continued indefinitely and the tribunal had been right to take that evidence into account, but the reasons for the tribunal's finding that the employment would have continued for six months had not been sufficiently stated in its determination. Accordingly, the case would be remitted to the tribunal for the compensatory award to be reassessed.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: Dijen Basu (Eversheds LLP) for the employers; Andrew Blake (Gill Akaster, Plymouth) for the claimant.

What is required (?)…

What is required (?)…

The recent comments and posts in this blog could easily be interpreted as ‘union bashing’, but this is far from the truth.

We suggest that workplace bullying in academia should involve the collective and coordinated action of many parties, such as colleagues, managers, governors, union reps, funding and quality control bodies, politicians, and communities.

Many of the comments posted here about our union (NATFHE + AUT = UCU), have been made and are made by union members, i.e. individuals who made a conscious decision not to resign from the union and perhaps even pursue legal action against the union, but instead have chosen to stay in the rank and file; to fight the fight from the inside.

These individuals all carry a common experience, in brief a lack of effective support and resolution regarding their particular case of workplace bullying. Yet, they remain members of the union.

To single out the union means that in effect, one is looking for a single cause, and this is simply false, misleading, counter-productive, and dangerous.

In random order, some of the challenges include, and some random thoughts are:

• Failure of some employers/managers to fully implement ACAS guidelines, and in particular the right to call upon witnesses, to have representation, to have access to accurate records of all hearings. Yes, the Employment Tribunals can decide on this but does it have to always go that far? Are there no other options?

• Failure of some employers to have appropriate internal procedures, embedded with principles of natural justice. How many a record of resolving employment disputes through negotiations and a truck record to prove so?

• Colleagues who are afraid to speak up for fear that they may suffer various forms of penalties.

• HR and personnel departments caught in the dilemma between their professional training and professionalism, versus possible management ‘pressures’ to go along with the prevailing and obviously wrong groupthink.

• A noted lack of expert union reps in workplace bullying backed up by union active policy, strategy, negotiation, and legal action. There is a web page online from a network support group, and a legal/counseling help line that union members can phone, but the issue seems to be the lack of satisfactory results in some well document cases. Why are union members voicing concerns?

• Funding and quality control bodies should somehow engage in the process of contributing to the implementation and appropriate application of internal grievance and disciplinary procedures. They should/can consider what is happening with workplace bullying, for this has effects on how the general workplace functions or dysfunctions. – Yes, we know universities are independent bodies. True, but this is where the collective energies of multiple partners at all levels have to come into this, and the union is only one of them. In fact, the union could lead such a campaign and perhaps attempt to unite all the players in some kind of common cause.

Yes, we do have a new booklet that is well written, BUT the issue remains ‘policing’, and from what we know, universities are not always good at policing their own. An independent party is indeed needed, an external party, even an ombudsman, something, anything… for there are far too many instances when universities when left on their own have not always done the right thing… (ACAS, internal procedures, discrimination, victimisation etc)

TUC, Andrea Adams Trust, and other organisations are working/have worked on a number of projects – policing remains the issue, the gap, the weakness…

This is perhaps one of the central challenges. It requires multiple players. The politicians have told us what we already know, ‘universities are independent bodies’. Does ‘independence’ mean lack of accountability and transparency on issues of workplace bullying?

The reply from HEFCE is/was that universities are accountable to their own governing bodies. Well, one wonders how cozy these relationships may become after some time…

There is a voluntary code of practice for governors, but how many of us know about it or have read it? How many governors have been challenged successfully?

So, who has sole responsibility for this mess? So far, we have failed to pinpoint a single agent for change. That would be too easy. A collective and coordinated effort of multiple players is needed. We have a long way to go…

It would be good to hear/read from all on what is required. We accept that certain things are required by our union, but what about the other parties, and how does a strategy progress beyond help lines, online and phone counseling, and well written booklets?

Here is an opinion: There is no doubt that organisational challenges will pop up in any related commentary and discussion, but these issues could/can be resolved if there is a really independent external body to measure, quantify, check, assess how universities are dealing with workplace bullying. If the problem is ‘independence’, can politicians do something about this? The economic argument is easy to make. The membership of such a group can include union reps, employers, independent HR experts, consultants, politicians etc… a wide body with relevant knowledge.

Yes, ambitious… back to the original claim that it is impossible for the union and its members to alone tackle workplace bullying. The responsibility has to be collective.

Victims [in academia] do not come forward?

We received the following email:

Dear Mrs Blackwell,

Recently we have read your comments on bulldieacademics website. You are badly mistaken about the number of cases and members who apply for assistance every year. As to nature of advice NATHFE/AUT [UCU] policy is to instruct a firm of solicitors or counsel whom they can control to get a generic advice -"Your claim has no merit or has less that 50% chances of success".

When the Tribunals heard the evidence, many of these claims were successful. Yet, no regret by the Union leadership and in-house solicitors. In the case of Dr DSilva the Tribunal found in his favour in his absence although, the Union and its counsel and solicitor thought he had no case. What a shame?

Do you have any idea what do the unions do those who come forward what do the Unions do to them. Have you looked at the union new draconian rule 4.6? Since September 2006 three Indian and one Iranian have already became victim of the above union rule. If any one dare question the competency or racism within the union would [they] not see the light of the day.

For further information contact tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

C Kumar, Mrs Mahadevan & AJ Graham - Coordinators
----------------------------------------
Read related previous comment in this blog: Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education - UK [December 07, 2006, bottom of page]
----------------------------------------
How can victims be encouraged to come forward if this is how academic unions deal with them? And what happens to those that question the union leadership and how it deals with these issues? They are branded 'union bashers' and they 'vanish' in the gulags...

What makes a manager a high flyer?

High flyers - those who reach a senior management position in a relatively short space of time - are more broad thinking, challenging of norms, open to doing things in new ways and more capable of understanding themselves and their colleagues emotions, than their senior management peers.

That's the conclusion of research by Troy Jensen of Kaisen Consulting, who assessed 800 senior managers with known career paths using psychometric tests on a range of personality traits including openness, conscientiousness and extraversion.

Managers were considered to be 'high flyers' if they had reached a senior management position within eight years of starting their career.

The study, which was presented at the British Psychological Society's Annual Conference, found that high flyers do significantly differ from their senior manager peers on a number of personality and thinking dimensions.

Broadly, they were found to be higher on many levels of effective social functioning, as well as on breadth and creativity in thinking.

Mr Jensen said: "Our research suggests that effective social and emotional functioning may be an important component of what separates 'high flyers' that rise quickly from other senior managers, especially as we found that analytical ability is similar in both groups.

He continued, "Whilst research into 'high flyers' has tailed off over the past few years, it seems, based on our findings, that there may be a case for further investigation with a view towards differentiating between high-potential employees who succeed and those who are derailed...

From: http://management-issues.com
------------------------------------
Indeed, we would like to know what happened with the 'derailed' ones, and what went wrong with 'breadth and creativity in thinking'.

Bullying in the Workplace: A Proposed Model for Understanding the Psychological Harassment Process

Abstract

...Because different studies suggest that psychological harassment represents a great threat to most workers, it has received considerable and growing interest across the world and has emerged as a new field of study in Europe, Australia, South Africa and the U.S. In spite of these studies, bullying still appears as a complex phenomenon. This paper summarises the relevant literature... a very costly phenomenon, which harms the health of the victim and the competitiveness of the firm, the paper concludes that HR managers should combat psychological harassment in organisations...

Introduction

Recent studies in many European countries suggest that the issues of violence and harassment in the workplace affect a substantial part of the workforce (Paoli & Merllié 2001, Di Martino, Hoel & Cooper 2003, Einarsen & Nielsen 2004). These studies also indicate that psychological violence and harassment, rather than physical violence, represents the greatest threat to most workers (Di Martino, et al. 2003). According to Paoli and Merllié (2001), around nine per cent of European workers had exposure to some psychological violence. When risk of intimidation and bullying was compared between EU countries, the highest risk was found for Finland (15 per cent), Netherlands (14 per cent) and the United Kingdom (14 per cent), whilst the lowest figures emerged for the Mediterranean countries (Italy, four per cent; Portugal, four per cent)...

Victim Characteristics

...an apparent question arises: “Is there a clear and standard profile of victim?” Some (Coyne, Seigne & Randall 2000) argue that individual antecedents, such as the personality of victims (for instance, neuroticism), may be involved as causes of bullying. Nevertheless, most researchers... distance themselves from the simplistic view that bullying is the result of pathologies, or psychopathic personality traits. Indeed, evidence with regard to personality traits as antecedents of bullying is still sparse. When individual antecedents have been the subject of study (e.g., Zapf & Einarsen 2003), victims with low self esteem, high anxiety levels, introverted, conscientious, neurotic and submissive characteristics have been identified. However, as Di Martino, et al. note (2003: 16), “The extent, to which these personality characteristics should actually be considered causes of bullying, or whether they should be considered a result of being bullied, is still an open question.” Leymann (1996b) argues that these characteristics need to be interpreted as a “normal response to an abnormal situation”... In fact, it is the interaction of individuals, the victim and perpetrator, and the work context that creates the situation of bullying at any time...

Perpetrator Characteristics

Is there a clear and standard profile of a perpetrator? While some authors argue that the personality of the perpetrator is a cause of bullying such as the ‘psychopathic personality’ (Field 1996, Hirigoyen 1998), others (Poilpot-Rocaboy 2000) reject this idea and argue the perpetrator is not always a sick person. But, a contrary viewpoint is that not everyone can be a perpetrator in work life, because education and moral values act to stop someone being a perpetrator at work, even in a context where bullying behaviour is allowed.

Zapf and Einarsen (2003) note bullying research has revealed that bullies seem to be male more often than female, and supervisors and managers more often than colleagues. They suggest three main types of bullying related to certain characteristics of perpetrators. The first type is the bullying due to protection of self esteem. Zapf and Einarsen (2003) contend that many theorists assume that protecting and enhancing self esteem, which can be understood as having a favourable global evaluation of oneself, is a basic human motive which influences and controls human behaviour in many social situations. Thus, high levels of self esteem are likely to exhibit more aggressive behaviour than low levels of self esteem. Moreover, Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996) suggested that various negative emotions such as frustration, anger, anxiety and envy play a mediating role between self esteem and aggression. For instance, Ahmed and Braithwaite (2004) show that shame and pride are related to workplace bullying. Likewise, in other studies (Zapf & Einarsen 2003) on workplace bullying using the reports of victims, envy on the part of the bullies is considered one main reason for their bullying. According to Neuman and Baron (2003), the perception of unfair treatment, and the subsequent frustration and stress produced often serve as antecedents to workplace aggression and violence...

According to Zapf and Einarsen (2003), the second type of bullying is due to the lack of social competencies on the part of the perpetrator. Lack of emotional control, lack of self reflection and perspective taking are aspects related to bullying. For example, a supervisor may vent his anger by regularly yelling at one of the subordinates without being aware of the consequences of this behaviour. Finally, Zapf and Einarsen (2003) present bullying as a result of micro political behaviour. It has been suggested that some cases of bullying follow the logic of micro political behaviour in organisations. This type of bullying indicates harassment of another person in order to protect or improve one’s own position and interest in the organisation, and has been described as a phenomenon mainly occurring at the middle and higher hierarchical levels of an organisation.

Some managers profit by using bullying as a form of micro political behaviour, which may be one of the explanations as to why supervisors and managers are so often among the bullies. From a ‘social learning’ perspective, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew (1996) submit that harassment is learned by observation, experience or imitation of several sources (family, school, military service, television, and firm). But as Brodsky (1976) concludes, if perpetrators may indeed have some common characteristics making them prone to bullying, they will not exhibit such behaviour unless they are in an organisational culture that rewards, or at least is permissive of such behaviours. The interaction of individuals and the work context is an essential component of the psychological harassment behaviour.

Organisation Characteristics

In France, Hirigoyen (1998, 2001) has shown that psychological harassment is more often present in certain specific industries and occupations, such as the administrative function, education and the health sector. Di Martino, et al. (2003) confirm this observation and note a recent review of European surveys of bullying identified several high risk occupations. Overall, there appears to be a higher risk of bullying within the public sector (public administration and defence, education and health) than within the private sector...

...A negative and stressful working environment has frequently been associated with bullying (Leymann 1996b). This relationship can be explained as various environmental work factors are considered to produce or elicit occupational stress, which again may increase the risk of conflict and bullying. The characteristics of the negative and stressful environment are, for example, work intensification, a high degree of pressure, unclear and unpredictable job situations, enforced team working, unclear roles and command structures, as well as various job related physical aspects (noise, heat and coldness)...

Moreover, bullying has been found to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing of senior managers, to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviourSuch views seem to be confirmed by the fact that over 90 per cent of respondents in a large survey of members of UNISON, the British public sector union, identified “bullies can get away with it” as a potential cause of bullying (Di Martino, et al. 2003). In some organisations, bullying may not be an integral part of the culture, but it is still indirectly ‘permitted’. If there is no policy against bullying, no monitoring policy and no punishment for those who engage in bullying, it could be interpreted that the organisation accepts the behaviour as normal and legitimate... “For harassment to occur, the harassment elements must exist within a culture that permits and rewards harassment.”

Two styles of leadership have been found to be associated with bullying: an authoritarian style and a laissez-faire style. Indeed, settling conflicts or dealing with disagreements through autocratic leadership has been linked to bullying (Vartia 1996). In contrast, people who had neither been bullied, nor had observed bullying taking place, reported that disagreements at their workplace tended to be solved by negotiation (Vartia 1996). Moreover, a laissez-faire style of leadership may also provide a fertile ground for bullying between peers or colleagues. A manager’s ignorance and failure to recognise and intervene in bullying cases may indirectly contribute to bullying by conveying the message that bullying is acceptable. Similarly, dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of guidance, instructions and given feedback has been shown to be associated with higher levels of bullying...

Organisational Response

Organisations respond to bullying in terms of passive behaviours. Inaction is a passive coping style. Organisational agents ignore the complaint of the victim. Seldom does the organisation appear to be concerned with the complaint. This can be explained by the fact that in accordance to the organisation, the behaviour is regarded acceptable, as ‘the norm’, or the complaint is not taken with interest (“it is not serious!”, “it is for fun!”), or the harassment situation is perceived as an interpersonal conflict (“it is their problem!”; “it is their private life!”). The inaction is also explained by the fact that managers do not often know how to act against this phenomenon ... [poor idiots]

Individual Effects

Many studies show that psychological harassment has extremely negative effects for individuals. Generally, there are three individual consequences. The first effect is a deterioration of the victim’s physical and mental health... Typically, research points to increased stress levels and reduced physical and psychological wellbeing, with the most frequently identified negative health related outcomes including: anxiety, depression, psychosomatic symptoms (hostility, hyper sensibility, loss of memory and feelings of victimisation), aggression, fear and mistrust, cognitive effects (such as, inability to concentrate, or think clearly, and reduced problem solving capacity), isolation, loneliness, deterioration of relationships, chronic fatigue and sleep problems. Workplace bullying not only affects the targets, but also their colleagues or other bystanders. According to different studies (Einarsen & Mikkelsen 2003), witnesses of bullying reported more mental stress reactions than workers who had not witnessed anyone being bullied in their department. Witnesses may also suffer due to a real, or perceived, inability to help the target.

In the most severe cases of bullying, victims have frequently been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD... The PTSD diagnosis refers to a constellation of stress symptoms typically exhibited by victims of exceptionally traumatic events. The hallmark symptoms of PTSD are reexperiencing, avoidance numbing and arousal. First, the trauma is relived through repeated, insistent and painful memories of the event(s) or in recurring nightmares. Also, the victims may experience an intense psychological discomfort and/or react physically when exposed to reminders of the trauma. Second, victims with PTSD tend to avoid stimuli related to the traumatic situation(s) and exhibit a general numbing of responsiveness. For instance, they may have problems remembering the actual event(s) or may exhibit a reduced interest in activities they used to enjoy. Often they feel detached from others. A third symptom is hyper arousal. This may be manifested in, for example, sleeping problems, concentration difficulties, highly tense and irritable behaviour, as well as in exaggerated reactions to unexpected stimuli (Einarsen & Mikkelsen 2003). Some authors (Leymann 1996a, Hirigoyen 2001) have claimed work harassment to be a major cause of suicide. Psychological harassment may also have wider ramifications beyond those directly involved. Research has shown that witnessing violence may lead to fear of future violent incidents and as such has similar negative effects as being personally assaulted or attacked...

The second effect of psychological harassment is the economic consequence for the victim. A loss of income is often real. Harassment may generate coping strategies and health effects which can develop into sickness absence, a lessening of productivity, a reduction of performance, resignation from the organisation, and work incapacity because of a loss of self confidence. Hirigoyen (2001) notes that in 36 per cent of the cases, the victim leaves the firm. In 20 per cent of the reported cases, the person is laid off, in nine per cent of the cases, the departure is negotiated, in seven per cent of the cases, the person resigns and in one per cent of the cases, the person is put in anticipated retirement. In addition to this loss of incomes, the victim may have medical expenses, psychotherapeutic spending and fees of lawyers. According to Hirigoyen (2001), 30 per cent of the victims stopped working due to illness, disability, or are made redundant for medical inaptitude. In 66 per cent of the cases, the victim is actually excluded from the work world...

Poilpot-Rocaboy, G. (2006). Bullying in the Workplace: A Proposed Model for Understanding the Psychological Harassment Process, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 14(2), 1-17.

Available online at: http://rphrm.curtin.edu.au/2006/issue2/bullying.html

Recognizing Retaliation: The Risks and Costs of Whistleblowing

If you plan to challenge the agency or corporation [or university] that employs you, you should know the tactics of retaliation most often used against whistleblowers.

Spotlight the Whistleblowers
This common retaliatory strategy seeks to make the whistleblower, instead of his or her message, the issue: employers will try to create smokescreens by attacking the source's motives, credibility, professional competence, or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issues s/he has raised.

Manufacture a Poor Record
Employers occasionally spend months or years building a record to brand a whistleblower as a chronic problem employee. To lay the groundwork for termination, employers may begin to compile memoranda about any incident, real or contrived, that conveys inadequate or problematic performance; whistleblowers who formerly received sterling performance evaluations may begin to receive poor ratings from supervisors.

Threaten Them into Silence
This tactic is commonly reflected in statements such as, "You'll never work again in this town/industry/agency. . ." Threats can also be indirect: employers may issue gag orders, for example, forbidding the whistleblower from speaking out under threat of termination.

Isolate or Humiliate Them
Another retaliation technique is to make an example of the whistleblower by separating him or her from colleagues. This may remove him or her from access to information necessary to effectively blow the whistle. Employers also may exercise the bureaucratic equivalent of placing a whistleblower in the public stocks: a top manager may be reassigned to tasks such as sweeping the floors or counting the rolls of toilet paper in the bathroom. Often this tactic is combined with measures to strip the whistleblower of his or her duties, sometimes to facilitate subsequent termination.

Set Them Up for Failure
Perhaps as common as the retaliatory tactic of isolating or humiliating whistleblowers by stripping them of their duties is its converse-overloading them with unmanageable work. This involves assigning a whistleblower responsibilities and then making it impossible to fulfill them. One approach is to withdraw the research privileges, data access, or subordinate staff necessary for a whistleblower to perform the job. Another is to put the whistleblower on a pedestal of cards-to appoint him or her to solve the problem s/he has exposed, and then refuse to provide the resources or authority to follow through.

Prosecute Them
The longstanding threat to attack whistleblowers for "stealing" the evidence used to expose misconduct is becoming more serious, particularly for private property that is evidence of illegality. Government workers even have been threatened with prosecution under a McCarthy-era statute for being "disloyal" to the United States, after they made disclosures to or participated in meetings with environmental groups involved in lawsuits challenging illegal government activity. Until adoption of an anti-gag statute, passed annually in appropriations legislation since 1987, workers with security clearances risked prosecution unless they obtained advance permission before blowing the whistle (even on information that was not marked as classified), effectively waiving their constitutional rights.

Eliminate Their Jobs or Paralyze Their Careers
A common tactic is to lay off whistleblowers even as the company or agency is hiring new staff. Employers may "reorganize" whistleblowers out of jobs or into marginal positions. Another retaliation technique is to deep-freeze the careers of those who manage to thwart termination and hold on to their jobs: employers may simply deny all requests for promotion or transfer. Sometimes it is not enough merely to fire or make whistleblowers rot in their jobs. The goal is to make sure they "will never work again" in their fields by blacklisting them: bad references for future job prospects are common.

From: Alaska Whistleblowers Resource Guide
-------------------------------------------

Whistleblowers’ concern about retaliation not without justification, Virginia Tech sociologist’s study shows

...Rothschild, Professor of sociology at Virginia Tech, did an eight-year study, conducting indepth interviews with 300 whistleblowers and more than 200 surveys of people who observed wrongdoing but chose to remain silent. She found that 69 percent were fired as a result of exposing wrongdoing, even when they only reported it to higher ups within their own employer’s organization. Of those who left their organization to report misconduct to outside authorities, more than 80 percent were fired.

Rothschild, who has published five academic articles on her studies, found in many cases that the moment senior management realized an individual might blow the whistle, “they began a race to discredit the would-be whistleblower before the whistleblower could discredit them.” In the battle for vindication, and for their jobs, whistleblowers seldom emerged unscathed. In 84 percent of her cases, former whistleblowers said they became depressed and could no longer trust the managers of organizations. In 53 percent of her cases, the whistleblowers suffered deterioration even in their family relations.

Indeed, Rothschild says, statistical analysis of the data found that the larger and more systemic the misconduct reported by the whistleblower, the more swift and severe were the reprisals. Neither gender, nor race, nor age, nor level of educational attainment, nor years on the job could insulate a whistleblower from retaliation.

Why do people take these personal risks? Rothschild found that 79 percent of her whistleblowers were stirred to action by their values. “Sometimes they said that they got their sense of right and wrong from the codes of professional ethics embedded in their various occupations; sometimes they attributed their moral compass to religious upbringing or family teaching; but in nearly all cases, they said they were trying to do ‘the right thing’,” Rothschild says. “Of the remaining ones, 16 percent said that their whistleblowing had been defensive: they were afraid that they would be blamed for the misconduct of others if they did not report it, and 5 percent said that they really weren’t sure why they had spoken up.”

Many organizational factors lay the groundwork for whistleblowing, Rothschild says. She found that the employee is most likely to blow the whistle when he or she observes the same misconduct many times and comes to view the employer as immoral and the senior managers as non-democratic and probably complicit in the wrongdoing...

So the kangaroo court refused you an appeal hearing...

An [abusive university] employer must normally follow the statutory dismissal procedure before dismissing an employee. Failure to do so results in a finding of automatic unfair dismissal. The statutory dismissal procedure involves three steps:

1. A statement by the employer outlining the grounds which lead the employer to contemplate dismissing the employee and inviting the employee to a meeting.

2. A meeting to discuss the grounds outlined by the employer in the step 1 statement.

3. An appeal if requested by the employee. Upon request, the employer must invite the employee to a meeting, which the employee must take all reasonable steps to attend. After the appeal meeting the employer must inform the employee of its final decision.

In Masterfoods v Wilson UKEAT/0202/06/ZT, the employer applied its contractual disciplinary procedure which required employees who wished to appeal a disciplinary decision to set out the grounds of their appeal in writing within five working days. The employee informed the employer that he wished to appeal but did not submit the grounds of appeal within the specified time limit. When the grounds were submitted, the employer refused to hear the appeal. The employee claimed unfair dismissal and the Employment Tribunal held that the dismissal was automatically unfair as step three of the statutory dismissal procedure (the appeal stage) had not been complied with.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed with the Tribunal. It noted that there is no requirement in the statutory procedures for an appeal to be made in writing, let alone for the grounds of appeal to be set out in writing. The only requirement is for the employee to inform the employer of their wish to appeal. By refusing to go through the appeal process, the employer had not followed the minimum statutory dismissal procedure and had denied the employee his right of appeal. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair.

Dignity at Work - A Good Practice Guide for Higher Education Institutions on Dealing with Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace

...One of the primary purposes of the project was to promote dignity at work for all staff within higher education. The project aimed to provide practical guidance on the steps that can be taken to encourage successful working relationships between staff and to work towards the elimination of bullying and harassment in the workplace.

This guidance pack has been produced to assist Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the development of their own policies, practices and support mechanisms to promote dignity at work, using examples of good practice from other universities and colleges…

Key Features of a Model Policy on Bullying and Harassment:

• Commitment from Senior Management;
• Acceptance that bullying is an organisational issue;
• A statement that bullying is unacceptable and will not be tolerated;
• Clear definitions of unacceptable behaviour;
• Legal implications for organisations and individuals;
• A statement that bullying may be treated as a disciplinary offence, and it should be listed as a misconduct and gross misconduct in the disciplinary procedure;
• Steps to assess and prevent bullying;
• Mechanism for third party complaints;
• Mechanism for initiation of the policy without a complainant;
• Duties of Heads of Department/Faculty/Services and supervisors;
• Confidentiality for complainants when they report bullying;
• Procedures to protect complainants from victimisation;
• Clear complaints procedures, separate from the normal grievance procedure;
• Availability of ‘confidential advisers’ and where to contact them;
• Informal complaints procedure;
• Formal complaints procedure;
• Procedure for investigating complaints;
• Information and training about bullying/harassment and the policy;
• Repair mechanisms/options outlined;
• Access to support and counselling;
• Review, monitoring and evaluation.

Other important considerations:

• Is it jointly agreed by the employer and recognised trade unions?
• Does it cover everyone?
• Is it effectively implemented?
• How will you measure progress?

Confidential advisers

It is recognised that individuals suffering from harassment or bullying may feel too embarrassed to make a complaint, may worry that they will not be taken seriously or fear that they might be blamed for provoking the incident or incidents. Experiencing harassment or bullying as well as making a complaint can cause much distress. It can also be extremely distressing to be accused of harassment or bullying. For this purpose [ ] wishes to appoint confidential advisers to assist the individual employee and provide confidential support in cases of harassment - whether the employee is making a complaint, being accused of harassment or a witness to it.

Investigators

In order to investigate complaints of harassment effectively, [ ] will appoint a number of employees who will receive specialist training as investigators. The training will be designed to ensure that they are provided with the range of skills necessary to conduct, document and complete investigations in a fair and thorough manner.

The role of the investigators is to:

• ensure that investigations are carried out promptly and that time scales for resolution are adhered to;
• ensure that all parties are communicated with and kept informed of progress as appropriate;
• protect the rights of both the complainant and complained-of and ensure that they are able to exercise their right to trade union representation throughout the process;
• clearly define the rights and responsibilities of witnesses;
• ensure that complainant and witnesses are provided with a fair opportunity to give their full version of events;
• ensure that details of the complaint are clearly outlined and that the complained-of gets a fair opportunity to answer the charges and identify witnesses;
• ensure that the commitment to confidentiality and non-disclosure of information ruling is evident during the investigation and after its completion;
• use judgement to ensure that all relevant facts and information are sought;
• be responsible for collecting all available evidence in a thorough manner;
• ensure that accurate note-taking and record keeping is carried out;
• draw as complete a picture of events as possible;
• objectively reach an informed conclusion as to whether the complaint is substantiated or not;
• provide the Designated Officer with a detailed report and appropriate recommendations…

Some of the staff who are likely to benefit from training include the following:

• Line managers, who need to understand the legal obligations of the institution as well as their potential personal liability), as well as understanding how to implement the Dignity at Work Policy and procedures;
• Senior managers and members of the Governing Body, who also need to appreciate the impact of their decision making and behaviour on the culture of the organisation;
• Professional HR staff, who need to understand how to effectively implement the Dignity at Work Policy, and how it interacts with the institution’s existing disciplinary and grievance procedures;
• Trade union representatives, who will be the first point of contact for a significant number of staff in relation to dignity at work issues;
• Harassment Advisers, who need to be fully trained to effectively support complainants and alleged harassers;
• Members of the investigation panel, who will consider any cases;
• Specific groups of staff who may have a particular need to understand how your policies and procedures work, such as front line staff (security, accommodation office, etc.)…

Monitoring and Evaluation

It is essential to give some consideration to how you intend to monitor and evaluate any dignity at work initiatives you wish to introduce. It is important to involve the staff unions (for both academic and support staff) in the development of the survey, and to work with them in the analysis and action planning that will/may arise from the findings. You will not be able to demonstrate whether or not the steps you have taken to tackle bullying and harassment have been successful if you have no evidence to support this view.

Monitoring is important to provide basic data on the numbers of users of the service, broken down into various categories (e.g. harassment of lesbians and gay men, sexual and/or racial harassment, etc). This will enable you to identify any particular patterns of complaints, and thus alert you to areas on which you need to concentrate additional attention and/or resources. It will also enable you to identify what resolutions were achieved in each case and those where complainants decided not to proceed with formal complaints...

Bullying vs Firm Management

Many managers are concerned about the possibility of being accused of bullying when they are required to discipline staff or deal with poor performance. This is not only unhelpful for the manager concerned, it may lead to a situation whereby staff are allowed to behave in ways which is detrimental not only to the organisation but for other individuals working within the manager’s area of responsibility. Bullying is frequently prevalent where the management style is autocratic and overbearing but may equally be a feature of departments where the management style is weak and laissez-faire.

The key principles for managers are to treat staff fairly, communicate effectively and use appropriate measures to deal with those who are struggling to deliver to target. If you adopt the following principles, you are very unlikely to be accused of bullying. If you are unfortunate enough to be in this position, you can be confident that you can defend your actions and your approach if you have acted appropriately and fairly at all times.

• Remember that managing other people’s performance is a legitimate part of your job, and there will be times when you are required to take unpopular decisions. You should however appreciate that being told you are not performing well is stressful for the member of staff and do this as tactfully and sympathetically as possible.

• Address any issues in the appropriate way. You should not lose your temper or gossip about your staff’s shortcomings behind their back, but discuss each specific problem in turn, before agreeing a course of action.

• Be a good listener. Make sure that your staff understand and agree with what you discuss – it needs to be a two-way conversation, not a monologue. If staff have personal issues that are affecting their work, take an interest and make a genuine effort to help them cope. Recent research suggests a link with work-related stress for staff that feel they are without a voice, or their views are not heard.

• Praise your staff as often as you can – it is very easy for managers to fall into a pattern of relating to staff in a generally negative way. If this happens, staff will regard an invitation to your office as a cause for concern, when it can just as easily be an opportunity for a positive interaction. Motivating staff is a key feature to promoting a healthy and productive culture in the workplace and thus is a primary management responsibility. People respond to positive attention much more readily than to criticism, so when you do have an unfavourable comment to make, try to use the “positive sandwich” approach whereby you start and end with something good and put the criticisms in the middle.

• Keep communication channels open. Ask yourself if your manner is as approachable as it could be and if not, what you can do to improve it. It should go without saying that if you have a sensitive issue to address that you should take the member of staff aside and do it in private.

• Be fair and avoid favouritism. Do not allow yourself or other staff to take credit for someone else’s work.

• Make sure all members of the team are included when you organise events. This should include social activities.

• Try hard not to be moody or temperamental. One of the most difficult types of behaviour to deal with for staff is that of a manager who has extreme mood swings. If you are feeling fragile, upset or simply having a bad day, don’t be afraid to let people know. A self deprecating comment is much more likely to win you sympathy and understanding than losing your temper over a trivial matter for no apparent reason.

• Finally – don’t forget that everyone makes mistakes and you are no exception. No-one is perfect, so if you do get it wrong, don’t be afraid to say so. An acknowledgement and an apology are often all that are needed if you have approached an issue in the wrong way or at the wrong time or place. If you are prepared to acknowledge your mistakes, it will make it easier for your staff to do so too. This will help to establish a culture that avoids blame when things go wrong, and in which everyone pulls together with a focus on putting things right rather than finding scapegoats…

Conducting Investigations

The way in which any investigation is conducted will be a key element in the success of your dignity at work strategy – there is no point in introducing a comprehensive policy, training a network of harassment advisers and communicating widely and successfully if you do not have good, fair and transparent procedures for conducting investigations into complaints. Such investigations are very sensitive and there should be procedures separate from your normal disciplinary and grievance procedures to investigate such complaints, using people who have had specific training in investigating bullying and harassment complaints.

You should bear in mind that many complainants and witnesses will be fearful not simply about the outcome but about any repercussions of making the complaint in the first place and they should be reassured that the institution will protect them and make every effort to deal effectively with the aftermath and minimise trauma after the investigation has taken place and the outcome is known. Therefore you should consider:

• Providing compulsory training for investigators and panel members;

• Ensuring that the investigation is conducted by two people, to gain the maximum benefit from the interviews. If you have investigators who are relatively new, try to team them with someone who has a lot of experience.

• Dealing with complaints in a sensitive, objective manner, respecting the rights of all parties involved;

• Keeping all the participants, including the witnesses, well briefed about the process and ensure that everyone involved is aware of how the findings will be communicated. Ensure that both the accused and the complainant are aware of what information they will receive at the conclusion of the investigation.

• Maintaining confidentiality – this is particularly important in a small institution, where the parties are likely to be well known to many other employees;

• Ensuring that complainants and witnesses are fully protected from victimisation. It is not sufficient to state in your policy that those concerned will be protected – you must have robust systems in place to ensure that this actually happens in the event of an allegation of bullying or harassment.

• Using open questions to elicit the facts of the case and ensure that all questions are as neutral as possible. In particular, try to avoid questions that appear to allocate blame, which will make the respondent overly defensive and will obscure the facts.

• Concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timescale;

• Making every effort to ensure, if possible, that the investigatory team and the panel are balanced in terms of race, gender, etc (this is particularly important in cases where sexual/racial harassment are at issue). Members of the Investigatory team and panels should also include staff from all levels of the institution and represent both support and academic staff.
-------------------------
This guide was published January 2007, by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) and was produced with the collaboration of UCU and UNISON - it is long overdue.

The full copy is available online as a PDF file. Make sure you forward a copy to your HR department, and make sure you remind your investigators about it. Any internal grievance hearing or investigation that is not not following this guide, is likely to be unfair and unjust.

The guide is certainly a good start. What it needs, is 'teeth', i.e. what are the repercussions if a university is not following this good practice guide? In this respect it is incomplete. It is no more satisfactory - if it ever was - that an employee/academic has no other option but to take his/her case to an Employment Tribunal or refuse to commit 'professional suicide'. There has to be independent and impartial monitoring of universities for the can't always be trusted to implement the guide. Good words and nice rhetoric in a booklet are not enough.

Ministers vilify researchers

Politicians are accused of discrediting academics and distorting results, report Phil Baty and Jessica Shepherd - Times Higher Education, 1 December 2006

The Government stands accused of undermining academe's "vital independence" after academic critics revealed how far politicians have gone to discredit them.

Academics who have hit the headlines for research that challenges government policies have told The Times Higher how they have been subjected to concerted campaigns of "vilification", have had their work publicly rubbished and have been subjected to repeated personal criticisms.

Some said that they had suffered psychological problems and long-term damage to their career after speaking out, with their research funding drying up.

The anecdotal evidence emerged weeks after the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee raised "extreme concerns" about allegations that the Government manipulated research findings to favour its agenda. The committee concluded last month that the Government should stop claiming its policies were "evidence-based".

Sally Hunt, University and College Union joint general secretary, said: "It is completely unacceptable for academic work to be rubbished because it does not fit with the Government's own agenda."

Boris Johnson, Shadow Minister for Higher Education, said: "In a free society, universities are the vital independent repositories of research, discussion and debate. There is nothing more damaging for political freedom than to close down that debate in universities."

He said that in addition to the often devastating effects of being on the receiving end of the Government's public relations machine, academics were controlled in subtle ways through funding and regulation. "The most worrying thing is that academics should be inhibited for saying things they think may be displeasing to their ultimate political masters. But they should not have ultimate political masters."

The revelations follow a survey reported in The Times Higher in October that found that 80 per cent of academics thought that scholars could no longer "speak truth to power".

Eight academics this week detailed how their work was attacked because it raised questions about the success of government policies. Many more critics declined to comment, reflecting concern over raising heads above the parapet.

The testimonies include that of Edgar Whitley of the London School of Economics. He describes how his colleague Simon Davies, who worked with him on research that criticised the Government's plans for ID cards, was put on "suicide watch".

Peter Tymms of Durham University, who was savaged over his findings on school homework, said that "putting your head above the parapet risks losing jobs".

Michael Rutter, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry who criticised the Government after advising it over its Sure Start programme for families in disadvantaged areas, said: "The Government definitely doesn't want evidence, although the rhetoric is entirely different."

The Prime Minister's office declined to comment.
---------------------------------------
We are not very surprised that the Prime Minister's office declined to comment, are you? So what do we have here... Bullying from academic managers, bullying from the government, and union tolerance and rhetoric...

Make workplace bullying in academia an important issue in the forthcoming union elections

Make workplace bullying in academia a major issue in the forthcoming union elections. Contact the candidates for the position of General Secretary with your opinion on workplace bullying in academia. It is up to us!

Please, please visit Roger Kline's blog (the National Head of Equality and Employment Rights for UCU), and post your opinion and comments about workplace bullying in academia.

Roger Kline is standing for General Secretary of the new University and College Union (UCU), and it is our opportunity to make certain that workplace bullying in academia becomes an important issue in the forthcoming union elections.

You can find Roger Kline's blog at:
http://roger4gs.blogspot.com/2006/12/putting-members-first.html
------------------------------
The other candidate for the position of General Secretary is Sally Hunt.

Please, please visit Sally Hunt's blog (currently joint general secretary of UCU), and post your opinion and comments about workplace bullying in academia.

You can find Sally Hunt's blog at:
http://sallyhuntucu.blogspot.com/index.html